I've got something on my chest. For the love of basketball IQ, y'all need to stop begging for more pick-and-rolls before we devolve into a Warriors subreddit parody.
We’re a dumpster fire at running it. Dead last—3rd percentile—for the roll man. Barely scraping by—24th percentile—for the ball handler. Our bigs? Some of them total non-threats at the rim with very ignorable spacing (Dray/Looney). And the few who can finish at the rim (TJD/Kuminga) are just as flawed when it comes to spacing, with Kuminga consistently in the wrong spot to do anything remotely productive as a roll man.
And let’s talk about spacing. If Steph or Schroder is running the P&R, who exactly is punishing the defense when they collapse? Green, Podz, Anderson, Kuminga, GP2? Please. Wiggins and Hield are the only consistent shooters we’ve got. Everyone else might as well be doing cardio.
So, no, just asking for more pick-and-rolls is a terrible idea. What this team needs is intelligent offensive design that achieve the same FUNCTION as pick and rolls which leverage our athletes ability to catch the ball on the move, disrupt defensive set-ups, and create penetration for kickouts. Dribble handoff variations (Ghost DHO, Twist, Zoom, Pistol) and Chicago action (Stagger, Spain) actually play to our strengths (to be clear, we're not great in handoffs either but its superior to pick and roll variations).
These approaches don’t just result in kickouts for easier shots for our “meh” shooters; they also enable us to attack closeouts for higher-percentage looks closer to the basket. Please, stop calling for more pick-and-rolls like it’s a magic spell.
I get what you are saying, it's more complicated than saying we just need to run more pick-n-roll. But are we a bad PnR team because we are bad at the PnR? Or are we bad at the PnR because we have stayed away from it for so long. The PnR is the red-headed step child of our offensive sets and I am not sure a team can become successful at something when the coach looks at the play with scorn.
We can't just switch to being a heavy PnR team on a dime, nor can we expect JK or Moody to be as efficient as other guys in their draft class who have played 3000+ more minutes than they have.
The more relevant question is: how much of our own struggles are of our own making? Is it self-fulfilling prophecy? We shun the PnR for years and, low and behold, we suck at it.
You are right, there are a lot options, a lot of different ways to tap into the talent we have on the roster. But in order to tap that talent, you have to be willing to go through the growing pains. You have to run 8 consecutive PnRs to close a game and lose. You have to let JK play 36 or Moody play 28 minutes even when they are having off nights, and lose. You have to embrace failure and make it your friend before you can beat it. Kerr is willing to take losses running things his way with Steph & Dray. In a loss, the blame is distributed among the 3 of them, and as Curry is a made man, there is only so much heat that gets back to Kerr. Conversely, he is (and has been) unwilling to lose with the young guys or the PnR or other offensive strategies. The answer to 'why' is too long a therapy session.
Point is: is the PnR bad? Are the young guys bad? Or are we just setting it up and them up for failure by remaining unwilling to to allow failure to happen as it is the door through which all greatness must pass.
There’s so much wrong with this statement, it’s hard to know where to start.
Curry ranks in the 59th percentile as a pick-and-roll ball handler—not bad, but far from elite. Draymond is in the 8th percentile as a roller, Kuminga is at 22nd, and Wiggins is at 33%. So no, the pick-and-roll hasn’t been effective, and there’s little reason to think it ever will be when you dig into the details.
Take the Curry/Kuminga pick-and-roll, for example: Kuminga’s role as the roll man is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Poor positioning and terrible screening turn him into a non-factor. On the rare occasions things almost work, defenses collapse off Green, leaving Curry and Kuminga forced to kick it out to DS or Wiggins—who are guarded tightly because no one’s concerned about Green or Kuminga as shooters, especially off the pop. This same pattern repeats itself with depressing consistency, each variation faltering under the weight of the same fundamental issues of having three virtual non-shooters on the floor at the same time.
And the truly baffling part? The only player you’ve criticized in relation to the PnR is TJD—who, by the way, is literally our most effective big in that role, though still only in the 42nd percentile.
Firstly, you should probably refresh ur page. What it says is "Some of them total non-threats at the rim with very ignorable spacing (Dray/Looney)."
Second, let’s talk about evaluating shooting threats. It’s not rocket science—you look at efficiency AND volume, AND shot diet. You don't just look at efficiency and call it a day, or else Isaac Okoro would be the second best shooter in the NBA (ecliping Steph Curry). Sure, Green and Anderson might boast respectable percentages from three, but let’s be honest: they’ve racked that up on a laughably small sample size, almost exclusively in situations where defenders leave them so wide open they could start a small garden before the shot goes up.
Bottom line: they’re about as threatening from deep as a plastic knife at a steakhouse. Six feet under the bottom line, we have very little shot threats to act as a counter to defenses collapsing to stop the pick and roll ball handler/roll man attacking the rim.
If Green and SloMo put up respectable percentages from deep when left open, then they should shoot if left open since it’s the equivalent of over 50% from 2, right?
And if teams choose not leave them open behind the line, isn’t that the whole idea of “spacing”.
No, Green and SloMo may post respectable percentages when left open, but that’s only at a small volume. If Green were to take every open shot, opposing teams would gladly concede that look, knowing his efficiency would regress to the mean and reflect his true shooting ability in wide open shots (since 2017 he's shot 32% on wide open 3's).
What’s perplexing is that you’re approaching this from a one-dimensional perspective, first ignoring shot diet and volume in favor of efficiency, and now ignoring volume altogether. The reality is, all three factors—efficiency, shot diet, and volume—must be considered, and for some reason, you’re neglecting to do so.
1. Increased volume on wide open 3’s leading to a decreased percentage of makes seems counterproductive. It seems to me like when guys start making open 3’s, it leads to guys covering them and THAT leads to guys percentages going down. Do you have data to support Draymond’s percentage going down on wide open 3’s as his volume goes up? His overall volume on 3PA’s has gone up the last two seasons over the previous three seasons, yet is 3P% has improved.
2. Can you respond in a tone that’s less condescending/dickish? If not, please don’t bother answering because it makes dealing with you no fun. K, thanks.
I have long been an opponent of the importance of the "coach on the floor" veteran player idea. I am particularly opposed to dedicating a roster spot, such as was done for Undonis Haslem, or Iguodala.
I wanted to revisit this in the wake of Kerr's frustration with (most likely) Kuminga's shot selection. To be quite clear, this post is not about Kuminga's shot selection itself. I have no quarrel with the fact that he needs to improve, as all players do; nor with the idea that Kerr and the coaching staff should instruct Kuminga what the game plan is. In fact if they don't do that, they should be fired.
My problem, instead, is with this idea that vets know things and can impart special wisdom that coaches can't because they are somehow both of the game and above it.
The real issue is *message discipline*. So I certainly have heard Draymond say about Kuminga that he regularly tells him "No one can stop you." To go for it, be assertive, and so on. This is in direct contrast to Kerr's recent reminder to keep the ball moving and not take contested mid range shots.
Again, this post is not about Kuminga, Draymond, Kerr, or what blend is best for the Warriors right now. It's about the inevitable problem that if you let veterans have power to communicate with authority to younger players, they will at some point offer contradictory information.
This is true in any management hierarchy. I am sure that Kerr meets with his assistant coaches frequently and that if they were to go in their own direction, that would be grounds for being fired.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Iguodala or Draymond offers something that the coaches don't, but that somehow magically, that thing that they offer never contradicts the head coach.
I think Kuminga has had trouble knowing what's wanted of him. There are most likely multiple reasons for this, not one. Is he headstrong? It appears so, to some extent, I couldn't tell you how much. Is Kerr impatient with him? Maybe. Should Kerr give him more free rein? Maybe. But what is certain is that Kuminga is also hearing from other people (including of course his own posse and social media, which is on him). That's a recipe for confusion. The team would do far better to control any additional unnecessary confusion by telling veterans to keep their opinions to themselves.
Why do you think in such absolutes? Dray telling JK no one can stop him is not in any way in contradiction with the moving the ball edict. The thing that I love about basketball most is the incredible teamwork that leads to both things happening. You move the ball and when that breaks down the D in the right way JK takes it in and can't be stopped. Or the opposing team has to start defending differently so Steph or Buddy get open or the ball finds Wiggs instead or TJD or GP2 get forgotten in the dunker's spot for an easy alley oop. When everyone knows how to play this way it is much better than a PnR heavy offense or iso and takes into account each player knowing when to be assertive or pass the ball. Steph Klay Iggy KD Dray were unstoppable at this but so were Steph Klay Iggy Barns Dray and Steph Klay Iggy Dray Bogut (also sub Sean, OPJ, West and the other pure BB players we've had). JK in particular does not seem to feel the flow of the game like that and if he did, he would score 30 a night and be calling up Lacob every night screaming "show me the money". I hope he develops that feel but if JK is confused and can't figure out what to do that's because he needs to understand the nuance and beauty and flow of the game to decide live based on the opponents movement what to do.
Regarding the main point of your post, I don't see a way to address it comprehensively within the limits of my desire to type more. You just kind of have to accept that players will communicate with each other and some times in what feels like contradiction to the coach. That's why good player leadership is so important. It's possible that Kerr (old Iggy) and Spoelstra (Haslem) and almost every other coach and player are wrong about this and you are right, but ... well, you know the rest.
WHY do I have to accept it that players will at some times communicate in ways that feel like contradictory to the coach? Are you sure I'm the one thinking in absolutes?
Maybe we don't have to accept everything.
To me, this topic seems like the kind of conventional wisdom that goes unchallenged. It sounds a lot like you're saying "because it has been done this way, that's the best way to do it."
ONe of the reasons I'm a Warrior fan is that they are actually the leading team in challenging convention. I love how the Warriors as a front office and coaching staff have long challenged conventional wisdom.
To me it seems like if I brought this point up directly to Kerr over a friendly dinner, he's the kind of guy to say either, "yeah, i've thought a lot about that, here's why it still makes sense to do," or "interesting, tell me more." Not "You're just a fan, you don't get it," or "we've always done it this way," or "I always trust all vets, leave me alone."
Am I right and almost every coach and player is wrong? I don't know, but I see no reason why I should have to apologize for raising an idea. It's not absolutist to ask.
The point I'm making either worth consideration, or it isn't, on its merits. I could be dead wrong, but no one has explained why we NEED to have player-coaching.
As I said, player coaches CAN be useful, but that doesn't mean they always WILL be useful, and in fact they can be counterproductive. They are human beings. They say what they think is best.
As you say, the game is complex. It's entirely easy to be wrong. Last night, for example, Kerr and pretty much everyone on this site agreed to get the ball to Steph in the fourth quarter even though he was ice cold, because he's Steph. But it turned out that the few people here who said bench Steph weren't wrong. I was one of those, but I wouldn't bet a nickel on being right next time. Steph has made many people who thought he couldn't pull out a miracle quite regretful.
But the thing is, I'm not in an accountable role. I say things on the site, you say things. Whatever, it's just fans. But when Draymond says it, the question of accountablity is alive.
I just think it's interesting that NOT ONCE have I heard a coach say or imply "Our vets aren't always right and they aren't carrying the message well, so I'm asking them to hush." Why is that? Because EVERY VET IS ALWAYS RIGHT?
Sigh. it's way too late to answer all this. but it depends on your definitions of "have to" and "accept". You can clearly do whatever you want. But your generalizations are what's causing your own disconnect. Not every team has a Haslem, in fact it's quite rare. however the best teams have great leadership. I cannot prove that to you in the way I can prove the world is round (and even then you have to be open to the idea and willing to go through the reasoning) is it's much more subjective and anecdotal but I can refer you to plenty of reading on the subject if you like.
Prior to the season starting, there was this comment that had a bunch of IFS (insert thing happens) we're gonna win the championship which had a TON of likes. Can someone point me to that, I kind of want to see how it compares to now?
I don’t know if it was mine specifically you’re referring to, but I remember making a comment like that and I believe it was well-received. I did a quick search and couldn’t find it. Here’s the list as I remember it:
* Curry and Green are healthy and play a combined 130+ games avoid major age-related regressions
* Draymond avoids his “Greenanigans”, but SloMo is an effective temporary replacement if he doesn’t
* Wiggins’ issues were indeed rib-injury and dad-related and he’s able to return to something approaching ‘21-22
* Looney returns to the conditioning and form of previous seasons, providing defense, rebounds and monster screens
* Moody and Kuminga take reasonable 4th year and become positive reliable rotation and minutes eating pieces
* Podz and TJD modestly improve on their success as rookies and avoid sophomore slumps
* Hield is able to provide a reasonable facsimile of ‘21-22 (post-injury, but pre-head case)
* Melton stays healthy
I specifically remember saying that, aside for the first one, not ALL of these things need to happen, but a majority do.
I took the time to re-create a pretty extensive list because you seem to have asked in good faith, but now I see from your comment below that you think I was just some delusional fan gaslighting myself and this for your amusement/derision? I don’t know your angle here, but JFC, you’re a piece of work. I really am done with you.
Yeah I fear we've gotten our wires crossed, some definite miscommunication happening.
As someone who's lifelong followed struggling teams, I've noticed fans often dismiss flaws with “what ifs”—like “if this player improves” or “if that change happens”—then leap to calling their team a contender. The problem is, these “ifs” are rarely laid out together, so people don’t fully realize how many factors need to align for the team to truly contend.
When I mentioned "gaslighting themselves," I was referring to those who don’t even realize the many “ifs” they’re basing their expectations on when declaring the Warriors championship contenders. People who recognize these "ifs" and judge differently as to whether the team can overcome them is totally fine.
You and ur comment has absolutely nothing to do with the "delusional fan". If anything, I loved it because it forced them to confront how many conditions need to be met for a championship run, and by bringing them together in one place, it forced everyone to confront how many uncertainties were being relied upon in the assumption that the Warriors would contend for a title.
That was the context then, but regarding the present, I was just asking because I was interested in using your comment as a checklist to evaluate how many of those “ifs” have been addressed—how many we’ve succeeded at and how many we haven’t.
Apologies in advance if this oversteps my lurky behavior, but from the outside I see where both of you are coming. I don't know Goofus or their mindset, but I imagine seeing your comment mention fans gaslighting themselves about their team's fitness in a thread where Goofus explicitly states their reasons for believing the team could be a contender seems to conflate the two. That didn't seem to be your intention, so perhaps using more neutral phrasing to convey the same point would go over better? Off the top of my head, "we as fans sometimes forget how hard it is to get a number of lucky breaks for a fringe contender to become a real contender" is wordier but seems to convey the same point.
I won't close read your other comments, but I imagine a similar reframe could help you reach even more members of this community. You often argue for things that cut against the grain, and as a fellow weirdo I think you're a thoughtful person that wants to have good conversations. I find that my own conversations are more productive (and I'm more persuasive as a side benefit) when I express a lot of empathy for my interlocutor. I hope this isn't overstepping to provide this observation and suggestion.
While your suggestion for more neutral language inadvertently taps into one of my pet peeves—the slow, soul-crushing erosion of our language that drains it lifeblood of all emotionality —I must admit, you're fundamentally right here.
I'll certainly be more mindful of my phrasing moving forward, as I feel terrible at the prospect of unintentionally being rude/insulting (as I apparently did with Goofus). If I’m going to be rude or insulting, I’d prefer it to be by design lmao
I don't think anything has changed, it was always IF Curry, Green, Melton can stay healthy and IF the JK, TJD, Moody, and Podz can take the next step up, the Warriors have a chance to be the 6th seed and stay out of the playing. And IF, they aren't in the playin, they have a punchers chance. So far, the first couple of IFs haven't come true.
Nah, there were a shitton of IFS that fans were throwing out on this site. As a long term fan of numerous shitty team (its been a unfortunate burden), its a common trend that I've witnessed as fans try to gaslight themselves into believing the squad will be competitive.
What I appreciated about the comment was that it summarized all the IF's needed to have the Warriors succeed, so I really want to see how we've measured up so far.
I don’t feel like Vuc is a difference maker for us. He could help some, but the W’s are already one of the better rebounding teams, and the overall defense is pretty good. Most of our losses are NOT because we need another big slow guy clogging the lane. W’s do a lot of dumb stuff, especially in crunch time, and could use another smart scorer to help with the decision making. That’s not Vuc, and not really Scrhöder either.
We don’t understand the value of a scoring bug because we never had one, look how many easy baskets turner got last night, either wide open from 3 or at the rim.
It would take loads of pressure off of curry and open things up for JK and podz.
Vuc passing would also allow Kerr to not have to play 3 guard lineups anymore
Hot take, scoring bigs have been historically quite overrated. Other than Kareem/Shaq, most of the great bigs have achieved their greatness through defending/passing (Russel/Hakeem/Duncan/Garnett/Robinson/Walton).
🚨 Sending up a bat signal to EA for a specific content request 🚨
With the trade deadline approaching and a lot of talk about whether Steph is in decline and can lead a team to a chip, the value of future picks, offseason free agent targets (like Myles Turner), can you do another primer with Perks on our current and upcoming cap situation?
I’ve been harping on the extreme difficulty of consolidation trades because of being hard-capped, but am hardly an expert on the CBA and cap. I’d love a better understanding of MDJ options this season vs. positioning toward next year, like how much cap space would there be for FA’s next season by letting people walk after the season. Also, Perks’ take on the value of our multi-year contract guys vs. trading them for expiring deals.
I think this discussion would really help us have informed conversations before saying something as simple as “Let JK walk and sign Turner!” as we try to evaluate the cost of working to save this season vs. building toward next.
Something I'm just starting to consider might be possible: like Kerr gave Klay a lot of leeway last year to come to terms with the fact that father time's caught up to him, he may be letting Draymond & Steph work through that same journey this year.
It's easy for us fans to call for immediate change, but Kerr's always been a lot more careful managing the players' expectations as people. Maybe the motion offense as we know it is just sticking around until Kerr feels Curry can accept that he can't cook consistently enough for it to work anymore.
To understand why things seem bleak today, we need only understand why things were so great before. And when I say great, I mean, Warrior’s top 5 NBA Dynasty All Time, 4 Rings, broke the league, changed-the-game great.
One generational player, the greatest shooter of all-time, who changed the way NBA offenses played and, more importantly, changed the way the NBA was viewed … by fans. That’s not all. He was a shooting guard turned point guard who needed a backcourt partner who could take the tougher backcourt defensive assignment. Finally, he introduced the idea of there being gravity on the court without the ball. His incredible off-ball movement required an additional primary play maker to be on the floor with him, someone to usurp a large majority of his own play making duties.
One generational 2-way guard, who may be the 2nd best shooter of all-time, certainly possessing Plato’s idea of what a shooting stroke should look like, he created a third source of gravity on the court (Ball, 30, & 11), and by taking Curry’s defensive assignment – which was typically a point guard – Klay played POA defense, held his man in check at the perimeter, turning the game into a 4 on 4 game for his teammates behind him.
One generational podcaster who changed the way the NBA played defense, changed the way NBA general managers evaluated talent, turning the derogatory player description ‘tweener’ into a now sought-after player quality. He was an undersized power forward who could play center while running the point on offense, becoming the primary play maker for the 2 greatest shooters of all time. With Klay taking out one perimeter threat, Dray could wreak havoc behind him defensively.
Add in one generational coach who, based on his personnel, allowed the all-switching no position defense to happen, who introduced a motion offense that, with these 3 players, would change the game.
The Dynasty wasn’t built on these 3 great players. It was built on the relationship that these 3 players had when they were on the court together. It is how they connected, how they complimented each other, how they covered for each other. It was the most unique and complicated arrangement of player skills, distributed among 3 players, that we have ever seen.
The SUM of these 3 playing together was always greater than the sum of their parts. And credit to Kerr for being able to conduct this incredible ensemble, while keeping in mind he is not one of the players.
Fast forward. One of the players is gone. Two are older. But more importantly, the unique on-court relationship is gone. The 3-legged stool that formed the foundation of the Dynasty now only has 2 legs and that isn’t something you can build on. Re-introducing a Klay replacement won’t bring back the Chips because the league has adapted. All the great young talent in the league today grew up watching this team in their formative years; the Warrior’s system is in their basketball DNA. The uniqueness of that team cannot be replicated, because it is no longer unique. It’s historical. It’s something that already happened.
If we want to know what isn’t working today, we have to start by examining what used to work and why it worked THEN. And then realize that THEN was a different time. THEN was a different league. Our coach and players may have the same names, but they are not the same as they were THEN.
We are on the dark side of the moon. And we will remain there so long as we choose to use yesterday’s solutions for today’s problems. We won’t step forward without recognizing how absolutely impossible it was for these players to come together at the same time, on the same team, with the right coach. And I didn’t even mention KD!
Lighting struck 3 times in the same spot, and that will never happen again. But it feels like Kerr believes he has that lightning trapped in a bottle, pops the ‘locally-sourced, motion offense’ label on it, and that he can turn that lightning into Champagne. We devalue what we once had by believing we can recreate it with a couple of roster moves or by making better decisions and playing with more force.
We can run towards the sunrise, hastening its arrival, or run away from it, and remain in the dark.
One slight critique, while the concept of "gravity" was certainly popularized with Steph's emergence, I'd argue that dominant interior threats have long been acknowledged for their gravitational pull (though that exact term wasn't used), manifesting in their ability to collapse defenses.
What truly astonished me—and perhaps the broader basketball community—was witnessing this defensive-warping power reimagined through a perimeter player. Steph's ability to carry that "gravity" across the entire court introduced a level of distortion that was unparalleled and transformative.
Saw that on Reddit, I might have had a less charitable interpretation of just the quote if I didn't just read this article on what's currently going on in his home town (serious TW):
I don't really claim to know the game inside + out but I read a comment somewhere (I think reddit) complaining that we are shoehorning, as it were, Schroeder into a motion offense initiator role that he's not cut out for -- he is a PNR point guard, and should be used that way. Draymond even had the quote saying that we would have to adapt to him, not the other way around. Any speculation on how that may or may not play out? Is Kerr just bedding him in slowly for now, and will let DS play his way later? I for one would not hold my breath, sigh, but wonder if there's any precedent for that...
I'm sure this has happened plenty of times, but in that memphis game, there was an entire possession where Schroder sat in the corner and did not touch the ball and I think the other players out there were like tjd, hield, kuminga, and gp2. As predicted, the play went horribly. Why is Schroder not running the offense every single possession with that lineup? That is a PnR lineup not an motion offense one.
I don’t agree with the large majority of Kerr criticism I see, but I do think it’s weird that DS is not running more PNR in crunch time. Even just a couple of possessions, to change up the look and put Steph off-ball and give him a little rest.
It is very possible that Steph is taking charge and choosing to be on ball. It’s possible that DS is deferring. It’s possible that DS wants both Steph and JK to eat. I don’t know…
When I think about it, I never hear you voice much criticism for anyone on the team. Perhaps it's a conflict of interest for you to voice any less than positive remarks.
Very much the opposite. My video channel and this site would be probably 10x the size if I spent time on negative remarks, hot takes and taking cheap shots at the players, coach and organization. But my videos and site would also be much worse, and I’d be wasting my life polluting society for money. And by giving up the money and broader audience, I got something money can’t buy: a sports site that I actually would want to be part of and an audience of some of the coolest people in the world.
I get frustrated like any fan. As fans, we have the right to yell angry things about how Kerr is incompetent, MDJ is lazy, Steph and Dray are washed, JK is a bust, Kerr obviously should run pick and roll, Kerr doesn’t use the obviously best lineup, how obviously Kerr hates player X, how obviously GSW refuses to make a trade because of Lacob’s ego, how GSW missed the obvious draft pick, how GSW obviously should have built around the new guys, how GSW obviously should have traded the new guys for win now, etc.
But none of that negative criticism above is rational or defendable when examined seriously. And because my words and videos have some audience, I do feel an obligation to say rational things that I can defend as analysis. Also because I have outsized status on this site and I want there to be free discussion, I limit how often I rebut all the opinions I don’t agree with.
And in the end, how you fan is a choice. Do I want to spend my time raging about things I can’t control or do I want to spend it understanding the game and celebrating the wonderful things this team is achieving even now, even last game?
The most entertaining player in history is still doing amazing things, one of the most innovative coaches in history is still dramatically changing up schemes and juggling wildly conflicting player demands, and they are all fighting Father Time and the NBA rules designed to defeat them, and they’re trying to do it with some dignity.
It’s an amazing story unfolding (and maybe not a happy one), if you have eyes to appreciate it, and I want to enjoy it while I can.
I am very guilty of using GDT to rant, and I just wanted to say always appreciate your measured approach to content. Both me and my dad enjoy watching your vids and it's refreshing from all the metaphorical yelling I see on social media.
Your measured approach is one of the reason why I love your work, even beyond your velvet tones.
To me, there’s nothing worse that reactionary responses to situations, made worse by people who act like coaches and GM’s have easy jobs. A great example of that is how many people propose trades that are either a) Impossible because of CBA rules, or b) Provide no reasonable explanation of why the other team would do it.
Or perhaps he’s smart enough to have a measure of humility about the difficulty of the job he’s being asked to criticize, as opposed to dumb and arrogant enough to think he has the answers to everything. (Like, you know, the average internet poster).
In my experience, one of the primary “conflicts of interest” in a lot of Internet commentary is between the intensity of people’s opinions and the lack of actual knowledge on the topic they’re opining about.
Or as W.B. Yeats put it: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”
TBH, Basketbum’s messed up post deserves a much harsher response than it has (thus far) received, since accusing someone of being a shill (while insisting that one’s own opinions are objective and pure) is one of biggest douche moves one can inflict on one’s fellow community member.
But among Eric’s great qualities (as a writer and commenter) is his sweet temperament and general aversion to engaging in internet mudfights. And in the spirit of the holiday season … one can only hope that Scrooge McBum has gained a measure of enlightenment from the thoughtfulness of Eric’s reply. 😇
“…one of biggest douche moves one can inflict on one’s fellow community member.”
Not just a community member, but (at least from my perspective) the most tireless leader in making this place so great. The comment was a complete, unadulterated, unappreciated pile of…coal in his stocking.
OTOH, he probably wants to please his new employer, who has his Bird rights. Piss off the Warriors and he loses a lot of his market value if they don’t want to be a bidder on his services.
A quite a few of these losses, we F-ed around in the first quarter and then it's just tough to win for a mediocre team that we are. By F-around, I mean TOVs and playing unserious defense. And that's on players largely but not having consistent lineups is on coaching staff and injuries.
Why did Hield only play 16 minutes? He shot 5-11 for 13 points and had 4 rebounds. That’s a head scratcher. As for TJD, he went for 13 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 block and 0 turnover. He was one of the better guys tonight and should have played more than the 23 minutes that he was allotted.
I know this is an absolutely unforgivable and horrible thing to say on this holy site, but I am starting to become a bit bored by the Warriors. I am not certain what it is. I know part of it is the reliance on Steph. Part of it is Draymond. Same old same old. Same problems, never changing. Sort of like a long relationship where 2 people just grow apart.
I feel so negative all the time. Want to call out all their faults. The great memories are fading more everyday. 😢😢😢
I am sorry. I apologize. I am just tired.
After reading Eric’s post I feel even worse for not seeing the beauty the way he does, but it is just getting tougher and tougher.
Well written message. I am in exactly the same boat and constantly seem to need someone to blame and invariable it goes to Kerr. I wish we were just playing the YGs and have Steph and Dray provide supporting roles - that way, I can at least keep expectations way low and enjoy this a lot more. I. Cancelled my YouTube tv after the memphis game and not going to go back to paying to watch - will find free options or hear on radio.
I don’t blame Kerr. I don’t blame anybody. It is just the natural order of things taking place before our eyes.
I coached enough years to fully understand how difficult it is. As fans we get to have opinions and make believe coach, but the reality is so different than what people realize.
I coached for 26 years at the HS level and have pretty good knowledge about teaching skills, understanding concepts, and all of that. I have spent countless hours designing plays, offenses, defensive strategies, blah blah blah. I have taught hundreds of kids how to shoot, etc.
My knowledge of the NBA from a coaching standpoint is severely lacking.
Different world and different game. I wouldn’t be so hard on Kerr.
Being a fan means we all get to play coach and GM which is a big part of the fun.
It doesn’t mean anybody here really knows anything and it doesn’t really matter.
Sports isn't always that great. At its best, our teams win, our favorite athletes do amazing things. But when those things aren't happening, or when we see the same thing over and over, it seems to me entirely natural to get bored or irritated. If I walked into the room where "Starry Night" is displayed for the first time, I'm sure it would take my breath away. I'd examine it from different angles, I'd sit and take it in, an absolute miracle of a painting, provoking all kinds of feelings and thoughts in me.
And then about 11 minutes later I'd be like "I wonder if the museum restaurant has those poffertjes, the sweet butter cakes. man I could go for one of those. Some hot tea, and like two or three of those things. Yuuussss"
That is my take as well. Compared to years past, and even the beginning of the season. the Warriors look slow right now. JK, Podz and TJD can motor when they need to but the Vets not so much.
Merry Christmas, y'all. Just want to thank everyone for making this such a fun place. Cheers.
I've got something on my chest. For the love of basketball IQ, y'all need to stop begging for more pick-and-rolls before we devolve into a Warriors subreddit parody.
We’re a dumpster fire at running it. Dead last—3rd percentile—for the roll man. Barely scraping by—24th percentile—for the ball handler. Our bigs? Some of them total non-threats at the rim with very ignorable spacing (Dray/Looney). And the few who can finish at the rim (TJD/Kuminga) are just as flawed when it comes to spacing, with Kuminga consistently in the wrong spot to do anything remotely productive as a roll man.
And let’s talk about spacing. If Steph or Schroder is running the P&R, who exactly is punishing the defense when they collapse? Green, Podz, Anderson, Kuminga, GP2? Please. Wiggins and Hield are the only consistent shooters we’ve got. Everyone else might as well be doing cardio.
So, no, just asking for more pick-and-rolls is a terrible idea. What this team needs is intelligent offensive design that achieve the same FUNCTION as pick and rolls which leverage our athletes ability to catch the ball on the move, disrupt defensive set-ups, and create penetration for kickouts. Dribble handoff variations (Ghost DHO, Twist, Zoom, Pistol) and Chicago action (Stagger, Spain) actually play to our strengths (to be clear, we're not great in handoffs either but its superior to pick and roll variations).
These approaches don’t just result in kickouts for easier shots for our “meh” shooters; they also enable us to attack closeouts for higher-percentage looks closer to the basket. Please, stop calling for more pick-and-rolls like it’s a magic spell.
I get what you are saying, it's more complicated than saying we just need to run more pick-n-roll. But are we a bad PnR team because we are bad at the PnR? Or are we bad at the PnR because we have stayed away from it for so long. The PnR is the red-headed step child of our offensive sets and I am not sure a team can become successful at something when the coach looks at the play with scorn.
We can't just switch to being a heavy PnR team on a dime, nor can we expect JK or Moody to be as efficient as other guys in their draft class who have played 3000+ more minutes than they have.
The more relevant question is: how much of our own struggles are of our own making? Is it self-fulfilling prophecy? We shun the PnR for years and, low and behold, we suck at it.
You are right, there are a lot options, a lot of different ways to tap into the talent we have on the roster. But in order to tap that talent, you have to be willing to go through the growing pains. You have to run 8 consecutive PnRs to close a game and lose. You have to let JK play 36 or Moody play 28 minutes even when they are having off nights, and lose. You have to embrace failure and make it your friend before you can beat it. Kerr is willing to take losses running things his way with Steph & Dray. In a loss, the blame is distributed among the 3 of them, and as Curry is a made man, there is only so much heat that gets back to Kerr. Conversely, he is (and has been) unwilling to lose with the young guys or the PnR or other offensive strategies. The answer to 'why' is too long a therapy session.
Point is: is the PnR bad? Are the young guys bad? Or are we just setting it up and them up for failure by remaining unwilling to to allow failure to happen as it is the door through which all greatness must pass.
So a lineup of curry ds Wiggins kuminga green, a simple curry pnr with wigs jk or green wouldn’t be effective? Cmon man
The issue is currently the only one we run PnRs with is TJD and he can’t make a layup to save his life.
JK currently has a higher frequency of running the PnR then being the rollman, that is ass backwards
There’s so much wrong with this statement, it’s hard to know where to start.
Curry ranks in the 59th percentile as a pick-and-roll ball handler—not bad, but far from elite. Draymond is in the 8th percentile as a roller, Kuminga is at 22nd, and Wiggins is at 33%. So no, the pick-and-roll hasn’t been effective, and there’s little reason to think it ever will be when you dig into the details.
Take the Curry/Kuminga pick-and-roll, for example: Kuminga’s role as the roll man is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Poor positioning and terrible screening turn him into a non-factor. On the rare occasions things almost work, defenses collapse off Green, leaving Curry and Kuminga forced to kick it out to DS or Wiggins—who are guarded tightly because no one’s concerned about Green or Kuminga as shooters, especially off the pop. This same pattern repeats itself with depressing consistency, each variation faltering under the weight of the same fundamental issues of having three virtual non-shooters on the floor at the same time.
And the truly baffling part? The only player you’ve criticized in relation to the PnR is TJD—who, by the way, is literally our most effective big in that role, though still only in the 42nd percentile.
That is only this year, you are going to ignore a decade of curry being one of the best in the PnR?
If kuminga is so bad how did he put up 1.2 ppp as the rollman all of last year
JK had a 1.2 ppp as rollman last year
“Our bigs? Either total non-threats at the rim (Dray/Looney) or completely useless from deep.”
Last time I looked (just now) Green is shooting 38% from deep and SloMo is shooting 35%. I’d say neither are “completely useless”.
Bigs are total non-threats at the rim? Haven't you been watching TJD the last few games?
Firstly, you should probably refresh ur page. What it says is "Some of them total non-threats at the rim with very ignorable spacing (Dray/Looney)."
Second, let’s talk about evaluating shooting threats. It’s not rocket science—you look at efficiency AND volume, AND shot diet. You don't just look at efficiency and call it a day, or else Isaac Okoro would be the second best shooter in the NBA (ecliping Steph Curry). Sure, Green and Anderson might boast respectable percentages from three, but let’s be honest: they’ve racked that up on a laughably small sample size, almost exclusively in situations where defenders leave them so wide open they could start a small garden before the shot goes up.
Bottom line: they’re about as threatening from deep as a plastic knife at a steakhouse. Six feet under the bottom line, we have very little shot threats to act as a counter to defenses collapsing to stop the pick and roll ball handler/roll man attacking the rim.
If Green and SloMo put up respectable percentages from deep when left open, then they should shoot if left open since it’s the equivalent of over 50% from 2, right?
And if teams choose not leave them open behind the line, isn’t that the whole idea of “spacing”.
No, Green and SloMo may post respectable percentages when left open, but that’s only at a small volume. If Green were to take every open shot, opposing teams would gladly concede that look, knowing his efficiency would regress to the mean and reflect his true shooting ability in wide open shots (since 2017 he's shot 32% on wide open 3's).
What’s perplexing is that you’re approaching this from a one-dimensional perspective, first ignoring shot diet and volume in favor of efficiency, and now ignoring volume altogether. The reality is, all three factors—efficiency, shot diet, and volume—must be considered, and for some reason, you’re neglecting to do so.
Two requests:
1. Increased volume on wide open 3’s leading to a decreased percentage of makes seems counterproductive. It seems to me like when guys start making open 3’s, it leads to guys covering them and THAT leads to guys percentages going down. Do you have data to support Draymond’s percentage going down on wide open 3’s as his volume goes up? His overall volume on 3PA’s has gone up the last two seasons over the previous three seasons, yet is 3P% has improved.
2. Can you respond in a tone that’s less condescending/dickish? If not, please don’t bother answering because it makes dealing with you no fun. K, thanks.
I have long been an opponent of the importance of the "coach on the floor" veteran player idea. I am particularly opposed to dedicating a roster spot, such as was done for Undonis Haslem, or Iguodala.
I wanted to revisit this in the wake of Kerr's frustration with (most likely) Kuminga's shot selection. To be quite clear, this post is not about Kuminga's shot selection itself. I have no quarrel with the fact that he needs to improve, as all players do; nor with the idea that Kerr and the coaching staff should instruct Kuminga what the game plan is. In fact if they don't do that, they should be fired.
My problem, instead, is with this idea that vets know things and can impart special wisdom that coaches can't because they are somehow both of the game and above it.
The real issue is *message discipline*. So I certainly have heard Draymond say about Kuminga that he regularly tells him "No one can stop you." To go for it, be assertive, and so on. This is in direct contrast to Kerr's recent reminder to keep the ball moving and not take contested mid range shots.
Again, this post is not about Kuminga, Draymond, Kerr, or what blend is best for the Warriors right now. It's about the inevitable problem that if you let veterans have power to communicate with authority to younger players, they will at some point offer contradictory information.
This is true in any management hierarchy. I am sure that Kerr meets with his assistant coaches frequently and that if they were to go in their own direction, that would be grounds for being fired.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Iguodala or Draymond offers something that the coaches don't, but that somehow magically, that thing that they offer never contradicts the head coach.
I think Kuminga has had trouble knowing what's wanted of him. There are most likely multiple reasons for this, not one. Is he headstrong? It appears so, to some extent, I couldn't tell you how much. Is Kerr impatient with him? Maybe. Should Kerr give him more free rein? Maybe. But what is certain is that Kuminga is also hearing from other people (including of course his own posse and social media, which is on him). That's a recipe for confusion. The team would do far better to control any additional unnecessary confusion by telling veterans to keep their opinions to themselves.
Why do you think in such absolutes? Dray telling JK no one can stop him is not in any way in contradiction with the moving the ball edict. The thing that I love about basketball most is the incredible teamwork that leads to both things happening. You move the ball and when that breaks down the D in the right way JK takes it in and can't be stopped. Or the opposing team has to start defending differently so Steph or Buddy get open or the ball finds Wiggs instead or TJD or GP2 get forgotten in the dunker's spot for an easy alley oop. When everyone knows how to play this way it is much better than a PnR heavy offense or iso and takes into account each player knowing when to be assertive or pass the ball. Steph Klay Iggy KD Dray were unstoppable at this but so were Steph Klay Iggy Barns Dray and Steph Klay Iggy Dray Bogut (also sub Sean, OPJ, West and the other pure BB players we've had). JK in particular does not seem to feel the flow of the game like that and if he did, he would score 30 a night and be calling up Lacob every night screaming "show me the money". I hope he develops that feel but if JK is confused and can't figure out what to do that's because he needs to understand the nuance and beauty and flow of the game to decide live based on the opponents movement what to do.
Regarding the main point of your post, I don't see a way to address it comprehensively within the limits of my desire to type more. You just kind of have to accept that players will communicate with each other and some times in what feels like contradiction to the coach. That's why good player leadership is so important. It's possible that Kerr (old Iggy) and Spoelstra (Haslem) and almost every other coach and player are wrong about this and you are right, but ... well, you know the rest.
WHY do I have to accept it that players will at some times communicate in ways that feel like contradictory to the coach? Are you sure I'm the one thinking in absolutes?
Maybe we don't have to accept everything.
To me, this topic seems like the kind of conventional wisdom that goes unchallenged. It sounds a lot like you're saying "because it has been done this way, that's the best way to do it."
ONe of the reasons I'm a Warrior fan is that they are actually the leading team in challenging convention. I love how the Warriors as a front office and coaching staff have long challenged conventional wisdom.
To me it seems like if I brought this point up directly to Kerr over a friendly dinner, he's the kind of guy to say either, "yeah, i've thought a lot about that, here's why it still makes sense to do," or "interesting, tell me more." Not "You're just a fan, you don't get it," or "we've always done it this way," or "I always trust all vets, leave me alone."
Am I right and almost every coach and player is wrong? I don't know, but I see no reason why I should have to apologize for raising an idea. It's not absolutist to ask.
The point I'm making either worth consideration, or it isn't, on its merits. I could be dead wrong, but no one has explained why we NEED to have player-coaching.
As I said, player coaches CAN be useful, but that doesn't mean they always WILL be useful, and in fact they can be counterproductive. They are human beings. They say what they think is best.
As you say, the game is complex. It's entirely easy to be wrong. Last night, for example, Kerr and pretty much everyone on this site agreed to get the ball to Steph in the fourth quarter even though he was ice cold, because he's Steph. But it turned out that the few people here who said bench Steph weren't wrong. I was one of those, but I wouldn't bet a nickel on being right next time. Steph has made many people who thought he couldn't pull out a miracle quite regretful.
But the thing is, I'm not in an accountable role. I say things on the site, you say things. Whatever, it's just fans. But when Draymond says it, the question of accountablity is alive.
I just think it's interesting that NOT ONCE have I heard a coach say or imply "Our vets aren't always right and they aren't carrying the message well, so I'm asking them to hush." Why is that? Because EVERY VET IS ALWAYS RIGHT?
Hardly.
Sigh. it's way too late to answer all this. but it depends on your definitions of "have to" and "accept". You can clearly do whatever you want. But your generalizations are what's causing your own disconnect. Not every team has a Haslem, in fact it's quite rare. however the best teams have great leadership. I cannot prove that to you in the way I can prove the world is round (and even then you have to be open to the idea and willing to go through the reasoning) is it's much more subjective and anecdotal but I can refer you to plenty of reading on the subject if you like.
Prior to the season starting, there was this comment that had a bunch of IFS (insert thing happens) we're gonna win the championship which had a TON of likes. Can someone point me to that, I kind of want to see how it compares to now?
I don’t know if it was mine specifically you’re referring to, but I remember making a comment like that and I believe it was well-received. I did a quick search and couldn’t find it. Here’s the list as I remember it:
* Curry and Green are healthy and play a combined 130+ games avoid major age-related regressions
* Draymond avoids his “Greenanigans”, but SloMo is an effective temporary replacement if he doesn’t
* Wiggins’ issues were indeed rib-injury and dad-related and he’s able to return to something approaching ‘21-22
* Looney returns to the conditioning and form of previous seasons, providing defense, rebounds and monster screens
* Moody and Kuminga take reasonable 4th year and become positive reliable rotation and minutes eating pieces
* Podz and TJD modestly improve on their success as rookies and avoid sophomore slumps
* Hield is able to provide a reasonable facsimile of ‘21-22 (post-injury, but pre-head case)
* Melton stays healthy
I specifically remember saying that, aside for the first one, not ALL of these things need to happen, but a majority do.
Appreciate it, I have no idea if it was you, but this works just as well for me!!
I took the time to re-create a pretty extensive list because you seem to have asked in good faith, but now I see from your comment below that you think I was just some delusional fan gaslighting myself and this for your amusement/derision? I don’t know your angle here, but JFC, you’re a piece of work. I really am done with you.
Yeah I fear we've gotten our wires crossed, some definite miscommunication happening.
As someone who's lifelong followed struggling teams, I've noticed fans often dismiss flaws with “what ifs”—like “if this player improves” or “if that change happens”—then leap to calling their team a contender. The problem is, these “ifs” are rarely laid out together, so people don’t fully realize how many factors need to align for the team to truly contend.
When I mentioned "gaslighting themselves," I was referring to those who don’t even realize the many “ifs” they’re basing their expectations on when declaring the Warriors championship contenders. People who recognize these "ifs" and judge differently as to whether the team can overcome them is totally fine.
You and ur comment has absolutely nothing to do with the "delusional fan". If anything, I loved it because it forced them to confront how many conditions need to be met for a championship run, and by bringing them together in one place, it forced everyone to confront how many uncertainties were being relied upon in the assumption that the Warriors would contend for a title.
That was the context then, but regarding the present, I was just asking because I was interested in using your comment as a checklist to evaluate how many of those “ifs” have been addressed—how many we’ve succeeded at and how many we haven’t.
Apologies in advance if this oversteps my lurky behavior, but from the outside I see where both of you are coming. I don't know Goofus or their mindset, but I imagine seeing your comment mention fans gaslighting themselves about their team's fitness in a thread where Goofus explicitly states their reasons for believing the team could be a contender seems to conflate the two. That didn't seem to be your intention, so perhaps using more neutral phrasing to convey the same point would go over better? Off the top of my head, "we as fans sometimes forget how hard it is to get a number of lucky breaks for a fringe contender to become a real contender" is wordier but seems to convey the same point.
I won't close read your other comments, but I imagine a similar reframe could help you reach even more members of this community. You often argue for things that cut against the grain, and as a fellow weirdo I think you're a thoughtful person that wants to have good conversations. I find that my own conversations are more productive (and I'm more persuasive as a side benefit) when I express a lot of empathy for my interlocutor. I hope this isn't overstepping to provide this observation and suggestion.
While your suggestion for more neutral language inadvertently taps into one of my pet peeves—the slow, soul-crushing erosion of our language that drains it lifeblood of all emotionality —I must admit, you're fundamentally right here.
I'll certainly be more mindful of my phrasing moving forward, as I feel terrible at the prospect of unintentionally being rude/insulting (as I apparently did with Goofus). If I’m going to be rude or insulting, I’d prefer it to be by design lmao
I don't think anything has changed, it was always IF Curry, Green, Melton can stay healthy and IF the JK, TJD, Moody, and Podz can take the next step up, the Warriors have a chance to be the 6th seed and stay out of the playing. And IF, they aren't in the playin, they have a punchers chance. So far, the first couple of IFs haven't come true.
Nah, there were a shitton of IFS that fans were throwing out on this site. As a long term fan of numerous shitty team (its been a unfortunate burden), its a common trend that I've witnessed as fans try to gaslight themselves into believing the squad will be competitive.
What I appreciated about the comment was that it summarized all the IF's needed to have the Warriors succeed, so I really want to see how we've measured up so far.
Moody gp2 looney and a frp for Vuc
let’s take 1 last shot at this
This team as constructed has no chance
Curry wigs jk green Vuc
Ds pods Lindy KA TJD
Vuc is 34 years old. Pass.
I don’t feel like Vuc is a difference maker for us. He could help some, but the W’s are already one of the better rebounding teams, and the overall defense is pretty good. Most of our losses are NOT because we need another big slow guy clogging the lane. W’s do a lot of dumb stuff, especially in crunch time, and could use another smart scorer to help with the decision making. That’s not Vuc, and not really Scrhöder either.
We don’t understand the value of a scoring bug because we never had one, look how many easy baskets turner got last night, either wide open from 3 or at the rim.
It would take loads of pressure off of curry and open things up for JK and podz.
Vuc passing would also allow Kerr to not have to play 3 guard lineups anymore
> We don’t understand the value of a scoring bug
Isn’t it more of a feature?
Hot take, scoring bigs have been historically quite overrated. Other than Kareem/Shaq, most of the great bigs have achieved their greatness through defending/passing (Russel/Hakeem/Duncan/Garnett/Robinson/Walton).
Boogie erasure
🚨 Sending up a bat signal to EA for a specific content request 🚨
With the trade deadline approaching and a lot of talk about whether Steph is in decline and can lead a team to a chip, the value of future picks, offseason free agent targets (like Myles Turner), can you do another primer with Perks on our current and upcoming cap situation?
I’ve been harping on the extreme difficulty of consolidation trades because of being hard-capped, but am hardly an expert on the CBA and cap. I’d love a better understanding of MDJ options this season vs. positioning toward next year, like how much cap space would there be for FA’s next season by letting people walk after the season. Also, Perks’ take on the value of our multi-year contract guys vs. trading them for expiring deals.
I think this discussion would really help us have informed conversations before saying something as simple as “Let JK walk and sign Turner!” as we try to evaluate the cost of working to save this season vs. building toward next.
Something I'm just starting to consider might be possible: like Kerr gave Klay a lot of leeway last year to come to terms with the fact that father time's caught up to him, he may be letting Draymond & Steph work through that same journey this year.
It's easy for us fans to call for immediate change, but Kerr's always been a lot more careful managing the players' expectations as people. Maybe the motion offense as we know it is just sticking around until Kerr feels Curry can accept that he can't cook consistently enough for it to work anymore.
The Dark Side of the Moon
To understand why things seem bleak today, we need only understand why things were so great before. And when I say great, I mean, Warrior’s top 5 NBA Dynasty All Time, 4 Rings, broke the league, changed-the-game great.
One generational player, the greatest shooter of all-time, who changed the way NBA offenses played and, more importantly, changed the way the NBA was viewed … by fans. That’s not all. He was a shooting guard turned point guard who needed a backcourt partner who could take the tougher backcourt defensive assignment. Finally, he introduced the idea of there being gravity on the court without the ball. His incredible off-ball movement required an additional primary play maker to be on the floor with him, someone to usurp a large majority of his own play making duties.
One generational 2-way guard, who may be the 2nd best shooter of all-time, certainly possessing Plato’s idea of what a shooting stroke should look like, he created a third source of gravity on the court (Ball, 30, & 11), and by taking Curry’s defensive assignment – which was typically a point guard – Klay played POA defense, held his man in check at the perimeter, turning the game into a 4 on 4 game for his teammates behind him.
One generational podcaster who changed the way the NBA played defense, changed the way NBA general managers evaluated talent, turning the derogatory player description ‘tweener’ into a now sought-after player quality. He was an undersized power forward who could play center while running the point on offense, becoming the primary play maker for the 2 greatest shooters of all time. With Klay taking out one perimeter threat, Dray could wreak havoc behind him defensively.
Add in one generational coach who, based on his personnel, allowed the all-switching no position defense to happen, who introduced a motion offense that, with these 3 players, would change the game.
The Dynasty wasn’t built on these 3 great players. It was built on the relationship that these 3 players had when they were on the court together. It is how they connected, how they complimented each other, how they covered for each other. It was the most unique and complicated arrangement of player skills, distributed among 3 players, that we have ever seen.
The SUM of these 3 playing together was always greater than the sum of their parts. And credit to Kerr for being able to conduct this incredible ensemble, while keeping in mind he is not one of the players.
Fast forward. One of the players is gone. Two are older. But more importantly, the unique on-court relationship is gone. The 3-legged stool that formed the foundation of the Dynasty now only has 2 legs and that isn’t something you can build on. Re-introducing a Klay replacement won’t bring back the Chips because the league has adapted. All the great young talent in the league today grew up watching this team in their formative years; the Warrior’s system is in their basketball DNA. The uniqueness of that team cannot be replicated, because it is no longer unique. It’s historical. It’s something that already happened.
If we want to know what isn’t working today, we have to start by examining what used to work and why it worked THEN. And then realize that THEN was a different time. THEN was a different league. Our coach and players may have the same names, but they are not the same as they were THEN.
We are on the dark side of the moon. And we will remain there so long as we choose to use yesterday’s solutions for today’s problems. We won’t step forward without recognizing how absolutely impossible it was for these players to come together at the same time, on the same team, with the right coach. And I didn’t even mention KD!
Lighting struck 3 times in the same spot, and that will never happen again. But it feels like Kerr believes he has that lightning trapped in a bottle, pops the ‘locally-sourced, motion offense’ label on it, and that he can turn that lightning into Champagne. We devalue what we once had by believing we can recreate it with a couple of roster moves or by making better decisions and playing with more force.
We can run towards the sunrise, hastening its arrival, or run away from it, and remain in the dark.
An extremely well written piece, kudos!!
One slight critique, while the concept of "gravity" was certainly popularized with Steph's emergence, I'd argue that dominant interior threats have long been acknowledged for their gravitational pull (though that exact term wasn't used), manifesting in their ability to collapse defenses.
What truly astonished me—and perhaps the broader basketball community—was witnessing this defensive-warping power reimagined through a perimeter player. Steph's ability to carry that "gravity" across the entire court introduced a level of distortion that was unparalleled and transformative.
JK quote: https://imgur.com/a/DuM2lCv
Saw that on Reddit, I might have had a less charitable interpretation of just the quote if I didn't just read this article on what's currently going on in his home town (serious TW):
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/dec/21/children-executed-and-women-raped-in-front-of-their-families-as-m23-militia-unleashes-fresh-terror-on-drc
So Dennis is playing Steph's old rotation minutes? Start 1st and 3rd, close 2nd and 4th. Hmm.
The odds of Klay getting his 5th ring go up by the game.
I don't really claim to know the game inside + out but I read a comment somewhere (I think reddit) complaining that we are shoehorning, as it were, Schroeder into a motion offense initiator role that he's not cut out for -- he is a PNR point guard, and should be used that way. Draymond even had the quote saying that we would have to adapt to him, not the other way around. Any speculation on how that may or may not play out? Is Kerr just bedding him in slowly for now, and will let DS play his way later? I for one would not hold my breath, sigh, but wonder if there's any precedent for that...
I'm sure this has happened plenty of times, but in that memphis game, there was an entire possession where Schroder sat in the corner and did not touch the ball and I think the other players out there were like tjd, hield, kuminga, and gp2. As predicted, the play went horribly. Why is Schroder not running the offense every single possession with that lineup? That is a PnR lineup not an motion offense one.
I don’t agree with the large majority of Kerr criticism I see, but I do think it’s weird that DS is not running more PNR in crunch time. Even just a couple of possessions, to change up the look and put Steph off-ball and give him a little rest.
It is very possible that Steph is taking charge and choosing to be on ball. It’s possible that DS is deferring. It’s possible that DS wants both Steph and JK to eat. I don’t know…
When I think about it, I never hear you voice much criticism for anyone on the team. Perhaps it's a conflict of interest for you to voice any less than positive remarks.
That's an embarrassing comment. EA is an amazing site runner and creates great content.
Absolutely no one is forcing you to be here.
Why embarassing? Did I criticize the site? I didn't even criticize Apricot.
Very much the opposite. My video channel and this site would be probably 10x the size if I spent time on negative remarks, hot takes and taking cheap shots at the players, coach and organization. But my videos and site would also be much worse, and I’d be wasting my life polluting society for money. And by giving up the money and broader audience, I got something money can’t buy: a sports site that I actually would want to be part of and an audience of some of the coolest people in the world.
I get frustrated like any fan. As fans, we have the right to yell angry things about how Kerr is incompetent, MDJ is lazy, Steph and Dray are washed, JK is a bust, Kerr obviously should run pick and roll, Kerr doesn’t use the obviously best lineup, how obviously Kerr hates player X, how obviously GSW refuses to make a trade because of Lacob’s ego, how GSW missed the obvious draft pick, how GSW obviously should have built around the new guys, how GSW obviously should have traded the new guys for win now, etc.
But none of that negative criticism above is rational or defendable when examined seriously. And because my words and videos have some audience, I do feel an obligation to say rational things that I can defend as analysis. Also because I have outsized status on this site and I want there to be free discussion, I limit how often I rebut all the opinions I don’t agree with.
And in the end, how you fan is a choice. Do I want to spend my time raging about things I can’t control or do I want to spend it understanding the game and celebrating the wonderful things this team is achieving even now, even last game?
The most entertaining player in history is still doing amazing things, one of the most innovative coaches in history is still dramatically changing up schemes and juggling wildly conflicting player demands, and they are all fighting Father Time and the NBA rules designed to defeat them, and they’re trying to do it with some dignity.
It’s an amazing story unfolding (and maybe not a happy one), if you have eyes to appreciate it, and I want to enjoy it while I can.
Thanks for the reply.
I am very guilty of using GDT to rant, and I just wanted to say always appreciate your measured approach to content. Both me and my dad enjoy watching your vids and it's refreshing from all the metaphorical yelling I see on social media.
Your measured approach is one of the reason why I love your work, even beyond your velvet tones.
To me, there’s nothing worse that reactionary responses to situations, made worse by people who act like coaches and GM’s have easy jobs. A great example of that is how many people propose trades that are either a) Impossible because of CBA rules, or b) Provide no reasonable explanation of why the other team would do it.
Not enough hearts to express my love for this post, but as a start…
❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Happy Holidays, Eric, Dru, Dan and all of this wonderful community!
This should be stickied at the top of every article on this site until Steph, Dray and Kerr have retired.
Or perhaps he’s smart enough to have a measure of humility about the difficulty of the job he’s being asked to criticize, as opposed to dumb and arrogant enough to think he has the answers to everything. (Like, you know, the average internet poster).
In my experience, one of the primary “conflicts of interest” in a lot of Internet commentary is between the intensity of people’s opinions and the lack of actual knowledge on the topic they’re opining about.
Or as W.B. Yeats put it: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”
Happy Holidays! 😊 🎄
I typed my response before reading yours and couldn’t agree more.
I think Eric’s approach is reflected in most of the community here, which makes it such a beautiful exception.
💯
TBH, Basketbum’s messed up post deserves a much harsher response than it has (thus far) received, since accusing someone of being a shill (while insisting that one’s own opinions are objective and pure) is one of biggest douche moves one can inflict on one’s fellow community member.
But among Eric’s great qualities (as a writer and commenter) is his sweet temperament and general aversion to engaging in internet mudfights. And in the spirit of the holiday season … one can only hope that Scrooge McBum has gained a measure of enlightenment from the thoughtfulness of Eric’s reply. 😇
Messed up?
“…one of biggest douche moves one can inflict on one’s fellow community member.”
Not just a community member, but (at least from my perspective) the most tireless leader in making this place so great. The comment was a complete, unadulterated, unappreciated pile of…coal in his stocking.
Lol
I doubt DS wants to just let others eat, he's on a contract year. If he keeps this up he's losing a lot of money compared to getting 18/7 on the nets
OTOH, he probably wants to please his new employer, who has his Bird rights. Piss off the Warriors and he loses a lot of his market value if they don’t want to be a bidder on his services.
A quite a few of these losses, we F-ed around in the first quarter and then it's just tough to win for a mediocre team that we are. By F-around, I mean TOVs and playing unserious defense. And that's on players largely but not having consistent lineups is on coaching staff and injuries.
Why did Hield only play 16 minutes? He shot 5-11 for 13 points and had 4 rebounds. That’s a head scratcher. As for TJD, he went for 13 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 block and 0 turnover. He was one of the better guys tonight and should have played more than the 23 minutes that he was allotted.
Some poor decision making from him which I'm sure drove Kerr nuts.
As for TJD. Prolly a casualty of Draymond returning to lineup
TJD averages 20mpg. I believe Looney is less. That should tell you a lot about Kerr and his rotations.
I know this is an absolutely unforgivable and horrible thing to say on this holy site, but I am starting to become a bit bored by the Warriors. I am not certain what it is. I know part of it is the reliance on Steph. Part of it is Draymond. Same old same old. Same problems, never changing. Sort of like a long relationship where 2 people just grow apart.
I feel so negative all the time. Want to call out all their faults. The great memories are fading more everyday. 😢😢😢
I am sorry. I apologize. I am just tired.
After reading Eric’s post I feel even worse for not seeing the beauty the way he does, but it is just getting tougher and tougher.
Well written message. I am in exactly the same boat and constantly seem to need someone to blame and invariable it goes to Kerr. I wish we were just playing the YGs and have Steph and Dray provide supporting roles - that way, I can at least keep expectations way low and enjoy this a lot more. I. Cancelled my YouTube tv after the memphis game and not going to go back to paying to watch - will find free options or hear on radio.
I don’t blame Kerr. I don’t blame anybody. It is just the natural order of things taking place before our eyes.
I coached enough years to fully understand how difficult it is. As fans we get to have opinions and make believe coach, but the reality is so different than what people realize.
I coached for 26 years at the HS level and have pretty good knowledge about teaching skills, understanding concepts, and all of that. I have spent countless hours designing plays, offenses, defensive strategies, blah blah blah. I have taught hundreds of kids how to shoot, etc.
My knowledge of the NBA from a coaching standpoint is severely lacking.
Different world and different game. I wouldn’t be so hard on Kerr.
Being a fan means we all get to play coach and GM which is a big part of the fun.
It doesn’t mean anybody here really knows anything and it doesn’t really matter.
The fun is thinking we know.
Join the club. Don't apologize.
Sports isn't always that great. At its best, our teams win, our favorite athletes do amazing things. But when those things aren't happening, or when we see the same thing over and over, it seems to me entirely natural to get bored or irritated. If I walked into the room where "Starry Night" is displayed for the first time, I'm sure it would take my breath away. I'd examine it from different angles, I'd sit and take it in, an absolute miracle of a painting, provoking all kinds of feelings and thoughts in me.
And then about 11 minutes later I'd be like "I wonder if the museum restaurant has those poffertjes, the sweet butter cakes. man I could go for one of those. Some hot tea, and like two or three of those things. Yuuussss"
Suns, Lakers, and Warriors lost. All of them have aging veterans. Seems like Father Time is undefeated.
That is my take as well. Compared to years past, and even the beginning of the season. the Warriors look slow right now. JK, Podz and TJD can motor when they need to but the Vets not so much.