Evidence that MDJ knows more basketball than I do (hardly a high bar, but):
I remember screaming at the TV when I found out PBJ had been traded.
Patrick Baldwin, Jr. at Washington last year:
.320 3p shooting (on 97 attempts, so a decent sample size).
.667 FT shooting (on 28 attempts, so again ... not some silly small sample size).
He got 13 minutes a game for 38 games. That seems like pretty reasonable end-of-bench minutes to show something.
Obviously, he's young, in a new system on a crappy team and so on, but those are some pretty bad numbers for a guy whose calling card is shooting. Hopefully, he figures it out.
I find it hard to believe that contests are more of a factor for his shooting than for most NBA players.
If anything, I'm prepared to believe he got more defensive attention because there just aren't that many good players on Washington. I also remember that they had somebody go down towards the end of the season, and I think he was starting for a while (so playing against a better class of defender).
Anyway, I think it's fair to say TJD has had more impact in his first year than PBJ has had in two, so quite an upgrade.
And maybe Kerr had a better idea of what they were working with than those of us that wanted more playing time for him. You’re right, he’s young but damn, he’s going from being one of the top high school recruits in the country to a bust in college, to bust in the NBA.
Kerr is always so good having players’ backs, but just once I bet he’d love to say the truth:
“Steve, how come you’re not giving Baldwin more minutes?”
PBJ was playing with a major ankle injury, his mother was also fighting cancer, and he was fighting to save his father’s job (playing for him instead of going to Duke).
There were a lot of reasons why PBJ had a bad year in college, so one understands someone taking a high risk flyer on him at the end of the first round. Nonetheless, he doesn’t seem to be making an impact at the NBA level, either for GSW or WAS.
I dont know if id consider him an NBA bust given that several publications had him going no higher than a mid second round pick. If anything the Warriors probably reached.
The Dubs would be negligent to not be giving tryouts to borderline guys like Caboclo. Always good to see where guys are, how good shape they’re in, what they’ve been working on. You never know if you’ll need injury replacements, or if some newbs show up to camp out of shape, with bad attitudes, etc. And what else are they going to be doing in the summer? Sure the players get a long holiday but the staff are working stiffs and are expected to get some work done.
I wonder how many Olympics standouts are in the US this month trying to get back or into the NBA. This year’s tournament was a great opportunity for international players to get exposure and drum up interest.
Doubt he's eligible for a two-way anymore, so this is kind of an odd move, unless there is a trade coming (or he's just auditioning with other teams here for some reason). We'd have to free up some cap space somehow.
They could waive Santos or Waters if they wanted to sign him
EDIT: Also the Warriors do these types of workouts all the time, there was one recently with Derrick Williams I think. Last year or the year before they did one with Tyreke Evans among other players. Strong majority of the time it doesn't lead to anything, and sometimes I think it is just a favor to some agents. I think Caboclo is good though.
Quick question that obviously I know the answer to, but I'm just checking if you know:
Who's Bruno Caboclo??
Oh, wait, I think I saw this dude in the Olympics. Brazilian? PF? I mean, sure, can keep Gui company way in the back of the bus where the rookies sit?
In my imagniation, Draymond always sits in the most comfortable seat that takes up the most room, or maybe right behind the driver, talking away to the driver when the driver is just trying to get somewhere. Wiggins takes any quiet seat and looks out the window. Steph walks on the bus and everyone stands up, offering their seat.
See, I read it as Asher saying Steph IS the bus driver, but when he gets up and walks on the bus while it is moving -- either around the passenger seats or perhaps floating across the top of the bus as it coasts down the highway toward Sacramento -- the urge to offer him a seat overrides their eschatological terror at seeing a driverless bus hurtling inexorably toward Forbes' Number 1 Best Place to Live In California 2024.
Why is that a thing, exactly? Whether or not they pass us in a fairly arbitrary “last ten years” race, any Cs fan you bring it up with is just gonna bring up their 18 rings and end the convo.
Conversely, no Cs team ever (indeed, no NBA team ever with the possible exception of the Jordan Bulls) was ever as good as the 2014-18 Warriors, and the current Cs iteration is vanishingly unlikely to change that.
Also: the Warriors are 1-0 v the Celtics when they’ve met in the Finals, and the ‘22 “Night Night” banner will fly forever. 😊
Since the 2019 Dubs, no other team has even made it to back-to-back Finals, let alone win it back-to-back. Boston has a really good chance especially given how bad the east is but you never know...
Boston will be the favorite (having lost no one of import from last season) but the Sixers, Knicks, Bucks, Pacers, Cavs, and Magic are hardly “bad” competition, imo. I’d probably rate them 50/50-ish v the field?
I mean "bad" is relative... and 50% against the field is pretty good odds. Would you personally choose that pool of teams to go through or OKC, DEN, MIN, LAC, PHX, NOP, and LeBron + AD? EDIT: Not sure how I left out DAL with Luka, Kyrie, and KLAY (!!)
Definitely the 2024-2025 warriors. The best shooters on the 20-21 squad were (in rough order) Curry, D Lee, bazemore, ‘21 Poole, Wiggins, Mulder.
24-25 warriors have Curry, Hield, Waters, Moody, Podz, Melton, Wiggs, Post (?). I think the existence of Hield, plus more average shooters makes a difference.
I think there is a case for either team but if Waters is #3 then I don't think it is as clear as you are arguing. As a team those 2020-2021 Warriors were 9th in the league in three point percentage and 5th in the league in three point attempts per game. I don't think it is a given that this team will do better than that.
Counterarguments would be:
-Curry might have been at the peak of his powers that season, what a shame that they tanked it for Wiseman. Without looking it up I'd guess no one in the NBA who has played real minutes has ever shot 13+ threes per 36 minutes at 42+%
-D Lee shot 40% from three that season on 6.5 attempts per 36
-Bazemore shot 41% from three that season on 5 attempts per 36
-Wiggins shot 38% from three that season on 5.6 attempts per 36
-Mulder shot 40% from three that season on 10 attempts per 36, also has a pretty similar career three point percentage to Waters who we are hoping is better but hasn't proven anything
-Poole's 35% from three involved more shot creation than someone like Podz had last year, if Podz' role gets elevated to something like what Poole had, it remains to be seen how his percentage is affected
-Both teams lack a stretch big man.
-Does the current team force Kuminga in at the 3 the way that 2020-2021 team forced Oubre in at the 2?
Yeah, your point is good that spacing depends on the lineups actually played, not something that can be determined by looking at the individuals. Part of my assumption is that JK only plays at the 4, and that no more than 2 of (JK, Green, SloMo, Looney, TJD) are on the floor at a time. If there are a bunch of lineups with with JK at the 3, the spacing will be terrible (and JK will look bad without the spacing, so what’s really the point).
This is going to be a fun (and opinionated) series! These rankings are always so hard... it's like ranking the best inventions of all time... every era is more advanced than the next but where would we be without fire, the wheel, and fermentation?
It's difficult to assess individual greatness based on championships won because you can be an elite player playing on crappy teams and be penalized because the FO sucks and your teammates can't help carry the load. In the earliest era, during part of which the Celtics were absolutely loaded, you could be an elite player on a very good team and not sniff a title. Before free agency, you couldn't even play out your contract and go ring chasing if that's what you wanted. And yet winning is obviously the ultimate goal. So I'm conflicted about using titles as an important measure of individual greatness.
I see it kind of as a distinction between "best" and "greatest". Greatness includes your aura, how you are perceived, your legacy, your leadership, in addition to strictly how effective you are at putting the ball in hoop and stopping your opponents. So in that way it makes sense championships are a sizable part of greatness. Player A could be better than B, but his situation negatively impacted his ability to achieve greatness, and ultimately Player B became greater.
That's not to say you can't be in "great" conversations without a ring, also I don't think ring-chasing success really alters the greatness meter that much.
My limited memories of Barkley are from his later years. Putting his back to the basket, butt jutting out, post game...Ugly. And of course, hate his commentary stint and BS opinions.
I don't want to upset any Barkley fans, but can you argue for or against:
How good was he really at the actual game of basketball?
Yeah he really was good. Barkley could fill up the stat sheet. He was a rebounding machine, averaged double-digit boards for his career, led the league once with 14.6/gm, was 20th in boards all time.
He was 5x All NBA first team, 5x 2nd team, 12x All Star. One MVP award and top 10 in MVP voting 10 times.
His high shooting percentage (led the league 5x) was mostly because he got into the paint, not from distance, but he averaged 22.1 ppg for his career with a high of 28.3 one season. That's not just some big butt guy backing 'em in, although he certainly did his share of that, as you remembered.
Good passer too: 98th in career assists, reg season + playoffs, mostly playing the 4, and 20 triple doubles in his career. He even was a pretty good defender, including 29th all time in career steals
My All Time NBA Top 15 (excluding all time greats like Wilt/Russel/West/Oscar because it feels disingenuous to rank them given the lack of full game footage/available statistical analysis).
Steph and Magic way too low. David Robinson, as much as I loved him, way too high. MJ hilariously in 3rd, a Sam Bowie homage perhaps? As with all lists, YMMV.
Why do u think David Robinson is way too high (who would u rank over him) and find it hilarious that MJ is third (why do u think he's better than Lebron and/or Kareem)?
I was a fan of the Admiral but I'd put Shaq and Bird above him. I was a Hakeem fan too but I might put Bird above him too because I think Bird was top 5. Even MJ had his hands full with Bird.
I rank the Admiral over Shaq because, while they scored at similar volume/efficiency (Shaq drew more defensive attention though) and Shaq was a better passer, Robinson was miles ahead defensively—rim protection, shot blocking, positioning, you name it. The offensive gap between Shaq/Robinson is much smaller than the defensive one between Robinson/Shaq.
Robinson outscored Bird with higher volume and greater efficiency throughout his career. While Bird had a higher peak in efficiency relative to his era, Robinson was consistently more overall efficient and had more seasons of elite efficiency relative to his era.
Defensively, Bird doesn’t compare—Robinson was far superior, both relative to his position and overall impact. Bird was a better passer, but I'd take the Admiral’s superior scoring and defense any day.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about Bird’s defense. I think he was an elite defender. He obviously wasn’t playing the same position as the Admiral so he wasn’t that level of rim protector but ask MJ how Bird was as a defender — Bird could frustrate MJ in a big way. Robinson (who I saw when he played for Navy and always admired) was nowhere near the shooter Bird was, albeit 3-pointers weren’t much of a thing back then so Bird didn’t attempt as many as players do today. Efficiency is misleading when one player is scoring mostly from the post and the other both scores in the post AND from midrange out to the perimeter.
Oh no, I completely agree Bird was an elite defender, but I don’t see him as an all-time great like David Robinson, who I have roughly 4th all-time. Robinson was a superior defender relative to his position and played a more impactful defensive role.
As for efficiency, ur criticisms would only apply if I was using FG% . . . I'm not. I'm utilizing TS% (which adjusts for 3 pt shooting/FT). As for Robinson being a lesser shooter than Bird . . . obviously but I don't really care because Bird limited 3pt shooting means he missed out on the efficiency bump that comes from 3pt shooting.
I don't really care HOW u put the ball in the basket, just how many points u score per possession (ppp is another stat I used). Scoring versatility is, imho, dramatically overrated by modern NBA fans.
Did any of y'all see Gilbert Arena's vid on the Draymond punching Poole situation? He claimed he got it from Warriors players, and it adds a lot of context/clears up a lot of misunderstandings from previous reports.
Very unreliable source and sounds extra dramatized… but I watched every second, fascinated. It’s partly consistent with what had previously been rumored. I don’t believe the part about Poole not talking back to Dray before, as that goes against all reporting about Poole’s personality and behavior. And the part about Kerr saying Poole should stand up to Dray sounds weird too.
I don’t understand how he knew what everyone said. Was he there? Was there a recording? Is he best buddies with someone there who told him everything from both practices? Who told him everything from the plane or the trip? How did he know the exact words?
In the clip, he is not specific about his sources, but the YT video title writer (whoever they are) said Warriors players were his source. I don't know if that's just clickbait or verified by Arenas.
Well, according to the clip, the only two people who were in the room with Draymond after the punching event were Iguodala and Looney. So in theory, they are the only ones who knew what was said in that room. Rhetorical question…..Does that mean they were the sources for at least those conversations? (or was this just secondhand and thirdhand reporting). Too bad Arenas isn’t specific about where he got the ‘quotations.’
There's another spot where it's a conversation between Looney and one other person and he quotes Looney. So perhaps (?) Loon was one of his sources. Or maybe Gilbert is just making shit up. If we learn nothing else from that video it's that he likes to mess with people.
This happened toward the end of 2022 regular season... 6 months before "The Punch". And JP's always been known for his confidence and brashness. Do we really need further proof that Poole did talked back to Dray?
I do think "talk back" is appropriate tho, since every time somebody opens their mouth to talk some trash, the recipient of their trash talk has the opportunity to say nothing or "talk back"... Poole talked back to Dray, Dray talked back to Poole, and so on and so on.
Kerr encourages Poole to stand up to Draymond's shit talking.
So then Poole goes to Draymond, and over and over says: "30 carrying you. You just a Gucci backpack."
Then Draymond punches Poole on a day that DG is having personal issues.
This shit is WILD.
Edited: Then GA says that it was the next practice where Poole wasn't talking shit and Draymond was going through personal stuff with his ex and his kids and he punched Poole in practice because of that.
I do imagine Kerr tells people on the team to have a voice and a contribution, and not just be bullied into following orders. I don't think anything Kerr has ever said to a player on his team should ever have been interpreted as "go insult your teammate, that's the ticket!"
There is one old timer who was a great all around athlete that was a Warrior.
He would thrive in today’s NBA. He was made for today’s NBA. He was not the most likable guy but he was one of my all time favorite players. He was really very good at a lot of other sports as well. In my opinion he was a an elite player with great skills, Mr. Rick Barry. He also holds the record for most sons who were good enough to play in the NBA. The man was very gifted.
Another one is Bernard King. Have fun guarding him in today’s league.
The neophyte’s list of enjoyable players. Criteria for inclusion: successful, talented, enjoyable, whose behavior was not too appalling. (Even if it was era- appropriate., sic Kobe and Wilt). Statistical geniuses may scoff, but teams attract many fans based on such non-quantifiable criteria.
T1: Magic, Curry, LeBron, Dr. J
T2: Bird, Kareem, Russell, Wilkins
T3: little tiny ~6’ or shorter flyers, Hakeem, KD
T4: King, JWest, English (and his prescient movie)
That's a valid measure in my estimation. If the game weren't entertaining, who would watch and would we even have a pro league? So yeah, Elgin also was an amazing player all around, 10x All-NBA 1st team, no MVPs but finished top 3 4x, was an All Star 11x (all but his final two seasons), 27.4 ppg career, excellent rebounder, all that. And he was entertaining to the point that he changed the game. He led directly to Dr J and the high fliers who followed.
Of course there were players like Maravich who won't (and shouldn't) make the top 75 list based on numbers and achievements but man it doesn't get more entertaining than that guy. He was sort of like a Globetrotter within NBA rules.
I love that you have Bird in that second tier. I personally think Dr J had nothing on Bird as a player; Dr J was flashier but Bird was fun and the best trash talker who never got cold-cocked by Draymond Green. (Note to Draymond: Don't even think it; Bird was every bit as strong and tough as you.)
We could go back and forth all week with this, and you could probably change my mind on some, not others. Bernard King was definitely entertaining, and nice to see Alex English get some love. But you were not entertained by MJ? I sure was!
I believe everybody, except me, admired Michael Jordan. I believe everybody, but me, were awed by his skills. I found his behavior/personality extremely irritating. He entertained me with one dunk.
It’s like how so many people are irritated by LeBron, but I am not. And so many people hated Chris Paul, but suddenly he was the golden boy once he came and did such a good job at Golden State. It’s all relative, personal, and ephemeral to those of us who do not use statistics as a measure of worth. Although, I understand, that is the accepted way to evaluate athletes.
OK, fair enough, you were not entertained by MJ. Understood. 😊
I am not particularly irritated by LeBron. As with MJ, I watch him play and am very entertained — and sometimes awed. Yeah he whines to the refs a lot. I recall times it cost him on the court because play continued while he was busy whining. He started the trend of players forcing trades to create big 3s and such, which I dislike as a fan but they have the right to attempt it. He has been pretty cool off the court, and I respect that.
CP3 was fun to hate when he was a rival, partly because of the flopping and whining and partly because he played part of his career with arch rival Clippers and Rockets teams. I didn't like the flopping and whining but I never took the "hatred" seriously. The man loves to hoop and is an all-time great. Last season with us, he flopped and whined a lot less than we saw in the past, perhaps because the league was trying to crack down on flopping but for whatever reason, he was well behaved here, and he was a great OG for our young guys. So he mostly won me over but I have not forgotten the old flopping, whining CP3.
For me, the counting stats and highlights on YT basically confirm how dominant Wilt was. And it wasn't just dominance in a Shaq 10-foot radius... Wilt looked like Giannis leading the break... and had a fade away jumper.
He even had a decent spot up 3-pt shot... just ask the 2022 NBA champions about it ;)
Ooooh, we just see things differently when it comes to player analysis.
Counting stats? Way too limited—they miss the bigger picture. Advanced analytics dive into the details like pace, possessions, game context, efficiency, defense, and how a player stacks up against the league.
And highlights? I never bother. They only show the flashy stuff and skip over the real value—a player's consistent, smart decisions on every play. It's those little things—sharp passing, solid defensive positioning, shot selection, setting good screens—that really matter but never make the highlight reel.
Here's the thing: that's all we have. We don't have advanced analytics and we don't have full games from that era. So do we just dismiss everything from back then?
Or maybe we try to extrapolate given the data and film that we *do* have. And re: counting stats: we're not talking about averaging 30pts and 12 rebs... it's 50 pts and 26 rebs (30/23 for his career) which is an *extreme* outlier.
We can respect their greatness in their era and their role in shaping the game, but don’t tell me you can seriously compare Wilt to Steph when you’ve barely seen Wilt play and only have basic stats to go on.
There is so much more to the game of basketball and I just can't take any ranking seriously that bases part of its analysis on such shitty data. Just leave the old GOATS in the annals of history, dont drag them into rigorous discourse.
(Oh and if u adjust Wilts counting stats to modern pace/minutes, he averages 29.6 ppg and 12.1 rebounds. Still All Star numbers, but nowhere near the extreme outlier that u thought. Almost as if counting stats are very poor tools that we should set aside)
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm *not* comparing Steph (or any modern player) to Wilt. My list would evaluate a player's impact in their era vs. other player's impact *in their era*.
Every era is a little better than the previous one, and so comparing across eras is just really difficult, at best, if not futile.
> if u adjust Wilts counting stats to modern pace/minutes, he averages 29.6 ppg and 12.1 rebounds
And how does that compare to players of that time?
> have u actually watched much film of Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell?
Some, not that much. Of course I’m not overly impressed with their skill level relative to that of today’s players (IIRC, Bill Simmons described Wilt as something like “DeAndre Jordan playing against junior high school kids”) but I give them legend points for having dominated their era.
From some of the highlights I've seen on YT, it's more like Giannis against middle schoolers. There are lots of highlights of him leading fast breaks and even throwing some fancy passes.
They had the same training, concepts, and nutrition available to them as their temporal peers... and they stood out, so that's worth something.
Comparing across eras is just hard... there's subtly different rules (e.g. hand checking, zone defense), training (e.g. smoking & drinking is bad, ever evolving strength & conditioning training), and tactics that have been developed (e.g. 3>2, mid range shots are bad m'kay) that have changed the way the game is played. I, personally, tend to believe in two things:
1. Within eras, the greats are the greats.
2. Today's players are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them, and are therefore able to achieve higher levels of performance.
Separately, not to toot my own horn, but I understand things like "gravity exerts the same acceleration on all objects", "E=MC^2", and that a wing can be designed to create lift, but that doesn't mean I'm as intelligent as Newton, Einstein, or the Wright brothers... I can just learn and apply their knowledge.
Solid list I'd probably have Steph down with Magic and Bird. Wilt may be too high. Giannis should probably be on the list somewhere. Jokic will probably be higher but is fair enough there for now. It's all handwaving anyway.
Wow. Is this your day job? This looks very time consuming. Maybe I am too new to the game but I would exclude the olden days. Start with the 1980? I do not think you can compare the previous years to today, for various reasons. That said, I have my top three and no list, no stats, no facts are going to change that.😁
Took a look at the metric breakdown, appreciate all the work that must have gone into it! I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
I do think one challenge is, with so many somewhat random subjective levers to pull (and with some of them only affecting a couple players), you can likely calibrate it to return roughly the results you want. For example if Bird is looking too low in your opinion, tweak up that 3x in a row MVP bonus a bit and see if you like it better.
I also worry about the inclusion of 3pm as a core stat. Basically all leaders are current / very recent players, and it raises the question why other scoring methods such as FTM aren't included. The impact of the 3 is already included in points and efficiency, to count it again seems to just favor one way of scoring over the other.
Evidence that MDJ knows more basketball than I do (hardly a high bar, but):
I remember screaming at the TV when I found out PBJ had been traded.
Patrick Baldwin, Jr. at Washington last year:
.320 3p shooting (on 97 attempts, so a decent sample size).
.667 FT shooting (on 28 attempts, so again ... not some silly small sample size).
He got 13 minutes a game for 38 games. That seems like pretty reasonable end-of-bench minutes to show something.
Obviously, he's young, in a new system on a crappy team and so on, but those are some pretty bad numbers for a guy whose calling card is shooting. Hopefully, he figures it out.
Wonder how many of those shots were heavily contested or with no time on the clock to get set.
He's 6'10" tall with a high release.
I find it hard to believe that contests are more of a factor for his shooting than for most NBA players.
If anything, I'm prepared to believe he got more defensive attention because there just aren't that many good players on Washington. I also remember that they had somebody go down towards the end of the season, and I think he was starting for a while (so playing against a better class of defender).
Anyway, I think it's fair to say TJD has had more impact in his first year than PBJ has had in two, so quite an upgrade.
And maybe Kerr had a better idea of what they were working with than those of us that wanted more playing time for him. You’re right, he’s young but damn, he’s going from being one of the top high school recruits in the country to a bust in college, to bust in the NBA.
Kerr is always so good having players’ backs, but just once I bet he’d love to say the truth:
“Steve, how come you’re not giving Baldwin more minutes?”
“Who, the stiff? Bitch, please.”
Maybe my memory is faulty here but wasn't PBJ playing while injured in college?
PBJ was playing with a major ankle injury, his mother was also fighting cancer, and he was fighting to save his father’s job (playing for him instead of going to Duke).
There were a lot of reasons why PBJ had a bad year in college, so one understands someone taking a high risk flyer on him at the end of the first round. Nonetheless, he doesn’t seem to be making an impact at the NBA level, either for GSW or WAS.
Coming out after one disappointing year was probably a mistake.
I dont know if id consider him an NBA bust given that several publications had him going no higher than a mid second round pick. If anything the Warriors probably reached.
https://basketnews.com/news-210974-bruno-caboclo-practices-with-golden-state-warriors-aims-to-sign-a-contract.html
Bruno Caboclo practices with Golden State Warriors, aims to sign a contract
-------------------------------------
Marc Stein follows this account on Twitter so I'm assuming it's a legitimate source
The Dubs would be negligent to not be giving tryouts to borderline guys like Caboclo. Always good to see where guys are, how good shape they’re in, what they’ve been working on. You never know if you’ll need injury replacements, or if some newbs show up to camp out of shape, with bad attitudes, etc. And what else are they going to be doing in the summer? Sure the players get a long holiday but the staff are working stiffs and are expected to get some work done.
I wonder how many Olympics standouts are in the US this month trying to get back or into the NBA. This year’s tournament was a great opportunity for international players to get exposure and drum up interest.
Hmmm.
Doubt he's eligible for a two-way anymore, so this is kind of an odd move, unless there is a trade coming (or he's just auditioning with other teams here for some reason). We'd have to free up some cap space somehow.
You are right, Caboclo has 6 yrs of NBA service and two ways are only for 4 or fewer years of NBA service.
They could waive Santos or Waters if they wanted to sign him
EDIT: Also the Warriors do these types of workouts all the time, there was one recently with Derrick Williams I think. Last year or the year before they did one with Tyreke Evans among other players. Strong majority of the time it doesn't lead to anything, and sometimes I think it is just a favor to some agents. I think Caboclo is good though.
Waters' deal is fully guaranteed for this season so they can't save money by waiving him.
Gui's deal is not guaranteed. Waiving him now would save just under $1.9M.
>>> Strong majority of the time it doesn't lead to anything
Good to know! So if they call me in for a workout, I should get as many autographs and swipe as much swag as I can…and not get my hopes up.
Sure, but either move would be a bit surprising, I think.
I think Waters would be surprising given that they traded for him this summer. No idea what they think about Santos currently.
I would rather have Caboclo than Santos, personally.
edited for brevity:
I think the positional comp is more likely to be Loon. Maybe they still want to get off of Loon's contract somehow and Caboclo could fill in?
I can't see the Dubs carrying four centers plus Q Post as an emergency guy.
Yeah, it could be a “In case we include LoonDawg in a deal” looksee.
Quick question that obviously I know the answer to, but I'm just checking if you know:
Who's Bruno Caboclo??
Oh, wait, I think I saw this dude in the Olympics. Brazilian? PF? I mean, sure, can keep Gui company way in the back of the bus where the rookies sit?
In my imagniation, Draymond always sits in the most comfortable seat that takes up the most room, or maybe right behind the driver, talking away to the driver when the driver is just trying to get somewhere. Wiggins takes any quiet seat and looks out the window. Steph walks on the bus and everyone stands up, offering their seat.
I can't believe Charles Barkley was right! Steph isn't the bus driver?!
See, I read it as Asher saying Steph IS the bus driver, but when he gets up and walks on the bus while it is moving -- either around the passenger seats or perhaps floating across the top of the bus as it coasts down the highway toward Sacramento -- the urge to offer him a seat overrides their eschatological terror at seeing a driverless bus hurtling inexorably toward Forbes' Number 1 Best Place to Live In California 2024.
I was picturing Steph walking on top of the bus as he continues to demonstrate his defiance/control of gravity.
I hope this is posted on every wall in the locker room this year. Can't let the Celtics pass the Warriors.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-most-wins-last-10-years
My favorite thing about that list: The LOLakers are 24th 😁
Why is that a thing, exactly? Whether or not they pass us in a fairly arbitrary “last ten years” race, any Cs fan you bring it up with is just gonna bring up their 18 rings and end the convo.
Conversely, no Cs team ever (indeed, no NBA team ever with the possible exception of the Jordan Bulls) was ever as good as the 2014-18 Warriors, and the current Cs iteration is vanishingly unlikely to change that.
Also: the Warriors are 1-0 v the Celtics when they’ve met in the Finals, and the ‘22 “Night Night” banner will fly forever. 😊
Since the 2019 Dubs, no other team has even made it to back-to-back Finals, let alone win it back-to-back. Boston has a really good chance especially given how bad the east is but you never know...
Boston will be the favorite (having lost no one of import from last season) but the Sixers, Knicks, Bucks, Pacers, Cavs, and Magic are hardly “bad” competition, imo. I’d probably rate them 50/50-ish v the field?
I mean "bad" is relative... and 50% against the field is pretty good odds. Would you personally choose that pool of teams to go through or OKC, DEN, MIN, LAC, PHX, NOP, and LeBron + AD? EDIT: Not sure how I left out DAL with Luka, Kyrie, and KLAY (!!)
You also left out the Warriors.
Unfortunately, i think the Celtics will pass us this year.
NBA championships in the last 10 years:
Warriors: 4
Bucks: 1
Cavaliers: 1
Celtics: 1
Lakers: 1
Nuggets: 1
Raptors: 1
It will be at least 4 more years till the Warriors join that "1" group, too.
And at least one more years before anyone else gets to 2!
Last 12 years:
Warriors 4
Eight stragglers tied with 1
closer than I would like. . .
New stats are always fun. Will be curious to see how much the results align with my perception.
(You might have received a Honorary Warriors For Life article over email. That was an accidental send. It is really scheduled for next week, sorry.)
I tried to vote and it wouldn't register and I thought "what is this, Florida?"
the perils of using an email-in ballot
:)
Thank you, I am surprised to be nominated, but I accept.
< surreptitiously checks to see if he actually got an email >
Wait... so these articles are pre-recorded and not written stream of consciousness in the 15 minutes before they're published?!?!!?
Which team had better spacing, the 2020-2021 Warriors or the 2024-2025 Warriors?
Definitely the 2024-2025 warriors. The best shooters on the 20-21 squad were (in rough order) Curry, D Lee, bazemore, ‘21 Poole, Wiggins, Mulder.
24-25 warriors have Curry, Hield, Waters, Moody, Podz, Melton, Wiggs, Post (?). I think the existence of Hield, plus more average shooters makes a difference.
I think there is a case for either team but if Waters is #3 then I don't think it is as clear as you are arguing. As a team those 2020-2021 Warriors were 9th in the league in three point percentage and 5th in the league in three point attempts per game. I don't think it is a given that this team will do better than that.
Counterarguments would be:
-Curry might have been at the peak of his powers that season, what a shame that they tanked it for Wiseman. Without looking it up I'd guess no one in the NBA who has played real minutes has ever shot 13+ threes per 36 minutes at 42+%
-D Lee shot 40% from three that season on 6.5 attempts per 36
-Bazemore shot 41% from three that season on 5 attempts per 36
-Wiggins shot 38% from three that season on 5.6 attempts per 36
-Mulder shot 40% from three that season on 10 attempts per 36, also has a pretty similar career three point percentage to Waters who we are hoping is better but hasn't proven anything
-Poole's 35% from three involved more shot creation than someone like Podz had last year, if Podz' role gets elevated to something like what Poole had, it remains to be seen how his percentage is affected
-Both teams lack a stretch big man.
-Does the current team force Kuminga in at the 3 the way that 2020-2021 team forced Oubre in at the 2?
Yeah, your point is good that spacing depends on the lineups actually played, not something that can be determined by looking at the individuals. Part of my assumption is that JK only plays at the 4, and that no more than 2 of (JK, Green, SloMo, Looney, TJD) are on the floor at a time. If there are a bunch of lineups with with JK at the 3, the spacing will be terrible (and JK will look bad without the spacing, so what’s really the point).
"Both teams lack a stretch big man" - The Q Post hive would like a word with you, sir
That's true, if he's another TJD then that'd change the outlook a lot but I don't think we should be counting on that.
Don't forget that three-point-shooting beast, Draymond Green! 😉
This is going to be a fun (and opinionated) series! These rankings are always so hard... it's like ranking the best inventions of all time... every era is more advanced than the next but where would we be without fire, the wheel, and fermentation?
That would be fun too. But you would have to be very specific about types of inventions.
It's difficult to assess individual greatness based on championships won because you can be an elite player playing on crappy teams and be penalized because the FO sucks and your teammates can't help carry the load. In the earliest era, during part of which the Celtics were absolutely loaded, you could be an elite player on a very good team and not sniff a title. Before free agency, you couldn't even play out your contract and go ring chasing if that's what you wanted. And yet winning is obviously the ultimate goal. So I'm conflicted about using titles as an important measure of individual greatness.
I see it kind of as a distinction between "best" and "greatest". Greatness includes your aura, how you are perceived, your legacy, your leadership, in addition to strictly how effective you are at putting the ball in hoop and stopping your opponents. So in that way it makes sense championships are a sizable part of greatness. Player A could be better than B, but his situation negatively impacted his ability to achieve greatness, and ultimately Player B became greater.
That's not to say you can't be in "great" conversations without a ring, also I don't think ring-chasing success really alters the greatness meter that much.
Yeah. Would anyone really leave off Reggie Miller from top 75 all time because he has no rings?
I fuckin love Reggie Miller, I've got an irrationally good feeling about him.
Or Charles Barkley.
My limited memories of Barkley are from his later years. Putting his back to the basket, butt jutting out, post game...Ugly. And of course, hate his commentary stint and BS opinions.
I don't want to upset any Barkley fans, but can you argue for or against:
How good was he really at the actual game of basketball?
Yeah he really was good. Barkley could fill up the stat sheet. He was a rebounding machine, averaged double-digit boards for his career, led the league once with 14.6/gm, was 20th in boards all time.
He was 5x All NBA first team, 5x 2nd team, 12x All Star. One MVP award and top 10 in MVP voting 10 times.
His high shooting percentage (led the league 5x) was mostly because he got into the paint, not from distance, but he averaged 22.1 ppg for his career with a high of 28.3 one season. That's not just some big butt guy backing 'em in, although he certainly did his share of that, as you remembered.
Good passer too: 98th in career assists, reg season + playoffs, mostly playing the 4, and 20 triple doubles in his career. He even was a pretty good defender, including 29th all time in career steals
But he never won a ring.
This. He was amazing. Not bad for a 6’4” power forward. Skinny Barkley was an athletic marvel.
I used to watch this video all the time as a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuINS6WZyA
Yes
The Top 10 Handles From The Last 10 Years! 👀🔥 | NBA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXg56QCboqA
(As usual with these things, too much emphasis on a defender falling down, but some pretty sweet moves represented nonetheless).
My All Time NBA Top 15 (excluding all time greats like Wilt/Russel/West/Oscar because it feels disingenuous to rank them given the lack of full game footage/available statistical analysis).
1) Lebron James
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Hakeem Olajuwon
5) David Robinson
6) Shaquille O’Neal
7) Larry Bird
8) Kevin Garnett
9) Tim Duncan
10) Steph Curry
11) Magic Johnson
12) Karl Malone
13) Kevin Durant
14) Kobe Bryant
15) Dirk Nowitzki
Karl Malone over Russell and Wilt is certainly a take.
Reread my post, you'll see why I didn't include some old school legends.
Steph and Magic way too low. David Robinson, as much as I loved him, way too high. MJ hilariously in 3rd, a Sam Bowie homage perhaps? As with all lists, YMMV.
Why do u think David Robinson is way too high (who would u rank over him) and find it hilarious that MJ is third (why do u think he's better than Lebron and/or Kareem)?
I was a fan of the Admiral but I'd put Shaq and Bird above him. I was a Hakeem fan too but I might put Bird above him too because I think Bird was top 5. Even MJ had his hands full with Bird.
I rank the Admiral over Shaq because, while they scored at similar volume/efficiency (Shaq drew more defensive attention though) and Shaq was a better passer, Robinson was miles ahead defensively—rim protection, shot blocking, positioning, you name it. The offensive gap between Shaq/Robinson is much smaller than the defensive one between Robinson/Shaq.
Robinson outscored Bird with higher volume and greater efficiency throughout his career. While Bird had a higher peak in efficiency relative to his era, Robinson was consistently more overall efficient and had more seasons of elite efficiency relative to his era.
Defensively, Bird doesn’t compare—Robinson was far superior, both relative to his position and overall impact. Bird was a better passer, but I'd take the Admiral’s superior scoring and defense any day.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about Bird’s defense. I think he was an elite defender. He obviously wasn’t playing the same position as the Admiral so he wasn’t that level of rim protector but ask MJ how Bird was as a defender — Bird could frustrate MJ in a big way. Robinson (who I saw when he played for Navy and always admired) was nowhere near the shooter Bird was, albeit 3-pointers weren’t much of a thing back then so Bird didn’t attempt as many as players do today. Efficiency is misleading when one player is scoring mostly from the post and the other both scores in the post AND from midrange out to the perimeter.
Oh no, I completely agree Bird was an elite defender, but I don’t see him as an all-time great like David Robinson, who I have roughly 4th all-time. Robinson was a superior defender relative to his position and played a more impactful defensive role.
As for efficiency, ur criticisms would only apply if I was using FG% . . . I'm not. I'm utilizing TS% (which adjusts for 3 pt shooting/FT). As for Robinson being a lesser shooter than Bird . . . obviously but I don't really care because Bird limited 3pt shooting means he missed out on the efficiency bump that comes from 3pt shooting.
I don't really care HOW u put the ball in the basket, just how many points u score per possession (ppp is another stat I used). Scoring versatility is, imho, dramatically overrated by modern NBA fans.
Did any of y'all see Gilbert Arena's vid on the Draymond punching Poole situation? He claimed he got it from Warriors players, and it adds a lot of context/clears up a lot of misunderstandings from previous reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmpHQnNo8Zs
This clip is from like a year ago
It says 1 day ago for me, but maybe he just reposted this
https://www.youtube.com/live/oKGmWh1LXUs
Starts like 6 minutes in
Very unreliable source and sounds extra dramatized… but I watched every second, fascinated. It’s partly consistent with what had previously been rumored. I don’t believe the part about Poole not talking back to Dray before, as that goes against all reporting about Poole’s personality and behavior. And the part about Kerr saying Poole should stand up to Dray sounds weird too.
I don’t understand how he knew what everyone said. Was he there? Was there a recording? Is he best buddies with someone there who told him everything from both practices? Who told him everything from the plane or the trip? How did he know the exact words?
In the clip, he is not specific about his sources, but the YT video title writer (whoever they are) said Warriors players were his source. I don't know if that's just clickbait or verified by Arenas.
Well, according to the clip, the only two people who were in the room with Draymond after the punching event were Iguodala and Looney. So in theory, they are the only ones who knew what was said in that room. Rhetorical question…..Does that mean they were the sources for at least those conversations? (or was this just secondhand and thirdhand reporting). Too bad Arenas isn’t specific about where he got the ‘quotations.’
There's another spot where it's a conversation between Looney and one other person and he quotes Looney. So perhaps (?) Loon was one of his sources. Or maybe Gilbert is just making shit up. If we learn nothing else from that video it's that he likes to mess with people.
As with most of the youtube personalities, they are heavy on personality and light on actual reporting.
Not trying to answer for EA, but:
https://www.sfgate.com/warriors/article/Why-did-Warriors-Draymond-Green-argue-jordan-poole-16613084.php
This happened toward the end of 2022 regular season... 6 months before "The Punch". And JP's always been known for his confidence and brashness. Do we really need further proof that Poole did talked back to Dray?
I would prefer to not use "talk back" as a term but Poole no doubt was a big time trash talker.
Yeah, for sure Poole was a big time trash talker.
I do think "talk back" is appropriate tho, since every time somebody opens their mouth to talk some trash, the recipient of their trash talk has the opportunity to say nothing or "talk back"... Poole talked back to Dray, Dray talked back to Poole, and so on and so on.
Good link. And it’s been thoroughly reported that Poole trash talked as a rookie and that Draymond used to respect it. For instance, https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nba/golden-state-warriors/poole-explains-how-he-earned-draymonds-respect-with-warriors/1138923/
(None of this is meant to excuse Draymond’s actions.)
Kerr encourages Poole to stand up to Draymond's shit talking.
So then Poole goes to Draymond, and over and over says: "30 carrying you. You just a Gucci backpack."
Then Draymond punches Poole on a day that DG is having personal issues.
This shit is WILD.
Edited: Then GA says that it was the next practice where Poole wasn't talking shit and Draymond was going through personal stuff with his ex and his kids and he punched Poole in practice because of that.
Lol...
I do imagine Kerr tells people on the team to have a voice and a contribution, and not just be bullied into following orders. I don't think anything Kerr has ever said to a player on his team should ever have been interpreted as "go insult your teammate, that's the ticket!"
“If I can earn a punch in the face from Michael Jordan, surely you can get one from Draymond.”
"But Jordan, don't forget to duck."
There is one old timer who was a great all around athlete that was a Warrior.
He would thrive in today’s NBA. He was made for today’s NBA. He was not the most likable guy but he was one of my all time favorite players. He was really very good at a lot of other sports as well. In my opinion he was a an elite player with great skills, Mr. Rick Barry. He also holds the record for most sons who were good enough to play in the NBA. The man was very gifted.
Another one is Bernard King. Have fun guarding him in today’s league.
Bernard King had the most beautiful turnaround jump shot.
The neophyte’s list of enjoyable players. Criteria for inclusion: successful, talented, enjoyable, whose behavior was not too appalling. (Even if it was era- appropriate., sic Kobe and Wilt). Statistical geniuses may scoff, but teams attract many fans based on such non-quantifiable criteria.
T1: Magic, Curry, LeBron, Dr. J
T2: Bird, Kareem, Russell, Wilkins
T3: little tiny ~6’ or shorter flyers, Hakeem, KD
T4: King, JWest, English (and his prescient movie)
MJ on Tier 5, or?
I did not enjoy watching/hearing MJ on or off the court and still do not. We all have our bêtes noirs.
Pete Maravich and Jason Williams belong on this list somewhere. MJ as well.
Great choices, but None of them met my criteria. Clearly they were all excellent players who meet someone else’s criteria.
Why oh why does Elgin Baylor get such short shrift on these lists? He was Dr J's inspiration, and they just don't come much better than Baylor.
Sounds like you could make a great list. My list has a great deal to do with entertainment, which serious observers would not consider important.
That's a valid measure in my estimation. If the game weren't entertaining, who would watch and would we even have a pro league? So yeah, Elgin also was an amazing player all around, 10x All-NBA 1st team, no MVPs but finished top 3 4x, was an All Star 11x (all but his final two seasons), 27.4 ppg career, excellent rebounder, all that. And he was entertaining to the point that he changed the game. He led directly to Dr J and the high fliers who followed.
Of course there were players like Maravich who won't (and shouldn't) make the top 75 list based on numbers and achievements but man it doesn't get more entertaining than that guy. He was sort of like a Globetrotter within NBA rules.
I love that you have Bird in that second tier. I personally think Dr J had nothing on Bird as a player; Dr J was flashier but Bird was fun and the best trash talker who never got cold-cocked by Draymond Green. (Note to Draymond: Don't even think it; Bird was every bit as strong and tough as you.)
We could go back and forth all week with this, and you could probably change my mind on some, not others. Bernard King was definitely entertaining, and nice to see Alex English get some love. But you were not entertained by MJ? I sure was!
I believe everybody, except me, admired Michael Jordan. I believe everybody, but me, were awed by his skills. I found his behavior/personality extremely irritating. He entertained me with one dunk.
It’s like how so many people are irritated by LeBron, but I am not. And so many people hated Chris Paul, but suddenly he was the golden boy once he came and did such a good job at Golden State. It’s all relative, personal, and ephemeral to those of us who do not use statistics as a measure of worth. Although, I understand, that is the accepted way to evaluate athletes.
OK, fair enough, you were not entertained by MJ. Understood. 😊
I am not particularly irritated by LeBron. As with MJ, I watch him play and am very entertained — and sometimes awed. Yeah he whines to the refs a lot. I recall times it cost him on the court because play continued while he was busy whining. He started the trend of players forcing trades to create big 3s and such, which I dislike as a fan but they have the right to attempt it. He has been pretty cool off the court, and I respect that.
CP3 was fun to hate when he was a rival, partly because of the flopping and whining and partly because he played part of his career with arch rival Clippers and Rockets teams. I didn't like the flopping and whining but I never took the "hatred" seriously. The man loves to hoop and is an all-time great. Last season with us, he flopped and whined a lot less than we saw in the past, perhaps because the league was trying to crack down on flopping but for whatever reason, he was well behaved here, and he was a great OG for our young guys. So he mostly won me over but I have not forgotten the old flopping, whining CP3.
Top 15 something like…
Tier 1: MJ and LeBron
Tier 2: Steph, Wilt, Russell, Kareem
Tier 3: Magic and Bird
Tier 4: Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, JWest, Durant, Jokic
?
I think you probably have KAJ too low. Using your tiers, I'd go:
Tier 1: MJ, LBJ, KAJ
Tier 2: Magic, Duncan, Steph, Bird, Russell
Tier 3: Wilt, Shaq
Tier 4: Kobe, Hakeem, KD
Okay, its a pet peeve of mine, have u actually watched much film of Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell?
I've always found it odd how highly rated they are given the lack of film/stats to really evaluate their performance.
I saw Wilt live once, though I was fairly young then. I have seen a good bit of film of him. I never saw a better basketball player — ever.
For me, the counting stats and highlights on YT basically confirm how dominant Wilt was. And it wasn't just dominance in a Shaq 10-foot radius... Wilt looked like Giannis leading the break... and had a fade away jumper.
He even had a decent spot up 3-pt shot... just ask the 2022 NBA champions about it ;)
Ooooh, we just see things differently when it comes to player analysis.
Counting stats? Way too limited—they miss the bigger picture. Advanced analytics dive into the details like pace, possessions, game context, efficiency, defense, and how a player stacks up against the league.
And highlights? I never bother. They only show the flashy stuff and skip over the real value—a player's consistent, smart decisions on every play. It's those little things—sharp passing, solid defensive positioning, shot selection, setting good screens—that really matter but never make the highlight reel.
Here's the thing: that's all we have. We don't have advanced analytics and we don't have full games from that era. So do we just dismiss everything from back then?
Or maybe we try to extrapolate given the data and film that we *do* have. And re: counting stats: we're not talking about averaging 30pts and 12 rebs... it's 50 pts and 26 rebs (30/23 for his career) which is an *extreme* outlier.
We can respect their greatness in their era and their role in shaping the game, but don’t tell me you can seriously compare Wilt to Steph when you’ve barely seen Wilt play and only have basic stats to go on.
There is so much more to the game of basketball and I just can't take any ranking seriously that bases part of its analysis on such shitty data. Just leave the old GOATS in the annals of history, dont drag them into rigorous discourse.
(Oh and if u adjust Wilts counting stats to modern pace/minutes, he averages 29.6 ppg and 12.1 rebounds. Still All Star numbers, but nowhere near the extreme outlier that u thought. Almost as if counting stats are very poor tools that we should set aside)
> We can respect their greatness in their era
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm *not* comparing Steph (or any modern player) to Wilt. My list would evaluate a player's impact in their era vs. other player's impact *in their era*.
Every era is a little better than the previous one, and so comparing across eras is just really difficult, at best, if not futile.
> if u adjust Wilts counting stats to modern pace/minutes, he averages 29.6 ppg and 12.1 rebounds
And how does that compare to players of that time?
> have u actually watched much film of Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell?
Some, not that much. Of course I’m not overly impressed with their skill level relative to that of today’s players (IIRC, Bill Simmons described Wilt as something like “DeAndre Jordan playing against junior high school kids”) but I give them legend points for having dominated their era.
From some of the highlights I've seen on YT, it's more like Giannis against middle schoolers. There are lots of highlights of him leading fast breaks and even throwing some fancy passes.
They had the same training, concepts, and nutrition available to them as their temporal peers... and they stood out, so that's worth something.
Comparing across eras is just hard... there's subtly different rules (e.g. hand checking, zone defense), training (e.g. smoking & drinking is bad, ever evolving strength & conditioning training), and tactics that have been developed (e.g. 3>2, mid range shots are bad m'kay) that have changed the way the game is played. I, personally, tend to believe in two things:
1. Within eras, the greats are the greats.
2. Today's players are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them, and are therefore able to achieve higher levels of performance.
Separately, not to toot my own horn, but I understand things like "gravity exerts the same acceleration on all objects", "E=MC^2", and that a wing can be designed to create lift, but that doesn't mean I'm as intelligent as Newton, Einstein, or the Wright brothers... I can just learn and apply their knowledge.
Agree with everything you say, this is why I have separate lists for greatest players of all time AND best players of all time.
In Greatest Players Of All Time rankings, i take into account performance relative to peers a lot more for example.
Solid list I'd probably have Steph down with Magic and Bird. Wilt may be too high. Giannis should probably be on the list somewhere. Jokic will probably be higher but is fair enough there for now. It's all handwaving anyway.
Wow. Is this your day job? This looks very time consuming. Maybe I am too new to the game but I would exclude the olden days. Start with the 1980? I do not think you can compare the previous years to today, for various reasons. That said, I have my top three and no list, no stats, no facts are going to change that.😁
Took a look at the metric breakdown, appreciate all the work that must have gone into it! I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
I do think one challenge is, with so many somewhat random subjective levers to pull (and with some of them only affecting a couple players), you can likely calibrate it to return roughly the results you want. For example if Bird is looking too low in your opinion, tweak up that 3x in a row MVP bonus a bit and see if you like it better.
I also worry about the inclusion of 3pm as a core stat. Basically all leaders are current / very recent players, and it raises the question why other scoring methods such as FTM aren't included. The impact of the 3 is already included in points and efficiency, to count it again seems to just favor one way of scoring over the other.
You don’t have to introduce “The Beast.”
I’ve been married to her for years.
Boom!!
(+30 if you know where I stole that joke from)