I think given his opportunities, Moody deserved at least a B. Really, it's hard to assign grades to all of these guys, but I recognize that would make for a really boring series of articles. But I do think that a) Moody did not sit so much because of his shortcomings as a player as he did because of the team's goals and b) when he got his chance, he was very good. He was admittedly not the kind of world-beater who forces his way into the rotation (like GPII), but considering that he was drafted at 19, I have to think that the expectation was that he would take time (at least a couple of years) to develop. Measured on that expectation, he is at least on schedule.
The question with Moody is always about his ceiling; I think most already agree that he'll be a solid pro. But can he be special? He's got the intangibles. I'm excited to see if he can take a leap this year.
He’s an NBA champ. Enough said.
These grades are fair, with what you have to work with, but also: consider how the team performed in those games and minutes where all the max-contract guys were out. Beat San Antonio, scared the heck out of Dallas (in the playoffs!), etc. The Warriors last season were *deeeeep* and the rookies were definitely part of it.
Win Shares tried to quantify a player's overall impact including how much they're available and actually trusted with playing time. So yeah, I think it'll show us something close to true value of a draft pick by the time the player's rookie contract is done. Until then, it's really sensitive to playing time, and the Chasing Wins Dubs simply didn't give the rookies the same learning space as other teams—especially with 15th man GPII becoming a phenomenon and the core 4 being healthy through most of the playoffs. You can see in the efficiency numbers that both Kuminga and Moody made the most of what time they got, and it's not hard to argue they'd be a lot higher in various rookie rankings if they'd been called to play more.
In the circumstances, I like Kerr and crew's approach, and I think a lot of us here are very excited to see how well the young guys do given more minutes this season. But it's also fair to say, the vets were getting time ahead of the rookies for good reason, so they have some growing to do to live up to our expectations.
On paper, this year's team (so far) is worse than last year's (turned out to be). But if Moody delivers on the potential we saw glimpses of last season, that does a lot to close the gap.
Looks like the Dubs have announced some promotions/hirings to their operations department, including promoting Klay's brother to Nick U'ren's old job as video coordinator. https://twitter.com/WarriorsPR/status/1568283402784378882/photo/1
I had concerns about his emotional stability...but what's in a name?
I will definitely say, there is some tough grading in this process. I have a hard time giving a grade on a single season performance, unless the test is based on 'this year or bust'. A dynasty is, by definition, a period of rule over a protracted period of time. Therefore, a test of someone's contribution to the 'dynasty' should include more years, even if some of those years are projections and subject to debate. C is for culture, and considering how important culture is to winning in this organization, if a player exhibits that they are a cultural fit, to me that is a C grade as the baseline, regardless of strength of play. There are no D or F grades on the Warriors. Anyone below a C wasn't a cultural fit, and thus not a Warrior. My next grade is on System Fit. If a player shows that they can play within the Warrior's offensive and defensive schemes, then that gives any player a B. My final test is can the player excel in multiple facets of the game. And this is where A grades come out for me. In Sum
Culture. (you need a C to get in the door.)
System. (you need to B a part of the system)
Excel in the System. (when you give up selfish Attachments, your A-game will Arrive)
My grades would be different because I would include projections based on these factors. In my book,
JK has a ? on Culture (which I personally disregard and attribute to youth).
Wiseman a ? on System (is this just Wiseman or is the team responsible for some of this. I mean, they didn't draft him to be Looney.)
And Moody a ? on Excelling in the system. (Does he have a ceiling beyond very good?)
In the end, my grades all end up higher, but I admit, I am projecting contributions to the "Dynasty" which I believe extends beyond last season.
Like apparently everyone else here I’m extremely high on Moody. Besides all the reasons mentioned already, I’ve got two more:
1. His intangibles seem like they’re a major asset. From his BBIQ to his work ethic to his very likable personality, he seems to check all the boxes that you’d want in a teammate. I anticipate him being a low-maintenance guy that we can count on to make correct, smart plays and put the team first.
2. He seems like an ideal backcourt pairing with Poole. Much like Steph and Klay*, their personalities and games seem to be very complementary, especially Moody’s length and defensive abilities when paired with Poole’s playmaking.
*I’m not saying Poole and Moody will find the same levels of success that the Splash Brothers have, but yes I’m totally saying that and it’s 100% going to happen.
I was going to write that I think Moody and Kuminga should have the same grade, but I guess when you take into account where they were picked I think C+ to C makes sense. If you swapped Moody and Kuminga's draft slots I'd probably swap the grades too.
This article is completely invalid because it doesn't consider Chris "Greatest Player Of All Time" Duarte who the Warriors DESPERATELY wanted to pick up, offering Joe Lacob's next unborn son in trade, but the Pacers knew they had the #1 player in the draft and wouldn't part with him, much to GSW's devastation. Many local Indiana reporters and bloggers have reported this, so it must be true.
C+ is fair from a dynasty perspective, but Moody was a completely different player from the beginning of February to the end of the season and even with the slow start ended up with higher eFG and TS than Bones Hyland. In the playoffs Moody made over 50% of his 3s for an EFG of 66% *and* played decent defense. Kispert and Trey Murphy III were a little better during the regular season, but they are both 3-5 years older. They should be better. The Warriors should be thrilled that they got Moody at 14.
I am personally very high on Moody and feel that, if he gets playing time this season, will start breaking out. Being able to play in the Conference Finals for spot minutes at age 19 without a major hitch is nothing short of impressive. Many within the org expect him to provide some counting stats this season, which is high praise. If a time traveler from the future came and told us that Moody would be the most impactful player of the last three drafts for the Warriors this season, I would be unsurprised.
The Warriors were too deep last year for almost any rookie to really matter. It would have been different if someone had been hurt or if Klay had been unable to make his return. Now that they've undeepened themselves, we'll have a much better read on the kids at the end of this season.
Young Moses’ G-League stats at age 19 (yeah, G-League, but those 5 games are one of the few samples where he’s really been unleashed and allowed to spread his wings):
**29.8 pts per 36** on .609 true shooting
Given his young age and great length, I’d still give him a decent shot to be a top 5-6 player in his draft class (maybe along with Mobley, Barnes, Cunningham, Green, and Kuminga).