I’ve decided the “choice” between Klay, Dray, Wiggs, and Poole is actually a no brainer. You keep the three you drafted because in future cba land that could make a ton of difference to cap and taxes.
Dray and Klay age 33-36 v Wiggs age 27-30 is far from a no-brainer, imo.
I could see a scenario where one or both of Klay and Dray looks old, neither JK nor Moody blossoms as much as we hope, and Wiggs continues to be the defensive and rebounding fool he was in the playoffs, making himself totally indispensable.
I could also see a scenario where Klay, Dray, Moody, Kuminga and Baldwin all look amazing, Wiggs regresses a bit from his playoff beastliness, and the idea of paying Wiggs $30M+ to be a 6th forward seems totally ridiculous.
Or … somewhere in between.
We’ll know a whole lot more next summer, but for right now I think it’s a definite brainer.
Could be, but barring extreme weirdness, I doubt they’d inflict any major changes to the roster in the middle of *this season*, with their championship window wide open.
In 2023-24 the Big 3 will all be a year older.
Letting Wiggs (or Poole, or Dray) go for nothing next summer is imho a far less bad outcome than knowingly taking an integral piece off this season’s roster for fear that they might be a flight risk.
Yeah. That'd be an actual case of wasting Curry's prime: sacrificing their best chance at a championship this year to avoid losing Wiggins for nothing
(I am an early and permanent resident of Wiggins island and if they have to make a choice, they should keep Wiggins and figure something else out, in my opinion)
I know we’re all in on dynasty analysis, especially because the our local squad just happens to be one! And, yay!
But, as much as every team, player, owner, coach talks about drafting, training, building, planning the process to win win win! that championship, we all know that almost nobody wins. 1 team per year. 11 teams in the last 24 years. So we know that when we get past the rah-rah talk, teams are planning around different goals. Profitability? Making the playoffs? Having a winning season? Winning a playoff series? The people who own the teams are usually competent business people, so they are planning around attainable goals, with stretch goals (rings) being nice but not necessary. So how do we evaluate teams against those goals? Pick one that we can know the answer to (like making the playoffs) and we can really judge management.
The Golden 4th Max Salary Slot. Why it meant so much before and why it means so little now.
The last spike in TV money (and the best team friendly deal in NBA history, Curry 4 yr / 44 mil) allowed the Warriors to grab KD in free agency. The last CBA was crafted to leave teams the ability to carry 2 max players and a good mix of salaries to fill out a roster OR 3 max salaries and a roster full of vet mins. The NBA wants parity, it wants to spread its top players throughout the league. But the NBA Players Union, led by one Chris Paul at that time, wanted all the TV money put into the first year rather than the 3 year phase-in plan that the league had suggested. This opened the door for KD to join the Dubs. Another great assist from the Point God, Chris Paul.
More important than the 4th max salary slot was obtaining a player's Bird Rights which enables a team to exceed the salary cap, taxes be damned. Thus, the Warriors were in a position that no other team in the league could really compete with. They could, within the rules, retain 4 max salary players or "slots". When KD left in FA, there was little concern for what player the Warriors could obtain to replace KD. The truth is, the salary cap restricted them from obtaining a player anywhere in the vicinity of KD. What was more important was that they retain the salary slot that KD occupied. It is commonly believed that KD did the Warriors a solid and agreed to a sign-and-trade with the Nets. KD wasn't being entirely altruistic. His agreeing to the sign-and-trade that brought D Russell to GSW served him & the Nets as well. The important point was, the Warriors were able to retain their 4th Max Salary Slot. And this was the tool they needed to reload after KD's exit
Forward to one of the best trades in NBA history. Russel for Wiggins and a top 4 protected pick that turned into Kuminga. But let's remember, what did most people think about this trade? Yeah, we still have that max salary slot. Wiggins wasn't for the long road. He was a chip to be played when the time is right. He was a salary slot. And over time, a damn good looking salary slot.
The long winded point I am trying to make here is that that 4th Max Salary Slot was a formula for winning championships. It gave the Warriors a definitive advantage over the rest of the league only constrained by their willingness to pay luxury taxes.
Meanwhile, through misfortune and drafting wizardry, the Warriors assembled a group of players that would make that 4th Max Salary Slot irrelevant. What matters here is Bird Rights. We have the Bird Rights to so many promising players that the 4th Max Salary Slot that was once so coveted is now almost an albatross. Wiggins could play the final year of his contract, then go somewhere else in free agency, and there would be no desire to replicate what they did when KD left. Sure, if the Warriors can grab a couple draft picks in the deal, take it. But given the rise of Poole and the 3 lottery pick projected salaries, the championship 4 max salary formula is now defunct, dead, kaput, vershlieben (not sure if that is a word, just seem to remember Lilly Von Shtupp saying something like that in Blazing Saddles).
Long Live the 4th Max Salary Slot. You served us well. We salute you. Now sit back, enjoy your retirement, and tune into the future Warriors. A Dunk Fest is on the horizon. Long bombs and viscous dunks.
Monte and Dalton discuss Poole’s extension. They also talk about a hypothetical decision between Wiggins and Poole and both thought Poole would be the one they keep. Playmakers like Poole are harder to find than wings and they’ve got wings that need to eat.
Just imagine if Moody, Wiseman and Kuminga make the kind of 2nd-year leaps this season as Jordan Poole did in 2020-21.
I wonder if Poole getting a ton of minutes on a crap team was better for him long-term, than Moody and Kuminga getting fewer minutes, but surrounded by great players showing them the way.
Here's an unanswerable question: is the drafting, or player development, that is more important? Could Looney, Poole, or even free agents like GPII, JTA, and others have succeeded in, say, Phoenix or Minnesota? Our Wiggins?
To me, the story of GP2 tells you that team culture, role and development are pivotal (GP2 was on 5 previous teams and everyone had years to pull him out of the G-League), but also the importance of dumb luck — GSW very nearly cut GP2 for Avery Bradley.
The Wiggins example also shows culture, role, development are paramount, but so is dumb luck (GSW valued Wiggins so ill that they tried to get 3 1st round picks added to Wiggins to trade for D’Angelo). If MIN hadn’t thrown in the 1st rounder, GSW wouldn’t have done the deal. In retrospect, it was probably worth doing that deal straight up or even throwing in assets on GSW’s side.
Why (he lazily wonders) did GP2 not succeed on his past teams. His defense and hops, combined with adequate scoring, seemed so obvious. Was it really just bad coaching, or was he a late bloomer?
I do think his ability to make open 3's was the difference maker in achieving "adequate" scoring and that's something that the Warriors staff encouraged him to work on. His 3pt numbers are noisy but it looks like they were bad his first few years, improved in Washington, and stabilized to a good-enough number on GSW. So, that kind of splits the difference between "late bloomer" and "bad coaching" up to that point.
Really though it took the Warriors coaching staff to recognize just how special his defense is *and* figure out how to fit his skills into lineups that work.
I would have to dig onto the lineup data further to really know how they did it, but I suspect it has something to do with having bigs who can handle and pass (note: Bjelica has a sneakily good drive, and we know Dray can handle). That way, Payton can be less like a "point guard" and more like a "center" on offense, while still being more like a point guard on defense.
I don’t know the details, but from one perspective, he’s a point guard who can’t shoot, can’t create his own shot, can’t dribble or pass THAT well. It took the Warriors to play him as the smallest smallball center in history.
This stuff is so fascinating! Forgive me if this has been asked/answered before, but if the goal is to see how well the Warriors drafted compared, would it not be smart to look at the four or five drafts leading up to the first title (or finals appearance)? I find it interest to see how champions are built as well as how they’re sustained.
The task I was addressing with the article series was "did the Warriors ruin the dynasty with crap drafting"? It sounds charmingly quaint, but that was a dominant question from 2019 to Jun 15 2022.
So all grades are with respect to exactly that. How much did each pick literally add to MAINTAINING the dynasty?
As for how Dynasties are drafted, that's an interesting different question... let me do a quick look.
Our Warriors. TOTAL luck. Drafted Steph at #7 after MIN takes Rubio and Flynn ahead of them. Good drafting to ID Klay and Dray, but that was kind of lucky too. Great team culture building to amplify Steph's superpowers.
LeBron-Love-Kyrie Cleveland Cavaliers - Total absolute luck. They lucked into LeBron, then couldn't keep him, then won the lottery THREE YEARS out of four (#1 picks in 2011, 2013, 2014) to get Kyrie and the capital to get LeBron back.
LeBron-Wade-Bosh Miami Heat. - Total skill by LBJ/Wade/Bosh to assemble the team in free agency. No drafting skill here (even getting Wade... getting the 4th player in a 4 hall-of-fame player draft when DET craps the bed by taking Darko... that's luck there)
Shaq-Kobe and Kobe-Pau Lakers. Skill by Jerry West to note Kobe's potential and to trade for his draft rights. Shaq was great free agency salesmanship. Massive disappointment until Phil Jackson brought the triangle and got Kobe to buy in barely enough to win titles.
Dynasty Spurs, the Raid Boss - TOTAL luck tanking during the Tim Duncan year and winning the lottery. Then brilliant drafting by exploitation of the NBA's ignorance of the International player market.
Michael Jordan Bulls - total luck drafting Jordan at #3, as POR took Bowie at #2. Lucked out that Pippen was as good as he was. Still didn't win anything until lucked out that Jordan accepted Phil Jackson's triangle O.
Bad Boy Pistons and Julius Erving Sixers. I don't know these stories as well.
Larry Bird Celtics. BOS famously tanked for two years to get Bird, drafting him a year early.
Magic Johnson Lakers. LAL got the pick in a free agency compensation related trade and lucked out that it was the Magic year.
Sir, really impressive quick analysis. Hard to argue with all those facts and flat out luck.
But. Winning that first ring also takes skill, hard work, good coaching, good FO Free agent finds/deals, culture, buy-in by the players. I’d probably argue that the longer the period of excellence, the more skill is demonstrated by the entire org (FO, Coaches, Players). Luck still plays a part (especially dodging the nasty injury bug) but less so.
Too funny. I had never heard of Encyclopedia Brown before (and thus my post was not an allusion to it).
Your ability to pull old NBA stuff out is much better than mine. I lived through it, and watched the NBA since the 80s, but I barely remember any of it.
Looks like you are using total minutes, but why not total playoff minutes divided by total available playoff minutes, giving a percent of usage? Teams in earlier eras played smaller numbers of playoff games (some best of 5), and more dominant teams (AKA, Warriors) played fewer 7 game series, and thus had fewer available minutes.
Also, as noted by jzalvadaro, the Warriors also drafted picks/acquired players that they didn't retain who have proven to have been good selections, but were not retained for salary cap reasons. (He mentions Damian Jones, but also Chris Boucher (undrafted, but picked up on a two-way in 2017 - but Warriors were his first professional signing), Kendrick Nunn (undrafted in 2018). The latter two guys were signed by Santa Cruz, and even though undrafted, are a credit to Myers and his team.
It's a good idea, but I'll let someone else publish the rate analysis. I did that in my prep for the series (it's actually in my original 2020 article) but didn't find it changed conclusions and it was a lot of work and was hard to interpret. So I opted to go with the number that was easier to understand.
I agree about the picks you mention. In the series index, I have published extensive articles diving deep into the cases of Boucher, Nunn. They were held up as examples of GSW irresponsibly letting good players go, but in fact in the context, it was impossible to keep them.
There's also one about Damian Jones, though that's a less interesting story.
Totally appreciate the hard work you and your DNHQ partners put in to give us insights about the Warriors and NBA basketball in general. Thanks.
I'm just about as wary of conclusions based on statistics as I am to judgments about personal attributes founded on observed behavior. Both are impacted by (often unstated) assumptions. But the question of how to evaluate talent is clearly one that GMs have to answer; the better they do it, the easier road to building a successful team. But "easier" is not the same as "the only way."
So for your next bravura act, please assess the "dynasties" with respect to their approach to and success at developing players who chose to stay. Again, many thanks for your contributions to my enjoyment of the Warriors.
Glad you are so interested and have such good ideas!
I (also) don’t believe in just relying on the numbers which is why I wrote a series, not just this article. Check out the ten-part series of articles on the actual dynasty drafts as they come out, and see what I’m missing.
For the Dubs then, it basically comes down to Looney. Take him out of the equation and the Warriors’ dynasty drafting rank falls pretty far. Not saying we should do this, as I’m sure a very small number of players makes the difference in their drafting success or failure for every team.
This fits with one of the reasons that I enjoy the NBA so much. A small number of players have the majority of the impact on a team’s success. We know who to root for, who to pay attention to on the court, who to identify with. We get to know a little about the people, and we can connect with them just a tad. Curry is a cool dude, I like him, and am interested in him. Take him out of the Dubs’ rotation and we might have a ring or two fewer.
It is such a huge pleasure to have a team with so many impact players. And to have Eric Explaining One Play at a time so I can learn who to actually watch.
Re-signing Loon ended up being a huge win-win. Had Looney not been re-signed, I expect he would have found a spot on an NBA roster, but I'm not convinced he ever would have been much. Other teams would be frustrated by his relative lack of shooting and limited athleticism, and they wouldn't take as much advantage of his smarts and pick-setting. It worked out for everyone involved -- a cause to celebrate.
Addendum: I meant signing him after his rookie deal. His most recent signing was also good, but by now, it's clear that he can contribute at a high level. I think more teams would want him and be able to use him now. Before, that was less certain...
At this point in Looneys career, I expect he’d find minutes anywhere that has a decent coach. He just makes good, sound, winning plays because he knows good limitations and has figured out how to play within them.
Yes, for sure. Perhaps I was being too subtle in my little joke. To be clear, without Curry I doubt we would have won any titles. Now that was a good draft pick!
With an assist from the Minnesota front office. I don't even know who they are, but I love them. Between Curry and Wiggs (for DeAngelo Russell, no less), we owe them big-time.
I was just listening to the Lowe Post podcast this morning with Ramona Shelburne and he was advocating starting Damian Jones as he states he’s very high on Jones and thought other teams should have given up some draft capital last year to pry Jones off Sacramentos roster
Saying all that, if indeed Jones plays well for the Lakers this year, can we honestly add that as a very good draft pick for the Dubs. I get he’s not playing for us anymore but you’re talking a still fairly young c who is starting to come into his own.. no less as the 30th pick in the draft. I’d say that’s solid drafting regardless.
Jones fell down in the draft because he was injured which is the same reason the Warriors got Looney at #30, and (maybe) PBJ at #28. I don't know if it is an intentional strategy to draft players whose college performance was hindered by injury, but it seems like a good idea as the chance of getting an NBA starter that late in the draft seems pretty low. Jones illustrates the counter argument; by the time the player gets healthy enough to play, roster issues result in him playing for somebody else.
Eh, we probably could have kept Jones if we weren’t all in on the KD era dynasty. Hard to keep projects around when you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The tricky thing with the Spurs is when the dynasty began/ended. If you start after their first finals win of the "Duncan era" and go until their last, then you include Parker, Manu, Kawhi, which I presume would blow everyone else (other than maybe showtime Lakers) out of the water. I realize that over the long 1999-2014 span they don't meet the 50% finals criteria, and you need some criteria to base it on. But it just doesn't quite feel representative of how that dynasty is generally viewed (ie lasting more than 4 years).
And I think the years after the dynasty, as defined for this exercise, heavily impacts how people think about Spurs and drafting/personnel. They didn't make it to the Finals in between '08-'12 but in that span, they were always in the mix, drafting very late:
2007: Splitter (stashed and didn't even play until 2010)
2008: George Hill (solid player and eventually helped get Kawhi)
2011: Corey Joseph
And then there's Oberto who was part of the dynasty years but wasn't a draft pick.
I agree it is tricky. But I am at peace with my approach, because I'm trying to study dynasty drafting, not skilled general drafting..
When people were crushing GSW for bad drafting that ruined the dynasty, they didn't count drafting Steph, Klay, Dray as great GSW dynasty drafting. They wanted to see great drafting AFTER the dynasty started that maintained it.
In the same way, we should not count Spurs drafting Duncan/Manu/Parker as *dynasty* drafting. And in fact, I was surprised to see that they *spoiler alert* got almost nothing in their draft to sustain dynastic level success.
Kawhi is the best example of extending the dynasty, but honestly they fell off their peak for a while before Kawhi came in.
Sep 10, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022Liked by Eric Apricot
Right but the Spurs won in 1999 and were a top team ever since (no high draft picks). So I think many would say the Spurs dynasty started after they won in 99, like the Warriors started after they won 2015. I get there has to be some cutoff though, and due to meeting Shaq Lakers they went a few years without a finals. But it's also a bit weird that if Spurs had made it to and lost one more finals between 2000-2008, then that would have magically qualified Manu and Parker as dynasty picks when they aren't now.
1999. Title, famously called “asterisk” by Phil Jackson for the shorten year
2000. Lost in 1st round
2001. Lost in WCF (0-4 sweep!!)
2002. Lost in 2nd round
In my opinion, you can’t call that a dynasty. And in 2003 nobody was calling it a dynasty either. Fairly or not, in 2003, they were known as just the team that lucked into the one title and never got near the Finals again.
Additional thought. (You can tell you hit something interesting! I thought about this a lot while deciding on the dynasties.)
The Toronto Raptors won the title in 2019. In the three years after, they won 3 post-first-round games. (The Spurs won 4 in the three years after.)
If they start winning titles again, are we really going to say their drafting Scottie Barnes extended the dynasty? No, they aren’t anywhere close to a dynasty now. We would say, they started a dynasty.
And honestly, no one would call them a dynasty if they won this year either. It would probably take… AHEM… going to a majority of finals in a span of time.
I get it, and I appreciate all the responses. Really there is no true answer. On the majority of finals in a span, you then have to have the Heat dynasty as 2006-2014, with 5 finals in 9 years. But I agree I don't really view the 2006 team as part of the 2011-14 "dynasty". But I guess that shows a limitation in that strict definition. Dynasties are always going to be viewed retroactively -- of course in 2003 no one would view the Spurs as a dynasty. But after they won in 2007, I think people would view 4 wins in 1999-2007 as a singular dynasty, especially when their best player remained the same throughout all wins. Raptors are a bit different as their main players have left.
Anyway, Spurs are a little weird compared to most traditional "dynasties" as their whole thing was being very good for a long period of time, and leveraging that to 5 championships. The reason they are considered elite at drafting is because they were able to use low draft picks to keep their playoff streak going for 20 years. If you instead day their dynasty is only 4 years, one of the shortest of all dynasties, of course their draft picks are going to be relatively insignificant.
So I guess I'll concede this classification, but then it's silly to call Spurs a "raid boss". Spurs are considered good at drafting because they won 5 times between 1999-2014 without ever being in the lottery. If we define their era as a limited 4 year time between when they drafted good players, it's not surprising that they don't score well.
I’ve decided the “choice” between Klay, Dray, Wiggs, and Poole is actually a no brainer. You keep the three you drafted because in future cba land that could make a ton of difference to cap and taxes.
Dray and Klay age 33-36 v Wiggs age 27-30 is far from a no-brainer, imo.
I could see a scenario where one or both of Klay and Dray looks old, neither JK nor Moody blossoms as much as we hope, and Wiggs continues to be the defensive and rebounding fool he was in the playoffs, making himself totally indispensable.
I could also see a scenario where Klay, Dray, Moody, Kuminga and Baldwin all look amazing, Wiggs regresses a bit from his playoff beastliness, and the idea of paying Wiggs $30M+ to be a 6th forward seems totally ridiculous.
Or … somewhere in between.
We’ll know a whole lot more next summer, but for right now I think it’s a definite brainer.
Trading away Wiggins brings back roughly equal salaries, though. It wouldn’t accomplish the salary-relief that they’d be looking for.
Could be, but barring extreme weirdness, I doubt they’d inflict any major changes to the roster in the middle of *this season*, with their championship window wide open.
In 2023-24 the Big 3 will all be a year older.
Letting Wiggs (or Poole, or Dray) go for nothing next summer is imho a far less bad outcome than knowingly taking an integral piece off this season’s roster for fear that they might be a flight risk.
Yeah. That'd be an actual case of wasting Curry's prime: sacrificing their best chance at a championship this year to avoid losing Wiggins for nothing
(I am an early and permanent resident of Wiggins island and if they have to make a choice, they should keep Wiggins and figure something else out, in my opinion)
Keep all 4.
I know we’re all in on dynasty analysis, especially because the our local squad just happens to be one! And, yay!
But, as much as every team, player, owner, coach talks about drafting, training, building, planning the process to win win win! that championship, we all know that almost nobody wins. 1 team per year. 11 teams in the last 24 years. So we know that when we get past the rah-rah talk, teams are planning around different goals. Profitability? Making the playoffs? Having a winning season? Winning a playoff series? The people who own the teams are usually competent business people, so they are planning around attainable goals, with stretch goals (rings) being nice but not necessary. So how do we evaluate teams against those goals? Pick one that we can know the answer to (like making the playoffs) and we can really judge management.
Wut?
The Golden 4th Max Salary Slot. Why it meant so much before and why it means so little now.
The last spike in TV money (and the best team friendly deal in NBA history, Curry 4 yr / 44 mil) allowed the Warriors to grab KD in free agency. The last CBA was crafted to leave teams the ability to carry 2 max players and a good mix of salaries to fill out a roster OR 3 max salaries and a roster full of vet mins. The NBA wants parity, it wants to spread its top players throughout the league. But the NBA Players Union, led by one Chris Paul at that time, wanted all the TV money put into the first year rather than the 3 year phase-in plan that the league had suggested. This opened the door for KD to join the Dubs. Another great assist from the Point God, Chris Paul.
More important than the 4th max salary slot was obtaining a player's Bird Rights which enables a team to exceed the salary cap, taxes be damned. Thus, the Warriors were in a position that no other team in the league could really compete with. They could, within the rules, retain 4 max salary players or "slots". When KD left in FA, there was little concern for what player the Warriors could obtain to replace KD. The truth is, the salary cap restricted them from obtaining a player anywhere in the vicinity of KD. What was more important was that they retain the salary slot that KD occupied. It is commonly believed that KD did the Warriors a solid and agreed to a sign-and-trade with the Nets. KD wasn't being entirely altruistic. His agreeing to the sign-and-trade that brought D Russell to GSW served him & the Nets as well. The important point was, the Warriors were able to retain their 4th Max Salary Slot. And this was the tool they needed to reload after KD's exit
Forward to one of the best trades in NBA history. Russel for Wiggins and a top 4 protected pick that turned into Kuminga. But let's remember, what did most people think about this trade? Yeah, we still have that max salary slot. Wiggins wasn't for the long road. He was a chip to be played when the time is right. He was a salary slot. And over time, a damn good looking salary slot.
The long winded point I am trying to make here is that that 4th Max Salary Slot was a formula for winning championships. It gave the Warriors a definitive advantage over the rest of the league only constrained by their willingness to pay luxury taxes.
Meanwhile, through misfortune and drafting wizardry, the Warriors assembled a group of players that would make that 4th Max Salary Slot irrelevant. What matters here is Bird Rights. We have the Bird Rights to so many promising players that the 4th Max Salary Slot that was once so coveted is now almost an albatross. Wiggins could play the final year of his contract, then go somewhere else in free agency, and there would be no desire to replicate what they did when KD left. Sure, if the Warriors can grab a couple draft picks in the deal, take it. But given the rise of Poole and the 3 lottery pick projected salaries, the championship 4 max salary formula is now defunct, dead, kaput, vershlieben (not sure if that is a word, just seem to remember Lilly Von Shtupp saying something like that in Blazing Saddles).
Long Live the 4th Max Salary Slot. You served us well. We salute you. Now sit back, enjoy your retirement, and tune into the future Warriors. A Dunk Fest is on the horizon. Long bombs and viscous dunks.
Dominos Meniscus Meyers.
Amen.
Dominos Meniscus Meyers??? Lol I think there’s a Latin joke in there but I just cannot decode it.
"Dominus vobiscum" (the lord be with you) is traditional greeting in church, and start of several portions of latin mass.
My old latin teacher, Father Flynn, told a joke, I think about a priest who joined the police force which ended with, "Dominick, go frisk 'em."
Forgive me if this has already been shared, but there’s a new DubsTalk https://youtu.be/xFmzlDxgTjs
Monte and Dalton discuss Poole’s extension. They also talk about a hypothetical decision between Wiggins and Poole and both thought Poole would be the one they keep. Playmakers like Poole are harder to find than wings and they’ve got wings that need to eat.
Agreed with MP and DJ.
Guys who could conceivably take Wiggs’ minutes and role: Thompson, Kuminga, Moody, Baldwin, Santos.
Guys who could conceivably take Poole’s minutes and role: … ummmmmm … Ryan Rollins? Mac McClung? Chiozza? Help me out here…
We’ve both been on the “Poole is the priority” (“Poolority”?) train for a while, so I’m pretty sure they’re just echoing us to sound smart 😁
I might list Gui as the possible eventual playmaker over Mac, but am really curious how Rollins fits in.
Just imagine if Moody, Wiseman and Kuminga make the kind of 2nd-year leaps this season as Jordan Poole did in 2020-21.
I wonder if Poole getting a ton of minutes on a crap team was better for him long-term, than Moody and Kuminga getting fewer minutes, but surrounded by great players showing them the way.
Here's an unanswerable question: is the drafting, or player development, that is more important? Could Looney, Poole, or even free agents like GPII, JTA, and others have succeeded in, say, Phoenix or Minnesota? Our Wiggins?
Open Court Executives Edition - Drafting Players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEKaADDICT8
If anyone finds the full episode I recall a bit where it is asked Talent vs Culture Fit. Every GM says Talent. Only BobGod says Fit... This is the way
To me, the story of GP2 tells you that team culture, role and development are pivotal (GP2 was on 5 previous teams and everyone had years to pull him out of the G-League), but also the importance of dumb luck — GSW very nearly cut GP2 for Avery Bradley.
The Wiggins example also shows culture, role, development are paramount, but so is dumb luck (GSW valued Wiggins so ill that they tried to get 3 1st round picks added to Wiggins to trade for D’Angelo). If MIN hadn’t thrown in the 1st rounder, GSW wouldn’t have done the deal. In retrospect, it was probably worth doing that deal straight up or even throwing in assets on GSW’s side.
Why (he lazily wonders) did GP2 not succeed on his past teams. His defense and hops, combined with adequate scoring, seemed so obvious. Was it really just bad coaching, or was he a late bloomer?
I do think his ability to make open 3's was the difference maker in achieving "adequate" scoring and that's something that the Warriors staff encouraged him to work on. His 3pt numbers are noisy but it looks like they were bad his first few years, improved in Washington, and stabilized to a good-enough number on GSW. So, that kind of splits the difference between "late bloomer" and "bad coaching" up to that point.
Really though it took the Warriors coaching staff to recognize just how special his defense is *and* figure out how to fit his skills into lineups that work.
I would have to dig onto the lineup data further to really know how they did it, but I suspect it has something to do with having bigs who can handle and pass (note: Bjelica has a sneakily good drive, and we know Dray can handle). That way, Payton can be less like a "point guard" and more like a "center" on offense, while still being more like a point guard on defense.
I don’t know the details, but from one perspective, he’s a point guard who can’t shoot, can’t create his own shot, can’t dribble or pass THAT well. It took the Warriors to play him as the smallest smallball center in history.
Minnesota could offer to throw Ant in the deal to undo that trade I don’t think I’d agree to it.
This stuff is so fascinating! Forgive me if this has been asked/answered before, but if the goal is to see how well the Warriors drafted compared, would it not be smart to look at the four or five drafts leading up to the first title (or finals appearance)? I find it interest to see how champions are built as well as how they’re sustained.
Thanks for the interest!
The task I was addressing with the article series was "did the Warriors ruin the dynasty with crap drafting"? It sounds charmingly quaint, but that was a dominant question from 2019 to Jun 15 2022.
So all grades are with respect to exactly that. How much did each pick literally add to MAINTAINING the dynasty?
As for how Dynasties are drafted, that's an interesting different question... let me do a quick look.
Our Warriors. TOTAL luck. Drafted Steph at #7 after MIN takes Rubio and Flynn ahead of them. Good drafting to ID Klay and Dray, but that was kind of lucky too. Great team culture building to amplify Steph's superpowers.
LeBron-Love-Kyrie Cleveland Cavaliers - Total absolute luck. They lucked into LeBron, then couldn't keep him, then won the lottery THREE YEARS out of four (#1 picks in 2011, 2013, 2014) to get Kyrie and the capital to get LeBron back.
LeBron-Wade-Bosh Miami Heat. - Total skill by LBJ/Wade/Bosh to assemble the team in free agency. No drafting skill here (even getting Wade... getting the 4th player in a 4 hall-of-fame player draft when DET craps the bed by taking Darko... that's luck there)
Shaq-Kobe and Kobe-Pau Lakers. Skill by Jerry West to note Kobe's potential and to trade for his draft rights. Shaq was great free agency salesmanship. Massive disappointment until Phil Jackson brought the triangle and got Kobe to buy in barely enough to win titles.
Dynasty Spurs, the Raid Boss - TOTAL luck tanking during the Tim Duncan year and winning the lottery. Then brilliant drafting by exploitation of the NBA's ignorance of the International player market.
Michael Jordan Bulls - total luck drafting Jordan at #3, as POR took Bowie at #2. Lucked out that Pippen was as good as he was. Still didn't win anything until lucked out that Jordan accepted Phil Jackson's triangle O.
Bad Boy Pistons and Julius Erving Sixers. I don't know these stories as well.
Larry Bird Celtics. BOS famously tanked for two years to get Bird, drafting him a year early.
Magic Johnson Lakers. LAL got the pick in a free agency compensation related trade and lucked out that it was the Magic year.
So... some skill but A LOT of luck.
Sir, really impressive quick analysis. Hard to argue with all those facts and flat out luck.
But. Winning that first ring also takes skill, hard work, good coaching, good FO Free agent finds/deals, culture, buy-in by the players. I’d probably argue that the longer the period of excellence, the more skill is demonstrated by the entire org (FO, Coaches, Players). Luck still plays a part (especially dodging the nasty injury bug) but less so.
Encyclopedia Apricot on display. Impressive.
I will catch that Bugs Meany if it’s the last thing I do
Too funny. I had never heard of Encyclopedia Brown before (and thus my post was not an allusion to it).
Your ability to pull old NBA stuff out is much better than mine. I lived through it, and watched the NBA since the 80s, but I barely remember any of it.
They say, if you can remember the 80s,….
Wow, that was…like…awesome…
Looks like you are using total minutes, but why not total playoff minutes divided by total available playoff minutes, giving a percent of usage? Teams in earlier eras played smaller numbers of playoff games (some best of 5), and more dominant teams (AKA, Warriors) played fewer 7 game series, and thus had fewer available minutes.
Also, as noted by jzalvadaro, the Warriors also drafted picks/acquired players that they didn't retain who have proven to have been good selections, but were not retained for salary cap reasons. (He mentions Damian Jones, but also Chris Boucher (undrafted, but picked up on a two-way in 2017 - but Warriors were his first professional signing), Kendrick Nunn (undrafted in 2018). The latter two guys were signed by Santa Cruz, and even though undrafted, are a credit to Myers and his team.
It's a good idea, but I'll let someone else publish the rate analysis. I did that in my prep for the series (it's actually in my original 2020 article) but didn't find it changed conclusions and it was a lot of work and was hard to interpret. So I opted to go with the number that was easier to understand.
I agree about the picks you mention. In the series index, I have published extensive articles diving deep into the cases of Boucher, Nunn. They were held up as examples of GSW irresponsibly letting good players go, but in fact in the context, it was impossible to keep them.
There's also one about Damian Jones, though that's a less interesting story.
Totally appreciate the hard work you and your DNHQ partners put in to give us insights about the Warriors and NBA basketball in general. Thanks.
I'm just about as wary of conclusions based on statistics as I am to judgments about personal attributes founded on observed behavior. Both are impacted by (often unstated) assumptions. But the question of how to evaluate talent is clearly one that GMs have to answer; the better they do it, the easier road to building a successful team. But "easier" is not the same as "the only way."
So for your next bravura act, please assess the "dynasties" with respect to their approach to and success at developing players who chose to stay. Again, many thanks for your contributions to my enjoyment of the Warriors.
Glad you are so interested and have such good ideas!
I (also) don’t believe in just relying on the numbers which is why I wrote a series, not just this article. Check out the ten-part series of articles on the actual dynasty drafts as they come out, and see what I’m missing.
For the Dubs then, it basically comes down to Looney. Take him out of the equation and the Warriors’ dynasty drafting rank falls pretty far. Not saying we should do this, as I’m sure a very small number of players makes the difference in their drafting success or failure for every team.
This fits with one of the reasons that I enjoy the NBA so much. A small number of players have the majority of the impact on a team’s success. We know who to root for, who to pay attention to on the court, who to identify with. We get to know a little about the people, and we can connect with them just a tad. Curry is a cool dude, I like him, and am interested in him. Take him out of the Dubs’ rotation and we might have a ring or two fewer.
It is such a huge pleasure to have a team with so many impact players. And to have Eric Explaining One Play at a time so I can learn who to actually watch.
Take Steph out and we win zero championships.
I see that point was made below…
I agree Looney is such a low-key important building block. And to think GSW nearly didn't bring him back on his rookie deal.
Note that drafting Poole alone puts GSW ahead of at least half of the other dynasties, both by my numbers and by the eye test...
Re-signing Loon ended up being a huge win-win. Had Looney not been re-signed, I expect he would have found a spot on an NBA roster, but I'm not convinced he ever would have been much. Other teams would be frustrated by his relative lack of shooting and limited athleticism, and they wouldn't take as much advantage of his smarts and pick-setting. It worked out for everyone involved -- a cause to celebrate.
Addendum: I meant signing him after his rookie deal. His most recent signing was also good, but by now, it's clear that he can contribute at a high level. I think more teams would want him and be able to use him now. Before, that was less certain...
At this point in Looneys career, I expect he’d find minutes anywhere that has a decent coach. He just makes good, sound, winning plays because he knows good limitations and has figured out how to play within them.
Take Curry out of the rotation, and we’re probably still in a continuous “rebuilding” cycle
Yes, for sure. Perhaps I was being too subtle in my little joke. To be clear, without Curry I doubt we would have won any titles. Now that was a good draft pick!
With an assist from the Minnesota front office. I don't even know who they are, but I love them. Between Curry and Wiggs (for DeAngelo Russell, no less), we owe them big-time.
I was just listening to the Lowe Post podcast this morning with Ramona Shelburne and he was advocating starting Damian Jones as he states he’s very high on Jones and thought other teams should have given up some draft capital last year to pry Jones off Sacramentos roster
Saying all that, if indeed Jones plays well for the Lakers this year, can we honestly add that as a very good draft pick for the Dubs. I get he’s not playing for us anymore but you’re talking a still fairly young c who is starting to come into his own.. no less as the 30th pick in the draft. I’d say that’s solid drafting regardless.
Jones fell down in the draft because he was injured which is the same reason the Warriors got Looney at #30, and (maybe) PBJ at #28. I don't know if it is an intentional strategy to draft players whose college performance was hindered by injury, but it seems like a good idea as the chance of getting an NBA starter that late in the draft seems pretty low. Jones illustrates the counter argument; by the time the player gets healthy enough to play, roster issues result in him playing for somebody else.
Eh, we probably could have kept Jones if we weren’t all in on the KD era dynasty. Hard to keep projects around when you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The tricky thing with the Spurs is when the dynasty began/ended. If you start after their first finals win of the "Duncan era" and go until their last, then you include Parker, Manu, Kawhi, which I presume would blow everyone else (other than maybe showtime Lakers) out of the water. I realize that over the long 1999-2014 span they don't meet the 50% finals criteria, and you need some criteria to base it on. But it just doesn't quite feel representative of how that dynasty is generally viewed (ie lasting more than 4 years).
And I think the years after the dynasty, as defined for this exercise, heavily impacts how people think about Spurs and drafting/personnel. They didn't make it to the Finals in between '08-'12 but in that span, they were always in the mix, drafting very late:
2007: Splitter (stashed and didn't even play until 2010)
2008: George Hill (solid player and eventually helped get Kawhi)
2011: Corey Joseph
And then there's Oberto who was part of the dynasty years but wasn't a draft pick.
I agree it is tricky. But I am at peace with my approach, because I'm trying to study dynasty drafting, not skilled general drafting..
When people were crushing GSW for bad drafting that ruined the dynasty, they didn't count drafting Steph, Klay, Dray as great GSW dynasty drafting. They wanted to see great drafting AFTER the dynasty started that maintained it.
In the same way, we should not count Spurs drafting Duncan/Manu/Parker as *dynasty* drafting. And in fact, I was surprised to see that they *spoiler alert* got almost nothing in their draft to sustain dynastic level success.
Kawhi is the best example of extending the dynasty, but honestly they fell off their peak for a while before Kawhi came in.
Right but the Spurs won in 1999 and were a top team ever since (no high draft picks). So I think many would say the Spurs dynasty started after they won in 99, like the Warriors started after they won 2015. I get there has to be some cutoff though, and due to meeting Shaq Lakers they went a few years without a finals. But it's also a bit weird that if Spurs had made it to and lost one more finals between 2000-2008, then that would have magically qualified Manu and Parker as dynasty picks when they aren't now.
I am taking your point seriously, so let me look at the Spurs record from 1999… pulling up BBR: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/
1999. Title, famously called “asterisk” by Phil Jackson for the shorten year
2000. Lost in 1st round
2001. Lost in WCF (0-4 sweep!!)
2002. Lost in 2nd round
In my opinion, you can’t call that a dynasty. And in 2003 nobody was calling it a dynasty either. Fairly or not, in 2003, they were known as just the team that lucked into the one title and never got near the Finals again.
Additional thought. (You can tell you hit something interesting! I thought about this a lot while deciding on the dynasties.)
The Toronto Raptors won the title in 2019. In the three years after, they won 3 post-first-round games. (The Spurs won 4 in the three years after.)
If they start winning titles again, are we really going to say their drafting Scottie Barnes extended the dynasty? No, they aren’t anywhere close to a dynasty now. We would say, they started a dynasty.
And honestly, no one would call them a dynasty if they won this year either. It would probably take… AHEM… going to a majority of finals in a span of time.
And they are today where the Spurs were in 2003.
Thanks for the super interesting thoughts.
I get it, and I appreciate all the responses. Really there is no true answer. On the majority of finals in a span, you then have to have the Heat dynasty as 2006-2014, with 5 finals in 9 years. But I agree I don't really view the 2006 team as part of the 2011-14 "dynasty". But I guess that shows a limitation in that strict definition. Dynasties are always going to be viewed retroactively -- of course in 2003 no one would view the Spurs as a dynasty. But after they won in 2007, I think people would view 4 wins in 1999-2007 as a singular dynasty, especially when their best player remained the same throughout all wins. Raptors are a bit different as their main players have left.
Anyway, Spurs are a little weird compared to most traditional "dynasties" as their whole thing was being very good for a long period of time, and leveraging that to 5 championships. The reason they are considered elite at drafting is because they were able to use low draft picks to keep their playoff streak going for 20 years. If you instead day their dynasty is only 4 years, one of the shortest of all dynasties, of course their draft picks are going to be relatively insignificant.
So I guess I'll concede this classification, but then it's silly to call Spurs a "raid boss". Spurs are considered good at drafting because they won 5 times between 1999-2014 without ever being in the lottery. If we define their era as a limited 4 year time between when they drafted good players, it's not surprising that they don't score well.