Not a huge football fan but this whole Trey Lance situation seems to have some eery parallels to James Wiseman. Physically gifted but very raw. Was gonna take a few years but their respective teams are built for chips now. Just wonder if the Niners cut bait sooner or hold on. They dont seem ti be as invested as Lacob was w Wiseman
There's also the fact that Covid severely disrupted scouting during the time when both of those guys were drafted, making evaluation of them as prospects more difficult.
Nothing too new. At one point Kerr refers to "great"3 point shooters like Steph, Klay, Jordan Poole. This surprises, if not alarms me. Poole is a career .339 shooter, 3 points below league average (last year's average). His best was 36%. I expect fans to not memorize numbers like that, but I'd expect a head coach to know what is hype and what is reality.
I enjoyed the discussion of shooters that watch the ball vs. watch the rim. I then noticed I'm generally a rim watcher, but occasionally watch the ball.
I liked that. Have you ever seen that bit of Steph talking about what he specifically looks at are the nearest two hooks that hold the net in place. Those tiny little things. From thirty feet away. Speaks volumes
Yeah. None of that was new at all! (Abaddon posted yesterday)
Re Poole. I think Poole is a way better 3pt shooter than his percentages. (He makes ridiculous choices often enough that his percentages are quite affected.
I've definitely heard and considered this point. Maybe it's his shot selection, but that is incredibly relevant, and not necessarily going to go away. A lot of guys can make threes in an empty gym. Maybe Poole will change, but it's also possible he'll continue to hoist dumb shots for the rest of his career.
I don't know, but I do know that we can't call him a great shooter if he isn't making shots at a great clip. We can call him "has a nice looking shot but hasn't proven he can make threes at an elite level in NBA competition."
So in effect I am saying that no one is a better shooter than their percentages, because whatever the reason they have for missing, the ball still isn't going in.
Great is overstating how good Poole is as a 3P shooter, but this statement is incorrect.
>So in effect I am saying that no one is a better shooter than their percentages, because whatever the reason they have for missing, the ball still isn't going in.
Because the best 3P shooters are not just ranked by their percentages. There's players every year that shoot a higher percentage than Steph. JMG is not a better shooter than Poole. I even doubt that DVD is as good despite a much better % last year. They're guarded differently, and its easier for them to get easier looks. If they had the exact same shot diet, Poole would be better.
Poole had a poor season. Just never found the right balance with the extra responsibility. I'm not sure how it will shake out in Washington next year with a pretty poor supporting cast, but over time I think he'll land where he was headed the previous couple years. As a high volume, average efficiency 3P shooter who is dangerous from anywhere.
Kerr is referring to how Poole is treated as a shooter vs just his percentage.
Kerr called him great, and — as the single greatest shooter in NBA history by your preferred 3FG% measure — knows a bit more about shooting a basketball than we do.
He has also watched thousands of Poole shots in practices and scrimmages (i.e. full gyms) that we are not privy to.
Maybe we shouldn’t be telling him which players he’s permitted to call a great shooter and which ones he is not?
I could hardly disagree more with this claim. Kerr is a great shooter, and a great coach.
But I’m not saying that he is or isn’t good at those things. That doesn’t end the conversation.
I am saying that I dispute his specific contention.
We as fans don’t sacrifice our rights to rational thought just because someone else is more of an expert.
It’s a discussion (not actually between me and him but we get that)
Just as little children who are generally less informed can actually be right when they disagree with their parents, I can be right when I disagree with Steve Kerr. And I am I. This case unless someone wants to explain how missing 67% of your shots in games makes you great.
Except “At one point Kerr refers to "great"3 point shooters like Steph, Klay, Jordan Poole. This surprises, if not alarms me. Poole is a career .339 shooter, 3 points below league average (last year's average). His best was 36%. I expect fans to not memorize numbers like that, but I'd expect a head coach to know what is hype and what is reality.” sounds to me to be calling his BB knowledge and implying you know more on the subject.
Yes! I am calling his BB knowledge and claiming I know more *in this instance*
That is not a federal crime. Last I heard, half of what fans do is question a coach’s call. (It’s the basic behavior of a football fan)
I’m not attacking *his overall* judgment or fitness to coach or niceness as a person.
What am I saying? Maybe play the guy less in last year’s playoffs. Maybe coach his shot selection better. Maybe say “great shooters like Steph Klay Duncan Robinson”. I consider it kinda disloyal to the team to accept everything a coach does as perfect.
Jul 28, 2023·edited Jul 28, 2023Liked by Eric Apricot
What “claim” are you disagreeing with, exactly?
You questioned Kerr’s “alarming” grasp of “reality” and said he “can’t” call Poole a great shooter.
I’m saying he “can” actually say what he wants. And that given his vastly superior knowledge to ours on the subject of shooting, we would do well to listen to him and not assume he lacks a grasp on reality.
On the specific topic of JP’s three point shooting: absent context, 3FG% on its own is not necessarily a great indicator of shooting prowess or lack thereof. We also need to consider sample size, volume, distance, degree of difficulty, off the bounce v off the catch, trendlines, FT%, college and g-league %, shooting form and consistency, performance in practice, etc. etc. I suspect Kerr is considering some or all of these when he calls Poole a great shooter, in addition to (as crusty notes) being a good coach who publicly supports his players.
Just as little children are *usually* wrong in their disagreements with their parents, we keyboard warriors are *usually* wrong in our disagreements with Kerr, especially when it comes to characterizing what makes a great shooter.
It’s alarming if he truly didn’t know that, but I don’t know if he did or didn’t. But it’s also alarming if he isn’t maximizing players according to their capacities, or misunderstanding their capacities. I don’t wish to exaggerate: *most* of the time he knows exactly what they offer and what they don’t, and much of the time he not only makes great decisions, but they are decisions other coaches weren’t ready to make.
He’s still not a god. He’s a guy who has publicly said he wants to hold himself accountable for what went wrong last year.
Good. Let’s start with not calling Jordan Poole what he isn’t. And while we’re at it, let’s take Moody and Kuminga seriously as contributors.
Post all-star game in '21-'22, Poole shot 41% from three on over 10 attempts per 36 minutes. In the playoffs, he shot 39% on just under 8 attempts per 36. Those, taken all together, are Damian Lillard numbers. Better, actually. It's a small-ish sample, admittedly out of line with the rest of his career, but includes games with the highest possible stakes, against some very stiff competition. Not a lot of players are capable of sustained hot streaks like that. He's also one of the best free-throw shooters in the league.
So if you believe in that version of Jordan Poole, then the question isn't so much whether he's a great shooter or not, but whether his approach, his mentality, his trust in his teammates, etc, will allow him to access that greatness consistently. You might consider those to be the same question. Steve Kerr might not.
Also imagine the furor among some Warriors fans if Kerr called Poole a poor shooter or something. "There goes Kerr again, hating all the young players like he does"
He could have for sure. But what is wrong with highlighting a recently departed player who contributed with his 3p shooting in a big way just one season ago? Like what is really the criticism here, that Kerr was complimentary towards Jordan?
I mean, if we’re going to parse them, we could also distinguish between Steph and Klay, since Steph has 16 points of career 3FG% on Klay, despite being 4 inches shooter and having a much higher degree of difficulty, having to create the vast majority of his shots himself.
Steph is also the greatest FT shooter of all time (the one stat that requires no context) where Klay is more just a really good FT shooter.
Not sure if Kerr called Poole “a great 3 pt shooter” or just “a great shooter, but if it’s the latter, Poole’s excellent FT% (incl being the best FT shooter in the league in ‘21-22) also seems relevant.
Yeah, I’d guess that’s a factor, too: building up a young player’s confidence rather than crapping on him on his way out the door.
In any case, Kerr knows exactly what he’s saying. If anything is “alarming” to me it’s how many of us fans think we have a better grasp of basketball “reality” than Kerr does.
> If anything is “alarming” to me it’s how many of us fans think we have a better grasp of basketball “reality” than Kerr does.
Let's play this out. Fans don't know as much as Kerr, so they shouldn't criticize the coach. Fans can't play as well as the last man on the roster, so they shouldn't criticize the players. Fans don't have the relationships and knowledge the GM has, so fans can't criticize the GM. Fans don't (typically) have 2 billion dollars, so fans can't criticize the owner. At this point, we can't say anything. It seems all we can do is cheer, but if we don't know enough to say something is bad and discuss why that might be so, how can we even tell the performance is worthy of a cheer? We may just be (ignorantly) cheering bad performances (perhaps like the fans of offense-only players)!
If we took your "alarm" to heart we would all have to fall silent. And if that's what we have to do, why be on a forum? Indeed, why be a fan?
> .@warriorsworld @GSWReddit Just heard Wos on ringer bball podcast say he’d rather have Jaylen Brown on this new contract than Wiggins on his current contract. 🗑️
Lmao, every bball Podcaster is defending this contract. It's still insane to me that a massive number that isn't the absolute max isn't even considered up for discussion.
I listen to a lot of Ringer stuff and I've come to the conclusion his takes are often a lot like the water off the cost of Florida now - hot and shallow. I don't feel particularly investigated in digging deeper here, if you'd like to do that you may feel free to do so.
Please look into that and report back to us. I fully admit I have not listened to the podcast and therefore do not know what it is. In fact, I am not sure who Wos is without more specificity and therefore would be reluctant to call HIM an idiot. However, whatever the reasoning, I am quite confident that the take is idiotic.
Thanks for reminding me we have the smiling marauder for another 4 years (if the Dubs so choose). The ability of us fans to be able to experience such player continuity has really been a treat. Core 3 hopefully may get to the 15+ years together. 8 years.of Andre. Probably 10+ of Loon. Wiggins set up for 8+ if the contract plays out. Barely any teams currently have a single guy with 8+ years on the team.
Awesome - thanks for sharing - just watching it and i need to go put and get some hot curry sauce. I was hoping he would answer one of the questions with “my last name is curry and i am born ready for hot stuff”
This was great. Steph is obviously not a spice hound but like a true champion he powered through and stayed relatively calm. Also nice to know that his history of not being great in games @ LA is due to their garbage popcorn.
Anybody see todays USA-Netherlands woman’s world cup soccer game. Reminded me of last seasons dubs - a game of two halves. Poor first half by the USWNT but woke up in the second to salvage a 1-1 draw from being down 0-1 at half. THEY dont have a “steph curry” though
The Netherlands looked way more put together as a team with good spacing and use of opportunities. The USA looked better on fitness and individual skills. Interesting matchup for sure.
USWNT have their own two-timeline deal going on - lots of fantastic women under 24, and the old guard who are getting to be past their prime. I expect the team to start looking dominant again in the next few cycles, assuming they are mostly healthy, when Girma, Macario, Swanson, Rodman, Smith, Thompson, and probably a few others I'm forgetting are a bit more seasoned.
I saw it ... I thought it was a very good game. US was a little unlucky not to get a second goal in the second half.
You're right about the performance, though. The first half was one of the worst halves I've seen the USA women play ... they were completely dominated by the Netherlands.
US is going to need to tie Portugal to go through second. I suspect they can't really get to top of the group.
Netherlands is going to be on 7 points, and since they are playing Vietnam for their last game, they'll probably rack up some huge goal differential. It will be tough for the USA to keep pace (USA is two up on the Dutch right now).
Well, if Vietnam plays the Dutch like they played the US, there may not be much scoring. Their keeper has been really good, and they play a very defensive game, and without Miedema I'm not sure the Dutch have the scoring power. I'm expecting the Dutch to have possession like 90% of the time, but maybe not get that many expected goals.
I think a lot of what happened to the US against Vietnam was about the US. Vietnam's keeper and defense was good, not great. The US looked like a squad that hadn't played together much.
I expect the Netherlands, with two games under their belt and more continuity (probably ... can't say I know this for sure) to blow the doors off of Vietnam.
Yes, i haven’t seen them play a ling stretch if a game this poorly ever. The Dutch are a good team but it feels like the US are lacking a mid field leader to prevent such long poor stretches - doesnt bode well for a deep run.
Lavelle is their best player by far and she's on a minutes restriction, they need her to be healthy for the knockout rounds.
I'd say the biggest factor in yesterday's game was actually the wind though. Bizarre as hell to me that the announcers were talking like it didn't exist when each side took turns dominating halves with the wind at their backs. That "pass it around the back to run up the possession percentage" shit that the Netherlands were doing in the first half fell apart in the second half even though theoretically you'd expect it to be even better against a US team that had to run around a lot more in the first half. But it wasn't because the wind aided them significantly in their gameplan in the first half and then hindered it in the second half.
Maybe, but I think it had more to do with Van Der Graft being subbed off, and Lavelle being subbed on at half. Plus, I wonder if there was a formation change (I can't spot those kinds of changes).
If the wind was blowing from one goal to the other, it makes longer passes much easier in one direction, and much harder in the other. One team has to push their defensive line back to prevent longer penetrating passes, leaving more open space in the middle, while the other team gets to pull their defensive line up squeezing the middle... makes a pretty big difference, imo...
I thought Andi Sullivan had a pretty poor game, TBH.
It might be worth putting Sonnett in at CB and moving Ertz up to holding midfield. Or Kristi Mewis (not really her game, I know, but she's got a good work rate).
Not super-fond of this roster, TBH. I would not have brought Rapinoe, and not having one more defender is a little weird. They seem over-loaded with forwards.
It's a little squick that we're two games in and there really isn't a good answer on defense.
USWNT defense seemed loose, especially in the first half. Netherlands dominated possession with USA giving them lots of space and they controlled the ball with open passes. The US women came up and challenged the ball a little more in the 2nd half. Both this game the one vs Vietnam the US finishing was lacking. They seem to try to pass into the center and hope to beat defenders with quick moves. Often it is one on two or three. Need some more creativity in their attack, maybe from the wings...?
Agreed, seems like a nice pickup for a two-way. Wonder why the Lakers are letting him go. Maybe they feel like Swider can't develop further, but even if this is his ceiling, a shooter with Abbadon's size is still a nice backup. https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Cole-Swider/Summary/108205
OT, but Steph will be coming through Hot Ones. If you're not familiar with the latter, it's an interview show that often digs up gems through a combination of well-researched questions and hot wings that throw interviewees' media training.
As someone who is also ~2.06m (205 cm as I learned it when I spent a fortnight in Japan in the early 90s) that number sticks out to me, LOL. No idea how much I weighed/weigh in kg and I will keep my ignorance on that front.
I know, I know, I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: I met Trevion after a Sea Dubs game. In the less than 10 seconds I met him face to face I could tell he is a really kind person, a good family man, probably loves his mother. He kindly took a picture with my daughter. I took that brief moment to lean over and mention that I was a member of the Trevion Army, that there were hundreds of us... well, certainly more than a handful for sure. Without a smile or a hint of a crack in his formidable shell, he said "Appreciate the love." With that, we gave each other an all knowing nod.
Travion was the closest we ever got to Michael Frazier, the true Irrationally Good Vibes King. Half the GSOM community at the time had Frazier pegged as 6MOY before even his first Summer League game
Beyond the aesthetic -- some passing is just gorgeous -- it emphasizes the team aspect of the game. It involves more than one player (vs. the Harden-era Rockets, with one guy pounding the ball and four guys standing around).
I love that a team that works together can outplay a group of great athletes through smarts, cooperation, and unselfishness.
It emphasizes strategy vs. brute force or simply out-running or out-jumping the other guy.
Having recently watched the USWNT in world cup and Messi's first two Inter Miami games, my answer is because good passing leads to victory. Now as to why victory is satisfying, well that's another thread...
When I identify something as a "good pass", it is either:
1. A play that I saw (e.g. open player under the basket) that I thought the player with the ball could see. When the player sees it and makes the pass, I see it as a smart simple play, and it's satisfying to see my favorite team winning with smart simple plays.
2. A play that I saw, but was uncertain if the player with the ball could see (e.g. they have their back turned). When they make the pass, I see it as unexpectedly great vision.
3. A play that I didn't see, but the player with the ball did see. These are the most satisfying plays in basketball, to me. You're anxiously unsure where the possession is going, and then BAM! Bucket. And, if you're lucky, you get a replay and you enjoyably watch the way the passer manipulated the defense.
Denver, Boston, Phoenix, LAL, Milwaukee all have arguments for being better than the Dubs (if healthy).
Philly and Miami are kind of 'huh', though. I guess that's assuming they have favorable outcomes for their pending trade possibilities. But, I think there a few teams below us in their rankings that you could say are potentially on par with us (Dallas, LAC, Memphis).
The Heat in particular feel like a "we have to rank them high because they were in the Finals last year" plus "we think they're going to add Lillard", but they shouldn't be anywhere near that high. Which is fine for a not even pre-season ranking.
Not a huge football fan but this whole Trey Lance situation seems to have some eery parallels to James Wiseman. Physically gifted but very raw. Was gonna take a few years but their respective teams are built for chips now. Just wonder if the Niners cut bait sooner or hold on. They dont seem ti be as invested as Lacob was w Wiseman
Then there’s Joey Bart…
There's also the fact that Covid severely disrupted scouting during the time when both of those guys were drafted, making evaluation of them as prospects more difficult.
Udonis Haslem has officially retired. Fun fact: When he was drafted AOL was the most popular website.
Same draft year as Yao Ming and Mike Dunleavy Jr! (Though he originally went undrafted).
I thought this was hyperbole but nope... you're right... and Yahoo! > Google at the time
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/12/15/from-lycos-to-ask-jeeves-to-facebook-tracking-the-20-most-popular-web-sites-every-year-since-1996/
Interesting interview of Kerr by BballBreakdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xj0aqcv978
Nothing too new. At one point Kerr refers to "great"3 point shooters like Steph, Klay, Jordan Poole. This surprises, if not alarms me. Poole is a career .339 shooter, 3 points below league average (last year's average). His best was 36%. I expect fans to not memorize numbers like that, but I'd expect a head coach to know what is hype and what is reality.
I enjoyed the discussion of shooters that watch the ball vs. watch the rim. I then noticed I'm generally a rim watcher, but occasionally watch the ball.
I liked that. Have you ever seen that bit of Steph talking about what he specifically looks at are the nearest two hooks that hold the net in place. Those tiny little things. From thirty feet away. Speaks volumes
I enjoyed the discussion of the revised geometry of the Dubs split cuts vs the triangle and also vs Floppy
Yeah. None of that was new at all! (Abaddon posted yesterday)
Re Poole. I think Poole is a way better 3pt shooter than his percentages. (He makes ridiculous choices often enough that his percentages are quite affected.
I've definitely heard and considered this point. Maybe it's his shot selection, but that is incredibly relevant, and not necessarily going to go away. A lot of guys can make threes in an empty gym. Maybe Poole will change, but it's also possible he'll continue to hoist dumb shots for the rest of his career.
I don't know, but I do know that we can't call him a great shooter if he isn't making shots at a great clip. We can call him "has a nice looking shot but hasn't proven he can make threes at an elite level in NBA competition."
So in effect I am saying that no one is a better shooter than their percentages, because whatever the reason they have for missing, the ball still isn't going in.
Great is overstating how good Poole is as a 3P shooter, but this statement is incorrect.
>So in effect I am saying that no one is a better shooter than their percentages, because whatever the reason they have for missing, the ball still isn't going in.
Because the best 3P shooters are not just ranked by their percentages. There's players every year that shoot a higher percentage than Steph. JMG is not a better shooter than Poole. I even doubt that DVD is as good despite a much better % last year. They're guarded differently, and its easier for them to get easier looks. If they had the exact same shot diet, Poole would be better.
Poole had a poor season. Just never found the right balance with the extra responsibility. I'm not sure how it will shake out in Washington next year with a pretty poor supporting cast, but over time I think he'll land where he was headed the previous couple years. As a high volume, average efficiency 3P shooter who is dangerous from anywhere.
Kerr is referring to how Poole is treated as a shooter vs just his percentage.
Kerr called him great, and — as the single greatest shooter in NBA history by your preferred 3FG% measure — knows a bit more about shooting a basketball than we do.
He has also watched thousands of Poole shots in practices and scrimmages (i.e. full gyms) that we are not privy to.
Maybe we shouldn’t be telling him which players he’s permitted to call a great shooter and which ones he is not?
I could hardly disagree more with this claim. Kerr is a great shooter, and a great coach.
But I’m not saying that he is or isn’t good at those things. That doesn’t end the conversation.
I am saying that I dispute his specific contention.
We as fans don’t sacrifice our rights to rational thought just because someone else is more of an expert.
It’s a discussion (not actually between me and him but we get that)
Just as little children who are generally less informed can actually be right when they disagree with their parents, I can be right when I disagree with Steve Kerr. And I am I. This case unless someone wants to explain how missing 67% of your shots in games makes you great.
Except “At one point Kerr refers to "great"3 point shooters like Steph, Klay, Jordan Poole. This surprises, if not alarms me. Poole is a career .339 shooter, 3 points below league average (last year's average). His best was 36%. I expect fans to not memorize numbers like that, but I'd expect a head coach to know what is hype and what is reality.” sounds to me to be calling his BB knowledge and implying you know more on the subject.
Yes! I am calling his BB knowledge and claiming I know more *in this instance*
That is not a federal crime. Last I heard, half of what fans do is question a coach’s call. (It’s the basic behavior of a football fan)
I’m not attacking *his overall* judgment or fitness to coach or niceness as a person.
What am I saying? Maybe play the guy less in last year’s playoffs. Maybe coach his shot selection better. Maybe say “great shooters like Steph Klay Duncan Robinson”. I consider it kinda disloyal to the team to accept everything a coach does as perfect.
What “claim” are you disagreeing with, exactly?
You questioned Kerr’s “alarming” grasp of “reality” and said he “can’t” call Poole a great shooter.
I’m saying he “can” actually say what he wants. And that given his vastly superior knowledge to ours on the subject of shooting, we would do well to listen to him and not assume he lacks a grasp on reality.
On the specific topic of JP’s three point shooting: absent context, 3FG% on its own is not necessarily a great indicator of shooting prowess or lack thereof. We also need to consider sample size, volume, distance, degree of difficulty, off the bounce v off the catch, trendlines, FT%, college and g-league %, shooting form and consistency, performance in practice, etc. etc. I suspect Kerr is considering some or all of these when he calls Poole a great shooter, in addition to (as crusty notes) being a good coach who publicly supports his players.
Just as little children are *usually* wrong in their disagreements with their parents, we keyboard warriors are *usually* wrong in our disagreements with Kerr, especially when it comes to characterizing what makes a great shooter.
It’s alarming if he truly didn’t know that, but I don’t know if he did or didn’t. But it’s also alarming if he isn’t maximizing players according to their capacities, or misunderstanding their capacities. I don’t wish to exaggerate: *most* of the time he knows exactly what they offer and what they don’t, and much of the time he not only makes great decisions, but they are decisions other coaches weren’t ready to make.
He’s still not a god. He’s a guy who has publicly said he wants to hold himself accountable for what went wrong last year.
Good. Let’s start with not calling Jordan Poole what he isn’t. And while we’re at it, let’s take Moody and Kuminga seriously as contributors.
I'll give it a go.
Post all-star game in '21-'22, Poole shot 41% from three on over 10 attempts per 36 minutes. In the playoffs, he shot 39% on just under 8 attempts per 36. Those, taken all together, are Damian Lillard numbers. Better, actually. It's a small-ish sample, admittedly out of line with the rest of his career, but includes games with the highest possible stakes, against some very stiff competition. Not a lot of players are capable of sustained hot streaks like that. He's also one of the best free-throw shooters in the league.
So if you believe in that version of Jordan Poole, then the question isn't so much whether he's a great shooter or not, but whether his approach, his mentality, his trust in his teammates, etc, will allow him to access that greatness consistently. You might consider those to be the same question. Steve Kerr might not.
I do get alll that. My question would be: why is the cutoff post all star break? Is that reliability?
Also imagine the furor among some Warriors fans if Kerr called Poole a poor shooter or something. "There goes Kerr again, hating all the young players like he does"
Maybe, Kerr should have just not mentioned Poole and just stuck with Steph and Klay as great 3 point shooters?
He could have for sure. But what is wrong with highlighting a recently departed player who contributed with his 3p shooting in a big way just one season ago? Like what is really the criticism here, that Kerr was complimentary towards Jordan?
I mean, if we’re going to parse them, we could also distinguish between Steph and Klay, since Steph has 16 points of career 3FG% on Klay, despite being 4 inches shooter and having a much higher degree of difficulty, having to create the vast majority of his shots himself.
Steph is also the greatest FT shooter of all time (the one stat that requires no context) where Klay is more just a really good FT shooter.
Not sure if Kerr called Poole “a great 3 pt shooter” or just “a great shooter, but if it’s the latter, Poole’s excellent FT% (incl being the best FT shooter in the league in ‘21-22) also seems relevant.
Career FT%
.909 Curry
.878 Poole
.852 Thompson
Yeah, I’d guess that’s a factor, too: building up a young player’s confidence rather than crapping on him on his way out the door.
In any case, Kerr knows exactly what he’s saying. If anything is “alarming” to me it’s how many of us fans think we have a better grasp of basketball “reality” than Kerr does.
> If anything is “alarming” to me it’s how many of us fans think we have a better grasp of basketball “reality” than Kerr does.
Let's play this out. Fans don't know as much as Kerr, so they shouldn't criticize the coach. Fans can't play as well as the last man on the roster, so they shouldn't criticize the players. Fans don't have the relationships and knowledge the GM has, so fans can't criticize the GM. Fans don't (typically) have 2 billion dollars, so fans can't criticize the owner. At this point, we can't say anything. It seems all we can do is cheer, but if we don't know enough to say something is bad and discuss why that might be so, how can we even tell the performance is worthy of a cheer? We may just be (ignorantly) cheering bad performances (perhaps like the fans of offense-only players)!
If we took your "alarm" to heart we would all have to fall silent. And if that's what we have to do, why be on a forum? Indeed, why be a fan?
I just shot some hoops at lunchtime… is that enough credentials?
> .@warriorsworld @GSWReddit Just heard Wos on ringer bball podcast say he’d rather have Jaylen Brown on this new contract than Wiggins on his current contract. 🗑️
https://twitter.com/wiggyWiggs22/status/1684688692818964480
There's not going to be a more delusional take given out this offseason than this.
Lmao, I clicked on the link and wanted to go back. Kept clicking the X until I recalled it was the new symbol
Lmao, every bball Podcaster is defending this contract. It's still insane to me that a massive number that isn't the absolute max isn't even considered up for discussion.
That guy’s kinda an idiot, and I thought that before this take.
Perhaps before writing off this take as idiotic, we should figure out his reasoning?
We have all we need to deem the take as idiotic tbh
What's the reasoning behind a take this idiotic?
> What's the reasoning behind a take this idiotic?
He asked himself "How can I get as many clicks as possible with as little work as possible?" And that's what he came up with. That's the "reasoning."
That's as good as reasoning as any in today's sports media landscape I guess
It's how SAS kept his job over all the other fired ESPN folks, and the layoffs haven't hit at the Ringer yet. Wos needs to keep his job...
I listen to a lot of Ringer stuff and I've come to the conclusion his takes are often a lot like the water off the cost of Florida now - hot and shallow. I don't feel particularly investigated in digging deeper here, if you'd like to do that you may feel free to do so.
Please look into that and report back to us. I fully admit I have not listened to the podcast and therefore do not know what it is. In fact, I am not sure who Wos is without more specificity and therefore would be reluctant to call HIM an idiot. However, whatever the reasoning, I am quite confident that the take is idiotic.
Fun fact: the salary cap in the Warriors’ 2015 championship season was … $63.1M. Jaylen will be making $69.1M in the last year of this contract. o_O
That’s entirely nutso
Thanks for reminding me we have the smiling marauder for another 4 years (if the Dubs so choose). The ability of us fans to be able to experience such player continuity has really been a treat. Core 3 hopefully may get to the 15+ years together. 8 years.of Andre. Probably 10+ of Loon. Wiggins set up for 8+ if the contract plays out. Barely any teams currently have a single guy with 8+ years on the team.
Makes it real easy to be a Dubs fan
"They won't fear him until they understand him. And they won't understand him until they've used him." - J. Robert Ashernheimer
Why Jaylen Brown deserves max deal with Celtics + unfair attacks on Damian Lillard | Hoops Tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZxq8y79CQ
Steve Kerr Reveals Secrets To Steph Curry and Warriors Offense | Exclusive Interview | BBallBreakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xj0aqcv978
Stephen Curry Is On Fire While Eating Spicy Wings | Hot Ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbxVfd1bw3s
I know some of y'all have been waiting on this one...
Awesome - thanks for sharing - just watching it and i need to go put and get some hot curry sauce. I was hoping he would answer one of the questions with “my last name is curry and i am born ready for hot stuff”
This was great. Steph is obviously not a spice hound but like a true champion he powered through and stayed relatively calm. Also nice to know that his history of not being great in games @ LA is due to their garbage popcorn.
thanks for the share....as someone who does no hotter than Bell Peppers, I really enjoyed the interview w/o having to try those sauces!
Great questions. Awesome interview. He came so close to rubbing his eyes! Protect the eyes!
This is an awesome interview. The questions and responses were hot and on point.
Love how Steph has changed the NBA's popcorn game. I'm another addict of that particular snack.
Anybody see todays USA-Netherlands woman’s world cup soccer game. Reminded me of last seasons dubs - a game of two halves. Poor first half by the USWNT but woke up in the second to salvage a 1-1 draw from being down 0-1 at half. THEY dont have a “steph curry” though
The Netherlands looked way more put together as a team with good spacing and use of opportunities. The USA looked better on fitness and individual skills. Interesting matchup for sure.
USWNT have their own two-timeline deal going on - lots of fantastic women under 24, and the old guard who are getting to be past their prime. I expect the team to start looking dominant again in the next few cycles, assuming they are mostly healthy, when Girma, Macario, Swanson, Rodman, Smith, Thompson, and probably a few others I'm forgetting are a bit more seasoned.
I saw it ... I thought it was a very good game. US was a little unlucky not to get a second goal in the second half.
You're right about the performance, though. The first half was one of the worst halves I've seen the USA women play ... they were completely dominated by the Netherlands.
US is going to need to tie Portugal to go through second. I suspect they can't really get to top of the group.
Netherlands is going to be on 7 points, and since they are playing Vietnam for their last game, they'll probably rack up some huge goal differential. It will be tough for the USA to keep pace (USA is two up on the Dutch right now).
Well, if Vietnam plays the Dutch like they played the US, there may not be much scoring. Their keeper has been really good, and they play a very defensive game, and without Miedema I'm not sure the Dutch have the scoring power. I'm expecting the Dutch to have possession like 90% of the time, but maybe not get that many expected goals.
I think a lot of what happened to the US against Vietnam was about the US. Vietnam's keeper and defense was good, not great. The US looked like a squad that hadn't played together much.
I expect the Netherlands, with two games under their belt and more continuity (probably ... can't say I know this for sure) to blow the doors off of Vietnam.
Yes, i haven’t seen them play a ling stretch if a game this poorly ever. The Dutch are a good team but it feels like the US are lacking a mid field leader to prevent such long poor stretches - doesnt bode well for a deep run.
Lavelle is their best player by far and she's on a minutes restriction, they need her to be healthy for the knockout rounds.
I'd say the biggest factor in yesterday's game was actually the wind though. Bizarre as hell to me that the announcers were talking like it didn't exist when each side took turns dominating halves with the wind at their backs. That "pass it around the back to run up the possession percentage" shit that the Netherlands were doing in the first half fell apart in the second half even though theoretically you'd expect it to be even better against a US team that had to run around a lot more in the first half. But it wasn't because the wind aided them significantly in their gameplan in the first half and then hindered it in the second half.
Maybe, but I think it had more to do with Van Der Graft being subbed off, and Lavelle being subbed on at half. Plus, I wonder if there was a formation change (I can't spot those kinds of changes).
If the wind was blowing from one goal to the other, it makes longer passes much easier in one direction, and much harder in the other. One team has to push their defensive line back to prevent longer penetrating passes, leaving more open space in the middle, while the other team gets to pull their defensive line up squeezing the middle... makes a pretty big difference, imo...
I thought Andi Sullivan had a pretty poor game, TBH.
It might be worth putting Sonnett in at CB and moving Ertz up to holding midfield. Or Kristi Mewis (not really her game, I know, but she's got a good work rate).
Not super-fond of this roster, TBH. I would not have brought Rapinoe, and not having one more defender is a little weird. They seem over-loaded with forwards.
It's a little squick that we're two games in and there really isn't a good answer on defense.
How about put in someone like O’hara for Morgan and move Rodman to the CF position?
USWNT defense seemed loose, especially in the first half. Netherlands dominated possession with USA giving them lots of space and they controlled the ball with open passes. The US women came up and challenged the ball a little more in the 2nd half. Both this game the one vs Vietnam the US finishing was lacking. They seem to try to pass into the center and hope to beat defenders with quick moves. Often it is one on two or three. Need some more creativity in their attack, maybe from the wings...?
Lakers waive Cole Swider. Seems like a guy the Warriors should try to sign to a two-way.
Agreed, seems like a nice pickup for a two-way. Wonder why the Lakers are letting him go. Maybe they feel like Swider can't develop further, but even if this is his ceiling, a shooter with Abbadon's size is still a nice backup. https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Cole-Swider/Summary/108205
<—- not a shooter
OT, but Steph will be coming through Hot Ones. If you're not familiar with the latter, it's an interview show that often digs up gems through a combination of well-researched questions and hot wings that throw interviewees' media training.
trailer: https://youtube.com/shorts/b7KK0DodI0I?feature=share
There it is!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbxVfd1bw3s
Durant did Hot Ones a while back. Love the show, so super pumped for this one.
Yeeeeeees!
As someone who is also ~2.06m (205 cm as I learned it when I spent a fortnight in Japan in the early 90s) that number sticks out to me, LOL. No idea how much I weighed/weigh in kg and I will keep my ignorance on that front.
I appear to be 2.06 yards tall - imperial system forever!
you’re 6’9”??
6'8", but a smidge higher so closer to 205 than 203.whatever. Or at least I was back then, I think by now I've shrunk a smidge... :)
WTF are you doing here and not getting ready for training camp in September?
Watching the Scallenge and imagining I’m one of the chumps….
How's the weather up there?
I know, I know, I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: I met Trevion after a Sea Dubs game. In the less than 10 seconds I met him face to face I could tell he is a really kind person, a good family man, probably loves his mother. He kindly took a picture with my daughter. I took that brief moment to lean over and mention that I was a member of the Trevion Army, that there were hundreds of us... well, certainly more than a handful for sure. Without a smile or a hint of a crack in his formidable shell, he said "Appreciate the love." With that, we gave each other an all knowing nod.
He knows we're out there.
Travion was the closest we ever got to Michael Frazier, the true Irrationally Good Vibes King. Half the GSOM community at the time had Frazier pegged as 6MOY before even his first Summer League game
why is good passing satisfying?
Beyond the aesthetic -- some passing is just gorgeous -- it emphasizes the team aspect of the game. It involves more than one player (vs. the Harden-era Rockets, with one guy pounding the ball and four guys standing around).
I love that a team that works together can outplay a group of great athletes through smarts, cooperation, and unselfishness.
It emphasizes strategy vs. brute force or simply out-running or out-jumping the other guy.
Some of my favorite YouTube highlights are reels of great passing. To wit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL_OflGAg1M
Having recently watched the USWNT in world cup and Messi's first two Inter Miami games, my answer is because good passing leads to victory. Now as to why victory is satisfying, well that's another thread...
When I identify something as a "good pass", it is either:
1. A play that I saw (e.g. open player under the basket) that I thought the player with the ball could see. When the player sees it and makes the pass, I see it as a smart simple play, and it's satisfying to see my favorite team winning with smart simple plays.
2. A play that I saw, but was uncertain if the player with the ball could see (e.g. they have their back turned). When they make the pass, I see it as unexpectedly great vision.
3. A play that I didn't see, but the player with the ball did see. These are the most satisfying plays in basketball, to me. You're anxiously unsure where the possession is going, and then BAM! Bucket. And, if you're lucky, you get a replay and you enjoyably watch the way the passer manipulated the defense.
OT: ESPN's power rankings rank the Warriors 8th (and weirdly mention that Jordan Poole had become a Detroit Piston!). The disrespect! -- https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/38031459/nba-power-rankings-post-offseason-edition-changed-summer
I like it when the Warriors are ranked lower and underestimated cuz it’s so satisfying when they prove everybody wrong.
Warriors and Grizzlies both too low
Grizz are missing Morant for 25 or so games, so that probably factors in.
Grizz have been better without Morant at times.
Agreed, but replacing Villain Brooks with Marcus Smart is probably going to help things for them. I think losing Tyus could be significant, though.
Sounds about right to me.
Denver, Boston, Phoenix, LAL, Milwaukee all have arguments for being better than the Dubs (if healthy).
Philly and Miami are kind of 'huh', though. I guess that's assuming they have favorable outcomes for their pending trade possibilities. But, I think there a few teams below us in their rankings that you could say are potentially on par with us (Dallas, LAC, Memphis).
The Heat in particular feel like a "we have to rank them high because they were in the Finals last year" plus "we think they're going to add Lillard", but they shouldn't be anywhere near that high. Which is fine for a not even pre-season ranking.
8th and 4th in the West, one slot behind the Lakers that ousted us, seems pretty fair.