Having thought about it a bit Wiggins doesn't really have a valid point. Until the 20-21 season, the NBA was testing players for marijuna and they are still testing for about 250 other drugs. A few positive tests are enough to get a lifetime ban. We can argue about whether or not this is good policy but the reality is that players have not owned their own bodies for a long, long time and unlike a contagious disease, personal drug use doesn't directly affect other people.
He said he had an adverse reaction to tylenol, a drug that has been taken billions of times. My guess, he had a separate and more serious issue occur shortly after having taken tyenol and can't separate the events.
An adverse reaction to tylenol does not sound like a plausible answer to his defiance to the vaccine. If it is his answer, he is really bad at contextualizing information.
Both my brother and my father are allergic to acetylsalicylic acid, the main ingredient in aspirin, another extremely common painkiller.
My brother learned this when he was 8 or 9 and for whatever reason his school nurse gave him a painkiller based on acetylsalicylic acid and his eyelids promptly swelled up.
So in my mind an allergic reaction to acetaminophen could be a thing. Doesn't excuse refusing vaccination, of course.
Or maybe that excuse is bs. I saw someone say the rest of his family has never had a vaccine either. If that's the case, the story makes less sense since he always was against getting vaccinated (or at least his parents were)
We are saying the same thing. The idea that someone had such an adverse reaction to tylenol that they are against putting any medication in their body is ridiculous.
His answer is meant to evoke feelings of sympathy for his stance. It's bullshit as you say.
Does he carry any epi pen around? I genuinely know nothing about that.
Maybe he really is an outlier with medical conditions.
Still, I think it is lot likely that a series of unfortunate events took place when he took Tylenol leading to his distrust of vaccines.
With all that said, I'm completely rooting for him to have a great season now that he's vaccinated. If he wasn't.... best of luck to him sort of thing.
so I'm fully vaccinated and wish Wiggins had gotten the jab sooner.
having said that, I don't buy this comparison. Wiggins is complaining about having something put in his body, which historically, culturally, and practically is very different than being prevented from putting something in your body. One is an inhibition, the other (Wiggins perceives, and I disagree) to be invasive.
again, I don't think Wiggins argument carries weight but I disagree pretty strongly with the equivalence.
One thing about the Wiggins "I don't want vaccines in my body" -- that so many people in the country are trying on as an argument: I wish a reporter had asked: Didn't you go to x elementary school? Is there anything against measles mumps rubella polio in your body? Any adverse effects decades later?
Hmm... they're definitely different and are often treated differently, so I agree there's not exact equivalence. However, both could be accurately called issues of "owning your own body." So if you're using that specific language, I think I disagree with you?
For example, just having a specific hairstyle or tattoos can be an issue in workplaces. This can range from being an inhibition to being invasive (you must have those tattoos covered, removed, etc), but it is in ALL cases talked about as an issue of bodily autonomy.
Let me preface this by saying, this is probably the most controversial thing I'll ever post on the internet. Generally, I hate disagreeing and how easily things can be misconstrued in writing. I also know that I am limited as a writer in my ability to communicate effectively. Having said that, I think you're asking a question worth responding to, so here goes.
To begin, I do believe that both your definitions could be called owning your own body, but I disagree that they are equal in severity. I would say that adopting a less strict definition of owning your own body (total control over what goes in or does not go in it) encompasses a more strict interpretation (control over what goes in your body) without undermining the difference in the two.
I disagree that the two are equal in severity. Thought experiments about other workplaces that either forbid or force a behavior show that being prevented from doing something with your body and being forced into doing something with your body are different:
1. Office romance: being prevented from office romance is a common HR policy. Being forced into an office romance falls somewhere on a spectrum between sexual harassment and something much worse.
2. tattoos: being prevented from getting visible tattoos is a commonish workplace policy (that I find silly, but oh well). Being forced to get a tattoo is usually associated with antiquated ways of organizing prisoners, often for awful purposes.
3. being prevented from drinking alcohol at work is pretty common. Being forced to consume alcohol against your will is a pretty flagrant violation of a person's will and right to safety.
4. Likewise, working somewhere that prevents you from eating meat seems strange, but is much more agreeable than working somewhere that forces those with a religious objection to pork to each a BLT for lunch.
5. I could keep going: dress codes, privacy policies, speed limits, etc.: nearly every code is society is negative, in that it prevents a party from doing something; very few are positive, in that they force the bound party to do something. This is for good reason.
However silly we all find the vaccine objection — Wiggins is in one of the above scenarios in the most basic sense: a firmly held conviction of his about what was “right” for his body was violated on the implicit threat of the termination of his employment. I don’t think that Wiggins was in a situation equivalent to any of what I listed above, but he thinks he was. And while I stand by vaccine mandates (they are useful and necessary), I also think that forcing people to put things in their bodies almost universally goes poorly; and that when we’ve done so we should not make light of it. We should accept this situation as an indictment of our culture. We should use this widespread mistrust in medicine as motivation to examine how minority communities are treated in this country.
In all of this, we are not talking about whether or not someone is allowed to smoke a joint: we are talking about who has the right to who’s body. Pandemics force us into situations that are morally noxious, as we have to choose between violating someone's bodily wishes and being complicit in the spread of a disease that has killed millions. SF made the right choice, but that doesn’t give us license to scoff at those who disagree.
Disclosure: deleted and edited because of silly typos (I’m sure there are still some)
I suppose the point that I'm trying to make, as concisely as possible, is this: most of us think it's silly to object to the vaccine, to the extent that it does not reasonably carry the weight of the examples I listed above.
Yet Wiggins, for whatever reason, seems to think it does.
Glossing over that second bit makes me upset, because I think as a society we should care that he did the right thing, know that he felt wronged, and feel a little sad that he felt wronged. Not sad that he kept his community safe, but sad that a little piece of him that was important to him like feels trampled in some way. That should matter, regardless of what we think of vaccines, what he thinks of vaccines, or what we think of what he thinks of vaccines.
It's way quicker, which is a testament to his hard work and reason to believe that he can bring his pull up three pointer percentage up from only 29% last season.
My untrained eye says he's releasing a tad earlier whereas before it seemed like the legs and upper body were slightly out of sync... thinking in terms of "conservation of momentum"
Not to be contrarian, but I watched your videos expecting to see a bigger difference than I did. The form looks super similar and I am actually surprised how clean his form looked as a rookie, knowing how bad he shot. The biggest difference to me is his stronger frame which I think is helping make his shots more effortless.
Also, the video from his rookie season is probably not the best sample because it's only showing makes 😉. I seem to remember him taking a lot of off-balance shots where he was either drifting or fading away, Swaggy P style. He doesn't really do that very much now and I wonder if it's just that his footwork has gottern so much better or his shot selection has.
I was just saying that the form didn't look ideal many of his shots that season whereas his form is much more consistent now. Consistent form is going to make the biggest difference in achieving consistent results.
My favorite play from JP last night was that pump-fake from the arc and dribble-probe into a pull-up long two (2:45 of that video). I know long-twos are frowned upon but he felt so natural, smooth, and instinctive doing it compared to before.
Long twos are frowned upon for guys like WIggins who don't make it at a good enough clip for them to be worth it. If Poole gets to 45-ish % on long twos, that's super valuable.
Yeah he looks so comfortable handling the ball in traffic, I think that's where all of his offseason work shows the most. He's reminding me more and more of a Lou Williams type of skillset but more willing to pass.
Kind of crazy to think we had a bottom 10 offense last year, some of it is on oubre some of it is on Kerr's forcing of wanamaker and wiseman some of it is on the front office, but I can't see us outside the top 10 this year even if klay doesn't play
In the last thread, someone mentioned that they would love Ben Simmons on this team, and that he could be a great fit. It's a sentiment I've heard before, and I absolutely do not understand it. Can someone explain to me how, even if we managed to just deal Wiggins for Simmons straight up, Simmons can be a good fit? My concerns are:
1) Redundancy: Defense and offense creation are his strengths, and they are already strengths of the Dubs as well.
2) Kerr would feel compelled to use a player of Simmons' size as a Center, and Simmons doesn't want to be a Center.
3) The Warriors epitomize team ball, whereas Simmons has steadfastly refused to adapt his game to what his team needs. Additionally, it has been stated by his representatives that he is looking for a team that will build their strategy around him.
I hate talking about Simmons, but I just really want to know- considering all of this, how could he possibly be a good fit on this team?
There would need to be some adjustments from everyone for sure but I'm thinking a modified triangle would work with him and Dray on the floor at the same time.
It would never happen but I would be OK with a strait up trade of the two of them, just to clear my head of Wiggins stupidity. And Simmons on a new team with aspirations of a deep playoff run could do wonders for him.
With respect to #2, I have two letters for you: KD. Just because Simmons is big doesn't mean Kerr will put him in the middle. As for #3, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Simmons is certainly a team player in that he is a willing and very capable passer on offense and puts in the work to be elite on defense. But he doesn't work on his shooting, and that does hurt his team. He should at least do the work to become a much better free throw shooter. You're right about #1 on the offensive side, especially because we have Draymond but those two would be stifling on defense, and with the Dubs ball-sharing style, it's fine to have another offensive creator.
If you can’t shoot on this team, Steve Kerr is going to say, “Hi. Nice to meet you. I’m just going to call you ‘5’. Here’s your uniform, it’s also ‘5’, because you’re a 5, got it?”
The basketball fit can be debated. I have a hard time seeing the fit given the pieces we'd have to give up. He's clearly talented and does some really unique things so maybe the better basketball minds can make it work.
It's the attitude that really turns me off. When we missed the playoffs last season, I remember Kerr (or the coaching staff?) mentioning they talked with Dray about his offense and what he needs to improve. Did Dray come out all defensive and point out how he dishes out double-digit assists and all the other good stuff he does?
While last night was probably an anomaly, if we start playing like that and Dray /doesn't/ get his touches and all his assists, do we think he's going to throw a fit?
Simmons got thrown under the bus by his coach and team, but he didn't do himself any favors by avoiding all responsibility and then further exacerbating it by demanding to go to a team that will build around his deficiencies rather than trying to improve. In my opinion, he's in no position to /demand/ a team be built around him... that's reserved for elite players. Teams may very well build around Ben because he's their best player, but I don't think a player with such glaring holes is in any position to demand it.
Simmons game fits tremendously with Steph, Klay and Poole. It'd be dynamic what he could do with them. There's a very tricky Draymond pairing....offensively. Defensively they'd be a nightmare. Potentially top 2-3 in the league.
So even though the offensive fit with Draymond would always be precarious that's mainly a playoff scenario type worry. Over the long haul of a regular season this could be a 65 win team and 1-seed.
I think his personality and management team make him "not the guy" to cash in all the assets for, but if it was for Wiggins straight up it's more or less a no brainer.
This is a pretty good response. I guess my question is, what are we without him? Our offense may be good enough right now to put us near 60 wins, and if Klay is over 70% his former self and Wise has improved, what would be the point? Adding regular season wins at the expense of playoffs reliability seems a really bad idea to me for a team that is already making the playoffs.
That's the thing. We really don't know how good we are without him. It would raise the floor considerably, IMO.
There's a price it makes sense in my mind. Even with all the ancillary stuff. (The ancillary stuff bringing down the price and having the Warriors keep assets may actually help.) But I really don't expect anything to happen.
Good question - I frankly don’t like thinking about it because I’m too attached to the young guys for a hypothetical I don’t think happens. Don’t want to put it down for scrutiny 😎
I'm not entirely certain that defense is a strength of the Warriors. Wiggins/Dray/Looney/JTA/Iggy are some really nice defenders, but everyone else is average at best.
5th in the league last season with a horrible offense, a better offense this year will cause teams to get less fast break opportunities causing us to be an even better defensive team, iggy and opj will also help with the rebounding
You'll find that he was in the ~90th percentile for causing turnovers and deflections, 88th percentile for % defense at the rim while also being in the 70th% percentile for rim contests and block percentage. Overall, pretty good defender (who does have off-ball lapses admittedly).
Yeah, adding Simmons would be a huge boost on defense, regardless of what you think about his shooting. His ability to bother elite ballhandlers like Young is a skill that the Warriors currently lack (except for perhaps Bradley or GP2).
Because there’s so much shooting that the floor will open up to permit his offense, he fits perfectly with the ball movement ethos of the team, he’s an elite rebounder and defender.
Is there really that much shooting? Assuming you give up Wiggins, you are losing both shooting and defense to get him. You are probably forced to not start Looney, meaning Bjelica becomes your starting 5. That trades defense for shooting. I don't really see any situations where he isn't a sideways move at best, and that is before considering the many problems he brings with him and the price we'd be paying for him beyond (presumably) Wiggins.
The Ws were a good shooting team last year? Haven't looked at the stats, but the eye test didn't say so. Teams were loading up on Steph -- sometimes TRIPLE teaming him -- daring someone else, anyone else in a Golden State uniform to beat them. They generally couldn't do it.
It's only one data point, but last night's game tells me that this year's squad is MUCH better shooting the ball.
Dray and simmons dont need to see the floor together that much and some of the lineups we could have with the new shooters we got would be ridiculous with simmons if he bought into the offensive movement
Point is the same can be said about philly, how was a non shooting and ball dominant big play with another ball dominant paint scoring big. Simmons would great over here and yes he has personality issues but he is still young our culture and curry could benefit him like crazy and if we can get him on a discounted price itd be stupid to pass up
If Looney is the starting center, it doesn't work. Simmons, Dray and Looney cannot all play at once or that shooting you keep talking about is gone. Of those three, Looney is the only one who would take a demotion to the bench.
No they cannot. 2 of those guys might be able to play with each other (and I have my doubts about that), but there is no way that all 3 can play together. We might not clear 100-105 ORTG with those 3 against good defenses.
I mean, they can in the sense that any five guys *can* play together, but I’m not at all crazy about that lineup, especially seeing what at two or three more shooters with Curry was opening up last night.
Anyone else thinks POR is stuck in no mans land yet again? They have a solid squad and should secure 50 wins with Dame carrying them but once again they enter the new season with no true 2nd star. Hate to say it but they'll never win a series against the big dogs if Dame doesn't have his Robin.
Yea, same thing again. They just keep swapping some wing pieces and repeating the process. I think they did improve ever so slightly. I think the Powell/Gary Trent Jr trade helped in that they have a decent two-way small wing.
It's like squeezing that last bit of toothpaste out of the bottom for the past week when you probably should have just tossed it and opened a new one a few days ago.
They really need to pull the trigger on McCollum plus assets for Simmons. PHI fans won't like it, but that's a moot point since there is no return they would like at this point. POR needs the defense and offense creation.
I really don't get why they've stuck with that tandem for so long. Yes, they're both good, but since they can't really add significant talent without breaking up that backcourt, it seems weird that they haven't
Just imagine this offense if Wiseman was playing the exact role that Bjelica played last night 🤤🤤. Seems like that should be easy enough to replicate, right? Better than forcing a bunch of pick & rolls that he obviously didn't understand the timing to execute.
No no no, imagine wiseman learning how to roll properly with this much shooting and passing on the court, easy dunks all day, we have enough scoring now where he can literally only focus on when to cut for dunks and o rebounds
My fantasy is Wiseman on the arc spacing the floor and then when his man (the opposing center) closes out, he takes one dribble and YAMS on the poor souls waiting in the lane. Make it happen Kerr!
That was my fantasy last season forsure, let him pick n pop with curry n poole n space the floor, or even spread the floor n let EP go to work but with hiw much shooting and passing we have now I'd love for him to sit dunkers spot, imagine a high low game with him n bjelly or him sitting corner and letting kuminga go to work on 4s in the future, we have so many options
I only listened to the Warriors part (heavy spreadsheet day at work, so I need music not talking)... but in general, no. I thought everything was all good
Can't say that I am a fan of hoisting so many threes, but it's just preseason. I must admit I haven't been able to watch the game, but were those attempts "organic" or forced? 0-27 has pretty much discredited Moreyball as a winning strategy as far as I am concerned, so I guess we'll have to find out what the plan will be.
Moreyball led to the Rockets greatly outperforming their talent and being the only team in the NBA to compete with a healthy KD era Warriors. It absolutely works, with the sustained long-term success of the Harden Rockets being the prime example. In recent years, teams like the Jazz have also sustained a lot of offensive success by putting up a ton of 3s.
Only someone who suffers from a heavy winning bias would say that Moreyball does not work.
I was pretty flabbergasted by 69 3-point attempts. But - the W’s had 17 more shot attempts than the Blazers overall. They were clearly doing some extra cooking. And pre-season is the time to try this stuff (e.g. spread the D, pass and bomb away).
As much as the ball was moving, the players were not moving quite enough, which would usually open up easy looks at the rim off of back cuts and just plain defensive miscues. I really like Porter and Bjelica but they were slow out there and don't really pose a driving threat so they are really just 3 pt shooters until they figure out the Warriors motion offense.
For the Warrior's offense to get to the next level, they need to figure out the screens and motion that will open up those rim runs for even easier buckets.
Porter looked good with the movement to me he passed up a couple 3s to drive to the rim and make the extra pass, it wasnt like oubre where every time the ball was swung to him he jacked it up
The other difference is that when OPJ jacks it up it is a thing of beauty. You're right that he did try some other things with the ball in his hand but the lack of motion off the ball was pretty evident to me. You could see the difference for example when Lee came in the game and started creating chaos with his cuts which led to even cleaner looks.
Curry was really trying to get Bradley going and Bradley was over-hoisting. JTA looked a little over-amped even for him. Other than that, the 3-point shooting was very organic; they were whipping the ball around the perimeter and guys were passing up good shots for great shots.
Maybe he's just trying too hard but that over-hoisting did not win him any more points with me than it put on the scoreboard. He had some good moments defensively though.
The vast majority of the 3pa seemed in rhythm with the offense, which is all I want really. The number of attempts in a vacuum doesn't matter as much to me as the way in which those attempts came about, and it did not look like the Warriors were gravitating away too much from their signature read and react style.
Also worth noting that this was a game against the Blazers, a team that has reliably been in the very bottom of the NBA defensive rankings. Working with a new coach and supposedly a new scheme this year, they were still getting cooked on the perimeter
The "new coach/new scheme" thing is relevant, but Portland was middle of the pack (along with us) in 3PA against last year (albeit 20th in percentage against, while we were 8th best).
Is this the first time we've ever surrounded Steph/Klay with this many legit shooters? We don't have anybody on the active roster that's not a threat to shoot the 3 ball, even Looney can occasionally hit one. I'm telling you the combo of shooters, slashers and the eventual lob threat in Wiseman returning... we're about to see some beautiful basketball this year. This squad reminds me a bit of the Hawks last year but instead of Trae running the show it's Steph... and we have a Hulk. I mean Draymond.
It is silly to draw conclusions from a single preseasongame (I will anyway) but if that is Poole's true new level of performance, the Warriors have some truly terrifying small ball lineups when Klay gets back. Curry, Poole, Thompson, Porter jr, Green or, if Kerr feels like he needs some "extra" shooting, he can swap in Bjelica for Green.
With Steph, Poole, Klay, and OPJ in there, Kerr would have to be a glutton to need more shooting - but you're right, he has the option. Dray will love distributing the ball to that bunch, though, and he'd be crucial on defense.
For a little perspective, the Warriors shot 54% eFG last night, which would have put them smack in the middle of the NBA team averages last year... tied with the Portland Trail Blazers. (The Warriors themselves shot 55.1% eFG, the Nets led with 57.5% and the Magic brought up the rear at 49%).
I look at "The Warriors shot 55.1% eFG" and I can't help but think, Steph shot a lot better than that and the rest of the team shot a *LOT* worse, didn't they?
Another stat tidbit; the game last night was at a blistering 109.5 pace. The Wizards led in pace last year at 104.1 (*cough* Westbrook *cough*) with the Bucks and Warriors tied for 2nd at 102.2. This allowed the Dubs to get up 100 shot attempts which is nearly 12 more than the Warriors averaged last year, and more than eight more than the league-leading Bucks last year.
Sekou Doumbouya - sign him to the two way!!!
Not sure if this has already been posted here. 🙂
https://youtu.be/yaaI80kW--I
Having thought about it a bit Wiggins doesn't really have a valid point. Until the 20-21 season, the NBA was testing players for marijuna and they are still testing for about 250 other drugs. A few positive tests are enough to get a lifetime ban. We can argue about whether or not this is good policy but the reality is that players have not owned their own bodies for a long, long time and unlike a contagious disease, personal drug use doesn't directly affect other people.
He said he had an adverse reaction to tylenol, a drug that has been taken billions of times. My guess, he had a separate and more serious issue occur shortly after having taken tyenol and can't separate the events.
An adverse reaction to tylenol does not sound like a plausible answer to his defiance to the vaccine. If it is his answer, he is really bad at contextualizing information.
Both my brother and my father are allergic to acetylsalicylic acid, the main ingredient in aspirin, another extremely common painkiller.
My brother learned this when he was 8 or 9 and for whatever reason his school nurse gave him a painkiller based on acetylsalicylic acid and his eyelids promptly swelled up.
So in my mind an allergic reaction to acetaminophen could be a thing. Doesn't excuse refusing vaccination, of course.
It completely depends on the nature of his reaction and the advise of his doctors.
Or maybe it’s true and his real doctors have warned him to be careful!
Or maybe that excuse is bs. I saw someone say the rest of his family has never had a vaccine either. If that's the case, the story makes less sense since he always was against getting vaccinated (or at least his parents were)
We are saying the same thing. The idea that someone had such an adverse reaction to tylenol that they are against putting any medication in their body is ridiculous.
His answer is meant to evoke feelings of sympathy for his stance. It's bullshit as you say.
Despite your flippant dismissal, a very simple internet search turns up plenty of articles about rare and serious side effects of Tylenol:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-warns-rare-serious-skin-reactions-pain-relieverfever-reducer
People don’t carry around epi pens on a whim, are uou saying he’s lying about that too?
Does he carry any epi pen around? I genuinely know nothing about that.
Maybe he really is an outlier with medical conditions.
Still, I think it is lot likely that a series of unfortunate events took place when he took Tylenol leading to his distrust of vaccines.
With all that said, I'm completely rooting for him to have a great season now that he's vaccinated. If he wasn't.... best of luck to him sort of thing.
He said as much
so I'm fully vaccinated and wish Wiggins had gotten the jab sooner.
having said that, I don't buy this comparison. Wiggins is complaining about having something put in his body, which historically, culturally, and practically is very different than being prevented from putting something in your body. One is an inhibition, the other (Wiggins perceives, and I disagree) to be invasive.
again, I don't think Wiggins argument carries weight but I disagree pretty strongly with the equivalence.
One thing about the Wiggins "I don't want vaccines in my body" -- that so many people in the country are trying on as an argument: I wish a reporter had asked: Didn't you go to x elementary school? Is there anything against measles mumps rubella polio in your body? Any adverse effects decades later?
Hmm... they're definitely different and are often treated differently, so I agree there's not exact equivalence. However, both could be accurately called issues of "owning your own body." So if you're using that specific language, I think I disagree with you?
For example, just having a specific hairstyle or tattoos can be an issue in workplaces. This can range from being an inhibition to being invasive (you must have those tattoos covered, removed, etc), but it is in ALL cases talked about as an issue of bodily autonomy.
Let me preface this by saying, this is probably the most controversial thing I'll ever post on the internet. Generally, I hate disagreeing and how easily things can be misconstrued in writing. I also know that I am limited as a writer in my ability to communicate effectively. Having said that, I think you're asking a question worth responding to, so here goes.
To begin, I do believe that both your definitions could be called owning your own body, but I disagree that they are equal in severity. I would say that adopting a less strict definition of owning your own body (total control over what goes in or does not go in it) encompasses a more strict interpretation (control over what goes in your body) without undermining the difference in the two.
I disagree that the two are equal in severity. Thought experiments about other workplaces that either forbid or force a behavior show that being prevented from doing something with your body and being forced into doing something with your body are different:
1. Office romance: being prevented from office romance is a common HR policy. Being forced into an office romance falls somewhere on a spectrum between sexual harassment and something much worse.
2. tattoos: being prevented from getting visible tattoos is a commonish workplace policy (that I find silly, but oh well). Being forced to get a tattoo is usually associated with antiquated ways of organizing prisoners, often for awful purposes.
3. being prevented from drinking alcohol at work is pretty common. Being forced to consume alcohol against your will is a pretty flagrant violation of a person's will and right to safety.
4. Likewise, working somewhere that prevents you from eating meat seems strange, but is much more agreeable than working somewhere that forces those with a religious objection to pork to each a BLT for lunch.
5. I could keep going: dress codes, privacy policies, speed limits, etc.: nearly every code is society is negative, in that it prevents a party from doing something; very few are positive, in that they force the bound party to do something. This is for good reason.
However silly we all find the vaccine objection — Wiggins is in one of the above scenarios in the most basic sense: a firmly held conviction of his about what was “right” for his body was violated on the implicit threat of the termination of his employment. I don’t think that Wiggins was in a situation equivalent to any of what I listed above, but he thinks he was. And while I stand by vaccine mandates (they are useful and necessary), I also think that forcing people to put things in their bodies almost universally goes poorly; and that when we’ve done so we should not make light of it. We should accept this situation as an indictment of our culture. We should use this widespread mistrust in medicine as motivation to examine how minority communities are treated in this country.
In all of this, we are not talking about whether or not someone is allowed to smoke a joint: we are talking about who has the right to who’s body. Pandemics force us into situations that are morally noxious, as we have to choose between violating someone's bodily wishes and being complicit in the spread of a disease that has killed millions. SF made the right choice, but that doesn’t give us license to scoff at those who disagree.
Disclosure: deleted and edited because of silly typos (I’m sure there are still some)
I suppose the point that I'm trying to make, as concisely as possible, is this: most of us think it's silly to object to the vaccine, to the extent that it does not reasonably carry the weight of the examples I listed above.
Yet Wiggins, for whatever reason, seems to think it does.
Glossing over that second bit makes me upset, because I think as a society we should care that he did the right thing, know that he felt wronged, and feel a little sad that he felt wronged. Not sad that he kept his community safe, but sad that a little piece of him that was important to him like feels trampled in some way. That should matter, regardless of what we think of vaccines, what he thinks of vaccines, or what we think of what he thinks of vaccines.
Compare Poole's shot release speed.
At the beginning of his rookie season:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9bAM6o2yYU
Last night:
https://youtu.be/zyJZGj7Eurs?t=137
It's way quicker, which is a testament to his hard work and reason to believe that he can bring his pull up three pointer percentage up from only 29% last season.
My untrained eye says he's releasing a tad earlier whereas before it seemed like the legs and upper body were slightly out of sync... thinking in terms of "conservation of momentum"
Not to be contrarian, but I watched your videos expecting to see a bigger difference than I did. The form looks super similar and I am actually surprised how clean his form looked as a rookie, knowing how bad he shot. The biggest difference to me is his stronger frame which I think is helping make his shots more effortless.
Also, the video from his rookie season is probably not the best sample because it's only showing makes 😉. I seem to remember him taking a lot of off-balance shots where he was either drifting or fading away, Swaggy P style. He doesn't really do that very much now and I wonder if it's just that his footwork has gottern so much better or his shot selection has.
Was gonna say the same.
I dunno, it looks quicker to me.
> Also, the video from his rookie season is probably not the best sample
Don't see how adding misses would add more context. If anything the makes should be when the form is at its best/quickest.
I was just saying that the form didn't look ideal many of his shots that season whereas his form is much more consistent now. Consistent form is going to make the biggest difference in achieving consistent results.
That's why I was so surprised people writing off poole after his rookie season his form was so nice I knew it was going to start dropping eventually
Also his ball handling is 🌌 light years better than where it was.
My favorite play from JP last night was that pump-fake from the arc and dribble-probe into a pull-up long two (2:45 of that video). I know long-twos are frowned upon but he felt so natural, smooth, and instinctive doing it compared to before.
Long twos are frowned upon for guys like WIggins who don't make it at a good enough clip for them to be worth it. If Poole gets to 45-ish % on long twos, that's super valuable.
Yeah he looks so comfortable handling the ball in traffic, I think that's where all of his offseason work shows the most. He's reminding me more and more of a Lou Williams type of skillset but more willing to pass.
And aggressive.
Kind of crazy to think we had a bottom 10 offense last year, some of it is on oubre some of it is on Kerr's forcing of wanamaker and wiseman some of it is on the front office, but I can't see us outside the top 10 this year even if klay doesn't play
In the last thread, someone mentioned that they would love Ben Simmons on this team, and that he could be a great fit. It's a sentiment I've heard before, and I absolutely do not understand it. Can someone explain to me how, even if we managed to just deal Wiggins for Simmons straight up, Simmons can be a good fit? My concerns are:
1) Redundancy: Defense and offense creation are his strengths, and they are already strengths of the Dubs as well.
2) Kerr would feel compelled to use a player of Simmons' size as a Center, and Simmons doesn't want to be a Center.
3) The Warriors epitomize team ball, whereas Simmons has steadfastly refused to adapt his game to what his team needs. Additionally, it has been stated by his representatives that he is looking for a team that will build their strategy around him.
I hate talking about Simmons, but I just really want to know- considering all of this, how could he possibly be a good fit on this team?
There would need to be some adjustments from everyone for sure but I'm thinking a modified triangle would work with him and Dray on the floor at the same time.
It would never happen but I would be OK with a strait up trade of the two of them, just to clear my head of Wiggins stupidity. And Simmons on a new team with aspirations of a deep playoff run could do wonders for him.
With respect to #2, I have two letters for you: KD. Just because Simmons is big doesn't mean Kerr will put him in the middle. As for #3, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Simmons is certainly a team player in that he is a willing and very capable passer on offense and puts in the work to be elite on defense. But he doesn't work on his shooting, and that does hurt his team. He should at least do the work to become a much better free throw shooter. You're right about #1 on the offensive side, especially because we have Draymond but those two would be stifling on defense, and with the Dubs ball-sharing style, it's fine to have another offensive creator.
If you can’t shoot on this team, Steve Kerr is going to say, “Hi. Nice to meet you. I’m just going to call you ‘5’. Here’s your uniform, it’s also ‘5’, because you’re a 5, got it?”
That said, I don't like his attitude now. And I don't like how much we'd probably have to give up to get him.
The basketball fit can be debated. I have a hard time seeing the fit given the pieces we'd have to give up. He's clearly talented and does some really unique things so maybe the better basketball minds can make it work.
It's the attitude that really turns me off. When we missed the playoffs last season, I remember Kerr (or the coaching staff?) mentioning they talked with Dray about his offense and what he needs to improve. Did Dray come out all defensive and point out how he dishes out double-digit assists and all the other good stuff he does?
While last night was probably an anomaly, if we start playing like that and Dray /doesn't/ get his touches and all his assists, do we think he's going to throw a fit?
Simmons got thrown under the bus by his coach and team, but he didn't do himself any favors by avoiding all responsibility and then further exacerbating it by demanding to go to a team that will build around his deficiencies rather than trying to improve. In my opinion, he's in no position to /demand/ a team be built around him... that's reserved for elite players. Teams may very well build around Ben because he's their best player, but I don't think a player with such glaring holes is in any position to demand it.
Simmons game fits tremendously with Steph, Klay and Poole. It'd be dynamic what he could do with them. There's a very tricky Draymond pairing....offensively. Defensively they'd be a nightmare. Potentially top 2-3 in the league.
So even though the offensive fit with Draymond would always be precarious that's mainly a playoff scenario type worry. Over the long haul of a regular season this could be a 65 win team and 1-seed.
I think his personality and management team make him "not the guy" to cash in all the assets for, but if it was for Wiggins straight up it's more or less a no brainer.
This is a pretty good response. I guess my question is, what are we without him? Our offense may be good enough right now to put us near 60 wins, and if Klay is over 70% his former self and Wise has improved, what would be the point? Adding regular season wins at the expense of playoffs reliability seems a really bad idea to me for a team that is already making the playoffs.
That's the thing. We really don't know how good we are without him. It would raise the floor considerably, IMO.
There's a price it makes sense in my mind. Even with all the ancillary stuff. (The ancillary stuff bringing down the price and having the Warriors keep assets may actually help.) But I really don't expect anything to happen.
You said Simmons for Wiggins straight up is a no brained. How much more would you send their way?
Good question - I frankly don’t like thinking about it because I’m too attached to the young guys for a hypothetical I don’t think happens. Don’t want to put it down for scrutiny 😎
Neither do I. I've just been wanting to understand how it could possibly work. Thanks for helping with that.
Good discussion guys. I was in the same camp as you, but Hammy is other side well.
I'm not entirely certain that defense is a strength of the Warriors. Wiggins/Dray/Looney/JTA/Iggy are some really nice defenders, but everyone else is average at best.
5th in the league last season with a horrible offense, a better offense this year will cause teams to get less fast break opportunities causing us to be an even better defensive team, iggy and opj will also help with the rebounding
Last year, we had Oubre, Bazemore, and Wannamaker who were all really good defensive players.
I’d rate Damion Lee’s defense as “average at least” and prefer his more mistake-free, team defense to Bazemore’s recklessness.
Oubre is not a good defensive player unless you can show me advanced stats that say otherwise, he just had moments of pressing up on quicker players
He is good in certain roles (POA). He is not so good in certain roles (off-ball). Overall, he was very good defensively last year - https://craftednba.com/players/kelly-oubre-jr.
You'll find that he was in the ~90th percentile for causing turnovers and deflections, 88th percentile for % defense at the rim while also being in the 70th% percentile for rim contests and block percentage. Overall, pretty good defender (who does have off-ball lapses admittedly).
I thought Oubre was a good POA defender, not so good off the ball.
Will continue to beat the drum that Steph is above average. Not as good as any of the guys above with the exception of Loon.
Um. Klay
You can't expect him to be a great defender his first year back
Or at least you can't rely on that
Yeah, adding Simmons would be a huge boost on defense, regardless of what you think about his shooting. His ability to bother elite ballhandlers like Young is a skill that the Warriors currently lack (except for perhaps Bradley or GP2).
Because there’s so much shooting that the floor will open up to permit his offense, he fits perfectly with the ball movement ethos of the team, he’s an elite rebounder and defender.
Is there really that much shooting? Assuming you give up Wiggins, you are losing both shooting and defense to get him. You are probably forced to not start Looney, meaning Bjelica becomes your starting 5. That trades defense for shooting. I don't really see any situations where he isn't a sideways move at best, and that is before considering the many problems he brings with him and the price we'd be paying for him beyond (presumably) Wiggins.
In this scenario, wouldn’t Simmons replace Looney as a starter?
Steph-Poole-OPJ (or Klay)-Dray-Simmons
Maybe he would go for that. Kerr could make Dray the nominal center. I can see that lineup working if so.
We were a good shooting team last year, adding in opj, bjelly, more poole more lee less oubre n wanamaker makes us a great shooting team
The Ws were a good shooting team last year? Haven't looked at the stats, but the eye test didn't say so. Teams were loading up on Steph -- sometimes TRIPLE teaming him -- daring someone else, anyone else in a Golden State uniform to beat them. They generally couldn't do it.
It's only one data point, but last night's game tells me that this year's squad is MUCH better shooting the ball.
Curry klay opj simmons b jelly
Poole lee opj simmons dray
Curry Poole jta opj simmons
Curry klay jta opj simmons
Poole klay lee opj simmons
Dray and simmons dont need to see the floor together that much and some of the lineups we could have with the new shooters we got would be ridiculous with simmons if he bought into the offensive movement
First, both Dray and Simmons are max players who would demand to start, so that has to be acknowledged.
Second, is there a player in the NBA who epitomizes *not buying in* more than Simmons?
Same could be said about wiggins before he came into our culture
Did the T-Wolves ever actually offer him a cohesive plan to buy into? I am asking earnestly. I don't follow that team.
Point is the same can be said about philly, how was a non shooting and ball dominant big play with another ball dominant paint scoring big. Simmons would great over here and yes he has personality issues but he is still young our culture and curry could benefit him like crazy and if we can get him on a discounted price itd be stupid to pass up
And come on, how can you act like there's terminal redundancy with Joel Embiid but completely ignore the issue with Draymond?
What would you give up for him? I want to know your definition of a discounted price.
Totally different personalities. Wiggins is the anti-socialite.
Who is guarding the center position in these lineups for 82 games? It certainly won't be Simmons.
These are just potential second units, looney would still be the starting center
If Looney is the starting center, it doesn't work. Simmons, Dray and Looney cannot all play at once or that shooting you keep talking about is gone. Of those three, Looney is the only one who would take a demotion to the bench.
Simmons looney and dray can absolutely play next to steph curry and klay
No they cannot. 2 of those guys might be able to play with each other (and I have my doubts about that), but there is no way that all 3 can play together. We might not clear 100-105 ORTG with those 3 against good defenses.
I mean, they can in the sense that any five guys *can* play together, but I’m not at all crazy about that lineup, especially seeing what at two or three more shooters with Curry was opening up last night.
"Absolutely" is a strong word. Many people who know more about basketball than me would say in today's NBA you need more than 2 shooters on the floor.
I do not believe that this is true unless one or two of those guys makes a drastic improvement as a shooter.
I think he played center for sixers at times when embiid would be out but I could be wrong
He does not want to play center, and he has a history of prioritizing his desires over that of the team.
If he wants to come here, just make that the condition. I'm sure he'd rather play center than rot over there or whichever other lotto team wants him
I'm not sure of anything with him, other than the fact that basketball does not seem to be his highest priority.
Jordan Poole is two years younger than Chris Duarte.
If only we'd packaged him and Wiseman to trade up one slot and get the future All-NBA Duarte instead of just taking Moody!
Even crazier: Loon is only 1.5 years older than Duarte. What does it even mean to be a rookie anymore?!
Anyone else thinks POR is stuck in no mans land yet again? They have a solid squad and should secure 50 wins with Dame carrying them but once again they enter the new season with no true 2nd star. Hate to say it but they'll never win a series against the big dogs if Dame doesn't have his Robin.
You don't think of CJ as a true star?
Yea, same thing again. They just keep swapping some wing pieces and repeating the process. I think they did improve ever so slightly. I think the Powell/Gary Trent Jr trade helped in that they have a decent two-way small wing.
It's like squeezing that last bit of toothpaste out of the bottom for the past week when you probably should have just tossed it and opened a new one a few days ago.
They really need to pull the trigger on McCollum plus assets for Simmons. PHI fans won't like it, but that's a moot point since there is no return they would like at this point. POR needs the defense and offense creation.
I really don't get why they've stuck with that tandem for so long. Yes, they're both good, but since they can't really add significant talent without breaking up that backcourt, it seems weird that they haven't
Because the one they’d deal (McCollum) won’t bring in that much.
Just imagine this offense if Wiseman was playing the exact role that Bjelica played last night 🤤🤤. Seems like that should be easy enough to replicate, right? Better than forcing a bunch of pick & rolls that he obviously didn't understand the timing to execute.
If Wiseman turns into half the shooter Bjelica is, that's a really good shooting outcome for him. Don't think that is realistic at all.
No no no, imagine wiseman learning how to roll properly with this much shooting and passing on the court, easy dunks all day, we have enough scoring now where he can literally only focus on when to cut for dunks and o rebounds
My fantasy is Wiseman on the arc spacing the floor and then when his man (the opposing center) closes out, he takes one dribble and YAMS on the poor souls waiting in the lane. Make it happen Kerr!
That was my fantasy last season forsure, let him pick n pop with curry n poole n space the floor, or even spread the floor n let EP go to work but with hiw much shooting and passing we have now I'd love for him to sit dunkers spot, imagine a high low game with him n bjelly or him sitting corner and letting kuminga go to work on 4s in the future, we have so many options
TheRinger podcast "What Can Klay Thompson and James Wiseman Offer the Warriors This Season?"
https://www.theringer.com/2021/10/4/22709688/what-can-klay-thompson-and-james-wiseman-offer-the-warriors-this-season
pretty cool so far. They have some cool stories about Klay and Steph working hard in practice, Klay talking to himself during his rehabbing
It's pretty rambling so listeners should be aware, but agree it's fun stuff to hear.
It was nice, but they never got into what Wiseman can do this season. They just talked about how much he wants it and the new coach.
yup, not especially deep or insightful, but interesting story telling at least
Do you know what the “turmoil” is around Anthony Edwards that they referred to?
I thought it was referring to the FO turmoil.
I only listened to the Warriors part (heavy spreadsheet day at work, so I need music not talking)... but in general, no. I thought everything was all good
Looking at the shot chart, who shot the long 2’s, Wiggins?
Only one of them was Wiggins and it was a made shot in the right corner. Poole, Steph, OPJ, and Looney were the others.
Can't say that I am a fan of hoisting so many threes, but it's just preseason. I must admit I haven't been able to watch the game, but were those attempts "organic" or forced? 0-27 has pretty much discredited Moreyball as a winning strategy as far as I am concerned, so I guess we'll have to find out what the plan will be.
Moreyball led to the Rockets greatly outperforming their talent and being the only team in the NBA to compete with a healthy KD era Warriors. It absolutely works, with the sustained long-term success of the Harden Rockets being the prime example. In recent years, teams like the Jazz have also sustained a lot of offensive success by putting up a ton of 3s.
Only someone who suffers from a heavy winning bias would say that Moreyball does not work.
I was pretty flabbergasted by 69 3-point attempts. But - the W’s had 17 more shot attempts than the Blazers overall. They were clearly doing some extra cooking. And pre-season is the time to try this stuff (e.g. spread the D, pass and bomb away).
As much as the ball was moving, the players were not moving quite enough, which would usually open up easy looks at the rim off of back cuts and just plain defensive miscues. I really like Porter and Bjelica but they were slow out there and don't really pose a driving threat so they are really just 3 pt shooters until they figure out the Warriors motion offense.
For the Warrior's offense to get to the next level, they need to figure out the screens and motion that will open up those rim runs for even easier buckets.
Porter looked good with the movement to me he passed up a couple 3s to drive to the rim and make the extra pass, it wasnt like oubre where every time the ball was swung to him he jacked it up
The other difference is that when OPJ jacks it up it is a thing of beauty. You're right that he did try some other things with the ball in his hand but the lack of motion off the ball was pretty evident to me. You could see the difference for example when Lee came in the game and started creating chaos with his cuts which led to even cleaner looks.
Forsure. Lee is a damm maniac with his movement I love him and that floater is cash money records
Curry was really trying to get Bradley going and Bradley was over-hoisting. JTA looked a little over-amped even for him. Other than that, the 3-point shooting was very organic; they were whipping the ball around the perimeter and guys were passing up good shots for great shots.
If anyone was just jacking it up, it was Bradley in the first half. Meh.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “over-hoisting”.
Maybe he's just trying too hard but that over-hoisting did not win him any more points with me than it put on the scoreboard. He had some good moments defensively though.
The vast majority of the 3pa seemed in rhythm with the offense, which is all I want really. The number of attempts in a vacuum doesn't matter as much to me as the way in which those attempts came about, and it did not look like the Warriors were gravitating away too much from their signature read and react style.
Also worth noting that this was a game against the Blazers, a team that has reliably been in the very bottom of the NBA defensive rankings. Working with a new coach and supposedly a new scheme this year, they were still getting cooked on the perimeter
The "new coach/new scheme" thing is relevant, but Portland was middle of the pack (along with us) in 3PA against last year (albeit 20th in percentage against, while we were 8th best).
I was just talking total points per possession. , but point taken : )
Looks like they shot 4/19 (horrible) from the corners and and 20/50 (Unstoppable, baby!) from above the break.
Is this the first time we've ever surrounded Steph/Klay with this many legit shooters? We don't have anybody on the active roster that's not a threat to shoot the 3 ball, even Looney can occasionally hit one. I'm telling you the combo of shooters, slashers and the eventual lob threat in Wiseman returning... we're about to see some beautiful basketball this year. This squad reminds me a bit of the Hawks last year but instead of Trae running the show it's Steph... and we have a Hulk. I mean Draymond.
It is silly to draw conclusions from a single preseasongame (I will anyway) but if that is Poole's true new level of performance, the Warriors have some truly terrifying small ball lineups when Klay gets back. Curry, Poole, Thompson, Porter jr, Green or, if Kerr feels like he needs some "extra" shooting, he can swap in Bjelica for Green.
With Steph, Poole, Klay, and OPJ in there, Kerr would have to be a glutton to need more shooting - but you're right, he has the option. Dray will love distributing the ball to that bunch, though, and he'd be crucial on defense.
For a little perspective, the Warriors shot 54% eFG last night, which would have put them smack in the middle of the NBA team averages last year... tied with the Portland Trail Blazers. (The Warriors themselves shot 55.1% eFG, the Nets led with 57.5% and the Magic brought up the rear at 49%).
I look at "The Warriors shot 55.1% eFG" and I can't help but think, Steph shot a lot better than that and the rest of the team shot a *LOT* worse, didn't they?
Another stat tidbit; the game last night was at a blistering 109.5 pace. The Wizards led in pace last year at 104.1 (*cough* Westbrook *cough*) with the Bucks and Warriors tied for 2nd at 102.2. This allowed the Dubs to get up 100 shot attempts which is nearly 12 more than the Warriors averaged last year, and more than eight more than the league-leading Bucks last year.
hey where'd you find these?
Super interesting stat. I look forward to seeing if this is a trend in the season. OPJ did say he leaned up to keep up!
I have a strong hunch this has a lot to do with Portland.
I'm sorry.
This is so juvenile.
But I just ... can't ... help...myself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYWT4uYOPvs
I really enjoyed the recent film, fwiw
Embarrassed to say I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but, on your recommendation, I will move it up the queue.
I'm more inclined to see it now
It's remarkable to me how well they kept the tone of the original. Just that right mix of stupid and sublime.