The Anthony Davis Thread

[D Nice]

The Wolves never broke into the top 10 until 2003-2004, and were only above 15th once. People used the same arguments against KG forever. You just can't anchor all world defenses by yourself, and when people attribute top ranked defenses to one player, it's just wrong.

Well that's just not true, from '99-'03 they were 11th (twice), 12th, 14th, and 16th. There is a HUGE difference between that and finishing 27th. And KG was a +4.4, +4.5, + 8.5 between 2001 and 2003 on D. Davis was literally a negative on the 4th worst defensive team in the league and this year is a +1.2 on a middling defense. I don't know how you see these as remotely comparable imprints.

Duncan having Robinson to back him up has everything to do with it, because people wouldn't feel like rookie Tim was a way better defender if the Spurs weren't ranked so highly, and they wouldn't be ranked so highly if they were the Pelicans.

I mean I understand the synergy argument but what Duncan was doing very clearly stands on its own merits. He looked great when he was on the floor by himself, I've never heard the "D-Rob artificially propped up the perception of Duncan's D" argument before.

On the flip side, the Pelicans are 5th ranked offense, on what people deem to be a terrible offensively talented team... does that make him a GOAT level offensive anchor, since he's clearly the catalyst and the main threat here?

I'm again confused. Is there anyone denying he's having a monstrous season offensively? As for GOAT-level, there's nothing GOAT-level about a team with Tyreke Evans, Ryan Anderson, Eric Gordon, and Jrue Holiday being a top 5 offense. Very very impressive yeah, but look at the 2006 and 2007 Lakers. Those teams finished with the #7 offense in the league. THAT'S what GOAT-ish offensive anchoring looks like. But again, I don't think anybody is saying Davis isn't looking like a terror on offense right now, we're just questioning how it translates to the PS and the fact that his facilitating responsibilities are looking somewhat sparse (at the very least untested) given his scoring output.

[NO-KG-AI]

I typo'd, but still, the Pelicans are middle of the pack right now, the same as the Wolves were (and sometimes worse)every year but one. Either way, Davis isn't better than KG was by the 2000's, he's just better than he was at 21, and that's where I stood.

He's been better at 18, 19, 20, and 21, IMO. Does that mean he'll peak higher? No, but it's definitely encouraging.

[Doctor MJ]

Hmm, I think we should agree to disagree here. Hakeem in his 3rd season was clearly a stronger defender (I'm aware of the age separation but Davis at 21 has much more lifetime basketball experience than Hakeem at 23), I don't really see what having D-Rob to "back him up" has to do with Duncan's superior IQ/application, and by 2000 I thought KG was a much better defender than what we're seeing from Davis now.

As for "evidence," well, the sample size is small but on the #14 ranked defense he's having almost no impact on the team's defensive +/-, and in 2014 "anchored" the 4th worst defense in the entire league (and was actually a negative in defensive +/- that year). There really isn't any statistical support to say he's some kind of generational defender at this stage other than raw BPG/SPG, which I acknowledge are impressive and are exactly what point to his GOAT-level defensive tools (which, at the moment, aren't being applied with a high degree of efficacy IMO).

I'm confused by this post.

So first:

By Olajuwon's 3rd year in the league, he had 7 years combined in college & the pros learning how to play as a big from people who knew there stuff.

Davis was a guard up through his sophomore high school year and only just started getting attention at his nothing high school his junior year. So in terms of serious experience learning to play the role that he actually plays, we're talking about one year of high school, one year of college, and this is only his 3rd year in the pros.

So no, it's not any kind of given that he has more experienced than a 2-year-older Olajuwon...it just feels like it because he adapted so freaking fast that he was the best college player I've seen in an era while still a freshman, whereas Hakeem was slower to adapt.

You can certainly bring up that playing guard is not the same as not playing at all until you're 15, but let's not pretend that playing guard makes it clear how to block a ton of shots without getting burned, and without drawing a ton of fouls, not that such things are just products of being athletic. The reality is that Davis just learned astonishingly quickly, which is something I find odd in use against him a Hakeem comparison given that that was one of Hakeem's key attributes. Frankly in that sense, one can say that their similarity there makes the comparison between the two all the more similar.

On your second paragraph, can you source the data? There is a massive on/off difference for Davis this year, and from what I see on 82games (which granted is a few days out of date) it's not only on offense.

Really the impression I get from your post is that you feel perhaps a bit burned by last year. He put up huge stats last year but the +/- didn't come. That's a clear indication of horsepower not really leading to work getting done, and it's understandable to say you want to wait and see this year. I said the same thing when asked about his DPOY candidacy.

At the same time though, you speak as if you're actually seeing major problems without going into them and I personally am really reluctant to go that route too. To me wait and see really means keeping quiet about things - even if they seem clearly good or bad - until I know more.

Last thing I'll say: I think it's crucial to understand that for a young player on a young team, +/- impact can change in a hurry. Durant looked worse than Davis did in his 2nd year by +/-, but by his 3rd year he looked like a superstar. To me that's the team aspect of things showing. It means that sometimes getting a bit better at this or that with teammates getting more used to their place can suddenly click.

[D Nice]

Hmm, I think we should agree to disagree here. Hakeem in his 3rd season was clearly a stronger defender (I'm aware of the age separation but Davis at 21 has much more lifetime basketball experience than Hakeem at 23), I don't really see what having D-Rob to "back him up" has to do with Duncan's superior IQ/application, and by 2000 I thought KG was a much better defender than what we're seeing from Davis now.

As for "evidence," well, the sample size is small but on the #14 ranked defense he's having almost no impact on the team's defensive +/-, and in 2014 "anchored" the 4th worst defense in the entire league (and was actually a negative in defensive +/- that year). There really isn't any statistical support to say he's some kind of generational defender at this stage other than raw BPG/SPG, which I acknowledge are impressive and are exactly what point to his GOAT-level defensive tools (which, at the moment, aren't being applied with a high degree of efficacy IMO).

I'm confused by this post.

So first:

By Olajuwon's 3rd year in the league, he had 7 years combined in college & the pros learning how to play as a big from people who knew there stuff.

Davis was a guard up through his sophomore high school year and only just started getting attention at his nothing high school his junior year. So in terms of serious experience learning to play the role that he actually plays, we're talking about one year of high school, one year of college, and this is only his 3rd year in the pros.

So no, it's not any kind of given that he has more experienced than a 2-year-older Olajuwon...it just feels like it because he adapted so freaking fast that he was the best college player I've seen in an era while still a freshman, whereas Hakeem was slower to adapt.

I'm not sure why you opted for the cut-off of "High School and College" when I said "lifetime basketball experience." It is widely known that Hakeem didn't start playing basketball in any organized fashion (or at all) until he was like 16. Davis, like virtually every professional, has been playings structured basketball his entire life. He learned the game in his formative years like every great player does. Hakeem was playing catchup much of the time you're talking about, there's no way you're going to convince me Davis somehow had/has it tougher in terms of developing an understanding because of 2 less years of college. You don't advance you're understanding of the game more between 16-20 than you do from 7-15, that just doesn't happen but if you're exceptional you can "catch up" like Dream did.

You can certainly bring up that playing guard is not the same as not playing at all until you're 15, but let's not pretend that playing guard makes it clear how to block a ton of shots without getting burned, and without drawing a ton of fouls, not that such things are just products of being athletic. The reality is that Davis just learned astonishingly quickly, which is something I find odd in use against him a Hakeem comparison given that that was one of Hakeem's key attributes. Frankly in that sense, one can say that their similarity there makes the comparison between the two all the more similar.

1. Guards have to contest shots without fouling too. It's much easier to adapt to guys coming at you than it is otherwise. Ask anybody who is a PG on their HS/College team how it is adapting to coaching/scrimmaging against middle schoolers or 9th/10th graders and getting to play a "big." You'll find (as I did...from personal experience) the point guards with some IQ doesn't really have any problems adjusting to being on the back-line. Defense is defense. Guards are taught how to stop their man and make use of the guys behind them. It's much much harder to learn that that it is to learn how to actually be the guy in back.

2. Young Hakeem IS the guy whose defense I said bore the most similarity to AD. Hakeem was just clearly a much more imapctful defender at the same stage of his development, which is really what I'm getting at.

On your second paragraph, can you source the data? There is a massive on/off difference for Davis this year, and from what I see on 82games (which granted is a few days out of date) it's not only on offense.

Uh, it's from Basketball Reference. He's +1.2 there on defense and +19.5 on offense.

Really the impression I get from your post is that you feel perhaps a bit burned by last year. He put up huge stats last year but the +/- didn't come. That's a clear indication of horsepower not really leading to work getting done, and it's understandable to say you want to wait and see this year. I said the same thing when asked about his DPOY candidacy.

It's less a matter of feeling burned by after-the-fact +/- than it was seeing him fail to really match the guys he's compared to in terms of defensive impact in real-time and his "anchoring" of the #27 defense league-wide without being on a team that is outlier-level bad (or even significantly below average) on defense (in regards to his teammates). Again, Garnett with worse defensive teammates routinely had his teams finish between 11-14, and did so rocking much more impressive +/- numbers.

In the same vein that having a generational offensive player all but guarantees an at least middle-of-the-pack team offense with even the worst of teammates, a generational defensive player all but guarantees a middle-of-the-pack defensive team even with poor defensive teammates. I don't know how the Pelicans being #27 in DRTG coupled with little to no +/- imprint (last year or this year) on that end can't raise huge red flags about a guys impact compared to many of the greatest defensive players to ever play.

And if anything where I feel most "burned" is that when I was watching this guy in college I was like (without paying attention to age) "wow, this guy is the best defensive collegiate player since Ewing/D-Rob. He puts Emeka to shame" only to have him seemingly regress when he gets to the league. Defense usually translates fairly immediately, and in Davis's case it really didn't. Obviously its early, and he's young, and this, and that, but I'm just saying if there's any area in which I feel "jipped" it would be that.

At the same time though, you speak as if you're actually seeing major problems without going into them and I personally am really reluctant to go that route too. To me wait and see really means keeping quiet about things - even if they seem clearly good or bad - until I know more.

I'm not seeing "major problems" so much as I'm seeing areas where he can significantly improve, and am calling for some temperament in assigning him "D-GOAT" status on the basis of his admittedly jaw-dropping highlight stops. And until he actually does demonstrate top-tier defense, I'm hesitant to call him the unimpeachable #1 big man in the league and an inarguable top 3 player/MVP when you have a go-to guy like Cousins doing what he's doing and who has a game tailor-made for the playoffs.

Last thing I'll say: I think it's crucial to understand that for a young player on a young team, +/- impact can change in a hurry. Durant looked worse than Davis did in his 2nd year by +/-, but by his 3rd year he looked like a superstar. To me that's the team aspect of things showing. It means that sometimes getting a bit better at this or that with teammates getting more used to their place can suddenly click.

I didn't think KD was that good in 2009, I thought Melo was clearly, clearly a better player, so his pedestrian +/- numbers don't require any explaining away to me. He was a sub-par defender who didn't have a very versatile approach and didn't do any creating for anyone outside of himself on offense. Opposing teams weren't gameplanning to stop this guy at all costs, he was almost never double teamed...he was much better than he was the year prior but he also made a pretty big jump the following season (and another big jump in 2012).

[Doctor MJ]

You can certainly bring up that playing guard is not the same as not playing at all until you're 15, but let's not pretend that playing guard makes it clear how to block a ton of shots without getting burned, and without drawing a ton of fouls, not that such things are just products of being athletic. The reality is that Davis just learned astonishingly quickly, which is something I find odd in use against him a Hakeem comparison given that that was one of Hakeem's key attributes. Frankly in that sense, one can say that their similarity there makes the comparison between the two all the more similar.

1. Guards have to contest shots without fouling too. It's much easier to adapt to guys coming at you than it is otherwise. Ask anybody who is a PG on their HS/College team how it is adapting to coaching/scrimmaging against middle schoolers or 9th/10th graders and getting to play a "big." You'll find (as I did...from personal experience) the point guards with some IQ doesn't really have any problems adjusting to being on the back-line. Defense is defense. Guards are taught how to stop their man and make use of the guys behind them. It's much much harder to learn that that it is to learn how to actually be the guy in back.

2. Young Hakeem IS the guy whose defense I said bore the most similarity to AD. Hakeem was just clearly a much more imapctful defender at the same stage of his development, which is really what I'm getting at.

1. I'm skeptical.

The reality is that among any recent big time prospects among big men, Davis was the one who stood out as being clearly more intelligent than the rest on the court, so what you're basically saying is that in general it takes a real moron to not be a savvy defensive big man...while we talk about guys in the NBA were for the most part the huge impacting guys along those lines are disproportionally old and most definitely don't come across as "the least dumb of the bunch".

2. Development. Well of course that is precisely what we're debating.

But then let's also note that Hakeem stepped right into a twin towers set up - which is ideal for defense - playing for a guy name one of the 10 greatest coaches in history.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the "raw" Hakeem would have gone into a situation without a clear cut defensive system and with a bunch of offense-first teammates, and would have made it all work.

On your second paragraph, can you source the data? There is a massive on/off difference for Davis this year, and from what I see on 82games (which granted is a few days out of date) it's not only on offense.

Uh, it's from Basketball Reference. He's +1.2 there on defense and +19.5 on offense.

I see it now. I was looking on the main player page for it, and I didn't find it until I clicked through the drop downs.

That's weird. It's amazing to see such a huge difference based on only a few days. Makes my primary takeaway what we already know: That it's really early.

Really the impression I get from your post is that you feel perhaps a bit burned by last year. He put up huge stats last year but the +/- didn't come. That's a clear indication of horsepower not really leading to work getting done, and it's understandable to say you want to wait and see this year. I said the same thing when asked about his DPOY candidacy.

It's less a matter of feeling burned by after-the-fact +/- than it was seeing him fail to really match the guys he's compared to in terms of defensive impact in real-time and his "anchoring" of the #27 defense league-wide without being on a team that is outlier-level bad (or even significantly below average) on defense (in regards to his teammates). Again, Garnett with worse defensive teammates routinely had his teams finish between 11-14, and did so rocking much more impressive +/- numbers.

In the same vein that having a generational offensive player all but guarantees an at least middle-of-the-pack team offense with even the worst of teammates, a generational defensive player all but guarantees a middle-of-the-pack defensive team even with poor defensive teammates. I don't know how the Pelicans being #27 in DRTG coupled with little to no +/- imprint (last year or this year) on that end can't raise huge red flags about a guys impact compared to many of the greatest defensive players to ever play.

And if anything where I feel most "burned" is that when I was watching this guy in college I was like (without paying attention to age) "wow, this guy is the best defensive collegiate player since Ewing/D-Rob. He puts Emeka to shame" only to have him seemingly regress when he gets to the league. Defense usually translates fairly immediately, and in Davis's case it really didn't. Obviously its early, and he's young, and this, and that, but I'm just saying if there's any area in which I feel "jipped" it would be that.

No defense doesn't translate fairly immediately especially in the current era. Dwight Howard didn't have his first +5 defensive RAPM year (scaled) until after he'd been the league 5+ years, and Joakim Noah - someone billed as a future DPOY while in college - took years to put it all together. Meanwhile we have guys like Garnett & Duncan who kept having huge per minute impact well after their stellar agility died.

You keep talking about how awful the Pelican defense was last year like it was something one player could definitively turn around, but it's a team game and the team was a mess. The evidence is right there in what you say: Why does Davis seem to regress? Because he let's himself get way out of position chasing guys on the perimeter first and foremost...but he didn't in college. It's not like the temptation wasn't there, Davis just didn't do it, and now at times he does. Does stupidity really make sense as the only answer?

If stopped himself from doing it before - even if it was only because Calipari told him to, it means that he's fully capable of playing that way again as we speak, and yet you stand here giving a eulogy for it. I think you lost your faith a tad quickly.

At the same time though, you speak as if you're actually seeing major problems without going into them and I personally am really reluctant to go that route too. To me wait and see really means keeping quiet about things - even if they seem clearly good or bad - until I know more.

I'm not seeing "major problems" so much as I'm seeing areas where he can significantly improve, and am calling for some temperament in assigning him "D-GOAT" status on the basis of his admittedly jaw-dropping highlight stops. And until he actually does demonstrate top-tier defense, I'm hesitant to call him the unimpeachable #1 big man in the league and an inarguable top 3 player/MVP when you have a go-to guy like Cousins doing what he's doing and who has a game tailor-made for the playoffs.

I'm fine with people saying to chill with the hype, it just sounds a bit more rigid in the words I've seen from you.

Re: Cousins' game tailor-made for the playoffs. Wow, first I've heard someone say that.

Last thing I'll say: I think it's crucial to understand that for a young player on a young team, +/- impact can change in a hurry. Durant looked worse than Davis did in his 2nd year by +/-, but by his 3rd year he looked like a superstar. To me that's the team aspect of things showing. It means that sometimes getting a bit better at this or that with teammates getting more used to their place can suddenly click.

I didn't think KD was that good in 2009, I thought Melo was clearly, clearly a better player, so his pedestrian +/- numbers don't require any explaining away to me. He was a sub-par defender who didn't have a very versatile approach and didn't do any creating for anyone outside of himself on offense. Opposing teams weren't gameplanning to stop this guy at all costs, he was almost never double teamed...he was much better than he was the year prior but he also made a pretty big jump the following season (and another big jump in 2012).

Huh? I'm not asking you to explain away anything, and you saying it's to be expected because he was worse than a perineal all-star is just weird.

Durant's RAPM his first couple years was like a negative superstar. In my spreadsheet, between his second year and 3rd year his RAPM goes from negative 6.11 to positive 5.75. It's jaw dropping.

So this is why I'm saying: Be really careful about letting Davis not look like a +/- god his second year shape what you see from him this year.

[BoutPractice]

To some degree, Davis is still being judged with collegiate expectations in mind.

When he entered the league, some primarily saw him as a defensive anchor with a limited but ultra efficient offensive game. A Tyson Chandler of sorts ie you launch the ball up in the air, a dunk comes out on the other end.

I always thought that he was underrated offensively. Even in college, I thought he had the most potential on the offensive end, and that would actually translate quicker than defense. That's because, first of all, a Tyson Chandler is a pretty good asset offensively in today's game, but if you add to that Serge Ibaka's midrange jumper, you've already got a rare proposition in the league: a player who's a maximum danger on the pick and roll AND a danger on the pick and pop. A screener who can play Dirk or Tyson depending on the situation.

The jumper wasn't fantastic at the beginning, but judging from his picture perfect form you could see that he would have those attributes fairly quickly, which alone would make him a big offensive plus. If you added on top of those things the more freakish aspects of his offensive game - the ability to beat guards down the floor to get several easy transition buckets per game, and tons of untapped potential as an on the ball player - the "rare" turned into the "unique".

Of course, given his awesome tools and unfair shotblocking ability, it makes sense to try to compare him to the great anchors of the past, but we shouldn't overlook how brutally effective he is on offense at such a young age.

[D Nice]

1. I'm skeptical.

The reality is that among any recent big time prospects among big men, Davis was the one who stood out as being clearly more intelligent than the rest on the court, so what you're basically saying is that in general it takes a real moron to not be a savvy defensive big man...while we talk about guys in the NBA were for the most part the huge impacting guys along those lines are disproportionally old and most definitely don't come across as "the least dumb of the bunch".

Not really but I think most who played somewhat competitively would agree that guards in general tend to have the highest IQs (at least pertaining to hoops but often in general) amongst any player-type at any level. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve read you post about that exact phenomena in another thread somewhere else so I don’t really see what you’re contesting here. If PGs are the players that best understand that how to pick apart a defense it stands to reason that when placed in a situation where they can be a defensive quarterback they’d have the highest aptitude for it. I mean…even stepping outside of my personal experience it’s just kind of a common-sense inference.

2. Development. Well of course that is precisely what we're debating.

But then let's also note that Hakeem stepped right into a twin towers set up - which is ideal for defense - playing for a guy name one of the 10 greatest coaches in history.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the "raw" Hakeem would have gone into a situation without a clear cut defensive system and with a bunch of offense-first teammates, and would have made it all work.

I don’t even know how we got there because that’s not what I’m saying, all I’m saying is that at a comparable stage in his development (his 3rd year in the league) he had a visibly stronger impact on his teams defense (statistically) and if you want to step outside that was just better at almost every facet of individual defense except perhaps “overzealousness,” where I’d say AD is already better at not being to reactive to ball fakes and what not. But even that isn’t necessarily cut and dry as Hakeem tended to be matched up against bigs that were far more crafty/skilled than what Davis sees.

But to your point, if it was really a "youth" thing, I still don't see how this would suppress his +/- numbers. I know that synergy matters on defense but it doesn't somehow prevent high-impact guys from making their presence felt. You could say his potential for impact there is somewhat blunted by youthful teammates, but that's as far as I'd be willing to take it.

I see it now. I was looking on the main player page for it, and I didn't find it until I clicked through the drop downs.

That's weird. It's amazing to see such a huge difference based on only a few days. Makes my primary takeaway what we already know: That it's really early.

We agree here. I don’t really like relying on impact data from this small a sample and acting like it means everything, I was just quickly referencing it to underscore my point. Last season’s data weighs more heavily, but not addressing current-season statistics at all does him the disservice if ignoring any progress he may have made between then and now.

No defense doesn't translate fairly immediately especially in the current era. Dwight Howard didn't have his first +5 defensive RAPM year (scaled) until after he'd been the league 5+ years, and Joakim Noah - someone billed as a future DPOY while in college - took years to put it all together. Meanwhile we have guys like Garnett & Duncan who kept having huge per minute impact well after their stellar agility died.

OK so maybe I should have worded it differently but yes it does. Dominant defensive players in college are immediately elite NBA defenders when they step onto the court. All of the Georgetown Boys (Deke, Ewing, Zo). D-Rob. Duncan. Oden. Emeka. Noel? (pretty early to make a definitive conclusion but he already seems to be beasting on that end, he’s a +14 so far). Dwight was a friggin high-schooler who was selected for his physique and his potential, nobody was saying ZOMG this guy is the greatest high school defender ever. Noah was not even close to a dominant defender in college and is generally seen as an anomaly. He had high bust potential because of his lack of skills and his frail frame. Nobody thought he’d be able to put on as much weight as he has and nobody thought his playmaking style would actually work in the league. He was seen as a super-intangibles guy who played pretty good D, but he wasn’t some type of generational defender in school.

Davis absolutely was already looking like a ridiculous defensive player and then that just kind of vanished once he hit NBA hardwood. And because of his youth I was willing to give him a pass as a rookie but there wasn’t much improvement his 2nd year.

You keep talking about how awful the Pelican defense was last year like it was something one player could definitively turn around, but it's a team game and the team was a mess. The evidence is right there in what you say: Why does Davis seem to regress? Because he let's himself get way out of position chasing guys on the perimeter first and foremost...but he didn't in college. It's not like the temptation wasn't there, Davis just didn't do it, and now at times he does. Does stupidity really make sense as the only answer?

I don't know where you're getting that I'm calling him a stupid or unintelligent player, literally no idea. The tangent of a guard being well-equipped to defend as a big spoke to your suggestion that him somehow coming up through the ranks as a guard and not a big stymied his learning curve in regards to learning how to play big-man defense compared to a guy who literally didn't pick up a basketball until his late teens! That's it.

However I've already highlighted the fact that by and large any generational offensive player is guaranteed to achieve at least middle of the pack results on offense (team ORTG in the range of 15th) and that generational defensive players have analogous impact on the team concept, again, regardless of how bad the people around them are. Kobe (offense) and KG (defense) were the immediate examples offered up, but it's a list that goes on pretty much forever. The only instance that comes to mind where this isn't really true is '09 and '10 Wade (offense). I literally can't think of one other example.

If stopped himself from doing it before - even if it was only because Calipari told him to, it means that he's fully capable of playing that way again as we speak, and yet you stand here giving a eulogy for it. I think you lost your faith a tad quickly.

I didn't lose any faith because I think he'll still get there. I'm fighting "pre-annointism" because I hate it. It's out of control. It's one of the the biggest reasons I ended up hating Lebron and I refuse to let that happen with Davis.

I'm fine with people saying to chill with the hype, it just sounds a bit more rigid in the words I've seen from you.

Rigid Meaning? Or rather, I'm not sure what in particular you're referring to when referencing my rigidity. My wanting a "defensive anchor" to not "lead" a bottom 4 defense? I'm pretty much always talking about team context/lift in regards to the talent around players on the PC board.

Re: Cousins' game tailor-made for the playoffs. Wow, first I've heard someone say that.

Um, OK?

The phenomena of the dump-it-down big being the much more reliable and effective offensive outlet/anchor in the playoffs has been heavily discussed and is well-documented at this point (Hakeem vs. D-Rob & Ewing, Duncan vs. KG & Karl, etc). Cousins vs. Davis is fairly analogous to those dichotomies at this point, the only thing that gives me pause is Cousins ridiculous foul rate. I don’t want him to stop playing D like he is but if fouling like this is the only way he can do that then it kind of blunts his overall effectiveness a bit.

Also, I know I’m not the only one who has said it, if you’ve been reading Winsome’s posts on Cousins (dating back to last year really) he’s said it multiple times, and he’s a really, really good poster who has probably seen more of Demarcus than any of us the past 2 years.

Huh? I'm not asking you to explain away anything, and you saying it's to be expected because he was worse than a perineal all-star is just weird.

Durant's RAPM his first couple years was like a negative superstar. In my spreadsheet, between his second year and 3rd year his RAPM goes from negative 6.11 to positive 5.75. It's jaw dropping.

So this is why I'm saying: Be really careful about letting Davis not look like a +/- god his second year shape what you see from him this year.

Was it weird? I thought for sure you would have been on the ’09 Durant > Melo train seeing as how you hate Carmelo more than just about anyone here and KD was oh so “efficient” that year in comparison (25ppg 58TS%), so I used Melo as a reference. I just kind of read that part of your post as “well Durant’s +/- took a while to catch up to what he was already doing so it might be the same with Davis” rather than “well Durant’s +/- made huge strides because he significantly improved as a player and Davis might too.” Please let me know if I misinterpreted you there.

[Doctor MJ]

1. I'm skeptical.

The reality is that among any recent big time prospects among big men, Davis was the one who stood out as being clearly more intelligent than the rest on the court, so what you're basically saying is that in general it takes a real moron to not be a savvy defensive big man...while we talk about guys in the NBA were for the most part the huge impacting guys along those lines are disproportionally old and most definitely don't come across as "the least dumb of the bunch".

Not really but I think most who played somewhat competitively would agree that guards in general tend to have the highest IQs (at least pertaining to hoops but often in general) amongst any player-type at any level. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve read you post about that exact phenomena in another thread somewhere else so I don’t really see what you’re contesting here. If PGs are the players that best understand that how to pick apart a defense it stands to reason that when placed in a situation where they can be a defensive quarterback they’d have the highest aptitude for it. I mean…even stepping outside of my personal experience it’s just kind of a common-sense inference.

There are a lot of dumbass NBA PGs though who don't pick a part defense like a surgeon but just blunder their way through with all-world velocity. The guys with world class vision and decision making just clearly stand out, and while they are disproportionately point guards, I see no reason at all to look at your average NBA PG as somehow being similar to the smartest bigs.

2. Development. Well of course that is precisely what we're debating.

But then let's also note that Hakeem stepped right into a twin towers set up - which is ideal for defense - playing for a guy name one of the 10 greatest coaches in history.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the "raw" Hakeem would have gone into a situation without a clear cut defensive system and with a bunch of offense-first teammates, and would have made it all work.

I don’t even know how we got there because that’s not what I’m saying, all I’m saying is that at a comparable stage in his development (his 3rd year in the league) he had a visibly stronger impact on his teams defense (statistically) and if you want to step outside that was just better at almost every facet of individual defense except perhaps “overzealousness,” where I’d say AD is already better at not being to reactive to ball fakes and what not. But even that isn’t necessarily cut and dry as Hakeem tended to be matched up against bigs that were far more crafty/skilled than what Davis sees.

But to your point, if it was really a "youth" thing, I still don't see how this would suppress his +/- numbers. I know that synergy matters on defense but it doesn't somehow prevent high-impact guys from making their presence felt. You could say his potential for impact there is somewhat blunted by youthful teammates, but that's as far as I'd be willing to take it.

I'm following you here, but I don't get where you have the impression that other guys had high-impact right away. Will speak to it down below.

No defense doesn't translate fairly immediately especially in the current era. Dwight Howard didn't have his first +5 defensive RAPM year (scaled) until after he'd been the league 5+ years, and Joakim Noah - someone billed as a future DPOY while in college - took years to put it all together. Meanwhile we have guys like Garnett & Duncan who kept having huge per minute impact well after their stellar agility died.

OK so maybe I should have worded it differently but yes it does. Dominant defensive players in college are immediately elite NBA defenders when they step onto the court. All of the Georgetown Boys (Deke, Ewing, Zo). D-Rob. Duncan. Oden. Emeka. Noel? (pretty early to make a definitive conclusion but he already seems to be beasting on that end, he’s a +14 so far). Dwight was a friggin high-schooler who was selected for his physique and his potential, nobody was saying ZOMG this guy is the greatest high school defender ever. Noah was not even close to a dominant defender in college and is generally seen as an anomaly. He had high bust potential because of his lack of skills and his frail frame. Nobody thought he’d be able to put on as much weight as he has and nobody thought his playmaking style would actually work in the league. He was seen as a super-intangibles guy who played pretty good D, but he wasn’t some type of generational defender in school.

Davis absolutely was already looking like a ridiculous defensive player and then that just kind of vanished once he hit NBA hardwood. And because of his youth I was willing to give him a pass as a rookie but there wasn’t much improvement his 2nd year.

See I really think you're using old criteria for old guys, and simply assuming they'd look awesome by the new stats you're using against Davis.

Oden and Okafor really have no track record at all showing them to be awesome by defensive RAPM, let alone being great right away. And frankly I can't remember any players in recent history who have come and been great impact defenders right away when you look at the +/- data.

So this goes toward what I've been saying: What we've found in the +/- era is that "superstar rookies" don't have impact like their stats indicate, and it's really not close. We just see it over and over again. It's partly the young guy being a bit out of his depth in the more nuanced stuff, and partly that a brand new superstar means that everyone on the team is getting used to a new set up.

I think it didn't used to be so hard - that the complexity of modern teams and their ripostes make it far harder to truly kill the other team with new talent - but I also think that guys like Hakeem and Duncan benefitted greatly from being able to be slotted in to a team where they weren't asked to do it all, where they had veteran mentorship, and where they had great coaches. Without that there will just be growing pains.

Also you Noel comment is interesting. Taking it on face value: If Noel ends up the more impactful defensive player right away that to me is just proof of what I've been saying, because I watched Noel in college and he was nowhere near as savvy as Davis despite having been playing the help defender role from a much younger age. There's no way he passed up Davis based on mental talent at this stage in the game.

But conceivably he ends up the more impactful defensive player simply based on allocation of efforts. Basically all Noel is doing right now is defense, whereas with Davis' better-than-expected offensive landing in the NBA, it's clear that he's devoting quite a lot of his energy to improving in that area.

With all that said, aside from the fact that sample size is small, there's also the matter that when Noel is on the court his team is being outscored by 14.4 points per 100 possessions. When a team is doing that bad when you're on the court, it doesn't make sense to talk about impact. Until you pose a serious challenge to your opponents, you don't know how effective you'd be if they really had to beat what you're doing that appears to work.

If stopped himself from doing it before - even if it was only because Calipari told him to, it means that he's fully capable of playing that way again as we speak, and yet you stand here giving a eulogy for it. I think you lost your faith a tad quickly.

I didn't lose any faith because I think he'll still get there. I'm fighting "pre-annointism" because I hate it. It's out of control. It's one of the the biggest reasons I ended up hating Lebron and I refuse to let that happen with Davis.

Fair enough.

Re: Cousins' game tailor-made for the playoffs. Wow, first I've heard someone say that.

Um, OK?

The phenomena of the dump-it-down big being the much more reliable and effective offensive outlet/anchor in the playoffs has been heavily discussed and is well-documented at this point (Hakeem vs. D-Rob & Ewing, Duncan vs. KG & Karl, etc). Cousins vs. Davis is fairly analogous to those dichotomies at this point, the only thing that gives me pause is Cousins ridiculous foul rate. I don’t want him to stop playing D like he is but if fouling like this is the only way he can do that then it kind of blunts his overall effectiveness a bit.

Also, I know I’m not the only one who has said it, if you’ve been reading Winsome’s posts on Cousins (dating back to last year really) he’s said it multiple times, and he’s a really, really good poster who has probably seen more of Demarcus than any of us the past 2 years.

Y'know, as I think about it, Winsome probably did stay stuff along those lines. I honestly don't remember. Thing is, Winsome just want all in so hard on Cousins it all blurs together for me. He would promote and defend Cousins on all fronts. (Winsome if you're reading this, no offense. I thought you did a pretty good job of it, but it was obvious you were extremely passionate.)

To your point, I really don't know what you mean about dump-it-down being seen as some ideal. If you go and look at the most effective playoff offenses each year, they are dominated by more flexible offensive superstars with the one exception in modern NBA history being Shaq...just like Shaq is the only classic big in recent history to truly compete with more perimeter oriented guys when it comes to offensive RAPM.

Don't confuse the fact that Hakeem & Duncan won with them being the most effective offensive players - defense had a ton to do with it (Although at the pinnacle of his key playoff runs, what Hakeem was doing in Rudy T's hub & spoke offense was huge against an unready league.)

Huh? I'm not asking you to explain away anything, and you saying it's to be expected because he was worse than a perineal all-star is just weird.

Durant's RAPM his first couple years was like a negative superstar. In my spreadsheet, between his second year and 3rd year his RAPM goes from negative 6.11 to positive 5.75. It's jaw dropping.

So this is why I'm saying: Be really careful about letting Davis not look like a +/- god his second year shape what you see from him this year.

Was it weird? I thought for sure you would have been on the ’09 Durant > Melo train seeing as how you hate Carmelo more than just about anyone here and KD was oh so “efficient” that year in comparison (25ppg 58TS%), so I used Melo as a reference. I just kind of read that part of your post as “well Durant’s +/- took a while to catch up to what he was already doing so it might be the same with Davis” rather than “well Durant’s +/- made huge strides because he significantly improved as a player and Davis might too.” Please let me know if I misinterpreted you there.

Ha well to be clear, I've never said Melo's not a good, impactful player. He's just a lot weaker than most think. Durant in his second year simply wasn't a player making things work for his team...though of course neither was Melo at the same age despite the fact his team's record improved so much when he joined.

[D Nice]

There are a lot of dumbass NBA PGs though who don't pick a part defense like a surgeon but just blunder their way through with all-world velocity. The guys with world class vision and decision making just clearly stand out, and while they are disproportionately point guards, I see no reason at all to look at your average NBA PG as somehow being similar to the smartest bigs.

Eh well half the point guards today aren’t actual point guards, was mostly talking about “pure” point guards you see throughout basically all of NBA history up until 5-10 years ago. And also I was speaking on basketball development, not just at the NBA level. Need I remind you you were contending that his being a guard somehow inhibited his development as a big, and in rebuttal I am merely stating that in almost every circle you enter no matter the age group it is the guards that tend to understand the game better.

But yeah there are a lot of very stupid guards that occupy the "PG position" on the court these days without being actual floor generals.

See I really think you're using old criteria for old guys, and simply assuming they'd look awesome by the new stats you're using against Davis.

Oden and Okafor really have no track record at all showing them to be awesome by defensive RAPM, let alone being great right away. And frankly I can't remember any players in recent history who have come and been great impact defenders right away when you look at the +/- data.

So this goes toward what I've been saying: What we've found in the +/- era is that "superstar rookies" don't have impact like their stats indicate, and it's really not close. We just see it over and over again. It's partly the young guy being a bit out of his depth in the more nuanced stuff, and partly that a brand new superstar means that everyone on the team is getting used to a new set up.

I didn’t really check Oden or Okafor’s defensive statistics (just kind of assumed at least Oden would have rocked some impressive showings early on) and was merely leaning on sentiment there, but at least in Oden’s case that shocks me. Both guys were “seen” as affecting major impact early on, but I guess this really speaks to your point that this isn’t necessarily always reflected immediately.

I think it didn't used to be so hard - that the complexity of modern teams and their ripostes make it far harder to truly kill the other team with new talent - but I also think that guys like Hakeem and Duncan benefitted greatly from being able to be slotted in to a team where they weren't asked to do it all, where they had veteran mentorship, and where they had great coaches. Without that there will just be growing pains.

Right NO-KG-AI said similar stuff and that’s fine if you want to adopt that opinion but I don’t think it should matter when we’re talking bout impact. Duncan looked great even when D-Rob wasn’t on the floor and Sampson wasn’t some kind of defensive stalwart. Seems like a cop-out to me. Duncan was doing the same stuff for San Antonio he did at Wake in much the same way, which again, tends to speak to the point I’m making.

You seem to be making the argument that defensive impact is predicated on systemic deployment. I disagree very strongly with that. There is something to be said for synergy and coaching but I do not think it makes up 90% or 100% of defensive efficacy. I’d say it’s more like 20% or 30% (if we’re assigning interval values to nebulous concepts anyway). Offense is where Xs and Os (can) make a much bigger difference. Aside from deciding how you are going to deal with given situations (are you going to trap the P&R, double the post, switch on-ball screens, switch off-ball screens, funnel baseline or middle) basketball is basketball. These are the same situational presences you learn from your coaches in high school and college. I think you’re trying to add a lot of complexity that isn’t really there to give AD a pass.

The speed at which you need to make these adjustments/render these decisions is represents the "steepest" part of the defensive learning curve.

Also you Noel comment is interesting. Taking it on face value: If Noel ends up the more impactful defensive player right away that to me is just proof of what I've been saying, because I watched Noel in college and he was nowhere near as savvy as Davis despite having been playing the help defender role from a much younger age. There's no way he passed up Davis based on mental talent at this stage in the game.

With all that said, aside from the fact that sample size is small, there's also the matter that when Noel is on the court his team is being outscored by 14.4 points per 100 possessions. When a team is doing that bad when you're on the court, it doesn't make sense to talk about impact. Until you pose a serious challenge to your opponents, you don't know how effective you'd be if they really had to beat what you're doing that appears to work.

And right, Noel is a lot less Savvy but still seems to be making things tougher on opponents than Davis. Maybe this is simply a function of being a center rather than a PF (he’s under the basket more than Davis and doesn’t have to chase around quite as many players to the perimeter) but, even with a small sample size, he supports my point that the guys who are incredible defenders in college bring that to the league right away, even if it isn’t a 1-to-1 translation. And I don’t really see the point of bringing up the “his team is being outscored by X amount of points anyway” argument when that has to do with offense and we’re discussing defense. And FWIW he looked like a ridiculous defensive player in pre-season and summer league, it's just we only have data for the games he's played so far in 2015.

But conceivably he ends up the more impactful defensive player simply based on allocation of efforts. Basically all Noel is doing right now is defense, whereas with Davis' better-than-expected offensive landing in the NBA, it's clear that he's devoting quite a lot of his energy to improving in that area.

Yeah, this would fit in with what I just mentioned above.

Y'know, as I think about it, Winsome probably did stay stuff along those lines. I honestly don't remember. Thing is, Winsome just want all in so hard on Cousins it all blurs together for me. He would promote and defend Cousins on all fronts. (Winsome if you're reading this, no offense. I thought you did a pretty good job of it, but it was obvious you were extremely passionate.)

He's been no more or less "all in" on Cousins than you have with Davis.

To your point, I really don't know what you mean about dump-it-down being seen as some ideal. If you go and look at the most effective playoff offenses each year, they are dominated by more flexible offensive superstars with the one exception in modern NBA history being Shaq...just like Shaq is the only classic big in recent history to truly compete with more perimeter oriented guys when it comes to offensive RAPM.

Don't confuse the fact that Hakeem & Duncan won with them being the most effective offensive players - defense had a ton to do with it (Although at the pinnacle of his key playoff runs, what Hakeem was doing in Rudy T's hub & spoke offense was huge against an unready league.)

Wait...seriously? Are you actually trying to argue that Duncan’s and Hakeem’s offense didn’t translate much better to the playoffs than KG's and D-Rob's? Are you actually going to argue that Hakeem and Tim (pre 2005) weren’t the driving forces behind offenses that won championships. I mean I could brings up TS% differentials and all that but come on, I know you know that that’s not true. They don’t have to be Shaq to be significantly better options than their counterparts in these comparisons.

I also don't understand what you mean by being "unprepared" for Hakeem. The league was no more or less "prepared" for him than they were Kareem or Shaq.

Ha well to be clear, I've never said Melo's not a good, impactful player. He's just a lot weaker than most think. Durant in his second year simply wasn't a player making things work for his team...though of course neither was Melo at the same age despite the fact his team's record improved so much when he joined.

Gotcha. Still unclear on what I asked though. Are you comparing Davis to Durant to say

1) Davis's +/- numbers aren't indicative of the impact he's having on D at this point and he has a good chance of showing significant improvement in +/- without becoming a functionally better defender than he is right now

OR

2) Saying that, like Durant, he can still show marked improvement on that end which will show up in later +/- readouts?

[Talent Chaser]

From a Sam Amico piece:

I thought people on this sub board were reaching a little last year when they were saying that Durant would never be the best player in the NBA, but they are right.

[Doctor MJ]

There are a lot of dumbass NBA PGs though who don't pick a part defense like a surgeon but just blunder their way through with all-world velocity. The guys with world class vision and decision making just clearly stand out, and while they are disproportionately point guards, I see no reason at all to look at your average NBA PG as somehow being similar to the smartest bigs.

Eh well half the point guards today aren’t actual point guards, was mostly talking about “pure” point guards you see throughout basically all of NBA history up until 5-10 years ago. And also I was speaking on basketball development, not just at the NBA level. Need I remind you you were contending that his being a guard somehow inhibited his development as a big, and in rebuttal I am merely stating that in almost every circle you enter no matter the age group it is the guards that tend to understand the game better.

But yeah there are a lot of very stupid guards that occupy the "PG position" on the court these days without being actual floor generals.

But you didn't just say guards were in general smarter, you basically implied that any typical guard could immediately transition to being a big if they just got a new body because, and you did so to state that we shouldn't see his rapid development - which shocked every scout everywhere - as evidence that his learning ability is just fine.

This is my issue. I don't need people to see Davis as a genius, but the notion that he's stunted in his understanding of the game when he's blown past expectations time and time again is just weird to me.

See I really think you're using old criteria for old guys, and simply assuming they'd look awesome by the new stats you're using against Davis.

Oden and Okafor really have no track record at all showing them to be awesome by defensive RAPM, let alone being great right away. And frankly I can't remember any players in recent history who have come and been great impact defenders right away when you look at the +/- data.

So this goes toward what I've been saying: What we've found in the +/- era is that "superstar rookies" don't have impact like their stats indicate, and it's really not close. We just see it over and over again. It's partly the young guy being a bit out of his depth in the more nuanced stuff, and partly that a brand new superstar means that everyone on the team is getting used to a new set up.

I didn’t really check Oden or Okafor’s defensive statistics (just kind of assumed at least Oden would have rocked some impressive showings early on) and was merely leaning on sentiment there, but at least in Oden’s case that shocks me. Both guys were “seen” as affecting major impact early on, but I guess this really speaks to your point that this isn’t necessarily always reflected immediately.

Glad you can own up to that. Happens to me too.

I think it didn't used to be so hard - that the complexity of modern teams and their ripostes make it far harder to truly kill the other team with new talent - but I also think that guys like Hakeem and Duncan benefitted greatly from being able to be slotted in to a team where they weren't asked to do it all, where they had veteran mentorship, and where they had great coaches. Without that there will just be growing pains.

Right NO-KG-AI said similar stuff and that’s fine if you want to adopt that opinion but I don’t think it should matter when we’re talking bout impact. Duncan looked great even when D-Rob wasn’t on the floor and Sampson wasn’t some kind of defensive stalwart. Seems like a cop-out to me. Duncan was doing the same stuff for San Antonio he did at Wake in much the same way, which again, tends to speak to the point I’m making.

If you look at the defensive RAPM in the early years, it's very much Robinson first, Duncan second despite the fact that all accounts I've read go along with the choice to make Duncan the 1st option as the right one. So, even Duncan, a guy who never became a ultra top tier offensive player, seems to have gotten into his offensive groove faster than he got into his defensive groove in the NBA...and that was back before shifts to defensive rules and offensive strategies made defense more complicated.

Re: Sampson not a defensie stalwart. Right but the danger of young defensive talents is that they make bad decisions and get burned. Having a second tower out there with you gives you insurance.

I say similar things when I talk about what contexts tend to make ball thieves valuable. A thief is a gambler by nature, and if he's dong this without backup on the interior, he's often doing more harm than good. However we see clear evidence that elite defenses can be built around making such gambles as long as you have controls in place to protect against getting burned.

You seem to be making the argument that defensive impact is predicated on systemic deployment. I disagree very strongly with that. There is something to be said for synergy and coaching but I do not think it makes up 90% or 100% of defensive efficacy. I’d say it’s more like 20% or 30% (if we’re assigning interval values to nebulous concepts anyway). Offense is where Xs and Os (can) make a much bigger difference. Aside from deciding how you are going to deal with given situations (are you going to trap the P&R, double the post, switch on-ball screens, switch off-ball screens, funnel baseline or middle) basketball is basketball. These are the same situational presences you learn from your coaches in high school and college. I think you’re trying to add a lot of complexity that isn’t really there to give AD a pass.

The speed at which you need to make these adjustments/render these decisions is represents the "steepest" part of the defensive learning curve.

It's not a percentage thing. It's not additive. More like multiplicative or some higher order math function.

Basketball is a sport where the offense attacks, the defense responds...and then the offense adjusts, and the defense responds again. Rinse, repeat.

There's no doubt that when Davis goes out and challenges a shot, he has a positive effect for the defense on that shot. The problem comes in relating to the cost of what happens after that, and there are a wide variety of factors at play there that determine how bad the team gets burned.

This makes it differ from the other end of the court where you dictate play, involve your star at will, and have his impact be less like a gun with a reloading period, and more like an automatic deliver a constant impact.

More generally when we talk about complexity:

Why is it that Thibodeau can have such a profound impact on team defense the moment he shows up on a team when there's really no record of any coach in the past having an effect like this? Before you say "rule changes", remember I'm comparing Thibs to his contemporaries who have the same rules in place. The rule changes are giving Thibs an advantage only because he sees ways to make use of them that others struggle with. So then ask: Can they not see it because it's too complicated or too simple? Is that even a question?

Also you Noel comment is interesting. Taking it on face value: If Noel ends up the more impactful defensive player right away that to me is just proof of what I've been saying, because I watched Noel in college and he was nowhere near as savvy as Davis despite having been playing the help defender role from a much younger age. There's no way he passed up Davis based on mental talent at this stage in the game.

With all that said, aside from the fact that sample size is small, there's also the matter that when Noel is on the court his team is being outscored by 14.4 points per 100 possessions. When a team is doing that bad when you're on the court, it doesn't make sense to talk about impact. Until you pose a serious challenge to your opponents, you don't know how effective you'd be if they really had to beat what you're doing that appears to work.

And right, Noel is a lot less Savvy but still seems to be making things tougher on opponents than Davis. Maybe this is simply a function of being a center rather than a PF (he’s under the basket more than Davis and doesn’t have to chase around quite as many players to the perimeter) but, even with a small sample size, he supports my point that the guys who are incredible defenders in college bring that to the league right away, even if it isn’t a 1-to-1 translation. And I don’t really see the point of bringing up the “his team is being outscored by X amount of points anyway” argument when that has to do with offense and we’re discussing defense. And FWIW he looked like a ridiculous defensive player in pre-season and summer league, it's just we only have data for the games he's played so far in 2015.

So, the guy who so far is seeing his team get destroyed whenever he plays supports that point of yours based on a trend that didn't actually exist with any of the other players you mentioned for which we have data?

What I'm urging you to do is the same thing you're urging others to do: Just wait. Don't try to form narratives so early. If all you want to say is that Davis hasn't proven much yet in terms of defensive impact, say that.

Re: offense is not defense. Sure, any accomplishment done while getting smoked by an opponent has an asterisk by it.

Example: In '10 people talked about how Wade torched the Celtics while James struggled like that was a real thing, but Wade's Heat's offense was getting shut down just fine. The Celtics weren't asking themselves "oh my god, how do we stop Wade?", they were looking at how well they doing in general with their approach, and they kept it up despite some nice numbers from Wade, because beating Wade wasn't the goal, beating the Heat was.

He's been no more or less "all in" on Cousins than you have with Davis.

Touche.

To your point, I really don't know what you mean about dump-it-down being seen as some ideal. If you go and look at the most effective playoff offenses each year, they are dominated by more flexible offensive superstars with the one exception in modern NBA history being Shaq...just like Shaq is the only classic big in recent history to truly compete with more perimeter oriented guys when it comes to offensive RAPM.

Don't confuse the fact that Hakeem & Duncan won with them being the most effective offensive players - defense had a ton to do with it (Although at the pinnacle of his key playoff runs, what Hakeem was doing in Rudy T's hub & spoke offense was huge against an unready league.)

Wait...seriously? Are you actually trying to argue that Duncan’s and Hakeem’s offense didn’t translate much better to the playoffs than KG's and D-Rob's? Are you actually going to argue that Hakeem and Tim (pre 2005) weren’t the driving forces behind offenses that won championships. I mean I could brings up TS% differentials and all that but come on, I know you know that that’s not true. They don’t have to be Shaq to be significantly better options than their counterparts in these comparisons.

I also don't understand what you mean by being "unprepared" for Hakeem. The league was no more or less "prepared" for him than they were Kareem or Shaq.

The reasonable way to look at Duncan's team offenses is from the realization that they got better as he got worse, because the team adopted a smarter strategy than just dump it to your interior volume scorer. It's not about whether Duncan's better in the role than Garnett, it's about the fact that the team wasn't actually all that optimized on offense at the time, and they were getting by based on having the best defense of the era. This is not to say it was the worst possible strategy by any means, it was just very 20th century.

And they weren't unprepared for Hakeem, they were unprepared for an offense that really started making use of the 3-point line strategically to create space and improve the value of role players. Hakeem was of course amazing, but his time spent running truly great offenses in his career was like a whale coming up for breath.

Ha well to be clear, I've never said Melo's not a good, impactful player. He's just a lot weaker than most think. Durant in his second year simply wasn't a player making things work for his team...though of course neither was Melo at the same age despite the fact his team's record improved so much when he joined.

Gotcha. Still unclear on what I asked though. Are you comparing Davis to Durant to say

1) Davis's +/- numbers aren't indicative of the impact he's having on D at this point and he has a good chance of showing significant improvement in +/- without becoming a functionally better defender than he is right now

OR

2) Saying that, like Durant, he can still show marked improvement on that end which will show up in later +/- readouts?

Between those two, (2) is definitely more what I'm saying.

I'm also saying though that a player might be a lot closer to hitting on all cylinders than you. Subtle changes can pack a big punch.

[ronnymac2]

Does anybody think Anthony Davis has the potential to utilize the sky hook if he practices it? Kareem was able to utilize it with great effectiveness as a back-to-the-basket player not because of his strength but because of his balance, coordination, gracefulness, litheness, incredible reach/length (not just vertical, but coming from different angles, so wingspan, too), and agility? Davis has these traits in spades. He was a guard recently, and he's got great touch, as evidenced by his free throw shooting, tip-ins, and finishing around the basket area. He's even become very good at scoring in that area between the mid-range and the rim. That's where he'd be shooting the sky hook from.

Mastering the sky hook would give him an isolation game that could also utilize his above average vision/passing. It doesn't require him to build his body up and make him a full-time C, because he doesn't need bulk. He's not moving people around; he just needs core strength to be able to balance himself for it.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Does anybody think Anthony Davis has the potential to utilize the sky hook if he practices it? Kareem was able to utilize it with great effectiveness as a back-to-the-basket player not because of his strength but because of his balance, coordination, gracefulness, litheness, incredible reach/length (not just vertical, but coming from different angles, so wingspan, too), and agility? Davis has these traits in spades. He was a guard recently, and he's got great touch, as evidenced by his free throw shooting, tip-ins, and finishing around the basket area. He's even become very good at scoring in that area between the mid-range and the rim. That's where he'd be shooting the sky hook from.

Mastering the sky hook would give him an isolation game that could also utilize his above average vision/passing. It doesn't require him to build his body up and make him a full-time C, because he doesn't need bulk. He's not moving people around; he just needs core strength to be able to balance himself for it.

Its a good idea, but I actually think him being a guard to start is a detriment not a help. I don't think his footwork and fighting for post position are things that really feel as natural to him as the faceup game.

Anyway, with his crazy length and thin build/athleticism he's certainly qualified as a potential sky hooker, but fact is that Kareem developed that thing from the time he was a little kid out on the playgrounds, and guys have been trying to duplicate it for 40 years without much success. Would be a thing to see though if he ever did.

[Clyde Frazier]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... san02.html

So... did a quick search for seasons where a player avg'd at least 25 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 SPG. No one's ever done it.

You have to go down to 1.8 SPG to get a few results -- hakeem twice, malone once, and barkley once

25 PPG, 10 RPG and 3 BPG has been done, but obviously still puts him in elite company:

http://bkref.com/tiny/RBsxm

Who knows where he ends up at the end of the season, but i'm just loving this kid. League pass player of the year.

[Kabookalu]

Does anybody think Anthony Davis has the potential to utilize the sky hook if he practices it? Kareem was able to utilize it with great effectiveness as a back-to-the-basket player not because of his strength but because of his balance, coordination, gracefulness, litheness, incredible reach/length (not just vertical, but coming from different angles, so wingspan, too), and agility? Davis has these traits in spades. He was a guard recently, and he's got great touch, as evidenced by his free throw shooting, tip-ins, and finishing around the basket area. He's even become very good at scoring in that area between the mid-range and the rim. That's where he'd be shooting the sky hook from.

Mastering the sky hook would give him an isolation game that could also utilize his above average vision/passing. It doesn't require him to build his body up and make him a full-time C, because he doesn't need bulk. He's not moving people around; he just needs core strength to be able to balance himself for it.

Agreed. The Sky Hook was more than just being able to throw up a hook shot like a ballerina. Davis is one of those rare athletes that can replicate it at its fullest.

[D Nice]

But you didn't just say guards were in general smarter, you basically implied that any typical guard could immediately transition to being a big if they just got a new body because, and you did so to state that we shouldn't see his rapid development - which shocked every scout everywhere - as evidence that his learning ability is just fine.

This is my issue. I don't need people to see Davis as a genius, but the notion that he's stunted in his understanding of the game when he's blown past expectations time and time again is just weird to me.

I urge you to remember where the tangent originated, because you seem to have forgotten. I’m not saying he is in any way stunned in his understanding of the game. You were trying to argue that Davis was somehow equally held back in his development of positional defensive understanding compared to Hakeem because he spent most of his life as a guard before his super-growth spurt. All I’m saying is that even learning the game as a guard is >>>>> not picking up a basketball at all until 15-16 in terms of furthering your developmental understanding.

The reason I brought this up at all is because people keep trying to say Davis is further along in his defensive learning curve (so to speak) at this stage of his development than anyone we’ve seen and I find it to be an extremely ignorant position. It’s just not true, there are several other 21-22 year old guys who were way more influential right off the bat who didn’t have 2 years to adjust to NBA game speed (Ewing, Hakeem, Duncan, Deke, etc) and in some cases didn’t even start playing the game until they were friggin 16. That’s really where I was going, I didn’t think I needed to but maybe I should have been more clear right off the bat.

And yes, I do completely believe that any intelligent defensive guard can make the transition to playing back-line defense. I’ve done it myself (when scrimmaging against younger guys) and had a HS teammates who grew from being 5’10 as a freshman to almost 6’4 as a junior/senior and went from G to PF and was a terrific 4-man in our matchup zone and man defenses. There wasn’t some giant learning curve, and I tend to think this is/would be the norm for any high-level guard that can think the game.

If you look at the defensive RAPM in the early years, it's very much Robinson first, Duncan second despite the fact that all accounts I've read go along with the choice to make Duncan the 1st option as the right one. So, even Duncan, a guy who never became a ultra top tier offensive player, seems to have gotten into his offensive groove faster than he got into his defensive groove in the NBA...and that was back before shifts to defensive rules and offensive strategies made defense more complicated.

Yeah I’ve always said that I credit D-Rob slightly over Duncan for the ’98 and ’99 defensive teams, I thought he was better defensively at this point and I’m glad RAPM bears this out. I just think it’s strange to say that playing with another great defender means that Duncan wasn’t or couldn’t be an A1 defender himself when he looked great without D-Rob, has very strong D-RAPM numbers himself was co anchor of the league’s best defensive team.

Re: Sampson not a defensie stalwart. Right but the danger of young defensive talents is that they make bad decisions and get burned. Having a second tower out there with you gives you insurance.

Can’t really disagree with this. Hakeem was jumpier than AD is now so I’m sure having Sampson mitigated the downside of some of those tendencies. Davis has a much, much better defensive player behind him at center now, so we’ll see how this plays out over the course of the season.

I say similar things when I talk about what contexts tend to make ball thieves valuable. A thief is a gambler by nature, and if he's dong this without backup on the interior, he's often doing more harm than good. However we see clear evidence that elite defenses can be built around making such gambles as long as you have controls in place to protect against getting burned.

This really resonates with me, another pretty good point. I wouldn’t so much say it applies very much to Hakeem, there’s only so much gambling you can do as a PF/C, but it makes sense in a broader context.

Basketball is a sport where the offense attacks, the defense responds...and then the offense adjusts, and the defense responds again. Rinse, repeat.

There's no doubt that when Davis goes out and challenges a shot, he has a positive effect for the defense on that shot. The problem comes in relating to the cost of what happens after that, and there are a wide variety of factors at play there that determine how bad the team gets burned.

This makes it differ from the other end of the court where you dictate play, involve your star at will, and have his impact be less like a gun with a reloading period, and more like an automatic deliver a constant impact

I’d say all of this is true, I’m just not sure how specifically it relates to that part of my post. But yeah, I agree.

More generally when we talk about complexity: Why is it that Thibodeau can have such a profound impact on team defense the moment he shows up on a team when there's really no record of any coach in the past having an effect like this? Before you say "rule changes", remember I'm comparing Thibs to his contemporaries who have the same rules in place. The rule changes are giving Thibs an advantage only because he sees ways to make use of them that others struggle with. So then ask: Can they not see it because it's too complicated or too simple? Is that even a question?

Hah, I knew Thibs would be the counterpoint. I think there are two different answers.

The first is simple - he gets his guys to play harder. Bulls fans every year complain that he runs his guys into the ground. A higher level of intensity on a night in night out basis has significant potential for increasing defensive efficacy because effort is a huge, huge component of defensive output. I’d argue that it outstrips every other factor of defense, actually, even talent.

The second answer, which I think is along the lines of what you’re getting at, is that yeah, he is/was out-coaching his peers in that regard, and it was with based on defensive principles that are different than most other teams applied. It was more of a philosophy than a system though, and I wouldn’t argue it is/was super complex. His defense was predicated on taking away the most efficient spots on the court using zone principles in a man context. That’s boiling it down to some very basic stuff, but that’s ultimately what it amounts to. Helping without over-helping, guiding rather than simply reacting.

The disconnect is that complexity in terms of one guy playing defense is not the same thing as team-complexity. A great defender can be plugged into a great system and do great things. But it’s not the player coming up with the system, that’s the coach. He’ll be applying his individual talents in terms of executing the individual techniques that add up to individual defensive value (P&R coverage, block-timing, hands, post D, contesting without fouling, etc). The right system can make better use of these attributes, but a great defensive coach will not make you better at these things. And while a superior system could amp one’s +/- in this regard, I don’t think it means that a great defender should’t already have a strong baseline in regular settings. It’s definitely something to think about.

Summing it up/speaking more clearly I do think team orientation (meaning teammates and coaching) affects impact stats much more on defense than on offense but I think there are some things truly great defenders will always show even outside of ideal circumstances; namely not anchor bottom-5 defenses (an ATG anchor should always be able to carry his team to a middle-of-the-pack defenses) and make some kind of clear imprint on his team’s defensive output (except under extreme circumstances where playing behind him is another tier-1 defender).

What I'm urging you to do is the same thing you're urging others to do: Just wait. Don't try to form narratives so early. If all you want to say is that Davis hasn't proven much yet in terms of defensive impact, say that. What I'm urging you to do is the same thing you're urging others to do: Just wait. Don't try to form narratives so early. If all you want to say is that Davis hasn't proven much yet in terms of defensive impact, say that

I’m really not trying to form any narratives with Noel, he was just sort of a throw-in on that fairly long list of immediate-impact guys, and seeing as how he’s the most recent draftee of the bunch I thought he deserved mention, particularly given how it’s not just this set of RS games in which he’s looked dominant (he’s looked like a defensive monster in every setting he’s been in since being drafted; summer league, preseason, etc).

I don’t get it, are you saying Noel’s opponents are deliberately playing bad on offense while he’s out there because they know Philly is a bad offensive team? That sounds like, oh, 0 NBA players/teams that I’ve ever seen. I get what you’re trying to do with the Wade analogy but since I personally thought he was awesome that series it’s an area where we’re going to agree to disagree. I actually agree with some temperament given team output but putting an * =/= was/Is ineffectual to me.

The reasonable way to look at Duncan's team offenses is from the realization that they got better as he got worse, because the team adopted a smarter strategy than just dump it to your interior volume scorer. It's not about whether Duncan's better in the role than Garnett, it's about the fact that the team wasn't actually all that optimized on offense at the time, and they were getting by based on having the best defense of the era. This is not to say it was the worst possible strategy by any means, it was just very 20th century.

OK now you are reaching. I think You’d have a point if ’12-’14 Duncan was in any way comparable to ’01-’03 Duncan, but since you’re talking about a guy who is a shell compared to his younger self on that end it is quite obvious that he shouldn’t be carrying the same kind of load. It is common-sense to increase the primacy of your still-in-his-prime HOFer in Parker instead.

I mean the team has completely transformed, they are incomparable to before. TIm’s Spurs have literally gone through 4 life cycles since being has been drafted (98-03, 05-07, 08-10, 12-14 with 04 and 11 being transitional years). Having a backcourt pairing of 2 Hall of Famers and a litany of shooters (while upping your 3-point rate significantly) is >>> 20-year old Tony Parker and about to retire D-Rob as your 2nd and 3rd options (2003). Duncan single-handedly took that team to the #7 offense league-wide.

Once Manu/Tim/Tony were all in their prime and Duncan was still the first option they posted (while focusing on defense)...

2005 Spurs: 108 ORTG (8th, would have been higher if Duncan didn’t miss 16 games)
2006 Spurs: 107 ORTG (10th)
2007 Spurs: 109 ORTG (5th)

Then while being an offense-oriented team that spams 3s they were...

2012 Spurs: 111 ORTG (1st)
2013 Spurs: 108 ORTG (7th)
2014 Spurs: 111 ORTG (7th)

This is hardly some massive improvement.

And they weren't unprepared for Hakeem, they were unprepared for an offense that really started making use of the 3-point line strategically to create space and improve the value of role players. Hakeem was of course amazing, but his time spent running truly great offenses in his career was like a whale coming up for breath.

Again I think you’re taking this a bit far. These guys are/were NBA players/coaches. You act like Houston was running circles around the league in 3 point attempts.

Should we dismiss your boy Nash’s tenure in Phoenix as “the league not being ready for that kind offense” too? Hakeem was in the midst of having one of the 5 or 6 most unstoppable peaks in the history of the league. He would be doubled today as much as he was doubled in 1994. There is nothing that has been “discovered” between then and now that allows NBA defenses to not be compromised by doubling down on the block. It’s part of basketball. Orlando was doing the same thing with a young Shaq too, so it’s not like Houston was the only team in the league doing anything like this (Houston attempted 15.6 3s per game where Orlando, the #2 team took 13.9 and Houston was +5.7 over league average attempts. Phoenix had a +2.5 attempt gap over #2 Seattle and a +9 over league average). For reference if you go back all the way through the 80s, it’s pretty standard for one team to be ~ 75% above league average in terms of 3 point attempts, and Houston actually falls short of that.

I'm also saying though that a player might be a lot closer to hitting on all cylinders than you. Subtle changes can pack a big punch.

I can get behind that. We’ll see. Again, with Asik there, they have no excuse to not at least be a top 10-12 defense this year. If they aren’t, that’s a huge red flag for me defensively. Holiday is above average defensively, Evans is pretty average, and Gordon isn’t terrible when healthy. They’re bench is poor (on both ends really) so if they only end up in the 10-12 range but Davis ends up being a big + there then that’s encouraging.

[RSCD3_]

With faired, hickson and mozgov defending him it should be a big scoring night for him tonight


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[NO-KG-AI]

I've basically given up on the skyhook being replicated at this point.

[Doctor MJ]

I urge you to remember where the tangent originated, because you seem to have forgotten. I’m not saying he is in any way stunned in his understanding of the game. You were trying to argue that Davis was somehow equally held back in his development of positional defensive understanding compared to Hakeem because he spent most of his life as a guard before his super-growth spurt. All I’m saying is that even learning the game as a guard is >>>>> not picking up a basketball at all until 15-16 in terms of furthering your developmental understanding.

The reason I brought this up at all is because people keep trying to say Davis is further along in his defensive learning curve (so to speak) at this stage of his development than anyone we’ve seen and I find it to be an extremely ignorant position. It’s just not true, there are several other 21-22 year old guys who were way more influential right off the bat who didn’t have 2 years to adjust to NBA game speed (Ewing, Hakeem, Duncan, Deke, etc) and in some cases didn’t even start playing the game until they were friggin 16. That’s really where I was going, I didn’t think I needed to but maybe I should have been more clear right off the bat.

Right but every example you gave was either from an era before stats, or proved to be wrong when using the same statistical analysis you're using against Davis. As I've said, Davis was supposed to be super-raw when he went to college compared to the Drummonds of the world, and then he was supposed to be a super-raw offensive player who would take a very long time to become a real force on that end. It is therefore an objective truth that Davis has shown an ability to learn and progress considerably faster that the other top tier big man prospects of the internet age.

I really have no problem with someone saying that Hakeem's growth rate was even more impressive, but you knocked him relative to Emeka Okafor talking about rookie Okafor in a way that implied he was far better than in fact he ever became on defense.

And yes, I do completely believe that any intelligent defensive guard can make the transition to playing back-line defense. I’ve done it myself (when scrimmaging against younger guys) and had a HS teammates who grew from being 5’10 as a freshman to almost 6’4 as a junior/senior and went from G to PF and was a terrific 4-man in our matchup zone and man defenses. There wasn’t some giant learning curve, and I tend to think this is/would be the norm for any high-level guard that can think the game.

I would say the crux of my objection is this: I see a massive gap in all positions between the highest BBIQs and the rest implying that super-high BBIQ among NBA players is indicative of what could be called a form of genius in terms of standard deviations above what an average person is.

Steve Nash, for example, was a guy who despite limited physicality was able to dominate regionally at the high school level in a wide variety of field sports. Your typical smart guard at the high school level isn't doing anything like this obviously, because it's pretty common to have several of those guys on any given high school team.

He's a basketball genius, and you and your 6'4" buddy probably aren't. Maybe you're not merely typical smart high school guys, but if that's what you were, you're not basketball geniuses.

Could a guy with Nash's basketball intelligence talent learn as fast as Davis (assuming his explosiveness and coordination also miraculously remained intact as Davis' did)? Totally.

Could your typical smart high school guard? No way. That's a fantasy I hear all the damn time when I meet "if I only had your height" guy.

In the end, the NBA is a league where the average successful player is probably a 1 in 100,000 level talent, and physical talent is a big part of it, but we've seen 1 in 100 level physical talents thrive and 1 in 1,000,000 level physical talents fail. There is a huge discrepancy in mental talent, and the one's who progress far faster than people expect, are not your run of the mill "smart" talents. At least imho.

Question: Can you name any example like Davis who became a top tier defender in the NBA?

Yeah I’ve always said that I credit D-Rob slightly over Duncan for the ’98 and ’99 defensive teams, I thought he was better defensively at this point and I’m glad RAPM bears this out. I just think it’s strange to say that playing with another great defender means that Duncan wasn’t or couldn’t be an A1 defender himself when he looked great without D-Rob, has very strong D-RAPM numbers himself was co anchor of the league’s best defensive team.

Re: Sampson not a defensie stalwart. Right but the danger of young defensive talents is that they make bad decisions and get burned. Having a second tower out there with you gives you insurance.

...

I say similar things when I talk about what contexts tend to make ball thieves valuable. A thief is a gambler by nature, and if he's dong this without backup on the interior, he's often doing more harm than good. However we see clear evidence that elite defenses can be built around making such gambles as long as you have controls in place to protect against getting burned.

This really resonates with me, another pretty good point. I wouldn’t so much say it applies very much to Hakeem, there’s only so much gambling you can do as a PF/C, but it makes sense in a broader context.

Appreciate you saying some kind words - makes me feel like it's really worth going into such depth with you and that I can learn a thing.

So, these points of mine you like, to me they apply to all the scenarios. Expand out on what gambling actually is:

When a guy's impact doesn't match his defensive stats, it's because whatever assault the guy gives, the offense is able to oftentimes escape and riposte. One man can't cover the whole court, so no matter his talent, if there's not a support structure, a smart offense will adapt and score.

Hah, I knew Thibs would be the counterpoint. I think there are two different answers.

The first is simple - he gets his guys to play harder. Bulls fans every year complain that he runs his guys into the ground. A higher level of intensity on a night in night out basis has significant potential for increasing defensive efficacy because effort is a huge, huge component of defensive output. I’d argue that it outstrips every other factor of defense, actually, even talent.

The second answer, which I think is along the lines of what you’re getting at, is that yeah, he is/was out-coaching his peers in that regard, and it was with based on defensive principles that are different than most other teams applied. It was more of a philosophy than a system though, and I wouldn’t argue it is/was super complex. His defense was predicated on taking away the most efficient spots on the court using zone principles in a man context. That’s boiling it down to some very basic stuff, but that’s ultimately what it amounts to. Helping without over-helping, guiding rather than simply reacting.

The disconnect is that complexity in terms of one guy playing defense is not the same thing as team-complexity. A great defender can be plugged into a great system and do great things. But it’s not the player coming up with the system, that’s the coach. He’ll be applying his individual talents in terms of executing the individual techniques that add up to individual defensive value (P&R coverage, block-timing, hands, post D, contesting without fouling, etc). The right system can make better use of these attributes, but a great defensive coach will not make you better at these things. And while a superior system could amp one’s +/- in this regard, I don’t think it means that a great defender should’t already have a strong baseline in regular settings. It’s definitely something to think about.

Summing it up/speaking more clearly I do think team orientation (meaning teammates and coaching) affects impact stats much more on defense than on offense but I think there are some things truly great defenders will always show even outside of ideal circumstances; namely not anchor bottom-5 defenses (an ATG anchor should always be able to carry his team to a middle-of-the-pack defenses) and make some kind of clear imprint on his team’s defensive output (except under extreme circumstances where playing behind him is another tier-1 defender).

Some good thoughts.

There's something to this, but there are a lot of factors to consider of course. As I said before, if the explanation is simply that in a desperate situation with no active shrewd guidance form the coach a young guy tries to do too much, this isn't something that terribly concerns me going forward. Keeps him from being DPOY of course, but it's going to take an awful lot to convince me that to convince me that a guy who was so ultra-dominant on defense at the college level, has proven to be like a video game physical outlier compared to even NBA level athletes, and is killing it on that level on offense, has some mental Achilles' heel that would prevent him from excelling on defense at the NBA level.

I don’t get it, are you saying Noel’s opponents are deliberately playing bad on offense while he’s out there because they know Philly is a bad offensive team? That sounds like, oh, 0 NBA players/teams that I’ve ever seen. I get what you’re trying to do with the Wade analogy but since I personally thought he was awesome that series it’s an area where we’re going to agree to disagree. I actually agree with some temperament given team output but putting an * =/= was/Is ineffectual to me.

I'll try to say it one more time:

Boston could have stopped Wade's scoring. Anyone's scoring can be stopped. Just put enough of your guys on him, you'll cripple him. Thus, all individual success has to be judge within the context of how the opponents was "taking" it.

A defense balances itself against a wide variety of attacks, and if it's getting burned by Attack A so badly that there's a killer overall ORtg, they are going to try something else. But if their approach leads to an effective stifling of the opponent's offense, why on earth would they care if that approach happens to let one opposing player have some nice stats?

None of this means Wade isn't a great player, but it doesn't make any sense to act like Boston tried all they could to stop him and failed, because they didn't, because that wasn't the point.

Fans oftentimes focus too much on the Ws and Ls to judge players, but there's a fundamental truth here that we don't know how serious a player's game is until opponents are leaving the court in defeat shaking their heads thinking about what that guy did to them.

This is an extreme case with Noel right now, partly because of sample size. We're literally talking about a guy who has yet to win an NBA game. I think, therefore, it would be wise to at least wait until he manages to do that before we start using him as a cudgel against Davis.

The reasonable way to look at Duncan's team offenses is from the realization that they got better as he got worse, because the team adopted a smarter strategy than just dump it to your interior volume scorer. It's not about whether Duncan's better in the role than Garnett, it's about the fact that the team wasn't actually all that optimized on offense at the time, and they were getting by based on having the best defense of the era. This is not to say it was the worst possible strategy by any means, it was just very 20th century.

OK now you are reaching. I think You’d have a point if ’12-’14 Duncan was in any way comparable to ’01-’03 Duncan, but since you’re talking about a guy who is a shell compared to his younger self on that end it is quite obvious that he shouldn’t be carrying the same kind of load. It is common-sense to increase the primacy of your still-in-his-prime HOFer in Parker instead.

I mean the team has completely transformed, they are incomparable to before. TIm’s Spurs have literally gone through 4 life cycles since being has been drafted (98-03, 05-07, 08-10, 12-14 with 04 and 11 being transitional years). Having a backcourt pairing of 2 Hall of Famers and a litany of shooters (while upping your 3-point rate significantly) is >>> 20-year old Tony Parker and about to retire D-Rob as your 2nd and 3rd options (2003). Duncan single-handedly took that team to the #7 offense league-wide.

Once Manu/Tim/Tony were all in their prime and Duncan was still the first option they posted (while focusing on defense)...

2005 Spurs: 108 ORTG (8th, would have been higher if Duncan didn’t miss 16 games)
2006 Spurs: 107 ORTG (10th)
2007 Spurs: 109 ORTG (5th)

Then while being an offense-oriented team that spams 3s they were...

2012 Spurs: 111 ORTG (1st)
2013 Spurs: 108 ORTG (7th)
2014 Spurs: 111 ORTG (7th)

This is hardly some massive improvement.

Eh, first and foremost, the first 3 teams had a Top 10 all-time player and two clear cut Hall of Famers in their prime, and right now the Spurs only get 1 guy in the all-star game because people feel obligated to. The Spurs talent level has gone way down, and yet their offense has improved. That tells you how much smarter it is to play the offense this way than it is to dump-it-down most of the time.

But let me show this a different way.

In the entirety of the Duncan 20 PPG era (through '07), they only had ORtg separated from league average by more than a basket (2 points) 2 times, and never broke 2 baskets.

But from '10 on, the past 5 seasons, they've broken the 1 basket threshold every year, broke the 2 basket threshold twice, and then of course last year, they fully clicked and completely destroyed the leagues playoff defenses en route to a decisive championship.

Characterizing this as if it's not a clear cut offensive improvement is not right. It's major improvement AND it's done with worse talent.

And they weren't unprepared for Hakeem, they were unprepared for an offense that really started making use of the 3-point line strategically to create space and improve the value of role players. Hakeem was of course amazing, but his time spent running truly great offenses in his career was like a whale coming up for breath.

Again I think you’re taking this a bit far. These guys are/were NBA players/coaches. You act like Houston was running circles around the league in 3 point attempts.

Should we dismiss your boy Nash’s tenure in Phoenix as “the league not being ready for that kind offense” too? Hakeem was in the midst of having one of the 5 or 6 most unstoppable peaks in the history of the league. He would be doubled today as much as he was doubled in 1994. There is nothing that has been “discovered” between then and now that allows NBA defenses to not be compromised by doubling down on the block. It’s part of basketball. Orlando was doing the same thing with a young Shaq too, so it’s not like Houston was the only team in the league doing anything like this (Houston attempted 15.6 3s per game where Orlando, the #2 team took 13.9 and Houston was +5.7 over league average attempts. Phoenix had a +2.5 attempt gap over #2 Seattle and a +9 over league average). For reference if you go back all the way through the 80s, it’s pretty standard for one team to be ~ 75% above league average in terms of 3 point attempts, and Houston actually falls short of that.

Eh, you're missing a key aspect of what I just said.

"not ready for it" success implies that it can't be sustained, and as I stated, the Rockets didn't sustained it. It was a brief burst at just the right time.

If Nash's success were so brief, then I would be saying exactly the same thing about him. It wasn't brief though. Nash was running hyper successful offenses for many years. Defenses saw it coming, didn't matter. Even further: The league's offenses became more and more like the Suns in that time, they still couldn't do what the Suns did, and the defenses now adopting to this new trend, couldn't stop it.

Yes, in the end, you can say they are both part of the same macro-trend, but that doesn't mean that we paint everyone within the trend (which is essentially every NBA player at this point) with the same brush. Regardless of what paradigms were in place at the time, Nash's offenses dominated year in and year out.

I'm also saying though that a player might be a lot closer to hitting on all cylinders than you. Subtle changes can pack a big punch.

I can get behind that. We’ll see. Again, with Asik there, they have no excuse to not at least be a top 10-12 defense this year. If they aren’t, that’s a huge red flag for me defensively. Holiday is above average defensively, Evans is pretty average, and Gordon isn’t terrible when healthy. They’re bench is poor (on both ends really) so if they only end up in the 10-12 range but Davis ends up being a big + there then that’s encouraging.

We'll see what happens next. It will be fun to watch.

[Quotatious]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxOUcNU2JI[/youtube]

Career high 43 tonight, 16 for 23 from the field, 11/12 on free throws, 14 rebounds.

Jesus Christ, it's scary how good that kid is.