Moody, Kerr, other stuff

[AirP.]

For instance, 14 seconds on the shot clock, he get K.Ellis switched onto him at the top of the key, from that point on he wasn't passing the ball, he was 100% about scoring which he did, this offense was up by 20 in the 2nd quarter when he did this, why break off the offense to get yours when you have Curry on the court with you and you need to win every game if possible? If I'm on defense, I want to see Kuminga go one on one more than let the team move the ball around and get a good shot, possibly an open 3. Here it is on nba.com. He had 0 thought of passing it even if someone were to help (which DeRozan should have done).

TBH I don't mind this shot. If you can get a layup by all means go get it. It's the one where you get stopped so you take a contested mid range. There was the one where he tries to draw a foul doesn't get a foul call and still shoots it. Those ones are terrible shots. I don't care if he makes those. The other thing is he's not a great ft shooter either, like it's decent offense if he goes the ft line but he can work the offense more before he tries to draw fouls.

These shots are terrible
Knicks

Knicks2

Knicks3

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

[AirP.]

TBH I don't mind this shot. If you can get a layup by all means go get it. It's the one where you get stopped so you take a contested mid range. There was the one where he tries to draw a foul doesn't get a foul call and still shoots it. Those ones are terrible shots. I don't care if he makes those. The other thing is he's not a great ft shooter either, like it's decent offense if he goes the ft line but he can work the offense more before he tries to draw fouls.

These shots are terrible
Knicks

Knicks2

Knicks3

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

To link to the individual play, you have to go through the play-by-play and find the right link in there.

All 3 of those links are the same play where he gets position under the basket for an easy pass and score from Draymond, wonderful play by Kuminga.

[Onus]

TBH I don't mind this shot. If you can get a layup by all means go get it. It's the one where you get stopped so you take a contested mid range. There was the one where he tries to draw a foul doesn't get a foul call and still shoots it. Those ones are terrible shots. I don't care if he makes those. The other thing is he's not a great ft shooter either, like it's decent offense if he goes the ft line but he can work the offense more before he tries to draw fouls.

These shots are terrible
Knicks

Knicks2

Knicks3

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

All 3 of those links are the same play where he gets position for an easy pass and score from Draymond.

Yea not a great decision, but at least he's getting a layup. Like if there's a defensive break down that leads to a layup take it. No one is saying you have to run the offense if someone slips and there's someone open at the hoop. Same thing. I can live with the layups. But I agree that the decision making to get there is what causes all of his other bad shots. He thinks he has a mismatch so he attacks but he gets stopped and so he bails out the defense and shoots a contested mid range shot 8 seconds into the shot clock. Pass it back out run offense, you'll get the same exact shot when the clock is running down.

I've updated the links

[vvoland]

Steve has been better when JK has been out of the lineup and doesn't have a vet that he seems to have to play for some reason. But JK is back and they do not play JK on meritocracy until the playoffs when he was getting dnps.

Wild statement. You think Lamb getting minutes was not a meritocracy? Or JK getting big minutes when Wigs missed half the season? Or when he was putting up 20+ for long stretches last season as the only reliable scorer next to Steph?

Was Steve experimenting with JK in various lineups this season? Sure. Same can be said of anyone not named Steph. Not really seeing where JK is getting minutes he doesn't deserve on a team stocked with talent.

It's the fact that he was playing and then got no playing time in the playoffs proves that he wasn't playing based off of merit.

I'm sorry but that's just you reaching a conclusion based on limited data. Playing Lamb over JK in the playoff run didn't exactly go great, either.

Your same logic can be applied to moody but most were/are clamoring for him to play more.

At the end of the day, the argument that Kerr isn't playing the players you want him to play means this isn't a meritocracy, is just that - an argument. We have little insight into what governs playing time and whether it's Post, Podz, TJD, or Gui Santos, their time is often driven by their play. Maybe you think there is no difference in QP, GP2 or Gui's play now vs the start of the season. I would suggest, all have improved significantly and deserve the minute they're getting. If you're saying only JK gets preferential treatment, I doubt you'll find many that agree with that take. His fit, long term development, and salary demands are all worthwhile questions. Saying him getting benched in that kings series means his regular season play wasn't merit based is reaching, at best.

[vvoland]

TBH I don't mind this shot. If you can get a layup by all means go get it. It's the one where you get stopped so you take a contested mid range. There was the one where he tries to draw a foul doesn't get a foul call and still shoots it. Those ones are terrible shots. I don't care if he makes those. The other thing is he's not a great ft shooter either, like it's decent offense if he goes the ft line but he can work the offense more before he tries to draw fouls.

These shots are terrible
Knicks

Knicks2

Knicks3

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

To link to the individual play, you have to go through the play-by-play and find the right link in there.

All 3 of those links are the same play where he gets position under the basket for an easy pass and score from Draymond, wonderful play by Kuminga.

6 assists to 1 turnover in his first two games back. Took a few shots outside of the motion offense, sure, but we don't even know if the ISO you're discussing was a called set or if he "abandoned the offense."

[Onus]

Wild statement. You think Lamb getting minutes was not a meritocracy? Or JK getting big minutes when Wigs missed half the season? Or when he was putting up 20+ for long stretches last season as the only reliable scorer next to Steph?

Was Steve experimenting with JK in various lineups this season? Sure. Same can be said of anyone not named Steph. Not really seeing where JK is getting minutes he doesn't deserve on a team stocked with talent.

It's the fact that he was playing and then got no playing time in the playoffs proves that he wasn't playing based off of merit.

I'm sorry but that's just you reaching a conclusion based on limited data. Playing Lamb over JK in the playoff run didn't exactly go great, either.

23 run same thing happened in 24 as well. No playing time against the kings.

At the end of the day, the argument that Kerr isn't playing the players you want him to play means this isn't a meritocracy, is just that - an argument. We have little insight into what governs playing time and whether it's Post, Podz, TJD, or Gui Santos, their time is often driven by their play.

We have ample evidence that playing time was not driven by people's play. Moody had a great game, did not get to close. Shroeder had a terrible game still closed.

If you're saying only JK gets preferential treatment, I doubt you'll find many that agree with that take. His fit, long term development, and salary demands are all worthwhile questions.

Only no. Multiple players have gotten preferential treatment. JK is one. CP3, Shroeder, Klay were others. Hell TJD was getting some as well for a while there.

Saying him getting benched in that kings series means his regular season play wasn't merit based is reaching, at best.

It means Kerr didn't trust him. JK getting playing time in the regular season was mostly for development, which is why when Kerr needed wins JK was nowhere to be found.

[Onus]

TBH I don't mind this shot. If you can get a layup by all means go get it. It's the one where you get stopped so you take a contested mid range. There was the one where he tries to draw a foul doesn't get a foul call and still shoots it. Those ones are terrible shots. I don't care if he makes those. The other thing is he's not a great ft shooter either, like it's decent offense if he goes the ft line but he can work the offense more before he tries to draw fouls.

These shots are terrible
Knicks

Knicks2

Knicks3

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

To link to the individual play, you have to go through the play-by-play and find the right link in there.

All 3 of those links are the same play where he gets position under the basket for an easy pass and score from Draymond, wonderful play by Kuminga.

6 assists to 1 turnover in his first two games back. Took a few shots outside of the motion offense, sure, but we don't even know if the ISO you're discussing was a called set or if he "abandoned the offense."

These are not called set. I've updated the links for you to see yourself.

[vvoland]

It's the fact that he was playing and then got no playing time in the playoffs proves that he wasn't playing based off of merit.

I'm sorry but that's just you reaching a conclusion based on limited data. Playing Lamb over JK in the playoff run didn't exactly go great, either.

23 run same thing happened in 24 as well. No playing time against the kings.

At the end of the day, the argument that Kerr isn't playing the players you want him to play means this isn't a meritocracy, is just that - an argument. We have little insight into what governs playing time and whether it's Post, Podz, TJD, or Gui Santos, their time is often driven by their play.

We have ample evidence that playing time was not driven by people's play. Moody had a great game, did not get to close. Shroeder had a terrible game still closed.

If you're saying only JK gets preferential treatment, I doubt you'll find many that agree with that take. His fit, long term development, and salary demands are all worthwhile questions.

Only no. Multiple players have gotten preferential treatment. JK is one. CP3, Shroeder, Klay were others. Hell TJD was getting some as well for a while there.

Saying him getting benched in that kings series means his regular season play wasn't merit based is reaching, at best.

It means Kerr didn't trust him. JK getting playing time in the regular season was mostly for development, which is why when Kerr needed wins JK was nowhere to be found.

This all reads like projection. These are reasons YOU suspect govern Kerr's actions. You think Moody not closing when he has a good game is a sign that Kerr doesn't coach by merit. Maybe his play in 1 game versus what an entire career shows can also be called merit? By the way, I don't necessarily agree with playing schroeder over moody in games where one struggles and the other excels. I'm saying our definition of merit may not be the same as Kerr's.

The cp3 minutes last year went fairly well. If it wasn't for Dray losing his mind for the first half of the year, things may have turned out differently. I also wanted to see CP3 share the court with Steph as little as possible. That said, it wasn't like we were overrun by options at the guard spot, particularly the ball-handling guard spot.

The Klay argument is old and no longer applicable. We really had no substitute for Klay last year and certainly none for his shooting. Kerr trying to coax more life from that lineup was a strategy that didn't work but short of trading Klay at the deadline, what was the other option, to play moody more? He didn't exactly shine when he got big minutes last year.

Schroeder didn't get preferential treatment - he got traded after like 20 games. Yes, Kerr tried to make the lineups work with DS, probably longer than he should have. Again, it's not like Moody was tearing it up and we had all these ball-handling guards to give Schroeder's minutes to.

TJD? Got a few starts last year, showed some finishing ability, and is currently getting DNP-CDs. Where's the preference? that he got a shot at all? Maybe, instead of favoritism, it's a just a coaching philosophy we don't agree with? It's clear Kerr values shooting and ball handling more than most other skills. We may disagree on how much he should value those things, but it seems clear he isn't playing hield because he likes him as a person.

Critique of Kerr's rotations, late game decisions, etc. all make sense. To make claims that he plays favorites and doesn't coach by merit is... conspiratorial. There's nothing players hate more than not being coached based on merit. I've never heard a single person make that complaint about Kerr. Not even KD, or Poole or JK, people who have voiced their frustration with how Kerr handles some other questions.

[vvoland]

I can see if you isolate the play you could say he forced a switch, got a smaller man and went to work, but my point is that the offense was working well, GS was up by 20 in the 1st half and Curry is on the court with you, why go iso early in the clock at that point, run the offense, if it's under say 7 seconds, do your iso than, not at the top of the shot clock. Why abandon the offense that's been generating good looks all night?

To link to the individual play, you have to go through the play-by-play and find the right link in there.

All 3 of those links are the same play where he gets position under the basket for an easy pass and score from Draymond, wonderful play by Kuminga.

6 assists to 1 turnover in his first two games back. Took a few shots outside of the motion offense, sure, but we don't even know if the ISO you're discussing was a called set or if he "abandoned the offense."

These are not called set. I've updated the links for you to see yourself.

All 3 links show me the early position under the basket that JK gets and is then fed by Dray for an easy 2.

[DonaldSanders]

If JK can be a finisher and not try to create as much for himself, he should be valuable. He can create for himself right now only in specific match ups, though I expect that to change as he continues to develop (and observes Jimmy).

Right now though, I'm a little concerned about the iso stuff he forces -- we need a little less of that, or it needs to be in the right situation. The Kings he got some easy looks, but those were the types of finishes you want from him. Knicks were harder, and he tried to force it. I won't assume yet he can't adjust, but of the rotation guys he is still a big wild card for me.

[Onus]

6 assists to 1 turnover in his first two games back. Took a few shots outside of the motion offense, sure, but we don't even know if the ISO you're discussing was a called set or if he "abandoned the offense."

These are not called set. I've updated the links for you to see yourself.

All 3 links show me the early position under the basket that JK gets and is then fed by Dray for an easy 2.

Scroll down and there’s a single play. Click on the play and enjoy.

[Onus]

I'm sorry but that's just you reaching a conclusion based on limited data. Playing Lamb over JK in the playoff run didn't exactly go great, either.

23 run same thing happened in 24 as well. No playing time against the kings.

At the end of the day, the argument that Kerr isn't playing the players you want him to play means this isn't a meritocracy, is just that - an argument. We have little insight into what governs playing time and whether it's Post, Podz, TJD, or Gui Santos, their time is often driven by their play.

We have ample evidence that playing time was not driven by people's play. Moody had a great game, did not get to close. Shroeder had a terrible game still closed.

If you're saying only JK gets preferential treatment, I doubt you'll find many that agree with that take. His fit, long term development, and salary demands are all worthwhile questions.

Only no. Multiple players have gotten preferential treatment. JK is one. CP3, Shroeder, Klay were others. Hell TJD was getting some as well for a while there.

Saying him getting benched in that kings series means his regular season play wasn't merit based is reaching, at best.

It means Kerr didn't trust him. JK getting playing time in the regular season was mostly for development, which is why when Kerr needed wins JK was nowhere to be found.

This all reads like projection. These are reasons YOU suspect govern Kerr's actions. You think Moody not closing when he has a good game is a sign that Kerr doesn't coach by merit. Maybe his play in 1 game versus what an entire career shows can also be called merit? By the way, I don't necessarily agree with playing schroeder over moody in games where one struggles and the other excels. I'm saying our definition of merit may not be the same as Kerr's.

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.

The cp3 minutes last year went fairly well. If it wasn't for Dray losing his mind for the first half of the year, things may have turned out differently. I also wanted to see CP3 share the court with Steph as little as possible. That said, it wasn't like we were overrun by options at the guard spot, particularly the ball-handling guard spot.

We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.

The Klay argument is old and no longer applicable. We really had no substitute for Klay last year and certainly none for his shooting. Kerr trying to coax more life from that lineup was a strategy that didn't work but short of trading Klay at the deadline, what was the other option, to play moody more? He didn't exactly shine when he got big minutes last year.

I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.

Schroeder didn't get preferential treatment - he got traded after like 20 games. Yes, Kerr tried to make the lineups work with DS, probably longer than he should have. Again, it's not like Moody was tearing it up and we had all these ball-handling guards to give Schroeder's minutes to.

TJD? Got a few starts last year, showed some finishing ability, and is currently getting DNP-CDs. Where's the preference? that he got a shot at all? Maybe, instead of favoritism, it's a just a coaching philosophy we don't agree with? It's clear Kerr values shooting and ball handling more than most other skills. We may disagree on how much he should value those things, but it seems clear he isn't playing hield because he likes him as a person.

Critique of Kerr's rotations, late game decisions, etc. all make sense. To make claims that he plays favorites and doesn't coach by merit is... conspiratorial. There's nothing players hate more than not being coached based on merit. I've never heard a single person make that complaint about Kerr. Not even KD, or Poole or JK, people who have voiced their frustration with how Kerr handles some other questions.

this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

[Impuniti]

Kerr playing players on merit is pretty funny. Probably the most disgusting set of nepotism I've ever seen from a coach for 3 straight years with Klay. Then random situations where he puts certain guys in more than they should. Buddy for example has games where he's a total disaster but Kerr doesn't bother limiting his minutes.

[vvoland]

23 run same thing happened in 24 as well. No playing time against the kings.


We have ample evidence that playing time was not driven by people's play. Moody had a great game, did not get to close. Shroeder had a terrible game still closed.


Only no. Multiple players have gotten preferential treatment. JK is one. CP3, Shroeder, Klay were others. Hell TJD was getting some as well for a while there.

It means Kerr didn't trust him. JK getting playing time in the regular season was mostly for development, which is why when Kerr needed wins JK was nowhere to be found.

This all reads like projection. These are reasons YOU suspect govern Kerr's actions. You think Moody not closing when he has a good game is a sign that Kerr doesn't coach by merit. Maybe his play in 1 game versus what an entire career shows can also be called merit? By the way, I don't necessarily agree with playing schroeder over moody in games where one struggles and the other excels. I'm saying our definition of merit may not be the same as Kerr's.

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.

The cp3 minutes last year went fairly well. If it wasn't for Dray losing his mind for the first half of the year, things may have turned out differently. I also wanted to see CP3 share the court with Steph as little as possible. That said, it wasn't like we were overrun by options at the guard spot, particularly the ball-handling guard spot.

We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.

The Klay argument is old and no longer applicable. We really had no substitute for Klay last year and certainly none for his shooting. Kerr trying to coax more life from that lineup was a strategy that didn't work but short of trading Klay at the deadline, what was the other option, to play moody more? He didn't exactly shine when he got big minutes last year.

I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.

Schroeder didn't get preferential treatment - he got traded after like 20 games. Yes, Kerr tried to make the lineups work with DS, probably longer than he should have. Again, it's not like Moody was tearing it up and we had all these ball-handling guards to give Schroeder's minutes to.

TJD? Got a few starts last year, showed some finishing ability, and is currently getting DNP-CDs. Where's the preference? that he got a shot at all? Maybe, instead of favoritism, it's a just a coaching philosophy we don't agree with? It's clear Kerr values shooting and ball handling more than most other skills. We may disagree on how much he should value those things, but it seems clear he isn't playing hield because he likes him as a person.


Critique of Kerr's rotations, late game decisions, etc. all make sense. To make claims that he plays favorites and doesn't coach by merit is... conspiratorial. There's nothing players hate more than not being coached based on merit. I've never heard a single person make that complaint about Kerr. Not even KD, or Poole or JK, people who have voiced their frustration with how Kerr handles some other questions.

this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

[Onus]

This all reads like projection. These are reasons YOU suspect govern Kerr's actions. You think Moody not closing when he has a good game is a sign that Kerr doesn't coach by merit. Maybe his play in 1 game versus what an entire career shows can also be called merit? By the way, I don't necessarily agree with playing schroeder over moody in games where one struggles and the other excels. I'm saying our definition of merit may not be the same as Kerr's.

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.

The cp3 minutes last year went fairly well. If it wasn't for Dray losing his mind for the first half of the year, things may have turned out differently. I also wanted to see CP3 share the court with Steph as little as possible. That said, it wasn't like we were overrun by options at the guard spot, particularly the ball-handling guard spot.

We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.

The Klay argument is old and no longer applicable. We really had no substitute for Klay last year and certainly none for his shooting. Kerr trying to coax more life from that lineup was a strategy that didn't work but short of trading Klay at the deadline, what was the other option, to play moody more? He didn't exactly shine when he got big minutes last year.

I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.

Schroeder didn't get preferential treatment - he got traded after like 20 games. Yes, Kerr tried to make the lineups work with DS, probably longer than he should have. Again, it's not like Moody was tearing it up and we had all these ball-handling guards to give Schroeder's minutes to.

TJD? Got a few starts last year, showed some finishing ability, and is currently getting DNP-CDs. Where's the preference? that he got a shot at all? Maybe, instead of favoritism, it's a just a coaching philosophy we don't agree with? It's clear Kerr values shooting and ball handling more than most other skills. We may disagree on how much he should value those things, but it seems clear he isn't playing hield because he likes him as a person.


Critique of Kerr's rotations, late game decisions, etc. all make sense. To make claims that he plays favorites and doesn't coach by merit is... conspiratorial. There's nothing players hate more than not being coached based on merit. I've never heard a single person make that complaint about Kerr. Not even KD, or Poole or JK, people who have voiced their frustration with how Kerr handles some other questions.

this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

I can't even get pass the first paragraph.

[vvoland]

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.


We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.


I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.


this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

I can't even get pass the first paragraph.

Don't rattle the pea.

[Impuniti]

This all reads like projection. These are reasons YOU suspect govern Kerr's actions. You think Moody not closing when he has a good game is a sign that Kerr doesn't coach by merit. Maybe his play in 1 game versus what an entire career shows can also be called merit? By the way, I don't necessarily agree with playing schroeder over moody in games where one struggles and the other excels. I'm saying our definition of merit may not be the same as Kerr's.

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.

The cp3 minutes last year went fairly well. If it wasn't for Dray losing his mind for the first half of the year, things may have turned out differently. I also wanted to see CP3 share the court with Steph as little as possible. That said, it wasn't like we were overrun by options at the guard spot, particularly the ball-handling guard spot.

We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.

The Klay argument is old and no longer applicable. We really had no substitute for Klay last year and certainly none for his shooting. Kerr trying to coax more life from that lineup was a strategy that didn't work but short of trading Klay at the deadline, what was the other option, to play moody more? He didn't exactly shine when he got big minutes last year.

I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.

Schroeder didn't get preferential treatment - he got traded after like 20 games. Yes, Kerr tried to make the lineups work with DS, probably longer than he should have. Again, it's not like Moody was tearing it up and we had all these ball-handling guards to give Schroeder's minutes to.

TJD? Got a few starts last year, showed some finishing ability, and is currently getting DNP-CDs. Where's the preference? that he got a shot at all? Maybe, instead of favoritism, it's a just a coaching philosophy we don't agree with? It's clear Kerr values shooting and ball handling more than most other skills. We may disagree on how much he should value those things, but it seems clear he isn't playing hield because he likes him as a person.


Critique of Kerr's rotations, late game decisions, etc. all make sense. To make claims that he plays favorites and doesn't coach by merit is... conspiratorial. There's nothing players hate more than not being coached based on merit. I've never heard a single person make that complaint about Kerr. Not even KD, or Poole or JK, people who have voiced their frustration with how Kerr handles some other questions.

this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

I absolutely despise nonsensical arguments like this. Just because a coach wins a title, it doesn't equate to every decision they make being the correct one. And the same is true for the other 29 coaches that year from the opposite end. Anyone that argues that Klay deserved to start that season has lost their marbles.

He was the worst player in the league for 2 straight months. He would be absolutely atrocious in games and he would still continue closing out games just because feelings are more important than anything else. Kerr did a fantastic job overall creating a well oiled machine in 22 and using the different pieces Bob acquired in the summer, but it wasn't perfect.

[KevinMcreynolds]

If I knew the Jimmy Warriors were going to be so successful I would have traded JK for another vet at the deadline without a doubt. Either way, I’ve always thought we should trade him. He’s not a winning player. The BBIQ is crap.

[watch1958]

Y’all need to give more detailed explanations.

[EvanZ]

Y’all need to give more detailed explanations.

What am I Claude