More Free Agent Talk

[FNQ]

Honestly man I dont think you can separate or are separating the difference between BBIQ and experience. If you are arguing that we're less experienced, there's an actual numerical value you can point to, and no one is going to argue it

Is BBIQ not affected by experience or something? Livingson was a very intelligent player. You are either underrating him in that dept or just plain dont understand what he brought to the table.

Of course its affected. Again, you have no arguments unless you make one up.

It is not the end-all be-all like you seem to think, and yes, a rookie can come into the league and be a smarter player.

Livingston was a very long player, and a very unselfish player. That's it. He was a bad off-ball defender, he didn't create much (but didnt stop the ball), and benefit a great deal from being the "Klay" in our defensive system, where he could just stay on-ball.

Most of you have absolutely no respect for Ron Adams and the defensive mastermind he was, because you give all the credit to the players who were given roles based on their strengths. Aside from Curry, Klay, Durant, Bogut and Iguodala... we havent had any elite BBIQ players on the team. And Klay/KD are extremely debatable even.

[SF_Warriors]

You think jordan poole has a high bball IQ? He does not. He's basically average in that dept. Barbosa easily was a smarter player, especially 30 year old version of him. Poole is not a smarter player than Livingston. Anybody that understands basketball will know this.

When in doubt, make stuff up. Barbosa became a smart player in this conversation, truly amazing considering he retired years ago. He was a bad positional defender and spot-up/iso player that was deployed in small doses because he couldn't do more than that. And he was in the Steph role on defense! And still wasn't good. Poole can make plays for others better (though not much better) and is of course a better shooter.

Okay, so you don't think its relevant to bring up west? Because you named him in one post..and you dont think its relevant to compare him to bjelica who most likely plays the same role? Because your argument sucks thats why..I bring up this point because its relevant to our discussion. It doesnt matter if you failed to bring it up or not.

You make wild claims and then justify it like this? How about responding to what I actually say, and then maybe I will engage you in an actual conversation instead of laughing at the idea of Barbosa being smart and Moody not?

I'm not saying moody is not a high IQ player,

Ok, good start...

I'm saying you cant expect him to know the game as a rookie than a seasoned nba vet. Especially since we havent even seen moody play a single nba game yet. How does that not compute with you..I think moody will be a wayyy better player than livingston by the way.

I'm not saying he's not a high IQ player, he just cant possibly be smarter than people who played in the league. Just like a freshman cant be smarter than a graduate. Just like a new employee cant be smarter than an older one. But I'm being ignorant, so just ignore me. Clearly there is a formulaic way the basketball world works, and you've cracked it. Amazing how simple it is, and that we've all missed it

Your point is that you think our current bench is smarter than our benches during the championship runs. Thats just..false

We have a bunch of 20 year olds with little to no nba experience. Of course 30 yr old vets would be smarter. We arent talking about a few years down the line here. We are talking currently or we not?

Let's say iguodala = iguodala
Which backup big on the current roster is smarter than west? No one.
Is moody, kuminga, and poole at their current ages so drastically smarter than veteran versions of livingston and barbosa, who were impact players off the bench for us? I think not. And yes, its absolutely dumb to think so. At best, it is equivalent at this stage and even then that's a stretch.

The only real argument you have is that moody and kuminga have more potential but that doesnt necessarily mean higher BBIQ.

Look, I put out a decent effort to convince you but if you dont wanna hear it its all good. We'll carry on and root for these guys.
I have no doubt that in the next year or two our bench will be elite.

[SF_Warriors]

Honestly man I dont think you can separate or are separating the difference between BBIQ and experience. If you are arguing that we're less experienced, there's an actual numerical value you can point to, and no one is going to argue it

Is BBIQ not affected by experience or something? Livingson was a very intelligent player. You are either underrating him in that dept or just plain dont understand what he brought to the table.

Of course its affected. Again, you have no arguments unless you make one up.

It is not the end-all be-all like you seem to think, and yes, a rookie can come into the league and be a smarter player.

Livingston was a very long player, and a very unselfish player. That's it. He was a bad off-ball defender, he didn't create much (but didnt stop the ball), and benefit a great deal from being the "Klay" in our defensive system, where he could just stay on-ball.

Most of you have absolutely no respect for Ron Adams and the defensive mastermind he was, because you give all the credit to the players who were given roles based on their strengths. Aside from Curry, Klay, Durant, Bogut and Iguodala... we havent had any elite BBIQ players on the team. And Klay/KD are extremely debatable even.

So I'm making up that nba vets have higher BBIQs than rookies?
I think you may be right about moody versus livingston. Would like to see it first though.

[FNQ]

Your point is that you think our current bench is smarter than our benches during the championship runs. Thats just..false

Yup. Considering the reasoning you've had, which basically just equates to age = intelligence... I'm fine with your disagreement.

We have a bunch of 20 year olds with little to no nba experience. Of course 30 yr old vets would be smarter. We arent talking about a few years down the line here. We are talking currently or we not?

Let's say iguodala = iguodala
generous of you to say current Iguodala is as smart as Iguodala 3-7 years ago
Which backup big on the current roster is smarter than west? No one.
probably not, but JTA and Bjelica are not far from it, which is the point. But they are also much younger, and production matters in this conversation, until it doesnt
Is moody, kuminga, and poole at their current ages so drastically smarter than veteran versions of livingston and barbosa, who were impact players off the bench for us? I think not. And yes, its absolutely dumb to think so. At best, it is equivalent at this stage and even then that's a stretch.
So again, "they're young, Barbosa and Livingston are old, thus they cant even be equivalent and its dumb to disagree with this incredibly generalized statement even though I'm really dying on the hill of Barbosa being smart". Ok.

The only real argument you have is that moody and kuminga have more potential but that doesnt necessarily mean higher BBIQ.

Clearly having a different discussion in your own mind

Look, I put out a decent effort to convince you but if you dont wanna hear it its all good.

Did you? You just kept saying that they were older and repeating your disbelief that I don't subscribe to such a lazy way of analyzing the game. Would you like to dive into the stats on it? I'd be happy to talk about how Livingston was a poor off-ball defender and shockingly bad considering his wingspan. Or we can talk about how Barbosa was hidden a la Curry on defense and was picked on at a far worse rate than Curry because unlike Curry, Barbosa didnt understand positional defense. We can talk about how Moody is the best positional defender coming out of the draft in years..

[FNQ]

So I'm making up that nba vets have higher BBIQs than rookies?

No, you make up takes for who you're talking to, and arguing those. I've said that so many times now.

I think you may be right about moody versus livingston. Would like to see it first though.

Unless you think Moody is a poor positional defender and/or a poor on-ball defender, its gonna be tough for you to argue. Livingston, along with Klay, got dinged so hard in metrics for their abysmal off-ball defense. Now stats like DRtg will overstate that because our system turns DRtg on its ear, and thats fine. It gives credit for staying at base and not allowing shots in your area - the chief reason why West graded insanely high in it, as high as Draymond. But the reason for it is because in a switch heavy system, Livingston and Klay were the ones you wanted to attack on the switch, which is why we put them on-ball in the exact same defensive role.

Ron Adams FTMFW

[SF_Warriors]

Your point is that you think our current bench is smarter than our benches during the championship runs. Thats just..false

Yup. Considering the reasoning you've had, which basically just equates to age = intelligence... I'm fine with your disagreement.

We have a bunch of 20 year olds with little to no nba experience. Of course 30 yr old vets would be smarter. We arent talking about a few years down the line here. We are talking currently or we not?

Let's say iguodala = iguodala
generous of you to say current Iguodala is as smart as Iguodala 3-7 years ago
Which backup big on the current roster is smarter than west? No one.
probably not, but JTA and Bjelica are not far from it, which is the point. But they are also much younger, and production matters in this conversation, until it doesnt
Is moody, kuminga, and poole at their current ages so drastically smarter than veteran versions of livingston and barbosa, who were impact players off the bench for us? I think not. And yes, its absolutely dumb to think so. At best, it is equivalent at this stage and even then that's a stretch.
So again, "they're young, Barbosa and Livingston are old, thus they cant even be equivalent and its dumb to disagree with this incredibly generalized statement even though I'm really dying on the hill of Barbosa being smart". Ok.

The only real argument you have is that moody and kuminga have more potential but that doesnt necessarily mean higher BBIQ.

Clearly having a different discussion in your own mind

Look, I put out a decent effort to convince you but if you dont wanna hear it its all good.

Did you? You just kept saying that they were older and repeating your disbelief that I don't subscribe to such a lazy way of analyzing the game. Would you like to dive into the stats on it? I'd be happy to talk about how Livingston was a poor off-ball defender and shockingly bad considering his wingspan. Or we can talk about how Barbosa was hidden a la Curry on defense and was picked on at a far worse rate than Curry because unlike Curry, Barbosa didnt understand positional defense. We can talk about how Moody is the best positional defender coming out of the draft in years..

BBIQ still has to translate to oncourt play and production. So yes, in that sense younger iguodala is preferable. Based on your argument, 45 year old iguodala would be better for this team than 32 year old iguodala because of experience and knowledge. Am I doing this right?

I am comparing rookies to 10+ year nba vets and sophomores who were starters for other teams, not 25 year olds to 30 yr olds. Get it through your head. Do you not understand there's a tangible, measurable difference there? Unless they come into the league impacting right away, its disingenuous to assume a 19 year old is smarter.

Can moody and kuminga have high BBIQs that translate to oncourt impact for a championship caliber team? Sure, but Livingston and barbosa actually contributed and those young guys have seen little to no time in the nba. Poole has zero playoff experience, kuminga/moody have zero nba experience. So you are literally just guessing and making assumptions based on what you read on scouting reports. That's my issue with your whole argument. You say I'm making stuff up but you literally never seen some of these guys play yet you are so willing to say they are smarter?

[FNQ]

BBIQ still has to translate to oncourt play and production. So yes, in that sense younger iguodala is preferable. Based on your argument, 45 year old iguodala would be better for this team than 32 year old iguodala because of experience and knowledge. Am I doing this right?

Depends - is a 22 year old Poole better than a 32 year old Barbosa? And if so, do you finally get the point? The whole argument was about BBIQ, and then you dismissed Iguodala's BBIQ because he's an older talent and cant keep up.. but then 32, end of career, post-knee surgery and definite not smart player Barbosa is > Poole? Do you see the logical inconsistency?

I am comparing rookies to 10+ year nba vets who were starters for other teams, not 25 year olds to 30 yr olds. Get it through your head.

And you've now fulfilled your quota of at least 1 argument that no one was making, and arguing against it. Good to get it out of the way early I guess. Horrible discussion style man, horrible.

Can moody and kuminga have high BBIQs that translate to oncourt impact for a championship caliber team? Sure, but Livingston and barbosa actually contributed and those young guys have seen little to no time in the nba. Poole has zero playoff experience, kuminga/moody have zero nba experience. So you are literally just guessing and making assumptions based on what you read on scouting reports. That's my issue with your whole argument. You say I'm making stuff up but you literally never seen some of these guys in playoff or even regular game situations yet you are so willing to say they are smarter?

How many times can you say "my guys old, smart. you guys young, dumb." and trying to reframe it as if its some smart argument? Do you want to talk numbers, stats, and actual logic or not?

My company literally, LITERALLY compiles tracking data and disseminates it. Our whole entity exists to be predictive. But thankfully you're here to tell us that Nico Mannion is better than Jalen Green because we just havent seen Jalen Green in the NBA yet. Am I doing that right? Or do they have to be older? I can sub Brad Wanamaker in there just in case, let me know

[SF_Warriors]

So I'm making up that nba vets have higher BBIQs than rookies?

No, you make up takes for who you're talking to, and arguing those. I've said that so many times now.

I think you may be right about moody versus livingston. Would like to see it first though.

Unless you think Moody is a poor positional defender and/or a poor on-ball defender, its gonna be tough for you to argue. Livingston, along with Klay, got dinged so hard in metrics for their abysmal off-ball defense. Now stats like DRtg will overstate that because our system turns DRtg on its ear, and thats fine. It gives credit for staying at base and not allowing shots in your area - the chief reason why West graded insanely high in it, as high as Draymond. But the reason for it is because in a switch heavy system, Livingston and Klay were the ones you wanted to attack on the switch, which is why we put them on-ball in the exact same defensive role.

Ron Adams FTMFW

Look, I love moody and what he theoretically brings but the guy hasnt played a single game yet. You are getting way ahead of yourself saying he can do all these things.

[FNQ]

So I'm making up that nba vets have higher BBIQs than rookies?

No, you make up takes for who you're talking to, and arguing those. I've said that so many times now.

I think you may be right about moody versus livingston. Would like to see it first though.

Unless you think Moody is a poor positional defender and/or a poor on-ball defender, its gonna be tough for you to argue. Livingston, along with Klay, got dinged so hard in metrics for their abysmal off-ball defense. Now stats like DRtg will overstate that because our system turns DRtg on its ear, and thats fine. It gives credit for staying at base and not allowing shots in your area - the chief reason why West graded insanely high in it, as high as Draymond. But the reason for it is because in a switch heavy system, Livingston and Klay were the ones you wanted to attack on the switch, which is why we put them on-ball in the exact same defensive role.

Ron Adams FTMFW

Look, I love moody and what he theoretically brings but the guy hasnt played a single game yet. You are getting way ahead of yourself saying he can do all these things.

if rookies cant be better than vets in your mind, then just say that and go, instead of acting like predictive analysis isn't a thing and is a laughable concept. All of the rest of the people who the game has passed by will certainly be in agreement

Ask older folks here who was banging the Livingston drum loudest years before he got here.. or check the draft thread re:Moody and the same. You picked two guys who I keyed in on, and I nailed Livingston's impact and role. I'm saying what I'm saying because there's a lot of evidence to believe it and I'd be happy to do a deep dive on either. I'm not getting ahead of myself here - I'm arguing back with someone using solely age and not much else as a reason to determine that anything other than his beliefs are laughable. Imagine that.

[SF_Warriors]

BBIQ still has to translate to oncourt play and production. So yes, in that sense younger iguodala is preferable. Based on your argument, 45 year old iguodala would be better for this team than 32 year old iguodala because of experience and knowledge. Am I doing this right?

Depends - is a 22 year old Poole better than a 32 year old Barbosa? And if so, do you finally get the point? The whole argument was about BBIQ, and then you dismissed Iguodala's BBIQ because he's an older talent and cant keep up.. but then 32, end of career, post-knee surgery and definite not smart player Barbosa is > Poole? Do you see the logical inconsistency?

I am comparing rookies to 10+ year nba vets who were starters for other teams, not 25 year olds to 30 yr olds. Get it through your head.

And you've now fulfilled your quota of at least 1 argument that no one was making, and arguing against it. Good to get it out of the way early I guess. Horrible discussion style man, horrible.

Can moody and kuminga have high BBIQs that translate to oncourt impact for a championship caliber team? Sure, but Livingston and barbosa actually contributed and those young guys have seen little to no time in the nba. Poole has zero playoff experience, kuminga/moody have zero nba experience. So you are literally just guessing and making assumptions based on what you read on scouting reports. That's my issue with your whole argument. You say I'm making stuff up but you literally never seen some of these guys in playoff or even regular game situations yet you are so willing to say they are smarter?

How many times can you say "my guys old, smart. you guys young, dumb." and trying to reframe it as if its some smart argument? Do you want to talk numbers, stats, and actual logic or not?

My company literally, LITERALLY compiles tracking data and disseminates it. Our whole entity exists to be predictive. But thankfully you're here to tell us that Nico Mannion is better than Jalen Green because we just havent seen Jalen Green in the NBA yet. Am I doing that right? Or do they have to be older? I can sub Brad Wanamaker in there just in case, let me know

Has nico mannion started for nba playoff teams and contributed to nba championships? Jesus man..Does nico have 10 years of nba experience that I don't know about?

32 year old barbosa was one of our best scorers off the bench. You act like he was useless. In a playoff setting TODAY, you bet I would take barbosa/livingston over an unproven guy like 22 year old poole. Would I take hypothetical 25 year old poole over barbosa? I'd be willing to gamble and say yes but we arent there yet.

Look, I'm sure you are great at what you do but with all due respect its hard to be "predictive" with nba rooks and sophomores, especially with limited relevant data to compile.

Is your argument about BBall IQ today? Or in a timeframe of say in 2-3 years? If its 2-3 years than I could see that, if we are talking right now, I would not. I apologize if that was your argument the whole time.

[FNQ]

Has nico mannion started for nba playoff teams and contributed to nba championships? Jesus man..

32 year old barbosa was one of our best scorers off the bench. You act like he was useless. In a playoff setting, you bet I would take barbosa/livingston over an unproven guy like poole.

Look, I'm sure you are great at what you do but with all due respect its hard to be "predictive" with nba rooks and sophomores, especially with limited relevant data to compile.

So starting for NBA teams and contributing to NBA championships = BBIQ, got it. Nick Young - BBIQ maven! It's an argument that doesnt track.

Once again, you make up an argument. At this point it cant be random, you have a fatal flaw with arguing. You cant help it! Barbosa was useful, of course. He could create his own shot and was a decent enough 3 pt shooter. Basically he was Bouknight. But that doesnt make him a smart player. See, you can be effective without being smart. And thats why our teams did so well, we put players in weird positions to succeed.

Curry couldnt defend PGs, so Adams developed a system to put Curry on people much larger than him, as long as they were the least likely to be dribbling. Curry also got to 'rest' during those times guarding spot up shooters, while Klay took the on-ball assignment and Barnes/Iguodala/Wiggins takes the guy 2nd most likely to get the ball from the initiator. And then our 2nd unit followed the same idea, with Livingston/Iguodala taking the Klay/Barnes roles, and Barbosa taking the Curry roles. Was Barbosa smart for thinking of this defense, or was Ron Adams smart for putting him in a spot where he didnt have to do anything? And he was still poor at it!

If you'd take Livingston/Barbosa over Poole in a playoff setting... fine. Me? I'd want to know what role theyd be in. Who their teammates are. What the situation in the game is. Because an overall, general X > Y is meaningless when you actually tackle the details of the game.

[FNQ]

[
Is your argument about BBall IQ today? Or in a timeframe of say in 2-3 years? If its 2-3 years than I could see that, if we are talking right now, I would not. I apologize if that was your argument the whole time.

Today, right now, and I've said that

[S-Gorilla86]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I wonder if the Warriors even offered the TPMLE, although BOS will probably give him a better opportunity to revive his market after it completely crashed.

We were never offering the TPMLE to anyone.. Myers or Lacob, cant remember who, alluded to it early on and people just whizzed on by it

It seems they offered it to Batum and Mills though, I figured Schroder would be on that level. But yeah I guess it was a long shot.

Sent from my LM-V600 using RealGM mobile app

[FNQ]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I wonder if the Warriors even offered the TPMLE, although BOS will probably give him a better opportunity to revive his market after it completely crashed.

We were never offering the TPMLE to anyone.. Myers or Lacob, cant remember who, alluded to it early on and people just whizzed on by it

It seems they offered it to Batum and Mills though, I figured Schroder would be on that level. But yeah I guess it was a long shot.

Sent from my LM-V600 using RealGM mobile app

I heard we were pursuing them, and I think there were assumptions about the MLE going to either.. but I have a hard time believing that we would have done that for them only, and not for other players. There were a lot of players we could have used who were given a similar or smaller contract.. and I dont think Batum/Mills were very far ahead of them

I dunno, my thought process is that if we were mentally OK with paying effectively 20-30m for Batum or Mills, why not RoLo? Why not Schroeder?

[SF_Warriors]

Has nico mannion started for nba playoff teams and contributed to nba championships? Jesus man..

32 year old barbosa was one of our best scorers off the bench. You act like he was useless. In a playoff setting, you bet I would take barbosa/livingston over an unproven guy like poole.

Look, I'm sure you are great at what you do but with all due respect its hard to be "predictive" with nba rooks and sophomores, especially with limited relevant data to compile.

So starting for NBA teams and contributing to NBA championships = BBIQ, got it. Nick Young - BBIQ maven!

Once again, you make up an argument. At this point it cant be random, you have a fatal flaw with arguing. You cant help it! Barbosa was useful, of course. He could create his own shot and was a decent enough 3 pt shooter. Basically he was Bouknight. But that doesnt make him a smart player. See, you can be effective without being smart. And thats why our teams did so well, we put players in weird positions to succeed.

Curry couldnt defend PGs, so Adams developed a system to put Curry on people much larger than him, as long as they were the least likely to be dribbling. Curry also got to 'rest' during those times guarding spot up shooters, while Klay took the on-ball assignment and Barnes/Iguodala/Wiggins takes the guy 2nd most likely to get the ball from the initiator. And then our 2nd unit followed the same idea, with Livingston/Iguodala taking the Klay/Barnes roles, and Barbosa taking the Curry roles. Was Barbosa smart for thinking of this defense, or was Ron Adams smart for putting him in a spot where he didnt have to do anything? And he was still poor at it!

If you'd take Livingston/Barbosa over Poole in a playoff setting... fine. Me? I'd want to know what role theyd be in. Who their teammates are. What the situation in the game is. Because an overall, general X > Y is meaningless when you actually tackle the details of the game.

Did nick young play significant minutes for playoff teams or the first guards off the bench for a contender? Mustve missed that part. You bring up worse, non relevant players like nico and young to make your point, which is a sad way to argue.

Adams can put guys like moody/kuminga. wiseman in roles to succeed as well..whats to say the warriors wont game plan the first couple of years to help the young guys do better in limited roles because of their limited knowledge and experience?

Would you trust poole/moody in a must win game in the playoffs? At this stage you have no idea how they would perform or how many minutes they are capable of playing so why would you choose them? At the very least you have to admit you are gambling and are basing their potential performance on your own gut feelings. Now, those feelings may be correct but there's nothing to substantiate a rookie moody for example can outperform livingston in a playoff setting right now. We know at least what the vets brought. Obviously long term you take the young guys.

[FNQ]

Did nick young play significant minutes for playoff teams or the first guards off the bench for a contender? Mustve missed that part. You bring up worse, non relevant players like nico and young to make your point, which is a sad way to argue.

He literally played in the Barbosa role after starting and playing significant minutes for many teams And he didn't even have career-shortening surgery either!

Adams can put guys like moody/kuminga. wiseman in roles to succeed as well..whats to say the warriors wont game plan the first couple of years to help the young guys do better in limited roles because of their limited knowledge and experience?

Yes, he can. But unlike Livingston and Barbosa, Moody was thriving in a different system that wasn't catered to him. Two points you've made so far, two faceplants.

Would you trust poole/moody in a must win game in the playoffs? At this stage you have no idea how they would perform or how many minutes they are capable of playing so why would you choose them? At the very least you have to admit you are gambling and are basing their potential performance on your own gut feelings. Now, those feelings may be correct but there's nothing to substantiate a rookie moody for example can outperform livingston in a playoff setting right now. We know at least what the vets brought. Obviously long term you take the young guys.

I'm basing their potential based on analytical data, not gut feelings. See the reason I've kept this conversation going is because of your militant view on age, experience, and potential, and how all those types of people are dying off in the NBA. Because its useless. Because actual analysis is better than generalities. If I needed self-made buckets in the playoffs, I'd choose Poole over Livingston or Moody. If I needed defense off-ball, I take Moody over any of the 3. Its not gambling because you can identify what someone is good at, or not, and put them in a good situation. You again took my point of situation-based analysis and go right back to the general well.

Well, best of luck with that. If you think basketball is a general game, good on you. Free to have that opinion. Free to disagree with actual analysis by people who want to learn more about the game. But call it laughable and I'll happily expose the circular, illogical arguments. There's a whole industry that's on the rise for this exact thing, and it wouldnt exist if the general, vanilla takes that old hats push were in any way effective.

[SF_Warriors]

Did nick young play significant minutes for playoff teams or the first guards off the bench for a contender? Mustve missed that part. You bring up worse, non relevant players like nico and young to make your point, which is a sad way to argue.

He literally played in the Barbosa role after starting and playing significant minutes for many teams And he didn't even have career-shortening surgery either!

Adams can put guys like moody/kuminga. wiseman in roles to succeed as well..whats to say the warriors wont game plan the first couple of years to help the young guys do better in limited roles because of their limited knowledge and experience?

Yes, he can. But unlike Livingston and Barbosa, Moody was thriving in a different system that wasn't catered to him. Two points you've made so far, two faceplants.

Would you trust poole/moody in a must win game in the playoffs? At this stage you have no idea how they would perform or how many minutes they are capable of playing so why would you choose them? At the very least you have to admit you are gambling and are basing their potential performance on your own gut feelings. Now, those feelings may be correct but there's nothing to substantiate a rookie moody for example can outperform livingston in a playoff setting right now. We know at least what the vets brought. Obviously long term you take the young guys.

I'm basing their potential based on analytical data, not gut feelings. See the reason I've kept this conversation going is because of your militant view on age, experience, and potential, and how all those types of people are dying off in the NBA. Because its useless. Because actual analysis is better than generalities. If I needed self-made buckets in the playoffs, I'd choose Poole over Livingston or Moody. If I needed defense off-ball, I take Moody over any of the 3. Its not gambling because you can identify what someone is good at, or not, and put them in a good situation. You again took my point of situation-based analysis and go right back to the general well.

Well, best of luck with that. If you think basketball is a general game, good on you. Free to have that opinion. Free to disagree with actual analysis by people who want to learn more about the game. But call it laughable and I'll happily expose the circular, illogical arguments. There's a whole industry that's on the rise for this exact thing, and it wouldnt exist if the general, vanilla takes that old hats push were in any way effective.

Show me the data you compiled that shows the current bench has a higher collective bbiq than previous iterations.

Whats laughable is thinking a bench consisting mostly of rookies and sophomores has higher bbiq than a proven veteran bench. Im not talking about random vets but proven guys here. I would love if moody, poole, wiseman can come into the playoffs and intellectually provide what west, livingston, iguodala would. Im sure the young guys can contribute and make an impact on the floor but thats not the argument here.

As for your debating style, just a bunch of goalpost moving, disregarding relevant points, and straight up pretentiousness Hate to see it..your poor coworkers..

[SF_Warriors]

Did nick young play significant minutes for playoff teams or the first guards off the bench for a contender? Mustve missed that part. You bring up worse, non relevant players like nico and young to make your point, which is a sad way to argue.

He literally played in the Barbosa role after starting and playing significant minutes for many teams And he didn't even have career-shortening surgery either!

Adams can put guys like moody/kuminga. wiseman in roles to succeed as well..whats to say the warriors wont game plan the first couple of years to help the young guys do better in limited roles because of their limited knowledge and experience?

Yes, he can. But unlike Livingston and Barbosa, Moody was thriving in a different system that wasn't catered to him. Two points you've made so far, two faceplants.

Would you trust poole/moody in a must win game in the playoffs? At this stage you have no idea how they would perform or how many minutes they are capable of playing so why would you choose them? At the very least you have to admit you are gambling and are basing their potential performance on your own gut feelings. Now, those feelings may be correct but there's nothing to substantiate a rookie moody for example can outperform livingston in a playoff setting right now. We know at least what the vets brought. Obviously long term you take the young guys.

I'm basing their potential based on analytical data, not gut feelings. See the reason I've kept this conversation going is because of your militant view on age, experience, and potential, and how all those types of people are dying off in the NBA. Because its useless. Because actual analysis is better than generalities. If I needed self-made buckets in the playoffs, I'd choose Poole over Livingston or Moody. If I needed defense off-ball, I take Moody over any of the 3. Its not gambling because you can identify what someone is good at, or not, and put them in a good situation. You again took my point of situation-based analysis and go right back to the general well.

Well, best of luck with that. If you think basketball is a general game, good on you. Free to have that opinion. Free to disagree with actual analysis by people who want to learn more about the game. But call it laughable and I'll happily expose the circular, illogical arguments. There's a whole industry that's on the rise for this exact thing, and it wouldnt exist if the general, vanilla takes that old hats push were in any way effective.

Show me the data you compiled then..

Whats laughable is thinking a bench consisting mostly of rookies and sophomores has higher bbiq than a proven veteran bench. Im not talking about random vets but proven guys here. Im not talking generalities but direct comparison between two specific benches and specific players. I would love if moody, poole, wiseman can come into the playoffs and intellectually provide what west, livingston, iguodala would as the main bench rotation. Notice how I did not bring up nick young like you did..Im sure the young guys can contribute and make an impact on the floor but thats not the argument here.

And dont get it twisted and think that I dont absolutely love the potential of the bench including opj and bejli, which is kinda your mo I guess..to assume things that arent remotely true.

As for your debating style, just a bunch of goalpost moving, disregarding relevant points while also bringing up irrelevant points, and straight up pretentiousness.. Hate to see it..your poor coworkers..

[FNQ]

which is kinda your mo I guess..to assume things that arent remotely true.

As for your debating style, just a bunch of goalpost moving, disregarding relevant points while also bringing up irrelevant points, and straight up pretentiousness.. Hate to see it..your poor coworkers..

holy **** what are you talking about?? You've literally, and consistently, fabricated arguments this entire time and when I point out how simple your logic is and how it doesn't actually track, this is the response? You think I'm pretentious for saying that the field that I work in, the one that is expanding well beyond pro sports into college and even HS sports is a more detailed and accurate analysis than your "if they're older, they're smarter" shtick? Nah man, look within - I'd ignore your hacky, old-timey way of looking at things if you could provide one even *shred* of data to back it up. But no, its just stuff like.. he played on a winner before, and young players can't be smarter than old players, and you cant be sure until they play in the NBA.. just ridiculous man.

As for data, why don't you bother responding to the basic stuff I responded with first. Maybe explain to me why high IQ, great players were at the bottom of our NetRtg, why the metrics disagree with their impact and how good they were..

Hell your questions demonstrate the very lack of understanding I'm talking about. And if you don't want to understand the game at that level, that's fine. Then stay out of conversations that do, because you don't add anything to them

[AdonalFoyle4Prez]

Probably huge liability on defense, but I.T. for backup PG / offensive spark off the bench?

Poured 81 points at Pro-Am, recently (Again, means nothing, though).

Feel bad for the guy. Definitely can be had for veteran's min to partial guaranteed deal.

Read on Twitter