2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[70sFan]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

The way Curry has been playing last few months, I just can't see him fighting for the MVP candidacy when Jokic has such a marvelous season. Besides Jokic, we also have very strong MVP candidates in Giannis, Embiid and Gobert.

Curry is arguably the best player in the league in a vaccum (I prefer Jokic though), but MVP isn't only about that. Warriors are really good not because Curry reaches GOAT level. He's been very impactful of course, but when his shot doesn't fall his value falls back - like with any other player.

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

[parsnips33]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

The way Curry has been playing last few months, I just can't see him fighting for the MVP candidacy when Jokic has such a marvelous season. Besides Jokic, we also have very strong MVP candidates in Giannis, Embiid and Gobert.

Curry is arguably the best player in the league in a vaccum (I prefer Jokic though), but MVP isn't only about that. Warriors are really good not because Curry reaches GOAT level. He's been very impactful of course, but when his shot doesn't fall his value falls back - like with any other player.

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

I think Steph does considerably more to utilize his off-ball gravity than any other star right now. His constant movement and eagerness to set screens sets him apart.

I guess one way to put it is while most stars like a KD for instance have passive gravity, Steph has figured out a way to actively exploit defenses with his gravity. There's likely a spectrum of how active players are in using their off-ball gravity, and I'd imagine Steph is way off to one extreme.

[eminence]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

The way Curry has been playing last few months, I just can't see him fighting for the MVP candidacy when Jokic has such a marvelous season. Besides Jokic, we also have very strong MVP candidates in Giannis, Embiid and Gobert.

Curry is arguably the best player in the league in a vaccum (I prefer Jokic though), but MVP isn't only about that. Warriors are really good not because Curry reaches GOAT level. He's been very impactful of course, but when his shot doesn't fall his value falls back - like with any other player.

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

Embiid - Playing well and rising, but his start was nothing to write home about and missing a quarter of the season to date. He might be my 5th as of now (CP3 the other contender here), but it seems a lot of folks have him above Curry/Gobert and I'm not seeing it. If he'd been playing all season I'd have him in a dead heat with Steph for #2.

Curry - And I wonder if we don't understate it. 'notably bigger', kinda on the scale of how Embiid is 'notably bigger' than Steph literally.

I feel like most have taken an assumption that a player can't be a contender for best offensive player playing like this and worked from there. Probably something to do with folks assuming normal-ish distribution skill/impact. But it's not normally distributed at all here - an analogy - Stephs offball game is like Moses rebounding and the next best rebounder in the league is Otto Porter Jr.

[falcolombardi]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

The way Curry has been playing last few months, I just can't see him fighting for the MVP candidacy when Jokic has such a marvelous season. Besides Jokic, we also have very strong MVP candidates in Giannis, Embiid and Gobert.

Curry is arguably the best player in the league in a vaccum (I prefer Jokic though), but MVP isn't only about that. Warriors are really good not because Curry reaches GOAT level. He's been very impactful of course, but when his shot doesn't fall his value falls back - like with any other player.

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

of course it is getting way too overstated

if curry impact didnt suffer much from not hitting shots then that would mean that his impact wouldnt increase much either from making them, which makes no sense

does anyone thingh that if curry was hitting one or two more shots per game warriors offense wouldnt become 3-4 points better with it ?

he obviously doesnt have more gravity in games where he misses more so of course the efficiency drop is a impact drop

the fact that the warriors offense fell alongside his slump is evidence of it

only way for a player like curry who is mostly offensive slanted in his impact to be the most impactful player while in such a cold streak would be for him to be so head and shoulder above everyone else offensive that even in a slump he still is #1

which i dont think is a defensible position

[70sFan]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

of course it is getting way too overstated

if curry impact didnt suffer much from not hitting shots then that would mean that his impact wouldnt increase much either from making them, which makes no sense

does anyone thingh that if curry was hitting one or two more shots per game warriors offense wouldnt become 3-4 points better with it ?

he obviously doesnt have more gravity in games where he misses more so of course the efficiency drop is a impact drop

the fact that the warriors offense fell alongside his slump is evidence of it

only way for a player like curry who is mostly offensive slanted in his impact to be the most impactful player while in such a cold streak would be for him to be so head and shoulder above everyone else offensive that even in a slump he still is #1

which i dont think is a defensible position

That's my point of view as well.

[Colbinii]

Seems I'm notably lower on Embiid than most it seems.

Why are you lower on him?

Every player of course does even better when they make their shots, but at this point I see Curry's value as pretty weakly tied to his scoring for an offense first player (if defenses change how they defend him this could change).

Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

of course it is getting way too overstated

if curry impact didnt suffer much from not hitting shots then that would mean that his impact wouldnt increase much either from making them, which makes no sense

This is sort-of true.

Curry November: 116.4 Ortg // 64.5 eFG%
Curry December: 112.1 Ortg // 52.9 eFG%
Curry January: 113.1 Ortg // 44.8 eFG%

While there is a correlation between a player scoring ~40% more efficiently on 20 FGA/G, the difference between the maximum and minimum efficiencies is only carrying by 3.3 Ortg [Around a 3% swing in Ortg yet a 40% swing in individual efficiency].

does anyone thingh that if curry was hitting one or two more shots per game warriors offense wouldnt become 3-4 points better with it ?

Not a chance. The data doesn't back this up in any capacity.

he obviously doesnt have more gravity in games where he misses more so of course the efficiency drop is a impact drop

This is incorrect. Curry has the same gravity in all games he plays in, which is why the teams Ortg is maintaining at a high clip even when he is shooting poorly.

the fact that the warriors offense fell alongside his slump is evidence of it

It didn't fall far though.

only way for a player like curry who is mostly offensive slanted in his impact to be the most impactful player while in such a cold streak would be for him to be so head and shoulder above everyone else offensive that even in a slump he still is #1

which i dont think is a defensible position

I agree as I have Jokic as a clear-cut #1 at this point.

[TheGOATRises007]

Curry's shooting slump is one of the weirdest things I've seen.

Is he experiencing personal problems of any sorts?

[70sFan]

This is sort-of true.

Curry November: 116.4 Ortg // 64.5 eFG%
Curry December: 112.1 Ortg // 52.9 eFG%
Curry January: 113.1 Ortg // 44.8 eFG%

While there is a correlation between a player scoring ~40% more efficiently on 20 FGA/G, the difference between the maximum and minimum efficiencies is only carrying by 3.3 Ortg [Around a 3% swing in Ortg yet a 40% swing in individual efficiency].

Are these Warriors numbers with Curry on the floor?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Steph is having the best defensive season of his career.

[falcolombardi]

Why are you lower on him?


Of course Curry has a lot of value outside ot his scoring, but sometimes I wonder if we don't overstate it. I mean, you can say that about every single star in the league - you don't defend KD differently just because he misses a few jumpers. Of course, Curry's off-ball gravity effect is notably bigger than in most cases, but it doesn't mean that he's the best offensive player on the planet no matter what.

of course it is getting way too overstated

if curry impact didnt suffer much from not hitting shots then that would mean that his impact wouldnt increase much either from making them, which makes no sense

This is sort-of true.

Curry November: 116.4 Ortg // 64.5 eFG%
Curry December: 112.1 Ortg // 52.9 eFG%
Curry January: 113.1 Ortg // 44.8 eFG%

While there is a correlation between a player scoring ~40% more efficiently on 20 FGA/G, the difference between the maximum and minimum efficiencies is only carrying by 3.3 Ortg [Around a 3% swing in Ortg yet a 40% swing in individual efficiency].

does anyone thingh that if curry was hitting one or two more shots per game warriors offense wouldnt become 3-4 points better with it ?

Not a chance. The data doesn't back this up in any capacity.

he obviously doesnt have more gravity in games where he misses more so of course the efficiency drop is a impact drop

This is incorrect. Curry has the same gravity in all games he plays in, which is why the teams Ortg is maintaining at a high clip even when he is shooting poorly.

the fact that the warriors offense fell alongside his slump is evidence of it

It didn't fall far though.

only way for a player like curry who is mostly offensive slanted in his impact to be the most impactful player while in such a cold streak would be for him to be so head and shoulder above everyone else offensive that even in a slump he still is #1

which i dont think is a defensible position

I agree as I have Jokic as a clear-cut #1 at this point.

a 3.3 ortg difference is pretty huge, specially if we attribute it to a single player slump

[Doctor MJ]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

I'm curious to see whether win/loss record or rating winds up being the more accurate indicator here. If the Warriors are really an all-time great performing defense even without Draymond I'm not even sure what to think any more.

So, I think that the power of +/- to act as proxy for impact is something we've overrated because of it's come of age in an era with so much player movement. I think the veteran leadership of Draymond, Iggy, and Steph has been absolutely crucial to training up the other Warriors on how to play Warrior defense, and then Steph's presence allows the Warriors to play more defensive specialists - and even allowing guys to specialize on defense.

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

[Doctor MJ]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

Quite incredible how well the defense has held up with Draymond out and how much the offense has suffered in comparison. My best guess is that this defense has gotten so institutionalized that it can run capably without a DPOY while the offense still falls apart without at least one quarterback (either Curry or Dray) on the floor at a time, and especially with Curry shooting poorly. The stuff that GSW runs still looks highly complex.

While I think Draymond is valuable on offense particularly within the Curry-context he's so accustomed to, I also think that Curry just isn't playing as well as he did earlier in the year. I don't know what all is involved with that, but I will say the way he plays is incredibly tiring even when he coasts on defense, and he has not been coasting on defense this year.

[Colbinii]

This is sort-of true.

Curry November: 116.4 Ortg // 64.5 eFG%
Curry December: 112.1 Ortg // 52.9 eFG%
Curry January: 113.1 Ortg // 44.8 eFG%

While there is a correlation between a player scoring ~40% more efficiently on 20 FGA/G, the difference between the maximum and minimum efficiencies is only carrying by 3.3 Ortg [Around a 3% swing in Ortg yet a 40% swing in individual efficiency].

Are these Warriors numbers with Curry on the floor?

I think so. I quickly grabbed them from NBA.com.

[The-Power]

Curry's shooting slump is one of the weirdest things I've seen.

Is he experiencing personal problems of any sorts?

Lots of rumors out there on injuries and personal stuff but nothing official to hang your hat on.

[70sFan]

This is sort-of true.

Curry November: 116.4 Ortg // 64.5 eFG%
Curry December: 112.1 Ortg // 52.9 eFG%
Curry January: 113.1 Ortg // 44.8 eFG%

While there is a correlation between a player scoring ~40% more efficiently on 20 FGA/G, the difference between the maximum and minimum efficiencies is only carrying by 3.3 Ortg [Around a 3% swing in Ortg yet a 40% swing in individual efficiency].

Are these Warriors numbers with Curry on the floor?

I think so. I quickly grabbed them from NBA.com.

Thanks! If that's the case, then I'd say that +3.3 bump is pretty significant.

[The-Power]

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

I think that's a great and underrated point. We've come a long way of quantifying on-court impact but we are far away from being able to quantify the impact of individual players on teams more broadly.

This also includes coaching. Kerr, for instance, seems to truly believe in giving minutes to players that have negative impact – or at least less positive impact than an alternative – because he thinks it'll be better for the team as a whole (i.e. keeping everyone engaged and prepared to step in if needed, having good vibes within the team etc.); and I fully agree with him. But it's not something we can quantify at this point (or probably ever).

[eminence]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

I'm curious to see whether win/loss record or rating winds up being the more accurate indicator here. If the Warriors are really an all-time great performing defense even without Draymond I'm not even sure what to think any more.

So, I think that the power of +/- to act as proxy for impact is something we've overrated because of it's come of age in an era with so much player movement. I think the veteran leadership of Draymond, Iggy, and Steph has been absolutely crucial to training up the other Warriors on how to play Warrior defense, and then Steph's presence allows the Warriors to play more defensive specialists - and even allowing guys to specialize on defense.

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

Agreed on all the above. It would be the 'training up' (if it holds) that would be so astounding to me.

I don't think we've ever seen such team effort defensive result, where the team was unequivocally elite, but doesn't have anyone we think of as all that close to defensively elite (relative to the Russells/Duncans of history). Can anyone think of examples of super elite defenses without historically notable defensive talents?

I do think we've seen a few offensive collective efforts - Hawks from a few years back, early 00s Kings, current Jazz off the top of the head.

Warriors minutes over that 11 game period:
Wiggins - 345
Curry - 308
Poole - 303
Looney - 265
OPJ - 231
Lee - 208
Bjelica - 186
Kuminga - 180
Klay - 154
Payton II - 143
Iguodala - 142
JTA - 113

It just doesn't look like a squad that's posting one of the best defenses in NBA history.

Now, obviously, it's got the strong qualifier of 'if it holds'.

[falcolombardi]

[img]lo[/img]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

I'm curious to see whether win/loss record or rating winds up being the more accurate indicator here. If the Warriors are really an all-time great performing defense even without Draymond I'm not even sure what to think any more.

So, I think that the power of +/- to act as proxy for impact is something we've overrated because of it's come of age in an era with so much player movement. I think the veteran leadership of Draymond, Iggy, and Steph has been absolutely crucial to training up the other Warriors on how to play Warrior defense, and then Steph's presence allows the Warriors to play more defensive specialists - and even allowing guys to specialize on defense.

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

dont most offensive stars who take a big load of the offense allow to play more defenders?

whether you are talking jokic, lebron, embiid, harden i dont think this is a ubique curry thingh at all

all of these players have lifted defensive minded teams now or in the past as on ball (to different degrees) creators/scorers

i think that saying that curry "allows" warriors to play defensive players is getting into "give literally all the credit to the star, even of thingh role players do" territory as well as being arguably "double counting" impact

warriors best players are defensive guys, if curry was not there they would be a great defense with weak offense but they wouldnt stop being a great defense (unless they stopped trying so hard because they wouldnt be a contender, somethingh draymond kind of did in 2020 but that is a different matter)

[eminence]

[img]lo[/img]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

I'm curious to see whether win/loss record or rating winds up being the more accurate indicator here. If the Warriors are really an all-time great performing defense even without Draymond I'm not even sure what to think any more.

So, I think that the power of +/- to act as proxy for impact is something we've overrated because of it's come of age in an era with so much player movement. I think the veteran leadership of Draymond, Iggy, and Steph has been absolutely crucial to training up the other Warriors on how to play Warrior defense, and then Steph's presence allows the Warriors to play more defensive specialists - and even allowing guys to specialize on defense.

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

dont most offensive stars who take a big load of the offense allow to play more defenders?

whether you are talking jokic, lebron, embiid, harden i dont think this is a ubique curry thingh at all

all of these players have lifted defensive minded teams now or in the past as on ball (to different degrees) creators/scorers

i think that saying that curry "allows" warriors to play defensive players is getting into "give literally all the credit to the star, even of thingh role players do" territory as well as being arguably "double counting" impact

warriors best players are defensive guys, if curry was not there they would be a great defense with weak offense but they wouldnt stop being a great defense (unless they stopped trying so hard because they wouldnt be a contender, somethingh draymond kind of did in 2020 but that is a different matter)

I generally agree with this - though I think there should be some level of differentiation for bigs/smalls. There's a more limited amount of defensive talent you can get on your roster if Jokic/Embiid/etc are taking up your 5 spot vs Curry/Harden/etc taking a guard spot.

[yoyoboy]

Numbers from nbawowy. 11 games since Dray went down. Warriors 6-5, +6.3 (107.8 Off, 101.5 Def - bad offense, mega elite defense). 114.0 offense, 102.6 defense with Steph on (Wiggins/Looney/OPJ/Poole his main running partners - that lineup 135.1/100.9 in 59 minutes).

I'm curious to see whether win/loss record or rating winds up being the more accurate indicator here. If the Warriors are really an all-time great performing defense even without Draymond I'm not even sure what to think any more.

So, I think that the power of +/- to act as proxy for impact is something we've overrated because of it's come of age in an era with so much player movement. I think the veteran leadership of Draymond, Iggy, and Steph has been absolutely crucial to training up the other Warriors on how to play Warrior defense, and then Steph's presence allows the Warriors to play more defensive specialists - and even allowing guys to specialize on defense.

All of this is leading us to see Curry having a unique irreplaceable impact (at least with Klay out) that Green doesn't have, but that doesn't mean that Green doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the Warrior D becoming what it has become.

Agreed on all the above. It would be the 'training up' (if it holds) that would be so astounding to me.

I don't think we've ever seen such team effort defensive result, where the team was unequivocally elite, but doesn't have anyone we think of as all that close to defensively elite (relative to the Russells/Duncans of history). Can anyone think of examples of super elite defenses without historically notable defensive talents?

I do think we've seen a few offensive collective efforts - Hawks from a few years back, early 00s Kings, current Jazz off the top of the head.

Warriors minutes over that 11 game period:
Wiggins - 345
Curry - 308
Poole - 303
Looney - 265
OPJ - 231
Lee - 208
Bjelica - 186
Kuminga - 180
Klay - 154
Payton II - 143
Iguodala - 142
JTA - 113

It just doesn't look like a squad that's posting one of the best defenses in NBA history.

Now, obviously, it's got the strong qualifier of 'if it holds'.

At one point, do we consider that Kerr is potentially a defensive mastermind who’s been underappreciated in his coaching on that end and deserves a ton of credit for putting together the schemes/defensive philosophies that have helped facilitate such a historic defense? And amazing defenses in past seasons as well.