Your Unpopular Basketball Opinions? [PC Board Edition]

[Texas Chuck]

I think people overrate the impact that one player can have. Yes, a truly dominant player (especially the Jordan, LeBron, Shaq category) can have a bigger impact in basketball than in soccer or hockey or football, but it's still not nearly high enough that you can say (I'll give a concrete example) - "Suns beat the Lakers in the 1990 WCSF in 5 games, so Magic Johnson's 30/6/12 on 62% TS is not a great series" or "Magic beat the Cavs in the 2009 ECF so LeBron's 39/8/8 on 59% TS is not a great series".

I really hate equating individual performance with team success. It's the most primitive, simpleton way of analyzing basketball that I can think of. Sure, team success should be a factor in player analysis, to a certain degree, but not nearly to the degree that many people (even some people on this board) think. One thing I really like about stats like RAPM or on/off court splits is that they try to isolate a player's impact from the rest of his team.

Seriously, I think some people really lack common sense, if they think that a series like LeBron's 2009 ECF or even Magic's 1990 WCSF was anything short of phenomenal. Their teams would lose in 20-30 point blowouts in every game during those series if not for LeBron and Magic.

Warning: Massively unpopular opinion coming (tldr)

Spoiler:

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I do disagree with some of that middle paragraph. I actually think we tend to go too far the other direction and look for reasons to excuse why one player has far less team success or to be too dismissive of other guys whose teams ALWAYS win. To use my favorite example: Jason Kidd. The evidence is so glaring that however he does it, adding him to your team means lots more winning and subtracting him means lots more losing regardless of the other moving parts. Yet mention that and people here will strain every muscle and fiber in their being to explain it away because his individual stats make it "impossible" for him to have the impact that he is clearly having. The relationship between individual success and team success is not directly linear, but its not completely irrelevant either.

And there is even some danger at going back and look at a series summary and concluding whether or not a player had a great series or not. Take Chris Paul against OKC in 2014. He put up 23/12 on over 60%TS. It's easy to look at those numbers and say Chris Paul played great. The fact that his team lost should in no way be held against him. Yet if we go back and actually look at how that series played out we can recall in that in games 5 and 6 he made some killer mistakes that helped to cost his team the game. If he had made heroic plays to win the games we would certainly talk about it, but because he instead made mistakes and bad plays, we say things like "well his team wouldn't even be in position to win without him" or otherwise attempt to separate the player from team results. Or take Dirk in the 2011 Finals. Lots of guys here talk about a mediocre Finals because he only put up 26/10 on <54%TS. But again if we go back to the actual games and remember that every game was well in doubt in the 4th quarter and that he put up double digits in all 6, made 2 game winning shots(in fairness, he missed one too) among other huge shots to bring them back from deficits and clearly outplayed Wade and Lebron when it really mattered--well then we realize despite his stats not being as impressive as they were in the West he actually had a tremendous individual series.

Please note that all of the above falls under the list of extremely unpopular opinions that I hold here. I value winning a lot. I'm more nuanced than just rinzzzzzzzzzzzzz or whatever dismissive term is currently in vogue, but yeah team results should be included as a significant part of a player's evaluation. If we are smart enough to use context to understand RAPM and other on/off stars then we are smart enough to use context in evaluating a player's impact on team success. And if we aren't smart enough to use context in looking at team results, we certainly aren't able to make the further contextual distinctions required to make conclusions based on on/off stats.

(Ducks and hides in preparation of the disdain for my very backwards and simpleton ways)

[Clyde Frazier]

A little more specific to the PC board than my earlier comments:

Some quick stats on ginobili

- In his 13 seasons, he’s only played 30+ MPG twice, and peaked at 31.1 MPG
- In 5 of those 13 seasons, he’s played less than 25 MPG
- He’s only played in 70+ games in 6 of those 13 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season equivalent)

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  

- - - - -

Appreciating the fact that there were a lot of talented players in the 90s doesn’t automatically make you nostalgic for 90s basketball…

- - - - -

For years I had my top PFs pretty much set in stone:

Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Dirk or Garnett, Pettit, McHale

Seems the overwhelming feeling these days on here is that Dirk and Garnett have moved ahead of Malone and Barkley.  While I agree that they have a case, I get the feeling that in the process, Malone and Barkley aren’t being appreciated enough for the careers they had.

I’ve kept my distance from the recent discussion with the intent on re-evaluating these guys in depth to see if my opinions have changed, but i just haven’t had the time.

[Texas Chuck]

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  




Seems the overwhelming feeling these days on here is that Dirk and Garnett have moved ahead of Malone and Barkley.  While I agree that they have a case, I get the feeling that in the process, Malone and Barkley aren’t being appreciated enough for the careers they had.

Agreed and agreed. I can personally admit I was guilty of automatically putting KG and Dirk ahead of the latter 2, but the more I look at the less sure I am about it. I always had Chuck pretty close to the other 2, but I think my personal dislike for Malone had influenced how I evaluated him. I went back and really looked at him pretty hard during the top 100 project and he rose significantly in my views of him. A really great player for a really absurd amount of minutes.

[NinjaSheppard]

Warning: Massively unpopular opinion coming (tldr)


[spoiler
And there is even some danger at going back and look at a series summary and concluding whether or not a player had a great series or not. Take Chris Paul against OKC in 2014. He put up 23/12 on over 60%TS. It's easy to look at those numbers and say Chris Paul played great. The fact that his team lost should in no way be held against him. Yet if we go back and actually look at how that series played out we can recall in that in games 5 and 6 he made some killer mistakes that helped to cost his team the game. If he had made heroic plays to win the games we would certainly talk about it, but because he instead made mistakes and bad plays, we say things like "well his team wouldn't even be in position to win without him" or otherwise attempt to separate the player from team results. [/spoiler]

This is a terrible example. The Clippers absolutely crushed the Thunder when Chris Paul was on the court and were getting crushed when he was off the court. It was pretty clear that the issue was that they could not tread water when CP3 sat and that is what infuriated so many Clippers fans because in the offseason the Clippers failed to address the bench problem (they actually made it worse).

If anything what you are doing is describing the problem with "watching them play". People have certain perceptions (for example CP3 is overrated) and then they take a play or two from the series and use it to reinforce those perceptions without properly analyzing what actually happened. Yeah Chris Paul made mistakes in game 5 at the worst time possible but in game 4 of that series no stat sheet is going to tell you that a large part of the reason that they came back from a 17 point 4th quarter deficit was because the Clippers 5'11 point guard defended the 6'11 Kevin Durant down the stretch and helped throw a wrench in the OKC offense.

[Purch]

A little more specific to the PC board than my earlier comments:

Some quick stats on ginobili

- In his 13 seasons, he’s only played 30+ MPG twice, and peaked at 31.1 MPG
- In 5 of those 13 seasons, he’s played less than 25 MPG
- He’s only played in 70+ games in 6 of those 13 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season equivalent)

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  

- - - - -

Appreciating the fact that there were a lot of talented players in the 90s doesn’t automatically make you nostalgic for 90s basketball…

- - - - -

For years I had my top PFs pretty much set in stone:

Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Dirk or Garnett, Pettit, McHale

Seems the overwhelming feeling these days on here is that Dirk and Garnett have moved ahead of Malone and Barkley.  While I agree that they have a case, I get the feeling that in the process, Malone and Barkley aren’t being appreciated enough for the careers they had.

I’ve kept my distance from the recent discussion with the intent on re-evaluating these guys in depth to see if my opinions have changed, but i just haven’t had the time.

You know I think it's intresting that you talk about Manu Ginobilli. Ever since Harden broke out in Houston, I think people have viewed Manu in even higher regards. I think this is because Manu/Harden were considered very similar players in their 6th man role.. And it always brung up the possibility of what they could do as a teams focal point. So when Harden showed he could dominate, I think it confirmed for people that just because a star player is in a 6th man roll, doesn't mean it's because they're limited as players.

[Purch]

So while I have no problem giving him his due as a high impact per min / per possession player, I do take issue with extrapolating that impact as far as some people do.  Even with pop’s minutes management over the years, if ginobili could play more minutes and be healthier, he would have.  I just can’t give him as much credit as some others do for a theoretical impact he would have playing more minutes.  




Seems the overwhelming feeling these days on here is that Dirk and Garnett have moved ahead of Malone and Barkley.  While I agree that they have a case, I get the feeling that in the process, Malone and Barkley aren’t being appreciated enough for the careers they had.

Agreed and agreed. I can personally admit I was guilty of automatically putting KG and Dirk ahead of the latter 2, but the more I look at the less sure I am about it. I always had Chuck pretty close to the other 2, but I think my personal dislike for Malone had influenced how I evaluated him. I went back and really looked at him pretty hard during tvhe top 100 project and he rose significantly in my views of him. A really great player for a really absurd amount of minutes.

I always feel that Barkly peaked the highest out of the 4. However, I haven to penalize him for longevity, as the other 3 have more quality seasons. Dirk is usally my number 1 cause I feel he's the best post season performer. And I go back and forth between Malone/KG

[bondom34]

I think people overrate the impact that one player can have. Yes, a truly dominant player (especially the Jordan, LeBron, Shaq category) can have a bigger impact in basketball than in soccer or hockey or football, but it's still not nearly high enough that you can say (I'll give a concrete example) - "Suns beat the Lakers in the 1990 WCSF in 5 games, so Magic Johnson's 30/6/12 on 62% TS is not a great series" or "Magic beat the Cavs in the 2009 ECF so LeBron's 39/8/8 on 59% TS is not a great series".

I really hate equating individual performance with team success. It's the most primitive, simpleton way of analyzing basketball that I can think of. Sure, team success should be a factor in player analysis, to a certain degree, but not nearly to the degree that many people (even some people on this board) think. One thing I really like about stats like RAPM or on/off court splits is that they try to isolate a player's impact from the rest of his team.

Seriously, I think some people really lack common sense, if they think that a series like LeBron's 2009 ECF or even Magic's 1990 WCSF was anything short of phenomenal. Their teams would lose in 20-30 point blowouts in every game during those series if not for LeBron and Magic.

Warning: Massively unpopular opinion coming (tldr)

Spoiler:

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I do disagree with some of that middle paragraph. I actually think we tend to go too far the other direction and look for reasons to excuse why one player has far less team success or to be too dismissive of other guys whose teams ALWAYS win. To use my favorite example: Jason Kidd. The evidence is so glaring that however he does it, adding him to your team means lots more winning and subtracting him means lots more losing regardless of the other moving parts. Yet mention that and people here will strain every muscle and fiber in their being to explain it away because his individual stats make it "impossible" for him to have the impact that he is clearly having. The relationship between individual success and team success is not directly linear, but its not completely irrelevant either.

And there is even some danger at going back and look at a series summary and concluding whether or not a player had a great series or not. Take Chris Paul against OKC in 2014. He put up 23/12 on over 60%TS. It's easy to look at those numbers and say Chris Paul played great. The fact that his team lost should in no way be held against him. Yet if we go back and actually look at how that series played out we can recall in that in games 5 and 6 he made some killer mistakes that helped to cost his team the game. If he had made heroic plays to win the games we would certainly talk about it, but because he instead made mistakes and bad plays, we say things like "well his team wouldn't even be in position to win without him" or otherwise attempt to separate the player from team results. Or take Dirk in the 2011 Finals. Lots of guys here talk about a mediocre Finals because he only put up 26/10 on <54%TS. But again if we go back to the actual games and remember that every game was well in doubt in the 4th quarter and that he put up double digits in all 6, made 2 game winning shots(in fairness, he missed one too) among other huge shots to bring them back from deficits and clearly outplayed Wade and Lebron when it really mattered--well then we realize despite his stats not being as impressive as they were in the West he actually had a tremendous individual series.

Please note that all of the above falls under the list of extremely unpopular opinions that I hold here. I value winning a lot. I'm more nuanced than just rinzzzzzzzzzzzzz or whatever dismissive term is currently in vogue, but yeah team results should be included as a significant part of a player's evaluation. If we are smart enough to use context to understand RAPM and other on/off stars then we are smart enough to use context in evaluating a player's impact on team success. And if we aren't smart enough to use context in looking at team results, we certainly aren't able to make the further contextual distinctions required to make conclusions based on on/off stats.

(Ducks and hides in preparation of the disdain for my very backwards and simpleton ways)

Nope, I agree. I think there's something to what Quo says as well, that a guy shouldn't be dismissed as a loser because he's never won, but at some point the questions become fair when you look at an entire body of work over a 10 year career. I wouldn't use the arguement for a guy like AD or Lebron in Cleveland when he was still too young but CP is getting to that point currently and from what I've read about him, Dantley was a guy who had issues with team success despite great numbers.

[Texas Chuck]

This is a terrible example. The Clippers absolutely crushed the Thunder when Chris Paul was on the court and were getting crushed when he was off the court. It was pretty clear that the issue was that they could not tread water when CP3 sat and that is what infuriated so many Clippers fans because in the offseason the Clippers failed to address the bench problem (they actually made it worse).

If anything what you are doing is describing the problem with "watching them play". People have certain perceptions (for example CP3 is overrated) and then they take a play or two from the series and use it to reinforce those perceptions without properly analyzing what actually happened. Yeah Chris Paul made mistakes in game 5 at the worst time possible but in game 4 of that series no stat sheet is going to tell you that a large part of the reason that they came back from a 17 point 4th quarter deficit was because the Clippers 5'11 point guard defended the 6'11 Kevin Durant down the stretch and helped throw a wrench in the OKC offense.

I told you it would be unpopular....

And I also predicted exactly what the response would be...

Obviously Chris Paul is an outstanding player. I'm not attempting to state otherwise. Nor am I trying to say Paul had a bad series. Not am I trying to call him a loser who can't win in the playoffs. All that is baloney. But when in b2b games you completely wet the bed at the end of those games that your team had every chance to win, should we pretend it didn't happen. Especially when your counterpart is doing the exact opposite, should it not factor in at all? We don't excuse Lebron for playing extremely passive in the 4th Q of the 2011 Finals do we? So if we give him credit for his defense on KD--and we absolutely should. Why don't we hold him accountable for his plays that cost the team?

This was never about Chris Paul, but simply using him as the first example that came off my head of a guy with great stats for a series, but when looking back at the actual gameplay and saying the team results shouldn't be held against him---well just maybe that doesn't totally add up (never does for me really.)

I mean I'm a huge Dirk homer and for the most part his individual PS numbers look great, but then as drza pointed out, a lot of his PS on/off splits don't really match the box score production and he and I postulated on some possible explanations for this. But frankly one of them may simply be that his RS game didn't translate as well against better teams who could gameplan against the Mavs until he found that post game. And so despite some gaudy looking individual stats, his PS reputation might well be greater than his actual play.

My entire point remains that stats never tell the complete story. Not box score, not on-off. I don't expect you(or anyone else really) to agree. Like I said--unpopular basketball opinion.... I know that's very unpopular on this board where the view most commonly held is that stats do tell us the whole story.

[tone wone]

Warning: Massively unpopular opinion coming (tldr)


[spoiler
And there is even some danger at going back and look at a series summary and concluding whether or not a player had a great series or not. Take Chris Paul against OKC in 2014. He put up 23/12 on over 60%TS. It's easy to look at those numbers and say Chris Paul played great. The fact that his team lost should in no way be held against him. Yet if we go back and actually look at how that series played out we can recall in that in games 5 and 6 he made some killer mistakes that helped to cost his team the game. If he had made heroic plays to win the games we would certainly talk about it, but because he instead made mistakes and bad plays, we say things like "well his team wouldn't even be in position to win without him" or otherwise attempt to separate the player from team results. [/spoiler]

This is a terrible example. The Clippers absolutely crushed the Thunder when Chris Paul was on the court and were getting crushed when he was off the court. It was pretty clear that the issue was that they could not tread water when CP3 sat and that is what infuriated so many Clippers fans because in the offseason the Clippers failed to address the bench problem (they actually made it worse).

If anything what you are doing is describing the problem with "watching them play". People have certain perceptions (for example CP3 is overrated) and then they take a play or two from the series and use it to reinforce those perceptions without properly analyzing what actually happened. Yeah Chris Paul made mistakes in game 5 at the worst time possible but in game 4 of that series no stat sheet is going to tell you that a large part of the reason that they came back from a 17 point 4th quarter deficit was because the Clippers 5'11 point guard defended the 6'11 Kevin Durant down the stretch and helped throw a wrench in the OKC offense.

The way game 4 of that series was wiped from history infuriates me. Every lame attribute that gets applied to the winners; grit, determination "willed his team" "wouldn't let his team lose"; was on full that game....just as it was in game 7 GS in the series before. Paul isn't lacking anything other than an extra 3in that would make it easier for him to get his shot off.

You can't have a real convo about how flawed this Clippers team has been without being accused of making excuses.

[Clyde Frazier]

Not necessarily unpopular, but just something i feel very strongly about which people tend to be split on:

- Division 1 athletes in high revenue generating sports (namely basketball and football) deserve to be paid

- The age limit in the NBA should be moved back to 18

- In conjunction with that, the d league needs to become a true minor league system

A) for younger players drafted into the league and

B) as a viable option to play pro ball in the US with a chance at making an NBA roster in the future — this would include reasonable salaries in the $50-75K range as opposed to the $20-30K currently

[sp6r=underrated]

Some more unpopular opinions

- The Age Limit, Players Draft and Salary Cap lower the quality of play in the NBA and should be gotten rid of.
- Competitive balance and parity are overrated with regards to the enjoyment of fans.
- The NFL's economic system has basically nothing to do with why the NFL is so popular.
- The Los Angeles Clippers are legitimate contenders and have been the most unlucky team in NBA history when you evaluate PS opponents after factoring in RS performance.
- Dirk was better in 06 than 2011 and it is mainly myth that he made significant improvements to his game.

[Purch]

Some more unpopular opinions

- The Age Limit, Players Draft and Salary Cap lower the quality of play in the NBA and should be gotten rid of.
- Competitive balance and parity are overrated with regards to the enjoyment of fans.
- The NFL's economic system has basically nothing to do with why the NFL is so popular.
- The Los Angeles Clippers are legitimate contenders and have been the most unlucky team in NBA history when you evaluate PS opponents after factoring in RS performance.
- Dirk was better in 06 than 2011 and it is mainly myth that he made significant improvements to his game.

Maneging to drop 3 straight games against a team you're leading 3-1 against without the starting point guard... Has little to do with bad luck

[Texas Chuck]

An And-1 given out to you sir. I don't agree with any of those opinions making imo a great list for this thread. Well I agree the Clippers are contenders--don't agree about the luck portion.

[penbeast0]

Not necessarily unpopular, but just something i feel very strongly about which people tend to be split on:

- Division 1 athletes in high revenue generating sports (namely basketball and football) deserve to be paid

- The age limit in the NBA should be moved back to 18

- In conjunction with that, the d league needs to become a true minor league system

A) for younger players drafted into the league and

B) as a viable option to play pro ball in the US with a chance at making an NBA roster in the future — this would include reasonable salaries in the $50-75K range as opposed to the $20-30K currently

How about Division 1 Football and Basketball clubs should quit pretending to support student athletes and just hire players and admit that they are professionals. Then college athletics can be intermurals, club sports, and lower division sports and we can get rid of much more of the hypocracy. Division 1 schools can license the right to use their name or run the football team themselves but college athletics will no longer be about giving kids a chance to go to college since apparently none of the top players or programs care about that.

[Quotatious]

- The Los Angeles Clippers are legitimate contenders and have been the most unlucky team in NBA history when you evaluate PS opponents after factoring in RS performance.

Agreed. With their improved bench, I wouldn't be surprised to see them beating the Warriors or Spurs or even winning it all the upcoming season (hopefully Pierce won't have a sudden decline as Carter did last season in Memphis, and Lance/Josh play well, too...well Stephenson really can't play any worse than he did last season, he can only improve).

- Dirk was better in 06 than 2011 and it is mainly myth that he made significant improvements to his game.

I also agree on this one. I feel like the entire argument for '11 Dirk over '06 is based on his finals performance, and the fact that he won the title in '11, and lost in '06.

2006 Dirk was much more athletic, had better stamina, was more capable of consistently putting a team on his back throughout an entire season. His playoff run throughout the Western conference was every bit as good in '06 as it was in '11.

[Texas Chuck]

2006 Dirk was much more athletic, had better stamina, was more capable of consistently putting a team on his back throughout an entire season. His playoff run throughout the Western conference was every bit as good in '06 as it was in '11.

I'm curious about "more capable of consistently putting a team on his back". What had you seen in the seasons leading up to 2011 that suggested Dirk could no longer do so? Because we actually had a pretty decent span of games where the 2011 team missed Dirk and they were pretty inept. Offensively he was still absolutely carrying that team imo as much as he did in 06.

I wonder if his coming back after the lockout the following year a bit out of shape and not playing well to start the year is influencing your thinking on his inability to carry a team in 2011? Because I honestly don't see anything about 2011 or the years leading up to it to suggest he couldn't put the team on his back every night. Yeah his minutes were slightly down in the RS but.....I think you can make an argument that 2011 was the last year Dirk could carry that heavy a load every night, but I don't see an argument that he wasn't still fully capable that year.

[tone wone]

- The Los Angeles Clippers are legitimate contenders and have been the most unlucky team in NBA history when you evaluate PS opponents after factoring in RS performance.

Agreed. With their improved bench, I wouldn't be surprised to see them beating the Warriors or Spurs or even winning it all the upcoming season (hopefully Pierce won't have a sudden decline as Carter did last season in Memphis, and Lance/Josh play well, too...well Stephenson really can't play any worse than he did last season, he can only improve).

- Dirk was better in 06 than 2011 and it is mainly myth that he made significant improvements to his game.

I also agree on this one. I feel like the entire argument for '11 Dirk over '06 is based on his finals performance, and the fact that he won the title in '11, and lost in '06.

2006 Dirk was much more athletic, had better stamina, was more capable of consistently putting a team on his back throughout an entire season. His playoff run throughout the Western conference was every bit as good in '06 as it was in '11.

any version of DIrk from 06-10 would've won a title that year.

The gospel of 2011 Dirk is based on how bad that team was when he sat, despite being so awesome with him...and of course winning the title. Well, 2011 was the first time Dirk had minutes limited. 06-10 Dirk would made that team better by virtue of spending more time on the court.

You cant be the best version of yourself while with your minutes being limited.

[Texas Chuck]

any version of DIrk from 06-10 would've won a title that year.

The gospel of 2011 Dirk is based on how bad that team was when he sat, despite being so awesome with him...and of course winning the title. Well, 2011 was the first time Dirk had minutes limited. 06-10 Dirk would made that team better by virtue of spending more time on the court.

You cant be the best version of yourself while with your minutes being limited.

As someone who has watched every minute of Dirk's career I strongly disagree with the bolded. I think going through what he went through in 2006 and then the following year in GSW followed by several years where his team's window had appeared closed is a huge part of why Dirk and the Mavs had the playoff run they had. Dirk could look around at all the guys on that team who were going to be free agents and the age of that core and see it was now or never in a way he couldn't possibly have thought with that young core they had in 2006.

I know these sorts of unmeasurables are frowned upon here, but I think they can matter, and matter a lot.


As to those who see his peak from 05-07 as opposed to 2011--I won't argue. Those are certainly his best individual statistical years as well as the end of his athletic prime. But I strongly disagree that you can plug and play a previous version in 2011 and automatically assume the same results. It essentially suggests no growth from Dirk over that time period which just doesn't match the reality.

[Quotatious]

any version of DIrk from 06-10 would've won a title that year.

I'm not sure if '07 Dirk would, knowing how he struggled against the Warriors, but '06 and '08-'10 Dirk was absolutely great in the playoffs, so I think he would.

You cant be the best version of yourself while with your minutes being limited.

Well, Curry played limited minutes in the RS last season, and it was clearly the best version of Steph so far (there's a difference - Curry could've easily played even 40 mpg in the RS if he had to, but the Warriors were so dominant that it was better to keep his minutes under control and allow him to stay fresh for the playoffs, while Dirk's RS minutes were limited more out of necessity, but it's still a fact that Curry played a lot less minutes in '15 compared to '13 or '14).

[Texas Chuck]

while Dirk's RS minutes were limited more out of necessity, but it's still a fact that Curry played a lot less minutes in '15 compared to '13 or '14).

Again, I'd hope you'd expound on this as well. His minutes were down for sure, but I don't know that its because he couldn't play 36-37 mpg or if Rick was trying to rest him more in games out of hand one way or the other Pop-style. He had no problems at all with the increased minutes in the PS--tho of course you have easier travel and more time off between games so its possible.

Anyway its not something I remember being concerned about in real-time so any more light you can shed would be helpful.