2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[70sFan]

Still think that healthy Bucks were the best team in the league. I don't think Warriors would be able to fight on even terms with Milwaukee.

[falcolombardi]

Still think that healthy Bucks were the best team in the league. I don't think Warriors would be able to fight on even terms with Milwaukee.

agree, they have a lot of similitudes to boston but with a better superstar

[Homer38]

The celtics are only the 3rd team since 1996 to win game 1 of the NBA finals on the road.The other 2 are the 2004 Pistons and the 2013 Spurs

Edit:I forget the 2001 76ers,so the celtics are the fourth team since 1996

[Doctor MJ]

Still think that healthy Bucks were the best team in the league. I don't think Warriors would be able to fight on even terms with Milwaukee.

agree, they have a lot of similitudes to boston but with a better superstar

I still see the difference in their approach to defending 3-point shots to be really important.

[Doctor MJ]

The Celtics already had caught up and took the lead when Curry "twisted" his ankle.

Sounds like you're saying that Curry pretended to twist his ankle in the 4th quarter in order to have an excuse for his team losing. That really what you think?

[Doctor MJ]

Not saying it's a guarantee Boston wins but I think people are not used to assuming the best Eastern teams are as good as the best Western teams.

Boston went through a murders row all the way from round 1 to now. Could make the argument every team Boston beat would beat the Mavericks. I actually fully believe that would be the case.

Some people saying GSW would sweep is crazy.

I dont see how KD + scrubs, getting swept, are part of "a murders row". Fully enabled Nets - different story. Kyrie having his head up his ass and mostly occupied letting everyone know how he prioritizes ramadan over his job he gets paid millions for, and Simmons still being unable to play, and KD being forced to play point forward which is certainly not his forte, i'd say thats a rather easy task.

In fact for the Nets, their role players were great on offense but KD and Kyrie were just awful outside of game 1 for Kyrie and maybe game 4 for KD

I think it's important to keep in mind in all these series that whenever the stars are limited, but the role players look amazing, this is generally because the opposing defense is putting excess pressure on the stars and giving the role players opportunities to succeed.

This was definitely in what the Celtics did to the Nets, and it's what we saw the Warriors do to the Celtics last night. If the Warriors actually thought Al Horford was the most dangerous offensive player on the Celtics, he wouldn't have had that game yesterday.

[70sFan]

The Celtics already had caught up and took the lead when Curry "twisted" his ankle.

Sounds like you're saying that Curry pretended to twist his ankle in the 4th quarter in order to have an excuse for his team losing. That really what you think?

I don't think it sounded this way given the context of the post.

[Doctor MJ]

Al Horford has been unappreciated for too long

I think GS will figure things out offensively, and Boston's shooting isn't sustainable either. The 13 assists from Tatum is pretty crazy too, really grown as a playmaker in these playoffs.

It's absolutely true that people have long underrated Horford.

Re: Boston's shooting unsustainable. Sure feels like it, but I think Warriors are in a tough place right now adjustment-wise.

Every time a team makes an adjustment to stop an opponent's success, they are effectively boxing themselves in, using an approach that's less optimal for their own team in the name of mitigating their opponent.

When you concentrate pressure on the star and dare the role players to beat you, and they successfully beat you, what should you do next? If the bet is that this game was a fluke, you shouldn't change a thing...but when you've already had your serve broken, rolling it back means losing both your home games before you fly to hostile territory, at which point, the series may effectively be over.

I'll be curious to see what the Warriors try to do in Game 2 for this reason: On one level the adjustments are obvious and the question is whether you should make them or not.

Re: GS will figure things out offensively. Well, funny thing is that the Warrior ORtg in Game 1 already makes the Bucks & Heat offenses look like jokes. While I expect the Warriors will do better going forward than they did in the 4th quarter, I'm not sure it's any kind of given that their overall ORtg will improve significantly over the rest of the series.

Feels to me like the Warriors right now are at the mercy of the Celtics not being able to repeat their Game 1 3-point performance, because if they can repeat it, they're probably unbeatable.

[Doctor MJ]

Could be poor memory but I feel like Horford's on another level shooting-wise than even Draymond was (not just because he had a crazy hot game, obviously Dray was capable of those.. cough G7). I feel like he's just defended differently

Horford has a much longer track record of being a good (and willing) outside shooter than Draymond did.

I don't think that's clear cut.

Horford didn't start taking 3's regularly until '15-16, and in '15-16 he was less effective from 3 than Draymond had been in '14-15.

While one can certainly go into depth on the long 2 conversation, to me the story of Horford's continued relevance is all about him making that transition as a 29 year old to being a Stretch 5.

Meanwhile, Green never had as good of a 3-point shooting year again after '14-15 (though he did have better post-seasons), which is quite noteworthy because his APG skyrockets starting in '15-16. It's thus entirely possible that if Green had been relegated to 3-point role player status rather than lead playmaker, that his shooting would more like Horford's does now.

I've spoken before of the clarity of knowing when and where you're supposed to shoot. 3-point role players know that if they get the ball at the 3-point line and they're open, they're supposed to shoot. Green's role is more complicated than that, and I really do think it's likely it's getting in his way on this front.

[Fadeaway_J]

Could be poor memory but I feel like Horford's on another level shooting-wise than even Draymond was (not just because he had a crazy hot game, obviously Dray was capable of those.. cough G7). I feel like he's just defended differently

Horford has a much longer track record of being a good (and willing) outside shooter than Draymond did.

I don't think that's clear cut.

Horford didn't start taking 3's regularly until '15-16, and in '15-16 he was less effective from 3 than Draymond had been in '14-15.

While one can certainly go into depth on the long 2 conversation, to me the story of Horford's continued relevance is all about him making that transition as a 29 year old to being a Stretch 5.

Meanwhile, Green never had as good of a 3-point shooting year again after '14-15 (though he did have better post-seasons), which is quite noteworthy because his APG skyrockets starting in '15-16. It's thus entirely possible that if Green had been relegated to 3-point role player status rather than lead playmaker, that his shooting would more like Horford's does now.

I've spoken before of the clarity of knowing when and where you're supposed to shoot. 3-point role players know that if they get the ball at the 3-point line and they're open, they're supposed to shoot. Green's role is more complicated than that, and I really do think it's likely it's getting in his way on this front.

Isn't the comparison between 2015-16 Draymond and Horford now?

[Doctor MJ]

Horford has a much longer track record of being a good (and willing) outside shooter than Draymond did.

I don't think that's clear cut.

Horford didn't start taking 3's regularly until '15-16, and in '15-16 he was less effective from 3 than Draymond had been in '14-15.

While one can certainly go into depth on the long 2 conversation, to me the story of Horford's continued relevance is all about him making that transition as a 29 year old to being a Stretch 5.

Meanwhile, Green never had as good of a 3-point shooting year again after '14-15 (though he did have better post-seasons), which is quite noteworthy because his APG skyrockets starting in '15-16. It's thus entirely possible that if Green had been relegated to 3-point role player status rather than lead playmaker, that his shooting would more like Horford's does now.

I've spoken before of the clarity of knowing when and where you're supposed to shoot. 3-point role players know that if they get the ball at the 3-point line and they're open, they're supposed to shoot. Green's role is more complicated than that, and I really do think it's likely it's getting in his way on this front.

Isn't the comparison between 2015-16 Draymond and Horford now?

I don't see how that's relevant to your prior statement, which was what I was responding to.

[Doctor MJ]

The Celtics already had caught up and took the lead when Curry "twisted" his ankle.

Sounds like you're saying that Curry pretended to twist his ankle in the 4th quarter in order to have an excuse for his team losing. That really what you think?

I don't think it sounded this way given the context of the post.

Really? What's your interpretation of the pragmatics of putting an injury in quotes?

[70sFan]

Sounds like you're saying that Curry pretended to twist his ankle in the 4th quarter in order to have an excuse for his team losing. That really what you think?

I don't think it sounded this way given the context of the post.

Really? What's your interpretation of the pragmatics of putting an injury in quotes?

That this had no tangible effect on Curry. I am not sure if that's true, but Curry didn't seem too hobbled after that moment. Another thing is that Celtics started their run before it happened.

[Fadeaway_J]

I don't think that's clear cut.

Horford didn't start taking 3's regularly until '15-16, and in '15-16 he was less effective from 3 than Draymond had been in '14-15.

While one can certainly go into depth on the long 2 conversation, to me the story of Horford's continued relevance is all about him making that transition as a 29 year old to being a Stretch 5.

Meanwhile, Green never had as good of a 3-point shooting year again after '14-15 (though he did have better post-seasons), which is quite noteworthy because his APG skyrockets starting in '15-16. It's thus entirely possible that if Green had been relegated to 3-point role player status rather than lead playmaker, that his shooting would more like Horford's does now.

I've spoken before of the clarity of knowing when and where you're supposed to shoot. 3-point role players know that if they get the ball at the 3-point line and they're open, they're supposed to shoot. Green's role is more complicated than that, and I really do think it's likely it's getting in his way on this front.

Isn't the comparison between 2015-16 Draymond and Horford now?

I don't see how that's relevant to your prior statement, which was what I was responding to.

It's relevant because Horford as of now has been shooting threes at a solid to elite clip and good volume for several years, while Draymond was only just starting to emerge as a passable threat in 2015.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think it sounded this way given the context of the post.

Really? What's your interpretation of the pragmatics of putting an injury in quotes?

That this had no tangible effect on Curry. I am not sure if that's true, but Curry didn't seem too hobbled after that moment. Another thing is that Celtics started their run before it happened.

That's not what quotes in such a context typically mean, and using them to mean that here would be entirely redundant to the semantic meaning conveyed by the words used.

[Doctor MJ]

Isn't the comparison between 2015-16 Draymond and Horford now?

I don't see how that's relevant to your prior statement, which was what I was responding to.

It's relevant because Horford as of now has been shooting threes at a solid to elite clip and good volume for several years, while Draymond was only just starting to emerge as a passable threat in 2015.

Hmm, okay, I guess I'm confused as to why this matters, but seems like there's more to the context of your statement than I understood when I replied, so I'll beg off.

[Texas Chuck]

I've spoken before of the clarity of knowing when and where you're supposed to shoot. 3-point role players know that if they get the ball at the 3-point line and they're open, they're supposed to shoot. Green's role is more complicated than that, and I really do think it's likely it's getting in his way on this front.

Yeah we have no way of knowing of course what kind of shooter Draymond might have become if that was all he was tasked with, but the most reasonable inference I can make is that he would be more proficient than he is now. Would he be good? IDK, probably not? But probably good enough.

But totally agree that role player 3-pt specialists have it engrained into their muscle memory of catch and shoot, catch and shoot, some guys can take a side dribble, or whatever, but again its a simple decision, if I can get it off, I take this shot, if not I immediately move the ball.

Draymond's playmaking means he always has at least a moment's hesitation to see if he sees a better option. There isn't just that mindless process of shooting without thinking.

And fwiw I don't think of Horford as a shooting specialist even now. He has more skills than that, and so I think there isn't quite the mindless muscle memory advantage for him as a shooter either.

Which is why I find that a lot of players who do more than just shoot 3's but who also shoot a lot of threes as really impressive. Because they aren't just Klay or Danny Green or Seth Curry or Duncan Robinson or Wes Matthews or whomever, who only has to decide that one thing, shoot or move it, shoot or move it.

[Fadeaway_J]

I don't see how that's relevant to your prior statement, which was what I was responding to.

It's relevant because Horford as of now has been shooting threes at a solid to elite clip and good volume for several years, while Draymond was only just starting to emerge as a passable threat in 2015.

Hmm, okay, I guess I'm confused as to why this matters, but seems like there's more to the context of your statement than I understood when I replied, so I'll beg off.

To be clear, I wasn't responding to the content of your post, I just wanted to clarify that we had the same understanding of what was being discussed.

As far as "lead playmaker vs. spot-up", I'm not sure how much that plays into it because Horford has also had a pretty varied role himself (including a fair amount of playmaking responsibility himself). Also Draymond's ascendancy as a shooter occurred simultaneously to him becoming the lead playmaker.

[falcolombardi]

i am unsure why does it matter what the reason for draymond bad shooting is?

at the end of the day the thingh is he cannot shot/score

is like when people say that a player is only a bad defender cause he spends a ton of effort on offense, it still means he cannot be a good offensive and defensive player simultaneously

[Doctor MJ]

i am unsure why does it matter what the reason for draymond bad shooting is?

at the end of the day the thingh is he cannot shot/score

is like when people say that a player is only a bad defender cause he spends a ton of effort on offense, it still means he cannot be a good offensive and defensive player simultaneously

That's not the dichotomy. What we're talking about is two different offensive roles: shooting vs playmaking.

To be clear: I'm not taking any kind of hard stance here that Green has to be better than Horford, only emphasizing that their offensive roles are not the same.

Last note: I saw your earlier post about you and I going back and forth on the issues with Green's offense in a playoff series. I do feel compelled to emphasize that I didn't say it definitively wouldn't be a problem, but I'm happy to credit you with zooming in on the issue many months in advance.