2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[The-Power]

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

I think an interesting topic of debate would be how we factor in the inherent variance in shot making from teammates of someone who creates plays for others. Because the variance still exists, it's just usually not attributed to the playmaker.

Just as one player can go 12 for 20 in one game and 6 for 20 in the next on the exact same shots, teammates can go 12 for 20 in one game and 6 for 20 in the next on the exact same shots created by one player. But in the former example, the one held responsible is usually the scorer, whereas in the latter the ones held responsible are usually teammates (i.e. scorers).

So from a philosophical point of view: if we fixate on outcome (and leave process aside), does a ‘scorer’ really have a lot more variance than a ‘playmaker’? Or is it rather our way of interpreting the results that leads us to that conclusion, and we may want to consider that primary playmakers also take some responsibility for variance in the shooting of teammates who they rely on?

To be fair, the flip side is that as responsibility tends to be placed onto the scorer, so does the praise. That is obviously also something to keep in mind when we talk about variance and responsibility.

edit: This may be a confusing read as I typed while I was thinking. I suppose the simplified point is that if we can say ‘if a scorer scores efficiently he has a lot of impact, and if he scores inefficiently he doesn't’ shouldn't we be able to say the same about a playmaker depending on the efficiency of teammates? Again, that is if we focus on outcome rather than process.

So if Curry shooting poorly equals him having no or negative impact, then teammates shooting poorly off passes made by [insert pass-first PG] should equal him having no or negative impact.

[Doctor MJ]

I think I'm actually kinda with Windhorst here. Offensive stars who shoot poorly in a game are probably the least helpful games a player of any kind can have (outside of complete turnstiles on D who get targeted near every possession successfully, but for the most part those guys don't get more than bit roles). The reverse of a great shooting game being probably the single most valuable type of game a player can have.

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

I agree here.

The single most impactful aspect a player can have offensively is doing what Curry did in game 4, which is taking a large volume of shots [26 FGA out of a teams 91 FGA and an additional 9 FTA] and convert at 71 TS%. The winning odds he single-handedly provided is astronomical.

On the flip-side, taking 22 FGA and converting 34.3 TS% is single-handedly hampering a teams winning chances.

It's okay to be critical for a players game after praising him for his previous game [or in this case, 4 games]. Curry is a human and not above criticism guys.

I would object to the idea that someone like Windhorst is being meaningfully critical, and that's my point. I think too often we struggle with the sense of the word that means "calling it bad" with original meaning "investigation of the work", and this can lead to us to look no further than what it takes for us to confidently say "good or bad". This is the land where Windhorst lives, and it's holding him back in a very real sense - Windhorst was betting his future on covering basketball before Zach Lowe had done anything serious with basketball, yet when you listen to their analyses of these games, it's just crystal clear that Lowe's had an approach that has allowed him to learn the game in more depth as an adult.

To be clear as I say this: I'm frustrated at my own lack of depth when it comes to basketball understanding. While my assessment of Windhorst might appear to imply that I think I'm top notch here, it's more like I can see how Windhorst has fallen into some of the same traps I've fallen into over my time analyzing basketball.

[Colbinii]

I think I'm actually kinda with Windhorst here. Offensive stars who shoot poorly in a game are probably the least helpful games a player of any kind can have (outside of complete turnstiles on D who get targeted near every possession successfully, but for the most part those guys don't get more than bit roles). The reverse of a great shooting game being probably the single most valuable type of game a player can have.

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

I agree here.

The single most impactful aspect a player can have offensively is doing what Curry did in game 4, which is taking a large volume of shots [26 FGA out of a teams 91 FGA and an additional 9 FTA] and convert at 71 TS%. The winning odds he single-handedly provided is astronomical.

On the flip-side, taking 22 FGA and converting 34.3 TS% is single-handedly hampering a teams winning chances.

It's okay to be critical for a players game after praising him for his previous game [or in this case, 4 games]. Curry is a human and not above criticism guys.

I would object to the idea that someone like Windhorst is being meaningfully critical, and that's my point. I think too often we struggle with the sense of the word that means "calling it bad" with original meaning "investigation of the work", and this can lead to us to look no further than what it takes for us to confidently say "good or bad". This is the land where Windhorst lives, and it's holding him back in a very real sense - Windhorst was betting his future on covering basketball before Zach Lowe had done anything serious with basketball, yet when you listen to their analyses of these games, it's just crystal clear that Lowe's had an approach that has allowed him to learn the game in more depth as an adult.

To be clear as I say this: I'm frustrated at my own lack of depth when it comes to basketball understanding. While my assessment of Windhorst might appear to imply that I think I'm top notch here, it's more like I can see how Windhorst has fallen into some of the same traps I've fallen into over my time analyzing basketball.

I have no idea what Windhorst said as I dont listen to him for reasons you have mentioned.

I simply believe Curry had a sub-optimal game. He was, as you said, looking exhausted. He wasn't nearly as active offensively as he has been in previous games and was short rimming many of his shots [then over-corrected and started to backrim].

[ronnymac2]

Andrew Wiggins averaging 20-15 while shutting down a guy who made ALL-NBA First Team this year in the two most important games of the season is not something I thought I'd ever see. Kid has been tremendous. I can't help but think what if LBJ and Wiggins played together and under LBJ's tutelage and CLE's probable success, Wiggins becomes like this sooner. It took him just a few seasons - after breaking bad habits from the Minny cesspool of low-iq players - to become the favorite for NBA Finals MVP. Really great to see.

People talking about Tatum's struggles, but Jaylen "Aljamain Sterling" Brown's consistency leaves a lot to be desired. When he's rolling, he looks like prime D-Wade with a 3-point shot. When he's cooked, he looks like Ricky Davis. I do believe he'll play well in Boston and Boston will win GM6. I predicted before the series GSW in 5 or 7 because I didn't think Boston would lose a GM6 in front of their fans. We'll see. I do stand by GSW winning the title in California.

[parsnips33]

Klay has been locked in defensively, on and off ball, and it's been super impressive. I still think his coming back from two major injuries and playing at this level has been underdiscussed

Sports medicine has come a long long way

[eminence]

I think I'm actually kinda with Windhorst here. Offensive stars who shoot poorly in a game are probably the least helpful games a player of any kind can have (outside of complete turnstiles on D who get targeted near every possession successfully, but for the most part those guys don't get more than bit roles). The reverse of a great shooting game being probably the single most valuable type of game a player can have.

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

My 2 issues here:

1. I don't think it's useful to say "He needs to play better" if all it means is "His high variance shots need to go in".

2. While I think it's clear that a volume scorer can dip to negative impact fairly easily in general, it's critical to recognize the latent impact of a player whose strengths a team has trained around effectively. And I actually think this is easier to see with the fact that Klay Thompson has had no trouble staying valuable out there despite the fact he's largely been missing shots and his latent impact is small compared to Curry's. Bottom line is that teams know (or at least believe) it's a huge problem if they leave Thompson open even if he hasn't been hitting, and thus he can have offensive impact simply be stepping on the floor.

(Obviously Thompson being a better defender than Poole is a factor too, but the fact that Kerr has had to bench Green at times but not Thompson, despite the fact that Green is clearly the stronger defender, is telling.)

All this to say that while Curry's productivity is heavily influenced by variance, and that productivity is one factor in Curry's impact, there's a "high floor" to Curry's impact due to the way defenses are forced to commit to him, the way he moves to distort them further, and the way his teammates have been trained to make use of the openings that Curry's presence provides.

And all of this applies to various degrees to the Warriors' other rovers, and potentially to anyone who plays this role with enough skill to force the defense's attention, which is why I think teams should be seeking out players to fill this role considerably more than we typically see.

Well if the shots keep not going in, they aren't high variance at all

I feel like you're preaching to the choir here. All that is why I said upthread that Curry had a fine game by the normal NBA player standards, but it's still disappointing by his own standards. Jae Crowder is great, if LeBron produces a prime Jae Crowder next season people will rightfully call him washed.

A bit of an aside, but I think the Dray bit is reading too much into a one-off. Were it not for extensive foul trouble he'd be essentially even with Wiggins/Klay/Steph at the top of the Warriors minutes played.

[Texas Chuck]

And I actually think this is easier to see with the fact that Klay Thompson has had no trouble staying valuable out there despite the fact he's largely been missing shots

This.

3 point shooters don't stop having an impact on the game when they aren't making shots if teams are still very concerned about not conceding any open shots to them. If teams are still flying out to contest, that opens things up. If teams have a guy glued to you while you are stationary 25 feet from the basket, that opens things up.

And when we talk about Steph Curry, we are taking about the most feared 3-pt shooter of all-time who is still the most feared 3-pt shooter alive. Every defensive plan against the Warriors involves how do we limit the damage Steph does and how can we attempt to reduce the number and quality of his attempts. Knowing even in the best cases, he's still going to find a way to get off volume and his skill means tough shots for mortals can still frequently be good shots for him.

And then back to role player shooters( and I don't mean role player in a dismissive sense towards Klay as I know some are offended by that designation, but more in the sense GSW doesn't ask him to create, but to make shots, and to make smart cuts), if they have the reputation of a Klay Thompson defenses are going to treat them as a threat every second they are on the court. That threat doesn't stop impacting the offense even if he takes zero shots or misses every one he takes.

This is why teams love to play 4 and 5 out. It's the threat that opens things up for their stars.

[eminence]

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

I think an interesting topic of debate would be how we factor in the inherent variance in shot making from teammates of someone who creates plays for others. Because the variance still exists, it's just usually not attributed to the playmaker.

Just as one player can go 12 for 20 in one game and 6 for 20 in the next on the exact same shots, teammates can go 12 for 20 in one game and 6 for 20 in the next on the exact same shots created by one player. But in the former example, the one held responsible is usually the scorer, whereas in the latter the ones held responsible are usually teammates (i.e. scorers).

So from a philosophical point of view: if we fixate on outcome (and leave process aside), does a ‘scorer’ really have a lot more variance than a ‘playmaker’? Or is it rather our way of interpreting the results that leads us to that conclusion, and we may want to consider that primary playmakers also take some responsibility for variance in the shooting of teammates who they rely on?

To be fair, the flip side is that as responsibility tends to be placed onto the scorer, so does the praise. That is obviously also something to keep in mind when we talk about variance and responsibility.

edit: This may be a confusing read as I typed while I was thinking. I suppose the simplified point is that if we can say ‘if a scorer scores efficiently he has a lot of impact, and if he scores inefficiently he doesn't’ shouldn't we be able to say the same about a playmaker depending on the efficiency of teammates? Again, that is if we focus on outcome rather than process.

So if Curry shooting poorly equals him having no or negative impact, then teammates shooting poorly off passes made by [insert pass-first PG] should equal him having no or negative impact.

I probably wouldn't say that. Given the 'exact same shots' bit. Obviously a playmaker can have an off game where they don't generate the same quality shots as usual.

When a possession plays we can divide it into two basic phases - generating the shot, and finishing the shot.

A scorer (in the sense I'm using the word, so not a spot up shooter sort) is doing a significant portion of the work in both phases of the possession. By being a larger part of the possession they will experience higher variance depending on how the possession goes.

[eminence]

I think Vlade Divac is my current pick for most underrated career among players most fans have seen play (sorry Bob Davies). Other nominations?

[parsnips33]

Underrated part of Steph's performance (because the guy doesn't get enough credit ) is 8 assists and only 1 turnover

Oh also played really great defense. The great ones find a way to impact the game even when the shot isn't falling

[jalengreen]

One thing I might add to the discussion: Steph Curry's O-EPM and O-LEBRON this regular season were his lowest since 2012-13 (excluding 2020 of course)



It's also been his least efficient season in years - his lowest regular season TS+ since his rookie year.

That drop in offensive impact may not be because of his shooting slump, but maybe it is a factor? Although it's still absolutely elite (5th behind Jokic/Giannis/Trae/Embiid this season), it's not quite at prime Steph level.

[RCM88x]

One thing I might add to the discussion: Steph Curry's O-EPM and O-LEBRON this regular season were his lowest since 2012-13 (excluding 2020 of course)



It's also been his least efficient season in years - his lowest regular season TS+ since his rookie year.

That drop in offensive impact may not be because of his shooting slump, but maybe it is a factor? Although it's still absolutely elite (5th behind Jokic/Giannis/Trae/Embiid this season), it's not quite at prime Steph level.

No matter how much gravity one creates with the treat of their shot, hitting the shot ultimately will always produce the most impact assuming all else is equal. I would say his reduced impact is both a combination of lower conversion rate on FGAs and also a weaker offensive supporting cast capping the ceiling of his offensive gravity.

[Doctor MJ]

There's simply more variance to shooting than there is to playmaking/rebounding/defensive positioning.

I was thinking about this in particular and wanted to circle back.

I think you can argue is that one aspect of what the Warriors have done around Curry is to "store" part of his value potential in a domain that has less variance than shooting. Technically this would be true for any player who moves into a role that's less volume-oriented, but for a player who specializes in 3-point shooting where the variance is naturally higher, this may be a more valuable thing.

So, with Kerr training his players to be able to act quickly and decisively to run a motion offense, in theory, that should make them better able to segue smoothly into such actions if spamming Curry-3's gets gummed up by defensive attention.

[Doctor MJ]

One thing I might add to the discussion: Steph Curry's O-EPM and O-LEBRON this regular season were his lowest since 2012-13 (excluding 2020 of course)



It's also been his least efficient season in years - his lowest regular season TS+ since his rookie year.

That drop in offensive impact may not be because of his shooting slump, but maybe it is a factor? Although it's still absolutely elite (5th behind Jokic/Giannis/Trae/Embiid this season), it's not quite at prime Steph level.

I don't think there's a question that when Curry doesn't shoot as well he's less valuable as an offensive player, nor whether Curry dropped off for a major chunk(s) of the year. But I think we need to be careful about talking about the entirety of the year when his year has clearly gone through different phases with pretty dramatic shifts to dramatically scoring numbers.

Season-long stats are generally our norm, but when talking about stats based on averages, they by definition lack the granularity to tell the story of player seasons like Curry's this year. None of this is to say Curry shouldn't be dinged for the valleys in his performance, only that when a player's performance changes between duration A and duration B, it's worth understanding A & B as separate things in addition to what averaging them yields.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Vlade Divac is my current pick for most underrated career among players most fans have seen play (sorry Bob Davies). Other nominations?

Eddie Jones comes to mind. Forever known as the guy who you pushed to the side when you're true franchise guard arrived, he was an excellent player who was not just a venerated defender, but the rare guard for his time in that he seemed to consistently have major defensive impact.

[Dooley]

Also, for consistency purposes, I think we'd have to always look for the best performers irrespective of victory or loss if we are fine with handing FMVP to someone who lost. That means if Player A on the losing team was a bit better than Player B on the winning team, Player A should win. That, however, never happens and most people would be really uncomfortable with it. Yet to me, everything else is just really arbitrary.

In other words, I see two ways to determine FMVP (for myself): either take the best performer on the winning team, or take the best performer regardless on whether his team won or not. But even those who are fine with giving the award to someone who lost aren't really advocating for the latter – they appear to just use some obscure, arbitrary and undefined threshold as to how much better of a performer you must have been.

I think this raises an interesting point. as someone who is very much on the side that players on the losing team should receive consideration for series awards, the way that I think of is that the award should always go to the best performer irrespective of victory or loss, but determining who actually was the best performer is not always easy. Sometimes it's clear, sometimes it's not. There's many different factors to weigh, and sometimes it comes down to judgment between them. "Did his team win the series" is one piece of evidence about how good the individual player was. It's not a very strong or reliable indicator, but it does tell us something and so it goes onto the scale with all of the other stuff we take into account.

If two players are otherwise very close, the fact that one was on the winning team lends some additional credence to the idea that he was more valuable. But it's not the only factor to take into account. And IMO that should also take into account how that player's play contributed to the ultimate outcome of the series, how close the series was, etc. If some guy scored 45 a night, and his teammates went 0 for 30 every night, and they lost every game by 5, I have a hard time saying "well, he should have averaged 50, the bum". Conversely, if a guy's team won the series despite being outscored, I'm going to be a little more skeptical of the idea that he deserves to win FMVP by virtue of the fact that his team won the series, and at least try to look more closely at what exactly happened.

[cpower]

One thing I might add to the discussion: Steph Curry's O-EPM and O-LEBRON this regular season were his lowest since 2012-13 (excluding 2020 of course)



It's also been his least efficient season in years - his lowest regular season TS+ since his rookie year.

That drop in offensive impact may not be because of his shooting slump, but maybe it is a factor? Although it's still absolutely elite (5th behind Jokic/Giannis/Trae/Embiid this season), it's not quite at prime Steph level.

he is basically playing with 100 different lineups and Kerr is experimenting all sorts of things. I am not worried, he will be fine next season when having a healthy Klay by his side.

[jalengreen]

One thing I might add to the discussion: Steph Curry's O-EPM and O-LEBRON this regular season were his lowest since 2012-13 (excluding 2020 of course)



It's also been his least efficient season in years - his lowest regular season TS+ since his rookie year.

That drop in offensive impact may not be because of his shooting slump, but maybe it is a factor? Although it's still absolutely elite (5th behind Jokic/Giannis/Trae/Embiid this season), it's not quite at prime Steph level.

he is basically playing with 100 different lineups and Kerr is experimenting all sorts of things. I am not worried, he will be fine next season when having a healthy Klay by his side.

I’m not worried either, he was fine this season too lol, he deserved to be first team all NBA over Booker.

[sp6r=underrated]

Man I made the mistake of chiming into one of those how can we end NBA free agency threads. I'll just say any poster who supports a franchise tag should have to live under it in their given occupation to see how they feel about it.

[eminence]

Man I made the mistake of chiming into one of those how can we end NBA free agency threads. I'll just say any poster who supports a franchise tag should have to live under it in their given occupation to see how they feel about it.

Never fully understood franchise tags in the NFL, but certainly against them in the NBA.

Generally against RFA as well. Don’t mind the draft or allowing teams who’ve had players with them longer to offer slightly higher salaries.