On super teams and roster construction

[steefP2]

So I've been thinking about this for a while and Slax's post on the General NBA thread inspired me to finally work my thoughts out.

Before going in depth with my "thesis" I'll just address a few point he raised.

"why can't the Celtics be like the Pistons or Spurs - perhaps with the help of some development from Brown and Tatum over the course of the season, and with a small trade or buyout acquisition to bolster their roster?" and "But if the Celtics do end the season with 60+ wins and the second or third best point differential in the league on the basis of a historically great defense and an improved offense, do we still say there's no way they can get lucky and knock off whoever comes out of the western conference?"

I think these are valid points for the next few years, this year however I still believe we are too young. Relying on Tatum and Brown to be major contributions on the absolute biggest stage is asking too much from them in my opinion, at this stage of their careers. Im also not sure if Kyrie Irving can be our superstar this season. As good as he's been, i think he's gonna have to use this season to figure some stuff out and we wont have superstar Kyrie 'till next season.

But on to super teams in general. Put simply, I think they're vastly overrated. GSW might be the exception because of how insanely well all their pieces fit together. Klay being silent and happpy with playing D and hitting 3's, Durant not wanting to be the face, Curry happy to be the face and have all the swagger in the world + Draymond being the emotional leader... That fit is just insane. I wouldn't be surprised if this never happens again in the NBA, and that's not even talking about their complimentary basketball skills and play styles.

That's not to say I think they can't be beaten, they definitely can by a talented offensive team that plays elite physical D (physical being the key word), aka the Celtics somewhere in the next 3 years. But back to super teams. They're stupid, any time you have a true big 3 there's always 1 player who will be underused and basically marginalized. Prime examples being Bosh and Love. You can watch it now in OKC, because 1 player refuses to essentially be diminished (Carmelo), they're all suffering really.

Now I realize calling super teams stupid and overrated might be going a bit far, they obviously work to a degree. The Heat won a championship, so did Cleveland and many other stacked teams throughout history so treat the previous passages as written with some degree of hyperbole.

I guess, more accurately I should say that super teams are inefficient. Because it's virtually impossible to maximize your players talents in those cases. I'd content that there are 2 models of team building that are more efficient. The 1 superstar, 1 complimentary star and a bunch of high level role players model and the 2004 pistons model with a bunch of all star calibre players but no true superstar.


Kyrie as a great offensive focal point and closer.
Hayward great secondary scorer and playmaker.
Brown as elite wing defender and perfect finisher to take advantage of the defensive focus on Hayward/Kyrie.
Tatum as the up coming star who meanwhile will fill in all the gaps and score for the 2nd unit.
Horford as the aging vet who makes everyone better and anchors the defense.

Combine that with elite defensive role players and Brad Stevens and that's efficient team building. No one is really wasted there, Brown doesn't have the handles and experience yet to be a primary or secondary scorer, Tatum is too young for that too as of now and by the time they are, there will be room for that on the Celtics I think.

I look at Cleveland and I feel sadness as to how Love is being wasted there. We collectively forgot how great he was in Minnesota, but he's a corner 3 point shooter now because of the gravity of Lebron.

Lebron doesn't need a 2nd star imo. If you have Lebron, you need a secondary creator to give him a rest sometimes and besides that 10 3 and D role players.

Im not sure I really argued my point that well but hopefully it's worth a read.

[Fencer reregistered]

Some problems with your argument:

-- If you have a guy who is a great bargain at max salary and you underutilize him, you may still come out ahead of a situation in which your highest-paid guys aren't bargains.
-- Even if there is a limit on how much great talent is useful at once on offense, the game is played at two ends of the court.
-- It is not wasteful to have two great offensive talents on the floor at once. So one could get 96 minutes of play in any game from great offensive talents without being wasteful.

I will agree that the third-best scorer on a championship team is usually just a "very good" scorer rather than an all-time great in that role. E.g., third-best scorers on Celtics championship teams may have included:

-- Kevin Garnett, a little past his prime.
-- Robert Parish
-- Jo Jo White
-- Bill Russell/Tom Heinsohn

Phil Jackson got a lot of rings without much in the way of great third-option scoring.

Etc.

[brackdan70]

Irving / Smart
Brown / Rozier
Hayward / Ojeleye
Tatum / Morris / Theis
Horford / Baynes

this team looks super....mix in a high draft pick from either SAC or LAL, and expected growth from Tatum and Brown and well....super.

[timpiker]

I don't think LeBUM can win **** if its only him and no other great players around him.

[ermocrate]

So I've been thinking about this for a while and Slax's post on the General NBA thread inspired me to finally work my thoughts out.

Before going in depth with my "thesis" I'll just address a few point he raised.

"why can't the Celtics be like the Pistons or Spurs - perhaps with the help of some development from Brown and Tatum over the course of the season, and with a small trade or buyout acquisition to bolster their roster?" and "But if the Celtics do end the season with 60+ wins and the second or third best point differential in the league on the basis of a historically great defense and an improved offense, do we still say there's no way they can get lucky and knock off whoever comes out of the western conference?"

I think these are valid points for the next few years, this year however I still believe we are too young. Relying on Tatum and Brown to be major contributions on the absolute biggest stage is asking too much from them in my opinion, at this stage of their careers. Im also not sure if Kyrie Irving can be our superstar this season. As good as he's been, i think he's gonna have to use this season to figure some stuff out and we wont have superstar Kyrie 'till next season.

But on to super teams in general. Put simply, I think they're vastly overrated. GSW might be the exception because of how insanely well all their pieces fit together. Klay being silent and happpy with playing D and hitting 3's, Durant not wanting to be the face, Curry happy to be the face and have all the swagger in the world + Draymond being the emotional leader... That fit is just insane. I wouldn't be surprised if this never happens again in the NBA, and that's not even talking about their complimentary basketball skills and play styles.

That's not to say I think they can't be beaten, they definitely can by a talented offensive team that plays elite physical D (physical being the key word), aka the Celtics somewhere in the next 3 years. But back to super teams. They're stupid, any time you have a true big 3 there's always 1 player who will be underused and basically marginalized. Prime examples being Bosh and Love. You can watch it now in OKC, because 1 player refuses to essentially be diminished (Carmelo), they're all suffering really.

Now I realize calling super teams stupid and overrated might be going a bit far, they obviously work to a degree. The Heat won a championship, so did Cleveland and many other stacked teams throughout history so treat the previous passages as written with some degree of hyperbole.

I guess, more accurately I should say that super teams are inefficient. Because it's virtually impossible to maximize your players talents in those cases. I'd content that there are 2 models of team building that are more efficient. The 1 superstar, 1 complimentary star and a bunch of high level role players model and the 2004 pistons model with a bunch of all star calibre players but no true superstar.


Kyrie as a great offensive focal point and closer.
Hayward great secondary scorer and playmaker.
Brown as elite wing defender and perfect finisher to take advantage of the defensive focus on Hayward/Kyrie.
Tatum as the up coming star who meanwhile will fill in all the gaps and score for the 2nd unit.
Horford as the aging vet who makes everyone better and anchors the defense.

Combine that with elite defensive role players and Brad Stevens and that's efficient team building. No one is really wasted there, Brown doesn't have the handles and experience yet to be a primary or secondary scorer, Tatum is too young for that too as of now and by the time they are, there will be room for that on the Celtics I think.

I look at Cleveland and I feel sadness as to how Love is being wasted there. We collectively forgot how great he was in Minnesota, but he's a corner 3 point shooter now because of the gravity of Lebron.

Lebron doesn't need a 2nd star imo. If you have Lebron, you need a secondary creator to give him a rest sometimes and besides that 10 3 and D role players.

Im not sure I really argued my point that well but hopefully it's worth a read.

Well, the main difference between the Celtics and the other teams is that they have pull out an highway robbery, we where already a good team with a great GM and a great coach and we steal the rights to 3 top 3 picks. We added to an already good team Tatum, Brown and Kyrie with those pick and 2 guys we got for basically nothing. Plus we got an extra pick for picking up the best talent in this year’s draft. We also signed 2 top FA and 3 very good players(Baynes, Morris and Theis) just with the loss of KO and Bradley. 3 stars and 2 (+1 potentially) top 3 picks, plus a top 6 pick(that would have gone top 3 the year before), we definitely look like a superteam. There’s no reason why we can’t win 5 chiampionships straight from next year on. Since out of our starting 5 2 player can defend at an elite level(Horford and Brown), 2 are established scorer and the third scorer is very young and very smart I don’t see any problem in shoot distribution. The only flaw that I see in this team is the bench scoring, defensively the second unit is top notch but I don’t see how the only Morris can carry them on offense.

[Fencer reregistered]

Most championship teams feature an MVP-class player, either in his prime or a little after it. (Exceptions to that generalization are the Pistons ... and who else?)

They generally have at least one other guy who's an obvious all-star. (There are two counterexamples this decade, both from Texas, but even so the generalization usually holds.)

Beyond that, there are a lot of models for championship roster construction.

[steefP2]

To be clear, im not knocking on the Celtics roster. I love how it's all come together.

After reading fencer's reply, i realized i should've framed this differently. It's more a factor of successful roster construction vs feasibility. Obviously you build a team like the Warriors if you can. But you can't, it's the ultimate convergence of a host of unlikely events. So if we consider 3 archetypes, the big 3 version (3 top 20 guys and a bunch of good role players), the 1 star special (generational talent + a host of 15-20 mil good starters.) and the 2004 pistons model ( 4-5 all star calibre players but no true top 15 guys.) Of course, very few if any teams fit exactly in these terms, there's some overlap and overflow because reality doesn't fit in boxes but you get my drift.

Of these 3 kinds of team building, which one would you say is the easiest/most likely to construct. I'd say the pistons model but your opinion could differ. It becomes more interesting when you consider which of these roster would have the highest chance of winning a title. So what should you aim for ? Warning. arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point coming up. Let's say the pistons model gives you a 40% chance of winning a title, the 1 Star special a 40% chance and 50% for the big 3. Do you choose to try to build a pistons type team because you think it's more likely you'll pull that off or do you choose another model, that might be harder to get but once you do, you're more likely to win a title.

Where do you choose to put your risk is a fascinating question imo.

When we look at the Celts, and specifically at Tatum and Brown, there's a difference from what we believe they can be and probably will be. I think most of us, think they can be All stars, even, top 20-25 players. Maybe more believers in Tatum then Brown but still, the point stands. But looking at NBA history and just talent development in general, I'd say the odds are not in favor of that. It's not terrible unlikely but it's probably more likely that they'll be good NBA starter quality players then true stars.

If you take that as true (which i'll admit might be a stretch for some of you), then how do you continue. Do you try to package 1 or both for a proven top player or do you accept the risk, hope they become All Stars and above and if not, try for a more even pistons type roster.

Of course, individual personnel matters a ton when considering all these things. In my previous example of how Love got dragged down by playing with Lebron, it's to a large degree due to his defensive flaws and that his value derives 90% from the offensive end. To that point, the production Love gives you, you can get that for 60-75% of his price tag, which gives you another 10 ish million to sign a quality bench piece or something else. That's partly the reason why I believe Brown is an easier building block then Tatum with Kyrie and Hayward. I think Tatum at his peak will be done a disservice if he's a primary option on offense because of his enormous offensive potential. I'll think he'll always be a good defender but Brown has elite elite defensive potential. His best skills will never be wasted to any degree.

This could all be bull of course too, im just writing down what's been going through my head, wish I could talk to an actual GM about these things.

[CelticsPride18]

If we want to beat GS next year we will need another scorer. I have a feeling Ainge will try to get another star in the offseason.Someone like Love or PG in a sign and trade for Smart and Morris.

Irving/Rozier
Brown/Oyeleje
Hayward/Tatum
Love/Theis
Horford/Ayton or Bamba

[fallguy]

The goal is not to make sure every single player produces as much as possible, scenarios where we'd optimize to make sure guys like Robert Parish, Chris Bosh and Kevin Love have big numbers. The goal is to win championships which requires, save the oft-cited Pistons, some inefficiency vs. theoretical possible production in your star talent. Talk only about optimizing for role player performance and you might have a stronger case.

[steefP2]

The goal is not to make sure every single player produces as much as possible, scenarios where we'd optimize to make sure guys like Robert Parish, Chris Bosh and Kevin Love have big numbers. The goal is to win championships which requires, save the oft-cited Pistons, some inefficiency vs. theoretical possible production in your star talent. Talk only about optimizing for role player performance and you might have a stronger case.

I guess that's fair but I was more thinking of it in terms of rarity of top tier talent. Top 3 picks like Tatum, legit star potential is rare. You wont have many of them so it kinda behooves you to maximize their talent as best you can. And if you accept inefficiency in usage/production of your third star or whoever, isn't it better to spend that max money on 2 players. If for example you have a third star being paid 30 mil but he cant perform due to roster construction as one would expect of a max player, isn't it better to have a 20 mil player who can come close to that production and another 10 mil role player ?

Im not pretending I have all the answers, or that im right. Not smart enough for that. But I think these are worthwhile questions.

[711takeover]

If we want to beat GS next year we will need another scorer. I have a feeling Ainge will try to get another star in the offseason.Someone like Love or PG in a sign and trade for Smart and Morris.

Irving/Rozier
Brown/Oyeleje
Hayward/Tatum
Love/Theis
Horford/Ayton or Bamba

Lol Kevin Love is not helping us against the warriors and would make us so much worse defensively by trading Morris and smart

[ermocrate]

To be clear, im not knocking on the Celtics roster. I love how it's all come together.

After reading fencer's reply, i realized i should've framed this differently. It's more a factor of successful roster construction vs feasibility. Obviously you build a team like the Warriors if you can. But you can't, it's the ultimate convergence of a host of unlikely events. So if we consider 3 archetypes, the big 3 version (3 top 20 guys and a bunch of good role players), the 1 star special (generational talent + a host of 15-20 mil good starters.) and the 2004 pistons model ( 4-5 all star calibre players but no true top 15 guys.) Of course, very few if any teams fit exactly in these terms, there's some overlap and overflow because reality doesn't fit in boxes but you get my drift.

Of these 3 kinds of team building, which one would you say is the easiest/most likely to construct. I'd say the pistons model but your opinion could differ. It becomes more interesting when you consider which of these roster would have the highest chance of winning a title. So what should you aim for ? Warning. arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point coming up. Let's say the pistons model gives you a 40% chance of winning a title, the 1 Star special a 40% chance and 50% for the big 3. Do you choose to try to build a pistons type team because you think it's more likely you'll pull that off or do you choose another model, that might be harder to get but once you do, you're more likely to win a title.

Where do you choose to put your risk is a fascinating question imo.

When we look at the Celts, and specifically at Tatum and Brown, there's a difference from what we believe they can be and probably will be. I think most of us, think they can be All stars, even, top 20-25 players. Maybe more believers in Tatum then Brown but still, the point stands. But looking at NBA history and just talent development in general, I'd say the odds are not in favor of that. It's not terrible unlikely but it's probably more likely that they'll be good NBA starter quality players then true stars.

If you take that as true (which i'll admit might be a stretch for some of you), then how do you continue. Do you try to package 1 or both for a proven top player or do you accept the risk, hope they become All Stars and above and if not, try for a more even pistons type roster.

Of course, individual personnel matters a ton when considering all these things. In my previous example of how Love got dragged down by playing with Lebron, it's to a large degree due to his defensive flaws and that his value derives 90% from the offensive end. To that point, the production Love gives you, you can get that for 60-75% of his price tag, which gives you another 10 ish million to sign a quality bench piece or something else. That's partly the reason why I believe Brown is an easier building block then Tatum with Kyrie and Hayward. I think Tatum at his peak will be done a disservice if he's a primary option on offense because of his enormous offensive potential. I'll think he'll always be a good defender but Brown has elite elite defensive potential. His best skills will never be wasted to any degree.

This could all be bull of course too, im just writing down what's been going through my head, wish I could talk to an actual GM about these things.

Well, I make a research for you based on the last 13 draft on the first 5 picks, these are the names:
LBJ
Mlicic
Melo
Bosh
Wade
D.Howard
E.Okafor
B.Gordon
D.Harris
Livingston
Bogut
M.Williams
DWil
CP3
Felton
Bargnani
Aldridge
A.Morrison
T.Thomas
Shelden Williams
Oden
Durant
Horford
Conley
J.Green
DRose
Beasley
Mayo
Westbrook
K.Love
B.Griffin
Thabeet
Harden
T.Evans
Rubio
Wall
E.Turner
D.Favors
W.Johnson
Cousins
Irving
Derrick Williams
Kanter
T.Thompson
Valanciunas
AD
MKG
Beal
Waiters
Thomas Robinson
Bennet
Oladipo
Porter
Cody Zeller
Len
Wiggins
J.Parker
Embid
A.Gordon
Exum
KAT
DARussell
Jahil Okafor
Porzingis
Hezonja

Superstars right now or at one point (16 out of 65 - 25%)
LBJ
Melo
Wade
D.Howard
DWil
CP3
Aldridge
Durant
DRose
Westbrook
K.Love
B.Griffin
Harden
Wall
Irving
AD

All Stars(5/65 - 8%)
Bosh
Wade
Horford
Conley
Cousins


Starters(28/65 - 43%) with 3 of them likely to become all-star and 1 or 2 likely to become a Superstar
E.Okafor
B.Gordon
D.Harris
Bogut
M.Williams
Bargnani
J.Green
Mayo
T.Evans
Rubio
E.Turner
D.Favors
Derrick Williams
Kanter
T.Thompson
Valanciunas
MKG
Beal
Waiters
Oladipo
Porter
Wiggins
J.Parker
Embid
KAT
DARussell
Jahil Okafor
Porzingis

Bench(10/45 - 15%)
Livingston
Felton
T.Thomas
Shelden Williams
W.Johnson
Thomas Robinson
Cody Zeller
Len
Exum
Hezonja

Trash/can't play (6/65 - 9%)
Mlicic
A.Morrison
Oden
Beasley
Thabeet
Bennet


Resuming.you have 33% Tatum and Brown become All-stars at least - 43% that they are starters - 24% they are Benchriders or trash.

Since they are two your odds double, so you got 66% that one of them is at least an all-star. With DA being the talent evaluator he is you got to be very unlucky to them being not starters at least.

[Gurton Buster]

I’m just going to repost this...

IDK. I'm under the impression that Danny's won't/can't trade for AD. And if we were to acquire a top 5 pick, we would be drafting a big that would be playing off the bench that could take over Horford's role in a few years. TBH, we might have gotten a little too much talent from Brooklyn trade.

For next season, we would have:

1. Kyrie
2. Brown (w/ 1 more yr of experience)
3. Hayward
4. Tatum (w/ 1 more yr of experience)
5. Horford

Then Baynes, Morris, Smart, Rozier off the bench.

If we were to compare our roster to GSW, its pretty close IMO.

In a potential finals match up for next season I would put:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward << KD
4. Tatum << Draymond
5. Horford >>>> Zaza

If GSW went small:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward >> Iggy
4. Tatum <<< KD
5. Horford = Draymond

If we started Baynes:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward << KD
4. Horford = Draymond
5. Baynes = Zaza

IMO, regardless of any changes, we have a legitimate chance for an NBA championship starting next season as long as we're healthy. I don't think we need AD or another top 5 pick to compete with the Warriors in the NBA finals. The talent level of this team was and is underrated and if this elite defence continues around this pace, anything is possible.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

I’m just going to repost this...

IDK. I'm under the impression that Danny's won't/can't trade for AD. And if we were to acquire a top 5 pick, we would be drafting a big that would be playing off the bench that could take over Horford's role in a few years. TBH, we might have gotten a little too much talent from Brooklyn trade.

For next season, we would have:

1. Kyrie
2. Brown (w/ 1 more yr of experience)
3. Hayward
4. Tatum (w/ 1 more yr of experience)
5. Horford

Then Baynes, Morris, Smart, Rozier off the bench.

If we were to compare our roster to GSW, its pretty close IMO.

In a potential finals match up for next season I would put:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward << KD
4. Tatum << Draymond
5. Horford >>>> Zaza

If GSW went small:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward >> Iggy
4. Tatum <<< KD
5. Horford = Draymond

If we started Baynes:

1. Kyrie = Curry
2. Brown < Klay
3. Hayward << KD
4. Horford = Draymond
5. Baynes = Zaza

IMO, regardless of any changes, we have a legitimate chance for an NBA championship starting next season as long as we're healthy. I don't think we need AD or another top 5 pick to compete with the Warriors in the NBA finals. The talent level of this team was and is underrated and if this elite defence continues around this pace, anything is possible.

Im just gonna go ahead and quote this repost

[Fencer reregistered]

Resuming.you have 33% Tatum and Brown become All-stars at least - 43% that they are starters - 24% they are Benchriders or trash.

Since they are two your odds double, so you got 66% that one of them is at least an all-star. With DA being the talent evaluator he is you got to be very unlucky to them being not starters at least.

Point of arithmetic: The probability that at least one of two 1-in-3 chances comes true is 5-in-9, not 2-in-3. But I don't think that has much effect on the accuracy of your argument.

Note: I once taught a summer school course in statistics at Suffolk University, in downtown Boston. This was in 1978.

[leper-con]

We need to realize a few things.
This win streak isn't a 100% real.
We had to come back from mega points down in a few games.
This does usually happen.
We were fortunate in a few others which also happens, you need some luck in this league.
This to me is a typical BRad Stevens team. My only fault with Stevens teams are they have one gear.
Balls to the wall. Once the playoff hit, other teams crank it up and the Celtics remain what and who they are.
It's just a hallmark of Stevens teams.

I thought the wheels would come off the bus in the Warriors game.
And they did expose a ton of flaws that we have.
We are desperate for a secondary scorer that can create offence. At points int he game Warriors scored at will and at ease.
We can only sustain our defensive effort for one half of a basketball game.
Brown came through, Tatum showed his cool with the free throws but was shell shocked to start the game.

[ermocrate]

Resuming.you have 33% Tatum and Brown become All-stars at least - 43% that they are starters - 24% they are Benchriders or trash.

Since they are two your odds double, so you got 66% that one of them is at least an all-star. With DA being the talent evaluator he is you got to be very unlucky to them being not starters at least.

Point of arithmetic: The probability that at least one of two 1-in-3 chances comes true is 5-in-9, not 2-in-3. But I don't think that has much effect on the accuracy of your argument.

Note: I once taught a summer school course in statistics at Suffolk University, in downtown Boston. This was in 1978.

Great info thanks, I take the chances we got.

[Smitty731]

Other than the 2004 Pistons and the 2011 Mavericks, every title team this century has been a super team. Before that, only Olajuwon's Rockets in 1994 & 1995 weren't super teams. Other than that, everyone else was a super team.

How they got there (FAs, trades, drafts, etc) is different, but most boast multiple All-Stars, if not multiple HoFers.

Super teams aren't new and they aren't going away anytime soon.

[ermocrate]

We need to realize a few things.
This win streak isn't a 100% real.
We had to come back from mega points down in a few games.
This does usually happen.
We were fortunate in a few others which also happens, you need some luck in this league.
This to me is a typical BRad Stevens team. My only fault with Stevens teams are they have one gear.
Balls to the wall. Once the playoff hit, other teams crank it up and the Celtics remain what and who they are.
It's just a hallmark of Stevens teams.

I thought the wheels would come off the bus in the Warriors game.
And they did expose a ton of flaws that we have.
We are desperate for a secondary scorer that can create offence. At points int he game Warriors scored at will and at ease.
We can only sustain our defensive effort for one half of a basketball game.
Brown came through, Tatum showed his cool with the free throws but was shell shocked to start the game.

Well, we got to the EC finals with IT, AL and role players. You are now seeing an all new team with an huge number of rooks and second year players, we actually have a second and third scorer, we also have a young polished offensive player. The impressive thing is that this streak has been realized with most players that are anywhere near their potential so you can evaluate player like their game is set in stone. Nobody has a clue on how to attack or defend most of our players because nobody know what they can accomplish on a BB field.IF we had a team of veterans your point would have some validity but we are a big question mark for anybody.

[ConstableGeneva]

We need to realize a few things.
This win streak isn't a 100% real.
We had to come back from mega points down in a few games.
This does usually happen.
We were fortunate in a few others which also happens, you need some luck in this league.
This to me is a typical BRad Stevens team. My only fault with Stevens teams are they have one gear.
Balls to the wall. Once the playoff hit, other teams crank it up and the Celtics remain what and who they are.
It's just a hallmark of Stevens teams.

I thought the wheels would come off the bus in the Warriors game.
And they did expose a ton of flaws that we have.
We are desperate for a secondary scorer that can create offence. At points int he game Warriors scored at will and at ease.
We can only sustain our defensive effort for one half of a basketball game.
Brown came through, Tatum showed his cool with the free throws but was shell shocked to start the game.

I don't know how the money would work, but I still want Paul George (if OKC doesn't figure it out), whether or not Hayward comes back this season (most likely not). Probably couldn't be done with Brown/Tatum/LAL pick off the table. I wonder whether Cavs go hard after him before trade deadline.

Closing lineup of Irving-Brown-Tatum-George-Horford in the playoffs. Damn.