vvoland wrote:
Good argument about the bench units being starved of talent when JK and klay start. That makes sense. It's a bit different thab saying that starting 5 failed. It's not semantics, words matter. Saying that lineup failed isn't the same as saying the team's success suffers when those 5 start and play heavy minutes together.
Didnt see this, but this is ignoring the part where those numbers were beefed up against a couple bad opponents and then was just average against teams that were over .500. Also how it was steadily trending downwards after spiking from those games I mentioned. And, the most important part, its not sustainable. Looking at the results is only part of the pie, have to determine why the results are what they are, if its something that will hold up. Big drops in rebounding while seeing unrealistic spikes in 3pt%.. like I said, trap data. But most metrics and bare analysis, like net +/-, are susceptible to that. Thats why the analysis is the most important part
They can run that lineup if they want, and if the team is shooting nearly 50% from 3 when they're playing, then yeah, its gonna do well. Probably could say that about any lineup though.. what its floor? Well we saw that too, and it was bad enough that Kerr pulled the plug on it for Podz. But Podz couldnt score enough.. but thats all the tinkering Kerr was willing to do. Not Wiggins/JK/Dray/TJD, not throwing Moody in.. just bringing in the Iguodala type. Meh
I think these are all relevant questions and both, tracking and metrics, would be useful in determining what the team should do going forward. Most importantly, when to change what they're doing because teams adjusted. I typically reject the notion that these answers are simple and obvious since the sport is hard to track and even harder to put metrics to. Plus, the other guys get paid too, so you'll have to adjust, unless the talent is just overwhelming.
Simple answers are better for casual fans. And plenty of casual fans love of the game.. but for me if people really love the game, they want to understand why things happen. So yeah, agreed, metrics just dont give enough context to be standalone. Their biggest benefit is to help people win arguments online
Its a perpetual moving target.. perfection cant be achieved because what's perfect today won't be tomorrow. Warriors used to win with the overwhelming talent but cant anymore, so now being flexible is key, which is why I (and presumably others) are really pissed with Kerr's inflexibility in most things this year
What I can't figure out, and I hope you don't take this as me picking a fight, is why we've gone 20-10 in the last 30 games if Klay's role is so important to winning. I'm guessing it's a number of factors, but Klay has started, come off the bench, closed most games, didn't close a few others and it doesn't seem to have mattered, at least not in the last 30.
In all sincerity, what do the tracking numbers tell you about the last 30 games? What changed, other than dray came back from suspension, obviously.
Well Dray is the big domino, obviously. The other one was JK for Looney, because our perimeter defense, specifically CP3/Curry/Klay, is so poor now that its more key to cover ground than be in the correct position, because just the positioning isnt enough anymore. Not only do the above 3 have trouble staying with their men, they dont recover well either, and even if they do, they arent intimidating anyone with their closeouts. The defense spiked when Dray came back and JK was on the court, and that's just scratching the surface of the defensive potential. Integrating Moody and TJD can take it a step further, but that will come at the cost of Looney (rebounding) and Klay (shooting)