2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[Outside]

Regarding Kuminga and Wiseman, once the league started catching up to the Warriors, criticism of their roster focused on their lack of athleticism and size. .

When exactly did this happen? 2019 you have Klay/KD injuries, 2020 you have Steph/Klay - I don't think that has anything to do with the league catching up. 2021 they go on a ridiculous run after losing the size/athleticism guy in Wiseman. 2022 we know what happened, and it happened in spite of the size/athleticism of Wiseman/Kuminga not because of it.

I never understood the Warriors lack of traditional size to be a misstep, rather it was shrewdly taking advantage of Draymond (and Iggy/KD/Wiggins) ability to play down a position and up the speed/dynamism without losing much ground on defense. I feel like this line of criticism comes from a real misunderstanding of the Steph/Draymond combination, or an (I think misbegotten) belief that the Kerr offense is some kind of gimmick that's been solved

I see "the league catching up" in multiple areas.

The "three-point revolution" that the Warriors are credited with popularizing. GSW RS league rank in threes attempted, made, and percentage.

2014-15 - 4 2 1
2015-16 - 1 1 1
2016-17 - 5 4 3
2017-18 - 16 8 1
2018-19 - 8 3 3
2019-20 - 25 28 29
2020-21 - 5 3 9
2021-22 - 3 3 7

GSW RS league rank in passes made and assists.

2014-15 - 9 1
2015-16 - 7 1
2016-17 - 4 1
2017-18 - 4 1
2018-19 - 2 1
2019-20 - 1 9
2020-21 - 3 1
2021-22 - 2 5

The NBA is a copycat league, and most teams saw the benefit of spamming threes and adopted it in one form or another. Replicating Kerr's version of motion offense hasn't been as successful, so they've generally maintained elite status in passing and assists (reasons for that would be a whole nother discussion).

Another aspect that the league adopted is switching defense. I don't know if there are any statistics for this, but I do know that one of the traits that led to the Warriors success was constructing the roster to include a bunch of 6-4 to 6-8 guys with length who could switch on screens. That was counter to NBA norms in 2015, but that was key to the Warriors' death lineups that were so successful. Many teams copied the strategy of switching and death-type lineups. In the 2016 playoffs, OKC out-deathed the Warriors a longer, taller lineup (Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Roberson, Waiters) than Golden State could field.

The Warriors' death lineup was born during the 2015 finals and changed the series in their favor, and it was a key factor in their dominant 2016 RS. With the addition of Durant, the Warriors death lineup got longer and taller, but they were never again as dominant as they were in 2016 because the rest of the league adopting switching and death-type lineups of their own.

Anyway, those are the primary factors I think of when I say the league "caught up" to the Warriors. The league always adapts to whatever strategies and tactics are successful.

[Jaivl]

Draymond and Dwight up next in Ben and Codys pod.

What the hell was that "take Draymond off the Warriors and put him on another top 10 team and they would be title favourites" argument? I'm having a hard time thinking about any top 10 player in such a situation where it *doesn't* apply.

[Doctor MJ]

Draymond and Dwight up next in Ben and Codys pod.

What the hell was that "take Draymond off the Warriors and put him on another top 10 team and they would be title favourites" argument? I'm having a hard time thinking about any top 10 player in such a situation where it *doesn't* apply.

Well, I think you can argue that that's what the Lakers did with Dwight and it really didn't work.

[Jaivl]

Draymond and Dwight up next in Ben and Codys pod.

What the hell was that "take Draymond off the Warriors and put him on another top 10 team and they would be title favourites" argument? I'm having a hard time thinking about any top 10 player in such a situation where it *doesn't* apply.

Well, I think you can argue that that's what the Lakers did with Dwight and it really didn't work.

You can argue a lot of things, especially when the basis of comparison is a complete hypothetical. You could argue that's what the Spurs did with LaMarcus Aldridge and it really worked!

[Doctor MJ]

What the hell was that "take Draymond off the Warriors and put him on another top 10 team and they would be title favourites" argument? I'm having a hard time thinking about any top 10 player in such a situation where it *doesn't* apply.

Well, I think you can argue that that's what the Lakers did with Dwight and it really didn't work.

You can argue a lot of things, especially when the basis of comparison is a complete hypothetical. You could argue that's what the Spurs did with LaMarcus Aldridge and it really worked!

Okay but when you're saying you're having a hard time finding a counter example, and I give you one, that's not nothing, right?

Re: Aldridge on the Spurs. So I'd say that the Spurs bouncing back to elite status was more about Kawhi emerging as the #1 option on offense in '15-16, and that this actually alarmed Aldridge because that's what he thought his job would be, and he wondered if he was all that valuable to the Spurs as he was, and while Pop really thought he was... I don't think Pop was right. Aldridge wasn't bad, but the notion of "We need another volume scoring guy who doesn't shoot 3's" is just a thing that is basically never true in the modern game, and Pop deciding to build his offense around 2 of those guys in 2019 basically clinched that Pop would never coach a serious team ever again.

I know that sounds hater-y of me, but I think Pop is a GOAT candidate, and what I'm trying to communicate here is the shock I experienced when the Spurs did this. I really, really couldn't believe they were trying to win by going no-pace, no-space in an era where had tons of data available to show this wasn't going to work.

But anyway more broadly, what we're really talking about is fit.

The reason why Dwight didn't make the Lakers into contenders despite being the MVP of a contender in Orlando is that Dwight's offense was quite limited but because Van Gundy was so far ahead of the curve with pace & space, it worked right up until Dwight started angling to play like Shaq, which was never a good idea. So when Dwight comes to a team with Kobe instead and doesn't embrace a major change in role, it just leads to teammates getting in each other's way, and then getting frustrated.

There's also the matter that with Dwight's back he wasn't the defensive force he'd been earlier, but the poor offensive fit was a big deal.

Hence, the idea that Dray could slide in with other great players effectively is about him being really smart and not volume shooting-oriented, and no, that's not true of all elite players.

[Jaivl]

Well, I think you can argue that that's what the Lakers did with Dwight and it really didn't work.

You can argue a lot of things, especially when the basis of comparison is a complete hypothetical. You could argue that's what the Spurs did with LaMarcus Aldridge and it really worked!

Okay but when you're saying you're having a hard time finding a counter example, and I give you one, that's not nothing, right?

It's almost nothing, because it's not a valid example. None of the original premises apply.

-- There are no top 10 teams involved (you can argue the Lakers were, barely, but Orlando surely isn't). Part of the reason the original hypothetical is such a low-clearance ber is that handicapping the clear title favourite makes it pretty easier for other teams to become one.
-- Is post-injury Dwight Howard considered a top 10 player? I don't think so, but either way it's certainly far from his peak.
-- 2012 and 2013 are not the same season, so that's already not the same comparison as the original. Lots of confounding variables involved, including some pretty obvious ones on Howard himself.

Re: Aldridge on the Spurs. So I'd say that the Spurs bouncing back to elite status was more about Kawhi emerging as the #1 option on offense in '15-16, and that this actually alarmed Aldridge because that's what he thought his job would be, and he wondered if he was all that valuable to the Spurs as he was, and while Pop really thought he was... I don't think Pop was right. Aldridge wasn't bad, but the notion of "We need another volume scoring guy who doesn't shoot 3's" is just a thing that is basically never true in the modern game, and Pop deciding to build his offense around 2 of those guys in 2019 basically clinched that Pop would never coach a serious team ever again.

Yes, the whole point of the Aldridge mention was that there were some pretty obvious confounding variables that make it a dishonest comparison (even so, probably better than the Howard one). If I wanted to mention a somewhat valid example I'd have said Rasheed.

Hence, the idea that Dray could slide in with other great players effectively is about him being really smart and not volume shooting-oriented, and no, that's not true of all elite players.

I get the idea, and I agree. I also agree (give or take a few spots) with Draymond's positioning on the list. It's just a nothing-burger of an argument to support it.

Any player considered top 10 except, like, Nuggets Carmelo Anthony (who wasn't really top 10 and I'm pretty sure we know better than comparing Draymond to) will catapult most top 10 teams into clear contention status. Of course, there are some exceptions for almost any player. I'd like to see Draymond try on the Hawks!

Like, the top 10 players in 2016 by MVP shares:
Curry, Leonard, LeBron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Green, Lillard, Harden, Lowry. Pretty accurate top 10, although I'd take George and arguably Irving over Lowry and Lillard.

The top 10 teams in 2016 (top 8 in playoffs + next 2 by SRS):
Cleveland, Golden State, Oklahoma, Toronto, San Antonio, Miami, Portland, Atlanta, Clippers, Boston.

If anything, Draymond probably makes the least amount of title favourites out of that group.

[eminence]

I'd have to go listen to the whole thing again to feel confident, but generally agreeing with Jaivl that there are very few situations where you don't get a strong title favorite at least.

Generally taking a really good player from the favorite and adding them to a different already good team will result in the 2nd team being the new favorite.

Maybe there's some fringe cases, but it's not something particularly unique to Draymond. I imagine if there is a decent example it's taking a strict C and putting him on a new team that already had a star C and barely passes the bar of already good (think adding Hakeem to the '95 Hornets).

[Doctor MJ]

You can argue a lot of things, especially when the basis of comparison is a complete hypothetical. You could argue that's what the Spurs did with LaMarcus Aldridge and it really worked!

Okay but when you're saying you're having a hard time finding a counter example, and I give you one, that's not nothing, right?

It's almost nothing, because it's not a valid example. None of the original premises apply.

-- There are no top 10 teams involved (you can argue the Lakers were, barely, but Orlando surely isn't). Part of the reason the original hypothetical is such a low-clearance ber is that handicapping the clear title favourite makes it pretty easier for other teams to become one.
-- Is post-injury Dwight Howard considered a top 10 player? I don't think so, but either way it's certainly far from his peak.
-- 2012 and 2013 are not the same season, so that's already not the same comparison as the original. Lots of confounding variables involved, including some pretty obvious ones on Howard himself.

Re: Aldridge on the Spurs. So I'd say that the Spurs bouncing back to elite status was more about Kawhi emerging as the #1 option on offense in '15-16, and that this actually alarmed Aldridge because that's what he thought his job would be, and he wondered if he was all that valuable to the Spurs as he was, and while Pop really thought he was... I don't think Pop was right. Aldridge wasn't bad, but the notion of "We need another volume scoring guy who doesn't shoot 3's" is just a thing that is basically never true in the modern game, and Pop deciding to build his offense around 2 of those guys in 2019 basically clinched that Pop would never coach a serious team ever again.

Yes, the whole point of the Aldridge mention was that there were some pretty obvious confounding variables that make it a dishonest comparison (even so, probably better than the Howard one). If I wanted to mention a somewhat valid example I'd have said Rasheed.

Hence, the idea that Dray could slide in with other great players effectively is about him being really smart and not volume shooting-oriented, and no, that's not true of all elite players.

I get the idea, and I agree. I also agree (give or take a few spots) with Draymond's positioning on the list. It's just a nothing-burger of an argument to support it.

Any player considered top 10 except, like, Nuggets Carmelo Anthony (who wasn't really top 10 and I'm pretty sure we know better than comparing Draymond to) will catapult most top 10 teams into clear contention status. Of course, there are some exceptions for almost any player. I'd like to see Draymond try on the Hawks!

Like, the top 10 players in 2016 by MVP shares:
Curry, Leonard, LeBron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Green, Lillard, Harden, Lowry. Pretty accurate top 10, although I'd take George and arguably Irving over Lowry and Lillard.

The top 10 teams in 2016 (top 8 in playoffs + next 2 by SRS):
Cleveland, Golden State, Oklahoma, Toronto, San Antonio, Miami, Portland, Atlanta, Clippers, Boston.

If anything, Draymond probably makes the least amount of title favourites out of that group.

So first I'm going to offer a correction here to both of us.

I believe what was meant was not that Green was in some way unique among Top 10 players, but rather that Green exhibits a Top 10 kind a footprint in that he's not simply the product of system.

Second I've just gotta say - you seem to be saying you're bothered here not because you disagree with the statement, but because the on-the-fly conversation didn't deliver a rigorous proof? I kinda feel like you're just expecting too much from the medium.

[falcolombardi]

I mean if howard joined cleveland in 2009 i am pretty sure they win a ring

If he replaces perkins in the 2010 celtics they win a ring

If he joins oklahoma in 2011 we have a good chance of beating miami and dallas too

If howard joins denver in 2009 they may win a ring too

I am high on draymond too but howard would have made plenty of teams take a step up to champions if added straight up...as do most top 5-10 players when added to contenders/fring contenders

[therealbig3]

Okay but when you're saying you're having a hard time finding a counter example, and I give you one, that's not nothing, right?

It's almost nothing, because it's not a valid example. None of the original premises apply.

-- There are no top 10 teams involved (you can argue the Lakers were, barely, but Orlando surely isn't). Part of the reason the original hypothetical is such a low-clearance ber is that handicapping the clear title favourite makes it pretty easier for other teams to become one.
-- Is post-injury Dwight Howard considered a top 10 player? I don't think so, but either way it's certainly far from his peak.
-- 2012 and 2013 are not the same season, so that's already not the same comparison as the original. Lots of confounding variables involved, including some pretty obvious ones on Howard himself.

Re: Aldridge on the Spurs. So I'd say that the Spurs bouncing back to elite status was more about Kawhi emerging as the #1 option on offense in '15-16, and that this actually alarmed Aldridge because that's what he thought his job would be, and he wondered if he was all that valuable to the Spurs as he was, and while Pop really thought he was... I don't think Pop was right. Aldridge wasn't bad, but the notion of "We need another volume scoring guy who doesn't shoot 3's" is just a thing that is basically never true in the modern game, and Pop deciding to build his offense around 2 of those guys in 2019 basically clinched that Pop would never coach a serious team ever again.

Yes, the whole point of the Aldridge mention was that there were some pretty obvious confounding variables that make it a dishonest comparison (even so, probably better than the Howard one). If I wanted to mention a somewhat valid example I'd have said Rasheed.

Hence, the idea that Dray could slide in with other great players effectively is about him being really smart and not volume shooting-oriented, and no, that's not true of all elite players.

I get the idea, and I agree. I also agree (give or take a few spots) with Draymond's positioning on the list. It's just a nothing-burger of an argument to support it.

Any player considered top 10 except, like, Nuggets Carmelo Anthony (who wasn't really top 10 and I'm pretty sure we know better than comparing Draymond to) will catapult most top 10 teams into clear contention status. Of course, there are some exceptions for almost any player. I'd like to see Draymond try on the Hawks!

Like, the top 10 players in 2016 by MVP shares:
Curry, Leonard, LeBron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Green, Lillard, Harden, Lowry. Pretty accurate top 10, although I'd take George and arguably Irving over Lowry and Lillard.

The top 10 teams in 2016 (top 8 in playoffs + next 2 by SRS):
Cleveland, Golden State, Oklahoma, Toronto, San Antonio, Miami, Portland, Atlanta, Clippers, Boston.

If anything, Draymond probably makes the least amount of title favourites out of that group.

So first I'm going to offer a correction here to both of us.

I believe what was meant was not that Green was in some way unique among Top 10 players, but rather that Green exhibits a Top 10 kind a footprint in that he's not simply the product of system.

Second I've just gotta say - you seem to be saying you're bothered here not because you disagree with the statement, but because the on-the-fly conversation didn't deliver a rigorous proof? I kinda feel like you're just expecting too much from the medium.

I think it’s that the “take Draymond off one great team and add him to another great team and that new team gets better” logic is just such an obvious and not a unique to Draymond at all type of argument that it’s almost like saying water is wet. I think most reasonable basketball fans that are into objective analysis understand how good Draymond was during his prime, and that he was pretty clearly a top 10 player, at least. So if we’re starting with that assumption, this isn’t some incredibly articulate and intelligent point lol. It’s like saying “add prime LeBron to my team at the local Y during our pick up games, and we’d be tough to beat!” Yeah, no ****.

[Doctor MJ]

It's almost nothing, because it's not a valid example. None of the original premises apply.

-- There are no top 10 teams involved (you can argue the Lakers were, barely, but Orlando surely isn't). Part of the reason the original hypothetical is such a low-clearance ber is that handicapping the clear title favourite makes it pretty easier for other teams to become one.
-- Is post-injury Dwight Howard considered a top 10 player? I don't think so, but either way it's certainly far from his peak.
-- 2012 and 2013 are not the same season, so that's already not the same comparison as the original. Lots of confounding variables involved, including some pretty obvious ones on Howard himself.


Yes, the whole point of the Aldridge mention was that there were some pretty obvious confounding variables that make it a dishonest comparison (even so, probably better than the Howard one). If I wanted to mention a somewhat valid example I'd have said Rasheed.


I get the idea, and I agree. I also agree (give or take a few spots) with Draymond's positioning on the list. It's just a nothing-burger of an argument to support it.

Any player considered top 10 except, like, Nuggets Carmelo Anthony (who wasn't really top 10 and I'm pretty sure we know better than comparing Draymond to) will catapult most top 10 teams into clear contention status. Of course, there are some exceptions for almost any player. I'd like to see Draymond try on the Hawks!

Like, the top 10 players in 2016 by MVP shares:
Curry, Leonard, LeBron, Westbrook, Durant, Paul, Green, Lillard, Harden, Lowry. Pretty accurate top 10, although I'd take George and arguably Irving over Lowry and Lillard.

The top 10 teams in 2016 (top 8 in playoffs + next 2 by SRS):
Cleveland, Golden State, Oklahoma, Toronto, San Antonio, Miami, Portland, Atlanta, Clippers, Boston.

If anything, Draymond probably makes the least amount of title favourites out of that group.

So first I'm going to offer a correction here to both of us.

I believe what was meant was not that Green was in some way unique among Top 10 players, but rather that Green exhibits a Top 10 kind a footprint in that he's not simply the product of system.

Second I've just gotta say - you seem to be saying you're bothered here not because you disagree with the statement, but because the on-the-fly conversation didn't deliver a rigorous proof? I kinda feel like you're just expecting too much from the medium.

I think it’s that the “take Draymond off one great team and add him to another great team and that new team gets better” logic is just such an obvious and not a unique to Draymond at all type of argument that it’s almost like saying water is wet. I think most reasonable basketball fans that are into objective analysis understand how good Draymond was during his prime, and that he was pretty clearly a top 10 player, at least. So if we’re starting with that assumption, this isn’t some incredibly articulate and intelligent point lol. It’s like saying “add prime LeBron to my team at the local Y during our pick up games, and we’d be tough to beat!” Yeah, no ****.

So this gets back to the thing where it seems like people are grabbing one quote from an hour long conversation and critiquing it like it was the entirety of an academic paper.

If that’s how folks want to consume their podcasts, so be it, but it feels like people are just listening until they hear something they can object to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jaivl]

So first I'm going to offer a correction here to both of us.

I believe what was meant was not that Green was in some way unique among Top 10 players, but rather that Green exhibits a Top 10 kind a footprint in that he's not simply the product of system.

Second I've just gotta say - you seem to be saying you're bothered here not because you disagree with the statement, but because the on-the-fly conversation didn't deliver a rigorous proof? I kinda feel like you're just expecting too much from the medium.

I think it’s that the “take Draymond off one great team and add him to another great team and that new team gets better” logic is just such an obvious and not a unique to Draymond at all type of argument that it’s almost like saying water is wet. I think most reasonable basketball fans that are into objective analysis understand how good Draymond was during his prime, and that he was pretty clearly a top 10 player, at least. So if we’re starting with that assumption, this isn’t some incredibly articulate and intelligent point lol. It’s like saying “add prime LeBron to my team at the local Y during our pick up games, and we’d be tough to beat!” Yeah, no ****.

So this gets back to the thing where it seems like people are grabbing one quote from an hour long conversation and critiquing it like it was the entirety of an academic paper.

If that’s how folks want to consume their podcasts, so be it, but it feels like people are just listening until they hear something they can object to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, see... whatever this is, I don't really care about. Just think whatever you want.

[falcolombardi]

So first I'm going to offer a correction here to both of us.

I believe what was meant was not that Green was in some way unique among Top 10 players, but rather that Green exhibits a Top 10 kind a footprint in that he's not simply the product of system.

Second I've just gotta say - you seem to be saying you're bothered here not because you disagree with the statement, but because the on-the-fly conversation didn't deliver a rigorous proof? I kinda feel like you're just expecting too much from the medium.

I think it’s that the “take Draymond off one great team and add him to another great team and that new team gets better” logic is just such an obvious and not a unique to Draymond at all type of argument that it’s almost like saying water is wet. I think most reasonable basketball fans that are into objective analysis understand how good Draymond was during his prime, and that he was pretty clearly a top 10 player, at least. So if we’re starting with that assumption, this isn’t some incredibly articulate and intelligent point lol. It’s like saying “add prime LeBron to my team at the local Y during our pick up games, and we’d be tough to beat!” Yeah, no ****.

So this gets back to the thing where it seems like people are grabbing one quote from an hour long conversation and critiquing it like it was the entirety of an academic paper.

If that’s how folks want to consume their podcasts, so be it, but it feels like people are just listening until they hear something they can object to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree here in general even if i also agree to jaivl criticism

when people take isolated comments out of their proper context, it is easy to give a misleading and wrong impression of what people believe.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

pretty cool

Watch on YouTube

[falcolombardi]

Harden at 19 in ben modern peaks list is maybe too low

[Special_Puppy]

Harden at 19 in ben modern peaks list is maybe too low

Agree it’s weirdly too low. Really hard to see how he’s not in the top 15.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Harden at 19 in ben modern peaks list is maybe too low

Agree it’s weirdly too low. Really hard to see how he’s not in the top 15.

Really, too low? I guess I could see him creeping up to #15?

Jokic
SGA
LeBron
Giannis
Luka
AD
Curry
KD
Kawhi
CP3
Dirk
KG
Duncan
Shaq

Wade, Kobe and Nash are definitely toss-ups.

[parsnips33]

Finally listened to the podcast, loved all the fawning over Draymond, idk what you all are complaining about

The Dwight comparison to Shaq offensively was interesting, so much work done off-ball

[Peregrine01]

Always wondered how Manu would do in a Harden-like situation in today’s game. It probably wasn’t in his DNA but I’d like to think that he was capable of some kind of analogue to it. More passing and movement and less scoring maybe?

[Doctor MJ]

Harden at 19 in ben modern peaks list is maybe too low

My initial thought as well, but I think I'm going to think that a lot because there are so many good players.

Just cause it's what I've been working on lately, here are the top 25 guys by nbarapm's peak 4-year RAPM from the initial 96-00 span through to 21-23:

1. Garnett
2. LeBron
3. Jokic
4. Steph
5. Paul
6. Duncan
7. Nash
8. Stockton
9. Ginobili
10. Kawhi
(tie) George
(tie) Lowry
(tie) Shaq
14. Embiid
15. Dirk
16. Giannis
17. Dray
18. Kirilenko
19. Tatum
(tie) Wade
21. Durant
22. Harden
(tie) Collison
(tie) Sheed
25. Caruso
(tie) Butler


As always we note the low minutes and injury guys (old Stockton, Ginobili, Embiid, Kirilenko, Collison, Caruso) and that they aren't as impressive because of this, and so if we choose to remove them here, then that would move Harden (and Sheed) up to the 18 spot.

Then I'll note guys like George & Lowry who I'd definitely strongly consider Harden over, and that would get him to 16.

Anyone disagreeing on more guys than that would move him higher still, but I'm not sure how many other guys I'd end up doing that with. I could see Harden as maybe Top 15, but I really don't think I'd have him Top 10.