Djoker wrote:By the way didn't SGA make like #15 or something on Ben's list? That's probably around where he ends up for me, maybe a little higher. If he proves more in the coming years, I'd be open to put him up higher. Like if he has one or two strong playoff runs.
If you can see Shai around 10th spot, then having him at 8th spot isn't that much different, right?
Yeah Ben has Shai quite low for my liking. I don't think there is a clear reason to have Shai much lower than Kobe or Wade. It's one of the first big disagreements with Ben from the series (the bigger one is Harden being so low).
Honestly in projects like this, the difference between the #8 spot and #10 spot can be quite stark. For instance, I plan to vote Giannis #8. I see him as clearly better than Shai. Kobe and Wade are both better playoff performers than Shai. That said, I think Ben said he can see SGA as high as #9 all time or something like that with a high end valuation. And I don't think Ben is as low on Shai as he is high on Dirk and Nash. I'm lower on both those guys than Ben is.
lessthanjake wrote:That said, I think SGA also had the least impressive playoffs. He wasn’t bad in the playoffs. In fact, he actually played well. But the other guys all played better in the playoffs.
So I think this presents a case where it really depends on how much one weighs playoff performance vs. regular season performance. It’s the conundrum of “The regular season is a way bigger sample size but the playoffs matter way more.” I’m pretty undecided here. If the Thunder had lost Game 7 of the Finals, then SGA would definitely not be in contention for the ballot right now, despite the amazing regular season. But I’m not sure how much to ding someone for lesser playoff performance when his team nevertheless won the title with him easily being his team’s best player in the playoffs. I’ll ding it some compared to these other guys, but maybe the regular season superiority overcomes it as compared to at least some of those above-listed guys?
not to beat the harden dead horse and i'm not really looking for a debate, just presenting information. but shai's regular season barely looks different than harden's 3 year 2018-2020 peak. a little better in all categories but also 1 season vs 3 and with a little inflation on WS48 from the thunder's defense:
Harden: 29.9 PER, 0.265 WS48, 10.2 BPM, 62.0 TS%, +6.6 on/off Shai: 30.7 PER, 0.309 WS48, 11.5 BPM, 63.7 TS%, +11.1 on/off (not nearly as crazy as his on number would suggest)
And in the playoffs, Harden actually jumps ahead in a few categories:
Shai only wins the stat most influenced by team defense in WS48, with the thunder having one of the best defenses ever (and not b/c of some shai/harden defensive delta). Harden now wins on/off.
Shai drops more in every category and we see basically the same drops last year so it's not just showing up in one odd-ball playoffs. and his on/off was actually negative in last year's playoffs.
Harden from 2018 to 2020 didn't have his team even challenged in 2018/19 when it wasn't against the warriors, a far superior team to anything the thunder faced and a team they obviously would not have beaten based on everything we've seen the last 2 years, and harden only went 7 against an OKC team that basically had the same record as the rockets in 2020 and the rockets didn't have westbrook. shai meanwhile has lost as a #1 seed last year and then this year inexplicably got taken to 7 games by nearly 10 net rating underdogs, meaning his statistical drops and on/off drops seem to line up well with the thunder underperforming (even if it obviously wasn't all him).
people say we're overfocusing on shai's playoff drops but they don't really look any different, and are in fact worse, than harden's drops, and those get focused on all the time.
SGA won't be in my top 2, but he's a perfectly reasonable discussion in the thread. Clearly a top tier remaining RS, with only KG beating it out imo. The PO run was not *that* impressive, but it's not like it was an outright bad run for an MVP level guy either.
ReggiesKnicks wrote: Do you consider SGA/Harden/Kobe/Wade to be in the same tier or there being varying approaches which rates them in different orders?
Kind of, although I do think Harden is the clear last one among the 4. I think all lie in the 8-15 range in this project.
Harden is probably the least well-rounded player here but his strengths are more impressive to me. He's probably the best scorer out of them and clearly the best on-ball creator. The problem is with his defense and non-existing off-ball game.
You have Giannis in the KG/Shaq tier?
Do you think Giannis' defense propels him enough ahead of the offensive guys?
Giannis is very tricky for me to rank. I have the problem with him on both ends of the floor. Not because he is bad or anything, he's amazing two-way player. I don't think he was ever a true DPOY-level though and his offense is vastly overrated by his boxscore numbers. It's very clear in the postseason when Bucks consistently disappointed. I get that their roster construction used to be suboptimal (now it's ridiculous), but I would still like to see him doing better with talented rosters he had.
I do have him over the offensive guys because I thought about it from this perspective - even in the worst case scenario, Giannis is "only" all-defensive guy (as a bigman, that's still huge) and top 15 offensive player in the league. That crushes the low estimations for guards and I think a little bit higher on Giannis than that. I think he's elite defender and very quality offensive bigman.
I do have him clearly lower than the two bigs above him, because I don't think he dominated either side of the court to the same degree Shaq did on offense and KG on defense. I also believe that Garnett's offense is less problematic to build around, even if slightly less dominant. Shaq's defense is concerning, but the Lakers managed to build around him solid postseason defenses without elite supporting cast.
Giannis not only has a pretty high low end valuation as 70sFan said but to me he also has a very high high end valuation. If you're willing to overlook his durability issues (biggest minus for me) and excuse the lack of offensive team results in the PS, you can have him in the top 3 or something. No hyperbole... his 2021 Finals performance is one of the greatest of all time and that should count for something. So many all time greats either choke on the biggest stage or at the very least have uninspiring performances. Not Giannis.
lessthanjake wrote:That said, I think SGA also had the least impressive playoffs. He wasn’t bad in the playoffs. In fact, he actually played well. But the other guys all played better in the playoffs.
So I think this presents a case where it really depends on how much one weighs playoff performance vs. regular season performance. It’s the conundrum of “The regular season is a way bigger sample size but the playoffs matter way more.” I’m pretty undecided here. If the Thunder had lost Game 7 of the Finals, then SGA would definitely not be in contention for the ballot right now, despite the amazing regular season. But I’m not sure how much to ding someone for lesser playoff performance when his team nevertheless won the title with him easily being his team’s best player in the playoffs. I’ll ding it some compared to these other guys, but maybe the regular season superiority overcomes it as compared to at least some of those above-listed guys?
not to beat the harden dead horse and i'm not really looking for a debate, just presenting information. but shai's regular season barely looks different than harden's 3 year 2018-2020 peak. a little better in all categories but also 1 season vs 3 and with a little inflation on WS48 from the thunder's defense:
Harden: 29.9 PER, 0.265 WS48, 10.2 BPM, 62.0 TS%, +6.6 on/off Shai: 30.7 PER, 0.309 WS48, 11.5 BPM, 63.7 TS%, +11.1 on/off (not nearly as crazy as his on number would suggest)
And in the playoffs, Harden actually jumps ahead in a few categories:
Shai only wins the stat most influenced by team defense in WS48, with the thunder having one of the best defenses ever (and not b/c of some shai/harden defensive delta). Harden now wins on/off.
Shai drops more in every category and we see basically the same drops last year so it's not just showing up in one odd-ball playoffs. and his on/off was actually negative in last year's playoffs.
Harden from 2018 to 2020 didn't have his team even challenged in 2018/19 when it wasn't against the warriors, a far superior team to anything the thunder faced and a team they obviously would not have beaten based on everything we've seen the last 2 years, and harden only went 7 against an OKC team that basically had the same record as the rockets in 2020 and the rockets didn't have westbrook. shai meanwhile has lost as a #1 seed last year and then this year inexplicably got taken to 7 games by nearly 10 net rating underdogs, meaning his statistical drops and on/off drops seem to line up well with the thunder underperforming (even if it obviously wasn't all him).
people say we're overfocusing on shai's playoff drops but they don't really look any different, and are in fact worse, than harden's drops, and those get focused on all the time.
I think this is a fair thing to raise. I do look at that data and conclude that 2025 SGA probably played a tiny bit better individually than Harden did. I will also note that I think the ON value is very important context to the on-off, due to diminishing returns as a team gets better and better. The Thunder’s dominance in SGA’s minutes is really impressive, and makes that +11.1 on-off value significantly more impressive than +11.1 would normally be (and +11.1 is already really good!). I also think that to the extent box stats don’t adequately internalize defense, then we’d expect them to overrate Harden in a comparison with 2025 SGA. But there’s also some data that you didn’t mention that Harden looks better in (for instance, playoff EPM). So yeah, overall, I don’t look at the available data and see much of any daylight between 2025 SGA and peak Harden.
If there is a difference, it’s mainly just in the historic nature of what SGA’s team achieved. As good as the 2018 Rockets were, the 2025 Thunder were at another level—being genuinely historic, with the highest SRS in history. And of course they also won the title. Obviously, a lot of credit goes to all the depth on his team. But if the available data for two guys looks hard to distinguish overall but one guy led his team to a historically great regular season and the title, and the other guy fell short on both those counts, then I’m going to have the first guy’s year ahead in a list of “greatness.” Of course, maybe this is just luck. Maybe if Chris Paul had played all season, the 2018 Rockets would’ve kept up that 74-win pace they had with Chris Paul. And maybe if those Rockets had faced the playoff opponents the 2025 Thunder faced then they’d have won the title too (in fact, I think they very likely would have). In which case, the Rockets would’ve had a historically great regular season and a title, and I’d be talking about Harden in this thread too (and might’ve been talking about him last thread, depending on exactly how good his individual playoff performance was). And, on the flip side, perhaps 2025 SGA couldn’t have led those Rockets teams to a genuinely historic season or beaten the 2018 Warriors either. In other words, maybe the whole difference between the greatness of their seasons is a product of context that was out of their control. That seems very plausible to me. But, honestly, that’s just how the cookie crumbled. What happened is what happened, and the SRS record and an NBA title is a pretty easy factor to differentiate between the greatness of the years of two guys with similar numbers. If Harden’s individual numbers genuinely looked materially better than SGA’s, then it might be a tougher question.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
Djoker wrote:Giannis not only has a pretty high low end valuation as 70sFan said but to me he also has a very high high end valuation. If you're willing to overlook his durability issues (biggest minus for me) and excuse the lack of offensive team results in the PS, you can have him in the top 3 or something. No hyperbole... his 2021 Finals performance is one of the greatest of all time and that should count for something. So many all time greats either choke on the biggest stage or at the very least have uninspiring performances. Not Giannis.
Personally not as high on Giannis as I suspect many people are. Don't get me wrong -- he's one of the greats of this era. Being a fantastic defender and good lead offensive player is a rare combination. He seems like a nice guy off the court, and story-wise, he had a great run in 21 coming back and like you say having a historically good finals.
But in terms of how good he is, I also suspect he's the kind of guy who might get overrated slightly in terms of value. His defense is flashy -- athletic with great highlight blocks -- which is the kind of defense that gets slightly overrated in terms of value compared to some of the subtler defensive plays (communication, IQ, leadership, positioning). His offense again dominated through his athleticism, which is very eye-popping in the eye test, but may not be quite as good as it would seem first-pass in deeper film study. Add in that he received very solid media awards (DPOY, MVP, FMVP) and had his best performance in the final which has the most attention (compared to his struggles in the 2nd Round or conference finals in 2021) and you get the kind of player who jumps to the top of people's rankings, a bit higher than his average value would actually have him. Again, don't get me wrong, he's up there, but I wonder if a few other players might be more impactful before we get to Giannis.
He has two great regular seasons in 19-20, but his impact metrics aren't actually as high as you'd think.
So Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Kawhi, Dirk, Wade, and Shai seem to be more impactful in RS+PS RAPM. Giannis does seem a more valuable than Durant (although Durant sneaks ahead in shorter samples that include 2021 Giannis), Kobe, and Harden though (and Giannis does sneak ahead of Dirk in 5-year samples).
Or take Full-Season 1-year AuPM
Spoiler:
2015 Chris Paul = 6.1 06 Wade 5.6 [09 Wade 4.6] 16 Durant +5.2 [17 Durant +4.7-4.8] 11 Dirk +4.8 ~= 21 Giannis ~ 4.7 ~= 08 Kobe + 4.6 [09 Kobe +4.7] 17 Kawhi 3.2 [21 + 4.8] *Full season AuPM averaged per-game
So Giannis is again right near the bottom tier.
He also doesn't jump out in EPM in 2021 or in playoff EPM (though his 20 RS EPM is definitely fantastic).
Then we add in that he has playoff decline in quite a few years of his mid-peak years (sometimes though not always associated with injury) and again I start to wonder if the short-sample finals-only performs causes people to overrate him just a little. Here's a post I made quite a few years back, but it summarizes some of the playoff concerns. It's a bit cursory, and somewhat team-based, but still apparent:
Concern 2: Health and a lack of playoff resilience
Does Giannis do particularly well in the playoffs? Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance: 2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent, and he was playing without Khris Middleton.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.
So… not exactly the kind of stalwart playoff performance to make up for the longevity disadvantage. Some of this is health. Some of it is a lack of resilient offensive counters, inefficient shooting, and occasional decision making blunders. Although to his credit, the defense only is definitely resilient when healthy.
This decline shows up in the data. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declined by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline in record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.
There's of course context behind every one of the underperformances. He was injured in 20, 21, and 23; his star teammate was injured in 22. The bubble and paused season definitely affected the Bucks' momentum in 2020. And his defense definitely seems resilient. But his offense seems especially non-resilient to the 'wall' defenses and strong defenses in general in 2019 when healthy, in 2020 even before injury, in 2022, and in 2023 even before injury. And overall impact metrics suggest the offensive decline is larger than defensive improvement.
Fit-wise, I think he had fairly solid fit around him. Jrue Holiday and Khris Middleton aren't all-nba players, but they're solid and valuable boosts on both offense and defense, while still keeping things Giannis-centric (which we would think would boost his impact). Brook Lopez provides great help defense and fantastic spacing for a center, which seems key for Giannis-ball. And the Lillard-Giannis pairing has been quite disappointing, not just from an achievement perspective but from a chemistry perspective, largely because of Giannis' lack of offensive versatility and counters. Giannis could have played more of a screener and roller, off-ball threat, lob/offensive rebounding threat while allowing Lillard to control the rock, but instead they seemed to mesh more poorly than one might have hoped.
It's not fun picking nits. I can post some old film analysis I did for the 2022 peaks project if people are interested, which might be more fun, though it might be out of date. But again, I see this and start to wonder if people over-index a single playoff run against injured opponents (in the 2nd round which went to 7 games, Harden, Irving, and 6th man Jeff Green all missed 3 games; Chris Paul played through injury in the finals) and on the 6-game sample finals specifically.
Giannis is in this tier, no doubt. But personally I might have more faith in a few of the other guys before I get to Giannis.
Okay, so I thought it might be interesting to compile how some of these players and their teams did in the highest-leverage moments of the relevant years. Easily the most important moments of the year are when the game is relatively close in the 4th quarter or OT of playoff games starting in the second round (sometimes the second round is easier than others, but it can often be quite high leverage).
So let’s look at this 2006 Wade, 2009 Kobe, 2011 Dirk, 2019 Kawhi, 2021 Giannis, and 2025 SGA group, in the last three rounds of the playoffs with the score within 10 points in the 4th quarter or OT, including their individual stats and how the team did overall with them on the court in these situations:
Stats with game within 10 points in 4th Q + OT of games in the final three rounds of the playoffs
2006 Wade
- Points per 100: 49.37 - TS%: 67.05% - Assists per 100: 6.28 - Rebounds per 100: 6.14 - Turnovers per 100: 5.86 - Minutes: 126 - Team Net Rating: +18.22
2009 Kobe
- Points per 100: 43.60 - TS%: 53.5% - Assists per 100: 7.11 - Rebounds per 100: 2.65 - Turnovers per 100: 4.27 - Minutes: 111 - Team Net Rating: +22.27
2011 Dirk
- Points per 100: 50.91 - TS%: 63.06% - Assists per 100: 2.18 - Rebounds per 100: 6.25 - Turnovers per 100: 4.73 - Minutes: 149 - Team Net Rating: +19.76
2019 Kawhi
- Points per 100: 42.92 - TS%: 54.27% - Assists per 100: 6.60 - Rebounds per 100: 5.26 - Turnovers per 100: 4.25 - Minutes: 113 - Team Net Rating: +19.31
2021 Giannis
- Points per 100: 42.71 - TS%: 66.41% - Assists per 100: 3.02 - Rebounds per 100: 6.50 - Turnovers per 100: 4.02 - Minutes: 107 - Team Net Rating: +9.60
2025 SGA
- Points per 100: 46.96 - TS%: 59.86% - Assists per 100: 7.18 - Rebounds per 100: 2.83 - Turnovers per 100: 3.31 - Minutes: 89 - Team Net Rating: -0.84
__________________
Okay, so what should we take from this? Well, first a couple caveats:
1. The sample sizes here are tiny. This is not meant to extrapolate how good these players were in general. The samples here are way too small for that. Rather, this is getting at what they specifically did in the most important moments of these years. It’s a tiny sample but also extremely high-leverage moments that genuinely matter a lot in their own right.
2. The above data does not control for era, quality of opponent, or quality of teammates. We should think about the context. So, for instance, we should look at the earlier years here and realize that points were harder to come by and TS% was much lower back then. We should also think about how good the opponents were in these series and how good the player’s team was. Some of these guys had much tougher tasks here.
As for conclusions, I look at this and a few things stick out:
1. It underscores my view that 2006 Wade did the best in high-leverage moments. His combination of scoring volume and efficiency is pretty clearly the best one, especially considering his year came the earliest (i.e. the most deadball year). I also think the combination of quality of teammates and quality of opponent made this the toughest lift for him. He did have more turnovers than the others, but he also was the only one besides Kawhi who was actually both assisting and rebounding in these situations.
2. I also look at this and think that 2011 Dirk looks really great. He was fantastic in high-leverage playoff moments that year.
3. It’s notable that 2025 SGA and to a lesser extent 2021 Giannis didn’t actually have their teams do all that great in these high-leverage moments. 2025 SGA in particular won a title while his team actually got outscored in close moments near the ends of games with him on the court in the last three rounds. Besides SGA and Giannis, the other guys had teams that just dominated those moments, which is not surprising from the title winner (there’s basically survivorship bias at play here).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
To me when we overly focus on 4-5 year stretches in a peak project its a bit of losing the forest for the trees. I think most guys have 2-3 years where they really go all out in the regular season and push themselves. Usually somewhere in the 24-28 age range. More so, this is about single year peaks. It's not about best 4-5 year stretch in the regular season, which I'm not saying to discount the use of such things as larger rapm samples for the sake of argument but just that I think we're losing a bit of focus when that is heavily relied on. Peaks in themselves are a noisy thing because of how rs+ps peaks hardly ever line up that well. So I've said before I'd prefer to just do away with the pretense of it and say pick the best rs+ps combo possible for each player. Since we're not doing that, we're pretty much free to do it however we like and I think as a result these discussions get kind of messy at times in terms of how we are trying to define peak. A peak can be an outlier for a player, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If we don't like that then it should just be best 3 year peak or something as a project imo.
TrueLAfan wrote:Shaq 2000. 3rd in MVP voting, 8th in DPOY Voting, Finals MVP. Posted this earlier. Good but incomplete in his first few years, missed time with conditioning issues and (sorry) a little apathy. But he put it all together a few times and he really put it all together here.
Garnett 2004. League MVP, 6th in DPOY Voting. Posted this earlier; will add a bit more. Part of my answers here are based on memories in conjunction with analytic tools. This relates to both the previous choice and this one; I really remember the T-Wolves/Lakers series in 2004. Both Kobe and Shaq were near their peak(s)—and KG was simply the best player out there. It sure seemed clear to me at the time, and I’ll go with that now.
Giannis 2021. 4th in MVP voting, 5th in DPOY Voting, Finals MVP. Maybe a better RS in 2020, although I personally don’t think so. The Bucks added pieces that may have led to Giannis looking a shade less important in the season. I think that’s mistaken. And his finals were epic enough to push him up. He was almost as dominant in postseason as J in 1975, and that is saying a real whole lot.
SGA 2025. League MVP, 10th in DPOY Voting, Finals MVP. I’m not 100% clear on the reasons why Shai shouldn’t be here, or even higher. I get that he “slumped” in the PS, but it didn’t hurt his team. I man, look at how the rest of OKC played in the Finals. And they got the job done, and that it done because of SGA. It’s a bit like Jokic; there’s too much there there. I give Giannis the nod for my #7—but SGA had a better RS and was still mighty good on the PS.
I assume you meant 01 Shaq?
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
70sFan wrote:Is there any skill-related reason to pick 2006 Wade over 2009?
I think he was even quicker and therefore better able to get to get to the rim in 2006 than he was in 2009. That’s certainly borne out in the percent of his shots that were within 3 feet (notably higher in 2006, in both regular season and playoffs), as well as in having a decent bit more FTA per game despite having a notably lower offensive load. Which seems rather important to me, given that a huge part of his dominance in the 2006 playoffs was a result of his incredible rim pressure.
As I have noted before, it doesn't make much sense to advocate for guys like 09 Wade, who were eliminated in the 1st round, then criticise Kawhi for getting a random injury in the WCFs.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
70sFan wrote:Is there any skill-related reason to pick 2006 Wade over 2009?
I think he was even quicker and therefore better able to get to get to the rim in 2006 than he was in 2009. That’s certainly borne out in the percent of his shots that were within 3 feet (notably higher in 2006, in both regular season and playoffs), as well as in having a decent bit more FTA per game despite having a notably lower offensive load. Which seems rather important to me, given that a huge part of his dominance in the 2006 playoffs was a result of his incredible rim pressure.
As I have noted before, it doesn't make much sense to advocate for guys like 09 Wade, who were eliminated in the 1st round, then criticise Kawhi for getting a random injury in the WCFs.
Thankfully I will vote for 2017 Kawhi when we get there.
One_and_Done wrote: As I have noted before, it doesn't make much sense to advocate for guys like 09 Wade, who were eliminated in the 1st round, then criticise Kawhi for getting a random injury in the WCFs.
I would agree with that which I've said before that getting injured from perhaps even an intentional act from another player is not quite the same as just kind of wearing down and popping an achilles or something. Also, he already had 2 rds in the books at that point and was having a huge game, outplaying both KD&Steph while up 25 in the 3rd quarter on the supposed goat team when it happened. Had it happened in game 4 or 5 with the series at 3-1 or 2-2 it changes a lot of perception imo.
One_and_Done wrote: As I have noted before, it doesn't make much sense to advocate for guys like 09 Wade, who were eliminated in the 1st round, then criticise Kawhi for getting a random injury in the WCFs.
I would agree with that which I've said before that getting injured from perhaps even an intentional act from another player is not quite the same as just kind of wearing down and popping an achilles or something. Also, he already had 2 rds in the books at that point and was having a huge game, outplaying both KD&Steph while up 25 in the 3rd quarter on the supposed goat team when it happened. Had it happened in game 4 or 5 with the series at 3-1 or 2-2 it changes a lot of perception imo.
We don't know if the Spurs would have won this game with Kawhi, but we all know that the series would then end at 4-1 instead of 4-0.
70sFan wrote:We don't know if the Spurs would have won this game with Kawhi, but we all know that the series would then end at 4-1 instead of 4-0.
I don't know that. I don't think anyone knows that tbh. It seems somewhat likely they would have still won 4-1 but I don't think things like that can be assumed in sports. Having said that, I don't think this point is particularly relevant to the larger discussion. At the very least without the injury Kawhi likely has a 35-40 pt game and the Spurs go up 1-0. Kawhi in 2017 to me is the one perimeter guy who comes close to matching LeBron's two way impact in his 09-13 years since the 90's.
One_and_Done wrote: As I have noted before, it doesn't make much sense to advocate for guys like 09 Wade, who were eliminated in the 1st round, then criticise Kawhi for getting a random injury in the WCFs.
I would agree with that which I've said before that getting injured from perhaps even an intentional act from another player is not quite the same as just kind of wearing down and popping an achilles or something. Also, he already had 2 rds in the books at that point and was having a huge game, outplaying both KD&Steph while up 25 in the 3rd quarter on the supposed goat team when it happened. Had it happened in game 4 or 5 with the series at 3-1 or 2-2 it changes a lot of perception imo.
We don't know if the Spurs would have won this game with Kawhi, but we all know that the series would then end at 4-1 instead of 4-0.
Cavsfansince84 wrote: I would agree with that which I've said before that getting injured from perhaps even an intentional act from another player is not quite the same as just kind of wearing down and popping an achilles or something. Also, he already had 2 rds in the books at that point and was having a huge game, outplaying both KD&Steph while up 25 in the 3rd quarter on the supposed goat team when it happened. Had it happened in game 4 or 5 with the series at 3-1 or 2-2 it changes a lot of perception imo.
We don't know if the Spurs would have won this game with Kawhi, but we all know that the series would then end at 4-1 instead of 4-0.
That seems a bit presumptuous
How? Do you genuinely doubt that the Warriors would have dominated this Spurs team? Based on one half of the first game?
70sFan wrote:We don't know if the Spurs would have won this game with Kawhi, but we all know that the series would then end at 4-1 instead of 4-0.
That seems a bit presumptuous
How? Do you genuinely doubt that the Warriors would have dominated this Spurs team? Based on one half of the first game?
Yeah, basically. I recall extreme confidence on this board that the 2025 Thunder would put away the Nuggets with ease, and then that shockingly ended up being a 7 game series. Which:
For reference, the Warriors had an implied 88% win probability in this series based on Vegas odds. The Thunder entered their ongoing second round series against Denver with an implied win probability of 85%. When Denver went on to win Game 1, the odds shifted such that the Thunder had an implied win probability of 72%.
The Spurs were up 23 halfway through the third quarter when Zaza injured Kawhi. The Warriors ended up winning by 2. I'm quite confident the Spurs win Game 1 had the injury not occurred, though others may be skeptical.
And then: Can I say that I "know" that the Warriors would have rattled off four straight wins after that? No, not really. My guess is that they end up winning in 6, but maybe they end up winning in 5. Or 7. Who knows?
Amazing. People are voting for a guy who is a transition merchant, has absolutely 0 HC game, at the top 5 (not even top 10). Can only play off-ball and rim protect.
I now, therefore dub realgm PC Board, as part of Giannis FC
Top10alltime wrote:Amazing. People are voting for a guy who is a transition merchant, has absolutely 0 HC game, at the top 5 (not even top 10). Can only play off-ball and rim protect.
I now, therefore dub realgm PC Board, as part of Giannis FC
Giannis:
RealGM:
A transition merchant who somehow led his team to a title. It strikes me as similar to dismissing Shaq as 'a dunk merchant'. Like, if the other team can't stop it, who cares?
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
