Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #7-#8 Spots

[falcolombardi]

He’s around +1 rTS from 1996–1998 if you take out round 1 games. To be honest, it’s really quite pedestrian given how high his FT rate was on most touch fouls on the perimeter.



But these Bulls teams had high rORtgs, so while Jordan’s efficiency was mediocre at best, the Bulls had good offenses due to a combination of a great system, offensive rebounding, Pippen’s playmaking, Jordan’s turnover economy and playmaking, and so on. SGA’s teams haven’t had these.

Correct me if i am wrong but does this say 98 or 97 jordan got more free throws than shai despite taking a career low amount of shots at the paint? That is rather striking for all the grief shai has got (while being a league leader in drives last 2 years)

I would argue shai turnover economy and ability to get to the line or playmake after drawing help was the only thingh keeping okc offense above water for much of the playoffs and even regular season (when he had a striking on/off offensively for all we are drawing conclusions from the volatility of playoffs sample size on/off)

Like djoker showed from ben data his +5 luck adjusted r-ortg in a team of defensive specialists with limited offensive skillsets using so much energy on defense (and a wrist injured and still developing 3rd year co star with well below average shooting efficiency after the first round) is a rather solid result

No, you’re correct—1996 to 1998 Jordan was the recipient of an extremely generous whistle on many, many touch fouls on the perimeter and quite a few away from the ball fouls.

See what happens in the 1996 Finals in which a generous whistle made the scoring numbers look respectable.

Spoiler:

I tracked all the plays that got Jordan FTs and when you look at it, booted by a very, very generous whistle. Very few of these fouls did he even create but were just granted to him. The only game I didn’t track game five in which he only shot 5 FTs.

Game 1

Watch on YouTube

25:00 video, six minutes left in the 2nd, Hawkins put hands on Jordan and it's called foul on floor.
43:00 video, 7:35 reach in foul on perimeter on floor
55:00 Under 2:00, foul, 2 FTs off of a back screen rim run, Bill Walton talks about a push off
57:10 under 2:00 foul at the basket, 2fts
59:00 flagrant foul on Frank Brickowski on Rodman, then two technicals, Jordan takes 2 FTs.
1:01.15, 1:13 left in the second quarter,  touch foul called, Jordan takes 2 FTs 
1:06 discussion about Seattle’s zone defense, according to Phil Jackson
2:02,.10, 1 minute left in the game, weak foul on a paint jumper, 2 FTs 

game 2 

Watch on YouTube

31:40, 1:15 left in 1st quarter, bump out by three point line, sonics in penalty, 2 fts
34:20, 15 seconds left in 1st quarter, illegal defense, 1 FT
53:40, 4:30 left in 2nd qyarter, jordan makes baseline move, foul on floor, sonics over the limit, 2 FTs
1:18.40, 10 minutes left in 3rd, illegal defense, 1 ft 
1:20.20, 9 minutes left reach in foul on perimeter
1:22, 8:15 min left in third, post move towards basket grab, 2 fts
1:44, 10:30 left in 4th, Jordan with baseline line move, phantom foul, 2 fts
1:58.30, 3:58 left in the 4th, Jordan drive, looked like a good part of the ball by Kemp, 2 fts
2:05.58, 1:31 left in 4th, offensive rebound by Jordan, foul on Hawkins, 2 fts, hard to see as video cut out)
2:07.30, 30 seconds left in 4th, drive to basket, 2 fts


Game 3

https://www.facebook.com/Michael.J0rdan/videos/1996-nba-finals-game-3-seattle-supersonics-vs-chicago-bulls/1668979053245025/

10:30, 5 minutes left in the first quarter, 15 foot fadeaway touch foul, 2fts
18:45, 10 minutes left in the second quarter, grabbing foul on Gary Payton, on the floor, no FTs 
30:30, 4:30 left in second quarter, drive to the basket, weak bump foul, 2 FTs 
31:50, 3:35 left in the second quarter, defensive rebound foul, sonics over the limit, two FTs
38:30, :50 left in the second quarter, long inbounds pass, bumped on the catch, 2fts
1:05.20, 11 minutes left in the fourth quarter, 20 foot pull up touch phantom foul, 1ft
1:13.30, 5:50 left in 4th, touch foul out on the perimeter, sonics in the penalty, 2 FTs

Game 4

Watch on YouTube

10:26 perimeter touch foul on Pippen on Gary Payton

11:30, 5:00 left in first quarter Gary Payton touch foul on Jordan in the post away from the ball, 5 minutes left in the first quarter

13:38, 3:55 left in the first quarter Jordan attacked the basket from the post. Brickowski makes contact, but looks like he's going straight up and bump him, 2 free throws

32:26, 6:13 left in the second quarter, touch, foul on Gary Payton defending Jordan in the post away from the ball

33:51 under 5:50 in the quarter, offensive foul on Jordan looks like a push off, but not really much contact

41:46, under 24 seconds, absolute touch foul of minimal contact out on the perimeter

51:00, nine minutes left in the third-quarter, technical fell on Frank Bukowski after Dennis Rodman shenanigans, one free throw

53:20, 8:30+ left in the third quarter, technical foul on Detlef Schrempf, one free throw

1:02, 4:40 left in the third-quarter, Jordan gets an and-1 on a fast break, one free throw

1:05, 3:50 left in the third-quarter, reach in foul on the perimeter. Looks like all ball by David Wingate, two free throws.

1:09, 1:50 left in the third quarter, rtechnical foul on David winger , one free throw

1:09, 1:50 left in the third quarter, away from the ball foul in the post, two free throws

1:22, 8:30 left in the fourth quarter, touch, fell on the perimeter, called a pushing foul

1:23.36, 7:45left in the fourth, touch foul looks like a phantom foul in the post, an and-1, one free throw

1:29.2, 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter, Jordan gets an offensive rebound and there's a touch file called on Gary Payton, slight push in the back, 2 free throws


1996 bulls vs. Sonics game 6

Watch on YouTube

18:00, 8:00 left in 1st, drive and bump, 2fts 
25:45, 3:25 left in 1st, 20 ft fadeaway touch foul, 2fts
35:40, 11:00 left in 2nd qtr, drive to basket, looked like Jordan jumped into defender, 2fts 
59:30, 5 seconds left in 2nd, touch foul on perimeter and Sonics in penalty, 2fts
1:07.30, 8:08 left in third, touch foul on perimeter jumper, 2fts 
1:27.45, 10 minutes left in 4th, attacks basket, 2fts 

This post wouldnt belong in this thread, (albeit i agree jordan seems to have got buoyed at his 30's by a decently generous whistle)

[Djoker]

Does jordan 96-98 still have significatively better rts without the first round beatdowns on teams like miami?

Like if shai had an amazing series vs memphis and raised his rts it would change literally nothingh for okc playoff record or how their run is evaluated other than saying they blew memphis by 20 points a game instead of 15

He’s around +1 rTS from 1996–1998 if you take out round 1 games. To be honest, it’s really quite pedestrian given how high his FT rate was on most touch fouls on the perimeter.



But these Bulls teams had high rORtgs, so while Jordan’s efficiency was mediocre at best, the Bulls had good offenses due to a combination of a great system, offensive rebounding, Pippen’s playmaking, Jordan’s turnover economy and playmaking, and so on. SGA’s teams haven’t had these.

Correct me if i am wrong but does this say 98 or 97 jordan got more free throws than shai despite taking a career low amount of shots at the paint? That is rather striking for all the grief shai has got (while being a league leader in drives last 2 years)

I would argue shai turnover economy and ability to get to the line or playmake after drawing help was the only thingh keeping okc offense above water for much of the playoffs and even regular season (when he had a striking on/off offensively for all we are drawing conclusions from the volatility of playoffs sample size on/off)

Like djoker showed from ben data his +5 luck adjusted r-ortg in a team of defensive specialists with limited offensive skillsets using so much energy on defense (and a wrist injured and still developing 3rd year co star with well below average shooting efficiency after the first round) is a rather solid result

+5 luck-adjusted is solid as you said. But it isn't great. Most of the guys also under consideration here achieved much higher numbers as I posted. And there's also the issue of how valid the adjustment is. Even Ben mentions that the adjustment isn't based on optical tracking data but just raw 3PT%. There is optical tracking for 2025 OKC but it isn't available for anyone before 2014 so Ben just did a simple adjustment based on shooting efficiency. It doesn't consider potential losses in efficiency due to shots being less open, late in the shot clock, out of rhythm etc. Basically +5 is the absolute best case scenario and at the end it just isn't an impressive number anyway.

And the playoff ON-OFF just doesn't look good. I 100% agree it's volatile due to a low sample size but it still isn't a good data point. All these things add up.

[Cavsfansince84]

+5 luck-adjusted is solid as you said. But it isn't great. Most of the guys also under consideration here achieved much higher numbers as I posted. And there's also the issue of how valid the adjustment is. Even Ben mentions that the adjustment isn't based on optical tracking data but just raw 3PT%. There is optical tracking for 2025 OKC but it isn't available for anyone before 2014 so Ben just did a simple adjustment based on shooting efficiency. It doesn't consider potential losses in efficiency due to shots being less open, late in the shot clock, out of rhythm etc. Basically +5 is the absolute best case scenario and at the end it just isn't an impressive number anyway.

And the playoff ON-OFF just doesn't look good. I 100% agree it's volatile due to a low sample size but it still isn't a good data point. All these things add up.

Here is my issue(really just one issue among a few) that I have with how on/off can be used on here. Like take game 6 of the finals for instance. The Pacers went into the 4th qtr with a 30 pt lead, both teams empty their benches halfway into the 4th and Okc's bench outscores Indy's by a bunch to make it a 17 pt loss. Shai actually only had a -17 in 31 minutes but stuff like that happens sometimes and its pretty much meaningless in the bigger picture of the series but its part of the data. It didn't matter whether they lost by 17 or by 40 but in this case Okc's scores a bunch in the final minutes while Indy only scored 9 pts in the final 8 min. Which is why I dislike any one stat being used as some kind of bottom line because they all have weaknesses.

[Djoker]

+5 luck-adjusted is solid as you said. But it isn't great. Most of the guys also under consideration here achieved much higher numbers as I posted. And there's also the issue of how valid the adjustment is. Even Ben mentions that the adjustment isn't based on optical tracking data but just raw 3PT%. There is optical tracking for 2025 OKC but it isn't available for anyone before 2014 so Ben just did a simple adjustment based on shooting efficiency. It doesn't consider potential losses in efficiency due to shots being less open, late in the shot clock, out of rhythm etc. Basically +5 is the absolute best case scenario and at the end it just isn't an impressive number anyway.

And the playoff ON-OFF just doesn't look good. I 100% agree it's volatile due to a low sample size but it still isn't a good data point. All these things add up.

Here is my issue(really just one issue among a few) that I have with how on/off can be used on here. Like take game 6 of the finals for instance. The Pacers went into the 4th qtr with a 30 pt lead, both teams empty their benches halfway into the 4th and Okc's bench outscores Indy's by a bunch to make it a 17 pt loss. Shai actually only had a -17 in 31 minutes but stuff like that happens sometimes and its pretty much meaningless in the bigger picture of the series but its part of the data. It didn't matter whether they lost by 17 or by 40 but in this case Okc's scores a bunch in the final minutes while Indy only scored 9 pts in the final 8 min. Which is why I dislike any one stat being used as some kind of bottom line because they all have weaknesses.

Ya that's called garbage time. One would hope it cancels out over larger samples i.e. there's gonna be some games where the Thunder benchwarmers do horrible in garbage time.

Like I said it's a small sample for SGA so yea... I wouldn't put AS MUCH stock in it as if he had 10 years/150 games worth of playoff data. At that stage, this poor level of data would be disqualifying. At 33 games, it's not but it's still worrying. Where I have a problem is when people completely excuse or pretend it doesn't exist. A small sample of a poor signal is still a poor signal. You can choose to largely ignore it and just use his regular season numbers to build the bulk of his case. And that's probably fine but it's just not my approach. I see a player's playoff level as their real level. I can cut him a bit of slack between a small sample, poor shooting variance etc. but not that much. If the sample is small, I'll still give precedence to other players who proved it over a larger sample. SGA still has room to improve (or perhaps worsen) his case. Then again, 33 games isn't even that small of a sample. T-Mac's case is holding on by an even smaller playoff sample. It's tough but at some point we take what we can get.

[Cavsfansince84]

Ya that's called garbage time. One would hope it cancels out over larger samples i.e. there's gonna be some games where the Thunder benchwarmers do horrible in garbage time.

Like I said it's a small sample for SGA so yea... I wouldn't put AS MUCH stock in it as if he had 10 years/150 games worth of playoff data. At that stage, this poor level of data would be disqualifying. At 33 games, it's not but it's still worrying. Where I have a problem is when people completely excuse or pretend it doesn't exist. A small sample of a poor signal is still a poor signal. You can choose to largely ignore it and just use his regular season numbers to build the bulk of his case. And that's probably fine but it's just not my approach. I see a player's playoff level as their real level. I can cut him a bit of slack between a small sample, poor shooting variance etc. but not that much. If the sample is small, I'll still give precedence to other players who proved it over a larger sample. SGA still has room to improve (or perhaps worsen) his case. Then again, 33 games isn't even that small of a sample. T-Mac's case is holding on by an even smaller playoff sample. It's tough but at some point we take what we can get.

I don't think this is really about people acting like this data doesn't exist so much as it feels this is the main thing you are using which is also in a very small sample. So all I'm doing is pointing out the flaw in this one data set which is also why I don't like when people read too much into just one statistic. So it's just not nearly as relevant as you are trying to make it out to be imo. Why don't we look at rs on/off while we are doing this as well and it shouldn't just be about Shai v Kobe either since there are 5-6 other guys getting on ballots now.

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, can't procrastinate any further on this, but man, do I find all of this hard.

Vote:

1. Shai-Gilgeous Alexander (25 > 24 > 23)
2. Dwyane Wade (09 > 10 > 06)
3. Kobe Bryant (09 > 08 > 01)
4. Kevin Durant (14 > 16 > 17)

So, with SGA, with him peaking last season decisively, in many ways we've got the least certainty about him, and so I'd say it kinda starts to have us lean on the side of skepticism. If '24-25 proves to be a fluke season, it will be embarrassing to have Shai this high, no doubt about it.

I'm not really looking to predict that Shai proves those skeptics wrong here, so much as I just have to say that while I see the indicators of Shai's Thunder offense being less effective in the playoffs, and I understand the concerns about Shai helio ball being too static, the playoffs remain a small sample size, and in the 2025 small sample size, Shai's team beat all comers in the most competitive era we've ever had.

I've made no secret about Shai's bizarrely huge lead in raw +/- in the regular season made it very difficult not to pick him as my MVP over Jokic, and I ranked Jokic #3 overall here, so frankly, I think people who were paying attention to me aren't surprised, even if they may see some signs of winning bias in there.

For me then, it becomes a question of how far down a guy drop in my assessment when he still has huge alpha production, huge alpha minutes, and his team outscores opponents by 9.6 per 100 in the playoffs, and so here's the answer I suppose.

I may regret it, but it was a hell of a season.

After Shai, my list looks a lot like Ben's, and I won't pretend that's coincidental. With Wade in particular I think I've previously had my perception of his BBIQ in a kind of box. It's not like I couldn't remember Wade making great passes, and I've always loved his motor, but my instinct was to more to group him with Giannis, and their episode reminded me of what a different experience it was watching Wade.

By a similar token, I buy into Kobe's all-around savantness in a way I don't with a lot of other candidates here. I'm critical of Kobe yes, there's a lot of good there.

But one place I struggle with Wade & Kobe vs Shai is in saying something like "Put them in Shai's role in it would be better." I mean, do we think that if Wade & Kobe jacking up long 2's like they did, it would improve on Shai? I don't really think so.

So then we're talking about something along the lines of "they could have learned to do it better if they'd just known that was the better approach", and yeah, maybe. But I'm also coming from the perspective of seeing a revolution come about beginning in '04-05, and Kobe (among others) being quite stubborn to embrace a move toward higher efficiency shots for literally the next decade plus.

A clone of Kobe raised today might be able to be a better Shai than Shai, but actual Kobe was taking bread off the table by doing this compared to what Shai does. Is it enough bread to swing the comparison? I don't know, but as much as I don't want to look back and cringe at how I overrated Shai, I also don't want the fear of cringe to knock Shai down until I feel I'm in line with others.

With Wade I don't want to allege the same stubbornness to be clear, but I would say this is a slippery slope for me.

For the last spot, I'm giving KD the nod. I see him as lacking in general wherewithal compared to the other guys I mentioned above, but he's combination of shoot, height, and athleticism (particularly earlier in his career) is special. Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

In terms of other guys on my mind:

Nash - a better offensive player than any of these guys, and not as bad of an everyday defender as people tend to say, but I do think that all the players on my ballot have significant defensive advantages when locked in in the playoffs.

Dirk - it's hard for me to pick KD over Dirk, but I realize that that's got a good amount of career-oriented judgment in it as a bias. I do think KD is the better physical talent, and I do think he largely showed us that in 2014 without any of the crazy yet in the way.

Kawhi - I might be too low on him at this point. Hard for me to muster enthusiasm for him. What I can definitely grant though is that it's a shame he got hurt in the 2017 Warriors series. Had he pulled off the upset and led the team to the chip, that would have been absolutely legendary.

Paul - hardly a given that Nash, or really anyone here, should be above Paul, but while Paul's health issues aren't Kawhi or Embiid level generally, they've really gotten in the way repeatedly over the course of playoff runs.

Last I'll just say that I will always be thinking about Ginobili. Very hard to know where to place him, but I would say he was the player I most underrated in his era.

[Jaivl]

#7 Giannis Antetokounmpo (2025 > 2022 > 2021)
#8 Dwyane Wade (2010 > 09 > 06)

Same as in the previous thread.

I assume it is because so often he is surrounded with 4-out spacing and Giannis hogs the paint and rim attempts for his teams.

Giannis simply doesn't have strong offensive impact indicators, which is why to me as his defense begins to slip in 2023 his overall impact starts to stray from being in this discussion to not being in the discussion at all. It is also why Jokic seems to have separated himself from Giannis in 2023 to current day.

Yeah, that's why I don't get it why some people vote for 2025 Giannis. He might be a better offensive player at this point (is this true? I wonder if there is any significant difference) but without elite defensive profile Gianni's just can't touch the other players in the conversation. He's clearly the weakest offensive player mentioned here (well, maybe except Butler but O_a_D mentions him only to trash Kobe, so I don't count him) and he really needs to juice up his defensive advantage to remain in the discussion.

I actually don't think we're far apart in terms of perception -- his defense is quite weaker than 5 years ago, but his offense is quite better too. I mentioned his skillset advancements (actually having a fadeaway and a decent midrange shot as counters, plus his Shaq-like interior scoring, capable ballhandling, etc) on the previous thread, but also the team signals, in terms of rim% and 3pt% unsurprisingly see a huge swing (71.1% vs 64.2%, 39.6% vs 37.4%). Many more FTs too, of course.

I don't disagree at all that he needs an elite defense to shine as an ATG, especially in his usual comparisons. I'm not comparing him with Duncan or KG here, though, but with Kawhi or Davis. I see his 2025 iteration as sort of a 2019 Kawhi in terms of offensive/defensive split, maybe an all-D 3rd or 4th team if there existed such a thing. Rim protection numbers were pedestrian this season (slightly less attempts, slightly better FG%), but I think the potential to be much better than that, maybe at around ~90% of his defensive prime, is still there.

And I think I'd still have his 2021/2022 version at this exact same spot, so no biggie. It's just arguing for the sake of it.

#9 Kobe Bryant (2008 > 2009)
Years are interchangeable to me. He's basically the same player, he just didn't have to face the Celtics in '09. 2008 ahead because his team's offense depended more on him that year. Gasol made a mini-leap in '09.

#10 Kawhi Leonard (2017 > 2016)
Okay, okay, I'm voting 2017. With the caveat that he'd be #7 if he were fully healthy.

HM: Dirk, Durant, Davis. No Shai yet for me. He's with Paul, Nash, Harden.

Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

[iggymcfrack]

Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Yeah, this seems wild to me. The Warriors were already being talked about as possibly the best team of all-time before KD even joined. Remember when they won the title and then started the next season 24-0? You could have added Al Horford to the Warriors the summer of 2016 and they probably become the best team of all-time. They were an incredibly loaded team and KD's iso-ball wasn't exactly a hand in glove fit.

[Doctor MJ]

#7 Giannis Antetokounmpo (2025 > 2022 > 2021)
#8 Dwyane Wade (2010 > 09 > 06)

Same as in the previous thread.

I assume it is because so often he is surrounded with 4-out spacing and Giannis hogs the paint and rim attempts for his teams.

Giannis simply doesn't have strong offensive impact indicators, which is why to me as his defense begins to slip in 2023 his overall impact starts to stray from being in this discussion to not being in the discussion at all. It is also why Jokic seems to have separated himself from Giannis in 2023 to current day.

Yeah, that's why I don't get it why some people vote for 2025 Giannis. He might be a better offensive player at this point (is this true? I wonder if there is any significant difference) but without elite defensive profile Gianni's just can't touch the other players in the conversation. He's clearly the weakest offensive player mentioned here (well, maybe except Butler but O_a_D mentions him only to trash Kobe, so I don't count him) and he really needs to juice up his defensive advantage to remain in the discussion.

I actually don't think we're far apart in terms of perception -- his defense is quite weaker than 5 years ago, but his offense is quite better too. I mentioned his skillset advancements (actually having a fadeaway and a decent midrange shot as counters, plus his Shaq-like interior scoring, capable ballhandling, etc) on the previous thread, but also the team signals, in terms of rim% and 3pt% unsurprisingly see a huge swing (71.1% vs 64.2%, 39.6% vs 37.4%). Many more FTs too, of course.

I don't disagree at all that he needs an elite defense to shine as an ATG, especially in his usual comparisons. I'm not comparing him with Duncan or KG here, though, but with Kawhi or Davis. I see his 2025 iteration as sort of a 2019 Kawhi in terms of offensive/defensive split, maybe an all-D 3rd or 4th team if there existed such a thing. Rim protection numbers were pedestrian this season (slightly less attempts, slightly better FG%), but I think the potential to be much better than that, maybe at around ~90% of his defensive prime, is still there.

And I think I'd still have his 2021/2022 version at this exact same spot, so no biggie. It's just arguing for the sake of it.

#9 Kobe Bryant (2008 > 2009)
Years are interchangeable to me. He's basically the same player, he just didn't have to face the Celtics in '09. 2008 ahead because his team's offense depended more on him that year. Gasol made a mini-leap in '09.

#10 Kawhi Leonard (2017 > 2016)
Okay, okay, I'm voting 2017. With the caveat that he'd be #7 if he were fully healthy.

HM: Dirk, Durant, Davis. No Shai yet for me. He's with Paul, Nash, Harden.

Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Well I’ll put it like this:

I don’t think it makes sense in offense for Dray to be out there with Giannis, so if you are playing them together, you’re hoping that the defensive improvement more than makes up for the poor offensive fit.

Regardless, playing with Giannis means playing Giannis-ball, which means relying on him to make the right pass when the defense swarms him, and for him to be able to do that, his teammates need to be in predictable places because Giannis lacks the awareness to know where his teammates are at all times. So that means Steph can’t be running all around causing chaos, which means the defense can treat him like a more normal catch and shoot guy good enough you can’t sag off him. That makes him valuable of course still, but not as valuable as him playing how Kerr has him play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Yeah, this seems wild to me. The Warriors were already being talked about as possibly the best team of all-time before KD even joined. Remember when they won the title and then started the next season 24-0? You could have added Al Horford to the Warriors the summer of 2016 and they probably become the best team of all-time. They were an incredibly loaded team and KD's iso-ball wasn't exactly a hand in glove fit.

Adding Horford doesn’t force you to scrap Kerr’s offense. Horford’s intelligence and shooting would be a boon to the offense, and he would also help their defense.

Re: KD iso-ball. Eh, KD has never been an iso guy as I see him. He’s a scorer first and foremost, but he’s not someone you look clear out for and let him cook like Giannis. Yeah he drives when the opportunity opens up enough, but he’s mostly looking to just rise up and shoot.

Meanwhile, the threat of KD in the half court had everything to do with why the Warriors were so bullet proof in the playoffs in a way they weren’t the prior year. If the defense wanted to sell out completely to stop Kerr’s motion offense, KD was perfectly suited to take advantage as a more traditional volume scoring mid range guy.

Finally I’ll just say:

Many super-teams have tried to combine star talents to make the greatest team in history, but only one did. I’m quite hesitant to assume that the guy they added which helped them achieve this can be replaced and improved by either

A) another star talent who is a worse fit

B) a role player who can’t be your go-to scorer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReggiesKnicks]

Many super-teams have tried to combine star talents to make the greatest team in history, but only one did. I’m quite hesitant to assume that the guy they added which helped them achieve this can be replaced and improved by either

A) another star talent who is a worse fit

B) a role player who can’t be your go-to scorer

Hmm...why is that?

The Celtics in 2008 were exceptional, same with the 2013 Heat, the 2021 Brooklyn Nets also showed a lot in limited minutes.

The 2008 Celtics underperformed in the post-season but still won the title and dominated the regular season.
The 2013 Heat had already started seeing Wade decline but had one of the best stretches of basketball ever.
The 2021 Nets had moments but injuries kept them from staying together.

What is different between these teams and the Warriors isn't "The Warriors worked because of Durant and the other teams didn't work because they had Durant", nor is it because of Curry or Kerr's system.

The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.

The Celtics had to trade part of their roster and assets for Kevin Garnett.
The Heat in 2011 had no bench since they had to sign Bosh/Wade/LeBron to slightly max deals, but then once they did flesh out credible role players in 2013, Wade was no longer what he was.
The Nets had to make trades and had injuries.

This whole idea that the Warriors succeeded because of system or the players and these other rosters didn't get to the same levels because of what you are insinuating is incorrect. Curry was signed to a below-max deal as a unanimous MVP, the NBA saw the single largest salary cap increase in NBA history, and Kevin Durant saw free agency when seldom do Top 5 players in the NBA hit free agency.

[falcolombardi]

#7 Giannis Antetokounmpo (2025 > 2022 > 2021)
#8 Dwyane Wade (2010 > 09 > 06)

Same as in the previous thread.

Yeah, that's why I don't get it why some people vote for 2025 Giannis. He might be a better offensive player at this point (is this true? I wonder if there is any significant difference) but without elite defensive profile Gianni's just can't touch the other players in the conversation. He's clearly the weakest offensive player mentioned here (well, maybe except Butler but O_a_D mentions him only to trash Kobe, so I don't count him) and he really needs to juice up his defensive advantage to remain in the discussion.

I actually don't think we're far apart in terms of perception -- his defense is quite weaker than 5 years ago, but his offense is quite better too. I mentioned his skillset advancements (actually having a fadeaway and a decent midrange shot as counters, plus his Shaq-like interior scoring, capable ballhandling, etc) on the previous thread, but also the team signals, in terms of rim% and 3pt% unsurprisingly see a huge swing (71.1% vs 64.2%, 39.6% vs 37.4%). Many more FTs too, of course.

I don't disagree at all that he needs an elite defense to shine as an ATG, especially in his usual comparisons. I'm not comparing him with Duncan or KG here, though, but with Kawhi or Davis. I see his 2025 iteration as sort of a 2019 Kawhi in terms of offensive/defensive split, maybe an all-D 3rd or 4th team if there existed such a thing. Rim protection numbers were pedestrian this season (slightly less attempts, slightly better FG%), but I think the potential to be much better than that, maybe at around ~90% of his defensive prime, is still there.

And I think I'd still have his 2021/2022 version at this exact same spot, so no biggie. It's just arguing for the sake of it.

#9 Kobe Bryant (2008 > 2009)
Years are interchangeable to me. He's basically the same player, he just didn't have to face the Celtics in '09. 2008 ahead because his team's offense depended more on him that year. Gasol made a mini-leap in '09.

#10 Kawhi Leonard (2017 > 2016)
Okay, okay, I'm voting 2017. With the caveat that he'd be #7 if he were fully healthy.

HM: Dirk, Durant, Davis. No Shai yet for me. He's with Paul, Nash, Harden.

Him going to the Warriors complicated his legacy, but it also produced the best team in history which is something that frankly I just don't see happening with Giannis, who I strongly considered.

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Well I’ll put it like this:

I don’t think it makes sense in offense for Dray to be out there with Giannis, so if you are playing them together, you’re hoping that the defensive improvement more than makes up for the poor offensive fit.

Regardless, playing with Giannis means playing Giannis-ball, which means relying on him to make the right pass when the defense swarms him, and for him to be able to do that, his teammates need to be in predictable places because Giannis lacks the awareness to know where his teammates are at all times. So that means Steph can’t be running all around causing chaos, which means the defense can treat him like a more normal catch and shoot guy good enough you can’t sag off him. That makes him valuable of course still, but not as valuable as him playing how Kerr has him play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is like saying portability is how well you slot in the curry warriors specifically and not how well you fit ín all sort of contexts, which incidentally, is how often it feels ben thinks subconsciously or otherwise about portability or ceiling raising, where everythingh seems to be judged based on how well it resembles or fits around curry/kerrball

Giannis may be a worse fit around draymond/curry but he would be a better fit with his driving and defense on other kind of rosters

He provides other kind of off ball value (defense, fast break) compared to durant shooting and can also elevate teams to all time status even if you assume (debatably) he couldnt elevate the...already all time great warriors to all time greater by replacing harrison barnes

[Doctor MJ]

Many super-teams have tried to combine star talents to make the greatest team in history, but only one did. I’m quite hesitant to assume that the guy they added which helped them achieve this can be replaced and improved by either

A) another star talent who is a worse fit

B) a role player who can’t be your go-to scorer

Hmm...why is that?

The Celtics in 2008 were exceptional, same with the 2013 Heat, the 2021 Brooklyn Nets also showed a lot in limited minutes.

The 2008 Celtics underperformed in the post-season but still won the title and dominated the regular season.
The 2013 Heat had already started seeing Wade decline but had one of the best stretches of basketball ever.
The 2021 Nets had moments but injuries kept them from staying together.

What is different between these teams and the Warriors isn't "The Warriors worked because of Durant and the other teams didn't work because they had Durant", nor is it because of Curry or Kerr's system.

The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.

The Celtics had to trade part of their roster and assets for Kevin Garnett.
The Heat in 2011 had no bench since they had to sign Bosh/Wade/LeBron to slightly max deals, but then once they did flesh out credible role players in 2013, Wade was no longer what he was.
The Nets had to make trades and had injuries.

This whole idea that the Warriors succeeded because of system or the players and these other rosters didn't get to the same levels because of what you are insinuating is incorrect. Curry was signed to a below-max deal as a unanimous MVP, the NBA saw the single largest salary cap increase in NBA history, and Kevin Durant saw free agency when seldom do Top 5 players in the NBA hit free agency.

I mean, if you just want to say that all that matters is the sum of talent on the roster, then we just plain disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReggiesKnicks]

Many super-teams have tried to combine star talents to make the greatest team in history, but only one did. I’m quite hesitant to assume that the guy they added which helped them achieve this can be replaced and improved by either

A) another star talent who is a worse fit

B) a role player who can’t be your go-to scorer

Hmm...why is that?

The Celtics in 2008 were exceptional, same with the 2013 Heat, the 2021 Brooklyn Nets also showed a lot in limited minutes.

The 2008 Celtics underperformed in the post-season but still won the title and dominated the regular season.
The 2013 Heat had already started seeing Wade decline but had one of the best stretches of basketball ever.
The 2021 Nets had moments but injuries kept them from staying together.

What is different between these teams and the Warriors isn't "The Warriors worked because of Durant and the other teams didn't work because they had Durant", nor is it because of Curry or Kerr's system.

The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.

The Celtics had to trade part of their roster and assets for Kevin Garnett.
The Heat in 2011 had no bench since they had to sign Bosh/Wade/LeBron to slightly max deals, but then once they did flesh out credible role players in 2013, Wade was no longer what he was.
The Nets had to make trades and had injuries.

This whole idea that the Warriors succeeded because of system or the players and these other rosters didn't get to the same levels because of what you are insinuating is incorrect. Curry was signed to a below-max deal as a unanimous MVP, the NBA saw the single largest salary cap increase in NBA history, and Kevin Durant saw free agency when seldom do Top 5 players in the NBA hit free agency.

I mean, if you just want to say that all that matters is the sum of talent on the roster, then we just plain disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that isn't all I am saying, but which of the teams you deem as "super teams" had Klay Thompson as the clear-cut 4th best player and Andre Iguodala as the 5th best piece?

We can move beyond that though. The Heat, Celtics and Nets all lacked a foundation. They didn't have a nucleus which went to back-to-back NBA Finals and were a couple baskets short or a nut-kick away from winning back-to-back titles prior to the addition of Kevin Durant. They had a system which was tested and true and all the players sans Durant knew the system and their roles. Ironically, the player who struggled most in 2017 was Klay Thompson, whose skill-set is move and shoot, move and shoot, think about dribbling and shoot.

The Miami Heat had a relatively new coach and had to build a system. The Nets never had time to gel due to injuries and also had a coach who hasn't been considered for any vacancies over the past 2 years (I know you will say "Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving got him fired", which may be true, but the fact is Nash hasn't gotten another opportunity). The Celtics were one of the best defenses ever while Garnett in 2008 approached the On-Court ratings of that Warriors team.

My point is the Warriors had a structure and system in place and then added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need. The Celtics, Heat and Nets all lacked that, some stripped part of their core to acquire a player to make the super team and on different occasions the Celtics and Heat resembled the greatest team of all-time.

[lessthanjake]

Last I'll just say that I will always be thinking about Ginobili. Very hard to know where to place him, but I would say he was the player I most underrated in his era.

Ginobili is definitely a bit of a wild card for me. I definitely don’t have him quite in the same tier with Wade/Dirk/SGA/Kawhi/Kobe/Giannis. However, there’s a tier after that for me that includes guys like Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Anthony Davis. I guess I lean against putting Ginobili in that tier, but I have to say that I’m not entirely convinced of that. Ginobili at his best was genuinely an incredibly impactful basketball player, and his 2005 playoff run was amazing. At the very least, even if I didn’t put him in the tier with the aforementioned guys, I think he’d really be headlining the next group of guys for me (probably along with Draymond).

[Doctor MJ]

#7 Giannis Antetokounmpo (2025 > 2022 > 2021)
#8 Dwyane Wade (2010 > 09 > 06)

Same as in the previous thread.


I actually don't think we're far apart in terms of perception -- his defense is quite weaker than 5 years ago, but his offense is quite better too. I mentioned his skillset advancements (actually having a fadeaway and a decent midrange shot as counters, plus his Shaq-like interior scoring, capable ballhandling, etc) on the previous thread, but also the team signals, in terms of rim% and 3pt% unsurprisingly see a huge swing (71.1% vs 64.2%, 39.6% vs 37.4%). Many more FTs too, of course.

I don't disagree at all that he needs an elite defense to shine as an ATG, especially in his usual comparisons. I'm not comparing him with Duncan or KG here, though, but with Kawhi or Davis. I see his 2025 iteration as sort of a 2019 Kawhi in terms of offensive/defensive split, maybe an all-D 3rd or 4th team if there existed such a thing. Rim protection numbers were pedestrian this season (slightly less attempts, slightly better FG%), but I think the potential to be much better than that, maybe at around ~90% of his defensive prime, is still there.

And I think I'd still have his 2021/2022 version at this exact same spot, so no biggie. It's just arguing for the sake of it.

#9 Kobe Bryant (2008 > 2009)
Years are interchangeable to me. He's basically the same player, he just didn't have to face the Celtics in '09. 2008 ahead because his team's offense depended more on him that year. Gasol made a mini-leap in '09.

#10 Kawhi Leonard (2017 > 2016)
Okay, okay, I'm voting 2017. With the caveat that he'd be #7 if he were fully healthy.

HM: Dirk, Durant, Davis. No Shai yet for me. He's with Paul, Nash, Harden.


You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Well I’ll put it like this:

I don’t think it makes sense in offense for Dray to be out there with Giannis, so if you are playing them together, you’re hoping that the defensive improvement more than makes up for the poor offensive fit.

Regardless, playing with Giannis means playing Giannis-ball, which means relying on him to make the right pass when the defense swarms him, and for him to be able to do that, his teammates need to be in predictable places because Giannis lacks the awareness to know where his teammates are at all times. So that means Steph can’t be running all around causing chaos, which means the defense can treat him like a more normal catch and shoot guy good enough you can’t sag off him. That makes him valuable of course still, but not as valuable as him playing how Kerr has him play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is like saying portability is how well you slot in the curry warriors specifically and not how well you fit ín all sort of contexts, which incidentally, is how often it feels ben thinks subconsciously or otherwise about portability or ceiling raising, where everythingh seems to be judged based on how well it resembles or fits around curry/kerrball

Giannis may be a worse fit around draymond/curry but he would be a better fit with his driving and defense on other kind of rosters

He provides other kind of off ball value (defense, fast break) compared to durant shooting and can also elevate teams to all time status even if you assume (debatably) he couldnt elevate the...already all time great warriors to all time greater by replacing harrison barnes

I mean, you’re responding to me as if I didn’t talk about defense as the place to make an argument for Giannis. I literally pointed to the path to use to rebut me, but instead you’re looking to rebut me for not talking about defense while throwing up a bunch of abstract labels and throwing Ben under the bus as if he’s somehow less thorough than people here.

Re: Giannis good for driving. Yup, that’s what he does, and while doing so he makes other interior players redundant and changes your scheme not to depend on high BBIQ, which makes your playoff offense more predictable and something less than optimally effective.

Might there be some new scheme that someone comes up with that is better than all that came before? Sure. Who would come up with that scheme? Presumably Kerr, who we’d be placing faith in to innovate after specifically acquiring talent that doesn’t allow his team to thrive in the only scheme he’s ever coached with. That or we fire him and bring in…who? I’d expect no one’s looking to advocate for any of Gianni’s’ actual coaches, so we’re talking about unknown innovations from unknown coaches here and just assuming it will happen. I’m cautious.

I think there are major ceiling concerns with Giannis-ball, and the fact that he’s never figured out to play any other way despite their being ample reason for him to do so makes me think that elite playoff offense and Giannis aren’t really things we should associate together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lessthanjake]

Hmm...why is that?

The Celtics in 2008 were exceptional, same with the 2013 Heat, the 2021 Brooklyn Nets also showed a lot in limited minutes.

The 2008 Celtics underperformed in the post-season but still won the title and dominated the regular season.
The 2013 Heat had already started seeing Wade decline but had one of the best stretches of basketball ever.
The 2021 Nets had moments but injuries kept them from staying together.

What is different between these teams and the Warriors isn't "The Warriors worked because of Durant and the other teams didn't work because they had Durant", nor is it because of Curry or Kerr's system.

The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.

The Celtics had to trade part of their roster and assets for Kevin Garnett.
The Heat in 2011 had no bench since they had to sign Bosh/Wade/LeBron to slightly max deals, but then once they did flesh out credible role players in 2013, Wade was no longer what he was.
The Nets had to make trades and had injuries.

This whole idea that the Warriors succeeded because of system or the players and these other rosters didn't get to the same levels because of what you are insinuating is incorrect. Curry was signed to a below-max deal as a unanimous MVP, the NBA saw the single largest salary cap increase in NBA history, and Kevin Durant saw free agency when seldom do Top 5 players in the NBA hit free agency.

I mean, if you just want to say that all that matters is the sum of talent on the roster, then we just plain disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that isn't all I am saying, but which of the teams you deem as "super teams" had Klay Thompson as the clear-cut 4th best player and Andre Iguodala as the 5th best piece?

We can move beyond that though. The Heat, Celtics and Nets all lacked a foundation. They didn't have a nucleus which went to back-to-back NBA Finals and were a couple baskets short or a nut-kick away from winning back-to-back titles prior to the addition of Kevin Durant. They had a system which was tested and true and all the players sans Durant knew the system and their roles. Ironically, the player who struggled most in 2017 was Klay Thompson, whose skill-set is move and shoot, move and shoot, think about dribbling and shoot.

The Miami Heat had a relatively new coach and had to build a system. The Nets never had time to gel due to injuries and also had a coach who hasn't been considered for any vacancies over the past 2 years (I know you will say "Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving got him fired", which may be true, but the fact is Nash hasn't gotten another opportunity). The Celtics were one of the best defenses ever while Garnett in 2008 approached the On-Court ratings of that Warriors team.

My point is the Warriors had a structure and system in place and then added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need. The Celtics, Heat and Nets all lacked that, some stripped part of their core to acquire a player to make the super team and on different occasions the Celtics and Heat resembled the greatest team of all-time.

I think you’re artificially limiting the consideration of teams here. Like, yeah, one can come up with excuses for why the LeBron/Wade Heat, Garnett Celtics, and Durant/Harden/Kyrie Nets weren’t as good as the Durant Warriors and at least *try* to argue that the difference wasn’t about superior fit. But what about all the other massively stacked teams in NBA history? The Lakers had Magic and Kareem for a decade, and had some really amazing pieces around them too (James Worthy, Michael Cooper, etc.). The Celtics had Bird, McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, etc. The Lakers at one point had Wilt, West, and Baylor and lost twice in the Finals. The Sixers had Moses Malone, Dr. J, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones, and Andrew Toney. I could go on. The history of the NBA is filled with many extremely stacked teams. But yet the 2017 Warriors were the best one, with Jordan’s Bulls in their best years being the only real competitors. A lot of these other teams won championships, so all that talent definitely led to good results, but they weren’t the GOAT team. Do we really think that those Warriors were just more talented than every other team ever? I think it’d require having a *really* charitable view of guys like Klay Thompson and post-prime Andre Iguodala to get to that conclusion. To me, it just seems intuitively obvious that those Warriors had superior fit to other stacked teams.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Do we really think that those Warriors were just more talented than every other team ever? I think it’d require having a *really* charitable view of guys like Klay Thompson and post-prime Andre Iguodala to get to that conclusion. To me, it just seems intuitively obvious that those Warriors had superior fit to other stacked teams.

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

[falcolombardi]

Well I’ll put it like this:

I don’t think it makes sense in offense for Dray to be out there with Giannis, so if you are playing them together, you’re hoping that the defensive improvement more than makes up for the poor offensive fit.

Regardless, playing with Giannis means playing Giannis-ball, which means relying on him to make the right pass when the defense swarms him, and for him to be able to do that, his teammates need to be in predictable places because Giannis lacks the awareness to know where his teammates are at all times. So that means Steph can’t be running all around causing chaos, which means the defense can treat him like a more normal catch and shoot guy good enough you can’t sag off him. That makes him valuable of course still, but not as valuable as him playing how Kerr has him play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is like saying portability is how well you slot in the curry warriors specifically and not how well you fit ín all sort of contexts, which incidentally, is how often it feels ben thinks subconsciously or otherwise about portability or ceiling raising, where everythingh seems to be judged based on how well it resembles or fits around curry/kerrball

Giannis may be a worse fit around draymond/curry but he would be a better fit with his driving and defense on other kind of rosters

He provides other kind of off ball value (defense, fast break) compared to durant shooting and can also elevate teams to all time status even if you assume (debatably) he couldnt elevate the...already all time great warriors to all time greater by replacing harrison barnes

I mean, you’re responding to me as if I didn’t talk about defense as the place to make an argument for Giannis. I literally pointed to the path to use to rebut me, but instead you’re looking to rebut me for not talking about defense while throwing up a bunch of abstract labels and throwing Ben under the bus as if he’s somehow less thorough than people here.

Re: Giannis good for driving. Yup, that’s what he does, and while doing so he makes other interior players redundant and changes your scheme not to depend on high BBIQ, which makes your playoff offense more predictable and something less than optimally effective.

Might there be some new scheme that someone comes up with that is better than all that came before? Sure. Who would come up with that scheme? Presumably Kerr, who we’d be placing faith in to innovate after specifically acquiring talent that doesn’t allow his team to thrive in the only scheme he’s ever coached with. That or we fire him and bring in…who? I’d expect no one’s looking to advocate for any of Gianni’s’ actual coaches, so we’re talking about unknown innovations from unknown coaches here and just assuming it will happen. I’m cautious.

I think there are major ceiling concerns with Giannis-ball, and the fact that he’s never figured out to play any other way despite their being ample reason for him to do so makes me think that elite playoff offense and Giannis aren’t really things we should associate together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Answering per paragraph here

1- i didnt say you didnt talk about defense, i mention that defense or fast break play are other sort of "portable" non ball dominant value not usually thought about in such terms (which we sometimes limit to only spacing or shooting when we talk about "portability" and from portability into "ceiling raising")

This is somethingh i insist on because basketball communities often divides players rather broadly into "ceiling raisers" and "floor raisers" almost completely based on their ability to space the floor/shot

Me criticizing ben for -in my opinion- being too biased towards the ceiling raiser/floor spacer group and towards systems and players like curry and golden state is not me "throwing him under the bus" anymore that you would be throwing me under the bus or i would be throwing you by criticizing each other posts or opinions, if criticizing perceived basketball biases or blindspots is not allowed what are we even doing here?

2- the idea that a driving game is "lower IQ" is a rather heavy statement to make just like that, it also includes the likes of magic (running heavy) lebron (drive heavy) or nash (dribbling heavy) play styles all od which were driving based

And id it was the i guess "higher IQ" less driving play style of the durant/curry warriors the only one to produce great offense it would be a valid point that it is a superior play style...but is not, lebron clevelans offenses are still the highest offensive playoffa ratings of the modern era, plenty of the top offenses of evwry era from nash suns to magic lakers were drive/run based

Lebron teams with kyrie had better ortg than curry/durant teams, and curry without kd teams were far from outlier playoffs offenses

And as you mentioned in your post, we are not comparing durant amd kd as offensive players alone either

3- Your third paragraph falls on the same thingh i just mentioned, you are thinking of slotting giannis in the warriors and using that hipothetically worse version than the kd one to bring giannis down. Why not compare how 2021 bucks would work with durant in giannis place too?

Why only use a comparision where durant played in team more talented than any giannis ever did as evidence of superior ceiling raising instead of a fairer comparision in talent terms like okc durant vs bucks giannis?

Is valid to believe giannis is a less scalable player but it would be a lopsided battle to use durant results in a much more talented team (a team thst literally was 4 points away of a back to back ring with a 70 win average season without him) to giannis results also winning a less dominant ring in a less talented team as evidence for it

Like you can say we have evidence of how good the 2016 warrios became with kd and you dont think adding giannis may guarantee the same improvement, but absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense (as giannis never joined or had a roster like that either)

[falcolombardi]

Do we really think that those Warriors were just more talented than every other team ever? I think it’d require having a *really* charitable view of guys like Klay Thompson and post-prime Andre Iguodala to get to that conclusion. To me, it just seems intuitively obvious that those Warriors had superior fit to other stacked teams.

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

Also even if somehow you dont think warriors were a talent outlier, it was still a team winning 67 and 73 games which replaced a role player with durant

And durant is the player we are discussing, it would be a very bad look if he replaced harrison barnes amd it didnt make a difference