microfib4thewin wrote:According to this the Wolves are pretty close to being the worst 4th quarter team this year. Given how bad they have been prior to this season I am not sure if digging up their 4th quarter differential from recent years would say much.
So, to put those numbers into perspective: The difference between the Raptors and the Pistons in terms of real points per game would be: 4.7.
The Timberswolves had a 4th quarter margin of -2.3 this season, -1.1 in 2013, +0.2 in 2012, -1.7 in 2011
So, let us look at the comparison between their 4th quarter scoring margin, overall scoring margin and wins:
A quick&dirty analysis here gives us a -0.4 correlation coefficient for the 4th quarter margin (meaning, a worse 4th quarter performance saw more wins!) and the win total, but a 0.98 correlation coefficient for the overall scoring margin and the win total (the higher the scoring margin, the more wins were seen). So, how much does that "4th quarter performance" really tell us here about the Timberwolves? And given that it is a team game: how much can we extract here for the individual analysis of Kevin Love?
Dr Positivity wrote:I'm treating Love's case as if he made the PS and put up disappointing numbers like Harden and Dirk.
See, the interesting thing is that Nowitzki put up "disappointing numbers" mainly due to the opponent being that strong. If you compare his playing level against the Spurs with Aldridge's playing level against the Spurs, Nowitzki ends up even slightly better, just that Nowitzki did not have a chance to use his matchup advantages in the same fashion as Aldridge did against the Rockets.
And that is one of the aspects here, which makes the focus on the playoffs to such a gamble, because unless you really are able to put the numbers in the smaller sample into perspective, you have a great chance ending up with a judgement on players which isn't reasonable.
If you want to make a judgement of the players' numbers, you may better take a bigger sample like the RS and then devide that up based on opponents strength. For Love, for example, we see that against weaker opponents (all below 0 SRS teams, makes in average -3.8 SRS in Love's case), he had a minute-weighted average GameScore per 36 min of 22.4. Against above average opponents (weighted average of +4.3 SRS, he had 21.2. So, between above and below average opponents there is a 0.95 factor for him. If we compare that to Durant's splits, we see Durant being 21.9 per 36 against above average teams (+4.0 SRS), and 26.0 against below average (-3.9 SRS), that makes a factor of 0.84. Therefore, Durant's RS numbers are more inflated by his performances against below average teams than Love's are. So, from that perspective, it makes no sense to assume Love would fare clearly worse than Durant in the playoffs.
The real issue with the focus too much of the playoffs is that you try to justify the numbers in a bigger sample based upon the numbers achieved in the smaller sample, where the differences in terms of average opponents strength as well as the possibility of unfavourable matchups are playing a much bigger role than in the RS sample. Why not put them together all at once and judge the player based on the whole sample we have for the season? In that way we are reducing the chance of just judging a player based on a run in a small sample (keep in mind what people said about Aldridge after the two 40+ pts game at the start of the playoffs).
From my perspective, having big changes in the ranking based upon playoff performances, points to a flawed analysis of both, the RS and playoffs, because in reality, the changes in performance level aren't really that big and can be mostly explained with randomness in a smaller sample, different strength of opponents, bad/good matchup situations and/or possible injury-related things.
mysticbb wrote:So, being important in that one particular game, doesn't mean that we have really something to work with for a player evaluation.
I actually agree with this pretty strongly, for the reasons you stated. I was just responding to the notion that there is no difference between late possessions and early possessions.
DragicTime85 wrote:[Ric Bucher] has a tiny wiener and I can prove it.
mopper8 wrote:I actually agree with this pretty strongly, for the reasons you stated. I was just responding to the notion that there is no difference between late possessions and early possessions.
Ah, ok. Just wanted to point out the difference between "making a player analysis" and "probability change of a team winning based on the time left in the game". But I guess, we are on the same side anyway; and I feel Elgee is making his point about that strictly under the light of a player/team strength evaluation. Overall, both things are correct, just that Elgee's view on that matter is the meaningful one for a player evaluation.
mysticbb wrote:So, to put those numbers into perspective: The difference between the Raptors and the Pistons in terms of real points per game would be: 4.7.
The Timberswolves had a 4th quarter margin of -2.3 this season, -1.1 in 2013, +0.2 in 2012, -1.7 in 2011
So, let us look at the comparison between their 4th quarter scoring margin, overall scoring margin and wins:
A quick&dirty analysis here gives us a -0.4 correlation coefficient for the 4th quarter margin (meaning, a worse 4th quarter performance saw more wins!) and the win total, but a 0.98 correlation coefficient for the overall scoring margin and the win total (the higher the scoring margin, the more wins were seen). So, how much does that "4th quarter performance" really tell us here about the Timberwolves? And given that it is a team game: how much can we extract here for the individual analysis of Kevin Love?
You may have misunderstood. I am not trying to extrapolate anything from those data, but to let ElGee know there is a tendency for the Wolves to underperform in the 4th. Quite frankly I don't care whether a team underperform in the 1st or 4th quarter. I treat each quarter and each possession the same way.
Yes, I indeed misunderstood your intention here. But answer wasn't just directed at you alone, but to give an impression about the importance of that linked figure to everyone reading this thread.
Quotatious wrote:As far as the top 5 players in the league:
LeBron/Durant CP3 Griffin Love
CP3 missed 20 games though, so I guess this season, I might replace him with Curry, who's IMO the most deserving of the rest. Harden had a great regular season, Melo, Dirk, LMA and George, too, and to be honest, I'm not sure how Dwight and Noah compare to the offensive guys. I actually think that Dwight might be the best player on the Rockets, and if so, I'd probably have to put him sixth, which I'm still not sure about. I think he's still a better player than Noah, and the best center in the league, although you can argue that Noah is more deserving of the All-NBA 1st team nod, or just to put him as the one who had the better season. Leading the Bulls to the 4th seed without Rose, and pretty much maximizing their potential, is really impressive.
So yeah,if we're talking about the best season, my top 5 would be:
Durant LeBron Griffin Love Curry
Not sure about the order after that, but I assume we're talking about just the top 5, right? Still, seems weird not having CP3. He really had another great season, but missed games gotta be a factor. I just don't know how big of a factor. Shaq was outstanding in 1996 '97 and '98, arguably even better than CP3 right now, but he missed even more games in these two seasons, so I'd have a hard time putting him in the top 5, or at most, maybe at number 5, as kind of an honorable mention.
You forgot to add "in probably the worst eastern conference ever where they got homecourt advantage and would not have even made the playoffs in the west." Kevin Love was derided for not making the playoffs, but Noah is exalted for a 1 SRS team. Seeding does not determine true strength.
Look, I get it, the Bulls weren't expected to do much, but seeding is not directly tied to individual value. I mean, if we had no good teams in the east, and somehow the top seed there had like 44 wins, would we really anoint their top player as an MVP just because of their seed? That's ridiculous. It's an extreme scenario, but it's an example to shed light on why we shouldn't pick Noah 5th just because his team got HCA (and lost...) in the first round. If Noah is 5th because his team outpeformed expectations and won 48 games, then Dragic should be 5th too.
Outside of PPG, Carmelo should be nowhere near a top 5. There should be no discussion on this topic. On a related note, scorers who don't pass/set up teammates are very overrated.
MisterHibachi wrote:
GSP wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Paul didn't have a 30 PER iirc.
On bball ref it says he had a 30 Per in 09..................
It does. But if you use the Season Finder search function and set it to 30 PER >= and 1500 MP >=, he doesn't show up. The lowest PER over 30 is Shaq with 30.2 in 01. Paul's player page says 30.0 PER. BBref disagrees with itself.
Rounding. Basic rounding. If something is 29.9999, then it will show up as 30.00 but it's still under 30.
Tom Haberstroh @tomhaberstroh 3h Career PER in playoff clutch situations: Chris Paul 30.9, Westbrook 11.8. That's why folks would roast Westbrook if Gm 5 tables were turned.
I'm not sure what to do with balancing playoffs and the regular season. History already rewards winners. I don't want to give a player the POTY as a default for winning a title as a high level all-star. Best players don't have to win. It's a team game.
And I don't know what to do with the looong regular season. I think it's often underrated. We have 82 games to judge players, not a 5 game stretch where your teammates suck and you get all the criticism.
By the way, one reason you can't ignore missing 15 or 20 games is that it can be the difference between the 2 or 3 seed, which is the difference between facing the unfair Golden State-OKC-SAS path or something with a lighter opponent in the first round. That does decrease their championship odds by a visible amount. They were lucky Bogut was injured.
JordansBulls wrote:
ShaqAttack3234 wrote:I had Durant 1st entering the playoffs, but Lebron has been better in the playoffs so far, though he's faced much easier competition. It will be interesting to see the rest of their playoffs, particularly Lebron in the ECF assuming Indiana and Miami both get there.
Again how hard is it to beat teams that have a negative SRS rating? Both Charlotte and Brooklyn had a negative SRS rating and neither even won 45 to 50 games.
Brooklyn was much better after they reconfigured their lineup. Don't rate them based on how they played with Brook Lopez.
ardee wrote:
mysticbb wrote: I suggest you should think about the game itself again, then try to avoid things like "second star" and "true contender" and you may understand why the Warriors have a roster with the ability to win a championship.
What does this even mean?
In the 3-point era, here is the list of teams that have won a title with one or less All-Star:
1994 Rockets 1998 Bulls (Pippen was easily an AS level, just injured over the ASB) 2003 Spurs 2004 Pistons 2011 Mavericks
I think it's fair to not include the '98 Bulls. So 30 out of 34 teams had at least 2 All-Stars. That's 88%.
Do you think that's a coincidence? There's a reason that Duncan's 2003 run and Dirk's 2011 run are regarded the way they are. A second shot creator is almost a necessity. That's why I'm talking about Klay, if his post-game continues to improve it'll give another dimension to their offense, which will mean that there'll be someone besides Curry who can be relied on.
SVG is a phenomenal coach but there are going to be instances in the Playoffs when the offense breaks down and you need reliable creators.
You're the one who's just looking at numbers and not 'thinking about the game' if you think that regular season SRS is all that matters.
Yet the '94 Rockets were better than the '95 Rockets even though they had only one all-star. What does that tell you?
By the way, the reason why more teams have multiple all-stars is that it's simply a likely way to have a high SRS. It's not a necessity. Also, all-star game selections are based on win records. People like to choose guys from high win teams, a la Mo Williams.
ronnymac2 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I like Love more and more every year, but there's always a weird feeling in my gut about him since we've never seen him play in a post season game. It makes it hard for me to envision how good he really is.
I don't think Love is top 5 this year. I think Howard is better, he rivals Love in rebounding, gets a lot of points himself, and while Love can stretch the floor, Dwight makes that up plus more by destroying him on the defensive end where Love is arguably a negative outside of his rebounding (albeit that is a big part of his game to negate considering he's an all time great at that end in my opinion). I do think it is hard to judge Dwight's defensive impact given the Rockets are not a good defense, but it's really Mchales fault for not utilizing his defensive talent properly (and he has a lot of it outside of Harden).
Griffin vs Love is fun, I thought Love was better for most of the post season but that was because I missed most of Griffin's run as "the guy". I am really impressed by how physical Griffin's post game has become, it's certainly a type of play that is very effective, and an attribute Love doesn't match. Griffin's ability to stretch is really awesome too, doesn't quite have the 3 point range, but long 2s for a 4 is a great shot in my opinion if you're shooting at the clip Griffin does.
Rebounding wise Love is superior, but Griffin is a great rebounder himself, Jordan gets most of the boards on his team though.
Love is a smart passer, but Griffin is a guard out there, a true playmaker, and the guy has legitimate handles, probably the best for a power forward off the top of my head today.
I have to say, I think I'd have to change my rankings and put Blake over Love.
Sweet, another convert.
I'm not sure if Love is in my top 10. It's got nothing to do with Minny missing the playoffs either. I understand Minny is flawed as hell. Their bench sucks. They don't have a starting SF. Kevin Martin is crap overall. Rubio and Pek are very good but flawed. The starting lineup is better than the sum of its parts due to fit, but it's not the most talented bunch. Dieng is awesome, but didn't play nearly enough until Pek went down.
I get it.
But Love's skillset has worrisome deficiencies. He's not a great halfcourt offensive creator, and for a guy who is supposed to be a dominant offensive big man...well, we have a problem.
If you're not an all-time great post threat, you better have amazing handles for your position and you better be incredibly intelligent at making use of your scoring prowess to the benefit of your teammates — think Dirk Nowitzki. Love isn't a great ball-handler, and he's not a great passer in the halfcourt. He's a good post scorer, but I wouldn't put him down in the post and expect him to create for himself and others. Very good shooter, especially at the volume he puts up. The best thing about Love is he's a stretch 4 who also can dominate the offensive glass and has great touch around the rim. He's also physical and gets to the free throw line a decent amount.
Great player, but I put Griffin above him without much doubt. I'd put Aldridge above Love as well, though that isn't as clear cut.
That is absolutely ridiculous. I thought those Love criticisms died on this board a long time ago.
How do you average 4.4 assists a game if you're not a good halfcourt passer, especially with Rubio having the ball a lot?
He can't create for himself ... yet he scores 26 a game? How is that even possible? The dude scores as much as prime Rose.... He gets to the rim, he gets to the foul line, he sets great screens, he sets up his teammates, he posts up ... what more do you want? There are very, very few big men with his offensive versatility.
Summary: Minnesota is a very good team when he plays, they suck in the clutch because of Rubio/Barea (and their defense too, to be fair), and who cares if he missed the playoffs because so did prime Kareem, Garnett, Barkley, Olajuwon, et al. Love's only been an elite player two seasons (and only one at this level) so let's not jump the gun and say he can't lead a team to the playoffs.
It's really frustrating to hear people talk about Minnesota's clutch problems and not mention the other four players on the court. He's absolutely a candidate, and he hits all the marks -- amazing per game stats (looks like prime Barkley's numbers but with outside shooting) and his impact is there. Love is 5th in pure RAPM and 5th in xRAPM on JE's site.
I really don't like making this list before the finals are done, but here's a preliminary version:
Durant LeBron Chris Paul Kevin Love Stephen Curry
I could see LeBron over Durant. I'm not too sure what to do with Chris Paul, but I can't imagine rating someone over him, especially Griffin. Love's a tremendous player and any contending team would love to have him. Curry has a slim lead over the long list of HM's because I like how he plays versus great defenses and he's able to play heavy minutes.
And I have to ask: what exactly are we aiming for here? It seems like the trend now is to follow ElGee's lead and only care about championship odds. Is that really the point of this award? It is useful to "explain" the season by discussing who imparted the most value and swayed outcomes of games.
Here are some of the candidates and relevant, interesting numbers:
Team strength when on the court (if you care about "winning", then this is what truly matters, not how bad the team is without the player): (Not in order really)
Spoiler:
Durant +8 overall, 112.3 Ortg, 104.3 Drtg LeBron +7.1, 113.7, 106.6 Chris Paul +11.1, 114.3, 103.2 Kevin Love +5.6, 111.6, 106.0 Stephen Curry +9.2, 111.9, 102.7 James Harden +7.1, 113.3, 106.2 Blake Griffin +9.4, 114.1, 104.7 Dirk Nowitzki +4.5, 112.2, 107.7 Anthony Davis -1.8, 108.0, 109.8 LaMarcus Aldridge +7.1, 113.0, 105.9 Goran Dragic +5.6, 112.5, 106.9 Dwight Howard +6.9, 112.5, 105.6 Noah +4.0, 105.0, 101.0 (Noah getting traction over Love is bogus; Noah's lucky to be in the east.)
RAPM:
Spoiler:
Durant +5.4 xRAPM, +3.8 "pure" RAPM,+4.6 TalkingPractice RAPM LeBron 7.9, 5.6, 6.9 Chris Paul 7.4, 5.8, 6.9 Kevin Love 6.4, 5.1, 2.9 Stephen Curry 5.4, 4.3, 3.8 James Harden 3.5, 3.1, 4.6 Blake Griffin 5.0, 4.1, 3.8 Dirk Nowitzki 6.6, 3.9, 4.9 Anthony Davis 1.9, -1.4, 5.3 LaMarcus Aldridge 5.6, 3.7, 5.8 Goran Dragic 3.7, 2.1, 2.6 Dwight Howard 4.0, 2.7, 3.1 Noah 3.7, 1.3, 1.2
sp6r=underrated wrote:Quick question for those ranking Westbrook in the top 5: do you weigh time missed at all? He only played in 46 games all year.
The interesting for me, as I pointed out before, is that even with ignoring the missed games, he wouldn't make my Top5. Westbrook had a stretch of 8 very good games (in average) in the playoffs. He also had 6 games in the playoffs, where he was below average, and yet, the people just seem to recognize the 8 really good games here. Only based on those 8 games Westbrook could be seen as a Top5 player, while everyone else would be judged based on all games they played. It points to a typical cognitive bias, where the possibility of runs in a small sample is underestimated, and people believe that in the smaller sample the "true" value of the player is seen. That is obviously influenced by the fact that playoff games are important in order to determine the best team of the season, but that is the catch here: The games are decided by the better TEAM (at least in average), not just by the better individual player. And as I tried to show before (maybe better in the other thread regarding the 2008 MVP) that the difference in the quality of the supporting casts is in average bigger than the difference in quality of the top players in the game.
I explained my "75%-rule" before and for Westbrook the magic numbers would be 72. He has played in 60 games so far, meaning, his value gets multiplied with 5/6 (60/72) to adjust for the missed games.
acrossthecourt wrote:I really don't like making this list before the finals are done, but here's a preliminary version:
Durant LeBron Chris Paul Kevin Love Stephen Curry
I could see LeBron over Durant.
Well, nice rant in regard to Love's standing here in this thread. I can just agree to that. Ignoring the fact that the Timberwolves as a TEAM missed the playoffs mainly due to circumstances (having to play such tough schedule as well as in a conference, where a 48 win team missed the playoffs!), not just based on their own strength, is an error in the individual player evaluation. That strongly reminds me of Garnett's standing based on the Timberwolves overall playing level and missed playoffs back in 2005 to 2007.
Anyway, I would like to fully understand your reason for having Durant ahead of James. Would be nice, if you could elaborate on this.
If, hypothetically (and it's still early to say this will happen), Miami and OKC are both eliminated in the conference finals, is there any chance either Lebron or KD fall out of the top 2? With, say, a Finals MVP, I might consider Paul George at #2. I might consider putting Duncan in my top 5.
rich316 wrote:If, hypothetically (and it's still early to say this will happen), Miami and OKC are both eliminated in the conference finals, is there any chance either Lebron or KD fall out of the top 2?
First of all, that should entirely be based on HOW both played. And I have a hard time seeing either playing that bad, that it would be anywhere close to be reasonable to move them down the list just based on the TEAM result. Losing a series without HCA, should be rather be expected, especially when the playing level for each of those teams even says that the home team is slightly (Pacers) or even considerably (Spurs) better.
rich316 wrote:With, say, a Finals MVP, I might consider Paul George at #2. I might consider putting Duncan in my top 5.
Why would that small sample being able to change your view on those players in such a fashion? If neither is at that position in your list before the Finals, there should not be enough games left in order to move them up. The Finals MVP is given out (basically all the time) to the perceived best player on the winning TEAM, that should have no influence on the judgement HOW good a player actually really played in average for a whole season.
rich316 wrote:If, hypothetically (and it's still early to say this will happen), Miami and OKC are both eliminated in the conference finals, is there any chance either Lebron or KD fall out of the top 2? With, say, a Finals MVP, I might consider Paul George at #2. I might consider putting Duncan in my top 5.
Durant has no shot to get out of the top 2 or even top 1 at this point considering the comp he has faced and didn't lose with HCA. Paul George would have to have a Wade type Finals in 2006 to even sniff the top 2.
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan
JordansBulls wrote:Durant has no shot to get out of the top 2 or even top 1 at this point considering the comp he has faced and didn't lose with HCA. Paul George would have to have a Wade type Finals in 2006 to even sniff the top 2.
Durant could very easily lose top 1. Heck, there are people who already have LeBron ahead of him because they don't use box score stats or TEAM record when evaluating a player.
However, there is no way George can get into the top 2. He would need to average something like 34/8/8 for the remainder of the playoffs to even be considered, but even then I would have a hard time putting him ahead of LeGoat or Durcant.
acrossthecourt wrote:I really don't like making this list before the finals are done, but here's a preliminary version:
Durant LeBron Chris Paul Kevin Love Stephen Curry
I could see LeBron over Durant.
Well, nice rant in regard to Love's standing here in this thread. I can just agree to that. Ignoring the fact that the Timberwolves as a TEAM missed the playoffs mainly due to circumstances (having to play such tough schedule as well as in a conference, where a 48 win team missed the playoffs!), not just based on their own strength, is an error in the individual player evaluation. That strongly reminds me of Garnett's standing based on the Timberwolves overall playing level and missed playoffs back in 2005 to 2007.
Anyway, I would like to fully understand your reason for having Durant ahead of James. Would be nice, if you could elaborate on this.
They even had the same first name! Kevin! And people still forget.
I'm not sure at all about Durant and LeBron. But here's one important factor: LeBron's defense was worse in the regular season. I suppose if it's a lot better in the playoffs he could make up ground, but now is the time to do that.
ronnymac2 wrote:I'm not sure if Love is in my top 10. It's got nothing to do with Minny missing the playoffs either. I understand Minny is flawed as hell. Their bench sucks. They don't have a starting SF. Kevin Martin is crap overall. Rubio and Pek are very good but flawed. The starting lineup is better than the sum of its parts due to fit, but it's not the most talented bunch. Dieng is awesome, but didn't play nearly enough until Pek went down.
I get it.
But Love's skillset has worrisome deficiencies. He's not a great halfcourt offensive creator, and for a guy who is supposed to be a dominant offensive big man...well, we have a problem.
If you're not an all-time great post threat, you better have amazing handles for your position and you better be incredibly intelligent at making use of your scoring prowess to the benefit of your teammates — think Dirk Nowitzki. Love isn't a great ball-handler, and he's not a great passer in the halfcourt. He's a good post scorer, but I wouldn't put him down in the post and expect him to create for himself and others. Very good shooter, especially at the volume he puts up. The best thing about Love is he's a stretch 4 who also can dominate the offensive glass and has great touch around the rim. He's also physical and gets to the free throw line a decent amount.
Great player, but I put Griffin above him without much doubt. I'd put Aldridge above Love as well, though that isn't as clear cut.
That is absolutely ridiculous. I thought those Love criticisms died on this board a long time ago.
How do you average 4.4 assists a game if you're not a good halfcourt passer, especially with Rubio having the ball a lot?
He can't create for himself ... yet he scores 26 a game? How is that even possible? The dude scores as much as prime Rose.... He gets to the rim, he gets to the foul line, he sets great screens, he sets up his teammates, he posts up ... what more do you want? There are very, very few big men with his offensive versatility.
Summary: Minnesota is a very good team when he plays, they suck in the clutch because of Rubio/Barea (and their defense too, to be fair), and who cares if he missed the playoffs because so did prime Kareem, Garnett, Barkley, Olajuwon, et al. Love's only been an elite player two seasons (and only one at this level) so let's not jump the gun and say he can't lead a team to the playoffs.
It's really frustrating to hear people talk about Minnesota's clutch problems and not mention the other four players on the court. He's absolutely a candidate, and he hits all the marks -- amazing per game stats (looks like prime Barkley's numbers but with outside shooting) and his impact is there. Love is 5th in pure RAPM and 5th in xRAPM on JE's site.
I really don't like making this list before the finals are done, but here's a preliminary version:
Durant LeBron Chris Paul Kevin Love Stephen Curry[/spoiler]
I'm going to assume you replied to my post in a frustrated state. Comparing Kevin Love to current guys who are top-5 material, or even past players who were top-5 material, it becomes clear that Love has certain skillset deficiencies which make him less desirable if your goal is to build a championship caliber team.
I didn't blame Love for Minny's clutch woes in my post (and for the record, I do not blame Love for those clutch woes). I explicitly stated Love does not have a great team around him. I explicitly stated Love shouldn't be penalized for missing the playoffs.
And for the record, I placed Kevin Garnett as my fourth best player in the NBA in 2007 during the RPOY Project. Put him fifth in 2006. Both years were probably more stacked with top-heavy talent than this year. I don't have a problem giving crediting to forwards named Kevin who come from talentless Minnesota teams.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
rich316 wrote:If, hypothetically (and it's still early to say this will happen), Miami and OKC are both eliminated in the conference finals, is there any chance either Lebron or KD fall out of the top 2? With, say, a Finals MVP, I might consider Paul George at #2. I might consider putting Duncan in my top 5.
No chance. Especially Timmy who is not even particularly close to my running as a top15 player. Hes has a dropoff compared to last season IMO there are games i feel Splitter is the best defender on the Spurs and offensively Timmy relies alot on the creation of others and the Spurs system in the playoffs which makes him look alot better offensively than he really is.
