OKC Thunder Offseason 2015

[Bravenewworld]

Can you explain this to us? Why is his defense not an issue? We all get that he's superb offensively, but if he is so bad defensively that it hurts more than his offense helps why is that not an issue? Was Perk's offense not an issue? Is Robes offense an issue? Flashy numbers don't mean a lot if the other team gets them too.

Because its not a 1 on 1 game?
Because having one guy with bad defense on a team that is centered around strong defense is not going to be a determent?

The numbers are stupid to pay attention to. No one takes any value from a 20 game split with a team that was 7 players different then it was at the start of the season and a quarter injured. That is not showing you anything of value for the next season, so you really need to stop thinking it shows anything. Or, at least stop bringing it because it seems you and one or two other people here are the only ones who put any value on this sad, sad, sad, measurement.

All i can do is point to Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies. A similarly defensive Grizz team who added a similarly bad defensive Zach and his lack of defense ended up not being an issue because the team was a good defensive team. You can easily subsidize bad defense, again, as seen when we had KMart. Who sits right next to ZBo and Kanter on the bad defenders list.

KMart also didn't play the most important defensive position on the court.

...... Needing to play switch off between the 1 2 and 3 is not important? You know we're in the West right? You're aware of that fact right?
I gotta say, at this point i'd a least put it on par in defensive importance.

[Bravenewworld]

All i can do is point to Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies. A similarly defensive Grizz team who added a similarly bad defensive Zach and his lack of defense ended up not being an issue because the team was a good defensive team. You can easily subsidize bad defense, again, as seen when we had KMart. Who sits right next to ZBo and Kanter on the bad defenders list.

The David Lee / GS situation is quite a bit more similar. Randolph and the Grizzlies wasn't a match made in heaven at first, and the Grizzlies didn't start becoming a top tier western team until refs stopped calling all those fouls on Randolphs attempts at defense. He still isn't good, but he gets away with a lot to make up for it and is a pretty neutral defender.

Except that Warriors team was basically Don Nelsons when they added Lee and they were ust looking to add offense at that point. It was in no way close to the Warriors team that we ended up seeing.
And the second the Grizzlies added Zach, they were contenders and Zach was easily labeled the worst defensive big man in the game before he came into a system that masked that lack of defense.

[Andre Roberstan]

Because its not a 1 on 1 game?
Because having one guy with bad defense on a team that is centered around strong defense is not going to be a determent?

The numbers are stupid to pay attention to. No one takes any value from a 20 game split with a team that was 7 players different then it was at the start of the season and a quarter injured. That is not showing you anything of value for the next season, so you really need to stop thinking it shows anything. Or, at least stop bringing it because it seems you and one or two other people here are the only ones who put any value on this sad, sad, sad, measurement.

All i can do is point to Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies. A similarly defensive Grizz team who added a similarly bad defensive Zach and his lack of defense ended up not being an issue because the team was a good defensive team. You can easily subsidize bad defense, again, as seen when we had KMart. Who sits right next to ZBo and Kanter on the bad defenders list.

KMart also didn't play the most important defensive position on the court.

...... Needing to play switch off between the 1 2 and 3 is not important? You know we're in the West right? You're aware of that fact right?
I gotta say, at this point i'd a least put it on par in defensive importance.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said "most important". Didn't say everything else on the court wasn't important.

If you're playing the 5, you're the last line of defense covering for any other mistakes, and you're usually the most important player in pick-and-roll defense because you've got to pick up either the big or the PG, and it takes split-second decision-making and quick feet.

I'm not coming up with the opinion that it's the most important on my own. Smart hoops writers (Lowe included) say the same thing.

[Waynearchetype]

And the second the Grizzlies added Zach, they were contenders and Zach was easily labeled the worst defensive big man in the game before he came into a system that masked that lack of defense.

They added Zach in 2009/2010 and missed the playoffs. Is this a contending season?
In 2010/2011 they were 8th seed. Is this a contending season?
In 2011/2012 they were 4th seed. This is also the first season where Zachs defensive +/- numbers were no longer negative.

History seems to favor my outlook, but it really doesn't matter.

[Bravenewworld]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said "most important". Didn't say everything else on the court wasn't important.

Its not putting words in your mouth, its pointing out that its just as important if not more. Because last i checked, the West is stacked with guards that he would have to keep up with and deal with, and in our system, because of our help defense, he was able to.

If you're playing the 5, you're the last line of defense covering for any other mistakes, and you're usually the most important player in pick-and-roll defense because you've got to pick up either the big or the PG, and it takes split-second decision-making and quick feet.

Which is exactly why we have Adams, Ibaka and Collison.
You get that we are not running 4 point guards and 1 center right?
See this is the thing that just blows me away with these arguments against Kanter..... none of this seems to apply the four other players on the floor. It does not seem to apply that Kanter and Ibaka switching would be a normal thing and something Ibaka has already been doing.... it does not seem to recognize that we can run different sets to deal with this issue.

I just... i dont get it.
We don't need to be some super defensive number 1 overall defense ever to win. Most of the time, it just takes balance, statistically, as long as we are in the top 7.

[Bravenewworld]

And the second the Grizzlies added Zach, they were contenders and Zach was easily labeled the worst defensive big man in the game before he came into a system that masked that lack of defense.

They added Zach in 2009/2010 and missed the playoffs. Is this a contending season?
In 2010/2011 they were 8th seed. Is this a contending season?
In 2011/2012 they were 4th seed. This is also the first season where Zachs defensive +/- numbers were no longer negative.

History seems to favor my outlook, but it really doesn't matter.

It really doesnt because again, they are contenders, his lack of defense is masked by their quality defense. Which is the point being made.

[bondom34]

But they weren't even close to top 7, even when Ibaka and Roberson were there. That's the problem.

[Bravenewworld]

But they weren't even close to top 7, even when Ibaka and Roberson were there. That's the problem.

I really hope youre not trying to point out that 20 game stretch.

[Andre Roberstan]

Which is exactly why we have Adams, Ibaka and Collison.

Fair point. But Kanter's unlikely to play much PF, so Adams is not going to be on the court with him. With the advent of stretch 4s, Ibaka's likely to get pulled to the perimeter most of the time (unless you want Kanter chasing them, which is...yeah).

You get that we are not running 4 point guards and 1 center right?

No. I had no idea.

See this is the thing that just blows me away with these arguments against Kanter..... none of this seems to apply the four other players on the floor. It does not seem to apply that Kanter and Ibaka switching would be a normal thing and something Ibaka has already been doing.... it does not seem to recognize that we can run different sets to deal with this issue.

I just... i dont get it.
We don't need to be some super defensive number 1 overall defense ever to win. Most of the time, it just takes balance, statistically, as long as we are in the top 7.

If we can implement something similar to what Charlotte did with Jefferson, it would help. Much more conservative defensive system than the aggressive trapping we've been doing.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to whether you think Kanter can either be covered up or improve. It's the Dion argument all over again. I have no problem with someone thinking Kanter or Waiters can improve so long as we recognize that the vast majority of the available data we have says that they haven't.

[Waynearchetype]

And the second the Grizzlies added Zach, they were contenders and Zach was easily labeled the worst defensive big man in the game before he came into a system that masked that lack of defense.

They added Zach in 2009/2010 and missed the playoffs. Is this a contending season?
In 2010/2011 they were 8th seed. Is this a contending season?
In 2011/2012 they were 4th seed. This is also the first season where Zachs defensive +/- numbers were no longer negative.

History seems to favor my outlook, but it really doesn't matter.

It really doesnt because again, they are contenders, his lack of defense is masked by their quality defense. Which is the point being made.

You said they were instant contenders when Zach joined. They weren't
I said they weren't contenders until Zach was no longer a negative on defense. This happened and is backed up by stats.

If you want to keep moving goal posts, sure. Someday a defensive negative can become a neutral. Kanter is young, and this could happen.

My question is more of fit. You already have large volume scorer option 1 and option 1b. When you start taking away shots from Kanter, what is he there for? He excelled because he had an opportunity to, but if all you get out of him is offense and he is asked to take less shots because Durant is back, he might not look so shiny.

[bondom34]

But they weren't even close to top 7, even when Ibaka and Roberson were there. That's the problem.

I really hope youre not trying to point out that 20 game stretch.

No, just his entire career. Otherwise there's literally nothing to base this off of and I still don't feel comfortable basing a 70 million dollar contract off of exactly nothing. If we can use his offense from 20 games, we can use his defense too.

[KD35Brah]

If anything, Donovan needs to take notes of Jason Kidd's defense on the Bucks.

We aren't as long as them, but we're close. It would help out A LOT with Kanter's defense.

[Bravenewworld]

Fair point. But Kanter's unlikely to play much PF, so Adams is not going to be on the court with him. With the advent of stretch 4s, Ibaka's likely to get pulled to the perimeter most of the time (unless you want Kanter chasing them, which is...yeah).

No one is talking about him playing power forward though. Just switching up on defense. The same thing that is done every single play of every single game.
And him and Adams, were on the floor together last season and they did fairly well. You don't want to do it for too long, but you can have two bigs like that in at once. If we deal with Memphis in the POs again, this is what will get us passed them.

No. I had no idea.

I had to ask. You just don't seem to want to apply the fact that we will have other bigs on the floor.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to whether you think Kanter can either be covered up or improve. It's the Dion argument all over again. I have no problem with someone thinking Kanter or Waiters can improve so long as we recognize that the vast majority of the available data we have says that they haven't.

Well.... im not getting into that argument again. But uhhh, its stupid to think a 23 year old cant or even wont improve.

[Bravenewworld]

But they weren't even close to top 7, even when Ibaka and Roberson were there. That's the problem.

I really hope youre not trying to point out that 20 game stretch.

No, just his entire career. Otherwise there's literally nothing to base this off of and I still don't feel comfortable basing a 70 million dollar contract off of exactly nothing. If we can use his offense from 20 games, we can use his defense too.

You mean his entire career on a team that cant manage to get passed 35 wins?
On a team that cant quite figure out how to run 3 bigs?
On a team with Mizzou's rejected coach?
A team that has given up more all star caliber bigs then a quarter of the NBA teams have had in their franchise history?

Im good.

[bondom34]

I really hope youre not trying to point out that 20 game stretch.

No, just his entire career. Otherwise there's literally nothing to base this off of and I still don't feel comfortable basing a 70 million dollar contract off of exactly nothing. If we can use his offense from 20 games, we can use his defense too.

You mean his entire career on a team that cant manage to get passed 35 wins?
On a team that cant quite figure out how to run 3 bigs?
On a team with Mizzou's rejected coach?

Im good.

Well then his offense doesn't count either.

[Bravenewworld]

No, just his entire career. Otherwise there's literally nothing to base this off of and I still don't feel comfortable basing a 70 million dollar contract off of exactly nothing. If we can use his offense from 20 games, we can use his defense too.

You mean his entire career on a team that cant manage to get passed 35 wins?
On a team that cant quite figure out how to run 3 bigs?
On a team with Mizzou's rejected coach?

Im good.

Well then his offense doesn't count either.

Yah, except im not saying his defense does not count. Im saying you cant project the Jazz's extremely poor system, bad franchise, etc. onto OKC.
Ive never denied the man is a poor defender. Again, im saying that our defense is good enough to handle having a one way player on it, and if you cant recognize this then i dont know what to say... pay attention to the nba more? This is something we see all the time.
OKC is not a bad franchise witha questionable roster. We are a good franchise with a set roster. Think, Lakers getting Pau. Or again, Grizzlies getting Zach.... or OKC with KMart.... or Spurs and Michael Finley..... or Heat and Bosh... or Mavs and Dirk... i mean.... i just dont know how you can focus so much on these little things while ignoring the big picture.

[Andre Roberstan]

Heat and Bosh

????????

[bondom34]

You mean his entire career on a team that cant manage to get passed 35 wins?
On a team that cant quite figure out how to run 3 bigs?
On a team with Mizzou's rejected coach?

Im good.

Well then his offense doesn't count either.

Yah, except im not saying his defense does not count. Im saying you cant project the Jazz's extremely poor system, bad franchise, etc. onto OKC.
Ive never denied the man is a poor defender. Again, im saying that our defense is good enough to handle having a one way player on it, and if you cant recognize this then i dont know what to say... pay attention to the nba more? This is something we see all the time.
OKC is not a bad franchise witha questionable roster. We are a good franchise with a set roster. Think, Lakers getting Pau. Or again, Grizzlies getting Zach.... or OKC with KMart.... or Spurs and Michael Finley..... or Heat and Bosh... or Mavs and Dirk... i mean.... i just dont know how you can focus so much on these little things while ignoring the big picture.

But again, that same poor franchise with a bad system had no problem as soon as he left. And you just listed the Grizzlies who were a bad franchise getting Z Bo and the Mavs who were a terrible franchise then getting Dirk.

[Bravenewworld]

Heat and Bosh

????????

Are you confused?
Has Bosh ever been anything more than an energy guy on defense?
Because last i checked they had to bring in guys like Battier to work around that guys lack of defense.. and of course, when that ship sailed, Bosh failed miserably defensively.... ask the Spurs how that worked for them.

[Bravenewworld]

But again, that same poor franchise with a bad system had no problem as soon as he left. And you just listed the Grizzlies who were a bad franchise getting Z Bo and the Mavs who were a terrible franchise then getting Dirk.

You mean that 20 game stretch?
The same 20 game stretch we see crap teams do well in every single year?

Didnt we have this conversation about the Raptors two seasons ago?
"Oh, the raptors were best in the NBA offensively and defenseively post AS break... you cant say they are just a 1 and done PO team, thats stupid".

Come on.
We see this every year from bad teams. The last 20 games of the schedule they do well, why? Who knows? Teams are settling in to play off positions? Resting players? POs are mostly set? Numerous reasons. But its literally something we see every single year and "for some reason" that success never translates to an 82 game season.

Oh, and i listed the Grizzlies who became contenders because of ZBo and the Mavs, who won a title with one ofthe worst defenders in the game.