'15-16 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[dreamshake]

In the previous 2 games the Cavs torched the Warriors' defense. This was what I was referring to, and I think it's frankly strange to talk about Game 7 as a coaching sin and then essentially point out that the Warrior defense was much more effective in that game that they'd been before while blaming a guy who was only out there to help on defense for the team losing.

I do agree that Ezeli's mistakes directly accounted for more than the difference in the game, so in that sense I don't disagree with you, but from a coaching perspective, to me it's just a riddle you don't know the answer to until after you try it.

Re: can't be outcome-oriented...said the man belaboring a point he wouldn't be talking about if the outcome had been different.

Huh? The Warriors defense was more effective than it was in previous games, that's true. Ezeli was out on the floor ostensibly to help out the defense, true, yes.

Are you saying the first point was caused by the decision to make the second...?

And I'm glad you know exactly what I'd be saying in a counterfactual...

No, I'm literally telling you that if you seriously blame Kerr for plays Ezeli made in this game, you would seem to be focused on outcome rather than process.

There's a lot of interesting analysis of Kerr's decisions to play Ezeli/Varejao on these twitter feeds:

https://twitter.com/haralabob
https://twitter.com/bballbreakdown

They both concluded (and I agree) that Varejao was far worse than Ezeli. Didn't necessarily feel that way in realtime, but after watching a couple times, it's pretty obvious to me.

[bondom34]

The outcome is the entire point. To take it back to players, the entire reason many here use PM data a lot is because it is results based, not process based. Scoreboard is the ultimate measure.

I don't see how this logic applies when judging coaching decisions. Sometimes things happen that are unlikely, do you blame the coach for failing to predict that?

No, but sometimes things happen to players that are unlikely, yet they get blame. And the Ezeli thing was semi-obvious and happened the whole game. I was more making a general statement, and its why I'd rather a coach who can achieve more with a lesser roster than one who basically just achieves highly with an incredible amount of talent.

[Basileus777]

The outcome is the entire point. To take it back to players, the entire reason many here use PM data a lot is because it is results based, not process based. Scoreboard is the ultimate measure.

I don't see how this logic applies when judging coaching decisions. Sometimes things happen that are unlikely, do you blame the coach for failing to predict that?

No, but sometimes things happen to players that are unlikely, yet they get blame. And the Ezeli thing was semi-obvious and happened the whole game. I was more making a general statement, and its why I'd rather a coach who can achieve more with a lesser roster than one who basically just achieves highly with an incredible amount of talent.

Ezeli playing poorly was not surprising, but the amount of damage he was able to inflict in such a short period of time was, even based on his prior play in the finals. There's an argument for never allowing Ezeli in the game, but I can't really blame Kerr for not being able to predict just how bad it would get and I don't think he had a ton of good options at that point. Green needed rest and there was no one else that could hold up at center. Varejao had already burned them. The only other option was to go really small with Barnes at center, but being afraid of that lineup getting destroyed on the boards is completely reasonable.

[bondom34]

I don't see how this logic applies when judging coaching decisions. Sometimes things happen that are unlikely, do you blame the coach for failing to predict that?

No, but sometimes things happen to players that are unlikely, yet they get blame. And the Ezeli thing was semi-obvious and happened the whole game. I was more making a general statement, and its why I'd rather a coach who can achieve more with a lesser roster than one who basically just achieves highly with an incredible amount of talent.

Ezeli playing poorly was not surprising, but the amount of damage he was able to inflict in such a short period of time was, even based on his prior play in the finals. There's an argument for never allowing Ezeli in the game, but I can't really blame Kerr for not being able to predict just how bad it would get and I don't think he had a ton of good options at that point.

That's fair.

[gaf234]

Ezeli playing poorly was not surprising, but the amount of damage he was able to inflict in such a short period of time was, even based on his prior play in the finals. There's an argument for never allowing Ezeli in the game, but I can't really blame Kerr for not being able to predict just how bad it would get and I don't think he had a ton of good options at that point. Green needed rest and there was no one else that could hold up at center. Varejao had already burned them. The only other option was to go really small with Barnes at center, but being afraid of that lineup getting destroyed on the boards is completely reasonable.

You seem to be implying that Kerr subbed in Ezeli for Draymond. That didn't happen, Green played the entire second half (47 mins total!). Kerr subbed in Ezeli for Barnes (and then Barnes for Ezeli). If you meant to say he wanted to give Green a break from playing center, well, he could have achieved the same thing by moving him off of TT and putting Barnes on him. And yes, Barnes would have been a better option for them at that point.

If he had done what you said, that would have been an understandable coherent decision. Getting Draymond some rest is a sensible coaching decision, even if its in the fourth quarter of game 7. But this wasn't about spelling Draymond. Kerr honestly thought Ezeli would improve their defense. That's a belief that was empirically wrong through the course of this series, but it goes beyond that. It suggests to me that Kerr didn't really understand what the Cavs were doing on offense. If you didn't predict that Lebron was going to go after Ezeli hard, you just weren't watching what the Cavs had done the last two games.

People are talking about how you can't blame Kerr for Ezeli playing awful - but that's the thing. I don't believe Ezeli played "awful" in those moments at all! Lebron hitting a three off the dribble with no angle wasn't Ezeli's fault - he did exactly what he should have done, play off of Lebron and give him space. Iguodala would have played him the exact same way. As for biting on the pump fake, well, that's what happens when you have a slower 7 footer guarding Lebron.

Let me repeat myself: Kerr has explicitly stated he put Ezeli in for defense and rebounding purposes. With 6:16 to go in the fourth quarter, I could have told you this was an incoherent decision, and its not because I'm a basketball genius. It is because the Cavs would keep switching until they got one of Lebron or Kyrie on him, at which point Ezeli's defensive utility would have been a net negative, and, given that the Cavs were not even attempting to push the ball past the top of the key until they got the switch they wanted, Ezeli would also likely be up past the three point line, reducing his ability to get a defensive rebound. And he was in there for defensive rebounding purposes, not offensive rebounding, unless you really want to tell me Kerr was going to spend the last 6 minutes of his season telling his team to do something they hadn't done the entire year (namely, attacking the offensive glass).

Notice in the above paragraph I made no actual reference to the outcome of Kerr's decision.

[Doctor MJ]

The outcome is the entire point. To take it back to players, the entire reason many here use PM data a lot is because it is results based, not process based. Scoreboard is the ultimate measure.

C'mon you know what sample size is.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see how this logic applies when judging coaching decisions. Sometimes things happen that are unlikely, do you blame the coach for failing to predict that?

No, but sometimes things happen to players that are unlikely, yet they get blame. And the Ezeli thing was semi-obvious and happened the whole game. I was more making a general statement, and its why I'd rather a coach who can achieve more with a lesser roster than one who basically just achieves highly with an incredible amount of talent.

Ezeli playing poorly was not surprising, but the amount of damage he was able to inflict in such a short period of time was, even based on his prior play in the finals. There's an argument for never allowing Ezeli in the game, but I can't really blame Kerr for not being able to predict just how bad it would get and I don't think he had a ton of good options at that point. Green needed rest and there was no one else that could hold up at center. Varejao had already burned them. The only other option was to go really small with Barnes at center, but being afraid of that lineup getting destroyed on the boards is completely reasonable.

Yeah, and this is where we need to remind ourselves also how impact works in general.

With one stupid play you can hand someone 3 or 4 free points directly, or even more commonly kill your team's possession and give the other team an easy bucket plus momentum. Either one of those plays is a bigger impact than what you basically expect to see from any player in an average game based on what we see from the regression data league-wide.

I will say though, Kerr can potentially be blamed for putting someone in who wasn't previously "sharpened" throughout the playoffs, and thus making it more likely insane stupid plays occurred. It's not a question of Kerr being immune to criticism, it's simply a matter of weighting the mistake meaningfully when judging what it says about him overall as a coach.

[bondom34]

The outcome is the entire point. To take it back to players, the entire reason many here use PM data a lot is because it is results based, not process based. Scoreboard is the ultimate measure.

C'mon you know what sample size is.

Over a full season, the sample is the same for a player and coach.

[RSCD3_]

Listening to the Lowe Post and Zach lowe ripped into curry a bit for his unfocused moments in game 7 and the series at certain points, they also describe the state of his knee as they saw it ( strauss described it as red and heabily bandaged after games) and how his problems werent only physical.

https://player.fm/series/the-lowe-post

23:30-28:30, though the whole thing is a good listen


Anyone thinking that curry's nonchalant / unfocused attitude is a detriment to his ranking. Without getting too much into " heart of a champion / clutch gene " there were a lot of time the warriors just looked flat, including no showing game 3 and starting really slow in G6. How much does this impact him in your opinion? Because even though proponents of curry for #1 arent defending his series as all that good, I think non chalance and a lack of intensity can be just as bad for team morale as hustle plays can ignite teams, start rallies. It's hard to quantify but if one can see it in their opinion it has to be taken into account.

[MisterHibachi]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

[E-Balla]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

Was he? He always plays nonchalant and sloppy.

[Colbinii]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

I disagree. If they won everyone would be talking about how great of a sequence he had later in the 4th quarter where he made a shot/got an assist, stopped the JR Smith/LeBron alley-oop, and then made a lay-up afterwards.

[Doctor MJ]

The outcome is the entire point. To take it back to players, the entire reason many here use PM data a lot is because it is results based, not process based. Scoreboard is the ultimate measure.

C'mon you know what sample size is.

Over a full season, the sample is the same for a player and coach.

I don't know what your point is. A couple bounces the other way and Golden State wins the title. Just because an entire season went into that outcome doesn't mean Cleveland winning over Golden State is based on a huge sample size of superiority.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

Was he? He always plays nonchalant and sloppy.

I don't know about "always", but it's something we keep seeing and he needs to fix it.

What we really saw with Golden State in these past couple rounds is that those little issues that looked like quirks in the regular season didn't go away as the team got into playoff finale, and literally if you just sum all that stupid crap up, it was the difference between winning and losing the title.

[bondom34]

C'mon you know what sample size is.

Over a full season, the sample is the same for a player and coach.

I don't know what your point is. A couple bounces the other way and Golden State wins the title. Just because an entire season went into that outcome doesn't mean Cleveland winning over Golden State is based on a huge sample size of superiority.

I didn't mean it as such. I'm talking about a general rule of coaches and using final win counts as a prereq for COY voting.

[E-Balla]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

Was he? He always plays nonchalant and sloppy.

I don't know about "always", but it's something we keep seeing and he needs to fix it.

What we really saw with Golden State in these past couple rounds is that those little issues that looked like quirks in the regular season didn't go away as the team got into playoff finale, and literally if you just sum all that stupid crap up, it was the difference between winning and losing the title.

Maybe not always but since he's been scorching the league he has. It's actually what I think makes him good Steph looks better when he's having fun and playing loose. It just leads to some headscratching plays. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going back on the Knicks board to complain loudly about the D. Rose trade.

[dontcalltimeout]

I think the nonchalance on Curry's part was forced. I think the moment was getting to him, which is understandable, it's his first game 7 of the Finals and he's looking at potentially blowing a 3-1 lead and nothing has been working for him. He was getting a little shook, and I think he was acting forcibly casual to show that the moment wasn't getting to him.

Was he? He always plays nonchalant and sloppy.

I don't know about "always", but it's something we keep seeing and he needs to fix it.

Is it fixable? Isn't it the same flaw that had Keith Smart benching him for Acie Law in 4th quarters back in the day?

[RSCD3_]

Was he? He always plays nonchalant and sloppy.

I don't know about "always", but it's something we keep seeing and he needs to fix it.

What we really saw with Golden State in these past couple rounds is that those little issues that looked like quirks in the regular season didn't go away as the team got into playoff finale, and literally if you just sum all that stupid crap up, it was the difference between winning and losing the title.

Maybe not always but since he's been scorching the league he has. It's actually what I think makes him good Steph looks better when he's having fun and playing loose. It just leads to some headscratching plays. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going back on the Knicks board to complain loudly about the D. Rose trade.

Reading this post was how I found out about the trade lol

[ElGee]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/744956779319046145[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/744958750910353408[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/744959624856506368[/tweet]

Especially that 2nd tweet. It will turn the NBA on its head and perhaps bring back the need to have guys who can ISO. Which funny enough the Cavs have the answer too. Keep working until Curry gets switched onto James/ Irving and then manhandle him to force a collapse.

Warriors don't have a guy who can ISO like that. Against a switching defense you just find the mismatch.

Question...I am a little unclear on those tweets. Wasn't Miami in 12, 13 doing the whole switching thing already? It wasn't on every possession but it certainly did happen a lot when they put out their small-ball lineup with Battier/Bosh/LeBron as the bigs.

I do agree in general to beat GSW you need to be able to switch everything and your big has to be able to guard Curry which is what Love did last night and TT did much better than last year.

I also do wonder how much of that was because of Curry's bad knee supposedly. If he's healthy next year does the switching defense become irrelevant again?

They did switch a lot but were more just aggressive in pick and roll coverage vs. switching a lot. Blitzing and hard showing and recovering vs. switching. It requires much of the same personnel but each has it's pros and cons. Blitzing is more disruptive and prevents a permanent mismatch unlike a switch as you eventually recover to your man but in between the blitz and the recovery you become vulnerable.

Switching obviously shuts down the pick and roll entirely but can get the defense in a tricky position if you get mismatched with a big on a guard and vice versa.

Hmm. In 35 games at full strength before the Spurs game, GS was +13.5 SRS, 118 (+11.4) on offense. In 19 healthy games after March 19, they were +10.4, 113 (+7.3) offense. Pretty well inline with variance over those samples, making it pretty hard to make the claim he's making. I have no issue saying teams played the strategy harder and it was a little more effective -- I made that claim in the Finals -- and I think fatigue/injury could have also taken a small toll, but to act like this team was not elite down the stretch is revisionism and a healthy case of Losing Bias.

[ElGee]

\Not to mention that I think Cleveland exhausts itself with defensive effort as the game wears on -- and this kind of effort is largely mental, having to make dozens of quick decisions over and over. The offensive sets for the last 15 minutes of the game had way less movement, way worse spacing, and as a result, LeBron's strengths as a passer are underserved. It's a great example of skills being applied to different lineups/environments on the same team.

Just to follow up on this -- Cleveland's Offensive Rating in the first 3 quarters during the Finals was about 113. In the 4th quarter, it was 98. In game after game, the offense just came to a screeching halt in the final stanza.

The more I analyze this series, the more I stand by my original assessment of the matchup, that GS wins it about 70% of the time. The combination of Curry (40%), Thompson, (35%) and Barnes (31%) all having flat shooting series 5-7% lower than their seasonal averages doesn't seem likely to me and is an excellent example of variance in shooting creeping in at the wrong time. Obviously, if none of those things happen, people are talking about Curry and LeBron very differently.