'17-'18 POY discussion

[Joey Wheeler]

The Warriors are stacked because they have Green and Klay complimenting Durant and Curry. Without their two superstars, you're left with Klay and Dray as your two best players with very limited depth around them. The offense would struggle a lot, no one who can create their own shot. Don't think that team is conclusively better than the Spurs, certainly not to a point where you can be sure of a series win. Even with Durant, the series wasn't that far from going back to San Antonio for game 6...

I was talking about RS, Curry's impact stats looked better but he missed almost half of it. In the postseason, not only did he miss all those games, but every stat favors Durant. Just don't see how you can argue for Curry here; his RS was very good, but he only played 51 games. Only 66 games all season including RS and PS...

Well yeah, the Warriors are at their best when everyone is clicking and the ball is moving, but doesn't seem right to penalize Durant for being the most consistent performer and there being games where Curry/Klay are off and Durant is the only one capable of reliably putting points on the board...

It isn't like KD played 80 games...or even 70 for that matter. Don't get me wrong 17 more games is meaningful, but KD isn't some iron man.

KD still played 89 matches all season, including 21 in the playoffs. Curry missed 31 RS games and the entire first round of the playoffs. In a non-ungodly stacked team context, the best or 2nd best player missing all these games would never lead to success.

[clyde21]

The Warriors are stacked because they have Green and Klay complimenting Durant and Curry. Without their two superstars, you're left with Klay and Dray as your two best players with very limited depth around them. The offense would struggle a lot, no one who can create their own shot. Don't think that team is conclusively better than the Spurs, certainly not to a point where you can be sure of a series win. Even with Durant, the series wasn't that far from going back to San Antonio for game 6...

I was talking about RS, Curry's impact stats looked better but he missed almost half of it. In the postseason, not only did he miss all those games, but every stat favors Durant. Just don't see how you can argue for Curry here; his RS was very good, but he only played 51 games. Only 66 games all season including RS and PS...

Well yeah, the Warriors are at their best when everyone is clicking and the ball is moving, but doesn't seem right to penalize Durant for being the most consistent performer and there being games where Curry/Klay are off and Durant is the only one capable of reliably putting points on the board...

It isn't like KD played 80 games...or even 70 for that matter. Don't get me wrong 17 more games is meaningful, but KD isn't some iron man.

KD still played 89 matches all season, including 21 in the playoffs. Curry missed 31 RS games and the entire first round of the playoffs. In a non-ungodly stacked team context, the best or 2nd best player missing all these games would never lead to success.

Celtics?

[dhsilv2]

The Warriors are stacked because they have Green and Klay complimenting Durant and Curry. Without their two superstars, you're left with Klay and Dray as your two best players with very limited depth around them. The offense would struggle a lot, no one who can create their own shot. Don't think that team is conclusively better than the Spurs, certainly not to a point where you can be sure of a series win. Even with Durant, the series wasn't that far from going back to San Antonio for game 6...

I was talking about RS, Curry's impact stats looked better but he missed almost half of it. In the postseason, not only did he miss all those games, but every stat favors Durant. Just don't see how you can argue for Curry here; his RS was very good, but he only played 51 games. Only 66 games all season including RS and PS...

Well yeah, the Warriors are at their best when everyone is clicking and the ball is moving, but doesn't seem right to penalize Durant for being the most consistent performer and there being games where Curry/Klay are off and Durant is the only one capable of reliably putting points on the board...

It isn't like KD played 80 games...or even 70 for that matter. Don't get me wrong 17 more games is meaningful, but KD isn't some iron man.

KD still played 89 matches all season, including 21 in the playoffs. Curry missed 31 RS games and the entire first round of the playoffs. In a non-ungodly stacked team context, the best or 2nd best player missing all these games would never lead to success.

And normally if a star player has similar impact to KD, that team doesn't win a title either. Most teams need a guy wtih Curry like impact. We can play the "normally if blah blah blah blah blah doesn't happen" game all day. I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation.

Curry missed games but when he was playing he was the better player. I wanted to make sure it was pointed out that KD himself did miss a decent number of games as well. Missing the first round was the biggest issue that differentiates the two.

[dhsilv2]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

[Outside]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

[dhsilv2]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

It's a good question on what defines 6th man (reason I never look at this), but Gordon in my view would qualify as he was the 6th man, Paul just missed a lot of games and that is likely (I'd have to confirm) why he was starting.

I could get behind Godron, Sabonis, Rozier, or Williams.

[ztejas]

It isn't like KD played 80 games...or even 70 for that matter. Don't get me wrong 17 more games is meaningful, but KD isn't some iron man.

KD still played 89 matches all season, including 21 in the playoffs. Curry missed 31 RS games and the entire first round of the playoffs. In a non-ungodly stacked team context, the best or 2nd best player missing all these games would never lead to success.

And normally if a star player has similar impact to KD, that team doesn't win a title either. Most teams need a guy wtih Curry like impact. We can play the "normally if blah blah blah blah blah doesn't happen" game all day. I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation.

Curry missed games but when he was playing he was the better player. I wanted to make sure it was pointed out that KD himself did miss a decent number of games as well. Missing the first round was the biggest issue that differentiates the two.

I just don't see any objective argument for Curry over Durant unless your argument is that you like Curry better. The Warriors were kind of a mess in the regular season and played with so many different lineups that I'm not sure how useful any +/- stat is going to be when evaluating any of them.

Durant played poorly in their last stretch of games but they were all kind of awful and just coasting. I mean Draymond was like unexplainably bad at the end of the season. The rest of the year, Durant played fantastic ball and contributed to more wins than Curry did. He was still the leading point getter on a 58 win team. I don't need a stat to tell me he was just average when I watched him play all year and he was almost always the most impactful player on the court. He does things that a player like Oladipo is simply incapable of.

I think a lot of this Durant criticism in general is missing the forest for the trees. This is a team that caught the injury bug that was trying to get back to the Finals for the 4th straight year and repeat as champions. If I'm being honest, I'm not sure Kerr handled the regular season particularly well. They all struggled to find their identity with and without Curry.

Despite that, however, when the playoffs started Durant clearly took it upon himself to take them back to the promised land. And he delivered. The Conference Finals was rocky but it was rocky for the Warriors as a team. No one was particularly consistent, Iggy's injury threw them off, and stylistically the Rockets played a more confident brand of basketball. Curry and Klay were just kind of okay. Draymond's scoring was non existent at times. Durant struggled with his identity.

Yet, they got through it, and then Durant and Curry put the Cavs to bed with little doubts.

The regular season this year wasn't going to make or break Durant, so I think weighing his playoff impact is more important. The regular season was never his concern or focus. It was repeat or face heavy criticism. They won again, he won his 2nd FMVP, and he is still facing criticism. Playing the villain like that isn't easy, but he's been pretty damn good at it so far.

Sent from my SM-J327V using RealGM mobile app

[iggymcfrack]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

It's a good question on what defines 6th man (reason I never look at this), but Gordon in my view would qualify as he was the 6th man, Paul just missed a lot of games and that is likely (I'd have to confirm) why he was starting.

I could get behind Godron, Sabonis, Rozier, or Williams.

If it was just a regular season award, I’d probably like Van Vleet. With the playoffs included though, I think it’s hard to argue that Gordon had a bigger impact. He was actually the most reliable initiator of offense on the team for large stretches in the Western Conference Finals and played excellent D throughout as well.

Lou Williams was a really good scorer, but his defense is just so terrible it’s hard for him to have much of an impact. He may have been the worst defender in the entire league that wasn’t a rookie who played a decent number of minutes.

[dhsilv2]

KD still played 89 matches all season, including 21 in the playoffs. Curry missed 31 RS games and the entire first round of the playoffs. In a non-ungodly stacked team context, the best or 2nd best player missing all these games would never lead to success.

And normally if a star player has similar impact to KD, that team doesn't win a title either. Most teams need a guy wtih Curry like impact. We can play the "normally if blah blah blah blah blah doesn't happen" game all day. I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation.

Curry missed games but when he was playing he was the better player. I wanted to make sure it was pointed out that KD himself did miss a decent number of games as well. Missing the first round was the biggest issue that differentiates the two.

I just don't see any objective argument for Curry over Durant unless your argument is that you like Curry better. The Warriors were kind of a mess in the regular season and played with so many different lineups that I'm not sure how useful any +/- stat is going to be when evaluating any of them.


Sent from my SM-J327V using RealGM mobile app

1. You know you can turn off that stupid tapatalk signature we don't have to see it every time right?

2. The more lineups that are played and the more time off (assuming the play is playing decent numbers) the better plus minus data (RAPM/RPM) are. Those are our best impact metrics and based on what you're saying, you're telling me that you think they got an optimal set of different lineups to drill down on the two individual player's impact. Effectively, you've made the case that the impact data we have is accurate for the season. The impact data shows a clear and consistent advantage for Curry over Durant.

FYI - I supported KD to the warriors and still do. I have zero ill will towards what he did and actually have enjoyed it. None of that changes that there is a clear gap in the impact from KD vs Curry and it remains that Dray was the best player for the warriors against the rockets, the only series that warriors could have possibly lost.

[Doctor MJ]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Eric Gordon stands to me.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the staggering of Harden & Paul's minutes, but we really see in the playoffs that the current cutting edge superstar unipolar model really works best when there's another "alpha" out there who can give the 1st alpha a micro-breather while still giving the offense a decent chance on the possession. It's a "dual alpha" system if you would, and we saw this year how much even LeBron needed this.

Enter Gordon. He's the 3rd "alpha" for Houston and thus allows. He's not the 3rd most valuable player, that's Capela, but he gives Houston potentially complete dual alpha coverage over 48 minutes, which is why Houston can play in this style without falling off a cliff with substitutions.

What's interesting here is that less sophisticated coaching schemes, the guy who'd come to be known as "the 6th man" was the alpha of the second shift. But what Gordon represents is a new pattern wherein there are 3 shifts and each alpha plays in 2 of those shifts such that one of the alphas doesn't start.

To me this represents a kind of promotion, or at least upgrade in perception, of the "star of the bench" and I think it makes the choice pretty clear.

(Aside: Worth noting that this model really doesn't apply to Golden State, which further illustrates how special they are.)

[bondom34]

Lou Williams would be mine by a pretty good margin. Gordon second.

Also RPM updated for the finals it looks like.

[ztejas]

And normally if a star player has similar impact to KD, that team doesn't win a title either. Most teams need a guy wtih Curry like impact. We can play the "normally if blah blah blah blah blah doesn't happen" game all day. I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation.

Curry missed games but when he was playing he was the better player. I wanted to make sure it was pointed out that KD himself did miss a decent number of games as well. Missing the first round was the biggest issue that differentiates the two.

I just don't see any objective argument for Curry over Durant unless your argument is that you like Curry better. The Warriors were kind of a mess in the regular season and played with so many different lineups that I'm not sure how useful any +/- stat is going to be when evaluating any of them.


Sent from my SM-J327V using RealGM mobile app

1. You know you can turn off that stupid tapatalk signature we don't have to see it every time right?

2. The more lineups that are played and the more time off (assuming the play is playing decent numbers) the better plus minus data (RAPM/RPM) are. Those are our best impact metrics and based on what you're saying, you're telling me that you think they got an optimal set of different lineups to drill down on the two individual player's impact. Effectively, you've made the case that the impact data we have is accurate for the season. The impact data shows a clear and consistent advantage for Curry over Durant.

FYI - I supported KD to the warriors and still do. I have zero ill will towards what he did and actually have enjoyed it. None of that changes that there is a clear gap in the impact from KD vs Curry and it remains that Dray was the best player for the warriors against the rockets, the only series that warriors could have possibly lost.

Advanced stats should be used as auxiliary parts of an argument, not end all be all deciding factors. When you're only rebuttal consists of the word "impact" paired with a stat that puts Robert Covington (who was awful under playoff lights) and 10 other guys ahead of LeBron James on the season it leaves me wanting a bit more nuance.

And I honestly have no idea how you think Draymond Green was their best player against the Rockets. He averaged 8 points a game on 40 FG%*. He had a negative ORTG/DRTG split compared to +11 for KD, +14 for Curry and +5 for Thompson. His turnover % was an almost incredulously bad 31%.

What are we talking about here? The basketball that I watched all year or ONE advanced stat that I've repeatedly told you I'm not a fan of? I like talking about basketball.

[dhsilv2]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Eric Gordon stands to me.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the staggering of Harden & Paul's minutes, but we really see in the playoffs that the current cutting edge superstar unipolar model really works best when there's another "alpha" out there who can give the 1st alpha a micro-breather while still giving the offense a decent chance on the possession. It's a "dual alpha" system if you would, and we saw this year how much even LeBron needed this.

Enter Gordon. He's the 3rd "alpha" for Houston and thus allows. He's not the 3rd most valuable player, that's Capela, but he gives Houston potentially complete dual alpha coverage over 48 minutes, which is why Houston can play in this style without falling off a cliff with substitutions.

What's interesting here is that less sophisticated coaching schemes, the guy who'd come to be known as "the 6th man" was the alpha of the second shift. But what Gordon represents is a new pattern wherein there are 3 shifts and each alpha plays in 2 of those shifts such that one of the alphas doesn't start.

To me this represents a kind of promotion, or at least upgrade in perception, of the "star of the bench" and I think it makes the choice pretty clear.

(Aside: Worth noting that this model really doesn't apply to Golden State, which further illustrates how special they are.)

Can we just drop this alpha stuff can call it what it is? A second guy who can create his own shot off the dribble?

[HeartBreakKid]

Anyone thoughts no 6th man of the year? I've gotten to where I don't even think about the concept of "6th man" but we should bring it up. I will say, Manu is NOT a candidate despite some great moments this year, he was pretty much awful net net.

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

It's a good question on what defines 6th man (reason I never look at this), but Gordon in my view would qualify as he was the 6th man, Paul just missed a lot of games and that is likely (I'd have to confirm) why he was starting.

I could get behind Godron, Sabonis, Rozier, or Williams.

Rozier over Smart?

[dhsilv2]

I just don't see any objective argument for Curry over Durant unless your argument is that you like Curry better. The Warriors were kind of a mess in the regular season and played with so many different lineups that I'm not sure how useful any +/- stat is going to be when evaluating any of them.


Sent from my SM-J327V using RealGM mobile app

1. You know you can turn off that stupid tapatalk signature we don't have to see it every time right?

2. The more lineups that are played and the more time off (assuming the play is playing decent numbers) the better plus minus data (RAPM/RPM) are. Those are our best impact metrics and based on what you're saying, you're telling me that you think they got an optimal set of different lineups to drill down on the two individual player's impact. Effectively, you've made the case that the impact data we have is accurate for the season. The impact data shows a clear and consistent advantage for Curry over Durant.

FYI - I supported KD to the warriors and still do. I have zero ill will towards what he did and actually have enjoyed it. None of that changes that there is a clear gap in the impact from KD vs Curry and it remains that Dray was the best player for the warriors against the rockets, the only series that warriors could have possibly lost.

Advanced stats should be used as auxiliary parts of an argument, not end all be all deciding factors. When you're only rebuttal consists of the word "impact" paired with a stat that puts Robert Covington (who was awful under playoff lights) and 10 other guys ahead of LeBron James on the season it leaves me wanting a bit more nuance.

And I honestly have no idea how you think Draymond Green was their best player against the Rockets. He averaged 8 points a game on 40 TS%. He had a negative ORTG/DRTG split compared to +11 for KD, +14 for Curry and +5 for Thompson. His turnover % was an almost incredulously bad 31%.

What are we talking about here? The basketball that I watched all year or ONE advanced stat that I've repeatedly told you I'm not a fan of? I like talking about basketball.

I understand that you do not understand how to read and evaluate RPM and RAPM. You should spend the time to educate yourself on it. You keep ignoring RAPM, but you also keep making cases for why it is the best stat to use in these discussions. I'm not really sure what to do especially given your talking points are "Go use RAPM, it is perfect for these two". ORTG/DRTG net isn't a really meaningful metric here. ORTG shows me the points scored by play used. Dray's value is on the defensive side of the ball and in his effort and energy. DRTG while I do believe it has some value over a season, it is more a directional metric that has almost zero value in a 7 game sample. We can point out that the warriors were +47 with draymond on the floor and +37 with KD on the floor over the course of the series if we want to discuss their on court impact. Though I'm not advocating using those plus numbers in the discussion at all.

The warriors won the rockets series on their defense, not their offense. Green was their defensive anchor. He also lead the series in rebounding and assists, and blocks if we must look at just raw box score metrics (second in steals). You keep dismissing HALF the game of basketball in your analysis which again makes trying to discuss basketball more difficult. Even more difficult you only seem to focus on scoring and not everything else that goes into creating the basket.

[dhsilv2]

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

It's a good question on what defines 6th man (reason I never look at this), but Gordon in my view would qualify as he was the 6th man, Paul just missed a lot of games and that is likely (I'd have to confirm) why he was starting.

I could get behind Godron, Sabonis, Rozier, or Williams.

Rozier over Smart?

80 games vs 54 seems meaningful here unless you're telling me they aren't remotely close as players.

[Outside]

Not sure what the qualifications are, but Lou Williams came off the bench for 60 of 79 games he played. 22.6 pts, 2.5 reb, 5.3 ast, 57.4 TS%. Some may say award winners should come from a playoff team, but the Clips were in the hunt for a playoff spot, and considering their injuries and trades, they outperformed expectations by a wide margin.

Williams seems like the runaway leader to me. Others I have are Eric Gordon, Donatas Sabonis, Terry Rozier, Marcus Smart, and Fred VanVleet. Not sure if Gordon should qualify this year because he started 30 of 69 RS games, though only 2 of 17 in the PS. Are we using a particular standard for percentage of games started?

I need to check into it more, but for the moment, I have Williams, Gordon, and Sabonis. If Gordon doesn't qualify (he started a lot of RS games), then I probably bump VanVleet up.

It's a good question on what defines 6th man (reason I never look at this), but Gordon in my view would qualify as he was the 6th man, Paul just missed a lot of games and that is likely (I'd have to confirm) why he was starting.

I could get behind Godron, Sabonis, Rozier, or Williams.

Rozier over Smart?

I know Smart is beloved by Celtics fans as this magical being who plays great defense, makes big shots, and does so many little things that don't show in the box score but help his team win, but here's why I take Rozier over him:

-- Smart missed a lot of games (played 54 RS and 15 PS games, as opposed to 80 RS and 19 PS for Rozier). Extra demerits for the way he missed most of those games -- punching a picture and slicing up his hand.

-- Rozier isn't the greatest shooter (52.0 TS% RS, 53.8 PS), but Smart is horrific (47.9 TS% RS, 44.7 PS).

Honestly, the only reason I'd consider excluding Rozier is that because of Kyrie's injury, he started all 19 games for Boston in the PS.

[pelifan]

Lou Williams was the Clippers best player this season and they finished above .500. You could argue Harris was better but I wouldnt. He also got to the line a lot, 5th in Free throw rate among scoring guards. Just behind Lillard, Harden and DeRozan, Butler, and ahead of Wall and Curry (who got an absurd amount of freethrows this season for a finesse jumpshooter. No GS fan has the right to ever complain about how he's officiated ever again). He was 7th among guards in points per 36. He ran a lot of pick and roll this season and was a playmaker for teammates as well, his assist percentage was ahead of Holiday, Dragic, Durant, Ingles, and Derozan.

I dont see how 6thman of the year isnt Lou Williams. I think he just finished the best offensive season for a 6th man since Harden in 2012. Gordon was good but he wasnt the offensive player Lou was. He wasn't a playmaker at all and scored much less while playing faster. I'm not giving Grodon more credit just because he played on the best team in the league. He also played 19 more regular season games than Gordon.

Lou also has 2 player of the week awards this season, not to be discounted when we are talking about 6thmen.

Sure Lou gives up more than Gordon on the deffensive end, but when you're up there with the best players in the league on offense, which Lou was this season I think you deserve 6thman of the year even if you're standing still on defense.

[ztejas]

1. You know you can turn off that stupid tapatalk signature we don't have to see it every time right?

2. The more lineups that are played and the more time off (assuming the play is playing decent numbers) the better plus minus data (RAPM/RPM) are. Those are our best impact metrics and based on what you're saying, you're telling me that you think they got an optimal set of different lineups to drill down on the two individual player's impact. Effectively, you've made the case that the impact data we have is accurate for the season. The impact data shows a clear and consistent advantage for Curry over Durant.

FYI - I supported KD to the warriors and still do. I have zero ill will towards what he did and actually have enjoyed it. None of that changes that there is a clear gap in the impact from KD vs Curry and it remains that Dray was the best player for the warriors against the rockets, the only series that warriors could have possibly lost.

Advanced stats should be used as auxiliary parts of an argument, not end all be all deciding factors. When you're only rebuttal consists of the word "impact" paired with a stat that puts Robert Covington (who was awful under playoff lights) and 10 other guys ahead of LeBron James on the season it leaves me wanting a bit more nuance.

And I honestly have no idea how you think Draymond Green was their best player against the Rockets. He averaged 8 points a game on 40 TS%. He had a negative ORTG/DRTG split compared to +11 for KD, +14 for Curry and +5 for Thompson. His turnover % was an almost incredulously bad 31%.

What are we talking about here? The basketball that I watched all year or ONE advanced stat that I've repeatedly told you I'm not a fan of? I like talking about basketball.

I understand that you do not understand how to read and evaluate RPM and RAPM. You should spend the time to educate yourself on it. You keep ignoring RAPM, but you also keep making cases for why it is the best stat to use in these discussions. I'm not really sure what to do especially given your talking points are "Go use RAPM, it is perfect for these two". ORTG/DRTG net isn't a really meaningful metric here. ORTG shows me the points scored by play used. Dray's value is on the defensive side of the ball and in his effort and energy. DRTG while I do believe it has some value over a season, it is more a directional metric that has almost zero value in a 7 game sample. We can point out that the warriors were +47 with draymond on the floor and +37 with KD on the floor over the course of the series if we want to discuss their on court impact. Though I'm not advocating using those plus numbers in the discussion at all.

The warriors won the rockets series on their defense, not their offense. Green was their defensive anchor. He also lead the series in rebounding and assists, and blocks if we must look at just raw box score metrics (second in steals). You keep dismissing HALF the game of basketball in your analysis which again makes trying to discuss basketball more difficult. Even more difficult you only seem to focus on scoring and not everything else that goes into creating the basket.

I don't care if Draymond is playing defense like prime Hakeem. When you're failing to score double digits on the worst efficiency of any starter in the series (save a guy that shot 0/12 in game 7) and turning the ball over on 30% of your possessions you are clearly not the best player in the series, and certainly not better than a teammate that is scoring 22 more points per game on much better efficiency.

Part of the reason Golden State HAD to win that series on defense is because you had guys like Dray and Klay seeming absolutely incapable of creating any offense for huge stretches at a time. If Draymond was hitting 3s at even a 35% clip they win that series in 5 games.

As for ORTG / DRTG I agree I don't find it particularly useful but I do find it interesting when you are your team's only starter posting a negative margin over 7 games yet people are claiming you were their best player in that series.

[dhsilv2]

Advanced stats should be used as auxiliary parts of an argument, not end all be all deciding factors. When you're only rebuttal consists of the word "impact" paired with a stat that puts Robert Covington (who was awful under playoff lights) and 10 other guys ahead of LeBron James on the season it leaves me wanting a bit more nuance.

And I honestly have no idea how you think Draymond Green was their best player against the Rockets. He averaged 8 points a game on 40 TS%. He had a negative ORTG/DRTG split compared to +11 for KD, +14 for Curry and +5 for Thompson. His turnover % was an almost incredulously bad 31%.

What are we talking about here? The basketball that I watched all year or ONE advanced stat that I've repeatedly told you I'm not a fan of? I like talking about basketball.

I understand that you do not understand how to read and evaluate RPM and RAPM. You should spend the time to educate yourself on it. You keep ignoring RAPM, but you also keep making cases for why it is the best stat to use in these discussions. I'm not really sure what to do especially given your talking points are "Go use RAPM, it is perfect for these two". ORTG/DRTG net isn't a really meaningful metric here. ORTG shows me the points scored by play used. Dray's value is on the defensive side of the ball and in his effort and energy. DRTG while I do believe it has some value over a season, it is more a directional metric that has almost zero value in a 7 game sample. We can point out that the warriors were +47 with draymond on the floor and +37 with KD on the floor over the course of the series if we want to discuss their on court impact. Though I'm not advocating using those plus numbers in the discussion at all.

The warriors won the rockets series on their defense, not their offense. Green was their defensive anchor. He also lead the series in rebounding and assists, and blocks if we must look at just raw box score metrics (second in steals). You keep dismissing HALF the game of basketball in your analysis which again makes trying to discuss basketball more difficult. Even more difficult you only seem to focus on scoring and not everything else that goes into creating the basket.

I don't care if Draymond is playing defense like prime Hakeem. When you're failing to score double digits on the worst efficiency of any starter in the series (save a guy that shot 0/12 in game 7) and turning the ball over on 30% of your possessions you are clearly not the best player in the series, and certainly not better than a teammate that is scoring 22 more points per game on much better efficiency.

Part of the reason Golden State HAD to win that series on defense is because you had guys like Dray and Klay seeming absolutely incapable of creating any offense for huge stretches at a time. If Draymond was hitting 3s at even a 35% clip they win that series in 5 games.

As for ORTG / DRTG I agree I don't find it particularly useful but I do find it interesting when you are your team's only starter posting a negative margin over 7 games yet people are claiming you were their best player in that series.

Dray was the top assist guy on the team. Your take is completely incorrect on his impact.

ORTG - DRTG is a completely meaningless number. You're comparing apples to oranges effectively. Remember the team's defense is the primary driver of DRTG. Individual points per possession used (and keep in mind there is more going on offensively off ball than on ball, there is after all 1 ball and 5 guys trying to maximize the team's ability to score).

Prime Hakeem defensively could score 0 points and easily have been the most important player on the floor. How can you possibly question that?

Or more importantly where do you rank Gobert over the last two seasons?