'17-'18 POY discussion

[ztejas]

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?

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

[therealbig3]

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?

Another special circumstance imo. The Celtics have Brad Stevens. The Spurs are another special circumstance, because they have Popovich.

But the vast majority of the time, a team isn't going to do too hot if you take away their best player for a huge chunk of the RS and the 1st round of the playoffs. The Warriors did really well despite that, and even went 5-1 in the playoffs without Curry. Demolishing the Pelicans in game 1 was easily their most impressive win of the playoffs imo, considering the momentum the Pelicans had coming into that series and the fact that the Warriors didn't have Curry.

[therealbig3]

It's true, I think Green is a mediocre offensive player. He's an awesome ball handler and a great on-ball decision-maker, especially for a PF, but a lot of that is super-dependent on being able to work in space, which is a product of playing with Steph/Klay/KD. He's shown flashes of being competent without Curry and KD, in the 2016 playoffs for example, but he would look worse offensively over a larger sample size imo.

Fantastic defensive player though, and combined with the fact that he's a great passer and ball handler for his position, I still think he's a top 10 player, and a guy who could lead a playoff team for sure. Just not on the offensive end.

[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.)

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?

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

[dhsilv2]

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

How many screens did he set? Hockey assists? What about communicating on offense? What caused the turnovers? Where were the turnovers? When did he shoot? Why did he shoot?

And again defense is just as valuable as offense.

You have to watch the game to appreciate some players and no team has more guys like that than the Warriors.

[dhsilv2]

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?

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

Those all convey a clearer message than "alpha" imo. Alpha imo at least brings with it personality traits that are somewhat specific. Gordon is a guy who can create his shot which is I'd think what you're looking for here. We can expand on it, but I doubt more needs to be said.

Draymond is an alpha male if there ever were one and would fit the classic definition (social) far more than a Curry for example. KD is not an alpha personality, but he scores and creates. JR Smith acts like an alpha and I'd rather he shot less.

[ztejas]

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

How many screens did he set? Hockey assists? What about communicating on offense? What caused the turnovers? Where were the turnovers? When did he shoot? Why did he shoot?

And again defense is just as valuable as offense.

You have to watch the game to appreciate some players and no team has more guys like that than the Warriors.

I love how your response is to shift the goalposts into some realm of basketball that is impossible to quantify. I'm going off of the numbers that are in front of me, and those numbers are atrocious.

I watched every game in that series. I watched Draymond make boneheaded passes. I watched Draymond miss layups. I mean who could forget this gem?

Watch on YouTube

I watched the Rockets not even bother defending him on the perimeter because he was shooting 11% from 3.

Who cares if he had 6.7 dimes a game. That's 6.7 buckets a night scored by different players. He wasn't passing out of double teams or bringing the ball up and threading alley oops through traffic. He's giving the ball to two of the best scorers in the league and one of the best shooters. He SHOULD have 7 assists per game with how much they let him handle the ball. That doesn't impress me, especially when he leads them in turnovers and is their worst scorer in the series.

[mischievous]

When does the official voting commence?

[dhsilv2]

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

How many screens did he set? Hockey assists? What about communicating on offense? What caused the turnovers? Where were the turnovers? When did he shoot? Why did he shoot?

And again defense is just as valuable as offense.

You have to watch the game to appreciate some players and no team has more guys like that than the Warriors.

I love how your response is to shift the goalposts into some realm of basketball that is impossible to quantify. I'm going off of the numbers that are in front of me, and those numbers are atrocious.

I watched every game in that series. I watched Draymond make boneheaded passes. I watched Draymond miss layups. I mean who could forget this gem?

Watch on YouTube

I watched the Rockets not even bother defending him on the perimeter because he was shooting 11% from 3.

Who cares if he had 6.7 dimes a game. That's 6.7 buckets a night scored by different players. He wasn't passing out of double teams or bringing the ball up and threading alley oops through traffic. He's giving the ball to two of the best scorers in the league and one of the best shooters. He SHOULD have 7 assists per game with how much they let him handle the ball. That doesn't impress me, especially when he leads them in turnovers and is their worst scorer in the series.

Again the only post I've made is that defense is as valuable as offense. He did have value on offense, I'm not sure why you didn't see it watching the games. But defense is where he excels and why he is consistently seen as a top 20 player in the league.

[ztejas]

How many screens did he set? Hockey assists? What about communicating on offense? What caused the turnovers? Where were the turnovers? When did he shoot? Why did he shoot?

And again defense is just as valuable as offense.

You have to watch the game to appreciate some players and no team has more guys like that than the Warriors.

I love how your response is to shift the goalposts into some realm of basketball that is impossible to quantify. I'm going off of the numbers that are in front of me, and those numbers are atrocious.

I watched every game in that series. I watched Draymond make boneheaded passes. I watched Draymond miss layups. I mean who could forget this gem?

Watch on YouTube

I watched the Rockets not even bother defending him on the perimeter because he was shooting 11% from 3.

Who cares if he had 6.7 dimes a game. That's 6.7 buckets a night scored by different players. He wasn't passing out of double teams or bringing the ball up and threading alley oops through traffic. He's giving the ball to two of the best scorers in the league and one of the best shooters. He SHOULD have 7 assists per game with how much they let him handle the ball. That doesn't impress me, especially when he leads them in turnovers and is their worst scorer in the series.

Again the only post I've made is that defense is as valuable as offense. He did have value on offense, I'm not sure why you didn't see it watching the games. But defense is where he excels and why he is consistently seen as a top 20 player in the league.

I'm not saying defense isn't valuable. Of course it is. But he is not 60 TS%, 30 ppg good on defense. No one is. You have yet to explain to me what value he provided on offense that series that a replacement level power forward couldn't have matched. I love how when the stats support your argument they are what we should focus on, yet when the stats say something else suddenly intangibles and the eye test are what we should go by.

[Ambrose]

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?

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

I tend to agree that Dray gets too much credit offensively but impact is not just limited to the numbers you posted. He's proven time and time again to be a huge positive for the Warriors every time he steps on the floor.

[ztejas]

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?

In what universe is 8.3 points, 6.7 assists and 3.7 turnovers per game on .423 eFG% being a productive or impactful offensive player? Those are D League, 4th point guard on a team level numbers. Especially when you're such a bad shooter over the course of the series that you're letting the other team use 5 players to guard your 4 teammates. I don't even know how you're arguing this right now.

I tend to agree that Dray gets too much credit offensively but impact is not just limited to the numbers you posted. He's proven time and time again to be a huge positive for the Warriors every time he steps on the floor.

He was not a positive for them on offense in that series. You're right, he does many things outside of those numbers, but so do other players. The attention that Durant and Curry command and their combined gravity outdoes anything Draymond does without the ball in his hands. In fact, Draymond is basically a negative without the ball since you don't have to guard him outside of 10 feet from the basket. 7 assists and 1.5 offensive rebounds per game doesn't really make up for every possession where the Warriors were basically playing 4 on 5 on offense with Draymond out there.

It's easy to claim he did a bunch of great things on offense outside of the stat sheet after the fact, but I think his numbers speak for themselves.

[dhsilv2]

I love how your response is to shift the goalposts into some realm of basketball that is impossible to quantify. I'm going off of the numbers that are in front of me, and those numbers are atrocious.

I watched every game in that series. I watched Draymond make boneheaded passes. I watched Draymond miss layups. I mean who could forget this gem?

Watch on YouTube

I watched the Rockets not even bother defending him on the perimeter because he was shooting 11% from 3.

Who cares if he had 6.7 dimes a game. That's 6.7 buckets a night scored by different players. He wasn't passing out of double teams or bringing the ball up and threading alley oops through traffic. He's giving the ball to two of the best scorers in the league and one of the best shooters. He SHOULD have 7 assists per game with how much they let him handle the ball. That doesn't impress me, especially when he leads them in turnovers and is their worst scorer in the series.

Again the only post I've made is that defense is as valuable as offense. He did have value on offense, I'm not sure why you didn't see it watching the games. But defense is where he excels and why he is consistently seen as a top 20 player in the league.

I'm not saying defense isn't valuable. Of course it is. But he is not 60 TS%, 30 ppg good on defense. No one is. You have yet to explain to me what value he provided on offense that series that a replacement level power forward couldn't have matched. I love how when the stats support your argument they are what we should focus on, yet when the stats say something else suddenly intangibles and the eye test are what we should go by.

It is hard to discuss basketball if you think 30 ppg is a level no defender has ever been. That is just grossly false. Really understand that the warriors didn't suddenly not score when KD was off the floor, right? KD makes the warriors a couple points per game better with that level of scoring. Dray makes their defense a couple of points better with his defense.

Against the rockets the warriors DEFRTG was 99.6 with Draymond on the floor. It was 103.7 with KD on the floor. The offensive rating for the warriors was 110.0 with draymond on the floor and 112.6 with KD on the floor. The team had a net rating of 10.4 with dray on the floor vs. 8.9 with KD on the floor. The rockets shot worse with Dray on vs KD, they had a lower free throw rate, they had a higher turnover rate (.8 per 100), and the rockets had a lower offensive rebound rate.

The team played at a higher pace and had better assist metrics with green on the floor than with KD on the floor while the team's turnover percentage did not materially move.

Again those stats are there and if you want to dig into them yourself if you'd like.

Back to your crazy view that Hakeem can't have more value than a 30 PPG 60% TS scorer (especially one who didn't pass in that series). https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2

If we look at a long term RAPM and we look at the top offensive and defensive players, you'll see both peaks are in the +4 range, while yes I think there are more key offensive pieces and there is a small offensive bias, it is hardly anything close to what you're saying. You are coming from this discussion from the stand point that it is hard to score in the NBA which is without question false, teams even bad ones score 100+ a game. Replacing KD with an average starter would not massively reduce the warrior's ability to score. It would reduce it and with it they'd maybe have more turnovers, but it would be much more subtle than you're making it out to be. Like 4-5 points per game less in scoring at the high end and 4-5 points is a LOT of points, but elite defenders can do the same thing.

[Heej]

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?

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

I think playmaker will do. It's not like anyone looks at that word and thinks it describes someone like Draymond Green. We're learning now that you need multiple playmakers on the floor that can drive and kick to eachother and either score or churn the defense enough that one of the play finishers can score.

[Doctor MJ]

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?

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

I think playmaker will do. It's not like anyone looks at that word and thinks it describes someone like Draymond Green. We're learning now that you need multiple playmakers on the floor that can drive and kick to eachother and either score or churn the defense enough that one of the play finishers can score.

I'm specifically talking about a role that the Warriors don't emphasize and which puts major emphasis on scoring threat.

[Heej]

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

I think playmaker will do. It's not like anyone looks at that word and thinks it describes someone like Draymond Green. We're learning now that you need multiple playmakers on the floor that can drive and kick to eachother and either score or churn the defense enough that one of the play finishers can score.

I'm specifically talking about a role that the Warriors don't emphasize and which puts major emphasis on scoring threat.

But I genuinely don't see why the term playmaker doesn't fit the bill for what you're getting at. I'd consider a non-scoring threat like a Draymond or a Rondo a "facilitator". But to me a playmaker is someone who either makes a play for himself (i.e. score) or for someone else.

[Nbafanatic]

I think playmaker will do. It's not like anyone looks at that word and thinks it describes someone like Draymond Green. We're learning now that you need multiple playmakers on the floor that can drive and kick to eachother and either score or churn the defense enough that one of the play finishers can score.

I'm specifically talking about a role that the Warriors don't emphasize and which puts major emphasis on scoring threat.

But I genuinely don't see why the term playmaker doesn't fit the bill for what you're getting at. I'd consider a non-scoring threat like a Draymond or a Rondo a "facilitator". But to me a playmaker is someone who either makes a play for himself (i.e. score) or for someone else.

I tend to agree big time with your definition of playmaker. Just to make it even clearer: Is Kobe Bryant a substantiable better playmaker than John Stockton to you?

[Heej]

I'm specifically talking about a role that the Warriors don't emphasize and which puts major emphasis on scoring threat.

But I genuinely don't see why the term playmaker doesn't fit the bill for what you're getting at. I'd consider a non-scoring threat like a Draymond or a Rondo a "facilitator". But to me a playmaker is someone who either makes a play for himself (i.e. score) or for someone else.

I tend to agree big time with your definition of playmaker. Just to make it even clearer: Is Kobe Bryant a substantiable better playmaker than John Stockton to you?

Oh for sure. Especially because we know from Elgee's wonderful work that Stockton wasn't routinely making big time high leverage passes, and his passing doesn't outdo Kobe's resilient shot creation vs quality defenses. Kobe vs Nash is a debate that really stress tests my definition for me but I give the nod to Nash.

[Dr Spaceman]

That's awfully cumbersome and doesn't convey everything I looked to convey. I do think we'd agree that there are some drawbacks to using the term "alpha".

point? initiator? attacker? striker?

What's best?

I think playmaker will do. It's not like anyone looks at that word and thinks it describes someone like Draymond Green. We're learning now that you need multiple playmakers on the floor that can drive and kick to eachother and either score or churn the defense enough that one of the play finishers can score.

I'm specifically talking about a role that the Warriors don't emphasize and which puts major emphasis on scoring threat.

I generally use “lead guard”. Generally just means the guy who makes the move to break past the 1st layer of the defense and force them into rotation.

[pelifan]

I thought Green played good defense in the playoffs, but his plus minus in the Houston series being good has more to do with playing heavier minutes in the 2nd and 3rd quarters than it does his own performance. Dray plays both with GS bench units and in the 3rd period where GS makes most of their runs, and has bad bigmen behind him. Thats the perfect recipe for good advanced on/offs.

Really beyond good team defense he did not have a good series though. Shooting, passing and especially rebounding all were areas Dray underperformed. Do I think Dray hurt his team? No. I also think they don't win without him. But he did not play to the level that some people on this board think he is.