BBallBreakdown basically refuting what KD said about the Warriors' offense

[ProspectPark]

Why's this discussion going on when Kerr literally agreed with KD? People are so damn stupid

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM mobile app

These people think basketball is a video game with fatigue and injuries turned off.

They think players can go to the Finals 5 years in a row (coming out of the West) and still have unlimited stamina to run through screens all day and never get tired or injured.

Winning back to back championships and making it look easy is not enough for some people.

[Drygon]

Why's this discussion going on when Kerr literally agreed with KD? People are so damn stupid

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM mobile app

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/steve-kerr-responds-kevin-durants-comments-about-warriors-offense

Warriors coach Steve Kerr recently was asked about the two-time NBA Finals MVP's comments, and his answer might surprise you.

“I wasn’t at all offended by what Kevin said because it’s basically the truth,” Kerr told Anthony Slater of The Athletic. “You look at any system, I mean, I played the triangle with Michael Jordan. The offense ran a lot smoother all regular season and the first couple rounds of the playoffs than it did in the conference finals and Finals. It just did.

"That’s why guys like Michael Jordan and Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant are who they are. They can transcend any defense. But defenses in the playoffs, deep in the playoffs, combined with the physicality of the game — where refs can’t possibly call a foul every time — means that superstars have to take over.

"No system is just going to dice a Finals defense up. You have to rely on individual play. I didn’t look at (his comment) as offensive. I look at that as fact."

[Johnny Bball]

I could make the exact same argument being made for the raptors. They passed far more with Kawhi out. They cut more ertc. Doesn’t make it a bad fit. You need that kind of guy. And yeah, it does bog down the last two rounds. Just because you can average in a bunch of plays in the regular season that work against bad teams that won’t work in the finals, doesn’t mean you play the same way against the better teams.

As always when I have to see their stuff, bball break down uses bad arguments with limit examples to prove a point and coach nick Is just so basic.

[Joerezz7]

Remember, the Warriors and Steph are way better without KD, he stops their offense. Which is why they looked so amazing in the finals when he went down.

Warriors with kd: 6-4
Warriors without kd: 6-4.

Yeah fam the warriors looked worse vs superior compeition, so obviously we cant critque kd.

Warriors Finals record with KD 9-1
Warriors record without KD 8-10.

I think they are far more superior with KD on their team. That’s why they are considered a GOAT team with him

[Joerezz7]

Exactly my point. Game planning and adjustments matters. This is why stuff that worked in the regular season don’t work for every team in the playoffs

But you realize that teams can game plan against isolation players? And that coaches implement offensive adjustments just like they implement defensive adjustments? If so I don't understand why you'd bring up adjustments/game planning to defend KD's point

Teams can and did shut down kd before he joined a motion offense.

KD scored a lot on iso plays in the Finals. Majority of his shots was right in Lebron face. It had nothing to do with motion offense. The game slowed down. He gave the Warriors a entire different dimension. He was the only player on that team that could iso and score when the game slows down

[Joerezz7]

Yeah it’s a completely baseless argument. The stuff that works in the regular season still works in the playoffs. Really the only difference is shortened rotations, so bench depth doesn’t matter as much.

This is completely false. If this was true then Greek freak would’ve been in the NBA Finals last year and possibly won a championship.

The greek freak lost to the eventual champs who played at a 63 win aoce in the rs without their superstar. No sure any semi-rational fan can think the raptors are a good example of the rs not meaning ****.

Steve Nash Suns won 60 plus games and couldn’t get to the Finals. The 2018 Raptors had the number 1 seed and got swept by the number 4 seed Cavs. The 73 win Warriors lost in the Finals including blowing a 3-1 lead. When Dirk Mavs was the number 1 seed they got upset by a number 8 seed Baron Davis Warriors.
Nuggets was the number 2 seed and almost lost to the number 7 seed Spurs last year. Regular season don’t mean ****. This is why you have to change your game when the playoffs come and make adjustments. Can’t play the same way in the playoffs like you did in the regular season

[levon]

Yeah it’s a completely baseless argument. The stuff that works in the regular season still works in the playoffs. Really the only difference is shortened rotations, so bench depth doesn’t matter as much.

Of course screens and 3 pointers still work. It's just that over the course of a long series the opposing team will focus on making you uncomfortable with the usual sets you've been running generally against everyone. The game-planning is far more specific and the threshold of contact for a foul increases. All of that means you're going to be getting into your sets far later and with more variation, meaning the potential for players getting out of sync and actions breaking down increases.

You need transcendent scorers and playmakers to elevate you in those situations.

If you have the most fine-tuned offense of all time, maybe you don't need that singular guy. But there were very few teams historically like the GS Warriors.

Funny because the season before the warriors won, we had the 14 spurs who literally won that exact same way. And before that there was the 08 celtics and the 04 pistons.

"Transcdent" scoring or playmaking doesn't seem as neccesary as you're saying it is.

Okay, since the biggest contention is around "transcendent", I meant someone who can literally size you up and drain it over your contest at a relatively reliable rate. The 2014 Spurs were stellar, but they caught the Heat on their deathbed. That Celtics team had Paul Pierce who was an amazing shotmaker and creator for himself. That 04 team similarly caught the Lakers on their deathbed. The 04 Pistons should probably be removed from most analysis because of how much of an anomaly they were. This is back when teams were getting held to 75 points. It's probably not conducive to basketball discussions going forward to keep bringing them up.

Also, Finals success != Playoffs success

[Danny1616]

This is completely false. If this was true then Greek freak would’ve been in the NBA Finals last year and possibly won a championship.

The greek freak lost to the eventual champs who played at a 63 win aoce in the rs without their superstar. No sure any semi-rational fan can think the raptors are a good example of the rs not meaning ****.

Steve Nash Suns won 60 plus games and couldn’t get to the Finals. The 2018 Raptors had the number 1 seed and got swept by the number 4 seed Cavs. The 73 win Warriors lost in the Finals including blowing a 3-1 lead. When Dirk Mavs was the number 1 seed they got upset by a number 8 seed Baron Davis Warriors.
Nuggets was the number 2 seed and almost lost to the number 7 seed Spurs last year. Regular season don’t mean ****. This is why you have to change your game when the playoffs come and make adjustments. Can’t play the same way in the playoffs like you did in the regular season

Lol.

Steve Nash played in a brutal Western Conference and got incredibly unlucky.

In 2005, the Suns had a very young team and made it to the WCF, only to lose to the Spurs who were the best team that season.

In 2006, the Suns made the WCF without Amare and lost to the Mavericks 4-2. With Amare they would pretty easily won the title that year.

In 2007, the Suns got screwed by the refs in a pivotal game in the semi's against the Spurs (who won the chip) when Amare and Diaw were suspended for standing up for Nash after Horry hip-checked him.

In 2010, the Suns went to the WCF and were tied 2-2 with the Lakers in that game where Artest hit that buzzer-beater winner on kobe's air ball.

Suns could have easily won 2 championships if they had a little more luck. The Raptors could have lost to the Warriors, Sixers or Bucks, as well, but had some luck on their side.

You need some luck to win a chip.

Also, you can pick and choose all you want.

In 2008, the Celtics went to game 7 with a 37 win Atlanta team and ended up winning the chip.

In 2014, the Spurs went to game 7 with the 7th seed Mavs, and ended up winning the chip.

Now tell me luck isn't involved.

This idea you need to play some different way in the playoffs is ridiculous.

[johanliebert]

lol why do you guys hang on the word of this highschool coach?

Kerr doubled down on what KD said why is this even a discussion? coach nick has never coached at a pro level this is just a click bait vid

[johanliebert]

I don't think the video refutes what KD said. What KD said is inherently true about the playoffs for any team; you absolutely need guys who can create their own shot in a half court setting come playoff time and the game slow down. That doesn't mean it isn't beneficial to have a system with lots of ball movement and off the ball action.

What’s funny is that the most effective iso player may not have been KD on those Warriors teams. Steph has been significantly more efficient on iso possessions than KD in the regular season AND postseason for years now:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nba/news/warriors-will-miss-kevin-durants-lethal-iso-game-but-history-shows-stephen-curry-can-dominate-in-same-way/amp/

they both excel isolating but this thread would have you believe only KD operated outside of the system.

Kd actually plays well off of the ball thats how him and steph worked well together.

[First Take]

I am not a fan of coach Nick.

[freethedevil]

I could make the exact same argument being made for the raptors. They passed far more with Kawhi out..

Oh? What was the rpators record without kwhi? Did we ever see the raptors won b2b games after losing b2b games with kd out? No, you can't make the exact same argument, because the raptors never played better in the playoffs without kawhi. The warriors did vs the rockets.

[freethedevil]

IAppeal to authority because he doesn't actually have a counter argument for nick.

[madmaxmedia]

Watch on YouTube

For the record, he scored on just above 1 PPP on his isolation possessions in the '18 Rockets series, which was well below the team's offensive PPP for that whole series. Nothing he said about "needing" do go iso to help the team could be supported by fact. The opposite was true.

The Warriors were losing the series because they went away from their offense in favor of KD midrange ISOs. They came back in the series not only after Chris Paul got hurt, but after their offense started running predominantly through Curry again and the Warriors increased their number of 3-point attempts to match the Rockets' shot distribution.

I totally disagree. Houston had the lead that game. They kept jacking up 3s in the 2nd half. I don’t even think they attempted a layup. If they did they would’ve won that game even without Chris Paul. It had nothing to do with KD or Steph. The Rockets jacking up 3s like madmen is what lost them that game

Isn't that just what they do?

[XxIronChainzxX]

Yeah it’s a completely baseless argument. The stuff that works in the regular season still works in the playoffs. Really the only difference is shortened rotations, so bench depth doesn’t matter as much.

This is completely false. If this was true then Greek freak would’ve been in the NBA Finals last year and possibly won a championship.

I would also say that Steve Nash Phoenix Suns would’ve went to the Finals too. This is a totally false statement. The reason Charles Barkley says a jump shooting team can’t win a championship is because the stuff that works in the season don’t work in the playoffs or Finals. I do agree with your statement about the bench part though

You're basically proving my point with your example. Giannis was net positive on the court, so losing the series doesn't fall on his shoulders. The problem was, the Raptors had a better 8-man rotation, and the Bucks bench depth after their top 8 no longer made a difference. It had nothing to do with the Bucks style being less effective.

Was that true in the regular season? I bet it was not, even if you only count the Raptors post Gasol lineups.

[freethedevil]

Warriors with kd: 6-4
Warriors without kd: 6-4.

Yeah fam the warriors looked worse vs superior compeition, so obviously we cant critque kd.

Warriors Finals record with KD 9-1
Warriors record without KD 8-10.

I think they are far more superior with KD on their team. That’s why they are considered a GOAT team with him

Why are you using 2017 when KD fit into their motion offense?

Why are you using warriors vs cavs in 2018 instead of warriors vs rockets?

Why are you using data that doesn't support your point?

[Johnny Bball]

I could make the exact same argument being made for the raptors. They passed far more with Kawhi out..

Oh? What was the rpators record without kwhi? Did we ever see the raptors won b2b games after losing b2b games with kd out? No, you can't make the exact same argument, because the raptors never played better in the playoffs without kawhi. The warriors did vs the rockets.

Good lord. 17 and 5. And once maybe but truly you are splitting hairs and it doesn't have much to do with playoff ball being much different even to the eye. Kerr said it for me so I have little need to repeat it

[GeorgeMarcus]

This is completely false. If this was true then Greek freak would’ve been in the NBA Finals last year and possibly won a championship.

I would also say that Steve Nash Phoenix Suns would’ve went to the Finals too. This is a totally false statement. The reason Charles Barkley says a jump shooting team can’t win a championship is because the stuff that works in the season don’t work in the playoffs or Finals. I do agree with your statement about the bench part though

You're basically proving my point with your example. Giannis was net positive on the court, so losing the series doesn't fall on his shoulders. The problem was, the Raptors had a better 8-man rotation, and the Bucks bench depth after their top 8 no longer made a difference. It had nothing to do with the Bucks style being less effective.

Was that true in the regular season? I bet it was not, even if you only count the Raptors post Gasol lineups.

Was what true? I'm not sure what you're asking

[GeorgeMarcus]

Responded to you on a different point, but also thought this was a good point to discuss.

I think your first statement of "the stuff that works in the regular season still works in the playoffs" shouldn't be said as a blanket statement. The stuff that works in the regular season can work on the playoffs, sure, but it doesn't always work, and specifically because of game planning, better defense, higher intensity, etc. It depends on how strong or dynamic the team is with their regular season stuff. Some coaches will even try to "hide" some lineups and sets until the playoffs for this specific reason.

For example, a lot of single playmakers teams can't play that style effectively anymore because teams take the ball out of the main guys hands as much as possible. Their offensive style of primarily single playmaker offense no longer works well in the playoffs and guys who can't create try to do it more. If you can consistently be forced away from your style, then it isn't working so well.

A team like Utah with a motion offense, lots of passing, they meet a defensive game plan that takes away their easy scores, more second, third efforts to close out by the opposing defense, etc and their sets don't produce as many baskets and they have to create more individually, then they can go from a team that produces average offense in the regular season to a bad offense. Their stuff that works in the regular season no longer works so well.

The Warriors though had an offense based on motion along with multiple playmakers, multiple options, it's a lot harder to make that not work because there's a lot to stop for a defense, and on offense you have like 3-4 guys on the floor who can create and multiple elite shooters.

The Rockets with their switching did find a way to contain enough of the Warriors motion sets and try and force them to more individual creation, more so in 2018 when they had more length and defense. The nuance we need to look at isn't whether the isolation sets produce more offense than the "team sets", they shouldn't, but we are also assuming that it was always a choice to go to isolation sets (sometimes it was) for GS as opposed to the defense forcing it, and then the question becomes whether isolation sets for the team with Durant are more efficient than those similar broken plays without him. It would have been interesting to see a Durant less Warriors vs Houston's 2018 team.

Most of what we're going off for the with Durant vs without against the same team is a game and a quarter, which isn't much.

See, I disagree with the blanket statements you're making about why the Bucks/Jazz were unsuccessful. Matchups are HUGE in the playoffs, but it's not like there are certain styles of play that are consistently less successful in the playoffs than the regular season. The biggest reason the Rockets beat up on the Jazz? Because the Rockets attempt far more 3's than any other team, which mitigates the effect of Gobert's defensive presence.

With the Bucks, they absolutely cruised through the first 2 rounds. People want to generalize based on what happened in the Raps series, when in reality the Raptors were just the better team. They didn't have Gasol most of the season, Kawhi missed like 20 games, and again they were able to capitalize on the strength of their stacked 8 man rotation (despite having weaker talent on the end of the bench). Beyond that, Bledsoe (despite sucking) functions as a primary/secondary playmaker on the Bucks, as did Brogdon when healthy. Giannis wasn't alone in that regard.

I think you just took what I said, "blanket statement" and decided to use it too, lol. I didn't make any blanket statement, nor any statement in general about "this is why" those teams lost, I specifically talked about just the Jazz offense, lol. Sorry, just found that kind of funny, why did you have to use the same phrase when it didn't even apply?

First, I'm not taking about the Bucks at all, my single playmaker team was a general example, has nothing to do with the Bucks who I didn't really view that way, so I'm not going to respond to that as it's not an argument I'm making.

Next, I'm also talking about offense, which is what the thread is talking about, as the title itself says offense. You seem to be going back to overall team effectiveness or overall player effectiveness which isn't the question at hand, the question is offensive effectiveness.

You are saying the Jazz lost because they couldn't defend the Rockets, well, sure, but actually last season they defended the Rockets and Harden pretty well in the playoffs. Rockets were a 115.5 Ortg team in the regular season, 2nd in the league and Utah held them to 109.3 Ortg. Their defense was very good, taking a team down 6.2 Ortg is good. The Jazz offense though went from 110.9 Ortg in the RS to 99.9 Ortg in the playoffs, so - 11 Ortg, a huge decline. The worst regular season team last year had a 104.5 Ortg, they were awful.

So they defended perfectly fine, in fact, you could say enough to win more games, maybe even the series if they could have scored. It's their offense that let them down, expecting them to hold Houston to even worse offense is not that realistic. So yes, they are a right example of whether an offense is as effective in the playoffs or not, the fact is that their offense was not as effective.

Forgive me for misunderstanding your playmaking comment as a criticism of the Bucks (it seemed that way based on the conversation on the 1st page). The points you were driving though- about teams who rely on a single playmaker and the alleged issue with Utah's offense- were no less blanket statements than saying "what works in the regular season still works in the playoffs". You were suggesting that Utah's problem is a reoccurring problem for teams in that mold, yes? If I misunderstood that too then I question why you would bring it up at all in the context of this discussion.

As for your point about the decline of their offense, look at the player with the worst DRtg on the team by far: Donovan Mitchell. It was 83 while the rest of the starters averaged 118.5. Mitchell is the one guy that stunts ball movement and tries to generate iso buckets, while the rest of the guys rely on heavy ball movement led by Rubio. I just don't buy the notion that playoff defenses can prepare for motion heavy offense any better than they can prepare for iso players.

People talk about "Steve Kerr agreed" but that's exactly the way Kerr responds any time he's on the receiving end of slights and criticisms. As Dom pointed out in the other thread, it's called taking the high road.

[freethedevil]

I could make the exact same argument being made for the raptors. They passed far more with Kawhi out..

Oh? What was the rpators record without kwhi? Did we ever see the raptors won b2b games after losing b2b games with kd out? No, you can't make the exact same argument, because the raptors never played better in the playoffs without kawhi. The warriors did vs the rockets.

Good lord. 17 and 5. And once maybe but truly you are splitting hairs and it doesn't have much to do with playoff ball being much different even to the eye. Kerr said it for me so I have little need to repeat it

Not sure why you keep brining up the rs here. What happened in the po's? When did the raptors offence look better without kawhi?