2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Colbinii]

I wholeheartedly agree. I truly believe limiting roster turnover and developing internally is one of the most under-appreciated aspects building successful teams. I am so happy that the Warriors value players that are familiar with the system and understand their roles. It has paid off big time in the past and present.

I understand that a bad team tries to change things up and find its core for the future, and I also believe that teams that are good for a long time need some fresh blood every now and then. But if you are a team with a solid core, I believe keeping that growing together as a team and improving considerably as a result is not only possible but often a superior strategy. Of course, this is not to say that keeping all 15 players is the way to go – but having a foundation of core and role players in place is invaluable in my opinion.

Of course I'll add that this only applies to teams in which coaches and star players actually try to develop a team identity beyond a single season – which is what I want from my team, but it's not a given around the league.

This works when you have a coach, GM and player all on the same page but ita difficult.

The Cavaliers didn't develop anything around LeBron James during his first tenure there and its clear LeBron realized he has had to take matters into his own hands. He held out for false hope already and instead assumes no franchise is miraculously as good as Utah, Golden State or San Antonio at cultivating a winning culture organically.

Damian Lillard has attempted this and his team has had little to no playoff success, in part because they haven't been able to add a Draymond Green or even Klay Thompson level of player around Lillard. The one player the did have, LaMarcus Aldridge, couldn't stand Lillard having the perceived spot light and left.

The Oklahoma City Thunder had this going, lost Harden due to a cheap-o owner and still attempted to cultivate within but those players rarely developed (and the one that did, Reggie Jackson) quickly left for greener pastures and a greener bank account.

Its easy to be a Warriors fan and say "Hey, look how easy it is". Frankly, they are in the minority, and teams have attempted the same around their stars but have not had nearly as much luck as the Warriors.

It is indeed difficult and we should be careful in praising the Warriors' core too much about it given that they pulled in KD.

With that said, while I don't fault LeBron for what happened in his first Cavs tenure, the reality is that the Cavs DID build up a good role player infrastructure around him. What they lacked was a second superstar talent, and the thing there is: I don't think you can really blame the Cavaliers organization for lacking that talent. A lot went into that, including Cleveland's less than enticing location for NBA elites, and LeBron's own reluctance to commit to staying there.

Well LeBron did commit to staying there for 7 years. He lost to a "superteam" in 2008 and 2010 where he is staring down Pierce surrounded by Garnett and Allen while he has nobody of that caliber.

Clearly we can't expect anyone to not be upset about losing to teams with more talent--and that happened in Cleveland in 2007, 2008 and 2010.

In hindsight it easy to criticize LeBrons decision.

What isn't easy is understanding the logical thinking behind his decisions.

I think the shame is that LeBron seems like he may have learned the lesson from his times in Cleveland that in the end it's only superstar talent that matters. Yes, when you're contending you want your role players to be as settled into your system as possible, but you aren't winning a title without fellow superstars.

Thats what happens when you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose, you then win in 2016 and are set up to win again in 2017 only for your "rival" to add one of the best basketball players in the NBA to your team. It makes sense logically for anyone in LeBrons should to say "We need more top end talent to compete" because they did need more top end talent to compete.

If you look at that and say "I kinda think that's true though, so is LeBron really wrong?" There I'd say it's not so much that LeBron's wrong to want other superstar talents with him, but that he may not be recognizing that even with superstar talents, fit matters.

The truth is that the Heatles were not the massive upgrade over the '08-09 Cavs that the chips would seem to indicate, and the only reason they were better in the end is because the 3rd alpha on the team (Bosh) stopped playing like an alpha, and turned into something more like a super-role player. People criticize Bosh for that, but it was HUGE for the Heat that he did that, and did it well.

I agree, and Bosh was a better role player than any other role player LeBron has played with. Star players tend to figure things out and figure out how to win.

I've been hot and cold on LeBron's big picture team strategy since he left Miami. I didn't think the move back to Cleveland was particularly basketball-smart but it basically worked out. I didn't think the move to the Lakers made sense based on the roster they had, but when LeBron brought AD in I was very high on what was done. I took the focus on AD, and the rapid development of a defense-focused philosophy under Vogel as a sign that LeBron really was thinking this stuff through in a way he didn't when he was younger.

I think LeBron clearly saw LA as a place where people as good as Kyrie wouldn't want to leave. He knew he could get a 2nd banana there in order to compete for championships because all LeBron wants to do is win Championships. LA have LeBron the best title odds.

But the moves this off-season disturb me, and I'm going to be watching LeBron closely over the rest of his Laker tenure to try to get a sense of what LeBron thinks is actually happening.

Couldn't agree more. But we can't let one off-season cloud the decisions of the past 2 decades.

The clear counter to the heliocentrism LeBron-ball from '14-15 on has been the motion offense (Kerr-ball, joy-ball, Curry-ball) of the Warriors, and I think in the end, what the Warriors end up achieving will likely shape how we see LeBron-ball to some degree.

Is this really a counter? LeBron was able to beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal.

If, in the end, LeBron ends up winning more championships than any of his contemporaries, we'll see things one way.
If, in the end, the Warriors end up winning more championships than LeBron, we'll see things another way.

D-U-R-A-N-T

(If it ends up a tie, which is a distinct possibility, much will depend on other details.)

Say it with me. Kevin D-U-R-A-N-T

[eminence]

"you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose"

"beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal."

Can't have it both ways.

[Colbinii]

"you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose"

"beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal."

Can't have it both ways.

Glad this was the takeaway of my at work post

[eminence]

"you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose"

"beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal."

Can't have it both ways.

Glad this was the takeaway of my at work post

Do you have a particular takeaway I should focus on instead. It was an all over the place post, I pulled out something I had a problem with. The rest seems largely in line with my beliefs.

The only trophy that isn't in LeBrons cabinet through fault of his own that could reasonably be is 2011.

[tone wone]

that moment when you realize the lakers could have some combo of caruso, derozan, lowry, kcp, danny green instead of what they have how around lebron/davis

health and bad roster decisions limited what could have been a 2-3 time champion (maybe not 3, but very likely two) into a one-off

The thing that’s so exasperating here is that we’re largely talking about first poor health last year, and then the bad roster decisions this last off-season.

If the Lakers win the chip last year, they probably run it back. Instead, despite the injuries, they seemed to take the message that the supporting cast was to blame.

They did not understand how good they had it.

Only question is who exactly “they” is. It includes LeBron implicitly at the very least, but how much did he want this?

Anyway, it really bothers me. I think it’s really important to try to cultivate long-tenured role players. You can’t always achieve it, but when you’ve it you shouldn’t let it go lightly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you bothered by Vogel? Because his ineptitude offensively is the root cause of all of this.

The need for supporting players who are better offensively is directly tied to how poor this team has performed at that end under Vogel. LA has the basketball equivalent of Montana and Rice and they can't score in the halfcourt. That's a problem and shouldn’t be ignored.

1. No plan to counter switches other than postups.
2. No idea how to counter extra help on postups.
3. Poor, reactive approach to gameplanning against defensive schemes that they see virtually every game

These issues have persisted for 3 seasons now. You add this up and it easy to see how LA's roleplayers look suspect offensively and conclude they needed to be upgraded. Back to back offseasons where personnel moves are made specifically to improve the offense and they have nothing to show for it.

Westbrook was a big swing. A swing I would not have took but the true problem is that LA needed to upgrade their coaching 1st and didn't. Now this offensively inept-defensive 1st coach has a roster thats not nearly as talented defensively as the previous one . So now his defense can't bail out his crappy offense.

Better coaching on the front end would lessen the need for more offense on the back end.

[falcolombardi]

potentiallt controversial opinion

the offensive results of lebron ball vs curry ball(and curry+durant ball) tell me that if anythingh. is easier to build a incredible offense around a goat helio than around the goat offball offensive player, even if only slightly


some would question the regular seasom results but even the the durant/curry warriors were underwhelning 2 out of 3 times in the regular season

and second stint cavs lebron arguably had more goat level playoffs offenses (16&17) in 3 years, than curry did in 5 dwspitw having durant for 3 (only 17 although 18/15 were really great playoffs offenses to a smaller degree)

which is why i disagree so much with the notion of lebron ball (or magic ball, or nash ball, etc) having a lower ceiling that warriors ball

[eminence]

potentiallt controversial opinion

the offensive results of lebron ball vs curry ball(and curry+durant ball) tell me that if anythingh. is easier to build a incredible offense around a goat helio than around the goat offball offensive player, even if only slightly


some would question the regular seasom results but even the the durant/curry warriors were underwhelning 2 out of 3 times in the regular season

and second stint cavs lebron arguably had more goat level playoffs offenses (16&17) in 3 years, than curry did in 5 dwspitw having durant for 3 (only 17 although 18/15 were really great playoffs offenses to a smaller degree)

which is why i disagree so much with the notion of lebron ball (or magic ball, or nash ball, etc) having a lower ceiling that warriors ball

I think it's a fair take. I especially agree that it may be easier to build a very good helio offense.

I differ a bit, I think because I lean further away from Off/Def rating in the playoffs (disliking smaller sample and being dependent on specific matchups my main gripes) and more towards overall Net rating.

I'm not too surprised that 2nd stint Cavs had great offenses (especially when healthy), they had a lot of offensive talent (not so much defensive). JR always got underappreciated it seemed. Blatt/Lue were/are a pair of talented offensive coaches as well.

[yoyoboy]

And great to hear all the Bulls talk!

I'm in a similar shocked position with DeRozan, guy's playing absolutely great (I think he might be 4th in my MVP ladder as of today, which is... a lot higher than ever before). Feel like the bench has overperformed a bit so far, but mostly it's just DeMar turning into a MVP. LaVine I haven't been wowed by and agree that Lonzo is at least on par so far.

I haven't thought too much about All-D teams yet, but I could see the two Bulls guards in contention for sure. My Steph for All-D campaign is no joke though.

Some of DeRozan's incredible +/- probably stems from the fact that opponents are shooting 31.5% from 3 when he's on court, and 43.0% when he's off court - and most of that is going to be due to random chance. LaVine faces a less severe and opposing effect (36.0% on, 29.2% off). I worry that the instability of +/- metrics at a fairly primordial segment of the season is going to influence people's thinking a tad too far. I don't know where to peg DeMar's defence though - it feels like every year since 2016, people have been posting on RealGM/Reddit saying that DeMar's defence has improved because of his efforts in isolation, but this never really manifests itself in impact metrics (which still consistently paint him as a very poor defender, until this year). I'm happy that DeMar seems to be happy and contributing though - seems like a genuinely good and honest guy. And I suppose that his +/- thus far is also a fairly pleasing counter to what happened for most of his career - being a fairly good player that gets underrated by raw +/- because he played for squads that had ridiculously productive bench units.

On the whole, DeMar/LaVine have kind of done what I thought they'd do (DeMar probably a tad above expectation, but I figured he'd probably churn out a similar level offensive season as he's done in San Antonio (which has been pretty consistently good).

I don't see Lonzo/Caruso being all stars, but I really like the fit they have with the offensive stars, and it makes for a truly fun unit to watch at the moment. So far, the Bulls as a whole are above my expectations, with their impressive defence spearheading things. They're an entertaining and very likeable bunch, so I hope it sticks.

Man, you just come by every couple of months, make a great post, and then just dip out.

Respect the quality over quantity approach.

[Outside]

If, in the end, LeBron ends up winning more championships than any of his contemporaries, we'll see things one way.
If, in the end, the Warriors end up winning more championships than LeBron, we'll see things another way.

D-U-R-A-N-T

(If it ends up a tie, which is a distinct possibility, much will depend on other details.)

Say it with me. Kevin D-U-R-A-N-T

But if Durant went to Cleveland, he would've had to fit into the LeBron-dominant system and would've become a significantly lesser version of what he became with the Warriors. The Kerr motion system, Curry's willingness to make room for Durant, and Curry's off-ball gravity all set the stage for Durant to become the best version of himself. He wouldn't have had any of those in Cleveland.

That's one of the main points Doctor MJ was making. Durant wouldn't have the same additive impact in every system. Durant was able to have maximum impact with the Warriors because of the Warriors' system and the nature of Curry from both a player and personality perspective.

Would Durant have been good in Cleveland playing alongside LeBron? Of course. Just not as good as he was in Golden State.

So it's not correct to argue that Durant individually made the Warriors an unfair opponent for LeBron without acknowledging that it's the Warriors' system and Curry that allowed Durant to thrive and the team to reach such heights.

[Doctor MJ]

This works when you have a coach, GM and player all on the same page but ita difficult.

The Cavaliers didn't develop anything around LeBron James during his first tenure there and its clear LeBron realized he has had to take matters into his own hands. He held out for false hope already and instead assumes no franchise is miraculously as good as Utah, Golden State or San Antonio at cultivating a winning culture organically.

Damian Lillard has attempted this and his team has had little to no playoff success, in part because they haven't been able to add a Draymond Green or even Klay Thompson level of player around Lillard. The one player the did have, LaMarcus Aldridge, couldn't stand Lillard having the perceived spot light and left.

The Oklahoma City Thunder had this going, lost Harden due to a cheap-o owner and still attempted to cultivate within but those players rarely developed (and the one that did, Reggie Jackson) quickly left for greener pastures and a greener bank account.

Its easy to be a Warriors fan and say "Hey, look how easy it is". Frankly, they are in the minority, and teams have attempted the same around their stars but have not had nearly as much luck as the Warriors.

It is indeed difficult and we should be careful in praising the Warriors' core too much about it given that they pulled in KD.

With that said, while I don't fault LeBron for what happened in his first Cavs tenure, the reality is that the Cavs DID build up a good role player infrastructure around him. What they lacked was a second superstar talent, and the thing there is: I don't think you can really blame the Cavaliers organization for lacking that talent. A lot went into that, including Cleveland's less than enticing location for NBA elites, and LeBron's own reluctance to commit to staying there.

Well LeBron did commit to staying there for 7 years. He lost to a "superteam" in 2008 and 2010 where he is staring down Pierce surrounded by Garnett and Allen while he has nobody of that caliber.

Clearly we can't expect anyone to not be upset about losing to teams with more talent--and that happened in Cleveland in 2007, 2008 and 2010.

In hindsight it easy to criticize LeBrons decision.

What isn't easy is understanding the logical thinking behind his decisions.

I didn't criticize LeBron's decision to leave Cleveland for Miami, and you can literally find where I made a point to say I wasn't blaming him for it in the post above of mine you quoted.

Also, to be clear: What I'm talking about with LeBron's lack of commitment was reference specifically to what was going on in Cleveland after they became serious contenders. You may disagree with how I characterize how things were, but I am referring to something that was very much a known point of conversation back then.

I think the shame is that LeBron seems like he may have learned the lesson from his times in Cleveland that in the end it's only superstar talent that matters. Yes, when you're contending you want your role players to be as settled into your system as possible, but you aren't winning a title without fellow superstars.

Thats what happens when you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose, you then win in 2016 and are set up to win again in 2017 only for your "rival" to add one of the best basketball players in the NBA to your team. It makes sense logically for anyone in LeBrons should to say "We need more top end talent to compete" because they did need more top end talent to compete.

If you're agreeing with me, great, if not, what point are you trying to make?

If you look at that and say "I kinda think that's true though, so is LeBron really wrong?" There I'd say it's not so much that LeBron's wrong to want other superstar talents with him, but that he may not be recognizing that even with superstar talents, fit matters.

The truth is that the Heatles were not the massive upgrade over the '08-09 Cavs that the chips would seem to indicate, and the only reason they were better in the end is because the 3rd alpha on the team (Bosh) stopped playing like an alpha, and turned into something more like a super-role player. People criticize Bosh for that, but it was HUGE for the Heat that he did that, and did it well.

I agree, and Bosh was a better role player than any other role player LeBron has played with. Star players tend to figure things out and figure out how to win.

I disagree with the idea that this is just normal for stars to learn to do. History is littered with would-be super-teams that forever remain less than the sum of their parts, and we're talking about the Lakers right now because that's how they are right now.

Are you suggesting that it's only a matter of time before Westbrook figures out how to play with LeBron & AD and then they'll win championships? If so, well, I'd call that pretty bold.

But the moves this off-season disturb me, and I'm going to be watching LeBron closely over the rest of his Laker tenure to try to get a sense of what LeBron thinks is actually happening.

Couldn't agree more. But we can't let one off-season cloud the decisions of the past 2 decades.

None of what I'm talking about is a reaction simply from this past off-season, which is why I brought up LeBron's history going back to his first team.

I'm literally just continuing the analysis I've been doing the entire time treating each new season as new data to be factoring in along with the old.

The clear counter to the heliocentrism LeBron-ball from '14-15 on has been the motion offense (Kerr-ball, joy-ball, Curry-ball) of the Warriors, and I think in the end, what the Warriors end up achieving will likely shape how we see LeBron-ball to some degree.

Is this really a counter? LeBron was able to beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal.

I would suggest that serious analysis in 2021 should involve something more than mentioning one 4-3 series from 2016.

Did that Cavs victory help LeBron's arguments across the board? Absolutely.

Does it end all arguments pertaining to heliocentrism and motion offense? No.

If, in the end, LeBron ends up winning more championships than any of his contemporaries, we'll see things one way.
If, in the end, the Warriors end up winning more championships than LeBron, we'll see things another way.

D-U-R-A-N-T

(If it ends up a tie, which is a distinct possibility, much will depend on other details.)

Say it with me. Kevin D-U-R-A-N-T

Obviously if Durant rips off a dynastic run in Brooklyn that will loom large over everything we're talking about.

However Durant doesn't represent an extreme style of team basketball like LeBron & Steph do. Partly that's because he's more of an individually-minded player. Partly that's because he's changed teams a couple of times and changed how he's played some when he's done that.

In that sense, if Durant ends up being seen as the best player of this age, it's effect will likely be to conclude that team strategy doesn't really matter, because in the end it's just about finding a good enough scorer. This will then further the argument from Jordanites that not only is the GOAT, but that it really didn't matter how the Bulls played when they won, because he'd have ended up winning regardless.

[falcolombardi]

It is indeed difficult and we should be careful in praising the Warriors' core too much about it given that they pulled in KD.

With that said, while I don't fault LeBron for what happened in his first Cavs tenure, the reality is that the Cavs DID build up a good role player infrastructure around him. What they lacked was a second superstar talent, and the thing there is: I don't think you can really blame the Cavaliers organization for lacking that talent. A lot went into that, including Cleveland's less than enticing location for NBA elites, and LeBron's own reluctance to commit to staying there.

Well LeBron did commit to staying there for 7 years. He lost to a "superteam" in 2008 and 2010 where he is staring down Pierce surrounded by Garnett and Allen while he has nobody of that caliber.

Clearly we can't expect anyone to not be upset about losing to teams with more talent--and that happened in Cleveland in 2007, 2008 and 2010.

In hindsight it easy to criticize LeBrons decision.

What isn't easy is understanding the logical thinking behind his decisions.

I didn't criticize LeBron's decision to leave Cleveland for Miami, and you can literally find where I made a point to say I wasn't blaming him for it in the post above of mine you quoted.

Also, to be clear: What I'm talking about with LeBron's lack of commitment was reference specifically to what was going on in Cleveland after they became serious contenders. You may disagree with how I characterize how things were, but I am referring to something that was very much a known point of conversation back then.

I think the shame is that LeBron seems like he may have learned the lesson from his times in Cleveland that in the end it's only superstar talent that matters. Yes, when you're contending you want your role players to be as settled into your system as possible, but you aren't winning a title without fellow superstars.

Thats what happens when you should have won in 2015 but injuries cause you to lose, you then win in 2016 and are set up to win again in 2017 only for your "rival" to add one of the best basketball players in the NBA to your team. It makes sense logically for anyone in LeBrons should to say "We need more top end talent to compete" because they did need more top end talent to compete.

If you're agreeing with me, great, if not, what point are you trying to make?

If you look at that and say "I kinda think that's true though, so is LeBron really wrong?" There I'd say it's not so much that LeBron's wrong to want other superstar talents with him, but that he may not be recognizing that even with superstar talents, fit matters.

The truth is that the Heatles were not the massive upgrade over the '08-09 Cavs that the chips would seem to indicate, and the only reason they were better in the end is because the 3rd alpha on the team (Bosh) stopped playing like an alpha, and turned into something more like a super-role player. People criticize Bosh for that, but it was HUGE for the Heat that he did that, and did it well.

I agree, and Bosh was a better role player than any other role player LeBron has played with. Star players tend to figure things out and figure out how to win.

I disagree with the idea that this is just normal for stars to learn to do. History is littered with would-be super-teams that forever remain less than the sum of their parts, and we're talking about the Lakers right now because that's how they are right now.

Are you suggesting that it's only a matter of time before Westbrook figures out how to play with LeBron & AD and then they'll win championships? If so, well, I'd call that pretty bold.

But the moves this off-season disturb me, and I'm going to be watching LeBron closely over the rest of his Laker tenure to try to get a sense of what LeBron thinks is actually happening.

Couldn't agree more. But we can't let one off-season cloud the decisions of the past 2 decades.

None of what I'm talking about is a reaction simply from this past off-season, which is why I brought up LeBron's history going back to his first team.

I'm literally just continuing the analysis I've been doing the entire time treating each new season as new data to be factoring in along with the old.

The clear counter to the heliocentrism LeBron-ball from '14-15 on has been the motion offense (Kerr-ball, joy-ball, Curry-ball) of the Warriors, and I think in the end, what the Warriors end up achieving will likely shape how we see LeBron-ball to some degree.

Is this really a counter? LeBron was able to beat the team you are referencing in Finals when the teams were equal.

I would suggest that serious analysis in 2021 should involve something more than mentioning one 4-3 series from 2016.

Did that Cavs victory help LeBron's arguments across the board? Absolutely.

Does it end all arguments pertaining to heliocentrism and motion offense? No.

If, in the end, LeBron ends up winning more championships than any of his contemporaries, we'll see things one way.
If, in the end, the Warriors end up winning more championships than LeBron, we'll see things another way.

D-U-R-A-N-T

(If it ends up a tie, which is a distinct possibility, much will depend on other details.)

Say it with me. Kevin D-U-R-A-N-T

Obviously if Durant rips off a dynastic run in Brooklyn that will loom large over everything we're talking about.

However Durant doesn't represent an extreme style of team basketball like LeBron & Steph do. Partly that's because he's more of an individually-minded player. Partly that's because he's changed teams a couple of times and changed how he's played some when he's done that.

In that sense, if Durant ends up being seen as the best player of this age, it's effect will likely be to conclude that team strategy doesn't really matter, because in the end it's just about finding a good enough scorer. This will then further the argument from Jordanites that not only is the GOAT, but that it really didn't matter how the Bulls played when they won, because he'd have ended up winning regardless.

you mean by the greater basketball world or by peopke in more, lets call it analytics friendly places like this?

durant winning another 3 rings would make him considered the goat of this era by most regardless of how good his own play was to get them, but it would be a ringz kind of argument

it would be like saying that lebron having 4 rings amd curry 3 makes him his era goat and proves the superiority of a ball dominant approach

it doesnt, And curry winning more rings thsn lebron wouldnt prove the opposite either

[Doctor MJ]

potentiallt controversial opinion

the offensive results of lebron ball vs curry ball(and curry+durant ball) tell me that if anythingh. is easier to build a incredible offense around a goat helio than around the goat offball offensive player, even if only slightly


some would question the regular seasom results but even the the durant/curry warriors were underwhelning 2 out of 3 times in the regular season

and second stint cavs lebron arguably had more goat level playoffs offenses (16&17) in 3 years, than curry did in 5 dwspitw having durant for 3 (only 17 although 18/15 were really great playoffs offenses to a smaller degree)

which is why i disagree so much with the notion of lebron ball (or magic ball, or nash ball, etc) having a lower ceiling that warriors ball

Hmm, let me separate the two points you're making because only the 2nd pertains to me with your conclusions.

I think that it is indeed more straight forward to make a star-ball-dominant team than a motion offense, and I think this is something really goes deep into history.

From the '40s-50s Royals to the '60s-70s Knicks to the '70s-80s Blazers to the Phil Jackson teams to the Beautiful Game Spurs of the 2010s to the Warriors and Nuggets of today, we've seen teams in basically every kind of era achieve great things with motion offense.

Yet, the copycat league has never done a mass-copying of that approach. Why?

I think the answer in general is that to make it work you need the right cornerstones up front, and then you typically need patience as players get used to playing in this style that they didn't grow up playing.

Because of this, when role players come in and thrive in a motion offense, it often means that they deserve a lot of praise for their ability to learn a new paradigm, and that makes them special in a real sense.

This then can lead us to conclude that a star who is associated with a motion offense much not be as good as a more traditional helio because he needs more "special" players.

But what if we find that it's not actually that hard to find players who can thrive like this? That you can, for example, grab a handful of guys for veteran minimum contracts in an off-season, and they won't just be able to play the motion offense effectively, they'll actually be able to play more effective basketball like this than as role players used to playing like helio satellites do?

It is within the realm of possibility that the NBA's resistance to moving toward motion offenses has something in common with the NBA being resistance to embrace the 3-point shot. Too hard when players aren't used to it, but well within human capacity to get used to it.

This isn't to say of course that every player in the league can thrive in a motion offense, because they haven't been selected for attributes that would ensure they could...but if there are players who haven't been able to get "made" in the NBA previously and yet who can thrive in a motion offense - and of course that's what we're seeing right now with some of the guys in GS - then it's not at all clear that a motion offense actually requires more talent than other systems.

That's the first point, and to me that's all about floor-raising with a key sub-point being the expected time frame we're looking at.

When it comes to ceiling-raising, I really like that you go to the data like you do. To me that's where we go to find the answers to our questions, but we still have to ask and keep asking questions.

The question of "Does Curry-ball have a higher playoff ceiling than LeBron-ball?", has a strong theoretical basis favoring it, and I find it to be very compelling.

But as of this point, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I've seen evidence indicating the answer is "Yes".

And as a result, if we never saw another playoffs with Curry, the GOAT-type arguments pertaining to this specific player comparison would definitely point toward LeBron.

That still won't necessarily mean that "Heliocentrism will be proven correct." though. I don't think the answer to where ceilings truly lie are ever clear to see.

Last: I can't help but acknowledge some giddy-ness that the Warriors look as strong as they do. I want to see how all of this plays out, and really felt like we missed out on that when the Warriors convinced KD to join them. I don't blame or penalize anyone for that, but I can definitely acknowledge that we didn't get to truly see whether Curry could bulletproof himself to playoff defense the way others - such as LeBron - did over time.

But now, we probably will get to see that experiment continue to play out.

[Doctor MJ]

Obviously if Durant rips off a dynastic run in Brooklyn that will loom large over everything we're talking about.

However Durant doesn't represent an extreme style of team basketball like LeBron & Steph do. Partly that's because he's more of an individually-minded player. Partly that's because he's changed teams a couple of times and changed how he's played some when he's done that.

In that sense, if Durant ends up being seen as the best player of this age, it's effect will likely be to conclude that team strategy doesn't really matter, because in the end it's just about finding a good enough scorer. This will then further the argument from Jordanites that not only is the GOAT, but that it really didn't matter how the Bulls played when they won, because he'd have ended up winning regardless.

you mean by the greater basketball world or by peopke in more, lets call it analytics friendly places like this?

durant winning another 3 rings would make him considered the goat of this era by most regardless of how good his own play was to get them, but it would be a ringz kind of argument

it would be like saying that lebron having 4 rings amd curry 3 makes him his era goat and proves the superiority of a ball dominant approach

it doesnt, And curry winning more rings thsn lebron wouldnt prove the opposite either

Hmm, well, I'm talking about perception, and the sociological study of that perception is something that applies as much to RealGM as anywhere else.

I think you could certainly argue that Ringz!!! Theory applies more acutely to more casual circles of basketball fans, but in the end, all of us are taking in data from any given year that ties player success to team success.

I'm not saying that Curry or Durant winning 5 rings would necessarily put them over LeBron in my GOAT list, but that if said rings were acquired, there would almost certainly be plenty of positive basketball data that preceded them that would be elevating the player in question compared to where he was before.

And that's just me, and just my GOAT list. Most on RealGM are far less conservative with how they let their basketball beliefs transform to fit the emotions the last thing they saw made them feel.

But before I end let me also say this:

I specifically am looking to see several playoff runs from Curry where he looks like he knows exactly what his approach should be against whatever counters are thrown at him.

I'm not looking for this just because I'm interested in Curry. To me what we're talking about is essentially the next stage in development we see from guys after they deal with whatever they deal with after first coming into their powers.

I referenced the movie "The Hustler" previously about this. Here's a key quote pertaining to that:

Bert Gordon: I don't think there's a pool player alive shoots better pool than I saw you shoot the other night at Ames. You got talent.
"Fast" Eddie Felson: So I got talent. So what beat me?
Bert Gordon: Character.
"Fast" Eddie Felson: (laughs) Yeah. Sure, sure.
Bert Gordon: You're damned right I'm sure. Everybody's got talent. I got talent. You think you can play big-money straight pool, or poker, for forty straight hours on nothing but talent? You think they call Minnesota Fats the best in the country just 'cause he's got talent? Nah. Minnesota Fats's got more character in one finger than you got in your whole skinny body.

In the movie the young hustler Fast Eddie takes on the very best (Minnesota Fats), takes an early lead but then crumbles when the momentum eventually turns, while Fats remains cool as a cucumber the entire time.

Later, after Eddie goes through some real life s**t, he comes back and beats Fats with ease.

I believe this is also basically the story of Cinderella Man in boxing. In both of their cases, it wasn't just playing more that got them over the hump, and so it's always a question:

What can this particular player figure out? And what can't he figure out?

I watch Curry play, and I don't think the issues I've seen in the playoffs so far represent some fundamental limitations on his playing style. Oh you can lower his scoring by putting enough defensive man power on him, but you're not going to beat the Warriors 3-on-4, and I think if Curry is on his game - shooting well certainly, but also making crisp decisions on-ball and off - he ought to be able to make it feel like that.

And to this point, we haven't seen a full playoff run where Curry is doing this. We've seen some runs - most notably the post-Durant run of 2019 - but mostly what we've seen, we've seen from a guy who still seemed "new" at dealing with this degree of defensive attention.

I want to see what new equilibrium Curry can establish now.

Perhaps nothing has changed - "rough'em up a bit, when Steph isn't 100% he can get in his own head" - but we should hope, I think, that he's added some "character" armor.

[Statlanta]

There was a stat on the Warriors board that stated the Warriors are the best defensive rebounding team in the league. IMO they don't have the personnel to be that. I have no stats to prove it but I personally feel like they are playing harder than other teams, much like Miami so far in the RS rather than being so good(Shades of 2016).

Total opposite of teams like Utah who just let the Magic just waltz and take a game from them.

[Doctor MJ]

There was a stat on the Warriors board that stated the Warriors are the best defensive rebounding team in the league. IMO they don't have the personnel to be that. I have no stats to prove it but I personally feel like they are playing harder than other teams, much like Miami so far in the RS rather than being so good(Shades of 2016).

Total opposite of teams like Utah who just let the Magic just waltz and take a game from them.

Great thing for us to discuss.

I think it's important to think of defensive rebounding primarily about teamwork, whereas offensive rebounding is typically about the movement of one guy independent of anyone else. As such, I can't grant the premise that a team becomes great at defensive rebounding to start the year because they are expending more energy than anyone else.

I think what it says instead is that the team is operating as a team, where role players are specifically performing the actions they've been told to make rather than just reacting on "Ball!" impulse. And from the stuff I've been reading, this is indeed something that's being hammered in by the veterans on the roster - with Iggy getting special attention as someone constantly teaching and mentoring the young guys.

As such, while I think the advantages they gain through this may diminish in the playoffs, I do think good is as good does. They'll probably be a quality defensive rebounding team for the foreseeable future because they know how to defensive rebound as a team.

[Colbinii]

So it's not correct to argue that Durant individually made the Warriors an unfair opponent for LeBron without acknowledging that it's the Warriors' system and Curry that allowed Durant to thrive and the team to reach such heights.

Both "The Warriors won more than LeBron because of Kevin Durant" and "Durant fit better next to Curry, Dray Klay than he would next to LeBron, Kyrie and Love" are true.

I would argue LeBron/Durant is a better fit in a vacuum than Curry/Durant, but Kyrie is more ball dominant than Green/Klay and neither Love/Kyrie fit in the defensive mold of Green, whose defensive impact is going to shine anywhere.

[Colbinii]

If you're agreeing with me, great, if not, what point are you trying to make?

I wasn't trying to make a point as I was at work, didn't want to work, and wanted to mindlessly blabber into an abyss while taking a 15 minute break from work.

I agree, and Bosh was a better role player than any other role player LeBron has played with. Star players tend to figure things out and figure out how to win.

I disagree with the idea that this is just normal for stars to learn to do. History is littered with would-be super-teams that forever remain less than the sum of their parts, and we're talking about the Lakers right now because that's how they are right now.

Are you suggesting that it's only a matter of time before Westbrook figures out how to play with LeBron & AD and then they'll win championships? If so, well, I'd call that pretty bold.

Westbrook isn't a star. He isn't intelligent on the basketball court. He isn't moldable or diverse. He isn't someone you add to a team to make a team improve.

Westbrook is, without a doubt, the most difficult player to fit next to any championship aspiring team. We saw it in Houston and we see it now in LA.

If I were adding a player to a team of talent, both Kevin Love and Chris Bosh rank significantly higher than Russell Westbrook.

The only player remotely close to Westbrook that the Warriors attempted to acquire was D'Angelo Russell and they quickly shipped him out after realizing the mistake 10 games later.

Does it end all arguments pertaining to heliocentrism and motion offense? No.

Nope, but we have data points for Nash, Magic, Paul and Doncic-led offensives, all of which fall into the heliocentrism category, suggesting it has historically been easier to build around these players compared to the two comparable "Motion Offenses" led by Curry and Miller.

Obviously if Durant rips off a dynastic run in Brooklyn that will loom large over everything we're talking about.

However Durant doesn't represent an extreme style of team basketball like LeBron & Steph do. Partly that's because he's more of an individually-minded player. Partly that's because he's changed teams a couple of times and changed how he's played some when he's done that.

In that sense, if Durant ends up being seen as the best player of this age, it's effect will likely be to conclude that team strategy doesn't really matter, because in the end it's just about finding a good enough scorer. This will then further the argument from Jordanites that not only is the GOAT, but that it really didn't matter how the Bulls played when they won, because he'd have ended up winning regardless.

You're right but I personally hold the likes of "Player who creates the system" in higher regard than "Player who simply does his thing". The first group being the afformentioned names above (Magic, Nash, Miller, Curry, Paul, LeBron) and the latter being the Durants and Jordans of the world.

What I could be underrating is how Durant and Jordan can easily co-exist and operate in systems functioning around "Lesser players".

An interesting player here who I have a difficult time pegging into my own categories is Bird, as he happens to enhance the lesser systems but also scales well in the "Player driven systems" of the first group.

[falcolombardi]

sometimes i have wondered if aesthetic preference may influence what we consider optimal offensive basketball even if subtly

most people in the world prefer to watch a motion offense than a heliocentric one and that may (or may not) have some effect

i like helio offenses (depensing on how much much i like watching the Helio player in question) so i worry i may have the opposite issue and be biased towards "defending" heliocentrism as so many of my favorite players fit thst mold (paul, lebron, westbrook) and i sometimes feel get a unfair handicap because of it when people evaluate their impact

is like when i argue for a player i like more vs a player i like less, i have the worry in the back of my mind of how much my bias is influencing what i look at

so is possible that a majority or at least a big plurality of people want "motion ball" to be proven superior over "helio ball" because is more enjoyable, because is more about teamwork over individual ?

cause that is how i remember a lot of the hype and build up to warriors vs rockets in 2018

it seemed almost a war of ideologies: a duel of styles more than teams

the ultimate (kinda) helio/star/iso/foulhunt team of rockets vs the ultimate (kinda) motion/team work/ "joyball" warriors (2016 was a better example)

lots of emotional investment as so many people were worried rockets ball would become the way of the future after how they took the league by storm in comparable fashion to curry and warriors 2 years earlier (honestly rockets vs warriors may be one of the most important series in basketball history or at least it felt like it at the time)

then somethingh similar happened in 2020 (again with rockets lmao) with rockets microball vs lakers Bully ball (at least in hype, the actual series was a murder) as people worried the succes of the rockets would kill traditional centers and interior play for good, the amount of legitimate dread people had over the possibility of 2020 rockets succeding was somethingh i had never seen

so basically after all this tangent i went on, how do we account for our aesthetical biases clouding what we consider óptimal basketball theorically ?

[ShotCreator]

So it's the time when we can finally say that the recency bias has come back this season?

What 35 PER, 15 BPM, literally scorching from every level of half court, elite, truly elite, generational passing, deflections, defensive awareness and dominant defensive rebounding player can you adequately compare Jokic to?


Jokic is coasting to games like last night. He’s not necessarily even on fire when you watch him. He really seems to just be this good.

There’s nothing he’s doing that I don’t think he can replicate with good health. This new skinny Jokic just seems to be an unprecedented monster who’s legitimately mastered a sport inside and out.

Almost like 15 games streaks like that never happened before. I'm a massive Jokic fan, but just stop this.

Just stop? You don’t have to respond to me. And you’re not even talking in the same terms as me.

For one, I really see what Jokic is doing as mostly sustainable with health, nothing Giannis has ever been capable of - with health, is even close to current Jokic.

He has never played on this level. And the difference between anybody else’s stretch of games and Jokic’s is - they’re simply not as good on offense. Jokic > LeBron in any offensive situation, ever. Jokic will warp defenses more with this touch pass style of play that involves no ball pounding at all, yet has high volume scori and playmaking, and offensive rebounding, and rare level passing. Generational passing on the level of Nash or Magic, not just very good like LeBron, or Jordan, or anyone else mentioned.

And then Jokic turned his defense up to a borderline elite level. We’re talking about an offensive GOAT, boosting his volume to the highest possible highs, AND playing tremendous defense.

It’s not really comparable to anything.

You don’t see guys with the true skill level of Bird, play a high gravity bruiser style at the rim, and then consume defensive rebounds on the level of peak KG.

It just doesn’t, and hasn’t happened, even for 15-20 games, ever.

[falcolombardi]

What 35 PER, 15 BPM, literally scorching from every level of half court, elite, truly elite, generational passing, deflections, defensive awareness and dominant defensive rebounding player can you adequately compare Jokic to?


Jokic is coasting to games like last night. He’s not necessarily even on fire when you watch him. He really seems to just be this good.

There’s nothing he’s doing that I don’t think he can replicate with good health. This new skinny Jokic just seems to be an unprecedented monster who’s legitimately mastered a sport inside and out.

Almost like 15 games streaks like that never happened before. I'm a massive Jokic fan, but just stop this.

Just stop? You don’t have to respond to me. And you’re not even talking in the same terms as me.

For one, I really see what Jokic is doing as mostly sustainable with health, nothing Giannis has ever been capable of - with health, is even close to current Jokic.

He has never played on this level. And the difference between anybody else’s stretch of games and Jokic’s is - they’re simply not as good on offense. Jokic > LeBron in any offensive situation, ever. Jokic will warp defenses more with this touch pass style of play that involves no ball pounding at all, yet has high volume scori and playmaking, and offensive rebounding, and rare level passing. Generational passing on the level of Nash or Magic, not just very good like LeBron, or Jordan, or anyone else mentioned.

And then Jokic turned his defense up to a borderline elite level. We’re talking about an offensive GOAT, boosting his volume to the highest possible highs, AND playing tremendous defense.

It’s not really comparable to anything.

You don’t see guys with the true skill level of Bird, play a high gravity bruiser style at the rim, and then consume defensive rebounds on the level of peak KG.

It just doesn’t, and hasn’t happened, even for 15-20 games, ever.

do you see jokic as a goat peak then?