2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Texas Chuck]

The Giannis offensive takes have been beaten to death and it is all relative to who you compare him to. It is about how much do you weight the 1st 8 games or so of his PS run last year to the rest of it, because there was a major uptick in production. Before that, people had skepticism of whether Giannis was easier to scheme against than other offensive players and with only such a large sample size at that point, it really came down to what someone saw with their eye.

Well I'm comparing him to the entire league and saying there are only a couple of players I feel confident are better offensive players than him. And its not 8 games of high level play. It's 5 years worth of it. That's a big enough sample size for me and frankly if we can't reach conclusions based on that large of a sample size we are calling everything randomness which seems silly, but if you stat guys tell me that's true I'll believe you, but then all of this is utterly pointless.

And I'm curious which players you think require greater scheming defensively than Giannis? Because that list might be Steph and nobody.

[falcolombardi]

i guess we can confirm the grizzlies without morant thingh was just noise

[Texas Chuck]

i guess we can confirm the grizzlies without morant thingh was just noise

I don't think it was noise. It wasn't a negative reflection on Ja either. That's a team with some good players who compete hard defensively and Jenkins might be the most underappreciated coach in the league.

But yeah I hate when teams play well without the star and the conclusion people want to reach is the star sucks. Maybe, but most of the time no.

Now on the flip side, I think its very real that Utah isn't remotely the same without Gobert. I hope all those who have doubted this guy being a fringe MVP candidate realize oh yeah I guess he really is.

[yoyoboy]

The Warriors ORTG (110.1, 13th in the league) is now officially the same as the Cavs'. And we're starting three bigs - two of whom can't shoot and one who's supposed to be able to shoot but shooting horrendously this season - and a 2 who has no shooting ability whatsoever (Okoro or Stevens). I think it's fair to question if Steph's plus-minus numbers are inflating his actual value this season due to the system being built around Steph creating advantages and the resulting movement and passing. It doesn't necessarily mean the team would perform at anywhere near the 98.9 ORTG the Warriors have with Curry off the court. I just don't buy that personally, as with him out of the picture the way they play would be better optimized for their abilities. And as Bad Gatorade mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot of noise involved in Steph's defensive +/- numbers related to the enormous disparity in opponent 3P shooting with him on versus off the court, a figure that tends to be highly variable.

At this point, Giannis has taken the lead for me. And Jokic would probably be 2nd. Steph 3rd. Gobert probably next.

[rate_]

The Warriors ORTG (110.1, 13th in the league) is now officially the same as the Cavs'. And we're starting three bigs - two of whom can't shoot and one who's supposed to be able to shoot but shooting horrendously this season - and a 2 who has no shooting ability whatsoever (Okoro or Stevens). I think it's fair to question if Steph's plus-minus numbers are inflating his actual value this season due to the system being built around Steph creating advantages and the resulting movement and passing. It doesn't necessarily mean the team would perform at anywhere near the 98.9 ORTG the Warriors have with Curry off the court. I just don't buy that personally, as with him out of the picture the way they play would be better optimized for their abilities. And as Bad Gatorade mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot of noise involved in Steph's defensive +/- numbers related to the enormous disparity in opponent 3P shooting with him on versus off the court, a figure that tends to be highly variable.

At this point, Giannis has taken the lead for me. And Jokic would probably be 2nd. Steph 3rd.

KD > Curry IMO

[Outside]

And after that unpopular take, I thought I'd also point out Steph and the Warriors have really come back down to earth offensively. I get they are beloved in their style of play and Steph and Kerr and all those role players contributing, but the offense hasn't been good for the past 20 games or so now.

Might Golden State not be the juggernaut they looked early?

I'd say they weren't as good as they looked early, and they're not as bad as they've looked lately.

[LukaTheGOAT]

The Giannis offensive takes have been beaten to death and it is all relative to who you compare him to. It is about how much do you weight the 1st 8 games or so of his PS run last year to the rest of it, because there was a major uptick in production. Before that, people had skepticism of whether Giannis was easier to scheme against than other offensive players and with only such a large sample size at that point, it really came down to what someone saw with their eye.

Well I'm comparing him to the entire league and saying there are only a couple of players I feel confident are better offensive players than him. And its not 8 games of high level play. It's 5 years worth of it. That's a big enough sample size for me and frankly if we can't reach conclusions based on that large of a sample size we are calling everything randomness which seems silly, but if you stat guys tell me that's true I'll believe you, but then all of this is utterly pointless.

And I'm curious which players you think require greater scheming defensively than Giannis? Because that list might be Steph and nobody.

Sansterre's post where he is arguing with you is an example of how people can interpret numbers differently than you. Giannis is obviously a very good offensive player, but is he closer to a +5.5 guy on offense or a +3.5 guy is a question that vastly effect how you value his total impact.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2106548&p=92706227&hilit=Giannis#p92706227

[cupcakesnake]

And after that unpopular take, I thought I'd also point out Steph and the Warriors have really come back down to earth offensively. I get they are beloved in their style of play and Steph and Kerr and all those role players contributing, but the offense hasn't been good for the past 20 games or so now.

Might Golden State not be the juggernaut they looked early?

I'd say they weren't as good as they looked early, and they're not as bad as they've looked lately.

Steph shooting has been the be-all and end-all of the Warriors offense, with every Warrior playing a cog in the machine built around that shooting. So it makes sense that November Warriors were a top offense, and December/January Warriors are sliding dramatically on that end. It's not hard to imagine Steph going nuclear for a month and all being lovely in Dub Nation. It does seem like the biggest media outlets have largely ignored that the Warriors have not sustained their offense at all. Casual fans still think the MVP is Curry's to lose.

If Steph's slump continues, I think the offense could get even uglier for a bit. Re-integrating Klay might not go smoothly. I think he looks rusty as hell and has none of that Klay confidence in his movement. But if Klay is going to return to any version of himself, and the Warriors are no longer living and dying by Steph's shooting temperature, this offense will be dangerous again in time for the playoffs. The Warriors of old ran a TON of early offense for Klay, allowing Curry to start games as a pure decoy that could surprise the defense and rip their heart out in the 3rd quarter.

[falcolombardi]

ben taylor once talked about how lone offensive stars in teams of defensive players and specialists often get the bulk of the credit for defensive improvements and i guess as far aa mvp goes that is now happening to steph

not that he is not a mvp level player, but most of the media and general public may not even be realizing warriors are winning with defense and a so-so offense and giving top much os the overall team succes credit to steph

[parsnips33]

ben taylor once talked about how lone offensive stars in teams of defensive players and specialists often get the bulk of the credit for defensive improvements and i guess as far aa mvp goes that is now happening to steph

not that he is not a mvp level player, but most of the media and general public may not even be realizing warriors are winning with defense and a so-so offense and giving top much os the overall team succes credit to steph

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

[SeniorWalker]

What the hell is going on with Steph man?

I've never seen him struggle like this, not in the last 7-8 years, not for this long.

[LukaTheGOAT]

The Warriors ORTG (110.1, 13th in the league) is now officially the same as the Cavs'. And we're starting three bigs - two of whom can't shoot and one who's supposed to be able to shoot but shooting horrendously this season - and a 2 who has no shooting ability whatsoever (Okoro or Stevens). I think it's fair to question if Steph's plus-minus numbers are inflating his actual value this season due to the system being built around Steph creating advantages and the resulting movement and passing. It doesn't necessarily mean the team would perform at anywhere near the 98.9 ORTG the Warriors have with Curry off the court. I just don't buy that personally, as with him out of the picture the way they play would be better optimized for their abilities. And as Bad Gatorade mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot of noise involved in Steph's defensive +/- numbers related to the enormous disparity in opponent 3P shooting with him on versus off the court, a figure that tends to be highly variable.

At this point, Giannis has taken the lead for me. And Jokic would probably be 2nd. Steph 3rd. Gobert probably next.

The thing is if you look at pretty much every RAPM variant that attempt to specifically measure impact in small samples, it pretty much says that on a per possession basis, Giannis has been ahead of Steph.


Simple Ratings (Last updated 12/6)

Jokic-24.2 (1st)
Giannis-23.2 (2nd)
Steph-14.9

RAPTOR

Jokic-15.2 (1st)
Giannis-8.5
Steph-7

Backpicks BPM (minimal plus-minus)

Jokic-7.5 (1st)
Giannis-6.9 (2nd)

LEBRON Metric

Jokic-6.86 (1st)
Giannis-5.66 (2nd)
Steph-4.9

Estimated Plus-MInus
Jokic-9.1 (1st)
Steph-7.7 (2nd)
GIannis-7.5

AuPM/G
Jokic-6.3 (1st)
Steph-5.5 (2nd)
Giannis-5

The difference in AuPM/G can be easily explained due to it utilizing just on/off and not adjusting for lineups like the others. But nonetheless, the numbers are telling us things that many of us have been saying for months, which is that Jokic and Giannis have been better than Steph when they have played. The few game difference between them and Steph isn't enough to go against the actual impact when they are on the court in my opinion.

[ShotCreator]

ben taylor once talked about how lone offensive stars in teams of defensive players and specialists often get the bulk of the credit for defensive improvements and i guess as far aa mvp goes that is now happening to steph

not that he is not a mvp level player, but most of the media and general public may not even be realizing warriors are winning with defense and a so-so offense and giving top much os the overall team succes credit to steph

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

[LukaTheGOAT]

ben taylor once talked about how lone offensive stars in teams of defensive players and specialists often get the bulk of the credit for defensive improvements and i guess as far aa mvp goes that is now happening to steph

not that he is not a mvp level player, but most of the media and general public may not even be realizing warriors are winning with defense and a so-so offense and giving top much os the overall team succes credit to steph

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

I think the argument might be that Steph being the offensive star he is allows the Warriors to play so many great defensive slanted players at one time since those guys can get easy enough layups (and thus the Warriors can have such a historic defense). It is the belief that the team's offense could not possibly function without him being there, and such a unit would never be viable to be a legit offensive team. It is kind of a rich man's version of what AI did for the Sixers in 2001. However, how you evaluate just how much lift the Steph is giving his arguable.

[falcolombardi]

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

I think the argument might be that Steph being the offensive star he is allows the Warriors to play so many great defensive slanted players at one time since those guys can get easy enough layups (and thus the Warriors can have such a historic defense). It is the belief that the team's offense could not possibly function without him being there, and such a unit would never be viable to be a legit offensive team. It is kind of a rich man's version of what AI did for the Sixers in 2001. However, how you evaluate just how much lift the Steph is giving his arguable.

is that any different than any other number of flooraising defensively slanted teams efforts?

if i am being honest, somethingh thay irks me a bit is that "floor raising"has been kinda diminished compared to "ceiling raising" offensively talented teams in its value

the whole ben Taylor scalability thingh where he doesnt give much relevance to making a weak team solid offensively and all the relevance to making an already strong offensive team even better

as far as those offense "carryjob" efforts go... i dont think curry is a particularly uniquely great one, but i may be wrong

[LukaTheGOAT]

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

I think the argument might be that Steph being the offensive star he is allows the Warriors to play so many great defensive slanted players at one time since those guys can get easy enough layups (and thus the Warriors can have such a historic defense). It is the belief that the team's offense could not possibly function without him being there, and such a unit would never be viable to be a legit offensive team. It is kind of a rich man's version of what AI did for the Sixers in 2001. However, how you evaluate just how much lift the Steph is giving his arguable.

is that any different than any other number of flooraising defensively slanted teams efforts?

if i am being honest, somethingh thay irks me a bit is that "floor raising"has been kinda diminished compared to "ceiling raising" offensively talented teams in its value

the whole ben Taylor scalability thingh where he doesnt give much relevance to making a weak team solid offensively and all the relevance to making an already strong offensive team even better

as far as those offense "carryjob" efforts go... i dont think curry is a particularly uniquely great one, but i may be wrong

I think the idea is that Curry is helping especially inept offensive players who don't provide a lot of spacing. So like it would be hard for just about any offensive star to "floor-raise" that group because of the lack of shooting and talent. I don't subscribe to it being anything that we haven't seen, so I am not exactly certain, but maybe someone can shed more light on it.

[Texas Chuck]

tonight's game aside, we should be talking more about the Grizzlies. They are the bizarro Warriors who went from elite offense for half the season to date to bad offense the last 20 games. The Grizzlies were basically the worst defensive team in the league then flipped a switch halfway through and have been just stifling teams(Again tonight an aberration).

[Dr Positivity]

ben taylor once talked about how lone offensive stars in teams of defensive players and specialists often get the bulk of the credit for defensive improvements and i guess as far aa mvp goes that is now happening to steph

not that he is not a mvp level player, but most of the media and general public may not even be realizing warriors are winning with defense and a so-so offense and giving top much os the overall team succes credit to steph

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

Warriors are 14th on offense while they would possibly be 30th without him (for example they were 30th in the season without Curry) so that alone is important, that's before considering factors like how Curry allows some players to spend less energy on offense and try harder on defense which one of the reasons why Wiggins is better on D now than on Timberwolves.

[Dr Positivity]

Does it normally take this long for RPM to have numbers?

[70sFan]

The defense and offense can't be separated tho, this isn't football. If Warriors had Shawn Marion and Amare starting instead of Draymond and Looney, we'd all be talking about how Warriors are winning with their offense. If Steph raises the floor of the offense to a certain level as the only real offensive creator on a team of catch and shoot guys and screen setters (excepting Poole who has been inconsistent this year), to the point where they can stack the roster with guys who's value is primarily on the defensive end, how should credit properly be apportioned?

That has nothing to do with him though. He just happens to be on a dominant defensive team. If they sucked on defense AND offense, which is very possible in the league (ahem Nuggets) then what’s his narrative? What’s left?

He could easily be on a terrible team on both ends. Them being better on the historically more important side of the ball, is a huge deal. But it’s a huge deal for the team. Realistically has nothing to do with him. I could just flip it and give the whole defense credit for his offense. Wouldn’t make sense. And it’s the exact same...logic and just superstar worship stuff.

Warriors are 14th on offense while they would possibly be 30th without him (for example they were 30th in the season without Curry) so that alone is important, that's before considering factors like how Curry allows some players to spend less energy on offense and try harder on defense which one of the reasons why Wiggins is better on D now than on Timberwolves.

2020 Warriors and 2022 Warriors are not the same teams though. 2021 Warriors were 20th on offense with healthy Curry.