2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[LukaTheGOAT]

Joel Embiid now officially has the highest free throw rate in nba history, edging out 2001 Shaq.

How?

2022 Embiid: 61.4% FTr

2001 Shaq: 68.4% FTr

1984 Dantley: 65.8% FTr

Or did you mean FTA per possession?

Yeah I meant free-throws per possession.

2022 Embiid: 17.6 FTA per 100 possessions
2001 Shaq: 17.4 FTA per 100 possessions

[70sFan]

Joel Embiid now officially has the highest free throw rate in nba history, edging out 2001 Shaq.

How?

2022 Embiid: 61.4% FTr

2001 Shaq: 68.4% FTr

1984 Dantley: 65.8% FTr

Or did you mean FTA per possession?

Yeah I meant free-throws per possession.

2022 Embiid: 17.6 FTA per 100 possessions
2001 Shaq: 17.4 FTA per 100 possessions

Thanks for clarification, now it makes sense. Although it is an indicator of how amazing scoring season Embiid has so far, we have to remember that it also shows how ridiculous his per-possession volume is, especially for relatively low mpg player.

I don't think we can compare raw per100 stats anymore even to players that played 20 years ago. We have to create a better model adjusting for such a drastic strategic differences.

[HeartBreakKid]

Did you predict the Warriors would have the record they do this year?

i don't think it's relevant to my point, but y'know Steve Kerr was on the Warriors last year too.

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

[toodles23]

Joel Embiid now officially has the highest free throw rate in nba history, edging out 2001 Shaq.

Watching him is really bizarre, it's like he's playing by a completely different rulebook. Nobody else in the league gets the kind of calls he does where he'll just bump into a guy, throw up some garbage, and get rewarded with 2 FTs, or how he gets a whistle on marginal contact that they would never dream of calling for anybody else.

Really, the Sixers as a team are reliant on the refs in a way I can't remember for any other team in NBA history. If they treated Embiid like a normal player and called Harden like they did at the beginning of the season there's no way the Sixers would be real contenders.

[Doctor MJ]

i don't think it's relevant to my point, but y'know Steve Kerr was on the Warriors last year too.

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Putting aside from the fact that the team was clearly playing very differently in the Oubre/Wiseman era, the bigger issue I have with your statement is this idea that the coach has some static impact on his team.

When a team improves as a result of player development - which includes training players on how to play within the team's schemes - that's precisely what a coach and his staff are trying to do over time. Hence, while I would argue that basically all of us underestimated Kerr because we didn't expect this sort of player development, you're giving the impression that you underestimated Kerr because it didn't occur to you that a coach could develop his players.

I'm skeptical you actually believe this.

[Colbinii]

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Putting aside from the fact that the team was clearly playing very differently in the Oubre/Wiseman era, the bigger issue I have with your statement is this idea that the coach has some static impact on his team.

When a team improves as a result of player development - which includes training players on how to play within the team's schemes - that's precisely what a coach and his staff are trying to do over time. Hence, while I would argue that basically all of us underestimated Kerr because we didn't expect this sort of player development, you're giving the impression that you underestimated Kerr because it didn't occur to you that a coach could develop his players.

I'm skeptical you actually believe this.

I would give most of the player development credit to Ken Atkinson who has shown a tremendous ability at developing young talent [D'Angelo Russell/Caris LaVert and Trae Mann prior to this season].

I would give Kerr credit in identifying and allowing Atkinson to be part of the coaching staff and give him full reigns on the player development of the younger players.

[GSP]

i don't think it's relevant to my point, but y'know Steve Kerr was on the Warriors last year too.

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman were big parts of the team last year. When Wiseman was done for the season they went 14-5 the rest of the season a 60 win pace playing the type of ball theyve played this season without Wiseman.

[HeartBreakKid]

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Putting aside from the fact that the team was clearly playing very differently in the Oubre/Wiseman era, the bigger issue I have with your statement is this idea that the coach has some static impact on his team.

When a team improves as a result of player development - which includes training players on how to play within the team's schemes - that's precisely what a coach and his staff are trying to do over time. Hence, while I would argue that basically all of us underestimated Kerr because we didn't expect this sort of player development, you're giving the impression that you underestimated Kerr because it didn't occur to you that a coach could develop his players.

I'm skeptical you actually believe this.

Or maybe the players just got better, independent of our white savior Steve Kerr. I'm a little tired of the whole "oh this guy is only good cause this guy coached him" thing. Players train on their own and improve on their own. Steve Kerr is not their personal trainer, you're saying he did something he did not do.

The premise is still flawed. You're trying to say "you thought the Warriors wouldn't be that good this season therefore Kerr is underrated" - but the entire basis for why people thought the Warriors were not going to be good this year was because they weren't very good last year...there's a logic chain there that is broken.

You could just as easily say that Kerr underachieved with his team last year and that the Warriors are more talented than we thought (which is actually true, they are better than we thought).



I mean the real reason why people thought the Warriors wouldn't be good is because the core players are in their 30s and one of them was injured (Klay). Two of their starters Poole and Wiggins improved, people seldom take into account improvement from non-stars. Jordan Poole did not improve because Steve Kerr trained him, he improved because he is 22 years old.




And this also goes back that none of this is even relevant to "Steve Kerr is not underrated". Steve Kerr has been cited as one of the best coaches in the league every year since he has been coaching....that's not even hyperbole, literally since his first year.

Saying Steve Kerr is underrated is like saying Kobe Bryant is underrated. What's next, we're going to start saying old, rich white guys have it the hardest in America? Let's save the underrated arguments for coaches who are actually overlooked and seldom praised - which are most coaches.


"Did you think the Warriors would be that good this year" - did you think the Grizzlies, Cavs and Bulls would be as good as they are? Do they have top ten all time coaches as well?

[Colbinii]

My point, is that if you were not able to properly predict how good the Warriors would be this year, then you underrated them.

And I would argue that if you significantly underrated them, and you've somehow concluded that this had nothing to do with your evaluation of Kerr - that you understood his value perfectly and were wrong only because of other factors - you're fooling yourself.

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman were big parts of the team last year. When Wiseman was done for the season they went 14-5 the rest of the season a 60 win pace playing the type of ball theyve played this season without Wiseman.

So Wiseman is the difference between a 30 win and 60 win team?

[GSP]

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman were big parts of the team last year. When Wiseman was done for the season they went 14-5 the rest of the season a 60 win pace playing the type of ball theyve played this season without Wiseman.

So Wiseman is the difference between a 30 win and 60 win team?

Elgee talked about this briefly on one of his vids and they were at a 43 win pace with Wiseman and 60 win pace without him. The pace without him matches up with the team this year TBH. Wiseman is a really talented player but a bad fit with the Warriors system.

[Colbinii]

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman were big parts of the team last year. When Wiseman was done for the season they went 14-5 the rest of the season a 60 win pace playing the type of ball theyve played this season without Wiseman.

So Wiseman is the difference between a 30 win and 60 win team?

Elgee talked about this briefly on one of his vids and they were at a 43 win pace with Wiseman and 60 win pace without him. The pace without him matches up with the team this year TBH. Wiseman is a really talented player but a bad fit with the Warriors system.

Wiseman isn't a bad fit with the Warriors--he is a bad fit with the NBA.

[HeartBreakKid]

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman were big parts of the team last year. When Wiseman was done for the season they went 14-5 the rest of the season a 60 win pace playing the type of ball theyve played this season without Wiseman.

So Wiseman is the difference between a 30 win and 60 win team?

Elgee talked about this briefly on one of his vids and they were at a 43 win pace with Wiseman and 60 win pace without him. The pace without him matches up with the team this year TBH. Wiseman is a really talented player but a bad fit with the Warriors system.

Kerr was playing a player that bad on purpose?

[LukaTheGOAT]

their defense was insane with draymond

On that topic

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Warriors D-Rating before Draymond's injury was historic: 103.2 (9th best defense relative to league average since the ABA/NBA merger in 1977)

Warriors D-Rating since Draymond's injury: 110.8 (Only the 9th best defense in the league over that span)

Warriors are 28-6 with Draymond

15-15 Without Draymond

I feel like I'm reading a different graph than everyone else.

Look at the blue line and the way the Warrior defense got worse over time with Draymond, then got better without him, and only after a while later started really falling apart. That's really not the strong correlation the narrative paints it as.

As I've said, I really do think Green is the most valuable defender in the game, so I'm not saying this to knock him relative to other players, but if Green wins the DPOY it won't be because of how badly the team did when he didn't play, but because of the narrative that can really only be constructed by not looking too closely.

The blue line is the rolling average. The yellow line is their actual defensive rating. The difference is rather dramatic in my opinion and the yellow line rising so dramatically, doesn't seem like an accident to me. The other numbers I posted show how things have drastically changed since he was gone.

[70sFan]

Jokic with another ATG performance. Granted, this time by Pelicans, but to be honest his team isn't really better than Pelicans team. He had monster 4th quarter and OT, total domination.

[Colbinii]

Curry W/ Green: +6.5 On-Court in 22.8 MPG [774 Minutes, +231]
Curry W/O Green: +4.0 On-Court in 21.7 MPG [1283 Minutes, +238]

Jokic: 1889 Minutes, +380

Jayson Tatum

Where are you [and everyone else for the matter] on Jayson Tatum?

2247 Minutes, +431

[Peregrine01]

So Wiseman is the difference between a 30 win and 60 win team?

Elgee talked about this briefly on one of his vids and they were at a 43 win pace with Wiseman and 60 win pace without him. The pace without him matches up with the team this year TBH. Wiseman is a really talented player but a bad fit with the Warriors system.

Wiseman isn't a bad fit with the Warriors--he is a bad fit with the NBA.

I think way too many front office people delude themselves into thinking that they can turn an athletic freak with little actual basketball ability into a good basketball player. History has certainly not shown that to be the case.

It should have been alarming that he performed as poorly as he did last year playing as the roll man next to maybe the most dangerous P&R guard the league has ever seen. Now on top of that, he's out for more than a year at age 20.

[70sFan]

Curry W/ Green: +6.5 On-Court in 22.8 MPG [774 Minutes, +231]
Curry W/O Green: +4.0 On-Court in 21.7 MPG [1283 Minutes, +238]

Jokic: 1889 Minutes, +380

Jayson Tatum

Where are you [and everyone else for the matter] on Jayson Tatum?

2247 Minutes, +431

Do you have Green with and without Curry?

[Jaivl]

Curry W/ Green: +6.5 On-Court in 22.8 MPG [774 Minutes, +231]
Curry W/O Green: +4.0 On-Court in 21.7 MPG [1283 Minutes, +238]

Jokic: 1889 Minutes, +380

Jayson Tatum

Where are you [and everyone else for the matter] on Jayson Tatum?

2247 Minutes, +431

Jokic, Giannis, Embiid, Curry (KD), Luka, LeBron, then it's already Tatum IMO.

[Colbinii]

Curry W/ Green: +6.5 On-Court in 22.8 MPG [774 Minutes, +231]
Curry W/O Green: +4.0 On-Court in 21.7 MPG [1283 Minutes, +238]

Jokic: 1889 Minutes, +380

Jayson Tatum

Where are you [and everyone else for the matter] on Jayson Tatum?

2247 Minutes, +431

Do you have Green with and without Curry?

Without: 244 Minutes, -25

Aaron Gordon W/Jokic: 1533 Minutes, +358
Aaron Gordon W/O Jokic: 337 Minutes, -96

[Doctor MJ]

The Warriors were underrated this year because they did not do well last year with a similar roster and the same coach.

Putting aside from the fact that the team was clearly playing very differently in the Oubre/Wiseman era, the bigger issue I have with your statement is this idea that the coach has some static impact on his team.

When a team improves as a result of player development - which includes training players on how to play within the team's schemes - that's precisely what a coach and his staff are trying to do over time. Hence, while I would argue that basically all of us underestimated Kerr because we didn't expect this sort of player development, you're giving the impression that you underestimated Kerr because it didn't occur to you that a coach could develop his players.

I'm skeptical you actually believe this.

I would give most of the player development credit to Ken Atkinson who has shown a tremendous ability at developing young talent [D'Angelo Russell/Caris LaVert and Trae Mann prior to this season].

I would give Kerr credit in identifying and allowing Atkinson to be part of the coaching staff and give him full reigns on the player development of the younger players.

An understandable perspective, and certainly I think a team should be hiring Atkinson as their head coach next year (never should have been fired by the Nets.)

However:

We're not talking simply about players learning skills in isolation. These aren't kids, and we're not talking about guys just becoming better shooters (a la Chip Engelland on the Spurs). We're talking about professional athletes learning how to play in a) a motion offense (influenced by Kerr's time with Phil Jackson in Chicago) built around having one (or two, when Klay's health) outlier shooters, and b) a defensive scheme built around aggressive team play and communication (influenced by Kerr's time with Lute Olson at Arizona).

None of this means that when players get traction on how to play within these schemes that all the coaching credit goes to the head coach who originally brought these ideas into Golden State, but we're definitely not talking about a situation where the coaching staff had no ability to help players get better at basketball before Atkinson showed up. I think Atkinson deserves some credit, I think Adams deserves credit as always, it's clear that Brown is particularly revered by the players for his defensive mind, and on top of that I think it's very clear that the team leadership (Green, Iguodala, Curry) have been vital to this sort of improvement as well. In general, it's the sort of thing that you hope to see with team continuity where it's not so much that anyone is "making" the new guys figure stuff out, but that the new guys come to master the schemes with time based on their own continued efforts augmented by the help from the team leaders who already have this stuff on lock.

On Kerr specifically, something I'll say:

When GS first hired Kerr and hired Gentry as an offensive coach, I said "Should be flipped, Gentry is the more deserving head coach, Kerr needs more experience." I came to change my tune because over time it's just become clear that Gentry really isn't an offensive visionary, he's just a guy who has successfully run some offensive schemes. Kerr was the one with the vision - which is why he got the job - and he finds guys to come in on to his staff who can help with specific things. While those other guys deserve credit, I don't think it makes sense to talk as if Kerr's not the one running the show from what I've seen over the years.