2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

Excited for the Finals to start. Feels like it's really THE matchup that can tell us the most about what team approaches are really defining the cutting edge in 2022.

Particularly curious to see how the Celtic D handles the Warrior motion offense.

[CKRT]

Excited for the Finals to start. Feels like it's really THE matchup that can tell us the most about what team approaches are really defining the cutting edge in 2022.

Particularly curious to see how the Celtic D handles the Warrior motion offense.

I am in the same boat. I'd like to see the Celtics defense have some success in Game 1 even if they lose before I feel like I can believe in them putting up much of a fight, and I am really hoping I am being pessimistic about them.

[falcolombardi]

i really wonder what healthy bucks vs warriors would have looked like

[Doctor MJ]

Excited for the Finals to start. Feels like it's really THE matchup that can tell us the most about what team approaches are really defining the cutting edge in 2022.

Particularly curious to see how the Celtic D handles the Warrior motion offense.

I am in the same boat. I'd like to see the Celtics defense have some success in Game 1 even if they lose before I feel like I can believe in them putting up much of a fight, and I am really hoping I am being pessimistic about them.

Oh, I certainly expect them to put up a fight. I don't think it will be an easy series for either team.

[falcolombardi]

the olayuwon vs robinson thread combined with this year boston vs nets series makes me wonder how often people take the wrong conclusion about somethingh "working" by looking at a star individual numbers

the spurs in 95 faced olajuwon with single coverage by robinson and actually were the best team at slowing the rockets down offensively, but because hakeem feasted individually robinson receives the criticism even though it worked as far as slowing down houston (no other team got close)

I think we should look from both points of view:

- what Spurs did was a right gameplan, as Houston had harder time scoring against them than in any other series,
- Robinson definitely didn't deliver in that series, if he did enough to just slow down Hakeem to his usual production the Spurs would have likely won the series.

I think more teams playing that way could actually do a better job than the Spurs, because it is a fact that Hakeem destroyed Robinson on offense.

Another thing is that Spurs were the best defensive team Rockets faced, so it's expected from them to slow them down more than any other team. If we look at relative ratings, it doesn't look nearly as good:

vs Jazz: +14.9 rORtg
vs Suns: +5.5 rORtg
vs Spurs: +5.2 rORtg
vs Magic: +9.3 rORtg

So overall, it's still definitely more impressive than any other team, but it's expected. Nobody should expect Suns or Magic to do a better job than Spurs. The way Rockets dominated Jazz defense is certainly impressive though.

the thingh is that if spurs doubled hakeem consistently and as a consequence were worse in defense but hakeem numbers looked pedestrian robinson reputation would be better now

i was not triying to argue hakeem didnt outplay the admiral there

[70sFan]

the olayuwon vs robinson thread combined with this year boston vs nets series makes me wonder how often people take the wrong conclusion about somethingh "working" by looking at a star individual numbers

the spurs in 95 faced olajuwon with single coverage by robinson and actually were the best team at slowing the rockets down offensively, but because hakeem feasted individually robinson receives the criticism even though it worked as far as slowing down houston (no other team got close)

I think we should look from both points of view:

- what Spurs did was a right gameplan, as Houston had harder time scoring against them than in any other series,
- Robinson definitely didn't deliver in that series, if he did enough to just slow down Hakeem to his usual production the Spurs would have likely won the series.

I think more teams playing that way could actually do a better job than the Spurs, because it is a fact that Hakeem destroyed Robinson on offense.

Another thing is that Spurs were the best defensive team Rockets faced, so it's expected from them to slow them down more than any other team. If we look at relative ratings, it doesn't look nearly as good:

vs Jazz: +14.9 rORtg
vs Suns: +5.5 rORtg
vs Spurs: +5.2 rORtg
vs Magic: +9.3 rORtg

So overall, it's still definitely more impressive than any other team, but it's expected. Nobody should expect Suns or Magic to do a better job than Spurs. The way Rockets dominated Jazz defense is certainly impressive though.

the thingh is that if spurs doubled hakeem consistently and as a consequence were worse in defense but hakeem numbers looked pedestrian robinson reputation would be better now

i was not triying to argue hakeem didnt outplay the admiral there

That's probably true, but I think people here can look beyond raw numbers. Spurs had a smart plan against Houston offense, but Robinson didn't deliver. I know it's incredibly hard to defend Hakeem one on one, but it shouldn't have been such a massacre.

So yeah, we should give Spurs credit for their gameplan, but we shouldn't give any credit for Robinsin in my opinion. At least on defense, because offensively I think he did pretty good job actually in that series.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Seems like you're saying that you disagree with me because Curry had his best year's under Kerr's system, but to me this doesn't contradict what I said.

Let's note that in '13-14 scored more than he did in '14-15, did so with TS better than 60%, and had a massive +/- all while once again having a season from 3 better than anyone else in the history of the game. The idea then that the team had to switch coaches in the name of getting more out of Curry just doesn't fit with how Golden State or anyone else would have thought about things at the time.

On the other hand:

1. Klay Thompson was Jerry West's guy.
2. Jerry West thought Mark Jackson wasn't making use of Klay to anywhere near his potential and though a motion offense would work a lot better to get the most out of not one but two shooters.
3. This was at the heart of the feud between the two that resulted in Jackson not wanting West around the team.
4. Klay had a massive improvement the next year, significantly increasing his volume while also improving his efficiency from mediocre to quite good.

So, my understanding is that it really was about helping Klay more than helping Steph, and the data in '14-15 absolutely backs that up.

Now to be clear, when I said "go for it Steph", I wasn't suggesting a Mark Jackson-style offense. What I meant is that within Kerr's years, there are still times where the offense is more about developing that "strength in numbers" and other times it's more about just riding Steph.

I thought it was because mark jackson was insane and all 200 in the organization hated him because he thought players playing bad were possessed by devils and he needed holy water to heal injuries

(To be clear this wasn’t me joking or anything I think all of that was confirmed word for word and I’m being 100% serious)

I do think the steph and dray pick and roll bread and butter is underused nowadays, but steph iso ball would be a huge underutilization of his talents lol

I think Jackson's insanity is key to why he actually got fired, but in terms of what the basketball issues were, this was at the roots.

Further, I do think it very likely that Jackson's paranoia went into overdrive because of the actual threats to his basketball expertise.

This is a mad funny quote lol

[itsxtray]

Seems like you're saying that you disagree with me because Curry had his best year's under Kerr's system, but to me this doesn't contradict what I said.

Let's note that in '13-14 scored more than he did in '14-15, did so with TS better than 60%, and had a massive +/- all while once again having a season from 3 better than anyone else in the history of the game. The idea then that the team had to switch coaches in the name of getting more out of Curry just doesn't fit with how Golden State or anyone else would have thought about things at the time.

On the other hand:

1. Klay Thompson was Jerry West's guy.
2. Jerry West thought Mark Jackson wasn't making use of Klay to anywhere near his potential and though a motion offense would work a lot better to get the most out of not one but two shooters.
3. This was at the heart of the feud between the two that resulted in Jackson not wanting West around the team.
4. Klay had a massive improvement the next year, significantly increasing his volume while also improving his efficiency from mediocre to quite good.

So, my understanding is that it really was about helping Klay more than helping Steph, and the data in '14-15 absolutely backs that up.

Now to be clear, when I said "go for it Steph", I wasn't suggesting a Mark Jackson-style offense. What I meant is that within Kerr's years, there are still times where the offense is more about developing that "strength in numbers" and other times it's more about just riding Steph.

Well they didn't switch coaches because they needed to get more out of Steph, from my understanding Mark Jackson was like a christian extremist and just in general a toxic ****:

Read on Twitter

14-15 is when they made the switch but they hadn't truly perfected their style yet, all you have to do is look at Draymond literally doubling his assist numbers in 15-16.

Even if you're right about them changing to help Klay what does it matter? The actual results are what my main point is, the change maximized everyone on the team including Steph especially when they perfected their system in 15-16:
Per 100 fga 13-14 thru 15-16
Klay: 9.7, 12, 11.8
Steph: 11.4, 12.2, 14.4

As you can see Steph's attempts wen't up more than Klays during that period and Steph's 2.2 fga jump in 15-16 is nearly as large as Klay's 2.3 jump in 14-15. Kerr designed a brilliant system around Steph's strengths that when perfected maximized his entire roster, Steph most of all.

Your last point i somewhat agree with but they still "ride" Steph within the confines of their offense. Last season after the warriors actually decided to start winning they did put the ball in his hands in the halfcourt more often which led to more Step/Dray PnR's & Dho's which is still part of their offense because of the 4on3 reads Dray makes out of it or whether to keep after faking the Dho, so the other players are still learning where they need to be when the warriors play that way and it's not like they abandoned their motion principles completely when they did that.

On the point I bolded:

It mattered because it was what I was looking to say in the snippet that you originally came in and said you "disagreed massively" with. So if it's true, you're massively disagreeing with something true.

But look, that's just how we got to this point, not what we want to express going forward. I'll let you have the last word here.

This is what i quoted from you and what i massively disagree with, my 2 strongest points of disagreement bolded:

"1. I don't think Kerr's system was ever about getting Curry the best opportunity for volume & efficiency, and I think the times where he has maxed those out tend to represent times where the Warriors just said "go for it Steph". I think people think that Steph is dependent on the system when what's closer to the truth is that it's for everyone else on the team more than it is for his own production."

My point is even if in theory changing the system was to maximize Klay, in practice it maximized everyone, but Steph most of all. Because his volume and efficiency were maximized under Kerr even tho you're saying the system wasn't about that, but thats what actually ended up happening, screw theories when we have actual reality to look at.

How can you see Steph's production go up more than anyone else's on the team and then turn around and say the "system" is for everyone else, not Steph's own production? My point is it maximized both and thats the genius of Kerr.

[clearlynotjesse]

Our old friend JE just left the Mavs. Excited to see what's next for him.

[Doctor MJ]

Well they didn't switch coaches because they needed to get more out of Steph, from my understanding Mark Jackson was like a christian extremist and just in general a toxic ****:

Read on Twitter

14-15 is when they made the switch but they hadn't truly perfected their style yet, all you have to do is look at Draymond literally doubling his assist numbers in 15-16.

Even if you're right about them changing to help Klay what does it matter? The actual results are what my main point is, the change maximized everyone on the team including Steph especially when they perfected their system in 15-16:
Per 100 fga 13-14 thru 15-16
Klay: 9.7, 12, 11.8
Steph: 11.4, 12.2, 14.4

As you can see Steph's attempts wen't up more than Klays during that period and Steph's 2.2 fga jump in 15-16 is nearly as large as Klay's 2.3 jump in 14-15. Kerr designed a brilliant system around Steph's strengths that when perfected maximized his entire roster, Steph most of all.

Your last point i somewhat agree with but they still "ride" Steph within the confines of their offense. Last season after the warriors actually decided to start winning they did put the ball in his hands in the halfcourt more often which led to more Step/Dray PnR's & Dho's which is still part of their offense because of the 4on3 reads Dray makes out of it or whether to keep after faking the Dho, so the other players are still learning where they need to be when the warriors play that way and it's not like they abandoned their motion principles completely when they did that.

On the point I bolded:

It mattered because it was what I was looking to say in the snippet that you originally came in and said you "disagreed massively" with. So if it's true, you're massively disagreeing with something true.

But look, that's just how we got to this point, not what we want to express going forward. I'll let you have the last word here.

This is what i quoted from you and what i massively disagree with, my 2 strongest points of disagreement bolded:

"1. I don't think Kerr's system was ever about getting Curry the best opportunity for volume & efficiency, and I think the times where he has maxed those out tend to represent times where the Warriors just said "go for it Steph". I think people think that Steph is dependent on the system when what's closer to the truth is that it's for everyone else on the team more than it is for his own production."

My point is even if in theory changing the system was to maximize Klay, in practice it maximized everyone, but Steph most of all. Because his volume and efficiency were maximized under Kerr even tho you're saying the system wasn't about that, but thats what actually ended up happening, screw theories when we have actual reality to look at.

How can you see Steph's production go up more than anyone else's on the team and then turn around and say the "system" is for everyone else, not Steph's own production? My point is it maximized both and thats the genius of Kerr.

Don't position this as if I'm refusing to say that Curry has benefitted from Kerr's plan. I've made clear on multiple posts already that this is not what I'm saying. I'm emphasizing the team-focused impact as the main thing about Kerr more so than Kerr being a "get the most out of Curry" hire, and since you're saying that it helped Curry more than everyone else.

Let's note what happened to the team's TS Add with Kerr's presence.

In '13-14:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +211.3
Rest of Team's TS Add: -64.0

In '14-15:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +308.9
Rest of Team's TS Add: +278.9

Obviously, the improvement to the rest of the team's TS Add dwarfs Curry's improvement.

Did Kerr think Curry would benefit from his scheme? Absolutely.
Was his scheme primarily about adding to Curry's production? Absolutely not.

When Kerr says "strength in numbers" and talks about his coaching philosophy being shaped by his career as a role player, and the power of getting the most out of your secondary players, believe him.

[MyUniBroDavis]

the olayuwon vs robinson thread combined with this year boston vs nets series makes me wonder how often people take the wrong conclusion about somethingh "working" by looking at a star individual numbers

the spurs in 95 faced olajuwon with single coverage by robinson and actually were the best team at slowing the rockets down offensively, but because hakeem feasted individually robinson receives the criticism even though it worked as far as slowing down houston (no other team got close)

in 2022 the huge amount of attention durant (and irving to a lesser degree) got allowed nets role players to be hyper efficient and nets had by far the best offense of any team against boston

in contrast the (admiteddly injured) nets in 2021 had a weak offense againsg bucks, but durant who was guardes a bit more individually had monster scoring making people criticize bucks defense and approach

I’d be curious what the off rtg is for Kyrie and Kd on the court in the rs for the nets

It should be noted that the nets offense was only good because they went off in non Kd minutes, which was a crazy small sample. The on court numbers with Kd are worse by 3.5 off rtg in bball ref, for Kyrie it’s worse by -4.3 (relative to the RS) so I don’t think the Nets offense was effective as much as the level of offense they had was higher than their rs average with Kyrie allowed to play

[itsxtray]

On the point I bolded:

It mattered because it was what I was looking to say in the snippet that you originally came in and said you "disagreed massively" with. So if it's true, you're massively disagreeing with something true.

But look, that's just how we got to this point, not what we want to express going forward. I'll let you have the last word here.

This is what i quoted from you and what i massively disagree with, my 2 strongest points of disagreement bolded:

"1. I don't think Kerr's system was ever about getting Curry the best opportunity for volume & efficiency, and I think the times where he has maxed those out tend to represent times where the Warriors just said "go for it Steph". I think people think that Steph is dependent on the system when what's closer to the truth is that it's for everyone else on the team more than it is for his own production."

My point is even if in theory changing the system was to maximize Klay, in practice it maximized everyone, but Steph most of all. Because his volume and efficiency were maximized under Kerr even tho you're saying the system wasn't about that, but thats what actually ended up happening, screw theories when we have actual reality to look at.

How can you see Steph's production go up more than anyone else's on the team and then turn around and say the "system" is for everyone else, not Steph's own production? My point is it maximized both and thats the genius of Kerr.

Don't position this as if I'm refusing to say that Curry has benefitted from Kerr's plan. I've made clear on multiple posts already that this is not what I'm saying. I'm emphasizing the team-focused impact as the main thing about Kerr more so than Kerr being a "get the most out of Curry" hire, and since you're saying that it helped Curry more than everyone else.

Let's note what happened to the team's TS Add with Kerr's presence.

In '13-14:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +211.3
Rest of Team's TS Add: -64.0

In '14-15:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +308.9
Rest of Team's TS Add: +278.9

Obviously, the improvement to the rest of the team's TS Add dwarfs Curry's improvement.

Did Kerr think Curry would benefit from his scheme? Absolutely.
Was his scheme primarily about adding to Curry's production? Absolutely not.

When Kerr says "strength in numbers" and talks about his coaching philosophy being shaped by his career as a role player, and the power of getting the most out of your secondary players, believe him.

I don't even know what ts add is, what do those numbers mean?

[Doctor MJ]

This is what i quoted from you and what i massively disagree with, my 2 strongest points of disagreement bolded:

"1. I don't think Kerr's system was ever about getting Curry the best opportunity for volume & efficiency, and I think the times where he has maxed those out tend to represent times where the Warriors just said "go for it Steph". I think people think that Steph is dependent on the system when what's closer to the truth is that it's for everyone else on the team more than it is for his own production."

My point is even if in theory changing the system was to maximize Klay, in practice it maximized everyone, but Steph most of all. Because his volume and efficiency were maximized under Kerr even tho you're saying the system wasn't about that, but thats what actually ended up happening, screw theories when we have actual reality to look at.

How can you see Steph's production go up more than anyone else's on the team and then turn around and say the "system" is for everyone else, not Steph's own production? My point is it maximized both and thats the genius of Kerr.

Don't position this as if I'm refusing to say that Curry has benefitted from Kerr's plan. I've made clear on multiple posts already that this is not what I'm saying. I'm emphasizing the team-focused impact as the main thing about Kerr more so than Kerr being a "get the most out of Curry" hire, and since you're saying that it helped Curry more than everyone else.

Let's note what happened to the team's TS Add with Kerr's presence.

In '13-14:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +211.3
Rest of Team's TS Add: -64.0

In '14-15:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +308.9
Rest of Team's TS Add: +278.9

Obviously, the improvement to the rest of the team's TS Add dwarfs Curry's improvement.

Did Kerr think Curry would benefit from his scheme? Absolutely.
Was his scheme primarily about adding to Curry's production? Absolutely not.

When Kerr says "strength in numbers" and talks about his coaching philosophy being shaped by his career as a role player, and the power of getting the most out of your secondary players, believe him.

I don't even know what ts add is, what do those numbers mean?

A measure of shooting volume and efficiency together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eminence]

This is what i quoted from you and what i massively disagree with, my 2 strongest points of disagreement bolded:

"1. I don't think Kerr's system was ever about getting Curry the best opportunity for volume & efficiency, and I think the times where he has maxed those out tend to represent times where the Warriors just said "go for it Steph". I think people think that Steph is dependent on the system when what's closer to the truth is that it's for everyone else on the team more than it is for his own production."

My point is even if in theory changing the system was to maximize Klay, in practice it maximized everyone, but Steph most of all. Because his volume and efficiency were maximized under Kerr even tho you're saying the system wasn't about that, but thats what actually ended up happening, screw theories when we have actual reality to look at.

How can you see Steph's production go up more than anyone else's on the team and then turn around and say the "system" is for everyone else, not Steph's own production? My point is it maximized both and thats the genius of Kerr.

Don't position this as if I'm refusing to say that Curry has benefitted from Kerr's plan. I've made clear on multiple posts already that this is not what I'm saying. I'm emphasizing the team-focused impact as the main thing about Kerr more so than Kerr being a "get the most out of Curry" hire, and since you're saying that it helped Curry more than everyone else.

Let's note what happened to the team's TS Add with Kerr's presence.

In '13-14:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +211.3
Rest of Team's TS Add: -64.0

In '14-15:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +308.9
Rest of Team's TS Add: +278.9

Obviously, the improvement to the rest of the team's TS Add dwarfs Curry's improvement.

Did Kerr think Curry would benefit from his scheme? Absolutely.
Was his scheme primarily about adding to Curry's production? Absolutely not.

When Kerr says "strength in numbers" and talks about his coaching philosophy being shaped by his career as a role player, and the power of getting the most out of your secondary players, believe him.

I don't even know what ts add is, what do those numbers mean?

It's essentially a combination of scoring volume and rTS% that shows how many points a player scores above or below league average efficiency.

Doesn't directly account for shot difficulty.

Explained/introduced in this post: https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2020/06/adjusted-shooting-stats-added-to-basketball-reference/

[Colbinii]

Don't position this as if I'm refusing to say that Curry has benefitted from Kerr's plan. I've made clear on multiple posts already that this is not what I'm saying. I'm emphasizing the team-focused impact as the main thing about Kerr more so than Kerr being a "get the most out of Curry" hire, and since you're saying that it helped Curry more than everyone else.

Let's note what happened to the team's TS Add with Kerr's presence.

In '13-14:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +211.3
Rest of Team's TS Add: -64.0

In '14-15:

Steph Curry's TS Add: +308.9
Rest of Team's TS Add: +278.9

Obviously, the improvement to the rest of the team's TS Add dwarfs Curry's improvement.

Did Kerr think Curry would benefit from his scheme? Absolutely.
Was his scheme primarily about adding to Curry's production? Absolutely not.

When Kerr says "strength in numbers" and talks about his coaching philosophy being shaped by his career as a role player, and the power of getting the most out of your secondary players, believe him.

I don't even know what ts add is, what do those numbers mean?

A measure of shooting volume and efficiency together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

viewtopic.php?t=2018400

[Texas Chuck]

It's interesting when the Warriors have the chance to win the title the discussion moves to them setting the direction of the league. Something we heard nothing about it when it was Bucks versus Suns. Or Lebron/AD versus Miami. Or Kawhi and the Raptors winning.

Again, there isn't another Steph. There isn't another Draymond. And hell last year even with both of them playing great, that system sat home.

The winner of this series isn't setting the direction of the league. They are just the champions of the year. But other teams can't readily replicate the defense of the Celtics and two star 2-way wings. Maybe the Clippers if they can keep the old men healthy, but they don't have a Smart or anything approaching Horford/Williams. And nobody has Steph/Draymond.

Why can't we just appreciate these great teams without having to make them something bigger just because they are our personal favorite? I didn't think in 2011 the new path was to get a bunch of aging, but still feisty veterans around a still spry defensive center and a once in a lifetime PF. Of course not. I mean Dallas didn't even try and run it back much less think that by winning the title they were going to dictate team building across the league.

I think its cool to just say I love how the Warriors play and I wish every team played like them. But every team can't and even if every team tried anyway they don't have the players. The team who wins isn't the most cutting edge, they are just the best.

The Morey/MDA/Harden Rockets were the most cutting edge. Or maybe The Process Sixers were. These teams were pushing envelopes in ways they had never been pushed. They just never put it all together because better players/teams were out there.

[jalengreen]

saw this draymond quote today

https://andscape.com/features/the-warriors-draymond-green-and-his-feeling-of-appreciation/

Why did you always believe during the last two down seasons that the Warriors could make it back to the Finals?

Draymond: Because nobody had beat us. No one has ever beaten us whole. Ever. Has not happened yet. In 2016, I got suspended from a game [in the Finals]. In 2019, Kevin Durant goes down [during the Finals]. But then you follow that over to Cleveland, no one has ever beat us whole. So just say, ‘Oh, you’re done,’ but no one has proven that yet. So, even more so than my belief, there was no reason not to believe, because no one had done it. Still happened. I just didn’t believe that people had us figured out. We just had some unfortunate things happen. That happens. That happens to everybody. But I just didn’t think because of that we were done. Like I thought, ‘All right, we’ll get back out there, and we’ll be fine.’

fair answer to the question. and he does add the "That happens to everybody" comment towards the end. his "No one has ever beaten us whole" line is definitely gonna get quoted on its own though

[falcolombardi]

draymond confirmed as a general board ring asterisker

[Homer38]

the olayuwon vs robinson thread combined with this year boston vs nets series makes me wonder how often people take the wrong conclusion about somethingh "working" by looking at a star individual numbers

the spurs in 95 faced olajuwon with single coverage by robinson and actually were the best team at slowing the rockets down offensively, but because hakeem feasted individually robinson receives the criticism even though it worked as far as slowing down houston (no other team got close)

in 2022 the huge amount of attention durant (and irving to a lesser degree) got allowed nets role players to be hyper efficient and nets had by far the best offense of any team against boston

in contrast the (admiteddly injured) nets in 2021 had a weak offense againsg bucks, but durant who was guardes a bit more individually had monster scoring making people criticize bucks defense and approach

I’d be curious what the off rtg is for Kyrie and Kd on the court in the rs for the nets

It should be noted that the nets offense was only good because they went off in non Kd minutes, which was a crazy small sample. The on court numbers with Kd are worse by 3.5 off rtg in bball ref, for Kyrie it’s worse by -4.3 (relative to the RS) so I don’t think the Nets offense was effective as much as the level of offense they had was higher than their rs average with Kyrie allowed to play

I don’t know what were the offensive ratings when KD and Kyrie were together in the regular season but the nets had a offensive rating of 121 in the regular season with Kyrie so the offensive rating of the nets in the regular season were a bit misleading

The Celtics defense did a good job against this offense and of course the nets defense were garbage as expected

[dontcalltimeout]

I’d be curious what the off rtg is for Kyrie and Kd on the court in the rs for the nets

It should be noted that the nets offense was only good because they went off in non Kd minutes, which was a crazy small sample. The on court numbers with Kd are worse by 3.5 off rtg in bball ref, for Kyrie it’s worse by -4.3 (relative to the RS) so I don’t think the Nets offense was effective as much as the level of offense they had was higher than their rs average with Kyrie allowed to play

I don’t know what were the offensive ratings when KD and Kyrie were together in the regular season but the nets had a offensive rating of 121 in the regular season with Kyrie so the offensive rating of the nets in the regular season were a bit misleading

The Celtics defense did a good job against this offense and of course the nets defense were garbage as expected

Regular Season

Spoiler:

Playoffs

Spoiler: