2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Lou Fan]

I was just thinking because Rudy's on the block if you're Bob Myers would you trade Dray for Rudy straight up if Steph signed off on it. Obviously would never happen in a million years but interested to see if you guys think Rudy would be better for the Dubs than Draymond next year.

[parsnips33]

I was just thinking because Rudy's on the block if you're Bob Myers would you trade Dray for Rudy straight up if Steph signed off on it. Obviously would never happen in a million years but interested to see if you guys think Rudy would be better for the Dubs than Draymond next year.

I would not do that

[itsxtray]

Do you think Warriors could have had a long playoff run if they had won one of the play in games last season?

Idk about long because their depth got way better this year with free agents, improvements, and Klay's return but the play-in is single elimination, if it was a series id have taken those warriors over those grizz. I also think they could've beaten the Jazz but the Clippers probably still would have won because of depth.

Last season the warriors only reliable players in a playoff situation would have been: Steph, Wiggs, Dray, & Looney, basically no depth. This playoffs it was: Steph, Klay, Wiggs, Dray, Looney, Poole, Opj, & GP2. Thats a solid 8 man rotation with versatile lineups which they didn't have in 21 so i say they get to the second round and lose to the Clips.

Pretty much my thoughts. They could have won a series but would likely run out of steam

The clippers got even better this season, if health permits my early 23 Wcf is Clips/Warriors, i'd love to finally see a healthy Steph v Kahwi series with both teams at full strength.

The warriors should be incredibly comfortable right now tho. Poole will continue to improve, Wiseman just needs to not be a disaster, and im high on Kuminga, like he can compete with Mobley & Scottie for best player in this draft high or just under that level. If everything goes right the warriors can have a 20 year run like the spurs with more chips than even they managed.

[parsnips33]

Idk about long because their depth got way better this year with free agents, improvements, and Klay's return but the play-in is single elimination, if it was a series id have taken those warriors over those grizz. I also think they could've beaten the Jazz but the Clippers probably still would have won because of depth.

Last season the warriors only reliable players in a playoff situation would have been: Steph, Wiggs, Dray, & Looney, basically no depth. This playoffs it was: Steph, Klay, Wiggs, Dray, Looney, Poole, Opj, & GP2. Thats a solid 8 man rotation with versatile lineups which they didn't have in 21 so i say they get to the second round and lose to the Clips.

Pretty much my thoughts. They could have won a series but would likely run out of steam

The clippers got even better this season, if health permits my early 23 Wcf is Clips/Warriors, i'd love to finally see a healthy Steph v Kahwi series with both teams at full strength.

The warriors should be incredibly comfortable right now tho. Poole will continue to improve, Wiseman just needs to not be a disaster, and im high on Kuminga, like he can compete with Mobley & Scottie for best player in this draft high or just under that level. If everything goes right the warriors can have a 20 year run like the spurs with more chips than even they managed.

Yeah, Warriors title window looks wide open right now, health permitting (knocking on every wooden surface I can see)

[parsnips33]

Question for people who followed the Grizz more closely than I did: how do you think they would have done last year if they did not make the Valanciunas for Adams swap? It seems to me that most of their improvement came from Ja JJJ and Bane just getting better, but I can't say for sure. I also got the sense that they could use a bit more offensive dyanmism which JVal can provide.

What do people think? How big of a factor was the Valanciunas for Adams trade in their success?

[Doctor MJ]

They just cut all the trash loose, they weren't as bad as 20-21 made them look. Playing Wiseman and Oubre etc... was an anchor around the team. I think Wiseman was the first player to ever be a negative on the court with Steph since he made the leap to stardom. Some stuff from that season and the beginning of this season that i recall:

Wiseman being utter trash:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/mkv0u5/the_2021_warriors_are_the_worst_team_in_the_nba/

Cutting the trash loose:

Read on Twitter

Do you think Warriors could have had a long playoff run if they had won one of the play in games last season?

Idk about long because their depth got way better this year with free agents, improvements, and Klay's return but the play-in is single elimination, if it was a series id have taken those warriors over those grizz. I also think they could've beaten the Jazz but the Clippers probably still would have won because of depth.

Last season the warriors only reliable players in a playoff situation would have been: Steph, Wiggs, Dray, & Looney, basically no depth. This playoffs it was: Steph, Klay, Wiggs, Dray, Looney, Poole, Opj, & GP2. Thats a solid 8 man rotation with versatile lineups which they didn't have in 21 so i say they get to the second round and lose to the Clips.

I see it similarly.

Knowing what we know now, the Warriors last year probably had a really good shot at beating the Jazz. Hard to imagine them beating the Clippers, but even beating the Jazz, imagine how differently people would have left the season looking at the Warriors heading into '21-22?

[ShotCreator]

My sense is that Curry inspires a wide range of takes, from overrated to underrated, which I suppose you could say about any player discussed here, but the extremes seem more extreme and sometimes driven by emotion. Being a Warriors and Curry fan, I've seen persistent negative takes that appear to be fallout from general Warriors dislike and the whole KD thing.

Another aspect is that Curry's value comes disproportionately from off-ball impact and gravity compared to other players, which makes him difficult to assess since those qualities are nebulous compared to box score stats. That leads to wide swings in where he is ranked based on how much credit you give for those qualities.

To me, there's no justification for having him in the top six, which is essentially the GOAT tier. I can see a discussion about inside the top 15, and I see this title opening daylight between him and Chris Paul and Durant. Those are the kinds of discussions that make more sense.

Question, what season did the daylight between Stephen Curry and Chris Paul first occur?

For me, it was 2015-16, but IIRC, Chris Paul was one spot ahead of Curry in the most recent top 100 project, so my opinion was still an outlier. I would expect Curry to be above Paul in the next top 100.

EDIT: I looked it up. In the 2020 top 100, Durant was 22nd, Paul was 23rd, and Curry was 24th. He should leapfrog them both in the 2023 project.

Thank you.

Chris Paul had two MVP level seasons, a strong rookie year, and a year as a good NBA guard before Curry even had a career.

Curry didn’t even make an All-league impact imprint until 2014. At least by the impact metrics I’ve seen.

You have to understand, in years like 2011 where Paul was playing as well or better than a peaking Nowitzki against playoff completion, Curry was justv getting into being a good starting guard.


What would you base him being better by 2016 on?

What was the first year he was better as a player to you?

[Outside]

Question, what season did the daylight between Stephen Curry and Chris Paul first occur?

For me, it was 2015-16, but IIRC, Chris Paul was one spot ahead of Curry in the most recent top 100 project, so my opinion was still an outlier. I would expect Curry to be above Paul in the next top 100.

EDIT: I looked it up. In the 2020 top 100, Durant was 22nd, Paul was 23rd, and Curry was 24th. He should leapfrog them both in the 2023 project.

Thank you.

Chris Paul had two MVP level seasons, a strong rookie year, and a year as a good NBA guard before Curry even had a career.

Curry didn’t even make an All-league impact imprint until 2014. At least by the impact metrics I’ve seen.

You have to understand, in years like 2011 where Paul was playing as well or better than a peaking Nowitzki against playoff completion, Curry was justv getting into being a good starting guard.


What would you base him being better by 2016 on?

What was the first year he was better as a player to you?

For Curry, 2012-13 was an all-NBA caliber year, even if he didn't get recognition for it. His performance in the postseason was also very good.

2015-16 was a GOAT-level regular season for Curry, his second straight MVP season. That was a level that Paul had not reached. Injuring his knee in the first round of the playoffs robbed us of what could've been an equally great postseason. Once he came back, he was very good against Portland and OKC, but by the finals, the knee had become more problematic, though how that is viewed varies based on your perspective. Regardless, Curry at that point had two MVP seasons, two finals appearances, and one title, all accomplishments that Paul didn't have. He led his team to ORtgs of first and second in the league, SRS of 10.01 and 10.38, and records of 67-15 and 73-9.

Paul had significantly more prime seasons, but Curry's peak was significantly higher. As foundational pieces, Paul had not led his team out of the second round, while Curry had shown he could lead his team to a title and two straight finals appearances. We can attribute some of Paul's lack of team success in the PS to luck, but at a certain point, it becomes a pattern, and I see his playing style and abrasive personality as contributing factors to limiting team success.

Different people have different criteria for ranking players, and people will also have different takes on Curry and Paul's situations. I disagree with the "rings" argument, but the ultimate goal is to win, and I place a higher value on players who significantly contribute to team success, particularly in the postseason. Perhaps I view Paul too harshly and Curry too generously, but by the 2015-16 season, Curry had shown himself to be an elite foundational player for a championship-level team, and Paul had not. For me, those two years of Curry's peak outweighed the additional years of Paul's prime.

I agree that longevity should be considered when assessing players, but I value peak performance significantly more. You and others may disagree.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm pretty bullish on Paul but claiming he outplayed Dirk in the 2011 playoffs feels misleading at best. He was great in those 6 games, but Dirk sustained it for 4 series which feels significant. How many other one series losses do we look to elevate in this fashion?

Especially mixed in an argument saying Paul has a longevity edge over Curry and that that should matter. (I agree that it should matter to an extent of course)

[eminence]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

[Texas Chuck]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

[Outside]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

I give Jokic credit for that series, despite the Warriors abusing him in space on PnR. We've got clips of Curry making Gobert look silly trying to guard him.

Watch on YouTube

If Jokic had a credible defense backing him up, he would've gotten help or they could pre-switch or something. Yes, Jokic needs to improve defensively, but I'm not going to ding him too much for his defense in the series against Golden State.

[eminence]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

You haven't seen anyone try to argue Jokic was at least arguably the best playoff player this season? Better get your eyes checked Chuck, memory too, since I'm pretty sure you've done it yourself.

"Jokic/CP3 was great in those 5/6 games, but Curry/Dirk sustained it for 4 series which feels significant. How many other one series losses do we look to elevate in this fashion?"

[Texas Chuck]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

You haven't seen anyone try to argue Jokic was at least arguably the best playoff player this season? Better get your eyes checked Chuck, memory too, since I'm pretty sure you've done it yourself.

I can assure you despite your concern for my eyesight and memory you can't find a post from me suggesting Jokic was the best playoff performer this year.

Best player overall? Sure, I've been open about that. Best playoff performer? You clearly have me confused with someone else.

[eminence]

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

You haven't seen anyone try to argue Jokic was at least arguably the best playoff player this season? Better get your eyes checked Chuck, memory too, since I'm pretty sure you've done it yourself.

I can assure you despite your concern for my eyesight and memory you can't find a post from me suggesting Jokic was the best playoff performer this year.

Best player overall? Sure, I've been open about that. Best playoff performer? You clearly have me confused with someone else.

So I can get you on record with the official position that someone else (and who that was) was a clearly better playoff performer this season?

[Texas Chuck]

You haven't seen anyone try to argue Jokic was at least arguably the best playoff player this season? Better get your eyes checked Chuck, memory too, since I'm pretty sure you've done it yourself.

I can assure you despite your concern for my eyesight and memory you can't find a post from me suggesting Jokic was the best playoff performer this year.

Best player overall? Sure, I've been open about that. Best playoff performer? You clearly have me confused with someone else.

So I can get you on record with the official position that someone else (and who that was) was a clearly better playoff performer this season?

Nice sidestep...

I think Steph and Butler were the two most impressive playoff performers overall this season. I haven't studied it particularly closely, but I have zero issues with the idea that Steph was the single best. His team won two more series including the last one and he was fantastic.

[ShotCreator]

For me, it was 2015-16, but IIRC, Chris Paul was one spot ahead of Curry in the most recent top 100 project, so my opinion was still an outlier. I would expect Curry to be above Paul in the next top 100.

EDIT: I looked it up. In the 2020 top 100, Durant was 22nd, Paul was 23rd, and Curry was 24th. He should leapfrog them both in the 2023 project.

Thank you.

Chris Paul had two MVP level seasons, a strong rookie year, and a year as a good NBA guard before Curry even had a career.

Curry didn’t even make an All-league impact imprint until 2014. At least by the impact metrics I’ve seen.

You have to understand, in years like 2011 where Paul was playing as well or better than a peaking Nowitzki against playoff completion, Curry was justv getting into being a good starting guard.


What would you base him being better by 2016 on?

What was the first year he was better as a player to you?

For Curry, 2012-13 was an all-NBA caliber year, even if he didn't get recognition for it. His performance in the postseason was also very good.

2015-16 was a GOAT-level regular season for Curry, his second straight MVP season. That was a level that Paul had not reached. Injuring his knee in the first round of the playoffs robbed us of what could've been an equally great postseason. Once he came back, he was very good against Portland and OKC, but by the finals, the knee had become more problematic, though how that is viewed varies based on your perspective. Regardless, Curry at that point had two MVP seasons, two finals appearances, and one title, all accomplishments that Paul didn't have. He led his team to ORtgs of first and second in the league, SRS of 10.01 and 10.38, and records of 67-15 and 73-9.

Paul had significantly more prime seasons, but Curry's peak was significantly higher. As foundational pieces, Paul had not led his team out of the second round, while Curry had shown he could lead his team to a title and two straight finals appearances. We can attribute some of Paul's lack of team success in the PS to luck, but at a certain point, it becomes a pattern, and I see his playing style and abrasive personality as contributing factors to limiting team success.

Different people have different criteria for ranking players, and people will also have different takes on Curry and Paul's situations. I disagree with the "rings" argument, but the ultimate goal is to win, and I place a higher value on players who significantly contribute to team success, particularly in the postseason. Perhaps I view Paul too harshly and Curry too generously, but by the 2015-16 season, Curry had shown himself to be an elite foundational player for a championship-level team, and Paul had not. For me, those two years of Curry's peak outweighed the additional years of Paul's prime.

I agree that longevity should be considered when assessing players, but I value peak performance significantly more. You and others may disagree.

67 and 73 wins, ORTG rank(with one of the year’s in which his team was lower rank than Paul’s, lol), some NBA finals appearances, the biggest year in this comparison in which he lost by playing poorly) outweighs nearly a decade of far superior play. Okay.

That, along with play style and abrasive attitudes. You know who has an abrasive attitude? Draymond Green. You know who was worse? Michael Jordan.

But okay. Nothing I haven’t heard before. Was just curious.

[parsnips33]

I get that there's a desire to separate "play style" from our overall evaluation of how good a player is - and I understand why. It feels like a purely aesthetic difference at times and a way to introduce bias in terms of who's game you like to watch more vs who is actually better.

But I think the desire to boil down player evaluation to "doesn't matter how you do it, whatever gets the highest [insert stat here] is best" doesn't actually help us understand much about the game, which I think is a shame. I think too often it refocuses the question to WHETHER a guy was good/better than X guy/top 10/etc. vs HOW was a guy good/etc.

Whether a guy was good is a short conversation. How a guy was good can open up to so much discussion about skillsets, strategy, and more

Maybe this is just my way of expressing my preference (probably has something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly good at math ) but I can't help but feel like the quality of discussion could be improved with more emphasis on the HOW

[parsnips33]

‘22 Jokic and his 5 games

I don’t, but certainly seen it.

I haven't seen that here at all. I've seen mostly people dismissive of his 22 series because they claim his defense let his team down.

I give Jokic credit for that series, despite the Warriors abusing him in space on PnR. We've got clips of Curry making Gobert look silly trying to guard him.

Watch on YouTube

If Jokic had a credible defense backing him up, he would've gotten help or they could pre-switch or something. Yes, Jokic needs to improve defensively, but I'm not going to ding him too much for his defense in the series against Golden State.

Wasn't just Curry - Poole and Klay both had their best offensive series by far against Denver. Not laying that all at Jokic's feet, but I think there's a relevant difference between one of the greatest of all time cooking your defense vs pretty much every guard going supernova against your defense

[Texas Chuck]

I get that there's a desire to separate "play style" from our overall evaluation of how good a player is - and I understand why. It feels like a purely aesthetic difference at times and a way to introduce bias in terms of who's game you like to watch more vs who is actually better.

But I think the desire to boil down player evaluation to "doesn't matter how you do it, whatever gets the highest [insert stat here] is best" doesn't actually help us understand much about the game, which I think is a shame. I think too often it refocuses the question to WHETHER a guy was good/better than X guy/top 10/etc. vs HOW was a guy good/etc.

Whether a guy was good is a short conversation. How a guy was good can open up to so much discussion about skillsets, strategy, and more

Maybe this is just my way of expressing my preference (probably has something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly good at math ) but I can't help but feel like the quality of discussion could be improved with more emphasis on the HOW

I feel targeted.

I freely admit I'm bothered when I see style preferences being used to say one player is better than others when all other evidence is telling us something different. Or even when style difference is being used to say things like the Golden State Warriors will dictate the future of the league if they win this title and if they don't every other team in the league is making a mistake. Like maybe, but probably not. As has been pointed out, its impossible to replicate how this team was built or that payroll.

I think our personal biases definitely cause us to overrate players we like how they play and underrate players who don't. For instance in the PG thread it was declared that Jason Kidd's style didn't lead to much positive impact on his teams. But then I go look at his teams and they all improved greatly with him and declined greatly when he left. But okay, let's dismiss that as just some of kind of wild coincidence not really attributable to Kidd, his on/off numbers are insanely good on those teams. But he plays "wrong" so people find reasons to dismiss him(the Nets played bad teams, he can't shoot--even thought that's more myth than reality, etc).



All that said, I agree that how its done is more important than I like to say it is--because how they do it obviously relates to how much impact they have. I just hate dismissing high impact done in a way that isn't currently in vogue or isn't a poster's view of how basketball should be played. So I push back against it.