2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[LukaTheGOAT]

I think Dray would be booty on offense playing off Rose or CP3.

Griffin is one of the better playmaking bigs of the past decade and he did extremely well next to CP3, finishing as high as 3rd in MVP.

Would Draymond be useless [I assume that's what Booty means?] and the answer to that is a resounding no. His BBIQ and competitiveness would blend well with CP3 and frankly--help Rose as well.

I think 2021 showed you need a specific group of players around Draymond and Curry to succeed.

Griffin finished 3rd in MVP because Paul missed time and he thrived once he was able to take on more of a playmaking role.

For comparison, here's how Griffin did in 2014-14 with Paul compared to without.

With Paul: 24.3 points, 3.9 assists & 3.0 TO per 75 possessions shooting 57.6% TS with an On/48 of 9.9.
W/out Paul: 29.2 points, 4.5 assists & 2.7 TO per 75 possessions shooting 60.3% TS with an On/48 of 8.5.

To me it's long seemed pretty clear that adding Paul was awful for allowing Griffin to become the most valuable player he could possibly be...but since Paul was still the better player and the team was better off with him, it made sense to acquire him and let him run the offense how he seemed fit if you did acquire him.

Of course, it certainly would have been smarter, in retrospect, to try to acquire Curry, who could have allowed Griffin to develop on-ball while making life easier for Griffin with spacing.

So then you would say Jordan Poole would be best served if he didn't stay in GSW to become the most valuable player he could be?

In 17 games without Curry this season, Jordan Poole has averaged 25.6 points, 5.6 assists and 4.7 rebounds on 59.5 TS%.

With Curry, Jordan Poole averaged 16.4 points, 3.5 assists, and 3.1 rebounds, while having a 59.9 TS%.

[RCM88x]

So I'd agree with the general: I think that the Curry is not as able to consistently get into grooves when he's forced to play more team ball, and I think the same is true for basically all volume scorers.

I'd just be wary about thinking of that as the same thing as reducing that player's value to the team.

I should have added that I don't think his impact is reliant on his "box scores" like most other players. It's been proven this year that even if he has a 3-14 shooting night he can still be the most impactful player on the offensive side of the ball.

Now, could you throw him into any offense and still extract that value with those shooting numbers? Almost certainly not, which is why I rate him around where I do. He's more reliant on the system than ever, and I think that matters a bit. Not every team can run the GS style of offense, in fact no one can because it's yet to be successfully replicated nearly a decade later.

To me, this is a bit like saying that Russell's title don't count because no other team can play defense like the Celtics could, except it makes less sense because plenty of other teams could and would play Warrior-ball effectively if that were the dominant paradigm of basketball in the present time.

It is true that Warrior-ball places a premium on the players on the court knowing what they are doing and being able to make decisions on the fly, but teams have literally been very successful doing this for 100 years. It's not some impossible thing to do, and while it places BBIQ at a premium, that's just another way of saying it makes other things less of a premium, which means you're not as dependent on getting guys with the physical talents that made them top tier prospects coming out of high school. That's not a bad thing.

One more thing I'll add though:

There is a specific reason why modern NBA teams are less likely to be able to pull off successful team-ball like the Warriors have right now, and that's the lack of continuity that most teams have now. And while I think that this is a natural product of free agency and player empowerment and not something to be overly critical of, I don't see how it makes any sense to criticize the guys who have stayed with one team for the fact that their choice to stay with one team has allowed them to groom others to play well with them.

My point here is that extracting value from Curry regardless of his actual shooting performance is more reliant on the system than ever before. His margin of error is greatly expanded because of the system.

They strayed away from the system last year and their margins shrank.

He certainly deserves some credit for their system and making it as effective as he does, but the system deserves credit too, as do others. They win because of Steph, and they win because of their system. It's not one or the other. Margins in basketball are too small for these things to be one or the other.

[Colbinii]

I think Dray would be booty on offense playing off Rose or CP3.

Griffin is one of the better playmaking bigs of the past decade and he did extremely well next to CP3, finishing as high as 3rd in MVP.

Would Draymond be useless [I assume that's what Booty means?] and the answer to that is a resounding no. His BBIQ and competitiveness would blend well with CP3 and frankly--help Rose as well.

I think 2021 showed you need a specific group of players around Draymond and Curry to succeed.

Griffin is a wee bit better than Dray in other offensive areas and finished so high in the MVP race in large part due to what he did without CP3.

I was thinking of it more relatively (Josh Howard is booty compared to LeBron, but absolutely quite good), useless is too strong, but next to Curry I think Dray is one of the best offensive bigs of his generation (on par with Griffin, only cleanly outclassed by Jokic), I don’t think he could replicate that level in other settings.

I agree Draymond is an ideal setting next to Curry as Curry is next to an ideal big man.

[falcolombardi]

Point being that it's not easy to compare players who play the game completely differently, and thus it's worth asking how someone is determining their preference in some comparisons.

All this might seem pedantic and call for a response of "It's obviously complicated and I'm not going to into it every time I make a post.", but Jalen said he "struggled" to see a case, which leads us to ask questions pertaining to that struggle.

and what does that have to do with anythingh in a comparision with giannis or jokic who also have identities and tean constructions built around them (when healthy in denver case)?

not trying to be an ass, i just dont get what your point was ?

If someone says they struggle to see a certain thing, it's relevant to ask them to elaborate on their struggle.

i think that doesnt really answer the question

struggle to see a case for steph over giannis. jokic has probably even surpassed steph offensively

i think steph is a top 5 player but i'd probably say that he's closer to lebron than he is to giannis.. although i am not as high on steph defensively as some people are.

Do you believe Giannis or Jokic could play Curry's role? If not, what's your basis for comparison?

the convo stars with a comment that curry is not in giannis or jokic level and you answer asking if they could play curry role which is completely unrelated to how good curry is now in relation to giannis and jokic

giannis cannot play like curry but cury obviouslt cannot play like giannis

giannis also cannot play like damian lillard either but that doesnt mean we cannot compare them, curry cannot replace jarret allen role in cleveland either but that doesnt mean we cannot say curry is better

[Doctor MJ]

I should have added that I don't think his impact is reliant on his "box scores" like most other players. It's been proven this year that even if he has a 3-14 shooting night he can still be the most impactful player on the offensive side of the ball.

Now, could you throw him into any offense and still extract that value with those shooting numbers? Almost certainly not, which is why I rate him around where I do. He's more reliant on the system than ever, and I think that matters a bit. Not every team can run the GS style of offense, in fact no one can because it's yet to be successfully replicated nearly a decade later.

How can you not credit Curry for that? The GS offense is the Curry offense. Sure that's reductive and Draymond deserves a lot of credit but Curry is the person that allows them to play this way. Also, it's not like you can't put him on the ball more and run more high P&Rs and have an elite offense. Second half of last year they played a more normal style and he was the best player in the world (imo). No reason to think he couldn't do that elsewhere.

He deserves some credit for making them as good as they are, sure, but they run the same offense without Curry in the game. Is not like they suddenly become vanilla when he's not out there. It's not quite as effective, just as you'd expect any team to be without their best player, but they play the same way. Curry and Draymond ultimately are the engines though, equally so I think.

Last year their offense really wasn't that great playing "more vanilla", even with Curry on the court it was only a few points above average. It became equally as terrible with either Dray or Curry sat. That roster was really devoid of talent outside of those two guys so I don't think it is that surprising that it suddenly became ineffective. But I also think that them adjusting their style of play sort of impacted that drop-off too.

They've proven time and time again to be effective without Curry playing, even in the playoffs. All parts are reliant on each other, not equally, but I don't think one part deserves the majority of the credit.

Uh, if you can play it without Curry on the court, then obviously it could have been replicated. You're contradicting yourself.

As I say that though, you're essentially making a statement that's analogous to "which is why Curry looks weak by +/- metrics"...but of course he's generally looked great by those metrics.

Everyone involved deserves credit to be sure, on every successful team, every year.

[Colbinii]

I think Dray would be booty on offense playing off Rose or CP3.

Griffin is one of the better playmaking bigs of the past decade and he did extremely well next to CP3, finishing as high as 3rd in MVP.

Would Draymond be useless [I assume that's what Booty means?] and the answer to that is a resounding no. His BBIQ and competitiveness would blend well with CP3 and frankly--help Rose as well.

I think 2021 showed you need a specific group of players around Draymond and Curry to succeed.

Griffin finished 3rd in MVP because Paul missed time and he thrived once he was able to take on more of a playmaking role.

For comparison, here's how Griffin did in 2013-14 in the games with Paul compared to without.

With Paul: 24.3 points, 3.9 assists & 3.0 TO per 75 possessions shooting 57.6% TS with an On/48 of 9.9.
W/out Paul: 29.2 points, 4.5 assists & 2.7 TO per 75 possessions shooting 60.3% TS with an On/48 of 8.5.

To me it's long seemed pretty clear that adding Paul was awful for allowing Griffin to become the most valuable player he could possibly be...but since Paul was still the better player and the team was better off with him, it made sense to acquire him and let him run the offense how he seemed fit if you did acquire him.

Of course, it certainly would have been smarter, in retrospect, to try to acquire Curry, who could have allowed Griffin to develop on-ball while making life easier for Griffin with spacing.

I'm not really sure anything you are saying is counteracting what I am saying.

I already stated Draymond wouldn't be as useful next to CP3 as he is Curry on Offense but also disagreed with the notion that a player like CP3 would marginalize a basketball savant like Draymond Green or that Draymond Green would be booty.

The think is, Griffin was still an all-nba level player even with Chris Paul just as Draymond would be an all-nba level player next to Chris Paul.

Do you think of Wade in the same vein as CP3 then?

Both played next to stars [Griffin and LeBron] who seemingly had much better statistics without the co-star than with the co-star.

There is going to be give and take between every two teammates but something we have seen is when all-time great players team up, they have success. Some end up fitting better than others but that shouldn't mean we assume players of the caliber of Draymond all-of-a-sudden become completely marginalized next to a different superstar with a differing skill-set.

[eminence]

Griffin is one of the better playmaking bigs of the past decade and he did extremely well next to CP3, finishing as high as 3rd in MVP.

Would Draymond be useless [I assume that's what Booty means?] and the answer to that is a resounding no. His BBIQ and competitiveness would blend well with CP3 and frankly--help Rose as well.

I think 2021 showed you need a specific group of players around Draymond and Curry to succeed.

Griffin is a wee bit better than Dray in other offensive areas and finished so high in the MVP race in large part due to what he did without CP3.

I was thinking of it more relatively (Josh Howard is booty compared to LeBron, but absolutely quite good), useless is too strong, but next to Curry I think Dray is one of the best offensive bigs of his generation (on par with Griffin, only cleanly outclassed by Jokic), I don’t think he could replicate that level in other settings.

I agree Draymond is an ideal setting next to Curry as Curry is next to an ideal big man.

Well, I didn't say the 2nd one

I think the 'system' has benefitted Draymond more than Curry, though both have benefitted. For me, we saw plenty of Curry not in Kerr-land, and he was great.

Draymond's role is pretty unique (this may be a significant understatement). Teams through league history simply haven't given the offensive decision primacy to a Draymond like player often enough to make me feel it's likely he would've succeeded similarly elsewhere, I just don't think he would've ever gotten that opportunity. The most I can see a more traditional team structure going towards is his '15 role. The '16 role where the Kerr system really took off and Dray spent as much if not more time than Curry in the drivers seat? Can't see it elsewhere. Could've he adapted to a significantly different offensive role to produce similar impact? Possibly, but my belief is no.

Curry is also pretty unique currently, but we've also seen him operate in a much less unique way (on-ball offensive scoring star is a role as old as league) and succeed to a high degree.

[Doctor MJ]

and what does that have to do with anythingh in a comparision with giannis or jokic who also have identities and tean constructions built around them (when healthy in denver case)?

not trying to be an ass, i just dont get what your point was ?

If someone says they struggle to see a certain thing, it's relevant to ask them to elaborate on their struggle.

i think that doesnt really answer the question

struggle to see a case for steph over giannis. jokic has probably even surpassed steph offensively

i think steph is a top 5 player but i'd probably say that he's closer to lebron than he is to giannis.. although i am not as high on steph defensively as some people are.

Do you believe Giannis or Jokic could play Curry's role? If not, what's your basis for comparison?

the convo stars with a comment that curry is not in giannis or jokic level and you answer asking if they could play curry role which is completely unrelated to how good curry is now in relation to giannis and jokic

giannis cannot play like curry but cury obviouslt cannot play like giannis

giannis also cannot play like damian lillard either but that doesnt mean we cannot compare them, curry cannot replace jarret allen role in cleveland either but that doesnt mean we cannot say curry is better

Hmm, you're asking what my point is when I ask questions that are relevant to the post I was replying to. I don't think I need a "point" for that.

But I can speak to what you're bringing in here. I'm not saying we cannot compare guys in different roles - in fact I insist we should make such comparisons too because that's what coaches & GMs do - but the comparison is definitionally quite hard and in general I find that the challenge is not finding arguments for the two sides, but determining how to choose one over the other when neither can dominate the comparison (by being superior in all situations). So when someone says they struggle to see any argument for why the guy on the more successful team, with the more impressive +/-, in a completely different role, could conceivably be ranked ahead of the other guy, I wonder how they've come to the conclusions they've come to.

[Colbinii]

Griffin is a wee bit better than Dray in other offensive areas and finished so high in the MVP race in large part due to what he did without CP3.

I was thinking of it more relatively (Josh Howard is booty compared to LeBron, but absolutely quite good), useless is too strong, but next to Curry I think Dray is one of the best offensive bigs of his generation (on par with Griffin, only cleanly outclassed by Jokic), I don’t think he could replicate that level in other settings.

I agree Draymond is an ideal setting next to Curry as Curry is next to an ideal big man.

Well, I didn't say the 2nd one

You don't think Draymond is the ideal pairing for Curry?

A big man who possess high IQ, tremendous passer and consistently pushes the pace are probably the 3 important qualities I would want next to Curry.

What qualities would you look for instead?

I think the 'system' has benefitted Draymond more than Curry, though both have benefitted. For me, we saw plenty of Curry not in Kerr-land, and he was great.

I agree.

Draymond's role is pretty unique (this may be a significant understatement). Teams through league history simply haven't given the offensive decision primacy to a Draymond like player often enough to make me feel it's likely he would've succeeded similarly elsewhere, I just don't think he would've ever gotten that opportunity. The most I can see a more traditional team structure going towards is his '15 role. The '16 role where the Kerr system really took off and Dray spent as much if not more time than Curry in the drivers seat? Can't see it elsewhere. Could've he adapted to a significantly different offensive role to produce similar impact? Possibly, but my belief is no.

Curry is also pretty unique currently, but we've also seen him operate in a much less unique way (on-ball offensive scoring star is a role as old as league) and succeed to a high degree.

Sure, but 15 Draymond was already a tremendous player and would succeed anywhere.

[jalengreen]

It's just a one game, but it looked rough for Dallas on both ends of the floor. They have to adjust their gameplan, because they looked lost on defense.

By the way, what's your thought on Curry? Do you still see him as the absolute top tier player in the league? It seems that Warriors at this point rely on their system and team chemistry more than ever before. Curry still has his moments, but does he look like the best player in the league candidate?

i struggle to see a case for steph over giannis. jokic has probably even surpassed steph offensively

i think steph is a top 5 player but i'd probably say that he's closer to lebron than he is to giannis.. although i am not as high on steph defensively as some people are.

Do you believe Giannis or Jokic could play Curry's role? If not, what's your basis for comparison?

I generally base my player valuations on how i view their on-court impact on their team in their present case.

In some "edge cases," I do make assumptions (which is admittedly the area in which inconsistency and more subjectivity can come in to play). For instance, I think LeBron has the potential to have a greater defensive impact as he did in 2020 and 2021 if he was in a role that didn't require him to carry the offensive load as much. Those judgement calls come in to play when external factors cause a shift in a player's playstyle and force reflection on how much of the variance in their performance/impact is actually due to a change in ability. Others may not care about that at all and strictly stick to their actual impact which is certainly reasonable.

The reason I mention this is that I don't think it applies to Steph. Like you said, he's a Duncan-like anchor, and I think his role has been relatively consistent with the Warriors. I don't think he has been asked to carry a much higher regular season workload recently with the exception of the 2021 season, so I don't think I need to make any other considerations for his impact in 2022 when he has a strong supporting cast. I feel more confident comparing him to past Curry seasons and concluding that this isn't really the best version of Curry that we've seen.

That doesn't necessarily mean he's worse than Giannis or Jokic, though. Maybe a down year for Steph could still be good enough to be the best player in the league...

While I think Steph certainly has a case for being the most impactful offensive players in the league, I'm not high on his defensive impact and I think Giannis' great two-way play makes him an overall more impactful player. Giannis' playmaking has really improved and has made it all the more difficult to defend him due to the high quality offensive looks he can generate for his teammates. And while I'm not a fan of the whistle he tends to get, it undoubtedly adds to his offensive impact with how consistently he's able to get to the line.

Giannis' defense probably goes without saying but IMO he's the league's best help defender and I thought his defense this postseason was super impressive and anchored a great defensive postseason in general for the Bucks despite the offensive load he had to carry without Middleton. The main selling point of the Bucks' defense was their paint defense which was no doubt bolstered by the performance of Brook Lopez, although I'd point out that their postseason defensive rating with Giannis/Lopez and with just Giannis were almost identical.

Do I think he can play Steph's role? No, and I wouldn't want him to. I believe his current role is far better suited to reach his maximum potential impact. Do I think Steph can play Giannis' role? Similarly, no, and similarly, I wouldn't want him to. And given that I believe both players are presently in optimal roles for their playstyle that allow them to exhibit the potential impact they can have, I'm comfortable directly comparing their impact to determine who the "better" player is.

[falcolombardi]

If someone says they struggle to see a certain thing, it's relevant to ask them to elaborate on their struggle.

i think that doesnt really answer the question

struggle to see a case for steph over giannis. jokic has probably even surpassed steph offensively

i think steph is a top 5 player but i'd probably say that he's closer to lebron than he is to giannis.. although i am not as high on steph defensively as some people are.

Do you believe Giannis or Jokic could play Curry's role? If not, what's your basis for comparison?

the convo stars with a comment that curry is not in giannis or jokic level and you answer asking if they could play curry role which is completely unrelated to how good curry is now in relation to giannis and jokic

giannis cannot play like curry but cury obviouslt cannot play like giannis

giannis also cannot play like damian lillard either but that doesnt mean we cannot compare them, curry cannot replace jarret allen role in cleveland either but that doesnt mean we cannot say curry is better

Hmm, you're asking what my point is when I ask questions that are relevant to the post I was replying to. I don't think I need a "point" for that.

But I can speak to what you're bringing in here. I'm not saying we cannot compare guys in different roles - in fact I insist we should make such comparisons too because that's what coaches & GMs do - but the comparison is definitionally quite hard and in general I find that the challenge is not finding arguments for the two sides, but determining how to choose one over the other when neither can dominate the comparison (by being superior in all situations). So when someone says they struggle to see any argument for why the guy on the more successful team, with the more impressive +/-, in a completely different role, could conceivably be ranked ahead of the other guy, I wonder how they've come to the conclusions they've come to.

those are valid points, it just was odd that you argued against the point of curry not being in jokic ans giannis league by pointing out they play a different role

rather than by pointing all those thinghs you mention (+/-, team success, etc)

[eminence]

I agree Draymond is an ideal setting next to Curry as Curry is next to an ideal big man.

Well, I didn't say the 2nd one

You don't think Draymond is the ideal pairing for Curry?

A big man who possess high IQ, tremendous passer and consistently pushes the pace are probably the 3 important qualities I would want next to Curry.

What qualities would you look for instead?

Most moderately skilled bigs would look great off Curry (offensively). Similar era off the top of my head guys I think who'd find similar if not more offensive success than Dray did next to Curry - Griffin, Giannis, AD, Love, Towns, Horford, Millsap.

Curry is malleable, you can put him in any (guard-shaped) hole you please.

Draymond is a square, if you need a circle it's not gonna work out.

Defensively both are fairly malleable, though Draymond is obviously leaps and bounds more valuable.

Ideal is probably Giannis, no need to screw around with great short roll passing if your roll man can just jam it down their throats every possession.

[jalengreen]

draymond is such a great fit with curry IMO which, as a fan of lillard, makes me quite jealous because i think he's exactly the type of player the dame/cj blazers needed and makes more sense with dray than a cp3 or ja.

[Doctor MJ]

Griffin is one of the better playmaking bigs of the past decade and he did extremely well next to CP3, finishing as high as 3rd in MVP.

Would Draymond be useless [I assume that's what Booty means?] and the answer to that is a resounding no. His BBIQ and competitiveness would blend well with CP3 and frankly--help Rose as well.

I think 2021 showed you need a specific group of players around Draymond and Curry to succeed.

Griffin finished 3rd in MVP because Paul missed time and he thrived once he was able to take on more of a playmaking role.

For comparison, here's how Griffin did in 2013-14 in the games with Paul compared to without.

With Paul: 24.3 points, 3.9 assists & 3.0 TO per 75 possessions shooting 57.6% TS with an On/48 of 9.9.
W/out Paul: 29.2 points, 4.5 assists & 2.7 TO per 75 possessions shooting 60.3% TS with an On/48 of 8.5.

To me it's long seemed pretty clear that adding Paul was awful for allowing Griffin to become the most valuable player he could possibly be...but since Paul was still the better player and the team was better off with him, it made sense to acquire him and let him run the offense how he seemed fit if you did acquire him.

Of course, it certainly would have been smarter, in retrospect, to try to acquire Curry, who could have allowed Griffin to develop on-ball while making life easier for Griffin with spacing.

I'm not really sure anything you are saying is counteracting what I am saying.

I already stated Draymond wouldn't be as useful next to CP3 as he is Curry on Offense but also disagreed with the notion that a player like CP3 would marginalize a basketball savant like Draymond Green or that Draymond Green would be booty.

The think is, Griffin was still an all-nba level player even with Chris Paul just as Draymond would be an all-nba level player next to Chris Paul.

Do you think of Wade in the same vein as CP3 then?

Both played next to stars [Griffin and LeBron] who seemingly had much better statistics without the co-star than with the co-star.

There is going to be give and take between every two teammates but something we have seen is when all-time great players team up, they have success. Some end up fitting better than others but that shouldn't mean we assume players of the caliber of Draymond all-of-a-sudden become completely marginalized next to a different superstar with a differing skill-set.

Well, I just pointed out how Griffin was marginalized by Paul, so I think we are in disagreement here.

And I think it would be considerably worse on offense for Green. Griffin off-ball still scares the hell out of defenses, Green does not.

Would Green be All-NBA next to Paul? He might based on his defense, but is that really your point? I would think it would be clear that neither Curry nor Paul would affect Green's defense. Offensively though, Green has a much bigger role to play when he's not playing with a ball dominant point guard.

Re: Wade similar to CP3? Well in the sense they are both on-ball, yes, but I'm not saying they are all that similar beyond that.

And listen, I think you and everyone else knows I'm a Nash guy and a Magic guy. The same holds true for all of them. There's only 1 ball, so if you're best suited to dominating the ball, then Green is not going to be a great offensive fit next to you.

Re: shouldn't assume marginalized next to a player with a different skillset. Disagree. Player fit is a real thing. It's one thing to argue that a particular player combo would work even if superficially it seems like it wouldn't, and quite another thing to not bother looking at fit at all when considering how to build a team.

[Doctor MJ]

draymond is such a great fit with curry IMO which, as a fan of lillard, makes me quite jealous because i think he's exactly the type of player the dame/cj blazers needed and makes more sense with dray than a cp3 or ja.

Honestly, the way Dame has actually played to me is more of an on-ball guy like CP3 or Ja. Are you saying that Dame doesn't play like that or that he wouldn't have played like that if he had Dray?

[eminence]

Those names above may have thrown some of our newer viewers off - context on how high I was on Draymond during the Warriors run, my POY votes for '16/'17/'18 had Dray 2nd/3rd/3rd (Steph 3rd/1st/HM over that period). I think the duo together flew as high as any NBA duo ever has.

[falcolombardi]

Griffin finished 3rd in MVP because Paul missed time and he thrived once he was able to take on more of a playmaking role.

For comparison, here's how Griffin did in 2013-14 in the games with Paul compared to without.

With Paul: 24.3 points, 3.9 assists & 3.0 TO per 75 possessions shooting 57.6% TS with an On/48 of 9.9.
W/out Paul: 29.2 points, 4.5 assists & 2.7 TO per 75 possessions shooting 60.3% TS with an On/48 of 8.5.

To me it's long seemed pretty clear that adding Paul was awful for allowing Griffin to become the most valuable player he could possibly be...but since Paul was still the better player and the team was better off with him, it made sense to acquire him and let him run the offense how he seemed fit if you did acquire him.

Of course, it certainly would have been smarter, in retrospect, to try to acquire Curry, who could have allowed Griffin to develop on-ball while making life easier for Griffin with spacing.

I'm not really sure anything you are saying is counteracting what I am saying.

I already stated Draymond wouldn't be as useful next to CP3 as he is Curry on Offense but also disagreed with the notion that a player like CP3 would marginalize a basketball savant like Draymond Green or that Draymond Green would be booty.

The think is, Griffin was still an all-nba level player even with Chris Paul just as Draymond would be an all-nba level player next to Chris Paul.

Do you think of Wade in the same vein as CP3 then?

Both played next to stars [Griffin and LeBron] who seemingly had much better statistics without the co-star than with the co-star.

There is going to be give and take between every two teammates but something we have seen is when all-time great players team up, they have success. Some end up fitting better than others but that shouldn't mean we assume players of the caliber of Draymond all-of-a-sudden become completely marginalized next to a different superstar with a differing skill-set.

Well, I just pointed out how Griffin was marginalized by Paul, so I think we are in disagreement here.

And I think it would be considerably worse on offense for Green. Griffin off-ball still scares the hell out of defenses, Green does not.

Would Green be All-NBA next to Paul? He might based on his defense, but is that really your point? I would think it would be clear that neither Curry nor Paul would affect Green's defense. Offensively though, Green has a much bigger role to play when he's not playing with a ball dominant point guard.

Re: Wade similar to CP3? Well in the sense they are both on-ball, yes, but I'm not saying they are all that similar beyond that.

And listen, I think you and everyone else knows I'm a Nash guy and a Magic guy. The same holds true for all of them. There's only 1 ball, so if you're best suited to dominating the ball, then Green is not going to be a great offensive fit next to you.

Re: shouldn't assume marginalized next to a player with a different skillset. Disagree. Player fit is a real thing. It's one thing to argue that a particular player combo would work even if superficially it seems like it wouldn't, and quite another thing to not bother looking at fit at all when considering how to build a team.

marginalizing sounds like griffin went from star to 3 and D specialist which is a bit hyperbolic for the second star of that clippers team

that would be like saying that jordan coming back to bulls marginalized pippen by reducing his offensive role

a guy going from his team only star to having a co-star is naturally gonna have some degree of prominence reduced, it happened to even curry when durant came

[jalengreen]

If someone says they struggle to see a certain thing, it's relevant to ask them to elaborate on their struggle.

i think that doesnt really answer the question

struggle to see a case for steph over giannis. jokic has probably even surpassed steph offensively

i think steph is a top 5 player but i'd probably say that he's closer to lebron than he is to giannis.. although i am not as high on steph defensively as some people are.

Do you believe Giannis or Jokic could play Curry's role? If not, what's your basis for comparison?

the convo stars with a comment that curry is not in giannis or jokic level and you answer asking if they could play curry role which is completely unrelated to how good curry is now in relation to giannis and jokic

giannis cannot play like curry but cury obviouslt cannot play like giannis

giannis also cannot play like damian lillard either but that doesnt mean we cannot compare them, curry cannot replace jarret allen role in cleveland either but that doesnt mean we cannot say curry is better

Hmm, you're asking what my point is when I ask questions that are relevant to the post I was replying to. I don't think I need a "point" for that.

But I can speak to what you're bringing in here. I'm not saying we cannot compare guys in different roles - in fact I insist we should make such comparisons too because that's what coaches & GMs do - but the comparison is definitionally quite hard and in general I find that the challenge is not finding arguments for the two sides, but determining how to choose one over the other when neither can dominate the comparison (by being superior in all situations). So when someone says they struggle to see any argument for why the guy on the more successful team, with the more impressive +/-, in a completely different role, could conceivably be ranked ahead of the other guy, I wonder how they've come to the conclusions they've come to.

i'm not sure i agree with this

+/-
giannis +8.0
steph +10.1

on/off
giannis +11.0
steph +10.0

postseason +/-
giannis +7.7
steph +7.3

postseason on/off
giannis +28.8
steph +3.4

EPM
giannis +7.3
steph +7.2

LEBRON
giannis +6.54
steph +4.40

i'm not the biggest fan of +/- or single-season impact metrics due to the standard errors, but i must say i think giannis' profile here is more impressive *and* i think he's been more impressive in the postseason (wasn't a huge fan of the giannis DPOY arguments because i felt he coasted more on that end than in years past).

unless by more impressive +/- you just meant basic +/- itself and nothing else. in which case, yeah, but i'm not entirely sold on how meaningful that is.

[Colbinii]

Its fascinating watching the theory of "position-less basketball" slowly take hold of the league.

I don't know exactly when it started [Perhaps Heatles with the blitzing defense and Bosh at Center] but the league slowly evolved, first removing the plodding, slow footed big man. The idea of match-up hunting [A la Luka] really goes to exploit shorter players [Chris Paul-size] or larger, less mobile bigs.

The Heat, Celtics, Mavericks [Minus Brunson] and and Warriors have line-ups without big centers and without small point guards. The Celtics do it best with Smart-Brown-Tatum-Williams-Horford but every team is capable of the line-ups.

This trend then creates a "meta game" where teams will try to slowly get larger and larger and find key players who are both large enough to take advantage and quick enough to defend on the perimeter [Bam Adebayo the best example of players currently left].

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not really sure anything you are saying is counteracting what I am saying.

I already stated Draymond wouldn't be as useful next to CP3 as he is Curry on Offense but also disagreed with the notion that a player like CP3 would marginalize a basketball savant like Draymond Green or that Draymond Green would be booty.

The think is, Griffin was still an all-nba level player even with Chris Paul just as Draymond would be an all-nba level player next to Chris Paul.

Do you think of Wade in the same vein as CP3 then?

Both played next to stars [Griffin and LeBron] who seemingly had much better statistics without the co-star than with the co-star.

There is going to be give and take between every two teammates but something we have seen is when all-time great players team up, they have success. Some end up fitting better than others but that shouldn't mean we assume players of the caliber of Draymond all-of-a-sudden become completely marginalized next to a different superstar with a differing skill-set.

Well, I just pointed out how Griffin was marginalized by Paul, so I think we are in disagreement here.

And I think it would be considerably worse on offense for Green. Griffin off-ball still scares the hell out of defenses, Green does not.

Would Green be All-NBA next to Paul? He might based on his defense, but is that really your point? I would think it would be clear that neither Curry nor Paul would affect Green's defense. Offensively though, Green has a much bigger role to play when he's not playing with a ball dominant point guard.

Re: Wade similar to CP3? Well in the sense they are both on-ball, yes, but I'm not saying they are all that similar beyond that.

And listen, I think you and everyone else knows I'm a Nash guy and a Magic guy. The same holds true for all of them. There's only 1 ball, so if you're best suited to dominating the ball, then Green is not going to be a great offensive fit next to you.

Re: shouldn't assume marginalized next to a player with a different skillset. Disagree. Player fit is a real thing. It's one thing to argue that a particular player combo would work even if superficially it seems like it wouldn't, and quite another thing to not bother looking at fit at all when considering how to build a team.

marginalizing sounds like griffin went from star to 3 and D specialist which is a bit hyperbolic for the second star of that clippers team

that would be like saying that jordan coming back to bulls marginalized pippen by reducing his offensive role

a guy going from his team only star to having a co-star is naturally gonna have some degree of prominence reduced, it happened to even curry when durant came

What word would you prefer me to use to say "Player A's presence resulted in Player B having lesser primacy and lower effectiveness within that lesser primacy role"?

And yes, it certainly happened to Curry when Durant came to Golden State.

I wouldn't say Jordan did it to Pippen though. I think Pippen's most impressive years were definitely when Jordan was there - though I know it's the '93-94 year that got him the MVP buzz.