2015-2016 NBA

[Arlos]

I realize I am a complete neophyte about the NBA, but I don't know if I buy the hypothesis that coaching doesn't matter much. Look at how big a leap the Warriors took last year, going from Jackson to Kerr, for example. I might agree that within a range of coaching skill, it's not going to matter much. But a bad coach can fuck up even a pretty good team, and a great coach can elevate even a great team. I mean, do you think Chicago gets as many rings, or the 72 win mark if, say, Wes Unseld or Garry St. Jean, to pick some bad names from the past, was their coach instead of Phil Jackson? Are the Showtime Lakers of the 80s the same team with a replacement-level coach instead of Pat Riley? Hell, do the Spurs have a 20+ year dominant run like they've had if Don Nelson was in charge instead of Popovich? I don't think so.

And yeah, about tonight. Saw a brief press meeting with Popovich after the game, and he was *NOT* happy. He called what happened tonight as men vs. boys out there, and said he has no idea how to control the Warriors' speed. Now, that last one, I don't believe for a minute. I am quite sure he has some ideas in mind, but the Spurs sure as hell got their asses handed to them tonight. Without Duncan, I grant you, but I don't think he would be a 30 point swing, do you?

[Jay]

Duncan sets the pace of the entire game and rallys his teammates. He's not the superstar he once was be he commands the teams respect. That's crucial when your team is down 9 points and need repeated stops against the best offense in the NBA.

Coaching is important, but ultimately it's not about the actual coaching position. It's about 1 person who can get a bunch of millionaire primadonnas to listen and obey. For the Cavs it's Lebron, but that's bad because he's IN the game and optimally you want an outsider to judge strategy and positioning. Lebron is also not objective and he doesn't create an environment where his teammates can grow. The environment of the Cavs organization is the team that's designed to play around Lebron, which is why Kevin Love doesn't gel with Lebron and Kyrie Irving can't unleash his full potential. They are superstar driven, not teamwork driven but they have strong talent.

A bad coach can fuck up a team because if the players don't have a beacon of where they derive strategy, they will crumble. Teamwork is about everyone being on the same page, which is damn near impossible if everyone has different ideas and can't follow 1 singular strategy. Blatt had no control over the Cavs. Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, and Gregg Pop have control of their teams.

As for Mark Jackson and the Warriors, keep in mind that he created that team and assembled their defense. The Warriors were going to end up how they are not because of Steve Kerr, but because of Stephen Curry. Steve let him grow and said, ok, I have an idea of how we can use you. Mark might have done the same, but we'll never know, but the Warriors had always been emerging to become the team they are now.

[Jay]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-warr ... m=webfeeds

This was an interesting read, albeit a little sensationalist.

[Lyion]

Coaching is important, but ultimately it's not about the actual coaching position. It's about 1 person who can get a bunch of millionaire primadonnas to listen and obey. For the Cavs it's Lebron, but that's bad because he's IN the game and optimally you want an outsider to judge strategy and positioning. Lebron is also not objective and he doesn't create an environment where his teammates can grow. The environment of the Cavs organization is the team that's designed to play around Lebron, which is why Kevin Love doesn't gel with Lebron and Kyrie Irving can't unleash his full potential. They are superstar driven, not teamwork driven but they have strong talent.

A bad coach can fuck up a team because if the players don't have a beacon of where they derive strategy, they will crumble. Teamwork is about everyone being on the same page, which is damn near impossible if everyone has different ideas and can't follow 1 singular strategy. Blatt had no control over the Cavs. Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, and Gregg Pop have control of their teams.

Poppovich blows holes in your theory, in my humble opinion. The dude is amazing.

Regarding Cleveland, the problem is Blatt was brought in to rebuild a team of very young players with no expectations, and suddenly that changes to multiple top tier guys <Love, Lebron> and an expectation to win. His 'instructions' were to work with these guys moreso than to build a team. He was screwed from day one by Cavs management. Why? Because Lebron wanted Mark Jackson. Lue is a bridge between Jackson and Blatt, since Cleveland did not want Mark for very good reasons.

The Cavs were winning. They made the finals last year and were probably on course to get there again with Blatt. They were not an out of control team. They however have some holes and to this day still don't know how to properly use Love. This whole thing was a powerplay by Lebron's camp and sports agency.

Blatt is a far better coach than Lue. He has incredible smarts and potential. What he wasn't was Lebron's guy, and at the end of the day if the best player in the league is on your team demanding change, there aren't a lot of options.

[Jay]

Pretty much agree. Lebron is trying to distance himself from the decision which makes me think he actually had something to do with it. Lebron didn't like him, so he's gone. Some of his comments during the finals last year (re: Israel) irked me, so no loss to me.

I think players need to buy into coaches, and coaches can help in different ways, but I think their impact is not as important as other sports. The NBA is a players league.

I think the only exception to that rule might be Gregg Pop. He is the greatest mind in basketball and has done so much with so little. His ability to carry aging players past their prime into NBA championships against Lebron James and other superstar driven teams is incredible. He did just lose to the Warriors by 30 though. I dunno...the Warriors are just a disgusting team.

I am also a big fan of Larry Brown. That guy carried turds to the playoffs.

I'm aware Lyion but he's the exception to the rule. He also doesn't have a Lebron to contend with and Tim Duncan has been the most agreeable and honorable player ever. His team enables him to be the genius he is.

Since Tyronn Lue took over I feel like Kevin Love has been better utilized. Before they had him kinda chill at the 3pt line or grab rebounds and now his role has increased. I don't know if Lue had anything to do with that or if Lebron is being less of a cunt. Love has way more potential than how he was being used before.

[Arlos]

ROFL. Just saw an incredible stat on ESPN about Curry this season.

The NBA average on shots from 3 feet and closer is 59.5%.
Curry is currently shooting 60.4%. From 28 feet and further...

You NBA gurus, is there ANY precedent to shooting like that? How is it even possible someone is more accurate way beyond the 3pt arc than the league averages right under the basket?


In other news, what do you guys think of the rumors that the Warriors will make a big push to get Durant in the offseason? Seen lots of stuff saying they could make the cap work to even just sign him as a FA, but they'd have to lose at least Barnes and Livingston, and probably one more piece of their current puzzle like Ezeli. Seen lots of chatter that this is a very real possibility, and Steph and Dreymond may have already started quiet behind-the-scenes chatter to recruit Durant. I've also seen some counter opinions, saying basically, "The Warriors are 45-4, with the potential to go down as one of the very greatest teams in NBA history, maybe even getting more than 72 wins. Why in hell would they fuck with that and lose several parts to their machine just to add in Durant? What would be the point, when they are already this insanely good, and why would they risk making such a big change?"

What do you guys think?

[Jay]

ROFL. Just saw an incredible stat on ESPN about Curry this season.

The NBA average on shots from 3 feet and closer is 59.5%.
Curry is currently shooting 60.4%. From 28 feet and further...

You NBA gurus, is there ANY precedent to shooting like that? How is it even possible someone is more accurate way beyond the 3pt arc than the league averages right under the basket?


In other news, what do you guys think of the rumors that the Warriors will make a big push to get Durant in the offseason? Seen lots of stuff saying they could make the cap work to even just sign him as a FA, but they'd have to lose at least Barnes and Livingston, and probably one more piece of their current puzzle like Ezeli. Seen lots of chatter that this is a very real possibility, and Steph and Dreymond may have already started quiet behind-the-scenes chatter to recruit Durant. I've also seen some counter opinions, saying basically, "The Warriors are 45-4, with the potential to go down as one of the very greatest teams in NBA history, maybe even getting more than 72 wins. Why in hell would they fuck with that and lose several parts to their machine just to add in Durant? What would be the point, when they are already this insanely good, and why would they risk making such a big change?"

What do you guys think?

Durant is one of the best players in the game today. Personally, I want the Warriors to stay the same. If it's already dominating why fix it? On paper, he would make the Warriors unstoppable, but there's always that chance he won't gel with the team. Durant has a great attitude and love for the game though so I think he would, but, again, why change something that's already working? I'm scared of chemistry ruining this historic team, but there's potential to make a disgusting dynasty out of this.

Also, no reason to get rid of Barnes. They have cap room now and they can always waive Speights, McAdoo, and Clark. Livingston is strong off the bench and Ezeli is only 2 years old with lots of potential. They do have to be ready for when Steph asks for max money though.

[Zanchief]

ROFL. Just saw an incredible stat on ESPN about Curry this season.

The NBA average on shots from 3 feet and closer is 59.5%.
Curry is currently shooting 60.4%. From 28 feet and further...

You NBA gurus, is there ANY precedent to shooting like that? How is it even possible someone is more accurate way beyond the 3pt arc than the league averages right under the basket?

Yea crazy...just think how Leonard, Redick and Jared Dudley feel. They're all shooting better percentages for the season then a man that has no precedent...

[Jay]

Well, he's about to break his own record for 3's in a season so I guess by definition that means there's no precedent. Historically though, a focus on 3's was the job of a role player, not your starting point guard. Teams that were 3pt centric were typically losers because 3's are supposed to be far more unreliable so no one has really done it like Steph. You will see a lot more distance shooters now, to the benefit AND detriment of basketball. Most of those shooters will not be complete players like Curry.

[Arlos]

Yea crazy...just think how Leonard, Redick and Jared Dudley feel. They're all shooting better percentages for the season then a man that has no precedent...

Well, to be fair, he's doing it over a vastly higher volume of shots. Do you think they'd have a higher percentage than Curry if they took as many 3s? Also, how many of them take shots from 28+ feet with regularity?

[Zanchief]

I'm just trying to give a bit of perspective for your jubilation.

He is, arguably, the best shooter of all time. But as Jay said, the game is changing and he's a product of this. Kids are taught different now. It's less slashing and dunking, and more about the 3. We're going to see the new generation of kids all be deadly 3 point shooters.

[Jay]

I'm just trying to give a bit of perspective for your jubilation.

He is, arguably, the best shooter of all time. But as Jay said, the game is changing and he's a product of this. Kids are taught different now. It's less slashing and dunking, and more about the 3. We're going to see the new generation of kids all be deadly 3 point shooters.

Yeah but that in it of itself is going to be a detriment to basketball. I think that was the point Mark Jackson was trying to make when he said Steph is "bad for basketball". Steph gets away with those 3's not just because he's a good shot, but because he can make space by using the hesitation that comes from the doubt of whether he's gonna fake and drive it in. In a triple threat* situation he's probably the most terrifying player in the game.

*Arlos: Triple threat means when you catch the ball, bend the knees and elbows and lower your body and your opponent has to guess whether you're gonna pass, shoot or dribble.

[Zanchief]

Well everything is geared to analytics now so it's all FT and Three pointers so they'll be fine with the triple threat. I think you'll have bad players, just as their were bad players that were only good at dunking or driving and couldn't shoot, but the super stars will all be more the Harden, Curry, Westbrook mold going forward. FTs and Threes.

In all honesty, the players from distant eras were not very good shooters. Even the best, like Larry Bird, aren't as good compared the players now. The game has changed a lot. I don't think it's bad necessarily. It's just different.

[Arlos]

Zan, I'm still curious as to your opinion of the Durant to Golden State rumors. Good idea? Bad idea? Start of a 5-6 year run of 90s Bulls levels of dominance? Would destroy the team and bring them down to everyone else's level?

[Zanchief]

I hate super teams so I wouldn't like it. Seems an odd choice Durant though. I doubt he does it. I see him going to Washington or staying in OKC. It would create such a power vacuum if they did do it though. I just don't see how much better they can be though.

[Jay]

I hate super teams so I wouldn't like it. Seems an odd choice Durant though. I doubt he does it. I see him going to Washington or staying in OKC. It would create such a power vacuum if they did do it though. I just don't see how much better they can be though.

Durant is a dominant player. So is Steph, and the Warriors are definitely Steph's team. Durant would be weakening his legacy (imo) by joining the Warriors. Same could have been said when Lebron joined the Heat, but DWade was not nearly as dominant as Curry is now. Basically it boils down to what is more important to Durant. The ring, or the legacy he carves out as a team's focal point, which may also include a ring.

Also, I hate super teams as well. They are boring to watch unless they lose. The Warriors' run of dominance is so fun to watch because the team isn't stacked with an entirely all star lineup. It's their teamwork with Stephen Curry and Draymond Green at the helm that makes it so exciting. Throw Durant in that mix and it'll be watching Globetrotter basketball, which is a snore.

[Arlos]

Wow, Popovich just gave the Warriors a huge compliment. Saw this on ESPN:

"I've spent more time thinking about Golden State than I have any other team I've ever thought about in my whole career," Popovich told ESPN Radio on Friday. "Because they are really fun. I'd go buy a ticket and go watch them play. And when I see them move the ball, I get very envious. When I see them shoot uncontested shots more than anybody else in the league, it's inspiring. It's just great basketball.

"So I'm actually enjoying them very much. You try to solve them, but they're in a sense unsolvable because it's a particular mix of talent that they have. It's not just that Steph [Curry] can make shots or that Klay can make shots or that Draymond Green is versatile. Everybody on the court can pass, catch and shoot. And they all get it."

[Arlos]

So, uh, how about that Warriors/Thunder game?

[Jay]

Curry's not playing basketball. Dude's playing NBA Jam with the codes on. Of the 12 shots he hit, probably 11 of those any basketball expert would tell not to take shots from there. And the game winner? It's mindblowing how calm he was during that moment.

I watched a documentary about his NCAA career. Its funny the twist of fate that's occurred since his NCAA career ended with being put in a tough position to make a shot, then passing to his teammate who airballed it for the loss in a close game. I wonder how much of that loss created the monster today.

[Jay]

LOLOL

https://twitter.com/alvinjwr/status/703904306466979840/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Jay]

4-30 from the 3pt line.

TBH it's absolutely shocking the Warriors don't have more nights like this considering how much they rely on the 3pt shot. So far they've had 6 =P

So, Steph is probably gonna erupt next game.

In other news, Mirotic and Butler are back and now the Bulls are gonna be winning again. I wish Jimmy and Derrick had more chemistry. They could be something special.

Zan, any thoughts on the comments by Oscar Robertson? What's the reason the old guys hate on the new guys so much?

[Zanchief]

Because people like Arlos are calling them the best team ever and they want a bit of perspective I would guess. Wouldn't you?

[Jay]

Because people like Arlos are calling them the best team ever and they want a bit of perspective I would guess. Wouldn't you?

I've heard about what Big O said on twitter and stuff but after actually listening to the clip, I don't think what he says is that bad. Perspective is fine but it kinda dances on the line of bitterness.

Arlos, I dunno if know about basketball at around 12 years ago and beyond but touching a player with the ball gets foul called way more now than it did before. What this does is it allows a lot of people to drive it down the middle and draw fouls a lot easier. It also means there's a finer line with applying physical pressure to your opponent and because a lot of refs from back then are still reffing now, you kinda get a mixed bag on how much physical contact is allowed.

I guess an easy comparison to make would be comparing Ronaldinho at his prime or Lionel Messi to Pele. Pele is the best in a much more physical and dangerous time period than the other 2 whereas you can only speculate how well they would have done if they had to deal with Pele's ruleset.

[Arlos]

Because people like Arlos are calling them the best team ever and they want a bit of perspective I would guess. Wouldn't you?

I've heard about what Big O said on twitter and stuff but after actually listening to the clip, I don't think what he says is that bad. Perspective is fine but it kinda dances on the line of bitterness.

Arlos, I dunno if know about basketball at around 12 years ago and beyond but touching a player with the ball gets foul called way more now than it did before. What this does is it allows a lot of people to drive it down the middle and draw fouls a lot easier. It also means there's a finer line with applying physical pressure to your opponent and because a lot of refs from back then are still reffing now, you kinda get a mixed bag on how much physical contact is allowed.

I guess an easy comparison to make would be comparing Ronaldinho at his prime or Lionel Messi to Pele. Pele is the best in a much more physical and dangerous time period than the other 2 whereas you can only speculate how well they would have done if they had to deal with Pele's ruleset.

The problem is that each each era really has its own unique characteristics and it becomes very hard to compare them. The rules may have been different in Pele's time, for example, but the overall talent levels on teams throughout the world were also different and certainly less than there are now. Sports science was in its infancy, as was sports medicine. None of those older players trained ANYTHING like how they do today. In football, for example, players would work offseason jobs and sit around drinking beer and getting fat. Training camp was mostly about getting them back into shape after the offseason than it was about anything else. Remember when Refrigerator Perry was considered HUGE compared to everyone else? He weighed 335 lbs. Not all of it muscle. He'd be a little light for a DT today, and today's DT probably have a lot lower body fat percentage. Think about it this way, too: what do you think a prime Shaq could have done in the era in which Wilt Chamberlain played? Could anyone back then have even slowed him down? How would a prime Wilt do in today's NBA? Sure he'd still be great, but there's no way he scores 100 in a game or averages 50pts a game for the season. So even though the rules may be different, the athletes are as well.

[Zanchief]

Don't be knocking Wilt man. That guy was crazy.