EPT- Lebron
- Kyrie was having his way against any defender GSW threw at him
- Love and Korver were greatly limited by the Kyrie-iso and Lebron-kickout plays
- Thompson wet the bed
- JR Smith was underutilized when he was feelin it
NBA Offseason 2017 - Page 21
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
- Lebron - Kyrie was having his way against any defender GSW threw at him - Love and Korver were greatly limited by the Kyrie-iso and Lebron-kickout plays - Thompson wet the bed - JR Smith was underutilized when he was feelin it | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote: It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one. IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy). I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season). Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league. I guess it's the business school grad in me, but I think that that makes Kerr a greater leader than people think. He changed the offensive philosophy from an isolation based offense to a motion and ball sharing offense. He refined the switching defense. He changed the culture from toxic to the fun, hippie love culture they currently have. The vast majority of the sports world considers micromanagement to be the pinnacle of leadership, something I vehemently disagree with. If Pop decides to take a two week vacation in the Bahamas in mid- December, do the Spurs suddenly forget how to run his offense? Apple today is still a function of Steve Jobs' leadership. He's been dead for a while. That the company can run itself without him for this long is a credit to him. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On July 01 2017 00:35 andrewlt wrote: IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy). Iggy gets thrown in way before Shaun and McGee. He was on the brink of irredeemable decline after being considered the 76ers franchise. He is the silent superglue of this team. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On July 01 2017 00:32 Twinkle Toes wrote: That's where we disagree. If the Cavs played like a team like GSW, they could have won against them: - Lebron - Kyrie was having his way against any defender GSW threw at him - Love and Korver were greatly limited by the Kyrie-iso and Lebron-kickout plays - Thompson wet the bed - JR Smith was underutilized when he was feelin it Well, once again, the Cavs' offense was mostly fine. I'm bad at searching for stats but I'm guessing their team TS% was alright? Talent also includes defensive ability though. And basically everybody on the Cavs is a terrible 1on1 defender. I'm not even talking about their team defense. Just individually, they have nothing to throw at Curry and Durant. Jefferson on Durant, are you kidding me? GS has multiple great 1v1 defenders in Klay, Iguodala, Green and even Durant. I guess you could argue that the Cavs' players defend poorly because they don't buy into the team spirit or they're not involved enough in offense to care about defense or something. There is probably some truth to that, but having an extra defensive wing to put on Durant would still have been key for me. On July 01 2017 00:35 andrewlt wrote: IMO, it's silly to consider the two pre-Durant years as just a collection of talent. Homegrown, not so high draft picks turning into great talents isn't just a function of assembling talent. There's a huge amount of both skill and luck that goes into identifying talent that other teams overlook and then nurturing that talent and creating a system that lets that talent thrive. GSW also a pretty good track record on reclamation projects (Livingston, McGee, could maybe even throw in Bogut and Iggy). I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
|
nVme
952 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On July 01 2017 01:10 Twinkle Toes wrote: I was so busy watching Durant vs. Lebron that I missed a lot of details. TT was a monster last year, what happened to him? It came down to GS planning well for him and had several potential hungry guys to box him out consistently every possession. I didn't realize it until the finals, but TT's size prevents him from outrebounding motivated taller guys. That's the thing TT has over most everybody, he's more motivated for rebounds than them, because that's almost his sole designated role. But Durant wanted that ring bad so he did his part boxing TT out :D, and a lot of other guys did too. And on Durant vs Lebron, to me it was clear that Lebron just can't deal with Durant 1on1 anymore. Lebron is the defensive mind of the team and is always thinking about the next play, especially the next offensive possession that he will likely have to lead. You don't want that guy on Durant, you want a guy who will pester him and hound him to no end, be constantly physical on him off-ball to tire him out. You want the pure 1on1 defender that will come back harder when he gets scored on. It just seemed like Lebron gave up after Durant scored a few times on him and just thought "well, we'll have to accept that Durant is scoring at will then..." The thing is, if good team defense can mostly deal with Curry, with good trapping, good hedges on screens, you absolutely need a smothering 1v1 defender on Durant because of his size alone. Or double team him constantly (but with all the commitment they had on Curry already, that's not easy, they can't very well double team 2 guys at once :D). Also, the Cavs were defaulting to switching a bit too easily. They don't have the personel to switch everything like this without a fight. I always find this so weird in the modern NBA when I see teams giving up the switch like it's a rule of the pick&roll now. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17479 Posts
On July 01 2017 00:32 Twinkle Toes wrote: That's where we disagree. If the Cavs played like a team like GSW, they could have won against them: To create the team dynamic GSW has you need a high degree of team continuity. Cleveland didn't have that. its very hard to create that kind of team dynamic in any circumstance. Its impossible when you're swapping players in and out all year long the way Cleveland did. second, Korver and Irving are bad defenders and have been for the vast majority of their careers. I don't think better team chemistry makes that go away. you can't acquire a bad defender like Korver half way through the year and expect him to gel with your defense. From the time Korver was acquired Cleveland's defense was average or worse. imo, Cleveland's average defense makes a win against GSW impossible unless GSW players get hurt. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On July 01 2017 00:42 ZenithM wrote: I was specifically talking about Kerr's role in this team. And Kerr had absolutely no part in the building of the team, starting 2014-15. Even starting Draymond can be seen as a natural product of David Lee being hurt. I'm not denying any of the good points about GSW being homegrown and having a good team mindset and direction and all that, I'm past that :D. I'm even willing to not call them a superteam by the "mercenary recruiting" criterion. The following point you made about Kerr kickstarting the ball-sharing spirit and turning the culture into a fun one, this I can see being true. He does seem like a person you would like to play your hardest for, honestly. Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on). On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On July 01 2017 01:14 ZenithM wrote: It came down to GS planning well for him and had several potential hungry guys to box him out consistently every possession. I didn't realize it until the finals, but TT's size prevents him from outrebounding motivated taller guys. That's the thing TT has over most everybody, he's more motivated for rebounds than them, because that's almost his sole designated role. But Durant wanted that ring bad so he did his part boxing TT out :D, and a lot of other guys did too. And on Durant vs Lebron, to me it was clear that Lebron just can't deal with Durant 1on1 anymore. Lebron is the defensive mind of the team and is always thinking about the next play, especially the next offensive possession that he will likely have to lead. You don't want that guy on Durant, you want a guy who will pester him and hound him to no end, be constantly physical on him off-ball to tire him out. You want the pure 1on1 defender that will come back harder when he gets scored on. It just seemed like Lebron gave up after Durant scored a few times on him and just thought "well, we'll have to accept that Durant is scoring at will then..." The thing is, if good team defense can mostly deal with Curry, with good trapping, good hedges on screens, you absolutely need a smothering 1v1 defender on Durant because of his size alone. Or double team him constantly (but with all the commitment they had on Curry already, that's not easy, they can't very well double team 2 guys at once :D). Also, the Cavs were defaulting to switching a bit too easily. They don't have the personel to switch everything like this without a fight. I always find this so weird in the modern NBA when I see teams giving up the switch like it's a rule of the pick&roll now. That was tough as a Lebron fan to watch. Not really the part the he is getting destroyed by KD, but that he knows it and he gave up. There were a lot of times that he is refuses to even engage with Durant anymore. Two of Duant's dunks was on him. JR is an idiot for leaving too early to shadow Curry, but Lebron should have exerted more effort in covering the switch and at last provide and obstacle to KD's entry to the paint. But you can see his it in his face as he watches by, as if he's saying "Fuck I won't get posterized by that maniac tarantula". There were also plenty of times that he yells at opponents after he blows a defensive assignment, when the error was solely on him. On July 01 2017 05:26 andrewlt wrote: Well, as a coach, he's supposed to get out of the GM's way. I suppose with all the egos in professional sports, it's harder than it looks (see: Mark Jackson, Larry Brown, Jason Kidd, Thibs, and so on). On D, the Cavs couldn't even do switching or offense to defense transition correctly. Multiple times, Klay ran past Durant and both Cavs players chased him. Easy dunk. And who could forget game 1, when Durant had multiple coast to coast dunks because the Cavs had too many people watching Curry on the wing. The Cavs need a vocal defensive leader who will bark out directions. Lebron was that guy. The team was purely terrible at defense in general. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17479 Posts
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19777526/minnesota-timberwolves-trading-ricky-rubio-utah-jazz "Rubio, 26, averaged 16.0 points and 10.5 assists per game after the All-Star break this past season." Minnesota is gonna miss Rubio... the guy is a good defender and a really good dribbler. It was hard for me to get a full sense of Rubio's entire game until i watched him play a lot this year. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On July 01 2017 05:53 Twinkle Toes wrote: Lebron was that guy. The team was purely terrible at defense in general. That's why Draymond is perfect for that role with the Warriors. His role on offense saves his energy on defense while still being a positive contributor on offense. The Cavs just have a problem with building their entire offense around Lebron. One of the first things Phil Jackson did when he coached the Bulls was to give ball handling duties to Pippen. Jordan doesn't get the ball until he is in position. We've seen plenty of players save energy on defense when they need to expend so much energy on offense to create shots. Durant used to be one of those players as well. The league's pace has been increasing in recent years and I believe the tracking cameras show that players are running more miles on the court compared to all past seasons. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17479 Posts
On July 01 2017 06:43 JimmiC wrote: Twolves lookin at george hill almost a swap but wolves get a first is it ? this is Rubio's Real Plus/Minus stat line 32.9 1.73 0.76 2.49 http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/1 0.76 is the 6th best Defensive Real Plus Minus amongst starting point guards. 2.49 is the 9th best real plus minus amongst starting point guards. On July 01 2017 06:43 JimmiC wrote: Twolves lookin at george hill almost a swap but wolves get a first based on what i saw of Hill in the 2016 playoffs.. i think the guy is really good. He ate up Lowry. Hill would be a good replacement for next year. Long term i like Rubio better though. its stuff like this that makes me really like Rubio. it is sad to see him go. “He let me have it,” Wiggins said. “Ricky, he’s a good vet.” http://www.startribune.com/andrew-wiggins-notches-second-consecutive-40-point-game-in-wolves-win-over-denver/413910423/ | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 30 2017 23:22 Twinkle Toes wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind. I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.) The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior. Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us. Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you? With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment. Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him. To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year. These theories of influence notwithstanding, I can't discount the most basic theory of cultural transmission, monkey-see, monkey-do. I'm not even sure that refuting the action is enough. If that feeling is even the air, it's going to influence some people. You can hold the individual to account for his individual actions, but you can't deny the impact over the whole culture. You said an interesting phrase, "morally bankrupt". I don't think Ball is a horrible person, but he's making one mistake and that's indicative of the problem of the culture and this discussion, Ball's (and our) mistake is simply that he's not asking what is good. As I said, he's focused purely on the transaction and this has completely deprived him of a moral compass. I can't think of a better way to take a basically decent person and make them feel comfortable with any action. That's why I detest the phrase "as long as it isn't hurting anyone". I'd beg to differ. It's hurting Ball himself, at any rate. To reiterate, I think in large part what the problem is is that we've lost the ability to simply say "this is good and this is not good". Ball is not the cause of this and he's not the hill you want to die on. If you can't simply say "this is not good" without someone coming up to you and telling you that you have no right to tell them what is good or not good. And I think you're acting like a classic liberal right now, not because you hold this position but because you don't agree with his behavior but feel compelled to defend it. It's like you're trying to rationalize why you've put up with such bullshit for so long. Part of that might be because (I don't know about your case in particular) everyone says that anyone who tries to make a moral judgement is a) wrong because there's no such thing as morality and b) a budding tyrant. To pose a question, what else should I do besides quietly note and propound that this is less good than I would want it to be. Isn't that how you start to push back? | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
@Jerubaal, saving my reply for later, I have a weekend deadline I'm rushing now, but good thoughts. I just wanted to have a quick word on this: On July 01 2017 06:51 andrewlt wrote: That's why Draymond is perfect for that role with the Warriors. His role on offense saves his energy on defense while still being a positive contributor on offense. The Cavs just have a problem with building their entire offense around Lebron. One of the first things Phil Jackson did when he coached the Bulls was to give ball handling duties to Pippen. Jordan doesn't get the ball until he is in position. We've seen plenty of players save energy on defense when they need to expend so much energy on offense to create shots. Durant used to be one of those players as well. The league's pace has been increasing in recent years and I believe the tracking cameras show that players are running more miles on the court compared to all past seasons. There is truth to what you say, but we could also look at it this way - that despite the superficial similarities, Green and James play a different role. Green is a defensive specialist who serves as an anchor in offense once teams double on their shooters, and with the ball on Green, you can be sure that the best decision is always made on 4-3 plays as a result of any said double team sequence. For Lebron though, he has always managed this offense-defense responsibilities with flying colors, UNTIL this year when he is obviously a step slower on defense than he used to be. This is not a knock on Lebron, it is simply a matter of fact. Everyone gets old and the game is getting faster and the top players more skilled. It takes a youth and genius skills to perform excellently on both ends. In the case of Jordan, it has more to do with Jackson and Winters dogmatic devotion to triangle than Jordan was moved to the 2 position. It was also the reason why it was impossible for any one player to dominate on assists and rebounds as the system allows for an even distribution of responsibilities. The only exception was Rodman, who was a genius at what he did, and was therefore a valid exception to the rule. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17479 Posts
the 2 best places for basketball players develop their skills after college are the D-League and the NBA Eastern Conference. Griffin signs with LAC.. 5 years .. $35 million per year. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
| ||
