This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If Klay averaged 15 PPG, he wouldn't even get All-Star consideration. It's the 21-22 PPG from him the last three years that elevated his profile.tjnc09 said:
Can minimize the damage by stashing Harden away from the ball. Not every offense is supercharged like GSW's: a lot of teams have one offensive player who stays outside the three-point line away from the ball to create space for the scorers.
While I appreciate your opinion--I'm going to have to disagree. Players are asked to do what they can to maximize their teams potential to win games. Klay Thompson has had the luxury of not having to be the offensive focus or the offensive creator for his team. For example-- If you look at Klays biggest game of his career (his 60 pt game)--he took 11 dribbles the entire game. He had the ball in his hand for a total of 90 seconds in that game. There is not another team or system on the planet where those kinds of numbers can be achieved with so little work. Klay can afford to spend far more energy on defense because he doesn't need to put out nearly as much as Harden does on offense. There is nobody on Hardens team that could set him up the way that Klay gets set up on his team. Harden has to do his damage against the opposing teams best defender all while being his own teams primary scoring and offensive creating option. Harden led his team in scoring, assists, steals and was 2nd in rebounds. Klay is a great player in a perfect system for his skill set. He's asked to catch and shoot and to defend for the most part. Harden is asked to do far more for his team. Keep in mind--I'm saying all of these things while being a major fan of Klay and his game.tjnc09 said:
I agree. I think the second banana thing is pushing it. He just happened to be the second banana behind an amazing player.
Found your boy playing against this threadFrostillicus said:
I'm really smart when it comes to basketball which is why I typically laugh at everything posted here.
And his dad is one of the greatest Gophers ever. And was totally not illegally recruited because Bahamians who went to high school in Miami went to college in Minnesota all the time in the mid-1970s.
It isn't mutually exclusive.
With all due respect--you are massively overlooking the rest of that Warriors team. Their third best player that year was Draymond Green--who is good enough to be the best player on probably 5-10 teams in the NBA. Their fourth best player was Harrison Barnes who was the best player on the Mavericks this season. They also had great bench players in Iggy, Livingston, Mo Speights, Barbosa, and Ezeli (when Bogut started). The recent Golden State teams have been nothing short of stacked when it comes to talent. I'm not sure where this notion of it being Curry, Klay and a bunch of peripherals is coming from. That's just not true.
We're not talking about that team. I responded to a post specifically regards to the regular season record breaking 2015-2016 Warriors team. Another poster said that this particular team was successful basically because of Steph and Klay. First of all--Steph had arguably the best individual season of all time that year. While Klay was great--he was nowhere near the player that Steph was that season. Secondly--aside from Klay--that team was solid and deep from top to bottom. Saying that the 2015-2016 Warriors were Steph, Klay and a bunch of others--is not accurate. Thirdly--the system in Golden State has a lot to do with their success. They are built around unselfish players that can shoot from long range and that can finish at the rim. I'm not sure why there should be any resistance against stating the obvious--that Golden State has had stacked rosters in recent years--and have performed very well with these rosters.
Unless you are a legend like Magic, Isiah (the original) or Curry, teams do not win championships when their best player is a point guard.msudaisy26 said:
I don't know if you are joking or not, but an argument could be made that Parker was the best player on the Spurs for the 2007 season. I wouldn't make it, but it isn't the craziest idea either.
They had about 20 something of those in the first QTR alone. Those stops eliminates the pace GS loves to play and allowed LBJ a ton of break.Weebs210 said:
I'd rather have Klay because Harden is way too ball dominate and his defense is Sup par compared to Klay's. Harden is a great offensive player but I don't take Defensive lacks like his really kindly on my teams.Just Win Baby said:
Where are some posts where you feel you demonstrated actual basketball knowledge? You seem to be able to synthesize handicapping numbers pretty well and cited a few stats, but you don't actually discuss the game itself very much. You throw around a lot of insults and resort to telling a lot of lies in arguments, but neither of those things demonstrate knowledge of the game. You have claimed I have zero concept of basketball, yet not once have you ever successfully challenged anything I've said about the game that was rooted in truth or had proper context. I've seen you make enormous generalizations over minor points, mistake jokes for serious thought, and tell A LOT OF LIES about me and what I've said on this board.you are the last person in this thread qualified to determine that.
Yeah but the NBA isn't all about one dimensional players when it comes to offense or defense. If Harden was as good defensive as offensively and as bad offensively as he is on defense he wouldn't even be on the court the among of time he plays. I take both sides of the ball. Harden might not have the sexy offensive ability Harden has and it seems a lot of fans today get caught up on strictly offensive ability but what Klay lacks in overall offense he makes up for it on defense.
Melo for Love is basically even. Melo was never good defensively. Maybe more consistent offensively but he's too ball dominate. The Cavs big issues is spacing on the floor and Melo is too ball dominate. His defense isn't good either. So you're right not much different. I really hate talk like that because it's nothing more then to get ratings for people to watch and talk about. Looking at it fairly Melo to Cavs makes zero sense. It's like the horrible trade ideas people were throwing around for their teams to acquire Paul George or Butler this past deadline. I laughed at so many trade ideas 76ers fans were getting for Butler. One was Jahil Okafor and 2 2nds for Butler and Mcdermont. Why would the Bulls do that and if you guys think Okafor is as bad what makes you think why would anyone else think he's good. It was just people throwing Video game trade ideas out there. I mean yeah I made a trade in my NBA 2K game with normal settings in franchise mode Wade for Nerlens Noel straight up and it worked. Why I don't know and it made no sense for the Sixers to take that trade other then they had the cap space to take on Wade and needed a SG. However it doesn't mean that deal works or makes sense in real life. I just laugh at these ideas similar to Melo to the Cavs because a lot of these ideas don't make sense other then it's a big move
No but quality PG play is needed in the NBA. Look at what happened to Chicago when Rondo went down or was suspended this year. Rondo might not be prime Rondo but he's still a great essential QB who runs the offense. Chicago looked like a completely different offense when he was out for the rest of the playoff series. Look at the Sixers last year without a PG. Brown was putting nobody and guys who never played PG in their lives at the PG just to get something from the offense. Look what happened to them when they got a half decent PG in TJ McConnel. They actually looked somewhat like a legit offensive team in NBA standards. You don't need a Superstar at PG but if you don't have one who can run plays and what not well you don't have much chance in the NBA even if you have a Superstar on the team.
The 2004 Pistons are an anomaly in many ways, that being one of them.
Tim Duncan down?
And? Curry had 11 by himself in first quarter of game 3. Maybe the warriors should try not fouling?
You obviously aren't comprehending this. The Warriors play a fast paced game that wears opponents down by the 4th QTR. All those fouls called some pretty tick tacky at best got GS out of Rhythm. It helps the Cavs immensionaly and by no means right now am I saying it was fixed. Just that the fouls called didn't help the Warriors cause at all. It's no different then the hurry up offense that Oregon runs and teams having guys go down intentionally unintentionally every few plays with an knock or whatever. Gets them out of rhythm and style they play and helps the other team immensely intentionally or not. GS is a pace rhythm team. The officiating on Friday was embarrassing for the NBA as a whole on both sides. The sad thing is Cavs missed a lot of those Free Throws too but it still took GS off their game. GS also had a few that shouldn't went for them for other players as well. The officiating was so inconsistent.
What's the context of the six games you're referencing above? Because if you're including regular-season games, there's a looooooong list of posts by you reflexively dismissing anyone who referenced regular-season games when talking about the playoffs.
I think you bring up some great points and I do like reading and analyzing a lot of your basketball opinions as you get into detail in many of them--but I think you are leaving out a key factor in the situation regarding Harden's defense. Before Kerr--the Warriors were coached by Mark Jackson--a guy that grew up playing on the streets of New York--and played professionally for defensive minded Pacers and Knicks teams in his career. After that--Kerr came along--who played on a defensive minded Bulls team--and had guys like Luke Walton as an assistant coach--who was known for being a pesky type defender when he played. Now--Kerr has Mike Brown as his assistant coach--a very defensively minded coach. Essentially--while the Warriors have a high potent offense--their focus on defense is vastly under rated. Harden plays for a coach that essentially puts defense on the back burner. D'antoni's entire system is about offensive efficiency--to the point that anything that might slow down a game is viewed as being negative. While he wants his teams to contest shots--he doesn't want them playing physical or tight enough on defense to risk fouling the opposition and slowing down the pace of the game. Harden plays lots of minutes--and he's personally said that he doesn't believe in resting star players for games. I think saying that he doesn't play defense unfairly questions his effort and or ability to play defense. I think Harden puts much of his energy on offense because he is coached to do so--and not because he's incapable of playing defense. I think this factor is very much being ignored.
Jackson was a horrible defender when he played and should be give zero credit for GSW's defensive prowess prior to Kerr's arrival unless you want to credit him for hiring Malone.
Just because he was a bad defender when he played has no bearing on him teaching defense or making it a priority when he became a coach.
Given that he had zero coaching experience prior, no HC experience, no assistant experience, no GM experience, I adv going to go out on a limb and say his influence was infinitesimal at best.
Or maybe the fact that he never won a title and he knew his short comings as a player lead him to preach defense. Who knows, the point is you can't accurately say he sucked defensively as a player so that will translate as a coach.
Fully agree--and I think the key point here is--regardless of what somebody thinks of Mark Jackson--I think it's crystal clear that ANY NBA coach puts more emphasis on defense than Mike D'antoni. I'm not sure how anybody could argue that Jackson is somehow less defensively minded or oriented than D'antoni.
