Looks like warriors pick again at #41, and Bol Bol is still alive.
6 more picks?

Warriors pick at #41
Eric Paschall
6'7" Senior from Villanova


NBA Comparison: PJ Tucker/Jason Maxiell
Strengths: A prototypical glue guy with impressive motor and effort His constant hustle results in winning plays A solid shooter for his size at 6'7'' and 255 pounds Excels at scoring on the move Solid form on his jumper and converts mid-range shots and 3-pointers efficiently Has improved his 3-point shot significantly since his freshman year His combination of strength and quickness is difficult to defend, specifically when he attacks the basket .. Tremendous finisher at the rim with the ability to score with both hands When the defense collapses, he makes the right decision to pass the ball to an open teammate Explosive. His impressive leaping ability allows him to crash the boards on both ends of the court An excellent screener and spaces the floor well on the offensive end An above average defender with solid shooting ability Moves his feet very well for a guy his size Very hard worker on both ends of the floor Good free throw shooter (77% in college) Works hard off the ball setting screens for teammates Great leadership and discipline through college career Modern big man who can step out and make the long-range shot Elevates well for his jump shots and can get them off over almost anyone Huge wingpsan makes up for his lack of ideal height ...

Weaknesses: At 6'7'', he will struggle to guard and rebound against taller players in the post, doesn't have a real defined position Older player (5th year senior who will turn 23 in November) without a ton of upside, having just finished his senior season at Villanova Struggled in the role of go to scorer in senior year Hasn't shown much fluidity/athleticism on offense (possibly a product of the Villanova offense) ... Lacks an explosive first step off the dribble and the speed of elite NBA forwards Not a great spot up shooter Can be over-aggressive defensively, resulting in unwanted fouls He must learn to move his feet better instead of relying on his upper body for defense ... Got used to handling the ball, but doesn;t seem have the ball skills to handle at the NBA level ... Average at best rebounder in college despite his size Has not shown much in terms of post offense Has not had to guard down in the post much at Villanova

Outlook: Paschall should be an early to mid-second round pick A great leader who would fit in well coming off the bench, providing offense and a necessary spark of energy He should be able to fill a role off the bench as an excellent defender Paschall practiced with the 2016 champion Wildcats in his transfer year from Fordham, won the 2018 championship and led a disappointing 2019 team that squeaked back into the top 25, so he knows what it takes to win after being around Jay Wright's disciplined Villanova program for four years No matter which team he ends up on, coaches and players will appreciate Paschall's unmatched effort ...

Notes: From Dobbs Ferry, NY ... As a senior, he averaged 16.5 points and 6.1 rebounds while starting all 36 games ... Was named 2015 rookie of the year in the A-10 after one year at Fordham, averaging 15.9 PPG and 5.5 RPG Transferred to Villanova, sat out their 2015-16 championship season2018 National Champion Named to the 2018-19 All-Big East First Team Tabbed to the Big East All-tournament Team Averaged 16.5 points in Villanova's two NCAA Tournament games this March, including a 19 point effort in a second round loss to Purdue

Bol Bol goes #44 to Miami Heat.
Last guy left in green room.

Man, gonna be a rough first year in Frisco for GS.

concordtom said:

---

Nbadraft.net says what I'm feeling

28. Jordan Poole | 6-5 | 190 | PG/SG | Michigan | 20

The Michigan swingman shows promise as a catch-and-shoot threat, but he is a huge reach for the Warriors at this point in the draft. Many scouts and NBA insiders were surprised to find out Poole was staying in the draft, but it's hard to argue against the decision, as he now has a fully guaranteed first-round-pick contract. He needs to work on his strength, conditioning, and ball-handling, but Poole can fill it up from beyond the arc. Look for Poole to spend some time in the G-League before stepping on the court with Steph and Klay.

---

I'd put money on Poole playing for the W's in 2019-20 before Klay does.

Looks like the W's took Poole and Parshall more for likelihood of being able to play next season, and less for long-term upside, and IMO that's the right approach.

Perhaps Poole will play.
But one report gave the warriors a D for their draft efforts.

concordtom said:

---

Nbadraft.net says what I'm feeling

28. Jordan Poole | 6-5 | 190 | PG/SG | Michigan | 20

The Michigan swingman shows promise as a catch-and-shoot threat, but he is a huge reach for the Warriors at this point in the draft. Many scouts and NBA insiders were surprised to find out Poole was staying in the draft, but it's hard to argue against the decision, as he now has a fully guaranteed first-round-pick contract. He needs to work on his strength, conditioning, and ball-handling, but Poole can fill it up from beyond the arc. Look for Poole to spend some time in the G-League before stepping on the court with Steph and Klay. He's not so much a Splash Brother yet - maybe more of a Splash Step-Cousin.

Or as Poole said after being picked, maybe a "Splash Drip".

---

It is always hard to assess a player's potential for growth.

So only the future will determine if this young man is a "huge reach."

Because some consensus of "experts" see him as a huge reach does not make it so.

But "some analyst(s)" may be all we have, until he hits the court.
So, yes, it's taken at face value.

concordtom said:

---

But "some analyst(s)" may be all we have, until he hits the court.
So, yes, it's taken at face value.

---

Well, can we agree that the significance we should give some analysts is fairly arbitrary?

For example, it's likely that said analysts a couple of years ago thought it made sense that Van Vleet was not drafted. A guy who clearly played a major role in the Raptors' championship run.

For balance, here's the overall grade from nbadraft.net. Honestly, who really knows until games start getting played?

Golden State

A-

28. Jordan Poole
39. Alen Smailagic
41. Eric Paschall
The Warriors missed out on their top target Dylan Windler, who they attempted to trade up to select at 26, but then was taken at 26 by Cleveland. But they connected on all of their other main targets. While our initial reaction to the Poole pick was that it was a reach, he may be just what the doctor ordered as a guy that can fill minutes at the 2 and spread the floor in the absence of Klay and KD. Poole has great range and shooting ability, but the biggest questions surround his defense, toughness, and maturity. Poole was rumored to be at the top of the Spurs board as well and may have gone 29th had the Warriors not selected him. The Warriors were back in the buying second round pick business, apparently the freeze out with other teams unwilling to sell picks to them ended after they lost in the Finals. They did very well adding two prospects that may ultimately prove to have first round value. The acquisition of the 39th pick from New Orleans to acquire Smailagic was made in order to jump in front of Vlade Divac and the Kings at 40, who had attempted to do the same to Golden State at 41. They are extremely familiar with him and those in the organization feel he has some Nikola Jokic type abilities. And the selection of Paschall was probably the best of the night for the Warriors as most expected him to go long before Poole OR Smailagic. The search for the next Draymond Green likely won't ever come to fruition. But Paschall at least has some Draymond like qualities, (body type and versatility). So it's interesting that the Warriors landed him at 41. Paschall will probably benefit considerably playing and practicing with Green. The bottom line is that all three guys can shoot, which is something the Warriors bench will need to shore up this offseason.

Thanks, Philbert!

Interesting and hopeful.

Makes me feel a little better.

Also makes me feel a little better.

oski003 said:

---

I will answer that with my original statement, which is as far as I am willing to go on this.

He's going to love signing with the team that pressured him to play and misevaluated him medically, leading to a career crushing injury.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/andre-iguodala-i-broke-my-leg-last-year-but-warriors-called-it-just-a-bruise/ar-AADpsMW?li=BBnb7Kz

smart move by Iggy.

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

I will answer that with my original statement, which is as far as I am willing to go on this.

He's going to love signing with the team that pressured him to play and misevaluated him medically, leading to a career crushing injury.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/andre-iguodala-i-broke-my-leg-last-year-but-warriors-called-it-just-a-bruise/ar-AADpsMW?li=BBnb7Kz

---

That is SUCH a misleading headline and URL. They intentionally swapped "fratured" for "broken" and left out "bone" from the representation of Iggy's quote, which is this:

Quote:

---

And I had a fractured leg. But it's being put out there like, "You've got a bone bruise."

---

While frature and broke are medically interchangable, according to doctors the vast majority of people think they refer to severity (broken v fracture does impact how you treat them). Broken just sounds worse than fractured. What's worse tho is bone bruise IS in fact worse than just a "bruise." The latter, (in almost every understanding when no qualifier is used), is a skin level occurrence that sounds like "rub some dirt on it and walk it off..." the former is much more serious.

They didn't do that on accident and it's the sort of thing that leads to people mistrusting the media, and for good reason. The annoying part if there's no need for it - the truth stands on its own. But they want to sensationalize something to get a fdew more clicks... long time truth and credibility don't matter when you can get clicks now.

Hmm. I think Iggy was here looking to sell books. Said some inflammatory stuff and yet back tracked. So what did he actually say we didn't know?

GS should trade Iggy if possible (not because of comments)

GBear4Life said:

---

GS should trade Iggy if possible (not because of comments)

---

He's probably too old to get much in return.

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Curry is very good at splitting doubles and getting to the rim, but because of his size he still has problems finishing there.

---

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/shooting/2019

65.3% on shots at rim

---

I'm talking about in this situation (triple teamed with 9 seconds to shoot), not overall.

---

Curry was not triple-teamed at all. I thought so too, originally, but I found a replay from a better angle and watched it several times. The play began with Curry being guarded man-to-man by Van Vleet. Cousins was positioned at the top of the key, guarded by Ibaka. Curry cut past Cousins, completely losing Van Vleet on the pick. No switch was called, apparently, and Ibaka was slow to react to having to switch. Green was on the sideline, guarded by Sikiam. Curry caught the pass with not a single defender on him, only Van Fleet trying to catch up to him from far behind, and Ibaka running too late to get to Curry and bother his shot. Sikiam stayed with Green the whole time, and did not leave him to help out on guarding Curry, which was not the way it looked when I first watched the game live on TV from a different angle. Green had stepped out of bounds, but Sikiam did not react, when he should have left Green to help guard Curry, which he did not do. Curry was not triple-teamed or double-teamed on the play. In fact he was not guarded at all by anybody, really, and the play was well-executed, along with a little bit of luck that Iguodala's cross-court pass to Green was completed.

The play itself was fine, except that they could have picked a better spot to shoot from, perhaps. Curry took the shot from right where the three point line shortens, giving the shooter only a narrow space to shoot from, backed up against the sideline. The sideline comes into play, forcing the player into the small space, and is almost like having another defender.

---

I think there was a reasonable expectation (calling the play in the huddle) that the defense would have collapsed on Curry as soon as he tried to cut to the basket or had the ball. It's possible the Raptors screw it up, but that's what they had executed all series on defense, particularly when Klay or KD were not playing.

So I have no issue with the play call.

---

I have lots of problems with it. Your best shooter in this game was Iguodala. The play the Warriors ran had Iguodala inbounding the ball, so he could not be a decoy to start the play, could not be used to take a shot and it left him nowhere near the basket to rebound. It put maybe your best rebounder,, Green, .and stuck him in the corner, also in no position to rebound. Kerr deferred to Curry on the three, based more on Curry's reputation as a great player, even though Kerr had not been shooting well in that game. In that game, I'd want a play at the basket, Curry along with any one oft the three, Iguodala, Cousins, or Green, on a pick and roll or something, before I'd shoot a long two or a three. I'd be more inclined to go with the hot shooter in the game, if you insist on an outside shot, rather than the shooter who has shot the best in previous games or in the season. You got the play you wanted, I guess. The play was well executed, the defense made a couple mistakes, the great shooter was left open, and the play failed. In the end, it was a lower percentage play than any of the others i mentioned, and I believe in playing percentages.

---

LOL

Iguodala is streaky, but no one really believes he's the best shooter.

Anyway, I'm done debating this pure hypothetical.

---

Lol I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did.

Once someone starts arguing that iggy is your best shooter, I'm pretty sure it's time to stop

---

That was definitely the signal.

---

me too, this hypothetical was taxing , especially when it got to the "iggy is your best shooter assumption".
I was ok with the shot. Finishing around the rim wasn't the issue it was getting to the rim that was troublesome.

I would also submit that most(if not all) players have a higher percentage around the rim than at 3 pt range ...I know I do and I would venture to think Yogi and maybe even SFCity might as well.. I could very well be wrong. I thought they might find a way to get the ball to Boogie down low. Alas they did not. But depending on a foul in this situation is risky as they rarely want to call these at the end of a game with such high stakes My goodness

---

My goodness, here comes another one, this time seeming to actually try and quote what I wrote.Please go back and read it again. I said Iggy WAS, not IS the best shooter. in one particular game up to that point (who was still on the floor). I agree that shooting percentages around the rim are probably better for most players than at 3-pt range. I'd add mid-range might be better too. I also agree on refs not willing to make a call in the final seconds.

---

Your point is not well-taken, in part because you also use some suspect stats. You said, "Curry was 6-16 overall and 3-11 on threes. Iguodala was having a much better game, 9-15 overall, 3-6 on threes."

3 of Curry's shots were full-length heaves (at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th quarters - all of which he nearly made). Another was the final shot, which takes it out of the equation when discussing who should have taken that final shot. That means his real shooting was 6-12 (50%) and 3-7 on 3s.

That's much closer than the picture you painted, don't you think?

---

Curry was actually 3-10 on threes, before the final shot. My mistake.

As for your claims, I think you are manipulating the stats on paper to make a case for a star player. I tried to find video of the shots you say that Curry took, but was unable to, as the videos only show highlights. The last shot I could find that Curry took in the first quarter was a drive to the basket against 2 or 3 players where he missed and was fouled. One of the announcers said Curry's shot at the end of the first quarter was as you described, a long heave hit the rim, so I'll give you that one. If he shot a similar long heave at the end of the first half, I could not find any video or description of that shot. But if you say so, I give you that one. However, there was no overtime, so the shot at the end of the 4th quarter was also the final shot of the game, and you can't subtract that one from Curry's total of 16 shots taken before the last shot. If you do your math again, Curry would have been 6-14, 43% overall, 3-8 on threes, instead of 6-16 overall and 3-9 on threes. I had said. I guess if someone is a your favorite player, or a star player, we can throw out some of his misses, and not count them, in another world.

Even if Curry was 6-14, that might eliminate Cousins from consideration, but Iguodala and Green (along with Thompson and Livingston) all had shot better than Curry before that last shot was taken. I still think better options were available, either a pick and roll or drive and dish to Green, Cousins, or Iguodala, or Curry shooting a floater or a shot at the rim.

I'd also add that the final shot, the end of the 4th quarter shot, was not a "full-length heave". It was standard minimum three point length shot, as Curry jumped with his feet no more than a foot behind the three-point shooter. I would also add that Curry's last shot was not close to going in, and he did not "nearly make it" On the playground I grew up on, that shot was a brick. It hit iron, but did not hit inside the rim, and had no chance of going in.

Maybe you made a mistake and meant to say he had put up long heaves at the end of quarters 1, 2, and 3, instead of 1, 2, and 4. Maybe we are both tiring of this discussion, as it has gone on too long, and we are both now making mistakes.

I learned one thing: Don't ever suggest that the Warriors, especially where it is concerning Curry, might do anything different, even after a loss. They are infallible.

---

Here's his shot chart.



See those three dots on the far side of the court? Those are the three heaves. One came at the end of the first quarter. One came at the end of the 2nd. One came at the end of the 4th, after Kawhi's free throws. Want to see them? Sure.



The first occurs at 00:53 in the video above. The second occurs at 2:07 in the video above. The third happens at 3:55 in the below video.



You want to try your response again? Or do you want to take back your comment on us both making mistakes?

---

Absolutely, I will take back my comment on us both making mistakes. I am the one who made the mistake, not you. I also commend you on a very good post, and for taking the time to look for the shot chart and videos to prove me wrong. That takes work, and I appreciate you doing it, because I don't like to make mistakes, and do want to be corrected when I'm wrong on any facts.

I did not watch the entire game, and I had searched for the three heaves you mentioned, but was unable to find them. I will say that using your method of which of his shots counted in evaluating his shooting, that Curry was having a below average (for him) shooting night, 44% vs 47% overall shooting for the season, and 38% overall vs 44% on three point shooting for the season. He was still a good option for taking the final shot, maybe the best option, but there were other options, namely Green (50% for the game overall), Iguodala (60%) and Cousins (44%). My biggest problem with the call was not who took the shot, but what kind of a shot it was. The three, no matter who shoots it, is the lowest percentage shot you can get on the floor, in general. I think in the closing seconds if you need 3 to win or tie, then you shoot three, but not if you don't need a three to win or tie. Look at what happened: Everything worked to perfection: The wild-looking risky pass from Iguodala which nearly went out of bounds, but was saved by the athleticism of Green. In the meantime, the Raptors totally blow the switch on the screen, and Curry the best shooter in the league gets loose for a wide open shot, with no defender able to bother him. And the best shooter in the league misses the shot, and we lose. Another quibble was that the shot hit the rim at 6.2 seconds. If it had gone in, The Raptors would be inbounding the ball with 5 or 6 seconds left, which is an eternity in the NBA, and they would have enough tIme to run a play for a good shot

A two was enough to win, and the Warriors had 4 great players on the floor who are good at shooting twos, and lots of two point plays in the playbook. I just can't believe we could not spring one of them open for a two.

Thank you again for the corrections. I will try and be more careful next time.

I'm going to post some relevant highlights from Kawakami's article in the Athletic today:

It would be natural for Durant to be upset about almost everything that happened, and I do not doubt the gist of reports that he has, at times, directed anger toward the Warriors and their medical staff. It would be logical for Durant to wonder about the advice he received. It would be right for the Warriors to question their process, not just for Durant but for every one of their players.

However

Every event has context, especially the catastrophic ones. And in this situation, there is one important point to be made, more than two weeks after the injury: Durant had his own doctor involved in the decision-making, and the Warriors and Durant also brought in a third doctor, theoretically unaffiliated with either the team or Durant, for an opinion before Durant's return for Game 5 was approved.

If there was a medical failure, it was by all of them, with Durant's camp signing off, too. Or maybe it was just a terrible and mostly unpredictable occurrence, a player pushing his body under intense competition and all parties understanding the margin of risk involved.

I'll put it this way: If the Warriors had pushed Durant to do anything contrary to what his own medical people were advising him or had flat-out misdiagnosed this all themselves, we'd almost certainly be hearing about it loud and clear and possibly involving lawsuits right now. Which we aren't.

But there are reports circulating that Durant might be unhappy with the medical treatment by the Warriors, so I asked Steve Kerr if the team had received such complaints.

"We haven't heard anything like that," Kerr said when he was a guest on my podcast Wednesday. "You know, what I said after the season was true. We not only had our staff but Kevin's own personal specialist and then a third independent specialist all clear him to play. And in fact all three after the fact were shocked at what proceeded with the Achilles, they all said it was the first time they've ever seen this. But what happens is in this era of social media, of the volume of media is everyone suddenly becomes an expert.

"But we cover our bases and we try to do the best job that we possibly can for our players. The bottom line is we don't know everything. Nobody does. We'd like to think that medicine is an exact science, but it's not. Things happen and we try to err on the side of caution which we've always done. And gosh, the roof caved in on Kevin and we all feel awful and we all feel responsible. And it's a horrible feeling. But our process was sound and it included the right people and sometimes things just happen."

Andre Iguodala, on a media tour to promote his new book, raised the temperature on this issue by noting early this week that the Warriors had potentially mischaracterized small fractures in his leg as a bone bruise during the 2018 playoffs. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Warriors changed their training staff after the 2017-18 season when head performance therapist Chelsea Lane departed for the Atlanta Hawks (replaced by Rick Celebrini, whose title is director of sports medicine and performance), and that players and their representatives are almost always consulted when the team issues a statement describing an injury.

When I asked Kerr if he thought there was any change in the trust level between players and the Warriors' medical evaluations, he said there rarely are definitive facts in medical issues and he referenced his own travails for years seeking opinions after his botched back surgery in 2015.

"I don't think there's any loss of confidence," Kerr said. "I have not read Andre's comments. I heard second hand about them. The thing to remember here is that a bone bruise, another term for it is spider fracture. When you start getting technical with all this stuff, there's such a gray area. Everyone wants everything to be black and white, black and white, black and white. Is it a fracture, is it a sprain? Is it this is or that? Unfortunately, we just don't all have every answer. It's not so easy.

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Curry is very good at splitting doubles and getting to the rim, but because of his size he still has problems finishing there.

---

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/shooting/2019

65.3% on shots at rim

---

I'm talking about in this situation (triple teamed with 9 seconds to shoot), not overall.

---

Curry was not triple-teamed at all. I thought so too, originally, but I found a replay from a better angle and watched it several times. The play began with Curry being guarded man-to-man by Van Vleet. Cousins was positioned at the top of the key, guarded by Ibaka. Curry cut past Cousins, completely losing Van Vleet on the pick. No switch was called, apparently, and Ibaka was slow to react to having to switch. Green was on the sideline, guarded by Sikiam. Curry caught the pass with not a single defender on him, only Van Fleet trying to catch up to him from far behind, and Ibaka running too late to get to Curry and bother his shot. Sikiam stayed with Green the whole time, and did not leave him to help out on guarding Curry, which was not the way it looked when I first watched the game live on TV from a different angle. Green had stepped out of bounds, but Sikiam did not react, when he should have left Green to help guard Curry, which he did not do. Curry was not triple-teamed or double-teamed on the play. In fact he was not guarded at all by anybody, really, and the play was well-executed, along with a little bit of luck that Iguodala's cross-court pass to Green was completed.

The play itself was fine, except that they could have picked a better spot to shoot from, perhaps. Curry took the shot from right where the three point line shortens, giving the shooter only a narrow space to shoot from, backed up against the sideline. The sideline comes into play, forcing the player into the small space, and is almost like having another defender.

---

I think there was a reasonable expectation (calling the play in the huddle) that the defense would have collapsed on Curry as soon as he tried to cut to the basket or had the ball. It's possible the Raptors screw it up, but that's what they had executed all series on defense, particularly when Klay or KD were not playing.

So I have no issue with the play call.

---

I have lots of problems with it. Your best shooter in this game was Iguodala. The play the Warriors ran had Iguodala inbounding the ball, so he could not be a decoy to start the play, could not be used to take a shot and it left him nowhere near the basket to rebound. It put maybe your best rebounder,, Green, .and stuck him in the corner, also in no position to rebound. Kerr deferred to Curry on the three, based more on Curry's reputation as a great player, even though Kerr had not been shooting well in that game. In that game, I'd want a play at the basket, Curry along with any one oft the three, Iguodala, Cousins, or Green, on a pick and roll or something, before I'd shoot a long two or a three. I'd be more inclined to go with the hot shooter in the game, if you insist on an outside shot, rather than the shooter who has shot the best in previous games or in the season. You got the play you wanted, I guess. The play was well executed, the defense made a couple mistakes, the great shooter was left open, and the play failed. In the end, it was a lower percentage play than any of the others i mentioned, and I believe in playing percentages.

---

LOL

Iguodala is streaky, but no one really believes he's the best shooter.

Anyway, I'm done debating this pure hypothetical.

---

Lol I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did.

Once someone starts arguing that iggy is your best shooter, I'm pretty sure it's time to stop

---

That was definitely the signal.

---

me too, this hypothetical was taxing , especially when it got to the "iggy is your best shooter assumption".
I was ok with the shot. Finishing around the rim wasn't the issue it was getting to the rim that was troublesome.

I would also submit that most(if not all) players have a higher percentage around the rim than at 3 pt range ...I know I do and I would venture to think Yogi and maybe even SFCity might as well.. I could very well be wrong. I thought they might find a way to get the ball to Boogie down low. Alas they did not. But depending on a foul in this situation is risky as they rarely want to call these at the end of a game with such high stakes My goodness

---

My goodness, here comes another one, this time seeming to actually try and quote what I wrote.Please go back and read it again. I said Iggy WAS, not IS the best shooter. in one particular game up to that point (who was still on the floor). I agree that shooting percentages around the rim are probably better for most players than at 3-pt range. I'd add mid-range might be better too. I also agree on refs not willing to make a call in the final seconds.

---

Your point is not well-taken, in part because you also use some suspect stats. You said, "Curry was 6-16 overall and 3-11 on threes. Iguodala was having a much better game, 9-15 overall, 3-6 on threes."

3 of Curry's shots were full-length heaves (at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th quarters - all of which he nearly made). Another was the final shot, which takes it out of the equation when discussing who should have taken that final shot. That means his real shooting was 6-12 (50%) and 3-7 on 3s.

That's much closer than the picture you painted, don't you think?

---

Curry was actually 3-10 on threes, before the final shot. My mistake.

As for your claims, I think you are manipulating the stats on paper to make a case for a star player. I tried to find video of the shots you say that Curry took, but was unable to, as the videos only show highlights. The last shot I could find that Curry took in the first quarter was a drive to the basket against 2 or 3 players where he missed and was fouled. One of the announcers said Curry's shot at the end of the first quarter was as you described, a long heave hit the rim, so I'll give you that one. If he shot a similar long heave at the end of the first half, I could not find any video or description of that shot. But if you say so, I give you that one. However, there was no overtime, so the shot at the end of the 4th quarter was also the final shot of the game, and you can't subtract that one from Curry's total of 16 shots taken before the last shot. If you do your math again, Curry would have been 6-14, 43% overall, 3-8 on threes, instead of 6-16 overall and 3-9 on threes. I had said. I guess if someone is a your favorite player, or a star player, we can throw out some of his misses, and not count them, in another world.

Even if Curry was 6-14, that might eliminate Cousins from consideration, but Iguodala and Green (along with Thompson and Livingston) all had shot better than Curry before that last shot was taken. I still think better options were available, either a pick and roll or drive and dish to Green, Cousins, or Iguodala, or Curry shooting a floater or a shot at the rim.

I'd also add that the final shot, the end of the 4th quarter shot, was not a "full-length heave". It was standard minimum three point length shot, as Curry jumped with his feet no more than a foot behind the three-point shooter. I would also add that Curry's last shot was not close to going in, and he did not "nearly make it" On the playground I grew up on, that shot was a brick. It hit iron, but did not hit inside the rim, and had no chance of going in.

Maybe you made a mistake and meant to say he had put up long heaves at the end of quarters 1, 2, and 3, instead of 1, 2, and 4. Maybe we are both tiring of this discussion, as it has gone on too long, and we are both now making mistakes.

I learned one thing: Don't ever suggest that the Warriors, especially where it is concerning Curry, might do anything different, even after a loss. They are infallible.

---

Here's his shot chart.



See those three dots on the far side of the court? Those are the three heaves. One came at the end of the first quarter. One came at the end of the 2nd. One came at the end of the 4th, after Kawhi's free throws. Want to see them? Sure.



The first occurs at 00:53 in the video above. The second occurs at 2:07 in the video above. The third happens at 3:55 in the below video.



You want to try your response again? Or do you want to take back your comment on us both making mistakes?

---

Absolutely, I will take back my comment on us both making mistakes. I am the one who made the mistake, not you. I also commend you on a very good post, and for taking the time to look for the shot chart and videos to prove me wrong. That takes work, and I appreciate you doing it, because I don't like to make mistakes, and do want to be corrected when I'm wrong on any facts.

I did not watch the entire game, and I had searched for the three heaves you mentioned, but was unable to find them. I will say that using your method of which of his shots counted in evaluating his shooting, that Curry was having a below average (for him) shooting night, 44% vs 47% overall shooting for the season, and 38% overall vs 44% on three point shooting for the season. He was still a good option for taking the final shot, maybe the best option, but there were other options, namely Green (50% for the game overall), Iguodala (60%) and Cousins (44%). My biggest problem with the call was not who took the shot, but what kind of a shot it was. The three, no matter who shoots it, is the lowest percentage shot you can get on the floor, in general. I think in the closing seconds if you need 3 to win or tie, then you shoot three, but not if you don't need a three to win or tie. Look at what happened: Everything worked to perfection: The wild-looking risky pass from Iguodala which nearly went out of bounds, but was saved by the athleticism of Green. In the meantime, the Raptors totally blow the switch on the screen, and Curry the best shooter in the league gets loose for a wide open shot, with no defender able to bother him. And the best shooter in the league misses the shot, and we lose. Another quibble was that the shot hit the rim at 6.2 seconds. If it had gone in, The Raptors would be inbounding the ball with 5 or 6 seconds left, which is an eternity in the NBA, and they would have enough tIme to run a play for a good shot

A two was enough to win, and the Warriors had 4 great players on the floor who are good at shooting twos, and lots of two point plays in the playbook. I just can't believe we could not spring one of them open for a two.

Thank you again for the corrections. I will try and be more careful next time.

---

Cheers! Water under the bridge. I also absolutely agree with the bolded above - they should have looked for an easy shot. The play drawn up is fine if there's under 3 seconds left, but they had time to get something better.

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Curry is very good at splitting doubles and getting to the rim, but because of his size he still has problems finishing there.

---

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/shooting/2019

65.3% on shots at rim

---

I'm talking about in this situation (triple teamed with 9 seconds to shoot), not overall.

---

Curry was not triple-teamed at all. I thought so too, originally, but I found a replay from a better angle and watched it several times. The play began with Curry being guarded man-to-man by Van Vleet. Cousins was positioned at the top of the key, guarded by Ibaka. Curry cut past Cousins, completely losing Van Vleet on the pick. No switch was called, apparently, and Ibaka was slow to react to having to switch. Green was on the sideline, guarded by Sikiam. Curry caught the pass with not a single defender on him, only Van Fleet trying to catch up to him from far behind, and Ibaka running too late to get to Curry and bother his shot. Sikiam stayed with Green the whole time, and did not leave him to help out on guarding Curry, which was not the way it looked when I first watched the game live on TV from a different angle. Green had stepped out of bounds, but Sikiam did not react, when he should have left Green to help guard Curry, which he did not do. Curry was not triple-teamed or double-teamed on the play. In fact he was not guarded at all by anybody, really, and the play was well-executed, along with a little bit of luck that Iguodala's cross-court pass to Green was completed.

The play itself was fine, except that they could have picked a better spot to shoot from, perhaps. Curry took the shot from right where the three point line shortens, giving the shooter only a narrow space to shoot from, backed up against the sideline. The sideline comes into play, forcing the player into the small space, and is almost like having another defender.

---

I think there was a reasonable expectation (calling the play in the huddle) that the defense would have collapsed on Curry as soon as he tried to cut to the basket or had the ball. It's possible the Raptors screw it up, but that's what they had executed all series on defense, particularly when Klay or KD were not playing.

So I have no issue with the play call.

---

I have lots of problems with it. Your best shooter in this game was Iguodala. The play the Warriors ran had Iguodala inbounding the ball, so he could not be a decoy to start the play, could not be used to take a shot and it left him nowhere near the basket to rebound. It put maybe your best rebounder,, Green, .and stuck him in the corner, also in no position to rebound. Kerr deferred to Curry on the three, based more on Curry's reputation as a great player, even though Kerr had not been shooting well in that game. In that game, I'd want a play at the basket, Curry along with any one oft the three, Iguodala, Cousins, or Green, on a pick and roll or something, before I'd shoot a long two or a three. I'd be more inclined to go with the hot shooter in the game, if you insist on an outside shot, rather than the shooter who has shot the best in previous games or in the season. You got the play you wanted, I guess. The play was well executed, the defense made a couple mistakes, the great shooter was left open, and the play failed. In the end, it was a lower percentage play than any of the others i mentioned, and I believe in playing percentages.

---

LOL

Iguodala is streaky, but no one really believes he's the best shooter.

Anyway, I'm done debating this pure hypothetical.

---

Lol I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did.

Once someone starts arguing that iggy is your best shooter, I'm pretty sure it's time to stop

---

That was definitely the signal.

---

me too, this hypothetical was taxing , especially when it got to the "iggy is your best shooter assumption".
I was ok with the shot. Finishing around the rim wasn't the issue it was getting to the rim that was troublesome.

I would also submit that most(if not all) players have a higher percentage around the rim than at 3 pt range ...I know I do and I would venture to think Yogi and maybe even SFCity might as well.. I could very well be wrong. I thought they might find a way to get the ball to Boogie down low. Alas they did not. But depending on a foul in this situation is risky as they rarely want to call these at the end of a game with such high stakes My goodness

---

My goodness, here comes another one, this time seeming to actually try and quote what I wrote.Please go back and read it again. I said Iggy WAS, not IS the best shooter. in one particular game up to that point (who was still on the floor). I agree that shooting percentages around the rim are probably better for most players than at 3-pt range. I'd add mid-range might be better too. I also agree on refs not willing to make a call in the final seconds.

---

Your point is not well-taken, in part because you also use some suspect stats. You said, "Curry was 6-16 overall and 3-11 on threes. Iguodala was having a much better game, 9-15 overall, 3-6 on threes."

3 of Curry's shots were full-length heaves (at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th quarters - all of which he nearly made). Another was the final shot, which takes it out of the equation when discussing who should have taken that final shot. That means his real shooting was 6-12 (50%) and 3-7 on 3s.

That's much closer than the picture you painted, don't you think?

---

Curry was actually 3-10 on threes, before the final shot. My mistake.

As for your claims, I think you are manipulating the stats on paper to make a case for a star player. I tried to find video of the shots you say that Curry took, but was unable to, as the videos only show highlights. The last shot I could find that Curry took in the first quarter was a drive to the basket against 2 or 3 players where he missed and was fouled. One of the announcers said Curry's shot at the end of the first quarter was as you described, a long heave hit the rim, so I'll give you that one. If he shot a similar long heave at the end of the first half, I could not find any video or description of that shot. But if you say so, I give you that one. However, there was no overtime, so the shot at the end of the 4th quarter was also the final shot of the game, and you can't subtract that one from Curry's total of 16 shots taken before the last shot. If you do your math again, Curry would have been 6-14, 43% overall, 3-8 on threes, instead of 6-16 overall and 3-9 on threes. I had said. I guess if someone is a your favorite player, or a star player, we can throw out some of his misses, and not count them, in another world.

Even if Curry was 6-14, that might eliminate Cousins from consideration, but Iguodala and Green (along with Thompson and Livingston) all had shot better than Curry before that last shot was taken. I still think better options were available, either a pick and roll or drive and dish to Green, Cousins, or Iguodala, or Curry shooting a floater or a shot at the rim.

I'd also add that the final shot, the end of the 4th quarter shot, was not a "full-length heave". It was standard minimum three point length shot, as Curry jumped with his feet no more than a foot behind the three-point shooter. I would also add that Curry's last shot was not close to going in, and he did not "nearly make it" On the playground I grew up on, that shot was a brick. It hit iron, but did not hit inside the rim, and had no chance of going in.

Maybe you made a mistake and meant to say he had put up long heaves at the end of quarters 1, 2, and 3, instead of 1, 2, and 4. Maybe we are both tiring of this discussion, as it has gone on too long, and we are both now making mistakes.

I learned one thing: Don't ever suggest that the Warriors, especially where it is concerning Curry, might do anything different, even after a loss. They are infallible.

---

Here's his shot chart.



See those three dots on the far side of the court? Those are the three heaves. One came at the end of the first quarter. One came at the end of the 2nd. One came at the end of the 4th, after Kawhi's free throws. Want to see them? Sure.



The first occurs at 00:53 in the video above. The second occurs at 2:07 in the video above. The third happens at 3:55 in the below video.



You want to try your response again? Or do you want to take back your comment on us both making mistakes?

---

Absolutely, I will take back my comment on us both making mistakes. I am the one who made the mistake, not you. I also commend you on a very good post, and for taking the time to look for the shot chart and videos to prove me wrong. That takes work, and I appreciate you doing it, because I don't like to make mistakes, and do want to be corrected when I'm wrong on any facts.

I did not watch the entire game, and I had searched for the three heaves you mentioned, but was unable to find them. I will say that using your method of which of his shots counted in evaluating his shooting, that Curry was having a below average (for him) shooting night, 44% vs 47% overall shooting for the season, and 38% overall vs 44% on three point shooting for the season. He was still a good option for taking the final shot, maybe the best option, but there were other options, namely Green (50% for the game overall), Iguodala (60%) and Cousins (44%). My biggest problem with the call was not who took the shot, but what kind of a shot it was. The three, no matter who shoots it, is the lowest percentage shot you can get on the floor, in general. I think in the closing seconds if you need 3 to win or tie, then you shoot three, but not if you don't need a three to win or tie. Look at what happened: Everything worked to perfection: The wild-looking risky pass from Iguodala which nearly went out of bounds, but was saved by the athleticism of Green. In the meantime, the Raptors totally blow the switch on the screen, and Curry the best shooter in the league gets loose for a wide open shot, with no defender able to bother him. And the best shooter in the league misses the shot, and we lose. Another quibble was that the shot hit the rim at 6.2 seconds. If it had gone in, The Raptors would be inbounding the ball with 5 or 6 seconds left, which is an eternity in the NBA, and they would have enough tIme to run a play for a good shot

A two was enough to win, and the Warriors had 4 great players on the floor who are good at shooting twos, and lots of two point plays in the playbook. I just can't believe we could not spring one of them open for a two.

Thank you again for the corrections. I will try and be more careful next time.

---

Cheers! Water under the bridge. I also absolutely agree with the bolded above - they should have looked for an easy shot. The play drawn up is fine if there's under 3 seconds left, but they had time to get something better.

---

Seems like the Ws have had great success on offense coming out of timeouts during the Kerr era, suggesting that Kerr and staff are excellent in drawing up a play, but not this time.

Looks like KD will join Kyrie Irving on the Nets, which sounds . . . interesting.

sycasey said:

---

Looks like KD will join Kyrie Irving on the Nets, which sounds . . . interesting.

---

KD weighs in:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27342926/warriors-not-blame-achilles-injury