Warriors 2019 playoff thread

116,292 Views | 1110 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by philbert
ClayK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There will be no ready-to-play wing available at 28. Or 18. Or 8.

A backcourt of Curry and Cook will guard no one. If Curry has to work on defense, it's hard to ask him (at 30) to get 30 every night at the other end.

Cousins is unlikely to sign, as he can get a lot more money somewhere else, and have a much better chance to win.

The Chron had a list of available free agents today, and basically it's a list of older players who might have a little left. But none are going to come close to replacing Thompson, especially on defense. But that said, the real question is who's going to score ...

Let's say Curry averages 30. Where do the other 75 points come from every night to get you to 105, which about the minimum for a consistent chance to win.
joshbalt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How the Warriors play next season depends on the expectations for recovery of Klay and Durant (if he re-signs). If they are expected to miss the whole season then the Warriors can apply for disabled player exceptions which would open a $9.2m salary slot for each and that can bring a good players in. The downside of this for ownership is that any additional money hits the luxury tax and becomes very expensive ($40M for each) and this is in addition to paying the massive tax to pay Klay and Durant for sitting. That may be financially untenable. There may be a middle ground if one of the two is expected to play next season.

Otherwise next season may be a kick the can can season where Curry plays 50-60 games, they bring back and add younger guys to develop them while positioning themselves to have a lottery pick next summer and a deeper version of the team back for 2020-21.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
You have a problem with reading comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote. I wrote "your best shooter in this game WAS Iguodala." That is past tense. You wrote that "no one believes he IS the best shooter. I was of course, looking only at the players available to participate in that last play. Thompson, Looney, and KD were not available.

Iguodala WAS the Warrior's best shooter in that game up to that point, who was still available to play. "Best shooter" is defined by most of us to mean the player with the best shooting percentage. Meanwhile, Curry, who normallly or usuallly IS the Warrior's best shooter, WAS having a very off game for him. He HAD SHOT a horrible 35% floor prior to his last shot, and HAD SHOT an equally horrible 27% on threes, prior to his last shot. Up to that last shot, Iguodala had shot 60% from the floor and 50% on threes. But Cousins and Green also had been shooting much better than Curry. Green at 50%, and Cousins at 44%.

Surely, if you had ever played a lick of basketball on a team, you would know that if a player gets hot, gets in a streak, his teammates and/or his coach will want to get the ball to that hot player and have him shoot until he cools off. And if you had played or watched much basketball, you would know that sometimes your star player, your best shooter can have an off night. And in this game, the choice is guessing whether your star player can get out of his game long slump long enough to make one last shot at the buzzer, or whether the three players who have been shooting all game long better than your star, whether one of them should get the call to shoot the last shot. It is an either/or, it is guess work, and it is what coaches get paid millions to decide. I say Kerr picked wrong on this one. But if he had picked another player, and that player missed, then most fans would question the decision.

I'm sorry to be condescending here, but you had said some things that ticked me off, first by saying "Curry having to pass to one of the other POOR SHOOTERS on the team kind of is what you want to avoid." And second was almost lying about what I wrote, implying that I said Iguodala IS the best shooter, when I did not say that at all. My case is he was the hottest shooter we had, overall in that one game, once Thompson got hurt. If Thompson had been in the game, I'll bet you'd have no argument if Klay took the last shot. My larger point is that it should not have been a three, no matter who took it, based on the odds for success.

SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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 I neve
I never argued that. Sycasey had a reading comprehension problem. Verbs have tenses, "was" has a different meaning than "is'.
SFCityBear
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joshbalt said:

How the Warriors play next season depends on the expectations for recovery of Klay and Durant (if he re-signs). If they are expected to miss the whole season then the Warriors can apply for disabled player exceptions which would open a $9.2m salary slot for each and that can bring a good players in. The downside of this for ownership is that any additional money hits the luxury tax and becomes very expensive ($40M for each) and this is in addition to paying the massive tax to pay Klay and Durant for sitting. That may be financially untenable. There may be a middle ground if one of the two is expected to play next season.

Otherwise next season may be a kick the can can season where Curry plays 50-60 games, they bring back and add younger guys to develop them while positioning themselves to have a lottery pick next summer and a deeper version of the team back for 2020-21.
A blurb from the Athletic:

However, the league would be very unlikely to grant the Warriors' application for a DPE because of the stringent rules and specifics of this situation. Article VII, Section 6 (c) (2) requires a physician's determination that the injury "makes it substantially more likely than not that the player would be unable to play through the following June 15." While it is possible this injury keeps Durant out more than 12 months, the typical recovery is less than a year and the "substantially more likely than not" threshold is very high.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SFCityBear
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where do the W's go from here?
SC.
Sign KD, sign KT. --- Both $max and out with long term injuries.
Sign Green, KL, AI, sign SL for interim 2019-20 season, and DJ.

Sign DL, QC, AM and JE.
Sign JJ.

Sign DC?
Sign JB?

Get AB for last half season.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where is all this "Livingston will retire" stuff coming from? Does he have an injury I'm unaware of? He's owed $8M next season, why would he walk away from that?
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear 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.
You have a problem with reading comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote. I wrote "your best shooter in this game WAS Iguodala." That is past tense. You wrote that "no one believes he IS the best shooter. I was of course, looking only at the players available to participate in that last play. Thompson, Looney, and KD were not available.

Iguodala WAS the Warrior's best shooter in that game up to that point, who was still available to play. "Best shooter" is defined by most of us to mean the player with the best shooting percentage. Meanwhile, Curry, who normallly or usuallly IS the Warrior's best shooter, WAS having a very off game for him. He HAD SHOT a horrible 35% floor prior to his last shot, and HAD SHOT an equally horrible 27% on threes, prior to his last shot. Up to that last shot, Iguodala had shot 60% from the floor and 50% on threes. But Cousins and Green also had been shooting much better than Curry. Green at 50%, and Cousins at 44%.

Surely, if you had ever played a lick of basketball on a team, you would know that if a player gets hot, gets in a streak, his teammates and/or his coach will want to get the ball to that hot player and have him shoot until he cools off. And if you had played or watched much basketball, you would know that sometimes your star player, your best shooter can have an off night. And in this game, the choice is guessing whether your star player can get out of his game long slump long enough to make one last shot at the buzzer, or whether the three players who have been shooting all game long better than your star, whether one of them should get the call to shoot the last shot. It is an either/or, it is guess work, and it is what coaches get paid millions to decide. I say Kerr picked wrong on this one. But if he had picked another player, and that player missed, then most fans would question the decision.

I'm sorry to be condescending here, but you had said some things that ticked me off, first by saying "Curry having to pass to one of the other POOR SHOOTERS on the team kind of is what you want to avoid." And second was almost lying about what I wrote, implying that I said Iguodala IS the best shooter, when I did not say that at all. My case is he was the hottest shooter we had, overall in that one game, once Thompson got hurt. If Thompson had been in the game, I'll bet you'd have no argument if Klay took the last shot. My larger point is that it should not have been a three, no matter who took it, based on the odds for success.



I promised to be done with this, but here are two quick points:

1. In my opinion, relying on an average-at-best shooter like Iguodala to remain "hot" is a worse proposition than trusting in the best shooter in the league to take the last shot. Klay is at least on Curry's level as a shooter. No one else on the floor is. A player is on a hot streak until he isn't.

2. Yes, a shot at the rim is ideal most of the time, but again, IMO not a good option given how Toronto had defended for the whole series if you want Curry to take it. They were likely to collapse on him if he tried to drive it. None of the other players had been super reliable in this series, hence why the Raptors were even willing to try a middle-school box-and-one defense at times.
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

sycasey said:


LOL

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

Anyway, I'm done debating this pure hypothetical.
You have a problem with reading comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote.
Stop blaming other people for the words YOU write. People don't have reading comprehension problems. You have a "talking out of both sides of your mouth" problem.
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Where is all this "Livingston will retire" stuff coming from? Does he have an injury I'm unaware of? He's owed $8M next season, why would he walk away from that?
Read more, write less.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are correct. I'm dreaming.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or, donate brain to science.
joshbalt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

joshbalt said:

How the Warriors play next season depends on the expectations for recovery of Klay and Durant (if he re-signs). If they are expected to miss the whole season then the Warriors can apply for disabled player exceptions which would open a $9.2m salary slot for each and that can bring a good players in. The downside of this for ownership is that any additional money hits the luxury tax and becomes very expensive ($40M for each) and this is in addition to paying the massive tax to pay Klay and Durant for sitting. That may be financially untenable. There may be a middle ground if one of the two is expected to play next season.

Otherwise next season may be a kick the can can season where Curry plays 50-60 games, they bring back and add younger guys to develop them while positioning themselves to have a lottery pick next summer and a deeper version of the team back for 2020-21.
A blurb from the Athletic:

However, the league would be very unlikely to grant the Warriors' application for a DPE because of the stringent rules and specifics of this situation. Article VII, Section 6 (c) (2) requires a physician's determination that the injury "makes it substantially more likely than not that the player would be unable to play through the following June 15." While it is possible this injury keeps Durant out more than 12 months, the typical recovery is less than a year and the "substantially more likely than not" threshold is very high.

Yes I saw that but DPEs are granted fairly often and it taking 12 months to recover from a fully ruptured achilles or an ACL is not unreasonable. The process is that a neutral physician reviews the medical records and decides. The team can appeal the ruling if desired. There is no risk to the Warriors in trying this route. I don't know if they'd be willing to incur the cost of the luxury tax anyway but it would be an interesting way to add players.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
and this applies in a situation where you sign a player knowing they cannot play?

as opposed to

having a player hurt for the season while already under contract?
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

GBear4Life said:

Where is all this "Livingston will retire" stuff coming from? Does he have an injury I'm unaware of? He's owed $8M next season, why would he walk away from that?
Read more, write less.
+1 was going to write a diatribe but blah
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And LA signs AD and unloads wow
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
MSaviolives
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

ducky23 said:

concordtom said:

gobears said:

Even before the Raptors can have their parade, off season fireworks have begun.

AD to Lakers.... , who will join Lebron and AD? Kyrie now that KD is out for the 2019/20 season?

Kyrie got tired of being Robin, but found out being Batman not so fun either. Maybe he will be Alfred with the Lakers.

With Lebron loading up.. may give good reason for KD to return with GSW and have a showdown at the OK Corral with the Lakers in the 2021 playoffs.

goGSW
goBears


My thoughts exactly.
And the warriors can clearly be like Tyson Fury: the lineal champion.
The Raptors did not really beat the full warriors.
If the Hamptons Five team of KD, Curry, Klay, Green and Iggy take the floor, is anyone going to not consider them the front runner who is still on the winner's returning court?
No. they can tell Lebron "you need to beat US".
It would be great drama.

If KD goes elsewhere, what is he really doing?
Fading into obscurity?

Seriously, gimme an alternative scenario where KD can return as reigning favorite?


Throughout this entire year, I was sure KD was gone. But I think the events of the last week or so have changed everything

- I think the original thought for kd was that the dubs would easily win another title and then he'd leave since there's nothing else for him to prove with the warriors. Obviously that has changed. It'd be a great story if him and Klay could come back from injury and win another title.

- I think the narrative on KD has changed, which will more easily allow him to stay with the warriors. Before he was considered soft and a cupcake. And if he re-signed with the warriors have three-peating, he would take a ton of heat. But now public perception on KD has changed dramatically. He's now seen as tough and someone who just wants to ball. So he won't get any flak for re-signing with the dubs

- I think the injury will also make KD think twice about signing with a different team. Let's say he signs with the Knicks. He will sit out year 1 and then by year 2 there will be an expectation that he's going to dominate and lead them to the finals. That's a tremendous amount of pressure on someone just coming off an Achilles. With the warriors, he's already comfortable with the team and also won't be expected to do as much.

- the fact that the warriors can offer the most money and an additional year probably wasn't a huge deal pre-injury. But now with so much uncertainty, the smart move is to sign a super max.

- I also think kd and his teammates actually grew closer thru all of this. He must appreciate how his team has rallied around hin. He must also love that the fanbase now fully appreciates him

I think the only way he doesn't re-sign is if it later comes out the warriors medical staff messed up (which is possible)


yeah, he's going to love signing with the team that pressured him to play and misevaluated him medically, leading to a career crushing injury.
Is there a credible source for the proposition that the W's pressured him to play?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
thank you for asking. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/espn-jay-williams-claims-kevin-durant-was-misdiagnosed
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MSaviolives said:

oski003 said:


yeah, he's going to love signing with the team that pressured him to play and misevaluated him medically, leading to a career crushing injury.
Is there a credible source for the proposition that the W's pressured him to play?
No
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

thank you for asking. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/espn-jay-williams-claims-kevin-durant-was-misdiagnosed
Even if you accept what Jay Williams is saying on face value, this isn't it. The headline on the USA Today article is incorrect. It says, "Jay Williams claims the Warriors misdiagnosed Kevin Durant." That's not true. Jay Williams didn't say that. He said, "He was misdiagnosed." Recall Bob Meyers said they got multiple outside opinions. So it wasn't just the Warriors' doctors, it was outside doctors, too.

There's more. Note the only thing Williams saying he KNOWS is that Durant, "was told that with a torn calf, a partially torn calf, that it unloaded the pressure on the Achilles, and that there was no chance that the Achilles could be injured at all." Again, Williams doesn't say the Warriors doctors said this. He says that Durant was told this. By whom? It could have been the outside doctors, too.

And yet more! Williams takes the fact that Durant was told (by somebody) that he couldn't hurt his achilles and then says he was "misdiagnosed." But although obviously it was incorrect he couldn't hurt his achilles with the calf injury because he did just that, that's not necessarily a misdiagnosis. A misdiagnosis would be if he had an achilles injury and they told him it was a calf injury. What happened was not that, but simply incorrect medical advice (and again it's unclear which doctors gave this bad medical advice).

And one final thing! Even if everything Jay Williams says is true, you were asked for a credible source to support the statement that the Warriors pressured him to play. What you instead provided was a source (who I generally don't find credible, but I'll put that aside) saying that Durant was misdiagnosed, not that the Warriors pressured him to play. Those are two different things.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
You have reading comprehension issues, my dude. I didn't say you said that. I said (1) the headline misstates what Jay Williams said (and I strongly implied you only read the headline; (2) what Jay Williams then describes is not a misdiagnosis but bad advice; (3) even if Williams was right, you were asked for a source to support your statement that the Warriors pressured Durant to play and what you provided is about a different subject entirely.
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But Durant's own doctor(s) also cleared him to play. Maybe no one is to blame and his achilles was going to rupture regardless.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
Giving bad advice is different than pressuring him to play (suggesting against his will). We're all disappointed by the results and KD more so, but you seem to be suggesting a nefarious intent on behalf of the warriors to undermine one of their best players. Am I reading that wrong?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
You have reading comprehension issues, my dude. I didn't say you said that. I said (1) the headline misstates what Jay Williams said (and I strongly implied you only read the headline; (2) what Jay Williams then describes is not a misdiagnosis but bad advice; (3) even if Williams was right, you were asked for a source to support your statement that the Warriors pressured Durant to play and what you provided is about a different subject entirely.


i provided you a source to support my statement that the warriors pressured him to play. your welcome.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GMP said:

oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
You have reading comprehension issues, my dude. I didn't say you said that. I said (1) the headline misstates what Jay Williams said (and I strongly implied you only read the headline; (2) what Jay Williams then describes is not a misdiagnosis but bad advice; (3) even if Williams was right, you were asked for a source to support your statement that the Warriors pressured Durant to play and what you provided is about a different subject entirely.


i provided you a source to support my statement that the warriors pressured him to play. your welcome.
It doesn't support it.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

But Durant's own doctor(s) also cleared him to play. Maybe no one is to blame and his achilles was going to rupture regardless.


it is possible although incredibly unlikely that his achilles rupture had nothing to do with the injury that had caused him to be day-to-day until he played less than a half and ruptured the achilles in the same area.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
Giving bad advice is different than pressuring him to play (suggesting against his will). We're all disappointed by the results and KD more so, but you seem to be suggesting a nefarious intent on behalf of the warriors to undermine one of their best players. Am I reading that wrong?


Jay Williams, ESPN:

"If Golden State knew Durant wouldn't play until Game 5 or 6, Williams is absolutely right. The Warriors made it worse by not giving a clearer timeline. The repeated hope of Durant returning followed by the repeated letdown of him not only created misery and pressure for everyone involved.

Did Golden State misdiagnose Durant? That's hard to say without access to medical information. But even Steve Kerr said he was told the worst thing that could happen is an aggravation of the calf injury. It sure looks like the Warriors got this wrong."
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

BeachedBear said:

oski003 said:

I never said that the only doctors who mis-evaluated Durant were employed by Golden State. You are making that part up. It is patently obvious to any objective individual that the team doctors gave him bad medical advice.
Giving bad advice is different than pressuring him to play (suggesting against his will). We're all disappointed by the results and KD more so, but you seem to be suggesting a nefarious intent on behalf of the warriors to undermine one of their best players. Am I reading that wrong?


Jay Williams, ESPN:

"If Golden State knew Durant wouldn't play until Game 5 or 6, Williams is absolutely right. The Warriors made it worse by not giving a clearer timeline. The repeated hope of Durant returning followed by the repeated letdown of him not only created misery and pressure for everyone involved.

Did Golden State misdiagnose Durant? That's hard to say without access to medical information. But even Steve Kerr said he was told the worst thing that could happen is an aggravation of the calf injury. It sure looks like the Warriors got this wrong."

As has been stated multiple times, "Got this wrong" does not mean "pressured him to play." It's possible, but not directly supported by these statements.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I'm curious, do you know what needs to be proven to invoke that doctrine in medical malpractice cases?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At least, to my knowledge, no one ever got shot in The Town during a Warriors Victory Parade.*



*The most controversial thing that happened was Lacob stiffed Oakland on the cost of the parade.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.