2023-24 Around the NBA Thread

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
16,289
Reaction score
11,311
Location
Tempe, AZ
I liked he minimum game requirements for award consideration. Now I'm not so sure. Games make sense but of course that can be cheated in ways, subbing a player in briefly although that would lower their averages. There is a minimum minute requirement attached though and a player not only needs 65 games to be eligible but must play in 20+ minutes for those 65 games. Here's a breakdown as it seems it make Donte DiVincenzo ineligible for Most Improved player despite playing in well over 65 games, 81 games played, but didn't meet the requirement of 65+ games with 20+ minutes.

 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,633
Reaction score
33,489
Out sick yesterday so I watched a bunch of the Warriors are cooked what should they do stuff on youtube. One interesting one talked about something I was unaware of, and frankly am not sure is true, that they tried really hard to move Wiggins to Miami before the trade deadline this year but Miami wanted Haywood Highsmith to go in the deal and the W's wanted Jaime Jaquez not Highsmith. Probably better off I wasn't aware of the talks at the time as I would have got my hopes up we were getting Jaime.
 

95pro

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
12,253
Reaction score
3,843
Warriors hot take...We know they have 4 recent championships in this era. Were the big 3 really that good? I think we are discounting several players they had in their first chip, as they had Iggy and Barnes. The next 2 they had KD, and last Poole was looking like their next rising star they could build around. Steph is the greatest shooter ever. But are we giving these guys too much credit?
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,092
Reaction score
14,984
Warriors hot take...We know they have 4 recent championships in this era. Were the big 3 really that good? I think we are discounting several players they had in their first chip, as they had Iggy and Barnes. The next 2 they had KD, and last Poole was looking like their next rising star they could build around. Steph is the greatest shooter ever. But are we giving these guys too much credit?
I don't think so. You don't win a championship without quality role players but nobody talks about those role players much unless they are playing with stars such as GS had. The Warriors have had an incredible run, it doesn't happen without Curry, Thompson and Green. They made those role players shine.
 

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
24,553
Reaction score
16,870
Location
The Giant Toaster
Warriors hot take...We know they have 4 recent championships in this era. Were the big 3 really that good? I think we are discounting several players they had in their first chip, as they had Iggy and Barnes. The next 2 they had KD, and last Poole was looking like their next rising star they could build around. Steph is the greatest shooter ever. But are we giving these guys too much credit?

What exactly are you asking? They might not be great because they didn’t win with terrible role players? What an odd take.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
61,015
Reaction score
53,260
Location
SoCal
Warriors hot take...We know they have 4 recent championships in this era. Were the big 3 really that good? I think we are discounting several players they had in their first chip, as they had Iggy and Barnes. The next 2 they had KD, and last Poole was looking like their next rising star they could build around. Steph is the greatest shooter ever. But are we giving these guys too much credit?
When you see a dynasty look to the constants. Those three and Kerr were the constants. They deserve all the accolades they receive.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
34,557
Reaction score
12,513
Location
Arizona
When you see a dynasty look to the constants. Those three and Kerr were the constants. They deserve all the accolades they receive.
Isn't that the very definition of the "cornerstones"? You expect to lose guys around your cornerstone players. You continually reload around those players and if it produces similar results that is a good foundation. You deserve all the credit for being that foundation. I will say that adding Durant though was an embarrassment of riches.
 

95pro

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
12,253
Reaction score
3,843
Another question, is Kerr really that good of coach?
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
16,289
Reaction score
11,311
Location
Tempe, AZ
Another question, is Kerr really that good of coach?

I was going to say "Is Steve Kerr really that good of a coach" is a much better, and more fair, question than if the Warriors big 3 are overated. I started questioning his decisions a lot during the Team USA play last summer. He seems more set in his ways and stubborn than Monty. He landed in a great spot with a great team and allowed them to take the next step but I don't think he could coach another team to a title if he had to develop players and build a system from scratch. He's more of an Alvin Gentry type coach, who took over for Terry Porter here but should have been given the reins after D'Antoni left. He added some defense and discipline to the 7SOL Suns and got them closer to a title than D'Antoni did, IMO. I believe he had less talent on the team but got better results. Kerr took over for Mark Jackson, who built a successful squad and system while Kerr just let Curry take over as the centerpiece. As Curry has succumbed to age though the Warriors have struggled. Without Steph, they aren't good and Kerr hasn't developed some of the pieces they've surrounded Steph with.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,092
Reaction score
14,984
I was going to say "Is Steve Kerr really that good of a coach" is a much better, and more fair, question than if the Warriors big 3 are overated. I started questioning his decisions a lot during the Team USA play last summer. He seems more set in his ways and stubborn than Monty. He landed in a great spot with a great team and allowed them to take the next step but I don't think he could coach another team to a title if he had to develop players and build a system from scratch. He's more of an Alvin Gentry type coach, who took over for Terry Porter here but should have been given the reins after D'Antoni left. He added some defense and discipline to the 7SOL Suns and got them closer to a title than D'Antoni did, IMO. I believe he had less talent on the team but got better results. Kerr took over for Mark Jackson, who built a successful squad and system while Kerr just let Curry take over as the centerpiece. As Curry has succumbed to age though the Warriors have struggled. Without Steph, they aren't good and Kerr hasn't developed some of the pieces they've surrounded Steph with.
I think you're selling Kerr short. At some point, results have to matter. Maybe someone else would have done as much or more with what he had but that's pure guesswork - all we know for sure is that he is one title away from tying Pop (and two other coaches) for 3rd most NBA championships. Maybe he isn't 6th best but for my money, he's been a very good Head Coach. And I've never believed that Jackson would have taken them all the way had they retained him.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,019
Reaction score
62,206
I think you're selling Kerr short. At some point, results have to matter. Maybe someone else would have done as much or more with what he had but that's pure guesswork - all we know for sure is that he is one title away from tying Pop (and two other coaches) for 3rd most NBA championships. Maybe he isn't 6th best but for my money, he's been a very good Head Coach. And I've never believed that Jackson would have taken them all the way had they retained him.
Yeah… I think Kerr proved himself a great coach immediately elevating the pre-KD Warriors from a young, up and coming first rounder loser the year before him to title winners in 2015 with him, and then again, somehow coaching the post KD 2022 Warriors to a title. I mean… the 2022’s second best player was… Andrew Freaking Wiggins. You win a title with that being your second best player and you’re pretty damn good.

Almost anyone could have won the titles the Warriors won with KD, but those other two titles without him prove the measure of the man to me. Is he one of the greatest coaches ever? I wouldn’t put him there, but he’s still a great coach.
 
Last edited:

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
16,289
Reaction score
11,311
Location
Tempe, AZ
I think you're selling Kerr short. At some point, results have to matter. Maybe someone else would have done as much or more with what he had but that's pure guesswork - all we know for sure is that he is one title away from tying Pop (and two other coaches) for 3rd most NBA championships. Maybe he isn't 6th best but for my money, he's been a very good Head Coach. And I've never believed that Jackson would have taken them all the way had they retained him.

I don't think Jackson was going to lead them to a title either. I would say anyone could have coached that team to 2 titles while KD was there. I give Kerr credit for that first title and that last one but I think he's lucked out being a coach on a team with great talent. I wouldn't put him ahead of Spoelstra as far as in game tactician. I wouldn't put him on Pop's level either given he's lot more in the finals than Pop and Pop hasn't blown a 3-1 lead either.

Look at how good the Warriors are without Curry. They're a lottery team. We've seen that happen. So I'm not basing my views on him outside of anything other than what I've seen. Few coaches have performed as poorly on the global team stage with Team USA also. That's what really made me look at Kerr's coaching and whether Curry has made him look better than he is. I'm not saying he's bad either, it just might be time to along.
 

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,465
Reaction score
2,804
Location
Vegas
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
I heard that he is questionable for game 1. I wonder what his ailment is. Inflammation is kind of vague. If he has osteoarthritis then he might want to retire to preserve his knee. Don’t know what else he has to prove aside from bringing a ring to the clippers which looks unlikely at this point.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,019
Reaction score
62,206
Is there a more under the radar star in the league than Paolo Banchera? The Magic were 22-60 when they drafted him, and were terrible for a long time. Within 2 years, they’re 47-35 while he’s averaging 23/7/5.

That’s pretty impressive.
 

Yuma

Suns are my Kryptonite!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
20,863
Reaction score
10,311
Location
Laveen, AZ
I liked he minimum game requirements for award consideration. Now I'm not so sure. Games make sense but of course that can be cheated in ways, subbing a player in briefly although that would lower their averages. There is a minimum minute requirement attached though and a player not only needs 65 games to be eligible but must play in 20+ minutes for those 65 games. Here's a breakdown as it seems it make Donte DiVincenzo ineligible for Most Improved player despite playing in well over 65 games, 81 games played, but didn't meet the requirement of 65+ games with 20+ minutes.

I too think it's a good idea. However it's obvious the numbers need adjusted. Maybe 55, or 50 games? Maybe 15 minutes? :shrug:
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,092
Reaction score
14,984
I too think it's a good idea. However it's obvious the numbers need adjusted. Maybe 55, or 50 games? Maybe 15 minutes? :shrug:
I think they were trying to stop qualifying players that only play 50 or 55 games so I don't really think they have any room to lower it.
 

Yuma

Suns are my Kryptonite!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
20,863
Reaction score
10,311
Location
Laveen, AZ
I think they were trying to stop qualifying players that only play 50 or 55 games so I don't really think they have any room to lower it.
I don't remember who it was, but one of those awards I think the guy only played like forty games. That started the whole discussion. Maybe they should do it the opposite, and give bonus points for the more games you play.
 
Top