Merry Christmas: Lakers 115 Warriors 105

The Lakers got the best Christmas present they could possibly wish for in this game against the Warriors: the absence of Kobe Bryant. Could there be any more stark indication of what a bad player Kobe is now? Utterly inefficient. Utterly selfish. A willful and unrepentant destroyer of his team’s offensive chemistry. An indifferent destroyer of his team’s defense (he hasn’t competed on that end in years). It was fascinating to watch the Lakers play like a team on both ends, and I for one was amazed at how the worst defensive team in the league could look for one night like one of the best. Maybe they are one of the best, with Ed Davis in for Boozer, and Wayne Ellington in for Kobe? Wesley Johnson is no slouch — ask Harrison Barnes.

I’m not willing to put full blame on Steve Kerr for this loss, as sometimes bad teams show up, and good teams don’t. The Lakers were clearly very excited to play without Kobe, and the Warriors just as clearly didn’t match their energy or focus.

However, I did feel extreme frustration that Kerr didn’t simplify the game when the Laker’s active D made a mishmash of the Warriors’ motion offense. It’s particularly frustrating because the Warriors have one of the best pick and roll point guards ever created by the maker, and now that Bogut is out, some centers who can actually collaborate with him. Ezeli has been tremendously effective in PNR the last two games. We all know now what Lee and Speights can do in PNR and PNP.

I think a good Nellieball coach would have changed things up at halftime at the very least, and come out firing with a faster pace, and a Curry-dominant high pick and roll offense. And guess what? That’s exactly what Kerr did, and Curry went nuts, and the Warriors closed to 10. But then Kerr just as quickly went away from it…

I particularly hated the way that David Lee was used on the second unit. Nothing could be clearer than that Kerr has been anxiously awaiting the return of the one true triangle player on the roster, and is absolutely determined to play triangle when he’s on the floor. In other words, Lee is right back to where he was with Lacob’s other two rookie coaches, playing most of his minutes in the wrong system.

It was an absolute disaster last night. The Warriors ran around like panicked ants, and the Lakers disrupted every action. It will probably get better, but it’s still a bad coaching choice. It’s simply not the right system for this team.

If Lee is to be played at center on the second unit, as he mostly was last night, it is absolutely ridiculous for the Warriors to play anything other than pick and roll with Shaun Livingston and Lee. Livingston is creating much the same difficulty for the Warriors that Rondo now is for the Mavs — he’s completely unable to play off the ball as a spot up shooter, and is thus wrecking the Warriors spacing. It is far, far better to let Livingston run the offense with the ball in his hands, and far, far better to let him run pick and roll than it is to post him up: because David Lee is one of the best pick and roll centers in the NBA, if not the best, and conversely, he’s not a three point shooter who can space the floor when Livingston posts up.

Why not run Livingston/Lee PNR the whole time, Steve Kerr? Late in the game, after everything else had fallen apart, the Warriors ran it twice.

The first time, Lee rolled perfectly, Livingston passed perfectly, DUNK.

The second time, layup.

What’s not to like? I don’t get it.

Draymond Green: As great a player as Green has been for the Warriors the last two seasons, I’m not going to fault him for getting obliterated inside last night. But I do wonder if he was suffering from the exhaustion of having to battle bigger players night in and night out? And I wonder whether last night’s performance tells us anything about what Green’s true position might be?

Of course, it’s ridiculous to be asking these questions based on one performance.

Or is it?

Go back in the archives and try to find one game, home or away, in which a healthy David Lee was similarly eaten alive in his 10 year playing career. Just one game. In 10 seasons. One.

I took something away from Green’s performance last night. Just as I’ve taken something away from watching the Warriors double-team the post every time he’s matched up with one of the monsters of the West.

The Showcase: I will have some positive things to say about Harrison Barnes in part two of my ongoing Fantasy versus Reality review, as he has made some positive changes to his game from last season to this. I will also have some negative things to say, as the reaction to Barnes’ improvement has been typically overboard, and I feel compelled to push back against notions that he’s now a “borderline All Star,” as I have been reading in some places, or even an above average small forward in the league.

Is Wesley Johnson an above average small forward? Because he owned Barnes last night. And is very objectively, night in and night out, a far better defender than the guy who recently got torched to a crisp by Kevin Durant. Which I happen to think is an important characteristic in a small forward.

This was one of the few games all season in which nearly every one of Barnes’ shots was contested. His field goal percentage reflected that.

Justin Holiday: If there was anything positive about last night, it was the continued emergence of this young man. The Warriors are desperate for shooting on the second unit, and it looks like Holiday can provide it. And not just three point shooting, but an all-around floor game. He’s a very long and very good defender, and I love his hoops IQ. He looks like he belongs.

The question is, if he becomes a second unit regular, and Kerr remains determined to have one of Curry or Klay on the floor at all times, who sits? It would have to be either Iggy or Livingston, wouldn’t it?

I think the Warriors are already gagging on both contracts, or if not they soon will be, but the $12 million Iggy is still clearly a better player than the $5 million Livingston, is he not? We can all agree on that, can’t we?

And isn’t Iggy just as capable of initiating the offense as Livingston? The assist totals would seem to indicate that.

And if you’re going to play Livingston off the ball in a motion offense, as Kerr seems determined to do, is he in any way a better player than Holiday? Why would you ever choose Livingston over Holiday, if you’re determined to play a motion offense that de-emphasizes the point guard, like the triangle?

Now if you’re going to run pick and roll with David Lee, that’s another story. That’s where Livingston’s value to the second unit would become readily apparent.

Steve Kerr, Lacob’s Cube is calling.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

376 Responses to Merry Christmas: Lakers 115 Warriors 105

  1. Merci encore, Feltbot.

    Joyeux noel, you all.

    I know what I want for Christmas. . . .

  2. Excellent article on the emergence of Draymond Green on Grantland.

    Sorry but I still haven’t figured out how to link it to a website but it’s the fourth or fifth article from the top.

    Supports my theory that someone will offer Green MAX $$$$…

  3. Merry Christmas.

    Informative, very interesting, and thought provoking article. And fun to read.

    I put the loss to the Lakers 100% on Kerr and his staff. That’s a game they have to win regardless. No excuse for that loss. None.

    Better give Draymond lots of help with the Bull tonight. Or cross-match Ezeli on him. Draymond can get his body on Jordan.

    Reddick has a tendency to torch the Warriors, so you got to guard him with Thompson. Iguodala has been ineffective on Reddick, so maybe you have to bring Holiday in off the pine on Reddick or Paul for stretches. Like Felt, I noticed Holiday is an accomplished on-man defender. Kerr has to allow him to do so, not ask him to funnel his guy into a big.

    And lots of P&R/P&P please!

  4. The Lakers loss won’t happen again. Green had a problem against Chicago’s Taj Gibson last year, this year no problem. Green has a habit of figuring things out like that.

    As Marc said, this was a Kerr loss. The Ws were not prepared to face a VERY different-looking Lakers team, i.e., one without Kobe screwing things up for the purple and gold.

    I’m really looking forward to the Warriors kicking Clippers ass all over the court tonight!

    Happy Holidays yall!

  5. Kerr understands his coaching decisions well enough to recognise what works and what doesn’t. If somehow he didn’t see the benefit of PnR, I’m sure Gentry/Adams along with some of the other players would be quick to point it out. Theres a reason why he chose to persist with the motion offense. Some thoughts that come to mind;

    1) Kerr is trying to drill in the motion offense to his players when under duress so it becomes second nature.
    2) The Wariors/NBA were trying to send Kobe a message.
    3) The Warriors don’t want to be clear at the top of the standings when OKC make a push for #8 seed. We don’t believe?

    Ezeli is out tonight so we should get another look at Kuz. Surely he offers just as much defense as Mo did against the Lakers…

  6. warriorsablaze

    With Ezeli out tonight, I’m not overly optimistic.

    I’ve missed the past two games so I have no idea where Lee is at, but I can’t imagine he’s ready to battle the Clips front line for big minutes.

    Hopefully we can run them off the court and Dray can get under Blake’s skin as he has in the past.

    Seems like Curry often gets up for these big national games, so hopefully we get a masterpiece from him and Klay.

  7. Heaven: Reading Keith Richards’ autobiography, and playing every song and artist he mentions on YouTube as accompaniment.

  8. Varejao out for the season. That seemed to me an even more inexplicable contract extension than Bogut’s. There’s just no way that guy can stay healthy for 3 seasons.

    • Agree completely. Another example of LeBron playing GM.

      • the trading deadline could easily be the turning point for Cle — if they can’t find a defender/complementary player the melodrama will probably surpass the on court success and the blame game accelerates. the coach and love will be strong candidates for the designated fall guys and either could move on after the season.

  9. Any chance Holiday can get going this season?

    • kerr and staff are still in the process of evaluating the roles for the reserves, both in quality and quantity (playing time). tentatively, they have pushed holiday’s development/opportunity ahead of (maybe the vet gets hot for a streak) barbosa. a larger role would probably mean minutes lessened from the next batch of wings higher in the rotation — iguodala, livingston, das wunderkind barnes, thompson.

      last night was kerr’s chance to use holiday in crunch time as the designated perimeter stopper, assigned on crawfor(*), but understandably didn’t relish the second guessing if rookie errors made holiday’s impact negative on either end of the floor. holiday won’t enjoy sustained minutes with the same personnel, and combined with his inexperience there will be turnovers when he’s on the floor. at least the coaching staff show a better understanding of him than the former staff did with bazemore.

  10. Last night’s game another example that
    Supports the notion that the Warriors
    are much stronger with Bogut at center
    than by playing Lee., Speights, or Green
    at center. When the Clippers decided to
    attack the rim In the second half it was
    all over for the Dubs.

    Rather than run plays last night they
    for some inexplicable reason decided to
    hyper ball jacking up shots from
    all over the court.

  11. Christmas Day:

    How do you separate the problems with the roster, amply noted here, from the problems with the system? But note this was essentially the same roster that took the Clippers down to the wire the 7th. game of the playoffs last year, the Warriors’ roster this season a bit better, the Clippers’ a bit worse.

    The problem wasn’t that players other than Klay or Step weren’t shooting well, but rather that they weren’t getting good looks—or finding shots. No one else took very many.

    Bogut, of course, would have been useful last night, but to say the offense can’t run well without him is to set the team up in two ways:

    1. He won’t make it better. The Bogut offense was only effective against lesser teams during the streaks—and the team did win without him against tougher teams. Anyone can set a screen for Curry and pass, or should be able to.

    2. There’s no good reason to think they’ll be able to count on him anyway, because of health.

    #2, however, will keep alive wishful thinking and moot debates.

    The Clippers were lethargic. Not being able to set them on their heels first half most hurt the Warriors. And Crawford bailed the Clippers out. He’s the player the Warriors don’t have, or one of them. I fear, however, Myers is going to try something similar and work another Kludge—Ray Allen.

    Bah, humbug.

    • rgg, right on. I’m tired of all this about Livingston. He’s a wing (and a good one). Go out and get a b/u PG that can handle and shoot. Meyers, get that Cunningham kid and a pick from the Clips for Barnes or Livingston, heck, even Iguodala if you have to. And cash if need be. I’m starting to get fed up with this. I don’t care if that does hand the Clips the title. As a fan, I want to support the most competitive squad possible.

  12. Since I’m on a rant today, the other thing I’m fed up with is Bogut and his unfortunate injuries. Those injuries, whatever the circumstances, have a common thread — broken bones. Why trade for a guy that’s injured and thereby permanently impaired from his previous self (his shattered shooting elbow)? And then extend him 3 years. That’s one heck of a risk. I certainly hope that risk pans out.

  13. Motion offense, as I understand it dimly


    Looking forward to the middle of the season

    Note 1: Someone tell me where I’m wrong.

    Note 2: Someone tell me what was different the last two games as opposed to the Bogutless games previous. I will not listen, however, to explanations that contain the word “energy” or “mindfulness.”

    The team is looking for early offense, where they are effective, especially Klay and Steph, but if they can’t get it, they move to their motion system. As I understand it, the basic principle of the motion offense is “read and react”: the ball is passed around where each receiver makes a quick decision whether to shoot or drive, or pass the ball again to someone else. But the system depends upon the player’s ability to do either, shoot or pass, better that he can do both, and his abilities there will be what draws defenders and creates openings for the others. If a player can’t take a quick shot or make a quick drive, the defense is not tested and is essentially left intact—or worse, is allowed to tighten up on the other players. Or, if a player is open and has time, he has to make his shot.

    In the last case, open looks, Barnes, Green, and Iguodala are essentially spot-up 3-point shooters, and they need an opening and time to get the ball up. And they are all, I suspect, as the season wears on and numbers grind, average 3 point shooters at best. Barnes’ % has fallen, 25% in his last 7 games. Green is at 34%, Iguodala at 33%. And this is one answer to note 2, above.

    Iguodala is a good passer, but is reluctant to take a shot anywhere. He has been driving more, however. Green has shown great initiative and is taking more shots in a crowd and driving more, but not with great effectiveness. He is also improving his passing. Barnes, in spite of showing improvements, takes few shots and initiates few drives. He doesn’t find openings quickly enough and usually passes off. Together, they average under 3 assists a game, Barnes well behind at 1.4. Add all that up, and you have three core players who simply aren’t taxing defenses effectively and passing on the pressure to the guards. I still give Iguodala the nod simply because he can see the court better and make passes. Or could last season.

    Kerr has stated a preference, which I guess goes along with triangle principles, of running more offense through his bigs, especially at the low post. Bogut is a good passer, in part because of his height. But he can’t show offense up top or down low. The better teams will adjust—play off him, make cross matches to their advantage, and tighten up elsewhere. Lee, however, is a good passer and can score either place. And I don’t see how this offense goes anywhere without Lee, assuming he can return to form.

    The problems with the Bottleneck on the bench have received extensive attention.

    The sum effect of all the above is to put more pressure on Curry and Thompson, who are forcing passes (Curry) and shots (both). Or the ball keeps coming back to Curry in the motion passing, where he is well covered and has to force the offense, however he can.

    Curry made 12 turnovers the last two games. Do not tell me that all of a sudden he has become “careless” or “less mindful.” But the real stat that concerns me is his 3 point shot—now 38%, this from the best shooter in the league. The system has not been working him to advantage.

    Adjustments are needed at the team forges ahead.

    • Finishing my thought—

      I’m answering my question @11 as to how separate issues with the roster vs. those with the system, not criticize the system necessarily. And it’s hard.

      I don’t buy the “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it” view, heard in many places. Now is the time to experiment, but also earlier with all the easy games. The streak, against no one is complaining, masked many issues that will emerge. Several games depended on phenomenal performances, say from Green and Speights. Many were messy games against weak opponents, others well engineered attacks against the same, where not much can be concluded that will be useful against stiff competition. I especially question that Bogut is needed to run the offense. It worked against weak teams. This won’t last.

      The problems above most point to the roster. Bogut + Barnes on the floor will run into problems, as we saw last year. They’ve got to jump start Iguodala and get him into the starting lineup to make use of his playmaking abilities, as worked last year. The hope here is that Barnes can bolster the subs. And they need to make better use of their two two-way bigs, Lee and Speights—probably not in the triangle (or whatever it is). Lee especially needs to be brought up to speed and worked to advantage.

      The subs may present more a gordian knot to solve. Putting Livingston and Iguodala together doesn’t make sense. Maybe not putting them on the court at the same time is the answer—Livingston spelling Iguodala with the starters so Iguodala can help run the subs? (I’ve forgotten—is this similar to Feltbot’s Rubik’s cube solution? And I believe the coaches are trying this.) And hope they can get something soon from Holiday?

      Most, they have to have a system that optimizes their major strength, their backcourt. Klay has been much less efficient against better teams, while Curry’s numbers are well off. They can do this. They have done it.

  14. Rgg: The Warriors missed Bogut the
    last two games because because they
    played no one who could defend the

    The roster is fine. Just l’ll at our record.
    Yes we could use a decent back-up SG.
    Maybe Holiday can be that guy.

    The Warriors don’t run a motion offense.
    They run specific plays with options ( not as
    many as the Spurs) that do require players
    to a few pick and rolls, but more
    plays are back door plays run from low, the
    wings, and from on top. Most plays are based
    on deception that insure that the shooter
    whether inside or out is able to separate from
    his from his defender. Gentry is a genius in
    creating plays and is the best in exploiting the
    paint which is usually open and which players
    are not allowed to be in for three seconds. The
    Fact the paint has to be free of players on most
    Plays is a coaches dream. Most coaches don’t
    know that. Gentry does. Most offenses are
    awful, boring, and ineffective, and rely on
    one on one macho plays that result in
    Contested shots. The Warriors on the
    Other hand is the best and right there with
    the Spurs.

    rgg, our views are at opposite poles.

  15. Maybe 5 years ago I picked a Keith Richards bio off a bookstore shelf and didn’t put it down for a couple hours. What a tale by a great musician. The collaborations. The women. The pure pharmaceutical cocaine and qualudes manufactured by the US govt!

    NBA-wise, the Rockets are scaring me a little. Smith and Brewer? As a Warrior fan its a little unfair. Ultra deep roster with athletes coming at you in waves.
    I’m just hoping they will be less than the sum of their parts.
    Maybe the knucklehead factor will kick in..

    Justin Holliday = Kent Bazemore + skills.

  16. Bulls coming together:

    The East is more interesting than it’s been for a while. The Hawks were the NBA’s hottest team (I’m long them), then the Bucks came into town down 2 starters and destroyed them (I’m long them too). Jason Kidd is once again my COY.

  17. “Warriors center Festus Ezeli (ankle) will wear a walking boot for three days before being re-evaluated next week, the San Jose Mercury News reports.”

  18. I’m new posting here but have been following this blog for a while. I’ve been stirred to respond because of a recent string of egregious comments/analyses/arguments put forth by our beloved blogmaster. In general, I really appreciate analyses that challenge the status quo—in Feltbot’s case applying a “Nellieball” critique to the goings on in Warriorville. While I frequently haven’t agreed with the conclusions, the analyses have often been thought-provoking.

    Unfortunately, Felt has been venturing into a farcical realm of late. I wonder if this is a big put on; an extended April Fools Day if you will. For example, ascribing the Dubs’ recent defensive dominance to a Nellieball attitude is absurd on oh so many levels. Felt cherry picked a short stint (i.e. last ten games of the season and four playoff games) of Nellie’s most magical Warrior team to “prove” this. He even likened the Biedrins/Harrington defensive duo to Bogut/Green. Mentioning these duos in the same sentence is a crime against reason; they don’t even belong in the same encyclopedia set. (Psssssst, wanna know why it’s taken so long for so many outside the Bay Area to catch on to the fact that the Warriors actually play any defense—let alone dominant, league leading defense? Look no further than Don Nelson and the coaching philosophy he brought and instilled here.) Now Felty, please don’t get your knickers in a twist! I’m not saying Don completely eschewed defense. Of course he preferred agile and long defenders over weak ones, but only if they fit into his offensive “Nellieball” scheme. In sum, Nellie’s clear preference was offensive—not defensive. You know that.

    I do, however, get the basic nature of these postings: Make claim (no matter how ridiculous), rinse and repeat. And repeat…and repeat. But c’mon Felt, get your game up! You’re much better than this.

    One thing *is* clear: Feltbot is a man of idees fixes par excellence. Once a thought penetrates his skull he will grab hold of it and never let go. Our pit bull analyste has exhibited the following fixations of late:

    Harrison Barnes is an abomination; the product of a hype machine that needs to be exposed and laid bare.

    Shaun Livingston and his $5m/year contract was an atrocious signing, producing the “Livingston Effect.” I’m not entirely sure what this is, but I clearly gather that it is b – a – d, BAD! (BTW, notice the little two step Felt danced for us, arriving at the conclusion that Justin Holliday [I like his game, btw] should jump ahead of Livingston and essentially take him out of the rotation.)

    Draymond Green is a 3—not a four. (Knee-slapping argument by Felt. I will address it in my next post.)

    I’ll skip his opprobrium against Barnes because it has, frankly, become tedious. But why the hatred toward Livingston? Let’s unpack that and have a look. (NB: we can’t “drill down” because his analysis is so thin). First, take notice of Felt’s coupling of Livingston and Iguodala. Therein lies some clues. He first claims that the W’s will soon be “gagging” on both of their contracts. Let’s pause here for a minute. This classical rhetorical ploy elides an obvious fact: there’s a massive difference between a contract of $48m locked up for 4 years and 3 years at $16m. The Warriors are most certainly NOT concerned about Livingston’s contract to nearly the same degree as Iguodala’s. Who would be? This is so obvious it needn’t warrant mentioning. But the gambling man has doubled down and conflated the two in black and white to “strengthen” his “argument” so I have to waste time and space pointing this out.

    Felt doesn’t stop here. He then asserts that we all agree that Iguodala’s better than Livingston. Right? Of course, if you say so! No need to explain why in any real depth. But let’s look at what he did say and some of his underlying assumptions. First, the direct quote:

    “the $12 million Iggy is still clearly a better player than the $5 million Livingston, is he not? We can all agree on that, can’t we?”

    Okay, I don’t know if you caught this but I had to rub my eyes till they were sore to make sure I wasn’t seeing things. The last time I remember someone arguing that a player was better based on their salary was in 5th grade (I’m looking at you, Ronald R!). I knew it was a preposterous argument at the age of ten. But by the years of acne and crackling voices I never again came across such a ridiculous argument. Until now.

    Please go on, Mr. Feltbot:
    “And isn’t Iggy just as capable of initiating the offense as Livingston?
    The assist totals would seem to indicate that.”

    Now this is precious. The man who eschews “advanced” statistics is advancing such a crude marker as “assist totals” to bolster his argument. Hey Felt, let’s run Bogut at the point! Look at his assist totals!

    Please…you can’t be serious!!! (channeling my Johnny Mac here) there’s no comparison. Livingston’s a point guard through and through—always has been. Iguodala, it was assumed, could initiate the offense when we surrendered $48m in cap space and 4 (count ‘em: 4!) draft picks to get him. That was a chief justification for giving up all that lucre. In reality the W’s brass was way off on that one. Ever notice how desperate the Dubs were for such a thing last year? Ever notice how infrequently Iguodala played that role—and when he did, how unsatisfactorily? I certainly did—as did the powers that be. And that’s a key reason why they brought in Livingston.

    Felt does compliment Livingston’s ability to effectively run the PnR—as well he should. Remember that the PnR is one of Felt’s favorite sets and an indispensable part of the Warriors’ offense. And notice how he never mentions Iguodala in this regard. Why? Because he knows full well that Iguodala is incompetent in running it. He absolutely cannot hit jumpers off the dribble/move—an important attribute for the PnR to be effective. Neither can Livingston you say. Correct. But he’s still effective in it because he consistently can get to the rim—and does. Iguodala cannot even score on easy 2 on 1 breaks with a clear path to the hoop. Also, how often do you see Iguodala driving to the hoop in the half court? Yet Ol’ Felty continues to claim that he can—and does, even in his most recent post! Iguodala has mediocre handles to boot. I still have painful memories of last year’s Game 7 against the Clips when Iggy squared up against CP3 on the perimeter and tried to beat him off the dribble. Shake and bake! Paul took his money so fast and easy, adding to Iggy’s crippling turnover total of 5.

    And please, we must remember that Livingston hadn’t played ball since last spring due to an injury. He’s effectively playing himself into shape *and* adjusting to an entirely new team. Iguodala, by contrast, has fully assimilated to the team and had plenty of rest and recuperation this summer (he really improved his golf game according to reports) and entered camp healthy. Felt said he’d give Livingston a chance but apparently he’s had enough already! How do you pronounce fait accompli?

    So why all the opprobrium directed at Livingston and the radio silence for the $48 million dollar “super sub?” Is Felt avoiding the topic like someone avoids a gruesome car wreck? Surely not: Felty loves dwelling on such things. So what’s up?

    We have to go back to Felty’s over the top enthusiasm coming in to last season. He bought all the Iggy hype hook line and sinker, declaring that the W’s would go all the way. He got egg on his noggin for sure but he’s not the type to wipe it off. Instead, he pretends it isn’t there and goes on the attack. Could it be the egg nog?

    In fact, Livingston is the player the Dubs thought they were getting in Iguodala. He’s far from perfect and, so far, not been used properly or settled in. But he can play point very effectively (much more so than Iggy), attacks the rim relentlessly (Iggy cannot), can create his own offense (need I even comment on Iggy?) and can hit his foul shots (48% cough cough). He also plays excellent defense (I’d say very close to Iggy in this regard). He’s got younger legs and is still trying to prove himself (unlike Iggy). Overall, he’s had at least as good a season and I don’t see this changing. Look at Iguodala’s game against the Lakers which prompted Felt’s post:

    Pts: 3 (1-4) Assists: 0 Rebounds: 0 Turnovers: 3

    And for the season:
    7 ppg (43%); 2.6 apg; 3.3 rpg

    So why the willful ignorance about Iguodala? Perhaps because M. Idee Fixe enthusiastically supported his acquisition initially so he’s been looking for scapegoats to divert attention. And he thinks he’s found one in Livingston.

    Let’s do a little thought experiment to throw this ridiculousness into high relief: Imagine that the W’s had Livingston under his current contract coming in to this season and they were contemplating adding Iguodala (who had the same year [including injuries] as last for another team—and was performing at the same level this year to date). How much money and picks would you be willing to give up for him? $36m for 3 years 2 first rounders and two second rounders? (Which is what they gave up). $36m and no picks? $30m and no picks? Far far less? (Answer key: no, no, no and yes).

    I’m curious to see what contortions Felt goes through to gloss over the fact that Iguodala has largely been a disaster for the W’s given what we surrendered. Let me predict: He’ll trot out whatever statistics that “support” his take on Iguodala. Look for him to drag up the dreaded +/-; event though he’s on record for disdaining such stats. (If so, he’ll have to cite that for last year and not this, where he’s been a net negative). He’ll certainly also have a slew of excuses, (even if he eschews allowing others to use the exact same excuses for his betes noires)—or conjure up ones that are simply non-sensical: “getting adjusted to the 2nd team!”; “May still have unknown injuries”; “not being used properly; blah blah blah.

    In any event, one thing’s certain of the Feltbot of late: he will never let inconvenient facts get in the way of a specious argument. C’mon Felt, we need your trenchant and intelligent analyses back!!

    • There are so many strawmen here I don’t even know how to answer. I think most of your rage derives from your own difficulties with reading comprehension. Where did I ever equate the defensive abilities of the Harrington and Biedrins combo with Bogut and Green? (The natural comparison for Harrington is HBarnes, for Green, MBarnes.)

      I have never been a big supporter of Iggy. Argued many times against acquiring him. Pointed out many times before he played a game that the Warriors would miss Jack in the fourth quarter. Pointed out from the start that his salary was absurd. And am now in favor of dumping him. And yet I’m somehow his partisan?

      I don’t believe Iggy is better than Livingston BECAUSE of their salary difference. Here’s a reading comprehension tip for you: adjectives are not arguments. I believe he’s better because he is. At everything.

      I was simply stating my belief (which I assumed was obvious to all), and asking whether that was common ground from which we could proceed. It’s apparently not, for you. So make your case, if you care to. A suggestion: Your arguments will read better if not strewn with false characterizations of mine.

    • Beautiful post, Longtimer. I can’t answer for Felt, and I hope he’ll respond. But a few points:

      We have never seen Livingston even ATTEMPT a 3-pt. shot. It’s simply not a part of his game, he knows it, he doesn’t even try. In actual fact, that is a BFD negatory in a point guard leading an open-court motion offense. Livingston scores fairly reliably on post-ups, but a PG on post-ups isn’t playing the role of a motion-offense PG. He’s not directing traffic, he’s doing the solo scoring thing. Anathema to a motion offense. Livingston is VERY good at posting up (usually smaller) PGs, but that’s not what the Warriors offense as whole needs from the PG.

      Livingston is also very good at playing off the ball. When he scoots to the rim and gets a pass, he IS going to score. But is that a PG? For the most part, with the ball in Livingston’s hands, the pace slows down, negating the advantages of the Warriors’ motion offense.

      Iggy this year isn’t the Iggy the Warriors thought they were getting. Maybe he’s lost his legs. His speed is now average, his vertical is a shadow of the past Iggy, his old explosiveness is nonexistent. Maybe his age and/or injuries have caught up with him. Or maybe he’s over-thinking things – why would ANYONE pass up an open shot in the paint? And yet, Iggy shoots and makes 3s, he’s still the team’s most reliable fast break scorer, and he’s creative and flexible in ways we’ve never seen from Livingston.

      In many games, Livingston is the most entirely predictable player on the floor. Iggy? Not predictable. Advantage Iggy.

    • relatively recently some hoops analysts/bloggers/pundits have advocated changing the nomenclature of ‘positions’ and suggested a ‘positionless’ perspective was more useful. they’re not likely to get many converts, but there are some players who could fit the ‘positionless’ trope. green reminds me most of the old school debusschere, whom most remember as a member of the NY team that utilized extensive switching on defense, a tactic kerr and adams are being highly praised for presently. d.debussch’ would play three positions in any given game, on either end of the court, just like green. the other old school guy green emulates was a smallish center in a big 10 school, like green, who became a super-wing in the n.b.a. school –Iowa, team closely associated with, Bos, where his number hangs from the rafters but apparently hidden from the sight of lacob when he was a minority owner there.

      • Yeah, DeBusschere! From a historical perspective, the Ws have a player that is sort of like DeBusschere.

        I’m guessing your 2nd reference is to Havlicek, the toughest, hardest-working, most massively overachieving member of Boston’s early championship teams. Yeah, The Ws have a player that is sort-of comparable to Havlicek too, only he plays bigger and he has more natural leadership qualities. That Ws player in both comparisons is D Green.

        So I’m curious, moto. Iggy and Livingston ain’t comparable to DeBusschere or Havlicek, not even close. Iggy appears to be coasting this year, Livingston plays like a very skilled but overly cautious sidekick. That’s not DeBusschere or Havlicek. Not even close.

        • havlicek was no college center, and played for Iowa’s rival, Ohio St., as did his teammate siegfried (lamentably few wagnerian monikers in the association today, but there’s that schroeder guy at back up guard in Atl), and the personal rival of the center playing for Iowa, jerry lucas (woeyrs blessed with two notable j.lucas’s).

  19. Through the haze of statistics, I’m sure most would agree 25-5 is an outstanding start regardless. It’s really the most important number.
    As another long-tenured GS fan I’ve learned it’s often better to leave the armchair GM at home and just enjoy the pure competition on the floor. Or in the case of Harrison, the pure foibles! Barnes, Livingston and Andre are part of this team and probably aren’t going away soon so let the front office enjoy wringing their hands over salaries and such.

    Warts and all, this team is proving its mettle, and providing great entertainment. Iggy will continue to frustrate fans. It’s who he is at this stage of his career. My biggest qualm at this point is Harrison’s undeserved playing time.

    • Not sure what you’re trying to say here, rzz, but the Clips game saw Barnes play 38 minutes, 5-13 shooting overall (.384), 0-4 on 3s, 4 (mostly stupid) fouls, and (to his credit) 13 rebounds, with a total of 12 points.

      Yeah, 25-5 is damn good. So we can throw away a game by running Barnes for 38 minutes? Is that what you mean? Please elucidate.

      • the perimeter scorers who had their opportunity to contribute a counter to the predictable, rivers-coached, anti curry blitz were the two wunderkinder, thompson and barnes. they combined for as many 3 pt. attempts as the rest of the team combined, and managed 2 for 14. this kind of performance keeps the chatter going about reviving r.allen, whose legs might be closer to expiration defensively than barbosa’s.

  20. Interesting article today (scroll down about 11 articles from the top) on on the use of ‘facial expression testing’ being used in the drafting process.

    I can’t speak to its effectiveness but it’s another tool for GM’s.

    Going to the LG Apple Store next week to figure out to ‘link’ these articles to other sites.

    • 1. Copy the URL from your browser.

      2. Paste on a separate line in your comment.

      3. Be sure to hit return after the link.

      • RGG, I’ve been mostly writing my posts on my IPhone which has a ‘copy’ feature but no ‘paste’ but appreciate the guidance. The Apple Store folks (all in their early 20’s) are very bright & excellent tutors I’ll usually sneak-in a few other questions while I’m there to boot.

    • if folks want another take on the subject written in readable prose, try the k.randall article from the 25 Dec. nytimes, “Teams Turn to a Face Reader Looking for that Winning Smile”. the article has a linked graphic page with examples of application, and the three n.b.a. players used to illustrate the principles are anthony, love, curry. caution, do not attempt if you have an allergy to psychobabble.

    • Can’t help but wonder what this analysis would tell us about Tim Duncan.

  21. PS. It’s by the way. If you’re on the sight enough you’ll glean a few though things though it’s about a 1-5 ratio of ‘informative’ to ‘pointless’ articles.

  22. Fuckin hell. Harrison Barnes is a fine human being, but the worst basketball player on the floor in any NBA game he plays.

    You can’t understand how the Ws lost against the Clips? Try this: Iggy 21 minutes, Barnes 38 min. Fucking hell.

    • Barnes took Griffin off the dribble and scored on him. Why didn’t Kerr force Griffin to guard Barnes more often? I thought Barnes played tuff against Griffin, so much so that Griffin made a big show of stepping over Barnes (and was whistled for a T). Green should play the 3. He would dominate in that position and provide great on-man and help defense. I noticed Green is developing a mid-range game recently, and his drives/finishes to the rim need work and are improving.

  23. The Raptors defeated the Clips on the Clips home court by a pretty wide margin. The East top 4 teams appear to be competive with the West.

    Lowry dominated Paul, and the Raptors center did well against Jordan.

  24. Smith had a good (off the bench) all around box score, although he attempted lots of shots.

    From PopCorn, appears he was played as a 3 and 4 during regulation time and was the only 4 during OT alongside Ariza and Howard in the front court.

  25. Kerr not happy with the Ws brain farts.

    But something I saw, and was glad Kerr did too:

    “Kerr… praised Green’s comprehensively effective 4-point game as the “greatest 4-point performance” he’d ever seen. Said he was “just spectacular.”

    That’s for sure. Crediting Green with “only” 6 steals doesn’t do him justice.

  26. 14 assists for Zach Levine. He’s not a good shooter, or isn’t a good shooter yet, but his vision and speed still make him an effective point guard. 6 came in the 4th. quarter, and I suspect a third went to the hot Daniels. But even so, he was able to find scorers and they were able to hit.

    There’s a point in this, a comparison to be made.

    • His shot mechanics look pretty good to me. I think it’s only a matter of time before he can pretty much do anything on a basketball court.

      • The point, of course, is that the Warriors need a backup point guard and a better bench, one that can score.

        • “The point, of course, is that the Warriors need a backup point guard”

          This has been the fallacy for 3 years now. They don’t “need” a backup point guard. What they need is a guy who can actually score off the bench. I don’t care if that guy is a point guard, a shooting guard, a combo guard, or a power forward (maybe it’s Lee, after all).

          • Curry will have about 10-15 games where he will miss game, or neutralized by defenses, having Livingston helps a lot. Iguodala can do the same too, but not as well. One thing I wanted MJ to try last year was play Iguodala with bench which he never did.

          • Yup. Livingston is a very unique player who can make an impact on this team…. but we definitely need someone who can score. Agree that it doesn’t matter what position that scorer occupies. Hopefully some sort of move will be made as we move towards the playoffs.

  27. Oh Felt, where to begin? I will post replies to your “rebuttals” later. Before that, I want you to know that I do appreciate your replying to my post. As a new contributor I’d like to say that I’m critiquing what I see to be lazy thinking and sloppy writing because I am confident that you have the ability to get your game together again. You’re a smart guy, Felt, and a fellow Warrior fan to boot. If I didn’t feel this way I wouldn’t take the time to do this. I like that your blog invites friendly and mature debate. And I’m not interested in playing with the children over at Golden State of Mind (although I am thankful for some things they provide).

    Unfortunately, this year the quality of your analyses has really dropped off the cliff, I’m afraid. In the spirit of players needing competition to keep them sharp and get better, I offer my help. And no, I was not in a rage at all (projection possibly?). In fact, I used a similar tone to yours—and without the personal attacks. All I want are deeper analyses that are argued with consistency and intelligence. These will beget a higher level of response in kind.

    As we’re approaching the New Year I ask that Felt make the following resolution: to think before writing. C’mon Felt, we already have one Kawakami, we don’t need another!

    • The only way another person can inspire better analysis from me is by offering a thoughtful critique, or their own original analysis. I have scoured this latest three paragraph spew, and found none.

  28. Ok Felt, let’s deal with the various “strawmen” you claim I made up. The main thrust of your complaint is that I have “difficulties with reading comprehension.” Now, that’s rich; never heard that one before. So let’s take a closer look and see who, indeed, has this problem.

    You say that “adjectives are not arguments” referring to this:

    “the $12 million Iggy is still clearly a better player than the $5 million Livingston, is he not? We can all agree on that, can’t we?”

    Okay then, what exactly *was* the $12 million and $5 million signifying? Any reading of this clearly indicates a reference to bolster your argument that Iguodala is clearly a better player than Livingston. Now I don’t believe that you really think that salaries indicate quality. So this begs the question of why you inserted them in the first place. The answer is clear: you were nudging the reader to agree with you. Unconsciously, we all see that price differential and make the link with quality. It “bolsters” your argument in this way even if it is highly disingenuous. And this is precisely why I am exposing you for this. I’ve found similar types of dreck strewn throughout your blogs and I’m trying to get you away from repeating such things. It only diminishes you, my man. (Please readers: let me know what else Felt could possibly be referring to! I’ve racked my brain trying to think of alternatives and came up empty.)

    You claim that you were inviting a debate when you made the above claim. Hardly. No one took you up on this because you weren’t looking for that. Except me. Strangely you asked me to make my case, if I “cared to.” This is rather odd because I devoted more space in that post to directly comparing the two than you have in your entire corpus of writings.

    Before we get to that, I want to address Felt’s claims about how he’s “felt” about Iguodala all this time. Whether you did criticize the acquisition or not, I was referring to last year’s beginning of the year predictions (which you gleefully referenced again with a link this year). You were simply over the moon in your high expectations. One can only assume that you must have had pretty damn high expectations for Mr. Iguodala given that the team made no other positive changes and lost the services of Jack (which you pointed out was potentially very damaging); Landry; and Ezili for much of the year. I didn’t see any negative comments about Iguodala then. And this year, all of your opprobrium has been spent lashing poor Harrison Barnes and Shaun Livingston. I haven’t heard a peep from you regarding your supposed disappointment with Iguodala—whom you now claim you want to dump. I suspect this will be somewhat of a breaking story for Feltbot readers—especially given all of the energy spent bashing Barnes and Livingston, or ceaseless blathering on about your favorite old saw: that virtually all Warrior successes can be attributed to “Nellieball.”

    In any event, I do want to engage you and the readers in the following debate: How do Livingston and Iguodala stack up against each other. Following that, how can they best be deployed to help the W’s win.

    Felt claimed that Iguodala is better than Livingston “at everything.” Really now?! OK, I took the bait. Is Iguodala better than Livingston at:
    1) Free throw shooting?
    2) Producing his own offense?
    3) Getting to and finishing at the rim in the half court?
    4) Initiating the offense as a point guard?
    5) Mid-range game?
    6) Running a fast break?
    7) Posting up?
    8) Rebounding?
    9) Passing?
    10) On ball defense?
    11) Off ball defense?
    12) 3 point shooting?

    You’ve already clearly stated your position: he’s better at everything. Here’s my take:
    Livingston is better at 1-7. They are even at 8-10. Iguodala is better at 11 and 12. This is a somewhat crude way of comparing, I admit. But oOne thing’s for sure: It’s a hell of a lot better as a starting point than simply proclaiming that, “the $12 million Iggy is still clearly a better player than the $5 million Livingston, is he not? We can all agree on that, can’t we?”
    We can all agree on that, can’t we?

    • What on earth is your point and where are you going with this?

    • The larger Iguodala salary indicates he would more likely be moved than Livingston, since they are similar players. Iguodala looks like lost some of his hops and quickness. I see Livingston frequently beat off the dribble, and Iguodala can shoot the 3. I like both players. Warriors still need a b/u PG who can bury the 3.

  29. One more thing to compare:

    Running the PnR. Livingston is clearly better here as well.

    And please, dear readers, let’s consider the Iguodala we have and not his reputation. You know, the one that got blocked by the rim on a dunk attempt the other night.

  30. rgg: I’m referring to an earlier post that Felt attacked. This was a partial rebuttal. My goal is to raise the level of dialogue and analysis. No need to take interest in the minutea of my dialogue with Felt but the question of the relative merits of Iguodala and Livingston’s games–and how they can best be deployed–is an important one, I feel. I was hoping for a real discussion of that as opposed to what I’ve been seeing so far.

  31. Music for the SF 49s:

  32. Just checkin the scores . Dirk turned back the clock tonite and had 30 in a big win over OKC. Tay 6-20.
    I never realized how threadbare the Rondo trade left the Mavs. Cuban has his starting 5, but no 6-13. Its a paradox that will ultimately doom them.
    Charlie freakin Villanueva 15 min? Wubs fans gotta smile..

    • Tyson Chandler was out. Dirk played center.

      I mentioned CV in my season preview. He’s playing stretch-five for them, and hitting his 3s.

      • Rick Carlisle on replacing T.Chandler with Barea in starting five vs Thunder:

        “I took a nep earilier today and I had a dream that I was coaching against a Don Nelson team. Then I got up and I checked my phone and there was a text…saying Tyson was out tonight. It just got me thinking that we needed to try something different against this team because athletically and strength wise we just don’t match up. …so we just took a shot with it”

  33. Listening to the Niners press conference I’m reminded of the parallels between M. Jackson & Harbaugh.

    Harbaugh is clearly tactically superior to Jackson in their respective fields but like the Jackson firing I’m willing to see how this plays out before passing judgement.

    • I’ve heard that Harbaugh really did not have any grasp of X’s and O’s.

      • EvanZ,

        he had a ‘grasp’ (unlike Jackson) however he choose not to emphasize it.

        Lot of interesting stuff in the Harbaugh press conference if you ‘really’ read between the lines.

  34. As for the parallels between Jackson & Harbaugh:

    1) Both relied on emotion & passion to fuel success but in the process severely (Jackson) and somewhat (Harbaugh) negated fundamentals, teaching & tactics.
    2) Neither were strong at player development. In Jackson’s case, his practices lacked structure and an emphasis on ‘the small things’ which wasn’t Harbaugh’s strength either.
    3) Both wore their players down emotionally and in turn physically by emotionally pushing them to their limit. A good ‘small picture’ strategy but a very poor ‘big picture’ one.
    4) Neither had good relationships with their respective front offices which though not ‘sexy’ from a fan perspective does matter.
    5) Each lacked the ability to hear and process feedback (ie. Criticism).

  35. The Pistons’ performance since the return of Jodie Meeks shows why I contemplated betting them over 35.5 wins before the season.

  36. There once was a Dub center named Mo
    Who was itchin’ to get on to the flo’
    He dropped a big sco’
    And he coulda made mo’
    I sho’ hope Joe don’t show him the do’

    • it is your preference then for the team to decline its option in June and have speights re-enter free agency. with the team’s continuing need for bench scoring, don’t be surprised if myers considers the $3 m.+ for the final year of the contract a decent investment.

  37. Author’s Note:
    The following represents an effort to channel Feltbot in all his blogging glory. Yes, I am attempting to parody a Feltbot blog; trying to mimic his felicitous prose and overall feel of his writing. I’ve scoured his oeuvre from the last two years, leafing through reams of finely wrought prose in my effort to better understand the subtleties and nuances of his thinking. Most of all, I’m trying to capture his preternatural ability to dismantle misguided thinking and expose lesser minds; his exquisite timing, knowing exactly when to thrust the knife in and how to twist it to greatest effect. Indeed, I’ve always delighted in his insistence on acidly referring to Bob Myers as the “spokesmodel.” His ceaseless and scathing attacks on Lacob, the Lacobites—and all their pretensions—have frequently made me burst out in paroxysms of involuntary laughter. And his priceless take downs of the “hacks” over at the Merc have resulted in the corners of my mouth curving upwards more than once.

    Hemmingway has his imitators, as does Faulkner. Indeed, there are highly publicized annual contests devoted to just that. So I’m proposing a similar thing here by kicking off what I hope will be the First Annual “Feltbot Blog Parody” (FBP) contest. I could hardly approach Felt and ask him to name an award in his honor so I’m stepping into the breach to get this started. In fact, as Master of the Blog, Feltbot must decide if he wants to run such a contest, so I urge readers to petition for this. I must confess that I really look forward to reading other contestants’ entries. And for the winner, perhaps Felt can dangle that case of Pliny the Elder he offered in a throwdown bet he put forth elsewhere (I’ll get to that later).

    Do note that, ideally, there should be a palpable element of truth in your entries—or at the very least, something that is believable. While I’ve certainly engaged in some hyperbole here, and a wee bit (Okay, perhaps more than this) of distortion there, I stand by the general contours of my arguments. The best parodies, I feel, should have this trait.

    One thing we should all take note of is that we can only create these parodies in the first place because Feltbot graciously has provided us with the material to work with. Without his putting things out there for us to ponder and enjoy this endeavor would be impossible. I fully recognize that if I were to blog as frequently there would be at least as much low hanging fruit to send me up. Indeed, it’s much easier to be on my end than Felt’s.

    As you can imagine, my greatest desire is that Felt himself will deign to reply and indulge us with his take on this—and, ideally, serve as a judge. Most important, I hope he enjoys this send-up and appreciates its humorous—and harmless—intent. Felt, you’re my favorite Dubs blogger by far and I always look forward to your new, and often insightful, musings. Keep up the good work—and sincerest thanks as well! I mean that.

    So, dear readers, please, kick off your shoes, grab your favorite tipple, and a glass of cold water (you’ll see why), and enjoy!

    In the spirit of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I humbly give you this, my homage to Feltbot:

    “On Feltbot: Part One”

    The material I’m referring to herein comes from Feltbot’s most recent blog (“Merry Christmas…”) along with his penultimate one, the ingeniously titled: “Fantasy versus Reality: Part One.” In the latter, he introduced the FFI (“Feltbot Fantasy Indicator,” I kid you not) and regaled us with his analyses based on statistics that are, according to Felt, both completely meaningless and at the same time, somehow, acutely accurate when reconfigured by him. In trying to understand how this possibly could be, I came face to face with some of the deepest mysteries posed by Quantum Physics. It was kind of a Schrodinger’s Cat blog, if you will.

    In any event, this inspired me to develop and introduce a new concept here: the FFWI (Feltbot Fantasy-World Indicator). I had intended to alert readers whenever we were entering this ethereal realm but quickly—and sadly—realized that the need to insert “FFWI” so frequently would prove distracting and lengthen an already long read. So, please feel free to consider the whole thing an extended FFWI.

    Of late, Our Man Felty has been riding yet another rickety hobby horse: this time declaring—against all expectations for Feltbot devotees—that Draymond Green is a 3 and not a 4, after all. This seems to fly in the face of nearly everything he’s been arguing for years regarding the wonders of Nellieball. Let’s tackle how he “justifies” this first, and then move on to the “why”—both daunting tasks, indeed.

    If there’s one thing that’s consistent about M. Feltbot is that he’s inconsistent in his arguments. One day, he’s slamming “x” and the next he’s championing the same “x” if it (putatively) supports his position. Regarding this most recent foray into the absurd, he asserts that Joe Lacob and Jerry West surely do not envision Dray as a stretch 4 to support his point—and then mentions in the very next paragraph that he doesn’t care what Lacob or West thinks! Huh!? I kid you not. My guess is that Feltbot must have realized that some readers might remember his previous diatribes and felt it necessary to point this out. Covered that base! Felt likes to hedge this way so he can exclaim “See!!” when the numerous inconsistencies in his arguments inevitably bubble up into the public’s consciousness. As you’ll soon see, Feltbot is loath to let such inconsistencies or inconvenient facts get in the way of a specious argument. Or, perhaps, he’s leveraging some quantum logics that I’m incapable of fathoming.

    In any event, I’d like to alert readers to how he arrives at his idees fixes so they can spot their early manifestations. Typically, here’s the pattern: we are unwittingly exposed to inchoate burblings of an idea in earlier blogs or replies. A mention here and an aside there to “prime” a (hopefully) analytically challenged and forgetful audience to later accept whatever absurd musings have been transformed into the latest idee fixe du jour. Felt then formally unveils the “full blown” argument in a blog post. And so here we find ourselves now, dealing with the most current idee terrible: “Draymond at 3.”

    Felt first wants us to reconsider Draymond’s physical stature. By the time he gets done, he’d have us believe that we should refer to him as “Dainty Dray.” Hilariously—and I couldn’t have dreamed this up—he cites Chris Webb to “prove” how small Draymond really is, revealing that he had been waiting quite some time for someone to verify his suspicions. (One can imagine Felty thinking that Webb whipped out a measuring tape when interviewing Green—or had Draymond stand back-to-back like we did when we were kids, guesstimated his height, and then announced his findings on air to Felty’s delight.)

    Now Felt, you can get all of the players’ measurements on the draft sites located on the World Wide Web. But listen to this, I’d much prefer to think that the following transpired: someone suggested to Feltbot that he get this information from the Web, which he confused with “Webb,” and then waited patiently for CWebb to come through—which he curiously and by an amazing coincidence, did.

    (Aside: Sorry for taking that little detour but it was actually somewhat related to what I’m getting at. Plus, when you’ve got material like this to work with how can you possibly resist?!)

    In any event, you can get all of the “with and without” shoes heights, along with a bevy of other measurements. What an amazing thing! This isn’t the 70’s anymore…

    Draymond measured 6’5.75” without and 6’7.5” with sneakers (

    He checked in at a sturdy 230 lbs. (although he’s lost weight since) with a low center of gravity and an absurdly long wingspan (7’1.25”)—which is an important measurement for bigs. He’s also Draymond F’ing Green–the tough-as-nails kid from Saginaw who’s as strong as an ox and still very early in his career! But let’s pretend we don’t know this for a bit and let Feltbot carry on.

    For starters, what I want to know is what about the David Lee’s of the world? Yes, the ones (and there are many) that Feltbot has been clamoring for all these years to play at a bigger and more physically challenging position than traditionally expected. You know, play Nellieball! Alarmingly at present, we have Felt demanding that David Lee must play the 5 while insisting that Draymond Green is too feeble to hack it at the 4. Yes, that’s right: the lithe and now highly injury prone veteran—and sieve of a defender—Lee, is a surefire 5 according to Feltbot, and well equipped to do battle with opposing monster 5’s. Yes again, the same David Lee who, if you squint hard enough and use a bit of imagination, can be seen on the court sporting a velvet montera de torero and a cropped, sequined, jacket resplendent with galos de platas directing traffic toward the basket with his red cape. Ole!

    Also, did anyone pick up on Felt’s braying on, yet again, about Lee’s supposed defensive potency? His highly charged…tinged with an almost “you-know-what” exuberance for this caught me off guard, even though I’ve been exposed to this lunacy from Feltbot before. I don’t know about you, but his imploring us to “scour the archives” in search of one (only one!) time Lee has EVER in his *entire* career EVER played as poor defense as Draymond did against the Lakers I found particularly troubling. You could almost hear the heavy breathing. Did anyone take him up on this ludicrous “challenge?” Did anyone feel like they had entered a House of Mirrors like I did—or some kind of bizarre Theater of the Absurd? Was I encountering a parody? Was I hallucinating?

    Well, (and against my better judgment) I did decide to take up Felty’s “challenge.” It seemed like such an easy win—unprecedentedly so—from every conceivable angle. Indeed, I’m supremely confident that every single game David Lee has ever played has been worse defensively than Dray was against the Lakers. Certain in this, I hoped that a case of Pliny would be forthcoming, which I would, in turn, gladly donate to the winner of the FBP (Feltbot Blog Parody) competition I proposed. Kickstarting this is my most important goal this year and I wanted to do my part.

    As might be expected, I soon started to have my doubts. All of the accumulated wisdom I’ve garnered over the years—quite simply that there’s no such thing as a free lunch—indicated that there must be a catch here. But where was it? I enlisted the help of a highly regarded linguist and an amateur philologist to determine if Felt had produced cryptic language that could deceive this layperson into accepting what, by all accounts, is a supremely easy challenge. He’s a smart guy after all! I also got tricked by a similar stunt once before when I was eight years old, and lost out on that coveted goldfish. And I was loath to have this happen again—especially when the stakes are so high. Damn you mustachioed, pot-bellied, grammar school fair vendor!

    These experts in syntax assured me that the language in Felty’s challenge was straightforward, at least linguistically. But I was not yet satisfied and, through extended-family connections, I made contact with a respected Talmudic scholar. Now I’m not a Jew, so this was no easy task. But, after handing over a box of rugelach and knishes—and some nice words about his faith (and fedora!)—the kind Rebbe got down to business. After a few minutes of squinting and some odd gestures he confirmed that, at least in a strict Jewish legal sense, the challenge was kosher.

    But I still had my worries, and I understood why when last night I awoke in a cold sweat, with the word “archive” swirling in my head. As I emerged from my troubled sleep I remembered one crucial point: That Feltbot implored us to scour the *archives* and I had glossed over this, assuming that he meant it figuratively. But to my horror, I realized that Felt must have meant *actual archives*–the kind that he himself had been accumulating over the years. Now folks I ask you, who in their right minds would ever assume that anyone would have spent any time compiling a video archive of David Lee’s defensive “oeuvre?” I can honestly say that I’d feel just as confident taking a stab at explaining the mysteries of unfathomable concepts like “infinity” as understanding why *anyone* would compile a video collection of David Lee’s defensive “efforts.”

    Yet, geniuses often have arcane interests; engaging in pastimes that lesser minds just don’t understand. In that light, Felt’s obsession with David Lee’s defensive “prowess” makes more sense.

    Given the distinct possibility that Felt is somewhat technologically challenged (see the discussion of the possible confusion between “Web” and “Webb”), I suspect that these archives are stored on different viewing instruments that reflect the era in which they were recorded. Thus, “David Lee’s Greatest Defensive Moments, Part One” (I’m assuming that Felt exhibited his genius for titling things early in his career)—which dates back to Lee’s high school years at Chaminade—is likely stored on a VHS cassette. “David Lee’s Greatest Defensive Moments, Part Two” is likely also on VHS, while “Part Three” is probably on a DVD. (I’d like to think he also got hold of a fuzzy Super 8 film of Lee gamboling in his backyard as a young child, which he studied assiduously for signs of Lee’s early proclivities, but accept that this is rather unlikely.)

    So realizing that, unlike my adversary, I did not have any David Lee archives at my ready disposal I understood that I was at a huge disadvantage taking on this challenge. But I was not about to give up, given all that’s at stake (not least being my sanity). I considered letting Felt pick any one of his “Greatest Defensive Moments” montages and pit that against Draymond’s Lakers performance, still confident that Draymond would come out on top. But then I was confronted with the problem of interpretation. Who was going to judge this contest? And using what criteria?

    I imagine that Felt has studied these archival recordings in great depth, compulsively rewinding his favorite moments to savor like a fine brandy. I would also suspect that the wear and tear that comes with such excessive viewing has rendered some of these favorite moments a bit fuzzy. There might even be some dead spots on the tapes. Perhaps a reader can come through and recommend a restorer—or some other solution—for Felt?

    In any event, just like a talented sommelier can discern the most delicate flavors and pick up on the most subtle nuances with his nose, Feltbot has surely developed a highly refined ability to appreciate the extreme (in this case, very extreme) subtleties In Lee’s defensive game. So, where simpleminded people like me might see complete inactivity by Lee, Felt sees Zen-like manipulations and micro-movements not discernible to the human eye. Where I might see David Lee accidently getting in the way of his opponent, Felt will see cat-like quickness and superior anticipation.

    In any event, readers familiar with Feltbot surely would expect that he would have no time for anyone who doesn’t get David Lee’s sublime defensive genius the way he does. Indeed, Felt surely has sheer contempt such lesser mortals. So, knowing that I would not be able to find someone who Felt would agree to judge this challenge, I realized that my last resort would be to enter the challenge by myself and make my case directly to him.

    However, knowing what kind of mind I was up against I worried that Felt could at any time bring up, say, Baryon Asymmetry, Dark Matter, or other mysteries in the quantum realm to confuse me. Or, he could invoke with high expertise any number of abstruse philosophies and bring our challenge to a metaphysical standstill. Remember that Felt doesn’t have to win the bet, but only thwart me from doing so. And thus, before ever formally entering the challenge, I came to realize that I had lost. Now do you see what an utter genius Felt is!!

    (Note: if I had been employing the FFWI [Feltbot Fantasy-World Indicator] alerts, we are just now coming down from a “High Fantasy” level where the needle had been quivering in the red zone.)

    Moving along: Now that we’re back to a higher level of reality (I hope), I wonder if Feltbot is aware that the Demigod himself is on record saying as recently as last year that David Lee is incapable of guarding *anyone*? When informed of this, is he going to insist that Don Nelson doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Well?

    In any event—and perhaps most significant—if Dray must be moved to the 3 what about Felty’s beloved Nellieball philosophy? Did anyone notice this radical disjuncture? Also, is your head spinning like mine at this point? (Caution: If you’re feeling dizzy and confused—as I am—you might want to pause, grab that glass of cold water, and take a deep breath before reading on.)

    So how exactly did Felt justify his arrival at this new idee fixe on Dray as a 3? Well, key to his argument is that we need to look at “analogous” players, like LeBron James, for example—or Carmelo Anthony. Felt makes this analogy to “bolster” his “case.” LeBron apparently does not want to play the 4 anymore—so Draymond, naturally, should follow suit.

    I’ll do my best to approximate a Feltbot mindmeld and break this down:

    LeBron (12th year) and Dray (3rd year) are at the same stages in their careers with the same wear and tear on their bodies. Uhhmmm…. Close enough, I suppose. Check!

    The two have very similar skill sets to play the 3. Uhhmmm….. Close enough, I suppose. Check!

    The two have the same negotiating leverage and league-wide reputations to demand such things. Uhhmmm…… Close enough, I suppose. Check!

    Figuring out how—and why—the supreme champion of all things “small” (on the basketball court, that is) is now pining for the young, rugged, and still offensively rough-around-the-edges Draymond Green—who is playing by all accounts admirably as the ideal stretch 4 (not to mention holding his own at the 5 as well)—to move to the small forward position has got me scratching my head so much I’m going bald.

    Never mind that Draymond has been quite public about his desire to be a stretch 4 and worked diligently all summer to prepare himself for just that. Apparently, this is not important because, somehow, Felt divined some interior motivations that LeBron (may) have in this regard and applied them to Dray. Or something like that. Okay, I’m still confused. Are you?

    Now, as promised, for the “why.” Frankly, I have no freaking idea. Do you? Trying to stir up controversy? Jump starting a campaign to get Lee reinserted as the starting 4? Staging yet another angle for Felt to argue for H Barnes’ removal from the starting 5? In any case, see my discussion of inchoate burblings above. Felt, can you help us out?

    Now if all of this doesn’t seem absurd to you, well, I can get you a great deal on this amazing bridge. Waterfront property! Great views! Be in touch!

    So what to expect next you ask? Difficult to say but—and rather unfortunately, I must admit—the title of his nascent “Fantasy versus Reality” opus invites certain, shall I say, damning associations with, and uncomfortable questions directed at, Felty’s various blogs and musings. In any event, given that we’ve already been treated to “Part One” I can only suspect that “Part Two” is on the way. And for that, I can hardly wait.

    In the meantime Felt, I’ll take that case of Pliny when you get around to it…

    HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone!!!!!

    • More matter, with less art.

      (the Queen/Hamlet/WS)

      • the diatribe/exegesis/parody read like a bad cloning of lauridsen’s style ; admirable on a certain level, that folks who clearly don’t get paid by the word write like they were.

        • Moto,

          Thanks for reading and replying. I don’t know if you “got” what I was up to but I most certainly disagree about the parody’s similarities with AL’s writing. He’s overly earnest, never engages in humor, and stays far away from the attack. None of these qualities are in the least bit “Feltbotian” (Is “Feltbotesque” better?)–or “Longtimerian” either.

          I’d be curious to hear what you think if you were to read it in its true light. But that’s every author’s vain hope, isn’t it?

          In any event, I have found your frequent comments elsewhere to be valuable and look forward to our future exchanges. Happy New Year!

      • rgg,

        Operating under the unlikely assumption that you read the whole thing: thanks for doing so. If not, no worries. Not sure what you mean by “art” but I was trying to be funny….

        • The Queen is addressing Polonius, asking him to get to the point. “Art” in Shakespeare’s day can mean “artifice.”

          Yes, I read the whole thing.

    • I don’t recall — did Sir Charles usually start with 2 bigs or was he more of a 3? As to height, the NBA standard is an in-shoes measurement, allowing for valid comparison. Green as a starting 3 would dominate opposing 3s. He would also always play significant Stretch-4. Question: when Barnes and Green are starting together, which is the 3 and which is the 4? From what I see, Barnes can take a 4 off the dribble much better than a 3 and defends 4s better than he defends 3’s. Green can defend just about anyone. I think the real issue is Green, or his agent, will negotiate a starting position for Green, based on performance. If the FO is committed to Barnes, they might move Iguodala and/or DLee to accommodate Green and his agent and hold to their Barnes vision. And could perhaps pick up a young 4 and/or a 3 shooter, they’re both out there.

      • barkley was fast and quick enough to run the break in his younger phase, and could handle the ball better than most 3’s, so your query tickled my memory midden. his coaches essentially typecast his bulk and rebounding ability at the 4, with occasional, very spotty stints at the three or even in center-free lineups, if you look at the personnel on his Phx teams. during his first few seasons in Phi, erving was the incumbent at the 3, and barkley was a force inside anyway.

    • I was tempted to let the two fine literary critics here, rgg and moto, act as my screeners. But the flattery in the first few paragraphs drew me in and entrapped me. Thank you for the compliments. I confess I did start skimming after awhile though, and I have to say, if this were truly a parody of my style, I’m much more verbose than I ever imagined.

      Again, a formidable number of strawmen in this treatise, that leads me to believe that you either haven’t actually read a lot of me, or didn’t condescend to absorb my true meaning.

      If there is genuine confusion about the “contradictions” mentioned, I’ll try to straighten them out. I believe Draymond is a three first, spread four second because of three things: 1) He needs help in the post guarding big fours 2) He will get beat up and worn down over the course of the season, possibly diminishing his playoff effectiveness; and 3) He is a premier defensive wing, probably top 3 in the league, and that exceptional quality is wasted at the four. True STOPPERS on the wings are immensely valuable.

      Note that this third reason distinguishes him from a great number of other stretch fours, past and present: Al Harrington, Anthony Tolliver, Ryan Anderson, etc. etc. I haven’t given a shit that these players were too small for the four, because they couldn’t guard threes to save their lives. With them, and their numerous ilk, it’s four or nothing, and if their years and/or careers are shortened, tough cookies.

      The three premier stretch-fours in the league, though, are all, like Draymond, three-stoppers. Kawhi Leonard, LeBron James, and Kevin Durant. That makes them threes first, stretch-fours second. Threes to start the game, fours to CLOSE the game.

      Is this a contradiction of Nellieball? Not in the slightest. Nellie himself stated that he preferred to play big when he had the manpower, and his career confirmed that. Nellie’s philosophy was to start big, and end small. Start big so that his bigs could absorb the early first and third quarter punishment from the opposing monsters, end each half small to run those monsters off the floor.

      That is precisely how I believe Draymond should be used. Three in the first and third, four in the second and fourth.

      As for David Lee, my beliefs are completely analogous, as anyone who has read me (and retained what they’ve read) should know. Four to start the game, FIVE TO CLOSE. I have always stated that Lee should not be subjected to the punishment of playing against monsters in the middle to start the first and third quarters. But he is an allstar caliber running five in crunchtime. One of the finest running, pick and roll centers to ever play the game.

      A contradiction? I think not. I think Nellie would have an identical opinion and use for Lee. Did Nellie start Dirk at the five? Never. He CLOSED with Dirk at the five.

      One strawman I will address. I have never argued that Lee is a good defender. I have argued that he is a far better defender than he is given credit for. I have argued that he always plays his man straight up in the post, whether his man is a four or a five. I have argued that he always holds his ground (when healthy), and has very rarely taken more than he gave against the monsters of the West. I have argued that he’s a better pick and roll defender than Bogut, because he can actually come out and hedge against the ballhandler, and still have the quickness to return to his man before he receives the ball. I have argued that his usual job description when playing the four is as a weak-side rebounder, not a strong-side rim protector, and a lot of people don’t understand the difference. Just like Dennis Rodman, also unfairly maligned for his help defense. I have argued that when he gets destroyed by stretch-fours that that is on the coach, not him. He should only on rare occasions be asked to guard stretch-fours, and never in crunch-time. I have pointed out that Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett — two of the finest defensive fours who ever lived — were DESTROYED by Dirk Nowitzki in the playoffs, in their primes. All this I have argued.

      But I have never argued that David Lee is a good defender. Never.

      Although, now that I think of it, I may have been guilty last year of pointing out an interesting analysis I came across. It was an analysis that ranked the power forwards of the Western Conference by how many points they gave up per possession when guarding the pick and roll. And who was the best power forward at guarding the pick and roll last season in the Western Conference ?

      None other than David Lee.

      • Hell yes!

      • Dear Felt,

        The compliments were fully intended and I appreciate your well-argued response. I DO look forward to your take on H Barnes. You’re my favorite W’s blogger, I wasn’t joking.

        We’ll carry in this discussion in 2015. In the meantime….

        Have a Happy New Year!

        • Thanks and Happy New Year! to you and all here. Thanks for reading, and love the critical interaction.

          And while we’re at it, Go Dubs!

    • WheresMyChippy


      Really, if you want to explain the mysteries of an unfathomable concept like “infinity” you have succeeded. Your post is the closest thing to it I have ever encountered.

      Unfortunate that you spent and uncountable number of paragraph’s arguing against points that Feltbot never made. His earlier comments about reading comprehension were not “personal attacks,” just an observation. You either fail to understand what you read or choose to make disingenuous arguments.

      One example:

      You say “imploring us to “scour the archives” in search of one (only one!) time Lee has EVER in his *entire* career EVER played as poor defense as Draymond did against the Lakers” then spent your whole day arguing against that. Except that’s not what Felt said. He said find one game where “DLee was destroyed inside like Dray was in this game.”

      I’ve read every word Felty has written on this blog since it’s inception, so I like to think I have a fairly good idea of what he means when he says something like that. And as he pointed out (indirectly) in his reply to this post, someone getting “destroyed” does not necessarily mean they played “poor defense.” It could just mean they’re not being put in the right position to succeed. Being asked to do something they are physically incapable of doing. (Duncan guarding Dirk out to the 3 point line)

      And I’m not sure if this is what he meant (but I think it is), but I’ve always taken “getting destroyed” as a two-way battle. Draymond got “destroyed inside” against the Lakers because he scored 2 points. While Boozer and Ed Davis put up 18 and 14 points.

      One of Felty’s big defenses of Lee has always been that he gives AT LEAST as good as he gets more consistently than almost any player in the league. If you go through “the archives” (you know, the box scores of all his games) I don’t think you will find a game (barring injury) where Lee got “destroyed inside” the way Draymond did against the Lakers. That doesn’t happen to legitimate power forwards.

      • Thanks for the defense WMC, and don’t forget the rebounds.

        • Thanks to all for the responses so far. WMC: I don’t think you—or the other responders so far—got what I was up to. It was a farcical send-up, which I explained in my preamble. In fact, I was a bit worried that readers (most importantly Felt) wouldn’t get this so I made sure to explain it up front. One of the good things about Felt’s blog is that there’s an amicable exchange by responders and the last thing I wanted to do was to come across as a troll. But most of all, it was meant to be funny. I didn’t get the sense that people got this—or, perhaps, our senses of humor are rather far apart.

          Fortunately—and as expected—Felt DID (alone, as far as I can tell) understand what I was up to and, for the most part, addressed the larger issues I was sending up. I will reply to Felt’s response later. Here I will address my other critics.

          WMC: For starters: very good line about “infinity”—seriously. I was not in the least upset about Felt disparaging my reputed reading deficiencies elsewhere. His was a predictable type of response (see my parody!) and humorous as well. In fact, it was an honor to get “touched up”—as boxing lingo goes—by the Master himself. But I did respond carefully to that and explained why my “reading” was correct. Given there was no response (and that it was a pretty airtight case) I assumed that Felt, you, and others who bothered to read the exchange understood this.
          The extended “archives” bit was, in fact, the result of me awakening at night with an epiphany about the archives—just not in the way I portrayed it. I realized I had something great to work with—and that it would (should!) make abundantly clear that this send up was a farcical parody. Nevertheless, your parsing of the difference between “getting destroyed by” and “playing bad defense” is itself comical. I don’t know about you, but I’ve played a hell of a lot of basketball and if I were ever told that I “got destroyed” by someone on defense I most certainly would understand that as an indication that I played poor defense. Readers: help me out here! Moreover, Felt most certainly was *not* arguing that in terms of it being a two-way battle. Be careful, or Felt may touch *you* up on your reading comprehension!

          The extended archives “bit”—however farcical—most definitely does have a reality bite. The epiphany I came to concerned the fact that it would be utterly impossible to determine the quality of Lee’s defense against bigs down low unless you had ready access to video archives. WMC, you cannot determine this from box scores, as you suggest—you know that. Please! The whole bit was inspired by Felt’s fairly frequent—and often overheated—defense of Lee’s defense. His most recent exhortation in this regard fairly begged for satire. Yes, I know that Felt has not argued directly that Lee is an elite defender; he’s always coy about such things. But he has implied that he just might be a superior defender without actually saying it too clearly. He typically lets others—or in his response to my response—faulty statistics do his dirty work without taking full attribution. Indeed, this is another one of the classic Feltbot ploys that I was sending up. Please see his response—in the last bit above—where he, and rather oh so conveniently, put just this on display. Thanks Felt!

          In any event, comparing Lee to Dray defensively in any way shape or form is a crime against reason—or sanity, have your pick. However much trouble Dray might have had against the Lakers (and we don’t know much the coaching or other issues had to do with this) I am certain that Lee would have fared worse. That is, with all things being equal (i.e. same relative health, same coaching instructions, opposing players playing out of their minds—whatever it might be.) In any case, Feltbot pointing out how DLee might be underrated in this or that aspect of defense is perfectly reasonable. But when he goes on the type of over exuberant praise jag that he does at times for Lee, I can’t help but laugh. Hence the parody.

          I will reply to Moto, rgg, and our friend from Seinfeld individually. But in the meantime, if you have the time, I urge readers to give the parody a second (or third!) read. I’m sorry that there were some who thought it was too long—for them, just don’t read it! But if you do read it again, maybe in a new light you might find it even partially as funny as intended. Most important, I hope Felt gives it a second chance and more than skims it now that he’s clearly (and correctly so) fully assured that it was intended solely as a comical send up. The time and energy I put into this should be an indication of my respect for Felt’s analyses. Indeed, I wouldn’t bother sending Kawakami up (even though ti would be so easy) because I have no interest in reading or engaging with him.

          In any event, I sincerely hope that Felt—and others—give this a second chance and appreciate it for its humor as this was my sole intent.

          • WheresMyChippy

            Fair enough. I certainly got the humor, and had a few laughs. But I must say that if your intention was to parody Feltbot’s writing STYLE like you said in the beginning, then you failed. Felt would never assault his readers with a wall of text like that.

            Space. It. Out.

            While I knew you were being a bit tongue in cheek, I also knew you were still arguing points you genuinely believed, based on your first post. And I still contend that a good number of your criticisms of Felt are indeed straw men.

            Saying things like “Lee, is a surefire 5 according to Feltbot,” and “He bought all the Iggy hype hook line and sinker,” are simply not true. Not what he has said. As he said above, Nellieball is a CLOSING strategy (when you have the personnel to match up otherwise early in the game). Lee is surefire 4/5 according to Feltbot, not a true 5. And go back and read his first reaction to the Iggy signing, very similar to his take on Livingston: not the right fit for THIS team.

            Anyway, of course Draymond is a superior defender to Lee. But Patrick Beverly is a superior defender to Ryan Anderson. Who do you think would have a tougher time guarding say.. Aldridge? Who is more likely to get destroyed? Well perhaps that’s a bad example because they’re both liable to get destroyed haha. But at least Anderson would have a chance!

            I don’t think Draymond played particularly poor defense against the Lakers. He was simply overmatched. Not his fault.

            Yes, there has never been a game where Lee played D at the level that Draymond does every night. But there has never (rarely?) been a game where he got destroyed on both ends like Dray did last week. Look it up. Kevin Love, Zach Randolph, Chris Bosh, KG, Aldridge, Dirk, Duncan, Blake Griffin, etc. Night in and night out for the last 10 years David Lee has battled these men and often outscored and outrebounded them. And even on off nights, he at least put up a fight!

            I’m here defending Lee as much as I am defending Feltbot. Here’s hoping that Kerr and co. figure it out soon and we see him terrorizing opposing defenses in the pick n roll deep into the playoffs.

            I know you have no malicious intent in your contentions with our dear leader, and I know you only look to improve the level of conversation on this blog (you have succeeded! I rarely am compelled to post and certainly not at such length). So thank you for your awesome contribution.

            Happy New Year!

      • WMC,

        Happy New Year! Thanks for the reply and kind words. Indeed, I posted the parody here in great part to raise the level of dialogue. I’m grateful that it inspired intelligent Feltbotters like yourself to come out of the woods.

        It’s inevitable that straw men are created to a certain extent. I confess that I did not read Felt’s take on the Iguodala signing–and I do believe that he called it into question at the time. But go re-read his predictions for last year. That’s what I was focusing on and there was not a peep about Iguodala–nor, for the most part–during the what was a disappointing season from him. Indeed, he was extraordinarily optimistic, which implied high expectations (regardless of the onerous contract and picks giveaway). I would argue that Iguodala’s disappointing play on offense really hurt the W’s last year. Now this year, his performance has been even more dismaying and there has been pretty much radio silence from Felt on this. All of his anger has been directed at Shaun Livingston and H. Barnes for reasons I don’t yet understand.

        I get how Livingston is in many ways an awkward fit–especially with Iguodala on board. But he can run the point unlike Andre–along with a number of other positive qualities. There is no possible way that, as Felt claims, Iggy is better in every single way than Livingston. That’s an absurd statement and I wanted to generate a discussion about how to best use the two. They’re the soldiers we have in going to battle.

        As for Lee, I had hoped that Draymond would supplant him in the starting 5 as early as last season. I see the Lee injury as extremely fortuitous because, agreeing with Felt, Kerr and the upper brass had no intention of having Lee come off the bench (which, conversely, was clearly the plan for Iggy from the beginning). The starting 5 is stronger this way with a player who can hit from the 3 and play far superior defense. Plus, Bogut clearly preferred playing alongside Dray.

        But I am most certainly NOT a Lee hater. In fact, part of the reason why I like him coming off the bench is that he can beast on the 2nd stringers, thus giving the 2nd team some real offensive punch. This will also help him save his body. And full disclosure: I suspect that there’s a chance that DLee is perhaps slightly underrated as a defender–especially last season. But at the very best, he’s in the average range. I suspect he’s probably slightly below this.

        As for the extreme length–the “wall of text”–well, what can I say? If it was a bunch of crap than it was too long. If not, then maybe not? In any event, I can all but assure you and others that you will never be confronted by anything as long as that written by me again.

        I hope to hear more from you in the future….

  38. Why have you got such a hard-on for the guy? I think you’re right about Feltbot (along with some of his most prominent devotees) taking a stance and then stubbornly reinforcing it when suited, but you’re approach is just too intense.

    • *edit* your

    • Dear Mr. Vandelay,

      Is that the actual spelling? That was one of my favorite episodes, BTW.

      While the parody was, in parts, perhaps a bit “intense” I did not intend to be insulting at all. I’m glad that Feltbot fully understood that–as I had expected and hoped. He’s too smart not to, but I do admit that I still worried there might be some misunderstandings–as is evident with your take. Indeed, I simply was mimicking how he takes down others. I think if you were to read it again, you might appreciate this.

      Perhaps most important, I hope that you articulate where you claim to have agreed with me in future responses. Felt’s “game” will improve only if he’s pushed to. He doesn’t need (or want, I presume) toadies as a fan base.

    • BTW: Barnes haters stay away.

    • Absolute tripe. He even gets wrong 82games calculation of his PER against PF’s (it’s mislisted as against C’s). He gives up a 23.9 PER against opposing PF’s, and is net negative against them.

      As for “defensive win shares”…. sigh. You know who the league leader in that spurious sausage stat is? James Harden. Ahahahahaaaaahaaahaaaa.

      And he neglected to mention where Barnes ranked anyway. Curious.

      Never fear, friends, a real analysis is teed up, and soon to drop. Fantasy versus Reality: Harrison Barnes.

      I have a real stat. A patented stat. That will open eyes.

      Of those with open minds.

      • Interesting what u got from article. You probably have not seen improvements across in fg%, rebounding etc.. He has improved across the board and he is top rebounder among SFs. Not a finished product yet but he is showing lot of promise this year.

        • I got that it was shoddily researched and shoddily argued. The stats that you cite are available to all. Do they mean he is “promising” or that he is playing the perfect role in the perfect system with the perfect teammates?

          That wasn’t argued at all in the article.

          I’m about to drop my defensive ranking of Harrison Barnes in the Western Conference. The real defensive ranking. Stay tuned.

        • the article made a point of bringing up the high mileage barnes apparently accumulates on the court, but the writer seems to have missed actually watching how, why, or where barnes is making his peregrinations. his covers less area defending than the real adepts at perimeter defense on the team, green, thompson, and iguodala. no doubt his mileage comes from looping around corner to corner on offense.

    • It’s inflated crap like this that invites the corrections here. This is a horrible article. It skirts around all his weaknesses and inflates what he has done.

      Who wrote this, his PR man?

      • Remember, Harry, you brought this up, so maybe leave the name calling flag in your pocket?

        If there ever was an article that damned with faint praise, this is it. It only states that he has improved over a miserable season. But what is he showing?

        “Barnes can make an impact without dominating the basketball,” Bleacher Report’s Stephen Babb wrote. “He’s a dangerous finisher in transition, a strong cutter and a steady spot-up shooter. And those are all things he can do while allowing Curry and Thompson to make things happen with the ball in their hands.”

        He has shown slight improvement in making his own shots, but what this essentially says is that he has to be set up to score and, in effect, is taxing the guards. He only takes shots he has a good chance of making and passes off the rest of the time. Most of his drives come in wide open lanes. He is only a spot-up shooter, and he has to have time and space to get it off, usually from the corner, the easiest 3 point shoot. His percentage this season is good, now 40%, but he is highly selective and only takes 2.5 3 pointers a game, well down the standings among attempts in the league at 124th. As for assists, he is 176th.

        And remember he plays 31 minutes a game. He’s not giving much bang for his time. On a 48 minutes per game rating he is 173rd in total scoring, 89th in rebounding, this after his recent improvement.

        The article restates his complaint about isos. Granted, this is an inefficient strategy, but note what it represents: a system that allows a player to go one on one against someone his own size and make something happen. It’s what kids did on the playground from day one, and it requires skills that would be useful in the current read and react offense.

        As for his defense, please point to something definite and convincing.

        The article also points to his “once-towering ceiling.” What, exactly is this and upon what is it based?

        What I most don’t understand is why so many have promoted Barnes so much with so little to go.

        • rgg,

          You are nit picking stats. Among SFs, Barnes is top 5 in rebounding, rebounding is indication of effort and hustle.

          #1 in shooting %ages among SFs. We can clearly see his improvements with moves around basket, better foot work etc..

          Improved ball handling but still sub par, #24 in the league among SFs but to his credit

          What I have understood is felt and team here are oblivion to facts that he has improved and he is helping team win the games. No one in their right mind mistake him for a star now, but the quality of posts here goes to infinitely -ve when you can’t digest simple facts. Of course, he wouldn’t be scoring a lot, he is like 4th option at any time on the floor. He is not a volume shooter and volume scorer. You can be in denial but lot of teams out there would build their team with Barnes as 2nd or 3rd best player and dubs are fortunate to have him as a role player.

          Barnes is for real and you guys are in denial. That is all I have to say for you guys on this topic.

          Happy new year to you all.

          • would like to have your hypothesis tested about a team relying on barnes to be their second or third best player, wishing him the best. do woeyr partisans who support and esteem das wunderkind barnes believe he’ll achieve that status for their team, that is another question. he could truly show his mettle for the rivers bunch, who need reinforcing at wing.

          • My point, I believe, is that the article is a piece of crap. Talk about massaging dubious stats.

            It occurred to me later that I should adjust for the SF position, where Barnes is indeed 4th and 5th in total rebounds and rebounds per 48m, which is nice. He is hustling. No one denies that. His rebounds are much less impressive, near the bottom, for PF, but he plays limited minutes there.

            But talk about massaging stats. Your reference to his % completely ignores my point that he takes limited shots in overwhelmingly favorable situations and cannot create more. He is 23rd in scoring among SFs total, and 28th. in scoring per 48. In assists, he is 24th. Remember, there are only 30 starting SFs in the league.

            But if Barnes is “for real” in any significant way, you haven’t made the slightest case.

            Step up to the plate Harry.

          • harry, if Barnes is indeed the 2nd or 3rd best player on another (unspecified) team, and other (unspecified) teams believe that, then I think the Warriors have to trade Barnes for what is needed — a b/u PG who can handle, pass, drive, and bury the 3 and a future pick (the Warriors are short of picks). And there is nothing wrong under that senario of retaining and successfully utilizing both Iguodala and Livingston. As I posted previously, I really like Cunningham, a bench guy on the Clips squad, who can do all of the above and with energy. And the guy is young with size — 6′-4″ and 200 lbs.

        • moto, I would take the risk HB will not be a star and trade him by the deadline to the Clips for Cunningham and a #2 pick (would the Clips part with a #1?). I would also make that trade with Livingston. I would avoid doing so with Iguodala.

          • Getting rid of Iguodala’s onerous contract would be ideal. Again, I’m utterly bewildered that there is so much ire headed Barnes’ way but not a peep about Iguodala, who cost the Dubs four precious draft picks and is eating up huge amounts of cap space. I am most certainly not a big Barnes fan and agree that the article discussed in this thread was both misleading and utterly unconvincing. The quote attributed to Barnes, where he acknowledged he was no LeBron or Durant, was hilarious. I have not seen any major improvement in his game but do acknowledge that he is rebounding, defending better, hitting his spot-up threes, and his free throws. In short, he’s been a very serviceable 5th man in a very strong starting 5. If some other team is naive enough to think he has star potential I’m all in favor of trading him in exchange for what they think he’s worth.

            For all of those Barnes haters, what are the alternatives (outside of “fantasy” trades)? Does anyone–I mean any single person–think that Igoudala’s value to the team relative to their respective contracts (not to mention that Iggy cost us 4 picks) is commensurate with what Barnes is giving us? Anyone? Please speak up!

            I think that Iguodala and Barnes (this year) are roughly equal. Barnes is a better outside shooter, at the line, and rebounder. Iguodala is a better passer and defender. On this starting five, what Barnes brings is at least as valuable as what Iguodala would bring. The demands are rather specific and minimal for this unit. With its outstanding passers and defenders in place (especially with Barnes able to switch up) Iguodala’s strengths are not as needed as Barnes’ shooting and rebounding.

            One other thing: Felt correctly pointed out that Barnes’ performance in the playoffs two years ago was over-hyped. That’s precisely what I thought at the time. However, yes, he was guarded by relative midgets. But he DID successfully exploit that. And what about Iguodala? Was he able to do the same last year? Not even close. This year? Iguodala’s on the second unit this year–a far better one than Barnes played on last year (who was asked to play a different role than he was capable of delivering on) and has been a disaster (relative to expectations a lucre given up). An absolute and unmitigated disaster. And he’s only getting older and worse.

            But not a peep about this.



          • Points well taken longtimer. For what the Warriors had to give up and for what Iguodala is now able to contribute, in retrospect, the aquisition probably should not have been made. Aside from current salaries, for me, Iguodala is the more contributing player to this squad, starter or off the bench. And I think starting, he would be getting Barnes offensive numbers or better and for sure better defensive numbers.

  39. Question for Moto and others: could the Ws have extended Green before the season?

    • Jeez, if they could have, why didn’t they?

    • warriorablaze

      I do not believe so…. Moto would be the one who knows for sure, of course.

    • warriorablaze

      Players aren’t eligible for an extension until after their 3rd season. First round picks are on 4 year deals, which is why they get extended “early” after their 3rd season before the last year of their contract.

      I’m sure you were salivating for something new to criticize Lacob and Myers, but there’s no meat here for you.

      • warriorablaze

        There are differences in 1st and 2nd round pick structures, though, so maybe Moto can find you something to nibble on that I missed.

      • what you stated applies to green’s case, only because he was originally signed using part of the team’s mid-level exception. second round picks have very different contract parameters from first rounders, and teams have to use either a minimum salary exception, if they’re low-balling the draftee, to a two year limit, or in green’s case they used a portion of the mid-level, giving them three seasons. the longer/more expensive contract also gives the team ‘bird’ rights when the draftee becomes essentially a restricted free agent at the deal’s expiration.

        to me it sounds odd to hear lacobite partisans express regret that green could not get extended before testing his market value, if he wishes to in June. second round picks who become solid rotation guys, much less starters, are a great bargain for the teams, and players who’ve proved themselves have more than earned the option to seek their highest compensation or best situation. by June, the team will have had two seasons of toil from arguably the most underpaid player in the entire work force.

        • I keep seeing reference to Green being an unrestricted free agent in the summer. You’re saying he’s restricted?

          And are you saying that Green could not have been extended early like Barnes?

          Clarity, moto, clarity!

          • several sources including espn and amick on usatoday give green’s future status as a restricted free agent. this would be consistent with the alterations in the c.b.a. regarding second round picks that the cohan woeyrs were associated with, a.k.a. ‘gilbert arenas’ reforms.

          • Green couldn’t have been extended and he is going to be restricted free agent. This is the rule ironically implemented after warriors lost Arenas for 2nd rounders.

          • Barnes will be restricted free agent in 2016, Green will be restricted free agent in 2015. Barnes can be offered extension in 2015 and if he doesn’t accept extension, he will still be rfa in 2016. If Warriors don’t extend Green by matching any offer, he would pretty much be gone. So, decision on Green comes in one year before Barnes.

          • thank you, gentlemen.

          • Widely considered the authoritative reference for questions about the NBA CBA is Larry Coon’s site:

            FAQ 60 appears to definitively state that the Dubs could not have extended Draymond. FAQ 44 appears to state that Draymond will be a Restricted Free Agent assuming the Dubs make a qualifying offer between the end of the Finals and June 30th.

          • Draymond is restricted. Believe me.

      • I read the article differently. I also defer to moto. I guess if I was Meyers and had the chance to sign Green at the end of last season, I would be kicking myself today, because that’s his job to anticipate improvment, though I certainly would not have, not this extent. For example, I did not see Green’s value as a Wing defender until I saw him on Durant and Harden recently and had no idea he could improve his 3-shot like he has. I mean all around his improvement is just tremendous. The thing is the FO had no hesitation with HB, assuming continued improvement in light of an OK rookie season and a depreciating 2nd year. Odd to me.

        • Draymond cannot have been extended early. Only players with at least 4 year contracts can be extended (which means 2nd round picks are excluded).

          This is directly from an NBA GM who pm’d me on twitter back in March about the subject. I won’t name names, but believe me when I say this particular GM would not be wrong about such a thing.

          • If you don’t believe me, see Rule #60 of Coon’s CBA FAQ linked to above:

            “Contracts for fewer than four seasons may not be extended.”

            Pretty simple.

        • if you didn’t catch the news over the summer, green’s improved shooting this season is the result of his independent study and training program. while the team was terminating jackson and cutting the assistant coaches loose, green asserted control over his career by hiring his own coach. they collaborated on rebuilding his shooting technique and sharpening related skills such as ball handling and footwork.

          • I wonder if his sprained thumb is still affecting his shooting. A possible explanation for his current slump.

  40. OT: I found this piece horrifying and hilarious.

    I have been recently accused of having cleverly hidden agendas. I disagree. I think it should be obvious that I wear my agendas on my sleeve, and that you can take what I say at face value.

    But I can’t say the same for the author of this piece. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant stuff.

    • thanks for the citation. did the article not remind you of the peerless profit lacob’s training as a (biomedical) virologist, and the various strategies (and scams) venture capitalists deploy both in acquisition identification and marketing.

  41. It’s hard to know what to make of D League performance, but Seth Curry is putting up big numbers: 27 ppg, 52% both on 3s and overall. 38 points in this game:

    • with him it’s all about the pg skills. Too small and slow to be an NBA two.

      • warriorablaze

        …unless he were paired with, I don’t know, a unique PG who is 6’7″ with great court vision and solid wing defense at 3 positions?

        Seth is exactly the type of player we need in our second unit… wish we’d give him another look now that he seems to be becoming more comfortable at the NBA-ish level.

        • You mean the same “NBA-ish” level that Nedovic and Kuzmic routinely dominated?

          • warriorsablaze

            Well, yes, but there are degrees of domination… and Curry’s game relies on skill, not athleticism like Nedo.

            He may not be able to do much more than Jimmer, but Jimmer is in the league and getting 10 min per game. I don’t see why Seth couldn’t have a similar role somewhere.

        • the combination of lack of size and lack of speed is extremely tough to overcome, and accounts for a fair portion of college stars who get buried deep on the bench or find better hoops work overseas. and the lesser curry was no college star. a. morrow may be slow, but he has size enough to compete as a wing and contributes on the boards. remember the lithuanian who came with jackson and harrington in the big trade w. Ind — jasikevicius — highly skilled and smart, just too slow. 5’11 all american digregorio, back in the day before 6’7-6’9 lead guards, had difficulty making the transition, while other guards under 6′ who had speed could. n.robinson is 5’9 but has the speed and power physique of a cornerback.

          • In the same land where falcon peregrinations proliferated, Stephs’ regal magic was conferred upon Seth.

          • Nate Robinson also has a reported standing vertical leap of an astounding 43.5 inches. For comparison, H. Barnes was tested at 38″, Air Jordan at 48″.

            Seth is not in that conversation. WAB, you’re right, the best athletic comparison is probably Jimmer, though Seth apparently has more ballhandling skills.

            Still, with his lack of height and foot speed, Seth would have to be a defensive liability, forever and always (you can’t teach height or speed). While it’s possible to “hide” one player on D, it limits a team’s lineup options. Which is probably the main reason why Barbosa doesn’t see more playing time. On this team, D is a priority.

          • warriorsablaze

            Is Seth’s athleticism all that different from Steph’s?

            Smart players on good teams can compensate somewhat for their lack of size/speed….as Steph has learned to do. He may not be a “stopper”, but I don’t consider him a liability on the defensive end.

            Again, I’m pondering if he can find a role as a 10-15 minute shooter somewhere. Until he gets a real chance with some actual minutes, we’re not gonna know how much his D-League dominance will translate.

        • Comparisons that come to mind are Ian Clark and Patty Mills.

          Clark was impressive, in fact decisive, with the Warrior summer league team a few summers ago. Yet he hasn’t played many minutes at all for the ailing Jazz, I assume for a reason.

          Mills, however, has made an impact with the Spurs. Yet he had extensive PG experience in college—Coach K played Seth at 2 behind his one-and-done pheonoms at Duke. Mills is probably quicker and a better ball handler. And he has been able to play for a developed system, with good defensive players around him.

          I still hope Seth gets a shot somewhere. His Erie team is affiliated with Orlando, though I don’t believe there’s anything binding there. They also tapped Peyton Siva, also in the D-League, but apparently are happier with Elfird Payton, not much a shooter but he is getting assists.

      • Can he be a spot up shooter for few minutes to just have him there to attempt couple of 3s and change game?? Anthony Morrow is like that.

  42. longtimer, within your reply at (39) you make some comparisons between barnes and iguodala that have recurred in variations throughout the woeyr fan blogs. considering this season only, your view that barnes’ relative positives fit with the starters better than iguodala’s, which are duplicated by green for example, might be what the coaches and most fans see. the question will likely take the entire season and post season to adequately resolve, because iguodala has rather more, and more consistent, success in a greater variety of lineups and competitive situations than the younger player. my guess, it’s iguodala’s physical condition that has hampered him for most of this season, and if it improves in the coming months, perceptions will change. let us not forget how the barnes advocates kept alibi-ing him last season, whether it was a never disclosed ‘turf toe’, or a reluctance to assert himself inside supposedly due to his concussion.

    as to your reply (37) to my critique of your parody’s prose style, trying to avoid dissection in verbose detail, my phrase comparing your piece to lauridsen was ‘bad cloning’, and referred to the stylistic/rhetorical gimmicks, not content. lauridsen likes to ornament, with quotes from various ‘sages’, with sagas of what being a fan was like in the not so good old days, with rhetorical devices/persuasions that sound like they’re pulled out of legal briefs and petitions. from you we got great american novelists and quantum physics, and your wordiness bore no resemblance to the prose that you were purporting to parody. when one attends a baroque opera, unless you’re a novice auditor, profuse ornamentation is expected, but even there, beauty and precision redeem the elaborations from long-winded over extraction. even if this blog chose to adopt baroque opera as a stylistic model, we would still need to aspire to beauty and precision in the words.

    • Bravo!

    • fail again. fail bestest.

    • Moto,

      Thanks for your reply. First of all, I’d like to respond to the general critique that the parody was too long. I admit that I rarely respond to blogs and am not familiar with the reigning expectations in the community. It seems that by taking up so much real estate I offended some readers’ sensibilities. Perhaps it came off as arrogant or presumptuous? I can assure everyone that this was not my intent. In fact, I approached it thinking that by taking the time (a lot) and energy (same) to write a lengthy response I was showing respect to Felt and the community. I myself see it that way and would welcome such extended efforts—especially in comparison to the norm (i.e. dashing off quick responses, which are fine as well). But, as I’ve discovered, the “Golden Rule” often is not very applicable. In any event, I didn’t think that submitting such a long piece would be a problem simply because the “scroll down” option was at everyone’s easy disposal. But to those of you that were offended: mea culpa! I can reassure all that you will not be confronted with such a “wall of text” by me again. That was a one-off thing.

      Back to Moto: I honestly tried to figure out how my extended parody was similar to AL’s blogs and I’m at a loss. He never uses humor, for example. Plus, I never quoted anyone—nor wrote in the dry style of a legal brief (have you ever read one?). Moreover, how you conflate a legal brief and baroque operas is beyond me (kind of Feltyesque of you, in fact). My best guess is that the references to non-basketball items upset you for some reason. “Get straight to the point and no embellishing allowed!”—seems to be your aesthetic stance (Are you an engineer by any chance? I grew up in a neighborhood loaded with engineers and your “no-nonsense” aesthetic reminds me of many of my friends). Perhaps my use of “big words” also offended. In any event, please remember (again) that this was a parody.

      Now, if you are going to criticize the style and lack of artistry, I would have thought you would have given me the respect to point out examples of where the prose was clunky; or syntax garbled; or where I used inartful or mixed modifiers—or poor grammar. Indeed, my post was so long there should be ample examples of this. But nothing from you, except insults.

      In any event, please let me take a stab at your writing, to provide guideposts for how you could better criticize mine. First of all, your “e e cummingsesque” refusal to capitalize words I find distracting. This unnecessary and silly affectation makes it harder to see the stops and starts in your writing, and thus, the natural flow of reading it is
      disrupted. But let’s examine your first “pithy” stab at insulting my post. The direct quote:

      “the diatribe/exegesis/parody read like a bad cloning of lauridsen’s style ; admirable on a certain level, that folks who clearly don’t get paid by the word write like they were.”

      Now, this is the only sentence you wrote. Just one. Does it even make any grammatical sense? Unlike Felt, who exclaimed “Bravo!” Mrs. Pustay, my fifth grade English teacher, most certainly would be disappointed with such a submission.

      • From Catch 22:

        “How’s our prose these days?” Colonel Cargill decided to inquire while he had ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen on the phone. “It’s much better now, isn’t it?”

        “It’s still too prolix,” ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen replied.

        • Brilliant!

          I’m impressed indeed with this insightful response. But be careful: Moto apparently doesn’t like non-basketball references; nor quotations; nor “big words” like “prolix.”

          “Just the facts, ma’am” to quote another pop reference.

        • @LT, simply an opera reference, and an appreciation of an aria bravura.

          I didn’t expect you to get it.

          • @Felt: If we want to be more correct: “aria di bravura.” Are you referring to your “Bravo”? I got that. Otherwise, I still don’t get what I reputedly don’t get but….I DO like the reference to baroque opera, at least in the abstract.

            Also, my response to your response (to my “prolix” parody) is t’eed up and ready to go. Where would you like me to place it. I eagerly look forward to your response….

          • Orwell:

            It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.


            Do read the whole piece.

        • rgg, replying to your second response. I don’t understand it but at least I got you away–however briefly–from your idee fixe on slamming Barnes….

          • rgg,

            You are operating on an ethereal realm. I wish I could join you in the empyrean but fear that I don’t have the appropriate intellect to do so. I’ve read a number of your posts and the quality of the thinking seems, consistently, to be rather pedestrian. But I suspect that I don’t have the capacity to pick up on the subtle intricacies of your mind.

            But, more important: I think we should be careful to not let this insulting banter get in the way of discussing what we’re here to talk about. I can handle it (I don’t take it personally) but others might not. Furthermore, those not involved might (and probably should) be annoyed. So, I propose we get back to discussing the Dubs and keep our barbs restricted to the quality of the arguments put forth.

            Are you down with that?

          • I’ll ignore the sloppiness of your backhanded criticism and agree. This is good advice. I suggest you do the same. Remember what got all this started.

        • rgg, thank you for inducing me to re-read the Orwell essay. if you’re no longer teaching writing, students are the poorer for it.

      • longtimer,

        The posters here are paranoid in that, they don’t like owners/FO, they fear ownership group favor Barnes over everyone, while in contrast Barnes is the one who was offered for Love’s trade, not Klay and not Green. Felt and some also fear that team will have to chose between Green or Barnes while in reality, extension for both will come into picture a year apart. Barnes extension actually coincides with the David Lee’s contract running out.

        I get the love for Green(should be and must be in long term future) but don’t get the hate for Barnes. Some day they will realize that is not either or not case with Green and Barnes. Green extension comes down to following(in my opinion):

        * match his offer(could be 9-11 mils range) and pay lux tax for one year
        * somehow dump contract of Lee or Iguodala to extend Green while not going over tax

        Both of the above scenarios do not involve Barnes. Lacob reportedly huge fan of David Lee and Barnes but when it comes to making team better, don’t think he even blinked offering both for Love, he is a venture capitalist and they know how to separate what they like Vs what team needs.

        Next summer is a test for ownership, would they be true to their words when they said they will pay lux tax if it means contending. To be seen.

        • If Green plays 3, where does Barnes play?

          • One of them start at SF with Green always finishing. Split Green’s minutes half way as PF and SF, around 18 mins at each position. Barnes play 24 mins at SF and then -10 some minutes at SG, PF depending on match ups.

            I think Green brings more to team as PF than SF but that said, the pounding he has to take as full time PF is not sustainable for over the season so for long term health, he should play equal minutes at PF and SF.

            My 2 cents.

          • An unacceptable logjam to the agents of both Green and Barnes, if not the players themselves.

            Bear in mind that Barnes is obsessed with his brand. Do you think he’s content with being a fifth option throughout his career? With being paid what will be on offer from the Warriors for a bench player?

            The Warriors are going to have to choose between these two players within a year, unless they view Green as a full-time PF. (And he views himself as a full-time PF). I find both conditions exceedingly unlikely.

        • Thanks Harry,

          I agree with most of what you say. I’m not a huge Barnes fan but am trying to stay open-minded about him. So far the expiriment has gone better than I had expected. And you’re right about the Barnes and Green contract dilemmas coming up at different times.

          Now, finally(!) Felt recognizes that the W’s have to move Iguodala and his 36m contract (the 4 picks are gone). Good luck with that! But no one seems to care about that and want to disparage Barnes at every turn.

          • “Now, finally(!) Felt recognizes that the W’s have to move Iguodala…”

            Holy fuckin Christ on a corndog, Harry. Felt opposed the Iggy signing from before it happened. WTF are you talking about?

            “…But no one seems to care about that and want to disparage Barnes at every turn…”

            My friend, no one hates Barnes here except possibly that lightweight rgg. Skip over rgg’s posts and you’ll notice that the rest of us, Feltbot included, have been perfectly happy to acknowledge Barnes’ contribution this year. Delighted, even.

            None of the above tells us anything about how the Warriors front office will jump, though. As you say, the team is probably stuck with Iggy’s contract at least until he gets over whatever is holding him back this year.

            And be honest now, Barnes is no opponent’s nightmare. Not now, not ever. His peak isn’t “team leader,” it’s more like “mid-level journeyman.” Make him a 1st or 2nd scoring option on any team, and it will not be pretty. That being said, it absolutely IS disconcerting to see Barnes featured in the team’s marketing programs. It has to make you wonder how good the FO is at evaluating talent.

            So a) ignore rgg, and b) don’t put words in FB’s mouth. It’s perfectly understandable for Feltbot to be concerned about the ability of the Warriors’ front office to evaluate talent. The proof of that is in the hype the team slathers over… a mid-level player (at best), instead of the team’s leaders.

      • As a sign of respect, longtimer, will try to lard my comments to you with more ‘caps’. omitting them helps me communicate efficiently in a couple of ways — it assists my retarded typing technique, and reminds me to re-read and edit (especially here where editing after posting isn’t possible) with care. Apparently you reject my subjective response to your writing, because it has no resemblance to lauridsen’s ; o.k., it’s only a personal impression.

        Seeing non-hoops references here is often a welcome break from the monomania, and if I was adverse to them, mentioning baroque opera would be a significant contradiction. Inclusion or exclusion of metaphors is up to the writer, but purpose and suitability make them useful to the readers, like rgg’s succinct quotes from Hamlet and Catch – 22.

        my hunch, trying to avoid projecting too much into rgg’s intentions, neither he nor I would take the time to comment on your writing if we wanted to save ourselves the bother of reading and scroll past. we’re trying to get a clearer understanding of your content, but some formal elements make the course somewhat foggy.

        • Not sure what you mean by my intentions. I certainly wasn’t making comparisons with Polonius and Col. Cargill.

          But if you start adding caps, some cosmic balance will be disrupted and I will have to start removing them myself.

          • it helped me maintain what remains of my idealism to imagine that your instructive quotations came from an interest in longtimer’s opinions, while fending off the obstacles in his writing style. will only increase my use of caps in my responses to longtimer.

        • Moto–

          I sincerely hope that we can hit the re-set button. You are a poster that I’ve always respected and hoped to discuss ideas with. I was responding to the sleights that you hurled in my direction. If you had problems with the quality of the writing, pray tell how and exactly why!

          In fact, I spent some real time crafting the parody and I most sincerely hoped that it would be appreciated. I also (naively, perhaps) thought it was pretty damn funny. I’m well aware that we are in no positions to judge ourselves–especially when it comes to humor, which is so subjective. I ran it by some friends/colleagues (no all Dubs fans but razor sharp all) and they uniformly liked it–even it they didn’t get all the references.

          In any event, Please feel free to read it again (if you have time!). Perhaps you’ll appreciate it in a different light….

  43. @44

    I believe the official, though necessarily unstated, reason for putting Barnes in the starting lineup is to give him a chance to develop and make use of his limited offense with the better players, as well as have Iguodala bolster the second unit. It’s not working, for reasons I suspect we’ll hear about from FB shortly.

    The Seth Curry discussion @43 brings up the shortcomings of the roster. Unless Holiday pans out, they don’t have any shooters on the bench, other than Speights, who has surprised us all and bailed out the team on several occasion. And it’s been this way for years.

    It’s odd, though. While the debates about Barnes and Bogut are heatedly divided, Iguodala does stir much passion at all. The reasons, in all cases, I suspect are cultural.

  44. felt,
    “Bear in mind that Barnes is obsessed with his brand.”

    It is only folks here who says so anything about Barnes brand. If Barnes won’t like to play for dubs because of money or role he will be offered, he would let go. But, nobody knows that. And if he doesn’t accept the extension offer from Warriors, he will be RFA in 2016. If he still doesn’t get good offers else where, he will be forced to take qualifying offer from dubs and become unrestricted in 2017. In short, warriors FO is in driver seat in Barnes negotiation. With Green, it is other way around, Green will be able to dictate terms. Green is smart, he will not go overboard with his demands.

    • “Michael Jordan was able to branch out and go into endeavors that have a more sustained effect,” Barnes said. “That’s why his product is still able to sell, like the Concords”—the Jordan Brand shoes that consumers rioted (sometimes literally) to buy this past Christmas.

      Barnes is quite attuned to managing his own brand. . . . Of course, there’s one thing that would strengthen Barnes’s brand almost immeasurably. All season, North Carolina has been among the favorites to win the NCAA tournament. And Barnes recognizes that making it to the Final Four in New Orleans this year, and seizing a national championship, would have profound historical resonance. That’s because back in 1982, a UNC freshman named Michael Jordan led his team to the national title—also in New Orleans. “There’s no better exposure and no better way of getting the hype machine going than UNC returning back to New Orleans, 30 years after Michael Jordan, of all people, won it there,” Barnes told me. For the first and only time, he dropped his cautious analysis and let his excitement show. “It would be an unbelievable stage,” he said, breaking into a wide smile. “And if we end up winning a national championship there? The media might just explode.” And so, ultimately, would Barnes’s bank account.

      And he flopped in the NCAA tourney, which is when the real analysts began rethinking the Barnes’ myth. Lacob bought the hype, however, whole. His words have been linked here.

      This is getting tedious, Harry. You freely label people you don’t agree with, yet you don’t bother to read what they say or argue closely yourself. Nor, apparently, have you done much reading. The criticism against the Lacob regime has been discussed here for years, much based on actual words of the owner.

      And it strikes me that the FO’s strongest defenders seldom look at what they say and do. There’s a phenomenon here worth examination.

      • Article written 3 years back when Barnes was 19 year old. Didn’t Lebron call himself ‘king’ before he played his first NBA game ? The point is, you guys are piling on a young guy. Show me any stupid comment he made last 2 years. Did he come out and complaint about being demoted to bench in 2nd year ? I can link you stupid statements by young nba payers and I don’t find any stupid statements or stupid behaviour from Barnes over last two years. Even if you didn’t like his branding thing when he was 19 year old, did it occur to you that may be he is more matured now than he was when he was 19 year old ?? If warriors FO promoted him how would that be his fault ? BTW, every franchise will promote their first pick the same way and also will trade them if they can trade the same player for better one, it is business for owners. He is not Ron Artest nor Lance Stephenson. Even Kobe said and did stupid things when he was young and his teammates came out publicly criticizing him. I haven’t seen any of Barnes teammates calling out on him for attitude or laziness or so called branding thing.

        You can continue your narrative on Barnes, seems like you guys are enjoying it. I will join the chorus when I see Barnes do any stupid thing too but won’t hold my breath.

        • Jerry West worked with HB and had this observation:

          West said he felt heading into this past season that Barnes coming off the bench after the signing of Andre Iguodala was going to be a problem for the second-year player.

          “I think he felt like he had played so well that he was going to automatically get playing time,” West said. “We signed Andre Iguodala, and I think immediately that bothered him, OK?”

          I don’t know if Barnes has worked out his reality problems or not. If you read the Atlantic piece (you didn’t), you’ll see he learned early the value in keeping to himself.

          Barnes is fighting for his professional career, after being propped up and supported for so many years. And there’s no good explanation why he got minutes over Green the first two years. Finally, he has started hustling. And he’s still being propped up by the starters. The question is when he can start carrying his own weight.

          You still have not made a single convincing argument as to why Barnes is anything other than a marginal player.

          • It’s your flabby arguments and delusional speculations, btw, that keeps these comments coming. No one is enjoying this.

          • warriorsablaze

            Ha… you’ve written 1000+ words a day for years now on the exact same topic.

            Perhaps you don’t enjoy it, but you clearly live for the misery.

  45. Harrison’s branding and no. 7 draft status don’t bother me. His poor play on the court does. The lack of instints which hamper team flow on offense. The passive overall nature of his game- watch him (attempting to) box out. He does not get contested rebounds. I’ve rarely seen a player of his size and athletic ability so bad at following his own shot. Moto commented on his defensive peregrinations, noting his high mileage was a bit of a smokescreen. His defense is more about posturing than fight. I can still see 5’2′ Juan J Barea bodying him and taking him to the hole in the Dallas game. No resistance, not even a foul. Ditto with 17 yr old Zach Lavine in the minn game. On O, Harrison’s 3 has improved. This aspect of his game, if he keeps improving on it, might keep him employed. He has made no other strides in his offensive game since his rookie year. He seems content to drift on the periphery and avoid agressive movement. His handle hi-jinx are still TO’s waiting to happen.

    HB is lucky to be playing on this team. The Warriors outstanding start is giving the org, and even the fanbase, the opportunity(?) to resist putting Harrison’s flaws under the microscope.
    He’ll probably give his usual 11 pts and 6 boards vs the Raptors tonite. But watch him closely. Trust your own 2 eyes.

    Harrison, if you read this blog, it’s nothing personal, I’m rooting for you. As a fan I can’t help the way I feel.

    • I think Barnes is doing what Kerr told him to do: simplify things. The starting unit is so strong that what they need from Barnes most critically is rebounding, hitting free throws, spot up shooting (especially from 3pt. land), slashing and converting at the rim, and solid (and flexible) defense. He’s done better at all of these–except defensively (perhaps) than the person he replaced.

      He is widely known as an extremely hard worker (again, unlike Iguodala) and doesn’t seem to be nearly as interested in his golf game or post retirement business opportunities s you-know-who. He also takes up almost no cap space and cost us no draft picks (again, unlike the person he replaces).

      I would assume you’d be far more disappointed with you-know-who…

      • Slashing and converting at the rim? Solid and flexible defense? No and absolutely not.
        Please watch Harrison closely, and not just notice him when he scores or swoops in for a rebound. You will realize that he is not a plus player. He is actually a detriment as a starter on a team with championship aspirations. Reread the first paragaraph of my previous post.
        Worrying about lost draft picks and (supposed) work ethics won’t change things.

    • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

      What bothers me is the fact that you want to bitch and moan about Barnes while the Warriors are 26-5. Shut up and enjoy it. You are splitting hairs because your dislike for Barnes is greater than the like you have for the Warriors winning.

    • You should erase those DVD games from last year and start watching Barnes this year. His play does not resemble the play you describe this year.

  46. Felt, Here, at long last, to respond to your response to my parody/encomium of your inimitable style and analyses. I responded elsewhere to Felt’s hyper-praise of Lee’s defense, which he coyly (and adroitly) keep at arm’s length by citing others or deploying dubious statistics that he himself have no faith in and can easily disavow when required. Again, see Felt’s gambit at the end of his response to me where he cites an “interesting analysis” that had David Lee coming out as the best power forward PnR defender in the “entire Western Conference.” He even created a theatrical pause to underscore his sheer delight. Also, further up, he begins a sentence with, “Just like Dennis Rodman” when comparing his defense to Lee’s. Please take note that this is the same kind of thing as Felt’s declaration that we must all agree that the “$12 million dollar Iguodala is better than the $5 million dollar Livingston.” This stuff is priceless! Sorry, but *someone* needs to call our dear leader out on it.

    Every reader knows that Felt employs these kinds of gambits all the time; here implying that David Lee is a strong defender (or whatever agenda/idee fixe he’s up to pushing) and then, there, disavowing it in the rare instances when someone pushes back. “He did it, not me!”—he seems to scream. And then Felt’s Janissaries (or Praetorian Guard?) leap to his defense when challenged. Now, finally (!) we have Felt on record declaring that he, “never argued that David Lee is a good defender. Never.”

    And now for Felty’s argument that Draymond is a 3. First of all (and this was dramatized my “mindmeld” in the parody), his “substantiating” this by analogizing it with LeBron’s career and current situation is, at best, an unrelated distraction. Feltbot offers three reasons why “Dainty” Draymond must be moved to the three (except when the W’s go small at the end of the game/1st half). First of all, I think it’s clear that he’s been trying to set all this up by establishing the false belief (which has, bizarrely, been picked up by several contributors to the blog) that Dray’s been getting “destroyed” by the top 4’s in the league. Our first sighting of this came in the absurd “challenge” for us to “scour” the David Lee defensive archives to find evidence of him *EVER* getting destroyed down low like Draymond was by the Lakers. How will Felt disavow this? I suspect that he will “innocently” exclaim that he was only referring to one game—which begs the question of why he even mentioned it in the first place. (Again, see my reference to “inchoate burblings” for a hint at what’s going on here—and what to expect).

    Felt also argues that Draymond must move to the 3 because he needs help at the 4. First of all, he’s performed quite admirably in this regard—even stopping some 5’s. Did you see him against Blake Griffin twice this year—and all last year’s playoffs–almost the entire time with Bogut out? Anyone? He also has among the best performing defenders in the entire league according to a bevy of “advanced” defensive stats–and achieved this with the vast majority of the time being matched up against these same 4’s and 5’s he supposedly is getting destroyed by. And while such stats can be unreliable, they are all we have to go on in addition to what we observe—and both corroborate each other. Please take note that I’m not trotting them out only when they conveniently support my argument du jour, as a certain “someone” has been known to do.

    In any event, sure, the W’s do send help Dray’s way when he’s getting backed down on the blocks by a “monster 4.” But what team wouldn’t?! Not only that, but the Warriors as a team have been playing at an extremely dominating level defensively—by every measure—with Dray installed at the 4. Nevertheless, Felt has spotted trouble on the horizon! (Spoiler alert: guess who Felt will want to replace Dray at the 4 to ameliorate the imaginary “problems” the Warriors are “having” defensively? Just one guess…) In addition, Felt was perfectly OK with employing this strategy—indeed, brimming with excitement—elsewhere, proclaiming that this is *exactly* how a good Don Nelson “Nellieball” team operates. Does anyone remember how ecstatic Felt was about the W’s playing “Nelleiball” with Bogut and Green at the 4? Everything was just hunky dory—until now for reasons I cannot fathom. Is it just me?

    Ok, so who replaces Dray at the 4? You guessed it: it must be none other than David Lee, the same player that Don Nelson said “couldn’t guard *anyone.* He doesn’t need help on the blocks against monster 4’s and 5’s?? But Draymond does? Lee, who Felt now also admits is not a good defender (readers, let’s hold him to that!) is better equipped in this regard than Draymond, who he regards as being an elite level defender?! Plus, in connection to Felt’s other point (i.e. your “concern” that the robust, young, healthy and strong-as-an-ox Green will get worn down playing the 4), why is there no similar concern for the lithe and injury prone veteran Lee to bang away at the 4 AND 5 the entire time he plays. Am I going crazy?

    As for the greater importance of a stopper at the 3 than at the 4—which Felt did imply; why exactly is that the case? In fact, his three arguments—weak as they are—melt away when taken in context of the actual situation we’re discussing. We must remember that on the Dubs roster there’s a surfeit of outstanding wing stoppers at the 3 and an absolute dearth of them at the 4. Dray is clearly the Dubs best stopper of the 4 so why take him away from this and create an even bigger logjam of defensive stoppers at the 3—the team’s greatest strength? And why the sudden need to have David Lee replace him at the 4? Everyone who knows Felt must have understood that this is where he was headed all along. And this is precisely why I revealed it as being a disjuncture—or blatant contradiction—with his “Nellieball” philosophy/fanaticism. The W’s can play elite defense AND Nellieball at the same time with Dray at the 4—according to Felt—but now we have to change that to a starting lineup featuring Lee at the 4?! Indeed, there seems to be no good reason for making this change now—except to get his beloved Lee back in the starting lineup.

    Dear Felt, is the parody making more sense now? I await your considered response….

    • I’ve tried a couple of times, but that’s it. Your difficulties in parsing my opinions, or willingness to misstate my opinions for your own inscrutable ends, are not in themselves inducements for me to engage you. You’ll have to content yourself hereafter with responses from others, or from the voices in your head.

      But thanks for reading!

      • Felt,

        What an utter disappointment. I’m in shock and saddened by your response. I had expected a lion and got, well, you know what (hint: begins with a “p”). I don’t have any inscrutable ends (that I’m aware of). I only wanted to engage you in a real discussion and this is what I got.

        Nevertheless. I will definitely give you a chance to redeem yourself. We all need second and third chances.

        C’mon Felt, you’re waaay better than this….

    • Please take DLee out of the equation when analyzing the Warriors 3 position. Draymond is a natural 3 and would far exceed Barnes.

      • Playing Green at the 3 is like playing Curry at the 2–sure, he’s pretty good at it but why bother when he can give you so much more at the 4 (Curry, the 1)? Really, why not Green at the 4. He’s doing a great job guarding 4s and then on O he can set the high screen for Curry and you’ve got a 4 guarding Curry at 25 feet?! Pay no attn to Feltbot’s cherry picking the Lakers’ game! That’s one bad game for Green and everyone on the team was off. Green has contained Griffin, Randolph and Ibaka. He is awesome at the 4.

        • Precisely. Felt’s setting us up for a “Get David Lee in the starting lineup” idee fixe. If Draymond gets injured F.elt will be the first to start bleating “I told you so!”–even though he could easily have been injured playing the 3. Or, when the team inevitably goes through a rough patch watch him trot it out. It also goes against his whole “philosophy” as articulated so far.

          Just last night in an interview on NBA TV Dray was asked if he’s worried about getting worn down playing the 4 as Felt is insisting. He said no way and reminded the interviewers that chasing around the 3’s would be just as tiring. But Felt apparently knows better than both Draymond and Kerr….

  47. Harry and Longtimer—

    With one notable and unfortunate exception—I guess he can’t help it—no one attacks others here or tries to censor posts. Rather they disagree with ideas and arguments. As for players and owners, they are public figures open to discussion and, when circumstances require, to ridicule.

    Calling your meandering posts “parodies” does not mask what you’re doing Longtimer. Nor are they in any sense of the word parodies.

    At any rate, I’m going to try not to stoop to your level anymore. It’s a trap.

    • A little bit of attacking others and censuring posts is always fun.

      Longtimers, your posts are definitely meandering, and not entertaining enough to be labeled parodies. And they’re too damn long.

      • rzz,

        You and I had the beginnings of a disagreement about Barnes, which is no problem (I will address that above). Again, only one thing I submitted was a parody. And if you think they’re too long and meandering, don’t bother reading them. Simple. No worries.

        As time goes on my posts will be much shorter than that one parody. This recent post was on the long side because I was cleaning up a recent scrap with Felt and his response to my tribute parody. He provided 3 reasons why Draymond was a 3–and all but said my argument was weak, and *did* say it was filled with straw men. I wanted to fully disabuse him of that–hence the longer post, which was intended for Felt. So far, “Crickets” as he most memorably has put it. I had a briefer earlier exchange with him about the relative merits of Livingston where he proudly claimed that Iggy was superior to Livingston in every single aspect of the game. I challenged this absurd claim and broke it down. Crickets again.

        I’m still eagerly waiting for the Man’s response. But in the meantime, I’d like to clear up another misconception: Felt has not only attacked public figures. In fact, he’s gone after other bloggers routinely and excoriated posters that didn’t “bring game” more than once. Indeed, Felt seems to be someone who spoils for a good fight. Bullies shy away from contact and so far (for the most part) Felt has displayed behavior that I expected from him–i.e. an ability to give as one gets. And I respect that; otherwise I wouldn’t be spending the time to engage him. So, Felt, I most sincerely do look forward to your response….

        • longtimer, from my seat on the nether end of the table, der Feltmeister substantially responded to your challenge in (37). Green is an excellent change of pace defender vs. some 4’s, but that is not quite the same as a stopper. a number of the better 4’s would make him look ordinary if he was their defender the entire game. he can shut or slow down a much bigger percentage of the association’s 3’s through 48 min. the inconsistent quality of the opponents so far this season should not obscure how the better coached teams know how to attack defenses, not that the bussies who were so successful are in that group.

          • Moto,

            Thanks for your reply. first of all, please write in the style you prefer as I can surely adjust.

            As for Green at the 3, what will that mean for the W’s? Clearly Felt is setting the table for arguing that Lee must be reinserted as the 4. I can’t see any other scenario, can you? Is he arguing for Barnes and Green to switch roles? Surely not. For Iguodala to play the 4? Please. Clearly, he wants Lee to return to the 4 based on the hilarious argument that he is the superior defender of opposing 4’s. He very well might be the only person who claims to be a student of the game who thinks this way.

            So what is your argument? Is it the same–i.e. that Draymond can’t hack playing the 4’s defensively so David Lee should step in to play the 4’s (and 5’s) because he alone has the defensive chops to do this? You can’t possibly be backing this absurdity. I mean that…

            I just want to alert people about what’s going on here and how silly it is. Felt, the small ball obsessive Nellian (his interpretation of what that exactly means) wants David Lee to replace Draymond Green as the 4 in the starting lineup because he is superior to Green as a defender in that role and because he’s worried that Green won’t be able to hold up in that role. Please, please go back and read Felt’s arguments regarding this and the three reasons “justifying” this. Few things can be clearer.

          • I also responded to it at length in 48. He refuses to “engage” me on this. I wonder what the real reason is….

          • Is there a single defender who guards the same guy every possession? The answer is no. When you factor in the Warriors’ switching defense, positions are practically meaningless.

          • Like that concept Livermore, especially when MoS or DLee are at the 5.

    • rgg,

      I had suggested that you/we tone down the negative tenor of our interactions and had planned to give you a “wide berth” as they say. I had noted to myself beforehand that you love to frequently “mix it up” and be pretty negative. And that you also exhibit the Feltbotian proclivity for the never-let-go idee fixe. Thus far in my early forays into the blog, your approach to me has confirmed this. In fact, just within the last few hours another poster suggested that the beleaguered Harry ignore you, the “lightweight rgg.” Good advice but unfortunately put, I thought. Well, I will give you wide berth. Here’s the compromise I propose: you stick to your obsession slamming Harrison Barnes and I will carry on trying to engage our Master Blogger–and the many other thoughtful posters–in a serious discussion of the Dubs.

      Also, I submitted only *one* parody and was very up front about that at the time–and afterward. This post–and all the others–reflects a sincere effort at analysis. There’s no “trap”–and I most assuredly am not interested in “entrapping” you of all posters into a discussion. At all.

      But I still await Felt’s response….

    • tee hee. Maybe your notable exception doesn’t find any value in your copy-paste-repeat posts, rgg.

    • How about any time a poster takes Felt to task, he calls them a “Troll”? Doesn’t seem to follow your script.

  48. I think the Warriors will extend Draymond with the understanding that he will give them 1 or 2 more years at PF and then slide him back to SF when they are in a position to acquire Serge Ibaka.

    haha, at least, that is what I am wishing.

  49. Curry said that an early role model for passing and ball movement was Jason Williams. Watch the youtube below and see how many plays look familiar. (I can’t find her Chronicle piece.)

    I’m trying to think how many times Fitz has complained about Curry’s one-handed passes, only to have Barnett quietly correct him on their merits. The other night, we got the same on his behind-the-back, again with Jim’s correction. They are deceptive, sometimes necessary, and can be incredibly effective.

    Curry makes it clear he is not showboating or trying to get a rise from the crowd. Rather, he is trying to get the offense going and raise the level of the game. Curry is the complete package. Taking risks, pushing expectations, and raising surprise and tempo are all parts of the intangibles he offers. There isn’t a single element of the game he hasn’t tried. And if he flubs a pass, you know he will get better the next time.

  50. Toronto—

    What an utterly brilliant game. It’s why some of us keep our reserve and criticism, because we know what they are capable of.

    Iguodala did a good job running the subs, and he finally found someone to pass to—Lee. He made some brilliant passes, one on the run in transition, another on a busted play, late in the clock. Look at his eyes, how he sees the court. At some point in the first half, Kerr asked Curry about guarding Lowry, and Iguodala stepped in and said “I got him.” He should have been in when Toronto went small at the end of the first half and made their run. They will need him if they’re going to make a charge postseason.

    Lee is coming back. He gave Johnson plenty, made plays, and got in for scores.

    What a difference scoring “bigs” make. 38 points. Put Speights in a good system and see what he can do. And Curry has brought out everything in him.

    And Green. Just amazing how much he makes the system work when he has players around him. Or what he can do on his own.

    No argument with Kerr at all. Right players, right system, big results.

    I see Feltbot has covered the holes in his tweets.

    • +1 excellent recap of what I was able to see. Unfortunately, my messed up cable system prevented me from seeing whole chunks of the game, so I won’t recap myself.

      • You can’t switch back from this X system? I got Comcast. I assume I have to sign up to get it? I hate to think they’d do it without my knowledge.

      • Jeez Felt that’s a real shame. It was one heck of a game. The Raps played very well, yet the Warriors were just…spectacular.

    • Yes, Iguodala ran the squad when Curry was on the bench. Livingston had 0 assists tonight.

  51. How good is Toronto, anyway? They look on paper like a second tier team and they really only have one win against a top tier team, Memphis. But their bench makes them lethal.

  52. tonight’s game was a pretty good illustration of how green’s defense would be wasted if he had to mind a cruiser/heavyweight 4 (Tor’s don’t really qualify as such) around the paint for most of the game. suspect not many of the observers here got to see a.robertson (SA) play, but plenty did see pippen or s.jackson. ace perimeter defenders can disrupt opponents baseline to baseline. that is who green is, and what he does. s.jackson disrupted nowitski (who does much of his work on the perimeter, anyway) for a series, but that didn’t mean he was best taking on 4’s regularly.

    • How many bruiser 4s are there really? And why do you look at only one end of the equation? The other dude has to guard Draymond too.

      • Let’s go down the list of what he’ll face in the playoffs:


        Other than that, it will be a cakewalk. Unless NO somehow sneaks in.

        (I love the fact that everyone in the world is now arguing for pure Nellieball now, though. Where were all you guys when Maggette was starting at the four?)

        • warriorsablaze

          Duncan and Randolph are the only ones here with great low post games… and Green blocked Randolph multiple times last time they played.

          Aldridge mostly scores from the midrange and Green kinda has Griffin’s number.

          It really depends on Bogut’s status come playoff time. Having an undersized 4 is easier to work with if you have rim protection backing him up.

        • warriorsablaze

          Why would anyone be excited about Maggette at the 4?

          I’m for whatever system maximizes the talent of our roster…. in this case, it calls for large stretches of small ball and an uptempo game.

          • There you go.

          • Here’s a link to Dray’s interview with NBA TV.


            He is asked directly if the demands of playing the 4 will break down his body. He confidently swats that away and makes the case that he’s be just as tired and “broken down” having to chase 3’s around the court. Maybe he just doesn’t know something that Feltbot (who we recently discovered has trouble even watching the games!) because….well,….he’s Feltbot!

          • Thanks!

            You wrote:

            “Why would anyone be excited about Maggette at the 4?”

            You nailed precisely the kind of wackiness that Felt is serving up. Blatant contradictions be damned!

            Yes, Draymond can’t hack the 4 but Magette is just the man for the job. Unbelievable.

            Glad to know there are other sane people here.

        • Two things:

          A. The Warriors obviously don’t play traditional positions offensively or defensively any more, especially when Bogut is out. So Green will take his turn on the great players you mentioned above but won’t play exclusively on them.

          B. The Warriors are creating a system, especially offensively, in which Green’s lack of a traditional power forward’s body is actually a blessing for the team.

        • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

          Unless the NBA is changing the rules it would be impossible for him to face all of those in the playoffs. There are only 3 rounds. At most he will face 3 of those and if the Pelicans are in the playoffs that means either Duncan or Ibaka will not be.

    • [Sorry moto, probably should have posted this reply directly to you as you opened the thread (still a newbie here!)].

      Here’s a link to Dray’s interview with NBA TV last night.

      He is asked directly if the demands of playing the 4 will break down his body. He confidently swats that away and makes the case that he’s be just as tired and “broken down” having to chase 3’s around the court.

      Amen! And right from the horses mouth. (Thank God I didn’t have to wait like Felt did for CWebb to confirm Draymond’s “true height.”)

      In any event, maybe Dray just doesn’t know something that Feltbot does (who we recently discovered has trouble even watching the games!) because….well, ….. he’s Feltbot!

  53. I’m curious. Did Speights drive Valanciunas off the court? V was -7 in both stints, at the tip off and the beginning of the second half, this stint only a few minutes.

  54. GooseLosGatos

    Green will be a max player….

  55. Atlanta now tops in the East, and yes, I did bet them over before the season.

    • Don’t hurt your arm…. A bit of the season yet to go n’est ce pas?

      • I need them to go 18-32 the rest of the way to win my bet. Let me know when it’s ok to celebrate.

        • How about when they go 18-32?

          • How about I wait until the Warriors last game to write about them?

            You may have something, it will be so much easier to make my predictions. And I won’t have to shake off nearly so many trolls.

        • Ah, throwing out the ole troll card. If I had known you needed the attaboy so badly, I would have gladly offered it.

          Attaboy, Feltbot. Great prediction! Keep up the great work!

  56. Green tonight: 16 points, 11 rebounds, 13 assists. Those are PF numbers? Common guys, he’s the Warriors best 3. (Unless the Warriors sign Durant, then I don’t know what.)

    • Also 2 steals and 2 official blocks (although some said he had 2 more that weren’t recorded).

    • The “3” is a complete fiction. The “4” is a complete fiction.

      You put people on the court who can do specific things well. Things like pass, shoot, dribble, play defense. The number thing is bogus.

      • @Livermore,
        Thankfully some clear-headed reasoning here. Bravo! Elsewhere you bring up the fact that the W’s switch all over so Felt’s new obsession with Draymond’s supposed frailty (I wouldn’t be surprised if Felt starts questioning whether Dray suffers from neurasthenia–or some similar disorder) is less of a concern.

        So can you help me out as to why Felt (and his henchmen–I’ll post on that later) are now pushing for the Dubs to shake up their starting lineup and move Draymond to the “3” with a yet-to-be-declared, still “mysterious” player slotting in at the “4.” As far as I can tell, teams must start five players (I might be wrong: moto, can you chime in please [channeling my best Feltbot here]) and if not, even I would be surprised to find Felt arguing that the W’s should only start 4 players.

        So who is this mysterious player that Felt is pining for to replace Green at the 4? Felt now refuses to reply to my questions. I suspect that he might have been suffering from indigestion, or acid reflux (or some other gastrointestinal ailment, just a feeling I get), so I’m hopeful he will begin replying directly to me when he feels better. In the meantime, I’m putting it out there to all the other posters who agree that the W’s need to shake things up and change two of the starting five positional players:

        1) Who is the mysterious player that should replace Draymond at the “4”?

        2) Why for heaven’s sake is this necessary?

        • Longwinder, your second question is brilliant. Next time before you post, ask yourself the same thing, in a general sense.

          I know youre trying to enlighten people about “what’s going on here and how silly it is”, and it’s very noble, but hey, it is Feltbots’ creation. You should be thankful he is allowing you to post your passive-aggressive observations and “parodies.”

          • rzzmark:
            Good ones! Love the “Longwinder” bit and might consider changing my handle to that. Perhaps that would display enough humility and convince people of the truth: that I believe that this should be fun (and funny where possible) after all. Especially this year!

            As for being thankful to Felt: I AM and have stated so in the past. Yet again, if I didn’t think he (and the community here) were worthwhile I most certainly would not be taking the time and effort to contribute. But just like Felt, when confronted by silliness or shallow and conformist thinking, I will have some fun with it. And just like Felt, I’m willing to ruffle some feathers in the process (in my case with no harm intended–I can’t speak for Felt, but I sense it’s the same for him).

            I can’t imagine that because this is “Feltbot’s creation” we shouldn’t be able to propose ideas and shoot down those I disagree with in just the way that he does. Can’t imagine it. But I’m starting to get that sense, unfortunately. I certainly hope not; not just because I don’t want to get run out of town (which I don’t) but because it would be a very sad commentary on how a supposedly fun and open community of people who all share the same–positively disposed–passion (Go Dubs!) at a time when we should be bursting with happiness, would police conformity in this way.

            I don’t want to have to wear a “Scarlet F” on this site and want to be part of the discussion. And have fun. And make people laugh. And ask honest questions in the hope that I will learn from the answers. I simply cannot be more serious and upfront about this.

            In any event, will someone please answer my not-too-difficult questions?

        • One response longtimer, which I think is valid, is put your best 5 guys starting on the floor appropriate to the position. At this point, I don’t think there is any doubt Bogut, Green, Thompson, and Curry are the Warriors 4 best players. Who do you choose as the 5th best player? DLee, HB, Iguodala, Livingston, MoS? I choose DLee. 2nd to DLee, I choose Iguodala. When Bogut returns, probably ought to limit his minutes during the regular season, a lot, and go with MoS and DLee at the 5 like last night.

          • Marc,

            Thanks for responding. I think the W’s should deploy the best lineup that works well as a team. Before this season I was hoping against hopes that Green would supplant DLee in the starting 5, but never thought it would happen unless there was an injury to Lee. He can stretch the floor better than Lee and plays much better defense. Bogut prefers playing with him and he’s just a better all around player than Lee. The team results have proven that out.

            I DO like Lee’s game and agree with Felt that he could be a devastating 5 if used properly and in the right situations. I also really like him on the 2nd unit providing much needed offense and beasting on opposing teams’ 2nd units.

            I don’t think that H Barnes is a better player than Andre. In fact I think the opposite. But Barnes’ game fits in better with the starters and Iguodala can be used situationally and is more versatile.

        • WheresMyChippy


          Here’s the way I see it. Come playoff time, our BEST starting lineup is probably:


          With Iguodala being the 6th man that could come in for ANY of those 5 depending on the situation (opponent, foul trouble, etc.).

          He could come in for Lee and Dray slides to the 4. He could come in for Bogut and Lee slides to the 5. He could come in for Curry, Klay or Dray at any of those 3 positions should one of them have foul trouble.

          And once again, Felt is NOT pining for Dray to be “replaced” at the 4. Reading comprehension! He has said time and time again that Dray should get minutes at multiple positions, but his value as a stopper on the wing is immeasurable. This does not mean he should be played exclusively at the 3. Everything depends on the opponent and situation.


          If you really believe Livingston is a better all around player than Igoudala and should surpass him in the rotation, then I guess you’re smarter than Kerr, Gentry and Adams and know something that they don’t..

          • WMC,

            Thanks for replying. The lineup you suggest would be very strong. But it loses some things that Draymond gives at the 4 (and Lee provides off the bench). I have more on this replying to Marc above.

            Reading problems? Hmmmm…Felt argued strongly to me and elsewhere that Dray is a 3 and not a 4–and provided 3 reasons why. Yes, he does think that Dray should play the 4 in the 2nd and 4th quarters. Call me crazy but that means someone must replace him at the 4 to start the game–and the 2nd half. Who is that mysterious person and why is there the need to shake things up now? Changing two positions now makes no sense. Are you not satisfied with how the team is playing?

            I don’t believe that Livingston is a better all around player–I’m waiting to see. Livingston’s on the upswing in his career while Iguodala is on the downswing. I’m giving him a chance, unlike Felt who had it out for him from the beginning. Moreover, Felt’s absurd claim that Iguodala “at everything” reveals much about him. Take note.

            In any event, Tom Thibodeau went out of his way to heap heavy praise on Livingston, saying that Dubs fans don’t realize how good he is. Jerry West said the same on numerous occasions. Perhaps you and Felt are better basketball minds than they are? And when has any of the W’s coaches come out and said that Iguodala is clearly better than Livingston. Do you know something that hasn’t been revealed to the public?

            Finally, if the criterion for correctness resides in what the coaches seem to think, then you better start riding your hero Feltbot on that because it is apparently his favorite thing to do. In fact, he heaps scorn on those that cite coaches whose beliefs differ from his. I suggest that you let him know how deluded he is to ever question the Warriors’ coaching staff. Pronto!

          • Should have read:

            Moreover, Felt’s absurd claim that Iguodala is “better at everything” than Livingston reveals much about him.

          • Also, are you aware that Feltbot is on record recently declaring that the Warriors should dump Iguodala?

            I wouldn’t think so given your post….

  57. I hope like Felt tweets above Holiday isn’t froze out like Bazemore was. Holiday shoots well off the dribble and on a catch & shoot when he’s guarded, but when he’s open, he has a kind of funny wind-up, which Felt also noticed. I think part of it is like what Barnett keeps stressing – step into the shot. Holiday might also have to go thru a Klay-up phase, hopefully a short one. His help defense and general court awareness is already good. Kerr hedged his answer a bit on why he subbed Holiday in before Livingston. He said it’s important Holiday can shoot and is confortable playing Iguodala, Livingston, and Holiday together without either Thompson or Curry on the court.

  58. Toronto impressed me. Vasquez and Williams kept ’em in it, but Mo and JHolliday countered with excellent games that bode very well for the future. Justin is an intriguing player.

    Dallas will not win the NBA title. They have the hands-down, man-down worst bench in the league (El-Amin is the best sub and hes not very good) and will need the starting 5 to go 70 more games by themselves. Dirks’ D and lateral movement are starting to make Kobe look a demon. It almost looks like he’s playing on stilts. He’s still got the beautiful jumper, and the fade-away, but this will be his swan song.
    The clips and suns are on a level with the Mavs. Longshots to go all the way. Not eminent threats for the Warriors.
    The Blazers and Grizz are better, but not good enough. 33yr old Zach Randolph is gonna run the court in a series with the dubs?
    Houston I cant figure out, but I’m glad they’re not playing well.

    Mondays game should be a doozy. It would be fantastic to see Kerr and Co challenge, and reward, Justin with a start on Durant. I believe KD was under the defensive talons of the Falcon last game, to the tune of 30 pts – at halftime.

    • So many dominoes are falling the Warriors way. Bogut is beyond iffy for the Warriors in the playoffs, but it seems most of the most fearsome big men in the West are breaking down as well. Howard, knee. I’m alone on this right now, but I’m dead certain that Ibaka is ailing. Griffin might be as well — didn’t he have offseason surgery? His boards are down, and he doesn’t seem to want to play inside. Zach Randolph, knee. Duncan and Dirk…

      In the East, Noah hasn’t appeared right all season.

      With every passing day it appears more and more likely that an all-out smallball approach could get through to a championship.

    • Yes, Barnes played him exclusively. Nobody else came within 5 feet of Durant. Geez…you’re rotting from the inside out.

  59. Thank you, Larry Riley.

  60. From Popcorn, either MoS or DLee was on the court and never together the entire game.

  61. Things might be shifting — Iguodala played more minutes than Barnes and Holiday more than Livingston tonight.

    • I spotted that too. In the Clippers loss, Barnes played almost 2x Iggy, which is kinda, well, insane, unless Iggy just can’t do the minutes. Maybe Iggy is able to deliver more minutes now, or maybe the coaching staff is just finally focusing on putting its best players on the floor. Even while it looks like something is holding him back this season, Iggy always impacts the game.

      Last night it seemed like Kerr was channeling FB re Livingston’s/Holiday’s playing time. Holiday made some rookie mistakes, but he gives the 2nd team an all-over-the-court scoring threat. With Iggy playing point, Livingston is a wing player without a 3-point shot – a lower priority player.

      • A note on Iggy v. Lowry: With Andre on the bench at the start, Lowry went for 11 points + 4 assists in Q1. With Andre closing out the game, Lowry shot 2-8 in the 2nd half overall, and in Q4 shot 0-3 with just 1 assist.

        With the Ws switching-style D, Iggy wasn’t the only player opposing Lowry at the end, of course, but still, Lowry got completely shut down.

        • Thanks for the link. I just finished watching the replay, and Lowry was extremely frustrated by the Warrriors switching in the second half. Not just Iggy, but Klay and Dray stopped drives cold. A formidable weapon indeed.

          I note that Barnes got no fourth quarter minutes. I guess I made a slight error in my analysis above. Kerr is choosing between Holiday, Barnes and Livingston. Iggy must play. He’s the second unit point guard, and the best defender.

    • Barnes’ shot was off from the get-go last night. You could see it in the warm ups. They need Barnes’ rebounding next to Green against most teams, but not last night when the Raptors went small most of the night. Hence Iguodala. This blog should try to contain its glee about Barnes having a bad game. He’ll probably play well against the Thunder and your odd biases will be exposed again.

      • “This blog?” Dude, we’re all happy that Barnes is contributing. The issue, if there is one, is the disparity between his contribution and the amount of hype he receives from the team’s marketing dept.

        Barnes is not a bust, but doesn’t deserve a starring role. No one here says otherwise. rgg gets a big kick out of questioning Lacob’s judgment, for some reason. Barnes is a handy excuse for him to do so.

        • Direct your emails to the PR dept then. Why blame Barnes for the organization’s priorities? You do remember the Warriors are 26-5 with Barnes as the primary starter?

  62. Felt, I see in post #52 you mentioned having trouble watching the game via your cable system. I have Comcast but do all my NBA watching online. I suggest taking a look at this site It blows away NBA League Pass for numerous reasons, two being subscription price and their no blackout rules. You can watch every Warriors game live regardless of whether or not you live here in the Bay Area (League Pass blacks out Warriors games in the local market). And every game is archived and available for viewing within minutes of game’s end. Assuming your internet speeds are reasonably fast you’ll find that their video quality is fantastic. Their servers are located in the Netherlands (and also just added some in Australia) which enables them to offer this service in the US without retribution from the NBA (Why pay $200 for League Pass when you can purchase Ballstream’s highly superior package for half the price or less?). Check it out, Felt. No need to miss any more Dubs action this season.

    • Thanks. I might have to look into that.

    • warriorsablaze

      The answer to the question you ask is that Ballstreams is not affiliated with the NBA and is technically a pirate operation… regardless of whatever loophole they have temporarily put themselves in to operate, they are stealing content.

      While I appreciate the pressure they apply to the NBA to improve their mediocre and overpriced product, as a musician whose livelihood has been directly affected by content theft, I can’t support it… especially when said thieves are profiting from their theft.

      • Answer to what question? This is no “temporary position to operate”, Ballstreams is going into their 3rd year of offering NBA games to the consumer, they’ve been in operation offering the NHL for much longer than that . Back in the ’80’s I lived outside the Bay Area and installed a large satellite dish (not talking about DISH or DirectTV) to pick up broadcast signals for my television viewing pleasure, and I very much enjoyed the idea that I didn’t have to give my money to a cable outfit to watch television. Unfortunately, where I live now I have no room for the same type of satellite dish.

        “Stealing” TV broadcast signals is hardly my idea of “content theft”, or do you object to all those “thieves” in America with TV antennas on their rooftops? Bottom line, Ballstreams is a great site for NBA junkies, a few of which hang out here.

        • warriorsablaze

          However you want to rationalize it for your own moral comfort is up to you. Stealing isn’t a subjective concept…. It’s quite simple, in fact. When someone owns something and someone else takes it without permission, it’s stealing.

          I’m sure the service is great… Just don’t pretend it’s something that it’s not. It’s piracy. Period.

  63. Lee appears to be much more active defensively. I think coming off the bench will be a boon to his late career. He’s averaging 2 blocks per 36 minutes currently, which is 5X his career rate.

    • And he’s not completely in shape yet.

    • The nice thing about today’s Ws lineup (including the rise of Speights) is that no one has to run iron-man minutes, like Lee often did in the last few years.

      It really is shocking to see Lee get blocks! But I don’t think it’s from coming off the bench per se. More likely it’s just because he’s more rested and healthy than he has been in years. He’s always been a smart player, even on D, but didn’t always – or wasn’t always able to – give the effort on D that we’re seeing from him now.

  64. It’s just fascinating to watch Kerr’s lineups and roster decisions. He’s not doing anything he’s “supposed” to do, but rather experimenting with players and lineups, seeing what works best.

    Fitz started the game with his concerns about their inability to match up with Valanciunas (never listen to Fitz). Instead, he ran him off the court. He’s “supposed” to start his veteran Lee, now on unrestricted minutes. I don’t know that the previous coaches wouldn’t have started Kuzmic to match V’s size. Instead he started a reject and budget player, Speights, who but for one year with Memphis has only started a handful of games his entire career.

    But Speights has talents that simply have not been exploited. Make no mistake: it’s his outside shot that opened up the court and other players. 5 of his assisted plays came from Green. And he is capable of going inside, enough to present a threat. MJax gets some credit here, as he pushed Speights to drive more last season.

    He’s supposed to start the 4 star, expensive acquisition, Iguodala. Instead he’s moved him to the second unit. Whatever is going on with him, this is not good use of him. He depends on having scorers around him to be effective. But lately he’s having Iguodala run the offense and has given him some scorers, recently Lee.

    In the case of Lee, Iguodala, and Bogut, he’s taking the load of them and helping them manage the season with limited minutes. This will pay off later.

    He’s “supposed” to keep trying the new, fairly expensive veteran point guard, Livingston. Instead, he’s moving him off the ball and running the offense elsewhere.

    And he’s not supposed to play the minor acquisition over all the others, Holiday. Instead he’s brought him straight up and gave him big minutes in a serious game last night, where he played well.

    I’d give anything to know what goes on in practice.

    And am curious how he’s going to work lineups when the others return.

      • I’m guessing Kerr & Co are having more say and freedom now. Sigh of relief. Remember Myers’ statement they will go big whenever they can, which you cited earlier. Kerr deserves all the credit for making this happen. I didn’t keep up with the Harbaugh debacle, but am guessing his major flaw was not knowing how to court the owner.

        • As a wordsmith, rgg, perhaps you could see the value in using less loaded terms to describe the relationship between an employee and his boss. Instead of “court the owner,” we could use terms that most sane employees acknowledge as workplace reality. Maybe it would make it seem less nefarious.

          “communicate with the man signing the check,”
          “keep the boss in the loop,”
          “make your case with management,”
          “include management in the decision-making process,”
          “provide the professional expertise you’re paid for, to guide the owner.”

          Really, coaches share some of the same job requirements as any mid-level manager, in any business. Freezing out the boss, failing or refusing to communicate, or even a “bunker mentality” all deny bosses a right which they do in fact have. Also a responsibility those bosses have, to oversee their employees and make their own best – informed – decisions about the efficacy of the employee’s activity.

          From a mid-level manager’s viewpoint (or that of a freelance professional consultant) the process is often referred to as “managing upward.” Those who can’t do it are doomed to fail, because it IS a job requirement in the commercial world. A great (downward) manager who freezes out his boss is not performing his full duties. Every successful manager knows that. Whether we “approve” or not, it is a fact.

          Maybe George Karl, Lionel Hollins, Michael Malone and Mark Jackson, to name a few successful (but recently fired) coaches should figure that out.

          If you chose different terminology to describe the process of working with management, maybe it could even seem more OK for Lacob to perform his duties too.

          • Hat, that is the reality of it. I was running a program and would up-date my boss and his boss regularly and occasionally run a few scenarios by them for advice. After awhile, my bosses boss in a meeting with me and my boss told me, no I expect you to make the decisions (operational) out there, that’s your job. At that point, I shredded my official job description and did what he said.

          • I called it “managing upward,” but it’s also “trust building.” It sounds like you successfully accomplished that.

  65. Livermore @47

    “Why does this cadre take Barnes so personally?”

    A more interesting question is why you and others persist in this take, but I’ll avoid speculation. All criticism of Barnes has come in reaction to inflated estimations of him, which have circulated wildly, all of them cited and refuted. No one has attacked his character. There was question about his aggressiveness last season, and rightly so. He has made strides to correct that this season.

    What no one has done is provide counter arguments that might give a more realistic assessment of his value now and in the future. What can you offer?

    The immediate debate will be whether he should remain a starter. Where do you stand?

    You know, Livermore, it’s easy to sit back and take pot shots at arguments you don’t like. Much harder is to take charge, put some time and thought in, and counter with something convincing. Among other things, it exposes you to the risk of other pot shots from detractors.

    • ++

      To appease you Livermore:
      Harrison contributed two huge first half free throws last nite.

      • I’m in no need of appeasement. I’m just mystified as to the tenor of the much of the Barnes debate. There are some who see a nefarious plot by the owner to win a PR battle with Barnes to the detriment of winning the Win/Loss battle, which I think is pure hokum. There are a number here who seem to delight in a less-than-stellar showing by Barnes, for no good reason that I can see except to stoke some personal animus.

        It doesn’t matter what any of us think, in the end. And rzzmark, you’ll notice the 2 free throws came in 21 point win against the best team in the East.

    • the myriad fans of lacob’s Wunderkind Barnes have had everything fall into place for them this season. when iguodala started and the team thrived with him there, the cohort pressed for their guy to play the ‘stretch 4’, based on his playoff run vs. SA (which was pretty weak evidence that the team could win with him in the role). this season the lyrics changed, and the choir sings, look how well iguodala does as the reserve, see how the starter barnes is flourishing, and please keep ‘mond-G. at the 4. barnes started vs. Tor as usual, but his minutes resembled a reserve’s. could be a sign of how the coach will keep the owner and his choir content.

      • May be it didn’t occur to u is some like me coming in support of Barnes because Barnes is helping team win. May be you are blinded by Lacob and Barnes hatred?? 26-5 is the proof right there that ur hatred for ownership and Barnes is misplaced. BTW, I do like the idea of Iguodala starting but not now when team is winning.

        • consider the possibility that this ‘hatred’ is being projected from another source — partisan fans do exhibit symptoms at times. even if organized religion were a significant influence on my ethics, lacob isn’t my neighbor. folks here on this blog are at least my internet site cell mates.

    • 26-5.

    • RGG

      You are, of course, welcome to your opinions. My remark was related to the tone in which so many of these criticisms take. In my mind it goes way beyond an argument as to the relative of worth of Iguodala vs. Barnes.

      You are reacting negatively to the “inflated estimations” of Barnes. None of those estimations have come from the man himself, yet the animus exhibited – in my reading – goes way beyond a comparison of stats and veers into something stranger.

      I think anyone who believes that Barnes is starting because Joe Lacob has some PR agenda that takes precedence over the coach’s view of who can help the team most is full of crap. Basketball is a complicated game. No one here has anywhere near the expertise or a better feel for the makeup of the individual and what he brings to the overall dynamic of the roster than Steve Kerr. Until proven wrong, I tend to trust his view of the best use of the pieces he has than yours or Feltbot’s or anybody else on this blog.

      Recite all the stats you want. Make any argument you want about Barnes’ supposed deficiencies. Do the Warriors have a better record if Iguodala is starting and Barnes coming off the bench? They are 26-5 for god’s sake.

  66. Livermore @47 and longtimer @58. Enjoying this exchange of concepts. The physcology is fascinating. Why do you guys feel like Barnrs is somehow persecuted by this blog and its participants? And why can’t myself and others see HB as a starter over Iguodala or DLee (or MoS or Livingston for that matter)?

    As I posted in 58 above, maybe another valid way of looking at this is starting your best 5 players appropriate to the position. Is there any doubt Bogut, Green, Thompson, and Curry are the 4 Warriors players? And who do you guys choose as the 5th best player? I choose DLee followed by Iguodala.

    Am interested in your response to this perspective.

    Once (if) Bogut returns, hope his minutes are reduced a lot during the regular season and go with MoS and DLee at 5 like last night instead.

    • Oops, 4 Warriors best players

    • Certain posters go on ad infinitum about how awful Barnes is and after a while it just becomes tedious and silly. I don’t think that he earned the spot–or is better than Iguodala (although how you measure that is hard to say). I never bought the hype either. But those over-hyped days are long gone (except for a deluded few).

      Nevertheless, Barnes has fit in well with the starters to my surprise and brings needed things to the starting unit that Iguodala can’t (anymore it seems): an ability to hit open 3’s; free throw shooting; rebounding; and slashing and finishing at the rim. Is he great at those things? Of course not. But he’s better than Iggy at them. Plus, Andre is more versatile and should be able to fit in better with the second unit.

      I agree that DLee is better than Barnes; he’s much better, in fact. But Lee can be an excellent 2nd unit guy providing much needed scoring and rebounding. He can also be a devastating 5–especially to close games–when used properly.

    • Marc:

      “Persecuted” is too strong. I read some of the criticisms and they seem to verge on the “Barnes-is-sucking-just-to-make-my-life-miserable” extreme. These posters are pissed that the PR department is using a perfectly fine tool to sell tickets…projecting their ire on the player instead of the front office.

      Nobody here knows more about basketball than Kerr. Kerr has chosen to start Barnes and the Warriors have the best record in basketball. The may still have the best record if Iguodala started in his place, but you can’t prove a negative. I don’t know about the rest of the posters, but I am comfortable, for the time being, with the current lineup which has led to the best record in the league and some pretty gorgeous basketball.

      • I’m for keeping it as is too. Still, I have a strange feeling Myers et al will execute a trade at the deadline, because of the very fact the Warriors are in position of strength.

        • I’m for signing Ray Allen. No trade necessary, so zero impact on the current roster. Nobody could be better as an optional 2nd team scoring threat, even if he doesn’t play D any better than a traffic circle.

        • You may be right. Chemistry is impossible to quantify, and if they do make a move let’s hope the benefits are both tangible and intangible.

  67. Haven’t checked this:

    from RickP post on FB blog, DLee has the highest defensive rating on the Warriors.

  68. I’m surprised too by HBs improvement. I think there is also truth to the idea HB is doing as told (warriorsablaze?). It appears Iguodala is starting to hit his stride, but darn, can’t he practice his FTs some?

    • I have never in my life seen a player miss so many perfectly straight free throws off the back rim. How he could go 10 years in the NBA without grasping Feltbot’s Law, or having a coach or teammate whisper it to him, is beyond me.

      • Or as Meschery poetically wrote:

        Everyday I loved
        to sharpen
        my shooting eye
        waiting for the touch.
        Set shot, jump shot,
        layup, hook –
        after awhile
        I could feel
        the ball hungering
        to clear the lip of the rim
        the two of us falling through.

    • Sorry, this post is reply to longtimer @ 68 above.

  69. Now that DLee is back and getting into game shape, Holiday all of a sudden playing significant minutes and can shoot (according to Kerr), and moving Livingston off the ball allows Iguodala to run the offense and pass effectively to Lee, Holiday, and Livingston. Hopefully, Iguodala will re-gain his 3-point threat in this capacity. Doesn’t hurt at all that Livingston has an excellent handle as well. I like the idea (moto) of limiting DLee and Iguodala minutes during the regular season as well as Bogut. I have to admit all of the above lends itself to the idea of HB starting, though somehow I cannot concede the point completely. As Livermore stated, perhaps starting and positional designations are not of primary importance on the team at this time.

  70. Livermore, thank you for pointing out that I am rotting from the inside out. Had I met you 20 years ago things may have turned out differently for me. But I have contemplated your post, and I think I now realize that criticisng a basketball players’ ability on this blog is a line that should not be crossed.

    FeltbotsFakeGF, I apologize for bothering you. Please believe me when I say it was the furthest thing from my mind. Thanks for your advice to shut up and enjoy it. But your statement that my dislike for Barnes is greater than the like I have for the Warriors winning is not correct.

    • Method matters. Go back and read some of your posts. From that reading, you’d think that Barnes was trying to suck just to piss you off.

    • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

      I have never seen someone whine so much about a player on a team winning almost 84% of their games. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Very few teams in the history of the NBA have won games at a pace the Warriors are on. So apparently Barnes is not as bad as you think he is.

  71. Hawks just waxed the Blazers in Portland. I love the way that team is built – almost exactly the way the Warriors are without Bogut. And running a Spurs system as well. I could easily see them coming out of the East.

  72. FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

    The Pistons are 4-0 since they dumped Josh Smith. The Rockets have struggled with Smith in the starting lineup. I think that acquisition makes the Rockets worse.

    • If that’s what happened to the Rockets, it’s too easy to fix.

      • hat,

        You have responded to me for longtimer comments above. No big deal just setting record right.

        “Holy fuckin Christ on a corndog, Harry. Felt opposed the Iggy signing from before it happened. WTF are you talking about?”

    • The acquisition was a real puzzler for me, particularly for a team determines to shoot only 3s or layups. It was obvious from the start that he wouldn’t work next to Dwight. Now they’ve got DMot back starting, and Smith off the bench. Which might possibly work, if Smith’s up for it. He might be a pretty good smallball 5. Good defender, shotblocker, rebounder, runs the floor. Of course, you’re dependent on Kevin McHale to get this right. And Smith’s athleticism has shown signs of decay.

      The only reason I see Morey making this radical move is that he has severe doubts about Terrence Jones’ healthy return. Morey’s been really unlucky this year. He had a hell of a plan, and put together a hell of a team.

    • cosmicballoon

      Smith has never proven that he is a winning player. He is a bit like Carmelo IMO.

      • He had some pretty great playoff performances back in the day.

        • smith could play some pretty effective all-court defense in his Atl. days. morey might have thought the chance of reviving that player was worth the cheap investment. the late phase dumars failed to identify a coach who understood roster and talent development and ended up with mismatched players. rather than prolong the process and misery, van G. simplified and streamlined the rebuild with an expensive excision, and has seen immediate results. trading for what another team is rejecting can change the problem set rather than eliminate it.

  73. Livermore @67—

    The whole point of commenting is to exercise my mind and gain some degree of understanding and appreciation of what I’m watching, as well as find a way to set expectations as I spend a season watching the games, not passively defer to the decisions of those in charge without question or comprehension. In general, I want to maintain a sense of reality and push instead of fleeing from it.

    I have zero confidence I could coach an NBA team, yet, through the process of watching and trying to understand, I have gained confidence in many things, that the team plays better when it pushes the pace and spreads the floor and makes use of its talents—

    And that Kerr is a superior coach to Jackson or Smart, that what he’s doing now is something that should have been recognized years ago and developed. They had the tools.

    You are quite right I have overdone it with Barnes, but understand the context. As a native North Carolinian and lifelong Tarheel fan I was seriously disappointed, as were most, by the supposed phenom. Watching a season of the team’s tanking so they could acquire him did not help. Also he represents a system that is falling apart—see below—of players being molded early to fit images, not develop skills. There is no rational way to explain the attention he’s received in the press or with the team in terms of position and minutes, or the speculations as to his value and the players he might replace.

    But none of that is Barnes’ fault, and I applaud him if he can find a way to steer through it.

    And I will give this a rest, learn to ignore the starstruck, and let Barnes’ performance speak for itself. Kerr has made it clear himself he is starting Barnes to support and develop him, that Iguodala is playing with the subs to bolster them. Kerr has also announced changes will come in the lineup. Barnes’ greatest test will be to stand on his own and contribute. He went through a terrible slump when his 3 point shot stopped falling last season. I hope this does not happen again. Every player goes through slumps and has to find ways to compensate elsewhere. I do not want to see him—or anyone—fail.

    The 26-5 argument does not fly at all. They would have had this record with other lineups, or with another midrange player in Barnes’ spot (except the bench presents Kerr with serious problems, as has been noted). They are 9-3 without Bogut, this against tougher teams and during an expected slump after the streak and a hasty transition without him. Should they bench him? While we’re at it, they’re 3-1 with Speights starting.

    Actually, it’s a tribute to Kerr, his system, and the players they could transition so quickly. That Speights could start against Toronto and the team not miss a beat was just amazing.

    Thanks for replying.

  74. Kobe takes on AAU:

    “AAU basketball,” Bryant said. “Horrible, terrible AAU basketball. It’s stupid. It doesn’t teach our kids how to play the game at all so you wind up having players that are big and they bring it up and they do all this fancy crap and they don’t know how to post. They don’t know the fundamentals of the game. It’s stupid.”

    He’s not alone. The system of developing players from childhood through college has derailed.

    I must confess I started to respect Kobe. I was impressed when, during an interview, he talked about how, when a teenager, he studied tapes of West, Baylor, and others. I understand he has trained and worked incredibly hard to improve his entire career. I do not understand talent, but these I understand. And I had as existential moment of awe when, after he tore his achilles against us, he stood up at the line and shot his free throws in a pointless game.

    Exceptional players just present problems, as we’re seeing. Many complain he’s a ball hog, but I get bored watching Lebron stand back and try to get his teammates going—why doesn’t he take over? Lately, btw, Kobe’s assists and rebounds have gone up—and Scott is telling him to shoot more.

    • GooseLosGatos


      couldn’t agree more with your take. Also, it’s one of the few things I agreed with Kobe on as well (KB – one of the most overrated & ‘media contrived’ players of all time.

      Interesting to note Miami’s Big 3 all came from the AAU system and as incredulous as this sounds – all three are nowhere near the players they could have been skill wise with proper training (eeessppoeccciaaaly Lebron).

      Interesting that KB made his remarks at all given Nike’s influence on AAU basketball.

      • He recognizes that:

        “That’s a deep well because then you start cutting into people’s pockets,” Bryant said. “People get really upset when you start cutting into their pockets because all they do is try to profit off these poor kids. There’s no quick answer.”

        Never knew an Angel who could turn down cash. This is a good read.

      • Goose, you had me until you cited LeBron as an unskilled player.

        Re KB’s comments on the AAU, consider the perspective of the source. Kobe never went to college. Most AAU players are amateur enthusiasts who play for fun, not dollars. Unlike the NCAA, which runs commercial programs with “amateur” (read “low-cost”) talent, the AAU doesn’t have a “professional preparation” agenda. Not at all. Rather, the majority of the money for the program comes from public school finances, which would be better used for anything but the entertainment value of stupid games.

        If there’s a “problem” in the NBA prep system, it’s rooted in the fact that the NBA relies on amateur programs like the AAU and NCAA as basic training programs, yet contributes zero to either.

        Kobe complains about playing with amateurs in a league devoted to amateurs? Blow it out your ass, Kobe.

        • More HS math teachers, fewer HS coaches. That’s my vote.

        • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

          Hat you are so far off base I don’t know where to start. First off the NBA is not devoted to amateurs. There is a reason they are trying to raise the age limit to be drafted. They don’t want amateurs not ready to play professional basketball. This is 2015 not 1980 the majority of AAU money does not come from public schools. Nike and Adidas funnel huge amounts of money into AAU. Most AAU players are not playing for fun. They are playing for college scholarships with hopes of playing professional basketball. I am not sure what rock you have been living under.

      • I believe I read Dell Curry kept Steph out of AAU for those reasons. The problems are well documented. I found this on the fly:

        “Miles was partly a product of the Playaz, an Adidas-sponsored summer team that crisscrossed the country on a circuit. The program brought out all the worst in basketball. The shoe company poured six-figure financing into the traveling teams, empowering Playaz director Jimmy Salmon to gain access to extraordinary high school and grade school talent in the Northeast corridor. For the superstar player, life on the Playaz was guaranteed to secure three things: national exposure, closets full of free gear and bad basketball habits. As a grade school star, Miles traveled to tournaments throughout the country, on the fifteen-and-under Playaz team, living out the American adolescent basketball dream: always a green light to shoot, and always a pristine pair of Adidas for his feet.”

        Adrian Wojnarowski, The Miracle of St. Anthony

        There are levels. We’re talking the big, funded programs. My son played AAU on a low level and it was a good experience for him. He didn’t get any shoes, however.

  75. Patty Mills is back:

    15 points, plus 19 from Joseph in the Spurs win over Washington.

    34 points from backup point guards. . . .

  76. Utterly off topic, though related to previous discussions here, and something to stir the pot until Feltbot stops talking to the Man Upstairs and writes another post. Just bumped into this—it’s good. David Harvey takes on the last fiscal crisis:

  77. Yippee!!
    I emailed my doctor copies of some of my Harrison Barnes critiques and the results are negative- I’m not rotting from the inside out!

    I feel like I have a new lease on life, and at the risk of bothering others, want to declare that this my 40th year of following the Warriors. GS has always been my team and I couldn’t change this if I wanted to. And I’ve Bitched, Moaned, and Whined my way through great swaths of 40 seasons. (Maybe not so much 74-75. I was pretty thrilled with the way that season went. But I was only 9. Perhaps some moaning. Rick Barry is still like a God to me). While all this means nothing to anyone but me, and does make me feel “old” at times, it has definetly provided me with a certain perspective.
    BM&W’ing was harder work before the internet. You needed a live body in front of you, preferably one that would listen to you, with at least one half of a brain, that also liked basketball. This combination is rarer than you would think in a person. Nowadays, its easy. Just do it in comfort of your home and hit post.
    Harrison is just the latest in a long line of GS players I’veBMW’d about. There are hundreds. I am incorrigible at this point. I won’t bother mentioning any of the more obvious recent ones, but to give a specific example, Lester “the Molester” Conner was one of the guys who frustrated me. Like Gary Payton he was a PG from oakland and went to OregonStU. As an upperclassman, Lesters’ OSU team dominated in a weak Pac-10. I believe he played on the same team as Charlie “zits” Sitton and AC ” the virgin” Green, and was knocked out of the tourney by Pat Ewing’s Georgetown team? (sorry Charlie but thats what me and my brother called you. We were Cal fans) Regardless, fair or not Lester was labeled the next glove, the Wubs drafted him (#5?), and he turned out to be more of a wet sock. In retrospect he was actually a unique player, but he was the definition of a pure tweener. The Wubs chose to play him at the point as rookie and the fact that he was not a good outside shooter, or an especially deft facilitator, or very agressive player in general in his early nBA years made it all a bit of a debacle. Looking back now I can see how the team put way too much on his plate, and it set his career back. My brother got sick of my ragging on Lester. To LC’s credit, after he parted ways with the Dubs he developed a serviceable game on O and became a nice defensive player, though his progress was gradual and unspectacular.
    The vast majority of my diatribes against Warriiors players have long since faded from my memory. I’m talking long before Al Gore gave birth to the net. Wish it was different. It would be fascinating to go back and read them now. For me, of course. The mere mention of Tellis Frank gets my juices flowing. He was anthony Mason before Anthony Mason was. Unfortunately, he wasn’t very good at playing basktball…

    I had the opportunity to meet Lester Conner after he retired at an OSU event. I chatted with him for at least 5 minutes. I was surprised he talked to me that long because he had lots of friends there. When I hear his name now (pretty rare) I first think about that encounter and how cordial he was before anything else. And that nickname of course.

    If I ever meet Harrison Barnes I think it would be a positive experience. I probably wouldn’t bring up my blog posts, at least right away, but if he did, I would cop to them and discuss them. Unless he looked very pissed off.
    I don’t want to retract any of my posts on Harrison. They are concise enough and include concrete examples of what fluster me about HB the baller. I have poked fun at him but haven’t attacked his personal character. Although I think that there are people in the world capable of it, I can’t truly dislike a person that I’ve never met. There is not enough there. I may dislike certain traits and criticize them, however.

    Rgg, I pasted this from a recent post of yours:
    And I will give this a rest, learn to ignore the starstruck, and let Barnes’ performance speak for itself.

    – I’m excited and nervous about tonites game. 3 of the unquestioned top 5 NBA players on the floor, with lotsf other good ones strewn about. I think OKC is the best team in the league and a nightmare match-up for anyone.I still wonder how things might have unfolded had they managed to keep Harden. 3 possible top 5 players, young to boot, on the same team? Yikes. Anyway, I’ll be planted on the couch with a cold Miller Hi-Life on one side and Stoli the dog on the other. Heaven.

    Though I’m not expecting it, I would love to see Justin Holliday get the start. Trial by fire against the best. In the Tor game his wingspan, quickness and instintcts in defending the passing lanes really stood out- he very nearly flicked away at least 3 perimeter passes to his man. (He did have a Klay-up though. And a Lou williams blow-by). I think Kerr and Co. are very astute and expect to see Justin get at least 12 mins on KD on 6 on Russell….
    Just heard my bus go by. Again. Ive complained about long posts before so I guess its only fair to say sorry for this one.

    • After all, we’re trying be critical ourselves and hone our competitive edge (vicariously). We don’t want to get sloppy in our praise or appraisals.

      The Warriors are good enough that minor decisions now matter—the 5th player in the starting lineup, who gets the last slot of the rotation. From here on out it will be a matter of working out many small decisions and slight percentages to gain the critical edge.

    • rzzmark, thank you. ‘longtimer’ is not our sole voice from a long time observer. my own attention for the team started at age ten, with the migration of the dipper-hightower-attles-rogers team to SF, and the early days of nationally broadcast games (Bos on nearly every week).

      for those less familiar with the conner career, he’s become a lifer assistant coach, mentored early on by stotts, now in Por, and o’brien, presently toiling for bird/Ind. when shaw (another west coast guy, who played at ‘my’ middle school well after my days there) began in Den, conner joined his staff.

      • Thanks for the update on the Molester, Moto. I didn’t realize he was still in the League. Good for him.
        Definetely a candidate for the all-time NBA nickname first team!

        I’ve met a decent number of Wubs players over the years, most of them brief hi-and-bye encounters. Its funny how these fleeting moments leave such strong impressions . Especially if the player is gracious. Good life lessons.

        I love strolling down memory lane. Keep it coming!

    • Abrams is good. We’ll have to keep an eye out.

      Kerr probably deserves a lot of credit for getting the guys on board after the MJax firing, though they aren’t the kind who would be difficult and hold it against him. You also have to wonder if he didn’t quietly pass on a message they wanted to hear.

    • The thought that Lacob is in reality the Dubs GM takes a bit of a hit here >>>>>>>>>>>>>

      “Late in Thompson’s rookie year, Golden State traded Monta Ellis to acquire Andrew Bogut. The deal marked the official turnover of the team to Curry and freed more playing time for Thompson. “I give Bob Myers and Jerry [West] and all the guys in basketball ops great credit for pushing to do the Bogut trade,” Lacob says. “It allowed Steph to blossom and take over without Monta, and the pairing with Klay was perfect.” Myers admits that the deal was more about landing Bogut than anything else. “Klay gave us the opportunity to explore dealing Monta because we saw that [Thompson] could be a high-level 2-guard,” the GM says. “But this franchise had been centerless for 20 years. The chance to grab a guy [who] we felt we could grow with and was relatively young, it was too good to pass up.”

      • In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, it’s a safe bet that the Warriors front office decision-making process is precisely as they claim. Who they contract to play is negotiated between Lacob, West, Myers, and now, the coach.

        That may not be the traditional way to handle personnel decisions, but now it’s today. Tradition? What’s that, and who cares?

        • All major decisions are taken in ‘board meeting’ and the head coach need to be an excellent manager to succeed. Seems like warriors are functioning as some silicon valley high tech company run by venture capitalists. One of the thing these high tech companies do is always have someone as CEO in waiting. they had Malone as head coach in waiting and now Gentry. It is interesting how personnel decisions are handled and successful too. No wonder ex coach couldn’t fit in, he has no grasp for corporate world. Kudos to front office for working as a unit.

      • It does? Why? Who exactly were they “pushing”, in Joe Lacob’s tale?

        And it’s rather humorous that Lacob chose this moment to mention his beards and minions as driving forces, when before it was all him behind the Bogut trade. He pulled the trigger, and he took credit for the “transcendent deal”, in interview after interview.

        There is a lot of credit-stealing when times are good, and cover-your-ass when things aren’t so good, in Mr. Joe Lacob. So much so it’s one of his defining characteristics.

        • Pluses flow uphill, minuses flow downhill. That’s not news, and it’s not as if Lacob invented it.

          • OK, so that’s only a partial explanation and not at all a justification for what you perceive to be Lacob’s deceptiveness and self-aggrandization.

            Lacob is a CEO, not an owner. Having worked in corporations my whole life, I find it admirable that the boss took the heat for the risky Bogut trade at the time, but shares the glow of today’s success with his minions.

          • I believe you’ve got that backwards.

        • Lacob got embarassingly booed for Monta’s trade took all the heat off GM. And for team’s success, he has right to claim credit as he was after all the guy who okayed all the moves with everyone in the team was in team only after Lacob okayed it, starting from David Lee. So, he gets credit for putting right people in right place and okaying or even influencing decisions by signing the checks for the same.

          He should keep is mouth shut though like those comments on Mark Jackson, unwarranted.

        • There’s a flattering review of Myers elsewhere that is entertaining. It’s beyond me why the higher up some go, the more they suspend criticism. I have theories.

  78. cosmicballoon

    Speaking about owners and coaches, there has been a monumental lack of criticism nationally of the Phil Jackson tank job in NY. I haven’t been following it closely enough to say if the lack of talent is driving these losses, or if it’s Phil trying to relive his Bulls days in terms of the triangle.
    Either way, this has been a disastrous year at best for the Knickerbockers.

    • the greater jackson has obviously attained icon status — in possession of a trophy ring for one of his toes, with his fingers filled, nicht wahr ? today’s trade, combined with waiving dalembert and waiving the non guaranteed jetsam (lacob’s favorite amudsen among them) coming in, points to a free agent spending spree this July. NY could actually use d.lee for the last year of his contract, but at this point they don’t have anyone on the roster who’d help GS.

      • cosmicballoon

        What type of player actually complements Carmelo, who they are stuck with for years to come? It think they need great half court players, because Melo loves to slow the game down on offense.

        • ‘mond-G. would complement anthony perfectly well. as would iguodala. they’d look good in the NY uni too, getting quoted in their media.

  79. Good post above, rzzz.

    Just opened up a High Life, with another on the way. Tube is on. I’m set to go.

  80. I’m working on a recap, but it might take awhile.

    In the meantime, may I point out that the Hawks just waxed the Clippers in LA? Or is it still too soon for me to celebrate?

    • Looking forward to this. Not sure what I just saw. Put in a word on defensive adjustments this game from the last? Durant and Westbrook had off nights, but still.

      And hitting hard and fast 1st. Q made a difference. They can’t do that if they run the offense through Bogut. Speights, of course, didn’t do much, but OKC did take him seriously. Steve Adams was all over him—and drawn outside the paint.

      Ron Adams must be working wonders behind the scenes. A different player is highlighted each game, it seems. Tonight they talked about how he was working with Barnes on his shot.

      Green was just everywhere tonight.

      And I suspect you’re right about Ibaka.

  81. Nice game for Harrison. Let the game come to him and took advantage. Mo with a 1-8 night but held down the middle. Big change from last year.
    Dray, Splash bros, Justin.. Total team effort.

    Is there a worthier MVP candidate than Steph? At this point, no.

    • Barnes was great and Mo was bad at both ends of floor to the extent that Green yelled at him couple of times. From my observation, Barnes guarded Durant for lot of the time, just not sure how long. Difficult to say with all the switching.

      • Last year if Mo went 1-8 he contributed nothing. Partially because he, if not being yanked, was never held accountable for his defense by the coaching staff, nor given a defined position in which to succeed in on D. Tonite he grappled with SAdams et al, and contributed with dirty work. Dray can’t do it single -handedly.

  82. Too bad Barnes keeps rebutting your presumption, Feltbot. Now a good time for your latest “Mediocre Barnes” piece? Or will you wait a few weeks for a bad game from him?

    • And where have you been lately, oh outraged one? Shouldn’t you be praising me for restraining myself from recapping Barnes last two weeks, in which he barely shot 40%, and found himself benched in fourth quarters for putrid defense?

      This game, in which Barnes got going against Anthony Morrow in the second quarter, and was aided by Warriors triple teams in defending Durant did nothing to change my opinion of him. He’s a mediocrity on offense. A role player. And he’s the one of the worst defensive small forwards in the Western Conference.

      This latter I shall shortly prove to the world, with the aid of a patented sausage stat, the Feltbot Defensive Snapshot. I need a little more data. Perhaps half a season’s worth. Be patient, oh yapping Chihuaha. As patient as you’ve been the last two weeks, waiting for a game to bark at.

      • felt, looking forward to your article but seems like you are working on it reverse way, first conclusion and then the basis of conclusion and not other way around.

        Barnes is helping team win and not dragging team down, result 27-5 record.