Second Thoughts: Warriors 114 Celtics 111

The Warriors played triangle virtually every possession of the second unit in this game, with David Lee in the mid-post. Lee almost never looked at the basket after receiving the ball, instead looking for cutters and open shooters. 7 assists in 16 minutes. Those shots he did take were unassisted — he had to create for himself, usually out of the post. This might help explain to some why Lee scored only two points on four shots.  

Lee is the Warriors’ best triangle post player, by far, and Kerr is determined to jam him into the system. One wonders, however, whether it’s the best system for the best pick and roll center in the league.

And one might also wonder whether it’s the best system for Shaun Livingston, the putative backup point guard. As I remember, Phil Jackson’s championship point guards were BJ Armstrong, John Paxon, Steve Kerr and Derrick Fisher. Spot-up three point shooters all. They had a clearly defined and productive role in the triangle. What is Livingston’s role?

And, finally, one might wonder whether it’s a good idea to play two different systems on the first and second units.

As for the rotations, Holiday is certainly helping, and Iggy is hitting at the moment, but the spacing of a Lee, Speights, Livingston and Iggy unit is obviously wretched, and a Lee-Speights frontcourt has obvious defensive challenges.

The Warriors first unit is dominating, of course, but what we’re currently seeing from the second unit may not be good enough in the playoffs. Despite all the Warriors’ success to date, Kerr is clearly still wrestling with Lacob’s cube.

162 Responses to Second Thoughts: Warriors 114 Celtics 111

  1. Shaun will push the ball up the floor at a steady but not spectacular pace on missed basket change of possessions, but ALWAYS seems to run into some sort of strange invisible force fold about 7 feet from the basket that causes him to stop and re-assess. It’s a very curious phenomenon.

    • Force field.

      Pressey was rather impressive as unknown pointG. Quick and crafty. I remember his Dad playing for Nellie.

  2. The defense wasn’t that good, either, especially from the second unit. Look at their first stint, first half:

    http://popcornmachine.net/gf?date=20150125&game=BOSGSW

    Against at team like Boston, I’d like to see the bench cut loose. They’ll need scoring there later. Bench players, after, is who they were essentially playing. If they’re going to keep what they got, I’d like to see Iguodala, Holiday, Barbosa, and Lee run the unit, pushing the tempo, using different sets. I guess stick in Barnes. Speights could be interspersed with with the starters and subs to see if he can get going.

    They have scorers. The best system is the one that lets scorers score.

  3. Felt, I understand that you are fond of the “Lacob’s Cube” formulation (as you are of all of your pet phrases) — and I’m already on record here as agreeing with you on the obvious problems of Lee/Speights together defensively and Iguodala/Livingston offensively but the truth of what’s going on is more subtle and gradual than that.

    Recognizing that Lee spent the entire game playing facilitator in the triangle, instead of scorer/etc. in PnR, is good eyesight. But wringing your hands about this is foolish, because (1) nobody gives out trophies at the end of the year for “Best Use of David Lee on Offense”, and (2) it’s game 41 of an 82-game season.

    Further, you intend “Lacob’s Cube” as a jab at an allegedly awkward-fitting roster, but the truth is more nearly the opposite: This is the best, most flexibly constructed roster in the NBA, and 36-6 under a rookie coach testifies amply to that fact.

    Not that this doesn’t present its own challenges. Kerr has said it explicitly: How can he take this team to a championship *this year*, without the trial-and-error process other title-winning teams have had to endure?

    Please correct me if disagree (and I’m sure you do), but the impression you give is, “Curry’s best in PnR! Lee’s best in PnR! Run PnR after PnR, and if that doesn’t work, run PnR some more!”

    This is charmingly simple, but Kerr seems to disagree. His attitude (and I concur) is that as effective as PnR may be for Curry/Lee et al., the higher goal should be the ability to beat teams other ways just in case they’re able to stifle the PnR attack. And that’s where Bogut/Lee as facilitators come in.

    Not only that, Kerr has to try many different things to figure which of the *many* good lineup options he has is the best suited for a championship run. For example, right now, he’s seeing if having long/capable defenders on the perimeter (Andre/Holiday/Livingston) makes a Lee/Speights interior combination viable.

    Would a different approach (in terms of either which players are on the floor, or what particular plays they run) have been more effective in tonight’s game? Maybe. But who cares? As Kerr has specifically stated, GS isn’t shooting for 70+ wins.

    So if he spends the next couple of months using the excess wins they’ve banked to experiment with various fallback options that keep GS from relying on simple PnR exclusively in the playoffs, more power to him. He’s got a more assured long-term vision for this season than you do.

    • +1.

      Agree with your thoughts on Kerr’s reasoning behind his lineups, despite knowing which players are hard limitations.

    • Both Curry and Livingston run the P&R very well. DLee and MoS are very well suited P&R/P&P partners.

    • The triangle is not suited for Livingston.

    • Agreed on all of your points: this is an expedited learning process for both the players and the coaching staff. There needs to be more than one petri dish so that the trial and error process can be sped up. All of this is happening at a faster pace than expected. Running endless PnR’s guarantees predictability, which is not a good thing at all.

      We all know that Felt has an absolute fixation on David Lee–as if his success/failure determines the fate of the Dubs. Astonishingly, he forgets that the W’s have thrived without his presence at all (see 2013 playoffs or the majority of this record breaking season). Now that’s not to say that I’m not a DLee fan (I am)–nor does it imply that the W’s should not maximize his gifts (they should). But he’s only one of many parts (a fairly minor one at that) and Kerr’s trying to figure out how to optimize flexibility and prepare the team best for the playoffs.

      Naturally, no team is perfectly constructed so there will always be weaknesses. Amid all the muck above Felt does ask an excellent question about how to maximize the 2nd unit’s effectiveness. I asked the same question earlier–i.e. whether the W’s should run a different system for the 2nd unit to optimize their differing assets. I would think not, unless the unit is fixed and plays together for long stretches at a time (which is rather unlikely). But some tweaks here and there are certainly in order.

      Your point about Felt’s cutsey “Lacob’s Cube” “conundrum” is spot on. Felt (and his sidekick Moto) seems to have a seething hatred of Lacob and will twist and distort realities so he can to point out “problems” that he purportedly created. Again, Felt somehow forgets that this roster is as complete, deep and flexible as any team I can think of in quite some time–and has the success to prove it. However, the king of idees fixes continues to hold on dearly to this fallacy–just as a young child won’t let go of their favorite toy. However, I’m beginning to come around to the view that Felt’s just having a really tough time analytically this year, for whatever reason and that we should cut him some slack. I’m confident/hopeful he’ll get his game back soon.

      • LT,
        Have you considered writing your own blog?
        It seems like you have A LOT to say.

        • Drew,

          Thanks for the compliment–or, more likely, dig at my expense. No worries either way. But in answer to your (likely rhetorical) question: No, I’m not thinking of writing a blog. In fact, I’ve been spending more time and energy than I can afford trying to right what seems to be a slowly sinking ship. I was (and have been) heartened to see well laid out arguments like Swopa’s above. All too often this site is populated by like-minded toadies who do not move the discussion forward. Rather, they spout back whatever Felt says–whether it be interesting and intelligent, or inane blather. This does no one any good, not least Felt, who’s clearly having a rough time analytically this year.

          If you look below, you’ll see that Felt has largely conceded to Swopa’s well-argued post. It’s really to his credit when he does. He’s a confident guy and benefits from such “cross analyses,” as do we all. But (please see further below) he–and the rest of us–are done a disservice when frequent posters like the yippy “attack” miniature poodle (my imagination) misconstrue critiques of Felt’s thinking to “protect” him.

          I will elaborate on why Felt is having trouble finding his form this year later. In short, think that it has much to do with the fact that he’s been taken out of his comfort zone this year with the great success of the team. He’s been a capable and insightful critic of the W’s when things have not gone well–which was pretty much always. His frequent digs at management and the coaching staff merited attention as a result. But now those lacerating criticisms seem hollow at best, and rather disingenuous. Hence, we’ve had to endure somewhat frequent spasms of illogics and puerile reasoning. The recent spate of asinine “proofs” of Draymond’s fragility based on how many rebounds he garnered in this or that single game (despite the fact he led the team in +/- and the team won by large margins) or “inability” to guard the post as well as David Lee (yes, I had trouble even punching those words out on my keyboard!) despite the fact that Draymond leads the entire NBA in defending the post is ample evidence of his confusion.

          Nevertheless, while I am still hopeful that Felt will find his voice again, I must admit that I am beginning to lose confidence. Moreover, I’ve begun to wonder if my interventions to push him to be better are no longer serving a useful purpose. If and when I do come to that conclusion I will cease posting here again. Unfortunately, that may be sooner rather than later.

          • longtimer, your rigorous critiques and high standards would provide welcome relief to the generally drab interior of the lauridsen blog — have you ever tried to critique the chief blogger there or his many supporters ?

          • No dig LT

    • I agree 100% that this is the best roster in the League Swopa. Its hard to find fault with much. I think the weakest position is the back-up PG position. A quick back-up point who could facilitate in an up-tempo attacking mode on O and hit the 3 at, say, 35% would be a nice addition, even as a 14th man who provided 8 or 10 minutes a game. I like BrandonR, but a player like this may just be more capable of contributing to wins because of team demographics. The Celtics Pressey , for example..

    • “Further, you intend “Lacob’s Cube” as a jab at an allegedly awkward-fitting roster, but the truth is more nearly the opposite: This is the best, most flexibly constructed roster in the NBA, and 36-6 under a rookie coach testifies amply to that fact.”

      Great post, evidence right in front of your eyes.

  4. I think Kerr is deliberately forcing the different play styles onto the entire team (Pnr/High Post) in order to get everyone skilled up. Theres nothing more dangerous than having the option to switch up your offense mid shot clock.

    Does anyone know on average, how long does it take for a team to successfully learn a new system? Which season did Atlanta start implementing their motion offense?

    Bogut on Sullinger was horrible. I wonder if Barnes would have been any decent on him.

    • the average time a team takes to learn a new system would not be particularly useful information. just three major variables among many — the teaching ability of the coaching staff, and the complexity of the system getting installed relative to the compatibility and hoops i.q. of the players.

      budenholzer had a tremendous rep as a teacher before getting the Atl gig last season. SA refined its system of training its players, the reserves running identical options as the starters [apparently not kerr’s plan so far with livingston and lee] and becoming interchangeable in budenholzer’s lengthy tenure there. the free agent shuffle prior to last season also benefitted him and the team — j.smith departed, while millsap and d.carroll came from UT. UT has been a long time adherent to one of the most widely adopted motion offenses in different variations, the motta/sloan flex, which is also a big ingredient for kerr. carroll was a reserve and spot starter in UT who has become the primary 3 for budenholzer. the regulars who’d been in Atl for some time, horford, teague, korver, had already seen their team go from the primitive, isolation dependent woodson era, to l.drew’s attempt to incorporate much more motion and passing.

      budenholzer probably directed at least equal attention and time reforming the defense in Atl, and had a losing season in his first year. if the fans here want to go ga-ga over how quickly kerr has re-tooled the team, good for them reveling in it, but kerr has always given credit to how smart and skilled the players are — last season’s starters plus green are all above average in hoops i.q. and ball handling.

  5. Brian Scalabrine interviewed before last night’s game.

    https://soundcloud.com/warriors/presstable-brian-scalabrine-12515

  6. The 2 hi-lite plays were initiated by Holiday (hockey assists). And Kerr commented after the game regarding Holidays effectiveness.

    — Holiday made the pass to DLee which setup DLee in the triangle high post that resulted in a pass from DLee to Curry for a Curry back door and dunk.

    — Holiday got into the passing lane, intercepted the pass and immediately passed ahead to Curry who left handed a behind the back pass to Iguudala for a lay-up. Barnett commented on it at the time.

    Holiday is just a smart guy out there.

    • One of the great things about the Ws this season is the self-confidence the team instills in players. Mo Speights might be the most obvious beneficiary, but Holiday is one too.

      Holiday’s cool confidence is impressive, and it frees him to do good things – take on defensive challenges, play within the team flow, make the right pass, take the shot when he should, and so on. Great!

      Considering all the Livingston defenders out there I almost hate to say it, but Livingston could actually take a lesson from how Holiday has handled himself.

      • Add Barbosa to that list, who would have thought he still has some NBA ball left. Barnes too, don’t think he would have been this successful under last year’s coaching.

  7. The discussion so far has been about the offensive system. I was more concerned last night about Kerr’s thoughts on the matchups. This was a classic game where an ultra-small lineup from the Warriors would have run the Celtics right out of the gym. The Celtics bigs were feasting on Bogut and Speights, effectively slowing the game down. If the Warriors go with Green (or maybe DLee) at center, they would run right through the Celts.

    The other problem last night was that Green couldn’t shoot the ball. He was open many times, but wasn’t knocking down the open shots.

    • Good point about the matchups. Kerr didn’t seem concerned about matching up with the Celtics. Seems like he had a predetermined plan to run certain sets with certain units.

      I get the feeling he’s experimenting in the games he can, which is a good thing. Makes tea leaf reading difficult though.

  8. Swopa @3

    You’re simply claiming something—the future success of the second unit—without demonstrating how that might be true. And the evidence with half the season over is against you. The bench only scored 25 points, at low percentage, against Boston last night—a 15 win team in the East, who were shorthanded at that.

    In two games, without any game-time preparation, with Livingston out, the subs—Lee, Speights, Iguodala, Holiday, and Barbosa—got significant and balanced scoring against Utah and Miami, 41 points each game. With Livingston in, the subs have always struggled scoring, and several exceptions will be accounted for by Speights’ phenomenal shooting those nights. And qualify that scoring still more by the minutes Klay and Steph overlap with the subs, often substantial.

    That the system works, inasmuch as it is used by the starters, can be attributed to the superior play of Klay and Steph, both great in and outside scorers, plus so much more. But look at what you have with the subs:

    1. A deliberate and slow reacting PG in Livingston, who has to be set up for his shots and cannot hit with range.

    2. When a passive player like Barnes is in, you have to make the Red Sea part to get him to shoot or drive.

    3. Iguodala, a modest scorer, has to score to make the system work. But his playmaking abilities are negated by the presence of Livingston.

    4. Lee, one of the more prolific and consistent scorers in the game, quick for a big, is completely taken out of his offense, standing up to his waist in the swamp around the mid or low post. He needs an open court, one way or another.

    Note Speights is getting fewer shots since Lee returned—this hasn’t been figured out.

    The only way the system might work better is if Holiday steps up with outstanding performance, a heavy expectation, still iffy.

    What this unit cannot do with Livingston is what the starters have done so successfully, with great effect, push the pace and run—and run up the score.

    I admire your patience, however. How long are you prepared to wait?

    • I should add: Note that the subs Lee, Speights, Iguodala, Holiday, and Barbosa had 11 assists against Utah and 18 against Miami, again balanced. Obviously they were able to get playmaking without Livingston. As I recall, they ran more and had the players to do so, and Lee was given more space. Iguodala was able to make use of his talents as well instead of being a bystander. Barbosa adds the manic drive that can disrupt a defense.

      • Warriors bench was pretty even with Celtics bench and Celtics does have good bench, deep team.

      • Curry’s assists are down from last year too, but the system is much more de-centralized than it is has been. I can’t recall the exact number of 30+ assist games but do know that it is near a season’s full mid way.

        Kerr and his staff have found a way to make sure that the final good pass gets made more often than not…by whom is of lesser importance.

  9. Speaking of point guards overlooked, D. J. Augustin ($3m) took over from the injured Jennings, scored 35 (12-20, 5-9 on 3’s) and had 8 assists.

  10. @Moto (#3),

    Funny that you mention AL’s blog; I had just been thinking the other day that there’s more diversity of opinion over there recently (I’ve seen you contributing as well). He still has his weaknesses (as do we all) but AL’s analyses have matured this year, in my opinion. However, the silly quotations from “Great Thinkers” and endless applause about his “fantastic writing” I find grating. Yet, I also acknowledge that it’s much harder to supply an analysis after every single game than at one’s pleasure. Nevertheless, Lauridsen seems better able to handle the Dubs’ recent fantastic success than Felt, which is really a shame because Felt has so much more to offer.

    I suspect that this is due in part to the fact that AL’s m.o. has never been about unrelenting criticism. Felt’s strongest writing this year has come in the fits and spurts when he acknowledged the team’s successes. Yet, even then he fell into some of the same tired reasoning–most notably when he tried to shoehorn all the success into the one-size-fits-all result of “Nellieball” (sic) and proceeded to preform absurd logical acrobatics to justify this. (NB: Moto, when I do cease posting here, can you please push Felty to start using “Feltyball” instead of the extremely misleading “Nellieball.” No need to shy away from what has produced excellent insights so far!)

    I get the strong sense that Felt is bemused by the W’s successful embracing of a small ball approach and some of the very principles that he has been espousing over the years. Indeed, it was very telling when he wondered “out loud”–and plaintively–why so many were now embracing “Nellieball” (sic) and asked, bizarrely, where all these people were when he was pushing for Corey Maggette to play the 4. Consider this and his current utter confusion, which is now on full display with his ceaseless campaign to get Draymond Green–an absolute dream come true for Feltyball–to move to the 3.

    In fact, Felt helped educate me about the strengths of Feltyball and now he seems to be arguing against one of its most basic principles. I’m sure you understand how this can be rather disconcerting. I also think he was blindsided by the “benching” of his favorite player—which has surely contributed further to his confusion. Funny enough—and ironically—his confidence that this would never happen came, in part, from the knowledge that DLee was also his arch-nemesis’ favorite player—and the incorrect assumption that Lacob called all the shots (you also share this misconception).

    In response to your claim that I have “high standards” (a likely intended insult, but no matter) I really don’t think so. It just really bothers me to see such an insightful and intelligent analyst resort to the most silly forms of “reasoning” and nonsensical “proofs” to justify his long-held beliefs. I strongly believe that he needs to be pushed to achieve more analytical flexibility and dexterity, as do we all. Perhaps that’s the teacher in me. But I also have to acknowledge when my efforts have come to naught.

    I suspect that many will delight in the fact that I will likely cease posting here in the near future. I also suspect (hope?) that at least some appreciated my efforts—even though the positive feedback was rare and circumscribed when it came. I also truly hope that everyone understands that my intentions were pure. The fact that Felty never tried to impede my contributions—no matter how critical—is a real credit to him. In the end, I sincerely hope that on some level I’ve contributed something positive in what has truly been a wonderful year for Dubs fans.

    • if you heard or read west’s comments about how he was nearly fired for opposing a trade for a player ‘who scored lots of points for a bad team’, and how the lacobites would have lost an ’employee’ (west is actually a minority owner as well as a salaried consultant) if they traded thompson, those are pretty good indicators that myers does not have the authority on personnel matters that lacob credits him in public statements.

      • Agreed on that. I especially liked when West referred to the W’s management and what they brought to the table and all he could come up for Kirk Lacob was that he “loved basketball”–clearly an indication that he has little use for Kirk Lacob’s basketball “IQ.” His comments about Myers basically damned him with faint praise as well.

        In terms of personnel moves, clearly Joe exerts a heavy hand. Myers strikes me as the “nice guy” in the office who gets along with everyone. Lacob clearly values his former status as a player agent and the connections (and tacit knowledge accumulated) that that brings to the table. But his major appointments (2 coaches, GM and his son) were pretty much novices and that does say something about his intentions.

        As for Lacob himself–he comes across as an arrogant prick. But I don’t know him personally so I have no way to judge with real accuracy. I do think that he clearly has a higher opinion of his basketball acumen than is warranted. His claim that his experience playing pickup basketball at Robles gym enabled him to make sound basketball judgments (or something to that effect) is clearly ludicrous and exposed him in unfortunate ways.

        Nevertheless, I was referring to decisions that Kerr was making on the court–not personnel decisions. And there, Kerr has been able to wiggle out a great deal of autonomy. Having two wise sages at his side surely helped–not to mention the record setting pace.

      • “During the summer, West was purportedly one of the staunchest opponents to the Warriors including Thompson in a deal for Minnesota forward Kevin Love, and he cleared the air on that Saturday.

        “They would have had one less employee if that would have happened,” he said. “When you get a backcourt like that, you just can’t make changes. I think everybody who looked at that from a basketball perspective knew that, at the end of the day, it wasn’t the right thing for us to do. To have a backcourt like that, it’s just a beautiful thing.””

        http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_27388426/warriors-jerry-west-couldnt-sleep-after-klay-thompsons

        Jerry West intimated he would have walked away from his position as “consultant” had Klay been traded, not fired. I’m quite sure that West’s tenure with GSW is on very firm footing and has been since Day 1 of his initial hiring, a very valued voice behind closed doors. And I’m equally sure that when he leaves it’ll be on his terms.

        As for Myers and his “authority”, what makes you think him and West were on different sides of this trade/no trade debate?

        “The Warriors did not include Thompson as part of a trade offer for Kevin Love in the offseason, as Minnesota eventually sent the star forward to Cleveland. Myers preferred to keep the backcourt of Thompson and Stephen Curry intact.

        “I think most people believe it to be the best, one of the best backcourts in the NBA, and I don’t think that that’s a minority opinion. I think it’s a majority opinion,” Myers said. “That’s part of the team you don’t worry about too much, right? I mean, that part is good, which is hard to find.

        “The two guard in the NBA is a depleted position, so we feel like if we can move forward with those two guys, we’re in pretty good shape.””

        http://www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_26591904/warriors-want-sign-klay-thompson-extension

    • The game seems to be moving away from the traditional power forward occupied by centers — Webber, Aldridge, Bosh, Garnett. The first one of these I recall was Luke Jackson.

      • not sure if you meant that l.jackson was in the tradition of a center playing the 4, because webber and bosh also fit the general description. if by ‘traditional’ you refer to hoops of the 30’s to 60’s, centers used to handle the ball extensively (‘pivotmen’) and be one of the principal distributors in half court. the 4’s usually had the mass and often the height of the centers, sometimes taller, but not the ball skills. clyde lee and maurice lucas were very good centers who ended up on teams with all world centers, so they were made starting 4’s and the primary back up center for their teams. one of the first modern era 4’s with center-like ball skills who could score from all over the court was Bob Petit, a generation earlier than l.jackson.

    • Gosh, LT, no one wants you to quit contributing here. Far from it.

      Your hostile tone is tiresome. If you don’t want to read FB’s or moto’s posts, well, then, don’t.

      The Hat is not exactly sweetness and light, but even he is turned off by your attacks against Feltbot. Want to play here? Then try some playfulness.

      You don’t have to agree with anything said here. But for heaven’s sake, we’re all just trying to have some fun here, so ask yourself this: are YOU trying to have fun? What exactly is the point of negativity?

      • Hat,

        Thanks for your schizophrenic post. I am trying to have fun (did you read my freaking parody, you old goat!?). In fact, I wrote the parody–and much else–while living in NYC. I forgot that NorCal has, say, a “different” sense of “humor.” People where you are tend to go to all lengths to be “agreeable” and are greatly discomfited when someone doesn’t follow this way of being. It’s one of the least favorite things about the area for me, frankly (although I acknowledge there are some positive things that come out of that. Also, I like it there a lot and am coming back soon–so don’t get your knickers all in a twist!). In any event, Felt didn’t seem that way at all, so I, perhaps mistakenly, took that as a green light to be straightforward with my thoughts.

        I will tell you that the bickering between you and rgg was painful and a great bore. It also got very personal in a negative way–and that’s not cool at all. Thankfully you two have taken a respite from that childish behavior.

        BTW I have *never* attacked Feltbot, only his weak arguments. He’s been harsher to others than I ever have been to him. But yes, I have been very up front about my displeasure when he loses all sense of intellectual rigor–something alarmingly more present this year. I now wonder if my efforts have done any good at all.

        I still enjoy reading Felt’s thoughts in spite of having been, at times, dispirited by the fall off in quality this year. I told him he was my favorite W’s blogger and he still is. I tried to explain that above. (Why is it that you only rarely reply to the actual content of posts in a thoughtful manner??) I also have no problem with Moto, in spite of his insults.

        Also, why is it that you seem to think that not agreeing with someone is the equivalent of not wanting to hear what they have to say? And conversely, why do you think Felt needs to be praised to ridiculous lengths? His ego is surely quite strong.

        Finally, and as a favor to you: You might want to wipe off that ochre–rather purplish–lumpy matter on the tip of your nose. It’s been there for a couple of days now, I believe.

        P.S. Felt, did you happen to eat borscht last week–or braised cabbage, perhaps? Something tells me you did….

        • maybe you haven’t read raymond chandler, but getting compared to philip marlowe (or christopher, either, who has had a rotten reputation in some places and times) is no insult.

          • I saw Tamburlane by C. Marlowe recently in Brooklyn, in fact. Well done for a play that’s not received the highest marks.

            I will pretend for the moment that an insult was not intended. But please do address the content of what I say directly–rather than in the opaque and obscure manner (I’m being generous here) that you seem to prefer.

        • Yikes.

          Schizophrenic. Old Goat. Norcal people. People where you are. Knickers in a twist. Bickering. Not cool. Childish. Ochre matter. Borscht. Before that, like-minded toadies. Silly, nonsensical reasoning. etc., etc., yadayada…

          Yeah, that’s some funny stuff, there.

          Not sure how, LT, but somehow your (self-described) lofty, thoughtful, brilliant and yet hilarious basketball analysis gets lost in all the hostility, self-absorption, arrogance – and narrow-minded, inflexible, sloppy thinking.

          I’m not sure I want to share anything with you, but I’ll give you this: I’m from Detroit, where they think New Yorkers are too polite. My friend, your problem here is not Norcal vs. New York. It’s normal people vs. a boor.

          • Sorry Hat, but I though that you implored me to have fun! What’s sad is that you’re distorting what I said. I did say that arguments were fair game so I feel fully justified going in that direction. Silly, nonsensical, reasoning, like-minded toadies, yadayada…all fall within that ambit.

            Your post *was* very schizophrenic (have a re-look) even if you did not intend it. But hardly an insult to say that. You referred to yourself as an old goat earlier (I thought) and I meant it in reply as a teasing term of affection–I’m serious (although I can understand how you misinterpreted it). I have no idea how old you are otherwise. I’m no spring chicken myself, BTW, and wouldn’t be offended if you were to sling that my way.

            I was explicit in my like for the Bay Area–otherwise I wouldn’t keep going back. But it’s not perfect; nowhere is. I was simply trying to explain that I misjudged the culture of humor prevalent in the Bay Area. The cold response to my parody reminded of the state of affairs there.

            Your bickering with rrg was self absorbed (new “insult”), childish, and not cool at all. You’ll not find one member of the community who disagrees with this assessment, I can assure you. Indeed, I assumed that the two of you agreed with this and that was the main reason why you’ve taken a break. I was *agreeing* with you in that sense.

            I’ve *never* described my analyses as brilliant, lofty, thoughtful or hilarious. In fact, I’d deny it all if you had the courtesy to ask–although non-members who have read my posts insist that the latter is, in fact, the case. I firmly believe that no one is in the position to judge themselves in such a way. If they do, they’re simply fools.

            The rest of your post was merely a litany of ad hominem attacks, which, unfortunately, characterizes your overall approach in your posts.

            And what’s your problem with borscht? It’s quite delicious and my inquiries about Felt’s dietary habits needn’t concern you….

          • Never called myself an old goat. Never called anyone names unless you want to call my last post name-calling. Name-calling doesn’t make your point.

            Never got personal with rgg, just begged him to ease up on the endless repetitions. He got personal, called names, etc. His problem, not mine. He has eased up, though, thank heavens.

            Mocking others’ ideas is mocking. You shouldn’t do it. It doesn’t make your point. Make your points with evidence, please. Then you’ll get responses.

            Your so-called parody fell flat because it was poorly done. Brevity is the soul, my friend.

            Felt doesn’t need my praise. I’m in awe of his prescience re Thompson. Is that OK with you?

            ad hominem attacks. Huh. Guess I’ll have to look that up. Is that anything like being boring, or self-justifying, or self-impressed?

          • OK, sorry on the “old goat” comment. I truly thought the provenance was yours (who was it? Please help me out someone!). My apologies and, as I said, no harm intended.

            I am quite sure that the two of you (i.e you and rgg) engaged in childish and pointless mutual attacks. If you don’t believe me, throw out the challenge for confirmation. (Caution: you won’t like the results.) I would point out when and where this tedious–and LONG–exchange took place (there was an “epic” “battle” between the two of you; Hello Brevity!) but I’m loath to re-visit it, frankly.

            The only criticism of my parody I ever received was that it was too long. No one–even after repeated requests–was able to offer one single criticism otherwise. I wish they had, in fact. As it is now, I simply get the sense that other “factors” were at play.

            As for your claim that I don’t back up my claims with evidence–where is that the case? Please scroll up above and find one critique of Felt’s arguments where I didn’t offer evidence to back it up. Along these lines, please back up your own point that the parody was terrible beyond that it was too long (again, take note of your own expansive take over of real estate with rgg). How precisely was the exchange with your arch nemesis of a higher literary or comedic quality?

            (NB: I do understand that in this venue–and given expectations–it was rather long. But please evaluate as it was intended–a piece of comedy–and let me know. I’m always looking to learn. And that goes for everyone).

            Name calling and unjustified attacks? Please re-read your last posts.

            Lastly, I’d be rather careful about insulting those who mock others. Otherwise, you’ll be deeply criticizing your own deity–you know, the “prescient” one.

    • I appreciate your articulate, and punny posts. Keep the swanky discourse rolling fo sho.

      • I don’t know if that was directed at me but if it was, you get a gold star (I could change that to a smiley face if you prefer) for being the first community member to offer such a compliment. Thanks!

  11. I get the sense that Feltbots pretty damn happy about this year. Its boring to be all unicorns and rainbows.
    Theres some nice give-and-take here too. If thats whats really buggin ya I would encourage you to stay.

  12. FYI

    Adonal Foyle on current Warriors: “Let’s be honest and let’s give him credit: This is Don Nelson ball.”

    “(Don) Nelson has left an indelible mark on the league in terms of ‘small-ball concept.'” — Adonal Foyle.

    • foyle said this in his current position on lacob’s payroll as community development director ? props to him.

    • FYI,

      Please read Don Nelson’s *own words* on “Nellieball” in 2012 (I posted the link elsewhere) and his efforts to disown it as his preferred style. He produced that innovation out of necessity and not desire. He was very clear that he preferred NOT to play that style if he could at all help it. Nevertheless, it has proven to be a useful innovation and he should be credited for it nonetheless.

      It would be far more helpful and intellectually honest to refer to what Felt has been calling “Nellieball” as “Feltyball.” I mean that in a very positive way whether you believe me or not.

      • cosmicballoon

        So are you saying Don Nelson stumbled into wha the NBA has become?

        Nelson was ahead of his time, even if he didn’t prefer to be.

        • You must read Don Nelson in his own words. I posted the link elsewhere (it was with ESPN, if I remember correctly). If you feel that his own self-assessment is invalid and irrelevant, there’s nothing I can do about that. But I did say that he should get credit in any event.

          I must admit that I didn’t realize for quite a while that the term “Nellieball” was such a misnomer and so misleading. I merely wanted to point this out to Felt, in part, so save future embarrassment. But mainly, it involved an effort to liberate him to own the philosophy himself as he interpreted it. His application of this philosophy has been instructive to me, in fact.

  13. Regarding discussion on PFs per game as indicator of someone’s D, it is not. The hall mark of great defender is defending while fouling less. Klay averages 1.8 PFs per game. Iguodala and Barnes about same rate. So, like swopa said, it is bizarre for to use that stat to indicate that Barnes is not a good defender to support own bias.

    • personally, prefer to look at rates per minutes played and not per game averages. that said, the anointed thompson’s foul rate is nearly the same as das Wunderkind barnes’. from my observation of play however, thompson (or iguodala or holiday or green) occludes more space on defense off the ball, and he makes more positive defensive plays rather than passive, deterrent ones ; the numbers on steals and blocked shots per 36 min. played bear it out.

      • cosmicballoon

        That’s what the eye test says.

        We may need to stop living in the past,re Barnes. The hype machine has totally calmed down. Barnes is barely ever mentioned now, even though he is a starter. The rest of the world finally recognizes that he is what he is.

      • You’ve hit upon the Feltbot Defensive Snapshot there in your last sentence, moto — a simple statistical picture that I have found very highly correlated with true defensive ability — and it is utterly damning to Mr. Barnes. I have not spelled it out yet as I’d rather give Barnes a break than keep piling on, on the assumption that most now understand his true level. If the hype machine starts roaring again, however, I might have no choice.

        As for fouls being committed, maybe this is the way to look at it: Great defenders don’t need to foul most of the time. However, whenever a great defender is getting eaten alive, he tends to foul often and hard. What is perplexing about Barnes is that he’s been willing to allow opponents to light him on fire and roast marshmallows, regularly, without ever taking it personally, and without ever pushing the limits of his defensive abilities.

      • Here’s something that may help people’s understanding of Barnes’ effectiveness as a defender, courtesy of Zach Lowe a month ago:
        ———————————
        Switching a single high pick-and-roll is easy, especially when the opposing point guard is just pounding the ball and waiting for the screen. What separates the Warriors is how fluidly they switch and re-switch everywhere, on and off the ball, as opposing offenses run their course….

        That is the stuff most teams eventually mess up. Two defenders will chase one offensive player, or one will hesitate a split second before realizing he needs to switch.

        Golden State almost never messes this up. It’s remarkable. “When some teams switch, there are gaps,” Green says. “We don’t have any gaps.” It’s not even something they practice much, Kerr says. “It just comes pretty naturally to our guys,” he says. “We have very smart players.”

        The players will discuss opposing personnel and playbooks among themselves and decide when they might switch, Green says, but a lot of the Dubs’ switchcraft comes down to having high-IQ players who have been together awhile.
        ———————————
        Note that there aren’t any caveats in the above discussion like “…except for Barnes, who’s a dolt and GS has to go out of their way to hide him.”

        If Barnes was routinely slow or ineffective on switches and rotations, his teammates would know it, his coaches would know it, and other teams would know it — and they’d exploit it ruthlessly. But that’s not the case.

        So either Felt, Moto, and the others who bash Barnes’ defense here are seeing something none of the NBA’s highly paid professionals has noticed, or… maybe, just maybe!… they’re imagining and/or exaggerating the flaws they claim to see. Just a possibility worth considering, y’know?

        • Lucky for you Felt’s withhholding his FFI (Feltbot Fantasy Indicator) which will clearly show that Steve Kerr, Alvin Gentry, and Ron Adams are all blithering idiots–not to mention Barnes’ own teammates.

          But all I can say to you is: Fear the FFI!

          • Oops, sorry! It’s the “Feltbot Defensive Snapshot” (FDS) rather than the “Feltbot Fantasy Indicator” (FFI).

            I seriously couldn’t make this shit up if I tried. Thanks Felt!

            BTW, everyone: Please re-read the parody I painstakingly crafted. you’ll understand it better….

  14. cosmicballoon

    *past re: Barnes

  15. I agree with LT that Felty’s
    analysis has not grown and in my
    opinion has little clue as to what
    Gentry is doing this year. He
    unintentionally misleads readers by
    exposing pick n rolls and ignoring
    the original myriad of ways Gentry
    is using Curry and Thompson to
    exploit the paint.

    And he’s ego is too invested to change.
    As he says Thompson was great last
    year when he wasn’t. You can’t be great
    until you’re great. He knocks Lacob for
    wanting to trade Thompson and Lee for
    Love ignoring that Felty himself was
    for the trade. Bragging how the
    Warriors had the best roster last
    year but not willing to predict the
    Warriors would the over in wins. And
    Saying B. Wright sucks even though he
    shots 65 percent from field even though
    his opponent never does.

    • I wonder why Brandan Wright’s career average is 15.8 min./game. I guess all of his pro coaches (all 5 of them!) are too stupid to recognize true greatness. I hear that when the Celtics acquired him they told him to leave his suitcase at the airport. Stupid Celtics. He’s doing great now, though. His PT is up to 17 min. per game!

      Where’s Ekpe Udoh collecting bench splinters these days, Frank? Want to guess how many minutes per game he’s averaging? Stupid darn coaches.

      Keep ’em coming, Frank! I especially liked your idea about going to the Ivy league to launch an NBA career!

      • Psst… I’m with you regarding Wright, but if you’re defending Felt’s hoops opinions, mentioning Udoh is probably not a good idea. ;-)

      • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

        Hat-

        Felty loves Ekpe Udoh!!!!

        By the way still waiting for your response to AAU. I guess after I exposed that you didn’t have a clue about what you were talking about you ignored the facts. If you want to call some out look in the more and stop making ignorant comments about AAU.

  16. @13 Barnes FFI is simple, and there’s no reason for me to withhold it, as I’m no longer intending to write a major Barnes piece.

    Barnes’ FFI for the year is 130. (Meaning he is the 130th ranked fantasy player in the league. To put that in perspective, there are 150 starters in the league.)

    His value with regard to the mean is -.33. Meaning his average performance across the 8 statistical categories is a third of a standard deviation worse than the mean NBA player. To put that in perspective, Curry is 3rd at +1.31, Klay is 7th at +.79, Dray is 27th at +.34, and Bogut is 58th at +.01. As a starter last year, Lee was 54th at +.08, down from 23rd at +.33 the year before.

    None of his supporters appear to have noticed, but Barnes has been slumping significantly as of late. Over the last month (14 games), his FFI is 160. Over the last week (3 games) his FFI is 202.

    As for his FDS, you’ll have to take my word for it at this time that it is worse than his FFI. Far worse. He is one of the worst defenders in the entire league among starters at his position, if not THE worst, by this statistical measure. And as I’ve said, it’s a very simple statistic, that in my experience correlates almost perfectly with defensive ability.

    What does this statistical analysis mean? I’m not one to make grandiose claims based on stats — I have been very comfortable making my judgments in their absence my entire life, including my judgements of Mr. Barnes. But I’m very comfortable saying that it means that Barnes supporters have a much higher burden of proof when proclaiming his excellence, than I do when proclaiming his mediocrity.

    • That’s some impressive sophistry, Felt. It’s hogwash, of course, but an impressive amount of effort devoted to misleading your readers.

      I understand if you can’t share the details of the FDS with us mere mortals. And why should you have to, when we have the power of your personal testimonial to its unerring accuracy? (“I drank this snake oil myself, and it cured my cancer, alopecia, and halitosis within days!”)

      But please do share it with Steve Kerr and his staff, before the rest of the NBA figures out this glaring vulnerability that only your keen mind perceives.

      • P.S. I anxiously await Feltbot’s secret-sauce statistical indices that show the Warriors don’t really have the best won-lost record or (according to just about everyone else’s stats in the universe, last I checked) the best defense in the NBA.

        How could they, with a clueless lamb like Barnes starting at SF? Oh, save us from this cruelly deceptive “reality”, mighty Feltbot! :)

      • Swopa,

        Now I’m really temped to break out my vaunted “Feltbot Fantasy-World Indicator” (FFWI) first introduced in my parody, even though Felt might have access to the equivalent of a Hadron Particle Statistical Collider (HPSC) buried in a remote (and arid) spot in the Southwest, I presume. But I’ll throw all caution to the wind and press ahead if necessary. We’ll need all we’ve got to confront the FFI and FDS data at Felt’s disposal. It’s an unfair battle otherwise….

        • I’m sorry if this makes you regret the amount of effort you’ve put into it, but nobody parodies Feltbot better than the man himself.

    • So, warriors would have been better than 36-6 if not for Barnes??

    • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

      Warriors are 25-1 with a starting lineup of Barnes, Green, Bogut, Thompson and Curry. But according to Felty Barnes is holding back the team. LMFAO the hate is unreal. Please show me a better starting 5.

      • “But according to Felty Barnes is holding back the team.”

        Really, where did I say that?

        What I have said — elsewhere — is that the Warriors have reduced him to the role they need, and he’s filling it well. And that he fits better with the starting five than Iggy. That’s what I actually said, if it matters.

        “LMFAO, the hate is unreal.”

        Stats are not hate. Stats are stats. They were requested of me, and I provided them. Was that an act of hate?

        “Please show me a better starting five.”

        Splitter, Duncan, Leonard, Green, Parker are the starting five of the world champions. Does that make Splitter a great player?

        Bosh, Lebron, Battier, Wade, Chalmers were the starting five of the world champions before that. Is Chalmers a great player? The 35 year old Battier, with one foot in the grave?

        Is it worth discussing players at all, on great teams, or should all discussion be foreclosed by the record? Perhaps from now on all my posts should be two words: “Scoreboard, bitches.”

        That seems to be the preferred analysis of Barnes supporters here.

        • warriorsablaze

          I thought “system matters”?

          You’re using counting stats to disparage a player with a usage rate of 12. When you play with 4 of the highest rated players in the league, you’re not going to rack up stats. He doesn’t get the touches to gather assists or points…. he is, however, among the league rebounding leaders for his position. How about this… there are 150 starters in the league and Barnes is ranked 130, that puts him in the top 10 for 5th options in the league. :)

          Also, nobody…literally, nobody, has proclaimed any degree of “Barnes excellence” for you to argue against. All anyone, on this board in particular, has said is that he’s an average-ish role player… just not the disastrous, borderline player image you and rgg imagine and obsess over.

          • Congratulations on making the first reasoned response. And it’s smart of you to note that Barnes has an extremely low usage rate (I thought it was actually 18). But did you know that it is a fundamental principle of usage rate theorists that for mediocre players, statistical performance suffers as usage is increased? That is precisely what we’ve seen from Barnes. Make him a focus, allow him to initiate, and his game falls apart.

            You fail to note, as do all Barnes supporters, the role that defense plays in his poor ranking. Being the fifth option on offense has absolutely nothing to do with his steals and blocks totals, which are at the literal bottom of the league for wing players.

            Again, I don’t imagine a “disastrous” player when I see Barnes, I imagine a role player, exactly as I explicitly stated in my last post. I could see him becoming a productive stretch four off the bench.

            As for my obsession — I think if I were truly obsessed I’d have already published the work I’ve done on Barnes’ defense. I was asked for Barnes’ fantasy ranking, and I gave it. What you and others want to do with that information is up to you.

          • warriorsablaze

            I don’t fail to note it, I just realize that blocks and steals are not always caused by great defense. Westbrook, for example, leads the league in steals and does so because he’s a compulsive gambler on the floor…as was Monta, another generally poor defensive player with a high steal rate.

            Blocks are similar… Javalle McGee gets blocks because he’s constantly flailing around and jumping at everything… he gives up more than he gets.

            Of course, some good defensive players do get blocks and steals, but I don’t believe those stats correlate as strongly as you’re implying.

            I’m not a Barnes supporter… nor do I believe he’s more than an average role player. I do, however get irritated by bias disguised as analysis… a specialty of Fox News and this blog in particular.

  17. longtimer, since it appears you’re still in the midst of good-byes — you’re a fortunate theatre-goer indeed [clearly, NYer’s and londoners have it incomparably richer than the rest of the anglophone world], attending that marlowe production with john douglas thompson, staged by the former artistic director of the royal shakespeare co, with an original score.

    my comment about your high standards was actually serious, responding to your lengthy critiques of this blog and its chief, when the other woeyr fan blogs in comparison suffer from a borderline (at their best, with frequent incursions beyond) intolerable noise to content ratio. yes, there is an element of irony in my praise for you, but if you take offense it might be from inaccurately hearing irony (with serious content imbedded) as mere sarcasm (derision or provocation the sole intent). some of your expostulations that are possibly intended as parody sound to me like sarcasm, as far as that goes. dismiss me as a soft shelled calif guy if tropes lend you comfort, but much of my education took place in NY, and lived in the state for sixteen years.

  18. @ Swopa, above, all over

    You may need to change your handle to Swipa, as in Side-Swipa. But for the edification of those of us who do not see the game as clearly as you, can you point to anything we might watch for in Barnes that shows he is an average or above average defender, beyond his ability to move within the choreography of the defense with a certain speed and grace, perhaps in the process getting in the way of opponents at opportune times? We need something specific to look for. And I have to confess, my main problem with Barnes is that I have to find him on the floor and am not always aware he’s in the game.

    But I’m always aware of Green. He makes his presence known in specific ways that do not appear in the limited defensive stats. So for comparison, I’ll make a list of things Green does.

    1. Boards don’t count per se. He has to box his man out, regardless of size, to get into position.

    2. Or he suddenly appears crashing through several defenders in the front court to grab a board.

    3. Or takes a charge.

    4. The ability to defend above and below his position on switiches—and Green has adequately defended all 5, and very often much more than adequately.

    5. The ability to go up against a top player.

    6. Getting a compliment from a top player, as Green got from Lebron.

    7. Along with steals, make deflections and general harassment that often lead to turnovers.

    8. The ability to be in the right place at the right time to make something happen, even if it doesn’t result in a board or a steal.

    9. This assessment of Green is intriguing:

    “According to SportVU data provided to ESPN Insider, Green has defended 38 drives by point guards this season, and those 38 drives have resulted in a measly 15 points, for an average of 0.39 points per drive. The league average on points per drive: 0.63. Also: Among the 18 players who have defended at least 75 post-ups, no one has held their opponent to a lower payoff than Green (0.68 points per post-up). The guy does everything.”

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2335520-draymond-green-looks-like-nbas-next-defensive-superstar

    Can comparable numbers be found for Barnes?

    How would Barnes rate in all these categories? I just don’t recall seeing many of these specific behaviors. And this list should be enlarged. Maybe someone else can help.

    • You raise enough interesting topics that I may have to respond in a few separate comments, just to avoid numbing readers’ eyes. First, let’s talk about your statements about Barnes “mov[ing] within the choreography of the defense” versus “I’m always aware of Green.”

      The former, however unflashy & not always apparent to the casual fan, is the meat of playing NBA defense. That is the gist of Zach Lowe’s piece, which I quoted above. The elements of the latter — blocks, steals, charges, etc., or what I will refer to as Visible Hustle — are the gravy (albeit very exciting visually).

      A couple of examples from the W’s lamentable past may help. Remember Adonal Foyle and Erick Dampier? Foyle was a fan favorite because of his Visible Hustle — blocking shots you didn’t think he could get to, falling out of bounds pursuing rebounds, etc. But the seemingly boring, unemotional Dampier was actually a better defender by a couple orders of magnitude. Being taller and longer, Dampier could just take a step to deter a guard’s penetration or extend his arm to force a miss, whereas if Foyle didn’t get a spectacular block (or even if he did!), the result was usually an easy layup or putback.

      An even better example, if you remember back this far, is Chris Porter. A 6’5″ college PF converted to SG in the pros, Porter excelled at flashy putback dunks, backcourt steals, and the like when the W’s missed a shot. Unfortunately, as a guard his primary responsibility was to drop back for boring, unspectacular transition defense — so for every dunk or steal he succeeded in getting, there were 10 or more times he whiffed and the other team got an uncontested fastbreak. Which is why Porter quickly washed out of the NBA.

      Obviously, Draymond is infinitely more valuable than either Foyle or Porter; he gambles occasionally, but his steals/blocks are typically *in addition* to excellent positional defense, not in place of it. But my point is that positional defense is Job 1, whether it stands out to you as a fan or not.

      • Swopa, your eyes tell you that Barnes plays good positional D?

        • Yes, without a doubt. And so do Steve Kerr’s eyes, and the eyes of NBA teams in general.

          If your eyes tell you differently, there may be more for you to learn about NBA defense.

          • cosmicballoon

            Are you really defending Barnes based on his positional defense? A good defender is a difference maker. Barnes is not a difference maker, so therefore he is an average defender.

            In my opinion, Barnes has filled a hole. That’s to defend the slower 3s and the stretch 4s, while Green handles the more talented players.

          • “…and the eyes of NBA teams in general…”

            Wow, so Barnes isn’t the weakest defender on the Ws starting 5. Um, that shows up in the stats how, exactly?

            Actually, Swopa, my eyes tell me that Barnes rarely closes on his defensive assignment even when that opponent doesn’t have a live dribble. So he’s rarely in position to be a shot-blocking threat, and people shoot over him. A lot. Even short people.

            Unlike, say, Curry, Barnes doesn’t seem able to predict an opponent’s moves, so when his guy attacks the rim, Barnes almost always ends up trailing the play. All of Barnes (rare) blocks seem to occur that way – Barnes blocking the shot from behind his opponent. And when I say “rare” I mean almost non-existent: One block per every 5 games, on par with his point guard. For a tall 3 with great hops, that’s almost inconceivable. Until you see the air space Barnes leaves his opponent.

            Barnes also has the fewest steals among the starters, averaging, this season, .6 per game. Curry is among the league leaders at 2.1 steals/game this season. So Curry must gamble a lot, then, right? Actually, my eyes tell me he stays in front of his man far better than Barnes. It’s that “predictive” thing again. Curry senses an opponent’s moves in advance, Barnes does not.

            And finally, while I agree that highlight-reel defensive plays don’t clearly demonstrate the basic soundness of a player’s D, hustle plays absolutely do. The only time I have EVER seen Barnes hit the floor is when he loses the ball on a dribble-drive, and dives to recover it (which might explain why Kerr doesn’t have him driving to score).
            Wrestle for a rebound? Can’t say I’ve ever seen Barnes force a jump ball.
            Dive out of bounds? Never.
            Untangle from a loose-ball scrum? Barnes is never in the middle of something like that. If anything, Barnes avoids contact. That even shows up in his rebounds, where the majority of his boards are mid-paint, not under the hoop where the heavy action is.

            Swopa, I don’t have any stake in the Barnes-bashing game. I love the fact that the Ws are so good that they can start him. I even approve of the fact that he’s concerned with his “brand,” which, of course, Feltbot despises. I think it says Barnes is smart.

            But a good defender?

            Barnes is… adequate, given the players surrounding him and the Ws terrific defensive schemes. Sorry, but he’s not a good defender in any way these eye can see.

            Your results obviously vary. I’d love to hear precisely how. Don’t feel that you have to “defend” Barnes, I like the guy just fine. Just tell me what shows you he’s good at D.

        • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

          Hat also needsto lear abou AAU because he is clueless when it comes to that.

          • I dunno, being clueless about AAU sounds like a plus in my book.

          • FFG, if you’re concerned about the AAU for some reason, do your own homework. After making unsubstantiated claims about “all the money,” you were going to come up with some documentation about their funding, remember?

            I don’t care enough to bother, myself. I only follow NBA ball.

          • FeltbotsFakeGirlfriend

            Hat you made an idiotic statement that AAU players have zero aspirations of playing professionally. When the 1st 10 players in the NBA draft all played AAU basketball that clearly proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • FFG, if this topic is so vitally interesting to you, go back and re-read what I actually did write.

            I quoted the AAU charter, which states that its purpose is to broadly promote youth athletics.

            Really, check it out. I’d be interested to know what facts you find about the AAU’s funding. Their website and wiki are very sketchy about it.

        • I would say more times than not, he was a good defender.

      • Barnes’ defense is so good in Steve Kerr’s eyes, in fact, that he is regularly benched in fourth quarters of close games for a worse offensive player with an arthritic knee.

      • Pretty, Swopa, but not convincing. You’ve couched your argument in such a way as to hide or negate evidence as well as deflect analysis. Aggressiveness is the heart and teeth of this defense. Ask Ron Adams. All the things you take as extras are essential. And ultimately defense comes down down to how well a player handles his opponent when he makes a move. I’d be curious to see similar stats for Barnes as posted above for Green.

        I left out blocked shots in my list above. But it’s not just blocked shots, but the ability to get in an opponent’s face and hinder his shot or make him decide to pass out, which never appears in the stats.

  19. @Moto #18, et al,
    Thanks for the reply. I’ve never had a problem with you at all, or for that matter anyone really (except for, occasionally, the “Hat”—and much of that seemed to depend on what side of the bed he rolled out of that morning. Rgg was troublesome at first but he’s been a real gentleman since.). I have enjoyed our brief jousts and will miss them after bidding my farewells. And yes, I did see the exact play you mentioned—quite good, in fact. The venue was wonderfully intimate and, believe it or not, I saw it for free! NYC has an amazing diversity of top shelf cultural offerings by superior talents, often for very little money. BTW, where in NY have you lived?

    I have been sarcastic at times—and, perhaps, came across as a bit heavy handed. But I was simply following Felt’s lead in that regard and trying to rouse him to a higher level. I also only did so when responding directly to other posters’ jabs at me. I never sought out conflict with anyone in the community.

    I knew the comments about NorCal—and especially in reference to NYC—would ruffle feathers. Having lived in the East Bay (Berkeley), South Bay (Palo Alto) and the “City” I know it well. And I do enjoy and appreciate it very much indeed; that’s why I gladly keep coming back. I’m really looking forward to getting together soon with the many friends I made there and enjoying the many wonders it has to offer. However, I’ve never been in a place where the people are so utterly convinced—fanatically so—that they live in the best place in the entire world, bar none! And if they hear even a peep of an objection, act as if you’ve insulted their dead grandmother.

    Please indulge me and allow me to make the following observations (and please note that I’m *only* talking about SF):
    I was really disappointed to experience the disintegration of communities and community life there. The devastation of the African American community was but one symptom of the city’s growing problems. This decimation has seen the population dwindle from 16% to less than 6% in a short period of time. Truly appalling. Moreover, the very people that allow communities to even survive—let alone thrive—can’t afford to live there. And nor will I until that changes (my guess is that it will be the East Bay if/when I move there permanently). The cost of living there is also ridiculously out of whack. Brooklyn and—brace yourselves!—LA are both cheaper and offer so much more. These two cities are also far more diverse; walk into any bar and you’re bound to meet people from a much broader range of backgrounds and who also have a far greater range of interests. Not even close. SF is dominated by software and biomedical engineers, along with the “support staff” (i.e. corporate lawyers and financiers) that grease those industrial engines. None of those groups are renowned for being interested in the intellectual or artistic worlds. And the majority tend to have relatively homogeneous (read: privileged) backgrounds. While there are exceptions (of course) SF is impoverished compared to other major cities in this regard.

    Whenever I try and explain why SF might, just possibly, not be the greatest place in the whole wide world I always get the most curious—and overheated—replies. Most SF’ers invariably supply a litany of plaudits that are almost entirely extrinsic to the city; in doing so they incorporate the entire Bay Area region into their explanation. Indeed, the answers invoke everything from the northern reaches of the wine country, stretch across the Bay (often into Nevada!!)—and then swing down south through SV all the way to Santa Cruz. I consider this to be egregious cheating. To understand how bizarre this is you must remember that for denizens of other cities, it would never even cross their minds to invoke other cities and distant regions, let alone neighboring suburbs and boroughs, into a consideration of their city’s strong points. Manhattanites barely even recognize Brooklyn—which you can easily walk to and is a truly global phenomenon (the French even have incorporated the borough into their vocabulary!). No self-respecting Londoner or Parisian (I’ve lived in both places) would even consider invoking anything outside their city centers in such a discussion.

    Why do SF’ers do this—especially since most I knew looked down with disdain at those who lived in the very same areas they invoke in their spirited defense of SF’s “greatness”? Because they have to, is the only satisfactory answer I can come up with. Yes, there are very strong “foodie” (although these tend to be very expensive and lack diversity) and beer-loving offerings. And the city has arresting vistas as well, of course. But beyond that there’s not much else compared to other great cities. Yet people routinely tell me SF is the best because of:
    The beaches (Santa Cruz); weather (anywhere outside SF, where the weather’s the worst in all CA); skiing (Nevada and the Sierras); wine country (wine country); the tech industry (SV); the universities (Berkeley and Palo Alto—SF’s a relative disaster); diverse and quality “ethnic” food (South and, to a lesser extent, East Bay. Ask any Indian, Korean, Persian, Mexican, or Chinese where the best food is and they will invariably direct you well outside the confines of the city.); vibrant gay culture (perhaps, but I can say that I’ve never lived in a place where the gay population is as segregated from mainstream life; I had far less interactions with gays there on a daily basis than anywhere else I’ve ever lived. Indeed, the city is really segregated by neighborhood and I wonder if the topography has something to do with it); counter culture (Berkeley to a certain extent, but that has diminished. SF is a hollow shell of what it once was).

    In any event, I just wanted to throw that out there as a quick subject change. Knowing that I shy away from controversy….ah, what the hell, I guess that comment was headed in a bit of a sarcastic direction so I’ll just stop here and wait for the applause….

    • I’m a native San Franciscan LT. I definetely gonna re-read your post and respond at some point but right now i’M at work and don’t have time.

      • No worries. Looking forward to your more well informed insider opinions on SF.

        And please remember that, in spite of all I said, I DO like the place…

    • your description of the general sociocultural ecology is fairly accurate and how many people perceive SF, including residents of the surrounding cities. berserkley, also with sizable affluent enclaves, has many of the same faults. urban and suburban northern calif overall might have one of the most refined and developed strains of narcissism in the human population. it’s normal for affluent narcissists in a very comfortable climate with access to immense arrays of sensual and materialistic gratifications to feel they’re in the best of all possible places.

      whatever conflicts you may have encountered on this blog probably have little to do with the insularity and provincialism we both perceive in the bay area, just my guess, but life is too short to dissect and debate communication issues further. those of us who return here do so for amusement and entertainment, exercise analytical synapses, reflect on life. the atmosphere/ambience in every blog isn’t comfortable or suited for everyone. shalom

      • Moto–
        Agreed on your take re. the confluence of affluence and “immense arrays of sensual and materialistic gratifications.” Well put, indeed.
        One thing I did note was how hedonistic the culture is there. I became a member of Symphonix, a member’s-only “philanthropic” group dedicated to supporting the SFO. I also attended Bravo (the sister organization dedicated to the SF Ballet) events as well. I was truly surprised to discover that I never once met a member who knew anything about orchestral music–or the ballet. More astonishing was the fact that no one cared or was the least bit embarrassed about this–something which would be unthinkable in NYC, Chicago, or Boston. On the other hand, all of its members were keenly aware of the next hot restaurant or bar opening or where the hopping parties were (speaking of which, what’s the deal with *every* freaking party requiring some form of costume?!).

        I failed to point out that I was referring mostly to people in their mid 30’s on up. For that crowd, very few go to SF to “make it.” In fact, it’s even a bit funny to even consider this possibility. Most go there to live out their lives in the relative comforts that SF has to offer. Their first encounters with this bewitching place (it is a beautiful city and the proximity to all I mentioned is quite an attraction) enchanted them enough to pull up the stakes and settle there permanently. Because it’s their last stop on life’s train ride they’re almost forced to insist to both themselves and others that they made the right decision. This, I think, partly explains the psychological mindset driving this almost pathological hyper-sensitivity and overweening civic pride. Contributing to this is the sky-rocketing costs, which compel denizens to justify their considerable financial outlays required to live there. And it was especially sad to see those who were having difficulties financially struggle to hang on. Leaving–even to the East Bay–was perceived as a failure of sorts.

        Many New Yorkers, by contrast, come to NYC to make it in a vast array of fields. Yet very few expect to live their entire lives there as they know that the daily grind, cost, and energy sapping qualities of the city will eventually push them further afield–often, quite literally, to greener pastures.

        If you were to tell a New Yorker that you didn’t like their city, the vast majority of them could care less. They’d probably even whip out a map and help you with directions to exit the city in the most efficient manner. If someone were to tell me that they didn’t like my native city I’d heartily agree with them–but would point out some of its more positive–if hidden–aspects, not out of pride but a genuine effort to help them enjoy what’s there. Moreover, I readily recognize that the best thing about that place is what it’s near–but I would never dream of claiming these surrounding areas as representing the city–as most SF’ers do.

        Of course I/we are engaging in gross generalizations. But what the heck…

        • worth keeping in mind, the original for ‘peninsula’, SF’s geographic status, is paene insulae, ‘almost/nearly island’. at a mere 50 sq. mi. including some undeveloped mountain slopes, the folks in SF, especially living in a car centric culture, are compelled to claim adjoining space as their turf.

          when you used the acronym SFO in reference to the symphonix society, thought you were referring to the local opera. when we moved to the area [somewhat of a ritorno d’ulisse for me] we attended both the opera and symphony fairly regularly. at the time the opera enjoyed a progressive general manager, her programs were too challenging for the conservative constituency, and she ended up going back to central europa. in general, the symphony had a greater percentage of serious music lovers than the opera, but we also attended mostly chamber and solo recitals at a smaller and older venue than the new symphony hall, so there was a sampling bias. the folks you describe with limited understanding of the art forms were probably educated in the 80’s or after, as education became more segregated, specialized, and much less attention given to the ‘liberal arts’ which always include western music appreciation.

          pleasantly surprised with the audio system in my wife’s new car (pre-owned, so we hadn’t shopped the option), we chose to get a free trial to sirius radio. unless the selection of channels is severely truncated for the free trial package, the programming on sirius offers slim pickings for serious music aficionados. it has two classical channels, one for symphonic, another for opera. for jazz and blues, there’s but one channel for ‘classic jazz’ or standards, but they very rarely play what we could also call great black music by armstrong, basie, ellington, tatum, monk, mingus, vaughn, holiday, washington, ‘trane, et. al.

          we are probably entering a period of decline, in terms of our educational exposure and encouragement to devote time and self cultivation for serious reading and music listening. maybe those things always took place in private settings, but do today’s parents for the most part take the time to inoculate their kids in them.

  20. Major coup for me. I convinced my neighbor to leave his wife at home and take me to the Warriors event tomorrow night at Pier 48. Meet the Players, and food and drink on Joe Lacob’s dime;)
    If anyone here is going it be great to meet and chat in person. I’ll be wearing my blue and gold vintage TMC-era Starter jacket. When you get up close you’ll notice its actually a Union work jacket with “Teamsters” across the back. Everyone thinks its a Dubs jacket..

  21. Barnes naysayers want proof stats wise, so just quickly looked into it, here is the finding. I already pointed to 82games.com stats before which also favored him.

    I randomly picked Ariza because I think I saw some posts preferring Ariza to Barnes. Two starting SFs of contending teams. BTW, I don’t think we should compare of players of the same team, so didn’t do that, but you can do that if you wish.

    Barnes:
    http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/203084/tracking/defense/
    Barnes defensive rating 96.2, Net rtg 15.4
    DFG% Barnes 44.4%

    Ariza:
    http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2772/tracking/defense/
    Ariza defensive rating 97.9, Net rtg 6.3
    DFG% Ariza 45.9%

    • BTW: Disclaimer, as all stats, I am sure this stat will have some limitations too but I don’t know enough to know the limitations of these stats.

    • Well, I couldn’t help myself, check Iguodala’s stats. His defensive rating is better as expected but not by as much as I thought. It would be apple to orange comparsion as one starts and other comes off bench and finishes game. Ariza comparison is more apt context wise.

      Iguodala:
      http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2738/stats/advanced/
      Defensive rating:95.6
      DFG%:40.8%

    • Sorry, defensive rating is pretty much a team rating. The worst defensive player in the league would have a great defensive rating if played exclusively alongside 4 great defenders.

      • how about DFG%, that can’t be team rating.

        IF defensive rating is team’s, I would think Iguodala’s would be worse given he plays with the bench.

        • OK, so Barnes’ overall DFG% is 44.4 (w/ Barnes defending), while those same opponents shoot at a FG% of 44.3 overall, against all opponents. Kind of a wash. He’s league average. Ariza actually looks worse.

          On the other hand, I think we can assume that Curry is the 2nd weakest defender among the Ws starters, and his comparable numbers are DFG% 40 and FG% 43.7. In other words, his opponents shoot 3.7% worse against Curry than against all their other opponents.

          Draymond’s spread is about 5%.

          So Barnes doesn’t get terrible defensive results against shooters, he’s just not as good as anyone else on the starting 5. Add in his teammates’ steals, blocks, deflected passes, hustle plays, etc. – all those little things Barnes doesn’t do – and he doesn’t measure up in comparison. But no, he’s not terrible.

          • Again, this is very much a team stat. Bogut and Green do as much to help Warriors wings keep their men from attacking the rim as do the wings themselves.

  22. WAB @17: Again, good analysis. However, I only apply the analysis of blocks and steals — which I jokingly refer to as Feltbot Defensive Snapshot to tweak the statphreaks — when analyzing wing players. (Very simply, FDS = Blocks + Steals per 36 minutes.) It is of no use when analyzing PGs and big men, for many of the reasons you mention. Also relevant is that PGs are frequently defending the point of attack, thus more steal opportunities, and big men the basket, etc. Also, many PFs have more rebounding responsibility than rim protection, so again unfair. (It’s also of little use when analyzing short minute wing players, like Holiday. The shorter the minutes, the more per 36 minute stats lie. But I can tell from watching Holiday that his FDS would be off the charts with Barnes’ minutes.)

    As for wing players, the standard caveats of gambling vs. good defense also apply. However, I have noticed that FDS is in my experience an unerring indicator of defensive prowess. If you want to test this, simply rank the starting SFs and SGs in the league by FDS and see if anything annoying jumps out at you. I have literally never seen a curious result using this shortcut indicator. Including the result that shows Barnes all alone in the basement of the league in FDS among starters.

    Reasons why it works? 1) It’s possible that gamblers might add to their stats a little, but over the course of the season, if they don’t have the chops, they simply won’t have the stats. 2) While steals and blocks aren’t necessarily ends in themselves, they are artifacts of great wing defense. Great wing defenders invariably produce them. And bad wing defenders invariably don’t.

    It’s a very simple statistical analysis that measures something intangible, whether it be athleticism, intelligence, heart or will to win. I’ll leave it to you to decide what it measures in Mr. Barnes.

    • Felt, for SFs, you have to factor rebounding too.

      • That’s a reasonable position, but here we’re simply talking about defensive ability, which is of great significance in wing players.

        Barnes has rebounded well this season, for which I’ve given him credit. I do note that it has fallen off recently though. Over the last month, he’s at 4.8/gm, 6.5/36m, which is not an exceptional rate.

        • I observed that too, that Barnes rebounding rate is down. You can argue either way, but think defensive rebounding is part of defense for SF,PF and C.

          But, are you not surprised that Barnes is holding opponent to less FG% than Ariza ?

        • On defense and rebounding, couple of more notes.

          * Every activity on defensive end should be considered and rebounding is one of them.
          * Barnes rebounding rate for season seemed to be best among SFs, better than Melo, Lebron and Gay.

          Add DFG% and defensive rebounding, both individual stats, I would say Barnes is above average defender. Warriors have lot of players who can play SF, but Barnes is the only with rebounding chops and he plus Green keeping the team from becoming -ve in rebounding.

        • Kerr’s minute dilemma might hold your answer to HB’s numbers being down rather than a “slump” that gets you salivating. With DLee healthy, Holiday earning time, LB’s hard work being rewarded minutes distribution has changed…

          They had been going 9 deep & now are going 10-11 deep….

          • While Barnes rebounding rate is down, still 6.5/36m still better than most of SFs in the league.

          • It’s true that Barnes minutes are down 3 over the last month, to 26.4 But so are his shooting percentages: .472, and .692 from the line. And his ranking has been right around the same place all season long.

            I’m not sure why a slump would have me “salivating”. It astonishes me how many people think I actually root against Barnes. Was I rooting against him when I predicted before the season that he’d look much better in the starting lineup this year? Was I rooting against him last year when I defended him at rock bottom, stating that he was a lot better than Mark Jackson was making him look?

            Rooting for the Warriors to make the right personnel decisions is something else entirely. Thats what I root for, and what looks like bias to fans.

    • Felt, did you subtract Barnes PF minutes?

    • warriorsablaze

      Man… has there ever been a more dominant D-league season by someone who doesn’t get a call-up?

      I’m starting to get the feeling Seth is going to get his shot and prove a lot of people wrong.

      • if the lesser curry proves he can get his shot vs. n.b.a. defenders he can get a job as a reserve scorer. there are other renown shooters who were too slow to defend and saw very limited play like fredette or morrison. curry might find a better career in hoops overseas than here, unless he likes bouncing back and forth from the end of the bench to the d-league.

        • warriorablaze

          You’re probably right about overseas…. but I think the trend towards elaborate team defensive schemes helps a player like Seth…just as it has Steph the past few seasons.

          All he has to do is be a smart defender who sticks to the team defense concepts and his deficiencies won’t be a big deal… of course, he has to go to one of the progressive teams, not the ones still stuck in the old school ways. Put him on the Spurs, Warriors, or Hawks and I think he could find a role.

  23. Unless something has happened to Noah’s knees since the last game, I don’t see the Bulls as a problem.

    • Do you think Holiday has Bulter potential ?

      • He’s not as rough a customer as Butler. Holiday looks like Corey Brewer and Michael Cooper physically — his legs are as skinny as most players arms. Should be a better offensive player than both those guys though.

      • in recent times, younger players who weren’t drafted high or left out of the draft entirely, and a few lottery picks like das Wunderkind barnes are getting compared to success stories from late in the draft or small schools who made surprising (to most) ascents when they reached the big show. k.leonard, butler, d’mond-g. are this success archetype. but those three guys took on the pressure of being their team’s best player and leader, proven winners in big games, in college ; there’s a personality aspect, high expectations dealt with and high motivation, along with the talent. holiday seems likely to become a solid reserve, but there is something special with the guys left out of the high lottery picks who get to the top.

    • Butler is a game time decision as well.

  24. OK, with an hour to kill before the game, let’s start giving the people what they say they want. The call has come from a couple of folks above to describe what Barnes does well defensively. I posted the Zach Lowe quote above to address this, because I agree with him that seamless switches and rotations are the key to the Warriors’ top-notch defense.

    As an example of what happens when a player loses track, check out the beginning of the Sacramento game on Friday night. At about 10:49 in the first quarter, Barnes has to remind Klay to switch onto Rudy Gay as Derrick Williams cuts along the baseline — the kind of gap/hesitation that Lowe accurately notes is extremely rare for GS. Fortunately, there’s no harm done, and a couple of seconds later Klay helps challenge a Collison drive.

    Then comes the weird part — Klay just stands near the baseline, not guarding anyone or even looking around for someone to guard as Collison goes right underneath the rim and gets a pass for a layup.

    I don’t bring this up to pick on Klay; as we all know, he’s an excellent defender. In fact, the play stood out to me because I’ve never seen him lose concentration like that.

    But plays like that are what I mean when I argue that doing your job within the defensive scheme, and not missing switches/rotations, is a big part of being a good defender. And the point of the Lowe piece is that the Warriors — including Barnes — excel at this.

    (Other issues will be addressed in a subsequent comment or two.)

  25. I’ll continue on with examples from the first quarter of the Kings game Friday night, since it featured Barnes matching up with a key offensive player (Rudy Gay) rather than, say, Jae Crowder on Sunday or Tony Snell tonight.

    I noted three times when the Kings explicitly ran plays for Gay. The first (a post-up at around 10:14) was inconclusive in terms of Barnes’ defense, since Derrick Williams caught Draymond off guard with a cut to the hoop, and Gay passed to him for a layup. (Like Klay above, Draymond is a top-notch defender, but NBA games aren’t shutouts; everyone gets beat sometimes.)

    Next, starting around 9:26, Gay spends about 10 seconds looking for an angle to take Barnes off the dribble from the perimeter, going back and forth behind a screen from Cousins before driving right. Barnes stays with him and steers him toward Draymond waiting at the baseline, forcing Gay to shoot over both of them: an airball. (On the Kings feed, the announcer notes, “Good defense,” and begins a conversation about how good GS has gotten in that regard.)

    That’s what you see most often with Barnes defensively — executing the W’s usual game plan of forcing drives to the baseline and (hopefully) help defenders. At his most effective, I’ve seen him several times force drives behind the backboard, making it very hard for the player to get off a decent shot or pass.

    One more play coming up.

  26. If you’re looking for a more demonstrative example of Barnes playing hard-nosed defense, you finally get your wish in the middle of the 1st quarter of the Sacramento game. Starting at about 5:59, the Kings clear out the lane, trying to isolate Gay against Barnes in the post. But Barnes fronts Gay, jostling with him and denying the entry pass.

    After several seconds, Gay gives up and comes to the free-throw line to screen for Cousins. Barnes immediately switches onto Damarcus, and on the Kings feed the announcer notes Cousins is “well defended” even before he launches a wild airball at 5:43.

    I don’t think anyone can honestly watch that play and say, “That guy’s a poor defender.” Though perhaps some here will try. :)

  27. Bummer.

    Steph didn’t look right at all. You could see it in his face.

    This may be as close an approximation of a playoff game as we’ve seen so far. Someone had to step up in the front court, and he did. Lee simply put in the kind of performance as we’ve come to expect the past four seasons. And, in addition to his stats, he did about a dozen things right on defense. I’ve never understood the Lee haters.

    (Why not get Barbosa in for a little slash action?)

  28. Could Klay have taken that last drive to the rim? It looked clear. Maybe Noah could have have got over. Even so, at the least, Klay could have taken the contact for free throws, if he missed the shot.

  29. Livingston got beat off the dribble every single time. I think that’s why Kerr pulled him. And he always slows the game down with the ball in his hands. The puzzling thing is he does other things real well — fills the lanes, handles, mid-range jumpers, post-ups, and moves well without the ball to receive feeds for lay-ups and dunks.

  30. Ones man’s MVP list (mine):

    1) Steph Curry
    2) Anthony Davis
    3) Klay Thompson
    4) Marc Gasol
    5) John wall

    I wanted to include a Hawk but settle on one. Truly a team effort there. Steph had an off shooting nite and seemed a little out of it in general but I’m not worried about him. DRose looked like a different player from the first GS- Chi game. His 3 isn’t pretty but he was nailin it

    As iggy pounded the ball with 7 seconds in regulation both my bro and I wondered aloud what he was doing and implored him to pass. By the time he shot we were on our feet yelling at the tube. Nice play by Draymond there

    Iggys free throwing is frightening

    The playoffs will be a whole new animal. It’s gonna be exciting..

    • Last year Iggy seemed to have improved from FT as season progressed. In any case, his hesistancy on offence is costing the dubs sometimes. It is a trade off for Kerr, his D over his offense. May be in close games, Kerr has to look for Barnes or Holiday.

  31. I thought for sure the game was goin double OT when Klay blew by Pau. Posting from my iPhone 4 ain’t ez! Sorry for the errors.

    Shnighters all

  32. GooseLosGatos

    I don’t have the link but just read a fascinating article on Deadspin that breaks down Mark Jackson’s broadcasting comments during his trip
    to Oracle in precision detail & analysis. Lots of undercurrents & subtext going on and the article gets into the ‘perceived’ racial undercurrents in Jackson’s firing.

    For those who haven’t read the article (you won’t regret reading it I assure you) Google ‘Kevin Draper’,’Mark Jackson’ & ‘Deadspin’.

  33. We missed Bogut last night. 27-2 with
    Bogut playing. Small ball not as effective
    as when Bogut is on the court. Giving up
    19 offensive rebounds embarrassing.

    Opposing guards usually blow by every
    opponent including Curry and Thompson.
    Thompson made a few dumb decisions
    last night.

    • The Ws had it won until Curry turned over the ball at the end. Bad, bad decision, possibly the worst move possible for him.

      But everyone was a little off last night. Terrible shooting, 27.3% from 3-pt. range, 42% overall, only 50% on FTs. Plenty of good looks, very poor results.

      Despite Fitz’s screeching, the rebound disparity last night was not the killer. Chi got 19 offensive boards, but the Ws got 15. The difference is more than made up for by fastbreak points – and, usually, 3-point accuracy.

      • hat, Bulls had like 10 plus more second chance points than dubs. Overall, warriors outrebounded by 13 in a game in which bulls had way more TOs than warriors. The only reason, Bulls were in the game through three quarters was because of second chance points. Their offensive rebounding also encouraged Rose and Hinrich keep chucking the ball which worked to their advantage as their bigs were snatching offensive rebounds and airballs.

        • Right, the Ws were outrebounded. But if they shoot as well as normal, most of the rebounding disparity disappears.

          Betting on 2nd-chance points is a loser’s bet. San Antonio (World Champion) is a terrible offensive rebounding team, by design. They get back on D instead of waiting around to see if the ball bounces out. Statistically, it pays off better.

          One last point: D Lee 10-17, 9 rebounds, 6 assists, 4-4 FTs in 30 min. – but not a finisher in OT? Speights instead? On a night when Speights was 4-14?

          Makes one wonder how much Kerr & Co. really know what they have in Lee.

  34. Iggy clearly the Warriors best defender still
    playing the same position that others on the
    Warriors play.

    As SG’s shoot 36 percent against him, while SG’s
    shoot 46 percent against Thompson. SF’s
    shoot 41 percent against him, while SF’s shoot
    49 percent against Green. Power forward’s
    shoot 37 percent against Iggy, 43 percent
    against Green. 82 games.

    Can’t compare Iggy to Bogut because Iggy
    is never palys center. Bogut’s opponents only
    d shoot 43 percent against him, but since
    Bogut is still not good providing weakside help
    Iggy protects him well when both are on the
    court.

    No more back and forth LT, but must say
    I’m glad you’re not selecting the all star
    defensive team. Sorry about your problems
    with yourteeth. Nothing worse.

  35. I don’t want to get into the play that
    posters claim that Iggy was afraid
    to shoot fearing having to go to the
    foul line, for in my opinion, on that
    pla,y he had to quickly make a decision
    and it’s not clear to me what he was
    thinking and I don’t think anyone
    knows other then him.

  36. I like Kerr’s rotation. Need Green in starting line-up
    for his defensive rebounding and extra possessions
    he provides the Warriors. More than 2 per game when
    one factors in his block sh0ts. Like Barnes in the starting
    line-up for his shooting efficiency. Have three starters
    (Curry, Thompson, and Barnes) shooting an effective
    shooting percentage above .56 percent is outstanding. Love
    David Lee coming off the bench as he’s added stability
    as has Iggy.

    LIke Bogut on court at end of games and don’t want
    to see Feltyball at end of games. I love rim protection
    at end of games. Felty does not. That’s not to say that
    on some rare occasions it won’t work.

    Think Lee is the only player the Warriors are
    considering moving but doubt they would get comparable
    value in return and that it will not happen unless the
    salary cap and resigning Green is an issue.

    Don’t agree with LT and Felty that Iggy refused to shoot
    a few games ago at the end of the fourth because
    he feared going to the foul-line.

    Only he knows. I thought he had to make a quick decision.
    Shooting 51 percent from foul line is what he shoots
    from the field so there was no reason even at the end
    of a game not to shoot. And last night he took a few
    shots, including taking it to the hoop in the fourth quarter
    thus undermining the credence to some extent for that
    argument.

    And LT, Iggy is not the fourth best defender on the team
    as you claim as his on-ball defense against against SG’s, SF’s,
    andPF’s far exceeds when Green plays any of those positions,
    and exceeds Thompson when he plays SG or SF. See 82
    games. Do your homework before making definitive claims
    that are simply not supported by the existing data. Sorry
    about your dental problems. Nothing worse. Agree we should
    not go back and forth as we agree to differ on Iggy.