Article Length: ~900 words or about 4-7 minutes of reading.
I strongly suggest checking in on my previous articles about the nth best players on a team. Here’s a Sparknotes version: we make a mistake when we say that a player is “the best player” because his value is dependent on his role, so we need to differentiate between “first-best,” “second-best,” “third-best,” etc. players. This is why it would be smarter to pair Harden with Gobert instead of Harden with Westbrook (oops) because you want players who can maximize their own skills without encroaching on anyone else’s.
Often, this sort of team-building works because there simply aren’t that many “first-best” players in the league. But what if there were? What if you could choose literally any player like in Bill Simmons’ wine-cellar team or my Universe Cup team or my 2nd-Tier Universe Cup team. For the sake of a challenge, let’s look at my Universe Cup team. Here were the rules when I wrote about this three years ago:
1). I can only choose specific players/years from the 2000-2001 season onward and 2). Instead of a seven game series, I’m choosing a team for a full 82-game season along with the four rounds of traditional NBA playoffs. I dig the alien theme, so let’s imagine our teams are competing for intergalactic supremacy in the first ever Universe Cup season.
– Cody Houdek, “The Universe Cup: Part 1,” 2016
When you can select literally any combination of players over the last nineteen years, how do you do so while following my theoretical framework on building a cohesive team? Here, let me illustrate this for you. The following is a list of the best players from the 2000s:
Just from the guards list ALONE, you would have to cut four players to make a twelve-man roster. From the group in total, you would need to cut twenty-four players. TWENTY-FOUR!!!!!
When I originally made my team, I selected the following twelve:
Guards: Kobe (2008-09); Chris Paul (2008-09); Wade (2008-09); Curry (2014-15); Allen (2000-01)
At first glance, that list looks great, but it looks a little unstable after careful scrutiny. Let’s list some of these off.
Curry is bumped up to 2015-16. He stays.
Kawhi has improved dramatically since 2016, but does his current skillset work with this group?
Wait, where’s James Harden? Where’s Giannis? Do either of these guys mesh?
Does it make sense to have both Kobe and Wade?
Does ball-dominant Chris Paul need to be there?
Is Dirk’s shooting enough to make up for defensive and passing woes?
Ray Allen? Oh yeah, he brings some much needed spot-up shooting….but Ray Allen?
Okay, let’s take a breather………………………………………………
In developing the concept of the “best, first-best player,” I conceived of the best teams only having one of these players (unless, of course, the players could also play a secondary role like Curry or Durant); however, this might only be the case in reality when teams generally have access to only one of these kinds of players. In an ideal world, maybe Harden would like to take a break from iso-ing and spot-up in the corner. Maybe LeBron would like to set off-ball screens as a distraction. Right now, it wouldn’t make sense for LeBron to do that if the next best player on the court is Kyle Kuzma, but what if Durant, Curry, and Shaq were all on the floor with him? We’ve seen him take on a significantly higher pass-first, secondary role in the Olympics, so maybe he would excel as the not first option. Maybe.
Furthermore, if LeBron or Harden were to get injured (…like they were…), their teams would suck. If a team has a player that can step up and handle that role, the drop-off wouldn’t be as painful. But then the question becomes how many “first-best players” should be on a team? Let me frame this question another way: if you had to only choose three of the following players (based on a single season peak), who would you pick: LeBron, Durant, McGrady, Harden, Wade, Kawhi, Paul, and Kobe?
Sure, you can go ahead and pick them all, but who’s doing the “second-best,” “third-best,” and “fourth-best” player responsibilities? Who is spotting up in the corner? Who is becoming the defensive powerhouse? Who is setting off-ball screens? Who is fighting centers in the paint? Who is NOT touching the ball for five-straight possessions?
This question right here is the rift between “eye-test” and “blog boy” fans. Even though it’s sacrilegious, it is necessary to cut some of the greatest “first-best” players of all time to make room for guys who can fill those roles better. Is Draymond Green better than Kobe? No, but is Draymond Green better at taking three shots in a game, setting hard screens, and playing all-league defense on five positions? Yes, and it’s frankly not even close.
What do we make all of this? What should the Universe Cup team look like? I honestly don’t know. I think I would replace Ray with Klay. I also think Draymond and Giannis should make it, but that actually hurts the overall shooting. I’m leaning towards dropping Paul, and maybe I’d replace either Kobe or Wade with McGrady or Kawhi. Nash adds some solid spacing too if I can squeeze him in.
Hopefully, I’ll sit down one of these days and actually hash it out, but until then, I’ll let these thoughts marinate a little bit more.
Final thought: watch quarters 2-4 of the Spain vs. USA gold medal game from the 2012 Olympics to see a clear example of too many players whose skillsets encroach upon one another.
Article Length: ~1,100 words or about 6-8 minutes of reading.
My last article on the question of who is the best player remained mostly abstract. While it’s an abstract question, I want to try and provide some concrete answers by applying it to NBA players from the 2018-19 season. This will be extremely difficult to do because everything concrete begins with philosophical abstractions, so you’ll just have to roll with my logic (or disagree with me on Twitter).
If all NBA players were placed in a fantasy draft and I had to start from nothing, who would I select first? The answer to this question is the answer to who the “best, first-best” player in the league is. To me, this comes down to two players: LeBron or Steph. I really really want to pick LeBron for this because I still believe that he can reach transcendent levels better than any other player in the league on both sides of the ball, but the knock against him (like most players) is that he works best in a specific team-build: defensively proficient shooters. If for some reason I’m not able to lock down adequate players like that in subsequent rounds, I’m afraid that he’ll lose value.
On the other hand, Curry, being the “best, second-best player” in the league (we’ll get to this), means that he will retain his value regardless of whom is selected in subsequent rounds; furthermore, we’ve seen Curry literally be the “best, first-best” player on the greatest regular season team in history.
Going back to my first round of the draft, here’s a rough outline the “best, first-best” players in the league (the guys that you would want to draft in the first round of a fantasy draft):
If you don’t have one of these nine players on your team, you cannot win a championship right now. Does that mean that the other twenty-three teams in the league should give up? No. You never know when another player is going to skyrocket into this stratosphere of players (Giannis, Jokic, nor Embiid were at this level last year).
The next tier, the “best, second-best” players become trickier to explain. Players can overlap between different levels of being the “best” player, but not all of them will. Curry will also top this list, but LeBron won’t be on it because if you are making your second round selection and LeBron is somehow still on the board, he would turn into your “best, first-best” player because he would most strongly dictate how your team would play. These are the players who either need a player a tier above them to cover some gap in their own skillset or tier 1 players who can seamlessly provide extraordinary value without the ball (e.g. defense, shooting, passing).
Here are the “best, second-best” players in the league:
Below this tier are the “best, third-best” players who will generally fill one of two templates: players who excel in a valuable and malleable skills (defense/shooting) while struggling in other areas (think Danny Green and his shooting vs. shot creation and passing) and players who excel in multiple areas that are malleable while not necessarily leading a team through significant scoring or playmaking (think Pascal Siakam and Draymond Green). Here are those players:
Stephen Curry…yes, I would place him first at literally any round of the draft. I believe he would fit literally in any lineup; therefore, I won’t include him in later lists.
Are we starting to see a pattern? The most successful teams this year had multiple “best, nth-best” players at different and appropriate tiers. Just from these first three tiers, let’s compare some of the top teams (tier 1 – position; tier 2 – position; tier 3 – position):
Toronto (1 – 5; 0; 3 – 3, 6, 7)
Golden State (2 – 1, 3; 0; 2 – 2, 5)
Milwaukee (1 – 4; 0; 3 – 8, 9, 15)
Philadelphia (1 – 9; 2 – 9, 13; 0)
Portland (0; 1 – 8; 3 – 14)
Three of the four conference finalists had a tier one player, and the only one without (Portland) was swept by the Warriors. While neither Milwaukee nor Toronto had a clear-cut “2nd best player,” they both had strong “3rd best players” at multiple positions. After watching how both teams came together, it’s clear that Toronto’s “3rd best players” were simply a better fit in their lineups.
Jacob Goldstein’s PIPM model, which calculates a player’s defensive and offensive impact on a team in a way that takes into account their boxscore production and plus/minus data (for a refresher, check out my article on impact metrics), provides some interesting insights into this “best player” conversation. For 2018-19, the top players are pretty expected: Giannis, Curry, Embiid, etc., but as you go down the list, a few odd names pop up. After LeBron at 14, the following players appear: Vucevic, Brook Lopez, Draymond, Holiday, Drummond, Bledsoe, Danny Green, followed by Kawhi. A simple explanation is that the statistic is flawed because someone like Danny Green (Kawhi’s teammate) couldn’t have had a more positive impact than Kawhi.
The truth is that these players – the Siakams, Greens, Horfords – all can provide more value than a tier 1 player if they are placed in the perfect “nth” role. Having a perfectly fitting “third-best” player can yield more value than a poorly fitting “first-best” player. This explains why someone like Kemba Walker ranks 50th in this statistic: even though he is tremendously talented, he should not be placed in a “first-best” role.
Hopefully, this provides some grounding for my claim that the best player is not always the best player. If I were as in-depth as is necessary, each of these lists would be fluid depending on who was selected in previous rounds. For instance, a player like Lillard would be a better “2nd best player” next to LeBron while Gobert might be “better” next to Harden. I simply don’t have the time to map out an entire fantasy draft matrix contingency.
Once again though, this is why Steph Curry should be rated much higher than he already is. Also, shout out to Robert Covington who is probably the “best, fourth-best player” in the league.
Note: if you want access to the PIPM data, they exist in a few spreadsheets, so searching them out on Twitter is probably your best bet. Jacob Goldstein is the owner.
Addendum: I tweeted a more in-depth explanation of the different tiers, so instead of incorporating those thoughts into this article, I’ve just included the tweets here.
I've been thinking about how to best differentiate between players of different tiers: the best, first-best players; best, second-best players, etc. I think I've come to a an acceptable working theory.
A player in a specific tier will provide maximum impact to a team which can more or less be determined through various advanced metrics such as PIPM, RAPM, etc. If a player is thrust into a tier too high, then his impact will either drop or remain essentially the same.
For example, I have Rudy Gobert as one of the top "best, second-best" players. If he were placed in a position where he would need to handle the offensive responsibilities of a first-tier player, his impact would drop because it takes him away from his game.
Draymond is an interesting case. I (essentially) have him as the top "third-best" player. Given a specific "2nd-best" player scenario, he might be equally as dominant; however, like Gobert, his impact as a lead offensive initiator would fall greatly. He cannot be "the guy."
Scottie Pippen provides a great case study. According to @JacobEGoldstein's PIPM, he was right around 5.1 in the two years without Jordan. In the two years after Jordan returned, his PIPM barely shifted even though he gave up his top tier status.
Article Length: ~900 words or about 4-7 minutes of reading.
“Who is the best player?” is both the most interesting and least interesting question in all of sports. Usually, it is answered lazily with faulty or simplistic logic; however, I think it’s often the case that the one asking the question is more at fault than the one answering. The issue with the question is the question itself because the best player is never always the best player.
I think that when most people ask the question, they usually mean something like “which player gives his team the best chance to win a championship?” This can be boiled down to any level of competition such as “which player gives their team the best chance to win this pickup game?”
The issue with how this iteration of the question is answered is in how it is interpreted. Most people perceive it as “starting from scratch, which player will give their team the best chance to win?” In the NBA (and all other professional sports), no player is being drafted, traded, or signed to a team that has literally no other players which makes the player’s value dependent on the other players on the team. This splits the original question into two separate questions: a hypothetical one and a reality-based one. My aim is to answer the former (Ben Taylor answers the latter with his own statistical-based response for 2018-19).
To hypothetically answer who the best player in the league is, it’s necessary to ask a series of questions which are as follows:
If the league entered a full fantasy draft, who would be selected first overall to give his team the best chance to win a championship?
Who would be selected second?
Who would be selected third?
And this line of questioning would continue until a full roster of twelve players was created. Actually selecting the players is obviously where this hypothetical becomes tricky.
The common parlance for maximizing a superstar on a team is “building around” him. This implies that a player’s skillset requires some level of fit to ensure success (for a much deeper dive of this, check out my article series from a couple of years ago). It also means that a player who contributes significantly to winning WITHOUT being able to fit into any system should be selected first. Let me explain.
If I have the first pick in an all-time draft and I select Michael Jordan first, my choices for subsequent picks drop significantly because I shouldn’t look for another player who plays guard, maximizes his skills by having the ball, and scores a lot. Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and James Harden might still be on the board in the second round, but all of their skills would encroach significantly on MJ’s skills reducing the impact that either would have on the team.
Is this annoyingly pedantic and blog boyish? Should you just select the “best” possible player no matter what? NO! That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of “best” in this situation! Real, actual players don’t come with a handy 2K rating that shows some objective level of skill that they have. If it’s my turn to select my third player in a draft and I already have LeBron and Gobert, who should I choose given the following three players: Danny Green, Donovan Mitchell, or Nikola Vucevic. Most people would list both Mitchell and Vucevic as better players than Danny Green, but given the context, Danny Green would actually be the “better” player. How? Because, in this case, Green is the “best, third-best” option available based on how his skills complement LeBron and Gobert.
I propose that each player should be described as the “best, nth-best” player where “n” is the round in the fantasy draft in which the player would hypothetically be selected. Looking back to the first iteration of the question “who is the best player?” most people consider only players who would be the “best, first-best player” player which is why Stephen Curry is often so underrated.
The magic of Curry is that the scalability of his skillset is so immense that he could theoretically be the “best” player in any round of the fantasy draft. His off-ball movement, shooting, and off-ball screening have such an independent value that he could be plugged into any system with significant returns. Contrast this with Harden who derives almost all of his value from having the ball.
Throughout these last few years, the Warriors have built their immense success on matching players who are either the “best” or one of the “best” at multiple rounds of our fantasy draft. Some people argue that Durant is the “best, first-best” in the league. Curry has a similar “first-best” impact, but he is also the “best, second-best” player by a margin that we have never seen in the league. Klay and Draymond are both the “best, third or fourth-best” players with Draymond possibly being the all-time “3rd-best” player (competing with the Bulls’ Rodman and the Celtics’ Garnett).
As a sports community, we often ignore the contingent and necessary value of players: the 90s Bulls, 2000s Lakers, 2010s Warriors, and 2000s Spurs all had one of the “best, first-best players” along with the “best, second-best” player and multiple other “best, nth-best” players. A player like Stephen Curry who can fluidly transition between being the best at different roles should be viewed in a much more positive light than we view him.
Article length: about 3,000 words (the second longest post behind this one)
This is it! The final section of a seven part series! Don’t quit on me now. Dig deep and find that dark place that helps you push to a new height. Do it! Go back and read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6. It’s a lot of reading, I know, but you’ll hopefully find some mild entertainment.
Just to make things easier, here’s the complete roster along with each player’s skillset:
Since this piece has three parts, I’m going to split it into two sections by combining the coach selection and team strategy because I believe that they go hand-in-hand. Then, once the strategy is spelled out, I’ll explain why certain players didn’t make the team in the context of the strategy.
Ready? Ready.
Coach/Strategy
Since I have to choose a coach that has not won Coach of the Year, my pool of extremely talented coaches is limited. I narrowed it down to two, and those two do NOT include the legendary Jerry Sloan (who definitely deserved CotY at one point or another) because of his curmudgeonly demeanor, his “my way or the highway” attitude, his old-school play style, and his war with Deron Williams. Look, Sloan was an incredible coach, and I wish him all the best with his current health, but I need someone who is going to manage personalities better, promote a more free-flowing offense, and have players shoot more threes. Personally, I think Sloan’s style stymied the likes of canonball players like Kirilenko, but that’s another conversation for another day.
My two coaches come down to Brad Stevens and Rick Adelman, and ultimately, I’m going with Stevens. Adelman coached two Portland teams to the NBA Finals (1990, 1992) and Portland and Sacremento to two Conference Finals (1991, 2002 respectively), and was described as a real player’s coach. So why not go with Adelman? Simple: I’m biased.
USA Today
I’m biased towards more recent coaches because the last six or so NBA seasons has created a (semi) position-less and three-point revolution. Stevens has embraced this new NBA, and beyond that, the Celtics have embraced him as their leader. Just look at how Jae Crowder and Isaiah Thomas revitalized their careers in Boston. That’s not a coincidence; that’s a buy in. Part of that has to do with his players loving to play with him, and part of it is his focus on fundamentals, team-oriented basketball, and defense. Perfect. Sign the man up.
So let’s talk strategy.
Since we’re dealing with an 82-game season, I want to establish some consistency so that there’s no guesswork game-to-game. We’ll definitely change up lineups once in a while, but in general, here’s who I imagine being in the starting lineup.
Starters:
Mike Conley, Ray Allen, Paul George, Draymond Green, and Ben Wallace
NBA.com
DEFENSE!! This lineup is just stupid defensively. Ray Allen is by far the worst defender, and honestly, he’s not that bad. I fiddled around with Draymond and Ben starting together, but that defensive flexibility was too enticing for me to pass up. Both can switch out on a pick-and-roll (Draymond doing so on an elite level), and both can protect the rim better than most. Ben isn’t going to provide any offense (besides offensive boards), and Draymond won’t be that dangerous scoring-wise, but he is a tremendous facilitator, and can’t be left open from three.
All three of Mike Conley, Paul George, and Ray Allen can stretch the floor at an elite level. Paul George ranked in the 84th percentile in spot-up threes and Conley ranked in the 90th percentile. This shooting data doesn’t exist for 2001, but I’m sure Allen would be right around those numbers as well at an even higher volume. Ultimately, scoring for this unit will heavily come from these three.
I don’t want to step on Stevens’ toes with setting up minutes, so I’ll just talk through my favorite lineup possibilities (this will seem very familiar if you’ve read Bill Simmons’ book).
Most Unselfish Passing:
Mike Conley (maybe Deron), Manu Ginobili, Peja Stojakovic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Draymond Green.
Inside Hoops
This is just brilliant. The only player who might hold the ball for too long is Giannis, but after a few reps, he’d assimilate perfectly with this group. Peja is the only middling defender, but he, Giannis, and Draymond could seamlessly switch.
Spacing:
Deron Williams (or Conley), Ray Allen, Klay Thompson, Peja Stojakovic, and Draymond Green.
Are you seeing why I’m giddy about Draymond? Dude fits into pretty much any kind of lineup. This lineup definitely sacrifices defense with Deron, Ray, and Peja, but it’s offensive potency is off the chart. Just give the ball to Deron, have Ray, Peja, and Klay run through screen, and have Draymond set some picks. The other team is forced to defend the three-point line 1-5. Poor defenders would be exposed quickly.
Defensive Nightmare (my favorite option):
Giannis, George, Marion, Draymond, and Wallace.
I’m speechless. Here, we run point-Giannis with George helping out a bit, and the rest is just free-form. Would the offense be ugly? Definitely, but the defense would be stifling. 1-5 could legitimately switch better than any other lineup in history. Even the 2017 Warriors might struggle to score against them.
Also, since 2000, the 2012 Thunder have averaged the most blocks per game at 8.2. This single lineup averages 8.2 blocks per game…
Fast-break
Williams, Klay, Marion, Giannis, Draymond
Any of the five can bring the ball up, Deron can facilitate, Giannis and Marion are relentless, and Klay can’t be left alone. Good luck keeping up with this.
Keep a Lead With a Minute Left
Conley, Manu, Ray, Peja, and Yao.
Conley has the lowest free-throw percentage with 86%. Good luck (have I said this for every lineup so far? Weird).
These lineups are all fine and dandy, but if I’m preparing for anything, can I pull together a lineup that can stand against the best lineups in history? Let’s take a look.
2017 Warriors (Curry, Klay, Iggy, Durant, and Draymond)
I mean, why not start off with the best lineup ever?
Conley, Klay, Giannis, Draymond, and Wallace.
Sports Illustrated
Jesus, that Warriors lineup still might be better! The only reason I put in Wallace instead of Marion is I need to expose the Warriors’ only weakness: rebounding. Wallace would punish them on missed shots, and that might be the only way to expose them. All five of them can switch well enough with Conley’s size being the only issue.
2001 Lakers (Fisher, Kobe, Fox, Horry, and Shaq)
Conley, Klay, George, Peja, and Wallace (or Yao)
The Hoop Doctors
This is a much easier lineup to handle because my main concerns are 1) make sure my guards can make Kobe’s life hell and 2) slow down Shaq as much as possible. Wallace is one of the only players to effectively guard him, and if that doesn’t work out, Yao is one of the other players to effectively guard him. The rest of the lineup’s offensive firepower would be too much, and Shaq can’t switch against four of the five players.
2013 Heat (Chalmers, Wade, Battier, LeBron, and Bosh)
Conley, Ginobili, George, Marion, and Wallace
onehotseason.com
The Heat were an excellent trapping defense, so it’s important to have multiple ball-handlers on the court. Both Marion and George have had mild success guarding LeBron, and since both Wade and LeBron thrive off scoring in the point, having Wallace as the last line of defense is essential. Plus, Marion and Wallace will absolutely punish the Heat on the boards.
This is a really tough lineup to defend. They passed the ball effortlessly, destroyed teams in the paint, and were lead by apex Bird. I opted for Williams over Conley because Conley might just be too small to be that effective defensively. Williams wouldn’t be posted up that easily. Yao would thrive in this situation because neither McHale nor Parish could stretch out to shoot a three. All of Klay, George, and Draymond could switch onto Bird and bother him.
1996 Bulls (Harper/Kerr, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Longley)
Deron, Klay, George, Draymond, and Wallace.
neoGAF
I really like my chances against the GOAT’s best team. Jackson’s Triangle Offense usually works best with big guards, like Jordan and Harper, so having Williams over Conley is important because Williams won’t get bullied around. George, Klay, and Draymond all can switch onto either Jordan and Pippen while making their lives a bit more difficult. Wallace is one of the best options for curbing Rodman’s otherworldly rebounding. Also, what are the odds of Draymond, Rodman, and Wallace starting Malice in the Palace part two?
1987 Lakers (Magic, Scott, Green, Worthy, and Kareem)
Ginobili, George, Peja, Draymond, and Wallace
RantSports
This Lakers lineup doesn’t resemble any modern lineup because 1) they made a total of 74 three-pointers in this year (Scott made 65 of those) and 2) they have a classic “dinosaur” center in Kareem who is way past his prime; however, their position-less flexibility between Green, Magic, and Worthy made them formidable on defense especially with Kareem lurking in the back.
To counter this, I opted with Manu for a bit more craftiness than Williams, and I picked Peja because he doesn’t have to worry about chasing too many guards on the perimeter. As documented in “Airplane,” Kareem didn’t work that hard on defense later in his career, and I think Kareem couldn’t contain Wallace on the boards while causing problems with their paint-heavy offense.
1983 Sixers (Cheeks, Toney, Dr. J, Iavoroni, and Moses)
Williams, Allen, Giannis, Draymond, and Yao
ivanjordanproductions.weebly.com
Why not Wallace over Yao? Because I want to take advantage of any deficiencies that Moses has on defense. Yao will force him to work on the side of the ball that he struggles with the most: defense. Wallace would help mitigate his offensive rebounding numbers, but I think it’s more pertinent to have him deal with an offensive force in the post.
As for Dr. J, both Giannis and Draymond will match his length and strength. Both can dare the Doctor to shoot jumpshots while making any drives, his preferred method of scoring, strenuous.
From these teams, I wanted to show that the roster we have built is prepared to face any sort of roster. With all of the two-way forwards, we’re best prepared to face modern offenses that are predicated on three-pointers and driving, but we’re still prepared for anything….
But what about the players who were cut? Could we beat a team of players scorned? If we were to build a team using Team USA’s strategy, we would just take the best players regardless of fit. Could a team of players scorned beat us? The twelve-man roster (which I’m constructing with significantly less thought) is as follows:
Guards: John Wall (2017), Kyle Lowry (2016), Jimmy Butler (2017), Brandon Roy (2009), Vince Carter (2001)
Forwards: Carmelo Anthony (2014), Andrei Kirilenko (2004), Blake Griffin (2014), Paul Millsap (2016), Gordon Hayward (2017)
Centers: Rudy Gobert (2017), Marcus Camby (2008)
To some folks, this might actually look like a better team than the one that we’ve built. I agree that this team has more offensive talent, but it would struggle with spacing issues and personality issues (especially alpha status between Butler, Roy, Carter, Wall, and Melo). Let’s pretend that their coach Rick Adelman makes them all like each other. How does our team match up? Well this team’s best lineup, in my opinion, is as follows:
Wall, Butler, Hayward, Anthony, and Kirilenko (or Gobert).
Sole Collector
This lineup can easily catch fire, and their individual offensive talent is off-the-charts. Plus, Butler, Hawyard, and Kirilenko (kinda Melo) can switch on defense and cause a bit of mayhem. All five players are comfortable bringing the ball up especially on the break, and they all must be defended for spot-up shots (though you can definitely give up that shot to Wall, Butler, and Kirilenko). So to counter this, I would toss out the following:
Conley, Ginobili, Allen, George, and Draymond
Fight small ball with small ball. In a single game situation, the other team might beat us once in a while, but I’ve constructed the team to last 82 games plus a playoffs. I’m rolling with our guys.
To finally cap off everything, I’m going to go through some of the players that I cut and briefly (I’ll try) defend why I cut them. Here it goes.
I’ve never been a huge believer in Melo. He’s been to the Conference Finals once, shown a poor attitude (like when he refused to sub out of a game in Denver), doesn’t defend particularly well, and he isn’t a willing passer. He’s a transcendent scorer, but I value that less than other attributes.
Full disclosure: Blake was on the team until I started writing this. He’s a tremendous passer and a dominant scorer and rebounder. His perimeter defense is actually underrated, and his jumpshot is serviceable. Unfortunately, I think he’s most effective with the ball in his hands, and I wanted to move away from players like that. With the smaller roster, Blake would probably be pushed into the center position, but I can’t have a center that can’t defend the rim (for reference, Blake ranks between Channing Frye and Enes Kanter here. Not great company).
The savior of Chicago this past year, Jimmy exploded as an incredible two-way player. Unfortunately his alpha complex pissed of Rose and Noah a few years ago, and his three-point shooting isn’t enough to be a reliable spot-up man. He can score and facilitate, but like Griffin, he needs the ball. It’s a shame because we could’ve used his defense.
Simply put, Wall’s half-court scoring ability is atrocious. He’s dominant on the fastbreak, and he passes as well as anyone, but he can’t reliably score with the game on the line (side note: I’m not a big fan of judging a player off one game, but this article does a good job of summing up my concerns). He shot 34% on open and wide open threes last year. Plus, he’s had some personality issues with people throughout the years.
You know that one restaurant that consistently has great food? I mean, that place where you walk in with some buddies, order an appetizer, and everyone is fighting over the last piece of it? Then, when the meal comes, conversations are curbed and replaced by your friends Instagramming the food, loud and constant “MMMMs,” and the the repetition of the phrase, “We have to come back here!” It’s been a great meal, so you all dive in on a dessert, one of those big ones that everyone shares with a fork. Silver slices delicate chocolate/apple/milky goodness, and you plop it in your mouth. Pause. You all look nervously at one another. Chewing slows down, and at least one person conspicuously lifts a napkin to their lips. The dessert is chalky/bitter/undercooked/eggy/ bland. It literally wipes the delicious taste of your entree from your mouth, and you’re forced to stop at a local doughnut shop on the way home to avoid this agonizing experience. That’s Kyle Lowry’s regular season and post-season in a nutshell.
Kobe Bryant was asked who the toughest player for him to guard in the Western Conference on the John Thompson Show the other day. This was Kobe’s response:
“Roy 365 days, seven days a week. Roy has no weaknesses in his game.”
– Ryne Nelson, “Kobe Bryant: Roy over Durant,” 2010
The issue with Roy is that his game isn’t suited for a star-studded, egalitarian basketball team. Like Jimmy Butler (and, appropriately, Kobe), Roy dominated with the ball in his hands with a series of step-backs, pull-ups, and drives. He facilitated at a solid level, but not at a game-changing level.
Here’s an excerpt of misdeeds Carter committed against Toronto:
(a) his being accused in the Tacoma News Tribune of tipping off the Seattle SuperSonics about the Raptors’ plays — a month before he stopped playing for Toronto; (b) distorting his face in derision and mocking the Air Canada Centre crowd for chanting “MVP” at Chris Bosh during a Raps-Nets game this season; and, worst of all, (c) telling broadcaster John Thompson he didn’t push himself as hard as he could have when he worked and lived north of the border.
– Adam Proteau, “How Our Love for Vince Carter Turned to Hate,” 2007
I fought with this one for a while because of his Finals experience and nearly unprecedented isolation scoring ability, but he’s not a willing passer, possibly doesn’t put winning first, is one of the worst defenders in the leauge, and, according to NBAWOWY data, hasn’t led the Cavs to a positive On/Off differential without LeBron on the court with him. In short: I think Kyrie is extremely overrated.
Having Gobert back up Wallace would’ve been an immovable defensive choice, but his injury in the first round of the playoffs concerns me. Also, he doesn’t have the intangible leadership abilities of Yao.
Kirilenko was a superstar, and I strongly believe that a combination of injuries and Jerry Sloan’s coaching style stifled an illustrious career. He played 13 years too early, for his defensive switching ability might rival Draymond’s. I ultimately went with Giannis over him because they were the same age (using AK47’s 2004 season), and I wanted somebody who was more dominant on the break. I still kind of regret not bumping someone else for AK47…
For now, that’s a good enough list of players and why they didn’t make the team. If you’re just dying to know why I cut 2007 Josh Smith or 2005 Elton Brand, please tweet at me, comment on this post, or hit me up on Facebook.
That’s it! You have stuck with this series through thick and thin. I’m sure you’ve disagreed with some things along the way, but I feel very comfortable with the team that we have constructed. After 10,000 some words, this still feels incomplete, so if I think of anything else, I’ll revisit the series at some point in the future.
If you didn’t read part one of this series, please do so now! Pretty much none of this will make any sense at all. For those of you that did read the first part, welcome back! Now let’s jump right in to applying these skillsets to players both past and present.
What does all this mean for each player, and how can we apply each of the definitions that I used above? Truth be told, it would take a very long time to apply each specific archetype to each player’s skillset, so I’ll just discuss a couple of them. One thing that may jump out at people is having Curry as a “Transcendent” scorer. My argument is that we’ve never seen a player in history encompass all aspects of scoring that I laid out above. Curry is unstoppable in isolation with his crafty dribbling, cuts to the basket intelligently, and spaces the floor better than anybody else in the league. Curry is a rare breed in that he would thrive as either the first or second option on a team which is why the tandem of he and Durant is so dominant.
Name
Games
Spot-ups/game
Spot-up points/game
Points/Spot-Up FGA
Spot-up EFG%/game
Percentile
Steph Curry
79
2.6
3.4
1.42
64.2
97.2
Kevin Durant
62
3
3.8
1.42
65.1
94.7
The above graphic shows Curry’s and Durant’s shooting numbers in spot up situations per stats.nba (remember: a spot-up is when a player receives a pass and shoots without dribbling the ball outside of fifteen feet). Both average 1.42 points per shot, and both score in the 94 percentile or better in comparison to the rest of the league. Just for comparison, this means that both Durant and Curry score 142 points/ 100 possessions while the Warriors (one of the greatest offenses if not the greatest offense in history) scored 113 points/100 possessions. When your two best scorers can play away from the ball this well, that’s unstoppable. Unfortunately, we don’t have this sort of data going back much further than 2015, so a lot of this can only be based off other metrics and the eye test (watching lots of old game film).
Both LeBron and Bird scored in the “Elite” category for defense despite LeBron not being the lockdown defender he was and Bird never being a lockdown defender. What these two excel(led) at, however, is “Roaming” on defense where they can wreak havoc by knowing where players are going to throw the ball or shifting over to cut off a drive to the rim. LeBron was a much better “Rim Protector” than Bird, but Bird, like Curry today, showed off an incredible sense of where the ball was going.
Curry also scored in the “Transcendent” zone for his playmaking ability because, as I discussed in a previous article, Curry is the engine of the Warriors’ offense. He doesn’t need to have the ball for them to move the ball well, but his very presence on the court lubricated their already butter-smooth ball movement. To prove this, I would like to turn your attention to two different advanced statistics: Offensive Rating On/Off, and Secondary Assists.
Offensive On/Off shows two different numbers: how many points per 100 possessions a team scores with a player on the court, and how many points per 100 possessions a team scores with that player off the court. Discounting the outlier Javele McGee, Curry had by far the biggest impact on the 2017 Warriors during both the regular season and playoffs. Here’s Curry compared to the player with the second biggest impact, Durant (and Klay):
On the court (Regular Season)
Name
Minutes
Team’s Offensive Rating
Curry
2638
118.1
Durant
2070
117.2
Off the court (regular season)
Curry
1318
102.4
Thompson
1307
108.3
Durant
1886
108.6
Regular season points per 100 possessions difference:
Curry: +15.7 (This means the Warriors scored 15.7 points per 100 possessions better when Curry was on the floor compared to when he was off.
Part of being good at lots of things is being really good at a couple of things. Curry’s ridiculous shooting opens up the Warriors’ offense. Not only are his shots incredibly efficient, but he also draws so much of his opponents’ attention that hemakes his teammates look amazing — and makes his team immensely better. Looking atNBAWowy, which tracks how teams perform with a given player on the court versus on the bench, the Warriors outscored their opponents by 3.1 points per 100 possessions when Durant was playing and Curry was not; that number jumped to 16.1 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court and Durant on the sidelines.5
5. And 19.5 points per 100 possessions when they were both playing (2017).
If this doesn’t show you how much of a “Cog” Curry is, I don’t know what will. Oh, I know! How about secondary assists! Secondary assists (sometimes called “Hockey Assists”) give credit to a player who throws the ball to the player who makes an assist. Usually this only happens with teams who move the ball effectively. Who were the league leaders in this during 2017? Harden, Conley, and Thomas all tied for second with 1.7 secondary assists a game. Curry led the league with 2.2. In the playoffs, Curry tied with Lowry with 2.3 a game for the most in the playoffs. Curry is incredible at making an offense work smoothly.
With all this theoretical groundwork behind us, let’s use it to analyze some recent champions and some of the best championship teams in history. Here are a few with their key players coded with the specific archetypes:
This is a lot of good information. Teams like the 2004 Pistons and the 2011 Mavericks will provide some interesting insight later, so let’s start with the three best teams in NBA history: The 2017 Warriors, 1986 Celtics, and 1996 Bulls. Here are some key takeaways for each of those teams:
Celtics and Warriors have two “Transcendent” scorers while the Bulls only have one.
Warriors are the only one with another “Elite” scorer
Celtics and Warriors have three “Elite” or higher playmakers while the Bulls only have two.
The Celtics have five “Elite” defenders, the Warriors have two “Elite” defenders with one “Transcendent” defender (and they would have at least one more “Elite” defender had I analyzed the bench because of Iguodala), and the Bulls have three “Transcendent” defenders.
Celtics have three “Elite” rebounders, the Bulls have one “Transcendent” rebounder, and the Warriors have no player scoring at least “Elite” in rebounding.
All of this circles back to the idea of “Diminishing Returns” that I discussed earlier. Benjamin Morris’ (again) article about irreplaceability sets the stage for this idea by showing that some statistics are easier replaced by others (points are easily replaced while steals aren’t). This goes a step further by showing that teams are successful when they jam pack as many “Elite” and “Transcendent” skillsets into one team (or lineup) without each additional skillset losing value. For instance, as I discussed above, Curry’s, Durant’s, and Thompson’s scoring styles are such that they don’t encroach upon the other’s ability to score, and if they do, it’s to a minimal degree. Klay Thompson’s per game statistics from 2016 and 2017 provide some solid evidence towards this claim:
Season
G
GS
MP
FG
FGA
FG%
3P
3PA
3P%
2P
2PA
2P%
eFG%
FT
FTA
FT%
ORB
DRB
TRB
AST
STL
BLK
TOV
PF
PTS
2015-16
80
80
33.3
8.1
17.3
0.47
3.5
8.1
0.425
4.7
9.2
0.51
0.569
2.4
2.8
0.873
0.4
3.4
3.8
2.1
0.8
0.6
1.7
1.9
22.1
2016-17
78
78
34
8.3
17.6
0.468
3.4
8.3
0.414
4.8
9.3
0.516
0.565
2.4
2.8
0.853
0.6
3
3.7
2.1
0.8
0.5
1.6
1.8
22.3
Career
464
427
32.7
7.1
15.6
0.453
2.9
6.8
0.419
4.2
8.8
0.48
0.545
2.1
2.4
0.853
0.4
2.9
3.3
2.3
0.9
0.5
1.7
2.2
19.1
Notice anything interesting? How about that Thompson actually took MORE shots and scored MORE points per game after Kevin Durant joined their team. It doesn’t seem like this negatively affected their offense.
This concludes part two of this theoretical series. To cap it all off in the finale, I will discuss diminishing returns further and explain on which skillsets one should focus if he/she is looking to build a team from the ground up.
Article Length: ~1,200 words or about 7-10 minutes of reading.
With Klay Thompson’s concussion test coming back positive, I started thinking about injuries and how they’ve affected these playoffs. The Warriors seemed to dodge the injury bug better than any other team, but ended up losing their 6th man Marreese Speights to a calf injury (who is now questionable for game 1 of the Finals), and had two very scary moments with Stephen Curry effectively flipping through the air and Trevor Ariza Falcon-kicking Thompson in the face. If Thompson ends up being injured for the Finals, the Kevin Love injury will look more like fate meddled a bit. Why? Because, if you remember, the Warriors and Timberwolves talked about a trade involving Thompson/Lee for Love. Imagine how the NBA landscape would be different had that happened (once again, that’s what I’m here for).
The way I see it, if Love ended up with the Warriors and Thompson/Lee ended up on the Timberwolves, there are three scenarios that could have played out, all of which I’ll discuss in the coming paragraphs.
Scenario 1: Cavaliers still trade Anthony Bennett and Andrew Wiggins to Warriors for Kevin Love (with Thadeus Young thrown in from Philly), with Timberwolves ending up with Klay Thompson and David Lee. So the starters for the Warriors become Curry, Wiggins, Harrison Barnes, Draymond Green, and Andrew Bogut with Young, Iguodala, and Speights coming off the bench.
Obviously the Warriors do not become the power house that we know from this year, but their outlook for the future is interesting. First of all, a lineup including Wiggins, Iguodala, Green, and Bogut would be absolutely stifling on defense, possibly the best defensive lineup we’ve seen since the mid-2000s Pistons. We knew Wiggins was a tremendous defender in college, but now after he has completed his rookie year, we know he has a tremendous offensive game as well. He wouldn’t be able to fill Thompson’s shoes right away, but imagine his potential in that two spot. How far would he and Curry be able to pull that team in a couple years? I think they’d definitely be contenders again.
The Timberwolves would restart with Thompson and Lee leading their roster, which would finally give Thompson the chance to prove that he’s a franchise player in his own right….whichI don’t believe he is. Sure, I could see him averaging about 28 points per game on a train-wreck of a team, but this last year’s team with Thompson and Lee would still not make the playoffs, particularly in the West. In this scenario, unless otherwise traded, Thompson’s prime is pretty much completely wasted.
The Cavs stand as we know them now, so they would still make the finals, but against who? The Rockets? The Thunder after sneaking into the 8th spot (since the Warriors don’t make the playoffs)? Maybe the Grizzlies?
Scenario 2: Cavaliers still trade with the Timberwolves, but this time send Wiggins and Bennett for Thompson and Lee. The Warriors end up with Curry, Iguodala, Green, Love, and Bogut in their starting lineup, with Barnes (who comes off the bench so Iggy can play the two) and Speights coming off the bench.
Here Love gets to play with the rim-protector he never had, but the needs to space the floor like Green did for them during the year. From the Cavaliers past season, we know that Love can fill that position, but his low-post talents are wasted by turning him into an expensive Ryan Anderson. The team obviously would still have a load of offensive and defensive fire-power, but I think this would be the Warriors worst-case scenario. Iguodala is going to be losing a few steps in the coming years, and Love cannot fulfil the shooting Thompson provided them. They’d definitely make the playoffs, but not with 67 wins.
The Cavaliers end up with a starting lineup of Irving, (Klay) Thompson, James, (Tristan) Thompson, and Mozgov with Smith, Shumpert, and Dellavedova coming off the bench. Dear sweet God look at that team. If Klay shot 44% from the three this year for the Warriors, imagine him with LeBron running the offense. Even if he misses, the poor man’s Rodman (the other Thompson) would just clean up the mess. Sure, Thompson may be concussed and miss a couple Finals games this year, but having the possibility of him coming back is better than Kevin Love being out for multiple months. Cavs easily become the favorites this year.
The Wolves remain as they were this year with Wiggins.
Scenario 3: No other trades happen after Love goes to the Warriors. Both the Warriors and Timberwolves end up as I’ve described them in the last few paragraphs, but the Cavaliers keep their two #1 picks in Wiggins and Bennett. Their starting lineup becomes Irving, Wiggins, James, (Tristan) Thompson, and Mozgov.
Do they make it to the finals this year with this lineup? Possibly. After the second half of this last season, Wiggins put up some stellar numbers for the Timberwolves. Problem is that they were empty numbers: garbage points on a truly garbage team; however, there’s no denying his stellar athleticism and defensive tenacity. Bill Simmons in his The Book of Basketball claims that if Len Bias had survived his drug overdose and played in the NBA that Larry Bird would’ve used him as a plaything, tossing him alley-oop after alley-oop. Well imagine LeBron running the fast break with Wiggins next to him. Wiggins would score at least 4-6 more points per game just off dunks that LeBron served to him.
I think that this would be Wiggins’s best situation for develop (this, or the Warriors) because he can focus on picking his spots on offense (with Irving and James running the show), and truly develop into a defensive stopper. Maybe even take a Scottie Pippen type role next to his offensive juggernauts. Then, after five years when LeBron turns 35 and starts slowing down, Irving will be 27 and Wiggins will be 24. Don’t tell me that’s not a perfect transition period from third fiddle and defensive-stopper to possible first option next to Irving. If you’re not excited and disappointed about this scenario not playing out, then I truly feel sorry for you.
But (and this is a huge but), the Cavs made the right choice with trading Wiggins. LeBron is nearing that time when all NBA players start to lose their abilities, and who knows if he has five more years to give. Love was a legit top 5-7 player the last few years, and anyone saying they wouldn’t pair him with LeBron is lying. I feel cheated as a fan to not see Wiggins develop next to his Jordan, but, as a business and basketball move, I understand it.
So think about this as you watch the upcoming Finals. Think about every trade that is considered every year that could affect every season from that point on. Maybe one day I’ll tell you about the time that the Thunder passed up on receiving Tyson Chandler. Maybe you’ll imagine the number of championships Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, and Chandler would’ have won.
Article Length: ~1,000 words or about 5-8 minutes of reading.
As of tonight, the finals are set. The 53-29 Cavaliers will officially be facing the 67-15 Warriors, and, as always America will be cheering for the underdog Cava….wait what? The majority of people in America want the better team to win? Well that’s very un-American of us. I’ve never watched a movie with the tagline “A true top-dog story.” “Miracle” would’ve been far less interesting if the Russians ended up beating the Americans, and the only time we care about the underdog losing is if there’s a moral at the end of the loss. Well in the NBA, the only moral is win or pray that you don’t get traded, cut, or fired.
If the Warriors win the finals, they’ll be the first team since Jordan’s 1991 Bulls to win a championship having zero players with NBA finals experience. I don’t want a team like that winning. To me, that’s like the cocky freshman that walks into the first day of basketball practice proclaiming that he’s the shit, and then proceeds to rip apart his competition the entire season, starting every game, leading his school to a record breaking season, and then winning a state championship. Sure, they accomplished their ultimate goal, but that cocky kid didn’t learn a moment of humility.
I want the cocky kid walking into that gym thinking they’re the best of all time, but leaving with his head hanging down wondering what went wrong. I want to see how far that cocky kid will push himself, how much better he can be. Steve Kerr is in his first year coaching, Draymond Green is in his second year, Klay Thompson and Stephen Curry have only been to the playoffs three times, so on and so forth. Curry has broken record after record with his shooting, crushing his playoff competition without the slightest bit of worry. I want every single one of them to go back to the drawing board. What more (if anything) can the MVP Curry add to his game? Will Draymond stay with the Warriors, or will another team offer him a max and coax him away? How long can Andrew Bogut and Shaun Livingston stay healthy? These are the questions and struggles that really push a team to the brink and reveal to us what they’re made of.
Set aside your LeBron hate for a second (don’t give me that look, I know you have it) and listen to this comparison for a second. I sadly did not come up with it, but a Reddit user by the name of “steezstylo” perfectly put the series into perspective:
“When you put it like that, Cavs vs GS is pretty much every highschool sports movie ever where a bunch of ragtag misfits go up against a well oiled team of prep school snobs
The Cavs have the prodigal son who messed things up but is trying to find redemption by becoming a leader, the headstrong young star who slowly learns the meaning of teamwork, the troubled badass who is trying to escape a reckless life of giving [women] the pipe…
The bowling scene where they put aside their differences at their lowest point, and bond to a musical montage of them joking around is just classic film story structure” (2015).
I want that preppy sports team to feel that defeat, to go back and get their hands dirty. I want Stephen Curry to feel his inner-villain overcome him, like some budding Sith Lord.
Oh, you think I’m being a bit too harsh huh? Think about it, every great team and player first faced bone-crushing adversity. Michael Jordan had to lose to the Pistons two years in a row in the conference finals before making the finals. Shaq was completely waxed by Olajuwon after eliminating Jordan in his comeback. Isiah had to watch as Larry and Magic completely monopolized the 80s (who by the way are the exception to this rule because they had such a legendary, decade-long rivalry). Durant has been chasing LeBron every step of his career, unable to firmly grasp onto the best-player-in-the-league title. He lost in the finals, lost his best chance to win a title (Harden), and is coming off an injury-ridden season. Durant finally is ready to win a title. I lump Chris Paul into the same category as Durant.
Then there’s LeBron who was crushed by the Spurs, moved to Miami, was collectively hated by the universe (and Skip Bayless…), then crushed by the Mavericks. He almost matched Kobe, Jordan, and Russell by almost winning three straight, but once again the Spurs (led by the third greatest player of all time, Tim Duncan) stopped him in his tracks. LeBron deserves to win his third championship after doing what 99.9% of NBA players were unable to: go to five straight finals.
I guess my full point is that I appreciate players and teams that have paid their dues, teams that have gone to Hell and back in their odyssey to the finals. This is why I’ll cheer for Tim Duncan and the Spurs until the day Duncan retires. Nobody has shown such class and professionalism through such a consistent NBA tenure, and if anybody deserves to go out in a blaze of glory, it’s the Big Fundamental.
So go on, continue cheering for the perfection that has been this Golden State team. Keep telling yourself that they’ve been the underdog, that they deserve it the most, and that it’s Stephen Curry’s time. But answer me this: did you cheer for the perfection seeking Patriots back in 2008 when the Giants won the Superbowl? I didn’t think so.
nbacademic 