Yeah, Middleton and Lillard have a quick release. Leonard and Durant don't. Thompson is more unusual than you think. Along with his quick release, he has the ability to backpedal into a shot.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by a quick release. Though by pretty much any standard that isn't Curry, Durant has one, IMO. He doesn't always use it because he has such a size advantage that his shot is hard to bother anyway. Leonard isn't as quick as the others, but he doesn't have a wind-up. He can catch and pull the trigger fast enough to prevent nearly all close-out contests, which is what matters, IMO. I'm not saying Thompson isn't one of the most adept shooters in the league, but you could replace him much more easily than you could Green. You might get a worse version of Thompson, but you really can't get any other version of Green, worse or not.
Lol, ok. Yep, teams have never changed their strategy to fit personnel or to adjust to an opponent. Teams just do the same thing all the time regardless of situation or circumstance.
You guys are arguing silly stuff. Just ask Jerry West and the rest of the Warriors front office. They think Draymond Green is a top 10 player in the entire league and their second best player, and I agree.
The most important quote for those of you too lazy to read the article When the duo are both on the court, the Warriors outscore opponents by an average of 21.4 points per 100 possessions. But when Curry plays without Green, the average drops to 3.0 points.
Green really needs to work on a midrange game this offseason. If he could just get a pull-up jumper or some decent post moves, there wouldn't be any debate - he'd be a top 10 player. He needs to workout with Beaseley in the offseason.
It's pretty foolish to assume the Warriors could restructure their entire offense (as a result of losing Thompson in this hypothetical scenario) and remain championship contenders. It sounds like you don't fully understand how much he impacts their offense.
Here's Thompson's game-tying 3 pointer from the other night. Look at Hayward's closeout. How many players in the NBA can you trust to make this kind of shot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqg4ltWt1U The Warriors already have lesser versions of Green (Iggy/Barnes) on their roster.
How is taking less 3s and using their great ball movement to get more paint points "restructuring the entire offense"? You do know that there are 15 minutes every game where Klay Thompson is on the bench, and they seem to do just fine. When Green or Curry sit, the Warriors have a negative net rating (-6.8 and -4.3, respectively). In fact, they are the ONLY PLAYERS on that team where this is the case. When Klay sits, they still have a positive net rating (+2.6). They would literally have to restructure (not just adjust) their entire offensive and defensive gameplan without Draymond. You are ignoring the fact that every stat (and basically every opinion) in this thread contradicts your opinion on who is more valuable.
B/c they're a perimeter oriented team that relies on Curry/Thompson for spacing, and their great ball movement is predicated on the threat of their perimeter shooting. Without Thompson, they would no longer be a perimeter oriented team. They would have to restructure their entire offense. Can you provide a link to these stats?
Those stats seem a bit overly simplistic. For instance, look at the off-court net ratings for Green (-6.8), Curry (-4.3), and Thompson (+2.6). Can't that be explained by the substitution patterns? Thompson is usually the first player benched midway through the first period. Green/Curry stay on the court for the rest of the period. As a result, the Warriors still do well while Thompson is on the bench. Wouldn't that explain why the Warriors have a positive net rating when Thompson is benched? Thompson will then start the 2nd period while both Curry/Green sit. At this point, the Warriors are now fielding a weaker 2nd unit lineup that features Thompson. Wouldn't that explain the Warriors' high negative net rating when Curry/Green are benched?
I think the high negative off-court rating for Green and Curry stems mostly from none of their top 3 playing. Because even when Klay is the only one of the 3 of them in there (rarely) they're still outscoring opponents. Of their top 20 most used lineups, there's only 1 where Klay wasn't playing with Draymond Green. That lineup is Thompson, Barnes, Iggy, Livingston, and Speights and they've outscored opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions in those minutes. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016/lineups/ But you're right that Klay's positive off-court rating is most likely a function of Curry and Green playing minutes without him. But honestly, isn't that what we're debating? It seems like they're not comfortable putting out a Curry/Thompson backcourt without having Green in the game. The fact that they are unwilling to separate Curry and Green makes me feel like that combo is better than the combo of Curry and Thompson.
I don't fully agree with that. The Warriors like to use Curry/Thompson off the ball with a facilitator at the top of the key. Out of the remaining Warriors, Green is the best overall player who can serve as the facilitator. It makes sense to have him out there. That doesn't mean Iggy isn't capable of performing the facilitator role. Don't forget, he used to be the primary playmaker in Philadelphia. Also, in this hypothetical scenario, you're only considering the impact when both Curry and Green are on the court together. Logically, if Thompson were to get hurt, the Warriors would be forced to stagger Curry/Green's minutes. They'd probably want one of them on the floor at all times. If that's the case, what happens when Curry sits? Green would be surrounded with limited perimeter options. Do you think that 2nd unit could consistently generate points?
What are you talking about? The Warriors would be dumb to stagger Curry and Green's minutes, considering they are actually only game-breaking when both are on the floor together (regardless of Klay) All you have to do is watch the games Klay missed vs the one's Curry or Green missed and see who is actually more important. Curry is more than enough to create all the space you will ever need. Who do you think draws the big guys away from the rim when Green sets picks when they try to trap Curry? Who unlocks the small-ball lineup the Warriors use to dominate teams? Iggy, Livingston and Speights are more than enough to carry the second unit. there are more than a handful of Klay Thompsons in the NBA, there is only one Draymond Green. Yes, I think everyone concedes that having all 3 makes them a historically great team, but Jerry West said it himself, Draymond is a top 10 player in the NBA and their second best player. The people who deny it at this point are basically 1. Haters 2. Don't understand basketball 3. Being contrarian in order to be provocative (but in reality just sound dumb)
When a team has multiple stars, their minutes are staggered. It ensures a steady stream of production throughout the game. Can you name any team in NBA history that didn't stagger its offensive stars? Sorry, but no. They don't miss enough games to make a meaningful sample. Intuitively, that doesn't make sense. Defenses would just overplay Curry and dare the rest of the shooters to beat them. Curry and Thompson account for over 60% of the 3 pointers made. Do you really think the rest of the Warriors would be able to step up? Keep in mind that despite their percentages, Green and Iggy aren't good 3 point shooters. They tend to shoot when they're wide, wide open. Without Thompson, how many wide open looks do you think they'd get? Isn't their small-ball lineup successful b/c of their perimeter shooting? Do you really think that's sustainable without Thompson? Not when every other team staggers their stars. For example, look at OKC. They bench Westbrook in the later part of the first period so he can come in early in the second period. I'd bet that Westbrook and the OKC 2nd unit would dominate GSW's 2nd unit. Draymond Green isn't even the only Draymond Green on the Warriors. Iggy is a lesser version of him. You think it's noteworthy that a member of the Warriors' management pays lip service to one of the Warriors' players?
I mean, you seem to be aware that Klay Thompson is "one of the Warriors' players." When West says Green is the Warriors' second-best player, do you think he's putting Curry third or Thompson third? I don't think pro-Warriors bias really explains this.
