Where does Giannis rank all-time following the 2021 NBA Finals?

Answer this question. Who was the most irreplaceable member of that Warriors team in the finals?

Watch these game 6 highlights. Curry is responsible for all but 3 of Iguodala's baskets:

 

Draymond averaged 7 asts during his all star run, he got 8 asts last season. If his passing got him the all star selection he would've been an all star this year.

You are the one who needs to do some critical thinking. Steph Curry doesnt always go off the ball, as you said he is the engine of the GSW. It is Klay who mostly moves off the ball Curry is the one with the ball, esp during Draymond All star years (before KD).

If Curry being off the ball allows DG to inflate his stats, why has DG's stats not inflated now? I'm not talking about replacing Curry with some no name, its with another star guard. That star guard is also talented enough to be the engine of GSW. They would still win rings and be unstoppable with or without Curry

 

Like I said before, his stats weren't gaudy last year, and they weren't in a winning situation. So why would he have been an all-star?

During his all-star years, his passing was ABSOLUTELY relevant to his all-star status. It's ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Of course Curry doesn't always go off-ball. I never said he did. I said he's the GOAT off-ball player.

When Curry gets double teamed 30 feet from the basket, Draymond Green benefits because he's allowed to play 4v3.

And in doing so, DG would lose a lot of his ball-handling duties which would deflate his stats.

The Warriors offense revolves around Curry's GOAT shooting/off-ball movement. It's pretty moronic to think he could be replaced so easily.

 

His asts now is more than his asts during his all star yrs. If his passing is what caused him to get an all star then he shouldve been an all star considering he passed more this season. If Curry is the reason DG became an all star, then he shouldve been an all star this season. If the winning situation is what caused DG to be an all star, other stars would give DGreen have a winning situation. You are saying Curry allowed DG to inflate his stats, hello Lebron? Luka? Giannis? Harden? Cp3? Other stars make their teammates better it isnt unique to Curry.

When Curry is getting double teamed, guess what he isnt off the ball then he is ON THE BALL. If Dray benefits from Curry getting double teamed, Lilliard or Harden also get double teamed so Dray would benefit there as well.

 

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Didn't we already discuss how a player becomes an all-star?

How exactly would any of those guys make DG better? Remember, he's a poor shooter. It's tough to make teammates better if those teammates are poor shooters and poor finishers.

Off-ball, Lillard and Harden don't distort defenses like Curry does. Not even close.

And if Harden/DG ran a pick and roll, I'd imagine teams would let Harden shoot the 25 footers instead of allowing DG to have a 4v3.

Are you sure Lillard gets double teamed that often? My impression of him is that he goes 1v1 a lot or uses a screen to draw a foul or shoot a 3.

 

Draymond Green wouldn’t have even picked up a basketball as a child had it not been for Steph Curry.

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

 

Discussion went from Giannis to GSW.

 

Always happens when people get sucked into arguing with wekko.

 

(this isn't directed at you, wekko - just a convenient message to quote.)

DG excels due to the offense he's in. When Curry and Thompson are running around everywhere without the ball, it creates mistakes by a defenses which lets all their role players thrive. It's the opposite of a Harden offense where there was very little movement and lots of players just standing in their 3 pt spots. When Draymond has the ball and everyone is moving, he can find the open guy. Or if other people have the ball, he can go position himself behind a defense that is always scrambling, opening up easy opportunities near the rim and with put backs.

The Curry/Thompson offense makes mediocre role players useful. A static offense like the Rockets with Harden benefits the star player and maximizes his use, but it doesn't the get the most out of everyone else. It's why basically all the Rockets role players over the last few years seemed terrible.

 

It takes two people to argue. No one gets "sucked in" unless they insist on responding to everything, in which case, it's on them.

 

We made a pretty long line of cast offs and minimum guys into usable rotation pieces specifically off of Harden’s ability to create amazing shots for them.

They only seemed terrible when defenses forced these cast offs and minimum guys into putting the ball on the floor and forcing them to make decisions, which they were terrible at.

It’s one reason GS was able to run the offense they did. They managed to accumulate a bunch of guys who were good decision makers and who could dribble the ball without immediately turning it over.

 

The OP started talking about Curry in his original post. It's not my fault that Harden fans are so insecure.

 

WIthin reason, that's true. We made them all into good spot up 3pt shooters. That worked great in the regular season where teams aren't plotting defensive strategies and other things every game. Instead...

When it came to the playoffs, the role players couldn't really adjust when other teams took Harden out of plays, so they all looked terrible. It doesn't mean that the role players aren't capable of scoring in other ways, but that's not what they practiced all season because the Rockets ran a great regular season offense that works really well when no one is planning a defense specifically to stop it..

Or they practiced that offense so much that the role players figured out how to play in that system. Their system is designed for the playoffs because of the amount of pressure they put on the defense. But it requires a lot of practice to make it work (also why it blows up so badly if you lose any key players). We're seeing in the Olympics what happens with talented teams when they try to run an offense they have no real experience with.

 

No amount of practice is going to make your Brewers and Tuckers and Arizas into smart playmakers with a good handle like Livingston or Iggy or Barbosa to go along with your secondary stars also possessing really good to high end playmaking in Green and Thompson.

We picked guys and we put them into a spot up role specifically because they weren’t capable of the other things that a lot of the Warriors guys were. The Warriors didn’t have some game plan that just anyone could replicate. They were flush with smart playmakers that most teams can’t realistically expect to acquire.

There were easily years where the Warriors 3rd, 4th maybe even 5th best playmakers would have been our 2nd or 3rd best.

If all it took was practice than Westbrook wouldn’t still be bricking everything outside the paint.

 

The corollary is that these types of players wouldn't want to play in an offensive system where they're told to stand stationary at the 3pt line every possession.

 

exactly my point. I am faulting those who keep on responding. Whenever wekko posts, a bunch of people would keep on arguing with him, pretty much hijacking the threads. And you know nobody is going to change mind because the opposing argument is convincing.

 

It's a chicken and egg thing. High level good decision makers aren't being maximized playing with a guy like Harden. So we don't look for those players. CP3 was a good play maker. It worked for a year but it wasn't because they were both maximized. It worked by the shear talent of both guys. CP3 is not a role player. If you have two ball dominant players playing together, what you do is "your turn my turn" kind of thing. Or one of them has to sacrifice. In fact, that's what Harden was doing playing with Kyrie Irving.

 

I’m not really down for the “we didn’t maximize” them argument for a 65 win team. We actually nearly perfectly maximized making two of the most ball dominant players ever work on the same team.

But that’s not really the point here.

The answer to the question….Why didn’t we(or most teams that have ever been constructed in NBA history)play like the Warriors? Isn’t …. Because we(or most everyone else) didnt practice to play like them.

I also don’t really completely buy the Harden doesn’t utilize player type x so we went with player type y argument.

I think reason #1, by a long shot, for having to settle for more 1 dimensional role players was financial.

After that I think it’s pretty easy to understand why we built the teams we did. Harden was able to make guys who literally were only suited to catch and shoot wide open shots(the guys we could afford) viable to play in your rotation.

 

Again, CP3 wasn't a role player. If you can grab a franchise level player, you do, and worry about fit later. Superior talent almost always trumps fit.

Role players are different. They are supposed to play roles that fit your star players.

Coaching and personnel determine your playing style. Teams under Adelman always play a read and react motion offense. It requires certain type of players to make it work. If you have a coach like that, you get role players who fit that system. It wasn't easy when your franchise players were Yao and TMac. But it worked eventually.

I think "most teams that have ever been constructed in NBA history" is a gross exaggeration. There are plenty of teams that play a movement style in NBA history. Not exactly like the Warriors, of course, because of different personnel. But no, "most teams that have ever been constructed in NBA history" don't play like the Rockets either.