Rockets just showed the blueprint to beat the Warriors

[Seventyniner]

Harden on these playoffs had a DBP of 1.7, that's on par with what our defense ace, Danny Green, did this year. There you have numbers, not subjective opinions.

Small sample sizes again. 17 games doesn't say much, it turns out. Even going bigger gives you something like this:

Harden career playoff DBPM: 1.7 in 105 games.
Bruce Bowen career playoff DBPM: 2.0 in 135 games.

It is totally relevant because you brought up that series, and in that series OKC almost knocked the Warriors off thanks, in part, because Roberson had a fluke series shooting the three. If he wouldn't have had that fluke shooting, the Thunder wouldn't have been so close to knocking the Warriors off and you wouldn't have brought it up. Simple as that.

Wrong.

	Gm 1	Gm2	Gm 3	Gm 4	Gm 5	Gm 6	Gm 7	Total
Roberson 3PT	1-1	1-2	3-5	1-3	2-3	0-0	0-4	8-18
OC margin of victory	+6	-27	+28	+24	-9	-7	-8

That 44% is complete fools gold. If he had hit all 5 of his threes in game 3 his 3PT% for the series would be 55.6, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the series given that it was a 28-point blowout anyway. Same goes for game 4.

Roberson is a ty shooter, period. And yet he was a key part of the wing rotation for a team that nearly knocked off the Warriors.

Capela also played around 30 minutes per game against the Warriors. The thing is not going small for the sake of going small. If you have bigs that can stay with guys on the perimeter (like a Capela or an Aldridge) play him, but you can't play slow footed bigs like Gasol or R.Anderson, because you would get killed. That's where playing guys like Ibaka or Tucker as center is preferred to having a Gasol or a Ryan Anderson.

Ibaka, sure. I think Pau can still have a (10 MPG or so) role against GS if he's effective enough on offense. Nothing you want to pay $16M for, but that's the price you pay for chasing Chris Paul.

I gave you plenty of numbers, examples and analysis too son. You are just misreading them or completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say.

All you gave me were small samples. 7 games of Roberson shooting well versus hundreds where he shot poorly (the rest of his career). DBP (whatever that is, did you mean DBPM?) for an individual player over 17 games.

, the 2016 Thunder didn't come close to your "blueprint" in the OP. They played 2 non-shooters (Adams, Kanter) and 2 bad shooters (Roberson, Westbrook) in their top 7 and nearly pulled it off.

Even the Rockets failed on the other half. Harden and Paul, their two best players, can't switch 1 to 5.

[Brazil]

Did you watch the series?

yes and at your harden above average defensive player...

[daslicer]

No. You could take the same sample size from most of the Rockets games and say the same thing, only no one got injured. GS is a 3rd quarter team. Spurs lost their huge lead in the 3rd quarter. With or without KL, it would have happened. He cannot guard every position.

Spurs would have won that game. Their biggest lead was 24 in that game in the second quarter. The Warriors actually went on several runs in the second quarter and had cut the lead down to 14 but the Spurs pushed it back to 20 at halftime. Same thing happened in the third quarter the Warriors went on a run and cut the lead down to 14 but the Spurs answered and pushed the lead all the way back to 23. Warriors were pretty much demoralized at that point because they had tried to go on runs and the Spurs had answered them every time. Warriors felt like until Zaza injured Kawhi and that's when I saw Curry's face light up with the rest of that team. Prior to that they were looking like the Spurs did in '01 against the Lakers. Anyways I'm not buying into your bs.

[DAF86]

yes and at your harden above average defensive player...

That's what both the eye test and the numbers indicate, tbh.

[DAF86]

Small sample sizes again. 17 games doesn't say much, it turns out. Even going bigger gives you something like this:

Harden career playoff DBPM: 1.7 in 105 games.
Bruce Bowen career playoff DBPM: 2.0 in 135 games.

You want a bigger sample size? For his playoffs career (62 games) Harden has the same number: 1.7. Which compared to his regular season number, 0.2, goes to show you that when enganged, Harden is a pretty good defender.

You want an even bigger sample size? Harden posted BPM numbers of 1.5 and 1.3 the last two regular seasons. So yeah, I would say Harden is an average to above average defender.

Wrong.

	Gm 1	Gm2	Gm 3	Gm 4	Gm 5	Gm 6	Gm 7	Total
Roberson 3PT	1-1	1-2	3-5	1-3	2-3	0-0	0-4	8-18
OC margin of victory	+6	-27	+28	+24	-9	-7	-8

That 44% is complete fools gold. If he had hit all 5 of his threes in game 3 his 3PT% for the series would be 55.6, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the series given that it was a 28-point blowout anyway. Same goes for game 4.

Roberson is a ty shooter, period. And yet he was a key part of the wing rotation for a team that nearly knocked off the Warriors.

Using margin of victory to say whether or not Roberson 3pt shooting % was relevant for the outcome of games. Not taking into consideration context, nor momentum of those shots, nor even how Roberson hitting shots could have changed the way GS defended OKC.

All you gave me were small samples. 7 games of Roberson shooting well versus hundreds where he shot poorly (the rest of his career). DBP (whatever that is, did you mean DBPM?) for an individual player over 17 games.

, the 2016 Thunder didn't come close to your "blueprint" in the OP. They played 2 non-shooters (Adams, Kanter) and 2 bad shooters (Roberson, Westbrook) in their top 7 and nearly pulled it off.

Even the Rockets failed on the other half. Harden and Paul, their two best players, can't switch 1 to 5.

And again with the small sample size, really? Is it really that difficul to understand?

Against GS you need guys that can shoot threes, you are not beating them without that. The more shooters you have, the better. Sure, you can get a guy like Anderson and hope that he flukes into a good shooting series vs GS like Roberson did, but the smart thing to do would be to sign guys that can shoot 3's, at least at an average level. You are never beating GS with 5 men lineups that have 3 guys that can't (or don't) shoot threes, which is what the Spurs were fielding for many parts of this season. Even having 2 guys that don't shoot threes might be too much of a handicap to overcome when facing GS.

And again, they don't have to be elite shooters, they just have to be threats. Make them know that if you leave that guy open, he will not hesitate on taking the shot and try to make you pay.

[SAGirl]

The Spurs defense is fools gold and the worst suited to the playoffs of any elite defense. Their sheer size, length, knowhow and IQ masks their deficiencies in most random regular season games against mostly middling teams. In the playoffs, they have 3 massive targets in their rotation that are rendered virtually unplayable vs the elite.

The Warriors, a middling offensive outfit sans Curry, posted an offensive rating .01 better than their regular season mark that mostly featured him.

In '17, regular season to series vs Spurs: Grizzlies were +3.7, Rockets were -6.3 (pre Paul, of course), Warriors were +6.6.

Before you bring up Leonard's absence in a lot of that, you can't have it both ways (citing the elite regular season mark without him).

Pop overplayed the heck out of Mills... Millsy is fools gold, king of empty stats and was a net negative that series on account of how he was exploited by Thompson and everyone else Pop had him on defensively. He did his best job on Draymond simply because D.Green doesn't look for his shots, he merely gets other people shots and takes shots that defenses give him wide open, or layups. And Draymond killed him by rebounding like a madman. He had over 15 rebounds in one of those games if IRC... it also doesn't help that the whole team shot poorly, which kills transition defense, and that Murray and Anderson were kept in a very short minutes limitations, Danny has declined and Rudy Gay is really not good on D.

[SAGirl]

I still think the blueprint is the Spurs core. You need that elite scoring, and we have close to that with Leonard. You need that big that scores in the paint and isn’t a defensive liability. We have that with LMA. Warriors cannot guard LMA and Leonard one on one. Not one player on the warriors can. Then you want dependable 3 & D guys. Green isn’t that anymore. A guard that can penetrate that can make Curry work. We don’t have that and we only hope Murray is that guy. Kyle Anderson actually works in rotation because he can defend multiple people here. But not so much with Gay who does not have the defensive footwork to switch on Klay or Curry, and he doesn’t particularly do a good job on Durant. Obvious Gasol can’t punish the warriors enough offensively to be out there defensively.

Actually playing through the paint is the blue print to beating them. Relying on 3 pointers is a sure way to lose. Long shots lead to long rebounds which results in transition 3’s. But obviously if you playing in the paint, you need to punish them behind the arc, which is where we are one of the worst teams in the league at doing.

Agree somewhat.
The duo of Leonard and Lamarcus was a terror to them when playing together. We never saw them at their best this season bc of Kiwi's injury and now it's anyone's guess what happens this summer. I'd like to see them back together with a new supporting cast. Some roleplayers are just way too old and/or limited. We shall see what happens.

[SAGirl]

mills graded out as a significantly worse defender than james harden

yup

[Brazil]

That's what both the eye test and the numbers indicate, tbh.

Harden is one of the worst defender in the league.. he run around a bit more during the POs, this does not make him above average, far from that

[tholdren]

Who? Manu?

Wrong

[DAF86]

Harden is one of the worst defender in the league.. he run around a bit more during the POs, this does not make him above average, far from that

Numbers indicate he has been an above average defender for 2 full season now. And he's even better on the playoffs. You lazily saying otherwise, without any type of data to support your argument, won't chance that fact, tbh.

[DAF86]

Wrong

Well, Manu has the same career AST% than Durant. If you say Durant isn't a playmaker because he has a 24 AST%, then Manu isn't one either, tbh.

[TD 21]

Yes I can. There is only one KD and that doesn’t negate the fact that against 29 other teams SA defense, even with their liabilities grades out as far superior for multiple years.

Losing Kawhi shows up way more vs a GS because there is no one on the Spurs that can remotely guard him so everything crumbles.

Of course Harden is a net positive; no one is arguing otherwise. Again, people just selectively trash SA and dismiss everything yet give HOU the benefit of the doubt without really evaluating what they are saying.

Yes, HOU did well and that is a viable plan if you have a Harden/CP3. But even with liabilities SA without any bias or specuation, just facts, graded out far superior on defense.

Just like Harden can be a net positive because his offense is so good, LMA/Kawhi/Danny/Murray cover up for a lot of defensive weaknesses of other players and are better on that end.

Can they improve further by eliminating Mills/TP/Pau? Sure. That doesn’t mean they weren’t already better on defense than HOU who had “less liabilities”.

No, you can't. Individual defense is overrated, especially on the perimeter. With the league damn near outlawing defense and the amount of shooting on the floor, as well as all the switching, there's only so much you can do, particularly on superstars and stars.

Durant had a 60.6 TS% against the Spurs in the '18 playoffs, 3.4% worse than his regular season mark. It's a relatively small sample size, but still. The point is, so long as you're not guarding him with players at a severe physical disadvantage, like Mills and Forbes and gifting him easy points, it's basically make or miss. Why wouldn't Anderson, a tall, extremely long armed combo forward, with some of the best defensive metrics in the league, remotely stand a chance?

You're missing the point. There's a misconception that you need designated "stoppers", but you really just need non physical liabilities or if you have one of those, they better be a superstar or star offensively to offset it.

Far superior in the regular season. The playoffs are a different game.

No, they can't. The league is skewed far more towards offense now and it always was slightly more valuable than defense. The 4 you named, good as they might be, can't cover up for a liability, who will be relentlessly attacked and none of the 3 liabilities are even close to good enough offensively to offset it.

[DPG21920]

Well, Manu has the same career AST% than Durant. If you say Durant isn't a playmaker because he has a 24 AST%, then Manu isn't one either, tbh.

I haven’t looked, but I would imagine that KD has the same ast% as Manu despite having a larger usage rate. So just comparing AST% without role or context wont accurately tell you about playmaking.

I think KD is a fine playmaker that went from below average to above average as he aged and blossomed into a superstar (especially in the past 3-4 years) but I don’t think he’s a playmaker in the same light as a Manu even with the same AST%.

I may be wrong but I would imagine KD has a higher usage %.

[DPG21920]

No, you can't. Individual defense is overrated, especially on the perimeter. With the league damn near outlawing defense and the amount of shooting on the floor, as well as all the switching, there's only so much you can do, particularly on superstars and stars.

Durant had a 60.6 TS% against the Spurs in the '18 playoffs, 3.4% worse than his regular season mark. It's a relatively small sample size, but still. The point is, so long as you're not guarding him with players at a severe physical disadvantage, like Mills and Forbes and gifting him easy points, it's basically make or miss. Why wouldn't Anderson, a tall, extremely long armed combo forward, with some of the best defensive metrics in the league, remotely stand a chance?

You're missing the point. There's a misconception that you need designated "stoppers", but you really just need non physical liabilities or if you have one of those, they better be a superstar or star offensively to offset it.

Far superior in the regular season. The playoffs are a different game.

No, they can't. The league is skewed far more towards offense now and it always was slightly more valuable than defense. The 4 you named, good as they might be, can't cover up for a liability, who will be relentlessly attacked and none of the 3 liabilities are even close to good enough offensively to offset it.

This is ludicrous on many levels that I don’t care to get further into, but even you don’t believe having a DPOY wing is that important, he at a minimum fits the description of a “non-liability”.

Beyond that, it is truly wild (and illustrates my point about hating on the Spurs while worshiping the Rockets) that you can take literally years of data and dismiss it as fools gold but be sold on 4 game sample size with a top 3 player in the world as gospel to back up your claims.

[DAF86]

I haven’t looked, but I would imagine that KD has the same ast% as Manu despite having a larger usage rate. So just comparing AST% without role or context wont accurately tell you about playmaking.

I think KD is a fine playmaker that went from below average to above average as he aged and blossomed into a superstar (especially in the past 3-4 years) but I don’t think he’s a playmaker in the same light as a Manu even with the same AST%.

I may be wrong but I would imagine KD has a higher usage %.

The problem is determining what a playmaker is. Most people tend to use "playmaker" just for guys that tend that create open looks for others more regularly. But, to me, a guy that can get his own shot any time he wants, that "makes" a "play" (no matter if it is for him to score, or for others to score) just with his talents, is a playmaker.

[DPG21920]

The problem is determining what a playmaker is. Most people tend to use "playmaker" just for guys that tend that create open looks for others more regularly. But, to me, a guy that can get his own shot any time he wants, that "makes" a "play" (no matter if it is for him to score, or for others to score) just with his talents, is a playmaker.

Sure, in that light, KD is absolutely a playmaker. Again I think KD has gotten to be a very good playmaker with legitimate ball handling and vision and accurate passing.

But what you are describing is more of a gravity thing which KD obviously has a ton of with his offensive talents.

[DAF86]

Sure, in that light, KD is absolutely a playmaker. Again I think KD has gotten to be a very good playmaker with legitimate ball handling and vision and accurate passing.

But what you are describing is more of a gravity thing which KD obviously has a ton of with his offensive talents.

Well then, change my original statement from "playmakers" to "gravi y players" if you want. It's the same point.

[tholdren]

Well then, change my original statement from "playmakers" to "gravi y players" if you want. It's the same point.

Lol wrong

[TD 21]

This is ludicrous on many levels that I don’t care to get further into, but even you don’t believe having a DPOY wing is that important, he at a minimum fits the description of a “non-liability”.

Beyond that, it is truly wild (and illustrates my point about hating on the Spurs while worshiping the Rockets) that you can take literally years of data and dismiss it as fools gold but be sold on 4 game sample size with a top 3 player in the world as gospel to back up your claims.

You missed the point. Of course a healthy Leonard is about as good of a James/Durant defender as possible (though with the immense offensive burden he'd have in a series against them, it would probably sap some of his defense) because he'll at least make it difficult on them, but they're going to score in volume and with efficiency either way. More importantly, the way the game is being played now, no defender can make up for liabilities.

I don't worship the Rockets. I don't even like them, I've never believed in them as far as winning the championship goes and don't agree with everything they've done, but they're clearly on the right track, unlike the Spurs, who look more clueless and delusional with each passing year.

Again, the recent playoff data backs up my ascertain that the Spurs defense is fools gold. The reality is, you're not winning a championship in today's NBA relying heavily on one-way role players. They can keep fighting this and lose or get with the times and have an outside chance to win . . .

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5...atches-3-and-d

[DMC]

Spurs would have won that game. Their biggest lead was 24 in that game in the second quarter. The Warriors actually went on several runs in the second quarter and had cut the lead down to 14 but the Spurs pushed it back to 20 at halftime. Same thing happened in the third quarter the Warriors went on a run and cut the lead down to 14 but the Spurs answered and pushed the lead all the way back to 23. Warriors were pretty much demoralized at that point because they had tried to go on runs and the Spurs had answered them every time. Warriors felt like until Zaza injured Kawhi and that's when I saw Curry's face light up with the rest of that team. Prior to that they were looking like the Spurs did in '01 against the Lakers. Anyways I'm not buying into your bs.

So the Spurs got outscored by 23 points as soon as Kawhi wasn't on the floor and you somehow think they had a shot at beating the Warriors?

[daslicer]

So the Spurs got outscored by 23 points as soon as Kawhi wasn't on the floor and you somehow think they had a shot at beating the Warriors?

Kawhi only played 24 minutes in that game and keep in mind his playoff average was 36 minutes that year. Are you honestly that stupid to believe that Kawhi would not have played those 12 extra minutes had he not gotten hurt and that it wouldn't have made a difference? Like I said before I'm not buying into your bs.

[Brazil]

So after manu > dirk we have the harden is above average defender.. oh boy

[DPG21920]

So the Spurs got outscored by 23 points as soon as Kawhi wasn't on the floor and you somehow think they had a shot at beating the Warriors?

HOU got blown out with their team fully healthy in GM3 and even lost by double digits in GM1, but people think HOU had a shot to win this series due to the other games. Do you think it would have been close had Harden been out the entire series?

[DAF86]

So after manu > dirk we have the harden is above average defender.. oh boy

Nice capitulation son. You could have just accepted the fact that you didn't even care to check the numbers before talking out of your ass and make a silent dissapearence on this thread; but no, you owned up to your ignorance and decided to go with a bang. Props son.