Knicks · Offer Draymond Green MAX? (page 3)

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

a healthy bogut is what GS needs.

mreinman wrote:eh with dray tonight.

a healthy bogut is what GS needs.

Yeah to win it all much the same they need Dray

What do the metrics say Warriors without Bogut?

Like Wins losses and +/-

Dray played his usual valuable role while stat stuffing across the board

But of course had he made 2 more 3s he would of

Found the sweet spot in your heart

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

If .100 is average what's great?

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

If .100 is average what's great?

look it up, lazy boy.

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

If .100 is average what's great?

look it up, lazy boy.

It's already there I think you know you've boxed yourself into a corner yet again

What's your threshold just say whatever will protect yourself

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

If .100 is average what's great?

look it up, lazy boy.

It's already there I think you know you've boxed yourself into a corner yet again

What's your threshold just say whatever will protect yourself

you sounds like when the Iraqi foreign minister continuously declared victory while he was getting his azz kicked yet again

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

STATMELO wrote:Whoever thinks Draymond Green is a role player doesn't watch him play period...

Whoever watches Draymond Green and says he's just a role player has a flawed view of what basketball is and how to play it period...

That is the problem, many use boxscores to analyze talent

Yet they forget the GS is a team that the #1 philosophy if the system is to hit the open man
Yes, both Klay Thompson and Curry both have the green light to shoot whenever, however, neither plays for numbers and stats

While plenty of players in the NBA know how to manipulate STAT's and look to produce big numbers, that style of play does not translate to W's
In order to maximize the abilities of talents, players all my sacrifice for the better of the team, all for the better of the system and W's

Everyone is utilized as a threat in GS and they use the abilities of all players BB IQ, ability to stretch the floor, and the versatility of everyone on the floor
That is winning basketball and this is how teams will the future will continue to build their teams, as evidence by Poppavich and the Spur's for many years

Now many teams continue to execute this style of play with the their GM's on building a team
It is just must for efficient

So when analyzing talent you cannot justify one's abilities by looking at the numbers they produce or do not produce, but simply by watching the games themselves
Numbers are the outcome of the game and not the measure one of one's talent

Contracts can use numbers for validating what a player may be worth and CA sure knew how to fully utilize that while playing for Woodson, even when his entire team was not happy with the style of play and the outcome of the games
But again, numbers to not reflect the talent of an individual, especially when the system of the teams and players play as a selfless team

Kyle Korver
Kawaii Leanard
Jimmy Butler

All the players above
Were all once regarded as "role players, at least at one time, and in some eyes, they still might be role players and products of the team and players around them
However, their importance to each of their teams outweight's the boxscores that each player produces on a nightly basis

The eye test is fine. Doing it without knowing all the the stats will just have you making really bad decisions.

If you are going to only use one then the stats should definitely be chosen over the eyes.

Not really it depends on the kind of players

What Ron said has merit did you really need to look at stats

To know if Magic was the greatest point guard ever, in particular his 3pt and defense

Same with Jordan would you not max him out because of his mediocre 3pt shooting

Looking at stats heavily can do you in too

I think stats have more impact when looking at players who are younger

Players who don't play heavy minutes but could in a larger role

When trying to improve in certain areas on a team within a system

Other than this eye test > stats-advanced metrics

show me a player that has a really low Ws48 who was actually really good.

what do you consider low? Is under .100 low?

.100 is average, so yes. thats low.

If .100 is average what's great?

look it up, lazy boy.

It's already there I think you know you've boxed yourself into a corner yet again

What's your threshold just say whatever will protect yourself

you sounds like when the Iraqi foreign minister continuously declared victory while he was getting his azz kicked yet again

That was cute but doesn't get you out of Danger

Below is part of the All-Time Win Share Per 48 NBA only

Jordan tops it at .250, so my cutoff here was quite generous

170.	James Worthy*	.1300
171.	Alvan Adams	.1296
172.	Darryl Dawkins	.1291
173.	Terry Cummings	.1290
174.	Toni Kukoc	.1289
175.	Hot Rod W.	.1285
176.	Tiny Archibald*	.1285
177.	Jose Calderon	.1284
178.	Otis Thorpe	.1282
179.	Walter Davis	.1280
180.	Corey Maggette	.1278
181.	Tree Rollins	.1276
182.	P.J. Brown	.1275
183.	Wally S.	.1275
184.	Gilbert Arenas	.1273
185.	Gus Williams	.1272
186.	Kerry Kittles	.1272
187.	Bill Cartwright	.1272
188.	Alex English*	.1270
189.	Billy Knight	.1264
190.	Allen Iverson	.1264
191.	Danny Granger	.1260
192.	Mario Elie	.1258
193.	Jamaal Wilkes*	.1254
194.	Earl Monroe*	.1254
195.	Anfernee H.	.1252
196.	Ray Felix	.1252
197.	Cliff L.	.1251
198.	Dan Majerle	.1248
199.	Fred Brown	.1242
200.	Rajon Rondo	.1241
201.	Hal Greer*	.1238
202.	Danny Ainge	.1237
203.	Andre Iguodala	.1233
204.	Fat Lever	.1233
205.	Bernard King*	.1230
206.	Jeff Mullins	.1227
207.	Tom Sanders*	.1225
208.	Rod Strickland	.1224
209.	Brian Grant	.1222
210.	Dana Barros	.1221
211.	Jason Terry	.1219
212.	Glen Rice	.1217
213.	Andre Miller	.1217
214.	B.J. Armstrong	.1215
215.	Troy Murphy	.1212
216.	Shane Battier	.1211
217.	Richie Guerin*	.1210
218.	Christian L.	.1210
219.	Richard J.	.1208
220.	World B. Free	.1208
221.	Bob Boozer	.1207
222.	Jim Paxson	.1206
223.	John Salley	.1205
224.	Mike Conley	.1205
225.	Tyrone Hill	.1205
226.	Lenny Wilkens*	.1205
227.	Rudy LaRusso	.1204
228.	Michael Cage	.1201
229.	Darrell A	.1201
230.	Steve Francis	.1201
231.	Charles Smith	.1200
232.	Luol Deng	.1199
233.	Paul Pressey	.1197
234.	Byron Scott	.1197
235.	Antonio McDyess	.1195
236.	Kyle Korver	.1193
237.	Derrick Coleman	.1191
238.	Carl Braun	.1189
239.	Josh Howard	.1188
240.	Jerome Kersey	.1187
241.	Andrew Bogut	.1186
242.	Shareef 	.1183
243.	Joe Dumars*	.1178
244.	Nate McMillan	.1178
245.	Robert Horry	.1177
246.	Rik Smits	.1176
247.	Zach Randolph	.1176
248.	Bo Outlaw	.1176
249.	Mark Aguirre	.1174
250.	Greg Ballard	.1174

Since these players are closer to .100 which of these in bold would you say

Wasn't really good or bad in your eyes, I can see 2 that you don't care for

But then I see two that really suit your fancy and makes this rather unusual

If you go career WS/48 Boris diaw is below avg but in SAS he has been above avg. IS Boris Diaw a good player?

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

So while STAT's or nice, they are the effect of the system that they run, not the measure of talents the individuals own

Atlanta is the perfect example because for many years, they have judged on NOT having an ALL STAR
And many posters believe that a team will never contend without a SUPERSTAR
While teams like OKC and even Clippers play off 1-2 players abilities

Being able to play OFF the ball and being able to play with the ball, are skills that are needed, both of which we lacked
The #1 philosophy of these teams is the hit the open man and play within the system

Whether Draymond Green is fully utilized to all his abilities should be the question
Whether the skills he has, if the OFFENSE was run through him, would he be able to produce efficiently
Well, the OFFENSE was run through him much more when there were a bunch of injuries on GS
Despite not having a BIG, teams were still not able to expose them on both ends

They were still a TOP DEFENSIVE team in the league
Green was a big part of why they are a much better defensive team as he was the player that went from a rotational player to the starter since Kerr took over

He is a HIGH IQ and HIGHLY skilled player
that is coming from a winning franchise that understands how to play with and without the ball
how to spread the floor
how to use picks to free up shooters both on and off the court
How to space the floor and allow much catch and shoot opportunities
how to utilize everyone as a threat
How to play the post, in deep post position, and mid post *as he was utlized to initiate the offense much more when they lacked BIG's*
How to defend defense as individuals and as a team, how to force help, how to make ALL STAR's uncomfrtable

These are all things that are actually mental/part of the system, in which Green can actually teach, as an extension of the coach
It comes from his understanding of basketball, from DEFENSE and OFFENSE

So to my point, these are skills that he could teach and that you can not draft because these are things he learned throughout his career and in GS
How can posters that do not even watch GS play and wach Draymond Green when he actually did initiate our offense, make an assumption that he is a role player and playing off the abilties of Klay and Curry
Truth is Draymond Green isn't fully utilized to his fullest potential just like how Harden was not used to the fullest of his potential, for the better of the team
Because he doesn't have to with the talent that GS has, with the depth that they have....

However, talent is talent, it doesn't mean that they did/do not have the abilities to play a much larger role
What role players have the abilities to flirt with triple double with PTs/REB's/ASS and bring in a combined 5 steals + blocks?

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

yellowboy90 wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

Dude where they are at in reference to being good doesn't fly

Look at it this way if the league average for FG% is 42 and you shoot 43.5%

You can't be classified as a GOOD SHOOTER you're closer to average and not that good

yellowboy90 wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

Better question yellow, when players are above average but have some years or points in their careers that they really excel. Would you look at a career avg and ignore that a player was pretty sh1tty on his way down?

Have you taken a look at Bogut on GS?

korvers whole career? And compare it to what he is doing now?

sometimes the puppet show is really needed but sometimes I am too tired to do a puppet show.

GS's theory is to ALWAYS hit the open man
GS gives the green light to both Curry and Klay Thompson

But

That doesn't mean that Green could produce even more if utlized as a #1 or #2 option

What did Harden average while he was in OKC?
Are you going to measure that to what he could do before you see what he did in Houston?

With the way you are measuring Green, using the same measures on Harden, would result in Harden not being a #1 player
Well, it proves the system you are using to measure talent is flawed

Also he also is young and still developing and one of the best OFFENSIVE players in the entire league
Yet GS's defense blew HOUSTON out EVERY GAME, swept them for the regular season 4 times already

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

Better question yellow, when players are above average but have some years or points in their careers that they really excel. Would you look at a career avg and ignore that a player was pretty sh1tty on his way down?

Have you taken a look at Bogut on GS?

korvers whole career? And compare it to what he is doing now?

sometimes the puppet show is really needed but sometimes I am too tired to do a puppet show.

Well I kind of ask you the same question using Boris Diaw as an example. I don't really hold career avg against players if they have a 2-3+ window of greater play. The one good year before signing a contract does send up red flags though.

I haven't really looked at Korver or Bogut. I know some stats like off/def ratings and other advance defensive stats give partial credit for team success to individuals which could skew their actual impact though. So you will see a rating or WS jump at times when players change teams.

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

Better question yellow, when players are above average but have some years or points in their careers that they really excel. Would you look at a career avg and ignore that a player was pretty sh1tty on his way down?

Have you taken a look at Bogut on GS?

korvers whole career? And compare it to what he is doing now?

sometimes the puppet show is really needed but sometimes I am too tired to do a puppet show.

Well Korver has spent about half his career being closer to average

And it's not a coincidence that the yrs he was more appreciably above average

It coincided with the teams he was on[Bulls & Hawks] This yr Kyle is .170 much further away from average

Wins Produced might be a better metric to judge the average to the good to the great

Bogut once again another player who has spent the majority of his career closer to average .100

But yes he's about where Kyle is this yr on GSW at approximately .170 @ .168

Sure enough though this thread is about Draymond Green right and his is @ .168

And his Win Shares per 48 career wise ironically are on an uptick

Probably have to use another geeky metric that will stamp Dray down because this wasn't the one to use

If you wanted metrics to best the eye tests MELOL!

F500ONE wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:He said a low Win share/48. SO why choose above avg ws/48?

I would think if you're average in Win Shares per 48 then

You can't be classified as a GOOD PLAYER hence an average WS48 is a low metric point

And the list I showed are players extremely close to Average

Take for instance Bogut[who GSW needs to win a chip per mrman] and Kyle Korver

I don't understand your point. When has being above avg not been considered good?

Better question yellow, when players are above average but have some years or points in their careers that they really excel. Would you look at a career avg and ignore that a player was pretty sh1tty on his way down?

Have you taken a look at Bogut on GS?

korvers whole career? And compare it to what he is doing now?

sometimes the puppet show is really needed but sometimes I am too tired to do a puppet show.

Well Korver has spent about half his career being closer to average

And it's not a coincidence that the yrs he was more appreciably above average

It coincided with the teams he was on[Bulls & Hawks] This yr Kyle is .170 much further away from average

Wins Produced might be a better metric to judge the average to the good to the great

Bogut once again another player who has spent the majority of his career closer to average .100

But yes he's about where Kyle is this yr on GSW at approximately .170 @ .168

Sure enough though this thread is about Draymond Green right and his is @ .168

And his Win Shares per 48 career wise ironically are on an uptick

Probably have to use another geeky metric that will stamp Dray down because this wasn't the one to use

If you wanted metrics to best the eye tests MELOL!

One thing F5: You do realize that there are differences and degrees of differences so that in one stat or metric the differences between two numbers, say "1" and "2", can actually be quite large. I am not a great math guy but it is my understanding that for WS48 .100 is indeed around the league average however as a players WS48 goes up small increases actually represent big actual gains. The leaderboard for this season in WS48 has Durant at the top at .295 but by the time you get to 10th you are already sub .199 slightly and at 20th you are closer to .100 than to .300. So yes, you will see very good players who have a career WS48 in the .120's due probably to seasons early and/or late in their careers where they were closer to average. And also since the numbers are generally tight and small difference represent huge actual gaps in talent a player who is "above average" can have their career WS48 pulled down by quite a but due to some closer to average or below average seasons. Not every player is amazing and flat out a beast from wire to wire in their NBA careers. In fact, thats the exception and not the rule.

Lets bring it back to the Draymond Green. His WS48 over three seasons is .028, .119, .168 for a career average of .112. Assuming THIS season is closer to what he will become as an NBA player, looking at his career average is kinda silly because that awful rookie .028 is bringing down his average.