2020 Historical Draft: ECF...#1 Boston vs #2 Milwaukee

[KGs Knee]

I think the best way to measure a player's floor spacing ability is to track their 'gravity'.  It's just not a widely available stat, and definitely didn't exist in the early 2000's.

You can be the world's best shooter, but if players still sag off of you, you're not really spacing the floor.  Conversely, there was a period of time where DWade had some of the best gravity scores in the league, despite barely shooting threes at all.  Defenders just stuck to him, because he was dangerous whether he had the ball in his hands or not.

[Roy H.]

I think the best way to measure a player's floor spacing ability is to track their 'gravity'.  It's just not a widely available stat, and definitely didn't exist in the early 2000's.

You can be the world's best shooter, but if players still sag off of you, you're not really spacing the floor.  Conversely, there was a period of time where DWade had some of the best gravity scores in the league, despite barely shooting threes at all.  Defenders just stuck to him, because he was dangerous whether he had the ball in his hands or not.

Interesting stat.  As you mentioned, it is hard to find, particularly in a sortable form.



Even though I think my team actually has very good spacing, I have been arguing that for great players, spacing is overrated. I think the above chart demonstrates that.  No matter how closely they are stuck to and crowded in the paint, Giannis and Lebron excel.

[Roy H.]

Challenge to all GMs and observers:

When was the last time a team with defense as soft as Steve Nash and Allan Houston in the backcourt made the NBA Finals?

[Moranis]

Challenge to all GMs and observers:

When was the last time a team with defense as soft as Steve Nash and Allan Houston in the backcourt made the NBA Finals?

The Cavs did it 3 straight seasons, including a win (the 3 with Irving I mean).  Smith is probably the best defender of the group, but he is far from great or consistent on that end.  In addition, I think Irving is the worst defender of the group.  Yes, worse than Nash.  The Heat with older Wade and Mario Chalmers weren't exactly great defensively in the backcourt either.  The Mavs won the title with 37 year old Jason Kidd and Deshawn Stevenson as the starting backcourt.  Kidd obviously at one time was an uber elite defender, but he had lost a lot by the time the Mavs won the title.  Still an average defender, but Stevenson was a downright terrible defender.  While the Alston/Lee backcourt was better defensively than a Nash/Houston backcourt, the Magic made the finals with basically 4 below average defenders starting (Lewis, Hedo, Alston, and Lee).  Lebron's first foray to the finals the starting backcourt was a combination of Larry Hughes and Sasha Pavlovic at SG (Hughes got hurt in the Finals and Daniel Gibson started 2 games).  Awful defenders all the way around. 

I think your focus on individual players is misplaced some.  Plenty of teams have made, and even won, the Finals with well below average defenders at both of the backcourt positions.  It isn't that uncommon actually. 

[Roy H.]

Challenge to all GMs and observers:

When was the last time a team with defense as soft as Steve Nash and Allan Houston in the backcourt made the NBA Finals?

The Cavs did it 3 straight seasons, including a win (the 3 with Irving I mean).  Smith is probably the best defender of the group, but he is far from great or consistent on that end.  In addition, I think Irving is the worst defender of the group.  Yes, worse than Nash.  The Heat with older Wade and Mario Chalmers weren't exactly great defensively in the backcourt either.  The Mavs won the title with 37 year old Jason Kidd and Deshawn Stevenson as the starting backcourt.  Kidd obviously at one time was an uber elite defender, but he had lost a lot by the time the Mavs won the title.  Still an average defender, but Stevenson was a downright terrible defender.  While the Alston/Lee backcourt was better defensively than a Nash/Houston backcourt, the Magic made the finals with basically 4 below average defenders starting (Lewis, Hedo, Alston, and Lee).  Lebron's first foray to the finals the starting backcourt was a combination of Larry Hughes and Sasha Pavlovic at SG (Hughes got hurt in the Finals and Daniel Gibson started 2 games).  Awful defenders all the way around. 

I think your focus on individual players is misplaced some.  Plenty of teams have made, and even won, the Finals with well below average defenders at both of the backcourt positions.  It isn't that uncommon actually.

J.R. Smith played extremely well on defense.  Jason Kidd was still above-average.  Stevenson was at worst average, and was contemporarily praised for his D. Courtney Lee was a good defender.  Larry Hughes was an All-NBA defender.  Wade and Chalmers were both good defenders. 

And Kyrie, bless his soul, was significantly better than Nash on defense, particularly when engaged.  That was pointed out extensively at the time of the trade.

All due respect, but your take is just wildly inaccurate.  It’s like you just picked random names and called them bad defenders with zero evidence.

[Moranis]

Challenge to all GMs and observers:

When was the last time a team with defense as soft as Steve Nash and Allan Houston in the backcourt made the NBA Finals?

The Cavs did it 3 straight seasons, including a win (the 3 with Irving I mean).  Smith is probably the best defender of the group, but he is far from great or consistent on that end.  In addition, I think Irving is the worst defender of the group.  Yes, worse than Nash.  The Heat with older Wade and Mario Chalmers weren't exactly great defensively in the backcourt either.  The Mavs won the title with 37 year old Jason Kidd and Deshawn Stevenson as the starting backcourt.  Kidd obviously at one time was an uber elite defender, but he had lost a lot by the time the Mavs won the title.  Still an average defender, but Stevenson was a downright terrible defender.  While the Alston/Lee backcourt was better defensively than a Nash/Houston backcourt, the Magic made the finals with basically 4 below average defenders starting (Lewis, Hedo, Alston, and Lee).  Lebron's first foray to the finals the starting backcourt was a combination of Larry Hughes and Sasha Pavlovic at SG (Hughes got hurt in the Finals and Daniel Gibson started 2 games).  Awful defenders all the way around. 

I think your focus on individual players is misplaced some.  Plenty of teams have made, and even won, the Finals with well below average defenders at both of the backcourt positions.  It isn't that uncommon actually.

J.R. Smith played extremely well on defense.  Jason Kidd was still above-average.  Stevenson was at worst average, and was contemporarily praised for his D. Courtney Lee was a good defender.  Larry Hughes was an All-NBA defender.  Wade and Chalmers were both good defenders. 

And Kyrie, bless his soul, was significantly better than Nash on defense, particularly when engaged.  That was pointed out extensively at the time of the trade.

All due respect, but your take is just wildly inaccurate.  It’s like you just picked random names and called them bad defenders with zero evidence.

Smith could play well on defense, but he was never consistent (on either side of the ball frankly).  And Irving was a terrible defender.  Worse than Nash.  He occasionally tried, but he was still a poor defender even when he tried.  All of his defensive metrics support that (and they were only marginally better in Boston on a much better overall defensive team). 

Hughes was several seasons removed from his one and only All Defense Team appearance by the time the Cavs reached the Finals.  He was no where near an All League defender on that team.  He wasn't a total sieve, but he wasn't a good defender at all. The Cavs were better defensively in the backcourt when Snow was starting next to Hughes, but Snow was so bad on offense he was benched midway through the season for Pavlovic, who clearly was a terrible defender, and when Hughes got hurt in the Finals, Gibson, not Snow was inserted into the starting lineup (Gibson was even worse than Pavlovic defensively).

Wade and Chalmers were no where near good defenders by the end of their run.  All of the injuries had clearly taken their toll on Wade and Chalmers was never a good defender.  The defensive metrics bear that out. 

Calling Stevenson an average defender is just funny.  He didn't have a single season in his career where he wasn't significantly in the negative in DBPM and his DRTG's are atrocious for his entire career (and his first 4 seasons were the best he had and it just went downhill from their).  There are very few players you will find with as poor of career defensive metrics as Deshawn Stevenson, which matches the eye test.  He is probably the worst defender out of everyone being mentioned.  I don't think he could defend a brick wall.  Kidd was still alright as a defender, but he was no where near the defender he once was by that season.  The mileage on his legs had taken its toll on him.  He was savvy and smart, but physically he just couldn't maintain like he once could. 

I maintain my thinking that you are grasping at straws here.  That is fine and what you should be doing, but you are definitely rewriting history trying to fit the narrative you want people to believe. 

[Roy H.]

Challenge to all GMs and observers:

When was the last time a team with defense as soft as Steve Nash and Allan Houston in the backcourt made the NBA Finals?

The Cavs did it 3 straight seasons, including a win (the 3 with Irving I mean).  Smith is probably the best defender of the group, but he is far from great or consistent on that end.  In addition, I think Irving is the worst defender of the group.  Yes, worse than Nash.  The Heat with older Wade and Mario Chalmers weren't exactly great defensively in the backcourt either.  The Mavs won the title with 37 year old Jason Kidd and Deshawn Stevenson as the starting backcourt.  Kidd obviously at one time was an uber elite defender, but he had lost a lot by the time the Mavs won the title.  Still an average defender, but Stevenson was a downright terrible defender.  While the Alston/Lee backcourt was better defensively than a Nash/Houston backcourt, the Magic made the finals with basically 4 below average defenders starting (Lewis, Hedo, Alston, and Lee).  Lebron's first foray to the finals the starting backcourt was a combination of Larry Hughes and Sasha Pavlovic at SG (Hughes got hurt in the Finals and Daniel Gibson started 2 games).  Awful defenders all the way around. 

I think your focus on individual players is misplaced some.  Plenty of teams have made, and even won, the Finals with well below average defenders at both of the backcourt positions.  It isn't that uncommon actually.

J.R. Smith played extremely well on defense.  Jason Kidd was still above-average.  Stevenson was at worst average, and was contemporarily praised for his D. Courtney Lee was a good defender.  Larry Hughes was an All-NBA defender.  Wade and Chalmers were both good defenders. 

And Kyrie, bless his soul, was significantly better than Nash on defense, particularly when engaged.  That was pointed out extensively at the time of the trade.

All due respect, but your take is just wildly inaccurate.  It’s like you just picked random names and called them bad defenders with zero evidence.

Smith could play well on defense, but he was never consistent (on either side of the ball frankly).  And Irving was a terrible defender.  Worse than Nash.  He occasionally tried, but he was still a poor defender even when he tried.  All of his defensive metrics support that (and they were only marginally better in Boston on a much better overall defensive team). 

Hughes was several seasons removed from his one and only All Defense Team appearance by the time the Cavs reached the Finals.  He was no where near an All League defender on that team.  He wasn't a total sieve, but he wasn't a good defender at all. The Cavs were better defensively in the backcourt when Snow was starting next to Hughes, but Snow was so bad on offense he was benched midway through the season for Pavlovic, who clearly was a terrible defender, and when Hughes got hurt in the Finals, Gibson, not Snow was inserted into the starting lineup (Gibson was even worse than Pavlovic defensively).

Wade and Chalmers were no where near good defenders by the end of their run.  All of the injuries had clearly taken their toll on Wade and Chalmers was never a good defender.  The defensive metrics bear that out. 

Calling Stevenson an average defender is just funny.  He didn't have a single season in his career where he wasn't significantly in the negative in DBPM and his DRTG's are atrocious for his entire career (and his first 4 seasons were the best he had and it just went downhill from their).  There are very few players you will find with as poor of career defensive metrics as Deshawn Stevenson, which matches the eye test.  He is probably the worst defender out of everyone being mentioned.  I don't think he could defend a brick wall.  Kidd was still alright as a defender, but he was no where near the defender he once was by that season.  The mileage on his legs had taken its toll on him.  He was savvy and smart, but physically he just couldn't maintain like he once could. 

I maintain my thinking that you are grasping at straws here.  That is fine and what you should be doing, but you are definitely rewriting history trying to fit the narrative you want people to believe.

Lol.  You crack me up.  Stevenson was quite good as a defender.

https://www.bulletsforever.com/2017/4/6/15029872/deshawn-stevenson-washington-wizards-cult-hero-memory


https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/mavericks/2010/04/12/for-deshawn-stevenson-the-de-stands-for-defense/


https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2018/5/6/17323454/deshawn-stevenson-lakers-kobe-bryant-lebron-james-dallas-mavericks-2011-nba-finals


https://nbalord.blogspot.com/2016/12/saturday-slam-looking-back-on-career-of.html?m=1


https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks/Article/DeShawn-Stevenson-1-on-1-We-were-unstoppable-how-do-the-Mavs-build-it-again-119132381/

DALLAS -- DeShawn Stevenson is in the starting lineup for two reasons: He’s a defensive stopper, and Rick Carlisle wants Jason Terry’s scoring punch off the pine.

The fact that Stevenson has been a knockdown 3-point shooter is a tremendous bonus.

https://www.espn.com/blog/dallas/mavericks/post/_/id/4671996/comfortable-deshawn-stevenson-keeps-hitting-shots

He is routinely referred to as a defensive stopper, but for sure, I totally buy your take that he was worse defensively than Steve Nash.

[nickagneta]

I actually agree more with Moranis on this. While those backcourts weren't absolutely terrible, and I don't feel Nash/Houston is absolutely terrible, I am not saying that, but those backcourts that Moranis mentioned weren't exactly good defensive backcourts.

It is possible to not have a good defensive backcourt and make the Finals. And as I said in my one post in this thread, because of Boston's excellent offense, their defense doesn't have to be great at every position or great overall. They just have to be good enough, and I think they are.

[Roy H.]

I actually agree more with Moranis on this. While those backcourts weren't absolutely terrible, and I don't feel Nash/Houston is absolutely terrible, I am not saying that, but those backcourts that Moranis mentioned weren't exactly good defensive backcourts.

It is possible to not have a good defensive backcourt and make the Finals. And as I said in my one post in this thread, because of Boston's excellent offense, their defense doesn't have to be great at every position or great overall. They just have to be good enough, and I think they are.

I’m curious, what is “good enough”?  And how is Nash / Houston anything other than “absolutely terrible”?

There’s weak defense at PG, SG, and PF.  Center defense is good.  Stats say that Durant has sucked, but that defies conventional wisdom.

It’s not like Boston’s offense is head and shoulders better than other teams, particularly because their front court compels a half-court, slow-paced game.

[nickagneta]

I actually agree more with Moranis on this. While those backcourts weren't absolutely terrible, and I don't feel Nash/Houston is absolutely terrible, I am not saying that, but those backcourts that Moranis mentioned weren't exactly good defensive backcourts.

It is possible to not have a good defensive backcourt and make the Finals. And as I said in my one post in this thread, because of Boston's excellent offense, their defense doesn't have to be great at every position or great overall. They just have to be good enough, and I think they are.

I’m curious, what is “good enough”?  And how is Nash / Houston anything other than “absolutely terrible”?

There’s weak defense at PG, SG, and PF.  Center defense is good.  Stats say that Durant has sucked, but that defies conventional wisdom.

It’s not like Boston’s offense is head and shoulders better than other teams, particularly because their front court compels a half-court, slow-paced game.

Well, I disagree. I think Boston's offense is head and shoulders above the rest of the league and I think a lot of people feel that way.

And I disagree that the Boston backcourt is absolutely terrible. It's not good but it's good enough to get by and they have a couple good backcourt defenders on the bench that can be mixed in during the game with good substitution patterns. It's not like Nash/Houston will be playing every minute of the game and only with each other. The bench with good substitution patterns would mitigate things.

[Roy H.]

I actually agree more with Moranis on this. While those backcourts weren't absolutely terrible, and I don't feel Nash/Houston is absolutely terrible, I am not saying that, but those backcourts that Moranis mentioned weren't exactly good defensive backcourts.

It is possible to not have a good defensive backcourt and make the Finals. And as I said in my one post in this thread, because of Boston's excellent offense, their defense doesn't have to be great at every position or great overall. They just have to be good enough, and I think they are.

I’m curious, what is “good enough”?  And how is Nash / Houston anything other than “absolutely terrible”?

There’s weak defense at PG, SG, and PF.  Center defense is good.  Stats say that Durant has sucked, but that defies conventional wisdom.

It’s not like Boston’s offense is head and shoulders better than other teams, particularly because their front court compels a half-court, slow-paced game.

Well, I disagree. I think Boston's offense is head and shoulders above the rest of the league and I think a lot of people feel that way.

And I disagree that the Boston backcourt is absolutely terrible. It's not good but it's good enough to get by and they have a couple good backcourt defenders on the bench that can be mixed in during the game with good substitution patterns. It's not like Nash/Houston will be playing every minute of the game and only with each other. The bench with good substitution patterns would mitigate things.

Where do you rate Nash’s defense historically?  Houston’s?

And nobody is answering the question:  if two mobile all-time greats with excellent jump shots clog the lane offensively, why would the Gasol brothers be more effective?

[action781]

I still honestly am still undecided on this matchup.  Leaning one way, but the arguments have been pretty convincing from the opponent.  Gotta think about it and figure out this vote.

[Donoghus]

I still honestly am still undecided on this matchup.  Leaning one way, but the arguments have been pretty convincing from the opponent.  Gotta think about it and figure out this vote.

Having quite the back & forth myself.

[action781]

The fun thing about this game is trying to imagine how much better players become when they are surrounded with different and sometimes better casts of talent.  Carmelo Anthony is the prime example of a player who would play much better with a great surrounding cast he never really got in the NBA.  Shaq would probably be more effective if he played with a PF that could spread the floor and a PG that could deliver perfect passes.

Here's some thoughts I have on players in this matchup and how their game would translate on to their new teams.

Nash I feel would play very similarly to how he played on the Suns teams.  This team has similar floor spacing, maybe a slightly worse p&r partner, but even though Nash could be relied on to carry all the offense every possession, he won't have to bear that burden here, which is nice at times.  Overall, it all evens out to me.

Allan Houston might be slightly more efficient due to just less reliance on him, similar to Ray Allen and Pierce saw increases in efficiency when they didn't command all the defense's attention.

When Durant left OKC, he improved a bit with the floor spacing in GSW and additional efficient offensive threats.  The Boston team mimics that so I think he'd look very similarly offensively on this squad to how he did in GSW.

I think the Gasols would be slightly enhanced versions of the NBA versions of themselves because of the strong chemistry they'd have together.  Both high IQ players with solid passing abilities.

I think Giannis would look a little worse offensively.  The 4-around-Giannis offense in Milwaukee is perfect for Giannis to play to his strengths.  This paint would certainly be more crowded than that, no matter how much Roy tries to say otherwise.  The affect of that is certainly in question though and I really liked Roy's post about how star players for decades have been crushing it with crowded paints.  I just think it has to be acknowledged that the 4-around-Giannis offense does allow Giannis to be at his best, so there would be some affect.  People might be overstating that affect though.  One thing Giannis has working for him is teams will be forced to play smaller defenders on him, which he will outmuscle on his way to the basket.  The Celtics for example gameplanned ways to put their center Horford on Giannis because they could hide smaller PFs on Brook Lopez or Mirotic.  It could be trouble for teams to pull a PF/C off of Malone or Zo and try to hide a SF on one of them.  All things considered, I'd put Giannis at slightly less effective.

Malone I'd consider slightly less effective because he isn't paired with an elite p&r point guard.  Conley is good, very good, I was in awe of his play that postseason, but he's not an elite p&r point guard.

Speaking of Conley, I feel like his performance that postseason (only because that was most of the games of his I watched that season) was so translatable to any team and situation.  I think he'd perform pretty similarly here. 

I think most people recognize Ginobili is a guy who benefited greatly from being drafted into an already strong team.  He gets to play with a strong team here as well, which I imagine serves him just as well.

Zo is a pretty translatable player, but I think he would benefit from playing with multiple very good passers.

[action781]

I decided that this is going to come down to game 7.  It might even end up being a blow out in game 7, but wondered who's going to rise to the occasion in game 7?  The immediate player who came to mind is Durant.  Then I thought... well Giannis is guarding him, so that limits him.  Well Durant is also guarding Giannis who I think could do a decent job there.  Or could he?  They must have some h2h stats.... let me look them up.  I think this matchup will largely dictate the series only because I do see it coming down to a game 7.

I felt the last 4 games was the most appropriate sample to look at based on when they occurred and the last three times they've faced off it seems that Durant has had 3 sub-par games.  That mattered a lot to me.  I don't know that Giannis would rise to be the best player in game 7 or not, but I do think that if Durant is not the best player in that game it will be harder for Boston to win that game.

So I went with Milwaukee in 7.  Well done job by both of you and it wasn't easy making that choice.