Everything Dwane Casey

[OldSkoolCool]

I'm so tired of people acting like we were lucky to win our series. We won. Period. End of story. Nobody was feeling sorry for us when we lost our series by 1 point in 2014 to the Nets. All that matters is who advances, not how pretty it looked when you advanced.

Well the argument is that the way we play is not going to lead to many "advances"...and the evidence kinda supports it so this argument is kinda garbage if you ask me

[Barolt]

Also, to add to what CRF has been saying, I think there's some debate over how much the success has to do with DeMar, given that we've consistently over the last 3 years(the same period as that improvement) been a better team without him on the court.

How can you claim he's the catalyst for the improvement, when we perform better with him seated?

[ogi]

Also, to add to what CRF has been saying, I think there's some debate over how much the success has to do with DeMar, given that we've consistently over the last 3 years(the same period as that improvement) been a better team without him on the court.

How can you claim he's the catalyst for the improvement, when we perform better with him seated?

I donno about "catalyst" but we're not a better team without him despite what some impact stats might suggest. DanH has already explained this in quite a few posts.

[Barolt]

I donno about "catalyst" but we're not a better team without him despite what some impact stats might suggest. DanH has already explained this in quite a few posts.

I think even DanH would classify his explanation as a theory he posited more than as established fact.

[DanH]

I think even DanH would classify his explanation as a theory he posited more than as established fact.

I would indeed. Nonetheless, I would posit that theory as a rebuttal to the kind of thinking that only players that have good impact numbers can be a positive contributor to the team.

[Gambino]

I think even DanH would classify his explanation as a theory he posited more than as established fact.

Didn't I show you earlier that the Warriors are worse with Klay Thompson on the court than off? Does he not affect winning? You can't boil everything down to on/off stats in this league.

Really at this point, people have their own agendas and are just going to choose whichever evidence supports that so it's hard to have a real discussion. You want Ross replacing DeMar in the starting lineup, some people agree, a lot of people don't, and it's most likely not going to happen.

[DanH]

This whole "would've lost in the first round" thing really makes no sense to me. There's really nothing wrong with winning in 7 games especially when the best player on your team who's been a deadly three point shooter can't hit wide open shots. That really isn't on the offensive system or the opposing defense completely locking us down. That kind of drop in efficiency is your top guy horribly underperforming. Top that off with the second most ball dominant guy deciding to play like an idiot and not playing like he did during the season and Paul George playing his best ball of the season and you get a full 7 game series.

That being said its always possible for guys to just have cold stretches and play badly which is why it's important to diversify the offense, but I don't agree that the system itself is unsustainable.

I also don't think that comparing what people said about last year's defense to what they're saying about this year's offense is really a fair comparison. Last year's defense was atrocious and all of the numbers as well as the eye test showed it. I don't think a single person on this board had anything positive to say about the defense last year.

Early in the season last year, plenty of posters were defending the defensive system because it was a top 10 defence for the first couple months. Others saw the incredible flaws in it and how unsustainable it was. Over the course of the season (and definitely in the playoffs) they were proven correct.

You could say the same this season, the offence worked in the regular season and was still criticized as unsustainable, then fell off a cliff in the playoffs. Now, I would argue there were mitigating factors (like Lowry being hurt and DeMar forgetting how to play basketball for a few weeks), but the trend is still there to be commented on.

Long story short, I don't think the comparison between last year's defence and the current offence is completely without merit, even if I don't entirely agree with the conclusion.

[Gambino]

Early in the season last year, plenty of posters were defending the defensive system because it was a top 10 defence for the first couple months. Others saw the incredible flaws in it and how unsustainable it was. Over the course of the season (and definitely in the playoffs) they were proven correct.

You could say the same this season, the offence worked in the regular season and was still criticized as unsustainable, then fell off a cliff in the playoffs. Now, I would argue there were mitigating factors (like Lowry being hurt and DeMar forgetting how to play basketball for a few weeks), but the trend is still there to be commented on.

Long story short, I don't think the comparison between last year's defence and the current offence is completely without merit, even if I don't entirely agree with the conclusion.

I genuinely feel like these two things had a lot to do with each other. DeRozan tends to play better when Lowry is on his game.

[Barolt]

I genuinely feel like these two things had a lot to do with each other. DeRozan tends to play better when Lowry is on his game.

And now you've hit on the entire crux of the DeMar question for me.

I don't disagree that DeMar had a positive impact on this team this year offensively(defensively, I think he definitely did not have a positive impact), but if his positive impact is simply a side effect of how good Lowry is, then returning DeMar is a positive as long as the cost isn't prohibitive. Because the greater question is, if we max DeMar this year, is that also saying we have to return Lowry next year regardless of the cost just to maintain value on DeMar? And if that's the case, what happens to the value of DeMar as an asset if Lowry's game regresses?

[92TillInfinity]

I genuinely feel like these two things had a lot to do with each other. DeRozan tends to play better when Lowry is on his game.

Doesn't EVERYONE play better with Lowry in the game?

[Gambino]

Doesn't EVERYONE play better with Lowry in the game?

Well yes, because that's the type of player Lowry is. I said "on" his game though. Particularly DeRozan because there's less pressure on him to score.

[Gambino]

And now you've hit on the entire crux of the DeMar question for me.

I don't disagree that DeMar had a positive impact on this team this year offensively(defensively, I think he definitely did not have a positive impact), but if his positive impact is simply a side effect of how good Lowry is, then returning DeMar is a positive as long as the cost isn't prohibitive. Because the greater question is, if we max DeMar this year, is that also saying we have to return Lowry next year regardless of the cost just to maintain value on DeMar? And if that's the case, what happens to the value of DeMar as an asset if Lowry's game regresses?

Talk about spin-doctoring. I just said that DeMar plays better when Lowry plays better, not that DeMar's good play is basically only because of Kyle.

[Barolt]

Talk about spin-doctoring. I just said that DeMar plays better when Lowry plays better, not that DeMar's good play is basically only because of Kyle.

Not only because of Kyle, but DeMar isn't close to the same player without Lowry on the court.

[DanH]

And now you've hit on the entire crux of the DeMar question for me.

I don't disagree that DeMar had a positive impact on this team this year offensively(defensively, I think he definitely did not have a positive impact), but if his positive impact is simply a side effect of how good Lowry is, then returning DeMar is a positive as long as the cost isn't prohibitive. Because the greater question is, if we max DeMar this year, is that also saying we have to return Lowry next year regardless of the cost just to maintain value on DeMar? And if that's the case, what happens to the value of DeMar as an asset if Lowry's game regresses?

Well, let's assume for now that for next season Lowry's game does not regress. And that DeMar, like this season, looks good playing beside him. I don't think there are long odds on that.

Next summer, Lowry either takes a reasonable deal (PG's always get underpaid, position is too deep, plus next summer will have a more reasonable cap space to star players available ratio) or you have to let him go. I imagine 25M or so is about right, meaning a combined 50M or so for the two. That's a lot, but when you aren't in a position to spend 35-40M on a superstar, that's what you get for that money.

And if Lowry then regresses over the length of his deal (likely), you hope for improvement from DeMar and help from JV (both seem likely) to make up the difference.

If Lowry is looking for a deal in the 35M range, you just can't make it work - too risky he ages poorly (injury, drop off in play) now that he's on the wrong side of 30.

And if Lowry walks, you trade DeMar. He'll have value in a summer where stars are going for 35M.

[Gambino]

Not only because of Kyle, but DeMar isn't close to the same player without Lowry on the court.

"isn't close" is a stretch. Kyrie Irving plays better with LeBron sharing the court with him. Klay plays a lot better with Steph with him. This isn't a new phenomenon.

You're talking about Kyle declining and trying to use that as a reason to get rid of DeMar. The thing is that Kyle makes everyone better and that's why he's so fucking good in the first place. If he declined that would hurt our whole team not just DeRozan considering he's our best player.