GOAT NBA Discussion: Biggest fraud poster: fallguy. Super AIDS Containment thread

Warriors being a one man team is an awesome take and shows that you may not actually watch basketball.

Draymonds on/offs in 2016. They're Joker good.

It's called a well-running and effective system, and anyone in the Draymond slot will have great on/offs.

For example, Anthony Mason was better at basketball than Draymond, but he simply didn't luck into the goat system like Draymond did.

I'm not saying that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can play the Draymond slot in the system - but Mason would be overkill.. So would Rodney McCray... Maybe even Robert Horry could've grown into the role just like Draymond did.

The point is that Draymond is a system player and no one would know who he was if his 7/6/5 stats were losing on the Wizards.. He's simply lucky to land alongside a goat offensive player whose brand of ball and chemistry was good enough to win with a lower-producing sidekick than Mo or Hornacek and +2800 roster.. If Draymond hadn't landed alongside a player that could carry this kind of load, then no one would know who he is..

Ultimately, the reason that Curry only needed a lower-producing role player like Draymond is because he could carry the scoring load and therefore didn't need a bunch of stars like Lebron does... And it goes back to being an off-ball player, which allows Curry to drop 40 while the ball moves and therefore have sufficient brand to beat top teams at high scoring levels.. Otoh, LeBallDominator can't carry the scoring load and therefore needs a bunch of stars, which prevents the elite roster construction, aka procurement of the right role players like Mason, Horry or Draymond.. Btw, in addition to allowing him to carry the scoring load, it's Curry's off-ball skills that allows the system to be run to begin with.

The Warriors shocked everyone in 2015 - they were a +2800 roster and no one saw them coming - the worst preseason odds to ever win the title.

So the fans and media were results-oriented with the Warriors by saying 67 wins = stacked... In reality, they were a 1-man team just like the 09' Cavs or 07' Mavs, except they managed to avoid the upset in 2015 because Kyrie wasn't there - they got lucky..

If you were right on this issue, then Klay's numbers wouldn't be annihilated by Hornacek's, or even beaten by Mo Williams.. Klay's "less than Mo" production makes the case, along with the +2800 odds and Curry carrying the scoring load to a title (10 ppg more than all teammates).

Btw, in addition to allowing GM's to get defensive help and the right role players (elite roster construction), carrying the scoring load is also defeating max defensive attention.. It's the reason that people gave Lebron a pass in 07' - they lamented that the poor guy had to carry the scoring load and therefore "all eyes on him".. Except that's how Curry won half his rings, and MJ all of them.. Again, these guys were off-ball players that could drop 40 while the ball moves, so they had sufficient brand at high scoring levels to beat top teams.

So wait a minute... People are saying MJ's switch hands shot wasn't that great?

Show me where a player did a switch hands shot off a drop-step (1-step vertical - no running start) - it's never happened - only MJ had that ability is the history of basketball...

Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can do it with a running start off 1 leg - junior high kids can do that.. But off a drop-step?... lol... That's goat.. The fact that this goat shot was the 13th straight make by Jordan is mystical, i.e. he had elevated himself to an UNMISSABLE level - it's the goat peak - the greatest basketball that was ever played was Jordan in the 2nd half of Game 2 in the 91' Finals.

Here's the full context of that shot for those that didn't watch it live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PslIR7wu...

MJ made an easy shot unnecessarily hard. Congrats I guess.

This is such a horrendously bad take it will earn a reply. You watched (I assume) 0 minutes of the 15/16 season. I watched every minute the Warriors played.

Mason isn't as good as 2016 Draymond Green, and it's one of your worst ever take.

Draymond was amazing that year, and yes Curry was the main reason, but Draymond was a Top 10 player that year (7th in the MVP)

Draymond had better on/offs than Curry.

Draymond +26.3pp 100
Curry +22.6pp 100

And playoffs
Draymond +13.9
Curry -3.6

Even you with your horrible math you can work out Warriors did well with Draymond on / Steph off, but not so well with Draymond off / Steph on.

2016 was where it was at it's peak, but Curry has always had issues if Draymond wasn't out there.

Draymond had 32/15/9 with 5 3s in Game 7 of the NBA Finals. Imagine thinking Mason was this good.

Meanwhile Steph was shooting 6/19 with 4 TOs. But obviously better than LeBron.

yeah having kevin love, a franchise player u claim, and kyrie irving as well, not playing the final, surely did not help at all...

lebron certainly didint carry the scoring load either with 20+ppg from his second option.

And then there's the fact Draymond is one of the best 2 defenders of the last 15 years. Mason made one all 2nd NBA defensive team.

Remember when Iggy won Finals MVP for "holding" LeBron to 36/13/9.

Pick the GOAT team

96 Bulls

16 GSW

Super team of
Big Z
Larry Nance
Anthony Mason
Larry Hughes
Jeff Hornacek

82-0 baby!

Is it true MJ had only 3 Finals were he averaged better than 25-5-5? How does he not get 5 boards and 5 assists a game when he has the ball so much, and is so much more athletic than everyone else, while playing 40+ minutes a night?

Even Steph has done it 3 times.

And yet Curry would maintain his great on-offs on a losing team, while Draymond would become a big negative.. Curry would be one of the only positives on a losing team, while Dray is just a role player whose on-offs depend on the team's success.

In 1997, Kukoc was 4th in the league in plus/minus because he had a good spot in a system, and then he was a massive negative in 1999 once the system was gone.

To summarize - great on-offs by low-producing role players like Kukoc or Draymond mean nothing other than them playing on a goat winning team with a great system.. Otherwise, they're just role players and rank maybe in the top 100 in any given year from a pure basketball standpoint..

It's well known among players that Draymond is a system player that wouldn't even start on a lot of other teams, according to Chris Webber and most players.

Curry won more with less:

09' MO......... 2.3 BPM... 0.165 WS.48... 3.1 VORP... 17.2 PER
16' KLAY....... 1.8 BPM... 0.144 WS/48... 2.5 VORP... 18.6 PER

CONCLUSION: Lebron beating the 73-win Warriors is a similar accomplishment to Dwight beating the 1-man Cavs in 09, or Baron beating the 1-man Mavs in 07'.

All the numbers show this.. The Warriors were a 1-man team that got upset just like previous 1-man teams.. Unfortunately, the media misreported 73 wins = stacked, thereby robbing Curry of his carry-job.

Career Finals

Jordan.... 33.6... 6.0... 6.0

^^^ he averaged 15 PPG more than 2nd leading scorer in the 6 Finals, and every series of his career - he always carried the scoring load (a GM's dream), and carrying the scoring load = defeating max defensive attention

jfc get help

Many players didn’t but still they are in your top 10….
And again, lebron did carry , it just didn’t had the team backing him up which mj had comparatively when LeBron lost , except one year for lebron where he chocked .

Mj had 21ppg over his second option , but they lost because mj was bad in 1986 vs every top tier team shrug ….
Doesnt make sense does it ?

Draymond would have negative on-offs on a losing team, just like Kukoc or any other low producer that lucked into the most well-run system ever.

Otoh, true stars like Curry and MJ have positive on-offs regardless of whether they're on a losing team or not

That's the difference, and that's how you tell if someone is just a low-producing system player with great on-offs due to the system (i.e. Kukoc, Draymond), or a true star that has positive on-offs regardless of whether it's a winning team or not.

So you're conclusively proven wrong about Draymond... Again, Anthony Mason was superior at basketball because he didn't need a system to do the same things as Draymond or make All-NBA... It's well known among players that Draymond is a system player that wouldn't start on most teams, according to Chris Webber and most players.

The numbers don't lie - Curry did more with less:

09' MO......... 2.3 BPM... 0.165 WS.48... 3.1 VORP... 17.2 PER
16' KLAY....... 1.8 BPM... 0.144 WS/48... 2.5 VORP... 18.6 PER

Accordingly, Lebron beating the 73-win Warriors is a similar accomplishment to Dwight beating the 1-man Cavs in 09, or Baron beating the 1-man Mavs in 07'.

All the numbers show this.. The Warriors were a 1-man team that got upset just like previous 1-man teams.. Unfortunately, the media misreported 73 wins = stacked, thereby robbing Curry of his carry-job.

You avoided the fact that Lebron isn't better at rebounding because MJ was a better offensive rebounder, which affects team differentials more than a position-based stat like defensive rebounds..

Lebron's edge in DREB's is meaningless because it's position based, while MJ's advantage in OREBS is a surprise and therefore an advantage over most teams... MJ's edge in OREBS adds to the differential, while Lebron's position-based edge in DREBS does nothing to the differential because it's standard.. Infact, Lebron is a BAD offensive rebounder, so this hurts the differentials.

MJ beat top teams with bed-wetting teammates, and Lebron never did - this is the point that you can't refute.

Lebron never beat a top team with 16 on 40% from a teammate like MJ did many many times.. This makes MJ much better than Lebron - MJ had many carry-jobs and Lebron has zero because he only beat top teams when teammates played well (really well)...

Heck, Wade outscored the Spurs' #1 option in the 13' Finals and only averaged 5 less than Lebron, while Ray Allen saved the series - yet this was Lebron's toughest Finals!!!.. lol.. what a joke.. Lebron was obviously carried compared to Jordan.

Recent Cliffs

If a player wins a title with Andrew Wiggins as the 2nd option, then it was a 1-man team and 1-man carry-job.

Curry's carry-job with Wiggins validates his carry-job with Klay.

Low producers like Klay or Wiggins that underproduce 09' Mo Williams would be considered "bums" and "not enough" help for LeBallDominate's shitty chemistry to win.

10 ppg more than all teammates in playoffs to win title (3-pointer era only)

[x] MJ
[x] Kareem
[x] Kobe
[x] Bird
[x] Duncan
[x] Shaq
[x] Curry

^^^ that's my whole top 10, except 2-point era guys like Wilt and Russell, or Jokic's chip in 2023 wasn't quite 10 ppg - but he won with no other all-stars and with a consensus "bum" cast

Again, the ability to carry the "star" category of scoring allows GM's to get defensive help and the right role players, aka elite roster construction, aka great teams - that's why carrying the scoring load matters

Of course, my top 10 are also great all-round players - great passers, rebounders, defenders, leaders, toughness, clutch, intangibles, etc.

Top 10 criteria

For 3-pointer era players (where offensive dominance is required to be MVP), a player must be capable of attracting and defeating maximum defensive attention - the statistical equivalent of this is successfully carrying the scoring load for a title run, such as 10 ppg more than all teammates in the playoffs and championship level (Finals).,

Winning a title while carrying the scoring load is the most clear-cut way to prove that a player's brand of ball and chemistry is championship-caliber.. Furthermore, carrying the "star" category of scoring allows GM's to get defensive help and the right role players, aka elite roster construction, which allows organic winning, and winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player.

Top 10: MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic

Everyone in my top 10 fulfills these criteria of carrying the scoring load, and therefore allowing elite roster construction and organic winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player... The only exceptions are 2-pointer era players like Wilt or Russell, since the best player could be a defender, thereby nullifying the scoring requirements needed by 3-point era players.. The other exception is Kareem, who straddled both eras and didn't win with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player, despite carrying the scoring load for the 80' title run.. Shaq is the same as Kareem by not winning with "normal" rosters, despite carrying the scoring load for the 00' run.

By carrying the scoring load and allowing elite roster construction, everyone in my top 10 produced great teams, as defined by a dynasty (3 in 5) or dominant title run (4 losses max).. Each great team had a ball movement system that required a goat-level off-ball player as the 1st option, so my top 10 is essentially the top 10 off-ball players ever... They produced the best brand of ball and chemistry that won the most.