RealGM

multo wrote:My question is are we better than the 2022 championship team? The core is older, we had Porter, Iggy and Bjelica as role/bench players, but now, JK and Moody are better, and we have Podz, CP3 and TJD this time. Although this year the West is so much tougher than 2022, and this current Celtics team as well (Not to mention a healthy Denver team).

I think they're a bit worse, mostly just from everyone being 2 years older, but also adding Chris Paul as a key rotation player, who is even older and has an injury/availability history in the playoffs. Kuminga and Moody are better, but will Kerr play them? And if he does, will they produce? They're not really playoff-tested yet. TJD and Podz have been awesome as rookies, but again, uncertain whether Kerr would play them as they have no playoff experience at all.

On top of that, which Wiggins and which Klay and which Looney will show up? Probably the most important factors and although all have played well lately, I'm not completely confident they can be counted on every night. Then there's the Saric X-factor. He's kind of the forgotten man, can be a game-changer at times but also a big defensive liability in others.

EDIT: I think Kerr has to some degree realized in the last couple of months that Steph, Draymond, and Klay cannot play 35 minutes every night anymore, and he needs all 4 young guys to play some to have a shot at winning. But if he's cornered, I think he still might forget that and revert to his "ride or die with the vets" mentality, which I think can carry them on some nights, but not for multiple 7-game series.

EvanZ wrote:

Onus wrote:

EvanZ wrote:
Having 2 shots is far and away the most important factor in getting into the 7/8 and it's not even close. Rest is nice, but it doesn't affect the odds even close to having that extra game if they lose the first. Second, after that, is the fact that if they do win they get to avoid Denver in the first round.

then rest maybe is nice

TBH I'd rather have a back to back monday and tuesday so then we'd get Wed-Fri off than continuing to play with 1 day rest for the last month. Our schedule this past month has been crazy. We've been on the road for 11 games straight playing with at most 1 day rest between games. Having to do that for another week against a team that has been resting for an entire week would essentially just end our playoff hopes if we don't win in 4 games. We ran out of steam after 7 games and starting another series right after which killed us.

Yeah I mean this is objectively false. But sure. For one thing Steph, Klay and Draymond have all had days off. But to ignore the fact that you have an extra shot if you lose the first game seems brutally ignorant of the laws or probability. There's really no scenario where that rest matters more to actually winning than literally an extra chance at, you know...winning.

I think the point isn't that having another game to get in is a bad thing. It's just that having to travel as much as they've, they'll be dead men walking even if they win that 2nd game. Essentially playing a game every other day for over a month BEFORE they walk into a Denver series on 1 day rest probably means they're swept out of round 1. It's just not a scenario I would like to see considering a late season injury derails next season before it even starts and the schedule and the pressure increase those chances. If the goal is to just make the playoffs, then the rest is less important. If the goal is to make the playoffs in a position to make some noise, getting the 8 seed will make it impossible.

Yeah this team is definitely better than the '23 team, but not up there with '22. Steph looks great at times, but isn't as consistent. Looney looks like he has aged quite a bit. Wiggins has come on strong to some extent, but doesn't have that '22 bite. Draymond's defense is maybe a smidge worse, but his offense has improved -- he might be actually looking better overall, which is why it's frustrating he missed all those games. If we won 3-4 more games, which we easily could have, we'd be in a spot to make a run.

OPJ and GPII has phenomenal years in '22... we have nobody to replace OPJ's shotmaking and rebounding potential as a sub, and GPII made fewer mistakes/hit more shots in '22. I remember OPJ hitting a bunch of bail out shots when we didn't have it going, 63% TS in the playoffs, GPII at 75.1%!

This year could be our '21 if we can make a trade next season for a solid piece. I think we've shown a good foundation, introduced 2 good rookies, just need that 2nd option to help out an aging roster/Steph.

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:Greatest metric/measure is wins. Health , best ability is availability. and Green matters. Strength of schedule predicted a late warrior run.

no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation a team won championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

Kerr not sufficiently developing the young guys and running the vets into the ground? 2019.
Kerr sticking with certain players until circumstances force him to play others and surprise surprise the Warriors go on a run? 2021.
Kerr going with 3+ guard lineups despite this strategy having nothing to do with their winning years? 2023.

Too bad we won't have 2 chances to make the playoffs. But we will have a lot of rest this summer so that should make Onus happy.

EvanZ wrote:Too bad we won't have 2 chances to make the playoffs. But we will have a lot of rest this summer so that should make Onus happy.

It will if this is what it takes to get Klay and cp3 off this team.

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:Greatest metric/measure is wins. Health , best ability is availability. and Green matters. Strength of schedule predicted a late warrior run.

no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

So if you zoom out far enough, its accurate? That's not how metrics work

The team with the most wins frequently does not win the title. 7 times in the last 10 years has the #1 seed in the EC or WC even made the Finals. In the same 10 year timeframe, 7.6 teams per season had a win % over 60%. So you're telling me one of the top 7-8 teams in the NBA typically wins a title? I don't think we needed to bring math into the conversation to work that one out

Actual metrics and analysis can do much better. Hell, Pythagorean does much better and its as basic as metrics get

But a "metric" that loses all its value when it matters most isn't even a good one. And this does the second you pit 2 .600+ teams against each other

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:


no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation a team won championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

So if you zoom out far enough, its accurate? That's not how metrics work

The team with the most wins frequently does not win the title. 7 times in the last 10 years has the #1 seed in the EC or WC even made the Finals. In the same 10 year timeframe, 7.6 teams per season had a win % over 60%. So you're telling me one of the top 7-8 teams in the NBA typically wins a title? I don't think we needed to bring math into the conversation to work that one out

Actual metrics and analysis can do much better. Hell, Pythagorean does much better and its as basic as metrics get

But a "metric" that loses all its value when it matters most isn't even a good one. And this does the second you pit 2 .600+ teams against each other

Actually no.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/metric

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:Greatest metric/measure is wins. Health , best ability is availability. and Green matters. Strength of schedule predicted a late warrior run.

no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

Sigh. You don't even realize the fatal mistake you're making here.

This was not a "correlation" at all. The actual statement in the article is "Since 1980, 98% of the teams that have won a championship had a regular season record of at least 0.600". All you had to do to see the flaw in your logic is reverse the causality.

Do 98% of the teams that have had a regular season record of 0.600 win an NBA championship? That is what "correlation" would imply. But the obvious answer is no, 98% of teams that have won 60% of their games do not go on to win a title. In fact we have 7 teams with records over 60% this season. Dare I say only 1 out of the 7 have a good chance of winning a title.

But what the stat does say is that on average it is highly likely that one of those 7 teams will win the title as opposed to one of the the other 9 teams that had records under 60%.

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:
Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

So if you zoom out far enough, its accurate? That's not how metrics work

The team with the most wins frequently does not win the title. 7 times in the last 10 years has the #1 seed in the EC or WC even made the Finals. In the same 10 year timeframe, 7.6 teams per season had a win % over 60%. So you're telling me one of the top 7-8 teams in the NBA typically wins a title? I don't think we needed to bring math into the conversation to work that one out

Actual metrics and analysis can do much better. Hell, Pythagorean does much better and its as basic as metrics get

But a "metric" that loses all its value when it matters most isn't even a good one. And this does the second you pit 2 .600+ teams against each other

Actually no.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/metric

So just to summarize

You: wins are the best metric
Me: no they aren't
You: here's a bad example that's extremely vague
Me: that's a bad example that's extremely vague, its not even a good metric
You: here's the definition of metric

Like if I 'created' a metric which stated that the team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time, that doesnt mean its a metric

multo wrote:My question is are we better than the 2022 championship team? The core is older, we had Porter, Iggy and Bjelica as role/bench players, but now, JK and Moody are better, and we have Podz, CP3 and TJD this time. Although this year the West is so much tougher than 2022, and this current Celtics team as well (Not to mention a healthy Denver team).

Not to me. Wiggins is different, the big 3 are 2 years older, Looney is even slower, CP3/GP2 is never healthy, and there just isn't trusted veteran depth.

EvanZ wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:


no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

Sigh. You don't even realize the fatal mistake you're making here.

This was not a "correlation" at all. The actual statement in the article is "Since 1980, 98% of the teams that have won a championship had a regular season record of at least 0.600". All you had to do to see the flaw in your logic is reverse the causality.

Do 98% of the teams that have had a regular season record of 0.600 win an NBA championship? That is what "correlation" would imply. But the obvious answer is no, 98% of teams that have won 60% of their games do not go on to win a title. In fact we have 7 teams with records over 60% this season. Dare I say only 1 out of the 7 have a good chance of winning a title.

But what the stat does say is that on average it is highly likely that one of those 7 teams will win the title as opposed to one of the the other 9 teams that had records under 60%.

Direct quote

Still, the correlation is undeniable.

Since 1980, 98% of the teams that won a championship had regular season records of at least .600. The ’95 Houston Rockets are the sole outlier of the group at .573.

What is a better measure of success than winning.

CDM_Stats wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:
So if you zoom out far enough, its accurate? That's not how metrics work

The team with the most wins frequently does not win the title. 7 times in the last 10 years has the #1 seed in the EC or WC even made the Finals. In the same 10 year timeframe, 7.6 teams per season had a win % over 60%. So you're telling me one of the top 7-8 teams in the NBA typically wins a title? I don't think we needed to bring math into the conversation to work that one out

Actual metrics and analysis can do much better. Hell, Pythagorean does much better and its as basic as metrics get

But a "metric" that loses all its value when it matters most isn't even a good one. And this does the second you pit 2 .600+ teams against each other

Actually no.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/metric

So just to summarize

You: wins are the best metric
Me: no they aren't
You: here's a bad example that's extremely vague
Me: that's a bad example that's extremely vague, its not even a good metric
You: here's the definition of metric

Like if I 'created' a metric which stated that the team that scores the most points wins the game 100% of the time, that doesnt mean its a metric

Actually no
Direct quote.
Still, the correlation is undeniable.

Since 1980, 98% of the teams that won a championship had regular season records of at least .600. The ’95 Houston Rockets are the sole outlier of the group at .573.

I posted a definition you post your opinion it's a bad example and vague with no evidence it's a bad metric.

EvanZ wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:

CDM_Stats wrote:


no it isnt

Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

Sigh. You don't even realize the fatal mistake you're making here.

This was not a "correlation" at all. The actual statement in the article is "Since 1980, 98% of the teams that have won a championship had a regular season record of at least 0.600". All you had to do to see the flaw in your logic is reverse the causality.

Do 98% of the teams that have had a regular season record of 0.600 win an NBA championship? That is what "correlation" would imply. But the obvious answer is no, 98% of teams that have won 60% of their games do not go on to win a title. In fact we have 7 teams with records over 60% this season. Dare I say only 1 out of the 7 have a good chance of winning a title.

But what the stat does say is that on average it is highly likely that one of those 7 teams will win the title as opposed to one of the the other 9 teams that had records under 60%.

What's a better metric

Warriorfan wrote:

EvanZ wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:
Win/Loss pct over 60% RS 98% correlation to championship.

What's a better metric

https://medium.com/the-press-box/what-metrics-determine-an-nba-championship-team-2418d8d7009f

Sigh. You don't even realize the fatal mistake you're making here.

This was not a "correlation" at all. The actual statement in the article is "Since 1980, 98% of the teams that have won a championship had a regular season record of at least 0.600". All you had to do to see the flaw in your logic is reverse the causality.

Do 98% of the teams that have had a regular season record of 0.600 win an NBA championship? That is what "correlation" would imply. But the obvious answer is no, 98% of teams that have won 60% of their games do not go on to win a title. In fact we have 7 teams with records over 60% this season. Dare I say only 1 out of the 7 have a good chance of winning a title.

But what the stat does say is that on average it is highly likely that one of those 7 teams will win the title as opposed to one of the the other 9 teams that had records under 60%.

What's a better metric

Sigh. A better metric would obviously be regular season point differential.