I’m starting to wonder what modern fans consider good help.

[Kblaze8855]

We have guys like Tobias Harris, Jordan Poole, Dlo , Quickley, and so on called out for their performances as a teams 4th or 5th best players some nights. And that isn’t to say they always play well or should be above criticism…it’s to ask…how much do you expect a 5th best player to contribute to winning? Or even a third or fourth?

Do you expect guys that far removed from being the man to be consistent? If so…why?

Everyone’s salaries being so high these days it “feels” like they should be great all the time?

The open game allowing so many points the old 12ppg guys need to give you a steady 18 on good shooting?


What does your teams 4th or 5th best player need to do for you to consider him adequate for that role?

Your 5th best player gives you like 14 a game on middle of the road shooting…..you good with that?

It feels like people have not been good with that for guys like Tobias for some time now.

Is it just the money?

[Foster5k]

Good help is the opposite of Jordan Poole. :oldlol:

[tpols]

You shouldn't have ever mentioned Jordan poole. He just came off one of the worst playoff runs ever for a 100+ million dollar player. He's a sucker and a fruitcake player.

[Kblaze8855]

Good help is the opposite of Jordan Poole. :oldlol:


A better question might be “How far from the best player can a player be to stop expecting consistency?”.

A best player has to give you something all the time. A second usually needs to show up. The third guys feels like a luxury.

We are shitting on 4th guys too? 5th guys?

How far down the roster do you expect consistent high performance?

[Kblaze8855]

You shouldn't have ever mentioned Jordan poole. He just came off one of the worst playoff runs ever for a 100+ million dollar player. He's a sucker and a fruitcake player.

They’re all emblematic of the same question. And Tobias was initial reason for asking. He had like 15 a game this series but he had a 2 point game in there and I saw people talking about him.

Yea I’d say I want more than 2 points on a bad night.

But what does a #4 need to do to avoid “We can’t do it alone!” talk from stars? I feel like 4th-5th best players probably justify more passes than they get. I feel like we were rarely like “Where was Paxon?” or “Man…Brian Shaw didn’t show up this series”.

Maybe there being so many points available boosts the 4th guys production to where we feeeeeeeel like they’re supposed to be stars who show up every night?

[90sgoat]

Something to consider: People look at help as if the help should be like stars, not role players.

If we look at the champ of help, Lebron James, he had teams with great help, great role players, best shooters, that only shot, best rebounders that only rebounded.

If we look at someone like Murray, that's great help, but only help, not co-star. Murray is a rich man's Kenny Smith and Jokic is a poor man Hakeem, but ultimately it's the same team. A dominant center and shooters.

Help is what Mavs have, Dwight Powell, Kleber, Bullock, Green, that's help, that's role players playing a role. The problem is they're not particularly good at the only things they do.

Tobias Harris, Jordan Poole, Dlo are failed stars. Those can be good help, but they're not help in the original sense.

Modern fans, might not understand that failed stars are not great help necessarily. It's a difficult role to fill for a failed star. Some guys can do it. Reinvent themselves as role players, like Vince Carter or Iggy.

Tobias Harris is being paid star money, as is Jordan Poole.

That's the problem, because it would be better to pay some elite role player helps at 1/3 and then get 3 of those instead of 1 of those failed stars.

That's my take Kblaze. Over and doubt.

[Kblaze8855]

The failed star vs natural role player distinction is an interesting one. I’m gonna give that some thought and see how feelings seem about such players. I’m gonna have to make a list. I do enjoy a good list.

[ralph_i_el]

Too many fans spoiled by the Big-3 Heat and the Dynasty Warriors. Those are historical anomalies.


I was going to write a bunch of stuff, but then I read 90sgoat's post on page 1, which nails it.

As always, "showing up" goes way beyond what is in the box score.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Defenses are so good at turning the fifth player into a liability, it's almost a necessity that he be able to reliably knock down an open shot. If he can't do that and the defense ignores him to play 5v4, there's a good chance his help isn't good enough. He's making things harder on everyone else.

That's a key to how the Cavs beat the Warriors in 2016. Warriors had excellent help, but Cavs cheated off Barnes and Barnes couldn't make them pay, and that gummed up the Warriors high powered offense. If Barnes is just a slightly bigger threat who a defender has to respect, Warriors win. He doesn't even have to score much, just needs to keep a defender occupied.

On the defensive side, if there's one guy that can be attacked, that might be enough to turn a series. Even if he's a solid scorer, may not matter if he can be targeted on d.

What's good help? Help that is solid enough to not be the critical exploitable weakness on the team. Occupy a defender on offense and don't be the weak link that leads to easy baskets on d. Don't need the guy to be a great scorer or lock down defender, just don't be exploitable.

[tpols]

Defenses are so good at turning the fifth player into a liability, it's almost a necessity that he be able to reliably knock down an open shot. If he can't do that and the defense ignores him to play 5v4, there's a good chance his help isn't good enough. He's making things harder on everyone else.

That's a key to how the Cavs beat the Warriors in 2016. Warriors had excellent help, but Cavs cheated off Barnes and Barnes couldn't make them pay, and that gummed up the Warriors high powered offense. If Barnes is just a slightly bigger threat who a defender has to respect, Warriors win. He doesn't even have to score much, just needs to keep a defender occupied.

On the defensive side, if there's one guy that can be attacked, that might be enough to turn a series. Even if he's a solid scorer, may not matter if he can be targeted on d.

What's good help? Help that is solid enough to not be the critical exploitable weakness on the team. Occupy a defender on offense and don't be the weak link that leads to easy baskets on d. Don't need the guy to be a great scorer or lock down defender, just don't be exploitable.

Yup...

The Lakers are going to try to do that to Aaron Gordon in this series. They're going to dare him to shoot and I feel like his shooting and play will be the biggest factor in the series.

[FultzNationRISE]

I guess the more production you expect, the less consistency you should expect.

Klay and Herro arent gonna give you Max Struss consistency, but theyll give you more 30 pieces.

The Kings starting lineup will give you a lot of consistent scoring but outside of Fox not a lot of huge outbursts.

The Bulls on the other hand might have a night where Derozan, Levine, and Vucevic all go off, and other nights where none of them do.

So it just depends how your team is built I suppose.

[ShawkFactory]

"Help" depends on whatever argument you're trying to make at the time. Only once that argument is challenged will actual basketball talk come into play. Everyone playing in the league, particularly on championship contending-type teams, has guys who can play. Some perform well in certain situations and in certain games, some do better in others.

I make that statement vague because that's what it is. It's a fruitless argument that is an attempt to argue all time greats against each other but there is endless fluidity amongst the help and competition argument.

I prefer to look at it more simply when comparing the GOATs and see what they can when they're at there best. The myriad of factors involved in winning a championship don't really do much for me because we could speak about them until we die and still not uncover the entire story.

There are obviously some outliers of course. The 00-02 Lakers. 11-13 Heat. 17-18 Warriors. Etc.

Other than that I'm not really interested in arguing Bird vs Duncan because of what happened in 84 and 03 in completely different sets of circumstances.

Manu > DJ? Fvck that. Who knows and who cares.

[NBAGOAT]

90s explained it well why some 4th-5th guys get criticism. Pj Tucker has many games where he doesnt even score but he fills his role very well and gets paid 10mil. Jordan poole is really like the 5th best player on the warriors but he gets paid 30mil and is expected to score 20.

To go through other teams rosters however, yea most of the good teams have a 4th they expect serious star contributions from, not all star level but definitely more than a role player. The luxury tax allows you to pay for that. Someone like Tobias is not even in the top 10 of 4th guys in the league I think.

the 5th guy you prefer a 3nD guy or capable big though not every good team has one. As Aino said he cant get played off the floor. 14 a game is easily enough unless they're bad on defense, kcp does less than that he's one of the better 5th starters in the league. Someone like PJ Tucker does more than enough for me too. Grayson Allen however can score 11ppg but his defense is a problem. Jarred Vanderbilt plays great defense but his offense is such a liability ham put in schroeder to start

[Full Court]

A better question might be “How far from the best player can a player be to stop expecting consistency?”.

A best player has to give you something all the time. A second usually needs to show up. The third guys feels like a luxury.

We are shitting on 4th guys too? 5th guys?

How far down the roster do you expect consistent high performance?

No matter how good or bad a player is, you should expect them to generally perform somewhere close to their baseline. Everyone will have a bad game now and then, but if they blow an entire series like Poole did, then they deserve criticism - regardless if they're the first or fifth best player on the team. Nobody was expecting Poole to average 30 in that series. They were just expecting him to play in the ballpark of his averages.

[theman93]

Good help is a player or collection of players who can effectively play their role(s) to provide consistent winning. If your role is energy and defense and you do so effectively you are providing good help (PJ Tucker). If your job is to space the floor and you do so effectively you are providing good help (JJ Reddick). If your role is timely shot making and you do so effectively you are providing good help (Robert Horry). If your role is rim protection and you do so effectively you are providing good help (late stage Dwight Howard). If your role is enforcer and you do so effectively you are providing good help (Bill Laimbeer).

Obviously these players can do a little more than what their main role is, but an all-time great usually can stir the ingredients together to find a way to win.

[90sgoat]

Help archetypes classes:

The "Sniper Assassin" - 3 point shooter
The "Get Me A Bucket" - midrange specialist
The "Get That Weak Ish Outta Here" - rim protector
The "Garbage Man" - offensive rebounder
The "Calm Down" - secondary ballhandler
The "6th Man" - playmaker
The "Lockdown Defender" - defensive specialist
?

[Kblaze8855]

No matter how good or bad a player is, you should expect them to generally perform somewhere close to their baseline. Everyone will have a bad game now and then, but if they blow an entire series like Poole did, then they deserve criticism - regardless if they're the first or fifth best player on the team. Nobody was expecting Poole to average 30 in that series. They were just expecting him to play in the ballpark of his averages.


I didn’t say you can’t critique anyone. I said:



And that isn’t to say they always play well or should be above criticism…it’s to ask…how much do you expect a 5th best player to contribute to winning?.


If your answer is “Whatever they normally do” then ok but I’m asking about the increasing standards for players who in the past wouldn’t even come up.

Take Danny Ainge. In 88 he was an all star. Best year of his career. But he was no Bird, Mchale, Parish, or even old DJ considering defensive ability and his chemistry with Bird. But let’s say he’s #4. Vs the Pistons he put up 10ppg on 31% shooting in 40 minutes a game. As an all star.

They lose. He played terribly.

I don’t remember it being any kinda big story. Maybe it’s because nothing seemed as major with the media coverage being so much less.

Just feels like nobody thought something on that level would hinge on a guy that far from the legends and hall of famers he played with.

You could no doubt find someone complaining and like I said I’m not even here to say nobody should. If a guy plays poorly there’s nothing wrong with saying so. It just feels like a flip got switched along the way. Maybe it happened when we started with the weaponization of teammates. Players stopped being as good as they are and instead became as good as you can make their teammates appear NOT to be.

So many arguments aren’t about how good or bad this player is but how good or bad his teammates are. Fans put more time in trying to prove their favorite players teammates suck than trying to prove the player himself is great.

Haters spend whole days making the “help” of their target out to be gods and the “help” of the other guy out to be ass. And that goes for every fan base. Lebron fans. Steph fans. Kobe. Jordan. Embiid. That’s how you show greatness. Show how ass all the players who play with a guy are.

If we did that back then and had ISH I’m sure we would have made Danny Ainge a huge story because there would be an ongoing argument about Ainge vs AC Green and someone would have to take a victory lap.

Im just wondering in the playoffs how many people are realistic to expect to play well at once.

I kinda wanna check some old logs. How often do the 3rd and 4th option give you good numbers? How often can a 4th guy score 18 or 20 a game on his normal shooting in the playoffs?

I’ll have to do some homework later. It feels like it would be rare.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Some roleplayers can't be judged by stats. If Steve Kerr went 0-5 from the field then it meant he did nothing because he was just there to hit shots and create space. But PJ Tucker can go scoreless and still have a positive impact because his main purpose is stopping scorers.

[iamgine]

wth is this thread. If your main role is a bench scorer like Jordan Poole, then you better score consistently. If your role is a defender like Draymond Green, then you better defend consistently. If you're PJ Tucker, then you better defend and make wide open corner shot consistently. If you're Dennis Rodman, you better rebound consistently. If not, you're a role player who doesn't play your role. AKA not a good help.

[Kblaze8855]

wth is this thread. If your main role is a bench scorer like Jordan Poole, then you better score consistently. If your role is a defender like Draymond Green, then you better defend consistently. If you're PJ Tucker, then you better defend and make wide open corner shot consistently. If you're Dennis Rodman, you better rebound consistently. If not, you're a role player who doesn't play your role. AKA not a good help.


The point is…how far down the roster can you go before players are no longer expected to consistently perform at a high level.

When Toni Kukoc puts up 7ppg on 32 percent shooting in a series it wasn’t really known or cared about. He’s the 4th best player.

But these days a Tobias Harris or a Dlo can give you 15 and we are wondering when they’re gonna step up.

Go a little earlier and teams were scoring 110ish like modern teams you still weren’t generally able to depend on a 4th or 5h guy giving you much production.

Kinda has me wondering if a greater percentage of modern points are scored by the top guys. Maybe the teams are more top heavy. It just feels weird when fans expect guys who aren’t even the second or third best player to be productive all the time.

Really takes 4 guys doing 18+ a game to be decent help on offense?

How do I hear guys on tv talking about Tobias Harris like a teams 4th option is supposed to always score a lot?

Season averages don’t translate one to one to playoffs for a lot of reasons. Stars forcing the issue taking more shots. Tighter lineups. Better prep. Vastly different minutes at times. The fact that season averages include runs with stars missing or lineups not being played in the playoffs.

It’s rarely gonna mirror the regular season but it really feels like fans want guys 4-5 down the list to be giving them 20 all the time.

I’m just wondering what people watch to think that’s to be expected. How many people realistically play statistically on a high level at the same time?

Is nobody allowed to be Kukoc anymore?

[warriorfan]

We have guys like Tobias Harris, Jordan Poole, Dlo , Quickley, and so on called out for their performances as a teams 4th or 5th best players some nights. And that isn’t to say they always play well or should be above criticism…it’s to ask…how much do you expect a 5th best player to contribute to winning? Or even a third or fourth?

Do you expect guys that far removed from being the man to be consistent? If so…why?

Everyone’s salaries being so high these days it “feels” like they should be great all the time?

The open game allowing so many points the old 12ppg guys need to give you a steady 18 on good shooting?


What does your teams 4th or 5th best player need to do for you to consider him adequate for that role?

Your 5th best player gives you like 14 a game on middle of the road shooting…..you good with that?

It feels like people have not been good with that for guys like Tobias for some time now.

Is it just the money?

it’s not about money in terms he should be paid and what he’s worth it’s in terms of how much salary cap is allocated to the player and wether he’s pulling his share.

For the amount of the cap Poole takes and for him to have the run he did…..Do you think that’s a good deal for the team? Would you quantify that as “help”, a neutral, or a detriment?

Poole was down in the food chain for GSW but regardless, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t not just getting proper bang for your buck, it’s paying a huge percentage of your cap to have a guy who’s a big time net negative for the team. It’s a boat anchor.

I’m not quite sure what the gist of your post is but if you are saying holding Jordan Poole accountable for what he gave and received and the impact it had on the team is not legit then….you have lost your mind to put it nicely.

Jordan Poole isn’t paid like a 4th option and he doesn’t deliver even enough for a legit 4th option regardless of pay. And in a league so top heavy that definitely does make a difference. Is Curry supposed to just man up and score 45 points a game to pick up the slack? Is that your take you are trying to push?

Basketball is impacted the most by stars than maybe any other league, but it’s still a team game. Help matters.

[iamgine]

The point is…how far down the roster can you go before players are no longer expected to consistently perform at a high level.

When Toni Kukoc puts up 7ppg on 32 percent shooting in a series it wasn’t really known or cared about. He’s the 4th best player.

But these days a Tobias Harris or a Dlo can give you 15 and we are wondering when they’re gonna step up.

Go a little earlier and teams were scoring 110ish like modern teams you still weren’t generally able to depend on a 4th or 5h guy giving you much production.

Kinda has me wondering if a greater percentage of modern points are scored by the top guys. Maybe the teams are more top heavy. It just feels weird when fans expect guys who aren’t even the second or third best player to be productive all the time.

Really takes 4 guys doing 18+ a game to be decent help on offense?

How do I hear guys on tv talking about Tobias Harris like a teams 4th option is supposed to always score a lot?

Season averages don’t translate one to one to playoffs for a lot of reasons. Stars forcing the issue taking more shots. Tighter lineups. Better prep. Vastly different minutes at times. The fact that season averages include runs with stars missing or lineups not being played in the playoffs.

It’s rarely gonna mirror the regular season but it really feels like fans want guys 4-5 down the list to be giving them 20 all the time.

I’m just wondering what people watch to think that’s to be expected. How many people realistically play statistically on a high level at the same time?

Is nobody allowed to be Kukoc anymore?
Well yea no one cared cause Bulls won.

People don't really care when Klay shot poorly last season cause Warriors won, much less Kukoc.

Also, who are these people expecting guys 4-5 down the list to score 20 all the time?

Must be a very small minority.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Looking at last 10 champs you basically need 10+ ppg from #4 scorer to win a title. Only exception is 2019 Raptors winning with number four averaging 9.4 through playoffs. Went back further and looked at champs from 86 to 95. Pattern largely holds. 8 champs had a #4 scoring at least 10 ppg, only two that didn't 91 and 92 Bulls with #4 scoring 9.5 and 7.9 respectively. So broad sample from multiple eras and basically number four scorer needs to be scoring 10 ppg for team to be championship caliber.

More title teams had more than four players scoring 10+ than title teams with a number four scoring less than 10. If number four isn't giving you 10, they probably aren't doing their job.

[Bawkish]

"Tobias Harris over me?!?!"

- a known Heat player

[NBAGOAT]

The point is…how far down the roster can you go before players are no longer expected to consistently perform at a high level.

When Toni Kukoc puts up 7ppg on 32 percent shooting in a series it wasn’t really known or cared about. He’s the 4th best player.

But these days a Tobias Harris or a Dlo can give you 15 and we are wondering when they’re gonna step up.

Go a little earlier and teams were scoring 110ish like modern teams you still weren’t generally able to depend on a 4th or 5h guy giving you much production.

Kinda has me wondering if a greater percentage of modern points are scored by the top guys. Maybe the teams are more top heavy. It just feels weird when fans expect guys who aren’t even the second or third best player to be productive all the time.

Really takes 4 guys doing 18+ a game to be decent help on offense?

How do I hear guys on tv talking about Tobias Harris like a teams 4th option is supposed to always score a lot?

Season averages don’t translate one to one to playoffs for a lot of reasons. Stars forcing the issue taking more shots. Tighter lineups. Better prep. Vastly different minutes at times. The fact that season averages include runs with stars missing or lineups not being played in the playoffs.

It’s rarely gonna mirror the regular season but it really feels like fans want guys 4-5 down the list to be giving them 20 all the time.

I’m just wondering what people watch to think that’s to be expected. How many people realistically play statistically on a high level at the same time?

Is nobody allowed to be Kukoc anymore?

think with tobias lot of it is money factor and he also doesnt do much else besides score. D'lo as another example has gotten a pass from lakers fans for his inconsistency and he can run the offense and pass the ball too.

[ImKobe]

I think it's fine when guys like Lonnie Walker are paid very little to come and have 1 or 2 good games per series.

If you're Jordan Poole or Tobias Harris and are given 30-40 million a year, you're expected to show up more often than a vet minimum/MLE player. Simple as that. Poole to be fair was on his rookie contract this season but he's supposed to be the 3rd scorer on the team and didn't do his job, and scoring is the only thing he can do well on a consistent basis, but he stopped doing that once he got his money, so it's fair to criticize him.

[Kblaze8855]

it’s not about money in terms he should be paid and what he’s worth it’s in terms of how much salary cap is allocated to the player and wether he’s pulling his share.

For the amount of the cap Poole takes and for him to have the run he did…..Do you think that’s a good deal for the team? Would you quantify that as “help”, a neutral, or a detriment?

Poole was down in the food chain for GSW but regardless, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t not just getting proper bang for your buck, it’s paying a huge percentage of your cap to have a guy who’s a big time net negative for the team. It’s a boat anchor.

I’m not quite sure what the gist of your post is but if you are saying holding Jordan Poole accountable for what he gave and received and the impact it had on the team is not legit then….you have lost your mind to put it nicely.

Jordan Poole isn’t paid like a 4th option and he doesn’t deliver even enough for a legit 4th option regardless of pay. And in a league so top heavy that definitely does make a difference. Is Curry supposed to just man up and score 45 points a game to pick up the slack? Is that your take you are trying to push?

Basketball is impacted the most by stars than maybe any other league, but it’s still a team game. Help matters.



Since so much of your post was about money I’ll just point out…Poole is the 9th highest paid Warrior this year and 268th in the nba. He doesn’t get paid till next year when depending on if they bring Draymond back or not he will be 3rd or 4th on the team and somewhere in the 45-50 range in the league depending on how much some free agents sign for.

That said my issue again is how much we expect from guys way down the roster. Considering defense he’s probably the 6th best player when Looney is gobbling up offensive rebounds. This era just wants so much it seems. Forget Poole if you can(I doubt you can). I’m speaking generally.

Whoever the 4th or 5th guy is on most teams back in the day would never be expected to give you 15-20ppg but when all these guys fall short of that it’s like they didn’t show up. I was reading Dlo tweets getting on him after a win where he had like 13-14 and it was like “These role players have to do better” in gist and it just feels like a new thing.

I feel like the team ppg couldn’t have exploded that much where if the 3rd and 4th guy in shot attempts isn’t giving you an efficient 16 he’s ruined the game but maybe it has. It definitely has from like 99-04. But normal nba?

Still feels weird. Like the expected distribution of points is off. It’s entirely possible it’s my memory and perception that is off because with tighter playoff lineups only playing seven or eight people to get over 100 points maybe all four the best scorers are supposed to be over 20. I just haven’t been quite bored enough to search through the records.

[warriorfan]

Since so much of your post was about money I’ll just point out…Poole is the 9th highest paid Warrior this year and 268th in the nba. He doesn’t get paid till next year when depending on if they bring Draymond back or not he will be 3rd or 4th on the team and somewhere in the 45-50 range in the league depending on how much some free agents sign for.

That said my issue again is how much we expect from guys way down the roster. Considering defense he’s probably the 6th best player when Looney is gobbling up offensive rebounds. This era just wants so much it seems. Forget Poole if you can(I doubt you can). I’m speaking generally.

Whoever the 4th or 5th guy is on most teams back in the day would never be expected to give you 15-20ppg but when all these guys fall short of that it’s like they didn’t show up. I was reading Dlo tweets getting on him after a win where he had like 13-14 and it was like “These role players have to do better” in gist and it just feels like a new thing.

I feel like the team ppg couldn’t have exploded that much where if the 3rd and 4th guy in shot attempts isn’t giving you an efficient 16 he’s ruined the game but maybe it has. It definitely has from like 99-04. But normal nba?

Still feels weird. Like the expected distribution of points is off. It’s entirely possible it’s my memory and perception that is off because with tighter playoff lineups only playing seven or eight people to get over 100 points maybe all four the best scorers are supposed to be over 20. I just haven’t been quite bored enough to search through the records.

The biggest difference in the championship warriors and this years second round exit warriors is Jordan Poole’s historic collapse.

Pretty sure it’s a fair take to call that out and hold him accountable.

[HighFlyer23]

Good help is fulfilling your role when you are required to fulfill it. Not disappearing or laying an egg at crucial moments or for crucial games

[Kblaze8855]

I’d say the biggest difference was being the best defense in the league last year and 17th this year while being maybe the worst road team to ever make the playoffs. Poole is part of the first problem obviously but I don’t know about the second. That was just weird.

Wiggins being out so long was certainly a factor in those numbers though.

In a lot of them really.

And reading some stats I’m starting to see another factor for all 3 of these guys and some others.

Tobias averages 19/7 without Embiid this year and 22/7 previously. Poole put up 26 a game without Steph this year. Dlo more productive with no Lebron. Which isn’t to say any of those players hurt the other guy…it’s to say….I wonder how much modern load management and teams sitting stars longer than needed impact our idea of what a guy is supposed to do when the whole team plays.

Wiggins was out like half the year I think and Steph for two long runs that jacked up Pooles averages. He never would’ve been scoring so much to raise his averages. If both those guys played the whole season. Klay missed 50 games last year too. Harris has been playing with guys like Embiid and Harden who just come up missing all the time.

I wonder what the statistical impact is of going from being expected to score more in regular season games with stars being rested to everyone playing if they all come back at once. And in the playoffs when things aren’t going well, stars force the issue even more. I wonder what the normal numbers look like for third and fourth best players in playoff losses shot attempt wise. The stars go shoot 30 times. Coaches find a lineup that works for a situation so you might play 45 minutes or 15. Poole for one played 10 minutes last game. If his shot isn’t falling, his defense is too bad for him to be on the floor. Playoff numbers are wild.

i’ll probably forget by then but this off-season I intend to do a deep dive. Just for my own sake. The brief look I did yesterday showed me a whole lot of good third and fourth options with these 8 to 12 point a game 30% shooting series losses and nobody seems to care. The more I think about it. Part of it has to be the offensive explosion. You don’t really have to be a top three option on your team to score a lot anymore and maybe that’s the whole problem with my perspective.

It’s probably more of an outlier when a #4 option scores well than when he doesn’t in the playoffs. I’m not sure it’s to be expected even these days. But I’m not sure enough to state that as a fact. You can always shoot better for the chances you are given. Poole obviously could have done that.

[warriorfan]

I’d say the biggest difference was being the best defense in the league last year and 17th this year while being maybe the worst road team to ever make the playoffs was a pretty significant difference. Poole is part of the first problem obviously but I don’t know about the second.

Wiggins being out so long was certainly a factor in those numbers though.

In a lot of them really.

And reading some stats I’m starting to see another factor for all 3 of these guys and some others.

Tobias averages 19/7 without Embiid this year and 22/7 previously. Poole put up 26 a game without Steph this year. Dlo more productive with no Lebron. Which isn’t to say any of those players hurt the other guy…it’s to say….I wonder how much modern load management and teams sitting stars longer than needed impact our idea of what a guy is supposed to do when the whole team plays.

Wiggins was out like half the year I think and Steph for two long runs that jacked up Pooles averages. He never would’ve been scoring so much to raise his averages. If both those guys played the whole season. Klay missed 50 games last year too. Harris has been playing with guys like Embiid and Harden who just come up missing all the time.

I wonder what the statistical impact is of going from being expected to score more in regular season games with stars being rested to everyone playing if they can all back at once. And in the playoffs when things aren’t going well, stars force the issue even more. I wonder what the normal numbers look like for third and fourth best players in playoff losses shot attempt wise. The stars go shoot 30 times. Coaches find a lineup that works for a situation so you might play 45 minutes or 15. Poole for one played 10 minutes last game. If his shot isn’t falling, his defense is too bad for him to be on the floor. Playoff numbers are wild.

i’ll probably forget by then but this off-season I intend to do a deep dive. Just for my own sake. The brief look I did yesterday showed me a whole lot of good third and fourth options with these 8 to 12 point a game 30% shooting series losses and nobody seems to care. The more I think about it. Part of it has to be the offensive explosion. You don’t really have to be a top three option on your team to score a lot anymore and maybe that’s the whole problem with my perspective.

defense as a team slipped but poole’s playoff PER was half of what it was in the playoffs last year…

his TS dropped 20 percent

is it okay to call that out?

[Kblaze8855]

I didn’t say not to say anything. I said I’m wondering how far down the list of best players are we expecting a lot from these days and that it seems to be further than usual. Duncan Robinson is another one. A podcast I listen to was discussing if he was a coward. I’m just thinking….what is Duncan Robinson supposed to be doing exactly? He’s overpaid no doubt which gets us back to pay vs expectations but….Duncan Robinson? We putting it all on a guy playing 15-20 minutes a night?

I just feel like guys who historically wouldn’t be expected to have outcomes blamed on them get a lot more than they used to. Could be a social/sports media thing. There wasn’t as much coverage of anything back then. People have to fill a lot more air time so there are deeper dives I suppose.

[Kblaze8855]

That probably is it really. I never heard about all star Danny Ainge having a 10 on 31% or whatever series playing 40 minutes because there probably wasn’t time to get into it and there was no widespread internet. Maybe I just didn’t have access to the pissed off Boston radio.

[warriorfan]

They were all over it for sure. Boston sports radio has always been pretty wild. But they are different to say the least.

[Kblaze8855]

He played 47 minutes without making a shot in game 5 then went 1 of 11 in game six as they got eliminated. He probably didn’t turn on the radio for a couple weeks. They traded him middle of the next season. Funny enough it came out later that he was pressuring Red back then to trade Bird and Mchale. Imagine the balls needed to make one shot over two games as an all-star playing massive minutes then tell your boss to trade bird and Mchale.

[Nb1]

No matter how good or bad a player is, you should expect them to generally perform somewhere close to their baseline. Everyone will have a bad game now and then, but if they blow an entire series like Poole did, then they deserve criticism - regardless if they're the first or fifth best player on the team. Nobody was expecting Poole to average 30 in that series. They were just expecting him to play in the ballpark of his averages.

He wasn’t playing high minutes, but he did have a game last series where he was their best shooter and hitting everythinh but the last shot and he’s their 6th option. Dude was 6/11 from 3, who else have a guy like that on the bench?

[highwhey]

if they show up on time and sober, they're already considered good help by construction industry standards.

[Goldrush25]

The point is…how far down the roster can you go before players are no longer expected to consistently perform at a high level.

When Toni Kukoc puts up 7ppg on 32 percent shooting in a series it wasn’t really known or cared about. He’s the 4th best player.

But these days a Tobias Harris or a Dlo can give you 15 and we are wondering when they’re gonna step up.

Go a little earlier and teams were scoring 110ish like modern teams you still weren’t generally able to depend on a 4th or 5h guy giving you much production.

Kinda has me wondering if a greater percentage of modern points are scored by the top guys. Maybe the teams are more top heavy. It just feels weird when fans expect guys who aren’t even the second or third best player to be productive all the time.

Really takes 4 guys doing 18+ a game to be decent help on offense?

How do I hear guys on tv talking about Tobias Harris like a teams 4th option is supposed to always score a lot?

Season averages don’t translate one to one to playoffs for a lot of reasons. Stars forcing the issue taking more shots. Tighter lineups. Better prep. Vastly different minutes at times. The fact that season averages include runs with stars missing or lineups not being played in the playoffs.

It’s rarely gonna mirror the regular season but it really feels like fans want guys 4-5 down the list to be giving them 20 all the time.

I’m just wondering what people watch to think that’s to be expected. How many people realistically play statistically on a high level at the same time?

Is nobody allowed to be Kukoc anymore?

Doesn't that depend on the skills of the top guys? Is the top guy someone that gets people involved, or is he a KD type where the offense is about getting him the best shot?

A good role player is someone that compliments whatever the top guy does. Someone like KD or Steph needs defensive stoppers on the other end. Would an extra shooter really maximize GSW? They were best when they had a defensive stopper like Iggy that could limit the top opposing player. Someone like Lebron needs shooters. The best role players need to be able to do the work that the top guys can't do.

I don't think you can simplify it to a particular type of player, it's about fit for what that team needs from them, what gaps need to be filled.

[Charlie Sheen]

Roster turnover. The top 5-6 guys on a team weren't shuffled around as frequently as they are in today's league.

When a substitute becomes more available, people are going to be more critical of everything.