The Dribble: Grades from Golden State

/ sgodfrey630

ICYMI: a new series brings new scenarios. The Jazz are in the second round, and in prime position for it to all go right (…or wrong). Read it here.

Games one and two are over and the Jazz are leaving the Bay Area down 2-0. It was much to be expected, yet the games left much to be desired. Let’s break down some of the goods and the bads from the first two in San Fran.

George Hill

In game one, Hill finished with 7 points, 3 assists. It was a below average output for the floor general, giving him a D grade for the game. Game two, however, was worse. He was truant. 

On his 31st birthday, George Hill missed game two due to big toe soreness. It’s a trap. A lie. I think he:

  • Wanted to play at Chuck E. Cheese’s instead.
  • Didn’t want to miss out on balloon animals that were promised him at his birthday party.
  • Was going to 80’s Skate Night instead.
  • Accidentally ate his birthday cake for breakfast and got sick.
  • Is still stuck at the Arcade check out counter, thinking about what prize he should claim with all his tickets.

Nov 4, 2016; Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Utah Jazz head coach Quin Snyder talks with guard George Hill (3) during the first half against the San Antonio Spurs at Vivint Smart Home Arena. Mandatory Credit: Russ Isabella-USA TODAY Sports

The All-Star Warriors

Let’s face it: the Golden State Warriors are really, really good at basketball. Like, really, really good. As they were rolling in game two, I asked Twitter if they could go 16-0 to a ring, something that has never been done before.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Only 24% think they actually will, but they really actually could. They are playing at a high level, yet I don’t think we’ve even seen their highest level yet. They might get bored and slip up. The Cavs have LeBron, sure. But this Golden State team is just stacked. In fact, before the series started, I asked who the top four players in this series was.

I think it’s easy to make an argument for and against the question. On one hand, yes they do. On the other, I think Hayward could edge one out. But on the other, when those four GSWs play together, they are really, really good. They all complement each other perfectly. And it’s stupid. They are so good. And it’s just annoying. Gol, I’m mad now.

It’s Varsity vs JV. It’s an All-Star game vs D-Leaguers. It’s the Warriors vs the Jazz.

Steph and KD are so far ahead of the rest that it’s not even fair. You could argue that they are 2 of the top 5 players in the NBA (LeBron, Kawhi, Harden, Westbrook?). Which one is better? Good question. Both have MVPS, both have had injury history, and both can take over a game. For me, I’d go

1. KD.

1A. Steph.

Looking back on the game, it’s like “oh, Steph and KD aren’t doing much” but then you remember that in game two Steph ridiculously banked in a corner three and KD finished with a team-high 25 plus 11 boards and 7 assists. They make the game look so easy. I’ll give both these guys Bs so far because you know they can hit another gear, and neither has been that hot from deep yet (Curry went 1/4 in game one, KD was 0/4 in game two). So far, the Warriors don’t need them to but if they get to another level, uh oh.

And think, the Warriors can have both those dudes on the bench and still take over a ball game with Draymond and Klay trotting up and down the court (which has happened in both games so far). Which begs the question: who would you rather have Draymond or Rudy? Hayward or Thompson?

Draymond is annoying (almost at Chris Paul level) but he plays tenacious defense. So does Rudy, and Rudy alters shots without being close to the shooter. Rudy’s presence alone frustrates an offense. Dray, on the other hand, can guard all five positions (we saw what happened when Rudy tried picking up Steph). If the two switched teams, would we benefit with a Draymond anchor instead of Rudy? I could see our overall team defense improving since Draymond does so well on multiple positions and switching, but our rim protection would fall significantly. Offensively, Dray would hold the advantage since he can shoot a jump shot, sometimes even nailing threes (like he did in game two). Rudy needs to work on post moves, soft touch, and little floaters to be a threat offensively as right now he’s limited to put backs, dunks, and awkward lay ups. Gobert’s value is different, but doesn’t the advantage have to go to Draymond then? It hurts me to say it, but I think so.

With two MVPs on his team, Draymond has been the MVP of the series. Check out his buffet menu. Game One: 17 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 2 steals, 2 blocks, +19. Game two he got better somehow: 21 points, 7 boards, 6 assists, 4 steals, 1 block, multiple broken alley-oops, +10, 5 (!) threes. He gets an A grade because when he’s on, the Warriors can’t be stopped.

Rudy is playing OK. He fouled out in game two, but had 16 points to go with 16 boards. He’s proving he can stay on the court, when he isn’t dancing with Steph. He seems to be get frustrated easily by the officials and his team’s defense at times. As the Jazz started chipping away at the lead in game two, Rudy went over to double Durant, leaving his guy (and the paint) wide open for a dunk. It wasn’t a Rudy play. Shoving Draymond at the end of game one wasn’t really a Rudy play either.  I think I’ll give him a C grade for this work in the Bay Area this week. We need him to dominate on both sides of the ball, with his head in the game too.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

What about Klay and G-Time? Klay is known to be a great defender, but I don’t think Hayward gets as much recognition on that side of the ball as he should. He can hold down the fort, and guard the post now, making it tough for opponents to score individually on him. Klay, we all know, is a pure shooter. He can get red hot at anytime and score in bunches. Gordon is more methodical. He has more offensive moves, is more versatile – in the post, off the dribble, spin and step back – but when Klay comes off a screen out to the three, it’s basically automatic.

I would be extremely curious to see Klay carry a team. What would he be like if he was a team’s best player? Put him on a bad team, like the Suns, and how many points would he average? Would he be a better version of Devin Booker of Phoenix (could he go off for 70+?)? Would he be a Ray Allen of Seattle type player? Just always lightning it up? I wonder if he wants that opportunity. What if he was on a decent team, like the Thunder. Could he carry a team on his back like Westbrook did?

It’s weird to say that Hayward can do more offensively when he doesn’t explode like Klay does, but I’d have to pick G over Klay in who I’d build a team around. What I admire about both, however, is how cool and composed they play the game. Nothing seems to faze them and they just keep playing, no matter what.

Klay was a game high +23 in game one, while Hayward struggled under the mighty lights. Game two, however, Hayward really came alive. He was being assertive and making tough shots as he finished with 33 on 11-21 shooting in 40 minutes. It was definitely an All-Star effort. I’ll give Gordon a B- as his game one was really a stinker, but he made up a lot of ground, like extra-credit-the-last-week-of-school-to-up-your-percentages-ground, in game two. 

Turnovers

I thought turnovers and fast break points were what killed the Jazz in game one. The Jazz have to practically play a perfect game to even have a chance, and they did not help themselves on Tuesday night. The score difference would be down to single digits, and then the Warriors would go on a streak off a turnover. Just like that, 90 seconds later, it would flip back to double digits. You can do that against a really, really good team like the Warriors. At one point, the Jazz were down 13….and had given up 13 fast break points. The Jazz had 14 total turnovers, which led to 20 points for GSW. As well, the Warriors had 29 fast break points, whereas the Jazz had 6. We can’t compete with their pace, and once they start getting easy buckets, it’s over. That’s an F.

Thursday night was…better? The Jazz had one more turnover, 15 total, but gave up 24 points off those. The real emphasis was limiting fast break opportunities as the Jazz would deliberately  foul in the half court to avoid easy buckets. It kind of worked as the Warriors had 19 fast break points, ten fewer than game one. It was progress. It was something. It was I’ll-scribble-an-assignment-just-enough-for-credit-and-put-my-name-on-it-and-call-it-good, so we’ll give them a D for game two. 

Three Point Shooting

If you were to ask before the series, which team would shoot worse on threes a game, the easy answer would be the Jazz. The Warriors are always hot from three. They always get good looks. They have so many guys who can knock it down. Right?

Game one: Utah 9/29 for 31%. Golden State: 7/29 for 24%.

Limiting GSW to 7 made threes is an A effort for the Jazz as they ran them off the line, and GSW just couldn’t knock them down. Only making 9 yourself, though, isn’t much better. Another D (it’s better than zero, right?).

Game two: Utah 12/32 for 38%. Golden State: 14/31 for 45%.

The Jazz shot better than their season average (37%) but so did GSW (38%). Out of all their shooters, it is a good strategy to let Andre Iguodala beat you from deep, as game one saw him go 0/6 and game two was 0/3.  He can have six attempts every game if he’d like. Force him to be the one that beats you. Technically, you can let Dray beat you from deep too but this postseason he leads all active players in his three shooting percentage so it might be a good idea to start bodying him up. The Jazz get a C for threes in game two (except Hood who went 0/5), and another D for their three defense.

Joe Johnson Starting at the Four

It’s a good idea on paper, but I don’t think it’s quite materializing like Quin hoped it would. Joe was a -15 in game one (22 minutes) and -15 in game two (30 minutes). His replacement, the old Boris Diaw was -4 in game one (20 minutes), +2 in game two (12 minutes). I don’t know if that means anything. I’m just putting it out there.

….And the Point Guard Thing

Listen, I’m like all of you and don’t understand why Shelvin Mack is playing the bulk of backup minutes, or starting when G. Hill goes down. But, also like all of you, I also trust Quin Snyder will all my heart. He is a basketball genius, always calling the right plays and saying the right things. I also really like his hair. I think he knows what he is doing.

BUT WHY SHELVIN MACK?? It’s his one decision I’m just not quite on board with.

On one hand, Mack had 14 points, even nailing 3/5 three pointers. On the other hand, he was never looking to run to the offense or pass, just looking to score. On the one hand, he did have four assists, but on the other hand he is the starting point guard and only had four assists. On one hand, he had two steals, on the other hand he made Steph Curry like look like Gary Payton. He played 31 minutes and was a -12. Dante Exum didn’t play much point guard, but he was +4 in 14 minutes. Neto played 9 minutes and was -2.

I don’t know how I feel, but I know I don’t like Shelvin Mack. Let me rephrase that, I’m sure he is a nice guy and a good human being. But I do not like him as a basketball player.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhat’s Next?

It goes without saying that the Jazz have to make some adjustments and play with some urgency to win a game at home and avoid the sweep. Specifically, the Jazz will need to get off to a fast start and limit Golden State’s start (First quarter score: 27-21 in game one, 33-15 in game two). I’m curious to see if we come out flat at home, but also curious to hear our home crowd. We can help the team play with fire and get a game, which would be the ultimate moral victory (and I’m all about those).

 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Leave a comment