The NBA trade deadline is around the corner as teams survey the personnel landscape and jostle for playoff positioning. This makes a perfect time for another edition of the NBA mailbag.
Throughout the season, I will be answering your questions about the latest, most interesting topics in basketball. You can tweet me directly at @kpelton, tweet your questions using the hashtag #peltonmailbag, or email them to peltonmailbag@gmail.com.
This week's edition of NBA mailbag includes:
How the Golden State Warriors' offense is similar to the New York Knicks' during the oversight of Phil Jackson.
Debating the value of dunks and layups in relation to 3-point shooting.
Identifying some of the top buyout candidates this season.
Let the mailbag begin.
"Is the Warriors' offense kind of like the Knicks' during Phil Jackson's tenure? An out-of-fashion style can't help them. I know they have only mediocre or bad offensive players except Stephen Curry, and it seems that a complicated system makes things worse. The others almost cannot do anything with Curry off the floor. Now the easy-cutting buckets cost them too many turnovers. They are still one of the best cutting teams, but not the best by a lot during 2017-19."
-- R.G.
As you note, Golden State's offense has been as dependent on Curry as any team in the NBA has with an individual. Over the course of the season, the Warriors' offensive rating is 13.8 points per 100 possessions better with Curry on the court according to NBA Advanced Stats, which ranks third among players with at least 100 minutes played behind Nikola Jokic (15.7) and Luka Doncic (14.7). Cleaning the Glass, which strips out garbage time, has Curry making an even bigger impact: plus-19.4 points per 100 possessions, easily best in the league.
Moreover, the difference has been increasing. Since Kerr removed rookie James Wiseman from the starting lineup in late January, Golden State has scored 115.8 points per 100 possessions with Curry on the court, an elite offensive rating. With Curry on the bench, the Warriors' offensive rating sinks below a point per possession (96.8 per 100).
I'm not convinced there's a solution. The fundamental issue here is Golden State doesn't have anyone else besides Curry who excels at creating their own shot. The league average on shots with at least two seconds of touch time, per NBA Advanced Stats, is a 48.6% effective field goal percentage (eFG, which weighs 3-pointers as 1.5 field goals to account for their added value). Just two Warriors regulars surpass that: Curry at 57% (third-best among players with at least 10 such shots per 36 minutes) and Andrew Wiggins (50%).
Worse yet, there's not much playmaking for others among this group because Kerr has reasonably chosen to keep Draymond Green on the court with Curry as much as possible so as to facilitate Curry playing off the ball.
I tend to agree with the idea that Kerr's emphasis on ball movement hasn't always maximized Curry's value. But it's hard to make that case this season with Golden State scoring so well with Curry on the court, and I certainly don't think a more isolation-centric (or even pick-and-roll heavy) offense makes sense for the Warriors when Curry is on the bench.
Kerr would surely argue that part of the reason he wants every player to touch the ball on a regular basis is to get them to buy in defensively. And that part of Golden State's second unit does seem to be working. Lineups without Curry rank in the league's 88th percentile defensively, which has helped the Warriors avoid getting completely destroyed with him and Green on the bench.
All things considered, I think that's about as well as Golden State can hope to do in a year without Klay Thompson or a suitable replacement in terms of shot creation.
"The NBA has a 3 problem, and a good way to solve it might be making layups and dunks worth three points. That way, players will attempt more dunks and layups because they are a higher-percentage shot than 3-pointers, helping to solve the 3-point problem. The NBA could implement this in the G League to determine if it is a feasible solution."
-- Quinn
At the risk of disagreeing with my colleague Kevin Arnovitz, I'm not convinced there is a problem with the number of 3s. More importantly, the league doesn't seem to think there's a problem. During his informative chat with Ben Taylor at the Sports Ideas Symposium, NBA executive vice president of basketball strategy Evan Wasch shared that their surveys have found that fans generally like the high-scoring games and frequent 3-pointers we've seen this season.
Let's concede for this question, however, there are too many 3s. I don't think encouraging teams to get to the basket more frequently is the solution. As I've written about before, as has my colleague Seth Partnow of The Athletic, the increase in 3-point rates isn't because shots are being diverted away from the hoop. Instead, it's primarily because catch-and-shoot attempts that used to come from 15 feet and beyond are nearly all 3-pointers now.
It might surprise you to learn that, in the quarter-century for which we have play-by-play data, the NBA's 11,236 dunks in 2018-19 were the most on record according to Basketball-Reference.com. And while that increase is partially a product of faster pace, 2019-20 was the highpoint for dunks as a percentage of all shot attempts in the play-by-play era. (Oddly, the rate is down this season.)
I suspect part of the explanation is that all those 3s are creating more space in the paint for above-the-rim finishes. So I don't think increasing the value of shots at the basket would actually reduce 3-point rates. If anything, those extra dunk attempts would probably come from floaters and other in-between shots that would suddenly look a lot less attractive with three points to be found at the rim.
"Who do you foresee being the best players that will be bought out this season?"
-- Clark
We've already had one buyout with Blake Griffin subsequently joining the Brooklyn Nets and there's been plenty of conversation about the possibility of LaMarcus Aldridge and Andre Drummond being bought out if their teams are unable to find trades by Thursday's deadline.
If you look at the history of successful midseason buyout additions, however, it features fewer big names past their prime and more role players. That has remained true in recent seasons with the likes of Marco Belinelli and Ersan Ilyasova with the 2018 Philadelphia 76ers, Enes Kanter with the 2019 Portland Trail Blazers, Wesley Matthews with the 2019 Indiana Pacers and Markieff Morris (Los Angeles Lakers) and Marvin Williams (Milwaukee Bucks) last year.
Logically, it makes sense that career role players are going to have more of the skills teams need from the buyout market. In that spirit, then, let me suggest a smaller name who might have more impact than Aldridge, Drummond and Griffin: Gorgui Dieng of the Memphis Grizzlies.
Although the Grizzlies are still very much in the mix for the Western Conference play-in, I expect them to cut Dieng loose because he's out of the rotation (he hasn't played in a game decided by fewer than 28 points since Feb. 12) and Jaren Jackson Jr. is due back to strengthen their frontcourt at some point. At a $17.3 million salary in the final season of his contract, Dieng is too expensive to make sense as a trade candidate. But at the veteran's minimum, he'd be a worthwhile pickup for plenty of frontcourt-needy contenders.
When Dieng did get on the court this season, he was actually quite effective, making 48% of his limited 3-point attempts. That's unrealistic to continue, but Dieng made 1.8 3-pointers per 36 minutes in 2019-20 at a 35.5% clip, enough to keep defenses honest. And he's got a better track record as a switching defender than Aldridge and Drummond to go along with similar effectiveness as a rim protector.