The Official 2016 NBA Playoffs Thread

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by wustin

Klay is a streaky shooter. When he goes into full chuck mode he is either better than Curry or down right horrible.

Yeah but he had something like 25 mid-3rd and took 4 shots the rest of the game. Was Waiters on him in the 4th? I seriously don't remember Klay doing anything in the 4th besides the late foul.

[wustin]

He started taking awful, hasty 3-pointers.

[stevew]

Draft lottery is tonight. Get your conspiracy theories ready.

[wustin]

Lakers lose their draft pick!

[rjolley]

Chicago Bulls somehow get a top-3 pick and take Brandon Ingram who turns out to be Michael Jordan to Ben Simmons' Sam Bowie.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by wustin

Lakers lose their draft pick!

After the Chris Paul fiasco, the league owes the Lakers

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by wustin

Lakers lose their draft pick!

Is it possible to root for chaos?

Knicks win the #1 pick but Denver gets it. Denver ends up #2 but Toronto gets it from the New York swap(not sure if this is how it goes). Celtics get the third via the Nets. Lakers lose their pick and 76ers ask if they can draft Bender and Poeltl immediately at 4/5.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Draft lottery is tonight. Get your conspiracy theories ready.

When in doubt, go to NBA Reddit.

t's Ping Pong Balls Day! So you better study up your conspiracy theories so you can sound smart when you try to convince your annoying friend the NBA is rigged!


Philadelphia 76ers- The NBA has put up with their tanking for long enough and needed to provide a catalyst in speeding up 'The Process'.

Los Angeles Lakers- The league is better when the Lakers are winning. The Lakers also provide revenue like no other team. It just makes sense for the NBA to give them the top pick.

Boston Celtics- With the Lakers, Knicks and Bulls struggling, it's obvious the NBA needed to force one of the large franchises to the top of their conference.

Phoenix Suns - Basketball in Phoenix hasn't been the same since Nash left and the NBA wanted to make up for the Suns' poor management.

Minnesota Timerwolves- The Wolves' young core has some insane potential so the league gave them another top pick to help secure a potential dynasty.

New Orleans Pelicans - With Anthony Davis being a generational talent stuck in NOLA without much help, the league handed the number one pick to the Pelicans to give Davis a shot at success.

Denver Nuggets- The young group of Jokic, Harris, Nurkic and Mudiay aren't getting enough attention from the national media so the number one pick will put Denver back into the spotlight.

Sacramento Kings- The Kings have missed the Playoffs every year since 2006 so the NBA wanted to give them a push towards success.

Toronto Raptors- The NBA is trying to grow the league internationally so they are trying to raise Canada's attention.

Milwaukee Bucks- Giannis and Jabari are great pieces but the number one pick gives the Bucks more chance of making basketball great again in Milwaukee.

Orlando Magic- The East needed another team making a push and with a fresh face as coach the league didn't want the Magic to fall from last seasons improvements.

Utah Jazz - The Jazz have just missed the Playoffs two years in a row and the NBA wanted to push them into the eight and add a new team into the playoffs.

Chicago Bulls- Chicago is one of the largest markets for basketball and they needed to give it new life after missing the Playoffs for the first time in eight years.

[Groundhog]

I don't have any vested interest outside in hoping the Sixers fall to 4th. Having said that, as an Aussie I hope Simmons ends up in Boston.

[MrBug708]

Lakers keep their pick!

[wustin]

Sixers will use reverse psychology to avoid the headcase Simmons and pick the sure thing in Ingram. Lakers take Simmons and Luke Walton molds him into an athletic Draymond Green clone.

Ingram ends up shitting the bed somehow because that happens when you get drafted by the Sixers.

[Groundhog]

Welp, so much for that.

I think/hope Sixers go Ingram at #1, which would kind of make sense as Simmons/Saric seem to overlap, while Ingram is an obvious SF.

[nol]

1 and Okafor for 2 and Russell - who says no to that?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by stevew

Draft lottery is tonight. Get your conspiracy theories ready.

Dikembe Mutombo Deletes Tweet Congratulating 76ers On Winning NBA Draft Lottery

Sixers Claim That Dikembe Mutombo Didn't Reveal A Grand NBA Draft Conspiracy

[Atocep]

I think the Sixers go Simmons without question.

In that case, I see the Lakers shopping the #2 pick to see what kind of offers they get.

Murray to Boston seems like a no-brainer.

It gets interesting starting at Phoenix.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Dikembe Mutombo Deletes Tweet Congratulating 76ers On Winning NBA Draft Lottery

Sixers Claim That Dikembe Mutombo Didn't Reveal A Grand NBA Draft Conspiracy

Adam Silver (stroking hairless cat): Well, another season of running the NBA for evil is nearly over. Nice job fixing that Thunder game last night, by the way. Now are all the plans for fixing the draft lottery for the Sixers again in place?
Adam Silver's lackey: Yes Sir. The fans are in the dark once again
Adam Silver (puffs on cigar, blows it in orphans face, laughs megalomanically): Excellent. I love being me.
Adam Silver's lackey: My God - I've just realized we nearly screwed up. We forgot to send the plans for the draft fix to completely unconnected ex-NBA player Dikembe Mutumbo. I can't believe we'd nearly forget that part. I'll get right on that

AKA conspiracy theorists are cute

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think the Sixers go Simmons without question.

In that case, I see the Lakers shopping the #2 pick to see what kind of offers they get.

Murray to Boston seems like a no-brainer.

It gets interesting starting at Phoenix.

It's a bit of a crapshoot after the top 2, but I'd be surprised if the Celtics don't go with Bender.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by nol

1 and Okafor for 2 and Russell - who says no to that?

Without looking at free agents, I'll still say the lakers. I can see the lakers throwing way too much at Whiteside this off season.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It's a bit of a crapshoot after the top 2, but I'd be surprised if the Celtics don't go with Bender.

I'm thinking Murray for the Celtics simply because they're one of the NBA's most analytical teams and stat projections have Murray as a strong number 3 pick (closer to Ingram at 2 than Ingram is to Simmons). I've also read that Bender's stock has been dropping recently.

[stevew]

The Lakers still owe the magic a first rounder from the Dwight Howard trade? Crazy.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm thinking Murray for the Celtics simply because they're one of the NBA's most analytical teams and stat projections have Murray as a strong number 3 pick (closer to Ingram at 2 than Ingram is to Simmons). I've also read that Bender's stock has been dropping recently.

I'd say there is more of a chance the pick is traded than used to pick someone besides Bender. Not sure what Bender could have done to cause his stock to drop recently if he was staying at #3 despite only playing 10 minutes per game.

[wustin]

Yeah that 3rd pick is probably going to be traded. Either trade down or trade the pick and a player for someone good.

[Groundhog]

With all their off-court issues both Okafor and Russell are probably get-able for Boston if they wanted to go that way. Under the right coach both are probably better (or safer) than Bender, who I think of as a boom/bust high volatility player, to use the FOF terminology. .

Would work out pretty well for the Sixers - grab Simmons or Ingram at #1, clear out some of the logjam inside, and finally draft a top-5 prospect at guard - assuming they don't once again draft a big in Bender, that is...

[stevew]

Boston still gets a swap next year and the Nets in 2018. I'm fairly certain we all thought it was a horrible trade at the time but now it rivals some of the worst trades I saw in JumpShot Basketball leagues I was a part of. It's flat out awful and rivals any trade Ted Stepien made.

It's so awful a rule change might have merit, tbh

[nol]

Originally Posted by stevew

Boston still gets a swap next year and the Nets in 2018. I'm fairly certain we all thought it was a horrible trade at the time but now it rivals some of the worst trades I saw in JumpShot Basketball leagues I was a part of. It's flat out awful and rivals any trade Ted Stepien made.

It's so awful a rule change might have merit, tbh

But the Nets made the playoffs with Pierce, Garnett, and Gerald Wallace (who they traded for Damian Lillard) on the team, so it was all worth it. The resounding success of those competitive playoff seasons combined with the dynamic star power those big names provided allowed the Nets to build a dedicated, loyal fanbase in Brooklyn. Everyone knows that's how you do things in the NBA because if LeBron and Wade had both gotten injured the Nets might have made the Eastern Conference Finals one of those years.

[Groundhog]

Yeah, you're reaching again. There exists a world between two extremes. It was an idiotic trade back when it went down, and it remains so.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Yeah, you're reaching again. There exists a world between two extremes. It was an idiotic trade back when it went down, and it remains so.

Then how come the only teams in recent years with results that look to be any better than "get crapped on in the playoffs once and then go back to being a lottery team the following season" happen to be the two teams that traded washed-up veterans for all of the first round picks Brooklyn could possibly give away?

[Groundhog]

Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. That's definitely been one of the better ways to succeed historically - take advantage of another team's idiocy via one-sided trades. Again, it's not all extremes - trying to put a competitive team on the court and make the playoffs is not the same thing as doing what Brooklyn did, which was to completely sacrifice their future and cap flexibility to put together a team that never even looked like a legitimate contender on paper.

Portland is one of the teams you are referring to, and should they have tanked this year? Their 2016 pick was lottery protected, Aldridge leaves, they make the playoffs still, and lose in the 2nd round. No high lottery pick (or any 1st rounder at all) to team up with Lillard next year, so I guess this season was a disaster?

[jbergey22]

Just had to glance at who the wolves might take at #5 and I must say this draft seems extremely weak.

I like Dunn a lot but I cant think of too many past drafts he would be considered top 5. This draft also lacks a an All-Star potential big. Id have to say Murray in the top 5 seems like reaching also. Maybe just being overly pessimistic.

It would be a good year to trade down IMO.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by nol

Then how come the only teams in recent years with results that look to be any better than "get crapped on in the playoffs once and then go back to being a lottery team the following season" happen to be the two teams that traded washed-up veterans for all of the first round picks Brooklyn could possibly give away?

I know this may sound crazy but those trades were for more than "basketball reasons". The Nets were trying to make an impact on a fan base which had been ignored by the "Mecca of Basketball" for 30 years. They went out of their way to try to establish themselves as a winner to the city both on and off the court. They mortgaged the future to win now (because you can't lose in New York as the new kid on the block.) while also rebranding themselves as the hip thing (went to black/white logo, paraded Jay-Z and his 1/6 of 1% around like he was Mark Cuban to the New York/rap/hip hop market.) Remember when everyone was sporting Nets shit for a minute. Now you can't find anything because they were all about the short term.

The Wallace trade helped turn a 22 win team the year before into a 49 win team the next season while firing Avery Johnson early on. So Billy took a 49 win team led by PJ Carlesimo and thought he could get a new coach with new vet players and be better the next season. He went for it but ignored the impact PJ had on the team and hired Kidd with 0 experience to get KG to waive his no trade clause. If King would have stuck with the original deal just for PP and kept PJ... the million dollar question. But still after all that the Nets were in the 2nd round with Kidd as the head coach and got beat by the Heatles (then fired Kidd after one season).

So the Nets have had 5 different head coaches in the 4 years in Brooklyn and a GM who traded away all their picks trying to win now but not retain a coach. Best of luck Kenny Atkinson.

[nol]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

I know this may sound crazy but those trades were for more than "basketball reasons". The Nets were trying to make an impact on a fan base which had been ignored by the "Mecca of Basketball" for 30 years. They went out of their way to try to establish themselves as a winner to the city both on and off the court. They mortgaged the future to win now (because you can't lose in New York as the new kid on the block.) while also rebranding themselves as the hip thing (went to black/white logo, paraded Jay-Z and his 1/6 of 1% around like he was Mark Cuban to the New York/rap/hip hop market.) Remember when everyone was sporting Nets shit for a minute. Now you can't find anything because they were all about the short term.

But if, as concern trolls like to point out, having bad seasons permanently kills fan enthusiasm, it's pretty funny to note that the Nets were one spot ahead of the 76ers in average attendance and had the worst local TV ratings in the league this year (Brooklyn even won twice as many games!). They just made the playoffs the last three seasons, which by your logic would have built up an army of loyal Nets fans for life who would still support the team through tough times. How much merchandise do you think would actually have to be sold to offset the cost of fielding a team that traded away as many first round picks as possible, was in the luxury tax with either the the highest or 2nd-highest payroll in the league in each of the first three seasons in Brooklyn, and topped out winning one game in the conference semifinals?

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. That's definitely been one of the better ways to succeed historically - take advantage of another team's idiocy via one-sided trades. Again, it's not all extremes - trying to put a competitive team on the court and make the playoffs is not the same thing as doing what Brooklyn did, which was to completely sacrifice their future and cap flexibility to put together a team that never even looked like a legitimate contender on paper.

Because Brooklyn went far beyond run-of-the mill idiocy, and there are only so many teams that can benefit from it at the Nets' expense; the only comparable run of idiocy in recent NBA history was what Philadelphia did before Hinkie. With that said, the next most one-sided trade in recent memory was what Philadelphia got from Sacramento for nothing last summer, but I suppose not putting more effort into winning 20-25 games this season (and in doing so handing the team that owes you a protected first-round pick the best chance at the no. 1 overall selection) to end up with the 3rd pick completely invalidates that.

You can make regular stupid decisions, and when your team is inevitably terrible because of them you at least get a high draft pick and some hope. You really have to be going above and beyond to have a bad team in the present and have multiple future first rounders traded away.

Portland is one of the teams you are referring to, and should they have tanked this year? Their 2016 pick was lottery protected, Aldridge leaves, they make the playoffs still, and lose in the 2nd round. No high lottery pick (or any 1st rounder at all) to team up with Lillard next year, so I guess this season was a disaster?

This is kind of the point. Every young-ish team that plays far above expectations in a single season is automatically anointed as a success story by people desperately grasping a straws and treated as though it is on the cusp of being a perennial powerhouse, when all of them end up regressing. Portland won the same number of games this year as Oklahoma City did last year despite being decimated by injuries (I'm sure Russell Westbrook would have been good enough to beat a Clippers team minus Griffin and Paul by himself had he been given the opportunity), but outside circumstances got one team to the 5th seed and the second round of the playoffs and the other team to the lottery.

So if Portland doesn't land a big free agent and gets passed up by teams like Minnesota and Utah, I can guarantee that people will look upon this season much less fondly than they are in the immediate afterglow of the fluke second round appearance. I mean, there are quite a few teams watching Golden State against the Thunder right now and saying that if they'd been in Portland's place and gotten to play the Clippers minus Paul and Griffin and the Warriors minus Curry for 3 games, they could be in the conference finals right now.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Just had to glance at who the wolves might take at #5 and I must say this draft seems extremely weak.

I like Dunn a lot but I cant think of too many past drafts he would be considered top 5. This draft also lacks a an All-Star potential big. Id have to say Murray in the top 5 seems like reaching also. Maybe just being overly pessimistic.

It would be a good year to trade down IMO.

Except everyone else also knows the draft is weak and is not going to want to trade up when you could get a guy in the 20s who might not be much worse than the 5th pick. I was going to say to Atocep that I would be wary of any stat-based model that so highly ranks a player who's supposed to be a combo guard but had more turnovers than assists and didn't do much in the way of blocks and steals (much less the eye test) to suggest he'd become a decent defender, but then I was reminded what everyone else's stats looked like.

[wustin]

All the decent point guards are going to be drafted early.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anybody know, just so there's a benchmark ... what draft class had the fewest number of players make an opening day NBA roster?

This coming season might compete.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody know, just so there's a benchmark ... what draft class had the fewest number of players make an opening day NBA roster?

This coming season might compete.

Technically the lockout of 1998.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wustin

Technically the lockout of 1998.

#smdh

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody know, just so there's a benchmark ... what draft class had the fewest number of players make an opening day NBA roster?

This coming season might compete.

That's not really the weak part of this draft class as much as the fact that once you get to 4 or so you're already at the point of hoping the player you get can develop into a solid starter/rotation player. There will be players drafted in the 40-50 range who some teams will have rated more highly than other teams' lottery picks (and I mean beyond the standard "We had this guy really high on our board" BS that every team says on draft day) and will have about the same amount of appeal as do the players who are drafted in that range most years.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by nol

the only comparable run of idiocy in recent NBA history was what Philadelphia did before Hinkie

Gee, wonder what the common link is there...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

so I guess this season was a disaster?

Every season is a disaster unless you win the championship or the lottery. That's the NBA in 2016.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

That's not really the weak part of this draft class as much as the fact that once you get to 4 or so you're already at the point of hoping the player you get can develop into a solid starter/rotation player. There will be players drafted in the 40-50 range who some teams will have rated more highly than other teams' lottery picks (and I mean beyond the standard "We had this guy really high on our board" BS that every team says on draft day) and will have about the same amount of appeal as do the players who are drafted in that range most years.

Well my comment was basically me suggesting the possibility that this class is actually even weaker than it's current impression. I look at the names & think "ya know, nearly any of these guys could end up cut ... or at least in D-League instead of on an actual roster". Moreso than I usually think that anyway.

[nol]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Gee, wonder what the common link is there...

That's the thing. I don't think anyone would be that surprised or calling for the GM's head if Brooklyn is still winning 20-25 games in 2018-19, and that's with the Nets not even having any incentive to lose and at least playing in a market big enough to always be mentioned as a destination for whichever disgruntled star player wants a change of scenery. When you've crapped the bed that badly in the years preceding it, how competitive do you really expect to be 2-3 seasons in?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well my comment was basically me suggesting the possibility that this class is actually even weaker than it's current impression. I look at the names & think "ya know, nearly any of these guys could end up cut ... or at least in D-League instead of on an actual roster". Moreso than I usually think that anyway.

Yeah, but those guys still end up on the roster on opening day because first round picks are so cheap and teams take a while to cut bait on a guy they selected. I mean, it could very well be the case that teams in the mid-late first round have more incentive than usual to stash an international player, but you can look back at any draft and see that even the first round picks who are awful from the jump are still going to be on the opening day roster and stick around for a couple years.

So the only thing keeping a first-rounder from being on the opening day roster is if the player is overseas (OKC had that weird deal with Josh Heustis a few years back where they drafted him 30th or so with the wink-wink acknowledgement that he'd go straight to the D-league his rookie year and not earn the rookie scale salary, which seemed to elicit 1 percent of the scorn the 76ers got for signing second round/undrafted guys to more money up front than late first rounders get in order to possibly secure them for four years at the same salary) because those contracts are guaranteed. I mean, you could go back to as recently as 2014 and it would not be hard to pick out a half dozen first rounders who have at most one or two more seasons of appearing in NBA, and all those guys were on their team's roster opening day.

Then when you get to the second round, and this is kind of tough to definitively say because there will be much more variability in the mock drafts than in most years and some of these guys may end up drafted in the first round, but I'd think there are enough players like Kay Felder or Patrick McCaw who'd have just as much chance of being on an opening day roster as your average second-round pick would (it's not like players such as Norman Powell or Jordan Clarkson were thought to be second-round steals who would definitely make the team). There were enough borderline underclassmen who decided to leave because next year's draft is stronger that the second round of the draft will be pretty "deep" considering the lack of star power at the top of it.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by nol

But if, as concern trolls like to point out, having bad seasons permanently kills fan enthusiasm, it's pretty funny to note that the Nets were one spot ahead of the 76ers in average attendance and had the worst local TV ratings in the league this year (Brooklyn even won twice as many games!). They just made the playoffs the last three seasons, which by your logic would have built up an army of loyal Nets fans for life who would still support the team through tough times. How much merchandise do you think would actually have to be sold to offset the cost of fielding a team that traded away as many first round picks as possible, was in the luxury tax with either the the highest or 2nd-highest payroll in the league in each of the first three seasons in Brooklyn, and topped out winning one game in the conference semifinals?

You act like trading 11 first round picks is easy... How King last 5 and a half year while doing it is simply amazing. And they still didn't fire him, Razumov just reassigned him with the Nets. The Russians took a gamble on big names thinking that's how you win and got busted for it.

I think Marks has 40 mill to play with this off-season (8th most?) but does anyone think that a good player wants to go there?

[nol]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

You act like trading 11 first round picks is easy... How King last 5 and a half year while doing it is simply amazing. And they still didn't fire him, Razumov just reassigned him with the Nets. The Russians took a gamble on big names thinking that's how you win and got busted for it.

A lot of things are pretty easy once you completely disregard future consequences. You could easily cover 100 meters faster than Usain Bolt by jumping from the top of the nearest skyscraper, and that doesn't require any special equipment or training.

If you throw three unprotected first round picks on the table because you absolutely have to make the playoffs in 2017, there are maybe 10 guys in the league you couldn't get so long as you aren't throwing some horrible long-term contract in to match salaries, and some of those 10 would be players like Towns who are valued more for potential and might not yet be ready to take a team to the playoffs as the main guy.

If the Nuggets offered Mudiay and a bunch of draft picks to the Rockets or Wizards for someone like Harden or John Wall, those teams would be stupid to turn that down, and on paper a 33-win team would be upgrading from a player who was arguably the least effective starter in the league last season to a bonafide All-Star. Harden/Harris/Gallinari/Faried/Jokic is a better lineup than anything Houston had this year. Any team in the league other than Brooklyn could get to 45-50 wins next year by trading every prospect and pick and not letting the luxury tax deter any excess spending.

[Chief Rum]

D'Antoni leading candidate for the Rockets?

Proof that some franchises/GMs do not and never will get it.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

D'Antoni leading candidate for the Rockets?

Proof that some franchises/GMs do not and never will get it.

Damn, Daryl Morey has gone between "getting it" and not "getting it" so many times over the past few years that I've lost count.

[Comey]

Reports are that this isn't his choice, that ownership wants him.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Comey

Reports are that this isn't his choice, that ownership wants him.

Then ownership is Jim Buss level stupid

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by nol

Damn, Daryl Morey has gone between "getting it" and not "getting it" so many times over the past few years that I've lost count.

He never really got it in my book.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

D'Antoni leading candidate for the Rockets?

Proof that some franchises/GMs do not and never will get it.

Hahahahahaha.

That means Pat Beverly is going to have a career season. Any point guard who has played under D'Antoni had inflated stats because of his system. Ironically the only point guard who underachieved IMO with D'antoni was Steve Nash. Could've easily averaged over 20PPG if he wanted to.

[nol]

Jeff Hornacek is about to be hired by the Knicks.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

He never really got it in my book.

So what are his 'not getting it' moments in your book? Last offseason the only significant move the Rockets made was trading for Ty Lawson. A lot of people thought that was going to put them on the same level as Golden State; I didn't, but it's not like they gave up a ton for Lawson.

You don't strike me as the type who thinks the Rockets should have majorly shaken things up following last season because in your eyes the Rockets probably were a team that showed much more grit than the Clippers in advancing to the Western finals (as opposed to being a team that was on its way to a rather unceremonious elimination until Corey Brewer and Josh Smith led a comeback by drilling a bunch of contested three-pointers in the fourth quarter of one game).

The offseason before that, everyone thought the sky was falling because Chris Bosh decided at the 11th hour to stay in Miami for a five year deal and the Rockets got outbid for Chandler Parsons (and then had a better team than the season before when they replaced him with a cheaper player in Trevor Ariza, but that seemed to get swept under the rug).

I'm not gonna go over every transaction back to 2006 or whenever (maybe you consider the Harden trade to be retroactively bad because Steven Adams is playing well now and Harden was out of shape at the start of the season?), but I was under the impression that consistently putting a competitive team without finishing near the bottom of the league is qualification for sainthood, let alone proof that one 'gets it' but YMMV.

Originally Posted by wustin

Hahahahahaha.

That means Pat Beverly is going to have a career season. Any point guard who has played under D'Antoni had inflated stats because of his system. Ironically the only point guard who underachieved IMO with D'antoni was Steve Nash. Could've easily averaged over 20PPG if he wanted to.

James Harden plays point guard on offense for the Rockets. Steve Nash is probably the most well-known, if not the only, example in NBA history of a player who improved rather than declined after age 30, which happened to be the first season D'Antoni coached him, so your definition of underachieving is pretty silly to say the least.

[Groundhog]

Yeah, but: No rings, consistently lose in the playoffs, no high lottery picks.

Grade: F