RealGM

fart wrote:^^

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/ ... /avgPoints
3rd and 4th in ppg are Spurs and Nuggets.

That's nice?

Doesn't take away the fact that the top four teams by total offensive rating are led by Durant, Paul, LeBron and Carmelo.

Watch a bulls game that isn't against the Lakers defense, then you won't be saying it. They're not as good offensively without rose, and statistics show this. (look at the Bulls FG% this year compared with last year and 2011).

I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

Same thing for golden state, they have 5 guys in double figures.

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that if you take CP3 away from that team they'd fall apart. You could certainly argue it under those conditions.

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

They're very deep, but they also have the best PG in basketball, who can get any shot he wants and get to any spot he wants on the floor. You're attempting to suggest that doesn't make a difference, which is ludicrous.

Starting to wonder if you're trolling or something.

Watch the Sixers, the we argue.

Clyde Frazier wrote:

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

They're very deep, but they also have the best PG in basketball, who can get any shot he wants and get to any spot he wants on the floor. You're attempting to suggest that doesn't make a difference, which is ludicrous.

Starting to wonder if you're trolling or something.

Agreed. Shot attempts aren't the only way to measure whether or not a player is "the man" on their respective team. A better way to measure is how reliant that team is on that player. The Clippers are very reliant on CP3's ability as a floor general and playmaker.

Is Houston better with Afflalo then Harden? Are those mid 2000s Lakers better with Afflalo then Kobe? Teams that have 2-3 good/great scorers are obviously going to be better then teams with 1 really great scorer but if you don't have those 2-3 guys you are much better with the top guy.

Notas A3 wrote:Watch the Sixers, the we argue.

Sixers prove my point. They think Holiday is their "the man". instead of swinging the ball they expect him to create everything.

Spurs and Nuggets take the number 1 and number 2 amount of shots per game too,
Number 1 and 3 in opponent shot attempts.
They're numbers 3 and 4 in pace, they should be scoring a lot.

So OP point gets repeatedly disproven, he ignores it, then harps on mediocre players who can't lead elite offenses.

No, Monta Ellis can't make you the #1 offense, but Durant can, Paul can, LeBron can. Those guys are "the man".

fart wrote:So a lot of teams have a go to player that is supposed to create the offense for himself and take a lot of shots, but I've found teams made up of a bunch of good role players that move the ball until they get the best shot are better offensively than teams that have a "the man" who usually stops ball movement when he catches the ball and takes it upon himself to create an offensive possession instead of just swinging the ball. I think the Nuggets are a prime example of this, with Carmelo gone, they just swing the ball until someone gets a great look and takes it as opposed to giving the ball to Melo and allowing him to shoot tough shots. Weren't the Nuggets one of the top offensive teams last season? I also believe this is the case for the Bulls. I think their offense flows much better without their "the man", Derrick Rose. Bulls are just a bunch of good role players that keep swinging the ball until they get an open shot. What are your thoughts on this matter?

stop it.

Sinant wrote:So OP point gets repeatedly disproven, he ignores it, then harps on mediocre players who can't lead elite offenses.

No, Monta Ellis can't make you the #1 offense, but Durant can, Paul can, LeBron can. Those guys are "the man".

This is where you are wrong. how many times were Paul's Hornets an offensive juggernaut? Never, but when he moved to a team with good role players like the Clippers and they started swinging the ball, it became a top offense. Same can be said about Lebron's Cavs.

fart wrote:

Optms wrote:Duncan led the Spurs to 4 championships. Are you arguing that the Spurs are better now because they move the ball more and don't have a real focal point on offense?

Go look at the amount of points those teams scored and compare it to the amount of points the Spurs score now.

Yeah, they've become a better more efficient offensive team. But this style of play won't benefit them in the playoffs when the game typically slows down and the defenses tighten.

Having an efficient offense doesn't make a team better in the long run if they don't have that one player that can change the outcome of a series in a 7 game format.

Optms wrote:

fart wrote:

Optms wrote:Duncan led the Spurs to 4 championships. Are you arguing that the Spurs are better now because they move the ball more and don't have a real focal point on offense?

Go look at the amount of points those teams scored and compare it to the amount of points the Spurs score now.

Yeah, they've become a better more efficient offensive team. But this style of play won't benefit them in the playoffs when the game typically slows down and the defenses tighten.

Having an efficient offense doesn't make a team better in the long run if they don't have that one player that can change the outcome of a series in a 7 game format.

Agreed, but that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that solid players that swing the ball on every possession and get great shots will score more points than a team like the Bulls with Rose controlling the ball the majority of the game.

fart wrote:

Sinant wrote:So OP point gets repeatedly disproven, he ignores it, then harps on mediocre players who can't lead elite offenses.

No, Monta Ellis can't make you the #1 offense, but Durant can, Paul can, LeBron can. Those guys are "the man".

This is where you are wrong. how many times were Paul's Hornets an offensive juggernaut? Never, but when he moved to a team with good role players like the Clippers and they started swinging the ball, it became a top offense. Same can be said about Lebron's Cavs.

In 2007-2008, the Hornets had the 5th ranked offense and had a better offensive rating than the Clippers have this season. That team would be 2nd in the NBA right now only behind OKC.

Players that dominate an offense aren't necessarily bad. A player like Kobe, Rose, or Melo help their teams because they post above average efficiency numbers, while Monta Ellis or Rudy Gay hurt their teams because their efficiency is poor. It's all about being efficient.

Also, when it's time for the playoffs, defenses tighten up, and all of the players are scouted in great detail. Balanced and deep teams do great in the regular season, but struggle in the playoffs because of this. It's harder to create quality looks in playoff environments, and that is where talented players have to essentially carry the offensive load. That's why the top players are always playing deep into the playoffs and teams like the Nuggets are early exits.

Teams without The Man, all struggle on offense in late-game situations. I think this is a fact. All that ball movement can't make up for a scorer that can create his own shot. PEACE.

Also, LeBron's Cavs in 09 were 4th in the league in ORTG, only .5 points below this year's Thunder.

its been proven already that you're wrong.

bulls 1st year under thibs - http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/year/2011
bulls 2nd year under thibs - http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/year/2012
current year thus far(life w/o rose) - http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats

fart wrote:I could also argue that Clippers don't have a "the man" as none of their players average over 18ppg and they have 8 players averaging 7 ppg or better.

Same thing for golden state, they have 5 guys in double figures.

It appears that you are missing a definition of what most consider to be "the man" the spurs do not even come close to fitting the description of a team without the man, similar to the celtics of the last 5 years they have multiple guys who can get it done.