RealGM

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:43 am**

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.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:44 am**

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.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:49 am**

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

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:50 am**

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

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:53 am**

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.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:56 am**

no star offenses leads to better ball movement, but ball movement in itself doesn't guarantee a better offense because often times the ball ends up in players' hands who are less likely to make shots.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:57 am**

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.

The Cavs were a top 5 offensive team in Lebron's final 2 seasons.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:10 am**

This is very simple:

In order to win it all, you need to have a superstar player. Without one, you can't win it all.

A team without a star player that can move the ball well will always do better than a team with a star player who's also a chucker (see Kobe Bryant). None of those teams will win the chip, though.

Easy. You're welcome.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:41 am**

QueenzAllDay wrote:
fart wrote:
This is simply not true, look at the Pistons that won it in 04. Also, the Grizzles that were one game away from the WCF. neither of those teams had a "the man".

Pistons had exceptional players with great upside. They are like a rare exception to the rule because of how well the talent & coaches meshed.

I could argue Zach was playing out of his mind. He is the man for that team.

It can't just be conveniently ignored for sake of argument that the 04-05 Pistons had a top 1-2 (if not 1) defense. That kinda helps matters related to winning regardless of what kind of offensive structure they had. They could've feasilby had a "man" type of player (a Dumarsish level guy) and would've still won primarily due to their D.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:46 am**

A warning is coming at you for derailing this thread.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:47 am**

Tony Parker is the man on offense, I don't get it. He's the only Spur with multiple 30 point games, usually has the ball in the clutch, and averages 19.5ppg as well as running the offense. I'd say he's the focal point of the offense these days and has been for a few seasons

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:48 am**

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?

In your Bulls argument, the numbers disagree with you strongly. You may have caught a few national TV games where they looked really good but they have had lots of stinkers this season where they simply couldn't score points. Look up their offensive rating.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:36 am**

fart wrote: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?

Bulls have always moved the ball under Thibs. 2nd in the NBA in team assists during Rose's MVP year, 5th last year (12th this year btw).

Also, Derrick Rose makes your offense better.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:08 am**

fart wrote:I mean, how many times if ever this season has a single player on the Spurs attempted 20+ shot attempts?

It has happened 13 times in 11 games (one two occasions both TD and Parker had 20+ FGA in the same game)

link: http://bit.ly/Wfkbsv

not trying to make a point, just answering the question you posed.

god i love basketball-reference :rock:

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:14 am**

If you're using the Bulls as an example of offense being better without a star, then you're dead wrong.

Whilst we look crisp at times, it hurts us more than it benefits us.

The numbers back that up.

Im sure when Denver get bundled out of the playoffs, we will have a thread about how they need a go to man, rather than a balanced team without a man.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:30 am**

rockmanslim wrote:
fart wrote:I mean, how many times if ever this season has a single player on the Spurs attempted 20+ shot attempts?

It has happened 13 times in 11 games (one two occasions both TD and Parker had 20+ FGA in the same game)

link: http://bit.ly/Wfkbsv

not trying to make a point, just answering the question you posed.

god i love basketball-reference

Here it is for all teams, in descending order (number of times a player on each team has had 20+ FGA), along with ORtg ranking and PTS/G ranking:

Code: Select all

          ORtg   PTS/G   
          rank   rank   
NYK   36    2      8
OKC   36    1      1
LAL   28    8      5
MIL   25   25     14
MIA   24    3      6
CLE   19   22     21
GSW   16   11      9
POR   16   15     15
PHI   13   28     27
SAS   13    5      3
CHI   12   20     25

Code: Select all

MEM   12   19     28
BRK   11    7     16
CHA   11   26     22
HOU   11    9      2
NOH   10   14     26
ORL   10   21     20
ATL   8    18     17
BOS   8    27     23
IND   8    29     29
TOR   8    12     12
DEN   7     6      4
MIN   7    23     24
DAL   6    17     10

Code: Select all

LAC   6     4      7
SAC   6    13     13
WAS   6    30     30
DET   5    16     19
UTA   5    10     11
PHO   4    24     18

20+ FGA games source: http://bit.ly/10Rg9uN
ORtg source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ml#misc::8
PTS/G source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... l#team::22

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:42 am**

New York, Oklahoma City, and the Lakers topping that list makes sense, they all have high volume scorers.

Miami having fewer 20 FGA games makes sense considering they're better when Wade and Bosh play as 1a and 1b. Milwaukee starts two chuckers in the backcourt.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:10 pm**

Houston's offense without Harden would be a total disaster.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:18 pm**

Antrim wrote:This is very simple:

In order to win it all, you need to have a superstar player. Without one, you can't win it all.

A team without a star player that can move the ball well will always do better than a team with a star player who's also a chucker (see Kobe Bryant). None of those teams will win the chip, though.

Easy. You're welcome.

who exactly was 2004 Pistons superstar?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:23 pm**

Baiting LA fans.

RealGM

Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.

Re: Teams without "the man" are better on offense.