Here's his thesis:
The Portland offense features a core group of performers who band together to produce a unified value worth far more than the sum of their individual parts. The Blazers remain one of the only teams left in the league to feature five starting players who clearly fit the old Wooden taxonomy of basketball positions. As a result, the team plays with a seamless flow and intelligent spacing. They consistently create shots for one another, in turn making each other look and play better. The five starters blend together to create perhaps the most balanced offensive attack in the NBA.
The best part of the article is this visual breakdown:
I've long argued against the "old Wooden taxonomy of basketball positions." This article, and the Blazers this season in general, had me questioning that stance. But it turns out, Goldsberry's article is fundamentally flawed because...the Blazers starters just aren't actually all that good. He wrote the article about the wrong team: he should have written it about the Suns.
Since January 1 the Blazers starters have an Offensive Rating of 106.4 and a Net Rating of +0.4, average and average for a go-to unit. After a blistering start, and despite keeping everyone healthy...they're just not that special. Part of Goldsberry's argument was that they've done this without stars, but they had two all-stars this year, and Aldridge is a 3-timer now.
The Suns current starters (Dragic-Green-Tucker-Frye-Plumlee)? No all-stars, brand new cast of characters, major injury disruption mid-season, now starting zero players in the ESPN player ranking top 100 and only one in the top 250: Offensive Rating of 114.8 and a Net Rating of +7.5.
114.8 to 106.4 is a bloody beatdown when you're playing big minutes like these two groups. Blazers starters average ranking per ESPN? 74.4. Suns? 298.6. So the Suns basically average deep-bench material, while the Blazers field a complete crew of legitimate starters.
By the ESPN ratings, and by common perception, the Suns don't have the advantage at a single position. (By ESPN rank they're not even within 75 points at any position.) So what possible advantage do the Suns have?
Precisely that they DON'T "clearly fit the old Wooden taxonomy of basketball positions." Their advantage is spacing. Take that picture above, and add another 3-point shooter in the 4th slot. Up goes the 3-point rate, up go the points in the paint, up goes the True Shooting %, and up goes the offensive efficiency.
Wooden was brilliant. But he won all of his 10 NCAA championships before the 3-point line existed.
