doclinkin wrote: I have been of the mind that the small ball era was due to change. We saw some of that in the bubble championship.
Did we? The finals featured one team in the top ten in 3P attempts (Miami, tied for 9th) and one in the bottom 10 (LA came in at 20th). One team was above average in team height (Miami actually) while the Lakers had the 8th shortest in aggregate (which might misrepresent functional height on the floor with LeBron and AD centerstage). In any event, no clear repudiation here.
doclinkin wrote:...My belief has been that in an era of 3fg chucking, the value of defensive rebounding increases.
Both finals teams were in the top ten in total rebounding % and defensive rebounding %. Both measures do correlate with team success on the year based on an eyeball test. That's obviously not a radical notion and the Wizards were certainly a bottom dweller by rebounding metrics.
doclinkin wrote:3pt shots are a lower percentage shot with a high variance. Meaning there are more missed shots, more attempts. They are streaky. This means are more missed possessions and more missed shots available.
Not particularly measurably true (the more attempts thing is true but as a product of changes in league average pace). Three point attempts have increased in each of the last nine seasons, pace in each of the last seven. Prior to this year, however, the league average FG% had improved in each of the last four years (in 2019 down 1% from 2018). Pace is driving rebounding numbers - the league was, in general, significantly faster the last two years.
doclinkin wrote:...To my way of thinking, the team that loads up on players who rebound at all positions (considering there are long bounces) and who scores well on the interior (at a %50 or greater clip)...
Almost every team in the league shot better than 50% on twos in 2019 (Washington included, if barely). Teams that converted twos well did tend to be successful, but that's hardly surprising - that's part of being a strong offensive team. Milwaukee was very good at converting twos (league best in fact - 56.3%). So was Houston, actually - third in the league at 55.3%. We can come back to this.
doclinkin wrote:can control the number of possessions and squeeze out the streakier long ball teams.
"Control" doesn't mean limit per se, but in the context of a paean to rebounding and interior scoring I'll assume it is intended to here. Milwaukee played at the highest pace in the league last year, Houston is a less surprising second. The Lakers, second in 2P%, were also above average in pace, albeit barely at 12th in the league. Dallas is the exemplar of the grind-it-out model - 18th in pace and 4th in 2P%. If these teams do exert control over pace, they're often flooring it.
doclinkin wrote: ...and the 3fg bombers do not have enough opportunity to catch fire.
Nothing very weighty to break in with here but wouldn't this make results more random for both teams rather than inherently better for one paradigm?
doclinkin wrote:...then the Bucks under coach Bud started winning every regular season by dominating the rebounding game...
The Bucks do indeed rebound well (see above). The thing is, they also shoot a lot of threes (38.7 a game, 4th most in the league - note that they took more than last year but still fell in the relative league rankings from 2nd most in 2018). Everyone on the roster who played at least 20 mpg attempted at least three per game. Also they were an elite defensive team. The Bucks won a lot because they were generally better than their opponents across a variety of facets of the game.
Anyway, I think the thesis that's being supported here is that teams that are good at the core facets of the game win more. The Wizards are not and have not, and I suppose, therefore, that whatever the operating norms of the team have been merit skepticism. I agree that some of the players you regret missing out on (Tillman) would have been valuable assets. I don't agree that paradigmatically Advija is out of sorts with working towards an effective end product.