payitforward wrote:John Wall was -- & let's hope he will be again -- a terrific player. No doubt about it. But, sorry, there is no such thing as the John Wall effect.
Been argued ad nauseum half a decade ago, but feel free to time travel back and argue with WizKev and all.
https://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/8/27/4662250/john-wall-effect-washington-wizards-shootingYou could theoretically argue that the WIzards were the league's most proficient corner three-point shooting team. The Wizards hit 45.7 percent of their corner three-pointers last year, which was percentage points behind the Golden State Warriors for second in the entire league. Better than the Spurs, better than the Heat, better than other bombs-away squads like the Clippers and Knicks. But they did it while shooting 128 more shots from that spot than the Warriors, so they were getting more mileage out of their corner three-point shooting.
This is one area where it's clear that John Wall Effect exists. In 2011-12, Wall led the league with 77 assists for corner three-pointers, which accounted for nearly 15 percent of his total assists. This year, he had 70 assists for corner three-pointers in just 49 games, which accounted for nearly 19 percent of his total assists. (Here's some film work from January explaining how he does it). That's an absurd percentage. There's nobody better in the league at creating corner three-point shots.
As for the rest. Are you really trying to argue Chris Paul doesn't improve the quality of play around him?
Curious. Walking through Basketball Reference, it looks to me that every team he goes to takes a jump in eFG%. Is it your contention that this bump is solely due to CP3's own scoring? To be clear, it sounds like you are saying the only stats that matter for PG play is their own contribution in personal stats. That a good PG does not in fact help the players around them score more efficiently. I'd love to see a study that dives into that.
Assists are for sure a messy stat, arbitrary and influenced by home bias. And redundant in that they measure the cleaner stat called 'points'. But still, if you look at Catch and Shoot stats, and Undefended shots, you can tease out the effects of a good PG. Teams who have a proficient passer as the lead ballhandler do see an uptick in shots rated as open (defender further than 6 feet away). Not sure why this should be a contentious point in the context of your praising the addition of 2 players at the PG spot. Perhaps in your conception of the game, the idea of a PG position is nonsense, like the 'eye test', where it is not a necessary role at all, but just a relic of tradition that people hang onto out of habit.
I actually think the set-up role of PGs is due for a comeback in value. My sense is now with defenders able to crowd the dribble without fear of a whistle, skilled ballhandlers will become coveted (as will tall passers). Post entry passes to a high percentage scorer in the paint will become a more efficient play than expecting your combo guard to break down his man off the dribble and force his own offense. Lanes will still exist to drive for teams who have 3 or more skilled shooters on the court at all times, but otherwise I anticipate a renaissance for tall strong guards (6'6" and up) and players who can finish through contact. The guy who can get the ball to them through traffic becomes a more important asset by extension.
But to pull it back to the thread topic. Watching both Wright and Monte in these games did inspire confidence. Loved seeing Delon force Curry to give the ball up a few times, and dribble off his foot once. Monte scored better than he set the table for his teammates, but you could see the timing start to develop.
