current/Peak Doncic vs Peak Nowitzki (brought to you by Jason Kidd)

[tsherkin]

I was more so building upon OhayoKD's point around helios being better. I could be misunderstanding him, but I believe his thinking is that Lebron, Magic, and Nash guys are examples that helio offense is more impressive than what we have seen. A rebuttal of Lebron and Nash might be some of their teams were more offensively slanted and thus lesser than non-helio guys.

My reply to OhayoKD was in response to this statement:

"But Helios are the most proven offensive archetype in terms of

A. Generating top-level results"

When I look at the "top-level results" in NBA history, I see very few built around heliocentric offensive stars (just Magic imo).

I don't see an answer to which archetype is 'better'. I don't believe player archetypes are inherently better than one another, they describe the shape of a players impact, not the volume of impact.

Right, but knowing OhayoKD, my impression was that he speaking at the highest peak of offensive results, thus Nash, Magic, and Lebron. Probably too many assumptions on my part.

Was Magic really helio? Can you be helio taking >14.9 FGA/g once in your career and never shooting over 16.4/g in a season? Helio to me is a Harden/Lebron/Luka type who is a major volume scirer.

Magic shared just fine with Kareem and Worthy and B Scott. He didnt dominate every possession.

[eminence]

I was more so building upon OhayoKD's point around helios being better. I could be misunderstanding him, but I believe his thinking is that Lebron, Magic, and Nash guys are examples that helio offense is more impressive than what we have seen. A rebuttal of Lebron and Nash might be some of their teams were more offensively slanted and thus lesser than non-helio guys.

My reply to OhayoKD was in response to this statement:

"But Helios are the most proven offensive archetype in terms of

A. Generating top-level results"

When I look at the "top-level results" in NBA history, I see very few built around heliocentric offensive stars (just Magic imo).

I don't see an answer to which archetype is 'better'. I don't believe player archetypes are inherently better than one another, they describe the shape of a players impact, not the volume of impact.

Right, but knowing OhayoKD, my impression was that he speaking at the highest peak of offensive results, thus Nash, Magic, and Lebron. Probably too many assumptions on my part.

I feel I understand KD's position well enough, and agree with your reading of it.

My opposing position is that a pure list of relative offensive ratings doesn't give the best list of the best offenses, though the teams on it certainly won't be bad offenses.

The best approach in my view is balancing offensive ratings and net ratings in ones assessment (no I don't know the perfect balance). The goal of the game is not to maximize Ortg, but to maximize Net rating. Well actually win%, but similar enough to not matter much.

As an example, the '04 Mavs becoming significantly worse overall but managing another +2 pts of relative offensive rating does not give the '04 Mavs a better 'top-level result' than the '03 Mavs.

'03: +7.1 O/-1.3 D
'04: +9.1 O/+4.5 D

All this of course is just my opinion.