RealGM

falcolombardi wrote:sometimes i have wondered if aesthetic preference may influence what we consider optimal offensive basketball even if subtly

most people in the world prefer to watch a motion offense than a heliocentric one and that may (or may not) have some effect

i like helio offenses (depensing on how much much i like watching the Helio player in question) so i worry i may have the opposite issue and be biased towards "defending" heliocentrism as so many of my favorite players fit thst mold (paul, lebron, westbrook) and i sometimes feel get a unfair handicap because of it when people evaluate their impact

is like when i argue for a player i like more vs a player i like less, i have the worry in the back of my mind of how much my bias is influencing what i look at

so is possible that a majority or at least a big plurality of people want "motion ball" to be proven superior over "helio ball" because is more enjoyable, because is more about teamwork over individual ?

cause that is how i remember a lot of the hype and build up to warriors vs rockets in 2018

it seemed almost a war of ideologies: a duel of styles more than teams

the ultimate (kinda) helio/star/iso/foulhunt team of rockets vs the ultimate (kinda) motion/team work/ "joyball" warriors (2016 was a better example)

lots of emotional investment as so many people were worried rockets ball would become the way of the future after how they took the league by storm in comparable fashion to curry and warriors 2 years earlier (honestly rockets vs warriors may be one of the most important series in basketball history or at least it felt like it at the time)

then somethingh similar happened in 2020 (again with rockets lmao) with rockets microball vs lakers Bully ball (at least in hype, the actual series was a murder) as people worried the succes of the rockets would kill traditional centers and interior play for good, the amount of legitimate dread people had over the possibility of 2020 rockets succeding was somethingh i had never seen

so basically after all this tangent i went on, how do we account for our aesthetical biases clouding what we consider óptimal basketball theorically ?

falcolombardi wrote:so basically after all this tangent i went on, how do we account for our aesthetical biases clouding what we consider óptimal basketball theorically ?

tone wone wrote:
Of course this stuff is largely based on personal preference. The Warriors get off to a hot start and suddenly we're transported back to 2016 having arguments on the merits of LeBron as offensive anchor and opining for everyone star to run around in circles all game like Steph. Its ridiculous.

did they not watch Golden State last season. Or did that not count????

Colbinii wrote:

tone wone wrote:
Of course this stuff is largely based on personal preference. The Warriors get off to a hot start and suddenly we're transported back to 2016 having arguments on the merits of LeBron as offensive anchor and opining for everyone star to run around in circles all game like Steph. Its ridiculous.

did they not watch Golden State last season. Or did that not count????

Last year is a data point for the Motion Offense. Last year shows that the motion offense in extremely difficult to create at an NBA level. Every single player in the rotation needs to understand the nuances of the offense, which in itself makes it less resilient than heliocentric offenses as it has a much lower floor and is much more susceptible to injuries to role players.

This doesn't even touch on the fact the Warriors have the #1 defense. How much of that is because of their offense?

tone wone wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:sometimes i have wondered if aesthetic preference may influence what we consider optimal offensive basketball even if subtly

most people in the world prefer to watch a motion offense than a heliocentric one and that may (or may not) have some effect

i like helio offenses (depensing on how much much i like watching the Helio player in question) so i worry i may have the opposite issue and be biased towards "defending" heliocentrism as so many of my favorite players fit thst mold (paul, lebron, westbrook) and i sometimes feel get a unfair handicap because of it when people evaluate their impact

is like when i argue for a player i like more vs a player i like less, i have the worry in the back of my mind of how much my bias is influencing what i look at

so is possible that a majority or at least a big plurality of people want "motion ball" to be proven superior over "helio ball" because is more enjoyable, because is more about teamwork over individual ?

cause that is how i remember a lot of the hype and build up to warriors vs rockets in 2018

it seemed almost a war of ideologies: a duel of styles more than teams

the ultimate (kinda) helio/star/iso/foulhunt team of rockets vs the ultimate (kinda) motion/team work/ "joyball" warriors (2016 was a better example)

lots of emotional investment as so many people were worried rockets ball would become the way of the future after how they took the league by storm in comparable fashion to curry and warriors 2 years earlier (honestly rockets vs warriors may be one of the most important series in basketball history or at least it felt like it at the time)

then somethingh similar happened in 2020 (again with rockets lmao) with rockets microball vs lakers Bully ball (at least in hype, the actual series was a murder) as people worried the succes of the rockets would kill traditional centers and interior play for good, the amount of legitimate dread people had over the possibility of 2020 rockets succeding was somethingh i had never seen

so basically after all this tangent i went on, how do we account for our aesthetical biases clouding what we consider óptimal basketball theorically ?

Of course this stuff is largely based on personal preference. The Warriors get off to a hot start and suddenly we're transported back to 2016 having arguments on the merits of LeBron as offensive anchor and opining for everyone star to run around in circles all game like Steph. Its ridiculous.

did they not watch Golden State last season. Or did that not count????

Colbinii wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:If you're agreeing with me, great, if not, what point are you trying to make?

I wasn't trying to make a point as I was at work, didn't want to work, and wanted to mindlessly blabber into an abyss while taking a 15 minute break from work.

Doctor MJ wrote:

I agree, and Bosh was a better role player than any other role player LeBron has played with. Star players tend to figure things out and figure out how to win.

I disagree with the idea that this is just normal for stars to learn to do. History is littered with would-be super-teams that forever remain less than the sum of their parts, and we're talking about the Lakers right now because that's how they are right now.

Are you suggesting that it's only a matter of time before Westbrook figures out how to play with LeBron & AD and then they'll win championships? If so, well, I'd call that pretty bold.

Westbrook isn't a star. He isn't intelligent on the basketball court. He isn't moldable or diverse. He isn't someone you add to a team to make a team improve.

Westbrook is, without a doubt, the most difficult player to fit next to any championship aspiring team. We saw it in Houston and we see it now in LA.

If I were adding a player to a team of talent, both Kevin Love and Chris Bosh rank significantly higher than Russell Westbrook.

The only player remotely close to Westbrook that the Warriors attempted to acquire was D'Angelo Russell and they quickly shipped him out after realizing the mistake 10 games later.

Does it end all arguments pertaining to heliocentrism and motion offense? No.

Nope, but we have data points for Nash, Magic, Paul and Doncic-led offensives, all of which fall into the heliocentrism category, suggesting it has historically been easier to build around these players compared to the two comparable "Motion Offenses" led by Curry and Miller.

Obviously if Durant rips off a dynastic run in Brooklyn that will loom large over everything we're talking about.

However Durant doesn't represent an extreme style of team basketball like LeBron & Steph do. Partly that's because he's more of an individually-minded player. Partly that's because he's changed teams a couple of times and changed how he's played some when he's done that.

In that sense, if Durant ends up being seen as the best player of this age, it's effect will likely be to conclude that team strategy doesn't really matter, because in the end it's just about finding a good enough scorer. This will then further the argument from Jordanites that not only is the GOAT, but that it really didn't matter how the Bulls played when they won, because he'd have ended up winning regardless.

You're right but I personally hold the likes of "Player who creates the system" in higher regard than "Player who simply does his thing". The first group being the afformentioned names above (Magic, Nash, Miller, Curry, Paul, LeBron) and the latter being the Durants and Jordans of the world.

What I could be underrating is how Durant and Jordan can easily co-exist and operate in systems functioning around "Lesser players".

An interesting player here who I have a difficult time pegging into my own categories is Bird, as he happens to enhance the lesser systems but also scales well in the "Player driven systems" of the first group.

Doctor MJ wrote:

tone wone wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:sometimes i have wondered if aesthetic preference may influence what we consider optimal offensive basketball even if subtly

most people in the world prefer to watch a motion offense than a heliocentric one and that may (or may not) have some effect

i like helio offenses (depensing on how much much i like watching the Helio player in question) so i worry i may have the opposite issue and be biased towards "defending" heliocentrism as so many of my favorite players fit thst mold (paul, lebron, westbrook) and i sometimes feel get a unfair handicap because of it when people evaluate their impact

is like when i argue for a player i like more vs a player i like less, i have the worry in the back of my mind of how much my bias is influencing what i look at

so is possible that a majority or at least a big plurality of people want "motion ball" to be proven superior over "helio ball" because is more enjoyable, because is more about teamwork over individual ?

cause that is how i remember a lot of the hype and build up to warriors vs rockets in 2018

it seemed almost a war of ideologies: a duel of styles more than teams

the ultimate (kinda) helio/star/iso/foulhunt team of rockets vs the ultimate (kinda) motion/team work/ "joyball" warriors (2016 was a better example)

lots of emotional investment as so many people were worried rockets ball would become the way of the future after how they took the league by storm in comparable fashion to curry and warriors 2 years earlier (honestly rockets vs warriors may be one of the most important series in basketball history or at least it felt like it at the time)

then somethingh similar happened in 2020 (again with rockets lmao) with rockets microball vs lakers Bully ball (at least in hype, the actual series was a murder) as people worried the succes of the rockets would kill traditional centers and interior play for good, the amount of legitimate dread people had over the possibility of 2020 rockets succeding was somethingh i had never seen

so basically after all this tangent i went on, how do we account for our aesthetical biases clouding what we consider óptimal basketball theorically ?

Of course this stuff is largely based on personal preference. The Warriors get off to a hot start and suddenly we're transported back to 2016 having arguments on the merits of LeBron as offensive anchor and opining for everyone star to run around in circles all game like Steph. Its ridiculous.

did they not watch Golden State last season. Or did that not count????

Those of us who were high in the Warriors before the season watched the Warriors last year thrive once they started trying to win rather than focus on player development.

No one predicted they’d be this good this fast, but I have to say it’s frustrating to hear people who predicted 39 wins this year - when the team was playing far better than that to end the year - now talk as if we’re the ones who didn’t pay attention last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

feyki wrote:Butler playing with +26 net rating on individual offensive/defensive rating. This is the highest I've seen from an offensive star. Durant(17),Jordan(96) and Lebron(13) had +24. +26 is the first.

yoyoboy wrote:Cavs are 9-10 now (lost 5 straight since Mobley went out if you count the Boston game he left early) but I’m honestly pretty proud of this team regardless. Tons of injuries this year, including Sexton out for the year, Love missing 2 weeks, Lauri missing 2 weeks, Cedi missing a couple games, Mobley at 4 missed now, Allen missing 3 games, Garland missing 2 games, and Okoro missing 7 games. And by SOS indexes, the Cavs have played by far the hardest schedule in the league so far, including a murderer’s row without Mobley of Brooklyn, Golden State, Brooklyn, and Phoenix recently. But the team seems to compete until the end every night. It’s been a fun season to watch.

Jaivl wrote:<- This man will do that to your team.

yoyoboy wrote:...

The-Power wrote:

yoyoboy wrote:...

I'm really happy for Cavs fans, and you in particular, that the team brings you joy this year and you can see the young players grow into what hopefully will turn out to be a nice core for the future. You deserve it!

yoyoboy wrote:I do still think it’s going to be hard, even with internal development, for this team to take that next step. We clearly need a good wing, but Cleveland isn’t a destination location, we probably won’t finish in the bottom 5 this year unless injuries take over, and the roster lacks tradable assets since Okoro has looked so bad, Sexton’s injury and pending contraction extension leave him with little value, and our pick this year might be that great in a draft class that doesn’t seem to be that deep (yet) anyways.

Dr Positivity wrote:Trent Jr is pretty impressive - potential all-star imo

GSP wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:Trent Jr is pretty impressive - potential all-star imo

How is he better than Og, Siakam or Fvv? Raps arent good enough to have more than 1 allstar