Playing style comparion

[LesGrossman]

I have no numbers to back it up but i feel like there are two distinct styles of playing right now (and a third "in between" class), at least for the successful teams.

One is centered around a very ball dominant point guard / point forward who dribbles a lot and attacks most of the time for himself. Its a lot of one on one ball, often ending in a late clock contested shot. Since they dominate the ball so much, they stlll accumulate a lot of assists but those are not "real" ones. Often (not always) the quality is massively decreasing when the star player goes to the bench. Examples are Luka, Harden, LeBron, Trae, KD, MVP Russ, probably a few more i've missed.

The other style is a lot less predictable - the concept usually a continuous motion offense based on offense automatics or cut/fill, few simple principles. We see a lot of on/off ball screens and handoffs and not a lot of dribbling. Everyone is sacrificing for the best shot, regardless of who takes it. Examples this season are GSW, Cleveland, Miami, Pelicans, Suns, probably Celtics, of course 2014 Spurs were the blueprint.

Of course there are some in-between teams too. They have one or few star players so the shot distribution and "time on ball" are not equally distributed over the whole team, but still more then only one guy. They also have different guys being top scorers at different games. I would place the Bucks, Wolves, Nuggets there, maybe the Celtics also belong here.

My questions are: Do you think one style is inherently "better" or "right" and thus more successful? I looked at results of recent years and could not find a pattern. Do you agree with the three categories in recent ball? Which style is most attractive to you, which one the least?

[Colbinii]

It is very interesting how you choose to lump the groups. In Group 1, we would expect more Isolation plays, yet Boston [757 possessions of Isolation, 5th in NBA] are grouped in the motion offense.

The Lakers however ranked in the top 10 in Cuts on 2022 [A hallmark of a LeBron offense] while the Suns rank in the bottom 10.

I'm also a bit confused how offenses with James Harden or LeBron James or Luka Doncic aren't predicated on generating the best possible shots? Players typically only have a 35-40% usage when that usage is required for the team to generate the best shots possible.

I'm also confused by how Milwaukee and Denver are "middle" teams when Giannis and Jokic led the team in scoring for nearly all of the games they played.

Historically speaking, the best groups of offenses post-merger in the playoffs were led by Magic, LeBron, Nash, Jordan and Curry/Durant.

It seems like you're asking something different than your poll questions/answers. I'm sure its unanimous an offense with multiple stars [2017-2019 Warriors for example] is going to be better than the 2015 or 2022 offense. The Cavaliers with Kyrie [2015-2017] were clearly better than the Cavaliers in 2018. The Milwaukee Bucks are clearly better with Middleton than without him.

[LesGrossman]

It is very interesting how you choose to lump the groups. In Group 1, we would expect more Isolation plays, yet Boston [757 possessions of Isolation, 5th in NBA] are grouped in the motion offense.

The Lakers however ranked in the top 10 in Cuts on 2022 [A hallmark of a LeBron offense] while the Suns rank in the bottom 10.

I'm also a bit confused how offenses with James Harden or LeBron James or Luka Doncic aren't predicated on generating the best possible shots? Players typically only have a 35-40% usage when that usage is required for the team to generate the best shots possible.

I'm also confused by how Milwaukee and Denver are "middle" teams when Giannis and Jokic led the team in scoring for nearly all of the games they played.

Historically speaking, the best groups of offenses post-merger in the playoffs were led by Magic, LeBron, Nash, Jordan and Curry/Durant.

It seems like you're asking something different than your poll questions/answers. I'm sure its unanimous an offense with multiple stars [2017-2019 Warriors for example] is going to be better than the 2015 or 2022 offense. The Cavaliers with Kyrie [2015-2017] were clearly better than the Cavaliers in 2018. The Milwaukee Bucks are clearly better with Middleton than without him.

Thank you for your views. I couldnt find good criteria to differenciate bteween the two styles, its mostly a "feel" thing. One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. Since theres normally not enough time to get a better shot off that one pass, we cant tell wether the result is "the best shot possible". I'm sure that some of those guys, like Russ in his MVP season, conciously hunt assists. At the same time, some guys managed to translate the individual numbers into wins, so that style cannot be bad per se.

The clear other style (2) dribbles a lot less and moves the ball by passing. Its a coaching thing, its not like they wouldnt have a player who could dominate the ball, its more like their offense is simply built different. Noone tries to score the home run assist, they try to improve from pass to pass (requiring high IQ players and quick decisions). A few years ago, the Jazz also played that way. The result is usually a good, uncontested shot.

The third group i struggle with; they have 1 on 1 players who try to beat their guy while everyone else is watching (Celtics, Bucks). But due to the fact that they have more than one "leader", their output does not drop dramatically when one guy goes to the bench.

I think its the result of the coaches looking at their guys and trying to maximize their output. Do you have a lot of good 3 and D guys who struggle with the right decision? Then #1 is your thing. Do you have a lot of high IQ guys who decent shooters but not very athletic and not very good 1 on 1? Then you go for the team offense (#2). Do you have a lot of 1 on 1 guys who jump out of the gym but develop tunnel vision when attacking? #3 is your thing.

Do you not feel like there are those three styles right now?

[Texas Chuck]

[One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. ?

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.

And worth noting, the Mavs who would fit into this group of disdain, against Utah had 2 games where they created more wide open 3's than had been ever recorded in a playoff game. Which kinda destroys your premise of contested shots.

Hell even against the Warriors in this series, shot quality hasn't been their issue. Shot making has. But Luka can't make the shots for them, just get them great shots. Same with Lebron, though of course you will never acknowledge that because he's Lebron.

[Colbinii]

[One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. ?

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.

And worth noting, the Mavs who would fit into this group of disdain, against Utah had 2 games where they created more wide open 3's than had been ever recorded in a playoff game. Which kinda destroys your premise of contested shots.

Hell even against the Warriors in this series, shot quality hasn't been their issue. Shot making has. But Luka can't make the shots for them, just get them great shots. Same with Lebron, though of course you will never acknowledge that because he's Lebron.

I'll say this: Outside of the 2017 and 2018 Warriors, the two best teams in the NBA since 2017 have been the 2017 Cavaliers and 2018 Houston Rockets--both of whom were more heliocentric than a motion offense and both of whom had two "ball dominant" combinations [Kyrie/LeBron and CP3/Harden].

In theory, a heliocentric offense allows more players on the roster to rest offensively. The counterpoint, which is a new concept for me and something I have been thinking about this season [though haven't seen it mentioned on this forum] is how a heliocentric offense tires out a player and throws them into a defensive liability [See Harden and Luka]. How do we separate the defensive woes of Harden and Luka in a vacuum versus how tired they are with 40% Usage?

And, some data...

Open and Wide Open 3's

2015 Cavaliers [23 3PA/G]
2016 Cavaliers [24.1 3PA/G]
2017 Cavaliers [26.4 3PA/G]
2018 Cavaliers [25.0 3PA/G]

2015 Warriors [25.4 3PA/G]
2016 Warriors [27.3 3PA/G]
2017 Warriors [25.5 3PA/G]
2018 Warriors [23.6 3PA/G]

2015 Rockets [23.5 3PA/G]
2016 Rockets [23.2 3PA/G]
2017 Rockets [29.6 3PA/G]
2018 Rockets [30.7 3PA/G]

[PaulieWal]

Funny thing Lebron isn't even close to playing like Trae, Harden and Luka etc and KD doesn't have the skills/ability to be that guy except for in very small stretches.

[LesGrossman]

[One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. ?

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.

And worth noting, the Mavs who would fit into this group of disdain, against Utah had 2 games where they created more wide open 3's than had been ever recorded in a playoff game. Which kinda destroys your premise of contested shots.

Hell even against the Warriors in this series, shot quality hasn't been their issue. Shot making has. But Luka can't make the shots for them, just get them great shots. Same with Lebron, though of course you will never acknowledge that because he's Lebron.

Dunno why you are projecting like this. First off i stated that while it may not be my preferred style to watch, it has been successful in the past and present. Second, the whole thought came to my mind watching Luka; i was thinking wether this extremely predictable approach is really the best choice for these Mavs. It brought them quite far but at the same time i felt they did well when he sat and the ball was moving, and even when he plays off the ball.

[LesGrossman]

Funny thing Lebron isn't even close to playing like Trae, Harden and Luka etc and KD doesn't have the skills/ability to be that guy except for in very small stretches.

KD tried to play like Bron and Luka. Failed miserably. I havent seen KD try that before; normally he had a guard set him up and put him in position to score with very few, efficient dribbles and moves. This time, he tried the "point forward" thing for whatever reason and it was extremely easy for the Celtics to zero in on him.

[PaulieWal]

Funny thing Lebron isn't even close to playing like Trae, Harden and Luka etc and KD doesn't have the skills/ability to be that guy except for in very small stretches.

KD tried to play like Bron and Luka. Failed miserably. I havent seen KD try that before; normally he had a guard set him up and put him in position to score with very few, efficient dribbles and moves. This time, he tried the "point forward" thing for whatever reason and it was extremely easy for the Celtics to zero in on him.

He didn't try the point forward thing "for whatever reason". He tried the point forward thing because his team doesn't have a true floor general and failed (you know that Harden guy was supposed to be it). What you are describing about having a guard setting him up and putting him in a position to score is what GSW had in spades with Green, Curry, and Iggy occasionally.

Durant has a lot of strengths but being a floor general isn't one of them. It is what it is.

Also, Luka is a completely different beast, what he does is completely warping the offense around him. LeBron in his 04-10 Cleveland days wasn't playing like that. Harden was the original Luka in his Houston days. Luka is just the better, bigger, version of Harden so far.

[capfan33]

Not to make this too much about Lebron but most of the data I've seen suggests that Lebron isn't particularly ball dominant relative to other megastars. He doesn't have the usage percentage of guys like Westbrook, Luka or early MJ, and he doesn't dribble/hold the ball nearly as much as a Harden or Trae does, even in the playoffs. This idea of Lebron being the archetypal heliocentric ballhog doesn't really match reality most of his career. And even if it did, it's worked pretty damn well.

As for the question itself, I think ideally you want something along the lines of what the Warriors have done or what the Spurs did for 2 decades. Emphasis on the word ideally, because I don't think people fully appreciate just how much of an outlier those 2 teams are.

Like yea, I would love for my favorite team's GM to "just do what the Warriors did" in terms of building a team, infrastructure, offensive system, etc, but that's not a realistic ask 98% of the time. Besides the incredible talent their front office and coaching staff have, they also got very lucky.

Most of the time, if you can even get one megastar you're doing very well for yourself. And that's the most realistic scenerio for most teams, hope for a megastar, get some decent supporting players and build a system that works based off that. Implementing a perfectly balanced, 86-Celtics esque offense and team synergy on top of all that isn't easy.

[falcolombardi]

Not to make this too much about Lebron but most of the data I've seen suggests that Lebron isn't particularly ball dominant relative to other megastars. He doesn't have the usage percentage of guys like Westbrook, Luka or early MJ, and he doesn't dribble/hold the ball nearly as much as a Harden or Trae does, even in the playoffs. This idea of Lebron being the archetypal heliocentric ballhog doesn't really match reality most of his career. And even if it did, it's worked pretty damn well.

As for the question itself, I think ideally you want something along the lines of what the Warriors have done or what the Spurs did for 2 decades. Emphasis on the word ideally, because I don't think people fully appreciate just how much of an outlier those 2 teams are.

Like yea, I would love for my favorite team's GM to "just do what the Warriors did" in terms of building a team, infrastructure, offensive system, etc, but that's not a realistic ask 98% of the time. Besides the incredible talent their front office and coaching staff have, they also got very lucky.

Most of the time, if you can even get one megastar you're doing very well for yourself. And that's the most realistic scenerio for most teams, hope for a megastar, get some decent supporting players and build a system that works based off that. Implementing a perfectly balanced, 86-Celtics esque offense and team synergy on top of all that isn't easy.

it has to be remembered also that there have been better offensive runs than the spurs and warriors (specially if we mean the non durant years), so is not even as if we are talking about those two approaches creating uncomparable offensive results for other approaches

for all we talk about why more teams dont play like the warriors offensively, we forget that it was their defense that did most of the work for their 2015 ring and has been their main asset in 2022

[LesGrossman]

Funny thing Lebron isn't even close to playing like Trae, Harden and Luka etc and KD doesn't have the skills/ability to be that guy except for in very small stretches.

KD tried to play like Bron and Luka. Failed miserably. I havent seen KD try that before; normally he had a guard set him up and put him in position to score with very few, efficient dribbles and moves. This time, he tried the "point forward" thing for whatever reason and it was extremely easy for the Celtics to zero in on him.

He didn't try the point forward thing "for whatever reason". He tried the point forward thing because his team doesn't have a true floor general and failed (you know that Harden guy was supposed to be it). What you are describing about having a guard setting him up and putting him in a position to score is what GSW had in spades with Green, Curry, and Iggy occasionally.

Durant has a lot of strengths but being a floor general isn't one of them. It is what it is.

Also, Luka is a completely different beast, what he does is completely warping the offense around him. LeBron in his 04-10 Cleveland days wasn't playing like that. Harden was the original Luka in his Houston days. Luka is just the better, bigger, version of Harden so far.

Yeah the reasons were obvious, Harden and Kyrie not being able and Simmons also not ready. I agree with all you said - i think KD was forced in to this situation and tried to salvage it, and many guys jumped on him eagerly to talk about how poor he played, but there were few alternatives.

That being said i think one can absolutely be the go to guy of his team without bringing the ball up, or being an outstanding passer; Dirk was a great example and KD, if used that way, is another.

Luka is obviously very different and capable of other things than KD, but i still wonder if playing more off the ball would do them good. I also dont think his game is very "portable" - at some point he'll need a more capable for the next step but i doubt that really good players would agree with the way he IS their offense, and everyone else is merely an pressure escape valve. I think Jokic's game will be more successful in the long term, for example.

[homecourtloss]

[One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. ?

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.
.

Knew what this was going to be before I even read it.

Also, the data available show that LeBron isn’t even that ball dominant compared to many other players (i.e., doesn’t hold the ball as long, doesn’t take as many dribbles per touch, etc.)

Also, OP seems confused about how he wants to paint a picture.

“One very ball dominant player who takes a lot more shots than everyone else on his team, consistently”

OP might want to take a look at who takes the higher % of a team’s total shots between someone like Jordan and LeBron; OP might want to take a look at who played in the playoffs with other high usage players taking a lot of shots (hint: it wasn’t Jordan); OP might wa t to take a look at the data that tells us how long a player touches the ball per touch and/or how many dribbles per touch he takes (hint: LeBron isn’t high on the list; here’s a link to see for yourself the dat from the past 9 seasons https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touches/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=AVG_SEC_PER_TOUCH&dir=1)

[THFC]

I disagree with the notion that heliocentric has to be a bad thing. If a team has 1) a generational offensive player whose gravity would open up the floor for other players and/or 2) they don't have much depth (weak role players/bench) then heliocentric offense seems like the way to go. Hakeem's Rockets played that way in mid 90s, Duncan's Spurs in early 2000s, Nash's Suns teams,Harden's Rockets quite recently. Mavs are doing that right now. And unlike the championship or bust mentality that would consider some of the teams on this list a failure because they failed to win a title, I don't think they underachieved with the talent they had.

One big advantage of this heliocentric offense is that it doesn't require much for role players to fit into the system.They are not big decision makers on offense so their limited skillset is not a huge issue. It helps with team building as well because those players become more easily replacable than they'd have been under a system that required them to play a more active role on offense. Harden's Rockets teams were forced to change their role players often(because of their cost cutting owner) yet it didn't cause a sharp drop in their production level mainly because those players were not asked to do much anyway. They were just standing behind the line waiting for an open shot. Any player can buy into a system like that.

[LesGrossman]

I disagree with the notion that heliocentric has to be a bad thing. If a team has 1) a generational offensive player whose gravity would open up the floor for other players and/or 2) they don't have much depth (weak role players/bench) then heliocentric offense seems like the way to go. Hakeem's Rockets played that way in mid 90s, Duncan's Spurs in early 2000s, Nash's Suns teams,Harden's Rockets quite recently. Mavs are doing that right now. And unlike the championship or bust mentality that would consider some of the teams on this list a failure because they failed to win a title, I don't think they underachieved with the talent they had.

One big advantage of this heliocentric offense is that it doesn't require much for role players to fit into the system.They are not big decision makers on offense so their limited skillset is not a huge issue. It helps with team building as well because those players become more easily replacable than they'd have been under a system that required them to play a more active role on offense. Harden's Rockets teams were forced to change their role players often(because of their cost cutting owner) yet it didn't cause a sharp drop in their production level mainly because those players were not asked to do much anyway. They were just standing behind the line waiting for an open shot. Any player can buy into a system like that.

Actually, noone said it is a bad thing - thats just the projection of a certain fan group i wasnt even addressing. I explicitly stated that the game plan has been successful in the past, and in my opinion even reaching the conference finals with this team is a huge success for Luka.

I believe that it all depends on the personnel- but the thing that made me open this thread was, watching Luka, i wondered how his game would translate to playing alongside another guy who creates (not neccessarily dribbles a lot) as well. Whenever i watch the mavs it feels like half of the posessions Luka just goes 1 on 5 until he created some opening and either shoots himself or tries to play that last pass ("touchdown pass"). That means that everyone else is basically demoted to a standstill shooter (because often, theres not even time to do anything but catch and shoot). The next posession he seems to conciously give up the ball as if they have an agreement. It may be the right approach for this roster, where noone else stands out. But what if you paired him to, lets say, KD, Jokic, or even a guard like Harden or CP3? How does this approach bring out the best of multiple creators?

[falcolombardi]

[One group has a distinguished player demanding the ball at least 50% of the posessions and when he gets it, usually dribbles or holds it around 20 seconds, then takes a contested shot or tries to score the home run assist. ?

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.
.

Knew what this was going to be before I even read it.

Also, the data available show that LeBron isn’t even that ball dominant compared to many other players (i.e., doesn’t hold the ball as long, doesn’t take as many dribbles per touch, etc.)

Also, OP seems confused about how he wants to paint a picture.

“One very ball dominant player who takes a lot more shots than everyone else on his team, consistently”

OP might want to take a look at who takes the higher % of a team’s total shots between someone like Jordan and LeBron; OP might want to take a look at who played in the playoffs with other high usage players taking a lot of shots (hint: it wasn’t Jordan); OP might wa t to take a look at the data that tells us how long a player touches the ball per touch and/or how many dribbles per touch he takes (hint: LeBron isn’t high on the list; here’s a link to see for yourself the dat from the past 9 seasons https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touches/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=AVG_SEC_PER_TOUCH&dir=1)

and you are not even mentioning the most important part

heliocentric offenses around players like lebron nash or magic actually really, really work lol, and i dont mean "work well enough" i mean work with goat tier results, as good as the most talented "motion offenses" like the dursant/curry warriors

why is it even a discussion if that approach works?

[homecourtloss]

This doesn't really feel like you are interested in an answer but rather have a clear dislike for heliocentric basketball.

Which is certainly your right and it will make you quite popular with many posters here, but this reductive description makes it pretty clear this is just the latest in a trend of posts from you. Your anti-Lebron schtick is transparent.
.

Knew what this was going to be before I even read it.

Also, the data available show that LeBron isn’t even that ball dominant compared to many other players (i.e., doesn’t hold the ball as long, doesn’t take as many dribbles per touch, etc.)

Also, OP seems confused about how he wants to paint a picture.

“One very ball dominant player who takes a lot more shots than everyone else on his team, consistently”

OP might want to take a look at who takes the higher % of a team’s total shots between someone like Jordan and LeBron; OP might want to take a look at who played in the playoffs with other high usage players taking a lot of shots (hint: it wasn’t Jordan); OP might wa t to take a look at the data that tells us how long a player touches the ball per touch and/or how many dribbles per touch he takes (hint: LeBron isn’t high on the list; here’s a link to see for yourself the dat from the past 9 seasons https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touches/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=AVG_SEC_PER_TOUCH&dir=1)

and you are not even mentioning the most important part

heliocentric offenses around players like lebron nash or magic actually really, really work lol, and i dont mean "work well enough" i mean work with goat tier results, as good as the most talented "motion offenses" like the dursant/curry warriors

why is it even a discussion if that approach works?

By the way, since the 2013-2014 season in which we have tracking data and know the number of passes per game and per possession adjusted for pace, there has been a slight to moderate NEGATIVE correlation between passes per possession and offensive rating. I also found some other interesting things between passes per possession and defensive rating, passes per possession and free throw rate, passes per possession and turnover percentage, etc. etc.When I get the time I’ll post the full thread.

[falcolombardi]

Knew what this was going to be before I even read it.

Also, the data available show that LeBron isn’t even that ball dominant compared to many other players (i.e., doesn’t hold the ball as long, doesn’t take as many dribbles per touch, etc.)

Also, OP seems confused about how he wants to paint a picture.

“One very ball dominant player who takes a lot more shots than everyone else on his team, consistently”

OP might want to take a look at who takes the higher % of a team’s total shots between someone like Jordan and LeBron; OP might want to take a look at who played in the playoffs with other high usage players taking a lot of shots (hint: it wasn’t Jordan); OP might wa t to take a look at the data that tells us how long a player touches the ball per touch and/or how many dribbles per touch he takes (hint: LeBron isn’t high on the list; here’s a link to see for yourself the dat from the past 9 seasons https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touches/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=AVG_SEC_PER_TOUCH&dir=1)

and you are not even mentioning the most important part

heliocentric offenses around players like lebron nash or magic actually really, really work lol, and i dont mean "work well enough" i mean work with goat tier results, as good as the most talented "motion offenses" like the dursant/curry warriors

why is it even a discussion if that approach works?

By the way, since the 2013-2014 season in which we have tracking data and know the number of passes per game and per possession adjusted for pace, there has been a slight to moderate NEGATIVE correlation between passes per possession and offensive rating. I also found some other interesting things between passes per possession and defensive rating, passes per possession in Frito lay, passes per possession and turnover percentage, etc. etc.When I get the time I’ll post the full thread.

woulsnt be surprised, the value of preserving turnovers is not intuitive compares the idea of teamwork creating better shots being much more intuitive for us

this is somethingh i have tought about before, i honestly think that most nba fans like to think (and are not necesarrily wrong) that basketball is a game that rewards playing it selflessly and as a team, not as a star and his supporting actors

so there is a emotional invesment of sorts

when rockets in 2018 looked like they were about to beat the warriors, the most talented twam in the league with the most egalitarian approach, by playing a fairly mechanical star game prioritizing paul and harden individual talent it felt like many were -dreading- it

i remember people worried that basketball was gonna be ruined if rockets approach in 2018 (of rockets, again, in 2020 for other reasons lmao) was proven the future

i honestly think there is some amount of "rooting against heliocentrism for the -good of basketball-" that drives people bias to a degree when analyzing the effectiveness of different approaches

or at leaat that is my feeling

[giberish]

I'd say there's two main divides so 4 options.

First there's the amount of the teams offense that's driven by just one guy (being considered very 'helicentric' if it's all around one guy), or else has a relatively more equal contribution from many players

Then there's the style of offense. Some are more motion while others are more iso / simple P&R based. The more motion, 5 on 5 based offenses tend to create better shots but are also high in turnovers. The simpler iso based offenses (which aren't always around one guy, sometimes its more 'iso roulette' as various guys take turns) tend to have fewer turnovers but worse shots.

Dallas is the best current example of a heliocentric, iso/simple P&R offense. The offense doesn't involve all 5 guys much. It's heavy on P&R's and iso for Luka, with similar looks for Brunson or Dinwiddle as the backup.

Denver (and to a degree GS) are examples of 5 on 5 offenses that are also heliocentric. Denver isn't a full 5 on 5 motion team but they do run a lot of cuts and off the ball motion. GS is more clearly a motion offense but is still relatively heliocentric in scoring (even more so in 2015-6 then now)

The 2014 Spurs are really the canonical example of a balanced, motion offense.

There aren't great examples of balanced, iso-based offenses. These are generally bad offenses that don't have the team playmaking/offensive BBIQ to run a motion offense and don't have anyone good enough to created high-efficiency looks routinely by themselves so they'll try a bunch of different guys in the offense creator role hoping for a hot hand.

[Modulate]

Why even bother with all the analysis and breakdowns? We know the deal with this guy. Just go for the one he thinks Lebron plays.

Let him have a temper tantrum.