Is an offense with a single dominant scorer still less efficient?

[penbeast0]

With the explosion of big scoring games in the modern NBA, there has been discussion about how coaches are moving to offenses where the star(s) take a significantly higher percentage of a team's shots.

(a) Are offenses in the 2020s more heliocentric than in the 60s? the 80s? the 00s?

(b) Are single dominant scoring offenses in the league today more efficient than those that spread the shot volume more? Have they been more or less efficient historically?

[MyUniBroDavis]

With the explosion of big scoring games in the modern NBA, there has been discussion about how coaches are moving to heliocentric offenses.

(a) Are offenses in the 2020s more heliocentric than in the 60s? the 80s? the 00s?

(b) Are heliocentric offenses in the league today more efficient than those that spread the shot volume more? Have they been more or less efficient historically?

I don’t think they’re better or worse they just kind of are what they are

I think it’s easier to run offense through star scorers than otherwise for sure

I think some heliocentric offenses end up not succeeded cuz they end up just giving it to a guy and hoping skmething happens

[penbeast0]

The reason I'm asking is because it was widely accepted, before 2020, that heliocentric offenses were less efficient, particularly in the playoffs. You can see it a lot in the Wilt discussions. I'm wondering if there is data on this one way or another from the many people here on the forum that are much better numbers people than I am.

[eminence]

I'm not sure, but would also be interested in seeing if anyone wanted to run the numbers (I'm pretty busy, so unfortunately not me).

Some graphs I'd be interested in seeing:

-Star player usage rate vs team offense. RS and PO individually I think, with various bins for overall team quality, eg - non-playoff squads, 1st round exits, 2nd round exits, and conference finalists. Perhaps, split into different time frames and overall?

-Star player usage rate vs team net rating (with similar groupings to the above)

For 'usage rate' I'd try to use something like Elgees 'Load' statistic instead of the BBref version, which I don't find particularly good. Opponent adjusted offensive/net rating of course.

[Owly]

Not an expert but two thoughts

1) For all the conceptual stuff that very much has value it depends on the pieces you have and how it's executed. If helio-ball is predictable because the same person is shooting a very high percentage of the time (such implied in the mentioned big scoring games) over the long term I think it will tend more often than not to be weaker than a ball movement offense on average, but that depends on the pieces and even this is already based on an uncertain assumption leading into ...

2) What is heliocentric offense? I've seen Jokic's Nuggets described as such. And he's the center of gravity and center of their offense screening, moving, passing, handing off, like an old high post pivot except way more active and can hit you for three or bully you in the post. So it very much depends what you mean. If helio is close to iso- or hero-ball as above I think that is easier to plan for, but it depends what one means by the labels. It's about having and combining players and systems that can create and maintain advantages and there are different ways to do that.

[falcolombardi]

I am unsure if it ever was true. Has always felt like a talented helio offense gets -better- results on the aggregate than talented motion/team offemses

But quantifying which teams are which is a impossible endeavor

[penbeast0]

Quantifying which are which actually seems like the easy part. Compare individual FGA to team FGA (when the star is on the floor) and anyone more than 1 standard deviation from the average is either helio or anti-helio.

It came up a lot in the Wilt discussions. Warriors Wilt was leading the league in efficiency from the field on unprecedented volume but his teams were only average generally from the field. It was attributed to over-reliance on a single scorer; the stats community talked about how this was generally an inefficient way to play, particularly at crunch time where star driven teams tend to get even more hero ball with guys like Jordan and Kobe. But now, the narrative seems to be shifted toward favoring this type of play. I'm just not sure the facts match up with the narrative or whether the analysis has changed with the modern style of play.

Owly is correct (as usual) that personnel matters, but I am looking for generalizations drawn over the last 3-8 years v. historical patterns so presumably a lot of the personnel differential will be smoothed out with more examples.

[Doctor MJ]

With the explosion of big scoring games in the modern NBA, there has been discussion about how coaches are moving to heliocentric offenses.

(a) Are offenses in the 2020s more heliocentric than in the 60s? the 80s? the 00s?

(b) Are heliocentric offenses in the league today more efficient than those that spread the shot volume more? Have they been more or less efficient historically?

Your questions cry out for a thorough statistical analysis, but just answering from how I see it:

a - yes, yes, yes

b - I’d expect so, but only because I think teams haven’t done a ton of heliocentric play around stars who aren’t that good. I think it depends on who you have on your roster whether it is a good idea or not.

To the broader era question:

I think better spacing with the 3 makes the helio approach more effective.

Now, it also makes some other approaches more effective to be clear…but not all approaches are helped equally by the spacing and helio is one approach helped more than some others.

Final note, if we talk about deep basketball history let me mention a few things:

I think you might call the paradigm of Scientific Basketball in the 1910s and 1920s a rejection of heliocentrism back then of course no one called it heliocentrism, but the idea of one star making all the decisions is something comes out of the schoolyard organically. Scientific Basketball treats each player as basically identical and the focus is on short passes leading to short shots with lots of off-ball cutting.

The team that embodied this paradigm (Original Celtics) was also the team that then broke the paradigm to create the Passing Pivot model beginning in the mid-20s, and I’d argue that that model is alive today with Jokic-ball…which is arguably the truest form of heliocentrism - planets in motion around a star.

The Passing Pivot model then is something that has been successful at different times for nearly a century…so is it really the case that you needed spacing for dominant heliocentrism? Nope, you just needed a tall guy with exceptional vision, creativity, and touch, who could make decisions very quickly.

But does spacing help make such a player even more effective? Well, yeah, and it also helps if that player can shoot from range…and I can’t actually think of any player in history who has that whole package like Jokic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LukaTheGOAT]

With the explosion of big scoring games in the modern NBA, there has been discussion about how coaches are moving to heliocentric offenses.

(a) Are offenses in the 2020s more heliocentric than in the 60s? the 80s? the 00s?

(b) Are heliocentric offenses in the league today more efficient than those that spread the shot volume more? Have they been more or less efficient historically?

Your questions cry out for a thorough statistical analysis, but just answering from how I see it:

a - yes, yes, yes

b - I’d expect so, but only because I think teams haven’t done a ton of heliocentric play around stars who aren’t that good. I think it depends on who you have on your roster whether it is a good idea or not.

To the broader era question:

I think better spacing with the 3 makes the helio approach more effective.

Now, it also makes some other approaches more effective to be clear…but not all approaches are helped equally by the spacing and helio is one approach helped more than some others.

Final note, if we talk about deep basketball history let me mention a few things:

I think you might call the paradigm of Scientific Basketball in the 1910s and 1920s a rejection of heliocentrism back then of course no one called it heliocentrism, but the idea of one star making all the decisions is something comes out of the schoolyard organically. Scientific Basketball treats each player as basically identical and the focus is on short passes leading to short shots with lots of off-ball cutting.

The team that embodied this paradigm (Original Celtics) was also the team that then broke the paradigm to create the Passing Pivot model beginning in the mid-20s, and I’d argue that that model is alive today with Jokic-ball…which is arguably the truest form of heliocentrism - planets in motion around a star.

The Passing Pivot model then is something that has been successful at different times for nearly a century…so is it really the case that you needed spacing for dominant heliocentrism? Nope, you just needed a tall guy with exceptional vision, creativity, and touch, who could make decisions very quickly.

But does spacing help make such a player even more effective? Well, yeah, and it also helps if that player can shoot from range…and I can’t actually think of any player in history who has that whole package like Jokic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you say Jokic is a better off-ball player than Steph in your opinion?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Depends on what you consider as heliocentric offense.

If you are a guy who lacks counters to certain specialized defensice schemes that get you away from your hot spots, i think you could do better than your primary guy handling the rock as much.

This is seen with some guys who have arguably lead underwhelming offenses compared to their RS play

Examples:
Harden-Still a MVP level offensice guy, just not a GOAT level offensive player that he is arguably in the RS

Giannis-Arguably the best in the world, but the Bucks rise as a team defensively is what makes them great, their offense is relatively meh.

However, if the guy is really a DAWG then yeah:
see Magic, Nash, Lebron as examples.

Also stats are definitely more directly involved in the offense in today's era than ever before:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[penbeast0]

I consider a heliocentric offense as one where a single player takes a significantly higher than normal percentage of his team's shots, rather than one where there is a single dominant playmaker who gets his teammates good shots. That's what I am looking at information on rather than a passing hub offense, be it run through a point guard or a big.

[Doctor MJ]

With the explosion of big scoring games in the modern NBA, there has been discussion about how coaches are moving to heliocentric offenses.

(a) Are offenses in the 2020s more heliocentric than in the 60s? the 80s? the 00s?

(b) Are heliocentric offenses in the league today more efficient than those that spread the shot volume more? Have they been more or less efficient historically?

Your questions cry out for a thorough statistical analysis, but just answering from how I see it:

a - yes, yes, yes

b - I’d expect so, but only because I think teams haven’t done a ton of heliocentric play around stars who aren’t that good. I think it depends on who you have on your roster whether it is a good idea or not.

To the broader era question:

I think better spacing with the 3 makes the helio approach more effective.

Now, it also makes some other approaches more effective to be clear…but not all approaches are helped equally by the spacing and helio is one approach helped more than some others.

Final note, if we talk about deep basketball history let me mention a few things:

I think you might call the paradigm of Scientific Basketball in the 1910s and 1920s a rejection of heliocentrism back then of course no one called it heliocentrism, but the idea of one star making all the decisions is something comes out of the schoolyard organically. Scientific Basketball treats each player as basically identical and the focus is on short passes leading to short shots with lots of off-ball cutting.

The team that embodied this paradigm (Original Celtics) was also the team that then broke the paradigm to create the Passing Pivot model beginning in the mid-20s, and I’d argue that that model is alive today with Jokic-ball…which is arguably the truest form of heliocentrism - planets in motion around a star.

The Passing Pivot model then is something that has been successful at different times for nearly a century…so is it really the case that you needed spacing for dominant heliocentrism? Nope, you just needed a tall guy with exceptional vision, creativity, and touch, who could make decisions very quickly.

But does spacing help make such a player even more effective? Well, yeah, and it also helps if that player can shoot from range…and I can’t actually think of any player in history who has that whole package like Jokic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you say Jokic is a better off-ball player than Steph in your opinion?

Eh, I tend to see them as two fundamentally different types with Jokic being closer in type to the LeBrons and Lukas.

Steph is the ideal guy to pair with your lead decision maker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falcolombardi]

Your questions cry out for a thorough statistical analysis, but just answering from how I see it:

a - yes, yes, yes

b - I’d expect so, but only because I think teams haven’t done a ton of heliocentric play around stars who aren’t that good. I think it depends on who you have on your roster whether it is a good idea or not.

To the broader era question:

I think better spacing with the 3 makes the helio approach more effective.

Now, it also makes some other approaches more effective to be clear…but not all approaches are helped equally by the spacing and helio is one approach helped more than some others.

Final note, if we talk about deep basketball history let me mention a few things:

I think you might call the paradigm of Scientific Basketball in the 1910s and 1920s a rejection of heliocentrism back then of course no one called it heliocentrism, but the idea of one star making all the decisions is something comes out of the schoolyard organically. Scientific Basketball treats each player as basically identical and the focus is on short passes leading to short shots with lots of off-ball cutting.

The team that embodied this paradigm (Original Celtics) was also the team that then broke the paradigm to create the Passing Pivot model beginning in the mid-20s, and I’d argue that that model is alive today with Jokic-ball…which is arguably the truest form of heliocentrism - planets in motion around a star.

The Passing Pivot model then is something that has been successful at different times for nearly a century…so is it really the case that you needed spacing for dominant heliocentrism? Nope, you just needed a tall guy with exceptional vision, creativity, and touch, who could make decisions very quickly.

But does spacing help make such a player even more effective? Well, yeah, and it also helps if that player can shoot from range…and I can’t actually think of any player in history who has that whole package like Jokic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you say Jokic is a better off-ball player than Steph in your opinion?

Eh, I tend to see them as two fundamentally different types with Jokic being closer in type to the LeBrons and Lukas.

Steph is the ideal guy to pair with your lead decision maker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have great rim protector with strong offensive skills as more ideal than curry in that instance. More balanced in offense/defense impact

[Doctor MJ]

Would you say Jokic is a better off-ball player than Steph in your opinion?

Eh, I tend to see them as two fundamentally different types with Jokic being closer in type to the LeBrons and Lukas.

Steph is the ideal guy to pair with your lead decision maker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have great rim protector with strong offensive skills as more ideal than curry in that instance. More balanced in offense/defense impact

Oh I was just talking about offense. Defensive needs and their capacity to add value will depend on the helio.

[cupcakesnake]

I used to think of helioccentric offense as being too predictable. People use the Wilt railroading example a lot. I think the Harden/D'Antoni/Moreyball Rockets is another good example. Those Rockets tried to trim the fat and only take the most efficient shots possible (Harden drive, Harden lob to Capela, Harden pass to the right corner, Harden step back). But when the Rockets failed it looked too dogmatic because it allowed defenses to overload against that short list of moves. Defenses that are prepared for a specific action are going to be more likely to be able to lower the efficiency of those actions.

Then there was Cleveland Lebron (either version). Lots of Lebron detractors complained he monopolized the ball too much, wasted teammate's talents, or didn't utilize all the off-ball things he should be so good at. The pro-Lebron perspective was that it didn't make sense to take the ball out of Lebron's hands because the ball in Lebron's hands produced the best possible offense. Lebron was lot more improvisational than Harden, which probably made him less brutally efficient in some regular seasons but more resilient as a scorer/playmaker in the playoffs.

When you get into helioccentrism with a genius-level passer (specifically Nash, Jokic, Magic), that's going to produce all-time great offense. Jokic may not monopolize the ball as a ballhandler like Nash and Magic did, but the Nuggets system still runs through him getting touches and being involved in every action. I think that Jokic can add screening and all-time brutal paint scoring to the helioccentric model is something (like others have mentioned) that we haven't seen before, despite the passing pivot being around as long as the NBA.

But even with someone like Luka, (who is the new Lebron is terms of the narrative of ball dominance and teammates) we're seeing how modern offensive principles increase offensive efficiency in a helio model. The kinds of screening action that Luka runs off of is so much more sophisticated than anything than Nash or Magic had to work with. So it's helio offense in terms of using, but the team is working harder/smarter to put the helio playmaker in positions of advantage.

[tsherkin]

Quantifying which are which actually seems like the easy part. Compare individual FGA to team FGA (when the star is on the floor) and anyone more than 1 standard deviation from the average is either helio or anti-helio.

It came up a lot in the Wilt discussions. Warriors Wilt was leading the league in efficiency from the field on unprecedented volume but his teams were only average generally from the field. It was attributed to over-reliance on a single scorer; the stats community talked about how this was generally an inefficient way to play, particularly at crunch time where star driven teams tend to get even more hero ball with guys like Jordan and Kobe. But now, the narrative seems to be shifted toward favoring this type of play. I'm just not sure the facts match up with the narrative or whether the analysis has changed with the modern style of play.

Owly is correct (as usual) that personnel matters, but I am looking for generalizations drawn over the last 3-8 years v. historical patterns so presumably a lot of the personnel differential will be smoothed out with more examples.

TBF, Wilt wasn't the kind of passer we see/saw from Harden, Luka and so forth in terms of when he was at his scoring volume peak, so his offensive impact can't really be directly compared to guys who do those things, yeah?

[Doctor MJ]

I used to think of helioccentric offense as being too predictable. People use the Wilt railroading example a lot. I think the Harden/D'Antoni/Moreyball Rockets is another good example. Those Rockets tried to trim the fat and only take the most efficient shots possible (Harden drive, Harden lob to Capela, Harden pass to the right corner, Harden step back). But when the Rockets failed it looked too dogmatic because it allowed defenses to overload against that short list of moves. Defenses that are prepared for a specific action are going to be more likely to be able to lower the efficiency of those actions.

Then there was Cleveland Lebron (either version). Lots of Lebron detractors complained he monopolized the ball too much, wasted teammate's talents, or didn't utilize all the off-ball things he should be so good at. The pro-Lebron perspective was that it didn't make sense to take the ball out of Lebron's hands because the ball in Lebron's hands produced the best possible offense. Lebron was lot more improvisational than Harden, which probably made him less brutally efficient in some regular seasons but more resilient as a scorer/playmaker in the playoffs.

When you get into helioccentrism with a genius-level passer (specifically Nash, Jokic, Magic), that's going to produce all-time great offense. Jokic may not monopolize the ball as a ballhandler like Nash and Magic did, but the Nuggets system still runs through him getting touches and being involved in every action. I think that Jokic can add screening and all-time brutal paint scoring to the helioccentric model is something (like others have mentioned) that we haven't seen before, despite the passing pivot being around as long as the NBA.

But even with someone like Luka, (who is the new Lebron is terms of the narrative of ball dominance and teammates) we're seeing how modern offensive principles increase offensive efficiency in a helio model. The kinds of screening action that Luka runs off of is so much more sophisticated than anything than Nash or Magic had to work with. So it's helio offense in terms of using, but the team is working harder/smarter to put the helio playmaker in positions of advantage.

Good thoughts. Let me take this on a bit of a tangent.

We use the term "heliocentrism", if we're honest, because that term already existed in another field, it's fun to borrow space terminology, and it kinda fits what was being seen with LeBron that has grown from there.

As I've alluded to, if we really want to take a system that fits what heliocentrism describes more literally - with the star at the physical center rather than a merely star-dominated system - then Jokic is the modern player who really fits that...but dwelling on this is pedantic. The term means "LeBron-like", and it is what it is. Hence while people may accept Jokic under the same umbrella, they cry out for different terminology.

I think Quarterback makes a lot of sense for the LeBron/Luka's of the world. Now, I also think it makes sense for any dominant on-ball decision maker regardless of where they are on the shoot-pass spectrum, and I understand why people feel like these guys need a label that also indicates they are volume scorers. But just in terms of how these guys actually play, I think it has clear analogy to gridiron football the quarterback position, but can be approached many ways, from pocket-only to dual threat.

The key difference here is that basketball Quarterbacks can pass the ball from anywhere at any time. If gridiron football allowed their quarterbacks to do this back in the day, well, the sport would have turned out very differently. So then, the analogy breaks there, but analogies have to break somewhere, and here were talking about a difference that only exists because of the prohibitive rule that that sport made for itself. Pretty good.

What about Jokic? Well, I'll mention the word "Pivot" - which will always be a correct term to use, but is now ambiguous - before moving onto another sport.

Consider the position of trequartista in association football (soccer). Note that the article is about several positions, not just the trequartista, but here's some insight into the trequartista position:

‘Three Quarters’ might not make much sense without really knowing the context. It is basically three quarters from midfield to the strikers - a bit more striker than midfielder, but still incorporating both sides of the game. Although the Trequartista is a dying breed in football, it has provided the world with some of the greatest and most exciting footballers of all time.

They are tasked with linking the midfield and attack, in a similar vein to how the Regista does it - just that the Trequartistas do it further up the field. Numbers also matter more, with goals and assists playing a big part in measuring a player’s adeptness at the Trequartista role.

Those playing the role need to be extremely skilled on the ball must have the ability to play in tight spaces and also need to have that special spontaneity that can not be taught.

However, these types of players were of a particular niche that is becoming less and less available in the modern world of football, as players are needing to evolve into team players that are required to work for their side as hard as possible in defence and attack. This has meant that Trequartistas, who generally were given a free role, and one without the burden of needing to track back to help their team maintain their shape, have slowly been fazed out.

In summary, a Trequartista is a player with the type of brilliance on the ball that enables them to constantly be a threat and create multiple chances per game in the attacking third, all the while being the link between midfield and attack with intelligent movements that disrupt the opposition’s structure and help their teammates find space that would not exist without them. They are the heart of their team but are less and less in supply due to the nature of the ever-evolving game being unable to accommodate them because of their need to forgo their defensive duties.

One might think the strategic obsolescence of the role in its originating sport would make it a bad analogy to make going forward, but I actually think it's helpful that this analogy immediately raises the question of "Is this a role that can be be counter-strategized into oblivion?" Because, of course, it sure seems like it was back in the 1940s. Whether or not abandoning this approach was actually the right strategic adaptation we'll probably never have the data to check, but en masse teams at the time increasingly moved toward just having the guy try to score rather than playmake.

What's so interesting to me about this is the way this style of play (Pivot as Passer) has existed in the time since its displacement as the dominant way the game is played.

It continues to live on through the Harlem Globetrotters, where the "Pivot" is the Lead Clown. Think about what the Globetrotters do to "trick" their opponents - it's the guy with the ball threatening to do something other just shoot. Worked beautifully for building what the Globetrotters became.

We get an aftershock of the Globetrotters in competitive basketball when Connie Hawkins is finally allowed to play.

We also get other playmaking bigs in the '70s, most notably Bill Walton.

And then it just seems to die. Why? Was it just not that effective any more? Well, I think everyone who saw Walton with the Celtics in the mid-80s would acknowledge he was plenty effective when he was physically himself.

So, it may be just a thing where there aren't enough players with the physical dimensions that have "that special spontaneity" for it to be a thing that coaches are looking to make use of, and thus the knowledge of the possibility gets lost rather than find some optimal minority ratio.

And thus it takes someone truly extreme in talent to break through in this way and end up reshaping an NBA franchise around him, when there really hasn't been anything like this for decades. And specifically, more extreme than it takes to merely be effective in this role, which may cause the ratio of its use in the NBA to begin a climbing trend.

More than anything else though, I'm really, really hoping that the broader basketball world is watching what Denver is doing with Jokic, and they begin seriously looking to find young guys who might be able to play like this and not let them fall through the cracks.

Last note: One might object to the implication that Jokic represents a player that literally doesn't get back on defense, but keep in mind that "Quarterback" also comes back a physical reference frame.

I actually find the fact that both terms (Quarterback and Trequartista) could be argued to mean the same thing a fun wrinkle because I don't think it would even occur to those hearing the terms to confuse the two, quite distinct concepts.

[Wallace_Wallace]

Depending on the star's stamina. Imagine if you, the star player, worked your ass off in a post up/dribble move, and then within seconds your opponent scores on a simple backdoor cut. It has to feel demoralizing.

Second point, you would have to make sure other players are involved. I'm not an expert in basketball, so I don't know what that play is called, but the Warriors has this play call where every player does a dribble hand off the next player who is curling in from one side, and then hands off to the next player who's curling in from the other side. I'm not sure exactly what that is called and perhaps its purpose is to force the defense to switch, but I tend to believe players feel more involved and focused on offense when they touch the ball and they are moving with a purpose. The thing with heliocentric offense is that the other players don't feel involved and thus their shots don't fall as well. Players with decent skills like Chris Bosh/Porzingis/Kevin Love are almost relegated to being a spot up shooter

[penbeast0]

Alright, I changed the title and OP from heliocentric to single dominant scorer because I'm not interested in the efficiency of a passing hub offense but in the efficiency of single scorer systems. Hope that helps.

[OhayoKD]

I used to think of helioccentric offense as being too predictable. People use the Wilt railroading example a lot. I think the Harden/D'Antoni/Moreyball Rockets is another good example. Those Rockets tried to trim the fat and only take the most efficient shots possible (Harden drive, Harden lob to Capela, Harden pass to the right corner, Harden step back). But when the Rockets failed it looked too dogmatic because it allowed defenses to overload against that short list of moves. Defenses that are prepared for a specific action are going to be more likely to be able to lower the efficiency of those actions.

Then there was Cleveland Lebron (either version). Lots of Lebron detractors complained he monopolized the ball too much, wasted teammate's talents, or didn't utilize all the off-ball things he should be so good at. The pro-Lebron perspective was that it didn't make sense to take the ball out of Lebron's hands because the ball in Lebron's hands produced the best possible offense. Lebron was lot more improvisational than Harden, which probably made him less brutally efficient in some regular seasons but more resilient as a scorer/playmaker in the playoffs.

When you get into helioccentrism with a genius-level passer (specifically Nash, Jokic, Magic), that's going to produce all-time great offense. Jokic may not monopolize the ball as a ballhandler like Nash and Magic did, but the Nuggets system still runs through him getting touches and being involved in every action. I think that Jokic can add screening and all-time brutal paint scoring to the helioccentric model is something (like others have mentioned) that we haven't seen before, despite the passing pivot being around as long as the NBA.

But even with someone like Luka, (who is the new Lebron is terms of the narrative of ball dominance and teammates) we're seeing how modern offensive principles increase offensive efficiency in a helio model. The kinds of screening action that Luka runs off of is so much more sophisticated than anything than Nash or Magic had to work with. So it's helio offense in terms of using, but the team is working harder/smarter to put the helio playmaker in positions of advantage.

luka is an interesting example because as phenomenal as his box-stuff looks his impact doesn't really match up