RealGM Top 100 List #9 -- Post Shot Clock Only (No Mikan)

[Jay30]

Whereas I don't recall Pat Riley ever going "in this series we'd be way more effective if Magic didn't have the ball."

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, and Doc, to some degree I was messing with you, to some I was making fun of myself for not having a clue what you were talking about.

And to some degree, I take myself way too seriously.

[Gongxi]

Also, don't waste our time with facts, ElGee, LeBron is a choker.

I'm not sure that ElGee has done much so argue against LeBron-is-a-choker.

Green font.

[mysticbb]

^^^Please re-read what I wrote. The series isn't a statement against BRYANT'S offensive impact. It's a statement against the impact of someone scoring 35 ppg.

And that is not seen in this example. And how many players scored 35 ppg on a similar pace? Thus I have no idea what do you want to tell everybody here. They didn't saw a massive better overall team offense when Bryant reduced his shots, in fact it was worse and in the game he was attempting the most shots the Lakers offense was even the best (and as I said, even if we downgrade the scoring effiency to 56 TS% for Bryant in that game, he still would have scored 42 points and the team offense overall would still be at 111 ORtg, better than in any other game!). The thinking of Jackson was wrong, because an increased load for the rest of the Lakers didn't result in an overall better efficiency.

How can you use this series as statement against the impact of "someone scoring 35 ppg"? How? Just because Phil Jackson tried something different against a team the Lakers lost 3 times badly with their normal setting? That is your proof for that? Not the result of a decreased offensive efficiency? The result doesn't matter, only the idea of Jackson matters? I can't follow you here, your argumentation makes not much sense at all. Is the decision by Spoelstra not using a 3pt specialist like Jones in the finals the proof that a 3pt specialist doesn't help? Can we use that as a proof that a specialist like Jones didn't have the offensive impact on the Heat during the rest of the playoffs, because Spoelstra decided to not use him? That is basically your argument here. Look, Jackson wanted to do something else, but it didn't work, thus we see that 35 ppg scorers have not a big impact? Like, Spoelstra wanted to do something else, but it didn't work, thus we see that a 3pt specialist can't have a big impact? You have a flaw in your argumentation, your idea is not backed up by the data.

[ElGee]

I don't really know how else to say this, or why you aren't grasping this concept. Maybe others can explain it better.

You are a scientist, you can't prove anything. The lower offense in 7 games is NOT indicative that Jackson made the wrong decision. You keep citing a single game, in which Bryant scored 12 points in OT, as evidence of something. As if LA, in quite normal variance, couldn't score an extra 8 points per 100 in regulation. I don't get what you are missing here.

Again, it's a statement against someone scoring 35 ppg because people view that as some inherent feat of amazement. But it's coming at the expense of other options. Those individual high volume attempts have diminishing returns. Jackson's decision to change strategy is a *reflection* of that. If were a tremendous, unstoppable weapon he wouldn't have steered away from it.

[mysticbb]

Again, it's a statement against someone scoring 35 ppg because people view that as some inherent feat of amazement. But it's coming at the expense of other options. Those individual high volume attempts have diminishing returns. Jackson's decision to change strategy is a *reflection* of that. If were a tremendous, unstoppable weapon he wouldn't have steered away from it.

There are also dimishing returns when we increase the usage of players not used that role! And in fact it seems like those dimishing returns are bigger. We are not talking about Bryant giving the ball more often to Gasol or Bynum here, we are talking about giving the ball more often to Kwame Brown. Lamar Odom actually had even a slight decrease in usage in recent years and it showed it helped his game and impact.

You are right that those 35 ppg are not giving a team an impact other players couldn't give a team. As I said it before Bryant in 2006 is not a big outlier in terms of impact overall. His offensive impact is among the best over the decade, but his overall impact doesn't come close to that of Garnett or Duncan. That is a good statement. Maybe I got you wrong, but somehow you seem to argue that an increased usage for other players while decreasing the usage of Bryant would have made the Lakers overall better. The Lakers one season later became worse with such a strategy.
We rather see the limitations of Bryant here. The Lakers weren't better, because Bryant didn't have the impact of the other All-Time greats, his peak level was lower. Some of that due to his lower level of excellence and some due to his worse decision making. But I don't see how forcing more usage for others would have increased the Lakers' playing level in 2006. The 2007 Lakers are showing that this is not going to work and it seems like the dimishing returns by increasing the usage of role players are a bigger issue than the dimishing returns of increasing the usage of a star player of the category Bryant is in.