RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3

[MisterHibachi]

To play in a "system" like the Warriors you need multiple playmakers. Cavs don't have that. They have Kyrie, who's had more usage than he deserves frankly. Whenever LeBron's had capable playmakers and decision makers, he's been more than willing to play off ball. Heck, he was an incredible pick and roll partner with freaking Delly. I saw the Cavs try to pigeon hole Shump into a playmaking role this year, it was terrible. I don't buy this 'my way or the highway' attitude you're trying to ascribe to LeBron. He's more than proven himself as an off ball player.

I agree that you need multiple players capable of making good decisions, but I don't think you need multiple playmakers in the classic sense, as in Chris Paul or Jason Kidd types.

Think of the 2014 Spurs as a better example than the Warriors (oh how I wish I hadn't mentioned them). They used brilliant ball movement and player movement, but you don't have to be a great playmaker in that system. Boris Diaw was probably the most effective playmaker, and he averaged only 5.8 assists in the finals. Parker averaged 4.6, Ginobli averaged 4.4, and no one else averaged more than 2.0. Parker and Ginobli are obviously good playmakers, and Diaw was too, but it was more about the hot-potato passing and player movement that broke the defense down to get easy shots.

That's different from making someone a playmaker in PnR situations, which requires a different skill set.

I'm also not saying that LeBron doesn't play off the ball and requires the ball in his hands all the time, because that's obviously not the case. But he does initiate the offense the majority of the time. Don't you agree that's true?

I don't see how it's all that controversial to say that the Cavs offense is built around LeBron.

If you think the playmakers on the current Cavs and the 2014 Spurs are comparable, then we'll just agree to disagree. Diaw was a legitimately great decision maker. There isn't one guy outside of LeBron and Love that has BBIQ comparable to Diaw on the Cavs.

I don't know how you could watch the Cavs and say these other guys should have the ball more. They simply don't know what to do with it. RJ is a finisher at this point, he can't create anything. Shumpert can dribble but he makes stupid decisions 7/10 times he tries anything. JR can't dribble. They didn't have Deron for majority of the season. Who else can they trust to make plays? The team is filled with finishers, which was a deliberate choice but it says nothing about LeBron's abilities, or rather incapabilities. It just says that his teams are best when he's the primary decision maker, which makes sense because he's arguably the GOAT decision maker. It says nothing about his capabilities as a secondary playmaker off the ball, which is really where the doubt lies because no one questions his finishing ability off the ball. We saw that question answered in Miami, and his basic skill set says there shouldn't even have been a question in the first place. As for willingness, that question too has been answered. He's had some of his greatest seasons in Miami, and when he came back to Cleveland he was eager to let Kyrie be the general, which was a colossal failure.

I'm also not saying that LeBron doesn't play off the ball and requires the ball in his hands all the time, because that's obviously not the case. But he does initiate the offense the majority of the time. Don't you agree that's true?

Well, yes that's obviously true. But that's not what I was arguing against. The fact is LeBron is the primary playmaker on the Cavs. I'm saying he's in that role both because he's the best suited for it on the team and because he has to be in that role because basically no one else on the team is capable of making good decisions on a consistent level outside of Love and Kyrie for some stretches. There's a difference between playing majority on ball and being incapable of playing off ball.

[Tesla]

I'm glad you're posting on this. My opinion on KG has changed quite a bit over the years and in 2014 I started advocating for him at the #4 spot with Duncan as my #5. I went into this one in 2017 basically looking to pull back from being a major advocate really at all, but in particular from KG. I just don't want to be like that all the time. But since you're talking about this Tesla, I feel I should address it some.

First, I don't see it as "Duncan actually did it, whereas KG just might have done it". Players don't "do" championships, they do things that can lead to championships. The mere fact that sometimes the same thing can succeed or fail in actually leading to a championship means that we need to be able address the things in and of themselves.

KG gave his team more lift than Duncan did, and by "lift" I mean that from my analysis of +/- style stats, Garnett has a general edge there over Duncan. This was always true but it didn't mean as much to me when KG was in Minnesota because of what you say: It was in a lesser team setting than Duncan so take it with a grain of salt and grade on a curve.

But then KG went to Boston and things changed. There KG has tremendous defensive impact on a team that was defined by that defensive impact and they won the championship, and could have easily been a dynasty if the players in question had gotten together just a little sooner. This could be said to have re-legitimized KG in my eyes (alone with the help of some great posters here). Basically, the only thing that kept me from seeing KG as on a tier with Duncan before was the fact I hadn't seen him in the most triumphant setting. Once I knew better what he could be, it just seemed silly to act as if it couldn't have been like that from the start of his prime.

Now, the reality is at this point I'm actually totally fine with Duncan over KG. I can see good arguments both ways. I tended to focus on the Duncan comparison though because of the unique relationship:

They are contemporary rivals seen by many as being in different tiers, but the analytics just don't support this, and my qualitative distinctions holding KG back just became, as you say, absurd, the more I looked at it.

The problem I have here is Tim Duncan actually was the driving force to a dynasty. You are implyng KG couldve been... he couldve, but Duncan was.

I dont see an issue with thinking KG may have accomplished similar team success and playoff appearances, games, production, etc had he been given the right cast at the right time. My issue is giving him equal or above those that actually did. There are many factors that go into playing deep post season after post season that cant be merely a given, such as durability. Duncan has over a season of playoff games over him, that is incredible. Given KG was an ironman until Boston, Id say he would probably be fine... but we cant just give him it over those that did it, and im not talking barely...its a huge disparity.

You have to be picky here, there are small differences that rank players ahead of others. I dont think in their primes they are different tier players, they are close (just Duncan did it for a longer period) They are all great at this level, but you dont even have to be picky to see that Duncan has done so much more than KG in terms of having a ATG career... its very clear.

You're entitled to think along these lines but do you understand why others don't believe in driving a tier-sized wedge between players on the basis of "X may have done it, but Y actually did it"?

I'm trying to remove luck from the conversation and in team sports, there's always luck as a factor for the team results of individuals.

I understand the argument, it just isnt a good one for ranking "all time great". It is a peaks ranking type arguement. There is a lot more luck in KG actually matching what Duncan did than the actual luck Duncan had.

Also, there is luck in not getting injured (oftentimes), yet we can not give credit to that player that unluckily got injured for something he has not done but "probably would have" had he not been so unlucky. Unfortunatley, luck is real and it plays a role how shapes everything and ultimately how we perceive it.

[THKNKG]

Another thought I had (if you guys aren't fans of how conceptual I can be, I apologize haha):

Is there a difference similar to what I argued ITO gravity/anti-gravity that applies to impact as well? Meaning, is there a difference in volume of impact and effectual impact?

Here's what I mean. Those players that have had the most measurable impact are KG and Lebron. The years that seemed to often be the highest for them were those in which they did EVERYTHING. KG had years where he was everything for the Timberwolves, playing both primary and secondary roles. Lebron did the same this year, as I argued earlier in the thread. He's their "primary" in many ways - playmaker, scorer, defender, middle linebacker, etc. But they fail when he's on the bench because he is also a "glue guy" in so many ways - pseudo-Rim protector, offensive coach, and others. Years where they "did everything" correlate pretty strongly with their largest amounts of impact, but was it the most *effective* use of their impact? Then, we saw that when they had help (12-13 Lebron, Celtics KG) they maximized their *team's* impact as well.

I suppose what I mean is that impact volume can tell us something of the potential or magnitude of a player's ability, but their affect on team impact while maximizing their own is a testament to their impact efficacy.

There are some players (Lebron, KG, Duncan, Russell) where we saw them in a variety of situations and they did both successfully (volume and efficacy of impact). There are others who did that often, but not always, or had some faults in certain circumstances (like Wilt, Shaq), so I think they're a step down. Then, there are potentially some situations where we would be unable to see a player in a variety of circumstances due to things like injury, etc. (CP3 and Walton come to mind).

Any thoughts? (My goodness, I'm still torn on KG/Russell/Lebron)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[eminence]

Duncan has plenty of arguments over KG (and anybody else) without getting into a did it vs could've did it argument. That whole train of thought reeks of ring counting.

[JordansBulls]

Duncan has plenty of arguments over KG (and anybody else) without getting into a did it vs could've did it argument. That whole train of thought reeks of ring counting.

What is the thought process of KG over Duncan or KG in the top 5? Never understood that?

[Texas Chuck]

You're entitled to think along these lines but do you understand why others don't believe in driving a tier-sized wedge between players on the basis of "X may have done it, but Y actually did it"?

I'm trying to remove luck from the conversation and in team sports, there's always luck as a factor for the team results of individuals.

By the same token you can understand why others want to remove projection and supposition from the conversation as well. And basketball is a game with relatively little luck compared to say poker which also has those who subscribe to GTO and unexploitable play. Tho just like in basketball, its those with the most talent who win when you get into sample sizes large enough to remove the luck, not the guys who follow the math most closely. Elite players can "beat" the math because players make mistakes.

I tend to agree with Tesla that more credit should be given to those teams and players who achieved the highest of heights and am cautious about making assumptions about what others might could have done based on some real world data from a totally different situation.

That doesn't mean player X with greater team success than player Y should always be rated higher, but I can't get to where I feel confident giving player Y credit for what player X (and his team) actually did achieve.

Both perspectives should be given merit.

edit: Also I'm reading a book currently on counterfactuals and its interesting how much of this type of discussion ties into counterfactuals and how it leads us down false trails--sometimes to our good, but mostly to our detriment.

[Texas Chuck]

Duncan has plenty of arguments over KG (and anybody else) without getting into a did it vs could've did it argument. That whole train of thought reeks of ring counting.

The thing is, there are almost no serious posters who ever use rings to sell a player as superior. I am one who speaks up in defense of the importance of team success, but even I never go to ring counts.

But you see it used in reverse by serious posters a lot. Where they suggest or imply (or even go further than that at times) that Duncan's only case over KG is rings. They are the ones bringing rings into the discussion only to rip on the very idea of it. It's a subtle but effective way of dealing with that elephant(or mouse) in the room.

Rings should only matter so much. But they should matter to the positive. That can be anywhere from zero(I know there are posters here who literally assign that value) to whatever. But it should always be positive.

[Doctor MJ]

The problem I have here is Tim Duncan actually was the driving force to a dynasty. You are implyng KG couldve been... he couldve, but Duncan was.

I dont see an issue with thinking KG may have accomplished similar team success and playoff appearances, games, production, etc had he been given the right cast at the right time. My issue is giving him equal or above those that actually did. There are many factors that go into playing deep post season after post season that cant be merely a given, such as durability. Duncan has over a season of playoff games over him, that is incredible. Given KG was an ironman until Boston, Id say he would probably be fine... but we cant just give him it over those that did it, and im not talking barely...its a huge disparity.

You have to be picky here, there are small differences that rank players ahead of others. I dont think in their primes they are different tier players, they are close (just Duncan did it for a longer period) They are all great at this level, but you dont even have to be picky to see that Duncan has done so much more than KG in terms of having a ATG career... its very clear.

You're entitled to think along these lines but do you understand why others don't believe in driving a tier-sized wedge between players on the basis of "X may have done it, but Y actually did it"?

I'm trying to remove luck from the conversation and in team sports, there's always luck as a factor for the team results of individuals.

I understand the argument, it just isnt a good one for ranking "all time great". It is a peaks ranking type arguement. There is a lot more luck in KG actually matching what Duncan did than the actual luck Duncan had.

Also, there is luck in not getting injured (oftentimes), yet we can not give credit to that player that unluckily got injured for something he has not done but "probably would have" had he not been so unlucky. Unfortunatley, luck is real and it plays a role how shapes everything and ultimately how we perceive it.

So far as I know, trex can correct me, in the end we use our own definition of "greatness". You're essentially arguing for a more qualitative approach than I am so to me allowing your freedom to do this when it can't be known to align with others is precisely why leeway is needed.

Re: luck is real. Sure, and I think very carefully about how I deal with the luck factor without ever claiming to argue I have it solved.

I'll put it this way:

One of the core things I ask is "Who would I draft first?" It's not the only thing I ask but it helps keep me from making arguments like "Well X won more championships so I'll rank him ahead of Y" which is both a relief and a necessity.

If forced to draft between KG and Duncan it'd basically be a coin flip for me.

[2klegend]

Sorry I miss the List 1 and List 2. Was busy at the time but I'm back. I was glad the #1 was MJ because I would have argue for him as well. Though, #2 I would have argue for Lebron but Kareem is a close choice so I have no issue with that.

On this List 3 -

My 1st candidate is Lebron James. Between 09-14, he was playing at the highest level at the peak of his prime that nobody can match beside Jordan. Between 09-13, he was the league leader in PER and WS/48 consecutively and in '14 he was only 2nd in WS/48 to Durant. So we are dealing with a guy who not only putting up historical prime performance but doing so in a winning fashion. This means Lebron is not stat-padding like many other players who put up insane stat but their team isn't winning much. Lebron stat dominant reflects the team success which to me prove Lebron prime is easily fit for Top 3 of all-time without question.

My 2nd pick would be Wilt Chamberlain. The choice shouldn't need explaining much but his insane stat obviously had to do with it. Despite some restriction and some stats weren't record, he was able to put up some historical number. Of the NBA top 10 in all-time PER, he accounted for 2 of the highest (1st and 2nd) to himself. He is basically the epitome of a stat king if we were to be statistically consistent analyst.

[Doctor MJ]

You're entitled to think along these lines but do you understand why others don't believe in driving a tier-sized wedge between players on the basis of "X may have done it, but Y actually did it"?

I'm trying to remove luck from the conversation and in team sports, there's always luck as a factor for the team results of individuals.

By the same token you can understand why others want to remove projection and supposition from the conversation as well. And basketball is a game with relatively little luck compared to say poker which also has those who subscribe to GTO and unexploitable play. Tho just like in basketball, its those with the most talent who win when you get into sample sizes large enough to remove the luck, not the guys who follow the math most closely. Elite players can "beat" the math because players make mistakes.

I tend to agree with Tesla that more credit should be given to those teams and players who achieved the highest of heights and am cautious about making assumptions about what others might could have done based on some real world data from a totally different situation.

That doesn't mean player X with greater team success than player Y should always be rated higher, but I can't get to where I feel confident giving player Y credit for what player X (and his team) actually did achieve.

Both perspectives should be given merit.

edit: Also I'm reading a book currently on counterfactuals and its interesting how much of this type of discussion ties into counterfactuals and how it leads us down false trails--sometimes to our good, but mostly to our detriment.

Agreed and interesting.

[THKNKG]

You're entitled to think along these lines but do you understand why others don't believe in driving a tier-sized wedge between players on the basis of "X may have done it, but Y actually did it"?

I'm trying to remove luck from the conversation and in team sports, there's always luck as a factor for the team results of individuals.

By the same token you can understand why others want to remove projection and supposition from the conversation as well. And basketball is a game with relatively little luck compared to say poker which also has those who subscribe to GTO and unexploitable play. Tho just like in basketball, its those with the most talent who win when you get into sample sizes large enough to remove the luck, not the guys who follow the math most closely. Elite players can "beat" the math because players make mistakes.

I tend to agree with Tesla that more credit should be given to those teams and players who achieved the highest of heights and am cautious about making assumptions about what others might could have done based on some real world data from a totally different situation.

That doesn't mean player X with greater team success than player Y should always be rated higher, but I can't get to where I feel confident giving player Y credit for what player X (and his team) actually did achieve.

Both perspectives should be given merit.

edit: Also I'm reading a book currently on counterfactuals and its interesting how much of this type of discussion ties into counterfactuals and how it leads us down false trails--sometimes to our good, but mostly to our detriment.

Great points. I'd also like to throw in that even without counter factual argumentation (which I'm not the biggest fan of), KG can still have some really valid arguments towards similar placing as Duncan.

[Texas Chuck]

, KG can still have some really valid arguments towards similar placing as Duncan.

Now I personally consider Duncan to be a clearly superior player to KG. So understand that's where I'm at. But absolutely KG has valid arguments to held in similar(or maybe even higher) regard, no question.

[eminence]

Duncan has plenty of arguments over KG (and anybody else) without getting into a did it vs could've did it argument. That whole train of thought reeks of ring counting.

What is the thought process of KG over Duncan or KG in the top 5? Never understood that?

Well, I can't say for sure on KG over Duncan (as I don't have him there), but I imagine an argument would focus on his superior ability to plug all kinds of different holes on a team. He can generate his maximum impact in more situations than maybe any player ever.

Argument for top 5 is simple, he was very good (especially defensively) for a very long time. Celtics KG in particular is the best defensive player I've ever seen (Robinson/Mutombo/Duncan/Wallace/Howard/Gobert/Draymond being the other elite guys I've seen).

[2klegend]

I must have misunderstand some ranking so this is all-time GOAT and not specifically a prime only list?

[eminence]

I must have misunderstand some ranking so this is all-time GOAT and not specifically a prime only list?

Entire career.

[2klegend]

I must have misunderstand some ranking so this is all-time GOAT and not specifically a prime only list?

Entire career.

Alright. Thought it was just prime only. But anyways, my top 3 choice still stand (1. MJ, 2. Kareem, 3. Lebron) with entire career. On the next list, I would argue differently based on entire career.

[eminence]

Spoiler:

Duncan has plenty of arguments over KG (and anybody else) without getting into a did it vs could've did it argument. That whole train of thought reeks of ring counting.

The thing is, there are almost no serious posters who ever use rings to sell a player as superior. I am one who speaks up in defense of the importance of team success, but even I never go to ring counts.

But you see it used in reverse by serious posters a lot. Where they suggest or imply (or even go further than that at times) that Duncan's only case over KG is rings. They are the ones bringing rings into the discussion only to rip on the very idea of it. It's a subtle but effective way of dealing with that elephant(or mouse) in the room.

Rings should only matter so much. But they should matter to the positive. That can be anywhere from zero(I know there are posters here who literally assign that value) to whatever. But it should always be positive.

You do an excellent job of avoiding it yourself, and I feel most others usually do as well. But in this particular thread I do feel it has been raised against KG by proxy of a 'it's just ridiculous' argument. And I'm sure David Lewis would agree that an 'incredulous stare' isn't enough to disprove KG's greatness

[THKNKG]

Okay, so in light of all the previously stated reasons in this thread:

VOTE
1. Tim Duncan
2. Bill Russell

HM: KG/Lebron

I could see KG/Lebron/Russell in any order TBH, but eventually Lebron will surpass every player ever IMO. He just hasn't surpassed these yet.

[Texas Chuck]

It would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

[kayess]

Spoilering this - Senior, I replied in depth to your post, but everyone else, you may skip if you wish. I feel like this is a fair compromise.

Spoiler:

I think this is a good point. The Cavs offense was lighting the world on fire, but they were average to mediocre defensively. They got torched in the Finals with GSW going +6 over their RS ORTG. Do we think the Cavs loading up on defensively-challenged guys like Korver, Frye, Deron should count against Lebron? If their defensive faults were accepted to placate Lebron's vision of a team construction, then he should accept some blame when they get torched, no?

Just so we can get this out of the way: you are assuming that LeBron is the defacto GM, correct? We don't have actually evidence for this, but even if it were so:

LeBron making the decisions -> Decisions are limited by (a) what's available, (b) what the Cavs have, (c) other teams' context

Essentially: we have no evidence if it truly is LeBron (in fact, available evidence suggests the opposite - statements from the players, beat reporters, Griff himself, etc.), we have no evidence these are the players he actually wanted, or if he wanted other players but these were the best that were available, other than the perception that because they work well around him, it's who he wanted - but we can't distinguish that given the info that we have - it could've been Griff for all we know.

That's what I think the reality is - but you're welcome to assume that this is the case, and I will, for the sake of argument.

I kind of agree with MJ/Outside. The Cavs clearly have offensive talent outside of Lebron with Kyrie and Love + their shooters - even Deron showed flashes. Why were these guys so god-awful offensively when Lebron sat? Lue probably could've done a better job, but talented players just don't forget how to play without their star (and if we're going to blame Lue, then does that also fall on Lebron for contributing to Blatt's axing?). Is something else going on?

On Blatt: it's well documented that his teammates had more issue with Blatt because he was a yes man and refused to call out LeBron. Should we also blame the rest of the squad for their role in getting Blatt axed? Is it also the front-offices fault for not hiring a better coach? There's so many factors involved that continually hypothesizing about this, without strong evidence either way is far less productive than just arguing about the basketball that gets played on the court.

So your hypothesis here is: they're extremely reliant on LeBron so they fail without him. Let's look at their skill-sets then, and how they play with LeBron/vs. without them, to get a general sense for this:

Kyrie - ISO scorer, not a super-great playmaker but shows flashes. This is true with/without LeBron - it just depends on whether his shot is falling or not.
Love - Spaces the floor for LeBron/Kyrie, can post-up when he has a match-up advantage (in fact: he's been great in first quarters where they dump it to him and let him do his thing, often even with LeBron/Kyrie from 30feet out). Doesn't change much with/without LeBron.
Shumpert - spot-up shooter, counted upon to play D, but can't make good decisions with the ball with/without LeBron
JR Smith - great off-ball, making tough shots, etc. Can't really dribble drive to set-up others anymore. True with/without LeBron.
...
...

You hopefully get the point here: LeBron empowers the best thing about their games, but looking at it on paper they should be independent of him. There's nothing fundamentally different about what they can do in general, what they do when LeBron is on, what they're expected to do when he's off. If I were shown a situation like this, my instinct would be "well, maybe it's a talent/competition difference", not a "no, the central player is too good because he monopolizes the tasks on the court". Not saying we shouldn't look into this - but it's not the likely potential biggest driver given the situation.

Put this another way: if the names were blanked out and we didn't know who it was, their PERCEIVED history of influencing roster moves - would we hypothesize the same way? I don't think so.

Hard to evaluate the 7 finals in a row thing. GS really should've threepeated but they threw away 2016. If they closed out CLE in 5 like they should've we'd be looking at this in a totally different way.

You can't take away 2016, but they didn't beat a single top 5 team on the way to the Finals in all 3 years. You can count Atlanta, but I thought GS/LAC/SAS were all better and HOU was about on their level. Their conference runs weren't impressive at all. It really depends on what you consider "success" for a team like this - I think Lebron himself would tell you it's title or bust.

I think some fairness is in order here: You can't just say they threw away 2016 without acknowledging that the Cavs had massive injury concerns in 2015 - that's accounting for context in one year, and not for the other.

You say you can't take away 2016... But it sure seems like you want to, lol.

Their conference runs where they posted double digit SRS and ATG PO offenses, even after having faced GS' excellent defense? And before the competition gets brought up: this already accounts for league average ORTG/DRTG, accounts for opponent strength/DRTG, etc... Not to mention the Magic Lakers FEASTED on a weak WC, and the Western contenders the 00s+ Lakers faced were weak on D as well.

The point on success reeks of ring-counting, but sure, I'll bite: you can only beat who's in front of you, but when what's in front of you are 8+ SRS teams playing at a ~11-12+ SRS level... I mean, that's literally better than MJ's Bulls himself. Are you saying the Cavs should have beaten this Warriors? Define success at the team level however you want to, but at the individual level, it's clear how to define it: how much did the individual drive his team's scoring margin (which ultimately correlates to winning the best)?

There is no out here, and I don't feel it's consistent: if they beat up a middling East and put up GOAT figures, it wasn't impressive enough. If they are completely outmatched against GOAT-tier competition, they weren't successful enough... I mean, what? Where is the nuance here? This is winning bias, plain and simple, and to generalize this: this is the exact same reason we underrate Mailman, Robinson, Hakeem...

This is actually something I've been thinking with Lebron (and Harden fwiw). Over this year I got the impression that posters wanted to credit Lebron/Harden as the carriers of their offenses. They were finding people and killing teams with their passing, threes rained down on lesser beings' heads, and they looked fantastic. Then the playoffs rolled around and when they were eliminated, the blame was on the shooters who inevitably saw a shooting decline against better defenses.

I see where you're going with this, and it's absolutely fair to bring up: fortunately, someone's looked at this and determined that wide-open looks (which the Cavs generated a ton of) don't vary wildly based on defense because, well, they're wide open. And yet they shot historically bad on them in a couple Finals games, which were easily the difference between victory and defeat - so no, I don't think you can blame LeBron/Harden for their shooters not making shots here.

This felt inconsistent to me. Lebron and Harden received the lion's share of credit for their team's offense and then the shooters took the lion's share of blame...even though the shooters were actually doing the harder portion of the interaction.

"How is a wide open shot harder than the pass/court vision"? you might ask. Well, think about it like this - the three point shot has a low success rate. If you can succeed 40% of the time, that's considered amazing. It doesn't matter if there's no one within 8 miles of you, attempting a shot from >22 feet is expected to succeed less than half the time. The best shooters don't even make non-layup 2s as much as half the time.

2 things: 40% isn't low - it just seems like it because the gold standard for 2FG efficiency is ~50%. And even compared to that, 40% isn't low at all - it's not 100%, obviously, but it's misleading to call it low.

Second thing: you're obviously exaggerating about the 8 miles thing, but the expected success rate for an open 3 (nearest guy over 4+ feet away) is 50%+ - so your point about it being half is factually incorrect. Now again, to call this "high" or "low" is misleading - compared to an open layup, it's clearly not high, but that's why there's this thing called expected value. A 50%+ 3 has a ~1.5 PPP EV, same as a 75% lay-up. The lay-up has far less variance, but those are harder to come by, too.

You could say "but over the long run their percentages would've evened out!" and you'd probably be right...except you don't get a long run, you get 4 losses.

If you think like this in real life, I'd like to play poker against you some-time. Losing hands even though you made the correct EV play is to be expected - you have to trust in the long run, of course. Shortening it to "4 losses" sounds like it's a higher variance strategy than it is, but in reality, it's over ~50 shots in a single game - a large enough sample that you can be confident things will regress to the mean. The Cavs make 2-3 more threes in a couple of games (again, over a 50 shot attempt sample per game)... that's a difference of 4-6% - hardly a WILD swing, and they probably win game 3/5, against the greatest team of all time (BY FAR). If your take away from this is "it was a bad strategy, they should stick to a lower variance one", then: can you suggest what they should have done? If anything, they should have upped the variance even more (they might've lost by more - but you expect that anyway) and resorted to caveman ball, but to informed onlookers, it was honestly surprising that it was as close as it was given the pace they were playing at.