2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah I want to careful saying playing fast is just better too. Caledron is another methodical point guard who never turned the ball over but who consistently ran better offenses than faster paced guys because like Paul he never turned it over, made consistently smart decisions, was a terrific shooter.

It's sorta the Favre vs Aikman debate of the 90's. Favre put up all the huge numbers, won the MVP's, played with a flair for the dramatic. Aikman realized if I simply protect the ball we are going to win basically every week and was the ultra-controlling, super precise, a-hole type.

Favre is generally seen as the better QB, and I think even Aikman would agree. But Aikman also was like Paul in that all he cared about was winning and if that meant handing it off 40 times and passing it 18, never a problem. Favre was constantly driving his coach crazy with audibling out of run plays to the point where Green Bay basically stopped trying to run. Favre wanted to win badly too, but only with him doing everything.

Would Paul benefit from a little bit of Nash's more YOLO approach at times? Certainly. Would Nash benefit from a dedication to something other than a Nash-centric offense and a better understanding of how his play impacts the defensive end too? Absolutely. But ultimately you are who you are.

Also a bit surprised to hear Doc reference soccer and hockey and their quick passing when Nash was rarely that kind of PG. He was much more a probe, probe, probe keep the dribble going until I find what I want guy. He was almost always the final pass where in those other sports even your number 10 is much more frequently a link in a chain. Jason Kidd is the PG who imo best exhibits this quality of seeing it ahead of time and moving the ball the second he gets it. Not Nash.

[HeartBreakKid]

Well, Dallas had an incredible run game so Aikmen deciding to hand it off 40 times isn't really a grand sacrifice in order to win. They had a better option than him, can't really say the same for Green Bay.

[Texas Chuck]

Well, Dallas had an incredible run game so Aikmen deciding to hand it off 40 times isn't really a grand sacrifice in order to win. They had a better option than him, can't really say the same for Green Bay.

Oh Dallas was a superteam of all superteams. Great line, great back, great receiver, great TE. Then the defense was really really good too. I intentionally tried not to focus on the team results because those Cowboys teams were seriously loaded.

But the point was Aikman was willing to play to that talent---control the ball, realize that a punt wasn't the end of the world with that defense--that essentially the only way they lose is if they give the game away so he was willing to play very conservatively despite having the talent to have done so much more than he did from a statistical standpoint.

I'm not at all sure Favre would have done that in the same situation. Just goes against everything we know about him. Marino another guy known for only wanting to play his way.

And I don't mean this as a knock on Nash or Favre. Obviously these guys were as good as it gets at what they did. But just trying to illustrate that Paul's style isn't necessarily worse than Nash's because its more conservative in nature. Just like Nash's isn't better because its higher octane. Nash's style led to great offense but I think we all also understand how it contributed to his teams' collective defensive struggles as well.

[Doctor MJ]

So, I would suggest that it's too simplistic to think of it as just maximizing or not. What's happening fundamentally, regardless of how much or how little Paul is helping his team, is that Paul is using his same basic way of running an offense everywhere he goes, and the attributes with which he does this are different from other guys.

Hence why I think it's really great to be able to say that Paul's approach could be said to be built around not making mistakes while Magic/Nash were really more about the attack. This statement doesn't tell you who was better, but it tells you something more insightful.


Excellent insight. Indeed, one of the things about separate ORtg & DRtg stuff is that it tends to fool us into thinking there's a clean line of causal separation between the two sides when there really isn't.

Yeah I'm fine with the stylistic analysis of the approach but the implications that the approach are not as effective don't really hold water with me without some good data to back it up.

Completely agree on the separating of ORtg & Drtg. I think this is very important when looking at the RAPMs, RAPTORS, etc. of the world and remember reading an article from one of their architects basically saying the same thing.

What I'd point out is that Nash just made passes that Paul doesn't. Like there are moments when there are passes available that Paul doesn't go for where you can literally say "With Nash, that's a transition lay up". This doesn't mean Nash's strategy was more optimal than Paul's necessarily as Paul has advantages over Nash, but understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of each guy's tendencies is valualbe.

As far as "good data to back it up", I mean we've got all sorts of data talking about Nash's unreal impact on ORtg. There's really no reason to feel like that's not out there. But of course as noted, you can't fully separate offense from defense just by looking at what impacts ORtg and what impacts DRtg.

What I'll also point out is this:

Note that I'm specifically criticizing Paul for slowing down young teams. This is another way of saying that if you've got a bunch of players that don't have the edge of youthful athleticism, he might be exactly what you want. Not every team should be trying to attack every transition opportunity. My concern is that Paul slows down even the teams that don't seem like they should be slowing down.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah I want to careful saying playing fast is just better too. Caledron is another methodical point guard who never turned the ball over but who consistently ran better offenses than faster paced guys because like Paul he never turned it over, made consistently smart decisions, was a terrific shooter.

It's sorta the Favre vs Aikman debate of the 90's. Favre put up all the huge numbers, won the MVP's, played with a flair for the dramatic. Aikman realized if I simply protect the ball we are going to win basically every week and was the ultra-controlling, super precise, a-hole type.

Favre is generally seen as the better QB, and I think even Aikman would agree. But Aikman also was like Paul in that all he cared about was winning and if that meant handing it off 40 times and passing it 18, never a problem. Favre was constantly driving his coach crazy with audibling out of run plays to the point where Green Bay basically stopped trying to run. Favre wanted to win badly too, but only with him doing everything.

Would Paul benefit from a little bit of Nash's more YOLO approach at times? Certainly. Would Nash benefit from a dedication to something other than a Nash-centric offense and a better understanding of how his play impacts the defensive end too? Absolutely. But ultimately you are who you are.

Also a bit surprised to hear Doc reference soccer and hockey and their quick passing when Nash was rarely that kind of PG. He was much more a probe, probe, probe keep the dribble going until I find what I want guy. He was almost always the final pass where in those other sports even your number 10 is much more frequently a link in a chain. Jason Kidd is the PG who imo best exhibits this quality of seeing it ahead of time and moving the ball the second he gets it. Not Nash.

Probing is not the same as waiting though. Nash was making things happen in the half court by initiating various actions.

By contrast, Kidd just plain wasn't anywhere near as good in the half court. A lot of that has to do with his lack of shooting ability, but it's wrong to characterize Kidd as someone who was finding amazing half court passes instantly all the time. Kidd's teams won largely with defense and transition offense, and they lost because they weren't great at actually playing traditional offense. Not saying that's fundamentally about Kidd being weak on passing in the half court, but it is what it is.

Re: Favre vs Aikman. Definitely see the analogy there.

[HeartBreakKid]

But it's not really true that you should attack in transition simply because your team is young. Being able to dominate in the half court is ultimately more important than running teams out of the gym. Half court offense is essentially resiliency. If you ask me, Devin Booker and Deandre Ayton's skill sets are much more built for half court attacking - regardless of their age. Jae Crowder is not very good in transition nor is he young - he is a spot up shooter.

So 4/5 of the players on the starting roster are players who have skill sets more useful for half court offense. Why should CP3 play faster? Even some of the bench players like Dario Saric, Cameron Payne and Frank Kaminsky are not athletic guys. Doesn't seem like a team that should be running up and down.



We've seen CP3 anchor the top offenses with athletic teams before, so there isn't really any proof to say that he should be playing faster. In regards to Phoenix, it seems like they are built for half court offense.

[Texas Chuck]

By contrast, Kidd just plain wasn't anywhere near as good in the half court. A lot of that has to do with his lack of shooting ability, but it's wrong to characterize Kidd as someone who was finding amazing half court passes instantly all the time. Kidd's teams won largely with defense and transition offense, and they lost because they weren't great at actually playing traditional offense. Not saying that's fundamentally about Kidd being weak on passing in the half court, but it is what it is.
.

I think you undersell Kidd a bit offensively, but no big deal because that's not the point I was trying to make and clearly Nash is the superior offensive PG by a significant distance so not trying to argue a case for Kidd's being better. He clearly was not.

I was simply trying to address the stylistic point as I thought referencing the other sports was really interesting particularly soccer and hockey where you typically are having to make decisions very very quickly particularly as attacking players and I just think that fits Kidd much more than it does Nash. Kidd moved the ball much quicker than Nash with lots of touch passing. Nash rarely did that.

So I loved the reference to those other games and Nash's experience with them influencing his play, but that despite Kidd not having that same experience I actually think he just naturally incorporated that into his game because he clearly processed what was happening on the court as fast as anyone probably ever has and knew where everyone was going to be and was clearly a firm believer that the ball can move faster than people. Because in addition to the speedy ball movement in half court sets, he loved advancing the ball on the break via the pass more than any other PG.

The Ball brothers both have some of those characteristics too, just obviously nowhere near the level of Kidd, to-date anyway.

[MO12msu]

What I'd point out is that Nash just made passes that Paul doesn't. Like there are moments when there are passes available that Paul doesn't go for where you can literally say "With Nash, that's a transition lay up". This doesn't mean Nash's strategy was more optimal than Paul's necessarily as Paul has advantages over Nash, but understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of each guy's tendencies is valualbe.

As far as "good data to back it up", I mean we've got all sorts of data talking about Nash's unreal impact on ORtg. There's really no reason to feel like that's not out there. But of course as noted, you can't fully separate offense from defense just by looking at what impacts ORtg and what impacts DRtg.

What I'll also point out is this:

Note that I'm specifically criticizing Paul for slowing down young teams. This is another way of saying that if you've got a bunch of players that don't have the edge of youthful athleticism, he might be exactly what you want. Not every team should be trying to attack every transition opportunity. My concern is that Paul slows down even the teams that don't seem like they should be slowing down.

Not sure where you thought I was questioning Nash. My "good data to back it up" comment was in regards to Paul's style not maximizing offensive efficiency, nothing to do with Nash's impact.

As far as your second point, HeartBreakKid covered most of my thoughts but I will reiterate. Just because a team is viewed as young and athletic doesn't mean they should play fast. Intuitively this might be true, but that's not what the data says when we're talking about Chris Paul. When Paul has been on the court since joining the Clippers he has been top (5-10) of the league in on court offensive rating for like 8 straight years. So the results have been amazing and yet the criticisms I read make it sound like he is holding his team back. It speaks more to a preference in style than actual results.

[therealbig3]

What I'd point out is that Nash just made passes that Paul doesn't. Like there are moments when there are passes available that Paul doesn't go for where you can literally say "With Nash, that's a transition lay up". This doesn't mean Nash's strategy was more optimal than Paul's necessarily as Paul has advantages over Nash, but understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of each guy's tendencies is valualbe.

As far as "good data to back it up", I mean we've got all sorts of data talking about Nash's unreal impact on ORtg. There's really no reason to feel like that's not out there. But of course as noted, you can't fully separate offense from defense just by looking at what impacts ORtg and what impacts DRtg.

What I'll also point out is this:

Note that I'm specifically criticizing Paul for slowing down young teams. This is another way of saying that if you've got a bunch of players that don't have the edge of youthful athleticism, he might be exactly what you want. Not every team should be trying to attack every transition opportunity. My concern is that Paul slows down even the teams that don't seem like they should be slowing down.

Not sure where you thought I was questioning Nash. My "good data to back it up" comment was in regards to Paul's style not maximizing offensive efficiency, nothing to do with Nash's impact.

As far as your second point, HeartBreakKid covered most of my thoughts but I will reiterate. Just because a team is viewed as young and athletic doesn't mean they should play fast. Intuitively this might be true, but that's not what the data says when we're talking about Chris Paul. When Paul has been on the court since joining the Clippers he has been top (5-10) of the league in on court offensive rating for like 8 straight years. So the results have been amazing and yet the criticisms I read make it sound like he is holding his team back. It speaks more to a preference in style than actual results.

I agree with the last sentence as being a common criticism without much basis, I think it's the same issue I see come up against LeBron, in that people don't like the LeBron-centric offense stylistically speaking, but the results, especially in the playoffs, are like GOAT-level, consistently. So what are we really getting on LeBron for?

But with CP3, maybe the offense could have been even better in LAC if CP3 did play faster, given that he had Blake and Deandre? Like, they were great offensively, as you're pointing out...but they weren't all-time great nor were they actually best in the league, especially in the playoffs. Blake and DJ didn't necessarily play better individually with CP3 either. Those are guys that should have played their best basketball with an elite PG. But DJ essentially put up the same numbers the year after CP3 left, and Blake had maybe the best individual year of his career in Detroit. While Amare and Marion were clearly maximized with Nash.

[MO12msu]

I agree with the last sentence as being a common criticism without much basis, I think it's the same issue I see come up against LeBron, in that people don't like the LeBron-centric offense stylistically speaking, but the results, especially in the playoffs, are like GOAT-level, consistently. So what are we really getting on LeBron for?

But with CP3, maybe the offense could have been even better in LAC if CP3 did play faster, given that he had Blake and Deandre? Like, they were great offensively, as you're pointing out...but they weren't all-time great nor were they actually best in the league, especially in the playoffs. Blake and DJ didn't necessarily play better individually with CP3 either. Those are guys that should have played their best basketball with an elite PG. But DJ essentially put up the same numbers the year after CP3 left, and Blake had maybe the best individual year of his career in Detroit. While Amare and Marion were clearly maximized with Nash.

Well the reason you don't think of them as all-time great is because of the constant injuries to the Clippers' best players. In 2015, when Paul did play 82 games, they had the best offense in the league ahead of the Warriors. That's why I've been referencing the on court offensive rating, since we're just talking about offensive effects and nothing further.

Year-by-Year using NBA.com's offensive rating (minimum of 15 mpg, 10 games played):

2012: 6th (Behind Manu, Matt Bonner, Harden, Patty Mills, Nick Collison)
2013: 1st
2014: 4th (Luke Babbit(lol), Redick, Barnes)
2015: 2nd (Griffin)
2016: 10th (All Warriors, Cavs, Thunder guys) - Griffin only played 35 games
2017: 3rd (Curry, Durant) - Griffin was 4th
2018: 2nd (Curry)

So when Paul was playing with that supporting cast, their offense was the best in the league or right there. The only guy consistently ahead was another all time great offensive player in Steph Curry.

I don't really agree that DJ's numbers stayed the same after CP3 left, there's a clear drop off in efficiency. With regards to Blake I guess you can argue he put up his best counting stats season due to the higher usage, but I don't care as much about maximizing individual player output compared to maximizing team offensive output.

[bondom34]

On CP and pace, just read this, and posted his podcast too but Nekias is really good.

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Just saw it and it was sort of timed perfectly with this conversation.
Edit: Also, there is a maybe in terms of passive vs agressive in terms of playstyle. Just as there can be too aggressive at times the opposite is true and I think Paul may do it at times. Doesn't mean he's not a top 5 PG all time, just a critique.

And I know realbig3 thinks very highly of him too.

[Lost92Bricks]

But with CP3, maybe the offense could have been even better in LAC if CP3 did play faster, given that he had Blake and Deandre? Like, they were great offensively, as you're pointing out...but they weren't all-time great nor were they actually best in the league, especially in the playoffs. Blake and DJ didn't necessarily play better individually with CP3 either. Those are guys that should have played their best basketball with an elite PG. But DJ essentially put up the same numbers the year after CP3 left, and Blake had maybe the best individual year of his career in Detroit. While Amare and Marion were clearly maximized with Nash.

They weren't all-time great solely because of Deandre's terrible freethrow shooting bringing them down. Teams had to hack him to slow down the Clippers offense and it worked. They were the worst freethrow shooting team in the league.

And DJ went from shooting 71.4% with CP3 to 64.5% after he left. Ask anybody who watched DJ over the years and they will tell you how much he declined on both ends without CP.

[HeartBreakKid]

DeAndre Jordan certainly got worse after lob city broke up. How is that even debatable? People have been debating if he's even worth starting for years now.

[bondom34]

Also, after seeing the Sixers drop to 2....I'm kinda back feeling like the Nets are gonna run through everyone again. This new look Nuggets team interests me just in general though. Also now just read they're on an 8 game win streak since getting Aaron Gordon...and its the longest win streak of Gordon's career.

[therealbig3]

Deandre Jordan also declined physically big time after Lob City, so there’s some conflating issues there. But his TS% was the 2nd highest of his career in 2018 and was higher than all his seasons before 2017, acting like there was a clear difference in his efficiency with and without Paul is a little disingenuous.

Paul didn’t exactly make Griffin or Deandre look better, and he could have by playing more to their style, and it may have led to even better offenses. That’s kind of the point and why Nash to me was more effective. You can’t look at his teams with Amare and Marion and act like he didn’t cater to their strengths and that it didn’t optimize the offense as a result.

If you want to argue that CP3 prioritized not turning it over and that in turn helped the defense, that’s a fair point, but it’s a different argument than “CP3 was different but just as effective offensively”, which I can’t really support.

[HeartBreakKid]

DeAndre Jordan did shoot better from the field than with CP3. Jordan doesn't shoot 3 pointers or create his own shot so looking at TS isn't necessary here. The reason why his TS recovered post CP3 is because his free throws shooting improved substantially.

DeAndre Jordan went from 3 seasons in a row of 70% FG (which is ridiculous) to 64 %. Obviously 64% is still good, but to say there is no difference is like saying theres no difference when Marion played/ w/o Nash, his numbers still declined even if they were good in a vacuum. His field-goal % dropped off by 7% and he was 29 years old and perfectly healthy his last season in LA. Jordan dried up when he went to Dallas, and as I said his TS% bumped up because he learned how to shoot free throws by then.

Jordan went from 48 % to 70% from the freethrow line in two years, so yes, his TS went back to its peak level - as that is a pretty crazy improvement. That has nothing to do with what point guard he is playing with.












Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan is a more awkward fit. Griffin had to learn how to play from the outside in order to optimize Jordan's paint dominance, that has nothing to do with CP3. DeAndre Jordan never scored out the paint during his entire run in lob city.

STAT is easy to play with, he is one of the most God like finishers and unlike Griffin he doesn't care whether he handles the ball. Both Marion and STAT are much better shooters than DeAndre Jordan. Not even close. STAT and Marion are a better scoring combination than Griffin and Jordan regardless of who their PG is, STAT is the best scorer by far. Griffin challenges STAT because of playmaking and defense - in terms of scoring they're not in the same tier.

I dont even see how it is relevant because the Clippers were the best offense regardless, but you're making it seem like Marion and STAT are hard players to set up for an all time PG. STAT is basically the Ben Wallace of scoring/finishing, he is just so bad at the other aspects of basketball it limits his value but he is pretty much tier 1 in what he is good at.

[Lost92Bricks]

Deandre Jordan also declined physically big time after Lob City

I heard this so many times. He just magically became washed immediately after CP3 left.

No, CP3 just made a huge impact on him both offensively and defensively.

The truth is Chris Paul made the Clippers.

They were nothing before he got there and after he left. They had to trade Griffin and Jordan because they were making no impact towards winning.

[Lost92Bricks]

Jordan in 2017...116.1 ORtg
Griffin in 2017...117.9 ORtg
Paul in 2017...118.8 ORtg


Jordan in 2018...109.7 ORtg
Griffin in 2018...111.5 ORtg

I wonder what changed?

Oh yeah, the Clippers in 2018 also played faster than in 2017...it didn't matter. Who cares about pace.

[MO12msu]

Deandre Jordan also declined physically big time after Lob City, so there’s some conflating issues there. But his TS% was the 2nd highest of his career in 2018 and was higher than all his seasons before 2017, acting like there was a clear difference in his efficiency with and without Paul is a little disingenuous.

Paul didn’t exactly make Griffin or Deandre look better, and he could have by playing more to their style, and it may have led to even better offenses. That’s kind of the point and why Nash to me was more effective. You can’t look at his teams with Amare and Marion and act like he didn’t cater to their strengths and that it didn’t optimize the offense as a result.

If you want to argue that CP3 prioritized not turning it over and that in turn helped the defense, that’s a fair point, but it’s a different argument than “CP3 was different but just as effective offensively”, which I can’t really support.

Come on man, quote me if you’re gonna accuse me of being disingenuous...

As has been stated, DeAndre’s TS% recovered because he finally figured out how to make free throws. So no I wasn’t being disingenuous.

I just posted a bunch of data indicating that the Clippers were actually the best offense every year and your argument is again that you didn’t like the way they played.

This is my point about the CP3 stuff. Everyone seems to have this intuition that they should’ve played like the Suns but the data says they were already top notch. If Paul focused on letting Blake average 28-8-9 then the Clippers would have a worse offense.

And that Clippers team had good at best spacing with Paul, Redick, and a rotating group of mediocre wings surrounding a 2 big lineup. It wasn’t exactly built for optimizing offense.

[Ballerhogger]

Also, after seeing the Sixers drop to 2....I'm kinda back feeling like the Nets are gonna run through everyone again. This new look Nuggets team interests me just in general though. Also now just read they're on an 8 game win streak since getting Aaron Gordon...and its the longest win streak of Gordon's career.

They nets should lose just about 1-3 games before getting to the finals . If they face jazz I see it going 6. If they nuggets I see it going 7. If they face us when healthy 6-7 games.