2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[falcolombardi]

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

I'm not talking about maxing out their stats, I'm talking about taking advantage of the opportunities that transition gives you to attack the defense before they are fully ready. I'm talking about watching Paul and seeing him not making passes that were there to be made, and I'm talking about him not even getting the process started to get the opportunity for more of these passes.

As I've acknowledged, there's risk involved with taking advantage of transition and thus there's a balance to be struck between aggressively taking advantage of defensive weakness and conservatively protecting against turnovers. But:

1. The NBA has gotten more and more aggressive in its approach in the past couple decades, thus kicking up pace, and the result has been more effective offense.

2. This has resulted in Paul himself gradually embracing more of this pace-play in Phoenix despite the fact he's not playing with a team that cried out for it the way the Clippers did (nobody on the Suns is the kind of dunk-threat that either Griffin or Jordan were).

I just really think it's important not to say "The offense was good, therefore there wasn't anything about it that could have been improved", particularly when all I'm really pointing to is the overarching trend of how the game has changed over the course of Paul's career, with Paul getting yanked along reluctantly the whole way through.

have the offenses improved because they play faster or because they take better shots in halfcourt ?

i thinl you may be atttibuting to agressive full court play what probably should be attributed to shot selection and taking more 3's than ever at the exoense of midrange

modern game is not even that fast, 2021 had a 99 league average pace and a 112 offense rating

1981 had a 102 pace and a 108 offense rating

[Doctor MJ]

All-in on doing everything except changing his style of play to suit his star teammate's explosive youthful game. He came in and slowed the Clippers down. Why? Because that's how he liked to play, because it gave him more control, which then caused friction in the relationship with the young star he came to LA to play with.

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

also clippers were a elite offense during chris Paul stay, arguably better offensive stretch than the 2015-2019 warriors for example

at what point is the criticism of paul approach more dogmátic (a methodical,safe, ball protection style cannot lead to elite offense) than "evidence based"?

I just feel a need to say again:

Given that the league today a) plays faster and b) the offenses are more effective, doesn't that seem like evidence to you?

Also:

I didn't say it can't lead to an elite offense, I said opportunities to be even better were missed. And given the point about offenses being faster & better now, do you seriously doubt this?

There is something unspoken here:

I'm taking as evidence the fact that teams playing faster to do better on offense, and succeeding in doing better on offense, says something meaningful about how things could have been before.

Anyone who doesn't believe that this more aggressive approach has helped NBA offenses though I'd expect to be disagree with my conclusions about Paul. For anyone in that boat, I'd encourage you to explain why this aggressive offense that is currently ubiquitous in the NBA actually has nothing to do with why offenses are more effective than they used to be.

[falcolombardi]

1. On one level, it doesn't matter if it's deserved. It's what was. It's up to each of us to decide how much that matters to us, but when we talk about "narrative" like this, we're talking about what's out there and influencing people.

2. I'll flat out say that it matters to me. I was critical of the fact that Paul came into the Clippers and immediately slowed everything down when the optimal way to play - imho - with Griffin & Jordan - was to go fast, and the fact that Paul & Griffin's relationship got worse with time is to me something that Paul deserves part of the blame on. He also gets part of the blame for the Clippers losing their playoff confidence during and after their choke jobs. Similarly, the issues in Houston could be summarized as "Paul begged for a job in Houston then pissed off his boss (Harden) and got fired."

The truth is that even with Paul's success in Houston it doesn't necessarily erase what came before, but it does illustrate that Paul at this age is capable of playing with younger talent without disrupting them too much (Booker is still clearly disrupted by Paul's presence to a degree, but since they are both guards, that's inevitable), and capable of being a good mentor to young guys.

But of course in the mean time, we've seen Harden revealed to be not merely mildly problematic as a co-worker, but one of the most toxic superstars we've ever seen in the NBA, so that puts Paul's behavior in Houston in a different light, and also allows me to give Paul a bit more benefit of the doubt in the Clipper situation where I do think Griffin was more the choke artist and Jordan really couldn't think for himself.

even when results were absolutely elite offensively? at that point are not we risking putting theory over results? what results do you think a fast paced clippers would have achieved?

clippers and chris Paul offensove results are always better than the theory of his style says they should be, at what point do we ask ourselves if playing a low turnover methodical style of chris Paul offense is really "limiting"

Well, a good start would be having the best ORtg we've ever seen. The Paul Clippers topped out at in the 112s. In the years since as we've seen absolutely every team play faster than what was considered "fast" back then, we've seen teams put up considerably better ORtgs, so it's not like we were at some kind of fundamental threshold.

In fact, the fact that the Suns play faster now is part of the credit I give to Paul for his late career accomplishments. He's not "making" the Suns play fast, but he's adapting to new norms that result in better offense.

(I should note that Paul's on-court ORtg was considerably better than this, but the Clippers also weren't staggering their lineups.)

I do understand you thinking about this in terms of theory vs results, but what you call "theory" I call "common sense". You attack in transition because the defense isn't ready if you've got a point guard who can make the passes and other guys who can finish. The Clippers had guys that could finish, so the only reason not to do it is if you don't have the goods at point guard.

Also, I do appreciate the point about Paul reducing turnovers, but missed opportunities are missed opportunities.

i already adressed the pace element in other comment (shot selection being the obvious cause of increase offensive efficiency rather than pace)

but just to adress somethingh here, do you think is a realistic expectation to ask the clippers of that era to be the best offense ever? that is a bad that even curry + durant warriors dont clear

nor do jordan, lebron, magic. bird or anyone not mames steve nash for that matter

and why use absolute rather than relative numbers? clippers in chris Paul era played mostly in a time where league wide 106-107 off ratings (lower than, for example, the 80's)

[sp6r=underrated]

Historically in the 60s we saw faster become associated with worse offensive efficiency. As teams slowed down the offenses performed better. Pace steadily slowed in the 80s and offensive efficiency went up.

What caused the change I think it was very obvious and we all know it is. 3 point shooting skills went way up. Once your team has a certain number of spacers on the floor secondary breaks become extremely effective and should be utilitized. I'm not sure when the NBA reached that threshold. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have worked in 2002 but I don't know. I also think teams could have pushed it more in the 2011 and gotten the efficiency gains. But again I don't know

Right before that time Paul's Clippers led the league in offensive efficiency twice, maybe his teams would have played better offensively if he pushed the pace a little more. But this wasn't (i) recognized by his coaches; (ii) his teams looked great offensively; and (iii) were playing championship caliber by point differential.

I can't damn his style of play given that circumstances.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah I don't think speeding up the game would have been the right approach. The goal isn't to maximize the stats of Blake and Jordan but to win games.

I know you hate how Paul plays, but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach. These weren't Amare/Marion and co. Nash wouldn't have won there either.

And we've seen enough of Blake Griffin to just realize the guy is an ass. So trying to placate him should never have been a goal. He was going to find reasons to be an issue regardless. And Jordan just isn't a smart player and Paul literally pulled every bit of value anyone ever could have out of that guy.

I'm not talking about maxing out their stats, I'm talking about taking advantage of the opportunities that transition gives you to attack the defense before they are fully ready. I'm talking about watching Paul and seeing him not making passes that were there to be made, and I'm talking about him not even getting the process started to get the opportunity for more of these passes.

As I've acknowledged, there's risk involved with taking advantage of transition and thus there's a balance to be struck between aggressively taking advantage of defensive weakness and conservatively protecting against turnovers. But:

1. The NBA has gotten more and more aggressive in its approach in the past couple decades, thus kicking up pace, and the result has been more effective offense.

2. This has resulted in Paul himself gradually embracing more of this pace-play in Phoenix despite the fact he's not playing with a team that cried out for it the way the Clippers did (nobody on the Suns is the kind of dunk-threat that either Griffin or Jordan were).

I just really think it's important not to say "The offense was good, therefore there wasn't anything about it that could have been improved", particularly when all I'm really pointing to is the overarching trend of how the game has changed over the course of Paul's career, with Paul getting yanked along reluctantly the whole way through.

have the offenses improved because they play faster or because they take better shots in halfcourt ?

i thinl you may be atttibuting to agressive full court play what probably should be attributed to shot selection and taking more 3's than ever at the exoense of midrange

modern game is not even that fast, 2021 had a 99 league average pace and a 112 offense rating

1981 had a 102 pace and a 108 offense rating

Well, it's not an either/or thing. Aside from the 3 point shot, a strategic paradigm shift has taken over the NBA that encourages them to start offense faster. If you'd like to make the argument that this actually is not helping offenses, you should, but be aware that it amounts to saying that NBA teams have all collectively made a mistake. Not saying that makes you crazy to be clear - this is absolutely something that should be considered logically, and I'm not shy about calling out NBA strategy as being mistaken historically - but you have to start out by recognizing that you're not simply saying "correlation is not causation", you're saying the NBA has collectively confused correlation with causation.

I feel like in this thread people are responding to me like I'm the radical one, but from my perspective, I'm really not. Radical for the year 1999 certainly, but the least radical interpretation possible given where we are 20 years later.

[falcolombardi]

I'm not talking about maxing out their stats, I'm talking about taking advantage of the opportunities that transition gives you to attack the defense before they are fully ready. I'm talking about watching Paul and seeing him not making passes that were there to be made, and I'm talking about him not even getting the process started to get the opportunity for more of these passes.

As I've acknowledged, there's risk involved with taking advantage of transition and thus there's a balance to be struck between aggressively taking advantage of defensive weakness and conservatively protecting against turnovers. But:

1. The NBA has gotten more and more aggressive in its approach in the past couple decades, thus kicking up pace, and the result has been more effective offense.

2. This has resulted in Paul himself gradually embracing more of this pace-play in Phoenix despite the fact he's not playing with a team that cried out for it the way the Clippers did (nobody on the Suns is the kind of dunk-threat that either Griffin or Jordan were).

I just really think it's important not to say "The offense was good, therefore there wasn't anything about it that could have been improved", particularly when all I'm really pointing to is the overarching trend of how the game has changed over the course of Paul's career, with Paul getting yanked along reluctantly the whole way through.

have the offenses improved because they play faster or because they take better shots in halfcourt ?

i thinl you may be atttibuting to agressive full court play what probably should be attributed to shot selection and taking more 3's than ever at the exoense of midrange

modern game is not even that fast, 2021 had a 99 league average pace and a 112 offense rating

1981 had a 102 pace and a 108 offense rating

Well, it's not an either/or thing. Aside from the 3 point shot, a strategic paradigm shift has taken over the NBA that encourages them to start offense faster. If you'd like to make the argument that this actually is not helping offenses, you should, but be aware that it amounts to saying that NBA teams have all collectively made a mistake. Not saying that makes you crazy to be clear - this is absolutely something that should be considered logically, and I'm not shy about calling out NBA strategy as being mistaken historically - but you have to start out by recognizing that you're not simply saying "correlation is not causation", you're saying the NBA has collectively confused correlation with causation.

I feel like in this thread people are responding to me like I'm the radical one, but from my perspective, I'm really not. Radical for the year 1999 certainly, but the least radical interpretation possible given where we are 20 years later.

even the faster pace can be seen aa caused by the 3 point shot

3 point shots sometimes are taken really early in the clock when the opportunitt arises, even in faatbreaks when the defense seals the paint. effectively increasing pace

3 point shots leading to long rebounds and hence more faatbreaks

3 point shots leading to more rebounds and more break oportunities

3 point shots (and Drives to the fin aided by the spacing) replacing isolation and post play

if faster pace is inherently better why does the league not collectively go to the breackneck pace of older eras like the 80's ?

i also have a issue with your use of "common sense"

for many people common sense would be that taking your time to find the best possible shot rather than rushing it and risking turnovers

for many people is common sense than a scorer helps his teams the most by taking as many shots as possible rather than passing to worse teammates

the only reason de even consider "common sense" or intuitive that agressive approach leads to better offense than a methodical, prodding one is that we have evidence of great offenses led that way like nash or magic

data and results should shape our common sense, not be ignored in favor of what we consider empirically obvious (but maybe others dont)

after all science and society would never advance if common sense was never questioned

[Texas Chuck]

So two years ago the Mavs had the most efficient offense of all-time(since surpassed by multiple teams) playing at a slower than league average approach.

Seems like insisting there is one "best" way forces us to ignore history for theory. I'm okay with the theory aspects of basketball and know that's how Doc is motivated. But for many of us, we still look at what actually happens and can accept that great players are still the singular most important thing and not style. If it was simple as playstyle, you'd have moneyball contenders in the NBA, but we don't. Titles are exclusively the property of the star players.

[falcolombardi]

So two years ago the Mavs had the most efficient offense of all-time(since surpassed by multiple teams) playing at a slower than league average approach.

Seems like insisting there is one "best" way forces us to ignore history for theory. I'm okay with the theory aspects of basketball and know that's how Doc is motivated. But for many of us, we still look at what actually happens and can accept that great players are still the singular most important thing and not style. If it was simple as playstyle, you'd have moneyball contenders in the NBA, but we don't. Titles are exclusively the property of the star players.

another good reason to not go by absolute offensive rating

by raw offensive rating rather than relative luka and the mavs in 2020 > curry and dursnt warriors

[Doctor MJ]

even when results were absolutely elite offensively? at that point are not we risking putting theory over results? what results do you think a fast paced clippers would have achieved?

clippers and chris Paul offensove results are always better than the theory of his style says they should be, at what point do we ask ourselves if playing a low turnover methodical style of chris Paul offense is really "limiting"

Well, a good start would be having the best ORtg we've ever seen. The Paul Clippers topped out at in the 112s. In the years since as we've seen absolutely every team play faster than what was considered "fast" back then, we've seen teams put up considerably better ORtgs, so it's not like we were at some kind of fundamental threshold.

In fact, the fact that the Suns play faster now is part of the credit I give to Paul for his late career accomplishments. He's not "making" the Suns play fast, but he's adapting to new norms that result in better offense.

(I should note that Paul's on-court ORtg was considerably better than this, but the Clippers also weren't staggering their lineups.)

I do understand you thinking about this in terms of theory vs results, but what you call "theory" I call "common sense". You attack in transition because the defense isn't ready if you've got a point guard who can make the passes and other guys who can finish. The Clippers had guys that could finish, so the only reason not to do it is if you don't have the goods at point guard.

Also, I do appreciate the point about Paul reducing turnovers, but missed opportunities are missed opportunities.

i already adressed the pace element in other comment (shot selection being the obvious cause of increase offensive efficiency rather than pace)

but just to adress somethingh here, do you think is a realistic expectation to ask the clippers of that era to be the best offense ever? that is a bad that even curry + durant warriors dont clear

nor do jordan, lebron, magic. bird or anyone not mames steve nash for that matter

and why use absolute rather than relative numbers? clippers in chris Paul era played mostly in a time where league wide 106-107 off ratings (lower than, for example, the 80's)

So general thing: Why use absolute rather than relative?

I do use both, but I think it's critical that when we talk about strategic innovation we don't confuse doing well relative to in-year rivals with optimum performance.

You mention Nash, and you know how I tend to see him (make of that what you will), but I think he makes a great example here:

If the Suns don't unleash Nash in the SSOL offense, likely other teams are the ones that are the best in the league. The idea that we then wouldn't be able to critique those offenses because "they were the best" would leave us blind to the places where further competitive advantages were ready to be leveraged.

Going back to relative:

I don't think it's appropriate to look at the ORtg's of the Cincinnati Royals and say "So Oscar Robertson was not good at basketball", and the same certainly holds true for Chris Paul. But can we learn from the shifts that came in the years since to talk about what the Royals could have done to be more effective? Absolutely.

Re: Realistic expectation for Clippers to be best offense ever? I'm not saying "GOAT or bust!", but what I am saying is that when a team used a strategy that is a bit out of date by current standards and they didn't have a GOAT offense when doing it, I think it's logical to ask "What was holding them back?"

And to be clear, when doing so, I'm not saying "DeAndre Jordan was a genius being held back by Chris Paul" - I do consider Paul to be the best offensive player on that team, and certainly by a wide margin over Jordan, but he didn't make his teammates TS Add spike like folks would have expected back then (if they thought in terms of TS Add). While it's important to acknowledge the impact he had through turnover reduction, I think the idea that "Being the best point guard isn't about getting your teammates better looks but about keeping them from turning the ball over" is not something that people actually believe. If folks here want to say otherwise about their own perception, they should do so and I'm not looking to say they're crazy...but I think it should be recognized as a deviation from norms.

[penbeast0]

I wasn't saying any of this after after the 2018 season. I'm talking about his behavior since then.

You can always ask whether the person would have behaved better if things had gone his way, but the idea of Hitler getting into art school doesn't in any way negate the genocide he perpetrated in the path he later chose.

If he wins the title with Embiid this year the takeaway will be (a) Morey is a genius and (b) Harden is a great teammate who was put in dysfunctional situations.

[Goudelock]

I wasn't saying any of this after after the 2018 season. I'm talking about his behavior since then.

You can always ask whether the person would have behaved better if things had gone his way, but the idea of Hitler getting into art school doesn't in any way negate the genocide he perpetrated in the path he later chose.

If he wins the title with Embiid this year the takeaway will be (a) Morey is a genius and (b) Harden is a great teammate who was put in dysfunctional situations.

Without context, it looks like Doctor MJ is comparing James Harden to Hitler. I do agree with Penbeast on how the storyline of his career will be re-written if the Sixers win. We're going to look at the Nets and late-Rockets years in a completely different light.

[falcolombardi]

I wasn't saying any of this after after the 2018 season. I'm talking about his behavior since then.

You can always ask whether the person would have behaved better if things had gone his way, but the idea of Hitler getting into art school doesn't in any way negate the genocide he perpetrated in the path he later chose.

If he wins the title with Embiid this year the takeaway will be (a) Morey is a genius and (b) Harden is a great teammate who was put in dysfunctional situations.

Without context, it looks like Doctor MJ is comparing James Harden to Hitler. I do agree with Penbeast on how the storyline of his career will be re-written if the Sixers win. We're going to look at the Nets and late-Rockets years in a completely different light.

one of the greatest what ifs of basketball history is chris Paul not getting injured and rockets beating the warriors in 2018

if that series flip coin was head instead of Tails so many narratives would be different that it is insane to imagine

[falcolombardi]

Well, a good start would be having the best ORtg we've ever seen. The Paul Clippers topped out at in the 112s. In the years since as we've seen absolutely every team play faster than what was considered "fast" back then, we've seen teams put up considerably better ORtgs, so it's not like we were at some kind of fundamental threshold.

In fact, the fact that the Suns play faster now is part of the credit I give to Paul for his late career accomplishments. He's not "making" the Suns play fast, but he's adapting to new norms that result in better offense.

(I should note that Paul's on-court ORtg was considerably better than this, but the Clippers also weren't staggering their lineups.)

I do understand you thinking about this in terms of theory vs results, but what you call "theory" I call "common sense". You attack in transition because the defense isn't ready if you've got a point guard who can make the passes and other guys who can finish. The Clippers had guys that could finish, so the only reason not to do it is if you don't have the goods at point guard.

Also, I do appreciate the point about Paul reducing turnovers, but missed opportunities are missed opportunities.

i already adressed the pace element in other comment (shot selection being the obvious cause of increase offensive efficiency rather than pace)

but just to adress somethingh here, do you think is a realistic expectation to ask the clippers of that era to be the best offense ever? that is a bad that even curry + durant warriors dont clear

nor do jordan, lebron, magic. bird or anyone not mames steve nash for that matter

and why use absolute rather than relative numbers? clippers in chris Paul era played mostly in a time where league wide 106-107 off ratings (lower than, for example, the 80's)

So general thing: Why use absolute rather than relative?

I do use both, but I think it's critical that when we talk about strategic innovation we don't confuse doing well relative to in-year rivals with optimum performance.

You mention Nash, and you know how I tend to see him (make of that what you will), but I think he makes a great example here:

If the Suns don't unleash Nash in the SSOL offense, likely other teams are the ones that are the best in the league. The idea that we then wouldn't be able to critique those offenses because "they were the best" would leave us blind to the places where further competitive advantages were ready to be leveraged.

Going back to relative:

I don't think it's appropriate to look at the ORtg's of the Cincinnati Royals and say "So Oscar Robertson was not good at basketball", and the same certainly holds true for Chris Paul. But can we learn from the shifts that came in the years since to talk about what the Royals could have done to be more effective? Absolutely.

Re: Realistic expectation for Clippers to be best offense ever? I'm not saying "GOAT or bust!", but what I am saying is that when a team used a strategy that is a bit out of date by current standards and they didn't have a GOAT offense when doing it, I think it's logical to ask "What was holding them back?"

And to be clear, when doing so, I'm not saying "DeAndre Jordan was a genius being held back by Chris Paul" - I do consider Paul to be the best offensive player on that team, and certainly by a wide margin over Jordan, but he didn't make his teammates TS Add spike like folks would have expected back then (if they thought in terms of TS Add). While it's important to acknowledge the impact he had through turnover reduction, I think the idea that "Being the best point guard isn't about getting your teammates better looks but about keeping them from turning the ball over" is not something that people actually believe. If folks here want to say otherwise about their own perception, they should do so and I'm not looking to say they're crazy...but I think it should be recognized as a deviation from norms.

the answer here is "neither"

the role of a point guard offensively is to make his team score as many points per possesion as possible, whether that is by low turnovers or high percentage shooting shouldnt matter

if there is a "externality" like safe playmaking leading to less turnovers and less faatbreaks for rival offense then thst also is part of a offense effectivity too

[Doctor MJ]

Historically in the 60s we saw faster become associated with worse offensive efficiency. As teams slowed down the offenses performed better. Pace steadily slowed in the 80s and offensive efficiency went up.

What caused the change I think it was very obvious and we all know it is. 3 point shooting skills went way up. Once your team has a certain number of spacers on the floor secondary breaks become extremely effective and should be utilitized. I'm not sure when the NBA reached that threshold. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have worked in 2002 but I don't know. I also think teams could have pushed it more in the 2011 and gotten the efficiency gains. But again I don't know

Right before that time Paul's Clippers led the league in offensive efficiency twice, maybe his teams would have played better offensively if he pushed the pace a little more. But this wasn't (i) recognized by his coaches; (ii) his teams looked great offensively; and (iii) were playing championship caliber by point differential.

I can't damn his style of play given that circumstances.

To be clear: I'm not suggesting that the key to great offense is simply to shoot quickly. I am however suggesting though that offenses making a choice to attack in transition more in this century in order to improve offensive effectiveness, which was then followed by improvements to offensive effectiveness, probably has some causality involved.

For the record, I'm not sure what jumps out to you when you look at the pace of older basketball, but what I tend to see is a tendency to be too hasty in the half-court - meaning not really working around the defense to get the best shot possible. While speed of attack in the half-court can be valuable, that doesn't mean jacking up the first shot you can possibly jack.

As such, I think it makes a lot of sense why as we go from the '60s to the '70s to the '80s we saw improved ORtgs as the pace slowed. To me that's partially about skill improvement, but also about a more deliberate approach to half-court attack.

Now, regarding transition, there's certainly a truth that to attack with speed there requires skill and if you do it poorly it's going to be worse than not attacking at all...but I'm skeptical that there was anything fundamentally preventing teams from making better use of the transition attack prior to the 21st century.

With that said, I think the primary focus of the Colangelo rule changes from 20 years ago was on encouraging transition attack by empowering half-court defense. So long as teams felt that their best attack was a slow half-court grind, it discouraged transition risk-taking - whether that was the optimal approach or not - so in that sense there's something real here about something changing about the game to allow pace to spike.

As far as 3-point shooting enabling better pace, I've heard some very smart people say the same thing, so that might be true, but I'll say it's not obvious to me. I think the spacing of 3-point shooting absolutely makes half-court basketball easier, and missed 3-point shots are probably more likely to allow for transition opportunities, but I'm not so sure that 3-point shooting is essential for making transition attacks an emphasized part of the offense's diet.

[Doctor MJ]

have the offenses improved because they play faster or because they take better shots in halfcourt ?

i thinl you may be atttibuting to agressive full court play what probably should be attributed to shot selection and taking more 3's than ever at the exoense of midrange

modern game is not even that fast, 2021 had a 99 league average pace and a 112 offense rating

1981 had a 102 pace and a 108 offense rating

Well, it's not an either/or thing. Aside from the 3 point shot, a strategic paradigm shift has taken over the NBA that encourages them to start offense faster. If you'd like to make the argument that this actually is not helping offenses, you should, but be aware that it amounts to saying that NBA teams have all collectively made a mistake. Not saying that makes you crazy to be clear - this is absolutely something that should be considered logically, and I'm not shy about calling out NBA strategy as being mistaken historically - but you have to start out by recognizing that you're not simply saying "correlation is not causation", you're saying the NBA has collectively confused correlation with causation.

I feel like in this thread people are responding to me like I'm the radical one, but from my perspective, I'm really not. Radical for the year 1999 certainly, but the least radical interpretation possible given where we are 20 years later.

even the faster pace can be seen aa caused by the 3 point shot

3 point shots sometimes are taken really early in the clock when the opportunitt arises, even in faatbreaks when the defense seals the paint. effectively increasing pace

3 point shots leading to long rebounds and hence more faatbreaks

3 point shots leading to more rebounds and more break oportunities

3 point shots (and Drives to the fin aided by the spacing) replacing isolation and post play

if faster pace is inherently better why does the league not collectively go to the breackneck pace of older eras like the 80's ?

i also have a issue with your use of "common sense"

for many people common sense would be that taking your time to find the best possible shot rather than rushing it and risking turnovers

for many people is common sense than a scorer helps his teams the most by taking as many shots as possible rather than passing to worse teammates

the only reason de even consider "common sense" or intuitive that agressive approach leads to better offense than a methodical, prodding one is that we have evidence of great offenses led that way like nash or magic

data and results should shape our common sense, not be ignored in favor of what we consider empirically obvious (but maybe others dont)

after all science and society would never advance if common sense was never questioned

I think I owe an apology for the use of "common sense", as that probably felt like a slap in the face.

All I mean is that when you play basketball, if you see a guy on your team down the court poised to score if you can get him the ball, then you should pass it to him if you have the skill to do it. And if we're talking about a list of the greatest passers in history, to me it goes without saying they should be outstanding transition passers, because if you're really that good at passing, you should be able to take advantage of transition opportunities effectively.

[falcolombardi]

Historically in the 60s we saw faster become associated with worse offensive efficiency. As teams slowed down the offenses performed better. Pace steadily slowed in the 80s and offensive efficiency went up.

What caused the change I think it was very obvious and we all know it is. 3 point shooting skills went way up. Once your team has a certain number of spacers on the floor secondary breaks become extremely effective and should be utilitized. I'm not sure when the NBA reached that threshold. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have worked in 2002 but I don't know. I also think teams could have pushed it more in the 2011 and gotten the efficiency gains. But again I don't know

Right before that time Paul's Clippers led the league in offensive efficiency twice, maybe his teams would have played better offensively if he pushed the pace a little more. But this wasn't (i) recognized by his coaches; (ii) his teams looked great offensively; and (iii) were playing championship caliber by point differential.

I can't damn his style of play given that circumstances.

To be clear: I'm not suggesting that the key to great offense is simply to shoot quickly. I am however suggesting though that offenses making a choice to attack in transition more in this century in order to improve offensive effectiveness, which was then followed by improvements to offensive effectiveness, probably has some causality involved.

For the record, I'm not sure what jumps out to you when you look at the pace of older basketball, but what I tend to see is a tendency to be too hasty in the half-court - meaning not really working around the defense to get the best shot possible. While speed of attack in the half-court can be valuable, that doesn't mean jacking up the first shot you can possibly jack.

As such, I think it makes a lot of sense why as we go from the '60s to the '70s to the '80s we saw improved ORtgs as the pace slowed. To me that's partially about skill improvement, but also about a more deliberate approach to half-court attack.

Now, regarding transition, there's certainly a truth that to attack with speed there requires skill and if you do it poorly it's going to be worse than not attacking at all...but I'm skeptical that there was anything fundamentally preventing teams from making better use of the transition attack prior to the 21st century.

With that said, I think the primary focus of the Colangelo rule changes from 20 years ago was on encouraging transition attack by empowering half-court defense. So long as teams felt that their best attack was a slow half-court grind, it discouraged transition risk-taking - whether that was the optimal approach or not - so in that sense there's something real here about something changing about the game to allow pace to spike.

As far as 3-point shooting enabling better pace, I've heard some very smart people say the same thing, so that might be true, but I'll say it's not obvious to me. I think the spacing of 3-point shooting absolutely makes half-court basketball easier, and missed 3-point shots are probably more likely to allow for transition opportunities, but I'm not so sure that 3-point shooting is essential for making transition attacks an emphasized part of the offense's diet.

i think it needs to be emphazised that faster pace in the league stats sheet doesnt inherently mean much more fastbreaks

is even technically possible for two teams (or seasons) to have the same amount of faatbreaks per 100 but one has faster halfcourt attacks

a pick and roll from the 3 point line initiated offense seems (and here i am going by theorycrafting since i lack data to prove or disprove it) like it should take less time on average than a isolation play or post up

watching games from different eras it -feels- ( i emphazise my lack od data here so if someone has actual numbers i would love to be proven right or wrong here) like a spread pick and roll consumes less time than a barkley post up or kobe isolation

thst the nba has realized 3 point shots amd pick and roll are more efficient halfcourt offense than post ups or isolation may have a side effect of increaaing the league pace (along with, again, 3 point shooting longer rebounds and lower absolute percentages of going in meaning more rebounds to grab)

and i feel like i need to mention i -dont-think chris Paul is a offensove goat candidate and i dont think he had a perfect approach to offense like neither do curry, magic, lebron, etc

is perfectly ok to say that paul left points in the board by mot being more agressive, but the counterpoint is that the approach of a player like magic or nash also left points in the board by turnovers

is not impossible that a player more talented or gifted than chris Paul (lebron James for example) can take a similar controlling approach and achieve goat level results comparable to the goat agressive playmakers (nash or magic)

[Doctor MJ]

So two years ago the Mavs had the most efficient offense of all-time(since surpassed by multiple teams) playing at a slower than league average approach.

Seems like insisting there is one "best" way forces us to ignore history for theory. I'm okay with the theory aspects of basketball and know that's how Doc is motivated. But for many of us, we still look at what actually happens and can accept that great players are still the singular most important thing and not style. If it was simple as playstyle, you'd have moneyball contenders in the NBA, but we don't. Titles are exclusively the property of the star players.

Slower than league average in a league that player considerably faster than prime Paul like to play.

I'm not looking to say "Teams should always be going faster" any more than I'd say "Teams should always be shooting more 3's". There's going to be some sweet spot - that sweet spot of course depends on personnel - beyond which it's all "too much".

But yeah, Dallas leading the league in ORtg playing at a 99.3 pace to me isn't an argument for slow pace, and the fact that Dallas' ORtg has fallen back to earth (both absolute and relative) in the following years as their pace has gotten slower (both absolute and relative), to me is not an argument that "actually slower is better".

Re: about players not playstyles. Again, not an either/or thing. The best players can do things no one else can, but that doesn't mean that they are optimizing their approach by playing however they come into the league.

As I say all of this: I do think that with someone like Luka, slowness makes some sense. If your value add is about being more unstoppable in the half-court than anyone else by bumhunting, then we'd expect that your halfcourt time of possession will be longer, and that you won't be looking to avoid the halfcourt grind as much...but if you're not making the aggressive passes available to you in transition, those are still missed opportunities.

[Doctor MJ]

I wasn't saying any of this after after the 2018 season. I'm talking about his behavior since then.

You can always ask whether the person would have behaved better if things had gone his way, but the idea of Hitler getting into art school doesn't in any way negate the genocide he perpetrated in the path he later chose.

If he wins the title with Embiid this year the takeaway will be (a) Morey is a genius and (b) Harden is a great teammate who was put in dysfunctional situations.

Maybe for others, but not for me. When players sabotage their own teams to force trades, this isn't something I just forget. When they do it repeatedly to different teams while on the same contract...well, honestly, I can't think of another player who's done this other than Harden, but yeah, won't forget it.

[Doctor MJ]

i already adressed the pace element in other comment (shot selection being the obvious cause of increase offensive efficiency rather than pace)

but just to adress somethingh here, do you think is a realistic expectation to ask the clippers of that era to be the best offense ever? that is a bad that even curry + durant warriors dont clear

nor do jordan, lebron, magic. bird or anyone not mames steve nash for that matter

and why use absolute rather than relative numbers? clippers in chris Paul era played mostly in a time where league wide 106-107 off ratings (lower than, for example, the 80's)

So general thing: Why use absolute rather than relative?

I do use both, but I think it's critical that when we talk about strategic innovation we don't confuse doing well relative to in-year rivals with optimum performance.

You mention Nash, and you know how I tend to see him (make of that what you will), but I think he makes a great example here:

If the Suns don't unleash Nash in the SSOL offense, likely other teams are the ones that are the best in the league. The idea that we then wouldn't be able to critique those offenses because "they were the best" would leave us blind to the places where further competitive advantages were ready to be leveraged.

Going back to relative:

I don't think it's appropriate to look at the ORtg's of the Cincinnati Royals and say "So Oscar Robertson was not good at basketball", and the same certainly holds true for Chris Paul. But can we learn from the shifts that came in the years since to talk about what the Royals could have done to be more effective? Absolutely.

Re: Realistic expectation for Clippers to be best offense ever? I'm not saying "GOAT or bust!", but what I am saying is that when a team used a strategy that is a bit out of date by current standards and they didn't have a GOAT offense when doing it, I think it's logical to ask "What was holding them back?"

And to be clear, when doing so, I'm not saying "DeAndre Jordan was a genius being held back by Chris Paul" - I do consider Paul to be the best offensive player on that team, and certainly by a wide margin over Jordan, but he didn't make his teammates TS Add spike like folks would have expected back then (if they thought in terms of TS Add). While it's important to acknowledge the impact he had through turnover reduction, I think the idea that "Being the best point guard isn't about getting your teammates better looks but about keeping them from turning the ball over" is not something that people actually believe. If folks here want to say otherwise about their own perception, they should do so and I'm not looking to say they're crazy...but I think it should be recognized as a deviation from norms.

the answer here is "neither"

the role of a point guard offensively is to make his team score as many points per possesion as possible, whether that is by low turnovers or high percentage shooting shouldnt matter

if there is a "externality" like safe playmaking leading to less turnovers and less faatbreaks for rival offense then thst also is part of a offense effectivity too

It's of course about adding value by however you can. And where I see missed opportunities, I call them as I see them.

[falcolombardi]

So general thing: Why use absolute rather than relative?

I do use both, but I think it's critical that when we talk about strategic innovation we don't confuse doing well relative to in-year rivals with optimum performance.

You mention Nash, and you know how I tend to see him (make of that what you will), but I think he makes a great example here:

If the Suns don't unleash Nash in the SSOL offense, likely other teams are the ones that are the best in the league. The idea that we then wouldn't be able to critique those offenses because "they were the best" would leave us blind to the places where further competitive advantages were ready to be leveraged.

Going back to relative:

I don't think it's appropriate to look at the ORtg's of the Cincinnati Royals and say "So Oscar Robertson was not good at basketball", and the same certainly holds true for Chris Paul. But can we learn from the shifts that came in the years since to talk about what the Royals could have done to be more effective? Absolutely.

Re: Realistic expectation for Clippers to be best offense ever? I'm not saying "GOAT or bust!", but what I am saying is that when a team used a strategy that is a bit out of date by current standards and they didn't have a GOAT offense when doing it, I think it's logical to ask "What was holding them back?"

And to be clear, when doing so, I'm not saying "DeAndre Jordan was a genius being held back by Chris Paul" - I do consider Paul to be the best offensive player on that team, and certainly by a wide margin over Jordan, but he didn't make his teammates TS Add spike like folks would have expected back then (if they thought in terms of TS Add). While it's important to acknowledge the impact he had through turnover reduction, I think the idea that "Being the best point guard isn't about getting your teammates better looks but about keeping them from turning the ball over" is not something that people actually believe. If folks here want to say otherwise about their own perception, they should do so and I'm not looking to say they're crazy...but I think it should be recognized as a deviation from norms.

the answer here is "neither"

the role of a point guard offensively is to make his team score as many points per possesion as possible, whether that is by low turnovers or high percentage shooting shouldnt matter

if there is a "externality" like safe playmaking leading to less turnovers and less faatbreaks for rival offense then thst also is part of a offense effectivity too

It's of course about adding value by however you can. And where I see missed opportunities, I call them as I see them.

i agree but turnovers are by definition wasted oportunities

chris Paul left points in the table with safe passing, but so did others like nash or magic with agressive passing (turnovers or sgressive possesions thst dont work out leading to bad shots)

and note that i am not saying chris Paul was as good offensively as them, just that both approaches will inherently cause lost points here and there

lebron has a similar approach than chris Paul but results comparable to the likes of magic thanks to being a better player than chris paul

where you see a player who left impact in the table with his approach i see a 6 foot guy with average athletism and without game breaking 3 point shooting havung all time great offensive impact

so is hard for me to seeing it as underpwrforning, if anythingh i see him as one of the greatest overachievers ever as far as impact goes

he is 3 inches smaller and without gsmebresking shot but has comparable team offensive results and plus-minus stats to Stephen curry

and only a notch below the likes of lebron James in impact stats or team offense peaks