Playing style comparion

[LesGrossman]

I think we saw Dallas go for a much more balanced approach in game four, and it immediately showed effect. Luka is still in the center of the defensive attention but Brunsons ability to penetrate relieved Luka of a lot of pressure, just being able to take plays off and get a open catchand-shoot opportunity was a huge difference. It was obvious all the way, crazy it took them four games.

[falcolombardi]

I think we saw Dallas go for a much more balanced approach in game four, and it immediately showed effect. Luka is still in the center of the defensive attention but Brunsons ability to penetrate relieved Luka of a lot of pressure, just being able to take plays off and get a open catchand-shoot opportunity was a huge difference. It was obvious all the way, crazy it took them four games.

dallas has two games where they shot well from deep game 2 and 4 where they shot 45~% from 3 coincidentally they scored 117 amd 119 points in those two games and won one

warriors scored nearly 20 points less in game 4 than game 2, if warriors scored as well as they did in game 2 then the series would be 0-4 amd over now regardless of what dallas did in offense

i think you are showing comfirmation bias here , the difference between dallas in game 4 vs 1 and 3 is their shot making (and we got tracking data telling us dallas created a ton of open 3's but failes to make them)

and the difference between winning game 4 and losing game 2 is warriors being held to 17 points less in the former

[falcolombardi]

game 1: dallas 11/48 from 3 (23%) score only 87 points
total, warrioes score 112 points and easily win

game 2 dallas goes 21/45 from 3 (45%) but lets warriors score a wild 127 points, had they allowed as many points as games 1 or 3 they would have won

game 3:dallas defends better and holds warriors to 109 points, but they again struggle shooting with 13/45 from 3 (29%) and can only score 100 points, if they scored as well as game 2 they win this

game 4 dallas goes 20-43 (45%) AND doesnt let warriors score 127 points again, and they win

[Homer38]

The mavs has so many wide open shot that they have missed in game 1 it was ridiculous

[penbeast0]

Why even bother with all the analysis and breakdowns? We know the deal with this guy. Just go for the one he thinks Lebron plays.

Let him have a temper tantrum.

Personal attacks on posters are not allowed. If you don't want to read someone's posts, use the ignore button.

[LesGrossman]

game 1: dallas 11/48 from 3 (23%) score only 87 points
total, warrioes score 112 points and easily win

game 2 dallas goes 21/45 from 3 (45%) but lets warriors score a wild 127 points, had they allowed as many points as games 1 or 3 they would have won

game 3:dallas defends better and holds warriors to 109 points, but they again struggle shooting with 13/45 from 3 (29%) and can only score 100 points, if they scored as well as game 2 they win this

game 4 dallas goes 20-43 (45%) AND doesnt let warriors score 127 points again, and they win

You are looking at the resulting numbers here and i look at the reasons for those numbers. I think it makes a huge difference HOW a 3 is created, because its not just about the shooter himself but also about how the defense got shaken up before hand. It just feels a lot better when Luka doesnt dribble the air out of the ball and then takes a long contested 3 while noone ever did a cut, screen or even atempts to rebound. He tends to go into this hero ball mode and he did it in europe before getting to the NBA. Hes also very young and i am very confident he'll fix it and learn to trust his team. To me, the key in game four was the heavy involvement of Brunson at initiating the offense, and though Brunson the intial penetration before the kickout and the open 3. Every shooter had rhythm and even the missed shots had a chance to get rebounded because the penetration caused multiple mismatches and double teams.

[falcolombardi]

game 1: dallas 11/48 from 3 (23%) score only 87 points
total, warrioes score 112 points and easily win

game 2 dallas goes 21/45 from 3 (45%) but lets warriors score a wild 127 points, had they allowed as many points as games 1 or 3 they would have won

game 3:dallas defends better and holds warriors to 109 points, but they again struggle shooting with 13/45 from 3 (29%) and can only score 100 points, if they scored as well as game 2 they win this

game 4 dallas goes 20-43 (45%) AND doesnt let warriors score 127 points again, and they win

You are looking at the resulting numbers here and i look at the reasons for those numbers. I think it makes a huge difference HOW a 3 is created, because its not just about the shooter himself but also about how the defense got shaken up before hand. It just feels a lot better when Luka doesnt dribble the air out of the ball and then takes a long contested 3 while noone ever did a cut, screen or even atempts to rebound. He tends to go into this hero ball mode and he did it in europe before getting to the NBA. Hes also very young and i am very confident he'll fix it and learn to trust his team. To me, the key in game four was the heavy involvement of Brunson at initiating the offense, and though Brunson the intial penetration before the kickout and the open 3. Every shooter had rhythm and even the missed shots had a chance to get rebounded because the penetration caused multiple mismatches and double teams.

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

[homecourtloss]

game 1: dallas 11/48 from 3 (23%) score only 87 points
total, warrioes score 112 points and easily win

game 2 dallas goes 21/45 from 3 (45%) but lets warriors score a wild 127 points, had they allowed as many points as games 1 or 3 they would have won

game 3:dallas defends better and holds warriors to 109 points, but they again struggle shooting with 13/45 from 3 (29%) and can only score 100 points, if they scored as well as game 2 they win this

game 4 dallas goes 20-43 (45%) AND doesnt let warriors score 127 points again, and they win

You are looking at the resulting numbers here and i look at the reasons for those numbers. I think it makes a huge difference HOW a 3 is created, because its not just about the shooter himself but also about how the defense got shaken up before hand. It just feels a lot better when Luka doesnt dribble the air out of the ball and then takes a long contested 3 while noone ever did a cut, screen or even atempts to rebound. He tends to go into this hero ball mode and he did it in europe before getting to the NBA. Hes also very young and i am very confident he'll fix it and learn to trust his team. To me, the key in game four was the heavy involvement of Brunson at initiating the offense, and though Brunson the intial penetration before the kickout and the open 3. Every shooter had rhythm and even the missed shots had a chance to get rebounded because the penetration caused multiple mismatches and double teams.

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

[falcolombardi]

You are looking at the resulting numbers here and i look at the reasons for those numbers. I think it makes a huge difference HOW a 3 is created, because its not just about the shooter himself but also about how the defense got shaken up before hand. It just feels a lot better when Luka doesnt dribble the air out of the ball and then takes a long contested 3 while noone ever did a cut, screen or even atempts to rebound. He tends to go into this hero ball mode and he did it in europe before getting to the NBA. Hes also very young and i am very confident he'll fix it and learn to trust his team. To me, the key in game four was the heavy involvement of Brunson at initiating the offense, and though Brunson the intial penetration before the kickout and the open 3. Every shooter had rhythm and even the missed shots had a chance to get rebounded because the penetration caused multiple mismatches and double teams.

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

so dallas actually got more wide open shots in the ganes where they shot badly? that is actually fascinating

and probably a consequence of a series small sample size

[LesGrossman]

You are looking at the resulting numbers here and i look at the reasons for those numbers. I think it makes a huge difference HOW a 3 is created, because its not just about the shooter himself but also about how the defense got shaken up before hand. It just feels a lot better when Luka doesnt dribble the air out of the ball and then takes a long contested 3 while noone ever did a cut, screen or even atempts to rebound. He tends to go into this hero ball mode and he did it in europe before getting to the NBA. Hes also very young and i am very confident he'll fix it and learn to trust his team. To me, the key in game four was the heavy involvement of Brunson at initiating the offense, and though Brunson the intial penetration before the kickout and the open 3. Every shooter had rhythm and even the missed shots had a chance to get rebounded because the penetration caused multiple mismatches and double teams.

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.
Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

I know many people lean heavily on those stats but i dont trust them. I've witnessed them getting rigged and its actually very easy. But assuming those are legit, they still dont neccessarily reflect what happens on the floor if you try to apply them without any context. Here are some possible explanations for the numbers, apart from the very small sample size. You say

The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

because they got more "wide open threes" (however that may be defined). The number of shots depends on game velocity though and we'd have to also see the total number of threes (that would include the contested ones) to make that assumption. Also, the warriors generate a lot of great looks inside the paint through their penetration, so your statement is an invalid generalization. I also wonder wether Lukas hero ball 30 ft pullups count as "wide open". Lastly, the mavs play a few guys that the Warriors intentionally leave "wide open" like Frank Ntilikina.

So, i keep going by the good old "eye test" and to me, it looks very much like there are two decisive factors for their offense to be successful:
1. Starting it with a penetration off 1 on 1 or PnR, either way generating a defensive imbalance (double teams, mismatches), then kick out or finish inside
2. Initiate with smaller, more agile and quicker players before the defense is set, then kick out and let Luka do his work.

[falcolombardi]

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.
Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

I know many people lean heavily on those stats but i dont trust them. I've witnessed them getting rigged and its actually very easy. But assuming those are legit, they still dont neccessarily reflect what happens on the floor if you try to apply them without any context. Here are some possible explanations for the numbers, apart from the very small sample size. You say

The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

because they got more "wide open threes" (however that may be defined). The number of shots depends on game velocity though and we'd have to also see the total number of threes (that would include the contested ones) to make that assumption. Also, the warriors generate a lot of great looks inside the paint through their penetration, so your statement is an invalid generalization. I also wonder wether Lukas hero ball 30 ft pullups count as "wide open". Lastly, the mavs play a few guys that the Warriors intentionally leave "wide open" like Frank Ntilikina.

So, i keep going by the good old "eye test" and to me, it looks very much like there are two decisive factors for their offense to be successful:
1. Starting it with a penetration off 1 on 1 or PnR, either way generating a defensive imbalance (double teams, mismatches), then kick out or finish inside
2. Initiate with smaller, more agile and quicker players before the defense is set, then kick out and let Luka do his work.

dallas literally has the same shot profile in all 4 games, they are not getting more or less inside shots in game 4 or shooting more or less 3's, just making them more

you are mentioning small sample size while using a 1 game sample size to say dallas won game 4 because of a change in approach

saying "eye test" doesnt let us ignore the data, and the data doesnt show a difference in shot quality or shot profile between games 1-3 and game 4

in fact they shot and scored just as well already in game 2, they just lost that one cause bad defense

[Jaivl]

In a similar mold of me not trusting 3pt% luck adjustments despite them "correlating better to something", I'm not completely confident a "wide open three" is a higher quality shot per se.

For example, shooting after being static for 20 seconds vs in rhythm is not computed there.

[homecourtloss]

do you have evidence than dallas created easier/more open 3's and the reason was moving the ball more?

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.
Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

I know many people lean heavily on those stats but i dont trust them. I've witnessed them getting rigged and its actually very easy. But assuming those are legit, they still dont neccessarily reflect what happens on the floor if you try to apply them without any context. Here are some possible explanations for the numbers, apart from the very small sample size. You say

The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

because they got more "wide open threes" (however that may be defined). The number of shots depends on game velocity though and we'd have to also see the total number of threes (that would include the contested ones) to make that assumption. Also, the warriors generate a lot of great looks inside the paint through their penetration, so your statement is an invalid generalization. I also wonder wether Lukas hero ball 30 ft pullups count as "wide open". Lastly, the mavs play a few guys that the Warriors intentionally leave "wide open" like Frank Ntilikina.

So, i keep going by the good old "eye test" and to me, it looks very much like there are two decisive factors for their offense to be successful:
1. Starting it with a penetration off 1 on 1 or PnR, either way generating a defensive imbalance (double teams, mismatches), then kick out or finish inside
2. Initiate with smaller, more agile and quicker players before the defense is set, then kick out and let Luka do his work.

Well, not much room for discussion if actual data evidence is hand waved away like this.

[Homer38]

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.
Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

I know many people lean heavily on those stats but i dont trust them. I've witnessed them getting rigged and its actually very easy. But assuming those are legit, they still dont neccessarily reflect what happens on the floor if you try to apply them without any context. Here are some possible explanations for the numbers, apart from the very small sample size. You say

The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

because they got more "wide open threes" (however that may be defined). The number of shots depends on game velocity though and we'd have to also see the total number of threes (that would include the contested ones) to make that assumption. Also, the warriors generate a lot of great looks inside the paint through their penetration, so your statement is an invalid generalization. I also wonder wether Lukas hero ball 30 ft pullups count as "wide open". Lastly, the mavs play a few guys that the Warriors intentionally leave "wide open" like Frank Ntilikina.

So, i keep going by the good old "eye test" and to me, it looks very much like there are two decisive factors for their offense to be successful:
1. Starting it with a penetration off 1 on 1 or PnR, either way generating a defensive imbalance (double teams, mismatches), then kick out or finish inside
2. Initiate with smaller, more agile and quicker players before the defense is set, then kick out and let Luka do his work.

Well, not much room for discussion if actual data evidence is hand waved away like this.

For some reason he prefer the eye test that the true results

[LesGrossman]

Over the last 9 seasons in the NBA there has been a negative correlation between passes per possession and ORtg. I’ll post more about that later. As to what’s written here, there’s no evidence for any of it. The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.
Game 1:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 6/12
Mavs 3/16 on open threes, Warriors 3/14

Game 2:
Mavs 11/24 on wide open threes, Warriors 4/10
Mavs 8/18 on open threes, Warriors 8/11

Game 3:
Mavs 8/28 on wide open threes, Warriors 3/10
Mavs 4/15 on open threes, Warriors 7/21

Game 4:
Mavs 12/21 on wide open threes, Warriors 2/12
Mavs 6/19 on open threes, Warriors 5/11

The Cavs generated more open/wide open looks than did the Warriors in 2015-2018.

Also, Les, did you check out the NBA data on time per touch and dribbles per touch?

I know many people lean heavily on those stats but i dont trust them. I've witnessed them getting rigged and its actually very easy. But assuming those are legit, they still dont neccessarily reflect what happens on the floor if you try to apply them without any context. Here are some possible explanations for the numbers, apart from the very small sample size. You say

The Mavs with Helioball are generating better looks than the Warriors with their motion and ball movement.

because they got more "wide open threes" (however that may be defined). The number of shots depends on game velocity though and we'd have to also see the total number of threes (that would include the contested ones) to make that assumption. Also, the warriors generate a lot of great looks inside the paint through their penetration, so your statement is an invalid generalization. I also wonder wether Lukas hero ball 30 ft pullups count as "wide open". Lastly, the mavs play a few guys that the Warriors intentionally leave "wide open" like Frank Ntilikina.

So, i keep going by the good old "eye test" and to me, it looks very much like there are two decisive factors for their offense to be successful:
1. Starting it with a penetration off 1 on 1 or PnR, either way generating a defensive imbalance (double teams, mismatches), then kick out or finish inside
2. Initiate with smaller, more agile and quicker players before the defense is set, then kick out and let Luka do his work.

Well, not much room for discussion if actual data evidence is hand waved away like this.

I actually gave you detailed explanation why i believe it is a very naive approach to look at statistics without really understanding the context. Unfortunately you couldnt respond to the actual points made, maybe try again.

Oh, i forgot to add the ultimate seal of relevance: