How valid is the claim that high risk high reward passing > conservative playmaking?

[letskissbro]

There's this fairly common belief that taking a conservative approach to playmaking in order to limit turnovers has a lower offensive ceiling than playmakers who often attempt to squeeze the ball through tight windows for layup passes, since they put more pressure on the opposing defense. How credible is this?

Stockton, Chris Paul, and Oscar come to mind for the 1st approach. Magic comes to mind for the 2nd.

[sp6r=underrated]

There's this fairly common belief that taking a conservative approach to playmaking in order to limit turnovers has a lower offensive ceiling than playmakers who often attempt to squeeze the ball through tight windows for layup passes, since they put more pressure on the opposing defense. How credible is this?

Stockton, Chris Paul, and Oscar come to mind for the 1st approach. Magic comes to mind for the 2nd.

I don't think it is arguable that the extreme conservatism of Chris Paul places more of a ceiling on an offense than the Nash/Magic approach. You're just aren't capable of getting some of the opportunities that the aggressive passing a Magic generates- because Paul will not risk turnovers.

But offense and defense aren't completely separate. It is extremely hard to play defense off of turnovers. The Chris Paul style approach makes it much easier for defense.

To put it another way we should care about net rating not upping net ortg (or drtg). And we should also recognize that looking at net on ortg/drtg in isolation ignores trade offs.

[Doctor MJ]

There's this fairly common belief that taking a conservative approach to playmaking in order to limit turnovers has a lower offensive ceiling than playmakers who often attempt to squeeze the ball through tight windows for layup passes, since they put more pressure on the opposing defense. How credible is this?

Stockton, Chris Paul, and Oscar come to mind for the 1st approach. Magic comes to mind for the 2nd.

So, I think the overarching thing here is not so much which approach is better, but that they have different strengths and weaknesses, and those relative advantages/disadvantages can vary by degree.

However there's also a truth that in general with skill-mastery the highest levels of proficiency come not from those who avoid techniques others can do with high success.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Magic was more valuable than Paul, only that if someone is good enough at high-risk passing, they will reach a higher ceiling than Paul - that player may in theory never have seen in real life, but the model is clear.

[penbeast0]

Oscar we don't have turnover records for; Stockton has a turnover % of >20 for his career. That's higher than Nash OR Magic (though Stockton also had a significantly higher ast %). Not sure Stockton is on the conservative passing side in this comparison though he has that rep because of the very structured offense he worked in.

[Owly]

Oscar we don't have turnover records for; Stockton has a turnover % of >20 for his career. That's higher than Nash OR Magic (though Stockton also had a great ast %). Not sure Stockton is on the conservative passing side in this comparison though he has that rep because of the very structured offense he worked in.

I think this is because turnover percentage is measured against usage, which is just shot% (all otoh).
So this measure would be very harsh versus his overall creation load (for self and others).
Of course assist to turnover ratio would similarly be biased and a poor tool for comparing players who generate different levels of shots for themselves.

I can't speak a lot to the better tools for a more fully integrated comparison (imagine ElGee might have something with his creation and passing stuff, I've had a little look at Hollinger's Pure Point Rating and Trex's modified TOV%, but still not exactly really familiar).

But to be honest I suspect conservatism in this respect can't really be measured in the boxscore. Although conservatism might not quite be the right word, but I'll circle back. I think it would have to be play tracking, having a good, trustworthy eye for what is possible (and high value, but high risk) and tracking whether such passes are thrown (which is I think where this has come from - from ElGee). Now such passes might not be avoided out of conservatism but from not being seen.

Also I don't think this is something where there is a general universal truth. It depends on how well that player throws these high leverage passes.

[falcolombardi]

this runs a bit of the same risk of looking at players where one is better and attribute it to their approach rather than their talent

when curry started shining he was diminished cause everyone "knew" a small player who was dependant om shooting couldnt win a ring

years ago everyone "knew" that a team who rsn their offense trhough 3 point shooting and spacing and didnt have traditional big centers couldnt win a ring, playing a pick and roll heavy offense througg your guards was a gimmick

after all that was why nash couldnt win a ring, that offense style was gimmkcky in the playoffs (that those suns were still a goat level offense in the postseason was irrelevant of course)

is magic or nash better offensive players thsn chris paul? probably

are they better because they took a different and better approach? not necesarrily

[No-more-rings]

I think it’s just more of a preference than some sort of hard fact. With great risk comes high reward, as with anything in life.

[G35]

I don't think Stockton is that conservative at all, I think because he makes basic passes look easy that it appears conservative, but he made some high level risky passes that look simple.

Many of Stockton's passes are leading passes where both players have to be on the same page or else that is a turnover.....

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't think Stockton is that conservative at all, I think because he makes basic passes look easy that it appears conservative, but he made some high level risky passes that look simple.

Many of Stockton's passes are leading passes where both players have to be on the same page or else that is a turnover.....

He was definitely a master of hitting people in stride with bounce passes. Any time someone does something at an extremely high level they will make it look easy which for pgs can also give the impression of it being a safe or easy pass.

[capfan33]

One way to think about this is that, at this level of competition the margins between players and teams are often razor-thin. As such, "conservative" passers just can't ascend to the heights that a Magic/Bird can in the postseason, which is ultimately what matters.

I think a lot of sports is about pushing at the margins and trying to getting every little advantage possible, and this involves taking risks. Sometimes you fall flat on your face but overtime I think the players who do so consistenly gain an advantage.

[tsherkin]

I don't think Stockton is that conservative at all, I think because he makes basic passes look easy that it appears conservative, but he made some high level risky passes that look simple.

Many of Stockton's passes are leading passes where both players have to be on the same page or else that is a turnover.....

Agreed. Stockton was very good at the pocket pass and finding Malone (and other roll/pop guys) in a variety of ways. Stockton was very good. Sometimes overrated because of his raw assist output, sometimes underrated because je could be bullied by bigger guards and wasnt an elite scorer. All that said, he wasnt just a product of Sloan's system; he was doing it with Layden and was just objectively good at seeing and making passes. He passed just fine in transition and improvisationally when plays broke down.

Like G is saying here, he threw some interesting passes at times, he was just really good. And at his assist output and scoring efficiency, it all worked out to good per-possession value most times.