The Offense and Shot Distribution

[ballin]

For instance, as much as I LOVE wins produced (best advanced stat, in my opinion) David Berri admittedly has his head up is butt. He literally made a post about Kyle Lowry for MVP the other day based on wins produced. Pretty hilarious actually.

  Did you read the post? He wasn't really saying that Lowry should be an MVP candidate. His point was that Rose shouldn't because his "wins production" (or however he refers to it) is close to Lowry's, not close to the league leaders.

First of all, I didn't even see your post and wasn't responding to you. If I had been, I would've quoted you. So settle down. I must have missed what you said (although I thought I read mostly everything before I made another post, apparently I missed one of yours).

Secondly, I completely get what Berri is saying and my statement was obviously being hyperbolic. What I was obviously getting at is that wins produced overrates the heck out of Kyle Lowry and that stats aren't the be-all end-all of any discussion. And for what it's worth I do agree with his point that Rose shouldn't be a MVP candidate.

[Fafnir]

They are all taking roughly the same number of shots they have been since they came together. I don't think they're going to increase that very much.

I also don't think they can increae their roles offensively and have it be effective. Partially due to their age and stamina levels, and also due to their diminishing one on one offensive abilities. All three are having extremely efficient seasons (better than their career averages) because they aren't carrying as large a burden offensively. You cite Glen Davis, but look at all three of the Big 3's career averages, what they're doing efficiency wise this year, and their usage percentage. They are doing a lot less than at their primes.

I'll ask you this, is Paul Pierce a better offensive player this year than he was in 2005-2006? Because his TS% and ORating say so, but I think that's pretty clearly not the case.

Edit: KG is not actually haveing a career year KG's offensive game is probably the most reduced of the big 3's. He's still having a very good year above his overall average.

[Chris]

I also want to address a few points that have been made:

As I expected, a lot of people have come in this thread reiterating the same old usage argument. These posts all follow the same formula where the poster says that if the Big 3 take more shots they'll be less efficient for reasons x, y, and z without even attempting to address the stats I have brought up in the original post which show that the usage argument is bogus.

To use a slightly different example than the Big 3, look at BBD:

Glen Davis (last 3 years):
FGA               TS%
5.9              .502
5.2              .500
10.2             .504

Glen Davis essentially doubled his number of shots over the course of one year and his TS% went UP. Further, when he decreased shots the previous 2 years his TS% went DOWN. This is more evidence that the number of shots one takes isn't strongly correlated efficiency. Partially or slightly correlated? Sure, maybe. Strongly? Not at all.

The bottom line is this: the Big 3 could definitely take a lot more shots without their efficiency dropping significantly, and they should do so.

The usage argument is a load of junk. It really, really is. If the correlation exists, it's very weak. And nobody has given me stats that prove otherwise, and until they do, I'm not inclined to agree with their position. Yet it's so very hard for people to let go of the usage argument because it's so-called "common sense". It sounds logical. GM's, coaches, players, the media, and most fans all believe it.

But there is just mounting evidence showing it's just. not. true. What it boils down to is this: good players can almost always get "their" shots. They can get to their spots on the floor and get what they want offensively due to the rules the NBA has on defense. Efficient shooters tend to be efficient shooters regardless of the number of shots they take. And if you really don't want to believe this, don't take my word for it. Go scour the TS% history of dozens of players like I have and see what you find. You might be surprised at what you see.

I honestly don't know much about these stats, but this just doesn't work for me.

First, pointing out one example of a player whose shots have increased, but whose role as a non-primary scorer has not changed tells us nothing.

I am not sure about the details of specific usage stats, but from a simple, logical breakdown of basketball strategy, for "usage" to have an effect on a players shooting percentage, it would have to change enough that it changes the type of shots they take.

Your example of Big Baby doesn't work, because even though he is taking 5 more shots a game, they are still just as wide open as they were a year ago, and they are still from generally the same spots on the floor.  His "usage" has not reached the tipping point where the defenses treat him as a primary threat.

For stars who are seen as primary threats by defenses, such as the Big 3, their usage is relatively low, simply because they are a primary threat, which means defenses key on them, and make it harder for them to get "their" shots.  They could increase their usage, but since they have crossed that tipping point where the defenses are keying on them, then the majority of the extra shots will be lower percentage.  

Basically, this is just not a linear thing, which makes it so difficult to argue with stats on.  Every change that is made is countered and confounded by the other team, as well as who else is on the floor.  

[vinnie]

I am an older guy who sometimes wishes computers and technology were never introduced into the world of sports, so I could just sit back and enjoy a game and then read about it afterwards without getting bombarded by an alphabet soup of acronyms that mean little or nothing to me. Sorry for being old -- 

[BballTim]

I also want to address a few points that have been made:

As I expected, a lot of people have come in this thread reiterating the same old usage argument. These posts all follow the same formula where the poster says that if the Big 3 take more shots they'll be less efficient for reasons x, y, and z without even attempting to address the stats I have brought up in the original post which show that the usage argument is bogus.

To use a slightly different example than the Big 3, look at BBD:

Glen Davis (last 3 years):
FGA               TS%
5.9              .502
5.2              .500
10.2             .504

Glen Davis essentially doubled his number of shots over the course of one year and his TS% went UP. Further, when he decreased shots the previous 2 years his TS% went DOWN. This is more evidence that the number of shots one takes isn't strongly correlated efficiency. Partially or slightly correlated? Sure, maybe. Strongly? Not at all.

The bottom line is this: the Big 3 could definitely take a lot more shots without their efficiency dropping significantly, and they should do so.

The usage argument is a load of junk. It really, really is. If the correlation exists, it's very weak. And nobody has given me stats that prove otherwise, and until they do, I'm not inclined to agree with their position. Yet it's so very hard for people to let go of the usage argument because it's so-called "common sense". It sounds logical. GM's, coaches, players, the media, and most fans all believe it.

But there is just mounting evidence showing it's just. not. true. What it boils down to is this: good players can almost always get "their" shots. They can get to their spots on the floor and get what they want offensively due to the rules the NBA has on defense. Efficient shooters tend to be efficient shooters regardless of the number of shots they take. And if you really don't want to believe this, don't take my word for it. Go scour the TS% history of dozens of players like I have and see what you find. You might be surprised at what you see.

  Honestly your argument boils down to "my point is true because I believe it". Here's the flaw in your claim:

  KG/RA/PP are efficient scorers for two reasons. One is skill, the other is good shot selection. Unless circumstances are (somewhat) dire they usually won't take bad shots. Ray cuts through screens to get open for shots. If he's somewhat open then Rondo will likely get him the ball. If he turns to shoot and has space to get his shot off he'll take the shot, otherwise he doesn't. If you want Ray to take more shots you're not adding to the number of shots he takes when he's free and clear, you're adding to the shots he takes when he has less room to get the shot off.

  Consider your Baby example from above. He takes more shots and they're just as efficient but his outside shots are all wide open because whether he's shooting or not when he's out of the paint he's unguarded. Adding to his shots didn't change the difficulty of the shots he took like it would for Ray. Consider a case where you told Baby he has to shoot the ball the next 5 times down the court whether he's open or not. Would he still hit 50% of them? It's a lot less likely.

  If you don't like either of these arguments, consider the only reasonable outcome if your argument were correct. Players who were the most efficient scorers would take all of the shots that didn't involve wide open layups. For instance Pau Gasol is a more efficient scorer than Kobe. If you could keep increasing Pau's shot total without affecting his efficiency then why would Kobe ever shoot the ball? Does their coach not understand basic math? Do no coaches in the nba understand basic math?

  Clearly you can't have Pau shoot the ball on every possession without lowering his efficiency. He'll keep taking more and more shots against defenses that are more and more dedicated to stopping him. Can you add a few shots a game without affecting his efficiency? Maybe. Can you double his number of shots without affecting his efficiency (like with Baby)? Highly unlikely.

  When Rondo has the ball, ready to pass, he should be (and generally is) looking to get the ball to the player that will be in the best position to score. If he passes the ball to Paul then Paul should either shoot the ball or pass it, depending on whether the pass will result in a better shot for the team. If you arbitrarily state that you want Paul or Ray to get 5 more shots a game then either Rondo would be getting them the ball when there was a better option elsewhere or Paul and Ray will be taking shots where they would have previously passed to someone who had a better shot.

  Lastly, you're claiming that your plan will work and challenging people to look over TS% for players to see if you're right or not. But those TS% are for players who take more shots within the flow of the game. Where would we look to find the TS% for players who are told to force up more shots than they'd otherwise take? Look on 82games at the big three's eFG% on shots at the end of the shot clock, when they have to shoot whether they want to or not. All three of them are much less efficient with those shots than Baby and Rondo normally are.

[ballin]

I also want to address a few points that have been made:

As I expected, a lot of people have come in this thread reiterating the same old usage argument. These posts all follow the same formula where the poster says that if the Big 3 take more shots they'll be less efficient for reasons x, y, and z without even attempting to address the stats I have brought up in the original post which show that the usage argument is bogus.

To use a slightly different example than the Big 3, look at BBD:

Glen Davis (last 3 years):
FGA               TS%
5.9              .502
5.2              .500
10.2             .504

Glen Davis essentially doubled his number of shots over the course of one year and his TS% went UP. Further, when he decreased shots the previous 2 years his TS% went DOWN. This is more evidence that the number of shots one takes isn't strongly correlated efficiency. Partially or slightly correlated? Sure, maybe. Strongly? Not at all.

The bottom line is this: the Big 3 could definitely take a lot more shots without their efficiency dropping significantly, and they should do so.

The usage argument is a load of junk. It really, really is. If the correlation exists, it's very weak. And nobody has given me stats that prove otherwise, and until they do, I'm not inclined to agree with their position. Yet it's so very hard for people to let go of the usage argument because it's so-called "common sense". It sounds logical. GM's, coaches, players, the media, and most fans all believe it.

But there is just mounting evidence showing it's just. not. true. What it boils down to is this: good players can almost always get "their" shots. They can get to their spots on the floor and get what they want offensively due to the rules the NBA has on defense. Efficient shooters tend to be efficient shooters regardless of the number of shots they take. And if you really don't want to believe this, don't take my word for it. Go scour the TS% history of dozens of players like I have and see what you find. You might be surprised at what you see.

  Honestly your argument boils down to "my point is true because I believe it". Here's the flaw in your claim:

  KG/RA/PP are efficient scorers for two reasons. One is skill, the other is good shot selection. Unless circumstances are (somewhat) dire they usually won't take bad shots. Ray cuts through screens to get open for shots. If he's somewhat open then Rondo will likely get him the ball. If he turns to shoot and has space to get his shot off he'll take the shot, otherwise he doesn't. If you want Ray to take more shots you're not adding to the number of shots he takes when he's free and clear, you're adding to the shots he takes when he has less room to get the shot off.

  Consider your Baby example from above. He takes more shots and they're just as efficient but his outside shots are all wide open because whether he's shooting or not when he's out of the paint he's unguarded. Adding to his shots didn't change the difficulty of the shots he took like it would for Ray. Consider a case where you told Baby he has to shoot the ball the next 5 times down the court whether he's open or not. Would he still hit 50% of them? It's a lot less likely.

  If you don't like either of these arguments, consider the only reasonable outcome if your argument were correct. Players who were the most efficient scorers would take all of the shots that didn't involve wide open layups. For instance Pau Gasol is a more efficient scorer than Kobe. If you could keep increasing Pau's shot total without affecting his efficiency then why would Kobe ever shoot the ball? Does their coach not understand basic math? Do no coaches in the nba understand basic math?

  Clearly you can't have Pau shoot the ball on every possession without lowering his efficiency. He'll keep taking more and more shots against defenses that are more and more dedicated to stopping him. Can you add a few shots a game without affecting his efficiency? Maybe. Can you double his number of shots without affecting his efficiency (like with Baby)? Highly unlikely.

  When Rondo has the ball, ready to pass, he should be (and generally is) looking to get the ball to the player that will be in the best position to score. If he passes the ball to Paul then Paul should either shoot the ball or pass it, depending on whether the pass will result in a better shot for the team. If you arbitrarily state that you want Paul or Ray to get 5 more shots a game then either Rondo would be getting them the ball when there was a better option elsewhere or Paul and Ray will be taking shots where they would have previously passed to someone who had a better shot.

  Lastly, you're claiming that your plan will work and challenging people to look over TS% for players to see if you're right or not. But those TS% are for players who take more shots within the flow of the game. Where would we look to find the TS% for players who are told to force up more shots than they'd otherwise take? Look on 82games at the big three's eFG% on shots at the end of the shot clock, when they have to shoot whether they want to or not. All three of them are much less efficient with those shots than Baby and Rondo normally are.

No, my argument boils down to "I'm more likely to be correct than you are because I use actual data and history to back up my points while you use anecdotes and hypothetical situations which really don't prove anything."

I'm not saying that to be snarky; what it comes down to is that I'm relying on science and statistics to make my points and you're relying on what is essentially assumed knowledge.

[BballTim]

No, my argument boils down to "I'm more likely to be correct than you are because I use actual data and history to back up my points while you use anecdotes and hypothetical situations which really don't prove anything."

I'm not saying that to be snarky; what it comes down to is that I'm relying on science and statistics to make my points and you're relying on what is essentially assumed knowledge.

  I'd guess you either stopped reading my post after the first line or two or ignored the rest because of a lack of response. You have no historical data to show that you can arbitrarily tell a player to take more shots than he otherwise would and not have his efficiency drop because it has never been done and measured. All you have is a claim that artificially changing a player's shot selection is no different than having that player's shot selection change on it's own.

  I came up with late in shot clocks as times when players shoot even if it's not what they'd normally do. Maybe you could explain why this is a bad example, or why any of my reasons I previously listed are wrong, or why players that can "always get their shots" perform so badly late in the shot clock?

[ballin]

No, my argument boils down to "I'm more likely to be correct than you are because I use actual data and history to back up my points while you use anecdotes and hypothetical situations which really don't prove anything."

I'm not saying that to be snarky; what it comes down to is that I'm relying on science and statistics to make my points and you're relying on what is essentially assumed knowledge.

  I'd guess you either stopped reading my post after the first line or two or ignored the rest because of a lack of response. You have no historical data to show that you can arbitrarily tell a player to take more shots than he otherwise would and not have his efficiency drop because it has never been done and measured. All you have is a claim that artificially changing a player's shot selection is no different than having that player's shot selection change on it's own.

  I came up with late in shot clocks as times when players shoot even if it's not what they'd normally do. Maybe you could explain why this is a bad example, or why any of my reasons I previously listed are wrong, or why players that can "always get their shots" perform so badly late in the shot clock?

So if I understand you correctly you're saying that the drop in EFG when the shot clock is low is analogous to what happens when you tell me a player to take more shots. I disagree.

Your argument ignores the fact that it sometimes takes time to set a player up for shots.

I never said that it's as simple as handing Paul Pierce the ball and telling him to shoot immediately. Not at all. Players obviously still need to share the ball, set screens and picks, and do everything else they usually do on offense. What I AM saying is that Rondo and Davis should be banned from taking midrange jumpers. They need to pass out of that situation, and recognize that unless there's less than 3 seconds left on the shot clock, there is no need for them to take that shot and they should try harder to find one of the Big 3 for a pass. We also need to run more plays for KG, Pierce, and Ray.

The key is that Rondo and Davis need to shoot less when it's not absolutely necessary. This will naturally result in fewer attempts for them, and more attempts for the Big 3.

If you look at the numbers, Davis and Rondo shoot 44% and 61% of their shots respectively when there's still at least 9 seconds left on the shot clock. That means there would still be plenty of time for them to look for the Big 3 and find one of them a shot. Just because they're open does NOT mean they need to take that shot... that's what the defense wants and that's why they leave them out there in the first place.

I guarantee you that 99% of the time 9 seconds is going to be enough time to get one of the Big 3 a decent shot.

[BballTim]

If you look at the numbers, Davis and Rondo shoot 44% and 61% of their shots respectively when there's still at least 9 seconds left on the shot clock. That means there would still be plenty of time for them to look for the Big 3 and find one of them a shot. Just because they're open does NOT mean they need to take that shot... that's what the defense wants and that's why they leave them out there in the first place.

I guarantee you that 99% of the time 9 seconds is going to be enough time to get one of the Big 3 a decent shot.

  If 9 seconds was enough time for one of the big three to get a decent shot 99% of the time this team would never have problems offensively. That I'll guarantee.

  I'm not opposed to the big three getting shots but neither is Rondo. I'm pretty sure that he never goes upcourt with Baby and the big three on the court thinking "I'm taking a long jumper on this possession" or "I'm getting Baby a jump shot this time". Those aren't our first, second or third option. I think that you're overrating the Big 3's ability to get a good shot every trip down court. You're depending on their forcing up shots that they normally wouldn't take and assuming that shots that they'd normally pass up are as likely to go in as shots that they take.

  I don't see why you're overlooking the main reason it's likely that your plan wouldn't be as successful as you think: Either no nba coach has considered the fact that having better shooters take more shots is a good idea, nobody that considered the possibility has tried it out, or the coaches know it would improve their offenses but choose not to do it. Which of those three are really likely?

[ballin]

If you look at the numbers, Davis and Rondo shoot 44% and 61% of their shots respectively when there's still at least 9 seconds left on the shot clock. That means there would still be plenty of time for them to look for the Big 3 and find one of them a shot. Just because they're open does NOT mean they need to take that shot... that's what the defense wants and that's why they leave them out there in the first place.

I guarantee you that 99% of the time 9 seconds is going to be enough time to get one of the Big 3 a decent shot.

  If 9 seconds was enough time for one of the big three to get a decent shot 99% of the time this team would never have problems offensively. That I'll guarantee.

  I'm not opposed to the big three getting shots but neither is Rondo. I'm pretty sure that he never goes upcourt with Baby and the big three on the court thinking "I'm taking a long jumper on this possession" or "I'm getting Baby a jump shot this time". Those aren't our first, second or third option. I think that you're overrating the Big 3's ability to get a good shot every trip down court. You're depending on their forcing up shots that they normally wouldn't take and assuming that shots that they'd normally pass up are as likely to go in as shots that they take.

  I don't see why you're overlooking the main reason it's likely that your plan wouldn't be as successful as you think: Either no nba coach has considered the fact that having better shooters take more shots is a good idea, nobody that considered the possibility has tried it out, or the coaches know it would improve their offenses but choose not to do it. Which of those three are really likely?

Actually, just about every team with a good offense is already doing exactly what I'm talking about. That's almost by definition: you can't have a "good offense" when low efficiency players are taking a high number of shots.

If you want an extreme example, look at the Heat, where their "Big 3" take the majority of shots by a landslide. They have the 5th best offense in the league, despite having terrible players other than Bosh, James, and Wade. How is that possible? Because they don't let scrubs shoot the ball.

Also, for what it's worth, Bosh, James, and Wade are all taking fewer shots per game and per minute than they did last year. So how come their efficiency hasn't risen? I mean, if you're claiming that increasing shots lowers efficiency, then shouldn't decreasing shots raise efficiency? That's not what the data shows is occurring.

[BballTim]

If you look at the numbers, Davis and Rondo shoot 44% and 61% of their shots respectively when there's still at least 9 seconds left on the shot clock. That means there would still be plenty of time for them to look for the Big 3 and find one of them a shot. Just because they're open does NOT mean they need to take that shot... that's what the defense wants and that's why they leave them out there in the first place.

I guarantee you that 99% of the time 9 seconds is going to be enough time to get one of the Big 3 a decent shot.

  If 9 seconds was enough time for one of the big three to get a decent shot 99% of the time this team would never have problems offensively. That I'll guarantee.

  I'm not opposed to the big three getting shots but neither is Rondo. I'm pretty sure that he never goes upcourt with Baby and the big three on the court thinking "I'm taking a long jumper on this possession" or "I'm getting Baby a jump shot this time". Those aren't our first, second or third option. I think that you're overrating the Big 3's ability to get a good shot every trip down court. You're depending on their forcing up shots that they normally wouldn't take and assuming that shots that they'd normally pass up are as likely to go in as shots that they take.

  I don't see why you're overlooking the main reason it's likely that your plan wouldn't be as successful as you think: Either no nba coach has considered the fact that having better shooters take more shots is a good idea, nobody that considered the possibility has tried it out, or the coaches know it would improve their offenses but choose not to do it. Which of those three are really likely?

Actually, just about every team with a good offense is already doing exactly what I'm talking about. That's almost by definition: you can't have a "good offense" when low efficiency players are taking a high number of shots.

  Did you check into this before you made this proclamation? The Lakers are a top offensive team. Kobe takes a lot more shots than Pau even though he's a less efficient scorer. Check the other teams and you'll see the same thing.

If you want an extreme example, look at the Heat, where their "Big 3" take the majority of shots by a landslide. They have the 5th best offense in the league, despite having terrible players other than Bosh, James, and Wade. How is that possible? Because they don't let scrubs shoot the ball.

  The big three are 3rd, 6th and 7th in TS% on the Heat, or if you prefer, 4th, 7th and 14th in eFG%. The eFG% for those three probably average out close to the team average.

Also, for what it's worth, Bosh, James, and Wade are all taking fewer shots per game and per minute than they did last year. So how come their efficiency hasn't risen? I mean, if you're claiming that increasing shots lowers efficiency, then shouldn't decreasing shots raise efficiency? That's not what the data shows is occurring.

  I never said that increasing shots lowers efficiency. I said *artificially* increasing shot totals would, because those increased shots come exclusively from plays where the player either didn't get the ball or chose not to take the shot when they did have the ball.

[looseball]

I think the KG/Pierce/Allen's offensive skills have diminished to the point that they are no longer best utlitzed as higher usage players. I also think that our offense is at its best when shot attempts are relatively even and the ball is moving. Our team has perhaps the most even shot distribution in the league, I think this is largely responsible for our current level of offensive success.

The paper itself doesn't claim to answer questions in real life basketball, but it does point to how higher efficiency options shouldn't always be used more in a team setting.

I just think the two biggest killers of offense in the NBA (or at least on the C's) is stagnancy, and predictability.

If an offense is not getting movement, both of the players and the ball, then the defense has the advantage, and they will generally end up with a bad shooter taking a bad shot. 

When the offense is predictable, its the same thing.  NBA defenses are in general, pretty smart.  If they know one guy is going to shoot it, one guy is going to drive, and one guy is going to pass, then it means they can basically take away half the floor, which again, leads to a bad shooter taking a bad shot.

So, the solution is you have to mix it up.  You have to move the ball, and the players, and you cannot fall into too much of a repetitive rhythm.

This means you need the bad shooters to shoot, when they have a good shot.  It also means, sometimes you need the shooters to drive, drivers pass, etc.  This opens up the floor, and does not let defenses to take away the shots for the shooters, drives for the drivers, and passes for the passers.  Even though they are doing something that the defense knows is not their strength, the defenders still will react to it if it is done in rhythm. 

They may lay off Rondo shooting, but if he takes a jumpshot in rhythm, they are going to run at him, because they won't have a chance to think about it.  That also may move them up an inch or two closer, so the next time down, the passing lane to Ray in the corner will suddenly open up, or the driving lane will be there with the use of a pump fake. 

However, if he catches the ball at the elbow, and does not even look at the shot, the defense will sag, and clog the passing lane, forcing them to break the offense, or the shotclock will run down forcing him to take a flat footed jumper.

Unfortunately, stats can't show these things.

Sure, sometimes they overpass, or sometimes guys will take an ill advised shot, but that is part of basketball.  As soon as they get it in their head that they should not be shooting, is when the offense will completely stall.

I agree with this analysis 100%.  It's all about both ball movement and player movement together.  This forces the defense to react, rather than anticipate.
The defense is trying to force low percentage shots.  So they will cover the big 3 closely, and "force" Rondo and Big Baby to take more shots away from the basket by leaving them open.  But no team wants to give layups, and anyone moving is a potential layup so, therefore, must be covered more closely, preventing the defense from swarming the big 3.
The current Celts do not really have anyone who can create his own shot on a regular basis.  (Pierce could a couple of years ago.)  So, the defenses chase Ray, put best defender on Paul, and sag on the rest.  I don't think guys like Rondo and Big Baby need to take fewer shots (and the big 3 more), rather you want them to shoot more layups and jumpers in the flow.
 

[BballTim]

For instance, as much as I LOVE wins produced (best advanced stat, in my opinion) David Berri admittedly has his head up is butt. He literally made a post about Kyle Lowry for MVP the other day based on wins produced. Pretty hilarious actually.

  Did you read the post? He wasn't really saying that Lowry should be an MVP candidate. His point was that Rose shouldn't because his "wins production" (or however he refers to it) is close to Lowry's, not close to the league leaders.

First of all, I didn't even see your post and wasn't responding to you. If I had been, I would've quoted you. So settle down. I must have missed what you said (although I thought I read mostly everything before I made another post, apparently I missed one of yours).

Secondly, I completely get what Berri is saying and my statement was obviously being hyperbolic. What I was obviously getting at is that wins produced overrates the heck out of Kyle Lowry and that stats aren't the be-all end-all of any discussion. And for what it's worth I do agree with his point that Rose shouldn't be a MVP candidate.

  No, I wasn't asking if you read my post. I was asking if you read the Berri article (which you referred to as a post) which doesn't really claim Lowery was an MVP candidate.

  I think that the offensive stats work better within "classes" of players. Comparing players who are first options on offense or comparing players that are 4th options probably works a lot better than comparing first options and 4th options with each other.

[dysgenic]

OP here, and yes, I agree with your conclusions. Like you, I try to mesh what I'm seeing with what the stats say. Problems arise when you rest your opinion too heavily on one side or the other.

For instance, as much as I LOVE wins produced (best advanced stat, in my opinion) David Berri admittedly has his head up is butt. He literally made a post about Kyle Lowry for MVP the other day based on wins produced. Pretty hilarious actually.

On the other hand, people that like what they're seeing with BBD and Rondo taking long jumpers are equally insane. "Taking the open shot" somehow fits meshes with their mental aesthetic as to what an efficient offense is supposed to look like. Same thing with (over)passing the ball. And yes, while it looks like the right thing to do, and in fact many of us have been taught growing up that it's the right thing to do, in reality, it clearly ISN'T. The stats clearly show that it is better for the Big 3 to attempt just about any type of shot than for Rondo or BBD to take a long jumper. Classic basketball be [dang]ed, but it's true.

I have to say that your point about overpassing is one that I agree with, 1000%.  How many times have we seen one of the big 3 pass up an open (or maybe not wide open, but still a GOOD shot) shot early in the shot clock only to end up with a much worse shot later in the shot clock?
It seems to me that the concept of 'ball movement' is being perverted in a way that it cannibalizes itself.  We don't have a low post game right now, so passing up good shots by good players RARELY leads to better opportunities later in the shot clock.  Also, it appears at first glance that every player is treated the same in this offense. If Baby has an open 20 footer early in the shot clock, I'm all for 'ball movement', but not true for Ray (extreme example, but you get the point). 

Again, thanks for a great thread.

[LB3533]

I think Doc needs to change his rotations around.

He should start subbing D West in for Pierce.

Have Paul play with the 2nd unit instead of Ray.

I think Paul's game is much more suited for the 2nd unit.

I think Ray's game will benefit more with playing with Rondo/KG more.

I am not worried with pairing Green and Paul because we don't give the ball to Green anyway so it won't matter much.

We can go inside out with KG and Ray and then feed Paul ISOs in the 2nd unit.

This can at least sustain some form of consistent offense through out the course of the 48 minute game.

We shouldn't have too many offensive droughts.

And Doc should never consider benching all of the Big 4 at the same time ever.