ROY comments on our offense - is there a problem here?

[hasoos]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

I would just like to see the lineup, as intended, play together for about 30 games to see what happens. We haven't got to see it once yet.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

Great post. Repped

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

The obvious question, to me, is whether this indicates that a certain style of play from Roy causes wins, or simply breaks down to "When Roy [the team's best player] plays well, the team tends to win more." The first could be an insight, the second would simply be a rather obvious causation.

The problem is that we have no other data points of Roy in other styles of play to work from. If we had an alternate universe season where Roy played in a faster tempo system, then that would be something to compare to. Roy didn't play in different systems over the course of last year...what the data amounts to is that when Roy played efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team won. When Roy played less efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team lost.

That doesn't really tell us what style of play leads to the most wins. It simply tells us that the team is better when the team's best player makes fewer mistakes. Probably true for every team.

More specifically, it doesn't bear on the debate over whether Roy should play off the ball more. That could generate more easy shots and therefore a higher shooting percentage for Roy, less turnovers and perhaps more wins.

 

[BGrantFan]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Getting more "easy" shots is pretty central to maximizing a great scorer. Every team that has had one has generally started plotting ways to get their scorer as many easy shots as possible. Why should Portland be different with Roy.

The stats say Roy got easier shots in 2008-09 than he did in 2009-10, at least in terms of offensive efficiency. The team also won 4 more games that season. If the idea is to get Roy easier shots, then from a historical perspective, we need more of the 2008-09 Brandon Roy edition, and less of v.2009-10.

 

[hasoos]

I think it's because we have some good offensive rebounders... players that would get offensive rebounds in any system (within reason). Again, though: I'm not 100% sure about this.

I wonder if any prominent offensive rebounders under Nate have gone on to be inferior offensive rebounders under another coach...



Yep.

Ed O.

I don't know. A lot of the players he had in Seattle for big men were pretty much blue collar paint players. I am trying to remember who played for him as bigs in Seattle. I know Nick Collison was there. And if I remember right wasn't it Danny Fortson(not in the league much longer than that). I am trying to remember the name of the center who was there who signed with the Knicks for big $$ but ended up being a pile of shit after he moved over. But that might have been nothing to do with Nate. The Knicks were already on a death spiral.

 

[MickZagger]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Brandon Roy is such a fucking liar

Someone craving a little attention today?

Alright, say Brandon Roy went down with a season ending injury(knock on wood)? Would that make our team better? If we trade him for a trade exception, would that make the Blazers better?

I think some of you fail to realize that Roy is a top 3 player at his position.

I remember when Shaq left LA and Kobe struggled with the Lakers, the same concerns were being brought up about him then. They acquire Bynum and Pau and everything is peaches and cream.

 

[Ed O]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

The stats say Roy got easier shots in 2008-09 than he did in 2009-10, at least in terms of offensive efficiency. The team also won 4 more games that season. If the idea is to get Roy easier shots, then from a historical perspective, we need more of the 2008-09 Brandon Roy edition, and less of v.2009-10.

I don't think that we know the causation/correlation relationship here. With the exception of Webster, the team was much healthier in 2008-09... Roy could have been less important to the team in 2008-09 but the team was better because of the superior supporting cast.

Ed O.

 

[MickZagger]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Vince Carter
Kevin Durant
Lebron James
Chris Bosh
Dirk Nowitzki
Yao Ming
T-Mac
Carmelo Anthony
Danny Granger
Amare Stoudemire
Joe Johnson
Derek Rose
Allen Iverson

Those are all recent or current stars in the NBA that haven't won a title

To answer your question

Teams with 2 stars win....most of the time

K*be and Pau
K*be and Shaq
Shaq and Wade
Pierce, KG, Allen
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili
Jordan, Pippen

With the possible exception of Detroit (Billups, Hamilton), might seriously have to go back to the 77 Blazer team that won it all to find a team with only 1 star to win it......maybe Olajuwan's first ring?

Brandon needs to learn to adjust his game so his teammates can help him. All of the great players have done it, and Brandon shouldn't be any different. Maybe, just maybe, it's the scheme

late 80's/early 90's Pistons had one star, Isaiah Thomas.

 

[LittleAlex]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

The obvious question, to me, is whether this indicates that a certain style of play from Roy causes wins, or simply breaks down to "When Roy [the team's best player] plays well, the team tends to win more." The first could be an insight, the second would simply be a rather obvious causation.

The problem is that we have no other data points of Roy in other styles of play to work from. If we had an alternate universe season where Roy played in a faster tempo system, then that would be something to compare to. Roy didn't play in different systems over the course of last year...what the data amounts to is that when Roy played efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team won. When Roy played less efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team lost.

That doesn't really tell us what style of play leads to the most wins. It simply tells us that the team is better when the team's best player makes fewer mistakes. Probably true for every team.

More specifically, it doesn't bear on the debate over whether Roy should play off the ball more. That could generate more easy shots and therefore a higher shooting percentage for Roy, less turnovers and perhaps more wins.

Also, you need to split regular season success from post season success.

Teams don't really have time to make up game plans for specific teams in the regular season.
Come playoff time they get a chance to formulate specific plans to counter what the other team does.

It seems as though what produces a great deal of success for Portland in the regular is very easy to shut down when given enough time to plan.
Unfortunately, we have to wait through an entire season to only see a handful of games which may or may not prove this to be true.

 

[Ed O]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

I think some of you fail to realize that Roy is a top 3 player.

Top three in what?

At his position, do you mean? Not the NBA generally, right?

Ed O.

 

[MickZagger]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Top three in what?

At his position, do you mean? Not the NBA generally, right?

Ed O.

Yeah, I realized that I forgot to add, at his position. Argueably top 2. I think when Roy's on his game, like when he was healthy for December and January of last year he was just as good as Wade.

 

[hasoos]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

The obvious question, to me, is whether this indicates that a certain style of play from Roy causes wins, or simply breaks down to "When Roy [the team's best player] plays well, the team tends to win more." The first could be an insight, the second would simply be a rather obvious causation.

The problem is that we have no other data points of Roy in other styles of play to work from. If we had an alternate universe season where Roy played in a faster tempo system, then that would be something to compare to. Roy didn't play in different systems over the course of last year...what the data amounts to is that when Roy played efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team won. When Roy played less efficiently in McMillan's conservative system, the team lost.

That doesn't really tell us what style of play leads to the most wins. It simply tells us that the team is better when the team's best player makes fewer mistakes. Probably true for every team.

More specifically, it doesn't bear on the debate over whether Roy should play off the ball more. That could generate more easy shots and therefore a higher shooting percentage for Roy, less turnovers and perhaps more wins.

At the same time, do you really expect Roy to shoot a much higher of a clip than he has been? A shooting guard who is the primary focus of the defense getting 50% is phenomenal. Can you expect better? I don't think so.

The second thing I don't agree with is the running. I don't think coaches have one bit of an effect on players when they run or don't run. The running and transition game in the NBA is a game of feel. There is no looking over to the coach and saying "Hey do we run here" when a turnover is created. The players have to have the ability to function in the open court. A team needs to be no better at running than to take advantage of an opponents mistakes when they happen. Pushing the pace for the sake of pushing the pace is bullshit and has never won an NBA championship in the last 20 years. Every team that has won a championship has top notch defense/rebounding and ball control.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

The stats say Roy got easier shots in 2008-09 than he did in 2009-10, at least in terms of offensive efficiency. The team also won 4 more games that season. If the idea is to get Roy easier shots, then from a historical perspective, we need more of the 2008-09 Brandon Roy edition, and less of v.2009-10.

In neither season did he have a true off-the-ball game, which is the point. Comparing the two seasons is therefore pretty irrelevant. Yes, I'd prefer the 2008-09 Roy over the 2009-10 Roy. But I think the 2008-09 Roy with a nice off-the-ball game might be better yet.

Also, as far as stats go, his scoring efficiency (as measured by TS% which basically boils down to points per shot attempt) was nearly identical between the two seasons: .573 vs. .568. That's an insignificant difference.

 

[BGrantFan]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

I don't think that we know the causation/correlation relationship here. With the exception of Webster, the team was much healthier in 2008-09... Roy could have been less important to the team in 2008-09 but the team was better because of the superior supporting cast.

Ed O.

I'm not saying we do, other than from looking at statistics and trying to derive future results from them. As I posted, I'd err on the side of too much Roy, and then scale him back if it doesn't work, over too little Roy (without giving Roy the chance to succeed or fail first).

There are no definitive answers; there are only philosophical differences in how to get the most success from your best player, and by extension, your team.

 

[BGrantFan]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

In neither season did he have a true off-the-ball game, which is the point. Comparing the two seasons is therefore pretty irrelevant. Yes, I'd prefer the 2008-09 Roy over the 2009-10 Roy. But I think the 2008-09 Roy with a nice off-the-ball game might be better yet.

Also, as far as stats go, his scoring efficiency (as measured by TS% which basically boils down to points per shot attempt) was nearly identical between the two seasons: .573 vs. .568. That's an insignificant difference.

Well, to be fair, that's your point. My point is that I don't want him to be an off-the-ball player until he proves he can't be a great on-the-ball player. Also, his PER was significantly higher in 2008-09, as were his OWS and Ortg. I don't consider those variances "irrelevant", thanks.

 

[DeanMoriarty]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

Kobe and Wade averaged more attempts than Roy did when they won championships.

Roy having the ball is good for us. He is a "Natural" scorer and needs to match up to the superstar SG tier.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

At the same time, do you really expect Roy to shoot a much higher of a clip than he has been? A shooting guard who is the primary focus of the defense getting 50% is phenomenal. Can you expect better? I don't think so.

Having him play off the ball prevents him from being the primary focus of the defense as much. You cannot, as a defense, rationally double-team a player who doesn't have the ball...it would pretty much destroy your ability to stop the other 4 players and the ball.

This is why Kobe Bryant gets so many off-the-ball opportunities...it's easier for the defense to collapse on him when he starts on the wing and takes it all the way to the basket himself. When he pops open on a screen for a catch-and-shoot or flashes open at the hoop from a backdoor cut, the defense doesn't have time to run another guy at him.

The second thing I don't agree with is the running.

I'm not advocating a running-oriented team. I'd like to see them get a transition bucket when the opportunity is there, but I'm perfectly content with the Blazers being halfcourt-oriented.

 

[Ed O]

I don't know. A lot of the players he had in Seattle for big men were pretty much blue collar paint players. I am trying to remember who played for him as bigs in Seattle. I know Nick Collison was there. And if I remember right wasn't it Danny Fortson(not in the league much longer than that). I am trying to remember the name of the center who was there who signed with the Knicks for big $$ but ended up being a pile of shit after he moved over. But that might have been nothing to do with Nate. The Knicks were already on a death spiral.

Fortson was a superior offensive rebounder before he got to Seattle (although he still had a year or so that were pretty good before he was out of the league at age 30). Collison played his rookie year for Nate and DID put up his career high in ORB%... Jerome James was a very good offensive rebounder before he got to Nate and a bad one his last two years there...

Camby's ORB% as a Blazer was very good (a career high) in his 23 regular season games, although it dipped back down to his career average in the playoffs. Joel's put up ORB% numbers slightly better than his rookie season (although significantly better than his injury-plagued years) since Nate has taken over.

Not shooting you down at all. Just interesting to look at the big guys and what they've done elsewhere. Nate hasn't had too many big guys go elsewhere as a Blazers coach.

*shrug*

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

My point is that I don't want him to be an off-the-ball player until he proves he can't be a great on-the-ball player.

He's already proven that. Why not have him expand into also having off-the-ball game?

Also, his PER was significantly higher in 2008-09, as were his OWS and Ortg. I don't consider those variances "irrelevant", thanks.

I didn't say they were. I thought you were talking about scoring efficiency, which would bear on "easy shots."

As for his season in 2008-09 (which was legitimately much better overall), there's currently no way to know what led to that much better season. He dealt with more injuries in 2009-10, he dealt with more teammate injuries, dealt with more player turnover (Blake, Outlaw out, Miller, Camby, Cunningham in) and he may simply have had a career season in 2008-09. Until he plays more seasons, there's no way to know. Personally, I think he played in pretty much the same way in 2009-10, so I wouldn't personally chalk up the difference in seasons to a playing style.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Here's primarily where we differ, I believe. I think that the fact that Roy is the team's best player does not necessarily mean that he's the team's best decision maker.

Bingo. The Bulls experimented with Jordan as PG when Doug Collins was coach. He averaged a triple double. But it didn't work. Similarly, it was only when Larry Brown moved Iverson off the ball that they got to the finals and he had his MVP year.

 

[MickZagger]

I don't know. A lot of the players he had in Seattle for big men were pretty much blue collar paint players. I am trying to remember who played for him as bigs in Seattle. I know Nick Collison was there. And if I remember right wasn't it Danny Fortson(not in the league much longer than that). I am trying to remember the name of the center who was there who signed with the Knicks for big $$ but ended up being a pile of shit after he moved over. But that might have been nothing to do with Nate. The Knicks were already on a death spiral.

Ahhhh good old Jerome James the guy Isaiah signed after having a good playoff series with Seattle and he came into camp in New York like 40lbs. overweight.

Another key element to those teams was Reggie Evans, who led the league in rebounds per minutes during that year that the Sonics were so successful. They ran a statistic that Reggie Evans would grab 1 quarter of all shots missed while he's in the game.

 

[BGrantFan]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

Bingo. The Bulls experimented with Jordan as PG when Doug Collins was coach. He averaged a triple double. But it didn't work. Similarly, it was only when Larry Brown moved Iverson off the ball that they got to the finals and he had his MVP year.

I think Roy is more Pippen than Jordan on offense, if you want to bring up the Bulls. Roy proved from his first season that he can involve others in an offense, and his assisst totals also illustrate it.

Pippen played an effective point forward, with Kerr or Paxson being the point guard in name only.

 

[andalusian]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

In neither season did he have a true off-the-ball game, which is the point. Comparing the two seasons is therefore pretty irrelevant. Yes, I'd prefer the 2008-09 Roy over the 2009-10 Roy. But I think the 2008-09 Roy with a nice off-the-ball game might be better yet.

If you look at the shot-distribution for Roy in 2008-2009 vs. 2009-2010 - it is clear that Roy played more off the ball last year - rather significantly. He was assisted on 3% more of his jump-shots and 5% on his dunks - but the biggest issue is that without the ball and the so called "ISO" offense, Roy's shot distribution changed a lot last year, instead of taking 66% of his attempts as jump shots - he took 74% of his attempts as jump shots, when he handled the ball - 31% of his shots came from close by - breaking the defense and getting close to the rim, this fell to 24% of his attempts vs. 31%

People complain that this is a jump-shooting team, but somehow, having a guy who can get close to the basket with the ball in his hands and shoot from up close is bad because he dominates the ball?

The team, as a whole, was at 66% jumpshots with Roy handling the ball more and at 69% jumpshots with him playing more off the ball.

It was not just this, but the team, as a whole, took 400 more shots in 2008-2009 vs the 2009-2010 team - and before you start telling me it's all offensive rebounds - the team took only 147 more offensive rebounds that year than last year...

Anyway you slice it - Roy handling the ball more is a good thing for the Portland Trail-Blazers.

If you want Roy to expand his game, I would suggest that the right thing to do for Brandon is to work on becoming even more of a PG than less of it, at least with the other players we have on the roster.

 

[Masbee]

Do you guys think a key part of the offense is to set up for offensive rebounds?

Ed O.

I think that the offense is to: Limit turnovers, and to improve on the usually conflicting aspects of offensive rebounding and opposition fast breaks.

If the offense is too freewheeling with too much freelancing, turnovers will increase, offensive rebounds will decrease and fast-breaks against will increase.

Will the increase in "easy" shots from opening up the offense be enough to make up for those losses?

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

If you look at the shot-distribution for Roy in 2008-2009 vs. 2009-2010 - it is clear that Roy played more off the ball last year - rather significantly. He was assisted on 3% more of his jump-shots and 5% on his dunks - but the biggest issue is that without the ball and the so called "ISO" offense, Roy's shot distribution changed a lot last year, instead of taking 66% of his attempts as jump shots - he took 74% of his attempts as jump shots, when he handled the ball - 31% of his shots came from close by - breaking the defense and getting close to the rim, this fell to 24% of his attempts vs. 31%

People complain that this is a jump-shooting team, but somehow, having a guy who can get close to the basket with the ball in his hands and shoot from up close is bad because he dominates the ball?

I have never been one of the people complaining that this is a jump-shooting team, for one thing.

And I'll grant that Roy played more off the ball, especially at the end of the season, so I should that he didn't play exactly the same as the previous season. But that doesn't change my point that in neither season did he have an "off-the-ball game." He tried to play off the ball, but he had no experience or practice with it. That isn't what I mean by having an off-the-ball game. I mean knowing how to move and cut off the ball to get open for shots, including cutting to the hoop (all off the ball action is not getting open for jumpers).

What I'd like to see is Roy play off the ball some amount after having practiced and worked on that.

If you want Roy to expand his game, I would suggest that the right thing to do for Brandon is to work on becoming even more of a PG than less of it, at least with the other players we have on the roster.

Certainly a valid position, but I think Roy's main strength is scoring, not passing. I think he's more of a Kobe Bryant Lite, not a Scottie Pippen Lite. Bryant has always been underrated as a passer, but he is a good one...he's just a superior scorer to passer. I see Roy the same way. And I see that all top scorers tend to cultivate an off-the-ball game to supplement their ability to break defenders down.

 

[BGrantFan]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

If you look at the shot-distribution for Roy in 2008-2009 vs. 2009-2010 - it is clear that Roy played more off the ball last year - rather significantly. He was assisted on 3% more of his jump-shots and 5% on his dunks - but the biggest issue is that without the ball and the so called "ISO" offense, Roy's shot distribution changed a lot last year, instead of taking 66% of his attempts as jump shots - he took 74% of his attempts as jump shots, when he handled the ball - 31% of his shots came from close by - breaking the defense and getting close to the rim, this fell to 24% of his attempts vs. 31%

People complain that this is a jump-shooting team, but somehow, having a guy who can get close to the basket with the ball in his hands and shoot from up close is bad because he dominates the ball?

The team, as a whole, was at 66% jumpshots with Roy handling the ball more and at 69% jumpshots with him playing more off the ball.

It was not just this, but the team, as a whole, took 400 more shots in 2008-2009 vs the 2009-2010 team - and before you start telling me it's all offensive rebounds - the team took only 147 more offensive rebounds that year than last year...

Anyway you slice it - Roy handling the ball more is a good thing for the Portland Trail-Blazers.

If you want Roy to expand his game, I would suggest that the right thing to do for Brandon is to work on becoming even more of a PG than less of it, at least with the other players we have on the roster.

This is pretty much my view as well, but I tend to end up in mundane semantic battles over which stats define "efficiency" when asked to explain my seemingly rational opinion.

Nice post!

 

[BGrantFan]

Will the increase in "easy" shots from opening up the offense be enough to make up for those losses?

From an efficiency viewpoint, and given the current composition of the roster, I'd say the evidence points to 'No', at least when I look at the numbers.

 

[BBert]

Re: Fuck Brandon Roy

I have an admittedly unsupported belief that he will be able to get better shots if he learns how to play off the ball more. I want him to take shots--lots of shots, more than he takes now--but I don't want him to have to create all his scoring opportunities for himself. I believe that if Roy allowed him to, Miller could make it easier for Roy to score, make him even more efficient than he already is. Possibly, it could also make his scoring opportunities less stressful on his body, help him take less of a pounding, potentially extending his career and his prime, if he were to get the ball in more space, take shots that were less contested.

Obviously, I could be way off here. But I'd like to see what would happen if Roy were to commit himself to this notion for a period of time.

My thoughts as well. As in all of last season.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

That doesn't really tell us what style of play leads to the most wins. It simply tells us that the team is better when the team's best player makes fewer mistakes. Probably true for every team.

Thanks for the considered response; I went through the game logs and recorded our scores for the 30 games where Roy shot .500 FG% or better. The Blazers in those games score 100.7 points a game (league average was 100.4pts). This is 2.6 points per game higher than our average of 98.1 for the season.

What's striking is that, in the 26 wins out of those 30 games where Roy shoots 50% or better, our score was 100.9 points per game (which is higher), while our season average ppg in wins was 89.6ppg! By contrast, our ppg in losses was 102.9ppg.

(By way of comparison, the world champion LA Lakers scored 102.2 points in a loss and 94.7 points in a win last year; this sort of stat is apparently not unusual; in the 31 games where Kobe shot .500 or better, the Lakers were 24-7).

Shots per game: The Blazers averages 76.7 shots per game in those 30 games. The seasonal average was 78.7. However, in wins, the Blazers averaged 77.4 shots per game (80.6 in losses); in the 26 wins where Brandon shoots 50% or better, the shots per game was 76.9.

There's no "faster game" when Roy plays well, though we do score more points when he does, due to better efficiency. However, team performance in losses (more shots, more points scored) seems to indicate that a faster paced game might not be good for everybody on the floor in a Blazer uniform.

I look at it as a risk/reward system: if we were at .500 (41 wins) or below, changing our system would be a better than 2:1 chance to succeed. But we're winning between 50 and 54 wins recently, and the opportunity to fail is larger than the opportunity to succeed by changing.

I'm not against improving our pace; it wouldn't take much, either... just shoot with 7 seconds left on the shot clock rather than 6, on average. More fast breaks or shooting early in the shot clock will push this average up, of course. Basically, we just need 4-6 more possessions a game to push the pace up from slowest in the league to league average.

But I wouldn't want to be any faster than that; this is where the portion of your post I quoted is addressed: only 6 of the 16 playoff teams were above average in pace (this includes the Lakers, who were essentially at average, being 92.8 versus 92.7 for the league). But 12 of the 16 playoff teams were above average in ORtg (Offensive efficiency) and 15 of the 16 were above average in DRtg (defensive efficiency). Success correlates much more to efficiency than speed.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Re: Why Roy likes a slow game where he controls the ball... and why we should too.

Thanks for the considered response; I went through the game logs and recorded our scores for the 30 games where Roy shot .500 FG% or better. The Blazers in those games score 100.7 points a game (league average was 100.4pts). This is 2.6 points per game higher than our average of 98.1 for the season.

What's striking is that, in the 26 wins out of those 30 games where Roy shoots 50% or better, our score was 100.9 points per game (which is higher), while our season average ppg in wins was 89.6ppg! By contrast, our ppg in losses was 102.9ppg.

(By way of comparison, the world champion LA Lakers scored 102.2 points in a loss and 94.7 points in a win last year; this sort of stat is apparently not unusual; in the 31 games where Kobe shot .500 or better, the Lakers were 24-7).

Shots per game: The Blazers averages 76.7 shots per game in those 30 games. The seasonal average was 78.7. However, in wins, the Blazers averaged 77.4 shots per game (80.6 in losses); in the 26 wins where Brandon shoots 50% or better, the shots per game was 76.9.

There's no "faster game" when Roy plays well, though we do score more points when he does, due to better efficiency. However, team performance in losses (more shots, more points scored) seems to indicate that a faster paced game might not be good for everybody on the floor in a Blazer uniform.

I look at it as a risk/reward system: if we were at .500 (41 wins) or below, changing our system would be a better than 2:1 chance to succeed. But we're winning between 50 and 54 wins recently, and the opportunity to fail is larger than the opportunity to succeed by changing.

I'm not against improving our pace; it wouldn't take much, either... just shoot with 7 seconds left on the shot clock rather than 6, on average. More fast breaks or shooting early in the shot clock will push this average up, of course. Basically, we just need 4-6 more possessions a game to push the pace up from slowest in the league to league average.

But I wouldn't want to be any faster than that; this is where the portion of your post I quoted is addressed: only 6 of the 16 playoff teams were above average in pace (this includes the Lakers, who were essentially at average, being 92.8 versus 92.7 for the league). But 12 of the 16 playoff teams were above average in ORtg (Offensive efficiency) and 15 of the 16 were above average in DRtg (defensive efficiency). Success correlates much more to efficiency than speed.

You're either unemployed or you work for the federal government.


(Just kidding BC.)