How do you feel about “ heliocentric” offense as a gameplan?

[Kblaze8855]

Just a bit of warning and a window into my madness….

I’m gonna be in a car(not driving) for some time the next few days and when I do so…I listen to a lot of music of course. And when I do I’m reminded of other things. Often basketball. And I have to get the thoughts out. I generally put something into a note to flesh out later but…like I said…I’ve got nothing better to do in this car right now. So I’m going to be annoying you a little more than usual. And I will include my motivation as I go…I already have like 5 but this will do for a beginning…..

I won’t bother explaining myself in the other topics to come.







Relevant part:

How am I supposed to live
When I built my life around you?
Try to put yourself in my shoes

The connection here is clear. We are in a time where analytics has led teams to try to play as efficiently as possible play to play. And that’s fine of course but at leads to decisions being made like those James Harden and Luca forced on the teams. Dantoni explained the team line of thinking pretty well:

“People don’t like it, aesthetically it’s not good. I don’t love it, I’d rather pass the ball around. And if I didn’t have a team that had James Harden, guess what! We’d pass the ball around… You got James Harden, I'm gonna make him the best player he could possibly be.”.

And that was mirrored by some Mavs people I saw do an interview. Basically….when Luka has the ball to score or find someone open the team is far more efficient than when someone else’s does(this was a year or two ago). So Luka needs to have the ball the whole game.

It’s not entirely illogical. If your team scores on a much higher rate on possessions where one guy has near complete control why not give it to them all game every game?

Well the reason of course is teammate buy in, development, and having the ability to play without the star both when he’s out of the game and when he’s injured or leaves the team.

It makes all of these guys look like gods analytically because the teams can’t function when they’re out of the game or when they miss time but…is that how you build a team?

The opposite approach to me is Tim Duncan. In what should’ve been his late prime he took a step back in the offense and let other people not just have the ball more, but have more responsibility. All the way up and down the roster.

The Spurs became a team that played together entirely and not one that needed any individual to do it all.

That said, it’s a lot easier for somebody like pop who has absolute unquestioned job, security forever to do that than for some GM/coach fighting for his job. Pop could afford to play the long game and try to develop confident role players, who don’t let the skills they built up in a lifetime of being a star before the NBA atrophy while they watch some guy dribble.

You may not have that luxury as a first year coach who has a guy like Luka or Harden or even Lebron to ride to more wins than the roster deserves.

You look better for winning 53 with a shit to average roster….than you do winning 41 making role players be all they can be for a future you won’t be there for. Also…with free agency? Are teams even worried how good a second or third guy can become when they’re probably gonna walk anyway?

Teams care more about developing when they know you’re locked in long term don’t they?

Can you blame a coach for trying to win the most games right now even if it makes for a worse total team and future? Should he care how good they will be for the next coach to get the credit?

Is it smarter to win the most right now no matter what?

[Overdrive]

The connection here is clear. We are in a time where analytics has led teams to try to play as efficiently as possible play to play. And that’s fine of course but at leads to decisions being made like those James Harden and Luca forced on the teams. Dantoni explained the team line of thinking pretty well:








And that was mirrored by some Mavs people I saw do an interview. Basically….when Luka has the ball to score or find someone open the team is far more efficient than when someone else’s does(this was a year or two ago). So Luka needs to have the ball the whole game.

It’s not entirely illogical. If your team scores on a much higher rate on possessions where one guy has near complete control why not give it to them all game every game?

The problem in this line of thinking is that the use this argument based on situations that occur within a much smaller sample size and thus recriit usefull idiots that fit that certain playstyle. Furthering the notion that the team can't survive without that single player. It makes teams so much dependent on that player that whole playoff series can be lost from one off night.

It sounds logical, because you only have the stats to draw from a team that becomes dysfunctional without their star, but this doesn't tell us if the team couldn't be better if it kept it's functionality without the star.

[Kblaze8855]

Like every other questionable tactic, it’s only an issue if the entire league doesn’t try to follow suit. If analytics convinces everyone with a star to play shitty team ball then it doesn’t really matter if it would lose to a different approach. The only people playing with that approach would be teams that don’t have stars so they couldn’t win to begin with.

[iamgine]

The only question is, does it work in the playoff? If it does, then there's nothing to complain about imo.

[Kblaze8855]

Some would say it’s worked pretty well for LeBron having won so many rings, but a lot of his key teammates had already become what they needed to be before having to fit their game alongside his.

[NBAGOAT]

Not every role guy is capable of playing well in the spurs system. As overdrive said, when you play any system you sign guys who fit that system. PJ Tucker say came to NBA after years in europe, he was always going just be a 3nD guy but that's all the rockets needed around harden. Even some younger guys can never do it.

player development is also much easier said than done and in any era some guy who dominated in college doesnt get to use many of those skills in the nba. To use some counterexamples Curry and GS is likely the duncan and spurs of this era. Curry has sacrificed at times to let their young guys develop and now their fans regret letting poole have the ball so much, he doesnt quite have the bbiq to thrive there and is a bit too selfish. Of their 3 draft picks the last few years, only kuminga has shown promise and they already gave up on wiseman. Those young guys could get better but some gs fans would argue they have sacrificed championship opportunities for them and shouldnt have made those sacrifices.

Also a non heliocentric offense doesnt necessarily develop those guys Denver has cycled through countless young guys on their bench who havent developed the past few years partially because basically no backup center plays like jokic and mike malone isnt close to pop as a coach. Their best role players are all guys they traded for or signed in free agency guys who already knew how to play and didnt need development. The Kings are similar and only have one rookie to develop.

I dont think analytics will lead completely in the heliocentric direction. There's too much talent in the nba(which dallas doesnt have much of) and enough good teams dont play that way for now

[3ba11]

When did Lebron develop a young player into significant contributor?.. When did he develop guys into meaningful contributors like pippen, grant, bj, draymond, klay, or poole?

Lebron has zero player development on his watch because his abnormal ball-dominance imposes spot-up roles, aka he's physically-huge but maintains a point guard assisted rate and hold time (abnormal ball-dominance for his size/position) that lowers teammate assists and increases their assisted rate (imposes spot-up roles).

Accordingly, every player sees statistical decline alongside Lebron unless they're an elite shooter (Kyrie/Mo) or bit-player/spot-up shooter (Delly)... So Lebron's skillset of imposing spot-up roles lacks the teammate development, chemistry or strategic capacity/coaching to win organically, thus requiring talent-based winning (team-hopping.. all-star team strategy).

Heliocentric players like Lebron or Luka never really learn how to win (chemistry, great strategy/coaching) and only learn how to team-hop (talent-based winning).

[Overdrive]

Like every other questionable tactic, it’s only an issue if the entire league doesn’t try to follow suit. If analytics convinces everyone with a star to play shitty team ball then it doesn’t really matter if it would lose to a different approach. The only people playing with that approach would be teams that don’t have stars so they couldn’t win to begin with.

What I was trying to say is that it's basically an lazy argument within the team itself. D'Antoni saying their team would be less efficient when the team is streamlined for that style of play means nothing. What if they try to get role players, glue guys and secondary scorers for a motion, equal opportunity or other team oriented offense? Would they still be at their most efficient with the star hogging the ball and micromanaging everything?

Not even talking about league wide just the best a team could be in a vacuum.

Some would say it’s worked pretty well for LeBron having won so many rings, but a lot of his key teammates had already become what they needed to be before having to fit their game alongside his.

It obviously had mild success with Boobie Gibson aswell. Lebron, all critique aside, is just way better than the other ball dominators.

[3ba11]

Aside from Magic (who had Kareem), has anyone won the title by averaging 10 APG for a playoff run?

Almost no one or maybe even no one.. This proves that the heliocentric brand is a garbage brand that has been elevated by ignorant media that doesn't understand the meaninglessness and detriment of a triple-double.

Ultimately, passers like Magic, Lebron or Luka need great scorers to feed like Kareem or AD and this inherent need for more help makes them inferior to the great scorers themselves, who needed less help.. Kobe didn't need great scoring help and virtually no passing help.. Ditto MJ, who had the least passing help among 90's 1st options like Barkley, Malone, Zo, Kemp.

[90sgoat]

I think it has a bad track record, from Iverson to Lebron to Luka, it doesn't work very well.

Lebron won some rings, yes, with stacked teams, but look at who else won: Warriors, Spurs, Raptors, Bucks.

Harden couldn't, Luka haven't been able to, Westbrook no, Wall no, etc etc etc.

[paksat]

what do you if that player gets tired, like he should, playing that type of offense? There's a lot of issues with this, wear and tear is another big one over time.

I think it has a purpose, crunch situations and late game or before half with a few minutes to go

[Axe]

what do you if that player gets tired, like he should, playing that type of offense? There's a lot of issues with this, wear and tear is another big one over time.

I think it has a purpose, crunch situations and late game or before half with a few minutes to go

Maybe thinking about eggs will help them deal with the situation.

[3ba11]

How do we feel about turning everyone into spot-up shooter?

That kind of inferior strategy, development and chemistry can't win organically and requires a super-team to win.. even then it will yield perennial underdogs that barely meet the underdog expectation..

that's pathetic, so based on this historical record, it's clearly an inferior, rudimentary way to play... Lemme guess - it has really low team ceilings/Finals records, amirite?