[Ringer] The James Harden–Chris Paul Experiment Could Lead to the Greatest Offense in NBA History

I personally don't take advice from people who can't keep genitalia pics off of the internets

 

Nobody said (myself included) that this team would beat the Warriors, but your assertion that this is a "gimmick offense" is totally asinine. That "gimmick offense" was one OT collapse away from probably cracking the Western Conference Finals last year.

And if we're calling this offense a gimmick, then do we say the same thing about the Warriors? Because so much of what they've done offensively the last few years resembles D'Antoni's strategies and playbook.

 

The Warriors run more downscreens in a single possession than we do in a quarter. It has pieces of Dantonis offense, but way more triangle with spacing and even motion offense. Our offenses aren't similar at all except for the fact we both take and make a lot of 3s. Numbers will agree with you there, but how are they derived?

That's basically my point. Very differently.

SIL

 

I just don't understand how the Rockets offense is a gimmick. Yes, they shoot an obscene amount of 3-pointers. But look at the top five teams in the league last season (Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, Rockets and Celtics) and four of them cracked the top five in 3-point attempts with the Spurs being the only outlier. That's not coincidence. That's the trend of NBA basketball in 2017.

Are they too reliant on the 3-pointer at times? Absolutely. But they can still find ways to get to the rim and win basketball games when the 3-pointer isn't falling, and you've got to think that's even more true with the acquisition of Paul. You can knock the Rockets offense all you want, but efficiency is efficiency, and that team won 55 games and made a playoff run for a reason.

 

It's hard to be the best offense when we have a GM who constantly overlooks the importance of having a frontcourt playmakers. How dumb do you have to be to trade Beasley, the best frontcourt scorer on the roster, for a useless scrub? (Don't try to defend Morey, Beasley was million times better than Ennis) This trade maybe trivial but it just showed there are major flaws in his player evaluation model. Imagine how good our offense would be last year if we had Beasley instead of Dekker.

 

Nicely done

 

Bolded.

You're failing to see my point. How are all these teams deriving the 3pt shot versus how we do.

There's your answer on why it's a gimmick versus simply an outcome of excellent offense. This is what happens when you look strictly at numbers and not watch the game.

SIL

 

OK, then teach me professor. Because I'm seeing an offense that gets a ton of open 3-pointers in the flow of the game through penetration, ball movement and screens. Is there an occasional "Harden dribbles for 15 seconds and puts up a contested step-back 3-pointer?" Sure. But what team in the league with a star player doesn't have have that play in their playbook?

Seriously, I'm at a loss for what makes the Rockets 3-pointers less legitimate than another team's 3-pointers. And I'm offended at the notion that I don't watch Rockets games, because I can assure you that I do.

 

This is a Warrior fan talking point.

There is no numerical benefit to a shooter running off of a screen rather than a shooter parked in a corner. In fact, by PPP there's actually a lot of evidence that coming off of a screen is the less efficient shot.

None of the Warriors top 4 guys last year had a better PPP coming off of screens rather than taking spot up jumpers.

All you have done here is take a hypebeast position - that motion offense with high pin down usage is better than any other kind of offense regardless of context, and applied that reasoning to the Rockets.

 

media conspiracy

 

You can't just use Offensive Rating. You need to compare it against the offensive rating of the league. If you take the warriors of the today and put them in the early 2000s they aren't going be as good offensively.

 

This team will be really good if James lets CP3 be the dominate guard with them on the court together. Less turnovers, more efficiency, etc.

I almost like the idea of James coming off the floor first so he can dominate secondary units. He seems to have a good rapport with the secondary bigs.

 

“It’s so funny sitting back and watching this ****,” he starts, before pausing to pull his phone out of his jeans, looking through the Golden State Warriors’ group chat. (The team has one, and the Hampton Five—Green, Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Andre Iguodala, and Kevin Durant, the five guys that were in the Hamptons in the summer of 2016 to recruit KD—has another.) He wants to relay something that Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey had said in an interview, reacting to the Warriors' title. The team had texted it to each other: “They are not unbeatable. There have been bigger upsets in sports history. We are going to keep improving our roster. We are used to long odds. If Golden State makes the odds longer, we might up our risk profile and get even more aggressive. We have something up our sleeve.”

Then he pauses, scoffing at Morey’s comments.

“What the **** are you talking about?” he says to me. “They are really trying to rethink their whole strategy”—here he bumps a table repeatedly with his hand for emphasis, getting excited—“because teams know they don’t have a ****ing clue.”

On a roll now, he remembers the Warriors’ lone playoff loss, in Game 4 of the Finals, when the Cavs sank twenty-four three-pointers, an NBA Finals record.

“That’d never been done!” Green exclaims. “They don’t come out and hit twenty-four threes and they’re swept. And that’s the second best team in the world. It’s pretty ****ing sick to see how everybody is just in a ****ing panic about what to do. You sit back and think, like, these mother****ers, they know. That’s the fun part about it: They know they don’t stand a chance.”

Post-title gloat aside, Green is not about to do what LeBron did seven years ago, after his talents arrived in South Beach to join Chris Bosh, D-Wade, and set this NBA arms race into motion. He’s not going to say that he and his super bros won’t be happy with just one ring (or four, or five, or six).

 

It's simple, really.

Our historically good offense added Chris Paul. Therefore....

We MUST take more mid-range shots!!11!!11!!11!!!!

 

well let's see . . . training camp opened up on Sept 26, that makes it two weeks and two days so far. IT'S A TOTAL FAILURE!!!!!! WHAT THE HELL WAS MURRAY THINKING!!!! THIS WILL NEVER WORK!!!!!

am I doing it right?

 

"I've seen enough..."

"The numbers are clear..."

 

Thanks for posting, never seen that info before. Showtime was no joke.

 

I have no idea what I just read here. Is this what happens when a human-donkey hybrid tries to mimic human speech?

 

Cavs are similar. Boston and GSW are vastly different. Come and we can watch some tape together. @Pen15clubber will bring refreshments.

SIL

 

When Bogut was there, you know no stat will show it but by watching it you know this was 100% a better way to derive 3s.

Unfortunately, the uncontested 3 stat is derived through bullshit. But see how open GSW gets versus us. They have multiple options on every down screen, we have 1 on curl screens.

Reading stats is blinding you. GSWs ball movement and off ball movement is world class. Their high post passing(West), post up action is superb to get open looks(see how Livingston operates). That would never be encouraged here.

I'd love to see us do some downscreens, backdoor cuts with flare outs. Imagine Harden on the low block after a Paul p&r. Then Paul setting a screen for Gordon on the opposite end after and Ryno stepping out to top of the key. Defense has to pick...cutting Paul, flaring Gordon, or sneaky Ryno, or even Harden 1 on 1. We don't have any of that off ball movement. There's double split screens in front of the 3pt line, and it's flaring to the corner or angles as strong or weak side penetrates EVERYTIME.

SIL