What you miss is that they don't want to stand in a corner twiddling their thumbs hoping that Harden decides to pass them the ball.
Klay Thompson is the most assisted shooter in the NBA. He has built a career on waiting somewhere and twiddling his thumbs hoping someone passes him the ball.
The best shot avaible is better im really tired of this overanalytical nonsense. Threes maybe better considering good shooters and openess of the shot is the same on both. Daryls theory doesnt consider that midrange shot is easier too and it helps you get in the rhythm when shot is off(like lets say 0-15 to start the game or 27 missed threes in a row). Its golden bball rule: if your shot is off shoot some freethrows/midrange and if you make couple suddenly threes fall again... our system is naive and gimmick it wont work against GSW at full strenght and wouldnt against those top Spurs, Lakers, Bulls or any other championship level team(which usually are champions because of their versatility with weaknesses minimized and strenghts maximized)
Also the concept of 3>2 works given a larger sample size. It doesn't necessarily work when you shrink the sample size such as the 4th quarter. By then, the best shot available is the more efficient shot.
Wrong! He doesn't just sit in a corner twiddling his thumbs but moves around coming off screens, but more importantly, he is not hoping that some one would pass him the ball - he knows someone is going to pass him the ball. In fact, wouldn't be surprised to find that terrible shooter like Iggy and Green get more touches and shot attempts than most of our players. The willingness to share the ball is one of the reasons so many scorers can coexist on the warriors
The way we get our threes and how we have very few knock down shooters makes this all this 3 > 2 silly. I respect Morey and our organisation to go all out with this theory, but you see what it has done to Harden. Also watch how the Nuggets closed out the Spurs, had they hoisted up threes, guaranteed the Spurs take them down.
This is a silly argument. So you are interested in movement only regardless of the results? Because results-wise, we get the same offensive production out of lesser talent. It would be absurd to copy them.
Running a figure 8 and having two offensive linemen blocking for you is not entertaining basketball Rocket River
"But even where this natural talent is present there can still be a deficiency in premises, that is, a theory can be incomplete and can, perhaps, be supplemented only by engaging in further experiments and experiences, from which the recently schooled physician, agriculturalist, or economist can and should abstract new rules for himself and make his theory complete." 3s are better is an incomplete theory so in essence Kant might be in agreement with the essence of his argument
We get great offensive production when opposing teams have to play different teams every other night and can't hone in on nuanced tendencies but in a 7 game series? That offensive production and efficiency drops. The problem with this current system is predictability. It's why we jumped from one of the least turnover prone teams during the regular season to one of the most turnover prone teams. Teams are predicting all our passing lanes and hounding the primary ball handlers( CP3 and Harden)
@Mathloom and @bmelo still in here valiantly defending their argument in the face of overwhelming odds.
That's right. I'd like to see the criticisms of Moreyball focus on deeper analysis than on chucking the analysis and going with your gut. If midrange shots do make things more complex for defenses and open up offensive opportunities, you should be able to find evidence of it in the statistics. If the Rockets are too predictable, you can see it in the statistics. If things change in the playoffs, you can see it in the statistics. I'd love to see GM Bizarro Morey make the argument for the midrange shot. I'm sure regular Morey has heard all these ideas before, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's already tried to model them. Kudos, btw, on grabbing a quote from Kant to apply to basketball of all things.
It's always amusing when someone jumps into the middle of a discussion and makes up their own argument. But just to humor you, that supposed production doesn't count for anything imo as long as Rockets don't win it all. No quality offensive player in his prime (like Klay) will join a team where each possession is Harden iso, no matter how 'productive' it is
Again, that's literally not true. It counts for something: we produce the same level of offense as they do with lesser talent. I don't care who Klay is willing to join. I know FA's care about lifestyle and wins, nothing more, nothing less.
No, efficiency drops because: 1) We are playing better overall teams. 2) The Warriors are an excellent defensive team in the playoffs. 3) Relative to the Warriors, our offensive success is bottlenecked by having fewer offensive stars. Do you see that we MUST drop in efficiency and that even with the drop in efficiency no one - even those with comparable talent - has been able to do better against Durant's Warriors?
Well the Clippers did well and we have significantly more top heavy talent then them. The reason the Rockets lasted 7 games against the Warriors have nothing to do with our offense. The offensive output in that series was abysmal. Defense is why the team took the Warriors to the brink of elimination.
