Have to disagree that our offense hasn't changed much. Ball movement is much better, we have different playmakers/distributors than just the guards (Boogie and Tate for example), we're taking more mid-range 2s, defensive rebounding is better (still not where it needs to be), and I'm sure there are things I'm missing, but in a webex so I have to run.
I'll tell you why I asked. I'm not sure if you heard it during the Nets broadcast last night but the announcers mentioned that if the Nets could continue with the same efficiency that they're had since the Harden trade, then they would end up being the most efficient offense in the history of the game. I checked and that is indeed true. Even though they are learning to play together, they've been more efficient that last year's Mavs who set the record. Of course, nobody else can play the same way because nobody has 3 guys like that that can go one on one and also create for others. So do you prefer a team play a particular style or do you simply look at the results?
I see more movement off the ball with less "camping" in the corner or standing around watching someone dribble.
Again, I'm focusing on scoring. Ball movement without creating good shots is meaningless. How is that ball movement helping us score more efficiently? Are we really taking more midrange? Is that an improvement? We're basically taking the same number of midrange as last year (5.9 this year and 5.5 last year) but the percentage is much worse on those shots (40.5% last year to 25.8% this year). I don't see how that can be considered an improvement. We actually score fewer points per game from midrange than we did last year even though we shoot it slightly more. Defensive rebounding isn't part of our offense. What positive thing is the additional ball movement translating into? Points are down, efficiency is down, pace is down, transition is down, turnovers are up, open shots are down and 3 point attempts are down. There are several things that we were really efficient at that we do much less now. What I'm trying to figure out is how do we replace those things ?
Ok, but how is that translating into scoring? We are getting fewer open shots and we are way less efficient. Also, you don't think guys are still camping out watching someone dribble?
With all due respect, people keep answering your question, and you keep responding with essentially the same question, repackaged. It's like when I answer my kids' questions, but they respond with, "But, why?" The fact is, this year's offense, so far, has scored less, but it's too early to determine whether that is because of a systematic disadvantage or because it's a slower developing offense which relies on fluidity between players that simply have not gelled.
Not really, I asked for improvements in the offense. Answers that don't directly relate to scoring aren't what I asked for, that's why I ask for a clarification. "Ball movement" is a great example. Yes it' different but it's not an improvement unless it leads to better opportunities. Ball movement without creating good shots isn't an improvement. The follow up question was to determine what the poster believed that the ball movement was creating.
You ask for improvements of offense after month of basketball of new players vs 3 year old developed system around hall of fame player in his prime. Is it really that hard to understand building takes time? What they are supposed to do run isolation and 40% usage for Eric Gordon instead?
No, that's not what you're asking. People are responding, saying the ball movement is creating better shot opportunities, and you are replying, "I don't see that." Well, if you aren't defining "improvement" and subjectively dismissing others' opinions, then you're really not "asking" anything. The fact is you are proffering an absurd question because the planes aren't level. How can you determine whether an new offensive system is an "improvement" over a prior when the former was run by completely different players? It's an impossible proposition, and I figure you know this -- you just want to complain.
Ah, I understand now and I must have missed that comment. The Nets are still figuring it out, but when you have the 3 guys they have it makes sense they're super efficient. Personally, I'd rather watch a team style--really tired of Super Teams, it just isn't my thing.
Yes, they are but, to my eye, not as much. It's difficult to compare the "how does it translate to scoring" angle because there is one huge difference: Harden is not on the floor. He spoiled us. So, of course, scoring will not be as "easy or prolific" without him. I think it's still too early for a post mortem but I'm encouraged by what I see.
Where did I make that response? As for defining improvement, it's pretty simple leading to better or at least equally efficient shots and more efficient scoring. How else do you judge an offense? You don't get style points.That's what I'm not seeing. We seem to be trying to do the same things in pretty much the same way. I find that surprising. I expected new wrinkles in the offense. Trust me, if I just wanted to complain, I could make a much more compelling case.
That's a good point. We aren't going to be able to benefit from the things that Harden could do. He's a generational talent that isn't going to be replaced. With that in mind, wouldn't you expect us to take a different approach rather than trying to play pretty much the same way? Am I the only one who expected some new wrinkles in the offense? BTW I just looked and both Wall and Oladipo are holding the ball longer than Harden did and dribbling more per possession.
I think we do see some of it already and would expect Silas to implement more of his "vision" as we go. There really was no pre-season for him to install his scheme and he is having to do it on the fly, hence, in the meantime, let them do what they are familiar with offensively. Granted, it's almost a new squad. Edit: btw, good to see you posting more; always informative.
Ok, I get what you're trying to assess now. However, I think you'll need to collect a greater sample size and I'd remove the Harden games from your review. There are a number of other contributing factors that should be considered as well. - New players on team and when they joined: -- Beginning of season: Wood, Wall, Cousins, Tate, Brown, Mason, KJ, and Thomas -- In season: Oladipo, Kurucs, KPJr and Exum (injured) - New system being implemented: -- All of the above players plus Gordon, Tucker, House and McLemore and Nwaba are getting use to Silas and his approach -- Plus we have a much different assortment of talent now - Impact of COVID, Injuries and PT management on team development and system acclimation Ok, with the above additions as factors, I'll take a crack at your questions, Are we really taking more midrange? It seems that we are from the eyeball test, but I doubt it makes us more efficient. Is that an improvement? I think it makes us a little less predictable, which could contribute to us being better against more varied defenses. What positive thing is the additional ball movement translating into? Better team involvement on offense usually leads to guys playing better defense. It should also lead to us getting more open shots, when we get better operating the system and having a more stable lineup. I would write off the first half of the season as a time of learning and growth. By mid-season we should start to see what we really have and then we'll have some more trades!
The thing is the offense wasn't necessarily the problem it was just that it needed to be tweaked by about 15% so that it added in some midrange, or foul line extended shots so that teams could not so easily lock in on what we do. Our offense was gimmicky, it worked in the regular season then fell apart in the playoffs as teams could lock in, and we had ZERO diversity in how we played. You have to be able to counter punch, and for the last 2 years we only played one dimensional. It is REFRESHING that we are adding in just a touch of diversity making us much better suited for playoff success.....once we have the right team. DD
