Iztok, what do you think about this argument: We need to think as much about organizational strategy as player characteristics per se, because the utility of player skillsets is driven by organizational decisions that exploit the architecture of the game (on the space of the court; through smart cap management; by maximizing the margins around the players - coaching, conditioning, even travel). The league is a copycat league, and there is so much parity that (as in the market) advantages are usually short lived. The era of analytics and CBA means that those advantages are even more fleeting, but still there…the final four teams all had similar blueprints but what sets OKC apart is Sam Presti. He’s excelled at every organization he’s been at and his GM WARP in a small market has got to be off the charts. Looking back at the GSW, they spread the court and Draymond Green redefined that role; teams responded with size, length, and even more optionality around their stars. Nobody did that with more patience and vision than OKC. The Pacers are almost as impressive; Carlisle is an amazing coach flourishing in an organization that is aligned to his vision. Players are selected to fit strategies, playoffs decide which strategies are optimal given the other key variables…including seeding and injury luck. Player attributes are easier to see, organizational attributes play out over much longer time frames.
Interesting point and OKC is a intriguing example, where you could almost see a strategy (aggressive, athletics) players come first, before the player(s). Still, they have SGA who is a superstar, a creator, that makes everything work, and raises the ceiling. Pacers, really adjusted the style around their star (Haliburton, and to lesser extend Siakam) skillsets imo.
But even if no organizational style of play, strategy preference...I agree that smart orgs, cultural and otherwise aligned top-down, with smart decsion makers win out in this league.
i liked in particular the assists per position trend. the rise of centers assist % is pretty much shocking (if not unexpected given some of them being among the best passers ever).
looks like it was not so much about the small-ball, but rather skilled-ball. skilled big player is better than skilled smaller player. i know, an incredible insight! lol
yeah, like Presti said it: skill+size combo (positional). And overall skill increase esp at centers. Even to perceived non-skilled centers like Zubac can now do reads, pass out of short roll. Another reason for (non) Lively vs Gafford debate...Lively much better decision maker and passer.
I love and will root for the Pacers. Carlisle, their style, pace, passing, offense, ball pressure are hard not to be a fan of. But if there is one team built to run and keep up with them it's the Thunder, so I think like the Mavs did against the Celtics last year, the Pacers will hit their limit in the Finals. But would love to be proven wrong...
Iztok, what do you think about this argument: We need to think as much about organizational strategy as player characteristics per se, because the utility of player skillsets is driven by organizational decisions that exploit the architecture of the game (on the space of the court; through smart cap management; by maximizing the margins around the players - coaching, conditioning, even travel). The league is a copycat league, and there is so much parity that (as in the market) advantages are usually short lived. The era of analytics and CBA means that those advantages are even more fleeting, but still there…the final four teams all had similar blueprints but what sets OKC apart is Sam Presti. He’s excelled at every organization he’s been at and his GM WARP in a small market has got to be off the charts. Looking back at the GSW, they spread the court and Draymond Green redefined that role; teams responded with size, length, and even more optionality around their stars. Nobody did that with more patience and vision than OKC. The Pacers are almost as impressive; Carlisle is an amazing coach flourishing in an organization that is aligned to his vision. Players are selected to fit strategies, playoffs decide which strategies are optimal given the other key variables…including seeding and injury luck. Player attributes are easier to see, organizational attributes play out over much longer time frames.
Interesting point and OKC is a intriguing example, where you could almost see a strategy (aggressive, athletics) players come first, before the player(s). Still, they have SGA who is a superstar, a creator, that makes everything work, and raises the ceiling. Pacers, really adjusted the style around their star (Haliburton, and to lesser extend Siakam) skillsets imo.
But even if no organizational style of play, strategy preference...I agree that smart orgs, cultural and otherwise aligned top-down, with smart decsion makers win out in this league.
Good point - Carlisle loved Halliburton; Presti same with SGA. Carlisle is known to adjust his strategy to his talent. Both orgs also picked really good coaches. Presti has been in OKC for 17 years…and before that he pushed the Spurs to draft Tony Parker. https://fadeawayworld.net/sam-presti-how-he-got-tony-parkers-game-tape-from-france-when-he-was-a-22-year-old-spurs-intern-i-started-something-like-a-black-market
good stuff, thanks Iztok.
i liked in particular the assists per position trend. the rise of centers assist % is pretty much shocking (if not unexpected given some of them being among the best passers ever).
looks like it was not so much about the small-ball, but rather skilled-ball. skilled big player is better than skilled smaller player. i know, an incredible insight! lol
yeah, like Presti said it: skill+size combo (positional). And overall skill increase esp at centers. Even to perceived non-skilled centers like Zubac can now do reads, pass out of short roll. Another reason for (non) Lively vs Gafford debate...Lively much better decision maker and passer.
Iztok, please tell us, what do you expect from the final series? Do the Pacers have any chance? Your prediction?
I love and will root for the Pacers. Carlisle, their style, pace, passing, offense, ball pressure are hard not to be a fan of. But if there is one team built to run and keep up with them it's the Thunder, so I think like the Mavs did against the Celtics last year, the Pacers will hit their limit in the Finals. But would love to be proven wrong...
MVPs almost never win championships... Maybe this is the year the underdog shocks everyone 😁