u/xxStayFly81xx

I was discussing Dillon Mitchell with a Cetlics fan and one of the things he pointed out was that he shot 19% from 3 in his college career and 48.8% from the FT line. If this was just some big man, it would be overlooked but the interesting part is that Dillon Mitchell is a 6'8, 205 pound forward. The first player I thought of was Andre Roberson and it fit him to the T in terms of body frame. The biggest difference is Dillon Mitchell is a hyper athletic player while also being a good defender.

Andre Roberson was a 25% 3PT shooter and 46.8% FT shooter in the NBA. He was a decently good at back door cuts but his offensive game was nearly nonexistent. Roberson wasn't an uber athletic player but he had a decent touch around the time whenever he was there. Roberson, infamously, set the NBA record for lowest FT% in an NBA series where he went 3-21 (14.3%) against the Houston Rockets in 2017. How does an NBA player manage to shoot 14% from the FT line? In this same series, Roberson went a disgusting 2-12 from the line in a 4 point loss to the Rockets. The Thunder went on to lose the series in 5.

In that same series, Roberson averaged 3.4 blocks per game and 2.4 steals per game including 5 straight games of 3+ blocks and had at least 5 stocks in every game that series. That year, Roberson also finished 5th in DPOTY and All Defensive 2nd team.

So you have a player who was basically a complete offensive liability at all ends of it (shooting, FT%, passing), a great hustle player (very good on the offensive glass) and an all world defender yet he basically started almost every single game for 4 years straight up until his career ending injury. ( I know he attempted to come back with one last stint with OKC and then Brooklyn but it was like a total of 150 minutes in 2 seasons). And what's even more interesting is this type of player wasn't just playing in the dead ball era or an era where spacing was nonexistent; he was starting in an era where the NBA began to value spacing more than ever.

Do you think a player like that would be able to be playable today? If so, how good would that type of player need to be on hustle and defense and make up for the fact that they're an offensive liability?

Hypothetically, let's say B/S/G orbs would be equal to 2/3/5% DR for up to a total of 10%. So you can get up to extra 10% damage reduction on your units. However, just to avoid units being broken, let's assume once you start hit 80% DR, it becomes multiplicative instead of additive.

A 70% unit like TEQ GF/Gogeta will go to 80%.
A 77% unit like TEQ SSG Goku will go to 87%.
An 80% unit like SSB Goku will go to 82%.
A 90% unit like TUR Golden Freiza will go to 91%.

Calculations will occur after passives. So a unit like PHY Omega which gives 10% additional DR with a rainbow sphere will occur first.

So which units do you think can be pushed back into relevancy with those types of skill orbs? Or do you think the damage has gotten so big that even a 10% DR increase in most character kits still wouldn't be enough to make them relevant?

I started thinking about this question during last night's game when Fox took a contested 3PT shot vs OG Anunoby 6 seconds into the shot clock while down 1. They did manage to get the offensive rebound due to Josh Hart falling asleep on the glass which allowed Castle to get fouled and make both shots. It put Knicks in a spot, down 1 with 30 seconds left, and had me thinking: analytically, that might have been a good choice but what about in practicality?

If Hart didn't fall asleep, Knicks would have rebounded the ball with 30 seconds left, a timeout remaining and up 1. They'd be able to kill most of the shot clock and get a final shot with around 5-6 seconds or even less. There's a chance the Knicks hit a 2 and it's still a one possession game but it also basically force the Spurs to set an ATO for a three. If the Knicks hit a 3, it's a 2 possession game with 5 seconds left.

Analytically, I understand the math behind it. More shots equal more points, even if those shots are ugly shots. Cleaning the Glass has the average halfcourt possession being equal to 98.1 PPP. There was a 2025 study which basically says that the 2-for-1 strategy gains around 0.50 expected points per shot compared to just a single, high quality shot. It also said this remained consistent regardless of whether or not the team is a great offense of a bad one. So simply put: 2 lesser quality shots > 1 high quality shot because of the potential for more points.

On the other hand, faster perimeter shots also might lead to longer rebounds which can lead to more transition plays or longer rebounds to get back for yourself. If your team is out of position after a rushed shot, they'll be out of position to defend transition. Even more, it's also the human element. For a a lot of teams a rushed 3 can kill momentum all for the analytically correct shot.

Do you agree with always utilizing the 2-for-1 opportunity when available? Do you think it's a play by play basis whether or not to do it? I know LeBron and JJ Reddick discussed in the past how it can kill the flow of the game and it doesn't account for the plays that led into it. We've seen recently the 3-for-2 (which Chris Paul popularized that the Celtics love to do as well) so what do you guys think? Is the 2-for-1 way too analytically driven and it's better to play in the flow of the game or listen to analytics and go for the best combined value of the remaining possessions?

I keep seeing his name trending up and up and I flat out do not see the hype.

He came in dead last in 3/4 sprints (3.61 seconds), dead last in standing vertical leap (24 in) and last in max vertical leap. 2nd slowest shuttle run speed at 3.36 and 3rd slowest lane agility time among centers (11.47).

His endurance is questionable. Michigan played at a pace of 73 possessions per game which extrapolates into 88~ possessions per 48 minutes which is still slower than every NBA team.

I understand you can't teach size but the current pace of the game makes it disadvantageous to be that size. Historically, his athletic testing ranks poorly among his 7+ foot peers. He'll primarily be a drop big in today's game, as most centers are, except we're seeing those types of centers being exploited more and more on defense (Clingan, Gobert, Hartenstein, etc) and those players end up becoming more situational bigs compared to foundational players. We saw Alabama explosiveness expose Mara. We saw Purdue expose Mara over and over from all over the court.

I'm just not understanding what has he done to warrant jumping into potentially top 6-8 range. I see NBA teams exposing his weaknesses to the point he won't be playable more than 20-23 minutes when factoring in stamina + lateral inability. I see praise about his passing ability and his touch which is good and all but that seems more of additional skill compared to a fundamental skill. He can't space the floor, however his FT shooting definitely improved over the 2nd half of the season. You're not going to be running an NBA offense through his passing nor will you slow your offense down to incorporate him into it. He has a high turnover rate in the post as well because, while he is a talented passer, it does take him a while to make a play.

So I don't understand how he went from late 1st round potential to potentially touching the 6-8 range. Is this with the assumption that he'll become much better better conditioned player, develop into more than a drop center on defense, and develop a game which can stretch the floor?

So watching the Orlando vs Detroit series had me thinking: How is Detroit getting abused so badly? They were the #1 seed for the majority of the season while a team like Orlando was an above average team. Below average offense and slighly above average defense but nothing to write home about. I know health plays a large part of that record too; Orlando was basically unhealthy all year long alternating injuries between Anthony Black, Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner, etc. This series is the closest they've been to healthy all year long so one may say they're better than the typical 8th seed.

But nonetheless, Detroit was a 60 win team with an elite defense and a top 10 offense. How are they getting outplayed so easily? I've been reading around and listening to podcasts about how Orlando is a bad matchup for Detroit. Some of the biggest reasons include Detroit only has one playmaker against an Orlando Magic team that can match their physicality that most teams can't. The Magic struggle typically vs good 3PT shooting teams but fortunately for them, Detroit isn't one of them. The Denver/Minnesota matchup is similar in a sense. Minnesota is perceived as a bad matchup for Denver because of their uptempo, slashing offense and matchup hunting.

We've seen throughout history there have been bad matchups but still coming out on top and we've seen bad matchups where the "better" team ended up losing. Some "bad matchups" where the better team lost include:

1. Dallas vs Golden State in 2007 (Mavericks had no match for uptempo, small ball game. Nelly understood the whole Mavericks offensive playbook and tore through their defense and knew how to adjust for it. They also killed them in the regular season and this was perceived as a bad matchup for Dallas.)

2. Sonics vs Nuggets in 1994 (The Sonics dominated the whole regular season offensively and defensively. An athletic team built around Payton/Kemp predicated on slashing, points in the paint and transition game. The Nuggets had a Dikembe Mutombo in the paint which effectively negated the Sonics' strongest assets while Denver was long and athletic enough to prevent transition buckets and recover.)

3. Lakers vs Pistons in 2004 (The Lakers looked unstoppable because Shaq demanded a double team if not triple team most of the time. The Pistons strategy revolved around putting Ben Wallace in single coverage and letting it play out. They put Prince on Kobe. Prince was a long 6'9 wing with a crazy long wingspan which allowed him to bother Kobe Bryant and make his shots for difficult. The rest of the Pistons ended up just staying home on shooters.)

There's definitely other examples like Miami vs Dallas in 2011 and so on and so forth and of course, injuries matter as well. But those are just some examples of where a "bad matchup" proved to be enough.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have great teams overcoming "bad matchups." Teams that were built to stop teams but it didn't work. Some examples:

1. Rockets vs Warriors in 2018 - These Rockets were built to take the Warriors on. Super switch heavy team to negate Golden State's motion offense, spread the floor out on offense and Paul/Harden would target Golden State's weaker defenders.The Warriors who's entire offense was off finding easy looks through motion and great ball movement ended up degrading into ugly isolation possessions. Despite all the right keys, Rockets weren't able to win. They ran out of gas in Game 7 missing 27 3s in a row.

2. Pacers vs Lakers in 2000 - The strategy here (and most of the 00s against Shaq) was throw multiple big bodies at him , force him to shoot FTs and stretch the floor out and expose the Laker's perimeter defense. It didn't really work. Shaq still looked unstoppable and the Pacers could not contain him.

3. Pacers vs Bulls in 1998 - Pacers had a very deep and well constructed team. Their strategy was to play physical and make the Bulls work on every defensive possession. They had 35 year old Jordan chasing Reggie Miller in hopes of tiring him out. Jordan was also one of the best players in NBA history at playing passing lanes so Indiana attempted to punish those aggressive gambles with one of the greatest shooters ever.

So my question is: Do you believe there's a point where a team's talent is too great to be accurately planned against? Is that reserved for only the greatest players/teams ever only? Or can a team build realistically build a roster to counter even the most legendary of teams?

As we all know, Detroit is one game away from being only the 7th #1 seed team since the NBA expanded its playoffs to 16 teams in 1984 to be upset in the 1st round. I wanted to know which #1 seed actually had the biggest drop off relative to their regular season performance. Just to clarify what some terms mean. rORTG and rDRTG refers to ORTG/DRTG relative to the league average. ORTG/DRTG difference refers to the difference between regular season ORTG/DRTG and playoff ORTG/DRTG.

Year	Team	Opponent	Series	rORTG (RS)	rDRTG (RS)	rNet RTG		ORTG Difference	DRTG Difference	NET Difference
1994	Seattle Supersonics (63-19)	Denver Nuggets (42-40)	2-3	4.8	-4.8	9.6		-8.1	0.7	-8.8
1999	Miami Heat (33-17)	New York Knicks (27-23)	2-3	2.5	-3.3	5.8		-6.9	3.8	-10.7
2007	Dallas Mavericks (67-15)	Golden State Warriors (42-40)	2-4	4.8	-3.3	8.1		-5.6	9.6	-15.2
2011	San Antonio Spurs (61-21)	Memphis Grizzlies (46-36)	2-4	4.5	-1.7	6.2		-9.6	0	-9.6
2012	Chicago Bulls (50-16)	Philadelphia 76ers (35-31)	2-4	2.8	-6.3	9.1		-11.6	-0.6	-11
2023	Milwaukee Bucks (58-24)	Miami Heat (44-38)	1-4	0.6	-2.9	3.5		-1.4	7.1	-8.5
2026 (?)	Detroit Pistons (60-22)	Orlando Magic (45-37)	1-3	2.1	-6.1	8.2		-18.4	-7.7	-10.7

Some things that stood out to me.

1. Detroit Pistons, prior to tonight's game, have had the largest ORTG drop off of all upset #1 seeds. By far.
2. Despite the tremendous ORTG drop off, they're one of the 2 teams to have an improvement in their DRTG. Whether that's due to Orlando's offense more or Detroit's defense is up to you.
3. The Dallas Mavericks had the largest DRTG drop performing almost 10 points worse defensively. Those "We Believe" Warriors tore through them.
4. The 2023 Bucks were one of the "weaker" #1 seeds statistically. While they did have 58 wins, their offense was slightly above average and defense wasn't anything historic.
5. Statistically, the 1994 Supersonics were the "strongest #1" seed. They had a top 2 offense that year and a top 3 defense in the regular season.