Craiger wrote:
A lot I agree with here and some I disagree. So I'll try and keep it simple.
1) thats rather explainable because of Durant, Melo and Lebron. These are some of the best scorers (and FT takers) in the league, and as such they also use up a large number of their respective teams total possessions.
2) absolutely. A team can be just successful from the defensive end as the offensive.
3) absolutely. From a pure numebrs perspective an assist is only a portion of a made bucket, and a made bucket is only a portion (although a large portion) of an efficient offense. I'm pretty sure, although don't quote me on it, an assist is the 'least valuable' statistical contributor to offensive efficiency (directly anyways). However, I imagine we'd also see a trend over time where higher assist % teams also tend to have higher fg% and as such generally higher offensive efficiencies.
4/5/6) one of the changes that has occured in the NBA over the last decade+ is a move towards 'scoring PGs' and 'point forwards'. In fact I'd argue there are only a handful of pass first PGs left in the NBA. So its difficult to judge the success of one style of player that is currently endangered breed - let alone shifting from a positions historic responsibilities. But if we look at successful NBA teams what they do usually have is (atleast) an adequate passer as a primary ball handler and another player who is a good passers for their position. With some of the names you brought up
Houston - Lin/Harden
Miami - Lebron/Wade
Memphis - Conley/Gasol
Atlanta - Teague/Smith
OKC - Westbrook/Durant
SA - Parker/Manu/Duncan
Denver - Lawson/Iggy (+Miller off the bench)
GS - Curry/Lee (+ Jack off the bench)
Nets - Williams/Johnson
Boston - Rondo/Pierce
(this is also something we see historically for contending teams - eg. Chicago: Rose/Noah, LA: Kobe/Gasol/Odom, Detroit: Billups/Hamilton, Orlando: Nelso/Hedo etc).
The exceptions to the above are defensive stalwarts [Indiana and Chicago (although Noah is a great passer for his position)] So its easy to argue here that they win through defense rather than offense. The complete exceptions from all the above (ie. good team with a good offense, and doesn't have good passers) are Utah and NY .
As it applies to the Raptors. I completely agree that Lowry is not the issue, and he shouldn't be expected to be Jose. He's at the very least an adequate passer. One of the problems though is that the team needs him to be closer to 'a Jose' given how this team is built. To go along with what Lark mentioned, and some of what I've brought up above, one of the problems on offense is there is no additional passer to go along with Lowry. When the team had Jose it was less important because he was exceptionally good at what he did (similar to Paul on LAC, or Nash when in Phoenix - and I'm not comparing Jose to them, just what he was good at and his role). Worse, given the back up PGs/players this team has, there is no 'passer' anywhere, including off the bench. (should give credit where credit is due as Demar has been a willing passer since the Gay trade. I'm just not convinced thats sustainable)
What this is, is a Colangelo issue. His building process has included plugging holes in a leaking dam by taking away sticks from the other side of the dam. The dam needs to be replaced/repaired/changed not plugged up. He builds incomplete teams, chasing names and scoring (I don't think its coincidental that those are two things fans like and pay to see), rather than finding the league wide efficiencies that lead to more success. Its a lack of patience combined with an improper evaluation of value/whats valuable.
The Raps have none of what the above successful teams tend to have. No elite defense, and no elite 'scorer' or secondary/additional passers that could help lead to an elite offense. They have alot of inefficient scorers, iso. players, alot of questionable defenders and no elite talent period. Thats not Lowry's fault or Casey's fault or any individual players fault. Thats Colangelo's.
To compund that, Toronto has very few assets in order to fill those holes without forming new ones (no pick, no cap space, no players with value who aren't needed). Atleast not if they want to keep Ross and Val.
(turned alot less simple than I was expecting)