And, it is still a good rule of thumb. There are 15 teams in the NBA that average 100 points a game or higher. Their average score per quarter is logically equal to or greater than 25. Furthermore, ranked in terms of point differential, 7 of the top 8 teams all score 100 per game, and the only exception, Boston averages over 99. In other words the "GOOD" teams.
There are 4 teams that average over 100 and have losing records. So scoring more isn't always enough.
In the Sixers case if their current defensive effort is at least maintained, improving the offense will improve both defensive and offensive efficiency. The Sixers currently give up 99.5 ppg to their opponents. Obviously, if they're going to have a winning record, they need to average scoring higher than that, which gets us to 100! I suspect that if the Sixers can increase their scoring by another 2.77 ppg, they will also see a slight decrease in points allowed to 98.8 or so. This in turn would make the Sixers into a wining team.
In effect, we're talking about 2 possessions per game being used more successfully. Since most teams score in about half their possessions, it's really 4 more plays where they execute on offense and get a score, a foul, both, or at least a rebound and another shot and score.
There isn't a lot of difference between wining and losing for a lot of teams, but they don't seem able to change they're style enough. Everyone here who watches the Sixers cries about how Eddie manages the game. I think the biggest problem is that he doesn't emphasize inside scoring enough. There are rarely enough bigs on the floor, but when there are the Sixers are usually competitive.
In the Sixers case, it's easy enough to see how they could improve. Getting rid of Jordan would be the first step, but any new coach would play Speights and Carney more, focus on getting a reliable half-court offense working and then worry about how to improve their defense when it has time to get set.
#1 Rick, a rule of thumb is not proof positive.
#2 Scoring 100 or more points, and scoring 25 points in every qtr are not as simply analogous as you make it. You can score 120 points and only score 15 in 1 qtr.
Why do you value these ratings more that you do the actual scoring? The outcome is determined by the score, and it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points!
#3 How do you make your last post, in conjunction with this statement. You tell me it doesn't matter how efficient they are, and then in a later post you say that only 2 possessions define your success. That is efficiency Rick. If you said they need to get 4 more possessions, that is pace. If you say they need to just execute on 2 more of their existing possessions that is efficiency.
A rule of thumb is not proof, it's a subjective ruler I'm using for evaluation- an informed valuation based on the team's peers, and specifically their betters. And you are right, you can score 100 without averaging 25 per quarter. But no matter how you slice it, better teams usually score 100 in a game and the Sixers do not. Which is why I came to the conclusion that they don't score enough.
As far a 3 goes, efficiency and pace are just measures, and they will invariably be effected if the team manages to score those extra 2.7 points.
If all those other teams weren't scoring over 100, I'd be asking for something unreasonable, but that isn't the case. The whole point of this was to point out how the Sixers could get better, and not scoring 100 was a good place to start considering this team and the league.
It isn't that they can't play defense, but their poor offense is at the root of the problem. It means they are less efficient on offense- because they don't run plays and rely on their one on one skills. This means less effective possessions, more long rebounds and easy run outs for the other team. All this is easily observable watching the team play. The stats will show that they are a bad offensive team.
It's easily correctable! Just have the team run more plays, use each other to get open and get set for a miss just in case. That's how the Sixers should and could play and would play if they had a good coach. As far as pace goes, it may be that in order to be more efficient they'll need to slow down. But I think good teams are proficient at getting off a good shot, relatively quickly. How often do you see the Lakers struggling to get a basket?
I think the easiest way to make the Sixers competitive is to work on the offense. The best teams in the league all average near 100. It seems to me a no-brainer to think that a better offense will help this team win more games, and by limiting turn-overs and misses, they will automatically improve their defense.
For this team it starts on their end, when they have the ball. When they are scoring easily, they can play with anyone. If they can figure out how to crack a zone consistently, they're the 50 win team I thought they could be.For the first time in years, we have the players. We have Elton Brand and Mareese Speights and they can both post up inside. It's driving me nuts that Eddie Jordan is the coach, he's supposed to be some sort of offensive genius and he can't get 100 points out of the line-up the way he coaches.
Even last night against the Bulls the team didn't score 100 until overtime. The Bulls have no interior defense and the Sixers needed overtime to get to 100! That's because the coach decided to play small ball the entire 2nd half! They won in OT when they had both Brand and Dalembert in the game. As soon as they had two bigs in the middle, the Bulls turned into a jump-shooting team. Surprise! It's simple things like this that make Jordan an idiot. The Sixers could have won this game easily in the 2nd half without the ot. He turns a good team into a bad one.
