Austin Reaves Discussion: "Keeping The Vibes High"

You could put those stats up against Kobe and it'd also make Kobe look bad.

I love stats but let's be honest, it's easier to score in today's game.

Kobe would be averaging 40 PPG, in my humble opinion, if he truly wanted.

Back then, 45% efficiency as a guard was good. Nowadays, you shoot 45% from the field as a guard and you're labeled as very inefficient.

 

It’s fun and huge props to AR for stepping up and doing his best at what’s now needed from him with Luka and LeBron out …. but comparing the sample size of his 4 games to Mike’s and LeBron’s full seasons same year is silly. Doesn’t make AR’s performance so far with this next year’s continuing performance increase less mind bottling though.

 

We have a new GOAT lol

 

This may or may not be true, depending on what years we're comparing. Pace was actually higher in MJ's 1st 5 years than the modern game (using last 2 years for reference). So when MJ had his highest scoring years, it was actually easier to score than in the modern game.

Pace declined in the 90's, approx 2-3 possessions lower during MJ's 1st 3 chips, which would only mean a difference of 2-3 pts/gm per team, and 0.5-1 pts/gm for a superstar player. Not an enormous difference. By MJ's 2nd 3 chips, pace had declined by 6-7 possessions/gm, for about 2-2.5 pts/gm for a superstar player.

It stayed relatively similar throughout the 2000's and early 2010's, maybe 1 possession lower at times. The net effect on a superstar player would almost always have been less than 3 pts/gm though. Pace didn't really start appreciably increasing until 2014, peaking in 2020, and coming down a little since then.

Anyway, for a quick and dirty, when comparing today's points scored vs 1995-2013 or so, you can basically add 2-3 pts to the 1995-2013 players' stats. Which is significant, although not as significant as some make it out to be.





https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

Well, 35.4 pts/gm year would be equivalent to around 38.6 pts/gm today, so maybe. That was an outlier year though when few teammates could score much. The years he won championships, the most he averaged was 28.5 pts/gm, which would be 30.8 in today's game.

From 2, yes. Overall, depends on 3p volume. For example, is Ant inefficient?

Last season: 44.7 FG%, 39.5 3P%, 83.7 FT%, 50.1 2P%, 54.7 eFG%, 59.5 TS%

 

There's a new sheriff in town folks.

Rooves is the real first option on the lakers. Luka and Lebron have to settle for third and fourth option touches now.

 

Of the Lakers you'd think might be in the top 5 for points and assists, I'd have placed Reaves not on the list. Only Luka and Bron.

this is just darn impressive regardless of sample size. Kudos young man.

 

I think it will be Wemby or Shai but he should be in the running for sure.

 

Yeah, 4 GAMES!!! If he can do it for 82 games, I will be very impressed.

 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html

So we can go by TS% which takes into account efficiency of 2P, 3P, and FT.

It's much higher today than it was in the 2000's.

Pace alone wouldn't tell the full story. For one, Kobe would have been averaging a higher % from 3 but he was brought up in an era where 3 point shooting wasn't as heavy as it is today so he was mainly the midrange guy. I wouldn't say scoring is easier but I would say the opportunities are easier. Defenders are so worried about the 3 point shot and have to cover so much area that inevitably, if the ball and players move to where they should, someone is going to be wide open. So there's a lot more "wide open shots" even if the defense is played well.

In 2005, only 20 players scored above 20 PPG. last year, 34 players scored above 20 PPG. Booker is a good player. A very good one. But he's no Kobe. Yet, he puts up Kobe-like numbers.
Same with Donovan Mitchell and James Harden.

Look at Dwyane Wade. He didn't put up close to the numbers Harden has put up but at his prime, he was better than Harden.

These numbers are just very easy to pile up these days. Scoring 20 PPG in 2000's was difficult. I remember checking the newspapers and if someone scored 25 PPG, that would be considered a dominant game. Now, you need to score at least 35 to get that same level of recognition because 25 points is so common.

 

This is not due to it being easier to score, but due to players and offenses getting better. Players shoot the 3 better now. Yes, that makes scoring go up, but not due to it being easier - it was probably easier to shoot 3's decades ago, when players didn't shoot as many 3's and defenses didn't focus on the 3 pt line as much. This is backed up by looking at FT%, which has also gone up. That's obviously not due to it being easier to score at the FT line now than back then, it's due to players shooting better.

This is probably true, but it's a hypothetical. Players played the way they play then, and they play the way they play now. We can't just project what we assume they would do and automatically give them credit for it. In terms of talent or potential or "I think they would have done it," sure. But in terms of comparing the player they were vs who a player today is, the previous players shouldn't solely get hypothetical boosts when it wasn't done. There very well could have been hypothetical detriments in other areas, when adjusting their play.

From the long mid-range, sure. That's what defenses are designed to do nowadays. Take away the paint and the 3 and give up the long mid-range. That doesn't mean it's easier to score. If we're going into hypothetical land, then we can say that any good 3 pt shooter today would have found scoring so much easier decades ago, with it being easier to shoot from 3. Especially the players who can shoot deep 3's, they would be super wide open. But as I said above, I'm not making that my focus because hypotheticals like that are assumptions, even if they make sense. There could be other adjustments. Intuitively though, it does make sense, and would support it being easier to score in previous eras, for a modern day player who shoots the 3.

In 2005, pace was 90.9, one of its lowest ever. In the past 7 years, it's been 98.2-100.3, averaging 99.2. Pace + better shooting = higher scoring. In that sense, it's easier to score, in terms of scoring being higher - but it's mainly due to those 2 things. And better shooting is a function of better play. So if we adjust for pace, scoring can be compared. The players you mention aren't as good as Kobe because of defense, regular season vs playoff performances, resume w teammates, etc. Their scoring ability is closer than those other things. It doesn't prove that scoring is easier today, in terms of defenses, vs being 7-8 pts higher for teams and 2-3 pts higher for superstars, mainly due to pace + shooting ability.

 

ESPNLA radio just now:

Travis Rogers: Is Austin Reaves really this level of scorer? Like 28, 29, 30 points per game?

John Ireland: If he was on a bad team like the Wizards, he would lead the league in scoring.

 

"T-Rog" .... I remember 15-20 years ago he was like Rome's right hand guy on the radio show. He's done well for himself. Can recall him dissing some pitcher on non Dodgers team calling it "puss" he was serving up to the plate LOL.

 

i don't agree, but he's 25ppg in a lot of situations. there's just not a lot he can't do offensively. on a bad team, you can try to get the ball out of his hands, but we've seen here that he can make stuff happen anyway. he's kind of a watered down version of james harden. on offense, he's not as dangerous from deep or at the rim, but he's much better in between. not quite the playmaker/passer, but underrated. defensively, he cares more than harden ever did. not as strong in the post defensively (but not weak), similar use of hoop iq to cover lateral quickness issues.

so yeah, you put reaves in washington with a bunch of athletes surrounding him, and you probably have an allstar and a fun-but-not-threatening team. like those early harden houston teams.

 

He scored 26 ppg last season in 17 games as the 2nd option (1 of LeBron, Luka, or AD out). He's scored 44 ppg in 4 games as the 1st option.

30+ ppg and possible scoring leader might or might not happen, but certainly doesn't seem out of question, if he were the 1st option on a team built around him.

 

Spoiler: Might be offensive

ROFL. I love guru.

 

​

 

Man... Vlade, he cooked you so hard the last couple of games...

 

HIM

 

I hope Austin and you keep that same energy in May, my friend.

Because we all got cooked last year and bounced out of the first round.

 

MVP, MVP, MVP.

Statue!