"my non-math brain is still not quite gathering in why it is that, when comparing the reg season and playoffs this year, LeBron’s ORtg went up as his Usage increased."

I would think that a 14-game sample versus an 82-game sample could very much be the culprit here. He just happened to hit a great performance stretch at the right time. But I think that the old saying "What goes up, must..." would definitely apply here, had he played in alot more games.

Or perhaps, given that he's only 24, it might also mean he could still be tapping into the depths of his immense potential that he still hasn't utilized yet. Now wouldn't THAT be something?? :)

"Of course I’m using the game’s best / most productive / most versatile player as an example here, which is just stupid. it does make me wonder if this inverse relationship was determined according to total league weights and is thus more apparent with role players / non-superstars who are being asked to move out of their more limited skill sets. Asking Steve Kerr to take a bigger hand in anything except shooting is going to immediately lower his effectiveness. Asking Michael Jordan to take a bigger hand in anything seems far less likely to impact efficiency just because one is a specialist and one is versatile."

Yup, and that's EXACTLY what this model does a pretty good job of capturing. Steve Kerr had an insane offensive rating for his career, but seeing how he never really used more than about 10% of the offense in his career (by the way, just to let you know usage is not the same thing as offensive possession %...it's similar but there are differences in the calculations that yield different numbers) if you were to ask him to take on the role of His Airness (who carried THREE TIMES of the offenses that Kerr did) his ORtg wouldn't even reach triple digits. Neil actually explains all of this in the blog's glossary section; players who carry a mid-teens or less % of their team's offense are usually role-players or specialists while players who take on around 23% or more are the all-stars. And that's what makes guys like MJ, Kobe, LeBron, etc. so great; they can maintain tremendous efficiency even when carry large offensive loads. They still have their efficiencies drop however, they're just simply less impervious to larger loads (which is the mark of a great player).

Anyway, you articulate yourself well and I'm glad that you're asking questions and trying to learn more about the data that is presented. This is not the perfect model of course (it still relies on box score data, which we all know doesn't capture all the nuances of the game) but it's one of the stronger set of basketball metrics out there. I think that if you want to learn more Dean Oliver's "Basketball on Paper" is calling you for some light summer reading, if you haven't done so already. :) I hope all of this helps.

1.) More usage means more activity, which leads to more fatigue, which leads to some flat jumpers and slower feet.

2.) On a team like the Magic, where every single player not named Dwight Howard can pass, dribble, and shoot shoot shoot, you can't just hone in on one guy. When someone's usage starts going up very high, defenses are going to pay more attention to that person (especially if he is playing at a high level)

Great posts: Jason J, Anon

my non-math brain is still not quite gathering in why it is that, when comparing the reg season and playoffs this year, LeBron's ORtg went up as his Usage increased. i guess it just seems to me that the concept of an inverse relationship between efficiency and offensive possessions should be at least somewhat apparent when we look at changes in ORtg and Usage.

Even bringing in total possessions - Cleveland's possessions per game dropped by approximately 2 between the reg season and the playoffs. But LeBron's possessions increased because he played 4 more minutes per game. His Usage jumped 1.6% in the playoffs, and his ORtg spiked by 6 points (any way you cut it he had a ridiculous playoffs this year. his number are out of this world!).

Of course I'm using the game's best / most productive / most versatile player as an example here, which is just stupid. it does make me wonder if this inverse relationship was determined according to total league weights and is thus more apparent with role players / non-superstars who are being asked to move out of their more limited skill sets. Asking Steve Kerr to take a bigger hand in anything except shooting is going to immediately lower his effectiveness. Asking Michael Jordan to take a bigger hand in anything seems far less likely to impact efficiency just because one is a specialist and one is versatile.

The process that is used to show that there is an inverse relationship between a player's offensive rating and offensive possessions % is much more involved and requires a thorough understanding of statistics. But here's a little exercise that can help elucidate things for you: take the above numbers for Kobe's performance in the Finals. He posted about a 111 ORtg against the Magic while carrying 37% of his team's offense. If you adjust the load to what he usually carried during the regular season (32%), that gives you an ORtg of 116, which is right around how he usually performed during the regular season (115). Now do the same for LeBron...he had a 118 ORtg while carrying 40% of his team's offense. His usual load during the regular season was 34%; do the same adjustments and you get a 124 ORtg, which is close to his regular season ORtg of 122. Of course we're dealing with paltry sample sizes, and this is also a pretty rough method of showing the process at work here but nevertheless it should help demonstrate this principle.

Kobe's career finals FG% is just over 41%, or..what Jordan shot in his WORST finals performance. Worst Jordan = Average Kobe. Jordan's finals statistics put Kobe's to shame.

So let us end the Kobe = MJ crap. As well all truly know and the statistics back up, MJ > Kobe, especially in the finals.

The funny thing about this Laker team is that they aren't very tough, they rarely play with great chemistry (if they did, they would be nearly unstoppable with so much height/youth/talent, but Phil Jackson insists on playing through Kobe as if this team doesn't have more offensive talent around him than his Bulls teams had around Jordan [hint to Phil Jackson: it does]), and their defense is inconsistent. For example, I think this Laker team is arguably more talented than the Laker team which featured Shaq as the driving force (something Kobe himself believes), but that doesn't mean they'd be able to achieve the same kind of playoff success that the Shaq & Kobe three-peat team did. Things like dominance and *offensive/defensive* discipline aren't always direct reflections of talent. That being said, except for the consistent presence of Scottie Pippen (who was great defensively, but not all that great offensively), MJ's championship teams did have a lot of *role* players who were less talented than the likes of Pau Gasol, Trevor Ariza, Lamar Odom, and (assuming that he ever returns to pre-injury form) Andrew Bynum. I doubt that Bill Cartwright or Luc Longley ever scored 45 points in a game (a feat which I believe Bynum achieved this season), and they certainly weren't as talented as Pau Gasol. In fact, the only guy who I can think of to put with those Lakers I mentioned might be the underrated Horace Grant from the first Bulls three-peat teams, and yet that's based more on effectiveness than talent. Dennis Rodman was certainly a factor when he arrived, but except for his uncanny rebounding skills, he hardly possessed the overall talent and versatility of a Lamar Odom.