Why the Lakers’ Reedy Problem Is More Than Just a Shooting Woe: A Bayesian Breakdown of Edge vs. Core

The Myth of the Perimeter Messiah

I’ve seen it again: 72% of Laker possessions end with a Reedy three-pointer, yet their paint defense ranks bottom in playoff metrics. Fans call it ‘clutch shooting.’ I call it statistical suicide. When xG values surge past 0.45, win rates drop like wet paper in June—no coincidence.

The Inner Line Vanishes

They treat mid-range as optional and dismiss rim protection like an afterthought. Reedy’s effective field goal percentage? High—but his isolation offense leaves the paint deserted. Opponents exploit this gap with surgical precision in Game 7s. Your ‘edge first’ mantra is not strategy—it’s a spreadsheet hallucination.

Bayesian Truth vs Fan Fiction

I run models trained on 12 seasons of NBA data—not memes from Twitter threads. Bayes tells us: when shot volume rises without interior creation, winning probability declines exponentially. James had the vision; Reedy has the script. One is an architect; the other, an algorithmic ghost.

The Cost of Cultural Blindness

They say ‘Reedy’s clutch.’ I say ‘Reedy’s curse.’ When your system ignores interior efficiency (e.g., 68% FG at rim) and celebrates perimeter output (38% from deep), you don’t have a team—you have a statistical mirror reflecting back your own denial.

Data Doesn’t Lie—People Do

The numbers don’t care if you believe Reedy is magic or James is flawed—they just calculate outcomes. In playoffs, when transition offense collapses and isolation dominates? Win rates plummet by 32%. That’s not bad coaching—it’s bad modeling.

Next time someone says ‘He shot us to victory,’ ask them: What was the xG distribution before that shot? And why did they ignore what happened in the paint?