I was looking over some old pieces on basketball from Dean Oliver as a refresher and I came across one that I found to be timely to the Clippers this year. Its from 1996 and its just a quick flyover about "risky" strategies in basketball.
In short, the Clippers play what at the time would have been considered "not risky" basketball. Not alot of 3's, mostly man defenses, no press defense, not alot of fronting, etc. This is the type of play recommended when a team is considered a "favorite". As you slip from favorite to underdog you want to introduce variance by jacking up triples, etc.
I don't know if the 3 ball situation is still considered as risky today, but it still remains true that "one is more likely to get 6 points or 50 points by shooting twenty three pointers than by shooting twenty two pointers." A team like the Suns can bump that to a higher average by loading the court with shooters, but they are still going to have a night when nothing falls and it costs them against a bad team.
There are obviously lots of ways to go with this. Should the Clippers adopt a more risky brand of ball? Are they merely failing to know when to switch gears? With many teams always playing this "risky" brand of ball, does it really matter what you do?
I mean if Portland is going to go risky and hit 9-15 from deep or Miami goes 3-25, does it really matter what the steady team does? 99 points lost to the Blazers and 101 beat the Heat. Should the Clippers continue to try to put up 100 points and let the chips fall where they may?