I don't yet know how to back this up, but it feels like the insanely paced-and-spaced era we're in really opens up the gap between haves and have nots for certain types of good teams and not for others.
If you're the Bucks or Mavs and the other team has no answer for Giannis or Luka, the whole game is going to be rolls to the rim, quality 3s, layups, etc. If you're a team like Philly, playing a bad team doesn't really change things a ton--you're still grinding it out on offense and needing to focus on defense.
It's having big effects on the standings, and it makes the Sixers look bad when they don't lock in and bring their A game, but I'm not convinced things are as dire in Philly as they look.
I agree with your premise. In this era, you can play good defense for 20 seconds and then give up a long three. Philly seems to let opposing scoring guards go off big.
Horford admits he is not in sync with the offense. That’s a problem, especially when Embiid sits. Can Al learn to fit in, or find his shooting stroke?
When critics say Philly lacks accountability, as Josh Richardson said after Monday’s loss, I look back to the tanking era. Embiid sat and watched for two years as The Process worked itself through. He polished his game during those two years. But there was an implied message in all that losing. Like, it doesn’t matter because we get a lottery pick as a reward. Simmons saw some of the tanking, too. Did it impact his accountability? No one will ever know. I see quotes from these two that do not sit well, like wanting to win Defensive POY, when the focus should be on the next game.
This team reminds me of a couple other 76ers teams of the past, talented and disjointed. Good enough to beat anybody. Relying on a mistaken belief that you can win without working hard every night.