And ignore every single superstar that makes their living otherwise except Steph.
Tatum is a prime example of where following analytical basketball gets you. While Kawhi is the opposite.
KD said it best, the numbers are great for letting players know where they are weak at to work on their game. But playing basketball based on a formula and not feel isn’t ideal.
I actually think that basketball "experts" are still in the early days of truly understanding the numbers. Specifically, most analytics to not effectively incorporate Conditional Probability, which means they miss obvious things like post up shots create more offensive rebounds which result in high probability second chance opportunities. Traditional analytics is still in the early days of understanding the magnitude of the impact on the probability of a shot based on "how" a player got to a spot. So many "analytics" experts love 25 foot kamikaze drives from the 3 point line which are low probability finishes, whereas drive and dishes are very high probability. If you are just looking at a shot chart, the 40% kamikaze drive shots are mixed in with the 90% alleyoop dunks or weakside putback, inflating the value of the kamikaze drive to analytics "experts".
I think Klay Thompson, in his prime, was a great example of using analytics to maximize shot probability. I think Maxie is an example of a player who probably looks like an analytics player based on a shot chart, but is fairly inefficient because he takes so many pull-up 3's and kamikaze drive shots. Maxie would be a multi-time All-NBA player if anyone taught him to play truly efficiently.
Finally, offenses have to take what the defense is giving them (i.e. recognize Conditional Probability). The Miami 2-3 Zone leaves a zip code of open space at the high post, and the Celtics just ignored it to take more contested 3's and kamikaze drives. The worst part of the Celtics' handling of the Miami Zone was that Spoelstra did the same thing to the Bucks in the 2020 Bubble. Celts should have pulled the game film.