The Spurs had higher scoring offenses in the late 1970s.
They scored 119 ppg in 1979-1980
I agree. But with the assets that Cuban had (and used) like two zillion assistant coaches and probably the same number of computer whizs breaking down opponents, he probably used so many exotic techniques it would be hard to ascribe much credit for the Mavs' one year of success to any of them. (I bet he had a well-paid astrologer, too.)
Right on. Any time a player goes 4-5, I wonder why the second number wasn't higher.
The Spurs had higher scoring offenses in the late 1970s.
They scored 119 ppg in 1979-1980
That list was points per 100 possession. That 1979-80 team had a pace of 109.5 possessions per game, the fastest pace in the league. So despite leading the league in points per 48 minutes, they were third in points per 100 possessions. (The Lakers, who won the championship that year, led the league in points per possession.)
I wonder why they can't get anything for Jefferson or Bonner...
Perhaps they earn more than what other teams are willing to pay for their production?
They put themselves in this boat. Nobody pulled a gun to their heads to give them those extensions. You can keep spinning that all day, and those contracts are still going to be there, signed by them, and approved by coach Pop and whoever else does basketball decisions.
I'm sure you agree that in hindsight they deserve all the credit for finding gems like Manu or Tony, so I don't understand why in hindsight they shouldn't get the blame when they made questionable decisions.
I ed when it happened. And whether it was then or now, they're still questionable decisions, the difference being that now we have the hindsight that they indeed were questionable decisions. And back then I also brought up the economics into the equation. I didn't even dodge it in my last post either. So you can keep spinning your rhetoric all you want, that doesn't make it any more correct. Lest we forget what RC Bufford had to say when they inked Matty's extension:
After four years in San Antonio, Bonner said his first choice when he became a free agent this summer was to stay put, and general manager R.C. Buford said bringing him back was a top priority.
"Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful."
That's not love? Spin that one for me.
This is a business and the results are out there for everyone to see. This team hasn't been a contender for the past 3+ seasons, and it's been actually on a marked decline. The team has to fire-sale tickets these days because even though they're the only team in town, the product is clearly not attracting what they were hoping to attract. You can try to spin that into a "master plan" all you want, but you can't argue with the results.
I really don't know what to tell you about the low-level peon spin. It's not like companies don't make bad decisions and up all the time. Was the low-level peon right then?
I personally run my own business (with an associate) and make big-picture decisions about it all the time. Sometimes they're the right decisions and sometimes they're the wrong decisions. I don't know how it's any different from any other organization.
I think the problem the last few years has been hesitation to take the shot. There is too much passing being done, especially this year. Look at a lot of the other teams and how they execute they're offence, most of the time u will see that if the play doesn't materialize or a better shot turns out somebody is always ready to shoot. For the most part this season, spurs have looked clueless on offence. I don't know what to say about defense, all I can say is laziness and the lack of intensity to stop the other guy from scoring. That's just my opinion I'm not a basket ball expert.
The fact that they did not run the shot clock down as far and had more possessions per game should not take away that they were better offenses.
I know you were not around to see those teams but those teams had better offenses than any of the Pop teams.
Lotta new faces to incorporate,..and new roles to work out. Ford, KL, Green, CJ etc.
Shooting %s
1979-1980 team
pts per game 119.4
FG% .498
FT% .801
2010-2011
pts per game 103.7
fg% .475
ft% .767
I don't care about number of possessions. That is skewing numbers to what you want. The 1979-1980 team had higher scoring totals and better shooting %s. They were the better offense. They had the players who could execute a system that stressed moving the ball downcourt quickly for easy baskets.
You're right, of course.
But the whole nature of the league has changed since then. The defense they played back then is laughable by today's standards.
Chuck Daly and the Pistons changed everything from the late '80's forward.
Nice post timvp. Much appreciated the effort your putting into it this year.
On a side note I would love some analysis on that points per possesion stat. What did past spurs teams did that made them elite at it? Why is it so low, etc.
I'm not going to bash the old school, I have a lot of respect for that era of basketball. But things have undoubtedly changed since then, as Russ pointed out. For one, the three-point shot is much more widely used now (the 1980 team had 52 total three-pointers, last year the Spurs made 685 threes), which helps make offenses more efficient. Factoring in three-pointers, the 2011 team had a higher eFG% than the 1980 team.
Having "the better offense" doesn't have a universal definition. If you want to use points per game, that's fine and you can call the 1980 team the better offensive team, even if a team today could never play at the pace that the 1980 team played at. I could even buy an argument that the 1980 team lost some of their efficiency due to playing so fast.
But statistically speaking, the most efficient offensive Spurs team in history is the 2011 team ... and that can't be argued.
Timvp, I sent you a message on your page, hit me up please unc....
Nice post, timvp.
Pop has gone away of what have make Spurs success. Picking Bonner over Splitter is a move that is opposite of this successful past. Giving $50M to soft playoff chokers (RJ + Bonner) is too a 180° turn compared to the past. Before, when a player sucked in playoffs, Spurs let him go and didn't reward with a huge contract. Remember Turkoglu...
Yes and that is what is so frustrating. For the first time players know Pop is all talk when it comes to preaching defense. In that regard, even if players don't say it, they lost respect for him on that end of the court and tune him out. They know that they don't have to give their effort on that end and it won't affect their playing time or ability to get paid (maybe not if you are a fringe guy, but if you are a top 10 player on the roster).
Spurs have gone from making sound basketball/financial decisions to heavily focusing on just the financial side due to RJ not working out.
would that be an accurate edit?
I also think Pop consider Splitter as a poor offensive player. Pop consistently called him a "blue-collar player". While it's a compliment but it also shows how limited Pop thinks Splitter is. Splitter can do blue-collars tasks but he can do more. The sooner Pop understand that, the better Spurs will be.
Ha, I would hope so. Getting curbstomped by an eighth seed would likely bring down your efficiency
I haven't looked but I'd assume the 2005 team had the best offensive efficiency in the playoffs due largely to that Suns series. Let me see if I can find those stats, just for ishes and giggles.
I personally would be more interested in tops in defensive efficiency, but I'll do the research myself.
Heck, every team would be lucky to have one good blue collar player like Splitter, never mind anything else he gives you (gravy). I bet the lakers never treated Kurt Rambis like a pariah.
Duncan plays with Parker and Ginobilli. Splitter is lucky to get on the court with either and it makes sense that scoring will go down with the likes of Quinn and the second string while Duncan gets two guys that average 20+ ppg careerwise.
Pop sticking with Splitter when Duncan was playing the worst basketball i have ever seen him play was hopeful. Duncan was bad last night.
Two homerun takes
The Spurs used to kick playoff chokers to the curb. Especially those who seemed to be soft mentally and/or physically. I'd add Derek Anderson next to your Hedo example.
And I agree that Pop thinks Splitter is a defensive liability. Pop sees the offense bog down when Splitter is in the game and concludes that it's Splitter's fault. But what a lot of us believe is that Splitter needs playing time to grow into a role where he can consistently help the team. Pop, as of right now, doesn't share that opinion.
Eh, I wouldn't quite go that far. I think the poor defensive is mostly a byproduct of Pop prioritizing offense and living with defensive shortcomings.
For example, I wouldn't say Blair and Neal suck on defense because they aren't trying or are undercoached. It's just that they are short, can't jump and aren't overly quick so they are going to be below average defenders even if their lives literally depended on it. In the past, such players simple wouldn't get minutes under Pop. Now Pop lives with it so he can get the offensive production on the other end.
Thats all true, Blair and Neal are never going to be anything more than liabilities due to their physical limitations.
But i agree with what DPG said, take RJ for example. Have you ever seen anyone float through games while giving as little effort as humanly possible? Yet he is second on the team in minutes per game iirc, thats laughable. Like another poster pointed out, Pop is playing contracts ahead of productivity and effort.
It kind of makes me wonder, is that why Pop has gone to this ridiculous run and gun type offense? To bring people through the turnstyles? Maybe he knows the Spurs arent contenders anymore regardless of the lineups he plays, so hes trying to put points on the board and bums in seats. Im reaching here, but you never know with Pop anymore, he's gone insane, to put it nicely.
What's that quote by Stephen Jackson about Pop (I think it was he)...something about Pop being an odd dude who might just do something because it's Tuesday. I think that's still very relevant and therefore it's hard to predict Pop's approach to all of this, which is only made more ambiguous by his alternating terse and fabricating answers he gives to the media who really don't even ask very thought provoking questions.
In regards to Splitter, I agree that Pop thinks he's soft, which is odd because he also considers him a blue collar player. So, something doesn't make sense in this equation. My gut feeling is that Pop holds a grudge against Splitter for something...being injured, perhaps talking back, perhaps not being named Luis Scola. Who knows?
But until Pop learns to trust Splitter, it won't matter. Splitter is playing admirably through this BS, and if he can continue to improve, and if Pop continues to hold TD's minutes, then there's still hope for Splitter to break through.
Who knows - it might take Ninja busting Pop's chops during dinner sometime to get through to him that Splitter needs to play more, and more importantly, when he plays, he needs to be better integrated into the offense because his teammates too often look for their own shot instead of Splitter wide open under the lane or posting up.
In medicine there's a useful old saying regarding doctors diagnosing patients: do you believe what you see, or do you see what you believe? I think Pop is seeing what he believes and not the other way around in regards to Splitter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)