Quick Grades: Spurs at Thunder - Nov. 14

[timvp]

Quick Grades: Spurs at Thunder (http://www.sanantoniodispatch.com/san-antonio-spurs/spurs-game-thoughts/game-thoughts-spurs-vs-76ers/)
By LJ Ellis (http://www.sanantoniodispatch.com/author/ljellis/)
San Antonio Dispatch (http://www.sanantoniodispatch.com/)

The San Antonio Spurs were down by as many as 12 points in the first half against the Oklahoma City Thunder. In the final two quarters, the Spurs dominated — outscoring the Thunder 56-38 on their way to a 117-104 victory. The difference between the two halves? The defense was night and day. After giving up 66 points in the first half, the Spurs made it a halfcourt game, sent swarming double-teams and rotated extremely well. Add in a plethora of three-point splashes and it was game over for OKC.

Tim Duncan C- The moves were there but Duncan couldn’t finish. D was good in spurts.

Manu Ginobili B+ Ice cold in first half but got to line throughout and heated up late.

Tony Parker A- Defense really good. Scoring kept the Spurs afloat for long stretches.

Richard Jefferson A- Actually defended Kevin Durant pretty well. Attacked on O.

DeJuan Blair B+ A little out of control but is starting to produce gaudy numbers.

George Hill C+ Off with shot but the rest of his game was better than average.

Matt Bonner A+ Hit all seven three-point attempts. Good D and rebounded well.

Antonio McDyess B+ Hustled on both ends. Physical under the basket. Jumper off.

Gary Neal B+ Rebounded really well again. Good shot selection. Solid basketball.

Tiago Splitter INC Early foul trouble. Sat and watch Bonner bomb threes.

[ElNono]

You missed Neal, who I thought did a passable job.
I also think Dice contribution early in the 4th will be lost in the 7 three pointer madness, but I also thought he was important. Wished he played more in the first half when we had a Bonner-Blair tandem.
Then again, it was a b2b, so maybe Pop was just saving him for the end.

[weebo]

Great game. Possibly the best game of the year. For all the hate he gets around here, Bonner when he is on makes the Spurs almost unbeatable.

[jestersmash]

No grade for Gary Neal? I think he's doing a fine job on defense, and more importantly I like the fact that he's so enthusiastic about getting better on D.

Other than that, good grades.

[mingus]

RJ's defense and Bonner's shooting were the highlights of the game. A lot to be happy about if RJ can have more defensive efforts such as this one. you also gotta factor in that he's making the defense work as well on the offensive end.

[ElNono]

Definitely a game of two halves. I hope we can keep up the defense from the second half around.

[pjjrfan]

Hill has been passing up a lot of good looks. It hasnt hurt us yet. I would think that Tim's block on Durant late in the 3rd that allowed the Spurs to take a lead on the next possession was the biggest defensive play of the game. that was followed by a strong defensive effort by the team that left the Thunder dazed and confused and they never quite recovered. And again the team had a strong 4th qtr. That's a damn good pattern to develop for this team. A major weakness last season.

[L.I.T]

Thought Dice did a good job breaking down the defense at the beginning of the fourth quarter. RJs defense on KD was pretty good actually, as was the Spurs team defense in the second half.

The ratcheting up of the defense as the game goes on seems to be a trend for the Spurs this season. Wish they could get that second half intensity in the first though.

[lefty]

LOL at "Ice Cold"

That was confusing

Usually in basketball, its used to describe a player who is killing the other team

[Frenchise player]

The most impressive is that it was the back end of a back to back. Granted the sixers didn't do much last night but the "old" Spurs looked pretty fresh against the young guns tonight.

Player of the game is definetly Bonner, loved RJ's defense and Blair is improving!

[MI21]

LOL at "Ice Cold"

That was confusing

Usually in basketball, its used to describe a player who is killing the other team

It's more commonly used in the way timvp used it.

Example: Kobe Bryant was ice cold from the field in Game 7, going 6/24.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The tempo of this game changed when McDyess came onto the floor.

Personally I was glad he was not playing up to that point because I thought the pace was bad for him and we would get run out of the gym with him on the court.

Instead the exact opposite happened. He helped us totally slow them down.

As for George Hill....maybe it was a matchup thing but I thought his defense was best of the year so far. Not as good as we need but the best so far.

Bonner played great D too, its just his red hair makes the ball automatically go in.

[ElNono]

Bonner played great D too, its just his red hair makes the ball automatically go in.

:lol

[timvp]

You missed Neal, who I thought did a passable job. Thanks, fixed.


RJ's defense and Bonner's shooting were the highlights of the game. A lot to be happy about if RJ can have more defensive efforts such as this one.Yeah, RJ's defense was pretty impressive. Last year, Pop gave up on RJ playing the role of defensive stopper by the end of October. This was RJ's first big challenge of the season and he did well :tu


LOL at "Ice Cold"

That was confusing

You must be Canadian.

[024]

timvp, i thought you would fix your typo after putting neal in but you didn't. you put "stat" instead of "sat." normally, i wouldn't point this out but you are putting this on your news website and typos won't look very professional.

[Texas_Ranger]

I like how good Neal is rebounding. Last night 7, today 5. Nice to see this from Gary.

[Drachen]

You are thinking of "Icey" or "Ice running through his veins" for a player who is killing the other team.

Ice cold means the same thing as everywhere else, no where near your goal.

[GSH]

The most impressive is that it was the back end of a back to back. Granted the sixers didn't do much last night but the "old" Spurs looked pretty fresh against the young guns tonight.




Yep. Tonight was the first B2B, and it was nice to see so much energy. They looked like a much younger team out there. The Sixers' athleticism gave the Spurs a lot of trouble the last couple of years. Last night, we looked every bit as quick as they were.

The young guys are holding their own. I hope everyone is giving Tony credit for just how awesome he's been so far.

[timvp]

timvp, i thought you would fix your typo after putting neal in but you didn't. you put "stat" instead of "sat."

Thanks.

Crying babies :wakeup

[yavozerb]

I like how good Neal is rebounding. Last night 7, today 5. Nice to see this from Gary.

Watching him box out bigs is a sight to see...Knocked Ibaka on his ass. :toast

[ducks]

if duncan is not healthy why this early in the season why play him

[Ice009]

TP was awesome tonight. RJ played a very good game too. I liked Neal's aggressiveness out there and that box out on Ibaka was fantastic.

Bonner great too.

[EricB]

Duncan looked fine to me. Pop just chose not to play him.

[ducks]

3 straight games in single digits
said he had flu like symptons a couple games ago

grant it spurs do not need his o now but...

[lefty]

Thanks, fixed.

Yeah, RJ's defense was pretty impressive. Last year, Pop gave up on RJ playing the role of defensive stopper by the end of October. This was RJ's first big challenge of the season and he did well :tu



You must be Canadian.

No :lol

Try again

[lefty]

You are thinking of "Icey" or "Ice running through his veins" for a player who is killing the other team.

Ice cold means the same thing as everywhere else, no where near your goal.

Ah ok

Because Michael Cooper said it during a game where Kobe was super hot

But hey, its Cooper

[ducks]

No :lol

Try again

augentine

[lefty]

augentine

Seriously?

[xtremesteven33]

Best game this season from the Spurs thus far. Spurs came out in the second half and imposed thier will on the young Thunder. Ive been hard on Parker for awhile now but I was impressed with his play tonight. He was getting to the basket and finishing in a variety of ways.

Splitter played good defense for the few minutes he was on the floor. He is learning and showing great signs of a future great team defender for the Spurs.

[crc21209]

Duncan looked fine to me. Pop just chose not to play him.

+1. He looked fine to me, and why put him in when the guys on the floor were the ones playing well and the ones who got the lead in the 1st place. There was really no need to put him in at that point anymore...

[Ice009]

Ah ok

Because Michael Cooper said it during a game where Kobe was super hot

But hey, its Cooper

You can use it for someone like Kobe who is an assassin and say that he is Ice Cold, as in he has no conscience and he's killing it, but usually Ice Cold is said when you're shooting poorly.

[cutewizard]

Great game. Possibly the best game of the year. For all the hate he gets around here, Bonner when he is on makes the Spurs almost unbeatable.


I completely agree with you man!

[Drewlius]

Thanks as always for getting these up so quickly. Would be cool if you could do an average of the grades say through every 10 games or so. Just a thought.

[barbacoataco]

Spurs best game of the year. Defense looked good in the 2nd half and the Thunder are not easy to defend.

It's a good problem to have, but I'm starting to wonder how the Spurs will find playing time for all 5 bigs- Duncan, Blair, McDyess, Bonner and Splitter. The Spurs usually have 4 bigs, or more like 3 1/2, that are in the rotation.

[YODA]

Maybe Im to tough on the SPURS, but the D was pretty weak to me IMO.The Interior D is no where near where it needs to be.

For the Offense, the 3 pt shooting and And attacking the rim is impressive. Each is helping the other. It all starts with being able to attack the rim, which leads to open looks.

Will we have enough D at end of seaon for a playoff run?? I dunno.

[BanditHiro]

Maybe Im to tough on the SPURS, but the D was pretty weak to me IMO.The Interior D is no where near where it needs to be.

For the Offense, the 3 pt shooting and And attacking the rim is impressive. Each is helping the other. It all starts with being able to attack the rim, which leads to open looks.

Will we have enough D at end of seaon for a playoff run?? I dunno.

excellent the defense in the 2nd half, it was

[Leonard Curse]

there goes pop getting players hes been dying to obtain then not playing them (TIAGO) play the kid ! moron

[will_spurs]

Manu Ginobili B+ Ice cold in first half but got to line throughout and heated up late.

Tony Parker A- Defense really good. Scoring kept the Spurs afloat for long stretches.

I've been consistently surprised by the grade differential between Manu and Tony in your reports. I have a hard time deciding whether it's just Manu love (a common issue on this board) or, since your grades scale depending on the max output you expect from a player, if your expectations of what Manu and Tony are supposed to bring to the team are really different.

I don't see how Tony being about the only one (apart from Bonner) not shooting bricks yesterday doesn't get him an A. If Tony had the same stat line as Manu you'd have said "C+ Awful shooting".

[Blackjack]

Seriously?

Algerian.

Some things you just don't forget; like when you make a joke about Ime Udoka's badassedness and his ability to destroy a team of Algerians. :downspin:

[Barfunk]

I'm all for my favorite players having monster lines but in Duncan's case, "Stats are for losers. Final Scores are for winners" - Bill Belichick

[L.I.T]

there goes pop getting players hes been dying to obtain then not playing them (TIAGO) play the kid ! moron

3 fouls in 2 minutes in the first quarter, Bonner getting really hot from 3 and playing passable defense while out there all put Splitter on the bench. Based on the early returns with Splitter (this game excluded) I doubt it becomes a trend.

[jestersmash]

I've been consistently surprised by the grade differential between Manu and Tony in your reports. I have a hard time deciding whether it's just Manu love (a common issue on this board) or, since your grades scale depending on the max output you expect from a player, if your expectations of what Manu and Tony are supposed to bring to the team are really different.

I don't see how Tony being about the only one (apart from Bonner) not shooting bricks yesterday doesn't get him an A. If Tony had the same stat line as Manu you'd have said "C+ Awful shooting".

What an amateur mistake. I suppose you ignored the fact that Ginobili went a perfect 11-11 at the free throw line. When you go in for a basket, get fouled, and make those 2 free throws, it's equivalent to adding +1 to both FGM and FGA, but this is not directly reflected in the stat line.

All you need to know is that Ginobili scored 21 points on 15 shots which is equivalent to shooting 10-15 with 0 free throws. When you look at his shooting in those terms, it doesn't look nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

It took Kevin Durant 23 shots to score his 22 points, and yet I have a funny feeling that you would think Durant had a better shooting game than Ginobili, when in fact it's just the opposite.

This is why we have a concept called "true shooting percentage," a factor where Ginobili consistently ranks among the highest of all shooting guards. Today Ginobili was not nearly as efficient as he can be, but it wasn't downright "awful shooting" given the fact that he got to the line so often.

FGM-FGA isn't everything. It isn't even the main thing to look at when considering offensive efficiency. You have to look at true shooting percentage, as it takes into account free throws.

And honestly I don't even understand what you are so butthurt about. First off, timvp gave Parker an "A-."

Second off, you shouldn't give a shit about what the grades actually are - they are merely one man's opinion used to promote and spark discussion. Feel free to give Ginobili an F and Parker an A+ if you wish. Your opinion is as good as anyone's.

[jestersmash]

Oh and for your information, guess how many "A-" and above grades timvp has given Ginobili so far this season? Zero. Zip. 0.

Guess how many "A-" and above grades timvp's given Parker so far? At least 2 that I can recall.

The grades don't matter. I'm simply demonstrating that your perceived notion that timvp is giving Ginobili inflated grades while holding back Parker is flat out incorrect. Parker has a higher "timvp grade point average" than Ginobili thus far. Ginobili has never received an "A" from him and he probably never will, because he'll always do something Ginobili-esque in the game (be it ballsy passes for multiple turnovers, gambling too much on defense for steals, etc.)

[TJastal]

Manu only had 1 turnover too. I'd take 4-14 shooting with 11-11 free throws and 4:1 assist/turnover from Manu any day of the week.

[will_spurs]

Manu only had 1 turnover too. I'd take 4-14 shooting with 11-11 free throws and 4:1 assist/turnover from Manu any day of the week.

Getting 11 FTAs is situational, shooting 4-14 is not. My point is not really about the grade, but the fact that Parker would have been lambasted if he had had such a poor shooting game (likely to be linked to poor shot selection or bad finishing at the rim).

But in a way I guess what I'd like to know, since the grades are relative to expectations, is what are the expectations for each player. As we have seen at the beginning of the season, RJ got good marks because expectations were low... now expectations are changing.

And you could reply 'why do you care?' but I actually like timvp's reports and grades because they can show me why his perception can be different from mine, maybe he saw one thing and I saw another, etc.

[Pauleta14]

if duncan is not healthy why this early in the season why play him

He is the Captain, the Franchise, the soul of the team...

See his flu game?

I read a nice article about the impact his showing up (when 99% of the players would have stayed at home) had on the rest of the team!

[Bruno]

Spurs had a great record but weren't impressive at all. Now, they start looking good after a great b2b.

And props to Pop for limiting Duncan's minutes.

[Slomo]

Spurs had a great record but weren't impressive at all. Now, they start looking good after a great b2b.

And props to Pop for limiting Duncan's minutes.

Yep, there were glimpses of the old Spurs tonight. It really got me excited about this season. They have a lot of work ahead, but if they build up on the type of game they played in the 2nd half against OKC, we're in for a good ride - again!

My main worry/criticism: Turnovers. Too many telegraphed long passes.

[EricB]

The defense in the second half was about as good as defense gets. Expectations are ridiculous.

[yavozerb]

Yep, there were glimpses of the old Spurs tonight. It really got me excited about this season. They have a lot of work ahead, but if they build up on the type of game they played in the 2nd half against OKC, we're in for a good ride - again!

My main worry/criticism: Turnovers. Too many telegraphed long passes.

With spurs wanting to push the pace and attempting to get more fast breaks this is going to happen. I agree that it happens to often, but I actually think with the extra fast break pts they are getting that it cancels out alot of those turnovers. Lets not forget that the spurs were turning over the ball just as much last season while walking the ball up the court and very few fast break pts.

[lefty]

You can use it for someone like Kobe who is an assassin and say that he is Ice Cold, as in he has no conscience and he's killing it, but usually Ice Cold is said when you're shooting poorly.

Ah ok, I'll remember that

So Timvp wasn't totally right either


Algerian.

Some things you just don't forget; like when you make a joke about Ime Udoka's badassedness and his ability to destroy a team of Algerians. :downspin:


Hey I can't blame Udoka on that

My fellow countrymen deserved it

[Spurs Brazil]

Bonner was fantastic and TP with another great game

RJ, Hill and TD did a very good job on D and the team rotated very well.

The last 2 games the D was much better and I hope they keep improving

[kace]

What an amateur mistake. I suppose you ignored the fact that Ginobili went a perfect 11-11 at the free throw line. When you go in for a basket, get fouled, and make those 2 free throws, it's equivalent to adding +1 to both FGM and FGA, but this is not directly reflected in the stat line.

All you need to know is that Ginobili scored 21 points on 15 shots which is equivalent to shooting 10-15 with 0 free throws. When you look at his shooting in those terms, it doesn't look nearly as bad as you make it out to be.



it was 14 shots but don't forget to add the possessions used for the FT as you explained above.

an easy way to compare is to act like if all the shots were 2 pts. gino would be 10.5-19 (21 points on 19 possessions used ) that way (55 %) and Tony 12-18 ( 24 pts on 18 possessions) (67 %). not sure if it's really accurate but that helps.
don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

[Solid D]

The Spurs made some great defensive adjustments but I wonder how close this game would have been had Spurs matchup nightmare, Jeff Green, been anything close to 90 % healthy. Green's departure to the exercise bike corresponded with the lead change and point separation.

[mingus]

The Spurs made some great defensive adjustments but I wonder how close this game would have been had Spurs matchup nightmare, Jeff Green, been anything close to 90 % healthy. Green's departure to the exercise bike corresponded with the lead change and point separation.

Green is a tough guard but i thnk his scoring was due more to just bad defense. Blair in the first half was complete shit defensively. i think i counted 12 points that were scored because he was slow to rotate. Jeff Green had two threes in the corner because Blair left him wide open.

[PDXSpursFan]

Red Rocket's value is sky rock now - time to trade him :greedy

[jestersmash]

it was 14 shots but don't forget to add the possessions used for the FT as you explained above.

an easy way to compare is to act like if all the shots were 2 pts. gino would be 10.5-19 (21 points on 19 possessions used ) that way (55 %) and Tony 12-18 ( 24 pts on 18 possessions) (67 %). not sure if it's really accurate but that helps.
don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

Yeah, that's a good way to look at it, I agree with your take. Logically, your way seems to be a better way to assess offensive efficiency (points scored on x possessions rather than finding the "equivalent" points scored on x shots with 0-0 FT).

Either way, my point still stands. That amateur on the previous page looked only at "4-15" and decided that shooting was "awful," and then rebuked with some nonsense about situational versus non-situational. I have no earthly idea how this "situational vs non-situational" dichotomy helps his case at all. It certainly doesn't help that will_spurs simply cited this dichotomy and didn't bother to explain its actual relevance to his hypothesis (that Parker - with similar numbers -would have received a "C+") The fact is Ginobili was reasonably efficient on the offense because he largely mitigated his 4-15 by going 11-11 at the FT line. "4-15" therefore becomes irrelevant when assessing a player's final score for a game. If Parker went 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions, he'd almost certainly get a similar grade.

[mathbzh]

don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

It does. And just for the record the formula is Pts/(2*(FGA+0.44FTA)).

The 0.44 is because usually you shoot by pair (would be a 0.5 coefficient) but is adjusted for other situations (3FT, and1, technical) when the number of pt/possession is not the same.

Edit:
For that game It gives 56 TS% for Gino and 68 for Parker.

[will_spurs]

Either way, my point still stands. That amateur on the previous page looked only at "4-15" and decided that shooting was "awful," and then rebuked with some nonsense about situational versus non-situational. I have no earthly idea how this "situational vs non-situational" dichotomy helps his case at all. It certainly doesn't help that will_spurs simply cited this dichotomy and didn't bother to explain its actual relevance to his hypothesis (that Parker - with similar numbers -would have received a "C+") The fact is Ginobili was reasonably efficient on the offense because he largely mitigated his 4-15 by going 11-11 at the FT line. "4-15" therefore becomes irrelevant when assessing a player's final score for a game. If Parker went 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions, he'd almost certainly get a similar grade.

The only way your point still stands is that you have no point. 4-14 shooting is awful shooting, period, regardless of how many FTAs the refs decide to give a player (that's the situational part of it, apparently a bit too complex). My point is simple: if you shoot 28% from the field, you're doing something wrong, typically bad shot selection (or just poor shooting day, which can happen too).

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"... :rolleyes

[jestersmash]

The only way your point still stands is that you have no point. 4-14 shooting is awful shooting, period, regardless of how many FTAs the refs decide to give a player (that's the situational part of it, apparently a bit too complex). My point is simple: if you shoot 28% from the field, you're doing something wrong, typically bad shot selection (or just poor shooting day, which can happen too).

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"... :rolleyes

You're an idiot. Sorry.

I can't explain it any more clearly than I have. You're wrong and everybody here can plainly see that you're wrong.

I bet if somebody went 0-4 from the field but 25-25 from the FT line you'd say he had a "poor shooting night" despite scoring 25 points on (4+x) possessions where x = # of times the player took a shot and got fouled. And, you'd still be wrong.

When you go 0-4 from the field and 3-25 from the FT line, that's when you have a "poor shooting night."

You don't have a poor shooting night when your true shooting percentage is > 50. Period. Done. There's nothing to argue, the number is there, and yet you're too simple-minded to fathom how free throws play into assessing a player's shooting efficiency/percentage. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around such a simple concept, I really am, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this.

[Dice]

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"... :rolleyes

2 of his 4 made field goal attempts were for 3. 3+3+2+2= 10

11 free throws 10+11=21

15 shot attempts + 4 assists = 19 possessions

:wakeup And yes, I did use a calculator to check my work.

[jestersmash]

2 of his 4 made field goal attempts were for 3. 3+3+2+2= 10

11 free throws 10+11=21

15 shot attempts + 4 assists = 19 possessions

:wakeup And yes, I did use a calculator to check my work.

B..b..but 4/15 = .26! Gosh darn dont be foolin me with yer fancy addin machine wizardry and mathemagical mania

[TJastal]

To be fair to will_spurs, 4-14 isn't good shooting, he is right about that. However, when you factor in that two of his shots were 3's, and 11-11 from the foul line then his overall contribution offensively is more than adequate.

[kace]

You're an idiot. Sorry.

I can't explain it any more clearly than I have. You're wrong and everybody here can plainly see that you're wrong.

I bet if somebody went 0-4 from the field but 25-25 from the FT line you'd say he had a "poor shooting night" despite scoring 25 points on (4+x) possessions where x = # of times the player took a shot and got fouled. And, you'd still be wrong.

When you go 0-4 from the field and 3-25 from the FT line, that's when you have a "poor shooting night."

You don't have a poor shooting night when your true shooting percentage is > 50. Period. Done. There's nothing to argue, the number is there, and yet you're too simple-minded to fathom how free throws play into assessing a player's shooting efficiency/percentage. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around such a simple concept, I really am, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this.

honestly, it all leads to the fact that you need to watch games to know if a player played well or not, the box score isn't enough. and that's a good thing, i think everybody will agree.

if a player is 3-10 FG and 12-14 FT because he's defended very agressively and had to shoot in some desperate situations because he was hot and his team needed him to take the shot, i guess that's a good game. If it's because of bad choices or cold hand, well, that's not exactly the same, even if the FT can moderate the poor FG % in overall efficiency.

You'd need to factor the effects of FT (fouls for the opponents and more FT or players benched), where they come from (intentional foul at the end of a game or directly caused by the player who made them) and also the effects of missed shots (rebounds and fast break allowed) to be very complete about the topic.

3/6 from 2 points or 2/6 from 3 points is the same in scoring but with more rebounds (and possibly fast breaks) allowed with the 3 points but also with more help to spread the floor and possibly score more inside with penetration or bigs.

I watched the game and i thought that manu was good and useful. not as good as he was the others games (but hey, he's at an excellent level right now) but better than the 4-14 stat alone would indicate.

[jestersmash]

honestly, it all leads to the fact that you need to watch games to know if a player played well or not, the box score isn't enough. and that's a good thing, i think everybody will agree.

if a player is 3-10 FG and 12-14 FT because he's defended very agressively and had to shoot in some desperate situations because he was hot and his team needed him to take the shot, i guess that's a good game. If it's because of bad choices or cold hand, well, that's not exactly the same, even if the FT can moderate the poor FG % in overall efficiency.

You'd need to factor the effects of FT (fouls for the opponents and more FT or players benched), where they come from (intentional foul at the end of a game or directly caused by the player who made them) and also the effects of missed shots (rebounds and fast break allowed) to be very complete about the topic.

3/6 from 2 points or 2/6 from 3 points is the same in scoring but with more rebounds (and possibly fast breaks) allowed with the 3 points but also with more help to spread the floor and possibly score more inside with penetration or bigs.

I watched the game and i thought that manu was good and useful. not as good as he was the others games (but hey, he's at an excellent level right now) but better than the 4-14 stat alone would indicate.

Agreed.

And, as I recall, he didn't take bad shots either.

You guys want to see a bad, ill-advised 3 point shot. See Kobe's 40 foot 3 point shot off a no-call offensive foul (push off) with ~30 seconds left in regulation.