What's the magic number?

[Mavs<Spurs]

When is it appropriate for us to abandon our normal game (inside out basketball) and become a perimeter jumpshooting team?

Is it when Tim is shooting 47.12376 %? Then, we should become a perimeter jumpshooting team and order Tim not to shoot the basketball. However, if he is shooting 47.12377%, then we tell him that he can still take shots.

Is that the way that it works?

Is Tim not allowed to shoot any shots at all? Or can he take a shot up to five feet 6 inches away? However, any further out than that and he is not allowed to shoot the ball (five feet six and three quarter inches is too far)?

When, exactly, does the coach make that decision?

It's funny, isn't it, that the person who suggested this thought it was logical. And cursed others who respectfully disagreed with him.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this other poster is not the sole repository of logical thinking that he thinks.

Exercise some caution, poster, so that you don't embarass yourself and get exposed right here. I'm a patient person and this time, I'll allow you in anonymity to rethink your position.

:fro

[conqueso]

Of course, you still have not told me what shooting percentage is too low for us to go to Tim. Then, you have to decide if you are going to tell Tim that he can not take any shots at all. Or is a 6 foot shot okay, but a 6 foot 1 inch shot is too far away because he was shooting 47 %. On the other hand, he could shoot the 6 foot 1 in shot if he were shooting 47.5 %....When is it appropriate for us to abandon our normal game (inside out basketball) and become a perimeter jumpshooting team? Is it when Tim is shooting 47.12376 %? Then, we should become a perimeter jumpshooting team and order Tim not to shoot the basketball. However, if he is shooting 47.12377%, then we tell him that he can still take shots.

I agree with AHF, so I think I'll take a shot at this one.

Um, I guess your point was that a decision to shift the focus away from Duncan to the supporting perimeter players must be made at some consistent, definite threshold. But obviously there isn't some objective, precise criteria for determining when a player is not playing well and will continue to not play well. AHF's proposal is not based on statistical certainty or arbitrary limits. It is based on a general conclusion made by the coach, who examines all relevant data, and decides whether or not to change the focus of the offense. Hundred-thousandths of a percentage point are not relevant, obviously, but neither are the other capricious standards you identify.

Here's an example: Duncan could be shooting 6-17, or 3-12, or 1-6, and Pop might decide that it doesn't look like Tim is going to get his touch back by the end of the game; he's having an off night. Then Pop says to Duncan "You're sucking ass, pump fake and pass to Manu and Tony," and it's up to Duncan to decide whether he's going to take that open 8 footer or pass to Ginobili on the wing.

I guess the most important point to draw from AHF's posts is that the Spurs must be more than just a one trick pony. There's a great Marc Stein article that was written right after the Spurs lost to the Lakers in '04 that explained how the One-Star philosophy of the team that year had been shown to be flawed, that everything the Spurs had proven the year before about winning with a single dominant player had been debunked.

Stein and AHF are right; the best team is one that is able to adapt to whatever adversity it faces. The '05 Spurs showed their ability to adapt to their opponents, and it is perfectly logical to think that the '06 Spurs should be able to adapt when their leading scorer can't score. With this team, that obviously means giving the ball to Manu and Tony and letting them score in the set offense. It doesn't mean that the Spurs will turn into the Mavs, or that they will become an outside-in team



Excuse me, but if I were you, I would stick to what I know. Logic is not one of those things.

Try again.


Personally debassing people you disagree with is not persuasive. When will people in this forum realize that?


Pop is going to run his normal offense and not try to become Dallas simply because you say so.

Again, diverging from your normal offense when your normal offense isn't working is not bad strategy. Having a "back up plan," or a secondary motion designed to open up penetration lanes down the middle or allow for more one-on-one offense would help the Spurs weather situations like what they faced in Washington. I don't think they would have won the game, but they would have had a better chance if someone had just realized (again, at some point that cannot be predefined and must be decided in the moment) that Duncan was going to miss every shot he took, that for him it was just "one of those nights." Telling Duncan not to shoot when he shouldn't be shooting should certainly be within the bounds of what Pop feels comfortable doing. Letting someone else be the central focus of the offense on certain occasions (either because of matchups or injuries or off-nights) is probably better than losing because you were too obstinately stubborn to change your routine.


The man has won 3 titles, but again nobody's opinion except yours matters.

He obviously wasn't saying that the only opinion that mattered was his. You intententionally exaggerate his claims to make him sound foolish, but all you are doing is revealing that you are fickle and immature and certainly not guided by logic.


When is it appropriate for us to abandon our normal game (inside out basketball) and become a perimeter jumpshooting team?

With Manu and Tony getting all the shots, it wouldn't be just a perimeter jumpshooting team. There would be plenty of penetration, with dishes and finishes. It's worth mentioning.


It's funny, isn't it, that the person who suggested this thought it was logical. And cursed others who respectfully disagreed with him.

Yeah, I understand that AHF is a little abrasive, and shame on him. But seriously, do you think you just proved that his point was illogical? By pulling out some crazy numbers and saying that his methodology isn't an exact science? Do you really think that you attacked his logic at all? It would be really funny if that's what you thought, because that's not what you did.

Listen, not everything in the world of basketball is an exact science. In fact, very little is. It's almost all discretionary. When does a coach decide to bench a player who is playing poorly? When they're 3-8? 3-9? 3-10? There's no absolute standard, no rigid criteria for these kinds of decisions. Maybe the coach leaves Rasho in, even though he's a fat dump who fouls too much, when Rasho is having a horrid night, let's say 1-6. Maybe Rasho's been playing good position defense, or they need his size to man up down low, or Pop just sees a fire in his eyes and thinks he will bounce back. These are all intangibles, and statistics (like the difference between 47.12376 % and 47.12377%) are irrelevant and meaningless compared to those types of considerations.

To say otherwise just isn't logical.

Since you're so very patient, I would appreciate you bearing with me while I try to understand your position and responding in a courteous and respectful manner, if you choose to respond.

[boutons]

Spurs were shot 57% 3Gs vs Wiz, and equalled the Wiz at 38 pts in the paint. That's balanced offense, jumpshooting vs driving, even with Tim's inside game, and all the frontcourt guys, in the tank.

No need to abandon anything (Pop isn't that in-game flexible anyway).

When Tim is neutralized, no need for dramatic changes, we can still go inside/out (but not four-down), with Tim concentrating on drawing the double-teams and pitching out, hitting the cutters, pic n' roll, pic and pop, rather than beating his fro against the scoring wall like last night. All Pop had to do was tell Tim to quit trying to score and start trying to win the game. Tim's scoring isn't the only way the Spurs can win now. Tim should be "just another option" and not ALWAYS the first option.

All our front court guys can hit from the outside, and get into the paint for teardrops or layups.

Tony, Manu, Bruce, Nick, (Michael, Brent) could have easily won the game last night if Tim had quit wasting so many possessions when he was totally ineffective.

But the key Spurs point is always defense, not offense. Last night, Spurs gave up 26 pts on fastbreak/transition.

[leemajors]

i thought the point in surrounding tim with shooters was so they could support him. whether that means supporting him by shooting from the perimiter when he is double or triple teamed and having a good night or taking over the game when he is having a bad night. AHF's point is we have other very viable scoring options that need to be checked off on if we are to win games in varying situations. there is nothing wrong with letting tim shoot less if he is missing 2 foot putbacks. those shots and posessions would obviously have a better scoring chance with another "hotter" shooter in those specific situations. it doesn't mean the next game tim doesn't get his shots if he is on.

[boutons]

Last night, when Tim was totally off his offensive game and generally head-fucked about the refs, it was fatally stupid, inflexible to keep going to him, wasting possessions, when he wasn't doing shit, and the permeter/driver players were doing great.

I guess it would be asking too much of Tim for him to say in a timeout "ok guys, I ain't doing shit tonight. Let's go with your jumpers and driving/pitchouts. I'll anchor the D and rebound, set picks, etc. YOU GUYS TAKE OVER as PRIMARY SCORING OPTION"