Would Pop play Danny more minutes if he was European?

It's ok, you don't need every player to do everything great. Danny does really well certain things and he has been getting even better at some of those (like his defense).

Kawhi, for example, is lacking some solid footwork on a consistent basis. His first step should be much better, and today's spin move was more of a shock because if he can work his feet like that all the time, he'll be a monster.

As long as players keep putting in work, and keep getting better, there's not a lot to complain, IMO. I expect Green to work on his handles and Kawhi on his footwork. These are young guys that still have room to grow.

Green would be a borderline all star if he could dribble. The Spurs would also not be able to afford him. So I'm kind of glad that he can't dribble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

:lol Danny's been told to give up the ball more this season, BECAUSE he's the worst dribbling guard you've seen? Let's ignore the fact that his usage rate didn't change at all from last season to this season.

The rest, as I said, is anecdotal. Your whole argument is based on you saying, "Green's dribbling is horrible, I swear!" No way to even discuss this with that point of view.

---

Usage and actually dribbling the ball are two entirely different things.
Don't play me for stupid. And there was nothing anecdotal, when did I say, did you see when... I saw him... You don't even know what at anecdotal means.

IMO Danny Green is the worst guard at dribbling I have seen. I have not seen some deep bench guys so it would have to be as a starter. IMO Lebron James is the best player in the NBA.

Whats the problem? This is all opinion.

Pop would probably play Danny more if he was European because if Danny was European, he'd probably have a higher IQ for the game and better fundamental skills like dribbling and passing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I think soft close-outs are bigger risks for fouls than hard ones. Green flies past his man on a hard close out. It's not easy for a shooter to move over in time to catch the contact, especially since Green jumps past people so much that he's pretty good at it. On soft closeouts, the defender is trying to stay in front of the shooter with a hand up, which leads to mistakes where the defender is out of control and gets into the shooter's space. Paul's horrible foul on Westbrook is an example of a soft closeout gone wrong. You won't see many examples of four-point plays from hard closeouts, though, since fouls usually result in the defender colliding with the shooter before they can get a clean shot off.

---

I would disagree, just my opinion though. Blocking spot up shots at the point of release is extremely rare, and I think the shooter will get the benefit of the doubt most of the time. What's more, he's out of control jumping in the air. A seasoned shooter only needs to pretend to shoot and basically lean towards where he's landing. It's just too easy a call to make.

Sure, just putting a hand up sometimes ends up with a touch foul, but it's largely how every shot is contested in the league. I think that's what Pop wants in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Green would be a borderline all star if he could dribble. The Spurs would also not be able to afford him. So I'm kind of glad that he can't dribble.

---

:lol solid take actually

Hell I love Green.

He has done everything the hard way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Usage and actually dribbling the ball are two entirely different things.
Don't play me for stupid. And there was nothing anecdotal, when did I say, did you see when... I saw him... You don't even know what at anecdotal means.

IMO Danny Green is the worst guard at dribbling I have seen. I have not seen some deep bench guys so it would have to be as a starter. IMO Lebron James is the best player in the NBA.

Whats the problem? This is all opinion.

---

Perhaps anecdotal isn't the appropriate word for my critique, at least not yet. Subjective is probably better for now.

There's no problem with you having your opinion. I agree with plenty of posters on this site on many things, I still respect most of them. The problem is that there's no real way of having a discourse with someone who just cites their own opinion. It just turns into a, "Yes he is. No he's not." thing. That's even more true when you insist on ignoring the changes to Green's game from last season to this season. If you're going to keep on believing what you believe regardless of what I say, what's the point of discussing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Perhaps anecdotal isn't the appropriate word for my critique, at least not yet. Subjective is probably better for now.

There's no problem with you having your opinion. I agree with plenty of posters on this site on many things, I still respect most of them. The problem is that there's no real way of having a discourse with someone who just cites their own opinion. It just turns into a, "Yes he is. No he's not." thing. That's even more true when you insist on ignoring the changes to Green's game from last season to this season. If you're going to keep on believing what you believe regardless of what I say, what's the point of discussing it?

---

Its called agreeing to disagree and it is done quite often on a sports board in which so much is opinion.

Heck yes it's subjective. That's what makes it interesting. I am sure there are OKC fans who think Durant is the best player in the NBA. I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I would disagree, just my opinion though. Blocking spot up shots at the point of release is extremely rare, and I think the shooter will get the benefit of the doubt most of the time. What's more, he's out of control jumping in the air. A seasoned shooter only needs to pretend to shoot and basically lean towards where he's landing. It's just too easy a call to make.

Sure, just putting a hand up sometimes ends up with a touch foul, but it's largely how every shot is contested in the league. I think that's what Pop wants in general.

---

Green's not trying to block a shot when he's closing out hard. I'm sure he'd take a block if he got one, but the goal is literally to force the defender to pump-fake and move inside the arch. I don't think he's particularly out of control either, as he very rarely fouls when flying past. That's especially true for tonight where his closeouts were perfect. He both ran Thabo off the line and got back to contest the long-two. You can't ask for a better result than that. Shooters sometimes try to draw fouls on defenders closing out hard by kicking their legs out to catch the defenders as they fly by, but as you know, the league is trying to outlaw that.

I disagree with you about how teams defend shots. The biggest way teams guard shooters is by moving them off their spots. That's why players like Green close out hard. That's why players try to deny deep post positions. That's why players try to force their men to go away from their dominant sides. It's all about having the shooter shoot from spots at which they haven't really practiced. It's also about rushing their attempts by making them shoot more on the move. Sure, the end result may be a hand in the face, but shot defense is much more complicated than the end result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Its called agreeing to disagree and it is done quite often on a sports board in which so much is opinion.

Heck yes it's subjective. That's what makes it interesting. I am sure there are OKC fans who think Durant is the best player in the NBA. I don't.

---

Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine. We can certainly agree to do that here. But that pretty much ends a discussion. If you're debating a person, you both just agree to disagree, do you keep on discussing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine. We can certainly agree to do that here. But that pretty much ends a discussion. If you're debating a person, you both just agree to disagree, do you keep on discussing it?

---

I could go into anecdotal situations of my choosing and you could choose your highlight. there might be some super advanced stat that shows dribble per minute played and turnovers per minute and correlate it. But I doubt it. It's subjective as you said.

seriously the reason I wrote something so bold that is subjective is because I think I have a feel for how uncomfortable certain players appear when they have to dribble. It's something I sense from just playing and watching. Just like you can sense when crunch time comes some players try to hide... They almost seem to make themselves unavailable. So it is clearly possible I am way off. Pretty hard to quantify. That's why people watch film I guess. Not everything can be described with stats.

We WON.

Thats all I really care about.

I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Green's not trying to block a shot when he's closing out hard. I'm sure he'd take a block if he got one, but the goal is literally to force the defender to pump-fake and move inside the arch. I don't think he's particularly out of control either, as he very rarely fouls when flying past. That's especially true for tonight where his closeouts were perfect. He both ran Thabo off the line and got back to contest the long-two. You can't ask for a better result than that. Shooters sometimes try to draw fouls on defenders closing out hard by kicking their legs out to catch the defenders as they fly by, but as you know, the league is trying to outlaw that.

---

I'll just agree to disagree. I think he is trying to block a shot, and I also think he does fly pretty much out of control, especially when he's late. Now, I don't particularly think Thabo or Butler are guys that would worry me trying to draw a foul, but Durant and Fisher (especially Fish) do. About the unorthodoxy part, Manu had this knack early in his career for trying to block shooter from behind (not that uncommon in Europe), and even when sometimes he would get a clean stop or two, he'll get whistled for it anyways. I see this somewhat in the same vein. The shooter will likely get the benefit of the doubt, especially when the defender is seemingly somewhat out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I disagree with you about how teams defend shots. The biggest way teams guard shooters is by moving them off their spots. That's why players like Green close out hard. That's why players try to deny deep post positions. That's why players try to force their men to go away from their dominant sides. It's all about having the shooter shoot from spots at which they haven't really practiced. It's also about rushing their attempts by making them shoot more on the move. Sure, the end result may be a hand in the face, but shot defense is much more complicated than the end result.

---

What you're telling me here is "doing your work early". But that isn't this scenario. We're talking about closing out on a spot up shooter that's relatively open due to help defense. The problem with closing out of control like that was seen clearly today when Fish did a pump fake, took a step to his left, and then took a wide open shot. It's a gamble that might fool some guys, but seasoned players won't fall for that. When Danny is in a better position to close, he won't jump like that. He will put his hand up and contest the shot. Which is all Pop really wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Green had a plus-minus of 30, while no other Spur had one greater than 12. Why did hell didn't he play more?

---

My personal thought is that it's a strategic move by Pop. One aspect of being an NBA player (particularly a "great" one like a Westbrick-type), is that you can adapt quickly to any given situation. Hence there being so much talk about switching up the way you defend a Westbrick or a Duraunt, so that they can't get comfortable going against only one type of look. So I think it's that principle that explains the way Pop uses Green, the idea being that he can be made to be even more effective if Westbrick isn't playing against him every minute of the game. And there's two added benefits to that strategy: 1) Your top defender gets maximum rest to have maximum energy to defend the other team's best player, and 2) it allows good offensive players more court time to increase the chance they'll get in a good offensive rhythm.

So it boils down to a cost/benefit analysis:

Is (the increased effectiveness you gain by not letting the opposing star get used to your best defender's defense) + (giving your top defender maximum rest to have maximum energy to go against the opposing team's best player) + (giving more minutes to very good shooters/playmakers to give them more chances to get in a rhythm) > (having one of your best defenders on the court for all of those minutes). The answer tonight has to be Yes, doesn't it? And doesn't your intuition agree that it's more logical to go with the first part of the equation every time? Mine certainly does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What you're telling me here is "doing your work early". But that isn't this scenario. We're talking about closing out on a spot up shooter that's relatively open due to help defense. The problem with closing out of control like that was seen clearly today when Fish did a pump fake, took a step to his left, and then took a wide open shot. It's a gamble that might fool some guys, but seasoned players won't fall for that. When Danny is in a better position to close, he won't jump like that. He will put his hand up and contest the shot. Which is all Pop really wants.

---

I'm not just talking about doing your work early. That's part of it, but that's not the only part. As I said in the part of my post you quoted, there are many ways defenders try to get their men off their spots, and closing out hard is one of them. You seem to think that Fisher pump-faking, moving and shooting means he wasn't affected by the closeout. But that's not true. The moment a spot-up shooter has to dribble, their expected shooting percentage drops. Basketball is a really precise art, and little things like having to move or having to re-calibrate your shot because you're a foot or two over make a huge difference. That's actually how you defend shooters. Hands in the face don't really affect shooters in their sweet spots, because they've practiced shots from those spots so much that they know where the rim is. But when a player has to shoot from somewhere they weren't expecting to shoot, they have to see the rim to adjust, which is why the hand in the face is effective.

If Pop wanted soft closes, he'd ask for them. Green closed out softly on Ellis throughout the Dallas series. It's not a matter of discipline. Soft closeouts do not disrupt a shooter's rhythm like hard closeouts do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I'm not just talking about doing your work early. That's part of it, but that's not the only part. As I said in the part of my post you quoted, there are many ways defenders try to get their men off their spots, and closing out hard is one of them. You seem to think that Fisher pump-faking, moving and shooting means he wasn't affected by the closeout. But that's not true. The moment a spot-up shooter has to dribble, their expected shooting percentage drops. Basketball is a really precise art, and little things like having to move or having to re-calibrate your shot because you're a foot or two over make a huge difference. That's actually how you defend shooters. Hands in the face don't really affect shooters in their sweet spots, because they've practiced shots from those spots so much that they know where the rim is. But when a player has to shoot from somewhere they weren't expecting to shoot, they have to see the rim to adjust, which is why the hand in the face is effective.

If Pop wanted soft closes, he'd ask for them. Green closed out softly on Ellis throughout the Dallas series. It's not a matter of discipline. Soft closeouts do not disrupt a shooter's rhythm like hard closeouts do.

---

Not all shooters are cut from the same cloth. Great, seasoned shooters will hit from almost anywhere. That's why I stressed guys like Fisher (from 3) or Durant, or, say, Ray Allen. Preferred spots work for mechanical shooters, but not so much for great shooters.

About hand in the face, Pop said it himself: "Contested shots are really bad shots. People’s percentage goes down almost by 20, almost without exception."

I also don't think it's "soft-close" vs "hard-close". Nobody else on this team jumps on shooters as often as Danny does. You can close hard without jumping on them, and I'm pretty sure Pop asks for the same thing when defending certain players.

BTW, I have no complains about Danny. He does great 90% of the time on defense, which is amongst the best in the team. We're just really discussing areas where I feel he needs to improve, and I think he will improve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Not all shooters are cut from the same cloth. Great, seasoned shooters will hit from almost anywhere. That's why I stressed guys like Fisher (from 3) or Durant, or, say, Ray Allen. Preferred spots work for mechanical shooters, but not so much for great shooters.

About hand in the face, Pop said it himself: "Contested shots are really bad shots. People’s percentage goes down almost by 20, almost without exception."

I also don't think it's "soft-close" vs "hard-close". Nobody else on this team jumps on shooters as often as Danny does. You can close hard without jumping on them, and I'm pretty sure Pop asks for the same thing when defending certain players.

---

No. Great shooters know how to get to their spots. Sure, they have more spots than other players, but they aren't just gods no matter where they shoot. Players become successful shooters by practicing. Practicing essentially develops muscle memory so that the player don't have to think about how much force and arch they have to put into a given shot attempt. But that memory only works when the shooter is in the right spot. Otherwise, the player has to actually think about how to shoot, and it becomes much harder. Shooting is the same thing as launching artillery from a physical standpoint. A person can figure out exactly how much force it takes to hit a target with a ton of precision. But move the target (or the artillery in this case) and the calculations have to do done over.

Did Pop say he meant contested to only mean hand-in-the-face? He may have. Even so, that's more something you should be critiquing. Great players will hit their shots even with hands in their face. But they won't be nearly as accurate away from their sweet spots.

You can hard-close without jumping. But it's less effective. Matt Barnes just runs past his man with his hand up. That still leaves an angle to shoot the ball, though, and Barnes is still out of position by the end of it. The way Green jumps, there isn't room to get the shot off. It's not that Green doesn't know how to close out correctly. It's that he knows exactly how to do it to force the player to put the ball on the floor. I know it's a surprise to some people here, but Green's actually a very smart defender. His numbers don't just come from blind luck or from monkey-balling that happens to be cleaned up by his teammates. He knows how to play his men very well, and he knows how to force his man to dribble.

Can hard closeouts backfire? Yes. They force a rotation that smart teams can exploit. But soft closeouts backfire in that they don't actually allow impede a shot. Each of the four threes that Miami attempted in the last 28 seconds of Game Six were soft closes. Allen's dagger against Brooklyn last week was off a horrible weak close by Johnson where he both got out of position and failed to impede the arch of the shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

No. Great shooters know how to get to their spots. Sure, they have more spots than other players, but they aren't just gods no matter where they shoot. Players become successful shooters by practicing. Practicing essentially develops muscle memory so that the player don't have to think about how much force and arch they have to put into a given shot attempt. But that memory only works when the shooter is in the right spot. Otherwise, the player has to actually think about how to shoot, and it becomes much harder. Shooting is the same thing as launching artillery from a physical standpoint. A person can figure out exactly how much force it takes to hit a target with a ton of precision. But move the target (or the artillery in this case) and the calculations have to do done over.

Did Pop say he meant contested to only mean hand-in-the-face? He may have. Even so, that's more something you should be critiquing. Great players will hit their shots even with hands in their face. But they won't be nearly as accurate away from their sweet spots.

You can hard-close without jumping. But it's less effective. Matt Barnes just runs past his man with his hand up. That still leaves an angle to shoot the ball, though, and Barnes is still out of position by the end of it. The way Green jumps, there isn't room to get the shot off. It's not that Green doesn't know how to close out correctly. It's that he knows exactly how to do it to force the player to put the ball on the floor. I know it's a surprise to some people here, but Green's actually a very smart defender. His numbers don't just come from blind luck or from monkey-balling that happens to be cleaned up by his teammates. He knows how to play his men very well, and he knows how to force his man to dribble.

Can hard closeouts backfire? Yes. They force a rotation that smart teams can exploit. But soft closeouts backfire in that they don't actually allow impede a shot. Each of the four threes that Miami attempted in the last 28 seconds of Game Six were soft closes. Allen's dagger against Brooklyn last week was off a horrible weak close by Johnson where he both got out of position and failed to impede the arch of the shot.

---

Disagree. Moving one step to the left or right isn't going to change one iota the 'calculations' for any seasoned shooter. Like you said, for great shooters it's all about muscle memory and how much force they need to put on the shot depending where on the court they're shooting from. Short corner three, three at the top, etc. No shooter shots 100% though, that's why even the best shooter can and will miss sometimes (even wide open).

I think our discussion boils down to: Danny is too jump happy contesting shots for my taste. You think it's "controlled" most of (or all) the time, whereas I don't necessarily think that's the case a good chunk of times. We don't agree on that, I'm fine with that.

I don't think his defensive prowess is dumb luck at all, I actually think he's got one of the best defensive footwork in the league. He's also a high energy defensive player.

I'll have to side with ElNono on that one. I noticed as well than when Green is a bit late, he tends to sprint and jump wildly in the direction of the shooter, and if he misses his target horribly after a pump-fake, he's even coming back from behind in an even more uncontrolled way. OKC players haven't been savvy enough to take advantage of that in Game 1, but that might not last and/or the refs might easily be fooled, especially if they are looking forward to calling a foul on that play (think Clippers-OKC game 5).

Somehow we know that if this happened in the clutch of a tight game, a guy like Westbrook would just jump-fake/hip-check an out of control jumping Green and get 3 free thows (or even a 4-point play), just the same way Batum got a 4-point play off Manu's out of control attempt to close out in the 3rd quarter of Game 4 during the last series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mugen

:lol This is the first I've ever seen of 3 Legged Dog and I'm ready to put you in Top 3 of the Worst Posters on this board tbh.

---

3 Legged Dog has been a hard core, pipe swinging fan since 1974. He pisses silver and black. He has paid his dues and earned his right to voice his opinion. Danny sadly did go flat in games 6 & 7 in last years finals. That was a factor in our losing the last two games and the title. But the majority of the blame should go to Pop for his stupidity in game 6 and letting Manu play out of fucking control the whole goddamn series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3 Legged Dog

The more I think about it, the more your comment irks me. Danny Green's choking when it mattered most cost us a title last Summer. It may not bother you, but it sure as Hell bothers me. Was he very effective tonight? Yes. I'm glad. Should we advance, Will he not choke in this year's finals? I sure hope he doesn't. But the fact is..... He did choke in the 2013 finals. All the snarky comments in the world will NOT change that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeGuy

This motherfucking is trolling right? Holy shit, you and testies should get a room and choke each other, tbh.

---

Nope, he is not trolling. He beleives what he says.

I think Green was yanked in the 3rd because the offense had become stagnant. It wasn't because of anything Green did, but what he can't do well. Attack the rim, and help move the ball. Ginobili also started scoring, so it's not like he was ineffective and turning the ball over.

Will_Spurs:
Who is Ms. Nip on your sig? Looks like a young Brooke Burke.

Green played some super defense last night