Printable View
Curious to whether pop will allow Lamarcus to shoot the 3 ball this up coming season.
Last season was the first year he added the shot to his game shooting 37 of 105 for .352 ( The previous year he only took 15 attempts)
As a reference point Boris Diaw was 54 of 169 last season for .320
What do you guys think?
It shouldn't be a question of Pop letting him shoot 3s; it should be Pop forcing him to.
Either that or he needs to rework his game entirely, because those inefficient long 2s will bury us this season.
He needs to take plenty of long 2's and 3's this season, IE, most of his open shots.
If you're Chip though, how much do you mess with LMA's shot? He obviously has a great jumpshot, it might just be about getting the reps up. I don't think he should start taking too many though, something similar to Tony/Boris where he takes it if shot clock is winding down and he happens to be wide open.
I'm taking a wait and see approach. There's a lot of variables...Exactly how LMA is instituted in the system...How much he buys into the system vs. hero ball, etc. Obviously there's some ideals; but we shouldn't assume that things will go to plan.
Hopefully, the Spurs have the right mix of LMA spreading the court with threes and doing damage down on the block.
Getting to be a 38-40% shooter from deep will extend his NBA shelf life by a few years. I'm sure he himself wants to work on it.
Yup. Given that Aldridge already started that evolution in his game last season, I would think he's willing to continue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
Yes, my thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
I agree, but if there's a player that you'd be ok with shooting those occasional long twos that the system produces it would be Aldridge. Incidentally, another would be West.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_L_P
People should realise that no shot is 'inefficient' if the shooter has a certain percentage making that shot that is way above what the average player can do. D. West having 48% chance to score 2 points from 18 feet is not 'inefficient'. LMA being able to make them a 42%+ even with a defender on him is not 'inefficient'. A three from the corner is an 'efficient' shot. Not when Tim Duncan is taking it.
Shooting 35% on threes is the same as shooting 52.5% on long twos, in terms of shot attempt to points, and even LMA doesn't shoot that well from long two range. Ditch the long two unless the clock is running down, and take two giant steps backwards behind the arc.Quote:
Originally Posted by z0sa
You don't understand the Spurs at all. You don't compare a player's long two percentage against other players, you compare it to better shot locations on the floor. That's where you measure efficiencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
LMA loves the long 2, though. He's a lot more comfortable shooting that shot than any other shot on the floor. After a season of settling in we can revisit this, but I'd be surprised if he shoots more 3's than he did last season.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
I'd be surprised if he doesn't put up 200+. I always think of Boris as a reluctant shooter, and even he hoisted up 150+ last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by z0sa
Hmm, good point. How many long 2's did Boris shoot, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Lol, I don't understand the Spurs, sure. I guess when LMA has his man 10 feet away and has the ball 18 feet from the basket i should yell 'PASS', eh. I guess if the Spurs signed Dirk, Pop would forbid him his fadeways, no? I don't compare a player's long two percentage against other players, I compare it to the percentage above which a shot from that distance becomes efficient , PPP-wise. An open three is much more efficient PPP-wise, even if you're shooting it at 35%, but if you can't get it, the secondary option of passing it to LMA for an open 18 footer is better than Danny pump faking and driving. Our system is predicated on manufacturing options, lots of them. We got another one this year. People should understand what 'efficient' means in an option-based offense. Kyle Korver pulling up from 3 at the break is an efficient shot. Kareem skyhooking from 10 feet is an efficient shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
I would guess not a lot. SA's offense is designed to put a big outside the arc within the flow of the offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by z0sa
Most bigs with skills are just dying to be guards. Just look at Timmy bring the ball up the floor from time to time. I'm guessing that getting LMA to take threes won't be a problem at all. The offense will put him in the right location, and he'll let 'em fly.
Boy are you gonna hate having West and Aldridge on this team. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by T_L_P
If he starts jacking up 3s he's a pussy and needs to be traded asap.
His post game and paint game fits the spurs perfectly.
Btw there is a difference between a long 2 from post play and a long 2 off the dribble or catch n shoot.
Imo the post play long 2s are as efficient as any other shot.
If you put Korver and Kareem on evenly matched teams, and play one quarter with each being the only shooter on their teams, and they each put up 20 shots, Korver's team wins going away. Kareem's skyhook at 10 feet is not a 75% shot, which is what he would need to match Korver's 50% from three point land.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
As for your "passing when wide open" scenario, the Spurs do that ALL THE TIME while looking for a better shot. Good to better to best. He'll figure it out. He came here to win. He took a ton of long twos over 9 years in Portland, and got out of the first round once. Thank he might want to do it our way? I do.
Spursfan while LMA takes those 'efficient' long twos and the GS faggot brothers take those corner threes: :bang
What kind of an example is that? What is easier to do? Stop Korver from launching transition 3s or take away Kareem's hook from the mid-post? Korver's seconday option is to pass it, Kareem can score in 10 different ways from 10 feet. Good to better to best it is. If the opponent takes away the 'best', you go to the 'better' ,not the 'good', which is the difference between an LMA 2 and a Danny pump and drive. If you really think Pop will ever make LMA pass it when wide open from 18 and everybody else covered you don't know your Spurs. You don't know Portland either, if you claim LMA's efficiency was the reason they plateaued.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Lmao did someone compare Korver to Kareem??? :lmao
Not true. You're not factoring in FT attempts. A player gets more FT attempts on 2 ptrs by far than 3 pt. The true measure of efficiency is PPS or points per shot. Or True shooting % factors in FT attempts.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
As far as LMA, he doesn't get a ton of FT attempts but he does get some.
Overall he is a pretty efficient offensive player, and very difficult to defend when he gets hot. Like Dirk, you can't defend a fadeaway jumper by a 7 ftr. The question mark for Aldridge is his defense.
The difference is, Dirk's worst TS% (outside of his rookie season when he was adjusting to the NBA) is .560.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbacoataco
LMA's best TS% is .560.
He's a career .532 TS% player, which is underwhelming. It's even worse in the Playoffs where he's at .494 TS% (Iverson-level inefficiency).
He needed 20 shots to score 23 PPG last season. He can't repeat that next year if we want to seriously compete.
Look up the percentage of his shots that was assisted last year. Look how that percentage has dropped almost every year he's been in the league. Then watch a few Portland games from 2014/15 to realise what a crappy iso and high pick based offense they ran. Dude shot 0.465fg while being assisted on less than 20% of his long twos. He'll be fine with us.
Depends, a 48% chance to score 2 points from 18 feet is inefficient if we don't get offensive rebounds a substantial proportion of the time. Particularly with our swiss-cheesiness on defense, we need to score 2 points or better on well over half of the possessions down the floor to win consistently. Maybe not against the Bobcats, but if we don't against the Warriors we'll be roast chicken Curry.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
We were Top 3 defense last season. Swiss-cheese defenses don't rank that high. A 48% chance at a long two is a hell of a second option on offense, which is exactly the point. Pop is not going to redesign his offense around long twos, and as for ORebs, we've always preferred transition D anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
Why should they be mutually exclusive? The 2003-2007 Pistons got tons of offensive rebounds and still were consistently ranked at the top in the league on defense every year. As for transition defense, the Spurs really don't have the personnel to stop the most athletic teams in the league in transition to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
Odd that the Spurs and the Pacers (who missed the playoffs) were actually tied for 3rd-ranked defense:
#1 Utah Jazz 94.9
#2 Memphis Grizzlies 95.1
#3a San Antonio Spurs 97.0
#3b Indiana Pacers 97.0
The chart really shows how the NBA has changed dramatically in favor of much more offense... Gone are the days of 8-11 years ago when we'd have teams like the Spurs, Pistons and Rockets with figures in the low 90s and high 80s
They can if they have 4 guys running back when the shot goes up on offense. Those Pistons had 4 great defensive starters, played at a slow pace denying themselves and the opposition fastbreak chances and had Ben Wallace who could outrebound a team by himself on both sides, a big SF and a big strong PG. Plus they strongly emphasised Drebs as well. As a plus, Spurs have a pair of great transition and chasedown starting wings, so they can gamble a bit more on the offensive glass as long as KL and Danny are not totally out of position.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
Problem is, KL and TD are the best offensive rebounders AND 2 of the 3 the best defenders on the starting unit. If it's Parker/Manu/Aldridge back on defense, Manu and Aldridge might take a low swipe while Parker would just stand there and play dead fish as the guy with the ball electrifies the crowd or dunks on the hearts of the 19,000 fans present at the AT&T center.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
True, but I'll take a Parker / Manu / LMA trio's chances of not actually giving Drebs to the opposition by putting the ball in the basket. Give and take.
LMA should take whatever open three he gets obviously :lol
He was a league average 3 point shooter but that should go up with the spurs.
He should take whatever open midrange he gets. This is why he's in the team to take and make shots and provide spacing. It's stupid to limit his shooting
I actually 100% agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by apalisoc_9
>parkerQuote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
>putting the ball in the basket
choose one
Oh, you're one of those. Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
At least we have Patty Mills, the reliable Robert Pack to back-up the washed up Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, tbh...Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
The logic being used is: a 40% 2 pointer is worse than a 35% 3 pointer because it's less points over time. a 40% mid ranger is also worse than a 55%er at the basket.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
Long 2's are the last type of shot you want your team to settle on for a possession shy of a highly contested shot of some kind which is an even less efficient shot.
You are muddying the waters with nonsense like "Duncan taking threes". 42% with a defender on you is "inefficient" compared to West being open for a 48%er. Its all relative.
Boris was notably bad on the 3 ball last season tbh
Usually by default, teams will give up a midrange to long 2. But don't bet on them giving up an Aldridge 2. That is a weapon the Spurs have. Teams will have to come in and adjust to the Spurs different to other teams, when Leonard and Aldridge are elite midrange shooters.
Which is why the Spurs won't change their offense so as to make the 18 footer a primary option. It WILL be incorporated as a secondary option , or even tertiary. When it's 7 second on the clock and Danny has been chased down, would you rather him pump and drive, pass it to an open Duncan/Splitter/Diaw in the high post or pass it to an open LMA/West in the high post (provided that a kick to an open guy for 3 is not available) ? LMA shot 42% on ALL his mids, contested or not, West 48% . If these guys are open from 18 with the clock at 9 and they open three more than 2-3 passes away, if at all, you can bet Pop is gonna have at them if they don't take the jumper. These guys are 60% plus when wide open, that's an efficient shot, not to mention that they can initiate the pump and drive game from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidd K
Why? Was he brought in to replace Marco?Quote:
Lets talk about LaMarcus Aldridge's 3pt shooting
No.
Well I'd rather him not pass to Splitter since he's not on the team anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver99027
You're arguing things no one's arguing against. "Everyone's contested except a wide open mid range shot", no shit you take that. It's a last choice though, never a go-to because an open 18 footer is worse than an open layup or three, or even a basic post possession. It's "less efficient".
Will he be taking them? Of course. Will lots of plays be called for it? Absolutely not.
The Duncan/Splitter/Diaw comparison was a reference to what the secondary option would have been last year. As for the rest, we agree. Our new second/third offensive option is a much more efficient way to score points than our second/third option last year. That's what I've been saying all along, not that Pop is gonna make the 18 footer our bread and butter. But he WILL call plays where LMA/West are positioned at their favored spots as outlets for when our primary options are unavailable. So yes, LMA/West's mid range ability will feature in our system, as a secondary option or 'last resort by design'.
You want him taking those especially if he can hit at a 33% or better clip. That really opens things up. Imagine him, West and Duncan on the floor with Leonard and Manu or Tony. If Tony doesn't pass out from a sugar high right at half court or go into a beetus dive, they could be dangerous.
Pick N Pop...LMA loves the outside shot, not necessarily a 3 but a long 2 as well.
LMA was 9/20 from the left corner, 45%
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...dge/shotchart/
But he's 55.8% in the paint. By 3-pt you meant a bucket and +1, right?
P.S. Duncan shot 57.7% in the paint. BTW. Duncan's chart:
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...can/shotchart/
And look at what Duncan does on the left side under the basket. 66.7%!! 180 of 270. Wow.
Who's going to guard the perimeter if we go with West/LMA/TD frontline? This is a very high risk / moderate reward lineup.
David West is the one for the longer range 2, especially from straight away or the left wing. 53.1% with his left wing 2.
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...est/shotchart/
Obviously he should take any open shot he has, he's a max player!Quote:
Originally Posted by apalisoc_9
However, he should try to get open more at the 3 point line vs somewhere in a long 2 point range. The percentages absolutely favor an open 3 point shot vs an open 2 point shot.
If he is wide open on a drawn up play, why not?
I really don't wanna see him shooting 3's like Bosh and Love...
LMA will take more threes than last year, he said it himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceperez
But he's going to have a combination of Long two's and threes. Realize his long two aren't dribble and shot twos like parker..It's essentially a spot up.
He was only 3% below the league average and just 2% below his career average. But I'll agree that he didn't pass the eye test from three like he did the year before in that he wasn't comfortable taking them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawhi m8
I don't want him settling for long twos versus scoring in the paint.Quote:
Originally Posted by apalisoc_9
I think he will shoot some 3's with the Spurs. Aldridge is a great all around player and if he can shoot the 3 now he's even better. I lived in Portland a couple of years and saw many Blazer games. LMA really is a little better defender than he gets credit for. IMO he always did his part, but never had a strong enough team around him. Brandon Roy wound up being injured all the time. I think he will play better than ever with the Spurs system and players around him. He is an offensive force who can finish around the paint. People always say he is soft and can't take it strong to the rim, but the truth is he puts up numbers and can get real hot sometimes. In fact I would say of all the current Spurs, he has the best ability to take over a game offensively.
Duncan LMA West
What percentage of 3 pointers would LaMarcus have to make to avoid looking like a bad shot taking chump?
Setting the bar at 33% sounds whack to me.
Yeah the eye test is mainly what I was going off.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8FOR!3
The open 3s being passed up by the end of the season was massive tbh
Theres a difference between long 2's for a bigman compared to a perimeter player. With LMA you get the massive benefit of the spacing he provides by dragging out one of the opposing big's which opens up the paint for Leonard, Parker even Duncan. It will be interesting to do a comparison between the amount of FG's the Spurs make inside 5 feet this season compared to last season - it should go up IMO, and hopefully so do the FG%'s of Leonard, Parker and Duncan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
It is and it isn't. It's high-variance ball. You may score as many points, on average, but 2/3 of the time you're not putting points on the board. Plus you'll give up more fast breaks on the other end. You can't afford high-variance play in a tight game, and there's a lot of those in the NBA. If you wind up winning 1/3 of those games by a slightly bigger margin, but losing 2/3 of them because you kept having dry possessions? It's not the same thing.