Rank our backcourt rotation compared to the rest of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

It's been hammered to death, but the Spurs realistically had about $23-24 Million in cap space this summer. It's sad that with that cap situation, only Lee, Dedmon and Bertans were good acquisitions (especially since none of them had to count against the cap at all).

---

Just comes back to Pop not giving a shit. Spurs need to move on at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

That's the knock on him. Even though he rates positive. He still actually hurts the team and a lot of cases.

---

Who are the consistent role players in the NBA, iyo?

If Green shot well every game, the Spurs still wouldn't have a playmaking guard..he's never going to be one..if he was, he would have never been a Spur..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz4000

They might have to move one of Gasol or LMA. They had the money to fix it this past offseason but instead gave a combined $30mil to Gasol and Manu.

---

Glass half empty.

They are only having to pay Parker half that. Glass half full.

I really dont think getting Pau was inportant at all. If you remove him now, the spurs will still be able to trot out a competent big rotation. And still have 15 million to throw at Guards.

But no..
Pop is so keen on Relying on A 1000000 year old Point Guard and SG to do the Playmaking..a genuis idea since Porker was never a playmaker ever in his career....

You could see it from the way he runs the pick and roll...He only knows how to make one pass in that scenario..and its the Pop. :lmao

In comparison, guards wh can score and playmake can make a roll pass, cross pass, and find open players on cuts and off screens.

They're trying to make a 500000 year old non-playmaker into a playmaker. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timtonymanu

He's still a very good player. But he shouldn't have to be the team's best guard by default. If the Spurs just had an all star PG, Danny's shortcomings would be overcome.

---

I love LDN but let's face it, he's great for us because of the system. He is legitimately sound on defense (though his perimeter D can be shaky at times) and he gets to his spots on offense. But it wouldn't hurt to explore moving beyond a system guard. I mean look at how Simmons' athleticism and dynamic play came in handy against the Dubs. Of course, Danny is miles better than Simmons but my point is, we need more explosiveness from our backcourt in today's game. Danny is great in the role he plays but couldn't another player out there take that spot and take it another level? It's worth exploring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Yeeaaah...about that...turns out bayesian inference is one of the most useful techniques ever invented for inferential statistics and is a driving force behind the "big data" movement in behavioral science generally (along with PCA/ICA)...

---

Using Bayesian methods in this context is flawed because there's nothing to "speculate" about since basketball statistics are discreet events that are completely transparent (i.e. it's a fact when Danny Green scores 10 points on 50%).

Bayesian methods are used to analyze probabilities from a sample data set, i.e. polling 1000 people about their ice cream preference and then attempting, through inference, to predict the ice cream preferences of a much larger population size. It's why Bayesian inference is used a lot in marketing.

I have no idea why you would apply it to a basketball (or any sport) statistic. There's nothing to "infer." Sports stats are "hard" facts.

People dogging Danny are the worst kind of ST's. Don't bring that ish my way tbh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Who are the consistent role players in the NBA, iyo?

If Green shot well every game, the Spurs still wouldn't have a playmaking guard..he's never going to be one..if he was, he would have never been a Spur..

---

I'm saying if his highs and lows were smaller. Not if he was a "consistent 50%" shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Who are the consistent role players in the NBA, iyo?

If Green shot well every game, the Spurs still wouldn't have a playmaking guard..he's never going to be one..if he was, he would have never been a Spur..

---

Green's almost never a negative. He's either a slight positive or a huge positive. For the third-highest paid guard in the rotation and the sixth-highest paid player overall, he's fine. The issue is that there are two or three players ahead of him that aren't earning their keep. Having your third-best player make so little should be a boon, but the Spurs took that potential windfall and threw it down the drain on loyalty contracts.

Hello.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz4000

Gasol is redundant with LMA on the roster. Spurs really should've tried for a cheaper defensive big and went after a playmaking guard like Fornier or Clarkson.

---

Who was out there, though?

Mozgoof got more money than Gasol. For a decent big today, you have to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People dogging Danny are the worst kind of ST's. Don't bring that ish my way tbh..

---

This. LDN has proven his worth time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

I really dont think getting Pau was inportant at all. If you remove him now, the spurs will still be able to trot out a competent big rotation. And still have 15 million to throw at Guards.

But no..
Pop is so keen on Relying on A 1000000 year old Point Guard and SG to do the Playmaking..a genuis idea since Porker was never a playmaker ever in his career....

You could see it from the way he runs the pick and roll...He only knows how to make one pass in that scenario..and its the Pop. :lmao

In comparison, guards wh can score and playmake can make a roll pass, cross pass, and find open players on cuts and off screens.

They're trying to make a 500000 year old non-playmaker into a playmaker. :lol

---

I really want a play Murray alternate as sad as that may sound. I wish he was ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Who are the consistent role players in the NBA, iyo?

If Green shot well every game, the Spurs still wouldn't have a playmaking guard..he's never going to be one..if he was, he would have never been a Spur..

---

I'm talking about smaller difference better highs and lows. Not that we need a superstar role player.

Btw, I actually agree that the Spurs should look to move Green, especially if he continues shooting well..he has one of the friendliest contracts in the NBA, they could probably get a piece for him in a package..

The reason they should do it is because they clearly don't have any interest on fixing the PG position in the next 2 years, there's virtually no chance that Parker will be benched..if that's the case, they might as well look for a different type of SG and attempt to transition TP into a role player, if possible(spot-up shooter/defender, which is unlikely, but maybe he can carve out a new niche)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People dogging Danny are the worst kind of ST's. Don't bring that ish my way tbh..

---

Who's dogging him? I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Yeeaaah...about that...turns out bayesian inference is one of the most useful techniques ever invented for inferential statistics and is a driving force behind the "big data" movement in behavioral science generally (along with PCA/ICA)...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Using Bayesian methods in this context is flawed because there's nothing to "speculate" about since basketball statistics are discreet events that are completely transparent (i.e. it's a fact when Danny Green scores 10 points on 50%).

Bayesian methods are used to analyze probabilities from a sample data set, i.e. polling 1000 people about their ice cream preference and then attempting, through inference, to predict the ice cream preferences of a much larger population size. It's why Bayesian inference is used a lot in marketing.

I have no idea why you would apply it to a basketball (or any sport) statistic. There's nothing to "infer." Sports stats are "hard" facts.

---

I don't believe it. I mean... I'm reading it. But I don't fucking believe it's really happening. This is why we can't have nice things.

And honestly, it's the reason there are only two female posters here. I know SAGirl says it's the sexual innuendos. But nooo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurPadre

I love LDN but let's face it, he's great for us because of the system. He is legitimately sound on defense (though his perimeter D can be shaky at times) and he gets to his spots on offense. But it wouldn't hurt to explore moving beyond a system guard. I mean look at how Simmons' athleticism and dynamic play came in handy against the Dubs. Of course, Danny is miles better than Simmons but my point is, we need more explosiveness from our backcourt in today's game. Danny is great in the role he plays but couldn't another player out there take that spot and take it another level? It's worth exploring.

---

Danny isn't the problem though. You aren't going to find players like him easily, especially for the price he's playing. The team messed up giving Parker an extension and expecting Manu to carry the bench at 39 years old. Danny also does stuff that doesn't show up on the box score (his transition defense, rim protection). It's on the other guys to play up to their contracts. Frankly, I would Aldridge for a guard before Danny Green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Who was out there, though?

Mozgoof got more money than Gasol. For a decent big today, you have to pay.

---

Didn't have to be a name; just a mobile big that had the tools ala Dedmon. Hell, they could've just roll with Bertans as the back-up 4 or started him alongside LMA. Then they have $15mil+ to get a guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timtonymanu

Danny isn't the problem though. You aren't going to find players like him easily, especially for the price he's playing. The team messed up giving Parker an extension and expecting Manu to carry the bench at 39 years old. Danny also does stuff that doesn't show up on the box score (his transition defense, rim protection). It's on the other guys to play up to their contracts. Frankly, I would Aldridge for a guard before Danny Green.

---

Danny isn't a problem but as the adage goes, if you want an omelette, you have to break some eggs. You don't get anything for free these days outside of a Lebron team or Dubs team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Btw, I actually agree that the Spurs should look to move Green, especially if he continues shooting well..he has one of the friendliest contracts in the NBA, they could probably get a piece for him in a package..

The reason they should do it is because they clearly don't have any interest on fixing the PG position in the next 2 years, there's virtually no chance that Parker will be benched..if that's the case, they might as well look for a different type of SG and attempt to transition TP into a role player, if possible(spot-up shooter/defender, which is unlikely, but maybe he can carve out a new niche)..

---

So we have to trade the second best spur because we have to be loyal to Parker despite Porker being one of the worst guards in the league?

That really hurts :cry

My spurs getting dragged down :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Btw, I actually agree that the Spurs should look to move Green, especially if he continues shooting well..he has one of the friendliest contracts in the NBA, they could probably get a piece for him in a package..

The reason they should do it is because they clearly don't have any interest on fixing the PG position in the next 2 years, there's virtually no chance that Parker will be benched..if that's the case, they might as well look for a different type of SG and attempt to transition TP into a role player, if possible(spot-up shooter/defender, which is unlikely, but maybe he can carve out a new niche)..

---

Trading Green is an awful idea. He fits great next to Kawhi, isn't a diva, and he gave the team a steep discount to stay; it'd look bad to the rest of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

Btw, I actually agree that the Spurs should look to move Green, especially if he continues shooting well..he has one of the friendliest contracts in the NBA, they could probably get a piece for him in a package..

The reason they should do it is because they clearly don't have any interest on fixing the PG position in the next 2 years, there's virtually no chance that Parker will be benched..if that's the case, they might as well look for a different type of SG and attempt to transition TP into a role player, if possible(spot-up shooter/defender, which is unlikely, but maybe he can carve out a new niche)..

---

By "piece" you're talking about for the future, right? Because they aren't likely to get anyone currently better than Parker that will match his salary. So the idea of doing a honest re-build is starting to get some traction?

I've been a Danny fan from the first preseason he was here. But I agree with you that this is probably the right time to move him, if they get the right price. But doing that is throwing in the towel on this group. They might as well go ahead and try to find a deal for LMA or Pau. No, they SHOULD deal one of them for value, if they trade Green. I know you'd like to see it be LMA. I didn't pull any punches about wishing they would have done it in the offseason this year. I don't know if Danny's shooting revival in the playoffs would have been enough to get full value out of him then, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robz4000

Trading Green is an awful idea. He fits great next to Kawhi, isn't a diva, and he gave the team a steep discount to stay; it'd look bad to the rest of the league.

---

You have to make a move to fix this team, though..they aren't winning a title without backcourt playmakers..

They don't have any assets outside of Green, since it's highly unlikely they would trade Aldridge..nobody is taking Parker, nor would the Spurs ever trade him..Kyle Anderson isn't getting you a real piece in return..

Spurs need to look for a team that is willing to give up on a guard because of a logjam or something else. I know they got rid of Gordon to help alleviate their logjam but I wonder if Tyreke Evans might be available?