-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
But for the year, if you ask "any NBA coach," they'll say it doesn't matter if Parker is on the court or not, right?
And for over a hundred years baseball managers have batted their speediest guy leadoff, regardless of whether he could get on base at a decent clip or not. What's your point? Coaches are usually the last to learn about incorporating new statistical data.
I suppose when we've got a hundred people here screaming our heads off about not using smallball because it hurts the defense and the rebounding, that's acceptable but saying that so far Tony hasn't been as valuable as last year is like eating some sacred cow.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
Your numbers are ridiculously inaccurate. I'm looking at the numbers right now. Last year they allowed 105.8 per 100 possessions with Brent on the floor and 97.4 when he was off. With Bruce they allowed 98.1 per 100 possessions when he was on, 106.3 when he was off. Thus, Bruce was, pretty safely, a better defender than Brent.
ridiculously inaccurate :lmao
http://www.82games.com/0506/05SAS6D.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/05SAS9D.HTM
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Coaches are usually the last to learn about incorporating new statistical data.
:lol It couldn't be that it in fact does matter that Tony Parker is out there and coaches actually consider him quite important? Nah. Some website said he makes no difference, so the website must be believed!
Quote:
I suppose when we've got a hundred people here screaming our heads off about not using smallball because it hurts the defense and the rebounding, that's acceptable but saying that so far Tony hasn't been as valuable as last year is like eating some sacred cow.
You're saying he does nothing at all positively for this team. That's very different.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
And for over a hundred years baseball managers have batted their speediest guy leadoff, regardless of whether he could get on base at a decent clip or not. What's your point? Coaches are usually the last to learn about incorporating new statistical data.
Interesting, but when people criticize that style of managing, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that the low OBP at the top of the order costs runs. I don't think there's any convincing evidence to suggest that Parker's play this season has been costly compared with his play last year.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
My apologies. You got me there. I was looking at this year's numbers by mistake. I can admit when I'm wrong. I guess Bruce really had an off year last year defensively.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lol It couldn't be that it in fact does matter that Tony Parker is out there and coaches actually consider him quite important? Nah. Some website said he makes no difference, so the website must be believed!You're saying he does nothing at all positively for this team. That's very different.
He is very important when he plays the right way. When he shoots lay-ups and gets to the FT line with some regularity, he's important. When he passes the ball he's important. When he's shooting 18 foot jumpers he's remarkably ordinary. It's a credit to him that he's worked on the jumper so much that it's gone from awful to ordinary, but the better he gets at it the more it hurts us because it'll never be as efficient as a lay-up attempt and getting to the line consistently. The better he shoots, the less lay-ups he attempts and thus less FT attempts he gets.
How hard is this for you to understand? Him shooting a long two is one of the worst things we can do on offense outside of a turnover. And by "him" I would say the same thing for any player on the Spurs. Perimeter jumpers = death. Either shoot threes or go inside.
Pretend you're a coach, which one of these options sound most desirable to you when the Spurs have the ball.
A) Parker pass to Duncan
B) Parker pass to Manu
C) Parker pass to Barry
D) Parker lay-up attempt
E) Parker pass to Elson for a lay-up/dunk attempt
F) Parker 20 footer.
To me this seems like a rather easy choice. Whenever you have a good scorer a long 2 point jump shot is least efficient thing he could possibly do with a possession unless he hits just a ridiculous % of them.
I'm not saying Parker hasn't been a positive, but in his 62% of minutes played he's been no more of a positive than Vaughn/Udrih (mostly Vaughn).
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
:lmao Now you are bagging on Parker for actually getting BETTER. You are clearly insane.
You would prefer Tony Parker never shoot a jumper ever and let the opposing team pack the lane permanently and double Duncan at will since there is no way in hell you would allow Tony to try to open up the defense with a 17-footer. The internets told you so.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
He is very important when he plays the right way. When he shoots lay-ups and gets to the FT line with some regularity, he's important. When he passes the ball he's important. When he's shooting 18 foot jumpers he's remarkably ordinary. It's a credit to him that he's worked on the jumper so much that it's gone from awful to ordinary, but the better he gets at it the more it hurts us because it'll never be as efficient as a lay-up attempt and getting to the line consistently.
How hard is this for you to understand? Him shooting a long two is one of the worst things we can do on offense outside of a turnover.
Pretend you're a coach, which one of these options sound most desirable to you when the Spurs have the ball.
A) Parker pass to Duncan
B) Parker pass to Manu
C) Parker pass to Barry
D) Parker lay-up attempt
E) Parker pass to Elson for a lay-up/dunk attempt
F) Parker 20 footer.
To me this seems like a rather easy choice. Whenever you have a good scorer a long 2 point jump shot is least efficient thing he could possibly do with a possession unless he hits just a ridiculous % of them.
I don't think Tony plans on doing anything other than option D, but there are five players on the other team doing their damndest to prevent option D. In fact, I'm guessing that in games against quality defenses, options C and F on that list are the only ones consistently available.
You'd always rather play closer to the basket, but you don't always get that choice. Hence, you hone that jumpshot. If '07 Tony was on the '04 Spurs, there is no Derek Fisher play. Back then, the Lakers packed in that defense and the Spurs couldn't make them pay from the outside.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
If he's "better" then how come he's shooting "worse?"
More shot attempts, less PPG.
Less Points Per Shot than last year.
It's one thing to shoot them when you're wide open and there's two seconds left on the shot clock. It's another when you just dribble for ten seconds, decide eh what the hell and jack it up. Usually there are better options. When a defense holds a team to a perimeter jump shot, it's like winning that possession.
Or to put it another way, I'd like you to take a crack at explaining to me why our per 100 possession scoring drops only marginally from Tony (110.4) to Jacque (110.0) to Beno (109.1), when the last two have shot like crap all year.
Could it be that when they're in the game that more efficient scorers take a larger % of the shots? Nah, that's crazy talk. Remember, when Tony doesn't play we lose 19 points and 5.5 assists!
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
"let the opposing team pack the lane permanently and double Duncan at will since there is no way in hell you would allow Tony to try to open up the defense with a 17-footer"
Faced with no layups made at 45%+, Tony, etc, start taking jumpers, and hitting them at a good rate, say, 38% for 3Gs, and 41% for 2Gs. That's a lot less points and FTA, combined with the the Spurs shitty offensive rebounding, making the game harder to win.
What if the defense said "shutdown the paint, even at the cost of yielding uncontested jumpers"? This is what the 04 Lakers did to rip off 4 straight W and eliminate the Spurs.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRJ
I don't think Tony plans on doing anything other than option D, but there are five players on the other team doing their damndest to prevent option D. In fact, I'm guessing that in games against quality defenses, options C and F on that list are the only ones consistently available.
You'd always rather play closer to the basket, but you don't always get that choice. Hence, you hone that jumpshot. If '07 Tony was on the '04 Spurs, there is no Derek Fisher play. Back then, the Lakers packed in that defense and the Spurs couldn't make them pay from the outside.
That's a fair point. '04 Tony didn't have a lot of help. And the '07 Spurs would be worse off with the '04 Tony as well. But option C has proved to be an excellent option so far this year. Brent's getting like over 1.5 points for every shot he attempts. The offense should do all it can to get him more open looks from 3.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
"let the opposing team pack the lane permanently and double Duncan at will since there is no way in hell you would allow Tony to try to open up the defense with a 17-footer"
Faced with no layups made at 45%+, Tony, etc, start taking jumpers, and hitting them at a good rate, say, 38% for 3Gs, and 41% for 2Gs. That's a lot less points and FTA, combined with the the Spurs shitty offensive rebounding, making the harder to win.
What if the defense said "shutdown the paint, even at the cost of yielding uncontested jumpers"? This is what the 04 Lakers did to rip off 4 straight W and eliminate the Spurs.
The '04 Spurs lost mainly because of a horrible timekeeper. Outside of that they lost because they had woeful ball movement when it mattered and couldn't make enough threes. All their perimeter shooters (Hedo, Bowen, Manu, Tony, Horry) deserve their share of the blame on that.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
It's funny, because Tony's scoring production per minute is up this season.
And he has the second highest three point percentage on this team.
For someone who believes in stats so religiously, one can only conclude your exclusion of a 43% increase in accuracy from beyond the arc is an act of extreme ignorance or mindless hate.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
couldn't make enough threes. All their perimeter shooters (Hedo, Bowen, Manu, Tony, Horry) deserve their share of the blame on that.
But the fact that Tony shoots better from outside won't help at all now.
Why did he even try....
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
FUN WITH STATISTICS
2006-2007 Stats from NBA.com Hotzones
0-5 feet: Parker 270/426 = 0.633, Ginobili = 162/288 = 0.563
5-15 feet: Parker 40/100 =0.400, Ginobili = 34/81 = 0.420
15-22 feet: Parker 130/317 = 0.410, Ginobili - 25/74 = 0.338
3-pointers: Parker 14/32 = 0.438, Ginobili 103/243 = 0.423
So . . . which one is hurting his team the most by shooting too much outside of his range?
QUESTION.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
If Beno is playing infrequently i would say Jackie is the same! He DIDNT show why he should be back up for TP! And Jackie can forget to play in playoff, maybe 5 mins.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
FUN WITH STATISTICS
2006-2007 Stats from NBA.com Hotzones
0-5 feet: Parker 270/426 = 0.633, Ginobili = 162/288 = 0.563
5-15 feet: Parker 40/100 =0.400, Ginobili = 34/81 = 0.420
15-22 feet: Parker 130/317 = 0.410, Ginobili - 25/74 = 0.338
3-pointers: Parker 14/32 = 0.438, Ginobili 103/243 = 0.423
So . . . which one is hurting his team the most by shooting too much outside of his range?
QUESTION.
Ginobili takes and makes many more threes. Ditto for FT's.
Being a 33% three point shooter is about the same as a 50% 2pt maker if you want to get technical. You can argue that it is easier for a team to get into a flow with a person who makes more 2 pointers, but no need to quibble on this.
Ginobili has a True Shooting Percentage of 61.2%, and Parker is at 56.4%. Manu is a more efficient scorer. But he does play less minutes. So Manu's value is inflated a bit considering he carries less of the load over the course of the 82 game season.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
FUN WITH STATISTICS
2006-2007 Stats from NBA.com Hotzones
0-5 feet: Parker 270/426 = 0.633, Ginobili = 162/288 = 0.563
5-15 feet: Parker 40/100 =0.400, Ginobili = 34/81 = 0.420
15-22 feet: Parker 130/317 = 0.410, Ginobili - 25/74 = 0.338
3-pointers: Parker 14/32 = 0.438, Ginobili 103/243 = 0.423
So . . . which one is hurting his team the most by shooting too much outside of his range?
QUESTION.
You shouldŽve puted BowenŽs 2pts % and 3 pts %.
them IŽll tell you who is hurting the spurs on the offensive end
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos
Ginobili takes and makes many more threes.
So? Parker hits a higher percentage. Should he be taking more?
Manu takes more FTs, no question. Is that because he actually draws more contact or because he gets more calls? Do the refs belong to the Church of Manu?
Quote:
Ginobili has a True Shooting Percentage of 61.2%, and Parker is at 56.4%. Manu is a more efficient scorer. But he does play less minutes. So Manu's value is inflated a bit considering he carries less of the load over the course of the 82 game season.
Actually, the only point behind my post was not to compare the two, but to address the silly argument that somehow Tony's jumpshooting is hurting the team.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
I'm aware of his 3% percentage. He should take more if he can all of a sudden make them now. I stick to my position, a long 2 is one of the worst things an offense can do outside of turning it over or giving it to a guy with a horrendous shooting %. That goes for ANYBODY ON ANY TEAM.
And before you accuse me of making dumb arguments, you just had Shoogar Bear saying the refs like Manu more. Talk about subjective commentary.
But so far Tony has taken 317 bad shots compared to 74 for Manu.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
But so far Tony has taken 317 bad shots compared to 74 for Manu.
:bang
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
RIF.
Quote:
Actually, the only point behind my post was not to compare the two, but to address the silly argument that somehow Tony's jumpshooting is hurting the team.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
I mean, I just don't understand why the mathematics of this is so complicated for you people.
Say you want Tony to score an X number of points, whether it's 15, 20, 30 whatever.
It will take Tony more shots to score X then it will take Tim, Manu or Brent. What part of that statement confuses you?
So perhaps those other guys should take more shots and Tony less shots, right? It actually hurts us double. Not only is a less efficient scorer taking shots, but that means the more efficient scorers aren't taking them.
Really, let me know when any of this starts to sink in...
The team does not need Tony to score a lot to be successful. They need him to make good decisions, get the lay-ups when they're they're and keep everyone involved.
For example, I think the best offensive half we played all year was the 1st half against the Clippers in SA. We had 65 points, something like 33 in the 1st, 32 in the second. Tony took one field goal and had 12 assists. The Clippers didn't do anything weird or different on defense, but Tony just felt like passing the ball for whatever reason. Maybe Pop told him to before the game, who knows?
In the 3rd quarter, despite how well everyone else was passing, Tony got bored with the passing and took 9 shots in one quarter. We scored 25 points that period.
After the game was over, he was quoted as saying something like "The defense was forcing me to pass, and guys were hitting shots, so I decided to keep passing."
That's right ladies and germs, Tony Parker has to be FORCED to pass the ball. As a point guard. Things like that kinda get on my nerves.
Is it any wonder why Pop finally decided to bench Manu? Tony should never be the 1st or 2nd option when the big three are on the court together, but for the majority of the season that's exactly what was happening, and it hurt the offense. How many times had we seen Ginobili check out of the game at the 6 minute mark of the 1st quarter with like 1 or 0 shot attempts?
But now, with Ginobili playing half his minutes with Vaughn, it's better for everyone involved and magical coincedence, we're on a big ass winning streak.
So once again, I stand firm on my opinion that Tony either should pass more and shoot less or find a way to be an efficient enough scorer where it makes a noticable difference whether he's out there or Vaughn is.
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
here I was accused the other night of "starting" anti Manu stuff, and I retored, Ginobili fans do it just as much or more.
Example A here.
Thank you.
[B]Apologies acceped[B]
-
Re: Vaughn fits well as Spurs' mentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronstampler
I mean, I just don't understand why the mathematics of this is so complicated for you people.
Say you want Tony to score an X number of points, whether it's 15, 20, 30 whatever.
It will take Tony more shots to score X then it will take Tim, Manu or Brent. What part of that statement confuses you?
It's not confusing, but your suggestion is that the statistics are infallible. As I said before, they can lie to you as easily as the human eye can.
Do you really think Brent Barry will continue to produce with that sort of efficiency if he gets more and more shots? Defenses adjust. They'll catch on after a while, they won't double off of him, and he'll be forced to put it on the floor where he is a lot less effective.
Brent is efficient because teams are geared to stop the Big Three and he's been successful with his opportunities. I'd rather it stay this way because if we went to Barry more often, I believe his production would decrease after more defensive attention and what's more, with more floor time, Barry's Van Exel-style defense gets exploited even more.
Quote:
For example, I think the best offensive half we played all year was the 1st half against the Clippers in SA. We had 65 points, something like 33 in the 1st, 32 in the second. Tony took one field goal and had 12 assists. The Clippers didn't do anything weird or different on defense, but Tony just felt like passing the ball for whatever reason. Maybe Pop told him to before the game, who knows?
In the 3rd quarter, despite how well everyone else was passing, Tony got bored with the passing and took 9 shots in one quarter. We scored 25 points that period.
After the game was over, he was quoted as saying something like "The defense was forcing me to pass, and guys were hitting shots, so I decided to keep passing."
That's right ladies and germs, Tony Parker has to be FORCED to pass the ball. As a point guard. Things like that kinda get on my nerves.
Clearly, the defense was geared to stop his scoring in the first half and passing more was how he adjusted. I can gather further that the Clippers changed their defense in the third quarter, and Parker changed his approach to counter the Clipper defense.
I sincerely doubt he got bored with passing. You think too highly of this team and its players if you believe they can just play any way they want, any time they want. Michael Jordan could do that, Wilt Chamberlain could do that, but not too many guys can just play however they feel like playing.
By the way, the Clipper defense adjusted at the half and we still scored 25 points in the third? I'd say the Clippers couldn't play a lick of defense that night.
Quote:
Is it any wonder why Pop finally decided to bench Manu? Tony should never be the 1st or 2nd option when the big three are on the court together, but for the majority of the season that's exactly what was happening, and it hurt the offense. How many times had we seen Ginobili check out of the game at the 6 minute mark of the 1st quarter with like 1 or 0 shot attempts?
Good for Pop. It's the classic case of maximizing the talent. Asking Tony Parker to play like John Stockton is asking too much of him, so by playing Manu with the second unit, we find a way to get enough shots for the Big Three. This is an indictment of nothing, and instead Pop deserves credit for finding a way to get the most out of the roster.
Quote:
But now, with Ginobili playing half his minutes with Vaughn, it's better for everyone involved and magical coincedence, we're on a big ass winning streak.
The defense has improved substantially. This has at least as much to do with the streak IMO.
Quote:
So once again, I stand firm on my opinion that Tony either should pass more and shoot less or find a way to be an efficient enough scorer where it makes a noticable difference whether he's out there or Vaughn is.
So the level of play doesn't diminish when the back-up point guard is in the game, and this is a bad thing how?
