Reply With Quote
Irrelevant.
Spurs Look Winded in Loss to Bulls
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/10/30/s...loss-to-bulls/
You're going to have to forgive us here in the early season for a bit. If we don't report on trends that are developing, we're ignoring what we're seeing. If we do tell you what we see, we're over-emphasizing games that are so young in this season that they can't even legally get into a screening of New Moon.
Basically, that's my way of imploring you to remember that we do take these things with a gigantic mountain of salt, but here's what happened. And trust me, the Spurs are going to want to brush this one off.
The San Antonio Spurs consider themselves a championship contender. Loaded with talent both young and old, they consider themselves ready to compete with the Lakers for the Western Conference crown. But to do so they'll need to get the highest seed possible to face weaker opponents in early rounds. And in order to get that high seed, they'll need to win back-to-back games on the road. On Thursday they looked like that might be more of a challenge than they're ready for at this early stage, as the Spurs fell to the Chicago Bulls 92-85.
It was a night where the Spurs shot 19 percent from 3-point land, shot only 42 percent overall, and were beaten on the offensive glass, 15-8. But the most glaring thing you came away with in this game was that for a team that was supposed to have reloaded to get rid of that "old, tired" description that's hung around them for years, even when they were winning championships, the Spurs were blown away by the Bulls' speed, energy, and athleticism.
Tim Duncan did what he does, scoring 28 points on 19 shots with 16 boards and 3 blocks, a simply sublime performance. But Manu Ginobili was the only other Spur in double digits with 12, while Tony Parker shot 4-11, Richard Jefferson 3-9, and Roger Mason 0-4. Rookie sensation and instant hype machine DeJuan Blair had only 6 points and 4 rebounds in 12 minutes, good for a rookie, but close to what he'll probably produce night in and night out.
The Spurs were unable to close off penetration lanes, unable to block out Joakim Noah and Luol Deng (10 offensive rebounds combined), and unable to lock down Derrick Rose, who finished with 13 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists with just one turnover. The Bulls consistently were able to produce quality ball rotations leading to open three pointers. If the Bulls had shot better than their putrid 19% from the arc, the difference could have been
greater. As it was, Luol Deng looked capable of filling in some of the gap from Ben Gordon's departure, Derrick Rose looked like he was progressing, Joakim Noah is a top 10 center in the league right now, and Kirk Hinrich provides both shooting and defensive toughness with quality minutes.
Perhaps most startling is that the Spurs, normally so resolved mentally, could have such a flat night so early. Just last night they walloped the Hornets, running them ragged and dominating them defensively. But against a Bulls squad who arguably have a better roster 1-10 than the Hornets, the Spurs looked not only slow and languid, but lost.
I'd expect an unpleasant conversation happened in the locker room after Thursday's game and that the Spurs will answer. But the loss might also be best served as a reminder to the Spurs not to believe the hype, and that like they always preach, they've got to keep pounding that rock with the hammer if they want to collect the one for the thumb.
Irrelevant.
So the article says "we dont understand how they can beat a team like New Orleans but lose to a better team than the Hornets like the Bulls"
That's what it says
I didn't get the chance to watch this game...but will our offense be once again dictated by our ability to hit the 3 pointer? Last yr it seemed our offense really depended on the 3 pointer. If we started missing, our offense suffered greatly and we'll just chuck up even more 3's. I'm hoping it won't be more of the same this year. With the addition of Jefferson and a healthy Manu, I hope we will have a more balanced offense.
good question. I hate living by the 3.
another thing, I thought we wanted to go back to Spurs Defense of 2003,2005
How are we gonna accomplish that with Finley and Bonner playing 30mpg each???
i understand bonner becuz u cant have bonner and blair out on the floor at the same time there will be no interior defence with them in there.
I was saying that in the chat room last night...with the roster we have, and with Tony, Manu, and RJ as playmakers, we shouldn't have to live by the 3, and hopefully we can change that.
Well when the players listed don't drive to the hole but live by the three coughmanucough.......
Just curious.
The Spurs have averaged right at 19.7 attempts per game the past two seasons. NBA average the past two seasons is 18.1 attempts per game.
So what's the right number?
The worst offensive rebounding team in the league should attempt way, way less than the NBA average
Sorry, but I don't follow you. If you're only going to get one shot, shouldn't 3pt jump shots be favored over 2 pt jump shots, assuming that they are converted at the recent rates? Most possessions for all teams end in a jump shot.
The 3 pt shot is the lowest % shot in the game of basketball I hate to live by that. I know the opponents love that we do though.
Yes, but when you factor in the extra point and look at true shooting %, it makes the 3 point shot hit at a good rate (which the Spurs do) better than the 2 point shot.
A team that shoots the 3pt at a high rate, scores more points per shot. You can't compare 3pt pct to 2pt pct without accounting for the extra point.
Chew on this:
There are 15 playoff series every season. Last year, only three series were won by teams in the bottom half of 3pts attempted. In 2007-08, only ONE of 15 playoff series was won by a team that took less than league average for 3pts attempted.
Chew on this:
We won 4 les being in the top 3 of best defensive teams in the league.
Thats all fine and dandy... until you start shooting those 3's at a 19% clip and continue to attempt them... In economics its called Diminishing returns.
Well, if you look at the law of averages, then you would understand.
Ok. Has nothing to do with the question posed, but Ok.
I'll ask again. The Spurs have averaged 19.7 3pt attempts over the last two seasons. The league average has been 18.1 attempts.
It is one thing to complain about the number of attempts. I'd like to see someone, anyone make a case for a drastically reduced number.
I also did have the impression we took too many threes, but most of them were good looks at least. Tony, Manu and RJ need to drive more, though. Tony didn't look good yesterday, to be honest. Hopefully, it was just an off night and not a sign that there was more to his hard fall in the Hornets game than there seemed to be.
By the way: Noah a top 10 center? I don't think so. He had a good game, though.
When I heard sir Charles say this I laughed out loud. Winded the second game of the season...?
bizarre
First, let me say I dont mind our attempt average, especially when they are falling.
The problem lies on those nights when they are not falling. It all stems from the way the Spurs play defense. We prefer to pop off a shot and run back to get a set defense and prevent a fast break for the other team. The problem with that is we inherently get no second chance points.
I'll make a case. When your top 3 point shooter is your Center, you end up basically giving up 50% of your possibility of grabbing an offensive board.
So I don't necessarily disagree with taking that many threes, but I do take issue with taking that many threes with your Center.
Take a look at the champs, the Lakers. They took 18.5 attempts, but they also ranked 3rd in offensive rebounding, at 12.4. Spurs? Dead last at 8.9.
So, the rationale shouldn't be take less 3pt attempts, and be slightly above average. They should attempt many more, and be way above average on 3pt attempts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
