Reply With Quote
sorry but I find it funny that he went on to prove the spurs are not boring by posting those boring graphs(to the average fan)
By Kevin Arnovitz
ESPN.com
How the San Antonio Spurs got tagged as boring never made much sense to me.
Yes, the Spurs were the proctors who broke up the spring flings thrown by the Seven Seconds of Less Phoenix Suns. For those who like their superstars to dazzle, Tim Duncan's charisma deficit and his mechanical game can be affronts. The Spurs have historically been defensive stalwarts, likelier to grind an opponent into submission, not run it off the court. Those qualities, along with a lack of interpersonal drama, might lull certain fans to sleep.
But boredom, at its very root, can be defined as the absence of choice. Get stuck with a program that uses the same formula to produce the same outcome over and over and over again, and you get bored. If you eat the same stuff every day for lunch, you grow tired of it. The same outings with the same people where you talk about the same stuff -- those experiences can become rote.
We're rarely bored when our expectations are challenged, and the most interesting way to do that is by introducing choice into the equation. Anything can happen means that the range of possibilities is endless.
When the Spurs bring the ball upcourt, that's usually the case. They relied on isolation plays only 7.1 percent of the time in the regular season. (Only the Magic used a smaller percentage of their possessions in iso.) In their first-round sweep of Utah, the Spurs ran isos only 24 times in four games. (The Knicks, in contrast, had 124 such possessions over five games.) Instead, the Spurs did what they usually do to get what they want in the half court -- rely on motion, timing, ball movement and, most of all, choice.
Choice is the overriding principle at work in an efficient offense. Take away that offense's primary objective in a half-court possession, and it will gladly move on to option No. 2. Sniff out No. 2, and a third choice will materialize. And so on.
The Spurs under Gregg Popovich have always understood that NBA defenses are too big and quick to confine your offense to one option. There have to be multiple contingency plans in a given possession; otherwise, you leave yourself vulnerable to chance. A lot of fans like the element of chance in sports -- and perhaps that's one explanation for the Spurs' "boring" rap.
But the Spurs' trademark set -- called "motion weak" -- is anything but boring. It's a magical merry-go-round of basketball possibility, a play that has an endless number of outcomes. When it begins, the players aren't even sure where the ball will land, but they know that if they read the defense and move with precision, a quality look at the basket will surface from somewhere.
Let's take a look:
The play starts simply enough: Tony Parker passes the ball off to a wing player on his right. It might be Danny Green, Manu Ginobili, Kawhi Leonard, Stephen Jackson or Gary Neal. Once the ball leaves Parker's hands, he cuts through to the basket.
If the defense is napping or Duncan has prime position against his defender down on the low right block, the ball can go immediately from the wing to Parker on the move (it'll look like a simple give-and-go) or Duncan for a quick shot. Against bad defenses in January, the Spurs will pick up a couple of easy buckets this way, but deep into the postseason, the Spurs usually will have to put in a little more work.
Whoa! There's a lot going on here!
Very true, so let's break down what each of our chess pieces is doing on the board:
Tony Parker: Rarely do the Spurs get that easy give-and-go mentioned above, so when Parker dishes the ball off in Picture 1, he dives to the basket, but ultimately clears through, then loops around to the wing on the weak side.
Tim Duncan: If Duncan isn't fed the ball down low on the right block, he'll use a cross screen along the baseline provided by the Spurs' other wing player (2/3), then set up on the opposite block.
4/5 (Boris Diaw, Tiago Splitter, Matt Bonner, DeJuan Blair): The big man who isn't Duncan sets up at the top of the floor, where he'll receive a pass from the wing, then keep the ball moving by dishing it off to Parker once Parker has cleared through. When he dishes the ball off, our 4/5 man will then set a down screen for 2/3, once 2/3 has finished setting that aforementioned cross screen for Duncan. After setting that down screen, 4/5 will head over to the right block vacated by Duncan. On the rare occasion Bonner is the guy at the top of the floor and his defender is elsewhere, he can fire away. But generally, this is merely a transit point for the ball between the strong and weak sides fo the floor.
2/3 (Ginobili, Leonard, Green, Jackson, Neal): As mentioned above, 2/3 has two jobs: setting that cross-screen for Duncan, then looping back to the perimeter courtesy of a down screen from the big man.
When this cycle of events is over, the ball is back in Parker's hands on the other side of the floor. Duncan may or may not have a mismatch on the left block, depending on how the defense dealt with that cross screen.
The carousel has slowed down a bit, and Parker has a few options:
Feed Duncan on the left block, six words that have yielded four championships. Duncan might have a mismatch or have his man sealed off. Whatever the case, Duncan one-on-one in the low post is never a lousy consolation prize.
Kick it over to 2/3. It's difficult to capture the choreography with still diagrams, but 2/3 will often be buzzing at warp speed with his defender trailing in hot pursuit. If there's ample separation and Parker can hit 2/3 on the move, this can either serve as a catch-stop-and-pop midrange jumper, or 2/3 can keep moving and attack.
Move into a pick-and-roll with Duncan on the left side. If you're the San Antonio Spurs, there are worse things than a Parker-Duncan two-man game on the left side of the floor with the defense still catching up to all the movement.
The responsibility now lies with Parker and Duncan to make the call. If Duncan moves off the block to set a ball screen for Parker, we move on ...
The final resort of the Spurs' signature set looks like the first strike from most teams -- a simple angle pick-and-roll on the left side with a variety of drive-and-dish options for Parker. He can deliver a bounce pass to Duncan on the move (or a quick dish if Duncan pops, which is increasingly the case these days). Otherwise, Parker can hit the other big man on a duck-in beneath the weakside glass or kick the ball out to either of his wings on the perimeter.
Parker recorded a career-high 28.4 assist rate this season, far and away the best mark of his career. How did he do that at age 29? By become fluent in situations like these. It takes years to master an intricate offense, even for the most instinctive players. There's a reason we see veteran teams executing best in the playoffs. It's because this stuff is tricky! Running a sophisticated offense requires tens of thousands of possessions in repe ion over several seasons with the same guys.
There was a time when Parker couldn't see or wouldn't respond to all the options in the Spurs' offense. He didn't arrive in the league with the vision of Chris Paul or Steve Nash. It took several seasons and some tough love from Popovich, but Parker has arrived in full.
And that's how you build the league's No. 1 offense.
Link
Some of that confused the out of me...but I love it.
Jumping on the bandwagon
Because the Lakers and the Heat are not favorites anymore
ESPN
Who says the Spurs are boring?
Thanks for posting!
It`s pretty great feeling to be longtime Spurs fan, when many people jump on bandwagon
flash news: bspn reinventing the wheel, also the gunpowder ! ! !
the spurs aren't boring.....just my articles are!
ESPN is boring
well so much for being under the radar
well so much for being under the radar
Damn. You beat me to it.
That was his le, not mine. I just loved the in depth analysis (that wasn't stolen from timvp
The Spurs have never been boring, and ESPN finally says something about it in 2012.
1999 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2000 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2001 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2002 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2003 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2004 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2005 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2006 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2007 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2008 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2009 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2010 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2011 ESPN: "The Spurs are boring and bad for ratings."
2012 ESPN: "Why does everyone think the Spurs are boring? You should be watching these guys!"
Kevin Arnovitz has always been a fantastic writer. And he has always written excellent stuff about the Spurs when he has had the opportunity. He did that while running his Clipperblog and always doing a great job when the Spurs visited (or vice versa). Too bad, he has been tabbed as a reporter on the Heat or other features.
Tired of these articles, tbh.
"... I really don't care where the radar is," Tim Duncan said. "I don't watch radar. We just play games and quietly go about our business.'' ~ Tim Duncan
(Older Tidbit from this year)
http://www.statesman.com/sports/spur...printArticle=y
come on. the spurs were boring for a bit there. just too good, but also their defensive first style was boring to watch to the casual fan.
But I agree since around 2010 Spurs style changed to uptempo and more pleasant to watch to the casual fan. Now they're the most pleasant team to watch along with OKC of course.
They finally realize that this will hurt their finals ratings. They have to garner some likability to help out their ratings. Too bad it is too late ESPN! They still reported more on the Heat-Pacers game yesterday to about a 4:1 ratio compared to the Spurs-Clippers.
First of all, greetings from Brazil. After years as a reader, this is my very first post in the forum.
For those who like basketball before the NBA, the Spurs are not boring.
The "Spurs are actually awesome guys, did you know?" articles do suck, but they're better than the alternative.
Mostly, I think its awesome to see the intricacies of their offensive sets. I could gobble up those articles all day. I wonder how confusing the defensive schemes must look?
Thanks for posting manufan10
some some guys on espn debating this
i think goutileb micheal smith and rob parker
the question was are the spurs boring
both guys liked the passing/bench/scoring/pace/style of play and rob parker said theyre boring
they asked him to give a reason why they were boring and he said "....um... they had the two worst final ratings"
after that they said you obviously know nothing about basketball so lets talk baseball
That was exactly why I posted this article. I don't really care about the fluffy parts, but more about how the offensive set rotates and is always moving.The "Spurs are actually awesome guys, did you know?" articles do suck, but they're better than the alternative.
Mostly, I think its awesome to see the intricacies of their offensive sets. I could gobble up those articles all day. I wonder how confusing the defensive schemes must look?
Thanks for posting manufan10
lol how can you hate on that article, it took the time to break down one of the sets, who else does that?
cool read.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
