Aron Baynes, Nando De Colo Both Assigned To Austin Toros

[monkeypunk]

Completely agreed about Baynes.

Though I'm struggling to explain the dropoff even from last season to this one, where the personnel changes have been minimal. 25.1% to 20.3% is a huge decrease. Were Blair and HWSNBN that good at offensive rebounding?

I see it as a result of a re-dedication on defense this year. Less OReb if you are running back on D.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You do realise baynes played under Brett brown who uses the same system as the the spurs, right?

You realize they don't play the same system right? They run some of the same plays and maybe some general rotation principles but you can tell from watching Baynes miss rotations and wander around on offense that it's not the same.

Baynes doesn't know how to space pnr. If the dribbler slips the screen he tends to overplay the playside and he ends up giving dunks and/or layups. On defense he is so concerned about not getting a defensive 2 seconds call or trying to figure out who is doing what that he is completely out of position for rebounds.

Don't get me wrong I love him as a prospect but if you watch him play agaisnt scrub and dubs and struggle I don't see how you can conclude he should be the 3rd or 4th big right now.

[Nero5]

PnR spacing?? lol! Spurs defence of the high NPR and mid NPR is terrible! Has been all season. A combination of slow feet and lack of height has lead to the bigs sagging attrociously, leaving the guard to fight over or around the screen. Against a good outside shooting team they have been burned massively. Against a team with shooting and driving guards they are going to be pummelled in a series.

[ChumpDumper]

Completely agreed about Baynes.

Though I'm struggling to explain the dropoff even from last season to this one, where the personnel changes have been minimal. 25.1% to 20.3% is a huge decrease. Were Blair and HWSNBN that good at offensive rebounding?

Could be a by-product of Splitter's being in the starting lineup for one thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

PnR spacing?? lol! Spurs defence of the high NPR and mid NPR is terrible! Has been all season. A combination of slow feet and lack of height has lead to the bigs sagging attrociously, leaving the guard to fight over or around the screen. Against a good outside shooting team they have been burned massively. Against a team with shooting and driving guards they are going to be pummelled in a series.

Duncan has to cheat. Bonner does too for that matter. Diaw and Splitter don't. It all depends. Splitter is excellent at zoning the play and allowing the guard to go over the screen without having to sell out of foul. Diaw has the quickness to flash a double when he needs to and still get back to keep guards honest. And you must not be paying attention. Diaw and Splitter consistently ride the ballhandlers away from the basketball and down the baseline. The guard bumps the roller, big rotates from the weakside etc. They do that all the time.

Duncan is better than he was a couple years ago too. I thought he was cooked after the Suns trounced us. Speaks to his dedication to get back to where he is. Spurs do a good job scheming so that he stays on the weakside where his help defense is the best in the NBA now.

And you go over the screen or double with the big to let the guard back in the play against good outside shooting teams. They mix their calls a lot. They switch a lot more now for example. I think Pop got a bit gun shy after watching Duncan get mangled by Grant Hill. He still has reservations as evidence by Duncan getting yanked on the last shot vs Dallas but they switch at times every game now.

Our improved pnr defense is a huge part of our defensive resurgence. You cannot be a top defensive team with out top pnr defense in the association. are efficieny stats speak for themselves.

[Chinook]

Another false premise to be debunked. Here we go...

The Spurs are 21st in the league in both opponents' fast break points per game and opponents' fast break efficiency. The Pacers are first in both.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency
The catch? The Spurs are last in offensive rebounding at 20.3%, while the Pacers are 5th at 30.1%. Obviously it is possible to both crash the offensive glass and have a good fastbreak defense like Indiana. Or you could be horrendous at offensive rebounding and still below average on fastbreak defense like the Spurs.

In fact, let's take this a step further. I ran a linear regression of opponents' fastbreak efficiency vs. own offensive rebounding percentage. I got:
Opponents' fastbreak efficiency = 0.3215*own ORB% + 1.6087 with an R^2 value of 0.003. There is basically no correlation between opponents' fastbreak efficiency and own ORB%.

I did the same for opponents' fastbreak points per game vs. own ORB%.
Opponents' fastbreak PPG = -0.8392*own ORB% + 13.436 with an R^2 value of 0.0004. The negative correlation is what many assume, but again since the value is so close to zero, there is no correlation between opponents' fastbreak PPG and own ORB%.

Face it: the Spurs are just not a good offensive rebounding team, and unless I hear it from someone trustworthy, I would have to assume that it isn't all by design and is just plain a weakness of the team. Could the Spurs' opponent fastbreak numbers get worse if the Spurs started going harder after offensive rebounds? Sure, but the league-wide numbers don't suggest it.

Seventyniner showing no regard for human life with this post.

I thought the Spurs were better at defending fastbreaks, though. Thanks for the stats.

[jestersmash]

Another false premise to be debunked. Here we go...

The Spurs are 21st in the league in both opponents' fast break points per game and opponents' fast break efficiency. The Pacers are first in both.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency
The catch? The Spurs are last in offensive rebounding at 20.3%, while the Pacers are 5th at 30.1%. Obviously it is possible to both crash the offensive glass and have a good fastbreak defense like Indiana. Or you could be horrendous at offensive rebounding and still below average on fastbreak defense like the Spurs.

In fact, let's take this a step further. I ran a linear regression of opponents' fastbreak efficiency vs. own offensive rebounding percentage. I got:
Opponents' fastbreak efficiency = 0.3215*own ORB% + 1.6087 with an R^2 value of 0.003. There is basically no correlation between opponents' fastbreak efficiency and own ORB%.

I did the same for opponents' fastbreak points per game vs. own ORB%.
Opponents' fastbreak PPG = -0.8392*own ORB% + 13.436 with an R^2 value of 0.0004. The negative correlation is what many assume, but again since the value is so close to zero, there is no correlation between opponents' fastbreak PPG and own ORB%.

Face it: the Spurs are just not a good offensive rebounding team, and unless I hear it from someone trustworthy, I would have to assume that it isn't all by design and is just plain a weakness of the team. Could the Spurs' opponent fastbreak numbers get worse if the Spurs started going harder after offensive rebounds? Sure, but the league-wide numbers don't suggest it.

This is a very good post.

[Supreme_Being]

Actually, the plays are the same, but they are only a subset of the complete Spurs offense. Anyone remember when we had to "dumb down" the offense for Jefferson? That didn't work out so well.

The difference is jeff started for the spurs with the aspiration of being an athletic wing, spot up 3s, and a lock down defensive specialist oth the general consensus (I think) just wants to see a glimpse of mr baynes here playing spot minutes or perhaps on garbage time (for now) instead of bonner/blair aka the turd towers. Not much similarity IMO

[Supreme_Being]

You realize they don't play the same system right? They run some of the same plays and maybe some general rotation principles but you can tell from watching Baynes miss rotations and wander around on offense that it's not the same.

Baynes doesn't know how to space pnr. If the dribbler slips the screen he tends to overplay the playside and he ends up giving dunks and/or layups. On defense he is so concerned about not getting a defensive 2 seconds call or trying to figure out who is doing what that he is completely out of position for rebounds.

Don't get me wrong I love him as a prospect but if you watch him play agaisnt scrub and dubs and struggle I don't see how you can conclude he should be the 3rd or 4th big right now.

How hard can it be?

Just call up baynes and tell him, "bump the ball hander to the baseline and don't let the dude score."

There I fixed his pnr defence in less than 5 seconds.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How hard can it be?

Just call up baynes and tell him, "bump the ball hander to the baseline and don't let the dude score."

There I fixed his pnr defence in less than 5 seconds.

smh

I would like to think that you are trolling but I somehow doubt it. Nothing that I can say will keep you from oversimplifying to thing such as the above so be content to think that training NBA defense is that easy. Baynes is a hard worker, you can tell that just from his physique, so I am not overly worried about him going forward. I am just not going to delude myself into thinking that he is somewhere where he is not. I am certainly not going to do that because I dislike some other player.

[Nero5]

Duncan has to cheat. Bonner does too for that matter. Diaw and Splitter don't. It all depends. Splitter is excellent at zoning the play and allowing the guard to go over the screen without having to sell out of foul. Diaw has the quickness to flash a double when he needs to and still get back to keep guards honest. And you must not be paying attention. Diaw and Splitter consistently ride the ballhandlers away from the basketball and down the baseline. The guard bumps the roller, big rotates from the weakside etc. They do that all the time.

Duncan is better than he was a couple years ago too. I thought he was cooked after the Suns trounced us. Speaks to his dedication to get back to where he is. Spurs do a good job scheming so that he stays on the weakside where his help defense is the best in the NBA now.

And you go over the screen or double with the big to let the guard back in the play against good outside shooting teams. They mix their calls a lot. They switch a lot more now for example. I think Pop got a bit gun shy after watching Duncan get mangled by Grant Hill. He still has reservations as evidence by Duncan getting yanked on the last shot vs Dallas but they switch at times every game now.

Our improved pnr defense is a huge part of our defensive resurgence. You cannot be a top defensive team with out top pnr defense in the association. are efficieny stats speak for themselves.

'Has to cheat'...tosh and twaddle. Diaw has games where he either appears uninterested or lazy on the PnR and against a mobile big he and bonner are two I would focus on were I coaching the other side - they breakdown too easily, particularly on a second effort or switch on a fast shooting guard ala Lillard.

[benfti]

for anyone playing at home he had 15 and 11

[exstatic]

Another false premise to be debunked. Here we go...

The Spurs are 21st in the league in both opponents' fast break points per game and opponents' fast break efficiency. The Pacers are first in both.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency
The catch? The Spurs are last in offensive rebounding at 20.3%, while the Pacers are 5th at 30.1%. Obviously it is possible to both crash the offensive glass and have a good fastbreak defense like Indiana. Or you could be horrendous at offensive rebounding and still below average on fastbreak defense like the Spurs.

In fact, let's take this a step further. I ran a linear regression of opponents' fastbreak efficiency vs. own offensive rebounding percentage. I got:
Opponents' fastbreak efficiency = 0.3215*own ORB% + 1.6087 with an R^2 value of 0.003. There is basically no correlation between opponents' fastbreak efficiency and own ORB%.

I did the same for opponents' fastbreak points per game vs. own ORB%.
Opponents' fastbreak PPG = -0.8392*own ORB% + 13.436 with an R^2 value of 0.0004. The negative correlation is what many assume, but again since the value is so close to zero, there is no correlation between opponents' fastbreak PPG and own ORB%.

Face it: the Spurs are just not a good offensive rebounding team, and unless I hear it from someone trustworthy, I would have to assume that it isn't all by design and is just plain a weakness of the team. Could the Spurs' opponent fastbreak numbers get worse if the Spurs started going harder after offensive rebounds? Sure, but the league-wide numbers don't suggest it.

1) If it's a false premise, take it up with Pop. He;s stated it on multiple occasions.
2) If we're THAT bad on transition defense, imagine how awful we'd be if we crashed the glass en masse and gave teams MORE opportunities to run.

[Strategic]

I can see it now. Spurs start focusing more on offensive rebounds. What just happened? Wade just fed James for a reverse dunk for two more Heat fast break points. Manu just made a lay up and Baynes was there to put it in just in case he missed. On the inbound pass James throws to Wade for, you got it, another fast break dunk.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

tosh and twaddle

I was like wtf was that and then realized you guys are australian, my niggles.

[EricB]

tosh and twaddle

I was like wtf was that and then realized you guys are australian, my niggles.

Its Manu Argentinans all over again. Except Baynes isn't close to being as good.

[racm]

What if the Spurs aren't a good offensive rebounding team because of how they conduct their offense? The bigs keep on setting screens while waiting for an opportunity to attack the basket, instead of having at least one guy anchored to the paint on every possession. The team also only shoots jumpers when wide open, which means less "Kobe assists", and as a rule a 3 point attempt is better than a one dribble pullup.

[Nero5]

Not australian vernacular by any stretch, but I cannot see why a reply has to be abusive like so many.
re the value of boards...what value did rod man have to the bulls et al. A serious offensive rebounding team slows the oppositions transition, they need to battle for control that is otherwise a given. Over the course of a game it tires the opposition and decreases offensive %, it also frustrates, irritates and alters the flow of the game. It has more than a double stat value. It is also particularly valuable when you are not having a good shooting night.

[ChumpDumper]

Not australian vernacular by any stretch, but I cannot see why a reply has to be abusive like so many.
re the value of boards...what value did rod man have to the bulls et al. A serious offensive rebounding team slows the oppositions transition, they need to battle for control that is otherwise a given. Over the course of a game it tires the opposition and decreases offensive %, it also frustrates, irritates and alters the flow of the game. It has more than a double stat value. It is also particularly valuable when you are not having a good shooting night.

What value did "rod man" have when he played for the Spurs?

[benfti]

Nero has a very valid point, bigs crashing the offensive boards does not cause fast breaks in transition, in our offence its the wings sitting in the corners that does that. Our bigs could hit the offensive glass if our guards and wings were willing to go into full court defense.

[TJastal]

My two cents on this matter is the spurs could really use a few offensive caroms every now and then. To this end Baynes fills a role nicely. Letting 1 or 2 guys in each lineup (starters & bench) simply focus on snatching up offensive caroms while the other 4 adhere to the spurs "philosophy" (sic) would have a net positive effect.

In this scenario, I see Baynes being very useful in the 2nd unit as the "board crasher". Leonard likewise could have this assignment in the starting unit. Or really any unit these two are in. This "philosophy" of Pop's puts the spurs at a disadvatage IMO and fails to properly utilize individual strengths.

[Nero5]

What value did "rod man" have when he played for the Spurs?

iPad's helpful edit. Rodman is an interesting point in time. He was clearly a troubled personality and for a moment in time with the Bulls he was where he needed to be...at other times less so, particularly off the court. Team cohesion is paramount in a season, the current changes are difficult.
Having a philosopy of not chasing O boards is fine when you shoot 50% from the 3pt line and 50% everywhere else ...not when you shoot 35% everywhere...and look at the losses and close game shooting % against the opposition and then the loss games and O boards vs opposition.

[TJastal]

What value did "rod man" have when he played for the Spurs?

Better question: What value does a chumpdumper post have to this forum? I'm not sure numbers that small can be quantified properly.

[ChumpDumper]

Better question: What value does a chumpdumper post have to this forum? I'm not sure numbers that small can be quantified properly.

We all know exactly what value your YouTube scouting reports of Splitter and Leonard brought to the forum, along with your "poodle" trade ideas.

[Brazil]

Another false premise to be debunked. Here we go...

The Spurs are 21st in the league in both opponents' fast break points per game and opponents' fast break efficiency. The Pacers are first in both.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency
The catch? The Spurs are last in offensive rebounding at 20.3%, while the Pacers are 5th at 30.1%. Obviously it is possible to both crash the offensive glass and have a good fastbreak defense like Indiana. Or you could be horrendous at offensive rebounding and still below average on fastbreak defense like the Spurs.

In fact, let's take this a step further. I ran a linear regression of opponents' fastbreak efficiency vs. own offensive rebounding percentage. I got:
Opponents' fastbreak efficiency = 0.3215*own ORB% + 1.6087 with an R^2 value of 0.003. There is basically no correlation between opponents' fastbreak efficiency and own ORB%.

I did the same for opponents' fastbreak points per game vs. own ORB%.
Opponents' fastbreak PPG = -0.8392*own ORB% + 13.436 with an R^2 value of 0.0004. The negative correlation is what many assume, but again since the value is so close to zero, there is no correlation between opponents' fastbreak PPG and own ORB%.

Face it: the Spurs are just not a good offensive rebounding team, and unless I hear it from someone trustworthy, I would have to assume that it isn't all by design and is just plain a weakness of the team. Could the Spurs' opponent fastbreak numbers get worse if the Spurs started going harder after offensive rebounds? Sure, but the league-wide numbers don't suggest it.

wow that's a great counter argument against what I thought to be something not really arguable tbh.
it doesn't prevent us from thinking that Pop ask his guys to come back quick and not chasing O reb maybe also to preserve energy on the other side of the ball but that's an interesting analysis