Reply With Quote
I'm just wondering how Splitter's absence can affect Green.
grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-nba-free-agency-3-point-shooter-danny-green-demarre-carroll/
Well actually they say all three point specialists are, which is true, but implicitly they're saying green is smart to trade money for successes and stay at a discount in a good system, rather than going to Detroit , which would drive his numbers down.
I'm just wondering how Splitter's absence can affect Green.
Usually players that are unable to dribble a basketball are imo
I think 11mil is too much for a 3 and d guy who lack dirtiness and sometimes go tottaly slump, lose effectiveness and look so awkward playing basketball...
That bears repeating.
He is a system player... so is Jim.
Who would you have replaced him with? IMO the Spurs had no choice but to re-sign Green. This is part of the money Tim gave up as well. This was necessary to give the best shot at Tim winning another ring so even if they were paying a premium to the market instead of a discount it would have been the right move.
"System player" implies that he wouldn't be able to have this sort of effectiveness on several other teams. That's simply not true. He'd still be one of the best wing defenders in the league, and he'd still be an elite spot-up shooter who can shoot 3s at 40+% clip. The Spurs aren't the only team who can create open looks for 3-point shooters
I mean sure, there are some teams where he'd likely notice a drop-off in production. If you stick him on some absolutely terrible team where he's the best player, then yeah, he'd probably struggle. But he'd do well with tons of other teams outside of SA. He'd have success with basically any halfway decent team in the league.
He's a role player (a very good one), not a system player. There's a difference.
No it doesn't. System player means there has to be a certain system in place in order for him to be effective. Which is 100% correct in Greens case.
Yes he would do well in a few other teams that have a certain system in place. Detroit is not one of them.He'd still be one of the best wing defenders in the league, and he'd still be an elite spot-up shooter who can shoot 3s at 40+% clip. The Spurs aren't the only team who can create open looks for 3-point shooters
I mean sure, there are some teams where he'd likely notice a drop-off in production. If you stick him on some absolutely terrible team where he's the best player, then yeah, he'd probably. But he'd do well with tons of other teams outside of SA. He'd have success with basically any halfway decent team in the league.
This also doesn't mean we don't need him. We do.
Bingo bango.
Not sure why this really comes as a surprise. Everybody knows that Green is terrible at creating his own offense, but he is still viewed as a good offensive player, so of course that is coming out of the system.
The important thing is that Green seemed to realize this and, along with his comfort-level and loyalty to the Spurs, took less money to stay in a system where his talents can be maximized.
As long as you're not counting on Green to be one of your primary scorers, he'll do fine. There doesn't need to be a "certain system" for him to do well - he just needs to not be the focus of your offense. Again, he's a role player, not a system player.
Basically every team in the league runs sets or plays to get shooters open on the perimeter. The Spurs aren't the only ones who create open looks for guys from deep.
Maybe this is just semantics. To me, a system player is someone who needs a very specific system to succeed. "Getting open looks for shooters" isn't a specific offense - damn near every team in the league aims to do this. If a player would have great success on 2/3 of the teams in the league (which Green would), he's not a system player IMO.
At least he was smart enough to recognize his limitations. He knows he has a legacy to build and took less money to achieve that legacy.
He is a system player, and he excels in the system. Worth every penny he earned.
Well I just remember lots of people slamming those who called green a systems player as agenda idiots. The debate then though was about paying green less than ten mil a year. 11 mil is kind of a compromise between those who called green a systems player, and those who thought he was a high value role player. We all know he could earn more. This article suggests it would be a mistake though to take $$ on a bad team if you can't create a shot.
It's one thing to say you want to play a space and pace type O, another thing to sign the players to run it, but the hardest thing is a actually getting five guys to play that way. It'll be interesting to see how much more change in the league happens in year two post "FIVE" era
We can all agree playing on New York or Detroit would suck. And it would lower your next contract value. It'll be interesting to compare greens final contract (assume he doesn't go ring chasing) with his contemporaries like Carroll.
A damn good system player....
Who can shoot over 40% from 3 consistently?
Lock up the other teams best pg, sg, at times sf...
"System player" is an overused term that doesn't really mean anything. There are very few players in the NBA who don't rely on a structured offense to generate points efficiently.
Danny cant create his own offense, so of course he needs a system in place to create it for him. That makes him a system player, but not neccesarily a Spurs system player. Create any kind of space for Danny and he'll pay dividends.
He is, it doesn't mean that other players on ty teams can do what he does. Danny Green being a system player doesn't mean Terrence Ross could be Danny Green if he were on the Spurs right now.
I dont give 2 s if Green is known as a system player. I was happier when I heard the Spurs re-signed him than the Spurs signing Aldridge, tbh. It's a perimeter game, and Danny Green is one of the best on both ends.
Yep. A winning system.
Aldridge is a steal when you realize that OKC is paying Kanter $17m per. I'm disappointed that LMA didn't take ask for less than the max.
I don't see how. In a system where Kanter gets that, the max is a bargain.
All role players are system players if you are judging by their ability to create their own offense, tbh..but ya, as jag said, technically, most successful players in the NBA rely on a structured system..even All-Star players like Tony Parker and Deron Williams can become legit stars in a great system, a good player like Jeff Teague becomes an All-Star in a great system, a ty player like Rondo looks like a good player in a nice system with great players around him, etc..
Even somebody like Lebron(the best player in the NBA for the past 6 years) played the most efficient basketball of his career in the latter part of his Heat run, because of the system and continuity they had built(obviously not comparing him to a role player, Lebron is the staple of the system, but ya)..
Big men get paid in this league, even average big men. Aldridge is definitely worth that money. OKC overpaid for Kanter, big time. He sucks defensively, and is underwhelming offensively. OKC had to do it though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
