Comparitive Effectiveness of Spurs Pnr Offense

[spursfaninla]

Some have argued that the Spurs should move away from the PnR in close games, because:

1) Parker will go hero ball;
2) Kawhi and LA offense does not work with PnR;
3) Other teams have "figured out" the PnR, and it is not effective.

Lets compare how effective the Spurs PnR offense is, compared to 3 of the other top teams. The following are from NBA.com stats on pnr ball handler stats:

EFG
Parker 54%
Curry 60.5%
Westbrook 48.3%
Paul 47.5%

Not surprising that Curry is better given his 3pt%, but even so, Parker beats out the other pnr players from the other top teams, and its not close. (FYI, Irving sample size is too small, he has just come back). Even so, Parker is shooting a really high percentage shot, with a turnover % of 14%. Granted, Kawhi's turnover % is even lower, but I think we have to admit given its effectiveness, it forces teams to use help defense. If they do not, we should be happy bc parker is going to score based on the following:

Score%
Parker 48%
Curry 45%
Westbrook 41.6%
Paul 41.9%

crunch-time scoring of 48% is high.

Lets compare that to Kawhi production:

Iso efg%
47%

Iso score% 52%

Turnover %
1.5%

Pretty similar. Even lower turnover %, and better score %, but lower efg%. Result: I do think we should shift to kawhi centered crunch time offense given the above, but its not like it blows the parker Pnr out of the water.

Let me summarize LA's and Manu's numbers in the pnr: they are in the low 40s%, surprisingly. Not good.

Conclusion: We should mix in kawhi iso play due to lower turnover % and high success rate, but should probably keep parker pnr as well.

[sasaint]

Thanks for the analysis. Every game situation is different. As long as Tony is as effective as he is, it would be self-destructive to abandon his PnP or PnR. But whoever starts or finishes games, I think that Tony's effectiveness improves with Duncan over LMA. Have you looked that deeply into the analysis? IMHO Tony and Duncan need to be paired as much as possible.

[dabom]

Some have argued that the Spurs should move away from the PnR in close games, because:

1) Parker will go hero ball;
2) Kawhi and LA offense does not work with PnR;
3) Other teams have "figured out" the PnR, and it is not effective.

Lets compare how effective the Spurs PnR offense is, compared to 3 of the other top teams. The following are from NBA.com stats on pnr ball handler stats:

EFG
Parker 54%
Curry 60.5%
Westbrook 48.3%
Paul 47.5%

Not surprising that Curry is better given his 3pt%, but even so, Parker beats out the other pnr players from the other top teams, and its not close. (FYI, Irving sample size is too small, he has just come back). Even so, Parker is shooting a really high percentage shot, with a turnover % of 14%. Granted, Kawhi's turnover % is even lower, but I think we have to admit given its effectiveness, it forces teams to use help defense. If they do not, we should be happy bc parker is going to score based on the following:

Score%
Parker 48%
Curry 45%
Westbrook 41.6%
Paul 41.9%

crunch-time scoring of 48% is high.

Lets compare that to Kawhi production:

Iso efg%
47%

Iso score% 52%

Turnover %
1.5%

Pretty similar. Even lower turnover %, and better score %, but lower efg%. Result: I do think we should shift to kawhi centered crunch time offense given the above, but its not like it blows the parker Pnr out of the water.

Let me summarize LA's and Manu's numbers in the pnr: they are in the low 40s%, surprisingly. Not good.

Conclusion: We should mix in kawhi iso play due to lower turnover % and high success rate, but should probably keep parker pnr as well.

Which stupid said that?

[spursfaninla]

Those who advocate "flow", i.e. off-ball motion offense are by definition indicating that we should move away from pnr, because you can't have both in the same play; motion will largely get in the way of pnr.

a sf/pg pnr generally would result is a lesser defensive mismatch than a big/small pnr, so the advantages are smaller as well. i.e., they can just switch and they lose little.

Kawhi as ball handler pnr effectiveness is efg 45% and scoring 41%, and he has been the roll man 6 total times on pnr, so I don't see it as a good option compared to him going iso, or compared to parker pnr.

and seriously, your vocab could use a stretch.

give it a try, use big boy words.

I am interested if you can communicate outside of emoticons and 12 year old level vulgarity.

[Kawhitstorm]

EFG%? You do understand it doesn't account for free-throws, right? Westbrook basically goes to the line, gets a layup or an assist when he runs a PnR w/ Kanter during crunch time.

Besides, Porker gets to pick his spots & plays off LMA/Kawhi while the rest of them are the focal point of the defense & are running it as the meat of their offense.

If you're are going to use pure stats then you might as well claim that Kawhi is a better 3 point shooter than Curry & a better isolation scorer than Westbrook.

[spursfaninla]

EFG%? You do understand it doesn't account for free-throws, right? Westbrook basically goes to the line, gets a layup or an assist when he runs a PnR w/ Kanter during crunch time.

Besides, Porker gets to pick his spots & plays off LMA/Kawhi while the rest of them are the focal point of the defense & are running it as the meat of their offense.

If you're are going to use pure stats then you might as well claim that Kawhi is a better 3 point shooter than Curry & a better isolation scorer than Westbrook.

well PPP does account for free-throws, and guess what? Parker has a higher ppp as ball-handler than westbrook:

westbrook ppp: .87
parker ppp: .97

Also, westbrook ft% generated on pnr is 13%, better than parker's 5.9%, but neither is amazing.

Lastly, efg% is not a pure stat, and I don't know anyone who considers scoring % a pure stat either, especially in the context of fg% and scoring % on a specific play type.

good try tho.

[Seventyniner]

Good thread, OP. The numbers don't lie.

[Kawhitstorm]

well PPP does account for free-throws, and guess what? Parker has a higher ppp as ball-handler than westbrook:

westbrook ppp: .87
parker ppp: .97

Again, Porker gets to pick his spots as to when to run the PnR depending on who's on the floor (last night he picked on two incompetent PnR defenders: Robin Lopez/Calderon). Meanwhile Westbrook is going to run the PnR regardless of who's on the floor (he doesn't shy away from Howard/Capela/Beverely). Running PnRs when two offensively incompetent players are on the floor (Adams/Roberson) against starters isn't that easy. OKC is unstoppable when they have Durant/Kanter/Morrow/Ibaka to go along w/ Westbrook, their issue is that they can't stop anyone.

Also, westbrook ft% generated on pnr is 13%, better than parker's 5.9%, but neither is amazing.

Again, look at Westbrook FT% in the last 6 minutes of the game b/c dude lives at the FT line. We have seen enough Spurs/OKC game to realize that it impossible to keep him out of the lane when Ibaka is hitting his jumper. Westbrook has a tendency to chuck in the first 3 quarters of the game & only gets serious about his shot selection in the 4th quarter.

Lastly, efg% is not a pure stat, and I don't know anyone who considers scoring % a pure stat either, especially in the context of fg% and scoring % on a specific play type.

You definitely didn't break it down by line-ups, opponents, quarters, # of plays........ IIRC, CoJo has he highest FG% as the PnR ball handler last season.

[Chinook]

Those who advocate "flow", i.e. off-ball motion offense are by definition indicating that we should move away from pnr, because you can't have both in the same play; motion will largely get in the way of pnr.

a sf/pg pnr generally would result is a lesser defensive mismatch than a big/small pnr, so the advantages are smaller as well. i.e., they can just switch and they lose little.

Kawhi as ball handler pnr effectiveness is efg 45% and scoring 41%, and he has been the roll man 6 total times on pnr, so I don't see it as a good option compared to him going iso, or compared to parker pnr.

and seriously, your vocab could use a stretch.

give it a try, use big boy words.

I am interested if you can communicate outside of emoticons and 12 year old level vulgarity.

Um, the PnR definitely has ball-movement in it. I think you might be referring to separate plays that also involve movement like weaves or floppies or horns plays. More importantly, PnRs can come FROM movement, within the flow of the offense. In fact, the Spurs often run multiple PnRs/PnPs in a possession. It's a much more dynamic action than you're giving it credit for.

[apalisoc_9]

Efg

Casuals trying to analyze basketball

[ducks]

Those numbers also include when Lma was trying to fit in and starters were trying to develop chemistry

[SAGirl]

I don't think we have used that much PnR to close out games. I remember many games of ISO, just as much as I remember games with some improvisation by Manu and Tony mixed in. The ISO in the clutch hasn't been good. LMA had some oportuni es against Chicago, Rockets, that Timberwolves game we allowed to go to the wire. He got doubled and passed out, doubled and TO, or forced up some shot that didn't go in. He came through in some early games against Boston/Blazers, but overall LMA ISO hasn't been a huge success in the clutch. The PnP game between Tony and LMA is actually better.

Kawhi has had ISO, (Chicago, Timberwolves) he gets doubled heavily and has to pass out anyways, sometimes the play resets and we don't end up with a good shot anyway, which it would make sense then to have Tony and Manu with him, bc they can improvise if the play resets.

Overall one of the reasons ppl were claiming for Kawhi/LMA 2 man game was that them going ISO individually at the end was stagnant, they were played very physical, and doubled, and had to force a bad shot or pass out and reset while we were right back where we started with less time.

I say this is growing pains.

[sasaint]

Efg

Casuals trying to analyze basketball

Why be derisive? Why not educate us "Casuals" and promote the higher level of discourse that you say you desire? Abuse is a greater hindrance than honest ignorance to that level of discourse.

[ChumpDumper]

Efg

Casuals trying to analyze basketball

I noticed you have abandoned any attempt at analysis using anything resembling statistics and now rely on pure emotion.

Is this your gameplan?

[spursfaninla]

Um, the PnR definitely has ball-movement in it. I think you might be referring to separate plays that also involve movement like weaves or floppies or horns plays. More importantly, PnRs can come FROM movement, within the flow of the offense. In fact, the Spurs often run multiple PnRs/PnPs in a possession. It's a much more dynamic action than you're giving it credit for.

of course it has movement in it, and you can have multiple sets. Yes, you can go from movement into the PNR.

My point was more about not having much off-ball movement during the pnr.

[YGWHI]

Kawhi has had ISO, (Chicago, Timberwolves) he gets doubled heavily and has to pass out anyways, sometimes the play resets and we don't end up with a good shot anyway, which it would make sense then to have Tony and Manu with him, bc they can improvise if the play resets.

Last games, we watched Kawhi getting double teamed and dishing to open Boris/Danny. Those plays didn't reset, finished with an open 3 shot.

[dabom]

Seriously OP. eFG is . Doesn't account getting fouled on easy shot attempts or layups that would in reality increase eFG. Don't be a dumbass OP.

[dabom]

Did this got seriously try to make a case comparing Westbrook and Parker using eFG. ing biased as OP. Lets just get rid of the 8FTs Westbrook gets to tonys 2 or whatever it is.

[spursfaninla]

Did this got seriously try to make a case comparing Westbrook and Parker using eFG. ing biased as OP. Lets just get rid of the 8FTs Westbrook gets to tonys 2 or whatever it is.

your gay bashing is boring and childish.

pnr:

westbrook ppp .87, with a 14% ft rate
parker ppp .97 with around 9% ft rate

that accounts for ft. parker is more efficient in the pnr than westbrook, regardless of ft.

[spursfaninla]

but keep using the emoticons and the vulgarity.

its not immature and culturally backwards, its charming, really.

[dabom]

your gay bashing is boring and childish.

pnr:

westbrook ppp .87, with a 14% ft rate
parker ppp .97 with around 9% ft rate

that accounts for ft. parker is more efficient in the pnr than westbrook, regardless of ft.

There are so many ing wrong things with your analysis. I'm just going to say its piss poor really. I'm going to save my time and let this ty thread die.

[spursfaninla]

There are so many ing wrong things with your analysis. I'm just going to say its piss poor really. I'm going to save my time and let this ty thread die.

there are so many things wrong with your method of argumentation that your opinion standing alone is likely to cause me to immediately assume the opposite is true.

What you said is, you can't actually articulate any reason I am wrong since I refuted the one argument you made with any logic behind it, so you are going to resort again to just ad hominem.

ok, got it. thanks.

[K...]

there are so many things wrong with your method of argumentation that your opinion standing alone is likely to cause me to immediately assume the opposite is true.

What you said is, you can't actually articulate any reason I am wrong since I refuted the one argument you made with any logic behind it, so you are going to resort again to just ad hominem.

ok, got it. thanks.

just remember, Dabom doesn't watch games. So if you ask him to back up his assertions (Patty is having a good game LMAO, pop is icing leonard, LMAO) he'll be backed into a corner like a small carnivore.