Reply With Quote
The Spurs' system looks a lot better with six hall of famers and the deepest teams in the league year after year. That system wasn't so great when Matt Bonner started 60 games at center.
Not to mention the most obvious change. Letting David "empty stats" Lee go and make Draymond the full time power forward/center. I don't kbow how many guys would have done that.
The Spurs' system looks a lot better with six hall of famers and the deepest teams in the league year after year. That system wasn't so great when Matt Bonner started 60 games at center.
It was great enough for 60 something wins and a 1st seed, tbh.
It's obvious that with better players the system would look better but the system is important too. That's why the Warriors went from a 1st round exit to one of the best championship runs ever.
That's also why OKC is wasting the primes of Durant and Westbrook.
Im a NYer so my perspective may different, but here in NY it was basically a lock that Kerr was coming, fact of the matter, Phil Jackson put Kerr on the coaching radar because he was the one who was the initial one to put him in the discussion.
Golden State looks like the obvious decision now, but two years ago Golden State was not exactly the most ideal place. They had lost to a Clippers team that was dealing with rallies due to the racist comments of the former owner, the Warriors lost to that team, the Warriors were trying to trade Thompson, Barnes and Bogut for Love to "improve" their team. The reason why the trade never happened was because Love himself would not commit long term to Golden State BECAUSE Golden State was not proven contender at all at that time, Love stated he would go to Cleveland at the end of the day (even if GS traded for him, he wouldnt resign and then leave).
In reality if Phil didnt make the push for Kerr to become a head coach, Kerr likely is still calling games on TNT last season, the Warriors may have forced the trade for Love anyway, or whoever the coach they got instead of Kerr, never implements a system like Kerr has and they dont have the success they have. A lot of things broke right for the Warriors, like Phil putting Kerr on the radar, or Love not committing to resign with GS if he got traded their, but I mean it is what it is.
The system was there, the players weren't. No Iggy, no Livingston, no Speights, Brandon Rush was wearing street clothes, Bogut was a punch line, RJ was a rotation player, David Lee was a starter and Klay was in his second full season. Yeah, not the same team and definitely not the same personnel.
I wouldn't have.
I also wouldn't have even thought of giving up George Hill for Kawhi.
This is why I don't make a living in the basketball world
And the Spurs went from a motion based offense to an old school pick and roll/isolation based one. I wonder how it's going to end.
No really, I'm on pins and needles.
Not the same system. Kerr opened up the teams potential.
How can anyone say that the system GS used with Jackson is the same that the one they use now with Kerr? Do you even watch them play?
And all those players you mentioned are irrelevant. Or do you think having Jack instead of Livingston would make a difference?
You know what did make a difference? Making Green the full time PF/C and put Lee in the doghouse. A change Jackson could have made, but didn't.
The Spurs are the team that make the most passes in the whole league but good try son.
Basically all teams have similar sets, but now when Warriors run their floppy set, Curry is running off the screen (Kerr), instead of Curry passing to Thompson running through screens (Jackson). Also under Jackson, for some reason they always ran high pindowns. I noticed this in our first round matchup, now under Kerr they run low pindowns which makes more since to open up better looks for shooters. They also run double pin downs, something Jackson didn't do, and out of their horns set they pass a lot out of the high post opening up the lane and spacing out the defense. Jacksons offense was a cluster .
Dabom said they didn't run a system under Mark Jackson. They ran a system to fit their personnel. I never said that Jackson ran Kerr's system. How could he?
Taken with a grain of salt tbh. Drives and kickouts don't qualify as motion offense. Making passes for the sake of making passes that lead to turnovers or bad shots with the shot clock winding down don't qualify as motion offense. I suppose parker's drible, dribble, dribble is a myth, not fact, right son? The lack of three point depth is insufferable. It's tough to get separation against elite teams when your best and only plan of attack is the mid range J. I don't really care what the Spurs do against the mediocrity of the league but against the elite, the offense has been downright disastrous. It's either the Leonard show or it's a loss. I can't recall the Spurs relying on any one specific player to carry them in 2014, back when the league had much more depth. They've only beaten an elite team 3 times in 2015-16 and in all three meetings, they trailed heading into the 4th quarter at home. Outside of OKC on opening night, they've been blown out in the rest (Toronto is not elite).The Spurs are the team that make the most passes in the whole league but good try son.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that op "brilliant basketball mind" started the thread with a single emoticon and no ideas.
It's like if I went "the Holocaust". Pretty amazing right?
Jackson had a ty system. Kerr implementing a much better one is the main difference for the improvement GS made. Not the change in some role players.
No matter if the play ends on a post up, isolation, pick ans roll or whatever. The Spurs always work, at the begginig of every shot clock, moving the ball and people around to get opposing defenses scrambling and guessing. It doesn't matter that plays end up in post ups or isolations more often than in previoua years, they are still moving the ball around. That's why they lead the league in passes.Taken with a grain of salt tbh. Drives and kickouts don't qualify as motion offense. Making passes for the sake of making passes that lead to turnovers or bad shots with the shot clock winding down don't qualify as motion offense. I suppose parker's drible, dribble, dribble is a myth, not fact, right son? The lack of three point depth is insufferable. It's tough to get separation against elite teams when your best and only plan of attack is the mid range J. I don't really care what the Spurs do against the mediocrity of the league but against the elite, the offense has been downright disastrous. It's either the Leonard show or it's a loss. I can't recall the Spurs relying on any one specific player to carry them in 2014, back when the league had much more depth. They've only beaten an elite team 3 times in 2015-16 and in all three meetings, they trailed heading into the 4th quarter at home. Outside of OKC on opening night, they've been blown out in the rest (Toronto is not elite).
P/S: the Spurs lost every game against elite teams at the beggining of the 2014 season too. That is irrelevant.
P/S 2: I don't know what that last part you brought up has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
They won 50 something games and got drummed out in the first round by Dallas, if memory serves. Don't think they were a 1 seed. But it's funny how having Finley, Mason and Bonner as your healthiest players turns your fortunes, despite all the talk of system and winning at ude.
Playing a bit of devil's advocate, the Spurs went from one of the best championship runs ever to a 1st round exit. What changed in their system? Mark Jackson got the blame for the team losing in seven games. I guess we're lucky that Pop didn't get the same treatment by ownership.
The Warriors' three best players increased their scoring in the playoffs by 10 ppg. One could make a case that it's the development of young players as much as a change in scheme. And this year, nobody coached Stef Curry to shoot 60 percent from beyond 25 feet.
And we blamed Scotty Brooks for his ty coaching. Fast forward to having one of the smarter coaches in the sport, and they're still choking away leads.
The only coach that ever managed to win without the benefit of great talent was Bobby Knight.
Says who?
I already conceded that the players are always the most important thing. But the system is very important too. And on this particular GS case, I think it's pretty obvious the change in system turned them from a good team into an elite one.
And no, no system makes a player shoot 60% from beyond 25 feet but a system does help bringing up the best on a player, make the team win and improve everybody's confidence.
No one really takes hoops serious right?
I'm not typically wrong brah. You might find one or two things but that's about it. I can say I have a very good ratio of good to bad takes here.Let's not lose sight of the fact that op "brilliant basketball mind" started the thread with a single emoticon and no ideas.
It's like if I went "the Holocaust"
I'm not advocating for Marc Jackson nor disrespecting Kerr when I say this but, Curry is the System. His emergence is the reason why GS has been so successful. Maybe you should take a look at Curry's on/off numbers to see how successful the team is when he's on the bench. The 2016 Curry is worlds apart from the 2013 one. Role players are also very important to the team's success. The 2013 squad looks like a show compared to the 2016 one.
This is kind of how I feel about the 56-10 record. That is pretty irrelevant given how bad the league has been in general. Wake me when the playoffs start. BTW, where are you finding that stat on passes? You have a link or something or was it mentioned in a tweet?
Speaking about irrelevant, are you still here? Show me your eit or gfto!!!No one really takes hoops serious right?
No thanks.
I think there's a defense of going to the old-school, pick-and-roll/isolation offense in this environment, though I'm still not convinced that the choice will ultimately be fruitful.
As analytics push offenses to emphasize the restricted area and the arc, defenses across the league are becoming tailored to -- and accustomed to -- denying those shots and conceding the mid-range because of its perceived inefficiency. It is an inefficient shot in terms of sheer points-per-shot, but if a team can get more clean looks in the mid-range because defenses are designed to concede those shots and then can convert them at even a relatively high percentage, it can find fairly efficient offense there. For now, the Spurs shoot roughly 33% of their shots from the midrange (from 10' to the 3 point line); they shoot 44% between 10-16 feet (only the Thunder are better there, at 48%) and 43% between 16 feet and the arc.
The other plausible rationale for running offense that way in this season -- and I think the movement toward a more old-school offensive approach by the Spurs has become more pronounced as the season has worn on -- is that it diminishes the risk of turnovers to a certain extent, while creating mechanisms in their sets that effectively help to slow pace. The Spurs are actually playing a bit faster than they did in 2014-15, but relative to the league, their pace in 2015-16 is much slower; last year, they were basically at the league average for pace, while in 2015-16, they're almost 1.5 possessions per game below the league average.
While it may not be possible to beat the Warriors 4 of 7 this year (I, frankly, think it's not going to happen), it does seem plausible that one method for getting there is to try to slow their pace by playing deliberately on offense, limiting turnovers, and trying to take advantage of the shots their defense will give you. If you end up trading 2's for 3's, you're dead. But if you can play efficiently and deprive them of open-court, broken plays, while giving your defense the time to set up as often as possible, you might at least give yourself a chance to contest more of their 3's and to try to push them into some uncomfortable positions.
I don't think anyone will beat a whole Warriors team trying to match them shot-for-shot. Nobody has shooters to do that over the course of a series.
http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/tea...SES_MADE&dir=1
Passes Made/Gm
1. UTH -- 351.9
2. NYK -- 345.1
3. DAL -- 339.0
4. SAS -- 333.7
5. GST -- 326.2
When you start looking at the productiveness of passes, though, the numbers aren't quite so good:
Potential Assists
1. GST -- 53.4
2. BOS -- 50.4
3. ATL -- 50.1
4. SAC -- 48.2
5. WAS -- 47.3
6. ORL -- 47.1
7. DAL -- 46.2
8. SAS -- 45.9
% of Passes That Result in Assists
1. GST -- 8.9
2. OKC -- 8.7
3. SAC -- 8.7
4. MIN -- 8.0
5. LAC -- 7.9
6. MIL -- 7.9
7. WAS -- 7.9
8. ATL -- 7.8
* * * *
13. SAS -- 7.5
Points Created by Assists
1. GST -- 70.1
2. ATL -- 60.4
3. SAC -- 58.6
4. BOS -- 57.8
5. SAS -- 57.3
It's just the Regular Season
The 2014-Motion-Offense-Spurs' record against such elite teams was atrocious too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
