Reply With Quote
"You see those Top 3 teams" (meaning GSW/CLE/Rockets)
Do you know what a post-up is, with a guy standing over top of you? It's 0.78. So you run your team down there and we'll see how long you can stay with teams that can play the other way.
Last edited by spursistan; 12-29-2016 at 06:47 PM.
"You see those Top 3 teams" (meaning GSW/CLE/Rockets)
Yes but Spurs hardly post up. Plus analytics most likely don't account for good post up scorers vs bad. Tim in his prime on the post is probably the outlier in an analysis. But especially now days, there aren't any great post up scorers. For every LMA, there are 15 Dwight Howards.
This times 1000. Even the smug idiots at 538 have since acknowledged, after promoting that the mid-range shot is the "worst" shot in basketball, that for some players with a high level of skill, the mid-range shot in the right context is a perfectly fine and efficient shot.
I'm quite certain Shaq and TD in the post are well ahead of 0.78. Plus, that figure completely ignores that the post is used to draw in the defense, so you can get those 1.3 point corner 3's. You may not have that MParker (in his prime) level penetrator to free up those 3's.
Analytics-based approaches by themselves also ignore the variability in basketball. To the point that it's circular logic. If a game doesn't go their way, why it's just because the percentages didn't fall on their side.
Actually Pop killed the mid-range and post up games almost completely from 2010 in favor of the motion offense, what the whole NBA copied than he reversed it all..
And clearly, the three pointer and layups are much more efficient.
He's not lying.
That's why Spurs will likely lose vs. the top 5 teams or 2nd round, because they simply won't get as great of shots in the course of a 7 game series.
They don't have the personnel that manufacturers the best shots. The best two offensive players on the roster don't create great opportunities for others, all while creating the worst shots in basketball for themselves (yet they are still effective just not optimally effective like other lead creators on top teams).
In order for the Spurs to have a shot, they have to play lights out defensively w/out fouling, not turn over the ball, and get out in transition as much as possible to find easy and early opportunities while the transition defense is bent and vulnerable. If they have to play vs. a set defense vs. a top 5 team most of the possessions it will be tough to get 2 games in a 7 game series.
It wouldn't shock me for the Rockets to beat the Spurs in a 7 game series tbh.. As painful as that is for me to say.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 12-29-2016 at 07:30 PM.
Spurs aren't losing 4 out of 7 times to the one man Houston Crockets unless Pop plays Pau more than 25 minutes.
I actually now hope that match up happens so LMA can destroy their soft ass frontline while D'Antoni watches on helplessly.
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 12-29-2016 at 07:37 PM.
After watching Pops terrible ways of managing minutes the last two playoff losses vs. Clippers and OKC, I'm anticipating 25-32 mpg for Pau in the playoffs and 25-28 for TP.Spurs aren't losing 4 out of 7 times to the one man Houston Crockets unless Pop plays Pau more than 25 minutes.
I never said Rockets will beat the Spurs, I'm just saying it wouldn't shock me if they did. I'd get it.
Pop had his ass glued to the bench in the first matchup where he got destroyed in the 1st quarter.
Okay. That's great. Hopefully it carries over in a potential matchup.
So you take something I don't say ( I never said Spurs will lose vs. Hou) and bend it as much as possible, all while ignoring everything else I actually did say in the post.
Lets just find something to argue about in every post. Even if its about something that was never posted.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 12-29-2016 at 07:53 PM.
Making huge generalizations using statistics based off of very few variables is like the equivalent of earning a PhD from Phoenix University.
WTF are you talking about?So you take something I don't say ( I never said Spurs will lose vs. Hou) and bend it as much as possible, all while ignoring everything else I actually did say in the post.
Your words: "Spurs will likely lose vs. the top 5 teams or 2nd round"
Let me check the top 5 teams in the league: http://scores.espn.com/nba/standings/_/group/league
Oh, Rockets (the anti-Spurs) are top 5 AND would most likely be the Spurs 2nd rd opponent. I had it all wrong.....
Never said Rockets though. I did, however, say it wouldn't surprise me if Rockets did beat the Spurs in a series.WTF are you talking about?
Your words: "Spurs will likely lose vs. the top 5 teams or 2nd round"
Let me check the top 5 teams in the league: http://scores.espn.com/nba/standings/_/group/league
Oh, Rockets are top 5 AND would most likely be the Spurs 2nd rd opponent. I had it all wrong.....
And will "likely" lose, doesn't mean the same thing as " will lose". And when I said in that context I never said Rockets, Rockets are obviously on the fringe of " top 5" but its all subjective anyway. There's no fact on who will win in a series.
Congrats, you got your argument out of something I never said.
Typical KS, finding 3 words in an entire post and stretching it out as much as possible to make an argument, all while ignoring the meat and bones of the post. KS, per par.
What I can see, you need both, especially in the playoffs. If youre effective on the inside you open up the outside. Inside play is the higher FG%, more FGs, more confidence, you draw in the D then the threes fall. Also Greens and Mills threes are falling much better than last year. Add to that Kawhi, Manu and even Paus threes, it could get explosive quick. Also Spurs three point shooting is spot up shooting, where we find the open man. Thats harder to D than ISO 3 pt shooting like Harden and Curry and it gets the whole team involved and less energy expended.
Also, if the three ball was so effective GSW should have won last year but they got beat by interior play.
An open shot is a good shot. Aldridge made his first 11 and 9 shots respectively the past two games.
These analytics dweebs think they're on par with Einstein.
True.
However, there's better or more valuable good shots or open shots than other " good shots" or open shots.
I.E: The team with 25 uncontested corner 3's will score more points than a team with 25 uncontested long 2's.
Or a team with 10 uncontested lay ups will score more points than a team with 5 uncontested layups and 5 uncontested long 2's.
How do you think Rockets have been able to beat the Spurs at home this year or stay in every game til the end while having an inferior defense compared to the Spurs?
They have a better offense by manufacturing better shots.
Pop has been preaching the corner three as the best shot offensively and most dangerous shot defensively since at least the late 1990s. He also emphasizes no fouls.
Smart teams aren't doubling in the post anymore like they used to. Especially doubling one pass away on the strong side -- where Danny gets open 3's from LA at times against dumb or unfocused teams. Those open 3's that are manufactured out of the post mainly happen against dumb teams.
Smart teams bring doubles rarely and when they do, it's always hard and abrupt from the weakside, where a longer pass will be needed to beat the double. The longer/ softer pass leads to an easier close out for the defense so they can get away with it.
Prime example is OKC last year, they played LA straight up even after his 40 point outbursts because they knew in the long run he couldn't maintain that level of efficiency from the post area and open 3's were limited and the offense struggled often the last 4 games.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 12-29-2016 at 08:37 PM.
Just bc you run a post play doesn't mean you will score in the post. What about doubles that open up a 3? Or force the defense to rotate and cause a mismatch?
Just bc the 3 has been shown to be an efficient shot doesn't mean you just run down and jack one up...to me, that's a very primal way to think of it and will kill you when shots aren't falling. Run some offense to get good 3.
And he's right on the money.
You are out here play semantics gymnastics b/c I found a flaw in your blanket statement.
The fetal flaw on the Spurs roster is the lack of ball handlers that can attack switches. Teams can neutralize three point threats or penetration by switching & if you don't have a ball handler that can attack those switches....you're toast.
Kyrie isn't known for creating shots for his teammates but he's ultimate switch killers which is why he owns the Duds. (Porker in his PRIME used to be that guy)
You could have a guy like Rubio who can create shots for his teammates surrounded by 3 point threats but dude would get exposed in a playoff series b/c he can't attack switches. (The Duds couldn't score on the Cavs b/c a less than 100% Curry couldn't take advantage of Tristan)
Even a backup like Lou Williams who can only really run PnP would be a godsend for the Spurs similar to how Monta was running the Mavs lethal offense.
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 12-29-2016 at 08:47 PM.
Shooting all threes is insane strategy. It's only worked for one team in the playoffs, ever, and that's the Golden State Warriors, and because they have insanely gifted players. When things slow down and get physical you need to get scores down low somehow.
Lol you live for this.
15K posts when I bet 10K of them stem from using a magnifying glass to try to find one sentence in a 5 paragraph post to stretch out as far as possible to form an argumentative debate ( sometimes over something that was never said -- like this time when I never said Rockets will beat the Spurs). All because I implied Rockets pose a significant threat to the Spurs.
Congrats man. You got your argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
