Well, they are never 6/7 man short. Specially not with Pop. Either way, playing short rotations obviously isn't the blueprint for beating anybody. The more players you have that can contribute, the better. But the short rotations thing is a good example that you need to cut the dead weight. Ideally you would have an 8 or 9 man rotation without many flaws.
Well, he is. Sorry to break it to you. A playmaker is a player that creates plays, whetever for himself or for others. The guy that can break down a defense and attract extra attention. Durant is a playmaker, just as Kawhi is a playmaker. But since I know you are probably just looking at it the simple way of "low assists totals means he isn't a playmaker" just go look at Durant's APG in the season where Westbrook went down.[*]I'm not sure I'd call 2016 Durant a playmaker, at least not nearly on the level of Westbrook, Harden, and Paul
Not when he's enganged. When actually trying he has the size and physical abilities to be a good defense player. If you think Harden was a weakness on defense on this last series, you didn't watch it properly.[*]Harden is a huge defensive liability
And who cares what he shot against other teams? We are talking strictly about the Warriors series. If Roberson wouldn't have shot so well on that series, maybe the Thunder wouldn't have made it to 7. His 3 pt shooting % for anything other than the Warriors series la totally irrelevant.[*]Roberson shot 32.4% from three in those playoffs, the 44% was a fluke. He shot 31.1% during the regular season which is a career high for him. Of the 2016 Thunder's top 7 in the playoffs, 3 were non-shooters: Adams, Kanter, Roberson
And Kanter's presence in this matter is also irrelevant since he barely saw minutes and he never shared the court with both Adams and Roberson.
First of all, lol at cherry picking the games you wanted.[*]Looking at the 2016 Thunder/Warriors series: [/LIST]
I picked out the non-blowouts to reduce garbage time effects, but even games 2-4 followed this pattern. Adams and Kanter combined took up almost all 48 minutes at center each game, so there wasn't much "Ibaka at the 5" going on. Ironically, of those four games the Thunder went biggest in game 1; it was also the only game of those four that they won.
Player Gm 1 Gm 5 Gm 6 Gm 7 Avg Ibaka 36 40 36 43 39.75 Adams 37 31 28 26 30.5 Kanter 18 6 11 9 11
Second, that chart shows 30 minutes for Adams and 11 for Kanter. So even in the games you cherry picked, you are still missing 7 minutes. You also need to remember that Kanter and Adams shared the court a couple of times, so not all those minutes are staggered, and lastly, notice how the minutes of the traditional bigs decreased more and more with each game, that's because OKC coaching staff realized it's inutility.
Anyway, anyone that remembered that series knows that Ibaka at the 5 and Durant at the 4 was one of OKC's strengths on that matchup.
I think you just don't like to look objectively at the evidence that clearly shows that to be compe ive against the Warriors you need to play a certain style.I think this "blueprint" is all in your mind. You just look at characteristics of teams that did or almost did beat the Warriors and find the similarities while ignoring the differences. And this Rockets/Warriors series was far closer to being Warriors in 5 or 6 than the Rockets winning at all.
The blue print is to stay healthy that's it. Spurs would have beaten the Warriors last year if Kawhi didn't get injured. What this series showed to me is that you just need 2 superstars and good role players to beat the Warriors which the Spurs had with Kawhi/LMA last year.
Really, son? How old are you? Now I know why you normally don't agree with me, tbh.
You can't cite the elite defense mostly sans Leonard, then use it as a crutch when the defense mostly sans Leonard generally falls apart in their recent playoff history. Even with Leonard, he can't mask the 3 defensive liabilities in the rotation.
As bad as Harden is defensively, at 6'5'' 220 with a 6'10.75'' wingspan, he's not a physical liability. When engaged, he's reasonable enough and he can offset it by having a top 3 offensive impact (James, Curry) in the league.
I was looking more at AST%. 2016 Westbrook: 49%. 2018 Harden and Paul both above 40. 2016 Durant: 24%.
I will admit to not watching every second, but Harden's defense wasn't good. He was clearly the weak link on the floor. Having the tools is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
How he shot against other teams totally matters. Far more than a small 7-game sample. Are you saying that the Spurs should sign a guy who is a career 25% shooter from 3 because he might shoot 44% in a series?
Your whole argument is that a team (specifically, the Spurs) should construct their team with a lot of shooters. The 2016 Thunder nearly knocked off the Warriors with 3 of their top 7 not being shooters. And it's not like Westbrook is a real threat from 3 either.
Kanter's presence is not irrelevant either. He was at the end of the playoff rotation, but part of it nonetheless. You don't get to argue that a playoff rotation should be 7 players and then dismiss the efforts of the #7 guy (who averaged 50% more minutes than the #8 guy) because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Not cherry-picking at all. Just leaving out the blowouts.First of all, lol at cherry picking the games you wanted.
Second, that chart shows 30 minutes for Adams and 11 for Kanter. So even in the games you cherry picked, you are still missing 7 minutes. You also need to remember that Kanter and Adams shared the court a couple of times, so not all those minutes are staggered, and lastly, notice how the minutes of the traditional bigs decreased more and more with each game, that's because OKC coaching staff realized it's inutility.
Anyway, anyone that remembered that series knows that Ibaka at the 5 and Durant at the 4 was one of OKC's strengths on that matchup.
See? Including the blowouts lowers Ibaka's minutes per game while leaving Adams and Kanter roughly the same (and basically identical on a combined basis). Seven minutes per game of going small out of 48 is hardly a "blueprint". Not "cherry-picking" actually makes your argument weaker.
Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Avg Ibaka 36 30 32 33 40 36 43 35.7 Adams 37 36 18 25 31 28 26 28.7 Kanter 18 15 18 9 6 11 9 12.3
I gave numbers, you gave pla udes and small sample sizes. Don't try to tell me that you're the objective one here.
Couldn't agree more.
Spurs would optimize their chances by eliminating all defensive liabilities.
Having Parker/Mills the past 3 years a big part of their rotation automatically killed any chance the Spurs had from 15-17'.
Pau only compounded that from 17-18.
That's why it was beyond absurd to pay 100 million last summer to two players who cant stay on the floor when it matters.
Old enough to make you look stupid I am so sorry you accomplish this quite well on your own.Really, son? How old are you? Now I know why you normally don't agree with me, tbh.
*pile driver shatters spine emoticon*
I still think the blueprint is the Spurs core. You need that elite scoring, and we have close to that with Leonard. You need that big that scores in the paint and isn’t a defensive liability. We have that with LMA. Warriors cannot guard LMA and Leonard one on one. Not one player on the warriors can. Then you want dependable 3 & D guys. Green isn’t that anymore. A guard that can penetrate that can make Curry work. We don’t have that and we only hope Murray is that guy. Kyle Anderson actually works in rotation because he can defend multiple people here. But not so much with Gay who does not have the defensive footwork to switch on Klay or Curry, and he doesn’t particularly do a good job on Durant. Obvious Gasol can’t punish the warriors enough offensively to be out there defensively.
Actually playing through the paint is the blue print to beating them. Relying on 3 pointers is a sure way to lose. Long shots lead to long rebounds which results in transition 3’s. But obviously if you playing in the paint, you need to punish them behind the arc, which is where we are one of the worst teams in the league at doing.
Lololololololol ban lolololololololololololWell, they are never 6/7 man short. Specially not with Pop. Either way, playing short rotations obviously isn't the blueprint for beating anybody. The more players you have that can contribute, the better. But the short rotations thing is a good example that you need to cut the dead weight. Ideally you would have an 8 or 9 man rotation without many flaws.
Well, he is. Sorry to break it to you. A playmaker is a player that creates plays, whetever for himself or for others. The guy that can break down a defense and attract extra attention. Durant is a playmaker, just as Kawhi is a playmaker. But since I know you are probably just looking at it the simple way of "low assists totals means he isn't a playmaker" just go look at Durant's APG in the season where Westbrook went down.
Not when he's enganged. When actually trying he has the size and physical abilities to be a good defense player. If you think Harden was a weakness on defense on this last series, you didn't watch it properly.
And who cares what he shot against other teams? We are talking strictly about the Warriors series. If Roberson wouldn't have shot so well on that series, maybe the Thunder wouldn't have made it to 7. His 3 pt shooting % for anything other than the Warriors series la totally irrelevant.
And Kanter's presence in this matter is also irrelevant since he barely saw minutes and he never shared the court with both Adams and Roberson.
First of all, lol at cherry picking the games you wanted.
Second, that chart shows 30 minutes for Adams and 11 for Kanter. So even in the games you cherry picked, you are still missing 7 minutes. You also need to remember that Kanter and Adams shared the court a couple of times, so not all those minutes are staggered, and lastly, notice how the minutes of the traditional bigs decreased more and more with each game, that's because OKC coaching staff realized it's inutility.
Anyway, anyone that remembered that series knows that Ibaka at the 5 and Durant at the 4 was one of OKC's strengths on that matchup.
I think you just don't like to look objectively at the evidence that clearly shows that to be compe ive against the Warriors you need to play a certain style.
Dumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumbdumb
Ban
.................
mills graded out as a significantly worse defender than james harden
Yes I can. There is only one KD and that doesn’t negate the fact that against 29 other teams SA defense, even with their liabilities grades out as far superior for multiple years.
Losing Kawhi shows up way more vs a GS because there is no one on the Spurs that can remotely guard him so everything crumbles.
Of course Harden is a net positive; no one is arguing otherwise. Again, people just selectively trash SA and dismiss everything yet give HOU the benefit of the doubt without really evaluating what they are saying.
Yes, HOU did well and that is a viable plan if you have a Harden/CP3. But even with liabilities SA without any bias or specuation, just facts, graded out far superior on defense.
Just like Harden can be a net positive because his offense is so good, LMA/Kawhi/Danny/Murray cover up for a lot of defensive weaknesses of other players and are better on that end.
Can they improve further by eliminating Mills/TP/Pau? Sure. That doesn’t mean they weren’t already better on defense than HOU who had “less liabilities”.
Last edited by DPG21920; 05-29-2018 at 08:43 PM.
I didn’t kill their chances. They got to the WCF just like HOU did with what people claim to be a far superior roster. SA had a better defense unequivocally (using the metrics you use to argue in favor of Murray, SA cannot be argued as an inferior defense to HOU).
Mills/Pau deals suck, but so does Ryan Andersons far more and as we saw not even that stopped HOU from doing well just like Mills/Pau didn’t stop SA from getting to the same WCF with the same ultimate result (a loss).
Things happen and while HOU ultimately got to game 7, GS played awful and a fully healthy HOU could have easily lost 4-1 too if not for a massive meltdown by GS at home in game 4 with a 12 point 4th quarter lead. But a few shots here, fouls there, etc.. swings things.
If Ryan Anderson didn’t kill HOU, Pau/Mills (especially since SA made a WCF them) didn’t kill SA. They can be traded, relegated to bench roles, etc..Give it time like you seem to give HOU time.
That and it’s hideous to watch. Their iso-ball makes me long for the days when teams would dump it down low to big men and let them operate.
Another guy that didn't see the series.
Massively exploitable players are players like Mills, Tony, Gasol, R.Anderson. That no matter how much they try, their physical limitations don't allow them to perform. A guy like Harden that mails it on D during the regular season, can be a perfectly decent defender when engaged.
Ya. I didn’t watch the series. Good callAnother guy that didn't see the series.
Massively exploitable players are players like Mills, Tony, Gasol, R.Anderson. That no matter how much they try, their physical limitations don't allow them to perform. A guy like Harden that mails it on D during the regular season, can be a perfectly decent defender when engaged.Just like HOU did with Curry, GS literally targted Harden on defense. He got beat a lot. The funny thing is once he started “trying” more on defense his offense fell off a cliff and he couldn’t score anymore
That and Draymond is starting to lose a step. He is so critical for what they do.
Manu has a career 24% at AST%, is he not a playmaker?
Your problem comes from the idea that playmaker equals being an assister, when that isn't the case. Any player that can create or "make" plays on his own, for others to score or to score himself, is a playmaker. Durant is a playmaker. You give him the ball and he will create offense for your team. His role being primarily to score doesn't mean that he can't assists either.
Harden on these playoffs had a DBP of 1.7, that's on par with what our defense ace, Danny Green, did this year. There you have numbers, not subjective opinions.I will admit to not watching every second, but Harden's defense wasn't good. He was clearly the weak link on the floor. Having the tools is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
It is totally relevant because you brought up that series, and in that series OKC almost knocked the Warriors off thanks, in part, because Roberson had a fluke series shooting the three. If he wouldn't have had that fluke shooting, the Thunder wouldn't have been so close to knocking the Warriors off and you wouldn't have brought it up. Simple as that.How he shot against other teams totally matters. Far more than a small 7-game sample. Are you saying that the Spurs should sign a guy who is a career 25% shooter from 3 because he might shoot 44% in a series?
Your whole argument is that a team (specifically, the Spurs) should construct their team with a lot of shooters. The 2016 Thunder nearly knocked off the Warriors with 3 of their top 7 not being shooters. And it's not like Westbrook is a real threat from 3 either.
Kanter's presence is not irrelevant either. He was at the end of the playoff rotation, but part of it nonetheless. You don't get to argue that a playoff rotation should be 7 players and then dismiss the efforts of the #7 guy (who averaged 50% more minutes than the #8 guy) because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Capela also played around 30 minutes per game against the Warriors. The thing is not going small for the sake of going small. If you have bigs that can stay with guys on the perimeter (like a Capela or an Aldridge) play him, but you can't play slow footed bigs like Gasol or R.Anderson, because you would get killed. That's where playing guys like Ibaka or Tucker as center is preferred to having a Gasol or a Ryan Anderson.Not cherry-picking at all. Just leaving out the blowouts.
See? Including the blowouts lowers Ibaka's minutes per game while leaving Adams and Kanter roughly the same (and basically identical on a combined basis). Seven minutes per game of going small out of 48 is hardly a "blueprint". Not "cherry-picking" actually makes your argument weaker.
Player 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Avg Ibaka 36 30 32 33 40 36 43 35.7 Adams 37 36 18 25 31 28 26 28.7 Kanter 18 15 18 9 6 11 9 12.3
I gave you plenty of numbers, examples and analysis too son. You are just misreading them or completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say.I gave numbers, you gave pla udes and small sample sizes. Don't try to tell me that you're the objective one here.
Last edited by DAF86; 05-29-2018 at 09:48 PM.
Look, it’s pretty simple; the argument is that HOU is not “the” blueprint but “a” blueprint. You may not believe that, but SA got to a WCF even with their flaws, had a top defense in the league with their core players and played a completly different style than HOU did this year.
All those things add up to another option on how to build based on the type of player you have. But yes, HOU did a great job, had success and adding some more wings who can defend/hit 3’s over TP/Pau/Mills is a good idea. But that is a separate thing from style of play as well.
But people here by-in-large like to sh*t on SA, downplay all their success and bad luck while hyping up HOU/Morey and everything they do.
“I can’t believe SA signed cap killing Pau and Mills!”. Morey has a worse version in Ryan Anderson.
“SA sucks and have no shot at real success!” SA got to the same WCF as HOU did.
“You need to have the defense of HOU and their players SA has too many liabilities!” SA ranks better than HOU on defense for years, including this year, yet it’s SA that is “fools gold”.
No one is saying HOU isn’t a good way; just gets old seeing people basically slam SA without really stopping to think about what they are saying.
Hes not a playmaker. Hes a scorer. The end
Who? Manu?
Well, you chose a strange thread to rant about people slamming SA, when I specifically said I think SA can be the team to knock them out in the OP. I'm just pointing out the things I consider SA needs to do to trully threaten GS.
I think it’s hilarious when people try to speak with reason and logic and put themselves in PATFO shoes you’re called an “apologist” or “vanilla fan”...
Like I get the criticism and it’s deserved but people don’t try to see it from PATFO perspective or point of view..The Spurs showed the blueprint when they held the 73 win Warriors to 79 POINTS!! The rest of the league took notice..like they always do and tbh Duncan’s knee giving out and the horrible officiating at the end of I believe Game 2 against OKC cost this team a fair shot that year...the Warriors respect the and have the “proper fear” against the Spurs. Warriors are mental midgets who don’t also forget blew a 3-1 lead that same year
And there’s another thing people just ignore..Spurs have never gotten their shot. Missing Kawhi is like missing LeBron and that’s the truth. NOBODY impacts the game on both ends like Leonard..top 3 in MVP voting and the early favorite going into the season....Player fans should be proud tbh
I get the hate for the offseason moves but again some people fail to understand why they did it..Plan B aka “run it back” didn’t work and not because they got a fair shot..It was Kawhi..But some forget what Plan A was..getting the dude who almost pulled it off (CP3). The Spurs are have another plan if Kawhi accepts or signs and tbh it will shock most of the haters on this board..
... they are a top 3 defense every year ...
This was never a secret in the NBA. Getting there is the hard part.
You just need an all defensive team and world class 3pt shooting. Shouldn't be an issue with Mills and Danny, tbh.
No. You could take the same sample size from most of the Rockets games and say the same thing, only no one got injured. GS is a 3rd quarter team. Spurs lost their huge lead in the 3rd quarter. With or without KL, it would have happened. He cannot guard every position.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote