The difference is, Dirk's worst TS% (outside of his rookie season when he was adjusting to the NBA) is .560.
LMA's best TS% is .560.
He's a career .532 TS% player, which is underwhelming. It's even worse in the Playoffs where he's at .494 TS% (Iverson-level inefficiency).
He needed 20 shots to score 23 PPG last season. He can't repeat that next year if we want to seriously compete.
Look up the percentage of his shots that was assisted last year. Look how that percentage has dropped almost every year he's been in the league. Then watch a few Portland games from 2014/15 to realise what a crappy iso and high pick based offense they ran. Dude shot 0.465fg while being assisted on less than 20% of his long twos. He'll be fine with us.
Depends, a 48% chance to score 2 points from 18 feet is inefficient if we don't get offensive rebounds a substantial proportion of the time. Particularly with our swiss-cheesiness on defense, we need to score 2 points or better on well over half of the possessions down the floor to win consistently. Maybe not against the Bobcats, but if we don't against the Warriors we'll be roast chicken Curry.
We were Top 3 defense last season. Swiss-cheese defenses don't rank that high. A 48% chance at a long two is a of a second option on offense, which is exactly the point. Pop is not going to redesign his offense around long twos, and as for ORebs, we've always preferred transition D anyway.
Why should they be mutually exclusive? The 2003-2007 Pistons got tons of offensive rebounds and still were consistently ranked at the top in the league on defense every year. As for transition defense, the Spurs really don't have the personnel to stop the most athletic teams in the league in transition to begin with.
Odd that the Spurs and the Pacers (who missed the playoffs) were actually tied for 3rd-ranked defense:
#1 Utah Jazz 94.9
#2 Memphis Grizzlies 95.1
#3a San Antonio Spurs 97.0
#3b Indiana Pacers 97.0
The chart really shows how the NBA has changed dramatically in favor of much more offense... Gone are the days of 8-11 years ago when we'd have teams like the Spurs, Pistons and Rockets with figures in the low 90s and high 80s
Last edited by UNT Eagles 2016; 08-09-2015 at 05:43 PM.
They can if they have 4 guys running back when the shot goes up on offense. Those Pistons had 4 great defensive starters, played at a slow pace denying themselves and the opposition fastbreak chances and had Ben Wallace who could outrebound a team by himself on both sides, a big SF and a big strong PG. Plus they strongly emphasised Drebs as well. As a plus, Spurs have a pair of great transition and chasedown starting wings, so they can gamble a bit more on the offensive glass as long as KL and Danny are not totally out of position.
Problem is, KL and TD are the best offensive rebounders AND 2 of the 3 the best defenders on the starting unit. If it's Parker/Manu/Aldridge back on defense, Manu and Aldridge might take a low swipe while Parker would just stand there and play dead fish as the guy with the ball electrifies the crowd or dunks on the hearts of the 19,000 fans present at the AT&T center.
True, but I'll take a Parker / Manu / LMA trio's chances of not actually giving Drebs to the opposition by putting the ball in the basket. Give and take.
LMA should take whatever open three he gets obviously
He was a league average 3 point shooter but that should go up with the spurs.
He should take whatever open midrange he gets. This is why he's in the team to take and make shots and provide spacing. It's stupid to limit his shooting
I actually 100% agree with this.LMA should take whatever open three he gets obviously
He was a league average 3 point shooter but that should go up with the spurs.
He should take whatever open midrange he gets. This is why he's in the team to take and make shots and provide spacing. It's stupid to limit his shooting
>parker
>putting the ball in the basket
choose one
Oh, you're one of those. Good luck.
At least we have Patty Mills, the reliable Robert Pack to back-up the washed up Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, tbh...
The logic being used is: a 40% 2 pointer is worse than a 35% 3 pointer because it's less points over time. a 40% mid ranger is also worse than a 55%er at the basket.
Long 2's are the last type of shot you want your team to settle on for a possession shy of a highly contested shot of some kind which is an even less efficient shot.
You are muddying the waters with nonsense like "Duncan taking threes". 42% with a defender on you is "inefficient" compared to West being open for a 48%er. Its all relative.
Boris was notably bad on the 3 ball last season tbh
Usually by default, teams will give up a midrange to long 2. But don't bet on them giving up an Aldridge 2. That is a weapon the Spurs have. Teams will have to come in and adjust to the Spurs different to other teams, when Leonard and Aldridge are elite midrange shooters.
Which is why the Spurs won't change their offense so as to make the 18 footer a primary option. It WILL be incorporated as a secondary option , or even tertiary. When it's 7 second on the clock and Danny has been chased down, would you rather him pump and drive, pass it to an open Duncan/Splitter/Diaw in the high post or pass it to an open LMA/West in the high post (provided that a kick to an open guy for 3 is not available) ? LMA shot 42% on ALL his mids, contested or not, West 48% . If these guys are open from 18 with the clock at 9 and they open three more than 2-3 passes away, if at all, you can bet Pop is gonna have at them if they don't take the jumper. These guys are 60% plus when wide open, that's an efficient shot, not to mention that they can initiate the pump and drive game from there.
Why? Was he brought in to replace Marco?Lets talk about LaMarcus Aldridge's 3pt shooting
No.
Well I'd rather him not pass to Splitter since he's not on the team anymore.
You're arguing things no one's arguing against. "Everyone's contested except a wide open mid range shot", no you take that. It's a last choice though, never a go-to because an open 18 footer is worse than an open layup or three, or even a basic post possession. It's "less efficient".
Will he be taking them? Of course. Will lots of plays be called for it? Absolutely not.
The Duncan/Splitter/Diaw comparison was a reference to what the secondary option would have been last year. As for the rest, we agree. Our new second/third offensive option is a much more efficient way to score points than our second/third option last year. That's what I've been saying all along, not that Pop is gonna make the 18 footer our bread and butter. But he WILL call plays where LMA/West are positioned at their favored spots as outlets for when our primary options are unavailable. So yes, LMA/West's mid range ability will feature in our system, as a secondary option or 'last resort by design'.
You want him taking those especially if he can hit at a 33% or better clip. That really opens things up. Imagine him, West and Duncan on the floor with Leonard and Manu or Tony. If Tony doesn't pass out from a sugar high right at half court or go into a beetus dive, they could be dangerous.
Pick N Pop...LMA loves the outside shot, not necessarily a 3 but a long 2 as well.
LMA was 9/20 from the left corner, 45%
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...dge/shotchart/
But he's 55.8% in the paint. By 3-pt you meant a bucket and +1, right?
P.S. Duncan shot 57.7% in the paint. BTW. Duncan's chart:
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...can/shotchart/
And look at what Duncan does on the left side under the basket. 66.7%!! 180 of 270. Wow.
Last edited by JeffDuncan; 08-10-2015 at 04:41 PM.
Who's going to guard the perimeter if we go with West/LMA/TD frontline? This is a very high risk / moderate reward lineup.
David West is the one for the longer range 2, especially from straight away or the left wing. 53.1% with his left wing 2.
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/pl...est/shotchart/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
