Yeah. its 3sketball at the moment. If its not a 3, or a high percentage dunk/layup, then people start worrying about statistics.
Pop has said he doesn't even like the 3 pt shot. I think that is tied to the fact that it forces his hand to play guys just bc of their 3 pt shot, that he normally would not like to play and stuff like that. It's made some guys who can't shoot from 3 unplayable at the NBA level, really only a center doesn't need to have that shot, and some PG and to be fair, depending on what system and players you have, you also want your PG to shoot the 3.
True. You can add George Karl to that. Surprised the Kings wanted to hire him, and surprised he'd actually want that dead end job.It's pretty amazing that organizations still hire coaches like Sam Mitc , Byron Scott and Lionel Hollins, tbh.
Never gonna happen. A player with a mid-range game is a good addition to a roster. But not as a main course for the whole team.
Nobody commented on the Spurs pace? I don't remember it being that high in the last 20 years or so. It's been creeping up in the last few years, but 97 would have been an attention getter. They're averaging 99.1? That's higher than the old Mike D'Antoni Suns teams. (Think Cotton Fitzsimmons teams.) The early championship years (and the Bowen era) the Spurs pace was always 90 or under.
A 99 pace is a lot more noteworthy than the mid-range shots, IMO.
I think the focus on 2-pt shot maybe yet another case of PATFO being a little ahead of curve by being contrarian. While the rest of the league focuses on volume shooting 3's (and thereby lowering efficiency), the Spurs are looking to get more efficient with 2's. The Spurs were really the first to exploit the corner 3's, the first to offset athleticism with passing, and maybe they are at it again. Certainly hope so.
Of course when you have kawhi lma and to an extend parker taking most of the shots then that's the result. That's why there's such a thing as a bench
I agree. The Spurs are ahead of the curve in regards to trend playing. I think they are built to exploit the weaknesses of the best teams. Cleveland would have given Golden State a run for their money if healthy. Think about this: If the Spurs meet Cleveland again in the finals. We can go head to head with which ever style they choose to play.... Big or small.... While the rest of the league is infatuated with smallball.... IMO
Not surprising. The Spurs no longer have elite penetrators now that Parker and Manu are past their prime. Kawhi will also be able to feast from that 5-10 foot pull up jumper spot with the inclusion of LMA, who opens things up where Tiago didn't, allowing Leonard wider lanes to slip through and pull up from those distances. Already, Kawhi is shooting his highest ever percentage from 3-10 feet.
Can the Spurs "new style" (great defense + length + efficient mid-range shooting + post play + deep bench) win in the modern NBA? Sure. The Kobe-Gasol Lakers had no elite penetrators (Kobe was past his prime in that regard), but they killed teams with their length, post play, mid-range shooting (with the spacing Gasol and/or Odom provided from the 4, Kobe slipped into those pull up jumper areas much like Kawhi is doing now), and bench (Odom was a big weapon to have come off that bench. The Spurs current bench is a practically a weapon of mass destruction in comparison). And those Lakers even had a bigger liability at PG in a 36 year old Derek Fisher. Although he did turn it up in the post-season.
Yeah, pace-and-space eventually made the Lakers "rebounding/post play = rings" style passe, but that had more to do with Spoelstra (and before him Mike D'Antoni) needing to increase pace out of necessity because they lacked size upfront and couldn't win in a half court game. Also helps to have Lebron as your pace pusher. Spurs can beat the Warriors if they resist the temptation of getting into a shootout.
I'm liking this new team, and health and/or the Warriors simply being a historically great team will be the only things preventing the Spurs from a le run (not counting my chickens, as the Thunder and Clippers are always a concern, but I do think the Spurs are the second le fave after GS). I don't think their construction or philosophy is flawed.
Eh, Byron Scott got hired because he'd be Kobe's lap dog.It's pretty amazing that organizations still hire coaches like Sam Mitc , Byron Scott and Lionel Hollins, tbh
Live by the inefficient jumpshot, die by the inefficient jumpshot. Just have to hope the team streaks the right way when it matters most.
Teams are guarding the 3 point line now against the Spurs and are giving them the 15-18 footers. Mills is like shooting over 50% from this range as well and is wide open. I don't see the Spurs missing these. Spurs are a good shooting team all around.
Teams have been set on taking away the 3 point shot which is why Green has been struggling. Mavs did this for like 5 years at a high level. It's possible if you have the player to do it and the Spurs do at this point.
Last edited by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs; 11-11-2015 at 10:35 AM.
As a model for what the Spurs might become, Clifford points to the 2011 Dallas Mavericks, who won a championship largely on the back of Dirk Nowitzki’s mid-range game.
http://www.expressnews.com/sports/sp...gy-6617647.php
Anyway, the Spurs won't be a primarily mid-range shooting team but having that weapon makes them more versatile and dangerous.
The 1956 Celtics? Seriously, stats proved that the 3pt shot irrevocably changed the game. The 3 pt shot at a 33% rate or better is much more effective than a 2pt. Shot. You have to shoot an insane percentage of 2pt. shots to overcome the advantage of the 3pt. shot at 33%. And it gets worse as players averages go over 35%.
Pop was probably the first to analyze it from the standpoint of building a team around that skill. Now we're gonna play differently. With the Spurs change to a mid range shot system with the addition of Aldridge, combined with any dropoff from the loss of Bellinelli or aging of Manu, it may be difficult to maintain the winning edge we've had over the last few years. We'll still be good--but can we be great?
Exactly about Green.
I think it's a symptom of what many many players do when shooting around and practicing. They take almost every shot from beyond the arc. So much so that they train their muscle memory such that the longer shot becomes easier.
That's not why they're shooting more 2s, tbh..opposing teams didn't just learn the Spurs tendencies 2 weeks ago after they've been running the same system for the past 4 years
I can see why the Kings wanted him, but I think he should be more patient with waiting. There are many more promising teams than the Kings with coaching vacancy. Maybe he himself worried about getting faded out as an aging ESPN analyst.
s usage rate (the percentage of the Spurs’ possessions that he used on a shot or turnover) was 23.1% but this year it has skyrocketed to 27.5%. This won’t prove to be a fleeting figure; Leonard is the man in San Antonio, now and into the future.
So, has Leonard taken advantage of his additional face time with the basketball?
The answer is yes. “The Claw” is averaging 22.1 points per game, shooting 52.8% from the field and converting on 89% of his foul shots. He’s also cashed in on 73.7% of his shots at the rim (not a typo!) and 54.5% of his attempts between three and 16 feet from the basket, per Basketball Reference.
Delving a little deeper, Leonard is knocking down a sizzling 56.1% of his pullup jumpers (per NBA.com), most of which originate in the 3-16 foot range mentioned above. Leonard has figured out how to leverage his length and athleticism to get any shot he likes using a few dribbles, like he does here:
What do you call an "insane" percentage of 2pt shots? The truth is you have to hit 50% of your 2-pointers to equal 33.33% at 3-point range.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
