Since 2011-2012, when Danny Green hits at least 3 three's....

[SASdynasty!]

In other news, this season the Spurs have won 92% of their games when Parker starts and 50% of their games when Mills starts.

[dabom]

Do Spurs win 92% of their games if kawhi is injured and Tony starting? no.

[ducks]

Danny Green is so underrated and so un appreciated with the fan base. It's a crime.

Tp is much more underrated

[Chinook]

In other news, this season the Spurs have won 92% of their games when Parker starts and 50% of their games when Mills starts.

This season, you mean. No way Parker's career winning percentage is near that high.

[YGWHI]

Well...players fans. We should make a poll to know who player is the most underrated by the fans here.

Chinook our loved Danny's player fan will say Green. So it's Danny? Parker? Kawhi on offense?


Sorry, I guess that poll-thead already exists. Should bump it.

[dabom]

Chinook doesn't know anything about double teams apparently. Can a poster be this wrong all the time? We'lol add it to the other he says.

[100%duncan]

You didn't even register what my post was about. The reason why the Parker-led Spurs had a better offense is because the PnR is a timing play. Kawhiso may draw more attention (though that's only if you don't calibrate for the type of play it is), but it has no set timing. Kawhi will pass when he sees a man open or when he can't score himself. PnR plays aren't designed that way. The handler has certain options to pass the ball to depending on where they are in the play.

It's analogous to designed runs in American Football. All the linemen and blockers known where to go on those plays. Some really complex stuff happens, but it's already been practiced to the point that there isn't anything but execution left. Kawhisos and LMA post-up plays are like QBs scrambling or buying time in the pocket. The line have no idea what to do for the most part, and you get a lot more holding calls, because they lose leverage on their men. It's not that the RB is better at running than the QB; it's that when everyone can just do their jobs in a set rhythm, execution is much easier.

So you're agreeing that Parker is a better playmaker? Thanks.

[Chinook]

So you're agreeing that Parker is a better playmaker? Thanks.

Yes. Was that the point of the post? No. The post wasn't about the players. It was about the plays. It's easier for guys to get shots out plays like PnRs, because they know where they have to be and when to get their looks. When you play in the post or iso, the defense dictates the timing, along with the passing player. So the off-ball guys don't know if or when or where they will get the ball. That's why Green's last two seasons have seen his attempts per 36 drop to the lowest they've been since his first years starting.

The problem isn't that Kawhi is selfish or can't pass. It's that the style of offense the Spurs have been playing (perhaps due to his and LMA's skill-sets) is not going to generate a lot of efficient rhythm looks for others. This criticism is much older than the Kawhiso era. It goes back to guys like Kobe, Melo and Joe Johnson at least. Most of the guys complaining about my take here would have had no issue if I were talking about Kobe or Melo instead.

[100%duncan]

Yes. Was that the point of the post? No. The post wasn't about the players. It was about the plays. It's easier for guys to get shots out plays like PnRs, because they know where they have to be and when to get their looks. When you play in the post or iso, the defense dictates the timing, along with the passing player. So the off-ball guys don't know if or when or where they will get the ball. That's why Green's last two seasons have seen his attempts per 36 drop to the lowest they've been since his first years starting.

The problem isn't that Kawhi is selfish or can't pass. It's that the style of offense the Spurs have been playing (perhaps due to his and LMA's skill-sets) is not going to generate a lot of efficient rhythm looks for others. This criticism is much older than the Kawhiso era. It goes back to guys like Kobe, Melo and Joe Johnson at least. Most of the guys complaining about my take here would have had no issue if I were talking about Kobe or Melo instead.

But I reacted to your take that Kawhi doesn't warrant as much defenders as TP did which is completely false. No need to backtrack, I was just pointing out your mistake.

[Chinook]

But I reacted to your take that Kawhi doesn't warrant as much defenders as TP did which is completely false. No need to backtrack, I was just pointing out your mistake.

No, you replied to this post:

The two big things affecting that are 1) a lack of high-IQ screens to create open looks and 2) a lack of predictability on where the other guys should be to get good looks.

Splitter being done/gone hurts quite a bit, as he loved setting random back-picks. Duncan did too. You aren't going to get great off-ball movement just from sliding around the perimeter or ineffective cuts.

The second reason is much bigger. Kawhiso and post-up plays for LMA aren't really good ways to get open looks. Kawhi pretty much passes either when he has to or when he sees an opening. That's fine for him, but for the guy playing off the ball, that means he can't move very much. He's running the risk of either faking Kawhi out by not being where he just was before or clunking up the play by cutting through and bringing in a secondary defender. For post-ups the passes come off doubles, which can come at different times and from different places. The spacers can't be moving around, because then LMA doesn't have release valves

Contrast that to a Parker PnR and you have plenty of windows to get passes. You know where to slide depending on where Tony was in his drive. It's easy to stay in rhythm. It's like "You'll get the ball right now, or you'll slide to the corner for the next window to open in two seconds." Then of course, the Zipper Series had a ton of ways to get open since it wasn't based on Tony's passing but his speed. The Spurs offense right now is just too basic to get that kind of movement.

That was about plays, not players. It was comparing Kawhi iso plays, LMA post-ups and Parker PnRs. You assumed that was a player-fan, anti-Kawhi argument. That was your mistake, which you keep repeating. You should just admit that you either jumped the gun with your interpretation or replied to the wrong thread by mistake.

This thread had nothing to do with how many defenders Kawhi warrants. That's a completely valid point of discussion that can, has and will be discussed in other threads.

[Dex]

Ahh, SpursTalk....where a Danny Green thread can turn into a Parker vs. Kawhi debate.

[Chinook]

Ahh, SpursTalk....where a Danny Green thread can turn into a Parker vs. Kawhi debate.

Ugh, true. But if people want him to be a bigger part of the offense, then the offense has to change. You can't compare 2012-2014 to 2015-2016 without comparing the way the offenses are run. Could you imagine Pop running 10 set plays for Green each game? I can't.

[dabom]

Danny can't even dribble the ball.

[Dex]

Ugh, true. But if people want him to be a bigger part of the offense, then the offense has to change. You can't compare 2012-2014 to 2015-2016 without comparing the way the offenses are run. Could you imagine Pop running 10 set plays for Green each game? I can't.

Agreed. I think Green was definitely one of the beneficiaries of the Beautiful Game offense. With players moving and the ball kicking in and out and all around, defenses were bound to lose sight of him. Now he posts up outside the arc while Kawhi, Aldridge, or Pau go to work and waits for the kickout. Teams have to choose whether they will leave him to bring help, and I would imagine most teams will elect to bring help from other spots.

I'd be interested to see how Danny's offense and three-point production fare with the bench unit (who still run more motion) vs. the starting lineup.

[Chinook]

Agreed. I think Green was definitely one of the beneficiaries of the Beautiful Game offense. With players moving and the ball kicking in and out and all around, defenses were bound to lose sight of him. Now he posts up outside the arc while Kawhi, Aldridge, or Pau go to work and waits for the kickout. Teams have to choose whether they will leave him to bring help, and I would imagine most teams will elect to bring help from other spots.

Indeed, Danny's gravity was the highest on the team a couple of years ago, and I think it will get up there again if his shooting hold up. Him passing to LMA delays the weakside help significantly. Coaches still seem to get pissed any time Danny hits an open three. He's definitely in the game-plan.

I'd be interested to see how Danny's offense and three-point production fare with the bench unit (who still run more motion) vs. the starting lineup.

Well that's why I loved Pop staggering Green and Kawhi in this most recent game. One was on the court for most of the second half. Doing that and having Simmons and Manu fill in as necessary may be how Pop ends up handling the rotation.

[100%duncan]

Post # 6

I feel like he's taken a couple of moderately contested threes this season and hit them, which is really encouraging for his long-term prognosis. I think if the Spurs don't prioritize getting him the ball, he's not going to get looks. First, the book is out on Danny, so teams aren't going to leave him hope and second, Kawhi will never have Parker's gravity.

The latter case the Spurs have tried to remedy by having Danny be the entry-passer. It didn't work last year, but it's working well enough this year. If Danny is comfortable taking contested threes and hits them at a decent rate, that will help him and LMA a ton.

The former case will only be resolved with plays and actions that give him the ball. The plays are rare but have been working when they get to happen (except the corner Hammer, which has been well-scouted). The actions have been getting him open, but it's not ingrained in the offense to look for him at certain points. He's still being treated mostly as a bailout man or a way to exploit weak defense. There's no "Well at this point in this play, you know so and so is going to make a cut which will leave Danny open about half the time, so look for him then." contingency in their offense.

Post 9 in reaction to the bolded part of post # 6

I dont know. Kawhi commands 4 players at times when he goes in the paint, you may have meant to say he doesnt have the same playmaking skills that TP does. I agree though with your previous post, Danny needs more looks. Takeaway those turnaround fadeaways from LMA and forced shots from Kawhi and give it to Danny instead.

Can you even backread or are you being purposely obtuse?

[100%duncan]

Ahh, SpursTalk....where a Danny Green thread can turn into a Parker vs. Kawhi debate.

Please backread my first post was about Danny, my second post was me reacting to a wrong point chinook made. But oh no, he can never be wrong nor accept his mistakes. But hey it's my fault for turning this into a player vs player thread by pointing out a mistake.

[dabom]

Please backread my first post was about Danny, my second post was me reacting to a wrong point chinook made. But oh no, he can never be wrong nor accept his mistakes. But hey it's my fault for turning this into a player vs player thread by pointing out a mistake.

I was roasting Chinook yesterday until the mods spoiled it. The guy is never straightforward .

[Chinook]

Post # 6


Post 9 in reaction to the bolded part of post # 6


Can you even backread or are you being purposely obtuse?

But that's not what gravity is. It's not about how many guys you attract in the paint. Your critique was irrelevant. I guess, though that you've been trying to harp on it every post for some reason.

It would be like if I said, "Kawhi can't get into the paint like Tony could" and you said, "Haven't you seen his post-up numbers?" The Spurs routinely have three or even four players collapse in the paint. Kawhi's block on Amir Johnson, I think, is a great example of that. That had nothing to do with Johnson having high gravity. However, Pop calling a time-out every time someone failed to close-out on Curry IS a sign of gravity.

[dabom]

Post # 6


Post 9 in reaction to the bolded part of post # 6


Can you even backread or are you being purposely obtuse?

[100%duncan]

But that's not what gravity is. It's not about how many guys you attract in the paint. Your critique was irrelevant. I guess, though that you've been trying to harp on it every post for some reason.

It would be like if I said, "Kawhi can't get into the paint like Tony could" and you said, "Haven't you seen his post-up numbers?" The Spurs routinely have three or even four players collapse in the paint. Kawhi's block on Amir Johnson, I think, is a great example of that. That had nothing to do with Johnson having high gravity. However, Pop calling a time-out every time someone failed to close-out on Curry IS a sign of gravity.

Okay, coach.

[dabom]

He still hasn't answered the question.

[Chinook]

Okay, coach.

So here are a couple of articles on gravity:

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...ity-basketball

http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2015/1...ity-in-the-nba

I'm posting these in good faith, even though they somewhat contradict that I was saying. The first article suggests that there is an on-ball gravity that is measured by players' ability to drive. That is something that you can use to suggest Leonard has better gravity than Parker, though that same article uses Tony as an archetype for this type. The second article suggests that bigs have the most gravity since they're near the paint. And that's true in my mind for a guy like Deandre Jordan. But I wouldn't say that about a guy like LMA who isn't a put-back specialist.

When I'm talking about gravity, I'm mainly talking about how a player's movement or lack there of affects defensive assignments. Parker's gravity on PnR wasn't tremendous in my mind. His gravity in the Zipper Series was huge, and I don't think there's an offense that will be able to leverage Kawhi's skills enough to get him there. Even Durant inside the paint doesn't have great gravity.

Tony being a HoFer really does mean something. It's unlikely that Kawhi will be better than Parker in everything. It would be like arguing any comparison between Robinson and Duncan that favors David. Kawhi not being able to synergize with an offense like Tony could isn't a strike against his legacy.

[dabom]

Again you didn't answer it. Can we get a quan ative measurement? No you stupid . Everything you say is superfluous.

[HarlemHeat37]

Not going to read the entire thread(), but I don't think the aesthetics of the offense are a knock on Kawhi as an individual..

Just based on position, it would be very difficult to build the same type of offense around Kawhi..he has improved dramatically as a ball-handler and playmaker, but he's never going to have the same effect as a guard, in that regard, it just isn't natural..

In terms of playmaking, I think his ceiling will probably be Paul Pierce, who had a similar career arc, in that regard..even Pierce needed other offensive anchors(KG) and capable playmakers(Allen) to run a high-level offense, though..

Unfortunately, the Spurs' demise will be their lack of reliable guard options IMO..