LMA's touches when Kawhi returns

**duncan2k5** · 12-11-2017

I didn't answer your question. I addressed your weird self-answer thing. Yes, I think the team wins 50 without Kawhi, especially if they had had an off-season to prepare and a replace-level small-forward. As it is, I hope they don't have to try. But GS and Cleveland are the only two teams I'd hands-down take in a series over SA without Kawhi. I'd be hesitant to take either if the Spurs were whole.

Let's flip ur assertion... Replace LMA with a replace-level PF, and we would win even more than your Kawhi-less team would win...

**DAF86** · 12-11-2017

Originally Posted by Chinook

Like assuming offensive efficiency and ORtg are the same thing.

To me they are and every site I read uses those terms indefferently as synonyms, maybe I'm wrong. So please enlighten me what is the difference between offensive efficiency and offensive rating.

Like arguing for sample size when it's something you don't like (the team's offense since Tony returned) but ignoring it for something you don't (Murray's DRtg in relation to the rest of the team).

lol that's the people acusse you of doing.

Arguing certain players are better than others because of stats, giving them more power than their underlying arguments assert.

When the did I do that? I don't argue players are better than others just because of stats. I might use them as arguments, like any person that wants to provide a good analysis should do, but I don't just look at stats and say "X" is better than "Y".

Not knowing there are more ways to iso than the classic category.

You are one dishonest mother er.

I have already conceded that what cons utes an isolation play can be blurry so I don't know why you keep insisting with that, which in any case doesn't help your re ed argument at all. If you have a problem with that take it with the guys that decided to give "isolation plays" that particular determination.

Because Manu and Tony play the same role in the offense and thusly help each other the least. You're right there are other factors like playing against bench players and often having a freer system with the main options not being on the floor. But Manu is sort of the nexus of all that. Of course, I had just taken your word that Tony had negative offensive on-offs. I just checked and he was neutral, slightly negative and slightly positive the last three years. Pretty good, actually, considering the aforementioned Manu stuff.

Your original statement was that the offense runs better with Parker and I pointed out that that just wasn't the case. Whether it is because of Manu or other things is irrelevant. You made a statement that wasn't true and I called you out on it.

I've made thousands of posts over the years bemoaning how Pop leverages Kawhi's talents, especially in contrast to how he leveraged Tony's before. That's my main issue. This summer, it was a lot of defending the supporting cast, which is something I feel good about given how well they've played without him. I've had just as vigorous exchanges with folks saying Kawhi was below Harden and Westbrook and Giannis. It's just people don't say stupid like that here.

I don't know what you do on other sites. Here you say things like "Aldridge should be the number one option over Kawhi", and that's just re ed.

Anyway, the reason why it's hard to build around wings is because most NBA schemes weren't made with wings in mind. You had a front court and back court, with guards and forwards, but two-guards and small-forwards weren't similar. So when people drew up rules like how to play transition D or do movements off post-ups or whatever, they did so with the idea that certain positions would be in certain places on the court. I assume that all makes sense to you. The way it affects the game today is that you need to have a big who can play like a wing in order to have a wing who can play like a big. Like if Kawhi plays in the post, then you need LMA or Pau beyond the arc. But then when the other team gets the rebound, you have a seven-footer trying to get back to stop the break when by design that should be a guard. Or in a kick-out situation, you have a slower player who's probably more reluctant to shoot and thusly easier to close out on. Both of those examples (and more) just lead to it being harder for a team to function when guys playing the middle positions dominate the ball.

Sorry son but that's a lot of rubbish. In today's NBA your best chance to win is to have a 6'6'' or taller perimeter player being your number one option. Guys like Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Harden. Heck the ing mighty GS Warriors would have been a one hit wonder (and that only 'cause the Cavs lost Love and Irving in 2015) if Durant wouldn't have joined them.

PG centered offenses in particular, have never been succesful in any era with the lone exception being the 6'9'' Magic Johnson.

Well we'll see. If they start to look like their 2016 selves again, I'll feel vindicated. If Kawhi gets back to playing to his old form while the others keep it up, I'll feel I was wrong. That seems fair.

Dude, they look like their 2016 selves right ing now.

Mills looks a little bit worse actually, or did you actually think you won someone over with your "he's doing other things better" argument?

BBRef is about as reputable as it gets. They will explain their methodology.

I guess NBA.com isn't reputable. It isn't a matter of reputation son. Different sites have different results depending on what they consider a possession. They don't differ much from each other though, so it'a not a big deal.

NBA.com has them at seventh, and closer to 10th than fifth. , even that random site you posted has them closer to 10th than fifth.

I was talking about the rank. Anyways closer to 5th or 10th, there's no denying that the offense with Kawhi as the number one option runs much better than with LA as the number one option.

**SAGirl** · 12-11-2017

Originally Posted by Chinook

Well we'll see. If they start to look like their 2016 selves again, I'll feel vindicated. If Kawhi gets back to playing to his old form while the others keep it up, I'll feel I was wrong. That seems fair.

I feel like it's inevitable that numbers across the board will go down. Hopefully not for Lamarcus that much, since he's really playing well and the team needs him in that aggressive mindset.

Something that goes overlooked is that LMA does get his post ups for sure, but a lot of his baskets come as result of his own effort, he runs hard and gets underneath the basket where someone finds him, he sets a pick for someone, ends up with a mismatch, rolls to the basket where he just grabs an offensive board and gets fouled. Often the guys attempting to box him out simply can't match his size and strength... he's finding a lot of baskets within the system. Sometimes he's gone off, but other times the team has had 5 or 6 guys scoring in double figures. Sometimes Lamarcus' gravity and the degree of help sent his way is forcing other guys in the team to make plays, they have responded well. Tony coming back helps a ton, but other guys have finally starting to get a rhythm like Manu and Patty.

The Spurs early season offensive woes were due lin large part to Manu and Patty having very slow efficiency starts to their own seasons and the team playing Murray huge minutes, who can't shoot. As Bryn and Tony have started to take most of Murray's minutes, the offense is looking better.

Anyways, it's going to be an adjustment for everyone to play off Kawhi again, but they will figure it out, just like they figured out how to play without him (and Tony for a good 20 games). Some guys inevitably will score a lot less, others will inevitably play less minutes, some guys will lose touches (and I feel like it's not just LMA, but Tony and Pau, since LMA is still going to score close to the basket, but Tony will be off the ball more and Pau?)

This is all stuff for Pop to figure out.

**Chinook** · 12-11-2017

Originally Posted by DAF86

To me they are and every site I read uses those terms indefferently as synonyms, maybe I'm wrong. So please enlighten me what is the difference between offensive efficiency and offensive rating.

Dunno. People can call a stat whatever they want. Until I see their methodology, I can't say what the difference is. I can say that when I cite one stat, and you cite a different one pretending it's the same, it's on you to explain why they are.

When the did I do that? I don't argue players are better than others just because of stats. I might use them as arguments, like any person that wants to provide a good analysis should do, but I don't just look at stats and say "X" is better than "Y".

Mainly LMA versus Capela. You used ORtg to argue LMA is the worse offensive player. That's not what ORtg measures in the first place. In the second place, it's just a bad argument.

You are one dishonest mother er.

I have already conceded that what cons utes an isolation play can be blurry so I don't know why you keep insisting with that, which in any case doesn't help your re ed argument at all. If you have a problem with that take it with the guys that decided to give "isolation plays" that particular determination.

Maybe you did and I just didn't see it. Of course, even if you now know that's the case, it doesn't take away from you not having known before and citing the stats blindly.

Your original statement was that the offense runs better with Parker and I pointed out that that just wasn't the case. Whether it is because of Manu or other things is irrelevant. You made a statement that wasn't true and I called you out on it.

I don't remember the exact wording of the statement. I assume it wasn't that Parker runs the offense better than any possible PG but rather that he runs the offense better than the guys who were in his place (Murray, Mills or Kyle). Manu playing well explains why your stats were misleading, not why my original assertion were wrong. I've been arguing for the team to upgrade their guard talent for years now. Obviously, I don't think it's Parker or bust.

Sorry son but that's a lot of rubbish. In today's NBA your best chance to win is to have a 6'6'' or taller perimeter player being your number one option. Guys like Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, Harden. Heck the ing mighty GS Warriors would have been a one hit wonder (and that only 'cause the Cavs lost Love and Irving in 2015) if Durant wouldn't have joined them.

PG centered offenses in particular, have never been succesful in any era with the lone exception being the 6'9'' Magic Johnson.

You are listing the examples of the best players in the league, not the ones around whom it's easiest to build systems. Durant is like seven feet tall and can play offense like a guard and defense like a big. There isn't a system in existence that could make him look bad. Same with Lebron. Harden plays PG. His height is not relevant to the discussion, which is also true for Magic. It's not even relevant for Simmons when he plays next to three perimeter-oriented players like Red , Saric and Covington.

Dude, they look like their 2016 selves right ing now.

Mills looks a little bit worse actually, or did you actually think you won someone over with your "he's doing other things better" argument?

No, the really, really don't. If you think Green this year looks like Green last year, I will just assume you only look at stat sheets. You want to attribute their changes to working hard or whatever. But if they stop doing that when Kawhi comes back, it will be really su ious.

I guess NBA.com isn't reputable. It isn't a matter of reputation son. Different sites have different results depending on what they consider a possession. They don't differ much from each other though, so it'a not a big deal.

See, this is what I mean. It totally matters how reputable a stats site is or how transparent they are. Advanced stats are opinions, not facts. They take raw numbers but subjectively weigh and manipulate them as part of an argument. As far as truth value, PER and RPM are the same. But people have started to find the arguments behind PER to be less convincing. When someone gives you their methodology behind their stats, they are willing to let you pick apart and debate their reasoning. A site that just gives the number is essentially putting themselves above criticism. It's not good enough to use a random site just because it has the most favorable numbers for your argument.

I was talking about the rank. Anyways closer to 5th or 10th, there's no denying that the offense with Kawhi as the number one option runs much better than with LA as the number one option.

But it's clearly more accurate to say the Spurs are closer to being 10th than in the top five in every case. They clearly weren't elite in any meaningful way. Of course they on a whole can score better with Kawhi. He can score enough for three players. But I'd be unwilling to back as far into this as you are. The same stats that put Kawhi as an elite offensive player put him as a nearly as bad defensive player last year. (Dude's total on-off was just 1.6/100.) As I've said, there was more going on than the numbers suggested, and I feel most people here are willing to explore qualifications with his defensive number than they are with his offensive numbers, and that's chicken and hypocritical.

**tbdog** · 12-11-2017

Gay, Leonard, and LMA is going to be sweet to watch. I think Gay will benefit the most. There will be very weak defenders marking him.

**DAF86** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by Chinook

Dunno. People can call a stat whatever they want. Until I see their methodology, I can't say what the difference is. I can say that when I cite one stat, and you cite a different one pretending it's the same, it's on you to explain why they are.

Then why the did you say I got the wrong stat?

Why are you acting as if offensive efficiency and offensive rating are two different things when you don't know for sure that's the case? I posted the stat and provided a link (thing which you didn't do), then I explained why the stats could vary a bit, but then you insisted that I had cited the wrong stat. If you are going to act so y about something at least be sure about it, tbh.

Mainly LMA versus Capela. You used ORtg to argue LMA is the worse offensive player. That's not what ORtg measures in the first place. In the second place, it's just a bad argument.

You are being a dishonest mother er again.

I've never said Capela was a better offensive player than LA, I just said that in today's NBA, his style of play for a bigman is more effective.

Maybe you did and I just didn't see it. Of course, even if you now know that's the case, it doesn't take away from you not having known before and citing the stats blindly.

I always knew that was the case- Just for the record, I'm not agreeing with your personal opinion of what cons utes an isolation play, I'm just saying that I can see your point because I'm not a close-minded . Anyways, under any cir stance, Kawhi is not even close to being one of the guys that isos the most; so no matter how you look at it you are wrong.

You are listing the examples of the best players in the league, not the ones around whom it's easiest to build systems. Durant is like seven feet tall and can play offense like a guard and defense like a big. There isn't a system in existence that could make him look bad. Same with Lebron. Harden plays PG. His height is not relevant to the discussion, which is also true for Magic. It's not even relevant for Simmons when he plays next to three perimeter-oriented players like Red , Saric and Covington.

Harden isn't playing PG this season, Paul is. Or in any case, if you argue that Harden is the PG then we can say that Lebron is also the PG of the Cavs, or that Manu is the PG of the Spurs' bench, or that Jordan was the PG of the Bulls. Which is kind of true, the guy that handles the ball the most on a team ends up being the de facto point guard. Therefore we can say that Kawhi is the PG of the Spurs.

No, the really, really don't. If you think Green this year looks like Green last year, I will just assume you only look at stat sheets. You want to attribute their changes to working hard or whatever. But if they stop doing that when Kawhi comes back, it will be really su ious.

No mention of Mills I see

Yeah, Green has shown improvements with his ball-handling skills and he has had more opportunities to show it this season untill Tony got back and started to dominate more of the ball. When Kawhi comes back, Green will have even less ball-handling opportunities, but that won't mean he would have forgotten how to dribble a ball, tbh.

See, this is what I mean. It totally matters how reputable a stats site is or how transparent they are. Advanced stats are opinions, not facts. They take raw numbers but subjectively weigh and manipulate them as part of an argument. As far as truth value, PER and RPM are the same. But people have started to find the arguments behind PER to be less convincing. When someone gives you their methodology behind their stats, they are willing to let you pick apart and debate their reasoning. A site that just gives the number is essentially putting themselves above criticism. It's not good enough to use a random site just because it has the most favorable numbers for your argument.

Again, how is the official site of the NBA not "reputable"? If they ever start handing out awards for advanced stats those are the stats that they are going to use.

But it's clearly more accurate to say the Spurs are closer to being 10th than in the top five in every case. They clearly weren't elite in any meaningful way. Of course they on a whole can score better with Kawhi. He can score enough for three players. But I'd be unwilling to back as far into this as you are. The same stats that put Kawhi as an elite offensive player put him as a nearly as bad defensive player last year. (Dude's total on-off was just 1.6/100.) As I've said, there was more going on than the numbers suggested, and I feel most people here are willing to explore qualifications with his defensive number than they are with his offensive numbers, and that's chicken and hypocritical.

To me an offense that on the agreggate of the previous two season ended up in the top 5 is elite, tbh. But it doesn't matter if it is elite or it is just very good. What matters is that your comment about the offense being better not centered around Kawhi is wrong, just as the comment about Kawhi isoing too much, and many others that you have made over this argument.

**LongtimeSpursFan** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by tbdog

Gay, Leonard, and LMA is going to be sweet to watch. I think Gay will benefit the most. There will be very weak defenders marking him.

Include Kyle and Danny for flexibility on defense. All interchangeable to guard Durant and Curry and can also handle Houston.

**Chinook** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by DAF86

Then why the did you say I got the wrong stat?

Why are you acting as if offensive efficiency and offensive rating are two different things when you don't know for sure that's the case? I posted the stat and provided a link (thing which you didn't do), then I explained why the stats could vary a bit, but then you insisted that I had cited the wrong stat. If you are going to act so y about something at least be sure about it, tbh.

Because you tried to correct me and were wrong. You very purposefully found another site with nebulous stats but that made you look as good as possible. Intellectually dishonest and chicken .

I always knew that was the case- Just for the record, I'm not agreeing with your personal opinion of what cons utes an isolation play, I'm just saying that I can see your point because I'm not a close-minded . Anyways, under any cir stance, Kawhi is not even close to being one of the guys that isos the most; so no matter how you look at it you are wrong.

"I always knew but tried to call you out on it anyway." Chicken again. I've never said Kawhi iso's more than the average star. That's something you've been trying for force in because you're obsessed with trying to make this about me having a beef with Kawhi.

Harden isn't playing PG this season, Paul is. Or in any case, if you argue that Harden is the PG then we can say that Lebron is also the PG of the Cavs, or that Manu is the PG of the Spurs' bench, or that Jordan was the PG of the Bulls. Which is kind of true, the guy that handles the ball the most on a team ends up being the de facto point guard. Therefore we can say that Kawhi is the PG of the Spurs.

This is dumb. Harden is co-PGing with Paul this year. This is the first year since he's become and elite player where you can argue that. The Rockets obviously won a lot of games last year and this year when Paul was out to the point where Paul being there is simply not hurting them. Anyway, you can argue that Lebron is the PG, but that would be wrong in the way I've been talking about. Lebron is a forward doing PG things. But he never plays with just one guard and being in the places the PGs tend to me (especially off the ball). James is good enough to where it doesn't matter, but him playing the four is where he can take the most schematic advantage. That's why the team so often goes small.

I can't comment too much on Jordan, but the Triangle is a different beast and is pretty much dead as a main offense in the NBA. I will say that a lot of folks argue that Pippen was the point-forward of those teams. Anyway, no one in their right mind can call Kawhi the PG of the Spurs. It's just not the way the team's offense runs, and it's not what his skill-set is suited for.

No mention of Mills I see

He's been different, and I've already gone over that. If we don't want these to be a million words, we're going to have to accept that we can't go point-by-point on everything every time. If he regresses to a static spot-up shooter and Green becomes a hesitant clunker, then yeah, it will be bad regardless of what rate stats say.

Again, how is the official site of the NBA not "reputable"? If they ever start handing out awards for advanced stats those are the stats that they are going to use

Of course the NBA is going to use their own stats for an award show.

To me an offense that on the agreggate of the previous two season ended up in the top 5 is elite, tbh. But it doesn't matter if it is elite or it is just very good. What matters is that your comment about the offense being better not centered around Kawhi is wrong, just as the comment about Kawhi isoing too much, and many others that you have made over this argument.

So are you going to keep dropping that the numbers also say Kawhi was a negative defender (according to 2D analysis like you've been using)? If you're going to try to worship per 100 numbers as being inarguable, then you have to accept that incorrect conclusion.

**DAF86** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by Chinook

Because you tried to correct me and were wrong. You very purposefully found another site with nebulous stats but that made you look as good as possible. Intellectually dishonest and chicken .

"I always knew but tried to call you out on it anyway." Chicken again. I've never said Kawhi iso's more than the average star. That's something you've been trying for force in because you're obsessed with trying to make this about me having a beef with Kawhi.

This is dumb. Harden is co-PGing with Paul this year. This is the first year since he's become and elite player where you can argue that. The Rockets obviously won a lot of games last year and this year when Paul was out to the point where Paul being there is simply not hurting them. Anyway, you can argue that Lebron is the PG, but that would be wrong in the way I've been talking about. Lebron is a forward doing PG things. But he never plays with just one guard and being in the places the PGs tend to me (especially off the ball). James is good enough to where it doesn't matter, but him playing the four is where he can take the most schematic advantage. That's why the team so often goes small.

I can't comment too much on Jordan, but the Triangle is a different beast and is pretty much dead as a main offense in the NBA. I will say that a lot of folks argue that Pippen was the point-forward of those teams. Anyway, no one in their right mind can call Kawhi the PG of the Spurs. It's just not the way the team's offense runs, and it's not what his skill-set is suited for.

He's been different, and I've already gone over that. If we don't want these to be a million words, we're going to have to accept that we can't go point-by-point on everything every time. If he regresses to a static spot-up shooter and Green becomes a hesitant clunker, then yeah, it will be bad regardless of what rate stats say.

Of course the NBA is going to use their own stats for an award show.

So are you going to keep dropping that the numbers also say Kawhi was a negative defender (according to 2D analysis like you've been using)? If you're going to try to worship per 100 numbers as being inarguable, then you have to accept that incorrect conclusion.

Are you really answering this now with the game on?

I'm tired of you coming up time and time again with the same repe ive empty arguments. All I'm going to say is that Kawhi wasn't a negative defender according to advanced stats. So once again you are wrong.

**Chinook** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by DAF86

Are you really answering this now with the game on?

I'm tired of you coming up time and time again with the same repe ive empty arguments. All I'm going to say is that Kawhi wasn't a negative defender according to advanced stats. So once again you are wrong.

Yes he was:

https://www.basketball-reference.com...01/on-off/2017

Now if you want to just agree to disagree and stop going back and forth that's fine. But don't get all made on your way out.

**DAF86** · 12-12-2017

Originally Posted by Chinook

Yes he was:

https://www.basketball-reference.com...01/on-off/2017

Now if you want to just agree to disagree and stop going back and forth that's fine. But don't get all made on your way out.

You are saying opponent starters were better scoring the basketball than opponents' bench players?

Guess what, under that reasoning Danny Green was also a negative defender, as well as all other Spurs starters last season. While all the bench players were positive. That should tell you something.

Adjusted defensive plus-minus is where to look at for defensive stats and there Kawhi isn't negative.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...leonaka01.html

Anyways, defensive stats will never come close to being as accurate as offensive stats.