IMO, the Spurs lost more games due to struggles buying a bucket than to Keldon not being tall enough
i dont remember many games where opposing scorers were having their way with Keldon. If anything, it was guards and wings who were having their way against us. And since it is a scorer’s league, I’m not even debating for us to find a defensive ace to stop those scorers…I’m debating for us to find a player who can match them point for point
White's playmaking stats are depressed because of all the selfish guys he's been playing with. How many times was he uninvolved because Gay got a rebound and decided to be Point Rudy or Mills wanted to get his customary end of quarter turnover, DeRozan wanting the ball, etc
Spurs need more point creation and that's why I want Collins and Sengun, but White does have untapped potential.
That sums it up pretty well...The Spurs don't really need play-makers. White's an excellent play-maker, and assuming Murray's back(but you know), the one thing they don't need is a four who wants to do a bunch of dribble-drive . I remain convinced that the Bubble set the Spurs' development back more than it helped. They need to move away from that offense and more toward one that has defined roles and creates shots for off-ball players through movement and leverage rather than though individual creation against set defenses. That doesn't mean they should have a lead guard and four one-dimensional scorers, but it does mean they need a diversity in how they get buckets so they can attack defenses in different ways.
I say this reminder about once a year, but the first option in the Motion Weak offense (otherwise known as the main set during the BG era) is a post-up for the PF. It then flowed into PnRs, cuts for open threes and elbow jumpers. It was basically like, "Okay, so first we get Diaw into a position to score, and if that doesn't work then we give Parker one, then Green, then Tim" and so on. Right now it's like, "Okay so DeMar is has the ball, but they packed the paint harder than he's pounding the air out of the ball. Okay so he passes to Johnson who has a crack of daylight for a thr-- no wait, he's driving. He passes it to Murray, and he's dribbling around the three-point like trying to cross over his man for like 10 seconds. He's got nothing so he passes it to Derrick, who's rising up for a three as the shot-clock expires. At least Jakob is there for a rebound." Obviously, they score some times, and those individual creations can work. But basically everyone is going against their strengths way too much.
It's hard to even be excited about Johnson's potential development, because it's looking like more of that dribble-drive that's going to make the offense even harder to watch. In a vacuum, I'm happy he's looking good in a one-on-one context. But if he's just going to be like that with Murray and White already on the floor, then the offense is going continue to be "inconsistent" at best.
Playmaking =\ shot creating
I think two conversations are happening here but I’d like to emphasize that I think the team needs (among other needs) is a shot creator first and foremost, not a point guard that has total control of the offense. In other words, a Devin Book and not a Chris Paul. I think the latter archetype is overrated when it comes to success. People will say Chris Paul is having success now, to which I will say… finally? It’s fun to root for a passing point guard like Nash, but there’s a reason why teams with those types as the centerpiece don’t go far… the offense becomes too predictable. Give me a shot creator and diversify the offense with secondary playmakers around him.
I think this is a poor way to determining skills at making plays. The Spurs haven't used a primary play-maker in years. They did have ball-dominant players in DeRozan and Murray, but that's not the same thing as saying those where the top play-makers. That and White being the only one of the trio whose three was enough to keep him buoyant meant he was a finisher off passes way more than he might be in a bigger role. Derrick was assisted on his shots at the highest rate of his career. In terms of two-pointers his assisted rate was double that of DMDR and DJM. That suggests that him passing to them probably resulted in them not taking shots or driving into what they considered better positions and ruining the assist opportunities. White being on the court made it easier for DeRozan and Murray to get assists, but not the other way around.
Also, the Spurs aren't contenders and can afford to let guys like Johnson and Vassell try to grow as play-makers in lesser roles. That's something that harder to do with Murray and DeRozan for reasons I mentioned above. Certainly for Johnson, it seems like the Spurs want him to get better in that regard. Collins absorbing a bunch of usage with his extremely high AFG% gives White and the others another obvious target for passes should make his job and those of the young wings easier.
Definitely not. You don't have to sell me on the idea that the smalls in the lineup need to be better. But you don't fix that by trying to add another driver to the lineup. You swap out some of the not-good-enough perimeter players, which I've been proposing for a while now.A four with ball skills is absolutely a need with a starting lineup deficient in them all around (only White could be described as having average or better ones for his position and that's only if you consider him a "SG", as opposed to how he'll actually function which is as minimally the co-primary play maker).
Or, or the Spurs could actually implement a system. Like I get in today's NBA there's a better chance at success if you have stars who can dominate and guys who can score chaotically. But if you don't have stars who can dominate, then having a system offense can make you better than the sum of your parts. Ask Miami about system offenses. I don't presume the Spurs are basketball savants, but they aren't dunces. At this point, there should be little credible opposition to running an offense, given the lack of clout on the roster. Collins has made it clear he'd welcome more offensive structure, so he wouldn't argue. It's just the smarter move given where the team is, and they can revisit it as their situation changes.The BG era is irrelevant. They don't have the talent or basketball IQ to pull it off and system offenses are a thing of the past.
Last edited by Uriel; 07-13-2021 at 10:34 PM.
Caldwell Pope wouldnt be half bad… dude hits BIG shots from the times I’ve seen him
Like I said, I'd prefer to get something rather than nothing for derozan, especially a pick. I'm sure a contender would like to add KCP at the deadline. And as much as I don't like Kuzma, he fits our cores age and he plays a position of need and is only at 13M a season. It's not a terrible deal
Yeah, I've been on the Kuzma bandwagon. If he pout tell him you'll move him if he plays well. He's definitely a player who can look good, and on his contract he'll always intrigue some teams ala GS and Oubre. Otherwise he takes touches that need to be taken without DeRozan. I've made it clear there are PFs I'd prefer, but if he's the minimum available at the end of the day, I think the summer will be fine for the team.
Of course a circle of my personal would probably be seeing Murray and Kuz fight over who's the alpha dog on a 30-win team. Not uber likely, but that is a possible downside.
Spurs would have to do that if it was available wouldn’t they?
I just find it doubtful seeing as how we couldn’t get anything for DDR at the trade line and suddenly we are getting 2 rotation pieces and a first round pick?
I'd rather the Spurs sign Barkevious Mingo to play at the 4 than Kyle ing Kuzma tbh.
I'd rather see a max offer sheet to Collins and risk the matching than take Kuzma and nonsense and 22.
Don't even know how they could get 22 without getting it blown up by the league but that's another story.
This team needs a "big" who can spread the floor and be a volume 3 point shooter. If Keldon is playing the 4 that means we won't have that type of big, which means this team can only improve so much.
Keldon "plays" much more like a 3 than a 4 as well.
A lot has changed in the nba between the trade deadline and now.
I do not think we could have gotten Porzingis for Derozan at the trade deadline. But if the mavs strike out on trading him in free agency, and I think they will, and if derozan doesn't get some monster offer, and i think he won't, then if the spurs want, a sign and trade for derozan and porzingis wouldn't be that hard, since the mavs might not do much better than derozan, and the spurs might strike out on the bigs they try to sign and kristaps becomes the best option they have at that position.
That’s because the Spurs have leverage over the Lakers. The Lakers don’t have the cap space to sign DDR outright, so they need to S&T for him. That gives the Spurs the leverage to ask more from the Lakers.
That lineup put up a 117.9 offensive rating. PHX starting lineup is a 115.9 and MIL starting lineup is at 117.7.The Spurs don't really need play-makers. White's an excellent play-maker, and assuming Murray's back(
I say this reminder about once a year, but the first option in the Motion Weak offense (otherwise known as the main set during the BG era) is a post-up for the PF. It then flowed into PnRs, cuts for open threes and elbow jumpers. It was basically like, "Okay, so first we get Diaw into a position to score, and if that doesn't work then we give Parker one, then Green, then Tim" and so on. Right now it's like, "Okay so DeMar is has the ball, but they packed the paint harder than he's pounding the air out of the ball. Okay so he passes to Johnson who has a crack of daylight for a thr-- no wait, he's driving. He passes it to Murray, and he's dribbling around the three-point like trying to cross over his man for like 10 seconds. He's got nothing so he passes it to Derrick, who's rising up for a three as the shot-clock expires. At least Jakob is there for a rebound." Obviously, they score some times, and those individual creations can work. But basically everyone is going against their strengths way too much.
It's hard to even be excited about Johnson's potential development, because it's looking like more of that dribble-drive that's going to make the offense even harder to watch. In a vacuum, I'm happy he's looking good in a one-on-one context. But if he's just going to be like that with Murray and White already on the floor, then the offense is going continue to be "inconsistent" at best.
More ballhandlers == higher offensive rating.
So what you're telling me is that offensive rating doesn't actually correlate with a good team?
EDIT: Also, the Spurs SL I'm assuming you're referring to (Murray, White, DeRozan, Johnson, Poeltl) wasn't close to the best net-rating lineups the Spurs ran. All or the ones above that included two or even one ball-handler. All of those include guys like DeRozan, Gay and Mills and often don't have Poeltl, so it doesn't look like the net-rating is driven by elite defense. If all that's true, then it seems like fewer ball-handlers serves the team better than more.
Last edited by Chinook; 07-14-2021 at 07:06 AM.
You were talking about the offense so he gave you the offensive rating and now you want to talk net rating? Just admit that you're wrong and move on. The starting lineup's offense was good if not great when DW4 was playing, and that's a fact.
Also, the higher net rating lineups were because of the defense, not offense. You can see at https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/ad...59&CF=MIN*G*25 that the top net ratings were because the defensive ratings were so low.
I wasn't talking about net-rating about offense, so when he posted about offensive rating, it did more to show how irrelevant that stat is to the point. If that lineup as it functioned last year were truly good enough offensively, people wouldn't be ing about shooters or how DeRozan slows down the offense or whatever. Folks want to simlutaneously use offensive stats to claim Murray, Murray/White and the "hydra offense" but then want to pretend like none of that applies to DeRozan. It's weird, Murray and White are supposed to be some of the best defensive guards in the league, and DeRozan and Mills are supposed to be bad, but we're really going to say the reason why lineups with the latter duo can be part of so many good defensive lineups and Poeltl, who put up some of the best defensive lineups in the league last season, weren't as good as the ones including Eubanks?
My point was countering the idea that more ball-handlers makes the offense better. That's not true. The Spurs had great offensive lineups with one or two ball-handlers and more shooters. Why that reality is reflected more as a product of defensive rating, I don't know. But I know I wouldn't want to be caught having to support the idea that Mills and Gay were the defensive core of the team in order to explain how a championship-level offensive lineup filled with plus defenders led the team to a mediocre-to-bad record despite having a bench that dominated statistically.
I think so, though, depending on who Lakers take at 22 i might prefer a future pick instead.
Does seem odd to get anything for DDR now after some failed efforts, but I dont think many top heavy contending teams like the Lakers or Philly have the space to sign a 3rd "star" out right. So there is that.
This is true. Kuzma and Harrell are not on bad contract and should easily be movable to make room to sign DDR out right. Plus a FIRST? Why would they give away their assets to sign Derozan. Players like Love and Wiggins with bad contracts are another story however.
It’s certainly true that in the NBA they don’t give points for dribbling, but so what?
...
The Spurs had great offensive lineups with one or two ball-handlers and more shooters. Why that reality is reflected more as a product of defensive rating, I don't know. ...
Look at the number of games and the minutes played, for those various lineups in the link posted earlier. The best DRTG was a lineup that appeared in only 12 games for a total of only 37 minutes. Three minutes in 1/6 of the games. I don’t know when that lineup was actually used, but statistically that’s “garbage time” — not enough data to draw a conclusion.
The Spurs had only 4 lineups that played more than 100 minutes together. And none of the lineups appeared in more than 1/3 of the games, except there was one that appeared in 25 games.
The RS was 72 games of 48 minutes of course, not counting overtimes. 3456 minutes. The Spurs lineup with the most time was 333 minutes. Less than 1/10 of the season.
Basically, those lineup stats are pretty much all trash. Not enough data in relation to the length of the season. Only the 2 or 3 lineups with the highest minutes might count for something.
It was a problem that White missed half the season. The White - Murray - DDR - Keldon - Poeltl lineup with a Net of +6, if it could have gone the full season, should have produced a winning record and maybe made some noise in the playoffs. Only speculation, we’ll never know.
Incredible that the top four line ups of a sub .500 team don't contain their highest paid player, who is also the team leader in minutes. You'd be hard pressed to find a similar scenario with any other "star" or team in the league.
OK, for the umpteenth time, we cannot do that Lakers trade. The league would void any trade where a draft pick is made, the league shuts down to do it’s salary calculations for next year, and then a player is signed and traded for the rights to that draft pick. You cannot stretch a trade out over two different league fiscal years.
This is why I want to make minimal changes to our existing structure, just add the draft picks and use the cap space. One of the last games before White sprained his ankle, Pop rested DeRozan and DJ, and we went into Phoenix, and kicked their ing asses. Like the game was never in doubt after the first Q. Let’s see what the team, minus DeRozan and maybe other vets, plus draft picks and player improvements can do.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
