Reply With Quote
I agree with AHF, so I think I'll take a shot at this one.
Um, I guess your point was that a decision to shift the focus away from Duncan to the supporting perimeter players must be made at some consistent, definite threshold. But obviously there isn't some objective, precise criteria for determining when a player is not playing well and will continue to not play well. AHF's proposal is not based on statistical certainty or arbitrary limits. It is based on a general conclusion made by the coach, who examines all relevant data, and decides whether or not to change the focus of the offense. Hundred-thousandths of a percentage point are not relevant, obviously, but neither are the other capricious standards you identify.
Here's an example: Duncan could be shooting 6-17, or 3-12, or 1-6, and Pop might decide that it doesn't look like Tim is going to get his touch back by the end of the game; he's having an off night. Then Pop says to Duncan "You're sucking ass, pump fake and pass to Manu and Tony," and it's up to Duncan to decide whether he's going to take that open 8 footer or pass to Ginobili on the wing.
I guess the most important point to draw from AHF's posts is that the Spurs must be more than just a one trick pony. There's a great Marc Stein article that was written right after the Spurs lost to the Lakers in '04 that explained how the One-Star philosophy of the team that year had been shown to be flawed, that everything the Spurs had proven the year before about winning with a single dominant player had been debunked.
Stein and AHF are right; the best team is one that is able to adapt to whatever adversity it faces. The '05 Spurs showed their ability to adapt to their opponents, and it is perfectly logical to think that the '06 Spurs should be able to adapt when their leading scorer can't score. With this team, that obviously means giving the ball to Manu and Tony and letting them score in the set offense. It doesn't mean that the Spurs will turn into the Mavs, or that they will become an outside-in team
Personally debassing people you disagree with is not persuasive. When will people in this forum realize that?
Again, diverging from your normal offense when your normal offense isn't working is not bad strategy. Having a "back up plan," or a secondary motion designed to open up penetration lanes down the middle or allow for more one-on-one offense would help the Spurs weather situations like what they faced in Washington. I don't think they would have won the game, but they would have had a better chance if someone had just realized (again, at some point that cannot be predefined and must be decided in the moment) that Duncan was going to miss every shot he took, that for him it was just "one of those nights." Telling Duncan not to shoot when he shouldn't be shooting should certainly be within the bounds of what Pop feels comfortable doing. Letting someone else be the central focus of the offense on certain occasions (either because of matchups or injuries or off-nights) is probably better than losing because you were too obstinately stubborn to change your routine.
He obviously wasn't saying that the only opinion that mattered was his. You intententionally exaggerate his claims to make him sound foolish, but all you are doing is revealing that you are fickle and immature and certainly not guided by logic.
With Manu and Tony getting all the shots, it wouldn't be just a perimeter jumpshooting team. There would be plenty of penetration, with dishes and finishes. It's worth mentioning.
Yeah, I understand that AHF is a little abrasive, and shame on him. But seriously, do you think you just proved that his point was illogical? By pulling out some crazy numbers and saying that his methodology isn't an exact science? Do you really think that you attacked his logic at all? It would be really funny if that's what you thought, because that's not what you did.
Listen, not everything in the world of basketball is an exact science. In fact, very little is. It's almost all discretionary. When does a coach decide to bench a player who is playing poorly? When they're 3-8? 3-9? 3-10? There's no absolute standard, no rigid criteria for these kinds of decisions. Maybe the coach leaves Rasho in, even though he's a fat dump who fouls too much, when Rasho is having a horrid night, let's say 1-6. Maybe Rasho's been playing good position defense, or they need his size to man up down low, or Pop just sees a fire in his eyes and thinks he will bounce back. These are all intangibles, and statistics (like the difference between 47.12376 % and 47.12377%) are irrelevant and meaningless compared to those types of considerations.
To say otherwise just isn't logical.
Since you're so very patient, I would appreciate you bearing with me while I try to understand your position and responding in a courteous and respectful manner, if you choose to respond.
