Over the weekend, I got to watch Damon Stoudamire flounder in the Spurs offense and it got me thinking:
Maybe it's not the aging point guard's fault for sucking on the Spurs.
Charlie Ward. Nick Van Exel. Damon Stoudamire.
All these guys seem to magically lose their games in San Antonio.
I know it's still too early to judge Mighty Mouse, but there is reason for concern.
Maybe the Spurs' offense is not designed for point guards to really get going, especially from a playmaking and jumpshooting perspective.
Here me out.
When Parker gets assists, it's rarely on a fast break or from a perimeter pass, unless you count the pick-and-roll.
When he scores, its usually as a result of penetration.
Maybe this is why Jaques Vaughn takes it to the hole so much.
I can't put my finger on it, but when you watch other teams play, the point guard really seems to dictate the ebb and flow of the game.
And plays are run for the PG to get quality shots off and/or set up another player for a good shot.
In the Spurs offense, the point guard's responsibility seems to be to bring the ball up, pass it to Ginobili and he'll create something or dump it in to Duncan on the post.
If the PG is to score, it's the result of driving to the basket.
I just don't know if we can fault the old point guards for not showcasing their skill set, when it may not be possible in the Spurs scheme of things.
Thoughts?
Small pgs that do not take it to the basket and don't shoot well from the perimeter won't do well on the Spurs. I don't expect Damon to fit well in anything more than a limited backup role. Expecting him to fill in for parker and be a big offensive contributer is not realistic.
There was a reason he lost his starting role and was a backup before he came to the spurs.
I agree with your ideas GW...just to add, I think the reason why the spurs play that way is because they usually run their plays through Duncan. The whole offense is centered on helping duncan score down post. The other players just serve as secondary option to TD. So PG's like stoudamire must learn to play through Duncan for him to be effective. Otherwise, he won't have a second season as a spur.
Being as is ,we usually players slashing/cutting to the hole and a lot of dishouts (to bowen, barry etc) because of the spurs preference to Duncan (and with good reason).
Ginobili and Parker serve their purpose every time duncan is not his usual self since they can make their own shots in the perimeter. Duncan ,by then, goes into the role of rebounder and defender.
The formula seems to work as long as you have the right pieces. Whether or not stoudamire fits the role, is a question which cannnot be answered as of this time. Lets just hope he does...
@ Ghost
I've been telling you this since Parker came into the league and you questioned his stats. You pointed to Jamaal Tinsley as the much superior point guard as I pointed out that the Spurs' offense isn't geared at all for point guard production (specifically assists).
Anyways, yeah it appears you understand now. The point guard in the Spurs offense probably handles the ball less than any point guard on any team. You'd have to go back to the Bulls when they truly ran the triangle offense to find a team that relies more on movement and less on point guard playmaking.
That's why Parker's average of six assists is pretty impressive because the Spurs hardly run any point guard centered offensive sets. For example, the Jazz and the Raptors each run dozens and dozens of plays featuring their point guard each game. One game the Raptors ran something like 75 pick-and-rolls featuring their point guards in one game. The Spurs probably run about five or six each game.
And yeah, I don't think it's a big coincidence that San Antonio has become the places where old point guards go to die. It's damn hard to be a good point guard in a system where you don't have the ball that much.
If you look at Parker's assists, a huge percentage of them are assists he gets when he penetrates and kicks to three-point shooters. In fact, his percentage of assisted three-pointers per assists has led the league for two or three years in a row now.
The problem is a point guard without Parker's ability to penetrate and kick turns into a glorified shooting guard in this offense. That hurts the veterans who come to play here because it's like they have to learn a new position. No longer are they a playmaker ... they are simply a spot up shooter.
Luckily, the Spurs have four championships so you can't really complain too much about the offense. Although, the 1999 team started with this motion offense but then scraped it after the 6-8 start. Pop reinstalled it the next season and we've seen it every year since.
hehehehe I do remember Ward, that boy was amazing
Remember that Beno only sucks in our system.
When you guys got Stoudamire I was excited for my team, because I didn't feel he fits in at all with the Spurs offense.
He is a perimeter oriented PG, and the Spurs thrive with attacking perimeter players.....
It is when you guys have 2 attacking perimeter players in the game at the same time that it allows players like Bonner and Bowen to be successful and opens up space for Duncan to get some easy ones on put backs and passes off penetration.
Stoudamire is content to gun from the outside, IMHO, he is a bad fit.
DD
Mighty Mouse is a three point shooting guard.
In other words, Penetrate and Kick is absolutely key for a PG in our system:
I've been telling you this since Parker came into the league and you questioned his stats. You pointed to Jamaal Tinsley as the much superior point guard as I pointed out that the Spurs' offense isn't geared at all for point guard production (specifically assists).
Anyways, yeah it appears you understand now. The point guard in the Spurs offense probably handles the ball less than any point guard on any team. You'd have to go back to the Bulls when they truly ran the triangle offense to find a team that relies more on movement and less on point guard playmaking.
That's why Parker's average of six assists is pretty impressive because the Spurs hardly run any point guard centered offensive sets. For example, the Jazz and the Raptors each run dozens and dozens of plays featuring their point guard each game. One game the Raptors ran something like 75 pick-and-rolls featuring their point guards in one game. The Spurs probably run about five or six each game.
And yeah, I don't think it's a big coincidence that San Antonio has become the places where old point guards go to die. It's damn hard to be a good point guard in a system where you don't have the ball that much.
If you look at Parker's assists, a huge percentage of them are assists he gets when he penetrates and kicks to three-point shooters. In fact, his percentage of assisted three-pointers per assists has led the league for two or three years in a row now.
The problem is a point guard without Parker's ability to penetrate and kick turns into a glorified shooting guard in this offense. That hurts the veterans who come to play here because it's like they have to learn a new position. No longer are they a playmaker ... they are simply a spot up shooter.
Luckily, the Spurs have four championships so you can't really complain too much about the offense. Although, the 1999 team started with this motion offense but then scraped it after the 6-8 start. Pop reinstalled it the next season and we've seen it every year since.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=106
Still, Stoudamire should serve as a stopgap until TP gets back. I'd be fine with going into the playoffs as 6 to 8th seed, but healthy. The only teams that I currently think a series is seriously in doubt against (< 60% chance of Spurs winning) are Lakers (healthy), Boston (healthy), Dallas, Pistons (maybe)...
We don't need penetration from our PG all game long. Parker will be more than sufficient most of the time. We also have Manu, and Mighty Mouse CAN penetrate, I think he needs more opportunities though.
I'm much happier with the idea of a PG that can shoot the 3 than one that CAN'T shoot and CAN'T penetrate. At least with Damon you can't leave him open on the perimeter. It's going to stretch defenses a bit in the playoffs when they try to double Duncan.
Last game both, Vaughn and Stoudamire sucked! While Vaughn looked on moments ok, Stoudamire played like . Another Van Exel in team
As long as Stoudamire can bring the ball up, start the offense, knock down a few shots, run the break, run to the open spot on the perimeter, and be Popportunistic™ he'll be fine.
I'm glad to see we're back to worrying about non-issues. Just like old times.
Well, Good Times.™
timvp, I'll concede that I agree with you now more than ever, but you don't have to restate what I wrote and act like you're shedding new light!
For the backup PG, I almost wonder if a BJ Armstrong/Daniel Gibson sort've PG would be better in the Spurs system.
In other words, bring the ball up, dump it to Duncan or give it up to Ginobili, and wait for the open 3.
The thing that I appreciate out of Parker is that he's capable of creativity and drives.
I'm so sick of watching the Spurs stand around and wait on offense.
Parkers value on offense is his abilty to beat his man with his quickness for high fg% layups. Stoudamire does not have the quickness to do this. Stoudamire's offense will mostly be mid range open jump shots in the spurs system. Stoudamire is not a good 3 pt. shooter.
Stoudamire is a backup quality pg now.
I agree with most of that, except Damon is not a bad 3-point shooter and at his age, he will have trouble getting open mid-range looks.
The Spurs don't run plays to spring their PGs for open looks in the flow of the offense, because as you said, Parker drives to score on his own.
This is why these old PGs that come her look lost and out of sync.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
