I told y'all muh'fukkas that Pop's being left behind.....

[Truefan31]

Are you slow or something?



The Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more 3s than the Cavs did. You're going against your own logic bringing up one out of four series' when the Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more 3s.

Are you going to tell me winning one out of four series' is better than winning three out of four series'?

2016 Finals:

Warriors attempted 252 threes, to 170 for the Cavs, a difference of 82. 82 more threes attempted!

How in the world did they choke away a 3-1 series lead, with two games at home?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

2016 Finals:

Warriors attempted 252 threes, to 170 for the Cavs

How in the world did they choke away a 3-1 series lead, with two games at home?

2015 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 167 threes - Warriors win
2017 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 173 threes - Warriors win
2018 Finals - Warriors shot 136 threes, Cavs shot 126 threes - Warriors win

"Looks like the Cavs didn't shoot enough threes in three out of four series', but it's alright since they won one of those series', after all, winning one series is better than winning three series'"



"1 ring is better than winning 3 rings"

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

2016 Finals:

Warriors attempted 252 threes, to 170 for the Cavs, a difference of 82. 82 more threes attempted!

How in the world did they choke away a 3-1 series lead, with two games at home?

If you wanna simplify it like this:

2015 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 167 threes - Warriors win
2017 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 173 threes - Warriors win
2018 Finals - Warriors shot 136 threes, Cavs shot 126 threes - Warriors win

"Cavs should've taken more threes "

but when the warriors shot less 3s than ever and the cavs shot more

I see now, it doesn't matter that they begged KD to come play with them, or getting Boogie this year too. They'll all just chuck more threes

Doesn’t matter warriors have 3 of the greatest 3 shooters in the history of the game.

Have delavadova take 8 3’s a game brehs. That’ll carry you over the hump

 

[Truefan31]

2015 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 167 threes - Warriors win
2017 Finals - Warriors shot 186 threes, Cavs shot 173 threes - Warriors win
2018 Finals - Warriors shot 136 threes, Cavs shot 126 threes - Warriors win

"Looks like the Cavs didn't shoot enough threes in three out of four series', but it's alright since they won one of those series', after all, winning one series is better than winning three series'"

"1 ring is better than winning 3 rings"

2015- a difference of 19 threes across 6 games (Love & Irving hurt)
2017- a difference of 13 across 5 games (a no-name player named Kevin Durant joined the team)
2018- a difference of 10 across 4 games (no Irving plus they still had that guy Kevin Durant doing some little things here and there)








2016- a difference of 82 threes across 7 games. Warriors up 3-1, two games at home. What happened? Not enough threes?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

2015- a difference of 19 threes across 6 games (Love & Irving hurt)
2017- a difference of 13 across 5 games (a no-name player named Kevin Durant joined the team)
2018- a difference of 10 across 4 games (no Irving plus they still had that guy Kevin Durant doing some little things here and there)








2016- a difference of 82 threes across 7 games. Warriors up 3-1, two games at home. What happened? Not enough threes?

Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more threes than the Cavs, and lost one.



Yet you're in here trying to argue that the Warriors shooting more 3s is why they lost one out of four series'.



You're in here simplifying my argument and yet going by your logic I'm still right because the Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more threes.



You're in here bringing up ONE out of four series' as a foundation for your argument and trying to counter THREE out of four series'



shyt on your own argument, brehs.



Use logic where you think that 1 ring is better than 3 rings, brehs.

 

[Remote]

I think some of us are getting caught up in the flair of the thread title.

Pop is unquestionably one of the best coaches ever. This isn't about anyone knowing more or less basketball than Popovich.

But the last few pages of the thread seems to debate the math involved here.

The fact is the game has evolved. And for most of his coaching career, Pop has evolved with it (even if he generally focused on the defensive side of the game.)

The mathematical facts are that 3s are better 2s. Certainly far better than long 2s. And because of the reward for making those 3s is so good, teams have prioritized those. The numbers show that even mid-30s shooting percentages at the 3pt line are better shots than your 10 foot jumper.

I've had my issues in the past with OP but the man is right. And somehow a lot of people are overlooking the added benefits he is stating regarding those 3 point shots: namely the spacing, which creates stress on the defense and often leads to easy 2s.

I think that's the takeaway here.
If my Spurs would embrace a few more 3s, the spacing impact would actually help Demar and LaMarcus even more in the paint and on those shorter range shots.

As an aside, ESPN ran a story today about the "4 point shot" that teams have added to their practice facilities to demonstrate in a more visual manner how the deep 3 impacts spacing and improves the offense.

Also, we can't sit here and say Demar DeRozan could never improve his 3 pt shooting in an era where is matters more than ever before....and in other threads pretend that bad 3 point shooters of the past like Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant would suddenly hit them at 40% in 2018 just because.

 

[Truefan31]

Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more threes than the Cavs, and lost one.



Yet you're in here trying to argue that the Warriors shooting more 3s is why they lost one out of four series'.



You're in here simplifying my argument and yet going by your logic I'm still right because the Warriors won three out of four series' shooting more threes.



You're in here bringing up ONE out of four series' as a foundation for your argument and trying to counter THREE out of four series'



shyt on your own argument, brehs.



Use logic where you think that 1 ring is better than 3 rings, brehs.

But hold on wait, you said more threes is the solution. I mean the Warriors shot 82 more threes than the Cavs in 2016. Not 10 or 15 more, or even 20 more. 82 more! That's over 11 per game in that series on average. How in the world did the Warriors choke a 3-1 lead w/two games at home? It's impossible, cuz you said more threes, and the Warriors in 2016 definitely listened to you, the guru, by shooting so many more than the Cavs. I mean you know more about basketball than Gregg Popovich, so what happened?

I mean the Warriors shot so many threes they didn't need that bum Kevin Durant right? Why would they feel a need to beg him to come play with them?

 

[Truefan31]

I think some of us are getting caught up in the flair of the thread title.

Pop is unquestionably one of the best coaches ever. This isn't about anyone knowing more or less basketball than Popovich.

But the last few pages of the thread seems to debate the math involved here.

The fact is the game has evolved. And for most of his coaching career, Pop has evolved with it (even if he generally focused on the defensive side of the game.)

The mathematical facts are that 3s are better 2s. Certainly far better than long 2s. And because of the reward for making those 3s is so good, teams have prioritized those. The numbers show that even mid-30s shooting percentages at the 3pt line are better shots than your 10 foot jumper.

I've had my issues in the past with OP but the man is right. And somehow a lot of people are overlooking the added benefits he is stating regarding those 3 point shots: namely the spacing, which creates stress on the defense and often leads to easy 2s.

I think that's the takeaway here.
If my Spurs would embrace a few more 3s, the spacing impact would actually help Demar and LaMarcus even more in the paint and on those shorter range shots.

As an aside, ESPN ran a story today about the "4 point shot" that teams have added to their practice facilities to demonstrate in a more visual manner how the deep 3 impacts spacing and improves the offense.

Also, we can't sit here and say Demar DeRozan could never improve his 3 pt shooting in an era where is matters more than ever before....and in other threads pretend that bad 3 point shooters of the past like Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant would suddenly hit them at 40% in 2018 just because.

Then maybe the title of this thread shouldn't be:
I'll told y'all muh'fukkas that Pop's being left behind.....

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

But hold on wait, you said more threes is the solution. I mean the Warriors shot 82 more threes than the Cavs in 2016. Not 10 or 15 more, or even 20 more. 82 more! That's over 11 per game in that series on average. How in the world did the Warriors choke a 3-1 lead w/two games at home? It's impossible, cuz you said more threes, and the Warriors in 2016 definitely listened to you, the guru, by shooting so many more than the Cavs. I mean you know more about basketball than Gregg Popovich, so what happened?

I'm not saying "more threes is the solution" in a vacuum, but since you're simplifying my argument: you're ignoring the rule and focusing on the anomaly.

If we go by your logic, shooting more threes isn't going to win 100% of games, but it's going to win more games than not.

You're bringing up ONE out of four series', yet I'm telling you the Warriors won THREE out of four series' shooting more threes - how do you think it makes sense for you to point out ONE series as if it counters THREE series?

Is one greater than three now?

Let's take it further -

Cavs over the last four postseasons:

2018 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Celtics, Raptors, and Pacers and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

2017 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Celtics, Raptors, and Pacers and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

2016 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Pistons, Raptors, and Hawks and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and won that series

2015 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Hawks, Bulls, Celtics and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

The Cavaliers won 12 out of 12 series shooting more threes
The Cavs won 1 out of 4 series shooting less threes

In all the 12 series' where the Cavs shot more threes than their opponents they won all of them, whereas in the four series' they shot less threes, they only won one of them.

Checkmate.

 

[Truefan31]

I'm not saying "more threes is the solution" in a vacuum, but since you're simplifying my argument: you're ignoring the rule and focusing on the anomaly.

If we go by your logic, shooting more threes isn't going to win 100% of games, but it's going to win more games than not.

You're bringing up ONE out of four series', yet I'm telling you the Warriors won THREE out of four series' shooting more threes - how do you think it makes sense for you to point out ONE series as if it counters THREE series?

Is one greater than three now?

Let's take it further -

Cavs over the last four postseasons:

2018 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Celtics, Raptors, and Pacers and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

2017 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Celtics, Raptors, and Pacers and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

2016 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Pistons, Raptors, and Hawks and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and won that series

2015 playoffs:

Cavs shot more threes than the Hawks, Bulls, Celtics and won all those series'
Cavs shot less threes than the Warriors and lost that series

The Cavaliers won 12 out of 12 series shooting more threes
The Cavs won 1 out of 4 series shooting less threes

In all the 12 series' where the Cavs shot more threes than their opponents they won all of them, whereas in the four series' they shot less threes, they only won one of them.

Checkmate.

But wait, the Warriors shot more threes in 2016 by a large margin. 252 threes, not 10 or 20, or even 40 more, 82 more than the Cavs! But they choked and lost? How?

And since they shot so many threes in 2016, why did they feel a need to beg Kevin Durant to come play with them?

And somehow they shot way less threes in 2017 and 2018 than in 2016, yet they won those years. How is that possible?

Surly Kevin Durant can't make that much of a difference can he?

I mean it's not like he won Finals MVP in 2017 and 2018 did he?

Unfortunately Gregg Popovich wouldn't know, since the game of basketball has passed him by

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I think some of us are getting caught up in the flair of the thread title.

Pop is unquestionably one of the best coaches ever. This isn't about anyone knowing more or less basketball than Popovich.

But the last few pages of the thread seems to debate the math involved here.

The fact is the game has evolved. And for most of his coaching career, Pop has evolved with it (even if he generally focused on the defensive side of the game.)

The mathematical facts are that 3s are better 2s. Certainly far better than long 2s. And because of the reward for making those 3s is so good, teams have prioritized those. The numbers show that even mid-30s shooting percentages at the 3pt line are better shots than your 10 foot jumper.

I've had my issues in the past with OP but the man is right. And somehow a lot of people are overlooking the added benefits he is stating regarding those 3 point shots: namely the spacing, which creates stress on the defense and often leads to easy 2s.

I think that's the takeaway here.
If my Spurs would embrace a few more 3s, the spacing impact would actually help Demar and LaMarcus even more in the paint and on those shorter range shots.

As an aside, ESPN ran a story today about the "4 point shot" that teams have added to their practice facilities to demonstrate in a more visual manner how the deep 3 impacts spacing and improves the offense.

Also, we can't sit here and say Demar DeRozan could never improve his 3 pt shooting in an era where is matters more than ever before....and in other threads pretend that bad 3 point shooters of the past like Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant would suddenly hit them at 40% in 2018 just because.

At least I got through to ONE poster with this thread.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

To save everyone the trouble of going through this thread, this is what you have to ask yourselves:

Spurs - #1 in midrange attempts and #30 in 3-pt attempts.

You don't think taking more 3s, instead of all those long-2s would be more beneficial to their offense? They're only hitting 41% of those long-2s, if they replaced the majority of those long-2s with 3s and hit them at 33%, that would be the equivalent of hitting two-point shots at 50%. Isn't 50% on two-point shots better than 41% on two-point shots? Doesn't taking more 3-pt shots instead of long-2s force the defense to cover more distance, exert more energy, and therefore open up more space for driving lanes, post-ups, and general 2-pt shots?

 

[Zyne]

To save everyone the trouble of going through this thread, this is what you have to ask yourselves:

Spurs - #1 in midrange attempts and #30 in 3-pt attempts.

You don't think taking more 3s, instead of all those long-2s would be more beneficial to their offense? They're only hitting 41% of those long-2s, if they replaced the majority of those long-2s with 3s and hit them at 33%, that would be the equivalent of hitting two-point shots at 50%. Isn't 50% on two-point shots better than 41% on two-point shots? Doesn't taking more 3-pt shots instead of long-2s force the defense to cover more distance, exert more energy, and therefore open up more space for driving lanes, post-ups, and general 2-pt shots?

Agreed. LA and Demar taking more 3s would only help. I wish they worked on them during the offseason... but running plays for these long twos is just a waste. I mean look at Bertans (basically only needed for his 3pt shot/spacing), he starts to get more playing time and they start winning more games.

 

[ThaRealness]

To save everyone the trouble of going through this thread, this is what you have to ask yourselves:

Spurs - #1 in midrange attempts and #30 in 3-pt attempts.

You don't think taking more 3s, instead of all those long-2s would be more beneficial to their offense? They're only hitting 41% of those long-2s, if they replaced the majority of those long-2s with 3s and hit them at 33%, that would be the equivalent of hitting two-point shots at 50%. Isn't 50% on two-point shots better than 41% on two-point shots? Doesn't taking more 3-pt shots instead of long-2s force the defense to cover more distance, exert more energy, and therefore open up more space for driving lanes, post-ups, and general 2-pt shots?

You are trying so hard to win an argument, that you're overlooking the context. Popavich has the only stars in the league who rely on their midrange shot, and he's coached them for less then 2 months.. In the long run, yes, the Spurs could improve incrementally by shooting more threes. But that won't happen overnight.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You are trying so hard to win an argument, that you're overlooking the context. Popavich has the only stars in the league who rely on their midrange shot, and he's coached them for less then 2 months.. In the long run, yes, the Spurs could improve incrementally by shooting more threes. But that won't happen overnight.

I'm overlooking the context? Lord have mercy. I'm one of a very few posters in this muh'fukka not overlooking the context.

I think it would be wise for you to read through the thread. Especially since you seem to think he's only coached LMA for less than two months.