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

G

Gil Scott-Heroin

✊🏿
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
88,541
Reputation
9,926
Daps
238,697
holidayinn21 said:
Imagine having a top-5 offense and a winning record and have someone tell you the game has supposedly passed you by:gucci:
Click to expand...
Read carefully, because I'm not going to repeat this again -

Ohd4UDv.jpg


"And here's the funny thing about this, the Spurs starting lineup is 16th in offensive efficiency (lowest 3-pt activity in the league), and the Spurs bench is 7th in offensive efficiency (7th highest in 3-pt activity). The Spurs bench is the reason why they're rated 9th on offense because of their 3-pt activity, without them they'd be below-average on offense, because the starters are taking more long 2s than 3s. Never mind the fact, their offensive rating is boosted by this recent stretch with a favorable run - not too long ago they were ranked below average on offense, and their starting lineup was in the bottom 10. "

"Spurs bench -

13 per game (7th highest out of all second units)
4th in points per game and 7th in efficiency RD.

They've been one of the best performing second units this season, which is why I don't understand this point about them lacking depth/talent, especially when you have LMA, DeRozan and Rudy in the starting lineup - that's greater than around 90% of teams.

Of course, you have to allow for garbage time and dead parts of the game (which goes both ways), but their bench has been the reason why they've had success on the offensive end. The only reason why the starting unit's offense hasn't fallen off a cliff with their approach is because of how talented DeRozan, LMA and Rudy are at creating their own shots (despite of the system) - any other team and it would look like some shyt outta the 90s. All they need to do is work more actions from behind the arc (instead of those long 2s) and the Spurs offense would put teams to bed before halftime on the regular."

"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?"

"One out of 30 teams (Spurs) shoot more long-2s than 3s
29 out of 30 teams shoot more 3s than long-2s."

 
Remote

Remote

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
82,112
Reputation
25,380
Daps
370,463
Our starters made 4 out of 8 three pointers last night.
Our bench made 8 of 11.

That's tremendous efficiency.
But we can't shoot like that every night.

Gay, Aldridge and DeRozan combined to take 2 three pointers all night. I'm sorry. In this era that isn't good.

Great win. But we still need to stretch the floor.
 
holidayinn21

holidayinn21

:SmugMoneyMike:
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,086
Reputation
2,436
Daps
55,081
Reppin
The mutha****in BX
Gil Scott-Heroin said:
Read carefully, because I'm not going to repeat this again -

Ohd4UDv.jpg


"And here's the funny thing about this, the Spurs starting lineup is 16th in offensive efficiency (lowest 3-pt activity in the league), and the Spurs bench is 7th in offensive efficiency (7th highest in 3-pt activity). The Spurs bench is the reason why they're rated 9th on offense because of their 3-pt activity, without them they'd be below-average on offense, because the starters are taking more long 2s than 3s. Never mind the fact, their offensive rating is boosted by this recent stretch with a favorable run - not too long ago they were ranked below average on offense, and their starting lineup was in the bottom 10. "

"Spurs bench -

13 per game (7th highest out of all second units)
4th in points per game and 7th in efficiency RD.

They've been one of the best performing second units this season, which is why I don't understand this point about them lacking depth/talent, especially when you have LMA, DeRozan and Rudy in the starting lineup - that's greater than around 90% of teams.

Of course, you have to allow for garbage time and dead parts of the game (which goes both ways), but their bench has been the reason why they've had success on the offensive end. The only reason why the starting unit's offense hasn't fallen off a cliff with their approach is because of how talented DeRozan, LMA and Rudy are at creating their own shots (despite of the system) - any other team and it would look like some shyt outta the 90s. All they need to do is work more actions from behind the arc (instead of those long 2s) and the Spurs offense would put teams to bed before halftime on the regular."

"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?"

"One out of 30 teams (Spurs) shoot more long-2s than 3s
29 out of 30 teams shoot more 3s than long-2squoting."
Click to expand...
1)Stop quoting this shyt and come up with your own argument

2)Have you ever heard of updated stats nikka:gucci:
 
G

Gil Scott-Heroin

✊🏿
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
88,541
Reputation
9,926
Daps
238,697
holidayinn21 said:
1)Stop quoting this shyt and come up with your own argument
Click to expand...
Come up with my OWN argument? Come up with my OWN muh'fukken argument?

Let me get this straight: I create a thread based on my own argument, based on what I'm observing, formulating my own opinion, not letting anyone dictate to me how I should view the game, not going with the status quo just because, and backing it up with evidence, and I'm met with posts of "how can you question an all-time great coach?", "you think you know more about modern basketball than Pop?" all this nonsense where folks aren't coming up with their own argument (rather just regurgitating mindless shyt like the next man), and then you come with this bullshyt about me not coming up with my own argument?

All that shyt I quoted is a collection of my posts throughout this thread because you seem to think that what you posted hasn't been debunked over and over in here. You're running up in here referencing their rank on offense, and their record, without taking in all the context. Nor are you trying to understand the point of this thread.

Out of all the things I could be criticized for, coming up with my own argument isn't one of them. Go that way.
Remote said:
Our starters made 4 out of 8 three pointers last night.
Our bench made 8 of 11.

That's tremendous efficiency.
But we can't shoot like that every night.

Gay, Aldridge and DeRozan combined to take 2 three pointers all night. I'm sorry. In this era that isn't good.

Great win. But we still need to stretch the floor.
Click to expand...
You get it.

And unfortunately, this method won't work in the long run, I mean, you had the Rockets making 26 [more than the Spurs even attempted!] out of 55 last night, and while the Spurs do not need to take that amount, they'll forever be at a disadvantage, trying to swim against the tide, against teams on the regular like that in their current state.

A lot of dudes in here understand this, but they don't wanna acknowledge it, for obvious reasons.

:lolbron:
 
AlbertPullhoez

AlbertPullhoez

The Takeover
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
32,938
Reputation
7,577
Daps
140,279
Reppin
Deuce Dime, TX
I agree 3 beats 2 but there's no reason for this team to just jack up 3 pointers for the fukk of it. Especially Demar and LMA, fukk it it's just not what they do. I wish LaMarcus would shoot a few more though.

Our offense ain't hurting for lack of 3's, SA has shooters with Marco, Bryn, Patty and Rudy. Although I think they need to add one more, but it's not like SA hasn't put up points even with their low 3 pt attempts

I can live with a low 3 pt attempt number if SA can consistently shoot a good percentage on the ones they do take

Instead of worrying about their 3 point attempts, people need to focus on SA holding their last 6 opponents under 100 points:sas1:

Offense is fine here, if the defense has turned a corner the Spurs gonna be straight
 
Remote

Remote

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
82,112
Reputation
25,380
Daps
370,463
AlbertPullhoez said:
I agree 3 beats 2 but there's no reason for this team to just jack up 3 pointers for the fukk of it. Especially Demar and LMA, fukk it it's just not what they do. I wish LaMarcus would shoot a few more though.

Our offense ain't hurting for lack of 3's, SA has shooters with Marco, Bryn, Patty and Rudy. Although I think they need to add one more, but it's not like SA hasn't put up points even with their low 3 pt attempts

I can live with a low 3 pt attempt number if SA can consistently shoot a good percentage on the ones they do take

Instead of worrying about their 3 point attempts, people need to focus on SA holding their last 6 opponents under 100 points:sas1:

Offense is fine here, if the defense has turned a corner the Spurs gonna be straight
Click to expand...
We have to understand that the deep 3 pt shot's impact doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Pulling up from deep forces defenses to guard players far from the basket. That alone creates lanes for cutting, which helps the offense. It also forces defenders to expend energy covering more ground, which tires them out. Particularly if you have great ball movement -- which San Antonio has traditionally had. That exhausted defense means even more fast break opportunities for your slashers like DeRozan and Gay. It's not really a foreign concept for the Spurs. They essentially ran this sort of offense in 2014 when they beat the Miami Heat in the finals (Both teams attempted a similar amount of 3s, but the Spurs essentially doubled the Heat in assists). With the league having caught up (at least in philosophy) the Spurs don't need to do much to adapt...except to up their 3pt volume slightly.

Look, I get it with a lot of the comments here. OP can sometimes be a smart ass. But what are we debating here? Do we really believe that more 3s, which are more valuable, tires out the defense...and creates the kind of space for slashing to the basket that is EXCELLENT for the skill set guys like Aldridge, DeRozan and Gay have....are we debating that this is BAD for the Spurs?

I don't understand.
Rudy Gay is shooting 45% from three this year (on limited attempts)
LaMarcus Aldridge isn't shooting them at all, after practicing the shot all summer.
And neither is Demar DeRozan.

The only way they'll improve at it is by doing it.
And weren't we all here on this board talking about how Chip Engelland can help ANYONE become a better shooter?
Why are some of us making so many excuses just to go against OP and be a dikk?
 
T

Truefan31

Superstar
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
4,420
Reputation
661
Daps
13,182
Man Gregg Popovich should just go ahead and quit. The game of basketball has passed him by huh:mjlol::mjlol::mjlol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top