gtj1982
Superstar
If the game has passed Pop by why did he let the bench shoot so many threes? And why does it matter if it's the bench or the starters are shooting them. Maybe he is maximizing the talents of each player.
I told y'all muh'fukkas that Pop's being left behind.....
- Thread starter Gil Scott-Heroin
- Start date
If the game has passed Pop by why did he let the bench shoot so many threes? And why does it matter if it's the bench or the starters are shooting them. Maybe he is maximizing the talents of each player.
They've been shooting at a rate this month which is simply NOT sustainable (45% from 3 on 22 attempts per game - efforts most notably from their 2nd unit; 55% on two-point shots), and will only lead to a regression that they won't be able to pick up the slack of, because LMA and DeRozan don't take enough 3s to make up for it (or to be more specific, they take considerably more long-2s than 3s). Once the team's 3-pt shooting regulates to a normal level (they shot 38% from 3 on 24 attempts before this month), it'll give y'all a clearer picture of where their offense is at.In the month of December
2nd most wins
1st in offensive rating
Top 10 in defensive rating
2nd in net rating
1st in true scoring? What's that? Haha Haha
1st in 3p%
Oh yeah, 19 threes tonight.
I know they eventually gonna get wrecked by 100. But until they do...
It's certainly not a good sign that this recent offensive spike is from the role players' production. Now, of course, some of this could be mitigated if they continue to play well on the defensive end, but their current offensive structure/approach will only succeed in the long run if they follow in line with the rest of the league.
Edit: They're also top-5 in contested shots made this month too, which makes their shooting that more of an outlier.
Last edited:
malbaker86
Gators
We just aren't 100% healthy so of course we're gonna feel in different at times about this season
Because the starters play the majority of the minutes, that's why. Why are you against 3s, yet condoning them shooting more long-2s? Do you realize that your logic doesn't make one bit of sense? Again, like I've told you time and time again, shooting 33% from behind the arc is equivalent to shooting 50% on two-point shots, so why would you willingly prioritize long-2s over 3s (which the Spurs do) when you aren't going to be as efficient if you prioritized shooting 3s over long-2s?
Spurs attempt 25 midrange/long-2s (#1 in the league) and complete them at only 42%, now if they replaced the majority of those long-2s with 3s, they'd only need to shoot 29% from behind the arc to be more efficient (OKC is the least efficient 3-pt shooting team, and even they shoot 32% - the Spurs could shoot 3% lower than the worst team in the league and yet they'd be more efficient than they are now. Go figure), and most of those long-2s are attempted by DeRozan and LMA, do you not see that if they actually shot more 3s instead of long-2s, the team would be more efficient on offense, and they'd only naturally have a greater functioning offense because their two main options would be at the center of it all?
Just to put it into perspective: the Spurs shoot 40% on 24 threes per game, which is the equivalent of shooting 60% on two-point shots - do you not see how the equivalent of 60% on two-point shots is better than shooting 42% on long-2s?
What would you rather - 60% on two-point shots, or 42% on two-point shots? What's better?
Last edited:
malbaker86
Gators
So the Spurs, who are 3-11 in gamed when they attempt more than 25 3's in a game, should shoot more 3's? Is that what I'm hearing?
What kind of selective ass nonsense stat is this? That's not how it works.
Answer this for me: would you rather your team shoot more long-2s than 3s, when you only shoot those long-2s at 42%, or would you rather your team shoot more 3s than long-2s, when you shot those 3s at 40%, which is the equivalent of shooting 60% on two-point shots? If the Spurs replaced the majority of those long-2s with 3s, they'd only need to shoot 29% to be more efficient than they are now.
Let me reiterate: if the Spurs replaced the majority of their midrange/long-2 attempts with 3s, and only shot 29%, they'd be more efficient than they are now.
Last edited:
Let me break it down even further:
Spurs currently attempt 25 midrange/long-2s, yet only score 21.6 points from those shots (42%)
Spurs could attempt 25 threes, and if they hit them at 29% they'd scored 21.9 points (the league-average is 35% - the Spurs could shoot under the league-average by 6%, and they'd still be more efficient than they are now)
Spurs are basically shooting the equivalent of 28% on 3s from the midrange/long-2 attempts - that's how inefficient they are from that zone.
@malbaker86 can you not see why it makes sense to shoot more 3s than long-2s?
Spurs currently attempt 25 midrange/long-2s, yet only score 21.6 points from those shots (42%)
Spurs could attempt 25 threes, and if they hit them at 29% they'd scored 21.9 points (the league-average is 35% - the Spurs could shoot under the league-average by 6%, and they'd still be more efficient than they are now)
Spurs are basically shooting the equivalent of 28% on 3s from the midrange/long-2 attempts - that's how inefficient they are from that zone.
@malbaker86 can you not see why it makes sense to shoot more 3s than long-2s?
malbaker86
Gators
Let me break it down even further:
Spurs currently attempt 25 midrange/long-2s, yet only score 21.6 points from those shots (42%)
Spurs could attempt 25 threes, and if they hit them at 29% they'd scored 21.9 points (the league-average is 35% - the Spurs could shoot under the league-average by 6%, and they'd still be more efficient than they are now)
Spurs are basically shooting the equivalent of 28% on 3s from the midrange/long-2 attempts - that's how inefficient they are from that zone.
@malbaker86 can you not see why it makes sense to shoot more 3s than long-2s?
So again, the Spurs should shoot more 3's even tho they are 3-11 in games when they attempt 25 or more 3's?
Or......should the Spurs actually play better DEFENSE since THAT'S been there downfall and since the start of the road trip, they've held all of their opponents UNDER 100 points
The Spurs’ fall has nothing to do with all those mid-range jumpers
The Spurs’ offense, despite snubbing the efficient three more than any other team and relying more on the inefficient mid-range jumper than almost any other team, is pretty good, ranking No. 9 in offense at 110 points per 100 possessions. The Spurs are on track to have their best or second-best offensive season in franchise history. The offense has improved about three points per 100 possessions over last season’s version despite becoming more reliant on the mid-range and less interested in threes.
The Spurs’ problem — shock of all shocks — is defense. San Antonio sits at No. 24 in defense, giving up more than 110 points per 100 possessions, about a full point worse than league average.
San Antonio ranked No. 4 in defense last season, about four points better than league average. Of course, Kawhi Leonard is one of the most talented defenders of his generation, but he played just nine games last season. But there was another player the Spurs traded to Toronto who matters a lot for this conversation: Danny Green.
Replace Kawhi, Slo-Mo, Murray, and Danny Green defenses prowess with Derozan, Forbes, Donte Cunningham, and Poeltl and then claim that the issue with the Spurs is NOT the defensive end, but the offensive end bruhs
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works, referencing some shyt that generalizes an arbitrary amount of 3s attempted with causation of losses. I take it you got this off Twitter? Probably best not to use shyt which doesn't contextualize what's actually happening.
Again, they're shooting 42% on long-2s (25 attempts per game -#1 in the league), which is the equivalent of shooting 28% from 3, all they'd need to do is shoot 29% from 3 on those attempts and they'd be more efficient. Do you not see how referencing that arbitrary stat doesn't make any sense, when they could shoot 29% from 3 instead of 42% on long-2s and have a greater chance of winning?
Ask yourself, how does shooting the most long-2s in the league at 42% not have a greater effect on the team's chances of winning, than the equivalent of 28% shooting from 3 (Spurs currently shoot 40% from behind the arc)?
Just follow basic 'process of elimination' and you'd soon realize that stat doesn't make any sense; you'd soon realize they actually lost those games due to other factors, not because they took 25+ 3s.
It's a two-way street, but that's neither here nor there because even if their defense was great, there'd still be the exact same flaws with their offense (fixing their defense would NOT change their mode of operating on offense), which makes it even more important that they fix those issues as they have the offensive talent to do so, and not the defensive personnel to the same degree.Or......should the Spurs actually play better DEFENSE since THAT'S been there downfall and since the start of the road trip, they've held all of their opponents UNDER 100 points
Whoever wrote this nonsense is out of their depth, and doesn't know what they're talking about. Case in point: saying the Spurs are on track to have one of their highest offensive ratings in franchise history isn't saying much, when so is the majority of teams in the league (the league-average ORTG this season is around 110 points per 100 possessions, which is the highest rate of the modern era).
Plus, prior to the month of December, y'all had a league-average offensive rating (starting unit was in the bottom-10), which is why you shouldn't put too much stock into your current offensive rating when it's weighted heavily by the outlier of this month:
"They've been shooting at a rate this month which is simply NOT sustainable (45% from 3 on 22 attempts per game - efforts most notably from their 2nd unit; 55% on two-point shots), and will only lead to a regression that they won't be able to pick up the slack of, because LMA and DeRozan don't take enough 3s to make up for it (or to be more specific, they take considerably more long-2s than 3s). Once the team's 3-pt shooting regulates to a normal level (they shot 38% from 3 on 24 attempts before this month), it'll give y'all a clearer picture of where their offense is at."
Kawhi only played 9 games last seasonReplace Kawhi, Slo-Mo, Murray, and Danny Green defenses prowess with Derozan, Forbes, Donte Cunningham, and Poeltl and then claim that the issue with the Spurs is NOT the defensive end, but the offensive end bruhs
Murray only averaged 20 minutes last season
Anderson while a good defender, doesn't drastically change the scope of y'all defense to any great degree
Yes, not having Murray/Green does put y'all in defensive deficit, which is why it's important to play to the offensive talent (by maximizing the talent differential y'all have on 80-90% of the league), because the defensive personnel/depth is no longer there. And again, you could have the #1 defense in the league, but there'd still be an elemental problem with how your offense functions.
Last edited:
So again, the Spurs should shoot more 3's even tho they are 3-11 in games when they attempt 25 or more 3's?
Or......should the Spurs actually play better DEFENSE since THAT'S been there downfall and since the start of the road trip, they've held all of their opponents UNDER 100 points
The Spurs’ fall has nothing to do with all those mid-range jumpers
The Spurs’ offense, despite snubbing the efficient three more than any other team and relying more on the inefficient mid-range jumper than almost any other team, is pretty good, ranking No. 9 in offense at 110 points per 100 possessions. The Spurs are on track to have their best or second-best offensive season in franchise history. The offense has improved about three points per 100 possessions over last season’s version despite becoming more reliant on the mid-range and less interested in threes.
The Spurs’ problem — shock of all shocks — is defense. San Antonio sits at No. 24 in defense, giving up more than 110 points per 100 possessions, about a full point worse than league average.
San Antonio ranked No. 4 in defense last season, about four points better than league average. Of course, Kawhi Leonard is one of the most talented defenders of his generation, but he played just nine games last season. But there was another player the Spurs traded to Toronto who matters a lot for this conversation: Danny Green.
Replace Kawhi, Slo-Mo, Murray, and Danny Green defenses prowess with Derozan, Forbes, Donte Cunningham, and Poeltl and then claim that the issue with the Spurs is NOT the defensive end, but the offensive end bruhs
He still believes he knows more about basketball than Gregg Popovich brehs
malbaker86
Gators
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how shyt works, trying to generalize 3s attempted with causation, with this arbitrary nonsense. I take it you got this off Twitter? Probably best not to use shyt which doesn't contextulize what's actually happening.
Again, they're shooting 42% on long-2s (25 attempts per game -#1 in the league), which is the equivalent of shooting 28% from 3, all they'd need to do is shoot 29% from 3 on those attempts and they'd be more efficient. Do you not see how referencing that arbitrary stat doesn't make any sense, when they could shoot 29% from 3 instead of 42% on long-2s and have a greater chance of winning?
It's a two-way street, but that's neither here nor there because even if their defense was great, there'd still be the exact same flaws with their offense (fixing their defense would NOT fix their mode of operating on offense), which makes it even more important that they fix those issues as they have the offensive talent to do so, and not the defensive personnel to the same degree.
Whoever wrote this nonsense is out of their depth, and doesn't know what they're talking about. Case in point: saying the Spurs are on track to have one of their highest offensive ratings in franchise history isn't saying much, when so is the majority of teams in the league (the league-average ORTG this season is around 110 points per 100 possessions, which is the highest rate of the modern era).
Plus, prior to the month of December, y'all had a league-average offensive rating (starting unit was in the bottom-10), which is why you shouldn't put too much stock into your current offensive rating when it's weighted heavily by the outlier of this month:
"They've been shooting at a rate this month which is simply NOT sustainable (45% from 3 on 22 attempts per game - efforts most notably from their 2nd unit; 55% on two-point shots), and will only lead to a regression that they won't be able to pick up the slack of, because LMA and DeRozan don't take enough 3s to make up for it (or to be more specific, they take considerably more long-2s than 3s). Once the team's 3-pt shooting regulates to a normal level (they shot 38% from 3 on 24 attempts before this month), it'll give y'all a clearer picture of where their offense is at."
Kawhi only played 9 games last season
Murray only averaged 20 minutes last season
Anderson while a good defender, doesn't drastically change the scope of y'all defense to any great degree
Yes, not having Murray/Green does put y'all in defensive deficit, which is why it's important to play to the offensive talent (by maximizing the talent differential y'all have on 80-90% of the league), because the defensive personnel/depth is no longer there. And again, you could have the #1 defense in the league, but there'd still be an elemental problem with how your offense functions.
See Gil, we can debate and still be on good terms
We need Lonnie Walker to be official whem he comes back. Not a 20 ppg scorer, but give us an additional 12-15 and im good.
That Gasol contract
Miles Davis
Prince of Darkness
Word, you ain’t ever the same after losing a spouse.
Lakerman0834
Veteran
Anyone in the coli has worse basketball takes than this dude. Its impressive how trash he is