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

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Spurs have the 6th best ORTG in basketball, but you know, the game has passed him by and all that

"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."

 

[CHICAGO]

Kind of not the best time for this thread to get upped when Spurs have won 5 of 6 with a roster that really isn't very good.

3 of those wins were against the Sixers, Clippers, and Lakers, who are three of the top nine teams in the league right now.

Beat the Sixers by 27 while only taking 23 threes (to 37 for the 76ers), beat the Clippers by 38 with only 22 threes (to 31 by the Clips), and beat the Lakers by 13 with 31 threes (to 36 by the Lakers).

LMAO

HE SAW THEM LOSE TO THE BULLS SATURDAY
AND UPPED THIS TRASH
WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THEY WERE TRENDING UPWARD.

NOW HE CLAIMS HE DIDNT UP IT.



​

 

[Truefan31]

LMAO

HE SAW THEM LOSE TO THE BULLS SATURDAY
AND UPPED THIS TRASH
WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THEY WERE TRENDING UPWARD.

NOW HE CLAIMS HE DIDNT UP IT.



​

He really thinks he knows more about basketball than Gregg Popovich

 

[FAH1223]

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 - 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.

 

[Da King]

Coli basketball “knowledge” on full display in this thread

 

[Remote]

Yeah I think it is fair to say the Spurs take good 3s.

However, I do feel that we need to take more. I don't know the math as far as where the volume becomes a problem. But even in our blowout win vs Philly, we only took 23 three pointers. We won because the 2s were falling (56.3%) but that's hard to rely on at that high a rate.

The Spurs dont need to be the Rockets, shooting 41 threes a game. But they could certainly get into the middle of the pack...into that 30 threes a night range and I dont think it'll kill the efficiency

We are talking about 7 more 3s a night. That's like 2 from LMA, 2 or 3 from Demar, and 2 from Forbes.

We aren't talking about a big ask here.
And considering the Spurs are averaging 110.6 PPG and allowing 110.5 PPG....those couple of 3s a game could make a massive difference in their record and the standings

 

[gtj1982]

So they take good shots and not just volume. Guess it takes a genius like @Gil Scott-Heroin to figure that out.

 

[Remote]

The only way we can keep winning on low volume 3s is if we slow the fukk down opposing offenses

And that's harder to do now without a lockdown star like Kawhi.

 

[CHICAGO]

Yeah I think it is fair to say the Spurs take good 3s.

However, I do feel that we need to take more. I don't know the math as far as where the volume becomes a problem. But even in our blowout win vs Philly, we only took 23 three pointers. We won because the 2s were falling (56.3%) but that's hard to rely on at that high a rate.

The Spurs dont need to be the Rockets, shooting 41 threes a game. But they could certainly get into the middle of the pack...into that 30 threes a night range and I dont think it'll kill the efficiency

We are talking about 7 more 3s a night. That's like 2 from LMA, 2 or 3 from Demar, and 2 from Forbes.

We aren't talking about a big ask here.
And considering the Spurs are averaging 110.6 PPG and allowing 110.5 PPG....those couple of 3s a game could make a massive difference in their record and the standings

LMAO

THIS nikka WANTS TWO
28% LIFETIME 3P SHOOTERS
TO WASTE 5 EXTRA POSSESSIONS PER GAME
JUST TO SATISFY SOME BULLshyt VOLUME QUOTA.





​

 

[Remote]

LMAO

THIS nikka WANTS TWO
28% LIFETIME 3P SHOOTERS
TO WASTE 5 EXTRA POSSESSIONS PER GAME
JUST TO SATISFY SOME BULLshyt VOLUME QUOTA.





​

How have I not put you on ignore yet?

 

[CHICAGO]

How have I not put you on ignore yet?

FOH RAUL

FAKE ASS DOMINICAN SPURS FAN FROM NYC





​

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So they take good shots and not just volume. Guess it takes a genius like @Gil Scott-Heroin to figure that out.

To continue on from what @Remote posted, they take more midrange/long 2s than 3s - 26 midrange shots per game at 41% (leading the league in volume), when they'd be better off replacing the majority of those with 3s.

They're scoring 21 points on 26 midrange shots per game (41%), when all they'd need to do is hit 3s at 33% to be more efficient - 24 points on 26 three-point shots per game (33%). And again, not only would this be the more efficient shot to take, but it would help with their spacing, and in turn would create better scoring opportunities because there'd be more space.

Let me reiterate:

21 points on 26 midrange shots per game (41%) - their current activity
24 points on 26 three-point shots per game (33%) - what they could be scoring
27 points on 26 three-point shots per game (34%) - what they could be scoring

They could potentially be scoring 3 to 6 more points on the exact same volume if they opted to take more 3s instead of taking all those midrange/long 2s.

LMAO

THIS nikka WANTS TWO
28% LIFETIME 3P SHOOTERS
TO WASTE 5 EXTRA POSSESSIONS PER GAME
JUST TO SATISFY SOME BULLshyt VOLUME QUOTA.





​

DeRozan - 7.5 midrange shots and only 1.2 three-point shots
LMA - 7.1 midrange shots and only 0.3 three-point shots

Not only do no other team's main scoring options take more midrange shots than 3s, but DeRozan and LMA are taking 9x the amount. 9x. Not the same amount of shots, but 9x the amount.

DeRozan and LMA are taking a combined 14.6 midrange shots, yet only making six of them (41%), when if they replaced those shots with 3s they'd naturally be more efficient on volume reps. You can't take their career-averages from behind the arc because the volume is far too low to take anything meaningful out of it.

DeRozan shot 31% from three last season on 3.6 attempts (the highest volume of his career), that equals out to 3.3 points on 3.6 shots, which is the equivalent to hitting two-point shots at 46%. Ask yourself is hitting midrange at 42.9%, better than shooting the equivalent of 46% on two-point shots?

LMA shot 35% from three in last season in Portland on 1.5 attempts (the highest volume of his career), that equals out to 1.5 points on 1.5 shots, which is the equivalent to hitting two-point shots at 50%. Ask yourself is hitting midrange at 40%, better than shooting the equivalent of 50% on two-point shots?

Now, I'm not saying to replace every single midrange/long 2 with a 3, but both of them shouldn't be taking around 9x the number of midrange shots v. 3s. If a less-skilled shooter like Blake Griffin can hit threes at a volume of six per game at 36%, there's no reason why LMA and DeRozan can't hit 3s at 33% with more reps and game-experience.

33.3% from beyond the arc is essentially equal to shooting 50% on two-point shots, which is considerably better than shooting 41% on midrange shots, which is what they're doing now. Not only is it more efficient, but it'd space the floor more allowing for better scoring opportunities.

It's nearly 2019, and I'm struggling to understand why obvious shyt like this needs to be stated.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Folks are really in here insinuating the Spurs shooting 41% from the midrange (on the highest volume in the league) is better than taking more 3s. And you've got Mr. 3 > 2 himself @Rhakim co-signing their shyt (only 'cause he needs to keep up his agenda against me).

 

[CHICAGO]

THIS IS STUPID...

DEMAR IS ASSISTED ON 20% OF HIS JUMPSHOTS.
HES NOT STANDING INSIDE THE THREE WAITING FOR A CATCH & SHOOT...
HES CREATING SHOTS FOR HIMSELF OFF THE DRIBBLE FOR THAT 42%FG

HE WOULDNT EVEN CRACK 30% IF HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE THREES OFF THE DRIBBLE.

THATS WHY ITS SILLY TO COMPARE PERCENTAGES
WHEN HE CLEARLY DOESNT HAVE THE SKILLSET FOR THAT.

YES LETS TURN DEMAR INTO A SPOT UP SHOOTER
SO HE CAN TAKE MORE THREES
EVEN THOUGH HE DOPESNT SPOT UP FOR TWOS.

​

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

THIS IS STUPID...

DEMAR IS ASSISTED ON 20% OF HIS JUMPSHOTS.
HES NOT STANDING INSIDE THE THREE WAITING FOR A CATCH & SHOOT...
HES CREATING SHOTS FOR HIMSELF OFF THE DRIBBLE FOR THAT 42%FG

HE WOULDNT EVEN CRACK 30% IF HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE THREES OFF THE DRIBBLE.

THATS WHY ITS SILLY TO COMPARE PERCENTAGES
WHEN HE CLEARLY DOESNT HAVE THE SKILLSET FOR THAT.

YES LETS TURN DEMAR INTO A SPOT UP SHOOTER
SO HE CAN TAKE MORE THREES
EVEN THOUGH HE DOPESNT SPOT UP FOR TWOS.

​

He doesn't have the skillset to take a few steps back and create off the dribble? A couple extra feet and his ability to create for himself is going to vanish?



He shot 31% from 3 last season, which is more efficient than the shots he takes from 16ft-to the arc (40%) this season. He shot 35% from behind the arc on catch-and-shoot attempts last season, which is the same as shooting 50% on two-point shots, yet you seem to think 40% on long 2s is more efficient?

And why can't Pop create off-ball actions for DeRozan to score from behind the arc, when it'd add more dimensions to their offense? The Raptors did, why can't he?

You don't think taking more 3s, instead of all these long 2s isn't going to create more spacing on offense? You don't think it'd give the Spurs starting unit a higher ceiling if they opted to take more efficient shots and stretch the floor more?

Funny how you didn't bring up LMA, since you would've seen he's assisted on nearly 90% of his jumpshots. I'm guessing you agree it'd be wiser for him to take a few steps back, instead of shooting 41% on long 2s?