- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:11 pm to Keys Open Doors
I done said that already.
They were a centimeter away from being eliminated in the first round with that Allen Houston shot.
They were a centimeter away from being eliminated in the first round with that Allen Houston shot.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:14 pm to Keys Open Doors
the spurs team last finals was an outlier. they were playing offense on a level that i've never seen before
they were in the fricking zone and everybody was humming
Article with stats on the difference
Another article on the finals last year
they were in the fricking zone and everybody was humming
Article with stats on the difference
quote:
The Spurs offense has seen a notable uptick in pace, or possessions per 48 minutes, over the last few years. Early in Duncan’s career, the Spurs were a grind-it-out team that punished opponents deep in the paint through both David Robinson and Duncan. As Duncan has aged, however, the offense has transitioned into a more balanced attack, using multiple screens and floor spacing to generate a quicker offense and field goal attempts earlier in the 24-second shot clock. This strategy has led to an increase in the number of possessions per 48 minutes, from 88.4 in Duncan’s rookie year to a Duncan-Popovich Era high of 95.0 this past season--good for 10th in the league, despite the Spurs fielding the fourth oldest roster.
quote:
Not only have the Spurs turned out a higher number of attempts over the last few seasons, but more attempts have come from the three-point range. Teams throughout the league have incorporated the 3-point shot into their offense more heavily over the last decade, and the Spurs are no different. Since winning the 1999 NBA championship with only 10.8 3-point attempts per game, good for 24th in the league, the Spurs have steadily increased their attempts to 21.4 attempts per game in the 2013-2014 season.
Another article on the finals last year
quote:
n the NBA Finals, the Spurs have reached a level of greatness not previously seen in the history of the NBA. Their 119.2 offensive efficiency in the finals would be the best of all time. Their 61.8 effective field goal percentage in the finals would be the best of all time. And they are doing this against a defense that, though it did not finish among the league’s top 10 this season, has been in the top seven each of the three previous seasons and has long shown the ability to dial up the pressure at a moment’s notice. But these Spurs are just too good.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Another article
quote:
“Slow and predictable” might have been the Spurs’ slogan during the earliest years of the Popovich/Tim Duncan partnership. But with Duncan at the peak of his powers as a low-post force, paired with David Robinson to form one of the best interior defensive tandems in NBA history, it hardly mattered. Indeed, it would have been silly to play any other way.
Ginobili arrived for the final season of that partnership, in 2002-03. Exaggerating perhaps only slightly, he remembers Popovich using set plays — such as their trademark “Four Down” post-up for Duncan — on every single possession. He couldn’t say how many Popovich calls now. But far more often than not, the Spurs rely on base sets in which players are empowered to pursue any number of variations as the game dictates.
“Slowly he started to change the way he coaches,” Ginobili said, “and started to give us more freedom and put more emphasis on having more possessions, trying to push the tempo. It’s been very successful the last five years or so. We’ve gone from a very predictable team to one that’s more fun to watch. More fun to play, for sure.”
quote:
Brown breaks the evolution down into four eras:
* Low-post, emphasizing Duncan and Robinson
* Ginobili-centric, taking advantage of the young Argentine’s creative skills
* Pick and roll, with Parker having matured into a premier floor general
* In Brown’s words, “a free-flowing, dangerous, where-do-you-pick-your-poison-to-stop-them type of offense.”
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:19 pm to mattz1122
quote:
It's not at all clear, but let's not invest any more time arguing over this.
You just had me feeling like an idiot so I wanted to justify my reasoning, even if I was wrong.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:36 pm to mattz1122
quote:
And Pop has most certainly adjusted his system since then.
Well, sure. No person in any field can stay successful without make adjustments. But he came in running the motion offense, and he's still running, philosophically, the same offense. It's not like he's some new turk who came in and radically transformed the game in the last decade: he was doing the same thing in the late 90s, the same decade they are saying is so prehistoric and terrible.
Which is a really stupid argument. I don't believe the NBA is terrible now, like Oakley argues, but I find the opposite argument just as ahistorical.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the Spurs have reached a level of greatness not previously seen in the history of the NBA. Their 119.2 offensive efficiency in the finals would be the best of all time. Their 61.8 effective field goal percentage in the finals would be the best of all time.
That's not strategy, that's playing out of your gourd in a small sample. Look at the entire playoffs last year, the Spurs had a eFG of .546 and Off Eff of 114.2. Both numbers are real good, but not unheard of. Hell, neither number lead the NBA in that postseason (the Rockets had the top efficiency).
In 1994, looking back 30 years, the Warriors had a 118.2 Off Efficeincy... and lost in 3 games in the first round. The 1999 Spurs had an eFG of .480 and Off Efficeincy of 103.6, but this was in the deepest offensive depression in the modern NBA. That actually was well above league average (3rd in both).
I mean, it's not like pushing the pace and trying to win in transition is a radical new idea. It's called the 1980's. The Lakers won in 1986 with a playoff eFG of .546 and Off Eff of 115.6. Numbers which, you'll note, exceed last year's Spurs.
This idea that pushing pace is somehow unheard of and is this unimaginable progression in basketball coaching is just bizarre.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
The Lakers and Celtics in the 80s used to play that way. What I am talking about is the passing and movement on offense. Pass, pass, pass. It went away with the isolation games of the 90s and the grind it out defenses.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:54 pm to Baloo
quote:
That's not strategy, that's playing out of your gourd in a small sample
original post of this digression
quote:
The Spurs in the Finals against the Heat was the best basketball that I have seen in years. And they destroyed the Heat. They played the way the game used to be played regularly and the Heat could not handle it.
my response (typo and all):
quote:
Patently false statement
Show me the series played like that in the pasr
quote:
I mean, it's not like pushing the pace and trying to win in transition is a radical new idea.
it's not for the NBA in history, but it is for the spurs, especially when compared to their first runs
quote:
The Lakers won in 1986 with a playoff eFG of .546 and Off Eff of 115.6. Numbers which, you'll note, exceed last year's Spurs.
i agree. the 80s was super-paced, fast-break basketball without much defense. that's why teh pistons were so revolutionary for the era
the spurs in the late 90s were a vestige of the era ushered in by teh bad boys, esp when rileyball began in the late 90s
This post was edited on 3/14/15 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:00 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
The Lakers and Celtics in the 80s used to play that way.
they ran fast break
they did not rely on spacing, 3s, and so many passes. the spurs did it all. nobody else has in my lifetime
quote:
What I am talking about is the passing and movement on offense.
go re-watch some finals from the 80s
1987 NBA Finals
not that much movement or passing in the half court
hell the lakers ran mainly iso/post up in the half court. almost no ball movement, off-ball movement, etc
Posted on 3/14/15 at 10:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Dude, I watched the Celtics constantly in the 80s. That 86 team passed the ball better than any I've ever seen. You are like 10 years younger than me, right? I was in Junior high school in the mid-late 80's and a basketball freak. Totally obsessed. Never argue with a basketball obsessed 12-14 year old about what he is seeing. 
No, in all seriousness, that is what I remember. You are right about the lack of defense, though. I will give you that. The Celtics did both. That is what made them so good. But, it was nothing to see a score be 132-128.
No, in all seriousness, that is what I remember. You are right about the lack of defense, though. I will give you that. The Celtics did both. That is what made them so good. But, it was nothing to see a score be 132-128.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 2:09 am to AlaTiger
Basketball might be more complex now but the NBA as a whole was much much better 20 years ago
Yeah the spurs and heat last year could play with the bulls of the 90s no question they are elite
But after that there are probably 3-4 other teams last year that make the playoffs in say 96. Thunder, pacers. Rockets bulls with a healthy rose so basically no lol.
That's the problem. The NBA was DEEP. U had teams like Seattle with Payton, a prime Kemp and schrimp and they would get their shite pushed in by half the western conference
shite golden state had Tim hardaway Mitch ritchmond and Chris Mullen and the best they ever did was a seven seed.
Let me put it this way. How many hall of fame players u think in the NBA now?
James - cavs
Durant - durant
Bryant - Lakers
Dirk - mavs
Duncan - spurs
Wade -heat
This is what u had in... 97
Jordan - bulls
Pippen - bulls
Stockon - jazz
Malone- jazz
Shaq - Lakers
Mutumbo - hawks
Hill - pistons
Barkley - rockets
Drexler- rockets
Hakeem - rockets
Miller - pacers
Morning- heat
Ewing -pkayers
Duncan - spurs
Robinson- spurs
Payton - sonics
That's not including people like kg, Iverson or Kobe who would go on to be hot calubur pkayers
That'd also leaving off some really fricking good players like penny, weber and Jason Kidd. These are just hall of fame calubur players
Every night. Pacers v. Heat. Spurs rockets. Sonics v. Jazz. Rockets v. Bulls. You were seeing hall of famers go at it on a nightly basis
And u had the NBA on NBC music lol
Iverson was the beginning of the end. He ruined the nba
Yeah the spurs and heat last year could play with the bulls of the 90s no question they are elite
But after that there are probably 3-4 other teams last year that make the playoffs in say 96. Thunder, pacers. Rockets bulls with a healthy rose so basically no lol.
That's the problem. The NBA was DEEP. U had teams like Seattle with Payton, a prime Kemp and schrimp and they would get their shite pushed in by half the western conference
shite golden state had Tim hardaway Mitch ritchmond and Chris Mullen and the best they ever did was a seven seed.
Let me put it this way. How many hall of fame players u think in the NBA now?
James - cavs
Durant - durant
Bryant - Lakers
Dirk - mavs
Duncan - spurs
Wade -heat
This is what u had in... 97
Jordan - bulls
Pippen - bulls
Stockon - jazz
Malone- jazz
Shaq - Lakers
Mutumbo - hawks
Hill - pistons
Barkley - rockets
Drexler- rockets
Hakeem - rockets
Miller - pacers
Morning- heat
Ewing -pkayers
Duncan - spurs
Robinson- spurs
Payton - sonics
That's not including people like kg, Iverson or Kobe who would go on to be hot calubur pkayers
That'd also leaving off some really fricking good players like penny, weber and Jason Kidd. These are just hall of fame calubur players
Every night. Pacers v. Heat. Spurs rockets. Sonics v. Jazz. Rockets v. Bulls. You were seeing hall of famers go at it on a nightly basis
And u had the NBA on NBC music lol
Iverson was the beginning of the end. He ruined the nba
Posted on 3/15/15 at 4:40 am to vengeanceofrain
Just so much nostalgia
Posted on 3/15/15 at 6:42 am to WestCoastAg
I love watching basketball from the 80s and 90s on ESPN Classic or youtube, but look at things like the triangle that worked back then. The triangle is one of the worst offensive schemes in all of the NBA right now because of the advanced minds and defenses to stop it.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 7:08 am to vengeanceofrain
quote:
Let me put it this way. How many hall of fame players u think in the NBA now?
James - cavs
Durant - durant
Bryant - Lakers
Dirk - mavs
Duncan - spurs
Wade -heat
Parker, Westbrook, CP3, Curry, Davis, Harden, Howard, Cousins, Wall, Garnett, Pierce
I could probably name some more if I thought for more than a few seconds or pulled up some rosters.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 7:13 am to GeauxWarTigers
Ginobili is for sure a HOF player, and I don't like him at all.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 7:23 am to vengeanceofrain
Surefire HOFers that you didn't name: Melo, Pau Gasol, Parker, Ginobili, Bosh, Garnett, Pierce, Howard, and Paul
Paul is the least experienced guy on my list, and he's in his 10th year. I'm not even going to include the wealth of young players who are well on their way to becoming Hall of Famers.
To say that the current day NBA lacks depth is ridiculous. I'm sure you picked Golden St. and Atlanta to be leading the two conferences, right? Another example of how deep the league is: some people think OKC is a dark horse to win the title; they wouldn't be in the playoffs if we tipped off today.
The reason why people always feel the league was better then? People have more knowledge of what the bottom of the league looks like. They see the Knicks and Sixers' struggles every night. Back in '97, people knew the Grizzlies sucked, but no one ever knew what they looked like. After their 45-second highlight on Sportscenter, no one thought about them. And that leads to the nostalgia of a great league, because we only saw the good.
Paul is the least experienced guy on my list, and he's in his 10th year. I'm not even going to include the wealth of young players who are well on their way to becoming Hall of Famers.
To say that the current day NBA lacks depth is ridiculous. I'm sure you picked Golden St. and Atlanta to be leading the two conferences, right? Another example of how deep the league is: some people think OKC is a dark horse to win the title; they wouldn't be in the playoffs if we tipped off today.
The reason why people always feel the league was better then? People have more knowledge of what the bottom of the league looks like. They see the Knicks and Sixers' struggles every night. Back in '97, people knew the Grizzlies sucked, but no one ever knew what they looked like. After their 45-second highlight on Sportscenter, no one thought about them. And that leads to the nostalgia of a great league, because we only saw the good.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 10:23 am to PKTiger
quote:
Surefire HOFers that you didn't name: Melo,
Melo has a long way to go before making the hof
Posted on 3/15/15 at 10:47 am to Louisianimal83
quote:You're speaking nonsense.
IMO Oakley is correct. Fundamentals are lacking in today's game. Today's game has a street ball effect to it. A bunch of one on one, crazy dribbling, 3pt shooting. While it's enjoyable to watch, it may not be the best brand of basketball.
90's NBA basketball was all about 1 on 1 isolation basketball because of the illegal defense rules. It's why they made zone legal because they thought it would make for a more uptempo game where teams had to pass the ball more.
Everything you think today's NBA basketball is, is what 90's NBA basketball was.
Posted on 3/15/15 at 11:26 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Melo has a long way to go before making the hof
He's in without a doubt. If Adrian Dantley got it, Melo's getting in.
quote:
The reason why people always feel the league was better then? People have more knowledge of what the bottom of the league looks like. They see the Knicks and Sixers' struggles every night. Back in '97, people knew the Grizzlies sucked, but no one ever knew what they looked like. After their 45-second highlight on Sportscenter, no one thought about them. And that leads to the nostalgia of a great league, because we only saw the good
Excellent point.
They would never show the early 90s Mavericks on TV. But it was some of the worst basketball ever played. People look at the Sixers today and think that futility is something new.
This post was edited on 3/15/15 at 11:31 am
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News