RealGM

I've seen him use flat screens, and side PnR at the top of the arc, but wit Dinwiddie's and Carroll's and all our guards size really, why aren't we doing cross screens to open up mismatches in the posts for quick buckets against teams wit size?

Sometimes I get the impression he’s overthinking small ball.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Paradise wrote:Sometimes I get the impression he’s overthinking small ball.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

It's something that I've been wondering about wit our bigs.

On another note we could also run elevator screens to free up Crabbe and Dinwiddie and Levert.

Or when Okafor gets that ball in the high area wit his back turn, use the handoff to initiate action to dive to the basket. There are things they can do, that they need to tap into.

I checked it. And the last time we used a cross screen that I can recall is the game in Orlando. Jarrett Allen freed up Trevor Booker for a 1 on 1 match up vs their PG.

If Okafor's staying for good..we need to design an offense around Dlo and Okafor and not shoot so many 3s. That's 2 20pt scorers if they're playing starter mins and getting star-like touches. 40 given pts every night. Rest of guys can be their supporting cast. Ofcourse there would be alot of pick and rolls and Okafor will have to develop a consistent J in the Summer. Next yr, Lin(if he's still here)Dlo, RHJ, Okafor, Allen starting lineup.

IceManBK1 wrote:If Okafor's staying for good..we need to design an offense around Dlo and Okafor and not shoot so many 3s. That's 2 20pt scorers if they're playing starter mins and getting star-like touches. 40 given pts every night. Rest of guys can be their supporting cast. Ofcourse there would be alot of pick and rolls and Okafor will have to develop a consistent J in the Summer. Next yr, Lin(if he's still here)Dlo, RHJ, Okafor, Allen starting lineup.

Not my intention, and our offense is built to free up space for high % shots. The 3's are here to stay.

What I mean is in 1/2 court sets to mix these sets up to free up those opportunities.

LKIRNets wrote:

IceManBK1 wrote:If Okafor's staying for good..we need to design an offense around Dlo and Okafor and not shoot so many 3s. That's 2 20pt scorers if they're playing starter mins and getting star-like touches. 40 given pts every night. Rest of guys can be their supporting cast. Ofcourse there would be alot of pick and rolls and Okafor will have to develop a consistent J in the Summer. Next yr, Lin(if he's still here)Dlo, RHJ, Okafor, Allen starting lineup.

Not my intention, and our offense is built to free up space for high % shots. The 3's are here to stay.

What I mean is in 1/2 court sets to mix these sets up to free up those opportunities.

we could be running post up plays for dlo and okafor too and have them kick out to shooters. whenever okafor plays we just wasting his talent out there..our guards rather launch 3s then throw an entry pass to Okafor.

IceManBK1 wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

IceManBK1 wrote:If Okafor's staying for good..we need to design an offense around Dlo and Okafor and not shoot so many 3s. That's 2 20pt scorers if they're playing starter mins and getting star-like touches. 40 given pts every night. Rest of guys can be their supporting cast. Ofcourse there would be alot of pick and rolls and Okafor will have to develop a consistent J in the Summer. Next yr, Lin(if he's still here)Dlo, RHJ, Okafor, Allen starting lineup.

Not my intention, and our offense is built to free up space for high % shots. The 3's are here to stay.

What I mean is in 1/2 court sets to mix these sets up to free up those opportunities.

we could be running post up plays for dlo and okafor too and have them kick out to shooters. whenever okafor plays we just wasting his talent out there..our guards rather launch 3s then throw an entry pass to Okafor.

ok so you don't understand Atkinson's system?

LKIRNets wrote:I've seen him use flat screens, and side PnR at the top of the arc, but wit Dinwiddie's and Carroll's and all our guards size really, why aren't we doing cross screens to open up mismatches in the posts for quick buckets against teams wit size?

analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:I've seen him use flat screens, and side PnR at the top of the arc, but wit Dinwiddie's and Carroll's and all our guards size really, why aren't we doing cross screens to open up mismatches in the posts for quick buckets against teams wit size?

analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

LKIRNets wrote:

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:I've seen him use flat screens, and side PnR at the top of the arc, but wit Dinwiddie's and Carroll's and all our guards size really, why aren't we doing cross screens to open up mismatches in the posts for quick buckets against teams wit size?

analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

"Why doesn't Kenny Atkinson run cross screen plays for Allen and Okafor? "

cuz it's not 3ball nor 2020 yet....

lol

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

Ex. OT vs the Pacers. We couldn't hit an outside shot. OT vs the Wizards, same story. But I do get this part.

LKIRNets wrote:

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

Ex. OT vs the Pacers. We couldn't hit an outside shot. OT vs the Wizards, same story. But I do get this part.

Nets i assume eiher dont view this as a problem (again focusing on the process/system not the result) or if they do see it as an issue their solution would likely be to bring in better pick and roll bigs and pick and roll ball handlers...

and id agree with that. keep developing allen and bring in a center who gets it done in the pick and roll

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

TheNetsFan wrote:

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

We're negating the option to get points on the line too.

LKIRNets wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

We're negating the option to get points on the line too.

next to shooting a three, getting to the FT line is the option most coveted. problem is, in todays league post ups dont get you to the FT line very often. mostly because teams dont double and they coach to do anything BUT foul when defending post ups.

from an analytics standpoint the best way to get to the FT line is to get defenders out of position and helping. which they dont believe post ups do. thats more a result of pick and roll or isolation for an eltte wing player

LKIRNets wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

We're negating the option to get points on the line too.

We're the 3rd worst 3pt shooting team based on percentage. We're the worst shooting team overall based on filed goal percentage. Pluse we're always complaining about getting no respect from the refs.

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

We're negating the option to get points on the line too.

next to shooting a three, getting to the FT line is the option most coveted. problem is, in todays league post ups dont get you to the FT line very often. mostly because teams dont double and they coach to do anything BUT foul when defending post ups.

from an analytics standpoint the best way to get to the FT line is to get defenders out of position and helping. which they dont believe post ups do. thats more a result of pick and roll or isolation for an eltte wing player

I see.

TheNetsFan wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

TheNetsFan wrote:I'd also add that we can't assume that we'd be equally efficient or more efficient with post-ups or other 2pt shots. Despite being a poor 3pt shooting team, many believe that we could be even worse if we tried to match teams bucket for bucket at a 2pt clip. We're just not talented enough to put the ball in the hoop more times than most of our opponents, so we need the hoops to count more for each make.

That being said, we do need more variety to keep teams honest, and situationally, e.g. down by one at the end of the game, it's better to shoot a 2 that you hit at 40% efficiency than a 3 that you hit at 34% efficiency.

We're negating the option to get points on the line too.

We're the 3rd worst 3pt shooting team based on percentage. We're the worst shooting team overall based on filed goal percentage. Pluse we're always complaining about getting no respect from the refs.

you know what, that could be factor.

Prokorov wrote:

LKIRNets wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
analytics driven offenses dont believe post ups are quality poessions. its down there with long twos as far as the pecking order of shots

Good point. But when we're playing great D and those 3's aren't falling. We have to take advantage of the paint. It only opens up the 3 ball even more.

Analtics driven teams dont believe in hot or cold they believe in always taking the highest efficiency shot and living with the result. not that i agree with that, but that is how they operate.

more and more teams have adapted the spurs philosiphy of focusing on the process and not the result. take the best shot and let the chips fall where they may. and analytics rank a post up near the bottom.

again i dont necessarily agree with that.

what i do agree with is that the post game no longer opens up the three. teams dont double in the post much anymore. analytic based teams basically never double in the post. mostly because they think post ups are a poor shot and are willing to live with the result of 1 on 1 defense there. they just stress not fouling.

even on mismatches you rarely see teams double in the post. like a pg switch on a center. teams will live with that.

I think you're looking at the league from a very idealized perspective instead of reality. There's not just 1 way of doing things. As perfect as an open 3 or a trip to the FT line is, the shot clock is only 24 seconds. You don't always have the time to be picky about the shot you take. And it really depends on personnel. Not all teams play things the same way.

You bring up the Spurs and they're a perfect example of an analytic driven team that throws the "basics" of analytics out the window. Their 1st option is #2 in the league in post up possessions per game. This year alone they've more than doubled us up from mid-range. Last year with Kawhi in the mix, I'm positive they were higher. They're 100% focused on the result and what works for them to succeed.

What does this mean? We're VERY extreme (for better or for worse) in how we run our defense and offense. We'll gladly give up floaters and pull up 2s before we give up layups or 3s. That's not true for every team. A lot of teams are gladly giving up NOTHING. They trap ball handlers, bring their bigs up higher, double the post when needed, etc. Most teams don't just live with the result. They prefer mid-range shots and post ups, but they still want them contested.

There's a reason we're dead last in forcing TOs even with some solid defenders on the squad.