ATL -1 Player League Signups/Discussion

[Miller4ever]

Also, isn't making 3's the way you become a threat? You've got to show that you can take and make three's to be a threat and you get those opportunities with establishing play down low and ball movement. I also like the '80 Lakers as an example. Norm Nixon, Magic Johnson, Jim Chones, Jamaal Wilkes, and Kareem. There's nobody there with 20+ range. At no point do you ever guard those guys out to the 3-point line. But they won it all against teams with more threatening spacing (guys with reputation who were guarded outside based on the lone fact that they were outside threats). It didn't help those teams against the Lakers and it didn't open up the ball for some of the more impressive slashers on those teams.

I also think you overestimate the defendability of midrange shots. Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton, and Ray Allen got/get their bread and butter from the midrange, at extremely efficient rates. So when your spacers step inside, does that diminish the efficiency of an offense? No. They rely on movement, picks, and ball movement to get good looks, and get in the 50-40-90 club.

And spacing or no, you have to guard every guy regardless, otherwise it's just bad defense, obviously.

[bastillon]

I think you're underrating the value of activity though too. The 83 6ers has Toney as a great jumpshooter and no one else in their starting 5 better than a lebron/wade type. Additionally, they had bobby jones and moses malone who you'd be overrating their range to call it limited. Spacing is important, but having guys like Jones who don't stop moving and know where to be (same with Moses) in addition to a competent floor general can more than make-up for a lack of "spacing" (22nd in 3pm, 7th in pts/gm)

don't get me wrong, a guy like Rip Hamilton can draw multiple defenders WITHOUT THE BALL. that's tremendous. but if you're looking at those 67ers everyone could shoot from midrange area, Moses couldn't be left anywhere because of his ability to get offensive rebounds and I don't think they were an elite offensive team.

but those were different days. defensive coaching has developed so much since then, that's it really hard not to provide more spacing as well. a team like that would die today without shooters on the floor. find a poorly spaced team in the last 20 years that had a great offense.

[Miller4ever]

Who cares about offense? How about wins?

Indiana Pacers 2004. For half of the season they played and won with only one spacing threat and got 61 wins.

Recently, the Memphis Grizz without Gay. One spacing threat. Playoff upset against the much better spaced Spurs.

I don't think the game changed because spacing was needed. I think that the only thing you can point to as solid advantage in at least the last 10 championships is better interior scoring or better defense or both.

Reggie Miller himself said "big always wins". You point to the '04 Pistons like it was they were a superior offensive team. They weren't. They just made your offense worse than theirs. You point to the Suns. Great. How many chips have they won, ever? Denver, nada. Dallas won this time because their defense finally caught up decently to their offense, which has been well-spaced and efficient for the last 10 years. Look at the two Celtics/Lakers Finals over the last 4 years. Lakers lose with Bynum. Celtics lose without Perkins. Neither of those guys added spacing. Spacing should be a given if you have anyone of decent quality at their position playing on the perimeter. It's even automatic for older guys like Havlicek and Barry.

[bastillon]

Who cares about offense? How about wins?

Indiana Pacers 2004. For half of the season they played and won with only one spacing threat and got 61 wins.

Recently, the Memphis Grizz without Gay. One spacing threat. Playoff upset against the much better spaced Spurs.

I don't think the game changed because spacing was needed. I think that the only thing you can point to as solid advantage in at least the last 10 championships is better interior scoring or better defense or both.

Reggie Miller himself said "big always wins". You point to the '04 Pistons like it was they were a superior offensive team. They weren't. They just made your offense worse than theirs. You point to the Suns. Great. How many chips have they won, ever? Denver, nada. Dallas won this time because their defense finally caught up decently to their offense, which has been well-spaced and efficient for the last 10 years. Look at the two Celtics/Lakers Finals over the last 4 years. Lakers lose with Bynum. Celtics lose without Perkins. Neither of those guys added spacing. Spacing should be a given if you have anyone of decent quality at their position playing on the perimeter. It's even automatic for older guys like Havlicek and Barry.

I don't think you understood me at all.

first of all, we need to seperate offense and defense. obviously spacing has nothing to do with the defense. if you're going to argue on the basis of winning on the basis of great defense, then fine, I guess great spacing isn't needed. but that was not the point. the point is that you can't have an efficient offense without properly spaced floor. you need to be playing 1 vs 1, not 1 vs 5. bringing up wins is pretty ignorant here...no offense to you as I respect you as a poster, but it's pretty clear why offensive efficiency is relevant in the discussion about spacing and wins aren't. spacing has a direct impact on offense and indirect on wins (by offense). know what I'm saying ? it's like I told you interior defense is crucial and you'd bring up Charlotte Bobcats 2010 (who were actually pretty good with Chandler etc, but couldnt play any offense whatsoever) and you'd tell me "how about wins". well obviously their interior defense didn't correlate particularly well with wins, because offense has equally big impact on that. on defense however interior defense of Charlotte Bobcats had vital importance and the correlation with defensive efficiency was very high.

second, your examples are sort of weird to me. Indiana had fantastic spacing. Tinsley, Miller, Artest all were 3p threats and needed to be guarded behind the 3pt line (notice how I talked about being a threat, not being an efficient 3p shooter). JO was a jumpshooting big man. Croshere had 3pt range. Harrington had 3pt range. I mean what more do you want ? that team would've been the worst offensive team in the league had it not been for spacing. nobody could create off the dribble on a consistent basis, nobody was a legit scorer 1 on 1 besides JO (who was chucking as hell anyway). Indiana Pacers were excellent example of properly spaced team. you had to guard the 3pt line, that's why JO would play without double teams so often.

then you're bringing up Memphis who weren't poorly spaced at all (Conley, Battier, Mayo 3p threats; Gasol and Randolph midrange). I mean either you just misunderstood my point or I don't know what's happening here. don't you think these guys should be guarded wherever the hell their range is ?

so let me make myself clear once more:
I am not arguing that spacing wins championships by itself. I'm arguing that spacing is absolutely necessary in today's game to have productive offense. there are NO top teams without 3p threats. championships are more complicated than that, as obviously it's needed to have a good defense as well. however from offensive POV you need the floor to be spaced properly, and you're not getting it done by having one 3p threat in your lineup with everyone else scoring primarily on the inside. 30 years ago, that might have been possible, yeah. in today's game, no, not really. now if you want you can look for teams with strong offense and without 3p threats and I am truly curious to see if you can find any. the ones you found had several 3pt threats each and their bigs were stretching the floor to 18 feet as well. notice my definition of "properly spaced" as "team with 3pt THREATS", and NOT "team with five 40% 3pt shooters".

[Miller4ever]

There are no top teams without three point threats because it's hard to make a team without 3 point threats. If a guy calls himself a shooting guard chances are he can shoot 3's.

Also, I said for half the season when referring to the Pacers. No way in hell was Artest respected from deep, and Tinsley was out or on the bench for half the season. JO got double-teamed plenty cause he couldn't pass.

You keep saying 1v1 instead of 1v5 but that is a complete and total oversimplification of offenses without spacing. The Lebron Cavs had great spacing but it was more 1v5 than any other team I've seen. Also, basketball is 5v5, and spacing doesn't automatically generate 5 1v1 matchups.

You can't seriously say that '04 Harrington and Artest need to be respected from deep and then say Dennis Johnson's limited range can easily be closed out on. You also contradict yourself when you say guys effective from midrange need to be guarded at their ranges, because even guys with limited range can keep the game "1v1" and keep offenses productive. My argument is not the importance of spacing, but the importance for spacing out to the 3-point line. I never said your definition of spacing was everyone spacing from the 3-point line. I said your definition was 3-point ability, which you call "threat". Without the ability to make 3's consistently, you can't be a threat. The ability to make threes consistently is what makes someone a threat. Consistently making threes has to be over 33.3% or it is not as efficient as going for inside shots, or in the case of some players, midrange shots. Therefore, you either use players like '04 Ron Artest to say that Indiana has good spacing, thereby saying that sub-par 3-point shooters should be respected the same as good 3-point shooters because of the threat. Dennis Johnson made threes in his career. He should be considered a threat from out there, no? At what qualification does a player become a threat? If I'm scouting someone and I see them making 1-4 threes consistently, I don't see them as a threat, I see them as a chucker, and defenders are allowed to put minimal effort into closing out on that guy because he's not going to get it done. It's completely different from defending a sharpshooter over 40% from deep, because then you really have to stick with that guy. That's when 3-point spacing actually comes into play, not with sub-.300 guys like Harrington.

[bastillon]

a threat is defined by whether or not he's able to gather defensive attention, not by any sort of %. if you're shooting 5% from halfcourt shots but your opponent is dumb enough to think you'll make them, he'll guard you so you become a "threat" in my book. Artest WAS guarded outside the 3pt line and Harrington WAS guarded outside the 3pt line, so all of your complaints about their efficiency is valid, of course, but in terms of being an efficient outside scorer, not someone who can space the floor. if you're being guarded outside the 3 then you're MAKING space for players driving to the lane etc and thus all considerations how much 3s you need to make are ouf of question. it's certainly out of question here, as I've seen them being defended behind the 3pt line.

[Miller4ever]

So your standard of if a player is a threat is if the defense chooses to defend them far from the basket?

Well, then ****, Kevin Garnett is a spacer.

Yao Ming is a spacer.

Roy Hibbert is a spacer.

Tyler Hansbrough is a spacer.

In fact, 80% of the players in the NBA are spacers. Because last time I checked, they all get closed out on, as far as 27 feet out, even with 20 seconds left on the shot clock and they are clearly looking to pass.

[bastillon]

So your standard of if a player is a threat is if the defense chooses to defend them far from the basket?

Well, then ****, Kevin Garnett is a spacer.

Yao Ming is a spacer.

Roy Hibbert is a spacer.

Tyler Hansbrough is a spacer.

In fact, 80% of the players in the NBA are spacers. Because last time I checked, they all get closed out on, as far as 27 feet out, even with 20 seconds left on the shot clock and they are clearly looking to pass.

Kevin Garnett is definitely a spacer. Yao Ming doesn't even get that far and he never shoots 18 footers so I don't know what you're speaking of. Roy Hibbert ? seriously ?

but yeah, if players attracts defensive attention far away from the basket, it means his defender isn't in the position to help out on slashers/post players... so he improves your spacing. obviously it's better to have a guy like Reggie or Ray because you have to be close to these guys all the time, while you can help guarding Artest, get back to him, trying to close him out and live with the results. but you can't really leave Artest wide open consistently, definitely no.

[lukekarts]

You keep saying 1v1 instead of 1v5 but that is a complete and total oversimplification of offenses without spacing. The Lebron Cavs had great spacing but it was more 1v5 than any other team I've seen. Also, basketball is 5v5, and spacing doesn't automatically generate 5 1v1 matchups.

Miller, I think you're missing his point. It's not about spacing being a key factor in turning a bad offensive team into a good one, it's about spacing making a good offensive team a better one.

Say you had a team of Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, Gerald Wallace, and you wanted to pick a couple of guards. Your options are (let's assume all are equally talented) Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton, or Rajon Rondo and Monta Ellis. In order to space the offence properly, you're going to pick Billups and Rip, because both will draw more defensive attention right out to the 3-point line and create space for Smith, Wallace and Dwight to operate. Sticking Billups and Rip onto a team with a front court devoid of talent won't automatically make them good, but it will help a good team get better.

The other point you make on Artest etc. is also one of perception. No, Artest was not an efficient shooter, nor was Harrington, but at the same time (more notably for Artest) they were more likely to shoot and could sometimes get hot from 3. A guy like Dennis Johnson for example, was not regarded in the same way. Opposing coaches won't have looked at Artest's stats and said 'oh he only shoots <35% from 3 lets not guard him'; it would more likely be 'Artest likes shooting from distance and sometimes gets hot so make sure you track him to the 3-point line and don't give him easy looks'. Hypothetical, but I'm sure you get the idea. Now let's look at the opposite extreme - Rajon Rondo. The perception is he can't shoot and won't shoot so teams gameplan to slack off him when he's on the 3-point line, and either double up elsewhere or help block passing lanes. That's why at times Rondo's lack of spacing is a detriment to the Celtics offence. It is of course workable if you have two of the best spacers in Pierce and Allen but if they had Ellis and Worthy it'd be a very busy basketball court 20 feet and in.

[Miller4ever]

See, I don't disagree with the point, I disagree with the players and the requirements bast considers to be threats, since 04 Harrington and 04 Artest are in completely different boats in terms of how defenses gameplanned for them. If Harrington was outside, you doubled off of him safely. If Artest is outside, you think twice, but still do it. Same thing with Yao. You do not double off of true spacing threats, and those happen to be the 33%+ shooters.

Threats are not guys you guard out to the perimeter, threats are guys you are scared of doubling off of, and that requires a certain ability to make three point shots to establish that threat, and the baseline is usually 33% because that's when it's a threat that must be respected.

By my standards, the '04 Artest that gets chosen the most often for ATL's is not a 3-point spacing threat, and neither is Dennis Johnson, obviously. It doesn't take a volume guy to be a threat, but it takes an accurate outside shoote

[CellarDoor]

See, I don't disagree with the point, I disagree with the players and the requirements bast considers to be threats, since 04 Harrington and 04 Artest are in completely different boats in terms of how defenses gameplanned for them. If Harrington was outside, you doubled off of him safely. If Artest is outside, you think twice, but still do it. Same thing with Yao. You do not double off of true spacing threats, and those happen to be the 33%+ shooters.

Threats are not guys you guard out to the perimeter, threats are guys you are scared of doubling off of, and that requires a certain ability to make three point shots to establish that threat, and the baseline is usually 33% because that's when it's a threat that must be respected.

By my standards, the '04 Artest that gets chosen the most often for ATL's is not a 3-point spacing threat, and neither is Dennis Johnson, obviously. It doesn't take a volume guy to be a threat, but it takes an accurate outside shoote

Tell that to Keith Bogans who had a country mile of space to shoot his 38% last year

[Miller4ever]

That just proves my point even more. Derrick Rose gets into the paint to open things up for the shooters outside. He gets doubled and even tripled when he steps into the paint. And there are some extremely dangerous shooters outside, but you still have to prioritize interior scoring as a defense. That's why teams felt comfortable doubling off of Artest onto JO. Initially standing outside to have a man on Artest is one thing, but effective spacing happens when you don't dare leave a guy, and Al Harrington is a very low standard for a threat, which is why I bring up a poor spacer like DJ in the first place. Whatever point it is that you feel you can't double off of a guy is the best spacing.

bast says spacing out to 3-points is a necessary, fundamental part of a good offense, but allow the 27% Al Harringtons in as spacing threats.

I say spacing to 20 feet is all that's necessary, and if you go into 3-point spacing, it better be a consistent shooter above 33%.

I am comfortable leaving it there.

[bastillon]

That just proves my point even more. Derrick Rose gets into the paint to open things up for the shooters outside. He gets doubled and even tripled when he steps into the paint. And there are some extremely dangerous shooters outside, but you still have to prioritize interior scoring as a defense. That's why teams felt comfortable doubling off of Artest onto JO. Initially standing outside to have a man on Artest is one thing, but effective spacing happens when you don't dare leave a guy, and Al Harrington is a very low standard for a threat, which is why I bring up a poor spacer like DJ in the first place. Whatever point it is that you feel you can't double off of a guy is the best spacing.

how does Keith Bogans prove your point when
1) shooting wide open 3s is a sign of good spacing
2) leaving a guy who's not exceptional shooter wide open will make him shoot 38%
?

I hardly remember Bowen hitting anything but a wide open 3pter. he's definitely not a great shooter, a mediocre 3pt threat actually, but he was able to lead the league in 3pt%. why ? because they gave him so much space and he shot only those quality shots.

what I'm saying is you can't just stop guarding Artest behind the 3pt line, because his efficiency will be much higher than 31% that he shot. that Artest example is inaccurate anyway because he was actually a scorer back in the day (out of necessity but still) and one who didn't have a particularly reasonable shot selection so he shot a lot of fadeaway 3s and stuff.

again, if you're contesting the status of spacing in today's league and call it overrated, find a team with top notch offense and poor spacing. if there are any examples of this, it's a vast minority. most of the time, empirically speaking, you need to have at least couple guys who are outside threats to have a good offense. it's not the only factor, but it's an important criterion, vital you could even say, and offense can't live without spacing.

[Miller4ever]

1) shooting wide open 3s is a sign of good spacing

Isn't a wide open man inside a sign of good spacing whereas a wide open shooter outside is a sign of good interior play or ball movement?

I hardly remember Bowen hitting anything but a wide open 3pter. he's definitely not a great shooter, a mediocre 3pt threat actually, but he was able to lead the league in 3pt%. why ? because they gave him so much space and he shot only those quality shots.

He got the space because Parker and Duncan are really good on the inside. What you're arguing now is something completely different. Spacing is for the benefit of opening up the court to get easier shots inside.

again, if you're contesting the status of spacing in today's league and call it overrated, find a team with top notch offense and poor spacing. if there are any examples of this, it's a vast minority. most of the time, empirically speaking, you need to have at least couple guys who are outside threats to have a good offense. it's not the only factor, but it's an important criterion, vital you could even say, and offense can't live without spacing.

Can YOU name a team with poor spacing from last season?

You are affirming the consequent. Show me a team with top notch offense with poor (fill in the blank). Just because top-notch offenses have spacing doesn't mean that spacing leads to good offense. In the past, the top offenses were the guys with the tallest players. Not so true anymore. Plus there is no NBA team with poor spacing by your standards. What separates the guys at the bottom and the guys at the top is reliable interior scoring and rebounding. Anybody can get a guy open for 3. Not every team can get it inside at reliably get more than 1 point per attempt. If you were to be empirical about it, let's use offensive rating to decide what the WORST offenses are, tabulate the number of significant spacers (minus the guys under 25%), and then look at their inside scoring. Then we'll do it for the top teams. Remember, percentage according to you doesn't matter as much as number of spacers available.

Worst
Milwaukee: Delfino, Jennings, Maggette, Douglas-Roberts, Boykins, Salmons, Ilyasova. Bogut was reliable inside, but didn't score consistently, and the next best rebounder at 6.8 per game, Gooden, only played 38 games. Spacing good, interior scoring okay, rebounding bad.

Cleveland: Gibson, Parker, Harris, Gee, Jamison. Jamison was rather ineffectual, but Hickson could finish and so could Sessions. Unforunately, with Varejao out, Hickson and Jamison didn't pick up the rebounding slack. Spacing good, interior scoring okay, rebounding bad.

Washington: Martin, Wall, Hinrich/Evans, Arenas/Lewis. Inside, McGee was only a finisher, and Blatche was decent. Rebounding-wise they both could make do, but got little help. Spacing so-so, interior scoring decent, rebounding meh.

New Jersey: Morrow, Uzoh, Vujacic, Harris/Williams, Outlaw, Farmar. Brook Lopez could score on the inside and Humphries could rebound, but Lopez stank on the boards so Humphries had less help than Bogut. Spacing good, interior scoring decent, rebounding bad.

Charlotte: Carroll, Diaw, Jackson, Augustin, Wallace/Najera. Kwame Brown, Tyrus Thomas, and Gerald Wallace could not become a good frontcourt. Spacing decent, interior scoring bad, rebounding bad.

Best
Denver: Billups/Felton, Afflalo, Lawson, Smith, Anthony/Gallinari, Harrington (legit now, unlike 27% version). Melo likes to work in the post, and with Nene it's an okay combo. The rebounding by the whole team was good. Spacing good, interior scoring okay, rebounding good.

San Antonio: Bonner, Jefferson, Neal, Hill, Parker, Ginobili. Duncan gets his, Parker took 70 shots from outside and 999 2-pointers, and he likes to get to the basket. Duncan and Blair could grab boards, and McDyess contributed enough. Spacing good, interior scoring good, rebounding good.

Miami: Bibby/Arroyo, Jones, James, Wade, Chalmers, Miller/House. Bosh is an inside threat, James and Wade are also great around the basket, and prefer to be there over the outside. The big three also gets it done on the boards along with Haslem. Spacing good, interior scoring good, rebounding good.

Houston: Lee, Dragic/Battier, Martin, Lowry, Miller/Brooks, Budinger. Scola was great, but got little help. Rebounding-wise, they barely overmatched their opponents, but did have an advantage over the season. Spacing good, interior scoring so-so, rebounding decent.

Oklahoma: Cook, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Maynor, Green, Sefalosha (barely). The interior scoring was mostly on Westbrook, and Ibaka was finisher, with Durant making occasional forays. Rebounding is solid, with Ibaka and Durant and plenty of team contributions. Spacing great, interior scoring decent, rebounding good.

That's how I see it. I think the difference in spacing between good teams and bad teams is not as large as the difference in rebounding. I think interior scoring functions alongside spacing, as its opposite, which is a change in opinion for me. But because spacing is by far more ubiquitous it seems silly to try and go for it. I watched some film of 1978 NBA Finals, and I gotta say, spacing looks like something that has been around as long as jumpshots have been around, but the degree of importance hasn't changed, just the distance it actually encompasses.

[-Kees-]

Ok, after bastillon and DavidStern pick, I'll put up the matchups and we can get those going, hopefully soon.

[-Kees-]

I wanted all of the dropped players by about now, but we don't have all of them yet.

The following posters still need to send me who they are going to drop:

MJallday59
lukekarts
bastillon
poopdamoop
TMACFORMVP

I would start without their picks, but then it gives an unfair advantage to those who haven't told me yet, so we'll have to wait for them.

[CellarDoor]

You could announce the match-ups unaffected by it so we can get started? I know at least Dock and I aren't an issue here.

[bastillon]

I was out. I'll get to it now.

[-Kees-]

Ok sounds good. You are the last one, so once I get an email from you, I'll post them and we can start

[bastillon]

let me just say I hate my matchup.