Owly wrote:It's not "going against" what the other poster said. It's re-framing it.
It's explicitly acknowledging synergy but also that Duncan benefited, because the Spurs are effective - by this measure with limited samples, noise etc, more effective than vice-versa - with Manu and no Duncan.
I did not say going against it as it was your intention. I did the same thing you thing, it was just a statement.
Owly wrote:I'm not sure what your re-posting of source material does other than exclude the (relatively large, relatively pedestrian) Duncan+Parker no Manu sample, which seems relevant and thus it's exclusion, at best, an oversight.
That's the issue of raw +/- data. Ginobili babysat the secondary unit and played against the secondary units more than the other 2.
It's not an oversight. The oversight here is using raw +/- data without looking at lineup subunits and recognizing patterns.
The reason why Ginobili became a 6th man is Popovich recognizing the pattern to amplify +/- swings to capitalize on the secondary units.
Owly wrote:FWIW, I don't focus strongly on playoffs nor know or have any expertise in whether opponents defensive game plans shifted massively between 2006 and 2007. The following is not something I'd weight heavily or even look at myself but for the playoffs in question (2005) he's at .282 of his 2pt field goals assisted so it doesn't seem like he's getting much direct benefit from any aggressive, multi-man coverage of or focus upon Duncan, though this wouldn't include things like a reluctance to leave Duncan to stop penetration.
It's an interesting way to take my main argument. Bryant's assisted 2pt fg rate was at 30.9% in 2000 playoffs. I guess O'Neal was not the centrepiece of that offensive structure.
I mentioned things Duncan created for the team, not just Ginobili. The Spurs scored 156 points on 63 Duncan assists, which means that 30 (47.7%) of those assists Duncan made led to 3 pointers. 54 of 63 Duncan assists were either 3 point shots or at the rim.
Just for Ginobili stuff; 9 of those 30 assists leading to threes were directly to Ginobili which is 21.4% of his made 3s (28.1% of Ginobili's assisted threes). Duncan made an assist for Ginobili to score 17 times. For comparison, Ginobili assisted Duncan 21 times.
11.7% of Ginobili's total fgm / 20.2 % of assisted fgm was assisted by Duncan.
10.7% of Duncan's total fgm / 21.4% of assisted fgm was assisted by Ginobili.
Going back to overall team structure;
The Spurs scored 994 points on assists.
Duncan's assists translated into 156 points (15.7%), Parker's ones 243 points (24.4%), Ginobili's ones 226 points (22.7%).
The Spurs scored 766 points without assists and fts.
Duncan scored 196 of them (25.6%), Parker scored 218 (28.5%), Ginobili scored 178 (23.2%).
We're looking at a SG who played like a PG for some time in the game vs. a traditional big in here. These numbers shouldn't be on the same level if Ginobili were a ball-handling offensive centrepiece / was a primary focus for opponent defenses. In terms of offensive structures / archetypes, none of those numbers from Parker and Ginobili is in-line with ball handling primary, #1 creators.
And this is just on-ball stuff. Duncan had the ball and passed the ball, and it got tracked by box numbers approach. By default, Ginobili There's not much track of passes leading to assists or how much attention Duncan got from opponent defenses with doubles and triples or Duncan trapping doubles he got on screens, etc on the internet right now. At the time, I tracked those games and one of the things I tracked was frequency of Duncan getting doubled or tripled and how much of it turning into points. But that document was saved on the hard drive that got destroyed, so I can't provide the numbers right now. So, you might want to take what I'm saying in here a bit of a salt.
