sp6r=underrated wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
I think you're seeing a false analogy here, although I won't say it's completely dissimilar.
1. The Spurs "Big 4" you mention plays only 30 MPG on average even in the playoffs, while the average of the Boston Big 4 plays 37 MPG. That right there is the difference between a traditional star-based model (in Boston), and an ensemble (in San Antonio) on the level we've never seen before. The last "ensemble" champion we had was Detroit, and even they played their key men like stars.
I only glance at this argument later in this thread. In part because it is the one area where I agree with your post. SAS ensemble style play is historically unique and just as Pop figuring out the corner three he is ahead of the curve. Where I think you err is in misevaluating the talent on the roster. There is a minor disagreement that I touch on later
"minor disagreement" turned into a tome.
No matter you wrote great stuff, I see a lot of things in your words where I think, "yeah, that adds nuance where I was oversimplistic", so I think I'll just end up responding a couple places.
sp6r=underrated wrote:Boris Diaw was a failure with Atlanta and Charlotte but was a big success in Phoenix and San Antonio. In this case you could argue that his success is a product of coaching but I would argue that it indicates strong talent identification. SAS recognized that Diaw can be a very valuable player on a team with ball movement but that if you put him on a team were you expect isolation scoring you aren't going to get much.
I also think Diaw's success in San Antonio is in a nutshell why the Spurs are so successful. The guy made a splash in Phoenix, then basically sucked for a half decade before having a comeback on the Spurs. The Spurs were able to see what he could do for them.
But of course, you look at the stats, and Diaw basically just looks like what he's been before. The box score continues to say he's maybe an average NBA player. We are talking about him now precisely because he's getting minutes on the Spurs in their unique system. Were he putting up the same numbers anywhere else, no one would be saying he's a steal at $5mill.
So how can the success we see in him now not have everything to do with coaching?
sp6r=underrated wrote:3. Boston was a team winning with defense who still had the best per minute defender in the league at this point.
The Spurs are more impressive in general, . . . and they literally have no one on their roster who can be called an offensive superstar. That's what's crazy.
By best defender in the league you are citing RAPM as conclusive evidence. I'll mention for those that didn't read the Duncan/KG RAPM thread on the statistical analysis board that I strongly reject the strong RAPM hypothesis but I'll accept it here for purpose of discussion.
Respectfully, You can't have it both ways and yet that is what you are attempting to do here.
If you're going to cite KG's per minute impact you are implicitly arguing that KG only playing 75% of the minutes of the other members of Boston's Big 4 isn't important. If that is the case you have to recognize that Manu, who is the 7th best offensive player in the NBA, played 75% of the minutes of KG. It has never made sense to me because it isn't logical that the difference between a player playing 2000 and 2600 minutes isn't important but the gap between a 1500 minute player and 2000 minute is. Either the difference matters for both or neither.
Since you think it doesn't matter for KG it doesn't matter for Manu, that means by your chosen metric SAS do have a offensive superstar Manu Ginobili who has been as good as Curry this year on the offensive end.
75% of 75%? That makes it seem like it's not a big deal, but c'mon it IS a really big deal. Garnett played minutes well inside normal starter-level minutes, whereas Ginobili is playing platoon minutes. The former means Garnett's basically as soon as he's considered rested enough to play more, and that the team is just trying to survive until he comes back. The latter means that the Spurs simply cannot base their A-game on Ginobili - he's an ace in the hole, not the team's star.
And put a more straight forward way: Garnett was the MVP of those Celtics, and Ginobili isn't despite the fact that he has no teammates playing the kind of minutes Garnett's teammates were
So yeah, to equate the two in any way is just bizarre.
sp6r=underrated wrote:but the most noteworthy thing about them right now is their offense
That isn't the case. They are actually an extremely balanced club between offense and defense. Their offense was 3.8 points better than league average and their defense was 4.3 points better than league average.
It is important to recognize in the post-season that match-ups play a huge role. They have faced the 2, 3, 5 and 7 best offense by ortg this post-season and the 6th, 11th, 17th and 22nd best defense. Given that reality it isn't surprising that over the course of the post-season their offense has looked better and their defense worse.
This is especially the case when you remember Miami's defense has completely collapsed since the ECSF.
In the second round they faced a mediocre Brooklyn squad that ranked league average in ORTG. Against Miami they put up an ortg that would have been the best in the NBA over the RS. The Brooklyn Nets in the ECSF scored at the rate of the best offense in the NBA. That is a damning indictment of Miami's defense.
Miami's defense against Indiana is even more alarming. It isn't easy to calculate Indiana's ortg post all-star break. If you assume their pace was constant throughout the season their ortg post all-star break would have been tied for 2nd to last only beating out the 76ers who were intentionally trying to lose. Through the first rounds they performed similarly. Against Miami their offense was as good as the Thunder and Spurs over the RS. That is a massive indictment of Miami's defense.
A large part of SAS offensive success in the finals has to be chalked up to an awful Miami defense given that a horrendous Indiana offense and mediocre Brooklyn offense lit up Miami.
Accordingly, one is left to wonder how Miami very easily made the finals playing such bad defense. Part of it is the EC is a joke but partly it is due to the fact their offense was playing god-like. Against a monster Indiana defense that is historically great, Miami tossed up a 118 ortg. That would be by far the best mark in league history.
Against SAS their ortg is 106.6 which is league average. A Miami offense that was playing at the level of the best offense of all-time through the playoffs has been reduced to a league average offense. That is a massive accomplishment for SAS defense and goes against your view that SAS success is mostly about offense.
Love all the detailed analysis but my statement is simpler than that:
The Spurs are winning this series with offense. Fine to point out that there's luck involved, but the story right at this moment, and the story of the Spur resurgence, has been a re-booted offense that's actually more dangerous than the old Duncan-centric model was.
Certainly though they aren't where they are without defense as well, and it's worth noting that that's improved in the years following the offense re-format.
if the Heat actually respond to this by trying to land Melo and add him to the Big 3. Riley has had a monster run even if you completely ignore the showtime years but that would be a move that makes me think the game is passing him by,