ATL -1 Player League Signups/Discussion

[Miller4ever]

Yeah, it's fine as long as this crap isn't pulled for throwaway holidays like Christmas.

[bastillon]

Yeah, it's fine as long as this crap isn't pulled for throwaway holidays like Christmas.

[lukekarts]

Billups never was great defender.

I perhaps exaggerated a little as I hastily typed from my phone, but he was at worst solid and at best a tenacious defender who was an influential part of defensive team culture; he's certainly better defensively than any other comparable overall PGs left on the board and a good fit next to Kobe.

[lorak]

Billups never was great defender.

I perhaps exaggerated a little as I hastily typed from my phone, but he was at worst solid and at best a tenacious defender who was an influential part of defensive team culture; he's certainly better defensively than any other comparable overall PGs left on the board and a good fit next to Kobe.

To be honest Luke, I think defensively Billups was on the same level as for example Iverson. So not bad, but not much better than average either. However I agree Chauncey is very good fit next to Kobe. He's very underrated offensively.

[lukekarts]

Billups never was great defender.

I perhaps exaggerated a little as I hastily typed from my phone, but he was at worst solid and at best a tenacious defender who was an influential part of defensive team culture; he's certainly better defensively than any other comparable overall PGs left on the board and a good fit next to Kobe.

To be honest Luke, I think defensively Billups was on the same level as for example Iverson. So not bad, but not much better than average either. However I agree Chauncey is very good fit next to Kobe. He's very underrated offensively.

I'm curious as to the AI comparison (and reasons why you think AI was above average?) considering when Detroit traded Billups for AI - changing little else - they went from top 5 defensively to bottom half, and Denver improved slightly despite losing Camby; whom was maybe overrated defensively but nonetheless was All Defensive 1st and averaged 3.6 blocks.

[bastillon]

Chauncey's APM numbers are hurting him though.

but there are tons of guys who are better defensively as PGs. after all that's what specialists are for.

[Miller4ever]

I'll answer your post here, bast.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify my comment. Spacing is not unimportant, I just think that more importance is placed in that area than there needs to be the way teams have been constructed. I believe that anywhere 20+ feet of reliable jump shooting is enough to qualify a player as a spacer, which then puts players like Wade and Lebron who really are not 3-point threats (sub 30% and 33% career, respectively) into the good spacers category. I feel only one true three-point threat is really needed, and two more players who qualify with 20+ range. Teams built like the Orlando Magic or Indiana Pacers who have 3 guys who can kill from deep don't see as much success as teams like the Thunder (Durant is a threat, but no one is going to go after Sefalosha or Westbrook) or the Grizzlies (without Gay, especially, it was basically Conley) and they toppled the Spurs with Parker (35%), Ginobili (35%), and Jefferson (44%).

I'm not saying shoot 3's worse and win, but I am saying that spacing isn't as important to success as some people make it out to be. Guys with high 3P% aren't necessarily the best spacers, and I believe player movement around the court is more important. Do you think Miami is more successful because Bibby, Wade, and James can drain the occasional three? It helps, but what's more important is the fact that Wade and Lebron can move themselves around in that 20-foot range where people have to respect them the most and still get inside for the far more efficient offensive play.

[bastillon]

fair enough, I just think that you're underestimating spacing a bit. 20 footer is far less efficient in terms of TS% than 3pter and that's why teams will leave those guys open if that can help other players cover their man. all of today's defensive philosophy is based on the assumption that midrange shot is the least efficient shot in basketball. there's a reason why Spurs, Pistons or Celtics were also on top of the league in terms of opp shots in mid range area. what that means is essentially that their defenses allowed other teams to shoot more midrange shots stopping their inside points as well as 3pers.

your examples are valid, of course, but that doesn't prove spacing is overrated. those poorly spaced teams won because they had the advantage in other areas of the game. Grizzlies destroyed Spurs on the boards and inside. their victory had little to do with spacing or how good it was. after all Dallas won a title last year and how many non-shooting guys did they have in the line up ?

surely you can survive without everyone being a 3p but that's a major liability against a team that doesn't have this disadvantage. spacing doesn't mean that you have 3 perimeter players with 40% 3p shooting. spacing means you're playing 1 on 1 instead of playing 1 on 5.

[Miller4ever]

Can't really prove something is overrated. This is really just an opinion of mine. When talking about teams, things like post offense, passing, defense, rebounding, ball control, player motion all rank higher for me personally than spacing in team construction. I think Dallas hit on those. Dirk does most of his killing from the midrange to the post. It's gravy that he is a killer from outside. Kidd was 34% on the year, not exactly a consistent threat. Shawn Marion shot 15% from deep and didn't make a single trey in the playoffs. Deshawn Stevenson and Jason Terry were both good spacers and 3-point shooters, but in that starting lineup, you had 2 consistent 3-point shooters. Peja didn't make a single 3 in the finals. JJ Barea shot exactly 33%, which isn't really good enough to qualify as 3-point spacing.

What Dallas did excellently was move the ball. Setting picks, moving without the ball, and crisp passing can both make up for and surpass spacing as an offensive component. Again, I'm not trying to underestimate the importance of spacing, because after all Dallas did shoot 41% from 3 and it was a big advantage over Miami, but I think that interior play should set up shooters, not the other way around. Spacing can't mask interior weakness, but interior advantage wins championships.

[bastillon]

Dallas had in fact six 3p shooters: Kidd, Barea, Dirk, Stevenson, Terry and well...Cardinal
but jokes aside, I think you're confusing spacing with Nellieball. spacing doesn't mean shooting 20 3s a game, it means your perimeter players are guarded outside the 3pt line. there was no way anyone would leave Barea wide open outside the 3pt line. what this means is essential to understanding the very essence of basketball. modern defenses created a situation where attacker doesn't have any sort of advantage over the defense because he's not playing against one guy, but an entire team. to make the life easier for him, you need shooters. shooters aren't there to actually shoot, as strange as it may sound, they're to gather defensive attention and not let defenders sag off of them. it doesn't matter where you shoot from or whats your 3p%, but if you're not being guarded by the opponent it causes terrible issues for the entire offensive scheme.

3pt shooters are way better this way than 2pt shooters because: 1) the lone danger of hitting a 3 is much more likely to gather defensive attention than deep 2pt shot that is actually a widely accepted sign of good defense 2) it's easy to close out 2pt shooters so you can actually double team and still recover contesting shots from your opponent. 2pt shooters don't spread the floor enough to make defense collapse.

[-Kees-]

I gotta agree with bastillon here.

The partial reason Dirk was so good was because he wasn't getting doubled, and tripled all the time, he had space. Spacing creates space lol because of the threat, like bast said. Peja may not have made a 3PT shot all finals, but if I'm guarding him, there is no way that I come off of him too far, or he may hit a three in my face. The threat is there, and because of that, Dirk had more space to operate, get his shots, then if they would've had bad spacing, because people could double and triple him more easily.

[Miller4ever]

I never said spacing was unnecessary or unimportant. I said it was overrated. It is, compared to things like moving without the ball and not committing turnovers and setting good picks. I think you guys are overestimating its effect on the game.

I think certain teams in the NBA confuse spacing with Don Nelson Kung Fu. I never said you don't need spacing. I'm not suggesting 5 Shaqs would win any games. I am saying that there are an alarming number of teams that aren't as successful because they don't have the fundamentals of interior scoring. When I first responded to what I thought was a premature criticism of spacing (which is more of a specialist role) while many people are still choosing starters I said 3P shooting is not necessarily spacing. People place spacing too high in terms of importance in the offense.

Let's take for example the Indiana Pacers in the 90's and early 00's. Reggie Miller was of course an excellent spacer, Mark Jackson was a great shooter, Chris Mullin and Schrempf, Derrick McKey, Byron Scott, and many others who were great shooters and spacers donned the uniform. And it wasn't like they lived and died by the 3. In fact, the '95 Pacers, a pinnacle of sorts for the era, attempted 300+ 3P LESS than their opponents. They had Smits in the middle, a solid center who made you have to respect the interior. This team was constructed well, but was not a winning team. Then you look at the Bulls, which is a strange team construction on paper. Two wings not known for spacing and little to no post offense from the power forward, and little help from the center in that department. Yet because they hit on the more important things, out-rebounding, out-assisting, committing less turnovers, and taking higher percentage shots, they opened up their 3-point game and that's also how they shot a higher percentage from there as well.

Spacing by your definition, which sounds to me like 3-point shooting ability, severely underestimates the actual spacing prowess of guys like pre-'06 Rip Hamilton, John Havlicek, James Worthy, and even Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. To meet spacing demands, you need two players that will make you stand up to the arc to defend them. Several players with woeful 3P% will still meet that requirement. Guys like Dennis Johnson and Earl Monroe. Even guys like Antoine Walker. I think it's wrong to argue that they can't space. It's valid to argue that they aren't efficient from out there, but a shooter is a shooter and you don't want to give anyone open looks when you're actually playing for keeps. What it changes is not the entire complexion of a defense, but the effort an individual player has to put forth when defending that specific area of the court. It is wrong to say that without spacing the game becomes 1-on-5, because no team is actually that bad at spacing (5 Shaqs is never going to happen) and because pre-3-point no one was wholly defending the ball. Lots of plays are run that free up shooters with picks not on the outside, but through the post. You can get the ball to someone and have them be undefended 10 feet away from the basket if you're good.

Spacing is not a necessity, it is a next-level consideration. I would say interior scoring, rebounding, passing, and player movement are a few things that are more important than 3-point threats.

Also, the difficulty of the shot usually (unless it's a specialist) offsets the extra point you get with a 3-point shot.

As for easier to double team, yes, but not by much. If a post player is 5 feet from the basket on the left side and is doubled, he can pass it to a free cutter, or an open guy 15 feet to the right side, which would then be a 20-foot gap to try and recover to.

Consider a defense, made up of 5 fast guys. If they only have to worry about anything from within 20 feet (well within the 3-point line), you're looking at 600 or so square feet that they still have to cover. That should be enough for any coach gameplanning and any collection of players worth its salt to break that defense down and get the ball in the basket. 3-point shooters will of course increase that operating area for an offense, but you're also taking guys out from the inside who can collect offensive rebounds and cut.

Interior play will set up spacing. It's rarely the other way around.

[lukekarts]

Miller, I disagree to a certain extent. I don't think Wade or LeBron create much spacing - they need it more than they need to create it. Sure, teams don't slack off them much regardless of where they are on the court, but actually one of Miami's biggest issues against Dallas (besides not being able to guard Barea ) was the lack of spacing - it meant Dallas could use their zone defense effectively on LeBron in particular; only Wade's skills/quickness afforded him the freedom to cut inside and score effectively. Dallas were able to back off Miller, who was largely ineffective last year, and Chalmers was the only 3pt shooter who played well but largely as a result of being left unguarded.

Dallas on the other hand were able to execute offensively largely because of their spacing. I don't think their interior play dictated that; spacing was a key part of the gameplan, the ball kept moving and Miami's perimeter defence could not afford to give them space. When they did, Miami were punished.

I suppose my real point here is if a team has identical big men but two perimeter scoring threats drawing defensive attention, that team will be able execute better offensively. There does have to be a balance though, as like you say, offensive rebounding could suffer (which IMO is why it's important to not have big men like Bargnani; Dirk being the obvious exception because he can operate anywhere.)

[Miller4ever]

I think their spacing was nearly equivalent. Going into the series both teams had to account for the other teams' 3-point shooting ability. The Heat shot better from deep than the Mavs all season. It was ball movement and execution in the series that allowed Dallas to generate spacing. Miami didn't hit their shots. On the other end, Dirk was getting what he wanted from Bosh, Anthony, and Haslem all day, and by extension, the rest of the team got what they wanted from the Heat. They had to double him so then he found an open man. But again, that's Dirk setting that guy up, not the other way around.

[CellarDoor]

I think their spacing was nearly equivalent. Going into the series both teams had to account for the other teams' 3-point shooting ability. The Heat shot better from deep than the Mavs all season. It was ball movement and execution in the series that allowed Dallas to generate spacing. Miami didn't hit their shots. On the other end, Dirk was getting what he wanted from Bosh, Anthony, and Haslem all day, and by extension, the rest of the team got what they wanted from the Heat. They had to double him so then he found an open man. But again, that's Dirk setting that guy up, not the other way around.

Agreed with this. Having someone who can shoot is great for spacing. So is having someone who can move a lot. So is having someone who will blow by you if you get caught off balanced closing out on them. And if you don't close out on them, then you're going to find yourself getting shots drained on your head. Very few ATL level guards can't make a completely open 3pt/20ft shot at least 40% of the time.

[bastillon]

Spacing by your definition, which sounds to me like 3-point shooting ability, severely underestimates the actual spacing prowess of guys like pre-'06 Rip Hamilton, John Havlicek, James Worthy, and even Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. To meet spacing demands, you need two players that will make you stand up to the arc to defend them. Several players with woeful 3P% will still meet that requirement. Guys like Dennis Johnson and Earl Monroe. Even guys like Antoine Walker. I think it's wrong to argue that they can't space. It's valid to argue that they aren't efficient from out there, but a shooter is a shooter and you don't want to give anyone open looks when you're actually playing for keeps. What it changes is not the entire complexion of a defense, but the effort an individual player has to put forth when defending that specific area of the court. It is wrong to say that without spacing the game becomes 1-on-5, because no team is actually that bad at spacing (5 Shaqs is never going to happen) and because pre-3-point no one was wholly defending the ball. Lots of plays are run that free up shooters with picks not on the outside, but through the post. You can get the ball to someone and have them be undefended 10 feet away from the basket if you're good.

did you even read my post ? I said that spacing isn't about actually making shots, it's about creating space for on-ball players by gathering attention of your defender. it's about the lone fact that you're an outside threat. I'm not saying you need Phoenix Suns to be succesful on offense, but if you don't have a proper spacing, there's no way your offense can overcome such disadvantage easily. there's a reason why all top offensive teams of all time were also properly spaced. you had to guard every guy and if you didn't - you would get your punishment. spacing is like intimidation on offense. from time to time there are gonna be some rejections, but mostly you're just scaring your opponents and making them miss. from time to time you'll hit a three, but mostly it's about the threat.

guys like Dennis Johnson are not serious outside threats and they're easy to close out with their lower range. I'm not saying to leave any of these guys open, there are too many elite defenders to let that happen. I'm saying those 2pt shots are easy to contest and aren't efficient at all. as I said, modern coaching is based on the assumption that anything other than midrange shot is good offense...

I also disagree with the notion that most ATL guards would make 40% of 20 footers. that's actually a barrier many SHOOTERS can't break. of course I'm not talking about wide-open Rondo-type shots, because that won't happen with these defenders. but for example a guy like Garnett would maybe break that 40% barrier. but he's much harder to close out bc of his release and he shot those jumpers as a basis of his offensive game. most ATL guards aren't shooters, they're slashers or playmakers. I don't think you can compare ATL guards to NBA spot up shooters who are there only because of their ability to shoot.

[-Kees-]

yo, bastillon, you are on the clock, I was just about to autopick for you. I'm guessing you want me to wait on that? Lol

[bastillon]

yo, bastillon, you are on the clock, I was just about to autopick for you. I'm guessing you want me to wait on that? Lol

sorry I didn't leave a list. won't happen again, promise

[-Kees-]

Thanks man

[CellarDoor]

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)