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

[MGrand15]

I think Kenny is fine with post ups in the flow of the offense but I don't think he wants the offense to slow down just to get Okafor a touch in the post. Okafor hasn't really proven that he's a GREAT option in the post. Allen definitely hasn't proved that.

If you look at last year, Kenny did A LOT of stuff with Brook that he hasn't done with any of the bigs we currently have. Straight post ups, he had the green light to hit cutters, he shot above the break 3s. Kenny adapts to the talent he has.

[Prokorov]

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.

this isnt how im looking at things. this is how the nets and other analytics based teams look at things. i dont agree with all of it. im not really anti post game. i do prefer pick and rolls but im fine going to a good post player. but thats not how the analytics community feels.

the shot clock point i dont understand. thats the case no matter what you are trying to do. no one expects to get the best shot 100% of the time. goal is to take the worst shots as little as possible

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.

many point to that as the reason why the spurs went from top in points per possesion before ladridge to now the lower half of the league. again, you can debate if that is true

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.

i think we are last in turnovers because we have less defensive talent then any team in the NBA. that is of course just my opinion. i dont like how we play defense. id prefer to trap every pick and roll. i think the best teams do it that way on defense. there is less concensus on that.

offensively, the best offense teams do it the way we do. so i dont really have an issue with it.

Grantland did an article looking into why post ups are consider an inefficient shot by the analytics community:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-efficient-is-a-post-up-play/

might be worth a read.

[MGrand15]

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.

this isnt how im looking at things. this is how the nets and other analytics based teams look at things. i dont agree with all of it. im not really anti post game. i do prefer pick and rolls but im fine going to a good post player. but thats not how the analytics community feels.

the shot clock point i dont understand. thats the case no matter what you are trying to do. no one expects to get the best shot 100% of the time. goal is to take the worst shots as little as possible

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.

many point to that as the reason why the spurs went from top in points per possesion before ladridge to now the lower half of the league. again, you can debate if that is true

The point is that the Spurs are using a ton of possessions in the post + mid-range. Maybe that's why their offense isn't great - but an analytic driven team - is still making the decision to base their offense around the post + midrange. It's not an accident. So no, that's not the way ALL analytic based teams handle their offense + defense.

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.

i think we are last in turnovers because we have less defensive talent then any team in the NBA. that is of course just my opinion. i dont like how we play defense. id prefer to trap every pick and roll. i think the best teams do it that way on defense. there is less concensus on that.

offensively, the best offense teams do it the way we do. so i dont really have an issue with it.

I'm not arguing that what we do is right or wrong. It's just the reality is that every team plays things differently and most teams aren't as extreme as we are. We won't double the post unless we get burned 5 times in a row. A more aggressive team like Milwuakee or OKC might start doubling after the 1st dribble just because they're confident they can get back to the shooter or cause a turnover.

How many times have we had to live through Brook posting up, turning his head, and having the double come and swipe the ball?

Overall I'm just disagreeing that teams just ignore the mid-range or post on defense because "analytics". Most teams aren't just sitting back and accepting 45-50% shots.

[Prokorov]

I'm not arguing that what we do is right or wrong. It's just the reality is that every team plays things differently and most teams aren't as extreme as we are. We won't double the post unless we get burned 5 times in a row. A more aggressive team like Milwuakee or OKC might start doubling after the 1st dribble just because they're confident they can get back to the shooter or cause a turnover.

How many times have we had to live through Brook posting up, turning his head, and having the double come and swipe the ball?

Overall I'm just disagreeing that teams just ignore the mid-range or post on defense because "analytics". Most teams aren't just sitting back and accepting 45-50% shots.

yeah, id prefer we doubled everything pick and roll wise. but we never do. in the past you cant do that with brook but now he is gone and we have plenty of athleticism among our bigs to do it.

there isnt a concensus among the analytics community on how to defend it. its kind of split. unlike offense, where its basically gospel