Game -2: Sacramento Kings @ San Antonio Spurs, 10/20/14 5:30 PST 8:30 EST

[Tetsujin]

I may not be reading carefully enough, but it certainly didn't jump out at me that there has been a faction shift in that direction.

That said...

Do we really have to split into pro-Rudy and anti-Rudy factions? I know there's a fundamental human tribal response and we're preprogrammed to split everybody into "us" and "them" but after all the rancor over IT the last two years, can we just skip that part where we label another group and then take potshots them? Just for a year? Please?

It's cool to have an opinion. It's cool to argue with somebody who opposes your opinion. That's what message boards are for. But when you start labeling people and bringing pre-existing grudges into it then both sides get all closed-minded and defensive and it just becomes so much picking at a scab so it never heals.

I will not rest until the posters who were for the Mikki Moore signing answer for their transgressions!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It hasn't happened because he wasn't a major weapon with Memphis. He was at best the third or fourth option - a nice role player on that team...

Say what now?

Gay was in Memphis for seven years (well, six and a half). His rookie season, Pau Gasol was still the man, and he actually came off the bench for half the season. The other six seasons he was there, he led the team in scoring four times, and was second in scoring the other two. That's pretty damned impressive for a guy you claim was "at best the third or fourth option." Kinda makes you wonder what the other two guys had going on in their lives.

I just checked basketball-reference.com and there was never a year (except as a rookie) when Rudy Gay was not the second leading scorer for Memphis. First was Randolph and the Big Fella scored only by a point or so more than Rudy.

See it here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/

This is half-right: The first two years after Pau Gasol was traded, Gay led Memphis in scoring, then they acquired Randolph, and he led them in scoring for two years (even though Gay still led the team in attempts one of those years... "third or fourth option," indeed). Then Gay led them in scoring again, for the next season and a half, until he was traded.

 

[bajaden]

I will not rest until the posters who were for the Mikki Moore signing answer for their transgressions!

Are you telling me that there actually some people that liked the Mikki Moore signing?

 

[bajaden]

I think Stauskas should come off the bench and receive limited minutes. I don't want to force him to be the starter and have a similar year Ben did. The kings need to bring Stauskas in slowly. I wouldn't be surprised to see him only get 15 mpg.

While I agree that its better to not put too much pressure on a rookie, I don't think the comparison to Ben, individually, is a good one. Two entirely different players. Especially from the mental aspect of the game. At Kansas, Ben was inconsistent as well, and at times just disappeared. There were times when he was indecisive, and hesitated to shoot. Most of it coming from lack of experience. He came to basketball late. What the scouts were excited about was his shooting form, and his athleticism. He was loaded with future potential. Stauskas is entirely different. He's been playing basketball since he was 6 years old. At age 12 he won a game of shoot around against an NBA player. (sorry, don't remember who). At Michigan, there was no hesitation or lack of confidence. He appeared to have ice water in his veins. Both players have faults that they need to work on. With Stauskas, its mostly adding strength, and adding NBA experience. There is no short cut on the latter. With Ben, its continuing to improve his handle, decision making, and becoming more consistent with his outside shot.

As far as minutes go, give them to whomever proves to be the best player on any given night.

 

[bajaden]

I may not be reading carefully enough, but it certainly didn't jump out at me that there has been a faction shift in that direction.

That said...

Do we really have to split into pro-Rudy and anti-Rudy factions? I know there's a fundamental human tribal response and we're preprogrammed to split everybody into "us" and "them" but after all the rancor over IT the last two years, can we just skip that part where we label another group and then take potshots them? Just for a year? Please?

It's cool to have an opinion. It's cool to argue with somebody who opposes your opinion. That's what message boards are for. But when you start labeling people and bringing pre-existing grudges into it then both sides get all closed-minded and defensive and it just becomes so much picking at a scab so it never heals.

I don't have a problem with someone that disagrees with me, and does so honestly with reasons that are logical, but yet subjective to some extent. But when someone has an agenda, they lose me. If your looking for negatives, you'll fine them. There is no perfect player. To say you don't like IT on the team because he dominates the ball too much, and he shoots too much is a valid argument to have, but that doesn't mean you hate IT, or even dislike him. It just means that you don't think his style of play fits the way you want the team to play. And the opposite argument is a valid one as well. What confuses me is why people feel the need to disparage a player in order to make their point. Or, if they like one player, they feel they have to be overly critical of that players competition for a position or minutes.

My approach has always been, if you don't like the way a team, or an individual is playing, then blame the coach. He draws up the plays, and sets the system. He controls the minutes and decides who starts and who is in the rotation. Having said that, I realize it takes time to create a different atmosphere and change the style of play. Which brings us to that ugly word, Patience! I'll leave it there since I don't want to argue about how we've waited long enough. Not sure just how long enough is? I'll see if I can find the timer....

 

[Chubbs]

I may not be reading carefully enough, but it certainly didn't jump out at me that there has been a faction shift in that direction.

That said...

Do we really have to split into pro-Rudy and anti-Rudy factions? I know there's a fundamental human tribal response and we're preprogrammed to split everybody into "us" and "them" but after all the rancor over IT the last two years, can we just skip that part where we label another group and then take potshots them? Just for a year? Please?

It's cool to have an opinion. It's cool to argue with somebody who opposes your opinion. That's what message boards are for. But when you start labeling people and bringing pre-existing grudges into it then both sides get all closed-minded and defensive and it just becomes so much picking at a scab so it never heals.

I don't have a strong feeling for Rudy one way or the other and I wouldn't call myself pro Rudy. But when people are spouting out blatantly objectively untrue things, then I'll say something. Like the assertion that Rudy was never more than the 3rd or 4th option on Memphis. Patently untrue.

Just noticed a few guys taking pot shots at Rudy throughout the preseason... That's all.

 

[bajaden]

It hasn't happened because he wasn't a major weapon with Memphis. He was at best the third or fourth option - a nice role player on that team. It's all about how much he's paid. At anywhere close to $19 million he's considerably overpaid imo. Will he take substantially less to be with the Kings? I highly doubt it. The only scenario in which I see that happening is if the Kings play great basketball prior to the mid-season trade deadline and are legitimately competing for the playoffs. Otherwise, he's marking time.

More than any other player, Gay is the guy I'm keying on this year. He's going to have a large say in how well the motion offense works, or doesn't. He also could put Malone in some compromising situations in which he has to make an either/or decision to keep Gay happy (and individually effective) or to buy in totally to the motion offense. In my opinion, Malone can't have it both ways. He's got to be all in on the motion offense; otherwise the motion offense become more rhetoric than reality and it loses credibility in the player's minds.

It's still not out of the question that the Kings sign Gay to an extension prior to the season opener. I admit that I've heard nothing, other than some mention that Gays agent and the Kings have had some discussion. But Oct 31st is the key day if my memory serves (right Capt). That's the last day he can be resigned before the season starts. And, if that happens, some of what you've posted becomes moot.

I love the motion offense, but I've yet to see much of anything that resembles it. A few plays here and there, but there's still a lot of isolation play. And I agree, your either all in, or all out when it comes to the motion offense. The problem with the motion offense, is that there is no star player when it comes to taking shots. It's and equal opportunity offense. The ball moves, the players move, and the open player takes the shot. One could make a valid argument that Duncan is the star player on the Spurs, but there are many nights when he doesn't take the most shots. Duncan is a very unselfish player, that only cares about winning, and he doesn't have the mentality that only he can win the game at the end. Its hard to get very talented, highly competitive players, to defer to the 6th or 7th best player on the team when you desperately need a basket. But with a motion offense, there are times when that's the best option. In other words, its better to pass the ball to Sessions in the corner, than it is to plow through a triple team.

 

[Kingster]

It's still not out of the question that the Kings sign Gay to an extension prior to the season opener. I admit that I've heard nothing, other than some mention that Gays agent and the Kings have had some discussion. But Oct 31st is the key day if my memory serves (right Capt). That's the last day he can be resigned before the season starts. And, if that happens, some of what you've posted becomes moot.

I love the motion offense, but I've yet to see much of anything that resembles it. A few plays here and there, but there's still a lot of isolation play. And I agree, your either all in, or all out when it comes to the motion offense. The problem with the motion offense, is that there is no star player when it comes to taking shots. It's and equal opportunity offense. The ball moves, the players move, and the open player takes the shot. One could make a valid argument that Duncan is the star player on the Spurs, but there are many nights when he doesn't take the most shots. Duncan is a very unselfish player, that only cares about winning, and he doesn't have the mentality that only he can win the game at the end. Its hard to get very talented, highly competitive players, to defer to the 6th or 7th best player on the team when you desperately need a basket. But with a motion offense, there are times when that's the best option. In other words, its better to pass the ball to Sessions in the corner, than it is to plow through a triple team.

Thanks. I'll put October 31 on my calendar. I just don't see Gay's motivation to sign now.

Regarding the motion offense, my impression is that it's the tendency of teams and individual players to want to go "iso" in pressure moments at the end of games, which ultimately defeats the purpose of the motion offense. They like to slow down, go conservative, put the ball in the hands of one guy. What soooo impressed me with Pop and the Spurs last year was that no matter what the situation or the particular juncture of the game Pop continued to preach the motion offense, continually urging his players to move the ball. There were some tense moments in some games when some of his players got momentarily away from the motion offense, but Pop quickly took the reigns and got them back running it. If you inserted many other coaches in the same situation, I think instead of running that motion offense they go "iso" under pressure, and they'd probably end up losing because of it.

 

[Kingster]

This is genius about the motion offense. Not only does it give you the strategy, it gives you the soul of the motion offense. Read what Erler has to say down in the article:
http://www.poundingtherock.com/2014/10/22/7038483/kings-replicate-spurs-system

".....main thing is to trust the next guy in line, regardless of where he is in the pecking order. If Boogie takes most of the shots just because Boogie is much better than Darren Collison, then it's not going to work, at least not if the goal is to emulate the Spurs offense. It has to be democratic.

You speak of building a foundation, but the foundation has to be the system and its concepts, not the players executing them. Every guy on the roster, even the one you're going to cut tomorrow has to have the same enthusiasm about screening, cutting and passing as he does shooting. Just thinking about it in terms of "best players," is doing it wrong. A coach prioritizing a few over the rest is already inviting cliques and hierarchies and inviting jealousy and acrimony. I think with a young team especially a coach should emphasize building from the bottom up and not worry so much about roles and rankings. Worry about making your worst players better and go from there. If a guy like Rudy Gay sees the coaching staff trust and commit to making the 17th man on the team a better player, and he sees that guy improve in a month's time even though he's going to be cut, it'll make more of an impression on him to buy in. "If they cared that much about improving that guy, imagine what they can do with me."

I've italicized, bolded and underlined some of the above. I just want to see if Michael Malone is going to be all talk with the motion offense, or whether he's going to have the right stuff and we finally have a legit coach. The motion offense blows out of the water the thinking that X player should get Y number of shots because X player is better (i.e. at or near the top of the hierarchy). Totally throws this idea on its head. If Michael Malone is going to be a very good coach and mean what he says about the motion offense he's got to instill the "democratic" way of thinking in his players.

 

[bajaden]

This is genius about the motion offense. Not only does it give you the strategy, it gives you the soul of the motion offense. Read what Erler has to say down in the article:
http://www.poundingtherock.com/2014/10/22/7038483/kings-replicate-spurs-system

".....main thing is to trust the next guy in line, regardless of where he is in the pecking order. If Boogie takes most of the shots just because Boogie is much better than Darren Collison, then it's not going to work, at least not if the goal is to emulate the Spurs offense. It has to be democratic.

You speak of building a foundation, but the foundation has to be the system and its concepts, not the players executing them. Every guy on the roster, even the one you're going to cut tomorrow has to have the same enthusiasm about screening, cutting and passing as he does shooting. Just thinking about it in terms of "best players," is doing it wrong. A coach prioritizing a few over the rest is already inviting cliques and hierarchies and inviting jealousy and acrimony. I think with a young team especially a coach should emphasize building from the bottom up and not worry so much about roles and rankings. Worry about making your worst players better and go from there. If a guy like Rudy Gay sees the coaching staff trust and commit to making the 17th man on the team a better player, and he sees that guy improve in a month's time even though he's going to be cut, it'll make more of an impression on him to buy in. "If they cared that much about improving that guy, imagine what they can do with me."

I've italicized, bolded and underlined some of the above. I just want to see if Michael Malone is going to be all talk with the motion offense, or whether he's going to have the right stuff and we finally have a legit coach. The motion offense blows out of the water the thinking that X player should get Y number of shots because X player is better (i.e. at or near the top of the hierarchy). Totally throws this idea on its head. If Michael Malone is going to be a very good coach and mean what he says about the motion offense he's got to instill the "democratic" way of thinking in his players.

Sort of what I said, but a little better. Anyone that was here when the old kings played, the Webb, Vlade etc group, knows what a motion offense looks like. Almost all of them, including the triangle, are some variation of the Princeton offense. Think about why the Princeton offsense was created by Pete Carril. He invented a way that less athletic and less talented players could compete with the more talented teams. No stars, just total team work to get high percentage shots. In fact, the more stars you have on a team, the harder it is to run the motion offense. Unless they fall into that special catagory of unselfishness. It's hard though. Everyone loves to be the hero. Even the Kings of old would slip back into hero ball on occasion.

 

[Bricklayer]

This is genius about the motion offense. Not only does it give you the strategy, it gives you the soul of the motion offense. Read what Erler has to say down in the article:
http://www.poundingtherock.com/2014/10/22/7038483/kings-replicate-spurs-system

".....main thing is to trust the next guy in line, regardless of where he is in the pecking order. If Boogie takes most of the shots just because Boogie is much better than Darren Collison, then it's not going to work, at least not if the goal is to emulate the Spurs offense. It has to be democratic.

You speak of building a foundation, but the foundation has to be the system and its concepts, not the players executing them. Every guy on the roster, even the one you're going to cut tomorrow has to have the same enthusiasm about screening, cutting and passing as he does shooting. Just thinking about it in terms of "best players," is doing it wrong. A coach prioritizing a few over the rest is already inviting cliques and hierarchies and inviting jealousy and acrimony. I think with a young team especially a coach should emphasize building from the bottom up and not worry so much about roles and rankings. Worry about making your worst players better and go from there. If a guy like Rudy Gay sees the coaching staff trust and commit to making the 17th man on the team a better player, and he sees that guy improve in a month's time even though he's going to be cut, it'll make more of an impression on him to buy in. "If they cared that much about improving that guy, imagine what they can do with me."

I've italicized, bolded and underlined some of the above. I just want to see if Michael Malone is going to be all talk with the motion offense, or whether he's going to have the right stuff and we finally have a legit coach. The motion offense blows out of the water the thinking that X player should get Y number of shots because X player is better (i.e. at or near the top of the hierarchy). Totally throws this idea on its head. If Michael Malone is going to be a very good coach and mean what he says about the motion offense he's got to instill the "democratic" way of thinking in his players.

Quite obviously we aren't going to engage in such stupidity, nor should we.

A pure motion offense is a wonderful thing if all your players are 12 years old. And suck. Its like a teacher who refuses to give grades and instead makes every dumb ass boy or girl feel all special and gooey about themselves by handing out gold participation stars instead. An anti-meritocracy where attendance is enough that we are all equal and sing kumballyah.

Then you graduate out into the real world, and in the real world some people are MUCH better at things than you are, and your dumb ass little gold star system isn't going to help you if you're Omri Casspi and you're taking more shots than DeMarcus Cousins.

Now fast forward to us. We do not have 12 year old players. Nor do we have 12 equal ones. We have one potential HOFer who is MUCH better than all the other little boys and girls, one veteran SF is is quite a bit better than the rest, and then we have the pack. We don not want anyone in the pack acting like IT. We don't want them to overdribble, we want them to pass it amongst themselves, we want them to move when they don't have the ball. We also want Cousins/Gay to not be like IT. We want them to have the ball at the end of most plays, but we want them to watch for teammates and hit them with passes if they move to get open. That's all the "motion" we are talking about. No heroball amongst the scrubs, and don't be selfish if you're the stars. Good enough. In the real life non-gold star world "motion offense" does not imply "stupid".

We used to run an offense accused of being a "motion offense" once upon a time. Put up a lot of points. Our best player during those years averaged: 20.6FGA, 23.4FGA, 19.9FGA, 21.4FGA.

Doug Moe famously used to get accused of running a "motion offense" with his old Denver Nuggets where Alex English was his best player. English averaged 22.6, 20.9, 22.4, 23.3, 23.4, 21.3, 22.9 FGs a game right through his prime in that system.

The triangle offense as run by Phil Jackson is often accused of being a motion offense, and yet rarely in his 11 championships did he not have one, or sometimes even two, players averaging 20FGA apiece.

The term once you get it off paper and into the real world does not mean anything like some communist paradise where little Johnny gets 10 shots just like the foot taller boy who can perform crossover dribbles with his elbows.

 

[Livinthedream]

Simply put, the Spurs system is Duncan and Ginobli, who are the stars who set the culture of that team. No matter how good a coach Pop is, if Timmy doesn't allow him to treat him like the other players, then Pop can't do anything about it.

 

[mac]

Simply put, the Spurs system is Duncan and Ginobli, who are the stars who set the culture of that team. No matter how good a coach Pop is, if Timmy doesn't allow him to treat him like the other players, then Pop can't do anything about it.

Sorry to nitpick, but I just don't understand how people can keep going on about the Spurs and not acknowledge Parker. Parker has been far more key to the team than Ginobili has for the past 7 years or so. It's not just Duncan either (though he is a very big factor). It's the three of them, all of whom have played very important but different roles over the 15 years. Duncan of course is the greatest of them, but without Parker/Ginobili he doesn't win as much as he has the last few years either.

 

[gunks]

Jeeze....

I'll just wait quietly in my "anti-Rudy" corner....Until the time comes to strike with the "I told you so's"

...Or the time comes to eat crow. I'm also willing to eat crow.

 

[kingsboi]

There is no use trying to implement a Spurs like system because others have tried before us and have not succeeded, their way is not the only way to win in the NBA.

 

[pshn80]

Quite obviously we aren't going to engage in such stupidity, nor should we.

A pure motion offense is a wonderful thing if all your players are 12 years old. And suck. Its like a teacher who refuses to give grades and instead makes every dumb ass boy or girl feel all special and gooey about themselves by handing out gold participation stars instead. An anti-meritocracy where attendance is enough that we are all equal and sing kumballyah.

Then you graduate out into the real world, and in the real world some people are MUCH better at things than you are, and your dumb ass little gold star system isn't going to help you if you're Omri Casspi and you're taking more shots than DeMarcus Cousins.

Now fast forward to us. We do not have 12 year old players. Nor do we have 12 equal ones. We have one potential HOFer who is MUCH better than all the other little boys and girls, one veteran SF is is quite a bit better than the rest, and then we have the pack. We don not want anyone in the pack acting like IT. We don't want them to overdribble, we want them to pass it amongst themselves, we want them to move when they don't have the ball. We also want Cousins/Gay to not be like IT. We want them to have the ball at the end of most plays, but we want them to watch for teammates and hit them with passes if they move to get open. That's all the "motion" we are talking about. No heroball amongst the scrubs, and don't be selfish if you're the stars. Good enough. In the real life non-gold star world "motion offense" does not imply "stupid".

We used to run an offense accused of being a "motion offense" once upon a time. Put up a lot of points. Our best player during those years averaged: 20.6FGA, 23.4FGA, 19.9FGA, 21.4FGA.

Doug Moe famously used to get accused of running a "motion offense" with his old Denver Nuggets where Alex English was his best player. English averaged 22.6, 20.9, 22.4, 23.3, 23.4, 21.3, 22.9 FGs a game right through his prime in that system.

The triangle offense as run by Phil Jackson is often accused of being a motion offense, and yet rarely in his 11 championships did he not have one, or sometimes even two, players averaging 20FGA apiece.

The term once you get it off paper and into the real world does not mean anything like some communist paradise where little Johnny gets 10 shots just like the foot taller boy who can perform crossover dribbles with his elbows.

You have taken a truth and gone too far, way too far.

 

[King Baller]

I'm just hoping we see fewer forced shots against good defense and an attempt at misdirection

There is no use trying to implement a Spurs like system because others have tried before us and have not succeeded, there way is not the only way to win in the NBA.

How many Spurs players hit an average of 40 % or more on their 3 pt shots last season? Five! and two others were around 37 %.

How did the Kings 3 pt % stack up to that? 49 % for Jimmer and 38 % for Salmons who are now no longer Kings. Ray Mac is the lone survivor at 37 %.

So until the Kings have guys like Bellinelli, Green and Mills launching 300 3 pt attempts each at a 40 % clip it is a tough comparison .

Hey! Real quick who was third in points scored on the Spurs last season?



















Bellinelli! Who would have thunk it?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You have taken a truth and gone too far, way too far.

"Anything worth doing is worth overdoing."

 

[Kingster]

Quite obviously we aren't going to engage in such stupidity, nor should we.

A pure motion offense is a wonderful thing if all your players are 12 years old. And suck. Its like a teacher who refuses to give grades and instead makes every dumb ass boy or girl feel all special and gooey about themselves by handing out gold participation stars instead. An anti-meritocracy where attendance is enough that we are all equal and sing kumballyah.

Then you graduate out into the real world, and in the real world some people are MUCH better at things than you are, and your dumb ass little gold star system isn't going to help you if you're Omri Casspi and you're taking more shots than DeMarcus Cousins.

Now fast forward to us. We do not have 12 year old players. Nor do we have 12 equal ones. We have one potential HOFer who is MUCH better than all the other little boys and girls, one veteran SF is is quite a bit better than the rest, and then we have the pack. We don not want anyone in the pack acting like IT. We don't want them to overdribble, we want them to pass it amongst themselves, we want them to move when they don't have the ball. We also want Cousins/Gay to not be like IT. We want them to have the ball at the end of most plays, but we want them to watch for teammates and hit them with passes if they move to get open. That's all the "motion" we are talking about. No heroball amongst the scrubs, and don't be selfish if you're the stars. Good enough. In the real life non-gold star world "motion offense" does not imply "stupid".

We used to run an offense accused of being a "motion offense" once upon a time. Put up a lot of points. Our best player during those years averaged: 20.6FGA, 23.4FGA, 19.9FGA, 21.4FGA.

Doug Moe famously used to get accused of running a "motion offense" with his old Denver Nuggets where Alex English was his best player. English averaged 22.6, 20.9, 22.4, 23.3, 23.4, 21.3, 22.9 FGs a game right through his prime in that system.

The triangle offense as run by Phil Jackson is often accused of being a motion offense, and yet rarely in his 11 championships did he not have one, or sometimes even two, players averaging 20FGA apiece.

The term once you get it off paper and into the real world does not mean anything like some communist paradise where little Johnny gets 10 shots just like the foot taller boy who can perform crossover dribbles with his elbows.

That's a good laugh, professor. I'm sure Popovitch would love your insight about how to win. If Malone does a half-a$$ motion offense (which you are advocating) you're going to get a bird's eye view of failure.

 

[pshn80]

"Anything worth doing is worth overdoing."

When something is wrong just how wrong is it?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't know if we're in agreement that it's wrong?

 

[kingsboi]

I'm just hoping we see fewer forced shots against good defense and an attempt at misdirection


How many Spurs players hit an average of 40 % or more on their 3 pt shots last season? Five! and two others were around 37 %.

How did the Kings 3 pt % stack up to that? 49 % for Jimmer and 38 % for Salmons who are now no longer Kings. Ray Mac is the lone survivor at 37 %.

So until the Kings have guys like Bellinelli, Green and Mills launching 300 3 pt attempts each at a 40 % clip it is a tough comparison .

Hey! Real quick who was third in points scored on the Spurs last season?


















Bellinelli! Who would have thunk it?

Keep in mind two of those players you mentioned come off the bench so they have the green light to fire. They are put in a position to be successful unlike the players we have had here over the years. Bellinelli and Green were known to be shooters, Mills to me is more of a scorer but he improved his shooting as well. I don't think Ben all of a sudden forgot how to shoot the long ball, he just rushes too much and doesn't shoot it in the same motion every time, hence why he is so inconsistent. Nik needs to be used as a focal point off the bench this season so he can get acclimated to the speed of the game and be more confident in his shot as the months go by.

 

[Bricklayer]

That's a good laugh, professor. I'm sure Popovitch would love your insight about how to win. If Malone does a half-a$$ motion offense (which you are advocating) you're going to get a bird's eye view of failure.

Gregg Popovich is a great coach who has also been the beneficiary of a great group of players. In recent years his great innovation has been figuring out a rather ridiculous system to make up for the fact that his great players can't play for long stretches anymore. A remarkable achievement, but it will be a good thing when that franchise crashes and burns in a couple of years just as it was a good thing when the Heatles bit it and the D'Antoni Suns tailed off. Will allow everyone to get stars out of their eyes about imitating completely unique systems built upon unique personnel.

P.S. The Spurs hadn't won a title in 7 years. Other teams during that period were not running the Spurs system. It would therefore stand to perfect reason that you can in fact be incredibly successful, title winning successful even, without doing the comical wannabe slavish imitation of your idols thing. You draw general principles from teams like the Spurs, not whole systems.

 

[bajaden]

Gregg Popovich is a great coach who has also been the beneficiary of a great group of players. In recent years his great innovation has been figuring out a rather ridiculous system to make up for the fact that his great players can't play for long stretches anymore. A remarkable achievement, but it will be a good thing when that franchise crashes and burns in a couple of years just as it was a good thing when the Heatles bit it and the D'Antoni Suns tailed off. Will allow everyone to get stars out of their eyes about imitating completely unique systems built upon unique personnel.

P.S. The Spurs hadn't won a title in 7 years. Other teams during that period were not running the Spurs system. It would therefore stand to perfect reason that you can in fact be incredibly successful, title winning successful even, without doing the comical wannabe slavish imitation of your idols thing. You draw general principles from teams like the Spurs, not whole systems.

If the implication is that there are other ways to win a title other than the way the Spurs operate, your dead right. The Old Detroit Pistons looked nothing like the Spurs. The idea should be to steal some of the obvious traits from successful teams. While the Spurs system isn't star driven, it is star driven. By that, I mean the stars on the team have to buy into the system for it to work. If Tim Duncan is willing to pass up a shot, and pass the ball to a less talented player for a better shot, then everyone else is likely to follow suit. And your right again that most of the system was born out of necessity. Duncan aged, and they wanted to reduce his workload.

That said, logic tells you that if you increase your assist totals and reduce your turnovers, your chance of winning increases. It's not that complicated. Until your on the floor I guess and your afflicted with tunnel vision. Anyway, ball movement, player movement, spacing, is all fundamental basketball. If you have a Kevin Durant on your team, you don't take the ball out of his hands, but you do try and develop a system that makes it easier for him to score. If you can increase your teams shooting percentage by two points, and at minimum keep your opponents percentage the same, your going to win more games. So efficiency alone can win you games. I've never been a fan of imitation as a road to success. But I do believe in recognizing the common traits that all winning teams have, and trying utilize them.

When you take a look at the Kings last season, they were just about last in everything. That means a lot of work has to be done in just about every area. We stunk defensively, and we stunk offensively. And no, scoring a lot of points doesn't mean you have an efficient offense. So for anyone to think that all we have to do is just imitate the Spurs, and wa la, everything is fixed, is crazy. I'm hopeful that preseason isn't an indication of what's to come, because our turnover rate is higher than last season. Were playing gift basketball. Hopefully tonights game will show some improvement, otherwise the other team will be playing T-ball all year.

 

[rainmaker]

There's quite a difference between the motion offense Princeton used to run based on not having the individual talent the better college teams had and the motion offense we ran under Rick or the motion offense the Spurs run under Pop.

While we ran a version of the motion offense, Webber/Peja/Bibby were still clearly the focal points. Everyone is not "equal" like the Princeton squads were. Doug was not treated as an equal in comparison to Peja or Bibby, just like Vlade wasn't an a equal in comparison to Webber.

In SA, none of the perimeter players have the same role as the focal points Tony/Manu have, nor are/were any of their bigs used the same as Duncan, who was a focal point.

Just thinking about it in terms of "best players," is doing it wrong. A coach prioritizing a few over the rest is already inviting cliques and hierarchies and inviting jealousy and acrimony.

This is ridiculous. Successful teams most certainly are successful based on what their best players and focal points can and cannot do. You build around them. A large part of success is how the support players fit around the top 2-3 players on a roster. It's roster building 101.

There also isn't some "one glove fits all" motion offense. Most versions at the pro level are based of maximizing the talents of your best players and putting role players in a position to excel and play to their strengths. At the college level, when you see a small-mid college running the motion against the heavy-weights, it's more to hide the lack of talent. Know where else you'll see a lot of motion offense with fewer focal points? Europe. Why? Lack of individual talent. If you don't have guys who command the attention of multiple defenders and force the defense to shift, you've got to do it in other ways. An open shot is an open shot and there's numerous ways to go about creating them.

The term motion offense gets thrown around a lot but what we really need and what teams like us/LA/Utah/SA have/had is movement, smart movement with great spacing. Space correctly and cut/dive off your focal points with the correct players.

 

[bajaden]

There's quite a difference between the motion offense Princeton used to run based on not having the individual talent the better college teams had and the motion offense we ran under Rick or the motion offense the Spurs run under Pop.

While we ran a version of the motion offense, Webber/Peja/Bibby were still clearly the focal points. Everyone is not "equal" like the Princeton squads were. Doug was not treated as an equal in comparison to Peja or Bibby, just like Vlade wasn't an a equal in comparison to Webber.

In SA, none of the perimeter players have the same role as the focal points Tony/Manu have, nor are/were any of their bigs used the same as Duncan, who was a focal point.


This is ridiculous. Successful teams most certainly are successful based on what their best players and focal points can and cannot do. You build around them. A large part of success is how the support players fit around the top 2-3 players on a roster. It's roster building 101.

There also isn't some "one glove fits all" motion offense. Most versions at the pro level are based of maximizing the talents of your best players and putting role players in a position to excel and play to their strengths. At the college level, when you see a small-mid college running the motion against the heavy-weights, it's more to hide the lack of talent. Know where else you'll see a lot of motion offense with fewer focal points? Europe. Why? Lack of individual talent. If you don't have guys who command the attention of multiple defenders and force the defense to shift, you've got to do it in other ways. An open shot is an open shot and there's numerous ways to go about creating them.

The term motion offense gets thrown around a lot but what we really need and what teams like us/LA/Utah/SA have/had is movement, smart movement with great spacing. Space correctly and cut/dive off your focal points with the correct players.

Your right! When you think about how the Princeton offense came into being, out of necessity due to the lack of top level talent, then it becomes obvious that the more talent you have, the less need you have for the Princeton offense. That doesn't mean you can't utilize parts of it to your advantage though. And that's what the triangle, and all other morfed versions do. Including the offense that Adelman installed. So as you said, its not one size fits all.