That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in one of these threads. Congrats.
You better not be a Lakers fan.
It has less to do with calling a play and more to do with building a team that can execute it. They execute as well as anyone else, and it's not because Lebron is so good. They have intelligent players and an intelligent coach, so the players actually make the screens and movements they're supposed to make. The Thunder (who, btw, had 3 top players when they met and got destroyed) are terrible at execution, and their offense usually devolves into a contested Durant jumper that he makes because he's Kevin Durant.
The Heat and Spurs manufacture good looks, other teams don't. Pacers are starting to. Warriors do, if the play is going to Curry, Thompson or Barnes.
I watch the shitty ass Pistons try to run plays night after night, with Josh Smith and Andre Drummond setting terrible screens, and Stuckey and Singler running half speed on cuts, especially when their cut is meant for misdirection. Bulls offense was only held together by ridiculous 3pointers and Rose's athleticism before that. Clippers offense falls to pieces because Paul can't do everything. Yet the Heat, usually when Wade isn't on the court, still keep getting open look after open look.
Even if you want to say Spo was gifted intelligent players, you still can't say with a straight face that the Heat/Spurs don't run the most sophisticated offenses in the NBA. The Heat and Spurs' benches have a higher FG % than 25 teams' starters, and over 2.5% higher than the rest of the benches in the league.
You're thinking that because I disagreed with a statement, my opinion must be the total opposite. The Heat have a great offense and one that has turned from merely efficient to very good. You said it yourself, though. The two best offenses are the Heat and the Spurs. The difference is that the Spurs are working with Green, Splitter, and Bonner and the Heat are working with Allen, Battier and Bosh. If I see two offenses working at the same level, and one has inferior talent, I'm chalking up the difference to coaching. Moreover, Spoelstra didn't have to teach these guys how to be NBA players. He got great players off the bus. The only players that are homegrown are Cole and Chalmers.
Spoelstra could be a great coach or merely a good one, but I simply can't control for the level of talent he has. Thibodeau is not an idiot, but the Bulls struggle mightily to score sometimes. He simply doesn't have the right kind of players. And, for the record, I'm a Spurs fan, but I think I can separate myself from fandom enough to make objective comments. But don't tell that the the College Football thread; there people in there whose whole existence hangs on the idea that people only irrationally hate the SEC.
On December 09 2013 16:46 DystopiaX wrote: for people who watched the Lakers game, how'd Kobe look? Obviously his statline wasn't great but did he look noticeably hobbled/slower?
He didn't, but he also didn't really push himself very hard aside from the minute totals he played.
More than anything else he looked rusty and completely out of rhythm, he did hit one mid-range shot that looked normal for him but he had a lot of turnovers and a few of his shot attempts were really off.
9 points on 9 shots and 8 turnovers, couldn't get by anyone, got blocked on shots he normally makes. Just the first game back from a major injury, but game one was terrible. Especially considering the Raptors were short handed due to the Rudy Gay trade, and weren't exactly a good team anyway, and the Lakers were playing at home. To be fair all the Laker starters played terrible though. Gasol 3-11, Blake 1-6, Johnson 1-3 and Sacre 1-3 isn't going to win against anyone. Though they probably should have stuck with their bench who played really well. Heny had 17 points on 6-8 shooting and only played 14 minutes, while Kobe was struggling all night and played 28.
On December 09 2013 16:25 Jerubaal wrote: You're thinking that because I disagreed with a statement, my opinion must be the total opposite. The Heat have a great offense and one that has turned from merely efficient to very good. You said it yourself, though. The two best offenses are the Heat and the Spurs. The difference is that the Spurs are working with Green, Splitter, and Bonner and the Heat are working with Allen, Battier and Bosh. If I see two offenses working at the same level, and one has inferior talent, I'm chalking up the difference to coaching. Moreover, Spoelstra didn't have to teach these guys how to be NBA players. He got great players off the bus. The only players that are homegrown are Cole and Chalmers.
Spoelstra could be a great coach or merely a good one, but I simply can't control for the level of talent he has. Thibodeau is not an idiot, but the Bulls struggle mightily to score sometimes. He simply doesn't have the right kind of players. And, for the record, I'm a Spurs fan, but I think I can separate myself from fandom enough to make objective comments. But don't tell that the the College Football thread; there people in there whose whole existence hangs on the idea that people only irrationally hate the SEC.
Then look at how the team has progressed from 2011->2012-> until now. He wasn't gifted a working offense. He was gifted what the Thunder have today, and they've grown it to what the Spurs have. Lebron didn't take that initiative, since Lebron had never played in a different system before. And what are you talking about with the Spurs comparison? The Spurs built their offense around 3 of the best players in the league as well, they've just transitioned Manu's role onto other players and given more to Parker instead of Duncan. Are we suddenly forgetting Pop had an awesome level of talent during their championship runs? Was Pop untested then, because Duncan was the greatest PF of all time and Parker/Manu were so explosive? First it was Admiral + Duncan + terrible East team, then it was Duncan + Parker + prime Manu. Guess Pop's never really shown himself.
When the Spurs made adjustments in the finals, the Heat made counter-adjustments to stop Parker. Everyone was hurt at that point and it wasn't simply "put Lebron on him." The Heat changed how they normally handle screens for that. Look at the opposite adjustments he made with Battier in each of the last two finals. By 2014, I figured people would be able to spot the difference between a coach with superstars and a coach that clearly makes them better. The 2014 Heat would probably sweep the 2011 version of themselves.
It's even more remarkable when you think about Spo's position when Lebron joined the team, and people expected Riley to take over. That was not a harmonious group, but he stood up to Lebron anyways. All of his players have improved, far more than they had in their careers until they joined the Heat.
And you clearly were skeptical of it when you said, "I just shook my head at Grantland proclaiming Miami "the most highly evolved offense'." It is more highly evolved than the Spurs's.
On December 09 2013 15:43 Jibba wrote: That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in one of these threads. Congrats.
You better not be a Lakers fan.
I see what you did there...you were trying to make a point of a stupid comment by saying something stupider ?? =P
And I am not entirely keeping up with the responses to you Jerubaal but the argument that turned me the most into thinking Spo was a good coach was when I looked at the increase in team efficiency/production/improvement from one season to the next. You can't look at him from the outside and just wonder what he does in the games, because when you have the best player in the planet you probably won't get a lot of credit for it (unless you have like 5 or more rings like PJ..). When you look and compare the seasons he has had as their coach, you will see a better team each season. And although a lot of it has to do with LBJ actually getting a postgame during these last few years (he is now the 2nd best post-up player behind Kobe--prob 1st now--), a lot of it has to do with how they play the game and how he has made a gameplan using the specific advantages of their team.
I think it was Lowe who came out with a good article on this last season. Will try to dig it up..
If you dont think Spo is good, look at Miami pre Lebron and the rosters they had. Then watch how they won. Those teams were built to save cap space and somehow got to 40 wins.
You should listen to Jibba. You may think Spo isn't "anything special" but start watching some of the worst teams in the league on a regular basis. There is a world of difference in the way Miami's marginal players execute plays and the way other teams do.
I really hate the argument that the only coaches who are good are the ones that turn around crappy teams. It takes a different skill set to improve a lottery team's regular season record versus taking a good team all the way to the championship. Coaches can pad their regular season numbers by motivating their players to give their all during the regular season, implement simple offensive and defensive schemes and play their top players very heavy minutes. The top coaches of championship contending teams, on the other hand, are pacing their team and experimenting with new wrinkles on both offense and defense.
Spoelstra has been adding new things to the Heat offense every year, even running the triangle or something that looks like it sometimes this year. At the same time, the Thunder offense has been painful to watch at times.
If you are rating just last night's performance it is an F. If you are rating what he will be by the end of the year, then of course give him an incomplete. Even healthy star players have bad games some times. But he certainly wasn't a "C" last night. Other than the rebounds, most of which were uncontested right to him, he didn't do much positive. A few nice passes, but more than cancelled out by all the turn overs. I expect him to get much better over time, but if you are rating his return performance, it was terrible unless you are just grading him compared to other people coming back from an Achilles tear.
Coaching is not some highly advanced conceptual art. It would not be difficult to explain any set run by the Heat or Spurs. I don't think the reason Adelman or SVG or Carlisle run the same kind of offense is because they are too stupid to understand it or it's hidden in some secret vault.
The first 3 Spurs championships were not the well oiled machines that came after. They were pretty simple offensively. And, yes, Pop had talent: He had 2 superstars and then 2 and one other very good player. That's what a championship team tried to get before the age of collectivized championship building. To suggest that even the '06-'07 Spurs had anywhere near the talent even the '10-'11 Heat had is bogus. I don't know how you can sit here and look at the Heat team that is an embarrassment of riches and was all but defeated by an old Duncan, Ginobili and a gassed Parker supported by young roleplayers, one of which was picked off the trash heap, and conclude that they were equally well coached. If Norris Cole and Mario F. Chalmers were great in that Finals, I would give those kudos, but they weren't. It was next man up from the future hall of famers.
@Ace-What a world it must be where your "marginal players" are Rashard Lewis and Michael Beasley.
@MassHysteria- Without going into another diatribe, the overriding theme in this and many other arguments is focusing solely on the result at the expense of all mitigating circumstances. Don't talk to me about a historic run when you've been handed the easiest schedule in the league.
@andrewlt- I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that having the best clay does not make you the best sculptor. I'm looking at every team individually. The Thunder are of no consequence.
Let me make it easy for you: Unless you can convince me that the Spurs and Heat have equal talent, you're not going to convince me that they are equally well coached.
On December 10 2013 07:29 Jerubaal wrote: Coaching is not some highly advanced conceptual art. It would not be difficult to explain any set run by the Heat or Spurs. I don't think the reason Adelman or SVG or Carlisle run the same kind of offense is because they are too stupid to understand it or it's hidden in some secret vault.
The first 3 Spurs championships were not the well oiled machines that came after. They were pretty simple offensively. And, yes, Pop had talent: He had 2 superstars and then 2 and one other very good player. That's what a championship team tried to get before the age of collectivized championship building. To suggest that even the '06-'07 Spurs had anywhere near the talent even the '10-'11 Heat had is bogus. I don't know how you can sit here and look at the Heat team that is an embarrassment of riches and was all but defeated by an old Duncan, Ginobili and a gassed Parker supported by young roleplayers, one of which was picked off the trash heap, and conclude that they were equally well coached. If Norris Cole and Mario F. Chalmers were great in that Finals, I would give those kudos, but they weren't. It was next man up from the future hall of famers.
@Ace-What a world it must be where your "marginal players" are Rashard Lewis and Michael Beasley.
@MassHysteria- Without going into another diatribe, the overriding theme in this and many other arguments is focusing solely on the result at the expense of all mitigating circumstances. Don't talk to me about a historic run when you've been handed the easiest schedule in the league.
@andrewlt- I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that having the best clay does not make you the best sculptor. I'm looking at every team individually. The Thunder are of no consequence.
Let me make it easy for you: Unless you can convince me that the Spurs and Heat have equal talent, you're not going to convince me that they are equally well coached.
rashard lewis has barely played on the heat, and their most important bench player is in reality birdman
EPT
