PDA

View Full Version : Spurs biggest mistake: LaMarcus Aldridge



FlashBolt
05-01-2017, 11:03 PM
Is this the worst move they have made in recent memory? They've literally been flawless up till now. What do they do with LaMarcus if they lose to the Rockets?

kdspurman
05-01-2017, 11:14 PM
Far from the worst move...

Its hard for them to not make that move at the time. Splitter was injury prone, and Diaw was far too inconsistent.

flea
05-01-2017, 11:29 PM
It wasn't a mistake at all - they're a way better team with him than without. He's adjusting to life as a 2nd tier player, and he's not the P&R big that Duncan was, but he allows them to play with size and hurt teams defensively. Plus he's still a good #2, it's just that the Spurs don't really need that from him as they're currently constructed. They need Leonard's midrange/ISO game, Parker/Mills's P&R game, and the lowly third option is the Aldridge post touches.

You could say he might regret, and maybe he does because he could still be a #1 option on a good team. But the way the league calls the game on ballhandlers and shooters your bigs need to be good roll men first and foremost because your guards is where your offense will butter its bread. Unfortunately LMA plays at a time in NBA history when the quality of his game is least valued. That's not to say he's a great scorer or anything, but he's a very good one.

I think Pop might use him more to slow the game down. Getting into a transition P&R shootout with D'Antoni teams is asking for trouble - especially when your guards are so old. He'll have to step up because he's still never really looked comfortable offensively with the Spurs.

Quinnsanity
05-01-2017, 11:55 PM
He makes $3 million more than Enes Kanter, and that's before we bring up any of the bigs who signed last summer. No matter how much you think he's declined, the value of his contract is still excellent. I do not see an option that was reasonably available to them at the time to spend that money more wisely. If Marc Gasol would've taken their calls they would've chosen him over Aldridge anyway. But he didn't take meetings. Neither did Kevin Love if you think he's better than Aldridge, which I find dubious even in Aldridge's somewhat depleted state. DeAndre was the total antithesis of what they were looking for. They wanted someone who could fit into their culture and score. He wanted to be wooed and he doesn't score. After that, who were they going to sign in 2015 that would've worked out better? Greg Monroe? The only possible argument I could see would be Paul Millsap, but honestly nobody knew he was this good at that point. Even if you insist that they should have chased Millsap at the time, that makes Aldridge the second best player they could have added. Would you prefer they save that money for 2016? Because they already basically had max space thanks to the cap jump. Would you rather they have signed Horford for something like 40% more total money?

The Aldridge signing was in no way, shape or form a mistake. He may not be the same player he was in Portland, but think of the market we're in. Joakim Noah is going to make $17 million the next three years. Same as Timofey Mozgov, Bismack Biyombo and Ian Mahinmi. And you're telling me Aldridge is a bad value at $20 million? That's a ****ing home run in the current climate. The Spurs still have reasonable ways of creating max salary. I would absolutely still categorize the Aldridge signing as a win.


Far from the worst move...

Its hard for them to not make that move at the time. Splitter was injury prone, and Diaw was far too inconsistent.

Oh yea, this too. How do Splitter and Diaw look about now? Splitter might be out of the league and Diaw maybe has one year left. The cost of clearing cap space for Aldridge at the time was practically nothing, and he presents no real problems for their long term cap either.

FOXHOUND
05-02-2017, 12:19 AM
It wasn't a mistake, you have to look at the whole picture.

1) San Antonio has never been a big FA destination. Pop doesn't want a selfish diva and players who care about putting up big stats don't want to play in a system that prioritizes ball movement and shared shots. Also, no big city appeal and no push to market their stars. Spurs are straight business and a lot of big FA's are looking for glitz.

2) Look man, the Spurs have been dominant for decades but eventually the well runs dry. The transition to Kawhi was great but Duncan wasn't beating father time. Aldridge was as big a FA as they're ever going to probably sign in the Pop era. I don't know, maybe there can end up being something to Chris Paul working his way there this summer but I'm not holding my breath on that.

3) Although he's declined with age and his game is way too finesse, he still helped them win 60-games in back to back seasons. They don't have the top end talent to compete with the top playoff teams in the west. Call it a byproduct of winning 50+ games for decades. A lot of their key players are old and they need to transition to a new era. Tony, Manu, Pau and Lee can't help them all that much going forward.

There are two certainties in basketball. One, father time is undefeated. Two, the Spurs don't make front office mistakes. Lol.

kobe4thewinbang
05-02-2017, 12:29 AM
Soon to be buyer's remorse, maybe, but not a mistake.

Aldridge wanted to be a Spur. He might've thought about the Suns for a moment, and he probably met with the Lakers out of respect, who knows about Dallas, but this dude's heart was set on the Spurs.

Now, as to why he ain't shown much heart or fire since he's been a Spur, I can't say.

:whistle:

Heediot
05-02-2017, 06:29 AM
The Spurs have too many geezers who are liabilities on defense. TP, Gasol, Manu, Lee. These guys are getting solid minutes still and tie up a big chunk of the cap excluding Lee.

Also LMA isn't the greatest defender either. So that's like most of your cap on weak defense. This is where Duncan is missed, even as a geezer he was a reliable rim protector until his final year where age caught up. There's only so much Pops and his schemes can do to hide/masks a lot of these guys. It's a long series so we'll see how he'll adjust.

da ThRONe
05-02-2017, 07:35 AM
I think you can make a case for it being a mistake based on fit. I never thought Aldridge fit the Spurs system. Partly because of his defensive issues and the fact that he's a old school post scorer and the Spurs shifted to spacing and the 3ball. I get the concept of acquiring top end talent when it's available, but I questioned LA's fit with S.A. from the beginning. I thought he would go to Phoenix where he wouldn't have had to adjust his game.

GoferKing_
05-02-2017, 08:04 AM
No mistake. Pope will make the proper adjustments, and Houston maybe wont be so hot next game from the 3pt line.

Tg11
05-02-2017, 08:28 AM
LaMarcus I can eventually see him leaving San Antonio sooner or later

IndyRealist
05-02-2017, 10:29 AM
LMA has always been overrated, and he didn't seem like a Spurs type acquisition.

Tg11
05-02-2017, 10:43 AM
Then I could see him fitting in on the Lakers or even the Knicks

effen5
05-02-2017, 11:04 AM
Not really a mistake, and his contract isn't even bad compared to what was being shelled out last offseason.

Vinylman
05-02-2017, 11:09 AM
How is a guy who can be turned into a solid young player and a first round draft pick be considered a mistake.

Jamiecballer
05-02-2017, 11:10 AM
LMA has always been overrated, and he didn't seem like a Spurs type acquisition.

ditto.

although i give the spurs a wide berth because if anyone can transform a guy or get him to fall in line it's them.

KobeOwnSU
05-02-2017, 11:44 AM
Father time has just caught the Spurs between Manu, Tony, Lee, Pau ect...Their younger players Green, Simmons, Anderson, Dedmon are not good enough to replace the production of the former. Pair that with Aldridge not playing up to what he is expected so far in these playoffs and you get why they barely beat Memphis and now will have a hard time with Houston. This off-seaon is important for them. I think it's finally time to cut ties with Manu and Tony and let Lee and Pau walk. They need to get younger, more athletic, and a couple m,ore shooters because Green is way to inconsistent.

hugepatsfan
05-02-2017, 11:50 AM
He makes $3 million more than Enes Kanter, and that's before we bring up any of the bigs who signed last summer. No matter how much you think he's declined, the value of his contract is still excellent. I do not see an option that was reasonably available to them at the time to spend that money more wisely. If Marc Gasol would've taken their calls they would've chosen him over Aldridge anyway. But he didn't take meetings. Neither did Kevin Love if you think he's better than Aldridge, which I find dubious even in Aldridge's somewhat depleted state. DeAndre was the total antithesis of what they were looking for. They wanted someone who could fit into their culture and score. He wanted to be wooed and he doesn't score. After that, who were they going to sign in 2015 that would've worked out better? Greg Monroe? The only possible argument I could see would be Paul Millsap, but honestly nobody knew he was this good at that point. Even if you insist that they should have chased Millsap at the time, that makes Aldridge the second best player they could have added. Would you prefer they save that money for 2016? Because they already basically had max space thanks to the cap jump. Would you rather they have signed Horford for something like 40% more total money?

The Aldridge signing was in no way, shape or form a mistake. He may not be the same player he was in Portland, but think of the market we're in. Joakim Noah is going to make $17 million the next three years. Same as Timofey Mozgov, Bismack Biyombo and Ian Mahinmi. And you're telling me Aldridge is a bad value at $20 million? That's a ****ing home run in the current climate. The Spurs still have reasonable ways of creating max salary. I would absolutely still categorize the Aldridge signing as a win.



Oh yea, this too. How do Splitter and Diaw look about now? Splitter might be out of the league and Diaw maybe has one year left. The cost of clearing cap space for Aldridge at the time was practically nothing, and he presents no real problems for their long term cap either.

Horford would be unreal in SA. He definitely would have been a better option for them because he's so effective playing off of guys in the PnR, can space the floor and is an amazing passer. But they would have had to sit on cap space for another year and he's older. I don't think that you can really say they should have waited but if they could trade Aldridge for Horford now I think they easily would. The problem with Aldridge is his game just isn't conducive to playing with the caliber of players you need to pair him with to be good enough to win. That seems to be their trouble with him.

mrblisterdundee
05-02-2017, 01:17 PM
LaMarcus isn't a great option at power forward in today's NBA. He barely attempts one three a game. Roles have shifted, and positions have gotten smaller. Unless he's going to start drilling threes like the younger Gasol brother, then he needs to buck up like Horford and play center. But if Dedmon's the future at center, then I don't think the Spurs will ever be the right fit for him.

Quinnsanity
05-02-2017, 10:10 PM
LaMarcus isn't a great option at power forward in today's NBA. He barely attempts one three a game. Roles have shifted, and positions have gotten smaller. Unless he's going to start drilling threes like the younger Gasol brother, then he needs to buck up like Horford and play center. But if Dedmon's the future at center, then I don't think the Spurs will ever be the right fit for him.

It's funny that so many random bigs have started making three's this year. How did Brook and Marc make that transition? We all expected it to come from LaMarcus, who already had that mid-range game and was going to Chip Engelland's team (he's the best shot coach in basketball). Funny that he seems to have gone the other way and focused more on his low-post game.


Horford would be unreal in SA. He definitely would have been a better option for them because he's so effective playing off of guys in the PnR, can space the floor and is an amazing passer. But they would have had to sit on cap space for another year and he's older. I don't think that you can really say they should have waited but if they could trade Aldridge for Horford now I think they easily would. The problem with Aldridge is his game just isn't conducive to playing with the caliber of players you need to pair him with to be good enough to win. That seems to be their trouble with him.

I'd probably rather have Horford if the money and length are even, but committing that extra $30 million or so to Horford really scares me. I think he'll remain a useful player through the end of that contract, but we're already seeing parts of his limitations in these playoffs, notably how he was getting killed by Robin Lopez on the boards, and we're only in Year 1 of his deal. The Spurs might be out from the Aldridge deal next summer. Plus, the Spurs had a chance to sign Horford last year with the space they would've used on Durant, and they had a gaping enough hole in their front line that they signed Pau Gasol, but ultimately chose not to. I think that says something.


No mistake. Pope will make the proper adjustments, and Houston maybe wont be so hot next game from the 3pt line.

I don't know if this was a typo or was intentional, but I'm totally on board with calling Pop "Pope" from now on.


It wasn't a mistake, you have to look at the whole picture.

1) San Antonio has never been a big FA destination. Pop doesn't want a selfish diva and players who care about putting up big stats don't want to play in a system that prioritizes ball movement and shared shots. Also, no big city appeal and no push to market their stars. Spurs are straight business and a lot of big FA's are looking for glitz.

2) Look man, the Spurs have been dominant for decades but eventually the well runs dry. The transition to Kawhi was great but Duncan wasn't beating father time. Aldridge was as big a FA as they're ever going to probably sign in the Pop era. I don't know, maybe there can end up being something to Chris Paul working his way there this summer but I'm not holding my breath on that.

3) Although he's declined with age and his game is way too finesse, he still helped them win 60-games in back to back seasons. They don't have the top end talent to compete with the top playoff teams in the west. Call it a byproduct of winning 50+ games for decades. A lot of their key players are old and they need to transition to a new era. Tony, Manu, Pau and Lee can't help them all that much going forward.

There are two certainties in basketball. One, father time is undefeated. Two, the Spurs don't make front office mistakes. Lol.

The Spurs actually have made several mistakes. Richard Jefferson comes to mind. Giving away Luis Scola is another. It's rarer than most teams, but they happen.

I'd also hesitate to say that they aren't a free agent destination. They've really only chased three star FAs in the Popovich era. Jason Kidd almost went there in 2003 but changed his mind at the last second (he has admitted to committing to join them but changing his mind, and he openly says he regrets not going there). Aldridge did go in 2015. Durant didn't in 2016. One for three with another guy almost coming is pretty good. The Heat are the only other team with a definitively better track record. Besides those guys, the Spurs haven't really had cap room otherwise. Having Duncan, Manu and Parker at the same time makes that difficult. What little extra money they had they tended to spread around.


I think you can make a case for it being a mistake based on fit. I never thought Aldridge fit the Spurs system. Partly because of his defensive issues and the fact that he's a old school post scorer and the Spurs shifted to spacing and the 3ball. I get the concept of acquiring top end talent when it's available, but I questioned LA's fit with S.A. from the beginning. I thought he would go to Phoenix where he wouldn't have had to adjust his game.

San Antonio relied on Duncan's low post offense quite a bit even after they shifted. Last year was the one season Duncan really became a non-factor on offense. His role lessened in 2014 and 2015, but he was still integral. They got a lot more exotic about how they got him those low block touches, but they definitely happened.

JasonJohnHorn
05-03-2017, 01:18 AM
They needed a post player, and they got a good one. He's not their worst acquisition, and he's got a sizeable contract, but it's not so crazy. He's a solid rebounder, a decent passer, he doesn't have a huge ego. He's even developed a 3-pt shot.

They could have spent the money on somebody, else, but there weren't a lot of guys willing to come to SAS at the time because TD, Manu and Parker were all getting old, and Leonard was all they really had, and at that time he was a defensive specialist who had a great series in the finals and showed promise, but hadn't posted the kind of season yet he did last year and this.

Now... yeah... there are a few guys who make less who are better (most on rookie contracts), but this isn't a train wreck.

I'd say there were worse fits. Richard Jefferson wasn't a terribly good fit. He was a solid player, but didn't fit the system. Not as big a contract, but still a much worse fit that LMA.


They might be a perennial contender, but the Spurs don't have free agents/rng chasers flocking to them like LAL had in the Shaq/Kobe days. They have to take what they can get sometimes, and make the best choices that are available to them. I'd say they did that with LMA.

And if they hadn't signed him, then they wouldn't have been using up cap space to sign the guys whose Bird's rights they have and they wouldn't be a deep.

BKLYNpigeon
05-03-2017, 01:57 AM
Wait till spurs land CP3, LMA will be good again.

Its not the worst signing. its just not the right fit. He still has value, and you can always trade him.

valade16
05-03-2017, 12:52 PM
LaMarcus isn't a great option at power forward in today's NBA. He barely attempts one three a game. Roles have shifted, and positions have gotten smaller. Unless he's going to start drilling threes like the younger Gasol brother, then he needs to buck up like Horford and play center. But if Dedmon's the future at center, then I don't think the Spurs will ever be the right fit for him.

It's bizarre he hasn't made the transition and I have to believe it's scheme based from Pop. His last year in Portland he took 1.5 3's a game and made 35% of them and this year he's shooting 41%, he's just not taking very many. But he can definitely hit them.

I know he doesn't want to play Center because when we brought in Stotts and Olshey they sat down with him and he said his biggest frustration was having to play C so they went and got Rolo solely so LMA could play PF.

kobe4thewinbang
05-03-2017, 07:11 PM
All this underwhelming play by LMA is making me wonder if they had AD or a Towns on their team. That would be crazy. Those dudes can shoot from 3PT territory and they actually play tough down low as well. Dwight Howard and Lamarcus Aldridge are almost relics at this point, Dwight more so and he needs to change his game to stay in the league, but Aldridge is at a crossroads too. Dude can't even embarrass Ryan no-defense Anderson. What gives?

kdspurman
05-04-2017, 12:38 AM
LMA is not healthy it appears either. That's gotta be some factor. I mean i know hes been up / down, but this is some next level stuff.

Chronz
05-04-2017, 10:24 AM
Yeah if you remember the RJ days, you will know its the only time Spurs fans have referred to a "dark age" of sorts. They loathed that guy, never understood why he didn't fit.

zn23
05-04-2017, 01:20 PM
Is he injured? It appears that way. Ha no lift on his jump shot. Or maybe it's just his confidence.

Either way, there was no way for the Spurs to predict he was going to be a non factor like this.

JasonJohnHorn
05-04-2017, 04:16 PM
Yeah if you remember the RJ days, you will know its the only time Spurs fans have referred to a "dark age" of sorts. They loathed that guy, never understood why he didn't fit.

I was surprised too. On paper, it seemed like a great fit. Strong 3pt shooter (dipped that first year in SA, that may have something to do with it, but he picked it up in year two and three: over .400). He was humble and played in with the team (he played third fiddle to Carter and Kidd before and had no issue with it). He wanted to win, and was just coming over from a losing year with the Bucks and the Nets.

The only issue might have been expectation. He was a 20-ppg scorer, so that might have been the expectation for some fans, but that would have been unreasonable. We was entering his 30's on a roster with three established players in TD, Manu and Parker, and was only ever going to be a 4th option. He was essentially expected to do everything he's doing with the Cavs right now, and frankly, in terms of percentages, given his higher usages, did about as well the second season in SAS (over .400 from the arc and over .500 inside). He rebounded as well as he had before, and though he wasn't given the ball to make plays as often (his assists going down as a result), he passed the ball as efficiently as he did with respect to A2T ratio.

Perhaps he wasn't a strong enough defender?

I think the Spurs just didn't play as well as a unit those years, and because he was the new face, people blamed him.

Good guy. Good player. Should have been an ideal fit there.

flea
05-04-2017, 08:19 PM
He played for the Spurs during their 2nd rebuild, or mini-rebuild - that was the main problem.

They had ancient Dice and Blair next to Duncan, neither of which were NBA starter caliber players and arguably weren't even rotation players at that point. Dice is one of my favorite role players but his legs were shot.

They didn't have a starting SG. I know Manu got the bulk of the minutes in his career as a SG but the Spurs preferred to have guys like Finley and Barry to make shots and, more importantly, bring size to their defensive style. Hill got the most backcourt minutes next to Parker/Manu and he was young and undersized for a 2. He's become a nice NBA veteran at the PG position but he wasn't that at the time.

And finally RJ was replacing Bowen who had carved out a perfect role for the Spurs style. RJ was not a bad defender but he got a bad rap because he's not near as good as Bowen. I'd say he's about average on D and when he played for the Spurs he was declining athletically.

When he was younger he had a very athletic style and sometimes guys like that either retire at 30 or go through a transition to figure out how to change their game to an old man's style. That was what he was having to do at that point in his career. He was also not a very good shooter in his prime, he was primarily a slasher and cutter at his best. The Spurs didn't need that from him because they had 2 penetrating guards and Duncan already so he was relegated to spot-up role that he wasn't used to. Obviously now he's like a lot of old forwards like Pierce and Carter and Horry who make their hay with toughness and spot-up shooting but that is pretty much the exact opposite of his game during his prime.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 12:09 AM
I feel like this is a reactionary thread. He had a bad game one. He had a good game three and helped the Spurs past the Rockets while they were missing their starting/HOF point guard.

Can we make a thread saying he's underrated now?

He's not a franchise player. He's an all-star player. A second or (on a good team) third

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 12:12 AM
I feel like this is a reactionary thread. He had a bad game one. He had a good game three and helped the Spurs past the Rockets while they were missing their starting/HOF point guard.

Can we make a thread saying he's underrated now?

He's not a franchise player. He's an all-star player. A second or third option. Given that the Spurs won 61 games this season with him as their starting PF and second offensive option, I'd say he's not a terrible player. I mean... he's seen more success with Leonard than Blake Griffin has seen with CP3.

The guy had a bad game. So what. Would the team be better with Blake? Or AD? Oh... yeah... but those guys weren't available. The question, then, is who was available that was better? The answer is nobody.

At the end of the day, he's helped SAS to back-to-back 60-win seasons, which TD never did, even with DRob, and even with Parker and Manu. This certainly isn't to say that he is better than TD, or even in the conversation with him, but he's helping the team get more W's than they ever had in the regular season. And they could have gotten 64 wins this year had they not rested guys the last three games.

The Spurs are a franchise that has set a high standard for excellence, and in two seasons, LMA has helped this team reach its highest win total ever in a regular season, and then helped them to 61 wins in the following season, which was the fourth highest total the franchise has ever seen. Two seasons with the team and two of the teams five best regular seasons.

I'd give the dude a gold star.

Quinnsanity
05-06-2017, 01:29 AM
I feel like this is a reactionary thread. He had a bad game one. He had a good game three and helped the Spurs past the Rockets while they were missing their starting/HOF point guard.

Can we make a thread saying he's underrated now?

He's not a franchise player. He's an all-star player. A second or third option. Given that the Spurs won 61 games this season with him as their starting PF and second offensive option, I'd say he's not a terrible player. I mean... he's seen more success with Leonard than Blake Griffin has seen with CP3.

The guy had a bad game. So what. Would the team be better with Blake? Or AD? Oh... yeah... but those guys weren't available. The question, then, is who was available that was better? The answer is nobody.

At the end of the day, he's helped SAS to back-to-back 60-win seasons, which TD never did, even with DRob, and even with Parker and Manu. This certainly isn't to say that he is better than TD, or even in the conversation with him, but he's helping the team get more W's than they ever had in the regular season. And they could have gotten 64 wins this year had they not rested guys the last three games.

The Spurs are a franchise that has set a high standard for excellence, and in two seasons, LMA has helped this team reach its highest win total ever in a regular season, and then helped them to 61 wins in the following season, which was the fourth highest total the franchise has ever seen. Two seasons with the team and two of the teams five best regular seasons.

I'd give the dude a gold star.

Ding ding ding.

GoferKing_
05-06-2017, 03:11 AM
See, Pope adjusted.

flea
05-06-2017, 02:21 PM
Yeah this thread doesn't make sense. Aldridge is still one of the best bigs in the game. He's older but he's never had an athletic game anyway. The Spurs are really deep but outside of Leonard and LA they don't really have a lot of consistency. Not every team can be like the Cavs or Warriors and have great top-end talent plus great role players.

Who do we even think is better among all bigs in the game? I know some will say Towns and AD but neither of those guys will help you win like LA can defensively and with scoring yet. There's a reason that star players under 25 don't usually win much unless they have great teams around them even if they're putting up great numbers. I'd say Marc Gasol, Draymond, maybe Gobert, and maybe Horford are the only bigs clearly better than LA.

Millsap, Love, Griffin, Jordan, maybe Ibaka, maybe Cousins (I don't think so), maybe Adams are all about on the same level as LA. Depending on my team I'd still take LA over a lot of them. Only LA and Griffin are guys that can both score and be their team's best playmaker (on a winning team) - possibly Love. The rest are pretty much just P&R guys with or without D. LA wasn't always a reliable 2-way player and he's certainly not a defensive anchor but he plays hard and is usually in the right spot - which is 80% of the battle for bigs on defense.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 02:50 PM
Yeah this thread doesn't make sense. Aldridge is still one of the best bigs in the game. He's older but he's never had an athletic game anyway. The Spurs are really deep but outside of Leonard and LA they don't really have a lot of consistency. Not every team can be like the Cavs or Warriors and have great top-end talent plus great role players.

Who do we even think is better among all bigs in the game? I know some will say Towns and AD but neither of those guys will help you win like LA can defensively and with scoring yet. There's a reason that star players under 25 don't usually win much unless they have great teams around them even if they're putting up great numbers. I'd say Marc Gasol, Draymond, maybe Gobert, and maybe Horford are the only bigs clearly better than LA.

Millsap, Love, Griffin, Jordan, maybe Ibaka, maybe Cousins (I don't think so), maybe Adams are all about on the same level as LA. Depending on my team I'd still take LA over a lot of them. Only LA and Griffin are guys that can both score and be their team's best playmaker (on a winning team) - possibly Love. The rest are pretty much just P&R guys with or without D. LA wasn't always a reliable 2-way player and he's certainly not a defensive anchor but he plays hard and is usually in the right spot - which is 80% of the battle for bigs on defense.

Love this post.

It's so easy to look at per-game averages of guys with high usage and say "these guys are better". Here, you lump in Adams with Cousins... most people would scratch their heads. If you are building a team... sure... you take DMC as your first pick over Adams... but if you have a winning team like GSW or CLE... I'd take Adams or a healthy Bogut, and certainly Horford over Cousins in a heart beat. These guys know how to win, work hard, play into the team, and know their limits. You can't ask for too much more than that.

People might look at that list of guys you threw together and laugh or scratch their heads.... but when it comes to winning... it's pretty clear that guys like Love, Jordan, and Cousins NEED other players to help them win, where as guys like Millsap, Adams and Horford are helping their teams win. There is a subtle difference. It's the difference between Melo and Battier, and its why Battier has a ring and Melo has a bigger bank account. Even though Melo brought more to the table, Battier als knew how to make a guy like Melo shoot at a low percentage and let his stars do their work.

LMA helps teams win, but he needs some help himself. Not the kind that can do it on his own. But being the second option on a back-to-back 60-win team in a tough conference seems to demonstrate that, yes, he's pretty good. And yes, likely worth 20 mil a year in the current NBA.

lol, please
05-06-2017, 06:57 PM
LaMarcus isn't a great option at power forward in today's NBA. He barely attempts one three a game. Roles have shifted, and positions have gotten smaller. Unless he's going to start drilling threes like the younger Gasol brother, then he needs to buck up like Horford and play center. But if Dedmon's the future at center, then I don't think the Spurs will ever be the right fit for him.

:facepalm: again with this short sighted perspective.

"one person did it this way so it must be the only way to do it!"

You don't NEED "stretch" PF's in "today's NBA". Just because a few teams run their offense successfully stretching the floor and knocking down perimeter shots efficiently, doesn't mean this is the ONLY way to in in the NBA.

I can't stand people who embrace that narrative because new fans coming to the sport actually fall for the fallacy and regurgitate the same nonsense.

JasonJohnHorn
05-06-2017, 11:56 PM
:facepalm: again with this short sighted perspective.

"one person did it this way so it must be the only way to do it!"

You don't NEED "stretch" PF's in "today's NBA". Just because a few teams run their offense successfully stretching the floor and knocking down perimeter shots efficiently, doesn't mean this is the ONLY way to in in the NBA.

I can't stand people who embrace that narrative because new fans coming to the sport actually fall for the fallacy and regurgitate the same nonsense.

In addition.... not only do they not need to, as you say, but they CAN run it with LMA. He's hitting 3's at a rate of .411 this season. He doesn't take a lot of them, but when he does, he hits them a lot. That means that when he steps out, his defender has to stay with him, which opens up the lane for the guards like Parker.

And Gasol is hitting 3's at over .500 (WTF?).


In the NBA, it is about having the ability, not necessarily exploiting it all the time. Guys establish what they can do, and defenders have to respond to that. The offense is then run according to how the defense is playing them.

Shamrock34
05-07-2017, 02:21 PM
Love this post.

It's so easy to look at per-game averages of guys with high usage and say "these guys are better". Here, you lump in Adams with Cousins... most people would scratch their heads. If you are building a team... sure... you take DMC as your first pick over Adams... but if you have a winning team like GSW or CLE... I'd take Adams or a healthy Bogut, and certainly Horford over Cousins in a heart beat. These guys know how to win, work hard, play into the team, and know their limits. You can't ask for too much more than that.

People might look at that list of guys you threw together and laugh or scratch their heads.... but when it comes to winning... it's pretty clear that guys like Love, Jordan, and Cousins NEED other players to help them win, where as guys like Millsap, Adams and Horford are helping their teams win. There is a subtle difference. It's the difference between Melo and Battier, and its why Battier has a ring and Melo has a bigger bank account. Even though Melo brought more to the table, Battier als knew how to make a guy like Melo shoot at a low percentage and let his stars do their work.

LMA helps teams win, but he needs some help himself. Not the kind that can do it on his own. But being the second option on a back-to-back 60-win team in a tough conference seems to demonstrate that, yes, he's pretty good. And yes, likely worth 20 mil a year in the current NBA.

Yes. Yes. YES.

"But... but... but Player A averages 23 and 9 while Player B only averages 17 and 7."

It's so easy, especially in this generation, to use data to try to draw conclusions and determine who is better than who. The phrase "numbers don't lie" is a joke. They lie all the time, especially in sports.

Usage and style of play have as much to do with most players' per game marks as their talent. Patty Mills might average 8 points and 2 assists in San Antonio, but that doesn't tell the story of what he brings to the table. At all. Imagine if he played 32 mpg in an offense that featured him as a primary option with Mike D'Antoni as his head coach? Everyone would say "oh my god, Patty Mills is having a breakout year!" when he has been the same player in terms of ability for 5 years, as the backup point guard in a selfless system.

"8 ppg and 2 apg" with some shooting percentages sprinkled in, will tell you that he is a good shooter, but the average fan relying on that data will say something like "but that's pretty much what he is, and he's easily replaceable." However, if you watch and understand the game, you'll know that Mills is one of the most reliable perimeter bench players in the NBA. He's a lights out shooter, quick with his feet, he's a smaller guard but pressures the ball well, he can make you pay as the aggressor in pick n' roll situations and he's equally effective off the ball (which most players are not). He's got a winning attitude, leads by example and breeds a contagious work ethic, makes intelligent reads and always makes big plays in big moments.

Hell, a guy like Brandon Jennings can put up bigger numbers than Mills, but if you took a GM poll about who they would prefer, it would be laughably one-sided. Numbers don't determine impact, and it's sad how many people use strictly statistics and athletic ability to infect the general public with such an incorrect way of thinking.