Comments on: Pop Might Have a Point

By: 48 Minutes of Hell » Blog Archive » The 2009 Offense

48 Minutes of Hell » Blog Archive » The 2009 Offense — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:04:41 +0000

[...] this season, I published a piece that suggested the current Spurs team was the worst defensive team of the Popovich era. Things [...]

By: berlin

berlin — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:30:14 +0000

Gut!

By: jeff

jeff — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:07:29 +0000

great blog. i am definitely going to add this to my site

http://manspage.blogspot.com/

keep it coming

By: Field Trip: Please Move the Nets Now. | Celtics Hub

Field Trip: Please Move the Nets Now. | Celtics Hub — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:34:31 +0000

[...] Tony shouted back, and the two argued briefly about defensive strategy. The great Spurs blog 48 Minutes of Hell has written often about how hard Pop has been on the Spurs defense this season. This was a great example. Pop has rigorous standards for his team, but he’s not constantly [...]

By: Timothy Varner

Timothy Varner — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:56:08 +0000

Jon,

Somewhat indirectly related to your post. ESPN 360 is good, and free. NBA Broadband is awesome, and heavily discounted. They’re both well worth it.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:22:12 +0000

Reading this, and reflecting back on KG’s wide-open jumpers as Tim closed late, I wonder how part of this can be attributed to TD managing his effort more as he slows down, and not jumping out to contest the mid-range jumpers with his long arms as automatically. If that is the case, I wonder how much of it is conserving his effort for the playoffs, and so could improve in the post-season, and how much is legitimate slow-down. I don’t get enough Spurs games in Winston-Salem, but I’ll be interested to see how this develops.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:41:34 +0000

On the other hand when asked why the Spurs have so many 100+ points game (on offense) this year, Pop said “we are having too much fun”. Obviously he also has a share of responsibility in this, e.g. asking his players to keep an up-tempo rhythm against the Celtics (because he knew their set defense was too good).

Also if you look at the trend, the DRtg has increased steadily in the past few years, and is not correlated at all at the Spurs winning it all or not.

Finally, this number is for a full season. I expect a change in the right direction for the 2nd half.

By: Timothy Varner

Timothy Varner — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:50:21 +0000

Hello All,

Great comments.

One quick note. I didn’t intend for us to place these numbers in a vacuum. None of you are making that mistake, but just for the record I under that the my analysis is one small piece to a bigger puzzle. Sounds I appreciate the ability to hold what I’ve written in concert with many of your comments.

By: agutierrez

agutierrez — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:39:43 +0000

I think it was Pop’s intention early to try two different approaches; one with the two bigs (TD and Ian) and an emphasis on defense, and the other with TD and Bonner and emphasize more offense. Obviously, the former flamed out with Ian’s persistent injury. So at this point, I think he sees that he has no alternative, even though I think he is more inclined to the former out of principle. I suspect his view would be that, even if they traded for a serviceable big (like Camby), it would take too long to familiarize him with the Spurs’ system. That the TD/Bonner approach can work against elite teams was proven on Sunday against the Celts. What remains to be seen is whether it can also work against the Lakers, who even if Bynum is unable to come back this year, still have Odum as a second big. But the key is for Bonner to hit his shots, which he did against the Celts but not against the Lakers in the last rematch. Bonner tries like hell on defense, no one can fault his hustle, but he has whiteboyitis. He is just not athletic enough nor is he an instinctive defender.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:21:48 +0000

I am an English teacher, but the Bruce Bowen “roll” instead of “role” was not a pun but a stupid error. I wish these posts had an edit ability.

By: Latin_D

Latin_D — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:16:11 +0000

So many good comments that I’ll just point out how interesting it would be (to me at least) to cross reference these numbers with our offensive production/efficiency in those years.

When you put Mason in and take out Bowen, you’re more likely to score and not as likely to shut someone down.

By: ChillFAN

ChillFAN — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:00:50 +0000

As a side note, when I watched the Laker-Spurs game, I longed for Bruce to “roll,” (great pun Ken, whether intended or not) as Ruth Bader G mentioned. Pop obviously sees an advantage in Mason over Bowen, but I might hate seeing Kobe score more than I want a victory.

LionZion, as a long time Spurs fan, you probably noticed that the Spurs commited to small ball, getting spacing for Ginobili, since battles with the Mavs. As Buck Harvey’s article mentioned, Pop has embraced change. That’s why I’d be happy with trading for either: more wing fire power or a quick defending big.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:45:23 +0000

I think the decline in defense is a direct result of the personnel employed by Popovich this year. I’m certain our offensive rating has increased with superb 3 point shooting from our PF position. In the Popovich era the 4 spot has been employed by offensively-challenged players that were good defensively; however, the script has been completely flipped this season. To be honest thought, Bonner seems like he’s trying on the defensive end and I’ve certainly been impressed by his rebounding efforts.

That said, we still need a shot-blocking, glass eating PF to pair with Duncan against the likes of the Lakers, Hornets and the Blazers…

By: ChillFAN

ChillFAN — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:38 +0000

Thanks for this post and excellent discussion. Lost in the statistical trends and noble goals of 22 points a quarter is the way the Spurs of old could put stops together during crunch time. These defensive stats cannot factor in (1) blow-out victories, (2) Pops increased propensity to conceed games earlier and (3) the years the Spurs’ offense is potent–your info tell me the Spurs defense was as good in 2008 as it was in 2007, but we eventually ran into a wall. Ultimately, success has more to do with the strengths of playoff opponents than the amount of time slow defenders have to learn the Spurs’ system. I felt scared that someone would read your article and conclude, “if we just try harder and don’t get risky, then…stats say, another odd year championship?” I doubt Pop agrees with that. It’s just a general “feel” that some have that the Spurs NEED another quick defender for the Bynums, Yaos, and Howards of the playoffs.

By: ruth bader ginobili

ruth bader ginobili — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:34:14 +0000

Drtg can vary day-to-day, but there is a clear top three. Today, Spurs are ranked 4th, but are closer to 13th than to 3rd (from basketball-reference).
I think you make a good point that fg% is the key stat the rest of the season. If you look at the four factors, the team is actually doing what they usually do for three factors on O (low turnover%, low ft/fg, low orb%) and D (not forcing turnovers, not fouling, not allowing offensive rebounds).
But effective fg% defensive has slipped, and they’re not shooting well enough to make up for it. Personally, I think its the lack of Bowen coercing some 4-12 performances out of opponent’s perimiter players.