Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009...10:30 am
Those Tired Old Innovators
The Spurs are often cast in the role of league bore. Implicit to this claim is the frequently smuggled-in connotation that the Spurs represent an older school of basketball, that they’re a tiny band of staid traditionalist. One hears jokes, for example, about Gregg Popovich’s disapproval of the dunk shot or his controlling, deeply-repressed fears of modern-game athleticism.
The problem with all this-aside from the contrived and unimaginative nature of the claims themselves-is that these claims are a wild misconstrual of the actual situation in San Antonio.
The Spurs are one of the most forward-thinking outfits in American sports. I was reminded of this by Mike Monroe, whose most recent column details Popovich’s progressive thinking regarding the team’s practice schedule. The Spurs have jettisoned the conventional pattern of morning practices because of recent sleep research out of Stanford; they’re now practicing in the afternoon. It sounds like a small thing, but it’s representative of much more than sleep pattens and practice schedules. The Spurs frequently find themselves on the forefront of change, often riding atop the tide of its bleeding edge.
Add the new practice schedule to the long list of innovations the Spurs have spearheaded or embraced in the Popovich era: for example, the insistence on a worldly, professional locker room (not a complete novelty, but certainly noteworthy when placed in a broader context that includes such things as the Jailblazer Blazers and the Isiah Thomas Knicks), international scouting, player development partnerships with European teams, their labors in creating a true farm team in Austin, renewable energy initiatives, and their rumored dalliance with advanced statistics. The Spurs are not an organization tied to last year’s model. They’re always out in front, ever the innovators.
Related posts:
30 Comments
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
and now i cant wait to hear boston announcing their new practice schedule!!! you know mike brown is watching pop’s every move, and espn will talk about how boring the spurs still are, while the “exciting teams” copy our every move. they can copy all they want, as long as we have a pioneer as the head coach they’ll always be followers.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Another innovation: The Spurs changed their Championship Banners to ‘NBA Champions’ instead of ‘World Champions’ several years ago.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Actually, Boston already started doing it. An analyst talked about it during the Cavalier game on the opening day. Of course, everyone will give credit to Boston…
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Interesting take. Do you have anymore insight into the rumored “dalliance with advanced statistics” you noted at the end of your piece?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
It’s more than a rumor, Gabe Farkas is a consultant for the San Antonio Spurs.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
[...] CelticsHub. Why Rondo’s extension puts the Celtics in a tricky spot for next year.9th: 48 Minutes Of Hell. The Spurs are one of the most forward-thinking outfits in American sports.10th: Off The Dribble. [...]
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Except for the fact that the Blazers first implemented a new sleep/practice schedule last season?
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/01/snoozing_to_stop_losing.html
Except for the fact that the Blazers have several players stashed in Europe (Koponen, Claver, Freeland), just like the Spurs?
Except for the fact that the Blazers have as “worldly” a locker room (Batum - France; Rudy - Spain; Mills - Indigenous Australian) as the Spurs (Parker, Mahinmi - France; Ginobli - Argentina)?
Except for the fact that the Blazers have long invested in advanced stats, hiring people such as Jeffrey Ma (MIT, “Bringing Down the House”)?
Otherwise, you’re right — the Spurs are way more progressive than any other American sports team.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
JH-
Need I remind you where Pritchard worked before he landed a job in Portland?
Also, the Spurs drafted Manu in ‘99 and Parker in ‘01. The Blazers drafted Rudy, Batum, and Mills in ‘07, ‘08, and ‘09, respectively. I think it’s fair to describe San Antonio as more pioneering when the Spurs were heavily scouting international talent almost a decade before the Blazers were.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Except for the fact that Spurs started half of your ‘excepts’ before the Blazers?
Except the Spurs do all that year in and year out AND win?
Except he never said the Spurs were more progressive than any other American sports team?
Otherwise, you’re right… except, you’re wrong?
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I rate this idea, I often find I play far better with some extra sleep, and I’m a lot younger (and less skilled
than these guys).
That said I did hear talk of the Celtics doing it on game night of the first game, and I’m sure other teams will too, the research wasn’t a secret.
If this keeps Manu healthy, it’s the best plan of the year =)
also @duncan, I love that fact! As an international we’ve always scoffed at saying World Champions, humility is far too underrated.
@JH Spurs were ahead on most of your ‘innovations’.
That said, Go Patty Mills xD
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
JH: The Spurs may not be the first to do everything, as Timothy, Graydon, and Andrew have already mentioned, they are pioneers of this sport.
Another thing I’d like to point out is, the Spurs stopped overpaying players a long time ago, unlike almost every other team in the league.
The Spurs have also been a classy team for a long time. David Robinson is the classiest ball player I can think of. The Blazers are going in the right direction now, but it wasn’t that long ago when every one was calling them the Jailblazers.
I don’t know much about how the Blazers use statistics for signing/trading/drafting players, and my apologies to Greg Oden, but I’m still in shock they took him over Durant.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I totally agree on this claim, the Spurs are one of the most innovative organizations in team sports.
I’m sure a lot of teams will try to follow what they are doing. Remember that most of the teams are scouting International players because of the Spurs success in doing it.
One of classiest organizations ever. The culture lives on, from David Robinson until now. It’s over a decade such an amazing feat.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
The Portland troll is unfortunately on to something. The Spurs didn’t do everything first but many of the teams that are also innovating hired people from the spurs organization.
The rule clue to Pop’s pioneering is back in 89 when he brought over Zarko, the Yugo Larry Bird. He was a flop but the seed was there a full ten years before Manu.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I was thinking the very same thing today when I linked Monroe’s article. Very well put, Tim, as always.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Also, Dennis Lindsey was hired for his supposed statistical knowledge, but obviously he wasn’t the first guy to be part of the new sabremetric movement. However, he did help with our new twist on the Hack a Shack which we employed in the playoffs a few years back.
I love the Spurs boosterism but putting as the forefront of every single category is really pushing things. Professionalism as an innovation? Come on.
What we have are traits that mirror the mindset of Coach Pop - some of which are classical, and some of which are yes, pioneering. A huge impetus to look for new ideas was the economic limitations imposed by the owners, which in certain categories forced the team to think outside the box, such as drafting qualified foreign players, as well as reinventing the worth of the second round by stashing players. The economic limitations also forced the team, before others, to truly understand how to work efficiently with the salary cap.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Modern day Blazer fans remind me of Spurs fans from about 10 years ago. Then, much like today’s Blazer’s fans, the Spurs where on the verge of cracking “elite” status. But then too we were a little on the overzealous side…
November 4th, 2009 at 1:02 am
i agree with hollywood here to an extent. i’d like to think bill russell would’ve been a spur in the league today, for instance, but he was a celtic (ugh) and a consummate pro. we can’t claim to be innovators in everything, but we have been near or on the forefront of a lot of things.
the exception i’ll take with hollywood is that while you can have an impetus, as the spurs have, you might not necessarily innovate. some clubs are mired in mediocrity for that very reason. there are other small market teams, other clubs whose bottom lines preclude signing megacontracts, but it’s still the spurs who have maintained a level of excellence far beyond expectations. i still feel (as does the article) that all this innovation, no matter the impetus, was an active choice by the organization, and therefore should be recognized and lauded accordingly. i think the recognition part has taken care of itself, seeing how many front office people around the league trace their roots to the spurs.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Another thing to consider that Andrew pointed at, is how consistently good the Spurs have been. The Lakers had a few poor years after trading Shaq and didn’t get back to the finals, than win again, until they did that ridiculously lopsided Gasol trade. Likewise the Celtics were a good team with Walker/Pierce, than they had a few bad years and didn’t win again until another “funny” trade went through and they landed KG.
The only other team in the league that in the past decade plus has been consistently good is the Detroit Pistons, but I feel that’s gone now with the loss of Billups and now Sheed.
The Spurs may not win the title every year, or even every other year, but being consistently great in any sport counts for something.
Sure we have Duncan, who is one of the best ever, but other teams have superstars, other teams have more money to throw around to hire better personnel, scouting, free agents, etc. The Lakers must make a killer profit and Blazers fans love to brag about how much money Paul Allen has.
Of course no organization in any field is going to be on the forefront of every new idea, and no one in this thread has said the Spurs were, but obviously the Spurs know something, and do something, that other teams don’t.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I don’t believe I implied that economic limitations would make every small market team innovate. I was talking about the Spurs. However, these limitations did inspire the creativity of our FO to find new ways to maximize our potential.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
It’s funny to think how all this innovation comes under the direction of a man we once thought had no ideas and was merely stealing the spotlight from Bob Hill upon David Robinson’s return. Not sure how much of a suprise it is given Pop’s intelligence and his basketball mentors (An innovative Don Nelson and a steeped in fundamental Larry Brown).
Looking back, the pre-Duncan year was the team I really got on board with the Spurs (was in middle school and just discovering basketball after a life steeped in baseball), and you could see some things even then-even with my then limited understanding of basketball.
I think few in the know have ever thought of the Spurs as an old and traditional outfit. Just the Stuart Scotts of the world. But uneventful often gets mistaken as boring, which in turn is misinterpreted as stagnant.
To steal from my own stuff:
“Over the past few years the Spurs have been a team to be watched simply for a great appreciation and understanding of basketball. Not boring, as the casual observer would claim, but not the thrill a minute roller coaster other marquee teams offer. I suppose—borrowing from Gregg Popovich’s hobbies—one could compare it to wine tasting vs. a keg party.
You appreciate wine. Savor it. Intellectually break down its tastes and smells amongst other aficionados. Wine tasting parties are scripted and on schedule. Keg parties you enjoy the hell out of. At the end of the night there might not be a single coherent thought and often you don’t know who you’re with but damn it if it wasn’t fun. Both can be enjoyable. Only one is exciting….”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
pop is indeed as innovative a coach as there ever was, but i can’t help but shake my head at his obvious and continuing distrust of young players. would anyone else like to see malik hairston on the active roster? it would be more beneficial to him and the spurs to have him out there during garbage time than keith bogans. if argument is keith bogan’s defense, george hill is our best defender, rj will be on the teams best, and hairston has proved himself as a good defender, plus he gives as that althleticism our team still sorely needs. sounds to me like typical pop. “i would rather play an experienced mediocre player than a young buck full of potential” i predict a loss in portland, but maybe the sleep schedule will help against those young legs
November 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I’m with you RJ for all the inovation we keep talking about seems developing young talent isn’t really one of them, yes I know there are exceptions
we seem to get some great young talent that seems to get lost through lack of PT. Would love
to see Malik get playing time over both Finley/Bogans and see Ian get time over Bonner/Ratliff. Would help with the explosive younger teams as well as developing the young talent we have.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
rj:
Garbage time is the worst spot to give end of the bench players game experience. The whole point of garbage time is to let the other guy score as quickly as possible in order to get the ball back for an extra offensive possession. The only thing you learn in garbage time is bad habits. Where Ian and Hairson will get the best possible experience is in practice, playing against the best the league has to offer day in and day out. It’s obvious that they just aren’t as good as you and others perceive, hence the suit coats on game days.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
hollywood: sorry, i wasn’t implying that you said every small market team would, or even should, innovate because of economic limitations. i was showing that this is exactly not the case, even though they also might have economic limitations as confining as the spurs, be they market or self-imposed (think memphis, milwaukee, charlotte, clippers). i agree that our FO has a great deal of creativity, and that is what sets the spurs apart. because of this relative equality of constraint, but disparate reaction, we should appreciate the spurs response more. basically i’m agreeing with you, but saying that not every team will respond to economic constraints as well as the spurs have.
also along the innovation thread:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-091104
I find this quote in particular amusing:
“The game is changing. It’s always changing, of course, but some seasons offer more change than others. This time it seems teams really have bought into the idea of using their 4-man as a perimeter shooter, spacing the floor and worrying about defense later. Toronto, Detroit, Oklahoma City, Miami and Phoenix are among the recent converts, and that’s probably why we’re seeing such a sharp increase in 3-point percentage, in particular.”
hollinger has taken his lumps on many trends and observations, but i like that he’s caught onto this trend (even if he doesn’t acknowledge early adopters like pop).
November 5th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Hollinger’s a tool.
Really the Mavs and Dirk need to be included in this as early proponents, though I hate giving Cuban or the Nellies any credit. There are times I really hate living in Dallas, but at least Don Nelson is sinking Golden State right now, so I only have to deal with Cuban’s mouth.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
This just came out…
Ginobili is NBA’s number one clutch palyer.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/john_schuhmann/11/05/clutch.numbersgame/index.html
November 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Highest True Shooting Percentage in Clutch Situations, Last Five Seasons
Player FGM FGA FG% 3PM 3PA 3PT% FTM FTA FT% PTS TS%
Manu Ginobili 96 219 0.438 29 83 0.349 202 235 0.860 423 0.656
Mehmet Okur 113 240 0.471 47 115 0.409 113 133 0.850 386 0.647
Steve Nash 146 318 0.459 54 127 0.425 171 192 0.891 517 0.642
Amar’e Stoudemire 102 187 0.545 0 6 0.000 128 171 0.749 332 0.633
Chauncey Billups 133 318 0.418 52 142 0.366 219 245 0.894 537 0.631
Carlos Boozer 109 190 0.574 0 0 — 75 99 0.758 293 0.627
Shawn Marion 126 230 0.548 11 37 0.297 68 88 0.773 331 0.616
Corey Maggette 84 204 0.412 10 42 0.238 189 215 0.879 367 0.615
Kyle Korver 68 180 0.378 35 112 0.313 124 141 0.879 295 0.609
Ming Yao 111 217 0.512 1 4 0.250 129 164 0.787 352 0.609
TS% = True Shooting Percentage = PTS/ (2*(FGA + (0.44*FTA)))
November 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Defenses are so quick to react I can see how spacing is more important than ever before. I’m grateful that Bonner is a great shooter, spaces the floor for the other players to operate, and plays within the system, however I wish he was better at least one more thing…rebounding, whatever.
Tangent: Also, a point on Bonner (and in saying this, I’m not a Bonner hater, just making an observation) but it seems like opposing players get inspired to play against Bonner - not because they think he’s good, but because they think they can score easily on him. This is sort of nebulous territory, but I would describe it as the opposite of being an intimidator. A facilitator? Rasheed’s quote would come into play here. For the last few games, whoever Bonner is guarding seems to be instructed to take it at him in the first few minutes of the game, and usually it has worked. Yes, Bonner is in position and gets his hands up and works his tail off, but, nonetheless, his presence seems to energize his opposing player. I would say that sort of describes our current defense. OUr fundatmentals are strong (basically) but there is no edge or intimidation to anything we do. It’s completely technical. The more minutes for Hill the better, I guess. Anyway: end tangent.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
And since I’m “on a roll”…
I think Pop has developed an archetype for his bench players. I think he doesn’t like young players because he doesn’t think they’re hungry enough or have enough experience to appreciate their opportunity. Playing in Europe seems to mature players and give them a more competitive attitude to succeed. If I had to think which player could possibly have created this archetype for Pop, I would have to say it would be Mario Ellie. Though he was completely American, he payed his dues, was a great defender, a leader, a great clutch shooter, and also spoke, what, like 5 languages from his time in foreign leagues?
Pop has said that the American system of developing players basically sucks so if he doesn’t draft Euros he at least wants them to play over there to retrain, build maturity, build some worldiness so they can fit into the Pop system.
This isn’t anything new to anyone I’m sure, but I think it’s interesting to see what Pop appreciates.
There are exceptions when a young player is too good to sit or send off to Europe, such as Blair, but he was basically a gift - not a typical 2nd round player.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
[...] CelticsHub. Why Rondo’s extension puts the Celtics in a tricky spot for next year.9th: 48 Minutes Of Hell. The Spurs are one of the most forward-thinking outfits in American sports.10th: Off The Dribble. [...]
Leave a Reply