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.

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.

TS% = True Shooting Percentage = PTS/ (2*(FGA + (0.44*FTA)))

Ginobili is NBA’s number one clutch palyer.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/john_schuhmann/11/05/clutch.numbersgame/index.html

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).

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.

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….”

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.

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.