Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010...3:45 am
4-Down Episode 9: What about Ian?
So we changed the name of the podcast. “The 48 Minutes of Hell Podcast” just wasn’t cutting it. Instead, we’re honoring the greatest play in all of team sports history, the 4-down.
In the ninth episode of the podcast - first using the new name - we had Tom Ziller of AOL Fanhouse and Sactown Royalty on to discuss the Spurs’ free agent big man Ian Mahinmi with Tim Varner and me. Mahinmi is an unrestricted free agent this summer, and we discuss the pros and cons of the Spurs making a run at re-signing the French national.
Some of Mahinmi’s public comments since the season ended lead you to believe that where Ian Mahinmi will sign depends on how much playing time he can get. Can the Spurs cater to his requests? Do they even want to? Or is Mahinmi just bluffing?
Ziller also took time to write a great piece on Mahinmi for Fanhouse, conveniently coinciding with our podcast:
Well-known veterans will indeed get the bulk of attention come July 1. But there’s a corps of young, relatively anonymous players up for grabs as well. One of the most mysterious in this set is 6′11 Spurs forward Ian Mahinmi. The Frenchman, 23, saw only spotty action in San Antonio this season, appearing in 26 games and logging more than 15 minutes in a game only twice. In that limited action, Mahinmi performed, shooting 63 percent from the floor and collecting more than 18 percent of all available rebounds while on the court.
That production syncs with his more extensive NBA D-League experience. Mahinmi played more than 1,300 minutes with the Spurs-owned Austin Toros in 2007-08, finishing the season third in the league in PER, top-10 in rebounds and blocks per game, fourth in effective field goal percentage, second in True Shooting percentage, second in Win Shares, and a first-team All D-League honoree. Basically, Mahinmi is what almost every team is looking for in the draft this June: an active, productive young big man.
Take a listen as three guys spend entirely too much time talking about a player who played 165 minutes last season and was fifth in the Spurs big man rotation.
Make sure to subscribe to the 48 Minutes of Hell podcast via RSS feed or iTunes. And tell your friends, because we’re awesome.
137 Comments
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:51 am
People forget that Mahinmi was named the development league’s all-star center, but all he basically did was sit on the bench for SA. Why??? The answer is probably an enigma to most fans. When I saw him play for the few minutes he looked OK, if a bit lost at times, but still showed a lot of potential. There must be a deeply hidden flaw in his play or possibly a lack of understanding of the game. But you can be assured that there are several teams out there who will be willing to double his salary for a chance to have him on their roster. With the Spurs salary cap problems I don’t think it bodes well for his return to silver and black. If the Spurs lose him and he pans out well for a new team, then I have to say that the blame would rest heavily on the shoulders of Coach Popovich. He should have tested him properly on the floor and not counted so heavily on his practice results. The Spurs aren’t likely to draft a better big man at the 20 spot. The only thought is that RC really believes he’ll get Splitter or has somehow worked out a trade deal, the rights to Splitter for a very high draft pick, that will bring a better big to SA. With Mahinmi gone the Spurs are left with a very weak front line. TD is not the rebounder he once was and Dice is beginning to show his age with less rebounding as well. Blair is great, but not tall enough to rebound well on a regular basis against teams with big front lines. If Pop relies on small ball too much with no real outside shooting threat, the Spurs will have a hard time reaching the playoffs.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:26 am
I’ve wondered if they were worried about developing him, only to have him leave for more money elsewhere. Since this team is looking to save some money and bring in talent (Splitter for one), it made some sense to let him sit and only get peanuts come free agency. Of course he could always go back to Europe for more money?
As discussed so many times, Splitter is needed for this team’s front court. Duncan is a year older, Dice is wearing thin, Bonner has limits, Blair is still learning.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:31 am
Too many fouls.
OTOH, with another year in the system, Ian might just get more minutes with the Spurs than last year. I expect Mahinmi to go back to Europe for a couple of years.
“48 Minutes of Hell Podcast” is as much better than “4-Down Podcast” as the Baltimore Bullets is better than the Washington Wizards.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:29 am
The Spurs have the MLE and the biannual exception (about $1.7M) this summer.
Based on his age and potential, Ian should receive some interest from around the league. And if he does choose to stay in the NBA next year, I think it’s reasonable that he’d demand a starting salary of about $1.5 - 2M. While Splitter might eat up most or all of the MLE, I’d be in favor of signing Ian to the biannual exception, which could lock him in for up to 2 years.
2 years starting at $1.7M should not only help the Spurs keep Ian at a reasonable price, but it will also allow Ian to receive his third NBA contract when he’s in his prime. I think it’d be a good deal for both sides.
But I agree with Jim - if we let Ian go and he flourishes elsewhere, it would have to go down as a mistake on the FO’s part.
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
I agree with Jim as I have stated in previous posts. Popovich is to blame for not developing Miahamini. As the guys state in their podcast Mahimini should have been given minutes earlier in the season to give duncan a rest. There should be plenty of minutes to go around if the Spurs go with a four man front court rotation with Duncan, splitter, Ian, and Blair. Love Bonner’s hustle but he should not be getting the minutes he gets.
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Like lots of folks on this site felt, Pop’s non-use of Ian this year was perplexing. He gave lots of players plenty of opportunities to show what they could do, but Ian was not one of ‘em. Sure, he’s foul prone. But so is DeJuan. When he did play, and against some pretty good defenders, he showed a pretty damn good offensive game. He was virtually unstoppable in the low post. In fact, I’d say he showed a more diversified offensive game than Blair. What added to the mystery was that the previous year Pop, on several occasions, lamented the fact that Ian had lost a year because of the mystery of his foot injury. Yet, the very next year is for all practical purposes lost as well because of non-use. Add to that our team’s very limited inside game and it just mystifies. I too hope the Spurs re-sign him and give him a chance, irregardless of whether we sign Splitter or not. Please, Pop, not another Scola.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
Honestly, if I was Ian and any team other than the Spurs offered me a contract, I’d take it in a second! Why would he want to resign with the Spurs just to sit on the bench for another year or two? Sure, Pop might decide to actually give him some court time, but chances are he won’t.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:21 am
God, i hope he doesn’t go to Europe.
I think he wants to return to the NBA. hopefully we trade Mcdyess and Mahinmi moves up the depth charts. I do like the idea of giving him heavy regular season minutes to rest Tim Duncan.
signing Splitter and retaining Ian would be a succesful offseason sans the draft
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
pick and roll defense, anyone?
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
I have mixed feelings about Mahinmi (worried about his instincts, his TO’s, his obliviousness on defensive rotations, and his penchant for fouling), but I do say at this point you either have to play him or let him go. If you keep him, you have to find out if he “can play”, and the only way to truly find that out is to give him regular minutes in the rotation, even if it’s as little as 10-15 mpg. He’s been in the system too long, and is too talented (has excellent scoring abilities in the paint, solid shooting mechanics, mobile in defending the pnr out off the block, solid rebounder & shot-blocker), to be the 11th man on a team with “aging and short” front line depth. Either free up his roster spot for someone that can help us, or give him a real shot at making a solid contribution in the front court rotation.
That said, one way to get a guy like Mahinmi more minutes is to improve our three-point shooting at the SF and guard spots. Many here complain about Bonner getting minutes over Mahinmi, but fail to note that Bonner gets those minutes (18 mmg.) because we have very little reliable three point shooting on this team, particularly with the utter demise of Mason during the second half of last season. We simply COULD NOT live on just the three-point shooting of Hill & Manu, both of which did not pick up their shot beyond the arc until the second half of the season. In fact, when Bonner went out with the hand injury in December/January, Mason’s minutes necessarily increased, because at that time he was still our best option for the additional three-point threat. NO team can win with only two above average three-point shooters in the entire rotation. We need to pick up at least one clutch 40%+ three-point shooter at the SF/Guard position. That should allow us to free up minutes for Mahinmi, by reducing Bonner’s minutes.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I know that Ian is foul-prone and that his game has holes. But how many atheltic, young, 7 footers are out there in the NBA right now. Andrew Bynum is the only one I can think of that fits the bill. And the Lakers took 5 years to develop him into the player he is now..and look at what he’s done for LA, I say we re-sign him and give him a chance. But if we dont, then best of luck whereber he goes.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The more I saw of Ian this year, the more I understood why Pop did not give him more minutes: despite Ian’s evident raw athletic abilities, he appears permanently ‘basketball challenged.’ And while it is not always justifiable to prefer basketball IQ or ’smart effort’ over athletic ability, this rule of thumb has served Pop well during his tenure as coach of the Spurs. (Naturally, when he can get it, Pop has preferred basketball IQ AND ability over just ability).
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Many project big men fail to pan out in this league. Mahinmi’s just one of them and it seemed evident this season that he couldn’t fit in with the Spurs rotation. Spurs should just move on - which they did by not picking up Mahinmi’s option. Hopefully Blair can fare a lot better than Mahinmi did in SA.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I believe the Spurs should try and take a page of the Suns playbook here. TP and Manu can get into the lanes and paint fairly easily and both are good finishers at the rim.
That said I believe having someone with dumb hops like Ian and fearlessness like Blair should lead to easy dunks if they trail the guard into the paint and as it collapses receive an easy dump pass.
Every time I see Nash feed Amare like this it drives me crazy. Don’t know why we don’t do that more often since TP and Manu can get to the same spots just as easily. We have athletic guys who can finish once there.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/04/06/top-50-2010-nba-free-agents/
At the link, listing 2010 FA’s provided at the Fanhouse article referenced in the main post, I would be interested in taking a serious look at any of the following, potentially “affordable” FA’s (this is NOT assuming a Splitter signing) :
TYRUS THOMAS, PF
BRENDAN HAYWOOD, C
RONNIE BREWER, SG
J.J. REDICK, SG
AMIR JOHNSON, PF
ANTHONY MORROW, SG
WESLEY MATTHEWS, SG
TONY ALLEN, SG
DORELL WRIGHT, SF
Any thoughts on these players?
Of course, there are other FA’s that Fanhouse doesn’t list. Feel free to chime in with any “realistic” ideas!
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@ jim
bonner is a free agent this summer. any thoughts on his potential return?
if we let him go we would be loosing a three point threat, but we would also be loosing our biggest defensive liability. bonner has proven to be an excellent regular season player, but when immersed in a playoff series in which each teams players must be accounted for on a game-per-game basis, bonner is ruled ineffective. teams will chase him off the three pt line, even more so now since duncan demands less double-teams, and he will be exposed in the low post. after these tactics are enacted, bonner is neutralized.
i would rather see mahinmi take bonners spot on our roster, but mcdyess is still higher on the depth charts. if our roster consisted of duncan, splitter, ian, and blair, that is just too much inexperience. dyess is a necesity, but maybe some regular season monitoring of minutes could garner ian some playing time.
i think his lack of b-ball iq and athleticism are directly related to his lack of playing time and real-time development of his skills. i would like to see ian be a building block for the spurs future, but you cannot blame his frustration. the guy needs minutes and he won’t get them in s.a.
we should let bonner go as well. he isn’t helping us win playoff series.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
rj
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“….. bonner is a free agent this summer. any thoughts on his potential return?”
For the right price, and assuming we are unable to come to terms with a suitable replacement [in terms of a combination PF/C, and the "right" 3-point shooter (s)], I’m open to resigning Bonner, at reduced/situational minutes (10 mpg.), as a “stretch” 4. That said, let me make myself clear: if resigning Bonner were to prevent us from signing a comparable shooter (or the “right” big man), but a better all-around player, then I would NOT be in favor of resigning Bonner.
On the other hand, we don’t want to “give away” ANY shooters “too cheaply”. We want to ADD three point shooters (and a stretch 4 is a unique plus in certain situations). We are hopelessly deficient in this area at present, and have limited resources to fill the need. Bonner knows the system, has made some strides in taking the ball off the dribble, when necessary, is an adequate rebounder (for a stretch four, outside of Dirk, Jamison, & Troy Murphy - at 7 boards per 36 mins.) and defender in “limited” minutes, and in some respects, it’s just simply easier to sign your own FA’s. So, while I’m not thrilled at the prospects of resigning Bonner, the team is simply not in the position to make a categorical statement on this matter at present.
Regarding Mahinmi, as my previous post describes, I’m equivocal about him, for a variety of reasons. My only point is that I think it’s time for the team to either “shit or get off the pot” as it relates to Ian. In other words, either play him, or let him go. I’m very content with the FO deciding which way to go on this, but please, pick one or the other. If Ian’s not playing and contributing, we need to fill his roster spot with another player that can make an impact (regardless of whether we sign Splitter or not).
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
@Jim
“Many here complain about Bonner getting minutes over Mahinmi, but fail to note that Bonner gets those minutes (18 mmg.) because we have very little reliable three point shooting on this team, particularly with the utter demise of Mason during the second half of last season.”
Bonner routinely hits the three point shot during regular season when teams do not prepare to stop all players. But during the playoffs he disappears annually. During the playoffs teams take away a lot of things players can do because they can prepare for them better. Bonner career playoff percentage is 31.8 percent at the three. I do not believe 31.8 percent is a reliable three point shooter. Regular Season he is at 40 percent. He routinely drops his shooting percentage every time he is in the playoffs. If he is not hitting the 3 pointer he is not helping out the team and those minutes he was getting were undeserved. Some players step up in the post season and other shrink. Unfortunately for Matt he is the latter.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Jim Henderson
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Jim, here are my thoughts on each:
TYRUS THOMAS, PF - Great “potential” with a bad attitude. Hasn’t improved in 3 years. No thanks.
BRENDAN HAYWOOD, C - no way he signs for MLE.
RONNIE BREWER, SG - love him since he’s from my alma mater, great defender but can’t shoot. He could play the Bruce Bowen role if we get some shooters.
J.J. REDICK, SG - he would be a good fit for the Spurs. Can shoot and defend.
AMIR JOHNSON, PF - Great athleticism. No offensive moves.
ANTHONY MORROW, SG - would love to get him. He could be special but has been buried at GS with the worst coach and organization in the league
WESLEY MATTHEWS, SG - Blah.
TONY ALLEN, SG - Great defender, no offensive game
DORELL WRIGHT, SF - He would be an interesting piece to pick up. He can defend and shoot the 3. Very interesting.
Here are the realistic players (in order) that I think the Spurs could get for the MLE.
1. Anthony Morrow - he has a nasty (I mean sick nasty) stroke. He doesn’t have the entire offensive repertoire of Ray Allen, but he sure does have the shot. Not a great defender, but a decent rebounder for a SG.
2. JJ Reddick - he just looks like a Spurs kind of player to me. He is a surprisingly good defender and can shoot the 3 ball. He would be a great bench/role player
3. Ronnie Brewer - For all you Bruce Bowen lovers, he could be his heir apparent. Ronnie is a great defender who can immediately start and play 30+ minutes/game. He is a Super athlete, but we would need to get a 3pt. shooter as well as Brewer.
4. Mike Miller - this is a pipe dream since he won’t sign for the MLE, but Miller is a very nice player. Good passer, good shooter, can be a GREAT bench player. Think Brent Barry 2.0
All of these suggestions are assuming we can’t sign Splitter. We would have to trade for a good big since none will be had for the MLE.
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Gotta agree with the comment that the Spurs should have picked up his option. An active, young, developing big man is hard to get in the NBA.
But, I don’t know for sure if Mahinmi can play. I saw him in 2 summer league games. He looked good against BJ Mullens, Ibaka, by drawing a lot of fouls. But, had some unforced turnovers. I remember the highlight against the Nets of a block shot and run the floor for a dunk on the same possession.
Pop won’t play youngsters for some reason. Clearly after scoring 15 pts and 9 reb vs the Nets in San Antonio, I could have sworn Mahinmi would play against the Nets in NJ, but he didn’t. Especially, since the Spurs threw the game away by not playing Ginobili and LOST to the 8 win team and not playing Mahinmi.
Can’t even compare Mahinmi to his 2005 draft yr counterparts: Marcin Gortat, Ronny Turiaf, Ersan Ilyasova, Brandon Bass, David Lee, Jason Maxiell, Wayne Simien, Andray Blatche, Chris Taft, Hakim Warrick, Channing Frye, Andrew Bynum, etc. Most of those players I can discern their known skill set. Mahinmi, I have no idea.
I’d resign him cheaply if possible (doesn’t seem likely) and play him early in the season to see what he’s got. Why Pop can’t do like Gentry in the regular season and for a 20 game stretch give him guaranteed minutes? 1st 6 minutes of every 2nd and 4th qtr or 1st 6 minutes of every 1st and 3rd qtr - for example, and live with him getting 4 fouls in 6 minutes or 3 turnovers in a 6 minute stretch. Waste a timeout and scream at him for errors, but he gets to play through his mistakes, so that you know what he can do.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Jim,
I agree about Ian. I’d like to keep him but we have to play him. He showed potential in limited minutes (.198 wp48 in 165 minutes). His biggest problem is fouls. He was on track to average fouling out in about 30 minutes a game. However, that’s normal for young guys who don’t get to play much. I hope we keep him unless we get Splitter and draft a PF/C.
As for the free agents, here are their WP48 and Wins Produced this year.
Tyrus Thomas - .197 WP48 2.78 WP
Brendan Haywood - .182 WP48 8.95 WP
Ronnie Brewer - .087 WP48 3.01 WP
J.J. Redick - .119 WP48 4.48 WP
Amir Johnson - .252 WP48 7.63 WP
Anthony Morrow - .84 WP48 3.53 WP
Wesley Matthews - .063 WP48 2.66 WP
Tony Allen - .156 WP48 2.89 WP
Dorrel Wright - .167 WP48 5.2 WP
.100 wp48 is average so only 3 guys here are below average. Matthews was above average for a rookie, Morrow is solid for a sophmore, and Brewer was above average the previous 3 seasons and this one wasn’t terrible so he gets a pass. I would say this is an excellent list from a pure production stand point. I would take anyone here depending on what happens with Splitter and the draft.
I may be most interested in Wright if we think he can stay healthy. He’s young but has had some issues, hopefully he’s over them. He’s a good defender with a nice 3 pt shot. If we could get him in FA, brought Splitter over, and drafted Sanders I think we’d have a really solid roster. This would mean that we’d have to let Ian go though.
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
48MOH,
Can you make your podcast iPhone accessible? Flash media limits your audience. The Sports Guys podcasts are iphoneable so it’s possible it seems.
Just a thought. I’m curious to hear this Ian discussion but unable to for the moment with the present technology.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Great podcast… no rambling.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
The fact that Pop threw Blair right into the mix as a rookie while Manihimi stayed on the bench is telling on it’s own. Pop isn’t a rookie hating coach, he has been very quick to playe younger players after that time has been earned. Key word is earned, and the list is long, Parker, Manu, S-Jax, Beno, Hill, and Blair have all come in and gotten important roles in a Spurs uniform in the beggining portion of their careers. Whatever Manihimi has shown or not shown in practice is the reason that he did not play, no other reason. No conspiracy theory, Manihimi did not show enough during training camp to warrant his option to be picked up and I doubt the Spurs would go over what Manihimi’s rookie contract would have paid him. Millions of dollars have been invested into this project with the hopes he would be able to make a Ibaka type impact and he hasn’t. I trust Pop and the rest of the Spurs coaching staff in all matters related to basketball, especially the discovery of talent and being able to know when they have a “Spur” type player.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
As far as in roster moves, with our limited salary cap options and limited 3 point shooting, I very much expect Bonner to be back in a Spurs uniform. I also expect the Spurs to target 3pt shooters with whatever is left over w/ the MLE after bringing Splitter over and the best available player that is willing to sign for the LLE.
If we don’t land Splitter than Option #1 immediately becomes Mike Miller and option #1B is JJ Reddick.
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Is there any truth to the rumor that the Spurs are looking to ship Parker out to the Pacers for Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush, and the #10 pick?
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:17 am
DNITCH
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Well, I haven’t heard anything about it. If it were true, there’s a good chance we’d have to include our 20th pick in the deal. Indiana’s not going to let go of Murphy very easily. He’s one of the more productive PF’s in the game. Plus, he’s a stretch four that can also rebound, a pretty unique and awesome combination. Rush hasn’t done much yet, but he’s young & athletic, has some defensive potential, and can hit the three. Obviously the 10th pick would be an upgrade over #20. The salaries involved do appear to offset, making it feasible on the financial end, but I’m not sure that this deal makes Indiana better. They don’t really have someone that can replace Murphy, unless they think Hansbrough (a very different type of player - 13th pick of 2009) can come off an injury-plagued rookie season and give them enough (along w/Jeff Foster) to compliment the emergence of Roy Hibbert, and the scoring machine of Danny Granger. And then, do they have a problem with getting full use out of T.J. Ford in a back-up role. In addition, do they just want expiring deals, or do they want to resign Parker? And could they, even if they wanted to? As far as the Spurs go, Murphy would be an excellent fit in the rotation (although not a great defender) with Duncan, Blair, & McDyess, and it’s possible (although far from guaranteed) that Rush could become our small forward of the future. Of course, the # ten pick could be pretty good in this years draft. On the downside, Hill is not ready to take over for TP at the point, so not getting Ford back in the deal is a drawback. If the Pacers are mainly after expiring deals, we could go ahead and package RJ, along with TP & McDyess, and take back Murphy, Ford, Foster, & Rush. All seven players have expiring deals, which would allow both teams maximum flexibility, and the potential for significant cap relief in 2011 (Pacers about 32 mil., Spurs about 27 mil.). The deal would immediately upgrade the productivity, youth, and size on our front line (and add a three-point shooter - Murphy shoots 39% from behind the arc). Obviously the Spurs would consider such a deal with the hopes that it works out, and that they would want to (and could) resign most of the players (perhaps not Foster) in the deal. If not, they get significant cap relief, with the ability to sign other FA’s in 2011.
It’s a rumor, but at least it doesn’t appear to be completely far-fetched! That said, I’m not sure I like the deal too much, because I think we need to focus more on defense, particularly in the paint. I do like Murphy, but he would invariably steal minutes from Blair, thwarting his development, and we would still need a young defender/shot-blocking type of player in the paint as well, in my view.
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:52 am
@Hollywood
Go ahead and subscribe on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=355882287). That oughta let you listen to it on your iPhone.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:15 am
@ jim
all this talk about spur type players: tj ford is not the spur type player. he is wildly inconsistent and is plagued by character issues.
acquiring troy murphy would definately help with the stretch four position, but neither he or foster provides much of a defensive upgrade in terms of shot blocking and athleticism under thre basket. foster is nearly the same age as duncan and his career has been riddled with back problems. i would rather see us bring in/keep our young talent at these positions. other than dumping rj’s contract, i don’t see how acquiring these guys makes our team any better unless we use rj salary to acquire an impact player.
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 am
I did a whole write up on the missed opportunities found in Ian Mahinmi’s time with the Spurs here:
http://airalamo.com/2010/05/26/on-missed-opportunities/
sorry for the blatant pimping of another site, but I didn’t want to hog space here in the comments section
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:43 am
Oh, and I don’t think that we have to use an exception to re-sign Mahinmi as the Spurs should have his bird rights
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:01 am
48,
It looks like you have to be on a wifi network. Back to my original problem.
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:56 am
Troy murphy would be great if we didn’t think we were getting Splitter. Otherwise you have 96 minutes to slit between, Blair, Splitter, Murphy, and TD. These should all be 25+ minutes a game guys next year. This doesn’t even mention McDyess or our lack of PG depth. Not a fan of Rush, but I guess he’s in there just to make the salaries work.
The more I think about this team the less I want to move a big piece. RJ sucked in the first half, but was above average in the second. So with our current roster we’ve got 3 good guards, a solid wing, and two good bigs. This is a strong core. What we need is depth and 3 pt shooting. Splitter gives us a solid 7 man core and McDyess and a draft pick can fill the end of the rotation. So depth looks fine. The only thing not really addressed is 3 pt shooting. That’s a tough one. If we get Splitter, figuring out our jump shooting may be the make or break element for the coming season. This would need to be addressed through the draft, FA, and our current roster (Temple, Hairston, etc.) and hope that one or more of these guys is able to make it in our rotation as a jump shooter.
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
@ Jim, Chad Ford’s blog didnt say anything about us dealing them the #20 pick also. So it was my understanding that we would have 2 first round draft picks. I also like Murphy in this deal, even though he is already 30 he would be a definite upgrade over Bonner and is great on the boards.
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:20 am
You do not trade Tony Parker for Troy Murphy
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:35 am
“You do not trade Tony Parker for Troy Murphy”
Because Tony Parker is less productive for a PG then Murphy is for a PF/C?
Seriously though, the question for really is who fills a bigger need? Troy or Tony. I think TP fills a need (true PG) that will be harder to fill through FA, draft, and trade.
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:39 am
Oh No!
Reportedly Spurs Free Agents Matt Bonner and Roger Mason JR are considering invitations to attend the “Free Agent Summit” being held by Lebron and D-Wade!
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Where the hell is BALLHOG in all of this?!? Maybe he can explain to Cory Clay how it was, in fact, Pop’s bias that kept him from playing this hardworking, kind, and gentle man.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:59 am
what is up with this free agent Legion of Doom summit? who gives a crap! what do they plan to accomplsih, i mean really. are they going to make suggestions as to which uniforms they looks best in or which cities have the best sandwiches?
jeez, guys. get over yourselves
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Yes, I very much need someone to explain to me Pop’s bias. In the same year that rookie Dejuan Blair was a part time starter and a player given a valuable role in the rotation, it is quite obvious that Pop is very bias against all young players. (Sarcasm)
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:47 am
Although I’m not been a fan of trading TP, this deal makes a little more sense than most I’ve heard.
Troy Murphy, although not a real good defender, does fill a need as a 3pt shooter/stretch 4 and is another large expiring ($12M). Rush has been hit and miss (mostly miss thus far), but he’s got talent, he’s young, and he’s cheap. Maybe in the right system he can become a solid contributor. The #10 pick is also nice, especially if we keep the #20.
Having said that though, I’d don’t believe Hill can adequately replace TP - I think we get weaker at the most important position. A guard rotation of Hill, Manu, RJ, Hairston, and Rush isn’t title worthy. And if we don’t bring Splitter over, we still have a hole defensively in the middle after Duncan.
However, if this deal did go down, I don’t see this as our last move. I would expect the Spurs to try and attempt to move up further in the draft by packaging our picks and either Blair or Splitter for a top 5 pick, (possibly top 3?). Maybe I’m crazy, but I think Favors and/or Turner might be our target. They both feel like Spurs-type guys - quiet, non-assuming, no baggage, hard workers, etc.
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Tyler has a point…so let me rephrase my past statement:
You do not trade Tony Parker for Troy Murphy unless you know for sure you can turn around and get a top three pick out of it somehow.
As Bill Simmons has said you do not dominate for a decade or more without a top lottery pick somewhere in there…the Spurs stretched that to 13 due to some high value picks at low positions, but the window is closing
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Just remember, top 10, or even top 5 lottery picks, acquired through the DRAFT, are FAR from guarantees to become franchise-type players. And as I’ve said in previous posts, championships are comprised of a lot of different variables falling into place, and the ACQUISITION of top lottery picks through TRADE or FREE AGENCY, after the draftee has already shown his metal in the NBA, is invariably a significant part of the equation in most cases. I’m not too keen on trading up high in this draft, and think our chances of doing it are very remote anyways. And I definitely do not want to include Blair or Hill in any such negotiations.
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
DNITCH
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
“….Chad Ford’s blog didnt say anything about us dealing them the #20 pick also.”
Yeah, I don’t see Indiana doing that.
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“Parker for Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush, and #10.”
I would do this. Sure Murphy isn’t the shot blocking 7 footer we need, but neither is Splitter. Murph is a HUGE upgrade over Bonner and would be an excellent fit for Blair if they were both on the floor at the same time. In fact, Duncan maybe even able to take nights off (or at least reduce his minutes) with those two on the floor. Murphy is in the last year of a contract so it wouldn’t be any larger of a financial commitment. In fact, I think Murphy could be resigned for a considerably smaller contract compared to Parker who will be gunning for a long term/max type deal next summer.
Brandon Rush is a throw in, but he could spare Manu for serious minutes every night. The real prize in this trade is the #10 draft pick. We could possibly flip a combination of Splitter(assuming he doesn’t come over) the #20, and #10 pick for a top 5 pick. That would definitely be the icing on the cake. Assuming we got Turner/Favors while trading Splitter and the #10 (many assumptions here, but nothing unrealistic) here’s what the entire trade would look like:
Spurs trade Parker, Splitter, and #10
Spurs get: Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush, and Evans/Favors while still keeping #20 pick.
The Spurs would get a real stretch 4 (Matt Bonehead hardly counts) a decent young backup shooting guard, and a future star in Turner/Evans. Our only real loss in the trade would be Parker assuming Splitter doesn’t want to play for the Spurs. (In the world of finance, Splitter would be called a sunk cost. We paid for him years ago and he just never panned out so in a way we would be giving up nothing, since he won’t play for us anyway. With Splitter, we in essence would be getting something in return for nothing) This is all assuming Splitter doesn’t come over.
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I agree with Jim about not being a fan on trading up in this draft. This is not a top heavy draft, but it is a deep one. Honestly, Cousins I think is the only thing close to a guaranteed franchise type player, except he has attitude issues. So I wouldn’t want to give up what is necessary to trade up unless our FO was just convinced that some guy up top was the guy. In fact, I’m not a big fan of trading up at all. This draft is deep and I think we can get a good value at #20. If we could get a second first round pick in the 10-20 range I would be fan of that. Get a wing and a PF/C. I’d much rather do that than trade up to top 5.
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Don’t like the Pacers trade. Murphy is a slight Bonner upgrade. Brandon Rush is soft and timid. #10 wouldn’t make that big an impact with the Spurs.
I’d much rather stick with the proposed Parker, rights to Splitter, #20 with the Nets for Harris, #3, and I’d make sure to insist that Terrence Williams be included (a much better player than Brandon Rush @ the same salary).
Parker and Splitter could be enticements for Lebron James to join the Nets. Splitter might even make more than the mid-level from the Nets. Nets could still then trade Yi for Bosh. Nets 3 man big rotation of Lopez, Bosh, and Splitter would appeal to James.
Spurs get deeper and younger. Nets get Lebron enticement chips.
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
The Nets deal is a bit better. Is that a rumor or just something proposed here?
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I’m not necessarily advocating a TP trade or trading up in this draft. I’m just pointing out the fact that you DO NOT make the TP trade as your last move. In other words, if a top 3 draft pick can’t be acquired with the proceeds from the Indiana trade, you simply don’t pull the trigger on the Indiana trade.
And although a high draft pick is anything but guaranteed to become a franchise player, there simply aren’t too many ways the Spurs as currently constructed will acquire that type of player. We aren’t a free agent destination, and unless we can flip RJ/McDyess’s expirings for that player, what do we fall back on after the TD era? Blair and Hill are nice players, and I think Splitter will be a solid role player, but you still need that superstar(s) to win a title. The draft is our best chance to get that quality of player.
If our FO sees that cornerstone/game changing player in the draft (not saying I do), I think this scenario is plausible. Now whether or not Indiana would pull the trigger on Parker is another story. Personally, I believe they’d rather go with the youth movement and rebuild through the draft a la OKC. And why would Indiana trade for TP when they’d most likely be renting him for a year? I doubt TP would choose to resign there.
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:14 pm
hobson13
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“Parker for Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush, and #10.”
Do you really see Indiana doing that deal? What for? All it amounts to is juggling players around a year before you can create cap space, because the Pacers don’t have a prayer of resigning TP. Plus, it really doesn’t help them even for next year. On the other hand, it could help the Spurs, and you’ve outlined one scenario to play with. But the fact is, trades have to make sense for BOTH teams, and I’d like someone to tell me how this benefits the Pacers (by not requiring our #20 pick in the deal)?
bduran
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I pretty much agree with your sentiments. It’s more of a “deep” draft than amazingly “top-heavy” one.
lvmainman
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Don’t like the Pacers trade. Murphy is a slight Bonner upgrade.”
That’s a ridiculous statement. There’s NO comparison between Bonner & Murphy.
“I’d much rather stick with the proposed Parker, rights to Splitter, #20 with the Nets for Harris, #3, and I’d make sure to insist that Terrence Williams be included (a much better player than Brandon Rush @ the same salary).”
Yeah, I’m sure you’d prefer that deal. The problem is, nobody in their right mind would give you that deal. The Nets aren’t going to give us Harris (younger than Parker), Williams (a young triple double guy), and the #3 pick (e.g., Cousins, etc.) for Parker, a guy that’s not NBA proven, or even committed to coming to the NBA (Splitter), & the #20 pick (chances are not an impact player). And your speculation about how the Nets could get LeBron James out of all this involves multiple players & multiple teams, and is completely unrealistic.
b.diddy
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“The Nets deal is a bit better. Is that a rumor or just something proposed here?”
You really had to ask that? That deal is less likely than even “rumor”.
Tyler
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
“And although a high draft pick is anything but guaranteed to become a franchise player, there simply aren’t too many ways the Spurs as currently constructed will acquire that type of player. We aren’t a free agent destination, and unless we can flip RJ/McDyess’s expirings for that player, what do we fall back on after the TD era? Blair and Hill are nice players, and I think Splitter will be a solid role player, but you still need that superstar(s) to win a title. The draft is our best chance to get that quality of player.”
No, look at the Pistons championship team of 2003-2004. They acquired key lottery picks through trades.
“And why would Indiana trade for TP when they’d most likely be renting him for a year? I doubt TP would choose to resign there.”
Yes, you’re exactly right about that.
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Jim Henderson
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“Do you really see Indiana doing that deal? What for?”
Hey, this trade wasn’t my idea. Check out Chad Ford’s chat wrap from yesterday. He says this scenario has been floating around. I just tried to explain how it would work from a Spurs standpoint. The Pacers will have some serious cap space this next summer to blow on a FA. They could offer Parker a hell of a lot more than we could. If the Pacers could lock Parker down to a contract (multiyear max level deal), I believe they do it. If they can’t, then I agree that this trade makes no sense for the Pacers.
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I can’t say that I like any of the proposed deals here for Tony. Personally, I’m in the camp that would not trade TP unless a deal so good came along that we’d be idiots not to. That said, if we’re talking deals just for the sake of discussion, here’s something that I think makes a lot more sense:
Tony to Orlando for Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson, and filler to make the salaries work
We get a much better shooter for our back-court in Nelson (whose salary is about 2/3 of Tony’s and seems to be locked in for an extra year) and a younger but slightly less skilled version of Bonner in Anderson. Anderson is also still on his rookie contract, so he’s cheaper than what we’d likely have to pay to keep Bonner. Orlando gets the dribble penetration in Tony that they currently lack.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Tony Orlando
lol
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Tony Parker 2009 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK_CK_mddeE
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Hobson13
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I know it’s not “your” deal, but you were assessing it. Personally, I think Chad Ford is out of his mind to seriously suggest that the Pacers would even consider this deal without requiring us to give up the #20 pick. Parker’s good, but he alone cannot possibly command those two Indiana players PLUS their tenth pick. No way, particularly since the deal doesn’t make much sense for the Pacers anyway.
And do you really think that Parker’s best offer will ultimately be to play for Indiana? Can you imagine Eva Longoria going to his games in Indianapolis?
Sure, the original deal floated on Ford’s chat would give the Spurs something to work with, but you have to admit, it’s not realistic from the Pacers perspective — and certainly not without demanding our 20th pick in return.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Joe
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“……would not trade TP unless a deal so good came along that we’d be idiots not to.”
“Tony to Orlando for Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson….”
That’s the type of deal you’re referring to?
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
@Jim
” . . . it’s not realistic from the Pacers perspective.”
This isn’t just directed at you since you didn’t start the rumor and a number of other posters here seem to like the deal. That said, in 2008/2009, a number of sports writers listed Tony as their #5 pick on their MVP ballots. This year, he played all season with a bad ankle and/or plantar fasciitis (forgive the spelling) and only made his injury public when the media started questioning his motor.
The notion that the Pacers deal listed here is even remotely adequate from our side is a knee-jerk reaction to Tony having a bad season plagued by injuries. If Larry Bird calls up RC with that deal, he slams the phone down, and then calls Bird back just so he can slam it down again.
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@ Jim Henderson,
I enjoy your posts with the 100% skepticism that crappy trades have never happened in NBA history. Like the Pau Gasol trade never happened. Like Pau Gasol, the Rookie of the year in 2002 and an all-star that avg 18 pts, 8.5 reb, 3.1 assists wasn’t traded for Kwame Brown’s 5.7 pts and 5.7 rebs, rights to a player overseas (Marc Gasol), Crittendon and 1st round picks.
Pau Gasol has been in the Finals every year since the trade. You act like that trade never took place. Or a trade like that it could never happen again.
Or the Rasheed Wallace trade to the Pistons for garbage like Rebraca? and Bob Sura and a draft pick.
Comical.
Yes, Harris is a yr younger, cheaper than Parker but doesn’t have 3 rings or a Finals MVP(Nets see as their advantage). Yes, Splitter might not join the NBA but the signing of Lebron James and a chance to make more than the mid-level exception might convince him(Nets see as their advantage seeing how Spurs messed up on Scola and thinking a Euro MVP is better than #3 pick). Yes, Terrence Williams is a triple double threat vs a #20 pick (Nets see as Spurs advantage). So, maybe in a 3 on 3 trade, the Nets think getting the best of 2 out of 3 would help them. You never know if you don’t offer trades.
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
@Jim
“That’s the type of deal you’re referring to?”
No, there was the other part of my post that you conveniently glossed over:
” . . . if we’re talking deals just for the sake of discussion, here’s something that I think makes a lot more sense . . .” than a Pacers deal in which you’re proposing that the best Tony, the best performer on a 54-win 2008-2009 team, can net us is the second or third best player on teams that have finished with 36, 36, and 32 wins over the past 3 seasons.
I wouldn’t do the deal with Orlando because it’s still not close to equal value. It is, however, much, much closer to equal value than the Pacers deal.
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Jim Henderson
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
“And do you really think that Parker’s best offer will ultimately be to play for Indiana? Can you imagine Eva Longoria going to his games in Indianapolis?”
I am in the camp that believes Parker would like to play for a larger market team. However, with that said, what large market team has the cap room next year to offer him a max type deal?
New York - they are going after two big guys THIS year. They’ve been unloading salary for the past 2 years for THIS summer. They will not wait until next year.
Chicago - much the same. They have the cash for 1 big agent and they are going in this year
LA Lakers - they’re already zillions over the cap
LA Clippers - they are the Clipper. Nothing else to say
Houston - they should have some cap space this next summer if they lose Ming
Miami - they are on the same plan as the Knicks
Here’s my point, THIS summer is the huge free agent with 8 legitimate big names not next year with Parker and Ming leading the charge. Teams like the Knicks and Heat who have cut financial corners the last few years are going to buy this year thus taking these big teams off the market for the 2011 FA crop. Bottom line: Parker may really want to go to a bigger market, but money will dictate where he goes and the big boys (without a sign and trade) won’t have the money to blow on Parker. Indy, however, will have plenty come next summer.
“Parker’s good, but he alone cannot possibly command those two Indiana players PLUS their tenth pick.”
Perhaps you are right about commanding TWO players, but it wouldn’t be a reach to think Parker could get Murphy plus the #10. Murphy is a good player, who we could definitely use, but he hasn’t gotten the Pacers into the playoffs. Parker essentially did that for the Spurs last year and would be a great fit alongside Granger. If the Pacers need a sweetener then throw in a second round pick. To repeat from my last post, the real question is whether Parker will resign with the Pacers. If he is willing, then the deal is plausible.
P.S. If we trade Parker, we really need to wait this out. We won’t get the best offers until later in the summer when the big names are gone, IMO. Screw anyone who wants to wait until the trade deadline to make an offer.
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Joe
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
“The notion that the Pacers deal listed here is even remotely adequate from our side is a knee-jerk reaction to Tony having a bad season plagued by injuries. If Larry Bird calls up RC with that deal, he slams the phone down, and then calls Bird back just so he can slam it down again.”
I’m quite aware of TP’s physical problems this year. I for one do not evaluate Tony’s value from just last year, but for the entire body of his work. That said, the Pacers are not going to trade away Murphy, Rush, AND their 2010 #10 pick for TP, a guy they would have a snowballs chance in hell at resigning after just one year with the team.
And Bird would never call up RC to offer such a deal for fear he’d be declared certifiably insane for merely entertaining the notion, even for a flash.
lvmainman
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
“I enjoy your posts with the 100% skepticism that crappy trades have never happened in NBA history. Like the Pau Gasol trade never happened.”
Well, you got me there! Out of all the deals that happen, what percentage of them meet the Gasol-type criteria? One percent? So okay, the deal you proposed might be as likely as the Gasol deal. A one in a hundred shot, at best. Another good example on the Wallace trade, and that’s about right, one trade like that comes around about every 6 years. That’s fine if that’s the type of deals that you enjoy thinking about. And if the Spurs can pull a deal like that off, more power to them! After all, nothing’s impossible. I guess I just prefer to talk about the types of deals that are just a little more likely, and that make a little more sense for both teams.
Joe
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
‘It is, however, much, much closer to equal value than the Pacers deal.”
I disagree. In fact, I don’t think it’s as good of a value, let alone “much, much closer to equal value”.
Hobson13
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“However, with that said, what large market team has the cap room next year to offer him a max type deal?”
I understand your point, it will be tougher next year. That said, I’m willing to bet Parker finds a nice home outside of Indianapolis, one way or the other. He’d rather play in a good market, and better location(and for a “good team, if possible), for a little less money than play in Indianapolis. Trust me on that one. We have to wait to see what all the signings end up doing to the cap spaces, and factor in all the new expiring deals on all the teams before we can be sure who can afford TP, and who can’t. I’m willing to bet that they’ll be a team from a better market who’s willing to give TP a very good contract, even if it needs to be as a sign & trade deal. But we’ll see. Just don’t count on him coaching the Hoosiers when he retires.
June 4th, 2010 at 3:08 am
Let me point out to the ‘like the Pacers deal’ crowd that at the trade deadline, Cleveland almost got Murphy for Ilgauskas’ expiring deal. In the deal that Cleveland did make to pick up Jamison, Ilgauskas was released and returned to the Cavs ASAP, so Cleveland gave up NOTHING other than agreeing to take on extra money. They may or may not have had to throw in JJ Hickson to make the Murphy deal work, but every time I see Hickson play, I come away with the impression that he’s a good athlete that has no idea how to play the game.
So basically, what you all are saying is that you think we should give up Tony for a guy that was almost salary-dumped a few months ago, a guy (Rush) who probably has a better chance of not even being in the league 3 years from now than he has of being a decent rotation player, and the #10 pick, which is only a little bit better in this particular year’s draft than our own pick at #20? AND, you would throw in our #20?
Jim, I think you often make decent points, but you are way off on this one. I don’t intend to get into a protracted back-and-forth, so let’s just say that I’ve said what I have to say.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:29 am
“Cleveland almost got Murphy for Ilgauskas’ expiring deal”
This would have fallen under the terrible deal category. I’d also like to point out that just because a terrible FO tries to give away a player for cash doesn’t mean that the player is bad. Troy is an efficient scorer, can shoot the 3, and is a good rebounder. Great qualities to have in a big. If Cleveland had pulled this off they’d probably still be playing right now. Using Indiana’s FO decisions as a way to rate a player is a bad idea.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:58 am
@ Jim
True, the Pistons did acquire most of that team through trades, but I don’t think too many thought at the time that those guys would have the kind of success that they did - credit Joes Dumars for some serious foresight. In other words, it wasn’t as if Detroit was trading for what everyone thought were superstars at the time. Good players? Of course. But superstars? Probably not. And because those guys weren’t considered necessarily championship level, Dumars was able to get the on the cheap.
My point is that it’s entirely possible to trade for good or even very good players. But the likelihood that the Spurs replicate what Detroit did (win a ring w/o a bonafied superstar), is probably remote - they’re the only team that’s won a ring w/o a superstar in the past 25+ years. I think it’s highly more likely that we find that superstar in the draft.
And when it comes to winning a ring, you need a superstar, and probably more than 1 - I would consider the Pistons as the exception to that rule. That’s why I’d be in favor of moving into the top 3 if our FO saw that next franchise player.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I think we all know that the Spurs won’t be trading one of their big time players…they never have and they never will, it’s just not their MO
June 4th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I guess the Elliot trade would be an exception to that
June 4th, 2010 at 10:20 am
@bduran
I didn’t say that Murphy is a horrible player, but he isn’t remotely on the same plain as Tony.
Tony’s CV: Finals MVP, 3-time All-Star, 3rd team All-NBA
Murphy’s CV:
Murphy’s skill set would be a good fit and would let us move McDyess to fill in other roster holes, but really, Murphy and salary filler for RJ and some other sweeteners (draft rights to de Colo and McClinton) seems about right.
June 4th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@bduran
“. . . using Indiana’s FO decisions as a way to rate a player is a bad idea.”
In the abstract, yes, you’re right. But we’re not talking about the abstract, we’re talking about the same exact player that was almost traded in Feb. I also wasn’t using the Indy FO’s decisions as a means of rating of Murphy’s on-court value — his lack of team success and the wild variation in his productivity across seasons without any real explanation such as injuries speak to that. I was using their FO’s decisions as a basis for determining his trade value, which is different than his on-court productivity.
It seems likely to me that the source of this rumor (the whole Tony-for-Murphy deal) was someone in Indiana’s FO because they know they’re going to move Murphy this summer to cut salary and they’re trying to inflate his perceived worth by creating rumors that we would actually give up an All-Star caliber player in return for him.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Joe,
“wild variation in his productivity across seasons without any real explanation such as injuries speak to that.”
This is sort of true, I wouldn’t use the word “wildly though”. From the 2002-2003 season through the 2007-2008 season he was pretty consistently around a .170 WP48, very similar to what TP has produced the last several years according to WP48.
Last year his WP48 jumped to .369. This is due to him having a career year from the 3 pt line and on the boards. Now, did he drop back to norm this year? No, he dropped some. I can’t look up his current WP48 because I don’t have silver light on my computer at work, but it’s around .300. He stayed good on the boards but dropped a little. His 3 pt % was okay at 38.4% but its way down from 45% the previous year. This probably accounts for most of the WP48 drop. His shooting % didnt really drop though so it looks like he improved his 2 pt %.
Tony had a WP48 of .074 this year. I would have much rather had Murphy this year. So you are right this year they weren’t even in the same league. Of course, if they both revert to norm they’ll produce equally relative to their position and I think TP fills more of a need. However, there is a good chance that Murphy will outproduce TP again this year if TP reverts to norm and Murphy ends up somwhere between his last two years and the previous several.
“Tony’s CV: Finals MVP, 3-time All-Star, 3rd team All-NBA”
Not a great argument. Guess he’s better than Manu as well. Plenty of players get undeserved awards and accolades and plenty of good players go unrewarded. Scoring is the number 1 determining factor in awards.
“I was using their FO’s decisions as a basis for determining his trade value, which is different than his on-court productivity.”
Sorry I misunderstood.
June 4th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Joe
June 4th, 2010 at 3:08 am
First of all, I NEVER said that I was in favor of the Pacer deal. This is what I said from a previous post on this thread:
“It’s a rumor, but at least it doesn’t appear to be completely far-fetched! That said, I’m not sure I like the deal too much, because I think we need to focus more on defense, particularly in the paint. I do like Murphy, but he would invariably steal minutes from Blair, thwarting his development, and we would still need a young defender/shot-blocking type of player in the paint as well, in my view.”
You, on the other hand, are over-estimating Parker, and underestimating both Murphy & Rush. This is not surprising. It’s VERY common for Spurs fans on this site to succumb to this form of bias. That’s why there always seems to be a parade of trade suggestions on here that are so one-sided in the Spurs favor that it’s beyond ridiculous.
From your post:
“Let me point out to the ‘like the Pacers deal’ crowd that at the trade deadline, Cleveland almost got Murphy for Ilgauskas’ expiring deal. In the deal that Cleveland did make to pick up Jamison, Ilgauskas was released and returned to the Cavs ASAP, so Cleveland gave up NOTHING other than agreeing to take on extra money. They may or may not have had to throw in JJ Hickson to make the Murphy deal work, but every time I see Hickson play, I come away with the impression that he’s a good athlete that has no idea how to play the game.”
Not sure what your point is? Washington was one of those few teams (e.g., NY) that was engaged in completely dismantling their team to clear MAJOR cap space, and in Jamison’s case, he had another year on his contract with Cleveland. In other words, they were planning to keep Jamison to help their team try to get “over the top”, at least for another year. They were not merely exchanging expiring contracts, and believed that they would have a good chance of resigning Jamison anyway. Now, it may be true that Indiana is thinking of going along the same route. They have several significant expirings coming up this year. But your implication that somehow Murphy must not be that valuable because the Pacers were supposedly willing to give him up for an aging & declining Ilgauskas is simply not born out by the facts. They would give Murphy up simply as part of a scheme to create major cap space from a wholesale dumping of their large salaries. ALL it would do is confirm that a major rebuilding process is underway in Indianapolis, and would reflect nothing on Murphy’s value as a player (other than the obvious fact that he’s not a young stud, franchise-type guy that they want to build their “new” team around).
“Jim, I think you often make decent points, but you are way off on this one.”
No, Joe, I’m afraid that you’re way off on this one. Murphy is in fact one of the best stretch 4’s in the entire league, and thus a VERY valuable commodity. Rush would get us younger (VERY important), has excellent speed, a defensive ability that has not yet been properly honed, and he hit his three’s last season at a 41% clip! And of course, the number ten pick has a pretty decent shot at becoming a valuable player in this league. So, I’m sorry, but ONE player, TP, is not worth that much, unless the Pacers want to use TP as an additional way to enhance the execution of a wholesale “contract dumping” scheme. On the Spurs end, the reason I’m not high on the deal, as my quote above attests to, is because I don’t think it’s the best “fit” for the Spurs moving forward, over the long-term. But it has nothing to do with the idea that we’re somehow giving up way too much in this deal. That idea falls into the realm of, “Spurs big three idol-worship”.
Tyler
June 4th, 2010 at 5:58 am
“I think it’s highly more likely that we find that superstar in the draft.”
Well, it’s not “highly more likely”. Obtaining a star, or potential star, through a trade takes skill (and some luck) to find the right situation. Getting a star in the draft is ALL luck & positioning, which usually means having a lousy team for at least a few years (since less than half of top ten lottery picks become all-stars), and then begin the often laborious process of building the “team” back up to a championship level. And the fact is, we are nowhere near tanking as a team to command a high draft pick. As a result, we should be trying to acquire young, former lottery picks where there might still be a question as to whether he’ll ever become a true star, but he’s shown indications at the NBA level that he’s certainly NOT a bust. For example, OKC has too many “young” lottery picks to share one ball. It’s never happened before for a reason: it will not work. That’s just one example of the “situations” we should be looking for at this juncture for this franchise.
“That’s why I’d be in favor of moving into the top 3 if our FO saw that next franchise player.”
Yeah, but you’re willing to give up a #10 AND a #20 pick, PLUS a young NBA-level potential star (Blair), for a college-level potential superstar. I don’t think that’s a good idea, unless it’s a James, Howard, or Shaq type level of player (I would not put Favors/Turner in this category), in which case NOBODY would give them up anyway.
Joe
June 4th, 2010 at 10:33 am
“It seems likely to me that the source of this rumor (the whole Tony-for-Murphy deal) was someone in Indiana’s FO because they know they’re going to move Murphy this summer to cut salary and they’re trying to inflate his perceived worth by creating rumors that we would actually give up an All-Star caliber player in return for him.”
“Tony’s CV: Finals MVP, 3-time All-Star, 3rd team All-NBA
Murphy’s CV: ”
Do you think Parker’s CV, a few high-level accolades, was helped by playing with Duncan & Ginobli his whole career, and a slew of excellent lesser stars/role players, plus one of the best coaches in NBA history?
And since you apparently don’t know Murphy’s “CV”, I’ll give you a brief, partial, run-down:
- 14th pick, 2001 draft
- Has had FIVE seasons averaging a double/double in points & rebounds, including the last two.
- Career 39.4% shooter from behind the arc, the highest in NBA history for a player that also has a career +8 rpg average.
- Had a WP48 (one of the better production efficiency stats available) last year of .281, good for 16th in the league, trailing only the likes of: Camby, James, Howard, Love, Kidd, Paul, G. Wallace, Gasol, Duncan, J. Smith, Boozer, Nash, Wade, Rondo, & Ginobli. I’d say that’s some pretty good company.
The fact is, you obviously put too much emphasis and stock in the fortunate few that win titles because they were lucky to play with other great players & coaches. Also, in case you forgot, there are A LOT of guys that are VERY good players that don’t make the “all-star team”. In short, I like Parker, but could we please bring him down to planet earth? That would be great.
And, by the way, Joe, the trade proposed was NOT Murphy for Parker. It was Murphy, Rush, AND the #10 pick for Parker! That’s TWO NBA-talented players AND one top ten pick, for ONE fortunate nba all-star. So please, get your head out of “Spur big-three idol-worship” mode for just a moment. That would help make these discussions based a bit more on reality.
June 4th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
@Jim
Sure, we might be able to find a diamond in the rough in a trade, but again, for a cornerstone-type player, it’s most likely going to come via a high lottery pick. And while all draft picks are risky to a certain point, the Spurs FO has a track record of consistently drafting well. I would say the Spurs have a better shot than most in determining the best player to take.
As far as what I’d give up, I’m going under the assumption that our FO has targeted a guy they think can be our next franchise player:
With the #10 and 20 pick you can expect to get two solid role players in the average draft if you draft well - and two solid role players are not a certainty that’s for sure. Though we’ve struck gold before with TP and Manu late in the 1st and 2nd round, that’s far out of the norm and I certainly wouldn’t expect that to happen consistently no matter how good our FO is. Two solid role players are great in a single draft for any team, but if you can package those picks with something else to get a player who can be the best or 2nd best player on a championship team, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger. In the big scheme of things, a franchise player is going to have a vastly greater impact than two role players.
Now where I think we differ is in our opinions of Blair. I assume you see him as a future All-Star caliber player. I don’t. I see him as a really solid role player on a really good team. And getting back to my main theme - if he’s the lynch pin in a deal that can allow you to acquire a franchise player, I think you do it. Now if we can hold on to Blair and still get that player in question, great! I love Blair and what he brings to the table, but I just don’t value him quite as highly as you may. And if I’m wrong about your feelings toward Blair, let me know.
June 4th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Jim Henderson
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
“I understand your point, it will be tougher next year. That said, I’m willing to bet Parker finds a nice home outside of Indianapolis, one way or the other.”
Tougher next year? Improbable is more like it. As I said, the only way he gets into a bigger market is if Houston makes a play or Parker can force a sign and trade (which obviously complicates the deal). Once Parker is forced to sign with a small market team (outside of SA), what the hell is the difference between Indy or Minny? What’s the real difference between Washington or even Philly? I’m throwing out names here, but you have the big market teams (LA, NY, Hou, Dallas, etc.), the small market semi-contenders (like SA, Utah, Atlanta, etc) and then the rest of the junk (Philly, Indy, Milwaukee, etc.) who fall in and out of the playoffs. And we all know there will be one desperate GM with cash to throw at Parker and it probably won’t be a big market team.
My point in all of this rant is that Parker signing with the Pacers is not that far fetched. Parker may like to play in the big markets, but money will ultimately decide where he goes and the big teams won’t be in the financial position to make big offers.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
hobson13
June 4th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Let’s put it this way, in simple terms: If Parker gets offered less than or equal to 2 mil. more per season (let’s say a 4-year deal) to play for Indiana than he could get from the Spurs, Dallas, LA, Atlanta, NY, Cleveland, Miami, Denver, LA Clippers, Orlando, Phoenix, or Portland, I say he takes the lower deal to play in those cities, for those teams. Who wants to play in Indiana, for a team that’s years away from contending, if they’re lucky? You know what it’s like to live there, even part of the year? Sure TP wants money, but he (and his wife!) want excitement & exposure, and a chance at winning even more (to a point), in my view. You’re not going to get that in Indiana. And remember, Parker has French roots - he’s still part socialist at heart!
June 4th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Jim Henderson
June 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
“And remember, Parker has French roots – he’s still part socialist at heart!”
That made me laugh! He won’t find many socialists in Indiana, that’s for sure. On a more agreeable note, maybe we won’t even have to trade Parker. Perhaps we can unload Jefferson for a pair of decent young players. Houston did it last year with McGrady. Perhaps we can do it this year. He would be a much better fit on a faster paced team like the Warriors. Unloading him for a long term contract (Maggette, Biedrins, etc) and Anthony Randolph may pry the championship window open another two years. Randolph, once fully developed by a reputable coaching staff, could be a special player. I see no reason his ceiling couldn’t be that of Favors (the consensus #2 or #3 pick), plus he has had a few years of NBA experience. That’s just one idea. Perhaps there are other trade thoughts regarding Jefferson.
June 4th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Tyler
June 4th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Okay, I took a spin through the the 12 drafts from 1996 through 2007, with the intent to look at the draft picks 1-5, and 10-20. Here’s what I found, draft # in parentheses:
1-5 picks, one all-star appearance or better:
1996 - Iverson (1), Marbury (4), R. Allen (5)
1997 - Duncan (1), Billups (3)
1998 - Jamison (4), V. Carter (5)
1999 - Brand (1), B. Davis (3)
2000 - K. Martin (1)
2001 - P. Gasol (3)
2002 - Y. Ming (1)
2003 - James (1), Anthony (3), Bosh (4), Wade (5)
2004 - Howard (1)
2005 - D. Williams (3), C. Paul (4)
2006 - ZERO
2007 - Durant (2)
20 one-time or better all-stars out of 12 drafts from the top five picks. The MEDIAN is 1.5 one-time all-stars or better players yielded out of the top five picks in the average draft. Basically, a team has about a 30% chance of drafting a one-time or better all-star out of the top five picks. Average seasons played by the players listed in these drafts, about nine. By far, the best draft years for top five picks were 1996 and 2003.
10-20 picks, “starter” or better (in other words, better than “role” players) most of their careers:
1996 - Dampier (10), Bryant (13) - all-star, Stojakovic (14) - all-star, Nash (15) - all-star, J. O’Neal (17) - all-star, Ilgauskas (20)
1997 - ZERO
1998 - Pierce (10) (all-star)
1999 - J. Terry (10), C. Maggette (13), Artest (16)
2000 - Turkoglu (16), Q. Richardson (18)
2001 - J. Johnson (10) - all-star, R. Jefferson (13), T. Murphy (14), Z. Randolph (19) - all-star, B. Haywood (20)
2002 - C. Butler (10) - all-star
2003 - D. West (18) - all-star
2004 - A. Biedrins (11), A. Jefferson (15), J. Smith (17), J. Nelson (20) - all-star
2005 - Bynum (10), Granger (17) - all-star
2006 - T. Sefolosha (13), R. Brewer (14)
2007 - S. Hawes (10), T. Young (12), A. Thornton (14), R. Stuckey (15)
These 12 drafts produced 11 all-stars from picks 10-20, just about one per year, or about a 10% chance. Seven of the twelve years produced at least one all-star. I did not perform an analysis on this, but you’re probably correct that the majority of the 10-20 picks turn out to be “role” players of varying degrees of effectiveness (some of course are in fact “busts”).
Now, your whole criteria for trading up for a top five pick was predicated on securing a “franchise” player, which you believe is pretty much necessary to at some point challenge for a title. So, I have a few questions for you:
(1) How do you define a “franchise” player?
(2) And honestly, who in the above list of top five picks, of one-time or better all-stars, from the 12 drafts identified, do you consider a “franchise” player?
(3) Using the same criteria, who do you identify as a “franchise” player from all the 10-20 picks listed above.
(4) Also, if you could define “role” player, with some examples, that would be great.
One thing you might want to notice, a much higher % of the most successful picks are actually top three picks, not top five picks. On the surface, it leads me to believe that a terrible record, & considerable LUCK, is the combination needed to land a true “franchise” player. But I’m getting ahead of myself. I’d like to hear your answers to the questions posed above before I comment any further. Thanks.
P.S. Yes, I do see Blair as a future all-star caliber player. Probably not perennial, but very much similar to Carlos Boozer. I’d give Blair at least a one & three chance of reaching that level (Boozer by the way was the 34th pick in the 2002 draft, and has two all-star selections in his first eight years). What hurts Blair is the inevitability of comparing him to our other PF, Tim Duncan. First of all, they are completely different players. And second, Duncan, as you know, is considered by many to be the best PF of ALL-TIME. This can’t help but distort one’s perception of Blair’s unique talents, and his potential to beome a dominant PF over the next several years. Have you ever heard of a 6′6″, 20 year old PF, getting TWO 20/20 games in his rookie season, and he only played on avg. 18 mpg.? NEVER been done before.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
hobson13
June 4th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Yeah, getting something good for RJ would be a dream come true. It is possible, but it’s not to probable. The Warriors are one team we should be looking at on this front. I did a long post on this a few weeks back. You do know that the Warriors are about to be sold, right? Anyway, that just adds incentive to a salary-dump scenario developing, in my view. New buyers prefer lean machines to build a winner from. Unfortunately, Randolph’s salary is not very big, but they might have incentive to dump Biedrins, Turiaf, and Azubuike. I wouldn’t mind those three players at all. The salaries would offset RJ’s fine as well. We probably wouldn’t be inclined to exercise McDyess’ option in 2011 if we were to make such a deal, which would be fine. It would actually be preferable to put McDyess into the deal as well, and to also do a sign & trade with Morrow for about 4 million. What do you think about that?
June 4th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
@Jim
Yeah, I think we’ve both kicked around the idea of unloading RJ to the Warriors. In fact, I even saw a Warriors fan post something about an RJ trade. That probably doesn’t mean too much since they are idiots, but it is interesting to see a warriors fan’s who is open to the idea. The Warriors have to be the most disfunctional franchise in the league. They really do need to start over and like you said, they just might do that with new ownership. Unloading RJ and McDyess for Biedrins, Turiaf, Azubuike, and Morrow would meet most of our offseason needs without having to use the MLE or LLE or having to rely on Splitter. Those 4 would bring size, rebounding, defense, and shooting. We could then use the MLE to lure a guy like JJ Reddick or Ronnie Brewer if need be.
Geez I wish we could just fast forward 3 months to see what moves the Spurs make. As we all agree, changes are coming, but exactly what those changes are is killing me!!
June 5th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics” — Mark Twain
Stats are a tool that help guide your interpretation of what you see. WagesofWins.com indicates that the WP48 stat is mostly validated by comparing the sum total of each player’s wp48 on a given team with the team’s actual win total. This is not the same thing as validating the stat against some objective measure of each player’s performance, mostly because no such validation criterion exists. It has some glaring flaws — for much of the season, Brook Lopez’s WP48 estimated a higher number of wins added by him alone than the team had actually won; in 08/09, Aaron Brooks had a negative WP48, but he almost took down the Lakers in the playoffs.
If the point about Murphy’s WP48 as a heuristic is that he’s a better player than he’s generally given credit for, then I’ll agree. But if you’re arguing that WP48 is some sort of definitive metric, then logically the following arguments fall out of what you’re saying: (1) Murphy’s WP48 is better than Kobe’s, Melo’s, Nowitzki’s, and Bosh’s, so he played better than each of them this year. (2) Jason Kidd and Kevin Love had a much higher WP48 than Tony, so on a talent-for-talent basis (i.e. not factoring in age and contract issues), you should trade Tony for either of them.
On to Tony’s value. When our roster is healthy and we’re using our traditional play sets, Tony’s role on the team is to penetrate and either generate a lay-up or cause the defense to rotate to cover him. In the latter case, he kicks the ball out, and we keep passing it around the perimeter until the defensive rotations break down and we find the shooter with the open look. Sometimes, that’s two or three passes later.
As articles and posts on this site have noted time and again, these kick-outs are a staple of what we do and don’t assign statistical credit to the person who initiated the play — that’s often Tony. Not only does WP48 not capture his key contribution on those plays, but because WP48 calculates a player’s individual assists as a percentage of team assists, WP48 actually penalizes Tony’s contribution on these plays further by assigning assists on kick-outs HE initiated to the subsequent player who made the pass that lead to the shot.
Further on the assists point, you only get credit for an assist when the person you pass to hits the shot. Our outside shooters this year did a particularly poor job of knocking down open 3s on kick-outs, and while Tony didn’t have a great year, the shooting woes of other players are not Tony’s fault.
The observation that Tony’s WP48 in 08/09 was .166 when (a) we won 54 games, (b) he carried our offense, (c) Timmy showed his first real signs of decline on both ends of the court and clearly did NOT dominate every game, and (d) Manu was only on the court for half the games, only underscores how useless WP48 is in quantifying Tony’s contribution. Tony is a star player who has deserved the awards he’s received — maybe not as great as Timmy or Manu, who are all-time greats at their positions, but a star nonetheless. That evaluation does not make me a Spurs homer.
June 5th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Joe
June 5th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“It has some glaring flaws — for much of the season, Brook Lopez’s WP48 estimated a higher number of wins added by him alone than the team had actually won.”
That’s because he had A LOT of unproductive teammates, particularly through the all-star break, and as a result, many of those teammates registered a negative WP48 (meaning that they actually detracted from the team winning - not hard to believe at all). And of course Lopez was by far their most valuable player last year, as his “wins produced” suggests (5.68 wins for a team that won 12 games). Granted, the “wages of wins” stat is not perfect, because it’s impossible to capture ALL the intangibles that go in to winning a game, but it is a very sophisticated measure of a player’s productive efficiency while on the court. Nobody is saying to rely on one statistic to evaluate at player’s value. On the other hand, statistics in general do represent a more objective, quantitative measure, based on commonly accepted, and documented, production “numbers” (e.g., rebounds), to help evaluate a player’s overall value to his team in terms of winning games. Even the greatest observers (a subjective measure) of the NBA use stats to help them evaluate a player’s overall value & potential as a player in terms of helping their team win games. It’s impossible to properly evaluate “a player” by principally looking at a given player’s titles that he’s won, or occasional awards he’s been graced with (e.g., one year as 3rd team all-nba). People that pooh-pooh statistics either don’t fully understand them, or want their “opinion” to be the main thing that matters or is relevant to the evaluation of the player in question (or to whatever matter is in contention).
“….But if you’re arguing that WP48 is some sort of definitive metric…
No, I never said, or even implied that the WP48 is a “definitive metric”.
“Tony is a star player who has deserved the awards he’s received — maybe not as great as Timmy or Manu, who are all-time greats at their positions, but a star nonetheless. That evaluation does not make me a Spurs homer.”
My point is that you overvalue Parker, not that Parker is not a very good player. Everybody knows that TP is a top-seven point guard in the league. My problem is with the emphasis on “stars”. Unless you’re talking about bonfide “franchise-type” players, ONE player is almost always NOT as valuable as THREE solid NBA players. And if you average these players out, Murphy, Rush, & the #10 pick, that represents three solid NBA players. And their younger average age, compared to Parker, gives the three together even a bit more value. In my view, you’re implication that Parker is clearly not worth giving up for those THREE players does suggest that you’re a “homer” for the big three. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, but this disposition is likely to reflect a bias in your evaluation of “big-three” trade proposals.
Now if you want to pan the Pacer trade proposal on other grounds (as I have), such as it’s not a good “fit”, it doesn’t make sense for BOTH teams, etc., that’s different. But knocking the proposal on account of a poor cumulative talent differential, in the Spurs disfavor, just doesn’t hold water, in my view.
June 5th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
@Jim
“People that pooh-pooh statistics either don’t fully understand them, or want their “opinion” to be the main thing that matters or is relevant to the evaluation of the player in question (or to whatever matter is in contention).”
I’m not trying to toot my own horn or make comparisons, but in response to this comment, I do have a PhD in psychology, including advanced graduate training in multiple regression. Just about every stats course I have taken has started out with that Mark Twain quote on the first day of class to remind everyone that stats are a guide to understanding your data. They cannot be applied in a vacuum without consideration of how they are used, what data was entered into the statistical model, and how that data was acquired. Berri and Hollinger will both readily agree with this. Seeing a number in front of you is not an excuse to turn your brain off, no matter how complicated you think the method used to derive the number might be. This is why Hollinger supplements his stats section of each player’s profile on ESPN with a detailed qualitative description of what the player does and does not do well.
There are things we know about WP48 and about what Tony is asked to do that tell us WP48 doesn’t accurately summarize Tony. You can say the same for Bruce Bowen; in 05/06 and 07/08, he had WP48s of 0.06 and <0.0, respectively, and common sense says that he had a much bigger role in our success those years than WP48 would suggest.
"Unless you’re talking about bonfide “franchise-type” players, ONE player is almost always NOT as valuable as THREE solid NBA players."
I disagree. Depth can get you more wins over the grind of an NBA season, but in big games, your best players are on the court and have the ball most of the time. Ray Allen doesn't really qualify as a franchise-type player, but I still think Boston doesn't regret getting him for Szerbiak, West, and the rights to Jeff Green (yes, they also got Big Baby with Allen, but I don't think they could have expected that much from him at the time).
June 5th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Correction — the negative WP48 for Bowen that I meant to reference was for 06/07 (-0.028), not for 07/08.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
“Our outside shooters this year did a particularly poor job of knocking down open 3s on kick-outs, and while Tony didn’t have a great year, the shooting woes of other players are not Tony’s fault.”
You’re right that stats aren’t everything. However, I trust WP48 more than statements like this. His assists per minute this year were the second best of his career so his WP48 was not penalized due to team mates making shots. He suffered because his shooting % was down, his turnovers were up, and his rebounds were down.
You mention his value on initiating plays to our team as something not captured. The truth is this is something really hard to quantify. People don’t seem to do a very good job of it. Basketball experts running teams routinely make poor subjective judgements with regard to player evaluation. In fact, Berri argues that if the ONLY they looked at was WP48 they would make the right decision more consistently. The problem is there is too much information out there and people aren’t good at picking the right things to focus on. For example, above you mentioned TPs awards as justification for his value. I think this is a terrible way to judge a player. Even if he deserves them there are plenty of players who get awards who don’t, so why reference them when talking about player evaluations?
I’m not advocating WP48 as the only thing we should look at, but it’s right a lot. It’ll certainly prevent you from saying a guy who shot 45% from 3, had a 61.7 TS%, and averaged 11.8 rebounds in 34 minutes isn’t in the same league as Tony.
June 6th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Please, some new articles about Spurs basketball 48OH, that would be awesome
June 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Joe
June 5th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“I’m not trying to toot my own horn or make comparisons, but in response to this comment, I do have a PhD in psychology, including advanced graduate training in multiple regression.”
Well, I now know that you have an understanding of the value of statistics. In fact, my PhD is in Developmental Psychopathology. A pretty interesting coincidence.
Apparently our disagreement stems more from a misinterpretation, than from a misunderstanding of statistics. For example, you continue to imply that “statistics”, in this case WP48, means more to my argument than they can possibly deliver, even though I’ve already freely conceded that they cannot in any way provide a “definitive metric”. On the other hand, WP48 is one of the more useful “production” statistics to consider when engaged in the evaluation of a player’s value in helping his teams win games. In the case of Murphy, I only took the time to provide a brief “statistical” summary of his most valuable production “numbers”, which included not only WP48, but also career three-point shooting, double-doubles, etc. Thus, I’m NOT relying on WP48, or any other statistic, for my evaluation of players, but I also use personal observation, paying particularly close attention to the “intangibles” that a player brings to the game, because you know, things like “getting 50-50 balls”, and the unique & beneficial spacing of the floor that a good stretch 4 provides, are very difficult to measure accurately through the use of statistics. I do think the WP48 can, and perhaps often does, understate somewhat the “wins produced” value of some of the “role” players in the league, particularly for those whose value is driven by the “intangibles”. And in fact, Bowen may be a case in point. It is also certainly possible that TP does some things on the court that results in an “unfair” WP48, but the main point is: “players are clearly worth more, or less, than just their WP48 score.” And I’m sure everyone would agree to that. For example, just because Murphy had more than double the WP48 of Parker in 2008-2009, does not mean that if Murphy was on the Spurs he would have been twice as valuable (or even as valuable) to the Spurs that year compared to Parker. However, it does give us a sense that when Murphy is playing in a compatible system, he is an unusually efficient producer on the court that helps his team win games.
“Depth can get you more wins over the grind of an NBA season, but in big games, your best players are on the court and have the ball most of the time.”
I only agree to a point, and as I said, it’s guys like Duncan (in his prime years) that are clearly the most valuable in the biggest games, certainly on a REGULAR basis (3 finals MVP’s, to 1 for TP). In my view, one of the two starters below the “franchise” player is simply not MORE valuable than a starter & 2 role players between 6 & 9. Murphy would be a starter, and Rush & the #10 pick would have a legitimate shot at cracking the top nine in the rotation, particularly over the next couple of years. No question, top stars are necessary to win big games, in the closing moments, but they wouldn’t even have that opportunity in today’s NBA without an integral 6-8 or 9 (which are not a dime a dozen) helping them get into position to make the “big” play (and some of them do make the “big” play themselves - e.g., Robert Horry).
June 6th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont resign bonner!!! As far as free agents are concerned alot talked about in this post are restricted FAs, so that would be alot harder. I hope the Spurs consider…
Mike Miller
Kyle Korver
Travis Outlaw
June 6th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
So what is the current state of this team, as in if free agency opened up today, who is on the roster and what is our money situation? I could research it myself but I’ve been drowning in a online Stats class and am losing it.
June 6th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Green Brick Wall playing spurs basketball and winning ,and POP /BUFORD about to release Ian Manhimi; WELL Ian you can join Finley and play with the 2010 NBA World Champions.
REMEMBER 11th June 2010:
ALLEZ LES BLEUS
June 6th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
It seems most are assuming splitter will be a no show this year, but I think he will be a spur next season. Buford spoke about it during one of the games this year that they were “expecting” him to be with us next year. The US dollar continues to strengthen as the Euro flounders, and Mahimini was not extended, signalling some small cost cutting as part of the plans to add more payroll with a mid level salary to cover splitter. He will not get many better opportunities to play with one of the all time greats, whilst being a potential difference maker on a budding contender whilst making a cool 5 million a year. Not seeing too many issues here.
I don’t see the spurs pulling the trade trigger either. I’m sure theyll more than listen to offers for Jeffersons expiring but likely will sit with an average, yet still athletic wing who may show more consistency and upside in his second season. With the addition of splitter, Mahimini falls out of the rotation equation. This leaves us with a #20 pick to try and bolster the perimeter defensively and/or improve 3pt shooting. Mason will be off the books, Bonner will have to sign for less, or we go elsewhere for bench value. If we can find another draft keeper we will have Hill, Blair, Splitter, #20 pick, Hairston, Parker as the 30 and under core going forward….with $14mil off the books at season’s end to pursue more youth, and timmy’s 18 million or so coming off the following year along with McD. Ginobili the year after.
The pattern here is that the spurs have positioned themselves to continue to add younger talent, as the older talent comes off the books.
If they are going to move Tony, it would be just as realisic to do a sign and trade next year. Again, I just don’t see this happening either.
Don’t be surprised if we draft a point guard or look to sign one - even though Temple shows alot of promise. I think the spurs are looking for a big, rugged point guard who can help offset tony’s defensive liablilities, and give us a more dynamic guard rotation to offset the lack of interior D that we currently posess.
June 6th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
first, i don’t think we should do the parker for murphy + throw-ins (yes, throw-ins… can we please stop referring to rush as a quality player? even his brother kareem had better feel for the game), for two reasons. while i think they’re roughly the same level of talent, and i think murphy would fit well in our system, he is not a playmaker, which is one of the biggest deficiencies we currently have. when healthy, parker can create opportunities; murphy cannot. even if you’re counting the spacing he would provide, utilising that space is not guaranteed given our roster. i think you have conceded that point, jim. secondly, while murphy is a good player, as you’ve pointed out and extolled on numerous occasions, the chance that we get a top-tier player from pick #10 is extremely slight, even with our fortunate and astute draft history. i don’t think it prudent to give up parker for murphy and the off chance we hit on 10.
i would definitely pull the trigger on the orlando trade. though i doubt they would propose it, i’m sure they’d listen. orlando seems to be a case of too much depth and not enough heavy artillery. parker is a definite upgrade for them at the 1, and anderson is wasting away on their bench. nelson is a quality pg who can hit the 3, and i think would fit well in our system, as would anderson, who i seems like he could be a really good stretch 4.
secondly, i’ve finally looked at larry sanders, and while he looks decent from the clips i’ve seen, his block/pf ratio is extremely disturbing. sure, some of those fouls are going to be offensive, but for a big man, i’d much rather have varnado for a 2nd round pick, since udoh is out of our range. i stand by my recommendation of damion james/varnado as our draft targets, though we’re still working with limited info. if we’re going to be trading up though, i’d really like to see us tab luke babbitt. frankly, the dude is a baller, and he tested as a much better athlete than anyone expected, equalling blake griffen. he might not be able to defend 3s but with his strength, he might be able to d up 4s, especially as a stretch. if he gets on a pro regimen and time with chip, i could see him being an all-star.
June 6th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
andy
June 6th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“i don’t think we should do the parker for murphy + throw-ins (yes, throw-ins… can we please stop referring to rush as a quality player? even his brother kareem had better feel for the game)…”
How do you come up with the #10 pick as a throw-in? How to you classify a guy that hits 41% of his threes (Rush) as a throw-in? A throw-in is Ryan Anderson in the Orlando trade that you seem to like. And as I said, I ultimately wouldn’t do the trade because we need a tall defender in the paint more than we need a stretch 4, and we need to get Blair MORE minutes, not acquire an incentive to play him less. This is not to mention that Indiana probably wouldn’t do the trade either, unless they were simply looking to make a LARGE salary dump in 2011, in which case, they might as well take RJ too.
“parker is a definite upgrade for them at the 1, and anderson is wasting away on their bench.”
Did you ever think that there’s a reason why Anderson is languishing away on the Magic bench? Probably because he’s not very good. In fact, Van Gundy was crazy to give Anderson minutes that should have went to Bass, particularly earlier in the season. In fact, Anderson is worse than Bonner. Why would we want someone worse than Bonner? We wouldn’t. That’s why this trade is essentially Parker for Nelson, and I think Parker is clearly better. He’s a better leader, and he’s better at getting the ball to the right people off the pick & roll, and on kick-outs to the shooters.
“if we’re going to be trading up though, i’d really like to see us tab luke babbitt.”
Scoring, and even rebounding (as a SF or stretch 4) is not Babbitt’s problem. The problem is, he cannot defend effectively at either the SF or PF in the NBA. The Spurs are a defensive oriented team, and we have already drifted too far away from true strength in this area. Therefore, I would not draft him. He’s a better fit for someone like the Phoenix Suns. If we’re looking for a three-point specialist, better to go through the NBA FA market.
June 7th, 2010 at 5:21 am
“The problem is, he cannot defend effectively at either the SF or PF in the NBA.”
I know why you say this, but truth is really don’t know. A large part of defense is knowing the system and making the right decision. Bonner is miles better than he used to be simply because because he knows what to do. If the FO drafts him, I’ll feel comfortable knowing that they believe he can be good enough for the Spurs system. If he’s available and they don’t draft him, well then it’s probably because they don’t think he’ll be good enough.
June 7th, 2010 at 6:53 am
soooo……let’s keep mahinmi nxt year. duncan, splitter, blair, and dice with mahinmi getting some regular season minutes from duncan and dice. sounds like a nice frontcourt that can compete with l.a. and groom for the future.
there is the problem of the stretch 4…..
yeah, we need a new article up here
mahnimi 4 prez.
June 7th, 2010 at 10:42 am
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/sas/report
“With Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili locked into contracts and the Spurs expected to keep Tony Parker, the club’s three returning leading scorers next season would total 95 years old. San Antonio station KENS 5 did the legwork on this interesting stat: Since 1990, only one team has won the title with its three top scorers that old. The team? The 1997-98 Bulls with Michael Jordan, Toni Kukoc and Scottie Pippen were a combined 95 years old.”
ONE team in 20 years, and they happened to have the best player of all-time. Sure you don’t want to trade Manu to OKC?
June 7th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Spurs seem not to be as secretive about their draft workings as before or I’m just noticing more rumors than before.
Read Spurs might draft Elliot Williams, 6′4″ left handed using only guard, according to Draftexpress. Also, they seem to be interested in Ryan Thompson, Jason Thompson’s of Sacramento little bro who scored 37 pts @ draftee camp in Portsmouth, sounds like a younger, smaller 6′5″ Udoka type that the Spurs allegedly have worked out twice.
We’ll know in 2 weeks.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Ginobili Assist 2009 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp0QYJW2gXQ
Ginobili in offense 2009 - 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RUUlE9nRBQ
Ginobili Defense 2009-2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCerawsZg90
June 7th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t be too interested in signing a guard in round one. Not that high on Williams. Also, not sure how Thompson could possibly fit into the Spurs plans on draft day. Too many other more highly rated SF’s available in this draft.
Any thoughts about selecting Dexter Pittman in the second round, at #49?
June 7th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@bduran: aye, there’s the rub. we love to speculate though, don’t we?
@jim h: pity what happened to pittman’s brother. can’t help but wonder if the tragedy will help pittman rededicate his focus.
that said, his game is too below the rim, which i think counters one of your foci. maybe if he loses another 30-40 lbs. he could be explosive, but too hard to judge now. i remember seeing al-aminu block him in the tournament because he just couldn’t get up like al-aminu. he doesn’t control his upper body well enough yet either. either way, as a 2nd rounder, i would definitely take a flyer on him, depending on who’s still on the table. he’s a big body, of which having extras is never a bad thing.
while we’re musing: there’s a ton of length in the draft. what if hassan whiteside fell to the 2nd? he’s the longest guy in the draft and a good athlete, but from the interviews, it sounds like he’s an arrogant jackass. should we draft him at 49 and hope the jolt to his ego and our system can bring him in step?
June 7th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Dexter Pittman would be a good pickup. Having seen a lot of his games this past semester he has a lot of upside, he is a good defender and terrific shot blocker. He has a solid offensive game but isn’t a strong free throw shooter. The biggest thing he would need to work on is getting his weight down so that he has a better motor, his average minutes were roughly 22-25 a game. We could definitely do worse at #49.
June 8th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Ok, Jim, Joe, That Big Guy,Trade TP, Ballhog, IVmainman, the boys at 48 minutes, and all other regulars i haven’t mentioned, but could if i coralled the cached pages…..
Here is my GM offseason……I’m trying to GM for other teams when I make my trades….
Trade Tony Parker for: Andre Iguodala and PG Jrue Holliday, spurs give up hairston and something else like future pick or cash
Breakdown for teams….Spurs get great playoff caliber big SG athlete and young talented PG….Sixers get awesome PG talent to justify the Brand trade and create an instant playoff team around Brand, Tony, DalemB, and draft pick and assorted….enough to get fans excited.
Spurs can draft another guard prospect and committe Manu, George, Jrue, draft and Temple to run the team. The team can then focus on attacking offense from the wings with Jeff and Igu from wings with Manu at the top and George in the corner.
Yes, we will lose in point production, but the spurs system is adept at bridging gaps….obviously this goes with the assumption that we sign splitter, as i have said we will get in previous posts.
Most will agree that wing iso’s and pick n rolls with manu suit junkyard dogs like Blair. Expect him to get an extra 8 to 10 mins this year.
Failing to get Jrue, maybe Willie Green with other stuff thrown in.
I could fantasize about RJ trades, but I think 2 months of good play from him and a trade deadline would be a better environment to move him.
I’m interested to see what posters think of trying to acquire someone like rasual bulter…not an all time player, but 6′7 and 200lb, with enough experience to maybe work on the 3pt shot and become the next posey…..
June 8th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Anybody know if the spurs are looking into trading up in the draft? I would love to see Favors running with Hill,RJ, and Blair.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:35 am
@Easy B: Sorry, but there’s no chance of getting AI and Holliday from the 76ers. No chance at all. Everybody in the league is high on Holliday after the last two months of the season, especially since he was the youngest player in the league (and younger than most of the players in THIS year’s draft). Maybe they could get Iguodala, but I doubt it. Collins has lots of good experience working with wings of his sort. The Spurs have a much better shot at getting the #2 pick and Lou Williams for Parker. But the salaries wouldn’t work.
@JimH and Andy: DeJuan Blair has been a close friend and mentor to Dexter Pittman. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Spurs sign him if he isn’t drafted (which, given his weight problems, his underwhelming performance this season, and the unfortunate tragedy that forced him to miss the draft keep, seems entirely possible). Perhaps more important, I find that friendship encouraging because of course Blair has improved his conditioning so much over the last year.
About Luke Babbitt: From what I saw, his defense wasn’t awful. It just didn’t seem to be a priority-which is sometimes a coaching decision. It’s hard to say. It’s a concern but not a deal-breaker for me. But to me, if you’re in a position to get Luke Babbitt, you’re also in a position to look at players like Xavier Henry or Avery Bradley, who I think would fit the Spurs better.
For what it’s worth, I think this is a good time to revamp the roster a bit. JimH and others are right to recognise that the Spurs as presently constituted aren’t going to win any more championships. Adding Splitter would help but they still have substantial problems, especially in terms of interior defense and outside shooting. I do follow NCAA ball quite a lot and have for a long time and I think a lot of people are missing the boat on this draft. It isn’t loaded with superstars, although Wall, Turner, Favors, and Cousins are a solid group at the top. But it’s very, very deep, at every position except point guard. There are a lot of players who would’ve been first-round picks in 2009 or 2011 who might not even get drafted this year (including Pittman). And players like Craig Brackens, Solomon Alabi, and Quincy Pondexter would’ve been lottery selections last year.
I think the Spurs would be wise to collect one or more extra picks from teams like Minnesota, that have multiple first-round picks (which are expensive), or teams like New Jersey, that are impatient to win. If they’re confident that Hill, Ginobili, and Temple can handle the point, this is a great year to trade a charismatic All-Star point guard who is starting to slow down a bit. But what I’d rather see them do is find a way to keep their #20 pick and also get another first-round pick, preferably a bit higher-and maybe an extra second-rounder as well. That way they could get a talented wing player AND a talented interior defender. Just my $.02…
June 8th, 2010 at 5:30 am
“ONE team in 20 years, and they happened to have the best player of all-time. Sure you don’t want to trade Manu to OKC?”
Well, this isn’t exactly a useful statistic.
As for Pittman, I’d be okay with it if he’s there in the second round. I’m a big horns fan, but Pittman takes himself out of the game too much. He’d be a project.
“If they’re confident that Hill, Ginobili, and Temple can handle the point, this is a great year to trade a charismatic All-Star point guard who is starting to slow down a bit.”
The things is, I don’t think they are, I’m not. If we were going to trade TP we’d need a decent PG in return which reduces what we can get for him. Trading with Minnesota we’d need Ridnour back and then I’m not sure what else we’d get to make it worth it.
June 8th, 2010 at 5:35 am
Honestly, Ian is the least of our worries, so im highly inclined not to ‘give a shit’.
we need something else to harp on for a bit.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Definitely need a new article. At least talk about Finley now with the Celtics. That is somehow related.
Chad Ford at ESPN.com has been speculating that the Spurs are offering up Parker for a higher draft pick. Stating the Spurs have been aggressive in looking for a new big man. Let’s get some inside info on that!
June 8th, 2010 at 7:31 am
If they offer up Parker, they had better get back a big (or a high draft pick for one), and another good point guard.
1 proven for 1 non-proven(potential) = bad business decision
June 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
@ Jim
I’d define a “franchise” player as a someone who could be the best player on a championship caliber team. And if you’re a GM, you’d be willing to throw a max contract at this type of guy. However, not all max guys are franchise players. Joe Johnson might get a max deal this summer, but I have a hard time seeing him as the best player on a title caliber team.
From your list, I’d consider these guys franchise players:
Iverson (in his prime obviously)
Duncan
Yao
James
Wade
Howard
Williams
Paul
Durant
Bryant
Nash
(I’m hesitant to label Anthony and Bosh as franchise players. Anthony has yet to put it all together, and I see Bosh in the same mold as a Pau Gasol - perrennial All-Star, but better suited as the seond option to a more ball dominant guard. And for Yao, the injuries could quickly take him off the list.)
As for how I rate players, I have them in tiers:
1. Franchise players - without them, you have virtually no chance to win a title. The exception to the rule - Pistons
2. Perrennial All-Stars - these are guys that could be the 2nd best player on a championship team. And typically to win a title, you need at least 1, if not 2 in addition to a franchise player. Gasol is a great example. I also put TP and Manu in this category. Because of injuries, both have probably squandered a few All-Star selections. And in Manu’s case, his role as a 6th man probably doesn’t help him.
3. Quality Starter - might make a cameo or two in an All-Star game in some situations, but by and large, they’re considered role players. Nonetheless, they’re essential for any championship team. Sean Elliott is a good example - not quite good enough to be your second best player, but if he’s your 3rd or 4th best player, that’s a great team.
4. Bench Players - On a good team, this might the latter part of your rotation. You definitely need them to survive over the course of an 82 game season, but they’re role will be reduced in the playoffs. Steve Kerr is a good example, you don’t have to depend on him every night, but on certain nights, he can be useful.
Because of the fluidity of the NBA game, these guideline are anything but rigid. Players can improve and move up the ladder, while others can switch teams and have success no one thought possible (Nash, Steve). And if you wanted, you could divide each level further into subcategories, but there’s only so much time in the day.
PS. I think we actually agree somewhat on Blair. He should become a quality starter, and in the right situtation, I can possibly see him earning an All-Star selection or two. However, I still think he’s too limited physically to be your 2nd best player on a title winner. But to my main point, if you can package him with picks to get what our FO believes will become a franchise player, I think you go for it. After all, as we near the post TD era, we are going to need the next face of the franchise.
Sorry for the long post.
June 8th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Easy B
June 8th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Not a bad idea, on the surface. What we have to look at from the Sixers perspective is, are they doing this to dump a “long-term” salary commitment (Iggy), and picking up a large expiring (Parker) to create cap space in 2011? Or, are they doing this with the intention to resign Parker for the long-term? If their intention is to keep Parker, what are their chances of resigning him? Then, on the Holiday aspect, this guy, at 19 years old, has star written all over his future. I don’t think the Sixers let him go, particularly if they don’t have an “agreement” with Parker to resign. They are more likely to let Lou Williams (he’s pretty good, and still has some upside) go in the deal, with Iggy, for just Parker. That way if Parker bolts after one year, they’ll still have Holiday, and more cap space. We’ll have the under-rated wing, Iggy, to fully take over at SF as we usher out RJ at the trade deadline, hopefully for an additional shooter, and the talented Williams will be here to help at the point in the absence of Parker. And yes, Rasul Butler is a guy we could look at as one shooter pick-up this off-season as a free agent (we need two, maybe three, really - if Bonner is gone).
Granted, I’d prefer Holiday in the deal, but they’d probably have to have some assurance from Parker that he’s staying, and/or we could see if Philly has some interest in Mahinmi, and try to throw him into the deal on a sign & trade with Hairston & Parker. That “might” be enough to pry away both Iggy AND Holiday. Maybe. In the final analysis though, Doug Collins would have to be a “big” fan of Tony Parker to consider such a deal, and I think he would need to be very confident that he could ultimately wrap Parker up for at least four years to feel comfortable with pulling the trigger on that trade.
Remember, in my view, we’re beyond the “tinkering” stage to get back in title contention. Just one deal is probably not sufficient. In fact, I think we should be very active this year, both in the off-season, and at the trade deadline, to reshape this team in some important ways. Usually, that means at least two significant trades, some smart free agent signings, and some rapid development organically (Blair, Hill, etc.), with an eye at challenging in 2011-2012. I don’t think we can get there by next year. We simply don’t have the resources (cash, or trade bait we can afford to depart with) to acquire a championship like Boston did by trading away their “5th pick” (now the starting PF on OKC), and two other solid players, for Ray Allen & Glenn Davis in 2007.
Tim in Surrey
June 8th, 2010 at 3:35 am
“I do follow NCAA ball quite a lot and have for a long time and I think a lot of people are missing the boat on this draft. It isn’t loaded with superstars, although Wall, Turner, Favors, and Cousins are a solid group at the top. But it’s very, very deep, at every position except point guard. There are a lot of players who would’ve been first-round picks in 2009 or 2011 who might not even get drafted this year (including Pittman). And players like Craig Brackens, Solomon Alabi, and Quincy Pondexter would’ve been lottery selections last year.”
Exactly right, Tim.
June 8th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@Jim and Tim,
I see your point about Holliday, and maybe it is asking a bit much, i was also looking through the roster at Williams, but haven’t seen him play much.
I think most people would still be very high on Parker, seeing how influential small guards are on the game at this time, but could also see Philly baulking with concerns of final year of contract stuff.
They may however, be high on themselves retaining a player like Parker, given that they have some good pieces and young talent and draft picks….
As I hear myself saying that, yeah, no way we get Holliday aswell.
June 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“….the club’s three returning leading scorers next season would total 95 years old.”
Boston’s Big 3 total 100 years old.
June 8th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
In SA’s case, the label “Big 3″ was never much more than hyperbole. Boston certainly doesn’t have a “Big 3″, they rely heavily on any of their top 6-8 guys having a good game to get their wins. This is also true of these Lakers, who rely on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th guys on their roster to have a great night or even get the win for them: if that doesn’t happen, they will lose to Boston. Billups is forever underrated, but the Pistons needed team depth and Larry Brown.
The Spurs don’t need a younger “Big 3″. To compete over the next 2-4 years, the Spurs need a MORE TALENTED ROSTER OVERALL, whether that means 5 major contributors or 7 depends on how diverse the talent of our best guys, not so much about their ages. Younger stars can carry you night in, night out and may be able to do more because of their motor and athleticism, but often help you less owing to the lack of headiness.
Ray Allen has been the best player on his team for a large percentage of games which they won, yet was tradebait because of his age.
We are not likely to get a young superstar in exchange for Manu. And whoever we get back may help us fill other needs, but we will then need a guy that can take over a game. Not a lot of those in the league. The piece about the age of our Big 3 is meaningless in relation to championships… unlike the old Bulls, we don’t have a dominant scorer like MJ, currently we need FOUR scorers, as well as adding shooting, defense, and inside help for TD… if we break up the “Big 3″, we will need not only scoring and defense, but play-making, and dribble-penetration… one set of problems for another. Maybe the FO can address either set of short-comings, but age only presents one set of legitimate concerns: long-term competitiveness. (And I am on record as saying that when in comes to long-term competitiveness in regard to championships, it’s a lost cause without lottery picks, and a LOT of very good luck. Maybe that very lucky draft pick comes this summer, and maybe we sacrifice one of our stars to get it. We’ll see.)
Tim and Manu are still way better than average, but they need specific help around them, as does anybody, including Bosh, Wade, Bryant, James, Howard, Paul, Durant, etc. Tony is ideally suited to be a 6th man, a role he can fill for us even if he is technically a starter in his contract year. However, Tony can also be liability on the court because of (unlike the other two guys) the things he can’t do that he should.
June 8th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
“However, Tony can also be liability on the court because of (unlike the other two guys) the things he can’t do that he should.”
Like what?
June 8th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
doggydogworld
June 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“Boston’s Big 3 total 100 years old.”
Yeah, and as far as I’m concerned it would be a HUGE upset if they won the finals. We’ll see, maybe they’ll be the second team in 20 years, thanks to Rondo’s first playoff’s of ALL-WORLD play.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
@Tyler
Tony’s play is better suited to a ball-handling two-guard than that of point guard. The Spurs have historically been better with with Tim or Many leading the offense because of Tony’s play-making. More importantly, Ginobili is much better at making his teammates better, and this more than anything is what you’d want out of both your leading scorer and starting point-guard.
You can live with a starting PG who is not a world-class play-maker if he does a few other things that you want in a PG, such as shoot really well from outside, or if he was an exceptional defender.
@Jim
Certainly Boston are underdogs, but they don’t have a “Big 3″, not only is their best player the “4th” guy on their roster, Wallace was key versus Orlando and remains so, and they aren’t where they are without Davis, Tony Allen, and especially Perkins.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Fellas
Boston getting to and winning the finals would be no upset. They’ve OUTPLAYED every team they’ve faced thus far (Heat, Cavs, and Magic) and it would be no different if they beat the Lakers…..
June 8th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
@td4life
I agree that Manu’s playmaking ability makes his teammates better (more so than TP), but as we’ve seen over his career, Manu’s minutes need to be limited to get the best out of him. That leaves big chunks of the game where we need another playmaker on the perimeter - that’s where TP comes in. His ability to slash and break down a defense is second to few when healthy. The havoc he creates gives others better looks after ball rotation and the opportunity to drive against a scrambling defense. That’s something we desperately need when Manu is not on the floor.
I think we get too caught up in labeling guys to a certain position and expecting them to fulfill the traditional roles of that position. The evolution of the game hasn’t been more evident than in the past decade or so. As the league has become smaller and quicker, guys like TP have become extremely valuable, to the point they’re a necessity now.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I guess what I was trying to say is that I wouldn’t label TP as a liability.
Sure, he has trouble with bigger guards, but who doesn’t? I certainly wouldn’t call him a liability on that end of the court.
And while he might not be a great 3pt shooter, he’s deadly from midrange - 45.5% in the area outside the paint and inside the 3pt line in 08-09. Not a great floor spacer, but again, not a liability in my mind.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Jim,
You know citing the 95 years thing isn’t meaningful right? You can’t look at a piece of data and then assume the cause.
June 9th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Colin
June 8th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Boston has played well, and they’ve made a nice run. I give them credit for that. However, there is NO question that they went through TWO teams that ABSOLUTELY choked in the 2nd round & ECF’s. Both Cleveland & Orlando have more talent, played much better throughout the regular season, and gained home court advantage only to choke it back up. L.A. will NOT choke. As a result, Boston will finally be put to bed. They’re getting tired. LA in six.
bduran
June 9th, 2010 at 5:41 am
“You know citing the 95 years thing isn’t meaningful right? You can’t look at a piece of data and then assume the cause.”
It does not have statistical validity, if that’s what you mean. That said, it is interesting anecdotal information, and it would be useful to conduct a study to try and more closely determine what effect “team age” has on “team success”. The fact is, basketball is MORE a physical than a mental game, athletes peak physically in their early twenties, and then begin a gradual decline that begins to accelerate in their thirties. Reduced speed & stamina are the two key areas that begin to detract from a player’s ability to help their team as they age, particularly late in the season, and without getting sufficient rest (a rest requirement that continues to increase with age). The body’s recovery time is simply not as quick. Ray Allen’s performance in last nights finals game was a perfect example of this. He had plenty of open looks but couldn’t make a shot. As you know, it wasn’t because Ray Allen can’t shoot anymore (far from it - that’s the last thing that goes on an aging bb player). But if you looked at his shot, you could tell that his shot was simply more “flat” than normal. That is a tell-tale sign of “tired” legs, which is not surprising at his age, coming off a big game in game two, traveling across the country, and playing another game with just one day off.
June 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“That said, it is interesting anecdotal information, and it would be useful to conduct a study to try and more closely determine what effect “team age” has on “team success”. ”
Problem is, team age could be correlated with team success. As in, good teams have good players so their roster probably stays more stable as the players age. Also, good teams draft later and have better players and so get fewer minutes from very young players.
As far as the age of the Spurs go, our best 3 players next year could easily be TD, Manu, and Grizzly Blair. Our top five will likely bring in TP and Hill. So sure, Manu and TD are over 30 and getting older, but still playing at a high level, however, the rest of the talent is getting younger compared to our last championship.
June 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Tyler
June 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
First of all, I agree with your definition of “franchise player”.
I also agree with who you identified as franchise players off the draft picks that I had provided in an earlier post, EXCEPT for Yao. I think injuries have in effect taken him off the list already. “Franchise guys” have to be dependable, and Yao has had enough time to prove that he simply isn’t.
I also believe that the following guys are close, in rank order: Pierce, Gasol, Anthony, & Bosh.
On your tiers, “perennial” all-star to me means that you’ve been selected as an all-star in more than half of the years that you’ve played. There’s not a lot of perennial all-stars outside of the franchise players. Thus, I would just call that category “all-stars”, which would allow players like Manu, TP, Danny Granger, etc. to reside in the same basic category without coming up with “special qualifications” on a case by case basis. The “quality starter” category is fine, but I would take out anyone that’s been selected as an all-star, and put them in the “all-star” category. The “bench player” description sounds fine to me.
It sounds like “role players” would typically come out of the 4th & 5th man in the “quality starter” group, and from the “bench player” group.
Now, what I want to provide is a snap shot of the actual likelihood of securing a “franchise player” through a teams own draft pick, because the common perception appears to be that it is more likely than it really is.
In a previous post, I listed off the top five picks in the drafts between 1996 & 2007, but only if they appeared in at least one all-star game. I did the same thing with the 10-20 picks, but this was based on whether they have been a “starter” or better for “most” of their careers.
Subsequently, we’ve now whittled this list down to what we have defined as “franchise players”. We have BOTH agreed that the following EIGHT players out of the top five picks of the previously identified draft years should be deemed a “franchise player”:
Iverson (1) (1996)
Duncan (1) (1997)
James (1) (2003)
Wade (5) (2003)
Howard (1) (2004)
Williams (3) (2005)
Paul (4) (2005)
Durant (2) (2007)
The following TWO players were deemed a “franchise player” out of the 10-20 picks during the same draft period:
Bryant (13) 1996
Nash (15) 1996
Lets hone in on the top five picks, since the common perception is that we would have a good chance at getting a “franchise player” if we were to somehow secure a top five pick, and acquiring a top five pick is often considered by many imperative to winning a championship.
I’ll start by just listing some facts from my “little study”:
- draft years looked at - 1996 through 2007
- number of draft years looked at - 12
- TOTAL number of top five picks - 60
- Number of “franchise players” - 8
- Number of drafts “franchise players” came from - 6
- Number of “franchise players” that were #1 picks - 4
- Number of “franchise players” that were 1-3 picks - 6
From this data:
- overall, cumulative odds of drafting a franchise player from one of the top five picks - 13%
- odds of having just ONE franchise player come out of the top five picks in any given draft year - 33%
- odds of having TWO franchise players come out of the top five picks in any given draft year - 17%
- odds the number one pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 33%
- odds the number 2-3 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 17%
- odds the number 4-5 pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 17%
- odds the number two pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
- odds the number three pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
- odds the number four pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
- odds the number five pick in any given draft becomes a franchise player - 8%
Granted, this is limited data, based on just 12 years of drafts, but as you can see, the chances of drafting a franchise player appear to be very slim, even for those teams that get into the top-five selection order of the draft, by virtue of a POOR record, and a bit of LUCK. Furthermore, you can see that the “cream of the crop” generally rises quickly from pick five up to pick one (4 franchise players from the top pick, just one each from picks #2, #3, #4, & #5).
Thus, for those that want to trade up to the number 2-5 picks, you have approximately an 8% chance of drafting a “franchise player”. I’d think long and hard on that one. In my view it’s simply too risky to trade a guy like Parker for less than a number one pick, which just isn’t going to happen.
The fact is, you have to be a very poor team AND lucky to get a reasonable chance of getting a “franchise player” out of the draft. Thus, I would rather focus my efforts with putting together a great “team” full of all-stars, almost all-stars, and key role players that are “gamers” (like Derek Fisher reiterated that he is in game three last night). I would rather the FO follow a Pistons model to a championship over the next several years, by acquiring key pieces of young, and in-prime off-the-radar stars, & budding stars. I think the Spurs FO is savvy enough to get us a decent chance at another championship using this model over the next 3-5 years, before we will probably inevitably tank. We can take our luck at the top picks at that time, because at that time we would have nothing to lose.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
bduran
June 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“Problem is, team age could be correlated with team success.”
Of course, this is a problem. It would have to involve a sophisticated study that factored out as much as possible the impact of extraneous variables.
“As far as the age of the Spurs go, our best 3 players next year could easily be TD, Manu, and Grizzly Blair.”
It’s VERY unlikely that Blair will pass Parker next year. I know that you and others resist accepting it, but we are too old as currently constructed to realistically challenge next year, or probably the year after, for that matter. Regardless of what td4life had to say about age not being a factor, I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at Ray Allen’s performance last night. That was a clear-cut age-related factor. His shot was simply flat, and that’s a sign of tired legs, which is a sign of aging. In fact, if you look at Garnet & Pierce’s performances, they are inconsistent as well. That is a sign of age, because those two have always been consistent in big games in the past. They have Rondo, but you have to have 2-3 young “studs” to compliment your aging stars to win. And neither Boston or the Spurs do. Winning a championship is difficult as it is, but with your top three players averaging in their early thirties, it just makes it that much more difficult, all else being equal. Bottom-line: Basketball’s a PHYSICAL game, and our physical peak declines sooner than most people want to acknowledge.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Jim
My point is that is exactly why the regular season can’t be a true gauge for post-season success. If that were the case, the Mavs would have 3 or 4 championships by now. The better team wins 4/7 games in the playoffs. It wasn’t luck or a “choke” job that let the Celtics beat the Cavs and Magic back to back. The better team won.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Jim,
“Look at Ray Allen’s performance last night. That was a clear-cut age-related factor. His shot was simply flat, and that’s a sign of tired legs, which is a sign of aging. In fact, if you look at Garnet & Pierce’s performances, they are inconsistent as well.”
This is not proof of our your point. Although if you’re pointing to Boston as an example of why aging teams can’t compete for championships then I have to point out that they are in the NBA finals and got there after beating two very good teams on the road. Yeah, the East is easier in general, but their playoff road was as tough as anyone. They may not be favored to beat LA, but you can’t seriously argue that they aren’t contenders this year.
As for our team youth, we have returning
Tony Parker - 28
George Hill - 24
Richard Jefferson - 29
Dejuan Blair - 21
Ginobili - 32
Tim Duncan - 34
McDyess - 35
Avg - 29
Adding Splitter and a draft pick allowing us to reduce McDyess’ minutes and then we’re looking good on youth with our two oldest player still producing at a very high level.
Now we know Boston is older than us, let’s look at LA. Not sure who’s returning so here are their major contributors this year.
Kobe - 31
Fisher - 35
Gasol - 29
Bynum - 22 (with injury problems already)
Artest - 30
Odom - 30
Farmar - 23
Brown - 24
Avg - 28
Not terribly different. So we’re a little older than LA and younger than Boston.
I want to add young talent for depth, but I think the guys we have now our fine.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@ Jim
Sounds like our definitions or groupings of players is pretty similar….semantics at this point.
And I generally agree with you - finding a franchise player in any draft is not only uncommon, but very risky. But like I said, if our FO sees that next cornerstone and something others don’t (which has been the case on a few occasions), I’d be in favor of trying to move up in the draft. Based on our FO’s track record, I’ve come to trust their judgement.
Having said that, if we did move into the top 3 or top 5, we simply can’t miss on that player. Missing on a player that high is a recipe for disaster - that’s what the Clippers of the world do. The top of the draft is the last place you take much risk - you have to grab a solid player at the very least (and if TP was dealt, defintely more than a “solid” player). You leave the “leaps of faith” so to speak to the 2nd round.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Colin
June 9th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“My point is that is exactly why the regular season can’t be a true gauge for post-season success.”
Then why have their been so few lower-seeded teams that have gone on to win a title?(Celts would have probably been 8th seeded in the West, and even in the East, they only had one series with home court advantage). Of course the regular season results don’t directly lead to championships, but much more frequently than not, playoff teams with top-tier regular season records win championships over those with lower-tier records.
“It wasn’t luck or a “choke” job that let the Celtics beat the Cavs and Magic back to back.”
No, it was clearly choke-jobs, by both teams.
bduran
June 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
“This is not proof of our your point.”
It’s not proof, but it’s a solid indication.
“Yeah, the East is easier in general, but their playoff road was as tough as anyone. They may not be favored to beat LA, but you can’t seriously argue that they aren’t contenders this year.”
First of all, if you don’t know a choke is when you see one, I don’t know what to tell you, but the Cavs & the Magic both choked in those series. I give the Celtics credit for taking advantage of this fact, but they are only a “better” team than the Cavs & Magic because of massive, inexplicable chokes by both of those teams. And the only reason that the Celtics are holding on to contender status is because of their young talent at two key positions: Rondo at the point, and Perkins in the middle.
“As for our team youth, we have returning
Tony Parker – 28
George Hill – 24
Richard Jefferson – 29
Dejuan Blair – 21
Ginobili – 32
Tim Duncan – 34
McDyess – 35
Avg – 29″
Actually, by the time the season roles around, McDyess will be 36, Ginobli will be 33, and RJ will be 30. Average age = 29.4
Not many other team’s top seven to nine players are older than that. But the major point is, and using LA as the example, we have too many of our top players age 33 & above. Right at about age 33-34 is when you see the decline start to settle in for most players. We have THREE of our top players at age 33 & above. The Lakers only have ONE. By the way, Boston’s top eight averages 29.8, with FOUR guys at 33 and above. They’re on their last legs, in my view.
Thus, again, in my opinion, we’re simply too old as currently constructed to challenge for the title. That Boston is this close is clearly an exception to the rule, in my book.
Tyler
June 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“……if our FO sees that next cornerstone and something others don’t (which has been the case on a few occasions), I’d be in favor of trying to move up in the draft.”
I agree, and in my view, the chances are they don’t.
“Having said that, if we did move into the top 3 or top 5, we simply can’t miss on that player. Missing on a player that high is a recipe for disaster – that’s what the Clippers of the world do.”
That’s right, I agree. And as you move away from number one, the risk builds quickly. Be careful there. I think the Spurs should look at it like this: if they had the number one pick, who would that be? If this pick is determined to be a franchise player, and that draftee is in fact still available at number 3, 4, or 5, see if you can work out a deal that makes sense. Otherwise the risk is pretty prohibitive, in my view.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Jim
…………..We’ll agree to disagree. The Celts beat two higher seeds than them. They won 4/7 games against every team they’ve played. Their starting 5 including Garnett hasn’t lost a playoff series since they’ve been put together. They are in the finals competing for a championship and no one else in the east is. They got there by playing better than their opponent. Of course if they played in the West it would have been harder. Could the Lakers have beaten Cleveland and the Magic back to back……..??
June 9th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Colin
June 9th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
“Could the Lakers have beaten Cleveland and the Magic back to back……..??”
Yes, VERY likely, because Cleveland & Orlando played like shit. In fact the Lakers might have won in five, assuming the Cavs & Magic played the same stupid way. LeBron sucked (for him), Jamison sucked, Williams sucked, and their coach sucked (and got fired for it after winning 60+ games this year), and not playing Hickson much more than he did was more than stupid in that match-up with Boston. For Orlando, two key players sucked, Lewis & Carter, and again, Van Gundy’s coaching was not his best (and Nelson was inconsistent, especially as a play-maker, which is not his strength anyway). In that match-up, he should have went more with Bass, and played Williams more as well (for his play-making ability). And how does the number 2 seed in the East, a team that won 59 games this season, lose the first two games at HOME in the ECF’s? Unheard of, and it wasn’t because Boston’s so great, believe me.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Jim,
“It’s not proof, but it’s a solid indication.”
Nope it’s one instance. One instance is not a solid indication, it’s one instance. I’m not even saying you’re wrong about Ray Allen, but even then one player is one player and not a solid indication.
“Actually, by the time the season roles around, McDyess will be 36, Ginobli will be 33, and RJ will be 30. Average age = 29.4″
LA will be older as well and we’ll still be younger than Boston is now.
“First of all, if you don’t know a choke is when you see one, I don’t know what to tell you, but the Cavs & the Magic both choked in those series”
These are my favorite kinds of arguments. The ones where you can’t say anything to back up your argument so you say things like “Well, if you can’t recognize how right I am, you’re an idiot.”
Maybe, the Cavs and Magic didn’t choke. Maybe Boston returned the level the played at in the first half of the season when they were playing as well as anyone in the league. One team choking, maybe. Attributing both wins to choke jobs? I don’t think so. If you can’t see this maybe you’ve never seen a basketball or the sun (See what I did there?).
“We have THREE of our top players at age 33 & above.”
TWO! I expect we need some change. McD shouldn’t be in our top 5 next year. I’m counting on Blair and us getting another big from somewhere to help take McD’s minutes. As for TD and Manu. If they suffer injury then yes, we will be in trouble. However, both of them are still producing at a very high level. As long as they continue to produce well, who cares? We can worry about it all we want but there is no one better for us until one of them succumbs to age/injury.
“In fact the Lakers might have won in five, assuming the Cavs & Magic played the same stupid way.”
Yeah, because the Lakers beat the far superior Suns and Thunder in six, so clearly this indicates a 5 win series over the Magic and Cavaliers.
June 9th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
bduran
June 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
“Nope it’s one instance. One instance is not a solid indication, it’s one instance. I’m not even saying you’re wrong about Ray Allen, but even then one player is one player and not a solid indication.”
When a guy like Ray Allen, almost 35 year old, and one of the best pure shooters in the game, with solid mechanics and mental preparation, goes o-13 with a noticeably “flat” shot, in my view it is “a solid indication” that he didn’t have his normal lift because his legs were tired. A guy that age will get tired legs from “too many games” much easier than a younger guy. Duncan, even Manu, are going to start to more frequently run into this same problem. It’s just a function of aging. Sure it’s one instance, but this is not stats we’re talking about here. It’s my subjective observation & evaluation. Take it for what it’s worth.
“LA will be older as well and we’ll still be younger than Boston is now.”
Perhaps not if they don’t resign Ray Allen, and make a trade or free agent signing for someone 6-10 years younger. Certainly conceivable. Even so, I don’t want to compete with Boston for being the oldest team in the league anyway. Their shot for a title will continue to go down if they don’t get younger. LA will be older, but they’ll still have only one guy in their top 7-9 players aged 33 and above, and they’ll have just come off winning two straight titles. Hard to argue with that.
“One team choking, maybe. Attributing both wins to choke jobs? I don’t think so.”
It is pretty amazing, but in my humble OPINION, both of those teams choked those series, and Boston did well to take advantage of it. I saw the games. Boston’s defense was not that good to cause that many star players (with clutch playoff performances in the past under their belt) to turn the ball over so much, particularly in key situations, and throw up a ton of absolute bricks, many of them on uncontested shots. They were ridiculous performances from 60-win teams, one for which the coach was fired on account of the “choke” he presided over. If you didn’t see some choking going on, we can just agree to disagree. That’s fine. But to me it was pretty obvious.
“However, both of them are still producing at a very high level. As long as they continue to produce well, who cares?”
They are in decline, and their production is likely to continue to fade. Also, their production now is not at a high enough level to effectively compete for a title given the existing supporting cast. And it’s still to be determined what kind of help the Spurs are going to be able to provide them with next year.
“Yeah, because the Lakers beat the far superior Suns and Thunder in six, so clearly this indicates a 5 win series over the Magic and Cavaliers.”
I said they “might” (not “clearly”) have been able to win in five, given how poorly the Cavs & Magic played against the Celtics. Clearly, the Suns and Thunder played much more inspired and confident ball than the Cavs & Magic did. Their star players didn’t turn in pathetic performances. Their coaches didn’t get fired after the series loss. In fact, they’ve been offered lucrative extensions. And in the case of the Suns, their bench paid hefty dividends as one of the most effective 2nd units in the league. Plus, the Lakers were coming off their season-ending slump when they faced the Thunder. They needed to face an aggressive series from a young & athletic upstart to get their play as a team back up to a high level.
June 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am
Jim,
“in my view it is “a solid indication” that he didn’t have his normal lift because his legs were tired.”
If you want to discuss Ray Allen fine. However, if you want to use one game of one player to prove a point about the league in general then I’m not going to accept it.
You said.
“Perhaps not if they don’t resign Ray Allen, and make a trade or free agent signing for someone 6-10 years younger.”
I said.
“we’ll still be younger than Boston is now”
So unless they go back in time and dump Allen my point stands.
“LA will be older, but they’ll still have only one guy in their top 7-9 players aged 33 and above, and they’ll have just come off winning two straight titles. Hard to argue with that.”
Hard to want to. Why 33? Why not 30, 31, 32? We’ll only have one top player 34 or older.
“It is pretty amazing, but in my humble OPINION, both of those teams choked those series,”
This seems to me like you’re trying to make this argument to support your, Boston shouldn’t be there, argument to support your age argument. When one team outplays another they can make the team they beat look bad. It’s a common mistake in sports to simply say, “the team that lost really beat themselves.” This is rarely true in a 7 game series. I think I’ll just apply Occam’s razor and chose the theory that Boston really is pretty good.
“Also, their production now is not at a high enough level to effectively compete for a title given the existing supporting cast.”
This is trivially true. Their production is what is and we didn’t compete for a title. However, is this because the production of our top two players doesn’t compare to the production of the top two players of the other competitive teams? Or because our supporting cast isn’t as good as the other top teams? According to both WP48 and my subjective analysis it’s the latter.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Jim
Based on your assessments of the Magic and Cavs, the better team won those series. Boston has proved itself as a title contender with their current starting 5 healthy. You’re talking yourself in circles now man. I’ll stay away from predicting who will win, but Boston IS there and no one from the east is. They earned it, it was not given to them.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:17 am
bduran
June 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am
“If you want to discuss Ray Allen fine. However, if you want to use one game of one player to prove a point about the league in general then I’m not going to accept it.”
I am more specifically talking about Ray Allen from game three of the finals, but I’m also making the broader point that ALL athletes on average show a decline in speed and stamina that becomes more noticeable once they reach their early thirties. “Tired legs” is one of the “stamina” declines that can, and occasionally does, affect the trajectory of a shooter’s shot just enough to appreciably disturb his shooting efficiency. As I said, take it for what it’s worth, and accept it or not. That’s obviously your prerogative.
“Hard to want to. Why 33? Why not 30, 31, 32? We’ll only have one top player 34 or older.”
MY observation is that the average player begins to show appreciable decline in his game (compared to his prime years) at around age 33, give or take a year. And by the way, why do you continually leave out McDyess in our top 7-9 players? He was clearly our 5th or 6th man all of last season, and showed no evidence in the playoffs that his role would shrink out of the top 7-9 players. At this point, you can’t rely on Splitter, and you can’t rely on our draft pick. So how can you possibly count McDyess out of our top 7-9? And if you use 34 as the cutoff point, we have two, and the Lakers have one. If you don’t count McDyess, we have one and the Celtics have two (cannot count Wallace if you don’t count McDyess). Either way, we’re talking about three of the oldest teams in the league. Boston’s on it’s last stand (in MY view), and the Lakers have a couple of more years in them because they in know way “rely” on their old guy (Fisher), they have one of the most mentally tough & greatest players in the history of the game (Bryant - still almost three years younger than TD, and without a chronic knee problem), and they have TWO talented 7 footers, both under the age of 30 (Gasol & Bynum).
“This is rarely true in a 7 game series. I think I’ll just apply Occam’s razor and chose the theory that Boston really is pretty good.”
Boston is very good, but Cleveland and Orlando “choked” in my view. There was nothing special that Boston did to produce the unusually poor performances from some of the Cavs & Magics star players. And as I said, the coaching was pitiful, particularly for the now fired Mike Brown. Apparently he doesn’t understand match-ups too well, and has difficulty getting his team mentally prepared & focused. But really, even the coaching is not a sufficient explanation for ALL these veteran players to play so beneath their capabilities. Many of the important players on the Cavs & Magic simply “choked”, in my view. It happens, but usually not to this extent. So really, I was flabbergasted.
“According to both WP48 and my subjective analysis it’s the latter.”
Well, as I’ve told you before, I’m not going to put all my eggs in one basket, the WP48. Efficiency is great, but I need my best guys on the floor for a lot of minutes, and our top two have the lowest combined mpg. by far of any of the top teams.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Colin
June 10th, 2010 at 10:46 am
“…..but Boston IS there and no one from the east is. They earned it, it was not given to them.”
As I’ve said repeatedly, Boston deserves credit for playing well, and seizing the opportunity presented to them by the “choking” Cavs & Magic. No, I give Boston plenty of credit. They’re a tough, savvy, experienced, and prideful team. And they found a way to win those series against younger & more talented opposition. But what Boston was able to accomplish, and the assertion that the Cav’s & Magic “choked”, are not mutually exclusive concepts.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
” I’m also making the broader point that ALL athletes on average show a decline in speed and stamina that becomes more noticeable once they reach their early thirties”
You can’t make the broader point with one example in one game. Well, I guess you can but no reasonable person should accept it. Look, I remember reading a study on 82games.com (I think) that said shooting guards suffered a sharp decline at age 32. However, we won’t know what Manu does next year until we see it. Pointing out what Ray Allen did in one game at the age of 35 is really not very useful.
“MY observation is that the average player begins to show appreciable decline in his game (compared to his prime years) at around age 33, give or take a year.”
I have to be honest, unless your “observation” includes statistical analysis of age of decline, I give it no credit. Sure, we all know that players decline as they age, but specifically identifying age 33 as the age of decline without crunching the numbers is worthless.
“And by the way, why do you continually leave out McDyess in our top 7-9 players?”
He won’t be in our top 5, I’m fine with him in the 7-9 range. Next year our top 5 should be TD, Manu, TP, Hill, and Blair. Jefferson should be our six or seven. I’m also hoping we get Splitter. If McD comes in after that I’m fine.
Tonight Boston tied up the series. No matter what happens they took it to six. At this point Boston has beaten the Cavs and Magic on the road, and taken the Lakers to at least six. Your premise is flawed. Boston, the oldest team in the league, is a legitimate contender.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:29 am
bduran
June 10th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
“You can’t make the broader point with one example in one game.”
The Allen observation is just one example of the broader point, that ALL athletes show a decline in stamina as they age, and this can effect their games, in certain situations. Things like “flat” shots occur quite often, particularly in older players, often as a result of tired legs, and particularly in the second of back-to-backs, or on an unusually intense stretch on the road against tough competition, or near the end of a long season. I’m not attempting to “prove” the broader point with one example in one game. It’s simply an observation, and in my view a fair extrapolation, from someone that has seen a lot of games, and has seen a lot of players age over a LONG period of time.
“…..we won’t know what Manu does next year until we see it.”
That is true, but in my view the odds keep going up every year at this point that a more noticeable decline will start to settle in.
“Pointing out what Ray Allen did in one game at the age of 35 is really not very useful.”
But the larger point is NOT about what “Ray Allen did in one game”. The Allen case is merely an example of something that happens to older people, in this case a professional athlete: that is, that our stamina declines more noticeably in our early to mid thirties, and this depreciating stamina reduces our capacity to perform as well physically in an enduring persistent, repetitive, and intense fashion.
“Sure, we all know that players decline as they age, but specifically identifying age 33 as the age of decline without crunching the numbers is worthless.”
I said age 33, give or take a year, is about the time when the majority of players evidence more noticeable decline in their game from their prime years. The fact is, there is no known statistic that documents the following: “what is the average year of a player when he experiences more noticeable decline compared to his prime years”. If you expect ANYONE to lend support to my argument through statistics you’re barking up the wrong tree. I suppose I would have to list every player in the league above age 34 and look at their minute allocation beginning at age 30 to see if their minutes (factoring out significant injury periods) and/or productive efficiency had depreciated more noticeably during their early thirties than at any time prior, or after. Well, to be frank, I’m not going to take the time to do that, so I guess you’ll just have to accept that my personal and subjective observation over decades of being an astute student of the game is simply not credible, and maybe even “worthless”. That said, statistics are far from the only thing that can reveal important insights about the game of basketball, as I’m sure you would freely acknowledge.
“He won’t be in our top 5, I’m fine with him in the 7-9 range.”
On the general point of age, we we’re talking about the top players in the rotation, which usually includes at least 7-9 players, and you specifically left out McDyess out when you were looking at the number of “older” players in the rotation on the teams in question. And we cannot count Splitter in this exercise. As it stands now, the most relevant information is that we’re scheduled to go into next season with probably the second oldest team in the league in terms of players that play regularly (10-15 mpg.+). For me, that’s too old if you plan to win.
“Your premise is flawed. Boston, the oldest team in the league, is a legitimate contender.”
My premise is not flawed. You say the fact that only ONE team has won a title in the past 20 years with their top scorers averaging 95+ years old is a meaningless stat. Well, so is saying that age isn’t a problem because the “old” Celtics are taking this years finals to at least six games. That one instance does not prove that old age in one’s top players is not a deterrent to winning a title. It’s just one instance.
Furthermore, Boston stayed in the series by relying on there young legs in a crucial game four, particularly in the fourth quarter when it mattered the most. The young guys simply bailed the old guys out. The great majority of the crucial fourth quarter was played most productively by, age in parentheses; Robinson (26), Davis (24), T. Allen (28), and Perkins (25), with just one cagey veteran, R. Allen (34) in the mix, who didn’t do too much. No question, it was “young” legs that won that game for the Celtics, a game where a key “young” guy, Bynum, was only able to only play 12 ineffective minutes for the losing team, due to an injury flare-up.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“you specifically left out McDyess”
No, I included him in my average age. Then I said I expect him to see reduced minutes next year and move to the end of our rotation.
“The great majority of the crucial fourth quarter was played most productively by, age in parentheses; Robinson (26), Davis (24), T. Allen (28), and Perkins (25), with just one cagey veteran, R. Allen (34) in the mix, who didn’t do too much.”
I guess we didn’t watch the same game since Perkins played zero minutes in the fourth and Rasheed Wallace played almost the whole quarter. Allen played almost the whole second half and had 10 points on 5 shots. They may not have been the two most important people in that stretch, but they certainly contributed and I don’t think it really helps your point.
“The young guys simply bailed the old guys out. ”
And Rondo, he was on the bench. Also, the Boston starters made it a close game in the third so I don’t think “bailed” is the word I would use.
You also mentioned Bynum’s injury. I think this helps out my point that the Lakers aren’t that much younger than us. A key component of their youth has been injury prone his whole career. Reduces how much he can contribue and effectively bumps the Laker’s age up.
“what is the average year of a player when he experiences more noticeable decline compared to his prime years”.
I think Hollinger or Berri or someone at 82games.com looked at this once. I seem to remember reading that they found shooting guards hitting a sharper decline at age 32. Maybe I’m misremembering. Of course, even if it’s true you don’t know what will happen to a player until it happens. Also, given how well Manu has played the last few years his play could take a significant decline and still be very valuable to us.
“Well, so is saying that age isn’t a problem because the “old” Celtics are taking this years finals to at least six games.”
I only mentioned the Celtics because you have been used their aging players as example to support your argument. I’m saying bad example. The Celtics have now beat two very good teams in 7 game series and are going to take another one to at least 6. Their starters are Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo, and Perkins. Our starters will be TD, Manu, Hill/Tp, Jefferson, and Blair. Their better at PG and SF, we’re better at the other spots. This is why I think depth is the key and managing our older players minutes instead of just saying, “No way, we can’t do it” when clearly it is being done by another team RIGHT NOW.
If you say that KG, Pierce, and Allen have all aged and are no longer as good as they once were then I agree. Take those guys in their prime along with Rondo and no one could stand against them. However, declining in play is not the same thing as being unable to contribute to a championship team.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
bduran
June 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“No, I included him in my average age. Then I said I expect him to see reduced minutes next year and move to the end of our rotation.”
You included McDyess in the average age, 1-7 to 9, but you OMITTED him in the number of players we have above 33 or 34 years old.
“They may not have been the two most important people in that stretch, but they certainly contributed and I don’t think it really helps your point.”
You’re right, it was Wallace (he made his only shot of the game, a wide-open three, assisted by T. Allen), not Perkins in the fourth. However, it does not detract at all from my point in any meaningful way. The most important facts for the Celtics in game four are these: For the entire game, the “old guys” Wallace & Allen combined for 5 of 16 shooting, had 15 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist in 63 minutes played. The young guys, Davis, Robinson, & T. Allen combined for 12-22 shooting, had 33 points, 10 rebounds, and 3 assists in 57 minutes played. An even bigger and more important advantage occurred between the start of the 4th quarter (when LA maintained a 62-60 lead) and the 3:45 mark in the game, a span during which the Celtics clearly took control of the game by completing a 25-12 run. During this crucial stretch, the “young three” scored 18 points on a combination of 6 buckets plus 6 free throws, while the “old two” scored 7 points on 3 buckets and 1 free throw. In addition, two of the three buckets scored by the old two were assisted by two of the young three, whereas just one of the young three’s six buckets were assisted by the one of the old two. Davis & Robinson alone scored 15 (to just 7 for Allen & Wallace) of the Celtics 25 points in that crucial 8 minute stretch at the start of the fourth quarter. The young players gave Allen and Wallace an important boost of energy, and they of course could not help but make a modest contribution as a result. Nevertheless, the Celtics young bench players were clearly what turned the tide in that game.
“You also mentioned Bynum’s injury. I think this helps out my point that the Lakers aren’t that much younger than us. A key component of their youth has been injury prone his whole career. Reduces how much he can contribue and effectively bumps the Laker’s age up.”
Bynum’s still just 22 years old. It’s WAY too early to write-off or depreciate his potential contributions in the coming years.
“Also, given how well Manu has played the last few years his play could take a significant decline and still be very valuable to us.”
Look, I love Manu. I think he’ll be a valuable player even as his play continues to decline. I’m just saying, we’re left right now with depending on him like he’s our stud, our “go-to guy”, and the chances are that he will become less & less capable of fulfilling that role over the next couple of years. We need another young, dependable guy that can flat out “ball” to lessen the load for both Manu & TD.
“Their starters are Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo, and Perkins. Our starters will be TD, Manu, Hill/Tp, Jefferson, and Blair. Their better at PG and SF, we’re better at the other spots.”
No, they’re better at center or PF as well, depending on where you have Duncan lined up. Plus, as it currently stands, they have an OVERALL deeper, more talented, more experienced, and mostly younger group off their bench (Davis, Robinson, Allen, Wallace, Daniels).
“This is why I think depth is the key and managing our older players minutes instead of just saying, “No way, we can’t do it” when clearly it is being done by another team RIGHT NOW.”
To an extent, I agree, but can we sufficiently upgrade our depth with our current salary cap restrictions? And to be honest, I don’t think Boston can win another title with their “big three” either. They’ve made a valiant stand this year, with some GREAT coaching by Doc Rivers, but I really think they’re at the end of their road. We’ll see, but I don’t see them getting to another final with the “big three” still in tact.
And Boston probably has a better shot at challenging for a title than us because they have two YOUNG starters surrounding their aging “big three” that are perfect fits for their team, at two crucial positions: one is a budding superstar (Rondo, at the point), and one is a perfect compliment that competently helps Garnett defend the paint (Perkins - in the middle). Now, we can speculate all we want about Splitter - if he comes, how good will he actually perform on our team, in the NBA, etc., but the fact is we don’t have Splitter now. Perkins has been gelling with Rondo & the big three for three years now - hard to compare with a newly acquired European star, IF we even get him.
“If you say that KG, Pierce, and Allen have all aged and are no longer as good as they once were then I agree. Take those guys in their prime along with Rondo and no one could stand against them. However, declining in play is not the same thing as being unable to contribute to a championship team.”
I agree with this last paragraph. Yeah!
Leave a Reply