A Note of Caution: Work to be Done
On his latest podcast, Bill Simmons talks offseason with Marc Stein and Ric Bucher. It gets a little catty, and each man wins points here and there. When the talk turned to the obligatory “Who will win the title?” question, I was surprised to hear each man offer support for the Spurs (Bucher throws Boston into the conversation, but only because Stein and Simmons had already selected San Antonio).
The picks were qualified under the assumption that Lamar Odom moves house to Miami, and I suspect their picks are early indicators of a forthcoming October trend. But let me say, as someone who chronicles the Spurs, there is reason for caution.
We’re not out of July yet, and I’m already ready to name R.C. Buford 2009/10′s most accomplished executive. When he receives his due, someone should impose a zero over the nine, making the trophy good for 2000-2010. More than any other offseason, he’s lived up to his reputation this summer. The Spurs get an A+ for their summer haul, but they’re a long way from home.
I’m with Pop. The Lakers are still the favorites. The reason for this is simple: continuity. In some ways, it’s more difficult to work in new talent than it is to recover from the loss of talent. It’s a players league, but players flounder or flourish based on their ability to succeed within a system. Did anyone doubt that A.I. would provide fewer answers in Detroit or Shawn Marion would slip out of his matrix in Miami? The Spurs are adroit surveyors of talent, always picking the right players, players who fit what they do. But every executive has a margin of error, and you never really know a team’s capabilities until you see it on the court.
A couple weeks ago I wrote that the upcoming season is on Coach Popovich. To crib a line from Biggie Smalls, mo’ talent, mo’ problems. Granted, they’re the right problems to have. Pop is up to his neck in talent, but it’s a swamp from shoulder to toe.
Teaching the System
It’s frequently said that the Spurs’ system takes a full season to learn, with new acquisitions playing better as sophomores than freshmen. That can’t be the case this season. Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili are too old for Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess and DeJuan Blair to spend the year in training wheels. Pop and his staff must accelerate the learning curve. A home run training camp is a must.
The Spurs are fortunate that most of their young players have learned the system, either as a Spur or Toro. George Hill should be fine. To my mind, Ian Mahinmi, Malik Hairston and Marcus Williams will brand the Toros an unqualified success if they’re able to give the Spurs minutes without flubbing defensive rotations. (It’s not part of the national conversation, but an incredibly important storyline for the upcoming season is the Austin Toros. The strength of Spurs’ bench is largely contingent on the ability of former Toros to make the transition from the D-League to the Association.)
Incorporating the Young Players
Our readers are hip to the Spurs’ current youth movement. Casual fans and broad stroke national writers will pick up the scent come February, but for now consider that next year’s roster is likely to feature George Hill (23), Ian Mahinmi (22), DeJuan Blair (20), Malik Hairston (22), and Marcus Williams (22). It’s not a stretch to project four of those five into the regular season rotation. In addition, newcomers Richard Jefferson (29) and Marcus Haislip (28) are still on the right side of 30. Jefferson is a lock for heavy minutes and Haislip will challenge Matt Bonner for the right to play the role of Robert Horry.
But Popovich prefers vets. If he had his way, the team would be old as dirt every season. But the Spurs see the limits of such preferences, and they’ve clearly tipped their hat toward more youth and athleticism. This will seem odd, but the Spurs’ championship aspirations hang more on George Hill, DeJuan Blair and Ian Mahinmi than we think. The additions of Jefferson and McDyess bring the Spurs even, or just ahead, of the league’s top teams in terms of talent. But those additions simply even the score, they’re not go ahead runs.
If the Spurs create significant separation between themselves and their competition, it will be because their young players exceed expectations. Ian Mahinmi has to show that he belongs in a league that includes Tim Duncan, Antonio McDyess and Theo Ratliff.
It’s in the team’s best interest for Pop to commit minutes to his 20-somethings, even at the cost of sacrificing regular season wins to develop them for the playoffs. Pop’s recourse to George Hill in the final two games of Mavericks series is an indicator that he gets it. His willingness to walk away from Kurt Thomas, Bruce Bowen and Fabricio Oberto seals the conviction. Now Pop must roll up his sleeves and transform Malik Hairston into a productive reserve.
Managing Minutes
Tony Parker is playing international ball this summer. Manu Ginobili is frail. Antonio McDyess is durable, but old. Tim Duncan’s legs need plenty of rest. How many regular season minutes should the Spurs give to each of them? Should the Spurs sit their core on alternating nights during back to backs? That is, on a Friday-Saturday back to back, let Parker and McDyess have Friday off, and give Duncan and Ginobili extended pine on Saturday. The Spurs flirted with this possibility last season, and given the age and odometer of their core, it seems like a prudent policy for the upcoming season.
Taking such an approach to back to backs also gives Popovich an opportunity to place an onus to win on his young players while allowing himself more than enough opportunity to evaluate their potential contribution to the team.  It’s a win-win policy.
Finding a Rotation
Let’s just consider the frontline: Tim Duncan, Antonio McDyess and DeJuan Blair will command most of the minutes, but obviously you don’t want to play Duncan or McDyess too much. The 4th and, potentially, 5th spots in the big rotation are up for grabs. Ian Mahinmi, Matt Bonner, Marcus Haislip, and Theo Ratliff are the contenders.
The only way to figure out who should play is through trial and error. We’re left to watch Popovich watch the team. I’m confident we’ll have many “Ugh, why did Pop play Bonner so many minutes last night?” moments next season. And Popovich is certain to walk away from games thinking, “I’ll never play those two together again.” This season’s quest for a rotation is challenging because no one, including Pop, knows how the retooled frontline will gel, what players like Haislip and Mahinmi bring to the table, or how much, say, Ratliff has left in the tank. Up to the point of Drew Gooden, last season’s frontcourt was an entirely known quantity.
Staying Healthy
If Pop can get all the new guys up to speed, incorporate the young players, and effectively manage the minutes of his core, he still needs to get lucky. Everything hinges on the Spurs’ health in April, May and June.
Related to this, a Fanpost at Pounding the Rock asks a provocative question: Does Gregg Popovich owe it to Peter Holt to go for home court advantage. As most fans know, Pop is notoriously unconcerned about whether the Spurs play at home or on the road in the playoffs. Ultimately, they have to win on the road, so he treats the question as a non-issue. But what if the question of home court advantage is not about playoff wins and losses; what if home court advantage is about the box office revenue associated with a 3rd or 4th game at home?
I’d like to think that Popovich doesn’t feel these pressures, and there is absolutely no indications that Peter Holt imposes them. If Holt has demonstrated anything to the team’s fans, it’s that his commitment to winning trumps his commitment to the bottom line. One could say that in this case a commitment to winning works in concert with a commitment to the bottomline. But that all hinges on a point of semantics–a commitment to regular season wins is not the same thing as a commitment to winning. It means nothing to the Spurs to win 64 rather than 60 regular season games. That’s not a commitment to winning. It’s a commitment to wins. A commitment to winning means championships. The Spurs are wise enough to know the difference.
Still, having said all that, Pop knows the score. R.C. Buford has assembled the talent, Peter Holt is picking up the check. It’s on him to get the team through.
I think Marcus Haislip spells the end of bonner. heres a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyiK5nf95Cs if he plays half this good it’s better than bonner shooting, can create off the dribble, and the D. I’m excited to see this guy.
If any of that stuff translates to the NBA, he’ll be pretty dangerous. I have some major doubts about that, but I’d like to be proven wrong.
I am inclined to say that winning games is very much correlated with winning a championship. Simply put, it gives a team an edge in two ways – homecourt advantage, and a mental edge.
It is quite possible that 64 wins means more to the Spurs than 60 wins.
Yes, staying healthy is ultimately their primary concern.
But a Spurs team without a number of vets is still a formidable team. It might not come down to losing 4 more games.
I guess there’s more evidence to go on that Duncan has, or is in the process of, declining, but how come nobody even entertains the idea with Bryant? At 31 (by the start of next season) he’ll have more mileage on his body than anyone in the history of the game at that point, with very little down time the past two years. He is due to begin to decline as well, but it’s as if people have gotten so caught up in the NBA attempting to market him with their next generation of superstars (James, Wade, Howard, Paul, etc.) that it’s become almost forgotten how old he is by NBA standards.
It’s also completely overlooked how well Duncan was playing before the All-Star break last season. That was, if not exactly, then close to the Duncan from his MVP years. He was carrying the Spurs and playing as well as anyone in the league. But, of course as usual, that got little to no attention nationally, because it didn’t involve Bryant, James, or the Celtics.
Kobe is a shooter- and a common maxim is the shot is the last thing to go. I think thats one of the reasons hes not getting the type of attention regarding declining that Duncan has.
The Duncan decline thing is overblown.
The Duncan decline has been mentioned since 2006 or 2007 (i guess?) but still we won 1 ring since its been an issue… i think its getting more focus now because:
1. Injured his knees last season, and we all know
he is not 100% during the playoffs.
and
2. We are stcked up so much with BIGS to help out
Duncan this upcoming season.
But if you look at his numbers… there’s hardly a decline. He is so consistent despite the fact that he had played 12 straight years without missing the playoffs. To my mind, Timmy D. has at the very least 2-3 good years left in him…
What I think people mean by decline is that Tim Duncan isn’t the crafty, aggressive player who dunked on pretty much everyone that he used to be in his younger years.
However the man still does put up 20 and 10. People need to be careful when they use the word “decline” with Duncan
I love McDyess and Theo is ok but why did our beloved spurs just sign two old guys? It kinda goes against everything we started to do this summer with the signings of Blair and RJ. Brandon Bass or Drew Gooden or Channing Frye, Glen Davis, cough cough Rasho, would all be younger and your choice if you think they are better worse or even players. Hope our spurs will be ok this year. Do you see that we need to do anything else this summer? Or do you see any other moves coming on the horizon? Been a great summer, we’ve lost nobody of importance and gained RJ, Dice, Theo and Blair. Exciting year ahead.
The purpose of signing McDyess and Ratliff is to mix youth with experience… we already have enough young bigs in Blair, Mahinmi and Haislip…
Veteran players most of the time have high Basketball IQ (see Dice and he is hungry to win a title as it is with Ratliff).If youre thinking we should sign somebody else (like Gooden, Bass etc…) i think the reason are pretty ovious these guys will ask more money, and we can also argue that atleast McDyess is more proven than guys you’ve mentioned… Ratliff will only be used for short stints so i’d say for the minimum and 1 yr. he is a good signing.
Of course at 33 years old after 12 seasons in the league and a lot of mileage from repeatedly playing deep into the year and getting a shortened summer of time off, he’s not quite at his peak. Neither is Garnett, or Bryant. But people act as if he’s no longer amongst the elite in the game.
I still would rank Duncan & Bryant as the two best all around players and standards in the game (one for post players, the other for perimeter players).
I don’t care about Howard’s numbers, his game is far too underdeveloped to be considered better than Duncan’s. The way I see it: Duncan, Bryant, James, Wade, Paul, Howard. That’s the elite of the elite.