Monday, November 9th, 2009...8:51 am
An Early Assessment of Team Defense
Through five games, the San Antonio Spurs are consistently getting beat on the boards. They currently rank 25th out of 30 teams in rebound rate. The Spurs are the 18th worst offensive rebounding team in the league; they’re ranked 27th in defensive rebounding rate. In terms of raw numbers, San Antonio is losing on the boards to the tune 195-211. That’s not entirely lopsided, but it’s an early trend which the Spurs must reverse.
Coach Popovich recognizes a defensive failing afoot, and he replaced Michael Finley with Keith Bogans in the starting line up against Portland. I suspect Popovich will tinker with his rotation over the next few weeks until he finds more effective defensive combinations, and that really ought to begin with solving the problem of being outclassed on the glass.
While Keith Bogans is a defensive upgrade over Michael Finley, the Spurs’ perimeter defense is not a problem to fix with the same urgency as their rebounding issues. The rebound issue is glaring, while the perimeter defense is solid but not spectacular. For example, Joseph Treutlein (of DraftExpress and Hoopdata.com) is analyzing the defensive shot location data of every team and sent me this by way of email:
…[the] Spurs allow among the fewest three-point shot attempts per game, but among the most long twos per game so far this season. The eFG% they allow on threes is also incredibly low. Suggests they’re doing something right with perimeter defense, and more evidence to why Pop is such a great defensive coach, as I’m sure this distribution is a philosophical choice. They did the same thing last season.
Treutlein is correct. Go back and look at the same data, but with an eye toward what’s happening in the middle. The Spurs are allowing their opponents to shoot 61.6% at the rim and 53.8% within ten feet. The league averages from those distances are 60.4 and 41.9, respectively. Just like the rebounding numbers, the statistical data suggests that something is wrong on the interior. Treutlein puts it this way:
Overall the Spurs’ DefEff not looking too hot so far, as opponents are getting to the line too often and making a killing on the offensive glass, surprisingly. Their At Basket defense is also below league average based on the Shot Locations page. Based on their 09 stats, they’re doing a much worse job defending the basket, and allowing more shots at the basket that last season seemed to fall more in the 5-15 foot range. That seems to be the big thing standing out as to why their DefEff isn’t up to par this year.
The Spurs are 2-3.
It’s strange to describe the Spurs in this way. For years, their one and done defensive strategy has strangled the life out of opponents. Complicating matters is the fact that DeJuan Blair and Tim Duncan are ranked third and fourth in the league in rebound rate. On a per minute basis, the Spurs should dominate other teams on the boards. The problem, of course, is that their best rebounders simply aren’t on the court enough. The season is young, but Gregg Popovich is currently privileging rebounding-deficient 5-man units.
Another way of putting this-a way that is not necessarily critical of Coach Popovich-is to say the Spurs have been forced into line ups that provide more scoring but leave them vulnerable on the glass. But there is one problem with painting a happy face over the messy defensive back drop: the Spurs aren’t hurting for offense.
Through five games, the Spurs are 8th most efficient offense in the league. They’re averaging nearly 99 points per game and feature four All-Stars, each of whom is capable of scoring 2o points on any given night. Generating offense, one would think, is not a problem.
The Spurs need to find more minutes for their rebounding bigs.
And, please, notice the all important qualifier: rebounding bigs.
Matt Bonner
Matt Bonner is averaging 20 minutes a contest, and in those minutes he’s only pulling down 3.2 rebounds. Bonner spends most of his time away from the hoop, so one can only lay so much blame at his feet. Nevertheless, there are only sixty three other power forwards that rank ahead of him in rebound rate, including DeJuan Blair, who has the league’s best rebounding rate amongst power forwards.
Putting things in those terms might make Spurs fans question Bonner’s minutes, but there is more to the story than rebounds. Matt Bonner really does help the team more than he hurts it. His ability to stretch the floor for Duncan and the team’s slashers is both unique and invaluable. He’s a career .406 three point specialist, although he’s in a mini slump to begin the season. His current number is .286.
Offensively, the Spurs are undeniably potent with Bonner on the floor. San Antonio’s best 5-man units feature Bonner. This is nothing new: Matt Bonner contributed to the team’s best line ups last season, as well. Statistically speaking, the Spurs are an extremely good team with Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson, Tim Duncan and Matt Bonner sharing court time together. I know what you’re thinking: it’s not hard for those four to make Bonner look good. And that’s true. But the spacing Bonner provides contributes to the unit’s success.
It’s not as simple as “Matt Bonner should play” or “Matt Bonner shouldn’t play.” It’s not an either/or question. The question is one of scale: how many minutes should Matt Bonner average, despite his shortcomings on the glass. In context, I think Bonner should play less, but not dramatically less. He helps the team.
The bigger issue here is that Matt Bonner is not Robert Horry. Horry was unique in his ability to stretch the opposing defense while still providing terrific defense for the Spurs. Bonner, for all his positive contribution, is a half-Horry in this regard. He’s an offensive specialist who doesn’t contribute rebounding or shot blocking. 20 minutes per contest is too many for a one-way player.
DeJuan Blair
DeJuan Blair is a rookie, and at times he’s looked decidedly green. But there is an easy argument to make in favor of his receiving more minutes.
Let’s start with the bad news on Blair: opposing bigs can shoot over Blair and his defensive rotations are still transitioning from Pennsylvania to Texas. He can’t do anything about his height, but his rotations should improve with playing time.
DeJuan Blair is second in the league in field goal percentage, and, unlike Bonner, he draws fouls. Blair leads all rookies in PER (21.58), and is 7th amongst power forwards. As I mentioned above, he claims the third best rebounding rate in basketball, occupying a top five with Joel Przybilla, Greg Oden, Tim Duncan and Dwight Howard. His adjusted win score is 8.99. To put that in perspective, Blair’s AWS ranks him ahead of every power forward (averaging at least 15 minutes), save Chris Bosh, Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Smith and Marreese Speights. (Hoopdata.com considers Tim Duncan a center and lists his AWS at 10.80).
It’s also the case that’s Blair individual contribution, which, as I’ve just demonstrated, is considerable, doesn’t diminish the play of others. Every 5-man unit which Blair has been a part of has a positive plus/minus, with the exception of the briefly used combination of Hill, Mason, Bogans, Blair and Ratliff.
Returning to the point of this post, it would seem that the Spurs’ struggles to command the boards would be helped by finding more minutes for Blair. He is a defensive improvement over Matt Bonner. There is no question that Blair is a better offensive player than Matt Bonner, although the nature of his offensive contribution is obviously different than Bonner’s. One could argue, as I did above, that Matt Bonner’s unique talents do a better job of opening up the offense for his teammates. But if the Spurs intend to recover from their disappointing defensive start, increased minutes for DeJuan Blair would mark a good beginning point.
Antonio McDyess
Here’s the thing with Antonio McDyess: he’s 35. He could help the team now, or Pop can conserve his energy and up his minutes as the season progresses, which should happen. One has to make a case for DeJuan Blair receiving more minutes, which I think I’ve done, but Antonio McDyess’ career numbers speak for themselves. With minutes, he’s basically a double-double guy with a world class knack for knocking down long twos. John Hollinger describes McDyess’s ability to spread the floor, which is not news to anyone, in this way:
McDyess rarely shoots at the basket anymore unless it’s a putback; all he does now is face up from the top of the key or the left elbow. He led the league, in fact, in the proportion of his shots from the left side… Of his 2-point shot attempts, 74.1 percent were away from the basket and 61.9 percent were long 2s; he led the league in both categories among players with at least 100 shot attempts. His rate of long 2s was particularly amazing, as only a handful of players took half as many of their shots from that range.
Blair is young and needs to learn; McDyess is old and the Spurs need him to last. Antonio McDyess should play more than 17 minutes a game, but not until February or early March. And especially not now while the Spurs have such an efficient reserve in DeJuan Blair.
Theo Ratliff, Ian Mahinmi, and Marcus Haislip
As a shot blocker Theo Ratliff is a man of few peers, and the Spurs’ defense works best when the perimeter players funnel their men baseline into the waiting snare of a pair of shot blockers. The Spurs best defensive teams have featured two shot blockers, whether Tim Duncan’s partner was David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic or Nazr Mohammed. Popovich is all about recapturing past defensive glory, but so far this season he’s not featured the type of personnel that has previously defined the team’s defensive identity. It’s difficult to rebound well and bother attempts at the hoop when that waiting snare features Richard Jefferson and/or Michael Finley at power forward.
In addition to rebounding and interior defensive field goal percentages, San Antonio is near the bottom of the league in blocked shots. This is an area that neither Matt Bonner, DeJuan Blair or Antonio McDyess can be of much help to the Spurs. Theo Ratliff is a big help in this regard, but the Spurs are smart to limit his minutes until later in the season, which is one way to explain his minutes thus far. Setting aside the Kings blow out, Ratliff is only averaging 1.75 minutes per game.
If the Spurs plan to use Ratliff so sparingly, they might be better to put him on the inactive list so they at least get a look at Ian Mahinmi and/or Marcus Haislip in those marginal minutes they’d otherwise allocate to their little-used shot blocker. The Spurs know what they have in Ratliff, and, unfortunately that might be the case with Mahinmi and Haislip as well. But I’d rather see either of their young bigs in garbage time than Ratliff. The Spurs need more shot blocking, but, just as with McDyess, the team is better served to save Ratliff for the postseason.
Mahinmi, for all his unfulfilled talent, did show an ability to block shots and score at the hoop during the preseason. Perhaps the Spurs could use Tony Parker’s ankle injury as an excuse to activate Ian Mahinmi. Let him have a few of Bonner’s minutes to see if he can help out around the defensive hoop. Marcus Haislip, too, has talent as a weak side shot blocker. If the Spurs won’t play either of these men, then finding a little more burn for Theo Ratliff is in order.
Other Considerations: New Players
This excuse has a limited shelf-life, but the Spurs are working with a remade roster. Fans should be patient as the team continues to learn the system, and giving the team more than five games is a big part of that patience.
Having said that, some of the new players simply aren’t exerting themselves enough on defense, and, as Woody Allen once said, 90% of rebounding is just showing up. LJ Ellis read this into Coach Popovich’s substitution patterns, “[Jefferson's] defense, or lack thereof, got him benched on a pair of occasions [during the Utah game]. The first instance was due to allowing unimpeded penetration by Wes Matthews on multiple possessions. The second benching was after Jefferson missed a short shot and then lollygagged back on transition defense.”
On other occasions veterans like Manu Ginobili strayed from home, leaving their men uncontested around the perimeter. The early season rotations and defensive self-identity are far from crisp; they’re a mess. Lazy rotations, close outs, and board work flow downstream from the same source. Maybe the team just needs to care more.
Mike Finley and Matt Bonner
The only reason to consider these players together is because the Spurs’ fanbase tends to blame Finley and Bonner for any and all of the team’s struggles. Richard Jefferson doesn’t get back on defense and it’s somehow Matt Bonner’s fault.
You may not like to hear it, but there are plenty of reasons to give Finley and Bonner minutes. Each player fills as a specialized role and knows the system. But, I agree, that by making each of them a starter, Gregg Popovich was beginning games with a suspicious defensive unit. Pop attempted to remedy this by starting Keith Bogans last game, but the Blazers-Spurs game flow chart presents this as a failed adjustment, at least through one game. And Bogans is no better at rebounding than Michael Finley. Neither helps the team on that front.
According to game flow charts and 5-man unit data line ups that feature Bonner and Finley are not always terrible. In fact, they’re often successful. A little nuance is needed.
I looked at the 5-man data after the Utah loss, and it indicated what my eyes have known since last season.
With Finley and Bonner in the starting line up, the Spurs have a plus/minus of 11.67. When Popovich substitutes Manu Ginobili for Mike Finley the team’s plus/minus soars to 53.40. Obviously, when combined with the right players, Matt Bonner’s defense and lack of rebounding doesn’t hurt the team. However, and this is the early season nuance I cautioned, when Popovich plays Finley at small forward (in place of Jefferson) with Ginobili, Duncan, Parker and Bonner the team dips into a deficit of 0.65.
None of these line ups have logged enough minutes together for us to form dogmatic opinions, but the early numbers suggest Mike Finley at small forward hurts the team. Mike Finley at shooting guard can be productive. As someone who watches the team religiously, I can attest that Mike Finley’s defense is stretched to the limits against younger, athletic small forwards.
Again, this is something to follow over several more games, not something for us to pitch our tents on. But I’d be surprised if Popovich didn’t become more selective in his use of Bonner and Finley. Treat them as specialist, give them specialist minutes. But I’m not sure that Keith Bogans is the solution either. So long as Popovich doesn’t use him at either forward position, Michael Finley is a better play because he can knock down shots. But there is a third option.
Based on his preseason performance and work with the Spurs last season, Malik Hairston is precisely the sort of player for whom San Antonio needs to find minutes. He’s a good defensive player, rebounds well, and can bring more offense than Keith Bogans.
Concluding Thoughts
The Spurs’ early struggles owe themselves almost entirely to lousy defense, especially in terms of rebounding and contesting shots near the hoop. The problem is neither with schemes (the Spurs typically dominate the defensive glass) nor with the personnel (the roster has more than enough shot blocking and rebounding talent). The team simply needs to adjust the minutes within the rotation and feature more of its traditional bigs. By Decemeber, I expect that these early wrinkles will be starch stiff. These are short term problems.
25 Comments
November 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Great article. I figured with so many new pieces in the rotation that it would take upwards of 20 games before the Spurs began to gel.
I have some other stats you should look at:
5 games.
4 day break in between 5 games?
3 road games against playoff level talent.
2 back-to-backs on the road.
1 cure - 10 of the next 12 games at home.
Playoff level teams should win at home, especially if the opponent is playing the second game of a back to back. Even if the Spurs were hitting on all cylinders, I think they would only be 3-2.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I’m blown away by the depth of analysis here. Gives me plenty to look for when watching my Raps vs. your Spurs tonight.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Just. . . wow.
Awesome way to make up for the time you couldn’t spend on the blog with your tests.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I like the idea of giving Blair more minutes. If nothing else, you know he’s giving the effort necessary to compete.
I also like the idea of putting Ratliff on the inactive list to get a little bit of burn for Mahinmi. I’d like to really get to see him prove things one way or the other before we pull the plug on this experiment.
I’d also like to see Hairston get activated for the game or two while Parker recovers. Comparing him to Bogans, I think he can easily surpass the same intensity on defense (I haven’t been impressed by what I’ve seen from Bogans), and match the miniscule production we’re getting on offense from that slot. I’m pretty sure that Hairston can average 1.8/1.3/0.8 if given a couple minutes a game.
On the plus side, though, while Bogans has general veteran knowledge, Hairston has the year in the system provided by his Spurs/Toros run last year, and can help in making sure we have smoother rotations on defense. If we can have one less body on the floor who doesn’t know where he’s supposed to be, it makes it easier for people like McDyess and Blair to see the correct spacing and get to the right spot.
One other thing that didn’t get mentioned, and I think is worth pointing out, is conditioning. Popovich made it very clear he wanted Duncan and Ginobili to come in out of shape, and play their way gradually into the conditioning level they need. As such, Ginobili being out of position, or not recovering in time could simply be a question of his body not being ready to contribute yet on the level it will need to at the end of the year. Same goes for Duncan. Several of the teams we’ve played have featured younger squads (Portland, Utah) whose players aren’t going to need the same ramp-up time that Pop is forcing onto our older guys.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Rick,
Great point about conditioning.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Awesome read.
How come we don’t just put Dice, Finley, and Ratliff on IL for the first half of the year? At this point, I’m not even sure why we are running 15 deep. Hairston, at least, can be used for the Toros though.
Do you think Mahinmi is really done with the Spurs, or do you think they looked at this contract and thought it wasn’t worth picking up? Too much money guaranteed? Too many years? He’ll still be a RFA in a non-competitive declining market. He just seems like such a great backup option for Duncan, Blair, Splitter, and Dice. When Blair played with Ratliff, Blair’s rebounds suffered because Ratliff couldn’t leave the paint. Mahinmi is athletic enough to play from the top of the key or at least man up a player like Okur at the 3 and put a hand in his face. In what limited minutes he’d see, I’m not worried about his foul rate being a detriment.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Nice post.
Looking at rebound rates, one thing jumps out: McDyess’s is way below where it has been for the past few years. Hollinger’s player card notes that he’s a slow starter, so hopefully that’ll even out during the second half of the season.
I like your and Rick’s point about Malik over Bogans. I mean, if one guy is throwing up airballs, why not try the next guy? He’s also more of a true forward than our other wings.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I would argue the better use of a rotation is one that allows for the least amount of drop off in talent over the course of a game while maximizing the strengths of your lineup, keeping in mind that a fatigued version of your best lineup is still a lesser talented version of said lineup.
And I’m not sure starting Finley and Bonner doesn’t satisfy those requirements. Scoff if you must but in starting Finley and Bonner you not only mask their weaknesses but maximize the strengths of everyone else on your roster.
In starters Tim Duncan and Tony Parker you have two franchise caliber players that excel in creating shots for teammates. The flip side is that for all Parker’s speed or Duncan’s length neither is a particularly explosive player and thus each requires sufficient spacing to work at their peak. So the starting lineup is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Bonner and Finley need someone to create their shots and Duncan and Parker need people to create their space.
It can be argued that Ginobili, Mason and McDyess offer the same spacing without the defensive costs but neither are as effective shooting the three-pointer and both offer skills that are redundant in a Parker/Duncan starting lineup that are sorely needed in the second unit.
Case in point: Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker have great chemistry and while both are capable off the ball their greatest strengths are as a team’s primary playmaker. Even though the combination is by far the Spurs best backcourt do you really want a combination that limits one or the other as a spot up shooter for long stretches? Or is it better to let each have their run playing to their strengths while staying in rhythm for that last stretch run?
Roger Mason, another strong candidate to start, is another interesting case. Like Finley he is strictly a shooter though at this point he’s certainly a better overall player. Unlike Finley, however, Mason has enough ball handling ability to create jump shots at times and this is vital in taking pressure off of backup point guard George Hill, who while improved, still does not create the same wide open looks Parker does (making it harder for Finley to find his own offense in a second unit). Thus a second unit with Mason and Ginobili in the backcourt actually makes George Hill a better player.
And finally there is Bonner. While I wouldn’t be alarmed to see McDyess eventually be inserted into the starting lineup I can give you some new viewpoint of why perhaps he’s not so far. The Spurs two primary second tier big men offer very different strengths while holding the same exact weakness: defense. For that reason alone you simply can’t play DeJuan Blair and Bonner together. Ever.
So as much as a fan favorite as Blair is—and it’s obvious he really is—by having Bonner AND Blair on the bench you practically guarantee that you can only effectively use just one from night to night, forcing you to use just one or the other instead of both on any given night. And at the end of the night do you really want to minimize a valuable asset?
And that’s what this starting lineup comes down to. Are Bonner and Finley still valuable assets to an NBA team? Finley may not be the defender he once was (not that it was ever his specialty in the first place) the numbers show he is still a quality ROLE player who needs to play next to a quality defensive wingman to hide his flaws. And stretch fours are a valuable commodity in the league and as much as we rib Bonner he’s not as hopeless in his deficiencies as shooting specialists like Steve Novak or Tim Thomas.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“Offensively, the Spurs are undeniably potent with Bonner on the floor” Unfortunately, so are the opponents! Bonner has to make shots when he is on the floor because his contributions elsewhere are limited.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
gospurs44,
Tim’s argument using our best 5 man units is on +/- which means whatever Matt’s presence is giving up on the defensive end is more than made up for the offensive end. These aren’t just offsetting values, but having Bonner on the court gives us some of the best 5 man units the Spurs have at creating/extending leads.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
You don’t need to look at a bunch of stats to see that the Spurs are getting beaten by the close-to-mid range game. To say it isn’t a perimeter defensive issue is wrong as the scorers have to get into the seams from somewhere? I remember when the perimeter ethos was to funnel players to the baseline. That isn’t happening anymore.
The Stat geeks really do bug me. They will never replace someone who actually has a mind and feel for the game. I do however believe that the stats can be good indicators, but I guarantee that Pop knows exactly what is going on, on the court without any statistical representation.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Excellent post. Yes, it made me feel a bit better by confirming some things I already thought. But it also taught me some new stuff and was a great overall breakdown and analysis.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] things in San Antonio, where the Spurs are struggling because of their fundamentals. Like Ron Artest running out of [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’m tired of the excuse to play Bonner being “he stretches the floor”, as if to say the Spurs can’t be successful without a 40% 3-point shooting big. Except for the fact that other than Bonner they’ve never had that in the Duncan era. Everyone always brings up Horry, but for as clutch a shooter as he was, he was never a high percentage 3 point shooter.
Guys like Rose, Nesterovic and Thomas could effectively shoot from mid-range, but couldn’t shoot from beyond that. Mohammed, Oberto and Elson had limited shooting range. Championships were won with those bigs, at one time or another, surrounding Duncan (save for Thomas).
The point is in reality the Spurs can do without Bonner just fine. The team has enough good shooters from mid and long range to keep the floor adequately spaced and many of these players contribute more in various areas so as to not be complete liabilities.
Bonner should be splitting 4th big duties with Ratliff and used depending on the situation. Some night’s he can be used for 15-20 minutes, other night’s he shouldn’t be used at all.
If this team is going to get back to play stellar defense, then it starts with pairing Duncan with another big man. He’s not Howard. At this stage in his career he can’t effectively guard the paint by himself and asking him to cover that much ground is only putting further strain on his knees.
The contradictory talk about wanting to be a top 3 defensive team (then starting the 2 worst defenders on the team who also aren’t amongst the top 8 players on the team) has to stop as does this myth about Bonner being more vital than he is in reality because of his ability to stretch the floor.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Great read.
Watching the front-courts of the Bulls, Jazz and Blazers get one offensive rebound after another after another, made me throw up in my mouth. I realize that those teams have more athletes around the rim than the Spurs do, but the number of second chance points the Spurs are giving up is just ridiculous.
Preventing teams from having a field day on the 3-point line is nice and all. But it doesn’t amount to jack, if the Spurs can’t limit their opponents to one shot attempt on the defensive end.
Meanwhile, Malik Hairston and Yawn Mahinmi need to be freed from the Men’s Wearhouse end of the bench. I wondered why Pop didn’t think he could’ve given those two a look against the young, spring-loaded lineups of Chicago, Utah and Portland. I get the feeling Hairston could surprise him the same way George Hill did last season …if given the chance.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Great read I agree that the spurs are saving Ratliff and McDyess min for the long run. I disagree that Keith Bogans didnt help the team. He was our best permeiter defender agaisnt the Blazers and Roy. Watch some footage of the game again Bogans did a great job of deying Roy and anyone he palyed the ball. He deftinley earned himself another start. He had 4 rebounds in 25 min. What I dont understand is how you say Finley is a better rebounder. Bogans had 4 rebounds and finley hasnt even had more than 2 yet.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
All great points. I think anyone who watches the SPURS and who has kept up with the new players during the Summer is still scratching their heads over the line-ups so far this season. We rag on Bonner and Finely, but really, I’m starting to question Pop. The Hall of Fame coach that he is, I think that he’s just overthinking things and it’s just not working. I’m sure none of the analysis in this article is any mystery to Pop. The staff has access to any and all statistical data you can come up with.. so why so stubborn? PLAY THE YOUNG GUYS. It just seems that we’re putting line-ups out there to put more points up but SPURS basketball has never been about that. If the team is gonna be a serious contender this year, we got to do a better job of leveling the playing field by playing some of our own young, athletic players. What I saw from the young guys this Summer, especially Hairston, they’re ready. Can Pop take that leap of faith?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Maybe if the Spurs can’t play killer D for 3 quarters, they play a more offense-oriented style until the 4th quarter, and then start to buckle down in the 4th. Run & gun for 3, then play the D-oriented team in the 4th. That might work better for saving the old guys, too.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
[...] Tim Varner of 48 Minutes of Hell: “The Spurs’ early struggles owe themselves almost entirely to lousy defense, especially in terms of rebounding and contesting shots near the hoop. The problem is neither with schemes (the Spurs typically dominate the defensive glass) nor with the personnel (the roster has more than enough shot blocking and rebounding talent). The team simply needs to adjust the minutes within the rotation and feature more of its traditional bigs.” [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Pop…why so stubborn? sj_papi.
Because he’s as old as dirt and batty as hell
November 10th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
give hairston some minutes…………
November 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Awesome stats man! Appreciate the digs
November 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Rye,
Thank you for commenting. My god I thought I was the only one. I was going crazy.
You are spot-on in the assessment of Bonner. The sooner the Spurs figure this out the better.
We are not going to win a championship, much less get the playoff, unless we get a traditional young big to start or come off the bench.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Rye,
Thank you for commenting. My god I thought I was the only one. I was going crazy.
You are spot-on in the assessment of Bonner. The sooner the Spurs figure this out the better.
We are not going to win a championship, much less get the playoffs, unless we get a traditional young big to start or come off the bench.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
oops
Leave a Reply