Matt “the Mendoza Line” Bonner
Watercolor by Jesse Blanchard
The geeks may have yet to inherit the courts, but basketball has long been in the midst of a statistical revolution.
To the casual fan the revolution has yet to take hold. Identifying superstars hardly requires advanced statistics beyond points per game and the number of SportsCenter highlight appearances. More often than not what analytics reveals are the unsung role players. Box score deficient yet unique skill sets awaiting their next contract from Daryl Morey.
Matt Bonner represents the ultimate quandary for number crunchers–from Wayne Winston to John Hollinger, Bonner’s plus-minus and advanced statistics paint a valuable basketball asset. The eye test often suggests otherwise.
Admittedly, statistical formulas are not my forte, but the theories they produce are something I can wholeheartedly grasp onto. In trying to sum up Bonner’s value to the San Antonio Spurs an answer came back that traces back to sport analytics baseball roots. Matt Bonner is the Mendoza line of “stretch fours”.
Mario Mendoza was a defensive specialist shortstop whose sub par batting averages threatened to offset his contributions. On his career, Mendoza batted .215, though the Mendoza line is also stated to be .200. Any player (pitchers excluded) whose batting average falls below the Mendoza line is generally considered to not be a viable Major League baseball player.
Finding a similar statistical formulaic cutoff for useful rotation NBA players is much more problematic. The numbers most relevant to Matt Bonner’s career are 6-10, roughly 23 feet and his ability to make near 40 percent of his shots from that distance, but finding statistics that determine at what point his weaknesses make him a complete non-asset is much more difficult.
But unscientifically, just observing stretch fours, those who are worse than Matt Bonner–and I mean as overall players, not necessarily shooters–are either non-rotation players or are out of the league. Steve Novak, Anthony Tolliver, Brian Scalabrine, Marcus Haislip, and of course Kevin Pittsnogle, to name a few.
The stretch fours that are more talented than Matt Bonner–Dirk Nowitzki, Rashard Lewis, Anrea Bargnani, Antawn Jamison, and even the fat Rasheed Wallace–have solid footing as valuable contributors. Finding a player better than Matt Bonner that does not deserve a roster spot or a player worse than Bonner who does, that can be rather difficult.
Is there anything wrong with being the litmus test for stretch fours, so to speak? No. Unlike the standard for useful big men, the unique skill set of a stretch four (legitimate size, shooting ability) and its scarcity make it a very valuable commodity. The qualifier naturally is what role you expect him to play.
Even if it’s just for the regular season, Matt Bonner has the shooting touch to absorb minutes (an underrated skill) and the size to offer some resistance to power forwards. But expecting Bonner to guard the opposing team’s best big man or finding an offensive rhythm while the other team stays at home on shooters for extended minutes, as the San Antonio Spurs have had to do because of injuries and/or personnel deficiencies, is a recipe for failure.
Those that feel we overvalue Matt Bonner at times on this site fail to see what we view him as: a valuable contributor on a good team when given a minor role. Admittedly, anything past 15 minutes and the Spurs are likely to get diminishing returns. The longer Bonner is on the court, the more his flaws become apparent. But at his price, with his experience, it’s not as if the Spurs have overvalued him. They’ve merely been forced to overextend his role for lack of better options.
So what to do with Matt Bonner? If an upgrade can be had, then by all means do it. There are certainly better players out there. The problem is, those players cost more money. Likely more than Peter Holt can afford given the luxury tax payments the team already owes.
Assuming the Spurs land Tiago Splitter with their full mid-level exception, there are not many free agents they can acquire for the league minimum who are better than Matt Bonner. When losing a replacement level player, it’s probably best to have his replacement in place.
We have all known since summer ’08, that Tiago’s opt-out (no buy-out) was TWO YEARS. I’ll take RC Buford’s word over “hoopsmarket.blogspot.”
td4life
June 20th, 2010 at 12:48 am
That’s fine. To be honest, I guess I just missed RC talking about it. If you’re correct, you’d think we’d be hearing about Splitter’s decision on whether to opt out any day now. Right?
“Bushka- Both Tony Parker and Blair have had the SAME GAME THEIR ENTIRE LIFE. That doesnt equate to development. The same can be said about Hill.”
well done.
So you are saying that pop either
1. Can’t develop players
or
2. IS brilliant at evaluating talent and picking talent that every other GM in the entire freaking league misses.
Thanks for making that point.
Hill was a great player in HS and college. Im sure you had no clue about this.
He was Honorable Mention all american, and an early entry into the draft.
Scored 36 ppg as a high school senior.
ITs not like we drafted hill out of shape, never shot a basketball, and lazy.
Blair was only a concern because of his knees, not his ability. Again its not like we drafted someone who couldnt rebound or didnt have a good touch around the basket.
so yes I am saying #1.
GREAT POINT…. not
Well done. Apparently Hill was the consensus pick.
How disingenuous do you want to be….
Hill was a bolt in the blue that most everyone commentators and pundits both, questioned. If he was such a consensus all american no surprise pick then please explain how he lasted till #26….
Blair got passed on by every franchise. EVERY franchise. Sure it was about his Knees, but the guys who took him. That was this front office.
In both cases the front office and yes that includes that whacky Pop guy you love so much, chose well.
They picked Manu from the depths of the 2nd round at 57!!!!!! they chose Parker at 28!!!!!!!
At some point you have to get off the crazy train and realise that talent evaluation is something this franchise has done exceptionally well with.
The spurs were the first team to own their own D league affiliate to train and develop players into the big clubs system, to stash and develop draft picks.
You know Hairston, Gee, Jerrels, Williams, etc etc etc.
Obviously a coincidence and nothing to do with the fact that the spurs know how to spot and develop talent.
SO in summary.
The spurs have a proven track record in evaluating draft talent.
They have an excellent record in developing that talent.
Bushka- Dumb as hell.
Blair- Please elaborate on pick #37 and let me know who we could have drafted. Goran Suton was still left on the board. Taking Blair at 37 was not some genius move.
The thinking was this: Blair is the best athlete on the board if he turns out to be something great, if not he was pick 37….
Hill- So because commentators didnt know George was an all American that makes the FO smart? We passed on Dragic and Chalmers….
Parker/Ginobili- Great work here. Anyone with half a brain knew about these two.
Could have said we F’ed up not taking Gilbert over Parker….
For each of these picks, who were logical choices, there were years that were COMPLETE BUSTS with foreigners and D-bags. You act like we took Manu high in 99. Two time MVP and we take Leon Smith in the first round…
PLEASE
Tradetp if you want to sound ignorant you are doing a great job.
Jonas Jerobko, Jon Brockman, and Marcus Thornton were all taken after Blair so, yes, there were more choices available than Goran Sutton, that turned into useful NBA level talents.
George Hill you managed to again ignore. He was a surprise pickup by guess who and has developed. He is a better defender, better shooter, and better ball handler, but hey you go and attribute every positive to something else and every negative to pop…
You are quiet simply 100% agenda driven. It’s as transparent as a pane of glass.
You take every single topic and turn it into a negative post on pop.
It’s ridiculous.
Just saying anyone with half a brain knows about the Parker and Ginobli means what exactly?
That they are invalid???
That you don’t have half a brain? Because apparently knowing about them means you can ignore them?
They happened….This coach had a hand in that…deal with the fact that you can’t paint every freaking thing pop does as a negative.
Regardless of your spin.
These guys were drafted by Pop.
No one in their right mind is saying every pick is brilliant, but we have a storied history of picking up diamonds in the rough. Why? Because we are better at evaluating talent than the mean NBA franchise.
This franchise owns it’s own affiliate, we stash draft picks and develop them. I’m sure that you’ll find some way to be negative about it.
Bushka- The CHANCE that the FO took on Parker and Manu wasnt that great. They were both prime time across the pond.
Youre blind Bushka. Go ahead and talk about Pop developing tim duncan and david robinson….. GREAT WORK.
Bushka- damn youre stupid. You must not watch any thing other than the NBA. Blair and Hill were good during their college careers. You dont simply get to be an all american for nothing.