Monday, April 27th, 2009...5:10 am
Other People: Matt Moore Catches Really Big Flies in a Super Sweet Web
Jump to Comments
I trust that all of our readers know that Hardwood Paroxysm is one the best basketball blogs going. Matt Moore is at the Hardwood helm and he’s just put up a graph-heavy breakdown which accounts for the Spurs injuries and lack of bench scoring options. Or, put differently, how the the story of this postseason is Tony Parker contra mundum. He’s given us a must-read that I’d love to reproduce in it’s entirety right here, but that wouldn’t be very cool. So, I’m redirecting our readers to Moore. Go, and have fun.
8 Comments
April 27th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Great graphs and a well written article. He leads to the conclusion that while Parker and Duncan have performed, the others need to be given more “usage” (by that I guess he means shots?).
My point of contention with the article is the problem cant just be fixed simply by getting Mason and Bonner the ball more. In the game that I saw the most of, Game 4, the Spurs didn’t “go to” Bonner, Mason, and Finley heavily because there were not producing, and being behind for most of the second half puts possessions at a premium.
But more importantly, I know Pop says ignore Manu, as does the article, but our playmaker being out forces Mason into a role he is uncomfortable with, so besides not really being fair to compare Mason’s points now to his points in the season, who cares about Mason’s points? His performance is better measured in turnovers, assists, offensive intangibles than points.
I thought Hill played well, but I’m fine if Pop continues to experiment. We need to win a game. As different as our players are in their respective quickness/offensive/defensive ability I don’t yet see a clear set of guys I want on the floor.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Glad you enjoyed it. It’s a lot of incomplete information to form a story out of.
Usage is a stat used to calculate an estimate of possessions used. It factors FGA, FTA, and TOV. It’s not an exact science, but it gives us an idea of how many possessions they use.
The center of the argument, if there is one, isn’t that you need Bonner and Mason specifically to step up. It’s that perhaps you need to distribute possessions more evenly to get your offense going. Not only is no one on the Spurs scoring well, no one’s really taking up possessions either. They’re hanging out and waiting on Parker.
The other part of the argument might be that depending on Matt Bonner as much as you did in the season may have contributed to your downfall in the postseason so far. Same with Hill. Hill, as opposed to Rocket, is an actual good player, but you knew Pop wasn’t going to let a rookie have the reins in the playoffs. And knowing that, there should have been bigger warning signs, perhaps.
Then again, maybe this just shows that Tony Parker is playing fantastic considering how terrible his teammates are playing.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Nice read! Loved the radar plots….
On a different note: For years now (since watching the 2003 championship) I think that we are primarily a 3rd quarter team. If we play well and outscore the opponents in the 3rd quarter and play well after the half, we tend to win. While this probably true of most teams, it is more applicable to us since we are not big on 4th quart comebacks. I don’t have access to the stats to back it up but it would be interesting to track our 3rd quarter performance in the playoffs as a function of wins and compare it to the league average. And on the flip-side compare 3rd quarter no-shows to losses. (In all this we have to only count reasonably close games but in the playoffs we would have had a lot of these) Any thoughts?
April 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Great read. You can only rely so much on “expert” opinions from talking heads on tv. These numbers really spell out some glaring stats that help clarify some aspects of what’s going on. I like it.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Fascinating analysis. That said, I wish I had better grounding in the methodology behind the stats used. Nevertheless, a few observations: 1. even though Pop never said so (he would never admit a contradiction), I think he instituted a different philosophy this year; namely, one emphasizing more offense. Why else would he start Bonner and Finley, two woefully inadequate defenders? That didn’t serve us too badly during the season, but, by definition, the teams that make the playoffs are better (and they have the added advantage of a whole season’s worth of film and data to adjust). So these guys are being shut down while still playing poor defense, hence losses. 2. In the case of Roger, he is simply not a point guard. Playing him there is really unfair to him and the team. It takes him out of any shooting rhythm and I think his entire focus is just on not committing a turnover. 3. So I think the idea that the likes of Bonner, Finley, Mason have to “step up” for us to have a prayer is unrealistic. At this point the only chance we have to get back into this series is doing what we have historically done (and Pop has preached)— play defense. That probably means starting Thomas and Bruce in place of Bonner and Finley, keeping Mace at shooting guard, and Hill as the replacement for Tony and Roger. It also means doing what we used to do with Phoenix, let Amare (Dirk) get his points and shut everyone else down. Will Pop change this late in the game? Not likely, too stubborn.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:12 am
If there was anything good about game 4 (and there wasn’t much), it was decent playing time for Bowen & Hill. I’m not sure this series can be salvaged. But win or lose, I’d like to see the tough, hard-nosed defense the Spurs are known for. Let Bowen have 30 minutes+ again tomorrow. Give Hill 20+. Put him on Terry every minute he’s on the floor. Let him harass JT all night long.
I know we need points from somewhere other than Tony/Timmy. But I’d be happy to see the minutes of Bonner & Finley cut (maybe around 20 each- let them shoot with fresh legs) and have those now-available minutes split among Bowen (30 min)/Mason (30 min)/Hill (20 min), with a smattering of Udoka (15 min).
Beyond that, Pop needs to allow Drew Gooden the opportunity (ie. minutes) to assume more of the scoring burden. Give him 25 minutes. Let him establish an offensive rhythm & make Dirk or Dampier work on defense when Tim is out. Personally, I’d like to see a second unit comprised of Hill/Finley/Udoka/Gooden/Thomas (or heaven forbid, Oberto). That provides inside/outside scoring without sacrificing too much on defense.
The minutes in the box score should read as follows. If they do, we’ve done something right. If not, well then I think the outcome is inevitable:
Parker- 38 minutes
Duncan- 36
Mason- 30
Bowen- 30
Gooden- 24
Finley- 20
Hill- 20
Bonner- 18
Udoka- 13
Thomas- 7
Oberto- 4
Vaughn- DNP (ever again)
April 27th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Great article, but I’m curious if you have any thoughts on how the Spurs could increase the usage of other players. Perhaps more simple pick-and-roll type of plays that don’t require Tony to do as much dribble penetration? Maybe having someone else bring the ball up the court after the inbounds pass often enough to give Tony a little breather but not so often that the Mavs can predict when it’s coming and exploit our lack of ball-handling outside of Tony? Maybe (gasp!) more PT for Jacque Vaughan as a distributor with Tony on the floor as a shooting guard? Thanks!
April 28th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Joe,
I was thinking along the same lines when you mention playing Parker at SG. Let Parker run off screens so he’s not having to work so damn hard to get off his shot by pounding the ball each possession.
Leave a Reply