San Antonio Spurs 103, Chicago Bulls 94

by

AT&T CENTER — Upon first glance, Derrick Rose scoring 33 points on 15-27 shooting, including 2-4 from the 3-point line is a scary proposition for the San Antonio Spurs.

But to simply look at the box score would sell short the defensive gameplan the Spurs implemented in their 103-94 win over the Chicago Bulls on Wednesday night.

Rose attacked the rim on a number of occasions and he fired from deep on others. But that wasn’t what could’ve hurt the Spurs. Where the Spurs were vulnerable was when Rose involved his teammates and the San Antonio defense was stretched thin. Luckily, that didn’t happen often.

“We went over the top of screens with him and we tried to get him off that 3-point line,” Tim Duncan said. “He shot the ball really well last night.  We tried to get him inside the range and contest every shot he got.”

San Antonio got the ball out of Rose’s hands and, when it left, it didn’t return. In a third quarter that saw the Spurs outscore the Bulls 37-12, Tony Parker forced Rose to the corner of the floor off of Chicago’s pick-and-rolls, where Parker and Matt Bonner double-teamed Rose. Most often, Rose had to pass to Luol Deng or Ronnie Brewer on the wing, where they clanged jumper after jumper. In the quarter, the Bulls shot just 26.1% from the floor.

“[Rose is] a handful for any individual and for a team, and he showed why he’s such a great player,” Spurs Head Coach Gregg Popovich said after the game. “I think overall our team play in the second half got it done for us.”

Parker spent most of the first three quarters matched up on Rose defensively. When picks were set for Rose, the Spurs went under the screens to encourage Rose to shoot from deep, as opposed to attacking the basket and possibly setting up teammates.

And through three quarters, it worked. On the occasions where Rose got to the basket, he scored. But when he was forced away from the basket he was ineffective.

“I was little bit too far back in the lane in the first half and he got some of that mid-range stuff going, so we tried to tighten up a little in the second half,” Duncan said. “It’s better if he gets some of those shots in the middle contested as opposed to giving up layups.”

In the fourth quarter, with the Spurs holding an 83-67 lead, Rose turned it up a notch. Tony Parker was on the bench for his customary early fourth quarter breather, and George Hill was defending Rose. The Bulls point guard scored a quick nine points on Hill.

In total, Rose scored 13 points on 5-7 from the floor and hit two 3-pointers in the final frame to keep the Bulls in the game. But whenever Chicago ran pick-and-rolls with Rose anywhere but the middle of the floor, San Antonio was able to trap and force the ball out of Rose’s hands. Outside of Rose, the Bulls shot 24-65 (37%) from the field. Luol Deng struggled the most, putting up 18 points on 17 shots (6-17).

Rose got his, but the Spurs got the win. Eight straight for San Antonio heading into Salt Lake City on Friday night for a matchup with the Jazz.

  • Bankshot21

    9-1 is a great record….we all can agree on that. When the chips are down and we need a run Blair is not in the game. I’m not anti-Blair but when people are labeling him to be an All-Star in four years when players like Elton Brand came in the league averaging 20 and 10 and waited more than 4 years before he finally got the nod leads me to remind people to stop putting Barkley and Millsap attached to this kids pedigree. He can be good and already is good but there are better proven options on the bench. Maybe the better player should remain on the bench a la Manu, but let’s not act as though this kid in the starting line up is the sole purpose of our record. I feel that he would get more minutes coming off of the bench. Maybe that’s not the case but it could very well be.

  • rob

    Jim Henderson

    “What parts of the game is DeJuan so poor or inconsistent at to justify moving him to the bench after a 9-1 start? And don’t pooh pooh rebounding. It’s one of the most important stats in the game. Overall, Blair is the best rebounder of all the “bigs” with the exception of TD (and he’s pretty close to him already), he’s a better passer than Bonner and McDyess, and a better shot-blocker and steal guy than both. Obviously he’s still working on getting comfortable with his shot/selection/offensive game. This is not a quick fix, and those that are expecting that are not being realistic.”

    I’m not expecting a quick fix. And I have never “pooh poohed” Blairs rebounding. Nor have I ever thought he’s not a good player at what he does.

    But some of these ideas seem to indicate some think Blair is the next coming of Duncan. That’s fantasy and unrealistic. Duncan’s performed at that level “consistently” his whole career. Huge difference between performing consistently and having a really great game every now and then. Most starters are “consistent” performers and the main reason they start.

    Blair HAS had games where he has played like a perineal all star. But those have been few and far between those in which he struggles to manage an 8 and 10 performance or stay out of foul trouble enough to play significant minutes.

    That’s not starter material in this league. And if it wasn’t for the fact that others on the court play better consistently…it only helps mask his flaws.

    Will he get better? I believe he will. But he continues to prove to be more of a high energy off the bench contributor than starter.

    Do we continue to except the “excuses” as to why Blair hasn’t been able to play as consistent as a starter should play just because he manages to once and a while put up great numbers between the games he plays average at best?

    And this is not a knock on Blair…but he is who he is. A great energy player who happens to be really good at what he does (when he’s on). Bonner (like many already know) isn’t as good a passer/rebounder…But right now and as proven in the past two games…allows the starters to perform better when he and Duncan are on the court at the same time.

    Those TOO are stats I look at when forming an opinion regarding this matter.

    How could it be detrimental to the team if Blair came off the bench and managed to play just as well as he is now starting if Bonner starting is helping the other starters perform better while he is out there with them?

    I mean…it’s not like Bonner could keep step with Noah either. And though maybe not as prevailent as Blair in certain areas…Bonner does other things more consistently than Blair.

    Can we at least let Blair prove to be consistent before honoring the player like he’s already achieved that aspect?

  • rob

    Jim Henderson

    “The primary point is that there is NO justifiable reason not to start him now, ”

    Except that if somebody else in place of Blair should happen to help make the others/team on the court perform better?

  • JR

    “We killed them the entire 2nd half and the last 2 minutes of the 1st half which caused the momentum shift in the 2nd. That’s 26 minutes of dominance for the Spurs compared to 22 minutes of dominance by the Bulls.” -Bankshot21

    The Spurs were outscored by 6 in the 4th. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to the game all but being over. That said, the Spurs won because of the enormous run from the last 3 minutes of the half through the 3rd quarter. They certainly didn’t dominate for 26 minutes. More like 15.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 18th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    “Kobe and KD shoot lower percentages.”

    So what, I don’t expect their jumpers to go in either, although Kobe & KD have a better chance when the game’s on the line.

    “Furthermore I said “pick and pop” unless your telling me his pick and pop % then your statement is moot.”

    We can be pretty sure that his “pick & pop” jumper FG% is even lower than his total FG%, since he probably gets as many lay-ups/dunks as he gets “non-pick & pop” jumpers.

    “And Blair looks lost in the opinion of many of the bloggers and myself.”

    Well, let’s take a poll see what percentage of “bloggers” and “sport’s journalists” think that Blair looks “lost” out there. I’m willing to bet that it’s a distinct minority.

    “I know your period came down once ITguy called you out for your banter of anything better than an 8-2 being whimsically conceived. Boy were you wrong about Bonner as well.”

    I already addressed ITguy on the better than expected start. As far as Bonner, I’m not wrong in the least about him. I’ve always acknowledged that Bonner shoots well-enough from distance to be able to help us win some games during the “regular” season. So he got off to a hot start. Big deal. In the final analysis, I don’t agree with the concept of a very un-athletic stretch four, and that’s what Bonner is. I’d rather have a more athletic defender help us protect the rim because defense not only is more consistent than shooting, but is a more dependable skill to help a team win in the “playoffs”. Thus, I don’t care that Bonner started out hot in three’s over 4 measly games, in the long run we’d be better off with a defender/rebounder/rim protector, even with someone receiving nearly half of Bonner’s salary — like Amundson.

    “This just isn’t a good season for you thus far is it? You’re getting owned. Poor little fella.”

    I hate to tell you, but I was one of the few to predict this year’s starting line-up even before the preseason. Many were calling for Hill at SG, and either Dice or Splitter at PF/C. And now we’re 9-1 with the starting line-up that I called for, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Bankshot21
    November 18th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    “I’m not anti-Blair but when people are labeling him to be an All-Star in four years when players like Elton Brand came in the league averaging 20 and 10 and waited more than 4 years before he finally got the nod leads me to remind people to stop putting Barkley and Millsap attached to this kids pedigree.”

    First of all, I don’t know who you’re referring to. As far as myself, I did not suggest that Blair would be an all-star in 4 years. I never put a strict time line on it. I also do not compare him to Barkley. Barkley is a hall of famer. That said, it’s a bit ridiculous to throw Millsap in with Barkley. Millsap will never be Barkley either. And I have suggested that Blair could be on a somewhat similar path as Millsap, for good reason. In fact, I’d like you to try and make a compelling case as to why that is not a reasonable possibility. Good luck.

    “He can be good and already is good but there are better proven options on the bench.”

    No, there is not.

    “…..but let’s not act as though this kid in the starting line up is the sole purpose of our record.”

    Who’s acting like that?! He’s simply been an integral part of a winning combination thus far this season, not to mention he’s our future. What don’t you get about that?

    “I feel that he would get more minutes coming off of the bench. Maybe that’s not the case but it could very well be.”

    WHY would that be better for Blair & the team? Any compelling suggestions?

    rob
    November 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    “And don’t pooh pooh rebounding.”

    But you just said in your previous comment that Blair’s rebounding was not good enough to start when you consider his other flaws. In effect you appear to be either down-playing the importance of his rebounding, or exaggerating his weaknesses. Which is it?

    “But some of these ideas seem to indicate some think Blair is the next coming of Duncan.”

    Who has ever come anywhere near suggesting that?! It certainly wasn’t me.

    “Most starters are “consistent” performers and the main reason they start.”

    So what. Not ALL of them have consistency as one of their top attributes, and Blair is a rightful exception in this case. Apparently Pop agrees.

    “Blair HAS had games where he has played like a perineal all star. But those have been few and far between those in which he struggles to manage an 8 and 10 performance or stay out of foul trouble enough to play significant minutes.”

    He’s a TWENTY-ONE year old player with a significant transition to make from what he was prepared for in college to what he needs to do in the NBA. He’s got considerable talent, and the work ethic to do all the things you want him to do — IN DUE TIME. In the meantime, we have a 9-1 record with him in the starting line-up. WHY mess with that at this time? WHY?

    “That’s not starter material in this league.”

    It is according to Pop.

    “And if it wasn’t for the fact that others on the court play better consistently…it only helps mask his flaws.”

    That’s completely bogus. You need to start paying closer attention to ALL the good things Blair does when he’s on the court. At present you apparently are unable to fully appreciate all that he does.

    “And this is not a knock on Blair…but he is who he is.”

    He is who he is? What does that mean?!

    “A great energy player who happens to be really good at what he does (when he’s on).”

    But you’re acting like he’s an established player. That he’s always going to be pretty much as he is right now. And that my friend is flat-out absurd.

    “But right now and as proven in the past two games…allows the starters to perform better when he and Duncan are on the court at the same time.”

    That’s your evidence, that’s your compelling case to mess with our starting line-up, a line-up that is 9-1? You’ve got to be joking me!

    “Those TOO are stats I look at when forming an opinion regarding this matter.

    What SPECIFIC stats are you looking at? Or am I supposed to guess?

    “Can we at least let Blair prove to be consistent before honoring the player like he’s already achieved that aspect?”

    Consistency is a goal and a journey for most NBA players, even for many starters and veterans on many teams. “Consistency” is also a dynamic and ill-defined proposition. There is not a “consistency line” one crosses that suddenly makes a player “starter eligible”. It does not work that way.

  • Jim Henderson

    rob
    November 18th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    “Except that if somebody else in place of Blair should happen to help make the others/team on the court perform better?”

    Who is that, and what’s your specific & compelling evidence that would make one want to mess with a 9-1 start?

  • andy

    realism and fantasy, as with beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

    could we have been 5-5? yes, and greg oden could have come back to have operational knees, houston could have played yao 35 a night, baron davis could’ve played to his potential, and melo could have been traded. none of these things happened, and you get to where we’re at today. like the hartle-hawking idea of the universe, maybe this was the most probable of outcomes, and those who predicted otherwise merely didn’t have enough information or insight.

    i’m never going to know everything that’s going on with the spurs, even if i fanatically read every scrap and attend every game. i’m just going to enjoy the start, be glad that the basic beliefs i held about our team’s chances are generally true, and hope that we work on our weaknesses.

  • CoyoteMan

    “As a Spurs fan, you take the win but realistically, this is a game they should have won, yet it took a Bulls 3rd quarter collapse for them to do it.”

    As a Bulls fan, you take the loss pretty realistically, this is a game they should have won, yet it only took one quarter of vintage Spurs basketball to snatch it convincingly.

  • Dr. Love

    @Jim “Blair HAS had games where he has played like a perineal all star.”

    “Perineal” means having to do with the perineum, more popularly known as the “taint”.

  • Jim Henderson

    andy
    November 18th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    “…..like the hartle-hawking idea of the universe, maybe this was the most probable of outcomes, and those who predicted otherwise merely didn’t have enough information or insight.”

    Possible, but not likely. It’s more likely that things have just fallen the Spurs way so far.

    Dr. Love
    November 18th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    “@Jim “Blair HAS had games where he has played like a perineal all star.”

    “Perineal” means having to do with the perineum, more popularly known as the “taint”.”

    Hey Doc, are you directing this spelling error to Rob, where it belongs? You’re comment is a bit misleading.

  • rj

    i would guess splitter didn’t play because we did had to come back down from 17 and bonners hot hand will pull guys like noah and gibson away from the basket. this is somewhat a wash, but it seems like we are playing slightly above average basketball and our 3pt efficiency is getting us the w’s.

  • ThatBigGuy

    Hey guys, I wish you’d stop picking on Jim about Blair starting. Let Blair start, who cares? We drafted him, so lets develop him. What better time to let him bumble around than at the very beginning of the game, so Dice and Bonner have time to make up the lost ground in the rest of the game? He’s 12th on the team in PER, we gotta hide him somewhere.

    Again, Pop shows us that he’s a genius.

    As far as our 9-1 record goes, we won every game we should have won, and then won all of the 50/50 games except against the Hornets. After the Jazz, Magic, and Mavs all in the next 10 days, we’ll know exactly where we stand as a contender.

  • td4life

    ThatBigGuy–

    “we’ll know exactly where we stand as a contender.”
    Well, almost. The real contenders are the Lakers, and Boston, and MAYBE the Heat. I’m not sure any of the teams you mentioned are really in that conversation, but they are the next level of elite teams, which is where the Spurs should be as well… we’ll CERTAINLY see what the Spurs are made of over the next 10 days… Both Dallas and Orlando will be VERY interesting challenges (they might be the two teams most similar to SA, roster-wise), i’d prefer losses to the East, obviously, to losses to the West.

    I agree about Blair, though. Even though he would have an easier time against the subs.

  • zack in the alamo

    i know alot of reporters are scared to ask pop real questions so i dont expect my questions to be answered anymore lol but i will say there is no good excuse for keeping TIAGO out. pop is a chicken shit coach who only plays players who bow at his every word. its okay well see how matt bonner does against L.A/Boston or pretty much during the playoffs, bonner is FOOLS GOLD people he allows just as many points on the other end. i didnt pay money to watch matt bonner play 48 minutes. go drink on your own time pop we need tiago yes were 9-1 !!!! i get that but it doesnt mean much when you have to go through L.A in the playoffs to get a ring does it ??????

  • zack in the alamo

    ^(cont.) and we got matt bonner working his way up the starting lineup to go against pau gasol and shaq please give me a break pop play tiago you stubborn old man

  • Jim Henderson

    ThatBigGuy
    November 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    “He’s 12th on the team in PER, we gotta hide him somewhere.”

    Who cares about Blair’s PER this year? PER places heavy emphasis on offensive production. Why would we want or expect a high PER guy to play with four other veteran high PER guys (RJ, TP, TD, Manu)? The answer is we don’t. What we want is a guy that can rebound, create turnovers, and be a capable passer to play with those 4 offensive stars. Blair might push his offense on occasion, primarily for developmental purposes, or when someone like TD isn’t playing, but for the most part Blair is not going to be taking a lot of shots (e.g., 7 pg vs. Parker’s 15). After all, there’s only one ball. But Blair is not starting because we need to HIDE HIM because of his low PER. In fact last year, over 82 games, Blair had the 3rd highest PER, and the 3rd highest WP48 on the team, playing on the 2nd unit. However, contrary to what some might believe, Blair is not a worse player this year as a starter at age 21, than he was last year as primarily a reserve at age 20. He’s simply filling a different role this year, and his first 10 games merely indicates some growing pains in his efforts to broaden his game against better competition. But no, we don’t need to “hide” a guy that’s #1 on the team in rpg./36, the 2nd best shot-blocker/36, and 3rd in steals/36 (#1 in non-guards).

    “What better time to let him bumble around than at the very beginning of the game, so Dice and Bonner have time to make up the lost ground in the rest of the game?”

    That’s not only a silly way to suggest why it’s fine to let Blair start, but it’s also a patently ridiculous and pejorative comment that reveals an utter lack of insight or appreciation for Blair’s game. And I can tell you that Bonner is not going to regularly bail us out from “lost ground”. On the contrary, the nights he’s out there and his shot is not going down, he’s going to be digging us a hole, not saving the day. My, how short and selective memories can be.

  • Tim in Surrey

    Wow, all of this hand-wringing and arguing after a 9-1 start that nobody predicted! I shudder to think of what this board would be like if we’d had a disastrous start, like 8-2 or 7-3.

    Earth to Spurs fans: After 10 games–against NBA competition, last time I checked–the Spurs have the best record in the league. That’s despite the fact that they haven’t played especially well, they caught New Orleans right in the middle of their red-hot streak, Tim Duncan has had the worst start of his career, and two of their key young players missed several games and all of training camp. I’ll take it! (Of course that last bit caused every Trailblazer fan on Earth to curse me, but it’s still a valid point when you look at, say, Orlando or New Orleans.)

    What does this mean for the rest of the season? Hell, I don’t know. They’ve got some tough games ahead and it’s still likely that one or more of the stars will struggle with injuries. But as long as Tim, Tony, and Manu stay relatively healthy, we can reasonably expect the team to improve even as the schedule gets tougher.

    Do you guys ever read Hollinger’s Power Rankings? They’re not the best predictor of future results, but they’re a good way to analyze how a team has performed. When they first came out about a week ago, the Spurs’ ranking was near the middle. I thought that was fair because they were just squeaking by against weak teams. But in the last week or two, they’ve climbed to fifth. Not #1, but still #5. That’s probably right for how they’ve played over the season so far. But over the last week-plus, they’ve played much more effectively, despite the worst three-game stretch of Duncan’s career. So now they’re #5 with a bullet. I don’t expect a sweep of the next three games, of course, but it should be interesting.

    BTW, you’ll have a hard time convincing our upcoming opponents of how poorly we’ve started. Look at what they’re writing in Salt Lake City:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/50707888-87/spurs-jazz-antonio-utah.html.csp

    The most telling comment is from Deron Williams: “Right now, Tim’s not even having to score for those guys to be successful.”

  • Hobson13

    Again, this thread is dominated by talk of Blair being in the starting lineup. Geez, can we give this a rest already. I’ll be the first to admit he hasn’t played well over the first 10 games. Furthermore, if he plays this poorly over the next 10 games it will be increasingly difficult to defend his starting position. With all that said, we are 9-1 with Blair and other young players performing well below their potential. That’s not too bad. Also, we’ve been able to buy some starting time (experience) for Blair without our record being forced to suffer. We’ve essentially bought Blair more valuable experience for a very cheap price.

    Yes, McDyess (and much of the older players) is off to a hot start, but we need him to be fresh in April-June. The fewer minutes we can play Dyess and the more minutes we play Blair and Splitter, the better this team will be later in the year.

    Yes, Bonner has also been off to a blazing start, but who here really believes he’ll end the season shooting 83% from deep? No one. His 3pt % will be, at best, around 45% by the end of the year. That means he is due for several nights of shooting 1 for 5 from distance. Do we want Bonner on the floor when his shooting goes to hell? No, that’s when we need Blair or Splitter which is why we are (or should) be playing them now despite early growing pains. I’ve said this several times and no one has really picked up on it, but there’s a big difference in having to depend upon Bonner (last year) as opposed to having him as a luxury when he’s shooting well (this year). The last few years have been examples of us relying too much on a role player like Bonner.

    Everyone needs to settle down on Blair. If we should be concerned about anything, it’s the lack of playing time for Splitter. We will absolutely need that young man if we are going to go deep in the playoffs.

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Len

    Blair is getting too much criticism thrown his way.

    He is playing very solid post D. His hands are remarkably quick. How about that coast to coast off a steal vs OKC? Not too shabby.

    Good passing? Check

    My major complaint is that he is getting beat too often on the defensive glass. Too often I see him waiting for the rebound rather than putting a body on somebody.

    All in all, Blair is doing OK. He doesn’t have Pop’s trust yet but he might get there by the end of the year. If not, Dice or Matty will get the minutes in the clutch.

    We’re 9-1, enjoy it.

  • Bankshot21

    ThatBigGuy
    November 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    “Hey guys, I wish you’d stop picking on Jim about Blair starting. Let Blair start, who cares?”

    I pray to the god I do not believe in that this is a joke. Not only is no one picking on any one but most of our statement’s are the one’s being quoted by Jim. He’s a big boy who can handle himself in a debate. Please don’t defend him. It only makes it seem as though he isn’t defending himself very well and I’m sure he does not feel that way. Nor do I. He’s making a compelling case but is getting handled like he’s never imagined. For example, I can literally quote Jim telling me in 4 years when Blair is an all star then contact him. Now he’s saying he never put a time line on Blair’s progression. I’m going to post the link as soon as I find it, and make the handling more evident.

  • ThatBigGuy

    Jim, take a deep breath and realize that those of us who are dissing Blair do it mostly to draw a reaction from you. If you’d chill out a little bit, there probably wouldn’t be as much Blair criticism.

    Blair is a decent player, but his playing or not playing would not have an effect on the fact that we’re 9-1. We are 9-1 because we finally have 3 point shooters for Tony and Manu to dish to. Blair has great per-36 numbers, but the cold hard fact is that he’s only getting 22 mins a game.

    I would agree that using per-36 numbers is a good way to compare stats in a vacuum, but you have to understand that per-36 rebounding stats are very sterile when taken out of context. For instance, Bonner is averaging 17.6 ppg per-36 while making 4.6 3’s a game. We both know that Bonner would kill us if he played 36 mins a game. In a vacuum, per-36 stats can’t possibly tell us how well a player is actually playing.

    So we look at Blair’s games a whole. Offensively, he is struggling, as his shooting % would testify. He’s 5th on the team in shot attempts and yet 12th on the team in shooting %. He is rebounding very well. He gets taken advantage by bigger post players and often gets fouls when crashing the offensive glass. So through 10 games, he’s simply a mediocre player who rebounds very well. There’s no need to take offense to that.

    There is also no need to pull him from the starting line-up. Dice is playing like a 29 year old off the bench against other bench bigs, so keep him there. Bonner is situational anyways, no need to start him. Splitter still looks a little lost at times. As you’ve said, we’re 9-1 with Blair as a starter, so lets just leave him there.

    Let’s also realize that good players start games, but the best players finish games. Until Blair gets the rest of his game up to par, Dice will be the finisher.

  • ThatBigGuy

    @ bankshot21

    Ya, I was being a little sarcastic.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim Henderson
    September 16th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    “I’d say all-star by year five or six is a decent bet (age 25-27).”

    Here’s the link: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/dejuan-blair-future-all-star-when-tim-duncan-retires

    If he’s 21 now, 4 years + 21 = age 25. And that’s not even the only time you said it. The other time I was referring to you were speaking directly to me. If this isn’t evidence enough that you made the claim I will show you that post as well.

  • Bankshot21

    ThatBigGuy
    November 19th, 2010 at 8:19 am

    @ bankshot21

    “Ya, I was being a little sarcastic.”

    Great sarcasm! Lol. I even bought into it as you can see. Also great example of the flaws of 36mpg stats. To piggy back on that and revisit a previous point of mine, per 36 means nothing if you’re in foul trouble and unable to even play 25 minutes.

  • Bankshot21

    JR
    November 18th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    “The Spurs were out scored by 6 in the 4th. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to the game all but being over. That said, the Spurs won because of the enormous run from the last 3 minutes of the half through the 3rd quarter. They certainly didn’t dominate for 26 minutes. More like 15.”

    I guess I can semi agree. In your statement however you give a possible reason as to why they were out scored in the 4th. That game was never in jeopardy of being lost. That’s what I meant by dominance. Score doesn’t always define dominance. The pace of the game was dictated by the Spurs from the end of the 2nd until the finish of the game.

  • Jim Henderson

    ThatBigGuy
    November 19th, 2010 at 8:16 am

    “If you’d chill out a little bit, there probably wouldn’t be as much Blair criticism.”

    There was a TON of unfounded Blair criticism before I even got actively involved in the discussion. No, it’s the “Blair not in the starting line-up” commentators that need to chill out considering the team is 9-1, and most of you are either missing or undervaluing what Blair does good when he’s out on the court.

    “Blair is a decent player, but his playing or not playing would not have an effect on the fact that we’re 9-1.”

    Oh, and how pray tell do you know that?! LOL.

    “Blair has great per-36 numbers, but the cold hard fact is that he’s only getting 22 mins a game.”

    So what, so do many other starters around the league. What’s your point?

    “In a vacuum, per-36 stats can’t possibly tell us how well a player is actually playing.”

    You got a better way of evaluating box score production of players that all play a different amount of minutes?

    “He is rebounding very well.”

    Yeah, like the best on the entire team.

    “So through 10 games, he’s simply a mediocre player who rebounds very well.”

    That’s an inaccurate characterization, and it’s not surprising since the case you presented is weak and shallow.

    “There is also no need to pull him from the starting line-up.”

    That is correct!

    “Let’s also realize that good players start games, but the best players finish games. Until Blair gets the rest of his game up to par, Dice will be the finisher.”

    At this point, I don’t have a problem with that.

    Bankshot21
    November 19th, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Your quote of me:

    “I’d say all-star by year five or six is a decent bet (age 25-27).”

    That is FOUR to SIX years. That is much different than FOUR years. I also said it is a “decent” bet, but the statement was far from a definitive or overwhelmingly confident assertion. Nevertheless, I stick by the quote above, and you mis-characterized it in your comment that started this discussion.

    Bankshot21
    November 19th, 2010 at 9:00 am

    “Great sarcasm! Lol. I even bought into it as you can see.”

    I didn’t buy into it, as you can see from my comments in response to his sarcasm.

    “….per 36 means nothing if you’re in foul trouble and unable to even play 25 minutes.”

    Not true. Per 36 is still a reasonably fair evaluation of how productive one is while on the floor, particularly when a player is putting in more than 18 mpg.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    I am inclined to agree with ThatBigGuy’s final statement as well. As for your per 36 statement I still disagree and don’t see how you are missing my point. I will try to further explain. If Blair averages 20pts per 36 and McDyess averages 15 pts per 36,if they both played 36 minutes Blair is more valuable. But if Blair plays 18 minutes and gives you only 10 and McDyess actually manages to play 36 and get you the 15 he’s good for than their per 36 doesn’t matter. Yes Blair would have been the more efficient but McDyess would have been more valuable. Of course the same case can be made for all of the other statistical area’s. Of course the minutes played differential is way off but that was to make the example easier to understand.

  • http://www.48minutesofhell.com Len

    I have to agree that “per 36″ stats do not tell the whole story. They give a very basic representation of how productive a player is but that is far from the “whole story”.

    A player can go balls to the wall for the brief stint he is on the court and seem to be an unber productive player. But, if he were on the court for prolonged minutes things would change. The defense would become more aware of his game and adapt and the player would get tired. Or perhaps the player doesn’t get extended minutes because he has a big defiency in part of his game (Bonner).

    The “per 36″ stats need to be taken as merely a part when interpreting a players productivity.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 19th, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Len
    November 19th, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Guys, I’ve never said that per 36 stats are the best way to know what a player’s true value is in terms of production. It is unequivocally true that a player that puts up a given production line during 36 minutes of playing time in a game is more valuable in that game than a guy that plays 20 minutes even though he puts up the same “prorated” production line in that game. That point should be obvious.

    But the fact is, the guys that we have mainly been talking about here (Blair, Bonner, McDyess) are all reasonably close in the minutes that they are/have been allocated per game on average since last season.

    2009-2010: ………………….. 2010-2011:

    Blair = 18.2 mpg. ………………. 21.9
    Bonner = 17.9 mpg. …………… 19.0
    McDyess = 21.0 mpg. …………. 21.6

    But their minutes are slightly different, so it makes good sense to make an adjustment to look at all of their production on an equal per minute basis. Now, it doesn’t have to be 36 minutes. We could prorate their numbers on 24 minutes instead, but it just so happens that websites like nba reference already have done the calculations for us based on 36 minutes.

    Of course it is a bigger stretch to use per 36 minutes if one were to try and compare the production lines between players like Bonner & Duncan, for example, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, even in such a case, it is not meaningless to use per 36, it just represents a less valid comparison. Generally, the lower the mpg. are for the “low mpg. guy” in the comparison, and the bigger the gap is in mpg. between the two players you are attempting to compare, the less valid the per 36 is.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    I can agree with 95%-98% of what you have just posted. Hell, I’ll even stretch that to 99.5%. The only gripe I have is the use of “what if” stats. And that’s what per 36 is. A “what if” stat. Not only does “what if” not tell the exact story, but it opens the forum to even more “what ifs”. Like “what if” the defense got better acclimated to the 20mpg offensive player thereby decreasing his efficiency by the 25th minute? Or “what if” the 20mpg offensive player began reading the defense a little better causing his production to sky rocket by minute 23 or minute 24. These are my issue’s with even considering per 36 #’s as valid on any level.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 20th, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Per 36 is a “projection”. It is not fact. Yes, there are plenty of uncertainties. That said, if a player is averaging 10 ppg., and 6 rpg. in 20 mpg., are you going to tell me that if you were to bet on his avg. stat line if he then started to play 36 mpg., you would bet on 10 & 6? Maybe you wouldn’t bet on the per 36 proration (18 & 10.8), but I doubt you would bet on 10 & 6. And the bet of course would be different for different players. For me, I believe that Blair’s per 36 numbers would be pretty accurate if he were to actually play 36 minutes. You might think otherwise.