San Antonio Spurs 103, Chicago Bulls 94

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.

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?

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.

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.

@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”.

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-

“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.

^(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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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
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.