Scattered thoughts on Suns-Spurs game 2 adjustments

by

John Hollinger says we should expect more smallball from the Spurs. I’m inclined to agree.

According to another statistical expert, Wayne Winston, the Suns’ best lineup is Steve Nash, Jason Richardson, Jared Dudley, Channing Frye and Amar’e Stoudemire. After Game 1, he wrote to say the Spurs will win or lose this series based on how they counter that lineup, which was +11 after one game.

George Hill was San Antonio’s biggest problem on Monday night. The Spurs were -22 with Hill in the game. But I’m betting that’s an aberration.

I’m not sure if Gregg Popovich will start Tony Parker, but I suspect it doesn’t matter. Like Hollinger, I see the Spurs utilizing a 5-man unit of Tony Parker, George Hill, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson and Tim Duncan to close games. That unit played well in Game 1, despite Hill’s off night. They were +12.5, but only played 6 minutes together.

The two lineups that killed the Spurs were Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan and Parker-Hill-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan, which recorded -53 and -73 APMs and played together for nearly 10 minutes. Most of these minutes came early, when Steve Nash was playing Michael Jordan to the Spurs’ Utah Jazz. But both of those lineups performed well during the regular season, and no one expects Nash to drop 17 first quarter points tonight. It’s something to watch, but probably closer to an aberration than an a worry.

It’s worth noting that Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan was +78 in 8 minutes of play. In other words, it’s fair to single Hill out and ask “What happened?” But again, it’s one game. Let’s not panic because George Hill brought a big bag suck to the series opener. He’ll adjust, the Spurs will look better because of it.

The problem with putting too much faith in a smallball lineup change is that it’s predicated, in part, on another kind of aberration. Keith Bogans, whom Wayne Winston begged the Spurs not to play in round 1, helped the Spurs against the Suns, but his track record up to this point is mediocre. Nonetheless, Parker-Hill-Ginobili-Bogans-Duncan was +107 in 4 minutes of play.

Unfortunately for the Spurs, Matt Bonner continues as a playoff disappointment. When Bonner was in the game with Tim Duncan, the Spurs kind of stunk. But, as has been true for most of the season, Bonner-Blair combinations provide the Spurs with effective minutes. Blair-Bonner-Ginobili-Mason-Parker and Blair-Bonner-Ginobili-Hill-Mason were +49 and +85, respectively. (Although, it’s only one game, and they didn’t play many minutes together. Do you hear the refrain?) But if Popovich needs to play Mason to provide Parker, Hill or Ginobili rest and, at the same time, prevent Bonner from hurting the team, these lineups make sense.

Better yet, the Spurs could try someone like Garrett Temple if Mason looks like a train wreck by the time he reaches the scorer’s table. If Mason’s not making shots, and he hasn’t been for something like 5 months, it’s hard to justify his playing time. Mason hasn’t shot better than .258 from deep since February. He’s 1-11 this postseason.

Finally, and this is a stretch, I admit, but here’s an experiment to try 1 in, 4 out sets: the Spurs could feature DeJuan Blair or Ian Mahinmi as their lone big. Of course, this is a limited minutes scenario. Something like the final couple minutes of a quarter in order to give Duncan rest or to protect him from a cheap, end-of-the-quarter foul. I’m not sure the Suns have a defender who could handle Blair or Mahinmi in isolation, assuming that Duncan and Stoudemire’s substitution patterns mirror one another.

Mahinmi is a foul waiting to happen, but he can score. And his quickness tends to draw fouls. If Popovich wanted to do something unexpected for 2 or 3 minutes in the first half, this is a decent gimmick.

But more than anything, I see tonight’s biggest adjustment as George Hill improving his overall play. If that happens, the Spurs should be fine.

  • Bob

    If the Spurs try to match the Suns with small ball they’re going to lose the series. Bonner is almost worthless as a big who can shoot the 3 since he needs so much time and space to get a shot off. It works in the regular season but not in the playoffs where opponents are zeroed in. In the playoffs you literally need just enough time to fire a shot right away or the defender will close out. Frye, on the other hand, is a good shooting big. He’s able to make contested 3′s with just enough time to get the shot off. On offense the Spurs can barely get a 3 off but the give just enough airspace for the Suns to get one off.

  • ribanez

    I will never understand why Pops plays Bonner. He plays hard but is one dimensional and under pressure his lone attribute disappears. The 12 point lead was lost because the Suns, namely Dudley, out hustled the Spurs. I think the Gods are smiling on the Suns this year. They deserved the W.

  • Jim Henderson

    Way to get your ASSES KICKED on the OFFENSIVE BOARDS, GUYS! With our utter lack of three point shooting, we cannot beat this team if we allow them to dominate second-chance possessions. Not with their three point shooting. No way. If we don’t get the boards under control in game three, we’re done.

  • SunsRule

    “We’ve proceeded to make Dudley & Frye look like super-stars. What a joke.”

    Those two guys have been doing this all year long. Dudley and Frye were #4 and #6 respectively in 3pt % this season. Dudley has always been a hustle guy and good perimeter defendor. They arent doing anything that they haven’t done. That’s why after game 1 I stated that the Suns bench is much better than the Spurs (other than Tony Parker who we know is a starter at heart).

  • Jim Henderson

    SunsRule
    May 5th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Um … I hate to clue you in but … the playoffs are WAY different than the regular season. And I can tell you right now, in terms of their impact on a BIG playoff game, neither Frye nor Dudley have EVER played better. So lets drop the deadpan, nonchalance. It’s completely absurd, and reeks of a die-hard Suns fan that just can’t resist piling on.

    The fact is, the Spurs got out-hustled, which generally speaking is rare for us in the playoffs. As a result, and I reiterate, we made Frye & Dudley look like established, “big-moment”, post-season role players. Something they surely were not before tonight.

    So, go enjoy your victory, and please don’t respond to my posts with your smug, inane, and indefensible comments. You can do that with your giddy Sun’s buddies.

  • Jim Henderson

    From a previous comment I made on this thread, at half-time of game 2:

    Jim Henderson
    May 5th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    If we don’t make second-half adjustments to take care of the following problems, we’re asking for trouble.

    Tied at half when Suns shoot 35% FG?!!

    SUNS SHOT 49% in the 2nd half, which is at their season’s average, and 14% better than they did in the 1st half.

    Out-rebounded 13-5 0n the offensive glass?!

    SUNS CONTINUED TO HOLD A HUGE OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING ADVANTAGE IN THE 2nd HALF: 18 - 7 for the game. Just one player (Blair) other than TD had an offensive rebound for our entire team! The SUNS BENCH had 2 more offensive rebounds than our entire team. EMBARRASSING performance!

    Shoot 1 of 7 from three?!

    NOT COUNTING DUNCAN’S unusual & meaningless three near the end of the game, we shoot 6 for 17 from three for the game, 35%. Unfortunately, by the time we started making any, the Suns were torching us at the other end, off second chance opportunities.

    Send Suns to the line 18 times?!

    THE SUNS WENT TO THE LINE 37 times for the game, nailing 29 of them, a +14 over us. Blame it on the refs all you want; I call it “playing more aggressive offensively”.

    Bogans & Bonner 0-2, ZERO points, 5 fouls in 15 minutes combined?!

    THIS DYNAMIC DUO ended up the game 0-4 shooting, ZERO points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls in 20 minutes.

    Blair, 2-2, 4 points, 2 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 foul, in FOUR MINUTES?!
    WHY IS HE NOT PLAYING MORE?! YOU “CAN” PLAY HIM “WITH” DUNCAN, Pop!

    BLAIR ENDS UP 2-3 shooting, 4 points, 2 rebounds, THREE steals, 3 fouls in EIGHT MINUTES. We should have put him on Amare (if Collins wasn’t in), tell him NOT to foul, give him some help defense (Amare’s not a good passer), and let Blair roll in the paint to the rim on the offensive end, getting their whole front line in foul trouble, and ask him to REBOUND the ball like we all know he can. But no, instead, let’s just play him 4 minutes per half, and try to beat the Suns with our perimeter shooting! I know, I’m not a coach; but in this case, it just seems like common sense to me. Blair should get 20 minutes a game in this series, not eight!

  • Trade Tp

    Jim. preaching to the choir

  • doggydogworld

    @Jim, no other Spurs got offensive boards because they were already at half court when the ball hit the rim. This shut down Phoenix’s transition game. The Suns, on the other hand, do not fear our transition game and were thus free to crash the offensive glass.

    Blair made some good plays but also was our key MIA rebounder during that unreal 2:45 stretch to start the 2nd when the Suns grabbed 8 offensive boards (has to be a record). Pop had no choice but to send Duncan in to stanch the bleeding. And since Duncan and Blair don’t play together, Duncan in means Blair out.

  • jay thatch

    dear jim henderson,

    as a spurs fan you of all people would understand what it is to “pile on” cause thats all you ever do. try to figure out what it means to be a fan when your team doesn’t win. that is when you learn to be a true fan so you can appreciate when they do win. tell me who has more appreciative fans, red sox or yankees?

  • Jim Henderson

    doggydogworld
    May 6th, 2010 at 6:38 am

    “@Jim, no other Spurs got offensive boards because they were already at half court when the ball hit the rim. This shut down Phoenix’s transition game. The Suns, on the other hand, do not fear our transition game and were thus free to crash the offensive glass.”

    I understand that. And it’s a mistake. You can’t have FOUR guys at half court to effectively slow down a teams transition game or you’re done, period!

    “And since Duncan and Blair don’t play together, Duncan in means Blair out.”

    And that’s another mistake. Plus, 2:45 of playing time once in a LONG while is NOT enough time to get a 21 year old rookie into the heat of a game. Trust me on that. Completely unrealistic.

    jay thatch
    May 6th, 2010 at 7:54 am

    “dear jim henderson,

    as a spurs fan you of all people would understand what it is to “pile on” cause thats all you ever do. try to figure out what it means to be a fan when your team doesn’t win. that is when you learn to be a true fan so you can appreciate when they do win. tell me who has more appreciative fans, red sox or yankees?”

    Sorry, Jay, but I didn’t go on the Suns site after all those playoff wins, and after a couple of our most inexperienced playoff performers killed your team, act like it was no big deal. That’s absurd, and that’s what Suns fan SunsRule did. And that my friend is “piling on” nonsense. Most Spurs fans have never needed the false bravado. So, go back and troll your own site, or maybe we at the 48 will take a page out of your book and descend on you in droves after coming back to win this series.

  • doggydogworld

    @Jim, Blair had already played the final bit of the 1st. It’s not like he just came in and needed to watch the Suns get 8 offensive boards before waking up. Also, blocking out isn’t like shooting. You don’t need time to get into a rhythm.

    Blair + Duncan didn’t work in the regular season, so Pop abandoned it. The high-low stuff we have to run to accomodate two post players is not easy to master. It was making DeJuan think too much instead of just playing. DeJuan is 10x better when he just plays, so Pop simplified things for him. Next season we’ll probably see another attempt at the high-low game, but now is not the time for on-the-job training.

  • Trade Tp

    Doggy= So why then is he still playing Bonner. Hes blown for YEARS.

    Thats right we would hate “on the job training” becuase he might actually do something good like cause 4 TOs in 9 minutes.

    Lets just keep doing the same things that got us in 0-2 hole !!!! GREAT THINKING!!!!

  • Jim Henderson

    doggydogworld
    May 6th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    “Blair had already played the final bit of the 1st. It’s not like he just came in and needed to watch the Suns get 8 offensive boards before waking up. Also, blocking out isn’t like shooting. You don’t need time to get into a rhythm.”

    That is utterly ridiculous. A 21 year old rookie, with little playing time, needs some consistent, substantive time on the floor to get in the habit of getting his “mental focus” zeroed in more quickly. It’s not like he’s Robert Horry, with 15 years of playoff experience. A lot of the things like “boxing out” and “successfully making your defensive rotations”, for a young, inexperienced player, needs more than 2 minute stints to be able to be 100% prepared for the moment you step out on the court in a play-off intensity atmosphere, on the road. Also, those 8 offensive rebounds took place over the entire 2nd quarter, not the 2-3 minute span that Blair was in the game. In addition, Blair was not the ONLY player on the floor at the time that was responsible for those offensive rebounds. The idea of blaming Blair for all of the Suns offensive rebounds in the 2nd quarter of game two is patently absurd. It’d be like blaming Duncan for half of the Suns points in the paint.

    “It was making DeJuan think too much instead of just playing.”

    No, you ask TIMMY to adjust his game when Blair’s in the game with him. DeJuan still does his thing. You bring TD out off the low block more. TD has an outside game, and is such a “gamer” he would have no problems accommodating Blair, and helping the team take advantage of Blair’s very real strengths as an inside scorer & rebounder. In limited stints, this would not hurt TD’s game in any appreciable way, and in strategic doses it could help the team overall. I think Pop gave up on this too quickly earlier in the year.