Friday, May 22nd, 2009...6:47 am
A Crown That Seldom Kings Enjoy: Assessing Pop’s Performance
Originally I was going to do a series of posts breaking down Pop’s coaching performance as it evolved (or devolved) over the course of the season but I decided a chronological take on the matter would involve a fair amount of unnecessary narration, etc. So let’s just tackle the achievements, criticisms, and myths (yes, I think a few of the criticisms are in fact myths) surrounding Gregg Popovich’s season one at a time.
The Development and Minutes of George Hill
I agree with the general consensus regarding Pop’s management (or mis-management) of George Hill. As we discussed in the lead up to the playoffs, more minutes and a more narrowly defined role would have done wonders for Mr. Hill.
Pop made a bit of a mea culpa by inserting Hill back into the lineup as our first round series drew to a close, and Hill took advantage of the opportunity. In games 4 and 5 you could argue he was the third best Spur on the floor, behind Tony Parker and Tim Duncan. As we have come to expect, he played excellent on-ball defense and made swift, accurate rotations. He also made confident but humble decisions with the ball in his hands: He took (and often made) shots when open but the urgency of the moment never pushed him into a state of over-aggression.
The real question I have is why Pop so completely mischaracterized Hill’s mental toughness. Pop directly cited Hill’s confidence as a reason for (initially) benching Hill for the postseason. But, all season long, when Hill was asked to perform a task suited for someone beyond his experience or ability, he performed excellently.
When Parker went out with an ankle injury early in the season, Hill rose to the occassion. When asked to cover Kobe in the closing minutes of a tight Spurs-Lakers game, Hill did as fine a job as anyone ever does slowing Bryant. And when, having not played meaningful minutes in a few weeks, Hill was asked to play 30+ minutes for a team on the brink of playoff elimination, He performed wonderfully.
Pop knows things I don’t know. I have never spoken with George Hill. During the season, Pop speaks with him daily. Without a doubt Pop has a better read on the internal state of Hill than I do. But that is why I am so confused. I experienced a fair amount of cognitive dissonance when I read Pop’s quotes and then watched Hill play. This is less so a critique as it is the acknowledgment of a conundrum.
Pop’s “Preference” for Veterans
This is the first “myth” regarding Popovich’s performance this season. Well, it isn’t so much a myth as a mischaracterization. Pop does prefer veterans (and their accompanying intangibles) to younger players (and their athleticism). And I think it is completely valid for Spurs’ fans to say their should be a greater balance between the two. But this is a criticism for Gregg Popovich, Executive Vice-President of Basketball Operations, not Gregg Popovich, Head Coach.
My point is, aside from late in the season when Pop gave Vaughn minutes over Hill, when did he stubbornly play a veteran player in place of a younger player? When he inserted Matt Bonner (29) into the starting lineup over Kurt Thomas (36) and Farbicio Oberto (34)? Or when he started Roger Mason (28) over Bruce Bowen (37) for most of the season?
Don’t get me wrong: Pop can be stubborn. He likes who likes. And I often get frustrated when he, somewhat randomly, seems inflexible (which I’ll address at length in a moment). But I am not convinced criticizing his ageism is appropriate when discussing his rotational decisions. This bias seems more evident when analyzing the role Pop plays in acquisitions and extensions.
Drew Gooden vs. Matt Bonner
Speaking of Pop’s inflexibility: I am frustrated with amount of minutes Matt Bonner saw during the postseason and, in conjunction, with the limited minutes Drew Gooden saw. Their relative contributions on both ends of the floor leave me feeling this way, but I’d like to focus on what each brings to the Spurs’ offense.
Drew Gooden has an array of post moves. Gooden has the size and athleticism to position himself deep in the post consistently. Once stationed, he can employ a variety of fakes and quick steps to move his defender further out of position. When receiving the ball on the block, he is a reliable scorer. He is overconfident in his mid-range jumper but when he floats out to mid-range he has a surprisingly quick first step and, when he chooses to, can beat his man off the dribble along the baseline.
Matt Bonner can shoot 3-pointers.
I’m employing a bit of visual hyperbole but I think you understand my point. Gooden can create his own shot, and can do so at a place on the floor where the Spurs are in dire need of point production: At the rim. Bonner is fundamentally a catch-and-shoot guy on a team full of catch-and-shoot guys.
As the season wore on, it became painfully clear that the Spurs were over-reliant on their outside shooting. When we acquired Drew Gooden, we raised the number of players who can consistently score in the paint from 2 to 3. That number is still too small, but that is no reason to make it even smaller by relegating one of those three to the bench. (Gooden played 8 minutes in Game 4. In Game 5 he received a DNP-CD.)
I haven’t even touched upon the defensive end of the court, where I think Gooden would be more productive as well. Neither are strong defenders but Gooden’s rebounding ability and sheer size made him a more valuable member of the defense, even if he had yet to master the Spurs’ complicated defensive sets.
Bowen’s Minutes
After Bowen’s played well during the playoffs, some people have said Pop should have been playing him in Finley’s stead throughout the season. Personally, I am fine with the way Pop handled Bowen’s minutes. Back in March I suggested Pop use Bowen in a surgical manner, and to some extent, that is exactly what he did.
At 37, Bowen couldn’t be expected to play extended regular season minutes and be a reliable contributor once the playoffs arrived. But Pop was confident that, after years of dedicated service, Bowen could be inserted back into the lineup at a moments notice and perform at a high level. And Pop was right.
You could argue that had Bowen seen more court time (in particular Michael Finley’s minutes) the Spurs would have performed better down the stretch and possibly ended up with a higher seed. But could he have continued to play at such a high level during the playoffs? In this instance I think it makes sense to defer to the trainer and coaching staff and their more detailed knowledge of Bowen’s stamina.
The Fluctuating Rotation
On the surface, this may seem like one of Pop’s more glaring failures: After Ginobili was permanently shut down, Pop never settled on a rotation (one of the only aspects of the game over which he has practically total control). But I think Pop’s struggles managing the rotation shine light on a deeper problem: No matter how you organized this group of players (sans Ginobili) they were going to be unable to win.
I think the previous section on Bowen’s minutes and Pop’s preference for veterans hint at this as well. And as I argued regarding Pop’s ageism, you can point fingers at Exec. V.P. Pop but blaming Coach Pop may be unjustified
At the time, I was critical of Pop’s refusal to settle on a rotation because I felt that even our players’ limited abilities would be put to better use if their minutes on the floor were normalized. But in retrospect, I can’t blame him for being slightly experimental all the way til the end.
The struggle to find a back-up point provides a telling microcosm for the broader rotational problems we faced.
Heading into the season, we had 4 players who could potentially play back-up point: Jacques Vaughn, Manu Ginobili, Roger Mason, and George Hill. On paper, our backcourt was a point of pride, not a concern. But as the season unfolded, and injury struck, the position began to spin slightly out of control.
Despite Hill’s tremendous upside, he has yet to develop into a decent passer. Mason, although he has above average court vision for a shooting guard, does not possess the ball-handling skills to play the 1. And at this point in his career, Jacques Vaughn does not possess anywhere near the athleticism or ability to honestly deserve court time on an NBA team. You can blame Hill’s lack of development on Pop (had he committed to making Hill into a point, Hill could have been ready to fill the role come Mid-April) but that is a different concern than the way he managed the rotation in March and April.
So Pop kept adjusting, mixing this frontcourt with that backcourt, having this forward picking and rolling while this guard curled around the screen. And all the while, it never clicked. The rotation had become a zero-sum game: Every time you added an offensive contributor, the defense suffered. Every time a stopper headed to the floor, the offense stagnated slightly. In the first round, we had only two players who could legitimately contribute on both ends: Tony Parker and Tim Duncan.
Given how cerebral Pop is, it’s possible he thought he could outmaneuver his team’s athletic limitations. But considering how pessimistic he sounded as the season drew to a close, I think he understood the truth of the matter quite clearly: No matter what coaching decisions he made, this collection of men was fatally flawed.
As the opening round vanishes in the distance, it’s easy to criticize Pop. On the surface, this season seems like one of his poorer performances. But, the more I consider the personnel available to him, I find it increasingly hard to point a finger. As the image of failure grew ever larger on the horizon, Pop’s decisions became increasingly restless and I sympathize with that. Contentment is a crown that seldom kings enjoy.
34 Comments
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 am
Except for a few weird decisions here and there during the season(for which we will never have an answer), Coach Pop did a good job considering the mess the season was with injuries.
I wish we could know what VP Pop has in mind for the next two seasons in terms of personnel and team needs.
Also, is Sam Presti better than Buford? I understand there is no real answer, but Presti seems to be on his game and we need a real shot in the arm here for next season.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
I don’t think Presti is necessarily better than Buford - Presti has had four top-five picks in the last three or four years. Stocking his team with talented rookies shouldn’t be difficult in that situation. Buford is having to play a completely different game.
San Antonio is a victim of success. Drafts ensure that sports leagues reward the worst teams (this is equally true in the NFL, MLB, etc) with the best players. The Trailblazers were an excellent organization for eighteen years, but when they fell out of the playoffs they fell hard, only just making it back after multiple successful drafts. It’s just the nature of the business. Especially for smaller market teams like the Spurs.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Good read. I agree 100% with this. The Spurs were screwed by injury more than anything else this season. Could Pop have done better? Yes. Let’s get some better talent and then see how he does.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
While I agree with most of the post, and the most fundamental of all realizations is simple: without Manu we had no chance of winning a championship, I think there are significant areas where Pop’s decisions are open to serious question. You mentioned George Hill. Ditto. But his stubborn use of Matt into the second half of the season and playoffs when it was clear he was no longer contributing on either end of the floor was foolish. His dogged attempt to make Roger into a point guard, all evidence be damned, was just stupid. Not only did we not get a backup PG, we lost the shot maker that had added so much for the first half of the season. And his quick dismissal of Pops MB without giving him a real shot, was just asinine … particularly when you consider that JV was still on our roster. Sure, Pop is a hall of fame coach, but that doesn’t make him infallible.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Well said agutierrez.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Buford and Pop make a great duo, but it has been time to take a few gambles for awhile now. We can not field an NBA team with only two perimeter players that are able to create their own shot especially when one of those two has ended the past two seasons injured.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
agutierrez,
By no means am I arguing Pop is infallible. Nor am I saying that his misuse of Hill was his sole shortcoming; I said quite explicitly that Gooden deserved a fair amount of the minutes Bonner saw.
While you and I have no genuine disagreements (I also agree with you about Pops MB, I should have addressed that), I guess the reason I chose a somewhat supportive tone is because I feel Pop has been receiving some undue criticism. A lot of people are talking about Pop as if he has “lost his fastball,” as well as over-emphasizing his stubborness. In reality I think he merely struggled to manage a very difficult situation.
Despite his shortcomings this season, I felt it was worth shifting the debate in such a way that people would be sufficiently appreciative of what a talented coach he is.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I think Pop deserves a lot of the blame. But not all of it. The Spurs shouldn’t rely so heavily on vets. Its time for the Spurs to inject some young legs.
Pop prefers vets. But the Spurs need young talent. With young talent comes hardship. Pop knows, that from Parker. Patience is the name of the game.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
If the Team President and head coach WERE NOT the same person, I’d have more sympathy. Fact is, Pop is clearly responsible for this flawed roster that became totally exposed at season’s end.
May 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Regarding Bonner vs. Gooden: +/- stats obviously have many inherent shortcomings. But they do tell some vague story. And Bonner’s (for the reg. season) was +9.1 vs Gooden’s -0.9.
In addition, basketball-reference gives Bonner 6.5 Win Shares vs. Gooden’s 2.7.
These are things to consider before everyone hops on the Gooden bandwagon.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
i think senorspur hit the nail on the head - i’d have more sympathy for pop the coach if pop the president didn’t exist. he created the team that he had problems dealing with. as a coach, he may have done ok with the roster he had (hill, PMB and gooden’s minutes aside), but he made that bed in the first place.
president pop needs to help out coach pop and make some smart personnel decisions, so that coach pop isn’t put in this situation in the first place.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Stephen,
I think the information you presented is an excellent example of why +/- can sometimes be untrustworthy. Bonner, as a member of the starting lineup, primarily played alongside Tony Parker and Tim Duncan. When Gooden saw minutes, he played with a woefully unproductive second unit.
In my opinion, +/- is a far more effective statistic when applied to 5 man units and the Bonner/Gooden situation is an excellent example of why.
SenorSpur/SRF,
My intention is not to let Pop off the hook. I just want to make sure that the frustration and criticisms are directed at the correct position. The article was an assessment of “Pop’s coaching performance.” And, although I have some problems with his coaching decisions this season, I think that some criticisms that have been blamed on the coaching staff should be directed towards the front office.
In particular, there is this conception that Pop stubbornly preferred veteran players over younger players this season. The FO may make such preferences, but given Pop’s usage of Roger Mason and Matt Bonner, I don’t know if that is a correct criticism for the Head Coach. He certainly prefers veteran players, but I don’t know if the criticism can be made in the blanket manner in which it is often employed.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:57 am
The Spurs had a tough season. But can we totally blame Pop? No.
Though there are a few criticisms I have for Pop from last season. Bonner, though he played well in some stretches, was a defensive liability. Pop, who preaches defense, was slightly hypocritical playing Matt when he could have played Thomas/Gooden.
Hill deserved more minutes than he received, and I would have liked Michael Finley coming off the bench to help provide some spark with Mason.
It all comes down to personnel. We don’t have the men to have the luxury of doing this and that with the players we have. We don’t have a JR Smith to come off the bench, or a Lamar Odom or a Jason Terry. The Spurs need to (to put it bluntly) get rid of Oberto/Udoka/Vaughn/Thomas who all underachieved this season and inject some proven young players. Young players doesn’t always mean unproven, Pop.
We are practically in a hole, because the pieces we have we cannot trade due to salary/age/not good enough. The only fallable deal I see forthcoming is dealing Manu Ginobili (I know, I can’t believe it either) and some bench players for some younger proven players. Not draft picks. Players.
Tim Duncan will only last so long.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Dealing Manu is not a smart decision first off. We would never get equal value. Plus, he has one of the most superstar friendly contracts which expires after next season. A healthy Manu makes a massive difference for this team.
I’m going to get killed for this, but if we really want to win a title in the next two seasons we have to trade Parker. He has the most trade value because of his age. Lets face it, Duncan only has so many years left in the tank so we need to win now.
No offense, but Parker is not the type of player you build a team around.
There is no way to win a championship with our current roster and we don’t have the assets to bring in a difference maker unless we trade one of the big 3.
Au revoir Tony.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:30 am
DRUBS 9,
why would any team in their right mind deal promising young players for aging veterans who are washed up?
May 26th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Pop the coach needs to have a serious talk with Pop the GM. For years the big 3 have helped cover up glaring holes and weakness with the rest of the lineup. You can’t always make chicken salad out of chicken s**t!
May 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Sean,
I agree with you, and I’ve mentioned this on a number of different threads.
I really believe the Front Office has to look at trading Tony. I dont think you can win a championship with him being your leading scorer in the playoffs: and that is where we are headed as Tim and Manu get older. We have to get younger and deeper NOW.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=r3wap3
The above 3 team trade is the most realistic way to get younger, deeper, and more athletic. If someone has a better way to do it please tell Coach Pop.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Chris K.,
I’m with you on the thought, but I don’t see Portland doing the trade you proposed.. Chicago would definitely be interested though and the Spurs would be intrigued..
Anyway, I saw that Tim mocked Bill Simmons idea of trading Parker, but seriously, when was the last time a team won a championship with a score first point guard as the number 1 option on the offensive end??
(don’t try and say 2007, b/c our team still operated offensively through Duncan)
May 27th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Here’s my trade proposal:
Parker + Splitter’s rights + future draft picks/cash
to L.A. Clippers for
Chris Kaman + 1st pick (aka Blake Griffin)
Spurs automatically have the best front line in basketball with the addition of Kaman next to Duncan in the starting line-up and bring Griffin along off the bench while he is mentored by the greatest PF of all-time. The Spurs could then try to use their MLE on a unrestricted FA like Andre Miller/Mike Bibby if they want to win a title (don’t forget bad economy, not a lot of FA $$).
The Clippers get Hollywood starlets Tony Parker/Eva Longoria and Splitter’s rights. It has been rumored Dunleavy is more interested in Rubio for 1st pick b/c of the log jam in the current frontcourt (Camby, Randolph, Kaman) so Parker could fill the PG role perfectly and they could run Baron Davis at the SG spot and form a similar pairing during GS days of Ellis/Davis. Plus, Parker gets to follow his dream of rapping, acting, and appearing on red carpet events with Eva.
Conclusion: Spurs get there next D-Rob, Timmy D, in Blake Griffin and 12 more years of challenging for the title.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Sean,
In 2006 Dwayne Wade was the first option and Finals MVP for the Heat. He isn’t a point guard per se, but he is a score first combo guard who, in 2006, often brought up the ball.
In 2004, Chauncey Billups was also the NBA Finals MVP. By no means a score-first point, he was still very offensively aggressive that series.
I think trading Parker is a very bad idea, but I’ll deal with that in a separate post. Honestly, I’m a little confused as to why everyone wants to trade our 27 year old all-star point but is so averse to the idea of trading our soon-to-be 32 year old, injury prone SG.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Tony Parker does not get the calls that Dwyane Wade does, is not as strong as him, and cannot dunk like him… and Dwyane had Shaq and a number of other good players around him, as well as a mentally soft Dallas team that helped him win that title.
Billups won the MVP, but let’s be honest, that was a real team victory, not one that was earned because of the dominance of their point guard.
Before them you have to go back to Isiah and Magic in the 80’s to find a team led by a point guard to a title.
The real answer is that it takes a very strong TEAM to win a title. Unfortunately, the Spurs do not have the depth or versatility necessary to win a title as currently constituted.
Tony Parker is a phenomenal player, a top 3 point guard, and his trade value will never be higher. Manu Ginobili is a Hall of Fame player, but injury prone and past his prime. Which player would bring back better value in a trade?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Tim and Manu will always want to finish their careers here, for many reasons.
But why are we sure that Tony will? When his contract is up, won’t he just run to LA or NY or Miami where the celebrity lights are brighter?
Is it too early to think about this?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Chris K,
Obviously it takes a team to win a title. No one has said otherwise. But the suggestion that somehow having a score-first point precludes a team from winning a championship seems incorrect to me. I think Miami shows that.
I also think this idea that Tony will run off to a big market when his contract is up is incorrect. His wife is from South Texas and is a Spurs fan. That is why they met. They are building a house in Central Texas. There is this idea that Eva wants him to leave but given the fact that she is a native Texan and life-long Spurs fan, I don’t think that is necessarily true.
Also,They can be in LA in 3 hours whenever they want. They can have homes anywhere they want. But for 7 month a year, Tony can be the centerpiece of a team and play for an organization he knows and trusts. He can have the best of both worlds.
But the real issue is, given the nature of media and celebrity nowadays, there is no need to live in NY or LA in order to be a big time celebrity.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Also,
Tony’s trade value is not the issue. Just because someone is highly valued doesn’t mean you automatically trade them. But we have certain goals over the next two seasons (get younger, acquire another all-star). Both of those can be easily achieved without moving Tony.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Things to keep in mind about Pop
1. The health of the players is the most important thing. See cautious with Manu all season and Timmy being pulled from the home OKC loss after taking a hard knee to knee hit.
2. We are playing for titles, not seeds and not records and not stats. See what 54-28 meant to SA and see what 54-28 meant to Denver, the same Denver team we almost beat with our best players benched on a short back to back turnaround leading to a -23 FTA margin. Remember the game where Pop let the players coach and run the timeouts? Does anyone mention we won the only division to send 4 teams to the playoffs?
3. Pop uses the regular season to experiment and test our team and others. If something works, you still mix it up when you play them again. Maybe something will work better or maybe you don’t need to give them film of what Pop thinks works.
4. Did you attend a single home game/give up your time this year and confidently think we were going to lose that game beforehand? Pop has created a franchise were we expect to win.
5. In general, beating us is bigger than us beating you.
6. Pop is not responsible for Bonner not producing in the playoffs.
7. Finley becomes JV if he is not starting and Pop knows it.
8. If what I have read is correct, the plan was for the starting 5 to be Parker, Mason, Finley, Bonner, and Duncan with Manu as backup PG and Gooden, Bowen, Hill, Thomas and Udoka subbing regularly after that point. I hope we cut Gooden but the original plan was for him to play along with TD or Manu and not be a 6th man. Mason, Hill, and Bowen are not 6 men either. Manu is our 6th man. Our entire rotation is based on that which is why everything looks lost when Manu is out and our shooters are on fire. If we are healthy, our players have value in our system.
9. We have a team with good chemistry and quality people. If you want to firesale all of those people or even just Tony, you are crazy and unrealistic. We need one or two role players who will play/contribute in the playoffs and for the big three to be healthy. There is no reason with JV and Bonner gone and two new players added, a healthy Spurs team couldn’t dominate next year.
So basically, Pop is better than me, he is better than you and better than his peers so give the guy a break. PJ might be available if you’d prefer that? Graydon is spot-on with being sympathetic to Pop this season.
If you want a closer look at stats and our losses, read my post on PTR here:
http://www.poundingtherock.com/2009/5/22/883610/48mohs-assessment-on-pop
May 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Graydon,
You believe that the Spurs can, in the next two years:
1) Be a top 3 team in the West.
2) Get younger, deeper, and more athletic.
3) Keep the Big 3 intact.
I don’t see how we can be sure of the first two without doing the third.
Two years in a row we have lost because of injuries. There are serious doubts in my mind whether Tim Duncan can be even a legitimate number two offensive option on a championship team going forward and I also have doubts that Tony Parker can be the number one offensive option on a championship team. (He really was not the number one option in 07, he just had a favorable match-up, and benefited from a healthy Ginobili and Duncan.)
Maybe all the D-League and Euro guys will become great role players and contributors on another Spurs championship run behind a healthy and efficient Big 3. Or maybe they won’t.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
*correction, “…except by NOT doing the third.”
May 27th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Graydon,
If you are calling Dwyane Wade a point guard you have lost all credibility on here. He is definitely a SG and if my memory serves me right Jason Williams was the PG on that team..
You are correct that Wade brought the ball up the court lots of times, but does that make him a point guard? Don’t Kobe and Lebron do the same thing in when they need a score?? Are they PG’s???
You are exactly right about Billups, he was aggressive offensively, but at the same time is more of a traditional PG who facilitated the offense for his team. Tony is shoot first, past second and there is not a single PG (actual PG’s, not D-Wade) who has won a title as the #1 scoring option. Can you name any????
The reason you can trade Parker NOW is because he had such a good season, his trade value is very high.
It is dumb to think the Spurs would get equal value trading Ginobili when he just came off an injury plagued season. How does that make his trade value high in other GM’s minds? What GM trades a healthy all-star for a guy that was injured the previous season?
May 28th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Sean,
I referred to Wade as a combo guard, which he is. And in ‘06, the Heat played Williams off the ball fairly often. So he was functioning as a PG.
And, yes, when Lebron is functioning as the primary distributor he is playing point forward, a la Scottie Pippen.
In my opinion, the nature of the triangle (and Jackson’s penchant for going ISO with Kobe late in the game) makes referring to Bryant as a point more difficult.
In my humble opinion the “point” (whether it be guard or forward) is the team’s primary distributor of the ball and most often the player who brings the ball up the floor. In those instances, Lebron and Wade were serving that function. If that is not the point’s function, than what is? Is it merely the guy who happens to be the smallest player on the floor? That is a pretty shallow understanding of positionality.
What I am trying to say is this isn’t about which traditional, narrow position the player is forced to fit into. The concern is, can your primary distributor and your primary scorer be the same person.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’ve already commented quite a bit on the ‘trade Tony’ and ‘trade Manu’ debates, so I doubt anyone is interested in hearing me rehash my thoughts on that. However, I would like to mention a couple of points to consider when we’re debating whether you can win it all with a score-first PG in relation to our future, post-Duncan/Manu rebuilding efforts. The hand-checking rules really changed the dynamic of the league and what a PG can and should do for an offense, so basically, we should only be considering the last 10 years or so when we’re trying to answer this question.
Secondly, over that approximate period (1999 - 2008), 2 teams have accounted for 7 of the 10 championships, meaning that we basically had 2 concurrent dynasties battling it out. One of those 2 dynasties (the Lakers) had role-playing PGs but also had two of the greatest players ever at their positions (Shaq and Kobe). Does it really matter if you have a score-first PG or not when you have Shaq & Kobe on your team? Also, the triangle offense doesn’t require that you have a great PG to make the best out of your star players, so the Lakers aren’t a great test case for determining whether you can win with a score-first PG. Lastly, only a handful of active COACHES have rings, regardless of the players on the teams, and Jackson is one of the ring hogs.
The other dynasty was the Spurs. Let’s ignore the fact that we won 3 of those championships with a score-first PG for the sake of argument about how critical Tony was to those runs relative to Timmy & Manu. Our team had the greatest PF of all time for all 4 rings, a top-50 center for 2 of those rings, and a future HOF SG in Manu for 3 of those rings. In terms of our overall talent level at the top, we were loaded, and we’ve had one of the greatest coaches of all time at the helm for all of those runs.
Lastly, in the the 3 remaining seasons where the neither the Lakers nor the Spurs won, the team who won had a future or current HOF coach in 2 of those seasons (Reilly & Brown). As I noted above, historically, coaching seems to matter as much as anything.
We could look at teams that were in major contention over this period, then, to expand the sample size a bit. If you do that, you might conclude that it’s plausible to win with a score-first PG. Sacramento was arguably the 2nd best team in the league behind the Lakers when they got ripped by the officials in game 7, and Bibby certainly fits the bill of a score-first PG. Dallas almost won in 2006 with Devin Harris, who defends well but otherwise was more of a scorer than a distributor. Philly did pretty well with Iverson hogging the ball & the shots in 2001.
So, if you have 2 teams hogging 70% of the championships over the period we’re trying to look at because, overall, their rosters were just plain better than every other team in the league, it’s really hard to draw meaningful conclusions about whether hypothetically you can win a championship with a score-first PG as your best player. In my opinion, the sample size of the remaining championship years under the current hand-checking rules, which make quick PGs so much more deadly, is just too small to let you draw decisive conclusions. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this; just thought I’d throw this out there to see what y’all think.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Great post.
I agree, the new hand-checking rules and the subsequent rise of Steve Nash and Chris Paul are significant.
The issue for me is the Spurs philosophy. It seems to me that if Tony Parker is the focus then the Spurs system that won 4 championships (with Tim Duncan as the focus) has to change drastically.
The Spurs won 4 titles with great defense, shot-blocking, offensive execution, post scoring, timely three pointers, toughness, teamwork, and the heart of a champion (to steal Rudy T’s phrase).
That philosophy works. I just wonder if we have the athleticism or skill on our roster sufficient to carry it out on a championship level.
I wonder if all our pieces fit together.
I would rather shake up the roster than fade away like the Stockton and Malone Jazz or the late 80s Celtics. I do not want to go gently into that good night.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Joe,
Fantasic post. The hand check rules have definitely changed the way the game is played today, which is why teams with great wing players succeed and why more teams are apt to play small-ball.
The reason the Spurs have been so successful in the past is #21, Tim Duncan. The offense has always run through him as well as the defense. Tim past the 1,000 games mark this past season and it is obvious he can’t consistently do the things we’re so used to seeing.
It seems to me the Spurs build their roster every year to complement Tim (3 point shooters, committed defenders, guys who know their role). But as Tim gets older, he will become less and less effective in the low post (draw double teams) so the Spurs will have to get another post player.
The biggest problem with having Tony as the go-to-guy is that he doesn’t make his teammates better ala Tim Duncan. When you have a roster full of spot up 3 point shooters who can’t create their own shot you need a player who can create double teams. Tony is not that guy.
I have looked at plenty of Parker trade scenarios that look beneficial to the Spurs.
Does anyone who would rather trade Manu have a good trade scenario?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Graydon - “the concern is, can your primary distributor and your primary scorer be the same person.”
Answer: Lebron James
That’s the list.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Great post, Joe.
My main problem with all of this trade talk is that you all seem to think we were horrible this year. If the Lakers swept through these playoffs then I’d be more concerned but I’m not convinced any team this year was as great as advertised. The Spurs won the toughest division with tons of injuries. One that hasn’t been mentioned is that Pop had big plans for Ian this year which got sidetracked by his injury. Ian would have been a huge boost in youth and athleticism. Hopefully, next season, we will at least get to see him.
Without injuries, I’m positive we would have beat the Mavs. The Nuggets have no consistency on defense and the Lakers only have the consistency on Bryant. The Eastern conference champion swept us this season but look how much that helped Cleveland in ‘07. I felt like we were in the mix with our pieces this season and with minor tweaking at wing and center (getting TD back to the 4), we can be the best team in the league next year and possibly in 2010. Duncan is still producing off the charts in reduced minutes and his increased assists this season show he is still the centerpiece of our team. We just need youth behind Manu and Tim to carry some of the minute-load until the playoffs.
Trading Tony won’t make Manu or Tim younger and no one can match Tony’s value in a trade.
Leave a Reply