Spurs offense in harmony despite Duncan’s struggles

Pop is obviously the conductor not Duncan, you idiot.

You’re a Knucklehead…..

I sure hope that proves to be the case, and that by the time the playoffs come around Marco owns that role and Manu regains his highest level of marksmanship from the beyond the arc. That’s what we need.

I’d still take Splitter over Blair for his defense alone. The reason Blair leads in steals per 48 is b/c he gambles way too much and occasionally will get one. But when he doesn’t the defense is put in a tough position due to Blair being out of position. No, give me Splitter’s conservative-in-the-right-place, boring defense, it seems to work just fine.

Oh good lord… stop it.

DeJuan’s a good player. He can pass excellently, he has a lot of energy, and he never looked too bad on offense. And Tiago’s contract isn’t the best. Still, Tiago’s an excellent rim defender. That’s literally the most important area of the court and, what do you know, he has excellent defensive chemistry with Tim Duncan in guarding it. Teams might not exactly fear Tiago, but a Tim-Tiago lineup is defensively stifling enough to keep teams out of the paint at a championship level.

DeJuan gambles for not only steals but offensive rebounds. Nothing wrong with that, but he gets boosts to two categories partly by gambling intentionally to cover up his weak defense. That a) doesn’t work in the playoffs and b) is likely the best explanation it’s helping the Mavs more than it would the Spurs. Risk is the ally of the underdog. When you’re the favorite, you want to minimize variance; when you’re the underdog, you want to maximize variance. Gambling increases variance and DB is good at it. When you’re a contender, you don’t want to give worse teams an in (like easy buckets in transition, over-gambling for steals and blocks and getting in foul trouble). The reason Pop is so conservative is partly mathematical; he’s perennially in charge of a contender that has to play like it’s the better of the two teams virtually every night. It’s in part about style and cohesion: He prefers not to break his systems to gamble even when the Spurs are down; even then he tends to let the Spurs climb out.

Also it’s worth noting that Tiago’s “traditional” defense is so much more advanced than DeJuan’s. DB can’t stay in a play to save his life if the guy he’s guarding is 6-8 or above. Most bigs (and a few 3s) can shoot right over him. I wouldn’t want DB against LeBron on a switch, ever, ever. DB’s weakside help is perennially lacking.

Being .027 win% better is not considerably higher. That’s about 4 games in 143 if my math is right, which, okay, might mean *SOMETHING*. But not all that much. And what it means more likely had to do with the 25 other people that determine the outcome of every game game (you know, like literally a top 10 player of all time and two other future HOFers in various stages of aging, injury, and prosperity) and the contexts in which they did it.

You can probably lob various criticisms of Pop but he’s been ahead of the curve on offense, on defense, and on just about everything. In the end, his biggest folly is his byzantine and grouchy media relations, and, really, no one goes to hell for bad PR.

“Still, Tiago’s an excellent rim defender.”

Actually, I think his strength is as a position post defender, and on the pick and roll, not as a “rim defender”.

“Being .027 win% better is not considerably higher. That’s about 4 games in 143 if my math is right, which, okay, might mean *SOMETHING*. But not all that much.”

It appears less than it really is because “the team” was considerably more deep and talented overall last year (and at the end of the previous year) than it was during the great majority of De Juan’s starts with the team.

“And what it means more likely had to do with the 25 other people that determine the outcome of every game game (you know, like literally a top 10 player of all time and two other future HOFers in various stages of aging, injury, and prosperity) and the contexts in which they did it.”

Then why did the team with no other player as starter during that 3 year period have as good or better win-loss record as Blair, other than Duncan (and that was by less than .005)?

Regarding Pop, as I said, his stubbornness sometimes gets the best of him. How he dealt with Blair is one of those occasions IMO. I believe that Blair’s overall style of play could have been a net positive for the Spurs, including during the playoffs. The Spurs conservative approach needs an x-factor to win at the highest level. Blair could have been that guy if the team had only exploited his strengths for 20+ consistent minutes every night.

It’s ONE stat, and not a very meaningful one at that.

Regarding the better win pct. with Blair as a starter? I’m not suggesting that we can know that Blair actually caused that better record himself. It’s merely recognizing that as a team we won at a higher rate over a substantial sample size with Blair in the starting lineup. And the fact is, it’s a solid correlation in Blair’s favor.

“That said, the Spurs became relevant PRECISELY WHEN BLAIR STOPPED STARTING.”

That is because as I said, the “team” overall was getting better at the same time. It is merely a coincident effect. Just to name a few things, we greatly increased our depth “as a team” when Blair began to start less. Example, we acquired Diaw, Jackson, and Mills near the end of the 2012 season. In addition, a phenom young guy (KL) was given the opportunity to make huge strides forward with the exit of Jefferson at the same time. Further, these additions helped our depth even more as the team began to familiarize with each other. The “team’s” performance upgrades had little to do with Blair’s diminished role. We could have done just as well if we kept Blair’s role the same, and played Splitter and Diaw 4-5 minutes less each. Our offensive/defensive differential and win pct. would have been the same if not a bit better.

“Seriously, let’s look at each season: SAS had a good chance in 2011, but that was despite rather than because of the horrid Bonner-Blair lineups (arguably Pop’s greatest misfire was not incorporating Splitter faster over declining yeoman McDyess).”

No. We did not do well that year because Pop stupidly took Blair out of the starting lineup late in the season. Our depth was not as good: No Diaw, Jackson, and Mills yet. Leonard was a 20 year old rookie and had less playing time. Duncan hadn’t yet experienced his physical resurgence. Manu was injured. And Splitter was still acclimating to the NBA, and bothered by nagging injuries. This is all pretty obvious. And of course, the Grizz just played out of their ass that year.

“And, in the end, while he might have had some use against GSW and Miami’s small-ball, Boris Diaw, Kawhi, and Splitter all proved themselves eminently capable of handling those scenarios, and at that I’d argue significantly better than Blair, who isn’t quick enough to keep up with tweeners.”

Blair would have done much better than Splitter against GSW and Miami than Splitter. He’s a better open court player. And his disruptive defense could have served as an x-factor.

“I loved DB’s rookie campaign and want him to succeed but the reality is he had no place on a rotation that simply out-recruited him. You can’t win a championship if you don’t defend the rim, not in a game with so many great scorers.”

Not true. Blair has just as much of an overall positive impact for the team as does Diaw and Splitter. And even with Blair getting his 20+ minutes in a starting role on that team, with Timmy’s resurgence physically, it still would have been good enough overall defensively to win in the playoffs. In the end, it’s about offensive and defensive differential, not “offense” or “defense” in isolation. The fact is, Blair’s an impact player, and what he lacks in position defense he more than makes up for in the other aspects of his game.

In what way is that stat not meaningful?

BTW, so far Splitter has a higher free throw percentage, a lower foul rate, and plays better position “D”. Whoopee!