Schoening: All About The "D"

[duncan228]

All About the "D" (http://www.nba.com/spurs/timeout/20secondto.html)
by Bill Schoening

When the Spurs gave up 109 points to the Philadelphia 76ers last Friday night, it included 30 fast break points by the Sixers, who shot 50% from the floor. Head coach Gregg Popovich minced no words in evaluating the defense (or lack thereof) in the loss. Manu Ginobili said the game was an "embarrassing" performance.

The next night, the Spurs didn't play perfect "D" but the intensity level was raised quite a bit in a road win at Chicago. The Spurs then concluded the road trip by holding Charlotte to under 40% shooting and just 84 points in a hard fought road win.

Small forward Bruce Bowen said after the victory over the Bobcats, "For us, it's all about the defense. We understand that if we are to be the team we want to be, we need to get back to playing the type of defense that helped this franchise win four championships."

The Spurs coaching staff often gauges how the defense is performing by looking to see where the team ranks league wide in field goal percentage defense. At the beginning of this week, San Antonio ranked 21st in that department. Clearly, there's room for improvement.

[polandprzem]

Does "D" stands for defense?

[FromWayDowntown]

At this juncture, I have virtually no faith that the Spurs can get stops in crucial moments. I've basically resorted to hoping that the Spurs will make enough shots to stay close and that they'll be saved by the impatience of less experienced teams or players in the dying moments of games.

11-4 in close games is a nice number, but it doesn't strike me as the ideal plan for getting through the regular season. I don't buy much that Hollinger says, but he did largely nail the fate of the '07 Mavericks by noting that their record was artificially inflated by outrageous success in close and tight games and that sustaining that kind of success is, well, statistically improbable. The Spurs are a bunch of killers against most of the league and they will have a big mental edge in tight games, but you can't make every must-have shot. And recently, there are way too many "must have" shots for the Spurs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pop can complain about the defense all day long but with him playing small all the time, we're just not going to be good in interior defense. If you can get Duncan to have to commit outside the paint, Matt Bonner or Michael Finley aren't going to get it done. Thats why you see four or 5 rotations because you have to double over and over again.

Thomas helps certainly especially lately but Pop needs to look at himself as well as the players.

[Obstructed_View]

Does "D" stands for defense?

:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Pop can complain about the defense all day long but with him playing small all the time, we're just not going to be good in interior defense. If you can get Duncan to have to commit outside the paint, Matt Bonner or Michael Finley aren't going to get it done. Thats why you see four or 5 rotations because you have to double over and over again.

Thomas helps certainly especially lately but Pop needs to look at himself as well as the players.

I'm not sure it's just that.

They struggle to stay in front of anyone on the perimeter and, consequentially, they're basically toast if they get involved with athletic players in screen-roll. There's no small ball problem in the struggle to keep guys out of the lane -- the small ball problem is the inability to change shots when those guys get to the lane, but it doesn't matter much when the guy with the ball is already at the rim, having faced little resistance outside.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At this juncture, I have virtually no faith that the Spurs can get stops in crucial moments. I've basically resorted to hoping that the Spurs will make enough shots to stay close and that they'll be saved by the impatience of less experienced teams or players in the dying moments of games.

11-4 in close games is a nice number, but it doesn't strike me as the ideal plan for getting through the regular season. I don't buy much that Hollinger says, but he did largely nail the fate of the '07 Mavericks by noting that their record was artificially inflated by outrageous success in close and tight games and that sustaining that kind of success is, well, statistically improbable. The Spurs are a bunch of killers against most of the league and they will have a big mental edge in tight games, but you can't make every must-have shot. And recently, there are way too many "must have" shots for the Spurs.

Sorry, but Hollinger didn't predict that Nelson would do the coaching job of the past 30 years in getting that GS team to beat the Mavs. The Mavs didn't lose those in close games.

Also i know for example that in baseball that performance in close games does indicate future performance. Actually, thats one of the main tenants of statistical analysis: past performance is indicative of future performance.

The Spurs are good at closing games. Hollinger thinks they are suddenly going to lose their advantage in managing a game in the final 5 minutes? Thats absurd.

[FromWayDowntown]

Also i know for example that in baseball that performance in close games does indicate future performance. Actually, thats one of the main tenants of statistical analysis: past performance is indicative of future performance.

The Spurs are good at closing games. Hollinger thinks they are suddenly going to lose their advantage in managing a game in the final 5 minutes? Thats absurd.

I'm not suggesting that Hollinger has said any of this regarding these Spurs.

I'm merely taking what he said about the '07 Mavericks and saying that I think it might apply to the '09 Spurs.

Yeah, winning tight games does say something about future performance. But it also says something about good fortune, I think. The Spurs haven't won a lot of these games because they've done a great job managing the last 5 minutes. They've won a lot of these games because they've traded make-for-make or miss-for-miss and then gotten one gigantic shot at the end to win the game. I'd say that if the Spurs were consistently getting stops in crunch time or if they were consistently running efficient offense in crunch time, your point would be particularly valid. But I'm not sure that's what's actually happening in these tight games. I think the Spurs are gaining a great deal of confidence about finding ways to win tight games, and I do think that can be invaluable, too. But with some of these finishes, there's at least a dose of good fortune involved -- and good fortune doesn't tend to be limitless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not sure it's just that.

They struggle to stay in front of anyone on the perimeter and, consequentially, they're basically toast if they get involved with athletic players in screen-roll. There's no small ball problem in the struggle to keep guys out of the lane -- the small ball problem is the inability to change shots when those guys get to the lane, but it doesn't matter much when the guy with the ball is already at the rim, having faced little resistance outside.

I can't say youre wrong. Bowen's reduced minutes certainly play into it as well. A lot of it falls on the players. Manu and Tony have taken a step back in that regard and Finley never has been very good at keeping with players laterally. I also think that Udoka being in Pop's doghouse has hurt. He was one of our better perimeter defenders. I just hope he doesn't got he way of Malik Rose.

At the end of the day, I think its all of the above. With our starters not defending the perimeter and without another big to change shots in the lane were just not going to get the job done.

[SenorSpur]

In year's past, the Spurs were very good at closing out on shooters, defending the 3-pt line and the pick and roll. However this year, they have literally been average-to-horrible at each. The fact that they take so many 3-pt shots can either be a blessing or a curse. When those shots are not falling, they immediately generate long rebound opportunities and ignite fast-break baskets for the opposition (See recent Philly road game).

I know Pop's favorite tracking stat is opposition FG%. This year, the Spurs are somewhere in the middle of the pack in that statistic. Well, it's not like he's running two shot blockers out there to start games. Bowen's minutes have decreased so automatically the perimeter defense suffers.

Combine all that with the fact the Spurs play more small ball and have 2 very poor defenders in the starting lineup (Bonner and Finley) and only 1 solid rebounder and shot-blocker on the roster (Duncan) and you can start to see where some of the failings are.

[Josepatches_]

I don't think Finley is a a bad defensive player.He's playing so much with Pop all these years so I´ll give credit to him.Bonner isn't bad neither but he's undersize so he can't do a great job inside although he works hard
In Charlotte Thomas was in the court in the last minutes.That was important to our defense.
If Hill-Mason had a few more minutes it would be great too because they have more intensity in defense right now.I'm sure players like Manu or Tony are waiting for the playoffs to improve their defense.
Like everybody i would add another big but in playoffs we can put TD more minutes on the court to fix the problem like we are doing now when we had problems.
Anyway “We haven’t played our best and we still have a pretty good record,” Spurs guard Roger Mason said