PDA

View Full Version : Current Spur: Matt Bonner



Marcus Bryant
04-29-2009, 03:51 PM
http://www.nba.com/media/act_matt_bonner.jpg

Matt Bonner | PF/C
Born: Apr 5, 1980
Height: 6-10 / 2,08
Weight: 240 lbs. / 108,9 kg.
College: Florida
Years Pro: 4

info (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/matt_bonner/index.html?nav=page)

Spurs Brazil
04-29-2009, 04:11 PM
Off the bench OK.
If he's traded for the right offer I'm also OK with it

xtremesteven33
04-29-2009, 04:13 PM
Bonner was never meant to be a starter.

Hes a bench guy. I got no problem keeping him, as long as he doesnt play over 30 minutes a game anymore.....

to21
04-29-2009, 04:17 PM
The Red Rocket was more like the Red Sparkler in this years playoffs.

TDomination
04-29-2009, 04:55 PM
no more starting

Kori Ellis
04-29-2009, 05:01 PM
I'll re-post what I said in another thread about Bonner:


Bonner was supposed to be a bench player when he arrived in San Antonio. A guy who comes in and gets 10-15 minutes of hustle play a night. Sometimes more minutes when he's raining 3's, sometimes less when the other team is too athletic.

By now, Mahinmi or Splitter should have been in a Spurs uniform alongside of Duncan on the front line. The Spurs were forced to give Bonner a bigger role and since he was shooting so well throughout this season (and they needed offense without Manu), it made sense.

The Spurs obviously gave up on being a defensive force early in the season. That's why Bonner remained a starter, Bowen went to the bench, and Hill didn't get off the pine. That was the mistake I think. They thought they didn't have the personnel to lock people down anymore. I think they still did.

I have done my share of Bonner hating, but I think it's silly to go off on the guy constantly. People were actually calling for his suicide after the last game. That's freakin' sick. It's a basketball game and he's a human being.

He's a guy who would have been a great energy player for 15 minutes a night, he was forced into a starting role and did what he could this year. I'm not apologizing for his wussy reluctance to shoot or his slumps at times, but people need to look at how this came about -- not just blame Bonner for not being able to be a different type of player.

That all being said; I think they'll look to include him (along with Mason) in any trade packages.

Creation88
04-29-2009, 05:22 PM
stay home . .. you did in the playoffs.

TDMVPDPOY
04-29-2009, 05:25 PM
trade him to the raptors damn it for bosh

timvp
04-29-2009, 05:29 PM
Bringing Bonner and Thomas off the bench actually makes sense and fits for next season. They have entirely different games so Pop would have an easy time mixing and matching.

Definitely take him out of the starting lineup. Heck, don't even put him in a position where the Spurs need him to produce. But I wouldn't go out of my way to trade him. One year left on his deal and a lot of experience gained this year? Not bad for a spot bench player.

crc21209
04-29-2009, 06:05 PM
Personally my gut feeling is to say GTFO. But maybe in a limited role off the bench I'd be fine with. But if I had it my way, the big man rotation for next year would be: TD, Sheed, Mahinmi, and Gooden (re-sign him, he's young and has a post game, the lack of D from him will be covered by Sheed). Thomas...maybe one more year. Bonner and Oberto= Gone.

Rynospursfan
04-29-2009, 06:09 PM
Personally my gut feeling is to say GTFO. But maybe in a limited role off the bench I'd be fine with. But if I had it my way, the big man rotation for next year would be: TD, Sheed, Mahinmi, and Gooden (re-sign him, he's young and has a post game, the lack of D from him will be covered by Sheed). Thomas...maybe one more year. Bonner and Oberto= Gone.

I don't see the Spurs being able to get both Sheed and Gooden. There just isn't enough money to go around.

rayray2k8
04-29-2009, 06:16 PM
If Bonner can copy what he did this past season onto next season, then thats fine..
But ONLY if he comes off the bench.
I say that because I doubt anyone would want to trade for him..
and yes, I would be surprised...

Rynospursfan
04-29-2009, 06:20 PM
One thing to keep in mind is the looks Bonner is going to get if he is not on the floor with Tim Duncan at the same time. He and Duncan are a nice front court pair at least on the offensive end. He spaces the floor for Tim and in return Tim gets him open looks. If we bring him off the bench he will not be nearly as effective when Timmy is resting. Of course, who is.

Aggie Hoopsfan
04-29-2009, 07:20 PM
My feelings on him are the same as Finley.... if you could guarantee he'd be at the end of the bench getting DNP-CDs on most nights, and getting occasional burn, I'm cool with it.

But we all know Pop is a sucker for his vets, and he's a sucker for having a three point shooting big out there next to Tim. Which means if he's still around next year he'll be getting way too much run.

So don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Red Rocket.

Ditty
04-29-2009, 07:23 PM
i hope pop trades him for a future secodn round pick and give his money to gooden

HarlemHeat37
04-29-2009, 08:02 PM
I've been saying all year that he could be a valuable asset if he plays 15 MPG as an offensive spark off the bench..

holcs50
04-29-2009, 08:30 PM
Na, we need to include him in any trades we put together along with mason--say to the nets for VC. I'm sorry but he's way too inconsistent for even a bench player, his rotations are SLOW, and he always goes for ball fakes when he finally gets his fire crotch over there. You gotta ditch this guy, much rather keep kt if i had to choose between them, though wouldn't mind both of them being included in a trade. I would feel much more comfortable if this guy rode the pine most games if he is on the team next year. Please be gone boNer. pretty please FO.

SenorSpur
04-29-2009, 08:37 PM
He's a two-time playoff flop. Too much was expected from him by having him in the starting lineup. End-of-bench role or GTFO

it's me
04-29-2009, 09:36 PM
He's a two-time playoff flop. Too much was expected from him by having him in the starting lineup. End-of-bench role or GTFO

Spursmania
04-29-2009, 09:54 PM
He's a two-time playoff flop. Too much was expected from him by having him in the starting lineup. End-of-bench role or GTFO

Completely agree. It's the bench or out.

Borosai
04-29-2009, 09:54 PM
For frontline depth, Bonner is a good choice. If the Spurs bring in another big who can spread the floor, including Bonner's expiring contract in a trade isn't a horrible idea.

tomtom
04-29-2009, 10:04 PM
trade him for some picks or cash

benefactor
04-29-2009, 10:05 PM
My feelings on him are the same as Finley.... if you could guarantee he'd be at the end of the bench getting DNP-CDs on most nights, and getting occasional burn, I'm cool with it.

But we all know Pop is a sucker for his vets, and he's a sucker for having a three point shooting big out there next to Tim. Which means if he's still around next year he'll be getting way too much run.

So don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Red Rocket.
I don't really agree with this. Matt has spent TONS of time in Pop's doghouse...something that Pop never did with Finley no matter how bad he played.

If we make a move for an upgrade on the front line then I think we keep him. That way he is coming off the bench as a spark and if he is not doing that then I think Pop will simply doghouse him again.

timvp
04-29-2009, 10:11 PM
I don't really agree with this. Matt has spent TONS of time in Pop's doghouse...something that Pop never did with Finley no matter how bad he played.

If we make a move for an upgrade on the front line then I think we keep him. That way he is coming off the bench as a spark and if he is not doing that then I think Pop will simply doghouse him again.

Agreed. Pop has man-love for Finley. Pop, on the other hand, forced himself to play Bonner. Come playoff time, Bonner had to be given a chance. You can't throw away 82 games of investing in Bonner after a few postseason games, especially when the backup options weren't too intriguing.

I don't see Pop having a problem using Bonner more logically if a starting quality big is brought in.

lefty
04-29-2009, 10:13 PM
" I'm going to Hawaii, f... Yeah ! "

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9862/bonnershop.jpg

SequSpur
04-29-2009, 11:58 PM
Bonner is the second reason why I will never buy a ticket to a spurs game.

EricB
04-30-2009, 12:27 AM
Bring him off the bench in a Malik Rose Steve Kerr like role, and acquire better defensive shot blocking bigs to put in front of him.

Let him playoff of them.

Sound player for the money.

objective
04-30-2009, 05:06 AM
he was so bad in the playoffs that people have come away with the impression that he was playing monster minutes and some huge, unexpected part of the main core of the team. It's like the last episode of the Sopranos where people were convinced of something that never happened.

He only played 20 minutes a game in the playoffs. 19:53 to be exact in the 5 games. Sure he started, but 20 minutes a game . . . those are role player minutes.

And how did he do?

Awful.

3 pts, 3.2 rebounds, 21.7% FG, 23.1 3pt%, 0 assists.

Exactly how much better is he supposed to do if instead of 20 minutes a game he was only getting 15?

People don't need to make excuses for him, and the cut-him-a-break argument that he was never meant to be a starter or play 30 minutes doesn't work for me. Here he was, playing a role, wasn't even playing half the game, and he was a complete trainwreck disaster.

He won't be any better in playoff basketball playing only 10 minutes or only 15, or 17, off the bench or starting or whatever. He is who we thought he was, he's Matt Bonner.

I don't think he needs to be cut. But he's trade fodder for anything that comes along. Regardless, things should be fine after he's out of here in summer 2010.

mattyc
04-30-2009, 05:14 AM
Look, I like him and he improved significantly this year, but those playoff games will stick in the mind. Good to have on the bench as an option during the long haul, but I don't think we can rely on him as being a real piece of the puzzle.

Cane
04-30-2009, 09:21 AM
Bonner needs to go. If he remains a starter on the Spurs squad they will not be championship contendors.

He contributes jack shit, and the thing that he's good at during the regular season (3 point shooting) goes out the window during the playoffs because he is too gunshy and mentally weak.

He doesn't have the body, brains, or hair color for NBA basketball much less does he deserve to share the same team-jersey as Tim Duncan. BONNER GTFO.

timvp
04-30-2009, 09:40 AM
he was so bad in the playoffs that people have come away with the impression that he was playing monster minutes and some huge, unexpected part of the main core of the team. It's like the last episode of the Sopranos where people were convinced of something that never happened.

He only played 20 minutes a game in the playoffs. 19:53 to be exact in the 5 games. Sure he started, but 20 minutes a game . . . those are role player minutes.

And how did he do?

Awful.

3 pts, 3.2 rebounds, 21.7% FG, 23.1 3pt%, 0 assists.

Exactly how much better is he supposed to do if instead of 20 minutes a game he was only getting 15?

People don't need to make excuses for him, and the cut-him-a-break argument that he was never meant to be a starter or play 30 minutes doesn't work for me. Here he was, playing a role, wasn't even playing half the game, and he was a complete trainwreck disaster.

He won't be any better in playoff basketball playing only 10 minutes or only 15, or 17, off the bench or starting or whatever. He is who we thought he was, he's Matt Bonner.

I don't think he needs to be cut. But he's trade fodder for anything that comes along. Regardless, things should be fine after he's out of here in summer 2010.

There's a pretty huge difference between starting and not starting for Bonner. If he starts, he's almost guaranteed to spend most of his time going against starter talent. He's also much easier to gameplan for as a starter.

And the main thing is that off the bench, Pop hypothetically could use him when matchups dictate rather than automatically at the beginning of each game.

I wanted Bonner out of the starting lineup heading into the playoffs because he was obviously going to choke. As a starter, he had choker written all over him. But off the bench as a big you go to when you need defensive mobility and spacing, he's much less likely to be exposed as a choker in that situation. He'd get more touches playing with the second unit, while going against inferior bigs who won't be as keyed into getting out on his shot.

SanAntonioSpurs23
04-30-2009, 09:42 AM
Didn't Matt Bonner suck fat ones when coming off the bench? The dude has no confidence.

DDS4
04-30-2009, 10:58 AM
Didn't Matt Bonner suck fat ones when coming off the bench? The dude has no confidence.

I don't think Bonner would be effective coming off the bench either. He's a 3-point specialist at best. A 6-10 Craig Hodges with no defense.

poop
04-30-2009, 01:38 PM
LMAO at people saying

"he brings offensive spark"

"him and tim are a good offensive unit"

"he spreads the floor/3 point specialist"

did you guys watch the last couple months? HE IS 100% WORTHLESS, PERIOD.

he brings ZERO 'offensive spark', no spark in any way, zero defense, zero rebounding, even his shooting disappeared when we need it the most.

so basically you have a guy who 40% of the time shoots 3's well if hes wide open, but nothing else, and 60% of the time is a completely worthless liability in every facet of the game.

GET RID OF HIM AT ANY COST.

Spurs_9_20_21
04-30-2009, 02:59 PM
LMAO at people saying

"he brings offensive spark"

"him and tim are a good offensive unit"

"he spreads the floor/3 point specialist"

did you guys watch the last couple months? HE IS 100% WORTHLESS, PERIOD.

he brings ZERO 'offensive spark', no spark in any way, zero defense, zero rebounding, even his shooting disappeared when we need it the most.

so basically you have a guy who 40% of the time shoots 3's well if hes wide open, but nothing else, and 60% of the time is a completely worthless liability in every facet of the game.

GET RID OF HIM AT ANY COST.
totally agree!!!! the only thing he's good for is three pointers and he barely shoots!!

poop
04-30-2009, 04:23 PM
Sound player for the money.

how so? how is he a 'sound player'? what exactly does he contribute to us winning?

he brought us 3ppg, 2-3rebpg, 0 blocks, zero assists, zero defense, and choked hard at the one thing hes supposed to do-shoot 3's-when we needed it the most. all he brings is a warm body and 6 fouls.

objective
04-30-2009, 04:30 PM
There's a pretty huge difference between starting and not starting for Bonner. If he starts, he's almost guaranteed to spend most of his time going against starter talent. He's also much easier to gameplan for as a starter.

And the main thing is that off the bench, Pop hypothetically could use him when matchups dictate rather than automatically at the beginning of each game.

I wanted Bonner out of the starting lineup heading into the playoffs because he was obviously going to choke. As a starter, he had choker written all over him. But off the bench as a big you go to when you need defensive mobility and spacing, he's much less likely to be exposed as a choker in that situation. He'd get more touches playing with the second unit, while going against inferior bigs who won't be as keyed into getting out on his shot.

He wasn't even good in 2nd quarters against bench players.

I understand the argument about second units and less pressure on him, I just don't think they excuse his poor play.

He only scored modestly in game 2, the game where Dallas mailed it in because they swiped homecourt. Even in that game he only started knocking down shots after Tony Parker got them a double digit lead almost all by himself.

I'm not saying cut him, just don't play him any more than 2007 and don't re-sign him.

024
04-30-2009, 04:35 PM
i would trade him just to free up a roster spot or some cap relief. i remember some time back in january, i wanted the spurs to trade him while his value was still high even if the spurs just got an expiring contract in return. now bonner's awful showing in the playoffs lowered his trade value.

Ed Helicopter Jones
04-30-2009, 04:36 PM
His 3 point percentage gives him some trade value. His confidence seems to dip if he's not getting minutes...he's not one of those guys that can heat it up at a moment's notice.

I'd say move him.

024
04-30-2009, 04:50 PM
which team would want bonner though?

TimDunkem
04-30-2009, 05:13 PM
which team would want bonner though?

Um....That's a tough one. I'm afraid we're stuck with Bonner for one more year.

rascal
04-30-2009, 05:20 PM
trade him if possible. He was given a big opportunity and flopped. He just doesn't have the skills to warrant getting quality minutes and that includes as a reserve.

The spurs better start filling their bench with players that can do more on offense than just stand around the 3 point arc.

beachwood
04-30-2009, 07:20 PM
I know he can shoot the 3 ball during the regular season, but I never want to see this guy in a Spurs uniform ever again. I'm sure he'll be around next season though.

rascal
05-03-2009, 06:19 PM
i would trade him just to free up a roster spot or some cap relief. i remember some time back in january, i wanted the spurs to trade him while his value was still high even if the spurs just got an expiring contract in return. now bonner's awful showing in the playoffs lowered his trade value.


Yes some of us said move him when he had a good stretch of games and had a little more trade value.
The others who wanted to keep him then should shut the hell up about moving him now.

Lets pull up the Bonner posts from earlier in the year and see who was on the Bonner bandwagon then.

picnroll
05-03-2009, 06:24 PM
Throw him out there in every trade scenario. If nothing works live with him for a year. But if that turkey is starting again next year I'm switching to watching curling.

Spursmania
05-04-2009, 07:22 PM
The Red Rocket was more like the Red Sparkler in this years playoffs.

:lol

Sad, but true.

SenorSpur
05-04-2009, 09:37 PM
Dude has been awful in the playoffs 2 years in a row. Personally, I was fed up with him after last year's playoffs. I've seen enough of him to know that he's just a bench player. He's just not enough skilled enough to play starters minutes. I trust Pop knows this now too. I don't blame Bonner as much as I do Pop. I understand Pop didn't really have much choices here, regarding bigs. However, I can't give Pop an out on this. After all, he is the President of the club. He should've ensured he had a better option at starting center on this roster, than Matt Bonner.

timvp
05-04-2009, 09:45 PM
Dude has been awful in the playoffs 2 years in a row. Personally, I was fed up with him after last year's playoffs..Wait, what?

Bonner only played in two playoff games for a total of nine minutes last year. Both in blowout wins and played well.

SenorSpur
05-04-2009, 09:55 PM
Wait, what?

Bonner only played in two playoff games for a total of nine minutes last year. Both in blowout wins and played well.

Primarily, I'm referring to his penchant for missing wide-open shots. I remember he got time against the Fakers last spring in the WCF. Remember, Pop didn't play Horry as much as in years past. At any rate, the Fakers simply packed the lane and dared him to shoot.

As far as this year, he didn't do much again in the limited minutes he got. Much like Finley, if he isn't hitting open shots, he's virtually useless on the floor.

is it any wonder why Pop was forced to utilize a smaller lineup against the Mavs?

NewJerSpur
05-04-2009, 09:58 PM
I can see Bonner coming back with a lesser role than that of a starting Center.

timvp
05-04-2009, 10:02 PM
Primarily, I'm referring to his penchant for missing wide-open shots. I remember he got time against the Fakers last spring in the WCF. Remember, Pop didn't play Horry as much as in years past. At any rate, the Fakers simply packed the lane and dared him to shoot.Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.

EricB
05-04-2009, 10:46 PM
Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.


Come on, Beno is gone, so its now the OK thing to bash Bonner.

Ditty
05-04-2009, 11:43 PM
i would trade him just to free up a roster spot or some cap relief. i remember some time back in january, i wanted the spurs to trade him while his value was still high even if the spurs just got an expiring contract in return. now bonner's awful showing in the playoffs lowered his trade value.

agree

i rather give his money to gooden and to go after mcdyess,wallace or bourissis

SenorSpur
05-05-2009, 12:41 PM
Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.

2008 playoffs, 2009 playoffs, whatever. We can split hairs about when he's gotten time versus when he hasn't. The point being is that Bonner is not a starting 4 or 5 in this league. A good bench player, perhaps. Again, how he's going to be used, in order to maximize his productivity and avoid diminishing returns, is up to Pop.

urunobili
05-05-2009, 03:16 PM
2008 playoffs, 2009 playoffs, whatever. We can split hairs about when he's gotten time versus when he hasn't. The point being is that Bonner is not a starting 4 or 5 in this league. A good bench player, perhaps. Again, how he's going to be used, in order to maximize his productivity and avoid diminishing returns, is up to Pop.

I Hate to say it but he may be bench warmer talent in Europe... Bigs that shoot well is what they're all about... :deadhorse

ffadicted
05-05-2009, 03:34 PM
Keep his expiring contract for 2010 and make him a bench player after bringing onboard a solid starting C

ManuTim_best of Fwiendz
05-12-2009, 05:03 PM
Keep his expiring contract for 2010 and make him a bench player after bringing onboard a solid starting C

I don't mind Matt being a bench player next year.

Manufan909
05-13-2009, 12:33 AM
As long as he's the 12th man, I'm with fwiendz.

Uriel
06-01-2011, 09:07 PM
I will admit that Bonner's dufus running style and clumsy appearance doesn't do himself any justice. It certainly doesn't help his cause with most. However most reasonable people focus on production - or his case, the lack thereof.

Of course, you are correct on one point. The decline in 3-pt shooting was team wide, but it affect Bonner more because 3-pt shooting is his ONLY skill - which makes him a severe on-court liability, when he's not hitting shots.

As far as Bonner getting abused in the paint, that's not perception - that is cold-hearted reality. All anyone need to do is watch the playoff series versus the Grizzlies. At times, it was very easy to predict where the source of the Grizzlies low-post offense would originate - it was whoever Bonner was guarding, when he was in the game. When you're a one-dimensional, single-skilled player, who is also a defensive liability, in opposing players and coaches will zero in on that weakness.

It's obvious to anyone watching that his playoff contributions have been left wanting. He's a decent role player, but he should not be a major rotation player on any team with championship aspirations. He's just not good enough. Meanwhile, Pop is wasting time and compromising his team's success by constantly rolling Bonner out there in clutch situation and expecting different results. All of which makes Pop an idiot. For such a smart man, Pop is giving in to the definition of idiocracy.

Say whatever you want. It doesn't matter what happens during the regular season. All I know is what I see. It occurs every year about this time. It's an annual event just like the changing of the four seasons or the Swallows invading Capistrano. That is, when playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found. That, my friend, cannot be disputed.

During the playoffs, 48 Minutes of Hell wrote an excellent post (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/is-matt-bonner-earning-his-minutes) entitled, "Is Matt Bonner earning his minutes?" Here's an excerpt from it:


Throughout the series, Memphis has relentlessly attacked Bonner on the block. But they’re actually not scoring as often as I would have guessed. According to Synergy Sports, this is how Bonner has fared in the post:

Arthur – Miss J
Arthur – Make J
Randolph – TO
Arthur – Miss 2
Randolph – TO
Gasol – And 1
Gasol – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Miss Jumper
Arthur – Miss Layup
Gasol – TO
Arthur – ISO +1

In other words, in 13 defensive post possessions the Grizzlies scored on Bonner 6 times. Not great, but Bonner wasn’t obliterated either.
As I have tried to argue, much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner has been excessive and, to a certain extent, unwarranted. The fact that Timothy Varner, the author of the article, would concede that he guessed Bonner was scored on more often in the post, only to have the stats repudiate that, lends credence to the notion that the criticism aimed at Bonner is grounded not so much in reality but perception.

One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his plus-minus rating for the playoffs (http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=SAS) actually says otherwise.

Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the 6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.

It's worth noting that the latter observation still holds true in spite of the fact that Bonner shot only 33% from 3 in the playoffs this season. That means that, contrary to popular belief, he can still help put the team in a position to win even when he's not knocking down 3 pointers. At first, this may seem counterintuitive, but it's easy to forget that being a 3-point specializing big man comes with other sets of advantages.

Matt Bonner spreads the floor, which, as I'm sure you're well aware, has the advantage of keeping the defense honest and luring big men away from the rim, making the penetrating of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili a lot more potent, as well as adding another dimension to the offense in the form of a big man's perimeter shot making. The fact that they haven't fallen nearly to the same extent in the playoffs doesn't take away from the reality that the mere potential for it to be used does go a long way to helping the Spurs offense, which has been the 2nd most efficient in the regular season in the NBA, keep chugging along. The fact that Bonner apologists have used this argument ad nauseam to the point of it being satirized here in SpursTalk should not take away from its significance.

Now, with all that said, if Matt Bonner continues to be used ineffectively, does that make him a legitimate major role player in a team with championship aspirations? Probably not. But the fact that, when paired with the right players, he becomes a major asset to the team should, in and of itself, warrant his getting minutes in the playoffs.

You called Pop and idiot for succumbing to the very definition of idiocy, and I'm fairly certain you alluded to Einstein here when he defined insanity as, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But I think it's actually the other way around. Pop would be insane to give Matt Bonner consistent regular season minutes when he led the league in 3-point percentage only to suddenly take that away in the playoffs when he finds himself unable to produce at the same rate. Because that, my friend, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If he's been reliable all season long for us, would it make sense to suddenly pull the plug on him when he's become part of the chemistry that has been developed as well as a major contributor to the team with the best regular season record in the conference, especially when one considers the intangibles he offers?

I said this at the top of this excessively long post, and I'll say it again. Much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner is excessive, and to a certain extent, unjustified. Previously, I tried to argue that this could be a result of subtle forms of discrimination against his physical appearance. Though you did respond by stating that reasonable people like yourself ground this criticism on his production, or lack thereof, I have tried to show that this is in fact, not the case. Because when one looks at the evidence, one can unequivocally see that Matt Bonner has helped this team more than he has hurt it overall, and that his being lambasted is not grounded so much in reality as it is in perception.

dbestpro
06-02-2011, 06:05 AM
The effects of Bonner are not equated by stats, which is why you have to watch the game. Bonner misses a ton of rotations. His slow motion act may not cause his guy to score but it sure helps others to score, which does not show up in the stats. He also creates a lot of wear and tear on the other bigs as they constantly try to help out on his man. This begs the question, "Did Blair flame out because he was benched or because he had to play next to Bonner?".

Bonner is an intelligent, nice guy with a sweet outside shot. It should be easy for Spur fans to like him, but what we see is a guy who misses big shots and who makes his teammates play poorly.