How did the Spurs evolve into Small Ball play?

[ceperez]

The Spurs have always been known to play with two center system. The back court would play great perimeter defense and funnel their assignments into a wall of 7 footers. That was the basic recipe our league leading defense. It won the Spurs at two championships with David Robinson as the center.

The 3rd championship was arguably one by the heroics of Robert Horry, we beat a superior team in Detroit. However, the Spurs got to the finals by upgrading the team with Nazr Mohammed. That was the tipping point that got us to the top.

Then in 2006 we faced the Dallas Mavericks and that's when the system began to unravel. NBA rules had changed significantly enough that guards like Steve Nash were winning NBA honors. This was a series where the Spurs had trouble matching against with Dirk Nowitzski. This was the series that the Spurs decided to bench our two centers Nazr and Rasho. The two were traded in the following season. That was the end of the successful two headed center play that helped us win 3 championships.

Rasho was traded for Matt Bonner. Nazr turned down a contract extension and signed with the Pistons.

However despite ditching a successful theme. We did surprisingly win against Cleveland a year later. But IMHO, that was a fluke! The Mav's were eliminated by Nellie Ball in the first round that year. While we stole a series from the Suns. Luckily to face a completely green team in the Cavs. The Spurs however still had Robert Horry then that played great shot block help defense and Francisco Elson who was a quick center that ran the floor well. We were also helped by effective play by Oberto who we signed as a free agent a year earlier. Tony Parker had become the dominant scorer for the Spurs and did so mostly from the paint.

Horry two seasons later was sent into retirement. Elson was traded for Kurt Thomas. Bonner was signed an extension and our Scola rights were traded away.

2007-2008 season the Spurs were left with Kurt Thomas and Oberto as our centers. Two undersized 6'10" power forwards with very little shot blocking record to show off. The team had traded length for ruggedness at the center spot. The Spurs reached the WCF against the lakers only to be denied. The team may have won if Ginobili was in better shape.

2008-2009 with the same team Spurs failed miserably. Injuries were to blame.

Fast forward to today. The Spurs have been playing small ball since the 2007 debacle against the Mavericks. The team traded their remaining aged centers Thomas and Oberto for a 6'7" SF in Jefferson. The team signed veteran Ratliff, a euroleague player Haislip and drafted Blair to fill the teams front line gaps.

The Spurs now seem to be playing:

Duncan - now rarely plays power forward and is our exclusive center.
6'10" Bonner though listed at center, hangs around at the perimeter and plays non-existent post up and help defense.
6'6" Blair at Power forward. Has a great offensive game but is a liability at the post defensively.
6'9" McDyess has been taken to school by center Memet Okur in more than several instances.
6'7" Jefferson and 6'7" Finley have now become our PFs. (Note: 6'5" Udoka used to play that spot!)

The team also has a bunch of scrubs that rarely play at 6'11", 6'11" and 6'10". Apparently these players length and quickness aren't important skills in the Spurs game plan.

Which is really interesting, because the Spurs have historically be known as being a boring team that prides itself on solid defensive play. What sort of defensive setup can the team play with having just one center and four under 6'7" players?

Most other contending team has at least two bigs playing at the same time.
Celtics - Perkins and Garnet, Cavs - O'neil and Verejao, Lakers - Bynum and Gasol. There's one exception... the Magic that play Howard and surround him with 6'10" shooting PFs.

Are the Spurs planning to play a different game that everyone else? Can small ball give the opposing team enough match up problems to win it all. Is RJ at PF the Spurs plan to mix it up and change the game dynamics? Has small ball ever won championships?

[td_tp_manu]

A good review. The loss to Mavs was a trigger event.

[mookie2001]

thanks for history lesson oldtimer

[Fabbs]

Pops marriage to Michael Finley while being owned by his ex team and their rookie coach.

[SenorSpur]

Great summary. I agree with every word.

We know HOW the Spurs evolved into this. It's puzzling in that we don't know WHY. Especially for a coach that, as you say, prides himself on fielding a solid top-tier defensive team.

The most sobering point is how short this team's frontline really is - sans Tim. It's a shame that as Tim has gotten older, his frontline supporting cast has gotten considerably weaker with each passing season. I really feel bad for him.

[SA210]

The Spurs have always been known to play with two center system. The back court would play great perimeter defense and funnel their assignments into a wall of 7 footers. That was the basic recipe our league leading defense. It won the Spurs at two championships with David Robinson as the center.

The 3rd championship was arguably one by the heroics of Robert Horry, we beat a superior team in Detroit. However, the Spurs got to the finals by upgrading the team with Nazr Mohammed. That was the tipping point that got us to the top.

Then in 2006 we faced the Dallas Mavericks and that's when the system began to unravel. NBA rules had changed significantly enough that guards like Steve Nash were winning NBA honors. This was a series where the Spurs had trouble matching against with Dirk Nowitzski. This was the series that the Spurs decided to bench our two centers Nazr and Rasho. The two were traded in the following season. That was the end of the successful two headed center play that helped us win 3 championships.

Rasho was traded for Matt Bonner. Nazr turned down a contract extension and signed with the Pistons.

However despite ditching a successful theme. We did surprisingly win against Cleveland a year later. But IMHO, that was a fluke! The Mav's were eliminated by Nellie Ball in the first round that year. While we stole a series from the Suns. Luckily to face a completely green team in the Cavs. The Spurs however still had Robert Horry then that played great shot block help defense and Francisco Elson who was a quick center that ran the floor well. We were also helped by effective play by Oberto who we signed as a free agent a year earlier. Tony Parker had become the dominant scorer for the Spurs and did so mostly from the paint.

Horry two seasons later was sent into retirement. Elson was traded for Kurt Thomas. Bonner was signed an extension and our Scola rights were traded away.

2007-2008 season the Spurs were left with Kurt Thomas and Oberto as our centers. Two undersized 6'10" power forwards with very little shot blocking record to show off. The team had traded length for ruggedness at the center spot. The Spurs reached the WCF against the lakers only to be denied. The team may have won if Ginobili was in better shape.

2008-2009 with the same team Spurs failed miserably. Injuries were to blame.

Fast forward to today. The Spurs have been playing small ball since the 2007 debacle against the Mavericks. The team traded their remaining aged centers Thomas and Oberto for a 6'7" SF in Jefferson. The team signed veteran Ratliff, a euroleague player Haislip and drafted Blair to fill the teams front line gaps.

The Spurs now seem to be playing:

Duncan - now rarely plays power forward and is our exclusive center.
6'10" Bonner though listed at center, hangs around at the perimeter and plays non-existent post up and help defense.
6'6" Blair at Power forward. Has a great offensive game but is a liability at the post defensively.
6'9" McDyess has been taken to school by center Memet Okur in more than several instances.
6'7" Jefferson and 6'7" Finley have now become our PFs. (Note: 6'5" Udoka used to play that spot!)

The team also has a bunch of scrubs that rarely play at 6'11", 6'11" and 6'10". Apparently these players length and quickness aren't important skills in the Spurs game plan.

Which is really interesting, because the Spurs have historically be known as being a boring team that prides itself on solid defensive play. What sort of defensive setup can the team play with having just one center and four under 6'7" players?

Most other contending team has at least two bigs playing at the same time.
Celtics - Perkins and Garnet, Cavs - O'neil and Verejao, Lakers - Bynum and Gasol. There's one exception... the Magic that play Howard and surround him with 6'10" shooting PFs.

Are the Spurs planning to play a different game that everyone else? Can small ball give the opposing team enough match up problems to win it all. Is RJ at PF the Spurs plan to mix it up and change the game dynamics? Has small ball ever won championships?

Great post! Thank you for saying this. What the hell is Pop thinking? It's like an experiment that went bad but he stuck with it just because people complained. It's like he's being stubborn just because he was questioned.

If we play small ball and go away from our historical team D, then we are just like everyone else, and we will lose like everyone else. That isn't what won us 4 rings, and it won't now.

Pop isn't an offensive minded coach, he isn't able to coach that way, so we are set up for failure if he doesn't go back to what He instilled in SA basketball.

If he doesn't go back NOW, I'm sorry, but we are finished. And bringing Bruce back would help.

Now someone get this to POP!

[all_heart]

Nice take, yup don't know why Pop insists on this lineup... pretty strange to me. Look how well the Celtics are doing, they got a big lineup and I hate to admit it, they would trample our front court.

[FromWayDowntown]

Pop went to small ball in 2006 against Dallas when it became painfully obvious that his lumbering centers could not: (1) defend the smaller, more athletic Mavericks; and (2) couldn't create offensive mismatches that would make staying with Tall Ball a prudent thing to do.

Look, I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball as much as you can if your second big man/men are either dominating defenders who are athletic enough to deal with 3's who play the 4. I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball if your second big man/men are polished offensive players who can dominate smaller players in the post and can force mismatches or crazy double teams.

If your second big man is neither of those things, it strikes me as suicidal to play Tall Ball against a team that is playing, in essence, 4 smalls and one big against you.

[SenorSpur]

It would be nice to have the versatility to do both.

However, as someone stated earlier, that problem doesn't seem to faze the Celtics...and they are simply one year removed from winning a title and are gunning for another this year.

[FromWayDowntown]

It would be nice to have the versatility to do both.

However, as someone stated earlier, that problem doesn't seem to faze the Celtics...and they are simply one year removed from winning a title and are gunning for another this year.

Of course it would be nice to have the sorts of Bigs that allow that -- I can't imagine any team that wouldn't want that.

It may be that the Spurs will be shown to actually have that guy, too.

But you're silly if you think the Spurs have a second big that can even hold a candle to Kendrick Perkins on either end. And that's the difference that allows the Celtics to play Tall Ball just fine.

[Chomag]

Thats a pretty good take. Not to step on any toes and i'm not for sure but didn't our assistant coach PJ leave us right before the small ball experements?

[Mel_13]

Thats a pretty good take. Not to step on any toes and i'm not for sure but didn't our assistant coach PJ leave us right before the small ball experements?

No.

PJ left after the 2006-07 season.

[SenorSpur]

Turning my attention to the Ian situation, for a moment. It's funny that we've all been lured into thinking that Ian can't play. Obviously, the coaches see this guy every day and certainly they must know more than we. However, do all really believe that this guy can't play? Is the jury closed on this guy? Is he not salvageable?

I just find it hard to believe that a team that is struggling in the post, on both ends, like the Spurs are, cannot find some spot minutes for a 22 year-old, 6'11", 240 lb, young, developing center. Can he be any worse than what little we're getting from all frontline players, not named Duncan?

If Ian can't cut the mustard, get him out of here and trade for someone who can. The point is there is nothing to be gained, for either party, from him sitting behind the bench in a sport coat.

[The_Worlds_finest]

when it comes to championships there is no such thing as a fluke

[Fabbs]

Turning my attention to the Ian situation, for a moment. It's funny that we've all been lured into thinking that Ian can't play. Obviously, the coaches see this guy every day and certainly they must know more than we. However, do all really believe that this guy can't play? Is the jury closed on this guy? Is he not salvageable?

I just find it hard to believe that a team that is struggling in the post, on both ends, like the Spurs are, cannot find some spot minutes for a 22 year-old, 6'11", 240 lb, young, developing center. Can he be any worse than what little we're getting from all frontline players, not named Duncan?

If Ian can't cut the mustard, get him out of here and trade for someone who can. The point is there is nothing to be gained, for either party, from him sitting behind the bench in a sport coat.
The same coach who brought us small ball and marches out FinleyBonner ad nauseum is to be trusted that Ian cannot play? Look maybe Ian cannot play, but why should we take Poppeds word for it?

Supposed board know it alls used to diss Nazr and Elson back in the Tall Ball days. Funny how we won two titles with them and were well on our way to a 2006 title. Duncan didn't look nearly as stressed as he has since smallballs FinleyBonner.

[FromWayDowntown]

Turning my attention to the Ian situation, for a moment. It's funny that we've all been lured into thinking that Ian can't play. Obviously, the coaches see this guy every day and certainly they must know more than we. However, do all really believe that this guy can't play? Is the jury closed on this guy? Is he not salvageable?

I just find it hard to believe that a team that is struggling in the post, on both ends, like the Spurs are, cannot find some spot minutes for a 22 year-old, 6'11", 240 lb, young, developing center. Can he be any worse than what little we're getting from all frontline players, not named Duncan?

If Ian can't cut the mustard, get him out of here and trade for someone who can. The point is there is nothing to be gained, for either party, from him sitting behind the bench in a sport coat.

I saw him play during the preseason; it seems pretty clear to me that he's an athlete, but he's not really a basketball player right now -- he's too dependent on athleticism (IMO) and at this level, where he's not freakishly more athletic than those he's playing against, he's just not particularly good right now.

And, yes, he would be much worse than McDyess, Blair, Bonner, and Ratliff.

Economics and practicality stand in the way of running Ian out. If they cut him tomorrow, they'd still be on the hook for his salary this season PLUS the luxury tax on his salary. That the Spurs and Spurs fans know he's not very good makes it extremely difficult to trade him, too.

[tp2021]

If Ian can't cut the mustard, get him out of here and trade for someone who can. The point is there is nothing to be gained, for either party, from him sitting behind the bench in a sport coat.

Either way, we have to play him. No other team will want a player whose option has been declined by his own team without seeing him play a little first.

[SenorSpur]

I saw him play during the preseason; it seems pretty clear to me that he's an athlete, but he's not really a basketball player right now -- he's too dependent on athleticism (IMO) and at this level, where he's not freakishly more athletic than those he's playing against, he's just not particularly good right now.

And, yes, he would be much worse than McDyess, Blair, Bonner, and Ratliff.

Economics and practicality stand in the way of running Ian out. If they cut him tomorrow, they'd still be on the hook for his salary this season PLUS the luxury tax on his salary. That the Spurs and Spurs fans know he's not very good makes it extremely difficult to trade him, too.

Appreciate the insights on Ian. What's your take on the long-term future for him? Do you feel that it's just not going to work out for him here in S.A.? That he'll likely have to develop elsewhere?

[Fabbs]

Either way, we have to play him. No other team will want a player whose option has been declined by his own team without seeing him play a little first.
+5 million.

[FromWayDowntown]

Supposed board know it alls used to diss Nazr and Elson back in the Tall Ball days. Funny how we won two titles with them and were well on our way to a 2006 title. Duncan didn't look nearly as stressed as he has since smallballs FinleyBonner.

When teams went small against the Spurs -- as noted in the OP, that happened pretty much with the start of Game 2 of the Dallas series in 2006 -- Nazr became entirely superfluous. He couldn't defend anyone the Mavs were putting out on the court -- if he could have defended anyone (Diop or Dampier) , it would have forced Duncan to play whole games on Nowitzki, which doesn't strike me as a particularly smart thing to do. The "Nazr as proof against small ball" argument is nonsense.

Elson was the Spurs' attempt at a response to their shortcomings against small ball, and he could at least stay on the floor against smaller lineups because he could run and compete athletically. But with that said, as the 2007 playoffs progressed, Elson became the Spurs 4th big; after Game 2 of the Phoenix series that year, he got fewer minutes than both Oberto and Horry in 10 of 13 games -- and he got more minutes than Horry in 2 of the 3 because Horry was suspended. He played 10 minutes or fewer in 6 of the 13 and (tellingly, I think, in the context of this discussion) he got fewer than 10 minutes in Games 3, 4, and 5 of the Phoenix series.

I'm not sure how a team that eeks out a 6 gamer against an 8 seed, barely wins Game 1 of a conference semifinal and then gets blasted in Game 2 of that series is well on its way to a title, but to each his own, I guess.

[FromWayDowntown]

Appreciate the insights on Ian. What's your take on the long-term future for him? Do you feel that it's just not going to work out for him here in S.A.? That he'll likely have to develop elsewhere?

Frankly, unless Ian takes some quantum leap in terms of his feel for the game and his skills, I can't imagine that he's going to be anything other than an athletic big guy who will be able to block some shots because of that. Beyond that, I'm skeptical that he's going to be a guy who can play even 20-25 minutes per night for anyone -- at least I doubt that he'll be that guy anytime soon.

[wildbill2u]

The big guys we have are a step slow, whether naturally like Bonner or through age like McDyess and Ratliff. Watching Okur motor past McDyess was a revelation.

Ironically, Ratliff may have more athleticism left in the tank than McDyess.

These guys will do okay against some teams because of the matchups, but are going to be pathetic against teams with young athletic bigs.

[SA210]

Pop sold out plain and simple. In 06 he should of stayed with Rasho against Dallas.

[SenorSpur]

The big guys we have are a step slow, whether naturally like Bonner or through age like McDyess and Ratliff. Watching Okur motor past McDyess was a revelation.

Ironically, Ratliff may have more athleticism left in the tank than McDyess.

These guys will do okay against some teams because of the matchups, but are going to be pathetic against teams with young athletic bigs.

This is not easy to say, but I watched the Utah/Dallas game this past week and Dirk was driving past Okur as though he was standing still. Dirk! Of all players. Now we've got Okur motoring past McDyess. There's another possible revelation forthcoming. I just don't want to talk about it.

[Spursfan 87]

Ian should get a shot as the starting C. Bogans got his shot and delivered, maybe it can be the same with Ian

[Mel_13]

Ian should get a shot as the starting C. Bogans got his shot and delivered, maybe it can be the same with Ian

:lol

Bogans had nearly 10,000 minutes of NBA experience.

Ian has 23.

[FromWayDowntown]

Pop sold out plain and simple. In 06 he should of stayed with Rasho against Dallas.

He never started with Rasho against Dallas in 2006. Rasho played about 9 minutes in Game 1 and almost 4 in Game 2. That's hardly using a guy; after that, Rasho played exactly 1 second of that series.

And it's not like Rasho was getting a lot of minutes against Sacramento in the preceding series. Rasho got about 23 minutes in a Game 1 blowout. He got about 13 in Game 2, which went to overtime. He got almost 18 minutes in Game 3 and played well; Pop rewarded Rasho with the start in Game 4 and the Spurs got run out of the gym. So, in Games 5 and 6, Pop started Robert Horry, and Rasho was back to playing about 10-13 minutes a game.

[Mel_13]

:lol

FWD patiently correcting the faulty memories of ST posters.

[FromWayDowntown]

This is not easy to say, but I watched the Utah/Dallas game this past week and Dirk was driving past Okur as though he was standing still. Dirk! Of all players. Now we've got Okur motoring past McDyess. There's another possible revelation forthcoming. I just don't want to talk about it.

You say that as if Dirk struggles to get to the rim and isn't very athletic. I'd argue that the very thing that make Dirk Nowitzki a no-brainer Hall of Famer is the fact that he has the athleticism at 7 feet tall, to put the ball on the floor and get to the rim. Couple that with his ability to shoot the ball, and he is among the toughest covers in basketball.

[SamoanTD]

ehhhhh coulda woulda shoulda we are where we are and cant change that just live with it no matter how painfull lol

[ploto]

It really is a misnomer to claim that Dallas played small ball, and hence so did we. Dallas did not play small ball, at all. They played a traditional center and a 7-foot tall PF. The issue was not wanting Duncan to cover Dirk. Pop put TD on Damp and then had to figure out how to cover Dirk. Pop decided not to let Rasho do it- although he has covered Dirk for years in international play- nor even give Oberto a chance. He decided to use Michael Finley and thus, small ball was born- with Finley at the PF spot. It lives on to this day, no matter who or what kind of big men have followed- whether Franciscio or Bonner up to today with Dice and Ratliff.

[SA210]

He never started with Rasho against Dallas in 2006. Rasho played about 9 minutes in Game 1 and almost 4 in Game 2. That's hardly using a guy; after that, Rasho played exactly 1 second of that series.

And it's not like Rasho was getting a lot of minutes against Sacramento in the preceding series. Rasho got about 23 minutes in a Game 1 blowout. He got about 13 in Game 2, which went to overtime. He got almost 18 minutes in Game 3 and played well; Pop rewarded Rasho with the start in Game 4 and the Spurs got run out of the gym. So, in Games 5 and 6, Pop started Robert Horry, and Rasho was back to playing about 10-13 minutes a game.

My point was that he should have stuck with him and stuck with the Spurs system, but that's when he started to sell out. Many players run Tim out of the arena too and dunk all over him and out rebound him in a game every now and then, but he still starts. And he should.

You sometimes remind me of TPark, the FO can do no wrong.

[ploto]

He never started with Rasho against Dallas in 2006. Rasho played about 9 minutes in Game 1...

Game 1 is the one game we dominated and we did it primarily in the third quarter in which we played either Tim and Rob, Tim and Rasho, or Rob and Rasho. We never played big ball again.

[SA210]

Thanks Ploto :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

My point was that he should have stuck with him and stuck with the Spurs system, but that's when he started to sell out. Many players run Tim out of the arena too and dunk all over him and out rebound him in a game every now and then, but he still starts. And he should.

But that would make sense only if Pop had been playing Rasho a lot to begin with. He hadn't.

Your comparison with Duncan would make sense if Rasho had ever been an elite rebounder, shot blocker, or offensive player. Rasho was never any of those things. Tim Duncan is among the 10 greatest players in the history of basketball because he's a dominant rebounder, a dominant shot blocker, and a dominant offensive player, whatever his athleticism might be.

It's about results, and if Rasho could have shown results no matter the disparity in athleticism, I'm sure he would have played. But he didn't show results -- except to a few Spurs fans who somehow have sainted Rasho with rosy fantasies of defensive dominance. Rasho was a fine defensive player when matched against bigs who were basically the same as him athletically; when matched against players who were much more athletic, Rasho wasn't particularly productive.


You sometimes remind me of TPark, the FO can do no wrong.

Oh trust me, I think the Spurs' FO makes mistakes. By coincidence, while the Spurs have won more games than any other franchise in sports over the last 15 years or so, though, I find that their mistakes are basically limited. Teams that have the sort of successes that the Spurs have enjoyed don't make a lot of mistakes.

I just think the things that you complain about are really poor arguments.

I'll admit to this, though: having been a Spurs fan when things were really bad -- when the front office regularly made hideous trades, when the team wasn't a lock to be in the playoffs, when playoff runs were ended summarily by much, much better teams, when every decision that the Spurs made seemed to go to crap -- I can say I'm fairly content with what Pop and his crew have done.

[SA210]

But that would make sense only if Pop had been playing Rasho a lot to begin with. He hadn't.

Your comparison with Duncan would make sense if Rasho had ever been an elite rebounder, shot blocker, or offensive player. Rasho was never any of those things. Tim Duncan is among the 10 greatest players in the history of basketball because he's a dominant rebounder, a dominant shot blocker, and a dominant offensive player, whatever his athleticism might be.

It's about results, and if Rasho could have shown results no matter the disparity in athleticism, I'm sure he would have played. But he didn't show results -- except to a few Spurs fans who somehow have sainted Rasho with rosy fantasies of defensive dominance. Rasho was a fine defensive player when matched against bigs who were basically the same as him athletically; when matched against players who were much more athletic, Rasho wasn't particularly productive.



Oh trust me, I think the Spurs' FO makes mistakes. By coincidence, while the Spurs have won more games than any other franchise in sports over the last 15 years or so, though, I find that their mistakes are basically limited. Teams that have the sort of successes that the Spurs have enjoyed don't make a lot of mistakes.

I just think the things that you complain about are really poor arguments.

I'll admit to this, though: having been a Spurs fan when things were really bad -- when the front office regularly made hideous trades, when the team wasn't a lock to be in the playoffs, when playoff runs were ended summarily by much, much better teams, when every decision that the Spurs made seemed to go to crap -- I can say I'm fairly content with what Pop and his crew have done.

Rasho isn't Tim of course, but we started with Rasho the whole season, then changed things in the playoffs (kinda like Hill last year, used him in the regular season and he did great, then Pop didn't use him in the playoffs).

That was a huge mistake. Rasho wasn't a HOF'er, but he was decent and the better option at that position and it was spurs basketball. That's when Pop sold out and it's painful to watch this continue.

That system we used to have won us the rings. This new philosophy won't, and I hope you don't believe that it will. This new small ball system makes us like everyone else, and that leads to no championship.

[Mel_13]

Game 1 is the one game we dominated and we did it primarily in the third quarter in which we played either Tim and Rob, Tim and Rasho, or Rob and Rasho. We never played big ball again.

:lol

Dallas had a shot at the buzzer for the win.

[SenorSpur]

You say that as if Dirk struggles to get to the rim and isn't very athletic. I'd argue that the very thing that make Dirk Nowitzki a no-brainer Hall of Famer is the fact that he has the athleticism at 7 feet tall, to put the ball on the floor and get to the rim. Couple that with his ability to shoot the ball, and he is among the toughest covers in basketball.

My point is that Dirk's strong suit is his shooting ability - not his ability to get the rim. Though he is more successful at it now, than before, he's still primarily feared as a shooter. No doubt about it. He is one of THE toughest covers in the NBA.

[Chomag]

Thinking back, how many NBA teams have won the championship with so much small ball? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Don Nelson started the small ball experiments and look at the results it's given him in all his years of coaching.

I realy don't understand why this Donny system is getting so much praise to the point of it needing it to be coppied. All I'm saying is that it's a flawed system as it's been proven time and time again.

[SA210]

Thinking back, how many NBA teams have won the championship with so much small ball? I can't think of any of the top of my head. Don Nelson started the small ball experiments and look at the results it's given him in all his years of coaching.

I realy don't understand why this Donny system is getting so much praisse to the point of it needing it to be coppied. All I'm saying is that it's a flawed system as it's been proven time and time again.

[FromWayDowntown]

Game 1 is the one game we dominated and we did it primarily in the third quarter in which we played either Tim and Rob, Tim and Rasho, or Rob and Rasho. We never played big ball again.

When Rasho entered in the third quarter of Game 1 of that series, the score was Dallas 59, San Antonio 56; when he left, the score was Dallas 72, San Antonio 71. Rasho was +1.

[superbigtime]

It really is a misnomer to claim that Dallas played small ball, and hence so did we. Dallas did not play small ball, at all. They played a traditional center and a 7-foot tall PF. The issue was not wanting Duncan to cover Dirk. Pop put TD on Damp and then had to figure out how to cover Dirk. Pop decided not to let Rasho do it- although he has covered Dirk for years in international play- nor even give Oberto a chance. He decided to use Michael Finley and thus, small ball was born- with Finley at the PF spot. It lives on to this day, no matter who or what kind of big men have followed- whether Franciscio or Bonner up to today with Dice and Ratliff.


Thus the Genius of Coach Popovich.

[Fabbs]

And it's not like Rasho was getting a lot of minutes against Sacramento in the preceding series. Rasho got about 23 minutes in a Game 1 blowout. He got about 13 in Game 2, which went to overtime. He got almost 18 minutes in Game 3 and played well; Pop rewarded Rasho with the start in Game 4 and the Spurs got run out of the gym. So, in Games 5 and 6, Pop started Robert Horry, and Rasho was back to playing about 10-13 minutes a game.
Just because Rasho alone got reduced minutes does not mean it was smallballs.
Man From Nazr played 25 min in Gm 1 and 24 minutes in Gm 2.
So thats combined NazrRash Tallball of:
Gm 1 48 min
Gm 2 37 min. Both wins.

Hardly smallballs.

[Fabbs]

I'm not sure how a team that eeks out a 6 gamer against an 8 seed, barely wins Game 1 of a conference semifinal and then gets blasted in Game 2 of that series is well on its way to a title, but to each his own, I guess.
Check back one year ealier to 2005.
Lost Gm 1 vs Denver. Did not resort to smallballs panic.
Next series Seattle, lost Gms 3 and 4 to be tied at 2-2. Once again, did not resort to smallballs and stuck with Man From Nazr.
Championship.


Elson was the Spurs' attempt at a response to their shortcomings against small ball, and he could at least stay on the floor against smaller lineups because he could run and compete athletically. But with that said, as the 2007 playoffs progressed, Elson became the Spurs 4th big; after Game 2 of the Phoenix series that year, he got fewer minutes than both Oberto and Horry in 10 of 13 games -- and he got more minutes than Horry in 2 of the 3 because Horry was suspended.
I posted the stats on Gms Elson played 20+ minutes in the 2006-7 season. Spurs were something like 20-1 as such. Granted, the 2007 Finals were a successful smallballs playoffs. An exception rather then a rule and bear in mind we were playing Cleveland, whose coach is as offensively dense as his mentor Popped.
Elson was never the same after his orbital bone got broken IMO.

[SA210]

Just because Rasho alone got reduced minutes does not mean it was smallballs.
Man From Nazr played 25 min in Gm 1 and 24 minutes in Gm 2.
So thats combined NazrRash Tallball of:
Gm 1 48 min
Gm 2 37 min. Both wins.

Hardly smallballs.

:toast

[ceperez]

It really is a misnomer to claim that Dallas played small ball, and hence so did we. Dallas did not play small ball, at all. They played a traditional center and a 7-foot tall PF. The issue was not wanting Duncan to cover Dirk. Pop put TD on Damp and then had to figure out how to cover Dirk. Pop decided not to let Rasho do it- although he has covered Dirk for years in international play- nor even give Oberto a chance. He decided to use Michael Finley and thus, small ball was born- with Finley at the PF spot. It lives on to this day, no matter who or what kind of big men have followed- whether Franciscio or Bonner up to today with Dice and Ratliff.

Agree. Dallas didn't play small ball, it was the Spurs who insisted on this kind of line up.

[SA210]

Check back one year ealier to 2005.
Lost Gm 1 vs Denver. Did not resort to smallballs panic.
Next series Seattle, lost Gms 3 and 4 to be tied at 2-2. Once again, did not resort to smallballs and stuck with Man From Nazr.
Championship.



.

This

[ceperez]

BTW, anyone have a good answer as to WHY?

Is there any solid evidence that playing two bigs in the Dallas series was a losing proposition?

There's no evidence that any team has won a championship with small ball. The closest in recent memory may be the Pistons, but it would be a stretch to call the Wallace boys inept with defending the paint.

Let's look at the memory lane:

2009 - Lakers - Bynum, Gasol
2008 - Celtics - Perkins, Garnet

2006 - Heat - O'Neil, Haslem

2004 - Pistons - Wallace, Wallace

2002 - Lakers - O'Neil, Horry

[The Truth #6]

Playoffs are all about matchups. We didn't match up well against Dallas. Playing someone quick who could guard Dirk became necessary so that Tim wouldn't guard him and foul out, because as everyone should remember, Dirk was getting the Michael Jordan treatment from the refs that series.

This doesn't mean Pop should always resort to smallball. Much of smallball now seems like an excuse for Pop to play Finley more. I used to joke about that, but now I hate to think it might actually be true. I don't have any other reason why Finley gets as many minutes as he does, or why we resort to smallball as the only way to get back into a game. When we're down, it's becomes fairly predicatable - small ball! Maybe that's because we go through scoring droughts all the time, which is somehting that confuses me. Is our inability to score an inherent negative side effect of our System? This issue never seems to go away. I suppose its our reliance on the 3 point shot.

But as far as playing Tall Ball - realize that having Tim and David on the team together was a gift from God. Expecting that to be the archetype is just plain silly. I admit that Pop hasn't really found a great idea on how to adjust after Robinson left. He tried to keep it going with Rasho but the reality of Rasho's limitations soon became obvious. The team has tried to find the "next Bowen" and the next "Horry" but living in the past is part of the problem.

We need to find talented players who can play well together and do the best we can. That's reality. We won't have two HOF post players together again. Who does?

[SenorSpur]

Finding talented players is one thing. Trusting, incorporating and using them to their fullest is quite the other. Probably Pop's biggest flaw as a head coach is that he tends overtrust guys that are battle-tested. He tends to over-rely on the long-tooth, veteran, guys, even when it's obvious they are past their prime. He seems to think that he can, at times, squeeze out more of their abilities when their tanks are clearly empty. Finley, KT and NVE are perfect examples. Keeping them around a year or two too long.

Coming into this season, we all hoped and thought that Finley would move down the rotation a bit. We've all thought this for about 2-3 seasons now. However another season comes, and Finley is still a major cog in Pop's rotation. No matter how much Finley continously gets his ass handed to him game after game. Pop stubbornly will not relent. He just inserted Bogans, but has yet to promote Hairston, when it's obvious these are the best two perimeter defenders on the roster. Both should be seeing more floor time than Finley, especially when matched against teams that have boatloads of younger, quicker players, like Portland.

Until Pop is willing to take a gamble on younger, more talented players, who may not be as invested in the system, the Spurs will continue to be deficient in matching up with younger, quicker, more athletic teams.

[HarlemHeat37]

We lost because of Manu's foul in a game 7, despite the horrible officiating..

some of you are overanalyzing..

[ploto]

Dallas had a shot at the buzzer for the win.

Third Quarter:
SA 25
DAL 20

We were losing at half time by 6 points and took back control of the game in the third quarter by going with our usual big man line-up. It was by far the best stretch of that entire playoff series and Pop abandoned it.

[SCdac]

"Small Ball", to me, equates to struggling to stay in the game, giving up as many points on one end as we're trying for on the other. It makes players like Richard Jefferson or Michael Finley play in ways they're not used to playing, and asks for too much out of them. It puts too much strain on Tim Duncan, he's not exacly in his prime playing with a Malik or an Horry out there, guys who were defensive and gritty. We do not have the peices to play effective small ball. Did you all remember that quote Pop had in the last game when he's talking to our team in a timeout, "stop reacting to their offense (Blazers), and start making them react to our defense!"... In a nutshell, that is pretty much what caused our smallball lineups over these years. We've done entirely too much reacting. I think Pop puts too much emphasis on how the game is changing (ever since 2006), and lineups are supposedly getting smaller and more versatile, and how it's a swingmans game now with the game is called. Last I checked the Mavs had Dampier, and where really pulling for seven footer Marcin Gortat, The Wizards have been starting Oberto at center and have Haywood, Bynum is manning the middle in LA with Gasol, Chris Kaman is tearing the league up right now, drawing double teams, and that team still has Camby and Griffin, and so on and so on... Why are we not playing Duncan and McDyess together? Blair? Ratliff? Mahinmi? I really have lost hope in playing one big man and four small forwards/guards. When we play "small ball", it's daring teams to score point after point on layups and dunks.

[Mel_13]

Third Quarter:
SA 25
DAL 20

We were losing at half time by 6 points and took back control of the game in the third quarter by going with our usual big man line-up. It was by far the best stretch of that entire playoff series and Pop abandoned it.

You always like to change the subject. You said:

Game 1 is the one game we dominated and we did it primarily in the third quarter in which we played either Tim and Rob, Tim and Rasho, or Rob and Rasho. We never played big ball again.

They did not dominate the game.

[DPG21920]

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/missing_link_fossil_discovery.jpghttp://www.topstoriessanantonio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/matt_bonner.jpghttp://www.nba.com/media/act_michael_finley.jpg

[sabar]

BTW, anyone have a good answer as to WHY?

Is there any solid evidence that playing two bigs in the Dallas series was a losing proposition?

There's no evidence that any team has won a championship with small ball. The closest in recent memory may be the Pistons, but it would be a stretch to call the Wallace boys inept with defending the paint.

Let's look at the memory lane:

2009 - Lakers - Bynum, Gasol
2008 - Celtics - Perkins, Garnet

2006 - Heat - O'Neil, Haslem

2004 - Pistons - Wallace, Wallace

2002 - Lakers - O'Neil, Horry

People have limited memory when it comes to small ball. Dirk was a mismatch and required a faster person. That is why. Nazr's stone hands and Rasho's lumbering movements weren't going to do anything. The first rule of defense is to not get out of position. A tall guy's height is of no advantage if the guy he is guarding blows past him. At the least the Spurs needed a quick guard to stay in front of his man.

Fast forward to today and you have similar problems with our bigs. Younger and more athletic big men or guards blow past them. The problem is that Finley has no lateral movement these days and he is just as useless as an immobile big. There is a reason that the Spurs pursued Elson and Mahinmi. The problem? They had the speed, but not the skill. Being able to stay in front of your guy means nothing when you blow rotations or foul out.

People always say "well, other teams have 2 bigs", but you will find that they tend to have good or very good bigs, whereas the Spurs have scraped the bottom of the barrel in that area.

The league has changed and coaches know that. Guards are given much more leeway than they had prior and this makes guard vs big a mismatch unless the big is athletic.

Also, the front office is hardly immune to criticism. You will find few fans here and elsewhere defend the Scola trade or the current MPG of Finley.

The current small ball situation is born out of necessity. The previous champs have had excellent big men. We have had either dumb athletes or stone walls. We should be thankful that Oberto stepped it up in 2007 for that title.

For people with short memories, just look at some of the older game threads or game thoughts. Rasho/Elson/Nazr may have been tall, but they were hardly praised for their gameplay. You need more than size to win or people would trot out five 7-footers.

[The Truth #6]

On the other hand, small ball might be another way of playing our 5 best players and seeing what happens. However, I do agree that Pop distrusts young players too much. Somehow, Sloan is able to plug in young players right away and they are able to execute well. We should be focusing on players that show competitiveness and tenacity, not just players who happen to be more experienced and assume it's the same thing.

The other way to look at this is that Pop's strength is not on offense, or at least it hasn't been through the years. Perhaps it's easier for him to rely on veterans who already know how to play the game and so he falls in love with volume shooters who also show good character.

In the end - who knows and let's see what happens in the next 10 games.

[Chomag]

People have limited memory when it comes to small ball. Dirk was a mismatch and required a faster person. That is why. Nazr's stone hands and Rasho's lumbering movements weren't going to do anything. The first rule of defense is to not get out of position. A tall guy's height is of no advantage if the guy he is guarding blows past him. At the least the Spurs needed a quick guard to stay in front of his man.

Fast forward to today and you have similar problems with our bigs. Younger and more athletic big men or guards blow past them. The problem is that Finley has no lateral movement these days and he is just as useless as an immobile big. There is a reason that the Spurs pursued Elson and Mahinmi. The problem? They had the speed, but not the skill. Being able to stay in front of your guy means nothing when you blow rotations or foul out.

People always say "well, other teams have 2 bigs", but you will find that they tend to have good or very good bigs, whereas the Spurs have scraped the bottom of the barrel in that area.

The league has changed and coaches know that. Guards are given much more leeway than they had prior and this makes guard vs big a mismatch unless the big is athletic.

Also, the front office is hardly immune to criticism. You will find few fans here and elsewhere defend the Scola trade or the current MPG of Finley.

The current small ball situation is born out of necessity. The previous champs have had excellent big men. We have had either dumb athletes or stone walls. We should be thankful that Oberto stepped it up in 2007 for that title.

For people with short memories, just look at some of the older game threads or game thoughts. Rasho/Elson/Nazr may have been tall, but they were hardly praised for their gameplay. You need more than size to win or people would trot out five 7-footers.

Remember as slow or unskilled as Rasho/Elon/Nazr, and Oberto were we still won with them. And small ball...?

[VivaPopovich]

How did the Spurs evolve into Small Ball play?

Me no know. But if we're going to do this, than do it with Richard Jefferson at PF where we can see some more crazy dunks. Beats the hell out of Bonner or Finley at PF which ought to be a war-crime atrocity.

Small ball won't win championships no matter what. But if Pop is going to do this he might as well do it right.

[ceperez]

On the other hand, small ball might be another way of playing our 5 best players and seeing what happens. However, I do agree that Pop distrusts young players too much. Somehow, Sloan is able to plug in young players right away and they are able to execute well. We should be focusing on players that show competitiveness and tenacity, not just players who happen to be more experienced and assume it's the same thing.


Which wouldn't match with the fact that he trusted playing Parker and then Ginobili when they started out.

But maybe the secret of the Spur's success doesn't lie with Pop. Maybe it was one of his assistants that isn't in the organization anymore. Just like Boston has Tom Thibodeau who's the mastermind of their defensive setup, somebody with less fanfare may have been part of the Spurs defensive prowess.

[FromWayDowntown]

Which wouldn't match with the fact that he trusted playing Parker and then Ginobili when they started out.

But maybe the secret of the Spur's success doesn't lie with Pop. Maybe it was one of his assistants that isn't in the organization anymore. Just like Boston has Tom Thibodeau who's the mastermind of their defensive setup, somebody with less fanfare may have been part of the Spurs defensive prowess.

Pop played Ginobili and Parker when they were young because they were among his best players at that point. If his young players now were as good as Parker and Ginobili obviously were at that point in time -- and it was obvious to anyone who watched, I think, that each of those guys was pretty special -- they'd be playing.

You still wonder why the Spurs went small. I've offered my opinion -- I think that if Pop had a second big who could actually create an exploitable offensive mismatch against "smaller" lineups, even if he was a defensive liability, that guy would play. The bigs the Spurs have had to play alongside Duncan since 2004 or 2005 haven't been great offensive players; in fact, I don't think any of them have truly had a credible post game that would be essential to exploiting smaller defenders. That leaves you playing a guy who is going to struggle to match up with anyone defensively (because he's not athletic enough) and who doesn't dominate anyone offensively. I can understand exactly why, given the choice between a guy who can at least compete defensively, even if undersized, and a guy who's going to get torched repeatedly defensively -- particularly in a long series where weaknesses are quickly identified and exploited -- a coach would take his chances with the undersized guy. In 2006, that was particularly true with Finley, who averaged 10.4 ppg on 47% FG and 38% 3pt.

I agree that in 2009, there's too much reliance on Michael Finley; in 2006, I think it was completely justified to rely on Finley and truly believe that if Pop had tried to force the square peg of Tall Ball into the round hole of the 2006 WCSF, the Spurs would have gone out in 5 or 6.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

FromWayDowntown is bringing some solid insight as usual. However, the problem isn't the Spurs playing small ball, it's when they play it.

When teams trot out matchups that dictate it, as mentioned in reference to the Mavs, it makes sense. However, when you do it against Utah when they're sporting a front line of Okur, Boozer/Millsap, and AK47, it's retarded.

Same for when Portlant trots out Aldridge, Oden, and Outlaw. Seriously, you have a front line that is all over 6'9", and you've got Finley and Jefferson taking turns at *power forward* with the other one or Manu manning the SF spot?

That's just fucking stupid, and Pop deserves to be called out for it. Small ball in itself isn't a bad thing, but it is when Pop decides to deploy it all the time and with the personnel he uses to do it. It's like he wants to show everyone how cute he can be with his matchups.

The only problem is, he's sitting over there on the sideline with that smug ass mug of his while we get murdered on the glass and give up a layup line on defense.

The more I see of his stupidity, the more I put credence in the idea that PJ counterbalanced his stupidity and kept him on a more even keel. Makes me wonder if he has a bunch of yes men on his staff now, because no one seems to want to call him out on this crap.

I can't imagine it's fun for Holt watching $80 million circle the drain so Pop can play his mancrush Michael Finley 20 minutes a night at power forward, either.

[FromWayDowntown]

FromWayDowntown is bringing some solid insight as usual. However, the problem isn't the Spurs playing small ball, it's when they play it.

And just to be clear -- my point isn't to advocate for small ball in all circumstances. I have always thought that it was understandable in 2006. I thought it made sense for Pop to play around with it during the 2006-07 regular season because the '06 Spurs HAD TO play it to have a chance against Dallas, but hadn't played it during the 05-06 regular season. It makes sense to pick your spots and play a small ball group on occasion, just so those guys figure out how to play together.

But using it regularly, using it without regard to matchups, using it when there are other, better options? I'm not supporting that by any means.

[Blackjack]

The 3rd championship was arguably one by the heroics of Robert Horry, we beat a superior team in Detroit. However, the Spurs got to the finals by upgrading the team with Nazr Mohammed. That was the tipping point that got us to the top.

Heroics that wouldn't have been necessary had Tim had a healthy ankle and Manu not suffered that deep thigh bruise in game 3, IIRC.

Detroit was a hell of a team, but it was also a team that won the championship the year before not having to play the Spurs or the Wolves. -- The Lakers were the third best team in the West that year and only advanced past the Spurs and Wolves because of Tim's inability to regain his MVP form after the wear-and-tear quad injury and Cassell's hip injury that effectively neutered KG.


However despite ditching a successful theme. We did surprisingly win against Cleveland a year later. But IMHO, that was a fluke! The Mav's were eliminated by Nellie Ball in the first round that year. While we stole a series from the Suns. Luckily to face a completely green team in the Cavs.

So, the Spurs winning was a fluke on the basis they didn't face the Mavs? The same Mavs that won a seven-game series the year prior in which they benefited from a banged up Big 3, a favorable rules change, and a Game 2 win that could be put squarely on the scheduling; the Spurs were forced to play Game 1 of the Dallas series in SA less than 36hrs after defeating the Kings in Sacramento. The Spurs controlled the majority of the game playing on adrenaline and an us-against-the-world mentality, before collectively exhaling and running out of gas before they hit the finish line -- they would've have lost Game 1 had they not been at home and had the crowd behind them.

Don't believe me? Look what happened in the first two games of the '08 series against the Lakers. Basically the same terrible break with quick turnarounds to start the series: The Spurs come out guns blazin' in Game 1 and fade down the stretch after exhaling and gassing, -- which did cost them the game in LA -- then they proceed to get their doors blown off in Game 2 after only being given a day off between games to get their legs back..

I don't bring this up as some kind of apologist, I just get bothered every time I see the equivalent of political talking points when discussing that series. Just because it's been regurgitated ad nauseum, doesn't give it any more validity. The Mavs were fortunate they got by the Spurs more than some kind of decisive victor, and they got through an Amar'e'-less Phoenix team on their way to the Finals.

Every team needs a little fortune or a break to win a title, but to say the Spurs only won because they didn't play the Mavs is a joke. Despite how well the Mavs match up with the Spurs, there's never been some kind of lop-sided advantage in the W/L column. The Mavs weren't a good enough team to win the championship, the Spurs were.


Now, as to when small ball really started..

The early beginnings of small ball actually began back in '05 with the Phoenix series. It wasn't the same small ball we know now, but it was the beginning of Pop's evolution philosophically.

The Spurs began to play their best offensive players to counter the high-scoring Suns, and pretty much beat them at their own game; the Spurs would show a versatility that would be described as 'chameleon' and prove that they weren't the one-trick, ball-control, defense-first-and-only, pony they'd been labeled.

That was essentially the beginning of the end to the two towers championship formula, and the birth of the shooting-4.

Going into that Mavs series, the dynamics had changed. The Spurs had become a much less Tim-centric team offensively because of the plantar fasciitis, and they had become accustomed to playing a much more perimeter oriented game with Tony and Manu; you gotta give the Mavs credit for realizing this reality and deciding to force Tim and the Spurs to play a game he or the team hadn't been physically or mentally conditioned for. They stayed at home on the shooters and played Tim straight up. Tim had a hard time sustaining himself physically by game's-end, given the plantar fasciitis and the fact that he hadn't been asked to play that way for the majority of the year. Likewise, the team and it's role players were forced to play in a way they hadn't become accustomed. Their open 3's became fewer and further between and they were forced to put the ball on the floor and create for themselves and others.

The Mavs really threw them for a loop and got them off their game with that one simple game-plan; gotta give it to them..

Horry, for whatever reason, also wasn't the same player from a year earlier. I assume Pop realized as much and began looking for a way to duplicate that high-scoring lineup he found in Phoenix. He wanted his best offensive players out there and Finley became the successor to Horry.

The Mavs, unlike the Suns, however, were actually a good rebounding team. They combined both a dual seven-footer front court and a small ball feel with Dirk's perimeter-oriented game. Pop, given that dilemma, decided that Rasho and Nazr would be a net-negative attempting to guard Dirk and with Horry's struggles.. Pop turned to Bruce and tried to concoct a way to win playing Fin at the 4; the Spurs were chameleons after all, right?

Had Horry been able to be the player he was the year prior, maybe small ball, as we now know it, never comes to fruition; or maybe Pop's desire to have his first highly-sought-after free-agent, Fin, on the court against his former team was an inevitable conclusion.

I do know this, the 'worm turned' in '05 with the success in that Phoenix series, and it seems like the philosophy and personnel has gone further away from it's most fundamental tenants little-by-little ever since; witnessing last year and the beginning of this year, the correlation between the Spurs' championship philosophy and their current personnel and approach is getting harder and harder to find..

[Libri]

Pop went to small ball in 2006 against Dallas when it became painfully obvious that his lumbering centers could not: (1) defend the smaller, more athletic Mavericks; and (2) couldn't create offensive mismatches that would make staying with Tall Ball a prudent thing to do.

Look, I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball as much as you can if your second big man/men are either dominating defenders who are athletic enough to deal with 3's who play the 4. I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball if your second big man/men are polished offensive players who can dominate smaller players in the post and can force mismatches or crazy double teams.

If your second big man is neither of those things, it strikes me as suicidal to play Tall Ball against a team that is playing, in essence, 4 smalls and one big against you.

This definitely makes sense. There haven't been many dominant big men in recent years, so many teams have had to play the more up tempo style in order to score points.

From what I read, small ball became more prevalent with those rule changes (hand checking, forearm, etc) that made it more difficult for players to play physical defense without fouling. Since the game is more free flowing and players are allowed to roam about on the offensive side, the defender has to use his quickness to defend and stay in front of the opponent. The defender is not allowed to use his hands (hand checking) in order to impede the progress of the opponent. Furthermore, the introduction of zone defense has put a premium on multidimensional players who can defend, rebound and score, players who can beat the zone (by passing, shooting, etc) and then go on the other side and defend by using his quickness.

This raises questions about Bonner and Finley, who as we know, don't have the quickness or foot work to guard opponents effectively. Perhaps Pop is willing to accept their defensive shortcomings because they are primarily used as zone busters. Since they are not quick or athletic, their only way of beating a zone is by making shots. Unfortunately, if they are not hitting shots, they become defensive and offensive liabilities and the team suffers significantly.

[Rappin' Pop]

Finley's arrival made me do this. I just had to find him some minutes. Don't overanalyze all of this. All of it is going to work out and you are going to realise that I am correct.

[ceperez]

You still wonder why the Spurs went small. I've offered my opinion -- I think that if Pop had a second big who could actually create an exploitable offensive mismatch against "smaller" lineups, even if he was a defensive liability, that guy would play. The bigs the Spurs have had to play alongside Duncan since 2004 or 2005 haven't been great offensive players; in fact, I don't think any of them have truly had a credible post game that would be essential to exploiting smaller defenders. That leaves you playing a guy who is going to struggle to match up with anyone defensively (because he's not athletic enough) and who doesn't dominate anyone offensively. I can understand exactly why, given the choice between a guy who can at least compete defensively, even if undersized, and a guy who's going to get torched repeatedly defensively -- particularly in a long series where weaknesses are quickly identified and exploited -- a coach would take his chances with the undersized guy. In 2006, that was particularly true with Finley, who averaged 10.4 ppg on 47% FG and 38% 3pt.


But isn't that were the Spurs philosophy of forcing the opponent to play their defensive game falls to pieces? Given an option to emphasize defense on the C position, the Spurs now emphasize offense at the expense of defense at that spot. As the Suns have shown repeatedly, you can't force your will on a opponent by simply outscoring them.

The Spurs formula to success has been to play the percentages. The Spurs would play stringent but conservative defense, slow the ball game down and play efficient offense. Effectively reducing the number of offensive opportunities for the opposing team and having them play a game of efficiency on the offensive end.

I cannot conceive how a game with smaller players with a higher tempo and gaping holes in the interior can translate to success. This is given that the Spurs have never been the more offensively athletic or talented team in the league. The Spurs have simply been the more disciplined team in offense and defense. Take mostly open 3pt shots in offense or penetrate to the basket, deny the 3point line and the paint in defense.

[Danny.Zhu]

Good post. But I just don't like small ball.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Playing small ball against Dallas in 2006 was not the reason we lost the series. In fact, it can be argued that it was exactly small ball that kept us in it for 7 games, but then most people would probably find this ridiculous. Still, I stand by my opinion.

They played their best ball in 2006,were at the top of their game at the correct time, which cannot be said about the Spurs in 2006. They also got a few lucky breaks in that series, mainly the officiating in games 3 and 4. Now, I do not claim it was officiating that lost us the series, but if they can whine about D Wade, then surely, we have the right to bitch about these 2 games, in which the refs were not better than those who fucked Dallas in the finals.All in all, Dallas won because they were better at the right time and at the absolute heigh of their game, while the Spurs were not, and small ball or tall ball should not be blamed for the loss.

[FromWayDowntown]

But isn't that were the Spurs philosophy of forcing the opponent to play their defensive game falls to pieces? Given an option to emphasize defense on the C position, the Spurs now emphasize offense at the expense of defense at that spot.

You must completely misunderstand what I'm saying. It's fine to be wedded to a philosophy IF YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE TO DO IT. It's insane to stick with a philosophy when you don't have those people.

This notion of the Spurs Philosophy as a defensive beginning point comes out of the fact that for a period of about 5-6 years, the Spurs had two of the most dominant defensive big men in the history of the game on their roster, both of whom were playing at a very high defensive level. That David Robinson could run the floor and be a credible offensive player forced teams to play 2 big guys to defend the Spurs -- in fact, its exactly the opposite of the phenomenon that (IMO) forced Pop into using small ball lineups.

Where I think you're fundamentally wrong is that the Spurs don't have David Robinson on their roster any longer. And they haven't had a guy who could hold a candle to David Robinson (even the 2002-03 version of DRob) since he retired. Pop tried to find bigs who could defend initially, and came up with Rasho; but it became pretty obvious, pretty quickly that the Spurs needed some offense from that position, which resulted in Nazr and the 2005 title. But in 2006, teams -- perhaps trying to deal with clubs like Phoenix -- started playing smaller lineups or at least emphasizing athleticism more than size. And as that move happened, the premium on athletic big men grew.

The Spurs responded in the summer of 2006 with the dual free agent signings of Francisco Elson (not a big body banger, but a long, athletic guy) and Jackie Butler (obviously, not a good idea), trading Rasho for Bonner (a more mobile guy with length), and letting Nazr go with opening minutes for Fabricio Oberto (again, a somewhat more agile player).

I think they evolved again this summer, looking for guys who might not be the most athletic players, but who can get up and down, but who bring something special to the table on one end or the other. McDyess might be the best big man in the game in the pick and roll/pick and pop game and he's historically been a great rebounder. Ratliff remains a tremendous shot blocker, but has no offensive game. Blair is a rebounding fiend (though, to be fair, Blair just fell into the Spurs' laps).

Ultimately, the recent moves are meant to remedy one simple fact: The Spurs haven't been able to force their will on teams by playing 2 bigs anymore because when they've done that, teams just go small on them, exploit the weaknesses of big man #2, and Pop feels forced to go small to have any chance defensively.

* * * *


The Spurs formula to success has been to play the percentages. The Spurs would play stringent but conservative defense, slow the ball game down and play efficient offense. Effectively reducing the number of offensive opportunities for the opposing team and having them play a game of efficiency on the offensive end.

I cannot conceive how a game with smaller players with a higher tempo and gaping holes in the interior can translate to success. This is given that the Spurs have never been the more offensively athletic or talented team in the league. The Spurs have simply been the more disciplined team in offense and defense. Take mostly open 3pt shots in offense or penetrate to the basket, deny the 3point line and the paint in defense.

You have to have guys who can play "stringent but conservative defense." You have to have guys who can play efficiently on the offensive end. You have to have guys who can deny the 3-point line and the paint on the defensive end. And, I'd argue that when faced with good teams playing smallish lineups, the Spurs personnel that's best suited to doing that has usually been their small ball lineups.

I swear that some of you truly believe that the Spurs have a group of big men that rivals Gasol, Bynum, and Odom or Garnett, Perkins, Davis, and Powe (a couple of years ago) or even Howard, Turkoglu, and Lewis. They don't.

[ElNono]

FromWayDowntown is bringing some solid insight as usual. However, the problem isn't the Spurs playing small ball, it's when they play it.

When teams trot out matchups that dictate it, as mentioned in reference to the Mavs, it makes sense. However, when you do it against Utah when they're sporting a front line of Okur, Boozer/Millsap, and AK47, it's retarded.

Same for when Portlant trots out Aldridge, Oden, and Outlaw. Seriously, you have a front line that is all over 6'9", and you've got Finley and Jefferson taking turns at *power forward* with the other one or Manu manning the SF spot?

That's just fucking stupid, and Pop deserves to be called out for it. Small ball in itself isn't a bad thing, but it is when Pop decides to deploy it all the time and with the personnel he uses to do it. It's like he wants to show everyone how cute he can be with his matchups.

The only problem is, he's sitting over there on the sideline with that smug ass mug of his while we get murdered on the glass and give up a layup line on defense.

The more I see of his stupidity, the more I put credence in the idea that PJ counterbalanced his stupidity and kept him on a more even keel. Makes me wonder if he has a bunch of yes men on his staff now, because no one seems to want to call him out on this crap.

I can't imagine it's fun for Holt watching $80 million circle the drain so Pop can play his mancrush Michael Finley 20 minutes a night at power forward, either.

This.

Plus I honestly agree with FWD that we have had bigs with mediocre offense in the past (although I would argue they helped in other ways, including rebounding, but I digress), but this season we got a guy like Dice that can both post up and fire up a fairly reliable jumper.

There's also the fact that, as discussed here, you would play small ball to run circles around the tall, slow bigs with quick, athletic guys. So why in the hell would you want to trot out Finley with a small ball lineup out there?
He's not quick and he's not athletic. I would argue anybody could guard him.

[DBMethos]

What kills me is that Pop obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too. Just one example (from a myriad of examples just 5 games into this season) from the Portland game...I remember one specific sequence where Pop was going with the small ball lineup (with either RJ or Finley at the 4 spot at the time), we forced a missed shot which Przybilla promptly got the O-rebound and putback, and ESPN then showed a shot of Pop on the sidelines throwing up his hands in disgust. WTF did he expect? If you want to keep the opposition off the boards, you might want to consider giving more than just spot minutes to guys like Dice and Blair. They can't grab rebounds from the bench (and Blair has probably tried). :bang

[SA210]

FromWayDowntown is bringing some solid insight as usual. However, the problem isn't the Spurs playing small ball, it's when they play it.

When teams trot out matchups that dictate it, as mentioned in reference to the Mavs, it makes sense. However, when you do it against Utah when they're sporting a front line of Okur, Boozer/Millsap, and AK47, it's retarded.

Same for when Portlant trots out Aldridge, Oden, and Outlaw. Seriously, you have a front line that is all over 6'9", and you've got Finley and Jefferson taking turns at *power forward* with the other one or Manu manning the SF spot?

That's just fucking stupid, and Pop deserves to be called out for it. Small ball in itself isn't a bad thing, but it is when Pop decides to deploy it all the time and with the personnel he uses to do it. It's like he wants to show everyone how cute he can be with his matchups.

The only problem is, he's sitting over there on the sideline with that smug ass mug of his while we get murdered on the glass and give up a layup line on defense.

The more I see of his stupidity, the more I put credence in the idea that PJ counterbalanced his stupidity and kept him on a more even keel. Makes me wonder if he has a bunch of yes men on his staff now, because no one seems to want to call him out on this crap.

I can't imagine it's fun for Holt watching $80 million circle the drain so Pop can play his mancrush Michael Finley 20 minutes a night at power forward, either.

Exactly. Great post!

:pop::pctoss

[SA210]

But isn't that were the Spurs philosophy of forcing the opponent to play their defensive game falls to pieces? Given an option to emphasize defense on the C position, the Spurs now emphasize offense at the expense of defense at that spot. As the Suns have shown repeatedly, you can't force your will on a opponent by simply outscoring them.

The Spurs formula to success has been to play the percentages. The Spurs would play stringent but conservative defense, slow the ball game down and play efficient offense. Effectively reducing the number of offensive opportunities for the opposing team and having them play a game of efficiency on the offensive end.

I cannot conceive how a game with smaller players with a higher tempo and gaping holes in the interior can translate to success. This is given that the Spurs have never been the more offensively athletic or talented team in the league. The Spurs have simply been the more disciplined team in offense and defense. Take mostly open 3pt shots in offense or penetrate to the basket, deny the 3point line and the paint in defense.

:toast

[Mel_13]

First, I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.

I believe this accurately summarizes the position of the more articulate opponents of small ball. I would go further to say that some look at the first five games and see major violations of the acceptable uses of small ball. Anyone care to guess the answers to the following questions?:

1. The Spurs have played 5 games (240 minutes). How many minutes of small ball have been played this year?

2. Of those minutes, how many were played when the opposition had two bigs on the court?

3. In those minutes where the Spurs played one big against two bigs, what was the score?

[Höfner]

It's more like abiogenesis - seemingly impossible considering the circumstances, but we know it happened somehow.

[SpurNation]

Because the Spurs don't have athletic big men to play the type of defense they play.

And small ball really isn't implemented unless the Spurs are having issues with tall athletic players.

Not saying it's the answer sometimes...but sometimes the alternative isn't working either. Might as well try speed over height if height isn't stopping the opponent.

[ElNono]

First, I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.

I believe this accurately summarizes the position of the more articulate opponents of small ball. I would go further to say that some look at the first five games and see major violations of the acceptable uses of small ball. Anyone care to guess the answers to the following questions?:

1. The Spurs have played 5 games (240 minutes). How many minutes of small ball have been played this year?

2. Of those minutes, how many were played when the opposition had two bigs on the court?

3. In those minutes where the Spurs played one big against two bigs, what was the score?

Just post the numbers. I'm too lazy to go take a look if you already have them. :D

[Fabbs]

And just to be clear -- my point isn't to advocate for small ball in all circumstances. I have always thought that it was understandable in 2006. I thought it made sense for Pop to play around with it during the 2006-07 regular season because the '06 Spurs HAD TO play it to have a chance against Dallas, but hadn't played it during the 05-06 regular season. It makes sense to pick your spots and play a small ball group on occasion, just so those guys figure out how to play together.

But using it regularly, using it without regard to matchups, using it when there are other, better options? I'm not supporting that by any means.


Where I think you're fundamentally wrong is that the Spurs don't have David Robinson on their roster any longer. And they haven't had a guy who could hold a candle to David Robinson (even the 2002-03 version of DRob) since he retired. Pop tried to find bigs who could defend initially, and came up with Rasho; but it became pretty obvious, pretty quickly that the Spurs needed some offense from that position, which resulted in Nazr and the 2005 title. But in 2006, teams -- perhaps trying to deal with clubs like Phoenix -- started playing smaller lineups or at least emphasizing athleticism more than size. And as that move happened, the premium on athletic big men grew.
The Phoenix team whom the Spurs had just beaten with Nazr doing about 20 min a game and another big (mostly Rasho) doing 5 more. 25 min a game with 25 more min a game of selective successful small ball. This against a Phx lineup with runners Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Q Richardson and Jim Jackson.

We then in '06 went 63-19 for #1 seed with NazrRash doing 36 min per game.
I submit we should have continued selective successful smallball vs the Mavs. Timmys fouling out when Dickhead Assveta gave Dirk fts for stepping on Tims foot was indeed robbery.

[SA210]

The Phoenix team whom the Spurs had just beaten with Nazr doing about 20 min a game and another big (mostly Rasho) doing 5 more. 25 min a game with 25 more min a game of selective successful small ball. This against a Phx lineup with runners Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Q Richardson and Jim Jackson.

We then in '06 went 63-19 for #1 seed with NazrRash doing 36 min per game.
I submit we should have continued selective successful smallball vs the Mavs. Timmys fouling out when Dickhead Assveta gave Dirk fts for stepping on Tims foot was indeed robbery.

:tu

[Mel_13]

Just post the numbers. I'm too lazy to go take a look if you already have them. :D
:lol

Well, that's kind of my point. This thread has turned into a very thinly veiled excuse for the hate PopFinley crowd without any real concern for actual facts. We have the image of Finley pathetically trying to guard Aldridge and take that as proof that small ball use is out of control.

So, if I have correctly summarized the rational point of view on small ball, i.e.:

I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.

If that summary is accurate, and the numbers do not support the view that the Spurs have used small ball excessively or improperly, is there anyone here open-minded to pay attention?

[ElNono]

:lol

Well, that's kind of my point. This thread has turned into a very thinly veiled excuse for the hate PopFinley crowd without any real concern for actual facts. We have the image of Finley pathetically trying to guard Aldridge and take that as proof that small ball use is out of control.

So, if I have correctly summarized the rational point of view on small ball, i.e.:

I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.

If that summary is accurate, and the numbers do not support the view that the Spurs have used small ball excessively or improperly, is there anyone here open-minded to pay attention?

The thing is though, when we do not run small ball, we're also not running Tall Ball. Because we don't have the presence of two tall players in the paint like many other teams do...







I told you all roads take you to Bonner... :lol

[Mel_13]

The thing is though, when we do not run small ball, we're also not running Tall Ball. Because we don't have the presence of two tall players in the paint like many other teams do...







I told you all roads take you to Bonner... :lol
:lol

Which then makes it a PopFinBo thread and attempts at reasonable discussion are almost pointless. Of course, any thread which includes the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Fabbs doesn't lend itself to informed discussion.

FYI, the answers are 42 minutes, 11 minutes, and 15-13 Spurs. People think they're seeing something that hasn't actually happened. The limitations that AHF suggested in his post have largely been followed, yet the impression remains that they have largely been ignored.

Oh well, who am I to get in the way of good story.

[Fabbs]

:lol

Which then makes it a PopFinBo thread and attempts at reasonable discussion are almost pointless. Of course, any thread which includes the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Fabbs doesn't lend itself to informed discussion.
10/10 weak scale.
Quote anything I've said on this thread and respond or STFU.

[Mel_13]

10/10 weak scale.
Quote anything I've said on this thread and respond or STFU.

I've embarrassed you in the past, remember the KC Jones thread? I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread. Do you really want me to detail your lack of diligence once again?

And you still owe me names. So you don't get to say STFU until you have kept your word.

:lol @ the king of weak takes calling anyone else weak.

[lefty]

Aaah, smallball....


But hey, what are you gonna do about it?

[SCdac]

It's funny to see the word "tallball" being tossed around in here. Have we really gotten to the point where a normal basketball lineup is considered "tallball"? It's not like we're talking about trotting out a Ratliff-Duncan-Blair-SG-PG lineup (well at least I'm not), we're talking about not making Duncan the only Spur with bigman-qualities (shot blocking, solid rebounding, intimidation in the paint) on the floor at any time. If it wasn't for Oberto's heart problems last season and Kurt Thomas significant aging, we'd probably still be playing a regular basketball lineup and not forced to adapt to Bonner's strengths. We've won championships with Rasho, Nazr, and Oberto at center, no reason to think we need, or are calling for, an all-star big next to TD. It's not necessary. We just need to play the bigs we have accordingly.

Right now, our team is ranked:
28th in rebounds per game (39.0)
28th in blocks per game (4.0)
20th in opposing FG% (46.6)

These are areas where our bigs could directly help, IMO. These stats aren't largely different from years past, but that's not really a good thing when take into account other teams have gotten largely better. Not to mention, we just spent our entire MLE on bigmen McDyess and Blair, yet we're still using "small ball" as if it's still last season.

[ceperez]

We've won championships with Rasho, Nazr, and Oberto at center, no reason to think we need, or are calling for, an all-star big next to TD. It's not necessary. We just need to play the bigs we have accordingly.


Agree. We can win with an average center in tow.

A tall guy can just has to stand there and raise his hands and it would be more than effective than our small ball lineup.

[ElNono]

FYI, the answers are 42 minutes, 11 minutes, and 15-13 Spurs. People think they're seeing something that hasn't actually happened. The limitations that AHF suggested in his post have largely been followed, yet the impression remains that they have largely been ignored.

TBH, this actually tells me that small ball has been largely ineffective. When you brought those numbers up I was expecting to read that the Spurs outscored opponents by a ample margin. Seeing a pretty much even score differential actually tells me that whatever we wanted to exploit with the small ball didn't work. Now, we could argue that it didn't hurt us either, but we really haven't played against elite front courts yet either.

[Fabbs]

I've embarrassed you in the past, remember the KC Jones thread? I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread. Do you really want me to detail your lack of diligence once again?

And you still owe me names. So you don't get to say STFU until you have kept your word.

:lol @ the king of weak takes calling anyone else weak.
:rollin you "embarrassed" me on the KC Jones thread? Ok, if you say so. That i mixed up a year KC did or did not coach the Celtics in the early 1980s is something i was and am willing to live with. :toast
I have you on official stalker status and will have my security staff make sure you get milk and cookies regularly.


I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread.put up or....

[Mel_13]

TBH, this actually tells me that small ball has been largely ineffective. When you brought those numbers up I was expecting to read that the Spurs outscored opponents by a ample margin. Seeing a pretty much even score differential actually tells me that whatever we wanted to exploit with the small ball didn't work. Now, we could argue that it didn't hurt us either, but we really haven't played against elite front courts yet either.

The score was only for the 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs. So it's a really tiny sample. The real point is not what happened in those 11 minutes, but rather that the Spurs have only played 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs all season. So the notion that small ball has been used extensively against traditional line-ups is just not true.

The other 31 minutes of small ball have been to match down to the opposition.

[Mel_13]

put up or....

You have been in default for more than 20 days since issuing these promises:


Which is not to say i can't and won't come up with 20 more choices.


Nonetheless I'll give you names.


In this thread:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136936

Kindly pay your account account in full and your request will honored.



(Although in the meantime, you could do your research and edit your posts here. I'll be the only one who notices and I won't tell)

[ElNono]

The score was only for the 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs. So it's a really tiny sample. The real point is not what happened in those 11 minutes, but rather that the Spurs have only played 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs all season. So the notion that small ball has been used extensively against traditional line-ups is just not true.

The other 31 minutes of small ball have been to match down to the opposition.

But that's not the argument in this thread, as far as I understand it.
The argument is that the Spurs SHOULD remain big when the other team goes small, except for very few rare cases (Dallas and what not). Which to me is a legitimate argument.

[Mel_13]

But that's not the argument in this thread, as far as I understand it.
The argument is that the Spurs SHOULD remain big when the other team goes small, except for very few rare cases (Dallas and what not). Which to me is a legitimate argument.

Well then, we'll have to part company once again. My reading of AHF's post, which you endorsed, is that there are times when the matchups call for a small line-up and that these cases are not exceptionally rare.

In the Chicago game, when the Bulls played 1 big with Deng, Salmons, Rose, and Hinrich, that seems to be an appropriate time to match down. When you look at the game logs for that game, the Spurs played small for a 5 minute stretch in the second quarter and another 5 minutes in the fourth quarter. In both cases, the Spurs went small at the exact same time that the Bulls went small. They did not play a single minute of small ball against a big Chicago line-up.

As I understand AHF's post, this would constitute a reasonable use of small ball. Perhaps I misunderstood his post as it seems you have taken a different meaning from it.

[SCdac]

Even in cases where it seems to make perfect sense to go small ball, I personally don't feel we have the lineup to compete like that. We don't have a guy like Luol Deng or Tyrus Thomas who can get close to 10 rebounds in a game or any kind of swingmen who play bigger than they are. In that Bulls game, it was Duncan out there with 4 guards, and it didn't work (see below). Finley really shouldn't be playing any power positions nowadays, should be more of a pure shooting guard ala Brent Barry. I wouldn't say Jefferson is comparable to a Gerald Wallace or a Shawn Marion, in that they can realistically slide to PF, RJ is a bit smaller and isn't going to block a ton of shots...


With 5:29 left in the first half at Chicago's United Center, Duncan had scored 10 points, but his teammates were struggling, so coach Gregg Popovich went with a small lineup that featured Duncan on the floor with Tony Parker, George Hill, Manu Ginobili and Michael Finley.

“We put the small lineup out there to try to generate some offense,”Popovich said. “It worked as well as my initial game plan: not very well.”

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The score was only for the 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs. So it's a really tiny sample. The real point is not what happened in those 11 minutes, but rather that the Spurs have only played 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs all season. So the notion that small ball has been used extensively against traditional line-ups is just not true.

The other 31 minutes of small ball have been to match down to the opposition.

Wait, are you talking about this season? I call BS. Only 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs? There was more than 11 minutes of either Tim or Dice playing against the two headed monster of Oden and Aldridge in just the Portland game.

Unless you are (rather comically) trying to argue that Jefferson or Finley as a PF constituted two bigs on two bigs...

[Mel_13]

Even in cases where it seems to make perfect sense to go small ball, I personally don't feel we have the lineup to compete like that.

If that's the case, and it may well be, then the arguments for situational or selective use of small ball should be dropped. Make the case for small ball in emergency situations only.

If the Chicago game isn't an appropriate use of small ball, I can't think of one against another NBA team. It would have been interesting if they had stayed big in one of the two stretches in the Chicago game. It would have been a limited experiment, but we would have had a controlled comparison of RJ guarding Deng vs McDyess or Blair. We would have also seen if McDyess or Blair could have punished Deng on the other of the court.

[ceperez]

In the Chicago game, when the Bulls played 1 big with Deng, Salmons, Rose, and Hinrich, that seems to be an appropriate time to match down. When you look at the game logs for that game, the Spurs played small for a 5 minute stretch in the second quarter and another 5 minutes in the fourth quarter. In both cases, the Spurs went small at the exact same time that the Bulls went small. They did not play a single minute of small ball against a big Chicago line-up.

Mel_13 your credibility is fading quickly. You got to be kidding me if you consider the Bulls line up "small ball". Deng is 6'9" a height that qualifies one to be a PF.

Contrast that with Spus small ball line up. Finley - 6'7", Jefferson - 6'7", everyone else shorter than 6'6". A 6'7" player for the NBA is within the normal height range for either a SG or SF, but I can't recall a PF worth is salt listed at 6'7" (except for maybe Blair ;-) )!

The only time the Spurs line up of 6'7" and under players match up is if they ever play a D-league team. But for the NBA, it's not unusually to see 6'7" SGs, 6'9" SF, and 6'11" PFs.

[Mel_13]

Wait, are you talking about this season? I call BS. Only 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs? There was more than 11 minutes of either Tim or Dice playing against the two headed monster of Oden and Aldridge in just the Portland game.

Unless you are (rather comically) trying to argue that Jefferson or Finley as a PF constituted two bigs on two bigs...

I'm not making this stuff up. Just check the game logs.

In the Utah game, the Spurs stayed big for the first 36 minutes. Trailing by 13 entering the 4th quarter, the Spurs started the 4th quarter with Blair as the only big. That little experiment lasted just under five minutes. The deficit was still 13 when the Spurs returned to a traditional line-up for the remainder of the game.

In the Portland game, the Spurs played small for about 25 minutes. Just over 6 minutes were against a Portland line-up that included 2 of Oden, Pryz, Aldridge. There was a period of just under 3 minutes in the second quarter, then about 30 seconds in the 4th quarter and finally another 3 minutes in the 4th.

I've checked the numbers several times, but I don't claim infallibility.

Here are the game logs:

Utah game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291105026

Portland game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291106022

[Mel_13]

Mel_13 your credibility is fading quickly.

Well, you would be an expert on lack of credibility.

[TDMVPDPOY]

we didnt evolve..
we stopped lvling
http://scorpion919.9gag.com/photo/11329_full.jpg

[Budkin]

It worked really well in 2006 so why change what isn't broken?

[ceperez]

Here's some good analysis:

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/11/09/an-early-assessment-of-team-defense/#more-5173

It really goes through the numbers in excruciating detail.

(1) Ranked near the bottom in offense rebounding.
(2) Ranked near the bottom in blocked shots.
(3) Interior defense has been worse than last year.

Let me guess here, could all these deficiency have to do with having a small lineup at the interior? Well, DUH!

I can understand the Spurs giving up offensive rebounds in favor of defense.

I can understand not attempting to block shots in favor of avoiding a foul.

I cannot understand however a team that prides itself in defense to allow a team to score over 60% at the rim!

[ElNono]

Here are the game logs:

Utah game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291105026

Portland game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291106022

So you didn't count the Chicago, New Orleans and Sacramento games?

[silverblackfan]

Damn it! My DVR is screwed up. I could have sworn it showed Matt Bonner dunking the ball with authority!