Ginobili is a starter . . .

[ohmwrecker]

AND, he should stay in the starting lineup.

The days when the Spurs were better off with Manu in the sixth man role are over. There is no reasonable argument to support this theory anymore. Yet, I still see people suggesting that the Spurs should go back to this tactic.

Let's start with the most ridiculous argument . . . that Tony and Manu don't play well together. There is no supportive evidence for this assertion. However, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Manu is already averaging more ppg than he ever did as a sixth man and this has directly attributed to Parker's recording career highs in assists. Ginobili is also up in most major statistical categories from last year (rebounds are down). While it's true that Manu makes his teammates better, there is nothing that suggests that Parker is, in any way, impeded by his presence in the starting lineup.

To the point of Manu being best suited to the sixth man role because he is the leader of the second unit, the Spurs have a deep enough bench that this should not be an issue. George Hill may be struggling right now, but he is going to have to take the reins for the bench squad. It may be the added pressure of this realization that has Hill stymied so far, but he is going to have to snap out of it and embrace this role for the Spurs to have major success this season. He got the kid glove treatment for two years. It's time for Hill to grow up.

The Spurs never could build any momentum this time last year. Pop switching around lineups every week insured that it wasn't even a possibility. The only starting position that should be adjusted is the center. Blair, like Hill, is better suited in the second unit and he will have to be a leader and a motivator in that role just like Hill. Splitter should ultimately get the job, but at this point I would rather see McDyess start over Blair.

Most importantly, the Spurs are winning. It's working. You start your best players per position and live with the results. The Spurs are looking at what is, potentially, one of the most dangerous starting lineups in the league and they need to play it out for their best shot at contending for a title.

[lefty]

Well, had we kept Scola, we wouldnt need Manu to start


Voila, there you go, Scola thread




Are you happy now, look what you have done :stirpot:

[JamStone]

Agree with all your arguments. But you failed to address one of the main reasons he has been coming off the bench the last few years. And that's to pace his body for the entire season. The points you made are all good ones, but what about the issue of Manu's durability. The past four seasons, Ginobili has averaged 27-31 MPG and he still has had injury issues almost every season. Even when he's been relatively healthy, there's something of concern especially by the time the playoffs arrive. Right now, he's averaging 34 MPG. He's never averaged more than 31 MPG in his entire NBA career.

You should also consider that. Bringing Ginobili off the bench helped Pop and the coaching staff monitor and regulate his minutes better It forced them to play him fewer minutes. Manu starting doesn't afford them the same luxury.

All the points you made I would agree with. But be cautious in your argument, because come February and March and Manu starts getting sidelined with various injuries, that's when you might rethink this.

[ohmwrecker]

They can still manage his minutes as a starter and he didn't play this summer, so I don't see that as a crucial concern at this point. Manu is coming into the season healthier than he has been in years and I think his minutes will decrease as the bench solidifies and everyone gets settled into their roles.
Remember, Manu led the team down the stretch last year, put in major minutes and stayed healthy (apart from the broken schnoz). I'm not nearly as concerned with Manu's health and minute management as I am with Duncan's.

[JamStone]

That's fine if you believe that. I'm just pointing out that you failed to mention it at all. And I think that has been a very important issue as to why he's come off the bench over the years.

[Pauleta14]

When Tony and manu are together on the court, they BOTH play better!

So yes, I do agree...

[ohmwrecker]

I didn't mention it because it isn't pertinent to the point.

There are plenty of players that have health concerns who aren't relegated to the bench because of it. To his credit, he accepted that role and excelled at it, but it's more important for the Spurs to get out to their best start and not have to rely on Manu to bail them out off the bench. Ultimately, it's better for Manu's health, given his competitive nature and style of play, to not have to play under that much pressure all the time. He is going to sacrifice his body more in a comeback scenario than if the Spurs are maintaining a lead.

[JamStone]

I can't see why you don't think it's pertinent when it was a major reason why Popovich had Ginobili come off the bench and this thread is about Ginobili as a starter versus coming off the bench. It's absolutely pertinent.

Even when Ginobili came off the bench but subbed in earlier than most reserves sub in, it helped monitor his minutes. Say he comes in early each have after 4 minutes are played (very early for a sub all things considered), well that right there is automatically 8 minutes Pop can't play Ginobili. When Ginobili starts, if the game isn't going right and Ginobili is the best player on the court, Pop might disregard monitoring minutes for the sake of the game. That's absolutely a pertinent issue.

Manu's health has been an issue for several years. His durability is a huge concern. You disregarding one of the reasons he's come off the bench in the past is a pertinent issue to consider to the argument supporting him starting. It's too bad you fail to see that.

[Obstructed_View]

With all due respect, Jam, you've got this completely wrong.

Manu came off the bench at different times because there were two players on the team that had previously been starters and were completely worthless if they weren't in the starting lineup. It had nothing to do with his minutes. It's not any harder to limit a guy's minutes when he's starting than any other time. Anyone suggesting Popovich isn't capable of limiting a guy's minutes for the sake of a regular season game, starter or reserve, clearly doesn't know Pop very well.

You start your best players because it's much less stress on guys to maintain a lead than it is to play out of a hole.

[ohmwrecker]

I am not disregarding the issue anymore than you are harping on it. Is it a concern? Obviously it is. While it's true that his minutes are up right now, they will undoubtedly come down on average as the season goes on. Manu's minutes fluctuate at certain points during a season and they always have.
If Manu needs to play more or less minutes with regard to game time scenarios then it doesn't really matter if he is playing as a starter or as sixth man. The minutes will average out the same. The major reason that Manu is playing more minutes right now is that Hill is struggling with his new role. Manu probably has a good idea what his body can handle at this point and if he wasn't in great shape right now his minutes would be down somewhat.
I'm not totally disregarding your point and if he is still having to log major minutes after the first third of the season then it will be more of a concern, but right now, until the team settles into their roles, the most important thing is wins.

Remember that for the past two seasons, Manu has been injured to start. So, coming off the bench made more sense. Manu's minutes always increase with his good health.

[spurs10]

Basically Tony said the same thing recently and pointed to assists as proof, saying playing with RJ and Manu was really helping him. Anderson's 18 minutes will surely be a test, as he has been backing up RJ mostly and Neil and Hill probably don't need to play the 3. " Best players per position" does indeed make sense. I hope our bench can step it up so we can continue to play this way and win. Also see Blair's energy being a shot of adrenaline for our bench with Dice or Tiago starting.

[JamStone]

With all due respect, Jam, you've got this completely wrong.

Manu came off the bench at different times because there were two players on the team that had previously been starters and were completely worthless if they weren't in the starting lineup. It had nothing to do with his minutes. It's not any harder to limit a guy's minutes when he's starting than any other time. Anyone suggesting Popovich isn't capable of limiting a guy's minutes for the sake of a regular season game, starter or reserve, clearly doesn't know Pop very well.

You start your best players because it's much less stress on guys to maintain a lead than it is to play out of a hole.

Lol no need for the "with all due respect" OV. If you disagree, then you disagree. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm not above being wrong or admitting if I'm wrong. Thanks for the courtesy, but it's unnecessary.

That said, I do think Manu coming off the bench over the years did help Pop monitor minutes and I do believe that was at least one factor in doing it. Coaches can monitor player minutes whether they start or don't start but it doesn't always play out that way in close games when the game is on the line. For example, if Manu doesn't start and in the first three quarters he plays 22 minutes versus if he does start and in the first three quarters he plays 28 minutes, and Pop wants to limit Manu's minutes to around 30-32 MPG. Now in those two scenarios, in a close game in the fourth quarter, Pop has to consider that when playing Manu and it's the difference between being able to play Manu 4 minutes or 10 minutes in the fourth quarter of a close game. I really do think coaches at the NBA level micro-manage everything down to the littlest details and players minutes are one of those things.

You don't always start your best players. That's exactly why the Spurs have had their share of success with Ginobili coming off the bench over the years. That's why Lamar Odom can be arguably the third best player on the Lakers and come off the bench and the Lakers still win titles. Starting your best players doesn't guarantee a lead in games. Just like not starting one of the team's best players doesn't guarantee the team will be in a hole when the second unit subs in.

Now realize I'm not disagreeing with the overall point of the thread. I think it's fine and good that Manu starts. But I think it's naive and foolish not to consider that monitoring his minutes was a very key reason as to why he did come off the bench in years past.

With all due respect, that's my opinion. :p:

[DesignatedT]

There definitely shouldn't be a change now but it is still very early in the year and my mind could change.

[ohmwrecker]

Now realize I'm not disagreeing with the overall point of the thread. I think it's fine and good that Manu starts. But I think it's naive and foolish not to consider that monitoring his minutes was a very key reason as to why he did come off the bench in years past.

Duly noted, but it's arguably uninformed to not consider that the reason his minutes were monitored in the first place was because he was coming off an injury to begin the season. You have to consider that this year is different in regards to Manu's health to begin the season and the potential of the bench compared to years past.

[maddnezz]

Agree with all your arguments. But you failed to address one of the main reasons he has been coming off the bench the last few years. And that's to pace his body for the entire season. The points you made are all good ones, but what about the issue of Manu's durability. The past four seasons, Ginobili has averaged 27-31 MPG and he still has had injury issues almost every season. Even when he's been relatively healthy, there's something of concern especially by the time the playoffs arrive. Right now, he's averaging 34 MPG. He's never averaged more than 31 MPG in his entire NBA career.

You should also consider that. Bringing Ginobili off the bench helped Pop and the coaching staff monitor and regulate his minutes better It forced them to play him fewer minutes. Manu starting doesn't afford them the same luxury.

All the points you made I would agree with. But be cautious in your argument, because come February and March and Manu starts getting sidelined with various injuries, that's when you might rethink this.Bro your avatar is hot like fish grease:toast

[PDXSpursFan]

AND, he should stay in the starting lineup.

The days when the Spurs were better off with Manu in the sixth man role are over. There is no reasonable argument to support this theory anymore. Yet, I still see people suggesting that the Spurs should go back to this tactic.

Let's start with the most ridiculous argument . . . that Tony and Manu don't play well together. There is no supportive evidence for this assertion. However, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Manu is already averaging more ppg than he ever did as a sixth man and this has directly attributed to Parker's recording career highs in assists. Ginobili is also up in most major statistical categories from last year (rebounds are down). While it's true that Manu makes his teammates better, there is nothing that suggests that Parker is, in any way, impeded by his presence in the starting lineup.

To the point of Manu being best suited to the sixth man role because he is the leader of the second unit, the Spurs have a deep enough bench that this should not be an issue. George Hill may be struggling right now, but he is going to have to take the reins for the bench squad. It may be the added pressure of this realization that has Hill stymied so far, but he is going to have to snap out of it and embrace this role for the Spurs to have major success this season. He got the kid glove treatment for two years. It's time for Hill to grow up.

The Spurs never could build any momentum this time last year. Pop switching around lineups every week insured that it wasn't even a possibility. The only starting position that should be adjusted is the center. Blair, like Hill, is better suited in the second unit and he will have to be a leader and a motivator in that role just like Hill. Splitter should ultimately get the job, but at this point I would rather see McDyess start over Blair.

Most importantly, the Spurs are winning. It's working. You start your best players per position and live with the results. The Spurs are looking at what is, potentially, one of the most dangerous starting lineups in the league and they need to play it out for their best shot at contending for a title.

I agree with everything you said except one thing. I wouldn't move McDyess to the starting lineup at this point, because right now he's playing his best basketball as a Spur, and I don't want to mess with that. I much rather keep Blair as a starter until Splitter is ready to take over. IMO, that should happen by mid-December.

[ohmwrecker]

McDyess is a vet. I don't think moving him into the starting lineup is going to shake his game at all.

[ElNono]

I disagree with JamStone's take about monitoring minutes. Pop never had a problem doing the same for Tim and he always has been a starter. He also tried many times to make Manu a starter (almost every season), but had to go back to bringing Manu off the bench because the bench basically had no spark.

The reason you see Manu (and Tony, and Tim, and Dice) playing heavy minutes early on in the season is a combination of trying to take advantage of the weaker schedule and players (at least Manu) telling Pop that they felt they lost winnable games early last season because of all the minute monitoring and it came back to bite them in the ass as far as seeding goes. As RC said, they now realize that the West is too good to pretend you can go throughout the entire playoffs without homecourt.

So I expect the minute monitoring/flat out resting to come later down the season if the record allows it. I just don't think Manu needs to stop being a starter for that to happen.

[Obstructed_View]

Lol no need for the "with all due respect" OV. If you disagree, then you disagree. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm not above being wrong or admitting if I'm wrong. Thanks for the courtesy, but it's unnecessary.

It was sort of a joke, but was still a nod to you for all the respectful debates we've had.



That said, I do think Manu coming off the bench over the years did help Pop monitor minutes and I do believe that was at least one factor in doing it. Coaches can monitor player minutes whether they start or don't start but it doesn't always play out that way in close games when the game is on the line. For example, if Manu doesn't start and in the first three quarters he plays 22 minutes versus if he does start and in the first three quarters he plays 28 minutes, and Pop wants to limit Manu's minutes to around 30-32 MPG. Now in those two scenarios, in a close game in the fourth quarter, Pop has to consider that when playing Manu and it's the difference between being able to play Manu 4 minutes or 10 minutes in the fourth quarter of a close game. I really do think coaches at the NBA level micro-manage everything down to the littlest details and players minutes are one of those things.

If Manu doesn't start and has to play 28 minutes vs when he starts and plays 22 it's exactly the same scenario in the fourth quarter. You aren't comparing apples to apples, so it's a poor example. I'd be more inclined to say that even if Manu plays the same number of minutes between starting and coming off the bench, he's playing harder if he's consistently having to play the team back into the game due to the ineffectiveness of whoever's starting in his place.



You don't always start your best players.
If the Spurs had a Hedo Turkoglu or a non-decrepit Michael Finley that was stinking it up off the bench I might be inclined to agree. Benching Manu is more akin to benching Kobe Bryant than Lamar Odom, especially so far this year.

[duhoh]

That's fine if you believe that. I'm just pointing out that you failed to mention it at all. And I think that has been a very important issue as to why he's come off the bench over the years.

jamstone with the clarity :toast

[Mel_13]

I disagree with JamStone's take about monitoring minutes. Pop never had a problem doing the same for Tim and he always has been a starter. He also tried many times to make Manu a starter (almost every season), but had to go back to bringing Manu off the bench because the bench basically had no spark.

The reason you see Manu (and Tony, and Tim, and Dice) playing heavy minutes early on in the season is a combination of trying to take advantage of the weaker schedule and players (at least Manu) telling Pop that they felt they lost winnable games early last season because of all the minute monitoring and it came back to bite them in the ass as far as seeding goes. As RC said, they now realize that the West is too good to pretend you can go throughout the entire playoffs without homecourt.

So I expect the minute monitoring/flat out resting to come later down the season if the record allows it. I just don't think Manu needs to stop being a starter for that to happen.

Good post, lots of good points.

[Obstructed_View]

I disagree with JamStone's take about monitoring minutes. Pop never had a problem doing the same for Tim and he always has been a starter. He also tried many times to make Manu a starter (almost every season), but had to go back to bringing Manu off the bench because the bench basically had no spark.

The reason you see Manu (and Tony, and Tim, and Dice) playing heavy minutes early on in the season is a combination of trying to take advantage of the weaker schedule and players (at least Manu) telling Pop that they felt they lost winnable games early last season because of all the minute monitoring and it came back to bite them in the ass as far as seeding goes. As RC said, they now realize that the West is too good to pretend you can go throughout the entire playoffs without homecourt.

So I expect the minute monitoring/flat out resting to come later down the season if the record allows it. I just don't think Manu needs to stop being a starter for that to happen.

Excellent point. I wasn't aware anyone had mentioned that to him, but Spurstalk certainly noticed it at the time. It does look like Pop's learned that the best way to limit starters' minutes is to develop young guys. We should probably expect to see the minutes for Manu and Timmy start to go down as other guys get healthy and can pick up the slack.

[diego]

the minute monitoring has gotten out of hand. when has it ever really worked? did it work for Mcdyess last season? or Duncan? couldn't it be argued that it is detrimental to rotations and conditioning to play 30 min then get bumped to 32? I agree manu is not a 40 mpg player, but I think he is capable of playing 35 mpg, and so does he (see his last forum Q&A). We all agree his best PO was 05, he played 33.6 then, and last year he played 35.2- sure there was some fatigue, but that also had to do with the nose injury and not having more help (see below). The broken nose was bad luck, nothing to do with the minutes he played, and still he played through it another 7-8 games (was it game 3 or 4?). It is a fact that manu's best seasons have been the ones with most minutes, even in terms of efficiency. The time that it resulted in a bad injury (08), that is more a result of manu playing through it (for 16 games on a bad ankle, because it was the playoffs) than the increased minutes themselves having triggered a serious injury.

also, playing with the 2nd unit is a double edged sword- it gave manu the advantage of having the offense run through him and playing against other 2nd units (till the 4th Q anyway), but it also meant he had to carry the likes of elson, bonner, udoka, bogans, etc. It's definitely easier for manu to play with parker and duncan than it is to play with jaque vaughn and matt bonner.

when a team is deep and spreads its responsibilities throughout the roster, the minutes manage themselves, a la LA lakers. The spurs 02/03-06/07 had a deeper roster and there wasnt the same need for manu to do more as in 07/08-present. If RJ, mcdyess, hill, blair, play a little better than last year, TP bounces back from his own injury plagued season, and splitter and neal play better than mason and bogans, then there is no need to manage manu or duncan's minutes.

[Ice009]

Agree with all your arguments. But you failed to address one of the main reasons he has been coming off the bench the last few years. And that's to pace his body for the entire season. The points you made are all good ones, but what about the issue of Manu's durability. The past four seasons, Ginobili has averaged 27-31 MPG and he still has had injury issues almost every season. Even when he's been relatively healthy, there's something of concern especially by the time the playoffs arrive. Right now, he's averaging 34 MPG. He's never averaged more than 31 MPG in his entire NBA career.

You should also consider that. Bringing Ginobili off the bench helped Pop and the coaching staff monitor and regulate his minutes better It forced them to play him fewer minutes. Manu starting doesn't afford them the same luxury.

All the points you made I would agree with. But be cautious in your argument, because come February and March and Manu starts getting sidelined with various injuries, that's when you might rethink this.

I completely disagree. Like I said in another thread the bench minutes are more of a drain on Manu than a few more minutes as a starter.

When he comes off the bench he is the primary option and has to go all out every second he is on the court. When he starts he can actually rest a little more while he's on the court on offense as the ball doesn't go through him every time. IMO the bench minutes take a bigger toll on him. The main reason he went to the bench is because the bench completely sucked. I really don't think the primary reason for it was to regulate minutes.

[Bambililos]

Easy argument, of course Manu should start. It's best to have your best 5 start the game, and it's possible too when the bench is good enough. So let's do it.
And let's move Splitter into the 5 too, Bonner can sub him.

[analyzed]

I agree that Manu should stay as a starter, what is more important however is that at least one of them, either Manu or Tony are on the court at any given time. Having both of them out at any point, makes the Spurs offense disfunctional without a facilitator and leader on the court ( I don't think Hill is capable). To make this possible however means subing for either Manu or Tony early , so that when one eventually get's pulled out the other can come into the game .

[Solid D]

Ginobili is a starter...AND, he should stay in the starting lineup.

If you are working on a petition to give to Gregg Popovich, you will probably get plenty of signatures.

I'm sure Pop would read it, thank you, maybe give you his clipboard in jest, and then do what he wants regardless.

You do make some excellent points. If the Spurs don't get someone to replace Anderson, then Ginobili and Neal will have to cover the 3 slot. Neal defended 6'-8" Stephen Jackson the other day, but he did foul him a few times and he needed help defenders when he got posted up.

Pop may have no choice but to bring Manu off the bench, for matchup and firepower needs. We'll see.

[duncan228]

The Sixth Man (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/11/12/greg.oden/2.html)
Ian Thomsen
SI.com

...Three Things You Might Hear Over Coffee

3. From an advance scout, on the durability of 33-year-old Manu Ginobili: "You say to yourself, 'What can we do with him defensively?' There is always that question of his durability, because he's such a reckless type of player. But now, at this stage of his career, he can shoot it better than he used to. [Ginobili leads the 6-1 Spurs with 21.9 points per game.] If you're with the Spurs, you want him to get in there and create, but it's not like he has to do that all of the time anymore. You love him because of how aggressively he plays and what he does, but you also worry about him because of what that does to him."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/11/12/greg.oden/2.html

[Solid D]

...and then there is Alonzo Gee. There is no point in suiting-up Gee if you can't plug him in for an injured wing player. Maybe Pop is giving him some reps in practice now and plans to give him a shot. There have been no hints of this, but if Gee is given a chance, then Manu can continue to stay in his routine...-4 minutes/game.

[beirmeistr]

I didn't mention it because it isn't pertinent to the point.

There are plenty of players that have health concerns who aren't relegated to the bench because of it. To his credit, he accepted that role and excelled at it, but it's more important for the Spurs to get out to their best start and not have to rely on Manu to bail them out off the bench. Ultimately, it's better for Manu's health, given his competitive nature and style of play, to not have to play under that much pressure all the time. He is going to sacrifice his body more in a comeback scenario than if the Spurs are maintaining a lead.

Well said. The way manu plays, he is better off as a starter, where he is not the focus of the other team's defense, instead of being double-teamed coming off the bench because he is "expected" to score quickly. This bench-playing places manu in a position where he can over exert himself and get injured.

[smeagol]

ducks just told me that the best thing for the Spurs to do with Manu is to trade him . . .

[Brazil]

I think Pop and the staff are capable to monitor Manu minutes starter or not.

He is playing some heavy minutes because as already mentionned spurs do consider this team is not strong enough to not care about RS seeding. Spurs have a quite schedule, they have to take advantage of it besides it eases the progress and integration of the young guys.

Now with Anderson injury I'm a little more worried, we have 0 SF back up. It could mean more minutes for george at sg and more minutes for Manu as SF.

[hitmanyr2k]

the minute monitoring has gotten out of hand. when has it ever really worked? did it work for Mcdyess last season? or Duncan? couldn't it be argued that it is detrimental to rotations and conditioning to play 30 min then get bumped to 32? I agree manu is not a 40 mpg player, but I think he is capable of playing 35 mpg, and so does he (see his last forum Q&A). We all agree his best PO was 05, he played 33.6 then, and last year he played 35.2- sure there was some fatigue, but that also had to do with the nose injury and not having more help (see below). The broken nose was bad luck, nothing to do with the minutes he played, and still he played through it another 7-8 games (was it game 3 or 4?). It is a fact that manu's best seasons have been the ones with most minutes, even in terms of efficiency. The time that it resulted in a bad injury (08), that is more a result of manu playing through it (for 16 games on a bad ankle, because it was the playoffs) than the increased minutes themselves having triggered a serious injury.

I've been arguing that for a long time. The truth is Popovich's micro-managing of minutes has never worked. Not only does it wreck the conditioning of the players (not preparing them for more minutes in the playoffs) I also think it killed their chemistry as a team. The players never seemed to have a set rotation or a pattern where they could get comfortable with each other and gel as a team. This season the Spurs look less scatterbrained and hopefully for them it'll stay that way.

[Solid D]

You'd be surprised how much of a pattern the Spurs have had for their top 7 players over the years. Injuries have hurt them more than anything else.

[diego]

I agree with managing minutes in case of an injury (like when td and tp had plantar fascitis and were playing in pain, or splitter now coming back)

and I agree that manu's wreckless penetration is dangerous, but for me this is a reason to play him more and as a starter, so he can settle in, warmed up, and let the game come to him (and play off TD and TP)

what i dont like is limiting minutes in anticipation of an injury. i'd rather they worry more about playing their best game every night, with their best players and rotations, and get used to giving their best effort. there are no back to backs in the playoffs, but in the playoffs they need to give their best effort and often with only one day between games. does holding back through the RS then going all out in the playoffs work?

[TD 21]

If you are working on a petition to give to Gregg Popovich, you will probably get plenty of signatures.

I'm sure Pop would read it, thank you, maybe give you his clipboard in jest, and then do what he wants regardless.

You do make some excellent points. If the Spurs don't get someone to replace Anderson, then Ginobili and Neal will have to cover the 3 slot. Neal defended 6'-8" Stephen Jackson the other day, but he did foul him a few times and he needed help defenders when he got posted up.

Pop may have no choice but to bring Manu off the bench, for matchup and firepower needs. We'll see.

Neal is strictly a two. He guarded Jackson last Monday because Jackson, despite being the size of a three, is the two on the Bobcats (he occasionally plays some three, but he's primarily the two).

This notion that the starting lineup has to change as a result of the Anderson injury is foolish. The rotation will stay the same, only instead of Ginobili re-entering the game as a two, he'll usually re-enter as a three now.

[amy020]

checking all the games Manu as a starter last season and this new season,it's clear that to have Manu off the bench is a waste of his talent.

[Barfunk]

checking all the games manu as a starter last season and this new season,it's clear that to have manu off the bench is a waste of his talent.

+1

[jestersmash]

For whatever reason, Ginobili's stats as a starter have almost always been superior in every category except for the '08-'09 season (but it should be noted that he didn't play that many games as as tarter so the sample size is pretty low).

Look at the '07-08 split where he played 23 games as a starter and 51 off the bench - his FG% is better as a starter (49 versus 44.4 off the bench), his FT% is better as a starter (89 versus 85), he gets more steals, more rebounds, he makes more assists.

That said, he does average slightly more turnovers as a starter.

His points are obviously higher as a starter but that's unremarkable because he gets more minutes.

The point is - for whatever reason (possibly psychological?) he is more efficient shooting the ball as a starter across the board (3 point % is the same) while playing more minutes.

These are simply the facts, and it's all we have to go by. The '08-'09 season is not such a strong counter-example because the sample size is so low (only 7 games starting). The '07-'08 season is the best to look at in terms of sample size.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/splits?playerId=272&sYear=2008&sType=2

Edit: Now that I've investigated further, it seems like the '06-'07 season does provide a strong counterexample to this hypothesis. His stats appear to be much more efficient off the bench.

But, that's the end of it. We have two seasons to consider - '06-07 and 07-08. In the former, he played better off the bench. The latter? He played better as a starter.

If I had to choose based on just that, I'd be inclined to choose the latter because it's more recent data, keeping in mind that at the end of the day we really can't point to any one cause (starter versus bench contributing to psychological factors? Other factors entirely?) because all these statistics show is correlation.

Even more fundamentally, he's already playing extremely well as a starter and we're 6-1 (albeit amongst a relatively weak schedule). There's no reason to tinker with something that's already working.

[Solid D]

Neal is strictly a two. He guarded Jackson last Monday because Jackson, despite being the size of a three, is the two on the Bobcats (he occasionally plays some three, but he's primarily the two).

This notion that the starting lineup has to change as a result of the Anderson injury is foolish. The rotation will stay the same, only instead of Ginobili re-entering the game as a two, he'll usually re-enter as a three now.

Yes Neal is a guard, a 6-4 wing that ended up being asked to defend 6-8 Jackson, 6-8 Derrick Brown, and 6-4 Gerald Henderson in Charlotte. Why, you ask? Because Pop went small so Neal had to defend them on the wing. The other choices were 6-7 wing Gerald Wallace or 6-7 wing Shaun Livingston. The plan worked because Neal bombed away for 15 points.

Why argue the obvious? Neal is a small wing that Pop has used to guard taller wings...but primarily because he wants him to outscore them, not shut them down.
Saying Neal is a 2 isn't a valud argument when reality with Gregg Popovich says I'll use players as I see fit, to create an edge. Twos and threes are interchangeable in San Antonio.

One thing we can agree on is the injury to Anderson has created a real hole behind RJ, especially when the Spurs have to play teams with size and physicality on the wing.

[ElNono]

One thing we can agree on is the injury to Anderson has created a real hole behind RJ, especially when the Spurs have to play teams with size and physicality on the wing.

We had that problem with Anderson too, who isn't any taller than Manu and is only about an inch taller than Neal. The hole at the wing was an admitted priority for the FO, and they really couldn't get anything done (for whatever reason).

I agree with you that Pop doesn't really give a shit though, and to him it's more about the players and trying to gain an edge through other means more than anything else.

That's why I expect him to try a few different things backing up RJ.
If you need length, Bonner already played there guarding guys like Artest in the past. If we're trying to matchup to a small lineup, Neal can reasonably man the position too. If you're looking for athleticism, Gee might be able to give you a few minutes. Hill also backed up RJ at times against Dallas last season.

I think Manu has been playing well as a SG, and I have a feeling Pop will leave him there. We'll see tomorrow. Iggy/Nocioni will provide a good test.

[ohmwrecker]

I completely disagree. Like I said in another thread the bench minutes are more of a drain on Manu than a few more minutes as a starter.

When he comes off the bench he is the primary option and has to go all out every second he is on the court. When he starts he can actually rest a little more while he's on the court on offense as the ball doesn't go through him every time. IMO the bench minutes take a bigger toll on him. The main reason he went to the bench is because the bench completely sucked. I really don't think the primary reason for it was to regulate minutes.

Jam Stone has a legit point, and if I were being historically thorough I would've mentioned Manu's health and minute management as a concern. I just don't think it's currently relevant to the discussion. As the season wears on, it might be more important, but right now Manu is healthy and playing well.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the bench minutes put more wear and tear on his body than playing as a starter. So, I don't think health management was ever the primary reason for Manu's role as sixth man. It's a testament to Ginobili's leadership value and playmaking ability that he can be effective in either role. I just think that, at this point in his career, he is best suited as a starter. The Spurs have the challenge of building a strong 2nd unit without Ginobili. The talent and potential is there, but the execution has not happened yet.

[DAF86]

Manu's health has been an issue for several years. His durability is a huge concern.

Not really, the only season where he missed some significant time due to injury was in '08/09. If anything his stamina has been a concern, thing that I think is exaggerated too.

[Blackjack]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or circumstance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

[Solid D]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or circumstance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

Very well said, Blackjack.

[kaji157]

I think what would really help the bench right now is to start McDyess, so that Blair and Hill can play together in the second unit along with Splitter, Neal and Anderson (Gee).

[TJastal]

I think what would really help the bench right now is to start McDyess, so that Blair and Hill can play together in the second unit along with Splitter, Neal and Anderson (Gee).

Why??

The team is playing great, and McDyess is playing awesome from the bench, which he has said many times he prefers.

Why screw around with it?

Same with Manu starting/coming off bench, right now the spurs are winning, why make changes?

[Obstructed_View]

Why??

The team is playing great, and McDyess is playing awesome from the bench, which he has said many times he prefers.

Why screw around with it?

Same with Manu starting/coming off bench, right now the spurs are winning, why make changes?

Blair's playing bad right now. He's got a few more games to get it together, but he's probably going to need to get used to coming off the bench again. I fully expect Splitter to take his starting job before long.

[MaNu4Tres]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or circumstance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

Get a clue


:p:

[ogait]

I've been arguing that for a long time. The truth is Popovich's micro-managing of minutes has never worked. Not only does it wreck the conditioning of the players (not preparing them for more minutes in the playoffs) I also think it killed their chemistry as a team. The players never seemed to have a set rotation or a pattern where they could get comfortable with each other and gel as a team. This season the Spurs look less scatterbrained and hopefully for them it'll stay that way.


This is absolutely true. More minutes are easier to handle when the team is playing good. There's no reason to make up strange rotations and having ineffective line-ups on the floor for purposes of reaching a magic number of mpg to your star players.

Many times trying to save some minutes turns out the other way around when the team enters the 4th having to overcome large deficits, and ends up being a more physical challenge then when players get more minutes but also have to work less, because the team as a whole plays better.

I remember last year against Toronto when Pop for some reason decided to bench Duncan. The team was struggling so at the beginning of the second quarter, with over 20 points deficit, Duncan comes on and ends up playing 30 minutes coming from behind on the scoreboard, witch is a lot harder, and the Spurs still lose the game.

For Ginobili starting or coming from the bench should be a function of how the team better works and not for purposes of managing his minutes. I'm not at all worried about him averaging 34 so far. For all I care chances of an injury are the same as if he was playing only 28 mpg.

Plus it's the Spurs Duncan and Manu are closing to the end of their careers, it's better to give it all have no regrets and live with the results.

[TD 21]

Yes Neal is a guard, a 6-4 wing that ended up being asked to defend 6-8 Jackson, 6-8 Derrick Brown, and 6-4 Gerald Henderson in Charlotte. Why, you ask? Because Pop went small so Neal had to defend them on the wing. The other choices were 6-7 wing Gerald Wallace or 6-7 wing Shaun Livingston. The plan worked because Neal bombed away for 15 points.

Why argue the obvious? Neal is a small wing that Pop has used to guard taller wings...but primarily because he wants him to outscore them, not shut them down.
Saying Neal is a 2 isn't a valud argument when reality with Gregg Popovich says I'll use players as I see fit, to create an edge. Twos and threes are interchangeable in San Antonio.

One thing we can agree on is the injury to Anderson has created a real hole behind RJ, especially when the Spurs have to play teams with size and physicality on the wing.

I know the two is technically a wing position, but Neal is more guard than he is wing. Anderson is a wing, because he can easily play both positions.

Twos and threes are interchangeable on the Spurs within' reason. It's one thing to guard Brown, it's another thing to guard James, Anthony, Durant, etc. Neal was shooting too well not to play extended minutes, so naturally at some point he was going to have to guard either Jackson or Wallace. But generally speaking, Pop will try to keep him away from disadvantageous match-ups. Guys like Brown, even though he has a significant size advantage, aren't as worrisome, because he's not much of a scoring threat.

I expect, in at least one of these two games this weekend, Gee to get a shot. But I also expect, unless he shows that he can be a reliable three-point shooter and keeps his mistakes to a minimum, him to be replaced at some point in the next two weeks. My guess is they sign Hayes.

[ohmwrecker]

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

99% of time, getting the most out of your individual talent in a team and starting your best players is conceptually equative. I am all for giving Blair a little more time as a starter and it's possible that McDyess wouldn't be as productive as he currently is, as a starter. However, it's also possible that Blair would be just as, or maybe more, productive in the same role.

I think that Blair and Hill running the 2nd unit together could be the cure for what ails both players. After Manu, who has already proven he can do it, Blair seems to be the next most likely player on the team who can potentially be a bench sparkplug. He might need to be more of an an offensive focal point than being in the starting lineup can afford him.

In a perfect world, Splitter would be ready to start and morph into Arvydas Sabonis, but, like you said . . . it ain't a perfect world.

The Spurs are winning and there is no need to change too much, which is why I am advocating for Manu remaining a starter. Given Anderson's injury, it's understandable that one might want to make some adjustments to the rotation. That's fine. I just don't think that it's so severe that they have to make wholesale changes.

[Blackjack]

Get a clue


:p:

Mucca, what?!?! :smokin


99% of time, getting the most out of your individual talent in a team and starting your best players is conceptually equative. I am all for giving Blair a little more time as a starter and it's possible that McDyess wouldn't be as productive as he currently is, as a starter. However, it's also possible that Blair would be just as, or maybe more, productive in the same role.

You get the most out of your team when your individual players can get the most out of their talent while not deviating from the script. It's not about numbers or minutes, it's about their impact and effect on the team.

Now, if your best talent all happens to play the right positions and roles and be at the right stage (age) of their career, then there's no question you start them, play them as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may. But the Spurs' Top-4 only play the right positions, as in 1-5, not necessarily roles.

Somebody's got to be the the perimeter defender and both Manu and Duncan are to the point where you get diminishing returns -- no longer is there the assumption that more minutes means a better result. So if both Duncan and Manu are going to play around 30 minutes, what's the difference if someone like Manu comes off the bench?

I'm not telling you I believe that Manu should be coming off the bench at this point, I'm simply stating him becoming the 6th Man again isn't a ridiculous notion. I'm stating that playing your best talent from the jump doesn't necessarily mean your doing what's best for the team. There's only one ball, there are two ends of the court and it takes a team to win at the highest of levels, not a starting-5.


I think that Blair and Hill running the 2nd unit together could be the cure for what ails both players. After Manu, who has already proven he can do it, Blair seems to be the next most likely player on the team who can potentially be a bench sparkplug. He might need to be more of an an offensive focal point than being in the starting lineup can afford him.

I believe Blair will be a Sixth Man or first big off the bench for this team when all is said and done. At least, if all goes as planned and Splitter is the player most of us believe him to be. But I also believe his growth and development are pertinent to this team's success.

And with that in mind, I believe Blair needs the reps. He needs to iron out the wrinkles and figure things out alongside the Big 3 (or 4). It's a marathon not a sprint, the cliche of all cliches, and it just happens to be something I believe. You use the regular season as a means to an end so long as that means isn't to your end's detriment.


In a perfect world, Splitter would be ready to start and morph into Arvydas Sabonis, but, like you said . . . it ain't a perfect world.

That's a dream world, a chemically-induced world, not a perfect world -- I was simply saying if a team and its individual players could play to their potential or to the best of their ability.


The Spurs are winning and there is no need to change too much, which is why I am advocating for Manu remaining a starter. Given Anderson's injury, it's understandable that one might want to make some adjustments to the rotation. That's fine. I just don't think that it's so severe that they have to make wholesale changes.

I have absolutely no problem with that, Ohmnipotence. None what-so-ever . . .

If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if it should happen to turn out that the Spurs could spark Hill by starting him or find a better way to utilize their individual talent in another role for the betterment of their long-term outlook, I'd have no problem with that either.

I just happen to take a long-term approach when it comes to this team and I believe the Spurs do the same thing. And if it should turn out that having Manu come off the bench again makes players like Hill, Blair or anyone else contribute more to the cause, that's got to be something you're willing to accept. Ain't nothing wrong with it -- you're going to get the same Manu regardless.

[ohmwrecker]

I have absolutely no problem with that, Ohmnipotence. None what-so-ever . . .

If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if it should happen to turn out that the Spurs could spark Hill by starting him or find a better way to utilize their individual talent in another role for the betterment of their long-term outlook, I'd have no problem with that either.

I just happen to take a long-term approach when it comes to this team and I believe the Spurs do the same thing. And if it should turn out that having Manu come off the bench again makes players like Hill, Blair or anyone else contribute more to the cause, that's got to be something you're willing to accept. Ain't nothing wrong with it -- you're going to get the same Manu regardless.

We're just talking here, but I think we are on the same page. I don't think my proposal is going to affect the Spurs' long-term approach anymore than your suggestion of starting Anderson. These are just ideas. I agree that giving Blair and Hill reps is a positive tact, but I'm not convinced that has much to do with whether or not they start, or come off the bench.
I think the best approach for these young guys is to define their role, give them the challenge and coach them to the best potential result of that goal. Most of all these kids just need to get out and play ball. Trying to force the issue by making the 2nd unit play from a deficit isn't going to help their development.

Splitter and Neal are different animals. Those kids are pros. Ice cold killers.

[Solid D]

In the game versus Philly, Ginobili replaced Jefferson at SF. Gino went out half-way through the 1st quarter then came back in for Jefferson 3 minutes later. Gee was the other backup SF. It remains to be seen if Pop sticks with that formula.

[TMTTRIO]

Yes Manu's a little bit more injury prone but I've never understood why people believe that he's so fragile as glass that he's going to break down and why thinking that coming off the bench is better at saving him. If he's that frail like everyone wants to make him out to be then maybe it's not worth having. He's only suffered one or two major injuries since being with the Spurs all of these years and having played summers too. For all the punishment that he's taken he's done very well. I actually think he could've played more minutes (he's even said that he felt like he could) but being as conservative as he has Pop has just watched his minutes. Also coming off the bench actually put a lot more pressure on Manu to produce and have to be the target for other teams. Now that he's starting he can relax some of the time.