Who has been the Spurs' best bench player?

[Solid D]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/2011/news/powerrankings/01/17/week12/SPURS-PR-T1.jpg

Considering both defensive and offensive contributions?

[Hooks]

1.Dice
2.Hill
3.Bonner
4.The G-Train

[ChuckD]

George. He's almost as good beyond the arc as Gary, better at finishing at the rim and getting to the line, and a beast on D.

[igruex]

In absolute or relative terms?

In relative terms there's no question.

[BRs.Ganso]

Neal!

[Solid D]

Poll has been posted.

[coyotes_geek]

Hill, easily. Not that the others haven't all been solid....

[TheSpurglar]

Hill has been the best, with Bonner and the guy in my sig tied for second. I still think Dice is the most vital bench player though, and would be number 1 if the Spurs needed him to play the minutes they probably will need him to play once the second season rolls around.

[silverblackfan]

It was a toss up between Bonner and Hill, but Bonner has actually been more consistent. Although George is way better on defense, it seems that Bonner has been hitting his rotations and staying within the system. Add in his funny as hell mid-range game improvement, and I have to give him the nod.
They both always give great effort.
1) Bonner
2) Hill
Then the order falls to 3) Dice, 4) Neal, and 5) Tiago.
Dice is playing well for the first half of the season. Very focused, but you know he has another gear for the playoffs.

[Solid D]

My favorite bench player has been Gary Neal.

Considering the offensive impact that Bonner has had in spreading the floor, Pop might see Matt as the bench player having the biggest impact on the floor.

There is no question that George Hill has really come on strong since struggling early in the season. His defensive presence has been felt and he is the Spurs' 5th best scorer.

McDyess does a lot of the little things. Without him in the paint on defense, the Spurs would be sorely lacking. Several games have turned around because of Dice's solid defense. His 18 foot jumper has been money.

[Cry Havoc]

1. Hill. The most consistent guy off the bench.
2. Dice/Neal/Bonner have all been huge on different nights. Really, how can you differentiate between them? Dice has had some amazing defensive performances with rebounds/etc, while Neal and Bonner have been lights out. Neal even has enough speed and handles to get into the lane so far.

[TheSpurglar]

1. Hill. The most consistent guy off the bench.
2. Dice/Neal/Bonner have all been huge on different nights. Really, how can you differentiate between them? Dice has had some amazing defensive performances with rebounds/etc, while Neal and Bonner have been lights out. Neal even has enough speed and handles to get into the lane so far.

+1

I tried to rank 'em all, but it's really tough to differentiate between these guys right now. We're winning as many games as we are because these guys comprise the best bench in the league.

[xellos88330]

I say Neal just because he was somewhat of a surprise. Love his scrappiness.

In all honesty, this poll should include an "All of them" option. They have all had great games and all have played an integral part of the Spurs run thus far.

[ElNono]

My favorite is Neal. The best I think it's Dice. He just provides what others can't when TD sits down: Solid defense in the post, which I think is key considering we really don't have solid a perimeter D outside of Hill.

[TD 21]

I'd lean towards Hill over Bonner, because he's more multi-dimensional, but I'll say this for Bonner...

What I'm most pleased with is not the 50% three-point shooting, but the confidence. I actually think it will translate to the playoffs. As much as he's been a bust in the playoffs, the sample size it's so significant that it can be said with 100% certainty that he can't play in the playoffs.

When the Spurs signed Splitter, I wanted Bonner dispatched from the playoff rotation. But the truth is, after Duncan and McDyess, he's the next most deserving big of being in it. In certain match-ups, he shouldn't be relied on for extended minutes, but he should still be able to be a useful player in limited minutes.

I'm not down on Splitter or discouraged at his play at all, but he shouldn't even be in the poll. He's barely played. The other four have made up the rotation off the bench, for the most part, since game one.

McDyess would definitely be the most important bench player if he were going to be a bench player in the playoffs. But I don't think he will be. I've thought all along that he was a starter being utilized off the bench as a means to limit his workload throughout the regular season. Presuming that indeed comes to pass, Hill is the most important bench player.

[8FOR!3]

Antonio McDyess, Gary Neal, and Matt Bonner are almost interchangeable with level of help this year, but Hill's been the best.

[DMC]

It's George Hill without a doubt. While Bonner and Neal have been great on offense, Hill is solid at both ends of the floor. Hill could be a starter at the 2 and wouldn't miss a beat.

He's likely a 6th man of the year candidate. You couldn't say that of the others, but the fact that it's debatable is a great problem to have.

[elemento]

Neal

He has been perfect in his role

[ShoogarBear]

Hill and McDyess are the two most irreplaceable. If they're out, the Spurs have no one who can do the same job.

However, we don't actually need Dice's contributions every night. And theoretically, Splitter should be able to provide what Dice does on defense, although we haven't seen it on anywhere near a consistent basis (blame Pop, blame Splitter, whomever).

So it's Hill for now. If we're lucky, Anderson will come back and supply even more of what Hill brings.

Even though they're at different positions, Neal and Bonner provide similar qualities on offense. The Spurs are okay if just one is off (or out), but are probably hurting if both aren't contributing.

[ElNono]

My only issue with Hill is his play on the road... He had a bunch of games where's he's just not aggressive and he managed to get lost in mediocrity out there. Maybe I just expect more from him (I mean, on a consistency basis)

[DMC]

My only issue with Hill is his play on the road... He had a bunch of games where's he's just not aggressive and he managed to get lost in mediocrity out there. Maybe I just expect more from him (I mean, on a consistency basis)
i agree, but he's still the best off the bench player we have.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Hill sets the tone for the Spurs' defense. So he is the best off the bench. But his offense has been inconsistent. McDyess has been very efficient every time he has played (relative to his age and wearing abilities) and is an ideal big man back up. Gary Neal has been a revelation and is easily the guy providing the most bang for the least buck (puns unintended) in the league. Bonner is slightly more than an one trick pony, but boy ..has his trick been such a treat!. He leads the league in 3P% and almost never commits TOs.

So that would be my ordering.

[HarlemHeat37]

Looking at the bench players on this team, you won't find many benches that are better, if any, tbh..if Anderson and Splitter end up being contributors by the end of the year, it will be disgusting..

[DesignatedT]

I'd lean towards Hill over Bonner, because he's more multi-dimensional, but I'll say this for Bonner...

What I'm most pleased with is not the 50% three-point shooting, but the confidence. I actually think it will translate to the playoffs. As much as he's been a bust in the playoffs, the sample size it's so significant that it can be said with 100% certainty that he can't play in the playoffs.

When the Spurs signed Splitter, I wanted Bonner dispatched from the playoff rotation. But the truth is, after Duncan and McDyess, he's the next most deserving big of being in it. In certain match-ups, he shouldn't be relied on for extended minutes, but he should still be able to be a useful player in limited minutes.

I'm not down on Splitter or discouraged at his play at all, but he shouldn't even be in the poll. He's barely played. The other four have made up the rotation off the bench, for the most part, since game one.

McDyess would definitely be the most important bench player if he were going to be a bench player in the playoffs. But I don't think he will be. I've thought all along that he was a starter being utilized off the bench as a means to limit his workload throughout the regular season. Presuming that indeed comes to pass, Hill is the most important bench player.

:tu

[Dice]

McDyess does a lot of the little things. Without him in the paint on defense, the Spurs would be sorely lacking. Several games have turned around because of Dice's solid defense. His 18 foot jumper has been money.

No surprise that I agree with this assessment. There have been a lot of games where I believe the only reason the spurs were able to get back in it was because of the second unit led by Antonio McDyess and his defense.


My only issue with Hill is his play on the road... He had a bunch of games where's he's just not aggressive and he managed to get lost in mediocrity out there. Maybe I just expect more from him (I mean, on a consistency basis)

I seem to remember George coming back really slow after that early season injury. He has some great games on a lot of nights but on others he's almost invisible-to me at least.

[tdunk21]

hill is doing what he is supposed to do...to me best bench players would be neal and mcdyess....one is a rookie and the other is a veteran......

[pookenstein]

I'd lean towards Hill over Bonner, because he's more multi-dimensional, but I'll say this for Bonner...

What I'm most pleased with is not the 50% three-point shooting, but the confidence. I actually think it will translate to the playoffs. As much as he's been a bust in the playoffs, the sample size it's so significant that it can be said with 100% certainty that he can't play in the playoffs.

When the Spurs signed Splitter, I wanted Bonner dispatched from the playoff rotation. But the truth is, after Duncan and McDyess, he's the next most deserving big of being in it. In certain match-ups, he shouldn't be relied on for extended minutes, but he should still be able to be a useful player in limited minutes.

I'm not down on Splitter or discouraged at his play at all, but he shouldn't even be in the poll. He's barely played. The other four have made up the rotation off the bench, for the most part, since game one.

McDyess would definitely be the most important bench player if he were going to be a bench player in the playoffs. But I don't think he will be. I've thought all along that he was a starter being utilized off the bench as a means to limit his workload throughout the regular season. Presuming that indeed comes to pass, Hill is the most important bench player.


Great take.

[mingus]

George Hill is our best bench player, but here's the thing: he's inconsistent as hell. he has games where he shows you he's 6th man of the year material and others where he just dissapears and has little impact on the game. i pointed this out in a thread a while back. his performances in away games are much worse. lets see how he performs in the rodeo road trip. he'll either continue performing like shit on the road or he'll adapt to the change in atmosphere and play well and gain confidence in road games.

Bonner, Neal, and McDyess are our most reliable bench payers. we know what we're getting out of those guys every game.

look at Bonner and Neal's road vs. away stats. Bonner averages the same amount of ppg in road and away games. His 3 point % dips to 42% (still amazing) from his 52% on the road. Neal is an assasin. his 3 point % actually goes up to 46% on the road from 40% at home. George Hill? Road ppg 8.7 Home: 13; Road fg%: 40% Home: 49%; Road 3p %: 28%, Home: 46%. this isn't even taking account his other stats, all of which get significantly worse on the road.

i'm not worried about Neal, Bonner, and Dice. we know what we'll be getting from them pretty much every game. Hill is the x factor for this team.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

George Hill is our best bench player, but here's the thing: he's inconsistent as hell. he has games where he shows you he's 6th man of the year material and others where he just dissapears and has little impact on the game. i pointed this out in a thread a while back. his performances in away games are much worse. lets see how he performs in the rodeo road trip. he'll either continue performing like shit on the road or he'll adapt to the change in atmosphere and play well and gain confidence in road games.

Bonner, Neal, and McDyess are our most reliable bench payers. we know what we're getting out of those guys every game.

look at Bonner and Neal's road vs. away stats. Bonner averages the same amount of ppg in road and away games. His 3 point % dips to 42% (still amazing) from his 52% on the road. Neal is an assasin. his 3 point % actually goes up to 46% on the road from 40% at home. George Hill? Road ppg 8.7 Home: 13; Road fg%: 40% Home: 49%; Road 3p %: 28%, Home: 46%. this isn't even taking account his other stats, all of which get significantly worse on the road.

i'm not worried about Neal, Bonner, and Dice. we know what we'll be getting from them pretty much every game. Hill is the x factor for this team.

I'm not sure that comparing road vs. away stats for a shooter is valid when looking at half a season. Bonner and Neal have been shooting threes on 10 ft goals for a long time. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether they are on the road or at home. At least not as big as the above stats indicate. As to the difference, it could be just a matter of having one or two good games or bad games on the road. Or who they have played and who covered them on a particular day. You could probably find seemingly large discrepancices by looking at whether they played on even or odd days.
I do think home/away stats are more significant when lookng at a player like Hill who has the ball in his hands more and is creating his owns shots. I think the energy of a home crowd does come into play in that kind of situation. Especially for someone still relatively early in his career.

[Spurs Brazil]

Hill has been very good but I voted for Dice, he brings a lot of toughness for our D.

Dice is playing solid the whole season

Bonner and Neal are also playing very well.

I hope Anderson and Tiago can join the party too

[mathbzh]

Splitter!

I couldn't make a choice so why not giving him some love.

Seriously Hill/Bonner/Neal/Dice... the four of them have been really good.


I have to go with Neal since I didn't expect anything special from him

[Old School 44]

On both sides of the ball, Hill definitely...
then Neal, Bonner, Dice in a three way tie for second.

Tiago? I want him to get more minutes, but you could have saved a poll choice. :lol

[DBMethos]

Tiago would certainly win the competition for best bench warmer.

[cheguevara]

this is a tough one. Neal has been lethal, Hill is best all around, McDyess has brought the toughness we desperately need, Bonner is having a career season.

very very tough.

[benefactor]

I'm going to take Gary Neal here.

We had a pretty good idea what the had in Dice, Bonner and Hill when the season started. We know that Bonner plays well during the regular season, giving the Spurs floor spacing with 40%+ 3pt shooting without making too many mistakes. We knew that Dice would bring his lunch pail as he always does...rebounding well, playing defense and knocking down his almost automatic jumper. We knew that Hill would the primary backup on the perimeter and that there wasn't much question that he would be productive as both a scorer and the team's go to perimeter defender.

What we did not know is what was beyond Hill depth-wise...and this became even more of a concern with the Spurs first round draft pick out with an injury. Enter Gary Neal, a 500K salary Euro journeyman who managed to land a job with the Spurs because a couple of good SL games. Neal has not only helped...he has single-handedly shored up the Spurs bench depth on the perimeter. For several years now this has been a huge problem for the Spurs. They have had to rely heavily on Parker/Manu to carry the load on the perimeter and either one of them being off the floor for any length of time usually resulted in disaster. Now Pop looks down the bench at his unexperienced, underpaid hired gun and knows that when he puts him in the game he will make things happen.

[ForeignFan]

Dice !

[mingus]

I'm not sure that comparing road vs. away stats for a shooter is valid when looking at half a season. Bonner and Neal have been shooting threes on 10 ft goals for a long time. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether they are on the road or at home. At least not as big as the above stats indicate. As to the difference, it could be just a matter of having one or two good games or bad games on the road. Or who they have played and who covered them on a particular day. You could probably find seemingly large discrepancices by looking at whether they played on even or odd days.
I do think home/away stats are more significant when lookng at a player like Hill who has the ball in his hands more and is creating his owns shots. I think the energy of a home crowd does come into play in that kind of situation. Especially for someone still relatively early in his career.

You may not make stupid threads but you make stupid points.

[Supergirl]

I gave it to Hill, for his consistently solid D against the other teams' best offensive threat, as well as for his offense. Dice was a close second, he's been our most consistent rebounder and solid defensively in the middle. Neal and Bonner have been great, but are less well-rounded (we don't need them to be well-rounded, we just need them to shoot the ball well and play adequate defense) and SPlitter hasn't played enough to even be a contender.

[UnWantedTheory]

On both sides of the ball, Hill definitely...
then Neal, Bonner, Dice in a three way tie for second.

Tiago? I want him to get more minutes, but you could have saved a poll choice. :lol
Its funny that there have been 2 votes for him...hopefully they were joke votes.

[Manu-of-steel]

Hill, Bonner, Neal, and Dyes do different things on the court. Tough to pick the best, because its like a jigsaw puzzle, without one player, it will be incomplete.

[mathbzh]

Its funny that there have been 2 votes for him...hopefully they were joke votes.

Mine was :lol

[bus driver]

damn....i voted for neal but didnt think about dice.

[MannyIsGod]

Damn good Bench so far this year. Great we even have to ask this question.

[Mel_13]

Damn good Bench so far this year. Great we even have to ask this question.

That was my reaction. After years of using Manu to "create a bench", it's great to see this sort of debate with Manu back in the starting unit. Great job by all four of them.

[TD 21]

I'm going to take Gary Neal here.

We had a pretty good idea what the had in Dice, Bonner and Hill when the season started. We know that Bonner plays well during the regular season, giving the Spurs floor spacing with 40%+ 3pt shooting without making too many mistakes. We knew that Dice would bring his lunch pail as he always does...rebounding well, playing defense and knocking down his almost automatic jumper. We knew that Hill would the primary backup on the perimeter and that there wasn't much question that he would be productive as both a scorer and the team's go to perimeter defender.

What we did not know is what was beyond Hill depth-wise...and this became even more of a concern with the Spurs first round draft pick out with an injury. Enter Gary Neal, a 500K salary Euro journeyman who managed to land a job with the Spurs because a couple of good SL games. Neal has not only helped...he has single-handedly shored up the Spurs bench depth on the perimeter. For several years now this has been a huge problem for the Spurs. They have had to rely heavily on Parker/Manu to carry the load on the perimeter and either one of them being off the floor for any length of time usually resulted in disaster. Now Pop looks down the bench at his unexperienced, underpaid hired gun and knows that when he puts him in the game he will make things happen.

I like Neal and if you think he's been the best bench player, fine, but your reasoning is illogical. Your basis for picking him as the best bench player is because "we did not know what was beyond Hill depth-wise" and his story? So Hill, Bonner and McDyess get penalized for being established players? That makes no sense.

[benefactor]

I like Neal and if you think he's been the best bench player, fine, but your reasoning is illogical. Your basis for picking him as the best bench player is because "we did not know what was beyond Hill depth-wise" and his story? So Hill, Bonner and McDyess get penalized for being established players? That makes no sense.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not penalizing anyone. I'm just pointing out that perimeter depth has been a thorn in the Spurs side for years now and Neal has almost single-handedly solved that. Let's not forget that Neal has zero NBA experience and makes chump change..which are things I also mentioned when choosing him as my selection. That's pretty huge when you consider that he has made almost the same impact as any of the other three established players.

[TD 21]

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not penalizing anyone. I'm just pointing out that perimeter depth has been a thorn in the Spurs side for years now and Neal has almost single-handedly solved that. Let's not forget that Neal has zero NBA experience and makes chump change..which are things I also mentioned when choosing him as my selection. That's pretty huge when you consider that he has made almost the same impact as any of the other three established players.

I don't think I did. Directly, you didn't, but indirectly, you did. You're basically crediting Neal because he filled a need and was an unknown with an underdog type story. In effect, you're penalizing the other three because they're already filling roles and are established players. I don't see why his lack of NBA experience and contract should factor into the decision.

If Hill succumbs to injury for a month and the team suffers because of it and he returns and they pick back up where they left off when last he was healthy, does that make him the best reserve?

[benefactor]

I don't think I did. Directly, you didn't, but indirectly, you did. You're basically crediting Neal because he filled a need and was an unknown with an underdog type story. In effect, you're penalizing the other three because they're already filling roles and are established players. I don't see why his lack of NBA experience and contract should factor into the decision.

His lack of NBA experience doesn't matter? Sounds to me like you are minimizing what Neal has accomplished. What Neal has done is much more impressive if you take all factors into consideration. If you are not willing to concede that Neal walking onto an NBA court and immediately making an impact is not that impressive then we have nothing left to talk about.


If Hill succumbs to injury for a month and the team suffers because of it and he returns and they pick back up where they left off when last he was healthy, does that make him the best reserve?
I think this works with either Neal or Hill. Because of the Spurs perimeter situation they need all hands on deck. Both are equally important right now.

[mingus]

His lack of NBA experience doesn't matter? Sounds to me like you are minimizing what Neal has accomplished. What Neal has done is much more impressive if you take all factors into consideration. If you are not willing to concede that Neal walking onto an NBA court and immediately making an impact is not that impressive then we have nothing left to talk about.

I think this works with either Neal or Hill. Because of the Spurs perimeter situation they need all hands on deck. Both are equally important right now.

he came into the NBA with no previous experience. he makes chump change. he unexpectedly filled a need. all are in fact impressive, but TD 21 is right in saying they don't factor into who is the better player. if the thread was about who is more impressive, you would say Neal, but that's not what it's saying.

[SnakeBoy]

Of the choices given, Tiago has been the best on the bench without question.

[ElNono]

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.

[jesterbobman]

It's a good debate to have. I'd lean with Hill as He's the most accomplished ball handler and a good defender, but it's a unit that work well together. It's a group of Four at the moment, that can stretch to 6 with Tiago(3rd Big Covering Centre) and James Anderson as the second Wing(Primarily SF).

Each of them has a defined role that they can play, without needing to move to compensate. There's no Mason at PG, enough skilled bigs to cover those two spots and skills that mesh together

[mingus]

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.

"best bench player" has a very clear connotation for me. to me, the best bench player is the one with the most skill and talent and demonstrates that on the court.

if we're talking about value, that's a different thing, and you have a valid point about Dice in that regard.

[benefactor]

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.
:tu

There's really no wrong answer here. The Spurs need interior D when Duncan goes to the bench and Dice fills that. The Spurs have been looking for quality perimeter depth and Neal fills that. The Spurs have been looking for a solid sixth man so Manu can start and Hill fills that. Bonner...well....:)

[ElNono]

"best bench player" has a very clear connotation for me. to me, the best bench player is the one with the most skill and talent and demonstrates that on the court.

if we're talking about value, that's a different thing, and you have a valid point about Dice in that regard.

I agree to disagree. Not clear cut at all for me. "best" can mean many things... statistically? production/salary? value/minutes?

[TD 21]

His lack of NBA experience doesn't matter? Sounds to me like you are minimizing what Neal has accomplished. What Neal has done is much more impressive if you take all factors into consideration. If you are not willing to concede that Neal walking onto an NBA court and immediately making an impact is not that impressive then we have nothing left to talk about.

I think this works with either Neal or Hill. Because of the Spurs perimeter situation they need all hands on deck. Both are equally important right now.

mingus got it.

It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't, at least) in the context of discerning who's been the Spurs best bench player. If Neal's going to get points for that, then let's give Hill points for having come from a small school, or Bonner points for having spent a season in Europe, or McDyess because of his age. I'm not minimizing what Neal has accomplished, it just has no relevance to this discussion. It doesn't matter what they're making or how they got here, it's all about their play; not their play in relation to what they make or their journey.

Hill is more important, because he has more dimensions to his game. His versatility defensively, athleticism and ability to get to the line are all things Neal can't match.

[DMC]

Pop says it's Hill. That's good enough for me.