Nellie Ball Redux: Why Popovich Fails to Play Splitter

[timvp]

Currently, nothing makes Spurs fans as perturbed as Gregg Popovich opting for Matt Bonner ahead of Tiago Splitter. While it's not always the case, for the last few weeks, the line between the team's third and fourth bigman has definitely blurred.

Looking at minutes player per game for the season, it appears as if Splitter (19.8 minutes) is the preferred choice over Bonner (17.2 minutes). A closer look, however, shows things aren't as clear as they seem. In the last five games, the gap has narrowed -- 17.8 minutes per game for Splitter, 17.4 minutes per game for Bonner.

Going further, when games are close, Pop has shown he trusts Bonner more. In the first half of games, Bonner averages 9.8 minutes for the season, while Splitter average 9.6 minutes. Additionally, Splitter has played 38.6% more garbage minutes this season than Bonner (with garbage minutes determined as time when either team is up by 15 or more points).

Why Are Spurs Fans Frustrated?

First of all, Splitter has been productive in his playing time. The highly touted bigman from Brazil via Spain has been sizzling over the last eight games. In that span of games, Splitter is averaging 8.4 points and 3.9 rebounds in only 17.9 minutes per night, while shooting a ridiculous 75.8% from the field. Early in the season, he was struggling to finish on the low block, but he has obviously solved those issues.

Bonner, on the other hand, has stalled. In those same eight games, he's averaging 4.0 points and 3.1 rebounds in 15.9 minutes per game, while shooting 41.1% from the floor and 31.6% from beyond the three-point arc.

Looking at those numbers alone, I can't blame Spurs fans for second-guessing Pop. That said, the frustration goes deeper. Bonner, even when he's played well in the regular season, has routinely been a playoff disappointment. Fans of the team are tired of the Spurs getting burned by a player who has a history of not producing when he's needed most.

And with Splitter, Spurs fans see two things that remind them of the championship days: defensive ability and size. This season, Splitter has done great work protecting the rim. His rate of blocked shots is through the roof compared to his rookie season and he can be counted on to at least alter shots near the basket. At nearly 7-feet and equipped with long arms, Splitter looks like the type of player that has been by Tim Duncan's side to help anchor elite defensive units.

As for Bonner, no one has ever accused him of protecting the rim and though he's 6-foot-10 in shoes, his short arms and limited athleticism make his practical height closer to 6-foot-8.

So, What's Pop Thinking?

Although Pop rarely if ever tells the media why he does what he does, a few conclusions can be made based on his rotations as of late.

1. Pop believes Duncan and Splitter are both centers
Of course Pop would never admit this because he swears up and down that Duncan is a power forward, but it's plain to see otherwise. During his rookie campaign, Splitter played next to Duncan for a grand total of 30 minutes during the regular season. This year, the two have played together for 67 minutes -- a paltry 4.5 minutes per game.

2. Pop doesn't trust Splitter defending the perimeter
When Pop does play Duncan and Splitter together, it's almost always when the opposition has two traditional bigmen on the court. However, if a team is utilizing a three-point shooting bigman or has gone small, Pop almost always splits up the Duncan and Splitter tandem.

As examples, Pop played Duncan and Splitter together in overtime against the Rockets when Houston had Luis Scola and Samuel Dalembert on the court. On the other hand, when the Magic had three-point specialist Ryan Anderson next to Dwight Howard, Pop decided to counter with a small ball lineup in overtime.

3. Pop values Bonner's ability to spread the floor
Whenever the offense bogs down and the other team is packing the paint, Pop's go-to move is to insert Bonner. This is obviously mostly a subjective observation, however there is some statistical proof: In games the Spurs enter the fourth quarter with 75 points or less, Bonner is averaging 19.9 minutes. In the rest of the games, Bonner plays 13.7 minutes per outing.

Why Does Pop Suddenly Value Offense So Much?

When trying to figure out what Pop is thinking, it's important to remember that he was an assistant coach for two men: Larry Brown and Don Nelson. Brown is arguably the best defensive coach of all-time and Pop undoubtedly learned a lot from him. But don't forget about Nelson, who is regarded as the most innovative offensive coaches in history.

When Pop was an assistant under Nelson, the Warriors were a team that won with offense. Nelson relied on three-point shooting and often used small lineups -- especially when trailing. In fact, in Pop's last season in Golden State, the Warriors spent much of the season starting a rookie Chris Webber at center and 6-foot-8, 220-pound Billy Owens at power forward.

Nelson's way of coaching became known as Nellie Ball. Here's Wikipedia's definition:
Nellie ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_ball) is an unconventional offensive strategy in basketball developed by NBA head coach Don Nelson. It is a fast-paced offense relying on smaller, more athletic players who can create mismatches by outrunning their opponents. A true center is usually not needed to run this type of offense. A large volume of three-point attempts is generally a staple of Nellie Ball as well.Slowly but surely, Pop has transitioned the Spurs from a team that relies on defense to a team that relies on his version of Nellie Ball. His thinking, I'm assuming, is that without David Robinson and without a Bruce Bowen in his prime, you can't simply keep trying to win the same way and ignore that the team lacks an all-time great defender to pair with Duncan.

If you want to point to a specific breaking point, I'd point to the second half of the 2007-08 season. While the team's defense remained elite, the offense began to stall. The second half of that season featured numerous scoring droughts, which carried over into the playoffs. During the 2008 postseason, the Spurs scored 92 or fewer points in all eight of their losses. In the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers, the Spurs lost in five games even though they held Los Angeles to 93.4 points per game -- 15.2 points below their regular season average. In fact, the Spurs held the Lakers to fewer points in the WCF than the Celtics and their legendary defense did in the Finals.

Pop's reaction to the sputtering offense was to put an end to the Bowen era and input Michael Finley, Matt Bonner and Roger Mason, Jr. into the starting lineup the following season. As expected, the offense improved in 2008-09. And, inevitably, the defense regressed.

The culmination of the transformation was last season. The 2010-11 Spurs scored 111.8 points per 100 possessions, the best mark in franchise history. Riding that wave of scoring to go along with the league's 11th ranked defense, San Antonio finished the year at 61-21.

Best Offenses in Spurs History
1. 2010-11 - 111.8
2. 1994-95 - 111.7
3. 1983-84 - 111.2
4. 1993-94 - 110.4
5. 1995-96 - 110.2

Pop has apparently conceded that the Spurs can no longer be a dominant defensive team, so in order to be successful in the regular season, the team must be an elite offensive team. That way of thinking has continued this season. The Spurs are 10-5 despite a defense that is ranked 19th in the league. How is that possible? Their offense is the league's fourth best, which is especially impressive considering Manu Ginobili has been sidelined a majority of the season.

But Isn't Splitter an Asset on Offense?

If you look at Splitter's stats, one would assume he's a player who helps the Spurs on the offensive end. On the season, he's shooting 58.9% from the floor and, right now at least, he's the team's best low post scorer -- and that's including Duncan. Splitter is averaging a very respectable 14.9 points per 40 minutes and has improved his free throw percentage from 54.3% as a rookie to 71.4% this year.

Unfortunately, advanced statistical analysis shows that Splitter is an offensive liability. And an undeniable liability at that.

As a rookie, the Spurs averaged 97.8 points per 48 minutes Splitter was on the court. That was far and away the worst mark on the team.

Team Points Per 48 Minutes
Manu Ginobili - 107.8
Matt Bonner - 104.6
Tim Duncan - 104.5
George Hill - 103.1
DeJuan Blair - 102.9
Tony Parker - 102.7
Gary Neal - 102.6
Richard Jefferson - 102.4
Antonio McDyess - 100.9
Tiago Splitter - 97.8

This season, that trend has continued. The Spurs are averaging only 94.8 points per 48 minutes when Splitter is playing, which is again by far the lowest number on the team.

When Splitter and Duncan are on the court together, the offense stagnates even further. In the 67 minutes the two have played together this season, the Spurs are averaging 85.3 points per 48 minutes. It's a very good defensive tandem (92.4 points allowed per 48 minutes) but not good enough to overcome the lack of scoring.

Ironically, the player Splitter flourishes next to is Bonner. In the 161 minutes the two have played together, the Spurs average 98.8 points per 48 minutes. When Splitter plays without Bonner on the court, the Spurs average just 90.1 points per 48 minutes.

And that brings up a point that Pop obviously knows very well: Unlike with Splitter, the Spurs score better when Bonner is on the court. In the previous three seasons, the Spurs have scored 4.9 more points per 100 possessions when Bonner is on the court. So far in Splitter's career, the Spurs score 5.6 points less per 100 possessions when he's on the court. That's a spread of 10.5 points per 100 possessions (which translates to about 9.8 points per game for these Spurs), and for a coach who is in running a team that currently wins with a version of Nellie Ball, that evidently isn't something he can look past too easily.

Is Splitter Doomed as a Spur?

I do not believe so. While it's impossible to argue against him being a liability on offense right now, it's not an irreparable situation.

The main reason why the offense dies when Splitter enters the game is he has a bad habit of dominating possession after possession. In Europe, that was expected out of him because he was the team's number one option -- especially after Luis Scola left for the NBA. Each time up the court, his team either ran a pick-and-roll with him or posted up him up. With the Spurs, Splitter oftentimes plays the same way he did in Europe. However, now that he's no longer the number one option, that simply won't work.

Instead of calling for the ball in the post or going out to set a screen virtually every time up the court, Splitter has to learn how to better blend into the action. Like Fabricio Oberto before him, Splitter's best role in the NBA on offense is a complementary one in which he spends most of the time on the weakside of the court. Additionally, Splitter could be an efficient weapon if he learned how to pick and choose his spots to take advantage of mismatches in the low block.

The stats backup the theory that Splitter dominates the action too much when he's on the court. In his rookie season, the Spurs got assists on their made field goals 5% less often when Splitter was on the court. This season, that number is again 5% less when Splitter plays.

An area in which Splitter has actually regressed is turnovers. Last season, he averaged 1.7 turnovers per 40 minutes. This year, he's averaging 3.6 turnovers per 40 minutes. To put that in perspective, Duncan has never averaged that many turnovers per 40 minutes. David Robinson never averaged that many turnovers per 40 minutes. Neither Parker nor Ginobili has ever averaged that many turnovers per 40 minutes. Needless to say, Splitter being a turnover machine is a big reason the Spurs struggle to score when he's on the court.

If Splitter really wants to get in Pop's good graces, adding a jumper would go a long way. This season, he's 2-for-3 on jumpers between 10 and 15 feet. If he can take and make that shot with consistency, that would make it much easier for Splitter and Duncan to co-exist. It was that exact shot that Oberto added to his repertoire that allowed him to adequately space the court next to Duncan.

Going forward, there's plenty of time for Splitter to earn Pop's trust. Remember, Pop leaned on Blair less and less last year as the season progressed. If that happens again this year, one would imagine that Splitter would be a beneficiary. Also, injuries will continue to be a main theme of this lockout condensed season. With such a shallow stable of bigmen on this team, all it will take is one twisted ankle for Splitter to suddenly be penciled in for major minutes each night.

What Would You Do?

Prior to the beginning of the season, I thought that the Spurs would need to rely heavily on Splitter to truly become a championship contender. Fifteen games into the season and my opinion remains the same. I want Pop to play Splitter as much as possible. Yes, he hurts the offense right now, but he needs to play to learn how to better mesh with his teammates. If it means a few more regular season losses, so be it.

Even with the improvements of the offense, I believe that the Spurs still need to be a top seven or eight defensive team if they want to make a strong playoff push. The only way that will happen, in my view, is if Splitter is playing approximately 30 minutes per game. Outside of that, the Spurs will remain on the fringe of the title talk.

I commend Pop for being able to drastically change the equation and still win games at a torrid pace. That said, Pop needs to be reminded of the numbers 1,335 and 0: the former is the number of wins Don Nelson had in the regular season, the latter is the number of times a Don Nelson coached team reached the Finals.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Interesting. Again, the statistics belie what I see what my own eyes.

I agree Splitter blatantly dominates possessions, but is the difference in offense really that drastic? And does it really matter if he makes us better defensively?

I mean, the numbers are there--we score less points with Splitter on the court...but that's only one side of the equation...if we score X amount less with him on the court, but the other team scores X+1 less with him on the court, doesn't that make him an overall asset to this team, and a necessary player for us?

Furthermore, how is Pop so sure Duncan+Splitter cannot work, when he hasn't even really tried it? He must be scared shitless of dropping unnecessary games with experimentation and missing the playoffs.

In either case, thanks timvp :tu

[Obstructed_View]

It's really too bad that the Spurs didn't have those statistics printed out last year. Waving them at the Grizzlies certainly could have turned the postseason around.

[MaNu4Tres]

Good write up :tu

The notion that the Spurs score less with Splitter and Duncan on the floor together isn't an accurate assessment given the really small sample size of 67 minutes.

I'd like to see Pop utilize both Splitter and Duncan together waaaaay more often, that way the Spurs can gauge a real accurate assessment of how productive the team could be with those two on the floor together (67 minutes is laughable). The reality is, we still don't know and this thing is going on two years already.

[BRs.Ganso]

too long

please make a podcast

[MaNu4Tres]

But Isn't Splitter an Asset on Offense?

If you look at Splitter's stats, one would assume he's a player who helps the Spurs on the offensive end. On the season, he's shooting 58.9% from the floor and, right now at least, he's the team's best low post scorer -- and that's including Duncan. Splitter is averaging a very respectable 14.9 points per 40 minutes and has improved his free throw percentage from 54.3% as a rookie to 71.4% this year.

Unfortunately, advanced statistical analysis shows that Splitter is an offensive liability. And an undeniable liability at that.

As a rookie, the Spurs averaged 97.8 points per 48 minutes Splitter was on the court. That was far and away the worst mark on the team.

Team Points Per 48 Minutes
Manu Ginobili - 107.8
Matt Bonner - 104.6
Tim Duncan - 104.5
George Hill - 103.1
DeJuan Blair - 102.9
Tony Parker - 102.7
Gary Neal - 102.6
Richard Jefferson - 102.4
Antonio McDyess - 100.9
Tiago Splitter - 97.8




In fairness, Tiago played the majority of his minutes with the Quinn, Novak and Udoka crew last year (these guys weren't exactly the 2002 Sacramento Kings).

And this year, (in between him, Blair, and Bonner) he's seen the least minutes with not only the starting back-court, but also Duncan.

Wonder what those numbers would be like if Blair and Splitter switched spots in the rotation?

[++SaiNt TiAg0++]

^ thats why america has problems^^

too long? psshhhh

that was the best article ive read here on spurstalk. great read !!!thanks again
so do you think pop tells splitter things he can do to gain more playing time or not? i also see the inevitable splitter becoming our main guy besides duncan because of bonners horrid shooting its never been this bad the only thing is (bonner is smart) .

im seeing him hustle more on defense and just be an outright pest which i dont mind i usually hate the guy but hey i dont hate defenders and if hes going to turn into one that means tiago's got to be that much better

[jag]

It makes sense that the Spurs score the fewest points with Splitter on the floor. He slows the game down and usually uses the majority of the shot clock when the Spurs let him post-up his man.

Both teams are going to score less because they are getting fewer possessions. Splitter also contributes to defensive stops on the other end. I'd like to see some analysis on how the opposing team scores with Splitter in the game. It'd also help if he wasn't usually stuck playing with scrub offensive and defensive lineups.

[++SaiNt TiAg0++]

great point^ what i ALWAYS notice when Tiago gets sub'd for Bonner is we without fail we begin to get beat (w/exception of a very few games) and i mean get our asses handed to us when bonner is in. you dont have to know basketball to see that. hwever it would be interesting to see how many times the the lead changes in the opposing teams favor when bon bon is put in

[mystargtr34]

Good write up and research... initial reaction to those numbers is pretty much the same as Manu4Tres.. he is more often than not playing with bench players which would naturally bring the offense down.

Besides.. im sure the 2012 Thunder would be a better offensive team with Jeff Green at the 4 rather than one of Ibaka or Perkins. Its about balance. Spurs need to improve their defense.

[Obstructed_View]

It makes sense that the Spurs score the fewest points with Splitter on the floor. He slows the game down and usually uses the majority of the shot clock when the Spurs let him post-up his man.

Both teams are going to score less because they are getting fewer possessions. Splitter also contributes to defensive stops on the other end. I'd like to see some analysis on how the opposing team scores with Splitter in the game. It'd also help if he wasn't usually stuck playing with scrub offensive and defensive lineups.

Agreed. Here's one place where plus minus might be interesting.

[urunobili]

Greg Popovich is a basketball mastermind... this one thing with Tiago could be signs of age TBH

[++SaiNt TiAg0++]

tiago showing us who needs to play

[dunkman]

Great article. Pop knows what he's doing, for sure better that a casual fan. With Leonard and Green on the perimeter, and Duncan and Splitter in the paint, the Spurs could switch to being primarily defensive team.

That being said, the best opponent of the 2007 run was an offensive team, and the Spurs won that team with superior offense. The Spurs were unable to slow the pace or make the Suns shot low FG%.

Both things are needed to succed. Defense and offense.

Vs the Grizzlies, when Splitter entered the game, that was in one of the last games, or the last game of the season, the Grizzlies quickly built an insurmountable playoffs lead. Prior to that the game was close.

[Obstructed_View]

Vs the Grizzlies, when Splitter entered the game, that was in one of the last games, or the last game of the season, the Grizzlies quickly built an insurmountable playoffs lead. Prior to that the game was close.

Fiction is fun.

[Mal]

How many minutes was Manu playing together with Splitter and Duncan ? It`s obvious that Spurs would score less points with two big mens, when they need to run a play, set a post play or sth. And 67 minutes is way too less, to say , whether is better to avoid this lineup or not.

[Warlord23]

timvp, why did you choose points per 48 minutes for this analysis? It could be that a lineup featuring Tiago takes fewer shots per 48 minutes because they play at a slower pace (perhaps to allow Tiago to get down the court and into the opponent's paint). The other lineups probably take more FG attempts per 48 minutes.

Aren't team FG%, team eFG%, points per possession etc more useful measures to judge whether Tiago bogs down the offense?

[timvp]

I agree Splitter blatantly dominates possessions, but is the difference in offense really that drastic? And does it really matter if he makes us better defensively?

I mean, the numbers are there--we score less points with Splitter on the court...but that's only one side of the equation...if we score X amount less with him on the court, but the other team scores X+1 less with him on the court, doesn't that make him an overall asset to this team, and a necessary player for us?


It makes sense that the Spurs score the fewest points with Splitter on the floor. He slows the game down and usually uses the majority of the shot clock when the Spurs let him post-up his man.

Both teams are going to score less because they are getting fewer possessions. Splitter also contributes to defensive stops on the other end. I'd like to see some analysis on how the opposing team scores with Splitter in the game.

The Spurs average 94.8 points per 48 minutes with Splitter on the court, while the opposition averages 95.0 points per 48 minutes ... meaning the Spurs have been outscored this year when Splitter is on the court.

Points Allowed Per 48 Minutes on the Court
Matt Bonner - 90.5
Richard Jefferson - 90.7
Tim Duncan - 91.5
Tony Parker - 92.9
TJ Ford - 94.7
Tiago Splitter - 95.0
Danny Green - 95.5
James Anderson - 95.9
Manu Ginobili - 96.3
Kawhi Leonard - 97.2
DeJuan Blair - 98.9
Gary Neal - 99.5

If you want to normalize the pace, as _JaG suggested, the Spurs average 105.4 points per 100 possessions when Splitter is on the court, while the opposition averages 106.7 points per 100 possessions when Splitter is off the court. When Splitter is on the bench, the Spurs average 112.2 points per 100 possessions, and the opposition averages 105.4 points per 100 possessions. So even normalizing pace, the Spurs are better on offense and defense with Splitter off the court.

The best arguments against these numbers are: 1. small sample size (although with last year's stats showing similar findings, this may be a hard argument to sell) 2. Splitter needs more playing time to figure out how he can positively impact the game.

Personally, even if I accept that the numbers aren't a fluke, that doesn't make me think less of Splitter. It just makes me think Splitter is even more in need of playing time so he can learn the NBA game. IMO, the worst thing Pop could do is to wait until the playoffs to throw Splitter into the fire ... like he did last year.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Both teams are going to score less because they are getting fewer possessions. Splitter also contributes to defensive stops on the other end. I'd like to see some analysis on how the opposing team scores with Splitter in the game. It'd also help if he wasn't usually stuck playing with scrub offensive and defensive lineups.


Mothafucka, ain't that what I just said???
/shamrock

[timvp]

The notion that the Spurs score less with Splitter and Duncan on the floor together isn't an accurate assessment given the really small sample size of 67 minutes.If Pop is looking at that sample size to decide whether or not to play those two together, that would be really stupid. Agreed.


I'd like to see Pop utilize both Splitter and Duncan together waaaaay more often, that way the Spurs can gauge a real accurate assessment of how productive the team could be with those two on the floor together (67 minutes is laughable). The reality is, we still don't know and this thing is going on two years already.

:tu

Duncan and Splitter should have been the opening day starters if for nothing else to see if they can play together.

[Obstructed_View]

The best arguments against these numbers are: 1. small sample size (although with last year's stats showing similar findings, this may be a hard argument to sell) 2. Splitter needs more playing time to figure out how he can positively impact the game.

3. Matt Bonner doesn't hit meaningful baskets. He usually hits threes in bunches, and usually does so in either blowout wins or blowout losses. Scoring is really nice and all, but when it happens makes a difference. Start Splitter and Duncan together, see the results and then come talk to me about stats.

[TJastal]

If Pop is looking at that sample size to decide whether or not to play those two together, that would be really stupid. Agreed.



:tu

Duncan and Splitter should have been the opening day starters if for nothing else to see if they can play together.

This should have happened opening game last season. The absolutely maddening thing is Pop seems to have no sense of urgency in bringing Splitter along, even though the big 3 are nearing the end of the line.

And yet here is Pop acting like Morgan Freeman driving Ms Daisy, Splitter will be lucky if he's starting by the year 2015 at this pace.

[timvp]

so do you think pop tells splitter things he can do to gain more playing time or not?Hope so. Or else I'm not sure how he'd be earning his coaching salary.


How many minutes was Manu playing together with Splitter and Duncan ? About nine and a half minutes.


timvp, why did you choose points per 48 minutes for this analysis? It could be that a lineup featuring Tiago takes fewer shots per 48 minutes because they play at a slower pace (perhaps to allow Tiago to get down the court and into the opponent's paint). The other lineups probably take more FG attempts per 48 minutes.I looked at both numbers and they were basically the same. If anything, the points per possession numbers make Splitter look worse.


Aren't team FG%, team eFG%, points per possession etc more useful measures to judge whether Tiago bogs down the offense?

Covered PPP and don't have FG% but team eFG% with Splitter on the court is 49.9%. With Splitter on the bench, it's 53.3%.

[Russ]

Splitter will be lucky if he's starting by the year 2015 at this pace.

The Spurs will be lucky if Splitter's on their roster in 2015 at this pace. (He will have other options, you know. :))

[Obstructed_View]

This should have happened opening game last season. The absolutely maddening thing is Pop seems to have no sense of urgency in bringing Splitter along, even though the big 3 are nearing the end of the line.

And yet here is Pop acting like Morgan Freeman driving Ms Daisy, Splitter will be lucky if he's starting by the year 2015 at this pace.

I feel so stupid for assuming Splitter and Duncan would start together when they signed him, and for the slow realization that Pop never intended any such thing.

[ElNono]

Great writeup, LJ. Much appreciated!

I'm getting more convinced after every game that Tiago is the best big defender we have. I agree Nellieball goes nowhere quick.

[Obstructed_View]

I also have kind of a problem with calling what the Spurs do "Nellie Ball". Don Nelson always made sure that he had undersized guys who could play defense.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I feel so stupid for assuming Splitter and Duncan would start together when they signed him, and for the slow realization that Pop never intended any such thing.



Yeah so do i. Duncan's newfound focus on the highpost and his great passing abilities make this all the more bewildering.

[ElNono]

Forgot to add, I will always take a team that make stops when they need them vs a team that relies on the 3 ball to win games. And I think this season with Leonard, Splitter, Green and whatever Tim has left, we can be a team that wins with defense.

I just hope that at some point Pop gives them a chance to prove it.

[Obstructed_View]

Yeah so do i. Duncan's newfound focus on the highpost and his great passing abilities make this all the more bewildering.

Yeah, it's Splitter stepping into Duncan's role, and Duncan stepping into Dice's role, which seems perfect. Throw in Leonard, Parker and Manu and that's a pretty decent mix of talent, size, defense and experience.

[TJastal]

3. Matt Bonner doesn't hit meaningful baskets. He usually hits threes in bunches, and usually does so in either blowout wins or blowout losses. Scoring is really nice and all, but when it happens makes a difference. Start Splitter and Duncan together, see the results and then come talk to me about stats.


Yeah, it's Splitter stepping into Duncan's role, and Duncan stepping into Dice's role, which seems perfect. Throw in Leonard, Parker and Manu and that's a pretty decent mix of talent, size, defense and experience.

I haven't been able to watch many games this year. Is Splitter's post play really improving that much where he could be successful in Duncan's former role in the low post?

I keep reading about how his low post moves are improving but nobody has gone into much detail about it.

[ElNono]

I haven't been able to watch many games this year. Is Splitter's post play really improving that much where he could be successful in Duncan's former role in the low post?

I keep reading about how his low post moves are improving but nobody has gone into much detail about it.

He's been great IMO. He has started to use his physicality and size well lately (unlike at the start of the season when he was chucking those horrible hooks from the hip), and even if he doesn't quite finish every play, he's been drawing fouls...

[jag]

The Spurs average 94.8 points per 48 minutes with Splitter on the court, while the opposition averages 95.0 points per 48 minutes ... meaning the Spurs have been outscored this year when Splitter is on the court.

Points Allowed Per 48 Minutes on the Court
Matt Bonner - 90.5
Richard Jefferson - 90.7
Tim Duncan - 91.5
Tony Parker - 92.9
TJ Ford - 94.7
Tiago Splitter - 95.0
Danny Green - 95.5
James Anderson - 95.9
Manu Ginobili - 96.3
Kawhi Leonard - 97.2
DeJuan Blair - 98.9
Gary Neal - 99.5



Are we just ignoring the players that Tiago is playing with, like Cory Joseph, Bonner, Neal and Danny Green? And even still, the best argument is that Splitter is a detriment because the Spurs are being outscored by 0.2 points per 48 minutes??

[dunkman]

Fiction is fun.

Not as fun as posting without thinking at all, though . . .

[GSH]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think Pop has adopted "Nellie Ball" because he enjoys that style of play, or thinks it will win Championships. So I'm more inclined to ask why he is doing it. I'm guessing it's something along the lines of He Thinks He Has To. My experience is that few people are just utterly random. You may not understand their reasoning, or even see it. But when you do, you usually wind up saying, "Well... at least there was a plan there."

So how about this:
1. The Spurs organization depends heavily on the post-season to turn a profit. (True)
2. Not many people actually believe that this group could really win it all against the new powers in the league. (True)
3. The thinking may be that, with this current group of players, playing "Nellie Ball" may be the only way to even get into the playoffs, and get at least a share of the post-season money. (Makes more sense than a lot of theories I've heard.)

You may not like it, and you may not want to believe it. But there's a very real possibility that Pop and the FO are simply trying to make lemonade. Failing to at least get one playoff series is a financial disaster. They may have just looked at the squad and asked, "What do we have here?" And the answer is, "We have a bunch of guys who can shoot, and aren't very strong on the defensive end." What do you do with that? You go small, put those shooters on the floor, and hopefully they outscore enough other teams to put you into post-season play.

[Obstructed_View]

Not as fun as posting without thinking at all, though . . .

True, that also describes your bullshit post that was completely factually inaccurate. I considered just accusing of you of not watching the playoffs, but your defense of what you posted pretty much confirms it to everyone.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think Pop has adopted "Nellie Ball" because he enjoys that style of play, or thinks it will win Championships. So I'm more inclined to ask why he is doing it. I'm guessing it's something along the lines of He Thinks He Has To. My experience is that few people are just utterly random. You may not understand their reasoning, or even see it. But when you do, you usually wind up saying, "Well... at least there was a plan there."

So how about this:
1. The Spurs organization depends heavily on the post-season to turn a profit. (True)
2. Not many people actually believe that this group could really win it all against the new powers in the league. (True)
3. The thinking may be that, with this current group of players, playing "Nellie Ball" may be the only way to even get into the playoffs, and get at least a share of the post-season money. (Makes more sense than a lot of theories I've heard.)

You may not like it, and you may not want to believe it. But there's a very real possibility that Pop and the FO are simply trying to make lemonade. Failing to at least get one playoff series is a financial disaster. They may have just looked at the squad and asked, "What do we have here?" And the answer is, "We have a bunch of guys who can shoot, and aren't very strong on the defensive end." What do you do with that? You go small, put those shooters on the floor, and hopefully they outscore enough other teams to put you into post-season play.

How did it benefit the Spurs financially to lose to Dallas in the conference semifinals instead of going ahead and winning the championship in 2006?

[ElNono]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think Pop has adopted "Nellie Ball" because he enjoys that style of play, or thinks it will win Championships. So I'm more inclined to ask why he is doing it. I'm guessing it's something along the lines of He Thinks He Has To. My experience is that few people are just utterly random. You may not understand their reasoning, or even see it. But when you do, you usually wind up saying, "Well... at least there was a plan there."

So how about this:
1. The Spurs organization depends heavily on the post-season to turn a profit. (True)
2. Not many people actually believe that this group could really win it all against the new powers in the league. (True)
3. The thinking may be that, with this current group of players, playing "Nellie Ball" may be the only way to even get into the playoffs, and get at least a share of the post-season money. (Makes more sense than a lot of theories I've heard.)

You may not like it, and you may not want to believe it. But there's a very real possibility that Pop and the FO are simply trying to make lemonade. Failing to at least get one playoff series is a financial disaster. They may have just looked at the squad and asked, "What do we have here?" And the answer is, "We have a bunch of guys who can shoot, and aren't very strong on the defensive end." What do you do with that? You go small, put those shooters on the floor, and hopefully they outscore enough other teams to put you into post-season play.

I don't think Holt is paying luxury tax money for quick 1st round exists... plus the reason this roster is what it is, in part, is because management decided that's what's going to be. Let's not pretend here that they're not the ones handing the contracts and making the picks...

[GSH]

How did it benefit the Spurs financially to lose to Dallas in the conference semifinals instead of going ahead and winning the championship in 2006?

Whatever. You're not that dense. That was situational, not a whole season. Not what we're seeing here. You don't like small ball - got it.

[rmt]

The Spurs will be lucky if Splitter's on their roster in 2015 at this pace. (He will have other options, you know. :))

If I were Splitter, I'd leave. It's ridiculous to be playing so few minutes and to be playing behind Matt Bonner.

I wonder if Pop has just accepted that they aren't challenging for a title so he just wants to make sure that they make the playoffs. He must know that this run and gun offense with emphasis on three point shooting is great for the regular season but won't cut it in the playoffs. I just don't understand, why after the MEM series, he won't develop Splitter when it was so painfully obvious that they needed size and defense.

[GSH]

I don't think Holt is paying luxury tax money for quick 1st round exists... plus the reason this roster is what it is, in part, is because management decided that's what's going to be. Let's not pretend here that they're not the ones handing the contracts and making the picks...

He's paying lux tax because he's in cap hell, and the only pieces he could have possibly gotten rid of would have meant totally blowing it up. As others have said (possibly even you) we need the Big 3 to fill seats. Right?

Did he do anything in the offseason to address the things you believe are gaping holes? So why is he paying lux tax to leave big gaping holes in a roster?

You know the answer, you just don't like it.



I wonder if Pop has just accepted that they aren't challenging for a title so he just wants to make sure that they make the playoffs. He must know that this run and gun offense with emphasis on three point shooting is great for the regular season but won't cut it in the playoffs.

Interesting theory.

[timvp]

Are we just ignoring the players that Tiago is playing with, like Cory Joseph, Bonner, Neal and Danny Green?Adjusted plus/minus accounts for teammates and opposition ... and Splitter has the lowest mark on the team. If interested, I'll post the numbers.


And even still, the best argument is that Splitter is a detriment because the Spurs are being outscored by 0.2 points per 48 minutes??I don't see anyone arguing Splitter is a detriment. I wrote the Splitter has thus far been a detriment to the offense in his career, which can be backed up by just about every statistical measure.

But again, I don't really care that the stats say Splitter hurts the offense. Pop still needs to play him more. And if Pop isn't playing him because Splitter has hurt the offense thus far in his career, I think Pop is being extremely shortsighted.

[TJastal]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think Pop has adopted "Nellie Ball" because he enjoys that style of play, or thinks it will win Championships. So I'm more inclined to ask why he is doing it. I'm guessing it's something along the lines of He Thinks He Has To. My experience is that few people are just utterly random. You may not understand their reasoning, or even see it. But when you do, you usually wind up saying, "Well... at least there was a plan there."

So how about this:
1. The Spurs organization depends heavily on the post-season to turn a profit. (True)
2. Not many people actually believe that this group could really win it all against the new powers in the league. (True)
3. The thinking may be that, with this current group of players, playing "Nellie Ball" may be the only way to even get into the playoffs, and get at least a share of the post-season money. (Makes more sense than a lot of theories I've heard.)

You may not like it, and you may not want to believe it. But there's a very real possibility that Pop and the FO are simply trying to make lemonade. Failing to at least get one playoff series is a financial disaster. They may have just looked at the squad and asked, "What do we have here?" And the answer is, "We have a bunch of guys who can shoot, and aren't very strong on the defensive end." What do you do with that? You go small, put those shooters on the floor, and hopefully they outscore enough other teams to put you into post-season play.

I think its very clear what his plan has been. Fin & Bonner in a hot tub.

[Obstructed_View]

Whatever. You're not that dense. That was situational, not a whole season. Not what we're seeing here. You don't like small ball - got it.

How was it situational when it started in game 2 against Sacramento and carried over to Dallas?

Seriously, if you think Popovich is just putting the Spurs into the postseason because he cares about how much money the team needs then he's about a thousand times worse than even I think he is. The scary part is, you likely are actually that dense.

[ElNono]

He's paying lux tax because he's in cap hell, and the only pieces he could have possibly gotten rid of would have meant totally blowing it up. As others have said (possibly even you) we need the Big 3 to fill seats. Right?

Did he do anything in the offseason to address the things you believe are gaping holes? So why is he paying lux tax to leave big gaping holes in a roster?

You know the answer, you just don't like it.

Baloney. They took a gamble on a huge contract from RJ (which I don't have a problem with), but then decided to extend him after he was a failure (and continues to be). They might have saved some money short term, but it's yet to be seen if it won't be more costly long term (with quick playoff exits).
They're in love with Matty and basically outbidded themselves to extend him.
They had the chance to use Dice's contract and they instead stood pat and pocketed the difference.

I thought they did address the backup PG situation in the offseason with TJ Ford. But this team is sorely lacking another relatively solid big.

When somebody says "they're making lemonade", I take it to mean they're dealing with a situation that's outside of their control. Manu and TJ injured: they're making lemonade with Neal at the G and PG position.

But there's nothing outside of their control as far as how this roster was put together or how Pop decides to use it.

[Obstructed_View]

I haven't been able to watch many games this year. Is Splitter's post play really improving that much where he could be successful in Duncan's former role in the low post?

I keep reading about how his low post moves are improving but nobody has gone into much detail about it.

I think so. Having Duncan and Splitter on the floor doesn't mean that Duncan NEVER goes into the low post, it just means that he doesn't have to take so much physical punishment on offense. Splitter is a good post player, and has seemed to get better at picking his spots as he goes forward.

[jag]

Adjusted plus/minus accounts for teammates and opposition ... and Splitter has the lowest mark on the team. If interested, I'll post the numbers.

I don't see anyone arguing Splitter is a detriment. I wrote the Splitter has thus far been a detriment to the offense in his career, which can be backed up by just about every statistical measure.

But again, I don't really care that the stats say Splitter hurts the offense. Pop still needs to play him more. And if Pop isn't playing him because Splitter has hurt the offense thus far in his career, I think Pop is being extremely shortsighted.

You're right in that he's hurt the offense to an extent. It's fairly obvious at times. But I don't know how Pop or anyone else can expect much else from a guy who's trying to learn the system (and his teammates) when averaging 12mpg last year.

He's a skilled player who spent the past few years of his career being the go-to guy. Right now he's trying to figure out his role. He'd benefit greatly from playing more minutes with the starters. It's not a charity thing because we think he's a nice guy; he's a 7-footer that can d-up some of the best 4's and 5's in the League. And he's on a team that needs exactly that. You'd think incorporating him into the offense would be a top priority.

[dunkman]

True, that also describes your bullshit post that was completely factually inaccurate. I considered just accusing of you of not watching the playoffs, but your defense of what you posted pretty much confirms it to everyone.

Woooow ! Really ? Nooooo . . .

Check this game:
http://www.nba.com/games/20110425/SASMEM/gameinfo.html

Keep in mind that that game put the Grizzlies 3:1, and only few teams ever recovered from that.

In that game Splitter played more than Bonner. He put solid stats actually, but after he entered the game, the difference became insurmountable.

[TJastal]

I think so. Having Duncan and Splitter on the floor doesn't mean that Duncan NEVER goes into the low post, it just means that he doesn't have to take so much physical punishment on offense. Splitter is a good post player, and has seemed to get better at picking his spots as he goes forward.

That's good to know he's improving. I'm thinking if he can at least match Blair's post play I think its time for Pop to move him into the starting lineup. Which shouldn't be that terribly difficult, sounds like he's already well past Blair's level and only getting better as his confidence improves.

[Russ]

It may have less to do with small ball or Nellie Ball than Pop's "glass half empty" view of almost all non-superstar bigs.

They seem to frustrate him and he becomes impatient quickly. He seems more comfortable with tweener types and three point guys.

At one time, I could understand why the Spurs wanted to spread the floor. But that mentality has carried on much longer than the Spurs' ability to take advantage of any potential floor-spreading. It now resembles rote habitual thinking approaching the level of superstition.

[Obstructed_View]

Woooow ! Really ? Nooooo . . .

Check this game:
http://www.nba.com/games/20110425/SASMEM/gameinfo.html

Keep in mind that that game put the Grizzlies 3:1, and only few teams ever recovered from that.

In that game Splitter played more than Bonner. He put solid stats actually, but after he entered the game, the difference became insurmountable.

The Spurs were up by 3 when Splitter first came into the game that you just linked above, and they were up by 3 when Duncan came back in. Maybe I misunderstood your original post, because you made it sound like Splitter caused the Grizzlies to blow open the game. I know you aren't talking about when Splitter came in during the third quarter because that was when the aforementioned Matt Bonner came in at the same time and Darrell Arthur abused Bonner for like 12 straight points. If that were the case then I'd have to accuse you of fiction, right?

[Keepin' it real]

Do you all think any of the Spurs players (specifically the Big 3) ever complain to Coach Pop about Bonner playing so many minutes, and about Splitter not playing enough minutes?

I've often wondered about this but have no idea what the dynamics are like in the Spurs locker room. I can only try to draw a parallel to my experience in corporate America. Often, I see unproductive suck-up weasels (Bonner) get promotions, while productive and promising workers (Splitter) get the shaft.

In my situation, my co-workers and I don't make waves by complaining to the boss for fear of retaliation or getting fired. But in the Spurs locker room, they are all millionaires. They (the Big 3) have no fear of getting fired, so they should have no fear in standing up for what they think would most benefit the team.

So the question is: Do the Big 3 not have enough sac to stand up to Coach Pop, or do they agree with Pop that Bonner is a better option?

[roycrikside]

Coaches have their growing pains as rookies, hit their peak and then eventually start to lose it, just like players do. It's really not that different. Pop lost his fastball a long time ago, and anyone who argues otherwise is not paying attention. A coach can't be in one place more than 10 years. They need to recharge their batteries, ride/trust new star players, get a change of scenery.

The reason Phil Jackson had a longer peak than Pop is because he left the Bulls after eight years. He took a break. He changed coasts, changed stars, changed everything.

Pop stayed and stayed and stayed. He can't accept that his veteran stars are all in decline (especially Tim). He needs to trust young big men to help Tim out, but he won't. Same shit, different day.

He's got way too much power in the organization. Any competent owner/GM would've pretty much ordered him to play Tiago 35 mins a night by now. Leonard too. Not only are these guys the future, but they're two of the five most talented players on the team.

Playing guys like Bonner and RJ minutes over them is kind of absurd. That's just paying salary over performance, which is a sign that your team has poor leadership and doesn't prioritize winning above all else.

[Obstructed_View]

That's good to know he's improving. I'm thinking if he can at least match Blair's post play I think its time for Pop to move him into the starting lineup. Which shouldn't be that terribly difficult, sounds like he's already well past Blair's level and only getting better as his confidence improves.

One of the problems the second team has is scoring. One of the problems Blair has is that the guy against him puts up MVP type numbers. Having Blair playing against the second team for part of his minutes mitigates that a bit, because we know that Blair can score in various ways and if he doesn't have an MVP cancelling that out, it's an improvement.

[TJastal]

One of the problems the second team has is scoring. One of the problems Blair has is that the guy against him puts up MVP type numbers. Having Blair playing against the second team for part of his minutes mitigates that a bit, because we know that Blair can score in various ways and if he doesn't have an MVP cancelling that out, it's an improvement.

Good point, and I'm also thinking when Manu comes back he could possibly bolster that 2nd unit even more, everyone knows Blair's effectiveness goes up when he's on the court with MG.

Pop would need to talk to him now though and get him in the proper mindset.

[dunkman]

The Spurs were up by 3 when Splitter first came into the game that you just linked above, and they were up by 3 when Duncan came back in. Maybe I misunderstood your original post, because you made it sound like Splitter caused the Grizzlies to blow open the game. I know you aren't talking about when Splitter came in during the third quarter because that was when the aforementioned Matt Bonner came in at the same time and Darrell Arthur abused Bonner for like 12 straight points. If that were the case then I'd have to accuse you of fiction, right?

Bonner would had +/- of -14, instead of Splitter, if that were the case. During the 12-0 run starting the third quarter, Arthur made no points. Splitter was replaced by Dice after 8 Grizzlies points + 1 ft they made too. The Grizzlies didn't make such runs again, but 10 pts in playoffs can be enough to seal a game.

Various players didn't show-up that game, it's not only on Splitter and he was a rookie than. But as advanced stats suggest, putting Splitter in the line up will not necessarily solve all Spurs problems.

BTW, timvp made a quality post.

[therealtruth]

Good write up and research... initial reaction to those numbers is pretty much the same as Manu4Tres.. he is more often than not playing with bench players which would naturally bring the offense down.

Besides.. im sure the 2012 Thunder would be a better offensive team with Jeff Green at the 4 rather than one of Ibaka or Perkins. Its about balance. Spurs need to improve their defense.

Excellent writeup, timvp. You put to words alot of Spurs fans frustrations.

@mystargtr34
You're right it's all about balance. This team has none. They rely too much on 3 pointers and Tony Parker's penetration. The need to add more variety to the offense and rely on being able to get defensive stops at the end of the game. That's the only way this team will improve. If you leave Bonner in crunch time and he hits a 3 it's still not necessarily the right play. You want to win by getting stops defensively. That's more consistent than Bonner's 3's.

[therealtruth]

The Spurs average 94.8 points per 48 minutes with Splitter on the court, while the opposition averages 95.0 points per 48 minutes ... meaning the Spurs have been outscored this year when Splitter is on the court.

Points Allowed Per 48 Minutes on the Court
Matt Bonner - 90.5
Richard Jefferson - 90.7
Tim Duncan - 91.5
Tony Parker - 92.9
TJ Ford - 94.7
Tiago Splitter - 95.0
Danny Green - 95.5
James Anderson - 95.9
Manu Ginobili - 96.3
Kawhi Leonard - 97.2
DeJuan Blair - 98.9
Gary Neal - 99.5

If you want to normalize the pace, as _JaG suggested, the Spurs average 105.4 points per 100 possessions when Splitter is on the court, while the opposition averages 106.7 points per 100 possessions when Splitter is off the court. When Splitter is on the bench, the Spurs average 112.2 points per 100 possessions, and the opposition averages 105.4 points per 100 possessions. So even normalizing pace, the Spurs are better on offense and defense with Splitter off the court.

The best arguments against these numbers are: 1. small sample size (although with last year's stats showing similar findings, this may be a hard argument to sell) 2. Splitter needs more playing time to figure out how he can positively impact the game.

Personally, even if I accept that the numbers aren't a fluke, that doesn't make me think less of Splitter. It just makes me think Splitter is even more in need of playing time so he can learn the NBA game. IMO, the worst thing Pop could do is to wait until the playoffs to throw Splitter into the fire ... like he did last year.

I agree. Look at how far his offense has gone in a few games. He's still getting comfortable yet Pop keeps playing with his minutes. There's more wrinkles to the offense that can be added when you pair TD and Splitter like they used to have with TD and D. Rob. If teams want to play small ball the Spurs would be able to make them pay.

[therealtruth]

This should have happened opening game last season. The absolutely maddening thing is Pop seems to have no sense of urgency in bringing Splitter along, even though the big 3 are nearing the end of the line.

And yet here is Pop acting like Morgan Freeman driving Ms Daisy, Splitter will be lucky if he's starting by the year 2015 at this pace.
:lol

[Sean Cagney]

Coaches have their growing pains as rookies, hit their peak and then eventually start to lose it, just like players do. It's really not that different. Pop lost his fastball a long time ago, and anyone who argues otherwise is not paying attention. A coach can't be in one place more than 10 years. They need to recharge their batteries, ride/trust new star players, get a change of scenery.

The reason Phil Jackson had a longer peak than Pop is because he left the Bulls after eight years. He took a break. He changed coasts, changed stars, changed everything.

Pop stayed and stayed and stayed. He can't accept that his veteran stars are all in decline (especially Tim). He needs to trust young big men to help Tim out, but he won't. Same shit, different day.

He's got way too much power in the organization. Any competent owner/GM would've pretty much ordered him to play Tiago 35 mins a night by now. Leonard too. Not only are these guys the future, but they're two of the five most talented players on the team.

Playing guys like Bonner and RJ minutes over them is kind of absurd. That's just paying salary over performance, which is a sign that your team has poor leadership and doesn't prioritize winning above all else.

This post is on point like crazy!

[mystargtr34]

Plus... we all know those numbers go out the window come playoff time. Bonner turns into a different basketball player.. so what he does in the regular season really doesnt matter.

[therealtruth]

He's been great IMO. He has started to use his physicality and size well lately (unlike at the start of the season when he was chucking those horrible hooks from the hip), and even if he doesn't quite finish every play, he's been drawing fouls...

That's the benefit of starting Splitter. He puts pressure on the opposing frontcourt to play defense without fouling. Imagine all those bunnies Blair misses from Manu's passes ending up in fouls and/or won with Splitter. He's also going to have a height advantage if teams put their center on Duncan.

[Obstructed_View]

Bonner would had +/- of -14, instead of Splitter, if that were the case. During the 12-0 run starting the third quarter, Arthur made no points. Splitter was replaced by Dice after 8 Grizzlies points + 1 ft they made too. The Grizzlies didn't make such runs again, but 10 pts in playoffs can be enough to seal a game.

Various players didn't show-up that game, it's not only on Splitter and he was a rookie than. But as advanced stats suggest, putting Splitter in the line up will not necessarily solve all Spurs problems.

BTW, timvp made a quality post.

Sorry, you're right. Bonner only allowed the first four points Arthur scored. Pop went with Hill, Parker, Neal and Jefferson next to Splitter in the fourth quarter. Arthur went off on Jefferson, not Bonner. All Splitter did during that disastrous stretch was draw three fouls on Randolph. What a suck-ass.

[Obstructed_View]

We can all be grateful that Pop allowed Splitter to bloom as a player by watching the other guys play all last season. Genius if you try not to think about it.

[therealtruth]

Baloney. They took a gamble on a huge contract from RJ (which I don't have a problem with), but then decided to extend him after he was a failure (and continues to be). They might have saved some money short term, but it's yet to be seen if it won't be more costly long term (with quick playoff exits).
They're in love with Matty and basically outbidded themselves to extend him.
They had the chance to use Dice's contract and they instead stood pat and pocketed the difference.

I thought they did address the backup PG situation in the offseason with TJ Ford. But this team is sorely lacking another relatively solid big.

When somebody says "they're making lemonade", I take it to mean they're dealing with a situation that's outside of their control. Manu and TJ injured: they're making lemonade with Neal at the G and PG position.

But there's nothing outside of their control as far as how this roster was put together or how Pop decides to use it.

The big situation should have been addressed back in '07/08. The Spurs instead got worse. They got rid of Scola and Horry and Oberto started declining. Instead they traded for more offense at the SF position. If they had got a big man I am sure they could have found somebody to play small forward much easier.

[Obstructed_View]

The mistake was trading defense and size for offense when trying to replace Bowen. The sin was signing the mistake to a long term contract after it was clear he didn't fit in.

[therealtruth]

Coaches have their growing pains as rookies, hit their peak and then eventually start to lose it, just like players do. It's really not that different. Pop lost his fastball a long time ago, and anyone who argues otherwise is not paying attention. A coach can't be in one place more than 10 years. They need to recharge their batteries, ride/trust new star players, get a change of scenery.

The reason Phil Jackson had a longer peak than Pop is because he left the Bulls after eight years. He took a break. He changed coasts, changed stars, changed everything.

Pop stayed and stayed and stayed. He can't accept that his veteran stars are all in decline (especially Tim). He needs to trust young big men to help Tim out, but he won't. Same shit, different day.

He's got way too much power in the organization. Any competent owner/GM would've pretty much ordered him to play Tiago 35 mins a night by now. Leonard too. Not only are these guys the future, but they're two of the five most talented players on the team.

Playing guys like Bonner and RJ minutes over them is kind of absurd. That's just paying salary over performance, which is a sign that your team has poor leadership and doesn't prioritize winning above all else.

Pop's been drinking his own kool aid for too long. That's what happens when you have too much power and little accountability. The Nellie ball stuff he's been trying hasn't worked the past few years but he refuses to budge.

[ElNono]

The big situation should have been addressed back in '07/08. The Spurs instead got worse. They got rid of Scola and Horry and Oberto started declining. Instead they traded for more offense at the SF position. If they had got a big man I am sure they could have found somebody to play small forward much easier.

I understand the reasoning back then. They were just coming out from winning a championship. Made the WCF the next season. In hindsight, I think Bowen's decline/losing him was a much bigger blow than many suspected. But I also think trading for RJ was a genuine attempt at breeding some life for one more run. I can't fault them for that. I disagree with some of the decisions made afterwards though, as I pointed out in my previous post.

[Fabbs]

He's got way too much power in the organization. Any competent owner/GM would've pretty much ordered him to play Tiago 35 mins a night by now. Leonard too. Not only are these guys the future, but they're two of the five most talented players on the team.

Playing guys like Bonner and RJ minutes over them is kind of absurd. That's just paying salary over performance, which is a sign that your team has poor leadership and doesn't prioritize winning above all else.
:clap You are invited to the next Spurs Realist meeting.

[TJastal]

The big situation should have been addressed back in '07/08. The Spurs instead got worse. They got rid of Scola and Horry and Oberto started declining. Instead they traded for more offense at the SF position. If they had got a big man I am sure they could have found somebody to play small forward much easier.

They took a gamble on Jefferson, it didn't really pay off as expected. Should have just bit the bullet and paid some luxury tax and been done with the situation. Heck, they might have even gotten a nice trade out of RJ's expiring contract with just a little patience. Certainly, re-signing Bonner to that stupid contract didn't help either. By not resigning either, Holt would have been on the hook for some pocket change (for millionaries at least) but not completely sunk. They could have even probably paid nothing by not signing Tiago till this season. Considering how little Pop played him last year, he would have been better off developing his skills furthur in Europe tbh.

Funny how teams that don't make stupid financial / personnel decisions usually end up in a better position. Take the rockets this year. Even after all the unfortunate business with Yao, they have used good sound logic and haven't shot themselves in the foot. Thus they were able to grab Dalambert from FA this past off season who has been a great addition. Sure would have been nice if the spurs had been in a position to do the same.

[Fabbs]

Points Allowed Per 48 Minutes on the Court
Matt Bonner - 90.5
Richard Jefferson - 90.7
Tim Duncan - 91.5
Tony Parker - 92.9
TJ Ford - 94.7
Tiago Splitter - 95.0
Danny Green - 95.5
James Anderson - 95.9
Manu Ginobili - 96.3
Kawhi Leonard - 97.2
DeJuan Blair - 98.9
Gary Neal - 99.5

timvp, don't you think this is the absolute poster child as to why sometimes statistics do not tell the true story at all? I mean do we not all agree Bonner is one of, if not the most sucky defensive players in the NBA? Since his entering until now.
Soft Dick coming in at #2 on this list.

Not trying to sidetrack all the other stats you posted.
Superb writeup.

[therealtruth]

How can Pop expect the defense to get better if he's not playing the best defenders the most minutes? Or did he abandon that idea. It's hard to know what he believes.

[TDMVPDPOY]

splitter is really good when his shots are falling, we should continue to dump the ball into him and milk his hot hand, but no instead we go away from him either benchin his ass or some shit scrubs are chuckin up shots....

[therealtruth]

They took a gamble on Jefferson, it didn't really pay off as expected. Should have just bit the bullet and paid some luxury tax and been done with the situation. Heck, they might have even gotten a nice trade out of RJ's expiring contract with just a little patience. Certainly, re-signing Bonner to that stupid contract didn't help either. By not resigning either, Holt would have been on the hook for some pocket change (for millionaries at least) but not completely sunk. They could have even probably paid nothing by not signing Tiago till this season. Considering how little Pop played him last year, he would have been better off developing his skills furthur in Europe tbh.

Funny how teams that don't make stupid financial / personnel decisions usually end up in a better position. Take the rockets this year. Even after all the unfortunate business with Yao, they have used good sound logic and haven't shot themselves in the foot. Thus they were able to grab Dalambert from FA this past off season who has been a great addition. Sure would have been nice if the spurs had been in a position to do the same.

I'm not even sure if getting a big makes sense with Pop as the coach. He's still going to play Bonner his 20+ minutes.

[Fabbs]

Funny how teams that don't make stupid financial / personnel decisions usually end up in a better position. Take the rockets this year. Even after all the unfortunate business with Yao, they have used good sound logic and haven't shot themselves in the foot. Thus they were able to grab Dalambert from FA this past off season who has been a great addition. Sure would have been nice if the spurs had been in a position to do the same.
Shane Battier a 14Xs better choice as a replacement for Bowen compared to the Phag 3? (Finley Bonner DickJeff)

[therealtruth]

Shane Battier a 14Xs better choice as a replacement for Bowen compared to the Phag 3? (Finley Bonner DickJeff)

They could have got a defensive small forward with and outside shot like Battier then tried to get a big to pair with TD.

[mathbzh]

For me the frustration with Bonner comes only from playoffs failures.

Bonner is a +/- king in the regular season. So, no matter if we like him or not, we didn't lose many games because of him.

But in the playoffs, not only his individual numbers are bad but he also has consistently one of the worst +/- on the team.
Bonner spreading the floor does not work in the playoffs.

But Pop sticks to his rotation and will once again try to do some adjustment when we will be manhandled in the first round.

[Dex]

This post makes altogether too much sense....and that makes me sad.

Pop's little "push it" dance with the happy feet and the Furniture Factory Warehouse-arm is the new version of the D'Antoni "GoGoGo!" :depressed

[SenorSpur]

For me the frustration with Bonner comes only from playoffs failures.

Bonner is a +/- king in the regular season. So, no matter if we like him or not, we didn't lose many games because of him.

But in the playoffs, not only his individual numbers are bad but he also has consistently one of the worst +/- on the team.
Bonner spreading the floor does not work in the playoffs.

But Pop sticks to his rotation and will once again try to do some adjustment when we will be manhandled in the first round.

The +/- statistics on Bonner are nice, but I'd really like to know his playoff FG%. Still, I don't need statistics to tell me what it already quite evident. As far as I'm concerned Bonner's reputation as a playoff choker were evident the first year after Robert Horry retired. He's only managed to cement that reputation every year since. For Pop to continue relying on Bonner as a rotation player, regular season or playoffs, and expecting different results, is not only insane, but it's also the classic defintion of the word, insanity.

[mathbzh]

The +/- statistics on Bonner are nice, but I'd really like to know his playoff FG%.

Career 0.392 FG% 0.323 3P%
+/- or FG%, he is bad in the playoffs

[SenorSpur]

Career 0.392 FG% 0.323 3P%
+/- or FG%, he is bad in the playoffs

Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up. I figured he got worse in the playoffs.

[TJastal]

Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up. I figured he got worse in the playoffs.

Bonner's great when teams aren't paying attention to him and he can take virtually uncontested 3's. Heck, that's all he practices every day, shooting uncontested 3's. If he got the same looks in the playoffs I'm sure he would probably be shooting close to 40% too. But in fact we know that doesn't happen in the playoffs.

[angelbelow]

Fantastic write up on the merit of research and effort. The context is pretty damn good too. Hopefully Splitter does get more burn and we can re-visit the statistics with a much higher sample size.

[therealtruth]

For me the frustration with Bonner comes only from playoffs failures.

Bonner is a +/- king in the regular season. So, no matter if we like him or not, we didn't lose many games because of him.

But in the playoffs, not only his individual numbers are bad but he also has consistently one of the worst +/- on the team.
Bonner spreading the floor does not work in the playoffs.

But Pop sticks to his rotation and will once again try to do some adjustment when we will be manhandled in the first round.

The regular season allows you to catch teams unprepared but in the playoffs their better prepared. Wide open 3's you see in the regular season just don't happen in the playoffs especially the deeper you get. You don't make it far in the playoffs by leaving people wide open from the 3pt land. It will never work in the playoffs. You need to be able to hit contested 3's in the playoffs.

[Josepatches_]

In fairness, Tiago played the majority of his minutes with the Quinn, Novak and Udoka crew last year (these guys weren't exactly the 2002 Sacramento Kings).

And this year, (in between him, Blair, and Bonner) he's seen the least minutes with not only the starting back-court, but also Duncan.

Wonder what those numbers would be like if Blair and Splitter switched spots in the rotation?

This.

If he is playing with Manu,Tp and TD as starter the numbers would be differents

[therealtruth]

This.

If he is playing with Manu,Tp and TD as starter the numbers would be differents

All those bunnies Blair misses of passes become fouls and/or dunks.

[SenorSpur]

Bonner's great when teams aren't paying attention to him and he can take virtually uncontested 3's. Heck, that's all he practices every day, shooting uncontested 3's. If he got the same looks in the playoffs I'm sure he would probably be shooting close to 40% too. But in fact we know that doesn't happen in the playoffs.

Taking uncontested 3's in practices requires NO mental toughness, which is why he's good at it.

[Russ]

Great article, timvp. But nestled amidst all the insightful analysis is a premise based upon sand.

Taking a team's points per minute scored when one player or another is on the court seems about as reliable as trusting lottery numbers in a fortune cookie.

There is no underlying anaylsis tying the result (points per minute) to the varaible (who is on the court), simply an assumption that some correlation must exist.

This is analogous to a gambling theory called "trends." Proponents of trends analysis take a set of seeminly unrelated (but important-sounding) variables and run permutations of them until they find a pattern of results that deviates from the norm. They then look for those variables in upcoming contests (e.g., road underdog of more than 10 points after a home loss) and use them to attempt to predict future outcomes. It is a complete sham and trends bettors are soon tapped out. Why? Because the variables are arbitrary and meaningless although they seem significant when juxtaposed against an apparent pattern of results.

For example, let's theorize that the reason that the Spurs' points per minutes go up when Bonner is on the floor is due to Bonner's negative effect on the Spurs defense -- opponents score their points in less time per possession which gives Bonner's Spurs more possessions per minute in which to score. Conversely, maybe opposing teams take longer to score (or not score) when Splitter is in the middle, giving Splitter's Spurs less posessions per minute. That may or may not be the case but it seems at least worth knowing.

Look at the Spurs' great defensive teams during the twin towers era. I bet the Spurs' points per minute when Robinson or Duncan were on the floor were less than those of Bonner's current Spurs. So is Bonner an inherently superior offensive player to Duncan or Robinson?

The great Spurs teams enforced a slower pace that hurt their own offensive output but hurt their opponents offensive output more resulting in a net benefit to the Spurs (and playoff wins).

Could Splitter's presence on the court be having the same effect? I don't know but it seems unfair to compare the Spurs' offensive output with Splitter (vs Bonner) on the floor without comparing their respective defensive points allowed per minute. (And even then, you're just into a "plus-minus" analysis which is very suspect as well, i.e., the guy who goes 9-12 from the field with 10 rebounds and has a minus 10 vs. the guy who goes 1-10 from the field and has a plus 10 -- what does this really tell us about their relative worth in a game?)

There may be a reason that NBA teams send scouts to evaluate players and upcoming opponent teams rather than simply "running the numbers." Our eyes tell us one thing about Splitter and another about Bonner. We could all see the effect of the old Spurs defense turning the screws on a team until their team's body language told us more than a spread sheet ever could.

I don't know if Splitter and Leonard (along with Duncan) can lead the Spurs back to those days, but I'd sure like to find out.

[quentin_compson]

Good thread.

As far as playing Duncan and Splitter together more, I don't see why Tim and Tiago shouldn't be able to coexist on offense. Tim is taking quite a lot midrange shots these days, so it's not like they would get in each other's way constantly.

[GSH]

But there's nothing outside of their control as far as how this roster was put together or how Pop decides to use it.


HOW the roster got put together is about as relevant as yesterday's weather. This is the roster they have. They can't get anything for Jefferson, they can't get anything for Bonner, and they don't want to break up the Big 3. They might trade Splitter, but since they need an additional big that would be sort of self-defeating.

You people can keep whining and bitching and debating what happened in the past. (And you will.) You can keep believing that economics don't figure into the equation. (And you will.) I was trying to look for an explanation that was a little more logical than "Pop has a man-crush on Bonner" - or "Pop suddenly quit believing in defense".

In the workplace, low-level peons always believe their boss does random, stupid shit. You can try to explain to them that thinking like that is a big part of the reason they are still low-level peons. But if they could understand it, they wouldn't be low-level peons to begin with. Not that the boss is always right. It's just that it's usually better to try and understand the whole picture, instead of jumping to weak conclusions. (Now I'll sit back and wait for the flaming - from the low-level peons. Step right up.)

[GSH]

Great article, timvp. But nestled amidst all the insightful analysis is a premise based upon sand.

Taking a team's points per minute scored when one player or another is on the court seems about as realiable as trusting lottery numbers in a fortune cookie.

There is no underlying anaylsis tying the result (points per minute) to the varaible (who is on the court), simply an asumption that some correlation must exist.




There are all kinds of problems with looking at a stat like that in a vacuum, Russ. For one, it's not pace-adjusted. For instance - points per 48 minutes isn't pace-adjusted, like points per 100 possessions would be. But, hey, apples... oranges... it's all fruit.

82 games has another pair of stats listed under "off" and "def" that shows the number of points per possession while that player is in the game. It shows that the Spurs offense scores 1.05 points per possession while Splitter is in, but the defense gives up 1.06 points per possession. (105 points per 100 possessions scored, and 106 points per 100 possessions given up) So if the Spurs give up more points than they score while Splitter is in the game, how can his overall +/- be positive? The answer is because the Spurs get more possessions than their opponents, while Splitter is in. One stat is pace adjusted, one isn't.

82 games has another stat called "Net 48". Basically, it's the net points (+/-) for a player, per 48 minutes on the floor. Everyone on the team is positive, except for Leonard, Neal, and Joseph. From that we can conclude that by getting rid of those three players, the Spurs would win every game. Hey... maybe that's true. I've just unravelled the mystery of the Spurs' losses through statistics.

[TJastal]

There are all kinds of problems with looking at a stat like that in a vacuum, Russ. For one, it's not pace-adjusted. For instance - points per 48 minutes isn't pace-adjusted, like points per 100 possessions would be. But, hey, apples... oranges... it's all fruit.

82 games has another pair of stats listed under "off" and "def" that shows the number of points per possession while that player is in the game. It shows that the Spurs offense scores 1.05 points per possession while Splitter is in, but the defense gives up 1.06 points per possession. (105 points per 100 possessions scored, and 106 points per 100 possessions given up) So if the Spurs give up more points than they score while Splitter is in the game, how can his overall +/- be positive? The answer is because the Spurs get more possessions than their opponents, while Splitter is in. One stat is pace adjusted, one isn't.

82 games has another stat called "Net 48". Basically, it's the net points (+/-) for a player, per 48 minutes on the floor. Everyone on the team is positive, except for Leonard, Neal, and Joseph. From that we can conclude that by getting rid of those three players, the Spurs would win every game. Hey... maybe that's true. I've just unravelled the mystery of the Spurs' losses through statistics.

Nice catch on that "pace adjusted" correction, GSH.

[Russ]

There are all kinds of problems with looking at a stat like that in a vacuum, Russ. For one, it's not pace-adjusted. For instance - points per 48 minutes isn't pace-adjusted, like points per 100 possessions would be. But, hey, apples... oranges... it's all fruit.

82 games has another pair of stats listed under "off" and "def" that shows the number of points per possession while that player is in the game. It shows that the Spurs offense scores 1.05 points per possession while Splitter is in, but the defense gives up 1.06 points per possession. (105 points per 100 possessions scored, and 106 points per 100 possessions given up) So if the Spurs give up more points than they score while Splitter is in the game, how can his overall +/- be positive? The answer is because the Spurs get more possessions than their opponents, while Splitter is in. One stat is pace adjusted, one isn't.

82 games has another stat called "Net 48". Basically, it's the net points (+/-) for a player, per 48 minutes on the floor. Everyone on the team is positive, except for Leonard, Neal, and Joseph. From that we can conclude that by getting rid of those three players, the Spurs would win every game. Hey... maybe that's true. I've just unravelled the mystery of the Spurs' losses through statistics.

My favorite statistic was a basesball stat. Bob Gibson's won-loss record.

When it came to won-loss record, statistically speaking, Bob Gibson was the luckiest pitcher that ever lived -- he always pitched when the other team didn't get any runs.

[TJastal]

My favorite statistic was a basesball stat. Bob Gibson's won-loss record.

When it came to won-loss record, statistically speaking, Bob Gibson was the luckiest pitcher that ever lived -- he always pitched when the other team didn't get any runs.

I think you missed the point of his post. If the spurs average 4 more possessions a game when Splitter plays then does it really matter that the opposing teams average 1 more point per 100... spurs will still come out ahead every time.

[Russ]

I think you missed the point of his post. If the spurs average 4 more possessions a game when Splitter plays then does it really matter that the opposing teams average 1 more point per 100... spurs will still come out ahead every time.

The point of my post (dumbed down) is that I like Splitter.

[TJastal]

The point of my post (dumbed down) is that I like Splitter.

ok sorry misunderstood your point

[timvp]

For example, let's theorize that the reason that the Spurs' points per minutes go up when Bonner is on the floor is due to Bonner's negative effect on the Spurs defense -- opponents score their points in less time per possession which gives Bonner's Spurs more possessions per minute in which to score. Conversely, maybe opposing teams take longer to score (or not score) when Splitter is in the middle, giving Splitter's Spurs less posessions per minute. That may or may not be the case but it seems at least worth knowing.

Points per possession stats are also available (I posted them for Splitter) which adjusts the pace and would expose any such issues. I know that you were just using that as an example but that isn't what's going on with the Splitter and Bonner stats.


The great Spurs teams enforced a slower pace that hurt their own offensive output but hurt their opponents offensive output more resulting in a net benefit to the Spurs (and playoff wins).
True, championship Spurs teams weren't very impressive in terms of points per 48 minutes. However, in points per possession, they were elite.


There may be a reason that NBA teams send scouts to evaluate players and upcoming opponent teams rather than simply "running the numbers."
I agree that plus/minus numbers have major limitations. It'd be dumb to ever draw conclusions on a player without watching them play.

That said, I don't think plus/minus is worthless. Especially when you have a large sample size (multiple seasons) a lot of truths are shown .... such as Ginobili being an offensive master, Duncan and Bowen being great on defense, etc.

The Mavs and Mark Cuban used plus/minus and an extreme amount of advanced stats on their way to the championship last year. Cuban's take on plus/minus is that while it gives you an idea of how productive a player is, it's actually more useful in telling you whether or not the coach is using the player correctly. In this case, I think Cuban has pretty much nailed it with that take. And with regards to Splitter, I truly believe that his plus/minus stats are ugly largely because Pop hasn't figure out how to use him.

[timvp]

82 games has another stat called "Net 48". Basically, it's the net points (+/-) for a player, per 48 minutes on the floor. Everyone on the team is positive, except for Leonard, Neal, and Joseph. From that we can conclude that by getting rid of those three players, the Spurs would win every game. Hey... maybe that's true. I've just unravelled the mystery of the Spurs' losses through statistics.

You're probably not being serious but just to clarify a team can go 0-82 and still have every player with a positive plus/minus.

[TJastal]

You're probably not being serious but just to clarify a team can go 0-82 and still have every player with a positive plus/minus.

I don't think that would be statistically possible. There's have to be at least 1 game that was a severe blowout win to achieve that.

[timvp]

Ha yeah meant 1-81.

[Russ]

The Mavs and Mark Cuban used plus/minus and an extreme amount of advanced stats on their way to the championship last year. Cuban's take on plus/minus is that while it gives you an idea of how productive a player is, it's actually more useful in telling you whether or not the coach is using the player correctly. In this case, I think Cuban has pretty much nailed it with that take.

I agree. But with the assets that Cuban had (and used) like two zillion assistant coaches and probably the same number of computer whizs breaking down opponents, he probably used so many exotic techniques it would be hard to ascribe much credit for the Mavs' one year of success to any of them. (I bet he had a well-paid astrologer, too.)


And with regards to Splitter, I truly believe that his plus/minus stats are ugly largely because Pop hasn't figure out how to use him.

Right on. Any time a player goes 4-5, I wonder why the second number wasn't higher.

[rascal]

The Spurs had higher scoring offenses in the late 1970s.

They scored 119 ppg in 1979-1980

[timvp]

The Spurs had higher scoring offenses in the late 1970s.

They scored 119 ppg in 1979-1980

That list was points per 100 possession. That 1979-80 team had a pace of 109.5 possessions per game, the fastest pace in the league. So despite leading the league in points per 48 minutes, they were third in points per 100 possessions. (The Lakers, who won the championship that year, led the league in points per possession.)

[ChumpDumper]

ok sorry misunderstood your point:lol

[ElNono]

HOW the roster got put together is about as relevant as yesterday's weather. This is the roster they have. They can't get anything for Jefferson, they can't get anything for Bonner, and they don't want to break up the Big 3. They might trade Splitter, but since they need an additional big that would be sort of self-defeating.

I wonder why they can't get anything for Jefferson or Bonner... :rolleyes
Perhaps they earn more than what other teams are willing to pay for their production?

They put themselves in this boat. Nobody pulled a gun to their heads to give them those extensions. You can keep spinning that all day, and those contracts are still going to be there, signed by them, and approved by coach Pop and whoever else does basketball decisions.

I'm sure you agree that in hindsight they deserve all the credit for finding gems like Manu or Tony, so I don't understand why in hindsight they shouldn't get the blame when they made questionable decisions.


You people can keep whining and bitching and debating what happened in the past. (And you will.) You can keep believing that economics don't figure into the equation. (And you will.) I was trying to look for an explanation that was a little more logical than "Pop has a man-crush on Bonner" - or "Pop suddenly quit believing in defense".

I bitched when it happened. And whether it was then or now, they're still questionable decisions, the difference being that now we have the hindsight that they indeed were questionable decisions. And back then I also brought up the economics into the equation. I didn't even dodge it in my last post either. So you can keep spinning your rhetoric all you want, that doesn't make it any more correct. Lest we forget what RC Bufford had to say when they inked Matty's extension:

After four years in San Antonio, Bonner said his first choice when he became a free agent this summer was to stay put, and general manager R.C. Buford said bringing him back was a top priority.

"Matt Bonner is a big part of program and has been for several seasons. He’s proven to be one of our better shooters and to have lost that would have been pretty impactful."

That's not love? Spin that one for me.


In the workplace, low-level peons always believe their boss does random, stupid shit. You can try to explain to them that thinking like that is a big part of the reason they are still low-level peons. But if they could understand it, they wouldn't be low-level peons to begin with. Not that the boss is always right. It's just that it's usually better to try and understand the whole picture, instead of jumping to weak conclusions. (Now I'll sit back and wait for the flaming - from the low-level peons. Step right up.)

This is a business and the results are out there for everyone to see. This team hasn't been a contender for the past 3+ seasons, and it's been actually on a marked decline. The team has to fire-sale tickets these days because even though they're the only team in town, the product is clearly not attracting what they were hoping to attract. You can try to spin that into a "master plan" all you want, but you can't argue with the results.

I really don't know what to tell you about the low-level peon spin. It's not like companies don't make bad decisions and fuck up all the time. Was the low-level peon right then?

I personally run my own business (with an associate) and make big-picture decisions about it all the time. Sometimes they're the right decisions and sometimes they're the wrong decisions. I don't know how it's any different from any other organization.

[widowmaker]

I think the problem the last few years has been hesitation to take the shot. There is too much passing being done, especially this year. Look at a lot of the other teams and how they execute they're offence, most of the time u will see that if the play doesn't materialize or a better shot turns out somebody is always ready to shoot. For the most part this season, spurs have looked clueless on offence. I don't know what to say about defense, all I can say is laziness and the lack of intensity to stop the other guy from scoring. That's just my opinion I'm not a basket ball expert.

[rascal]

That list was points per 100 possession. That 1979-80 team had a pace of 109.5 possessions per game, the fastest pace in the league. So despite leading the league in points per 48 minutes, they were third in points per 100 possessions. (The Lakers, who won the championship that year, led the league in points per possession.)

The fact that they did not run the shot clock down as far and had more possessions per game should not take away that they were better offenses.

I know you were not around to see those teams but those teams had better offenses than any of the Pop teams.

[TJastal]

I think the problem the last few years has been hesitation to take the shot. There is too much passing being done, especially this year. Look at a lot of the other teams and how they execute they're offence, most of the time u will see that if the play doesn't materialize or a better shot turns out somebody is always ready to shoot. For the most part this season, spurs have looked clueless on offence. I don't know what to say about defense, all I can say is laziness and the lack of intensity to stop the other guy from scoring. That's just my opinion I'm not a basket ball expert.

Lotta new faces to incorporate,..and new roles to work out. Ford, KL, Green, CJ etc.

[rascal]

Shooting %s

1979-1980 team
pts per game 119.4
FG% .498
FT% .801

2010-2011
pts per game 103.7
fg% .475
ft% .767

I don't care about number of possessions. That is skewing numbers to what you want. The 1979-1980 team had higher scoring totals and better shooting %s. They were the better offense. They had the players who could execute a system that stressed moving the ball downcourt quickly for easy baskets.

[Russ]

Shooting %s

1979-1980 team
pts per game 119.4
FG% .498
FT% .801

2010-2011
pts per game 103.7
fg% .475
ft% .767

I don't care about number of possessions. That is skewing numbers to what you want. The 1979-1980 team had higher scoring totals and better shooting %s. They were the better offense. They had the players who could execute a system that stressed moving the ball downcourt quickly for easy baskets.

You're right, of course.

But the whole nature of the league has changed since then. The defense they played back then is laughable by today's standards.

Chuck Daly and the Pistons changed everything from the late '80's forward.

[RodNIc91]

True, championship Spurs teams weren't very impressive in terms of points per 48 minutes. However, in points per possession, they were elite.

Nice post timvp. Much appreciated the effort your putting into it this year. :toast

On a side note I would love some analysis on that points per possesion stat. What did past spurs teams did that made them elite at it? Why is it so low, etc.

[timvp]

Shooting %s

1979-1980 team
pts per game 119.4
FG% .498
FT% .801

2010-2011
pts per game 103.7
fg% .475
ft% .767

I don't care about number of possessions. That is skewing numbers to what you want. The 1979-1980 team had higher scoring totals and better shooting %s. They were the better offense. They had the players who could execute a system that stressed moving the ball downcourt quickly for easy baskets.

I'm not going to bash the old school, I have a lot of respect for that era of basketball. But things have undoubtedly changed since then, as Russ pointed out. For one, the three-point shot is much more widely used now (the 1980 team had 52 total three-pointers, last year the Spurs made 685 threes), which helps make offenses more efficient. Factoring in three-pointers, the 2011 team had a higher eFG% than the 1980 team.

Having "the better offense" doesn't have a universal definition. If you want to use points per game, that's fine and you can call the 1980 team the better offensive team, even if a team today could never play at the pace that the 1980 team played at. I could even buy an argument that the 1980 team lost some of their efficiency due to playing so fast.

But statistically speaking, the most efficient offensive Spurs team in history is the 2011 team ... and that can't be argued.

[DPG21920]

Timvp, I sent you a message on your page, hit me up please unc....

[Bruno]

Nice post, timvp. :tu

Pop has gone away of what have make Spurs success. Picking Bonner over Splitter is a move that is opposite of this successful past. Giving $50M to soft playoff chokers (RJ + Bonner) is too a 180° turn compared to the past. Before, when a player sucked in playoffs, Spurs let him go and didn't reward with a huge contract. Remember Turkoglu...

[DPG21920]

Yes and that is what is so frustrating. For the first time players know Pop is all talk when it comes to preaching defense. In that regard, even if players don't say it, they lost respect for him on that end of the court and tune him out. They know that they don't have to give their effort on that end and it won't affect their playing time or ability to get paid (maybe not if you are a fringe guy, but if you are a top 10 player on the roster).

Spurs have gone from making sound basketball/financial decisions to heavily focusing on just the financial side due to RJ not working out.

[ElNono]

But statistically speaking, the most efficient offensive Spurs team in history is the 2011 regular season team ... and that can't be argued.

would that be an accurate edit?

[Bruno]

I also think Pop consider Splitter as a poor offensive player. Pop consistently called him a "blue-collar player". While it's a compliment but it also shows how limited Pop thinks Splitter is. Splitter can do blue-collars tasks but he can do more. The sooner Pop understand that, the better Spurs will be.

[timvp]

would that be an accurate edit?

Ha, I would hope so. Getting curbstomped by an eighth seed would likely bring down your efficiency :lol

I haven't looked but I'd assume the 2005 team had the best offensive efficiency in the playoffs due largely to that Suns series. Let me see if I can find those stats, just for ishes and giggles.

[ElNono]

Ha, I would hope so. Getting curbstomped by an eighth seed would likely bring down your efficiency :lol

I haven't looked but I'd assume the 2005 team had the best offensive efficiency in the playoffs due largely to that Suns series. Let me see if I can find those stats, just for ishes and giggles.

I personally would be more interested in tops in defensive efficiency, but I'll do the research myself.

[TJastal]

I also think Pop consider Splitter as a poor offensive player. Pop consistently called him a "blue-collar player". While it's a compliment but it also shows how limited Pop thinks Splitter is. Splitter can do blue-collars tasks but he can do more. The sooner Pop understand that, the better Spurs will be.

Heck, every team would be lucky to have one good blue collar player like Splitter, never mind anything else he gives you (gravy). I bet the lakers never treated Kurt Rambis like a pariah.

[mudyez]

great stuff timvp!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Duncan plays with Parker and Ginobilli. Splitter is lucky to get on the court with either and it makes sense that scoring will go down with the likes of Quinn and the second string while Duncan gets two guys that average 20+ ppg careerwise.

Pop sticking with Splitter when Duncan was playing the worst basketball i have ever seen him play was hopeful. Duncan was bad last night.

[timvp]

Pop has gone away of what have make Spurs success. Picking Bonner over Splitter is a move that is opposite of this successful past. Giving $50M to soft playoff chokers (RJ + Bonner) is too a 180° turn compared to the past. Before, when a player sucked in playoffs, Spurs let him go and didn't reward with a huge contract. Remember Turkoglu...


I also think Pop consider Splitter as a poor offensive player. Pop consistently called him a "blue-collar player". While it's a compliment but it also shows how limited Pop thinks Splitter is. Splitter can do blue-collars tasks but he can do more. The sooner Pop understand that, the better Spurs will be.

Two homerun takes :tu

The Spurs used to kick playoff chokers to the curb. Especially those who seemed to be soft mentally and/or physically. I'd add Derek Anderson next to your Hedo example.

And I agree that Pop thinks Splitter is a defensive liability. Pop sees the offense bog down when Splitter is in the game and concludes that it's Splitter's fault. But what a lot of us believe is that Splitter needs playing time to grow into a role where he can consistently help the team. Pop, as of right now, doesn't share that opinion.


Yes and that is what is so frustrating. For the first time players know Pop is all talk when it comes to preaching defense. In that regard, even if players don't say it, they lost respect for him on that end of the court and tune him out.

Eh, I wouldn't quite go that far. I think the poor defensive is mostly a byproduct of Pop prioritizing offense and living with defensive shortcomings.

For example, I wouldn't say Blair and Neal suck on defense because they aren't trying or are undercoached. It's just that they are short, can't jump and aren't overly quick so they are going to be below average defenders even if their lives literally depended on it. In the past, such players simple wouldn't get minutes under Pop. Now Pop lives with it so he can get the offensive production on the other end.

[mystargtr34]

Eh, I wouldn't quite go that far. I think the poor defensive is mostly a byproduct of Pop prioritizing offense and living with defensive shortcomings.

For example, I wouldn't say Blair and Neal suck on defense because they aren't trying or are undercoached. It's just that they are short, can't jump and aren't overly quick so they are going to be below average defenders even if their lives literally depended on it. In the past, such players simple wouldn't get minutes under Pop. Now Pop lives with it so he can get the offensive production on the other end.

Thats all true, Blair and Neal are never going to be anything more than liabilities due to their physical limitations.

But i agree with what DPG said, take RJ for example. Have you ever seen anyone float through games while giving as little effort as humanly possible? Yet he is second on the team in minutes per game iirc, thats laughable. Like another poster pointed out, Pop is playing contracts ahead of productivity and effort.

It kind of makes me wonder, is that why Pop has gone to this ridiculous run and gun type offense? To bring people through the turnstyles? Maybe he knows the Spurs arent contenders anymore regardless of the lineups he plays, so hes trying to put points on the board and bums in seats. Im reaching here, but you never know with Pop anymore, he's gone insane, to put it nicely.

[The Truth #6]

What's that quote by Stephen Jackson about Pop (I think it was he)...something about Pop being an odd dude who might just do something because it's Tuesday. I think that's still very relevant and therefore it's hard to predict Pop's approach to all of this, which is only made more ambiguous by his alternating terse and fabricating answers he gives to the media who really don't even ask very thought provoking questions.

In regards to Splitter, I agree that Pop thinks he's soft, which is odd because he also considers him a blue collar player. So, something doesn't make sense in this equation. My gut feeling is that Pop holds a grudge against Splitter for something...being injured, perhaps talking back, perhaps not being named Luis Scola. Who knows?

But until Pop learns to trust Splitter, it won't matter. Splitter is playing admirably through this BS, and if he can continue to improve, and if Pop continues to hold TD's minutes, then there's still hope for Splitter to break through.

Who knows - it might take Ninja busting Pop's chops during dinner sometime to get through to him that Splitter needs to play more, and more importantly, when he plays, he needs to be better integrated into the offense because his teammates too often look for their own shot instead of Splitter wide open under the lane or posting up.

In medicine there's a useful old saying regarding doctors diagnosing patients: do you believe what you see, or do you see what you believe? I think Pop is seeing what he believes and not the other way around in regards to Splitter.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Great article, timvp. And interesting discussion afterwards.

Funny how the stats are completely counter-intuitive: they make Splitter look awful and Bonner look like an All-Star! :lmao

[Capt Bringdown]

Bottom line, we know exactly what we'll get from Blair and Bonner. Why roll the dice on them again when we've got other options?

[SenorSpur]

What's that quote by Stephen Jackson about Pop (I think it was he)...something about Pop being an odd dude who might just do something because it's Tuesday. I think that's still very relevant and therefore it's hard to predict Pop's approach to all of this, which is only made more ambiguous by his alternating terse and fabricating answers he gives to the media who really don't even ask very thought provoking questions.

In regards to Splitter, I agree that Pop thinks he's soft, which is odd because he also considers him a blue collar player. So, something doesn't make sense in this equation. My gut feeling is that Pop holds a grudge against Splitter for something...being injured, perhaps talking back, perhaps not being named Luis Scola. Who knows?

But until Pop learns to trust Splitter, it won't matter. Splitter is playing admirably through this BS, and if he can continue to improve, and if Pop continues to hold TD's minutes, then there's still hope for Splitter to break through.

Who knows - it might take Ninja busting Pop's chops during dinner sometime to get through to him that Splitter needs to play more, and more importantly, when he plays, he needs to be better integrated into the offense because his teammates too often look for their own shot instead of Splitter wide open under the lane or posting up.

In medicine there's a useful old saying regarding doctors diagnosing patients: do you believe what you see, or do you see what you believe? I think Pop is seeing what he believes and not the other way around in regards to Splitter.

If Pop really believes Splitter to be a defensive liability and soft, then what does that make Bonner, Blair of even Neal, for that matter? If there is any shred of truth in Pop making these statements and if he really believes this about Splitter, he's clearly out of his mind - and he should quit immediately.

[SpurNation]

Eh, I wouldn't quite go that far. I think the poor defensive is mostly a byproduct of Pop prioritizing offense and living with defensive shortcomings.

For example, I wouldn't say Blair and Neal suck on defense because they aren't trying or are undercoached. It's just that they are short, can't jump and aren't overly quick so they are going to be below average defenders even if their lives literally depended on it. In the past, such players simple wouldn't get minutes under Pop. Now Pop lives with it so he can get the offensive production on the other end.

Nah. It's as simple as the Spurs not having the dominant interior presence they used to have. Back then...players like Blair and Neal wouldn't have been counted on as a priority difference when the Spurs were as good as they once were at defending the paint. Now they're counted on for having to defend equally as well as score.

The end of a dynasty always sucks when the team doesn't have an equal to it's vanishing star.

[therealtruth]

Nah. It's as simple as the Spurs not having the dominant interior presence they used to have. Back then...players like Blair and Neal wouldn't have been counted on as a priority difference when the Spurs were as good as they once were at defending the paint. Now they're counted on for having to defend equally as well as score.

The end of a dynasty always sucks when the team doesn't have an equal to it's vanishing star.

They can still pair TD and Splitter and get another big.

[ElNono]

I also think Pop consider Splitter as a poor offensive player. Pop consistently called him a "blue-collar player". While it's a compliment but it also shows how limited Pop thinks Splitter is. Splitter can do blue-collars tasks but he can do more. The sooner Pop understand that, the better Spurs will be.


And I agree that Pop thinks Splitter is a defensive liability. Pop sees the offense bog down when Splitter is in the game and concludes that it's Splitter's fault. But what a lot of us believe is that Splitter needs playing time to grow into a role where he can consistently help the team. Pop, as of right now, doesn't share that opinion.

Quote from Pop after the Rocket's game:

“He’s a big-time pro,” Popovich said. “He’s a workhorse, and a really fun basketball player to watch. He’s not gifted with a lot of skills, but he plays the game the right way.”

[NASpurs]

Solid defense, decent rebounder, high perecentage shots inside the paint, improved FT %, check.

Can't shoot the three? No no no, back to the bench you go.

Pop is full of shit. WTF more does he want?