The Spurs' varied skills on defense..(or lack thereof) ..from 48MoH

[Spursfanfromafar]

I thought this article in 48MoH, culling data from Synergysports to be pretty insightful in letting us know as to which aspects of defense are the Spurs' big men good at (individually) and which they aren't.

Link: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/boris-diaw-and-the-big-man-market-part-2

On Matt Bonner for e..g-


Matt Bonner is the 4th best post-up defender in the league, per Synergy. I didn’t believe that at all on first glance, so I spent about 45 minutes watching every single post-up possession Matt Bonner has defended in the past three years. I came away shocked. His post-up defense isn’t pretty, but it’s quite effective. His foul rate is minuscule compared to that of the league average big, and he has a fantastic sense of when and how to lay off his man and use his size to bother the shot. He always keeps his arms up, and he moves in a sort of shuffling gait that more often than not confuses the post-up player. On the pick and roll, that’s generally less Bonner’s acumen than it is Tiago and Tim helping out, but Bonner does his fair share of the work on those possessions as well. He keeps the big close and generally forces them to take shots from angles they aren’t very good at, and again, he does an excellent job keeping his foul rate down.
So, Aaron. Tell me. Why, if he’s got a few solid defensive skills, does Bonner have the reputation of a defensive sieve? Simple, voice in my head. The two most avidly watched types of defensive plays by the general populace — isolation and spot-up recoveries — are Bonner’s two absolute worst defensive categories, per Synergy. He’s below league average on isolations and only slightly above it on spot-ups. Worse, for him, is the way he allows shots in isolation and spotting up. He generally has a terrible time covering quick guards on switches, and gets embarrassed physically when an athletic player does a jab step or an up fake. His lateral quickness is poor, and although he’s essentially league average or slightly at both those categories, the downright hilarious way he allows points leads to a reputation that doesn’t actually fit with his defensive play, which appears to be overall better than even I had ever given him credit for. Next time you’re watching the Spurs, I ask that you pay attention to Bonner when players try to post him up. I have for the last few games. Guarantee you’ll be somewhat impressed, if not immediately thereafter amused when he blows an isolation coverage on the next possession of the game. A feast-or-famine type defensive player.

A good read..

[chazley]

Been saying this for 2+ years. Not a shocker that 95% of Spurstalk is filled with idiots saying how shitty Matt Bonner is.

[100%duncan]

Well, his defense in the past 3 games have been excellent, that's for sure.

[angelbelow]

Definitely a good read. Thanks for sharing.

[spursince#99]

Lol

[ElNono]

Been saying this for 2+ years. Not a shocker that 95% of Spurstalk is filled with idiots saying how shitty Matt Bonner is.

Apparently, you didn't read.

[chazley]

Apparently, you didn't read.

Yea I did, but people on this board and Spurs fans in general believe Matt Bonner is the shittiest defender in the history of big men, when in fact he has alot of great aspects to his defensive play. So, it's all relative to people previous rating of him.

[freetiago]

matt bonner increases team morale
but not our team
the others

when other teams see an awkwardly running, t-rex armed ginger against them they gain all the confidence in the world
then they start draining insane shots they could never hit
i think ben wallace was draining deep 2s/3s vs bonner
bonner also gave up a 0.8 second shot in the phillies game to spencer hawes

when someone asked rasheed wallace how to beat the spurs he said
"pass the ball to whoever matt bonner is guarding"

its things like that that bring down spurs reputation and players think they an do superhuman things even when matt bonner is an average defender for his postion
just having a tatted up thug with a good vertical and no actual basketball skills would decrease the oppositions field goal percentage because of the lack of the Matt Bonner effect

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yea I did, but people on this board and Spurs fans in general believe Matt Bonner is the shittiest defender in the history of big men, when in fact he has alot of great aspects to his defensive play. So, it's all relative to people previous rating of him.

1. he doesn't block shots
2. no one is afraid of him blocking their shots
3. he doesn't rebound

Given points 1-3, it's comical to say he's one of the best in the low post.

[mkurts]

So Bonner would be a better post-up defender than say, Josh Smith or Kendrick Perkins ?

[I Heart Ginobili]

"Blair plays defense as more of a large, roly-poly guard than he does a center"

:lol

[GSH]

I've been through this mental gyration a few times before. Nobody can be as bad as Bonner is supposed to be, and still have positive +/- stats over a long period of time. It's a math function. If only bad things happen when the player is in the game, his +/- would be negative. Maybe his defensive ability has holes, but he obviously contributes more than enough to make up for that.

And then I remember the playoff series against Memphis.

I want the person who wrote this article to go back and look at those games, and THEN write a commentary on Bonner's post-up defense. I defended Bonner for a long time, but the images of that series are burned into my mind forever - and a lot of them involve Bonner. I can't say that he was worse than a pylon on defense, but I can't say that he was any better. If he performs in this year's playoffs, I'll give him credit. But not until then.

[ElNono]

Yea I did, but people on this board and Spurs fans in general believe Matt Bonner is the shittiest defender in the history of big men, when in fact he has alot of great aspects to his defensive play. So, it's all relative to people previous rating of him.

Players that really are below average at certain aspects that can be easily exploited by other teams have no place in a team that wants to win a championship. Some players you can "hide" their shortcomings by playing them behind poor offensive players or severely limiting their minutes. This gets overly amplified during the playoffs, where matchups dictate a lot of the gameplan.

And this applies as much to Blair as it applies to Bonner.

Oh, and Matt certainly isn't "the shittiest defender in the history of big men". Whoever said that, if they did, were likely exaggerating.

[ElNono]

I've been through this mental gyration a few times before. Nobody can be as bad as Bonner is supposed to be, and still have positive +/- stats over a long period of time. It's a math function. If only bad things happen when the player is in the game, his +/- would be negative. Maybe his defensive ability has holes, but he obviously contributes more than enough to make up for that.

And then I remember the playoff series against Memphis.

I want the person who wrote this article to go back and look at those games, and THEN write a commentary on Bonner's post-up defense. I defended Bonner for a long time, but the images of that series are burned into my mind forever - and a lot of them involve Bonner. I can't say that he was worse than a pylon on defense, but I can't say that he was any better. If he performs in this year's playoffs, I'll give him credit. But not until then.

Matt Bonner had an overall negative +/- in the playoffs... see, math still makes sense.

[GSH]

Matt Bonner had an overall negative +/- in the playoffs... see, math still makes sense.

:lol


Yeah, but the part about Bonner's defensive prowess sort of springs a leak. I wonder of Bonner dreams about the Memphis series, where he's only wearing underwear while he's on the floor? Their bigs undressed him so many different ways, it would have to leave a mental bruise.

[Obstructed_View]

I guess when a guy turns around to face Bonner in the post and shoots a jumper over his outstretched arms, that constitutes a "spot up". Now when a guy does that two or three times in a row before Bonner is taken out of the game, and then that guy starts to hit jumpers over and over because now he's on fire, what stat covers that?

[ElNono]

I guess when a guy turns around to face Bonner in the post and shoots a jumper over his outstretched arms, that constitutes a "spot up". Now when a guy does that two or three times in a row before Bonner is taken out of the game, and then that guy starts to hit jumpers over and over because now he's on fire, what stat covers that?

So true. At least not having RJ put out one fire...

[Spurs4#5]

id rather have bonner than blair

[Spursfanfromafar]

I want the person who wrote this article to go back and look at those games, and THEN write a commentary on Bonner's post-up defense.

Apparently he has already done that.


"I didn’t believe that at all on first glance, so I spent about 45 minutes watching every single post-up possession Matt Bonner has defended in the past three years."


What the writer says is that, Bonner has some good skills and some bad ones and the bad ones stand out.

To those who question +/- stats, please note that adjusted +/- stats are very useful as they do not rely on box scores or some such, but actual regression analysis comparing production over the average "replacement player". Adjusted +/- are very effective, as compared to box score based stats therefore.

Because Bonner scores so well in those, there is something about him being good in the regular season as the opposition is not paying enough attention to his strengths. Unfortunately that luxury is not available in the playoffs, where his weaknesses are better taken advantage of and hence the drop in his value and production.

[ElNono]

id rather have bonner than blair

I understand that's your opinion, respectable and one shared by many here, but I was just thinking about this the other day and it's very debatable.

And I think you have to go to "ceilings" when you look at this. Let's pretend for a minute here that both Blair and Bonner play to their regular-season standards.

That makes Blair a 8/6 guy and Matt a 7/3 guy in about the same minutes (~20mpg). Now, add that Blair is really inconsistent. He can go for a 15/10 game (done so 16 times already) or be listless, where Matt is more consistent, but at the same time, has a lower ceiling (Matt only has 2 15/10 games as a Spur).

Rebounding-wise, there's little doubt that DeJuan is the better rebounder when he tries. Team defense-wise, Blair is the more rounded guy. Neither really play "long". Blair doesn't have the height, Matt is just too soft.

Offensively, Matt provides better spacing provided he can make a shot. Blair just has the higher scoring ceiling when he actually can make an impact.

So, it's not as simple as it looks. Obviously, everything would be better if they both could match or elevate their game during the playoffs. So far neither has been able to (In Blair's defense, he has played only about 1/4 the minutes Matt has). It's also clear that the matchup deficiencies still apply, and either or both are unplayable against certain teams due to some of the factors pointed above.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I understand that's your opinion, respectable and one shared by many here, but I was just thinking about this the other day and it's very debatable.

And I think you have to go to "ceilings" when you look at this. Let's pretend for a minute here that both Blair and Bonner play to their regular-season standards.

That makes Blair a 8/6 guy and Matt a 7/3 guy in about the same minutes (~20mpg). Now, add that Blair is really inconsistent. He can go for a 15/10 game (done so 16 times already) or be listless, where Matt is more consistent, but at the same time, has a lower ceiling (Matt only has 2 15/10 games as a Spur).

Rebounding-wise, there's little doubt that DeJuan is the better rebounder when he tries. Team defense-wise, Blair is the more rounded guy. Neither really play "long". Blair doesn't have the height, Matt is just too soft.

Offensively, Matt provides better spacing provided he can make a shot. Blair just has the higher scoring ceiling when he actually can make an impact.

So, it's not as simple as it looks. Obviously, everything would be better if they both could match or elevate their game during the playoffs. So far neither has been able to (In Blair's defense, he has played only about 1/4 the minutes Matt has). It's also clear that the matchup deficiencies still apply, and either or both are unplayable against certain teams due to some of the factors pointed above.
the difference between bonner and blair, bonner doesnt need to self create to get his offensive game going where it wont hurt the flow of the t eam when it needs points on the board cause u know he will start nailing them, most of his points come from the extra past anyway so its not like his taking away touches for other players who are ball dominant players...

as for blair who sometimes needs to self create for himself in the lowpost lies the fkn problem, we seen it many times where he hogs it and 3-4 consecutive plays with shitty missed attempts hurts us more cause u rarely see bonner have 3-4 consecutive plays run for him. this is when it gets frustrated watching him forcing the issue trying to get his game going while he ignores the extra pass

[ElNono]

To those who question +/- stats, please note that adjusted +/- stats are very useful as they do not rely on box scores or some such, but actual regression analysis comparing production over the average "replacement player". Adjusted +/- are very effective, as compared to box score based stats therefore.

The problem with Adjusted +/- is twofold. Because it relies on a myriad of other "non-boxscore" stats and regressions, it's much more prone to noise due to small sample sizes. I recall when it was introduced in 82games.com, they even pointed out that a full regular season was likely not a good enough sample size. The second problem is pretty much the same as regular +/-. There's an inherent skewing when player are paired (one very productive and one not so productive) and largely share the same lineups.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think Matt has shown his value in the regular season. Just pointing out what's the deal with Adjusted +/-, and why it's also an almost unusable stat to gauge playoff performances.

[ElNono]

the difference between bonner and blair, bonner doesnt need to self create to get his offensive game going where it wont hurt the flow of the t eam when it needs points on the board cause u know he will start nailing them, most of his points come from the extra past anyway so its not like his taking away touches for other players who are ball dominant players...

as for blair who sometimes needs to self create for himself in the lowpost lies the fkn problem, we seen it many times where he hogs it and 3-4 consecutive plays with shitty missed attempts hurts us more cause u rarely see bonner have 3-4 consecutive plays run for him. this is when it gets frustrated watching him forcing the issue trying to get his game going while he ignores the extra pass

And I agree. DeJuan is very inconsistent. I know some nights you can't wait until he sits down. Other nights, everything he throws up there seems like it's going in. It's a huge gamble no matter what you do.

[TheSkeptic]

I don't know if DPPP is necessarily a strong indicator of anything other than that Pop has given Bonner a role that magnifies his strengths (in the regular season) tbh.

I read somewhere that because this stat measures more individual play than anything else, that it tends to reflect more poorly on players who play help defense. (Tim's numbers here show just how awesome he is).
Since Bonner for the most part just has to play positional defense and stick to his man, it would make sense that this stat would make him look good. Frankly, no thinking, not-trolling fans would dispute that he tries his best and does his role well.

Still doesn't make him a "good" defender in my opinion but this does show that he's not a complete liability out there. These numbers seem to match up with what I'm seeing on the court.

That said, he's still playing a little too much for my tastes.

[TheSkeptic]

And I agree. DeJuan is very inconsistent. I know some nights you can't wait until he sits down. Other nights, everything he throws up there seems like it's going in. It's a huge gamble no matter what you do.

Not necessarily. Beyond his focus, it seems like the games he plays well will mostly depend on his opponents. Against undersized Philadelphia or a team like OKC that doesn't have offense-generating bigs, he's fine. Against say, Dirk, not so much usually though he might surprise you during the odd game.

Play him against the other team's second string and he'll put up more consistent numbers and his poor defensive skills won't be as much of an issue.

If anything, most of the stats we're seeing make it clear that Blair is a *very* high end bench player who could occasionally start in the event that someone was injured or something.

[Spursfanfromafar]

The problem with Adjusted +/- is twofold. Because it relies on a myriad of other "non-boxscore" stats and regressions, it's much more prone to noise due to small sample sizes. I recall when it was introduced in 82games.com, they even pointed out that a full regular season was likely not a good enough sample size. The second problem is pretty much the same as regular +/-. There's an inherent skewing when player are paired (one very productive and one not so productive) and largely share the same lineups.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think Matt has shown his value in the regular season. Just pointing out what's the deal with Adjusted +/-, and why it's also an almost unusable stat to gauge playoff performances.

1) You are right about sample sizes. I guess, the better APM sites use atleast 2 seasons of data - such as what is shown up on basketballvalue.com

2) The second point I disagree with - the purposes of having adjusted APM over situational PMs as described by Dan Rosenbaum (http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm) are to whittle away the effect of pairing with productive/non-productive players. The regressions are so done to account for various pairings/lineups by comparing with that for a "replacement player". Don't know if I am saying that accurately, but that is the general idea.

[ElNono]

2) The second point I disagree with - the purposes of having adjusted APM over situational PMs as described by Dan Rosenbaum (http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm) are to whittle away the effect of pairing with productive/non-productive players. The regressions are so done to account for various pairings/lineups by comparing with that for a "replacement player". Don't know if I am saying that accurately, but that is the general idea.

Additionally, the estimates suffer from the issue of skewed sampling – the fact that most players usually find themselves on the court in the company of certain teammates and not others. As a result, it can be difficult to accurately tease out the individual effects of two players who almost always appear on the court together. Rosenbaum and others have outlined different ways of addressing these issues, most notably using multiple years’ worth of data and augmenting regression results with additional analyses based on box score statistics.

Link (http://www.82games.com/barzilai2.htm)

From 2007, when 82games.com started to do APM mid-season. Includes link to the original 2004 Rosenbaum article you posted.

[therealtruth]

Because Bonner scores so well in those, there is something about him being good in the regular season as the opposition is not paying enough attention to his strengths. Unfortunately that luxury is not available in the playoffs, where his weaknesses are better taken advantage of and hence the drop in his value and production.

Against good defensive teams Bonner is a liability. They'll negate any floor spacing effect he has. Then you have to ask yourself if you're just playing Bonner for his defense.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Additionally, the estimates suffer from the issue of skewed sampling – the fact that most players usually find themselves on the court in the company of certain teammates and not others. As a result, it can be difficult to accurately tease out the individual effects of two players who almost always appear on the court together. Rosenbaum and others have outlined different ways of addressing these issues, most notably using multiple years’ worth of data and augmenting regression results with additional analyses based on box score statistics.

Link (http://www.82games.com/barzilai2.htm)

From 2007, when 82games.com started to do APM mid-season. Includes link to the original 2004 Rosenbaum article you posted.

Yes. In the 2004 article itself, Rosenbaum (http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm)adjusts his Pure APMs with OLS estimates based on box score stats, fact that Barzilai (author of basketballvalue.com) himself mentions in the last line you quote him...which is the key for me -

"Rosenbaum and others have outlined different ways of addressing these issues, most notably using multiple years’ worth of data and augmenting regression results with additional analyses based on box score statistics. "

I think adjusting for box score based stats and APM - i.e. taking a middle path between PER/win Shares and APM, one can say that Bonner is still very productive as compared to other bigs in the league.

But we are quibbling. As much as the stats say so good about Bonner, they mean little in the games that matter the most - the playoffs. That much, we do agree.

[OrEmuN]

Just thought of a theory abt Bonner after looking at the article.
I wonder whether because Bonner is such a terrible defender by visual sight that everyone who are going up against him in regular season tend to underestimate him and throw up any shots. That results in bad shot selection and hence making Bonner's stats look better than his actual defense.
In addition, when the playoffs come, everyone are more focused and would not make the same underestimation.

[Darkwaters]

On the other end of the spectrum, DeJuan Blair is simply a terrible defensive player. I love DeJuan’s grit and hustle, but in 2011, DeJuan was the worst defensive starter at the center position in the entire league by DPPP. In 2012 he isn’t the worst, but he’s close. Despite defending on 4 possessions fewer than Tim Duncan, he’s allowed 56 more points scored directly on him over the course of the year. That’s quite a gap. And while part of that is Tim’s overall stellar defense, a lot of the blame has to be put on DeJuan himself — while he’s decent on the P&R, he’s poor in isolation and a travesty at recovering on spot-up shooters. Which, by the way, is why he plays center so often. I’ve been asked by friends who don’t follow the Spurs why DeJuan (a 6’7″ player) is forced to play center so often. It isn’t necessarily because Pop wants to do it, it’s because if he cross-matches onto a power forward he gives them a wide open look at a spot-up jumper virtually every time. He’s no great shakes in the post, either, but at least he’s slightly above league average. When you put the whole package together, though, you have a player who’s league average at best in most defensive categories, and who unfortunately averages out as a big liability on the defensive end. Which is a shame, because again — I really love DeJuan, and I really wish he was just a few inches taller and a few pounds lighter. But as of this point, his career has been awful on the defensive end, and it’s really aggravating to watch him work.


Read more: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/boris-diaw-and-the-big-man-market-part-2#ixzz1qIj6wgYh

Validating what most of us have been saying all along.

[GSH]

Apparently he has already done that.



What the writer says is that, Bonner has some good skills and some bad ones and the bad ones stand out.

To those who question +/- stats, please note that adjusted +/- stats are very useful as they do not rely on box scores or some such, but actual regression analysis comparing production over the average "replacement player". Adjusted +/- are very effective, as compared to box score based stats therefore.

Because Bonner scores so well in those, there is something about him being good in the regular season as the opposition is not paying enough attention to his strengths. Unfortunately that luxury is not available in the playoffs, where his weaknesses are better taken advantage of and hence the drop in his value and production.


With respect, I appreciate what you say about adjusted +/-. The goal and the idea behind it are both admirable. The reality of the stat - not so much. I don't want to go into a page-long discussion, but I will say this much: any statistical model that determines that two of the top 20 players for the year were Brian Cardinal and Shawn Bradley is pretty close to worthless.

The idea was to create a model that would contain most of the obvious names, such as Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, etc. - but also contain a few "sleepers". In other words, players that are of more value to a team than their stats would indicate. Without that, what good would the model be? The model was supposed to allow teams (like Cleveland) to do a "Money Ball" act, by allowing them to identify the great contributors that could be had cheaply and easily. It didn't work.

The statisticians use an old psychic trick when evaluating the model. When a player has a high adjusted +/- and plays very well, they say it was a successful prediction. When a player has a high adjusted +/- and plays like crap, they call it "noise" in the data. In other words, it's a great stat for looking backwards. It's not worth much for predicting. And, as I said, most of the names on the list are the players we all know are difference makers.

In 03-04, Brian Cardinal was supposedly the 14th biggest difference maker in the league, tied with Paul Pierce. That's all you really need to know about adjusted +/-.

[TheSkeptic]

Validating what most of us have been saying all along.

Is that another endorsement for bringing Blair off the bench I hear? :lol

[Spursfanfromafar]

With respect, I appreciate what you say about adjusted +/-. The goal and the idea behind it are both admirable. The reality of the stat - not so much. I don't want to go into a page-long discussion, but I will say this much: any statistical model that determines that two of the top 20 players for the year were Brian Cardinal and Shawn Bradley is pretty close to worthless.

The idea was to create a model that would contain most of the obvious names, such as Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, etc. - but also contain a few "sleepers". In other words, players that are of more value to a team than their stats would indicate. Without that, what good would the model be? The model was supposed to allow teams (like Cleveland) to do a "Money Ball" act, by allowing them to identify the great contributors that could be had cheaply and easily. It didn't work.

The statisticians use an old psychic trick when evaluating the model. When a player has a high adjusted +/- and plays very well, they say it was a successful prediction. When a player has a high adjusted +/- and plays like crap, they call it "noise" in the data. In other words, it's a great stat for looking backwards. It's not worth much for predicting. And, as I said, most of the names on the list are the players we all know are difference makers.

In 03-04, Brian Cardinal was supposedly the 14th biggest difference maker in the league, tied with Paul Pierce. That's all you really need to know about adjusted +/-.

Actually, Cardinal indeed was so productive in his contract year in 03-04 that the next year he got a major contract and he never lived upto that production again.

And basically I disagree with everything you say - "psychic trick" / "looking backwards"/ "not worth much for predicting" etc.

Given tools in our disposal - eye test, stats based on box score numbers, stats based on APM and stats based on overall APM and so on.. the latter are the best available. These are now being supplemented by what Synergysports does - capturing every possession and tabulating them under categories. This makes it much much more effective to predict, compare and tabulate than just mere scouting opinion.

It is no rocket science to know that the best teams (including the Spurs) today are employing good statisticians and number crunchers who can supplement their skills with basketball observation.

So, you are wrong about the efficacy of stats based observations such as APM.

[ElNono]

Yes. In the 2004 article itself, Rosenbaum (http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm)adjusts his Pure APMs with OLS estimates based on box score stats, fact that Barzilai (author of basketballvalue.com) himself mentions in the last line you quote him...which is the key for me -

"Rosenbaum and others have outlined different ways of addressing these issues, most notably using multiple years’ worth of data and augmenting regression results with additional analyses based on box score statistics. "

I think adjusting for box score based stats and APM - i.e. taking a middle path between PER/win Shares and APM, one can say that Bonner is still very productive as compared to other bigs in the league.

But we are quibbling. As much as the stats say so good about Bonner, they mean little in the games that matter the most - the playoffs. That much, we do agree.

To me the kicker is that APM's supposed added-value (compared to unadjusted) is that it uses much more information that's not related to the boxscore. And the reason is fairly simple: unadjusted (boxscore) plus minus is a clearly a lineup-combination stat, not a player-centric stat. Trying to turn it into a player-centric stat requires much more info, but also a much larger sample size.

Yet, since it's basically still based off lineup-combinations (can't get around that, since that's how the game is played), it's still prone to skewing on player combos that overlap timelines, which can happen a lot, especially on teams that have established rotations.

The solution? Go back to boxscores to get hard numbers to isolate the individual production. It kind of diminishes the added-value, IMO.

[ElNono]

Just thought of a theory abt Bonner after looking at the article.
I wonder whether because Bonner is such a terrible defender by visual sight that everyone who are going up against him in regular season tend to underestimate him and throw up any shots. That results in bad shot selection and hence making Bonner's stats look better than his actual defense.
In addition, when the playoffs come, everyone are more focused and would not make the same underestimation.

To me it's pretty simple:

Regular season = getting YOUR team ready. You see different opponents every other day, playing different sets and players. There's no point to obsess over them other than read a scouting report, etc. This is where having experienced players pays off too.

Playoffs = lock in on your opponent. You're only going to be playing that team and you either are going to beat them or go home. You create your gameplan by studying the opponent's players and try to find the weak links where you can maximize your chances of winning. When one of your bigs is Tim Duncan and the other is Matt Bonner, it's a no-brainer to pick which one to attack with both bigs and penetrating guards.

[therealtruth]

To me it's pretty simple:

Regular season = getting YOUR team ready. You see different opponents every other day, playing different sets and players. There's no point to obsess over them other than read a scouting report, etc. This is where having experienced players pays off too.

Playoffs = lock in on your opponent. You're only going to be playing that team and you either are going to beat them or go home. You create your gameplan by studying the opponent's players and try to find the weak links where you can maximize your chances of winning. When one of your bigs is Tim Duncan and the other is Matt Bonner, it's a no-brainer to pick which one to attack with both bigs and penetrating guards.

It's not just that. In the playoffs you look over the statistical data and you see the Spurs are nearly unbeatable when Matt Bonner plays well and hits multiple 3's. You adjust your gameplan to take Matt Bonner out of the game. The Spurs run the same gameplan and then find the Matt Bonner is not that effective. Pop continues to trot him out 20 minutes a game despite this and the Spurs now have to win despite him.

[jjktkk]

It's not just that. In the playoffs you look over the statistical data and you see the Spurs are nearly unbeatable when Matt Bonner plays well and hits multiple 3's. You adjust your gameplan to take Matt Bonner out of the game. The Spurs run the same gameplan and then find the Matt Bonner is not that effective. Pop continues to trot him out 20 minutes a game despite this and the Spurs now have to win despite him.

Since Pop has more options now with Diaw, and Splitter, and Leonard and Jack, if he chooses small ball, he shouldn't have to overuse Bonner. You did notice the new additions while trolling didn't you?

[angelbelow]

Actually, Cardinal indeed was so productive in his contract year in 03-04 that the next year he got a major contract and he never lived upto that production again.

And basically I disagree with everything you say - "psychic trick" / "looking backwards"/ "not worth much for predicting" etc.

Given tools in our disposal - eye test, stats based on box score numbers, stats based on APM and stats based on overall APM and so on.. the latter are the best available. These are now being supplemented by what Synergysports does - capturing every possession and tabulating them under categories. This makes it much much more effective to predict, compare and tabulate than just mere scouting opinion.

It is no rocket science to know that the best teams (including the Spurs) today are employing good statisticians and number crunchers who can supplement their skills with basketball observation.

So, you are wrong about the efficacy of stats based observations such as APM.

APM alone is not enough to be effective enough to predict performance. Its one aspect that shouldn't be ignored, nor should it be interpreted as effect by itself. Like you mentioned, there are numerous ways to predict a players performance but I don't think APM is the most effective.

For example, against regular season competition Bonner does incredibly well. However, as someone else previous noted, Bonner's playoff APM is no where near his regular seasons. In addition, against teams like Chicago and Miami, Bonner's posts negative APM in the double digits. Therefore, I still think that APM is unpredictable and situational. But combined with context, can be effective in predicting the value of a players worth to a team.

[benefactor]

More of this? Bonner helps in the regular season. Bonner craps the bed in the playoffs. History and numbers back it up.

/thread

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

If Bonner can't defend in the post in isolation then he can't defend in the post. Period. To me, that's the essence of post defense, and this aspect is crucial to success in the playoffs.

[diego]

those same stats say that Hickson is a better defender than Splitter.

Its not the same to pick up a rebound on a missed FT, than to grab a board in a packed lane, but statistically they are the same play. (speaking of which, the article describes Bonner's rebounding as "virtually non-existent", which is pretty damning; if you force a miss but cant grab the board, all that work was for naught. Rebounding is easily 50% of defense, if not more in the case of a "big", and Bonner is absolutely terrible at it).
Then you have the other problem: stats dont account for smart / stupid play or competitive / cowardly play. So a player that doesnt take an open look and dumps it on someone else in worse position because he's scared to miss or leaves his teammate out to dry on D because he is stupid or lazy is statistically more efficient and has better numbers than the one that takes the shot and misses or the one that helped and got "scored on".
Then add the playoff factor and the psychological factors... how many times have we seen Bonner looking scared and lost in the PO, incapable of making a shot, getting a board, or contesting a shot?
Bonner isnt trash, but you'll need a lot more than some statistics to convince me he is a better defender/player than any of the others on the list.

[Richie]

Against good defensive teams Bonner is a liability. They'll negate any floor spacing effect he has. Then you have to ask yourself if you're just playing Bonner for his defense.

How does that work? Either you cover him on the 3 pointer and open up the lane for Tony/Manu, or you don't and leave yourself vulnerable for the kickout to him?

Obviously the better defenders will read it and be able to get out quicker to him to defend his shot if they get drawn in helping against a driving Parker or Manu, but I don't really see how a team 'negates floor spacing'.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

I've been through this mental gyration a few times before. Nobody can be as bad as Bonner is supposed to be, and still have positive +/- stats over a long period of time. It's a math function. If only bad things happen when the player is in the game, his +/- would be negative. Maybe his defensive ability has holes, but he obviously contributes more than enough to make up for that.

And then I remember the playoff series against Memphis.

I want the person who wrote this article to go back and look at those games, and THEN write a commentary on Bonner's post-up defense. I defended Bonner for a long time, but the images of that series are burned into my mind forever - and a lot of them involve Bonner. I can't say that he was worse than a pylon on defense, but I can't say that he was any better. If he performs in this year's playoffs, I'll give him credit. But not until then.

Tim looked almost as bad.

[GSH]

Actually, Cardinal indeed was so productive in his contract year in 03-04 that the next year he got a major contract and he never lived upto that production again.

And basically I disagree with everything you say - "psychic trick" / "looking backwards"/ "not worth much for predicting" etc.

You can't use it to decide which players are the best, and therefore the best value. Brian Cardinal wasn't. Shawn Bradley wasn't. And the others, like Duncan, Lebron, Kobe, etc. are so obvious, you don't need a statistical model to figure it out. If you can't use it to predict, it's only good for looking backwards.

Given tools in our disposal - eye test, stats based on box score numbers, stats based on APM and stats based on overall APM and so on.. the latter are the best available. These are now being supplemented by what Synergysports does - capturing every possession and tabulating them under categories. This makes it much much more effective to predict, compare and tabulate than just mere scouting opinion.

So there's nothing out there besides mere opinion and APM? And you say that stats based on APM are the best, and that makes it so? Wow, with logic like that, you can never be wrong.

It is no rocket science to know that the best teams (including the Spurs) today are employing good statisticians and number crunchers who can supplement their skills with basketball observation.

And only two or three, I believe, are even attempting to use adjusted +/- numbers. There's a reason for that.

So, you are wrong about the efficacy of stats based observations such as APM.

I like that - you give an opinion, and that makes me wrong. Works best when you just throw away all the facts.


First of all, I never said Cardinal was horrible, or that he didn't earn one good (for him) contract. But the model said that he was the 16th best player in the league, and that is just ridiculously stupid. And I don't think even you believe it. Which means the model is deeply flawed. (BTW - the 06-07 APM list showed Antonio McDyess as the 20th best player in the league. He put up 8.1 points, and 6.0 boards. Was he a good player? Sure. Was he anywhere near the 20th biggest contributor in the league? Not even McDyess would have said that.)

Be careful, telling stories like that, when you don't know anything about what happened. Cardinal got that contract because Heisley was bitching at Jerry West about not getting players signed. West got pissed, and basically said "You want a player signed? I'll sign a player." He called Cardinal's agent and offered him the full MLE, and signed him that day - and everyone in the league was shocked that West gave Cardinal such a stupid contract until it got out what had happened.

I never said that I don't believe in advanced statistics, just not this one. Bottom line, the APM tells us that players like Duncan and LeBron are good. We knew that. And then there are the "surprise players" like Bradley and Cardinal, and the statisticians call that "noise". Most people don't see the predictive value in that. You can keep defending it if you want to, I guess. For the record, I've had this discussion with two of the math-heads who did this for real live basketball teams - and even they admitted to more problems with APM than you do. They didn't like it when I called it a psychic trick, either. But they didn't deny that they wouldn't hire one of the surprise players for millions of dollars, based on the idea that they are the biggest "contributors". And if you adjust out all the "noise", then it's just a list of the guys we knew were good already.

You're obviously a believer, so I don't expect to convert you, or even for you to listen to logic. But we discuss basketball here, and the things you say should at least be rebutted. Because they're wrong. The guys who created and maintain the stat don't even believe in it the way you do.

[Horse]

He's needed alot less now with all the depth we have and that's a perfect role for him come in and hit 3's that's it. I will say though his hustle has impressed me recently.

[Spursfanfromafar]

@ GSH,

The trouble with what you say above is that you don't really pinpoint problems with the methodology adapted in APM, but rather say something exterior to it to say that it is not good enough. That, IMO, is a poor way of saying that APM is not good enough.

So, when you say that all APM does is point out to us, who the best are and we already know who they are.. and that it throws up noise.. that is not quite a valid criticism. APM's job is not only to point out the top 20 or 30..but to also highlight comparisons across teams and for various players. So, if I want to get, say, a 12th man for my team and I need to check his stats, APM helps me far more than petty conventional stats. And it is in this light I found your statements about "psychic trick", "looking backwards", "not predictive" problematic.

I am not saying that APM does not have flaws; I am saying that it- supplemented with other info - is a more robust advanced statistics universe than most..

And I don't think if APM is used only by 2/3 NBA stats officials. The 3 that I know are/ (were recently) consultants for teams already - Barzilai, for e.g. consults for the Grizzlies; Steve Ilardi consulted (don't know if he does still) for the Suns; and the 82games guy also consults for some NBA team, IIRC. Wayne Winston used to consult for the Dallas Mavericks, IIRC. Rosenbaum for the Cavaliers...

Lastly, I know this is a bulletin board and that opinions are meant to be debated and rebutted. You needn't remind me about that.

[HarlemHeat37]

I had a Synergy subscription in 2010 and 2011, and unless they changed the method of rankings in 2012, then they still don't weigh the quality of opponent in the rankings..a player that guards opposing bench players and secondary bigs will probably have a superior ranking to a player that guards the top player on the opposing team, on a nightly basis..

For instance, in Malik Hairston's last season with the Spurs, Synergy had him ranked as the best isolation defender in the NBA..I was a Hairston fan, and he clearly had defensive potential, but he obviously wasn't the best 1 on 1 perimeter defender in the NBA..the numbers were skewed, as his opponents were generally weaker..

[dbestpro]

Bonner may be okay with post defense, but most of the offense that he sees is out on the floor as he tries to guard big perimeter players. He also makes as many physical and mental mistakes on rotation defense as any player on the team.

Most Spur fans are not so gullible to be sucked into one aspect of his defense and then declare him a defensive star.

[therealtruth]

How does that work? Either you cover him on the 3 pointer and open up the lane for Tony/Manu, or you don't and leave yourself vulnerable for the kickout to him?

Obviously the better defenders will read it and be able to get out quicker to him to defend his shot if they get drawn in helping against a driving Parker or Manu, but I don't really see how a team 'negates floor spacing'.

You explained exactly how it works. They defend Manu and Parker on the drive and prevent Bonner from getting open looks. The Grizzlies did a really good job of this.

[therealtruth]

Bonner may be okay with post defense, but most of the offense that he sees is out on the floor as he tries to guard big perimeter players. He also makes as many physical and mental mistakes on rotation defense as any player on the team.

Most Spur fans are not so gullible to be sucked into one aspect of his defense and then declare him a defensive star.

There definitely some players that tend to torch Bonner. I can think of Chris Bosh, Al Harrington, and Lamar Odom. He usually doesn't have a prayer against those guys. Those guys tend to attack him of the dribble where he's vulnerable.

[ElNono]

How does that work? Either you cover him on the 3 pointer and open up the lane for Tony/Manu, or you don't and leave yourself vulnerable for the kickout to him?

The theory behind the 'stretch-4' is that one of the two opposing bigs will have to make the decision of helping inside or closing out on the kick out, but good pick and roll defensive teams (like Memphis) basically never used a big to do that. Guys like OJ Mayo would constantly end up closing in on Matt, and this is where his slow-release really rears it's ugly head, because he would pass up the shots even though he should be able to put up a shot over him.