Why Pop Why?

[Kori Ellis]

Why Pop Why?

By Jason Chlapek
The Daily Times

http://web.dailytimes.com/story.lasso?ewcd=233e8425fe2e0b8c

Published July 21, 2006

Remember the hit single, “Big Yellow Taxi?”

There was a line in the song, “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” I wonder if that’s how San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich feels these days.

On Feb. 24, 2005, Popovich traded Spurs fan-favorite Malik Rose to the New York Knicks for Nazr Mohammed. Rose, a 6-foot-7 forward who played like he was 7-1, did not have the size Popovich wanted to complement Tim Duncan. Mohammed is 6-10.

Now Popovich must be kicking himself because Mohammed recently signed with the Detroit Pistons, and the best he could do to find a replacement is, maybe, signing 6-10 Jackie Butler. Butler is a 21-year-old who played the last two seasons with the Knicks.

Pop also traded 7-footer Rasho Nesterovic to the Toronto Raptors for 6-10 three-point specialist Matt Bonner and 6-8 forward Eric Williams. Couldn’t Popovich have kept Rose if he planned on going with quicker big men like he did in the playoffs against the Dallas Mavericks?

Of course, we all remember the Spurs playoff series against the Mavericks. Popovich “said” he would stick with the game plan in hand — a starting lineup of Mohammed, Duncan, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. But after losing Game 2, 113-91, Popovich flips the script by going to a smaller, quicker lineup to match the Mavericks’ quickness. The result — a 4-3 series loss and a blown opportunity to repeat as NBA champions.

So much for “sticking to the game plan.”

Popovich had not only a quick big man in Rose, he had a guy who made San Antonio his home in a time where many free agents bolt smaller markets like San Antonio for the bright lights of New York or Los Angeles. While Rose plays for the Knicks, he still has a house and two restaurants — Malik’s Philly Phamous — in San Antonio. The second restaurant opened last year.

What Rose lacked in size, he made up for with physical play and hustle. He often played his best in the second halves of games when bigger opponents like Shaquille O’Neal would wear down. Rose chased down loose balls, won rebounding battles, and did other little things right when the game was on the line.

Like many other Spurs fans on the night of Feb. 24, 2005, I also was saddened with the Rose trade. I had the mindset of “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Nothing was broken with Rose, he was just three inches too short for Popovich. I’m still disappointed with the trade, and now those of us in Spurs Country are stuck with wondering “what-if.” Was Rose the guy the Spurs needed to match Dirk Nowitski’s quickness? Could Rose have been the difference-maker?

We’re also left with a question for Popovich — Why Pop why?

[dknights411]

Well, he DID help us win the title in 2005. But that's beside the point.

[rayray2k8]

Do you even sleep Kori?? :lol

Who knows what could of happened if malik was still with the spurs.
The spurs were a manu fuck-up away from getting to the WCF and possibly to the
Finals where the spurs would of had a good chance of winning it all.
IMO, bruce did a hell of a job guarding Dirk, but the problem was he was a bit undersized.

[T Park]

Marcus Bryant wrote this?

The Daily times, is that a New York paper or what?

[angel_luv]

All this speculation... it is enough to drive a person nuts. The bottom line is what is done has been done and we have no way of knowing how other paths might have turned out.

That said, I really liked our team with both Malik and Sho and wish we had kept them.

Concerning the "Why Pop, why?" question, I seriously doubt he could ever answer it to my full satisfaction, regardless of the validity of his remarks.

[velik_m]

Answer: Money.

[Solid D]

Marcus Bryant wrote this?

The Daily times, is that a New York paper or what?

Kerrville Texas Daily Times

[picnroll]

Butler > Malik + Nazr

[spur219]

If the Spurs would of kept Rose i dont' think the Spurs would of won the championship that year. Nazr was huge in the playoffs and mainly was one of the biggest reasons why the Spurs got past the Sonics.

Now this past season yes Rose would of been more suited against the Mavs.

[SenorSpur]

If the Spurs would of kept Rose i dont' think the Spurs would of won the championship that year. Nazr was huge in the playoffs and mainly was one of the biggest reasons why the Spurs got past the Sonics.

Now this past season yes Rose would of been more suited against the Mavs.

Well said.

[Solid D]

I miss Malik too.

The Spurs DID win a championship one of the two years with Nazr. Who knows, maybe they lose last year ('05) and win this year with Malik since the matchups were different? If the Spurs win in '07 with Elson/Butler/Oberto, then I guess saving the $6-7M/yr. for Malik was worth it after all.

[Solid D]

Sorry, spur219, I didn't see your post...but I guess we were thinking similarly.

[MoSpur]

Move on.

[ChumpDumper]

His last name reads like Klingon.

Play up to your contract, and you can stay.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Why Pop why?

I guess because Rose sucks and played his last good ball three years ago would be too obvious.

[Obstructed_View]

I guess because Rose sucks and played his last good ball three years ago would be too obvious.
Or that he was in Pop's doghouse and wouldn't have gotten off the bench against the Mavs any more than Beno did.

[Merlin]

Pop as a coach is overrated. Of course, we have won championships with him but the Dallas Cowboys won one with Barry Switzer as a coach too. Phil Jackson outcoached Pop a couple of years ago, the year the Lakers lost to Detroit in the Finals. Avery Johnson outcoached him this year and he lost in the Finals.

When you have the talent that SA does, then a championship him or there isnt out of the ordinary. Cant seem to win back to back like the great teams do but that is why they are dynasties and SA is not.

[STEVEYCU]

The Rose trade happened what alomst three years ago, come on Pop traded the guy when he could get a capable player in return, after what I have seen from Malik with the knicks (and with the way you guys are hypin him should be the worst team in the NBAs besst player, even though he hardly gets into the game unless they are down by 20 +) you think any team would trade for him and a bloated contract. He would be harder to trade then Rasho was. It was a great trade one of the best the Spurs ever did and we got a championship and more cap room cause of it

[jcrod]

Move on.

Exactly!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Rose were so great he wouldn't be sitting on the bench on a New York Knicks squad that sorely needs some veteran leadership.

I still don't get why people think 6'3" Malik Rose could have made a difference against Dirk when 6'7" Bowen and 6'5" Michael Finley couldn't.

[waly.mg]

The Answer is Money

Malik´s 2006/2007 Contract is U$S 6.500.00

That is a MLE + LLE

Whit that money we can sign a Better center than Butler or Elson

The same team now, With Malik and without Elson and Butler worth 67.6 Million, 3 over the Luxury Cap

If both would be in the team now is: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Emanuel Ginobili, Brent Barry, Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry,Michael Finley,Beno Udrih, Malik and Rasho worth 65 Millions (Over the Luxury Tax) for only 10 players

So if we complete the team only with Oberto, Bonner and Vaughn is over 70 Millions

It´s Business

[SenorSpur]

It's SO easy to second-guess Pop now - and for good reason. A lot of us can't help wondering "what if" Pop would have scrapped his "small ball" philosophy and continued utilizing his traditional lineup. I mean the team only won 63 games with that lineup.

Furthermore, watching Miami bang Dallas around using their traditional lineup was even more disheartening and doesn't help Pop's claim that his lineup wasn't working. I certainly don't think Miami was quicker than Dallas on the perimeter, they simply shut down the lane and made Dallas into a "jump-shooting" team that wilted under pressure.

Now we're all left wondering "what if"?

[ro_50]

Who is this guy, a writer or a fan?

[my2sons]

Pop as a coach is overrated. Of course, we have won championships with him but the Dallas Cowboys won one with Barry Switzer as a coach too. Phil Jackson outcoached Pop a couple of years ago, the year the Lakers lost to Detroit in the Finals. Avery Johnson outcoached him this year and he lost in the Finals.

When you have the talent that SA does, then a championship him or there isnt out of the ordinary. Cant seem to win back to back like the great teams do but that is why they are dynasties and SA is not.

Thats been proven wrong time and time again...Shaq and kobe needed phil to get over the hump they had talent...nobody is questioning dallas' talent and they still haven't won, heck they weren't even in the conversation til aj took over...so many teams have talent but can't win...pop has three trophys and in contention for more....ya i can see why you consider him overrated...your post is a few years behind....bob hill went away a long long time ago....thats when you could get away with your pop bashing...it took two titles to put him into good coaching status...

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Yes.

Because that trade had everything to do with getting Nazr, and nothing to do with us clearing up cap space from Malik's horrible contract. Okie.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's SO easy to second-guess Pop now - and for good reason. A lot of us can't help wondering "what if" Pop would have scrapped his "small ball" philosophy and continued utilizing his traditional lineup. I mean the team only won 63 games with that lineup.

Furthermore, watching Miami bang Dallas around using their traditional lineup was even more disheartening and doesn't help Pop's claim that his lineup wasn't working. I certainly don't think Miami was quicker than Dallas on the perimeter, they simply shut down the lane and made Dallas into a "jump-shooting" team that wilted under pressure.

Now we're all left wondering "what if"?

Did you just sleep through that Sacramento series where Rasho and Nazr were completely useless to the Spurs? Pop's decision to go small was as much about the fact that Rasho and Nazr did little or nothing that was worthwhile against Sacramento and carried that through the first two games against Dallas.

Honestly -- do you really believe that Rasho and Nazr were just going to flip a switch after Game 2 and suddenly shut down the paint after they had basically failed as a tandem to do that in pretty much every significant game for last year's team?

I'm not entirely convinced that Pop wanted to go small during the Dallas series; I'm almost completely convinced that Pop believed that he had no choice but to go small at that juncture, because his centers were so amazingly ineffective.

[T Park]

FWD, once again, a fantastic post.

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Did you just sleep through that Sacramento series where Rasho and Nazr were completely useless to the Spurs? Pop's decision to go small was as much about the fact that Rasho and Nazr did little or nothing that was worthwhile against Sacramento and carried that through the first two games against Dallas.

Honestly -- do you really believe that Rasho and Nazr were just going to flip a switch after Game 2 and suddenly shut down the paint after they had basically failed as a tandem to do that in pretty much every significant game for last year's team?

I'm not entirely convinced that Pop wanted to go small during the Dallas series; I'm almost completely convinced that Pop believed that he had no choice but to go small at that juncture, because his centers were so amazingly ineffective.

It's been a while, but from what I remember it was Shareef attacking Tim in the post that did most of the damage for the Kings.

How exactly were Nazr/Rasho getting schooled, other than not putting up big stats...which isn't something they're expected to do really.

[STEVEYCU]

Malik Rose was not a starter on either of the 2 champioship runs...... so your tellin me if the trade never happened the fith or sixth best player after finnley woulda made a differnce in a one point game aginst the mavs, oh and he and Rasho(who woulda been the starter by the way without getting Nazr) woulda beat the Pistons last year and grabed first in the west this year ? I dont think so.. Look lets face it it wasnt Pops small ball or a trade 3 years ago that lost the game 7 aginst the mavs, I hate to say it but Manu and the refs cost us the championship last year

[SenorSpur]

Did you just sleep through that Sacramento series where Rasho and Nazr were completely useless to the Spurs? Pop's decision to go small was as much about the fact that Rasho and Nazr did little or nothing that was worthwhile against Sacramento and carried that through the first two games against Dallas.

Honestly -- do you really believe that Rasho and Nazr were just going to flip a switch after Game 2 and suddenly shut down the paint after they had basically failed as a tandem to do that in pretty much every significant game for last year's team?

I'm not entirely convinced that Pop wanted to go small during the Dallas series; I'm almost completely convinced that Pop believed that he had no choice but to go small at that juncture, because his centers were so amazingly ineffective.

No, I didn't sleep through that Sac series. I also remember Bonzi Wells and Kevin Martin getting to the rack whenever they wished during that series.

The defensive concept is simple. Either the guards have to stay in front of their man to cut off offensive penetration or the bigs have to help out closing off the lane. There's no question the tandem of Rasho and Nazr were ineffective during the entire playoffs. This exposed weaknesses with the Spurs perimeter defense.

All I'm saying is that is wasn't just the interior defense that was suspect during the playoffs - the weaknesses in perimeter defense (save for Bowen) were exposed as well. I wished the Spurs could have somehow gotten help there during the offseason.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's been a while, but from what I remember it was Shareef attacking Tim in the post that did most of the damage for the Kings.

How exactly were Nazr/Rasho getting schooled, other than not putting up big stats...which isn't something they're expected to do really.

What was killing the Spurs in that series was the fact that they didn't rebound the basketball. Bonzi Wells, Ron Artest, Kevin Martin, Kenny Thomas owned the glass in large parts of that series and the Spurs were on the ropes because of it. As the series progressed, Nazr and Rasho couldn't rebound the ball to save their lives, and I think in large part because the bigs were so soft on the defensive glass, Sacramento got offensive board after offensive board and boatloads of second chance points. Even if they rebounded, the notion that Rasho and Nazr could deny penetration and make a team a jump shooting team was severely challenged by the way the Kings attacked the Spurs -- and Rasho and Nazr were completely unable to provide any kind of resistance against the Kings' effort. In fact, their ineffectiveness was so pronounced that Pop stopped using them IN THAT SERIES.

Minutes by game vs. Sacramento (starter bolded)

Game 1 -- NM 25; RN 24
Game 2 -- NM 24; RN 13
Game 3 -- NM 10; RN 18
Game 4 -- NM 18; RN 23
Game 5 -- NM 1; RN 11
Game 6 -- NM 2; RN 14

[FromWayDowntown]

I wished the Spurs could have somehow gotten help there during the offseason.

It's the middle of July; the Spurs won't offically bounce a basketball until the beginning of October.

A million things can happen between now and then.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, I didn't sleep through that Sac series. I also remember Bonzi Wells and Kevin Martin getting to the rack whenever they wished during that series.

So, again, how exactly is it that Rasho and Nazr were going to have anything to do with making Dallas a jump shooting team when they had no success making the less-athletic Kings a jump shooting team? Until you can answer that question in some persuasive way, you'll never convince me that Pop made a tactical mistake by going away from Rasho and Nazr.


The defensive concept is simple. Either the guards have to stay in front of their man to cut off offensive penetration or the bigs have to help out closing off the lane. There's no question the tandem of Rasho and Nazr were ineffective during the entire playoffs. This exposed weaknesses with the Spurs perimeter defense.

I don't disagree with you there -- but as the counter above notes, your argument hinted that you believe Pop erred tactically by taking Rasho and Nazr out of the rotation. I ask again -- how exactly is it that you expected Rasho and Nazr to cover for those weaknesses against Dallas when they were basically invisible against a less-athletic Kings team?

[Mr. Body]

I'm not entirely convinced that Pop wanted to go small during the Dallas series; I'm almost completely convinced that Pop believed that he had no choice but to go small at that juncture, because his centers were so amazingly ineffective.

This is reason #1 the Butler signing is so important. Maybe getting too far ahead, but I don't see anybody on Dallas able to handle him. They had trouble enough with Duncan, now we're adding another gifted interior scorer.

I see worlds of foul trouble ahead for them. :nutkick:

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Did you just sleep through that Sacramento series where Rasho and Nazr were completely useless to the Spurs? Pop's decision to go small was as much about the fact that Rasho and Nazr did little or nothing that was worthwhile against Sacramento and carried that through the first two games against Dallas.

Honestly -- do you really believe that Rasho and Nazr were just going to flip a switch after Game 2 and suddenly shut down the paint after they had basically failed as a tandem to do that in pretty much every significant game for last year's team?

I'm not entirely convinced that Pop wanted to go small during the Dallas series; I'm almost completely convinced that Pop believed that he had no choice but to go small at that juncture, because his centers were so amazingly ineffective.

I had to wait until after my post-playoff depression to fully understand this well-stated point.

Pop's decision to not play our two centers in the Dallas series had little to do with a sudden commitment to small ball as much as it had to do with the simple ineffectiveness of Rasho and Nazr's game.

Same is true regarding the widely-held salary conspiracy theory and Pop not playing Nazr in attempt to keep his value down.

Nazr stunk, Rasho stunk, and therefore they didn't play. Their suckiness dictated Pop's rotation decisions as much as the league's progression towards small ball lineups. And I don't think at any point Pop thought "I think I'll sit Nazr in an attempt to keep his market value lower." If anything he was probably regretting not being able to showcase his two centers for trade and sign-and-trade offseason possibilities.

I'm glad the Spurs organization is attempting to keep this team evolving (for the better) and that they've signed a couple of role player centers who might better fit this new team concept.

Considering the teams options I think they made out about as well as they could have. If you figure that our two previous centers had statlines consisting of all goose eggs those last few games of the season I can't see these two new guys being any worse.

[texasqb2]

uhm, isn't this a beat writer from NY? It should be obvious why we didn't keep Rose, the same reason they don't want him anymore

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Wow, Spurstalk revisionist history in full effect on this one....

Look, the idea that Nazr and Rasho sat in the Dallas series due to some ineffectiveness exhibited in games 1 and 2 of that series is a myth.

Game 1 of that series Pop had already committed to small ball. This where myself and others began the criticism of him. Everyone here hangs on to this idea that the sudden insertion of Devin Harris into the Mavs starting lineup in game 2 killed the use of them off is sorely misguided.

Pop started Robert Horry in game *1* of the Dallas series. He played 33 minutes next to Duncan. He came up with 5 points, 9 boards in his PT. Conversely, Nazr and Rasho got a combined 10 minutes and came up with 3 boards.

Game 2, neither big saw the court until the Spurs were down 14 points, and the rout was on. Everyone here seems to love to blame Nazr for not coming in and single-handedly stopping a streaky shooting team that was streaking at that time.

After that point, neither saw the court again except pre-game warmups.

From Way Downtown usually has pretty solid takes, but you've missed the boat on stating that their poor play carried over from the Sacramento series to the first two of the Mavs series. This simply was not the case.

Judging them for their play in the Sacramento series also seems a little misguided. Using that series as a benchmark, Bowen shouldn't have been getting much run in the Mavs series either.

The simple matter is every year the Spurs have failed to win the title Pop always develops his 'dog house' players throughout the course of the series, and this post-season it was lucky numbers 2 and 8 that found themselves there.

[Hillcrest]

Wow, Spurstalk revisionist history in full effect on this one....

Look, the idea that Nazr and Rasho sat in the Dallas series due to some ineffectiveness exhibited in games 1 and 2 of that series is a myth.

Game 1 of that series Pop had already committed to small ball. This where myself and others began the criticism of him. Everyone here hangs on to this idea that the sudden insertion of Devin Harris into the Mavs starting lineup in game 2 killed the use of them off is sorely misguided.

Pop started Robert Horry in game *1* of the Dallas series. He played 33 minutes next to Duncan. He came up with 5 points, 9 boards in his PT. Conversely, Nazr and Rasho got a combined 10 minutes and came up with 3 boards.

Game 2, neither big saw the court until the Spurs were down 14 points, and the rout was on. Everyone here seems to love to blame Nazr for not coming in and single-handedly stopping a streaky shooting team that was streaking at that time.

After that point, neither saw the court again except pre-game warmups.

From Way Downtown usually has pretty solid takes, but you've missed the boat on stating that their poor play carried over from the Sacramento series to the first two of the Mavs series. This simply was not the case.

Judging them for their play in the Sacramento series also seems a little misguided. Using that series as a benchmark, Bowen shouldn't have been getting much run in the Mavs series either.

The simple matter is every year the Spurs have failed to win the title Pop always develops his 'dog house' players throughout the course of the series, and this post-season it was lucky numbers 2 and 8 that found themselves there.

Speed/quickness will beat size. I'll take that bet all day.

[SenorSpur]

So, again, how exactly is it that Rasho and Nazr were going to have anything to do with making Dallas a jump shooting team when they had no success making the less-athletic Kings a jump shooting team? Until you can answer that question in some persuasive way, you'll never convince me that Pop made a tactical mistake by going away from Rasho and Nazr.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you if his decision was a tactical error or not because I don't know. I will tell you this. The Spurs were already at a decisive disadvantage in the rebounding department even before the series versus the Mavs. The decision to go exclusively "small" only exacerbated the rebounding differential.

Two of their 4 losses in that series (Games 3 and 4 if I remember correctly) were directly related to their inability to secure rebounds in the final seconds of close ball games - while using a smaller lineup. My only criticism of Pop there is that I would have rather seen him utilize a bigger lineup in those type situations.

As for the Sac series, Rasho is a decent shot-blocker. I would have rather seem him foul out of games against the Kings contesting shots, instead of watching Wells, Martin, Artest and others constantly getting to the rim. Of course, that would require Rasho becoming aggressive - but I digress.

The bottom line is they lost the series. If they hadn't we wouldn't be having this debate. As fans, we have the right to second-guess coaching decisions. However the truth is we'll never know if his decision to go the "small ball" route was a tactical error or not.

[SenorSpur]

Wow, Spurstalk revisionist history in full effect on this one....


The simple matter is every year the Spurs have failed to win the title Pop always develops his 'dog house' players throughout the course of the series, and this post-season it was lucky numbers 2 and 8 that found themselves there.

That would explain why that two-headed center tandem is no longer here. I hope the next duo can be even more effective. The overall upside is they are younger, cheaper and hopefully more active.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Speed/quickness will beat size. I'll take that bet all day.

And so will Dallas, which is why Diop + Dirk led them to +25 on the offensive glass while we played Finley and Bowen at the 4.

[spur219]

Sorry, spur219, I didn't see your post...but I guess we were thinking similarly.


Its alright. Intelligent minds think alike.

[FromWayDowntown]

Game 1 of that series Pop had already committed to small ball. This where myself and others began the criticism of him. Everyone here hangs on to this idea that the sudden insertion of Devin Harris into the Mavs starting lineup in game 2 killed the use of them off is sorely misguided.

Pop started Robert Horry in game *1* of the Dallas series. He played 33 minutes next to Duncan. He came up with 5 points, 9 boards in his PT. Conversely, Nazr and Rasho got a combined 10 minutes and came up with 3 boards.

You'd have me if Horry hadn't also started Games 5 & 6 vs. Sacramento and if that decision hadn't been predicated almost exclusively on how poorly Rasho and Nazr were playing by the end of that series. In Game 1 of the Dallas series, Pop just carried over the lineup and rotations that he had been using at the end of the Sac series. That exclusion of Rasho and Nazr from that lineup and that rotation were, IMO, the product of the complete ineffectiveness of either Rasho or Nazr.

What the remainder of the Dallas series showed was that Robert Horry was also unable to play effectively.


Game 2, neither big saw the court until the Spurs were down 14 points, and the rout was on. Everyone here seems to love to blame Nazr for not coming in and single-handedly stopping a streaky shooting team that was streaking at that time.

After that point, neither saw the court again except pre-game warmups.

Again, I think that's because Pop had already figured out that there wasn't a damned thing that Rasho or Nazr could do to make a difference against Dallas. I think the decision to go small was entirely a matter of the identities of the bigs who were available and the style of play that had taken over at that point. Different bigs very well might have been part of the plan; those bigs weren't playing because they hadn't been very good in the run-up to that series.


you've missed the boat on stating that their poor play carried over from the Sacramento series to the first two of the Mavs series. This simply was not the case.

So, is your argument then that despite the fact that Rasho and Nazr had been pretty much shelved by the end of the Sacramento series, Pop should have given it the old college try and reinserted them against Dallas just to see what would have happened?

My point is that after the first 4 games of the Sacramento series, Pop had plenty of reason to think that Rasho and Nazr were going to be equally dreadful (if not more so) in a series with the Mavericks. I'd think that trying them again would have been a fairly frivolous effort on Pop's part; the thought that Rasho and Nazr were going to be in any way effective against that Dallas team playing a smaller lineup strikes me as fanciful at best.


Judging them for their play in the Sacramento series also seems a little misguided. Using that series as a benchmark, Bowen shouldn't have been getting much run in the Mavs series either.

I don't think it was just the Sacramento series that led Pop to his conclusion that Rasho and Nazr would prove unhelpful. But I think the doubts that Pop had were certainly reinforced in that series.

Bowen is a different question for a number of reasons.


The simple matter is every year the Spurs have failed to win the title Pop always develops his 'dog house' players throughout the course of the series, and this post-season it was lucky numbers 2 and 8 that found themselves there.

And if Pop exercised some sort of extreme level of patience and gave Nazr and Rasho regular season-type burn against the Mavericks, only to discover that neither could do a damned thing against the Mavs, I'm sure the cavalry would have come calling for Pop's head for not making the move sooner.

I honestly don't believe that Pop puts his ego in front of his team's chances for success; I don't know that his players would allow it. If there's a guy on the bench who can help the club, that guy usually plays. Guys who don't play usually don't play because they're perceived to be unhelpful. Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to conclude that Rasho and Nazr would have done anything helpful against Dallas in that playoff series -- in part at least because they couldn't do it against Sacramento.

[Quasar]

Actually part of me was wondering why Pop didn't continue with the Oberto experiment.

IIRC, he did quite well in that match.

[SequSpur]

Malik Rose Sucks.

WTF?

[Tek_XX]

Why is this guy writing about Malik Rose? damn Kerrville times reporters need to stay current. As was pointed out we won a title without Rose, and i fully supported ditching him since he wasn't playing up to his salary.

[Merlin]

Thats been proven wrong time and time again...Shaq and kobe needed phil to get over the hump they had talent...nobody is questioning dallas' talent and they still haven't won, heck they weren't even in the conversation til aj took over...so many teams have talent but can't win...pop has three trophys and in contention for more....ya i can see why you consider him overrated...your post is a few years behind....bob hill went away a long long time ago....thats when you could get away with your pop bashing...it took two titles to put him into good coaching status...

You offered nothing to show what has been proven time and time again. Kinda hard to understand much of anything you are saying.

[SpursIndonesia]

Speed/quickness will beat size. I'll take that bet all day.
I don't think Miami agree with that Notion. :angel

[AFE7FATMAN]

The Answer is Money

It´s Business

You are so right: but POP also felt good, real good, about doing it.

[Rick Von Braun]

Regarding the Malik Rose article, I have one thing to say: sour grapes. This was done long time ago... and we won a championship in between with Nazr as our starting center.


What was killing the Spurs in that series was the fact that they didn't rebound the basketball. Bonzi Wells, Ron Artest, Kevin Martin, Kenny Thomas owned the glass in large parts of that series and the Spurs were on the ropes because of it. As the series progressed, Nazr and Rasho couldn't rebound the ball to save their lives, and I think in large part because the bigs were so soft on the defensive glass, Sacramento got offensive board after offensive board and boatloads of second chance points.

FWD,

I agree with you that rebounding was the big issue in both the Sacramento and Dallas series. What I completely disagree with you is that Nazr or Rasho were the problem, and furthermore, that Horry, Finley, Barry and/or Bowen playing PF was the solution.

Let's take a look at this issue more closely. The following is the list of best defensive rebounders in the playoffs, sorted by defensive rebound percentage, i.e. the total number of defensive rebounds they got as a function of the total number of rebounding opportunities.



Player DR DRC DR%*
Duncan 104 424 24.5%
Rasho 23 116 19.8%
Nazr 16 93 17.2%
Horry 29 217 13.4%
Finley 48 367 13.1%
Gino 50 388 12.9%
Barry 29 277 10.5%
Bowen 22 400 5.5%

DR: total defensive rebounds
DRC: total defensive rebounds chances
DR%: percentage of defensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com

The best defensive rebounder is, not surpringsinly, Tim Duncan. The second and third best are Rasho and Nazr, in that order. Perhaps more telling is that neither Horry, nor Finley are exceptional defensive rebounders, in fact the rebound at almost the same rate than our starting SG. That is horrid for our PF and SF, and we got beaten badly on the glass precisely because of this. Lastly, but not least, it is imperative for the Spurs system that they get size and rebounds in the paint to compensate and balance the team because our starting SF is one of the worst defensive and offensive rebounders in the league, and he gets a significant amount of playing time (this is not a knock on Bruce, he is what he is and he brings other positive aspects to the game, but it forces you to compensate and balance the team out).

Let's take a look now at how the Spurs attack the offensive glass and created further opportunities in the playoffs.



Player OR ORC OR%*
Nazr 15 80 18.8%
Horry 19 192 9.9%
Duncan 33 398 8.3%
Rasho 7 100 7.0%
Gino 9 341 2.6%
Bowen 6 363 1.7%
Barry 3 254 1.2%
Finley 1 317 0.3%

OR: total offensive rebounds
ORC: total offensive rebounds chances
OR%: percentage of offensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com


The first thing you notice is how good Nazr is on the offensive glass... his percentage doubles the second best in the team. The second point is that Horry is still pretty good on the offensive glass, even better than Tim and Rasho. The last point worth mentioning is that Finley, Barry and Bowen are horrid offensive rebounders, and they managed to combine for one more offensive rebound that our starting SG.

There were certainly other aspects to the game than just rebounding, but weakness getting defensive and offensive rebounds was an undeniable factor in both playoff series. In past playoffs, the Spurs almost always enjoyed a significant advantage in rebounds, but this year this was not the case.

There are other things that should had been done differently. In the Dallas series, Horry and Oberto deserved more playing time getting under Dirk's skin. Play them extensive minutes on him, even if they foul out... they were our two best match ups, and they would have freed other players to more reasonable defensive assignments, avoiding doubling too much. Putting a player 6 inches shorter on Dirk was a huge mistake, and allowed the Mavericks to break the Spurs defense repeatedly.

I blame this faux pas on Pop; he simply failed to strategically impose his will and force the Mavericks to adapt to the Spurs. The Spurs had to navigate in unchartered waters and improvised a permeable and soft defensive scheme in the middle of the playoffs away from what they had done all year long. This was an unforgiving sin.

To put it in clear terms:

FUCK SMALL BALL!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You'd have me if Horry hadn't also started Games 5 & 6 vs. Sacramento and if that decision hadn't been predicated almost exclusively on how poorly Rasho and Nazr were playing by the end of that series. In Game 1 of the Dallas series, Pop just carried over the lineup and rotations that he had been using at the end of the Sac series. That exclusion of Rasho and Nazr from that lineup and that rotation were, IMO, the product of the complete ineffectiveness of either Rasho or Nazr.

What the remainder of the Dallas series showed was that Robert Horry was also unable to play effectively.

FWD,

Again, Pop never even tried to see if it would work in the Dallas series. As you noted, it was clear that Horry was completely ineffective in the Dallas series. I guess you can call it the old college try on that if you want, point is we never will know because Pop never tried.

As to your other comment, I don't think it's that Pop puts his ego ahead of the team, it's about him being stubborn in his ways. To me there's a difference between ego and stubborness, and Pop's problem is the latter, not the former.

[greyforest]

malik blows

i call him foulik

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD,

Again, Pop never even tried to see if it would work in the Dallas series. As you noted, it was clear that Horry was completely ineffective in the Dallas series. I guess you can call it the old college try on that if you want, point is we never will know because Pop never tried.

I can see that. I certainly understand and, as always, respect your argument, even though I disagree with its premise. I'm still convinced that Pop never tried because he had plenty of reason to believe that he already knew what the result was going to be.

I think it's plausible that if Pop had gone with big ball, the Spurs would have never seen Game 7, because they might have been eliminted by Game 5.

At the same time, I have no way of proving conclusively that the Spurs wouldn't have swept the Mavericks and romped to another title.


r other comment, I don't think it's that Pop puts his ego ahead of the team, it's about him being stubborn in his ways. To me there's a difference between ego and stubborness, and Pop's problem is the latter, not the former.

I take Pop's actions during the 2006 playoffs as something other than stubborn. Had Pop been completely stubborn, he would have never made changes at any point along the way. I thought Pop was constantly working during both series to find solutions to a series of problems that his roster was ill-equipped to handle. It may be that his solutions were, in the end and by some objective criteria, not the best choices available; but I'm content that the actions taken were the best choices that could have been made, all things considered.

On a personal note -- I've tried to avoid characterization around here and tried to stay fairly objective whenever possible. As such, I hadn't ever really thought about it before, but this offseason has proven that I'm an unabashed Pop backer. I think in the vast majority of situations this franchise has faced over the last 10-12 years, Pop has done a magnificent job of getting the right things done to put banners in the rafters. I hadn't really considered my own loyalty to Popovich before this summer, but I'm obviously outing myself as a Pop loyalist here and now.

[STEVEYCU]

The Mavs didnt want to win the title they cared more about beatin the Spurs that was as Cuban said there greatest acomplishment in the teams history, so every player on the team tried harder aginst the Spurs, and thats why Miami pretty much swept the Mavs outa a lousy finals and why Dallas wont win a championship. They only care about beatin the Spurs

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD,

I agree with you that rebounding was the big issue in both the Sacramento and Dallas series. What I completely disagree with you is that Nazr or Rasho were the problem, and furthermore, that Horry, Finley, Barry and/or Bowen playing PF was the solution.

Let's take a look at this issue more closely. The following is the list of best defensive rebounders in the playoffs, sorted by defensive rebound percentage, i.e. the total number of defensive rebounds they got as a function of the total number of rebounding opportunities.



Player DR DRC DR%*
Duncan 104 424 24.5%
Rasho 23 116 19.8%
Nazr 16 93 17.2%
Horry 29 217 13.4%
Finley 48 367 13.1%
Gino 50 388 12.9%
Barry 29 277 10.5%
Bowen 22 400 5.5%

DR: total defensive rebounds
DRC: total defensive rebounds chances
DR%: percentage of defensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com

The best defensive rebounder is, not surpringsinly, Tim Duncan. The second and third best are Rasho and Nazr, in that order. Perhaps more telling is that neither Horry, nor Finley are exceptional defensive rebounders, in fact the rebound at almost the same rate than our starting SG. That is horrid for our PF and SF, and we got beaten badly on the glass precisely because of this. Lastly, but not least, it is imperative for the Spurs system that they get size and rebounds in the paint to compensate and balance the team because our starting SF is one of the worst defensive and offensive rebounders in the league, and he gets a significant amount of playing time (this is not a knock on Bruce, he is what he is and he brings other positive aspects to the game, but it forces you to compensate and balance the team out).

Rick -- those numbers don't really surprise me, but I also find from my own rewatching of games and the numbers reported in boxscores that the numbers for Rasho and Nazr during the 2006 playoffs are somewhat skewed because of when they played. Nazr's rebounding percentages look decent enough, but you'll note that he grabbed a significant number of his rebounds (11 of 25) in garbage time in Games 4 and 6 of the Sacramento series. Indeed, if you rule out Game 1, where the Spurs shooting percentage was astronomical and the Kings had yet to begin crashing the boards, Rasho and Nazr were downright invisible as a rebounding tandem. The number of rebounds relative to the chances available is interesting to a degree, but it doesn't account for the number of times that Sacramento wings were able to grab offensive boards when Rasho or Nazr were nearby and were out-hustled or out-muscled for rebounds. That number doesn't show up in the 82games calculation and it is, I think, the number that resulted mostly in the extinction of Rasho and Nazr as rotation players during the 2006 Playoffs.

Could they have done more than Horry did? Perhaps -- but at least against Sacramento, the Spurs defensive rebounding percentages went up as Rasho and Nazr's minutes dipped. Here is a rough calculation of the game-by-game defensive rebounding percentages (calculated as DREB/(DREB+Opp OREB)):

Game 1: 39/52 = 75.0%
Game 2: 27/41 = 65.9%
Game 3: 29/44 = 65.9%
Game 4: 24/35 = 68.6%
Game 5: 33/44 = 75.0%
Game 6: 29/39 = 74.4%

The number of Spurs' defensive rebounds relative to all rebounds available at the Spurs' defensive end of the floor improved by a fairly significant margin in Games 5 & 6. Is there any way to prove that the increase is dependent on the absence of Rasho or Nazr? I don't know, but the simplified proof would suggest at the very least that for some reason, the Spurs did a better job in percentage terms of keeping the Kings off the offensive boards without the centers.


Let's take a look now at how the Spurs attack the offensive glass and created further opportunities in the playoffs.



Player OR ORC OR%*
Nazr 15 80 18.8%
Horry 19 192 9.9%
Duncan 33 398 8.3%
Rasho 7 100 7.0%
Gino 9 341 2.6%
Bowen 6 363 1.7%
Barry 3 254 1.2%
Finley 1 317 0.3%

OR: total offensive rebounds
ORC: total offensive rebounds chances
OR%: percentage of offensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com


The first thing you notice is how good Nazr is on the offensive glass... his percentage doubles the second best in the team. The second point is that Horry is still pretty good on the offensive glass, even better than Tim and Rasho. The last point worth mentioning is that Finley, Barry and Bowen are horrid offensive rebounders, and they managed to combine for one more offensive rebound that our starting SG.

Ultimately, I think Pop's decision came down to evening out the defensive glass and I don't know that he was going to be swayed by the prowess of either Rasho or Nazr on the offensive glass if neither was aiding in controlling the other end. I certainly see your point and think you make a persuasive argument, but I can understand why Pop didn't see it that way.

[CaptainLate]

Answer: Money.

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.

So we waste the primes of Tim and Manu. Parker has a ways to go but if this continues, he will get disgruntled and ask to leave. :depressed

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.

So we waste the primes of Tim and Manu. Parker has a ways to go but if this continues, he will get disgruntled and ask to leave. :depressed

If the Spurs get the same production out of Butler and Elson that they got out of Rasho and Nazr for half the cost, how does that make them cheap?

[Obstructed_View]

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.
And thank almighty Jesus for that. For all their spending, the above have a total of one WNBA title.