Battle Blog: Spurs Looking Toward Another Title

[Kori Ellis]

This if the results of the latest Battle Blog. Soucier (Brodels) won the Blog.

Spurs Looking Toward Another Title

http://www.woai.com/spurs/story.aspx?content_id=28CBD30C-810D-4734-A1B5-AAA8D0D3C4ED

We continue the SpursZONE.com series of Point/Counterpoint articles in which two people debate different aspects of Spurs basketball and the rest of the NBA.

In this edition, FullSportPress.com writers Andy Soucier and Michael Paceleo discuss the Spurs’ chances for winning the NBA title this season.

Soucier: The Spurs improved in the offseason by signing Brent Barry, but they did not adequately address their biggest problems and they will not win the 2004-05 championship.

The Spurs lost in the playoffs because their perimeter shooting was poor. While Barry is an upgrade over Hedo Turkoglu, the remaining perimeter shooters cannot make shots with any regularity. The Spurs won in the past by surrounding Duncan with quality shooters like Jaren Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Steve Kerr, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott. Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Bruce Bowen will get lots of playoff minutes, but they don't have the pure shooting stroke to successfully complement Tim Duncan's post game.

A lack of toughness will also hurt. Rasho Nesterovic is known for his soft demeanor on the court, Barry is a poor playoff performer, Udrih is injury prone and Parker and Ginobili haven't shown that they can carry the team when needed. The Spurs will suffer from not having a Charles Oakley-like enforcer.

Average perimeter shooting and a lack of toughness will force Duncan to carry too much of the load on offense and defense. In a deep Western Conference, no team can win when one player is responsible for so much. Duncan played basketball all summer. Unless the other Spurs step up, Duncan could become fatigued and possibly experience an overuse injury similar to the one that plagued him last season.

The shooters are average. The center is soft. The support players haven't shown consistency. It's all on Duncan again, and in today's NBA, that means another early playoff exit.

Paceleo: The Spurs will win the NBA championship. Barry is an enhancement but the reason why the Spurs will win is because of defense. Ginobili and Parker are now a year older and wiser. Manu is the starter at shooting guard and will not have to go back to the bench to nurse bruised Turkish confidence. Parker will prove himself as one of the elite point guards in the West and Duncan is Duncan.

Nesterovic is more comfortable in his role and knows he does not have to be David Robinson. Bowen is arguably the best perimeter defender in the game and Devin Brown and Malik Rose will come off the bench to provide added intensity. Tony Massenburg will fill in nicely in the Kevin Willis enforcer role. He rebounds, hustles and is not afraid to throw an elbow or two.

The lack of outside shooting was a reason why San Antonio was eliminated. So was the adjustment LA made on Tony Parker. The Spurs went as their point guard did. Parker learned his lesson and he is now better for it. Even so, San Antonio was in it until the end and if Fisher would have missed that shot, the Spurs win Game 5 and most likely, the title.

Brent Barry isn't the second coming of Steve Kerr but he doesn't have to be. His outside touch, combined with the core of players who are getting better and team defense that has redefined the term will be enough to bring the title back.

Soucier: As last year's playoffs demonstrate, a combination of offense and defense wins championships. The Spurs didn't lose because they played poor defense. They failed in the playoffs because they couldn't score.

Stating that Parker will become an elite point guard and make better adjustments is nothing more than conjecture. We don't have any evidence that Parker has improved from his playoff experience. We do know that he won't solve the Spurs' shooting woes. We also know that the Spurs have only one pure perimeter shooter, are soft at center and don't have consistent scoring options after Duncan.

Teams need offense and defense to succeed in the playoffs. The defense is solid but Duncan will continue to carry a large burden on the offensive end due to the lack of shooters and an inconsistent second option. The Spurs have only won titles when Duncan has been surrounded by reliable outside shooting.

Paceleo: I agree, balance is necessary for championship success. San Antonio has it. Adding Barry enhances it. Barry also deepens an already talented Spurs bench. Bowen can shut down the other teams star and hit threes. Brown proved in last year’s playoffs that he is not afraid to take and hit the big shot. Brown is going to be given more minutes this season, which will add to the Spurs offensive firepower.

Parker is a year older and out to prove that he is worth his new contract. Ginobili was an offensive catalyst in limited minutes coming off the bench -- imagine what he can do with starter’s minutes. All Tim Duncan does is get better.

The Spurs do not have just one perimeter threat; they now have one more perimeter threat. One more threat that will put them over the top and win them a third title.

[Brodels]

Good job, Mikey. That was a good one.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[E20]

This isn't fair Brodels should be like expelled in Battle Blogging. :)

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I think the point should be made that the only difference from 2003 to now is the loss of SJax and Steve kerr. Alright is it so hard to say that Brent Barry is an upgrade over both those guys, becuase thats how i feel. Kerr of couse had the nice touch but he was way over the hill at that point, no way he could have continued to play the way barry can, and sjax wasnt that great a shooter, he had a few good games in the finals and we all act like he is the second coming

[samikeyp]

Well played Bro.

[Rummpd]

Soucier tries to make good points but comes up empty.

What centers excepting Ben Wallace, Brad Miller and perhaps a few more could not in a sense be labeled soft = play out more from the basket?

Based on games one and two instead a case could well be made that:

Rasho developing into a top 5-7 center
Spurs incredilbly deep at a number of positions
Have now the shooters they need = Duncan, Barry, Brown, and on any given night Ginobli and/or Parker.
Ginobli likely reaching all star consideration status.
Duncan is upgrading his already great, great game.

Spurs by the signs they are starting fast this year and are even stronger = will win title, challenged in a 6-7 game series by Pacers or Pistons. Absolutely nothing going on right now portends otherwise pending a major injury to one of the Big Three, Duncan, Ginobli, Parker (Wolves are the only West threat period).

(My perception is Soucier is one of our Lakers posters in disguise)

MadDoc

[Rummpd]

Oh and add Shaq to the list of soft centers = mark it down he won't play through injuries this year again when it truly counts.

Shaq reality = 380 by mid season, and soft.

MadDoc

[Brodels]

Soucier tries to make good points but comes up empty.

I disagree :)

Last season's team came up short. I identified the reason why I thought the Spurs lost last season. I evaluated the Spurs' attempts to fix them. The points that you are arguing could actually come to fruition this season, but everything needs to go right for that to happen.


What centers excepting Ben Wallace, Brad Miller and perhaps a few more could not in a sense be labeled soft = play out more from the basket?

Soft doesn't necessarily mean that a center plays away from the basket. Toughness isn't measured like that. You've mentioned Miller and Wallace, here are a few more: Shaq, Dampier, Ervin Johnson (he sucks, but he isn't soft), Magloire, Camby, and Ratliff.


Based on games one and two instead a case could well be made that:

Rasho developing into a top 5-7 center

Rasho isn't going to 'develop' much more than he already has. He might get a little more physical around the rim, but Rasho isn't suddenly going to become a top seven center. There are several who are arguably better, but I'll stick with eight sure things: Shaq, Wallace, Z, Dampier, Miller, Magloire, Ratliff, and Ming. Are you really ready to argue that Rasho is going to better than any one of those players?


Spurs incredilbly deep at a number of positions

They do have some depth. I wouldn't consider them to be 'incredibly' deep though. Beno is a rookie, and he's an injury waiting to happen. Brown and Barry will be solid. Up front, there isn't really a legit seven footer on the entire bench. Marks has some size, but he's injured and has never contributed much to an NBA team. Horry is truly looking his age. He's not as quick as he used to be and a look at his time on the court two nights ago shows that he's clearly declining. Rose is the best option up front. He's the player that was stuck at the end of the bench last season. The player that Pop tried to trade over and over again. And don't forget, he only played a couple of minutes the other night.

The depth is solid, but beyond Brown and Barry, everyone else is somewhat of a question mark.


Have now the shooters they need = Duncan, Barry, Brown, and on any given night Ginobli and/or Parker.

The only pure shooter on that list is Barry. The only consistent perimter threat on that list is Barry. Barry isn't going to play 40 mpg. The Spurs didn't improve enough in this area.


Ginobli likely reaching all star consideration status.

Likely? Is that simply because you're a Spurs fan and you think it to be true? He's going to have a tough time making it over Kobe, McGrady, Carmello, Ray Allen, Peja, Kirilenko, and even Richardson and Marion. The first six are better players. The second two could possibly be considered before Manu.

Do you think Manu should be considered over any of the first six players? Which ones?


Duncan is upgrading his already great, great game.

Wrong. Duncan is playing well because he played during the summer. It usually takes him a while to get going, but he was able to get on the court and get it done sooner this season. He was the best player in the league two years ago. Same with last season. And he'll be the best player this season.

But even though he's the best player, he hasn't improved much. He's just remained dominant. What elements of his game do you think he's improved upon? What has he added to his game that wasn't already there before?


Spurs by the signs they are starting fast this year and are even stronger = will win title, challenged in a 6-7 game series by Pacers or Pistons. Absolutely nothing going on right now portends otherwise pending a major injury to one of the Big Three, Duncan, Ginobli, Parker (Wolves are the only West threat period).

Two games don't reveal much. And regular season performances aren't indicative of how a team will perform in the playoffs. Dallas, Sacramento, and Minnesota prove that to be true. The Pistons only improved in the offseason, and they are still the champs. The Pacers are deep and talented. Miami has a solid tandem in Shaq and Wade. Minny is stacked. Houston and Sacramento could possibly make a run at the title.


(My perception is Soucier is one of our Lakers posters in disguise)

Wrong again.

You make some good points, and I believe many of them. The Spurs will have a good shot at the title this season, but it's far from a sure thing. They didn't improve as much as they needed to. They will have to rely on improvement from Parker and Manu. That could happen, but it's too early to tell. I hope the Spurs win the title. But I don't think it's a lock by any means.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Brodels, we won in 2003 with almost the same core, we have lost just Robinson, SJax, and Kerr, (i think Beno is better than claxton from what i have seen so far) and we have found reasonable replacments for both. Granted David Robinson is ir-replacable, but i watched every game of those playoffs and witht the exception of a few games in the finals he looked to be in bad shape the whole time, (he looked like his back was bothering him not like out-of-shape bad shape, i would kill for his biceps) but i think Brent Barry is more effective right now than Kerr or Jackson were then. It would be nice to have kerr to come in off the bench, but we have shooters that are capable of taking us to the promised land today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BronxCowboy]

Rasho isn't going to 'develop' much more than he already has. He might get a little more physical around the rim, but Rasho isn't suddenly going to become a top seven center. There are several who are arguably better, but I'll stick with eight sure things: Shaq, Wallace, Z, Dampier, Miller, Magloire, Ratliff, and Ming. Are you really ready to argue that Rasho is going to better than any one of those players?

Come on, Brodels, even if you're right that these eight guys are better than Rasho, that still makes him a top ten center, which ain't bad. And yes, it could be argued that he will be better than some of those guys. I would say he already is better than Ratliff. The guy can't do anything but block shots. You've got to come up with something better than that. Also, remember that Dampier's first seven years in the NBA were pretty forgettable. He never "broke out" until he was the only real post player available to do ANYTHING on his teams front line. Put him on the Spurs or the Wolves and he's suddenly a nobody. Same is true for Magloire. I'm not saying that Rasho is better than Magloire or Dampier, but he's certainly in the same class and HAS had a much more extended development curve than most guys in the NBA.

Regardless of whether you think Rasho will ever be a top 7 center in the NBA or not, the argument that center is a weakness that will cost the Spurs is shaky at best. Even guys that are clearly better than Rasho like Yao and Ilgauskas and Miller are not going to be able to push him around and have their way. The only truly dominant centers in the NBA today are Shaq and Ben Wallace, and he only qualifies on defense. If the Spurs were playing against the Heat all the time, Rasho's softness would be a problem. But since they aren't, Rasho is all the Spurs need at center. Give it a break.

[ChumpDumper]

I think I just saw the words "Dampier" and "sure thing" in the same sentence.

[Brodels]

Come on, Brodels, even if you're right that these eight guys are better than Rasho, that still makes him a top ten center, which ain't bad.

I never said he wasn't top ten. And I never said he was bad. I am simply arguing that he's not a top five or seven center.


And yes, it could be argued that he will be better than some of those guys. I would say he already is better than Ratliff.

What exactly does Rasho do better than Ratliff? Theo rebounds the ball better, blocks more shots, and finished stronger at the rim. Rasho is a better perimeter shooter. That's it.


You've got to come up with something better than that.

I identified the areas that Theo excelled in. What is Rasho better at other than shooting?


Also, remember that Dampier's first seven years in the NBA were pretty forgettable. He never "broke out" until he was the only real post player available to do ANYTHING on his teams front line.

Dampier took some time to get acclimated, but he always rebounded the ball and played good defense. His big problem was staying healthy. Four operations will limit your effectiveness. When he has been healthy, he's been good. I'm not arguing that Dampier is awesome. He's far from it. But he's probably a little better than Rasho.


Put him on the Spurs or the Wolves and he's suddenly a nobody.

Incorrect. There is a reason why he got so much money in the offseason, and it's not because he's a 'nobody.' The Wolves would kill to replace Kandi with Dampier. And don't kid yourself - the Spurs would gladly take Dampier if he came at the same price as Rasho.

Nobodies don't finish fourth in the league in rebounding, seventh in double doubles, third in field goal percentage, and first in offensive rebounds, even if they play on crappy teams.


Same is true for Magloire.

No way. Magloire continues to improve and is certainly one of the better centers in the league. He's been an all star on a playoff team. You can't name five centers in the game with more skills than him right now. Again, Minny would kill to have him over Kandi and if you think that they Spurs wouldn't trade Rasho for him straight up, you're nuts.


I'm not saying that Rasho is better than Magloire or Dampier, but he's certainly in the same class and HAS had a much more extended development curve than most guys in the NBA.

I like what Rasho brings. He's playing well. But to think he's going to get much better is silly. How exactly has he improved his game over the past couple of years? He certainly hasn't improved offensively. He's learned the Spurs' defensive scheme and he's been able to play solid D. But what evidence do you have that he's improved very much over the past couple of seasons?


Regardless of whether you think Rasho will ever be a top 7 center in the NBA or not, the argument that center is a weakness that will cost the Spurs is shaky at best.

Why is it shaky? It contributed to the Spurs' trouble last season. In big moments, Pop couldn't trust Rasho to get the job done. The Spurs played Horry in big moments. If Rasho was tough enough to get the job done, he would have played more minutes and he would have played in big spots. The Spurs missed Robinson last season. And while nobody expects Rasho to replace David's toughness, it's clear that the dropoff at center was a contributing factor to the Spurs' demise.


Even guys that are clearly better than Rasho like Yao and Ilgauskas and Miller are not going to be able to push him around and have their way.

That doesn't change the fact that Rasho doesn't have the toughness to finish at the rim or rip a rebound away from someone when it's needed.


The only truly dominant centers in the NBA today are Shaq and Ben Wallace, and he only qualifies on defense. If the Spurs were playing against the Heat all the time, Rasho's softness would be a problem.

So now you're admitting that Rasho is soft? At least we agree on something. So now that you are admitting that Rasho is soft, will you also admit that the Spurs wouldn't be better off not having a soft center?


But since they aren't, Rasho is all the Spurs need at center.

I agree. For blog purposes, I highlighted Rasho's weaknesses. In reality, I like what Rasho has brought. But I also recognize that the Spurs would be better off with any of the other players I listed, and I understand that Rasho needs to get tougher.


Give it a break.

No.

[Brodels]

Even if the Spurs are among the best teams in the league and even if they are the very best, that doesn't change the fact that fans typically overrate their favorite team's players.

I've learned over the past two weeks that Duncan is the best player in the game, Parker is a top five point guard, Rasho is a top five or seven center, and Manu is an all star. Think about that for a second. All of those players played for the Spurs last season. If the Spurs have top five or top seven players at every position and the best defensive player in the league at small forward, should they ever lose?

If four of the five starters are among the very best at their positions, three of them area all star caliber, and the other is the best defensive player since Bill Russell, the Spurs shouldn't have any trouble winning almost every game they play.

Fans overrate Rasho just like they overrate Manu and Parker.

I like all three players and feel they will contribute to the team doing big things, but to think that every starting Spur is a star is short-sighted.

[Karl Mundt]

I don't understand how Ratliff is a better rebounder then Rasho. He played more minutes and had less rebounds. And didn't have the statistical disadvantage of having a dominant rebounder on his team. To me 7.3 rebounds in 31.8 minutes is worse than 7.7 in 28.7.