The Painted Area: A Deeper Look at Spurs' Signee Gary Neal

Originally published here.


The Spurs made a splash earlier this summer by signing Tiago Splitter to a below-market deal. Though the Splitter deal was not the end to the Spurs' flirtation with impact players in Europe.

The Spurs got their hands on one of the top perimeter free agents available in Europe when they signed 25-year-old combo guard Gary Neal to a three-year deal (terms undisclosed) last week.

Neal was one of the best pure scorers in Europe and was on par with JC Navarro as an elite shot-maker in European ball. Neal was an explosive scorer at Towson St. and was the 5th-best scorer in NCAA Div. I in 2006-07, one spot behind Kevin Durant.

Neal starred on Benetton Treviso, a middle-of-the-pack team in Italy this season. Neal led the Italian League (Lega A) in scoring (19.4 ppg), which can't be taken lightly. Italy's Lega A ain't what it use to be, but still remains the 2nd-best domestic league top-to-bottom.

He actually finished the season playing 10 games for Unicaja Malaga in Spain. With Unicaja, Neal was strictly ask to score the ball, and was quite effective dropping 12.6 ppg (41% 3PA) in 20 mins/game.

In 22 Italian League games, Neal averaged 19.4 ppg, 4 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2 spg, 37% on 3PA and 63% on 2PA in 33 mins/game (Neal's numbers in 11 Eurocup games were nearly the same except he shot a lower percentage). Neal had a stellar adjusted FG percentage just under 60% for the season.

The first thing you notice about Neal is his terrific all-around shooting ability. Very impressed with his shooting off-the-dribble. Can hit pull-ups all over the floor going to his left or right.

His vast arsenal of shots includes runners, floaters and bankers. Quality finisher at the rim. Had a subpar year hitting shots on off-ball screens.

Does not require screens to set himself free for scoring opportunities. Can square his defender up and then get to spots to release high-quality shots. Uses hesitation dribbles, crossover and step-backs to great effect.

Primarily a SG but Treviso ensured him with ample playmaking responsibilities. Treviso often had Neal running the pick/roll and he acquitted himself nicely.

Could back-up at point guard in a pinch. Could play him with George Hill or Manu, and Neal could split ball-handling duties with both.

Not sure his defensive chops will be up to Coach Pop's standards. Does a poor job fighting his way around screens--gets hung up too much. Not sure if its from a lack of alertness or just general indifference. Granted, screens can be held longer (moving) in Europe, but Neal still seems to lack max effort.

Neal appears shorter than his listed 6-4. Good athlete, but does not possess the exceptional athleticism you like to see in an undersized guard. Can he clear shots/create space vs. the longer defenders he will see nearly every night in the NBA?

His combo of solid ball-handling and footwork should allow him to create room vs. length. Plus, his ability to hit off-balance shots (kinda like Jeff Hornacek) should help his transition to the NBA. But it's not a sure thing his in-between game will thrive in the NBA.

I like this signing more and more as we get closer to the season. He might be able to be a contributor this season.

i don't know i thought his 3-point shooting was better, esp considering it's closer in in Europe (right?). i hope he doesn't turn into a RMJ 2

Nice analysis! Another attribute I noticed (not mentioned) is Neal's ability to elevate quickly to get his shot off. That seems to help him overcome the size limitation over taller players closing out on him.

After watching summer league all-stars like Anthony Tolliver, who shined in the summer, yet faded in the fall, colour me skeptical. Even veteran NBAer Roger "Money" Mason, started his Spurs career hot, and later faded into suckdom. Besides that, I'm just not a fan of the undersized SG - which the Spurs already have.

Getting anything from someone.... be it a euro player or not... is better than the nothing we got from RMJ last season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

i don't know i thought his 3-point shooting was better, esp considering it's closer in in Europe (right?). i hope he doesn't turn into a RMJ 2

---

Don't look at three point shooting stats, otherwise you won't believe that Neal is an incredible shooter and that Hairston couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. Both of those are important for you to believe.

Parker/Manu/RJ/Duncan/McDyess
Hill/Neal/Anderson/Blair/Splitter

Looks like a fairly potent 1st and 2nd team to me.

nice, this looks exactly like the kind of player the Spurs need. Someone who can create his own shot, shoot from a lot of different places, and even run the floor a little a la Hill. The combination of Hill, Parker, Manu, and Neal has me thinking the Spurs backcourt is gonna be GREAT next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

Parker/Manu/RJ/Duncan/McDyess
Hill/Neal/Anderson/Blair/Splitter

Looks like a fairly potent 1st and 2nd team to me.

---

yeah...I agree. and look how much younger and more athletic the Spurs have gotten - Blair, Neal, Hill, ANderson, and Splitter all in the their early to mid 20's. Parker is only 28. RJ is only 30. That just leaves Manu and Tim as the old men in the rotation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

yeah...I agree. and look how much younger and more athletic the Spurs have gotten - Blair, Neal, Hill, ANderson, and Splitter all in the their early to mid 20's. Parker is only 28. RJ is only 30. That just leaves Manu and Tim as the old men in the rotation...

---

and Dice

I just want a player who will just kill it with the 3 ball when left open. I'm sick and tired of all the open bricks Bonner and RMJ were chucking up last season allowing teams to collapse the paint on the Spurs.

Hopefully Neal can make a solid contribution. The FO seems to have a lot of faith in him :tu

PG+SG+SF= 48 min. x 3 = 144 minutes.
Tony, Manu, Hill, RJ = 30 minutes x 4 = 120 minutes
144-120= 24 minutes
Anderson, Neal, Gee, Hairston, Temple.......24/5= 4.8 minutes.

or that way: all who want that Anderson plays less than 14 minutes hands up!
oh. nobody wants him to play less than 14 minutes.
so Neal will play 10 minutes at best. (likely less, see Hairston, Gee)

bottom line:
your new contributor will play very little minutes and that way not really contribute
or
Anderson is a bust
or
someone gets seriously injured

pick your poison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountainballer

PG+SG+SF= 48 min. x 3 = 144 minutes.
Tony, Manu, Hill, RJ = 30 minutes x 4 = 120 minutes
144-120= 24 minutes
Anderson, Neal, Gee, Hairston, Temple.......24/5= 4.8 minutes.

---

Or we could keep em fresh and forget about Hairston and Gee as Anderson plays backup SF.

Tony, Manu, Hill, RJ = 26 minutes x 4 = 104 minutes
144-104= 40 minutes
Anderson, Neal, Temple.......40/3 13.3 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

I just want a player who will just kill it with the 3 ball when left open. I'm sick and tired of all the open bricks Bonner and RMJ were chucking up last season allowing teams to collapse the paint on the Spurs.

Hopefully Neal can make a solid contribution. The FO seems to have a lot of faith in him :tu

---

I'm sick and tired of the Spurs relying on making three pointers in order to win games. The three pointer used to be punishment for bad defense, and now they're running their offense with the specific purpose of launching shots that go in just over a third of the time in the best of circumstances.

I wonder if Pop would ever field this pathetic defensive combination:

C - Bonner
PF - Blair
F - RJ
SG - Neal
PG - Parker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm sick and tired of the Spurs relying on making three pointers in order to win games. The three pointer used to be punishment for bad defense, and now they're running their offense with the specific purpose of launching shots that go in just over a third of the time in the best of circumstances.

---

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce?)

Neal will be the 2010 version of Marcus Haislip. He'll be waived midseason.

I don't expect much out of him. Maybe he will get some garbage time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

Nice analysis! Another attribute I noticed (not mentioned) is Neal's ability to elevate quickly to get his shot off. That seems to help him overcome the size limitation over taller players closing out on him.

---

I agree and this is something I touched on when I watched him at SL. Timvp said he was not very athletic and I mentioned that it did not inhibit him from getting his shot off.

It is because he has a quick release and jump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceperez

I wonder if Pop would ever field this pathetic defensive combination:

C - Bonner
PF - Blair
F - RJ
SG - Neal
PG - Parker

---

we'll probably see that at some point lol :bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce?)

---

Even if we were to completely discount how difficult long misses are to defend, the percentage on layups and dunks is far higher than 50 percent, particularly once you start factoring in free throws. You play for the highest percentage shot you can get, and use the lower percentage outside shot in only the best circumstances to maximize its effectiveness. And it's only effective when it softens up the defense to allow you to make the highest percentage of your layups and dunks. That's why the post game and penetration are important for breaking down a defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce?)

---

Exactly! I'll take 33% from the 3pt line any day.

6/18 on 3ptrs = 18pts on 33% shooting
9/18 on 2ptrs = 18pts on 50% shooting

Which one is more likely on any given night?

Granted, some nights the Spurs get carried away with the 3 when they launch 21-25 attempts in a game and it takes away their aggressiveness in driving the lane.

The 3 is most effective when the other team doubles Duncan in the low block, which doesn't happen as often as it used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce?)

---

Who are you, Nellie? :lol

I kid, I kid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunc n Dave

Exactly! I'll take 33% from the 3pt line any day.

6/18 on 3ptrs = 18pts on 33% shooting
9/18 on 2ptrs = 18pts on 50% shooting

Which one is more likely on any given night?

Granted, some nights the Spurs get carried away with the 3 when they launch 21-25 attempts in a game and it takes away their aggressiveness in driving the lane.

The 3 is most effective when the other team doubles Duncan in the low block, which doesn't happen as often as it used to.

---

The problem the Spurs have had lately is that they think they need to be making more baskets and they're not worried about how they're going to stop the other team anymore.

Spurs '02/'03 through '05/'06
Avg three point percentage: .365
Avg three point attempts given up per season: 940

Spurs '06/07 through '09/'10
Avg three point percentage: .374
Avg three point attempts given up per season: 1177

The Spurs are taking about three hundred more three pointers per season since the end of the '06 season and are shooting the same percentage or better. Even last season's dip was a higher percentage than the 2003 team shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The problem the Spurs have had lately is that they think they need to be making more baskets and they're not worried about how they're going to stop the other team anymore.

---

This, this, this.

Spurs will fix there defense this year. addition by substraction with RMJ, and of course the added interior defense that Splitter will bring.

hopefully Bonner doesn't see the light of day on the court. i'll kill myself if i see him out there instead of Blair or Dyess.

Spurs badly needed a perimeter shooter this off-season. They have picked 2 good ones with Neal and Anderson. The problem is that they have never played in the NBA, it's a risky move to trust rookies to solve Spurs shooting struggles. Let's hope at least one will turn well.

Neal could play a relative big role for Spurs in the mold of Mason during the 08-09 regular season.

They need defenders more than they need shooters, and they continue to try to add more shooters, even undersized ones that may not be able to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The problem the Spurs have had lately is that they think they need to be making more baskets and they're not worried about how they're going to stop the other team anymore.

---

It's almost as if they have a different coach, than the one that was at the helm for the 4 championships.

Obviously, you have to score points to win, but it's almost as though the Spurs have completely abandoned the concept of having good defensive players on the roster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

It's almost as if they have a different coach, than the one that was at the helm for the 4 championships.

Obviously, you have to score points to win, but it's almost as though the Spurs have completely abandoned the concept of having good defensive players on the roster.

---

If, as many predict, Neal ends up taking Hairston's roster spot, I guess we'll know that's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

They need defenders more than they need shooters, and they continue to try to add more shooters, even undersized ones that may not be able to defend.

---

IMO the reason the Spurs are loading up on shooters is the overall lack of perimeter defenders available. Both positions needed to be addressed this off season, but it seems easier to find shooters than defenders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

i don't know i thought his 3-point shooting was better, esp considering it's closer in in Europe (right?). i hope he doesn't turn into a RMJ 2

---

He is alittle of a hot/cold guy - but when he is hot WOW - unlike RMJ he can hit any three (off dribble, catch&shoot, transition) and range is no issue - if you see much video of him many of the threes he shoots are well behind line - also realize he shot the pct as primary scorer and despite defense playing to take the 3pt shot away from him

The best thing about Neal is that we can use him like RIP and Ray Allen: have him run around the court, through screens, tire out the defenders. Plus I think he is a better dribbler than Mason, so that is a plus.

Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjktkk

IMO the reason the Spurs are loading up on shooters is the overall lack of perimeter defenders available. Both positions needed to be addressed this off season, but it seems easier to find shooters than defenders.

---

The shooting has improved quite a bit and their attempts are way up, and they've slid down the rankings at the same time. More shooters and more shooting doesn't seem to be helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesignatedT

Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.

---

I think they have enough scoring - Duncan, Manu, healthy Parker, Hill, Splitter, RJ's 8 playoff points, Dice, Blair (if Pop plays him). The only defense they've addressed is the interior - hopefully with Splitter. They need more defense.

After that sweep in the playoffs, I felt as if the Spurs were GSW or Suns. Spurs scored over 100 in 3 games - 102, 102, 96 and 101. That's enough scoring - problem is they couldn't stop the Suns - 111, 110, 110 and 107. What's perturbing to me, is that not only are they going for scoring but undersized scoring. How many SGs can the Spurs have? There is not one position that they have size - even the front line - no 7 footers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

I think they have enough scoring - Duncan, Manu, healthy Parker, Hill, Splitter, RJ's 8 playoff points, Dice, Blair (if Pop plays him). The only defense they've addressed is the interior - hopefully with Splitter. They need more defense.

After that sweep in the playoffs, I felt as if the Spurs were GSW or Suns. Spurs scored over 100 in 3 games - 102, 102, 96 and 101. That's enough scoring - problem is they couldn't stop the Suns - 111, 110, 110 and 107. What's perturbing to me, is that not only are they going for scoring but undersized scoring. How many SGs can the Spurs have? There is not one position that they have size - even the front line - no 7 footers.

---

What 7 footer is going to come in and earn playing time over Duncan,Splitter,Dice,Blair and Bonner? lol

Duncan and Splitter are plenty big for the C position. SF is the biggest question mark regarding size because we are going to need excellent rebounding from that position. Blair is an exception... while he hurts us defensively with his size it doesn't necessarily affect his rebounding ability. It would definitely be nice to be bigger but who?

They aren't just going to sign a guy at the SG or SF position because hes tall. They like the way Neal can shoot and handle the ball so they signed him. Tell me someone with great size who can shoot the ball like he can and handle the ball like he can... same with George Hill. It's not like the Spurs are intentionally going small but at the same time they aren't going to give guaranteed money away and a roster spot to another player because he is tall and let a player they see potential in go play elsewhere.

All I ask if for either Anderson or Neal to shoot the 3 like Reggie Miller is that too much to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesignatedT

Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.

---

If it doesn't get to at least half of what it was, then we won't be sniffing a championship anytime soon either.

The Spurs did try to find a replacement for Bowen. First it was Udoka, and last year it was the centerpiece. Neither did even a passable job. I think the Spurs are going the route of grooming their own now. Hill can be up and down defensively, especially because he's just getting his feet wet in the league. Temple, Hairston and Gee are just projects. But they all put forth the effort to work hard to learn the system and play defense as best they can. And with the limited resources we have, it's all you can ask for right now.

I would have loved if the Spurs would have been able to acquire Battier, Artest, Ariza or Bell in the past, but half those guys don't even want to come to play here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesignatedT

Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.

---

Look at how much their shooting has improved the last four years over the previous four. If they don't improve their defense they literally can't improve shooting enough to make up for it. They could shoot better than any team ever has and it still wouldn't make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesignatedT

Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.

---

That's faulty logic. "We can't defend like we used to, so may as well try to turn into the Suns". Just because Bruce Bowen is gone doesn't mean the Spurs need to abandon what got them there in the first place. Defense wins championships. There's a reason the Spurs always used to destroy the Suns.

The Spurs may not be able to turn the clock back on Duncan, or coax Bowen out of retirement, but they can still make an effort to recruit solid perimeter defenders as well as interior to help shore up the D as a whole. Defense is about effort but it helps to have the right players/tools to make it happen. Malik Hairston has the potential to be a good defender but it would be a shame if he loses minutes to player that is one dimensional a la' Roger Mason. The Spurs have enough one trick ponies. They should stick to playing big and continuing to find the pieces that can make this team a respectable defensive unit, even if their defense isn't as elite as it used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm sick and tired of the Spurs relying on making three pointers in order to win games. The three pointer used to be punishment for bad defense, and now they're running their offense with the specific purpose of launching shots that go in just over a third of the time in the best of circumstances.

---

i know its pretty sad, but i think its because timmys decline in the paint thats the only valid reason that comes to mind. if you think about it with 3pt players ready to knock em down timmy will not have those help defenders around him in the paint so if passed to he can do his thing on single coverage.

i also believe theyre waiting to assess tiagos play down low and if he is dominant :ihit we can pretty much stop all this small ball /3pt crap weve been playing. and our whole team will become much much better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm sick and tired of the Spurs relying on making three pointers in order to win games. The three pointer used to be punishment for bad defense, and now they're running their offense with the specific purpose of launching shots that go in just over a third of the time in the best of circumstances.

---

In the best of circumstances a team will shoot 60% from the field for 2. Thats 120 points per 100 shots. A good night from 3 is 40%. Thats also 120 points per 100 shots.

The three pointer is just as viable statistically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waps1980

All I ask if for either Anderson or Neal to shoot the 3 like Reggie Miller is that too much to ask.

---

No that is not tooooooo much to ask :lol:lol:depressed

As I've stated before.

There is more to having a knock down shooter on the floor than hitting 3's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the best of circumstances a team will shoot 60% from the field for 2. Thats 120 points per 100 shots. A good night from 3 is 40%. Thats also 120 points per 100 shots.

The three pointer is just as viable statistically.

---

When you completely discount free throw attempts and the pressure that twice as many rebounds off missed shots put on your defense, that logic almost works, but you also have to disregard the fact that teams that shoot too many threes watch their percentage plummet. Nobody has ever won games counting on shooting 40 percent from three point range. Even if the Spurs were able to hit that kind of a percentage, it still wouldn't make up for their lack of defense.

The two sets up the three. Always has, always will. It's not a weapon when you're using it to try to keep up with the other team because you can't stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonard Curse

i know its pretty sad, but i think its because timmys decline in the paint thats the only valid reason that comes to mind. if you think about it with 3pt players ready to knock em down timmy will not have those help defenders around him in the paint so if passed to he can do his thing on single coverage.

---

Matt Bonner shoots a better percentage from three point range than most anyone, and I don't hear him being heaped with praise for the great job he does of keeping defenders out of the paint, so either the three point shooters aren't doing what you want them to do or the Spurs aren't taking advantage of it inside. My personal opinion is that the problem lies on the other end of the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce?)

---

Long shots lead to long rebounds and easy baskets for the other team. Especially if team shooting is not a very good rebounding team.

Why someone hasn't put together the fact that, simply by stepping a few feet inside the 3 point line, a player's shot percentage increases drastically enough to justify the "loss" of points between a 3 and a long jumper... is all beyond me.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Spurs are working toward a seamless transition from the Duncan era, and potentially the Parker area as well. I'd be shocked if the Spurs missed the second round after Duncan, and would be even more shocked if they didn't put up a fight. Neal may very well not turn out, but he could just as easily become another Jarren Jackson. Low risk, high reward. And all it takes is for a few of those risks to pan out and the Spurs have themselves a decent post-season run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samr

Why someone hasn't put together the fact that, simply by stepping a few feet inside the 3 point line, a player's shot percentage increases drastically enough to justify the "loss" of points between a 3 and a long jumper... is all beyond me.

---

If you mean someone in the Spurs organization, I agree wholeheartedly. It's been mentioned around ST many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samr

Why someone hasn't put together the fact that, simply by stepping a few feet inside the 3 point line, a player's shot percentage increases drastically enough to justify the "loss" of points between a 3 and a long jumper... is all beyond me.

---

Pretty sure it has to do with spacing...the spacing on the floor is compromised when players are taking 2's versus 3's. That's one of the reasons why Jefferson seemed to have trouble playing with Duncan last year, because he preferred to spot up for long 2's instead of going out past the 3 point line to give TD more room to operate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBMethos

Pretty sure it has to do with spacing...the spacing on the floor is compromised when players are taking 2's versus 3's. That's one of the reasons why Jefferson seemed to have trouble playing with Duncan last year, because he preferred to spot up for long 2's instead of going out past the 3 point line to give TD more room to operate.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm sick and tired of the Spurs relying on making three pointers in order to win games. The three pointer used to be punishment for bad defense, and now they're running their offense with the specific purpose of launching shots that go in just over a third of the time in the best of circumstances.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

What's the difference in making 33% of your 3-point shots versus 50% of your 2-point shots? (outside of the long rebounds the misses can produce? )

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan

Long shots lead to long rebounds and easy baskets for the other team. Especially if team shooting is not a very good rebounding team.

---

Yeah, I know the answer and you are right. I was asking OV to see what he would say. Thanks, though.