Who has been the Spurs' best bench player?

hill is doing what he is supposed to do...to me best bench players would be neal and mcdyess....one is a rookie and the other is a veteran......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

I'd lean towards Hill over Bonner, because he's more multi-dimensional, but I'll say this for Bonner...

What I'm most pleased with is not the 50% three-point shooting, but the confidence. I actually think it will translate to the playoffs. As much as he's been a bust in the playoffs, the sample size it's so significant that it can be said with 100% certainty that he can't play in the playoffs.

When the Spurs signed Splitter, I wanted Bonner dispatched from the playoff rotation. But the truth is, after Duncan and McDyess, he's the next most deserving big of being in it. In certain match-ups, he shouldn't be relied on for extended minutes, but he should still be able to be a useful player in limited minutes.

I'm not down on Splitter or discouraged at his play at all, but he shouldn't even be in the poll. He's barely played. The other four have made up the rotation off the bench, for the most part, since game one.

McDyess would definitely be the most important bench player if he were going to be a bench player in the playoffs. But I don't think he will be. I've thought all along that he was a starter being utilized off the bench as a means to limit his workload throughout the regular season. Presuming that indeed comes to pass, Hill is the most important bench player.

---

Great take.

George Hill is our best bench player, but here's the thing: he's inconsistent as hell. he has games where he shows you he's 6th man of the year material and others where he just dissapears and has little impact on the game. i pointed this out in a thread a while back. his performances in away games are much worse. lets see how he performs in the rodeo road trip. he'll either continue performing like shit on the road or he'll adapt to the change in atmosphere and play well and gain confidence in road games.

Bonner, Neal, and McDyess are our most reliable bench payers. we know what we're getting out of those guys every game.

look at Bonner and Neal's road vs. away stats. Bonner averages the same amount of ppg in road and away games. His 3 point % dips to 42% (still amazing) from his 52% on the road. Neal is an assasin. his 3 point % actually goes up to 46% on the road from 40% at home. George Hill? Road ppg 8.7 Home: 13; Road fg%: 40% Home: 49%; Road 3p %: 28%, Home: 46%. this isn't even taking account his other stats, all of which get significantly worse on the road.

i'm not worried about Neal, Bonner, and Dice. we know what we'll be getting from them pretty much every game. Hill is the x factor for this team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

George Hill is our best bench player, but here's the thing: he's inconsistent as hell. he has games where he shows you he's 6th man of the year material and others where he just dissapears and has little impact on the game. i pointed this out in a thread a while back. his performances in away games are much worse. lets see how he performs in the rodeo road trip. he'll either continue performing like shit on the road or he'll adapt to the change in atmosphere and play well and gain confidence in road games.

Bonner, Neal, and McDyess are our most reliable bench payers. we know what we're getting out of those guys every game.

look at Bonner and Neal's road vs. away stats. Bonner averages the same amount of ppg in road and away games. His 3 point % dips to 42% (still amazing) from his 52% on the road. Neal is an assasin. his 3 point % actually goes up to 46% on the road from 40% at home. George Hill? Road ppg 8.7 Home: 13; Road fg%: 40% Home: 49%; Road 3p %: 28%, Home: 46%. this isn't even taking account his other stats, all of which get significantly worse on the road.

i'm not worried about Neal, Bonner, and Dice. we know what we'll be getting from them pretty much every game. Hill is the x factor for this team.

---

I'm not sure that comparing road vs. away stats for a shooter is valid when looking at half a season. Bonner and Neal have been shooting threes on 10 ft goals for a long time. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether they are on the road or at home. At least not as big as the above stats indicate. As to the difference, it could be just a matter of having one or two good games or bad games on the road. Or who they have played and who covered them on a particular day. You could probably find seemingly large discrepancices by looking at whether they played on even or odd days.
I do think home/away stats are more significant when lookng at a player like Hill who has the ball in his hands more and is creating his owns shots. I think the energy of a home crowd does come into play in that kind of situation. Especially for someone still relatively early in his career.

Hill has been very good but I voted for Dice, he brings a lot of toughness for our D.

Dice is playing solid the whole season

Bonner and Neal are also playing very well.

I hope Anderson and Tiago can join the party too

Splitter!

I couldn't make a choice so why not giving him some love.

Seriously Hill/Bonner/Neal/Dice... the four of them have been really good.


I have to go with Neal since I didn't expect anything special from him

On both sides of the ball, Hill definitely...
then Neal, Bonner, Dice in a three way tie for second.

Tiago? I want him to get more minutes, but you could have saved a poll choice. :lol

Tiago would certainly win the competition for best bench warmer.

this is a tough one. Neal has been lethal, Hill is best all around, McDyess has brought the toughness we desperately need, Bonner is having a career season.

very very tough.

I'm going to take Gary Neal here.

We had a pretty good idea what the had in Dice, Bonner and Hill when the season started. We know that Bonner plays well during the regular season, giving the Spurs floor spacing with 40%+ 3pt shooting without making too many mistakes. We knew that Dice would bring his lunch pail as he always does...rebounding well, playing defense and knocking down his almost automatic jumper. We knew that Hill would the primary backup on the perimeter and that there wasn't much question that he would be productive as both a scorer and the team's go to perimeter defender.

What we did not know is what was beyond Hill depth-wise...and this became even more of a concern with the Spurs first round draft pick out with an injury. Enter Gary Neal, a 500K salary Euro journeyman who managed to land a job with the Spurs because a couple of good SL games. Neal has not only helped...he has single-handedly shored up the Spurs bench depth on the perimeter. For several years now this has been a huge problem for the Spurs. They have had to rely heavily on Parker/Manu to carry the load on the perimeter and either one of them being off the floor for any length of time usually resulted in disaster. Now Pop looks down the bench at his unexperienced, underpaid hired gun and knows that when he puts him in the game he will make things happen.

Dice !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wontstartdumbthreads

I'm not sure that comparing road vs. away stats for a shooter is valid when looking at half a season. Bonner and Neal have been shooting threes on 10 ft goals for a long time. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether they are on the road or at home. At least not as big as the above stats indicate. As to the difference, it could be just a matter of having one or two good games or bad games on the road. Or who they have played and who covered them on a particular day. You could probably find seemingly large discrepancices by looking at whether they played on even or odd days.
I do think home/away stats are more significant when lookng at a player like Hill who has the ball in his hands more and is creating his owns shots. I think the energy of a home crowd does come into play in that kind of situation. Especially for someone still relatively early in his career.

---

You may not make stupid threads but you make stupid points.

I gave it to Hill, for his consistently solid D against the other teams' best offensive threat, as well as for his offense. Dice was a close second, he's been our most consistent rebounder and solid defensively in the middle. Neal and Bonner have been great, but are less well-rounded (we don't need them to be well-rounded, we just need them to shoot the ball well and play adequate defense) and SPlitter hasn't played enough to even be a contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old School 44

On both sides of the ball, Hill definitely...
then Neal, Bonner, Dice in a three way tie for second.

Tiago? I want him to get more minutes, but you could have saved a poll choice. :lol

---

Its funny that there have been 2 votes for him...hopefully they were joke votes.

Hill, Bonner, Neal, and Dyes do different things on the court. Tough to pick the best, because its like a jigsaw puzzle, without one player, it will be incomplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnWantedTheory

Its funny that there have been 2 votes for him...hopefully they were joke votes.

---

Mine was :lol

damn....i voted for neal but didnt think about dice.

Damn good Bench so far this year. Great we even have to ask this question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Damn good Bench so far this year. Great we even have to ask this question.

---

That was my reaction. After years of using Manu to "create a bench", it's great to see this sort of debate with Manu back in the starting unit. Great job by all four of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

I'm going to take Gary Neal here.

We had a pretty good idea what the had in Dice, Bonner and Hill when the season started. We know that Bonner plays well during the regular season, giving the Spurs floor spacing with 40%+ 3pt shooting without making too many mistakes. We knew that Dice would bring his lunch pail as he always does...rebounding well, playing defense and knocking down his almost automatic jumper. We knew that Hill would the primary backup on the perimeter and that there wasn't much question that he would be productive as both a scorer and the team's go to perimeter defender.

What we did not know is what was beyond Hill depth-wise...and this became even more of a concern with the Spurs first round draft pick out with an injury. Enter Gary Neal, a 500K salary Euro journeyman who managed to land a job with the Spurs because a couple of good SL games. Neal has not only helped...he has single-handedly shored up the Spurs bench depth on the perimeter. For several years now this has been a huge problem for the Spurs. They have had to rely heavily on Parker/Manu to carry the load on the perimeter and either one of them being off the floor for any length of time usually resulted in disaster. Now Pop looks down the bench at his unexperienced, underpaid hired gun and knows that when he puts him in the game he will make things happen.

---

I like Neal and if you think he's been the best bench player, fine, but your reasoning is illogical. Your basis for picking him as the best bench player is because "we did not know what was beyond Hill depth-wise" and his story? So Hill, Bonner and McDyess get penalized for being established players? That makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

I like Neal and if you think he's been the best bench player, fine, but your reasoning is illogical. Your basis for picking him as the best bench player is because "we did not know what was beyond Hill depth-wise" and his story? So Hill, Bonner and McDyess get penalized for being established players? That makes no sense.

---

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not penalizing anyone. I'm just pointing out that perimeter depth has been a thorn in the Spurs side for years now and Neal has almost single-handedly solved that. Let's not forget that Neal has zero NBA experience and makes chump change..which are things I also mentioned when choosing him as my selection. That's pretty huge when you consider that he has made almost the same impact as any of the other three established players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not penalizing anyone. I'm just pointing out that perimeter depth has been a thorn in the Spurs side for years now and Neal has almost single-handedly solved that. Let's not forget that Neal has zero NBA experience and makes chump change..which are things I also mentioned when choosing him as my selection. That's pretty huge when you consider that he has made almost the same impact as any of the other three established players.

---

I don't think I did. Directly, you didn't, but indirectly, you did. You're basically crediting Neal because he filled a need and was an unknown with an underdog type story. In effect, you're penalizing the other three because they're already filling roles and are established players. I don't see why his lack of NBA experience and contract should factor into the decision.

If Hill succumbs to injury for a month and the team suffers because of it and he returns and they pick back up where they left off when last he was healthy, does that make him the best reserve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

I don't think I did. Directly, you didn't, but indirectly, you did. You're basically crediting Neal because he filled a need and was an unknown with an underdog type story. In effect, you're penalizing the other three because they're already filling roles and are established players. I don't see why his lack of NBA experience and contract should factor into the decision.

---

His lack of NBA experience doesn't matter? Sounds to me like you are minimizing what Neal has accomplished. What Neal has done is much more impressive if you take all factors into consideration. If you are not willing to concede that Neal walking onto an NBA court and immediately making an impact is not that impressive then we have nothing left to talk about.

Quote:

---

If Hill succumbs to injury for a month and the team suffers because of it and he returns and they pick back up where they left off when last he was healthy, does that make him the best reserve?

---

I think this works with either Neal or Hill. Because of the Spurs perimeter situation they need all hands on deck. Both are equally important right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

His lack of NBA experience doesn't matter? Sounds to me like you are minimizing what Neal has accomplished. What Neal has done is much more impressive if you take all factors into consideration. If you are not willing to concede that Neal walking onto an NBA court and immediately making an impact is not that impressive then we have nothing left to talk about.

I think this works with either Neal or Hill. Because of the Spurs perimeter situation they need all hands on deck. Both are equally important right now.

---

he came into the NBA with no previous experience. he makes chump change. he unexpectedly filled a need. all are in fact impressive, but TD 21 is right in saying they don't factor into who is the better player. if the thread was about who is more impressive, you would say Neal, but that's not what it's saying.

Of the choices given, Tiago has been the best on the bench without question.