Who has been the Spurs' best bench player?

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.

It's a good debate to have. I'd lean with Hill as He's the most accomplished ball handler and a good defender, but it's a unit that work well together. It's a group of Four at the moment, that can stretch to 6 with Tiago(3rd Big Covering Centre) and James Anderson as the second Wing(Primarily SF).

Each of them has a defined role that they can play, without needing to move to compensate. There's no Mason at PG, enough skilled bigs to cover those two spots and skills that mesh together

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.

---

"best bench player" has a very clear connotation for me. to me, the best bench player is the one with the most skill and talent and demonstrates that on the court.

if we're talking about value, that's a different thing, and you have a valid point about Dice in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Every poster has their own criteria for selecting. There's nothing specified about that on this thread (IE: don't take his salary/background/experience/position into account). With that in mind, I think every opinion is valid.

For my pick (Dice), I'm valuing more inside defense, because I personally think that's a weakness we have when TD sits down, and I think Dice has done a great job filling that need for this bench. For me, having that is more important than Hill's offense and defense (which might be the best in the team, but it's been inconsistent, IMO).

I'm sure other people value other things, and takes them to a different selection and that's fine.

---

:tu

There's really no wrong answer here. The Spurs need interior D when Duncan goes to the bench and Dice fills that. The Spurs have been looking for quality perimeter depth and Neal fills that. The Spurs have been looking for a solid sixth man so Manu can start and Hill fills that. Bonner...well....:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

"best bench player" has a very clear connotation for me. to me, the best bench player is the one with the most skill and talent and demonstrates that on the court.

if we're talking about value, that's a different thing, and you have a valid point about Dice in that regard.

---

I agree to disagree. Not clear cut at all for me. "best" can mean many things... statistically? production/salary? value/minutes?

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.

---

mingus got it.

It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't, at least) in the context of discerning who's been the Spurs best bench player. If Neal's going to get points for that, then let's give Hill points for having come from a small school, or Bonner points for having spent a season in Europe, or McDyess because of his age. I'm not minimizing what Neal has accomplished, it just has no relevance to this discussion. It doesn't matter what they're making or how they got here, it's all about their play; not their play in relation to what they make or their journey.

Hill is more important, because he has more dimensions to his game. His versatility defensively, athleticism and ability to get to the line are all things Neal can't match.

Pop says it's Hill. That's good enough for me.