Monroe: Finley now Spurs' reluctant elder

**Mel_13** · 10-19-2009

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/M...4_html799.html

"It's probably a more potent attack night after night after night," Popovich said of Ginobili coming off the bench. "I think it makes our bench longer."

No where it states that it was made because Finley performs better as a starter.

As I said earlier in the thread:

Because Barry was the starter when that article was written.

**The Truth #6** · 10-19-2009

I remember one time (vs. Denver in the 05 playoffs?) Manu went to the bench to help avoid a falloff when the reserves came in (I'm looking at you Beno) and that was before Finley. However, I could be wrong about the year, because we always beat Denver in the playoffs so it's easy to get them confused.

Also, I'm not sure Finley is the only factor in play. I think Pop wisely realized that Manu stands around more than normal when Tony plays. They're both playmakers, so it's better for both of them to have the ball in their hand, so it's best if they split their time on the court, and then play together for "winning time."

Having said that, I do believe there was one moment at the end of one of the seasons where Pop moved Manu to the bench and put Finley in the starting lineup, and I seem to recall most interpreting the situation as a move to help kickstart Finley.

Basically, Pop has moved Manu in and out of the lineup for a variety of reasons, most of which we'll never know, and who knows if Pop even knows his motivations all the time. He likes things boring, but within that he likes to tweek things ever slightly.

**MaNu4Tres** · 10-19-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Because Barry was the starter when that article was written.

He was but Finley started some games before then even when Manu was injured and after.

Spurs got hot during that time and Spurs stuck with Barry for those two months as a starter. Which aids my claim that Finley does not suck coming off the bench. He played his first two years on the Spurs coming off the bench and put up similiar numbers he's put up the last two years starting. Fact is Finley had some bad games starting and some bad games from the bench. That will happen when touches are limited for a volume shooter regardless where he starts the game.

My main point was to explain to OV that the opinion of, "Finley sucking off the bench is the reason why Manu got moved to the bench for him" is laughable.

**ElNono** · 10-19-2009

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

My main point was to explain to OV that the opinion of, "Finley sucking off the bench is the reason why Manu got moved to the bench for him" is laughable.

While it's true it wasn't just Finley providing no punch off the bench, he was part of the problem, not the solution...

**MaNu4Tres** · 10-19-2009

Originally Posted by The Truth #6

Also, I'm not sure Finley is the only factor in play. I think Pop wisely realized that Manu stands around more than normal when Tony plays. They're both playmakers, so it's better for both of them to have the ball in their hand, so it's best if they split their time on the court, and then play together for "winning time."

Having said that, I do believe there was one moment at the end of one of the seasons where Pop moved Manu to the bench and put Finley in the starting lineup, and I seem to recall most interpreting the situation as a move to help kickstart Finley.

Basically, Pop has moved Manu in and out of the lineup for a variety of reasons, most of which we'll never know, and who knows if Pop even knows his motivations all the time. He likes things boring, but within that he likes to tweek things ever slightly.

Playing Tim, Manu, Tony together for 30 minutes on the floor would have been detrimental to the Spurs' overall 48 minute attack. It would have been off-balanced. To make it balanced Manu got moved to the bench especially when our role players got up in age from Jan. of 2007 to last year. Moving Manu to the bench let him not only see more touches when he's fresh, but also injected the bench with spark and energy ( something our role players simply didn't provide during this time).

It was more about the team's overall 48 minute balanced attack than one player.

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Here are the facts with no commentary:

In 2005-06 Manu played in 65 games and started 56. The games he did not start were directly following his return from injuries. All 18 games that Finley started were in games that Manu missed or in the games directly after he returned from injury.

In 2006-07 Manu started 36 of the first 45 games. Finley started the other nine games which coincided with a Manu injury. The first time Manu was taken out of the starting line-up when he was healthy was the 46th game of the season on Jan 28, 2007. He was replaced in the starting line-up by Brent Barry, who would start the next 28 games until Barry went down with back spasms on April 1, 2007. Finley finished out the season as the starter. For the year Manu started 36 games, Barry 28, and Finley 16.

At no point in Finley's first two years was Manu sent to the bench to accomodate Finley.

05-06 starting line-ups:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...006_start.html

06-07 starting line-ups:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...007_start.html

Intellectually dishonest much?

Convenient that you just omit the fact that Manu started 23 games the following year while Finley started 61, which is probably when the decision was made. According to what's been posted in attempts to refute me or call me names, I'm correct about Ginobili going to the bench the first time so Hedo could start, as well as a revolving starting lineup after that featuring Ginobili, Barry and Finley.

You can pull up news articles from the wrong time frame all you want, but I was posting on Spurstalk at the time and that's the way I remember it. How about some mysanantonio.com articles from the 07-08 preseason when the decision was made to start Fin instead of Ginobili? I'm not trying to impugn Finley as a player, but I do remember the games where he was shooting much better as a starter than he was off the bench while the transition wasn't affecting Manu's game at all, which seems to be a logical factor in the decision.

And it certainly seems to be an awful lot of hand-wringing by some of you for a relatively throw-away comment, which is only confirmed by your poor memory of it.

**Mel_13** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Intellectually dishonest much?

Convenient that you just omit the fact that Manu started 23 games the following year while Finley started 61, which is probably when the decision was made. According to what's been posted in attempts to refute me or call me names, I'm correct about Ginobili going to the bench the first time so Hedo could start, as well as a revolving starting lineup after that featuring Ginobili, Barry and Finley.

You can pull up news articles from the wrong time frame all you want, but I was posting on Spurstalk at the time and that's the way I remember it. How about some mysanantonio.com articles from the 07-08 preseason when the decision was made to start Fin instead of Ginobili? I'm not trying to impugn Finley as a player, but I do remember the games where he was shooting much better as a starter than he was off the bench while the transition wasn't affecting Manu's game at all, which seems to be a logical factor in the decision.

And it certainly seems to be an awful lot of hand-wringing by some of you for a relatively throw-away comment, which is only confirmed by your poor memory of it.

Wow, you must have me confused with someone else. I asked you what season and what time frame you were referring to in an earlier post. Before you responded there was discussion by others about the Feb,2007 time frame. You responded to those posters as if that was indeed the time you meant. When you answered my question you still did not mention any season or time frame, but asked if someone had details. Since the only time frame you had attached yourself to in any way was during the 06-07 season, I detailed Finley's first two seasons which included that period of time. I never pulled any articles or criticized anyone's position on this. I certainly never called you names, although you now have responded as if I did.

I merely showed that Finley never started during first his two seasons except when replacing an injured player. That is simple fact. Nothing dishonest, intellectually or otherwise.

Now, after saying you couldn't recall which season or time frame, you provide detailed information about 07-08. I asked you to clarify a post. Had you answered with the information you now post here, I would have said thank you and moved on.

Read your post in post #96 and my response to it in post #99. If you still believe I was doing anything other than responding as completely as possible to your post, so be it. All I can do is assure you that whatever debates/conflicts/pissing contests you are having with some members of this board about this subject, I am not among that group.

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Post 99 confirms my recollection in post 96, but then doesn't mention the "second time" Manu went back to sixth man for the following season that I aluded to. I'm well aware that Manu didn't go to the bench in place of Fin in his first two years. I must have assumed that you weren't satisfied with my recollection, which is why you chose to tell me something I already knew as though it were news.

If your incomplete "facts with no commentary" post was intended to confirm what I was saying rather than refute what I was saying, then I do apologize. I'd certainly hope that some of you that know how to search out posts and news articles from past years are actually trying to find information from the beginning of the 07-08 season.

**Mel_13** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Post 99 confirms my recollection in post 96, but then doesn't mention the "second time" Manu went back to sixth man for the following season that I aluded to. I'm well aware that Manu didn't go to the bench in place of Fin in his first two years. I must have assumed that you weren't satisfied with my recollection, which is why you chose to tell me something I already knew as though it were news.

If your incomplete "facts with no commentary" post was intended to confirm what I was saying rather than refute what I was saying, then I do apologize. I'd certainly hope that some of you that know how to search out posts and news articles from past years are actually trying to find information from the beginning of the 07-08 season.

We've now completed the circle. You used the words "second time" in your original post and here again. I could not tell what season or what time frame the "second time" was. Thus my simple question. Your answer never mentioned the 07-08 season. Thus my continued confusion. You referred, in your answer in post 96, to a period of time when Manu, Finley, and Barry were all playing and the line-up was changing. From that "allusion", I drew the conclusion that you were referring to 06-07 when Manu started 36, Barry 28, and Finley 16. It seemed to fit the words in your post. 07-08 when Barry only started one game did not seem to fit what you said in post 96. That is the only reason I did not include data for 07-08.

Again, if you had responded to my question as to what season you meant by the "second time" with an answer of 2007-08 I would have said thank you and moved on.

As to whether I was trying to confirm or refute something with the data posted. In the absence of an explicit answer to my question, I drew the best conclusion my modest deductive powers allowed me. As I have detailed above, I read your comments to mean that you referred to the 2006-2007 season. I posted the data I did to show that any position claiming Finley started ahead of Manu in 2006-2007 for any non-injury related reason was not supported by the facts.

You have now made it clear that you were referring to the 2007-2008 season. Thank you.

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

We've now completed the circle. You used the words "second time" in your original post and here again. I could not tell what season or what time frame the "second time" was. Thus my simple question. Your answer never mentioned the 07-08 season. Thus my continued confusion. You referred, in your answer in post 96, to a period of time when Manu, Finley, and Barry were all playing and the line-up was changing. From that "allusion", I drew the conclusion that you were referring to 06-07 when Manu started 36, Barry 28, and Finley 16. It seemed to fit the words in your post. 07-08 when Barry only started one game did not seem to fit what you said in post 96. That is the only reason I did not include data for 07-08.

Again, if you had responded to my question as to what season you meant by the "second time" with an answer of 2007-08 I would have said thank you and moved on.

As to whether I was trying to confirm or refute something with the data posted. In the absence of an explicit answer to my question, I drew the best conclusion my modest deductive powers allowed me. As I have detailed above, I read your comments to mean that you referred to the 2006-2007 season. I posted the data I did to show that any position claiming Finley started ahead of Manu in 2006-2007 for any non-injury related reason was not supported by the facts.

You have now made it clear that you were referring to the 2007-2008 season. Thank you.

And I aplogize for not making that clear immediately, as I wasn't exactly sure which season it was. Your post actually helped me put the pieces together to deduce that it must be the time-frame I was thinking of. Now to find out if there are any facts to support my original statement of if I just remember it incorrectly.

**Mel_13** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

And I aplogize for not making that clear immediately, as I wasn't exactly sure which season it was. Your post actually helped me put the pieces together to deduce that it must be the time-frame I was thinking of. Now to find out if there are any facts to support my original statement of if I just remember it incorrectly.

It's all good.

Good luck with advancing your position.

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

It's all good.

Good luck with advancing your position.

Yeah, I'm gonna need it. My searching skills on Spurstalk and mysanantonio.com are for .

**Fabbs** · 10-21-2009

Originally Posted by benefactor

lol Fabbs. Mel seems to be in the driver's seat...

And Fabbs slinks away again, failing to deliver on his promise of a simple answer to a simple question.

Pop-hate: intact

Finley-hate: intact

Credibility: absent as ever

You gals from The View confuse my
a. ignoring you
or
b. being busy as i was attending the San Diego Chargers getting worked again with coach Greg Pop, i mean Norv Turner at the helm.

And you keep bringing up PJ. You can't seriously think that:

1. The Spurs would demote/fire Pop after the 04-05 season

2. That the man who played in NY and coached in Chicago and LA would ever relocate to San Antonio.

But, let's remove the date limits anyway. I'll grant you that PJ and Riley are superior as coaches. Like PJ, Riley has spent his NBA life in LA, NY, and Miami. He wasn't ever coming to San Antonio, either.

You have repeatedly asserted that Pop's bad coaching has cost the Spurs multiple additional championships.

So beginning with Duncan's arrival in 1997, name a few coaches outside of PJ and Riley who would have led the Spurs to greater success in the Duncan era.

Ah this is progress. You've removed the silly dateline restrictions. Now you have admitted Phil J and Riles would be better. Excellente . Those two are my first choices.

As to Riley and Phil J "never coming to San Antonio ever", assumes facts not in evidence. Two years ago would you say Brett Favre would be QBing the Vikings to a win over Green Bay and a 6-0 record? After Phil left the Flamers and punk ass Kobme whined about him and tattled on Shaq, did you ever see those two remarrying (well in LA that kind of plastic is believeable, but still).
When Paul Westhead coached the Lakers to a le, did you think he would get run a season and 1/10th later when Magic pouted about Norm Nixon? And after the Celtics won in '86 with one of the greatest of all time teams and were primed to repeat then threepeat, did you envision Lenny Bias dying, the '86 West champs Houston being stripped of its two guards by Laker Stern, then as a finale in midseason the then Spurs owner trading Mic e Thompsan an athletic PF/SF which is just what the Flamers needed, for Kwame Brown?

So never say never. Phil J is an opportunist and so is Riles. The thought of winning repeat championships with prime Timmy Dunkar, GNob, Parker, Bowen as a real core and others as great help (DRob, Super Stevie Kerr, Naza-Fab on and on) was certainly a possibility. If i hadn't already had either Phil J or Riles on board, i would certainly have made Phil an offer after 2004. Phil J or Riles would have certainly paid Lewie Scola and told Holt to pay or bail. Also would have taken Josh Howard, altho that was not Poops fault.

The 2006 Spurs just put in any available unemployed NBA coach or assistant. Go and read the thread on "Finley Joins Spurs" to see how many predicted NBA le, maybe even you posted on the thread. Not only PopnFins like T_Pork but even solid posters like Aggie Hoops had the Spurs at 70 wins. Of course Aggie had no idea Popped would do what he did with his affair with Finley and shriveling small balls strategy.

**Mel_13** · 10-21-2009

Originally Posted by Fabbs

You gals from The View confuse my
a. ignoring you
or
b. being busy as i was attending the San Diego Chargers getting worked again with coach Greg Pop, i mean Norv Turner at the helm.

Ah this is progress. You've removed the silly dateline restrictions. Now you have admitted Phil J and Riles would be better. Excellente . Those two are my first choices.

As to Riley and Phil J "never coming to San Antonio ever", assumes facts not in evidence. Two years ago would you say Brett Favre would be QBing the Vikings to a win over Green Bay and a 6-0 record? After Phil left the Flamers and punk ass Kobme whined about him and tattled on Shaq, did you ever see those two remarrying (well in LA that kind of plastic is believeable, but still).
When Paul Westhead coached the Lakers to a le, did you think he would get run a season and 1/10th later when Magic pouted about Norm Nixon? And after the Celtics won in '86 with one of the greatest of all time teams and were primed to repeat then threepeat, did you envision Lenny Bias dying, the '86 West champs Houston being stripped of its two guards by Laker Stern, then as a finale in midseason the then Spurs owner trading Mic e Thompsan an athletic PF/SF which is just what the Flamers needed, for Kwame Brown?

So never say never. Phil J is an opportunist and so is Riles. The thought of winning repeat championships with prime Timmy Dunkar, GNob, Parker, Bowen as a real core and others as great help (DRob, Super Stevie Kerr, Naza-Fab on and on) was certainly a possibility. If i hadn't already had either Phil J or Riles on board, i would certainly have made Phil an offer after 2004. Phil J or Riles would have certainly paid Lewie Scola and told Holt to pay or bail. Also would have taken Josh Howard, altho that was not Poops fault.

The 2006 Spurs just put in any available unemployed NBA coach or assistant. Go and read the thread on "Finley Joins Spurs" to see how many predicted NBA le, maybe even you posted on the thread. Not only PopnFins like T_Pork but even solid posters like Aggie Hoops had the Spurs at 70 wins. Of course Aggie had no idea Popped would do what he did with his affair with Finley and shriveling small balls strategy.

So to sum up your current position:

1. PJ and Riley are better than Pop.

2. In 2006, Pop was the worst NBA coach possible to lead the Spurs. Any available coach would have been better.

3. You still have not provided any names other than PJ or Riley of coaches who would have had more success with the Spurs during the Duncan Era than Pop.

4. You are making incremental progress, so congratulations for that. Keep trying.

**anakha** · 10-21-2009

4 paragraphs and still avoided answering the question.

**Agloco** · 10-21-2009

Originally Posted by Fabbs

The truth is, i want to know why am i limited to May 23, 2006 and thereafter?
Yeah i would have run Popped sooner if he refused his proper demotion to defensive coach.
Because i believe Phil J would have heavily considered the Spurs after Kobme got him ran. Which is not to say i can't and won't come up with 20 more choices.

We appear to have plenty of time......

Fire away.

**Fabbs** · 10-22-2009

Originally Posted by Mel_13

So to sum up your current position:

1. PJ and Riley are better than Pop.

2. In 2006, Pop was the worst NBA coach possible to lead the Spurs. Any available coach would have been better.

3. You still have not provided any names other than PJ or Riley of coaches who would have had more success with the Spurs during the Duncan Era than Pop.

4. You are making incremental progress, so congratulations for that. Keep trying.

1. Yes. Yes they are.

2. Well there could have been some closet NBA coach or assistant coach who also had a man crush on Finley and small balls strategy that would've gotten worked by rookie coach Avery Johnson. I'm not that familiar with that aspect of the NBA.

3. When i hired Riles or Phil we went on a 4 of 5 run. Didn't need to replace them. Nonetheless I'll give you names.

4. I am making progress with you. Excellent!