Reply With Quote
Third Quarter:
SA 25
DAL 20
We were losing at half time by 6 points and took back control of the game in the third quarter by going with our usual big man line-up. It was by far the best stretch of that entire playoff series and Pop abandoned it.
We lost because of Manu's foul in a game 7, despite the horrible officiating..
some of you are overanalyzing..
Third Quarter:
SA 25
DAL 20
We were losing at half time by 6 points and took back control of the game in the third quarter by going with our usual big man line-up. It was by far the best stretch of that entire playoff series and Pop abandoned it.
"Small Ball", to me, equates to struggling to stay in the game, giving up as many points on one end as we're trying for on the other. It makes players like Richard Jefferson or Michael Finley play in ways they're not used to playing, and asks for too much out of them. It puts too much strain on Tim Duncan, he's not exacly in his prime playing with a Malik or an Horry out there, guys who were defensive and gritty. We do not have the peices to play effective small ball. Did you all remember that quote Pop had in the last game when he's talking to our team in a timeout, "stop reacting to their offense (Blazers), and start making them react to our defense!"... In a nuts , that is pretty much what caused our smallball lineups over these years. We've done entirely too much reacting. I think Pop puts too much emphasis on how the game is changing (ever since 2006), and lineups are supposedly getting smaller and more versatile, and how it's a swingmans game now with the game is called. Last I checked the Mavs had Dampier, and where really pulling for seven footer Marcin Gortat, The Wizards have been starting Oberto at center and have Haywood, Bynum is manning the middle in LA with Gasol, Chris Kaman is tearing the league up right now, drawing double teams, and that team still has Camby and Griffin, and so on and so on... Why are we not playing Duncan and McDyess together? Blair? Ratliff? Mahinmi? I really have lost hope in playing one big man and four small forwards/guards. When we play "small ball", it's daring teams to score point after point on layups and dunks.
You always like to change the subject. You said:
They did not dominate the game.
People have limited memory when it comes to small ball. Dirk was a mismatch and required a faster person. That is why. Nazr's stone hands and Rasho's lumbering movements weren't going to do anything. The first rule of defense is to not get out of position. A tall guy's height is of no advantage if the guy he is guarding blows past him. At the least the Spurs needed a quick guard to stay in front of his man.
Fast forward to today and you have similar problems with our bigs. Younger and more athletic big men or guards blow past them. The problem is that Finley has no lateral movement these days and he is just as useless as an immobile big. There is a reason that the Spurs pursued Elson and Mahinmi. The problem? They had the speed, but not the skill. Being able to stay in front of your guy means nothing when you blow rotations or foul out.
People always say "well, other teams have 2 bigs", but you will find that they tend to have good or very good bigs, whereas the Spurs have scraped the bottom of the barrel in that area.
The league has changed and coaches know that. Guards are given much more leeway than they had prior and this makes guard vs big a mismatch unless the big is athletic.
Also, the front office is hardly immune to criticism. You will find few fans here and elsewhere defend the Scola trade or the current MPG of Finley.
The current small ball situation is born out of necessity. The previous champs have had excellent big men. We have had either dumb athletes or stone walls. We should be thankful that Oberto stepped it up in 2007 for that le.
For people with short memories, just look at some of the older game threads or game thoughts. Rasho/Elson/Nazr may have been tall, but they were hardly praised for their gameplay. You need more than size to win or people would trot out five 7-footers.
On the other hand, small ball might be another way of playing our 5 best players and seeing what happens. However, I do agree that Pop distrusts young players too much. Somehow, Sloan is able to plug in young players right away and they are able to execute well. We should be focusing on players that show compe iveness and tenacity, not just players who happen to be more experienced and assume it's the same thing.
The other way to look at this is that Pop's strength is not on offense, or at least it hasn't been through the years. Perhaps it's easier for him to rely on veterans who already know how to play the game and so he falls in love with volume shooters who also show good character.
In the end - who knows and let's see what happens in the next 10 games.
Remember as slow or unskilled as Rasho/Elon/Nazr, and Oberto were we still won with them. And small ball...?
Last edited by Chomag; 11-08-2009 at 09:09 PM.
Me no know. But if we're going to do this, than do it with Richard Jefferson at PF where we can see some more crazy dunks. Beats the out of Bonner or Finley at PF which ought to be a war-crime atrocity.
Small ball won't win championships no matter what. But if Pop is going to do this he might as well do it right.
Which wouldn't match with the fact that he trusted playing Parker and then Ginobili when they started out.
But maybe the secret of the Spur's success doesn't lie with Pop. Maybe it was one of his assistants that isn't in the organization anymore. Just like Boston has Tom Thibodeau who's the mastermind of their defensive setup, somebody with less fanfare may have been part of the Spurs defensive prowess.
Pop played Ginobili and Parker when they were young because they were among his best players at that point. If his young players now were as good as Parker and Ginobili obviously were at that point in time -- and it was obvious to anyone who watched, I think, that each of those guys was pretty special -- they'd be playing.
You still wonder why the Spurs went small. I've offered my opinion -- I think that if Pop had a second big who could actually create an exploitable offensive mismatch against "smaller" lineups, even if he was a defensive liability, that guy would play. The bigs the Spurs have had to play alongside Duncan since 2004 or 2005 haven't been great offensive players; in fact, I don't think any of them have truly had a credible post game that would be essential to exploiting smaller defenders. That leaves you playing a guy who is going to struggle to match up with anyone defensively (because he's not athletic enough) and who doesn't dominate anyone offensively. I can understand exactly why, given the choice between a guy who can at least compete defensively, even if undersized, and a guy who's going to get torched repeatedly defensively -- particularly in a long series where weaknesses are quickly identified and exploited -- a coach would take his chances with the undersized guy. In 2006, that was particularly true with Finley, who averaged 10.4 ppg on 47% FG and 38% 3pt.
I agree that in 2009, there's too much reliance on Michael Finley; in 2006, I think it was completely justified to rely on Finley and truly believe that if Pop had tried to force the square peg of Tall Ball into the round hole of the 2006 WCSF, the Spurs would have gone out in 5 or 6.
FromWayDowntown is bringing some solid insight as usual. However, the problem isn't the Spurs playing small ball, it's when they play it.
When teams trot out matchups that dictate it, as mentioned in reference to the Mavs, it makes sense. However, when you do it against Utah when they're sporting a front line of Okur, Boozer/Millsap, and AK47, it's re ed.
Same for when Portlant trots out Aldridge, Oden, and Outlaw. Seriously, you have a front line that is all over 6'9", and you've got Finley and Jefferson taking turns at *power forward* with the other one or Manu manning the SF spot?
That's just ing stupid, and Pop deserves to be called out for it. Small ball in itself isn't a bad thing, but it is when Pop decides to deploy it all the time and with the personnel he uses to do it. It's like he wants to show everyone how cute he can be with his matchups.
The only problem is, he's sitting over there on the sideline with that smug ass mug of his while we get murdered on the glass and give up a layup line on defense.
The more I see of his stupidity, the more I put credence in the idea that PJ counterbalanced his stupidity and kept him on a more even keel. Makes me wonder if he has a bunch of yes men on his staff now, because no one seems to want to call him out on this crap.
I can't imagine it's fun for Holt watching $80 million circle the drain so Pop can play his mancrush Michael Finley 20 minutes a night at power forward, either.
And just to be clear -- my point isn't to advocate for small ball in all cir stances. I have always thought that it was understandable in 2006. I thought it made sense for Pop to play around with it during the 2006-07 regular season because the '06 Spurs HAD TO play it to have a chance against Dallas, but hadn't played it during the 05-06 regular season. It makes sense to pick your spots and play a small ball group on occasion, just so those guys figure out how to play together.
But using it regularly, using it without regard to matchups, using it when there are other, better options? I'm not supporting that by any means.
Heroics that wouldn't have been necessary had Tim had a healthy ankle and Manu not suffered that deep thigh bruise in game 3, IIRC.
Detroit was a of a team, but it was also a team that won the championship the year before not having to play the Spurs or the Wolves. -- The Lakers were the third best team in the West that year and only advanced past the Spurs and Wolves because of Tim's inability to regain his MVP form after the wear-and-tear quad injury and Cassell's hip injury that effectively neutered KG.
So, the Spurs winning was a fluke on the basis they didn't face the Mavs? The same Mavs that won a seven-game series the year prior in which they benefited from a banged up Big 3, a favorable rules change, and a Game 2 win that could be put squarely on the scheduling; the Spurs were forced to play Game 1 of the Dallas series in SA less than 36hrs after defeating the Kings in Sacramento. The Spurs controlled the majority of the game playing on adrenaline and an us-against-the-world mentality, before collectively exhaling and running out of gas before they hit the finish line -- they would've have lost Game 1 had they not been at home and had the crowd behind them.
Don't believe me? Look what happened in the first two games of the '08 series against the Lakers. Basically the same terrible break with quick turnarounds to start the series: The Spurs come out guns blazin' in Game 1 and fade down the stretch after exhaling and gassing, -- which did cost them the game in LA -- then they proceed to get their doors blown off in Game 2 after only being given a day off between games to get their legs back..
I don't bring this up as some kind of apologist, I just get bothered every time I see the equivalent of political talking points when discussing that series. Just because it's been regurgitated ad nauseum, doesn't give it any more validity. The Mavs were fortunate they got by the Spurs more than some kind of decisive victor, and they got through an Amar'e'-less Phoenix team on their way to the Finals.
Every team needs a little fortune or a break to win a le, but to say the Spurs only won because they didn't play the Mavs is a joke. Despite how well the Mavs match up with the Spurs, there's never been some kind of lop-sided advantage in the W/L column. The Mavs weren't a good enough team to win the championship, the Spurs were.
Now, as to when small ball really started..
The early beginnings of small ball actually began back in '05 with the Phoenix series. It wasn't the same small ball we know now, but it was the beginning of Pop's evolution philosophically.
The Spurs began to play their best offensive players to counter the high-scoring Suns, and pretty much beat them at their own game; the Spurs would show a versatility that would be described as 'chameleon' and prove that they weren't the one-trick, ball-control, defense-first-and-only, pony they'd been labeled.
That was essentially the beginning of the end to the two towers championship formula, and the birth of the shooting-4.
Going into that Mavs series, the dynamics had changed. The Spurs had become a much less Tim-centric team offensively because of the plantar fasciitis, and they had become accustomed to playing a much more perimeter oriented game with Tony and Manu; you gotta give the Mavs credit for realizing this reality and deciding to force Tim and the Spurs to play a game he or the team hadn't been physically or mentally conditioned for. They stayed at home on the shooters and played Tim straight up. Tim had a hard time sustaining himself physically by game's-end, given the plantar fasciitis and the fact that he hadn't been asked to play that way for the majority of the year. Likewise, the team and it's role players were forced to play in a way they hadn't become accustomed. Their open 3's became fewer and further between and they were forced to put the ball on the floor and create for themselves and others.
The Mavs really threw them for a loop and got them off their game with that one simple game-plan; gotta give it to them..
Horry, for whatever reason, also wasn't the same player from a year earlier. I assume Pop realized as much and began looking for a way to duplicate that high-scoring lineup he found in Phoenix. He wanted his best offensive players out there and Finley became the successor to Horry.
The Mavs, unlike the Suns, however, were actually a good rebounding team. They combined both a dual seven-footer front court and a small ball feel with Dirk's perimeter-oriented game. Pop, given that dilemma, decided that Rasho and Nazr would be a net-negative attempting to guard Dirk and with Horry's struggles.. Pop turned to Bruce and tried to concoct a way to win playing Fin at the 4; the Spurs were chameleons after all, right?
Had Horry been able to be the player he was the year prior, maybe small ball, as we now know it, never comes to fruition; or maybe Pop's desire to have his first highly-sought-after free-agent, Fin, on the court against his former team was an inevitable conclusion.
I do know this, the 'worm turned' in '05 with the success in that Phoenix series, and it seems like the philosophy and personnel has gone further away from it's most fundamental tenants little-by-little ever since; witnessing last year and the beginning of this year, the correlation between the Spurs' championship philosophy and their current personnel and approach is getting harder and harder to find..
This definitely makes sense. There haven't been many dominant big men in recent years, so many teams have had to play the more up tempo style in order to score points.
From what I read, small ball became more prevalent with those rule changes (hand checking, forearm, etc) that made it more difficult for players to play physical defense without fouling. Since the game is more free flowing and players are allowed to roam about on the offensive side, the defender has to use his quickness to defend and stay in front of the opponent. The defender is not allowed to use his hands (hand checking) in order to impede the progress of the opponent. Furthermore, the introduction of zone defense has put a premium on multidimensional players who can defend, rebound and score, players who can beat the zone (by passing, shooting, etc) and then go on the other side and defend by using his quickness.
This raises questions about Bonner and Finley, who as we know, don't have the quickness or foot work to guard opponents effectively. Perhaps Pop is willing to accept their defensive shortcomings because they are primarily used as zone busters. Since they are not quick or athletic, their only way of beating a zone is by making shots. Unfortunately, if they are not hitting shots, they become defensive and offensive liabilities and the team suffers significantly.
Finley's arrival made me do this. I just had to find him some minutes. Don't overanalyze all of this. All of it is going to work out and you are going to realise that I am correct.
But isn't that were the Spurs philosophy of forcing the opponent to play their defensive game falls to pieces? Given an option to emphasize defense on the C position, the Spurs now emphasize offense at the expense of defense at that spot. As the Suns have shown repeatedly, you can't force your will on a opponent by simply outscoring them.
The Spurs formula to success has been to play the percentages. The Spurs would play stringent but conservative defense, slow the ball game down and play efficient offense. Effectively reducing the number of offensive opportunities for the opposing team and having them play a game of efficiency on the offensive end.
I cannot conceive how a game with smaller players with a higher tempo and gaping holes in the interior can translate to success. This is given that the Spurs have never been the more offensively athletic or talented team in the league. The Spurs have simply been the more disciplined team in offense and defense. Take mostly open 3pt shots in offense or penetrate to the basket, deny the 3point line and the paint in defense.
Good post. But I just don't like small ball.
Playing small ball against Dallas in 2006 was not the reason we lost the series. In fact, it can be argued that it was exactly small ball that kept us in it for 7 games, but then most people would probably find this ridiculous. Still, I stand by my opinion.
They played their best ball in 2006,were at the top of their game at the correct time, which cannot be said about the Spurs in 2006. They also got a few lucky breaks in that series, mainly the officiating in games 3 and 4. Now, I do not claim it was officiating that lost us the series, but if they can whine about D Wade, then surely, we have the right to about these 2 games, in which the refs were not better than those who ed Dallas in the finals.All in all, Dallas won because they were better at the right time and at the absolute heigh of their game, while the Spurs were not, and small ball or tall ball should not be blamed for the loss.
You must completely misunderstand what I'm saying. It's fine to be wedded to a philosophy IF YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE TO DO IT. It's insane to stick with a philosophy when you don't have those people.
This notion of the Spurs Philosophy as a defensive beginning point comes out of the fact that for a period of about 5-6 years, the Spurs had two of the most dominant defensive big men in the history of the game on their roster, both of whom were playing at a very high defensive level. That David Robinson could run the floor and be a credible offensive player forced teams to play 2 big guys to defend the Spurs -- in fact, its exactly the opposite of the phenomenon that (IMO) forced Pop into using small ball lineups.
Where I think you're fundamentally wrong is that the Spurs don't have David Robinson on their roster any longer. And they haven't had a guy who could hold a candle to David Robinson (even the 2002-03 version of DRob) since he retired. Pop tried to find bigs who could defend initially, and came up with Rasho; but it became pretty obvious, pretty quickly that the Spurs needed some offense from that position, which resulted in Nazr and the 2005 le. But in 2006, teams -- perhaps trying to deal with clubs like Phoenix -- started playing smaller lineups or at least emphasizing athleticism more than size. And as that move happened, the premium on athletic big men grew.
The Spurs responded in the summer of 2006 with the dual free agent signings of Francisco Elson (not a big body banger, but a long, athletic guy) and Jackie Butler (obviously, not a good idea), trading Rasho for Bonner (a more mobile guy with length), and letting Nazr go with opening minutes for Fabricio Oberto (again, a somewhat more agile player).
I think they evolved again this summer, looking for guys who might not be the most athletic players, but who can get up and down, but who bring something special to the table on one end or the other. McDyess might be the best big man in the game in the pick and roll/pick and pop game and he's historically been a great rebounder. Ratliff remains a tremendous shot blocker, but has no offensive game. Blair is a rebounding fiend (though, to be fair, Blair just fell into the Spurs' laps).
Ultimately, the recent moves are meant to remedy one simple fact: The Spurs haven't been able to force their will on teams by playing 2 bigs anymore because when they've done that, teams just go small on them, exploit the weaknesses of big man #2, and Pop feels forced to go small to have any chance defensively.
* * * *
You have to have guys who can play "stringent but conservative defense." You have to have guys who can play efficiently on the offensive end. You have to have guys who can deny the 3-point line and the paint on the defensive end. And, I'd argue that when faced with good teams playing smallish lineups, the Spurs personnel that's best suited to doing that has usually been their small ball lineups.
I swear that some of you truly believe that the Spurs have a group of big men that rivals Gasol, Bynum, and Odom or Garnett, Perkins, Davis, and Powe (a couple of years ago) or even Howard, Turkoglu, and Lewis. They don't.
This.
Plus I honestly agree with FWD that we have had bigs with mediocre offense in the past (although I would argue they helped in other ways, including rebounding, but I digress), but this season we got a guy like Dice that can both post up and fire up a fairly reliable jumper.
There's also the fact that, as discussed here, you would play small ball to run circles around the tall, slow bigs with quick, athletic guys. So why in the would you want to trot out Finley with a small ball lineup out there?
He's not quick and he's not athletic. I would argue anybody could guard him.
What kills me is that Pop obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too. Just one example (from a myriad of examples just 5 games into this season) from the Portland game...I remember one specific sequence where Pop was going with the small ball lineup (with either RJ or Finley at the 4 spot at the time), we forced a missed shot which Przybilla promptly got the O-rebound and putback, and ESPN then showed a shot of Pop on the sidelines throwing up his hands in disgust. WTF did he expect? If you want to keep the opposition off the boards, you might want to consider giving more than just spot minutes to guys like Dice and Blair. They can't grab rebounds from the bench (and Blair has probably tried).
Exactly. Great post!
First, I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.
I believe this accurately summarizes the position of the more articulate opponents of small ball. I would go further to say that some look at the first five games and see major violations of the acceptable uses of small ball. Anyone care to guess the answers to the following questions?:
1. The Spurs have played 5 games (240 minutes). How many minutes of small ball have been played this year?
2. Of those minutes, how many were played when the opposition had two bigs on the court?
3. In those minutes where the Spurs played one big against two bigs, what was the score?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
