Playoff Rotation and Minute Distribution

[panic giraffe]

honestly, shouldn't this change with opponent?

there are some guys that are a complete mis-match for some teams and guys that thrive against certain opponents that suck otherwise.

[the crimson blur]

This entire season basically boils down to Tony Parker and George Hill's health. Its hard to tell the playoff rotations without knowing that first. If they are ready and able, I don't think there is a team we can't beat.

Boy, that skinny kid from IUPUI sure has become important...its crazy to think how his responsibility has increased throughout his career. Not that long ago we were asking him to just get the team donuts and stay out of the way. Now we want him to guard the opponent's best perimeter player, run the offense, and score 15-20 a night.

[TD 21]

Can't see Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson all starting together. Pop will want a defensive presence in the starting lineup, which is why Hill will eventually find his way back in and Ginobili back out. I'd have said Parker to start, but with him being back sooner than expected and Hill now being out, he's not going to just pull his usual starting PG, just when he's likely to be regaining his rhythm. If the Spurs struggle in these last few games or go down 0-2 in a series, look for Ginobili to be moved back to the bench.

Blair will likely be used in the 1st half for 4-6 minutes, to give the Spurs inside scoring/rebounding when Duncan rests. If he doesn't look out of place, he could get a similar second half rotation, if he does look out of place, the Spurs will go to strictly a three big rotation, by increasing McDyess's second half minutes. If the Spurs draw the Lakers, they may end up going strictly to a three big rotation, particularly if Bynum is out.

Hairston could see spot minutes (rather, seconds), coming in for end of quarter defensive stands.

Overall, it's obvious the nine that will be in the rotation. If Blair struggles and the Spurs backs are against the wall or close to it in a series, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pop go down to eight.

For the most part, at this point things are cut and dried. Out of the three guards, it's not that big of a deal whichever doesn't start because 5-7 minutes in to the half, they'll be subbing in anyway and all three are quality players that offer some of the same things. It's not like a guy like Bogans will start and play the first 10 minutes, which could drastically alter things.

[HarlemHeat37]

There could be SOME differences depending on the matchup, I don't think it will be a significant difference..Bogans probably could play a little more vs. the Lakers to guard Kobe and Pop might occasionally go with Hairston in that matchup like he did in the last game vs. LA if Kobe gets too hot and the Spurs need to give him a different look..everything else would probably stay the same..

I don't think there would be any difference vs. Dallas..the bigs would stay the same..I could see Pop going with small ball(RJ) against Dirk at certain times, but hopefully not too much..I could see more Hill and Parker together vs. the Mavs..

The Lakers matchup is probably the only realistic matchup that could change the rotation IMO, and that would just be Bogans playing more..

[Old School 44]

I'm really amazed that many people I consider the smarter posters on this board see it as an actual possibility to bring Parker off the bench. I know that we're all used to seeing Manu off the bench but Parker has never shown the lack of stamina that has plagued Manu at times throughout his career. That was the main reason he was brought off the bench.

I think you have to play an All NBA talent like Parker close to 40 minutes and that usually means starting. Especially in the playoffs. I love George Hill and this isn't a slight on him at all but I don't think the chemistry between RJ and Parker is bad at all much less bad enough to warrant changing the starting lineup.

Huh? Manu went to the bench, because we had no bench.

[TD 21]

Yeah, that's true, but I just don't think it matter that much which one of the three doesn't start. People are getting so worked up over that, but they're all quality players, none are that much of a liability in any specific area (Parker's legs will be fresh and come playoff time, I expect him to defend adequately) and Pop begins subbing 5-7 minutes into each half.

That's what's great about Hill's emergence (plus the overall improved depth of the team, particularly offensively), the Spurs no longer have to attempt to weather the storm early, so that when Ginobili enters 5-6 minutes in he doesn't have to wear himself out digging them out of a hole. This team has enough offense now, that, when healthy, all three of these guys should be able to get sufficient rest, even during the playoffs. They'll probably all play 32-36 mpg and no one guy should have to over exert himself while playing.

Duncan is the only player I'm somewhat worried about wearing down should this team go on a run because defensively, the Spurs can't go too long without him on the court against most teams. But there is no back to backs in the playoffs, plenty of two day breaks in the first round usually and he won't have to carry the team offensively, so hopefully he'll be able to play around 38 mpg effectively.

[EricB]

Huh? Manu went to the bench, because we had no bench.

Partly but the big reason was to limit his minutes and keep him fresh for the fourth quarter. With Parker back and if he can take on some of the load, that helps freshen manu even more.

[HarlemHeat37]

I find it interesting that this Spurs team finally has a guy that could potentially play the Manu role off the bench in George Hill..it's the first time in a LONG time..it'll be interesting to see how Pop utilizes it..

[TheBigFundamental]

Parker-35
Ginobili 34
Jefferson-32
McDyess-30
Duncan 35

Hill-30
Bonner 17
Blair 14
Bogans 13

[MannyIsGod]

Because it's not about who's better, it's about getting the best results under the cir stance.

If all things are equal, it's a no-brainer to start Parker; I was even a proponent of it a few weeks ago. But they need all hands on deck and playing to their best potential, and if you throw Tony into that lineup and it upsets the chemistry and continuity that's eluded them just about all year ... it's not all that wise.

Now, Tony coming back this early and George's injury could very well change all that, one can only hope (because you do want Parker starting and the team thriving around him), but if RJ starts to fade into the background again and the team's thrown off kilter at all, you can't simply go with him because of his talent; especially when his game could conceivably thrive and even benefit the team most, short-term (in the way it would effect those around him), coming off the bench to start. (I'd start him in the second half once there's been a rhythm and confidence built so that you wouldn't hinder his minutes too much.)

Like timvp said, it's not a slight to Tony or some kind of admission that George is a better player, it's simply making due with the cir stance and providing the best opportunity for the team to thrive cohesively.

Sure but unless you believe that the Spurs have played better BECAUSE Parker is out of the lineup then I don't know where the idea to bring him off the bench grows any legs.

There is something to be said for a sum greater than parts scenario many of you are painting here but it rarely involves a player who actually facilitates an offense well the way Tony Parker does. It usually involves inefficient players who detract from their teams while putting up good numbers. This is not Tony Parker.

Putting Tony on the bench automatically limits the amount of minutes he's likely to play. I think that is a serious mistake any way you look at it. Tony is a player that changes the game in the Spurs favor every time he's on the court (IF healthy) and playing him anything less than the maximum possible minutes is simply a mistake. Neither George Hill nor Richard Jefferson come close to impacting the game in the manner that Tony Parker does.

George Hill getting less touches isn't a bad thing because of the fact that Parker is much more efficient. Thats not a knock on George thats simply the fact of the matter.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nice analysis by all.

I'd like to see Hairston involved, but Pop's Benophobia makes that improbable.

As for Hill/Parker, you absolutely have to keep Hill as the starter if he can get back on the court within a week because the starters' chemistry has been superb. Also, Parker is more likely to thrive against opposition benches at this point given that he's probably rusty and may well still be affected by the fasciitis curse.

Interesting times.

[mogrovejo]

It only matters versus the Lakers.

1. Parker becomes a liability versus the Lakers. He is bothered by their size inside. He hasn't taken advantage of Fisher in the last 8 games or so.

2. On the other hand, the Ginobili+Bogans+Jefferson line-up gives the Lakers a lot of trouble.

- the Lakers perimeter players rely a lot on post ups/jump-shots these days. The size and length of that backcourt gives them problems as it takes away their chances of creating mismatches. The Spurs can switch at will and rotate on the ball reversal much easier.

- more importantly, Ginobili can tear the Lakers apart if he's the primary ball-handler and playmaker due to their incompetent pick'n'roll defence. Manu is a much more dangerous ballscreen player than Parker. The Lakers have no answer to good pick'n'roll players.

3. So, the conclusion is obvious: the Spurs should limit Parker's minutes versus the Lakers. Ginobili should be the PG; Hill and Bogans are better fits as off-guards. San Antonio can beat the Lakers with Parker but they would have a much easier task (an easy task?) without Parker.

Vs. other teams it's irrelevant. Btw, McDyess' contributions are still very underrated by Spurs fans.

[timvp]

It only matters versus the Lakers.

1. Parker becomes a liability versus the Lakers. He is bothered by their size inside. He hasn't taken advantage of Fisher in the last 8 games or so.

Really? Last five games against Fisher, Parker is averaging 21.2 points, 6.4 assists and shooting 54.2% from the field. On the other end, Parker has historically had a ton of success limiting Fisher.

[anakha]

It only matters versus the Lakers.

1. Parker becomes a liability versus the Lakers. He is bothered by their size inside. He hasn't taken advantage of Fisher in the last 8 games or so.

The stats don't back this up.

Checking Parker's last 8 games against the Lakers (which goes back to the '08 WCF) on basketballreference, he's averaged 21 and 6 on 54% shooting.

Unless your standards for Parker are incredibly high, you're way off base here.

E: Goddammit, timvp!

[mogrovejo]

Do you guys know what are Parker normal standards and how much other pgs improve from their standards vs. Fisher? I'm fairly sure the stats back me up.

[anakha]

Do you guys know what are Parker normal standards and how much other pgs improve from their standards vs. Fisher? I'm fairly sure the stats back me up.

Burden of proof is on you now.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you guys know what are Parker normal standards and how much other pgs improve from their standards vs. Fisher? I'm fairly sure the stats back me up.

This totally ignores the fact that if Parker has been a liability at all it is due to the fact that the Lakers pack the lane with four players. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the shooters to make the open shots. The problem with the Lakers matchup has never been and never will be Parker but will be how the Spurs outside shooters react against the Laker's defense on Parker.

[ShoogarBear]

I gave this a lot of thought too and I came to the realization that it's almost impossible for Parker to play 36 mins per game if he comes off the bench.

If he comes off the bench, he will miss at least the first 6 minutes of the first and third quarter, that's 12 minutes so for him to play 36 mins per game coming off the bench he will have to play 18 minutes per half in a row without rest, I don't know if that's the smartest way to manage a guy's minutes. If Pop wants to play Tony that amount of minutes (which I think he obviously wants) he has almost no other choice than to start him. Other possibility is to start him on the second half but I don't see the point of starting him in just one half.

Yep, the major issue all along is simple math. Assuming his foot is okay, Parker is the only one of the Big 3 whose minutes don't have to be protected. As such, it was always easier to distribute the minutes with Parker starting (and in fact, almost impossible to do it otherwise).

[timvp]

Do you guys know what are Parker normal standards and how much other pgs improve from their standards vs. Fisher? I'm fairly sure the stats back me up.

This year vs. Fisher
CP3: 15 ppg, 11 apg, 42% fg
DWill: 17.3 ppg, 9.8 apg, 44.2% fg
Nash: 13.8 ppg, 9 apg, 47.6% fg

I looked at a few others and can't find a PG who has lit up Fisher this season. You got any?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm really amazed that many people I consider the smarter posters on this board see it as an actual possibility to bring Parker off the bench. I know that we're all used to seeing Manu off the bench but Parker has never shown the lack of stamina that has plagued Manu at times throughout his career. That was the main reason he was brought off the bench.

I think you have to play an All NBA talent like Parker close to 40 minutes and that usually means starting. Especially in the playoffs. I love George Hill and this isn't a slight on him at all but I don't think the chemistry between RJ and Parker is bad at all much less bad enough to warrant changing the starting lineup.

I think the problem is that most of us seem to think there is a alot of (cir statntial I will admit) evidence that RJ seems to be The Invisible Man when he and Parker share alot of minutes on the court together.

[MannyIsGod]

In the Spurs 2 wins this season vs the Lakers they are 14-34 (.412) from the 3 point line.

In the Spurs 2 losses they are 12-39 (.308) from the 3 point line.

[MannyIsGod]

I think the problem is that most of us seem to think there is a alot of (cir statntial I will admit) evidence that RJ seems to be The Invisible Man when he and Parker share alot of minutes on the court together.

Even if thats the case then people are really overrating what RJ is currently bringing to this team. He's not defending better than George Hill, he's not shooting as well as George Hill, and he's certainly not creating as well as Hill. Limiting Parker's minutes for the 3 best swingman on this team is pretty damn asinine.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But RJ seems to be rebounding at a pretty decent clip here lately. It would be interesting to check out the numbers on that one.

If we play parker and hill together we might suffer in that aspect.

[MannyIsGod]

But RJ seems to be rebounding at a pretty decent clip here lately. It would be interesting to check out the numbers on that one.

If we play parker and hill together we might suffer in that aspect.

I compared them a few games back and RJ had a slim lead. At most RJ nets you 2 or so more boards per game than Hill. RJ isn't a great rebounder and counting on him to change the game in that manner is something I don't understand.

Placing the blame of RJ's struggles on Parker is just weird to me. I do think that RJ has benefited from playing with Manu and there is no doubt to that, but the biggest change in RJ's game has been a decision to play a much more assertive and aggressive style. I've always thought the problems with RJ stemmed more from his own decisions than who was feeding him the ball. (Its not like Manu is constantly setting up RJ on lobs or easy buckets - he's just being more aggressive).

In any event, I don't want to sound like I want to limit RJ's minutes. I just don't see a reason to limit Parker's minutes based upon RJ's improvements.

[ShoogarBear]

I would float the idea that Pop should semi-shut Manu and Tim down the rest of the regular season. The logic is:

1. The Spurs are not, say, the Hawks. The aren't looking for a good deep playoff run to build for the future. Their sole goal is to win Duncan another ring.

2. For the first time this season, there is feeling of a (still small) chance of actually pulling it off.

3. The only thing that will definitely move the chances back to impossible is injury. The reward for getting a 4th or 5th seed is not worth the risk of injury.

4. The priorities should be, in order:
a. Keeping Manu and Duncan healthy
b. Getting Parker back into synch
c. Getting everyone (esp RJ) enough just enough playing time to keep the gears oiled

The benefits of doing 4a-c is that you would also get some good reps from Blair, Hairston, and yes even Mason, which might actually come in handy in 1-2 crucial moments in the postseason.

The risk, of course, is that the Spurs would go into the playoffs rusty and having lost some momentum. But at this point I'd prefer to have them come in healthy, KNOWING what they are capable of, and maybe a little cold, as opposed to the worse-case scenario of pushing Manu 35+ minutes to eke out 1-2 more regular season wins and having him get hurt.