If It Ain't Broke ...
Blackjack - RTB -
After a hard-fought six-game victory over the Dallas Mavericks the San Antonio Spurs find themselves matched up against a familiar foe, the Phoenix Suns.
San Antonio last saw Phoenix in the opening round of the 2008 Western Conference Playoffs, where the Spurs managed to advance 4-1. The Spurs have eclipsed the Suns in each of the three prior series ('05, '07, and '08) since Steve Nash returned to the Suns -- this time as the face of the franchise -- but the teams have both changed; Alvin Gentry's supplanted Mike D'Antoni, the supporting casts have turned over and the personnel changes have led to an alteration in the way each team goes about getting things done.
What hasn't changed are the principle characters: the Big Three still power the Spurs and Nash-to-Stoudemire still fuels the Suns.
But the alterations haven't been solely to the supporting cast when it comes to the Spurs. Last year's third-team All-NBA point guard now comes off the bench -- the same guy who's run roughshod over the Phoenix Suns in recent years; the same guy who averaged 31-points, 7-assists, 3-rebounds while playing 40-minutes a game and shooting 51-percent from the field and 75-percent from the line against Nash and the Suns during 2008's opening round.
The notion to have such a player coming off the bench would be comical just about anywhere but San Antonio. But when you've got a coach with total autonomy and a template in the form of Manu Ginobili, a 2008 All-NBA Third Team selection himself, the notion not only doesn't seem comical ... it seems prudent -- Parker or Ginobili off the bench is more of a tsunami than a second wave.
The Spurs have struggled with cohesion and chemistry all year. If it wasn't one player going down with an injury, it was another. If it wasn't one rotation, it was twenty-two others. The better part of the Spurs' regular-season has resembled the grasping of straws more than the constant of certainty. And now that the Spurs seemed to have found themselves in the cauldron of this year's playoffs, they wouldn't risk tinkering with the starting lineup now, would they?
There's been a bit of a relay-race going on throughout the year. Tim took the baton early, went out and had one of the most efficient and productive stretches of his career, before starting to taper off around the All-Star break. He kept them in the race until the hand-off could be completed. After a few bobbles and a few missteps, that baton would find its way to Manu Ginobili -- he's yet to relinquish it.
But with Parker rounding into form and the opponent being the Phoenix Suns, could it be time for another hand-off? Was Ginobili's play the final three games of the Mavericks series a sign that his leg of the relay has reached the exchange zone? The Argentine willed himself to 26-points, going 10-12 from the line, but he shot 37-percent (7-19) -- that's after shooting 23-percent combined (6-23) the two games prior.
Whether Ginobili's play is a sign of fatigue, the result of his nasal fracture or just a rough stretch, the question's got to be asked: Would the team and Ginobili be better served at this juncture to have him as the sixth-man; giving him a bit of a breather and chance to find a second wind or a mental reprieve (carrying that kind of responsibility weighs on someone mentally as much as physically)?
It's a tough decision because of all that has transpired before and where they're at now: the playoffs. But the biggest problem with it has nothing to do with Ginobili or Parker.
Before Parker went down in Memphis, on March 6, the Spurs had finally settled on a lineup. They had finally begun to jell and see the success that had eluded them for much of the year. Parker and Hill were thriving alongside of each other, Duncan and McDyess were finding their way together and the bench was the best the league had to offer -- Jefferson and Blair became real factors sharing time with Ginobili and found a chemistry the moment they were united. But there was one fly in the proverbial ointment and one fact that just couldn't be overlooked: the Spurs were starting Keith Bogans.
For as solid of a guy Keith Bogans is as a professional and a man, he possesses neither the dominant defense or adequate offense to warrant playing time on a playoff contender. He's not incapable of being a factor defensively, he had some brief moments against the Mavericks, but those moments are few-and-far between, and they often happen while the offense is sputtering or the team's treading water instead of separating -- the attempt to acquire John Salmons seems to show the Spurs weren't unaware of this.
Popovich played coy with the media on his plans for the lineup moving forward, "Well, some things remain the same and some things change, because we're playing a different team."
Could Parker's history against the Suns be one of those changes for that different team?
If it is, Parker hasn't been told or isn't tipping the coach's hand: "I'm expecting to come off the bench," Parker said. "It's been working well and we did a good job against Dallas, and so I don't think we're going to change strategy." He would add, "We're playing well right now so we should keep it going."
Conventional wisdom would say that's a wise move: If it ain't broke don't fix it.
If only coaching were that easy.
Last edited by Blackjack; 05-03-2010 at 01:38 AM.
I don't think there are going to be immediate changes. This could change if Nash gets loose. Nash will try to break down the Spurs defense by driving down the lane and kicking out for a 3-pointer. If Hill is unable to prevent Nash from driving, then I could see Pop giving Parker the assignment of guarding Nash.
an entire article without a link?
thank you. great article, as usual.
Blackjack Raising the Bar through the roof.
I like the conventional wisdom, don't fix it. Like Duncan said, the team has found some iden y through the first round. Don't mess with it. Pop can adjust as it goes if he needs to.
It's dicey to make a move before a series starts when you've had success with what you're doing, something that can't be taken for granted given the year, but that's why they pay the coaches the way they do.
My only problem with going back to what worked before Tony fractured his hand is that it puts Bogans prominently into the equation. And while I'm not naive enough to think he won't get some time in this series due to the matchups, I'm certainly not looking forward to him playing anything more than spot-minutes.
But with the every-other-day format, the Spurs do need to find a little depth. And since it's probably too much to ask for a guy like Hairston to jump back in the mix to contribute anything more than a defensive possession or two, and it's unlikely Pop will give Temple a significant look-see (even if I think he might be someone who deserves some real consideration with the matchups), it falls back to Bogans and Mason; some things are just vomit-inducing.
Mason of last year would actually be helpful. The Spurs' lack of a three-point attack is something that really can't be overlooked -- they're playing with a slim margin for error the way they're shooting from both lines, and the limited depth.
If Manu goes back to the bench, I think Blair becomes a bigger factor in the series and helps to lessen the burden of Tim and 'Dyess by eating up a few extra minutes (maybe more). He could become a real x-factor. I have little-to-no fear when it comes to restoring the bench back to what it was before Parker's injury, and Tony and George play well together -- whether their mismatch is greater than the size and play on the other end is debatable.
an entire article without a link?
thank you. great article, as usual.
I was tempted to link a transcript to another thread. Ya know, to get more traffic.
Interesting note, we knew they'd have some interest, all us fans sure had interest! But never heard a writer actually say the Spurs made a move for him. Would have been a perfect fit really, and he would have taken a huge load off of all our scorers and older legs. Sucks we didn't acquire him!For as solid of a guy Keith Bogans is as a professional and a man, he possesses neither the dominant defense or adequate offense to warrant playing time on a playoff contender. He's not incapable of being a factor defensively, he had some brief moments against the Mavericks, but those moments are few-and-far between, and they often happen while the offense is sputtering or the team's treading water instead of separating -- the attempt to acquire John Salmons seems to show the Spurs weren't unaware of this.
just like everyone else, and the OP, If It Ain't Broke.... all you have to do is look back to last years Finals when the Magic screwed their chances of winning before the series started by taking Alston out of the starting lineup and screwing up the rotations and confidence (especially Alston, who lead the team to the finals then gets benched) of the team. I still believe that was the sole reason why the Magic lost.
The only reason to make a rotation change is because of either an injury or you lose 2 games straight. Keep the Hill, Manu, RJ, Timmy, Dice lineup.
It was reported around the trade deadline that the Spurs made an offer or presented a package for Salmons that Chicago declined in favor of Milwaukee.
I'm with you about Blair. I would like to see him get more minutes because the Suns don't have a defensive presence in the middle.
I agree that Bogans and Mason should get very few minutes. I noticed that Mason's second highest ppg average during the regular season was against the Suns (12.3), first was against Washington (15.5). I hope Pop doesn't take Mason's ppg average against the Suns into consideration.
Here is an interesting note on that stat. Mason played three games against Phoenix. He scored 18 in one game and 19 in another and played heavy minutes. Spurs lost both of those games. The only game the Spurs won was the one where Mason only played 6 minutes and had 0 points.
Nice job.
A few thoughts:
-It ain't broke, so there won't be a change unless the Spurs face a "must-win" situation. If they come back from Phoenix down 2-0, I'd expect to see Manu coming off the bench for game 3.
-If it comes to that, I would expect a simple flip between Tony and Manu. I expect RJ to remain in the starting line-up either way.
-Coaching isn't easy, regardless of what some here may think. The real hard decisions, IMO, are going to come with the big rotation rather than with the perimeter players. TP, Manu, Hill, and RJ can cover the three perimeter positions with little or no need for Mason or Bogans as long as the Spurs are able to minimize small ball.
-The big situation is much more problematic. For example: what does Pop do if Dice gets two quick fouls? Do you bring in Blair to cover Lopez/Collins and let TD cover Amare? Do you try Bonner on Amare (ugh)?
How about long stretches of Amare/Frye up front for Phoenix? Do you leave Dice on Amare and have TD leave the paint to guard Frye out to the arc? Do you bring in Bonner to guard Frye and let TD guard Amare? Do you go small?
What if Phoenix goes small with Amare and Dudley up front? Can Blair guard Dudley, or Frye for that matter? Do you have to go small against that configuration?
-How those questions are answered can trickle down to the perimeter rotation. Every minute that the Spurs play small will likely lead to a minute on the perimeter by either Mason or Bogans.
-It's easy for us to say that minutes for Bonner, Mason, and Bogans should be kept to an absolute minimum. Cir stances may dictate otherwise.
Careful, Blackjack's ego is sufficiently inflated without comments like this.
Yeah it would have been Salmons for Bonner and Mason.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...and-harringtonThe Bulls had been in discussions with the Spurs on a deal that would have sent Salmons to San Antonio for Roger Mason and Matt Bonner, but those talks died.
Wow, never read that. Sucks! We'd be a MUCH better team with Mason out of the way that's for sure. As for Bonner, he's always been a playoff fluke. Hope he turns it around against Phoenix, but my hopes are low. Salmons addition would have given us another 30+ minute guy who can shoot, drive and get to the whole. Our team would be much fresher going into this series.
Funny how at the beginning of the season, and even midway, it was said the Spurs have the NBA's best bench. Right now, we probably have the weakest bench of all playoff teams :s. Bogans, Bonner and Mason have become crap quite quickly.
Some things just aren't all that complicated: less Mason, more win.Here is an interesting note on that stat. Mason played three games against Phoenix. He scored 18 in one game and 19 in another and played heavy minutes. Spurs lost both of those games. The only game the Spurs won was the one where Mason only played 6 minutes and had 0 points.
Agree. Pop's got balls, but I can't even see him making a move like that before he faces some kind of adversity
Nice job.
A few thoughts:
-It ain't broke, so there won't be a change unless the Spurs face a "must-win" situation. If they come back from Phoenix down 2-0, I'd expect to see Manu coming off the bench for game 3.
Given the choice would be Bogans or Jefferson, I tend to agree (and pray ... a lot).-If it comes to that, I would expect a simple flip between Tony and Manu. I expect RJ to remain in the starting line-up either way.
This Suns team presents a lot of potential problems. They've got size on the perimeter, the Spurs are small. They've got quickness and shooting on the frontline, the Spurs have more traditional, defensive bigs -- it should be interesting.-Coaching isn't easy, regardless of what some here may think. The real hard decisions, IMO, are going to come with the big rotation rather than with the perimeter players. TP, Manu, Hill, and RJ can cover the three perimeter positions with little or no need for Mason or Bogans as long as the Spurs are able to minimize small ball.
There's really no way getting around TD defending Amar'e. If they're playing Frye, you can't have your best rebounder out at the three-point line leaving the board vulnerable and preventing your ability to dictate pace by allowing one shot. I think Blair can have some success against Amar'e in stretches defensively but their best bet is to go at him on the other end and hope that you get him in foul-trouble, which isn't much of a stretch.-The big situation is much more problematic. For example: what does Pop do if Dice gets two quick fouls? Do you bring in Blair to cover Lopez/Collins and let TD cover Amare? Do you try Bonner on Amare (ugh)?
There's also no way around the Spurs needing Bonner to give them something. They're sorely in need of some three-point shooting and people that can absorb a few minutes here and there, but Bonner's yet to prove capable under the playoff's pressure. Regardless, he should see some time on both Frye and Stoudemire ... and I guess you hope for the best -- I believe the term was, 'ugh'.How about long stretches of Amare/Frye up front for Phoenix? Do you leave Dice on Amare and have TD leave the paint to guard Frye out to the arc? Do you bring in Bonner to guard Frye and let TD guard Amare? Do you go small?
Going through all of these scenarios keeps leading me to one conclusion: the Spurs best defense is a calculated, methodical offensive attack -- it's get or get got, as I like to say.What if Phoenix goes small with Amare and Dudley up front? Can Blair guard Dudley, or Frye for that matter? Do you have to go small against that configuration?
Very true. And when you look at a 6 or 7-man rotation that consists of some older players that will be forced to play on an every-other-day schedule, it just stands to reason they're going to get some time; Hairston and Temple don't seem to be in the cards for this series (but there might be a Mahinmi sighting at some point).-How those questions are answered can trickle down to the perimeter rotation. Every minute that the Spurs play small will likely lead to a minute on the perimeter by either Mason or Bogans.
-It's easy for us to say that minutes for Bonner, Mason, and Bogans should be kept to an absolute minimum. Cir stances may dictate otherwise.
Facts are facts, but you can't prevent me from lamenting them.
Who, me?Careful, Blackjack's ego is sufficiently inflated without comments like this.
When you're right, you're right . . .
Actually having Matt d up Frye at the 3 point line makes a lot of sense. It's not like we're loosing that much of rebounding potential having him at the 3 point line.
I still wonder if Vinny DelNegro had anything to do with Chicago choosing the Bucks trade over San Antonio. Essentially, the trade was the same between the two with two expiring contracts for Salmons.
Starting to think about it now, the first year that Bonner got heavy minutes (or any minutes for that matter) in the playoffs was in '09 when we faced the Mavs in the 1st round. He just doesn't match up well against them, now against the Suns it is a different story, hopefully he can gain some confidence during this series. Again his entire playoff career basically has been against the Mavs. We will need him for about 10 to 15 minutes each night; so the Spurs can have a 4 PF/C rotation of: Tim, Dice, Blair, and Bonner. This series he could easily avg 7-8 ppg.
He'd definitely be the logical choice given skill set/mobility, and he'll get his opportunities.
Whether he does much with them is another matter. I guess you just cross your fingers that the guy finally has some kind of breakthrough . . .
With all their three point shooters (Dudley, Frye, Richardson, Nash, Barbosa) spreading out the floor, this will definitely be an interesting series. The Spurs need to be on top of their rotations and make sure to make these guys a liability in shooting blanks instead of open three pointers. Sort of reminds me of the old Spurs where they were soley dependent on the three pointer to be successful. Looking forward to this series.
Good post, B'Jack.
Parker-off-the-bench makes the least amount of sense against the Suns. In any other matchup, I'd continue to fully support it. Against Phoenix, I'm not so convinced.
1) Parker routinely destroys Steve Nash and the Suns. With Nash injured, you want Nash to try to guard Parker as much as possible. That won't happen with Parker off the bench.
2) Starting Parker would make the Suns gameplan against Parker rather than against Duncan. It'll be easier for the Suns to figure out how to stop TD when they don't have to worry about TP breaking down their defense left and right.
3) Phoenix's bench matches up better against TP than their starters. Dragic has had some success against Parker. The Suns' starting unit would have to pray that Grant Hill can stop TP.
We'll see how it plays out but TP starting against the Suns makes sense for a lot of reasons . . .
Naw man think about it hill is can guard nash better than parker can and when parker comes off the bench he is going to kill who ever is out there, so just leave it how it is the parker/blair combo is going to be deadly.
I think Tony off the bench really helps our second unit keep their poise and offensive pressure on Phoenix. I am hoping that Blair will get some meaningful minutes and do his thing with them. The Suns bench is pretty deep, so ours has to match the intensity. Tony and Blair provide that intensity. Lets hope the two start working better together on the pick and roll.
Good post.
If anything, I think Barbosa would be guarding TP especially since he has the speed to do so. He isn't a defensive juggernaut, but they can probably both tire each other out. I agree that TP would be best going against the first unit. Either way, I think the Spurs come in there forcing the issue and making the Suns make adjustments first. We will see.
'Preciate it. And, yeah, that's the same thinking that brought about the OP. Parker starting just makes too much sense to simply dismiss.
But making such a move before any kind of adversity hits would take some serious cajones, and I'm just not sure any coach could or would pull the trigger on it after experiencing the type of season the Spurs have had -- you finally find a winning combination and attempt to find a new/old one before the current one fails. It's a gut decision, and a dicey one at that.
Very true. Parker thrives in this matchup because there are more possessions and more opportunities to get out in the open court and get easy baskets. Nash in the halfcourt against Parker ... nets easy baskets -- Parker finds a rhythm and confidence against the Suns because all of the opportunity and certainty of how he'll be defended.1) Parker routinely destroys Steve Nash and the Suns. With Nash injured, you want Nash to try to guard Parker as much as possible. That won't happen with Parker off the bench.
Manu at the point of the attack isn't anything to scoff at and it's something that the Suns might even gameplan for in a similar fashion, but you're right. It's different with Parker -- his speed is a real game-changer; the defense finds themselves on their heels more often than not and it presents opportunities for the team overall, while diverting attention from Duncan.2) Starting Parker would make the Suns gameplan against Parker rather than against Duncan. It'll be easier for the Suns to figure out how to stop TD when they don't have to worry about TP breaking down their defense left and right.
Dragic should do a credible job -- he's got good length, moves his feet well and has some pretty decent defensive instincts. The Suns and Dragic have yet to see this Tony Parker, one who's closer to 100% physically, but Dragic is definitely their best option for him.3) Phoenix's bench matches up better against TP than their starters. Dragic has had some success against Parker. The Suns' starting unit would have to pray that Grant Hill can stop TP.
As it pertains to Hill, Tony knows what he's going to get: the midrange shot (which is down 8-percent --37% to last year's 45% -- in the 16-23' range but up and average of 10-percent in the < 10' range -- 53 to 44% -- and 10-15 range -- 39% to 29%).
I really believe a lot of Parker's success against the Suns comes from the knowledge and certainty of what he needs to do offensively and where his opportunities will come from. He knows he's going to get the jumper, and he comes into the game ready to knock those shots out. But shooting is about consistency, rhythm and confidence, and the latter two would probably be acquired or found easier starting the game in this particular matchup.
Yup. And one of those reasons is Blair; there's no question a reunion with Manu would prove beneficial to his potential impact.We'll see how it plays out but TP starting against the Suns makes sense for a lot of reasons . . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
