Splitters weakness...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Where did you hear this? Splitter was known as one of the softest centers in Europe. His nickname in Spain was "Big Pussy".

Flopping is banned in Euroleague. You hardly ever see a flop in Euroleague. Because in Euroleague if you flop, the ref will not call it and instead they call a tech on you.

Then the other team gets 4 free throws plus the ball. There is only flopping allowed in the NBA.

Where do you come up with this ? His showdown with Marc Gasol in Gasol's last year in Europe was widely observed as both had high draft potential. Tiago got the better of that matchup, and did it as the only true big on the court for his team.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'd like to see Splitter have some minutes but lets not forget that he can get pushed around relatively easily by bigger and stronger players which the Grizzlies have in their frontcourt. Gasol would just play bully ball against Splitter (Marc's strength/weight overpowers even Duncan/Dice) but maybe that'd open up opportunities for the Spurs guards to strip the ball.

.

Gasol couldn't bully Splitter in Europe, and he was 20 lbs. heavier over there than he is now.

[jag]

Gasol couldn't bully Splitter in Europe, and he was 20 lbs. heavier over there than he is now.

I think Splitter would work out better matched up against Randolph as opposed to Gasol.

Randolph is going to bully his way into the paint against anyone on the Spurs roster. He gets his shots off at strange angles and uses his body really well to create enough space while shooting. If you put Duncan on him, you risk him getting into foul trouble. With Splitter, you don't have to worry about foul trouble and he's already shown he can bang down low. Randolph is barely 6'9" and Tiago is pushing 7'0". If nothing else, Tiago's length would help change shots and make Randolph work to get his numbers.

Gasol is crafty and has improved dramatically since his time in Europe. He's also shown he has no problem shooting over 7-footers. He's had time to get used to the speed, size and strength of NBA players. Putting Splitter on Gasol doesn't make much sense because there's not really anything in that matchup where Splitter has the advantage. If Randolph beats him with some nice moves down-low, Splitter still has the size advantage to make up for it. With Marc, there really isn't anything to fall back on.

If Splitter had seen more time during the season he'd be more prepared to guard either. But for right now, I think his size and quickness is something he can use to contribute immediately.

[mingus]

If Splitter is playing yesterday their frontline doesn't go 19/25. they could have gone 17/25, still really good, and Spurs still would've won. Pop is as much to blame for the loss, if not more, than anyone for not trying to lessen their impact in the least.

[z0sa]

Splitter should get PT; none is questionable, but Pop is the man in command.

[TD 21]

I'd like to see Splitter have some minutes but lets not forget that he can get pushed around relatively easily by bigger and stronger players which the Grizzlies have in their frontcourt. Gasol would just play bully ball against Splitter (Marc's strength/weight overpowers even Duncan/Dice) but maybe that'd open up opportunities for the Spurs guards to strip the ball.

Another huge exploitable disadvantage against Splitter in this match-up is that he seems like he's below-average when it comes to basic NBA rebounding and boxing out. Thats just asking for trouble with Randolph on the court but at least Splitter is one of a mobile big body on the floor which the Spurs haven't had in a while.

Fine. But would you rather they be (severely) out lengthened and out strengthened in the post, or at least minimize the former and take their chances with the latter? Also, playing Splitter some on Gasol would free up Duncan to play some on Randolph.

To sum up what I was saying last night, basically I mean Duncan is neither a PF nor a C defensively at this point. So what he needs next to him is someone who can adequately defend both, so that they can match him up with opposing PF's or C's based on the match-up. Everyone is so focused on the Spurs lack of a second big, but when they face the big front lines, their issues are at both big positions, because Duncan is forced to defend players not only bigger, but stronger. They need to have a big, wide body to defend power fives, even if it's someone limited/minimal, who's only used against those teams. Look at the job Collins has done at times, or the job Gray did yesterday.

[Obstructed_View]

It's pretty stupid to worry that Splitter is going to get pushed around if there's nobody else on the roster that could do a remotely better job. In other words, if the Spurs are playing someone that can push Splitter around, they're going to destroy Blair, Bonner and Dice.

[HarlemHeat37]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

[Isitjustme?]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

Great post.

[peacemaker885]

It's just all total bull written by some fakers that live in the US and have never even seen a European game. Why the do Americans keep believing it?

Because there's nothing more to believe in. A lot of people here have lost faith in the team. They need somebody to hang on to. Even Dice has fallen in the eyes of most because of one game. Splitter is the least known, so he's the one with the least faults.

[Cane]

It's pretty stupid to worry that Splitter is going to get pushed around if there's nobody else on the roster that could do a remotely better job. In other words, if the Spurs are playing someone that can push Splitter around, they're going to destroy Blair, Bonner and Dice.

I'm just tempering the expectations. I want Splitter to play because he does match up better with more traditional bigs, he's one of the most mobile bigs the Spurs have had in the past few years. However while he played well against LMA and Cousins, he's also been pushed around like a rag doll and his weak boxingout/rebounding is a concern against Randolph and Gasol who give even Duncan and Dice problems. Hopefully he'll get the opportunity to prove otherwise. Whoever plays, the Spurs can't afford to have Marc Gasol look like a HOfer out there.

[galvatron3000]

Spurs dom't play anyone over 6'9 other than Duncan unless they think the second coming of Horry is there, i.e Bonner

[Cane]

Fine. But would you rather they be (severely) out lengthened and out strengthened in the post, or at least minimize the former and take their chances with the latter? Also, playing Splitter some on Gasol would free up Duncan to play some on Randolph.

To sum up what I was saying last night, basically I mean Duncan is neither a PF nor a C defensively at this point. So what he needs next to him is someone who can adequately defend both, so that they can match him up with opposing PF's or C's based on the match-up. Everyone is so focused on the Spurs lack of a second big, but when they face the big front lines, their issues are at both big positions, because Duncan is forced to defend players not only bigger, but stronger. They need to have a big, wide body to defend power fives, even if it's someone limited/minimal, who's only used against those teams. Look at the job Collins has done at times, or the job Gray did yesterday.

Collins outweighs Splitter by nearly 20 pounds, Gray by about 30 pounds, Gasol's about 20-30 pounds, all of them are taller too IIRC. At the end of the day the Spurs don't have a young big traditional center that matches up well with those kind of giants but hopefully Splitter can be that guy.

Imo I think Duncan and Dice will improve their defensive game. Marc made some crazy shots as well which hopefully was more of a fluke than not. With Splitter on the court, Duncan should defend Randolph for the reasons you listed and since Splitter constantly has his hands down on the perimeter. However I wonder if Randolph has enough quickness to make things difficult for Duncan.

[TD 21]

Collins outweighs Splitter by nearly 20 pounds, Gray by about 30 pounds, Gasol's about 20-30 pounds, all of them are taller too IIRC. At the end of the day the Spurs don't have a young big traditional center that matches up well with those kind of giants but hopefully Splitter can be that guy.

Imo I think Duncan and Dice will improve their defensive game. Marc made some crazy shots as well which hopefully was more of a fluke than not. With Splitter on the court, Duncan should defend Randolph for the reasons you listed and since Splitter constantly has his hands down on the perimeter. However I wonder if Randolph has enough quickness to make things difficult for Duncan.

I'm aware of the weight disparity between Collins/Gray/Gasol and Splitter. Even though he's listed as 7-0, Collins isn't even a full 6-11. Duncan is taller than him. Gray is legitimately 7-0, though and Gasol is legitimately 7-1. After Duncan, Splitter's their best chance at adequately defending these types. But they need to properly address this gaping hole in the off season.

Duncan will improve defensively, but he's going to continue to have trouble with Gasol, because of Gasol's combination of length and strength and pretty good skill/touch. It's the same thing with Bynum, Bogut, Milicic, etc. Randolph might beat Duncan off the dribble a time or two, but it's not something he can repeatedly exploit (he's not Stoudemire or Bosh) and in the unlikely event he did, the Spurs could make a change. I'm not suggesting to go with this for 30 mpg. Theoretically, Duncan's length should give him problems, though.

[MaNu4Tres]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

/thread

Harlem FTW

[xellos88330]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

This is a great answer. It convinced me. Well done HH.

[rascal]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

The bottomline is the Spurs front office did not address the weak front line. Now all hope rests on Splitter to come in after not playing much all year and make some type of impact.

[HarlemHeat37]

No disagreements there..what's even worse is that the 1 big that they actually did acquire in the off-season, Splitter, didn't even get integrated until Duncan got injured in February(and then he was back at the end of the bench when Duncan returned, naturally)..

[Obstructed_View]

The bottomline is the Spurs front office did not address the weak front line. Now all hope rests on Splitter to come in after not playing much all year and make some type of impact.

The front office has always gotten centers, but it's up to the coach to play them. What makes it such a ing puzzlement is that it's the same guy making both decisions.

[Janko]

hack a thiago

[Johnny RIngo]

Spurs badly need Splitter for this series(and beyond - assuming we make it to the next round) seeing as Manu probably won't be 100% for next few games. Only way this team has a hope of winning a championship is if we play our best players but Pop seems to have made up his mind in regards to playing Bonner(probably to justify the contract they gave him last summer). Dice has vet seniority and it could be his last season in the NBA so there's no way Splitter takes away any of his minutes. That leaves Blair who started for the team most of the season and has become a favorite of Pop's. More than likely Splitter will get his minutes when the Spurs are losing badly in an elimination game before bowing out of the playoffs.

[Splits]

Exactly..

Splitter has plenty of weaknesses, but it's meaningless..his weaknesses should be compared to the weaknesses of Bonner, Blair and McDyess, 3 players that also have glaring weaknesses..

Using Splitter's weaknesses, in this case, doesn't make much sense, when being compared to other players with similar, probably worse, weaknesses, especially defensively..

Splitter's weaknesses: Can't create his own offense(Bonner, Blair and McDyess are all below average at creating for themselves, too, so not a serious weakness), he doesn't have range on his shot(Blair has the same weakness), he occasionally gets pushed around in the post(Bonner, Blair and McDyess all have the same weaknesses), weak FT shooter(the other 3 are better, but Splitter draws them at a much higher rate, which negates it, at least)..

Splitter's strengths: Great p&r defender(Bonner and Blair are horrible here, McDyess is average, at best), takes charges at a very high rate(The other 3 can't, especially Bonner), solid passer(Bonner and McDyess are terrible passers, Blair is average), good face-up defender(Blair and Bonner are poor at it, McDyess is occasionally good), great at making rotations(Bonner and McDyess are OK, Blair is terrible)..

If Splitter was competing against strong compe ion, emphasizing his weaknesses as an argument point would be valid..however, he's going up against weak compe ion here, he should be playing ahead of all of them..

Realistically, none of the Spurs secondary bigs would be #2 bigs on any other team, not even #3 bigs on some teams..it's the lesser of evils here, in this regard, and Splitter should be the #2..

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

[TD 21]

No disagreements there..what's even worse is that the 1 big that they actually did acquire in the off-season, Splitter, didn't even get integrated until Duncan got injured in February(and then he was back at the end of the bench when Duncan returned, naturally)..

And the worst part of that is the fact that he performed very well while Duncan was out. He proved that he's the second best big on the team. Yet he's fifth on the depth chart. If any other coach was coaching this team, Splitter would probably be starting and if he weren't, he'd be the first big off the bench.

They're the only team in the league that I can think of that's not playing their best talent. It would be like the Lakers benching Bynum in favor of a decent backup big. If they did that, they wouldn't be contenders. For those of you that are slow, I'm not suggesting Splitter is Bynum's equal. What I'm saying is, they're the second best big on their respective teams. Only, one is making a big impact for his team, while the other is rotting on the bench for his.

[Splits]

And the worst part of that is the fact that he performed very well while Duncan was out. He proved that he's the second best big on the team.

Why did we lose all 4 games he started during that stretch? Oh, I forgot, Bonner.

[TD 21]

Why did we lose all 4 games he started during that stretch? Oh, I forgot, Bonner.

Because "we" executed like a high school team coming down the stretch. Splitter didn't even play much in those fourth quarters. But let me guess, it was his fault.