Can someone explain why Bonner is disliked?

[ElNono]

Blair is probably just as much of a liability on defense, but he has a higher ceiling. It's not out of the question that he can give you a double-double on a given night. Certainly out of the question for Matt.

[buujness]

Lol, advanced statistics.

You can bring up stats until you're blue in the face, but no matter how many you bring up, they won't tell you the whole story. Unlike in baseball (where advanced metrics are actually very useful), basketball stats are, while important, not truly indicative of the quality of the player.

Almost all of Bonner's flaws put the team in a real bind, in that they almost always either directly lead to points for the other team (missed 3s and ensuing long rebounds, lack of defensive rebounding leading to the other team having second possessions, not a good help/team defender, etc). And while the flaws of other players also lead to points, their strengths often can offset those by getting easy points on offense, or just being really good at limiting the opponent on defense, Blair notwithstanding. I really can't say the same for Bonner, as his one strength is not consistent and otherwise easily neutralized.

I don't hate Bonner as a person, but he is just not a rotation-quality player on a playoff team, IMO.

[therealtruth]

I don't hate Bonner as a person, but he is just not a rotation-quality player on a playoff team, IMO.

That's it in its simplest. No other playoff coach is playing Bonner even close to as much as he plays or even at all.

[silverblk mystix]

Because he is a pussy and he sucks balls....


Watch a game.

Any player....guard/forward/center can and will take Bonner straight to the rack and score over him....every in' time....

Watch a game next time and when you see a guard who is 6'0 to 6'2 go straight at Bonner all the way to the rim and lay it in...then you will know how much Bonner sucks...

I cannot think of any other NBA player who is 6'10'' and who ALLOWS point guards to take him strong to the basket and just fearlessly lay it in everytime....

This is a player with no balls and a player with no heart....he plain just sucks.

He might be a nice guy and has a deprecating sense of humor...but he really sucks as an NBA player....and the coach is too stupid to realize that this guy is killing the team.

Very good reasons for disliking Bonner.

[Drz]

As others pointed out, this FO let other players walk with a much smaller sample size for the same reasons. So either you're pretty ty at your job, or the FO doesn't need as much of a sample size to come to those conclusions.

I'll side with you being ty at your job.

In case you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are, the flaw in your logic is that there are quite a few more alternatives than the two you presented.

Bonner's level of play doesn't decline in the playoffs, it's just a small sample size

Everything points to Bonner's play dropping in the playoffs. Pick any possible criteria and it gets worse. His plus/minus drops off a cliff. Every single statistically category falls off a cliff. Subjectively he falls off a cliff.

Yeah, it'd be great if he got 2,000 minutes in the playoffs to prove himself one way or another. But that's not the reality of playoff basketball. You have a short time to create your legacy ... that's just the way it is.

If you used the past tense, you'd be correct. "Dropped" off... "Fell" off... by using the present tense, you leave it ambiguous as to whether or not his past troubles mean he will continue to have trouble in the future. Based on your past posts, I believe you think he'll have poor playoff performance in the future, which is why I've attacked your beliefs. But let me know if I'm wrong and I'll happily get off your case.

Last night was an anomaly, tbh. Posting a -19 in 15 and a half minutes obviously hurt the Spurs but it's not like that's a typical Blair night. He usually has a plus/minus around 0 and doesn't have much influence a game one way or the other.

That's odd that you'd cite +/-. Are you not aware Bonner is the Spurs' adjusted plus/minus leader this year? Over Parker, over Duncan, over everybody. Don't bother pointing me to the articles of apm's flaws, I'm already aware.

Edit: Looks like he is the unadjusted leader too, see link below. I'm very curious to hear what you have to say about this. For the love of god, please don't let it be a Jim Mora-like "pleaayoffsssss!!!"

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusmi...t=9&team=Spurs

I have a lot of respect for the work and effort you put into this site. I'm truly hoping you'll dig deeper into Bonner's play and understand how he helps the Spurs win games. "Spreading the floor" isn't just some fun phrase that doesn't mean much. It's revolutionized the game for teams that have realized its value.

Do you watch hockey? If you do, you've seen the vast increase in offense when it's 4 on 4 instead of 5 on 5. The increase is MASSIVE. Now, imagine a hockey team that plays all its offense 4 on 4, but somehow keeps its defense 5 on 5. That's huge, right? That's what Bonner brings to the table. He could sit there on the 3 point line and eat a hoagie or drop a deuce, but as long as teams have to respect his shot, he's doing more for the Spurs winning games than almost anyone else on the team.

Lol, advanced statistics.

You can bring up stats until you're blue in the face, but no matter how many you bring up, they won't tell you the whole story.

Very true!

Unlike in baseball (where advanced metrics are actually very useful), basketball stats are, while important, not truly indicative of the quality of the player.

Very false! And very small-minded. Yes, baseball stats are easier to interpret due to the more individual nature of the sport, but that does NOT imply they are not indicative of the quality of the player. I wonder if you think that because you struggle to understand them, and your feeble mind thinks "gosh, I can't handle this, I'll just bash them! Dem der stats r bad!!!"

Almost all of Bonner's flaws put the team in a real bind, in that they almost always either directly lead to points for the other team (missed 3s and ensuing long rebounds, lack of defensive rebounding leading to the other team having second possessions, not a good help/team defender, etc). And while the flaws of other players also lead to points, their strengths often can offset those by getting easy points on offense, or just being really good at limiting the opponent on defense, Blair notwithstanding. I really can't say the same for Bonner, as his one strength is not consistent and otherwise easily neutralized.

You clearly pulled this out of your ass. There is no supporting evidence for this. I'm sure you'll trot out the "I watch the games!" line, which any respectable analyst would know is bull .

(A bunch of a bull that makes him look mentally handicapped)

silverblk mystix, of all the Bonner basher posts, yours was easily the dumbest and least coherent. You are doing the other Bonner bashers a disservice by posting in this thread. Your stupidity reflects poorly on them. You would be doing all of us a favor by leaving this thread. Thank you.

[ElNono]

In case you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are, the flaw in your logic is that there are quite a few more alternatives than the two you presented.

So you agree his production drops dramatically in the playoffs, stats-wise...

Because it's either that or you're just suck at your job...

[ElNono]

teams respect his shot after OJ Mayo makes him put the ball on the floor

[Drz]

So you agree his production drops dramatically in the playoffs, stats-wise...

Because it's either that or you're just suck at your job...

I addressed that in the middle of my blob of a post. But to repeat: I agree his production has dropped in the playoffs, stats-wise. I do not agree that his production is any more or less likely to be better or worse than his career norms in the playoffs going forward.

So far the only counter-argument I've seen was essentially "sample sizes are always going to be too small, so deal with it, because it's the best we've got." That is not an effective argument.

[DesignatedT]

Well played Drz. Not many around here would be willing to take that stance. It's nothing but blame Bonner 24/7 here and while I would personally like to see another big signed and Bonner's minutes be slightly decreased, I do agree with some of your points.

[ElNono]

I addressed that in the middle of my blob of a post. But to repeat: I agree his production has dropped in the playoffs, stats-wise. I do not agree that his production is any more or less likely to be better or worse than his career norms in the playoffs going forward.

You don't know that. Statistically speaking, he's just as likely to keep choking.

Now I want to know why would anybody respect a 33% 3 point shooter in the playoffs.

Memphis didn't, and rightly so.

[Spurs da champs]

You don't know that. Statistically speaking, he's just as likely to keep choking.

Now I want to know why would anybody respect a 33% 3 point shooter in the playoffs.

Memphis didn't, and rightly so.

Wow I thought it was lower.

[ElNono]

So far the only counter-argument I've seen was essentially "sample sizes are always going to be too small, so deal with it, because it's the best we've got." That is not an effective argument.

Effective or not, it's true. You don't get to say what the sample size should be. It's what we have, and he chokes. What's worse, he's a terrible defender, and the stats back it up.

[ElNono]

Wow I thought it was lower.

Career-wise, it's marginally lower... 32%... and that's all he brings to the team...

[Drz]

Well played Drz. Not many around here would be willing to take that stance. It's nothing but blame Bonner 24/7 here and while I would personally like to see another big signed and Bonner's minutes be slightly decreased, I do agree with some of your points.

Thank you friend. I normally just lurk here, but for some reason the misinformation on this site about Bonner gets me going.

You don't know that. Statistically speaking, he's just as likely to keep choking.

"Statistically speaking?" I'm not a regular here, so I don't know if you're giving me a good trolljob. No, what your saying is false. Factually false, not opinion false. That's like saying "I rolled a die three times and it came up 6 all three times, so statistically speaking, it's just as likely to come up 6 again." Not true.

Now I want to know why would anybody respect a 33% 3 point shooter in the playoffs.

Because the teams employ people faaaaaar smarter than you who realize that if he took those same shots another 1,000 times, they'd probably go in somewhere around 418 times.

[Drz]

What's worse, he's a terrible defender, and the stats back it up.

I believe I have caught you with your foot in your mouth. Please provide the stats to back this statement up. Good luck.

[ElNono]

"Statistically speaking?" I'm not a regular here, so I don't know if you're giving me a good trolljob. No, what your saying is false. Factually false, not opinion false. That's like saying "I rolled a die three times and it came up 6 all three times, so statistically speaking, it's just as likely to come up 6 again." Not true.

He can keep on choking or he can stop choking. Mathematically speaking, it's 50/50, thus it's absolutely true he's "as likely to keep on choking".

The thing is, we're not dealing with this in a vacuum. There are reasons why he's less effective in the playoffs, and that has a lot to do with playoff basketball, where matchups dictates a lot of the offense and defense, and where liabilities like Matt can be plan for and abused.

Because the teams employ people faaaaaar smarter than you who realize that if he took those same shots another 1,000 times, they'd probably go in somewhere around 418 times.

He has taken 1,471 shots in his entire regular season career. Nice strawman, but it doesn't apply here. If he can't nut up in the playoffs, he needs to sit at the end of the bench.

[ElNono]

I believe I have caught you with your foot in your mouth. Please provide the stats to back this statement up. Good luck.

Search for Plus/Minus for him in the playoffs... I made the post a while back...

I've had this conversation before...

[timvp]

If you used the past tense, you'd be correct. "Dropped" off... "Fell" off... by using the present tense, you leave it ambiguous as to whether or not his past troubles mean he will continue to have trouble in the future. Based on your past posts, I believe you think he'll have poor playoff performance in the future, which is why I've attacked your beliefs. But let me know if I'm wrong and I'll happily get off your case.

I do believe Bonner will come up short in the playoffs once again. There's nothing to suggest he won't. To judge how well a player will likely do in the playoffs, we have two avenues: 1. See how that player has done in the playoffs in the past, and 2. See how that player has done in pressure situations during the regular season.

Bonner's production has been underwhelming in both scenarios.

To believe that Bonner will succeed in this year's playoffs, I'd have to ignore both subjective and objective analysis of his past. I just can't do that.

That's odd that you'd cite +/-. Are you not aware Bonner is the Spurs' adjusted plus/minus leader this year? Over Parker, over Duncan, over everybody. Don't bother pointing me to the articles of apm's flaws, I'm already aware.

Edit: Looks like he is the unadjusted leader too, see link below. I'm very curious to hear what you have to say about this. For the love of god, please don't let it be a Jim Mora-like "pleaayoffsssss!!!"

I have a lot of respect for the work and effort you put into this site. I'm truly hoping you'll dig deeper into Bonner's play and understand how he helps the Spurs win games. "Spreading the floor" isn't just some fun phrase that doesn't mean much. It's revolutionized the game for teams that have realized its value.

No offense but you must not read most of what I've said about Bonner over the years. In fact, in this very thread I said Bonner in the regular season has been better than Robert Horry ever was.

Again, Bonner is a great regular season player. And I don't even think "great" is an overstatement because he consistently puts up fantastic plus/minus numbers. It's not just this year, every single season he's been in the rotation his plus/minus stats have been one of the very best on the team ... if not the absolute best. Bonner has helped the Spurs win countless regular season games over the years ... perhaps more than any role player of the Duncan era (as long as you don't consider Bowen a role player).

Bonner really does spread the floor and the evidence is in the numbers. On top of that, he's an above average defender in the regular season. And while his individual rebounding numbers aren't spectacular, his boxing out is so good that the Spurs always rebound better with him on the court than with him off the court.

I can't stress enough how much I love Regular Season Matt Bonner.

However, the big problem with Regular Season Matt Bonner is that his regular season success simply doesn't translate to the postseason. And it's not just something simple like he shoots his three-pointers worse in the playoffs. It's an all-around decline in his game, much of which isn't really actually his fault.

Come playoff time, opponents get to scout the Spurs a lot more. The pace slows. The game becomes more of a grind instead of free flowing. All of that works against Bonner. By scouting him closely, teams can figure out exactly how to defend him. The slower pace and grinding flow decrease his areas of effectiveness even more.

The results have been consistent over the years. Bonner goes from posting great plus/minus numbers in the regular season to posting horrible plus/minus numbers in the postseason. On top of that, all of his traditional stats take a tumble ... he shoots worse, he shoots less, he rebounds less, he gets less assists, he turns the ball over more -- literally every single metric goes south.

Either Pop can believe that the clockwork-like drop in Bonner's effectiveness every playoffs has been one gigantic fluke, or he can look at the facts and realize that playoff basketball is different and Bonner's game doesn't fit playoff basketball nearly as well as Bonner's game fits regular season basketball.

I hope Pop eventually believes the latter before it's too late.

[Drz]

This is actually getting pretty funny.

He can keep on choking or he can stop choking. Mathematically speaking, it's 50/50, thus it's absolutely true he's "as likely to keep on choking".

Just because you present two options doesn't mean they have to be 50/50.

The thing is, we're not dealing with this in a vacuum. There are reasons why he's less effective in the playoffs, and that has a lot to do with playoff basketball, where matchups dictates a lot of the offense and defense, and where liabilities like Matt can be plan for and abused.

Good thing people can't play matchups and plan against him in the regular season!

He has taken 1,471 shots in his entire regular season career. Nice strawman, but it doesn't apply here. If he can't nut up in the playoffs, he needs to sit at the end of the bench.

A strawman argument is when someone makes a point unrelated to the argument and guns it down, and pretends he refuted the original point. That is not what I did. Learn what logical fallacies are if you want to play in that space.

Also, the 1,000 number I chose was arbitrary, and that he's taken 1,471 shots in the playoffs shows nothing about sample size without the proper context.

If I dust off the binomial distribution and come up with some confidence intervals and hypothesis tests that show the sample size is way too small, would knuckleheaded you even be able to understand it?

[Drz]

Search for Plus/Minus for him in the playoffs... I made the post a while back...

I've had this conversation before...

You originally said he was "a terrible defender" and said nothing about the playoffs. Your new story may hold water, I don't know. But the way you worded it did not. The Spurs give up less points per possession with Bonner on the floor than they do with him off it.

[timvp]

I'm going to be mad if Drz doesn't respond to me, tbh.

[TE]

Anyone who doesn't dislike Matt Bonner specifically for his basketball shortcomings, as evident as they are, needs to check themselves in a mental ins ution.

[Drz]

timvp:

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I agree with a lot of your points, but since the internet is made for arguing, I'll pick out the main part I disagreed with so we can have some fun.

To believe that Bonner will succeed in this year's playoffs, I'd have to ignore both subjective and objective analysis of his past. I just can't do that.

But you should. Yes, past performance is in general indicative of future performance. But not always. The roulette wheel is the common, easy example. People see those electronic boards that show there have been 5 reds in a row, so we're DUE for a black! You and I know that the past five spins say nothing about the next spin...

...but that's a roulette wheel. The question here is, does Bonner's (or any player's) past pressure performance tell us anything about his future? I say no. You say yes. I do not understand how you've arrived at your conclusion. This subject has been studied to death, and I've never seen one reliable study that didn't conclude that past clutchness had ZERO bearing on future performance. Not one. I know how much time you put into researching this, so surely you're aware of these studies. So why do you go against them? Gut feel? Your own proprietary study? A small study from somewhere that you think is better than the big ones?

I think you're going on gut feel. And I'm not going to rag on you if you say that's the case. But if it is gut feel, I'll just nod, leave you to your own opinions, and dismiss your thoughts on Bonner in the future. If you're going by gut feel, we simply think about things differently.

Edit to add:

I'm going to be mad if Drz doesn't respond to me, tbh.

Your posts get extra special attention and thought. Honestly, I have a fairly low opinion of the intelligence of most people on this board, and in this thread. That's not the case with you. I love debating with intelligent people that I disagree with.

[TE]

timvp:

The question here is, does Bonner's (or any player's) past pressure performance tell us anything about his future? I say no. You say yes. I do not understand how you've arrived at your conclusion. This subject has been studied to death, and I've never seen one reliable study that didn't conclude that past clutchness had ZERO bearing on future performance. Not one. I know how much time you put into researching this, so surely you're aware of these studies. So why do you go against them? Gut feel? Your own proprietary study? A small study from somewhere that you think is better than the big ones?

At anyone responding to this troll given this premise.

[Drz]

At anyone responding to this troll given this premise.

I was thinking about you when I wrote the last part of my post to timvp.