He only played 33 mpg because he wasn't needed for extended minutes for the vast majority of the first two rounds.
But if Garnett, who looks gassed every couple of minutes, can consistently play 34-38 minute games in the playoffs, without his play suffering (for the most part), then I see no reason why Duncan couldn't. It's obviously not ideal and he'd be hard pressed to hold up through three rounds (depends on match-up, of course, but there's a good chance they won't need it for the first round) of it, though.
It's not that having the best bench is inherently fools gold, it's what it generally symbolizes that is: That a team lacks a bonafide superstar.
The problem is the Spurs ask to much of TD. Get another good big and then ask TD to just play a supporting role and concentrate on defense and rebounding. It will extend his career much longer than lowering his minutes. Alot of people were hoping Splitter could be that big however Pop hasn't allowed him to develop into that role.
Duncan and Manu are old, they can't play more minutes. About the bench, it depends. Manu plays from the bench. The idea of the sixth man is that a star quality bench player goes vs other team tired starters or normal bench players.
At this point, imo the Spurs lack an all-star PF. The rest of the roster is really good, there are 3 PG's to choose from for the backup position, Jack can bring it when Manu rests or doesn't play well, Diaw is an very good big, Leonard was a great addition, Green was good too.
TP played almost 38 minutes/game against OKC. In fact, all BIG 3 increased their minutes against OKC. For SA, they do need their bench to win games. You can't expect Parker to carry the same load of Lebron or Dirk in the playoffs and blame him after SA's loss against OKC. He is not in their level and he isn't a superstar that can carry a team to the le. We can't put the loss only on him.
Not only the BIG 3 has to play well as a group, but the role players and the bench have to step up for the challenge if SA wants to win it all again. That's what it takes when your franchise player is already 36 and your 2nd best player is already 35.
And Neal's defense was not the reason SA lost against OKC. Neal in fact played more minutes in the OKC series than the Clips/Jazz series because of Green's major choking job in the WCF, going from 12ppg/4rpg @ 72.6TS% and 57.9% 3P in the previous series to 3ppg/2rpg @ 32.3TS% and 17.4% 3P. And not only Neal played more, but he also had to take care of the 2nd unit alone because Pop didn't trust Green anymore and had to start Manu instead of bring him off the bench.
I understand the frustration about Neal's defense, but he was asked to do too much. He isn't a PG and he definitely can't lead the 2nd unit by his own.
.
Well said.
conditioning the players to play more minutes makes sense, but I think that boat has sailed. as DPG said, pop always fools us into thinking he's saving them for the PO, but when they come their minutes barely increase. Last PO they definitely looked tired in front of the young thunder, thats not going to change unfortunately.
a better question is why does Pop not have more options when the roleplayers are choking?
and as far as PO fools gold, i think more than "best bench" the problem is using a platoon. bonner (no d, no boards, choker), blair (bad d, inconsistent/immature), and to a lesser extent splitter (made of glass, choker?) and diaw (fat and passive, though hopefully recovering from both). that's 80% of our bigman rotation, and between them you're lucky to get 2 decent players. those "2 decent players" work in the regular season, you can shuffle them around and even squeeze more out of them. but in the PO you can't play them all together to get decent production, nor can you hide them all at once. we cant have decent D, rebounding and a little scoring coming from the middle unless duncan is playing. so as it has been for at least 4 years now, the problem is not having another big to rest and complement duncan.
I think it would be better to have 3 similar players all competing for the same spot, and one specialist, than to have so many niche roles. obviously the specialist of choice for pop is the legendary floor spacer but honestly, I'd rather play athletic small ball than neutered specialist big man ball (ie, stephen jackson can play bonner's role way better than bonner does). There is a tactical advantage to having specialists but in the PO it just doesnt work out, they get exposed more often than not.
What do I think?
The 1st/2nd round were amazing. We dominated. We can ignore numbers from these 2 series because we destroyed these teams and could still afford to rest our big 3.
I think last year we were unlucky against OKC.
OKC has a level of expectation of their roleplayers.
SAS has a level of expectation of their roleplayers.
what happened in the finals against OKC was their role players had career highs. And SAS roleplayers disappeared. They didnt have to lift, they just had to play like they did all season (relatively to other teams). But they completely and utterly disappeared. Green/Bonner/etc. This was a COMPLETE reversal of the season. if both teams roleplayers had average games, we would have won.
The most worrying thing for me was the post-loss interview with Ginobili - who stated that he believes they cant beat OKC as theyre too young - too fast. This hurt me deep because it wasnt like "Oh we can play better". It was like throwing in the towel.
I don't recall Manu saying that. You got any links?
For me what hurt the most was the manner we lost. Like Pop has said our iden y was stolen. I would have been fine losing if we continued to believe in each other and make the extra pass. The shots would have eventually fell. The shots not falling and role players not contributing weakened us defensively since they weren't on the court as much.
SHOT BLOCKER NEEDED.
Udoh for Bonner.
The bench got worse? Well, our starting lineup got BETTER and you win with your stars and starters. If you noticed, Games 5 and 6 were much more compe ive than Games 3 and 4, which were games Danny Green didn't belong in the court. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, you win with your stars and in the playoffs, Manu MUST start. You can say he'll get his minutes playing off the bench anyways but him starting sets a tone off the bat where you match your best players against their best players. The Big 3 don't have the time to take a chance to see if Danny Green won't choke in a starter's role in the playoffs again.
[QUOTE=DPG21920;6155326]I don't think increasing their minutes a lot during the playoffs will help for a variety of reasons. You can't just condition a body to do something over several months, then expect to change that in a couple weeks. Just does not work like that. The other issue is that while guys like Tim and Manu have excellent per minute numbers, I firmly believe you would get severely diminished returns if you tried to expand their minutes. The reason they are able to be productive per minute is because they are at optimal playing time for their age/bodies. If you tried to go beyond that too much I think you would see a massive dip in their production on a per minute basis. /[QUOTE]
Wasn't a stat brought up recently that showed the team actually spent more energy when Manu wasn't on the court? If you buy that stat, which I would, then expanding their minutes wouldn't necessarily get diminished returns as you claim. They may even thrive because they feed off each other and wouldn't have to work as hard, individually.
Well, what I said is just my opinion based on observation. You always have the guys that are the Per 40 minute all stars, then they get more time and their numbers are no where close to those Per 40 minute stats. That's natural - even for younger players. I think it is even more true for aging guys like Manu/Tim especially factoring in the increased likelihood of injury.
YES DO IT As soon as possible.
Increasing the minutes to +35 years old players won't solve anything. However, what the Spurs should is run an 8 man more talented rotation, instead of a 10 man flawed rotation with 3-4 players that don't show up, are too small or slow to play defense.
That should be: 2 PG's, 3 Swings, 3 Bigs - all have to be good playoffs players. And RC had to set that rotation before the training camp. Efforts were made to solve the backup PG problem, but the Spurs are still short of an all-star bigman.
Bonner will not step up, just end that thought right now because he has had years to do it and never does. Neal needs to step up, Green and Splitter I agree, Jax can step up we know but we will need him as well! De Colo? Mills? I would say them far before Bonner, who is what he is. BTW the 08 Celts had a few guys in their prime still! Pierce was defintely in his prime and KG played great D along with Ray Allen still a very good player. 11 Dirk played out of his mind, he was on the elite list of playoff performers with that performance kind of like 03 Tim was for us carrying us (Would not lose). If we have a guy step up to superstar level then maybe, but otherwise as someone said your stars have to outplay their superstars and age is not on their side.
I agree with you that the best players have to start, but when Manu starts, it creates a big problem with Neal having to take care of the ball. He isn't a PG and he has poor ball-handling skills. Our opponents simply put some pressure on him and he struggles.
I think SA should really consider some small-ball (a la Heat) in the 2nd unit with: Mills or Nando as the starting PG, Neal as the SG, Green as the SF, Jackson playing the Battier role as a PF and Splitter as the starting Center. Way better than Blair or Bonner getting minutes IMO.
Why are we trying to accommodate a backup player at the expense of what is good for the team?
Don't ask me, ask Pop
But to be fair with Pop, SA was in a tough situation after Ford got injured. Neal was given a really tough task but he was the best option SA had at the time.
I've always hated the idea of Manu coming off the bench. I hated when Barry started over him, when Findog started over him and I still hate it. But it's hard to argue with results and Pop won the le 4 times playing his way.
I think Neal is a SG and that's by far his best position. With Manu and the addition of Green, he is pretty much a lux 3rd string SG. I think he is too good to be a 3rd string SG.That's why I agree with some posters with the idea of trading him. A lot of teams could use him and actually would love have him.
Anyway, let's see what happens after Curry's episode. I'm very optimist and I am still hoping for a Bonner/Blair trade
It's definitely Spurs tradition to start one dimensional shooters over Ginobili. To get better I think that has to change. For me and I think most coaches believe that the best defenders should start. You can always bring offense of the bench. To me that's the argument for starting Green over Ginobili.Don't ask me, ask Pop
But to be fair with Pop, SA was in a tough situation after Ford got injured. Neal was given a really tough task but he was the best option SA had at the time.
I've always hated the idea of Manu coming off the bench. I hated when Barry started over him, when Findog started over him and I still hate it. But it's hard to argue with results and Pop won the le 4 times playing his way.
I think Neal is a SG and that's by far his best position. With Manu and the addition of Green, he is pretty much a lux 3rd string SG. I think he is too good to be a 3rd string SG.That's why I agree with some posters with the idea of trading him. A lot of teams could use him and actually would love have him.
Anyway, let's see what happens after Curry's episode. I'm very optimist and I am still hoping for a Bonner/Blair trade
Manu is better suited to play from the bench, because he get his offense going from there, most star players can't do that. He also never could log many minutes, like Parker and Duncan can or could. When he starts from the bench, Pop can manage the rotations in a way that at least one of the big three is always on the floor.
I think that Pop is one of the best setting the rotation. The Spurs were just too slow replacing and finding help for the players that declined after the '07 le. Bowen role has finally adequately addressed with Leonard, Green, Jack and Parkers defensive improvement. This season, between Mills, De Colo and Cory the Spurs will have a good backup for Parker. But Duncan has to be complemented with a more capable bigman than Diaw or Splitter, that are excellent bench bigs. Perhaps Jack at PF could replace Horry, his game vs OKC was impressive.
When your bench doesn't have a viable ballhandler and playmaker, and the starting lineup is already pretty good, taking Ginobili off the bench and starting him just makes the best part of our rotation better and the weakest part a LOT worse. We got destroyed when both Parker and Manu were on the bench. That's actually usually the case even during the regular season.
Manu starting takes away from his time with the second unit and adds maybe 2 minutes of extra playing time for him. The tradeoff wasn't worth it. Especially when you consider Manu had multiple bad games in that series anyway, so in hindsight, it was a poor move that didn't pay off. Can't see how you can argue it since we already know how it panned out. Half of his starts were awful and all of his games @OKC sucked too.
Fact: every game Ginobili played @ OKC in the playoffs, he sucked.
Ginobili's averages @ OKC:
10.3 PPG
3.7 RPG
2.0 APG
0.0 SPG
0.0 BPG
37.5% FG%
38.5% 3pt%
2.6 FTAs/game
4.3 turnovers
4.3 fouls commited
Pretty big reason why we were 0-3 @OKC. Ginobili blew it all 3 games there. I'd rather keep him on the bench and basically running plays when Parker's resting if we don't have anyone who can lead the 2nd unit properly. . .and clearly we don't. Worst thing that happens is that Manu gets 2-3 less minutes of playing time overall. Big deal, he can use the rest anyway. We always close out halves with him on court, so there's no particular loss of ability except the first 2-3 minutes of the game which we usually do well in anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote