Ginobili is a starter . . .

[analyzed]

I agree that Manu should stay as a starter, what is more important however is that at least one of them, either Manu or Tony are on the court at any given time. Having both of them out at any point, makes the Spurs offense disfunctional without a facilitator and leader on the court ( I don't think Hill is capable). To make this possible however means subing for either Manu or Tony early , so that when one eventually get's pulled out the other can come into the game .

[Solid D]

Ginobili is a starter...AND, he should stay in the starting lineup.

If you are working on a pe ion to give to Gregg Popovich, you will probably get plenty of signatures.

I'm sure Pop would read it, thank you, maybe give you his clipboard in jest, and then do what he wants regardless.

You do make some excellent points. If the Spurs don't get someone to replace Anderson, then Ginobili and Neal will have to cover the 3 slot. Neal defended 6'-8" Stephen Jackson the other day, but he did foul him a few times and he needed help defenders when he got posted up.

Pop may have no choice but to bring Manu off the bench, for matchup and firepower needs. We'll see.

[duncan228]

The Sixth Man
Ian Thomsen
SI.com

...Three Things You Might Hear Over Coffee

3. From an advance scout, on the durability of 33-year-old Manu Ginobili: "You say to yourself, 'What can we do with him defensively?' There is always that question of his durability, because he's such a reckless type of player. But now, at this stage of his career, he can shoot it better than he used to. [Ginobili leads the 6-1 Spurs with 21.9 points per game.] If you're with the Spurs, you want him to get in there and create, but it's not like he has to do that all of the time anymore. You love him because of how aggressively he plays and what he does, but you also worry about him because of what that does to him."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...eg.oden/2.html

[Solid D]

...and then there is Alonzo Gee. There is no point in suiting-up Gee if you can't plug him in for an injured wing player. Maybe Pop is giving him some reps in practice now and plans to give him a shot. There have been no hints of this, but if Gee is given a chance, then Manu can continue to stay in his routine...-4 minutes/game.

[beirmeistr]

I didn't mention it because it isn't pertinent to the point.

There are plenty of players that have health concerns who aren't relegated to the bench because of it. To his credit, he accepted that role and excelled at it, but it's more important for the Spurs to get out to their best start and not have to rely on Manu to bail them out off the bench. Ultimately, it's better for Manu's health, given his compe ive nature and style of play, to not have to play under that much pressure all the time. He is going to sacrifice his body more in a comeback scenario than if the Spurs are maintaining a lead.

Well said. The way manu plays, he is better off as a starter, where he is not the focus of the other team's defense, instead of being double-teamed coming off the bench because he is "expected" to score quickly. This bench-playing places manu in a position where he can over exert himself and get injured.

[smeagol]

ducks just told me that the best thing for the Spurs to do with Manu is to trade him . . .

[Brazil]

I think Pop and the staff are capable to monitor Manu minutes starter or not.

He is playing some heavy minutes because as already mentionned spurs do consider this team is not strong enough to not care about RS seeding. Spurs have a quite schedule, they have to take advantage of it besides it eases the progress and integration of the young guys.

Now with Anderson injury I'm a little more worried, we have 0 SF back up. It could mean more minutes for george at sg and more minutes for Manu as SF.

[hitmanyr2k]

the minute monitoring has gotten out of hand. when has it ever really worked? did it work for Mcdyess last season? or Duncan? couldn't it be argued that it is detrimental to rotations and conditioning to play 30 min then get bumped to 32? I agree manu is not a 40 mpg player, but I think he is capable of playing 35 mpg, and so does he (see his last forum Q&A). We all agree his best PO was 05, he played 33.6 then, and last year he played 35.2- sure there was some fatigue, but that also had to do with the nose injury and not having more help (see below). The broken nose was bad luck, nothing to do with the minutes he played, and still he played through it another 7-8 games (was it game 3 or 4?). It is a fact that manu's best seasons have been the ones with most minutes, even in terms of efficiency. The time that it resulted in a bad injury (08), that is more a result of manu playing through it (for 16 games on a bad ankle, because it was the playoffs) than the increased minutes themselves having triggered a serious injury.

I've been arguing that for a long time. The truth is Popovich's micro-managing of minutes has never worked. Not only does it wreck the conditioning of the players (not preparing them for more minutes in the playoffs) I also think it killed their chemistry as a team. The players never seemed to have a set rotation or a pattern where they could get comfortable with each other and gel as a team. This season the Spurs look less scatterbrained and hopefully for them it'll stay that way.

[Solid D]

You'd be surprised how much of a pattern the Spurs have had for their top 7 players over the years. Injuries have hurt them more than anything else.

[diego]

I agree with managing minutes in case of an injury (like when td and tp had plantar fascitis and were playing in pain, or splitter now coming back)

and I agree that manu's wreckless penetration is dangerous, but for me this is a reason to play him more and as a starter, so he can settle in, warmed up, and let the game come to him (and play off TD and TP)

what i dont like is limiting minutes in anticipation of an injury. i'd rather they worry more about playing their best game every night, with their best players and rotations, and get used to giving their best effort. there are no back to backs in the playoffs, but in the playoffs they need to give their best effort and often with only one day between games. does holding back through the RS then going all out in the playoffs work?

[TD 21]

If you are working on a pe ion to give to Gregg Popovich, you will probably get plenty of signatures.

I'm sure Pop would read it, thank you, maybe give you his clipboard in jest, and then do what he wants regardless.

You do make some excellent points. If the Spurs don't get someone to replace Anderson, then Ginobili and Neal will have to cover the 3 slot. Neal defended 6'-8" Stephen Jackson the other day, but he did foul him a few times and he needed help defenders when he got posted up.

Pop may have no choice but to bring Manu off the bench, for matchup and firepower needs. We'll see.

Neal is strictly a two. He guarded Jackson last Monday because Jackson, despite being the size of a three, is the two on the Bobcats (he occasionally plays some three, but he's primarily the two).

This notion that the starting lineup has to change as a result of the Anderson injury is foolish. The rotation will stay the same, only instead of Ginobili re-entering the game as a two, he'll usually re-enter as a three now.

[amy020]

checking all the games Manu as a starter last season and this new season,it's clear that to have Manu off the bench is a waste of his talent.

[Barfunk]

checking all the games manu as a starter last season and this new season,it's clear that to have manu off the bench is a waste of his talent.

+1

[jestersmash]

For whatever reason, Ginobili's stats as a starter have almost always been superior in every category except for the '08-'09 season (but it should be noted that he didn't play that many games as as tarter so the sample size is pretty low).

Look at the '07-08 split where he played 23 games as a starter and 51 off the bench - his FG% is better as a starter (49 versus 44.4 off the bench), his FT% is better as a starter (89 versus 85), he gets more steals, more rebounds, he makes more assists.

That said, he does average slightly more turnovers as a starter.

His points are obviously higher as a starter but that's unremarkable because he gets more minutes.

The point is - for whatever reason (possibly psychological?) he is more efficient shooting the ball as a starter across the board (3 point % is the same) while playing more minutes.

These are simply the facts, and it's all we have to go by. The '08-'09 season is not such a strong counter-example because the sample size is so low (only 7 games starting). The '07-'08 season is the best to look at in terms of sample size.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...r=2008&sType=2

Edit: Now that I've investigated further, it seems like the '06-'07 season does provide a strong counterexample to this hypothesis. His stats appear to be much more efficient off the bench.

But, that's the end of it. We have two seasons to consider - '06-07 and 07-08. In the former, he played better off the bench. The latter? He played better as a starter.

If I had to choose based on just that, I'd be inclined to choose the latter because it's more recent data, keeping in mind that at the end of the day we really can't point to any one cause (starter versus bench contributing to psychological factors? Other factors entirely?) because all these statistics show is correlation.

Even more fundamentally, he's already playing extremely well as a starter and we're 6-1 (albeit amongst a relatively weak schedule). There's no reason to tinker with something that's already working.

[Solid D]

Neal is strictly a two. He guarded Jackson last Monday because Jackson, despite being the size of a three, is the two on the Bobcats (he occasionally plays some three, but he's primarily the two).

This notion that the starting lineup has to change as a result of the Anderson injury is foolish. The rotation will stay the same, only instead of Ginobili re-entering the game as a two, he'll usually re-enter as a three now.

Yes Neal is a guard, a 6-4 wing that ended up being asked to defend 6-8 Jackson, 6-8 Derrick Brown, and 6-4 Gerald Henderson in Charlotte. Why, you ask? Because Pop went small so Neal had to defend them on the wing. The other choices were 6-7 wing Gerald Wallace or 6-7 wing Shaun Livingston. The plan worked because Neal bombed away for 15 points.

Why argue the obvious? Neal is a small wing that Pop has used to guard taller wings...but primarily because he wants him to outscore them, not shut them down.
Saying Neal is a 2 isn't a valud argument when reality with Gregg Popovich says I'll use players as I see fit, to create an edge. Twos and threes are interchangeable in San Antonio.

One thing we can agree on is the injury to Anderson has created a real hole behind RJ, especially when the Spurs have to play teams with size and physicality on the wing.

[ElNono]

One thing we can agree on is the injury to Anderson has created a real hole behind RJ, especially when the Spurs have to play teams with size and physicality on the wing.

We had that problem with Anderson too, who isn't any taller than Manu and is only about an inch taller than Neal. The hole at the wing was an admitted priority for the FO, and they really couldn't get anything done (for whatever reason).

I agree with you that Pop doesn't really give a though, and to him it's more about the players and trying to gain an edge through other means more than anything else.

That's why I expect him to try a few different things backing up RJ.
If you need length, Bonner already played there guarding guys like Artest in the past. If we're trying to matchup to a small lineup, Neal can reasonably man the position too. If you're looking for athleticism, Gee might be able to give you a few minutes. Hill also backed up RJ at times against Dallas last season.

I think Manu has been playing well as a SG, and I have a feeling Pop will leave him there. We'll see tomorrow. Iggy/Nocioni will provide a good test.

[ohmwrecker]

I completely disagree. Like I said in another thread the bench minutes are more of a drain on Manu than a few more minutes as a starter.

When he comes off the bench he is the primary option and has to go all out every second he is on the court. When he starts he can actually rest a little more while he's on the court on offense as the ball doesn't go through him every time. IMO the bench minutes take a bigger toll on him. The main reason he went to the bench is because the bench completely sucked. I really don't think the primary reason for it was to regulate minutes.

Jam Stone has a legit point, and if I were being historically thorough I would've mentioned Manu's health and minute management as a concern. I just don't think it's currently relevant to the discussion. As the season wears on, it might be more important, but right now Manu is healthy and playing well.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the bench minutes put more wear and tear on his body than playing as a starter. So, I don't think health management was ever the primary reason for Manu's role as sixth man. It's a testament to Ginobili's leadership value and playmaking ability that he can be effective in either role. I just think that, at this point in his career, he is best suited as a starter. The Spurs have the challenge of building a strong 2nd unit without Ginobili. The talent and potential is there, but the execution has not happened yet.

[DAF86]

Manu's health has been an issue for several years. His durability is a huge concern.

Not really, the only season where he missed some significant time due to injury was in '08/09. If anything his stamina has been a concern, thing that I think is exaggerated too.

[Blackjack]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or cir stance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

[Solid D]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or cir stance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

Very well said, Blackjack.

[kaji157]

I think what would really help the bench right now is to start McDyess, so that Blair and Hill can play together in the second unit along with Splitter, Neal and Anderson (Gee).

[TJastal]

I think what would really help the bench right now is to start McDyess, so that Blair and Hill can play together in the second unit along with Splitter, Neal and Anderson (Gee).

Why??

The team is playing great, and McDyess is playing awesome from the bench, which he has said many times he prefers.

Why screw around with it?

Same with Manu starting/coming off bench, right now the spurs are winning, why make changes?

[Obstructed_View]

Why??

The team is playing great, and McDyess is playing awesome from the bench, which he has said many times he prefers.

Why screw around with it?

Same with Manu starting/coming off bench, right now the spurs are winning, why make changes?

Blair's playing bad right now. He's got a few more games to get it together, but he's probably going to need to get used to coming off the bench again. I fully expect Splitter to take his starting job before long.

[MaNu4Tres]

Manu as a 6th Man was Pop's go-to move for whenever the team was struggling or they needed some kind of jolt. And in fact, Manu becoming a 6th Man came about because the Spurs lacked a bench -- Ginobili to the second unit simply created one.

The notion that it was done for minute-monitoring came about later on. It was a byproduct of creating a bench. It became part of the rationale as the years went by and after a few injuries and long summers. But minute-monitoring isn't how it came to be.

That being said, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Spurs move Manu back and forth during the regular season. Ginobili has exhibited time after time that he's just as good a player no matter where he starts the game. And if moving Hill to the starting 5 for a stretch gets him going, so be it. The Spurs don't need to set their rotation before January and stick to it regardless of injury or cir stance. You do what you've got to do to get the most out of your team and its players.

I do believe they should stick with the same starting 4 of Duncan, Blair, Jefferson and Parker for as long as possible. Taking a long-term approach, I believe Blair needs the reps, the Spurs need his talent and 'Dyess is in the perfect role for him as a player and as a vet of 15 years -- he's preferred coming off the bench since Detroit and his minutes should decrease as Blair finds his way and Splitter gets up to speed (so Pop's able to find him more minutes).

I just don't see all that much of an issue. In a perfect world, one in which every Spurs player fulfills potential and meets or exceeds expectation, provided with the good health to do so, there are 4 players I believe could change roles, go from first to second unit, and the team may just play to its best ability: Splitter and Anderson, Ginobili and Blair.

Why is that? Because it's not about putting your best talent on the floor from the jump, it's about getting the most out of your individual talent in a team concept. And again, in a perfect world or the most ideal scenario, having a Big 3 of Duncan, Parker and Jefferson starting with the offensive and defensive skillsets of both Splitter and Anderson, you best address need and concern for both ends of the court to start and provide the type of second unit that can make a good lead grow, turn a close game into a lead or can even get the team out of the hole if need be.

But it ain't a perfect world. You do what you've got to do.

If the team needs Manu (or anyone else) to start, he (they) should. Whatever the team needs.

Get a clue

[ogait]

I've been arguing that for a long time. The truth is Popovich's micro-managing of minutes has never worked. Not only does it wreck the conditioning of the players (not preparing them for more minutes in the playoffs) I also think it killed their chemistry as a team. The players never seemed to have a set rotation or a pattern where they could get comfortable with each other and gel as a team. This season the Spurs look less scatterbrained and hopefully for them it'll stay that way.

This is absolutely true. More minutes are easier to handle when the team is playing good. There's no reason to make up strange rotations and having ineffective line-ups on the floor for purposes of reaching a magic number of mpg to your star players.

Many times trying to save some minutes turns out the other way around when the team enters the 4th having to overcome large deficits, and ends up being a more physical challenge then when players get more minutes but also have to work less, because the team as a whole plays better.

I remember last year against Toronto when Pop for some reason decided to bench Duncan. The team was struggling so at the beginning of the second quarter, with over 20 points deficit, Duncan comes on and ends up playing 30 minutes coming from behind on the scoreboard, witch is a lot harder, and the Spurs still lose the game.

For Ginobili starting or coming from the bench should be a function of how the team better works and not for purposes of managing his minutes. I'm not at all worried about him averaging 34 so far. For all I care chances of an injury are the same as if he was playing only 28 mpg.

Plus it's the Spurs Duncan and Manu are closing to the end of their careers, it's better to give it all have no regrets and live with the results.