SenorSpur, I posted this in the Matt Bonner thread in the Think Tank forum, but since you didn't respond, and since this post more or less applies to the topic of this thread anyway, I'm just going to go right ahead and post it here too.
During the playoffs, 48 Minutes of wrote an
excellent post en led, "Is Matt Bonner earning his minutes?" Here's an excerpt from it:
As I have tried to argue, much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner has been excessive and, to a certain extent, unwarranted. The fact that Timothy Varner, the author of the article, would concede that he guessed Bonner was scored on more often in the post, only to have the stats repudiate that, lends credence to the notion that the criticism aimed at Bonner is grounded not so much in reality but perception.
One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up,
Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his
plus-minus rating for the playoffs actually says otherwise.
Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."
And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the
6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.
It's worth noting that the latter observation still holds true in spite of the fact that Bonner shot only 33% from 3 in the playoffs this season. That means that, contrary to popular belief, he can still help put the team in a position to win even when he's not knocking down 3 pointers. At first, this may seem counterintuitive, but it's easy to forget that being a 3-point specializing big man comes with other sets of advantages.
Matt Bonner spreads the floor, which, as I'm sure you're well aware, has the advantage of keeping the defense honest and luring big men away from the rim, making the penetrating of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili a lot more potent, as well as adding another dimension to the offense in the form of a big man's perimeter shot making. The fact that they haven't fallen nearly to the same extent in the playoffs doesn't take away from the reality that the mere potential for it to be used does go a long way to helping the Spurs offense, which has been the 2nd most efficient in the regular season in the NBA, keep chugging along. The fact that Bonner apologists have used this argument
ad nauseam to the point of it being satirized here in SpursTalk should not take away from its significance.
Now, with all that said, if Matt Bonner continues to be used ineffectively, does that make him a legitimate major role player in a team with championship aspirations? Probably not. But the fact that, when paired with the right players, he becomes a major asset to the team should, in and of itself, warrant his getting minutes in the playoffs.
You called Pop and idiot for suc bing to the very definition of idiocy, and I'm fairly certain you alluded to Einstein here when he defined insanity as, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But I think it's actually the other way around. Pop would be insane to give Matt Bonner consistent regular season minutes when he led the league in 3-point percentage only to suddenly take that away in the playoffs when he finds himself unable to produce at the same rate. Because that, my friend, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If he's been reliable all season long for us, would it make sense to suddenly pull the plug on him when he's become part of the chemistry that has been developed as well as a major contributor to the team with the best regular season record in the conference, especially when one considers the intangibles he offers?
I said this at the top of this excessively long post, and I'll say it again. Much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner is excessive, and to a certain extent, unjustified. Previously, I tried to argue that this could be a result of subtle forms of discrimination against his physical appearance. Though you did respond by stating that reasonable people like yourself ground this criticism on his production, or lack thereof, I have tried to show that this is in fact, not the case. Because when one looks at the evidence, one can unequivocally see that Matt Bonner has helped this team more than he has hurt it overall, and that his being lambasted is not grounded so much in reality as it is in perception.
Reply With Quote
