Diagnosing the Problems on Defense

[Phenomanul]

Excellent write-up BTW...

[timvp]

Timvp, trading for a shot blocker shouldn't impact the offense too much because they would be replacing Blair. While Blair's offensive numbers aren't bad, they aren't impactful numbers on a consistent basis.

While Blair has his shortcomings and his offensive production is spotty at best, he fits next to Duncan -- and that's something that is far from automatic for a bigman. As we saw in the last Player Pairs, Blair actually helps the offense when paired with Duncan.

In theory, it sounds easy to replace Blair with anyone and enjoy the gains from the defensive improvement ... but it's not quite that simple. For example, if Splitter were on another team, he'd look like a great fit next to Duncan. But as we've seen this season, the fit isn't so seamless.

Who do you think would be some reasonable targets for a shot blocker and do you think the Spurs will address this issue in a meaningful way?

I haven't really thought about reasonable targets. The Spurs have been after Marcus Camby the last three trade deadlines to fit that role ... but I don't think the Blazers have any reason to trade him this time around.

Robin Lopez makes some sense but he's an example of a bigman that wouldn't work next to Duncan.

And while I'm confident the Spurs know they could use another shotblocker, it's damn hard to find a competent one. It'd take a minor miracle to locate one that fills all the needs and can be had for what the Spurs have to offer.

[spurs10]

Great write up, thanks. I, too wonder how our defense has improved the last 12 games or so, excluding the tanking in Portland. I just hope we are improving. You'd think so...??

[timvp]

The solution isn't to add a shot-blocker or to start Splitter, it's both.

Can't really disagree. If the Spurs did those two things and the long two-pointers turned out to be a fluke, that'd be the best of all worlds.

So we aren't going to be the same old defensive Spurs and the overall game strategy will have to change to allow for that.

I have been wondering something similar lately. Basically, Pop's defensive philosophy looked great when he had all-time great defenders anchoring it in Robinson and Duncan and when he had a shutdown perimeter defender in Bowen. But now that the personnel has changed, shouldn't Pop change the philosophy. Funneling players to Blair and Bonner just doesn't make much sense.

A change in philosophy that had the perimeter players stop funneling and instead attempt to stay in front of players makes some sense. But then again, it would have been impossible to install a new defense between the end of the lockout and the beginning of the season.

[timvp]

BTW, timvp, speaking of synergy sports stats, you should take a look at Spurs offensive numbers. They are quite interesting.

For people interested:
link: http://www.mysynergysports.com/syner...purs&home=heat then click on "Go To Plays"

Thanks. I hadn't seen that "scouting report" option. I got my Synergy subscription -- highly recommended. There's so much info that it's difficult to digest it all

timvp, does that 2011-2012 data factor out the Portland game Pop "tanked"...??? I imagine that one game goes a long way in making our defense look worse...

I thought about taking out that game but when I ran the numbers they actually didn't skew the numbers that much either way. Plus, the Spurs have "tanked" a number of games in the past so each season already has some tanking built in to the numbers.

[therealtruth]

Robin Lopez makes some sense but he's an example of a bigman that wouldn't work next to Duncan.

I think this would allow Splitter to start. Splitter would be an upgrade over Blair. Lopez would take Splitter's role of the bench. He would play well with Bonner since he has some lowpost game.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Robin Lopez makes some sense but he's an example of a bigman that wouldn't work next to Duncan.

And while I'm confident the Spurs know they could use another shotblocker, it's damn hard to find a competent one. It'd take a minor miracle to locate one that fills all the needs and can be had for what the Spurs have to offer.

Timvp, Skill-wise, what kind of shot blocking capable bigman would work best with Duncan?

[DMC]

We cannot shuffle the pieces and make a worthwhile impact. I think we have acquired offense for too long to just pick up one guy and hope we become stoppers.

Look at what we have:

Neal: poor defender

RJ: Poor defender

Blair: Poor defender

Green: mid to poor defender

Bonner: poor defender

CJ: Poor defender

Anderson: Mid to poor defender

TJ: not sure

KL: Good defender

Manu: Good defender while he's healthy

Tony: Mid level

Tim: Good defender

Tiago: Good defender in the paint, not much outside of it but that's ok


We need to have good starting defense 1 - 5 and at least half the bench needs to be able to defend the PnR and rotate.

We just don't have the pieces to suddenly become elite defensively. It takes more time to do that than to become elite offensively.

I think the owners/managers decided that we were too defensive minded, that we needed to have up tempo games, maybe because we were boring or maybe because they didn't want to spend money for help for Tim. Whatever it is, we aren't going to fix it with Lopez.

[mathbzh]

I Agree with DMC. We don't have the personnal to be good on defense.

Maybe the team made a mistake last year when they tried to shift from offense to defense.
Say what you want about Phoenix but they made 2 WC finals and one semi in 3 years (2005-2007). The Spurs did not really take their offense away. Instead, they ran with them while getting stops when needed.

This is what elite offense can give you. A deep playoff run untill you get into a team that has enough firepower and defense to expose your weaknesses. Considering there is no "2003-2007" Sours in the West... that team may just wait for us in the Finals.

I don't see how having a good offense with average (at best) defense is any better.

At this point, unless we can make a move that really change the team potential on defense, I think we should stick to offense and see what happens.

[therealtruth]

I Agree with DMC. We don't have the personnal to be good on defense.

Maybe the team made a mistake last year when they tried to shift from offense to defense.
Say what you want about Phoenix but they made 2 WC finals and one semi in 3 years (2005-2007). The Spurs did not really take their offense away. Instead, they ran with them while getting stops when needed.

This is what elite offense can give you. A deep playoff run untill you get into a team that has enough firepower and defense to expose your weaknesses. Considering there is no "2003-2007" Sours in the West... that team may just wait for us in the Finals.

I don't see how having a good offense with average (at best) defense is any better.

At this point, unless we can make a move that really change the team potential on defense, I think we should stick to offense and see what happens.

The RJ trade was really what started the shift towards more offense. At the time I thought it didn't make sense unless the Spurs could get RJ to play better defense like Bowen. The 15mil they traded for with RJ would have been better of getting a good big man that could defend and score.

[lurker23]

A change in philosophy that had the perimeter players stop funneling and instead attempt to stay in front of players makes some sense. But then again, it would have been impossible to install a new defense between the end of the lockout and the beginning of the season.

To make a cross-sport reference here, this is what the Philadelphia Eagles tried to do- install a new defensive scheme with a lot of new personnel in a lockout shortened offseason. By the time the final few weeks rolled around, they were playing great football, but early season struggles cost them a chance at the playoffs.

Hard to say what would have happened if the Spurs tried to do the same. Probably something similar, but who knows if one season would have been enough to make the new system work.

[Obstructed_View]

Didn't the defense philosophy change to allowing long two's since it's the least efficient shot? There's no point forcing players towards the shot blockers when TD and TS are the only shot blockers and they don't play together. Even if we saw more TD and TS and/or we got another shot blocker it seems the defensive principles would have to change.

I don't recall hearing about that strategy. I think the fear of giving up points at the rim combined with the fear of getting killed at the three point line just leaves that area open. The Spurs clearly place a lot of value in the three point shot and none in the long two pointer. It's not really a giant surprise that it's what kills them on both sides of the ball.

And I thought the funnel-the-man-baseline strategy went away some years back. We had a big discussion about it and those in the know seemed to say that it didn't happen anymore.

[SpurNation]

I can't say it's a complete coincidence that the Spurs have stopped winning championships ever since their shotblocking fell off the map. That said, trading for a shotblocking isn't simple because that shotblocker would have to also allow the Spurs to remain elite on the offensive end. Shotblockers who are also capable offensively are rare -- and usually rather expensive.

A second possible solution is to alter the rotation to play the best defensive bigmen as much as possible. In other words, start Tiago Splitter next to Tim Duncan. They are obviously the two best defensive bigmen on the Spurs and the team's best two shotblockers. The hope would be the duo could shore up the middle and then a trickle down effect will be felt everywhere else defensively.

The third solution is to hope against hope that the defense as currently constructed can improve. In this scenario, you'd have to believe that the shooting on two-pointers outside of ten feet is a fluke and once that number normalizes, the defense can return to last year's level. You'd also have to believe that the personnel has a lot of room for growth and that there is enough time to reach the potential.

Personally, I'd prefer one of the first two solutions. Perhaps that long two-pointer percentage will regress a bit but I don't think it'd be wise to bet the season on that happening.

1) Certainly not a coincidence and the main reason over the past two seasons as to opponents success against the Spurs in the playoffs. Trade not realistic in happening at this stage of the season? Or... having to give up too much in established players in order get a shot blocking big.

Solution 2 forces the Bonner/Blair combo. A disaster (as proven) waiting to happen. Unless...when pairing Tiago and Tim in the starting lineup you play the least effective perimeter defenders that provide the best opportunity for scoring. Parker, Green, Jefferson, Splitter and Duncan? Save your better 1 on 1 perimeter defenders to pair with Bonner/Blair in Ford, Ginobili and Leonard, (Ginobili providing the best offensive pairing solution for Blair)

Odd player out being Neal to be used if either Green/Jefferson is struggling or matchups favor either Green/Jefferson not starting in a particular game/scenario.

Solution 3 is current yet new compared to systems past and the Spurs are still winning. Perhaps "hope beyond hope" is an adequate description when not knowing what the future entails and compared to what's proven to work in the past. But is it being given enough time to grow and mature before prematurely changed if the offense proves to provide enough scoring to compensate until it perfects?

That will take you back to Do, Te, La, So, Fa, Me, Re, Do.

[Bruno]

While Blair has his shortcomings and his offensive production is spotty at best, he fits next to Duncan -- and that's something that is far from automatic for a bigman. As we saw in the last Player Pairs, Blair actually helps the offense when paired with Duncan.

Spurs' points scored by 48 minutes (using nba.com +/- stats):
Duncan with Blair: 93.9 (512 minutes)
Duncan without Blair: 97.2 (389 minutes)

[timvp]

Spurs' points scored by 48 minutes (using nba.com +/- stats):
Duncan with Blair: 93.9 (512 minutes)
Duncan without Blair: 97.2 (389 minutes)

Yeah, those Player Pairs are a little old now and predate the Splitter injury so it didn't account for Duncan playing with Bonner a lot more recently. I shouldn't have cited that stat, tbh. Good catch.





Damn, last ten games:

Duncan with Bonner = 106.6 points per 48 minutes
Duncan with Blair = 94.1 points per 48 minutes
Duncan with Splitter = 82.6 points per 48 minutes

Regular season Bonner is amazing

[Phenomanul]

Yeah, those Player Pairs are a little old now and predate the Splitter injury so it didn't account for Duncan playing with Bonner a lot more recently. I shouldn't have cited that stat, tbh. Good catch.





Damn, last ten games:

Duncan with Bonner = 106.6 points per 48 minutes
Duncan with Blair = 94.1 points per 48 minutes
Duncan with Splitter = 82.6 points per 48 minutes

Regular season Bonner is amazing

If only it was this version of the Red Rocket that showed up in the post season...

He had us believing that he could overcome his playoff suckiness near the end of Game 1 in last year's playoff debacle versus the Grizz... 2 straight clutch threes... and then it all rapidly went downhill as he made Darrell Arthur look like the second coming of Chamberlain... (I won't fault him for Z-Bo though... when healthy and focused, that guy is a legitimate stud on the low block)...

[DPG21920]

How many minutes has Tiago played w Tim the last 10?

[timvp]

Timvp, Skill-wise, what kind of shot blocking capable bigman would work best with Duncan?

The optimal player would be a shotblocker on defense who is quick enough to defend the smaller fours in the league. On offense, this player would be able to shoot three-pointers to spread the floor ... or, at the very least, be a good passer who can also shoot from the midrange.

Unfortunately, that is an extremely rare type of player these days.

I think the owners/managers decided that we were too defensive minded, that we needed to have up tempo games, maybe because we were boring or maybe because they didn't want to spend money for help for Tim.

Pop and the rest of the FO began thinking that the Big 3 could no longer carry the entire offensive load starting in about late 2008. Since then, we've seen the shift from defensive role players to offensive role players.

And I thought the funnel-the-man-baseline strategy went away some years back. We had a big discussion about it and those in the know seemed to say that it didn't happen anymore.

I must have missed that thread. The funnel-baseline strategy is still very much alive and well. It's obviously not executed as well these days but the philosophy today is basically exactly the same as it was in 1999.

[Dex]

Yeah, the Spurs still obviously funnel opponents baseline, sometimes to a fault. It's one of my major pet-peeves of our lacking defense: sometimes our defenders seem to focus more on funneling baseline than they do actually staying in front of their man. They jump way too far out on their outside hip, at which point the baseline path to the basket is wide open.

I understand that's supposed to influence the opponent to go that way, but at the same time, it would be better to keep him guarded on the perimeter rather than to let him into the paint at all. It's like the perimeter defender is content to let the help take care of the dirty work. And while our initial help defender is usually right there, the second rotation into the paint is usually where we get beat, and teams seem to be exploiting that with cutters, mid-range pick and pops, or collapsing the defense and tossing out for wide open threes (which is ironic, because the Spurs offensive strategy seems to have also become one of their biggest defensive weaknesses).

I'm all for forcing the guy baseline, but you gotta at least make him earn it.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah, the Spurs still obviously funnel opponents baseline, sometimes to a fault. It's one of my major pet-peeves of our lacking defense: sometimes our defenders seem to focus more on funneling baseline than they do actually staying in front of their man. They jump way too far out on their outside hip, at which point the baseline path to the basket is wide open.

I understand that's supposed to influence the opponent to go that way, but at the same time, it would be better to keep him guarded on the perimeter rather than to let him into the paint at all. It's like the perimeter defender is content to let the help take care of the dirty work. And while our initial help defender is usually right there, the second rotation into the paint is usually where we get beat, and teams seem to be exploiting that with cutters and mid-range jumpers imo.

I'm all for forcing the guy baseline, but you gotta at least make him earn it.

+1

My thoughts exactly...

[Paranoid Pop]

Against Detroit Pop went with Tp Manu Kahwi Tiago Tim in the first, we got every single rebound barring a putback. Then he went with BonBon then small with Kawhi-RJ as 3 and 4.

It's clearly a roster problem, we put a great defensive 5 on the floor at times, but not all game.

[cheguevara]

"stacked western confererence"?

[Dex]

"stacked western confererence"?

I'd still consider it pretty stacked.

The separation between 3rd place and 8th is only 3.5 games, with 3 teams who are 2 games or less from fighting for that 8th spot. Of those 11 teams, only one has a losing record.

Compare that with the Eastern conference, where the 7th and 8th spot are both under .500.

[manufan10]

Yeah, the Spurs still obviously funnel opponents baseline, sometimes to a fault. It's one of my major pet-peeves of our lacking defense: sometimes our defenders seem to focus more on funneling baseline than they do actually staying in front of their man. They jump way too far out on their outside hip, at which point the baseline path to the basket is wide open.

I understand that's supposed to influence the opponent to go that way, but at the same time, it would be better to keep him guarded on the perimeter rather than to let him into the paint at all. It's like the perimeter defender is content to let the help take care of the dirty work. And while our initial help defender is usually right there, the second rotation into the paint is usually where we get beat, and teams seem to be exploiting that with cutters, mid-range pick and pops, or collapsing the defense and tossing out for wide open threes (which is ironic, because the Spurs offensive strategy seems to have also become one of their biggest defensive weaknesses).

I'm all for forcing the guy baseline, but you gotta at least make him earn it.

Great points. I've seen it quite a bit also, where (for example) Tony Parker will be right in front of the offensive player, and then adjust and play him from the hip. Basically telling the offensive player, go ahead and go baseline. It's there for you.

I understand the funneling to the baseline, because it actually gives you an "extra defender," but like Dex said, you still have to make him earn it, and stay in front of him. You can be like a bull fighter, and just move the red cape out of the way and let them run past you.

[cheguevara]

I'd still consider it pretty stacked.

The separation between 3rd place and 8th is only 3.5 games, with 3 teams who are 2 games or less from fighting for that 8th spot. Of those 11 teams, only one has a losing record.

Compare that with the Eastern conference, where the 7th and 8th spot are both under .500.

With the damage the lockout did basketball wise, play and injuries, I'd hardly call the WC stacked.

OKC stands above all then Spurs seem to be doing well regular season wise and the rest is a bunch of flawed teams. Dallas lost Chandler and Dirk was really struggling, Clippers lost Chauncey and are not that good, lakers are trash. Memphis lost their MVP. Portland/Houston? come on.

Compe ive? yes. Stacked? no way