It's more like abiogenesis - seemingly impossible considering the cir stances, but we know it happened somehow.
Because the Spurs don't have athletic big men to play the type of defense they play.
And small ball really isn't implemented unless the Spurs are having issues with tall athletic players.
Not saying it's the answer sometimes...but sometimes the alternative isn't working either. Might as well try speed over height if height isn't stopping the opponent.
Just post the numbers. I'm too lazy to go take a look if you already have them.
The Phoenix team whom the Spurs had just beaten with Nazr doing about 20 min a game and another big (mostly Rasho) doing 5 more. 25 min a game with 25 more min a game of selective successful small ball. This against a Phx lineup with runners Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Q Richardson and Jim Jackson.Where I think you're fundamentally wrong is that the Spurs don't have David Robinson on their roster any longer. And they haven't had a guy who could hold a candle to David Robinson (even the 2002-03 version of DRob) since he retired. Pop tried to find bigs who could defend initially, and came up with Rasho; but it became pretty obvious, pretty quickly that the Spurs needed some offense from that position, which resulted in Nazr and the 2005 le. But in 2006, teams -- perhaps trying to deal with clubs like Phoenix -- started playing smaller lineups or at least emphasizing athleticism more than size. And as that move happened, the premium on athletic big men grew.
We then in '06 went 63-19 for #1 seed with NazrRash doing 36 min per game.
I submit we should have continued selective successful smallball vs the Mavs. Timmys fouling out when head Assveta gave Dirk fts for stepping on Tims foot was indeed robbery.
Just post the numbers. I'm too lazy to go take a look if you already have them.
Well, that's kind of my point. This thread has turned into a very thinly veiled excuse for the hate PopFinley crowd without any real concern for actual facts. We have the image of Finley pathetically trying to guard Aldridge and take that as proof that small ball use is out of control.
So, if I have correctly summarized the rational point of view on small ball, i.e.:
I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.
If that summary is accurate, and the numbers do not support the view that the Spurs have used small ball excessively or improperly, is there anyone here open-minded to pay attention?
The thing is though, when we do not run small ball, we're also not running Tall Ball. Because we don't have the presence of two tall players in the paint like many other teams do...
Well, that's kind of my point. This thread has turned into a very thinly veiled excuse for the hate PopFinley crowd without any real concern for actual facts. We have the image of Finley pathetically trying to guard Aldridge and take that as proof that small ball use is out of control.
So, if I have correctly summarized the rational point of view on small ball, i.e.:
I agree with premise that, all things being equal, tall ball is better than small ball. The use of small ball should be largely limited to two situations: to provide better matchups when the opposition plays with only one big and as a tactic to overcome a deficit incurred playing 2 bigs against 2 bigs.
If that summary is accurate, and the numbers do not support the view that the Spurs have used small ball excessively or improperly, is there anyone here open-minded to pay attention?
I told you all roads take you to Bonner...
The thing is though, when we do not run small ball, we're also not running Tall Ball. Because we don't have the presence of two tall players in the paint like many other teams do...
I told you all roads take you to Bonner...
Which then makes it a PopFinBo thread and attempts at reasonable discussion are almost pointless. Of course, any thread which includes the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Fabbs doesn't lend itself to informed discussion.
FYI, the answers are 42 minutes, 11 minutes, and 15-13 Spurs. People think they're seeing something that hasn't actually happened. The limitations that AHF suggested in his post have largely been followed, yet the impression remains that they have largely been ignored.
Oh well, who am I to get in the way of good story.
10/10 weak scale.
Which then makes it a PopFinBo thread and attempts at reasonable discussion are almost pointless. Of course, any thread which includes the wildly inaccurate ramblings of Fabbs doesn't lend itself to informed discussion.
Quote anything I've said on this thread and respond or STFU.
I've embarrassed you in the past, remember the KC Jones thread? I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread. Do you really want me to detail your lack of diligence once again?
And you still owe me names. So you don't get to say STFU until you have kept your word.
Aaah, smallball....
But hey, what are you gonna do about it?
It's funny to see the word "tallball" being tossed around in here. Have we really gotten to the point where a normal basketball lineup is considered "tallball"? It's not like we're talking about trotting out a Ratliff-Duncan-Blair-SG-PG lineup (well at least I'm not), we're talking about not making Duncan the only Spur with bigman-qualities (shot blocking, solid rebounding, intimidation in the paint) on the floor at any time. If it wasn't for Oberto's heart problems last season and Kurt Thomas significant aging, we'd probably still be playing a regular basketball lineup and not forced to adapt to Bonner's strengths. We've won championships with Rasho, Nazr, and Oberto at center, no reason to think we need, or are calling for, an all-star big next to TD. It's not necessary. We just need to play the bigs we have accordingly.
Right now, our team is ranked:
28th in rebounds per game (39.0)
28th in blocks per game (4.0)
20th in opposing FG% (46.6)
These are areas where our bigs could directly help, IMO. These stats aren't largely different from years past, but that's not really a good thing when take into account other teams have gotten largely better. Not to mention, we just spent our entire MLE on bigmen McDyess and Blair, yet we're still using "small ball" as if it's still last season.
Agree. We can win with an average center in tow.
A tall guy can just has to stand there and raise his hands and it would be more than effective than our small ball lineup.
TBH, this actually tells me that small ball has been largely ineffective. When you brought those numbers up I was expecting to read that the Spurs outscored opponents by a ample margin. Seeing a pretty much even score differential actually tells me that whatever we wanted to exploit with the small ball didn't work. Now, we could argue that it didn't hurt us either, but we really haven't played against elite front courts yet either.
I've embarrassed you in the past, remember the KC Jones thread? I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread. Do you really want me to detail your lack of diligence once again?
And you still owe me names. So you don't get to say STFU until you have kept your word.
you "embarrassed" me on the KC Jones thread? Ok, if you say so. That i mixed up a year KC did or did not coach the Celtics in the early 1980s is something i was and am willing to live with.
I have you on official stalker status and will have my security staff make sure you get milk and cookies regularly.
put up or....I absolutely guarantee you that you have made factual errors in this thread.
The score was only for the 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs. So it's a really tiny sample. The real point is not what happened in those 11 minutes, but rather that the Spurs have only played 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs all season. So the notion that small ball has been used extensively against traditional line-ups is just not true.
The other 31 minutes of small ball have been to match down to the opposition.
You have been in default for more than 20 days since issuing these promises:
In this thread:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136936
Kindly pay your account account in full and your request will honored.
(Although in the meantime, you could do your research and edit your posts here. I'll be the only one who notices and I won't tell)
But that's not the argument in this thread, as far as I understand it.
The argument is that the Spurs SHOULD remain big when the other team goes small, except for very few rare cases (Dallas and what not). Which to me is a legitimate argument.
Well then, we'll have to part company once again. My reading of AHF's post, which you endorsed, is that there are times when the matchups call for a small line-up and that these cases are not exceptionally rare.
In the Chicago game, when the Bulls played 1 big with Deng, Salmons, Rose, and Hinrich, that seems to be an appropriate time to match down. When you look at the game logs for that game, the Spurs played small for a 5 minute stretch in the second quarter and another 5 minutes in the fourth quarter. In both cases, the Spurs went small at the exact same time that the Bulls went small. They did not play a single minute of small ball against a big Chicago line-up.
As I understand AHF's post, this would cons ute a reasonable use of small ball. Perhaps I misunderstood his post as it seems you have taken a different meaning from it.
Even in cases where it seems to make perfect sense to go small ball, I personally don't feel we have the lineup to compete like that. We don't have a guy like Luol Deng or Tyrus Thomas who can get close to 10 rebounds in a game or any kind of swingmen who play bigger than they are. In that Bulls game, it was Duncan out there with 4 guards, and it didn't work (see below). Finley really shouldn't be playing any power positions nowadays, should be more of a pure shooting guard ala Brent Barry. I wouldn't say Jefferson is comparable to a Gerald Wallace or a Shawn Marion, in that they can realistically slide to PF, RJ is a bit smaller and isn't going to block a ton of shots...
With 5:29 left in the first half at Chicago's United Center, Duncan had scored 10 points, but his teammates were struggling, so coach Gregg Popovich went with a small lineup that featured Duncan on the floor with Tony Parker, George Hill, Manu Ginobili and Michael Finley.
“We put the small lineup out there to try to generate some offense,”Popovich said. “It worked as well as my initial game plan: not very well.”
Wait, are you talking about this season? I call BS. Only 11 minutes of 1 big against 2 bigs? There was more than 11 minutes of either Tim or Dice playing against the two headed monster of Oden and Aldridge in just the Portland game.
Unless you are (rather comically) trying to argue that Jefferson or Finley as a PF cons uted two bigs on two bigs...
If that's the case, and it may well be, then the arguments for situational or selective use of small ball should be dropped. Make the case for small ball in emergency situations only.
If the Chicago game isn't an appropriate use of small ball, I can't think of one against another NBA team. It would have been interesting if they had stayed big in one of the two stretches in the Chicago game. It would have been a limited experiment, but we would have had a controlled comparison of RJ guarding Deng vs McDyess or Blair. We would have also seen if McDyess or Blair could have punished Deng on the other of the court.
Mel_13 your credibility is fading quickly. You got to be kidding me if you consider the Bulls line up "small ball". Deng is 6'9" a height that qualifies one to be a PF.
Contrast that with Spus small ball line up. Finley - 6'7", Jefferson - 6'7", everyone else shorter than 6'6". A 6'7" player for the NBA is within the normal height range for either a SG or SF, but I can't recall a PF worth is salt listed at 6'7" (except for maybe Blair ;-) )!
The only time the Spurs line up of 6'7" and under players match up is if they ever play a D-league team. But for the NBA, it's not unusually to see 6'7" SGs, 6'9" SF, and 6'11" PFs.
I'm not making this stuff up. Just check the game logs.
In the Utah game, the Spurs stayed big for the first 36 minutes. Trailing by 13 entering the 4th quarter, the Spurs started the 4th quarter with Blair as the only big. That little experiment lasted just under five minutes. The deficit was still 13 when the Spurs returned to a traditional line-up for the remainder of the game.
In the Portland game, the Spurs played small for about 25 minutes. Just over 6 minutes were against a Portland line-up that included 2 of Oden, Pryz, Aldridge. There was a period of just under 3 minutes in the second quarter, then about 30 seconds in the 4th quarter and finally another 3 minutes in the 4th.
I've checked the numbers several times, but I don't claim infallibility.
Here are the game logs:
Utah game:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playby...meId=291105026
Portland game:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playby...meId=291106022
Well, you would be an expert on lack of credibility.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
