Current Spur: Matt Bonner

[timvp]

Primarily, I'm referring to his penchant for missing wide-open shots. I remember he got time against the Fakers last spring in the WCF. Remember, Pop didn't play Horry as much as in years past. At any rate, the Fakers simply packed the lane and dared him to shoot.

Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.

[EricB]

Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.

Come on, Beno is gone, so its now the OK thing to bash Bonner.

[Ditty]

i would trade him just to free up a roster spot or some cap relief. i remember some time back in january, i wanted the spurs to trade him while his value was still high even if the spurs just got an expiring contract in return. now bonner's awful showing in the playoffs lowered his trade value.

agree

i rather give his money to gooden and to go after mcdyess,wallace or bourissis

[SenorSpur]

Against the Lakers, he played the last three minutes in the Game 3 blowout win for the Spurs and didn't shoot. The game was long over by the time he came into the game.

I agree Bonner is pretty damn bad, especially for a starter, but bashing him for his 2008 playoffs is a stretch.

2008 playoffs, 2009 playoffs, whatever. We can split hairs about when he's gotten time versus when he hasn't. The point being is that Bonner is not a starting 4 or 5 in this league. A good bench player, perhaps. Again, how he's going to be used, in order to maximize his productivity and avoid diminishing returns, is up to Pop.

[urunobili]

2008 playoffs, 2009 playoffs, whatever. We can split hairs about when he's gotten time versus when he hasn't. The point being is that Bonner is not a starting 4 or 5 in this league. A good bench player, perhaps. Again, how he's going to be used, in order to maximize his productivity and avoid diminishing returns, is up to Pop.

I Hate to say it but he may be bench warmer talent in Europe... Bigs that shoot well is what they're all about...

[ffadicted]

Keep his expiring contract for 2010 and make him a bench player after bringing onboard a solid starting C

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Keep his expiring contract for 2010 and make him a bench player after bringing onboard a solid starting C

I don't mind Matt being a bench player next year.

[Manufan909]

As long as he's the 12th man, I'm with fwiendz.

[Uriel]

I will admit that Bonner's dufus running style and clumsy appearance doesn't do himself any justice. It certainly doesn't help his cause with most. However most reasonable people focus on production - or his case, the lack thereof.

Of course, you are correct on one point. The decline in 3-pt shooting was team wide, but it affect Bonner more because 3-pt shooting is his ONLY skill - which makes him a severe on-court liability, when he's not hitting shots.

As far as Bonner getting abused in the paint, that's not perception - that is cold-hearted reality. All anyone need to do is watch the playoff series versus the Grizzlies. At times, it was very easy to predict where the source of the Grizzlies low-post offense would originate - it was whoever Bonner was guarding, when he was in the game. When you're a one-dimensional, single-skilled player, who is also a defensive liability, in opposing players and coaches will zero in on that weakness.

It's obvious to anyone watching that his playoff contributions have been left wanting. He's a decent role player, but he should not be a major rotation player on any team with championship aspirations. He's just not good enough. Meanwhile, Pop is wasting time and compromising his team's success by constantly rolling Bonner out there in clutch situation and expecting different results. All of which makes Pop an idiot. For such a smart man, Pop is giving in to the definition of idiocracy.

Say whatever you want. It doesn't matter what happens during the regular season. All I know is what I see. It occurs every year about this time. It's an annual event just like the changing of the four seasons or the Swallows invading Capistrano. That is, when playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found. That, my friend, cannot be disputed.

During the playoffs, 48 Minutes of wrote an excellent post en led, "Is Matt Bonner earning his minutes?" Here's an excerpt from it:

Throughout the series, Memphis has relentlessly attacked Bonner on the block. But they’re actually not scoring as often as I would have guessed. According to Synergy Sports, this is how Bonner has fared in the post:

Arthur – Miss J
Arthur – Make J
Randolph – TO
Arthur – Miss 2
Randolph – TO
Gasol – And 1
Gasol – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Miss Jumper
Arthur – Miss Layup
Gasol – TO
Arthur – ISO +1

In other words, in 13 defensive post possessions the Grizzlies scored on Bonner 6 times. Not great, but Bonner wasn’t obliterated either.

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.

[dbestpro]

The effects of Bonner are not equated by stats, which is why you have to watch the game. Bonner misses a ton of rotations. His slow motion act may not cause his guy to score but it sure helps others to score, which does not show up in the stats. He also creates a lot of wear and tear on the other bigs as they constantly try to help out on his man. This begs the question, "Did Blair flame out because he was benched or because he had to play next to Bonner?".

Bonner is an intelligent, nice guy with a sweet outside shot. It should be easy for Spur fans to like him, but what we see is a guy who misses big shots and who makes his teammates play poorly.