Matt Bonner - Lucky or Good?

[timvp]

Last season, Matt Bonner led the Spurs in +/- with a +338. He also led the team in +/- per minute with a +.175. Fluke, right?

Well this season, Bonner is at it again. He leads the team in +/- with a +43. He leads the team in +/- per minute with a +.211.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but I'm interested in more opinions. Why do you think this is the case? Is Matt Bonner really a much more important part of the team than he's it appears? Is it because the Spurs need a three-point shooting bigman next to Tim Duncan to operate smoothly? Is it just a matter of luck and evidence that +/- should be ignored?

I'm not sure where I stand. The sample size is getting quite large to just say it's a fluke.

Hmmm . . .

[rAm]

It is just so hard for me to justify that he is this good.

There are definite times when he plays good defense, or does the right thing. But for each of those plays there are plenty where he is out of position or does something that makes me yell.

So no matter how good the stats look, I feel like the Spurs would be better off with a different player. Maybe with a similar style to Bonner's (spread the floor), but just... god I want Horry back.

That being said, I thought there were several times where he played excellent defense against Nowitzki. You just can't stop that .

[z0sa]

He's an above average roleplayer, especially when he's snaring rebounds. The fact he doesn't intimidate lots of shots and shoots 3's (and the constant belittling) causes his stock to fall with spurfan unjustifiably.

The jury is still out on whether or not he can be a consistent playoff contributor, but I think it's a proven fact now that, at least during the regular season, he helps make good happen when he's on the court.

Also, I'm confused about people constantly saying he's a bad defender or he's out of position. I can assure you, he's not.

[hater]

Last season, Matt Bonner led the Spurs in +/- with a +338. He also led the team in +/- per minute with a +.175. Fluke, right?

Well this season, Bonner is at it again. He leads the team in +/- with a +43. He leads the team in +/- per minute with a +.211.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but I'm interested in more opinions. Why do you think this is the case? Is Matt Bonner really a much more important part of the team than he's it appears? Is it because the Spurs need a three-point shooting bigman next to Tim Duncan to operate smoothly? Is it just a matter of luck and evidence that +/- should be ignored?

I'm not sure where I stand. The sample size is getting quite large to just say it's a fluke.

Hmmm . . .

Matt Bonner is having a solid season and is the 3rd best big man for the spurs.

you been reading too many posts at www.spurstalk.com

[ElNono]

I think you're merely using the wrong statistical measure.
Plus-Minus is heavily reliant on who else was on the floor with him. If he happened to share the floor mostly with Duncan/TP/Manu, then he would look great. If he happened to share the floor with Mason/Finley/Vaughn then he would look horrible.

One could use PER, and then he would rank as an average NBA player (15.0).
PER, IMO, actually works well in his case, since the main knock on PER is that it largely measures offensive performance, and we know Bonner is nowhere near an elite defender (PER was largely unfair with players like Bowen, for example).

[Brazil]

I already posted that in the game thoughts but I'm quite surprised by his rebounding efforts. I was wondering if he is more focus on that or if he worked with Blair this summer or something...

[ElNono]

Also, I'm confused about people constantly saying he's a bad defender or he's out of position. I can assure you, he's not.

Well, we should just close this thread then.

[z0sa]

Well, we should just close this thread then.

What a surprise - you hating in a Bonner thread.

[lurker23]

This is a very good question. As everyone surely knows by now, I'm a Matt Bonner fan, and at least a small part of that reason is that he's majorly under-rated on this board. However, he is what he is, and that's certainly NOT the best player on this team (or even top 6). He's a solid role player who can knock down the three-ball and rebounds at a rate that compares decently to similar role players.

My initial instinct is that it's a combination of being better than is generally appreciated on this board, and the rotations he gets put into (i.e.- both lucky and good). I don't think you can solely attribute his success to being on the floor with Tim Duncan, or otherwise Duncan would likely have the highest +/- on the team.

However, I think this topic deserves some further delving into the numbers. I have a su ion about some of the cause here, and will get back to you soon when I crunch some stats.

[timvp]

Matt Bonner is having a solid season and is the 3rd best big man for the spurs.

you been reading too many posts at www.spurstalk.com

Pop and RC must read too much on ST too since their main offseason goal was to find bigs that could replace Bonner. Not to mention Bonner has already lost his starting job this season.

[z0sa]

Pop and RC must read too much on ST too since their main offseason goal was to find bigs that could replace Bonner. Not to mention Bonner has already lost his starting job this season.

I wouldn't call it replacing him, though the term may fit. More like moving him back into a role both he and the team can be successful with.

And I don't put much weight behind him "losing" his starting position. What exactly has Blair done substantially better than him to attain it? Pop is just shuffling lineups and I'm sure another part was testing Bonner's mentality/toughness when coming off the bench as opposed to starting. Thus far, one would have to say moving him to the bench has produced a positive response.

[timvp]

I think you're merely using the wrong statistical measure.
Plus-Minus is heavily reliant on who else was on the floor with him. If he happened to share the floor mostly with Duncan/TP/Manu, then he would look great. If he happened to share the floor with Mason/Finley/Vaughn then he would look horrible.

One could use PER, and then he would rank as an average NBA player (15.0).
PER, IMO, actually works well in his case, since the main knock on PER is that it largely measures offensive performance, and we know Bonner is nowhere near an elite defender (PER was largely unfair with players like Bowen, for example).

Disagree. PER is somewhat useful in regards to production. I'm not really talking about his production -- that is obvious from watching the team play.

I'm more interested in why the team consistently does better with him on the court. Sure, +/- over the short term can be heavily influenced by teammates but that influence dissipates as the sample size grows. Going into a second season with Bonner still leading the way makes the stat less of a fluke.

And besides, this season Bonner has seen his role change on a daily basis. He's played 100 minutes as a starter and 103 minutes from off the bench. That's enough teammate variation that his +/- probably isn't due to just the luck of being with the right teammates at the right time.

[ElNono]

What a surprise - you hating in a Bonner thread.

How am I hating on Bonner in this thread? The OP asked a question, I merely responded. At least I backed it up with more than 'trust me, I know'.

[z0sa]

How am I hating on Bonner in this thread?

I didn't say you were hating on Bonner.

[Hollinger]

The numbers speak for themselves: Matt Bonner is a stud!

[ElNono]

Disagree. PER is somewhat useful in regards to production. I'm not really talking about his production -- that is obvious from watching the team play.

I'm more interested in why the team consistently does better with him on the court. Sure, +/- over the short term can be heavily influenced by teammates but that influence dissipates as the sample size grows. Going into a second season with Bonner still leading the way makes the stat less of a fluke.

And besides, this season Bonner has seen his role change on a daily basis. He's played 100 minutes as a starter and 103 minutes from off the bench. That's enough teammate variation that his +/- probably isn't due to just the luck of being with the right teammates at the right time.

The teammate influence only dissipates over time if the teammates remain the same and their production is the same over the sample size, which is not the case at all.

For example, take Mason. He started last season on fire, and then his production dwindled over the second half. If Bonner happened to play more minutes with Mason early in the season, and less minutes with him on the second half, then that's a net gain for Bonner over the plus/minus Mason contributed to his own plus/minus.

That's why plus/minus is a much better stat to compare lineups within a team, provided all the players in said lineups maintain certain level of production.

Now, I don't outright discard that Bonner isn't a positive influence on the team. But I don't think plus/minus is going to tell you the extent of that.

[ElNono]

I didn't say you were hating on Bonner.

My mistake.
And FWIW, that's why I put a after it. It was a joke.

[peacemaker885]

I think you're merely using the wrong statistical measure.
Plus-Minus is heavily reliant on who else was on the floor with him. If he happened to share the floor mostly with Duncan/TP/Manu, then he would look great. If he happened to share the floor with Mason/Finley/Vaughn then he would look horrible.

One could use PER, and then he would rank as an average NBA player (15.0).
PER, IMO, actually works well in his case, since the main knock on PER is that it largely measures offensive performance, and we know Bonner is nowhere near an elite defender (PER was largely unfair with players like Bowen, for example).

Well this could also be interpreted for another player: why does Jefferson suck when Tim, Tony and Manu are on the floor? For now its chemistry, yes, but if its the same come December, does this mean he sucks?

[Ballcox]

I guess my question with Bonner would be is his offensive production negated by him being a defensive liability?

I love the idea of a big man who can shoot from range out to 3pt. line, but with Bonner he usually gets targeted on the defensive end and his rebounding has always been sub-par for a guy his size.

I guess overall I'm still on the fence with him and if his production really helps the team. He also can't pull another disappearing act like he did last year in the playoffs.

[lurker23]

So, I have a couple of theories on this Matt Bonner Phenomenon. My first theory was that as a player who shoots a lot of 3 pointers, he helps his team get more points per possession than other 2-point-shooting big men. While this still may be part of the equation, I'm not really sure I have the data to back it up. Yes, Bonner was second on the team last year on percentage of shots that were three pointers, but I'm not sure that his shots per minute were enough to really sway the numbers in his favor.

Percentage of FGA that were 3-pointers (08-09):

Bowen: 52.4%
Bonner: 50.0%
Mason: 47.9%
Finley: 46.3%
Udoka: 43.5%
Ginobili: 42.6%
Hill: 19.6%
Parker: 5.1%
All others below 1%

FGA per minute played (08-09)

Parker: .51
Gooden: .45
Duncan: .44
Ginobili: .42
Mason: .33
Finley: .295
Hill: .293
Bonner: .278
Udoka: .277
Vaughn: .26
Thomas: .22
Bowen: .12

So, I don't think this theory is valid on this simple a manner. However, I have another theory that (for the sake of brevity per post) I'll explain in my next post.

[hater]

Pop and RC must read too much on ST too since their main offseason goal was to find bigs that could replace Bonner. Not to mention Bonner has already lost his starting job this season.

not really. their main offseason goal apparently was to keep Bonner involved but replace him on the starting spot. Something spurstalk.com never would support.

spurstalk was calling for bonners head from the getgo.

[VivaPopovich]

why were we a better team momentarily without tony parker and tim duncan? does this mean we're better off without tony parker and tim duncan? of course not!

forget getting everyone to mesh together, we havent even had long stretches where every man in the rotation plays together yet. the chemistry just isn't there yet and it could be 30-40 games in before it gets there.

although he's still being over-used, pop is moving towards the right direction, starting antonio mcdyess and closing the games with mcdyess. altho i tell you, if theo ratliff is going to get no minutes at all, he might as well just trade him.

much of the bonner hate is probably psychological. he actually is improving his defense and rebounding but he is so white he stands out on the court even with the zoomed out angle, and he looks like a dork running up and down the court and his movements are so awkward, it's not something i've never seen on the spurs in all my years watching basketball

i'm growing quite desensitized to it all. the best thing we could hope for is that he at least hits his 3's

[lurker23]

My main theory on this Matt Bonner Phenomenon is two-fold, and comes from examining the 5-man-unit data on 82games.com:

1. The Power of Three Point Shooting
2. The Power of Balanced Lineups

Let's take a look at the top lineups in +/- last year:

-Parker-Mason-Finley-Bonner-Duncan: +88
-Parker-Mason-Finley-Bonner-Thomas: +48
-Parker-Mason-Ginobili-Bonner-Duncan: +28
-Parker-Ginobili-Bowen-Bonner-Duncan: +27
-Hill-Mason-Finley-Bonner-Duncan: +27
-Parker-Ginobili-Finley-Bonner-Duncan: +20

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809SAS2.HTM

Other than Matt Bonner, all of these lineups have 2 things in common:

1. They all have 3 players in the lineup who can hit the 3-pointer at a high percentage.
2. They are all balanced lineups with 2 big men, 2 swingmen, and 1 point guard.


The first part of this is purely offensive. By having 3 guys on the floor who can hit the three pointer, you open up the floor, and (assuming you're hitting your threes) you allow yourself to get more points per possession.

The second part of this has a lot to do with defense and rebounding. By having a balanced lineup on the floor, particularly the presence of two big men, you improve your defense and hit the boards harder.


So why do these two benefit Matt Bonner the most? Specifically, I think Matt Bonner is pretty much the only player on the team who never has to play in an unbalanced lineup. By having Bonner be the only big man on the court, you would basically be going to super small ball, and would theoretically give up a lot on defense; so, understandably, Pop has never gone to this lineup.

I'm not saying this is completely the reason, and it's just a theory. Nor is this a condemnation of small ball, though the numbers may be trying to show that (the worst +/- group last year was Parker-Mason-Ginobili-Bowen-Duncan at -29).

As a final note, you have to give credit to Bonner for his outstanding shooting and improving defense last year. Without his individual effort, all of this theory would be moot from the start.

[nkdlunch]

regardless of these +/- and technical mumbo jumbo. at the end of the day, Sheed will say "just pass the ball to whoever Bonner is guarding"

so to answer the OP, yes Bonner is good. But not good enough to play major minutes in a playoff situation.

[SpurNation]

Good. As a bench player.