Reply With Quote
The Spurs are playing less small ball than they have in years.
After years of SpursTalk regulars complaining about small ball, I haven't heard a single mention of it this entire season. This is very interesting to me.
If there's anyone out there still ing about small ball, lets hear it!
The Spurs are playing less small ball than they have in years.
What do you mean by small ball exactly OP?
The Spurs aren't playing small ball more, they are just using a small PF more. We haven't seen too much small ball, just a lot of three guard lineups with a combo of Duncan/Blair or Blair/Bonner or Dice/Bonner.
It's not a small ball man. We are winning.
If we were losing it would be small ball
Thread fail.
I don't call:
Tony Parker
Gary Neal
George Hill
Antonio McDyess/DeJuan Blair
Matt Bonner/Tim Duncan
Small ball.
When you have a legit PF/C in that situation it just means you're running three guards. Hill can guard SFs anyways.
Pop is still going small, but I've seen two developments that have made small lineups more successful:
First, when the Spurs go small, every player on the floor is a threat to score. The Spurs MO of having a designated perimeter stopper with little to no offensive game has disappeared from the small lineups. Seems pretty basic, but for a small lineup to succeed it has to be able to scramble the opposing team's defense. If the other team doesn't have to pay attention to one of the players (as an example from last year, Bogans) in the small lineup, it's easier to defend against it.
Second, the Spurs have been hitting from distance with more consistency this year. The small lineup wouldn't be nearly as effective if Bonner was only shooting 32% and if Neal and (when he was healthy) Anderson were bricking threes in the fourth quarter instead of making them at the rate they have been.
but still 0fer for rings
I'm enjoying the record and the season so far, but I know the Spurs haven't really been tested (the West has been crappy so far) and their record won't vindicate anything unless the Spurs win the championship.
Also, a heavy dose of Bonner/Blair might not be technically small ball, but it's close in comparison
Using small-ball lineups has won a few games for the Spurs (or at least one anyway). Spurs are simply small at the forward positions with Anderson injured and having Bonner and Blair.
Moreover this year we tweaked the defense approach a little (a lot of swarming and faster rotations) it's working well so far.
It's easy to say it works when guys like Neal are filling up the basket.
Where the rubber will meet the road is in the playoffs. And so far, smallball is 0for le.
Small Ball = 28?
winning is winning. If we are winning with small ball then who cares. This is a smart tough team that is not going to beat themselves, and when we need to rely on Duncan come playoff time we can because he is Tim 'n Duncan and still a guy that can throw down 20 and 10 when we need him to. The difference is come May and June, he won't be worn down from carrying this team like in years past.
1. Spurs are playing less small ball than ever.
2. Spurs are playing small ball only with quality players. Gone are the days of Popovich playing small ball with ty players like Mike Finley, et al. I.e., Popovich is outsmarting himself less than usual.
How many times this year has Michael Finley been the power forward again?
That post said what's up to Albert Pujols' homer off of Brad Lidge on its way by -- and confirmed that it still hadn't landed last it checked the rear view . . .
lolwut of the day
We can't keep winning like this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
