Reply With Quote
This game was the first time this season that Timmy stood and took a jumper instead of trying to drive to the basket. After the first one, he just settled after that. Very odd game.
The 4-0 Spurs began the game Wednesday night on the right foot. Five minutes into the contest, the Spurs were executing well on both ends and the Clippers had trouble doing anything right. Unfortunately, that’s when it all fell apart for San Antonio. The Clippers ended the first quarter on a 22-9 run and ultimately won the game by a final count of 106-84.
The Spurs kept it reasonably close in the second quarter and for the beginning of the third. However, the Clippers got hot in the latter half of the third period and extended their lead to 20 points going into the final stanza.
In the fourth, the Clippers let their guard down and the Spurs were able to trim the deficit to 11 points with eight minutes remaining. That glimmer of hope quickly disappeared when the Clippers responded with a 15-1 run to put the game on ice and drop the Spurs to 14-1 in their last 15 regular season games.
Tim Duncan
Tim Duncan’s first hiccup of the 2012-13 season was Wednesday night against the Clippers. While his movements were fine, he was doomed by hesitancy. On offense, his shot selection was often questionable -- usually due to holding the ball too long. On defense, his rotations weren’t crisp and his focus wasn’t as sharp as it was in the first four games. Let’s hope he rebounds quickly and regains his retro form as soon as possible.
Final Grade: 73
Manu Ginobili
There wasn’t much to like about Manu Ginobili’s performance. On offense, he was neither much of a scoring threat nor a playmaker. He settled too often instead of trying to forcefully put his stamp on the game. On defense, Ginobili wasn’t much of a help. When asked to defend a speedy guard, Ginobili was overmatched. It’s obvious that Ginobili is still recovering from his preseason injuries -- but it appears to me that he’s getting close.
Final Grade: 75
Tony Parker
Let’s hope Tony Parker had some success hobnobbing in Los Angeles before and after the game because his time on the basketball court was a waste. The Clippers wanted to take the ball out of Parker’s hands and he acquiesced without much of a fight; his only counterattack was to dribble aimlessly out on the perimeter. To say he played without energy would be a massive understatement. The Spurs simply can’t win when Parker plays as listless as he played on Wednesday night. Though his defense wasn’t a disaster, his offensive indifference more than negated any positives that could found on the opposite end.
Final Grade: 67
Kawhi Leonard
Defensively, I thought Kawhi Leonard did his job. He mostly covered Caron Butler and the Clippers small forward had a quiet outing. Leonard’s help defense wasn’t spectacular -- but that could be said about every player on the team. It was a different story offensively. Leonard was so unsure of himself that he was clearly a liability. He didn’t know where he wanted to be or what he wanted to do, which resulted in him being in the way of everyone else. Leonard needs to figure out his niche and then start playing with more self-assuredness.
Final Grade: 77
Danny Green
If there was a bright spot, it was Danny Green continuing his solid play. Defensively, he had more energy than any of the starters. He made a few mistakes but it wasn’t for a lack of trying. On offense, Green remains on fire. In his last four games, he’s averaging 14 points on 63.6% from the field and 64.7% on three-pointers. He’s shooting with confidence from the perimeter and is a much improved finisher in the paint. Green’s passing has also been commendable the last few outings. Hopefully this streak continues for a while.
Final Grade: 86
Boris Diaw
So far this season, I’ve been underwhelmed with Diaw’s offense but extremely happy with his defense. On Wednesday, it was the other way around. On offense, Diaw did well. His aggression was really good and he was consistently creating plays for himself and others when he caught the ball. Defensively, while he wasn’t horrible, he wasn’t nearly as great as he was in the first four contests. He wasn’t holding his position well and also hurt himself by misreading a handful of moves. Plus, rebounding remains a concerning weakness. While it’s difficult to keep Blake Griffin in check (in addition to dealing with Chris Paul in pick-and-roll sets), Diaw can do better.
Final Grade: 80
Stephen Jackson
With his teammates suc bing to the pressure around him, Stephen Jackson tried to steady the ship -- whether it meant a physical play or the threatening of fisticuffs. As it turns out, Jackson wasn’t able to do much to slow down L.A.’s momentum. He was playing hard but not always smart. Defensively, his positioning was subpar and his fundamentals were missing in action. On offense, Jackson was slow to notice mismatches and was breaking the sets too often.
Final Grade: 79
Tiago Splitter
Tiago Splitter might have had the play of his life when he went coast-to-coast for a dunk while faking out Chris Paul in the process. Unfortunately, while Splitter had a few other highlight moments, his overall play was deficient. Again, a lack of physicality was a main culprit. He needs to finish more powerfully offensively and play with more brawn on defense. As it stands, he gets pushed around too easily whenever he’s in the paint. Concentrating on rebounding is another thing he can do to help his general effectiveness.
Final Grade: 77
Gary Neal
Eric Bledsoe is a difficult player for any backup point guard in the NBA to handle. However, Gary Neal was painfully overmatched. His ballhandling, which is never a strength, was exposed by Bledsoe’s ball-hawking defense. Neal’s only chance was to turn his back on Bledsoe and hope for the best. On the other end, Bledsoe was free to do whatever he wanted due to Neal’s relative lack of footspeed and athleticism. Time will tell whether this was simply a bad night at the office or whether Neal is incapable of competing against the top backup PGs in the league.
Final Grade: 70
DeJuan Blair
DeJuan Blair’s encore was a flop. Other than his rebounding, everything else about Blair’s night was forgettable. His shot selection, patience and spatial awareness were all weaknesses on offense. Defensively, he was rarely in the right position -- no matter if he was asked to defend the painted area or guard out on the perimeter. All in all, I think this was a major step backwards in Blair’s quest to earn an everyday spot in the rotation. His sloppiness and inattentiveness to detail aren’t what winning basketball teams are made of.
Final Grade: 74
Matt Bonner
Matt Bonner didn’t get into the game until late in the third quarter. During his time on the court, I didn’t find him particularly good or bad. He basically just played his role: spacing the court on offense while attempting to be in the right spots on defense. He did that well enough on this night.
Final Grade: 81
Patrick Mills
I still don’t like how Patrick Mills is playing. He’s trying to be a playmaking point guard and that’s just not his game. He’s poor at running pick-and-rolls, a below average passer and not an especially impressive ballhandler. What Mills can do is light up the scoreboard with his scoring and pressure the basketball on defense. The sooner he gets back to playing to his strengths, the sooner the Spurs will have a legit alternative to Neal at backup point guard.
Final Grade: 73
Nando De Colo
During his minutes in garbage time, I thought Nando De Colo showed some intriguing qualities. He had a few possessions of good defense, a couple more fine passes, and he hit a three-pointer that had great rotation on the ball and better arc than we saw in the preseason.
Final Grade: Inc.
Pop
In the first half, Pop attempted to play Splitter and Blair at the same time while benching Bonner -- and the results were horrid. I’m confident in saying that Splitter and Blair is a combination that will never work. Both are pick-and-roll players; playing them together creates spacing issues galore. Besides that misstep, I also thought Pop was slow to adjust. I never saw him do anything to make the Clippers pay for all their overaggressive trapping. Additionally, it was obvious early on that Neal couldn’t handle Bledsoe. All that said, the complete lack of energy by the virtually the entire team made winning an impossibility.
Final Grade: 74
Offense
The Spurs had 25 assists on 30 baskets and went to the free throw line 24 times. Everything else was ugly. San Antonio committed 20 turnovers, weren’t particularly accurate on three-pointers (8-for-23), grabbed offensive rebounds at a feeble rate and had trouble scoring in the paint. Give the Clippers credit but the Spurs definitely deserve a healthy portion of the blame.
Final Grade: 71
Defense
Good news: The Clippers went to the line only nine times and made only 6-of-17 three-pointers. Bad news: The rest. Allowing Los Angeles to shoot 55.4% is totally unacceptable for a team trying to fashion themselves as a defensive squad. That shooting percentage was a result of both inadequate individual defense and help defense that was later than these game thoughts. The Spurs were also poor on the defensive boards and allowed the Clippers to total a whopping 30 assists. Giving up 54 points in the paint and 24 points on the fast break were also extreme negatives.
Final Grade: 65
Overall
Undoubtedly, this was a bad loss. The Spurs were poor on both sides of the court and just about every player had glaring holes. But, even though it was a bad loss, it was also a predictable outcome. The Clippers were extremely motivated and had a tremendous intensity advantage. I’m really interested to see how the Spurs bounce back. As long as they don’t allow it to linger, this loss should serve as a wakeup call that every member of the team needs to play with appropriate fear and sufficient energy each night.
Final Grade: 69
Last edited by timvp; 11-09-2012 at 06:39 PM.
This game was the first time this season that Timmy stood and took a jumper instead of trying to drive to the basket. After the first one, he just settled after that. Very odd game.
It was an odd game to say the least. They knew the Clips would be coming at them with intensity, but just folded after the initial push. I was asking myself, "Who are these guys? Wheres the Spurs?" for the entire second half. It really looked like the team partied before the game or were just dog tired or bummed out. Does not compute.
I don't disagree, but why does this team need optimal spacing all game, every game? I realize it's ideal and preferred, but I'm seeing plenty of teams either pairing one limited shooting big with one non shooting big (Collison and Thabeet) or pairing two non shooting bigs together (Turiaf and Hollins) and they're doing just fine.
In future meetings, it's clear they're going to have to have Ginobili bring the ball up. None of the backup PG options have a good enough handle to deal with Bledsoe's ball hawking defense, so it's not as if turning to one of the others is going to solve the issue.Besides that misstep, I also thought Pop was slow to adjust. I never saw him do anything to make the Clippers pay for all their overaggressive trapping. Additionally, it was obvious early on that Neal couldn’t handle Bledsoe. All that said, the complete lack of energy by the virtually the entire team made winning an impossibility.
Final Grade: 74
It's predictably regressing to this team's ceiling, which is why anytime it's going good for a stretch of games and the numbers look significantly better than usual, you can expect it to come crashing back down to earth.Defense
Good news: The Clippers went to the line only nine times and made only 6-of-17 three-pointers. Bad news: The rest. Allowing Los Angeles to shoot 55.4% is totally unacceptable for a team trying to fashion themselves as a defensive squad. That shooting percentage was a result of both inadequate individual defense and help defense that was later than these game thoughts. The Spurs were also poor on the defensive boards and allowed the Clippers to total a whopping 30 assists. Giving up 54 points in the paint and 24 points on the fast break were also extreme negatives.
Final Grade: 65
Last edited by TD 21; 11-09-2012 at 07:53 PM.
Well here's the thing with those combinations: Collison actually has a bit of range so I don't think that's a good example tbh, but both he and Thabeet are good defensively. Turiaf and Hollins, limited scorers, but again, pretty good defensively, not to mention have a little bit of athleticism.
Splitter and Blair: Blair's too short to defend anyone who can shoot or get close enough to get off a pretty much uncontested jump hook, and Splitter is soft inside. Despite his size, any time he gets a block it feels like a surprise. Plus, a lot of our players are just catch and shoot guys, or one or two dribbles and shoot guys. It works when the floor's spread, but when you have people cheating off their man to stop drives, every shooter gets contested. Just sorta what happens when you put a team together from low salary guys. . .it requires a pretty delicate balance to work unless you have two of Parker/Duncan/Ginobili out there at once.
So if they could actually defend, it might be worth it. . .
Bledsoe might be the best backup PG in the NBA tbh. . .he definitely wasn't that good last year. I think we'll be better prepared next time around. I agree though, out backup PGs all have terrible handles and/or decision making when pressured. Only Parker, Manu, and maybe Jackson seem to have the ability to handle the ball properly. Pretty bad weakness for us, especially when only two of those guys can really be considered playmakers :\ Too bad TJ went down last year, he had a lot of potential as the backup.In future meetings, it's clear they're going to have to have Ginobili bring the ball up. None of the backup PG options have a good enough handle to deal with Bledsoe's ball hawking defense, so it's not as if turning to one of the others is going to solve the issue.
Yeah TJ going down sucked, he could have been the backup here and would have done a better job but injuries always seemed to get the guy. I agree on most of what you said above.
He was out for like the first month and a half of last year with an injury...
Collison is a decent mid range shooter, but he's a low volume one, which is why I classified him as a limited shooter. Whether those combinations are good defensively or not is missing the point. The Spurs would never consistently play two bigs together who cause spacing issues, even if they were good defensively.
I understand the value of having as much shooting as possible, which is why I said "I realize it's ideal and preferred", but what I'm saying is, why do the Spurs need it all game, every game? Almost every other team is willing to compromise it, at least at times (some have no choice; they flat out don't have the personnel to always have at least one shooting big on the floor at all times), in order to get their best players on the floor.
He's top five (Sessions, Miller, Jack, Calderon), but I don't know about best quite yet. He was just as much of a ball hawk last season and no amount of preparation can solve this issue. What they need to do is have whoever he isn't guarding (which figures to be Ginobili, at least to start) bring the ball up. Jackson, for his size, has a solid handle, but overall it's sub par. His dribble is too high, which is why he frequently turns it over when he attempts to dribble into traffic.Bledsoe might be the best backup PG in the NBA tbh. . .he definitely wasn't that good last year. I think we'll be better prepared next time around. I agree though, out backup PGs all have terrible handles and/or decision making when pressured. Only Parker, Manu, and maybe Jackson seem to have the ability to handle the ball properly. Pretty bad weakness for us, especially when only two of those guys can really be considered playmakers :\ Too bad TJ went down last year, he had a lot of potential as the backup.
Not every player on the floor needs to be a "high volume" scorer. Just the threat of them being there can help the offense. . .which is why Pop likes Matt Bonner so much. Even if he doesn't do anything, the threat of having him there literally leads to a better offensive rating. As as Bonner is, that is the case during the regular season. Not trying to say "omg Bonner's great" or anything, but just giving an example as to how just having that ability to shoot can make a huge difference even if you don't shoot much.
As for the second thing, well, most teams don't stress that, and most teams don't do as well as the Spurs. Not really a coincidence. The best offensive teams tend to be the ones with the most balanced attacks, which is what we have. Our problem (which you know I'm guessing), is that most of our pieces don't do more than one or two things very well. So while we have a Neal or Bonner out there, hey, they can shoot the out of the basketball. . .but they're terrible on defense. Our drop in defense is sort of a product of going so many years without decent draft picks, and our lack of bringing in any free agents. But what's not so much a secret anymore is that you can have a solid, working offense made up of mostly bench pieces.
That's just my observation of course, but I believe it to be pretty accurate. Too many teams play iso ball or "star ball". Draft athletic guys, then let them dribble around and jack it up or pass out of a shot to a guy who's trying to get in position for a board. That's why so many eastern conference teams seem "more exciting", but they're always every year. Imo, they're doing it "wrong".
I think he's better than most of the guys you listed. Calderon and maybe Jack are the only ones debatable one right now. Calerdon can ceretainly run the offense, but is not very good defensively. Sessions is terrible on D' and Miller is washed up. 2-3 years ago though, Miller was still solid. Jack's been impressive from what I've seen so far, but with how much experience he's had, I expect it to drop off a bit and not be a new standard. Bledsoe is a big headache on defense (possibly the best backup PG defensively), and his previous weakness (offense), he's turned around into solid part of his game.He's top five (Sessions, Miller, Jack, Calderon), but I don't know about best quite yet. He was just as much of a ball hawk last season and no amount of preparation can solve this issue. What they need to do is have whoever he isn't guarding (which figures to be Ginobili, at least to start) bring the ball up. Jackson, for his size, has a solid handle, but overall it's sub par. His dribble is too high, which is why he frequently turns it over when he attempts to dribble into traffic.
If I could pick out of any of those 5 for the Spurs, I'd be looking at either Bledsoe or Calderon tbh. Calderon is better running the offense now (Bledsoe may not ever be that good), but he's 31, and a lot worse on defense. Bledsoe's just 22 and really blossoming. His ceiling hasn't been met yet. I really do think he is the best out there when you consider defense and potential into the mix. But that's just an opinion, not trying to pass it off as a fact or somethin.
I understand. I'm just saying, between him being just solid (as opposed to deadly) and not taking many attempts, it's not as if he provides a great deal of spacing. The reality is, not only is no one worried about Collison's mid range jumper, they'll gladly concede that when you consider the alternatives.
That doesn't answer the question at all.
They're all debatable. Bledsoe is definitely one of the best though and it may not be long before he's clearly the best.I think he's better than most of the guys you listed. Calderon and maybe Jack are the only ones debatable one right now. Calerdon can ceretainly run the offense, but is not very good defensively. Sessions is terrible on D' and Miller is washed up. 2-3 years ago though, Miller was still solid. Jack's been impressive from what I've seen so far, but with how much experience he's had, I expect it to drop off a bit and not be a new standard. Bledsoe is a big headache on defense (possibly the best backup PG defensively), and his previous weakness (offense), he's turned around into solid part of his game.
If I could pick out of any of those 5 for the Spurs, I'd be looking at either Bledsoe or Calderon tbh. Calderon is better running the offense now (Bledsoe may not ever be that good), but he's 31, and a lot worse on defense. Bledsoe's just 22 and really blossoming. His ceiling hasn't been met yet. I really do think he is the best out there when you consider defense and potential into the mix. But that's just an opinion, not trying to pass it off as a fact or somethin.
I did answer your question. Your only question was, "why the Spurs needed spacing every game?".
My reply to that was:
In a nuts : The Spurs don't have a big collection of superstar players and/or iso ball master athletes, so being able to spread the floor is pretty much required to have a really good offense due to the low level of talent that's on the team. Going away from it doesn't work because we don't have superstars to lean on and carry almost all the load like OKC or LA.Not every player on the floor needs to be a "high volume" scorer. Just the threat of them being there can help the offense. . .which is why Pop likes Matt Bonner so much. Even if he doesn't do anything, the threat of having him there literally leads to a better offensive rating. As as Bonner is, that is the case during the regular season. Not trying to say "omg Bonner's great" or anything, but just giving an example as to how just having that ability to shoot can make a huge difference even if you don't shoot much.
As for the second thing, well, most teams don't stress that, and most teams don't do as well as the Spurs. Not really a coincidence. The best offensive teams tend to be the ones with the most balanced attacks, which is what we have. Our problem (which you know I'm guessing), is that most of our pieces don't do more than one or two things very well. So while we have a Neal or Bonner out there, hey, they can shoot the out of the basketball. . .but they're terrible on defense. Our drop in defense is sort of a product of going so many years without decent draft picks, and our lack of bringing in any free agents. But what's not so much a secret anymore is that you can have a solid, working offense made up of mostly bench pieces.
And of course who the best backup PG is is debatable. Blesdoe is in that conversation. Hence why I said,"Bledsoe might be the best backup PG in the NBA". Not "Bledsoe is the best"
What I'm saying is, are we to believe that if they had to go stretches here and there without ideal spacing, that they'd completely crumble? I don't care how clunky or awkward a Splitter/Blair pairing is, based on talent level, that's how it should be and there should be a concerted effort made to make it work (until they can either sign McDyess and/or pull off a trade). They've predetermined that it can't work and the rare times they've put them together, they went away from it immediately, as if they thought they'd instantaneously click. So rather than attempting to make it work, they've resorted to starting their fourth most talented big. That's insane.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
