San Antonio Spurs Dynasty

The Rip City Ripping

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:01:00 +0000

I love watching NBA games live. It gives you such a unique perspective and feel for the game. You can better understand the flow of the action and how certain players impact the game positively and negatively. When you remove yourself from the constant stat updates and the announcers dictating the narrative of the game, you can start to see things that you maybe haven't noticed before. Spacing. Rotations. Passing lanes and angles. The pure athleticism and artistry of the players.

Last night's game started much as the previous night's game in Utah. We played even for about 6 minutes, then let the other team go on a run to close out the first quarter. The first quarter ended with us down by 15; the game ended with us down by 12. We were +3 over the rest of the game (and really, much more than that, as the Blazers inflated their lead in the last minute with free throws). Doug Collins likes to say that basketball is a first quarter game. Sure, the excitement and the highlights happen in the 4th, and that's when games are won. But games can be lost in the 1st. In Utah we were down 10 in the first, and lost the game by 14, meaning they outplayed us by just over a point a quarter the rest of the way. In both games, the difference was the first quarter.

Does that tell us anything of significance? Are we coming out flat? Is it the starting line-up? Are we sacrificing too much by not starting our best players? There has definitely been much debate amongst Spurs fans about who should be starting. I'm okay with Bonner starting for now. He spreads the floor and can give us points in bunches if his shot is falling (which is wasn't last night). McDyess has been a proven quantity off the bench in his career and can excel there. Blair is a rookie, and despite his prodigious talents, still has a lot to learn about the Spurs' system. Bonner knows the system and plays his butt off. He doesn't always have the athletic abilities needed, but he never lacks in effort.

Michael Finley is another story. I argued at the beginning of the season that I felt Roger Mason, Jr. should be starting. I feel he gives us the same shooting that Finley does, but also gives us better ball handling, better defense, and better athleticism. Plus, Mason, Jr. is a rhythm and a confidence player, and excels in a starting role.

Last night, however, Popovich started Keith Bogans. I was happy to see Finley removed from the starting line-up, but a bit puzzled to see Bogans in there.

What I liked:

--Bogans in the starting line-up. I thought he played really well. We've talked about Jefferson having to fill Bowen's role, but maybe Bogans is our next Bowen. Far and away, he played the best D of the night, stifling Brandon Roy and taking him out of the game for long stretches. And he did it in much the same way Bowen used to, by playing ball denial defense and preventing players from getting to their favorite spots on the floor. On top of that, he showed some offensive punch, hitting a 3 and running a fast break. It's not clear how much offensive game he has, but it certainly appears to be more than Bowen ever did.

--Jefferson's O. 6 games in, he is showing increased comfort in the offense. And he's doing what we've needed for years: he's driving into the lane, and either finishing at the rim, drawing the foul, or both. He had a wicked slam dunk in the fourth quarter last night (and I was about 20 rows up from it). And he led the team with 8 free throw attempts. Plus he showed a little nastiness last night, and we always like to see that.

--McDyess starting to wake up. In a recent chat, Hollinger said that McDyess is a notorious second half player. I'm not really worried about his slow start. I have every confidence in the world that he'll be there when we need him. But last night was promising, seeing him hit a bunch of midrange jumpers on the pick and pop. He was definitely part of the team that helped spur the comeback, and was one of the few players whose shot actually looked good last night.

--Roger Mason, Jr. He looks different this year. He is handling the ball with a marked increase in skill and confidence. He is playing active. I think he is earning himself more minutes, and I hope we see it. Plus he led the team (tied with Ginobili) in assists.

--Second half defense. It actually started to look like something resembling the defense similar to what we've played in years past. We forced a few shot clock violations and desperation shots, had some turnovers, and just made life difficult for them. Halfway through the 4th, they had 75 points, meaning we held them to 24 points in about 18 minutes. Not bad. However...

What I Didn't Like:

--Offense. We were careless with the ball. We put up some ill-advised shots. We were ice cold from outside. And we're just not fluid yet. We had several opportunities to make game changing baskets in the fourth, and we were just never able to. Our most reliable endgame player is still shaking off rust, and looks very scattered and inconsistent.

--Two way Ginobili. Down the stretch, Ginobili was in charge of running the offense and guarding Brandon Roy. That's just too much for him right now. He was unable to do anything with Roy, and Roy was able to put the nails in the coffin in the last few minutes, ruining our comeback attempt. I would have rather seen Bogans or Hill on Roy. (Though I thought having Hill guard Outlaw was quite the interesting choice. And it worked. With his long arms, Hill is able to guard players much taller than him and still do very well.)

--Jefferson's D. As good as his offense is looking, his defense is looking equally as bad. He's not playing denial defense. He's letting players beat him around the corners and to the hoop and then hoping for bailout help from one of the big men. And he doesn't seem to be playing D with energy or passion. I imagine this is why Pop gave him the early hook last night and seemed to light a small fire under his ass. On offense. I'm sure if this keeps up, Pop will be ripping him a new one. But we need Jefferson to play good D. Perhaps Bogans and Hill can be our real perimeter stoppers, but Jefferson has to be on the floor for his offense, so his defense better be valuable as well.

--Offensive boards. Is this going to make it here every game? I sure hope not.

Observations:

(I'm starting a new section for things that are neither good nor bad, but still need voice.)

--I like the slimmed down Duncan, and feel that the long term benefits are immeasurable. But he was getting pushed around by Oden and Pryzbilla last night, and seems to be unable to hold his ground against bigger opponents.

--One bad thing about seeing a game live: you miss out on injuries. Parker left the game with an ankle injury, but I had to have a friend from San Antonio text me with the official diagnosis. Luckily, it's not too bad, and I think a week off will do both Parker and Hill some good. Parker looks sluggish, and Hill could use the reps.

Game Ball:

I'm giving it to Bogans. He finished +4, played outstanding D, played within himself on offense, and showed that maybe he could be another free agent signing coup.

Looking Forward:

We have a very home-heavy schedule coming up. In fact, we don't leave the state of Texas again until Dec 7th (we have two road games, one against Dallas and one against Houston). Hopefully we can use these games to get our act together and get some wins on the board. Toronto comes to town Monday and Dallas on Wednesday. Both teams are playing well and should give us good games.

Pay attention to the starting line-up and if Bogans stays there. Pay attention to the rotation. Pay attention to Hill, and how he plays as the starter and who backs him up. Pay attention to how many offensive boards we give up, and if there are any answers to shore up our rebounding. Pay attention to our energy when we start the game.

We now sit at 2-3, undefeated at home, and completely defeated on the road. To be honest, I'm most interested to see how we do on the road, so the games against Dallas and Houston will be the most intriguing to me.

A Tale of Two Cities

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:21:00 +0000

As in San Antonio, and every other city in the Association.

Granted, it's a very small sample size, but at the moment, we look unbeatable at home, and like complete horse manure on the road. I know we're the Spurs, and we're not supposed to get worked up about early season games, and we're building towards something bigger. Plus, we're adding in a bunch of new pieces, and it's going to take much longer to gel as a cohesive unit this year. I get all of that. But what is so disturbing about these first 2 early road games is how uninspired and uninterested we look. We're playing with no intensity and no passion. We're playing lazy, making haphazard defensive rotations (if we're making them at all), and not working to get the best shots on offense. We're playing too much one-on-one, not trusting our passing and execution. I can handle a loss on the road, especially in SLC, where the Jazz are historically good. But it's the manner in which we lost, playing meekly and without fight.

I know all the talking points, and I know not to get so worked up about an early season loss. There were plenty of factors working against us: the long layoff after only 3 games, the Jazz coming out strong at home, needing something to prove, the daunting prospect of two tough road games on back to back nights. I guess what I want is to feel like the team is playing as hard as I am rooting. Is that too much to ask?

What I Liked (this will probably be a short list):

--DeJuan Blair. He showed his usual game, nabbing offensive boards for some cheap putback points. But he also flashed some signs of a more refined post game, finishing off some drives at the rim. If he can be a reliable post player as well as our garbage man, he will definitely earn plenty of minutes playing behind and with Duncan.

--Parker's aggressiveness. He tore it up in the second quarter, attacking the rim at will, drawing And-1s or free throws. He kept us modestly close in the first half, allowing at least a glimmer of hope at halftime.

--Hill's offense. He had two great drives to the rim that he just couldn't convert. The ball simply rolled off the rim. I remember this happening to him a bunch last year, as well. When those start dropping for him, he'll be an even deadlier player.

What I Didn't Like:

--Our energy. I touched on this in the opening. But we didn't seem all that interested in competing hard.

--Our defense. It actually looked decent in the first 6 minutes. We had active hands, and we're getting lots of deflections and contested passes and shots. But we gave up 32, 28, and 33 points in consecutive quarters. We made poor rotations. We didn't help at the rim (on several occasions, our wings got beat to the rim and then looked back in disgust after the basket went in as if to say "where the hell was my help?"). We played reactive defense, allowing them to dictate the tempo and control of the game, only trying to stop them once they were exactly where they wanted to be.

Jefferson, in particular, seemed a bit helpless out there. If he's our new stopper, we could be in trouble. I believe he has it in him, but he's not showing it yet. What made Bowen so great was that he did his work before his opponent got the ball. He never allowed his player to their comfort spots, and always made them make plays out of their comfort zone. Jefferson needs to work at this.

--Manu. He had a stinker game. He turned it over, forced the issue, and just didn't look good. Obviously, we're giving him some time to find his legs and his game. He's going to have good games and bad games. But I'm still going to point out the bad ones, especially when he turns the ball over with 26 seconds left in each of the first 3 quarters. Just bad. With Hill emerging, I'd like to see him handling the ball a bit more with the second unit, and allow Ginobili to play off the ball a bit more. Our second unit offense can be a bit predictable with Ginobili at the top of the key.

--14 assists. Our assists seem to be way down from years past. Some of this can be attributed to more driving and attacking the rim, rather than taking as many jump shots (which is good). But this low number also indicates that we're not playing as fluid of offense as we have in the past, and that we're not trusting each other and making the extra pass. I expect this to change as the season progresses.

--Important baskets. 3 times in the 4th quarter we had chances to cut the lead to under 10. Single digit deficits are huge mental barriers; if you can get it under 10, that gives you the belief that you can come all the way back. 3 times we had it at 11, with possession. Each time we didn't convert, and then Utah came back and scored, pushing the lead back to 13 or 14. Those are backbreaking moments.

--Offensive rebounding. Although we ended up posting more offensive boards than they did, it certainly didn't feel like it. We're giving teams way too many second opportunities, and they seem to be converting on all of them. There is nothing more disheartening then playing good defense, getting a stop, and just not finishing the possession with a rebound. It's a total momentum builder for the other team and spirit killer for us.

Game Ball:

I was planning on starting a new section where I give out a game ball to the most deserving Spur, but after tonight's game I'm not sure anybody on our team deserves it. So I'm going to give it to Carlos Boozer, who looked like late 80s/early 90s Karl Malone out there, tearing through our defense, and even playing some good defense of his own (something he is not known for).

Looking Forward:

Tonight we play The Blazers in Portland. They are off to a slow start, and some people here are starting to worry. They have all the talent in the world, but some of the pieces just aren't fitting together right. It should be a good game of two teams with early results not matching lofty expectations who both really want a statement win.

After last nights game, I think the most important things to keep an eye on are our defense on Brandon Roy and the battle of the paint. Jefferson will undoubtedly start on Roy. Roy is a tremendously talented player, an elite wing player, and someone we might have to stop in the playoffs. In the past, we always had Bowen to handle the elite wings of the world. How will Jefferson fare? Will we see any of Bogans, our defensive free agent pick up? Will we see Hill playing important D on Roy?

Watch the paint carefully. They have 2 big centers capable of controlling the paint and hauling in offensive and defensive boards (Pryzbilla and Oden). Can we keep them off the boards? Can we outscore them in the paint? Will we protect the rim against driving guards? I'm surprised we didn't see any Ratliff last need for an injection of rim protection. If things unfold tonight similar to last night, I wouldn't be surprised to see him. (Ratliff played a few years in Portland, and was a fan favorite. At least he was one of my favorites at the time.)

Also, if the game is close in the waning minutes, pay attention to everything: who is on the floor, who is running the offense, what we're doing on offense, what we're doing on defense. We have yet to play a close game, so we haven't been tested in crunch time. It's about time that we are.

The game is on ESPN, but I'll be at the game, about 15 rows up just off the Blazer's bench side basket, in the corner opposite the Spurs bench. I'll be wearing my road Ginobili jersey, which so far, has brought very little luck on the road this year. Hopefully that will change tonight.

Go Spurs Go.

Bat-Man

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:29:00 +0000

Are you kidding me? Did Manu really just swat a bat out of midair? That's insane. Anybody who has been around a bad knows how terrifying they are, and how incredibly difficult it would be to just swat one out of the air. But there's Ginobili, sizing it up, then WHAM, out of the air the bat goes. Meanwhile, men who get paid millions of dollars to be strong and tough are cowering in fear.

They also played a game last night. Going into this game I was worried about its trap game capabilities. It's easy to take a lesser opponent for granted, especially playing at home. I wasn't so much worried about losing the game, but more about making it a competitive game for too long.

Luckily, I didn't have much to worry about, as we overwhelmed the Kings with talent and execution and were simply just too good for them. The Kings competed hard, but there is just too much of a talent deficit on that team for now.

What I Liked:

--Jefferson. By far his best game as a Spur. It wasn't just that he scored well, it was how he scored. He was hitting outside jump shots, driving to the hoop and getting to the foul line, and he was working perfectly within the offense. He is looking increasingly more comfortable each game, and I'm very happy with what he is bringing to the team.

--Parker's bounce back. I've stated many times that Parker needs to get off to a good start in a game. When he does, he is virtually unstoppable and competes hard the whole game. But if he gets off to a bad start, it's easy for him to fall out of rhythm and mentally check out of the game. It's a tough balance for him, because he needs to be aggressive and get his points early, but he also needs to keep the offense fluid and everyone else involved. Last night he achieved that balance perfectly, and our offense hummed all night long.

--Ginobili's hair. Love the buzzed look. Now maybe everyone will stop talking about his bald spot, and start focusing on his bat catching skills.

--Blair's passing. I'm more and more impressed every game with Blair. How lucky were we to find a rotation player in the draft? Last night, I was really impressed with his passing ability, from both the low and high post. His offensive game seems more refined than most originally thought, and he can be a legitimate post up option on the 2nd unit.

--Finley's jumper. He is getting older, and is mostly a liability to us on the floor. But he'll be able to hit that jumper off the curl until the day he dies.

--95 points after 3 quarters. We were lucky to get 95 points in a game last year, and now we're hitting it after 3 quarters.

--Bonner and Mason, Jr.'s expanding games. Bonner is putting the ball on the floor and driving and making baskets. He still looks a little awkward doing it; but if he's just good enough that his defender has to somewhat respect it, it will give him even more wide open 3-point shots. And Roger's handle seems to have improved dramatically in the offseason. He actually looks natural putting the ball on the floor and driving to the hoop. And he can actually pass out of his drives now. I'm not saying he should be playing any PG, but it never hurts to have another player who can handle the ball in a pinch.

--Hill's shot. George's shot looks really good right now. I actually believe his shots will go in, which is a lot different than last year.

--Closing quarters. The mark of a great team is how they close out quarters. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but we seemed to play even for the first 8 or 9 minutes of most quarters, and then closed each quarter strong, pushing our advantage each time. Up 7 after the first, up 16 at half, and finally, up 20 after the 3rd, before garbage time kicked in.

--Ratliff's defense. He did what we brought him here to do: protect the rim. He registered 4 blocks, and affected countless other shots.

What I Didn't Like:

--27 and 30. We gave up 27 points in the first quarter and 30 in the third. Granted, in those quarters we scored 34 and 34 respectively, but I'd still like to see us play sharper D, and try to keep teams under 25 or so points a quarter. The rules have been gradually changing to give the offenses every advantage, so maybe it's not realistic to see the lockdown D we've grown accustomed to seeing. But we still need the dedication and commitment to it, so that we can get important stops down the stretch of close games.

--Ratliff's offense. Oh my. "Unpolished" would be a kind word for it. Any offense we get from him is gravy...but still....

--19:17. Our assist to turnover ratio. Still to low. Our offense did look good last night, so the low assist number might be a bit fluky. But 17 TOs is still a little more than I'd like to see.

One final observation, and this goes under neither the "Like" or "Dislike" column. It seems that there is a more concerted effort to hit the offensive glass this year. In years past, once the shot went up, we usually had 3 or 4 players hustling back on D, preventing another team from fastbreaking. However, in last night's game, I noticed a few times when 2 or 3 stayed behind looking at the offensive board. I even saw a few plays when we crashed the offensive glass from the top of the key, rather than hustling back. Obviously, with Blair's special skill in this area, it would make sense for him to do this. But I noticed Bonner doing this. I'm not sure if this is in the game plan, or just an isolated incident, but it bears keeping an eye on.

Looking Forward:

We have 4 days off, then a brutal back to back, facing both Utah and Portland on the road Thursday and Friday.

Pay attention to our energy to start the game. Let's hope it's better than the effort we put out in Chicago. Pay attention to our overall D, and what our commitment to it looks like. And pay attention to the rotation, and who gets crunch time minutes.

Both of these games should be very tough and very close. It will be a great early test for us. Obviously it'd be great to get them both, but a split with 2 hard fought games would be a victory as well.

On a personal note, I will be at the Portland game, sporting my black Ginobili jersey. Every time I go to a Spurs game in Portland, I'm amazed at the number of Spurs jerseys I see, especially considering how rabid and devoted Portlanders are to the Blazers. I was sitting right behind the Spurs bench last year when Finley's jumper rimmed out, giving us our second or third straight loss to open the season. This year, I intend to see the Spurs win.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:19:00 +0000

Opening night was the good. Last night was the bad and the ugly.

We have to expect games like last night, especially early in the season. Nights where everything seems discombobulated and players seem lost and unsure about where to go and what to do. We have more talent than we've ever had before; but we have a lack of system knowledge, of chemistry that can be achieved only by getting the reps in. Don't worry; it will come. Losses like last night's help us to understand where our weaknesses are what to focus on moving forward.

What I Liked:

--Tim Duncan. That was a monster game. 28 points and 16 rebounds, with 2 steals, 2 assists, and 3 blocks thrown in for good measure. His bank shot was unstoppable last night, and he was playing some good D. He looked spry. Let's hope this is the Duncan we can expect this season.

--George Hill's D. He is a very good defender, with greatness within his reach. He can sometimes get lost going around screens. And his ball denial defense isn't as good as Bowen's was (Bowen's specialty, really). But he is an outstanding one-on-one defender. He likes to pick up his man early and pester him with every step and every dribble. And he is great at picking the pocket of the opposing player. He had two fantastic steals last night.

--Richard Jefferson. Yes, he's shooting horribly. Yes, he seems a bit lost in our schemes. But he's already showing one of the reasons why we went out and got him: he is a dynamic offensive player. Several times last night he drove the ball into the lane, drawing fouls and collapsing the defense. This is what we need him for on offense. He's probably pressing too much early on, as is to be expected for a new player coming into a new system. But once he figures things out and gets more relaxed and comfortable, he will be a deadly player for us.

--The defense. The score belies it, and we didn't finish the defensive sequences by securing the rebounds, but we played solid D last night, forcing them into some tough shots and keeping their FG% to 41.7%. That is a championship number.

What I Didn't Like:

--The energy. With the exception of Duncan, we looked very flat last night. Tony, especially, looked bored or exhausted or both. I've talked before about how important it is for him to get off to a good start. If he doesn't, he oftentimes checks out of the game. It seemed like he did that last night. But he's not the only one guilty of it. Everybody looked tired and out of sorts.

--The shooting. Ugh. We shot horribly, especially from long distance. Most of our shots seemed to fall short, which to me is an indication of tired legs. I guess we're not in game condition yet, ready to play back-to-backs against young, hungry teams. That's fine. But our shot selection also seemed poor. We were shooting too many contested shots, not making the extra pass to get to the wide open player, or taking the time to drive and dish to create the space. We weren't shooting within our offense.

--The rebounding. Um, yeah. We couldn't secure a defensive rebound to save our lives. They had 19 second chance points in the first half, and we're up by 1 at halftime. Think about that. If we'd just secured our defensive rebounds, we could have had a double digit lead at halftime. This one concerns me the most, because it hearkens back to last year. This is one of the main dangers of starting Bonner, as he is not a great defender. It puts too much pressure on Duncan to protect the rim and secure the board.

--15:13. That was our assist to TO ratio. 13 isn't a horrible TO number, but 15 assists is bad. It means we weren't moving the ball, and weren't executing our offense. Which means we were probably lazy and tired and not willing to take the necessary steps to get the good shots.

There are lots of other things to look at negatively in this game, but it's only the second game of the season. I'm going to allow the newer players time to adjust to the system, and assume they will get it. I'm going to allow Blair a rookie learning curve and not expect double-doubles out of him every night. This was one game, early in the season, against a team that could very well turn out to be very good this year. Chalk it up to experience and move on.

Looking Forward:

We play Sacramento at home on Saturday. Sacramento looks to be one of the worst teams in the league again this year. That being said, we need to have a strong showing, do our work early, and not get dragged into a close game. Last year we won a lot of too-close-for-comfort games against inferior opponents. This year, we need to control these games from tip to buzzer. I expect a strong showing from our guys being back at home coming off a tough first loss.

Look for Parker to get going early and often. Look for our defense to be locked in and feisty. Look for better shooting and better shot selection. Keep an eye on the rotation and see who gets the minutes. Will Hill continue to earn more minutes off the bench? Will Finley and Bonner stay as the starters? Keep an eye on Jefferson and McDyess as they continue to learn the system and get comfortable in it.

After Saturday's game, we're off until next Thursday, when we start a vicious back-to-back, at Utah, then at Portland on Friday night.

And Like That POOF The Beard Is Gone

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:38:00 +0000

Oh, boy, that was a fun game. After a slow start in which the offense looked totally discombobulated, we rattled off back to back 30+ point quarters en route to a 113-96 victory over the Hornets that wasn't even as close as the final score indicated. There were 2 surprises to start out the game: Michael Finley and Matt Bonner. I had theorized in an earlier post that Bonner might get the start over McDyess, though I was skeptical. But there he was. I understand the Bonner start in terms of the frontcourt rotation. Bonner is a good big to play with Duncan because he stretches the floor, and Duncan can negate some of his defensive deficiencies. Also, starting with Bonner allows Blair to get more playing time with McDyess, thus giving us one veteran, defensive big on the floor at all times.

But Finley starting is a bit of a shock. I didn't think Manu would get the start, but I was sure it would be Mason, Jr. Apparently Finley won the starting job with an awesome training camp. Good for him. Finley is a proud player, and having him start is a boon to his confidence and, in turn his shooting. As long as Mason, Jr. is effective coming off the bench, I'm okay with Finley starting. I think Mason, Jr.'s issues are more related to what we ask him to do than his spot in the rotation.

I do feel that as we move into the postseason, we will not be able to start both Bonner and Finley. But that is a ways down the line.

There's a lot to like about this game, so let's get into it.

What I liked:

--GINOBILI!!! He had a great Ginobili game. Some scoring (16 points), some playmaking (4 assists), a steal that led to a fastbreak, some herky jerky acrobatic drives, some outside shooting, and a team high +17.

--Balanced offense. Of the 10 players that played more than 5 minutes, 6 scored in double digits (though none over 20). 3 more scored 9. That's 9 of 10 players right around double digit scoring. The one player who didn't get close: Richard Jefferson, due mostly to cold shooting. We never had stat lines like that last year. Everyone on the floor is a threat to score. And our offense looked fantastic. Great spacing, great passing, making the extra pass, tremendous shooting, playing inside-out, getting offensive boards and second chance points. We were getting wide open 3 point shots, and that is usually a function of a smooth running offense. It was fun watching us play tonight.

--The rotation. 10 players cracked 18+ minutes. Nobody went over 30. Hill backed up Parker, Ginobili backed up Finley, Mason, Jr. backed up Jefferson, McDyess backed up Bonner, and Blair backed up Duncan. At times it was almost like a first team/second team thing. Rotations rarely go ten players deep, but in an effort to curtail the minutes of the "Big 3", I think we'll see a lot of this, especially early in the season.

--The young guys. Blair was as good as advertised. He could be our garbage man, getting all the loose balls and cheap putbacks he wants. He is a tremendous rebounder. Part of it is will and determination, which he has in spades. But a big part of being a great rebounder is understanding spacing and where to be, and Blair has that ability innately. This also translates well to his offensive game, as he worked himself into wide open position for easy layups on a couple of plays just by being in the right place at the right time.

And Hill was just great. He finished with 9 points, 4 assists, and 0 turnovers. But he ran the offense smoothly and confidently. Two plays stand out to me. First, in the 2nd quarter he was bringing the ball up the court and saw Mason, Jr. on the left wing behind the 3 point line. He drilled the ball to him, and Mason, Jr. immediately stepped into a rhythm 3 point and nailed it. I believe these were Roger's first points of the night, and allowed him to ease into the game. That's what a PG is supposed to do. Second, in the 3rd quarter, the Spurs were waiting to inbound the ball. One of the bigs was supposed to inbound to Hill, but nobody was back with Hill to get him the ball. The cameras caught him yelling, getting the attention of McDyess, and directing where he was supposed to be. Again, a very little thing, but this demonstrates his blossoming confidence and command of the team.

--The Bench. Our bench seems like it will have it's own identity this year. It can push the tempo a bit, and it has excellent athleticism with Hill, Blair, and Ginobili, not to mention great shooting with McDyess and Mason, Jr. Our bench actually extended the lead tonight, and our best +/- numbers came for the reserve players.

What I Didn't Like:

--The defense. It's hard to nitpick too much in such a great opening game. But after allowing only 13 points in the opening quarter, we surrendered quarters of 26, 29, and 28. That's too many points. Granted, we can score better now. But I'd still like to see us shoot for the goal of 22 points a quarter, 88 points a game. Our defense didn't look particularly horrible, it just didn't clamp down like I wanted. That's as much a function of incorporating new players as anything else, and I expect it to improve as the season goes along.

--Popovich's clean shaven face. His beard was bad ass, and now it's gone.

Looking Forward:

Thursday night we play the Bulls in Chicago, meaning we start the season with a back-to-back. The second nights of back-to-backs haven't always been kind to our old teams, but let's see how we handle it. No one played more than 30 minutes, so most players should be fresh. And we're no longer the AARP team, so hopefully the quick turnaround won't hurt us like it has in the past.

For the Bulls, it is their opening night, at home, on National TV, so look for them to be very energetic. They are a young team with an emerging star at PG that gave the injured Celtics all they could handle in last year's playoffs. They lost their best scorer off that team (Ben Gordon), so it'll be interesting to see where the points come from and how Rose steps up in his second season.

On the Spurs end, pay attention to the rotation, and if we go 10-deep again in an a first team/second team style. Watch to see if the D improves. Keep watching the young guys and the new guys as they continue their integration into the team. And see if our bench can be the catalyst for another win, either taking or extending leads.

The game is the first game of a doubleheader on TNT.

Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall, Who is the Fairest Team of Them All?

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:27:00 +0000

I don't much care for making predictons, other than this: The Spurs will finish the season 98-0.

On our march towards immortality, here are some things to watch...

Heads, Shoulders, Knees and Ankles (Knees and Ankles)

Nothing is more critical to the upcoming season than Duncan's knees and Ginobili's ankles. With a healthy team we can compete with anybody; without it, we have no chance. Popovich recognizes this, and will never sacrifice the war to win a battle.

Tony! Toni! Tone!

Despite how hard Pop and the entire Spurs fan base has been on Tony Parker, he has gotten better every year and is a bona fide star and game changer in this league. Last year was his best year statistically, partly out of necessity. This year he will have an unheard of level of control over the offense, and is definitively the focal point of the team on that end of the court. How will he handle it? Will he raise the level of his game another notch yet again?

Do You Remember the Time?

Last year we slipped from our perch atop the defensive totem pole. We were still a good defensive team, but not a great one. It's a tired cliche, but it rings true: Defense wins championships. Defense has always been our bedrock. Pop has promised a return to form. Will we get there?

I Want a New Drug, One That Does What it Should

Reading the writing on the wall and observing the escalating arms race, the Spurs went out and got some brand new players, infusing the roster with more talent than it's ever had before. We've always hewed to the "Big 3" philosophy, but times are a changing. We still have the Big 3, but we also have a proven star in this league in Jefferson and a very talented veteran in McDyess. Will these players be able to find their role on the team? I'm especially interested in seeing how Jefferson fits in. He's been saying and doing all the right things, but is he comfortable being a fourth option on a team? Will he accept the thankless task of guarding the best wing players in the league and not getting as many shots and points as he's used to?

Youth is Wasted on the Young

After years of bellyaching about our team being "old as dirt", suddenly we have some youth. No one doubts that the infusion of energy and athleticism will do us good. But one of our great strengths has always been our veteran savvy, and our refusal to ever beat ourselves. Are we sacrificing too much corporate knowledge at the altar of youth? Will the youngsters be able to earn and keep Pop's trust? When push comes to shove, will Hairston possibly see minutes over Finley or Bogans? Will Blair earn burn over Ratliff or Bonner?

The Summer of George

All we've heard and read about since the beginning of summer was how good George Hill looked, and how he was Pop's favorite player on the team, and what a leap he's made. Is this true? Will this translate once the lights are turned on? If so, we will have our best backup PG in a long time, not to mention a great defender at both guard positions. George's development could be the tipping point of our team and season.

I Was Just Guessing at Numbers and Figures

We've added a lot of new, proven players. How will they fit in? Will they be able to integrate to the system? It usually takes a full year to completely understand the Spurs system, but Popovich has simplified it in the hopes of getting everybody up to speed quicker. Will it work? We've always relied on a proven hierarchy and outstanding chemistry. Will it still be there? And what will the rotation be, and how long will Pop tinker? Last year we never really settled into a comfortable rotation (a lot of that owing to injuries), and I think it messed with our rhythm and chemistry. Keep an eye on how Pop works the rotation as the season progresses.

It's Always the Quiet Ones

There is (rightfully) a lot of focus on the Big 3, the health, the new guys, and the young guys. But don't forget about Bonner, Mason, Jr., and Finley. Their abilities may be limited, but they all fill a vital need on this team: shooting, particularly 3-point shooting. There will come a time late in the season, possibly in the playoffs, where a made 3-pointer is going to determine a win or a loss, and there's a very good chance one of those 3 players will be taking that shot. They need to know their role, be comfortable in their role, and be unafraid to take and make that shot.

How the West Was Won

Everybody and their sister predict that the Lakers are coming out of the West. All those people also predict that they will meet the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals. But don't sleep on the other dangerous teams in the league. The Blazers probably have the deepest roster of talent in the West, even if half the team still can't legally drink; Chris Paul and David West are still nightmare match-ups for us, even if the rest of their team is filled out with rec league players; the Mavericks might be good this year (or complete crap), but they always give us their best shot; Denver is the most volatile team in the league, who can go on a ridiculous hot streak at any time; and Utah is still coached by one of the very best and play with exacting precision and brute force. There are no foregone conclusions in the Western Conference.

Home Sweet Home; On the Road Again

Are schedule is front-loaded with home games and back-loaded with road games. We've always been one of the best road teams in the NBA, but our home record has been slipping as of late. We need to protect our home court, especially with so many early season home guys in which we'll be trying to figure things out. The ratio of Road Wins:Home Losses is one of the more telling stats and a great indicator of future success, so keep an eye on that number.

It's Not How You Start, It's How You Finish

But in this case, it's also how you start. We've always been strong finishers. And Pop has never been afraid of a loss if it helps build towards something greater. But our schedule being what it is, we have to take advantage of our early season home games and make sure that we're not giving away mid-December games at home to the likes of the Timberwolves or Clippers. We have a lot of personnel and playing time issues to figure out, and we need to pace ourselves; but we also need Wins.

Don't Know What You Got Till It's Gone

We're spoiled as Spurs fans, especially those of us that have been fans only in the last decade or so. Our team has always been good, we've always competed for titles, we've always been professional and likable, and we've been able to watch one of the greatest players ever. But Duncan is heading into the twilight of his career, and no matter how smart our front office is, once Duncan's gone, so is the dynasty. I have no doubt that we'll still be very good and will still compete fiercely, but championships are generally won on the backs of all-time great players.

I didn't really notice when we won in 1999. I watched and rooted casually in 2003. I saw Fisher's .04 in '04, and it hurt, but it didn't stick with me. In 2005 i watched every second of the Finals, agonizing after Games 3 and 4, unable to sleep in the off days, jumping off my couch when Horry saved Game 5, and running up and down my street after pulling out Game 7. In 2006, I felt my heart leap with Ginobili's 3 and then break with his foul. In 2007, I watched every second of the entire playoffs--Nash's bloody nose, Horry's hip check--as we methodically marched through the playoffs to our 4th title. By 2008 I was following most regular season games and watching all of the nationally televised ones. I sat motionless, unable to speak, feeling as if I'd just been dumped when we blew 2 huge leads to the Lakers and had another game slip away on a no-call. Last season I started watching every game of the regular season and following the team regularly on several different Internet sites. I started writing for this site just before the playoffs, and cheered on our hobbled team as they gallantly fought the odds and injuries fighting against them.

I realize that we only have a few years left of the Duncan era, and I don't want to miss a single moment. I wish I had followed the team more closely earlier. I wish I had a clearer memory of Duncan's masterpiece in Game 6 of the 2003 Finals. I wish I remember the Memorial Day Miracle. I wish I remember seeing Robinson in his prime.

So be thankful for your Spurs team, and enjoy them. Enjoy Parker's continued ascent; enjoy the mad genius of our favorite Argentine; enjoy Pop's brilliance, ingenuity, and self-deprecation; and enjoy rooting for one of the greatest players AND teammates ever. Cherish the wins, mourn the losses, but mostly, revel in and appreciate the journey.

NBA Tip-Off

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:10:00 +0000

The season officially gets under way tonight with Cleveland and Boston in what could most likely be a preview of the eastern conference finals (with all due respect to Orlando). There are 4 games on the schedule tonight, the Rockets at the Blazers being the most interesting to this Portland-dweller. The Blazers come into this season with ridiculously high expectations and the Rockets with almost none. I'm worried that the Blazers might not live up to those expectations; but outside of the Spurs, there is no team I watch or enjoy more.

The Spurs season kicks off tomorrow, and I hope to be back later tonight with a more comprehensive preview. Of note, David Thorpe was the only ESPN analyst who picked us to win the west and to win it all. Good. I don't like being the favorite.

I don't normally like to shill for things, but if you're a serious hoops junkie and/or live outside of the SA area and don't get local coverage of the Spurs, I highly recommend getting the NBA Broadband League Pass. For $150 ($135 for the next week or so) you can watch EVERY NBA game this season on your computer, save for any games on National TV or in your local coverage area. So living in Portland, I don't get any of the Blazers games, because I can watch them on TV. But i'll get to watch every Spurs game that isn't on National TV. Also, you can rewatch the game later if you miss it for any reason. And you can watch any other game that looks interesting. I like to keep an eye on scores, and if I see a game is close at the end, I'll usually watch the last few minutes to see how it plays out. It really is a fantastic deal and a way to stay connected with your favorite team and the league.

New York Times 'Fascinated' by 'Revitalized' Spurs

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:31:00 +0000

The New York Times doesn't come to mind when one thinks of sports writing, let alone coverage of the NBA. When it comes to pro basketball, the Times is very much a regional paper, favoring stories about the Knicks and Nets first and foremost.

Which is why I was so pleasantly surprised by Howard Beck's NBA Preview ("Adding Powerful Talent, Top Teams Flex Muscles") in today's paper. While it claims to be a league preview, Beck's primary focus is on our favorite team.

On June 23, Richard Jefferson, a standout forward who averaged 19.6 points last season, was traded from Milwaukee to San Antonio for a package of nominal players. The Bucks’ decision was mostly financial — they had to shed Jefferson’s $14.2 million salary to avoid paying the luxury tax. The Spurs’ decision was purely competitive — they needed Jefferson’s talents to help win a championship.

When the accounting was complete, Jefferson found himself surrounded by All-Stars and championship rings, nestled in a lineup featuring Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.

“Basketball heaven,” Jefferson said after practice last week in San Antonio.

The deal energized Jefferson and instantly revitalized the Spurs dynasty, which had grown creaky. It served as another stinging setback for the Bucks. And it symbolized a potentially troubling new trend for the N.B.A., which opens its season Tuesday night.

This is the year the rich got richer, while nearly everyone else gave up.

Having obtained Jefferson, the Spurs then signed Antonio McDyess, Keith Bogans and Theo Ratliff, giving them a fantastically deep bench.

Team executives said they could not recall a summer quite like this, as every elite team added elite talent.

No one doubts the significance of the trend, the Spurs included. “I think it’s something that the powers that be in the league have noticed,” said Gregg Popovich, the Spurs’ coach and team president.

The most important statistic this season may not be shooting efficiency or rebounding rate but payroll size.

The Spurs are a fascinating, and revealing, case study. They are renowned as smart spenders, winning four titles since 1999 with a payroll that generally fell in the middle of the pack. They have exceeded the tax threshold three times, but by less than $1 million in each case. The Spurs built a dynasty by surrounding their stars with low-wage role players.

But the model no longer seemed viable after the Spurs — with injuries to Duncan and Ginobili — lost in the first round last spring. Team officials faced the realization that, even healthy, they no longer had enough talent to contend.

The trend perhaps began two seasons ago, when the Celtics obtained Garnett and Allen and the Lakers obtained Gasol. All were acquired in financially driven transactions. “All of a sudden, you couldn’t compete with two or three significant players anymore,” said R. C. Buford, the Spurs’ general manager. “You had to have a roster with at least four very significant players to even be competitive.”

Duncan is 33, and the franchise is determined to maximize his remaining years as an elite player. So the conservative Spurs joined the arms race.

“It’s out of character for us,” Duncan said. “But what is in character is them wanting to put a team together that’s going to have a chance to win.”

So Jefferson became a Spur, Shaq joined LeBron, Vince joined Dwight, and the gap between the talent-rich and the talent-poor grew into a grand canyon, almost overnight.

There are a few teams with great talent and more moderate payrolls: Portland, Atlanta and Denver. “But when you talk championship or bust, there’s only those five elite teams,” the ESPN commentator Jalen Rose said in reference to the Lakers, the Spurs, the Cavaliers, the Celtics and the Magic.

Is it a sign of things to come? A dangerous trend? Perhaps not. The Spurs, like the Magic and Cavaliers, are a small-market team. Popovich is the first to say that the new model is not sustainable.

“I don’t know if it’s a problem for the league,” he said, “but I think for a certain number of teams it’s going to be a flash in the pan.”

In the meantime, Jefferson will enjoy his little slice of heaven and go to sleep dreaming of championship rallies on the Riverwalk.

Simmons on Spurs, Duncan

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:26:00 +0000

ESPN's Bill Simmons has published his annual NBA Preview. In typical Simmons fashion, it is a list of the 33 most intriguing figures for the upcoming season. Two Spurs make appearances on the list. #33 is Manu Ginobili, saying what we've all been saying for months: without a healthy Manu, nothing else really matters. #2 is Tim Duncan, and I encourage you to read the whole thing.

At the end of the Duncan section, he writes this:

I am a Spurs junkie. I love reading about them. I love the way they put their rosters together and value chemistry so deeply. I love the way they interact during games (as I've written many times). I just get a kick out of them. And the truth is, this might be their last chance for a dominant season with Tim Duncan leading the way.
I think it happens. If only because great basketball players have a habit of somehow finding that one great team. They are my pick to win in 2010. Convincingly.

Needless to say, Simmons is picking the Spurs to win the 2010 title (over his beloved Celtics in 6). I hope he's right.

Poll: Who will make the Spurs' final roster?

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:21:00 +0000

As the Spurs get ready to begin their march towards a fifth NBA Title, we say goodbye to those who have departed: Bruce Bowen, Fabricio Oberto, Kurt Thomas, Ime Udoka, Jacque Vaughn and Drew Gooden. We wish them the best of luck in the next chapter of their lives.

We also wholeheartedly welcome the changes made by the Spurs during the offseason.

"I just think it’s a different time in the organization’s growth," Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "Sometimes, we’ve only needed pieces going into the summertime. We needed something different this summer."

"We’re very excited, very curious to see what we’ve got," point guard Tony Parker told the Express-News. "We’ve been playing with the same team for a lot of years. It’s nice to have new blood."

The new blood Tony refers to? Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess, Theo Ratliff, DeJuan Blair, Marcus Haislip (forward), Curtis Jerrells, and Keith Bogans.

This gives the Spurs 17 players, but there can only be 15, which brings us to this week's poll.

Who will make the Spurs' final roster?
(choose 15)
Tim Duncan
Tony Parker
Manu Ginobili
Roger Mason Jr.
Michael Finley
George Hill
Matt Bonner
Ian Mahinmi
Marcus Williams
Malik Hairston
Richard Jefferson
Antonio McDyess
Theo Ratliff
DeJuan Blair
Marcus Haislip
Curtis Jerrells
Keith Bogans

See Results

Opening night...

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:50:00 +0000

...is one week away. Hallelujah.

Starting line-up?

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:22:00 +0000

The Spurs open against the New Orleans Hornets on Oct 28th. What will the starting line-up be on that night?

There are 2 positions that are unequivocally locked in: Point Guard and whatever position it is we assign to Tim Duncan. Power Forward or Center, it doesn't really matter. Tim will start, and he'll be our main big man. Point Guard, obviously, is the other position without challenge. Tony Parker will be our starting PG.

I think we can assume with great certainty that Richard Jefferson will be our starting small forward. We didn't throw away our cap flexibility for the next two years, go into the luxury tax, and go "all in" at the table to get a bench player.

The other two positions are more clouded, and by extension, more interesting. Our starting "center" will probably be Antonio McDyess (and probably should be). There doesn't seem to be much challenge on the roster to him. Matt Bonner did better than expected work last year, but is best used in a reserve role for an offensive punch; Theo Ratliff can still be a monster protecting the rim, but is too limited offensively and shouldn't be playing starter minutes; DeJuan Blair is showing amazing signs in training camp, but there's no way in hell Pop is starting a rookie. We're set up to have a great big man rotation, but McDyess looks like the clear favorite to start. The only reason I hesitate is because he has been used primarily as a sixth man for the last few years in Detroit and excelled at the role and accepted it with grace and dignity, much like Ginobili always has. So it's not outrageous to envision him coming off the bench for us as well, much like Kurt Thomas did the last two years. But my money says he'll be starting.

That only leaves shooting guard, and the really big question that is always inherent to the Spurs: will Manu start? Pop jerks him around so much, even he likes to joke about it. Manu, the consumate professional and competitor, doesn't really care. He plays when it really matters, and he'll do anything to help his team win.

There is no doubt that Manu is far and away our best shooting guard. But should he start? Spurs fans are usually divided on this. Some see it as an affront to all that is holy to not have this amazing player starting. I'm not one of those people. I love the way our rotation sets up with Manu coming off the bench, and I think we're ultimately best served by not having him start.

It's hard to get three really great players in rhythm at the same time. With Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili all starting, there just aren't enough balls and enough possessions to get them all into the flow of the game. Parker especially needs to get off to a good start, or he can disappear from a game. It's crucial to get Tony involved and in rhythm in the first four minutes of the game. If he doesn't, he'll usually lose energy and focus and just kind of coast through the game. But in order to get him involved, he needs to be controlling the offense and attacking the rim. This usually leaves Ginobili as the odd man out and underutilized. However, if we bring Ginobili in about the 5:00 minute mark of the game, we should already have Parker established and can now get Manu involved. This also allows us to rest Duncan or Parker or both at the end of the first quarter and still have a lethal scoring threat on the floor.

If Ginobili doesn't start, I'd like to see Roger Mason, Jr. get the start. There hasn't been much talk about Mason, Jr. this offseason, and he seems to have been lost in the shuffle a bit with all the new acquisitions and crop of fresh-faced youngsters. But let's not allow the end of Roger's last season overshadow the beginning. He was an absolute sniper for us, shooting the ball with confidence and courage, filling a necessary role in our offense and even winning some huge games for us. Things started to unravel when Pop made him the de facto back-up PG. This year, that shouldn't be an issue for us. Hill is back-up PG, and Mason, Jr. will be asked to do what he does best--shoot (and make) 3s. With the added burden removed from his shoulders, I think we'll see a return to form of the Big Shot Rog that we all fell in love with during the first half of last season.

And that player is the ideal starting shooting guard for us. He won't be asked to handle the ball or create his own offense or make decisions. All he'll need to do is float around the 3-pt line, waiting for kick outs from a driving Parker or a double teamed Duncan. Much like Parker, Roger is a confidence player. He is well served starting and getting that vote of confidence from Pop and being allowed to play with the big boys. A sniper is only as good as his confidence will allow. He is the ideal 4th scoring option in the starting line-up. No one will game plan for him, and he'll have all the open looks he could ever want.

As far as I know, Pop has given no indication as to the starting line-up come opening night. My guess: Parker, Mason, Jr., Jefferson, Duncan, and McDyess. What do you guys think?

"He's Manu. He's Back."

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:09:00 +0000

Over at 48MoH, Timothy Varner has a very interesting post regarding the ownership of the team on the floor. He makes some excellent points and hits the nail on the head when he talks about Duncan seamlessly passing the torch to Parker, much the same way that Robinson did for Duncan many years ago. That really encapsulates the greatness of the Spurs: the sublimation of the ego to the higher goal of team achievement.

But the most interesting thing i read today comes from Popovich, courtesy of Jeff McDonald at the Express-News: “He was arguably the best player on the court today. He's Manu. He's back."

And with that, every Spurs fan does a little dance of joy. Parker may be our new alpha dog, our leading scorer and playmaker, but everybody knows that Ginobili is the tell-tale heart. He is our closer, and often the difference between winning and losing close and competitive games. All the offseason moves in the world don't mean a thing without a healthy Ginobili. Parker can make us a great team, and Duncan can make us a dominant team, but Ginobili can make us a special team--a championship team.

Our heart is back.

Welcome Back, NBA

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:45:00 +0000

Boy, have I missed you.

The months of August and September can be very long ones for NBA fans. The hoopla of the 'offseason' is over, and most of the big moves have been made. All that's left is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. And bored, rich young men getting in lots of trouble.

I can't bear to watch baseball until the playoffs, and barely then. And I love football, but I don't follow it with the passion and scrutiny of basketball, so that only holds my interest one, maybe two, days a week. And that really only gets going in mid-September. (I am, perhaps surprisingly, a passionate tennis fan, so I do get a two-week sports fix with the US Open.)

But now training camp has officially begun, and we can get back to discussing the things that will and do actually happen on the court. And as Spurs fans, we have all of our favorite characters back in our lives. And a whole host of new ones. This is shaping up as probably the most interesting Spurs pre-season since Tim Duncan arrived in San Antonio. We have equal parts expectation and mystery. With all the offseason moves made, we have as strong a claim as any team to the phrase 'title contender'. But plenty of questions abound around the health of our core players, how all the new pieces will fit in, and if any of the younger (read: athletic) players can become impact players.

Spurs training camp is full of players who fully expect to be on an NBA roster come opening night. This is going to be a very competitive and entertaining preseason. I can't wait to see how it all shapes up, and I can't wait to see our team on opening night.

Most of all, I can't wait to watch a healthy Manu back performing his basketball voodoo.

#1 NBA General Manager of Last Decade?

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:23:00 +0000

On Yahoo! Sports yesterday, Ball Don't Lie ranked the top 10 NBA general managers of the last decade.

Guess who's number one:

We don't know how much impact Gregg Popovich has had on Buford's wheelings and dealings, and R.C. has had help (current Oklahoma City GM Sam Presti was on his payroll for years). Buford also had nothing to do with the acquisitions of David Robinson (1987) or Tim Duncan(notes) (1997).

But there's no denying Buford's impact on the Spurs' rise to power this decade. Even though he technically wasn't the team's personnel boss (that would be Popovich) when the Spurs drafted Manu Ginobili(notes) (2000) or Tony Parker(notes) (2001), he was the man who recommended the franchise take both future All-Stars.

Buford's also emblematic of an organization that, from the owner on down, works together to sustain a winner, and stay frank and honest with themselves. Not a lot of game-playing in San Antonio, besides the 82 (and many, many extra playoff contests). They work from October until spring. Call it a symbolic choice, rail on me for not picking the lone GM gunslinger, despise the fact that, over 10 years after winning their first championship, the Spurs are still contenders under Duncan.

Do what you want. Organizations do win championships. The players are part of the organization, and the players need help. The executives need help, too, in the form of the expert player. The Spurs get this. Owner Peter Holt gets this, and Buford gets this. Unafraid to ask for help, unafraid to chase down a winner. And the results (the playoffs in every year, four championships overall, three during the decade in question) speak for themselves.

Incidentally, our friends over at Pounding the Rock must love whom Ball Don't Lie ranked as one of the 10 best dunkers of the last decade.

What happens in Vegas Summer League...

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:51:00 +0000

...usually doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

But still, it's nice to watch the once and future (and never will be) Spurs fight for recognition and credibility. Summer League is a chance for rookies to make their introduction to the league, sophomores to hone their skills and try to earn some more playing time, and fringe players to fight for notoriety and roster spots.

There is some fantastic Spurs VSL coverage from our friends at 48minutesofhell and PoundingTheRock (AusTechSpur from PtR is even in Vegas doing some excellent reporting). So I won't bore you with the details and the minutiae and the analysis, as that's already being done superbly elsewhere.

There are a few key elements that I'm very interested in seeing from VSL. Is Mahinmi ever going to be ready for the big team? Is Blair going to be as good as advertised? Will Gist, McClinton, and Hairston make the leap to San Antonio? But the most important question I have is this: What will become of George Hill?

By all accounts, Hill had a tremendous rookie year. Due to injuries, he got some starts early in the year and did not disappoint, helping lead the team to some necessary and surprising wins. He seems to have a real knack for defense, and a presence and maturity about him that belies his years (and endears him to Spurs' coaches and fans alike). After mysteriously being benched late in the year, he made a strong showing in the last few games of the playoffs, being one of the few Spurs to acquit himself well in the disastrous series against the Mavs.

All of this is wonderful, and he has a bright future in the organization...if he can learn to play point guard. We desperately need him to be Tony Parker's backup. We haven't really had a true back-up PG since Speedy Claxton, and that's been a long time. For our last few postseason runs, Manu was the de facto back-up PG. Which isn't a bad thing, but it would be nice to have more than 2 players that you can trust with the ball in their hands. Plus, as last season wore down, it became apparent that Tony Parker was being worn down from carrying too much of the offensive load. We need to be able to spell him in games and throughout the season, and we need to be able to do it without worry of our entire offense falling apart.

Late in the season last year, Roger Mason, Jr. became the back-up point guard. Now while I don't believe this to be as big a disaster as many Spurs' faithful do, it's definitely not the right move. Not only is Mason, Jr. an average PG and ball handler at best, but being forced to play PG diminishes his true value to the team as a dead eye 3 point assassin. He should be waiting in the corners and at the top of the key for kick outs from penetration, unloading dagger baskets. He's proven that he's quite good at that. (Sidenote: I chose the longer clip because it makes the moment so much more delicious when you realize that the Suns, just moments before Mason, Jr.'s shot, thought they had the game won.)

It's quite clear that we need a real back up PG this season. And yet, the FO has done nothing to get one (to our knowledge). To me, that shows a lot of faith and belief in Hill. Clearly they see something there and trust that he will get the job done. So as we follow VSL, we want to follow Hill very closely to see how he's doing. Which, by all accounts, is spectacular. Over at truehoop, David Thorpe is tweet-raving about his games. It shows that he's been working very hard on improving his floor game. With any luck, he will be a very good back up to Tony Parker, giving us one of the more potent back courts in the league.

It takes a million little pieces and a million little moments to win a championship. There are the obvious big ones, starting with the superstars in this league. But every great championship team has had superb role players, making amazing plays at opportune times. The Spurs have made some big moves this offseason, signing Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess. They are renewing thier commitment to championships. But at the end of the year, if the Spurs are hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy, the most important piece of that puzzle may end up being the development and emergence of George Hill as a critical rotation player.

Rolling the dice on McDyess

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:15:00 +0000

'Sheed is gone to Boston.

All the dreams (and nightmares) of Wallace wearing the Silver and Black can now be put to rest. I was really high on 'Sheed, and I think that this is a great pick up for the Celtics. And one way or another, we still need to find a veteran big man to play alongside Duncan and our suddenly youthful and athletic frontline.

A lot of speculation and attention has been paid to Antonio McDyess in recent days, which seems a bit ironic since he was Wallace's teammate last year. We are reportedly set to offer him a contract with our mid-level exception. Is this a wise move?

I would argue yes. I would also argue that the difference between McDyess and Wallace is much slimmer than many imagine. McDyess' stats for last season compare favorably to Wallace's. Wallace was a slightly better scorer; McDyess a better rebounder (a trait I find more favorable for a Spur, especially with 4 great scoring options on the roster right now). Look at the 4 playoff games against Cleveland, especially the deciding Game 4; McDyess had a monster 26-10 in almost 40 minutes, while 'Sheed had 0 points and 5 boards in 29 minutes. ZERO points in an elimination game!? This speaks to one of the knocks on Wallace--he'll check out when all hope is lost. McDyess on the other hand played his best game of a rather abbreviated postseason with his back up against the wall.

Ultimately, I think Rasheed gives a team a better chance at greatness. With his combination of skills, size, and intelligence, he has the chance in almost every game to be the best player on the court. Unfortunately, he seldom is. He is higher risk, higher reward.

McDyess, on the other hand, provides a team with much more consistency and reliability. His days of being the best player on the floor are long over. But you'll never doubt his commitment, his heart, his energy, and his devotion to the game and the team. He's a lot like Kurt Thomas--a player whom I loved on the Spurs--but with more talent and athletic ability, which would make him an upgrade for us. He'll never blow you away, but he'll never make a costly mistake in crunch time. And you can always count on him to get an important board, or take a charge, or hit the 15 foot jumper.

Ultimately, I think McDyess would be an outstanding addition to the Spurs. He fits our 'culture' like a glove. He has an intense desire to win--remember, he gave up money to leave Denver and re-sign with Detroit. In hindsight, that was a poor choice. But he did it to win. He's a high character guy. He'll fit seamlessly into the team and the system, and will be happy playing whatever role is asked of him.

If Rasheed was Option 1, I think McDyess is ultimately Option 1A. It may look like we're settling for the leftovers; but in the long run, I think McDyess has the potential to be as good of a signing as (if not better than) Rasheed Wallace would have been. I hope we get him.

Up and Down, Round and Round...

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:30:00 +0000

...the free agency carousel spins on.

But first, a look back at the draft. I don't really follow college basketball closely, so outside of the top prospects, I have limited and uninformed opinions on the players being chosen. Especially in the second round, when the Spurs tend to select. So imagine my surprise when the Spurs drafted not one but two potential impact players in the second round. Picking up DeJuan Blair was a coup. There is a lot of concern about his long-term potential due to his lack of ACLs. But when you look at it in terms of picking up a solid rotation player who rebounds like a beast for about as little money as possible, it's a no-brainer. Is he a long-term building block for our post-Duncan team? Maybe, maybe not. But can he contribute immediately these next few years? Of course.

I'm also pretty high on Jack McClinton, who is being billed as an Eddie House who can defend. I doubt he'll contribute right away, but maybe he'll surprise us and be a streak shooter off the bench for us. Lord knows we certainly need somebody on the bench who knows how to shoot.

But free agency is where the real juice is. For a supposed down year, there's been a lot of activity. A lot of teams are trying to clear cap space, either for the 2010 free agency class, or because they're bleeding money and would like to stop the hemmoraging. But there's a small group of teams who see a potential to steal a title while everyone else is cutting back or biding time. For these few teams, it's certainly a buyer's market. Luckily for Spurs' fans, we're one of those buyers.

Let's take a look at some of the interesting moves thus far:

--Shaq goes to Cleveland for a couple expiring contracts and a bag of balls. I'm indifferent on this move. I don't know what Shaq can do or how he'll fit in with "The King". I've always enjoyed Shaq's career as a nice counterpoint to Duncan's. While Shaq has been the floater, drifting from contender to contender, Duncan has been a rock, staying on one team for his whole career. While Shaq has been a media jokester, Duncan has eschewed any limelight. While Shaq has been inconsistent, perhaps lazy, usually coasting until the playoffs, Duncan has been the model of consistency, the Big Fundamental, the most reliable player for the last decade. And they both have 4 rings, each seeking to break the tie with the other one. I do think it's interesting that if Shaq gets a ring in Cleveland, he will have played with arguably the 3 best wing players of this generation in Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

--Orlando trades for Vince Carter. Again, indifferent. I guess moves in the East don't really excite me as much because they have less bearing on the Spurs. Carter is tough player to get a handle on. He has all the skill in the world, and is seemingly a good guy. Yet he has a stigma on him that will probably never come off. He is perceived as lazy, as a quitter, as a choker, as selfish, as unable to make a team great. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But I will say I'm glad that we didn't trade for him. The interesting part of this move as it more or less guaranteed that the Magic we're going to lose Hedo and Gortat. Is Carter worth that? I'm not sure. I think both have great value to that team, especially Gortat. What little I saw him play in the playoffs really impressed me. Especially the way Howard picks up fouls, the back-up center might be one of the most important positions on that team.

--Artest goes to the Lakers; Ariza goes to Houston. This works out to essentially be a trade. At first blush, this looks like a steal for the Lakers, picking up one of the best players in the league and adding it to one of the most stacked teams out there. Upgrading from Ariza to Artest seems like a no-brainer. And ultimately, it is. But count me in the group who wonders how long the honeymoon will last in LA for Artest. Artest loves to have the ball, and he loves to freelance, and he loves to shoot. These are three things that do not fit in the triangle offense. When the Spurs are playing a team with Artest, I'm always happy when he makes a couple of shots, because that means he'll keep shooting. By all accounts, Artest is a great teammate, and he led Houston deep into the playoffs. But I don't know how he'll fit alongside Kobe, Pau, and (presumably) Odom.

Ariza leaving LA also makes me happy as a Spurs fan. He was the one defender they had that could really put the clamps on Parker. Now I don't see who on that team guards Parker. Kobe? The Lakers are still the team to beat in the West, but I'm no more scared of them then I was a few days ago.

--Turkoglu commits to Portland, reneges, agrees to terms with Toronto. This is hard to figure. I guess money talks, and Toronto was offering the most. Portland would be a good fit for Hedo, as they were desperately in need of a 3, and someone who could handle, shoot, and drive. He can do all of those very well. There's a lot to be confused about here: Why did Orlando let him go so easily, when he was arguably their most important player last year? Why did he commit to Portland only to back out? What does Portland do now? I'll be watching this story develop, as the Blazers are my #2 (and hometown) team.

There are still plenty of big free agent names out there. At the top of the list is Rasheed Wallace, who the Spurs are wooing, despite Boston throwing a parade in his honor the other day. Rasheed is a controversial figure, and comes with a big risk. But he is the prototype of what we need. A big, long post player who plays good defense, can stretch the offense, and doesn't mind playing a role. Look, I know the knocks on Rasheed, and I've seen him melt down more times than I care to remember. But when he's playing for a well-respected coach and on a winning team, he can be a great contributor. I watched him play for a few years here in Portland. He was always a fan favorite (still is), and always very active in the community (though he deliberately does his charitable work away from the cameras). He's a good person, a great player. He is passionate, and he loses his cool often. But he also values winning above all else, and this is at the core of what the Spurs look for. Find your three stars, then surround them with players who will run through a wall to win. Count me in the pro-Rasheed camp.

That's about it for now. I'll be very interested to see what the Spurs continue to do in the offseason. They've already made a big move and had a great draft. But there's still lots of work to be done to catch LA. But with a healthy Ginobili and a yet-to-be-determined big man, I like our chances.

Back from Vacation; Anything Exciting Happen?

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:15:00 +0000

After our early playoff exit, I took a much needed (though maybe not well deserved) break. I continued to follow the playoffs and track all things Spurs related. I just chose not to write about it. But the Spurs decided to kick off the 'offseason' (which, for many teams, is much more exciting than the regular season) in high fashion, so I have no choice but to write about it.

But first things first: congrats, LA Lakers. I know it's not considered good form for a Spurs fan to acknowledge or appreciate the Lakers. They are arguably our biggest rival, and the team that has caused us the most pain these last 12 years. But for me, my fan 'hatred' is reserved for the Dallas Mavericks and the Phoenix Suns of the worlds, the pretenders to the throne. I view the Lakers as our truest 'rivals', the only team that can really compare to us equally these last 12 years (with the same number of titles to boot), and, as such, give them the respect a true rival deserves. I want nothing more than to beat them senseless every time we play them, but credit is due to them for winning a championship. Enjoy your 4th ring, Kobe; we'll battle for #5 next year.

But enough with this talk of basketball. Let's talk about what's really exciting; basketball related transactions. The Spurs made a big splash today, trading for Richard Jefferson of the Bucks. Timothy over at 48 Minutes of Hell has a great take on the deal. (Sidebar: I recommend, no, demand that you read 48MoH regularly, as it's the best place to stay current with all the machinations of the Spurs; just come back here as well. Please.) I more or less agree with his assessment, though have a little more reservation.

Richard Jefferson is no doubt an enormous upgrade for us at the wing. He gives us more than Bruce Bowen, Michael Finley, and Ime Udoka (our wing players last year) combined. He is athletic, smart, works hard, can score, and even defends. We know all of these things. He'll be a potent 4th option (making Mason, Jr. a deadly 5th option) behind our big 3, and will allow a tremendous amount of pressure to come off of Tim's knees and Manu's ankles. Before, we were always a little dead in the water with 2 of the Big 3 out; now, we should never suffer the offensive droughts we're so known for.

My reservation is not in Richard Jefferson, the player; it's in Richard Jefferson, the contract. He is owed a great deal of money, and by signing him, we are more or less maxing out our salary for next year (with a little wiggle room still left), and more or less taking ourselves out of the 2010 free agent frenzy. So the question is, is Jefferson worth that?

At first, I wasn't sure. But more and more, I'm coming around to the idea that he is. Tons of teams are saving up for 2010, when LeBron, DWade, Bosh, Amare, and many other high profile players hit the market. The Spurs had been very carefully cultivating their salary to have beau coup amounts of money available in that summer to offer. But the truth is, it was always an outside shot to land a big name. LeBron's not coming to SA. Neither is DWade. Bosh might because of his Texas roots, but that's a big bet to place. What do you do if none of the top 2010 free agents pan out? Where do you spend your money then? A lot of teams are going to be forced to answer this question in a year.

I think our best shot at another title is next year. And I think the Spurs FO agrees. Look at this year's playoffs. The two best teams going in--the Lakers and the Cavs--we're underwhelming. The Magic clearly exposed the Cavs lack of anything substantive besides LeBron. And the Lakers, despite winning the title, looked uninspiring for most of the playoffs, unable to finish off a depleted Rockets team on the road, and being taken to task by an undisciplined Nuggets team. By adding Jefferson, I think we've risen back to the top of the league, and have a great chance of winning the West next year, especially given the Lakers free agent situation.

Also, it's possible that the entire landscape of the NBA changes after 2010. And Duncan will be a year older. As will Ginobili, who may not even be with the Spurs at that time. For the Spurs, the future is now. And while the rest of the league is busy preparing for 2010, there's still a title to be won next season. Like it or not, we're in the countdown of our title window, and it would be silly to give up a year at an outside chance of something great happening. I'd rather take a known commodity and try to win now.

The other side of this story is what we gave up to get Jefferson. In terms of on the court production, we gave up very little. I'll miss Oberto, but his best days seem to be behind him. I'll miss Thomas, as he was a personal favorite. But Spurs fans will miss Bowen the most. He was an integral cog of 3 of our championships. Like any great championship role player, you love him when he's on your team and hate him when he's on the other. And boy is Bruce hated. And loved. He is Spurs family, and he always will be. If his jersey is not retired one day, it will be a shame. It's true that he had lost his ability to defend at a high level for an entire game, but I still loved using him as a cooler, or a change of pace. I still think he has some good basketball in him, and I wish him all the luck in the world. There are reports that he may be bought out and sign again with the Spurs. That would be great, but we won't comment on that until we know it's true.

We also gave up a big chunk of our front line to get Jefferson. So now our focus must be on shoring up the front line. Bonner is still a good fit for us as he spreads the floor, and Gooden could be back. And of course Mahinmi is on the roster, and hopefully will give us something this year. But there's still too many unknowns up front, and we need to get some more big bodies to truly be an elite team. I have no doubt that the FO is diligently working on this.

All in all, a very big day for the Spurs. Let's welcome Richard Jefferson to the Spurs, and bid farewell to three great players and great people.

Dunks Don't Win Titles

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:34:00 +0000

The 2009 NBA Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and Orlando Magic start tonight. If there is any correlation between the outcome of the series and how often each team dunks, the Magic should feel pretty good about their chances of winning.

Matthew Futterman writes in today's Wall Street Journal ("The Return of 'Chocolate Thunder'"):

During the past five seasons, Dwight Howard has amassed 1,062 dunks, 248 more than his closest competitor, according to Stats.

Mr. Howard's emergence is laced with irony, since he plays for a team that finished just 13th in the league in dunks this season. Without him, they would have had the second-lowest total in the NBA.

A review of dunking statistics from the past six seasons shows that dunks aren't a leading indicator of who wins and who loses in the NBA Finals. The 2002-03 New Jersey Nets, 2003-04 Lakers, 2004-05 Detroit Pistons, 2006-07 Cleveland Cavaliers and 2007-08 Lakers all had significant dunking advantages over their opponents in the finals, and they all lost.

The Lakers this season had 428 dunks, fourth-highest in the league, largely because defenders must chase Mr. Bryant on the outside, leaving his teammates open under the basket.

The lone exception is the 2005-06 Miami Heat, led by the nearly unstoppable, 325-pound center Shaquille O'Neal and the acrobatic Dwyane Wade. The Heat, who bested the Dallas Mavericks in the finals, led the NBA in dunks during the season with 499, tied for the highest total since 2002-03. Dunks accounted for 16.4% of the team's points, also tied for the highest in the past six seasons.

But the accomplishments of those one-season wonders are more than overshadowed by the Spurs, the most successful franchise of the past decade.

The Spurs won the title in 2003 despite converting just 322 dunks during the regular season, 10th in the NBA and 167 behind the Lakers' league-leading 489. Two years later, San Antonio won again with just 187 dunks, second-lowest in the league. In 2007, the Spurs won their fourth championship since 1999 with just 128 dunks, last in the NBA.

"You look at the Spurs and how they play with Tim Duncan, it's a very fundamental style," said Hall of Fame center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. "They didn't dunk a lot, but they got the ring."

What might have been

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:36:00 +0000

In just minutes, the Denver Nuggets tip-off against the Los Angeles Lakers in this year’s Western Conference Finals. Were it not for an unfortunate twist of fate, the Spurs would likely be facing the Lakers right now.

I look at the Nuggets-Lakers series and imagine what might have been, had Manu not re-injured his ankle last month, and going back further, had he not played in the 2008 Olympics. With Ginobili, the Spurs were 32-12 (.727) this year. Without him, they were just 22-16 (.579), which would have kept them out of the playoffs had it been their record for the season. In other words, one player was the difference between the Spurs being the second best team in the Western Conference and being a lottery team.

Maybe the Spurs would have gained more this year with a lottery pick instead of a first round elimination against the Mavericks.

Ok, I don’t really mean that. I guess sometimes I forget how good we've had it as Spurs fans. I expect our team to win, game after game, year after year. And they have -- four titles since Tim Duncan arrived in 1997. In fact, the Spurs have the best record of ANY professional sports franchise in the Duncan era. And yet, I always want more wins, more rings, more glory. I'm sure that the players wanted more this season, too.

As much as I hate to think it, let alone say it, the Tim Duncan era will come to an end. Maybe not next year, or the year after, but eventually Duncan will hang up his high tops.

Timmy turned 32 last month. How many players get rings when they’re older than he is now? Not many. The Houston Rockets won their second title in 1995 when Olajuwon was 32. The Chicago Bulls won their sixth and final title in 1998 when Jordan was 34. The San Antonio Spurs won their second title in 2003 when David Robinson was 37.

Tim's minutes played per game this season was 33.6, and they've gone down every season for the past three. Only in 2004-2005 did he play less. Next year we can expect him to play a little bit less.

As for Ginobili, he turned 31 and his body is in worse shape than Duncan’s, having gone through surgery twice in the past year. It's unlikely that he'll ever be as great as he was the previous two seasons.

I’ll watch this year’s Western Finals and I’m sure I won’t be disappointed. It promises to be exciting, matching great players against great coaches. If sports gambling were my thing, I’d bet on the Nuggets to beat the Lakers. Why? No team, except for the Cavaliers, has played better team basketball in these playoffs. The Nuggets are healthy and deep while the Lakers have looked vulnerable and unsure of themselves, struggling to beat an injury-riddled Rockets team in seven games.

All the same, while watching this series and cheering for the Nuggets, I’ll wonder about what might have been.

So This is What a Vacation in May Feels Like

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:30:00 +0000

And thus the season ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Giving little resistance to inevitability, fatigue, and the Mavs, we quietly walked away from the playoff stage.

There's little need to give analysis of last night's game. The writing was on the wall; we all knew we were outmanned and outplayed this series. Credit the Mavs. They are playing brilliantly right now, and are coalescing in a way that no other Mavs team of the past ever has. They whooped us, and they earned every win.

Pop searched in vain to find combinations of players that would give us a spark. He went very defense heavy last night, playing Udoka, Hill, and Thomas beau coup minutes, while giving Mason, Jr., Bonner, and Gooden (DNP-CD) precious few. But the team (save Parker and Duncan, who played brilliantly and refused to go without a fight) was resigned to its fate, and played without the proper aggression or passion needed in a close out game.

It's very clear what was lacking for the Spurs this postseason (besides the obvious "a healthy Manu Ginobili")--role players stepping up, those unsung heroes of playoff lore.

To achieve success in the postseason, you need superstars playing as superstars do. Only the Detroit Pistons of 2004 can say they've won a title without a superstar (and, in retrospect, they seemed more the beneficiary of a Lakers team falling apart at every seam). You have to have an otherworldly player on your roster.

But you need role players stepping into the spotlight, if only for a series or a game or just a solitary moment. You need those games that make people wonder "who is this guy?" The Mavs had plenty of those this series. JJ Barea is the most obvious. But Erick Dampier played well; Ryan Hollins may have been the difference in pivotal Game 4. And even Josh Howard was able to sustain continued excellence, something he's been unable to do in the past.

The Spurs, contrarily, had nothing. We had no other player step up in the slightest for us, save Bowen. All of our shooters lost their touch simultaneously. Even the reliable Thomas was shaky. Udoka played solid D, but could add nothing for us on offense, ultimately making him a liability. Hill seemed to be the only player ready to step up, but was given precious time to do so.

It's particularly hard to witness this lack of production from the role players, as Spurs' past is littered with just such players. Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, Michael Finley have all given us big, career-defining moments in the cauldron of the playoffs.

Where do we turn now? As the Spurs embark on their longest vacation in almost 10 years, they have a lot of questions looming into next season and beyond. Many are writing the team off, pronouncing the King to be dead. But I say there's still some fight in this team; long live the King.

From Bruce to George

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:16:00 +0000

Buck Harvey has an excellent article in today's Express News about Bruce Bowen, and the sobering realization that today may be Bruce's last game as a Spur.

Many argue that Bruce is just a step below Manu, Tim, and Tony in relevance to our last 3 championships. I might argue he belongs in the conversation as the 4th musketeer. Bowen took on the dirty work night in and night out for 3 championship runs with nary a complaint. His stats were never impressive and all his hard work has relegated him to being one of the most reviled players in the league.

But to Spurs fans, his value can not be measured. He will always have a home as a Spur, and his jersey should be retired someday.

There's been a lot of talk this year about George Hill, and his emergence as a defensive stopper, a la Bowen. The potential is certainly there, and I think every Spurs fan has fallen in love with our prized rookie.

What I find particularly amazing, though, is that Bowen has taken the young player under his wing and tutored him in the ways of being an elite defender, even as Hill was usurping Bowen's playing time and role as defensive stopper. This speaks volumes to Bowen's professionalism and team first attitude, and to Hill's willingness to take on the unglamorous aspects of the game and excel where he is needed.

Tonight may be Bowen's last game as a Spur. I hope not, for a variety of reasons. But tonight might also mark the first game of the George Hill era, and his run as a valued member of Spurs championship teams.

And the beat goes on....

Tony Parker and Tim Duncan Take on Mavs by Themselves; Rest of Spurs Take "Personal" Day

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:09:00 +0000

That about sums it up. Not much more to say about yesterday's game, but let's try regardless.

Pop made one major adjustment, starting Bowen in Place of Mason, Jr., hoping to have a defensive answer for Barea. I was actually in favor of this move and was happy with the results. Bowen has proven himself time and again in the playoffs, and if we're going to go down, let's go down with the people we know we can trust. And he has played quite well in this series on the defensive end, one of the few bright spots of our bench.

But there's one problem with this move: for whatever reason, Mason, Jr. has a difficult time coming off the bench. He seems to drift into the background, displaying neither the shooting touch nor the killer instinct that were so vital to us early in the season. And he was atrocious as our backup PG last night. By my unofficial tally, we were -12 with Parker on the bench (to be fair, some of that back-up time went to Hill). The answer here seems obvious: start Bowen and Mason, Jr.; bench Michael Finley. Finley plays hard, and he's a reliable vet and a professional, but he can't guard young slashers...and just about every team in the league has a young slasher on the wings. Howard is abusing us, and is probably the most important factor in the series right now. We're doing a great job stopping Dirk and Terry and daring the rest of the Mavs to beat us. But the rest of the Mavs are accepting the challenge and killing us.

To start the game we put Parker and Duncan in pick and roll and let them play. And it was working beautifully. Tony was getting into the lane and either finishing or dishing to Duncan for the easy lay in. This is exactly what I wanted to see as I think it's our most effective offense at the moment. Parker was an absolute beast in the first half, going off for 31 points. Duncan had a solid first half also, scoring 15.

But herein lies the problem. 31 plus 15 is 46. We had 55 points at half. That means everyone else accounted for 9 points. 9 points in 24 minutes from 7 other players. I can't even think of a word strong enough to describe that ineptitude.

We can dissect the numbers any way we want. 6 made shots from somebody other than Parker or Duncan stands out in particular. As does our putrid 3 point shooting (6 for 23, with 2 each from Hill and Parker, not our usual long range shooting specialists). But you don't need to look at the numbers to know that we're a two man team right now. We're getting nothing offensively from anybody else. Sure, we're getting some strong D from Bowen and Udoka. But we can't expect two people to outscore a deep and talented professional basketball team. Parker made some uncharacteristic mistakes at the end; but I'm not going to kill him for it. He was out of gas, completely expended from willing the Spurs to victory. And he came up short. That's no knock on him. Everybody needs help.

At the beginning of the series I thought that we had the stronger bench. I think we can safely say now that that is not true. Gooden, Thomas, Udoka, Mason, Jr., and everyone else is giving us nothing, while the Mavs are getting sparks from everywhere on their bench. Barea has been a huge spark plug for this team. Hollins? He outplayed Duncan down the stretch of last night's game, energizing the team and the crowd enough to get them over the hump. Right now, Dallas is the more balanced, effective, and better team.

I was also very displeased with our end of game offense. Down just 3, we started jacking up wild, contested 3s. And missing. And missing. And missing. We panicked, and we lost the game because of it. There was plenty of game left, and it was very uncharacteristic of our team. The book on the Spurs is that we outexecute the other team and don't beat ourselves. Last night, we did neither. We didn't play within our offense, we didn't trust in our teammates, we didn't play with poise, and we beat ourselves.

After 4 games, Dallas is dominating all of the keys I mentioned at the beginning of the series. Although we're getting a better, fresher, Duncan, he's still not 100% healthy, and he can't dominate a game wire to wire like we've seen in playoffs past. Josh Howard is playing inspired basketball, and we have no answer for him. Dallas has the far better bench. Our 3-point shooting has fallen off a cliff the last 2 games. We're getting nothing from the combo of Finley and Mason, Jr. And our defense, while good (especially on Dirk) hasn't been strong enough to account for our faltering offense. And we're still getting manhandled on the glass.

So yes, things look bleak now. But this is a lot like 2006. We came home down 3-1, and still pushed it to Game 7, which we almost won. All Dallas did was hold serve (to borrow a tennis analogy). We just need to win one game in Dallas, and now that has to be Game 6. We can win Game 5 and then go in to Dallas and hope to do what we couldn't do these last two games. But it's still possible, and there's no reason to give up hope yet. Game 5 is our first elimination game of the season; let's see how we respond. Even if we lose this series, we need to know what we have for next year. Is Gooden a keeper? What can we expect from Hill? Can Mason, Jr. be a playoff performer? Can Bonner be counted on? There is still a lot and stake, and plenty to play for.

Personally, I can't wait for Game 5.

Go Spurs Go.

At Least it Wasn't Joey Crawford's Fault

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:16:00 +0000

There's really not much you can say after a loss like that. Pop pulled his starters midway through the third and ceded victory. Pop gets a lot of criticism for giving up on games too early, but it was pretty obvious last night that we didn't have it, and Dallas did. With the quick turnaround before Game 4, it was the prudent choice.

But I also think that he was sending a message to the starters: proper execution requires proper effort. Execution is the only way we can win this series, as we have a talent deficit with Ginobili out. So we have to work harder. Last night Dallas overwhelmed us with talent and effort. We all saw the results.

In my last post I said that Dallas has yet to show that their defense can stop us. And while only scoring 67 points (and 42 through 3 quarters!!) would seem to emphatically state that their defense did indeed shut us down, a lot of it to me seemed like we just couldn't hit any shots. They definitely protected the paint and the rim much better, blocking shot after shot at the rim. But we were getting some good open looks that we just couldn't hit. I tip my hat to Dallas and their defensive effort, but I'm not willing to cede that last night was an indicator of them figuring out our offense.

Dallas made two key adjustments to start the game. They started JJ Barea; and they had Kidd guard Parker. Both seemed to work in their favor, as Barea torched us in the first quarter and Kidd seemed to have Parker figured out. I don't know what the counter to Barea is. Starting Bowen on him and bringing Mason, Jr. off the bench?

But I do know what the answer to Kidd on Parker is: run the offense through Parker. Last night we started the game running the offense partly through Parker, but mostly through Duncan in the post. Normally I would be fine with this. But Duncan, hampered with his knee problems, is clearly struggling against the size and bulk of Dampier, unable to get to the rim from the low post. Parker has proven that he can be our offensive load and shred the Mavs to pieces. But we didn't even try to get Tony going. Tony needs to feel involved with the offense from the opening tip, or he loses focus and concentration and usually has an average (for him) game. But if he's involved and active and gets off to a hot 1st quarter start, you can usually count on him to continue his dominating ways.

Why did we go away from him? Were we worried about Dampier's comments? I have a hard time believing that. We're we playing a bit of psychological warfare? Was it strategy? You've keyed your defense in on Parker and now we're going to completely change our offense. I just don't understand. Hopefully in Game 4 we'll go back to running the offense through Parker, using him in high screen-rolls with Duncan. I still believe that Dallas can not stop that.

One other thing I'd like to point out from last night's game. Late in the 3rd quarter, George Hill was on a fastbreak. He drove in for the layup and was blocked by Josh Howard. After the block, as Howard was running back downcourt and Hill was sprawled out under the basket, he turned and started talking trash to Hill. In a game that they were winning by 30. You stay classy, Josh Howard.

This is why I despise the Mavs. Can it be seen as a sign of strength and courage to trash talk someone you just knocked to the ground in a 30 point win? Is it a sign of mental resolve to start criticizing the other team (without provocation) after a tough loss? Is it a mark of composure to announce that you're going to try and physically harm the other team's best player?

They are poor losers; they are poor winners. They get up by 3o and they're world beaters, Jordan and Gary Payton in their prime. They get down by 20, and they start dropping their shoulder into players driving through the lane and complaining about dirty tactics or bad officiating.

And this is precisely why I love the Spurs. They are proffesionals, and conduct themselves as such on and off the court. They do not trash talk nor gloat over fallen opponents. They hold themselves accountable, and don't make excuses for losses. They are mentally tough, and they don't worry about anything that they can't control, like bad officiating.

There's an underlying theme here: each team has taken on the personality of their most important figure. For the Mavs, it's Mark Cuban; for the Spurs, it's Gregg Popovich. Look, I like Cuban. I think he's good for basketball, and I like owners to be passionate and willing to make basketball decisions, not financial decisions. But he is outspoken and reactionary. He looks for others to blame when things go wrong, and complains to whomever will listen. And we all know how Pop is. He is not like Mark Cuban, in any way. And that is why, when things started going wrong in the 2006 Finals, the Mavs fell apart and let all of these perceived slights ruin their best chance at a title. And that is why, in 2005, after the Spurs got their asses handed to them in Games 3 and 4 in Detroit, we had the mental and emotional resolve to eke out one of the greatest wins in Spurs history in Game 5 and go on to win our 3rd championship.

OK. Enough ranting about the Mavs.

Graydon Gordian at 48 Minutes of Hell thinks that getting blown out in Game 3 is better than losing a squeaker. I tend to agree. I think we'll come out in Game 4 sharper and more energetic, and that Dallas will come out a little complacent after their great, great performance in Game 3. If we can get the jump on them early and keep the game close, I like our chances coming down the stretch.

Go Spurs Go.