Matt gives his optimistic assessment of the Spurs

[bnwhuxley]

The Problem with the Spurs

from Pounding The Rock by Matthew Powell

The Spurs were immediately placed on my mental back burner the minute I finished writing the recap of game 5 against the Lakers. After coming back from Italy I found myself with what I believe is called “free time,” and my mind drifted back to the fact that the Spurs haven’t been quite right since the 05-06 season, the year of the infamous Manu Ginobili foul. We all remember that moment and, thanks to Gregg Popovich, we know that if it weren’t for that foul the Spurs would have repeated as champions and gas would still be less than $2 per gallon. The nagging question looping the recesses of my brain was how to illustrate exactly what is wrong the Spurs… and it came to me. Not all of the sudden. Not in a flash of light. I was thinking about something I wrote in my journal (shut up) while in Italy…

"There’s a wasted life in the difference between striving for perfection and accepting nothing less."
The lesser point of that statement is that a small change in wording, thinking or acting can have big repercussions.

****

Do you agree with the following statement?

The Spurs lost the WCF because Manu Ginobili was hurt.

I have a feeling most Spurs fans and Spurs management would agree with that statement. That agreement is a symptom of the disease plaguing the Spurs. The problem is not that the statement is false; the problem is what it implies. It implies, similarly to Popovich’s numerous statements about the ’06 Dallas series, that the Spurs would have won if it not for one bad break. That leads to the conclusion that there was only one variable controlling the Spurs fate; one flip of the coin. It’s saying the odds of coming up heads four times in a row is one out of two, because you’re assuming the first three events turned in your favor. The reality is that the Spurs lost to the Lakers because any one of the following four things happened:

• Tim Duncan was less than 90%.
• Manu Ginobili was less than 90%.
• Tony Parker was less than 80%.
• Bruce Bowen was less than 90%.

Any one of these events would have led to a Spurs loss against the Lakers (to argue otherwise is sheer ignorant idyllic idiocy). The Ginobili injury just happened to be the obvious flip of the coin that turned up tails.
You could take any NBA championship contender and pick one player they could not win without. The Lakers have Kobe, New Orleans has Paul, the Celts have Pierce, etc. But could you pick four different lynch-pins for any of those teams? You can’t. The Lakers were without Bynum and made it to the finals. Ray Allen played horrifically against the Cavaliers and the Pistons and Boston still came out victorious.

The Spurs did not lose because Manu Ginobili got hurt. The Spurs lost because any of four different, independent events happened. They had zero margin for random events, and this is entirely the fault of management.

****

The Spurs mistake has been their focus on finding “veteran role-players.” Every player addition has been evaluated in the context of the Big Three and “fitting into the scheme.” You may be thinking “Wait a second, that’s how it’s supposed to be done.” Really? Look at what that got us:

Michael Finley
Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Ime Udoka
Fabricio Oberto
Matt Bonner
Kurt Thomas
Jacque Vaughn
Robert Horry

Look at those guys a group. Remove the context of Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. Pretend you’re starting a team with those nine guys. Who has a one on one game? Who can penetrate? Who has a post game? Who do you run the offense through? Who rebounds? Who’s the interior presence? Now pick any other team in the NBA, and look at their worst nine players. Try to find a group worse than the Spurs. It’s impossible to do amongst the playoff teams, and amongst non-playoff teams there are few, if any, obvious choices.

The supporting cast surrounding the Big Three is atrocious. To say otherwise requires one to focus solely on how good they look playing next to Tim, Manu and Tony. That futility and stupidity of that narrow-minded focus is laid bare by the realization of what, apparently, is a secret: Every one looks good playing next to the Big Three. (Except the Collective Detritus that is Robert Horry.) They are by far the least selfish core in the NBA. They play both ends of the court. They say the right things. They don’t show up their teammates or coach on the court or to the media. They can create their own shot and create shots for others.

Their diverse abilities, along with Pop’s stubbornness and his refusal to put with mistakes made by someone under the age of 30, have led to a focus on finding the smallest of pieces. They have acquired players who “play the right way” or “play hard-nosed defense” or “do all the little things.” When, instead, they should have simply gone after “good” players who, when called upon, can attempt to do the “bigger things” that have to be done when Manu / Tim / Tony gets dinged or the likes of Ray Allen has a bad stretch of games.

****

What frustrates me most about Spurs fans is that they evaluate the management in the same way they evaluate the players.

In some respects I can understand refusing to admit just how horrible Michael Finley has become; pretty much all of us wanted to be an NBA player at one time or another. Idolization of athletes, and ignoring their failures and faults, is no new thing. (Not to mention criticism of any kind is getting discouraged more and more in every aspect of media.) We look at the success of the Spurs, and we attribute some of the credit for that success to each member of the team. We believe a team is a sum of its parts, but we ignore that some of those parts can be negative. In the context of the Big Three, Michael Finley is a winner. In the context of an average NBA team, he’s a waste of minutes.


What surprises me is that Spurs fans so willingly apply the same context to Spurs management. The Spurs have won three titles in six years, so Pop must be a great coach and Buford must be a genius. Give me a break. I’m not saying Pop is a bad coach, but he’s been blessed with Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. Have the Spurs ever won a title they shouldn’t have? Have they ever beaten a clearly superior team? Have they ever pulled an upset? Have they ever won when any of the Big Three suffered even the most minor of injuries? Have the Spurs developed a single young player other than Tony Parker? How hard is it to have a great defensive team when you have Tim Duncan guarding the basket?

Buford and Pop should be run up the freaking flag pole for their performance this past year. Pop dicked around with lineups / game plans / time out calling / substitution patterns all year, openly admitting he didn’t care about home court advantage. Well, hmm, that might have come in handy against New Orleans. Maybe that series wouldn’t have gone 7 games. Or maybe when the plane couldn’t take off after game 7 the Spurs could have driven home and slept in their beds. Am I blaming Pop for a plane malfunction? No. I’m blaming him for ignoring the precariousness of the Spurs chances and undervaluing home court advantage for a group of old, slow players.

Pop spent the first 50+ games of the season with the JV as his backup. Stoudemire is acquired, given 15 games and then essentially kicked to the curb. The playoffs arrive and, wow, what a shocker, the JV is a total zero on offense, to the point Barry is thrust into PG duty despite having played about 5 minutes there all year. Do I blame Pop for the JV sucking? No. I blame him for ignoring the suckage and therefore not playing Barry / Ginobili as the backup PG all year.

(And that, my friends, is the short list of Pop's blunders.)

Buford hasn’t been any better. We haven’t drafted a useful player since Beno. Scola was given away when he’d clearly be the second best big man on the Spurs. Butler, Elson and Bonner contributed nothing to very little.

****

I see little reason to hope the Spurs will be any better next year. That is not to say the Spurs won’t be good enough. They’ll just be in the same position as 07-08: helpless if anything goes wrong. The writing, after all, is on the wall:

"The ‘getting younger’ thing is overblown," Popovich added. "If we knew Manu would stay healthy, Timmy (Duncan) would stay healthy and Tony (Parker) would stay healthy, we’d bring back the same doggone team. And if any of those guys are not healthy, we’re not going to win a championship anyway."

Translation? Three studs and a bunch of suck.

[MarineForLife]

Originally Posted by bnwhuxley:

They had zero margin for random events, and this is entirely the fault of management.

I've been feeling that to be true for several years now . . . this guy actually put into words for me . . . of course, the same could be said about most any other NBA team, but nonetheless the Spurs have got to find a way to overcome random events and the unforeseen. Veterans and competitors and champions do that.

[goodtexan]

Who of those nine players will get 20 points if one of the big three is down. Malik Ros used to do that on occasion. Or get 10 rebounds, 3 blocks 2 steals, etc. Well JV got steals.

Devin Brown has had some success filling in for injured players. There is a type of role players that can step up and do more if needed and there is a type of role player that can't.

I don't know why the Spurs can't get better players. Why has Elson and Bonner not doone much?

Pop is the reason Barry wasn't the back up PG. Or that Barry couldn't defend there too well probably.

Maybe Mason and Hill can turn that tide. Here's hoping Gist can bring what Malik used to. Is there still someone available that can do that?

[buttsR4rebounding]

The issue is how do you afford additional impact type player when you have 3 all star calliber players you must pay? Unfortunately, it is normally the older players that are willing to subjigate their game to the Big 3 when they are healthly only to emerge when needed. Younger players haven't his the big payday yet and understandabley will tend to be more selfish because they need to attrack the attention of GM's to do so. He brings up some valid points, but leaves out one very important one: Which approach given the Spurs do have the big 3, give the Spurs the best chance at winning a championship? It is tough to argue with what the Spurs have done. Relying on 3 players being healthy at the end of the season is preferable to rolling the dice with an unproven supporting cast.

[pjjrfan]

I'm sure that at least 26 other teams would swap places with the spurs right now, and it's tough to win a title any year, let alone 4 times in 9 years and 3 in 6 years. I like our team yeah we could have gotten younger a couple of years back but didn't Finley, Oberto, Barry and Vaughn have great runs in 07? I thought so, we got no. 4 hanging on the rafters because those guys at one time or another showed up big, when they had to. We didn't get no. 5, that was tough, and I do agree that Pop all of sudden downplayed HCA but at the same time he wasn't kidding when he said HCA wouldn't matter if any of our big 3 guys was not 100%. I have spent 4 sleepless nights celebrating Spurs championships, I guess I could handle a couple more but those 4 have made me pretty happy so I can live with that.

[bnwhuxley]

Originally Posted by pjjrfan:

I'm sure that at least 26 other teams would swap places with the spurs right now, and it's tough to win a title any year, let alone 4 times in 9 years and 3 in 6 years. I like our team yeah we could have gotten younger a couple of years back but didn't Finley, Oberto, Barry and Vaughn have great runs in 07? I thought so, we got no. 4 hanging on the rafters because those guys at one time or another showed up big, when they had to. We didn't get no. 5, that was tough, and I do agree that Pop all of sudden downplayed HCA but at the same time he wasn't kidding when he said HCA wouldn't matter if any of our big 3 guys was not 100%. I have spent 4 sleepless nights celebrating Spurs championships, I guess I could handle a couple more but those 4 have made me pretty happy so I can live with that.

Here is stampler's follow up post on PTR. I think he addresses your sentiments.

The following started out as a simple reply to a reply that PtR member Spurchief posited to AusTechSpur (Wayne) on Matthew’s last post. Follow all that? Good. As is my nature, my answer grew longer and longer, so I decided to make an entry out of it, partly to defend Matthew a bit (not that he needs defending for anything but his personal life) and partly because I’ve grown weary of seeing the same post headlining our sweet blog for a week.

Spurchief wrote to Wayne:

..but you have normally weighed in with rational viewpoints and this one is no exception. I don’t think this position is much different than Powell’s but he is much more indignant about the lack of moves by the FO than you (or I are). I choose to believe that the lack of progress by the FO is not the result of intent, but a lack of opportunities to improve given the parameters of:
1. Don’t exceed the cap
2. Find a guy who fits, chemistry-wise
3. Ability to defend is important
4. Defer to the Big 3 offensively
5. The team has to be contenders every year

Who in the last 3 years of free agency has fit that bill? And as for the draft, while I agree that RC’s rep is overblown in this regard (although a great season by Ian may change that), most rookies don’t make an impact and SA needed immediate impact (see #5 above).”

I never had pie-in-the-sky dreams for someone such as Maggette. All I wanted was Azuibuike and I think he would've fit in perfectly fine with conditions 1 thru 5 on your post. Anyway, it appears that's not happening now, and when the Clippers front office is more forward thinking than ours is (getting Camby for nothing? I mean, WTF?), it may indeed be a sign of the apocalypse.

So far all we know is that the Spurs drafted three young guys and signed another relatively young one in Roger Mason.

Now we have to play the waiting game. We'll have to be patient to find out iif A) Pop and the FO drafted guys worth drafting in Hill, Gist and Hairston, B) if they have the guts to put a couple of second rounders (or maybe even an undrafted guy such as Powell or Tolliver) on the regular season roster and C) if Pop has the patience to ever play them (as well as Mahinmi) when the games count, instead of "proven" i.e. old and slow, veterans.
Past track record and all available evidence suggest that the answer to all three questions will be a big, huge, sloppy, NO.

I'm not sure if I'm on the same page with Matty, Wayne or the majority of PtR with their offseason wish-lists or battle plans. Obviously, some opinions matter more to me than others, but I haven't taken the time to research what everyone here thinks we should do and don't plan on doing so.

I think that Matthew's point in this post was that for some time now there has been a massive talent gap between the third best player on the roster and the fourth best and as our entire roster, especially the role players, continue to age, the gap continues to widen, which is not good, as I hope everyone would agree. The best chance for the Spurs to win a title in '08 and beyond is for the gap to narrow. Our fourth best player has to be able to hold Tony Parker's jockstrap, figuratively speaking (although if he literally wanted to do so, it would certainly create an interesting new angle on the team's locker room dynamic that would, I am certain, make the Spurs all of a sudden more "interesting" to ESPN and bloggers worldwide).

Anyway, the Spurs are going to stay under the cap. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it. To wish otherwise is akin to wishing for a bigger winky - grow up already, because it's just not going to happen. For the team to field a fourth (or fifth, or God help us, sixth) guy who can actually play he'll have to be young. Young players come cheap because they're not who they will be yet, known commodities, and with them you're just basically hoping and guessing. Veteran players who've proven themselves in the NBA are expensive. If you find yourself a cheap veteran player, like the Spurs have filled out their rosters with all these years, then guess what? It means, with the odd exception here or there, the guy sucks.

I don't think either Matthew or I are guilty of not having the proper respect and reverence for the past four titles. We're very thankful, believe me and personally, living in the Bay Area, I know it could be much, much worse. Here, people soil themselves just for making the playoffs and the Warriors have never been a legitimate contender in my two decades of following basketball.

I'm not going to cry or act like an ####### if the Spurs never win another one, but that doesn't mean I can't still root for them to win and criticize those responsible when I feel they're making mistakes. Pop's legacy is assured. For that matter so is Robert Horry's and Michael Finley's. Their lives will not be affected one way or another by me caring about their follies or foibles.

The point is, I have to care about their fuckups and call them on it. I have to. If I stop caring about it, then why be a fan in the first place? Why write about it? Blogging is no place for a "C'est la vie" attitude.

As Duncan and Manu continue to age, we need more help from the rest of the roster, not less. Barry had a good run as a Spur and Horry and Finley were serviceable. The time has come from new blood and the answer is youth, not experience. Our big three hid the weaknesses of the others by being young and in their prime. That luxury is gone forever and now a new formula is needed. Whoever will be the savior for the Spurs, if such a person exists, he will not be over 30 years old. For years now the big three have had to compensate for the lack of athleticism of their teammates, a task that has grown more difficult with their owned diminishing physical ability. I think they would welcome the chance and the opportunity for once to be the less athletic than their teammates and to instead compensate for their experience. You can teach people how to play team ball, you can't teach them how to run and jump.

While it appears that the Spurs have shown more commitment and willingness to give younger unknowns a chance this year, they haven't said they will do so definitively and the front office hasn't exactly established a track record of being honest with the press, especially the non-local press. Not that I blame them, as most of the non-local press are fucktards. Still, the only reason the Spurs now have all these roster openings this year for younger players is because not enough precautions were taken two years ago or last year during the off-season. The front office gambled with old, crappy players instead of mining for youth and exercising some patience, and two of the past three years, no matter how the losses transpired, the bottom line is they lost.

I'm not bitter about how 2008 ended the way I was about 2006. I'm convinced Pop blew that one with his Van Exel over Udrih foolishness, as well as his over reliance on Tinyball. 2008 was different, maybe less unavoidable, for a variety of circumstances. I just want to make sure that the front office has learned from past mistakes, that's all, and I think Matthew would tell you the same thing.

[elchiv]

He points out the obvious. The Manu injury was way more important to us then Bynum and Ray Allens poor performance. Manu was the leading scorer for the Spurs, our clutch player when we need a bucket, and he performed excellently all year long.

Bynum was what, the lakers 5 best scoring option for one month of basketball? He was the most expendable of the "big" name players on that team. Take out Gasol or Odom and you have a closer comparison to what Manu means to the Spurs.

As for Allen, his impact for Boston was not nearly as important as Pierce and KG. Take out either of those players with an injury, or let them play but injured like Manu was and Boston doesn't win. As much as the league wants to make Allen a superstar he is not.

Furthermore, when it comes to calling out role players, look at the Bulls teams outside of Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman. Their role players were Kerr, Harper, the Australian center. It is stupid to blame it on the role players. Our role players looked fine in 2005, 2006, and 2007. We made it to the WCF in a year where the WC was as tough as it could be so obviously they weren't that bad in 2008.

[shelden]

Originally Posted by :

Or maybe when the plane couldn’t take off after game 7 the Spurs could have driven home and slept in their beds.

ESPN - Tough Night on the Plane for the Spurs - TrueHoop By Henry Abbott

Originally Posted by :

the team learned at about 2 am that they would sleep on the plane, and fly at about 7 am local time.

Driving Distances from New Orleans to San Antonio, TX ~ 550 miles

Do you really think it would have been better to take the bus to SA from NO? I'm guessing that would have been at least a nine hour drive, which would get you home around 11:00 am. Time for a quick lunch and then off to the airport for LA. I don't know about you, but I think I would probably sleep better on a stationary airplane than a moving bus.

[spurssheriff]

I love the "variables" thing. Spurs didn't lose just because one of our guys was hurt. It was definitely a number of things.

[DizzG]

Originally Posted by :

The Spurs have won three titles in six years, so Pop must be a great coach and Buford must be a genius. Give me a break. I’m not saying Pop is a bad coach, but he’s been blessed with Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. Have the Spurs ever won a title they shouldn’t have? Have they ever beaten a clearly superior team? Have they ever pulled an upset? Have they ever won when any of the Big Three suffered even the most minor of injuries? Have the Spurs developed a single young player other than Tony Parker? How hard is it to have a great defensive team when you have Tim Duncan guarding the basket?

I love how some give Pop the "Yeah but..." when it comes to being a great coach or not but people like Phil Jackson dont get the same from most. How many titles does he have without a freakin MJ of all people...and Kobe/Shaq? Pop's a great coach - will be in the hall of fame at some point and Spurs fans better enjoy what they have before its gone

There is no guarantee SA will ever have a run over a period of time that they had had under Pop - nor any guarantee they will ever have a hall of fame caliber coach running things after he is gone

as to Manu - I think many underestimate how important he is to the whole Spurs machine. This guy can call it whatever he wants, but I'll never believe SA loses to that Laker team (that I dont think was THAT good) with Manu not injured

trying to say LA got to the finals without Bynum or that Boston won a series with Ray Allen not playing well does not compare to SA having Ginobili on one leg considering the impact he has on everything. it just doesnt

[bnwhuxley]

Originally Posted by shelden:

ESPN - Tough Night on the Plane for the Spurs - TrueHoop By Henry Abbott Driving Distances from New Orleans to San Antonio, TX ~ 550 miles Do you really think it would have been better to take the bus to SA from NO? I'm guessing that would have been at least a nine hour drive, which would get you home around 11:00 am. Time for a quick lunch and then off to the airport for LA. I don't know about you, but I think I would probably sleep better on a stationary airplane than a moving bus.

Matt was talking about the hypothetical of the Spurs having home court advantage over NO instead of the other way around.

[FamousJames]

DUH.......how long was this guy in Italy....we ALL knew that OBVIOUS observation of the rest of the team....some of us have been screaming that since the last 20 games of the season.

[blaze24k]

Originally Posted by bnwhuxley:

Translation? Three studs and a bunch of suck.

[Capek]

I stopped reading after the guy delivered his premise. I mean, unless you're Jordan's Bulls, the level of competition when you get deep into the playoffs is such that inevitably it will come down to a play here, and variable there. But even Jordan's Bulls were a Jordan injury away from having their chances of winning a title significantly dashed. And we don't even have to hypothesize a Jordan injury. Those Bulls of the 90's needed their fair share of game winning shots along the way. If they end up missing more of those than they actually did, they end up winning less titles during that decade, and so aren't deemed as one of the all-time great dynasties. So ya, the only different between a successful team and an all-time great team is a couple bounces going your way or not. What the writer seems to totally be missing out on, and granted, I only read the first couple paragraphs, but just going by his premise, he seems to be totally oblivious of the fact that there are variables, and then there are variables. Losing because some of your aging vets couldn't contribute what you needed is one variable, but on a whole other level of magnitude is the variable of having one of your stars injured. To just lump a possible variables in one camp and call them equal is faulty and naive logic.

[BEERNUTS]

Wow Matthew, I'm glad you had some free time before wrote that article. I'm just glad we made the WCF in spite of everything that happened last year.

[shelden]

Originally Posted by bnwhuxley:

Matt was talking about the hypothetical of the Spurs having home court advantage over NO instead of the other way around.

D'Oh...well, sure, now that you point it out, it seems so obvious. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Holcs50]

good stuff in here and props to the OP. Well, when threads come up like this one name always pops straight in my head. SJackson. Unfortunately that little agent blunder allowed him to get away from us. If that deal went through I believe we win 2004, and 2006. He probably would've asked for too much to resign after that....but he was the only real 4th option we ever had. To get a guy like that now though is just way too much, unless someone is willing to take a big pay cut just to play for the spurs. And in reality few players will do that unless they are old and desperate for a championship-which is part of the reason the team is made up of a ton of old dudes. Hopefully our rookies pay off and can have a positive impact on the team before TD gets too old. We got a few years of hope.

[miguelito]

Great post. Yes, I believe we would have beaten LA with a healthy Manu.

But the scary thing was how passively we played against LA. I think when our guys knew Manu was hurt, they just got scared and generally played like panzies. They played like playoff rookies instead of defending champs. Our guys know how vitally important Manu is to everythig we do, and I think they just rolled over when they realized Manu wasn't going to be there. In reality, LA was nowhere near as good as we are if we play Spurs basketball. But we didn't, due largely to Manu's injury, and we got beat.

Having said that, part of the reason Manu is so important is that he is our only emotional/energetic spark. Also, he's our only scoring spark who can get points in bunches and change the flow of a game.
As Hux's post pointed out, we don't have a guy other than the Big 3 who can get us 15-18 points on a given night. Oh wait, we did...his name was Brent Barry, but then again Pop didn't play him until it was too late, even when the guy shot almost 50% from three-point range in the playoffs.

Point is, we need a 4th guy who can actually put up points on a consistent basis. Maggette would have ben that guy, but now it will have to be Mason. However, I think the combination of Mason, Gist, Hill, and Ian on the 2nd team will give us enough to make a huge difference. Kind of like the Laker bench during the regular season, which scored enough points on energy alone to rest the starters. Of course, they folded in the playoffs because they really aren't that good, but point is that energy off the bench can carry you through the regular season pretty well. We haven't had energy off the bench (other than Manu) for years. We kind of did a couple of years ago with the Barry/Beno combo, but then again, Pop is so D-focused that he couldn't see that Beno can score in this league.

Newsflash: D has never been our problem during the Duncan years -- but scoring has.

[angelbelow]

good read, dont agree with everything but he gave a great analysis.