The 1-2-1 Zone: Fun With the BS Report
by Fred Silva on Jan 4, 2010 1:03 PM CST
in Analysis
72 comments
On Dec. 29th, Bill Simmons had Marc Stein and Ric Bucher on the BS Report to talk everything NBA. They spent 10 of the 103 minutes talking about the Spurs, but the problem is that they do not follow the Spurs very closely. I'm sure they catch the nationally televised games, but when your job is to cover all 30 teams, are you really watching every game that the Spurs play? Plus, Simmons has been on his book tour since the season began and I doubt he's had time for more than a handful of Spurs games. So, I do not feel as if they watch the Spurs as closely as you or me, but more than that, none of them are Spurs' homers. Simmons loves the Celtics and Lakers, Stein and Dirk eloped last summer, and Bucher is generally unbiased. So what you get is three guys attacking the Spurs with no one defending them. I thought their conversation could have used a somewhat biased Spurs' fan, (enter Fred, stage right.) In the following article, I will break up their three man weave with a 1-2-1 zone.
"The BS Report is a free-flowing conversation that occasionally touches upon mature subjects. First of all, this is the BS Report with Bill SImmons. It might be cool, I don't know, and if it's not I don't care. Bill Simmons works for ESPN, he's also named the Sports Guy, and he writes a chronicle sports column. He must be a popular dude. The BS Report. It's got a real dirty sound. Like a rusty steak knife cutting through a well aged steak. Now, now, now, the BS Report with Bill Simmons."
(Transcripts for their conversation are unavailable so I paraphrased their conversation below. If you would like to hear their original conversation, fast forward to the 46:46 mark of the BS Report, 12/30, Part One. This conversation took place just before the Spurs beat the Timberwolves.)
Simmons: Why is Manu an afterthought on this Spurs team? What's going on with him?
Bucher: He still does not have confidence in his body. He just hasn't recovered all the way from his injuries. He also has not developed a comfort level with his new teammates. This is essentially a brand new team and they are not comfortable playing with each other yet. Pop calls it a loss of corporate knowledge. They don't have any role players that know what it is to win a championship. And Tim and Manu are no longer dominant. Tim does not even draw double teams anymore.
Simmons: I know. It's sad.
Fred: Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys. That hurts. It feels like I just got stomached punched 36 times in 10 seconds. I agree with Buch that Manu is still not healthy. I mean, he's healthy but he is hesitating. But the guy is improving with every game. We are starting to see flashes on the old Manu a few times a game now, and that's reassuring. In fact, I'm going to predict he ends up 1 rebound shy of a triple double against the Wolves tonight.
And yes, it is a brand new team, but that's not a reason to write them off. In fact, that's a reason that others should keep them on their radar. If this team can come together, they arguably have the best 11 man rotation in the NBA, next to the Magic. Their ceiling is very high.
I completely disagree that Manu and Tim are no longer dominant. First, did we not just establish that Manu is still recovering from his injuries? If that's the case, let's wait till we have a healthy Manu to decide whether or not he is still dominant. And as far as Tim goes, it seems like you have not been paying attention. He is playing like the Tim of 2005. The weight he lost has allowed his to gain a step and he is jumping much better than he did in previous seasons.
There are two reasons that teams are not doubling Tim. First, Tim is being patient and conservative early in the season. He is involved in pick and rolls and generally catches the ball 10-18 feet from the basket to avoid physical punishment. It is very difficult to successfully double team a good, tall passer when he is faced up to the basket because he can see the defense coming. If Tim posted up on the block more often, I would argue that you would see teams employing a double team. In addition, if you are defending the Spurs, who are you leaving to double team Tim? Bruce Bowen is gone and Bogans hits his shots with consistency and also is capable of putting the ball on the floor. Leaving Tony leads to a plethora of problems. And although RJ has struggled, he has proven that he can hit the three pointer consistently. So the reason teams are choosing not to double Tim has less to do with him declining, and more to to do with his supporting cast improving.
Stein: Well, I think it takes a year for new guys to understand the system and the Spurs have a lot of new guys. They thought RJ would give them a good amount of 25 point games that would take pressure off of the big three, but that is not panning out. Drafting Blair was a godsend for them. He is saving them right now.
Bucher: The difference is that previous Spurs teams had role players the required few touches to make a big impact on the game. Now they have guys that require the ball to make a positive impact. Bonner, Mason, Hill, RJ, they all need touches to be effective.
Fred: Again, I feel that y'all are selling reasons to not hit the alarm as ones to abandon all hope. The fact that it takes time for new guys to get acquainted with a system means we should give the Spurs more time before being so judgemental. Now, RJ has struggled, that is more than obvious. But I think what he has shown us has been encouraging. If he can learn to be more efficient, that is to say take fewer funky fade-aways, he can still pan out. RJ can get to the line, finish on the break, and hit the three. Is he going to average 25 ppg? No, but that's not what the Spurs need. They needed another offensive weapon, and if efficient, RJ can and will fill that void.
I think the fact that the Spurs have role players that require the ball is a good thing. This implies that they are offensive minded. The Spurs' big three are no longer capable of playing 35+ mpg, which means that someone needs to score when these guys are resting. The reason for their early struggles is that they are not yet comfortable playing with each other. Buch, you began by pointing this out.
Stein: Well, it's too early to write this team off. No one wants to see them in the playoffs, not even the Lakers.
Simmons: So if you had a choice between Portland and San Antonio?
Stein: I would want to play the Blazers and it's not close.
Bucher: Yeah, I agree and that's the point.
Fred: Finally, we've been talking for five minutes and that's the first positive thing y'all have said about the Spurs. This goes back to our main theme that the Spurs have a high ceiling and if healthy, they could be very dangerous. I'm excited to see how these guys play after the All Star break. If they are still struggling, fine, it's not happening this year. But if they start rolling, I wouldn't want to be caught downhill, especially if Blair is leading the charge; that would hurt.
Simmons: I have one more Spurs related topic. I've been hearing rumors that maybe Pop has beat on Manu for too long and he's had it and wants out. What do y'all think?
Bucher: I don't buy it for a second. Pop never beat up Manu like he did Tony Parker. Pop loves Manu with a passion that rivals his appreciation and love for Tim Duncan.
Stein: And you have to take into consideration the player. Manu is not a guy that would be bothered by something like that. I think he's bothered by his contract uncertainty. He is a free agent and doesn't know where he's going to be next year. That would bother anyone.
Simmons: Well, Manu looks like an unhappy player so we are saying that he does not have confidence in his body and contract uncertainty is bothering him. So he's basically a head case right now.
Fred: Hold up guys, not cool. You can attack RJ and everyone else as much as you'd like, but back off Manu. I will do way more than lock y'all in a dark closet for that nonsense. Unhappy, Simmons? Where are you getting that from? To me, he simply looks like a player who is coming back from injuries and is trying to shake the rust off. You are having unhappy, rust confusion. Manu still plays with fire, unfortunately his timing is off so the plays we are used to seeing every possession happen once or twice a game. But do not call him unhappy. Frustrated? Probably. Rusty? Definitely, but he is not unhappy. He plays with a passion that unhappy people would be unable to muster.
And I am only half-buying the contract uncertainty angle. I think he knows that the Spurs just want to see him healthy before making an offer. This is something that would bother other players much more than it would bother Manu. Money has never been a huge issue for Manu. I mean, he signed for substantially less than Tony was making.
Bucher: And San Antonio would never trade Manu Ginobili. From a local standpoint, it would be like trading Larry Bird. Manu is the kind of guy that you have to go down in flames with. San Antonio, with their Hispanic culture and the way Manu plays, just cannot part with him The only way it would happen is if Manu demanded a trade, and he's not going to do that. Take away the basketball court, just from a human interest standpoint, the Spurs could not part with him.
Stein: But what do you have to pay him to bring him back?
Bucher: Money has never been an issue for Manu. He accepted the Spurs first offer last time because it was interfering with his wedding plans. And he took less than Tony was making which I think was outrageous.
Fred: Okay, this is better. So we agree that the contract thing is not the issue. Money is not a concern for Manu and he knows that the Spurs will take care of him in the end. So it is simply rust. He needs to get his timing back and regain confidence in his body. As I said, he is improving with every game so let's give him another month before we call him a shadow of his former self.
Simmons: One last thing about the Spurs. They remind me of the Jazz at the end of the Stockton, Malone era. Same coach, same main players, but they have aged and just never found the right role player replacements.
Fred: That's how you want to end this, Simmons? With that unfair comparison? I'm sorry, but I can't let you get away with that. The Spurs have not only done a better job of replacing their aging role players, but I think most would argue that their second unit is an improvement over any second unit they have ever had. The problem is that they are all brand new to the Spurs and have not mastered the intricacies of playing with each other yet. And yes Simmons, I do say 'yet' because with time, they will get there. Will it happen in time for the playoffs? I think it will if they can remain healthy and get enough reps. I realize that is a big 'if,' but this is a superior position to be in than 25 of the other teams in the league are experiencing, and I'll take it. Thanks for having me on guys, later Stein and Simmons. Buch, if you visit the Hanover plains before I do, say 'hi' to Dartmouth for me. I'm out.
5 recs |
72 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I generally agree with your comments. But I’m on their side when it comes to doubling Tim. Teams often don’t double him even when he does post up. And I disagree that teams avoid the double because they fear Bogans and Jefferson out on the arc. In terms of 3 point shooting they’re a downgrade from last year’s starters Bowen and Finley.
As for aging role players, can you really say we successfully replaced Bruce Bowen? And as much as you love Matt Bonner (lol) you have to admit he’s no Robert Horry. Sure, the Spurs are more athletic and have more talent at the end of the bench than ever before. But which role players in the 8-man playoff rotation are truly an upgrade from the 2003-07 time frame?
I think Hill is the best backup PG we have had. Mason and Bonner are deadly from beyond the arc. McDyess, Theo, and Blair will give us more than we got from our bigs in recent years. Teams will not want to give Finley, Bogans, or RJ a wide open three. But it’s not just the open three that makes double teaming disadvantageous for our opponents. It’s that they are all offensive threats. When a team doubles, and scrambles to recover, it makes penetration easier. And although Bowen and Finley were superior three point shooters, they could not drive to the basket. I think the offensive threat that our new players pose is scarier to our opposition than guys that can only catch and shoot.
When Tim does post up on the block, teams do not double. But this is because it’s a rarity. If Tim lived on the block and continuously exploited one on one defense throughout the game, teams would double. His success rate when he posts on the block is too high for teams to play him one on one. It’s just that the coaching staff and Tim are preventing wear and tear early on.
And if you piece together role players from the last decade, you could essentially create a role player All Star team. But each year, some were too old to be effective. If you look at each individual season’s team, I think you’d be surprised. And forget an 8 man rotation. We should roll into the playoffs with at least a solid 10 man rotation, if not 11. And that’s my point. The Spurs are as loaded as they’ve ever been. They just need reps in order to reach their potential.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
If Pop isn’t lying to us and Ratliff is being saved for later in the season, who is the 12th man on this rotation assuming Haislip and Hairston will be replaced by Bonner and Finley when healthy? I just don’t see how this isn’t a 12 man rotation unless Pop decides Blair, a current starter, isn’t ready for post-season basketball.
A quick look:
Duncan, Manu, Parker, RJ, and Hill are locks for the rotation.
Dice is supposedly seeing reduced minutes because of where we are in the season and his age. He is a lock.
Bonner and Finley? Both guys were starters last year and are shooting the ball well this year. Both looked physically improved coming into the season to me as well. These guys also both have rings with us.
Blair? A current starter who is like 5th in the league in rebounding percentage. He could probably go 10 and 10 every night with some consistent minutes and his defense is improving.
Bogans? A current starter. Our second best perimeter defender. Second best Spur (to Bonner) and 13th in the league in TS% so an efficient scorer. He is also a veteran with some post-season experience which definitely counts for something for Pop.
Ratliff? Like I said before, supposedly being saved for the playoffs. Could be vastly important to teams with multiple bigs like LA, can still defend the rim, and I think we’d all be lying if we said he hadn’t surprised us witha few post moves this year.
Mason? Arguably our second best ball handler to Manu, continues to find his shot, and is improved this year on defense. He also is a returning starter from last season who is further along within the system.
The beauty of the depth we have is that if one person is not playing well, then Pop can easily sit that player and call on someone else. When a team has 7 solid bench players, than 3 of them are bound to be playing well. This will give Pop more flexibility come playoff time.
Great transcript, Fred. It does amuse me how the Main Stream Sports Writers (MSSW) are loathe to praise the Spurs, but also are loathe to write them off. We actually have some younger bodies now, but the MSSW still refers to the Spurs as old and injury prone, without giving those same monikers to the Celtics.
Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way. - Jane Austen
Except this happened last night—many not playing well— against Toronto and that bench didn’t help us. I know that Bonner and Finley weren’t available, but given the 1 for 4s,5s and 6s from Mason, Hill, Ginobili, and McDyess, I’m surprised that Pop didn’t at least put one of the Ma Hais on the floor just to see if someone else could score. Hopefully that doesn’t happen very often but even with a deep bench it can happen.
The bench was screwed because Pop decided that Tim should come off the bench. I nearly wrote about this but decided I wanted to be positive for a change. I mean, if you are a head coach and have to sit your best player to ensure that you do not play him too many minutes, maybe you should pick up golf. Or ultimate frisbee. Or anything else. So Tim finally gets in the game and we are down by 10. Nice Pop. We do not have any rhythm, Tim is cold, and the opposition has confidence. Thanks Pop, seriously. That’s great.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
I think the Spurs should hire back PJ Carlisimo as an assistant coach to help Pop. IMO this team is missing something since he left.
Mason? Arguably our second best ball handler to Manu
Does not compute…
Bone breaking? -340
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
by LatinD on Jan 4, 2010 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And forget an 8 man rotation. We should roll into the playoffs with at least a solid 10 man rotation, if not 11
10-11 works in the regular season when you want your aged and infirm to get plenty of rest. But the entire point of all that rest is so they’ll be healthy enough to play 35+ in the playoffs. If the Big 4 play 36 minutes each there simply aren’t enough minutes left over for 7 role players to stay in rhythm. The general formula is:
Big 4: 36 minutes each
Rotation 4: 20 minutes each
Specialty 4: 0-10 minutes, depending on game situation
Pop may stretch this to 5 rotation players (2 bigs, 3 perimeters) averaging about 17 minutes, but that’s about the limit.
by doggydogworld on Jan 5, 2010 5:36 PM CST up reply actions
Pop has generally been pretty good about testing the waters and riding the hot hand. And we have a good amount of streaky shooters that he can toy with during the playoffs: Mason, Finley, Bonner, Hill, Bogans. Plus, Theo can be used as a matchup play. Regardless, it’s not exactly a bad problem to have. I think Pop will utilize the entire roster if a series demands it.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
Great points…if you want to read about our past lineups, I did a bunch of research for Playoff Minutes and Roster Changes, my first fanpost on here.
So I think you are right that the big 4 will be in 30+ minute contributor category, although I’m not sure about Manu or Duncan making it to 36 minutes. At this point, I might question RJ deserving that many minutes as well. Even Hill and Mason could reduce the necessity of playing Parker over 36 minutes. Then, Hill and Dice will be consistently 20-30 mpg guys. I think Mason and Bogans can earn 15-25 minute roles depending on their continued play.
Finley was a 29 mpg contributor last year. That will be reduced to the 10-20 range if not to a non-contributor altogether. I think Blair has a month or so to reduce his turnovers and improve further on defense or he might get Hilled this year in the playoffs. The most interesting thing will be to see how Blair, Ratliff, and Bonner split minutes or who gets snubbed as they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry were the “aging role players”, doggy, and they were already aging during our 2005 title run. Player by player, position by position, we’ve definitely replaced them, even though we lack some specific skill set they possessed. Just check the rosters.
I wish I could have a statistical measure that let me know how often Duncan is double-teamed, and how often he was in the past, but to say he’s never double-teamed is ridiculous. I’ve seen it happen over and over again in the first 30 games of the season, especially in tight situations. As I wrote elsewhere, you’re not supposed to compare Bowen and Finley to Bogans and RJ, you’re supposed to compare them to Manu and RJ. Bowen had one weapon in his arsenal, and that was the corner 3. Our worse offensive weapon this year, Bogans, has more.
Honestly, the offensive potential of the players surrounding Tim Duncan is at an all-time high. I don’t think that’s open to discussion.
Bone breaking? -340
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
but to say he’s never double-teamed is ridiculous.
Agreed. That’s why I didn’t say never. I, too, would like to see stats on this.
I agree offensive potential is at an all time high. Defense is the issue.
by doggydogworld on Jan 5, 2010 5:08 PM CST up reply actions
Manu's Unhappiness
I think Manu’s unhappiness has nothing to do with his contract situation or his relationship with Pop or his teammates. Put simply, Manu is unhappy with his own play, particularly with his lack of consistency. He is his own harshest critic. As Andrew Monaco said one night: “if Manu plays a perfect games, he wants to come back the next night and play another perfect one.” And if he doesn’t, he’d be pissed … again, with himself. The Spurs could have a perfect record, but if Manu was not playing up to his own expectations, he’d still be unhappy. That passion to excel is what makes him Manu.
great stuff, but your zone needs another body. doesnt 1-2-1 add up to 4 instead of 5? maybe you meant to call it that since you were the fourth person in the conversation?
anyway, this is great – and pretty funny stuff.
Another Point
BTW: Bucher is right about the Hispanic population not only of SA but of all South Texas. Pop and RC would have to hole up in the Alamo to fight off the Mexican army that would descend on them if they traded Manu. The outcome, by the way, would be the same as the first Battle of the Alamo.
Good post, Fred.
I had a lot of the same thoughts as I was listening to their conversation. Simmons confuses me when it comes to the Spurs. Sometimes he loves them (he picked them to win it all at the beginning of the season) and sometimes he seems to make up stuff like Manu’s unhappiness because of Pop. A couple of years ago Simmons said that he went to a Spurs-Clippers game and he was unimpressed by the Spurs’ attitude. He thought that they took everything too businesslike and that it meant that they do not enjoy each other or the game. He concluded that they were just a bunch of guys diligently doing their jobs and they did not have the passion to win it all. I don’t remember what year he wrote this or whether the Spurs won the title that year, but they certainly didn’t lose in the playoffs because they were too businesslike.
I also found it funny how all 3 of these guys are basically writing the Spurs off already, but then they keep qualifying their statements with, “I wouldn’t write them off, yet. They could put it together in the 2nd half of the year, etc.” They didn’t say this with any conviction, though. They are just covering themselves by saying that stuff so that when the Spurs do put it all together they can say that they never wrote them off.
I am also surprised by how little John Hollinger has had to say about the Spurs. Typically if a team/player rates much better than most people think they are playing, he will write a column about how that team or player is being overlooked. This year the Spurs rank much higher in his power rankings than anyone would guess and Tim Duncan is a solid # 2 in PER, but Hollinger has not bothered to point that out and tell everyone that they are playing better than we think. The only column Hollinger has written recently about the Spurs asked whether they are broken. I’m not saying that he hates the Spurs, just that it is curious that he has not written anything positive about them.
I think Simmons is fed rumors by his friend Morey, the Rockets GM. I think that rumor is beneficial if you’re the Rocket’s GM trying to get something of value for McGrady. Simmons had much better things to say about the Spurs before his affair with Morey.
And you’re very correct about Hollinger. I actually thought about pointing that out but assumed Hollinger was working on it. He loves it when a good team under-achieves and his rankings point it out before they improve in the standings.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
Hollinger also hasn't said anything about how highly the Spurs' offense rates.
He wrote an article about the best 3 offenses a few weeks ago and how each is accomplishing it differently, but since then the Spurs have moved into a virtual tie for 3rd in efficiency and he has said nothing. I think that he is waiting to see whether Tim’s knees and Manu’s ankles hold up before giving the Spurs too much praise. He wasn’t too excited about them coming into the year and kept saying that they are old and injury prone.
Personally, I think Simmons is full of crap and makes up stuff to fit the first stupid analogy that pops into his mind.
But that’s just me.
Bone breaking? -340
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
What makes a lot of people “enjoy” Simmons is his “I’m a fan like you” take on things, and of course the numerous pop culture references that he makes when he writes. Sure, sometimes his arguments are outrageous, sometimes rational, but he gets paid more for the entertainment value he brings.
by silverandblack_davis on Jan 4, 2010 8:26 PM CST up reply actions
Damn, Fred, your 1-2-1 zone really killed their three-man weave. Great post.
The BS report isn’t really a reliable source about anything, hence probably the name of the segment. Heck, even Simmons was seeding doubt on his Celtics (about ‘Sheed being a fat ass, lazy bum) and the all-powerful Lakers. But I guess it’s a good take-off point for conversation to discuss whatever rumors the so-called “experts” might be getting.
by silverandblack_davis on Jan 4, 2010 6:49 PM CST reply actions
My second favorite post by you ever, Fred. Thanks, thanks for writing this. I stopped reading Simmons’ stuff because of conversations like this one, so this kind of post helps me a lot.
Recced to Simmon’s Celtics bias.
Bone breaking? -340
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
comments
i think we are bound to our own opinions but as an analyst or expert, i think they should be careful with their comments regarding a certain player or team. they are not making any sense making statements with no basis. they should be stating their opinions about certain facts not creating a statement then share their opinion.
Good to see you back in action after the holidays Fred. I was surprised at the “Simmons loves the Celtics and Lakers” though. He’s a Celtics diehard / Laker hater all the way. Here’s an amusing excerpt from one of his recent columns (amusing at least to me):
Running on sports-hate empty-By Bill Simmons, ESPN.com (Updated: November 13, 2009)
. . .Just in the past five months, my two least favorite teams — really, the two teams I sports-hate more than everyone else combined — won the NBA Finals and World Series. And if that wasn’t enough, the following . . . realities have become undeniable:
3. Kobe Bryant won a title his way — by establishing a Kobe and the Kobettes dynamic that actually worked — becoming one of the ten best NBA players ever and proving he could prevail without Shaq. If that wasn’t jarring enough, Shaq’s exit from Phoenix marked the fourth time he left a team on bad terms, making everyone re-evaluate the whole “Was Kobe really the bad guy in the Shaqobe Divorce?” saga that had been buried years ago. Maybe Kobe wasn’t as much to blame as we thought. Maybe Shaq was the problem. Maybe the hotel clerk lied about him. Maybe he took a ton of flak for no reason. Maybe he’s … (gulp) … a good guy and a family man who works his butt off and never seems satisfied and kills himself to get better every summer and maybe … (gulp) … was greater than we thought. Damn it all.
Read those previous . . . paragraphs again. (Actually, read them for me. I am covered in smoke because my flesh is on fire. I can’t see my laptop.) Imagine you’re me. You have a sports column. You’re a passionate guy. You care a little too much about sports. You’re all about the Boston teams.
. . .What’s left for me? Well, I still have Sasha Vujacic. . .
The rest is funny too but I’ll stop there.
In the next few weeks the Spurs have the opportunity to get wins against a top-tier and 2nd-tier team. Perhaps that would help those ESPN guys recognize what you see in the Spurs.
The Lakers "Too big, too strong, too long, too good."
Well, recently, Simmons has decided he loves Kobe Bryant. I follow him closely because I enjoy his writing style. Sorry guys, but it happens. He now officially loves the Lakers. He lives in LA and would be a season ticket holder if ESPN paid for it. So yes, Olf, he loves your team. First is the Celtics, but the Lakers are a close second.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
I think Simmons is a season ticket holder for the other LA team.
by silverandblack_davis on Jan 5, 2010 12:53 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, he is. But my point was that if Lakers tickets were more affordable, or if ESPN paid for them, he would be there every night. I’ve listened to every podcast he has made, and read everything he has written in that time frame. Trust me, he can officially be considered a Lakers’ homer.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
Love-Hate
I don’t follow Simmons too much, but he might be going through some sort of Stockholm Syndrome with the Lakers. I started out hating the Patriots, but after a few years, I began to root for them because they were the status quo of the AFC. I didn’t want other teams to get better. I wanted the Patriots to be dominant until my teams could beat them so you end up rooting for them especially against the Colts.
I think this can also happen with a bitter rival. One, you want the rivalry to be good. In order for rivalries to be really great, both teams have to be top notch like SF and Dallas in the 90’s. That was amazing. Now that the Niners suck, I find myself rooting for them because I like them to be a great team to hate. Second, you don’t want other teams beating up on your rival, especially before you do. It was a very complex emotion when BYU beat OU before UT even had a chance. It pains me to write this, but I almost have to root for OU up to our game. So maybe Simmons is rooting for LA because like a quarter of all MSSW, he wants Celtics-Lakers finals. The rest want Lebron-Kobe finals.
Simmons may have also been damaged a couple years back when the Celtics were consistently terrible.
I seriously doubt that Simmons would have any trouble affording season tickets to the Lakers.
I have flying monkeys at my disposal, and I'm not afraid to use them.
That’s what he says though. That the Clippers tickets are just too good of a deal to pass up because the Lakers tickets are so expensive.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
I know that the point of the article I linked to was that he, as a life-long Celtic/Sox fan, respects what Kobe & A-Rod accomplished and that he feels bad that Kareem is sick. But if you say he goes from that 6 weeks ago to being a Laker lover I’ll take you word for it. I frankly don’t pay much attention to him or any of the ESPN analysts really.
I still say the best way to shut them up convince them of the Spurs’ awesomeness at this point is to get a couple of signature wins.
The Lakers "Too big, too strong, too long, too good."
by olf on Jan 5, 2010 1:13 AM CST up reply actions
This might have a chance of happening if Pop cared at all about winning any particular games during the preregular season.
Consider the gun jumped
5 in 10
by jollyrogerwilco on Jan 5, 2010 1:15 AM CST up reply actions
I don’t know. I’m thinking that game is at best a toss up. The Lakers haven’t exactly been consistently killing their competition lately – you know Pau out, Artest dizzier than usual.
Hey, that reminds me I’ve got an old joke for you:
Q: Why did Artest leave AT&T Center early?
A: He wanted to beat the crowd.
The Lakers "Too big, too strong, too long, too good."
by olf on Jan 5, 2010 1:26 AM CST up reply actions
This joke is aweseome! Okay, you’re officially my favorite Laker fan, probably because you don’t gloat out loud about the Lakers and only do it in a secretive way that to the untrained eye would show doubt in your team, but you’re always careful at least. Anyways, I have a couple of friends that are Lakers fans so this should be a compliment. Let me ask you something that’s been on my mind.
In your opinion, if Kobe wins 6 rings, is he better than Jordan? What about 7? Okay 6 or 7 rings might be a stretch, but very possible, but if he wins 5 rings, is he a top 5 player of all time? In my opinion, Kobe is already a top 10, but I think that’s a given.
When the tooth fairy's own tooth falls out, it is taken during the night by Princess Peanut.
What RJ came for
Wow Stein absolutely has gotten it wrong, the Spurs did not get Jefferson to deliver 25 points a game. They got him in addition to their big 3, but he and everybody on the team knew he didn’t come to score more than 20+/game . He said that the very first interview as a Spur. He came to fit in, and to add some athletism. I think the stats the Spurs would like to see from him are something like 16-18 pts, 5 rebs, 4 assists. If he can do that on a consistent basis and sometimes explode to score 20 and more than he has completed his role.
EVEN A KID
EVEN A 10 YR OLD BASKETBALL-SPUR FAN WOULD KNOW THAT.JUST SIMPLE COMMON SENSE,IF POP KNOWS ABOUT THIS,THESE GUYS EXCEPT FRED WILL BE “POPPED” WITH SARCASM WHICH I HOPE THEY WOULD.THANK YOU FRED FOR THE DEFENSE.
He didn’t say 25 points per game, he said a good number of 25 point games. On nights when he has the mismatch, or gets hot, or needs to shoot more because someone is injured, etc.
by doggydogworld on Jan 5, 2010 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
...
man that was a great post. it simply says that these guys are very well paid lakers fan or even cavaliers fan. for me, its like when kobe is 40 and ave’s 2 pts?(which i think he’ll ave 12-16 pts with that age),they’ll think his dominant so as lebron, i doubt if it was wade or melo or our beloved manu or tim(they’re gone,oh there still here?),if they aged 32,33 or 36…they’ll be 2x a “senior citizen in the game”…kobe/lebron,thank you for the hype then,AT 50 IM STILL 26…what a post, THEY DEFINITELY DON’T WATCH SPURS GAMES, CUZ THEY ONLY WATCH THE LAKERS GAME.AND OH THE CELTICS ARE AGED TOO,NO PRETTY HISTORIC, WITH 3 OF ITS BIG THREE AT LEAST 32,33 AND 34, OURS 33,32,27…THEY’RE MORE ANCIENT AND OLD,WHERE JUST NEXT TO THEM, AND REGARDING THE BENCH…WHERE THE BEST RIGHT?IF WE AVE 40 BY THE BENCH WHY NOT 45 OR 50…IF THEY ALL “GET TOGETHER ON THE SAME PAGE” EH? AND THESE GUYSWILL REGRET WHAT THEY ALL SAY WHEN EVERYBODY WILL BE HEALTHY THE WHOLE YR UNTIL WE WIN THE FINALS THIS SEASON…’10 SPURS CHAMPS BABY!
RJ
COMMON SENSE PLEASE!
WE’RE NOT THE BUCKS!
NOR NEW JERSEY.
SO OBVIOUSLY RJ WON’T AVE 25 0R 30 OR 19.9 OR 20.
PLUS POP IS STILL CRAZY.
HE’LL HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING SHOTS FOR HIMSELF OR MAKING THEM.
BUT HIS RICHARD JEFFERSON FOR CHRIST’S SAKE,HIS NO ALL STAR WHICH AT LEAST ONCE I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND HIS CHANCE IS GONE UNLESS HE’LL SCORE 13 OR 16 BY AVE EFFICIENTLY FOR US,AND I THINK AN ALL STAR RESERVE NEXT YR WILL BE GOOD FOR HIM.
PEOPLE ARE JUST WAY TOO JUDGMENTAL!ITS THE SPURS PEOPLE WON’T SCORE 30 UNLESS EVERYONE IS COLD OR DEAD I GOT NO MORE SHOT.TOO MANY OFFENSE.AND BLAIR IF POP GIVES HIM 32 MINS HE CAN HAVE A DOUBLE DOUBLE AS LONG HE IS NOT IN FOUL TROUBLE.WE SPURS FANS KNOW THAT!WE DON’T CARE ABOUT L.A. ,ONLY THEIR WINS,HOPE THEY LOST THAT’S ALL WE PRAY RIGHT?BUT HEY THEY ONLY HAVE ARTEST AS AN ADDITION,SO THEY WON’T ADJUST SO MUCH.
"We suck on 'D. Both individually and team-wise, we suck. We're pretty consistent that way. I don't know if I have an answer to that. If I did, we wouldn't suck quite so bad." - Popovich
Sorry bout that
Sorry bout that,I’m just typing and didn’t pay attention to the use of punctuations.Thanks though.
He means the caps. All-caps is annoying, tp. Please try to be more careful regarding punctuation and capitalization in the future.
Bone breaking? -340
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Turn off the caps lock.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Jan 5, 2010 8:38 AM CST up reply actions
Ha, I was just thinking that. It’s disorienting and exactly how I imagine Ron Artest types. Don’t be like Ron Artest.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
by Fred Silva on Jan 5, 2010 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pounding The Rock
Related FanShots on Pounding The Rock
![Manu Ginobili At His Best 2010! [REMIX] (via ClubSpurs)
Oh yeah. I need the season to start now.](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/139360/2_small.jpg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
