Sometimes It's Better To Be Lucky Than Good

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The cast of characters may change, but most of the principals are still there. Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Nash, Stoudemire. The teams may be diametrically opposed philosophically, but they have slowly shifted towards each other over the last few years. The Spurs, once the standard bearer for defense, has become a more effective offensive team at the expense of their once dominant defense. The Suns, once the inventors of a new style of offense and the evolution of the game, have become a more traditional team, even playing active and scrappy defense.

And whenever the teams play, it seems to produce a memorable game.

This game was very enjoyable and fun to watch, and certainly had me reminiscing about May battles of old. But neither team seemed to play terribly efficiently at either end of the court, and save for a pair of odd and boneheaded plays by the Suns, the Spurs could have easily lost this game.

The fist odd play was Richardson's missed dunk. There's not much to analyze there; sometimes players miss dunks. This missed dunk just happened to be at the most inopportune of times. The second odd play was Nash's pass as time expired. Nash says he lost his balance and couldn't take the shot. People are rightfully criticizing Frye for moving inside the 3-point line when a 3 was the only thing that would have helped. But Nash passed the ball right to him; if Frye hadn't moved in, where would the pass have gone? It looks like Nash may have been passing to another Suns player (I think Richardson) who was standing just past Frye beyond the 3 point line, and Frye walked into the passing lane. Either way, it doesn't matter; there was no way the shot was getting up in time. Nash had to shoot that ball, and he didn't. That's not like Nash at all, whose intelligence is beyond reproach. We got lucky on two counts, and we won the game. As Duncan said in the post-game interview, it's about time some of the breaks started going our way.

The great thing about this game as a Spurs' fan was the great play we got from basically our entire rotation. Duncan had his usual excellent night, and Ginobili played the role of closer extraordinaire. Parker had a great game, though in limited minutes, most likely because of his recent injuries. But when he was in, he seemed to have some zip back in his legs. Hill and Blair both played well in their roles.

But the two best sights were from Jefferson and McDyess. Jefferson arguably had his best game as a Spur. He was aggressive and attacking the basket early and often, which led to defensive breakdowns, lay-ups, or fouls. Later in the game, he used his early aggression to set up his jump shot, which he was hitting. He even played aggressive D, getting an important block on Stoudemire. If things can start clicking for him, we can be a great team.

McDyess had a scary moment when he went down in a heap after landing on his left leg awkwardly. As the announcers pointed out, his left knee is the knee that had given him so much trouble early in his career. A serious injury to his left knee could legitimately end his career. Setting aside the obvious personal repercussions of that happening to such a good, humble, and hardworking person, that could really screw up the Spurs' big man rotation, as it seems to be pared down to just Duncan, McDyess, and Blair, with Bonner getting limited spot minutes. With the trade of Ratliff, we basically cashed in our big man insurance policy.

So it was great to see McDyess back on the court early in the fourth. It was even better to see him stick several critical jump shots down the stretch of the game. That 15-18 foot jump shot has become his offensive calling card over the last 5 years, and it does so much for our offense when it's working. Just like with Jefferson, his full integration into the team can make us much better than we are right now.

No matter the circumstance or the situation, it always feels good to beat the Suns.

Looking Forward:

As with all nice Spurs win of the last few months, all hopes and expectations should be severely tempered. Until the team can prove their ability on a game-to-game basis, all of us should be skeptical.

Our next two games are both against the New Orleans Hornets. We play them in New Orleans Monday night, then back in San Antonio on Friday night, with no games scheduled in between. The Hornets are without Chris Paul, but have really started playing some good basketball of late. And like all games in the Western Conference this time of year, every win and loss is critical.

It's about time we started stringing some wins together.

I'll Take That As A "No"

And a resounding one at that.

*Sigh*

3 of our starters didn't score a single point. 3 or theirs each had 30 or more points. I don't need a stat expert to figure that one out.

At least Malik Hairston played well. I like Malik and root for him, but he has always seemed a little lost on the court. Tonight, however, he played with more confidence and understanding of the game and the Spurs' system than he ever has before. If he continues to play like that, I'd like to see him get more minutes. Another athletic wing who can slash, defend, and play with energy can never be a bad thing. Plus, if this season is as hopeless as it seems now, it'd be good to start getting next year's rotation players minutes now.

Looking Forward:

We play Phoenix on Sunday. On National TV. In the early afternoon. Never a good sign for this team.

Are there any playoff-caliber Western Conference teams left that don't own us?

Mine Eyes Hath Seen The Glory

Sometimes a block is just a block.

Sometimes a block is the turning point of a game.

But can a block be the turning point of an entire season?



Manu fucking Ginobili. Welcome home, my friend.

I Play The Numbers Game To Find A Way To Say That Life Has Just Begun

In the first 5 minutes of the game against the Detroit Pistons, the Pistons outscored the Spurs by 10, getting up 14-4 early. In the first 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter the Pistons outscored us by 4 points. In 10 minutes they outplayed us by 14 points; in the remaining 38 (not including OT), we outscored them by 14. We were better, for longer, but had two smaller periods of inefficiency and mediocrity.

When were these two periods? The two times that our starting lineup was on the floor. I am completely befuddled by Pop's starting lineups these last 3 games. I thought starting Bonner and Bogans for McDyess and Jefferson was crazy, but Pop went one crazier this game, trotting out a starting lineup of Duncan, Jefferson, Bogans, Mason, Jr., and Hill.

To me there are two just absurd things about this lineup. The first is pretty obvious; there's only one big. I understand small ball as a tactical device for stretches of games. But as a starting lineup? I'm not buying it. As has been demonstrated, our best lineup--by an overwhelming margin--are when we have either McDyess or Blair teamed up with Duncan. With the absence of Parker we needed to move some things around. But those moving pieces seemed to be in the backcourt, not the frontcourt.

The second absurd thing about this lineup is just the sheer quality--or lack thereof--of it. For fun, let's rank our players in order of "goodness". I think we can come to some sort of general consesus with minor quibbles:

1. Tim Duncan
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Tony Parker
4. George Hill
5. Antonio McDyess
6. DeJuan Blair
7. Richard Jefferson
8. Roger Mason, Jr.
9. Keith Bogans
10. Matt Bonner

That's the entire list of players who see meaningful minutes. We can bicker about who's really #2, Tony or Manu; we can argue about the more productive big, McDyess or Blair; and we can argue about the last 4 and what order they should be in, though I think we would all agree that those are our 4 least effective players so far this season.

So let's look at tonight's starting lineup. It included #1, #4, #7, #8, and #9. Granted, #3 was gone. But essentially we started 3 of our 4 worst players.

Do you think Detroit started 3 of their 4 worst players? No. So then we put one of our worst possible lineups against one of their best. And we got outscored by 14 points in a 10 minute stretch and were never able to make it up.

The starting lineup I would like to see is #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7, with #2 and #6 anchoring our bench. That's a pretty good lineup, and gives us a fighting chance at the start of each half, unlike now.

What truly puzzles me is McDyess's sudden demotion. He has been playing well, as he demonstrated tonight. He's a very effective rebounder (moreso than Blair, in my opinion, since McDyess can rebound well on both ends of the floor), a great spot-up shooter, a pesky defender, and a competitor. He wants to win. I'll gladly go to battle with players like that. Pop must be seeing something that the distanced observer isn't seeing; but to these eyes, he deserves more minutes.

I'm sure there's more we could discuss about the game. But really, what's the point?

Looking Forward:

The rodeo road trip is over. At 4-4, I would call it a failure. We had a promising win in Denver, and then followed it up with 3 terrible games, one of which we were lucky to win. We're no further along then we were before the trip; and we may have even regressed.

Basically, we went .500 on the trip, and that sums this team up just about right.

We play Oklahoma City back at home on Wednesday. Unlike us, they are playing great basketball lately. Could get ugly.

Spurs Try New "Fast Break Only" Defense, Succeed (Or Fail, Depending Upon Your Perspective)

Ugh. Just ugh.

I don't get the starting lineup change. The 76ers telecaster said tonight that Pop inserted Bogans back into the starting lineup for more defense. OK, I can go along with that. But then what logic explains the reinsertion of Matt Bonner back into the starting line-up? Surely the best defensive option on the front line with Duncan is Antonio McDyess. So then maybe the counterargument to that is Bonner is inserted to help make up for the lost offense that Bogans causes. But that is a zero sum game. Add some offense, subtract some offense; add some defense, subtract some defense. Doesn't really do anything. Besides, I'd argue that McDyess is equal to or greater than Bonner as an offensive option. Yes, Bonner gets your more 3s, but McDyess hits the open jumper, grabs offensive rebounds, and can get buckets inside.

Look, I can see the merit in "demoting" Jefferson to the bench. He's been playing lousy, and a shake up could help. And it seems to be helping, as Jefferson is playing with more aggression, passion, and even a smidge more intelligence. But I don't see the benefit at all of taking McDyess out of the starting lineup just as he was seemingly finding his groove and giving us exactly what we needed alongside Duncan.

In the last two games with this new starting lineup we've gotten off to really poor starts, digging ourselves into holes. I know that we always seem to fight our way back, but we don't need to. What if we started even and then surged ahead, rather than just getting back to even?

Timothy Varner at 48MoH recently spoke with Wayne Winston, who is a big number cruncher and proponent of adjusted plus-minus. He studies a lot of things, but one of the things he looks at is what combination of players are the teams strongest units. Take a look at the article.

The first thing that I notice is that we have 2 really good lineups, and they're basically the same--Duncan, Hill, Ginobili, and Parker--with only McDyess and Blair as the interchangeable parts. Clearly, those are our best units, and probably a version of the ones that should close games. I particularly like these line-ups because they give us 2 bigs and 3 ball handlers in the games at all times.

Then there is a next tier of units that are not quite as good as the previous two, but still much better than any other combo that we play. And one of those was our longest running starting lineup of Duncan, McDyess, Jefferson, Hill, and Parker. The other includes Bonner, who also shows up in another of our solid line-ups.

It seems clear that a backcourt rotation of Ginobili, Parker, Hill, and a frontcourt rotation of Duncan, McDyess, Blair, and Bonner works out very well for us, with Jefferson at the 3, and Ginobili taking some time there as well. That's a pretty solid 8 man rotation. Throw in Mason, Jr. when you need some scoring punch, Bogans when you need some defensive tenacity, and Finley for some spot duty, and you're just about set.

It just seems like we spend a lot of time playing units that don't work well together, and very little time playing our best units and our best players. I know we're conserving minutes, and I know we're still tinkering. But it's time to start figuring these things out and winning some games.

We got our butts whupped in the 4th quarter tonight. But I really feel like we could have won this game tonight if we'd played with a smarter rotation. And that's on Pop. He needs to figure out who is playing and when, and he needs to have our best players on the floor playing together as much as possible. That seems to make the most sense in the world, and yet it's something we're still not doing.

Looking Forward:

The road trip ends with a Sunday matinee against the Pistons. A win and we're a respectable (though not great) 5-3 on the trip; a loss and we're 4-4. Either way, we're still a pretty average team.

Go Ahead, Pop, Mess With Their Heads

One of the many grand traditions of the trade deadline is to not play players in games right before they are traded. That happened tonight with John Salmons, and we learned that he purportedly has been traded to the Bucks. In that light, Pop caused quite a stir tonight by not starting either Jefferson or McDyess. Many speculated (with good cause) that this could be portending a trade, despite Pop's words to the contrary.

But we all know that Pop likes to fuck with people. And fuck with line-ups. So when both Jefferson and McDyess checked into the game in the first quarter, it left many scratching their heads. Just the way Pop wants it. I think. Who knows?

Mason, Jr., the player most often mentioned in trade rumors these days, played 22 minutes and shot as if he was auditioning for other teams. He missed some bad shots, and he missed some shots badly. I can't imagine what it feels like to play with the knowledge that you may be suiting up for another team the next night, so we'll give him a pass for tonight.

As for the rest of the game, it was quite the odd affair. We looked like we were still on all-star break for the first quarter, then seemed to come alive, racing out to a 14 point lead midway through the third. Then we stopped playing, allowing them to come all the way back and take a 4 point lead on us. Then we regained control of the game, and did something so rare that I had forgotten what it looked like: we outexecuted them down the stretch and made clutch plays. Granted, it was against a not-that-good Pacers team, but still. And to see Ginobili be our closer-in-residence was also a sight for sore eyes. He looked really good in this game, actually dunking the ball twice.

Parker also looked very spry. The rest must have done him so good. With his plantar fasciitis, it won't be a sustained return to form, as the pain will start to creep back in. But he was scoring every which way and running the offense with his usual excellence.

The player of the game, oddly enough, was probably Duncan. Even though he was threatening to miss as many shots as he had rebounds (19 to 26, if you're keeping count), he was a team high +19 and pretty much anchored the team when he was in there. +/- can be a tricky stat, especially for one game, but in this case, I think it's telling. The next closest Spur was +9; and more than that, just watching the game, you could tell that he was responsible for the runs that the team made, especially in the second half. His 26 rebounds were huge, and I think every one of them was important, especially on the defensive end. As much trouble as we've had giving up second chance points this season, it was nice to see Duncan dominating the defensive glass and getting quick outlets to Parker and Ginobili.

One last note: I thought Jefferson played his best game as a Spur. He scored 14 points, which I think is right about where we need him. But he grabbed 6 boards (tied for 2nd on the team with Ginobili), was aggressive on offense, which I think led to his making some clutch jump shots, and, most importantly, he was tenacious and scrappy on the defensive end, coming up with 2 big steals and even diving on the floor after a loose ball. He seemed to be playing like a man who didn't want to lose his job.

Certainly not our best night, but at least we're starting to see flashes of the players that we need Jefferson, Parker, and Ginobili to be.

Looking Forward:

Our next game is against Philadelphia on Friday. But before that is the trade deadline. Will we make any deals before then? What will our roster be like in Philly on Friday? I'm just happy that all of this trade talk is almost over, and we can start focusing on the rest of the season.

The Best The Spurs Can Do

The remainder of the 2009-2010 season promises to be especially interesting for our San Antonio Spurs. With 31 games left to play, the Spurs are in the #5 spot, just four games behind #2 Denver and four games ahead of #11 Memphis. In other words, at best they might have home court advantage throughout most of the playoffs, or at worst end up being a lottery team.

Based on the their performance to date, the Spurs can be expected to finish #6 in the West with a 49-33 record, with a best possible finish of 55-27 and a worst of 40-42.

Even the best foreseeable outcome is disappointing after the Spurs spent so much in the off season to make a fifth title run. But a lot can, and will, happen in the next three months.

As secretchord has already mentioned, with the deadline looming there will be more trades. Last week, the Mavericks traded Josh Howard, Drew Gooden, James Singleton and Quinton Ross to the Wizards for Caron Butler, Brendan Haywood and DeShawn Stevenson. This morning, word has it that the Portland Trail Blazers have acquired Marcus Camby from the Clippers in exchange for Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake and $3 million. Given that these are big trades made by other playoff contenders in the West, the Spurs might feel pressure to do something significant themselves.

The latest Spurs' trade rumors involve Roger Mason and Antonio McDyess.

"Roger had a terrific season last year after the Spurs had a bunch of injuries, and now that everyone is back healthy and his minutes are limited, the Spurs are trying to do the right thing and find a good spot for him," Roger Mason’s agent, Mark Bartelstein, told Yahoo! Sports on Monday.

The San Antonio Spurs are trying to unload Antonio McDyess and the remaining $7.5 million owed him after this season to possibly clear a way to make a trade for Chicago Bulls forward Tyrus Thomas, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

The Spurs have a number of other expiring contracts – Michael Finley, Matt Bonner, Ian Mahinmi among them – to possibly offer the Bulls.

Whether or not the Spurs make any moves, there will also be more injuries, not just for the Spurs, but also for the league's elite teams. Among the current top four teams: Mo Williams and Shaquille O'Neal have missed a combined 17 games; Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum and Ron Artest have missed a combined 29 games; Vince Carter, Rashard Lewis and Jameer Nelson have missed a combined 34 games; Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups, J.R. Smith and Kenyon Martin have missed a combined 34 games.

Compared to the Cavaliers, Lakers, Magic and Nuggets, the Spurs have been relatively healthy this year. Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have only missed a combined 16 games. And yet, new acquisitions Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess still haven't gelled with the Big Three or the Spurs system.

Whatever happens, the best the Spurs can do might simply be to stick with what they've got, play their best in their remaining games, and prepare for a title run next year. Who knows, after last week's win in Denver, the Spurs best may still be to come.

I Will Gladly Pay You Tomorrow For an Impact Player Today

Let the games begin.

The NBA Trade Deadline is just days away. The week leading up to the deadline is usually busy busy busy with a lot of noise and little else. It seems a certainty that trades will happen this year, and probably big ones at that. But I hate the lead-up. Let's talk when the chaos is over and the dust has settled, and we can accurately assess what has happened.

What is interesting with the Mason, Jr. talks is that it seems highly likely the Spurs will make a move. The players most mentioned in trade discussions are our expiring contracts, which are Mason, Jr., Bonner, Finley, and Ginobili. Look at that list and what do you notice? Those are four of our five best 3-pt shooters. In an offense that places a premium on the 3-pt shot, it would be risky to get rid of your ability to consistently hit that shot.

It will be very interesting to see what this roster looks like come Friday morning.

Hello Darkness, My Old Friend

Now that was a win to feel good about.

For the Spurs, it had all the makings of a statement game: playing a top-tier team on the road on the Thursday night before the all-star break (the very last game before the break) on national TV.

Of course, for the Nuggets, it seemed to have the opposite feel. They seemed more than willing to pack it in if they couldn't win the game in the first half, and they played without passion or precision for most of the game. In that regard, it's hard to put too much stock in the win for the Spurs.

But if we look at the game from the perspective of the things that the Spurs control, i.e., what they do, then there is a lot to like about the game. Despite Denver's effort, the Spurs played with energy and heart. And they played for a full 48 minutes. Denver made the tiniest of runs early in the 3rd quarter to threaten to make it a game. Pop called a quick timeout, and 5 points later we had the game back in hand. It was nice to see a Spurs team that can build and sustain a lead over the 2nd half.

The most impressive part of the win was the defense. For the first time all season we were playing defense aggressively. We were active, making all of our rotations quickly and precisely. We closed out on shooters. We communicated, helping to create one living, breathing defensive unit, rather than 5 individuals playing defense. It was nice to see, and a sobering reminder of what we had been missing for the last 50 games.

Is this game (finally) a turning point? We've been tricked into thinking this before with this team, so I must temper my excitement. Still, the difference in the way we competed and played defense last night has to at least allow us to feel good. Perhaps the sleeping giant that we've been led to believe this team could be is starting to wake up.

In last night's telecast Doug Collins said that Pop was excited about coaching this team and what he could do over the last 30 games. For some reason, that made me happy and excited. Pop has more or less had the same team for the last several years, and the "corporate knowledge" was pervasive and ran deep. Did he fall into a groove that eventually became a rut? Did he lose some of his edge? If this season presents a chance for Pop to reinvigorate himself and rediscover his coaching acumen, that should give us as much hope as anything else. Unlike most teams, our continued success is tied as much to our coach as it is to our players. In addition to the emergence of Hill and Blair, the continued healing of Manu, and the hope for Jefferson to turn things around, maybe Pop getting his coaching mojo back will be a critical factor in turning the season around.

The Sky is Falling

I've been derelict in my recapping duties. You might think it's because we suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the short-handed Lakers and pretty much signaled the death knell of the season. That's only partly the reason. Mainly, my computer is down again with a virus that I can't seem to get rid of. So I've had to call in the professionals, and they don't get here until Saturday. Luckily, I also got a spiffy new smart phone that allows me to surf the web and do such amazing things that I'm hesitant to call it a 'phone' because the percentage of time it actually gets used as a phone is approximately 1.7%. But said 'phone' has also kept me distracted from finding the time and resources to recap the Lakers game. But I'm here now, so let's get down to it.

The Richard Jefferson experiment is failing. I hesitate to use the word 'failure', even though by all accounts it is. But these things are fluid, and it's hard to judge the entirety of something until it's actually over. That's a nice way of saying there's still a chance that it could all click for Jefferson and he might drastically improve his game in a very short time frame. But I don't think anybody is expecting that to happen.

The thing that's so frustrating about Jefferson is that we weren't asking him to be the best version of himself. We had calibrated our expectations. At most, we were hoping for 75-80% of his best seasons. He could come to a team and be a fourth option, focus on defense and energy and winning. It was to be a dream come true.

And even with those diminished demands, he's disappointed. It would be one thing if he was just failing to make an impact, or was essentially an over-hyped and over-paid role player. But he hasn't even been that good this season. He's worse than a role player. He is actively making the team worse when he is on the floor. We are better off with just about anybody else on the court. (The real problem, of course, is that the Spurs don't technically have any other SFs on the roster). He can't make an open jump shot to save his life; when he gets to the rim, he finds new and creative ways to miss dunks or turn the ball over; he blows so many defensive assignments that he gets yanked out of games within the first 2 minutes. He's rattled, totally devoid of confidence. It seems he is untradeable; but is he unbenchable? Would benching him admit to failure and a waste of money?

Of course, there are bigger problems with the team, and more and more everyday it looks like a lost season. Can anybody honestly say with any confidence that this Spurs team can compete with any other top 10 team in the West in a playoff series? We're 2-2 on the road trip, already losing the 2 'statement' games, with the 3rd looming. At this point, I'm sure no one expects to win against the Nuggets in Denver. Did anyone expect to see the day when the Nuggets were the better and more cohesive team?

It feels like we're at a turning point, not only for the season and the franchise, but for the legacy of Tim Duncan. How do we proceed in the immediate future and in the long-term? Graydon Gordian over at 48MoH has given voice to the words that no fan really wants to hear or say: it's time to start rebuilding.

Go read the article; it's wonderful. He makes a strong case. And if you're worried about failing, there's a precedent, and a great example in our very own conference:

The Los Angeles Lakers.

After the disastrous 2004 finals in which the Pistons humiliated the Lakers, the team made the bold move of trading away Shaquille O'Neal, arguably there most important player in winning championships. They started building around Kobe Bryant. For the first few years, it was bad. Shaq won another title in Miami; the Lakers virtually lost a season with the Tomjanovich debacle and a Kobe injury. They had no other championship players, they were wasting Kobe's prime, and most people seriously doubted that Kobe would ever make it back to the Finals, let alone win another.

And then it all changed, with one improbable trade. With the arrival of Gasol, the Lakers became a great team. It's amazing what the addition of one great player can do to a team. Kobe gets another top-tier player. Everybody else gets to move down one notch, so Lamar Odom suddenly doesn't have to be the second best player on the team, but can be the versatile third option that is a match-up nightmare for other teams; Andrew Bynum can be brought along slowly and allowed to blossom; players like Luke Walton and Sascha Vujacic can move to the bench where there skills can be put to good use and their weaknesses diminished.

With a couple of years of patience and one bold move, the Lakers became the best team in the Western Conference once again. Obviously, the situation in San Antonio is different. Duncan is further along in his career; San Antonio isn't a hot free agent destination if the Spurs aren't winning Championships. But the front office has managed the cap well, and they do have some good trading assets as well as a couple of really good young players. With some patience, intelligence, and a bit of luck, the Spurs could easily be back in Championship contention in a few years.

But it would most likely mean sacrificing this year and probably the next. And there would be no guarantees that we'd ever get back. Given how poorly this season has gone, that doesn't seem like such a risk. But it would mean giving up on this team as we know it, and rebuilding the character of the team as well as the roster.

I don't know what the right answer is, but a time of reckoning is coming. We're either going to definitively close the book on an era and watch as a Dynasty crumbles to dust, permanently remanded to history books and our memories; or we're going to continue to rage against the dying of light, refusing to go gently into that good night.

If We Could Only Play the Clippers More, We'd Have the Best Record in the League

Nothing about last night's game was surprising. I believe this is the third time we've beaten the Clippers handily. The Clippers aren't a bad team, and they certainly have a lot of talented players. But they have just never been able to coalesce into a functioning unit, and we have their number.

Perhaps the most interesting subplot of the night was George Hill going off for 17 points in the first quarter. Since being put into the starting line-up as our 2 guard, he has been playing extremely well. I love him in the role as starting 2 and back-up PG. His PG skills still aren't natural or instinctive, though certainly satisfactory for a back-up. But his value to the team is too important to not have him on the floor more. He was a 2 in college; let him be a 2 in the NBA.

A thought occurred to me while watching last night's game: Is George Hill turning into what we hoped Richard Jefferson would be? As Jefferson continues to be mired in mediocrity, Hill is rising. He is averaging around 15 ppg since being put into the starting line-up, but can easily go for 20+; he has a much-improved and reliable jump shot; he is quick and athletic and is not afraid to attack the basket or get out in transition; and he is a tenacious defender who can defend multiple positions.

Granted, there are differences, mostly size and position. But aren't these the things we were hoping to get from Jefferson. Maybe, just maybe, as Parker and Ginobili and McDyess continue to round into form, Hill will fill that vital 5th spot on the "closing" team.

Looking Forward:

We were expected to beat the Clippers, and we did. Next up, the other LA team. We play the Lakers on Monday. Kobe did not play last night in a Lakers' victory in Portland. There's a chance that he won't play again Monday. Either way, the Lakers are a tough out. This is one of the 3 games I pegged as the most important of the Rodeo Road Trip. We already lost the first; I don't want to lose the second.

Baby I've Been Here Before I've Seen This Room and I've Walked This Floor

We needed this win. We've struggled on the road and against good teams all year, and this was a chance to reverse both trends.

And we had it. Our defense suffocated them in the third quarter. We got the pace where we wanted, we were executing our offense with precision, limiting turnovers, and we were slowly taking control of the game. It felt like a game from a few years ago. Slow it down, grind it out, and eventually our execution, confidence, and trust would prevail. Well, at least 2 of those things are gone, and I'm pretty sure the 3rd one's not far behind.

We wilted down the stretch and gave the game away. Portland did their part to win it, but make no mistake: we should have won this game. We were firmly in control of the game in almost every aspect. Then, without notice, we started turning the ball over; we started taking horrible shots (Manu's 3 from 5 feet behind the line comes to mind) and stopped working to get the best available shot; our defensive rotations broke down and we gave up some back-breaking wide open 3s. I can't even remember a good offensive possession we had in the last 5 minutes of the game, save for Pop's awesome out of bounds play down 3 with under 20 seconds left.

Jefferson is clearly struggling. He's just not getting the system, he's doubting himself, he's hesitant, and he's passive. He rebounds like crap. And I don't think he's all of a sudden going to magically "get it". He'll go through stretches where he plays decently, but then it's like he forgets and regresses. We're past the point where people need to be reminded to play hard and compete. This is professional basketball.

Doug Collins said it on the telecast. These are the types of games the Spurs used to always win. Tight games that come down to execution and defensive stops down the stretch. I think we can safely say that this is no longer that Spurs team. We've rarely been blown out this year, but we've lost a ton of close games. That is not a coincidence. We are lacking something critical that allows us to win close (important) games, and I'm not sure exactly what it is. I don't think anybody else does, either.

What are the answers? A trade? For whom? And who do we give up? Will anybody take Jefferson? Will it even matter?

Looking Backwards:

I was only able to watch the last 4 minutes of the Kings game. I saw enough to see us pull away, then watch Tyreke almost magically bring them all the way back. Man, that kid is frightening. It's hard to find any fault in anything the Spurs did, other than the 2 careless TOs. We had the score and the clock on our side, and we did what we needed to do. I can't comment on anything up until that point, but I'm grateful for the win.

Looking Forward:

Next up is the Clippers on Saturday. I fully expect that we'll win this game and win it convincingly. Yawn. I've seen this movie before. We need the win, and we'll take it. But the next game of importance is Monday night against the Lakers. I said we needed at least 2 of the 3 big games on the road trip, and we already lost the first. I'll let you do the math.

Something Something Rodeo Road Trip Something

Tonight's game against Sacramento marks the first game of the fabled Rodeo Road Trip. We all know what this means for the Spurs. This is when we "turn the corner" and "come together as a team" which will inevitably lead to our "second half surge".

The thing is, we have played extremely well on these trips with surprising consistency. And it has often been a harbinger of things to come. The question is: is that true for this year's team?

Yes and no. It is very possible that we'll have a great road trip and it will springboard us into a strong close to the season and into the playoffs. The talent on the team can not be ignored, and perhaps all the calls for patience and trust in the process of growth were spot on. It's also possible that we have a poor road trip for the first time and continue our average play for the remainder. But there is one other possibility that we should keep our eye on: that we have a successful road trip and that it doesn't lead to anything of substance.

This last premise all depends on how we define "successful".

Let's take a look at the schedule. The trip this year consists of 8 games:

2/3 @ Sacramento
2/4 @ Portland
2/6 @ LA Clippers
2/8 @ LA Lakers
2/11 @ Denver

(All-Star Break)

2/17 @ Indiana
2/19 @ Philadelphia
2/21 @ Detroit

The first thing that stands out is that this isn't a terribly difficult schedule. We only have one back-to-back; we have an extended stay in one place (Los Angeles); we have 2 days off between our 2 most difficult games (Lakers and Nuggets); and we only play 3 teams currently over .500.

The common perception of the Spurs' season is that the team is inconsistent. In a sense, that's true. From play to play, quarter to quarter, half to half, we can be. But our record is anything but. Consider:

--We are effectively in a 3-way tie with Portland and Phoenix for the 9th best record in the entire league right now. Our record against teams that are tied or ahead of us: 3-12. Our record against the 19 teams below us: 24-7.

--Let's split it right down the center. Our record against the 15 best teams in the league: 8-15. Our record against the 15 worst teams: 19-4.

--One more for you. Our record against plus-.500 teams: 11-19. Our record against sub-.500 teams: 16-0.

To me, this is the model of consistency. We beat the teams we should and lose to the teams we shouldn't. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Now let's look at the road trip again. 5 games against sub-.500 teams, 3 against plus-.500 teams who are also tied or ahead of us in the standings. If we maintain the status quo, we'll most likely go 5-3 on the road trip, which on the surface looks like a good record.

But I contend that the success of the road trip should be measured in how we perform in those 3 games against Portland, the Lakers, and Denver. In my mind, we have to win at least one of those games and we need to win at least 2. If we hold court against the other 5, that can put us at 6-2 or 7-1, which would be a superb Rodeo Road Trip.

But what if we win 2 or even 3 of those big games, but lose one or two against the poorer teams? That could put our record for the trip at 5-3 or 4-4. But the trip should still be considered a success if we can get some wins against the better teams, even if we lose a game or two to some bad teams.

That's why we can't look strictly at the record; we have to consider the opponent. The success of the trip should be measured in our quality of play, especially against the very good teams we will be facing in the next few weeks. The Spurs can finish the road trip 5-3, and that could be either extremely frustrating or extremely gratifying.

Let's hope for gratifying. And let's hope it does springboard us into that "surge" we've all heard so much about.