Correlation Isn't Causation, Except When It Is

The Spurs suffered a crushing blow in their bid to stay out of the 8th spot. I didn't watch the second half of the game (and now I don't want to). But from what I saw in the first half, we were sluggish, lazy, and disconnected as a team. The Grizzlies--out of the playoffs and only playing for pride and a winning season--played as if the game was more important to them than it was to us. Think about that.

In the last 3 games the team has played poorly, regressing to early season mediocre form. Two things happened in that span that bear looking at: 1) George Hill went down with an injury; 2) Tony Parker came back from injury. Obviously we miss George, especially on the defensive end. His ability to pester the ball handler, keep dribblers out of the lane, and deny entry to wing scorers is vital to our defensive philosophy. And that's not even mentioning his scoring ability.

But is any of this recent mini-slump due in some part to Parker coming back? I'm not talking about a "Hill is Better For the Team Than Parker" debate, though I plan on getting into that in the offseason. More, is Parker disrupting chemistry that we had built over the run we put together while he was out? Is his re-insertion back into the rotation (and presumably, the starting line-up eventually) limiting the effectiveness of the "Super Manu" we had all come to love over the last month? To me, the ultimate question for now and moving forward is: can a maximum effective Tony Parker and a maximum effective Manu Ginobili exist on the same team? And if not, which is more valuable?

Looking Forward:

The schedule doesn't get any easier, as we travel into Denver tonight to play the Nuggets. Playing in Denver, against the Nuggets, on a back-to-back is hard. We need this win. Will the team respond?

After tonight's game I'm hoping to do a more thorough breakdown of the race between OKC, Portland, and San Antonio. It's not looking good.

That Nets loss is looking worse and worse.