The case for starting Bonner and Finley

Exciting and promising as the early season is, some Spurs fans are still seeing red thanks to the continued presence of Michael Finley and the Spurs’ red-headed “center”, Matt Bonner, in the starting lineup.

When the Spurs signed Antonio McDyess it was assumed he’d join Tim Duncan in the starting lineup as the Spurs second best big man. Likewise, the signing of Richard Jefferson led many to believe Finley would also be pushed to the bench—if not retirement.

Instead assumed starters Roger Mason and McDyess find themselves, along with Manu Ginobili, anchoring a very stout second unit while many wonder why the Spurs don’t simply put their best five in the starting lineup.

Yes, despite the words and actions of some of basketball’s greatest minds (Ginobili and Lamar Odom have been both the second best players and sixth men of championship teams) the uninformed basketball mind (of which we can now confirm to include Allen Iverson) still holds onto an outdated concept of a hallowed starting five.

The criticisms of the Spurs current starting unit is that the defensive deficiencies put the Spurs at horrid starts leaving them at a huge disadvantage—as if the first five minutes won or lost games. Fast starts are nice, but they often go for naught if your second unit squanders the lead. Is it not better to have a slightly inferior starting five so that you can gain a significant advantage to end the first quarter and start the second?

I would argue the better use of a rotation is one that allows for the least amount of drop off in talent over the course of a game while maximizing the strengths of your lineup, keeping in mind that a fatigued version of your best lineup is still a lesser talented version of said lineup.

And I’m not sure starting Finley and Bonner doesn’t satisfy those requirements. Scoff if you must but in starting Finley and Bonner you not only mask their weaknesses but maximize the strengths of everyone else on your roster.

In starters Tim Duncan and Tony Parker you have two franchise caliber players that excel in creating shots for teammates. The flip side is that for all Parker’s speed or Duncan’s length neither is a particularly explosive player and thus each requires sufficient spacing to work at their peak. So the starting lineup is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Bonner and Finley need someone to create their shots and Duncan and Parker need people to create their space.

It can be argued that Ginobili, Mason and McDyess offer the same spacing without the defensive costs but neither are as effective shooting the three-pointer and both offer skills that are redundant in a Parker/Duncan starting lineup that are sorely needed in the second unit.

Case in point: Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker have great chemistry and while both are capable off the ball their greatest strengths are as a team’s primary playmaker. Even though the combination is by far the Spurs best backcourt do you really want a combination that limits one or the other as a spot up shooter for long stretches? Or is it better to let each have their run playing to their strengths while staying in rhythm for that last stretch run?

Roger Mason, another strong candidate to start, is another interesting case. Like Finley he is strictly a shooter though at this point he’s certainly a better overall player. Unlike Finley, however, Mason has enough ball handling ability to create jump shots at times and this is vital in taking pressure off of backup point guard George Hill, who while improved, still does not create the same wide open looks Parker does (making it harder for Finley to find his own offense in a second unit). Thus a second unit with Mason and Ginobili in the backcourt actually makes George Hill a better player.

And finally there is Bonner. While I wouldn’t be alarmed to see McDyess eventually be inserted into the starting lineup I can give you some new viewpoint of why perhaps he’s not so far. The Spurs two primary second tier big men offer very different strengths while holding the same exact weakness: defense. For that reason alone you simply can’t play DeJuan Blair and Bonner together. Ever.

So as much as a fan favorite as Blair is—and it’s obvious he really is—by having Bonner AND Blair on the bench you practically guarantee that you can only effectively use just one from night to night, forcing you to use just one or the other instead of both on any given night. And at the end of the night do you really want to minimize a valuable asset?

And that’s what this starting lineup comes down to. Are Bonner and Finley still valuable assets to an NBA team? Finley may not be the defender he once was (not that it was ever his specialty in the first place) the numbers show he is still a quality ROLE player who needs to play next to a quality defensive wingman to hide his flaws. And stretch fours are a valuable commodity in the league and as much as we rib Bonner he’s not as hopeless in his deficiencies as shooting specialists like Steve Novak or Tim Thomas.

Ultimately we’ll hit the playoffs and our rotations will be shortened and perhaps both will find themselves on the outside looking in. But over a long season there are plenty of minutes to fill and the goal remains maximizing every single one of them without taxing your still aging core.