Discussing De’Aaron Fox’s Spurs debut
A conversation about the good, the bad, and the surprising about Fox’s first game with the Spurs.
What follows is a conversation between J.R. Wilco and me about De’Aaron Fox’s debut, the Spurs’ crunch-time play and the Fox-Paul backcourt.
J.R. Wilco: To be candid, and I know it’s only a single performance so there’s not much to judge by, but I saw very little to absolutely nothing to dislike last night and an awful lot to love.
Fox seems exactly as advertised: a speedy offensive initiator with an excellent handle, tons of great moves, the ability to hit high-difficulty shots in the mid-range, and the kind of vision that could truly unlock San Antonio‘s offense for the rest of the season.
Oh, yeah! And he has active hands and can disrupt opposing offenses with his steals and defensive effort.
Jesus Gomez: I agree. De’Aaron Fox on a Spurs jersey was the same De’Aaron Fox that was one of the engines of several great offenses in Sacramento. He was also active on defense, as you mentioned.
If there is something to criticize it’s his inefficiency in the second half. The entire team struggled but the hope was that Fox would provide scoring when the offense stagnated and he went 3-for-10 in the last two quarters and 1-for-5 in the fourth
Wilco: The entire team was in a funk for much of the last two quarters, but the takeaway for me there is the way that he did enough to keep the Spurs in the lead, and that he performed with aplomb down the stretch. If the last two offensive possessions are any indication, our clutch time net rating is about to undergo a night/day transformation.
What did you see in the plays: both in the way they were designed, and in the way De’Aaron executed them?
Gomez: The second-to-last possession, which ended in a Wemby putback, shows exactly what the team needed and Fox brings to the table. The Spurs put him at the top of the key with everyone else flat at the baseline. No screens. And he got to the rim against Dyson Daniels, almost hit the layup and drew the attention of Wemby’s man to create the putback opportunity.
In the last play, because he is a threat to score, it caused the Hawks to make the mistake of sending two to the ball allowing Wemby to slip the screen and get open in the lane. Even though he didn’t score, he made both plays happen. So maybe I’m being a little too harsh on his offense in the fourth.
Wilco: There’s no doubt in my mind that Fox was the difference for the Spurs in crunch time. Pulling everyone away from the ball and letting one guy do his thing has never been my favorite, but that’s usually because I hate settling for a mid-range fadeaway because you never know where those rebounds are going to end up if the shot misses. Well, Fox drove right to the basket and barely missed with his off hand, while leaving the ball hanging tantalizingly right in front of the rim. Seeing the separation that he got from his man was beautiful; watching the rest of the defense try to stop him from getting to his spot was hilarious; celebrating Wemby cleaning the board and stuffing it home was revelatory — as was the final play that earned the game-winning freebies. A two-star system is just an entirely different animal than a solo operation and I’m beyond giddy at the end-game prospects for the rest of the season when some more significant plays have been able to be added.
What do you think of the “take them by surprise” intentional miss of the second free throw?
Gomez: I think that it should not have taken anyone by surprise, to be honest. The Spurs’ broadcast was discussing it the entire time. Between free throws, Paul went to talk to Mitch Johnson and then whispered something to Wemby, who said “right” before the second shot. I’m assuming he was telling him to miss on purpose. A three would have beaten the Spurs anyway, so it made sense.
Speaking of surprises that should have been expected, what did you think about the starting backcourt of Fox and Paul?
Wilco: It seems like the Spurs have decided that Chris Paul as a starter is necessary in order to ensure that they have the most fully-invested version of Chris Paul the teacher and mentor for the team’s abundance of young guys who are in need of all the teaching and mentoring they can get. If that’s the default setting for the team this season (and judging from CP3’s statements before and throughout the season, there’s every indication that the team gave him assurances) then I can accept Paul-as-starter is non-negotiable.
If the preceding paragraph was too diplomatic for you, then I’m sorry that I’m not sorry. But the bottom line is that Chris didn’t kill the Spurs last night. The opening stanza ended with a 10 point buffer, 35–25 good guys on top, and a season-high six made threes. I mean, you can use whatever eye test you want, but the results weren’t weak from my POV.
Gomez: I’m fine with Paul as a starter for now. He picked the Spurs because he knew he’d get minutes and that was more important to him than chasing a ring, as he’s stated multiple times. Paul has also been really good in his role this season and seemed willing to share the ball in Fox’s debut.
My main concern is the defense. The Spurs are now playing two small guards and Devin Vassell in the perimeter while having the raw but toolsy Stephon Castle and the approaching elite Jeremy Sochan on the bench. And Paul didn’t just start the game but finished it too, which was arguably the more questionable choice.
That said, I think the two-point guard lineup can work and I think Paul has definitely earned the chance to prove it can. If it doesn’t, I’m sure the coaching staff will eventually make the necessary adjustments.
Wilco: In all candor, I’m interested in seeing what a Wemby/Sochan/Barnes/Vassell/Fox lineup would do over a few games. Ditto a Wemby/Barnes/Vassell/Castle/Fox starting group. But looking at yesterday’s game as a reason for either of those lineups doesn’t work for me because Wemby wasn’t anywhere near his normal self. Until we see whether his otherworldly gifts can hold the oddball group together, we probably have to give the defense a pass.
