Spurs record in close games

[Gutter92]

We're 9-2 in games decided by 3 points or less. 1 loss was winnable at the buzzer, vs. Portland, but Finley missed the open jumper.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

According to statisticians like Hollinger, this is actually a bad sign because games decided by 3 points or less are basically a coin toss - that is, over the long term teams win roughly half of them. By that rationale, we are in for a bunch of losses by 3 or less in the second half of the season.

However, I think that is too simplistic a way to view close wins/losses because it ignores the ability of a team to operate under pressure in the clutch. The better a team, the better they are under pressure, and the more games they will win in the clutch. It is not a coincidence that a young, poor team like OKC have had so many close losses, nor that our team of proven vets, the core of which have played together for over 5 years, is winning a lot of close games.

Is 9-2 a realistic assessment of this team's clutch ability? At this point I'd say no, it's an overestimate, and that a couple of those wins were lucky, but I'll take them anyway. :)

[Thompson]

Well, I don't think we're necessarily due to lose a bunch of close games by 3 or less (if you toss a coin 3 times and it comes up heads all three times, what are the odds it will come up tails on the next flip? -Still 50/50).

On the other hand, the season the Mavericks were close to 70 wins they had a statistically huge number of close games they won, and Hollinger said that indicated they weren't as good as their record might have otherwise indicated. I'd like to think we're just a clutch team (and we have a history that might provide supporting evidence to that theory), but who knows.

[DrHouse]

The Spurs are the best executing team in clutch situations so their 9-2 record doesn't surprise me.

If only the Lakers had that kind of bball IQ on their team they would have won at least 4-5 more games this season. Instead we have dumbass LO leaving his man to guard the layup and giving up the wide open 3 when we're up 3.

[Solid D]

That stat category is there for a reason. You can tell about a team's ability to execute to a fair degree from these numbers. A lot of NBA games are decided in the last 2 minutes and the Spurs are pulling them out.

[SequSpur]

That stat category is there for a reason. You can tell about a team's ability to execute to a fair degree from these numbers. A lot of NBA games are decided in the last 2 minutes and the Spurs are pulling them out.

Roger Mason Jr.

[SequSpur]

That stat category is there for a reason. You can tell about a team's ability to execute to a fair degree from these numbers. A lot of NBA games are decided in the last 2 minutes and the Spurs are pulling them out.

Tony Parker, best player in the NBA.

smb.

[Rogue]

because spurs always give the game up before entering the 4th quarter if they find they have little chance to win, under the name of "save for the playoffs".

[kcplayboi_26]

We're 9-2 in games decided by 3 points or less. 1 loss was winnable at the buzzer, vs. Portland, but Finley missed the open jumper.

i was wondering the stat for this since last week, i knew it was alot

[angelbelow]

no surprise there.

[DPG21920]

I remember when the Mavs had that 60+ win season and lost in the 1st round. They won a lot of games like the Spurs are winning this year FWIW

[John_C]

And how many of those were supposed to have been our already even before the last two minutes?

In the case of the Spurs, I find it more of cramming up on defense on the last two minutes of the games because we've let go of leads that should have made the game easier entering the last two minutes.

[tmtcsc]

The Spurs are the best executing team in clutch situations so their 9-2 record doesn't surprise me.

If only the Lakers had that kind of bball IQ on their team they would have won at least 4-5 more games this season. Instead we have dumbass LO leaving his man to guard the layup and giving up the wide open 3 when we're up 3.

Kobe was thrilled with that. I watched that game last night.

[rascal]

We're 9-2 in games decided by 3 points or less. 1 loss was winnable at the buzzer, vs. Portland, but Finley missed the open jumper.

Many of these wins were against non playoff teams so it does not bode well for success in the future that the spurs have been struggling to win with the early easy schedule.

[FreeMason]

All you gotta do is Free Mason and the rest is money.

[Agloco]

After a 2-5 start, the Spurs are 28-9. That's just as good as any of the "elite" teams. Close games are a relative indicator and I wonder how many close games the top four have gotten into and won. Point differential this year is definitely a concern and I think the lack of easy blowout wins is more concerning than the number of close games we've been in.


I think people tend to overlook the fact that Manu and Tony were out for the beginning of the season. Things take a bit to start clicking. The Rodeo Trip will tell us whats really up IMO.

[lefty]

Tony Parker, best player in the NBA.

smb.

:lmao

[GSH]

They had a geek statistician on 60 Minutes last season - I think he works for the Red Sox. The team said that he is worth his weight in gold, but they don't take his advice on everything. The example the used was his insistence that there is no such thing as a "clutch hitter" in baseball. And the team basically said, "We don't care what your stats say... that's bullshit." And even the statistician had to admit that the numbers may not account for everything.

Hollinger is just as full of shit. There are clutch shooters in basketball. And there are teams that are mentally tough, that execute and find a way to dig it out at the end.

I've said for years that no team can get as many possessions, in the last minute of the game as Utah, and we saw it again the other night. You can credit that to Jerry Sloan. His teams are always tough, and they execute. Because he won't keep players around who don't fit that mold.

I wonder what Hollinger means by "over the long term" the close games even out? Over multiple seasons? If so, then what difference does it make? And if not, then he's just plain full of shit. A lot of teams just plain collapse in the last minute or two, and find ways to lose close games. And those teams are going to lose more than 50% to the teams that hang tough. It's not a coin-toss, with an equal chance of going either way.

[Solid D]

The Spurs are 9-2 in games with a margin of 3 points or less.

*In those 11 games, the Spurs led going into the 4th quarter in only 4 of those 11 games and they won all 4. That would tell me that the Spurs weren't blowing big leads.

*In the 2 losses, the Spurs were down by 8 going into the 4th in Portland (99-100 L) and down by 6 going into the 4th quarter vs. Milwaukee (98-100 L). The Spurs closed the gap in those 2 losses in the 4th.

*4 of those 11 games were played in the first 10 games of the season without Manu (all 4 games) and without TP (in the 3 wins) and the Spurs went 3-1.

*The 9 wins in games decided by 3 points or less included wins over 5 playoff teams Houston, PHX, Phily, LA Lakers, and NJ and maybe a 6th (who knows about Larry Brown's Bobcats right now?). They were not all close wins against cupcakes.

*In the Spurs 45 games thusfar, the Spurs have been down going into the 4th quarter 15 times....and they lost 11 of those 15. In the 4 wins, the Spurs came back to beat Houston, SAC, PHX and Charlotte.

*The Spurs are currently 31-14. I'd say in looking at the facts, the Spurs are pretty strong in the 4th quarter and closing-out games.

*Oh yeah, the Spurs are 3-0 in OT games this season.

[Ghazi]

What some people call clutch I call fluke shots.

[Manufan909]

The Spurs are 9-2 in games with a margin of 3 points or less.

*In those 11 games, the Spurs led going into the 4th quarter in only 4 of those 11 games and they won all 4. That would tell me that the Spurs weren't blowing big leads.

*In the 2 losses, the Spurs were down by 8 going into the 4th in Portland (99-100 L) and down by 6 going into the 4th quarter vs. Milwaukee (98-100 L). The Spurs closed the gap in those 2 losses in the 4th.

*4 of those 11 games were played in the first 10 games of the season without Manu (all 4 games) and without TP (in the 3 wins) and the Spurs went 3-1.

*The 9 wins in games decided by 3 points or less included wins over 5 playoff teams Houston, PHX, Phily, LA Lakers, and NJ and maybe a 6th (who knows about Larry Brown's Bobcats right now?). They were not all close wins against cupcakes.

*In the Spurs 45 games thusfar, the Spurs have been down going into the 4th quarter 15 times....and they lost 11 of those 15. In the 4 wins, the Spurs came back to beat Houston, SAC, PHX and Charlotte.

*The Spurs are currently 31-14. I'd say in looking at the facts, the Spurs are pretty strong in the 4th quarter and closing-out games.

*Oh yeah, the Spurs are 3-0 in OT games this season.

Great stats. Hollinger can suck sequ's balls, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[mathbzh]

I call this great execution.

[Solid D]

Great stats.

Thanks, I wasn't sleepy, so doing the research did the trick. :)

[m33p0]

and what does that tell us? Spurs execute under pressure. :king

[resistanze]

I remember when the Mavs had that 60+ win season and lost in the 1st round. They won a lot of games like the Spurs are winning this year FWIW

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mavs in 2007 were like 20-3 in close games.

[TampaDude]

What some people call clutch I call fluke shots.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAHD037_16x20~2006-Miami-Heat-NBA-Champions-Posters.jpg

:p:

[NFGIII]

I agree that stats don't always tell the story but over the long haul most things even out. The question is "How long is long"? A season or multiple ones. At this point I really don't care what time frame Hollinger would use to stistically break this down. All I care about is are they Ws or Ls. So far the majority are Ws and that suits me just fine.

Anyway even though statistically over time things do tend to even out there can be streaks within the time frame that are very one-sided. Hopefully the Spurs continue this one-sided performance.

[Solid D]

I agree that stats don't always tell the story but over the long haul most things even out. The question is "How long is long"? A season or multiple ones. At this point I really don't care what time frame Hollinger would use to stistically break this down. All I care about is are they Ws or Ls. So far the majority are Ws and that suits me just fine.

Anyway even though statistically over time things do tend to even out there can be streaks within the time frame that are very one-sided. Hopefully the Spurs continue this one-sided performance.

Records in close games are not dice that you throw, nor a coin that you flip. Games are won and lost in crunch time by the team that plays the best. Certain teams shoot for a higher percentage in the 4th quarter, not because it's luck or it's their time in a balanced schedule of results, but because they execute better. These winning teams have a system & players who can get open to score or do a better job at keeping their opponent from scoring. That is why Pop tells his team they must "be perfect".

If "statistically over time things do tend to even out", then in what century is it going even out with 4 Super Bowl victories for the Buffalo Bills or Minnesota Vikings?

[hater]

According to Hollinger,

stopped reading there

so according to Hollinger, Robert Horry never existed.

[NFGIII]

If "statistically over time things do tend to even out", then in what century is it going even out with 4 Super Bowl victories for the Buffalo Bills or Minnesota Vikings?

Good point but if you look at most sports franchises you will see an ebb and flow over time. That's really all I was implying.