GSH
04-10-2009, 10:48 PM
There are some populare myths that are often discussed about the Spurs. I want to take a shot at a few of them.
1. The Spurs stats are low because they play at a slower pace than other teams.
Partially true. The Spurs average 91.5 possessions per game, exactly the same as last season. But 3 teams average fewer possessions per game - New Orleans (90.5), Detroit (90.4), and Portland (90.0). And Cleveland is very close at 91.8 possessions per game.
By itself, this myth is not so important. But it takes on major importance when considering some of the Spurs' other stats, like RB's and FTA's. I think many fans would be surprised to hear that the Spurs pace is almost identical to that of the Cavs. And I know that a lot will be surprised to hear that even though the Spurs are 27th in the league in possessions per game, they rank 11th in the league in both FGM and AST per game - and 4th in DRB per game. Amazing that with so few possessions, they can still rank so high in certain stats, don't you think? It's enough to make you question why they rank so low in other areas.
2. The Spurs are not a good rebounding team.
Even though the Spurs rank near the bottom in possessions per game, they rank near the middle of the pack (19th) in total rebounds per game. But that only tells part of the story. In defensive rebounding, they are an astounding 4th in the league - impressive, considering the pace of their games. In offensive rebounding, however, they are not only dead last in the league, they are a very distant last. The other 4 teams (above), that play at a similar or slower pace, all pull down considerably more offensive boards than the Spurs. But... that has more to do with Pop's philosophy of dropping guys back to guard against fast breaks instead of crashing the boards. Based on those numbers, you could conclude that the Spurs are the best defensive rebounding team in the league (pace adjusted). And even though their overall rebounding is dragged down by Pop's 1-2-3-back philosophy, their total rebounds per game are still among the better in the league when adjusted for pace.
Still not convinced? There is another stat called Rebounding % which, simply stated, means "what percentage of available rebounds does the team pull down?" The Spurs Defensive Rebounding % is .778, which is 1st in the league by a huge margin. In fact, the gap between them and the 2nd place team (Orlando - .759) is the largest between any two places on the list. (The gap between 1st and 2nd is the same as the gap between 2nd and 12th place.) The Spurs are, in fact, the best defensive rebounding team in the league. But, not surprisingly, their Offensive Rebounding % of .219 is by far the worst in the league.
The Spurs are the best at defensive rebounding, the worst at offensive rebounding, and in the middle overall. But don't lose sight of the fact that sacrificing offensive boards is part of Pop's game plan. That's why he focuses on opponent FG%. He wants to make the opponent miss, pull down the defensive boards, and grind it out on the other end - not give up easy, high percentage shots on fast breaks. Not because they are incapable of rebounding.
3. The Spurs incredibly low number of FTA's are due to the slow pace of their games, and the fact that they shoot so many 3's.
Partially true. Both of those things are factors, but they don't come near to telling the whole story. I know that a lot of people are so negative about the Spurs right now that they don't want to hear it, but pace and playing style are not the only reason for the Spurs' low Free Throw Attempts. [Request: Before you start flaming about this one, read and keep an open mind. You just might be surprised.]
I could take about 3 pages on this subject. But the easiest thing is to take a close look at Tony Parker's numbers. If that doesn't convince you, you don't want to be convinced:
I think everyone will agree that Parker is one of the best PG's in the league. Out of all the top-tier PG's in the league, Parker shoots by far the fewest 3-pointers, and takes the most shots in the paint. To illustrate, Tony has taken 1,191 FGA's this season, and Chris Paul has taken 1,186 FGA's. But Tony has taken 488 shots in the paint (41%) and only 62 3-pointers (5%). Chris Paul has taken 308 shots in the paint (26%) and 164 3-pointers (14%). Given their number of shots, and shot selection, you would expect Tony to have drawn quite a few more whistles than CP3. But you would be wrong. Paul has drawn a total of 268 whistles vs. just 182 for Tony. Whenever Chris Paul drives the paint, he gets the benefit of a whistle just about twice as often as Tony Parker. Which is odd, since they both make about 63% of their shots in the paint, and Paul shoots a much higher FT%. There's no reason why they would feel the need to foul Paul more often than Tony. The difference is that Tony just doesn't get the calls. [Note: I already factored in the And-1 opportunities on both players. If you want to dispute what I've said, find something else.]
Think that's an isolated case? Look at how often some of the other PG's in the league get to the line, compared to Tony. And keep in mind that Tony isn't shooting 3's, and he is shooting more shots in the paint than any of them. He's taking the shots that should be earning him whistles.
..............Whistles........2P FGA....Shots in Paint
Parker........182.............1129...........488
Paul...........268.............1022...........308
D. Harris.....402...............808...........401
Billups........233...............560...........169
D. Will........187...............714...........305
Stuckey.....156...............797............217
That's right... Tony averages 1 whistle for every 2.7 shots he takes in the paint. Rodney freakin' Stuckey averages one whistle for every 1.4 shots he takes in the paint. (Even though he only completes about 50% of his shots in the paint vs. 63% for Parker. And even though he shoots a higher FT% than Parker.) Devin Harris averages 1 whistle for every shot he takes in the paint. So do you believe that teams are really fouling Stuckey twice as often, or Devin Harris three times as often as Parker? Or are the zebras just not blowing their whistles for Tony?
It is worth noting that the Spurs are shooting exactly the same number of 3P shots per game (19.7) as they did last season, and fewer than Cleveland (20.3) who plays at virtually the same pace. You might be surpised to know that the Cavs average just 35.5 points in the paint, compared to 34.4 for the Spurs. In fact, if you look at where the Cavs get their production, you will find that, other than LeBron and Varejao, the Cavs have a lot of players who don't go to the paint any more often than the Spurs' players do. (Would you be surprised to hear that Ilgauskas only shoots about a third of his shots in the paint, and West only shoots about 20% of his shots in the paint?) The Spurs are really no more of a jump-shooting, 3P shooting team than the Cavs, overall.
If you take the time to really look at the Cavs numbers, you find that most of them are uncannily similar to the Spurs. The two most telling differences are Opponent 3P%, and FTA's per game. The Spurs haven't defended the 3 ball well this season. But the bulk of the discrepancy in FTA's is on the zebras. If they just gave Tony the FTA's he deserves, most of the difference would be erased. You may not like it, or believe it, but it's true.
1. The Spurs stats are low because they play at a slower pace than other teams.
Partially true. The Spurs average 91.5 possessions per game, exactly the same as last season. But 3 teams average fewer possessions per game - New Orleans (90.5), Detroit (90.4), and Portland (90.0). And Cleveland is very close at 91.8 possessions per game.
By itself, this myth is not so important. But it takes on major importance when considering some of the Spurs' other stats, like RB's and FTA's. I think many fans would be surprised to hear that the Spurs pace is almost identical to that of the Cavs. And I know that a lot will be surprised to hear that even though the Spurs are 27th in the league in possessions per game, they rank 11th in the league in both FGM and AST per game - and 4th in DRB per game. Amazing that with so few possessions, they can still rank so high in certain stats, don't you think? It's enough to make you question why they rank so low in other areas.
2. The Spurs are not a good rebounding team.
Even though the Spurs rank near the bottom in possessions per game, they rank near the middle of the pack (19th) in total rebounds per game. But that only tells part of the story. In defensive rebounding, they are an astounding 4th in the league - impressive, considering the pace of their games. In offensive rebounding, however, they are not only dead last in the league, they are a very distant last. The other 4 teams (above), that play at a similar or slower pace, all pull down considerably more offensive boards than the Spurs. But... that has more to do with Pop's philosophy of dropping guys back to guard against fast breaks instead of crashing the boards. Based on those numbers, you could conclude that the Spurs are the best defensive rebounding team in the league (pace adjusted). And even though their overall rebounding is dragged down by Pop's 1-2-3-back philosophy, their total rebounds per game are still among the better in the league when adjusted for pace.
Still not convinced? There is another stat called Rebounding % which, simply stated, means "what percentage of available rebounds does the team pull down?" The Spurs Defensive Rebounding % is .778, which is 1st in the league by a huge margin. In fact, the gap between them and the 2nd place team (Orlando - .759) is the largest between any two places on the list. (The gap between 1st and 2nd is the same as the gap between 2nd and 12th place.) The Spurs are, in fact, the best defensive rebounding team in the league. But, not surprisingly, their Offensive Rebounding % of .219 is by far the worst in the league.
The Spurs are the best at defensive rebounding, the worst at offensive rebounding, and in the middle overall. But don't lose sight of the fact that sacrificing offensive boards is part of Pop's game plan. That's why he focuses on opponent FG%. He wants to make the opponent miss, pull down the defensive boards, and grind it out on the other end - not give up easy, high percentage shots on fast breaks. Not because they are incapable of rebounding.
3. The Spurs incredibly low number of FTA's are due to the slow pace of their games, and the fact that they shoot so many 3's.
Partially true. Both of those things are factors, but they don't come near to telling the whole story. I know that a lot of people are so negative about the Spurs right now that they don't want to hear it, but pace and playing style are not the only reason for the Spurs' low Free Throw Attempts. [Request: Before you start flaming about this one, read and keep an open mind. You just might be surprised.]
I could take about 3 pages on this subject. But the easiest thing is to take a close look at Tony Parker's numbers. If that doesn't convince you, you don't want to be convinced:
I think everyone will agree that Parker is one of the best PG's in the league. Out of all the top-tier PG's in the league, Parker shoots by far the fewest 3-pointers, and takes the most shots in the paint. To illustrate, Tony has taken 1,191 FGA's this season, and Chris Paul has taken 1,186 FGA's. But Tony has taken 488 shots in the paint (41%) and only 62 3-pointers (5%). Chris Paul has taken 308 shots in the paint (26%) and 164 3-pointers (14%). Given their number of shots, and shot selection, you would expect Tony to have drawn quite a few more whistles than CP3. But you would be wrong. Paul has drawn a total of 268 whistles vs. just 182 for Tony. Whenever Chris Paul drives the paint, he gets the benefit of a whistle just about twice as often as Tony Parker. Which is odd, since they both make about 63% of their shots in the paint, and Paul shoots a much higher FT%. There's no reason why they would feel the need to foul Paul more often than Tony. The difference is that Tony just doesn't get the calls. [Note: I already factored in the And-1 opportunities on both players. If you want to dispute what I've said, find something else.]
Think that's an isolated case? Look at how often some of the other PG's in the league get to the line, compared to Tony. And keep in mind that Tony isn't shooting 3's, and he is shooting more shots in the paint than any of them. He's taking the shots that should be earning him whistles.
..............Whistles........2P FGA....Shots in Paint
Parker........182.............1129...........488
Paul...........268.............1022...........308
D. Harris.....402...............808...........401
Billups........233...............560...........169
D. Will........187...............714...........305
Stuckey.....156...............797............217
That's right... Tony averages 1 whistle for every 2.7 shots he takes in the paint. Rodney freakin' Stuckey averages one whistle for every 1.4 shots he takes in the paint. (Even though he only completes about 50% of his shots in the paint vs. 63% for Parker. And even though he shoots a higher FT% than Parker.) Devin Harris averages 1 whistle for every shot he takes in the paint. So do you believe that teams are really fouling Stuckey twice as often, or Devin Harris three times as often as Parker? Or are the zebras just not blowing their whistles for Tony?
It is worth noting that the Spurs are shooting exactly the same number of 3P shots per game (19.7) as they did last season, and fewer than Cleveland (20.3) who plays at virtually the same pace. You might be surpised to know that the Cavs average just 35.5 points in the paint, compared to 34.4 for the Spurs. In fact, if you look at where the Cavs get their production, you will find that, other than LeBron and Varejao, the Cavs have a lot of players who don't go to the paint any more often than the Spurs' players do. (Would you be surprised to hear that Ilgauskas only shoots about a third of his shots in the paint, and West only shoots about 20% of his shots in the paint?) The Spurs are really no more of a jump-shooting, 3P shooting team than the Cavs, overall.
If you take the time to really look at the Cavs numbers, you find that most of them are uncannily similar to the Spurs. The two most telling differences are Opponent 3P%, and FTA's per game. The Spurs haven't defended the 3 ball well this season. But the bulk of the discrepancy in FTA's is on the zebras. If they just gave Tony the FTA's he deserves, most of the difference would be erased. You may not like it, or believe it, but it's true.