Spurs late game defense

[anonoftheinternets]

Interesting write up about spurs crunch time defense.

Is San Antonio’s crunch-time defense for real? (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/04/02/monday-musings-burning-questions-for-final-stretch-of-regular-season/)


The Spurs are an offensive juggernaut, but they rank just 13th in points allowed per possession, and even with Boris Diaw aboard, teams with two imposing big men figure to give San Antonio trouble — unless Gregg Popovich unleashes the seldom-played Tiago Splitter/Tim Duncan duo for extended minutes against such a team in the postseason.

But in crunch time, San Antonio’s defense has been ridiculously stingy (hat tip to Matt Moore of CBSSports.com for discovering this). In the last five minutes of games ...

[DBMethos]

Those stats fit in well with the Spurs' apparent "bend, don't break" defensive strategy. Use superior offense to build as big a lead as possible, play "good enough" defense to keep the other team at bay until crunchtime, then put the hammer down. Sounds like a nice plan, but what will happen when they go up against defenses that play for 48 minutes and thus won't let them build those nice cushion-y leads?

[Mel_13]

So, in late and close situations, the Spurs have played elite defense this season. How about that.

[benefactor]

Good stuff. :tu

This is what I think about when I think about what is needed from this team defensively in order to be a contender. The days of 48 minutes of defense are pretty much over league wide. If the Spurs can continue to come up with stops when they need them(as they obviously have been) then they can put one more in case.

[z0sa]

Nice. And the majority of that elite defense occurred before Stephen Jackson and Boris Diaw were acquired.

Considering how offensively oriented the League apparently has become, could this signal a trend favoring deeper teams come playoff time? Perhaps a 9 man playoff rotation is feasible in today's NBA.

[freetiago]

i dont like it but its how mavs got their title
mavs werent an elite blow out every team they faced type team
they were actually trailing in the 4th quarter in at least 50% of all their games in the playoffs
then they would go on these insane 13-4 type runs to close out games behind dirks jumper and their defense

[YoMamaIsCallin]

"Stops on demand" is their goal.

[wildbill2u]

Another factor in the poor shooting percentage of other teams late in the game may be the fatigue factor. Most teams play their starters for many more minutes per game than the Spurs.

You remember the comments about Le Bron 'disappearing' in crunch time in playoff games? Someone did a study of Le Bron in the playoffs where he was playing an average of over 43 minutes and found his shooting % went down in the 4th quarter. Not an unexpected event when you are hauling 270 pounds around all game in a fast paced offense.

Conversely, our starters--or the players we have on the floor to close out the game-- usually have a lot less minutes in the game and therefore can use fresher legs on defense. It has been obvious to me that Duncan has been able to play better this year in the closing minutes, getting rebounds, blocks and generally playing good defense in most of the games.

[Obstructed_View]

Those stats fit in well with the Spurs' apparent "bend, don't break" defensive strategy. Use superior offense to build as big a lead as possible, play "good enough" defense to keep the other team at bay until crunchtime, then put the hammer down. Sounds like a nice plan, but what will happen when they go up against defenses that play for 48 minutes and thus won't let them build those nice cushion-y leads?

Currently the only one of those I've seen so far this year is in Miami.

[timvp]

I really wish my response could be: "Hell yeah! The Spurs might not be elite defensively for 48 minutes anymore but they are elite when it counts! :lobt2:"







Unfortunately, those late game defense numbers are mostly a result of luck. Other teams missing clutch free throws against the Spurs doesn't have anything to do with defense.

And opponents three-point percentage has been proven to be mostly a product of luck, as well. I didn't want to believe this at first but I've read multiple research studies that basically prove that while better defensive teams hold opponents to lower three-point percentage, the margin of error when attempting to predict the actual percentage is so large that luck is undeniably the largest factor.

If you look back at San Antonio's rank league-wide on opponents three-point percentage defense, you can see there's little rhyme or reason involved:

1998: 8th
1999: 12th
2000: 24th
2001: 2nd
2002: 4th
2003: 7th
2004: 4th
2005: 25th
2006: 3rd
2007: 2nd
2008: 3rd
2009: 24th
2010: 6th
2011: 22nd
2012: 24th

The Spurs have been near the top over the years due to their overall great defense but there are unexplainable fluctuation that have nothing to do with the quality of defense being played.

So while it's great to see that the Spurs have been a clutch defensive team this year, it pains me to admit that I think it's mostly due to good fortune.




That said, if the Spurs defense can remain clutch even after the opponents three-point percentage and free throw percentage start to even out, then I could believe San Antonio having a clutch defense. Until then, though, it remains a hope and not reality.

[Hooks]

Didn't read the article yet but did it mention Blair rarely closing out games?

Blair is BY FAR the worst defender on the team, and despite him starting rarely will he ever close out games, Pop rarely even gives him big minutes in the 4th.

Usually it's Splitter or Bonner (Bonner mostly) that closes out the game with TD, the defense gets a lot better with those two in the game.

[Mel_13]

Other teams missing clutch free throws against the Spurs doesn't have anything to do with defense.

But you can choose who to foul. The numbers cited are for the last 5 minutes and the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. Pop will employ "Hack a bad foul shooter".



Didn't read the article yet but did it mention Blair rarely closing out games?

Blair is BY FAR the worst defender on the team, and despite him starting rarely will he ever close out games, Pop rarely even gives him big minutes in the 4th.

Usually it's Splitter or Bonner (Bonner mostly) that closes out the game with TD, the defense gets a lot better with those two in the game.

It's mostly Bonner or small ball. Blair and Splitter are the two most foul prone Spurs. There could be a connection there.

[anonoftheinternets]

Agree with the posters above. Think the important factors might be, 1) Blair not closing games, 2) Starters being fresher due to the bench play, 3) Random fluctuations due to three pt shooting, opp FTs, 4) Spurs actually having another gear on defense in late game situations. Only time will tell. But honestly a trend implying the opposite is much more worrisome. So there is some reason for hope.

[TheSkeptic]

Really interesting numbers but it looks like time is going to be the final tell for me on this one.

Can't really start championship dancing with all the luck involved but it seems like a sound enough strategy. I'd be interested to see what these stats look like after April.

[GSH]

So while it's great to see that the Spurs have been a clutch defensive team this year, it pains me to admit that I think it's mostly due to good fortune.




I wish that the Spurs could be the defensive juggernauts they once were, but that's not going to happen. They do appear to be capable of playing much better defense for stretches. And even if the late game defense isn't as convincing as the numbers indicate, there are some other numbers that are still pretty hopeful:

Since the Spurs aren't playing smothering D, they have to be able to win higher-scoring games. The Spurs have a .545 winning percentage, when the other team scores 100+ points. Only Chicago (.667) and OKC (.556) are better. Atlanta (.444) is a distant fourth place.

There are some other crunch time numbers that suggest that the Spurs really are playing better ball at the end of close games. Some of the noteworthy ones are:
Kawhi's RB/36 jumps from 7.8 to 11.0.
Tim's FG% jumps from 47% to 57% and his BLK/36 goes from 1.8 to 2.8.
Manu's FTA/36 goes from 3.0 to 11.4 (HUGE increase).
Green's AST/36 goes from 2.1 to 3.4 while his TO/36 drops from 1.7 to 1.0. And even though there are questions about the clutch defense, Green's DefRTG goes from 100.3 to 83.9 - which is too big of a difference to ignore.
Neal's 3P% goes from 39% to 55% and his FTA/36 goes from 1.8 to 3.6.
Parker, of course goes nuts. His FTA/36 goes from 5.5 to 11, and his FT% goes from 79% to 91%. His PTS/36 goes from 20.5 to 27.8. And even his RB/36 goes from 3.1 to 4.8.

When you start looking at the clutch-time numbers, you can really see that everyone has his role. Kawhi seldom shoots in clutch time, but he defends and hits the boards. Manu shoots less, but absolutely KILLS the other team by getting to the line. Tim's shooting becomes deadly, and his defense around the rim stiffens. Neal becomes a 3P assassin, but he still penetrates the paint at a higher rate. (Nice combo) Green manages to focus better on defense, and he passes the ball more effectively and holds onto it more carefully. And, obviously, Parker has been everywhere in clutch time.

Pop has always said that good defense leads to good offense. I've always questioned if the converse of that might be true. If you play very solid/smart offense, don't you keep the other team from getting easy offense? I have a hunch that's part of the improvement in the Spurs' defense in crunch time. They may not be smothering the other team with defense, but they aren't giving up anything easy due to bad offense either. Throw in even a slightly improved defensive effort, and the point differential is impressive.

This post is already too long, but there are also some VERY good signs in the numbers, when you look at the Last 10 Games. Actually, the last 15-20 have been a much different story from the first part of the season. And I'm not talking about some unusual "advanced stats", but the meat-and-potatoes stats like points differential, rebound differential, and assist differential.

[Hoops Czar]

5 games isn't much of a sample size but beggers can't be choosers. Maybe they will keep the trend going.

[GSH]

5 games isn't much of a sample size but beggers can't be choosers. Maybe they will keep the trend going.

The defense is still questionable. But if you look at Last 10 Games (actually a lot more than that, but 10 is easy to dig up) a lot of their stats are looking pretty damned good:

PPG - 3rd in the league with 107.30
PPG differential (points for - points against) - 3rd in the league with +8.70
FG% - 2nd in the league with .487
APG - 5th in the league with 23.60
Opponent APG - 4th in league with 18.90
APG Differential (AST for - AST against) - 2nd in the league with +4.70
RPG - 4th in league with 45.70
Opponent RPG - 5th in league with 39.40
RB differential (RB for - RB against) - 3rd in the league with +6.30
SPG - 9th in league with 8.00
Opponent SPG - 2nd in the league with 6.20
SPG differential (steals for - steals against) - fourth in the league with +1.80
TO per game - Tied for 5th in the league with 12.30

In recent games, the Spurs have risen to the top tier in most of the stats that really matter, except one - Opponent FG%. That one stat has probably kept most people from realizing just how good the Spurs have been in other areas. It may turn out to be the fatal flaw, but they are good enough in every other area to give them a shot.

For the record, even though the Spurs have won 9 of their last 10 games, they have given up an Opponent FG% of .468, which puts them 24th in the league. It's hard to get past that number, or to picture a team winning an NBA Championship while allowing their opponents to complete at that high of a rate. They would have to win a lot of other battles (like FT points) to go all the way. And THAT is why it could be such a big deal if they really are able to clamp down on defense late in games.

[acoelho1]

It's hard to have a consistent defense when people are in and out of the line-up. It seems pretty clear that we have the athletes to be a very good defensive team. Hopefully, with the final month push, we can put it all together.

[DAF86]

I really wish my response could be: "Hell yeah! The Spurs might not be elite defensively for 48 minutes anymore but they are elite when it counts! :lobt2:"







Unfortunately, those late game defense numbers are mostly a result of luck. Other teams missing clutch free throws against the Spurs doesn't have anything to do with defense.

And opponents three-point percentage has been proven to be mostly a product of luck, as well. I didn't want to believe this at first but I've read multiple research studies that basically prove that while better defensive teams hold opponents to lower three-point percentage, the margin of error when attempting to predict the actual percentage is so large that luck is undeniably the largest factor.

If you look back at San Antonio's rank league-wide on opponents three-point percentage defense, you can see there's little rhyme or reason involved:

1998: 8th
1999: 12th
2000: 24th
2001: 2nd
2002: 4th
2003: 7th
2004: 4th
2005: 25th
2006: 3rd
2007: 2nd
2008: 3rd
2009: 24th
2010: 6th
2011: 22nd
2012: 24th

The Spurs have been near the top over the years due to their overall great defense but there are unexplainable fluctuation that have nothing to do with the quality of defense being played.

So while it's great to see that the Spurs have been a clutch defensive team this year, it pains me to admit that I think it's mostly due to good fortune.




That said, if the Spurs defense can remain clutch even after the opponents three-point percentage and free throw percentage start to even out, then I could believe San Antonio having a clutch defense. Until then, though, it remains a hope and not reality.

How many pts per 100 possesion would the Spurs allow in the clutch if you put the 3pt and FT % they allow in general in those clutch situations? (I would do it but I don't know how)

P/S: 2005: 25th. I bet that team wasn't that bad on 3pt% allowed in the clutch either. :hat

[Gospursel]

Those stats fit in well with the Spurs' apparent "bend, don't break" defensive strategy. Use superior offense to build as big a lead as possible, play "good enough" defense to keep the other team at bay until crunchtime, then put the hammer down. Sounds like a nice plan, but what will happen when they go up against defenses that play for 48 minutes and thus won't let them build those nice cushion-y leads?

This seemed to be exactly the issue last year and to a lesser extent, this year. While we aren't really a "come back" team because we haven't had to be, there have been several times when these Spurs have shown the ability to scratch and claw their way back into a game and pull out the win. I don't remember seeing much of that last year.

[jjktkk]

I think their are enough pieces, for the Spurs to be average to above average defensively. Their depth alone, will be asset in terms of better defense.

[therealtruth]

You can't really control opponent 3pt % and free throw % defense. Teams usually don't take contested 3's and how do you defend a free throw? But you can make sure most shots they take are contested and that should lower their fg%.

Basketball is a game of runs and when teams are scoring well they have a good flow or rhythm. The best defenders understand this and do anything to disrupt the other player's rhythm. You hear teams talk amount great players work for every point. They don't want them developing that rhythm that makes them impossible to stop.

[heyheymymy]

Those stats fit in well with the Spurs' apparent "bend, don't break" defensive strategy. Use superior offense to build as big a lead as possible, play "good enough" defense to keep the other team at bay until crunchtime, then put the hammer down.

This. I don't see why more posters here can't figure this out. Yes they let the huge lead dwindle down, but it's just to conserve for the crunch time push. Not a foolproof strategy, but what is?

The Spurs do this a lot. It's multipurpose, it allows them to catch their breath, taking the foot off the pedal. It makes the final push much more potent. Also, it's psychological. When that team runs an 18 point Spurs lead down to 3, if we so much as string together 2 or 3 sharp possessions, it takes the wind out of the sails as far as motivation on the comeback.

And with this new roster being more offensively capable than it's been in a while, the strategy works even better. We might get away with trading baskets till crunch time then lock down.

[Stump]

There are a lot of factors at play here, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the rotation. Blair is among the worst bigmen in the league on defense, yet almost never plays in close games. Similarly, I don't recall Neal playing that much late in games (or at least, not as a PG).

When all five guys out there are at least mediocre on D, it makes a big difference.

[100%duncan]

How about early in the game, that decides if the game goes in pressure moments or not.

[Seventyniner]

There are a lot of factors at play here, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the rotation. Blair is among the worst bigmen in the league on defense, yet almost never plays in close games. Similarly, I don't recall Neal playing that much late in games (or at least, not as a PG).

When all five guys out there are at least mediocre on D, it makes a big difference.

This is a good point. I don't know of many (any?) other teams who have a closing lineup so different than the starting lineup. Green has closed games in Ginobili's absence, but the big 3 are set in stone to close games when they're healthy, and Leonard seems to be a fixture late in the 4th as well.

[ElNono]

Unfortunately, those late game defense numbers are mostly a result of luck.

I was just going to ask if anybody read what was written... teams shooting under 60% at the free throw line? How do you defend that? :lol

[ElNono]

But you can choose who to foul. The numbers cited are for the last 5 minutes and the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. Pop will employ "Hack a bad foul shooter".

How many times we did that this season? I can think of Howard, and maybe DeAndre Jordan... I don't recall doing it at any time in the last 5 mins of the game though...

[spurs10]

I was just going to ask if anybody read what was written... teams shooting under 60% at the free throw line? How do you defend that? :lol
Have Jack give'em the "Fuk Yo Team Clown Death Stare?"

[T Park]

Lol it's not good defense it's "luck"


I've read it all.

[Mel_13]

I was just going to ask if anybody read what was written... teams shooting under 60% at the free throw line? How do you defend that? :lol


How many times we did that this season? I can think of Howard, and maybe DeAndre Jordan... I don't recall doing it at any time in the last 5 mins of the game though...

I don't know how often they may have employed the tactic in late game situations this season, but attributing the numbers to luck doesn't pass the common sense test.

From the article:

"In the last five minutes of games with a scoring margin of five or fewer points, San Antonio has yielded just 91.5 points per 100 possessions, the best mark in the league, according to NBA.com. Cut the time and margin to three minutes/three points, and the number drops to 78.1 points allowed per 100 possessions, also tops in the league."

The Spurs foul at an extremely low rate. If the opposition was converting those rare late game free throws at the league average of 75% instead of the 60% cited, it would change the numbers above by a point or less.

[T Park]

It's become a trend lately, in fourth quarters they seem to turn the defense up a notch. To ignore that is laughable.

[ElNono]

I don't know how often they may have employed the tactic in late game situations this season, but attributing the numbers to luck doesn't pass the common sense test.

From the article:

"In the last five minutes of games with a scoring margin of five or fewer points, San Antonio has yielded just 91.5 points per 100 possessions, the best mark in the league, according to NBA.com. Cut the time and margin to three minutes/three points, and the number drops to 78.1 points allowed per 100 possessions, also tops in the league."

The Spurs foul at an extremely low rate. If the opposition was converting those rare late game free throws at the league average of 75% instead of the 60% cited, it would change the numbers above by a point or less.

Sorry Mel, but I'm going to disagree. Also from the article:

"Teams are 9-of-50 from deep against the Spurs in the last five minutes when the scoring margin is five or fewer, and just 1-of-13 in the last three minutes of even tighter games (margin of three or fewer)"

I don't dispute that the Spurs try harder late in games, that's readily apparent, but there's no team defense holding opponents to 18% and 7% respectively from downtown. The league average is 34%... The very best defensive unit on 3 pointers in the league is Boston and they hold opponents to 30%...

[Mel_13]

Sorry Mel, but I'm going to disagree. Also from the article:

"Teams are 9-of-50 from deep against the Spurs in the last five minutes when the scoring margin is five or fewer, and just 1-of-13 in the last three minutes of even tighter games (margin of three or fewer)"

I don't dispute that the Spurs try harder late in games, that's readily apparent, but there's no team defense holding opponents to 18% and 7% respectively from downtown. The league average is 34%... The very best defensive unit on 3 pointers in the league is Boston and they hold opponents to 30%...

If they're giving up 78 pts per 100 possessions in the last three minutes and you adjust that 1 for 13 to the league average, how much higher than 78 do you suppose the number will be?

And are you really disagreeing that adjusting the FT % to the league average would have a negligible effect?

[ElNono]

If they're giving up 78 pts per 100 possessions in the last three minutes and you adjust that 1 for 13 to the league average, how much higher than 78 do you suppose the number will be?

Increasing the 7% to 15% (doubling it basically), means an extra tied game (since the condition is 3 point difference in the last 3 mins). And 15% is still half of the league's best allowed percentage. If you double on that to reach the league's best allowed percentage, you would have 4 extra tied games.

[ElNono]

If they're giving up 78 pts per 100 possessions in the last three minutes and you adjust that 1 for 13 to the league average, how much higher than 78 do you suppose the number will be?

And are you really disagreeing that adjusting the FT % to the league average would have a negligible effect?

I simply disagree it's that our defense causes free throw shooters to shoot under 60% in the clutch against us. The criteria is 5 points or less, thus each made freethrow is an extra point and does matter.

The 3 point shooting percentage could be argued more because it's a play you can defend, but the percentages are simply way beyond anything within the league standards.

[Mel_13]

Increasing the 7% to 15% (doubling it basically), means an extra tied game (since the condition is 3 point difference in the last 3 mins). And 15% is still half of the league's best allowed percentage. If you double on that to reach the league's best allowed percentage, you would have 4 extra tied games.

That assumes the final margin of each game was three points and we don't know that. What we really need to know is the total sample size so that we could calculate the new pts per 100 possessions with league average percentages. I very much doubt that they would take the Spurs from league best in this metric to something like their overall numbers.

I notice you still haven't answered about the FT%.

[timvp]

If we had the actual stats, we could figure out how much luck plays into it. I don't see any of these stats in the public domain but I'll send out a few emails . . .

[ElNono]

That assumes the final margin of each game was three points and we don't know that. What we really need to know is the total sample size so that we could calculate the new pts per 100 possessions with league average percentages. I very much doubt that they would take the Spurs from league best in this metric to something like their overall numbers.

We don't need to assume that. Each missed shot was taken within the last 3 mins and the score differential at that point was 3. A miss means the Spurs keep a 3 point lead and gain possession, a make means the game is tied and the Spurs gain possession. It gives no indication of winner/loser, but I think we can agree making or missing those shots can easily change games.


I notice you still haven't answered about the FT%.

It's the post right before yours...

[Mel_13]

I simply disagree it's that our defense causes free throw shooters to shoot under 60% in the clutch against us. The criteria is 5 points or less, thus each made freethrow is an extra point and does matter.



I posted before I saw this.

I don't agree with your math. Or more accurately how you've chosen to word this.

The Spurs allow 18.2 FT attempts per game. When looking at 5 minute or 3 minute segments of a game, you get a very small number of attempts. Over the course of the entire sample, increasing the conversion rate from 60% to 75% is going to have a very small impact on the pts per 100 possession stat cited.

[ElNono]

To add to this, the average scoring margin for the Spurs this season up to this point has been +4.94... which is top 5 in the league, but fairly far from the number 1 (Bulls, +8.28).

[Mel_13]

We don't need to assume that. Each missed shot was taken within the last 3 mins and the score differential at that point was 3. A miss means the Spurs keep a 3 point lead and gain possession, a make means the game is tied and the Spurs gain possession. It gives no indication of winner/loser, but I think we can agree making or missing those shots can easily change games.



It's the post right before yours...

I saw your post on the FT %.

Again, the article rated late game defense on the metric of pts per 100 possessions. By that metric, basically defensive rating, the Spurs have had the top late game defense in the league. Without the raw numbers, it's impossible to be sure of how adjusting to the league average for 3pt % and FT% would impact the Spurs ranking in this metric.

My guess is that they would still be at or near the top.

[ElNono]

I posted before I saw this.

I don't agree with your math. Or more accurately how you've chosen to word this.

The Spurs allow 18.2 FT attempts per game. When looking at 5 minute or 3 minute segments of a game, you get a very small number of attempts. Over the course of the entire sample, increasing the conversion rate from 60% to 75% is going to have a very small impact on the pts per 100 possession stat cited.

I think you're missing the forest from the tree. It will undoubtedly have very little impact on the pts per 100 possessions. I agree with that.

But under the criteria the percentage is presented (last 5 mins, 5 point or less differential), one or two of those freethrows can easily be the difference between a tied game or a Spurs lead requiring the other team to foul.

I'm not dissing the pts per 100 possessions. I'm simply stating that those percentages under the criteria they were presented are very, very unlikely when compared to league averages.

[Mel_13]

To add to this, the average scoring margin for the Spurs this season up to this point has been +4.94... which is top 5 in the league, but fairly far from the number 1 (Bulls, +8.28).

I'm not sure how that fact lends or detracts from the credibility of the numbers cites in the original article.

[ElNono]

I saw your post on the FT %.

Again, the article rated late game defense on the metric of pts per 100 possessions. By that metric, basically defensive rating, the Spurs have had the top late game defense in the league. Without the raw numbers, it's impossible to be sure of how adjusting to the league average for 3pt % and FT% would impact the Spurs ranking in this metric.

My guess is that they would still be at or near the top.

I agree with that :lol

The part where I disagree is the flukish percentages on 3 pointers and freethrows under those conditions. Again, the Spurs might have the top defense in the league in the fourth quarter, but with their scoring differential, it only indicates how bad it is in the first 3... And the deciding factor on some of those games are simply very flukish percentages.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure how that fact lends or detracts from the credibility of the numbers cites in the original article.

I just explained.

[Mel_13]

I think you're missing the forest from the tree. It will undoubtedly have very little impact on the pts per 100 possessions. I agree with that.

But under the criteria the percentage is presented (last 5 mins, 5 point or less differential), one or two of those freethrows can easily be the difference between a tied game or a Spurs lead requiring the other team to foul.

I'm not dissing the pts per 100 possessions. I'm simply stating that those percentages under the criteria they were presented are very, very unlikely when compared to league averages.

That was I understood you to be doing in your first post in this thread below. My responses to you have been based on that understanding. It appears I may have misunderstood your intent.


I was just going to ask if anybody read what was written... teams shooting under 60% at the free throw line? How do you defend that? :lol

[Mel_13]

I just explained.



We keep responding out of sequence :lol, but I still don't see how overall point differential affects the overall credibility of the late game numbers, but it's probably not important that I do.

Edit: And I was behind one post when I wrote this.

I surrender.

[ElNono]

I don't know if I'm not explaining this well or not. Let me put it a different way: The fact that there's stats for FT shooting and 3 point percentage within the last 5 mins of a game (or 3 mins of a game) and the score difference at that point was 5 (or 3) points, means that regardless what our points per 100 possessions was for that stretch, we were in games where the margin was really low going to crunch time. Once we're there, we're there. Our points per 100 possession won't affect the percentage of the free throws or 3 point shots (at least not to the degree we see) taken under those circumstances.

Not convinced it's more clear, but there you have it.

[ElNono]

That was I understood you to be doing in your first post in this thread below. My responses to you have been based on that understanding. It appears I may have misunderstood your intent.

Well, no. I do think we do a better job late in games, but I don't think there's defense good enough in the league to make teams shoot under 20% consistently in the last 5 mins of a game against multiple opponents. (Especially 7%). That's plain and simple missed shots. Luck as you would have it.

[ElNono]

Shit somebody tell me they understand my babble :lol

[Mel_13]

Internet just went out in my house. posting this from my phone.

You win.

[ElNono]

:depressed

[ElNono]

Internet just went out in my house. posting this from my phone.

You win.

Mel, it's not about winning :lol

I just hope you understand what I mean, that's all.

[Mel_13]

Mel, it's not about winning :lol

I just hope you understand what I mean, that's all.

I was joking about winning and I understand your points.
Please don't make me type more from my phone.

[ElNono]

I was joking about winning and I understand your points.
Please don't make me type more from my phone.

:toast

[mathbzh]

I was just going to ask if anybody read what was written... teams shooting under 60% at the free throw line? How do you defend that? :lol

I agree with you on that.
But I wonder what your FT% look like if you avoid fouling on good shooters (anybody shooting over 75%) and hack bad ones when possible.

Here is an old link about clutch FT shooting. I guess things have not changed too much.

http://www.82games.com/random23.htm

Thee league average stays around 75%... but considering good shooters tend to shoot more in the clutch there is actually a drop in clutch FT shooting (2.3% according to the link). I don't have the numbers to back it up. But I expect good shooters to stay more consistent (better routine, more experience of clutch FT shooting...).

Now 60% is a reach. But if you try to hack bad shooters and avoid fouling good shooters, you could probably maintain your opponent way under 70%.

[ElNono]

I agree with you on that.
But I wonder what your FT% look like if you avoid fouling on good shooters (anybody shooting over 75%) and hack bad ones when possible.

Here is an old link about clutch FT shooting. I guess things have not changed too much.

http://www.82games.com/random23.htm

Thee league average stays around 75%... but considering good shooters tend to shoot more in the clutch there is actually a drop in clutch FT shooting (2.3% according to the link). I don't have the numbers to back it up. But I expect good shooters to stay more consistent (better routine, more experience of clutch FT shooting...).

Now 60% is a reach. But if you try to hack bad shooters and avoid fouling good shooters, you could probably maintain your opponent way under 70%.

I think this is a situation where there's not really intentional fouling (except for gross cases of 'hack-a-whoever', which the Spurs use more than other teams, but are still extremely rare). As a general rule, the Spurs foul very little. I'm not privy of the foul rate at end of games, but I suspect it's even smaller when they have the lead (which is the presented case). You would have to see if the 60% comes simply from a small sample size (although 5 mins is a lot of time, seems unlikely). The 3 pointers however, we do have the numbers, and I just find it really unlikely you can sustain those percentages for any amount of time outside of just being lucky.

Sometimes you do need a little luck.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Some data and graphs based on play by play info (all calculated using excel and string matching.. there might be errors :)) -

All Spurs Games till March 31st -

Opponent ALL FG% in Crunch Time (Below 05:00 remaining in the clock, Turnovers are counted as 2pt FG attempts) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/OppClutchFGpercentage-1.jpg

Opponent 2pt FG% in Crunch Time (Below 05:00 remaining in the clock, Turnovers are counted as 2pt FG attempts) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/OppClutch2ptpercentage-1.jpg

Opponent 3pt FG% in Crunch Time (Below 05:00 remaining in the clock) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/OppClutch3ptpercentage-1.jpg

Opponent FT% in Crunch Time (Below 05:00 remaining in the clock) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/OppClutchFreeThrowPercentage-1.jpg

If required, please put this as a separate post.

[therealtruth]

I think this is a situation where there's not really intentional fouling (except for gross cases of 'hack-a-whoever', which the Spurs use more than other teams, but are still extremely rare). As a general rule, the Spurs foul very little. I'm not privy of the foul rate at end of games, but I suspect it's even smaller when they have the lead (which is the presented case). You would have to see if the 60% comes simply from a small sample size (although 5 mins is a lot of time, seems unlikely). The 3 pointers however, we do have the numbers, and I just find it really unlikely you can sustain those percentages for any amount of time outside of just being lucky.

Sometimes you do need a little luck.

You might not be able to control the percentages but you can definitely control the number of attempts.

[Mel_13]

Some data and graphs based on play by play info (all calculated using excel and string matching.. there might be errors :)) -

I really appreciate the effort as this exactly the sort of raw data I was hoping to see. Unfortunately, there are errors. The number of FGAs, even including turnovers, appeared high on their face. I checked the play-by-plays of the two games with most FGAs (Detroit and Denver) and the numbers in the charts are well off from the facts of the game.

Also, when you add the totals from the 2pt FGAs to the numbers from the 3pt FGAs they should equal the numbers for all FGAs. They don't.

I hope you can find the glitch.

Thanks again.

[timvp]

If we had the actual stats, we could figure out how much luck plays into it. I don't see any of these stats in the public domain but I'll send out a few emails . . .

After some begging, got the numbers:

115 minutes of "clutch" defense
224 defensive possessions
77-187 on field goals
9-50 on three-pointers
42-64 on free throws
205 points

I also asked if any of the fouls were of the hack-a-shaq variety and there were six free throws by Ben Wallace. I looked at the play-by-play and Wallace went 3-for-6 in crunch time that game.

Very interesting numbers.

So the Spurs allow opponents to shoot 49.6% (68-137) on two-pointers during clutch situations, which is even worse than their normal allowed two-point percentage of 48.2%. That's not so good, tbh.

Free throw wise, though, if you take out the Ben Wallace attempts, opponents are 39-58 for 67.2%. That's really not too much of a fluke. Add in three more makes and that percentage is up to a normal-ish 72.4%. Looks like I was wrong about the free throw numbers skewing the numbers ... didn't really make much of difference.

But then that three-point percentage of 18% still looks like a fluke, especially since the two-point percentage is so high. A more reasonable number would be 16-for-50 for 32% (the Spurs usually give up 36% on threes but that's factoring the added pressure). So that's seven made three-pointers for a total of 21 points.

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Damn, so yeah, unfortunately it doesn't look like the Spurs improve defensively in the clutch. I mean, unless you want to argue that 18% on three-pointers is somehow sustainable, it looks like the Spurs defense remains pretty much the same.




Anyone else have a different opinion regarding those numbers? Hopefully I'm missing something when figuring whether or not this is sustainable . . .

[Spursfanfromafar]

I really appreciate the effort as this exactly the sort of raw data I was hoping to see. Unfortunately, there are errors. The number of FGAs, even including turnovers, appeared high on their face. I checked the play-by-plays of the two games with most FGAs (Detroit and Denver) and the numbers in the charts are well off from the facts of the game.

Also, when you add the totals from the 2pt FGAs to the numbers from the 3pt FGAs they should equal the numbers for all FGAs. They don't.

I hope you can find the glitch.

Thanks again.

Please note that I have added free throws as part of overall FG.

There is still one inconsistency. I forgot to remove the "jumpball" situations from overall plays.

[Mel_13]

After some begging, got the numbers:

115 minutes of "clutch" defense
224 defensive possessions
77-187 on field goals
9-50 on three-pointers
42-64 on free throws
205 points

I also asked if any of the fouls were of the hack-a-shaq variety and there were six free throws by Ben Wallace. I looked at the play-by-play and Wallace went 3-for-6 in crunch time that game.

Very interesting numbers.

So the Spurs allow opponents to shoot 49.6% (68-137) on two-pointers during clutch situations, which is even worse than their normal allowed two-point percentage of 48.2%. That's not so good, tbh.

Free throw wise, though, if you take out the Ben Wallace attempts, opponents are 39-58 for 67.2%. That's really not too much of a fluke. Add in three more makes and that percentage is up to a normal-ish 72.4%. Looks like I was wrong about the free throw numbers skewing the numbers ... didn't really make much of difference.

But then that three-point percentage of 18% still looks like a fluke, especially since the two-point percentage is so high. A more reasonable number would be 16-for-50 for 32% (the Spurs usually give up 36% on threes but that's factoring the added pressure). So that's seven made three-pointers for a total of 21 points.

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Damn, so yeah, unfortunately it doesn't look like the Spurs improve defensively in the clutch. I mean, unless you want to argue that 18% on three-pointers is somehow sustainable, it looks like the Spurs defense remains pretty much the same.




Anyone else have a different opinion regarding those numbers? Hopefully I'm missing something when figuring whether or not this is sustainable . . .

timvp with the Paul Harvey.

Thanks.

[100%duncan]

So we didn't really improve? Man the math you're giving me making me head ache. :lol

[Spursfanfromafar]

Have added granularity to Timvp's numbers -

Please note that I have considered Turnovers as Two point attempts. Here is the clutch data (Opposition performance in the last 5 minutes trailing/ leading by less than/equal to 5 points) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/AllClutch-2.jpg

The numbers are off by Timvp's by very few. All data is from play-by-play information.

[Mel_13]

Have added granularity to Timvp's numbers -

Please note that I have considered Turnovers as Two point attempts. Here is the clutch data (Opposition performance in the last 5 minutes trailing/ leading by less than/equal to 5 points) -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/AllClutch.jpg

The numbers are off by Timvp's by very few. All data is from play-by-play information.

2pt attempts plus 3pt attempts equal total attempts, but 2pt made plus 3pt made do not equal total made.

What am I missing?

[timvp]

So we didn't really improve?

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. The Spurs are allowing the opposition to shoot 49.6% on two-pointers in clutch situations according to those numbers. That number is too high to claim any sort of improvement, tbh. :depressed

[100%duncan]

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. The Spurs are allowing the opposition to shoot 49.6% on two-pointers in clutch situations according to those numbers. That number is too high to claim any sort of improvement, tbh. :depressed

Shit's gotta improve quickly or we will not get to June.

[Mel_13]

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. The Spurs are allowing the opposition to shoot 49.6% on two-pointers in clutch situations according to those numbers. That number is too high to claim any sort of improvement, tbh. :depressed

I'm not completely convinced that you can reliably draw that conclusion. Someone with the time and the skills would really have to analyze the situations and the shot selections.

I just went through a number of the games that meet the criteria. Two things strike me:

1. The trailing team takes a bunch of three pointers.

2. Most of the two point attempts are dunks and layups.

Now this is just an observation from a small sample, but it fits intuitively with what we might expect. Trailing teams will look for an easy two-pointer and then jack up difficult three-pointers if the easy close-in shot is not available.

That could account for a higher than expected 2pt% and a lower than expected 3pt%. (a higher % of 2pt attempts coming from close in than during the rest of the game and a higher % of "bad" or "ill-advised" 3pt attempts than during the rest of the game).

It would be interesting to see a larger, more detailed set of data.

[Spursfanfromafar]

2pt attempts plus 3pt attempts equal total attempts, but 2pt made plus 3pt made do not equal total made.

What am I missing?

2ptA + 3ptA + FTA = Total Attempts

Note that certain teams don't have FTA in the clutch period.

[Mel_13]

2ptA + 3ptA + FTA = Total Attempts

Note that certain teams don't have FTA in the clutch period.

I accept whatever definitions you're using, but when you look at the numbers of "attempts made" the subordinate numbers don't add up to the total.

[timvp]

I'm not completely convinced that you can reliably draw that conclusion. Someone with the time and the skills would really have to analyze the situations and the shot selections.

I just went through a number of the games that meet the criteria. Two things strike me:

1. The trailing team takes a bunch of three pointers.

2. Most of the two point attempts are dunks and layups.

Now this is just an observation from a small sample, but it fits intuitively with what we might expect. Trailing teams will look for an easy two-pointer and then jack up difficult three-pointers if the easy close-in shot is not available.

I would say that is the behavior of teams that are trailing with under a minute remaining. If a team is within five points and there's more than a minute remaining, the offense is going to try to get the best shot possible ... and the defense has to defend both two-pointers and three-pointers. I can't think of a situation outside of a minute remaining and the Spurs up by less than five points where they would just concede a layup or dunk.



Then again, the sample size is so small (115 minutes) that no matter what the numbers say, it's really difficult to draw any conclusions. Even if someone could prove the Spurs have been legitimately great or legitimately lucky, it's very likely a poor indicator of future success/failure.

[Spursfanfromafar]

I accept whatever definitions you're using, but when you look at the numbers of "attempts made" the subordinate numbers don't add up to the total.

I apologise. There was a filtering error and that screwed up calculations for 2FG.

This is the accurate one -

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s492/Spursfanfromafar/AllClutch-2.jpg

---

Qualitatively speaking, these numbers show very little because there is a lot of noise and the sample size is small - only 21 games where the criteria fits...that is about 105 minutes of play.

However, one can try to make out performances against certain matchups. The Clippers, T'wolves, and the Kings have done the best in clutch situations against the team. It is a case of three point shooting for the Clips, and perhaps frontline depth for the T'wolves and some good interior play for the Kings.

[Mel_13]

I would say that is the behavior of teams that are trailing with under a minute remaining. If a team is within five points and there's more than a minute remaining, the offense is going to try to get the best shot possible ... and the defense has to defend both two-pointers and three-pointers. I can't think of a situation outside of a minute remaining and the Spurs up by less than five points where they would just concede a layup or dunk.

I agree with this, but I wasn't suggesting that the Spurs were conceding layups or dunks (although with this small a sample size a few conceded shots could impact the numbers). I was suggesting the possibility that the offense was taking a much higher percentage of their 2pt attempts right at the rim in these late game situations rather than at other points in the game, and a higher % of their jump shots from beyond the arc than normal. If the ratio of close-in shots to 2pt jump shots, and the ratio of 2pt jump shots to 3pt jump shots, is much different in late game situations, that could help account for the strange combination of stats (high 2pt%, low 3pt%, low pts per possession)




Then again, the sample size is so small (115 minutes) that no matter what the numbers say, it's really difficult to draw any conclusions. Even if someone could prove the Spurs have been legitimately great or legitimately lucky, it's very likely a poor indicator of future success/failure.

Agreed. That's a Tim/Tiago sample size.

[Mel_13]

I apologise. There was a filtering error and that screwed up calculations for 2FG.

This is the accurate one -


Qualitatively speaking, these numbers show very little because there is a lot of noise and the sample size is small - only 21 games where the criteria fits...that is about 105 minutes of play.

However, one can try to make out performances against certain matchups. The Clippers, T'wolves, and the Kings have done the best in clutch situations against the team. It is a case of three point shooting for the Clips, and perhaps frontline depth for the T'wolves and some good interior play for the Kings.

Thanks

[timvp]

I agree with this, but I wasn't suggesting that the Spurs were conceding layups or dunks (although with this small a sample size a few conceded shots could impact the numbers). I was suggesting the possibility that the offense was taking a much higher percentage of their 2pt attempts right at the rim in these late game situations rather than at other points in the game, and a higher % of their jump shots from beyond the arc than normal. If the ratio of close-in shots to 2pt jump shots, and the ratio of 2pt jump shots to 3pt jump shots, is much different in late game situations, that could help account for the strange combination of stats (high 2pt%, low 3pt%, low pts per possession)

I see where you're coming from but I don't see that fitting the actual numbers we're presented. The Spurs allow ~18 three-pointers per 48 minutes on the season. During clutch situations, they allow 20.9 three-pointers per 48 minutes. While that rise in three-point attempts should cause the expected three-point percentage to drop from the typical 36%, I can't see how a drop to 18% could be viewed as sustainable.

And if teams are able to shoot 50% on two-pointers against the Spurs simply by deciding to take more shots at the rim, then that is a whole 'nother issue with San Antonio's defense :)

Basically, everything is halfway explainable except for that drop in three-point percentage. Going from 18 per 48 minutes to 20.9 per 48 minutes just doesn't explain a 50% drop in percentage, IMO.

[Mel_13]

I see where you're coming from but I don't see that fitting the actual numbers we're presented. The Spurs allow ~18 three-pointers per 48 minutes on the season. During clutch situations, they allow 20.9 three-pointers per 48 minutes. While that rise in three-point attempts should cause the expected three-point percentage to drop from the typical 36%, I can't see how a drop to 18% could be viewed as sustainable.

And if teams are able to shoot 50% on two-pointers against the Spurs simply by deciding to take more shots at the rim, then that is a whole 'nother issue with San Antonio's defense :)

Basically, everything is halfway explainable except for that drop in three-point percentage. Going from 18 per 48 minutes to 20.9 per 48 minutes just doesn't explain a 50% drop in percentage, IMO.

Thanks for the extra details. I don't think we can know too much for certain given the small sample size.

As to the bolded part, I'm suggesting that the opposition was replacing 2pt jump shots with 3pt jump shots, thus increasing the 2pt % by avoiding the lower % 2pt shots. Over the course of the game that strategy wouldn't work unless you make a very high % of your 3pt shots. Just looking for possible ways to explain a seemingly incongruous set of data.

[GSH]

After some begging, got the numbers:

115 minutes of "clutch" defense
224 defensive possessions
77-187 on field goals
9-50 on three-pointers
42-64 on free throws
205 points

I also asked if any of the fouls were of the hack-a-shaq variety and there were six free throws by Ben Wallace. I looked at the play-by-play and Wallace went 3-for-6 in crunch time that game.

Very interesting numbers.

So the Spurs allow opponents to shoot 49.6% (68-137) on two-pointers during clutch situations, which is even worse than their normal allowed two-point percentage of 48.2%. That's not so good, tbh.

Free throw wise, though, if you take out the Ben Wallace attempts, opponents are 39-58 for 67.2%. That's really not too much of a fluke. Add in three more makes and that percentage is up to a normal-ish 72.4%. Looks like I was wrong about the free throw numbers skewing the numbers ... didn't really make much of difference.

But then that three-point percentage of 18% still looks like a fluke, especially since the two-point percentage is so high. A more reasonable number would be 16-for-50 for 32% (the Spurs usually give up 36% on threes but that's factoring the added pressure). So that's seven made three-pointers for a total of 21 points.

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Damn, so yeah, unfortunately it doesn't look like the Spurs improve defensively in the clutch. I mean, unless you want to argue that 18% on three-pointers is somehow sustainable, it looks like the Spurs defense remains pretty much the same.

Anyone else have a different opinion regarding those numbers? Hopefully I'm missing something when figuring whether or not this is sustainable . . .


There are a couple of things that may be wrong (maybe "misleading" is a better word) with those numbers, and maybe with the logic. I'll put the boring ones in this post, and the really boring ones in a follow-up post:

The easiest is the opponent's 3P%. For example, in the NO game, the Hornets were down by 3 with a few seconds left. They chucked up a desperation 3-pointer at the buzzer, which missed. Those shots probably occur in most "clutch" games, and they add up enough to skew the opponents' shooting percentages. I don't think it's any kind of fluke that opponents are shooting less than well in those clutch situations - especially since we have been leading a lot of them. (Which is why we have won a bunch of them.) I know it also happens at the ends of quarters, but not with anything like the regularity of the ends of clutch games.

"Clutch" time is defined as the last 5 mintues of a game, with the lead being 5 points or less. That means that not all of the possessions inside of 5 minutes will be "clutch time". Your numbers show 115 minutes of "clutch" defense, which sounds like the last 5 minutes from 23 games. Why does it matter? Well, for instance, against OKC, the score was within 5 points at the 5-minute mark, but for the entire last minute the margin was higher than 5 points. Why does that matter? Well, if you include the last minute, OKC chucked up two desperation 3-pointers because they were way behind. Those shots skew the opponent's 3P%. Had they still been within 5 points, they probably wouldn't have taken those shots.

I took a quick look at the NO and OKC games. The Hornets had 10 possessions in the last 5 minutes, and the Thunder had 11. Those would represent game paces of 96 and 105.6, respectively. It just seems odd to me that the Spurs opponents' game pace would be 93.5 overall in those clutch situations. One possibility is that the Spurs are defending against the shots well (low FG%), but not rebounding worth a damn (Offensive rebounds, creating extra-long possessions for their opponents).

Finally, the Spurs have played significantly better in the last 15 games. I count only 3 games in that stretch that had "clutch" minutes at the end of the game. (The margins of victory have been much more than 5 points). Since your numbers include at least 23 games with clutch endings (115/5=23), it stands to reason that the first 20 clutch games occurred in the first 35 games of the season, when they weren't playing as well.

BTW - I also noticed from the NO game that Jarrett Jack chucked up a 3-pointer at the 4:06 mark of the game. But it was also right at the 24 second mark of the possession. Against OKC, Danny Green had 2 steals in the last 5 minutes. Against NO, Jackson and Green both got steals in the last 5 minuts, and we forced Jack to travel. And against Denver, Faried and Anderson missed a bunch of FT's in clutch time, but Anderson is a crappy FT shooter, and Faried is a rookie who you would expect to struggle in those kinds of pressure situations. Don't be too quick to believe that all of the poor shooting against the Spurs in clutch time is a fluke.

[GSH]

Okay - now for the really boring ones:

Look at those desperation shots at the end of clutch games vs. the shots at the ends of other quarters. Aren't those lousy shots at the ends of other quarters averaged into opponents' overall FG%'s? Yep - but there's a difference. Assume that there are an average of 24 shots in most quarters. Those end-of-quarter bricks are averaged in with 23 other "real" shots. BUT... the bricks in clutch time are only averaged in with the other shots in clutch time. Probably about 9-10 other shots. So a missed 3-pointer in clutch time will bring down the clutch-time FG% by a much bigger amount.

Here's an easy example:
Suppose a team was 12/23 for the 1st quarter, and threw up a court-length shot at the buzzer. That miss would take the team from 52% for the quarter, down to 50% for the quarter. (12-23 vs 12-24) NOW - suppose a team had been 5-9 in the last 5 minutes of a game (clutch time), and throws up a prayer at the final buzzer. That miss would take the team's FG% in clutch time from 55.5% down to 50%. (5-9 vs 5-10)

In other words, a desperation shot missed in clutch time reduces the clutch time FG% by a lot more than a "normal" desperation shot missed will reduce overall FG%.

[Brazil]

Great thread !

I have the following feelings when I watch the spurs in that kind of situation but I have no clue if it's just an impression. It seems to me that we have more steals and we allow less offensive rebounds in the clutch situation. Am I dreaming ?

[Spursfanfromafar]

Just to substantiate gsh's point.

My data shows 10 clutch games in january, 6 in february and 5 in march.

[ElNono]

In other words, a desperation shot missed in clutch time reduces the clutch time FG% by a lot more than a "normal" desperation shot missed will reduce overall FG%.

Sure. But 9-50? 1-13? Over 21 games?

Thanks both timvp and Spursfanfromafar for the numbers.

Besides of the sampling amount, there's congruence in that the Spurs would "allow/prefer" to give up 2 pts over 3 pts in such clutch situations when up... thus not surprised to see 2pt % in the clutch to be perhaps higher than normal, and conversely, 3 pt % sinking a bit due to the attention to guarding the perimeter... but those 3 pt % percentages are just too outlandish to be attributed to anything but luck.

[GSH]

Sure. But 9-50? 1-13? Over 21 games?

Thanks both timvp and Spursfanfromafar for the numbers.



First of all, it's 23 games and not 21. And I never said that one thing accounted for all of the low shooting percentage. For one thing, I think improved clutch defense accounts for part of it.

I just quickly went back over the last 10 close games the Spurs have been in. And the team that was losing chucked up a desperation 3 in the closing seconds in 9 of them. And THAT will skew the numbers. [edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

When the Spurs were losing THEY were the ones chucking up the bricks. (One of them was from Duncan.) So that 9-50 could easily be something more like 9-32, if you discount the ones that didn't have a prayer. And if the Spurs have been closing out on 3's even a little bit better in clutch time, that wouldn't be unreasonable.

You can argue my opinions all you want. But this isn't the political forum. My numbers are usually pretty damned good.

[GSH]

Just to substantiate gsh's point.

My data shows 10 clutch games in january, 6 in february and 5 in march.


Thanks, Spursfan. That fits.

And it makes a big difference whether your team is winning the close game, or losing. The team that is behind by 5, with the clock winding down, is a lot more likely to throw up desperation shots. That's going to skew their clutch-time FG% downward. Sometimes by quite a lot, if they chuck multiples. (Remember, it's only 115 total minutes.)

I think it's pretty obvious that the Spurs are playing better defense down the stretch, over the last month or so. And the Spurs have come out on top of most of those, because they were the team winning during clutch time. That, plus the other things I mentioned, would tend to cause the other teams' FG% to be lower in those situations.

[Mel_13]

GSH,

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say last night.

[GSH]

GSH,

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say last night.

Heh... thanks for waking me up, and giving me a chance to delete that stupid comment. :toast I catch enough flak, at the best of times. I'd never hear the end of that one.

BTW - a little sleep went a long way.

[GSH]

.
.
.Timvp - one more thing about this calculation:


Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.



I'm almost certain that the season Points Per 100 Possessions (Def EFF) is calculated using a formula, rather than counting actual possessions. It's because of the difficulty in counting possessions after the fact. (Here's a very short article, if it matters: http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/inside-the-numbers/points-per-possession-pop-up.html)

Your calculations appear to use actual counted possessions, during clutch time. Neither way is wrong. (Your way is obviously more accurate.) But it's a problem comparing them to each other. It's almost assured that you will get some variation.

If you use the same calculation on those clutch minutes that is used on the season number, it would probably yield a better (lower) Def EFF than the one you used. (It would tend to give more possessions, when used on those minutes.) Just using a rough estimate, I would guess that the calculated method would show a Def EFF more like 97-98 for those clutch minutes. Since the purpose is just to compare how the Spurs have been defending in the clutch to how they've defended the rest of the time, it's probably valid.

And, remember, you already adjusted the clutch-time Def EFF for what you thought was a more normal FG% and 3P%. I think you went too high with that, because of the last-second bricks I talked about above.

The Spurs are playing better defense in the clutch lately. How much is up for debate... but better.

[mathbzh]

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Just nitpicking here but if you adjust FT and 3P shooting you should also adjust 2 pts FG% (luck goes both way)

137*0,482=66

So.. 205-4+3+21=225 points in 224 possessions=100.4 points per 100 possession.

But I am not sure it is relevant to look at these details. As GSH stated, the number are skewed in the first place by the fact we were leading in most games (desperation shot, no need for us to stop the clock...).

[therealtruth]

Another metric would be the number of open shots giving up late in games. I think 82games or some other site used to keep track of open, partially contested, and heavily contested shots.

[ElNono]

First of all, it's 23 games and not 21. And I never said that one thing accounted for all of the low shooting percentage. For one thing, I think improved clutch defense accounts for part of it.

I just quickly went back over the last 10 close games the Spurs have been in. And the team that was losing chucked up a desperation 3 in the closing seconds in 9 of them. And THAT will skew the numbers. [edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

When the Spurs were losing THEY were the ones chucking up the bricks. (One of them was from Duncan.) So that 9-50 could easily be something more like 9-32, if you discount the ones that didn't have a prayer. And if the Spurs have been closing out on 3's even a little bit better in clutch time, that wouldn't be unreasonable.

You can argue my opinions all you want. But this isn't the political forum. My numbers are usually pretty damned good.

Did all those 9 prayers came when the score was within 5? Because that shooting percentage isn't just the last 5 mins, it's also when the score difference is 5 or less.

For example, your Toronto hypothetical wouldn't apply (the score differential was +7).

Also, not all prayer shots are missed shots...

Don't know if there's interest, but I could go back look at some of the games/boxscores and try to determine how many of those actual attempts were prayer shots (what would you use as the criteria? Last 30 secs or within the last 4 secs in the shot clock?).

It's a lot of work, so I rather gauge the interest first...

I think everybody's numbers are "damn good" here. We're all working with basically the same data set...

[GSH]

Did all those 9 prayers came when the score was within 5? Because that shooting percentage isn't just the last 5 mins, it's also when the score difference is 5 or less.

If you check the thread, I'm the one who pointed that out. And the 115 minutes of clutch time in the example is wrong because of it. Tell me what I've already told everyone else. Nice trick.

For example, your Toronto hypothetical wouldn't apply (the score differential was +7).

Excellent analysis. Except for the fact that it was a 3-point game when he took that 3-pointer with a second left on the shot clock. So, except for that being a totally meaningless comment, it truly added a lot to the discussion. You really NEED for me to be wrong, don't you?

Also, not all prayer shots are missed shots...

All of those were.
Ten games was enough to prove the point, but I'll go back farther, if you need the nail driven in deeper.

Don't know if there's interest, but I could go back look at some of the games/boxscores and try to determine how many of those actual attempts were prayer shots (what would you use as the criteria? Last 30 secs or within the last 4 secs in the shot clock?).

It's a lot of work, so I rather gauge the interest first...

I think everybody's numbers are "damn good" here. We're all working with basically the same data set...

:rolleyes




The fact, Nono, is that in close games (5 or less points), the team that is trailing usually winds up jacking up bad shots in the final few seconds. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that they almost always do. If they need 2 scores, they have to start a little earlier, and they have to jack the shots up quicker (earlier in the shot clock) to try and have a shot at gettting the second shot opportunity.

That's going to hurt their shooting percentage. And when you're only looking at the last 10 or so shots (last 5 minutes), it's going to hurt that shooting percentage A LOT. I think most people can understand that.

Maybe you just don't want to.

[GSH]

BTW - has everyone seen the NBA's Advanced Player Stat page recently?

http://www.nba.com/advancedstats/player.html#Danny-Green|201980;year=201112;season=r;splitType=clutch ;splitValue=all


Nearly all of the Spurs players Def EFF gets better in clutch time. If the individual players' defense gets better, it sort of follows that the teams defense gets better.

If you believe that the other teams all sort of go blind, and start missing shots for no reason, then you can say it's just luck. But I think the Spurs have actually played somewhat better D down the stretch.

[TheSkeptic]

BTW - has everyone seen the NBA's Advanced Player Stat page recently?

http://www.nba.com/advancedstats/player.html#Danny-Green|201980;year=201112;season=r;splitType=clutch ;splitValue=all


Nearly all of the Spurs players Def EFF gets better in clutch time. If the individual players' defense gets better, it sort of follows that the teams defense gets better.

If you believe that the other teams all sort of go blind, and start missing shots for no reason, then you can say it's just luck. But I think the Spurs have actually played somewhat better D down the stretch.

You're right.

I don't know whether to be relieved or annoyed. I get how this gives the Spurs a chance to win games against most teams but I'm not fully convinced this strategy will work against teams like Chicago or Miami.

If the team is using its offense to stay in games and then clamping down at the end, couldn't that backfire against teams that play elite defense from start to finish?

Am I missing something?

[ElNono]

If you check the thread, I'm the one who pointed that out. And the 115 minutes of clutch time in the example is wrong because of it. Tell me what I've already told everyone else. Nice trick.

You can stop patting yourself in the back. The criteria was clearly spelled out in the linked article. :rolleyes


Excellent analysis. Except for the fact that it was a 3-point game when he took that 3-pointer with a second left on the shot clock. So, except for that being a totally meaningless comment, it truly added a lot to the discussion. You really NEED for me to be wrong, don't you?

My comment on the Toronto game was about this part:
[edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

Please clearly state next time around that you don't want to discuss your findings or opinion, I'll give you the courtesy of not doing so.

BTW, as I told Mel last night, this isn't about winning, but about having a clearer picture of what we're talking about. We all win when we know what we're looking at. If you're right, you're right. I have no beef at all with that.


All of those were.
Ten games was enough to prove the point, but I'll go back farther, if you need the nail driven in deeper.

What criteria you used for prayer shot?


The fact, Nono, is that in close games (5 or less points), the team that is trailing usually winds up jacking up bad shots in the final few seconds. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that they almost always do. If they need 2 scores, they have to start a little earlier, and they have to jack the shots up quicker (earlier in the shot clock) to try and have a shot at gettting the second shot opportunity.

I would argue that if this is such a natural occurrence, why is it just the Spurs that are singled out for holding opponents to such percentages?
Wouldn't the league overall have similar numbers under the same circumstances?


That's going to hurt their shooting percentage. And when you're only looking at the last 10 or so shots (last 5 minutes), it's going to hurt that shooting percentage A LOT. I think most people can understand that.

Maybe you just don't want to.

If you don't like your argument questioned, just simply state so. I have no problem with that. My questions shouldn't bother you at all, IMO. It gives you another opportunity to present how right you are.

Also, if you want me to add coloring or bolding to my posts, let me know. Thanks.

[GSH]

I would argue that if this is such a natural occurrence, why is it just the Spurs that are singled out for holding opponents to such percentages?
Wouldn't the league overall have similar numbers under the same circumstances?

They probably do. The Spurs seem to jack up a lot of quick 3's when they are behind at the end of a close game. Maybe there are articles on it, or maybe nobody bothered to look at it that way before, or write it up.

If you don't like your argument questioned, just simply state so. I have no problem with that. My questions shouldn't bother you at all, IMO. It gives you another opportunity to present how right you are.

You didn't question it - you dismissed it out of hand. (No - it's just luck.) Only you know why.

Also, if you want me to add coloring or bolding to my posts, let me know. Thanks.

I don't care what you do with your posts. I added the color to make it easy to see my answer, in between your comments. Just like I'm doing now. Bold because I wante to emphasize something. Again - I think most people figured that out.



There's no way to compute clutch defense down to perfection. It's pretty obvious that the less-than-5 point-difference doesn't even get used by everyone. (What do you do when the difference is 5, then goes above 5, then goes below again? It happens often enough.) Even Timvp's examples appeared to use 5 minutes, even when the final difference was more than 5 points.

There's no perfect definition of a "prayer" shot. The point is simply this: the team that is behind at the end of a close game is going to tend to jack up more bad shots than normal - especially if they are behind by more than 1 possession. Sometimes a prayer is a shot taken extra-early in the shot clock, to try and get two possessions. Sometimes it's just a 3-pointer taken, because only a 3-pointer will help. You can't spot that from a box score, or a play-by-play.

The real question is: Are the Spurs simply lucky that their opponents are missing so many shots late in close games - or is there some reason for it? (Or reasons.)

Agreed so far?

So here. I went to as many close games as I could find easily. You're going to see that a LOT of 3-point shots get jacked up by the team that is behind in close games. And a large percentage seem to be less than good shots, and miss. And when you add them all up, they put a significant dent in the opponents 3P% in those clutch minutes. (Without those shots, they would be shooting much closer to a normal percentage. If the Spurs really are defending better, that could account for the rest.

That's the best I can come up with - take it or leave it. Again, I think most people will understand how many missed 3's it represents relative to the number taken in clutch time.

Rockets - Spurs ahead 97-95. Rockets inbound (their end) with 5.3 and take shot at 1.3.
Golden state - Spurs up 99-95 with 27.5 left. Ellis misses a 3 with 16.9. Ellis misses a 3 with 4.9. Lee misses a put-back with 1.8.
Denver - Spurs lead 119-113 with 14.5 left. Nuggets intentional foul. Then they get the ball with 9.9 left and shoot a 3 with 7.6 left. (Made it.)
Milwaukee - Spurs trail 103-106. Jefferson takes a 3 at last instant. Clock reads 0:00 before it gets there.
Rockets - Spurs lead 99-95. Scola takes a 3 with 3.9 left.
Orlando - Spurs lead 85-83. Anderson takes a 3 with 2.9 left.
Kings - Sac leads 88-86. Green takes an infamous runner in the lane with 1.0 seconds left.
Houston - Spurs trail 102-105. Neal takes a 3 with 4.8 left.
Hornets - Spurs lead 104-102. Jack takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00
Dallas - Spurs trail 100-101. Green shoots a 3 with 0.3 seconds left.
Houston - Spurs lead 96-91. Lowry jacks a 3 at 20.9 seconds left, and another at 1.0 seconds left.
Memphis - Spurs lead 87-84. Gay takes a 3 with 8.9 seconds left. Spurs lead by 5, and Mayo takes a 3 with .9 left.
Philly - Spurs lead by 8 with 1:46. Williams take a 3 and makes. Spurs lead by 5. Iguodola takes a 3, 2 seconds into the shot clock.
Detroit - Spurs lead by 3. Gordon jacks a 3, just 2.3 seconds into the shot clock. Spurs leading by 4, Knight shoots a 3 with 2.9 left in the game.
Clippers - Spurs lead by 3. Paul takes a 3 with 1.9 seconds left.
Utah - Spurs lead 106-102. Utah gets the ball with 2.1 seconds left. Milsap shoots a 3 with 1.5 seconds left
Chicago - Spurs trail 86-94. Jefferson jacks a 3 just 3 seconds into the shot clock. (makes) Duncan shoots a 3 with 14.9 left.
Denver - Spurs trail 97-94. Neal takes a 3 with 6.9 left. Neal takes another 3 with .9 left.
OKC - Spurs lead 112-105. Harden takes a quick 3, with 24.9 left. Westbrook takes a quick 3 with 13.9 left.
Dallas - Spurs trail 94-100. Manu takes a quick 3 with 1:29 left. Spurs trail 106-96, Green makes a quick 3 with 35.9 left. Manu takes a quick 3 with 14.9 left.
New Orleans - Spurs lead 89-86. Bellinelli takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00
Phoenix - Spurs lead 107-100. Brown takes a 3 with 8.9 seconds left.
Kings - Spurs lead 110-100 with 1:07 left. Thomas jacks a 3 with 1:01 left. Thornton shoots a 3 with :55 left. (makes) Greene makes a 3 with 0.2 seconds left.
Pacers - Spurs lead by 9. West takes a meaningless 3 with 3.0 seconds left.

[timvp]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono? :lol

[GSH]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono? :lol

Nono is one of my favorite people here. Still is.

I said something very unpopular in the political forum. It seems to have made things less... cordial here. It's disappointing.


Edit: Okay. Several unpopular things. But I try to say them in a nice way.

[ElNono]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono? :lol

He probably skipped almost all I wrote last night... it's the only reason I can fathom that he would come to the conclusion that my complete argument is simply "it's just luck" and that I didn't back up the reasoning for that.

Should he have bothered to read, he would realize I already agree with his contention that the Spurs seemingly do try and do better on defense in the last quarter...

But seeing it's very important for him to "win" this argument, he can have it. It really isn't THAT important. Whatever it is, hopefully the Spurs can sustain it. I think it's unlikely, but whatever...

[ElNono]

Nono is one of my favorite people here. Still is.

I said something very unpopular in the political forum. It seems to have made things less... cordial here. It's disappointing.

Edit: Okay. Several unpopular things. But I try to say them in a nice way.

:lol What was that? I don't recall, tbh... You're actually one of many guys I still can have a cordial discussion with, even though we definitely don't agree in a lot of things...

[ElNono]

Rockets - Spurs ahead 97-95. Rockets inbound (their end) with 5.3 and take shot at 1.3.
Golden state - Spurs up 99-95 with 27.5 left. Ellis misses a 3 with 16.9. Ellis misses a 3 with 4.9. Lee misses a put-back with 1.8.
Rockets - Spurs lead 99-95. Scola takes a 3 with 3.9 left.
Orlando - Spurs lead 85-83. Anderson takes a 3 with 2.9 left.
Hornets - Spurs lead 104-102. Jack takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00
Houston - Spurs lead 96-91. Lowry jacks a 3 at 20.9 seconds left, and another at 1.0 seconds left.
Memphis - Spurs lead 87-84. Gay takes a 3 with 8.9 seconds left. Spurs lead by 5, and Mayo takes a 3 with .9 left.
Philly - Spurs lead by 5. Iguodola takes a 3, 2 seconds into the shot clock.
Detroit - Spurs lead by 3. Gordon jacks a 3, just 2.3 seconds into the shot clock. Spurs leading by 4, Knight shoots a 3 with 2.9 left in the game.
Clippers - Spurs lead by 3. Paul takes a 3 with 1.9 seconds left.
Utah - Spurs lead 106-102. Utah gets the ball with 2.1 seconds left. Milsap shoots a 3 with 1.5 seconds left
New Orleans - Spurs lead 89-86. Bellinelli takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00


BTW, here's the filtered shots that qualify under the criteria presented... Which account for 15 out of the 50... debatable all those are prayers too, tbh.

But, as I said in my previous post, you win. Whatever it is, I hope the Spurs can keep capitalizing on it.

[T Park]

Games like tonight skewing numbers are why I hate the sabermetricing of basketball.

[ElNono]

Games like tonight skewing numbers are why I hate the sabermetricing of basketball.

Well, there was a lot of prayers from Cleveland players tonight... :lol

[T Park]

Well, there was a lot of prayers from Cleveland players tonight... :lol

But that's been my root point.

Numbers never reflect what's really going on or what some things have shown.

[GSH]

:lol What was that? I don't recall, tbh...


Heh. You lectured me about something I specifically put in my post. And when I point that out, you snipe at me about it being in a link, and snipe more about me patting myself on the back?

I dunno. It sure looks like you've got a bad case of the redass over something.

[GSH]

He probably skipped almost all I wrote last night...

But seeing it's very important for him to "win" this argument, he can have it. It really isn't THAT important. Whatever it is, hopefully the Spurs can sustain it. I think it's unlikely, but whatever...


BTW, here's the filtered shots that qualify under the criteria presented... Which account for 15 out of the 50... debatable all those are prayers too, tbh.

But, as I said in my previous post, you win. Whatever it is, I hope the Spurs can keep capitalizing on it.


It's not a matter of "skipping". I'm working on a project, and my time has been limited. I simply can't read every single post in every single thread. I'll work harder at it, though. Any time I'm working on a project, what's important is to get it right. I never, ever... ever mind losing an argument, for just that reason. What I don't like is when a discussion/argument devolves into sniping. It gets in the way of understanding. This is just a fun project, but I approach things the same way.

The criteria of "5 points or less" clearly didn't get used in all of the numbers Timvp used. I could spend a bunch of time proving it, but why bother? I don't like to mix different criteria in the same analysis, so I figured looking at the last 5 minutes of close games is good enough, as long as it's consistent.

But - all of that aside, you filtered the list down to 15 out of 50 (late) missed 3's, and you don't think that affects the numbers? Even if the number of "prayers" is only 10 of those 15, that's still 20% of the clutch 3's being at a much lower-than-normal percentage. And you don't think that skews the numbers much? That's just not like you. I'd rather believe you're still holding a grudge from the other threads (and I do) than think you really don't see the problem with that.

And BTW - that "you win the argument, no matter what" is a weak-assed PMS play. Nobody thinks you really believe it, so it just makes you look like whiny. I'll try and find the stuff you posted last night. Maybe you're onto something I overlooked. I won't have any problem admitting it.

[ElNono]

But - all of that aside, you filtered the list down to 15 out of 50 (late) missed 3's, and you don't think that affects the numbers? Even if the number of "prayers" is only 10 of those 15, that's still 20% of the clutch 3's being at a much lower-than-normal percentage. And you don't think that skews the numbers much?

I'm going to address this question since it's simple mathematics...

Removing 10 out of the 50, leaves 40 shots...

With prayers: 9/50 = 18%
Without prayers: 9/40 = 22.5%

So, no, even removing 20% of the shots the percentages are still well outside what's average for the league.

I don't think I've been unreasonable in my arguments. But obviously, feel free to disagree.

[timvp]

The criteria of "5 points or less" clearly didn't get used in all of the numbers Timvp used.

Those numbers I posted were of final five minutes of a game with neither team up by five points, tbh.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying was "mixed" though.

[timvp]

And to add to the ":stirpot:", here are the Spurs stats in the final five minutes of the game with neither team up by more than five points.

81-173 from the field
17-37 from three-point land.

So opponents are 9-50 on three-pointers in clutch situations while the Spurs are 17-37. Tbh, I don't think either number is sustainable but I'm assuming I'll get some disagreement on that.



The disparity in three-point percentage could be why the Spurs are virtually unbeatable when leading after the third quarter. Can't really come back when one team shoots 18% on three-pointers while the other team shoots 46%.

[DAF86]

To be fair, the Spurs are the best shooting team in the NBA.

[timvp]

More numbers to chew on:

Opponents against the Spurs on clutch three-pointers: 9-for-50 (18%)
Clutch three-point shooting against every other team in the NBA: 439-1415 (31%)

Haven't really made any conclusions with these new numbers yet, tbh.

[DAF86]

And. They plan to not allow easy 3pt looks to their rivals.

[ElNono]

Opponents against the Spurs on clutch three-pointers: 9-for-50 (18%)
Clutch three-point shooting against every other team in the NBA: 439-1415 (31%)

This actually supports my argument that such low percentages are simply not the norm league-wide. Around 30% is what I would've expected seeing that's about the best defensive 3pt % in the league right now (Boston).

[GSH]

Those numbers I posted were of final five minutes of a game with neither team up by five points, tbh.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying was "mixed" though.


Oh, no - not that your numbers were mixed. I was saying that you can't count all of those 50 shots for one purpose, and then filter some of them out because they don't meet the "5 point" criteria later on. I was trying to use the same definition of "clutch" that you did, all the way through.

Here's the only point. If the Spurs opponents are 9/50 on 3's, late in the game, that's obviously too low. Nobody believes that the Spurs D could hold teams to that poor of a 3P%. But if a bunch of those 3's were desperation-type shots that you don't really expect to fall, that probably accounts for SOME of the low 3P%. Not all, but some. And maybe we can believe that the Spurs D could hold those teams closer to 9-36 if they were closing out hard.

It's sometimes a matter of perception. 9-50 is so low, it can't be right, so we throw away the whole thing as luck. But 9-36 is close enough that we can consider the Spurs may really be playing better D in the clutch.

[GSH]

More numbers to chew on:

Opponents against the Spurs on clutch three-pointers: 9-for-50 (18%)
Clutch three-point shooting against every other team in the NBA: 439-1415 (31%)

Haven't really made any conclusions with these new numbers yet, tbh.

[note: If you don't read anything else, read my last paragraph. That might help make more sense out of what I'm saying.]

Is that just 3-pointers in the last 5 minutes of games, or in the last 5 of close games? Or is there something else in there? Does it include the shots by the winners as well as the losers? Because this is what I'm seeing:

In the last 5 minutes, teams seem to put up around 10-11 shots. Let's say 10 for now, to make the numbers easy. The team that is behind puts up a lot of last-second shots. That makes sense, since they are trying to catch up, while the other team is trying to run clock. So far, I don't think any of that is too controversial.

Suppose a team puts up two 3P shots, somewhere in the last 5 minutes. Then they wind up chunking up a prayer, or even a meaningless 3, near the final buzzer. Except for the total flukes, that last shot isn't going in. So the BEST 3P% that team could have in the last 5 minutes is 66%. We can debate how often it happens, but when it does, it skews the losers 3P% in the last 5 minutes drastically.

That's why I asked if you included both winners and losers. Because I suspect that the losing team has a much lower 3P% in the last 5, for exactly the reason I just detailed.

Look at it this way. The Spurs opponents are shooting 9-50 in late game situations - right? Suppose the Spurs have been shooting their normal 3P% in those same situations. Let's round down, and say 19-50 for the Spurs. Add them up, and you get 28-100 for both teams. That's only 3 percentage points off the league average 31% that you just listed. Is that so difficult to believe? And if the Spurs really are closing out on 3's more in the final minutes, couldn't that account for some of the remaining difference?

[roycrikside]

More numbers to chew on:

Opponents against the Spurs on clutch three-pointers: 9-for-50 (18%)
Clutch three-point shooting against every other team in the NBA: 439-1415 (31%)

Haven't really made any conclusions with these new numbers yet, tbh.

Two theories:

1. Since the Spurs foul less than any team in the league, opponents are less liable to look for opportunities in the paint and more willing to force up contested threes than the Spurs shoot on offense.

2. Spurs play their main guys less minutes than the opponents play their main guys, even in close-and-tight ball games. Our guys should theoretically have more energy and legs in the closing minutes than their guys. You need legs to shoot threes.

[GSH]

I'm going to address this question since it's simple mathematics...

Removing 10 out of the 50, leaves 40 shots...

With prayers: 9/50 = 18%
Without prayers: 9/40 = 22.5%

So, no, even removing 20% of the shots the percentages are still well outside what's average for the league.

I don't think I've been unreasonable in my arguments. But obviously, feel free to disagree.


Look, Nono, I'm working on a project that's so intense, I was still working on it while I was trying to sleep. I started crunching some basketball stats as a sort of diversion. (Mel13 reminded me that there's no substitute for real Z's :D) I read the beginning of this thread, and skipped to the end to see if it had developed, and at the time, the last post was Timvp's. I jumped on it, started playing with the numbers, and skipped some stuff in the middle. Mea culpa. And if I mis-read your intent, well... mea bigger culpa.

Your math is impossible to argue with. I'd be a bonehead to try. I don't know, but I THINK, that there may be more to it. Some of it, undoubtedly, is just good fortune for the Spurs. Some of it, I still believe, is the Spurs clamping down, and closing out, in crunch time. (See how I avoided the word "clutch"?) But I also think that some of it is the fact that the Spurs have been leading, rather than trailing, in a big portion of those games.

Read the last paragraph of my post to Timvp, right before this one. I really do think that there's something there. I've never seen anyone look at it that way, but that doesn't mean a hundred people haven't done it.

And, to be extremely clear - yes, I think that some of it has just been good fortune for the Spurs, with opponents missing more shots than normal.

[GSH]

And to add to the ":stirpot:", here are the Spurs stats in the final five minutes of the game with neither team up by more than five points.

81-173 from the field
17-37 from three-point land.

So opponents are 9-50 on three-pointers in clutch situations while the Spurs are 17-37. Tbh, I don't think either number is sustainable but I'm assuming I'll get some disagreement on that.



The disparity in three-point percentage could be why the Spurs are virtually unbeatable when leading after the third quarter. Can't really come back when one team shoots 18% on three-pointers while the other team shoots 46%.


Echhh... I didn't see this before I started writing.

Okay - the other teams are 9-50. Spurs are 17-37. Add them up, and you get 26-87, which is right at 30%. Pretty damned close to the league average.

I'm starting to think the 31% is made of both winners and losers 3P%'s. And I bet the winners typically shoot a much higher percentage. Maybe the discrepancy isn't as big, on average. But look - our opponents have shot 50 3's, even though they are bricking them. We've only shot 37, even though we're nailing them. What does that tell you? Probably that they HAVE TO shoot 3's, because they're behind. We don't have to, because we're ahead. And when you have to shoot 3's, rather than taking them when they're open, you probably don't make as many.

Like I've said from the start. I don't think it accounts for all of the low percentage. But I think it accounts for a good chunk. And I bet it's at least somewhat typical of the gap between the team that's ahead, and the team that's behind. I also still think the Spurs are playing better D in crunch time, than at other times. But proving it was always going to be a difficult task. It will still be there after sleepage.

[timvp]

When the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 9-for-17 on three-pointers. When opponents of the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 4-for-34 on three-pointers.

Even if they're shooting blindfolded, 4-for-34 is a ridiculously low percentage, tbh.









There's a lot more than can be computed but here's what I've learned:

1. This Spurs team seems like a clutch shooting team and the clutch-time numbers back that up so far.

2. The Spurs have more length and athleticism on the perimeter, sprinkle in some veteran know-how and theoretically the Spurs should be able to execute defensively down the stretch. I'll hope that their success to date in clutch-time defense isn't due to 100% luck. Even if it's 90% luck, maybe that 10% of skill is all the Spurs need since their offense is clicking so wonderfully right now.

[jesterbobman]

Obviously, there's a bit of luck involved, but teams shooting a lower 3pt % isn't shocking.

It would seem like the Spurs are (in the last 5 minutes or so) are strongly committing to defending the perimeter, which might leave some interior weaknesses from not having men close to the rim to contest. Needs synergy data to back that up, but if you know the other team wants to shoot 3's, it makes sense to sell out defending the 3. If teams are guarded, they might try to exploit that interior weakness and take a 2, depending on the game situation. 30 seconds left and down 4, take the decent 2 point shot. 5 seconds left and down 3, take a heave and hope shot.

From you guys who watch all the games, is there any change in defensive philosophy noticeable in the last few minutes of close games, in how screens are defended, sticking to 3 shooters etc. I just think the optimal defense changes in those situations, so % are likely to change.

[Spursfanfromafar]

When the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 9-for-17 on three-pointers. When opponents of the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 4-for-34 on three-pointers.

Even if they're shooting blindfolded, 4-for-34 is a ridiculously low percentage, tbh.

There's a lot more than can be computed but here's what I've learned:

1. This Spurs team seems like a clutch shooting team and the clutch-time numbers back that up so far.

2. The Spurs have more length and athleticism on the perimeter, sprinkle in some veteran know-how and theoretically the Spurs should be able to execute defensively down the stretch. I'll hope that their success to date in clutch-time defense isn't due to 100% luck. Even if it's 90% luck, maybe that 10% of skill is all the Spurs need since their offense is clicking so wonderfully right now.

It is mostly luck.

A breakdown of these three pointers by team gives a more complete picture -

Game Attempt Made Attempts
20120104GSWSAS 1 5
20120107DENSAS 1 2
20120115PHXSAS 0 2
20120120SACSAS 0 1
20120123SASNOH 0 1
20120129SASDAL 1 1
20120206SASMEM 1 4
20120215SASTOR 0 2
20120218SASLAC 0 2
20120220SASUTA 0 1
20120316SASOKC 1 7
20120324SASNOH 0 2
20120328SASSAC 2 4
Grand Total 7 34


Except for games featuring OKC, MEM, GSW and SAC, most other games have featured either 1 or 2 attempts, very low to be seen as indicators of 3pt defense. And we can eliminate the SAC game as the 3pt% was 50%..and it leaves us with three games - OKC which featured 6 missed shots by Westbrook, Harden and Durant (who scored the only one), GSW which featured shots missed by high volume shooter Ellis and rookie Thompson, and MEM, featuring shots missed by Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo.

There isn't anything definite to say about these missed shots.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Green and Jax's hands were all over the place last night; doesn't really apply to 'late game defense' due to the blowout, but it's something to think about and look forward to.