A few stats for the doubters

[GSH]

I still see some doubts from Spurs fans. Maybe this streak is a fluke, and the regular season means nothing. Or - maybe the Spurs won't be able to get it done against a team as good as OKC (or Miami). Or - this is what the Thunder could do to beat the Spurs.

So I decided to put together a few stats you probably haven't seen elsewhere, to sort of put into perspective just how good this team really is, compared to the rest of the league, and to help explain how the Spurs were able to come back in the last game.

First, the Spurs record and league rank in some important stats:
Record vs. >.500 teams - 1st in the league (.710). Miami 2nd (.641)
Record when scoring 100+ - 2nd in the league (38-4). Chicago 1st (22-0) Note Spurs scored 100+ almost twice as often.
Record when opponent scores 100+ - 1st in the league (17-10). OKC second in league (8-5). Fixed per Timvp and FromWayDowntown. The cool thing is that the Spurs still have a .630 record when giving up 100+.
Record when lead in RB - 1st in the league (.923). OKC 2nd (.872).
Record when lead FG% - 2nd in the league (.900). Chi 1st (.927)
Record when fewer TO - 4th in the league (25-6). OKC 1st (17-1) Note - Chi (23-28) Mia (32-7)

The last one (Turnovers) might look like a vulnerability. After all, the Spurs only had fewer turnovers than their opponents 31 times out of 66 games. But consider that when the Spurs had the same or more turnovers than their opponents, they still had an amazing 25-10 (.714) record.

We know the Spurs defense has not been as good as in years past. So how about those games when the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot a greater FG%? The Spurs are an uncomfortable 14-12. That looks a bit dismal... until you consider: OKC is just 9-9 when shooting a lower FG% than their opponents. Miami is just 6-14. And Boston is 2-15. Actually, the Spurs are the only team in the league who are +.500, even when allowing their opponents to shoot a greater FG% than themselves. (I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are one of the few teams ever to accomplish that feat.)


And if that's not enough, here are a couple of stats specific to the matchup with the Thunder:

The Spurs lost the AST battle to their opponents just 16 times all season, while the Thunder had fewer AST than their opponents a whopping 36 times. How important is that? Well, of the Thunder's 19 losses during the season, 13 of them came on nights when they had fewer AST than their opponents. By comparison, 7 of the Spurs 16 losses came on nights when they lost the AST battle.

During the regular season, the Thunder had more TO's than their opponents 44 out of 66 games, as compared to 30 for the Spurs. Of the Thunder's 19 losses, 18 came on nights when they lost the TO battle. The Spurs lost 8 of their 16 games when they had more turnovers than their opponents. If the Spurs win the turnover battle against the Thunder, there is a very good chance that the game will be another W for the Spurs. (Note: the Spurs' 8 losses, when committing more TO's than their opponents was the least in the league. Even if the Spurs commit too many TO's, like Game 1, they still have a very good chance of winning the game.)


Finally, one that's a little tougher to quantify:
The depth of this Spurs team really does wear down opponents by the ends of games. For all purposes, the Spurs don't lose fourth quarters (unless they are already blowing out their opponents, and empty their bench). During the last 19 games of the winning streak, the Spurs only lost 1 fourth quarter in games that were closely contested. If you want to beat the Spurs you had better do it in the first 3 quarters.

So, when you put it all together, what does it mean?

First, if the Spurs share the ball like they normally do, and watch the turnovers, the Thunder have close to no chance of winning 4 out of 6 games against them. But if things do go wrong - if OKC causes a lot of turnovers, or shoots a little better from the field - they still have to be able to keep it up for 48 minutes against a team that keeps grinding down opponents late in games.

The Spurs are the only team in the league without (at least) a 3-game losing streak this season. And their only 2-game losing streaks since Jan 11 involved a forfeit, and another game played without both Duncan and Ginobili. After losing Game 1, the Thunder are going to have to beat the Spurs in consecutive games to win this series. Good luck with that.

[timvp]

Record when opponent scores 100+ - 2nd in the league (17-10). Miami 1st (25-14). Note Spurs allowed 100+ much less often.

Still reading your post but pointing out an error. No way Miami gave up 100+ points 39 times this season.

[FromWayDowntown]

According to nba.com, Miami was 5-11 in the regular season when its opponents scored 100+

The general point, however, seems to hold. Only 3 teams in the league were at or above .500 when their opponents scored 100+ -- SA (17-10), CHI (8-5), OKC (12-12).

The 25-14 number was Miami's record against teams that are above .500.

[timvp]

Good post. The numbers the Spurs have compiled this season are pretty ridiculous.

I knew turnovers would be important but your stats do a good job of pointing out how important it really is in this series. If the Spurs can limit their turnovers and force OKC to turn the ball over at their normal rate, that'd be a huge advantage going forward.

[angelbelow]

Good read.

Thunder's poor assist numbers are not surprising. They don't move the ball well and rely on a lot of iso and pick and roll basketball. To make matters worse, Westbrook took Parker's bait and took too many shots, especially in the 4th. (Harden took 5 shots but 4 of them with under 1:30 remaining, Durant only took 2 but went to the line a few times.)

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree, it's a great read and I appreciate the effort that went into this. I didn't mean my correcting post above to discount any of that. I had the same question timvp had about Miami in 100 point games.

I think that one thing I take from the numbers is that the Spurs have certainly regained their ability to win games in any number of different ways, which was definitely a hallmark of the title teams in 2003 and 2005. I still have my own kind of appropriate fear of the Thunder and their talent. I also think sometimes the playoffs have a way of undoing a season's worth of trends. Still, the numbers certainly bear out the confidence of so many about this team and its strength.

I'll hesitatingly add one of my own -- in the Duncan era, this is the Spurs' 38th playoff series (Duncan has played in 37 of the 38). In the previous 37 series, they've gone up 1-0 on 23 different occasions. When going up 1-0 in a playoff series since 1998, the Spurs have ultimately won the series 21 times (21-2). Since Parker came along, the Spurs are 14-2 in 27 series when going up 1-0. Since Ginobili joined the club, the Spurs are 13-2 in 24 series with Manu (discounting the series he missed in 2009) when they go up 1-0.

That feels so much like a jinx stat and I've been reluctant to share it, but I think if you are inclined to draw confidence from numbers, there's one for you.

[spurso]

Nice gsh, it almost sounds rediculous when talking about the spurs. The numbers are just amazing. Thanks for the write up. People need to stop and take this all in because we may not see something like this again for the spurs in a long time. Truly a special time.

[GSH]

Still reading your post but pointing out an error. No way Miami gave up 100+ points 39 times this season.

Thanks. I doubled a line in my spreadsheet. That was Miami's record against >.500 teams - again.

Fixed in original post.



According to nba.com, Miami was 5-11 in the regular season when its opponents scored 100+

The general point, however, seems to hold. Only 3 teams in the league were at or above .500 when their opponents scored 100+ -- SA (17-10), CHI (8-5), OKC (12-12).

The 25-14 number was Miami's record against teams that are above .500.


You beat me to it. Thanks. :tu

[urunobili]

awesome post GSH!

[GSH]

One more stat I forgot to mention:

When the Spurs score less than 100 points, they are only 12-12. That would seem to be the biggest negative for this team. But... we all know that the Spurs got off to a slow start. Since January, the Spurs are a much more palatable 7-5 when they score less than 100 points.

But even that doesn't tell the whole story, because that includes one forfeit game in Portland and another in Utah. There's no guarantee the Spurs would have won either of those games, nor that they would have scored <100 points if they played everyone. The easiest thing is just to leave them out. Which means that since January, the Spurs are 7-3 in (contested) games in which they score less than 100 points.

You want to try and beat this team by slowing it down and holding them under 100? Fine. They're .700 in those kinds of games since January.

[biziofromdowntown]

Great effort and work GSH, thank u!

[Sense]

That's awesome, I don't feel as nervous as the first game.

[GSH]

One last note for some of the purists. Some of the numbers may appear to be disconnected. That's because they point to games when one team has more or less of a particular stat than their opponent. It leaves out the ties.

For instance: there were 11 games where the Spurs had exactly the same number of AST as their opponents. The Spurs won 9 of them. :D