Statistically Speaking: Why Did the Spurs Lose?

[timvp]

In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes.

While those aspects hold some merit, the statistics point to a much more straightforward reason as to why San Antonio ended up losing the series. More on that later.

First of all, let’s look at what didn’t cause the Spurs to lose. Despite the Thunder holding an athleticism advantage at literally every position, rebounding wasn’t an issue in this series. The Spurs retrieved 76.4% of the available defensive rebounds, which is an even higher mark than their league-best regular season number. On the other end, San Antonio’s offensive rebounding percentage was 23.6% -- a rate close to their regular season average.

Although Game 6 featured some horrible calls an unfortunate whistle, overall the Thunder didn’t win the series at the free throw line. OKC shot .315 free throws per field goal attempt, which is down from the regular season rate of .333. The Spurs obviously hoped that they would be able to keep the Thunder off the line even more than they did since they were so good at doing that during the regular season (allowing only .221 FTA/FGA, second best in the NBA), however this wasn’t the difference in the series.

When looking at San Antonio’s offense as a whole, it’s difficult to lay much blame on that end of the court. The Spurs turned it over too much. Their passing stagnated as the series progressed. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili disappeared at most inopportune times. Tim Duncan looked 50 years old to begin the series. Many of the role players shriveled in the bright lights. The way Pop coached the final two games was questionable. All of that is true. However, despite all those negatives, the offense was still rolling. Outside of the Game 3 blowout, the Spurs scored 108.7 points per 100 possessions – an even better rate than their league-leading regular season rate of 108.5. It’s very easy to nitpick what happened on the offensive end but -- statistically speaking -- the offense was even more potent than expected. It could have been better, undoubtedly, but the offense should have been good enough.

Defensively, the Spurs weren’t all bad. In fact, their interior defense was fantastic. At the rim, the Thunder connected on only 57.3% of their shots. Considering that they typically shoot 65.6% from that distance, Duncan and the rest of the team did a wonderful job of shutting down the paint.

Extending the area of focus out further, San Antonio’s defense was very good within fifteen feet of the basket. From fifteen feet and in, the Thunder shot only 48.5%. During the regular season, they shot 56.6% from that range. That's a colossal drop of 16.7%. Thus, even though the Thunder have breathtaking athletes, it's difficult to see the athleticism advantage in the stats alone.

So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.

The Thunder made 52.7% of their two-pointers outside of 15 feet for the series. Normally, OKC shoots 42.6% from that range. Normally, the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot 40.6% from that range. But, unfortunately for the Spurs, the Thunder’s long-range shooting was abnormally deadly this series. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.

Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.

How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.

On one hand, the Spurs can take some solace in knowing they lost the series due to one of the least controllable factors in the game of basketball. But unfortunately, the other hand tells us a loss is a loss and a missed golden opportunity is a missed golden opportunity.


Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
http://dailyelements.com/wcfml.jpg






:depressed

[Blake]

No mention of turnovers?

[Fabbs]

excellent point, but how much does receiving multiple bullshit calls and thus not having to play solid D help your mindset on the other end?

Kobe Durant and co got a huge psyche advantage imo that made it easier for them to stroke.

[Beanzamillion21]

Still bummed. This didn't help.

[Blake]

No mention of turnovers?

I see the mention now.

Seems to me though that turnovers were the biggest reason for the losses.

[freetiago]

roleplayers shriveling up and calls going in favor of okc killed it
spurs could have overcame 1 but not both
if neal/green/splitter give you what they normally can we win ez
but those players are to reliant on parker/ginobili penetration and the switching on the pick and rolls stopped it
it was also stupid how ibaka/perkins could guard ginobili/parker 30 feet out and magically not pick up any fouls

[DontStopBelieving]

Even more of a reason to not blow things up.. Come back next year with the same team with an upgrade on the frontline or two, and then try again.

Shit, I believe that had the game been called fairly in game 6, we might be talking about the Spurs preparing for the Finals :(

[SamoanTD]

Damn and I almost forgot about it :bang

[100%duncan]

:lmaoAll of em shooting like Dirk:lmao

[dbreiden83080]

It was one of the craziest series i have ever seen. When you got sharp shooters like Harden , Westbrook, Durant not missing anything when it matters most you can maybe get through that and surivive.. Ibaka though going like 15/15 in game 4... That is like Shaq shooting 12/13 from the line.. :bang. you have to live with something when you face a team like OKC..

In spite of all the sharp shooting and guys that made plays for OKC if Mr. Parker had not vanished games 3-5..

Spurs would be in the finals...

[Kidd K]

OP, shooting percentage goes up when you get bailed out on terrible shots. Remember, misses don't count as missed if you got a whistle for light brush contact or phantom foul calls. . .increasing FG%.

Yeah, they probably shot a little better anyway, but they also got bailed out on a lot of bricks with cheap whistles. Meanwhile, players we have like Parker who kept getting hit going to the basket weren't getting FTAs, which lowers his FG%. I remember people were saying he wasn't playing that well in game 1 but I didn't agree with that. He was something like 6/15, and yet imo refs swallowed their whistles on at least 3 fouls against him. If the game was called properly, his statline should've read: 6/12 with an extra 6 FTAs. 13 FTAs, rather than 7, and an extra 4-5 points for him and the Spurs.

It works both ways. Game 2 for example, Harden was 10/13, and had 13 FTAs. Many of which were on very light contact, stuff refs allowed against Parker both in that game and the previous one. So rather than 10/13, his statline would've been closer to 10/17 with just 5 FTAs, which doesn't look nearly as good.

If you don't agree, look at Parker's statlines for the series. Game 2: 2 FTAs. game 3: 2 FTAs. Game 4: 2 FTAs.

Parker's lowest FTAs for the playoffs prior to the Thunder series: 5. Yet, 3 straight games of just 2 FTAs due to refs allowing Parker to be fouled, lowering his FG%. And yet the other way, refs whistled a very tight game against the Spurs, bailing the Thunder on numerous shots close to the basket despite not calling it the same way on the other end.

[dunkman]

OKC constantly forced the Spurs into taking bad shots, on the other end they were able to get great looks, hence the high field % of their offense. The Spurs were also sloppy with the ball, commuting too many unforced TO's many of them leading to fast break points.

[FromWayDowntown]

That finding makes a great deal of sense to me. It has long been part of Pop's defensive scheme to contest as much as possible near the basket and to run shooters off the three point line. With that, you have to allow something -- it's just not possible to deny everything -- and Pop has long subscribed to the belief that the long-ish 2 pointer is basically an inefficient shot because teams generally don't shoot it well and when they make the shot, it's relatively less efficient than threes. When the Spurs were at their best defensively, they didn't necessarily concede the long 2, but they were fairly willing to dare opponents to make that shot; they were very successful in those dares.

A team making that kind of a percentage from those spots on the floor might well have given even the best defensive Spurs teams fits.

In this case, I think that's a pretty reasonable culprit for explaining the loss.

[spurs10]

Thanks for this very great writeup! It does make me feel better because I couldn't put my head around our collapse. I recently was looking for answers in Manu's letter that ELNono graciously translated. When I first I read it I thought it had a finality to it I didn't want to hear, but I believe that was mostly my misinterpretation. In the end I believe he was saying sometimes you make the big shots and sometimes you don't. He was quick to call them the better team and didn't make excuses. Still I couldn't figure out, apart from the godforsaken officiating, how our fortunes turned so quickly. Games 1 & 2 were not aberrations, we were looking good. This off the chart perimeter shooting explains a lot. When people are shooting 20 to 30% better from the outside than they have all season it's not easy to overcome. To find our offense was slightly better than average seemed about right. Again, thanks for the insight!

[Richie]

While I agree thier long-2 shooting was out of this world by those stats, I think you glossed over turnovers too quickly. Perhaps more importantly, points off of turnovers. It's the same against a team like the Heat, if you turn it over its an automatic 2 down the other end.

Does anyone else remember when Tony was a one man fast break? For a while I've felt as though he is timid in taking it to the hole on the fast break and will rather stop and run a play

[Budkin]

Wrong. The only reason we lost: Matt Bonner. Cursed.

[ducks]

That finding makes a great deal of sense to me. It has long been part of Pop's defensive scheme to contest as much as possible near the basket and to run shooters off the three point line. With that, you have to allow something -- it's just not possible to deny everything -- and Pop has long subscribed to the belief that the long-ish 2 pointer is basically an inefficient shot because teams generally don't shoot it well and when they make the shot, it's relatively less efficient than threes. When the Spurs were at their best defensively, they didn't necessarily concede the long 2, but they were fairly willing to dare opponents to make that shot; they were very successful in those dares.

A team making that kind of a percentage from those spots on the floor might well have given even the best defensive Spurs teams fits.

In this case, I think that's a pretty reasonable culprit for explaining the loss.




alot of players in the nba the long 2 shots no one can make
it is a great system

[spurs1990]

Lost to the luckier team then. We should have prayed more.

[dunkman]

The curious thing is that the Suns in 10 shot the lights out, so did the Grizzlies in 11 and now the Thunder. There is something wrong with the Spurs that should explain why those teams got more confidence to shot so well. But that's not coincidence. A team can't shot well by luck in 4 games.

First they were able to stop the Spurs at the defensive end. Then the Spurs concede open looks. Finally, the Spurs concede more offensive rebounds than usual. Finally the refs. In the end, OKC players took the shots relaxed, without pressure. Like in practice.

[timvp]

Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game. That would have been helpful but I can't call it the number one reason why the Spurs lost. Besides, like I mentioned, the offense was fine even with factoring in those turnovers.

[DeadlyDynasty]

They're one of the most relentless teams i've ever seen. It's cliche, but you really have to play a full 48 against them.

[timvp]

First they were able to stop the Spurs at the defensive end.
Finally, the Spurs concede more offensive rebounds than usual.

Neither of those things happened.

[dbreiden83080]

Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game. That would have been helpful but I can't call it the number one reason why the Spurs lost. Besides, like I mentioned, the offense was fine even with factoring in those turnovers.

Number 1 reason was their shot-making in the clutch.
Number 2 was Tony's vanishing act
Number 3 was untimely whistles..

[michaelwcho]

Good stuff. However, they may have been shooting that well from outside because the Spurs had to sell out to take away the inside (and could not recover to contest at a normal rate). It's not like these are free throws--the degree of defense could still--possibly--have been the major variable.

[dbreiden83080]

They're one of the most relentless teams i've ever seen. It's cliche, but you really have to play a full 48 against them.

It is easy to look that way when every jump shot goes in.. The stats say otherwise but there were times in the series where i felt they could not miss regardless of the D...

[DeadlyDynasty]

It is easy to look that way when every jump shot goes in.. The stats say otherwise but there were times in the series where i felt they could not miss regardless of the D...

No, what i mean is no lead is ever safe against this team...you can play a perfect game for 40+ minutes (like the Lakers in Game 4), and still lose.

[timvp]

Number 1 reason was their shot-making in the clutch. Their shot-making was good -- clutch or not.

Number 2 was Tony's vanishing actIf handily outplaying Westbrook, a second team All-NBA player, is a "vanishing act", then yeah I guess so.

Number 3 was untimely whistles..The Thunder got to the line all year, just not against the Spurs. The Spurs got a few bad whistles in Game 6 but you're going to get those in a series against that team, tbh. It's unavoidable with how much they go to the line.

[Richie]

Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game. That would have been helpful but I can't call it the number one reason why the Spurs lost. Besides, like I mentioned, the offense was fine even with factoring in those turnovers.

What is thier average points scored per turnover? I'd imagine it is quite high, surely greater that 1 considering how easily they score on fast breaks. Looking at how in one game alone we conceded something like 28 points off 21 turnovers, how can it be said the Thunder would only gain 2 ppg if we limited our turnovers to regular season levels (13/game)

I don't know where to go to look up stats like points from turnovers in each game.

[dbreiden83080]

If handily outplaying Westbrook, a second team All-NBA player, is a "vanishing act", then yeah I guess so.

As the series went on Tony did what we have seen him do before become less and less reliable, he had the best game maybe of his career in game 2.. Hardly the first time a team adjusted to slow him down and Spurs lost a series.. This was supposed to be his team now and a chance to elevate his legacy... Yeah he failed that test.. Badly...

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

They're a jumpshooting team and they made a lot of jumpshots. On one hand, I agree those bumps in percentages are unreal. But they always seemed to be playing within themselves at the same time. To see such a huge jump for so many players makes me think the team was really locked in just as much as they got lucky. Their confidence was sky high. Why was that?...not an easy question to answer. Was it purely their own drive and motivation or was it something about the Spurs that allowed them to shoot that well?

Looking back, I still think they outplayed the Spurs and deserved the win. But ugh, that game 6. The first half Spurs were rolling and all the OKC role players were straight up bricking all the jumpshots they had been previously making. It makes me think they are a team that relies on "getting hot" to keep their collective confidence.

I hope that Lebron dunks on Harden and Durant a few times to shake their confidence. I really hope OKC loses and I will enjoy seeing it happen.

[phyzik]

I dont care about stats or who played like shit, or who gaurded us well... Im still gonna irrationally blame this on matt bonner.... fuck that red head! Get RID OF HIM!!!!

He had his chance to step up big this year and still shit the bed! Im done with putting up with him, he needs to fucking go.

He has been the "under the radar" version of Richard "I got no balls" Jefferson for YEARS now... It's time to drop this choker. He spread the floor in the regular season... then he spreads his ass cheeks in the post season.

[SnakeBoy]

Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
http://dailyelements.com/wcfml.jpg



Do you have the same stats for the Spurs players?

[ducks]

As the series went on Tony did what we have seen him do before become less and less reliable, he had the best game maybe of his career in game 2.. Hardly the first time a team adjusted to slow him down and Spurs lost a series.. This was supposed to be his team now and a chance to elevate his legacy... Yeah he failed that test.. Badly...
yeah taking a team that people believe at the begging off the season that you would have said they would be in the wcf in a game 6 most would have laughed at you

duncan as the best player and manu as the best playedfailed many times without winning a title
spurs only have 4 titles

james failed alot more then tp

[bobbyjoe]

Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game. That would have been helpful but I can't call it the number one reason why the Spurs lost. Besides, like I mentioned, the offense was fine even with factoring in those turnovers.

This is the problem with analyzing a game strictly based off of statistics, although I'm guessing you were doing so just for the sake of doing it and realizing that statistics can only tell you so much.

The turnovers had a bigger impact on the Thunder winning than you contend, even if the stats say it only cost the Spurs 2 points per game:

1) First off, you can't only look at how many points it cost the Spurs through a reduced number of possessions. You have to consider how many incremental points the Thunder scored as a result of the many layups and dunks generated by turnovers. You have to look at the point swing instead of just one side of the equation and a team that forces a lot of turnovers will statisticall get more fast break points.

2) Most importantly, any NBA player is going to tend to be more effective shooting perimeter jumpers when they are getting some easier baskets generated by fast breaks. These easy baskets energized Durant and Harden and gave them more confidence. Jeff Van Gundy is always a fan of saying when you have a player in a slump, the last thing you want to do is give them an easy layup to get them going.

Also, the issue with this analysis you've prepared is that it doesn't consider how wide open the Thunder's perimeter looks were compared to the looks they got throughout the season that resulted in the lower percentage. That is something that realistically can only be gleaned from a subjective analysis of the game, although in today's day and age perhaps someone actually tracks this data.

The Thunder being more athletic than the Spurs was definitely a major reason they won. The Spurs got beat off the dribble more than the Thunder did which resulted in cleaner looks for the Thunder and thus a higher percentage. For all the talk about Ibaka going 11 for 11, he shot about 4-5 dunks/layups/tipins and the 6-7 jumpers were each wide open looks. And players shoot much higher % when they are wide open.

Their athleticism is also a major reason why the Spurs unbelievable ball movement looked more mortal as the series went on. Lots of great athletes disrupting passing lanes and closing out on shooters.

Another big reason, and I think the main reason they prevailed, is that the Thunder moved the ball much better than they typically do. I think they actually soaked in a lot of the Spurs sensational ball movement in 2nd half Game 1/ Game 2 and really tried to emulate this team approach in Games 3-6. In so doing, they elevated themselves from a very good to a great team. The question remains as to whether they will play like this against an inferior Heat team that may not really force them to play to that higher level in order to win.

You didn't include the Thunder's assist numbers in this analysis, but I'd imagine their assists/FG's ratio went up quite a bit in Games 3-6 vs. Games 1-2.

Great analysis though... It was a very interesting take and really drilled in at at a level you rarely see on ESPN, local beatwriters, etc approach.

The Spurs are an incredible organization and it was a very fun series for NBA fans to watch. Great basketball!

[ducks]

I think what won the game was brooks watched to much film of spurs after the first two games and copied them
they won because they started passing the ball
they had much more assist then they had during the regular season and brooks even said they were watching the spurs to much and wanted to duplicate that

he got the thunder to buy into moving the ball for the most part
look at the damm assist that also might mean the better shooting %

[phyzik]

I DARE someone to look up Bonner's stats and say he DIDNT shit the bed in the ENTIRE post season this year.

He's a fucking choker and needs to be kicked in the fucking mouth out of this orginization.

I'll be glad if he drives off into the sunset with his Grand Am and his choking ass ways.

[scanry]

No, what i mean is no lead is ever safe against this team...you can play a perfect game for 40+ minutes (like the Lakers in Game 4), and still lose.

This is what killed us. I actually knew something of this sort would happen when i saw the Lakers-Thunder series. Lakers hung in there in all the games but they could never protect a lead. That's what scares me the most for the next decade. They're relentless and can always come back whenever they feel like. :wow

Heat better hope Lebron can contain Durant, otherwise Thunder may well sweep their way to the title. Imagine what they will have accomplished if they win the chip by beating the Mavs (2011), Lakers (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010), Spurs (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and the Heat (2006). That's 11 championship teams right there. :wow That's never been done before.

[ElNono]

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

[jjktkk]

I DARE someone to look up Bonner's stats and say he DIDNT shit the bed in the ENTIRE post season this year.

He's a fucking choker and needs to be kicked in the fucking mouth out of this orginization.

I'll be glad if he drives off into the sunset with his Grand Am and his choking ass ways.

Wow! Breaking News! Bonner chokes in the playoffs! Who knew! Thanks for sharing.

[tesseractive]

Interesting statistics, thanks for the great post.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but weren't their assists way up from the regular season? Could the reason their percentages were up so much be that they were doing a great job of hitting the open man, so they were simply getting better looks at the basket than they did when they were running isos all year?

[DDS4]

There's going to be a regression to the mean at some point. Wouldn't surprise me if it happens with the Thunder next round.

Gives me hope that the Spurs aren't that far off. They just ran into a red hot team.

[Sean Cagney]

I see the mention now.

Seems to me though that turnovers were the biggest reason for the losses.

Yep and those TO's started heaviliy in game 4 at LAC and then game one in SA for OKC, they just continued that TO crap and thought they could win it? I said if we continued that TO crap we would lose the next series, and guess what the SPURS did it for the most part. The TO's were just dumb and careless too, let OKC get out and run you are done and they did that alot on TO's.
There's going to be a regression to the mean at some point. Wouldn't surprise me if it happens with the Thunder next round.

Gives me hope that the Spurs aren't that far off. They just ran into a red hot team.

BRO SPURS were a red hot team, how hot can you get man with 20 wins a row? They are not far off but they are nowhere near it.... Seems.
This is what killed us. I actually knew something of this sort would happen when i saw the Lakers-Thunder series. Lakers hung in there in all the games but they could never protect a lead. That's what scares me the most for the next decade. They're relentless and can always come back whenever they feel like. :wow

Heat better hope Lebron can contain Durant, otherwise Thunder may well sweep their way to the title. Imagine what they will have accomplished if they win the chip by beating the Mavs (2011), Lakers (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010), Spurs (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and the Heat (2006). That's 11 championship teams right there. :wow That's never been done before.

Maybe, but damn man the Spurs are not near their title years with this team IMO and the Lakers regressed as well, they did not beat them in their prime but I see what you are saying! Mavs as well are not near last years team since they let the talent GO, Heat were the worst title team of all times in 06 IMO personally! Good point though I guess that would be insane to do, just years too late on some teams.

[jjktkk]

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

One of the better answers I've read yet. :tu

[Paranoid Pop]

We lost because Tim didn't dominate the series like many experts expected him to so it was backcourt against backcourt vs the strongest backcourt in the nba... And the bench also got owned, so your two biggest perceived advantages backfired.

[mavs>spurs]

Teams tend to hit from outside whenever you are as determined to pack the paint and stop the drive as the spurs were, pretty much giving up wide open looks from outside.

[mavs>spurs]

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

didn't see this before i posted, but you pretty much nailed it head on and saw the exact same things as i did. the spurs were willing to live with giving up the outside shot, unfortunately the thunder can not only drive but shoot too.

[ChumpDumper]

Post mortem threads are pretty humorous reads on the whole.

[temujin]

Post mortem threads are pretty humorous reads on the whole.

They are, expecially with the coroner analysing a coronary disease potentially hinting at a heart attack, lesions of diabetic origin in the kidneys, chronic pancreatitis.
Even in the presence of a few bullets wounds on the body.

[SA210]

Number 1 reason was their shot-making in the clutch.
Number 2 was Tony's vanishing act
Number 3 was untimely whistles..

All those and Pop

[Fabbs]

Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game.
wtf? Spurs had 25 turns in Game 5 alone. Way above their ave and certainly cost them more then "2 pts". :lol

Game 6 the kick ass 1st half 18 pt Spurs lead i count
10 OKC turnovers
4 Spurs

2nd half choke/ref rigged
8 Spurs turnovers
5 OKC

[therealtruth]

People keep claiming athleticism is the reason we lost. The Mavs faced the exact same problem against the Heat last year and won. How did they counter the athleticism?They continued to believe if they kept moving the ball the Heat players wouldn't be able to keep up and it worked.

The Thunder's percentage on two-pointers. I keep going back to the topic of offensive rhythm. Phil Jackson was a big believer in that to win you had to disrupt the other team's offensive rhythm and establish your own. Over the last few games the Thunder had a better offensive rhythm than the Spurs. That explains how you shoot a high percentage on long jumpers especially wide open ones.

[ChumpDumper]

lol rigged

[therealtruth]

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

I think you highlight the importance of changing defensive looks to help keep a team of balance. If a team is killing you one way you have to change the look. These changes need to happen in game and even from possession to possession at times. You can't just keep hoping for regression to the mean.

[Bruno]

During the regular season, Spurs were 30th of 30th in 2 pointers allowed outside 15 feet with 9.3 per game. They were 29th of 30th in FG% for these shots with a 40.9% FG%.

So, while it's true that Thunder caught fire with these long 2 pointers, Spurs have done a bad job the whole year at defending them. It was partly by design but too partly because of a poor defense.

[mingus]

underlying those statistics is pyschology. psychologically, after losing the first two games, OKC was as confident as ever. the Spurs, after losing their first two games, had a meltdown. i'll never forget the defeated body langauge the Spurs showed in game 5.

[timvp]

They're one of the most relentless teams i've ever seen. It's cliche, but you really have to play a full 48 against them.Subjectively, that's one of the main reasons why they are so good. Tbh, I became petrified after the Game 2 win in which the Spurs played the best offensive basketball I've ever seen them play yet the Thunder were right there in the fourth quarter.


Good stuff. However, they may have been shooting that well from outside because the Spurs had to sell out to take away the inside (and could not recover to contest at a normal rate). It's not like these are free throws--the degree of defense could still--possibly--have been the major variable.The Spurs definitely collapsed the paint, tried to run them off the three-point line and gave up soft-contested long two-pointers to their role players. And the Thunder knocked the shots down. Props to them. On top of that, their Big 3 hit contested long two-pointers. Again, props.

But this is a strategy the Spurs use versus just about every team. It's not like Pop rolled out a totally new defensive philosophy for the WCF. That's basically what the Spurs always try to do. The Thunder hit the Spurs the Spurs wanted them to take. It sucks but no matter how open the Thunder were, the percentage they shot is unsustainable over the long. In one series, though, it certainly can happen -- as we just saw.

[timvp]

What is thier average points scored per turnover? I'd imagine it is quite high, surely greater that 1 considering how easily they score on fast breaks. Looking at how in one game alone we conceded something like 28 points off 21 turnovers, how can it be said the Thunder would only gain 2 ppg if we limited our turnovers to regular season levels (13/game)

I don't know where to go to look up stats like points from turnovers in each game.

Off of turnovers, the Thunder scored at a rate of 114.7 points per possession. That's a little bit higher than their regular rate in the series -- but not too much higher.

The Spurs averaged 2.2 more turnovers per game than normal in this series. It hurt, especially when you factor in that the Thunder turned it over so much less than usual, but I can't label that the number one factor -- especially since the offense remained strong enough despite the turnovers.

[timvp]

Looking back, I still think they outplayed the Spurs and deserved the win.Agree. I might even take it a step further: Given their red-hot shooting, if Brooks doesn't use horrendous rotations the first two games, the Spurs probably get swept.


This is the problem with analyzing a game strictly based off of statistics, although I'm guessing you were doing so just for the sake of doing it and realizing that statistics can only tell you so much. Exactly. Stats are limited but they paint an interesting postmortem picture for the Spurs.


There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.Good post.

I brought out the 2006 Mavs comparison before the series and that's basically how the Spurs lost that series as well. Pop's defensive system is susceptible to teams who shoot extraordinarily well from the long two-point range plus get to the line a lot.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Mavs and the 2012 Thunder basically beat the Spurs the same way.

[timvp]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but weren't their assists way up from the regular season? Could the reason their percentages were up so much be that they were doing a great job of hitting the open man, so they were simply getting better looks at the basket than they did when they were running isos all year?

That definitely played a part.

Then again, it's a chicken and egg type thing. Did the Thunder have more assists because they were shooting better or did they shoot better because they had more assists? Subjectively, I'm pretty sure it's the latter but maybe not. Only time will tell, I guess.

[timvp]

During the regular season, Spurs were 30th of 30th in 2 pointers allowed outside 15 feet with 9.3 per game. They were 29th of 30th in FG% for these shots with a 40.9% FG%.

So, while it's true that Thunder caught fire with these long 2 pointers, Spurs have done a bad job the whole year at defending them. It was partly by design but too partly because of a poor defense.

Mostly agree. Although even looking back at 2007, the Spurs allowed similar numbers (8.3 per game @ 40.6%) in their last championship season.

Today's Spurs are obviously a lot worse defensively than the championship teams and thus have to pack the paint even more ... but even given that, the Thunder's shooting from that range was abnormally high regardless.

[temujin]

underlying those statistics is pyschology. psychologically, after losing the first two games, OKC was as confident as ever. the Spurs, after losing their first two games, had a meltdown. i'll never forget the defeated body langauge the Spurs showed in game 5.

I very much agree with this.
By watching G5, I had a distinct feeling that fatigue in some of the older players (Duncan Parker) plus some external factors influenced Spurs psychology, with the exception, in that game, for Manu. But Manu has a very very special psychology, notoriously unaffected by difficulties.
Players are human, not robots.
As for how confident OKC played, I think Fisher played a great part in that.
He's been around a lot in the NBA, including with some key appointments, and knows how to win. To me, he was absolutely crucial to OKC in that 4th quarter of G6.

[temujin]

lol rigged

lol unmanaged billions dollars business.

[ChumpDumper]

lol unmanaged billions dollars business.?

[temujin]

?

You are too intelligent to think that a business that is worth several billions is not managed to maximaze returns.
Rigged the NBA is obviously not, conspiracy is BS (too complicated, and ineffectual in the end).
Managed, and well managed actually, yes, quite as obviously.
As for post-mortem stats, which I regard with lots lots lots of suspicion, since they generally lack controls, my take is that Spurs played well enough to win, but the other team played out their minds (Ibaka 12-12 in G4!).

[dunkman]

Neither of those things happened.

It happened in game 6, 3rd 32:18. There was something similar in 4th, but more due to the refs.

Manu said OKC played better defense. Jack said OKC had better looks and played better defense, it was difficult for the Spurs to make points. Check the FG% for each team in that quarter.

It was the same for Q2 of the games 4 (29:17) and 3 (32:17). The Spurs never recovered from that runs in those 3 games.

It game 5, the Spurs had 21 TO's and Pop said the Thunder scored 28 points out of them. Keep in mind that you said the TO's had marginal importance.

Those are the 4 games the Spurs lost. They won 2 games, but it was before OKC made their adjustments, the stats from that games are irrelevant, logically as were wins won't explain why the Spurs lost the series.

Can find you the quotes of Manu, Jack and Pop if you wish.

While the ORB stats don't support what I said about the offensive rebounds, I remember the Spurs didn't box out well when it mattered most.

[G-Dawgg]

Bottom line is if our defense was even just a tiny bit better and we managed to get a few more stops a game or a timely defensive play or two at certain key points of the games we could have been the ones going to the finals..

[Cow Eye]

Spurs just aren't a defensive team anymore. For better, or worse, the Spurs have embraced being offense first.

I'm hoping that with the acquisition of Kawai that it might be the beginning of returning to a defense first philosophy. I won't hold my breath though. Duncan is on his last legs, and he really anchored the D.

We got to see a nice front-row-seat of what happens to offense-first teams.

[MmP]

Was age a factor at the end of game / 4th quarters in the series? As we saw SA dry at the end of game 6?

If that's the case I don't really know where Manu Ginobili fits in the future of this team.

[TJastal]

It's easy to shoot at a high clip when you are relaxed. OKC knew the refs had their backs all series long, even in enemy territory. That has to be a particularily unsettling feeling (for the spurs) knowing you can't even get some home cooking.

Spurs worked their asses off all year long (and particularily the final month of the season) to secure home court advantage and in theory not only fan support but a little home cooking to go with but obviously the league had other plans apparently.

[Fabbs]

OP, shooting percentage goes up when you get bailed out on terrible shots. Remember, misses don't count as missed if you got a whistle for light brush contact or phantom foul calls. . .increasing FG%.

Yeah, they probably shot a little better anyway, but they also got bailed out on a lot of bricks with cheap whistles. Meanwhile, players we have like Parker who kept getting hit going to the basket weren't getting FTAs, which lowers his FG%. I remember people were saying he wasn't playing that well in game 1 but I didn't agree with that. He was something like 6/15, and yet imo refs swallowed their whistles on at least 3 fouls against him. If the game was called properly, his statline should've read: 6/12 with an extra 6 FTAs. 13 FTAs, rather than 7, and an extra 4-5 points for him and the Spurs.

It works both ways. Game 2 for example, Harden was 10/13, and had 13 FTAs. Many of which were on very light contact, stuff refs allowed against Parker both in that game and the previous one. So rather than 10/13, his statline would've been closer to 10/17 with just 5 FTAs, which doesn't look nearly as good.

If you don't agree, look at Parker's statlines for the series. Game 2: 2 FTAs. game 3: 2 FTAs. Game 4: 2 FTAs.

Parker's lowest FTAs for the playoffs prior to the Thunder series: 5. Yet, 3 straight games of just 2 FTAs due to refs allowing Parker to be fouled, lowering his FG%. And yet the other way, refs whistled a very tight game against the Spurs, bailing the Thunder on numerous shots close to the basket despite not calling it the same way on the other end.

[TJastal]

You are too intelligent to think that a business that is worth several billions is not managed to maximaze returns.
Rigged the NBA is obviously not, conspiracy is BS (too complicated, and ineffectual in the end).
Managed, and well managed actually, yes, quite as obviously.
As for post-mortem stats, which I regard with lots lots lots of suspicion, since they generally lack controls, my take is that Spurs played well enough to win, but the other team played out their minds (Ibaka 12-12 in G4!).

When fans start realizing that what they are watching is little more than the WWF and being falsely advertised as otherwise (and please don't say WWF tries to sell itself as "real" :Lol) and start cancelling season tickets or not tuning in to watch then the league may have to reconsider.

[Fabbs]

Agree. I might even take it a step further: Given their red-hot shooting, if Brooks doesn't use horrendous rotations the first two games, the Spurs probably get swept.
Nurse adjust this mans meds please.

[Blake]

....OKC knew the refs had their backs all series long, even in enemy territory....

..... but obviously the league had other plans apparently.

:lol :lol :lol :lmao

Stupid and funny :tu

[MmP]

blind homerism i'd say

[TJastal]

:lol :lol :lol :lmao

Stupid and funny :tu

Sissy cuck.

[temujin]

When fans start realizing that what they are watching is little more than the WWF and being falsely advertised as otherwise (and please don't say WWF tries to sell itself as "real" :Lol) and start cancelling season tickets or not tuning in to watch then the league may have to reconsider.

Personally, I enjoyed watching Spurs basketball from Feb to May.
Fantastic team effort, to be shown as clinics for the ages.
To win it all, you need other "details".
Disappointing, but understandable, if you put it in the right perspective.
Always been like that, and certainly so in the 2007 Spurs run.
The lack of comments from Spurs players or Pop about the Joey&Bill show" is further indication that they perfectly understand the nature of the deal.

[TJastal]

Personally, I enjoyed watching Spurs basketball from Feb to May.
Fantastic team effort, to be shown as clinics for the ages.
To win it all, you need other "details".
Disappointing, but understandable, if you put it in the right perspective.
Always been like that, and certainly so in the 2007 Spurs run.
The lack of comments from Spurs players or Pop about the Joey&Bill show" is further indication that they perfectly understand the nature of the deal.

Sure "they" might understand the "nature" of the deal (very obtuse phrasing choice btw :rollin). Doesn't mean they like it. Or that fans will continue to shell out their hard earned cash for escalating ticket prices just for the priviledge of watching their team get bent over and rammed in the ass.

[silverblk mystix]

Sure "they" might understand the "nature" of the deal (very obtuse phrasing choice btw :rollin). Doesn't mean they like it. Or that fans will continue to shell out their hard earned cash for escalating ticket prices just for the priviledge of watching their team get bent over and rammed in the ass.



Ok- enough about the Popsuckers. Let's keep this about basketball.

:lmao

[Horse]

Even more of a reason to not blow things up.. Come back next year with the same team with an upgrade on the frontline or two, and then try again.

Shit, I believe that had the game been called fairly in game 6, we might be talking about the Spurs preparing for the Finals :(
Exactly terrible calls and fluky shots, we should've kicked their asses.

[Blake]

Sissy cuck.


:lol :lol :lol :lmao

Stupid and funny :tu

[Blake]

Ok- enough about the Popsuckers. Let's keep this about basketball.

:lmao

it's just a matter of time before you are talking about gay sex again.

[ChumpDumper]

You are too intelligent to think that a business that is worth several billions is not managed to maximaze returns.
Rigged the NBA is obviously not, conspiracy is BS (too complicated, and ineffectual in the end).
Managed, and well managed actually, yes, quite as obviously.
As for post-mortem stats, which I regard with lots lots lots of suspicion, since they generally lack controls, my take is that Spurs played well enough to win, but the other team played out their minds (Ibaka 12-12 in G4!).I guess I need to know what you mean by "managed."

[SpursFaninMS]

In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes.

While those aspects hold some merit, the statistics point to a much more straightforward reason as to why San Antonio ended up losing the series. More on that later.

First of all, let’s look at what didn’t cause the Spurs to lose. Despite the Thunder holding an athleticism advantage at literally every position, rebounding wasn’t an issue in this series. The Spurs retrieved 76.4% of the available defensive rebounds, which is an even higher mark than their league-best regular season number. On the other end, San Antonio’s offensive rebounding percentage was 23.6% -- a rate close to their regular season average.

Although Game 6 featured some horrible calls an unfortunate whistle, overall the Thunder didn’t win the series at the free throw line. OKC shot .315 free throws per field goal attempt, which is down from the regular season rate of .333. The Spurs obviously hoped that they would be able to keep the Thunder off the line even more than they did since they were so good at doing that during the regular season (allowing only .221 FTA/FGA, second best in the NBA), however this wasn’t the difference in the series.

When looking at San Antonio’s offense as a whole, it’s difficult to lay much blame on that end of the court. The Spurs turned it over too much. Their passing stagnated as the series progressed. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili disappeared at most inopportune times. Tim Duncan looked 50 years old to begin the series. Many of the role players shriveled in the bright lights. The way Pop coached the final two games was questionable. All of that is true. However, despite all those negatives, the offense was still rolling. Outside of the Game 3 blowout, the Spurs scored 108.7 points per 100 possessions – an even better rate than their league-leading regular season rate of 108.5. It’s very easy to nitpick what happened on the offensive end but -- statistically speaking -- the offense was even more potent than expected. It could have been better, undoubtedly, but the offense should have been good enough.

Defensively, the Spurs weren’t all bad. In fact, their interior defense was fantastic. At the rim, the Thunder connected on only 57.3% of their shots. Considering that they typically shoot 65.6% from that distance, Duncan and the rest of the team did a wonderful job of shutting down the paint.

Extending the area of focus out further, San Antonio’s defense was very good within fifteen feet of the basket. From fifteen feet and in, the Thunder shot only 48.5%. During the regular season, they shot 56.6% from that range. That's a colossal drop of 16.7%. Thus, even though the Thunder have breathtaking athletes, it's difficult to see the athleticism advantage in the stats alone.

So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.

The Thunder made 52.7% of their two-pointers outside of 15 feet for the series. Normally, OKC shoots 42.6% from that range. Normally, the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot 40.6% from that range. But, unfortunately for the Spurs, the Thunder’s long-range shooting was abnormally deadly this series. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.

Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.

How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.

On one hand, the Spurs can take some solace in knowing they lost the series due to one of the least controllable factors in the game of basketball. But unfortunately, the other hand tells us a loss is a loss and a missed golden opportunity is a missed golden opportunity.


Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
http://dailyelements.com/wcfml.jpg






:depressed


Good stuff....but I would bet their numbers are skewed a bit by the first two games--especially the first game.

If you are examining why we lost statistically, you should examine only the games we lost.

Also, I would be interested to see the stats if you took away our best game (1) and their best game (3) in terms of margin of victory.

Regarding offensive rebounds given up, at what rate did the Thunder convert their second chance points, I wonder?

Same thing with turnovers: Not only were our turnover numbers horrific, how many points off TO's did they get?

(Asking these questions rhetorically, of course)

[TJastal]

I guess I need to know what you mean by "managed."

Think of it the same way when Blake tells you to ... aww hell I can't say it..

[ChumpDumper]

Think of it the same way when Blake tells you to ... aww hell I can't say it..Quit professing your love for me, dude.

[dylankerouac]

In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes...


Thanks for taking time and writing this. Every day this team gets a little bit closer at having the opportunity for some pay back.

I just hope the FO keeps developing players and doesn't give up much if they are looking at making roster changes. Most of the contributing players have not reached their ceiling.

The patience of the Thunder FO has led to their primary goal being within reach, with the same patience reward the Spurs?

I BELIEVE

[dbreiden83080]

yeah taking a team that people believe at the begging off the season that you would have said they would be in the wcf in a game 6 most would have laughed at you

duncan as the best player and manu as the best playedfailed many times without winning a title
spurs only have 4 titles

james failed alot more then tp

We are not talking about the beginning of the season we are talking about the WCF in a series the Spurs were favored in. Duncan was always the best player and he can fail in between rings when he won a ring at age 23 and a finals MVP. Tony never led the Spurs to a title but this was indeed his chance..

[ChumpDumper]

Tony never led the Spurs to a titlehttp://www.cocktailmatch.com/users/156/blog/Tony%20Parker%20Finals%20MVP%20Trophy.jpg

[rascal]

A good analysis would be to compare stats in the first two wins as compared to the four losses and see what jumps out as what made the difference between winning and losing.

[dbreiden83080]

http://www.cocktailmatch.com/users/156/blog/Tony%20Parker%20Finals%20MVP%20Trophy.jpg

2007 Cavs really...

Okay...


Give me a time Duncan didn't do the heavy lifting for him

[rascal]

Parker was the only one attacking the basket in the 2nd half of game 6. parker made some nice moves and scores taking it inside. Lots of other players standing around the perimeter looking to hit the perimeter shot. Where was Manu?

[ChumpDumper]

2007 Cavs really...

Okay...


Give me a time Duncan didn't do the heavy lifting for himI just did.

[ducks]

2007 Cavs really...

Okay...


Give me a time Duncan didn't do the heavy lifting for him

against the cavs duncan did not

mj needed pippen to get the job done
james still has not gotten it done with bosh and wade
all of those all in the prime
duncan and manu are not in their prime
tp is only at beginning of his prime

[dbreiden83080]

I just did.

1) The Cavs Sucked
2) Duncan was the best player on the team
3) The Cavs Sucked...
4) Duncan led them to the finals
5) The Cavs Sucked...

Tony has had a heck of a career with the Spurs but lets not sugarcoat his shortcomings...

[ducks]

Parker was the only one attacking the basket in the 2nd half of game 6. parker made some nice moves and scores taking it inside. Lots of other players standing around the perimeter looking to hit the perimeter shot. Where was Manu?

he was gassed from playing to many minutes the game before
pop should not have started him those last two games
sj should have started

[ChumpDumper]

1) The Cavs Sucked
2) Duncan was the best player on the team
3) The Cavs Sucked...
4) Duncan led them to the finals
5) The Cavs Sucked...

Tony has had a heck of a career with the Spurs but lets not sugarcoat his shortcomings...Let's not denigrate his accomplishments either.

[ducks]

1) The Cavs Sucked
2) Duncan was the best player on the team
3) The Cavs Sucked...
4) Duncan led them to the finals
5) The Cavs Sucked...

Tony has had a heck of a career with the Spurs but lets not sugarcoat his shortcomings...

how many players win rings?
stockton and mailman never one a ring
do you think stockton was a better point guard then tp
name the last point guard that won finals MVP

[dbreiden83080]

against the cavs duncan did not

Didn't have to, they sucked...





tp is only at beginning of his prime

30 with a lot of miles on the tires he has maybe 3 years left...

[dbreiden83080]

Let's not denigrate his accomplishments either.

I'm not simply stating how bad the Cavs were..

[ducks]

didn't have to, they sucked...





30 with a lot of miles on the tires he has maybe 3 years left...



dude he still had to get the job done or they would have lost
tp could have just stayed at the premiter and shot shots and hoped they would drop
he attacked

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not simply stating how bad the Cavs were.....in an attempt to denigrate Parker's accomplishment.

[ducks]

didn't have to, they sucked...





30 with a lot of miles on the tires he has maybe 3 years left...

steve nash has more mileage and he is still playing at high level

[dbreiden83080]

Let's not denigrate his accomplishments either.


...in an attempt to denigrate Parker's accomplishment.

Which is it???

[temujin]

I guess I need to know what you mean by "managed."

Organize. Have a vision.

Promote individual superstars, who sell worldwide, over teams, which sell less.
That's no easy task, because this isn't tennis, it's a team sport.
Make sure big markets have profitable, successful teams.
I can't remember when was last time in WC finals there were no teams from the top 10 cities.
Make sure some well managed small market teams get their share of success.
Smallville is part of the market and will istinctively feel well for OKC now as they felt well about SA before.
But one is enough.
You don't want to see Indiana-Milwakee and Denver-Portland, all of the sudden. If that means refs make a few "bad calls", so be it.
All actors are making a huge amount of money, they are in one single pond, all with a vested interest in not pissing in their 1989 Chateau Petrus.

Wouldn't this make perfect sense?
Why on earth you wouldn't be saying ANYTHING about the "bad calls" if it's anything different from this.

Asa rule of thumb, you know there is amafia when nobody says anything about it.

[ChumpDumper]

Which is it???That was one of his several accomplishments. If you'd like to denigrate others one at a time I will use the singular term as well.

Is that clear enough to you?

[rascal]

he was gassed from playing to many minutes the game before
pop should not have started him those last two games
sj should have started

He had two days rest. How many days of rest does he need?

[Slippy]

This is the problem with analyzing a game strictly based off of statistics, although I'm guessing you were doing so just for the sake of doing it and realizing that statistics can only tell you so much.

The turnovers had a bigger impact on the Thunder winning than you contend, even if the stats say it only cost the Spurs 2 points per game:

1) First off, you can't only look at how many points it cost the Spurs through a reduced number of possessions. You have to consider how many incremental points the Thunder scored as a result of the many layups and dunks generated by turnovers. You have to look at the point swing instead of just one side of the equation and a team that forces a lot of turnovers will statisticall get more fast break points.

2) Most importantly, any NBA player is going to tend to be more effective shooting perimeter jumpers when they are getting some easier baskets generated by fast breaks. These easy baskets energized Durant and Harden and gave them more confidence. Jeff Van Gundy is always a fan of saying when you have a player in a slump, the last thing you want to do is give them an easy layup to get them going.

Also, the issue with this analysis you've prepared is that it doesn't consider how wide open the Thunder's perimeter looks were compared to the looks they got throughout the season that resulted in the lower percentage. That is something that realistically can only be gleaned from a subjective analysis of the game, although in today's day and age perhaps someone actually tracks this data.

The Thunder being more athletic than the Spurs was definitely a major reason they won. The Spurs got beat off the dribble more than the Thunder did which resulted in cleaner looks for the Thunder and thus a higher percentage. For all the talk about Ibaka going 11 for 11, he shot about 4-5 dunks/layups/tipins and the 6-7 jumpers were each wide open looks. And players shoot much higher % when they are wide open.

Their athleticism is also a major reason why the Spurs unbelievable ball movement looked more mortal as the series went on. Lots of great athletes disrupting passing lanes and closing out on shooters.

Another big reason, and I think the main reason they prevailed, is that the Thunder moved the ball much better than they typically do. I think they actually soaked in a lot of the Spurs sensational ball movement in 2nd half Game 1/ Game 2 and really tried to emulate this team approach in Games 3-6. In so doing, they elevated themselves from a very good to a great team. The question remains as to whether they will play like this against an inferior Heat team that may not really force them to play to that higher level in order to win.

You didn't include the Thunder's assist numbers in this analysis, but I'd imagine their assists/FG's ratio went up quite a bit in Games 3-6 vs. Games 1-2.

Great analysis though... It was a very interesting take and really drilled in at at a level you rarely see on ESPN, local beatwriters, etc approach.

The Spurs are an incredible organization and it was a very fun series for NBA fans to watch. Great basketball!

well put.

[Slippy]

Double post.

[siraulo23]

great write-up, first half of game 6 i thought their hot shooting will finally regress to the mean but nope, they were on fire again to start the 3rd quarter.

Then in the 4th the 3 from harden, the 3 and pullup 2 pointer bank shot from fisher to seal the deal... ughhhhh

[Capt Bringdown]

I brought out the 2006 Mavs comparison before the series and that's basically how the Spurs lost that series as well. Pop's defensive system is susceptible to teams who shoot extraordinarily well from the long two-point range plus get to the line a lot.

Gosh, we keep running into teams who shoot well. I think you'd have to add Phoenix to the list of teams who have killed us from outside. I wonder what Memphis % from outside was...Randolph didn't seem to miss as I recall.

If the same thing keeps happening over and over again, maybe it's time to change/re-evaluate. One of the issues with this team is rigidity/fragility. Spurs play one way - beat that, and they meltdown.

A commitment to basketball fundamentals allows you more flexibility. Gimmicks on the other hand, lead to regular-season wonders and predictable playoff meltdowns.

[dbreiden83080]

That was one of his several accomplishments. If you'd like to denigrate others one at a time I will use the singular term as well.

Is that clear enough to you?

Tony's had a good career as a Spur never said other wise (Accomplishments)

Tony had a mediocre WCF.. That should have been clear to you 1 page ago or when you watched the series..

[therealtruth]

Gosh, we keep running into teams who shoot well. I think you'd have to add Phoenix to the list of teams who have killed us from outside. I wonder what Memphis % from outside was...Randolph didn't seem to miss as I recall.

If the same thing keeps happening over and over again, maybe it's time to change/re-evaluate. One of the issues with this team is rigidity/fragility. Spurs play one way - beat that, and they meltdown.

A commitment to basketball fundamentals allows you more flexibility. Gimmicks on the other hand, lead to regular-season wonders and predictable playoff meltdowns.

You always want to try throwing a team different looks to keep them off balance on offense.

[ElNono]

Parker was the only one attacking the basket in the 2nd half of game 6. parker made some nice moves and scores taking it inside. Lots of other players standing around the perimeter looking to hit the perimeter shot. Where was Manu?

Uh? Tony was 4-13 in the second half... 2 assists... Manu was 2-5...

tbh, the only guy shooting decent was Jack...

[DeadlyDynasty]

if the refs had reffed better, the spurs mighta had a chance

^
mentally weak

[KDtrey5]

It was one of the craziest series i have ever seen. When you got sharp shooters like Harden , Westbrook, Durant not missing anything when it matters most you can maybe get through that and surivive.. Ibaka though going like 15/15 in game 4... That is like Shaq shooting 12/13 from the line.. :bang. you have to live with something when you face a team like OKC..

In spite of all the sharp shooting and guys that made plays for OKC if Mr. Parker had not vanished games 3-5..

Spurs would be in the finals...

Paker vanished from games 3-5? you sure it wasn't because Thabo Sefolosha? Parker is not a top 10 player lol

[ducks]

He had two days rest. How many days of rest does he need?

one more day rest he would have been ok

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes.

While those aspects hold some merit, the statistics point to a much more straightforward reason as to why San Antonio ended up losing the series. More on that later.

First of all, let’s look at what didn’t cause the Spurs to lose. Despite the Thunder holding an athleticism advantage at literally every position, rebounding wasn’t an issue in this series. The Spurs retrieved 76.4% of the available defensive rebounds, which is an even higher mark than their league-best regular season number. On the other end, San Antonio’s offensive rebounding percentage was 23.6% -- a rate close to their regular season average.

Although Game 6 featured some horrible calls an unfortunate whistle, overall the Thunder didn’t win the series at the free throw line. OKC shot .315 free throws per field goal attempt, which is down from the regular season rate of .333. The Spurs obviously hoped that they would be able to keep the Thunder off the line even more than they did since they were so good at doing that during the regular season (allowing only .221 FTA/FGA, second best in the NBA), however this wasn’t the difference in the series.

When looking at San Antonio’s offense as a whole, it’s difficult to lay much blame on that end of the court. The Spurs turned it over too much. Their passing stagnated as the series progressed. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili disappeared at most inopportune times. Tim Duncan looked 50 years old to begin the series. Many of the role players shriveled in the bright lights. The way Pop coached the final two games was questionable. All of that is true. However, despite all those negatives, the offense was still rolling. Outside of the Game 3 blowout, the Spurs scored 108.7 points per 100 possessions – an even better rate than their league-leading regular season rate of 108.5. It’s very easy to nitpick what happened on the offensive end but -- statistically speaking -- the offense was even more potent than expected. It could have been better, undoubtedly, but the offense should have been good enough.

Defensively, the Spurs weren’t all bad. In fact, their interior defense was fantastic. At the rim, the Thunder connected on only 57.3% of their shots. Considering that they typically shoot 65.6% from that distance, Duncan and the rest of the team did a wonderful job of shutting down the paint.

Extending the area of focus out further, San Antonio’s defense was very good within fifteen feet of the basket. From fifteen feet and in, the Thunder shot only 48.5%. During the regular season, they shot 56.6% from that range. That's a colossal drop of 16.7%. Thus, even though the Thunder have breathtaking athletes, it's difficult to see the athleticism advantage in the stats alone.

So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.

The Thunder made 52.7% of their two-pointers outside of 15 feet for the series. Normally, OKC shoots 42.6% from that range. Normally, the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot 40.6% from that range. But, unfortunately for the Spurs, the Thunder’s long-range shooting was abnormally deadly this series. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.

Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.

How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.

On one hand, the Spurs can take some solace in knowing they lost the series due to one of the least controllable factors in the game of basketball. But unfortunately, the other hand tells us a loss is a loss and a missed golden opportunity is a missed golden opportunity.


Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
http://dailyelements.com/wcfml.jpg






:depressed

Thanks very much for that as it confirms what I thought I saw and have been telling people - OKC were playing out of their minds, specifically by hitting outside shots they usually wouldn't. Oh, and TOs killed us at crucial times, the refs didn't help, but yeah, OKC were unbeatable because they all shot the lights out. That actually makes sense to me and explains why we lost completely winnable games 4-6, each of which were were in with a good shot at up until the last minute.

That is freakin depressing since if we replayed the series tomorrow the Spurs would probably win it. Faaaark. :pctoss

[ducks]

Paker vanished from games 3-5? you sure it wasn't because Thabo Sefolosha? Parker is not a top 10 player lol

parker is greater then westbrook

[mingus]

Paker vanished from games 3-5? you sure it wasn't because Thabo Sefolosha? Parker is not a top 10 player lol

Sefelosha is a damn good defender. Maybe the best perimiter since Bruce. No doubt he disrupted Parker. But Sefelosha is no more the reason Parker dissapeared than Jason Kidd was in game 6 of the '03 Finals, Gary Payton in the '04 WCS, or Mke Coney in the first round last year. Parker has moments--and this why he is not a superstar--where he second guesses himself, in effect neutralizing himself. More than Sefelosha or anybody that's guarded him in the past--outside of Devin Harris--when he's played like shit, Parker is his own worst enemy. The difference between now and 5 years ago? Duncan and Manu were in their primes and usually bailed him out, particularly Duncan.

[dbreiden83080]

Sefelosha is a damn good defender. Maybe the best perimiter since Bruce. No doubt he disrupted Parker. But Sefelosha is no more the reason Parker dissapeared than Jason Kidd was in game 6 of the '03 Finals, Gary Payton in the '04 WCS, or Mke Coney in the first round last year. Parker has moments--and this why he is not a superstar--where he second guesses himself, in effect neutralizing himself. More than Sefelosha or anybody that's guarded him in the past--outside of Devin Harris--when he's played like shit, Parker is his own worst enemy. The difference between now and 5 years ago? Duncan and Manu were in their primes and usually bailed him out, particularly Duncan.

Agree with every word...

[ChumpDumper]

Tony's had a good career as a Spur never said other wise (Accomplishments)

Tony had a mediocre WCF.. That should have been clear to you 1 page ago or when you watched the series..Denigrate, denigrate, denigrate.

[ChumpDumper]

But Sefelosha is no more the reason Parker dissapeared than Jason Kidd was in game 6 of the '03 FinalsOnly three spurfans watched that game because only three can remember what actually happened.

It's documented.

[polandprzem]

What?

OKC took advantage of the spurs biggest weakness?

[FromWayDowntown]

From Tom Haberstroh:

OKC's shooting pct from 15+ feet (41.6%) is the highest for any team entering the Finals since 1997-98 (UTH).

[dbreiden83080]

What?

OKC took advantage of the spurs biggest weakness?

Yeah Tony Parker dissappearing..

Grizzlies did the same..

[polandprzem]

The spurs rely too much on TP and his individual play.

It seems to be the 'thing' - stopping TP is stopping SAS

[polandprzem]

btw. Pop always trusted his gameplan. If it's not working well the players needs to play the same gameplan to the perfection in Pops mind.


But still IMO the biggest problem for the spurs is that they do not have slashers and creative individuals.

[SpursFaninMS]

btw. Pop always trusted his gameplan. If it's not working well the players needs to play the same gameplan to the perfection in Pops mind.


But still IMO the biggest problem for the spurs is that they do not have slashers and creative individuals.

Agreed.

The only way I thought we were winning Game 6 was with Manu and Tim haven't incredible one-on-one games.

The system is great when it is working, but you need guys who can make one-on-one plays too. Save for Manu in a couple of games, Tony was the only one who could and he was the focal point of their defense.

[Fabbs]

btw. Pop always trusted his gameplan. If it's not working well the players needs to play the same gameplan to the perfection in Pops mind.


But still IMO the biggest problem for the spurs is that they do not have slashers and creative individuals.
Exactemente. His coming out after game 3 and 4 and saying "We're not going to change a thing we're doing on defense" just shows his obstinance.

Popper Playoffs:
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Statistically speaking.

[Blake]

Exactemente. His coming out after game 3 and 4 and saying "We're not going to change a thing we're doing on defense" just shows his obstinance.

Popper Playoffs:
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Statistically speaking.

Who would you rather have as coach, Fabbs?

Throw out a name for us to discuss

[TampaDude]

If you replayed this year's WCF 10 times, the Spurs win it 8 or 9 times, guaranteed.

Spurs could have taken better care of the ball, but OKC just got hot and stayed hot. It was just "one o' them racin' deals". Nothing you can do about it.

Spurs will win it all in 2013. Book it.

[polandprzem]

That is funny coincidence that the 'other' team gets hot and stays hot to eliminate the spurs

[TampaDude]

That is funny coincidence that the 'other' team gets hot and stays hot to eliminate the spurs

Well, when the other team has 8 players to your 5, it's much easier for them to stay hot. :lol

[Legacy]

TO's and weak D as well as MIA role players.

[z0sa]

Spurs playing crazy bad small ball lineups and overall sucking ass on defense is why they lost.

Besides Tony Parker, of course.

[TampaDude]

Turnovers.
Shitty D.
Bonner.

All can be fixed.

SPURS = 2013 NBA CHAMPIONS :hat

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

I like the optimism but I'm not sure Bonner will get better or the D will immediately turn around. Hopefully it does get fixed though.

[polandprzem]

The D will drop unless we will get some crazy defender or two crazy SOTBs - inside and outside.

Other then that I cannot see spurs being bettor on D. And still that's not enough. Don't forget we were lucky not to have injuries.

Next year also will be more difficult cause there will be more teams. More better teams.
Chicago, Orlando, Indiana, OKC, LAL, Jazz, Clippers -- all that teams are on a way to play better ball next year.

Spurs - not so much and besides - they lost dramaticly in the PO two yrs in a row. And their last championship with this core was 2007, quite a bit ago...

If there were tough enough to win this year that would be the greatest championship of all IMO.
Compare it to the old Russell /on his last legs/ Celtics or old Jabbar LA.

[Legacy]

All can be fixed. :hat


Pop has to really want to fix these things, though.

*clasps hand over mouth*

Must... stick... to... "statistics."

[therealtruth]

Agreed.

The only way I thought we were winning Game 6 was with Manu and Tim haven't incredible one-on-one games.

The system is great when it is working, but you need guys who can make one-on-one plays too. Save for Manu in a couple of games, Tony was the only one who could and he was the focal point of their defense.

It's ironic that the Thunder tried to emulate the Spurs and their team play. On the other hand the Spurs tried to emulate the Thunder with more emphasis on one-on-one. I'd say the team approach is more successful. It won 20 straight games.

[siraulo23]

does skip bayless read ST? :lol

he mentioned how he still cant believe the thunder beat the spurs, thunder live and die on jumpshots and they shot them at a 50% clip

[Budkin]

does skip bayless read ST? :lol

he mentioned how he still cant believe the thunder beat the spurs, thunder live and die on jumpshots and they shot them at a 50% clip

I still can't believe it either. I'm still sitting here scratching my head. Still stunned. I don't even want to watch the Finals.

[KDtrey5]

Turnovers.
Shitty D.
Bonner.

All can be fixed.

SPURS = 2013 NBA CHAMPIONS :hat

so much for having the deepest 10 man rotation in the game :rollin

[dbreiden83080]

does skip bayless read ST? :lol

he mentioned how he still cant believe the thunder beat the spurs, thunder live and die on jumpshots and they shot them at a 50% clip

And in spite of the hot shooting i can't believe Spurs could not steal 1 of the last 4 games.. Just 1... :pctoss:pctoss

[Capt Bringdown]

Pop has to really want to fix these things, though.

*clasps hand over mouth*

Must... stick... to... "statistics."

Exactly. Spurs can tell themselves that they were just victims of a statistically anomaly, and roll with the same "pounding the rock" BS next year.

[rascal]

If you replayed this year's WCF 10 times, the Spurs win it 8 or 9 times, guaranteed.

Spurs could have taken better care of the ball, but OKC just got hot and stayed hot. It was just "one o' them racin' deals". Nothing you can do about it.

Spurs will win it all in 2013. Book it.

You said the Spurs were going to win it all this year.

[rascal]

If you replayed this year's WCF 10 times, the Spurs win it 8 or 9 times, guaranteed.

Spurs could have taken better care of the ball, but OKC just got hot and stayed hot. It was just "one o' them racin' deals". Nothing you can do about it.

Spurs will win it all in 2013. Book it.

In your mind the Spurs would win 8 or 9 out of 10 times. The teams were more evenly matched then you think. I would even give OK City a 6 to 4 edge. The turnovers were a result of a more athletic, more aggressive team breaking up passing lanes. OK City pressured the Spurs into those turnovers.

[SnakeBoy]

Tiago Splitter suck.

Matt Bonner suck.

Dejuana Man Blair suck.

There goes your entire front line outside of Duncan.

You forgot Green.

[GrandeDavid]

The Spurs choked in Game 5 and the refs stole Game 6. That's your series.

[therealtruth]

The Spurs choked in Game 5 and the refs stole Game 6. That's your series.

The Spurs should have never started Manu in game 5. Maybe Danny Green hits a few shots early and gets going. Then you have Manu coming off the bench to help balance the team. I might have made that move for game 6 if we lost game 5 but not game 5. I still can't understand why Pop went away from rotations that worked well against the Clippers. The Thunder should have been the ones adjusting to us. Not the other way around.

[jjktkk]

The Spurs should have never started Manu in game 5. Maybe Danny Green hits a few shots early and gets going. Then you have Manu coming off the bench to help balance the team. I might have made that move for game 6 if we lost game 5 but not game 5. I still can't understand why Pop went away from rotations that worked well against the Clippers. The Thunder should have been the ones adjusting to us. Not the other way around.

Because OKC is a completely different team than the Clippers.

[Legacy]

You forgot Green.

:bang

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

And Green was horrific. He had to sit.

[phxspurfan]

I don't know about you guys, but I just re-watched game 1 of the WCF series and we had this series. It pisses me off that they won 4 straight against us. We totally had this, up 2-0.

[rascal]

I don't know about you guys, but I just re-watched game 1 of the WCF series and we had this series. It pisses me off that they won 4 straight against us. We totally had this, up 2-0.

Spurs had nothing. You don't win the series with one win.

Edit: Two wins

[phxspurfan]

Spurs had nothing. You don't win the series with one win.

Edit: Two wins

It's not the amount of wins, it's how we won. We were playing 2012 Spurs Basketball. Guys were flying around, Green was starting, Neal was hitting jumpers with confidence, and when Tony was focused on, Manu stepped up. The panic coaching that happened in game 4 ruined our chemistry.

Also, it doesn't help that the team's collective will had to be challenged several times by coach Pop "I'm seeing a lot of unconfident" / "I want some nasty."

[Silent]

My opinion why spurs failed , Danny green , bonner and neal Choked and Did Not show up . Only guys with balls who showed up was SJAX and manu. I feel the blame goes to the BENCH. Especially how Bonner continues to FAIL during the finals every year .

[Horse]

Turnovers.
Shitty D.
Bonner.

All can be fixed.

SPURS = 2013 NBA CHAMPIONS :hat
Can't be fixed when the series was fixed.

[quentin_compson]

Blaming Green is kind of ridiculous. These were basically his first playoffs, and this guy went from a fringe NBA player to a starter on a playoff team. He might have looked like a future star to some during the winning streak when everybody and their mom were playing well, but he is not.

[EVAY]

Did anybody else watch the Thunder/Miami game last night?

What the Thunder did last night against Miami was EXACTLY what they did to the Spurs in Game 6.

Miami has a double digit lead in the first half and then the Thunder comes out at the third quarter and puts the game into a tie by the end of the third and puts it away in the fourth.

Sound familiar to anyone?

This Thunder team is red-hot.

[EVAY]

IMO, anybody who blames the loss of the WCF on Tony Parker has his head up his ass.

In the first game Manu played like a god. In the second game Tony played like a god. Then we went to OKC and the Thunder made adjustments. Gee, what a concept.

Focusing in on the team's best player (Parker) SHOULD mean that the rest of the team steps up and makes the stops. Did that happen in any other game? No

Did Parker play like a god again in the first half of the 6th game? Yes (21 points and 10 assists for a [I]half[I] is better than most ANY other player on any team in any series. What happened then?

The Thunder adjusted.

Who stepped up when they focused two and three players on Tony?

Was it Manu? No.

Was it Tim? No.

The closest was Stephen Jackson and Pop would only play him his normal minutes.

Sefalosha shut down James last night just like he shut down Parker. Somebody want to suggest that James 'disappeared" or that his balls shriveled? No. He had to take a million shots to get whatever baskets he got last night. Tony stayed aggressive in the second half of the game or he wouldn't have been taking that many shots. How many times do you think he was fouled while attempting a shot in the second half? Not how many times he got to the line...how many times he was fouled in the act of shooting.

[MarioSpeedwagon]

Re: Statistically Speaking: Why Did the Spurs Lose?
I dont care about stats...

Then why the fuck are you posting itt :lmao

[therealtruth]

It's not the amount of wins, it's how we won. We were playing 2012 Spurs Basketball. Guys were flying around, Green was starting, Neal was hitting jumpers with confidence, and when Tony was focused on, Manu stepped up. The panic coaching that happened in game 4 ruined our chemistry.

Also, it doesn't help that the team's collective will had to be challenged several times by coach Pop "I'm seeing a lot of unconfident" / "I want some nasty."

Exactly. I think Pop needed to go back to that nasty speech. The Spurs lost their confidence for no reason. They were up 2-0, they blew game 3, game 4 was much closer and would have probably been won if we had been playing at home. No need to panic. Game 5 should have been played business as usual. It was not the first time they had a series tied at 2-2. I seriously believe we would have at least lasted to game 7 or won the series if we didn't panic.

Green's shots would have fallen at home and he was saving Parker and Manu's energy by defending Westbrook. If anything Green needed to play more minutes with Manu. Manu is the type of guy to help a struggling teammate get going.

[phxspurfan]

Exactly. I think Pop needed to go back to that nasty speech. The Spurs lost their confidence for no reason. They were up 2-0, they blew game 3, game 4 was much closer and would have probably been won if we had been playing at home. No need to panic. Game 5 should have been played business as usual. It was not the first time they had a series tied at 2-2. I seriously believe we would have at least lasted to game 7 or won the series if we didn't panic.

Green's shots would have fallen at home and he was saving Parker and Manu's energy by defending Westbrook. If anything Green needed to play more minutes with Manu. Manu is the type of guy to help a struggling teammate get going.

Yup. And if you still lose, oh well, you lost with your best lineups out on the floor -- lineups that got you a winning stretch of spring basketball that rivals any similar two-month stretch of basketball, by any team, ever.

[Agloco]

Good analysis by timvp. Looking back at the games, I don't remember the Thunder missing a jumper during Games 3-6 when it mattered.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

I don't think Pop started changing the lineup for no reason. The bench was horrible and he tightened the rotation to focus on players who were doing well. Honestly, the bench was losing their edge back in the Clippers series. I think Pop went overboard with his adjustments in a sense, and the turd towers was disgraceful, but I don't think Pop's tinkering was the problem or even the initial problem.

[dbreiden83080]

I don't know about you guys, but I just re-watched game 1 of the WCF series and we had this series. It pisses me off that they won 4 straight against us. We totally had this, up 2-0.

Spurs got caught up in a shoot out with a more talented offensive team. Guess the great offense was never going to win it all.. :depressed

[SnakeBoy]

Blaming Green is kind of ridiculous. These were basically his first playoffs, and this guy went from a fringe NBA player to a starter on a playoff team. He might have looked like a future star to some during the winning streak when everybody and their mom were playing well, but he is not.

Making excuses for him is kind of ridiculous. His shot vanished and he let that destroy his confidence and affect his defense. The fact that he is basically a rookie doesn't change what happened.