Five Non-Basketball Theories for Why the Spurs Played So Poorly Against the Warriors

[Uriel]

There's already an abundance of basketball analysis on how the Spurs got obliterated by the Warriors, so I'd like to present some non-basketball theories that might explain why the Spurs played so poorly the other night:

1. Late Start Time
The game started at 10:30 PM EST, which is relatively late for an NBA game. In Oakland time, this was only 7:30 PM, so it was normal for the Warriors. However, in San Antonio time, this was 9:30 PM, which is much later than the Spurs are used to. We know that peoples' internal body clocks are naturally hard-wired to peak during the early evening and then taper off dramatically as one gets closer to sleeping time. In this case, it seems as though the game's late start time meant that the Spurs had to play the game at a time when their energy levels would naturally start to decline. This is backed by empirical evidence. The Spurs' best quarter was in the first, when their energy levels were still relatively normal. However, by the 2nd half, when the game got later into the night, the team became noticeably sluggish, so it was unsurprising that this was the time when the game really got away from them.

2. Too Much Rest
The Spurs were playing only their 3rd game in the past 8 days. While this might seem like a good thing on the surface, for a team like the Spurs, which relies on precision ball movement and sharpness of execution, the lack of games actually served to take them out of their natural rhythm and flow, strongly contributing to their sloppy play. That the Spurs turned the ball over 25 times in this particular game is no accident. All those errant passes, failed catches, and costly turnovers were a direct result of the Spurs being taken out of the rhythm that they had established in their 13-game winning streak, when all their games were held on a consistent every-other-night schedule. Even Parker admitted this, saying after the game, "We had 2 days off, 3 days off before that; too many days off, maybe."

3. The Team's Timid Personality
This one actually comes from tim_duncan_fan (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1143), who said:


It was pure timidity. They panicked from the jump.

Not the first time we've seen something like this, won't be the last. It's a side-effect of a contemplative, thinking-team personality.

This makes sense on a lot of levels. The Spurs have a history of being mentally overwhelmed whenever they play a big-time opponent. It happened in 2012, when the Spurs got obliterated by the Lakers, leading to this classic meltdown thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194756). It happened as recently as the Cavs game, when the Spurs started off poorly against the Cavs, leading Pop to remark that the Spurs were acting as if they were "playing their big brother." For whatever reason, whenever the Spurs play a game of enormous magnitude, they tend to overthink the matchup and end up getting destroyed.

4. The "It's Just Another Game" Mentality
In the week leading up to this game, the Warriors had been looking ahead to the Spurs. Bogut said, "We understand that we have to get through San Antonio to achieve our goal." Curry callled the Spurs "legends" and the "standard" by which every team should be measured. Clearly, the Warriors understood the enormity of this game and were extra motivated to work hard and put on their best performance. Meanwhile, the Spurs were busy spending their day off in Oakland doing this:

691068786980442112

There was a clear disparity in the focus and motivation level between the two teams prior to this game, and it showed on the court, where the Spurs played sloppy basketball all around, and the Warriors played with a laser-like focus.

5. Pop Wanted To Lose
Every Spurs fan knows how Pop abhors long winning streaks and almost acts as if he wants the team to lose. We also know how he likes it when the team goes through adversity, as it allows them to stay humble while keeping their eye on the big picture. This probably explains why he seemed almost too happy to let the Warriors win this game. And this goes beyond simply not playing Duncan: he was noticeably listless during the game, not even patrolling the sidelines the way Kerr did, and contenting himself with just watching the game from the bench. When the Warriors made a run, he didn't call a timeout. When the referees made a bad call, he didn't bother to complain. When the Spurs made a lazy pass, he didn't bother to yell at his players. And even before the game got out of hand, he was already playing Rasual Butler and Kyle Anderson.

--

Now, I'm not saying that any one of these theories in and of itself definitively accounts for why the Spurs lost. Clearly, there are many reasons, including, perhaps, the Warriors simply being the better team at the moment. However, I am saying that all of these reasons combined do help to explain why the Spurs played so poorly the other night.

And if I'm right, and none of these scenarios continue to hold true in our next matchup against the Warriors, I'm confident the Spurs will pay them back big time when they come to San Antonio in March.

[Benoit]

lol @ #1, #2 and #5

[Uriel]

lol @ #1, #2 and #5
What's wrong with #2? Did you even read the entire post? Even Parker said after the game, "We had 2 days off, 3 days off before that; too many days off, maybe."

[DarrinS]

Excuses

[ceperez]

A lot of plausible excuses. However, Dubs just dominated.

Only bright side is that its just midway in the regular season, so Spurs have time to adjust their game and maybe even their personnel.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

They lacked Duncan's leadership and calming intangibles. Pop was also pretty mad, don't think he wanted to lose, or even set them up to try things that could have jeaopardized their chances. They just weren't up for it, he saw it early on and threw everybody in there trying to find a couple of cool heads but couldn't.

I think Pop's really mad because they couldn't make the game an important film room exercise, even in defeat. It was more of a burn the tape kinda game and the Spurs needed to learn some things out of this.

[apalisoc_9]

What's wrong with #2? Did you even read the entire post? Even Parker said after the game, "We had 2 days off, 3 days off before that; too many days off, maybe."

Its called humor. Try it sometimes.

[Horse]

Pop definitely didn't coach like he usually does and we've seen this before

[ElNono]

How about we just had a bad game against a better team at this point in time?

And, there was nothing 'enormous' about last night game other than the major hype. Nothing changed, win or lose, they are 1st, we're 2nd. It was just another regular season game.

[Uriel]

How about we just had a bad game against a better team at this point in time?

And, there was nothing 'enormous' about last night game other than the major hype. Nothing changed, win or lose, they are 1st, we're 2nd. It was just another regular season game.
That's what I said at the end. We had a bad game against a team that is better than us at this point in time. The whole point of the post is to give reasons for why we might have had a bad game.

[NameLess Scrub]

A lot of plausible excuses. However, Dubs just dominated.

Only bright side is that its just midway in the regular season, so Spurs have time to adjust their game and maybe even their personnel.

How do they adjust for a consistent this

http://s1.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/curry-half-court-buzzer-beater-stephen-curry-gifs.gif

[ElNono]

That's what I said at the end. We had a bad game against a team that is better than us at this point in time. The whole point of the post is to give reasons for why we might have had a bad game.

It's just silly. Because the team took this game for what it is, just another regular season game, it doesn't mean that's why we had a bad game. We take a lot of games like that and we don't happen to have 10 turnovers in a quarter.

Sometimes ulterior motives are not at play. One or more players having bad nights are enough of a reason to play badly.

[SnakeBoy]

How do they adjust for a consistent this

http://s1.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/curry-half-court-buzzer-beater-stephen-curry-gifs.gif

They're going to have to go old school and put some bruises on him

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3939637/horry-nash-hip-check-o.gif

Probably another team will do it before we ever meet them in the playoffs.

[Mikeanaro]

They're going to have to go old school and put some bruises on him

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3939637/horry-nash-hip-check-o.gif

Probably another team will do it before we ever meet them in the playoffs.
DeMarcus or Rondo maybe.

[GSH]

There's already an abundance of basketball analysis on how the Spurs got obliterated by the Warriors, so I'd like to present some non-basketball theories that might explain why the Spurs played so poorly the other night:




I only opened the thread because I saw you started it. I understand what you're saying. But I think it's probably best to look at the basketball reasons the Spurs lost. The Spurs turned the ball over 25 times on the road. That's a loss almost every time. Were they rusty? Mostly, I think, the Warriors played a lot more physical, and never let the Spurs get into any kind of rhythm. On a night when the zebras call the game tight, they might have been forced to change that strategy. But last night it worked perfectly. The Spurs missed Tim on defense. The rest was just an avalanche.

[GSH]

BTW - in addition to all the turnovers, the Dubs got a BUNCH of deflections. A lot of those happened when the Spurs tried to post up. The Dubs focused on denying the ball to any Spur in the post. The Spurs failed to get the ball (cleanly) to their post players pretty much all night. Yeah, there was a lot of contact, but it's a great strategy if you can get by with it.

I would rather have seen the Spurs push back and be even more physical, and dare the zebras to foul out all of their bigs, if necessary. Playing passive against an aggressive team is a recipe for a loss.

[SAGirl]

I think this is a new team Pop is getting to test against the new warriors. I am guessing he had a laundry list of things and guys he wanted to see.
A lot of the guys failed in their objectives, which caused a cascade failure situation.
The only positive is they learn from this as a team, get film, got some young guys/rookies experience. Hopefully they keep improving, and vets that are relied upon, realize their importance for the team/roles and step up next time.

[Uriel]

I only opened the thread because I saw you started it. I understand what you're saying. But I think it's probably best to look at the basketball reasons the Spurs lost. The Spurs turned the ball over 25 times on the road. That's a loss almost every time. Were they rusty? Mostly, I think, the Warriors played a lot more physical, and never let the Spurs get into any kind of rhythm. On a night when the zebras call the game tight, they might have been forced to change that strategy. But last night it worked perfectly. The Spurs missed Tim on defense. The rest was just an avalanche.
Of course you're right that many of the turnovers were caused by the Warriors' aggressive defense; there's no doubt about that. But a lot of those turnovers were also on sloppy passes, failed catches, and players just plain stepping out of bounds--mistakes that I believe could have been avoided if the team hadn't been as rusty and out-of-sync as the excessive rest had made them.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Lol I recognize this same quality in myself at times, tbh.

We just make something out of nothing and clench the buttholes a little too tight for no reason at times, which leads to hesitation and second guessing. It was to be expected with all the hype built into that Warriors game.

[SpursBig3s]

How about we just had a bad game against a better team at this point in time?

And, there was nothing 'enormous' about last night game other than the major hype. Nothing changed, win or lose, they are 1st, we're 2nd. It was just another regular season game.



I understand that its just a regular season game. The reason why I'm agreeing with #4 is that against THIS particular team who goes balls to the walls for games like this, if you're not going to match that type of intensity, then you better expect a blowout because that's what's going to happen. Nobody can be surprised at the result if we don't make a concerted effort to be extra sharp and more engaged than just another game. i mean you're right that nothing meaningful comes of it, but you have to match their "state of mind" in order to give yourself a chance

[ElNono]

I understand its its just a regular season game. The reason why I'm agreeing with #4 is that against THIS particular team who goes balls to the walls for games like this, if you're not going to match that type of intensity, then you better expect a blowout because that's what's going to happen. Nobody can be surprised at the result if we don't make a concerted effort to be extra shard and more engaged than just another game. i mean you're right that nothing meaningful comes of it, but you have to match their "state of mind" in order to give yourself a chance

That's fine. I don't think the Spurs went out there with the mindset to lose the game. But bad games happen, and it's just unfortunate that happened against that team. I don't want that to sound like I'm taking anything away from the Dubs, just that bad games happen. Having 10 unforced TOs in like a half it's just uncharacteristic for our team, even for a regular season game. I don't think that was mental or there were any ulterior motives, we just had a shitty game, and against a team that punish you like the Dubs can, it won't be a 10 pt loss, it will be a blowout.

I look at Pop while the game is going on and he looks like an spectator. He's not calling TOs after stupid plays or runs. He's instead shuffling lineups, playing end of the bench guys. So my general feeling is that he himself didn't care that much whether it was a win or a loss. He just wanted to try stuff out. And we'll be better for it if it pays off in the long run.

[SpursBig3s]

That's fine. I don't think the Spurs went out there with the mindset to lose the game. But bad games happen, and it's just unfortunate that happened against that team. I don't want that to sound like I'm taking anything away from the Dubs, just that bad games happen. Having 10 unforced TOs in like a half it's just uncharacteristic for our team, even for a regular season game. I don't think that was mental or there were any ulterior motives, we just had a shitty game, and against a team that punish you like the Dubs can, it won't be a 10 pt loss, it will be a blowout.

I look at Pop while the game is going on and he looks like an spectator. He's not calling TOs after stupid plays or runs. He's instead shuffling lineups, playing end of the bench guys. So my general feeling is that he himself didn't care that much whether it was a win or a loss. He just wanted to try stuff out. And we'll be better for it if it pays off in the long run.


Yeah I agree with you on Pop. Shit, it might turn out that GS is just a better team, and things like that happen every few years or so.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

A lot of plausible excuses. However, Dubs just dominated.

Only bright side is that its just midway in the regular season, so Spurs have time to adjust their game and maybe even their personnel.
Who do we trade, and what do we need?

[Spurs9]

They're going to have to go old school and put some bruises on him

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3939637/horry-nash-hip-check-o.gif

Probably another team will do it before we ever meet them in the playoffs.
How come it hasnt happend yet?

[spurraider21]

legitimately shocked OP didn't blame political conservatism

[cutewizard]

expected loss, we have EVERYTHING to gain from it

[cutewizard]

lets just watch Black Sails or better yet WAR AND PEACE and forget the warriors

[SnakeBoy]

How come it hasnt happend yet?

It's only January.

[GSH]

There's already an abundance of basketball analysis on how the Spurs got obliterated by the Warriors, so I'd like to present some non-basketball theories that might explain why the Spurs played so poorly the other night:



Apparently the wrong person started the game thread. That's about as non-basketball as reasons get. :p:

[Uriel]

Apparently the wrong person started the game thread. That's about as non-basketball as reasons get. :p:
:lol :tu

[Old School 44]

I doubt if the Spurs/Pop intentionally lost the game, but I actually believe there are some benefits to the Spurs losing big to the Warriors.

- It puts the Warriors squarely alone in the forefront and the Spurs back with everyone else.
- There's a lot of pressure chasing history (the Bulls). As we move closer to the end of the season, will the Warriors key players play those extra couple minutes per game in pursuit of the record? The Warriors will continue to get everyone's best game. Will they burn themselves out?
- teaching moment for Pop...it's a lot easier to coach/teach from a loss than a 14 game winning streak.

[Uriel]

I doubt if the Spurs/Pop intentionally lost the game, but I actually believe there are some benefits to the Spurs losing big to the Warriors.

- It puts the Warriors squarely alone in the forefront and the Spurs back with everyone else.
- There's a lot of pressure chasing history (the Bulls). As we move closer to the end of the season, will the Warriors key players play those extra couple minutes per game in pursuit of the record? The Warriors will continue to get everyone's best game. Will they burn themselves out?
- teaching moment for Pop...it's a lot easier to coach/teach from a loss than a 14 game winning streak.
Completely agree. And those aren't the only benefits either.

In a way, the Spurs needed a loss lke this. They've been eviscerating opponents left and right, there was a danger of the team becoming complacent. After that devastating loss, you know the team will be on a mission to improve for the rest of the season as they seek to reach (and eventually surpass) the Warriors' level. Perhaps that Warriors game can be our Game 6 for this season.

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs came into that game dribbling the ball off their feet, throwing it out of bounds and taking shots off the dribble. My wife watched with me for a few minutes and said, "Why aren't they passing the ball? This doesn't even look like the Spurs." That's not intentional. That's a team that's tight for a big game. This was a great test for them that they specacularly failed. Glad it happened before the playoffs. The last time the Spurs got this way was when they were backdoor swept by OKC.

[tonight...you]

BTW - in addition to all the turnovers, the Dubs got a BUNCH of deflections. A lot of those happened when the Spurs tried to post up. The Dubs focused on denying the ball to any Spur in the post. The Spurs failed to get the ball (cleanly) to their post players pretty much all night. Yeah, there was a lot of contact, but it's a great strategy if you can get by with it.

I would rather have seen the Spurs push back and be even more physical, and dare the zebras to foul out all of their bigs, if necessary. Playing passive against an aggressive team is a recipe for a loss.
Absolutely. Great post.

[tonight...you]

The Spurs came into that game dribbling the ball off their feet, throwing it out of bounds and taking shots off the dribble. My wife watched with me for a few minutes and said, "Why aren't they passing the ball? This doesn't even look like the Spurs." That's not intentional. That's a team that's tight for a big game. This was a great test for them that they specacularly failed. Glad it happened before the playoffs. The last time the Spurs got this way was when they were backdoor swept by OKC.
Just like on Christmas. Houston got up in their jerseys and physical and the Spurs got tight, which led to a lot of errors.

[GSH]

Just like on Christmas. Houston got up in their jerseys and physical and the Spurs got tight, which led to a lot of errors.


Back atcha. The physical play by Houston was the biggest reason for that loss. They were physical, but they were smart about it. The Rockets got called for 17 fouls, compared to 20 for the Spurs. That's pretty much even. But the Spurs only took 8 FT's, compared to 26 for the Rockets.

The Rockets were physical off the ball, denying passes, and keeping the Spurs from getting into rhythm. They committed a bunch of non-shooting fouls. The Spurs reacted, rather than forcing the action, and the majority of theirs were shooting fouls. The Spurs spent their evening putting up bad shots, because the Rockets never let them settle in on offense.

[Obstructed_View]

Just like on Christmas. Houston got up in their jerseys and physical and the Spurs got tight, which led to a lot of errors.

I disagree. The only difference between Christmas and last night is that the Spurs' shots actually went in. They got the same looks on Christmas but the ball rimmed out a lot. For some reason the guys doing the game gave the Rockets a lot of credit for their defense, but it's not good defense if you give a guy a layup and he misses it.

[tonight...you]

I disagree. The only difference between Christmas and last night is that the Spurs' shots actually went in. They got the same looks on Christmas but the ball rimmed out a lot. For some reason the guys doing the game gave the Rockets a lot of credit for their defense, but it's not good defense if you give a guy a layup and he misses it.
I agree with you to an extent, I just saw a hint of panic then and I saw a large dose of it against the Warriors.
Irrational on my part? Maybe. It was, admittedly, an eye test, but in both games the Spurs failed to even get into their sets much of the time, much less execute their offense the way they'd like to.

And instead of fighting back, they went into a bit of a shell.

[tonight...you]

Back atcha. The physical play by Houston was the biggest reason for that loss. They were physical, but they were smart about it. The Rockets got called for 17 fouls, compared to 20 for the Spurs. That's pretty much even. But the Spurs only took 8 FT's, compared to 26 for the Rockets.

The Rockets were physical off the ball, denying passes, and keeping the Spurs from getting into rhythm. They committed a bunch of non-shooting fouls. The Spurs reacted, rather than forcing the action, and the majority of theirs were shooting fouls. The Spurs spent their evening putting up bad shots, because the Rockets never let them settle in on offense.

Something they're going to have to emotionally and mentally adjust to because the D is going to just get more intense when the playoffs start.
I hope Tim's up in LMA's ear constantly, planting seeds about the playoffs. Telling him tales of Championship heroics and the mental fortitude it takes to win it all. I think he can do it, but nothing's certain.

[Old School 44]

Completely agree. And those aren't the only benefits either.

In a way, the Spurs needed a loss lke this. They've been eviscerating opponents left and right, there was a danger of the team becoming complacent. After that devastating loss, you know the team will be on a mission to improve for the rest of the season as they seek to reach (and eventually surpass) the Warriors' level. Perhaps that Warriors game can be our Game 6 for this season.

I agree with the complacent comment, but there's nothing like Game 6. Nothing. Not .4, not losing as a 1 seed to an eighth seed, not a backdoor sweep and definitely not this game.

[GSH]

I disagree. The only difference between Christmas and last night is that the Spurs' shots actually went in. They got the same looks on Christmas but the ball rimmed out a lot. For some reason the guys doing the game gave the Rockets a lot of credit for their defense, but it's not good defense if you give a guy a layup and he misses it.


I can't post a recording of the game, but go back and look at the play-by-play. Remember the game. http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/201512250HOU.html

Did it seem like a night when good shots just weren't falling... or a night when the Spurs were chunking up bricks? I think it was exactly what tonight...you said - the Rockets got up in their jerseys.

Also, what other explanation do you have for the number of fouls being about even, but the Rockets taking 3X as many FT's? The Rockets were beating the shit out of them off the ball, and before they put up shots. And, yeah, I think that put the Spurs out of rhythm. And, once again, I think it was a helluva good strategy.

[Obstructed_View]

I can't post a recording of the game, but go back and look at the play-by-play. Remember the game. http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/201512250HOU.html

Did it seem like a night when good shots just weren't falling... or a night when the Spurs were chunking up bricks? I think it was exactly what tonight...you said - the Rockets got up in their jerseys.

Also, what other explanation do you have for the number of fouls being about even, but the Rockets taking 3X as many FT's? The Rockets were beating the shit out of them off the ball, and before they put up shots. And, yeah, I think that put the Spurs out of rhythm. And, once again, I think it was a helluva good strategy.

I recorded the game. I actually went back and skimmed through it on Christmas and considered coming in and writing a blurb about it because the TV crew was giving the Rockets all this credit for defense when the Spurs just missed shots. I was of the opinion on the first and second watch that it was simply a night that shots weren't falling. The Spurs went 5-20 from three point range, most of them shots in rhythm off good passes. They missed a bunch of layups as well. The only reason anyone even looks at it is because the Rockets managed to win it, which was mostly thanks to two long threes by James Harden toward the end.

As for free throw attempts, I'm not sure how you forgot that they intentionally fouled Dwight Howard. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you saying that the Rockets fouled the Spurs a lot off the ball and think that's why the Spurs missed shots? EDIT: I went back and read, and yes, that's what you meant. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that it was either a strategy or was the reason the Spurs missed shots. They simply came out flat, IMHO.

It was the Warriors game, where the Spurs came out overdribbling and underpassing, looking nervous and out of sorts on both ends of the floor, that you can say the Spurs chunked up bricks for sure. I disagree about the Rockets game. In fact, I didn't see anything different in the Rockets' defense in the second game, but somehow the Spurs managed to score 130 points on them.

I did see a change, though. The Rockets made an offensive adjustment and ran a few sets like the Warriors did inside, which led to a number of layups for them. The Spurs will need to shore that up for sure, because the Warriors absolutely exposed a weakness in the Spurs' defense.

[GSH]

I recorded the game. I actually went back and skimmed through it on Christmas and considered coming in and writing a blurb about it because the TV crew was giving the Rockets all this credit for defense when the Spurs just missed shots. I was of the opinion on the first and second watch that it was simply a night that shots weren't falling. The Spurs went 5-20 from three point range, most of them shots in rhythm off good passes. They missed a bunch of layups as well. The only reason anyone even looks at it is because the Rockets managed to win it, which was mostly thanks to two long threes by James Harden toward the end.

As for free throw attempts, I'm not sure how you forgot that they intentionally fouled Dwight Howard. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you saying that the Rockets fouled the Spurs a lot off the ball and think that's why the Spurs missed shots? EDIT: I went back and read, and yes, that's what you meant. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that it was either a strategy or was the reason the Spurs missed shots. They simply came out flat, IMHO.

It was the Warriors game, where the Spurs came out overdribbling and underpassing, looking nervous and out of sorts on both ends of the floor, that you can say the Spurs chunked up bricks for sure. I disagree about the Rockets game. In fact, I didn't see anything different in the Rockets' defense in the second game, but somehow the Spurs managed to score 130 points on them.

I did see a change, though. The Rockets made an offensive adjustment and ran a few sets like the Warriors did inside, which led to a number of layups for them. The Spurs will need to shore that up for sure, because the Warriors absolutely exposed a weakness in the Spurs' defense.


I don't have it recorded, and was trusting memory. You know the game - I'll trust your read on it.

I'll say this, though. When you look at the fouls vs. FT's on both sides, there's a pretty glaring disparity. They got 18 more FT's than the Spurs, on basically the same number of fouls... in a 4 point game. If it wasn't intentional, it still worked out pretty good for them.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't have it recorded, and was trusting memory. You know the game - I'll trust your read on it.

I'll say this, though. When you look at the fouls vs. FT's on both sides, there's a pretty glaring disparity. They got 18 more FT's than the Spurs, on basically the same number of fouls... in a 4 point game. If it wasn't intentional, it still worked out pretty good for them.

Well they hacked Howard and he went like 3-8. I think that's probably the difference. But it could also be an indication that the Spurs weren't very aggressive going toward the basket.

If teams start having success with a particular strategy to slow down the Spurs' offense, I'll begin paying attention. I'm much more concerned about the offense, as two teams in a row have managed to score points on the Spurs inside by cutting to the basket, and I'm not super concerned about it yet.