Transition, Turnovers, and the Future of Winning Basketball

[Dejounte]

Speed. Versatility. Disruption.

https://i.ibb.co/ZRjJQZH4/IMG-4368.png

Unless the rules of the game change, the blueprint for winning championships is pretty clear. You have to dominate in transition and win the turnover battle. The Pacers and Thunder are in the Finals because they are the first teams to fully lean into that formula. Not just in how they play, but in how they’ve built their rosters from top to bottom.

For the Spurs, that should shift how we think about building around Wemby. It is less about finding a traditional anchor next to him and more about putting quick, smart, and disruptive defenders around him. Players who can switch, recover, and blow up actions both on and off the ball. That is what this new era of defense is about. I am not saying rebounding and size do not matter at all, but I am definitely moving away from them being the central focus.

I still like Thomas Sorber. His size and rebounding could be useful in certain matchups when Wemby cannot handle a big bruiser by himself. But I am leaning more toward someone like Drake Powell now. His physical profile is similar to Danny Green, and he is incredibly light on his feet. That kind of lateral quickness and ability to stay in front of ballhandlers is becoming more valuable than ever. We need guys like that at positions one through four if we want to play at the pace and intensity these Finals teams have shown.

Also, I think people are overrating the need for a big wing. The idea that we need some tall 6’9” forward to match modern teams is outdated. If you watch these Finals closely, barely anyone over 6’6” is getting real minutes. The game is speeding up, and teams are prioritizing quick decisions, perimeter containment, and five-man defensive movement over traditional size.

We need to build for that. The league is already shifting.


https://youtu.be/t9_-i8a0cb0?feature=shared

[Dejounte]

That is also why I think the Spurs should be targeting guys in the mold of Alex Caruso or Lu Dort. These are defenders who do not just stay in front of their man. They hunt. They are relentless, always in the action, arms flying, bodies crashing into screens, making life miserable for ballhandlers. That kind of constant pressure adds up over the course of a game. It creates chaos, forces mistakes, and fuels transition opportunities, which is exactly what the top teams are thriving on right now. We need that energy injected into the roster. Not just one player like that, but multiple. Fill the rotation with defenders who play with urgency and physicality on every possession.

This is also why I do not think players like Jake LaRavia fit what we need. He relies more on length than movement, and because of that, he does not cover ground the same way. His feet are slower, and it shows. That lack of agility makes him look less aggressive to the ballhandler. He is not up in their space, not forcing decisions. Even if he is technically in position, he does not feel like a threat. In this new style of defense, it is not just about being in the right spot. It is about pressure, activity, and disrupting rhythm. LaRavia just does not bring that kind of energy.

[scottspurs]

Pacers lost the turnover battle 24-6 last night and still won in large part because they out rebounded the thunder by 17. Pacers also had elite transition defense last night. Only allowed 6 points on 19 1st half turnovers. I agree though that speed, athleticism and length is the way to go. Wemby needs to get his conditioning to elite levels. Surround him with length, versatility and high iq players. Spurs need at least 1 banger on the roster though because rebounding matters.

[LeBowen]

I agree, the blueprint is clear.
You build around your best player's strengths and if he happens to be the best player in the league, others will have to adjust.

[Seventyniner]

This is some 20/20 hindsight stuff here. Many predicted OC to win the West and it wasn't just because of the turnovers they force. Indy winning the East was on very few bingo cards.

Forcing a bunch of turnovers and getting easy transition buckets is a great formula for success, but it's not nearly the only one.

[rascal]

That is also why I think the Spurs should be targeting guys in the mold of Alex Caruso or Lu Dort. These are defenders who do not just stay in front of their man. They hunt. They are relentless, always in the action, arms flying, bodies crashing into screens, making life miserable for ballhandlers. That kind of constant pressure adds up over the course of a game. It creates chaos, forces mistakes, and fuels transition opportunities, which is exactly what the top teams are thriving on right now. We need that energy injected into the roster. Not just one player like that, but multiple. Fill the rotation with defenders who play with urgency and physicality on every possession.

This is also why I do not think players like Jake LaRavia fit what we need. He relies more on length than movement, and because of that, he does not cover ground the same way. His feet are slower, and it shows. That lack of agility makes him look less aggressive to the ballhandler. He is not up in their space, not forcing decisions. Even if he is technically in position, he does not feel like a threat. In this new style of defense, it is not just about being in the right spot. It is about pressure, activity, and disrupting rhythm. LaRavia just does not bring that kind of energy.

So you are off Kon who is slow.

Atleticism and quickness is what you want on the floor if you want to create turnovers and get scores in transistion.

[The Truth #6]

Speed. Versatility. Disruption. Yes. But those teams can also shoot well from deep. And we are relatively bad at that.

[Dejounte]

Speed. Versatility. Disruption. Yes. But those teams can also shoot well from deep. And we are relatively bad at that.

The Spurs are 1.7% off from the Thunder and 1.1% off from the Pacers in team overall 3PT%. Neither team is in the top five of that stat. The Spurs don’t need to go crazy with acquiring specialists to catch up to either of those teams. They just need natural development from both Wemby and Castle, who have plenty of room for improvement.

[rascal]

Speed. Versatility. Disruption. Yes. But those teams can also shoot well from deep. And we are relatively bad at that.

This site is generally off athleticism but you can see how important it is while watching how fast and athletic both Indiana and OKC play.
And yes you need to have shooters who can get shots off and hit shots quickly.

[rascal]

The Spurs are 1.7% off from the Thunder and 1.1% off from the Pacers in team overall 3PT%. Neither team is in the top five of that stat. The Spurs don’t need to go crazy with acquiring specialists to catch up to either of those teams. They just need natural development from both Wemby and Castle, who have plenty of room for improvement.

What are the Spurs on that Transistion + TOV diff list?

[KobesAchilles]

I like how that is the “future” of winning basketball when that formula is literally the same formula for winning in the 60s 70s and 80s. It died in the 90s and 00s but seriously it’s pretty funny when people think they just discovered something new in basketball.

[cutewizard]

Manu, Diaw, Green, Kawhi

[thOOdee]

I don't think this is a sorber vs powell argument, but should be more of a durant/giannis vs keeping our picks, and like throwing spaghetti on the wall, seeing what sticks argument. Having the youth fight it out, and finding spurs's own "lu dort" or "nesmith" I think best will help produce the above results.

But that might mean a slower progression, and this at the risk of coming closer and closer to wembys giant contract that will be coming in fast. One thing I think we can count on, we'll know what spurs' philosophy on this by draft time.

[LeBowen]

I like how that is the “future” of winning basketball when that formula is literally the same formula for winning in the 60s 70s and 80s. It died in the 90s and 00s but seriously it’s pretty funny when people think they just discovered something new in basketball.

It's been obvious for years that one-way players can't feature in the playoffs.
Not even elite ones like Gobert.
Traffic cone 3PT specialists are a thing of the past.

The only bad defenders that can get away with it are the offensive engines, but only if they have legit size. Brunson got shit on by the Pacers.

[Strategic]

Nah. Dagnault played Chet half the game and Hartenstein barely more than a third. After last year’s playoff coaching blunder when he couldn’t take Giddy out, if the thunder lose this series I can’t see him keeping his job. I think he should have had both of his bigs on the court 10 more minutes last night. They were out rebounded by 17. He rotated 11 guys and forgot about rebounding.

[Dejounte]

Nah. Dagnault played Chet half the game and Hartenstein barely more than a third. After last year’s playoff coaching blunder when he couldn’t take Giddy out, if the thunder lose this series I can’t see him keeping his job. I think he should have had both of his bigs on the court 10 more minutes last night. They were out rebounded by 17. He rotated 11 guys and forgot about rebounding.

I think this is a false narrative that you, scottspurs (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17106), maybe others are pushing. The Thunder were leading the game comfortably for most of the game. By the end of the third, the Thunder were up by 9 points and were losing the rebounding battle with 33 rebounds vs Pacers’ 41 rebounds. The Thunder were winning despite losing the rebounding battle so I don’t think it broke the game as much as y’all think it did.

What the Pacers did in the 4th was more fluky than anything. They’ll need to pray that they shoot 60% from 3 and 50% overall FG in the fourth if they continue the way they played during the first three quarters. The Pacers are the ones who need to make adjustments for game 2, not the Thunder. And they’re very capable of that since they didn’t play true to their style (forcing turnovers and pushing pace) last night so I’m not ruling them out as winners of this series.

[Dejounte]

Looking at the regular season stats, the Spurs:

-Did a decent job taking care of the ball (likely thanks in large part to Chris Paul)
-Struggled to force opponent turnovers
-Were average at limiting opponent transition points
-Scored fairly well in transition

Given these points, it’s clear that defense is more of a concern than offense. The team would benefit from adding quicker, more agile players who can pressure the ball, force more turnovers, and recover better in transition.

Chris Paul not returning could very well be “addition by subtraction” in some areas. Defensively, his age and slower foot speed hurt our ability to get stops and recover in transition, so moving on might help there.

But it could also be “subtraction by subtraction” in other areas. As mentioned earlier, CP3 was a big reason we took care of the ball so well, and losing that kind of stability could hurt us on offense.

[OldMan88]

Personally, I don’t want the spurs to trade for any top level players previously discussed. Draft a second big, or a wing player only if some other team has really screwed up and not taken a much better option. Keep CP only if he’s willing to be mostly a player / substitute player and develop the young guys. Draft Dylan Harper at #2 as planned unless Dallas has another brain fart and play him & castle together with Fox and outrun the rest of the league into the ground. Use the “new” spacing offence like the Grizzlies last year mixed in with the old beautiful game passing. Get Wemby in great shape in order to find out for sure that he can play enough minutes to win multiple championships. Also, if Wemby won’t agree to make the same salary sacrifices that DROB & TD made, then his long term situation changes drastically. His size & continued growth doesn’t bode well for a long career unfortunately.

[scott]

It's been obvious for years that one-way players can't feature in the playoffs.
Not even elite ones like Gobert.
Traffic cone 3PT specialists are a thing of the past.

The only bad defenders that can get away with it are the offensive engines, but only if they have legit size. Brunson got shit on by the Pacers.

Great point and I think this is the context that is often lost when people contemplate Sochan. Can he be playable in the playoffs as a complete non-shooter?

I've been thinking about this... could Dennis Rodman thrive in today's game as just a complete nothing on offense? I guess if you play him as a center on offense? Not that Sochan is anywhere near Rodman... but maybe thinking about Dennis will at least provide some kind of path forward for how Sochan can be playable?

[scott]

I think this is a false narrative that you, scottspurs (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17106), maybe others are pushing. The Thunder were leading the game comfortably for most of the game. By the end of the third, the Thunder were up by 9 points and were losing the rebounding battle with 33 rebounds vs Pacers’ 41 rebounds. The Thunder were winning despite losing the rebounding battle so I don’t think it broke the game as much as y’all think it did.

What the Pacers did in the 4th was more fluky than anything. They’ll need to pray that they shoot 60% from 3 and 50% overall FG in the fourth if they continue the way they played during the first three quarters. The Pacers are the ones who need to make adjustments for game 2, not the Thunder. And they’re very capable of that since they didn’t play true to their style (forcing turnovers and pushing pace) last night so I’m not ruling them out as winners of this series.

All of it needs to be taken in context and you can't just look at one thing and say it's the key driver.

On the surface:

-OKC shot like ASS but took care of the ball and generated TOs and transition buckets, which led to them being able to overcome a bad shooting night and lead most of the game
-IND was sloppy with the basketball, giving up lots of TOs, but rebounded well, generated good looks, and hit their 3s

I don't see how anyone can look at that game and declare any one element of the game as "the future of basketball"

Instead:

-Generating TOs is helpful
-Getting rebounds is helpful
-Shooting well from 3 is helpful

What if we built a team that could do all 3?

[Dejounte]

All of it needs to be taken in context and you can't just look at one thing and say it's the key driver.

On the surface:

-OKC shot like ASS but took care of the ball and generated TOs and transition buckets, which led to them being able to overcome a bad shooting night and lead most of the game
-IND was sloppy with the basketball, giving up lots of TOs, but rebounded well, generated good looks, and hit their 3s

I don't see how anyone can look at that game and declare any one element of the game as "the future of basketball"

Instead:

-Generating TOs is helpful
-Getting rebounds is helpful
-Shooting well from 3 is helpful

What if we built a team that could do all 3?

I understand your point, but I actually think it ends up supporting the opposite idea. Saying we should build a team that excels at generating turnovers, rebounding, and shooting sounds ideal, but in reality, it’s rarely practical. Unless you are building a roster full of players like LeBron, who have elite size, skill, and versatility, there are always trade-offs.

Roster construction is about give and take. You typically can’t dominate the boards without size, but players with size often lack elite shooting or speed. The ones who can do everything well are incredibly rare and hard to acquire.

That is part of why the game has shifted toward smaller, quicker players. Teams are leaning into transition opportunities, spacing, and ball security. As a result, rebounding has become harder to prioritize, not because it is less important, but because it often conflicts with the skill sets teams are choosing to emphasize.

In theory, yes, you want to do all three. But in today’s NBA, success comes more from leaning into specific strengths and building around them, not trying to be elite at everything all at once.

If what you say is possible, we would have seen the most successful teams as of late push that kind of roster. Instead, we see teams roll out players on the smaller side because they’re optimizing for the things I’ve already mentioned.

[TD 21]

This is some 20/20 hindsight stuff here. Many predicted OC to win the West and it wasn't just because of the turnovers they force. Indy winning the East was on very few bingo cards.

Forcing a bunch of turnovers and getting easy transition buckets is a great formula for success, but it's not nearly the only one.

Exactly. The biggest mistake the Spurs or any aspiring contender can make, is thinking whatever is winning at the current moment is the way you must build your team/play like in order to win a championship.

It's forever a moving target and a fool's errand to get caught up in being prisoner of the moment.

The Spurs are fortunate to have the most unique player ever. They should concentrate and focus on building something unique, mastering and being the best version of that and make others adjust to them as opposed to being a lesser version of a current trend.

[LeBowen]

Can he be playable in the playoffs as a complete non-shooter?

No and imo it's not even up for discussion.


I've been thinking about this... could Dennis Rodman thrive in today's game as just a complete nothing on offense? I guess if you play him as a center on offense? Not that Sochan is anywhere near Rodman... but maybe thinking about Dennis will at least provide some kind of path forward for how Sochan can be playable

Rodman is one of the best defenders ever and the best rebounder ever if we take size into account. Just because Jeremy is cosplaying as him and can't shoot, doesn't mean they're comparable.

[scott]

No and imo it's not even up for discussion.



Rodman is one of the best defenders ever and the best rebounder ever if we take size into account. Just because Jeremy is cosplaying as him and can't shoot, doesn't mean they're comparable.

You ignored the question and deflected.

The question is not whether Jeremy is comparable to Rodman. He's not. We all know he's not.

The question is whether Rodman could be playable in the playoffs in the modern game. Because if he's not... then someone who is only fractionally as good (Sochan) is basically fucking worthless, despite his "rare" archetype, and should be dumped at the earliest opportunity.

My point in raising this that there exist people who talk about how Jeremy is rare, but I've often pointed out that rare does not necessarily mean useful. So... again... would Rodman be playable in the playoffs today? Because if he's not... what the point of having the Temu version of him?

[LeBowen]

The question is whether Rodman could be playable in the playoffs in the modern game. Because if he's not... then someone who is only fractionally as good (Sochan) is basically fucking worthless, despite his "rare" archetype, and should be dumped at the earliest opportunity.

I think he could with 4 shooters around him because he was just that good defensively and on the glass.

My issue with Jeremy, which I posted about a couple of times and provided stats, is that he's not good in the paint.
If we exclude wide open attempts he gets because he's the player opponents care about the least, he doesn't do much.
He can punish way smaller guards, but that's about it.
Whenever he starts dribbling the ball into the paint, it's full panic mode without any plan whatsoever. He's not a threat to force enough help and we gain nothing from those possessions.

If we had different guards, then there would be some hope, but I just don't see how can you ever play Castle and Sochan together in serious games. Harper also isn't a great shooter, that's just too much for today's game.
I'd give him another year because he can be useful in the regular season, but he shouldn't get an extension this summer unless it's something cheap, maybe 30/3.
No more backup big experiments. Either he makes it work as a forward or he doesn't.

[scott]

I understand your point, but I actually think it ends up supporting the opposite idea. Saying we should build a team that excels at generating turnovers, rebounding, and shooting sounds ideal, but in reality, it’s rarely practical. Unless you are building a roster full of players like LeBron, who have elite size, skill, and versatility, there are always trade-offs.

Roster construction is about give and take. You typically can’t dominate the boards without size, but players with size often lack elite shooting or speed. The ones who can do everything well are incredibly rare and hard to acquire.

That is part of why the game has shifted toward smaller, quicker players. Teams are leaning into transition opportunities, spacing, and ball security. As a result, rebounding has become harder to prioritize, not because it is less important, but because it often conflicts with the skill sets teams are choosing to emphasize.

In theory, yes, you want to do all three. But in today’s NBA, success comes more from leaning into specific strengths and building around them, not trying to be elite at everything all at once.

If what you say is possible, we would have seen the most successful teams as of late push that kind of roster. Instead, we see teams roll out players on the smaller side because they’re optimizing for the things I’ve already mentioned.

You're telling me it's rare to be good at all three things... but it's really not.

Just look at the two teams in the finals right now:

OKC - 1st in TO Forced, 6th in 3P%, 11th in REB/gm
IND - 9th in TO Forced, 9th in 3P%, 28th in REB/gm actually pretty shocking that IND was so bad in rebounding)

Or last year's champs:

BOS - last in TO forced, 2nd in 3P%, 2nd in REB/gm

I'd argue you've got to do two of the three well... even better if you can do all 3 well. It's harder, but not does not require a roster construction of unicorns to do all three... OKC has two bigs and three guards and is doing it. We can too

[scott]

I think he could with 4 shooters around him because he was just that good defensively and on the glass.

My issue with Jeremy, which I posted about a couple of times and provided stats, is that he's not good in the paint.
If we exclude wide open attempts he gets because he's the player opponents care about the least, he doesn't do much.
He can punish way smaller guards, but that's about it.
Whenever he starts dribbling the ball into the paint, it's full panic mode without any plan whatsoever. He's not a threat to force enough help and we gain nothing from those possessions.

If we had different guards, then there would be some hope, but I just don't see how can you ever play Castle and Sochan together in serious games. Harper also isn't a great shooter, that's just too much for today's game.
I'd give him another year because he can be useful in the regular season, but he shouldn't get an extension this summer unless it's something cheap, maybe 30/3.
No more backup big experiments. Either he makes it work as a forward or he doesn't.

That was my thought as well, you basically play Rodman at C on offense and surround him with shooters.

So then, the question becomes... how good of a defender and rebounder does Sochan have to become to approach playable? Then the next question... can he realistically get there? I tend to doubt it... which is why I wouldn't extend him. And if someone wants to give positive value for him in a trade, I would.

[Tyronn Lue]

Didn't read the entire thread, but turnover ratio is predicated on protecting the ball also, not just stealing it.

[jesterbobman]

It's always possession, and efficiency - Steals (in particular ) help you win the possession battle and generate transition opportunities, which are high value shots.

The model of OKC leans on a bunch of small, STRONG, guards who can use speed to cover ground. Caruso is a guard, but he's also competent guarding 4's (and, Centres when they let him guard with extreme physicality). Jalen Williams is guard size in height too, but he can play PF. They still have size - Chet at the 4 is a ton of length. To the extent possible, they don't have a weak link defensively, and their littles are strong.

[Jordan Jackson]

Dennis Rodman and Aaron Gordon out here catching strays.

There is no real formula other than having the best player in the league and making sure you don’t surround him with a bunch of deadweight/net negative players.

Whenever the Spurs headed into the playoffs I knew they had a chance. Why? Because my team had Tim Duncan and the other team didn’t. Spurs had “the” guy.

They put 6 or 7 really smart players (shoot/dribble/pass/defend) around Wemby - he’s going to take them to a championship. He is one of those guys. I don’t think it’s that complicated. But you never know with Brian Wright.

[The Truth #6]

Building around Wemby could be complicated if he wants to do things that aren't efficient or effective for the team. VW, Fox, Castle, Harper all will want the ball. Who will adapt? To me, that's our challenge. Victor will likely need to find his spots so others can find their spots, so to speak.

[OldMan88]

Building around Wemby could be complicated if he wants to do things that aren't efficient or effective for the team. VW, Fox, Castle, Harper all will want the ball. Who will adapt? To me, that's our challenge. Victor will likely need to find his spots so others can find their spots, so to speak.
True, but Victor also must develop an absolute go-to shot that is unstoppable, like Kareem’s skyhook, Tim’s bank shot, Shaq’s turnaround & knock his defender (uncalled foul) down shot, or Manu’s WTF was that shot.

[KobesAchilles]

Tbh if Wemby learns a midrange game then the whole league is in trouble. Imagine Wemby with a Dirk fadeaway. How tf would teams even begin to guard him? Transition dunks, half court set lobs, pump fake 3s that lead to dribble drive fade away, and then he pulls up from 3 anytime. And he plays defense?? That’s a monster of a player.

As far as scoring a lot of transition points and not turning the ball over. That has always led to winning. Since Red’s Celtic days. Even teams that don’t win championships still won a shitload of games just by doing those 2 things.

We already have our 3 guard line up for the next 5 years in Fox, Castle, and Harper. I believe Fox will be traded in 3 years time but I’m okay with that. But to act like a Siakim wouldn’t help this team tremendously is absurd. I’d rather have Siakim than Caruso or even Dort. Having fast guys is necessary for our team. But what is even more important than speed is decisiveness. How many times do our players catch the ball and have no idea what to do with it or hesitate on a shot and put themselves in bad positions. Our bench players need to be the opposite of our current youth. Vassell, KJ, and Sochan are too stupid to be our bench players going forward. It’s why I want Giddy and I want LaVaria and I want Kornet. Guys who just know what their role is and what to do when they’re on the court.

[R. DeMurre]

It's always possession, and efficiency - Steals (in particular ) help you win the possession battle and generate transition opportunities, which are high value shots.

The model of OKC leans on a bunch of small, STRONG, guards who can use speed to cover ground. Caruso is a guard, but he's also competent guarding 4's (and, Centres when they let him guard with extreme physicality). Jalen Williams is guard size in height too, but he can play PF. They still have size - Chet at the 4 is a ton of length. To the extent possible, they don't have a weak link defensively, and their littles are strong.


OKC has great positional size at PG with Shai at 6'6" and Caruso & Isaiah Joe both at 6'5", so they've almost always got a size advantage there, meaning all three of those guys can still defend effectively if switched onto a SG or a SF, while Dort and Wallace are 6'4" but both have nice wingspans and are built like linebackers, so I really wouldn't call any of those five players "small." All five are bigger (taller, longer, and/or heftier) than De'Aaron Fox, who is considered a pretty typical size for a traditional PG.

[SpursBills]

Dean Oliver 4 factors:

Shooting (40%) - team eFG% - opponent eFG%
Turnovers (25%) - team TO% - opponent TO%
Rebounding (20%) - team OREB% + team DREB%
Free Throws (15%) - team FTR vs opponent FTR

[R. DeMurre]

Dean Oliver 4 factors:

Shooting (40%) - team eFG% - opponent eFG%
Turnovers (25%) - team TO% - opponent TO%
Rebounding (20%) - team OREB% + team DREB%
Free Throws (15%) - team FTR vs opponent FTR


Since 2002!

[RC_Drunkford]

I do think length is very important in this. The Thunder have a bunch of players with mega wingspans. It's even more important for the Spurs since our defenders can gamble a lot because they have Wemby back there. This will cause plenty of deflections and steals. Of course lateral agility etc. is also playing a part in this, but I'm really looking for players with large wingspans in the front court, which is why Durant fits. The Thunder are also the team that gives up the most corner 3s, but somehow teams shoot a bad percentage from there against them.

Another key for the Thunder defense is, that they have players who can guard positions up. So they can switch, put Dort or Caruso on centers, put J-Will on forwards and Chet doesn't have to guard on the perimeter to focus on protecting the rim. Spurs defense has a bit more leeway cause of Wemby. We definitely should be trying to build an even better defense than the Thunder, due to us having the best rim protector of all time on the roster.

Offensively our team is already designed to play fast and multiple ballhandlers help with that even more. We just need to keep adding players who fit that playstyle.

[scottspurs]

Dean Oliver 4 factors:

Shooting (40%) - team eFG% - opponent eFG%
Turnovers (25%) - team TO% - opponent TO%
Rebounding (20%) - team OREB% + team DREB%
Free Throws (15%) - team FTR vs opponent FTR

Spurs 4 factors


Shooting


Team efg%

54.1



League rank

17th



Opp team efg%

55.1



League Rank

23rd





Turnovers


Team TO %

13.3



League rank

8th



Opp team TO %

13.2



League rank

21st





Rebounding


Team OREB %

24.3



League rank

20th



Team DREB%

73.0



League Rank

25th





Free Throws


Team FTR

.234



League Rank

23rd



Opp Team FTR

.200



League Rank

1st

[Ariel]

OKC has great positional size at PG with Shai at 6'6" and Caruso & Isaiah Joe both at 6'5", so they've almost always got a size advantage there, meaning all three of those guys can still defend effectively if switched onto a SG or a SF, while Dort and Wallace are 6'4" but both have nice wingspans and are built like linebackers, so I really wouldn't call any of those five players "small." All five are bigger (taller, longer, and/or heftier) than De'Aaron Fox, who is considered a pretty typical size for a traditional PG.
Height / Wingspan
Jalen Williams: 6'4.5" / 7'2.25"
SGA 6'4.5" / 6'11.5"
Caruso: 6'4" to 6'5" / 6'6"
Isaiah Joe: 6'3" / 6'7.5"
Lou Dort: 6'2.75" / 6'8.5"
Cason Wallace: 6'2.5" / 6'8.5"
Fox: 6'2" / 6'6.5"

Listings are official combine measurements, except for Caruso who I couldn't find but listed height based on an interview (says he's almost 6'5" barefoot). All in all, except for SGA they're almost all below average in height for their positions, but with large wingspan, strong build, agile, active and smart. Castle is taller than anyone of them (6'5.5") and Harper would be at the top (6'4.5"). Spurs would be fine in terms of size.

[objective]

Defensive events are the key, and the core of events is deflections. Deflections lead to turnovers, but even when they don't, they can still disrupt the offense, throwing a wrench into things and benefit the defense, giving interior defenders the time they need to help, recover, and help again

Unfortunately, even the Spurs 'good' defenders outside of Wemby like Sochan and Castle are closer to Belineli and Bryn Forbes in deflections then they are Caruso and Cason Wallace

Deflections per 36 via nba hustle stats:

Caruso 6.4
Cason. 4.7
Jalen Williams. 3.9
SGA. 2.9
Dort. 2.8

Sochan. 2.3
Vassell. 2.6
Castle. 2.4
Fox. 2.7
Champagnie. 2.2
Keldon 1.8
Chris Paul. 3.1

Last Spurs playoff team
White. 2.8
Belineli. 1.3
Forbes 1.2
DeRozan. 2.0

16-17, final year of 39 year old Ginobili: 4.0

[cutewizard]

https://youtu.be/1e7U4-PrIBE?si=82SpNdaPJrkF7kS-

[ambchang]

My take is that the spurs main issue is on the defensive end right now and it’s not personnel, but system. With players like castle and sochan, the spurs should be an average defensive team even when wemby sits, and yet they were the worst team out there without wemby, and they weren’t great with wemby wither with a d rating of 115.4, which would rank 18 in the league. 18 out of 30 teams, around the area of bulls and hawks, with the prospect trending as the greatest defensive player of all time.

Castle was supposed to be a defensive guard, his numbers weren’t great to be polite, finishing the year as a 3rd percentile defender based on crafted nba. Vassell came out of college as a strong defender, 11th %ile. Sochan 39th. Champaigne 36th. These are all supposedly plus defenders at some point in their careers and yet they are defending like ass.

Get a defensive system that doesn’t collapse and give up wide open threes (5th worst in attempts and 8th in %age), get some basic fundamentals around boxing out and rebounds (gave up third most OReb), stop over helping and learn to play proper position defense (gave up 6th most assists), then suddenly the spurs would be an actual competent defensive team. The personnel are definitely there, the system is clearly not.

On offense, the spurs are actually decent on 3pa (7th) and below average on %age (19th, but only 1% off 11th in the league as the variance in the middle is quite small). But the spurs were 6th worst in FTM (only 2.3 off the league leaders though) and bad on offensive rebounds (19th). The spurs were 19th in ortg and was only 0.1 off league average and 0.6 off league median. A few more offensive rebounds and aggressive drives for FTs and we are there. What the spurs lack on offense was actually finishing around 3-10 feet. They are about average in attempts and %age on 0-3 feet and three pointers, what they can’t do is scoring around the basket on post ups and creations. Wemby is actually quite weak in that regard, given his height and fluidity, and there will always be questions about whether he should be there due to his build. The spurs actually need to have someone who can do damage around the basket, or better yet, design a system that can allow players to do damage in that range to either open up threes on kick outs, or create easier opportunities close to the basket.

I don’t think Giannis is the answer, what I do think is getting castle as a big post up guard can help solve some of that problem.

[Dejounte]

The Spurs have chosen a path and have prioritized switchable defense and fast pace that I had described in the first post of this thread.

Unless the Spurs pull off a big trade for a noteworthy rebounding PF who will start on day 1 (I don’t think either John Collins or LaRavia will start on this team), it appears that they will be focused more on a mobile PF vs a PF with girth and grit. There are no twin towers coming in the future. The path is set.

My hope is that they find more defensive fiends in free agency. Crossing my fingers for NAW.

[Seventyniner]

I wonder how much input Sweeney had on the #14 pick and the decision to trade #38.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

The Spurs have chosen a path and have prioritized switchable defense and fast pace that I had described in the first post of this thread.

Unless the Spurs pull off a big trade for a noteworthy rebounding PF who will start on day 1 (I don’t think either John Collins or LaRavia will start on this team), it appears that they will be focused more on a mobile PF vs a PF with girth and grit. There are no twin towers coming in the future. The path is set.
.

This absolutely is the case and we saw the blueprint in the playoffs this year. People who argued for twin towers prior to the draft live in the past.

OKC won a title while shooting and rebounding horribly. But they had an amazing defense and were able to control the pace. This is what the Spurs should be able to improve on and also what they should be able to counter if they want to be a contender eventually.

[Dejounte]

This absolutely is the case and we saw the blueprint in the playoffs this year. People who argued for twin towers prior to the draft live in the past.

OKC won a title while shooting and rebounding horribly. But they had an amazing defense and were able to control the pace. This is what the Spurs should be able to improve on and also what they should be able to counter if they want to be a contender eventually.

Many here wanted Maluach so I think almost everyone is living in the past tbh

[LeBowen]

It's been obvious for some time that the idea is to play with pace and run opposition off the floor.

Jeremy is big enough to be the PF, if only he could shoot, ffs.
It would be great if Bryant develops close to Anunoby size.

We need a rim runner as the backup big, can't have slow veterans out there that can't keep up.

[Dejounte]

It's been obvious for some time that the idea is to play with pace and run opposition off the floor.

Jeremy is big enough to be the PF, if only he could shoot, ffs.
It would be great if Bryant develops close to Anunoby size.

We need a rim runner as the backup big, can't have slow veterans out there that can't keep up.


I do think Jeremy is working on trying to be a 3-4 rather than a 4-5. Good luck to him. As of now:


G, guard (1 and 2)
DeAaron Fox
Blake Wesley
Malaki Branham
David Duke Jr.


GW, guard-wing (1 and 2 and 3)
Dylan Harper
Stephon Castle


W, wing (2 and 3)
Devin Vassell
Julian Champagnie


F, forward (3 and 4)
Harrison Barnes
Keldon Johnson
Carter Bryant
Harrison Ingram


FC, forward-center (4 and 5)
Jeremy Sochan
Mamu
Riley Minix


C, center (5 only)
Victor Wembanyama
Bismack Biyombo
Charles Bassey

[The Truth #6]

Random thoughts:

OKC has played this well in many ways. Perhaps an underrated part is finding affordable players for depth, and those affordable deep bench guys actually being able to produce and/or fit into their system. They got rid of Giddey who didn't fit. We have too many players who don't fit who make too much money.