New Ways of Spurs Basketball [Archive]

timvp

12-08-2006, 10:52 PM

The San Antonio Spurs are now averaging over 100 points per game on the season. Just a couple seasons ago, the Spurs were a half court oriented, slow it down type team. Now the Spurs are averaging more than 100, something they haven't done for a season since the 1995-96 season.

Questions:

1) Is this a good thing or could it be fool's gold come playoff time?

2) The NBA has become more high scoring since the low point in 1999. Last season, three teams made the conference finals that averaged over 99 points per game. Is this a new era of basketball in which offense wins championships, or was last year just a fluke?

3) Can the Spurs sustain this level of offensive play or will they come back to previous levels?

:smokin

boutons_

12-08-2006, 10:54 PM

too many questions, my head's exploding.

defense wins championships, but I think Pop is not emphacizing defense so much as in earlier season, probably because he has more scoring.

timvp

12-08-2006, 11:01 PM

defense wins championships

That's how the saying goes, but who did Miami stop last year? Who did Dallas stop? Neither team played very well defensively in the playoffs. During the regular season 13 teams gave up less points per game than Miami.

With the new rules enabling offensive players, does defense still win championships?

Solid D

12-08-2006, 11:01 PM

The Spurs didn't add many big bodies in the off-season. They have adjusted their style. They are re-tooled for movement, especially with Butler sitting behind the bench.

We'll have to see the Spurs play the Rockets with Hayes, or the Pistons and see how they do against those teams to know for sure. I don't think we will see sub .425 Opp. FG% with this bunch. The Spurs don't block enough shots and clog the lane enough to do that.

Buddy Holly

12-08-2006, 11:02 PM

It's all about the ball movement.

When the Spurs move the ball around the way they can almost no one will beat them. It's when the offense becomes stagnet with either attempt after attempt by Tony or 4-down after 4-down, that's when the Spurs struggle and score less.

I'd rather have ourbench score 50-60 than have Tony and Timmy combine for 70.

Mr. Body

12-08-2006, 11:02 PM

New rules. New ways.

With hands-off on the perimeter, it pays to run motion and cycle the offense around. I see it as a good thing.

Kermit

12-08-2006, 11:05 PM

1) it's a great thing. scoring is never bad and they don't look awful defensively when they're running up and down the court. if they were sacrificing defensive intensity for offensive intensity, i would be worried.

2) you have to have a combination of both, although defense will always and forever be the gateway to the championship.

3) they'll sustain it as long as manu comes off the bench. that second team with him at the helm can beat 80% of the first teams in the nba with the way they're moving the ball. he's the catalyst.

Kori Ellis

12-08-2006, 11:06 PM

LaMarcus Bryant

12-08-2006, 11:07 PM

1)It's an extremely good thing if we can keep it up.....

2)Twin Tower defense would still reign supreme in today's league but with centers dissappearing, perimeter defense is the real thing, in long lanky guards and forwards (think tayshaun) but their effectiveness is very random because of the inconsistency in calls game-to-game. I wouldn't say offense wins championships, but mostly because we saw no consistent playoff reffing until the actual finals.

3)It will come back to previous levels when we play teams that are motivated to rebound.

timvp

12-08-2006, 11:09 PM

It's all about the ball movement.

Good teams in the playoffs take away the ability to move the ball. The Mavs' defense against the Spurs was designed to force the Spurs to go one-on-one. If you noticed, they never brought help from the perimeter and specifically never left Bowen open in the corners.

That's why when it comes to the playoff, 4-down has been and always will be the bread and butter of the Spurs as long as Tim Duncan is playing.

LaMarcus Bryant

12-08-2006, 11:15 PM

what the mavericks have, defensively, on the perimeter is where we need to be i think
but its impossible unless we get ourselves that josh howard type player
i've never thought ginobili was as good at overall D as some say he is

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:16 PM

That's why when it comes to the playoff, 4-down has been and always will be the bread and butter of the Spurs as long as Tim Duncan is playing

4 down, won the rings in 03 and 05, and 99.

All the shots off the perimiter in 03 against NJ, who got the assists on kick outs?

05, same thing?

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:17 PM

i've never thought ginobili was as good at overall D as some say he is

Ginobili aint no Bowen, but he aint no Keith Van Horn either.

Ginobili's D is good, and in big games, it becomes VERY Good.

ObiwanGinobili

12-08-2006, 11:23 PM

It's all about the ball movement.

that says it all right there for me.

if push comes ot shove in the post-season tho - you bet your panties Pop would pull more defense into the scheme.

picnroll

12-08-2006, 11:29 PM

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:33 PM

Good teams in the playoffs take away the ability to move the ball

That fact overlooks alot of people, and its very important.

The ball movement is taken away in a 7 game series due to the high level of play.

4 down, and the movement outside of the pass from Duncan is key.

Rebounding, and guys making their perimiter shots, is what wins in the playoffs.

Not bothered by the latter, the other though, yuckie.

ShoogarBear

12-08-2006, 11:33 PM

Kermit

12-08-2006, 11:35 PM

"Good teams in the playoffs take away the ability to move the ball"

true, but i've been watching the team for a long time and i've never really seen them move the ball like this. we'll see how they place against a good defensive team, something golden state, the clips and charlotte have never been accused of being.

picnroll

12-08-2006, 11:35 PM

Hornets are getting waxed by an Allenless Sonics.

MannyIsGod

12-08-2006, 11:39 PM

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:42 PM

I want to see what they look like when they play the Hornets and the Rockets

Spurs played 1 and a half good quarters and spanked the Rockets.

Ok maybe the Hornets :lol

For me, I want to see how they play Denver, Minnesota, Lakers, and the Pistons.

Buddy Holly

12-08-2006, 11:46 PM

Let's get some perspective. I want to see what they look like when they play the Hornets and the Rockets.

It went 92-84 in favor of the Spurs.

phyzik

12-08-2006, 11:48 PM

Defense still wins championships.... just need big men that can run the floor.... which, so far, it looks like the Spurs have in Oberto and Elson.

ShoogarBear

12-08-2006, 11:49 PM

Eh, the Rockets game had as much to do with a Houston choke as the Spurs comeback. A healthy Houston would be a tough series for the Spurs.

The LA B2B may have been a reasonable test, but now it's not clear if Kobe will be playing.

I have no idea what the hell the Hornets are doing in Seattle tonight. :lol

The Houston and Utah games will be the best test of the Spurs "new ways" before the end of the year.

Das Texan

12-08-2006, 11:51 PM

However, in the last three games (the Spurs best games of the season?) the Spurs have held opponents to ~41% shooting and 82.3 ppg.

So even though they are running a high octane offense, they haven't given up the concept of D.

And I think thats key.

What will truly make us that 'force' is that when push comes to shove, we can still get a key defensive stop or lock down a particular player or whatever is needed defensively.

Factor that with a potent offense with many weapons and it makes you that much more dynamic and unstoppable.

Ultimately, I think that is what can set us apart from other teams in this league.

Especially if Elson/Oberto are productive enough to score a few points, grab rebounds and get the occassional block.

ShoogarBear

12-08-2006, 11:51 PM

It went 92-84 in favor of the Spurs.You really are the master of the noncontributory statement.

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:53 PM

the Rockets game had as much to do with a Houston choke as the Spurs comeback

Spurs had quite a bit to do with it.

I whole heartedly disagree with your statement there.

Spurminator

12-08-2006, 11:54 PM

Hornets are getting waxed by an Allenless Sonics.

That's because Damien Wilkins is a better player than Ray Allen.

T Park

12-08-2006, 11:56 PM

Damn Spurm, you dropped a hot one there :lol

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:01 AM

Spurs had quite a bit to do with it.

I whole heartedly disagree with your statement there.And did I say the Spurs didn't have something do with it? No.

But any knowledgable fan who watched that game knows the Spurs got their asses kicked for 2 and a half quarters, and that it was no fluke.

timvp

12-09-2006, 12:03 AM

:lmao Spurs trash a few patsies and suddenly everyone's happy. That's just as bad as the bridge-jumpers after a loss.

Let's get some perspective. I want to see what they look like when they play the Hornets and the Rockets.

:lmao

Where is everyone happy? I'm questioning whether the improved offense is even a good thing.

:lmao X 2 @ listing the Hornets as a team you want judge the Spurs against.

timvp

12-09-2006, 12:07 AM

Wait before anyone else posts in this thread, let's see what the Spurs do against the Hornets. Playing a lottery team will tell us exactly where this team stands.

Nikos

12-09-2006, 12:07 AM

Highly efficient offense is ALWAYS welcome. I feel the team has underachieved in that regard, and they might revert back to it it again -- especially if Manu can't stay healthy.

But the way for this team to win the title is to be excellent on both ends. If Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili are healthy and clicking on offense I think that would be ideal. Their team defense is always going to be good, and I don't see how maximizing their offense is going to somehow hurt them on defense. Each end can help the other. You play well offensively, it becomes a little easier to have energy on D, and vice versa.

All the old Bulls teams were great on BOTH ends. The Lakers actually were pretty good on both ends as well. Same with most championship teams. You need to be close to elite on BOTH ends. The Spurs were pretty good offensively the last two seasons, but they were never elite. Maybe in 2004-05 they could have been elite if everyone was healthy -- but we will never know.

Nikos

12-09-2006, 12:11 AM

Wait before anyone else posts in this thread, let's see what the Spurs do against the Hornets. Playing a lottery team will tell us exactly where this team stands.

For some reason that made me laugh outloud. :lol

The Elson avatar makes it even funnier.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:13 AM

Wait before anyone else posts in this thread, let's see what the Spurs do against the Hornets. Playing a lottery team will tell us exactly where this team stands.Hornets Defensive PPA: 93.5 (6th in NBA)
Hornets Opp FGP: 0.442 (6th in NBA)

Out of the upcoming stretch over the next couple of weeks, they, Houston, and Minnesota are the only ones that play any defense worth mentioning.

Let me know how else I can help you.

PM5K

12-09-2006, 12:17 AM

Second lowest points allowed, and the highest differential, not a bad combination..

Nikos

12-09-2006, 12:17 AM

Well the Hornets are the fourth WORST team in the league on offense. So they aren't exactly a very good team overall. They are about average right now.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/o_oe.htm

Solid D

12-09-2006, 12:21 AM

The Spurs have only held 5 opponents under .425 from the field this season. Houston, Seattle, Utah, GS, and Charlotte. Many of the games this season, teams have hit in the high 40s percentage-wise. The Spurs interior is weaker thus-far.

When the rodeo comes to town will be the best indicator of how well the Spurs are playing defensively. That is the time this team usually gels in preparing for the playoffs. The good news is that the Spurs point differential has been fantastic...about as good as it was in 2005 for much of that season.

timvp

12-09-2006, 12:23 AM

Hornets Defensive PPA: 93.5 (6th in NBA)
Hornets Opp FGP: 0.442 (6th in NBA)

Out of the upcoming stretch over the next couple of weeks, they, Houston, and Minnesota are the only ones that play any defense worth mentioning.

Let me know how else I can help you.

Hornets Record: 9-9
Playoff Seed: N/A

The T'Wolves are the better defensive team ... if you want the Spurs to matchup with a lottery team to see where they stand.

And the Spurs swept the Rockets last year and the Rockets were the best defensive team in the league. So much for lotto teams being a good litmus test.

But anyways, I fail to see how asking whether the Spurs' offense clicking in the regular season is a good thing got shifted to how the Spurs need to play the Hornets.

wildbill2u

12-09-2006, 12:26 AM

Spurs allow the second fewest PPG after Houston. They allow the second fewest assists per game after Houston. They are not keeping opponents to as low a FG% and allowing a higher 3 point FG% than usual but it's still early. If Elson can catch on to the Spurs defense a little better they'll have a solid shutdown D at crunch time.
I agree. Scoring over 100 is great--but the impressive thing is the point differential in these games.

When you are beating teams by 30-40 points you aren't just outscoring them in a close high-scoring game, you're beating the hell out of them at both ends of the court. :ihit

Kori Ellis

12-09-2006, 12:26 AM

timvp

12-09-2006, 12:30 AM

I don't think we will see sub .425 Opp. FG% with this bunch. The Spurs don't block enough shots and clog the lane enough to do that.

That was a good point. I want this team to be a great defensive team. Offensively, I don't really care. For some reason, this team will never be a consistently great offensive unit.

I want to see the Spurs be in the top three in FG% defense. However, as Solid D noted, that is going to be tough. The Spurs, who usually lead the league in blocks, are in the middle of the pack. The interior defense is not nearly as good as it was during the 1999 and 2003 championships and Duncan isn't playing defense as well as he did during the 2005 run.

This team still has a loooooong ways to go defensively and I think the fluke offensive output could hurt this team in the long haul because they won't be used to winning games with their defense.

Bottomline is the Spurs might not be battle tested going into the playoffs if they never have to dig deep and get stops during the regular season.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:33 AM

Um, because it still hasn't been definitively established that the Spurs offense is "clicking". It may be that they are just fattening up on the weak sisters.

My point was that I'd rather see how they do against decent defensive teams before annointing the dawn of a new age.

Finally, just looking at PPG is completely meaningless if you don't adjust for the fact that the league as a whole is scoring more. The Spurs are 10th in scoring and 6th in FGP. On a relative basis, that's better than last year, but they could still end up in the lower half of the league in PPG.

Kori Ellis

12-09-2006, 12:36 AM

My point was that I'd rather see how they do against decent defensive teams before annointing the dawn of a new age.

I guess you are missing that this thread isn't annointing them. It's questioning them.

These are the only teams that we have to talk about .. they are the teams they have played. If we go by your theory, I guess I should just shut down the forum until the Spurs play someone decent defensively because you don't think we should talk about any of it. :lol

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:37 AM

Charlotte is 4th in the NBA in Opp FG%.And they're also 15th in PPG allowed at 98.3

And still the Spurs scored less than 98 points against them both times they played them.

T Park

12-09-2006, 12:41 AM

:lol

Im shocked the Hornets are even in this discussion.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:41 AM

I guess you are missing that this thread isn't annointing them. It's questioning them.

These are the only teams that we have to talk about .. they are the teams they have played. If we go by your theory, I guess I should just shut down the forum until the Spurs play someone decent defensively because you don't think we should talk about any of it. :lolYeah, because that's obviously what I said. :rolleyes

Kori Ellis

12-09-2006, 12:42 AM

Yeah, because that's ovbviously what I said. :rolleyes

ovbviously :drunk

T Park

12-09-2006, 12:43 AM

:lol

Kori Ellis

12-09-2006, 12:46 AM

Yeah, because that's obviously what I said. :rolleyes

I just didn't get the point of this post by you early in the thread when no one before you in the thread was even acting like the Spurs were all that. They were just discussing whether the Spurs were getting away from being a half-court, defensive oriented team and if they were, if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

Spurs trash a few patsies and suddenly everyone's happy. That's just as bad as the bridge-jumpers after a loss.

Let's get some perspective. I want to see what they look like when they play the Hornets and the Rockets.

timvp

12-09-2006, 12:47 AM

Um, because it still hasn't been definitively established that the Spurs offense is "clicking".

Link to where I said it was? I said the Spurs are averaging 100 points per game. Is that untrue?

It may be that they are just fattening up on the weak sisters.

I'm talking about the season in general. I've made no mention of the last three wins in this thread.

My point was that I'd rather see how they do against decent defensive teams before annointing the dawn of a new age.

That is not the point of this thread. Re-read the three questions I asked. You are arguing a point that isn't even relevant to this thread.

Answer this:

Could the increased reliance on offense during the regular season cause the Spurs to faulter when it becomes money time?

That's the point of this thread. Not celebrating about how the Spurs are scoring or how they are about to play the legendary Hornets.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 12:47 AM

:lolhttp://www.edzayas.com/lapdog.JPG

T Park

12-09-2006, 12:50 AM

awww hes cute.

I love puppies.

Hey I got a basset hound that needs money donated to help with its sugery, can I forward you the link? :)

T Park

12-09-2006, 12:51 AM

Could the increased reliance on offense during the regular season cause the Spurs to faulter when it becomes money time?

Yup.

IE

Mavericks, Dallas playoffs 2006.

timvp

12-09-2006, 01:00 AM

:lmao Spurs trash a few patsies and suddenly everyone's happy. That's just as bad as the bridge-jumpers after a loss.

Let's get some perspective. I want to see what they look like when they play the Hornets.

I don't know what is funnier:

A) That the Hornets got mentioned as some sort of defensive juggernaut capable of telling you exactly how a championship caliber team is playing.

B) That the Spurs play the T'Wolves before the Hornets. A team that is a vastly superior defensive team than the Hornets.

C) That MannyIsGod quoted the post in agreement.

D) That the Hornets lost 94-74 tonight to the Sonics without Ray Allen.

:rollin

T Park

12-09-2006, 01:03 AM

94 points to that?

Yikes...

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 01:03 AM

Link to where I said it was? I said the Spurs are averaging 100 points per game. Is that untrue? http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1322612&postcount=39

But anyways, I fail to see how asking whether the Spurs' offense clicking in the regular season is a good thing got shifted to how the Spurs need to play the Hornets.

I'm talking about the season in general. I've made no mention of the last three wins in this thread.
Okay, sure. You would have made the same post if the Spurs hadn't just reeled off three striaght big wins. That had nothing to do with it at all.

That is not the point of this thread. Re-read the three questions I asked. You are arguing a point that isn't even relevant to this thread.

Answer this:

Could the increased reliance on offense during the regular season cause the Spurs to faulter when it becomes money time?

That's the point of this thread. Not celebrating about how the Spurs are scoring or how they are about to play the legendary Hornets.I'm not convinced there's an "increased reliance on the offense". They're scoring more points, but the rules of the league have changed and everybody is scoring more. Nobody who understands statistics would try to draw a straight comparison from 1999 or 2001 stats to today's. It's almost like trying to compare baseball stats across different eras.

When the Spurs beat Phoenix in the 2005 WCF, I don't think that was an "increased reliance on the offense", it was just them adapting to the particular situation. They still won because of their superior defense. It just wasn't reflected in a way that showed itself statistically compared to the rest of the regular season.

What's funny is that you are completely unable to refute any of the stats I've posted. The fact is that the Spurs haven't been playing very good defensive teams, and the only ones in the upcoming weeks that can be considered reasonable defensive teams are the Rockets, Woves, and Hornets.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 01:06 AM

What's really lame is that your sole point of contention is that I mentioned the Hornets.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 01:17 AM

D) That the Hornets lost 94-74 tonight to the Sonics without Ray Allen.

:rollinOh, by the way, the Hornets were without Peja, David West, and Bobby Jackson.

T Park

12-09-2006, 01:18 AM

Peja and Bobby Jackson out with injuries?

Im so stunned....

timvp

12-09-2006, 01:39 AM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1322612&postcount=39

That was a broad question question being asked by me. IF the offense clicks for the whole season and the Spurs lose their reliance on defense, could that come back to hurt them? That's what I'm axing.

Okay, sure. You would have made the same post if the Spurs hadn't just reeled off three striaght big wins. That had nothing to do with it at all.

My questions don't even apply to the last three games. The Spurs defense has been very good in that stretch. I didn't know I had to wait until after certain games to question the Spurs' ability to be ready for the playoffs.

I'm not convinced there's an "increased reliance on the offense". They're scoring more points, but the rules of the league have changed and everybody is scoring more. Nobody who understands statistics would try to draw a straight comparison from 1999 or 2001 stats to today's. It's almost like trying to compare baseball stats across different eras.

My only point in bringing up offense is in that a potent offense can overshadow a poor and untested defense. I apologize for pointing out the Spurs are averaging over 100 points per game since that really had nothing to do with this thread.

When the Spurs beat Phoenix in the 2005 WCF, I don't think that was an "increased reliance on the offense", it was just them adapting to the particular situation. They still won because of their superior defense. It just wasn't reflected in a way that showed itself statistically compared to the rest of the regular season.

That's what I'm asking. Do you see that level of defense?

What's funny is that you are completely unable to refute any of the stats I've posted.

What stats? That the Hornets are a pretty good defensive team? That the league is scoring more this year? I'm not refuting those stats because that has nothing to do with my questions.

The fact is that the Spurs haven't been playing very good defensive teams, and the only ones in the upcoming weeks that can be considered reasonable defensive teams are the Rockets, Woves, and Hornets.

So your stance is that the Spurs' offense really isn't that good so no one should worry about not having a battle tested defense heading into the postseason? I assume that is what you are getting to.

timvp

12-09-2006, 01:42 AM

Oh, by the way, the Hornets were without Peja, David West, and Bobby Jackson.

Okay. I will tell Bob Hill to hold off on planning the championship parade.

:smokin

MannyIsGod

12-09-2006, 02:04 AM

I quoted Shoog because I don't believe in our new offense yet. I honestly didn't see his listing the Hornets in the group, but I think the overall point is valid. I know you were questioning everything yourself, but I didn't feel Shoog was necessarily addressing you although after following the rest of the thread I may have missed the point there.

Anyhow, I don't think a team has to lead the league in defense in order to win a championship. Defense is obviously a must, but you don't have to be the best in the league if your offense is one of the better offenses in the league. I can't be sold on this offense because of the inconsistencies of some of its players in the past. But when everything clicks, the Spurs are without a doubt very very very potent.

I think the biggest factor in the early season success is none other than Brent Barry. When he's playing well I think he's the smartest offensive player the Spurs have. He does an incredible job getting others involved. Manu does much of this as well and to a lesser degree Beno does as well when he's rolling.

The question remains as to how well Barry will play in the coming months. Even those who think he's capable of playing at this level the entire year (and I do believe he is) have to believe that he will go through a slump at some point. And when he does, its going to be interesting to see how Pop reacts. Will he bench him and limit his play for the rest of the year or will he try to ride it out ala Finley?

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:07 AM

You excel so well at putting words in my mouth, perhaps it would be quicker to just have you type my reply for me. (timvp Edit: Good idea.)

I've seen some good offensive stretches this year, I've also seen the Spurs offense in a few games be as stagnant as I've ever seen it. I just don't see any greater relative reliance on the offense as opposed to the defense, after making adjustment for the year-to-year variation in the rules. And I think it would be a mistake for the Spurs or their fans to think they are some kind of offensive juggernaut now.

The Spurs win games this year, just like other years, when their defense clicks in. The difference is, because of the rule changes, what constitutes a good defensive team is different than it was 4-5 years ago. I don't think you're going to see the defense be allowed to dominate huge chunks of games as it used to. But from what I 've seen, the Spurs still emphasize defense more than anyone else (Hosuton may be the one exception).

The one signfiicant difference over the past few years is that they have become a weaker rebounding team, which is concerning.

Finally, the Spurs historically don't really gel on the defense end until late in the year. I believe you even have a saying about that around here.

T Park

12-09-2006, 02:07 AM

Will he bench him and limit his play for the rest of the year or will he try to ride it out ala Finley?

He rode it out in 04 05.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:12 AM

I know you were questioning everything yourself, but I didn't feel Shoog was necessarily addressing you although after following the rest of the thread I may have missed the point there.I didn't think LJ was necessarily talking about how wonderful the offense was, but he seemed to pick up the banner pretty quickly when I pointed out that people were.

timvp

12-09-2006, 02:12 AM

You excel so well at putting words in my mouth, perhaps it would be quicker to just have you type my reply for me. (timvp Edit: Good idea.)

:smokin

Good line. I'll have to use it.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:14 AM

(timvp Edit: Good idea.Bastard. :lol

MannyIsGod

12-09-2006, 02:14 AM

As a side note, do you guys find yourself far more into the season this year than at the same point last year?

Last year I didn't give a shit about the season till post January, and this year I've been arguing in 30948304983043 threads about the team it seems like.

Kori Ellis

12-09-2006, 02:15 AM

Last year I didn't give a shit about the season till post January, and this year I've been arguing in 30948304983043 threads about the team it seems like.

I think it's because this year the Spurs have sucked a lot, even in their wins. (I'm not talking about the last 3 wins)

MannyIsGod

12-09-2006, 02:15 AM

Shoog, you should argue with LJ if for no other reason than the fact that he has Tony Romo on his fantasy team.

MannyIsGod

12-09-2006, 02:15 AM

I think it's because this year the Spurs have sucked a lot, even in their wins.I think thats part of it, but this year I hate to miss a game and last year I didn't mind missing them so much in the early part of the season. I think last year I had championship complacency. Horryitis.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:17 AM

Fuck the Cowboys.

This has been a Public Service Annoucement.

timvp

12-09-2006, 02:19 AM

I've seen some good offensive stretches this year, I've also seen the Spurs offense in a few games be as stagnant as I've ever seen it. I just don't see any greater relative reliance on the offense as opposed to the defense, after making adjustment for the year-to-year variation in the rules. And I think it would be a mistake for the Spurs or their fans to think they are some kind of offensive juggernaut now.

The Spurs win games this year, just like other years, when their defense clicks in. The difference is, because of the rule changes, what constitutes a good defensive team is different than it was 4-5 years ago. I don't think you're going to see the defense be allowed to dominate huge chunks of games as it used to. But from what I 've seen, the Spurs still emphasize defense more than anyone else (Hosuton may be the one exception).

The one signfiicant difference over the past few years is that they have become a weaker rebounding team, which is concerning.

Finally, the Spurs historically don't really gel on the defense end until late in the year. I believe you even have a saying about that around here.

Good points. I agree with most of that.

What I'm worried about is that IF the Spurs' offense becomes dominant, that could overshadow chinks in the armor defensively. It's seems to me like the years that the Spurs have it easiest in the regular season, those are the years that they struggle in the playoffs.

In 1999, the team started off poorly and then became perhaps the best defensive team of all-time. In 2003, there was a lot of turmoil in the season, including injuries and changes to the starting lineup. In 2005, Duncan missed a lot of time and that forced the Spurs to come together.

When it's clear sailing in the regular season, the Spurs historically perform poorly in the playoffs. For example, the 2003-04 team was beating teams by 13.5 points per game over the last two months of the regular season ... and then they got bounced at the first sign of adversity.

Gimmick offenses don't win championships. And I classify what the Spurs are doing right now as gimmick offense.

MannyIsGod

12-09-2006, 02:28 AM

Whats gimmicky about it? I think its a good offense if they're able to excute it, which is where I question them. I'm not sure they can consistently do it.

polandprzem

12-09-2006, 02:29 AM

What do you mean timvp by saying gimmick?

Well this offense might be a fools gold when the playoff time will come, but we have to remember that the NBA is different then it was in the '90. So other teams do not have such possibilietes (rules and squads) playing same defense as it was in previous decade. So in that matter I have no prblem although we've got Mavs and Houston which can force spurs to play 1-1 and stop the so great for now ball movenment, and I'm talking about the half-court offense when Tim is on a low block.

The succes in todays NBA is the pace and spurs are realy good at it righ now. The transmition both ways is not that bad consideraiting their age :)
They could get burned if they start to play run n' gun as they don't have great shooters in team and are not that good of a rebounding team.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:32 AM

I don't see a lot of clear sailing for the time being.

-The rotations aren't set because of Manu's injury. It's hard enough to figure out Pop's rotations when the roster is stable, it's going to be impossible now.

-Pop still hasn't worked out how to optimize Oberto and Elson's splits, which will be most important against Houston and Miami (when Shaq gets back). Still need to find out how much we can depend on Elson for defense.

-Still don't know what to expect from Finley (although, like last year, he seems to be coming around once you start him).

-Still don't know what to expect from Beno.

-Rebounding.

-Even if all these questions get solved, it's still not clear that we have a better team than Dallas.

Should be enough uncertainty to keep Pop (and you) happy. Nothing is insurmountable, and if Tony/Manu/Tim are healthy, they've still got to be the odds-on favorites.

ShoogarBear

12-09-2006, 02:41 AM

Nikos

12-09-2006, 05:04 AM

That was a good point. I want this team to be a great defensive team. Offensively, I don't really care. For some reason, this team will never be a consistently great offensive unit.

This is the part that sort of annoys me. The team has three very good offensive players, an elite perimeter defender, a defensive anchor in Tim Duncan. And yet they can't ever seem to be more than a slightly above average offensive team.

Last season Dallas was the exact opposite of the Spurs. Elite on the offensive side, slightly above average on defense. Actually the Spurs were probably the stronger overall team, but matchups and subpar play caused them to lose the series.

Really, what else is the problem with the team defense besides Duncan not playing as well as before? Considering the matchup defecit vs Dirk, can you really expect interior defense to be the savior for them against the Mavs from players not named Tim Duncan?

Elson will guard Dirk and hopefully he keeps him from going off every single game. Other than that? They will need to play good offense and not allow every single supporting Dallas player to get involved like last year. Part of their difficulty playing Dallas is the tough matchups, but Manu and Tony should be presenting these guys with similiar problems. Manu was easily the best offensive player in the series not named Duncan and Dirk. But I don't really remember Dallas ever saying how much of a problem. The way some posters act on here its as if Josh Howard and Jason Terry were all stars in the series. Neither was better than Tony, and both were playing weaker than Manu on the offensive side. Dirk wasn't even playing better basketball than Tim Duncan either. All that being said Manu and Tony could have played better earlier in the series on offense to help set the tone. The Game 2 loss was pathetic and should never happen to this team.

In the end Dallas simply had more weapons Dirk, Howard, Terry, Harris, and Stackhouse vs Duncan, Manu, and Tony on offense. Not to mention the rebounding edge Dallas had. If somehow the Spurs can get even stronger defense, AND offense from the big three and a few random role players -- that would be ideal.

Of course this is assuming these guys are playing against each other in the playoffs.

But to me in the playoffs, the Spurs will need offense just as much as they need their historically elite defense. Most of the time the Spurs can't play as good of defense in the playoffs against certain teams because of matchup defeciences. Good offense, and solid defense will allow the Spurs the chance to squash teams that have a matchup advantage here and there.

Nikos

12-09-2006, 05:16 AM

I think there are three important metrics for playoff success.

1. Defensive FG%. Nuff said.
2. Rebounding margin. Doesn't matter if you make them miss shots if you don't secure the rebound.
3. FT attempted margin. Note I didn't say FT% (although that's certainly nice, too). If you attempt a lot more FTs than your opponent is almost always means you were more aggressive, did a better job in the paint, and got the other team into foul trouble.

Last year for the first time in a few years the Spurs were deficient in #2 and #3. This year at least they're back to having the FTA advantage.

A while ago I actually tried to calculate the statistical weight of each of these factors in determining a championship, but it became a much harder problem than I originally thought.

Key metrics should be: Offensive Points Per Possesion, Defensive Points Per Possession, Rebounding Margin. (Assuming of course that FTA's count as possesions). I think it is calculated by the stat geeks at around .44 when they use 82 NBA game data season to season. So of course getting to the FT line and hitting at a decent percentage helps a teams offense a lot. Having a high rebounding differential can also help get a team more possesions.

RonMexico

12-09-2006, 05:26 AM

You all disappoint me... how soon you forget the 1980s where fast-breaking teams with tall, yet lean and agile big men dominated the decade. The officiating was just as bad then as it is now, but there were very few players pulling the Dirk-like yelling/flopping/jumping into players to draw attention - they just took their licks and kept on going.

However, defense still won championships, as those teams such as the Celtics and Lakers had that extra gear where they could turn it on and get 9 consecutive stops or so to shift the momentum of a game, and yet still score consistently at the other end. Personally, I don't know if the Spurs can keep up this kind of offensive pace, but I know they have that defensive aspect needed to pull out the big games. That's the one thing I still see the Suns lacking, even though I think the Suns are still the best offensive team in the game right now.

For years, I've been saying that SA and Phoenix should merge together and rattle off 8 championships like the Celtics of the 60s, but I'm starting to think that might not happen, sadly. At least, I want the Suns to watch some game film of the Spurs and look at how they play defense so the Suns can make those key defensive plays when their offense sputters.

Still, back to the Spurs, I think they've shown they can run with the Suns in the 2005 WCF and still keep the defense strong so I think this season of added offensive production can help that cause even more. The only thing that might de-rail them this year is a repeat of Avery Johnson's "bear-hug" bitching and subsequent 900 FTs per game for Dirk.

diego

12-09-2006, 09:12 AM

the thing that sticks out in my mind, I dont think ive seen more than 5 guys foul out against us in the past 3 seasons. you would think with tony, manu, and duncan we would be destroying the other teams frontline (and their rebounding advantage in the process!)

also, i agree with Nikos, the spurs cant be all defense and no offense. they should be good in both areas. I mean what good is it to get the stop, grab the board, then turn it over or brick it like the spurs used to do. I have no doubt in the playoffs we wont assist 70% of our baskets, but that doesnt mean pop cant get better production from a roster that includes the best bigman in the game, 2 good slashers, 2 opportunistic versatile bigs, and a truckload of shooters.

wildbill2u

12-09-2006, 11:43 AM

Last 8 games the opponents have scored 86, 95, 78, 111, 83, 98, 89, and 82.

If you throw out the GSW anomaly, these are scores that most any team would love to hold their opponents to. Forget about our high scoring margins if you will, we'd still probably win most of those games with our old grind it out offense.

Remember opposing teams will score higher totals this year just because they get another shot on offense when they take the ball out of the basket when WE score.

twincam

12-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Well if you think about it. Once they share the ball, it creates more shots and assists. As long as they keep shooting a consistent precentage, they should keep doing what they're doing. If their shooting drops, they need to go back to half court offense. High scoring can be a good thing. I was always a fan of the transition offense and not the half court. But whatever is working right now, is what they need to stick to. Do not fix something that is not broken.

Texas_Ranger

12-09-2006, 12:04 PM

Questions:

1) Is this a good thing or could it be fool's gold come playoff time?

2) The NBA has become more high scoring since the low point in 1999. Last season, three teams made the conference finals that averaged over 99 points per game. Is this a new era of basketball in which offense wins championships, or was last year just a fluke?

3) Can the Spurs sustain this level of offensive play or will they come back to previous levels?

:smokin

1: Until we are winning its good.

2: I still think that defense wins championships, so I would say it is was a fluke.

3: No mater how many points we score, just winning counts.

pjjrfan

12-09-2006, 12:53 PM

I think the 2003 team was also a good team in transition and could run or slow it down when they had to. I would like this team to be able to do both. Manu coming off the bench really makes a difference. He gets to handle the ball more, be more creative, not rely on Tim or Tony and Manu uses everyone on the floor better than anyone else on the team. I still think that if our guys are healthy and on their games come playoff time they can beat anyone easily. But it's a long season and this team will have some downs and some highs, it's important for them to respond correctly to the down times.

Fabbs

12-09-2006, 01:04 PM

So silly to think your offense has no effect on your defense.
When Spurs play 4 Dumb as opposed to 4 Down with player ball movement,
it allows very little chance for offensive rebound and great chance for opponent to get rebound transition break with most Spurs out of position.

"Defense Alone wins Championships" is a myth.

This crap about the Spurs winning with D only in the champ years. :elephant

picnroll

12-09-2006, 01:28 PM

82games.com take (http://www.nbcsports.com/nba/476845/detail.html)

SequSpur

12-09-2006, 01:36 PM

The last game that mattered, Ginobili gave it away. Let me know when one of these games in December matter.

wildbill2u

12-09-2006, 03:13 PM

82games.com take (http://www.nbcsports.com/nba/476845/detail.html)Good enough to copy for the lazybones. :wakeup
YearChampionPPG Diff.FG%Def. FG%PPGAvg. PPG*Diff.*
1990Detroit6.0 (4).478 (15),447 (1)104.3 (19)107.0-2.7
1991Chicago9.0 (1).510 (2).475 (13)110.0 (7)106.33.7
1992Chicago10.4 (1).508 (1).460 (9)109.9 (5)105.34.6
1993Chicago6.3 (4).482 (11).474 (15)105.2 (15)105.3-0.1
1994Houston4.3 (6).475 (10).440 (3)101.1 (13)101.5-0.4
1995Houston2.1 (11).480 (6).453 (2)103.5 (8)101.42.1
1996Chicago12.2 (1).478 (7).448 (8)105.2 (1)99.55.7
1997Chicago10.8 (1).473 (3).436 (5)103.1 (1)96.96.2
1998Chicago7.1 (3).451 (15).431 (3)96.7 (9)95.61.1
1999San Antonio8.1 (1).456 (5).402 (1)92.8 (13)91.61.2
2000L.A. Lakers8.5 (1).459 (7).416 (1)100.8 (6)97.53.3
2001L.A. Lakers3.4 (8).465 (3).438 (12)100.6 (3)94.85.8
2002L.A. Lakers7.1 (2).461 (6).424 (1)101.3 (3)95.55.8
2003San Antonio5.4 (3).462 (4).427 (2)95.8 (12)95.10.7
2004Detroit5.8 (2).435 (19).413 (3)90.1 (24)93.4-3.3
2005San Antonio7.8 (1).453 (10).426 (3)96.2 (18)97.2-1.0
2006Miami3.9 (5).478 (2).440 (8)99.9 (6)97.02.9

Average Rank3.27.45.39.6#17142Top 5147115Top 1016131410

timvp

12-15-2006, 12:44 AM

ChumpDumper

12-15-2006, 12:45 AM

Those were the Hornets?

ShoogarBear

12-15-2006, 12:51 AM

Eh, I was expecting this to resurface.

If you want to use the evidence from this game as proof that the Hornets aren't a good defensive team, have at it.

Solid D

12-15-2006, 12:54 AM

MOre LiKe the HorNOTs.

timvp

12-15-2006, 12:58 AM

Eh, I was expecting this to resurface.

If you want to use the evidence from this game as proof that the Hornets aren't a good defensive team, have at it.

My bad. You're right.

Peja didn't play.

:smokin

ShoogarBear

12-15-2006, 12:59 AM

:rollin

wildbill2u

12-16-2006, 12:01 PM

timvp

12-16-2006, 12:11 PM

Last 13 games the opponents have scored 86, 95, 78, 111, 83, 98, 89, 76, 82, 106 (Laker loss), 81, 82, and 77.

Forget about high scoring on the Spurs offense for a moment. Throw out the two losses which were anomalies (111 & 106) and the opponents are averaging 84 points a game. Take the last six games (after throwing out the Fakers) and the opponents are averaging 81 points a game.

We are handcuffing most teams defensively until they simply give up, crying "No mas, No mas" and Pop the Merciful sits our starters for most of the 4th quarter.

Our scoring differential must be through the roof. I'm not worried about our defense at all.

Opponent's FG% is the stat to look at. When the Spurs win championships, they are always at the top of the league in that category.

On the season, the Spurs are 9th at 44.7%. That's the lowest they've ranked and the highest percentage they've given up in the Tim Duncan era. And it's not really getting better, seeing as the Spurs are allowing 44.8% over their last 10 games.

Cant_Be_Faded

12-16-2006, 12:13 PM

Way to shit on everyone's afternoon lj

timvp

12-16-2006, 12:17 PM

Way to shit on everyone's afternoon lj

45.2% over the last five games.

Merry Christmas.

:santahat

Cant_Be_Faded

12-16-2006, 12:23 PM

Not looking forward to the playoffs, but so far this season still has been fun.

Bruno

12-16-2006, 12:37 PM

Opponents FG% is a very limited stat.
Spurs doesn't defend the same way with Elson at center than with Rasho at center.
Remember the second half of the timberwolves game where Parker and Elson have pressuring Wolves backcourt : this kind of defense doesn't lower opponents FG% but create turnovers.

To me, the most meaningfull stat about defense is points per possession.
This year it's 0.99 points per possession, last year it was 1.00.

Of course, Spurs' defense can be better (I find Duncan quite lazy on D sometimes and Elson is still learnign the system) but it still quite good.

picnroll

12-16-2006, 12:47 PM

I don't know where to find it but what is the change overall in FG% for teams? I know inspite of complaints about the new ball teams are shooting at a higher percentage.

Also how much of the opponents increased FG% is improved three point percentage against the Spurs? That seems like a particularly sore spot. Is that because of, without the shopt blocking Spurs have had in the past teams are penetrating more effectively and freeing up the outside shooters or is rotating just poorer this year. Only shotblocker, penetration defender we've lost is Rasho that I can think of.

exstatic

12-16-2006, 12:56 PM

45.2% over the last five games.

Merry Christmas.

:santahat
I hear what you're laying down, LJ, but the defense NEVER comes together this early. Do you have any 1/3 season split stats from previous years, because that would be the only valid comparison....

sprrs

12-16-2006, 02:46 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1322612&postcount=39

What's funny is that you are completely unable to refute any of the stats I've posted. The fact is that the Spurs haven't been playing very good defensive teams, and the only ones in the upcoming weeks that can be considered reasonable defensive teams are the Rockets, Woves, and Hornets.

Last year I would've killed to see them blow out two in the span of 15 games, much less two in a row. Even the crappy teams were making them work for the W.

wildbill2u

12-16-2006, 03:28 PM

45.2% over the last five games.

Merry Christmas. :santahat
76, 82, 106 (Laker loss), 81, 82, and 77 for our opponents' offense totals sure doesn't look too awesome to me, whatever the percentage.

And this 'definitive' statistical increase in five games against our previous years average was mostly obtained while our starters were on the bench cracking jokes because took mercy on the other teams.

The Spurs are playing good defense and that's one reason why they are scoring at a record clip. They are beating the bejeezus out of teams.

Get a grip. I also wish you a Merry Christmas and hope you get some rosy colored eyeglasses like mine instead of those dark ones you're using now.

boutons_

12-16-2006, 03:57 PM

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortable_team_statistics/sortable1.html#top

... say opp. FG% ranges from best 0.418 (HOU) to worst 0.483 (MIL), with SAS tied for 8th best at 0.447.

rank of best/lowest "opp FG%" :

1. Houston
2 Minnesota
3 Cleveland
4 Orlando
5 Utah
6 Charlotte
7 New Jersey
8 NO/Okla. City, San Antonio

... of those above, only HOU and UTAH are ranked also in the top 8 in "PPG +diff", with SAS being #1 and way out front of #2. And only HOU, UTA, SAS are in the WC playoff picture.

Pop, Jerry, and Jeff are known to insist on defense, so the above rankings make sense, but Pop's team is by far the best offense of that group of 3.

Sure, I wish our opp FG% was better, but any slight relative weakness there is apparently more than offset by PPG diff.

If timvp gave me the choice between improving opp FG% or RB diff, I'd take RB diff. Also, if Spurs'opp FG% was lower, there'd be more def RBs available to up the Spurs' RB diff. :)

Bruno

12-16-2006, 04:35 PM

Opponents points per possession :

Rockets : 0.98
Spurs : 0.99
Bulls : 1.02
Wolves : 1.02
Cavs : 1.03
Magic : 1.03
Mavs : 1.04
Hornets : 1.04
Bobcats : 1.05
Pacers : 1.05
Kings : 1.05
Lakers : 1.05
Raptors : 1.05
Jazz : 1.06
Hawks : 1.06
Grizzlies : 1.06
Nets : 1.06
Suns : 1.06
Celtics : 1.07
Nuggets : 1.07
Pistons : 1.07
Clippers : 1.07
Heat : 1.07
Warriors : 1.08
Knicks : 1.08
Sonics : 1.08
Sixers : 1.09
Wizards : 1.09
Blazers : 1.11
Bucks : 1.12

timvp

12-16-2006, 10:32 PM

Yeah, Spurs defense is great. Giving up 100 points on 50% shooting to the Sixers is the sign of a studly defense.

My bad.

Extra Stout

12-16-2006, 10:33 PM

Yeah, Spurs defense is great. Giving up 100 points on 50% shooting to the Sixers is the sign of a studly defense.

My bad.
Tonight is not a representative sample. Nobody plays good defense while asleep.

Spurs Brazil

12-16-2006, 10:34 PM

I prefer less ofense and more defense

timvp

12-16-2006, 10:35 PM

Tonight is not a representative sample. Nobody plays good defense while asleep.

The Sixers shouldn't shoot 50% in an empty gym.

ShoogarBear

12-16-2006, 11:06 PM

Good thing the Spurs offense is clicking, though.

Nikos

12-17-2006, 12:04 AM

The Sixers shouldn't shoot 50% in an empty gym.

Once in a while these things happen. Not going to worry about it, unless it consistently happens against horrible teams.

ChumpDumper

12-17-2006, 12:05 AM

If we see Kevin Ollie in the playoffs, look out!

Trainwreck2100

12-17-2006, 03:29 AM

Question, are Duncan's missed dunks and his shots getting rejected some sort of "rope a dope"?

timvp

12-17-2006, 03:35 AM

Good thing the Spurs offense is clicking, though.

You only say that because the Spurs won :madrun

TDMVPDPOY

12-17-2006, 03:49 AM

i reckon we can blowout games if the starters still play in scrub minutes of blowout games, apparently we are not like the suns.

Bruno

12-17-2006, 05:47 AM

Yeah, Spurs defense is great. Giving up 100 points on 50% shooting to the Sixers is the sign of a studly defense.

My bad.

Stop overreacting, Sixers have scored 98 points and shooted 49%. :)

RonMexico

12-17-2006, 06:00 AM

i reckon we can blowout games if the starters still play in scrub minutes of blowout games, apparently we are not like the suns.

Again - what the fuck are you talking about? Define "scrub minutes" - when the Suns are up 20 with 4 mins to go, they put in the "scrubs." When they are up 10 with 2 mins to go, they will generally keep the starters in because they tend to blow leads fairly quickly. If you ever look at D'Antoni's face, you can see the concern he has with even a double-digit lead under 2 mins - hence the 37 mins per game that Nash plays (I wish anyone out there could run the point for 4 mins to keep him down at 33 per game).

Stop basing this on the box scores or the 1-2 games you see of the Suns every year. Please give me some concrete examples because I will disagree with D'Antoni's substitution patterns any day of the week, but not in this case until you provide some hard evidence.

P.S. It seems like any double-digit win is a "blow-out" to you...

timvp

12-20-2006, 10:37 PM

Spurs bailed out by their offense again.

This isn't good.

SequSpur

12-20-2006, 10:37 PM

Spurs bailed out by their offense again.

This isn't good.

Agree.

they have no interior defense. Duncan was getting used all night.

timvp

12-20-2006, 11:00 PM

52% by the Grizzlies and the ending lineup had Finley at PF?

The Spurs have turned into the Nellie Mavs :pctoss

Cant_Be_Faded

12-20-2006, 11:07 PM

Its funny, because every single poster on this board foresaw these lineups, given the players we acquired in the summer. Sports are business, and Spurs are cheap.

Jeezus i sound like Marcus Bryant.

timvp

12-26-2006, 10:49 PM

Is there any doubt that this team is the worst defensive team in the Tim Duncan era? Anyone want to say differently?

Didn't think so.

SequSpur

12-26-2006, 10:53 PM

Is there any doubt that this team is the worst defensive team in the Tim Duncan era? Anyone want to say differently?

Didn't think so.

Bucks and Spurs game blog....

E20

12-26-2006, 11:01 PM

Offense isn't always gonna be there. It might just stop and you might go on a 0-11 drought during the 4th. Defense is more reliable, you can control it, but sometimes you just can't control the rim and things might not go your way.

With defense and aggressivness, you'll control the game; stopping the other team and getting to the foul line, which in the Spurs case getting to the foul line doesn't really matter.:lol

SequSpur

12-26-2006, 11:02 PM

E20

12-26-2006, 11:05 PM

That's a true statement. :lol

If the Spurs are in better shape than their opponent than all they have to do is play a full hard 24 seconds of defense and just be aggressive on the offense end. Once you're aggressive inside with slashers and post players the outside game opens up a considerable amount paving way for players like Barry, Finley, Beno, Vaughn, Horry, Bonner etc. Also, if you're gonna slack off do it on the offensive end.

SequSpur

12-26-2006, 11:08 PM

Shitty backup pgs, centers that would lead any other team without duncan to the worst record in nba history, a sg that can only play 3-4 minutes at a time when he can play, that's when.... a coach that doesn't know wtf he wants to play or how he wants to play..... The Spurs aren't very good anymore.

spurschick

12-26-2006, 11:11 PM

I'd be happy if Timmy would just pretend that he's never going to get a foul call again and just play basketball.

Das Texan

12-26-2006, 11:29 PM

Between our shitty defense and total lack of rebounding...

This team frustrates me to no end. Who cares about the offense when you can do anything else....offense doesnt win titles and we all know that.

ShoogarBear

12-26-2006, 11:46 PM

This game was a replay of the Mavs series. Every Buck and his brother got to the paint.

T Park

12-26-2006, 11:48 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any doubt that this team is the worst defensive team in the Tim Duncan era? Anyone want to say differently?

Didn't think so.

There wasn't a player available last summer, nor right now, that could've fixed it either.

mikeanthony21

12-27-2006, 12:23 AM

timvp

12-27-2006, 12:29 AM

56.8% shooting? If the playoffs started tomorrow, the Spurs would be bounced in the first round.

ShoogarBear

12-27-2006, 12:33 AM

To be fair, Michael Redd's going to have games like that. That's what he does.

Even Mo Williams can be a tough cover.

What is unacceptable is Ruben Patterson and Brian Focking Skinner lighting you up.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:35 AM

...

What is unacceptable is Ruben Patterson and Brian Focking Skinner lighting you up.

Very true. Weirdly I was rooting for Skinner to do well because I always thought he would have been a good Spur. :lol

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:38 AM

Id love to know when any December Spurs team was ready for the playoffs.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:43 AM

Id love to know when any December Spurs team was ready for the playoffs.

So you don't have any concerns about how bad the D is, Sunshine? In the past when Spurs teams hadn't gelled, they were still in the top 5 in FG% D -- even in December. This team's FG% D is horrid.

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:45 AM

Of course.

I just don't let it show :)

Sunshine? :) Im ina good mood. Beautifull day, lots of family around.

Life is good.

Spurs lost, eh, no big deal.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:46 AM

Of course.

I just don't let it show :)

...

Well this board is for letting it show. It's a Spurs discussion board.

I guess you should go pick daisies or something until you get in the mood to talk about the team again. :lol

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:47 AM

The defense has been bad.

Will it get better? Who knows.

I only take solace in the fact, there was no, or is no, available good defensive players to get.

Its the new NBA.

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:48 AM

I guess you should go pick daisies or something until you get in the mood to talk about the team again

Im talking the team.

Its sports, I just don't think its worth cursing about anymore.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:49 AM

The defense has been bad.

Will it get better? Who knows.

I only take solace in the fact, there was no, or is no, available good defensive players to get.

Its the new NBA.

Bullshit.

Other NBA teams are playing much better defense than the Spurs, so how do you figure that it's the new NBA?

Why can't the Spurs be one of the teams holding opponents to 40/42%?

It's not about the Spurs new additions not playing good defense. It's about the Spurs TEAM not grasping (or caring?) about the defensive system. It's about Tim crying to the refs and not getting back .. or letting opponents run over him in the paint. It's about no one helping when players get picked off.

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:53 AM

It's not about the Spurs new additions not playing good defense. It's about the Spurs TEAM not grasping (or caring?) about the defensive system

So Elson not playing good D isnt part of the problem anymore? Oh goody!! :)

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:54 AM

So Elson not playing good D isnt part of the problem anymore? Oh goody!! :)

Isn't he on the team? I said it's about the whole team.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 12:54 AM

Ugh the only other teams you could even make a case being better on defense are Houston and Chicago. And both teams are not very good offensively so far this season.

Spurs are still an excellent defensive team, they just aren't historically great like they have been the past 3 seasons. But yeah, it is noticable that they have gotten worse on defense by their standards. By the NBA standards, they still are a top 3 elite defensive team.

Oh, by the way the Spurs before tonight were ranked #3 in the league on offense. Just ahead of the Pistons and the Mavericks. A hair behind the Washington Wizards. Phoenix is clearly the best on offense and will stay that way.

Denver should be moving up when Melo comes back.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:56 AM

Ugh the only other teams you could even make a case being better on defense are Houston and Chicago. And both teams are not very good offensively so far this season.

Spurs are still an excellent defensive team, they just aren't historically great like they have been the past 3 seasons. But yeah, it is noticable that they have gotten worse on defense by their standards. By the NBA standards, they still are a top 3 elite defensive team.

What's their FG% Defense? 15th? How does that make them a top 3 elite defensive team?

Just because they blew out some teams and kept their opp ppg low, doesn't mean they are good defensively.

Are you guys watching these games?

T Park

12-27-2006, 12:57 AM

Isn't he on the team? I said it's about the whole team.

but you said.....

Nevermind.

Will they get better?

Who knows. I don't know what the fix is.

I do know one thing, if Pop keeps Eric WIlliams on the bench, hes a loon.

Williams played great defense, shot the ball very well, and looked great out there.

Should be kept for the rest of the year, not cut or traded.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 12:58 AM

but you said.....

Nevermind.

Will they get better?

Who knows. I don't know what the fix is.

I do know one thing, if Pop keeps Eric WIlliams on the bench, hes a loon.

Williams played great defense, shot the ball very well, and looked great out there.

Should be kept for the rest of the year, not cut or traded.

I didn't think he played very good D at all. But he shot well and isn't that fat anymore.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 12:59 AM

Points Per Possesion.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/d_de.htm

I havent checked exactly, but they clearly allow the fewest amount of FTs in the league. Also they are good once again at the 3pt line ( I think ). Teams might hit a high %, but the don't at the 3pt line and they don't get to the line much against the Spurs relative to how often they do against other NBA teams.

BTW, the Bucks are the worst defensive team in the league. And they are actually worse on offense (8th). How was it the Spurs couldn't find a way to win this game at home?

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 01:00 AM

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:03 AM

What's their FG% Defense? 15th? How does that make them a top 3 elite defensive team?

Just because they blew out some teams and kept their opp ppg low, doesn't mean they are good defensively.

Are you guys watching these games?

Well yeah, in a handful of games or so they look awful defensively. But that will happen. When you compare them to the past 3 years, their defense has been pretty bad. Game by game basis AND stats wise. Just trying to give some perspective. The stats show they are much worse than in the past, which your observations agree with.

But if your going to use FG% with the rest of the NBA, you might as well use Points Per Possesion. I know its tough to decipher in the game, but the human eye can only see so much. From watching every single game and looking at the stats, the Spurs are clearly worse on defense than past seasons, by a wide margin. But when comparing to the rest of the NBA they are still elite.

Das Texan

12-27-2006, 01:03 AM

The defense we are playing sucks hardcore. I havent seen defense this bad by a Spurs team since long before we started winning titles.

It may even be the worst since the year we tanked and then it was because we had no players on that team.

If you arent the least bit concerned, then you are simply not in any real basketball state of mind. Or, you arent a spurs fan.

I hate the way this team is playing. I could care less what we are scoring, as long as we are stopping people. We arent stopping people and look like shit defense so I'm sick.

Das Texan

12-27-2006, 01:04 AM

Well yeah, in a handful of games or so they look awful defensively. But that will happen. When you compare them to the past 3 years, their defense has been pretty bad. Game by game basis AND stats wise. Just trying to give some perspective. The stats show they are much worse than in the past, which your observations agree with.

But if your going to use FG% with the rest of the NBA, you might as well use Points Per Possesion. I know its tough to decipher in the game, but the human eye can only see so much. From watching every single game and looking at the stats, the Spurs are clearly worse on defense than past seasons, by a wide margin. But when comparing to the rest of the NBA they are still elite.

the Spurs have always used fg% under pop.

it has never been this bad.

points per possession is a useless stat and in many regards one of those who cares stats.

The Spurs are in no way elite when it comes to defense right now.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:04 AM

Because their interior D is awful and they gave up 70+ points in the paint.

Right this game they were awful. The interior D in general hasn't been near what it was in the past. But their D is still pretty good in the long run. Do I wish it was better? Sure. But I also wish their offense would get better too. Not only now but in the past I always wanted them to be more consistent.

Das Texan

12-27-2006, 01:05 AM

Right this game they were awful. The interior D in general hasn't been near what it was in the past. But their D is still pretty good in the long run. Do I wish it was better? Sure. But I also wish their offense would get better too. Not only now but in the past I always wanted them to be more consistent.

are you watching the same team?

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:05 AM

the Spurs have always used fg% under pop.

it has never been this bad.

points per possession is a useless stat and in many regards one of those who cares stats.

The Spurs are in no way elite when it comes to defense right now.

Your arguing terminologies, but if your going to see Points Per Possesion is useless, then say FG% is useless -- cause PPP is actually a better version of FG%.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 01:06 AM

Well yeah, in a handful of games or so they look awful defensively. But that will happen. When you compare them to the past 3 years, their defense has been pretty bad. Game by game basis AND stats wise. Just trying to give some perspective. The stats show they are much worse than in the past, which your observations agree with.

But if your going to use FG% with the rest of the NBA, you might as well use Points Per Possesion. I know its tough to decipher in the game, but the human eye can only see so much. From watching every single game and looking at the stats, the Spurs are clearly worse on defense than past seasons, by a wide margin. But when comparing to the rest of the NBA they are still elite.

It's not a handful of games. Even in many of the Spurs wins, they look awful defensively. Sure they might be able to have a run and outscore someone, or hang on to a lead because they had a big first half. But 100+ points per game aren't going to happen for the Spurs with regularity in the post season, they need to be able to get stops.

I honestly don't care that much about any of the stats of it, so I shouldn't even bring up opp. FG% (though that is a big indicator for the Spurs). I'm watching the games and I can easily see that this is a bad defensive team on a lot of nights. It's not an elite defensive team right now.

Das Texan

12-27-2006, 01:07 AM

Your arguing terminologies, but if your going to see Points Per Possesion is useless, then say FG% is useless -- cause PPP is actually a better version of FG%.

its not what the spurs have always used as the indicator of their defense. FG% goes largely into the ability to prevent the opposing team from making field goals, which is the biggest part of playing defense.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:07 AM

It's not a handful of games. Even in many of the Spurs wins, they look awful defensively. Sure they might be able to have a run and outscore someone, or hang on to a lead because they had a big first half. But 100+ points per game aren't going to happen for the Spurs with regularity in the post season.

I honestly don't care that much about any of the stats of it, so I shouldn't even bring up opp. FG% (though that is a big indicator for the Spurs). I'm watching the games and I can easily see that this is a bad defensive team on a lot of nights. It's not an elite defensive team right now.

How do you know what other teams are elite on D, unless you watched every single game of every team? I gave the stats to give perspective on the Spurs standing with the league. Not to compare them to their past defenses, which were some of the best defenses of all time.

Das Texan

12-27-2006, 01:08 AM

It's not a handful of games. Even in many of the Spurs wins, they look awful defensively. Sure they might be able to have a run and outscore someone, or hang on to a lead because they had a big first half. But 100+ points per game aren't going to happen for the Spurs with regularity in the post season, they need to be able to get stops.

I honestly don't care that much about any of the stats of it, so I shouldn't even bring up opp. FG% (though that is a big indicator for the Spurs). I'm watching the games and I can easily see that this is a bad defensive team on a lot of nights. It's not an elite defensive team right now.

its not even good kori.

the biggest thing I see is just a lack of desire overall and a poor effort to rotate properly.

I dont know what it is neither.

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 01:09 AM

How do you know what other teams are elite on D, unless you watched every single game of every team? I gave the stats to give perspective on the Spurs standing with the league. Not to compare them to their past defenses, which were some of the best defenses of all time.

I don't watch every single game, but I watch about 30 NBA games a week. The Spurs aren't good defensively compared this year's NBA, last year's Spurs team, whatever. They aren't that good right now. They give up on a lot of defensive possessions. Duncan whines. He lets opponents drive by him. There's not intensity. The rotations suck. The help sucks. It's like that A LOT. Not every night. But not just in a handful of games.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:11 AM

I don't watch every single game, but I watch about 30 NBA games a week. The Spurs aren't good defensively compared this year's NBA, last year's Spurs team, whatever. They aren't that good right now.

I agree they aren't THAT good. But they still are a pretty good defensive team in regards to the rest of the NBA.

Compared to the past they have sucked. To call them elite might sound strange considering the team D being terrible in several games (maybe even half or so). But I guess you could say they had some games where blowouts might have skewed things a bit. But I don't see how you can call them an average or bad defensive team with the rest of the teams in the NBA. They still are pretty good. Just not nearly as good as in the past or where they probably need to be.

ShoogarBear

12-27-2006, 01:12 AM

Kori Ellis

12-27-2006, 01:14 AM

They were doing that earlier in the year for a few games, but now they seem to have lazy-ed themselves into not being able to get stops.

I agree. I don't think they are incapable (though the jury is still out on some people catching on). I think they are lazy or don't care or have lulled themselves into think they are good because they have been winning. But it's sick to watch. The Houston game made me almost throw up to see how much they let anybody who wanted to go to the rack. This game, same crap. They are BAD defensively right now.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:17 AM

One small point: the problem with offensive FG% is that a missed shot is meaningless unless you get the defensive rebound. Shooting 1 for 4 with three offensive rebounds is equivalent for all intents to shooting 1 for 1. I don't know how points per possession is calculated, but if in that same example 1-4 is treated as four possessions then it is also meaningless.

I'm willing to accept that the Spurs will never match the full-game defensive stats of 1999. But what they need to do is show they can bring defensive intensity when it's needed in the 4th Q. They were doing that earlier in the year for a few games, but now they seem to have lazy-ed themselves into not being able to get stops.

You do realize that examples 1-4 happen to pretty much every team? How can the stat be meaningless in an 82 game season? Its a pretty good barometer of what teams were most efficient over the 82 game season. It helps normalize for things like Pace (think Suns or Nuggets vs slow paced teams like Pistons, Mavs, Spurs).

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:19 AM

The Spurs in 2004 had the best defensive efficiency of ALL TIME. Now they might not have been the best equiped against certain teams like LA. But over an 82 game season they had the best statistical year on the defensive end. Slight edge over the Knicks of 1994 and even bigger edge over the Spurs of 1999. Spurs of 1999 might have been better in terms of matchups and against the elite teams with elite big men come playoff time -- but the Spurs of 2004 deserve props for their defensive versatility. They had a solid defender at each position, excellent team defense, shot blocking, defensive stopper in Bruce, and solid rebounders at all other positions.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:21 AM

I agree. I don't think they are incapable (though the jury is still out on some people catching on). I think they are lazy or don't care or have lulled themselves into think they are good because they have been winning. But it's sick to watch. The Houston game made me almost throw up to see how much they let anybody who wanted to go to the rack. This game, same crap. They are BAD defensively right now.

God I almost forgot about that game. That made me real pissed too. Houston WITHOUT Yao looked like they were running a clinic -- and could score at will. This is a team that would be the worst offensive team in the league by far without Yao. Even with Yao they aren't that far from being a horrible offensive team.

Sad effort by the Spurs in that game especially.

timvp

12-27-2006, 01:39 AM

Well, Nikos got his wish and now the Spurs are an elite offensive team.

:clap

Nikos

12-27-2006, 01:42 AM

Well, Nikos got his wish and now the Spurs are an elite offensive team.

:clap

Well when they were the best defensive team of all time they lost in the semifinals. Last year they were the best defensive team in the league. Look where it got them.

Like I said I want them to be balanced and elite on both ends. Right now they are borderline elite on both ends depending on what the word 'elite' means. In this case I mean roughly Top 3 statistically. To me I just want them to improve a little on both ends. It will add up to another championship if they can regain their defensive composure and improve their offense from prior seasons.

MannyIsGod

12-27-2006, 01:45 AM

Anyone who thinks the Spurs are a top 10 team right now need to watch tapes of the last few games. Watch how Duncan played the Houston game and come back and tell me this is a championship team.

If you can do that you're either:

a) Retarded
b) Blind
c) Really fucking retarded and really fucking blind.

ShoogarBear

12-27-2006, 01:51 AM

Nikos, I hope you are not seriously trying to say the 2004 Spurs were the best defensive team of all time. That would negate the value of points per possession right then and there.

timvp

12-27-2006, 01:53 AM

timvp

12-27-2006, 01:58 AM

To give you an idea of how little the Spurs foul, they allow opponents to shoot 19 free throws per game. The Suns are second in the league at 22.1 free throws per game. That's a difference of 3.1 free throws. The Portland Trailblazers are 21st in the league, allowing 25.2 free throws per game. So basically the difference between the Spurs and second place is the same difference between the second place team and the 21st place team.

With that little of fouling, the Spurs better be pretty damn high in Points Per Possession or else they'd get run out of the building.

timvp

12-27-2006, 02:00 AM

Additionally, the Spurs lead the league in opponents' free throw percentage by a pretty large margin. So unless you expect the cosmic forces to allow that to continue, the balancing out of that stat will expose the Spurs' defense even more if they don't improve.

velik_m

12-27-2006, 03:57 AM

Because their interior D is awful and they gave up 70+ points in the paint.

Rasho for Bonner+Williams is looking better and better...

Bruno

12-27-2006, 06:45 AM

I don't know how points per possession is calculated, but if in that same example 1-4 is treated as four possessions then it is also meaningless.

It's only one possession.
The end of a possession for ppp is when you give back the ball to the opponent.

ppp is by far the best stat to judge the overall quality of a defense. The team that won at the end of a game is the team that has scored more points, not the team with the lowest FG% or the best rebounding team. If a your ppp on offense is greater than your ppp on defense, you win the game.
Spurs ppp is low this year mainly because Spurs don't do a lot of fouls. That doesn't mean that ppp is a bad stat but that doing a foul is often a bad defense.

BTW, ppp for the Bucks game : 1.23
ppp for the Rockets game : 1.13
it's really bad.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 09:36 AM

Nikos, I hope you are not seriously trying to say the 2004 Spurs were the best defensive team of all time. That would negate the value of points per possession right then and there.

Well statistically they were. Do I feel they were the best ever? Who knows? I don't think they were good enough defensively to matchup with a prime Shaq led team-- but in terms of an 82 game season context they probably were. They were at least good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as any team of all time on that end. That I know for sure.

Just because they have the best point per possesion defense of all time doesn't negate anything. Since when are statistics useless because they invalidate ones biases? Who do you 'think' is the best defensive team of all time and why?

I don't think the stats show how well the Spurs would defend a certain team in a 7 game series come playoff time -- but the 82 game season stats do show quality of defense at the general level. And that 2004 Spurs team was astronomically great on that end.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 09:46 AM

Points Per Possession is going to be skewed in the Spurs because the Spurs don't foul. That's part of the Spurs' defensive scheme and has been since Pop became coach. Think about it, even if you let teams shoot 55% from the floor but don't foul anyone ... that's better Points Per Possession than a team that holds team to 40% but fouls. That's because the NBA shoots 74% from the free throw line. Of course if you don't foul, you aren't going to give up 57% field goal percentage (~57% = equivalent FG% for each possession you send someone to the line) even if you are the Phoenix Suns.

Talking about the Phoenix Suns, they are 14th in the league in Points Per Possession. So unless you think the Suns are a better than average defensive team, you can pretty much throw that stat back in the trash.

Don't foul at all and give up 55% field goal percentage and you'd lead the league. :rollin

How is it 'skewed'? Part of basketball is to limit your opponents scoring efficiency -- field goal shooting is the main proportion of that, but not the only portion. If a team doesn't get to the line much, the team isn't scoring efficiently in all liklihood, and a few percentage points doesn't really make up the difference between getting to the line a lot and not. In other words its better to get to the line a lot more than another team and shoot 75%, than get to the line a lot less and shoot 79% (all other stats aside).

Obviously you have to rebound, limit and create turnovers as well. But in the end of the day if your team scores at a high efficiency and keeps the opponent at a low efficiency as Bruno stated, the team is doing a great job. Team Efficiency for opponents against the Spurs is 102.3. That basically means they are scoring at a 51.2% percentage which is good for third in the league.

Without breaking down the stats these discussions aren't as useful because you can't really tell where the effectiveness is coming from unless you compare teams. But at the end of the day Offensive and Defensive Efficiency is a far more useful stat than pure FG% in accessing the quality of a team defense or offense.

Ughh the Suns are #1 in the league in Points Per Possession on offense. Makes sense considering even to the naked eye they are an offensive juggernaut. They average 114.8 points per 100 possesions or 1.148 points per possesion -- which means their True Shooting Percentage is about 57.4%.

BTW -- FT's count as .44 per shot (adjusted for technicals, illegal defense etc....) -- generally they would be about .50.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/o_oe.htm

Bruno

12-27-2006, 10:08 AM

Talking about the Phoenix Suns, they are 14th in the league in Points Per Possession. So unless you think the Suns are a better than average defensive team, you can pretty much throw that stat back in the trash.

Talking about the Phoenix Suns, they are 13th in the league in opponents FG%. So unless you think the Suns are a better than average defensive team, you can pretty much throw that stat back in the trash.

Bartzini

12-27-2006, 10:15 AM

Watching the Spurs play the past couple of games is really really frustrating.

It almost looks as if they are not really interested in being there. They look lazy and cocky...Not the spurs i am used to seeing the past 4 years.

I really hope the coaching staff can kick their ass back into gear, because i hate watching lazy basketball.

Texas_Ranger

12-27-2006, 11:29 AM

BigVee

12-27-2006, 12:21 PM

I see the defense on the perimeter being very good actually. Bowen, Parker, Ginobili, given the rules do an excellent job one on one. The problem is anytime they get rubbed off the defense seems to collapse. Where the big men go...and often they aren't in the game.....is a mystery to me. How Williams and Redd can conduct an in game lay-up drill is beyond me. Tim is either a) out of position, b) not athletic enough to contest or c) doesn't give a shit. I know that puts a lot on him, but geez he is the superstar on the team... and he is often the culprit. Are they just going through the motions waiting for April?

Spurminator

12-27-2006, 01:25 PM

PPP is the best stat for analyzing overall defensive effectiveness for the regular season. But like every other stat, it's pretty useless for prognostication (not that I believe that's what Nikos is trying to do), because it judges every game and possession with equal weight, regardless of opponent, injuries, or whether the game was played in November or April.

You may have, statistically, the best defense of all time... but if your Playoff opponent can completely alter your defense by making you front their center, if they can exploit your best offensive player by frustrating him into costly turnovers, and if they can catch a ball, turn around, file their taxes and shoot in 4 tenths of a second... what you did in the regular season against the other 28 teams is meaningless.

Nikos

12-27-2006, 09:00 PM