DR WU
10-08-2007, 03:54 PM
San Antonio Spurs At A Glance
LAST SEASON
W-L: 58-24 (Pythagorean W-L: 67-15)
Offensive Efficiency: 106.7 (4th)
Defensive Efficiency: 97.4 (2nd)
Pace Factor: 92.0 (27th)
Highest PER: Tim Duncan (26.19)
2007-08 SEASON
Training Camp: Spurs Practice Facility
Projected W-L: See "Outlook" section
Highest PER (proj.): Tim Duncan (23.7)
2006-07 Recap
You've heard the saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
OK, but who's to blame if we're fooled every year for half a decade.
The Spurs really shouldn't be sneaking up on people anymore, but somehow they keep doing it. After winning three championships, you'd think people would learn. Yet every season the same thing happens -- our attention drifts to the other 29 teams, we get heavy doses of Kobe, LeBron and the Suns on national TV, and the Spurs lie in the weeds for five months.
Then, sometime in March, everyone looks around and says, "Wow, the Spurs are pretty good," and San Antonio begins its stampede toward the title.
Last year they added a new riff on an old theme. The Spurs were even better than they'd been before but managed to keep the fact completely obscured by their win-loss record.
While everyone focused on Dallas' 67 wins, San Antonio actually had a superior point differential. And as I keep reminding people, point differential is a better predictor of future performance than win-loss record, which is a nice way of saying that San Antonio was actually a better team than Dallas.
Unfortunately, San Antonio was horribly unlucky in close games last season, going 6-11 in games decided by five points or fewer. The Spurs also had a poor record in games by between six and 10 points. That stood especially in contrast to Dallas, which went 20-4 in games decided by five points or fewer, with the result being that the Mavs finished nine games ahead in the standings even though, based on Pythagorean Wins, San Antonio should have beat them out by three.
Coaches are fond of saying that good teams win the close games, but they actually have it backward -- lucky teams win the close games; good teams win the blowouts. Lopsided victories are a far better barometer of quality, and the Spurs are a good example.
Real vs. Pythagorean Wins, 2006-07
TEAM REAL WINS PYTH. WINS DIFF.
Dallas 67 63.5 +3.5
Phoenix 61 62.0 -1.0
San Antonio 58 66.7 -8.7
San Antonio didn't lose by more than 16 points the entire season until the final game, when the starters rested. But the Spurs won by 17 or more 18 times -- the most impressive of which came when they beat a surging Golden State team on the road, by 37, in the second game of a back-to-back. The night before they had won by 41.
But because of their misfortune in the close ones, the Spurs had the biggest Pythagorean difference since the 2002-03 New Jersey Nets. That club won 49 games in the regular season before rampaging through the Eastern Conference playoffs and taking the Spurs to six tough games in the Finals. The fact they had the point differential of a 59-win team makes their subsequent playoff run much easier to comprehend.
Similarly, the Spurs' title push last season is much easier to understand if one grasps that they were the best team in the regular season too. With three All-Star-caliber performers and a cast of productive role players around them, the Spurs had too many weapons for anyone to handle -- something that would have been the case, I would argue, even if Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw hadn't been suspended for Game 5 of the Spurs' second-round series.
Interestingly enough, defense played a lesser role than in past San Antonio title runs. The Spurs had ranked No. 1 in defensive efficiency in five of the past six seasons, but gave up the crown this past season and finished "only" second. However, they remained extraordinary in three areas: cutting off 3-pointers, eliminating free throws and controlling the boards.
San Antonio again led the league in fewest 3-point attempts per field goal attempt by its opponents, and although the Spurs weren't quite as dominant here as in their awesome 2005-06 performance, it still gave them a major advantage. San Antonio also ranked second in 3-point percentage allowed, with the result being that the Spurs gave up fewer triples than any other team.
Lowest Opp. True Shooting Percentage, 2006-07
TEAM OPP. FG% OPP. TS%
San Antonio 44.3 51.1
Houston 42.9 51.2
Chicago 43.5 52.0
Detroit 44.5 52.2
Cleveland 44.8 52.5
League average 45.8 54.1
It was a similar story at the free-throw line -- only Phoenix conceded fewer free-throw attempts per field goal attempt than the Spurs. And because of the reduced free throws and 3-pointers, San Antonio led the NBA in true shooting percentage against at 51.1.
The Spurs took care of business on the boards, too, rebounding 75.7 percent of opponent misses. Only Detroit and Houston were better in this category, and obviously Mr. Duncan was a huge reason why. The only thing they didn't do much of was force turnovers.
Offensively, this was far and away the best team of the Gregg Popovich era. Duncan shook off the foot problems that plagued him a season earlier and went back to being his usual MVP-candidate self. Or rather, he would have been an MVP candidate had anyone remembered to consider him. Manu Ginobili had a superstar season off the bench, though this too went unnoticed by the general public -- this time by his limited minutes suffocating his per-game averages. And of course, Finals MVP Tony Parker continued his progression into one of the game's elite point guards.
Highest True Shooting Percentage, 2006-07
TEAM FG% TS%
Phoenix 49.4 59.0
San Antonio 47.4 56.1
Dallas 46.7 55.9
Memphis 46.5 55.5
L.A. Lakers 46.6 55.4
League average 45.8 54.1
San Antonio ranked third in the NBA in field goal percentage and second in true shooting percentage; while the Spurs weren't in Phoenix's class in either category, the combination of an elite defense with such an efficient offense made them nigh unbeatable on many nights.
The only concern for the Spurs -- though one other teams would kill for -- is that they relied on the big 3 much more than in the past, and got relatively little from their supporting cast. Brent Barry shot the lights out on 3s and Michael Finley had his moments, but the other role players' offensive contributions ranged from meager (Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto) to disappointing (Robert Horry, Beno Udrih) to nonexistent (Bruce Bowen, Jacque Vaughn).
LAST SEASON
W-L: 58-24 (Pythagorean W-L: 67-15)
Offensive Efficiency: 106.7 (4th)
Defensive Efficiency: 97.4 (2nd)
Pace Factor: 92.0 (27th)
Highest PER: Tim Duncan (26.19)
2007-08 SEASON
Training Camp: Spurs Practice Facility
Projected W-L: See "Outlook" section
Highest PER (proj.): Tim Duncan (23.7)
2006-07 Recap
You've heard the saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
OK, but who's to blame if we're fooled every year for half a decade.
The Spurs really shouldn't be sneaking up on people anymore, but somehow they keep doing it. After winning three championships, you'd think people would learn. Yet every season the same thing happens -- our attention drifts to the other 29 teams, we get heavy doses of Kobe, LeBron and the Suns on national TV, and the Spurs lie in the weeds for five months.
Then, sometime in March, everyone looks around and says, "Wow, the Spurs are pretty good," and San Antonio begins its stampede toward the title.
Last year they added a new riff on an old theme. The Spurs were even better than they'd been before but managed to keep the fact completely obscured by their win-loss record.
While everyone focused on Dallas' 67 wins, San Antonio actually had a superior point differential. And as I keep reminding people, point differential is a better predictor of future performance than win-loss record, which is a nice way of saying that San Antonio was actually a better team than Dallas.
Unfortunately, San Antonio was horribly unlucky in close games last season, going 6-11 in games decided by five points or fewer. The Spurs also had a poor record in games by between six and 10 points. That stood especially in contrast to Dallas, which went 20-4 in games decided by five points or fewer, with the result being that the Mavs finished nine games ahead in the standings even though, based on Pythagorean Wins, San Antonio should have beat them out by three.
Coaches are fond of saying that good teams win the close games, but they actually have it backward -- lucky teams win the close games; good teams win the blowouts. Lopsided victories are a far better barometer of quality, and the Spurs are a good example.
Real vs. Pythagorean Wins, 2006-07
TEAM REAL WINS PYTH. WINS DIFF.
Dallas 67 63.5 +3.5
Phoenix 61 62.0 -1.0
San Antonio 58 66.7 -8.7
San Antonio didn't lose by more than 16 points the entire season until the final game, when the starters rested. But the Spurs won by 17 or more 18 times -- the most impressive of which came when they beat a surging Golden State team on the road, by 37, in the second game of a back-to-back. The night before they had won by 41.
But because of their misfortune in the close ones, the Spurs had the biggest Pythagorean difference since the 2002-03 New Jersey Nets. That club won 49 games in the regular season before rampaging through the Eastern Conference playoffs and taking the Spurs to six tough games in the Finals. The fact they had the point differential of a 59-win team makes their subsequent playoff run much easier to comprehend.
Similarly, the Spurs' title push last season is much easier to understand if one grasps that they were the best team in the regular season too. With three All-Star-caliber performers and a cast of productive role players around them, the Spurs had too many weapons for anyone to handle -- something that would have been the case, I would argue, even if Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw hadn't been suspended for Game 5 of the Spurs' second-round series.
Interestingly enough, defense played a lesser role than in past San Antonio title runs. The Spurs had ranked No. 1 in defensive efficiency in five of the past six seasons, but gave up the crown this past season and finished "only" second. However, they remained extraordinary in three areas: cutting off 3-pointers, eliminating free throws and controlling the boards.
San Antonio again led the league in fewest 3-point attempts per field goal attempt by its opponents, and although the Spurs weren't quite as dominant here as in their awesome 2005-06 performance, it still gave them a major advantage. San Antonio also ranked second in 3-point percentage allowed, with the result being that the Spurs gave up fewer triples than any other team.
Lowest Opp. True Shooting Percentage, 2006-07
TEAM OPP. FG% OPP. TS%
San Antonio 44.3 51.1
Houston 42.9 51.2
Chicago 43.5 52.0
Detroit 44.5 52.2
Cleveland 44.8 52.5
League average 45.8 54.1
It was a similar story at the free-throw line -- only Phoenix conceded fewer free-throw attempts per field goal attempt than the Spurs. And because of the reduced free throws and 3-pointers, San Antonio led the NBA in true shooting percentage against at 51.1.
The Spurs took care of business on the boards, too, rebounding 75.7 percent of opponent misses. Only Detroit and Houston were better in this category, and obviously Mr. Duncan was a huge reason why. The only thing they didn't do much of was force turnovers.
Offensively, this was far and away the best team of the Gregg Popovich era. Duncan shook off the foot problems that plagued him a season earlier and went back to being his usual MVP-candidate self. Or rather, he would have been an MVP candidate had anyone remembered to consider him. Manu Ginobili had a superstar season off the bench, though this too went unnoticed by the general public -- this time by his limited minutes suffocating his per-game averages. And of course, Finals MVP Tony Parker continued his progression into one of the game's elite point guards.
Highest True Shooting Percentage, 2006-07
TEAM FG% TS%
Phoenix 49.4 59.0
San Antonio 47.4 56.1
Dallas 46.7 55.9
Memphis 46.5 55.5
L.A. Lakers 46.6 55.4
League average 45.8 54.1
San Antonio ranked third in the NBA in field goal percentage and second in true shooting percentage; while the Spurs weren't in Phoenix's class in either category, the combination of an elite defense with such an efficient offense made them nigh unbeatable on many nights.
The only concern for the Spurs -- though one other teams would kill for -- is that they relied on the big 3 much more than in the past, and got relatively little from their supporting cast. Brent Barry shot the lights out on 3s and Michael Finley had his moments, but the other role players' offensive contributions ranged from meager (Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto) to disappointing (Robert Horry, Beno Udrih) to nonexistent (Bruce Bowen, Jacque Vaughn).