People need to stop taking OKC's 4-0 regular season sweep of the Spurs out context

We've heard it ad nauseum in the print media, in TV shows, across social networking sites--the OKC Thunder swept the Spurs 4-0 in the regular season. Hence, they are a gigantic matchup nightmare of which the Spurs should be afraid.

But this fact is being taken highly out of context. OKC's regular-season sweep of the Spurs is not nearly as significant, when you consider the asterisks that can be attached to each game:

Game 1: OKC 94, SA 88 (Nov. 27, 2013)
*Our only legitimate loss in the entire series. But the game was played on the road, and it was way back in November, before the Spurs' machine truly started clicking.

Game 2: OKC 113, @SA 100 (Dec. 21, 2013)
*Kawhi Leonard was out for the game due to a dental procedure. Parker played through a shin bruise.

Game 3: OKC 111, @SA 105 (Jan. 22, 2014)
*Kawhi Leonard suffered a hand injury in the 2nd quarter and did not return. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter also did not play due to injury.

Game 4: OKC 106, @SA 94 (Apr. 3, 2014)
*On the road on the 2nd night of a back to back. Manu Ginobili was held out for rest.

Hence, to posit that OKC has the Spurs' number based on the regular season series is virtually meaningless. And yet, the media continues to bandy around this fact out of context, as if it proved that the Thunder are the Spurs' kryptonite.

Please, let's stop kidding ourselves and look at the facts. The Spurs are the better team, have home court advantage, and have been clicking on all cylinders ever since they were pushed to the brink by Dallas. Meanwhile, the Thunder's play of late has not nearly been as impressive. They only got this far due to a Zach Randolph suspension, questionable officiating, and an absurd amount of luck. And to top it all off, their 3rd best player and defensive ace is going to miss the entire series due to a calf injury.

Barring a major injury, there's no way OKC is going to win this series. So why do analysts (here and here) continue to predict otherwise?

They've won 10 out of the last 12 games against us (7 straight at home), including backdoor sweeping us when we looked unbeatable. I can't blame people for picking OKC. I disagree, but I can see why some people would go for OKC.

That's pre-Ibaka injury, though. I think it's pretty ballsy for someone to still pick OKC even after losing Ibaka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

They've won 10 out of the last 12 games against us (7 straight at home), including backdoor sweeping us when we looked unbeatable. I can't blame people for picking OKC. I disagree, but I can see why some people would go for OKC.

That's pre-Ibaka injury, though. I think it's pretty ballsy for someone to still pick OKC even after losing Ibaka.

---

4 of those 12 games include the 2012 playoff series, when James Harden still played for the Thunder. And as we already saw, 3 out of their 4 wins against us this season come with huge asterisks. So really, OKC is only 3-2 against us in games that really count.

And that's pre-Ibaka injury. All of that goes out the window now that he's gone.

History does not matter. This Spurs team is playing so much better than any post season since 07. OKC has struggled in a lot of games this post season even with Ibaka. Without him, they have no chance to beat SA in this series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

4 of those 12 games include the 2012 playoff series, when James Harden still played for the Thunder. And as we already saw, 3 out of their 4 wins against us this season come with huge asterisks. So really, OKC is only 3-2 against us in games that really count.

And that's pre-Ibaka injury. All of that goes out the window now that he's gone.

---

Okay, but those games also came before Durant had one of the greatest scoring seasons of all-time. Westbrook is playing better than ever in these playoffs. They've added solid roleplayers like Reggie Jackson, Steven Adams, and Caron Butler. Again, I agree that people put too much weight on regular season matchups...but that's not just with us. Remember when everyone thought Brooklyn was going to take down the Heat, or at least give them trouble because they went 4-0 in the regular season?

All I'm saying is that it really isn't that crazy for someone to think OKC was going to win pre-Ibaka injury.

We know, OKC is a tough matchup but it doesn't mean they can't take them down after 2-12 record .

I've said before, the Spurs played without a full roster against them this season and still were closed games, so we didn't figure out how a complete-adjusted team handles OKC until the playoffs.

Sure, the Spurs are two years older -and long playoffs series could affect them- but they're a much better team than 2012.
And after Mavs-Spurs/Hawks-Pacers series it's hard to say the regular season makes a tendency, so...

The Spurs'll be fine :flag:

Interestingly enough, going into Game 3 of the 2012 WCF, I believe the Spurs had won 7/8 meetings. OKC just got hot at the right time. If Ibaka/Perkins don't go nuts in Game 4 (18-20 from the field combined) Spurs probably go 3-1 and win that series in 5. And as pointed out in the OP, the 4-0 regular season sweep should be taken with some context, though the media and most folks will ignore it and just assume OKC has our number. It's so much closer than people realize, and I hope SA comes out like they did in game 1 against Portland. They thought they had our number too.

Ibaka's out! Spurs in three!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bklynspursfan

Interestingly enough, going into Game 3 of the 2012 WCF, I believe the Spurs had won 7/8 meetings. OKC just got hot at the right time. If Ibaka/Perkins don't go nuts in Game 4 (18-20 from the field combined) Spurs probably go 3-1 and win that series in 5. And as pointed out in the OP, the 4-0 regular season sweep should be taken with some context, though the media and most folks will ignore it and just assume OKC has our number. It's so much closer than people realize, and I hope SA comes out like they did in game 1 against Portland. They thought they had our number too.

---

Exactly. The Spurs had dominated the OKC matchup prior to the 2012 WCF. In fact, one ESPN article even called the Spurs OKC's "kryptonite." Look how that turned out in the playoffs.

People tend to overrate regular season matchups. But there is no evidence that regular season success against one team correlates to winning against them in the playoffs.

Series is a toss up. Might even be in favor of OKC.

If Ibaka was playing (I hope that conspiracy about him faking his diagnosis isn't true), then I think OKC wins the series. They were really a bad matchup for the Spurs with him. The only thing that sucks about Ibaka's injury is that we won't get to see how the Spurs look playing them at full strength. Fuck that though, give me the asterisk and easier path if it means getting #5. The Spurs have a great opportunity here. They better not let up. OKC is still a beast without Ibaka.

When you make scrubs like Jackson and Lamb into first ballott hall of famers for 4 consecutive games. That team owns you.


keep trying to spin that shit San Antonio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

We've heard it ad nauseum in the print media, in TV shows, across social networking sites--the OKC Thunder swept the Spurs 4-0 in the regular season. Hence, they are a gigantic matchup nightmare of which the Spurs should be afraid.

But this fact is being taken highly out of context. OKC's regular-season sweep of the Spurs is not nearly as significant, when you consider the asterisks that can be attached to each game:

Game 1: OKC 94, SA 88 (Nov. 27, 2013)
*Our only legitimate loss in the entire series. But the game was played on the road, and it was way back in November, before the Spurs' machine truly started clicking.

Game 2: OKC 113, @SA 100 (Dec. 21, 2013)
*Kawhi Leonard was out for the game due to a dental procedure. Parker played through a shin bruise.

Game 3: OKC 111, @SA 105 (Jan. 22, 2014)
*Kawhi Leonard suffered a hand injury in the 2nd quarter and did not return. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter also did not play due to injury.

Game 4: OKC 106, @SA 94 (Apr. 3, 2014)
*On the road on the 2nd night of a back to back. Manu Ginobili was held out for rest.

Hence, to posit that OKC has the Spurs' number based on the regular season series is virtually meaningless. And yet, the media continues to bandy around this fact out of context, as if it proved that the Thunder are the Spurs' kryptonite.

Please, let's stop kidding ourselves and look at the facts. The Spurs are the better team, have home court advantage, and have been clicking on all cylinders ever since they were pushed to the brink by Dallas. Meanwhile, the Thunder's play of late has not nearly been as impressive. They only got this far due to a Zach Randolph suspension, questionable officiating, and an absurd amount of luck. And to top it all off, their 3rd best player and defensive ace is going to miss the entire series due to a calf injury.

Barring a major injury, there's no way OKC is going to win this series. So why do analysts (here and here) continue to predict otherwise?

---

OK. You have it your way and when the Spurs beat OKC it will always be mentioned that the Spurs won because Ibaka did not play.

You also forgot to mention the absence of certain OKC players in those games including Westbrook for an entire game...

Dumb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

When you make scrubs like Jackson and Lamb into first ballott hall of famers for 4 consecutive games. That team owns you.


keep trying to spin that shit San Antonio

---

Yeah hopefully the likes of de colo Joseph Ayres and others that played against OKC play better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

When you make scrubs like Jackson and Lamb into first ballott hall of famers for 4 consecutive games. That team owns you.


keep trying to spin that shit San Antonio

---

Don't leave out Derek Fisher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

Yeah hopefully the likes of de colo Joseph Ayres and others that played against OKC play better.

---

So that's why they got swept 4-0. Thanks for setting this thread straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Series is a toss up. Might even be in favor of OKC.

---

:lol another bump worthy post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoops Czar

Don't leave out Derek Fisher.

---

Also doesnt helpnthat Steven Adams made of Tim Duncan his personal bitch. Td needs to step it up vs OKC. Hes been a weak link for a whike against them. The greatest PF ever reglarly allows Perkins to manhandle him a rookie Adams to toss his salad.

How many of those games did Westbrook play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0 LyF3 ScRuB

How many of those games did Westbrook play?

---

2. One he was out injured and the other he did suit up and was in the court but was obviously not mentally in the game.

so OKC is still 2-0 even without Chimp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

2. One he was out injured and the other he did suit up and was in the court but was obviously not mentally in the game.

so OKC is still 2-0 even without Chimp

---

We had players injured when he didn't play.. and I think that Leonard and Leonard/Splitter/Green are a bigger loss for our team..

Plus when Westbrook was out was when Durant went into God-mode.

As long as the refs don't get involved, I'll be happy. If by some mirable, the Thunder can beat the Spurs without ref help, then I will applaud them but I don't see that happening. Spurs in 6

I think the concern is that in those 4 games, the Spurs seemed to get lit up by Jackson and Lamb and other spare parts, and at the same time, our bigs looked frustrated against OKC interior defense. We never looked good against them. So naturally, there is some fear and concern. That said, Ibaka is out at least the first game, and the playoffs are a different animal. Also, OKC has barely beaten the Grizzlies and the Clippers, escaping those teams despite horrible play and decision-making down the stretch and bailouts from refs and boneheaded players. It's unlikely that San Antonio oblige the way the Clippers and the Grizzlies did, so OKC has to actually play smart basketball. We'll see if they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

4 of those 12 games include the 2012 playoff series, when James Harden still played for the Thunder. And as we already saw, 3 out of their 4 wins against us this season come with huge asterisks. So really, OKC is only 3-2 against us in games that really count.

And that's pre-Ibaka injury. All of that goes out the window now that he's gone.

---

Asterisks are entirely debatable. Pre-Ibaka injury, the Thunder were a smart pick not because they've beaten the Spurs so many times in a row but because they're a matchup nightmare. The Spurs offense has no answers for OKC's athleticism and strength, and chalking up losses to various intangibles doesn't change that fact. Westbrook causes problems with his speed and aggression, Perkins and Collison can overwhelm Duncan and Splitter in the paint, and Ibaka breaks down passing lanes, blocks shots, and spreads SA's defense with his midrange game. Ibaka's injury means the Thunder lose a defensive anchor that utterly disrupts the Spurs' system.

The games have to be played, no series was ever decided in the regular season. The takeaway is not the 4-0 record itself, but the fact that the Thunder know how to beat the Spurs and are pretty damn good at doing it. Losing Ibaka just swings the advantage more toward SA than in recent years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoops Czar

So that's why they got swept 4-0. Thanks for setting this thread straight.

---

That and their best defensive players not being available. Thanks for playing internet tough guy and trolling out of your mom's basement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

so OKC is still 2-0 even without Chimp

---

As if Westbrook had ever beaten anybody anyway.

If I could pick between Westbrook and Ibaka to be injured, I'd pick Ibaka 100% of the time. Who cares about whether Westbrook is a better player than Ibaka? The thing is, Ibaka is a real match-up problem, not Westbrook.

I think people really underestimate the value of Ibaka and his shot-blocking (or goaltending). Ibaka keeps Parker out of the paint, and that alone means the Spurs offense stalls.

Westbrook is a better player, but when it comes to the Spurs and the match-ups, Ibaka is the #1 thorn in the Spurs' side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

Exactly. The Spurs had dominated the OKC matchup prior to the 2012 WCF. In fact, one ESPN article even called the Spurs OKC's "kryptonite." Look how that turned out in the playoffs.

People tend to overrate regular season matchups. But there is no evidence that regular season success against one team correlates to winning against them in the playoffs.

---

The trend does indicate if a team sweeps another then they also beat them in the playoffs.

kia did not play 2 times and manu did not play in one of the matches
splitter was out also and
one spurs were on back to back and 5 out of 7 nights

You have to understand the mind of Pop to understand how meaningless that is. Either you get it, or you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

We've heard it ad nauseum in the print media, in TV shows, across social networking sites--the OKC Thunder swept the Spurs 4-0 in the regular season. Hence, they are a gigantic matchup nightmare of which the Spurs should be afraid.

But this fact is being taken highly out of context. OKC's regular-season sweep of the Spurs is not nearly as significant, when you consider the asterisks that can be attached to each game:

Game 1: OKC 94, SA 88 (Nov. 27, 2013)
*Our only legitimate loss in the entire series. But the game was played on the road, and it was way back in November, before the Spurs' machine truly started clicking.

Game 2: OKC 113, @SA 100 (Dec. 21, 2013)
*Kawhi Leonard was out for the game due to a dental procedure. Parker played through a shin bruise.

Game 3: OKC 111, @SA 105 (Jan. 22, 2014)
*Kawhi Leonard suffered a hand injury in the 2nd quarter and did not return. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter also did not play due to injury.

Game 4: OKC 106, @SA 94 (Apr. 3, 2014)
*On the road on the 2nd night of a back to back. Manu Ginobili was held out for rest.

Hence, to posit that OKC has the Spurs' number based on the regular season series is virtually meaningless. And yet, the media continues to bandy around this fact out of context, as if it proved that the Thunder are the Spurs' kryptonite.

Please, let's stop kidding ourselves and look at the facts. The Spurs are the better team, have home court advantage, and have been clicking on all cylinders ever since they were pushed to the brink by Dallas. Meanwhile, the Thunder's play of late has not nearly been as impressive. They only got this far due to a Zach Randolph suspension, questionable officiating, and an absurd amount of luck. And to top it all off, their 3rd best player and defensive ace is going to miss the entire series due to a calf injury.

Barring a major injury, there's no way OKC is going to win this series. So why do analysts (here and here) continue to predict otherwise?

---

Great post! Sick of hearing this crap from the media! They are so biased towards the thunderefs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will_spurs

As if Westbrook had ever beaten anybody anyway.

If I could pick between Westbrook and Ibaka to be injured, I'd pick Ibaka 100% of the time. Who cares about whether Westbrook is a better player than Ibaka? The thing is, Ibaka is a real match-up problem, not Westbrook.

I think people really underestimate the value of Ibaka and his shot-blocking (or goaltending). Ibaka keeps Parker out of the paint, and that alone means the Spurs offense stalls.

Westbrook is a better player, but when it comes to the Spurs and the match-ups, Ibaka is the #1 thorn in the Spurs' side.

---

Bump.