Transition, Turnovers, and the Future of Winning Basketball

[Dejounte]

Speed. Versatility. Disruption.



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

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

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

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 The idea that we need some tall 6’9” forward to match modern teams is outdated.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

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

[Dejounte]

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

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

[scottspurs]

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

[LeBowen]

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

[Seventyniner]

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

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

[rascal]

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

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

So you are off Kon who is slow.

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

[The Truth #6]

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

[Dejounte]

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

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

[rascal]

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

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

[rascal]

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

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

[KobesAchilles]

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

[cutewizard]

Manu, Diaw, Green, Kawhi

[thOOdee]

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

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

[LeBowen]

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

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

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

[Strategic]

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

[Dejounte]

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

I think this is a false narrative that you, scottspurs, maybe others are pushing. The Thunder were leading the game comfortably for most of the game. By the end of the third, the Thunder were up by 9 points and were losing the rebounding battle with 33 rebounds vs Pacers’ 41 rebounds. The Thunder were winning despite losing the rebounding battle so I don’t think it broke the game as much as y’all think it did.

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

[Dejounte]

Looking at the regular season stats, the Spurs:

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

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

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

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

[OldMan88]

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

[scott]

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

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

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

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

[scott]

I think this is a false narrative that you, scottspurs, maybe others are pushing. The Thunder were leading the game comfortably for most of the game. By the end of the third, the Thunder were up by 9 points and were losing the rebounding battle with 33 rebounds vs Pacers’ 41 rebounds. The Thunder were winning despite losing the rebounding battle so I don’t think it broke the game as much as y’all think it did.

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

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

On the surface:

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

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

Instead:

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

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

[Dejounte]

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

On the surface:

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

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

Instead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TD 21]

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

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

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

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

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

[LeBowen]

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

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

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

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

[scott]

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



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

You ignored the question and deflected.

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

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

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

[LeBowen]

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

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

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

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