Reply With Quote
Great stuff...thanks
With about 40% of the schedule by the wayside, the sample size is large enough to start analyzing how this year's Spurs team historically compares to the rest of the squads in the Tim Duncan Era. There's still a lot of season left but we can get a decent idea about what type of team we're watching this season.
This first graph has Pop's favorite stat: field goal percentage allowed. I also included offensive field goal percentage to compare.
As you can see, the field goal percentage allowed is a far cry from earlier in the TD Era but it there is at least an improvement from last season. Offensively, there has been a huge improvement -- to the point that this year's team shoots much better than any other team Duncan has played on.
This next graph looks at field goal percentage differential (field goal percentage allowed minus offensive field goal percentage):
This is a very promising graph. Currently, the differential is higher than any championship team since the 1999 squad. It also illustrates a big improvement from the last two seasons.
To look at it differently, here is points per game and points per game allowed:
This graph isn't as pretty as the two above. Even though the Spurs are holding teams to a lower field goal percentage, they are giving up more points. While the offense has improved, it is partially negated by the decline of the defense.
Here is the point differential throughout the years:
Again, this shows improvement for the Spurs over the last two seasons -- but there is still a ways to go to reach the level of the last two championship teams.
Since the above offensive numbers are impacted by pace, here's a look at more advanced stats: points scored per 100 possessions and points allowed per 100 possessions. This normalizes the pace across the era to make it a more even playing field prior to the comparison.
This graph shows that while the Spurs are giving up more points than last year, they are giving up fewer points per possession. In other words, the faster pace this team is playing at is masking their defensive improvements.
This final graph shows points scored per 100 possessions minus points allowed per 100 possessions:
When pace is normalized, it appears that the Spurs aren't quite as good as their field goal shooting makes it seem yet they aren't as bad as the points per game comparison. This middle ground is probably the most accurate picture of this year's team so far.
Conclusions
1. This team's offense is really good. All the above graphs show that this team is the best scoring team of the Tim Duncan Era. Considering the turnover issues we've witnessed, the slow start by a number of key players and the offseason overhaul, this has to be both surprising and exciting. What happens if this team continues to gel and becomes a well-oiled machine? In theory, the rest of the NBA should take heed.
2. The defense still isn't at a championship level, however it's safe to say that this year's team is a better defensive team than last year's team. Almost every year, the Spurs get much better at the defensive end in the second half of the year. If that happens again this season, perhaps they can get close to the level of defensive played by the 2007 team. Unlikely but it is at least a goal to aim toward.
3. Offense is important to the Spurs winning champions. Yes, defense is the most important, but the offensive improvements from 2004 to 2005 and 2006 to 2007 were huge reasons why those two teams won rings. If you look at the charts, the Spurs do well when they improve their offense year-over-year without losing too much of the defensive end. This season, such an outcome is possible.
4. That 2004 team sure was a weird one. They were very good at defense but they were almost equally as bad on offense. Looking at the charts, it's not too surprising that the reason that team lost was due to an inability to score when it counted.
5. The 2008 and 2009 Spurs teams were pretty damn bad. Compared to the 2007 team, the Spurs lost huge ground on the defensive end and weren't as good offensively either. By comparison, this year's team at least seems headed back in the right direction.
Caveats
A. The Spurs are undeniably fragile. Duncan broke down last season. Ginobili has broken down the last two seasons. If the Spurs lose the battle against the injury bug, the numbers can quickly start heading the wrong way.
B. The schedule has been extremely easy so far. In fact, Jeff Sagarin's schedule rating system indicates that the Spurs have played the second easiest schedule in the entire NBA. They've played 20 home games to only 13 road games -- and most of the contests have been against bad teams. This is important to note because the surge the Spurs usually experience in the second half of the season may be negated by the tougher schedule. If that happens, the theoretically improvements in the above stats may not occur.
Bottomline
Despite the rugged start and the uneven play, there is legit reason to honestly say number five is possible. The road will be treacherous and the obstacles will be many, however the current status of the Spurs is one containing silver linings aplenty.
Believe.
Great stuff...thanks
Not coincidentally, the four teams with the largest point differentials (raw or 100 offensive-100 defensive possessions) are the four championship squads. And the '09 squad was worst in both measures.
Good analysis.
I like how the spurs are progressing. They are transitioning from a 100% defensive focus to a more balanced 60/40 (60% defense, 40% offense).
With the current state of affairs in the league this is probably a very desirable. With the no hand checking rules in place for years now and select superstars getting ever better and more preferential treatment from officials its almost mandatory you have good offense to go with your defense.
The rules go well and beyond hand checking too. Every year, offensive players are being catered to more and more. For instance, offensive players will now almost always try to initiate contact to get a foul call. Whether its jumping into a ducking defender on a jumpshot or driving the lane and throwing oneself into a defender, officials are rewarding these plays more than ever. It's gone to the point of ridiculousness IMO.
Don't get me wrong, playing great defense still wins championships, but a team will need to have some balance. I think the days of defensive juggernaut teams of the past decade like the spurs & pistons would more than likely have problems surviving nowadays.
Great post, good research, but I think you forgot the last two graphs that you meant to put up....
Last season, Bruce only started 10 games and averaged 18/19 minutes per game. This was a considerable drop off from the previous seasons where he was starting all the games and averaging 30/31 minutes. I think that it is no coincidence that the Spurs defense (field goal % allowed) suffered last season because Bruce was no longer playing a significant role. Even though Bogans has been a pleasant surprise, can the Spurs reach championship level defense without a Bruce Bowen type player helping anchor the defense?2. The defense still isn't at a championship level, however it's safe to say that this year's team is a better defensive team than last year's team. Almost every year, the Spurs get much better at the defensive end in the second half of the year. If that happens again this season, perhaps they can get close to the level of defensive played by the 2007 team. Unlikely but it is at least a goal to aim toward.
Point differential seems to be a huge indicator of potential post season success. Three of the top four point differential years were championship seasons.
I, too, will be interested to see if the Spurs can keep improving as the season goes on in spite of the schedule becoming tougher. I believe they will.
pretty cool stuff. thanks
I couldn't agree more! The catering to the offense has been going on for some time and is seemingly accelerating. Some in football, too. Customers want action and that means more points being scored. Professional sports is catering towards the paying customer or at least they believe they are. Probably the main reason that soccer wont ever be top dog in this nation and the chances of the USA winning the World Cup slim to none.
So more offense is needed in order to compete for a ring. Spurs are going in the right direction and as the season progresses I believe their D will pick up a notch or two. I see only good things in store for the Spurs faithfull.
Oh one thing - away exhay onway ethay injuryway ugbay
I'm sorry. If it's not a pie chart I don't even pay attention.
this is raising the bar
Wow, timvp, did you take thread steroids?
Let me see if I got this right.....
....can I say, based on this info, that if teams are scoring less per possession, then if we limit our TO's (which, in turn, lowers amount of possessions), that will lead to lower opponent FG%.
Great stuff timvp! It's interesting to how just how poorly the spurs had been the past two years compared to the early TD era. Makes you understand why Pop and RC wanted to give it all for the next few years while we still got the big fella around. Overall, I really don't mind the spurs being a more offensively minded team, with all the options they have now. Our effort on D has to go up thouhg. I'm hoping it will round into form before the playoffs, we'll see what happens
The Spurs have retooled into a more offensive-minded up tempo team, but the other night I saw an intense fourth quarter swarming defense that looked like the old days. If they can rediscover that 'edge' on defense, this will be a formidable team.
Math/Logic Fail...
FIFY
Our record against winning clubs is the most telling stat at this point IMO.
The team by the end of the season with the highest point differential will have a very high chance at being NBA champions.
really good stuff, thanks
So for all the doomsaying, there is more hope this year than the last two years for the Spurs. Thanks for the great work.
Beyond the standard point differential, I'm intrigued by the FG differential. Probably why Pop harps on opponent FG percentage.
What about our point diff in those contests?
Let us look at the point differential up till now this season regardless of compe ion. The NBA champion after the season leads this stat about 50% of the time.
Let us look at some of the teams that people consider contenders or have a chance to upset the contenders. The top 5 looks very impressive with little drop off whatsoever.
Boston Celtics: +7.7
Los Angeles Lakers: +7.1
Cleveland Cavaliers: +6.9
San Antonio Spurs: +6.6
Atlanta Hawks: +6.6
The rest of the contenders: There is a huge drop off from the top 5 to the next few, showing that there is actually some parity in the NBA.
Orlando Magic: +5.1
Denver Nuggets: +5.0
Notice the huge difference? We will go further down.
Pheonix Suns: +3.5
Dallas Mavericks: +3.4
Portland Trailblazers: +3.3
Utah Jazz: +2.5
Oklahoma City Thunder: +2.0
So there you have it, these are the teams with a positive point differential, with the exception of the Rockets and the Heat who have a +0.3 and +0.4 in point differential. The only concern would be that the Spurs are building up on the point differential stat while beating up on weak teams by many points and losing to the teams above .500. The thing is that we never really get blown out by a team and always manage to stay in the game, resulting in a top 5 point differential. So despite the Boston Celtics' injuries and struggles, they still lead the league in point differential and are the favorites from this stat to win the NBA championship come June.
It is a telling stat and usually translates well to the playoffs, but so does the record vs. .500 teams..I looked it up a few months ago, and the only team that struggled in that regard was the 2006 Miami Heat, but that team doesn't fit in most of the trends of previous le teams..
Every other le team had a successful record vs. the .500+ teams..so we'll see how the Spurs bounce back as the schedule gets tougher and more of these teams are in line for the Spurs..
Is this correct? Or shouldn't it be the other way around if a higher differential is preferred?This next graph looks at field goal percentage differential (field goal percentage allowed minus offensive field goal percentage):
I was and am a huge Bruce Bowen fan. I thought not playing him last year was a huge mistake that really cost this team, and wanted the Spurs to keep him this year.
That being said, these stats really make an argument to me on why Bruce's time in SA might have been over. 2008 Looks to be a turning point for a lot of reasons. Our offense really dropped off that year. The Spurs were scoring less and shooting at a lower percentage, while simultaneously giving up more points on a higher percent shooting for their opponents. For whatever reason, the defensive affect the Spurs were having on opponents was suddenly being outweighed by their offensive inep ude. In all the years shown, 2008 appears to represent the only year with a simultaneous steep drop in offense and in defense.
It seems like Pop attempted to compensate for this shift in 2009 by focusing on offensive production. However, while the Spurs scored more, their offensive improvements did not measure up to the decrease they experienced once again on defense. Pop may have attributed this to the injuries to Timmy and Manu though.
Again, I don't like how the Bowen situation was handled, but this shows some data that at least suggests why the Spurs might have thought that Bowen's defensive benefits no longer outweighed his offensive shortcomings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
