FG% allowed and Championships

[Fabbs]

Picking up on timvps thread on "The 2012 Spurs Defense Update Thread", how big of a deal is it that the Spurs shots allowed percentage sucks?

The last NBA champion to yield a higher shooting percentage to its opponent than its own shooting percentage were the 1978 Washington Bullets.

* this is thru 2005. Coincidentally about the same time as the Spurs losing it defensively? I think not. Now granted, this is Finals stats only but i wonder how the reg season also pans out.

If anyone wants to help run 2006 Championships onward, please do.

[timvp]

The last NBA champion to yield a higher shooting percentage to its opponent than its own shooting percentage were the 1978 Washington Bullets.

...
Now granted, this is Finals stats only but i wonder how the reg season also pans out.

Actually, it's not a Finals stat. It's a regular season stat. Those Bullets allowed opponents to shoot for a better percentage than they did during the regular season. However, their defense was still top 10 in the league so I'm not sure this is proving what you want it to prove.

* this is thru 2005. Coincidentally about the same time as the Spurs losing it defensively? I think not.

How could that not be a coincidence? Are you saying the Spurs decline in defense is related to you not doing research on the defense of champions?

If anyone wants to help run 2006 Championships onward, please do.

I don't even have to look at the numbers to tell you that those Bullets were the last to accomplish that feat.

[Fabbs]

Actually, it's not a Finals stat. It's a regular season stat. Those Bullets allowed opponents to shoot for a better percentage than they did during the regular season. However, their defense was still top 10 in the league so I'm not sure this is proving what you want it to prove.

If 32 of the last 33 champs held the opposition to a lower shooting % i'm gonna stick with it's a very relevant stat.

How could that not be a coincidence? Are you saying the Spurs decline in defense is related to you not doing research on the defense of champions?

What?! I don't know what you're asking.

I don't even have to look at the numbers to tell you that those Bullets were the last to accomplish that feat.

I'm gonna check the Ko 6/24 2010 year just to be sure.

[Fabbs]

Sure enough, Bryant fta's his way.
2010 bucks a 33 year trend. Oh wait, regular season only?

Lakers 233-534 41.7%
Celtics 231-533 43.7%

[GSH]

Oooh, oooh... I know about this one.

The Bullets got something like 750 more FTA's than their opponents that season. That's like 9 per game more than their opponents. If you think we can duplicate that, you might be onto something.

The Bullets finished just above .500 in the regular season, and then had a freakish, whistle-aided run through the playoffs. They AVERAGED something like 33 FTA's per game in the regular season, and almost that many in the post-season. If you think we can duplicate that, you might be onto something.

But unless we can convince Stern to put in the fix with the refs, we better start playing some damned defense.

[Mel_13]

Sure enough, Bryant fta's his way.
2010 bucks a 33 year trend. Oh wait, regular season only?

Lakers 233-534 41.7%
Celtics 231-533 43.7%

Actually, it's not a Finals stat. It's a regular season stat.

[Fabbs]

^ meh my guess is it probably holds true for most Finals* also.

* not involving Bryant.

[Mel_13]

^ meh my guess is it probably holds true for most Finals* also.

* not involving Bryant.

meh, you might be surprised if you actually checked.

[timvp]

I don't even know if Fabbs knows what Fabbs is trying to prove? Is he saying that to win the Finals you usually need to shoot a better percentage than your opponent? If that's the case, I don't know how that has anything to do with the Spurs since A) it's not like the Spurs have had trouble winning in the Finals and B) the Spurs are very unlikely headed to the Finals this season.

If Fabbs is saying a good field goal percentage defense is essential for a championship team, at least that makes sense in regards to the Spurs. However, that Bullets team was the first and probably last team to ever win a championship without shooting better than their opponents in the regular season. And despite how bad the Spurs have been defensively the last three years or so, they have always shot better than their opponents ... so Fabbs original question doesn't apply.

[Fabbs]

meh, you might be surprised if you actually checked.

meh since to get to the Finals it's established a team has to shoot better then their opponents in the reg season it's still a valid point that the Spurs need to pick up their slacker defense or face another playoff flameout.

As to Finals needing to shoot better then opponent, still probably true in most all but non Laker years. If you've already checked it why not post?

[timvp]

meh since to get to the Finals it's established a team has to shoot better then their opponents in the reg season it's still a valid point that the Spurs need to pick up their slacker defense or face another playoff flameout.

The Spurs have shot better than their opponents in every regular season since 1998. This year, the defense has been horrible and it's a tie -- 46.6% for the Spurs and the opponents.

You have to hold the defense to a much higher standard. If not, last year the Spurs were good enough defensively to win a championship by your logic.

[Fabbs]

I don't even know if Fabbs knows what Fabbs is trying to prove? Is he saying that to win the Finals you usually need to shoot a better percentage than your opponent? If that's the case, I don't know how that has anything to do with the Spurs since A) it's not like the Spurs have had trouble winning in the Finals and B) the Spurs are very unlikely headed to the Finals this season.

If Fabbs is saying a good field goal percentage defense is essential for a championship team, at least that makes sense in regards to the Spurs. However, that Bullets team was the first and probably last team to ever win a championship without shooting better than their opponents in the regular season. And despite how bad the Spurs have been defensively the last three years or so, they have always shot better than their opponents ... so Fabbs original question doesn't apply.

Coach Rump Humper is your troll. Wow.

Is he saying that to win the Finals you usually need to shoot a better percentage than your opponent? If Fabbs is saying a good field goal percentage defense is essential for a championship team, at least that makes sense in regards to the Spurs.

gold star.
And to reach the Finals.

I don't know how that has anything to do with the Spurs since A) it's not like the Spurs have had trouble winning in the Finals and B) the Spurs are very unlikely headed to the Finals this season.

I said i was building off your other thread made a week ago. Which your top charts are what the Spurs are/are not holding their opponents fg% to. So it has everything to do with this years Spurs.

[Fabbs]

The Spurs have shot better than their opponents in every regular season since 1998. This year, the defense has been horrible and it's a tie -- 46.6% for the Spurs and the opponents.

You have to hold the defense to a much higher standard. If not, last year the Spurs were good enough defensively to win a championship by your logic.

Never stated that holding opponents to a lower % alone would win a championship.

But it is stunning that the Spurs have shot better in every regualar season since 2005 (the denutting of the Spurs by Popped). Thanks for the research stats timvp.

Do you have the playoff shooting % stats?

[Mel_13]

If you've already checked it why not post?

If you haven't checked, why did you post?

[timvp]

But it is stunning that the Spurs have shot better in every regualar season since 2005 (the denutting of the Spurs by Popped). Thanks for the research stats timvp.

No problem but for the record it's never even been close.

Do you have the playoff shooting % stats?

No but you can bet that just about every series the Spurs lose, the opponents shoot better. In the series they win, the Spurs shoot better. The weird thing about basketball is that you usually win when the ball goes in the hoop more often than your opponent . . .

[Fabbs]

The weird thing about basketball is that you usually win when the ball goes in the hoop more often than your opponent . . .

Exception:
Kobes Bryant Lakers*

[GSH]

You know what's the MOST disturbing thing about the Spurs' defense this year? In a year where everyone in the league is struggling to score, nobody is struggling to score against the Spurs. This season, just like the last lockout season, the league as a whole is playing really crappy offense. People are writing articles about how bad everyone's offense is, and how much scoring is down. And even against sub-par offense, the Spurs' defense is among the worst in the league. That's ugly.

[therealtruth]

Pop has guys that can compete on defense. He just needs to let them play. The offense will eventually come around especially when Manu gets back.

[GSH]

Picking up on timvps thread on "The 2012 Spurs Defense Update Thread", how big of a deal is it that the Spurs shots allowed percentage sucks?

Well this game is a pretty good example. Tonight the Blazers took 10 more Field Goal Attempts than the Spurs. (In case you haven't been keeping track, that has also been a disturbing trend over the last couple of seasons.) Tonight it was more about the 23 turnovers, than the usual second chance points. But if you let the other team shoot the ball 10 more times than you, you either have to clamp down on their FG%, or shoot a LOT more FT's. Tonight we did both, but the FG% differential would have been enough.

And on those nights when your team isn't shooting 50%, it's the ability to hold the opponent's FG% down that lets you get the ugly wins. And that's what we've been missing on the road. I don't care what happened in 1978 - you just aren't going to get through a playoff run without being able to do that a few times

[ElNono]

tbh, Portland absolutely sucked from downtown in the 1st half...

[TJastal]

Sure enough, Bryant fta's his way.
2010 bucks a 33 year trend. Oh wait, regular season only?

Lakers 233-534 41.7%
Celtics 231-533 43.7%

Actually, it's not a Finals stat. It's a regular season stat.

I don't even have to look at the numbers to tell you that those Bullets were the last to accomplish that feat.

Way to cherry pick posts Mel_13, unfortunately you left out that last quote from Timvp.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

These arguments are

I'm really enjoying watching us play this year, but we all know we're not serious contenders unless something massive changes (eg. Timmy inventing a time machine and reinventing himself as 1999-2008 Tim; Manu coming back on a mission, staying healthy and playing in MVP form; miraculously trading for a bunch of personnel other than what we have which leads to massive defensive improvement; every contender in the NBA losing its best player to injury while we stay healthy; etc.).

[Mel_13]

Way to cherry pick posts Mel_13, unfortunately you left out that last quote from Timvp.

RIF.

I didn't cherry pick anything. Read the posts in the order they were posted. Thanks for playing.

[GSH]

These arguments are

I'm really enjoying watching us play this year, but we all know we're not serious contenders unless something massive changes (eg. Timmy inventing a time machine and reinventing himself as 1999-2008 Tim; Manu coming back on a mission, staying healthy and playing in MVP form; miraculously trading for a bunch of personnel other than what we have which leads to massive defensive improvement; every contender in the NBA losing its best player to injury while we stay healthy; etc.).

If you think I was saying tonight's performance was a sign that we can contend for a le, I haven't been very clear. It's because of the terrible opponent FG% we keep giving up, that we won't be in it at the end. I don't care how many points we can score in a game. I made the mistake of forgetting that last year, when we were scoring like the old Suns. I won't make the same mistake again. This is fun to watch, but it won't hold up in the playoffs.

I'd love to thing that some of the young guys could turn that defensive stat around, and I'm sure they will help it improve. But I don't think we get where we need to be without some help in the middle. It all starts there. We'll have good games, and even games where the opponents shoot a low FG%. But this is not a defensive team. I see some hopeful signs for the future. But the window on a le this season rests on the trade deadline. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to eat crow. But don't hold your breath.

[ElNono]

Can you school me timvp?