Interesting write up about spurs crunch time defense.
Is San Antonio’s crunch-time defense for real?
The Spurs are an offensive juggernaut, but they rank just 13th in points allowed per possession, and even with Boris Diaw aboard, teams with two imposing big men figure to give San Antonio trouble — unless Gregg Popovich unleashes the seldom-played Tiago Splitter/Tim Duncan duo for extended minutes against such a team in the postseason.
But in crunch time, San Antonio’s defense has been ridiculously stingy (hat tip to Matt Moore of CBSSports.com for discovering this). In the last five minutes of games ...
Those stats fit in well with the Spurs' apparent "bend, don't break" defensive strategy. Use superior offense to build as big a lead as possible, play "good enough" defense to keep the other team at bay until crunchtime, then put the hammer down. Sounds like a nice plan, but what will happen when they go up against defenses that play for 48 minutes and thus won't let them build those nice cushion-y leads?
So, in late and close situations, the Spurs have played elite defense this season. How about that.
Good stuff.
This is what I think about when I think about what is needed from this team defensively in order to be a contender. The days of 48 minutes of defense are pretty much over league wide. If the Spurs can continue to come up with stops when they need them(as they obviously have been) then they can put one more in case.
Nice. And the majority of that elite defense occurred before Stephen Jackson and Boris Diaw were acquired.
Considering how offensively oriented the League apparently has become, could this signal a trend favoring deeper teams come playoff time? Perhaps a 9 man playoff rotation is feasible in today's NBA.
i dont like it but its how mavs got their le
mavs werent an elite blow out every team they faced type team
they were actually trailing in the 4th quarter in at least 50% of all their games in the playoffs
then they would go on these insane 13-4 type runs to close out games behind dirks jumper and their defense
"Stops on demand" is their goal.
Another factor in the poor shooting percentage of other teams late in the game may be the fatigue factor. Most teams play their starters for many more minutes per game than the Spurs.
You remember the comments about Le Bron 'disappearing' in crunch time in playoff games? Someone did a study of Le Bron in the playoffs where he was playing an average of over 43 minutes and found his shooting % went down in the 4th quarter. Not an unexpected event when you are hauling 270 pounds around all game in a fast paced offense.
Conversely, our starters--or the players we have on the floor to close out the game-- usually have a lot less minutes in the game and therefore can use fresher legs on defense. It has been obvious to me that Duncan has been able to play better this year in the closing minutes, getting rebounds, blocks and generally playing good defense in most of the games.
Currently the only one of those I've seen so far this year is in Miami.
I really wish my response could be: " yeah! The Spurs might not be elite defensively for 48 minutes anymore but they are elite when it counts!"
Unfortunately, those late game defense numbers are mostly a result of luck. Other teams missing clutch free throws against the Spurs doesn't have anything to do with defense.
And opponents three-point percentage has been proven to be mostly a product of luck, as well. I didn't want to believe this at first but I've read multiple research studies that basically prove that while better defensive teams hold opponents to lower three-point percentage, the margin of error when attempting to predict the actual percentage is so large that luck is undeniably the largest factor.
If you look back at San Antonio's rank league-wide on opponents three-point percentage defense, you can see there's little rhyme or reason involved:
1998: 8th
1999: 12th
2000: 24th
2001: 2nd
2002: 4th
2003: 7th
2004: 4th
2005: 25th
2006: 3rd
2007: 2nd
2008: 3rd
2009: 24th
2010: 6th
2011: 22nd
2012: 24th
The Spurs have been near the top over the years due to their overall great defense but there are unexplainable fluctuation that have nothing to do with the quality of defense being played.
So while it's great to see that the Spurs have been a clutch defensive team this year, it pains me to admit that I think it's mostly due to good fortune.
That said, if the Spurs defense can remain clutch even after the opponents three-point percentage and free throw percentage start to even out, then I could believe San Antonio having a clutch defense. Until then, though, it remains a hope and not reality.
Didn't read the article yet but did it mention Blair rarely closing out games?
Blair is BY FAR the worst defender on the team, and despite him starting rarely will he ever close out games, Pop rarely even gives him big minutes in the 4th.
Usually it's Splitter or Bonner (Bonner mostly) that closes out the game with TD, the defense gets a lot better with those two in the game.
But you can choose who to foul. The numbers cited are for the last 5 minutes and the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. Pop will employ "Hack a bad foul shooter".
It's mostly Bonner or small ball. Blair and Splitter are the two most foul prone Spurs. There could be a connection there.
Agree with the posters above. Think the important factors might be, 1) Blair not closing games, 2) Starters being fresher due to the bench play, 3) Random fluctuations due to three pt shooting, opp FTs, 4) Spurs actually having another gear on defense in late game situations. Only time will tell. But honestly a trend implying the opposite is much more worrisome. So there is some reason for hope.
Really interesting numbers but it looks like time is going to be the final tell for me on this one.
Can't really start championship dancing with all the luck involved but it seems like a sound enough strategy. I'd be interested to see what these stats look like after April.
I wish that the Spurs could be the defensive juggernauts they once were, but that's not going to happen. They do appear to be capable of playing much better defense for stretches. And even if the late game defense isn't as convincing as the numbers indicate, there are some other numbers that are still pretty hopeful:
Since the Spurs aren't playing smothering D, they have to be able to win higher-scoring games. The Spurs have a .545 winning percentage, when the other team scores 100+ points. Only Chicago (.667) and OKC (.556) are better. Atlanta (.444) is a distant fourth place.
There are some other crunch time numbers that suggest that the Spurs really are playing better ball at the end of close games. Some of the noteworthy ones are:
Kawhi's RB/36 jumps from 7.8 to 11.0.
Tim's FG% jumps from 47% to 57% and his BLK/36 goes from 1.8 to 2.8.
Manu's FTA/36 goes from 3.0 to 11.4 (HUGE increase).
Green's AST/36 goes from 2.1 to 3.4 while his TO/36 drops from 1.7 to 1.0. And even though there are questions about the clutch defense, Green's DefRTG goes from 100.3 to 83.9 - which is too big of a difference to ignore.
Neal's 3P% goes from 39% to 55% and his FTA/36 goes from 1.8 to 3.6.
Parker, of course goes nuts. His FTA/36 goes from 5.5 to 11, and his FT% goes from 79% to 91%. His PTS/36 goes from 20.5 to 27.8. And even his RB/36 goes from 3.1 to 4.8.
When you start looking at the clutch-time numbers, you can really see that everyone has his role. Kawhi seldom shoots in clutch time, but he defends and hits the boards. Manu shoots less, but absolutely KILLS the other team by getting to the line. Tim's shooting becomes deadly, and his defense around the rim stiffens. Neal becomes a 3P assassin, but he still penetrates the paint at a higher rate. (Nice combo) Green manages to focus better on defense, and he passes the ball more effectively and holds onto it more carefully. And, obviously, Parker has been everywhere in clutch time.
Pop has always said that good defense leads to good offense. I've always questioned if the converse of that might be true. If you play very solid/smart offense, don't you keep the other team from getting easy offense? I have a hunch that's part of the improvement in the Spurs' defense in crunch time. They may not be smothering the other team with defense, but they aren't giving up anything easy due to bad offense either. Throw in even a slightly improved defensive effort, and the point differential is impressive.
This post is already too long, but there are also some VERY good signs in the numbers, when you look at the Last 10 Games. Actually, the last 15-20 have been a much different story from the first part of the season. And I'm not talking about some unusual "advanced stats", but the meat-and-potatoes stats like points differential, rebound differential, and assist differential.
5 games isn't much of a sample size but beggers can't be choosers. Maybe they will keep the trend going.
The defense is still questionable. But if you look at Last 10 Games (actually a lot more than that, but 10 is easy to dig up) a lot of their stats are looking pretty damned good:
PPG - 3rd in the league with 107.30
PPG differential (points for - points against) - 3rd in the league with +8.70
FG% - 2nd in the league with .487
APG - 5th in the league with 23.60
Opponent APG - 4th in league with 18.90
APG Differential (AST for - AST against) - 2nd in the league with +4.70
RPG - 4th in league with 45.70
Opponent RPG - 5th in league with 39.40
RB differential (RB for - RB against) - 3rd in the league with +6.30
SPG - 9th in league with 8.00
Opponent SPG - 2nd in the league with 6.20
SPG differential (steals for - steals against) - fourth in the league with +1.80
TO per game - Tied for 5th in the league with 12.30
In recent games, the Spurs have risen to the top tier in most of the stats that really matter, except one - Opponent FG%. That one stat has probably kept most people from realizing just how good the Spurs have been in other areas. It may turn out to be the fatal flaw, but they are good enough in every other area to give them a shot.
For the record, even though the Spurs have won 9 of their last 10 games, they have given up an Opponent FG% of .468, which puts them 24th in the league. It's hard to get past that number, or to picture a team winning an NBA Championship while allowing their opponents to complete at that high of a rate. They would have to win a lot of other battles (like FT points) to go all the way. And THAT is why it could be such a big deal if they really are able to clamp down on defense late in games.
Last edited by GSH; 04-02-2012 at 04:08 PM.
It's hard to have a consistent defense when people are in and out of the line-up. It seems pretty clear that we have the athletes to be a very good defensive team. Hopefully, with the final month push, we can put it all together.
How many pts per 100 possesion would the Spurs allow in the clutch if you put the 3pt and FT % they allow in general in those clutch situations? (I would do it but I don't know how)I really wish my response could be: " yeah! The Spurs might not be elite defensively for 48 minutes anymore but they are elite when it counts!
Unfortunately, those late game defense numbers are mostly a result of luck. Other teams missing clutch free throws against the Spurs doesn't have anything to do with defense.
And opponents three-point percentage has been proven to be mostly a product of luck, as well. I didn't want to believe this at first but I've read multiple research studies that basically prove that while better defensive teams hold opponents to lower three-point percentage, the margin of error when attempting to predict the actual percentage is so large that luck is undeniably the largest factor.
If you look back at San Antonio's rank league-wide on opponents three-point percentage defense, you can see there's little rhyme or reason involved:
1998: 8th
1999: 12th
2000: 24th
2001: 2nd
2002: 4th
2003: 7th
2004: 4th
2005: 25th
2006: 3rd
2007: 2nd
2008: 3rd
2009: 24th
2010: 6th
2011: 22nd
2012: 24th
The Spurs have been near the top over the years due to their overall great defense but there are unexplainable fluctuation that have nothing to do with the quality of defense being played.
So while it's great to see that the Spurs have been a clutch defensive team this year, it pains me to admit that I think it's mostly due to good fortune.
That said, if the Spurs defense can remain clutch even after the opponents three-point percentage and free throw percentage start to even out, then I could believe San Antonio having a clutch defense. Until then, though, it remains a hope and not reality.
P/S: 2005: 25th. I bet that team wasn't that bad on 3pt% allowed in the clutch either.
This seemed to be exactly the issue last year and to a lesser extent, this year. While we aren't really a "come back" team because we haven't had to be, there have been several times when these Spurs have shown the ability to scratch and claw their way back into a game and pull out the win. I don't remember seeing much of that last year.
I think their are enough pieces, for the Spurs to be average to above average defensively. Their depth alone, will be asset in terms of better defense.
You can't really control opponent 3pt % and free throw % defense. Teams usually don't take contested 3's and how do you defend a free throw? But you can make sure most shots they take are contested and that should lower their fg%.
Basketball is a game of runs and when teams are scoring well they have a good flow or rhythm. The best defenders understand this and do anything to disrupt the other player's rhythm. You hear teams talk amount great players work for every point. They don't want them developing that rhythm that makes them impossible to stop.
This. I don't see why more posters here can't figure this out. Yes they let the huge lead dwindle down, but it's just to conserve for the crunch time push. Not a foolproof strategy, but what is?
The Spurs do this a lot. It's multipurpose, it allows them to catch their breath, taking the foot off the pedal. It makes the final push much more potent. Also, it's psychological. When that team runs an 18 point Spurs lead down to 3, if we so much as string together 2 or 3 sharp possessions, it takes the wind out of the sails as far as motivation on the comeback.
And with this new roster being more offensively capable than it's been in a while, the strategy works even better. We might get away with trading baskets till crunch time then lock down.
There are a lot of factors at play here, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the rotation. Blair is among the worst bigmen in the league on defense, yet almost never plays in close games. Similarly, I don't recall Neal playing that much late in games (or at least, not as a PG).
When all five guys out there are at least mediocre on D, it makes a big difference.
How about early in the game, that decides if the game goes in pressure moments or not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
