Reply With Quote
I think the layoff affected the Spurs shooting and I think in game 2 the shooting will return-with a vengeance.
Nice write-up. Chess match indeed.
In Game 1 of the 2012 Western Conference Finals, perhaps the most interesting subplot was OKC's use of small ball and Pop's decisions on how to counteract. First of all, the Thunder came into the series thinking small ball (which for OKC basically means Durant at power forward) was their ace in the hole because it worked so well against the Spurs in the regular season.
How well did it work? In 43 minutes of small ball against the Spurs in the regular season, the Thunder outscored the Spurs by 19 points. Conversely, in 101 minutes of big ball (using two of Ibaka, Perkins and Collison), the Thunder were outscored by 27 points.
Despite those numbers, I wasn't too worried about the Thunder's small ball tactic heading into this series. With the addition of Stephen Jackson and the emergence of Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green, the Spurs have the role players to go small yet still have enough length to defend and rebound.
But on Sunday night, Oklahoma City's coaching staff obviously thought the Spurs were susceptible to small ball and used it for a total of 28:54. The results weren't what they were hoping for as San Antonio outscored OKC 75-65 during that time. Extrapolated to 48 minutes, the Spurs dominated to the tune of 125-108.
(If you trim off the last two minutes of garbage time, the numbers look even more in the S.A.'s favor: 68-51 in 26:54 -- which extrapolates to 121-91.)
What's fascinating is how Pop decided to attack when OKC went to small ball. At first, he kept a big lineup in the game and had one of his bigs (Diaw or Bonner) defend a spot-up three-point shooter (usually Sefolosha or Fisher). That is a move we almost never see from Pop; when other teams go small, Pop almost always counters with a small lineup of his own.
When watching the game live, I didn't think the Spurs big lineup was too effective against small ball by the Thunder. But statistically, it actually did quite well. In 13:10 of big vs. small, the Spurs outscored the Thunder 31-25.
It wasn't until the second half that Pop switched gears and used small ball to counteract small ball. Initially, it didn't work well. The Spurs went small to end the third quarter and got outscored 10-3 in the final 3:15 of the period.
Going into the fourth quarter, Pop stuck with small vs. small and things ended up working out much better. The entire fourth quarter turned out being small vs. small and the Spurs won the quarter 39-27 (or 32-13 if you trim off garbage time).
Small vs. small helped San Antonio for a variety of reasons. First of all, it took Serge Ibaka off the court (he sat out the final 16 minutes of Game 1) and that alone made it much easier for the Spurs to score in the paint; there's a big difference between Ibaka rotating over to protect the rim and Durant rotating over to protect the rim. Secondly, the Spurs were able to dominate the defensive glass. In the fourth quarter, the Spurs were 9-for-9 at rebounding OKC's misses. And finally, as has been the case for a few months now, the Spurs become virtually unbeatable at a fast pace, which occurred naturally when it was small ball against small ball.
Going forward, while the Thunder are definitely more explosive offensively when playing small, I remain unconcerned about that alignment. I prefer that Pop counters with a small ball lineup of his own but Game 1 also pointed to the Spurs doing well when it was big vs. small. As long as San Antonio attacks the rim on offense and rebounds on defense, they should be fine.
However, not everything was rosy in Game 1. When the Thunder played a big lineup, the Spurs found it difficult to score. OKC used big ball for 19:06 and outscored the Spurs 34-26 during that time. Extrapolated, that equates to 85-65 over the course of a game.
Subjectively, the Thunder were their best on defense when Ibaka could play the role of a weak-side shotblocker, Durant was out on the perimeter utilizing his forever length and Perkins (or Collison) was holding down the fort in the middle. Sefolosha was also much more effective at shooting guard rather than small forward.
Following Game 1, the Thunder's coaching staff has all but admitted that they made a mistake by going away from their big lineup down the stretch. For that reason, in Game 2 the Spurs should expect a whole lot more of Ibaka and Perkins (or Collison) together.
To beat that alignment offensively, the Spurs need to knock down outside shots. In Game 1, OKC began the night having all of their defenders shade toward San Antonio's pick-and-roll action. For example, when Parker ran a pick-and-roll with Duncan, Sefolosha would instantly enter the fray and turn the pick-and-roll into a 3-on-2 mismatch. Each time Green hit iron from the perimeter (he was 0-for-5 on three-pointers), that gave Sefolosha (and sometimes Durant) more confidence to do all he could to muck up the Spurs set plays.
By hitting outside shots, the Spurs will force the Thunder defenders to stay home, which will then open up the room for the endless pick-and-roll sets the Spurs like to employ. In addition to outside shooting, running the court and scoring in transition would also help loosen things up.
(Another possibility is to add the fourth dimension to the lineup chess match and go small against the Thunder's big lineup. I'd rather Pop avoid this scenario if at all possible, however it's definitely a possibility if the offense remains anemic against the Thunder's big ball.)
Defensively against the Thunder's big lineup, the Spurs did well in Game 1 and need to use the same principles in Game 2. OKC's bigs (especially Perkins and Collison) are inept offensively outside of setting screens and scoring around the rim. For that reason, San Antonio's bigs should feel free to help out as much as possible. Even when the Thunder's bigs get open, Oklahoma City isn't much of a passing team so it's not a given they'll locate the open man.
One aspect of the defensive gameplan I'd like to see altered is the fact that the Spurs were daring the Thunder's spot-up shooters to beat them. With Fisher on the court, that's not a fate I'd like the Spurs to tempt. I'd rather the Spurs remain close to their spot-up shooters -- namely Fisher, Sefolosha and Cook -- because their shooting specialists are so one-dimensional that they can be eliminated as long as you just don't give them open looks. Neither Fisher, Sefolosha nor Cook can do anything off the dribble.
How each team adjusts in Game 2 will be interesting, although we already know roughly what to expect. The Thunder will try to remain big more often in an attempt to slow down the Spurs offense, while hoping for better individual offensive performances from their Big 3. The Spurs will look to take advantage of OKC's sagging defense by moving the basketball and hitting three-pointers early, while counting on their bigs to clog the middle to force the Thunder to win the game with contested jumpers.
Be smart. Be precise. Be nasty.
Believe.
I think the layoff affected the Spurs shooting and I think in game 2 the shooting will return-with a vengeance.
Nice write-up. Chess match indeed.
... MOAR NNAAASSSTTAAAYY, BABY!!
I am not sure what brooks will do.
He probably thinks that he lost by going small and leaving Ibaka on the bench in the 4th. To me he lost because he kept Harden in in the 4th.
What I suspect, though, is that he is deciding now what he will do in the game, and then he will stick to that no matter what's actually happening.
Brooks has many merits, but adaptability and flexibility aren't his mantra words.
If they continue to shade... o back door!!
Good point. After Green missed a couple from the outside, he started trying to go back door ... but his cuts were so slow that the Thunder were able to recover in time. But, yeah, better cuts and crisper passes could open the back door if the Thunder keep shading all of their defenders toward the pick-and-rolls.
Early on the game, when both teams go big, I want to see the Spurs go more to Duncan. He can easily get Perkins in foul trouble.
If Green continues to struggle (don't think he will) and the Spurs somehow lose Game 2 (don't think they will), do you see Pop starting Neal in his place?
The Thunder would be much more hesitant to sag off Gary and you could hide him defensively on Thabo. Plus you'd have Green defend Harden so Manu doesn't have to exert himself on that end and can stay on Cook or Fish.
Hoping they don't have to make a change bc I think Green/Kawhi bounce back tonight but I think it'd be a good countermove on Pop's part should he need it.
The layoff definitely effected the Spurs' timing coming out of the gates. Passes that would have flown by Griffin/Paul/Butler were getting picked off by Harden/Durant/Westbrook. The Spurs did a fantastic job forcing OKC to turn the ball over at a higher rate than they did against LA.
I would like to see Tony be a little more aggressive and confident in his ability to start the game. From what I was seeing, it was obvious he was worried and shaken by Westbrooks speed after his jumper got blocked early, he never stopped looking over his shoulder for him even after getting seperation and it threw off his timing in a major way
We want more Nasty!!
Game 2 officials: Monty McCutchen (crew chief), Tony Brothers, Ron Garretson
Monty McCutchen (11th playoff game in 2012, 95 career playoff game, 10th conference finals game)
Spurs are 6-8 all-time in games officiated by McCutchen, 4-3 at home and 0-2 in conference finals games (lost Game 3 at Utah in 2007, lost Game 5 at LAL in 2008). Prior to defeating Utah in Game 1 of the First Round this year, the Spurs had lost 5 straight playoff games officiated by McCutchen (2011 WCFR Game 4 @ MEM, 2010 WCSF Game 4 v. PNX, 2010 WCFR Game 5 @ DAL, 2009 WCFR Game 5 v. DAL, 2008 WCF Game 5 at LAL). Before that, the Spurs had won 4 of 5 with McCutchen.
In the regular season, the Spurs were 4-0 in games officiated by McCutchen, winning at home over Portland in January, at Memphis in January, at home over Minnesota in March, and at home over the Lakers in April. As noted, they also won Game 1 of the Utah series at home during these playoffs.
Home teams are 41-15 in playoff games officiated by McCutchen since 2007; this year, home teams are 8-2 in playoff games officiated by McCutchen.
In their current incarnation, the Thunder are 3-2 in playoff games officiated by McCutchen. They are 1-0 this year (won Game 2 of Lakers series in OKC) 0-2 on the road (lost Game 5 of the 2011 WCF at Dallas and Game 1 of the 2010 WCFR at Lakers) and 0-1 in the conference finals.
Tony Brothers (9th playoff game in 2012, 59th career playoff game, 5th conference finals game)
The Spurs are 3-2 in playoff games officiated by Brothers. They are 2-1 at home and 0-1 in the conference finals (lost Game 2 of the 2008 WCF at Lakers).
Brothers called only one regular season game involving the Spurs this year -- their January win at Memphis.
Home teams are 20-11 in playoff games officiated by Brothers since 2007; this year, home teams are 6-2 in playoff games officiated by Brothers.
In their current incarnation, the Thunder are 3-1 in playoff games officiated by Brothers, including 2-0 this year (won Game 1 v. Dallas, won Game 1 v. LAL). None of those were road games. Brothers called the Thunder's Game 4 loss to Dallas in the 2011 WCF.
Ron Garretson (8th playoff game in 2012, 202nd career playoff game, 35th conference finals game)
The Spurs are 21-11 in playoff games officiated by Garretson. They are 15-6 at home and 5-2 in the conference finals -- 4-2 in the Duncan era (won Game 2 of the 1999 WCF v. PRT (the Memorial Day Miracle), lost Game 1 of the 2001 WCF v. LAL, lost Game 1 of the 2003 WCF v. DAL, won Game 6 of the 2003 WCF at DAL (the 4th quarter rally), won Game 3 of the 2005 WCF v. PNX, won Game 1 of the 2007 WCF v. UTH). They are 1-0 this year, having won Game 1 of the Clippers series at home.
During the regular season, the Spurs were 4-2 in games officiated by Garretson. They lost at Houston in December, lost at Minnesota in January, won at Denver in February, won at home over Washington, won at home over Phoenix in April, and won the season finale at Golden State).
Home teams are 26-16 since 2007 in playoff games officiated by Garretson; this year, home teams are 6-1 in playoff games officiated by Garretson.
In their current incarnation, the Thunder are 1-2 in playoff games officiated by Garretson, with all 3 of those games being road games. They won Game 4 this year at LAL, lost Game 6 of the 2011 WCSF at Memphis, and lost Game 4 of the 2011 WCFR at Denver.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 05-29-2012 at 12:05 PM.
Great analysis. Completely agree that we will see a lot more of Ibaka. I also agree about staying close to their shooters; however, this can't come at the expense of defending the lane. If we get stretched out too far, Westbrook and Harden will likely carve up the interior.
If I'm Brooks,
1) I keep two bigs all the time. Even if not very productive offensively, it limits Spurs penetrations.
To put Jack on Durant, Spurs either have to go small, or take out one of the shooters, and that includes Bonner and Diaw.
2) Rotate Westbrook/harden/Fisher. Play Fisher with Westbrook. Harden sits if he is forcing anything.
3) Full court press and trap Neal. Spurs have no alternative at backup PG (they have, but it's unlikely to be used).
If I'm Brooks,
1) I keep two bigs all the time. Even if not very productive offensively, it limits Spurs penetrations.
To put Jack on Durant, Spurs either have to go small, or take out one of the shooters, and that includes Bonner and Diaw.
2) Rotate Westbrook/harden/Fisher. Play Fisher with Westbrook. Harden sits if he is forcing anything.
3) Full court press and trap Neal. Spurs have no alternative at backup PG (they have, but it's unlikely to be used).
I hope OKC plays more big ball honestly. Diaw just needs to hit a couple of outside shots and that will get the Thunder bigs out of the paint enough for TP/Manu to operate
The Spurs are still too deep for OKC and will execute much better. Also, there's no way in Danny Green shoots that poorly. We got this.
Good job, LJ. Three point shooting is going to be huge in this game, and probably the rest of the series. I don't think the Spurs can win many games while hitting 33% of threes (as they did in Game 1). I don't think the Thunder can win many games if the Spurs hit 50% of threes (as they did during the regular season).
The Thunder had good rotations for most of the game and were successful at running the Spurs off the 3 point line and recovering. However, the Spurs got so used to the pump fake and drive that they did it a lot in poor situations. I saw Kawhi and Green both pass up 3s that they should have taken in favor of pump fake dribble drives.
The Spurs need to do a better job of recognition on the appropriate move on the close outs. More often than not, its going to be to shoot or pass but not a drive. A pump fake and drive gives the defense far more time to recover than a simple swing pass.
I think this will likely be the most important aspect of the game to watch.
Incidentally, this is is the reason why Bonner will likely continue to struggle. Bonner does well when he's given wide open 3s because the 4 guarding him cannot close out in time. However, when pushed off of the line due to a fast closeout, Bonner's drives (while servicable) are not fast enough to beat the Thunder and he tends to make "slow" decisions. When Bonner is run off the 3 point line he's moving in slow motion compared to when someone like Manu is run off the 3 point line.
Jeff McDonald @JMcDonald_SAEN
In Brooks' defense, even if uses Ibaka as lone small-ball big late, he's not at the rim to stop those Manu drives. He's at elbow w/Duncan.
Jeff McDonald @JMcDonald_SAEN
Other option for OKC is to stay big, but that takes your best wing defender (Sefolosha) off the floor at the end.
Great points as well.
Bonner relevance becomes even higher if we rely on 3 point shots. Get nasty Matt.
Here I go on Serge Ibaka again. I agree with the notion that Brooks isn't always flexible and willing to try new things. I agree Ibaka would have a hard time holding Duncan as the 5 in "small ball". I agree that Ibaka/Perk together with Ibaka having to guard a perimeter 4 like Bonner could open things up for SA. I agree Ibaka's main offensive threat is the 15-18 footer, which he can, at times, hit pretty consistently. But if I'm Brooks (and again Brooks is a little stubborn) and I've got Ibaka in there against Bonner or even someone smaller, I attempt to post up Ibaka. Now, is Ibaka anything like Hakeem Olajuwon?....No. I'm not going to try to make Ibaka out to be a big offensive threat on the block, but I've ALWAYS felt that Brooks should give him more touches down low? Why? Because I think he has the ability to develop more of a post game and unlike Perkins actually has the touch and foot speed to go somewhere with it - AND it would give OKC a little more versatility and give the opponent something else to consider. When he's decisive, he can put a nice little spin and running hook shot that I think a Bonner could not really defend. At the very least it gives SA something else to at least look at and consider and could perhaps open things up a little.
I want to see blair for a few minutes.....bring some more nasty.
If they play two bigs, more double screens for Parker where both bigs come out to set picks.
I'm ready for a round one game 2 kind of performance, blow them out from the tip. The crowd will be crazy we're adjusted rust is off now let's hit some 3's.
That could get them a turnover or 2, but if it becomes an issue - Pop just lets Manu bring it up. That has it's own disadvantages, but not major.
The bigger question is who do you press Neal with? Since he plays PG mostly against Fisher, that's more likely to result in Neal getting past him for a wide open shot than it is Fisher turning him over.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
