Reply With Quote
No mention of turnovers?
In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes.
While those aspects hold some merit, the statistics point to a much more straightforward reason as to why San Antonio ended up losing the series. More on that later.
First of all, let’s look at what didn’t cause the Spurs to lose. Despite the Thunder holding an athleticism advantage at literally every position, rebounding wasn’t an issue in this series. The Spurs retrieved 76.4% of the available defensive rebounds, which is an even higher mark than their league-best regular season number. On the other end, San Antonio’s offensive rebounding percentage was 23.6% -- a rate close to their regular season average.
Although Game 6 featured some horrible calls an unfortunate whistle, overall the Thunder didn’t win the series at the free throw line. OKC shot .315 free throws per field goal attempt, which is down from the regular season rate of .333. The Spurs obviously hoped that they would be able to keep the Thunder off the line even more than they did since they were so good at doing that during the regular season (allowing only .221 FTA/FGA, second best in the NBA), however this wasn’t the difference in the series.
When looking at San Antonio’s offense as a whole, it’s difficult to lay much blame on that end of the court. The Spurs turned it over too much. Their passing stagnated as the series progressed. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili disappeared at most inopportune times. Tim Duncan looked 50 years old to begin the series. Many of the role players shriveled in the bright lights. The way Pop coached the final two games was questionable. All of that is true. However, despite all those negatives, the offense was still rolling. Outside of the Game 3 blowout, the Spurs scored 108.7 points per 100 possessions – an even better rate than their league-leading regular season rate of 108.5. It’s very easy to nitpick what happened on the offensive end but -- statistically speaking -- the offense was even more potent than expected. It could have been better, undoubtedly, but the offense should have been good enough.
Defensively, the Spurs weren’t all bad. In fact, their interior defense was fantastic. At the rim, the Thunder connected on only 57.3% of their shots. Considering that they typically shoot 65.6% from that distance, Duncan and the rest of the team did a wonderful job of shutting down the paint.
Extending the area of focus out further, San Antonio’s defense was very good within fifteen feet of the basket. From fifteen feet and in, the Thunder shot only 48.5%. During the regular season, they shot 56.6% from that range. That's a colossal drop of 16.7%. Thus, even though the Thunder have breathtaking athletes, it's difficult to see the athleticism advantage in the stats alone.
So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.
The Thunder made 52.7% of their two-pointers outside of 15 feet for the series. Normally, OKC shoots 42.6% from that range. Normally, the Spurs allow their opponents to shoot 40.6% from that range. But, unfortunately for the Spurs, the Thunder’s long-range shooting was abnormally deadly this series. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.
Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.
How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.
On one hand, the Spurs can take some solace in knowing they lost the series due to one of the least controllable factors in the game of basketball. But unfortunately, the other hand tells us a loss is a loss and a missed golden opportunity is a missed golden opportunity.
Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
No mention of turnovers?
excellent point, but how much does receiving multiple bull calls and thus not having to play solid D help your mindset on the other end?
Kobe Durant and co got a huge psyche advantage imo that made it easier for them to stroke.
Still bummed. This didn't help.
I see the mention now.
Seems to me though that turnovers were the biggest reason for the losses.
roleplayers shriveling up and calls going in favor of okc killed it
spurs could have overcame 1 but not both
if neal/green/splitter give you what they normally can we win ez
but those players are to reliant on parker/ginobili penetration and the switching on the pick and rolls stopped it
it was also stupid how ibaka/perkins could guard ginobili/parker 30 feet out and magically not pick up any fouls
Even more of a reason to not blow things up.. Come back next year with the same team with an upgrade on the frontline or two, and then try again.
, I believe that had the game been called fairly in game 6, we might be talking about the Spurs preparing for the Finals
Damn and I almost forgot about it
All of em shooting like Dirk
It was one of the craziest series i have ever seen. When you got sharp shooters like Harden , Westbrook, Durant not missing anything when it matters most you can maybe get through that and surivive.. Ibaka though going like 15/15 in game 4... That is like Shaq shooting 12/13 from the line..
In spite of all the sharp shooting and guys that made plays for OKC if Mr. Parker had not vanished games 3-5..
Spurs would be in the finals...
OP, shooting percentage goes up when you get bailed out on terrible shots. Remember, misses don't count as missed if you got a whistle for light brush contact or phantom foul calls. . .increasing FG%.
Yeah, they probably shot a little better anyway, but they also got bailed out on a lot of bricks with cheap whistles. Meanwhile, players we have like Parker who kept getting hit going to the basket weren't getting FTAs, which lowers his FG%. I remember people were saying he wasn't playing that well in game 1 but I didn't agree with that. He was something like 6/15, and yet imo refs swallowed their whistles on at least 3 fouls against him. If the game was called properly, his statline should've read: 6/12 with an extra 6 FTAs. 13 FTAs, rather than 7, and an extra 4-5 points for him and the Spurs.
It works both ways. Game 2 for example, Harden was 10/13, and had 13 FTAs. Many of which were on very light contact, stuff refs allowed against Parker both in that game and the previous one. So rather than 10/13, his statline would've been closer to 10/17 with just 5 FTAs, which doesn't look nearly as good.
If you don't agree, look at Parker's statlines for the series. Game 2: 2 FTAs. game 3: 2 FTAs. Game 4: 2 FTAs.
Parker's lowest FTAs for the playoffs prior to the Thunder series: 5. Yet, 3 straight games of just 2 FTAs due to refs allowing Parker to be fouled, lowering his FG%. And yet the other way, refs whistled a very tight game against the Spurs, bailing the Thunder on numerous shots close to the basket despite not calling it the same way on the other end.
OKC constantly forced the Spurs into taking bad shots, on the other end they were able to get great looks, hence the high field % of their offense. The Spurs were also sloppy with the ball, commuting too many unforced TO's many of them leading to fast break points.
That finding makes a great deal of sense to me. It has long been part of Pop's defensive scheme to contest as much as possible near the basket and to run shooters off the three point line. With that, you have to allow something -- it's just not possible to deny everything -- and Pop has long subscribed to the belief that the long-ish 2 pointer is basically an inefficient shot because teams generally don't shoot it well and when they make the shot, it's relatively less efficient than threes. When the Spurs were at their best defensively, they didn't necessarily concede the long 2, but they were fairly willing to dare opponents to make that shot; they were very successful in those dares.
A team making that kind of a percentage from those spots on the floor might well have given even the best defensive Spurs teams fits.
In this case, I think that's a pretty reasonable culprit for explaining the loss.
Thanks for this very great writeup! It does make me feel better because I couldn't put my head around our collapse. I recently was looking for answers in Manu's letter that ELNono graciously translated. When I first I read it I thought it had a finality to it I didn't want to hear, but I believe that was mostly my misinterpretation. In the end I believe he was saying sometimes you make the big shots and sometimes you don't. He was quick to call them the better team and didn't make excuses. Still I couldn't figure out, apart from the godforsaken officiating, how our fortunes turned so quickly. Games 1 & 2 were not aberrations, we were looking good. This off the chart perimeter shooting explains a lot. When people are shooting 20 to 30% better from the outside than they have all season it's not easy to overcome. To find our offense was slightly better than average seemed about right. Again, thanks for the insight!
While I agree thier long-2 shooting was out of this world by those stats, I think you glossed over turnovers too quickly. Perhaps more importantly, points off of turnovers. It's the same against a team like the Heat, if you turn it over its an automatic 2 down the other end.
Does anyone else remember when Tony was a one man fast break? For a while I've felt as though he is timid in taking it to the hole on the fast break and will rather stop and run a play
Wrong. The only reason we lost: Matt Bonner. Cursed.
alot of players in the nba the long 2 shots no one can make
it is a great system
Lost to the luckier team then. We should have prayed more.
The curious thing is that the Suns in 10 shot the lights out, so did the Grizzlies in 11 and now the Thunder. There is something wrong with the Spurs that should explain why those teams got more confidence to shot so well. But that's not coincidence. A team can't shot well by luck in 4 games.
First they were able to stop the Spurs at the defensive end. Then the Spurs concede open looks. Finally, the Spurs concede more offensive rebounds than usual. Finally the refs. In the end, OKC players took the shots relaxed, without pressure. Like in practice.
Turnovers hurt, no doubt, but the impact wasn't overwhelming. If the Spurs would have turned the ball over at their normal rate, they could have expected to gain approximately two points per game. That would have been helpful but I can't call it the number one reason why the Spurs lost. Besides, like I mentioned, the offense was fine even with factoring in those turnovers.
They're one of the most relentless teams i've ever seen. It's cliche, but you really have to play a full 48 against them.
Neither of those things happened.
Number 1 reason was their shot-making in the clutch.
Number 2 was Tony's vanishing act
Number 3 was untimely whistles..
Good stuff. However, they may have been shooting that well from outside because the Spurs had to sell out to take away the inside (and could not recover to contest at a normal rate). It's not like these are free throws--the degree of defense could still--possibly--have been the major variable.
It is easy to look that way when every jump shot goes in.. The stats say otherwise but there were times in the series where i felt they could not miss regardless of the D...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
