Statistically Speaking: Why Did the Spurs Lose?

[therealtruth]

People keep claiming athleticism is the reason we lost. The Mavs faced the exact same problem against the Heat last year and won. How did they counter the athleticism?They continued to believe if they kept moving the ball the Heat players wouldn't be able to keep up and it worked.

The Thunder's percentage on two-pointers. I keep going back to the topic of offensive rhythm. Phil Jackson was a big believer in that to win you had to disrupt the other team's offensive rhythm and establish your own. Over the last few games the Thunder had a better offensive rhythm than the Spurs. That explains how you shoot a high percentage on long jumpers especially wide open ones.

[ChumpDumper]

lol rigged

[therealtruth]

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

I think you highlight the importance of changing defensive looks to help keep a team of balance. If a team is killing you one way you have to change the look. These changes need to happen in game and even from possession to possession at times. You can't just keep hoping for regression to the mean.

[Bruno]

During the regular season, Spurs were 30th of 30th in 2 pointers allowed outside 15 feet with 9.3 per game. They were 29th of 30th in FG% for these shots with a 40.9% FG%.

So, while it's true that Thunder caught fire with these long 2 pointers, Spurs have done a bad job the whole year at defending them. It was partly by design but too partly because of a poor defense.

[mingus]

underlying those statistics is pyschology. psychologically, after losing the first two games, OKC was as confident as ever. the Spurs, after losing their first two games, had a meltdown. i'll never forget the defeated body langauge the Spurs showed in game 5.

[timvp]

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.

Subjectively, that's one of the main reasons why they are so good. Tbh, I became petrified after the Game 2 win in which the Spurs played the best offensive basketball I've ever seen them play yet the Thunder were right there in the fourth quarter.

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.

The Spurs definitely collapsed the paint, tried to run them off the three-point line and gave up soft-contested long two-pointers to their role players. And the Thunder knocked the shots down. Props to them. On top of that, their Big 3 hit contested long two-pointers. Again, props.

But this is a strategy the Spurs use versus just about every team. It's not like Pop rolled out a totally new defensive philosophy for the WCF. That's basically what the Spurs always try to do. The Thunder hit the Spurs the Spurs wanted them to take. It sucks but no matter how open the Thunder were, the percentage they shot is unsustainable over the long. In one series, though, it certainly can happen -- as we just saw.

[timvp]

What is thier average points scored per turnover? I'd imagine it is quite high, surely greater that 1 considering how easily they score on fast breaks. Looking at how in one game alone we conceded something like 28 points off 21 turnovers, how can it be said the Thunder would only gain 2 ppg if we limited our turnovers to regular season levels (13/game)

I don't know where to go to look up stats like points from turnovers in each game.

Off of turnovers, the Thunder scored at a rate of 114.7 points per possession. That's a little bit higher than their regular rate in the series -- but not too much higher.

The Spurs averaged 2.2 more turnovers per game than normal in this series. It hurt, especially when you factor in that the Thunder turned it over so much less than usual, but I can't label that the number one factor -- especially since the offense remained strong enough despite the turnovers.

[timvp]

Looking back, I still think they outplayed the Spurs and deserved the win.

Agree. I might even take it a step further: Given their red-hot shooting, if Brooks doesn't use horrendous rotations the first two games, the Spurs probably get swept.

This is the problem with analyzing a game strictly based off of statistics, although I'm guessing you were doing so just for the sake of doing it and realizing that statistics can only tell you so much.

Exactly. Stats are limited but they paint an interesting postmortem picture for the Spurs.

There's rarely fluke shooting like that, especially extended over 6 games, IMO. They obviously felt comfortable taking those shots, and the Spurs defense in that area against this specific team was fairly poor. The Spurs doing a superior job inside also points towards the Spurs packing the paint at the expense of having them beat you from outside.
The more I think back about the series, the more I believe the gameplan was to stop Westbrook/Harden penetration, which also would reduce their amount of freebies. It's not necessarily an unsound plan.

The Spurs picked their poison, and the poison killed them.

Good post.

I brought out the 2006 Mavs comparison before the series and that's basically how the Spurs lost that series as well. Pop's defensive system is susceptible to teams who shoot extraordinarily well from the long two-point range plus get to the line a lot.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Mavs and the 2012 Thunder basically beat the Spurs the same way.

[timvp]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but weren't their assists way up from the regular season? Could the reason their percentages were up so much be that they were doing a great job of hitting the open man, so they were simply getting better looks at the basket than they did when they were running isos all year?

That definitely played a part.

Then again, it's a chicken and egg type thing. Did the Thunder have more assists because they were shooting better or did they shoot better because they had more assists? Subjectively, I'm pretty sure it's the latter but maybe not. Only time will tell, I guess.

[timvp]

During the regular season, Spurs were 30th of 30th in 2 pointers allowed outside 15 feet with 9.3 per game. They were 29th of 30th in FG% for these shots with a 40.9% FG%.

So, while it's true that Thunder caught fire with these long 2 pointers, Spurs have done a bad job the whole year at defending them. It was partly by design but too partly because of a poor defense.

Mostly agree. Although even looking back at 2007, the Spurs allowed similar numbers (8.3 per game @ 40.6%) in their last championship season.

Today's Spurs are obviously a lot worse defensively than the championship teams and thus have to pack the paint even more ... but even given that, the Thunder's shooting from that range was abnormally high regardless.

[temujin]

underlying those statistics is pyschology. psychologically, after losing the first two games, OKC was as confident as ever. the Spurs, after losing their first two games, had a meltdown. i'll never forget the defeated body langauge the Spurs showed in game 5.

I very much agree with this.
By watching G5, I had a distinct feeling that fatigue in some of the older players (Duncan Parker) plus some external factors influenced Spurs psychology, with the exception, in that game, for Manu. But Manu has a very very special psychology, notoriously unaffected by difficulties.
Players are human, not robots.
As for how confident OKC played, I think Fisher played a great part in that.
He's been around a lot in the NBA, including with some key appointments, and knows how to win. To me, he was absolutely crucial to OKC in that 4th quarter of G6.

[temujin]

lol rigged

lol unmanaged billions dollars business.

[ChumpDumper]

lol unmanaged billions dollars business.

?

[temujin]

?

You are too intelligent to think that a business that is worth several billions is not managed to maximaze returns.
Rigged the NBA is obviously not, conspiracy is BS (too complicated, and ineffectual in the end).
Managed, and well managed actually, yes, quite as obviously.
As for post-mortem stats, which I regard with lots lots lots of su ion, since they generally lack controls, my take is that Spurs played well enough to win, but the other team played out their minds (Ibaka 12-12 in G4!).

[dunkman]

Neither of those things happened.

It happened in game 6, 3rd 32:18. There was something similar in 4th, but more due to the refs.

Manu said OKC played better defense. Jack said OKC had better looks and played better defense, it was difficult for the Spurs to make points. Check the FG% for each team in that quarter.

It was the same for Q2 of the games 4 (29:17) and 3 (32:17). The Spurs never recovered from that runs in those 3 games.

It game 5, the Spurs had 21 TO's and Pop said the Thunder scored 28 points out of them. Keep in mind that you said the TO's had marginal importance.

Those are the 4 games the Spurs lost. They won 2 games, but it was before OKC made their adjustments, the stats from that games are irrelevant, logically as were wins won't explain why the Spurs lost the series.

Can find you the quotes of Manu, Jack and Pop if you wish.

While the ORB stats don't support what I said about the offensive rebounds, I remember the Spurs didn't box out well when it mattered most.

[G-Dawgg]

Bottom line is if our defense was even just a tiny bit better and we managed to get a few more stops a game or a timely defensive play or two at certain key points of the games we could have been the ones going to the finals..

[Cow Eye]

Spurs just aren't a defensive team anymore. For better, or worse, the Spurs have embraced being offense first.

I'm hoping that with the acquisition of Kawai that it might be the beginning of returning to a defense first philosophy. I won't hold my breath though. Duncan is on his last legs, and he really anchored the D.

We got to see a nice front-row-seat of what happens to offense-first teams.

[MmP]

Was age a factor at the end of game / 4th quarters in the series? As we saw SA dry at the end of game 6?

If that's the case I don't really know where Manu Ginobili fits in the future of this team.

[TJastal]

It's easy to shoot at a high clip when you are relaxed. OKC knew the refs had their backs all series long, even in enemy territory. That has to be a particularily unsettling feeling (for the spurs) knowing you can't even get some home cooking.

Spurs worked their asses off all year long (and particularily the final month of the season) to secure home court advantage and in theory not only fan support but a little home cooking to go with but obviously the league had other plans apparently.

[Fabbs]

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.

[TJastal]

You are too intelligent to think that a business that is worth several billions is not managed to maximaze returns.
Rigged the NBA is obviously not, conspiracy is BS (too complicated, and ineffectual in the end).
Managed, and well managed actually, yes, quite as obviously.
As for post-mortem stats, which I regard with lots lots lots of su ion, since they generally lack controls, my take is that Spurs played well enough to win, but the other team played out their minds (Ibaka 12-12 in G4!).

When fans start realizing that what they are watching is little more than the WWF and being falsely advertised as otherwise (and please don't say WWF tries to sell itself as "real" :Lol) and start cancelling season tickets or not tuning in to watch then the league may have to reconsider.

[Fabbs]

Agree. I might even take it a step further: Given their red-hot shooting, if Brooks doesn't use horrendous rotations the first two games, the Spurs probably get swept.

Nurse adjust this mans meds please.

[Blake]

....OKC knew the refs had their backs all series long, even in enemy territory....

..... but obviously the league had other plans apparently.

Stupid and funny

[MmP]

blind homerism i'd say

[TJastal]

Stupid and funny

Sissy cuck.