2012 Finals Matchups. Who has the edge?

[mavs>spurs]

this highlights the fallacy. Okc, in particular Ibaka/Collison/Westbrook/Thabo are not sharp shooters. And all year they were presented with a similar distribution of shots and came no where close to hitting them at the clip they did that series. In fact, it was shown okc only had games like they did v the Spurs around 2-3 times this year (meaning those %'s in b2b games) and that was only for a string of 2 games in a row. It's not just okc either, no teams can really sustain that from what I've looked at/seen.

ibaka and collison have always been excellent mid range shooters

and i guess you haven't watched westbrook the 2nd half of this year..his mid range shooting has improved tremendously. he did the same exact against dallas.

you sound a little mad bro with all the responses back to back to back

[DPG21920]

The Spurs during the regular season gave up a FG% higher than the league average (they had the 3rd highest opponent's FG% among playoff teams), so if the Spurs defend the paint really well like you say, it means their perimeter defense leaves something to be desired. I guess all the inefficient shots teams made on the Spurs at a clip higher than the league average was a fluke too.

They defended the paint well vs OKC. Perimeter defense also includes 3-point defense and staying in front to keep guys off the line - Spurs did that pretty well too vs OKC.

By your logic, I guess the huge sample size of shots that OKC hit during the year painted a true picture of their sustainable abilities (going off the chart I just posted from timvp) considering they were presented with those shots consistently and played against numerous poor defenses.

Also, teams did hit some inefficient shots at a decent clip vs the Spurs - but because they were taking those shots, even when hitting at a decent clip, they couldn't win because of it. It would take a pretty astronomical clip for a team to win with taking those types of shots and that is what happened. It happened from a team that showed they were decidedly average at that type of shot too.

[DPG21920]

ibaka and collison have always been excellent mid range shooters

and i guess you haven't watched westbrook the 2nd half of this year..his mid range shooting has improved tremendously. he did the same exact against dallas.

you sound a little mad bro with all the responses back to back to back

I'm not mad at all. Just trying to have an actual discussion.

[DPG21920]

ibaka and collison have always been excellent mid range shooters

This is an entire year of data, a large sample size. These weren't sharp shooters from that range. Those numbers include playing against really poor defensive teams that presented them numerous open looks:





.

Collison, sure, you can argue as excellent, but Ibaka, Harden, Westbrook, Thabo...? I don't see it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

They weren't all wide ass open. And we aren't discussing 3-pointers. We are discussing a large amount of a specific type of shot. That's just a default response to someone not paying attention because they saw amazing %'s. It would be like looking at a Lebron boxscore from game 6 & saying his FG % was high because he was wide ass open.

You're in denial if you think Ibaka wasn't "wide ass open." The Spurs gave him that shot and didn't stop giving it to him after he kept making it.

You are missing the point again because you are more interested in scoffing the Spurs and using emoticons vs actually debating and re-watching the games with an eye on what's being discussed.

I'm wondering what game you're rewatching the come to the conclusion that Ibaka's jumpers were contested. They weren't. He had time to set his feet and line the shot up on most of them. Popovich knowingly gave him that shot and basically said, "Go ahead and try to make it."

The entire point is that even taking into consideration the generic "if you leave them wide ass open no duh their confidence will grow and they will make shots!!", average to well below average guys don't automatically become "sharp shooters" when presented with the most inefficient shot in basketball. They might hit some, but not put up off the charts numbers for several games in a row. They played plenty of bad defenses during the year and were presented with a similar shot distribution - why then were their numbers so much lower?

They don't become sharpshooters, but they're more than capable of hitting wide open 15-20 foot shots, especially when, like m>s said, they're given a higher than usual amount of them that allows them to get into a rhythm. Hitting that shot at barely above a 50% clip really isn't "Off the chart" when you factor in how open the players taking it were.

[DPG21920]

You're in denial if you think Ibaka wasn't "wide ass open." The Spurs gave him that shot and didn't stop giving it to him after he kept making it.


I'm wondering what game you're rewatching the come to the conclusion that Ibaka's jumpers were contested. They weren't. He had time to set his feet and line the shot up on most of them. Popovich knowingly gave him that shot and basically said, "Go ahead and try to make it."


They don't become sharpshooters, but they're more than capable of hitting wide open 15-20 foot shots, especially when, like m>s said, they're given a higher than usual amount of them that allows them to get into a rhythm. Hitting that shot at barely above a 50% clip really isn't "Off the chart" when you factor in how open the players taking it were.

I watched every game twice w the exception of game 6.

I don't know how you can look at this chart and say "barely above 50%" or that those numbers aren't " off the chart" especially compared to their regular numbers.

[Banzai]

Thunder...youth..but Miami will probably get all of the calls.

[z0sa]

How does a team that shoots that many open looks also get to the free throw line so many times?



Oh yeah, I remember now, the Spurs suck ass on defense and went with ultra small ball lineups throughout the series, including one that had Dejuan Blair at center. Which explains both the flukey shooting numbers (little-no pressure on the jumpshooter) and the freebies (no shotblocking).

Sometimes you just tip your hat and sometimes you realize that your defense just isn't good enough to take away anything from a dynamic offense like the Thunder's.

I realize that the numbers 'technically' are off the charts but that playoff ball for you - weaknesses are exploited with a exactness beyond methodical.


As for the upcoming Finals, the real matchup is LBJ vs Durant. The one who rises above his opponent will probably win the le.

[mavs>spurs]

Collison, sure, you can argue as excellent, but Ibaka, Harden, Westbrook, Thabo...? I don't see it.

If you argue that Ibaka isn't a good outside shooter then you'd have to argue the same about Durant, according to your chart

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

They defended the paint well vs OKC. Perimeter defense also includes 3-point defense and staying in front to keep guys off the line - Spurs did that pretty well too vs OKC.

Yes, and as a result of making a concerted effort to limit free throws, points in the paint, and 3 pointers, they allowed an abnormal amount of wide open midrange shots. They're an average defensive team that in order to limit one part of a team's offense needs to concede another part of a team's offense. They aren't a good enough defensive team to limit OKC's interior scoring and free throws as well as they did while also being able to contest their midrange shots.

By your logic, I guess the huge sample size of shots that OKC hit during the year painted a true picture of their sustainable abilities (going off the chart I just posted from timvp) considering they were presented with those shots consistently and played against numerous poor defenses.

The poor defenses they played against didn't dedicate so much to stopping OKC's interior scoring hence they didn't give OKC as many wide open mid range shots. Once again, you're kidding yourself if you think Ibaka saw as many open looks on a regular basis during the regular season as he did against the Spurs.

Also, teams did hit some inefficient shots at a decent clip vs the Spurs - but because they were taking those shots, even when hitting at a decent clip, they couldn't win because of it. It would take a pretty astronomical clip for a team to win with taking those types of shots and that is what happened. It happened from a team that showed they were decidedly average at that type of shot too.

Teams taking "inefficient shots" wasn't remotely the reason why San Antonio had so much regular season success. They had regular season success with an elite offense and mediocre defense. Once again, they surrendered a shooting percentage HIGHER than the league average. In other words, they allowed more efficient shots than the average NBA team. Yes, that worked in the regular season, but the "You might shoot well but we'll shoot even better" strategy doesn't work in the playoffs.

[DPG21920]

If you argue that Ibaka isn't a good outside shooter then you'd have to argue the same about Durant, according to your chart

Who said he wasn't good? Also comparing Durant to Ibaka is dumb considering how he gets his shots and the degree of difficulty.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I watched every game twice w the exception of game 6.

I don't know how you can look at this chart and say "barely above 50%" or that those numbers aren't " off the chart" especially compared to their regular numbers.

Timvp's thread says that the Thunder collectively shot 52% on 2-pointers longer than 15 feet. I'm sorry if you think me calling 52% "barely above 50%" was wrong. 52% shooting on 15-20 foot jumpers really isn't THAT unbelievable in my book given how wide open most of them were.

As for that chart, the difference for Fisher, Ibaka, and Westbrook is negligible. I would also like to see the amount of 15-20 footers each player took as I imagine Collison and Sefolosha took a small enough amount of 15-20 footers that the percentage difference is likely only a few made shots. Durant was red hot the entire series but he's the 2nd best player in the NBA so I don't really think him continuing to play this good is "unsustainable"

[DPG21920]

Yes, and as a result of making a concerted effort to limit free throws, points in the paint, and 3 pointers, they allowed an abnormal amount of wide open midrange shots. They're an average defensive team that in order to limit one part of a team's offense needs to concede another part of a team's offense. They aren't a good enough defensive team to limit OKC's interior scoring and free throws as well as they did while also being able to contest their midrange shots.


The poor defenses they played against didn't dedicate so much to stopping OKC's interior scoring hence they didn't give OKC as many wide open mid range shots. Once again, you're kidding yourself if you think Ibaka saw as many open looks on a regular basis during the regular season as he did against the Spurs.


Teams taking "inefficient shots" wasn't remotely the reason why San Antonio had so much regular season success. They had regular season success with an elite offense and mediocre defense. Once again, they surrendered a shooting percentage HIGHER than the league average. In other words, they allowed more efficient shots than the average NBA team. Yes, that worked in the regular season, but the "You might shoot well but we'll shoot even better" strategy doesn't work in the playoffs.

They had playoff success too including a 2-0 lead vs OKC.

[mavs>spurs]

Who said he wasn't good? Also comparing Durant to Ibaka is dumb considering how he gets his shots and the degree of difficulty.

Funny because calling ibakas shooting a fluke is dumb because
Of how he got his shots off wide open looks and the low degree of difficulty

[DPG21920]

Timvp's thread says that the Thunder collectively shot 52% on 2-pointers longer than 15 feet. I'm sorry if you think me calling 52% "barely above 50%" was wrong. 52% shooting on 15-20 foot jumpers really isn't THAT unbelievable in my book given how wide open most of them were.

As for that chart, the difference for Fisher, Ibaka, and Westbrook is negligible. I would also like to see the amount of 15-20 footers each player took as I imagine Collison and Sefolosha took a small enough amount of 15-20 footers that the percentage difference is likely only a few made shots. Durant was red hot the entire series but he's the 2nd best player in the NBA so I don't really think him continuing to play this good is "unsustainable"

Harden. And all of the players, despite the number of attempts collectively shot way over their heads and chipped in enough to win. These games despite Spurs playing poorly were pretty close outside of game 3.

[DPG21920]

Funny because calling ibakas shooting a fluke is dumb because
Of how he got his shots off wide open looks and the low degree of difficulty

Low degree of difficulty . Yes mid range is so easy it's why everyone is so proficient at it these days despite easier offensive rules.

[DPG21920]

Funny because calling ibakas shooting a fluke is dumb because
Of how he got his shots off wide open looks and the low degree of difficulty

I don't care how good you are, 11-11 is a fluke. Also you're focusing on one guy. How about Harden? Westbrook? Thabo? Fisher? Durant?

[mavs>spurs]

Low degree of difficulty . Yes mid range is so easy it's why everyone is so proficient at it these days despite easier offensive rules.

Everyone isn't but Ibaka and collision are two big men who are known for it

and a spur fan calling out Derek fisher for fluke shooting is the funniest thing I've ever heard

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

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.

So out of every ten 15-20 ft. shots the Thunder took against the Spurs, they made 1 more than their season average (or 10% more). In such a limited sample size, shooting 10% better than they did during the regular season from an area the Spurs were basically asking them to shoot from really is not off the charts or fluky at all.

I'm still waiting to hear why I should have never said "barely above 50%"

[DPG21920]

Did you look at the chart? Do you not see how a much larger sample size that shows their true abilities (the regular season chart) is significantly lower than the small 1-series sample size (wcf chart)? That is pretty much the definition of an outlier or a fluke.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Low degree of difficulty . Yes mid range is so easy it's why everyone is so proficient at it these days despite easier offensive rules.

Making catch & shoot midrange shots with the defense sagged off you is something most NBA players are proficient at.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Did you look at the chart? Do you not see how a much larger sample size that shows their true abilities (the regular season chart) is significantly lower than the small 1-series sample size (wcf chart)? That is pretty much the definition of an outlier or a fluke.

The much larger sample size is their 42.6% from that range they shot in the regular season. The 1-series sample size was 52.7%. That's a 10% difference. If there was the information available I'm willing to guess that the 42.6% number from the regular season has a standard deviation higher than 10%.

[DPG21920]

On that chart, the core of the minutes played, there were only 2 people less than 50% from that range. 2.

[mavs>spurs]

Derek fisher ain't no fluke!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Also, teams did hit some inefficient shots at a decent clip vs the Spurs - but because they were taking those shots, even when hitting at a decent clip, they couldn't win because of it. It would take a pretty astronomical clip for a team to win with taking those types of shots and that is what happened. It happened from a team that showed they were decidedly average at that type of shot too.

http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx



OKC was average at the 15-23 foot shot? They led the in NBA in efficiency from that area. If they're average at that type of shot, which team is good or great at that type of shot? Man, what a fluke. The best 15-23 foot shooting team in basketball winning a series with their 15-23 foot shots!