Spurs winning with ELITE defense

[DAF86]

For all the ing LMA has gotten he has played awesome defense, imho.

[DMC]

V

I get your point but I'm disappointed to see an "A>B and B>C thus A>C" post from you. I happen to agree with the premise that GS was/is elite, but you can't build your argument using that kind of logic. Sports matchups are a bit more involved than that.

Simply pointing at advanced stats shows us pretty much everything we need to know.

In a tiered system, if you're not able to get past the lower tier, you do not belong on the highest tier for whatever reason. The NBA playoffs are a tiered system. The term "elite" is being used here to describe a team that's somehow better than a team the "elite" team couldn't beat. That in and of itself doesn't make any sense. If A, B and C were side by side the analogy you used would be accurate, but in a tiered system they aren't side by side. The elite team should be able to beat all other teams in the playoffs, not just that one team that won the ring. Otherwise you're saying if we didn't have to go through tougher teams we would have been in the Finals because we could have beaten GS. That puts us right where you're saying the GSW are.

As I said, the Wizards could possibly have beaten the Warriors in the Finals. We'll never know, because they didn't get there.

[DMC]

I never said they were lol. I'd agree with not wanting to face Washington. I hate how well Washington can hit threes against us. We may not be the "elite" team they dodged, but we were the team they didn't want to face...or maybe they did just to see if they could beat us in a 7 game series. They're emulating us. Mus are MUs. We MU well with them, man. Our two best wing defenders regularly do well against them.

Too many people judge their team based on what they are capable of instead of what they do. If we can be sacked by a poor matchup scenario in the 1st round, then we should have beaten the Pelicans, or is that also a poor matchup?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

DMC

That one GNSF guy from way above is an idiot, but I have to disagree with you here on a few things.


First of all, think about it this way. In 2007, the Mavs were on a revenge tour after the heartbreaking Finals loss from the year prior, and were absolutely dominant against literally every team in the NBA except for the We Believe Warriors. In most simulations, they would have drawn a different team in the first round (like the Nuggets, Lakers or Clippers) and swept them, beat the Jazz in 5 in the second round, beat the Spurs in 5/6 in the WCF and won the Finals over the Cavs pretty convincingly. Unfortunately for the Mavs, they ran into literally the one team out of 29 that could possibly beat them that year: the dreaded We Believe Warriors. And so the Mavs suffered an untimely death at the hands of their one kryptonite, and the Spurs were able to cruise against the Jazz and Cavs to an easy le after getting past the Suns that year. Does that mean that the Spurs should be stripped of that le or be given an asterick simply because they didn't play the best team/the team that would definitely have beaten them? No. But it's undeniable that the Mavs were the class of the league in 2007.


Secondly, I don't consider the present-day Warriors a top 5 defense, at all. I'd rank them as middling on that end despite their high analytical D-rating. What D-rating doesn't take into account is that it sort of plays off the offense of a team, and that's how the Suns would consistently be ranked high in D-rating despite the fact they were bad on that end. The reason the Warriors have a high D-rating is their offense; as they are constantly running and scoring quickly, other teams find themselves down double digits quickly even with their average level of offense and they quickly become psychologically demoralized and resort to jacking up bad shots to try to get back in the game quickly, but that's a losing strategy against the Warriors (though teams, especially young teams, will do it anyway because it's a natural mechanism to want to match a team like that quickly to save face). That mainly explains why the Warriors' opponents shoot the lowest from 3-point territory; this is primarily due to the fact that opponents take more ill-advised jumpers (that usually result in bricks and transition scores the other way) against the Warriors than against any other team because they're simply trying and failing to shoot themselves back in the game quickly.

[HarlemHeat37]

DMC

That one GNSF guy from way above is an idiot, but I have to disagree with you here on a few things.


First of all, think about it this way. In 2007, the Mavs were on a revenge tour after the heartbreaking Finals loss from the year prior, and were absolutely dominant against literally every team in the NBA except for the We Believe Warriors. In most simulations, they would have drawn a different team in the first round (like the Nuggets, Lakers or Clippers) and swept them, beat the Jazz in 5 in the second round, beat the Spurs in 5/6 in the WCF and won the Finals over the Cavs pretty convincingly. Unfortunately for the Mavs, they ran into literally the one team out of 29 that could possibly beat them that year: the dreaded We Believe Warriors. And so the Mavs suffered an untimely death at the hands of their one kryptonite, and the Spurs were able to cruise against the Jazz and Cavs to an easy le after getting past the Suns that year. Does that mean that the Spurs should be stripped of that le or be given an asterick simply because they didn't play the best team/the team that would definitely have beaten them? No. But it's undeniable that the Mavs were the class of the league in 2007.


Secondly, I don't consider the present-day Warriors a top 5 defense, at all. I'd rank them as middling on that end despite their high analytical D-rating. What D-rating doesn't take into account is that it sort of plays off the offense of a team, and that's how the Suns would consistently be ranked high in D-rating despite the fact they were bad on that end. The reason the Warriors have a high D-rating is their offense; as they are constantly running and scoring quickly, other teams find themselves down double digits quickly even with their average level of offense and they quickly become psychologically demoralized and resort to jacking up bad shots to try to get back in the game quickly, but that's a losing strategy against the Warriors (though teams, especially young teams, will do it anyway because it's a natural mechanism to want to match a team like that quickly to save face). That mainly explains why the Warriors' opponents shoot the lowest from 3-point territory; this is primarily due to the fact that opponents take more ill-advised jumpers (that usually result in bricks and transition scores the other way) against the Warriors than against any other team because they're simply trying and failing to shoot themselves back in the game quickly.

[apalisoc_9]

That guy has some awful takes...

[ducks]

That guy has some awful takes...

You must watch him alot

[Solid D]

In 2013-14, (Spurs 5th championship season) the top 5 defensive teams per Basketball Reference site were (1) Indiana, (2) Chicago, (3) SA, (4) Golden State, and (5) OKC. The Spurs had the best Overall/Net Point Diff +/-.

In 2014-15 (Warriors 2nd championship season) the top 5 defensive teams per Basketball Reference site were (1) Golden State, (2) SA, (3) Memphis, (4) Milwaukee, and (5) Washington. The Warriors had the best Overall/Net Point Diff +/-.

Thus far, in 2015-16 the top 5 defensive teams per Basketball Reference site are (1) SA, (2) Indiana , (3) Miami, (4) Boston , and (5) Golden State. The Warriors have the best Overall/Net Point Diff +/-.

[DMC]

DMC

That one GNSF guy from way above is an idiot, but I have to disagree with you here on a few things.


First of all, think about it this way. In 2007, the Mavs were on a revenge tour after the heartbreaking Finals loss from the year prior, and were absolutely dominant against literally every team in the NBA except for the We Believe Warriors. In most simulations, they would have drawn a different team in the first round (like the Nuggets, Lakers or Clippers) and swept them, beat the Jazz in 5 in the second round, beat the Spurs in 5/6 in the WCF and won the Finals over the Cavs pretty convincingly. Unfortunately for the Mavs, they ran into literally the one team out of 29 that could possibly beat them that year: the dreaded We Believe Warriors. And so the Mavs suffered an untimely death at the hands of their one kryptonite, and the Spurs were able to cruise against the Jazz and Cavs to an easy le after getting past the Suns that year. Does that mean that the Spurs should be stripped of that le or be given an asterick simply because they didn't play the best team/the team that would definitely have beaten them? No. But it's undeniable that the Mavs were the class of the league in 2007.


Secondly, I don't consider the present-day Warriors a top 5 defense, at all. I'd rank them as middling on that end despite their high analytical D-rating. What D-rating doesn't take into account is that it sort of plays off the offense of a team, and that's how the Suns would consistently be ranked high in D-rating despite the fact they were bad on that end. The reason the Warriors have a high D-rating is their offense; as they are constantly running and scoring quickly, other teams find themselves down double digits quickly even with their average level of offense and they quickly become psychologically demoralized and resort to jacking up bad shots to try to get back in the game quickly, but that's a losing strategy against the Warriors (though teams, especially young teams, will do it anyway because it's a natural mechanism to want to match a team like that quickly to save face). That mainly explains why the Warriors' opponents shoot the lowest from 3-point territory; this is primarily due to the fact that opponents take more ill-advised jumpers (that usually result in bricks and transition scores the other way) against the Warriors than against any other team because they're simply trying and failing to shoot themselves back in the game quickly.

Dallas finished with the best record in the West. They got beaten by a hot shooting GSW team. It's quite possible the Spurs would have been beaten by the same team if they met them in the 1st round. It doesn't mean the GSW were the best team in the league, but it does mean the Mavs weren't.

It doesn't matter what seeding you get, if you cannot beat your match up you're not good enough to be a champion. You can look for loopholes in matchups and such, and sure some teams match up better with others, but you have to consider how they got there. The Spurs could have avoided meeting the Clippers in the 1st round had they beaten the 8th seeded Pelicans, but they didn't. It was only one game, but it was an important game. Pop resting guys as if he didn't care late in the season was part of that, but then part of the loss to the Clippers was intentionally fouling Jordan while we were up 12 in the 2nd quarter. It's never about what the team is capable of, or what they have shown they can do in the past, but what they did in that series. In that series, they lost. If they played the Clippers 10 series of 7 games each, it's likely they win more than they lose, but they lost that series. Then the Clippers lost to Houston. So yes it does matter what team beat what team. I don't care about ratings, all that is out the window once the playoffs starts. Teams don't win and lose on paper, but on the court.

[Mel_13]

DMC

That one GNSF guy from way above is an idiot, but I have to disagree with you here on a few things.


First of all, think about it this way. In 2007, the Mavs were on a revenge tour after the heartbreaking Finals loss from the year prior, and were absolutely dominant against literally every team in the NBA except for the We Believe Warriors. In most simulations, they would have drawn a different team in the first round (like the Nuggets, Lakers or Clippers) and swept them, beat the Jazz in 5 in the second round, beat the Spurs in 5/6 in the WCF and won the Finals over the Cavs pretty convincingly. Unfortunately for the Mavs, they ran into literally the one team out of 29 that could possibly beat them that year: the dreaded We Believe Warriors. And so the Mavs suffered an untimely death at the hands of their one kryptonite, and the Spurs were able to cruise against the Jazz and Cavs to an easy le after getting past the Suns that year. Does that mean that the Spurs should be stripped of that le or be given an asterick simply because they didn't play the best team/the team that would definitely have beaten them? No. But it's undeniable that the Mavs were the class of the league in 2007.


Secondly, I don't consider the present-day Warriors a top 5 defense, at all. I'd rank them as middling on that end despite their high analytical D-rating. What D-rating doesn't take into account is that it sort of plays off the offense of a team, and that's how the Suns would consistently be ranked high in D-rating despite the fact they were bad on that end. The reason the Warriors have a high D-rating is their offense; as they are constantly running and scoring quickly, other teams find themselves down double digits quickly even with their average level of offense and they quickly become psychologically demoralized and resort to jacking up bad shots to try to get back in the game quickly, but that's a losing strategy against the Warriors (though teams, especially young teams, will do it anyway because it's a natural mechanism to want to match a team like that quickly to save face). That mainly explains why the Warriors' opponents shoot the lowest from 3-point territory; this is primarily due to the fact that opponents take more ill-advised jumpers (that usually result in bricks and transition scores the other way) against the Warriors than against any other team because they're simply trying and failing to shoot themselves back in the game quickly.

Nice story, but those two things just aren't true.

[ceperez]

It's bull . The elite team won the ring, and they've proven that by being 17-0 this season. The Spurs couldn't get over the Clippers who couldn't get over the Rockets who couldn't get over the Warriors. That's how the tiers work.

Let's talk elite for a second:

1. Spurs had to win the last RS game against the ty Pelicans. They couldn't thus they didn't get the right matchup.
2. Golden State beat the Pelicans 4-0 in the playoffs.
3. That eliminates the Spurs as being "elite" this season, compared to the Warriors.
4. Warriors only lost 3 games en route to the Finals.
5. The team that beat the team that beat us only won ONE game against the Warriors.

So who were these elite teams?

Dallas?
Clippers?

No.

You're hemming and hawing around to say the Spurs were the elite team. They got their pushed in by the team that couldn't beat a washed up JSmoove and Jason ing Terry, who won only one game against the eventual champs.

Delusional people infest these types of forums. Just change the names in the post to "Lakers" and "Kobe" and it's indistinguishable from LG.com.

I agree that last year that the Spurs were not elite. You can't be elite with both Parker and Spitter playing injured though.

[Tbiggums47]

I agree that last year that the Spurs were not elite. You can't be elite with both Parker and Spitter playing injured though.

Exactly my point. They were not at their best last year. Now to just dismiss them as non factors is not rational. I happen to believe they still are Elite. They just need to prove it. IMO!

[cjw]

Nice story, but those two things just aren't true.

Exactly. It's more likely the W's defensive rating suffers from garbage time than is helped. Less intensity down stretch and less minutes to their best players.

There may be a few thrown away possessions by guys trying to outhero Steph, but not enough to move the needle of their DRtg.

[ceperez]

Exactly my point. They were not at their best last year. Now to just dismiss them as non factors is not rational. I happen to believe they still are Elite. They just need to prove it. IMO!

Well Spurs are obviously better.

LMA is an upgrade of an injured Splitter.
West is an upgrade offensively over Baynes
Anderson is a downgrade offensively from Belinelli, but an upgrade in defense.
Simmons is an upgrade over Cojo
Marjanovic is an upgrade over Ayres

Overall a better team that'll get better over time. We see both Anderson and Simmons both ac ulating minutes and become comfortable. That's a big thing to have two other young guys come off the bench and contribute.

[dabom]

Everyone knows Basketball isn't A>B and B>C so A>C. Matchups is a huge thing in basketball. Only a dumbass would say something so ing stupid.

[BillMc]

Simmons is an upgrade over Cojo

I hope you're right, of course, but I think it might be a little early to draw that conclusion with certainty.

[ajh18]

The Warriors are a great, great team. Best in the league right now, and I don't think it's fair to downplay their accomplishments.

That said, I also don't think it's right to call them "one of the greatest teams ever." I don't think they would have beaten our 2014 team, and I think that last year we simply couldn't hold up health-wise. The Spurs of 2015 were hobbled and not at the top of their game, and in that state were simply not better than GS. When we played them and were healthy, we did pretty well, which is why many fans on here (unjustly, I feel) downplay the Warriors' success.

They aren't a perfect team by any stretch, but right now they are the best in the league by far. If we, OKC, or Cleveland can get healthy and start clicking though, I don't think there is too much of a gap between those four teams.

[ajh18]

I hope you're right, of course, but I think it might be a little early to draw that conclusion with certainty.

Cojo looked great for Toronto last night, and looks good overall this season. Really happy for the guy. And yet another example of the Spurs developmental abilities, and why I'm still high on Anderson's potential.

Give the Spurs a bit of talent, and they consistently produce decent rotation players. Even ones that don't stick here like Beno, Mahinmi, James Anderson, etc. seem to benefit from their time in the system and carve out decent NBA careers. More recently, Spurs projects we lose via trade or free agency such as George Hill, Baynes, and Cojo manage to do fairly well.

Give the development team a lot of raw talent to work with... and you get Kawhi Leonard.

[Nathan89]

The Warriors are a great, great team. Best in the league right now, and I don't think it's fair to downplay their accomplishments.

That said, I also don't think it's right to call them "one of the greatest teams ever." I don't think they would have beaten our 2014 team, and I think that last year we simply couldn't hold up health-wise. The Spurs of 2015 were hobbled and not at the top of their game, and in that state were simply not better than GS. When we played them and were healthy, we did pretty well, which is why many fans on here (unjustly, I feel) downplay the Warriors' success.

They aren't a perfect team by any stretch, but right now they are the best in the league by far. If we, OKC, or Cleveland can get healthy and start clicking though, I don't think there is too much of a gap between those four teams.

They are clearly one of the greatest teams ever. They are undefeated and they are winning games by large margins. They could very easily have the best record ever this year.

[ajh18]

They are clearly one of the greatest teams ever. They are undefeated and they are winning games by large margins. They could very easily have the best record ever this year.

If they have a great record and win the le this year, I'll say this is the case. Until that, they're having a good run.

The 2011-2012 Spurs had a 20-game win streak going into the OKC series. Not one of the greatest teams ever.

The 2005-2006 Spurs won 63 games, were the defending champs, and never lost more than 2 games in a row until the Mavs series. Also not one of the greatest teams ever.

The 2008-2009 Celtics won 62 games, including a 19 game win streak, and were the defending champions. Lost to the Magic in the EC semifinals. Not one of the greatest teams ever.

My point is, let the Warriors do it again this year before crowning them. Lots of defending champions have huge streaks the following year, but if they lose in the playoffs then I at least don't classify them as one of the greatest ever.

[steeledl]

They are clearly one of the greatest teams ever. They are undefeated and they are winning games by large margins. They could very easily have the best record ever this year.

Quality post little brother. Too many Spurs fans sleeping on the Warriors . Scariest team I've ever seen tbh IMHO iirc.

[tmtcsc]

Golden St. has the rest of the league and the media bowing down like pussies. Take a look at the box scores once in a while and tell me how this team wins without Curry scoring in bunches. They can't and they won't. Every year it gets said over and over - the playoffs are an entirely different beast and this year will be no different. What happens when those 3's don't come so easy and frustration sets in? My bet is that GS will fold like lawn chairs.

That being said, the Spurs have A LOT of work to do to become the elite team they want and NEED to be to win #6. They have played a ridiculously soft schedule thus far, and as a result, fluffed up their record. I haven't seen them play a truly great game yet and their rebounding is suspect. Last night was good but they need to play better.

Plenty of season left to go and I'm sure Pop isn't going to allow the team to get injured patting themselves on the back.

[RayTdropout]

that's nice and all but in order to bEat golden state
there pathetic offense needs to step up

[Seventyniner]

The Warriors are damn good, but the 18-0 start is a bit of fools' gold. Their Pythagorean (expected) record is 16-2, only 1.5 games ahead of the Spurs. And that's on an even weaker schedule (-2.34 for the Warriors, -1.76 for the Spurs).

It reminds me of the Heat's 27-game win streak in 2012-2013. At one point they won a double-OT game at home against a bad Kings team. Change one shot in that game and instead of 27 wins in a row, it's 11 wins, 1 loss, 15 wins. Still damn good but not historic. And that Heat team needed a miracle to avoid losing in the Finals.

[spursistan]

It is indeed a historic D, i hope we keep it up..But i guess things will balance out a bit with offense as the season goes on..