This team may be wildly inconsistent but at least they're winning all the close games

[SAGirl]

I've seen a share of games this year. Haven't really posted.

The team is still adjusting the defense without Timmy. Danny coming back recently has helped. On defense they should be better later on when they are more in sync. Pau will and should improve on that aspect. I don't know what the stats say, but his defense in the post area and off pick and roll situations leaves a lot to be desired on a whole. He's never really been elite on that end but he can be better, imo. At times on the defense end he appears to have just finished running a marathon. He's ing slow and doesn't move his feet. There are times when he's just simply out of position (team defense wise), which is correctable with time.

Tony Parker of late has been good. His at ude this year about being that wiley vet to step on the floor and embrace the role of being a leader. That's ing badass. Years past that role was relegated to big ole 21. Now it's Tony, and somewhat Manu, more so with the former.

Tonight was a case in playing down to compe ion, and the Wizards making a ton of shots. But this was also one of those cases where you can see defensively (positionally and schematically) they can improve. Offensively, it's been more of a predictable onset. Imo I think the supporting cast has to show some versatility but its asking a lot when most of the bench players are streaky and have one niche.

The most troubling part will be when our backcourt gets to the playoffs and goes up against the dynamic backcourts out west. Idk if they can match up with that output on both sides. Patty is really good to have on the floor when he's making shots off the dribble and spot-up. But when he's struggling, he's not much of a point guard. And Tony has lost a step. At this stage in his career, you can't expect the Manu from 4-5 years ago to appear consistently. In the playoffs, he can play that role for a game or maybe even two in a series. That's not sustainable.

Good contribution.

[lofds]

I'm not worried. Early in the season is when you're meant to struggle. At least they've got somewhere to go and not peak early. Pop will be on them all season and they will improve.

[YGWHI]

The most troubling part will be when our backcourt gets to the playoffs and goes up against the dynamic backcourts out west. Idk if they can match up with that output on both sides. Patty is really good to have on the floor when he's making shots off the dribble and spot-up. But when he's struggling, he's not much of a point guard. And Tony has lost a step. At this stage in his career, you can't expect the Manu from 4-5 years ago to appear consistently. In the playoffs, he can play that role for a game or maybe even two in a series. That's not sustainable.

Agree. And there is no answer for this issue, unless they look for a trade before the deadline but I can't see Pop/RC doing that move this season.

[Seventyniner]

This team is also really struggling to close out games. I'd have to look back to see how many times this has actually happened, but I remember a few wins already where the Spurs were up 8 or 9 with 5 minutes left and let the other team back in it. Last year's Spurs would have stepped on their throats and won by 15.

[NameLess Scrub]

But the compe ion will be much better than the Wizards in the playoffs. I don't mind winning close ones against worthy opponents but to continuously do it against the bottom feeders of the league at home?

This team is also really struggling to close out games. I'd have to look back to see how many times this has actually happened, but I remember a few wins already where the Spurs were up 8 or 9 with 5 minutes left and let the other team back in it. Last year's Spurs would have stepped on their throats and won by 15.

[SPURt]

When Pop is trying a different starting line-up/rotation every game I'm not sure it's fair to expect similar results every night. With that in mind, I agree with the OP, to figure out how to win close games every night with different rotations is comforting.

[spursfaninla]

Remember a few years back (maybe '11?) when the Spurs were doing the same thing - winning all the games decided by 3 points or less? Someone had done a long-term analysis, and found that games within that margin are 50-50, even when one team is MUCH better than the other? Lots of people here argued, and said that the Spurs were winning them all because they were "tougher" than the other teams. Then it started evening out, and the Spurs' record went to .

The point is, in games that are decided by 1 shot, it's just as likely to be the bad team that makes the one shot. Kawhi's last shot with one foot inside the 3P line doesn't go, and it's OT. Porter's layup gets a kinder bounce, and the Spurs have another home loss. You just can't keep letting bad teams be that close at the end.

This is true. A stronger teams beats down bad or average teams, on average, and will have a higher pt differential. A team that wins by 2pts, but that wins more than that spread predicts, is basically lucky and over enough games,that will even out and either the spread will increase and the team is that good, or, as is more likely, the ball will bounce in a less friendly manner and the loses will start to come more frequently.

Not saying the highest pt differential guarantees a championship, but a relatively small one means you have basically no chance:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/04/13...nship-success/

A high ranking in regular season point differential correlates very strongly with winning the championship. Since 1990, ten of the 25 NBA champions have led the league in that category, 20 of the champions ranked in the top five and just one finished outside of the top 10. The average point differential ranking of the past 25 NBA champions is third.

[Uriel]

Remember a few years back (maybe '11?) when the Spurs were doing the same thing - winning all the games decided by 3 points or less? Someone had done a long-term analysis, and found that games within that margin are 50-50, even when one team is MUCH better than the other? Lots of people here argued, and said that the Spurs were winning them all because they were "tougher" than the other teams. Then it started evening out, and the Spurs' record went to .

The point is, in games that are decided by 1 shot, it's just as likely to be the bad team that makes the one shot. Kawhi's last shot with one foot inside the 3P line doesn't go, and it's OT. Porter's layup gets a kinder bounce, and the Spurs have another home loss. You just can't keep letting bad teams be that close at the end.

Exactly.

Point differential is a better predictor of playoff success than the outcome of close games. If anything, we should be worried we're not blowing out our opponents. It implies this team is weaker than its record suggests.

[TD 21]

. . . until regression to the mean kicks in or they face the elite or at least good teams. I don't trust them in these situations any more than I have the previous two seasons. Still no go to creator and no longer an elite defense to fall back on either.

They're a mess and they're scraping by inferior teams on muscle memory and the fact that they're just more talented than a lot of teams. They can't impose their will or sustain anything and it's obvious they don't really enjoy playing together.

I'm surprised Gasol's comments weren't all over the board. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said Gortat is lucky to play with guards who do a good job of finding him and that he had to work a lot harder for his points.

[100%duncan]

point-differential
close games


Regular season

[Perry Mason]

It's meaningful, for sure, but overrated. The stat-geeks are always trying to find some stat that is determinative of championships. But in the infinities of human action, there is no such thing; and the change in play, rules, athletes, etc., will always assure that the stats that correlated yesterday with winning, don't correlate the same today.

The Spurs had one of the all-time point differentials (and efficiency differentials / i.e. net rating) last season. And they lost in the second round. And looked like against elite teams.

The 2011 Bulls had no shot even with their high point differential, with or without Rose. And the 2011 Mavericks had a point differential that was around 4 or 5 points; respectable but not top 3 or 4 (as I recall).

[100%duncan]

It's meaningful, for sure, but overrated. The stat-geeks are always trying to find some stat that is determinative of championships. But in the infinities of human action, there is no such thing; and the change in play, rules, athletes, etc., will always assure that the stats that correlated yesterday with winning, don't correlate the same today.

The Spurs had one of the all-time point differentials (and efficiency differentials / i.e. net rating) last season. And they lost in the second round. And looked like against elite teams.

The 2011 Bulls had no shot even with their high point differential, with or without Rose. And the 2011 Mavericks had a point differential that was around 4 or 5 points; respectable but not top 3 or 4 (as I recall).

It's idiotic. It's easy to say that "X team who has a high pt diff will win championship" because as I've checked, championship teams are always in top 5 of point diff. But guess what? That's because only 5 or less are contenders each year, so of course a good to great team can still somehow get in that list. ing idiots only rely on point diff even after seeing what happened last year.

Last year, Cleveland was only 4th having a 6.0 compared to GS' 10.8 and SA's 10.6.

2013- 2014, we won, we were the #1 point diff in RG but by around only 7 and not leading the 2nd that much but we also steamrolled through the playoffs by much more than what the point diff suggests. Also Miami that year only had a 4.8 pt diff while houston and indiana got 4.6 and 4.4 respectively.

And there are years like 2015-2016 where it also works as it is intended. So as a whole, it really doesn't say

[cd021]

It's crazy. The Spurs FT shooting has helped them to win a lot of games (Currently ranked #1 in the NBA at 82%). But vs. the Wizards at home, they missed 12 FTs and almost lost the game...but yet they still won.

Gasol's FT shooting is baffling to me, he's been a very good FT shooter in the past (75% for his career, and at least 79% over the past two seasons but has seemingly gotten worse. He's shooting a career low 58% from the line. Aldridge, after a career best at the line is shooting 81% but has shot poorly recently.

[cd021]

It's idiotic. It's easy to say that "X team who has a high pt diff will win championship" because as I've checked, championship teams are always in top 5 of point diff. But guess what? That's because only 5 or less are contenders each year, so of course a good to great team can still somehow get in that list. ing idiots only rely on point diff even after seeing what happened last year.

Last year, Cleveland was only 4th having a 6.0 compared to GS' 10.8 and SA's 10.6.

2013- 2014, we won, we were the #1 point diff in RG but by around only 7 and not leading the 2nd that much but we also steamrolled through the playoffs by much more than what the point diff suggests. Also Miami that year only had a 4.8 pt diff while houston and indiana got 4.6 and 4.4 respectively.

And there are years like 2015-2016 where it also works as it is intended. So as a whole, it really doesn't say

Generally speaking, point diff. is view as the best metric to identify dominant teams and possibly predict how well they will do in the playoffs.

Last year was an outline the previous teams that had a 10+ margin of victory ( I believe it was at least four of them not including the Warriors and Spurs) won a championship, the only one that didn't face another one of those teams and lost. Cleveland making it to the finals with a modest margin of victory had more to due with team struggles and a bad eastern conference.

The 13-14 Spurs were notable because their margin of victory wasn't particularly high (I remember Zach Lowe mentioning that fact in a article he wrote following the championship) but that also had more to do with the fact that there was a large stretch were Leonard, Green, Splitter, were out and the Spurs were having to start D-leaguers and play people like Ayers and De Colo more minutes.

[TheDoctor]

It's idiotic. It's easy to say that "X team who has a high pt diff will win championship" because as I've checked, championship teams are always in top 5 of point diff. But guess what? That's because only 5 or less are contenders each year, so of course a good to great team can still somehow get in that list. ing idiots only rely on point diff even after seeing what happened last year.

Last year, Cleveland was only 4th having a 6.0 compared to GS' 10.8 and SA's 10.6.

2013- 2014, we won, we were the #1 point diff in RG but by around only 7 and not leading the 2nd that much but we also steamrolled through the playoffs by much more than what the point diff suggests. Also Miami that year only had a 4.8 pt diff while houston and indiana got 4.6 and 4.4 respectively.

And there are years like 2015-2016 where it also works as it is intended. So as a whole, it really doesn't say

Good analysis

[kaji157]

The good thing about this team is that even with the ancient backcourt rotation and the soft players inside and everything, they are winning a lot of games playing way below it´s capabilities and with many things that will for sure improve, like chemistry.

This team seems that is going to peak in a few months now, to be able to sustain that peak into the PO will be the challenge, and once we see that level we will be able to asses where this team may go.

So far i am happy with the outcome. Tony can play better than he is playing, Manu can shoot a bit better, Pau, Deadmon and LA can obviously give you something more than what they are actually bringing. And the team can play better.

It seems to me that this part of the year is being used to fit some pieces and to give Kawhi some awareness on what will be to be a first option.

[Ice009]

. . . until regression to the mean kicks in or they face the elite or at least good teams. I don't trust them in these situations any more than I have the previous two seasons. Still no go to creator and no longer an elite defense to fall back on either.

They're a mess and they're scraping by inferior teams on muscle memory and the fact that they're just more talented than a lot of teams. They can't impose their will or sustain anything and it's obvious they don't really enjoy playing together.

I'm surprised Gasol's comments weren't all over the board. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said Gortat is lucky to play with guards who do a good job of finding him and that he had to work a lot harder for his points.

What makes you say that it's obvious they don't enjoy playing together? Body language of some of the players? You don't think that it could be attributed to a lack of familiarity?

Also, what was the question asked when Pau replied with having to work harder for his points? I agree with you in that I'm surprised that quote is not plastered all over the board. If Pau doesn't like playing here, I wouldn't have a problem trading him for a guard if anyone is willing to give us back someone decent.

[TD 21]

What makes you say that it's obvious they don't enjoy playing together? Body language of some of the players? You don't think that it could be attributed to a lack of familiarity?

Also, what was the question asked when Pau replied with having to work harder for his points? I agree with you in that I'm surprised that quote is not plastered all over the board. If Pau doesn't like playing here, I wouldn't have a problem trading him for a guard if anyone is willing to give us back someone decent.

Body language, comments, the lack of in game acknowledgement of one another. I'm not saying the necessarily have chemistry issues or that it's reasonable to expect it to be what it was, but when you already have inferior star power to the other 3 elites, you can't also have inferior chemistry.

I can't remember; go and look it up. It'll be in the Spurs video section on the official website.

[wildbill2u]

The ability and will to dig down deep in order to come back in the 4th or play smart to win a close game is a good sign no matter who you play. Doing it on the road a lot more than at home is a strange anomaly, but the home game percentage will rise (I hope).

There are some obvious flaws during every game, but if the players avoid injuries and get more used to each other and Pop properly assesses his rotations, they could make it at least to the WCF.