Reply With Quote
Good get.
In the 2005-06 season the Mavs ranked 7th in own FG% and 10th in opponents' FG%.
Miami? 2nd and 8th.
Good get.
In the 2004-05 season the Spurs were 10th in own FG% and 3rd in FG% allowed. The Pistons? 17th and 5th.
In the 2002-03 season the Spurs were 4th in the NBA in own FG%. Lakers? 9th. Nets? 14th. Looking for FG% allowed rankings for that season.
Those are not nearly as meaningful as Offensive and Defensive Efficiency per 100 possesions. Check out Basketball-reference.com to see those stats.
Those rankings are rather good at sorting out the field and based on the last few Finals they've held true.
Also of note is that the Spurs ranked 24th in 2006-07 in FT attempts while the Cavs were 15th. The Spurs' offense is generally not dependent on the whistle.
no , the Spurs offense is dettered by the whistle, and has been for years.
Like I said all along, if the Spurs show up and play on both ends of the court like they have thus far in the playoffs - they win. The Spurs are holding all of the chips, all of the cards except one... now they have to lay them down one by one to dominate this thing and win the le.
Spurs were also 1st in the league with the fewest fouls committed (playing D beginning with foot movement goes a long way) and 4th in the fewest turnovers committed this season, while the Cavs were 11th and 7th.
I cannot stand watching the Cav offense.
Other 4 players spread the floor and get out of the way. LBJ in the middle and let him create. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Just because opp.FG% is lower doesn't always mean it is any better. It isn't the Cavs' fault that so many teams can't really shoot too well anyways. If some of their opponents could shoot better that FG% number would change. I have seen many playoff games this year the Cavs played where they got the benefit of a team not being able to water form a boat on Lake Erie.
It helps a lot when you play a Washington team without Butler and Arenas. New Jersey wouldnt have made the playoffs in the West.
Basically those types of stats are meaningless without at least some common opponents.
.
Last edited by whottt; 06-05-2007 at 04:11 AM.
Edit - somethings are best left unposted.
Last edited by whottt; 06-05-2007 at 04:10 AM.
Likely a part of the reason the Cavs' FG% was so low this season. They do a good job of rebounding on the offensive end though. But they are facing a team in the Finals that does a great job on the defensive glass.
Rebounding is a hot topic going into this series, as it has been each series.
Regular season: Cleveland was second at 43.5 boards per game (giving up 39.85). And were fourth in differential at +3.65 (behind Utah, New York and Dallas). Spurs were tenth in differential at +1.58 (40.65 and 39.11).
Playoffs: Cleveland is third at 43.87 (giving up 38.12) for the second best differential at 5.75. San Antonio is twelfth at 39.81 (giving up 40.62) for the eleventh best differential at -.081. However, breaking down the opponents sheds some light on Cleveland’s improvement, and San Antonio’s decline.
During the playoffs, Cleveland's average regular season rank of their opponents in rebounding differential was 19th, an average of -1.0. The best rebounding differential team they faced was New Jersey at 17th (Washington was 23rd, Detroit 18th). Cleveland's rebounding numbers were slightly inflated because Washington played without Arenas and Butler (Butler was second on the team at 7.4 per game. Arenas was 5th at 4.2). During that series Washington gave up 49 boards per game, while averaging 36.50, for a league-worst differential of -12.50.
San Antonio's numbers are pretty ugly. However, their opponents average regular season rebounding differential rank was 12th, an average of +1.42. They faced the top ranked team in Utah (Denver was 11th and Phoenix 24th). Except for Game 5 in the Phoenix series (when they were out-rebounded by 3), all the Spur's opponents have been at full-strength.
San Antonio by far has had the more difficult path to the Finals in terms of rebounding; as a matter of fact they have been outrebounded in each series. Cleveland has had the easiest path in terms of rebounding; as a matter of fact, they have outrebounded their opponents in each series.
Looking at the raw numbers paints a picture of an overwhelming advantage for the Cavs. But, when evaluating the quality of the opponents, the Cavs are behind the Spurs.
Bottom-line, the Spurs have faced a superior trio of rebounding teams and come out winners. The fact that the Cavs are a good rebounding team (but I would argue not as good in the playoffs) is a big concern. However, the Cavs may not be as good as people are making them out. San Antonio is at a rebounding disadvantage in this series, but not as big as it first appears.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
