Personally, I enjoyed watching Spurs basketball from Feb to May.
Fantastic team effort, to be shown as clinics for the ages.
To win it all, you need other "details".
Disappointing, but understandable, if you put it in the right perspective.
Always been like that, and certainly so in the 2007 Spurs run.
The lack of comments from Spurs players or Pop about the Joey&Bill show" is further indication that they perfectly understand the nature of the deal.
Sure "they" might understand the "nature" of the deal (very obtuse phrasing choice btw). Doesn't mean they like it. Or that fans will continue to s out their hard earned cash for escalating ticket prices just for the priviledge of watching their team get bent over and rammed in the ass.
Sure "they" might understand the "nature" of the deal (very obtuse phrasing choice btw
Ok- enough about the Popsuckers. Let's keep this about basketball.
Exactly terrible calls and fluky shots, we should've kicked their asses.Even more of a reason to not blow things up.. Come back next year with the same team with an upgrade on the frontline or two, and then try again.
, I believe that had the game been called fairly in game 6, we might be talking about the Spurs preparing for the Finals
Stupid and funny
it's just a matter of time before you are talking about gay sex again.
Ok- enough about the Popsuckers. Let's keep this about basketball.
I guess I need to know what you mean by "managed."
In the aftermath of the San Antonio Spurs watching their glorious 20-game winning streak end with four straight losses, many theories have arisen regarding why the Spurs suffered such a violent reversal of fortune. A number of the hypotheses pointed to the Oklahoma City Thunder being younger, longer and more athletic and eventually overwhelming the older, veteran-reliant Spurs. Other theories have Oklahoma City maturing from an isolation-heavy collection of players to a team-first unit right before the nation’s eyes.
While those aspects hold some merit, the statistics point to a much more straightforward reason as to why San Antonio ended up losing the series. More on that later.
First of all, let’s look at what didn’t cause the Spurs to lose. Despite the Thunder holding an athleticism advantage at literally every position, rebounding wasn’t an issue in this series. The Spurs retrieved 76.4% of the available defensive rebounds, which is an even higher mark than their league-best regular season number. On the other end, San Antonio’s offensive rebounding percentage was 23.6% -- a rate close to their regular season average.
Although Game 6 featured some horrible calls an unfortunate whistle, overall the Thunder didn’t win the series at the free throw line. OKC shot .315 free throws per field goal attempt, which is down from the regular season rate of .333. The Spurs obviously hoped that they would be able to keep the Thunder off the line even more than they did since they were so good at doing that during the regular season (allowing only .221 FTA/FGA, second best in the NBA), however this wasn’t the difference in the series.
When looking at San Antonio’s offense as a whole, it’s difficult to lay much blame on that end of the court. The Spurs turned it over too much. Their passing stagnated as the series progressed. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili disappeared at most inopportune times. Tim Duncan looked 50 years old to begin the series. Many of the role players shriveled in the bright lights. The way Pop coached the final two games was questionable. All of that is true. However, despite all those negatives, the offense was still rolling. Outside of the Game 3 blowout, the Spurs scored 108.7 points per 100 possessions – an even better rate than their league-leading regular season rate of 108.5. It’s very easy to nitpick what happened on the offensive end but -- statistically speaking -- the offense was even more potent than expected. It could have been better, undoubtedly, but the offense should have been good enough.
Defensively, the Spurs weren’t all bad. In fact, their interior defense was fantastic. At the rim, the Thunder connected on only 57.3% of their shots. Considering that they typically shoot 65.6% from that distance, Duncan and the rest of the team did a wonderful job of shutting down the paint.
Extending the area of focus out further, San Antonio’s defense was very good within fifteen feet of the basket. From fifteen feet and in, the Thunder shot only 48.5%. During the regular season, they shot 56.6% from that range. That's a colossal drop of 16.7%. Thus, even though the Thunder have breathtaking athletes, it's difficult to see the athleticism advantage in the stats alone.
So, how did the Spurs lose the series if the offense was fine, the rebounding was solid, the free throws weren’t murderous and the interior defense was great? The Thunder shot the damn lights out from the perimeter. It’s just sickening (for a Spurs fan, at least) how well they shot the ball.
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. Yes, San Antonio gave up some perimeter looks by design, but 52.7% isn’t sustainable by any team (or any player, for that matter) over the long haul. That said, give the Thunder credit. Their players stepped up and knocked down the most inefficient shots in the game of basketball at a shockingly efficient rate.
Oklahoma City’s marksmanship extended beyond the three-point line. The Thunder shot 40.4% on three-pointers for the series, which is up from their regular season accuracy (36%) and much better than they shot in the first two rounds (even though the Lakers and Mavs are poor at defending the three-point line and the Spurs are elite). Again, give the Thunder all the credit.
How much did OKC’s shooting from the perimeter influence this series? If the Thunder shoot their usual percentage from the perimeter, they would have scored 37 fewer points -- or 99.7 points per game instead of 105.8. Do you think that would have made a difference? Yeah, so do I.
On one hand, the Spurs can take some solace in knowing they lost the series due to one of the least controllable factors in the game of basketball. But unfortunately, the other hand tells us a loss is a loss and a missed golden opportunity is a missed golden opportunity.
Shooting Percentage on Two-Pointers From 15 Feet and Out
Good stuff....but I would bet their numbers are skewed a bit by the first two games--especially the first game.
If you are examining why we lost statistically, you should examine only the games we lost.
Also, I would be interested to see the stats if you took away our best game (1) and their best game (3) in terms of margin of victory.
Regarding offensive rebounds given up, at what rate did the Thunder convert their second chance points, I wonder?
Same thing with turnovers: Not only were our turnover numbers horrific, how many points off TO's did they get?
(Asking these questions rhetorically, of course)
Think of it the same way when Blake tells you to ... aww I can't say it..
Quit professing your love for me, dude.
Thanks for taking time and writing this. Every day this team gets a little bit closer at having the opportunity for some pay back.
I just hope the FO keeps developing players and doesn't give up much if they are looking at making roster changes. Most of the contributing players have not reached their ceiling.
The patience of the Thunder FO has led to their primary goal being within reach, with the same patience reward the Spurs?
I BELIEVE
We are not talking about the beginning of the season we are talking about the WCF in a series the Spurs were favored in. Duncan was always the best player and he can fail in between rings when he won a ring at age 23 and a finals MVP. Tony never led the Spurs to a le but this was indeed his chance..
A good analysis would be to compare stats in the first two wins as compared to the four losses and see what jumps out as what made the difference between winning and losing.
2007 Cavs really...
Okay...
Give me a time Duncan didn't do the heavy lifting for him
Parker was the only one attacking the basket in the 2nd half of game 6. parker made some nice moves and scores taking it inside. Lots of other players standing around the perimeter looking to hit the perimeter shot. Where was Manu?
I just did.
against the cavs duncan did not
mj needed pippen to get the job done
james still has not gotten it done with bosh and wade
all of those all in the prime
duncan and manu are not in their prime
tp is only at beginning of his prime
1) The Cavs Sucked
2) Duncan was the best player on the team
3) The Cavs Sucked...
4) Duncan led them to the finals
5) The Cavs Sucked...
Tony has had a heck of a career with the Spurs but lets not sugarcoat his shortcomings...
he was gassed from playing to many minutes the game before
pop should not have started him those last two games
sj should have started
Let's not denigrate his accomplishments either.
how many players win rings?
stockton and mailman never one a ring
do you think stockton was a better point guard then tp
name the last point guard that won finals MVP
Didn't have to, they sucked...
30 with a lot of miles on the tires he has maybe 3 years left...tp is only at beginning of his prime
I'm not simply stating how bad the Cavs were..
dude he still had to get the job done or they would have lost
tp could have just stayed at the premiter and shot shots and hoped they would drop
he attacked
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
