APBRmetrics

I will think about and post on this later but any one else want to offer suggestions?

Spending every waking moment figuring out how to beat young, skilled, athletic teams, so that when the time (conference finals) comes the Thunder aren't the immovable object they currently represent.

Yes that is a problem.

ESPN said Spurs record against the 7 best other teams is something like 1-14.

How to do it? One level to consider is lineups. Spurs most used lineup T. Duncan | D. Green | K. Leonard | T. Parker | T. Splitter has slightly negative +/-. It was there best lineup in last playoffs used over 21 minutes but it still just used 8 minutes per game. Is it good or bad? More testing would help when Splitter gets back. It was great in 2012-13 regular season but it was still pretty lightly used.

5 of the top 9 lineups are negative. Surely they can do better than that and use the better lineups more or far more than they have. B. Diaw | T. Duncan | M. Ginobili | K. Leonard | T. Parker is the best of the top 5 most used lineups at +10 per 100 possessions. Popovich has not used it as a starting lineup and is very unlikely to do so. Even putting that aside, he uses it just 3 minutes per game. It was mildly positive in last playoffs but again used very lightly (about 1.5 minutes per game).

Only 1 lineup got used much more than 2 minutes per game in those playoffs. He used 133 lineups in the playoffs. Miami and Indian about 25% less. Spurs top 10 lineup in playoffs accounted for just 50% of total minutes. Heat? 62%. A difference. Pacers 71%. A big deal? I won't say definitively but it is one difference to consider the significance of.

Now would either work against young athletic teams? I'd have to dig deeper to check the record. The first lineup has 3 younger guys when the second has only 1 young guy.

Their most used lineup this season with Splitter raked at 104th most used per game in the league. Pop more than most does not practice big minute lineups. Is it considered an essential part of his approach, an attempt to blend everyone into the system and emphasize that the system work the same regardless of who is on the court? I think it is but I still find this reality difficult to accept or defend. All of the other top 8 title contenders have used a lineup at least 50% more per game than the Spurs and except for Miami it is 100+% more. For the season totals the gap is mostly much larger. The approach has worked fine against non-elite teams but something is not working against elite teams.

Comparing team totals against the split data for Spurs against top 8 western conference teams the slippage is twice as large on offense as defense on a per game basis. They are about 2 rebounds and 2 assists worse on offense and defense. The overall offensive FG% slippage is less than the defensive FG% slippage. Their 3 pt FG% slips 4 %pts while the defense slips 2.5. They get almost one less FTA and give up 2 more. The problems appear to be pretty much across the board except for net turnovers.

For the Thunder net pts slips only 1 point against the west's top 8 compared to everyone. The defense slips about 3.5 pts but the offense actually has improved by almost 2.5 pts. The main differences besides relatively small changes in FG%s are that they get less 3pt FGAs and give up more against the west's best but also give up fewer FTAs.

At factor level the worst marks for the Spurs are own FT/FGA, offensive reb % and forced turnovers, all bottom 10 in the league. Otherwise they are above average. Wold take more time to make player and lineup adjustment recommendations to deal with these issues without creating more slippage elsewhere but they probably have to improve one or two of these. In last 6 seasons the title-winner has averaged 1.2 bottom 10 factor level performance in regular season. But then again they almost had 3 in 2006-7 and won the title. The exact same ones. Then they had 5 top 10 factors. Now almost 5. 4 top 5s back then, 3 now. So Pop probably doesn't change hardly anything. If he tried to change something it might be opponent eFG%. 9th now, 2nd best in 2006-7. But it was 5th last season, so it is going in the wrong direction year to year. Mopth to month November was great, December they gave up 10 more points per game. January is 4 less but that might not be enough.

The Spurs really appear to be sleep walking through the reg season. They're not taxing anyone, as far as games played or minutes per game. They're also giving a lot of playing time (relatively) to guys who almost for sure will not factor in the playoffs.

Their record vs the strong teams is troubling, but most would say overall PD is what matters... And in that department, the Spurs look like title contenders to me.

I'm a bit surprised the Thunder havent fallen off at all without RWB. I assumed the Spurs would continue their sleep walking ways and wind up with HCA. Still, it's hard to find fault with anything, given they're accomplishing their primary objective (resting players) while still winning at an elite clip.

Just as a great defender, no matter how good, will occasionally commit a defensive foul, a great innovative coach will occasionally do something which rubs people the wrong way. I cannot think of any NBA coach who has been as committed to preparing his team for the playoffs by resting his superstars during the regular season as Popovich. (The 1974-75 Warriors had a fascinating rotation, but Attles' primary aim there was not providing rest nor preparing for the playoffs.) And sure enough, Popovich has committed some "fouls" in doing so, getting fined by the NBA last year for benching too many of his best players. So one offbeat thing to look for this season is for Popovich to get fined, censured, or just criticized by either the NBA or fellow coaches or even just fans and sportswriters. If he does, then you can bet he's come up with yet another new wrinkle.

Spoelstra's evidently copied that page from Pop's coaching textbook, being careful to baby Wade's knees. The Bulls may be in transition; some criticize Thibodeau for over-using his key players but OTOH they let Derrick Rose take his time returning from surgery. And in the NFL, Mike Shanahan's use of Robert Griffin III after his initial injury led to a cascade of events which I suspect has led other NFL coaches to question whether they should tell their stars to rub some dirt on their injuries and get back on the field.

The Spurs are the only clearly above average team (by SRS) to be below league on 3 pt FGA rate and FT rate. Memphis is near average and in the same boat as are a half dozen of the very worst teams. I have used this data to conclude that the Spurs really need to increase the frequency of these high yielding shots. But they do have a very high team eFG%. They make up for being low on frequency on these high yield shots by being top 5 on FG% for them. Part of this may be related to getting a higher frequency of uncontested shots in these shot zones? I wonder if they might be getting one of the very highest frequencies of uncontested shots. I was having trouble remembering if there is any public source of contested / uncontested shots at team level and by shot zone. Does anyone know the answer to that? If there is, then a number of research steps seem worth pursuing. I'd like to see shot distribution charts for every team for close, mid-range and 3 pt zones and contested / uncontested splits of each. To assess the shot strategy of teams we really need to see all 6 of these marks along the eFG%s. And the FTrate.

I'd also like to know the contested/not shot frequency ratios at player level and who has the biggest and smallest contested/not shot eFG% ratios. If a team has a shot strategy that considers the relative frequency of shots that their team and individuals get down to contested / not splits then the decision-making about which are the right players to have and which lineups to put them in should go down to that level.

I'd also like to how the contested / uncontested shot distributions change from regular season to the playoff by player and team and what the average shift is for the league. It may be that a shot strategy that works well in the regular season works more or less well in the playoffs on average or for a particular team. I wonder which teams understand these dynamics best and which understand it less well than they think.

Parker and Duncan get the most shots, and they don't shoot many 3's.
Parker, however, is shooting a career best .420 from the arc -- taking just 1.2 per game.
I guess it's a mentality thing. He expects and prefers to do his scoring inside, rather than retreating to the arc.

Mike G wrote:Parker and Duncan get the most shots, and they don't shoot many 3's.
Parker, however, is shooting a career best .420 from the arc -- taking just 1.2 per game.
I guess it's a mentality thing. He expects and prefers to do his scoring inside, rather than retreating to the arc.

He doesn't quite have the range for it. He does, however, seem comfortable with corner three's.

Looking at his splits by zone, he's shooting 42% at non-corner three's, but that's on a low number of attempts. In fact, even his season percentages are a bit fluky because the the totals are so low. Last season, he was 4/19 from non-corner three's. Before that, 6/37.

Parker's 3 pt FGA rate is low but still his highest since 2004-5. His overall winshares per 48 minutes (.157) is slightly above career average but about 25% below last season's career best. It was. 185 during the regular season that saw their last title win.

Ginobili's ws/48 is at .166, up slightly from last season but well below career average and rate in 2006-7. Duncan's rate is .168 and well below career average and rate in 2006-7.

If they win another title it will probably be a win based on excellence from a group that extends beyond the "big 3" or one or more of the big 3 having a throwback level of excellence. The regular season ws/48s are not very encouraging for winning the title.

Instead of having both Bonner and Diaw maybe make a move for a traditional big. Overall though I like where the Spurs are sitting. I still see them as more built for the playoffs than the Thunder.