Tuesday, February 10th, 2009...7:05 am
Pop Might Have a Point
By one measure, this Spurs team is the worst defensive unit of the Popovich era. The Spurs currently allow 104.7 points per 100 possessions (DRtg). Not counting 1996-97, a season shared with Bob Hill, this is how Pop’s defensive teams stack up:
| Year | DRtg | Record | Outcome |
| 2003-4 | 94.1 | 57-25 (.695) | Lost in WCS |
| 1998-99 |
95.0 |
37-13 (.740) |
Won Finals |
| 2000-1 | 98.0 | 58-24 (.707) | Lost WCF |
| 1999-0 | 98.6 | 53-29 (.646) | Lost First Round |
| 2004-5 |
98.8 |
59-23 (.720) |
Won Finals |
| 1997-98 | 99.4 | 56-26 (.683) | Lost WCS |
| 2005-6 | 99.6 | 63-19 (.768) | Lost WCS |
| 2002-3 |
99.7 |
60-22 (.732) |
Won Finals |
| 2001-2 | 99.7 | 58-24 (.707) | Lost WCS |
| 2006-7 |
99.9 |
58-24 (.707) |
Won Finals |
| 2007-8 | 101.8 | 56-26 (.683) | Lost WCF |
| 2008-9 | 104.7 | 34-15 (.694) | - |
This chart is not intended to unlock the mysteries of the universe. Rather, it’s simply a demonstration that this year’s defensive performance is a statistical outlier in the alarming direction. The Spurs are allowing nearly 3 more points per 100 possessions than their next worst season-by said measure-of the Popovich era. (It would be interesting to re-crunch the DRtg numbers, minus the first dozen or so games of the year. The injury-riddled Spurs that began the season challenged to own John Hollinger’s defensive rating basement. They’ve improved dramatically since then-according to Hollinger they are now the 4th best defensive team in the league.) At first blush, these numbers corroborate Popovich’s oft repeated claim that the Spurs current squad just doesn’t measure up to past glories, but they’re not in a hopeless spot.
The Spurs possess the best interior defense in the league. This despite everyone’s contention that they need to add to their frontline-a notion to which I subscribe, for the record. Moreover, as is customary, the Spurs are doing a fine job of chasing teams off the 3 point line. Their area of apparent weakness, mid-range shots, is an area of defensive concession. That is, Pop will live with teams shooting and making jumpers, so long as his players due their best to contest the shots. But I’m sure he’d prefer not to rank last in the league in points allowed on 2pt attempts. Beyond these things, I’m certain Popovich is not proud that the field goal percentages allowed in these categories are, at best, middling: at .376, they are 23rd in the league on field percantage allowed on 3 pointers; the .421 they allow on 2 point shots is dead last; .565 on inside shots is good for 5th best overall.
Coach Pop likes to rale against his team’s defense, painting them as lackluster in comparison to past squads. I have a hard time disagreeing with him. This is not to say they are awful. Far from it. They’re a good defensive team with a few noticeable chinks in the armor. But they’re the sort of chinks that need to improve as part of the Spurs usual mid-season transformation.
The chart above demonstrated that the Spurs are giving up more points per 100 possessions than any other team in the Popovich era. But the league has changed during those years, having passed through the Mike D’Antoni Suns period, for example. Given this, let’s look at these numbers from a slightly different angle. Rather than merely listing a raw number, I was curious how the Spurs DRtg compared to the league relative to season. Not surprisingly, the Spurs current team is bucking against an otherwise healthy trend:
| Year | DRtg Rank |
| 1997-8 | 2 |
| 1998-9 | 1 |
| 1999-0 | 2 |
| 2000-1 | 1 |
| 2001-2 | 2 |
| 2002-3 | 3 |
| 2003-4 | 1 |
| 2004-5 | 1 |
| 2005-6 | 1 |
| 2006-7 | 2 |
| 2007-8 | 3 |
| 2008-9 |
6 |
It’s the current fashion to engage in trade speculation, which is fine. Our readers know that I’m of the camp that would like to see the Spurs make a move. But setting aside all the puerile prattle that accompanies trade talk, it’s clear to me that the Spurs will need to improve their defense if they are to make another championship run. Curiously, trades can help as much as hurt in this regard. An upgrade of talent is always welcome, but team defense depends so heavily on understanding schemes that bringing in players who lack a knowledge of the system is difficult on a team.
Popovich has a handful of defensive indicators by which he likes to gauge the team. Some nights, he pushes them toward 4 22s. That is, to only allow 22 points per quarter. Put differently, if the Spurs keep their opponents to 88 points or less, he likes their chances of winning games. The most telling indicator, so far as he’s concerned, is field goal percentage defense. In a perfect world, opponent’s would never shoot better than .450 from the field. When the number creeps up higher than that, Popovich becomes uneasy. As the season grinds to a conclusion, these are the sort of numbers I’ll be watching when assessing their progress.
18 Comments
February 10th, 2009 at 7:20 am
And then there is subjective perception. Perhaps it feels differently. This year’s defensive squad _seems_ to be not quite as menacing or irritating as in the past. Perhaps it is because of the reduced roll of Bowen, I don’t know. However, that Hollinger rating (I don’t know how much I trust it) has the Spurs in the top 5 in defensive efficiency. I am a bit amazed at being number one in interior scoring; that, to me, is an important stat-few easy buckets. Might that be part of the fact that the Spurs are amazing in the few turnovers that we give up. (That, too, might be an interesting analysis for one of you to do.)
Again, thanks for the insightul Spurs analysis.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Ken,
There are at least three contributing factors that play into their interior D stats.
The interior scoring number also reflects the work of the perimeter players. In Pop’s schemes, the guards push opposing penetration towards the sideline and funnel it baseline. They keep opposing guards out of the paint as much as possible. Guards can do their work early too, to play off the adage. The other thing is that the Spurs try to take away the first passing option. When successful, this often forces the opposing point guard to initiate the offense from a disadvantageous position. If the Spurs added a true shot blocker-someone to clog the lane-their opponents would be shooting contested jumpers for most of the game. Even more so than now. And you’ve hinted to the last consideration. The Spurs don’t make much of an effort on the offensive glass. Instead, they bust butt to get back in transition. Couple this with low turnover numbers and opposing teams seldom have an open court to get into. The court is always already congested by the time they pass the time stripe. In other words, this is how I can say I’d still like to add a big while drawing your attention to the Spurs solid interior D. It seems counter-intuitive, but it’s not.
Oh, and if I added a forth contributing factor it would be this: Tim Duncan.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Speaking of your last point-Tim Duncan and his defense-I don’t know how many games I have watched that I have seen Tim alter or seeminly block shots, and then when I go to the box score, only 1 or so blocks. So, even though he doesn’t get that glamour stat consistently, his interior defense continues to amaze me. I will watch a defensive possession and watch on Timmy: he is alert, communicating, moving, switching. Phenominal.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I just happened to see that the Kings are putting everyone except Martin up on the trading block. I was wondering about Spencer Hawes being added. Yeah, I know everyone is sold on Brad Miller but he really isn’t solving the age problem. Hawes seems to bring a decent shot blocking presence with the ability to extend the court with his 3pt shooting if need be.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Good insight.
Another barometer i am curious about(thats to say too lazy to look up) is the average length/height of the regular rotation of players during each of those years. I am almost willing to bet we have the lowest length this year. But this has to take into account the average playing time of each of those players.
I think it will give us an idea of how much small ball we have played in the past and now and how that affects opponent scoring. Just a thought.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Drtg can vary day-to-day, but there is a clear top three. Today, Spurs are ranked 4th, but are closer to 13th than to 3rd (from basketball-reference).
I think you make a good point that fg% is the key stat the rest of the season. If you look at the four factors, the team is actually doing what they usually do for three factors on O (low turnover%, low ft/fg, low orb%) and D (not forcing turnovers, not fouling, not allowing offensive rebounds).
But effective fg% defensive has slipped, and they’re not shooting well enough to make up for it. Personally, I think its the lack of Bowen coercing some 4-12 performances out of opponent’s perimiter players.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Thanks for this post and excellent discussion. Lost in the statistical trends and noble goals of 22 points a quarter is the way the Spurs of old could put stops together during crunch time. These defensive stats cannot factor in (1) blow-out victories, (2) Pops increased propensity to conceed games earlier and (3) the years the Spurs’ offense is potent-your info tell me the Spurs defense was as good in 2008 as it was in 2007, but we eventually ran into a wall. Ultimately, success has more to do with the strengths of playoff opponents than the amount of time slow defenders have to learn the Spurs’ system. I felt scared that someone would read your article and conclude, “if we just try harder and don’t get risky, then…stats say, another odd year championship?” I doubt Pop agrees with that. It’s just a general “feel” that some have that the Spurs NEED another quick defender for the Bynums, Yaos, and Howards of the playoffs.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I think the decline in defense is a direct result of the personnel employed by Popovich this year. I’m certain our offensive rating has increased with superb 3 point shooting from our PF position. In the Popovich era the 4 spot has been employed by offensively-challenged players that were good defensively; however, the script has been completely flipped this season. To be honest thought, Bonner seems like he’s trying on the defensive end and I’ve certainly been impressed by his rebounding efforts.
That said, we still need a shot-blocking, glass eating PF to pair with Duncan against the likes of the Lakers, Hornets and the Blazers…
February 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am
As a side note, when I watched the Laker-Spurs game, I longed for Bruce to “roll,” (great pun Ken, whether intended or not) as Ruth Bader G mentioned. Pop obviously sees an advantage in Mason over Bowen, but I might hate seeing Kobe score more than I want a victory.
LionZion, as a long time Spurs fan, you probably noticed that the Spurs commited to small ball, getting spacing for Ginobili, since battles with the Mavs. As Buck Harvey’s article mentioned, Pop has embraced change. That’s why I’d be happy with trading for either: more wing fire power or a quick defending big.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
So many good comments that I’ll just point out how interesting it would be (to me at least) to cross reference these numbers with our offensive production/efficiency in those years.
When you put Mason in and take out Bowen, you’re more likely to score and not as likely to shut someone down.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I am an English teacher, but the Bruce Bowen “roll” instead of “role” was not a pun but a stupid error. I wish these posts had an edit ability.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I think it was Pop’s intention early to try two different approaches; one with the two bigs (TD and Ian) and an emphasis on defense, and the other with TD and Bonner and emphasize more offense. Obviously, the former flamed out with Ian’s persistent injury. So at this point, I think he sees that he has no alternative, even though I think he is more inclined to the former out of principle. I suspect his view would be that, even if they traded for a serviceable big (like Camby), it would take too long to familiarize him with the Spurs’ system. That the TD/Bonner approach can work against elite teams was proven on Sunday against the Celts. What remains to be seen is whether it can also work against the Lakers, who even if Bynum is unable to come back this year, still have Odum as a second big. But the key is for Bonner to hit his shots, which he did against the Celts but not against the Lakers in the last rematch. Bonner tries like hell on defense, no one can fault his hustle, but he has whiteboyitis. He is just not athletic enough nor is he an instinctive defender.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hello All,
Great comments.
One quick note. I didn’t intend for us to place these numbers in a vacuum. None of you are making that mistake, but just for the record I under that the my analysis is one small piece to a bigger puzzle. Sounds I appreciate the ability to hold what I’ve written in concert with many of your comments.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
On the other hand when asked why the Spurs have so many 100+ points game (on offense) this year, Pop said “we are having too much fun”. Obviously he also has a share of responsibility in this, e.g. asking his players to keep an up-tempo rhythm against the Celtics (because he knew their set defense was too good).
Also if you look at the trend, the DRtg has increased steadily in the past few years, and is not correlated at all at the Spurs winning it all or not.
Finally, this number is for a full season. I expect a change in the right direction for the 2nd half.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Reading this, and reflecting back on KG’s wide-open jumpers as Tim closed late, I wonder how part of this can be attributed to TD managing his effort more as he slows down, and not jumping out to contest the mid-range jumpers with his long arms as automatically. If that is the case, I wonder how much of it is conserving his effort for the playoffs, and so could improve in the post-season, and how much is legitimate slow-down. I don’t get enough Spurs games in Winston-Salem, but I’ll be interested to see how this develops.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Jon,
Somewhat indirectly related to your post. ESPN 360 is good, and free. NBA Broadband is awesome, and heavily discounted. They’re both well worth it.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:34 am
[...] Tony shouted back, and the two argued briefly about defensive strategy. The great Spurs blog 48 Minutes of Hell has written often about how hard Pop has been on the Spurs defense this season. This was a great example. Pop has rigorous standards for his team, but he’s not constantly [...]
February 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
great blog. i am definitely going to add this to my site
http://manspage.blogspot.com/
keep it coming
Leave a Reply