Spurs Defense Under The Microscope

by alamobro on Jan 28, 2012 10:20 PM CST

Lets go ahead and acknowledge the elephant in the room known as the Spurs very poor defense. Admittedly, Last night was a step in the right direction. While the Spurs defense faltered badly at the crucial moments (mainly inside, when Pecovic and Love were able to successfully role to the basket and score) Minny was still held to a defensively respectable 44%.

HOWEVER, regardless of any of the teams other significant subplots, (the absence of Manu and TJ, the inept defense by Bonner and some of the others) you have to wonder how its possible for the Spurs defense to be THIS bad, they are ranked 23rd in defensive efficiency.

The main factor here seems to be the absence of Dice. He was always tasked with checking the other players best big man, he had pretty good lateral mobility, and I think he would have been able to stay with the guys who killed us last night. Timmy can no longer move laterally...

Do we need another defensive Power forward?

Does anyone think Pop might be faltering in the respect of holding the teams defensive attention ?

Please offer up your suggestions on how to improve the defense.

Poll

What are your thoughts about the Spurs current defensive woes?

The Spurs are merely crusing and conserving energy, its early in the season and theres plenty of time left to improve.

2 votes

The defensive woes are a very real problem, Dice was never replaced and he may have been the teams best interior defender.

19 votes

Pop is losing his defensive touch and isnt getting through to the team.

2 votes

A combination of the above factors.

5 votes

28 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I completely forgot about George Hills absence. Many here thought Hill was the team’s best perimeter defender (although I thought he was inconsistent and a bit overrated in that regard) So maybe that is a factor as well? Still, it shouldn’t be, Green appears to be at least as competent, and Leonard is on the floor a lot as well.

It must be the interior guys that are failing us. Duncan can no longer move very well, and Dice was never replaced. Dice had the lateral movement to stay with the mobile forwards that have been the Spurs bane for some time now.

We aren’t getting Dice back and Duncan isn’t finding the fountain of youth.

The only real option I see is getting a good defensive big in order to spell Duncan, play alongside Splitter, and keep Dejuan Blair on the bench longer (along with Bonner when he isn’t hitting his shots)

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 28, 2012 10:37 PM CST reply actions

I feel that we have hope defensively. But the numbers (20th in defensive rating, 25th in eFG%, 25th in 3-point defense) don’t lie. Losing Dice and George has hurt, but we’ve also added quality defenders through the draft (Cory and Kawhi 5-0) plus playing Splitter and Danny Green more extensively can somewhat offset Dice’s departure. I don’t think we’re ever going to be a top 5 defensive team with our current team as constructed, but I think we can do much better than now. Yesterday’s game (aside from preventing Pekovic from dominating the glass, stopping the Rubio-Love PnR) was a good sign.

by The Big Fundamental on Jan 28, 2012 11:23 PM CST reply actions

To some extent, the numbers may lie. The Spurs opponents to this point have mainly been the top offensive teams (and not just due to playing against the Spurs defense). Of the bottom 11 offensive teams, the Spurs have played only two. They did poorly defensively vs the Hornets while winning 104-102 on the road, but not so bad defensively against the Kings while losing 88-86.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 8:45 AM CST up reply actions

That is true, good catch. Aside from Sacramento, New Orleans and Phoenix we haven’t really played any one truly awful offensively (Wizards, Bobcats, Raptors). I’ll be honest, I never thought of that as a potential reason behind our defensive struggles. Even so, I feel like our absolute defensive ceiling will be in the 10-15 range which is acceptable if we weren’t so accustomed to greatness at the side of the ball.

by The Big Fundamental on Jan 29, 2012 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

If I had the time, I think it would be interesting to see how each opponent’s score compares with their season average. A few have obviously scored more while a few others have scored less. I’m not sure whether the total would wind up above or below. Chicago has the lowest average for points allowed, though they seem to have played only 2 of the top 10 offensive teams and most of the worst offensive teams. They held the Hawks well below their average giving them only 74 points in one game though 109 in a rematch, while the Spurs didn’t do bad in giving up 83. The Bulls gave up 101 points to the Clippers, the Spurs gave up only 90. Bulls had 100 scored on them by the Bucks while at home, the Spurs gave up 106 while in Milwaukee. So are the Bulls that much better than the Spurs, or simply have played lesser teams?

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 2:18 PM CST up reply actions

looking at opponents avg versus what they score is more accurate than just their avg IMO

"got him at 42……Chad Ford can’t keep up with RC ‘Bargin Basement’ Buford."

Spurs Yoda on Draft Night 2011

by Joe deLarios on Jan 29, 2012 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

The average for common opponents? When the schedules have been so different with the Bulls facing weak teams while the Spurs facing many of the top offensive teams, I don’t see how the overall average helps. The Spurs defense might start looking much better once they play against the Eastern cellar dwellers, while the Bulls may not once they play against the top offensive teams. It will be more comparable at year’s end, but the Bulls will still have played an easier schedule.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

true but when all you have is the season average for both teams…

i suppose you could see how each played against the common opponent and look at the differential for a real comparison…

"got him at 42……Chad Ford can’t keep up with RC ‘Bargin Basement’ Buford."

Spurs Yoda on Draft Night 2011

by Joe deLarios on Jan 29, 2012 3:44 PM CST up reply actions

While the Spurs have the #5 offense vs #10 for the Bulls, the Spurs seem to have also faced better defensive teams that the Bulls. By the end of the season then, the Spurs seem likely to have their point differential go up due to being able to start facing weaker opponents while the Bulls is likely to go down as they face their tougher opponents. Currently Chicago had a +10.05 while the Spurs have a +3.2. Chicago will no doubt drop as they face stronger opponents while the Spurs go up when facing weaker. Chicago will likely have the better one at season’s end, but that will be due to facing more teams in the East.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

I prefer efficiency stats over points-per-game. I think it captures the quality of an offense/defense considering if you play a fast tempo, you’ll gain more possessions which should equal more points but not necessarily in a more efficient manner.

Defensive efficiency- Chicago (2nd), San Antonio (23rd)
Opponent eFG%- Chicago (5th), San Antonio (25th)
Opponent FTR- San Antonio (2nd), Chicago (3rd)
Opponent TOR- Chicago (21st), San Antonio (25th)
Opponent ORR- San Antonio (5th), Chicago (12th)

Keep in mind these metrics don’t factor in SOS. Although we got dominated in the paint in our game against Minnesota, it’s interesting to see us in the top 5 in opponent ORR. We also do a good job at defending without fouling (maybe that’s because teams are just shooting an insane field-goal percentage).

by The Big Fundamental on Jan 29, 2012 4:28 PM CST up reply actions

I’ll see if I can find an efficiency per game stat somewhere.

Cinnamon and sugary as softly spoken lies, you never know just how you look through other peoples' eyes

by SpursfanSteve on Jan 29, 2012 5:24 PM CST up reply actions

Isn’t that what efficiency stats do but by giving every team 100 possessions?

by The Big Fundamental on Jan 30, 2012 10:13 PM CST up reply actions

Right, but I haven’t seen one on a game by game basis, just aggregations of the season. What we want to see though is how efficient those teams normally are, and how efficient they were vs the Spurs.

Cinnamon and sugary as softly spoken lies, you never know just how you look through other peoples' eyes

by SpursfanSteve on Jan 31, 2012 12:20 AM CST up reply actions

Some other common opponents of the Bulls and Spurs: vs the Bulls/Spurs – Warriors 99/95, Kings 98/88, Grizzlies 64 & 102/82, Orlando 83/83, Minnesota 100/106 & 87, So while the Bulls have the #1 defense and the Spurs rank #17 as far as fewest points average, it seems like when looking at common opponents the Spurs are right with them if not even better.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

I like this approach :) Let’s hope it’s more pertinent and less “confirmation bias”

Cinnamon and sugary as softly spoken lies, you never know just how you look through other peoples' eyes

by SpursfanSteve on Jan 29, 2012 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

The other defensive statistic that looks bad for the Spurs is FG % allowed. That likewise is to some extent overstated as the Spurs have faced many of the better shooting teams and fewer of the poor shooting teams. I’d expect them to not improve as much by the end of the season as they do in average points allowed, but they should at least get closer to the middle of the pack.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 3:16 PM CST up reply actions

While I see what you’re going with here, I’m not sure if judging solely by common opponents is the best predictor of future success. With a condensed schedule and a variety of factors (four games in five nights, abnormal rest for stars) affecting teams, we can be facing a different quality of team that the Bulls faced even though, technically, they appear the same on our schedules.

The Bulls, however, with the second easiest strength of schedule seems poised for a little regression. The Spurs have had the fifth toughest schedule by the way. So hopefully this will even itself out over the season.

by The Big Fundamental on Jan 29, 2012 4:05 PM CST up reply actions

Obviously various other factors enter in such as who was out injured for either team for the different opponents. But basically, looking at how each team did vs the same opponents seems to show there isn’t as big of difference as a ranking based solely on season average might lead to.

Looking at the Spurs first 20 games, a slightly rough number would that when comparing the points that the opponent scored vs. what the opponent averaged, the opponents scored nearly a full point less than their average.

by Alamo on Jan 29, 2012 9:52 PM CST up reply actions

Are you able to provide a link that says the Spurs have had the 5th toughest schedule so far? Still, I doubt if such a list puts back to back games and road games into the equation.

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 31, 2012 8:01 AM CST up reply actions

Nice pickup. Despite the Spurs status as about the 24th worst defensive team, this is still a significant stat.

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 31, 2012 7:57 AM CST up reply actions

I think its a thing of adjustment and a lack of training camp. We have a very different roster, even if at first glance doesnt seem like it. Right now we have a few talented dfensive players but we cant seem to form a cohesive unit as a team. That’s the trouble of playing young players. They can surprise you, but to expect a good knowledge of team D right off the bat is nonsense.
Our hope is that by the end of the season we will be a decent defensive team. Dont pay attention to the season long numbers, we have to pay atenttion how are we playing Defense on the last quarter of the season. That will tell the truth about this group of players. Right now we are in “developing” mode.

"Kevin Garnett once described defending Tim Duncan as "trying to guard a tree"

by Chilai on Jan 29, 2012 2:26 AM CST reply actions

It has been said that the Spurs run a complicated defensive scheme (along with their notoriously long offensive playbook) so the lack of training camp may be a big factor, one that I never considered.

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 31, 2012 8:02 AM CST up reply actions

Other than last night Tim has been an above average defender – Love is going to get his numbers, there is little to stop him in the league + Blair had his worst game as a Spur = a rare let down defensively by the interior.

I am not saying that the interior is dominate by any means but it is sufficient for now. The perimeter defense is much worse as we rank in the top ten when it comes to 10-15, 16-23 and 3 pointers allowed. But I think that this is LWM

"got him at 42……Chad Ford can’t keep up with RC ‘Bargin Basement’ Buford."

Spurs Yoda on Draft Night 2011

by Joe deLarios on Jan 29, 2012 8:21 AM CST reply actions

Manu used to be a top notch perimeter defender, he may still have it in him but I havent seen it in some time now. I dont think the defense has had much to do with his absence.

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 31, 2012 8:10 AM CST up reply actions

Our perimeter defense comes and goes, but our interior defense is consistently soft. Getting a good paint defender would be good, but may not be realistic.

Both teams played hard

by Kondor on Jan 30, 2012 1:26 AM CST reply actions

The more I think about it, the more I doubt any trade will materialize for a big man. The Spurs will simply refuse to part with any of the younger talent other teams would undoubtedly be asking for. Whats more, is why would they take on a longer contract, when they are trying to position themselves for free agency after this year? (Unless it was an expiring contract like Kaman)

In the FO’s defense, big men able to help in the paint simply do not grow on trees, neither are they traded away for peanuts. Barring the signing of Kenyon Martin or Rasheed Wallace, I think this is the team we will be riding.

A man gets the eye of a Tiger, but a Tiger gets the eye of a Manu.

by alamobro on Jan 31, 2012 8:07 AM CST up reply actions

I agree. I can see FO bringing in ‘Sheed or KMart for a couple of months, but I don’t think they’ll take a $12M gamble with someone like Kaman. The risks outweigh reasonably expected benefits in all these scenarios. Capable big men are overpriced in the NBA.

Both teams played hard

by Kondor on Feb 1, 2012 12:42 AM CST up reply actions

Inconsistent rotations might be a part of the problem, too. Manu’s injury has resulted in Pop scrambling to find the right rotations. Knowing who is going to be playing next to you is very important on D.

"Manu Ginobili is the ultimate human cheat code, the password to the rim."
-Alex Dewey

by Edg5 on Jan 31, 2012 11:02 AM CST reply actions