clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Study Hall: Spurs more effective passing to Jazz than selves in loss

New, comments

The Spurs turned the ball over 5 more times than they assisted in an unwatchable disaster of a game, extending their skid to 3 games by losing to one of the worst teams in the West. So much for the magic of the RRT.

Russ Isabella-USA TODAY Sports

Spurs 81, Jazz 90 - Feb 23, '15

I won't spend too many words on this one.  The Spurs did literally nothing well in this completely uninspired performance.  They shot terribly, especially from deep where their 26.3% seems pretty decent by their recent standards.  The good guys were bothered by Rudy Gobert's enormity early on and were unable to find the bottom of the net for the rest of the game.  Gobert's shot-contesting ability apparently even extended to the foul line, where the Spurs hit a whole 57.1% of their free throws.

Atrocious shooting aside, the one thing that the Spurs were really, truly, especially awful about on Monday was taking care of the ball.  They turned the ball over 22 times, 5 more turnovers than they managed assists.  The only way you win a game where you do that pitiful a job taking care of the ball is to dominate the boards (they lost that too) or shoot like 51% from 3.  The Spurs fell just a wee bit shy of that mark.

Although the Spurs only managed 17 assists, to be fair it should be noted that Danny Green gifted the Jazz with 2 or 3 buckets on beautifully placed turnovers.  But it was really Tony Parker who stole the show, netting a season-best -5.2 AdjGS points in just 21 minutes, for -.25 points/minute!  That's really anti-efficient!  Together, Parker and Green netted a combined -8.9 AdjGS.  Not gonna win many ballgames when of your starting guards contribute significantly more to the other team's bottom line than your own.

If I had to pick out something positive to say about this game I guess it would be that the defense was... improved.  The Spurs remembered how to defend the 3 point line after Golden State feasted on Friday, and held one of the worst teams in the conference to a modest 94.6 OffRtg.  Hooray?

Four Factors (def.)

Spurs Jazz
Shooting (eFG%) 46% 43%
Ball Handling (TO%) 22% 14%
Off Rebounding (OR%) 24% 26%
Shooting FTs (FT Rate) 27% 28%

Team Stats (Definitions at bottom of post)

Spurs Jazz
Pace (No. of Possessions) 96.7
Points Per Possession (PPP) 0.84 0.93
Points Per Shot (PPS) 1.03 1.08
2-PT FG% 45.0% 44.1%
3-PT FG% 26.3% 26.7%
FT% 57.1% 78.3%
True Shooting % 45.9% 48.3%
Spurs
Jazz
Offensive Rating 82.5 94.6
Defensive Rating 94.6 82.5
Net Rating -12.2 12.2
Spurs Jazz
Passes / poss. 3.4 3.3
% of FGA uncontested 44.3% 39.8%
Points in the paint 38 46
Second chance points 7 11
Fast break points 14 13
Spurs Jazz
Assists 17 14
Steals 7 14
Turnovers 22 13
Ball Control Index (BCI)
(Assists + Steals) / TO
1.09 2.15
Spurs Jazz
Expected Offensive Rebounds 12.5 10.8
Offensive Rebounds 12 11
Difference -0.5 0.2

1.09 BCI is, I believe, the lowest of the season.  Jr. High teams would be embarrassed by those numbers.

Spurs Shot Chart

Jazz Shot Chart

Players (Definitions at bottom of post, columns sortable)

Spurs

Player
Min
AdjGS
GS/Min
Line
Usage%
Floor%
OffRtg
DefRtg
NetRtg
Boris Diaw 24 21.7 0.90 13 Pts (5-9 FG, 3-4 3PT ) 2 Reb (0 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Blk, 2 Stl, 1 TO 17% 55% 76.7 99.4 -22.7
Tim Duncan 28 17.7 0.63 14 Pts (7-14 FG, 0-1 FT) 10 Reb (5 Off), 3 Blk, 2 TO, 4 PF 26% 42% 84.8 101.2 -16.3
Kawhi Leonard 25 11.7 0.47 8 Pts (3-6 FG, 0-1 3PT, 2-5 FT) 4 Reb (1 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Blk, 3 Stl, 3 TO, 2 PF 20% 40% 75.2 102.9 -27.7
Cory Joseph 21 11.4 0.53 10 Pts (3-6 FG, 4-5 FT) 4 Reb (0 Off), 3 Ast, 3 TO, 1 PF 23% 52% 83.6 77.4 6.2
Marco Belinelli 24 10.3 0.43 7 Pts (2-7 FG, 1-5 3PT, 2-2 FT) 2 Reb (1 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 PF 15% 49% 74.3 100.3 -26.0
Patty Mills 10 7.5 0.78 4 Pts (1-1 FG, 2-2 FT) , 1 Stl, 1 PF 7% 112% 99.7 91.5 8.1
Jeff Ayres 5 3.5 0.71 2 Pts (1-2 FG, ) 2 Reb (1 Off), 17% 52% 108.3 72.7 35.6
Manu Ginobili 20 2.3 0.11 8 Pts (3-9 FG, 0-4 3PT, 2-4 FT) 4 Reb (0 Off), 3 Ast, 1 Blk, 4 TO, 2 PF 28% 34% 82.5 96.9 -14.4
Tiago Splitter 7 2.3 0.31 2 Pts (1-2 FG, ) , 1 Blk, 1 PF 13% 52% 81.3 107.9 -26.6
Reggie Williams 9 1.6 0.17 2 Pts (1-2 FG, 0-1 3PT ) 2 Reb (0 Off), 1 Ast, 1 TO, 1 PF 16% 41% 99.6 83.9 15.7
Aron Baynes 25 -0.0 -0.00 4 Pts (2-8 FG, 0-2 FT) 6 Reb (4 Off), 1 TO, 2 PF 18% 20% 79.5 87.6 -8.1
Danny Green 20 -3.7 -0.19 2 Pts (1-4 FG, 0-2 3PT ) 7 Reb (0 Off), 3 TO, 2 PF 16% 13% 84.8 81.0 3.8
Tony Parker 21 -5.2 -0.25 5 Pts (2-9 FG, 1-2 3PT ) 1 Reb (0 Off), 4 Ast, 4 TO, 4 PF 28% 26% 80.6 108.1 -27.5

Show Jazz Players

Diaw had a very good game.  Duncan was solid.  Joseph was good and Mills was excellent in curiously limited minutes.

Tony Parker is pretty clearly not himself out there.  He completely lacks any explosiveness or ability to get to the rim right now.  It's sad to see the guy who is supposed to be your best player being an absolute liability out there.  I just hope whatever ails Tony is fixable, whatever the timeline.

Spurs Index: 93.8 (def.)

Factor Value Score
Passing (AST%) 53.1% 25.7
Shooting (eFG%) 46.2% 17.2
Defensive Rebounding (DReb%) 74.4% 19.5
Defense (DefRtg) 94.6 21.2
Opponent % of FGA Uncontested 39.8% 10.3
Total 93.8

Jazz Spurs Index: 90.1 Show Breakdown

Spurs sucked, but Jazz didn't hit many shots, so they got a bump from their defense.  No surprise that it wasn't enough to net a respectable Spurs Index score.

---

Definitions

eFG%: Effective Field Goal percentage. (via) Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).

AdjGS: a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game. The "adjustment" in Adjusted Game Score is simply matching the total game scores to the total points scored in the game, thereby redistributing the game's points scored to those who had the biggest impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

Usage%: This "estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor" (via). The usage of those possessions is determined via a formula using field goal and free throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. The higher the number, the more prevalent a player is (good or bad) in a team's offensive outcome.

Floor%: Via Basketball-Reference.com: Floor % answers the question, "when Player X uses a possession, what is the probability that his team scores at least 1 point?". The higher the Floor%, the more frequently the team probably scores when the given player is involved.

Offensive Rating (offRtg): Points per 100 possessions.

Defensive Rating (defRtg): Points allowed per 100 possessions.

Spurs Index: The Spurs Index © is a just-for-fun formula that attempts to quantify just how "Spursy" a particular game is, based off averages for the 2013-2014 regular season. A perfectly average game would have a Spurs Index of 100. The formula consists of four factors which the Spurs are known for and lead or nearly lead the league in: Shooting (effective Field Goal %), Passing (Assist percentage), Defensive Rebounding Rate, and Defensive Rating. These metrics are weighted as follows:

Factor Weight Average
Passing (AST%) 30% 62.1%
Shooting (eFG%) 20% 53.7%
Defensive Rebounding (DReb%) 20% 76.4%
Defense (DefRtg) 20% 100.1
Opponent % of FGA Uncontested 10% 40.8%
The values for each metric are determined based on how a particular game's performance compares to the Spurs 2013-2014 regular season average for that metric. For instance, the average effective Field Goal percentage for 2013-2014 was 53.7%. So if the Spurs shot 60% in a given game, the score for eFG% would be calculated by: (0.6 / 0.537) * 20, which would yield a "score" for that factor of 22.3.

Special thanks to: