Looking Ahead thru a Detailed look at WCF Game 1
This summer, GSW and SAS have had the least changes in personnel of all the Western Conferences contenders. In addition, SAS will not have Tony Parker for much of the 2017-18 season similar to his absence in game 1 of the 2017 WCF. Enough time having passed that my objectivity was enhanced. I recently reviewed much of WGF Game 1 several times as well as reviewing its stats. I found that my initial impression of the game was wrong in significant ways. These were interesting, but I decided to look further mainly because changes in the two teams for 2017-18 were relatively small making the game more relevant to the coming season.
The first of my prior beliefs that review showed to be false was that SAS’s early success was the result of GSW rust. I went through the reasons for my belief in rust and found they did not stand up. The first reason that they did not stand up is GSW did not start out being outscored like my impression of the game said. Four minutes into the game, GSW was up by +3.
The second reason I thought GSW was rusty was the number of turnovers in the first quarter – 5. However, in the 3 games GSW and SAS played during the regular season, GSW turnovers during the first quarter numbered 4, 4, and 6, the last in GSW’s sole victory. I thought possibly the turnovers in WCF Game 1 were somehow worse in nature. However, when looking again, I saw things such as risky Curry passes that went astray, something I had seen throughout the season.
The second, reason that I had had was GSW’s poor shooting. However, both Curry and Thompson started the game by sinking early 21-foot jumpers – certainly not an indication of rust. Looking a GSW’s shot chart for the first quarter, GSW missed 3 long 3-pointers and 3 baseline shots, but GSW’s main problem was missing 7 shots near the basket. Of these near-basket-shots’ possessions, 2 were followed by SAS fouls on the rebound resulting in GSW foul shots, and three were the result of good defense. Thus, GSW did reasonably on these possessions.
[Interestingly, Kawhi Leonard’s shooting seemed to possibly be suffering from rust or injury as, for the game, only 3 of his 9 shots from more than zero feet went in.]
Some might say that missed free throws are a sign of rust. However, I have never felt this was the case because free throws are generally practiced by individuals for the same amount every day (or in some cases week) – and, if anything, practiced more on days without a game.
Did GSW defense suffer from rust. I would have expected team defense to suffer more than individual defense, but many of SAS’s baskets were scored off individual mistakes – not sound individual defense being beaten and team defense failing to adequately help. One could equally or more easily credit SAS’s offensive execution as to claim somehow GSW’s defense was substantially below par because of rust. SAS defense conceded some shots considered lower probability and closely guarded others as well as hustling, and generally switching smoothly and protecting the rim with its bigs.
Possibly most convincing, the first quarter score differential was near the average for the regular season average, -12.7 points GSW behind, compared to -14 points behind in WCF Game 1. The regular season first quarter differentials were -11, -11, and -16, so -14 was not some radial outlier caused by rust. [Some fans dismiss the first two games for various reasons, but the third game was -16.]
Thus, the entire game up until Leonard’s exit has potential to be relevant to 2017-18. So, discussed first quarter aspects, let us look at the sixteen additional minutes beyond the first quarter and before Leonard’s exit. During these minutes, GSW was -9 (-14 to -23). How did this happen?
During this time, GSW shot 7 for 15 from two and 5 for 9 from three as well as 10 for 12 at the free throw line, These are excellent percentages. However, SAS shot 9 for 18 from two, 5 for 10 from three, and 15 for 16 from the free throw line. SAS took 4 more shots and 4 more free throws. This was the result of GSW having 2 more turnovers and 3 fewer offensive rebounds as well as more fouls. During these sixteen minutes, SAS outrebounded GSW 14 to 8. Leonard had 5 of SAS’s rebounds.
Let’s break this down, first covering the second quarter. We will break it into thirds of roughly four minutes each. (An interesting breakdown of scoring by thirds of quarters for the entire game is in the ANNEX.)
However, before we proceed with this analysis I want to make one remark. In the one game GSW won during the regular season, GSW was +13 in the second quarter. In the first WCF game, GSW was -6. (As a further aside, this difference significantly weakens any comparison between the scenarios of the two games such as were solace to GSW fans during the WCF game.)
Four minutes and eight seconds into the second quarter [7:52], GSW was -11 in the quarter (-25 overall). GSW would soon be at their lowest, -11 (-25). Three minutes and 29 seconds later, GSW had gained back the +11 and were once again -14 behind– the same as the start of the quarter. Over the last four minutes and twenty-three seconds of the second quarter, GSW was -6. Each of these intervals had their own character.
Consider GSW in the first third of the second quarter. While Durant played 1:11 before Barnes took over, the bulk of these minutes were played by West, Iguodala, Thompson, and Green plus Barnes. They went 1-5 FG and 1-2 FT, but more significantly they committed 3 turnovers and 5 fouls in 4:08. In addition, they allowed SAS to go 4-7 FG and 5-6 FT. GSW fouls clearly hurt. Green committed 2 while Durant, West, and Barnes committed 1 foul each.
While the difference between the teams’ scores might look to some to be their difference in FG%, the true causes of the difference in score were in defense (where GSW’s 1 block was about the only positive), rebounding, and that old nemesis turnovers. GSW had only one rebound and that defensive. (However, GSW also had a team rebound when Ginobili’s three bounced over the backboard.) SAS had 4 rebounds, capturing all of GSW’s misses. GSW had 2 more turnovers than SAS.
The second third of the second quarter was strikingly different than the first third of the quarter. First, the set of GSW players were different essentially Curry, Durant, Barnes, West, and Pachulia. This was also true of SAS where it was mainly Leonard, Aldridge, Mills, with shorter intervals for Simmons, Ginobili, and Green. Thus, GSW had 2 and SAS 3 starters on the floor.
The key difference was Leonard (0-4), Aldridge (0-2), Mills (0-2) missed all 8 of SAS’s shots. SAS took 2 free throws to GSW’s 4. SAS had 5 offensive rebounds, so from a per possession viewpoint SAS did not do as poorly – but zero from FGs is still zero. Partially, GSW’s defense was somewhat better although it allowed some open shots. Possibly, this is to be expected off so many SAS offensive rebounds.
Durant and Curry did GSW’s scoring going 4-3 with a three. The three came from intercepting a blundered inbounds pass by SAS. [Personally, I consider Curry’s interception and 3-point shot one of the key plays of the game. It was one of the few non-Gasol bad mental mistakes by SAS. And, of course, GSW only won by 2.]
Durant also helped with rebounding. Thankfully, it was a more cleanly played third than the prior one. In addition, it did dramatically demonstrate Leonard’s difficulties in this game when shooting from more than a foot.
Now, we come to the third third of quarter two. GSW and SAS had played to a tie so far in the second quarter – GSW going -11 and then wiping out this deficit. GSW played essentially GSW’s starting lineup for the third third while SAS leavened their starting lineup by playing Lee and small measures of Green and Simmons. Clean play continued with only 1 turnover (GSW) and 5 fouls.
The players who had missed shots in the middle third now made shots, and GSW having been 4-4 in the middle third started missing shots. The quarter ended with GSW -6 for the quarter (-20 for the game). After reviewing the stats for the quarter, the most significant difference was in rebounds 6 to 13 with SAS’s 13 containing 7 offensive rebounds. This led to GSW taking 17 shots to SAS’s 23 and the consequence of SAS making 3 more shots – and GSW -6 for the quarter.
The only remaining, time to consider is the first 4:05 of the third before Leonard’s exit. During this, GSW was -3 (-23 for game). The defense and poor shooting of the second quarter with shooting percentages in the low 40%s ceased to be in effect, and SAS shot 80% (4-5) and GSW 71% (5-7). In addition, SAS hit all 3 of its threes, and GSW hit 3 of its 4 threes. SAS defense slacked some and GSW defense continued its performance of most of first half. When Leonard exited the game GSW was -3 for the quarter and -23 for the game.
While I did not analyze the remainder of the game in detail as I felt it lacked as much relevance to 2017-18, I make a few remarks about it in the ANNEX.
So, what can we draw from this 28 minutes of basketball? First, GSW would better to not but itself behind double digits at the end of the first quarter as GSW did in the first four SAS games of 2016-17. Second, despite or possibly because of the great shooting available on both teams and their highly ranked defenses, rebounding appears the leverage point that most influences outcomes (RBD 19-24). Of course, an imbalance in turnovers existed (TOV 12-9), and it had similar if smaller influence.
Nevertheless, GSW suffered whenever they had stretches of poor defense as did SAS. For example, GSW in the late first and early second periods and SAS in the middle third of the third period.
After looking at the first WCF game in more detail, I am going to approach GSW-SAS games with less calm and more interest than I was planning a month ago. Once again, SAS will probably fly under the radar as all the teams in the West that have added All Stars receive the attention as foes for GSW, but this may be unwarranted [again].
ANNEX
2017 WCF Game 1 Differentials by Thirds of Quarters
Summary: Twelve thirds of quarters: 5 almost even (net 0), 3 with GSW runs 11, 15, 10 and 4 with SAS runs 5, 12, 11, 6.
First number given below is for the third of a quarter and second number running total for game. (GSW plus)
Quarter 1
1st third: +3 +3
2nd third: -5 -2
3rd third: -12 -14
Quarter 2
1st third: -11 –25
2nd third: +11 14
3rd third: -6 -20
Quarter 3
1st third: -3 -23
2nd third: +15 -8
3rd third: -1 -9
Quarter 4
1st third: 0 -9
2nd third: +10 +1
3rd third: +1 +2
A few remarks about after Leonard exited
GSW won the game during the next third of a quarter after Leonard exited, +15 and the middle third of the fourth quarter +10. SAS appeared to suffer a very unSpurian loss of spirit after Leonard exited possibly because a multiple game, perhaps season ending, absence appeared likely.
The Spurs goal to win the Championship had taken a severe blow just when it seemed even more readily doable. Some GSW fans may have trouble believing that SAS believed that while always difficult, they had a reasonable chance at the Championship. However, they could not reasonably expect to win a series without Leonard. Undoubtedly, this unSpurian behavior will be part of Pop’s video review session at the beginning of training camp.
The middle third of the fourth quarter featured missed shots by Aldridge. While shoot selection and defense may be contributors, Aldridge had had a similar stretch in the last 3 minutes of the third period during the prior game against HOU when he became fatigued. Regardless of the reasons, SAS rebounded poorly – possible in part because Leonard’s absence – and SAS’s primary offensive weapon missed his shots. Having led for 4 minutes of the game, GSW ended +2. And as always in the NBA that is what counts.