Worries from the WCF Last 3 Games
The first thing to keep in mind is that the last three games of the WCF were played against a team missing two starters – two former Finals MVPs. Admittedly, one was only good for limited minutes a game even when healthy, but the team was not at the level of quality that can be expected of CLE.
At first glance, when one looks across the scoring averages for the quarters of the last three games, the story seems simple – GSW ahead by 17 at the half coasts to victory. At second glance, a surprising fact appears. Much of these large margin victories were built by defense in the first quarter and shooting 69% in the second. First worry, think for a moment about the sustainability of this 69% FG% – roughly 15 of 21.
The first quarter was the only one with outstanding defense. In the others, GSW gave up 27.3, 30.4, and 27.4 points. The third quarters where SAS scored an average of 30.4 points had on average. In third quarters, Green played 8.8 minutes, Curry 11.9, Durant 10.6, and Thompson 10.2 out of the 12-minute quarter. When all of these four were on the floor in the third quarter, GSW’s defensive rating was 111.4 points per 100 possessions. It’s ok, you say, they merely relaxed being ahead and feeling assured of victory. Worry 2, doing this was terrible practice for the Finals, a truly bad defensive habit to practice.
Now, let us look at the quarters of each game individually. Of the twelve quarters GSW won 9. However, GSW only won 5 by more than 4 points. SAS won or tied 3 and lost the others by 2, 3, 4, and 4 points. Thus, for the majority of the quarters, 7, GSW was a net of +2. Even if one removes the somewhat meaningless fourth quarters, GSW was only a net +11 over 5 of the 9 the remaining quarters (+6 net across 4 quarters). The giant differential mentioned in GSoM was essentially the result of 3 of the 12 quarters when GSW outscored SAS by double digits and one where GSW was +8. (The article also included +23 for catching up to tie after Leonard left the game.)
Table 2: Individual Periods of Last 3 WCF Games:
Game 2
QTR 1 2 3 4 Total
GSW 33 39 34 30 136
SAS 16 28 31 25 100
+/- +8 +11 +3 +5 +36
Game 3
GSW 29 35 36 20 120
SAS 33 22 33 20 108
+/- -4 +13 +3 -0 +12
Game 4
GSW 31 34 31 33 129
SAS 19 32 27 37 115
+/- +12 +2 +4 -4 +14
GSoMers can take solace in GSW getting it done when it had to be done, but should not have the impression that GSW substantially outplayed SAS for the majority of the last three games. It was still not true of a majority of quarters even if one removes the fourth quarters from consideration. Thus, worry 3, GSW was only really good even against a depleted SAS team 25%-33% of the time. Would this be enough against CLE? Probably not, and it is bad habit to have practiced.
Next, let us look at a non-scoring stat, rebounds. Because SAS missed 54 more shots over the three games than GSW (giving GSW 54 more DRBD opportunities), raw numbers could be misleading, so here are the percentages. GSW’s percentages were poor by NBA standards. Both offensive and defensive rebounding percentages are lower than any other team during the Playoffs. This an indication pointing toward worry 4, rebounding. I realize this is not a new area of concern for GSoMers, but perhaps the WCF indicates it deserves more concern than most have given it.
TEAM OREB% DREB%
GSW 18.5 70.1
SAS 29.9 81.5
Another perianal concern was reflected in GSW having 11 more turnovers than SAS over the three games even though SAS was missing its two best ball handlers. GSW had 18 TOV per game. Thus, worry 5, turnovers.
Four players were injured during the four games bad enough to miss games (Iguodola, Pachulia, Leonard, Lee). Two were season ending. Other near misses, as we call it in airline safety, occurred. This should help reinforce worry 6, injuries.
CONCLUSION
While for GSoMers many reasons for encouragement derived from the WCF, the last three games with SAS were blowout still had concerning aspects. As we have seen, not all was encouraging in these games and concerns – called worries above – could be supported from the evidence of these games including:
1. Sustainability of ultra-high shooting percentages
2. Relaxing in the second half particularly the third quarter defense while the starters were playing
3. Even against a depleted SAS team, GSW was only really good 25%-33% of the time
4. Rebounding (18.5% ORBD, 70.1% DRBD)
5. Turnover (18 turnovers per game)
6. Injuries (Four serious injuries in four games, one per game average)
Some of these are not new. However, their appearance in the WCF immediately before the Finals should add to these concerns.
Others may have other concerns deriving or reinforced by the WCF. Please comment and share.