Game 2 preview:The lineup chess match

[Finch23]

In Game 1 of the 2012 Western Conference Finals, perhaps the most interesting subplot was OKC's use of small ball and Pop's decisions on how to counteract. First of all, the Thunder came into the series thinking small ball (which for OKC basically means Durant at power forward) was their ace in the hole because it worked so well against the Spurs in the regular season.

 

How well did it work? In 43 minutes of small ball against the Spurs in the regular season, the Thunder outscored the Spurs by 19 points. Conversely, in 101 minutes of big ball (using two of Ibaka, Perkins and Collison), the Thunder were outscored by 27 points.

 

Despite those numbers, I wasn't too worried about the Thunder's small ball tactic heading into this series. With the addition of Stephen Jackson and the emergence of Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green, the Spurs have the role players to go small yet still have enough length to defend and rebound.

 

But on Sunday night, Oklahoma City's coaching staff obviously thought the Spurs were susceptible to small ball and used it for a total of 28:54. The results weren't what they were hoping for as San Antonio outscored OKC 75-65 during that time. Extrapolated to 48 minutes, the Spurs dominated to the tune of 125-108.

 

(If you trim off the last two minutes of garbage time, the numbers look even more in the S.A.'s favor: 68-51 in 26:54 -- which extrapolates to 121-91.)

 

What's fascinating is how Pop decided to attack when OKC went to small ball. At first, he kept a big lineup in the game and had one of his bigs (Diaw or Bonner) defend a spot-up three-point shooter (usually Sefolosha or Fisher). That is a move we almost never see from Pop; when other teams go small, Pop almost always counters with a small lineup of his own.

 

When watching the game live, I didn't think the Spurs big lineup was too effective against small ball by the Thunder. But statistically, it actually did quite well. In 13:10 of big vs. small, the Spurs outscored the Thunder 31-25.

 

It wasn't until the second half that Pop switched gears and used small ball to counteract small ball. Initially, it didn't work well. The Spurs went small to end the third quarter and got outscored 10-3 in the final 3:15 of the period.

 

Going into the fourth quarter, Pop stuck with small vs. small and things ended up working out much better. The entire fourth quarter turned out being small vs. small and the Spurs won the quarter 39-27 (or 32-13 if you trim off garbage time).

 

Small vs. small helped San Antonio for a variety of reasons. First of all, it took Serge Ibaka off the court (he sat out the final 16 minutes of Game 1) and that alone made it much easier for the Spurs to score in the paint; there's a big difference between Ibaka rotating over to protect the rim and Durant rotating over to protect the rim. Secondly, the Spurs were able to dominate the defensive glass. In the fourth quarter, the Spurs were 9-for-9 at rebounding OKC's misses. And finally, as has been the case for a few months now, the Spurs become virtually unbeatable at a fast pace, which occurred naturally when it was small ball against small ball.

 

Going forward, while the Thunder are definitely more explosive offensively when playing small, I remain unconcerned about that alignment. I prefer that Pop counters with a small ball lineup of his own but Game 1 also pointed to the Spurs doing well when it was big vs. small. As long as San Antonio attacks the rim on offense and rebounds on defense, they should be fine.

 

However, not everything was rosy in Game 1. When the Thunder played a big lineup, the Spurs found it difficult to score. OKC used big ball for 19:06 and outscored the Spurs 34-26 during that time. Extrapolated, that equates to 85-65 over the course of a game.

 

Subjectively, the Thunder were their best on defense when Ibaka could play the role of a weak-side shotblocker, Durant was out on the perimeter utilizing his forever length and Perkins (or Collison) was holding down the fort in the middle. Sefolosha was also much more effective at shooting guard rather than small forward.

 

Following Game 1, the Thunder's coaching staff has all but admitted that they made a mistake by going away from their big lineup down the stretch. For that reason, in Game 2 the Spurs should expect a whole lot more of Ibaka and Perkins (or Collison) together.

 

To beat that alignment offensively, the Spurs need to knock down outside shots. In Game 1, OKC began the night having all of their defenders shade toward San Antonio's pick-and-roll action. For example, when Parker ran a pick-and-roll with Duncan, Sefolosha would instantly enter the fray and turn the pick-and-roll into a 3-on-2 mismatch. Each time Green hit iron from the perimeter (he was 0-for-5 on three-pointers), that gave Sefolosha (and sometimes Durant) more confidence to do all he could to muck up the Spurs set plays.

 

By hitting outside shots, the Spurs will force the Thunder defenders to stay home, which will then open up the room for the endless pick-and-roll sets the Spurs like to employ. In addition to outside shooting, running the court and scoring in transition would also help loosen things up.

 

(Another possibility is to add the fourth dimension to the lineup chess match and go small against the Thunder's big lineup. I'd rather Pop avoid this scenario if at all possible, however it's definitely a possibility if the offense remains anemic against the Thunder's big ball.)

 

Defensively against the Thunder's big lineup, the Spurs did well in Game 1 and need to use the same principles in Game 2. OKC's bigs (especially Perkins and Collison) are inept offensively outside of setting screens and scoring around the rim. For that reason, San Antonio's bigs should feel free to help out as much as possible. Even when the Thunder's bigs get open, Oklahoma City isn't much of a passing team so it's not a given they'll locate the open man.

 

One aspect of the defensive gameplan I'd like to see altered is the fact that the Spurs were daring the Thunder's spot-up shooters to beat them. With Fisher on the court, that's not a fate I'd like the Spurs to tempt. I'd rather the Spurs remain close to their spot-up shooters -- namely Fisher, Sefolosha and Cook -- because their shooting specialists are so one-dimensional that they can be eliminated as long as you just don't give them open looks. Neither Fisher, Sefolosha nor Cook can do anything off the dribble.

 

 

 

 

How each team adjusts in Game 2 will be interesting, although we already know roughly what to expect. The Thunder will try to remain big more often in an attempt to slow down the Spurs offense, while hoping for better individual offensive performances from their Big 3. The Spurs will look to take advantage of OKC's sagging defense by moving the basketball and hitting three-pointers early, while counting on their bigs to clog the middle to force the Thunder to win the game with contested jumpers.

 

Be smart. Be precise. Be nasty.

 

Another great write up from Timvp of Spurstalk

Edited May 29, 2012 by Finch23