CK Mailbag: Spurs tenets, sufficient sample sizes, and 'for the love of god' why is this team so bad defensively?
Plus, the impact of Devin Vassell's minutes restriction, Jeremy Sochan's time at point guard, and Malaki Branham's offensive struggles...
The San Antonio Spurs have lost 14 consecutive games (two shy of the franchise record set last season), are the owners of a 3-16 record, and have had four full days off to sit in the muck. So I figured this would be a good time to toss it to the readers as the newsletter and podcast get back into a normal flow this week.
Unsurprisingly, y’all did not disappoint.
What are the Spurs tenets? What are the things that no matter what, they’re going to do offensively and defensively? The things the coaches preach all the time… - Pablo A.
Offensively, it’s pace and space — get bodies moving, get the ball flowing, and the structure of the offense will generate good looks. This is the way it has to be given their lack of on-ball creation and bursty athletes capable of collapsing defenses, even considering this style of play (one that requires intimate, interpersonal basketball relationships) isn’t often friendly to young teams with minimal experience together, not to mention what has so far been a serious lack of shooting. Add to that the Sochan experiment at point guard and you’re REALLY playing behind the eight-ball.
Defensively, it’s protect the paint and force the ball away from the basket into more difficult shots — something the Spurs have actually done pretty well. Only 43 percent of opponents’ shots have come from inside of 10 feet against San Antonio, which is the 11th lowest frequency in the league, per NBA tracking data. The problem is, it’s giving up the second most wide-open attempts per game in the league outside of 10 feet.
This is a newsletter topic in and of itself (one I will be writing on in the near future), but there is a number of factors involved here that’s led to a domino effect: In short, point-of-attack defense has waxed and waned; and when the latter has occurred, it’s resulted in a need for additional help on dribble-penetration, which has led to chronic overhelping on drives, which has led to scramble drills and open shooters on the perimeter. The Spurs have had some bad luck with opponents shooting a higher percentage on contested shots than average, but at a certain point you’re not really paying attention to that stuff when players are able to get in a rhythm and bomb away from deep. These guys are good, and you flatly can’t allow them to get going. Once they do, it doesn’t matter if a non-Wemby Spur is closing out and challenging the shot, because the basket already looks like a hula hoop.
The primary tenets in San Antonio haven’t changed much, but the personnel — not to mention the age, experience and responsibilities of said personnel — certainly has. I know everyone gets tired of hearing about that stuff, but it’s simply the reality of the situation. Eventually it will no longer be a factor worth mentioning, but that time is not yet here. They make a ton of the same mistakes we’ve seen the youngest teams in the league make for eons.
I asked Tre Jones about this very topic earlier this week, and his answer was telling.
“In my experience here … right when I came in they didn’t teach a lot of fundamentals, just because we had LaMarcus (Aldridge), DeMar (DeRozan), Rudy Gay and Patty (Mills) here, so many older guys that knew what to do already and how to be on the same page. So, when me and Dev came in we kind of had to just pick up those things,” he said. “But now, we are starting from square one, as basic as it gets about where to be in help side, how to guard the ball, taking away the basket first and forcing them to kick out to tougher shots — so many basic things, some people may have never been taught it. Guys go to college for a very short time, or don’t know who they learned from coaching-wise at different levels. (It’s) being able to coach everybody the same things and try to get us on the same page at the bottom level, get a good foundation and then just grow from there.
“There are definitely fundamentals errors that we do make, but you see that all around the NBA. But with the best teams, I feel like they make those fundamental errors the least,” Jones continued. “So take care of that and then just go to more advanced things, to where you can play players’ tendencies more, learning about other teams’ plays and trying to take certain actions away, whatever it may be. But only after we get the fundamentals down.”
For the love of god, why are they so bad defensively? What do the numbers say about which units are particularly bad? What happens when Wemby plays the 5? Is the jumbo starting unit just as bad defensively as other units? - Steve Miranda
OK, let’s continue with the defensive stuff while we’re here, because I believe it’s important to point out there have been some DECENT defensive units. And would you believe me if I said it’s the much-maligned starting group?
Given the Vassell injury, it’s been a little tricky to parse what’s what on the whole, but ever since being blown out in Oklahoma City (the game I personally view as a very modest turning point), the four-man lineup of Vassell, Zach Collins, Victor Wembanyama and Jeremy Sochan has outscored its opponents by .6 points per 100 possessions in 102 minutes together, regardless of who’s been slotted in at shooting guard.
That group has an offensive rating of 115.1 and a defensive rating of 114.5 in the eight games since Nov. 15, which are fine numbers all things considered, friends. Furthermore, the starting lineups that have featured Julian Champagnie in place of Vassell have allowed just 108.6 points per 100 possessions during that timeframe, and have outscored opponents by more than six points per 100 possessions in 34 minutes.
Where problems have crashed the party is during these small stretches of two or four minutes at a time when the mixing and matching of bench units has led to either crap offense or crap defense. And for whatever it’s worth, the expected starting lineup with Vassell in tow has absolutely gotten its ass kicked. That group has been outscored by more than 30 points per 100 possessions in the 12 minutes its been on the floor during this stretch, which I consider to be the blip of all blips until we actually see that dude back in the starting lineup for good.
The point is, contrary to popular belief, San Antonio has actually been pretty good of late for about 40 minutes per game. There have even been some really good bench groups mixed into the equation. But none of that matters when an atomic bomb goes off during those extra eight minutes of game time. It hasn’t been one unit in particular that’s been most damaging, but one thing is clear at this juncture: These guys need to continue to find ways to keep at least one or two of their best players on the floor at all times, as we are not looking at the Spurs of old with killer five-man benches. There just isn’t enough firepower.
As for Wemby playing center…
You mentioned a while ago (I think?) that the coaching staff likes 20ish game samples before making major tweaks. We’re 19 games into the season: Do you expect any changes in approach? What are they? - Cory Zanoni
Nothing major for now, but first and foremost is getting Vassell back into the starting lineup, which is going to happen soon. Maybe even Wednesday night. His injury has presented some challenges they certainly hoped to avoid right off the bat, and that can’t be discounted. We have to analyze the Spurs in a way that considers their best offensive player hasn’t started a game since the middle of November and hasn’t been full go since the fifth game of the season — more than a month ago. It isn’t a coincidence the last time this team won they had a healthy Vassell. There’s are reasons they paid that guy a bunch of money, and one of them is to help them win close games like the ones they’ve lost recently.
Beyond that, I wonder how they’re going to find ways to play Wemby at the ‘five’ with Tre Jones in the lineup in place of Collins. I believe there are real question marks surrounding the conversation of making that the starting lineup (another newsletter topic coming soon), but there have been some positive signs with that group in small samples. They just need to figure out the right rotation stagger, because when Collins is on his game he’s very impactful, and the same can be said about Charles Bassey. But when one or both of those guys are bad on a given night, and especially if Collins continues to struggle from the perimeter, that Tre-Zach swap has a ton of intrigue.
How do you factor Devin's injury into the evaluation of the season thus far? There's many reasons the Spurs are losing, but it's not lost on me that the current losing streak started immediately after Devin got injured on Nov. 2. Since then, he's missed five games and had his minutes have been significantly limited (~25-27 when he usually plays ~35-37) in another seven games during which he's been coming off the bench. To me, this throws a big wrench into evaluating the starting unit's offense and defense in addition to the bench unit since Branham is usually elevated from the bench to start in Devin's place which disrupts the typical reserve rotation as well. Also, as Devin has been primed to take on more of the playmaking load this year, his absence puts even more pressure on Sochan in the starting unit and reduces its spacing since Branham hasn't been hitting 3s. Altogether, it feels hard to make clear evaluations when arguably the team's best player (Wemby is more talented of course, but I think most would say Devin is the team's best offensive player at the moment) has been so limited. Also, I think there's a good chance they win some of the close games they've lost in the 3Q/4Q during this streak if Devin was playing his full minutes. — Chris
Chris, I feel like you talked your way through a lot of the answers to your questions. I’ve already briefly hit on a few of these items, but there’s a big one in here: How has Vassell’s absence affected Sochan within the context of the starting lineup?
So far the Spurs have been terrible offensively (98.1 ORtg) and middle of the pack defensively (113.9 DRtg) in the 236 minutes those two have been on the court together, and I’m just not buying those scoring numbers as indicators of anything at this point. It’s at least an interesting subplot to watch — what is the Sochan/Vassell/Johnson trio going to look like once things are back to normal and Dev isn’t bolstering the bench any longer? — but until we actually get a chance to watch it all unfold within the flow of the expected rotations, I’m going to stick with what I wrote all the way back in June: If the Spurs were to go big, they’d have to rely upon multiple starting points offensively.
While I’m a general proponent of ideas like the Sochan Experiment, it sure would help to have a pressure valve like Vassell getting consistent minutes as part of the control group. Otherwise this learning curve is going to be a difficult one to navigate.
If Sochan starting at point guard is being billed as an experiment, what's the coaching staff's hypothesis? That they can mold him into a Boris Diaw-esque facilitator and eventually slide him back to his more natural position but as a superior passer? That he'll slowly but surely become an actual point guard? That the rest of the team will pick up some of the playmaking slack? — Paul S.
This is easily my favorite conversation when it comes to this topic. What exactly are the Spurs’ plans here?
Firstly, I wouldn’t say there’s a concrete hypothesis. Most hypotheses are based off limited evidence, but the evidence in this case is TOO limited, and there are too many future variables that could affect the outcome of the test. So I think the best way to look at this is through an historical lens.
I was recently having a convo with a Spurs staffer, looking back at the 2015-16 season when then-Bucks coach Jason Kidd decided to play Giannis Antetokounmpo at point guard for more than half his minutes (Michael Carter-Williams and Jerryd Bayless were the only other point guards on that team). Like Sochan, he had shown some skills as a ball-handler and passer in a secondary, off-ball role, but had never played the part of offensive initiator up to that point. It was by no means pretty, and outside of his rookie season it was probably the worst year of his career from an impact standpoint. But from there he just took off, especially when he was able to slide back to his more natural position in the frontcourt with an added layer of self-creation in his bag, as well as an improved ability to grab and go off the rebound or quick inbound after a made shot.
Sochan and Giannis are two different kinds of physical specimens, and this isn’t intended to compare the two players from a talent standpoint — nobody had a clue what Antetokounmpo would be at 20 years old, for whatever that’s worth — but the context of the concept is very similar: There’s already a pretty damn good idea of what this guy is off the ball, so let’s see what else he’s got.
Perhaps you’d be more interested in a recent comparison, where Scottie Barnes went through the same stuff just last season during his sophomore campaign in Toronto. The situation was a little different given the Raptors had an established starting point guard in Fred VanVleet (who missed 13 games), but that team played Barnes in the backcourt a whole lot despite the fact he struggled in the role. A season later, he’s thriving. Dennis Schroder is running point, but Barnes has averaged a career-high 5.5 assists per game on top of career-best scoring numbers, and he just looks so much more comfortable in his own skin than he did a year ago.
The point of what the Spurs are doing is to challenge and pressure-test Sochan for the long haul, just so they can see what he can really do. And with all the picks they have coming in the near future, as well as the cap flexibility they project to have, it’s a given there will be more substantial pieces added over the course of the next year and beyond.
I’m not sure Sochan will be San Antonio’s “point guard” when this team is ready to compete, but the time he’s spending learning to be one right now is invaluable. Which leads us to another tie-in question…
…The Game Theory podcast recently made the point that if (Sochan’s) going to be a secondary creator / off-ball menace long term, what’s the benefit of not doing those things now? - Cory Zanoni
By far the more difficult skill set to hone is that of an on-ball initiator. I understand the general sentiment, but the Spurs know what he can be in that off-ball role. There isn’t a ton of mystery there.
At this point, the goal is to stretch the boundaries and develop their players as best they can. And the good news is secondary creation is much simpler for those armed with experience as primaries. If you’re going to make the decision to push guys past their comfort zones (something San Antonio does with everyone it drafts), the time to do it is now.
What’s your quarter-season assessment of Malaki? Should we fundamentally recalibrate our expectations of him (from end of last season) as a spark-plug sixth man, or is this shooting slump (and his overall looking a bit lost, especially on defense) still just a blip? — Richard
I’m still firmly in “it’s a blip” territory. The rotations have been pretty inconsistent as far as he’s concerned, he’s had his responsibilities change regularly thus far, and I believe in his general abilities/mechanics/IQ. He’s too sound in all those areas to fall on his face.
What I AM starting to wonder about is his 3-point shot. The mid-range is killer when he’s right, and he’s shown some finishing ability, but the NBA perimeter feels like it’s a couple of steps outside his range right now. Branham shot better than 41 percent from 3 on just 2.8 attempts per game from a shorter 3-point line at Ohio State — a pretty low volume and an important geometrical distinction, respectively, for a guy who has a shooter’s reputation — and it hasn’t translated to anything more than a 30-percent success rate from deep during his short career in San Antonio.
In order to consistently get to his spots in the mid-range, that outside shot has to start falling. Otherwise, teams are just going to let him fire away from out there. I don’t believe fans have to recalibrate anything at this point, but I do believe Malaki’s robot-like mechanics (and I mean that as a compliment) need to be fine-tuned to account for a couple extra feet of space.
Thanks again to all of you who submitted questions. We’re recording a podcast Thursday afternoon and will get to more entries, so if you didn’t get your answer here I hope we’ll be able to cover you over at Small Market Bias (rate, review, subscribe!).
Love this, thanks Matt <3
That quote from Tre is eye-opening. It reminds me of this exchange between Michelle and Sean on a recent broadcast (paraphrasing):
Michelle: Most of these guys have been here for a few years, why is this still happening?
Sean: That's a very good question, Michelle, and I don't know the answer.
I get why guys coming out of college don't get defensive fundamentals but, by year 3, it's worth asking what the deal is. If Dev and Tre weren't explicitly taught those things by the coaching staff when they joined the Spurs, yeah, I get why things look rough now (that's how I interpreted the answer anyway).
It also speaks to a real difficulty I've had working through my thoughts on this team's performance this year. I expected them to be bad but "underperforming low expectations" is a tricky point to work through. "We straight up weren't taught this stuff at first" helps explain some of that.
It'd be interesting to see a deeper dive into the Spurs' coaching approach. Feels like a lot of stuff gets brushed away with "trust Pop", which I get, but there's a real "what got us here won't get us where we need to go" element here too.
Bring in Patty Mills as the end of bench veteran presence to preach the details/nuances!!!