Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Tuesday's Starting Five: five things to consider

1. Breaking the Thunder down by quarter:
The Thunder consistently loses the first three quarters by an average of two to four points every night. While it doesn’t seem like a lot, but if you lose the first, second and third quarters by three points each, you’re trailing by nine heading to the fourth. OKC wins the first only 25 percent of the time, the second 23, the third 28 and the fourth 55. The Thunder is actually one of the top 10 teams in fourth quarter scoring margin (0.4 points). Before you get too excited, I think we know the reason why – when you’re down 15 heading into the quarter, other teams tend to let up and lose focus. But if we’re going to flip it positive, at least that means these guys don’t quit.

2. If you had to guess what the Thunder’s most productive five-man unit was, what would you toss out? Westbrook-Wilkins-Durant-Green-Wilcox? Watson-Westbrook-Durant-Green-Wilcox? That would be my guess. Actually, it’s Westbrook-Mason-Green-Smith-Wilcox. Watson-Westbrook-Durant-Green-Collison actually has a higher win percentage and +/- but they’ve only accounted for 21 minutes. The group of Watson-Durant-Green-Collison-Petro has accounted for the most minutes (119) but has a team worst -50.

3. OKC takes 42 percent of its shots 10 seconds or less into the shot clock.

4. OKC takes 61 percent jump shots and shoots about 38 effective field goal percent on those. For comparison, opponents take 59 percent jumpers on OKC but hit 46.6 percent of them.

5. Position-by-position production:
OKC is getting killed by opponent’s power forwards and centers. The average PER for opposing fours is 19.0 and centers 21.3. The Thunder’s position-by-position PER goes 12.1 for point guard, 16.2 at shooting guard, 11.2 at small forward, 14.8 at power forward and 14.5 at center. By position, the Thunder is being out performed at every position by an average of 4.1.

After looking through those, I really wish we could get a split in the stats for the Scott Brooks era compared to the P.J. Carlesimo one. I wonder how different those would be.

15 comments:

Steve H said...

Here is the team I want to see next year:
PG- R.Westbrook
SG- M.Almond
SF- K.Durant
PF- B.Griffin
C- R.Swift
2nd Unit
PG- E.Watson
SG- R.Butler
SF- J.Green
PF- N.Collison
C- S.Ibaka
Throw in White,Weaver and Spur's first rounder, and we have a decent team. If we don't win the Griffin lottery, plug in that Harden kid from ASU at SG, and offer Boozer a max contract. Might also be a good idea to try and lure Childress or Pargo back from Europe if we can't buy or trade Wilcox/Smith/Mason for Almond or Butler. Somebody tell me when all this gets done so I'll know its safe to go back to the Ford Center.

Anonymous said...

I understand this is your first year watching the NBA, but several of your points are just things that are always the case in the NBA. The talent gap between a great team and a crappy team generally isn't that wide. It's generally the bad teams let one quarter slip and the game is over. This will be the case all year, and probably next year too....and maybe the year after. It's what bad teams do, and it's what causes fans to turn the channel.

2.) I'm pretty sure PER is always bigger among PF's and C's, which is why Hollinger weights them.

Royce said...

It's not my first year watching the NBA. I watched feverishly in the 90's ,then gave up like everybody else post-Jordan. I came back around with the Hornets in 2005 and now I'm here.

This is my first year of really following a team though, I'll give you that.

And while those things are "always the case" that doesn't make them less relevant. There are reasons the Thunder are 2-20 and those are some of them.

Right now, the Thunder are letting three quarters slip. If you compare those same numbers I gave to winning teams, you'll see the large gap.

And yeah, the PER is bigger for C and PF typically, but that doesn't make it any less important that OKC is being dominated in that area.

Anonymous said...

Royce, you are the best blogger in the world when it comes to 1) linking to other people's articles; 2) digging up random stats and diarrheaing them all over your blog without making a point.

Anonymous said...

Much like the team he is getting better at sucking.

Oklahoma City Thunder Attendance said...

"Royce, you are the best blogger in the world when it comes to 1) linking to other people's articles; 2) digging up random stats and diarrheaing them all over your blog without making a point."

Man that's just too easy. Very nicely done.

Anonymous said...

Anyone want to know what the average attendance in Seattle was over the last 6 seasons. Drum roll please... an astonishing 15458!

OMG THE WHEELS ARE FALLING OFF IN OKC, THEY HAD A GAME WHERE JUST UNDER 18K CAME OUT!

Anonymous said...

That might be the stupidest post I've ever seen. For starters, Key Arena's capacity was 17,072. The Ford Center's capacity is something like 19,300. Second, the SONICS LEFT SEATTLE BECAUSE OF POOR ATTENDANCE (or at least that's what you Okies always tell us) - so of course OKC is going to draw more people in its first 10 home games in franchise history than the Sonics did over the past six years. But isn't it a little scary that there are already 2,000 unsold tickets in the building? And remember that 2,000 unsold tickets does not mean 2,000 empty seats - there are probably another 2,000 people who bought tickets and didn't come. I'm just saying - for a city that justified its heist by citing Seattle's poor attendance, you would expect consistent sellouts in the franchise's inaugural season.

Anonymous said...

That's why capacity percentage is stupid. 17,000 (I didn't realize how crappy of a stadium Seattle had)seats is only 17,000... but those weren't ever being sold since the turn of the millennium. Bottom line is 15k is still 15k even if you can only hold 17k. The fact that the ford can hold 2k more doesn't mean much except for there being a capacity for greater income for the ownership.

Anonymous said...

So having 17,000 seats makes an arena crappy? Only David Stern and the NBA owners actually believe that. Have you ever been to an NBA game? I've been to games in Key Arena, the Rose Garden, Staples Center, and the Target Center. Key Arena is BY FAR the most intimate, exciting venue. The views of the court are fantastic, even from the cheap seats. The gargantuan modern arenas make for a soulless viewing experience - but you are right, they do line the owners' pockets. If that's what you value in an arena, then good for you.

And by the way, do you really think OKC will draw more than 15,000 fans per game next year? How many of those 13,000 season ticket holders are going to renew after this disaster of a season? Especially with the economy the way it is.

Anonymous said...

16k were sold for season sales. I know I'll be renewing... did you have season tickets in Seattle?

Next years attendance will depend alot on what happens in the off season. Say OKC gets Blake Griffin, attendance will be similar.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I did have Sonics season tickets. For almost twenty years. Nice try, though. And once again you are completely wrong; this time about the number of Thunder season tickets that were sold. This is an excerpt from a 9/13/08 ESPN article:

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Season tickets for Oklahoma City's new NBA franchise have sold out in just five days.

Chairman Clay Bennett said the last of approximately 13,000 Thunder season tickets were sold Friday, and the team has put names on a waiting list for games at the Ford Center.

Anonymous said...

13k to public, 3k to business' and sponsors and such. Approx 3k for packages and single games.

Anonymous said...

Which means 16k renewable season tickets. In all likelihood they will go down, because the team stinks. But that is expected. But 16k renewable seats is different than 13k.

Also the "feel" of an arena is completely based on personal opinion. I've been to several stadiums myself to watch pro ball: Rose Garden, GM Place, Ford Center, AND KEY ARENA! And no, it's not as warm and cozy as you make it out to be. But of course that's a matter of opinion.

Anonymous said...

Are you actually Clay Bennett?