Reply With Quote
Wow. Almost like the same every year. Is this thread worthy?
They cite Kawhi and Tony's injury basically, but also reference the midrange game's inefficiency.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-a-down-year/
Player health could loom larger than usual this year for San Antonio. The team will begin the regular season without Tony Parker and Kawhi Leonard, who was held out of the preseason and now will miss at least the season opener because of a right-quad injury sustained last season. A lack of athleticism on both ends of the floor, particularly if Leonard is forced to miss significant time, figures to stand out more this season than it did last year after a couple of free-agent defections.
And it’s unclear how much longer the Spurs can keep finding moderate success with players who, at least in some ways, seem to go against the grain of the analytics movement that the club has been at the forefront of.Only the Atlanta Hawks (projected to have 17 fewer wins) and Chicago Bulls (-14) — teams that started the rebuilding process this summer — are projected to have steeper drop-offs than San Antonio’s 11-game decrease. And if anything goes wrong for them, the Spurs could easily miss that 50-win mark.
Wow. Almost like the same every year. Is this thread worthy?
It's a good article that goes beyond the cliche Spurs are old... a good read if you are waiting for the game to start.
something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something
pop forcused on trump not his job could happen
Beat me to it
Is the league as ty as it was last year? Then don't expect a huge drop off.
moderate?Spurs can keep finding moderate success
A down year after every west team got better, while we have Fathead starting until Kawhi gets healthy. That's some rocket science right there
The only way of making anything newsworthy is to say the Spurs will finally have a down year (after two decades). Saying, ho hum, the Spurs will be good again doesn't encourage readers.
Nate Bronze has never been a reputable guy. 538 is a in' joke.
That's true, but I have to ask did you read the article?The only way of making anything newsworthy is to say the Spurs will finally have a down year (after two decades). Saying, ho hum, the Spurs will be good again doesn't encourage readers.
yes, I had already read it before you started the thread, but it is the article's le that will attract readers. The content of the body of the article is almost irrelevant.
I expected a comment about the substance not the le, thus why I asked if you read it.
My point is valid. It's a way to get readership.
And a nice pat on the writers shoulder whenever the time comes that the Spurs actually have a down year. Should've happened 10+ years ago to many
I don't care about that point though.
I cared to see your opinion about the content, but you don't care about the content so we are in a stalemate.
I think the drop-off may show itself more in the post-season than in the regular season. That is the way elite teams exhibit decline.
Fivethirtyeight wrote for months that the media was full of calling the election for Clinton and that her lead was extremely fragile, especially in the rust belt. They gave Trump a 30% chance to win on election day and said a 1.5 point polling error would be enough to swing the election to Trump. Their model indicated Clinton+4 and the election result was Clinton+2. Nate Silver kept writing over and over again that the media doesn't understand probability and all the Clinton 98% chance projections came from that. I heard it repeated over and over both in the media and here that Clinton's lead was insurmountable because Trump had to win all the battleground states, which people thought of as coin flips. And if they really were coin flips Trump getting elected would have been near impossible, but the state votes weren't independent and thus you couldn't say Trump's shot at winning all N battleground states was (1/2)^N. Pr(AB) = Pr(A)Pr(B) only when A,B are independent events, and for example Trump winning Michigan and Trump winning Pennsylvania were not independent events.
Not sure if you understand how percentages work... Coming at it from a different angle, there is a 2% chance you will have sex with something other than your hand in your lifetime. The odds are staggering, but like Trump, miracles happen.
They gave trump a pretty good chance of winning...One of the very few that did.
Trump won by 78k votes in 3 states, it truly was a perfect storm and everything fell into place perfectly.
You can berate the players and the coaching staff all you want to but they know how to win games and elevate themselves in situations where other teams struggle. Logically we probably shouldn't have won that game tonight but we came out and took care of business with Murray/Anderson in the starting lineup. Not sure how we'll look in the playoffs, I'm pretty confident if we go into them healthy that we're a more talented team than we were last year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
