(RE) Hollinger: Spurs Might Have Hard Time Making Playoffs

[jason1301]

Math PhD here,

Hollinger suck my lovely long d1ck, you sir are hater. There is no better way than lie using numbers. But I got your backs my fellow spurs fans, bellow is the truth.


The Spurs already have played 18 home games, tied with Boston for most in the league

The Spurs have a league high 8 division games. Southwest is the toughest division in the NBA with 4 playoff teams!!!

Also, their opponents' .469 winning percentage is the worst of any team in the West.

The more you win, the lower your opponents % is, it doesn't take a genius to see that.

the Spurs have been remarkably mediocre since Parker and Ginobili returned to the lineup

Its not even January, the Spurs are notorious for not playing well this time of the year.

Their past 10 games include close shaves at home against Minnesota, Oklahoma City and Memphis

We beat those teams didn't we?

a home loss to the Bucks and a convincing defeat in Orlando.

Like a team can't lose two games, we also beat Denver, Dallas, Atlanda and Suns (yeap all three were playoffs teams according to his prophecies)

From Jan. 11 to March 4, the Spurs will play only eight of their 25 games at home

Rodeo time, where to the fuk he lives in a cave! Isn't that time of year when the Spurs turn the corner, and play good basketball?

Of those [at home] eight, six are against high-caliber opponents: Orlando, Portland, Cleveland, the Lakers, Dallas and New Orleans

Bring it on B1tches, the better the opposition the better we play.

And of the 17 road games, at least eight -- at L.A., Utah, Phoenix, Denver, Boston, Detroit, Portland and Dallas -- have to be considered likely or somewhat likely defeats

And that's pure genus I mean he has ZERO fuking evidence this guy is pulling rabbits out his a$$. Why don't you tell me the fuking lotery numbers Nostradamus.

[Spork KIller]

It that makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is that your team suck and will not make the playoffs

[tp2021]

It that makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is that your team suck and will not make the playoffs

Said the sunfan to himself.

[GetNashty]

Said the sunfan to himself.

He's just scared. Shit, if the Spurs miss the playoffs, Suns will be in the finals. Book that shit.

Instead, the Spurs are gonna be there...:(

[Ghazi]

I think Hollinger makes a lot of great points actually. San Antonio has not played as good as their record and their schedule has been relatively easy. Lots of home games, lots of easy opponents, no games against the Cavs, Lakers, or Celtics yet.

That being said, I think they'll make the playoffs... I also highly doubt they'll only go 27-24 in the final 51.

[mrspurs]

Welcome to my ignore list. Its been awhile since I put a person who has no control of their keyboards on ignore. We're a classy organization, even if Pop loses it from time to time. But Pop is the coach and we pay alot of money to listen to him. Just when ya think, you've gotten rid of the potty mouths here comes another.

[WalterBenitez]

too much intelect for that article, isn't it?

[Solid D]

I'm not sure why it is necessary to curse a man who specializes in statistical analysis. John Hollinger basing almost everything on stats is a given, so why not understand his premise and show some wisdom here?

The Spurs do not stand out as leaders in any significant statistical categories this season other than turnovers. Thusfar, 2008-09 is one of the Spurs' most unremarkable statistical seasons in the Duncan/Popovich era. Thirty-one games in, the Spurs are middle of the pack offensively, their Opp. FG%, Opp Pts., Points +/-, Assist +/-, Defensive Rebounding are all decent but nothing in the area of leadership standards.

What the Spurs are doing is competing in each game, as it comes, and trying to out-execute their nightly opponent. They're 3-0 in OT games. They aren't playing up-tempo, they are playing solid transition D and cross-matching pretty well by talking to each other. They appear to be setting their style up to play playoff style basketball early in the season.

Hollinger is right when he says the Spurs are winning against lesser teams, but some of their games against upper half of the conference teams have shown the Spurs ability to hang tough, compete and be in a position to out-execute their opponent in the last 5 minutes (see Rockets, Mavs, Blazers, Suns, Hornets).

It will be interesting to see how this team comes together, but they seem to be a resilient team that makes very few mistakes. Take stat analysis with a grain of salt. Show some wisdom and don't be blind to reality regarding this year's Spurs. They don't have the personnel to play a style that will blow teams out. They will just have to get it done any way they can, every game.

[ElNono]

The problem with Hollinger's analysis is that when he says: 'They're playing worse than their record indicates'... he's basically agreeing that his number crunching is not working... The Spurs don't stand out in any positive statistic category, yet their record is up to par with teams that do. The fallacy, to me, is to try to take a freeze frame of the team right now and try to forecast the future. I understand it's his job, but it's ridiculous. Spurs can improve (and they generally do) from here on out, make a trade, execute better, etc.

[TheProfessor]

The problem with Hollinger's analysis is that when he says: 'They're playing worse than their record indicates'... he's basically agreeing that his number crunching is not working... The Spurs don't stand out in any positive statistic category, yet their record is up to par with teams that do. The fallacy, to me, is to try to take a freeze frame of the team right now and try to forecast the future. I understand it's his job, but it's ridiculous. Spurs can improve (and they generally do) from here on out, make a trade, execute better, etc.
Not necessarily. Hollinger is just saying the Spurs should inevitably regress towards the mean if they continue playing at their current level, given the tough road schedule and increased level of competition. It's difficult for Hollinger when it comes to a team like the Spurs that coasts through the regular season and has (historically) been able to flip a switch competitively when they need to.

[FromWayDowntown]

I remain convinced that if I rooted for any other team in the West, I'd be praying for the Spurs to make the 2009 playoffs. If the Spurs miss the playoffs and add a lottery pick, the misery of losing to San Antonio annually will just go on longer.

I don't have any quarrel with Hollinger's analysis, since I don't think this Spurs team is dominating opponents in any meaningful way and since the pure quantative measures of this team would seem to indicate that it might face some struggles when faced with better competition. With that said, however, I think the bigger picture is a bit rosier for the Spurs than what Hollinger paints.

20-11 doesn't sound fabulous, but it's pretty remarkable after starting 1-4 and 2-5; the Spurs are 18-6 in their last 24. The only teams in the NBA with better records over their last 24 games (almost 1/3 of an NBA season) are: Cleveland (21-3), Boston (20-4), Orlando (20-4), and LA Lakers (19-5).

I'm not sure, also that the Spurs are actually just mediocre since Parker and Ginobili returned. They were 6-6 when Ginobili returned, making them 14-5 with Manu. They were 8-6 when Parker returned, making them 12-5 with the Big 3 together. They might not have been a juggernaut from the moment that Parker rejoined his compadres, but it's not as if they've been merely average.

[itzsoweezee]

And of the 17 road games, at least eight -- at L.A., Utah, Phoenix, Denver, Boston, Detroit, Portland and Dallas -- have to be considered likely or somewhat likely defeats


this is the most egregious of the bullshit in his "article." this is just pure hate - "likely or somewhat likely defeats?" where the hell does he come up with this shit? there is no defense for that conclusion. it's just a hater's feelings coming through. fuck that little know-nothing bitch.

[temujin]

2008 FACTS.

After a 17-3 start, the Spurs played .500 ball until the rodeo trip.

Their road record was way worse than the current one.

And they could hardly beat any team above .500.

The only statistics in which they excellend was the age of the starters, followed by the age of the bench players.

At the end of the story, they were N.3 seed and it took an injury to Ginobili to eliminate them, not before Phoenix and New Orleans wnet golfing.


This Hollinger guy has no facts whatsoever.

Just ask any coach of a good NBA team, which team they would avoid, come playoffs time.

[FromWayDowntown]

this is the most egregious of the bullshit in his "article." this is just pure hate - "likely or somewhat likely defeats?" where the hell does he come up with this shit? there is no defense for that conclusion. it's just a hater's feelings coming through. fuck that little know-nothing bitch.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with you on suggesting that Hollinger's conclusion is entirely invalid.

Here are the current home records of the teams that he mentioned:

LAL: 16-1
UTH: 12-4
PNX: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)
DEN: 11-4 (one of 4 to SA)
BOS: 17-1
DET: 11-5
PRT: 12-3 (one of 12 against SA)
DAL: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)

Best case scenario, any road team going into any one of those buildings has a 40% chance of winning -- and the Spurs have already beat the odds in both Phoenix and Dallas. At this point, it's quite likely that any road team going into LA, Boston, Portland, or Utah is going to lose. It's pretty likely that any road team going into Denver or Detroit is going to lose. And it's somewhat likely that any road team going into Phoenix or Dallas will lose. Hollinger's point, therefore, would seem to be validated statistically -- particularly because the odds aren't great that the Spurs, even as a better-than-average road team at 8-5, will get road sweeps against quality teams like Dallas, Phoenix, or Denver.

Does that mean that the Spurs will lose all 8? Absolutely not. But on paper is there any way to suggest that any of those games are likely wins or even somewhat likely wins? I don't think so -- though if Boozer is out for Utah, that seems a bit less daunting. Still, I think the expectation would be that the Spurs will have done well to split those 8; saying that they're all likely or somewhat likely losses seems pretty accurate to me.

[Spork KIller]

I'm not so sure I'd agree with you on suggesting that Hollinger's conclusion is entirely invalid.

Here are the current home records of the teams that he mentioned:

LAL: 16-1
UTH: 12-4
PNX: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)
DEN: 11-4 (one of 4 to SA)
BOS: 17-1
DET: 11-5
PRT: 12-3 (one of 12 against SA)
DAL: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)

Best case scenario, any road team going into any one of those buildings has a 40% chance of winning -- and the Spurs have already beat the odds in both Phoenix and Dallas. At this point, it's quite likely that any road team going into LA, Boston, Portland, or Utah is going to lose. It's pretty likely that any road team going into Denver or Detroit is going to lose. And it's somewhat likely that any road team going into Phoenix or Dallas will lose. Hollinger's point, therefore, would seem to be validated statistically -- particularly because the odds aren't great that the Spurs, even as a better-than-average road team at 8-5, will get road sweeps against quality teams like Dallas, Phoenix, or Denver.

Does that mean that the Spurs will lose all 8? Absolutely not. But on paper is there any way to suggest that any of those games are likely wins or even somewhat likely wins? I don't think so -- though if Boozer is out for Utah, that seems a bit less daunting. Still, I think the expectation would be that the Spurs will have done well to split those 8; saying that they're all likely or somewhat likely losses seems pretty accurate to me.


It doesn't matter how you spin it , asswipe, your team suck and thats all that matters!

[itzsoweezee]

I'm not so sure I'd agree with you on suggesting that Hollinger's conclusion is entirely invalid.

Here are the current home records of the teams that he mentioned:

LAL: 16-1
UTH: 12-4
PNX: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)
DEN: 11-4 (one of 4 to SA)
BOS: 17-1
DET: 11-5
PRT: 12-3 (one of 12 against SA)
DAL: 9-6 (one of 6 to SA)

Best case scenario, any road team going into any one of those buildings has a 40% chance of winning -- and the Spurs have already beat the odds in both Phoenix and Dallas. At this point, it's quite likely that any road team going into LA, Boston, Portland, or Utah is going to lose. It's pretty likely that any road team going into Denver or Detroit is going to lose. And it's somewhat likely that any road team going into Phoenix or Dallas will lose. Hollinger's point, therefore, would seem to be validated statistically -- particularly because the odds aren't great that the Spurs, even as a better-than-average road team at 8-5, will get road sweeps against quality teams like Dallas, Phoenix, or Denver.

Does that mean that the Spurs will lose all 8? Absolutely not. But on paper is there any way to suggest that any of those games are likely wins or even somewhat likely wins? I don't think so -- though if Boozer is out for Utah, that seems a bit less daunting. Still, I think the expectation would be that the Spurs will have done well to split those 8; saying that they're all likely or somewhat likely losses seems pretty accurate to me.

nice spin, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, even if the douchebag is trying pretend like he's doing some sort of objective, statistical analysis.

you can't just look at their home records. you have to look at their home records against good teams, against teams in the western conference, against the spurs historically, etc.

this is especially the case if he's going to make the significant claim that these are "likely or somewhat likely defeats."

it's hate couched as statistical analysis. that's why the guy's a supreme dipshit.

[dbestpro]

nice spin, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, even if the douchebag is trying pretend like he's doing some sort of objective, statistical analysis.

you can't just look at their home records. you have to look at their home records against good teams, against teams in the western conference, against the spurs historically, etc.

this is especially the case if he's going to make the significant claim that these are "likely or somewhat likely defeats."

it's hate couched as statistical analysis. that's why the guy's a supreme dipshit.

Okay try this for Stats. The Spurs are 4-4 against playoff caliber teams since Manu and Parker returned. The Suns are 3-5 over the same time. For the season the Suns are 7-10 while the Spurs are 6-9. It looks like the Spurs are getting better against the good teams while the Suns still can't get out the gate.

[Findog]

He could've written that article about any team in the West with a winning record besides the Lakers. There's like 3 games separating the 2-9 seeds. It's a game of musical chairs.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

He's just scared. Shit, if the Spurs miss the playoffs, Suns will be in the finals. Book that shit.

Um.....no. You don't make the finals as one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA. You should know this by now.

[kace]

this is the most egregious of the bullshit in his "article." this is just pure hate - "likely or somewhat likely defeats?" where the hell does he come up with this shit? there is no defense for that conclusion. it's just a hater's feelings coming through. fuck that little know-nothing bitch.

+ 1

[peskypesky]

So who's going to knock us out? The Jazz without Boozer? Don't think so. The Grizzlies? Yeah, right. The Warriors?

[SmellyFeet]

I think the spurs will make the playoff.

Only to get owned again by the lakers.

[Tbiggums47]

I remain convinced that if I rooted for any other team in the West, I'd be praying for the Spurs to make the 2009 playoffs. If the Spurs miss the playoffs and add a lottery pick, the misery of losing to San Antonio annually will just go on longer.

I don't have any quarrel with Hollinger's analysis, since I don't think this Spurs team is dominating opponents in any meaningful way and since the pure quantative measures of this team would seem to indicate that it might face some struggles when faced with better competition. With that said, however, I think the bigger picture is a bit rosier for the Spurs than what Hollinger paints.

20-11 doesn't sound fabulous, but it's pretty remarkable after starting 1-4 and 2-5; the Spurs are 18-6 in their last 24. The only teams in the NBA with better records over their last 24 games (almost 1/3 of an NBA season) are: Cleveland (21-3), Boston (20-4), Orlando (20-4), and LA Lakers (19-5).

I'm not sure, also that the Spurs are actually just mediocre since Parker and Ginobili returned. They were 6-6 when Ginobili returned, making them 14-5 with Manu. They were 8-6 when Parker returned, making them 12-5 with the Big 3 together. They might not have been a juggernaut from the moment that Parker rejoined his compadres, but it's not as if they've been merely average.

I agree...Take away that slow start at 1-4 and reverse it to 4-1 The Spurs are in the elite category but, we are never gonna get the credit for the turn around until we catch up or pass the teams like Boston and LA record wise.:ihit

[ElNono]

Not necessarily. Hollinger is just saying the Spurs should inevitably regress towards the mean if they continue playing at their current level, given the tough road schedule and increased level of competition. It's difficult for Hollinger when it comes to a team like the Spurs that coasts through the regular season and has (historically) been able to flip a switch competitively when they need to.

The keyword there is 'if they keep on playing at the current level'. The thing is, if you do a statistical analysis of the Spurs alone in recent years, you will find that their level historically increases during and after the RRT. So, statistically speaking, his forecast is patently incorrect.

[mikeanthony21]

Welcome to my ignore list. Its been awhile since I put a person who has no control of their keyboards on ignore. We're a classy organization, even if Pop loses it from time to time. But Pop is the coach and we pay alot of money to listen to him. Just when ya think, you've gotten rid of the potty mouths here comes another.

It's not hard to imagine Pork Killer having no control of his keyboard when he sits in his mother's basement... in the dark... listening to The Best of Hanson.

[K-State Spur]

He could've written that article about any team in the West with a winning record besides the Lakers. There's like 3 games separating the 2-9 seeds. It's a game of musical chairs.

No crap. The Mavs have needed 4 or 5 miracle comebacks already this year to beat some really bad teams.

[Spurologist]

bump

[lefty]

bump


But...but...the PER reveal that....

[Spurologist]

This Hollinger ass clown needs to be brought up all season

[TampaDude]

Fuck Hollinger...the Spurs will finish in the top 4 in the West...book it.