SpurNation
02-18-2012, 08:51 AM
Love reading statistical values. Myself...not interested in taking the time to formulate graphs, charts, pies and bars. To those that do...my hats off to you. You provide superlative proof of how and/or why players and plays work or don't.
To that we read and say "Look" if only they did this or wouldn't do that the team would be much better for it. But, if these culminations of numbers, trends and variances are proof positive to populating the court with the most effective player combinations and planned executions...why is it we don't see enough of the "proven by stats" formulas being administered in game time situations?
Of course Tony, Tim and Manu are going to be the focal point of this team. And (as proven in the past) all the better for it. But case in point (which I believe is mute now but wasn't 2 years ago) is Richard Jefferson. The Spurs brought him in to be a valued option to scoring but didn't use the "proven statistical data" to get the most of his talents. Meh...so what...the team has Tim, Tony and Manu?
Or...again...statistical data proved the Spurs were at their best defensively with Duncan and another serviceable (taller than 6' 7") defensive/rebound specialist in the paint. Yet veered away from that formula which had proven success and (in vain last year) tried a formula of a Blair/Bonner combo.
This year we have not one but two talented (young) wing players which (again by statistical proof) would seem to present better performance value than using Jefferson, yet R.J. gets the nod as a starter when the team would seem to produce more effectively with him not in the starting unit.
Those are but two that stand out to me. And…I’ve seen more in all the stats provided in the different threads that would indicate perhaps a better (proven) theory to using instead of what’s being used in games. But here’s the contrary… The Spurs are winning without using all that’s statistically available and even in some cases winning with combinations and plays that statistically say they shouldn’t when doing.
Pop once mentioned he doesn’t follow stats all that much. Whether straight face lie or truth we wouldn’t know for sure…but one can’t argue his record. Then again…his record may be even better if he instilled stats more into his equation of thought.
All in all…stats are a culmination of trying different options and we wouldn’t know those numbers if it were not for experimenting with the unknown. As of now…I would say the Spurs are one of the best “unknown” teams in the league. Tim, Tony and Manu the best known commodities on the team… yet…Here’s to hoping the positive stats being generated other than their use are put to more use and not buried under the Big 3.
To that we read and say "Look" if only they did this or wouldn't do that the team would be much better for it. But, if these culminations of numbers, trends and variances are proof positive to populating the court with the most effective player combinations and planned executions...why is it we don't see enough of the "proven by stats" formulas being administered in game time situations?
Of course Tony, Tim and Manu are going to be the focal point of this team. And (as proven in the past) all the better for it. But case in point (which I believe is mute now but wasn't 2 years ago) is Richard Jefferson. The Spurs brought him in to be a valued option to scoring but didn't use the "proven statistical data" to get the most of his talents. Meh...so what...the team has Tim, Tony and Manu?
Or...again...statistical data proved the Spurs were at their best defensively with Duncan and another serviceable (taller than 6' 7") defensive/rebound specialist in the paint. Yet veered away from that formula which had proven success and (in vain last year) tried a formula of a Blair/Bonner combo.
This year we have not one but two talented (young) wing players which (again by statistical proof) would seem to present better performance value than using Jefferson, yet R.J. gets the nod as a starter when the team would seem to produce more effectively with him not in the starting unit.
Those are but two that stand out to me. And…I’ve seen more in all the stats provided in the different threads that would indicate perhaps a better (proven) theory to using instead of what’s being used in games. But here’s the contrary… The Spurs are winning without using all that’s statistically available and even in some cases winning with combinations and plays that statistically say they shouldn’t when doing.
Pop once mentioned he doesn’t follow stats all that much. Whether straight face lie or truth we wouldn’t know for sure…but one can’t argue his record. Then again…his record may be even better if he instilled stats more into his equation of thought.
All in all…stats are a culmination of trying different options and we wouldn’t know those numbers if it were not for experimenting with the unknown. As of now…I would say the Spurs are one of the best “unknown” teams in the league. Tim, Tony and Manu the best known commodities on the team… yet…Here’s to hoping the positive stats being generated other than their use are put to more use and not buried under the Big 3.