FiveThirtyEight expecting a down year for the Spurs

[SAGirl]

They cite Kawhi and Tony's injury basically, but also reference the midrange game's inefficiency.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-spurs-may-have-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 (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/spurs-tony-parker-says-he-expects-to-be-back-on-the-court-in-four-or-five-months/) and Kawhi Leonard, who was held out of the preseason (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20871746/kawhi-leonard-san-antonio-spurs-continues-rehab-miss-preseason) and now will miss at least the season opener (https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2017/10/16/16481336/kawhi-leonard-injury-spurs-gmib) 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) (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bulls-made-the-right-decision-but-the-wrong-trade/) — 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.

[dabom]

Wow. Almost like the same shit every year. Is this thread worthy? :lmao

[SAGirl]

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.

[Trainwreck2100]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something

[ducks]

pop forcused on trump not his job could happen

[benefactor]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something
Beat me to it

[Mr. Body]

Is the league as shitty as it was last year? Then don't expect a huge drop off.

[SnakeBoy]

Spurs can keep finding moderate success

moderate?

[TheGreatYacht]

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

[BillMc]

They cite Kawhi and Tony's injury basically, but also reference the midrange game's inefficiency.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-spurs-may-have-a-down-year/

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. :lol

[FkLA]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something


Beat me to it

Yep. :lol

[DieHardSpursFan1537]

Nate Bronze has never been a reputable guy. 538 is a fuckin' joke.

[SAGirl]

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. :lol
That's true, but I have to ask did you read the article?

[BillMc]

That's true, but I have to ask did you read the article?

yes, I had already read it before you started the thread, but it is the article's title that will attract readers. The content of the body of the article is almost irrelevant.

[SAGirl]

yes, I had already read it before you started the thread, but it is the article's title that will attract readers. The content of the body of the article is almost irrelevant.
I expected a comment about the substance not the title, thus why I asked if you read it.

[BillMc]

I expected a comment about the substance not the title, thus why I asked if you read it.

My point is valid. It's a way to get readership.

[bklynspursfan]

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

[SAGirl]

My point is valid. It's a way to get readership.
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.:toast

[BillMc]

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

exactly

[Russ]

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.

[baseline bum]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something

Fivethirtyeight wrote for months that the media was full of shit 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.

[noles1983]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something

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.

[apalisoc_9]

something somehing hilary 98% chance to win something something

They gave trump a pretty good chance of winning...One of the very few that did.

[noles1983]

Fivethirtyeight wrote for months that the media was full of shit 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.

Trump won by 78k votes in 3 states, it truly was a perfect storm and everything fell into place perfectly.

[8FOR!3]

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.

[baseline bum]

Trump won by 78k votes in 3 states, it truly was a perfect storm and everything fell into place perfectly.

It was no such thing. Clinton's leads in her firewall states were razor thin and their votes were heavily correlated. Trump's win was only a shocking result to the idiots in the media who have never taken a probability course in their lives. It was a mildly surprising result.

[Trainwreck2100]

Fivethirtyeight wrote for months that the media was full of shit 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.

silver was the only one on that site that wouldn't call it for hillary the day of, listen to his podcast from that day if you don't believe me.

[spurs1990]

Not even the biggest pessimist on ST, and Lord knows we have a ton, would expect any less than 50 wins.

And this is a professional polling cite that comes up with this yard waste of analysis.

[Perry Mason]

silver was the only one on that site that wouldn't call it for hillary the day of, listen to his podcast from that day if you don't believe me.

You guys are rewriting history. I won't do your homework for you. But for MONTHS, Nate Sliver or his neckbearded minions were writing articles about how Trump's chances in the primaries, and then the election, were extremely poor due to low favorability rankings. Then he went through a whopping 5-10 prior presidencies and compared, acting as if that is some kind of mathematically sound probability function.

538 is mostly a joke, and a good expose of the many limitations that affect data analytics when used to predict inherently uncertain events.

As to the Spurs, the 11 game drop off is also a joke. Sure, it could happen if injuries add up. That can happen to any team. Will happen to GSW if say Draymond and Durant went out. But their formula has no way of really knowing just how much KA has improved, how much Rudy will step up and improve his game in the system, how a motivated LMA will improve on defense, how Murray on defense, with Gay/Kawhi/KA gives the Spurs so much length that it will drive teams crazy, etc.

[Mr. Body]

This team could win 50 without Kawhi.

[SAGirl]

You guys are rewriting history. I won't do your homework for you. But for MONTHS, Nate Sliver or his neckbearded minions were writing articles about how Trump's chances in the primaries, and then the election, were extremely poor due to low favorability rankings. Then he went through a whopping 5-10 prior presidencies and compared, acting as if that is some kind of mathematically sound probability function.

538 is mostly a joke, and a good expose of the many limitations that affect data analytics when used to predict inherently uncertain events.

As to the Spurs, the 11 game drop off is also a joke. Sure, it could happen if injuries add up. That can happen to any team. Will happen to GSW if say Draymond and Durant went out. But their formula has no way of really knowing just how much KA has improved, how much Rudy will step up and improve his game in the system, how a motivated LMA will improve on defense, how Murray on defense, with Gay/Kawhi/KA gives the Spurs so much length that it will drive teams crazy, etc.
This is a good response. I thought it was interesting their focus on the lack of dribble penetration since Kawhi and Tony are out, both of whom were the most aggressive in that aspect last season.
However, as you say, there is no way they can predict how good Dejounte is going to be this year. Heck I was judging him by his summer league work and the inconsistency of last season, but at the same time, he's 21 with very few NBA minutes. This is not like judging some rookie who played 3000 minutes his first year. He could take a huge leap... And obviously Pop said he's never tried to fit in Kyle per se... No one could say how good he's going to be this season. He wasn't aggressive previously and is shooting much better. He's also coming from a good showing in the playoffs. And Rudy as you say was an unknown quantity in terms of how he would look after that injury. And Kawhi is an MVP candidate, when he's back... this team will be really scary.

:bobo

[Nathan89]

Their models would've been more accurate if they accounted for how lazy Hillary was at campaigning tbh

[rjv]

Op-ed seems to doubt his own conclusions, hence the title including the always persuasive argument killer and auxiliary verb "may". Much of what he contends is predicated upon injuries to parker and leonard (but what teams success isn't dependent upon health?) and gambler's logic or the premise that eventually, the Spurs will get it wrong when it comes to what pieces it adds. His part on Patty's and Gasol's limitations was pretty accurate though.

[Seventyniner]

IIRC 538 had Clinton with about a 65% chance of winning the day before the election.

[noles1983]

It was no such thing. Clinton's leads in her firewall states were razor thin and their votes were heavily correlated. Trump's win was only a shocking result to the idiots in the media who have never taken a probability course in their lives. It was a mildly surprising result.

lol ok. I know it's cool in hindsight to say things to make yourself sound intelligent and all knowing. Razor thin margins in which Trump needed to sweep them all and he did. That is a perfect storm and was a statistic improbability.

[baseline bum]

You guys are rewriting history. I won't do your homework for you. But for MONTHS, Nate Sliver or his neckbearded minions were writing articles about how Trump's chances in the primaries, and then the election, were extremely poor due to low favorability rankings. Then he went through a whopping 5-10 prior presidencies and compared, acting as if that is some kind of mathematically sound probability function.

538 is mostly a joke, and a good expose of the many limitations that affect data analytics when used to predict inherently uncertain events.

As to the Spurs, the 11 game drop off is also a joke. Sure, it could happen if injuries add up. That can happen to any team. Will happen to GSW if say Draymond and Durant went out. But their formula has no way of really knowing just how much KA has improved, how much Rudy will step up and improve his game in the system, how a motivated LMA will improve on defense, how Murray on defense, with Gay/Kawhi/KA gives the Spurs so much length that it will drive teams crazy, etc.

What a load of crap. Silver was talking for months about how Trump had a real chance and how far off base the media was claiming he didn't because he'd have to nearly run the table in battleground states.

[baseline bum]

lol ok. I know it's cool in hindsight to say things to make yourself sound intelligent and all knowing. Razor thin margins in which Trump needed to sweep them all and he did. That is a perfect storm and was a statistic improbability.

I'm not saying it in hindsight. I knew he had a decent chance on election day and was frightened as hell he would get elected on that dark November Tuesday while most Democrat sycophants seemed to be thinking the GOP was done in national elections. Our Dear Leader did exactly what Nate Silver warned of: he outperformed the polls by a lousy two points (a pretty standard polling error in presidential elections) and shifted a razor thin Clinton win to a razor thin Trump win. This election result wasn't the shocker the media keeps trying to play it up as to cover their own asses for their stupidity in projections.

[cutewizard]

Spurs will surprise everyone and win the NBA title!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[tholdren]

538 is a product of idiots using analytics, nothing more. See cleveland browns

[Phenomanul]

What a load of crap. Silver was talking for months about how Trump had a real chance and how far off base the media was claiming he didn't because he'd have to nearly run the table in battleground states.

I had my high school alma mater (using connections through the faculty and with the greater "learning opportunity" as a driver) poll the country via random telephone dialing (like back in the day), and call a proportional amount of people in each state according to the weight of every state's respective Electoral College. They also attempted to dial proportionally by state districts in order to capture and factor in the urban center effect. Between 6 classes of ~20 high school seniors each they called about 15,000 people total. Their study, conducted 2 weeks prior to the election, ascertained EVERY SINGLE state (except Virginia) correctly. Sometimes simple methods are better predictors of complex events. Which is why I questioned the self inflated promotion of the Democratic Party's hype engine. It seems most media polls believed their own bias, and the bias of their consumer base - which falsely portrayed the constituency of our nation. The dichotomy of their message and reality was really apparent to me for two reasons: 1) an appreciable voter turnout difference in the primaries between the Democrats and Republicans and 2) event turnouts - Hillary was having problems filling high school gymnasiums across the country and only managed large crowds when Barrack Obama, Michelle Obama or Joe Biden showed up for assistance - Trump on the other hand was drawing massive crowds in large venues everywhere he went.

[BackHome]

It’s called Fake News that’s why everyone thought Shillary was going to win.

[TheGreatYacht]

Incoming 3-4 record with Boston and GSW coming up :lol

Like I said in the offseason... this is a 5-8 seed (at best) and a guaranteed first round exit. I've been spot on all year and Pity Mills and Gasol are delivering the bads (as I and many knowledgeable posters called).

Our season hangs on Parker coming back to playoff form. Kawhi and LMA won't be enough.