Pointing out stats (Not my own personal opinion) [Archive]

View Full Version : Pointing out stats (Not my own personal opinion)

SpursDynasty

03-24-2007, 08:35 PM

After 68 games, at 48-20, the Spurs:

1. They allow the fewest PPG of any NBA team
2. They shoot the third-best FG% in the league, and allow the third-lowest FG% (Yes, *gasp* better than Dallas in both stats categories)
3. SA allows the 2nd-lowest 3-pt. FG% of opponents in the league. (Better than Dallas again)
4. SA allows the fewest assists per game in the league.

What do you all think of that? Is it because teams have bad games against SA? Or is it Spurs Defense?

Either way, those 4 team stats = playoff success if they continue and keep it up.

And how come no one is happy? Keep in mind these stats are after ALL 68 games, not just that stretch of 10-10 between January 1 and February 11, which everyone is basing the Spurs' season on.

itzsoweezee

03-24-2007, 09:10 PM

Manudona

03-24-2007, 10:31 PM

Although the Spurs are giving all those rebounds to the other teams, is it really as bad as you think? I mean, using the offensive rebounds as example, apparently the defense is quite capable of holding off those second shot attempts, right? otherwise how can you explain the Spurs holding the opponents to the lowest average scoring? Of course, grabbing those rebounds would be much more better, but I do not believe that you should be much concerned, in particular when with just a little improvement they can climb the ladder, after all the difference with the better rebounding team, Denver, is just 3.1 rebounds / game :rolleyes

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2007, 10:59 PM

Either way, those 4 team stats = playoff success if they continue and keep it up.

In 2005-06, being 2nd in Points Against in the regular season (88.8 ppg allowed), 4th in FG%, 3rd in FG% against, and in the top 5 in 3pt FG% against = 2nd round exit

SRJ

03-24-2007, 11:29 PM

In 2005-06, being 2nd in Points Against in the regular season (88.8 ppg allowed), 4th in FG%, 3rd in FG% against, and in the top 5 in 3pt FG% against = 2nd round exit

Yes, and they lost a tight seven game series to the eventual Finalists (who blew a championship they should have won pretty easily IMO).

It's not like the Spurs got pwned by a dirty scrub team - they lost very closely to a very good team that should have won the championship.

If seeding had been done correctly, that would have been a loss in the Conference Finals, assuming everything else stayed the same.

I'm glad the Spurs are performing well in these categories. Obviously, it's a guarantee of nothing, but we at least have evidence that the Spurs are playing at a very high level, capable of winning the title.

Dallas is still the favorite, of course. But I like our chances.

timvp

03-24-2007, 11:39 PM

In 2005-06, being 2nd in Points Against in the regular season (88.8 ppg allowed), 4th in FG%, 3rd in FG% against, and in the top 5 in 3pt FG% against = 2nd round exit

:tu

The 2004 Spurs team was statistically the best defensive team in NBA history. They were also the best rebounding Spurs team in history.

And they got swept out of the playoffs.

Regular season stats stop meaning anything when the playoffs tip off.

T Park

03-24-2007, 11:57 PM

So then we shouldn't be worried abou the regular season stats that the doom and gloomers post?

RIGHT ON!!! :)

SRJ

03-25-2007, 12:03 AM

Kori Ellis

03-25-2007, 12:05 AM

The 60 year history of the NBA says otherwise.

So if a team has the best regular season stats they can suck in the playoffs and they'll still win?

timvp

03-25-2007, 12:08 AM

The 60 year history of the NBA says otherwise.

The point is you can't look at the Spurs' regular season stats and try to predict which team is championship material and which ones aren't. I've tried to find a common link between 1999, 2003 and 2005 that separates them from the other Spurs teams, and the link doesn't exist.

Non-championship Spurs teams in the mid-90's and in the Tim Duncan era have put up ridiculous stats. Regular season stats wise, you can make a case that the 2003 team had the worst stats of any Tim Duncan team.

Overall, this season's stats tell us that the Spurs will be in contention to win it all. But most Spurs fans should know that already.

SRJ

03-25-2007, 12:18 AM

So if a team has the best regular season stats they can suck in the playoffs and they'll still win?

No, and of course they don't hand out the trophy for the best regular season - I try not to be literal when making a point. If I was literal, I couldn't say "Kobe is killing the Grizzlies tonight" without law enforcement getting involved.

I just have a particular distaste for the notion that the regular season means nothing - the fact of the matter is regular season success corresponds to playoff success pretty regularly; in NBA history, the team holding or sharing the best record has won 30 of 60 championships. Second place has won 17 out of 60, third place has won 4 out of 60. That's 51 championships out of 60 from first through third place (league-wide, not division or conference standings).

Based upon that, I'd rather be in Dallas' shoes than Houston's. I'd rather be in Phoenix' shoes than Cleveland's. And I'd rather be in the Spurs' shoes than in Golden State's.

FromWayDowntown

03-25-2007, 12:20 AM

Based upon that, I'd rather be in Dallas' shoes than Houston's. I'd rather be in Phoenix' shoes than Cleveland's. And I'd rather be in the Spurs' shoes than in Golden State's.

Given those numbers, I'd rather be in the Mavericks' or Suns' place than the Spurs.

Kori Ellis

03-25-2007, 12:21 AM

No, and of course they don't hand out the trophy for the best regular season - I try not to be literal when making a point. If I was literal, I couldn't say "Kobe is killing the Grizzlies tonight" without law enforcement getting involved.

I just have a particular distaste for the notion that the regular season means nothing - the fact of the matter is regular season success corresponds to playoff success pretty regularly; in NBA history, the team holding or sharing the best record has won 30 of 60 championships. Second place has won 17 out of 60, third place has won 4 out of 60. That's 51 championships out of 60 from first through third place (league-wide, not division or conference standings).

Based upon that, I'd rather be in Dallas' shoes than Houston's. I'd rather be in Phoenix' shoes than Cleveland's. And I'd rather be in the Spurs' shoes than in Golden State's.

I get all that. But that's not really in relation to what timvp was saying, so I don't know what provoked your response. Anyway, he just clarified in the post right before yours, so it's all fine.

Amuseddaysleeper

03-25-2007, 12:22 AM

Given those numbers, I'd rather be in the Mavericks' or Suns' place than the Spurs.

exactly

no matter how much championship experience the spurs have, going through the playoffs without HCA after round 1 (unless the team makes the finals) is gonna be one hell of an uphill battle

T Park

03-25-2007, 12:25 AM

Eh, it can be done.

They did it in 05 against a better Suns team than they are now.

Amuseddaysleeper

03-25-2007, 12:26 AM

Eh, it can be done.

They did it in 05 against a better Suns team than they are now.

oh it definitely can be done, but to go through phoenix AND dallas without HCA will be extremely tough

not impossible, but very tough

also when you can argue that this team isn't nearly as good as the 05 and that the suns and dallas team now are better

(i'd take 07 suns > 05 suns personally)

SRJ

03-25-2007, 12:38 AM

The point is you can't look at the Spurs' regular season stats and try to predict which team is championship material and which ones aren't. I've tried to find a common link between 1999, 2003 and 2005 that separates them from the other Spurs teams, and the link doesn't exist.

Non-championship Spurs teams in the mid-90's and in the Tim Duncan era have put up ridiculous stats. Regular season stats wise, you can make a case that the 2003 team had the worst stats of any Tim Duncan team.

Overall, this season's stats tell us that the Spurs will be in contention to win it all. But most Spurs fans should know that already.

First of all, without stating which stats were ridiculous or worst, I can't comment upon any claim of the statistical quality of a given team. I can say that many, many team stats are a reflection of a style of play rather than a team's quality. For example, the Nuggets under Paul Westhead were the D'Antoni Suns of that era, but they lost and lost and lost. Never sniffed the playoffs, let alone advanced to conference finals as the Suns have these past two years.

I can say that in two particular critical statistical measures, winning percentage and point differential, the Spurs championship teams have performed very, very well:

1999, 37-13 record, T-1 (Utah); Point differential 8.4, 1st
2003, 60-22, T-1 (Dallas); PD 5.4, 3rd (Dallas, Sacramento)
2005, 59-23, T-2 (Phoenix 62-20); PD 7.8, 1st

And yes, there have been seasons (1995, 2001) when the Spurs had the best record in the league and didn't win the title; there have also been seasons (2001, 2004, 2006) when the Spurs had the best point differential and didn't win the title. You're right to say that there is no statistically foolproof predictor of championships, but the history of the regular season gives us a pretty good indication of where to place our bets. When last year's playoffs started, I certainly wouldn't have bet a dime on Miami, and I'll bet most honest people living outside of Dade county would have said the same. Sure, that turned out to be incorrect, but that's why rules have exceptions - you're not going to find five other champions in league history that did it Miami's way.

SpursDynasty

03-25-2007, 01:28 AM

In 2005-06, being 2nd in Points Against in the regular season (88.8 ppg allowed), 4th in FG%, 3rd in FG% against, and in the top 5 in 3pt FG% against = 2nd round exit

Yes, but a 2nd round exit where the difference was a foul. What does that say about our competition?

If the difference was....getting dominated every game of that series, then I have something to be concerned about. :lol

SpursDynasty

03-25-2007, 01:31 AM

Amuseddaysleeper

03-25-2007, 01:54 AM

bdictjames

03-25-2007, 01:57 AM

Utah would not get past Houston. McGrady and Yao are so much better now.

Dalhoop

03-25-2007, 08:10 AM

That there are three teams in the race for the WC championship, is a no brainer. I don't think that anyone here (Spur fan that is) is giving up on that. I think that what they are saying is that they are not the favorate to win, and they don't like that.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if your the favorate or not, the game still has to be played.

Now most on this board believe that the Suns will be an easy out for the Spurs, although I don't particularly believe that, Its not something that could be proven one way or the other.

The problem, IMO, is that the Spurs fans are seeing four things that they don't like.

1) The Mavs have improved, not just in record, but in most statisical catagories from last years team.

2) The Spurs are not improved over last years team. This is not to say that they are a bad team, as last years team was very good. It is to say that the team that fell "One Foul" short last year, in now not as close to the Mavs as they were.

3) The question marks about last years the team have not been adressed. They still lack the SF that they want, and rebounding is still a problem.

4) The way that the series went last year is still a distint possability. The Spurs are on course to try the same tactic to win this year as last year ... Against an improved team that beat them at that game last year.

No matter how many times you say it "It was one foul", it will not make it true. There was over five minutes to play in that game ... Five minutes that the Spurs didn't play.

In the same way that Spurs fans say "One Foul". The Mavs say the following

Game 1 - "Down by two, 13 seconds and the ball" ... We'll take out chances.
Game 5 - "Down by two, A Terry 15 footer and a Dirk tip-in" ... We'll take our chances

How close were the Spurs to being sweeped? "Thirteen seconds and the ball"
How close were the Spurs from going out in Five? "A Terry shot and Dirk tip-in"

If you are going to judge how close the Spurs were in that series on a final play, why not look at all the games?

I understand that to the Spurs those other games don't matter, but it the teams were that close and one has noticable improved and the other has not ... Well, this leads to a little "Dome and gloom" thinking

ponky

03-25-2007, 08:21 AM

Do you all not think Dallas will be out of gas by the WCF, having to go through Golden State and Utah?

Let's hope GS and Utah keep their seeds. If Clippers end up with the 8 seed, Dallas will sweep them in the first round. If Dallas plays Houston in the 2nd round, that's another sweep for Dallas. GS and Utah could take the series to 6 and 7 games with Dallas, possibly an upset.

LOL, you better keep those fingers crossed SpursDynasty. As of the time you wrote this comment the Clippers were a game up on the Warriors for 8th seed and the Rockets are only a game behind the Jazz, although if you had any sense you would be rooting for the Rockets to play the Mavs, not for the Jazz to play the Mavs. Rockets took us to a 7 game first round series two years ago.

SpursDynasty

03-25-2007, 09:09 AM

LOL, you better keep those fingers crossed SpursDynasty. As of the time you wrote this comment the Clippers were a game up on the Warriors for 8th seed and the Rockets are only a game behind the Jazz, although if you had any sense you would be rooting for the Rockets to play the Mavs, not for the Jazz to play the Mavs. Rockets took us to a 7 game first round series two years ago.

The Rockets would flat out suck in the playoffs. McGrady has never won a playoff series in his life, and the Jazz have played Dallas as good as any team this year has. They are one team not intimidated by Dallas.

So in summary, McGrady sucks and Yao Ming is just about the same. Two stars the team plays no better than when its just one of them out there.

SpursDynasty

03-25-2007, 09:24 AM

That there are three teams in the race for the WC championship, is a no brainer. I don't think that anyone here (Spur fan that is) is giving up on that. I think that what they are saying is that they are not the favorate to win, and they don't like that.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if your the favorate or not, the game still has to be played.

Now most on this board believe that the Suns will be an easy out for the Spurs, although I don't particularly believe that, Its not something that could be proven one way or the other.

The problem, IMO, is that the Spurs fans are seeing four things that they don't like.

1) The Mavs have improved, not just in record, but in most statisical catagories from last years team.

2) The Spurs are not improved over last years team. This is not to say that they are a bad team, as last years team was very good. It is to say that the team that fell "One Foul" short last year, in now not as close to the Mavs as they were.

3) The question marks about last years the team have not been adressed. They still lack the SF that they want, and rebounding is still a problem.

4) The way that the series went last year is still a distint possability. The Spurs are on course to try the same tactic to win this year as last year ... Against an improved team that beat them at that game last year.

No matter how many times you say it "It was one foul", it will not make it true. There was over five minutes to play in that game ... Five minutes that the Spurs didn't play.

In the same way that Spurs fans say "One Foul". The Mavs say the following

Game 1 - "Down by two, 13 seconds and the ball" ... We'll take out chances.
Game 5 - "Down by two, A Terry 15 footer and a Dirk tip-in" ... We'll take our chances

How close were the Spurs to being sweeped? "Thirteen seconds and the ball"
How close were the Spurs from going out in Five? "A Terry shot and Dirk tip-in"

If you are going to judge how close the Spurs were in that series on a final play, why not look at all the games?

I understand that to the Spurs those other games don't matter, but it the teams were that close and one has noticable improved and the other has not ... Well, this leads to a little "Dome and gloom" thinking

Yeah, keep thinking SA hasn't improved since last year. Each and every Spurs game is being judged harder than last year due to the second round loss last year, so the Spurs haven't gotten worse than last season. The end.

FromWayDowntown

03-25-2007, 11:13 AM

That there are three teams in the race for the WC championship, is a no brainer. I don't think that anyone here (Spur fan that is) is giving up on that. I think that what they are saying is that they are not the favorate to win, and they don't like that.

I'm probably as pessimistic as it gets (other than SequSpur, perhaps). It's not that I don't like being a 2nd or 3rd choice to win the West; I'm glad that the Spurs are legitimately in contention and are still a force to be reckoned with. But, I also think that when you look behind the numbers, there are reasons for concern -- though, as demonstrated below, I think my view of the Spurs concerns is far, far different than dalhoop's.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if your the favorate or not, the game still has to be played.

True. Trite, but true.

Now most on this board believe that the Suns will be an easy out for the Spurs, although I don't particularly believe that, Its not something that could be proven one way or the other.

I, for one, don't think Phoenix will be an easy out, largely because I have doubts that the Spurs can match the Suns athleticism, even in a playoff series, and I don't think they'll have the luxury of Robert Horry going for 10 points and 8 rebounds every night in a series against Phoenix, like they did in 2005. Say what you will about the 2005 WCF, but there's no doubt in my mind that the difference between those teams was Robert Horry's ability to play a huge role in those games (he averaged 31 mpg in that series and scored at least 7 points in every game, while recording 7 or more rebounds in 4 of the 5 games). I'm not convinced that Rob still has it in him to be that big for the duration of a long series. I think the Spurs were able to counter much of the Suns' offensive prowess by playing a variation of SmallBall with Horry as a much longer, better rebounding version of the 6'7" and under center group that the Spurs used against Dallas last year. Bonner might be able to provide some of that, but his playoff mettle remains to be tested.

The problem, IMO, is that the Spurs fans are seeing four things that they don't like.

1) The Mavs have improved, not just in record, but in most statisical catagories from last years team.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about the Mavs' record or their performance in any statistical category. Just like its asinine (IMO) to judge the Spurs playoff chances on their regular season statistical performance, it's also asinine to assess any playoff matchup based on things like regular season records and regular season team statistics. Those statistics are suggestions about what a team can do over the course of a fairly-normalized regular season, with each team playing roughly the same schedule. It says nothing at all about how two particular teams matchup, which is the deciding factor in a playoff setting.

2) The Spurs are not improved over last years team. This is not to say that they are a bad team, as last years team was very good. It is to say that the team that fell "One Foul" short last year, in now not as close to the Mavs as they were.

Yet, the Spurs have won in Dallas this season and have played the two games in San Antonio down to the last 30 seconds, with either team having the opportunity to win those last two games. Had Bowen sunk his last possession 3 in January, I'm not sure that Mavs fans would be as convinced that the gap between the teams is growing. And the Spurs did all of that during a time when they were playing the worst basketball they've played in several years. If you're going to judge anything by regular season occurrences, it would seem to me that the only conclusion to be drawn about the Spurs and Mavericks is that they are still extraordinarily competitive with each other.

3) The question marks about last years the team have not been adressed. They still lack the SF that they want, and rebounding is still a problem.

Here, I agree. I think the rebounding remains the bigger question mark. But if the Spurs get on the glass, which is mostly a matter of effort, I think, they can be effective in that part of the game.

4) The way that the series went last year is still a distint possability. The Spurs are on course to try the same tactic to win this year as last year ... Against an improved team that beat them at that game last year.

No matter how many times you say it "It was one foul", it will not make it true. There was over five minutes to play in that game ... Five minutes that the Spurs didn't play.

In the same way that Spurs fans say "One Foul". The Mavs say the following

Game 1 - "Down by two, 13 seconds and the ball" ... We'll take out chances.
Game 5 - "Down by two, A Terry 15 footer and a Dirk tip-in" ... We'll take our chances

How close were the Spurs to being sweeped? "Thirteen seconds and the ball"
How close were the Spurs from going out in Five? "A Terry shot and Dirk tip-in"

This is the theory that amazes me most about some Mavs fans. "The Spurs were remarkably close to being swept or run out in 5 games." Did you just erase Games 3 and 4 from your memory? It's equally plausible, given a similar effort to reconstruct history, that the Spurs could have come home from Dallas up 3-1 and looking to close out the Mavericks in Game 5. Until Duncan fouled out of Game 3 through the misfortune of Dirk stepping on his foot (a fact that would seem to indicate that Duncan beat Dirk to the spot), I think the Spurs would have walked out of the AAC with that win. They were remarkable in the 4th Quarter of that game, but couldn't overcome the 24 free throws that the Mavs shot in that quarter. And just as the Mavs were a Dirk tip-in away from winning Game 5, the Spurs were a Duncan bankshot away from winning Game 4 in regulation.

So, yeah, I think it's quite fair to conclude that the series was truly decided by one foul.

If you are going to judge how close the Spurs were in that series on a final play, why not look at all the games?

Indeed.

I understand that to the Spurs those other games don't matter, but it the teams were that close and one has noticable improved and the other has not ... Well, this leads to a little "Dome and gloom" thinking

Ultimately, I don't know if the difference is as great as you imagine it to be. While I respect the Mavericks and think that they are legitimately the favorites to win a series against anyone in the NBA. Your desire to come in here and smugly support the "doom and gloom" attitude with your one-sided recitation of facts is rather telling.

I still think the Spurs have a ton of work to do to win anything this year, but I think the pieces are there. My only point in this thread is that I don't think you can draw that conclusion by looking at regular season numbers. I think the analysis has to be a bit more sophisticated than that.

SequSpur

03-25-2007, 11:19 AM

I thought this was about bruce bowen :lol

this worst starting sf in the nba.

the spurs have the two worst backup pgs also..

the centers are hilarious..

I don't get excited in march when the spurs lose to two east lottery teams...

spurs have no chance.

Nikos

03-25-2007, 11:33 AM

:tu

The 2004 Spurs team was statistically the best defensive team in NBA history. They were also the best rebounding Spurs team in history.

And they got swept out of the playoffs.

Regular season stats stop meaning anything when the playoffs tip off.

I wouldn't say they don't mean anything. Thats like saying winning and losing games don't really mean anything either in the regular season.

Stats are a nice barometer of the quality of the basketball team. No team that is healthy and intact for an entire 82 game season plays mediocre regular season basketball and then wins a championship. The 1995 Rockets don't count because they had some injuries, and Drexler wasn't their the whole season. Regular season stats do usually mean something. The only time they probably didn't was for the Seattle Sonics in 1993-94.

Every team that wins a championship is an excellent regular season team, and most of them do well in the playoffs (once in a while a fluke like the 94 Nuggets might occur).

But yeah unfavorable matchups can trump regular season success -- but it doesn't mean the regular season statistics were meaningless (of course they are to fans and teams of the losers , but no stat is perfect). Keep in mind the team that beat the Spurs 4-2 that year was a Laker team that wasn't even healthy during the regular season. Maybe the Lakers would have statistically been a Top team offensive team historically -- injuries skewed those statistics.

Dallas didn't even have Josh Howard for like 23 games last year. Think he might have helped them a little more in the win column if he was healthy? Same for Stackhouse (out for 27 games last year).

Dallas would have been statistically better themselves if they had better health. Yeah Ginobili was hurt, but Stackhouse and Howard being hurt was probably more significant.

Statistics can be very illuminating if taken in proper context. To me the Spurs losing in the second round in 2004 and 2006 doesn't mean the stats were meaningless, it means they had bad matchups, and the stats weren't as meaningful even in the statistical context, because they teams they played had injuries which skewed the numbers even more. Matchups are very important of course. But a combination of how the Spurs matchup with the best teams and statistical regular season success (in point differential, rebounding, and wins) all make for meaningful information.

SpursDynasty

03-25-2007, 02:19 PM

***WOULD MAVS FANS EVEN BE ON THIS BOARD IF THE SPURS WEREN'T A THREAT?****

I think I've made my point. So to the annoying pesky Mavs fans, if you really don't think the Spurs are really a threat, then you're wasting your time here, GTFO

:ihit

1999 NBA Champions
2003 NBA Champions
2005 NBA Champions
2007 NBA Champions

Dalhoop

03-25-2007, 07:00 PM

Your desire to come in here and smugly support the "doom and gloom" attitude with your one-sided recitation of facts is rather telling.

I was not supporting it, only saying that this maybe what the "Doom and gloom" are thinking.

td4mvp21

03-25-2007, 07:05 PM

FromWayDowntown

03-25-2007, 07:25 PM

I was not supporting it, only saying that this maybe what the "Doom and gloom" are thinking.

Curious that the quoted passage was the only part of my response to your lecture that drew any counter.

SRJ

03-26-2007, 03:29 AM

The Spurs have a good chance, but for you to think that those stats will automatically translate into a championship is naive, like many other people have tried to tell you. Those stats are impressive, yet that doesn't mean we will get to the Finals and win it all.

It's apparent by now that I have a hard time communicating this sentiment, but of course I realize the Spurs won't automatically get to the Finals based upon regular season success.

The thing is, I don't promote winning percentage and point differential because they are foolproof; You won't find any stat that is. I believe in them because there is a stable relationship between success in those categories and championship success. A team that finished in the top three in winning percentage has won 51 of the 60 NBA championships; a team that has finished in the top three in point differential has won 50 of the 60 championships. Those are success rates of 85 and 83% respectively. That's why, when I see the Spurs are third in winning percentage and first in point differential, I believe they have very good chances to win it all - I can't base my belief upon something I can't see.

But again, the Suns and Mavericks are also performing well in those categories, and I believe the Mavericks have the best chances of all the teams. But I know the Spurs can compete with them and beat them.

mathbzh

03-26-2007, 04:42 AM

I think the raw number of rebound meaning is overrated (Denver has 91.8 rebounds availables we only have 84.8).
If you have a look to the differential.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byteam?&cat1=Total&cat2=diff&conference=NBA&year=season_2006&sort=233
(You could also check the number of rebound per possibilitie).

You can see that if we are not a top rebounding team we are a decent one. IMO we just lack aggressivity on the offensive end to be better. Hopefully it will come in PO time.

Dalhoop

03-26-2007, 06:34 AM

I was unable to stay online and post a lengthy response as I would normally do (personal issues). The reason that I decided to quote that passage is that I think that miss understood why I posted that. The post was in response to the question "Why all the doom and gloom, we are doing fine". I was trying to explain why some would see doom and gloom on the horizon.

Now to the rest of your response.

We agree on some points, such as the Suns being more of the threat then some are expecting. I didn't really want to bring them up for discussion purposes, only to point out that I didn't see them as an easy out. This could also be apart of the doom and gloom thinking, although some don't want to admit it, the Suns are a very good team that in the very least is capable of wearing a team out before their next round begins

About the Mavs schedule (#1) - Before the season started, the Mavs were going to do one of two things. They were either going to collapse because of the way their season ended, or they were going to stomp the league into the ground (A sort of "Kill you, or make you stronger" sort of think). Now there were some worries after the first four games, but sense then the team has decided to latter would be the case.

If the Mavs would have continued to loose, FAR MORE then their regular season prowis will have been questioned, eventhough as you say "it means nothing". Just as if the Spurs started loosing and ended with around 40-45 wins, there would not be much talk of "Turning it on" in the playoffs. The regular season does matter as a measuring board of a teams well being.

The Mavs have shown that they are a stronger team then last year, just watching the games and not looking at the stats, the difference with the team is profound. They are focused in every game, they are mad in every game, and they have something to prove in every game. Add those qualities to a very good NBA Finals team that lacked them and you end up with a rather scary opponent. If the Mavs get to the Finals, I have no doubt that they will sweep whoever it is that they face .... Its just the way the team is playing.

#2 and #3 - Spurs not being improved in a few ways. We seem to agree on this as well, though its a little hard to tell in the posts. I don't doubt that the teams are competitive (I think that the Mavs will win 4-2), I think that best that I could describe the two teams is this, The Mavs have always been competitive with the Spurs, they just never won. The games were close, but the ones that mattered always ended the same way. In the playoffs last year, this trend stopped. The Spurs have done anything on the court this year that would lead someone to believe that they have "Fixed" the problem.

I'm trying hard not to discount the Spurs win over the Mavs this year, but .... I'm sure its been posted before, that team was the "Dead" Mavs. The team that decided to roll over and die after the finals. Obviously this is no excuse, it was still a loss. If not for current situation with the Mavs (At that time) .... Well ... nobody knows the result of the game. The Spurs won that game, they have lost the last two and are 1-2 this year, there one win was against a team without heart or soul (or will to live). It was still a win, but to hang your hat on that game .... well ...

About the "Close to being swept". All the games were close (except one). OT games are close, at least at the end of regulation. Spurs fans only see game seven and say its "One foul", I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this. I was only pointing out that in not for one shot in game one in the final seconds, the Spurs would have been sweep. Its great that they came back, it made for the best series in a very long time, but to say it came down to one play goes both ways.

One play, a foul, and you advance ... maybe (Still time on the clock). One play, a shot, and the Spurs are sweep.

LEONARD

03-26-2007, 08:57 AM

stretch

03-26-2007, 11:08 AM

This is the theory that amazes me most about some Mavs fans. "The Spurs were remarkably close to being swept or run out in 5 games." Did you just erase Games 3 and 4 from your memory? It's equally plausible, given a similar effort to reconstruct history, that the Spurs could have come home from Dallas up 3-1 and looking to close out the Mavericks in Game 5. Until Duncan fouled out of Game 3 through the misfortune of Dirk stepping on his foot (a fact that would seem to indicate that Duncan beat Dirk to the spot), I think the Spurs would have walked out of the AAC with that win. They were remarkable in the 4th Quarter of that game, but couldn't overcome the 24 free throws that the Mavs shot in that quarter. And just as the Mavs were a Dirk tip-in away from winning Game 5, the Spurs were a Duncan bankshot away from winning Game 4 in regulation.

So, yeah, I think it's quite fair to conclude that the series was truly decided by one foul.

this is ridiculous to still be talking about this, and to say the stupid "one foul" thing, or the "what if" shit (from both Mavs and Spurs fans). the fact is, the Mavs made plays, while the Spurs did not, and won the series, because they MADE PLAYS. if the Spurs were so fucking good, they should have beat Dallas in OT, or found a way to stop defend Dirk better so that he couldnt make a 3 point play. but they didn't. and if the Mavs were that much better, then they should have swept the Spurs or won in 5. but they didnt. end of story.

anyways, this is a new season, and we should be looking forward to the fact that we will see these two teams meet in the WCF for another great series of basketball.

stretch

03-26-2007, 11:21 AM

They shoot the third-best FG% in the league, and allow the third-lowest FG% (Yes, *gasp* better than Dallas in both stats categories)

they shoot a whopping .2% better than the Mavs, and allow an even more impressive .6% lower FG%.

SA allows the fewest assists per game in the league.

Allowing an incredible .55 less APG. Amazing.

Either way, those 4 team stats = playoff success if they continue and keep it up.

You forgot one major stat. Others have already pointed it out, but I might as well show it again for your stupid ass.

Dallas has a 3.63 higher rebounding differential than San Antonio. Typically, the two things teams must do in playoffs to win, is rebound and play defense. San Antonio is statistically a slightly better defensive team, while Dallas is a considerably better offensive and rebounding team.

Both teams are pretty damn good, and very well matched. Enough with these retarded threads.

FromWayDowntown

03-26-2007, 11:32 AM

this is ridiculous to still be talking about this, and to say the stupid "one foul" thing, or the "what if" shit (from both Mavs and Spurs fans). the fact is, the Mavs made plays, while the Spurs did not, and won the series, because they MADE PLAYS. if the Spurs were so fucking good, they should have beat Dallas in OT, or found a way to stop defend Dirk better so that he couldnt make a 3 point play. but they didn't. and if the Mavs were that much better, then they should have swept the Spurs or won in 5. but they didnt. end of story.

anyways, this is a new season, and we should be looking forward to the fact that we will see these two teams meet in the WCF for another great series of basketball.

Trust me, I absolutely agree with you.

timvp

03-26-2007, 12:54 PM

I wouldn't say they don't mean anything. Thats like saying winning and losing games don't really mean anything either in the regular season.

Stats are a nice barometer of the quality of the basketball team. No team that is healthy and intact for an entire 82 game season plays mediocre regular season basketball and then wins a championship. The 1995 Rockets don't count because they had some injuries, and Drexler wasn't their the whole season. Regular season stats do usually mean something. The only time they probably didn't was for the Seattle Sonics in 1993-94.

Every team that wins a championship is an excellent regular season team, and most of them do well in the playoffs (once in a while a fluke like the 94 Nuggets might occur).

But yeah unfavorable matchups can trump regular season success -- but it doesn't mean the regular season statistics were meaningless (of course they are to fans and teams of the losers , but no stat is perfect). Keep in mind the team that beat the Spurs 4-2 that year was a Laker team that wasn't even healthy during the regular season. Maybe the Lakers would have statistically been a Top team offensive team historically -- injuries skewed those statistics.

Dallas didn't even have Josh Howard for like 23 games last year. Think he might have helped them a little more in the win column if he was healthy? Same for Stackhouse (out for 27 games last year).

Dallas would have been statistically better themselves if they had better health. Yeah Ginobili was hurt, but Stackhouse and Howard being hurt was probably more significant.

Statistics can be very illuminating if taken in proper context. To me the Spurs losing in the second round in 2004 and 2006 doesn't mean the stats were meaningless, it means they had bad matchups, and the stats weren't as meaningful even in the statistical context, because they teams they played had injuries which skewed the numbers even more. Matchups are very important of course. But a combination of how the Spurs matchup with the best teams and statistical regular season success (in point differential, rebounding, and wins) all make for meaningful information.

Eh, I don't buy it when it comes to the Spurs. I've studied the stats in the Duncan era and you can't predict anything based off the regular season.

For example, the best rebounding teams of the era have been the worst in the playoffs. The team with the biggest difference between FG% and OFG% ('97-98) isn't even remembered. The '03 team had like half the point differential of the '01 team.

Again, I'm just talking about the Spurs. Of course if you look at the stats as a whole across the whole league, regular season stats can be used to predict teams with championship credentials. But for the Spurs specifically, you throw regular season stats out the window because there is no link to failure or success over the years.

Unless you can point to a common theme that separated the championship Spurs team and the non-championship Spurs teams, I don't see how you can use regular season stats at all when talking about this team's chances in the playoffs. You can point to matchups, but I think that the only championship quality Spurs team that didn't win it all was the '06 Spurs. '98, '01 and '04 teams weren't winning it all even if they overcame the "bad matchup" that led to their ouster.

SRJ

03-26-2007, 01:57 PM

Eh, I don't buy it when it comes to the Spurs. I've studied the stats in the Duncan era and you can't predict anything based off the regular season.

For example, the best rebounding teams of the era have been the worst in the playoffs. The team with the biggest difference between FG% and OFG% ('97-98) isn't even remembered. The '03 team had like half the point differential of the '01 team.

Again, I'm just talking about the Spurs. Of course if you look at the stats as a whole across the whole league, regular season stats can be used to predict teams with championship credentials. But for the Spurs specifically, you throw regular season stats out the window because there is no link to failure or success over the years.

Unless you can point to a common theme that separated the championship Spurs team and the non-championship Spurs teams, I don't see how you can use regular season stats at all when talking about this team's chances in the playoffs. You can point to matchups, but I think that the only championship quality Spurs team that didn't win it all was the '06 Spurs. '98, '01 and '04 teams weren't winning it all even if they overcame the "bad matchup" that led to their ouster.

#1: The 2001 Spurs differential was 7.8 and the 2003 Spurs differential was 5.4, yet they still had the third-best point differential in the league in 2003 and were tied for the best record in the league. So while it's true that the 2003 team didn't perform as well in the category of point differential, they still did very well.

#2: I can't understand why the Spurs would be exempt from a link between regular season and postseason success. As a matter of fact, the Spurs championships have all come after a very successful regular season - they've not had a 2006 Miami or 1995 Houston type championship. The three Spurs championships are like most championships in league history.

#3: For me, it's the fact that the 2007 Spurs are #3 in winning percentage and #1 in point differential. Performing well in each of those categories has been important for past champions, including the three Spurs championships. There have been years where the Spurs performed well in those categories and didn't win the title, but in those years the teams that won also performed well in those categories. It's rare that a championship team finishes lower than third in winning percentage and point differential.

Again, I can't predict with certainty that the Spurs (or the Mavs or the Suns) WILL win the championship, but I'd be really surprised if someone other than those three teams wins it all.

Nikos

03-26-2007, 02:36 PM

Eh, I don't buy it when it comes to the Spurs. I've studied the stats in the Duncan era and you can't predict anything based off the regular season.

You can't predict a lot of things, but most of the Duncan era years the team has been borderline championship material or better. Aside from the Lakers in 2001 and 2002, they could have probably beat any other team (maybe not the Kings but any other team). Just because the stats don't mirror the quality of the team when the playoffs end doesn't mean they are useless. Sometimes they don't follow what happens in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they are useless in gaging the quality of a team.

For example, the best rebounding teams of the era have been the worst in the playoffs. The team with the biggest difference between FG% and OFG% ('97-98) isn't even remembered. The '03 team had like half the point differential of the '01 team.

First of all the 2001 team that played the Lakers in the playoffs wasn't their full roster by any means. Derek Anderson wasn't even competent or healthy in that series. He was clearly their third most valuable player and you could argue he was their next best offensive player after Duncan. Basically their only offensive threat not including Duncan or Drob. Thats a huge loss. That makes them worse than the 2003 team right there. It makes them slightly weaker than the 1997-98 squad even. Duncan's game jumped considerably in 2001-02 according to PER, MPG, and statistical contribution. Drob also not showing up that series didn't help, but thats another issue.

Again, I'm just talking about the Spurs. Of course if you look at the stats as a whole across the whole league, regular season stats can be used to predict teams with championship credentials. But for the Spurs specifically, you throw regular season stats out the window because there is no link to failure or success over the years.

When you say throw out you make it sound useless, provided the team doesn't win the title. They aren't really useless because if your team has a great point differential, good winning %, and you matchup well with the best teams you will always have a chance. The 2004 team was damned good, and weren't exactly going to get steamrolled by the Pistons. Heck the Spurs might not have even won the title in 2005 if Wade was healthy. You never know. Then everyone would be saying Manu and TP aren't championship caliber supporting stars for Duncan etc.... The perception would change.

The stats might mean nothing in retrospect provided the Spurs fail (even if by 1 pt or whatever), but they are the best indicators and IMO aren't really 'meaningless'. You can say it in retrospect -- but injuries, health to the Spurs and other teams can change a lot. It can skew regular season stats as well.

Bottom line is stats should always be considered along with matchups, and health of the teams played in the regular season. They might not make you a better predictor, but it can help gain more perspective then simply saying 'the Spurs look horrible an have no chance', then when they lose by 2pts in GAME 7 to the Mavs -- then you get a whole bunch of 'told you so's....the stats were meaningless etc....".

Unless you can point to a common theme that separated the championship Spurs team and the non-championship Spurs teams, I don't see how you can use regular season stats at all when talking about this team's chances in the playoffs. You can point to match ups, but I think that the only championship quality Spurs team that didn't win it all was the '06 Spurs. '98, '01 and '04 teams weren't winning it all even if they overcame the "bad matchup" that led to their ouster.

Its tough because Derek Anderson getting injured skews things in 2001, David Robinson not playing much in 2002 against LA skews things. The Spurs in 2003 getting an injury to Dirk and Webber -- slightly weaker competition than they will face this season, avoiding Miami in 2005 etc..... There is a fine line between winning a title and not -- and sometimes it doesn't always have to do with not being good enough. Labeling the Spurs a championship caliber team in 2003 and 2005 and not in 2001, 2004, and 2006 is kind of fuzzy IMO.

I am not even saying the stats can predict whether the Spurs will win the title, because there are several other variables. But to me a great point differential team with a good winning percentage tells me the team has a good chance.

5ToolMan

03-26-2007, 07:11 PM

The problem, IMO, is that the Spurs fans are seeing four things that they don't like.

I don't think the huge base Spurs Fans who know the game see much to be too worried about. Sure there are some Spurs' Fans who are gloom and doom by nature, and even though the number is small in relation to your average Mavs' Fan, we do have our share of clueless hoops fans.

1) The Mavs have improved, not just in record, but in most statisical catagories from last years team.

The main "improvement" for the Mavs is that they are playing the REGULAR SEASON with more focus on both ends of the floor AND Avery has given them the toughness to nut it up more on defense night after night.

2) The Spurs are not improved over last years team. This is not to say that they are a bad team, as last years team was very good. It is to say that the team that fell "One Foul" short last year, in now not as close to the Mavs as they were.

I think you may be a little short sighted or are relying too much on perception from the regular season rather than on what really matters. Last year Duncan was playing on one foot, Ginobili was one massive contusion and Parker was severly limited on his wheels. Still this trio of proven winners was able to use a solid contribution from Finley to take the Mavs to the limit.

3) The question marks about last years the team have not been adressed. They still lack the SF that they want, and rebounding is still a problem.

4) The way that the series went last year is still a distint possability. The Spurs are on course to try the same tactic to win this year as last year ... Against an improved team that beat them at that game last year.

I understand that to the Spurs those other games don't matter, but it the teams were that close and one has noticable improved and the other has not ... Well, this leads to a little "Dome and gloom" thinking[/QUOTE]

If Duncan, Manu and Parker are healthy all of the other things, including the Mavs Balls will shrink in significance. In last years playoffs the Spurs had the health concerns of their big three and got nothing from their true centers. This year Duncan being healthy makes the Spurs much better in the playoffs all by himself. Manu being healthy take the Spurs ability in the playoffs to a new level. Tony has shown great improvement and although not completly healthy, he is much better than he was in last years Mavs series. Add Finley's another year with the core AND three bigs that did not play in the series last year at all, who can share some time wearing Dirk down and I say the Spurs are a much more dangerous playoff team and will match up much better with the Mavs.

Dalhoop

03-26-2007, 08:29 PM

I don't think the huge base Spurs Fans who know the game see much to be too worried about. Sure there are some Spurs' Fans who are gloom and doom by nature, and even though the number is small in relation to your average Mavs' Fan, we do have our share of clueless hoops fans.

I think this is true of most fans. I know some Mavs fans that still think that Pierce would have been a better choice in that draft so long ago.

The main "improvement" for the Mavs is that they are playing the REGULAR SEASON with more focus on both ends of the floor AND Avery has given them the toughness to nut it up more on defense night after night.

This is true, there are other improvements, but that is the main one. Do you not think that they will continue that into the Playoffs?

I think you may be a little short sighted or are relying too much on perception from the regular season rather than on what really matters. Last year Duncan was playing on one foot, Ginobili was one massive contusion and Parker was severly limited on his wheels. Still this trio of proven winners was able to use a solid contribution from Finley to take the Mavs to the limit.

So I guess you comment before this one has no meaning? After all, its talking about the Regular season. If you only look at the playoffs then all the Spurs have are excuses after excuses. I don't like those anymore then the next guy, I would rather have wins.

Excuses like this.

"Duncan was on one foot" - He played 42 minutes a game and put up 32-11 .. Yep, sounds like one foot to me. I guess this year, on two feet you will be expecting 64-22 a night, good luck with that.

"Parker was severly limited" - He played 38 minutes and put up 20-4-3 a night, I would think a healthy Parker could get at least 30-6-6 a night.

"Ginobli was one massive contusion" - 35 minutes he put up 21-4-2, shoot if he was healthy he would have gotten 30-35 a night.

I guess you can believe what you want, these players have about maxed out as far as their production goes. If your looking for this "Trio of proven winners" to do more to get you a vicory, I think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Add Finley's another year with the core AND three bigs that did not play in the series last year at all, who can share some time wearing Dirk down and I say the Spurs are a much more dangerous playoff team and will match up much better with the Mavs.

Adding another year to Finleys age don't help. The three bigs that you added may play as much as the two they replaced, I guess it all depends on Game 1 again.

Of course your not one of the doom and gloomers, I would guess that none of this makes any sense to you :)

Clutch20

03-26-2007, 09:49 PM

I think this is true of most fans. I know some Mavs fans that still think that Pierce would have been a better choice in that draft so long ago.

This is true, there are other improvements, but that is the main one. Do you not think that they will continue that into the Playoffs?

So I guess you comment before this one has no meaning? After all, its talking about the Regular season. If you only look at the playoffs then all the Spurs have are excuses after excuses. I don't like those anymore then the next guy, I would rather have wins.

Excuses like this.

"Duncan was on one foot" - He played 42 minutes a game and put up 32-11 .. Yep, sounds like one foot to me. I guess this year, on two feet you will be expecting 64-22 a night, good luck with that.

"Parker was severly limited" - He played 38 minutes and put up 20-4-3 a night, I would think a healthy Parker could get at least 30-6-6 a night.

"Ginobli was one massive contusion" - 35 minutes he put up 21-4-2, shoot if he was healthy he would have gotten 30-35 a night.

I guess you can believe what you want, these players have about maxed out as far as their production goes. If your looking for this "Trio of proven winners" to do more to get you a vicory, I think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Adding another year to Finleys age don't help. The three bigs that you added may play as much as the two they replaced, I guess it all depends on Game 1 again.

Of course your not one of the doom and gloomers, I would guess that none of this makes any sense to you :)

Excuses seen from the other side of the fence (yours) are perceived differently here; upon examination of the medical data documented concerning the physical conditions of the Spurs players you mention, those qualified in the sports medical field would take exception with your labeling those conditions as excuses. Foot, hip, shoulder and whatnot injuries during last playoff run were played through, minutes and all, superficial appearances notwithstanding.

You cannot be so one-dimensional when analyzing the athlete or any athelete's effectiveness while playing injured because other factors impact on personal perseverence. How they were raised as adolescents, their upbringing, environment, and emphasis placed on seeing the job through; in later years those are extremely important in the heat of the battle and determine just how much of an effort that injured player will make until over is over.
There are those gifted players in sports that are so important to their teams who wave the white flag too fast and early and take themselves out of play for months at a stretch. It is their responsibility to take care of their own bodies so as to maximize longevity. I don't believe the Spurs have that type of player on board. I don't believe the Mavericks have any of those type either. These playoffs will reveal player fortitude and heart.

Hold fast to your beliefs about our big 3 falling short this 07 run then; the concept of falling short is a running theme, emblematic of Maverick's efforts, again, not hearsay but rather a historical constancy which can only be solved by the Mavericks acquisition of a championship. I applaud champions and I will applaud your winning of the trophy that only a priviledged few have been privy to, when and if that occurs.

Dalhoop

03-27-2007, 06:17 AM

Injurys are a fine excuse, if they effect your play on the court. I have a job that I do healthy very well, when my back or feet hurt hurt, I still go to work and do the job. If asked to do more for the company, I do. My job has no reason to think that I am in pain because it does not effect my performace, I do the job anyway.

Athletes are required to let their teams know when they feel something is not right. They have doctors on hand to fix these things and medical specialist to make the calls to when these things should be treated. Teams have a lot of money tied up in the players, their health matters.

Now for various reasons teams make these reports public, players sit out a game here or there for whatever medical reason and the teams are best served to be open about this (They will get thousands of questions if the don't)

How many times has Duncan, not the doctors, not the coach, DUNCAN came out and said "My pain effected my game"?

I bet it hasn't been very many. What about Manu or Parker? You see there is pain where you can't play and there is pain that you play through, and pain that your coach doesn't let you play though.

Like any guy, when I go to work, its to do a job. If I can't do the job, I don't go to work. Me being at work tells the rest of the team that my job will get done.

All three played, all three played better then they did during the regular season. All three were asked to do more and delivered. That the team didn't win is not on them. You can say the injuries slowed them down and effected their performace, but it doesn't show.

I have no doubt that they played in pain, after almost 90 games, this is almost expected. But saying that they played with pain and could do better, questions their heart and desire to do better when the games ment the most.

Say they had a off shooting night or couldn't get into the flow, but don't question that could have done better but were slowed because of pain. They played very well, they play far better then they had been playing.

Hold fast to your beliefs about our big 3 falling short this 07 run then; the concept of falling short is a running theme,

If by falling short, you mean the not winning a series vs the Mavs, then you are correct. I don't mean that they will not show up big, only that to expect more then what they gave last year is asking a bit much.

I have no doubt that they will come up big, but without another player coming up big, I don't think that it will be enough.

Clutch20

03-27-2007, 06:58 AM

Injurys are a fine excuse, if they effect your play on the court. I have a job that I do healthy very well, when my back or feet hurt hurt, I still go to work and do the job. If asked to do more for the company, I do. My job has no reason to think that I am in pain because it does not effect my performace, I do the job anyway.

Athletes are required to let their teams know when they feel something is not right. They have doctors on hand to fix these things and medical specialist to make the calls to when these things should be treated. Teams have a lot of money tied up in the players, their health matters.

Now for various reasons teams make these reports public, players sit out a game here or there for whatever medical reason and the teams are best served to be open about this (They will get thousands of questions if the don't)

How many times has Duncan, not the doctors, not the coach, DUNCAN came out and said "My pain effected my game"?

I bet it hasn't been very many. What about Manu or Parker? You see there is pain where you can't play and there is pain that you play through, and pain that your coach doesn't let you play though.

Like any guy, when I go to work, its to do a job. If I can't do the job, I don't go to work. Me being at work tells the rest of the team that my job will get done.

All three played, all three played better then they did during the regular season. All three were asked to do more and delivered. That the team didn't win is not on them. You can say the injuries slowed them down and effected their performace, but it doesn't show.

I have no doubt that they played in pain, after almost 90 games, this is almost expected. But saying that they played with pain and could do better, questions their heart and desire to do better when the games ment the most.

Say they had a off shooting night or couldn't get into the flow, but don't question that could have done better but were slowed because of pain. They played very well, they play far better then they had been playing.

If by falling short, you mean the not winning a series vs the Mavs, then you are correct. I don't mean that they will not show up big, only that to expect more then what they gave last year is asking a bit much.

I have no doubt that they will come up big, but without another player coming up big, I don't think that it will be enough.
([I]I don't think that it will be enough).....from the other side of the fence, naturally, and thanks for agreeing with my contentions about injury affecting play.