Back to Backs Analysis: Should Spurs Fans Worry?

As is my habit, as soon as the Spurs released their schedule I immediately scanned it for back to back games. I always dread the back to backs. It turns out we have 17 this year, which as far as they go, is a low number. At that I was able to breathe a sigh of relief. But then it occurred to me, I have never actually seen statistics on back to backs to verify my fear. Logically, it makes sense for Spurs fans to fear them and that had always been enough for me. After all, the Spurs have an aging roster that cannot recover as quickly as younger teams. We also have key players that are injury prone which results in Popovich cutting their minutes during back to backs as a precaution. And if a player is ailing, Popovich will sit him without hesitation for the back to back as we saw him do with Duncan last season. So, we have to be significantly worse, right? Glad you asked. Continue reading to find out.

In order to obtain a decent sample size, I decided to analyze back to backs dating to our first championship season in 1999. There were several questions I set out to answer. Do the Spurs lose significantly more back to back games than their regular season winning percentage would indicate? As the Spurs have aged, have they become significantly worse at back to back games? Have the Spurs been better at back to back games during their four championship seasons? And most importantly, are these games worthy of the amount of stress they cause me, (and you?)

Directly below is a summary of the data I derived using raw data from Basketball Reference.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ai2FXAiOLC..._to_b_data.jpg

While the Spurs do have the second least amount of back to backs in the NBA this upcoming season, as you can tell by the chart, it is nothing to get too giddy about. It's not like we have 10 less or anything. If we had just 4 more, it would be tied for the most back to backs the Spurs have had in more than a decade. Below is a graph that visually represents this same data. Please note that I chose to use winning percentages because in 1999, the lockout shortened the season so simply using wins and losses would have skewed the data.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ai2FXAiOLC...to_b_graph.jpg

The gold circles represent how the Spurs fared during their championship seasons. The green line tracks the Spurs' back to back winning percentages over the years and the blue line tracks the Spurs' regular season winning percentage. The black lines are the Spurs' average back to back and regular season winning percentages from last season to 1999. So, what does this data tell us?

Well, for one, I expected the difference between the two averages to be much greater. Since I have feared the dreaded back to backs for so long, I could not imagine the percent difference to be less than 12%. Obviously, I was wrong. On average, over the past 11 seasons, the Spurs have lost only 7% more when playing back to backs as compared to the regular season average. Is 7% worth having no fingernails by April?

Interestingly, one could make the argument that as the Spurs have aged, they actually have improved in back to back contests. At the very least, we can agree that the Spurs have not become significantly worse over the years. I think this can be attributed to experience. Going into the tail end of back to backs, experience allows the Spurs to better mentally prepare for them. They know that they need to come out strong from the start so their opponent does not gain confidence. If their opponent stumbles early, the Spurs know they must immediately pounce so Popovich can rest his starters with a comfortable lead. And experience gives the Spurs confidence that they can keep the game close and secure the win in the fourth quarter with defensive stops.

Have the Spurs performed significantly better in back to backs during championship seasons? Pay attention to the gold circles as they signify a championship year. As you can see, there is no trend between championships and back to backs. In '99, '03 and '07, the Spurs fared decently in back to backs. However, in '05 the Spurs recorded their second worst back to back win percentage and still brought the trophy home. So to state that the Spurs must perform well in back to backs in order to win the championship is clearly false.

Obviously, I have come to the conclusion that I have spent far too much time worrying about back to backs in my life time. Although we generally lose the tail end of back to backs more often than other regular season games, it is only 7% more than our regular season average and the results vary widely each season. The results of back to backs definitely do not reflect whether the Spurs will win a championship or not. So next time the Spurs have a back to back, sit back, relax, crack a Bud, and know it's not as crucial as most make it out to be.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2009/...nalysis-should

Alright, full post available now....

nice study fred

So in other words, no, we don't have to worry.

Um, yeah. But if you would like to worry, old and injury prone players are still more likely to get injured during the tail end of back to backs. So you can still hold your breath every time Tim, Tony, or Manu hit the floor.

Nice. One thing: putting the years decreasing from left to right on the chart is definitely not what your average reader is used to...

Yeah.... The company I work for likes it that way so it's a habit.....

I expect Pop will sit Duncan one of most, if not all, back-to-backs this season.

I think we will rest Duncan, Manu and possibly dice for either the first or second game of B2B, depending on which game is more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

I expect Pop will sit Duncan one of most, if not all, back-to-backs this season.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

I think we will rest Duncan, Manu and possibly dice for either the first or second game of B2B, depending on which game is more important.

---

I know it sounds logical, I just have a hard time thinking that Pop sits Tim 17 times this year without some sort of injury involved. Manu, either.

Maybe if there are two B2Bs, or a bunch of games with one B2B in a short period. I really don't see Pop holding them out just because it's a B2B. My guess is, after looking at the schedule, that Pop maybe holds them out of 5-7 games each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

I know it sounds logical, I just have a hard time thinking that Pop sits Tim 17 times this year without some sort of injury involved. Manu, either.

Maybe if there are two B2Bs, or a bunch of games with one B2B in a short period. I really don't see Pop holding them out just because it's a B2B. My guess is, after looking at the schedule, that Pop maybe holds them out of 5-7 games each.

---

You certainly could be right.

I'm thinking that the team is a little deeper, and Pop can manage Duncan's minutes and keep his knees as fresh as possible for the Playoffs. I think we're at the point of Duncan's career where rest becomes more vital than ever. 17 games does sound like a lot, but it's a small price to pay if it gets him to the Playoffs healthy. They handled his summer work differently this year, I'm thinking they're going to handle his season a little differently too.

It will be interesting to see how Pop chooses to play it. Duncan always wants to play if he can, I bet the conversations about him sitting 'healthy' will be fun. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

You certainly could be right.

I'm thinking that the team is a little deeper, and Pop can manage Duncan's minutes and keep his knees as fresh as possible for the Playoffs.:lol

---

I agree completely. But I will also point out that I will write many articles that point out how Popovich sacrificed a win for our players' health. Our players being Tim, Tony, and Manu. It will suck but his decision will be debatable.

i think that for the last seven years, the spurs have the best winning % in second game of b2b of the league.

There was a stat saying that last year for the last six seasosn and since we had a pretty good winning % in those games last year, that should still be true for the last 7 seasons.

Let's take this stretch of games for example:

Sun. Dec 13, @ LAC
Tues. Dec 15, @ PHO
Weds. Dec 16, @ GS

Just following this is a home game against Indiana on the 19th. This would seem like a prime spot to hold Duncan out of the GS game (bad opponent, third game in four nights, could just send him home straight from Phoenix).

Let's say that Duncan plays 33 minutes in the first two games before sitting out the last one. How much different would it be if he played all three games, but only 22 minutes each? Same number of total minutes, but more games.

A better way to phrase the question would be: which matters more, number of minutes played, or number of games played? And how does travel factor in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

Let's take this stretch of games for example:

Sun. Dec 13, @ LAC
Tues. Dec 15, @ PHO
Weds. Dec 16, @ GS

Just following this is a home game against Indiana on the 19th. This would seem like a prime spot to hold Duncan out of the GS game (bad opponent, third game in four nights, could just send him home straight from Phoenix).

Let's say that Duncan plays 33 minutes in the first two games before sitting out the last one. How much different would it be if he played all three games, but only 22 minutes each? Same number of total minutes, but more games.

A better way to phrase the question would be: which matters more, number of minutes played, or number of games played? And how does travel factor in?

---

I think you have to look what's AROUND it on the schedule. After that short roadie, the Spurs fly home, and have two days off to start an easy stretch of 3 games in 9 days at home. To me, there's no reason to sit Tim on either game of a B2B with that kind of rest coming up.

OTOH, the second full week of Jan has 5 games in 7 days, with two B2Bs. I'd sit Tim one game of each B2B, probably OKC after the LAL, and MEM after CHA. There are also 5 B2Bs in March with no particular rest period built in around them. You could sit Tim anywhere between 3 and 5 games of these B2Bs. There's one 5 in 7 in April with some prospective day(s) off, but you don't want to have him rusty for the playoffs, so maybe you sit him one or two games in those B2Bs. That's really all I see that screams "sit Tim!". Nine games, maximum.

I'd just trade out Tim and (if healthy) Manu during the back-to-backs. One plays the first game, the other plays the second. Keep RJ as the third option. Parker and Tim/Manu as the first two options. Those lineups dont win the title, we'll need all 4 of them healthy for that, but they should definitely win a fair share of regular season back-to-back games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajh18

I'd just trade out Tim and (if healthy) Manu during the back-to-backs. One plays the first game, the other plays the second. Keep RJ as the third option. Parker and Tim/Manu as the first two options. Those lineups dont win the title, we'll need all 4 of them healthy for that, but they should definitely win a fair share of regular season back-to-back games.

---

I think a season where your #1 and #2 options don't play together 34 times is a season where you make the playoffs in the BOTTOM half of the draw. At that point, rest and health matter not at all. No team is winning 4 series without HCA to get the LO'B trophy.

The season starts with a B2B. Are you really proposing that the Spurs sit Tim or Manu in games one and two of the season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

I think a season where your #1 and #2 options don't play together 34 times is a season where you make the playoffs in the BOTTOM half of the draw. At that point, rest and health matter not at all. No team is winning 4 series without HCA to get the LO'B trophy.

The season starts with a B2B. Are you really proposing that the Spurs sit Tim or Manu in games one and two of the season?

---

Um, Manu only played in 44 games last season. That means that the two didnt play together in AT LEAST 38 games, and I havent even bothered to look closely whether any of the seven games Tim missed increase that total. And we finished with the two seed.

Some of the Western teams have gotten better, but I think we have too. And I think the value-added that Jefferson brings to the table at least keeps us where we were this year in terms of our playoff seeding. And even if I'm wrong about that, and we drop a spot or two, I'd take being seeded 4 or 5 with a healthy big 3 over a 2 seed with us in the shape we were in last year.

Duncan will play, but it will be 20 minutes or less. I suspect he will sit out some depending on what future game is coming up or what preceded the first back to back and his knees. Same for Manu as well.

It will be a 55 plus win season.

And you can count on Pop the skip the obligation as WC first place coach to avoid the ASG. Vegas won't even touch that bet.

This season and the players chosen are designed for the playoffs. Regular season is about getting ready for them.

I think starting in mid Jan. Pop should sit Tim on the easiest game of the B2B. Manu should see limited minutes around this same time period as well. All these new guys need to play together with Tim and Manu being on the court, however they also need to know how to win w/out them as well. It will give RJ, Mason, and GH the opportunity to carry the offense (along with TP of course) which will pay off in the playoffs. It's going to be a fun year! :flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajh18

Um, Manu only played in 44 games last season. That means that the two didnt play together in AT LEAST 38 games, and I havent even bothered to look closely whether any of the seven games Tim missed increase that total. And we finished with the two seed.

---

We were the four seed, and backed into that when Houston lost that game to Dallas in the last couple of days of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

We were the four seed, and backed into that when Houston lost that game to Dallas in the last couple of days of the season.

---

Well, we were the 3 seed. And you know what? I'd STILL take it if it kept our players healthy. Hell, drop us down to the 5th or 6th spot. I'll take a six seed with a healthy big 4 then a 2 or 3 seed with a beat-up team.

I dont think it will come to that though. I honestly think that a lineup featuring Duncan/Parker/Jefferson or Ginobili/Parker/Jefferson will win 2/3 games. If we get 23 wins out of those 34 games, and keep everyone healthy? I'll take it in a heartbeat.

I see a dip there for a couple of years, and an excellent record for the other years. I'd guess that the average age of the Spurs dropped significantly from last year to this year. So as large a non-factor as b2bs have been in the last ten years, I expect more of the same. Duncan came in last year in about as good a shape as I've ever seen, and he's had another full summer to rest and now has quite a bit of help. His minutes will be down, especially if Mahinmi and Blair show some ability to contribute quickly. I'd bet that he misses fewer starts than he missed last year (7) as a result.

Wow this is some really amazing work fred...seriously.

But, as much as I hate to bash these numbers. This is getting a little too scientific for a game.

There are too many varibles to look at it that cut and dry.

Who were they playing on the tail end of a b2b?

Who did they play on the front end?

Injuries?

Also remember that in 99 bc it was a lock-out shortened season there were actually b2b2b's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I see a dip there for a couple of years, and an excellent record for the other years. I'd guess that the average age of the Spurs dropped significantly from last year to this year. So as large a non-factor as b2bs have been in the last ten years, I expect more of the same. Duncan came in last year in about as good a shape as I've ever seen, and he's had another full summer to rest and now has quite a bit of help. His minutes will be down, especially if Mahinmi and Blair show some ability to contribute quickly. I'd bet that he misses fewer starts than he missed last year (7) as a result.

---

If Tim sits out who is going to get rebounds and guard the rim?

We should be worried that we don't have Bruce anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajh18

Well, we were the 3 seed. And you know what? I'd STILL take it if it kept our players healthy. Hell, drop us down to the 5th or 6th spot. I'll take a six seed with a healthy big 4 then a 2 or 3 seed with a beat-up team.

I dont think it will come to that though. I honestly think that a lineup featuring Duncan/Parker/Jefferson or Ginobili/Parker/Jefferson will win 2/3 games. If we get 23 wins out of those 34 games, and keep everyone healthy? I'll take it in a heartbeat.

---

If Houston had WON that game last year, we would have dropped from 3 to 5. Much harder to win from the bottom half of the draw. I can only think of that one Rockets team that did it. I think you MUST be in the 1-3 seeds and healthy. If either one of those conditions aren't met, you're fucked.

Look, I'm not saying don't sit them sometimes on B2Bs. I just think it's silly to automatically sit Tim and Manu on every B2B when it may not be necessary. I think you evaluate the B2B, and what's around it on the schedule in terms of rest or other games, and then you make your decision. I just think it's playing scared and possibly sacrificing games unnecessarily to sit them JUST because it's a B2B. I also think you vastly overestimate the win % without Tim those 17 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

We should be worried that we don't have Bruce anymore.

---

You've turned into one of the worst posters on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portnoy1

If Tim sits out who is going to get rebounds and guard the rim?

---

What from my post makes you think that Tim's going to be sitting out? I say he'll start all but about three games this year, and his minutes will be down, and those minutes will be very productive.

Nice thread and research Fred. It's really good to see a post when someone takes the time and effort to do an analysis right. My hat's off to you...

Best, Bill

Thanks Bill, glad you enjoyed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by __JaG__

You've turned into one of the worst posters on this board.

---

Thank you. :flag: