The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors

It's a relatively old article (January 20, 2016), but most of its arguments still hold true today.

Quote:

---

Ranking the titans in basketball

Spurring on the Warriors

Jan 20th 2016, 15:16 BY D.R.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/site...123_blp516.jpg

IT IS a truth universally acknowledged that the story of the 2015-16 National Basketball Association (NBA) season is the story of the Golden State Warriors. The public should have already focused its attention on the club last year, when they became the tenth team ever to win at least 67 of 82 regular-season contests, and marched through the playoffs to their first championship in 40 years without ever facing an elimination game. But the greatest source of intrigue for fans in 2014-15 was the return of LeBron James, the sport’s best player, to his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers after spending four years and winning two titles with the Miami Heat. And the most interesting aspect of the Finals was Mr James’s valiant but vain attempt to carry his club on his back singlehandedly after both of his co-stars went down with injuries.

Only during this season, which just passed its halfway mark, are the Warriors getting their due. The team won its first 24 games in a row, setting a new record to start a campaign, and are currently 39-4, putting them on pace to best Michael Jordan’s 1995-96 Chicago Bulls for the best regular-season performance in NBA history. Moreover, they are winning in the most visually compelling style since perhaps the “Showtime” Los Angeles Lakers of the 1980s, an up-tempo carnival of long-range sharpshooting, transition baskets and suffocating defence. Stephen Curry, their electric superstar point guard, has supplanted Mr James as the face of the league, inspiring odes to his ballet-like artistry as well as crunchy statistical analyses crowning him a one-man revolution. And the Warriors are singlehandedly propping up the NBA’s finances, vastly boosting attendance in every city they visit. The indispensable Basketball-Reference.com has even placed a prominent highlight box dedicated to “2015-16 Warriors Feats and Records” on its homepage.

There’s only one catch to the narrative about the Year of the Warriors: they’re not the best team in the league. No, really. The case against Golden State is surprisingly simple. The goal of a basketball team is to win, and the way you win is by outscoring the other guy. The Warriors have indeed done just that, averaging 12.1 more points per game than their opponents. That is an outstanding mark: in the past only Mr Jordan’s best Bulls team, the 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks (featuring the all-time greats Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson) and the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers with their four Hall of Famers have exceeded it. However, another team in the current season is on pace to smash the Lakers’ record of 12.3: the San Antonio Spurs, who happened to win a title (their fifth over the past 17 seasons) the year before the Warriors did. Although they have won a lower percentage of their games than the Warriors have (85.7% to 90.7%), this year’s edition of the club is outscoring its opponents by a whopping 14.2 points per contest. At 2.1 points per game, the gap between the Spurs’ and Warriors’ scoring margins is as big as the difference between a league-average team and one that would be expected to win around 57% of the time—which is a record consistent with a middling playoff seed and an outside shot at a championship.

A sceptic might retort that there’s no trophy granted to the team with the best point differential. A club’s average margin of victory can certainly be misleading: some coaches choose to “run up the score” and rack up blowout wins even after a game is out of reach, while others prefer to rest their starters. In addition, if there is any truth to the notion that some players consistently “rise to the occasion” in the final minutes of close contests while others “choke”, then teams stacked with “clutch performers” should win more games than their scoring margins would indicate. However, the counterargument is that the distribution of a team’s total points scored and allowed within a season is largely random. As a result, a club’s overall output is likely to be a better indicator of future performance than its won-lost record.

To determine which of these theories is correct, I downloaded a dataset from Basketball-Reference containing the results of every regular-season NBA game between the advent of the three-point line in 1979 and the end of last season. Using the logistic regressionmethod, I derived a formula that predicts a team’s odds of winning a game, based on home-court advantage, the number of days since it last played, its year-to-date won-lost record and its year-to-date scoring margin, as well as the same figures for its opponent, its prior opponents earlier in the season, and its opponent’s prior opponents. Even though the model does not contain any information about the specific players on a team, injuries, or trades, and ignores everything that happened before the 2015-16 campaign (on opening day every team is given the same odds save for home-court advantage), it has performed reasonably well: for example, there have been 60 games so far this year when it assigned a team a probability of victory between 15% and 20%, and those clubs have prevailed 18% of the time.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/site...123_woc200.png

At first glance, the model suggests that both won-lost record and scoring margin contain distinctive, valuable information about team quality: rather than ignoring one or the other, it finds that both variables make a statistically significant contribution to its prediction. However, it is not shy about expressing a preference. After controlling for home court, rest days, and the quality of previous opponents, the difference between two teams’ scoring margins has nearly six times as large an impact on who is likely to win as the difference between their won-lost records (see chart).

Most of the time, the two measures move in tandem—after all, scoring more points is a great way to get more wins. However, they occasionally diverge, primarily because a team tends to win small and lose big, or the reverse. And the record is clear that when the two indicators point in opposite directions—as with the 1991-92 Indiana Pacers, who on January 30th were a mere 16-28 despite having outscored their opponents, or the 2003-04 Toronto Raptors, who started the season 11-8 while allowing 3.9 more points per game than they scored—it is point differential that usually points the right way. Those Pacers won 63% of their remaining games, while the Raptors prevailed in just 35%. The same applies to individual matchups: of the 18 contests since 1979-80 in which the won-lost and scoring-margin methods had the largest disagreement, the one preferred by scoring margin won 13 (see table).

http://cdn.static-economist.com/site...123_woc201.png

It’s hard to analyse the tactical specifics of a head-to-head matchup between the Warriors and Spurs, since they have not yet played each other: their first game will be must-see TV on January 25th. However, given the primacy of point differential, the surface evidence available suggests that San Antonio would be likely to beat Golden State in the playoffs. Without giving any advantages for home court or rest, the model sees the Spurs as a 58% favourite in a single game over the Warriors, which corresponds to a 67% chance of winning a seven-game series. That would narrow to around 62% if Messrs. Curry and Co. secure home-court advantage. However, if the Spurs are really a better team, they should have a decent chance to make up their current 2.5-game deficit in the standings and become the top seed themselves. In that case, their chances of winning a seven-game series against Golden State would increase to 70%.

Is there any reason to doubt the model’s enthusiasm for the Spurs? Are they more likely than the Warriors to be playing over their heads, and thus likely to fall back to earth? They were certainly a far inferior team last year, when they won “only” 67% of their games and lost in the first round of the playoffs. That prompted many observers to suggest that their veteran trio of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili was on its last legs. But in response to that lacklustre showing, San Antonio made its flashiest acquisition in years by signing the free agent LaMarcus Aldridge (pictured), an accomplished 6’11” (2.11-metre) scorer and rebounder. They also picked up David West, a lockdown defensive forward who fits naturally with their team-first philosophy.

Now the Spurs essentially have two championship cores in one. By playing a slow, grinding pace (San Antonio ranks 23rd of the NBA’s 30 teams in possessions per game) and tightly limiting their minutes, Gregg Popovich, the Spurs’ coach, has found a fountain of youth for Messrs Duncan (39 years young), Ginobili (38) and Parker (33). All continue to excel when on the court—particularly Mr Duncan, an all-time inner-circle great, who is proving the adage about big men ageing gracefully by remaining the best defender in basketball. But they have all gracefully passed the baton of leadership to to 24-year-old Kawhi Leonard—a modestly regarded player in college, traded to the Spurs for the forgettable George Hill immediately after being drafted, who has blossomed into a two-way super-duper-star. And although Mr Aldridge is yet to set the world on fire as a Spur, he is precisely the kind of athletic big man San Antonio will need to keep pace with the Warriors’ “death squad” lineup of five players 6’8” or shorter. Finally, although the Spurs have used him only sparingly—there is little room for experimentation on a team this successful—the 7’3” Serbian import Boban Marjanovic has excelled in his first 180 minutes of play in the NBA, and could easily turn into a secret weapon come playoff time.

There is still a stronger case to keep expectations in check about San Antonio than there is about Golden State. The Warriors already proved last year that they can dominate the league wire-to-wire and vanquish Mr James; although the Spurs’ long-run record of success is second to none, they are yet to demonstrate they can win a title with Mr Leonard as their best player. No matter how well-rested Mr Popovich keeps his veterans, they could always tire or get injured as the season drags on. And there were plenty of doubts expressed about how well a pass-allergic player like Mr Aldridge would fit into the Spurs’ whirlwind of ball movement—or whether he was ever anywhere near as good as his reputation to begin with. The CARMELO forecasting system at FiveThirtyEight, which unlike the simple model used above does incorporate projections for individual players and their past performances, still sees the Warriors as a stronger team, with about a 54%-46% edge on a neutral court.

Nonetheless, such caveats can’t remotely account for the difference in attention paid to the two clubs so far this year. Perhaps it’s because all eyes were already on the Warriors following their 2014-15 title, or because of their 24-0 start, or because Mr Curry is the most exciting player to watch on television since Mr Jordan. Or maybe it’s because the Spurs have been great for 20 years so their success is no longer news, or because their commitment to depth and fundamentals leaves them without a single telegenic star, or because they started “slow” (they were “merely” 18-5 and 25-6) before their current 11-game win streak brought their won-lost record nearly into line with their scoring margin.

Regardless, there are two teams flirting with history this season, not one. And barring an unlikely upset earlier in the postseason, they are on a collision course for what promises to be an epic Western Conference finals. Las Vegas is currently giving the Warriors a better-than-even chance of winning the West (a bet of $100 would return an $80 profit if successful), while rewarding bettors who place their faith in the Spurs with a generous payout (the same $100 bet would yield a $150 gain). You can probably guess which side offers better value.

---

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gamet...ans-basketball

Doesn't matter about all that statistical stuff, what it comes down to it cajones, and which team has the bigger ones. Oh, and hit shots aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor

Doesn't matter about all that statistical stuff, what it comes down to it cajones, and which team has the bigger ones. Oh, and hit shots aswell.

---

Basically this, beat them on the floor then we will talk about SA being better.

OP has a knack for shitty threads.. after getting bitchslapped by 30 by the Dubs who are 12-0 vs SA/CLE/OKC/Clip/Toronto he is trotting out a 2 months old article...they are favourite and there is no shame in us being underdogs..

Yeah, the argument holds true as much as "trade Diaw instead of Splitter" still does..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursistan

OP has a knack for shitty threads.. after getting bitchslapped by 30 by the Dubs who are 12-0 vs SA/CLE/OKC/Clip/Toronto he is trotting out a 2 months old article...they are favourite and there is no shame in us being underdogs..

Yeah, the argument holds true as much as "trade Diaw instead of Splitter" still does..

---

I bet you didn't even read the article.

I'm usually like the economist, but this was a bad take. At the time it could have liked more true, but they've gotten a bit closer to us in point differential.

Point differential doesn't take into account strength of schedule. I'd like to see an analysis showing how we do against different combinations on teams that give us a similar strength of schedule as the warriors.

Thanks for posting :toast

lol articles

until the spurs prove they can beat the warriors, they aren't better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilbthebasedgod

I'm usually like the economist, but this was a bad take. At the time it could have liked more true, but they've gotten a bit closer to us in point differential.

Point differential doesn't take into account strength of schedule. I'd like to see an analysis showing how we do against different combinations on teams that give us a similar strength of schedule as the warriors.

---

For what it's worth, Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System, which rates teams on point differential adjusted for strength of schedule still ranks the Spurs above the Warriors. Ditto for ESPN's Basketball Power Index.

Warriors are the most charmed team I've ever seen. The recent games against Miami, OKC, and Atlanta should have been losses, yet somehow they've been reaching high up into their asses and pulling out victories. Gods anointed ones.

The Spurs are better team than the Warriors, i have no doubt about it and i think we have the odds to beat then in a well reffed game.

Of course the Warriors can also beat the Spurs, they are extraordinary shooters and seem to have all the luck by their side.

But usually, in the playoffs the refs allow a more physical game, which would benefit the Spurs, and the fact that a team is relying a lot on last minute shots, even when it seems it has been said a lot of time, usually doesn´t win the chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

The Spurs are better team than the Warriors, i have no doubt about it and i think we have the odds to beat then in a well reffed game.

Of course the Warriors can also beat the Spurs, they are extraordinary shooters and seem to have all the luck by their side.

But usually, in the playoffs the refs allow a more physical game, which would benefit the Spurs, and the fact that a team is relying a lot on last minute shots, even when it seems it has been said a lot of time, usually doesn´t win the chip.

---

Playoff basketball will benefit the more rugged play of the Spurs, however you can't discount a good 3 point shooting team like the Dubs. 50/50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor

Doesn't matter about all that statistical stuff, what it comes down to it cajones, and which team has the bigger ones. Oh, and hit shots aswell.

---

Statistics shouldn't be so lightly dismissed.

Spurs don't do well because they have some intangible "cajones" factor. They do well, because they are a very coherent functioning unit, controlled by a coach with a very deep understanding of the game. Popovich will go down as one of the best coaches in any sport ever, IMO.

The point spread talked about in OP is just a symptom of that, akin to a gauge on a machine. The gauge isn't the cause of the machine running well, but will tell you what the RPM of the engine is.

Past performance doesn't 100% guarantee the future, but does offer you a decent way to predict trends.

I didn't find any fault in the analysis. It would appear that, if the model is reflective of reality, which it appears to be, that the Spurs should have a better than even chance of beating the Golden boys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilbthebasedgod

I'm usually like the economist, but this was a bad take. At the time it could have liked more true, but they've gotten a bit closer to us in point differential.

Point differential doesn't take into account strength of schedule. I'd like to see an analysis showing how we do against different combinations on teams that give us a similar strength of schedule as the warriors.

---

Re: scheduling, I would agree. That would make for an interesting, if much more challenging model, tho'.

It's been 19 years since the Spurs lost a regular season game to the Warriors in San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Statistics shouldn't be so lightly dismissed.

Spurs don't do well because they have some intangible "cajones" factor. They do well, because they are a very coherent functioning unit, controlled by a coach with a very deep understanding of the game. Popovich will go down as one of the best coaches in any sport ever, IMO.

The point spread talked about in OP is just a symptom of that, akin to a gauge on a machine. The gauge isn't the cause of the machine running well, but will tell you what the RPM of the engine is.

Past performance doesn't 100% guarantee the future, but does offer you a decent way to predict trends.

I didn't find any fault in the analysis. It would appear that, if the model is reflective of reality, which it appears to be, that the Spurs should have a better than even chance of beating the Golden boys.

---

:tu

We're not better until we knock them out of the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingle Barry

It's been 19 years since the Spurs lost a regular season game to the Warriors in San Antonio.

---

I don't get when people bring this up. The Spurs beating GS from 1998-2015 has little to nothing to do with what will happen in 2016. When has GS ever had a team as dominant as the team they've had now?

Anyways, the Spurs aren't favorites. Our point differential is partially so good because of how dominant our bench is in garbage time. That won't be as important in the playoffs. I'm not saying that our bench isn't important or won't matter at all - just that it will matter less. In garbage time we've had guys like KA/Simmons/Boban drive up the score against opposing teams' scrubs...that's not going to matter much against GS when Curry/Draymond/Klay are playing 38+ mpg.

There's also the whole aspect of them being undefeated against us/OKC/Cleveland/LAC/Toronto, whereas the Spurs have been underwhelming vs. those teams.

I'm not trying to say we're scrubs or massive underdogs, but we're not favorites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

I don't get when people bring this up. The Spurs beating GS from 1998-2015 has little to nothing to do with what will happen in 2016. When has GS ever had a team as dominant as the team they've had now?

Anyways, the Spurs aren't favorites. Our point differential is partially so good because of how dominant our bench is in garbage time. That won't be as important in the playoffs. I'm not saying that our bench isn't important or won't matter at all - just that it will matter less. In garbage time we've had guys like KA/Simmons/Boban drive up the score against opposing teams' scrubs...that's not going to matter much against GS when Curry/Draymond/Klay are playing 38+ mpg.

There's also the whole aspect of them being undefeated against us/OKC/Cleveland/LAC/Toronto, whereas the Spurs have been underwhelming vs. those teams.

I'm not trying to say we're scrubs or massive underdogs, but we're not favorites.

---

It's brought up because it's an amazing factoid.

Looks like click bait by trying to be contrarians

Dubs havent lost a game to any of the other top teams while the Spurs are 2-5 against them lmao

Last time they met, Spurs got demolished and looked like they were out of their league

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budkin

We're not better until we knock them out of the playoffs.

---

^ this is all that matters

The economist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benoit

Looks like click bait by trying to be contrarians

Lakers havent lost a game to any of the other top teams while the Spurs are 2-5 against them lmao

Last time they met, Spurs got demolished and looked like they were out of their league

---

Why the Warriors are better than the Spurs:

	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	DIV	CONF	PPG	OPP PPG	DIFF	STRK	L10
1x -Golden State Warriors	55	5	.917	-	26-0	29-5	13-0	32-3	115.4	104.2	+11.2	W7	9-1
2x -San Antonio Spurs	52	9	.852	3.5	29-0	23-9	10-2	31-5	104.7	92.2	+12.5	W7	9-1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benoit

Looks like click bait by trying to be contrarians

Dubs havent lost a game to any of the other top teams while the Spurs are 2-5 against them lmao

Last time they met, Spurs got demolished and looked like they were out of their league

---

The guy leading the league in DRPM was in SA while the game was being played in Oakland & the Spurs also got blown out by the same Cavs team they beat with him in the lineup.

The Spurs have only lost one game to a top team when all their rotation players have been healthy: Season opener @ OKC (LMA's debut)
-Raptors: Kawhi was playing w/ flu
-Worriers/Cavs: no Tim
-Cripples: no Kawhi

Otherwise, the Worriers lost to the Nuggets/Bucks/Mavs/Pistons/Blazers against whom the Spurs are undefeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

I don't get when people bring this up. The Spurs beating GS from 1998-2015 has little to nothing to do with what will happen in 2016. When has GS ever had a team as dominant as the team they've had now?

Anyways, the Spurs aren't favorites. Our point differential is partially so good because of how dominant our bench is in garbage time. That won't be as important in the playoffs. I'm not saying that our bench isn't important or won't matter at all - just that it will matter less. In garbage time we've had guys like KA/Simmons/Boban drive up the score against opposing teams' scrubs...that's not going to matter much against GS when Curry/Draymond/Klay are playing 38+ mpg.

There's also the whole aspect of them being undefeated against us/OKC/Cleveland/LAC/Toronto, whereas the Spurs have been underwhelming vs. those teams.

I'm not trying to say we're scrubs or massive underdogs, but we're not favorites.

---

The bench argument is one that was also raised against the team in 2014. Look how that turned out.

Besides, our 2 best players, Leonard and Aldridge, are averaging 32 and 30 MPG respectively. Can you imagine how good we'll be once Pop starts playing them 40 MPG in the playoffs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Why the Warriors are better than the Spurs:

	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	DIV	CONF	PPG	OPP PPG	DIFF	STRK	L10
1x -Golden State Warriors	55	5	.917	-	26-0	29-5	13-0	32-3	115.4	104.2	+11.2	W7	9-1
2x -San Antonio Spurs	52	9	.852	3.5	29-0	23-9	10-2	31-5	104.7	92.2	+12.5	W7	9-1

---

The whole point of the article is that the thing on the right (DIFF) is more important than the one on the left (W-L).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

The guy leading the league in DRPM was in SA while the game was being played in Oakland & the Spurs also got blown out by the same Cavs team they beat with him in the lineup.

The Spurs have only lost one game to a top team when all their rotation players have been healthy: Season opener @ OKC (LMA's debut)
-Raptors: Kawhi was playing w/ flu
-Worriers/Cavs: no Tim
-Cripples: no Kawhi

Otherwise, the Worriers lost to the Nuggets/Bucks/Mavs/Pistons/Blazers against whom the Spurs are undefeated.

---

Still the spurs lost. Warriors had no Curry aganst Hawks and still won the game. We can say what we want but GS are favorites vs the Spurs.

Pretty even teams. Benches are a wash. Only difference is Worriers have home court and by far the best player in the world. If Kawhi can avoid being punked like he did vs Barnes, I see no less than a 6 or 7 game classic. Worriers would like favorites slightly tho

Curry will take a wet shit on Parker

The Economist?
Must be deceit and disinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

The bench argument is one that was also raised against the team in 2014. Look how that turned out.

Besides, our 2 best players, Leonard and Aldridge, are averaging 32 and 30 MPG respectively. Can you imagine how good we'll be once Pop starts playing them 40 MPG in the playoffs?

---

Too bad this is 2016 and not 2014. No one we played in 2014 was even close to as good as Golden State is this year.

And you're missing the point. It's not that benches aren't important. It's that our point differential is a bit inflated due to outperforming teams in garbage time. Warriors are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 15 because their end-of-the-bench guys (who will never see the court in the playoffs) give up some of the lead. Spurs are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 25.

Compare the Spurs' "scrubs" net rating when they're on the court to Golden State's:

Simmons: +11.9
Boban: +10.1
Butler: +10.4
McCallum (yes I know he isn't on the team anymore): +7.7

Barbosa: +1.7
Rush: +0.2
Speights: -4.3
Clark: -6.5

I'm not even really talking about regular bench guys. I'm talking about the end of the bench guys who will hardly ever see the court in the playoffs. Part of why the Spurs' point differential is so high is because their garbage time units are still playing well. But that isn't going to matter at all in a series vs. Golden State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

The whole point of the article is that the thing on the right (DIFF) is more important than the one on the left (W-L).

---

It's wrong. If it was more important to have a higher diff more teams would run the scores up. The W/L is the end result. You are what your record says you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You are what your record says you are.

---

That is exactly the point that the article refutes. Point differential is a better predictor of future success than W/L record. That is a mathematical fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Still the spurs lost. Warriors had no Curry aganst Hawks and still won the game. We can say what we want but GS are favorites vs the Spurs.

---

Beat the same Hawks who had lost to the Bucks at home courtesy of a desperation 3.:lmao

Doesn't matter by how much.. they win.

Can't control the refs, and they make bad shots like they're good shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

Beat the same Hawks who had lost to the Bucks at home courtesy of a desperation 3.:lmao

---

Win is a win

no matter the laughs. Let's see if the spurs can do some damage to them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Win is a win

---

Then I guess there is no difference b/w getting beat by the Warriors & getting beat by the Sixers.:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

Then I guess there is no difference b/w getting beat by the Warriors & getting beat by the Sixers.:lol

---

So what's important? When Spurs got blasted by Warriors and have less wins.
Moron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

That is exactly the point that the article refutes. Point differential is a better predictor of future success than W/L record. That is a mathematical fact.

---

No, it's a Gambler's fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

So what's important? When Spurs got blasted by Warriors and have less wins.
Moron

---

You mean like how the Spurs got blasted by the 66 win Heat in Miami back in 2012-13 when they actually had Tim in the lineup?
One game is the end all, be all for dumb asses like you.:sleep

Regardless there's nothing new about looking at point differential:

http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

It's wrong. If it was more important to have a higher diff more teams would run the scores up. The W/L is the end result. You are what your record says you are.

---

The article also tackles the problem of "running the score up." Did you even read the article? How can you be so dismissive of it if you don't even know what it's saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Too bad this is 2016 and not 2014. No one we played in 2014 was even close to as good as Golden State is this year.

And you're missing the point. It's not that benches aren't important. It's that our point differential is a bit inflated due to outperforming teams in garbage time. Warriors are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 15 because their end-of-the-bench guys (who will never see the court in the playoffs) give up some of the lead. Spurs are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 25.

Compare the Spurs' "scrubs" net rating when they're on the court to Golden State's:

Simmons: +11.9
Boban: +10.1
Butler: +10.4
McCallum (yes I know he isn't on the team anymore): +7.7

Barbosa: +1.7
Rush: +0.2
Speights: -4.3
Clark: -6.5

I'm not even really talking about regular bench guys. I'm talking about the end of the bench guys who will hardly ever see the court in the playoffs. Part of why the Spurs' point differential is so high is because their garbage time units are still playing well. But that isn't going to matter at all in a series vs. Golden State.

---

I acknowledge that you raise a valid point. But I don't think the evidence you're providing for it is sufficient.

Can you prove statistically that "Warriors are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 15 because their end-of-the-bench guys (who will never see the court in the playoffs) give up some of the lead. Spurs are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 25?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

I acknowledge that you raise a valid point. But I don't think the evidence you're providing for it is sufficient.

Can you prove statistically that "Warriors are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 15 because their end-of-the-bench guys (who will never see the court in the playoffs) give up some of the lead. Spurs are up by 20 going into the 4th, and they end up winning by 25?"

---

Warriors' Net RTG in quarters 1-3 = +14.8
Warriors' Net RTG 4th quarter = +3.3

Spurs' Net RTG in quarters 1-3 = +13.7
Spurs' Net RTG in 4th quarter = +13.4

And please don't try telling me the Warriors suddenly fall off in the 4th because they're not good at closing out games :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

Warriors' Net RTG in quarters 1-3 = +14.8
Warriors' Net RTG 4th quarter = +3.3

Spurs' Net RTG in quarters 1-3 = +13.7
Spurs' Net RTG in 4th quarter = +13.4

And please don't try telling me the Warriors suddenly fall off in the 4th because they're not good at closing out games :lol

---

IIRC, they gave up a 25 point 4th quarter lead at home to the Chicken Nuggets earlier this year, ended up lucking out and winning that game in overtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016

IIRC, they gave up a 25 point 4th quarter lead at home to the Chicken Nuggets earlier this year, ended up lucking out and winning that game in overtime.

---

They give up leads in the 4th because their garbage time players are awful. Curry has sat out 15+ 4th quarters this year.

Again, in the playoffs, that won't matter. There won't be as many blowouts, so Curry/Klay/Draymond won't be sitting out 4th quarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFan86

They give up leads in the 4th because their garbage time players are awful. Curry has sat out 15+ 4th quarters this year.

Again, in the playoffs, that won't matter. There won't be as many blowouts, so Curry/Klay/Draymond won't be sitting out 4th quarters.

---

And they'll get tired and fizzle out like the prunes they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

You mean like how the Spurs got blasted by the 66 win Heat in Miami back in 2012-13 when they actually had Tim in the lineup?
One game is the end all, be all for dumb asses like you.:sleep

---

Until you come with some legit argument I will ignore you. Cuz blah blah loss>win is not enough IMO.

There are positions where Spurs have a slight advantage, but in areas where Warriors have the advantage, the margin is HUGE. Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

No, it's a Gambler's fallacy.

---

No. The Gambler's Fallacy is believing that events are not independent when they in fact are. Like thinking that a roulette wheel is "due" to come up red after 5 consecutive black spins. Future games in the NBA are dependent on past results, at least within a season, because it's the same teams playing the future games as the past games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

No. The Gambler's Fallacy is believing that events are not independent when they in fact are. Like thinking that a roulette wheel is "due" to come up red after 5 consecutive black spins. Future games in the NBA are dependent on past results, at least within a season, because it's the same teams playing the future games as the past games.

---

Well no shit. Thanks for that Wiki lesson.

How it's being used here is the same thing. If you go back 10 years and look at every champion, half the time at least they did not have the highest pt differential.

Since the game has to be played on the court, there's no stat that guarantees anything, but point spread is something that can be fattened or thinned based on the coach's whims. What is apparent is that GS blew the doors of the Spurs when they met. When they meet again, that could be SA's first home loss. We'll see. Either way, the point differential prior to that meeting has absolutely no bearing on it and the difference between GS and SA in that regard is negligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

The article also tackles the problem of "running the score up." Did you even read the article? How can you be so dismissive of it if you don't even know what it's saying.

---

Because it's been said a dozen times every year. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Because " distribution of a team’s total points scored and allowed within a season is largely random" is expected to be accepted prima facie, and I don't.

If a coach can alter the spread by 3 points simply by keeping guys out there and pushing them to score, he basically nullifies the concept of point spread in measuring team strength. The reverse is also true then. We've seen 30pt blowouts that end up being 9 point wins because the turd crew takes the floor in the 4th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Well no shit. Thanks for that Wiki lesson.

---

You're the one that misused the term. /chump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

How it's being used here is the same thing. If you go back 10 years and look at every champion, half the time at least they did not have the highest pt differential.

---

True, 6 years in the past 10 the #1 SRS team didn't win the title. 10 in the last 20. That's still a much higher percentage than any other spot.

SRS of past 20 champs: 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 3, 1, 1, 6, 1, 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Since the game has to be played on the court, there's no stat that guarantees anything,

---

Of course no stat guarantees anything. But if one stat has 65% accuracy as a predictor and another has 55%, the one with 65% is better even though it isn't 100% accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

but point spread is something that can be fattened or thinned based on the coach's whims.

---

You really think that Pop runs up the score? Or that Walton/Kerr sandbag at the end of blowouts on purpose? There is no reason to believe that either team's strategy at the end of blowouts is different than the other's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

What is apparent is that GS blew the doors of the Spurs when they met. When they meet again, that could be SA's first home loss. We'll see. Either way, the point differential prior to that meeting has absolutely no bearing on it and the difference between GS and SA in that regard is negligible.

---

You can argue that the point differential doesn't mean anything. You can't argue that it means less than the W/L record. The whole point of the article is that if you look at only the W/L record of each team coming into a game and use only that to predict the outcome, then do the same with only point differential, then point differential is the better predictor. Neither takes into account injuries, strength of schedule, or anything else. I would imagine that SRS would do even better because it does include strength of schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Until you come with some legit argument I will ignore you. Cuz blah blah loss>win is not enough IMO.

---

You won't be missed, BYE!:sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

You're the one that misused the term. /chump

---

No I didn't. Do you think anyone here does any deep level analytics? Of course not. They use Gambler's fallacy. We see it every day "Last time they blew us out we won a championship... ergo..". The same is true for point spread. Something that doesn't work all the time doesn't work.

Quote:

---

True, 6 years in the past 10 the #1 SRS team didn't win the title. 10 in the last 20. That's still a much higher percentage than any other spot.

---

Meaning it's unreliable.

Quote:

---

SRS of past 20 champs: 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 3, 1, 1, 6, 1, 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

---

Which of those also had the best record?

Quote:

---

Of course no stat guarantees anything. But if one stat has 65% accuracy as a predictor and another has 55%, the one with 65% is better even though it isn't 100% accurate.

---

Wins guarantee everything.

Quote:

---

You really think that Pop runs up the score? Or that Walton/Kerr sandbag at the end of blowouts on purpose? There is no reason to believe that either team's strategy at the end of blowouts is different than the other's.

---

Since it only gave 50% indication of the eventual champion, it's a 50/50 call which a game is anyhow.

Quote:

---

You can argue that the point differential doesn't mean anything. You can't argue that it means less than the W/L record. The whole point of the article is that if you look at only the W/L record of each team coming into a game and use only that to predict the outcome, then do the same with only point differential, then point differential is the better predictor. Neither takes into account injuries, strength of schedule, or anything else. I would imagine that SRS would do even better because it does include strength of schedule.

---

You do realize this was pointed out like 10 years ago, right? Teams with more wins will have more + in the differential department. This reminds me of Hollinger's tool that predicts power rankings based on metrics. At the end of the season it could tell you who the best team was. Of course, it always agreed with the W/L record.

Just because a team shits the bed after having a monster regular season doesn't mean they weren't the best team during the season. They just have a matchup issue. Also, injuries play a part in the outcome during the playoffs.

So do you think teams with half the SRS as teams they beat in the playoffs/Finals were twice as good as them or half as good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

You won't be missed, BYE!:sleep

---

I won't I don't care noobie :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

I won't I don't care noobie :)

---

You're still alive, old geezer:sleep

there is no way this year Spurs are better than the Warriors. This is probably the worst Spurs team ive seen since RJ. As to be expected when you introduce an All-star and have to reset the team chemistry along with aging stars.

Huge decline on TP, Duncan, Diaw, Green this year has offset any improvements by Kawhi.

The point differential is purely based off our bench being better than our opponents.

These are the facts:

1. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in FiveThirtyEight's CARMELO Projections.
2. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in ESPN's Basketball Power Index.
3. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System.
4. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in both NBA.com and Basketball Reference's Net Rating.

In other words, the Spurs are #1 in the NBA by almost all major advanced statistical formulas that measure team quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriel

These are the facts:

1. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in FiveThirtyEight's CARMELO Projections.
2. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in ESPN's Basketball Power Index.
3. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System.
4. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in both NBA.com and Basketball Reference's Net Rating.

In other words, the Spurs are #1 in the NBA by almost all major advanced statistical formulas that measure team quality.

---

:lobt2: