-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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?
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Why the Warriors are better than the Spurs:
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).
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
Curry will take a wet shit on Parker
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
The Economist?
Must be deceit and disinformation.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
Doesn't matter by how much.. they win.
Can't control the refs, and they make bad shots like they're good shots.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
no matter the laughs. Let's see if the spurs can do some damage to them
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
Regardless there's nothing new about looking at point differential:
http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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?"
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
-
Re: The Economist: Why the Spurs are Better than the Warriors
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.
