So, the discussion in some of the threads about the Boston game made me think/wonder how important it is to beat .500 or +.500 teams in the regular season for the Spurs. I did some research and this what I came up with:
Records Against .500+ Teams by Season
2002-2003: 35-13 (73%)
2003-2004: 30-18 (63%)
2004-2005: 31-17 (65%)
2005-2006: 30-13 (70%)
2006-2007: 23-16 (59%)
2007-2008: 24-22 (52%)
2008-2009: 22-21 (51%)
Totals:
Championship Seasons: 89-46 (66%)
Non-Championship Seasons: 106-74 (59%)
Notable observations:
The win % against .500+ teams in the regular seasons was significantly lower the past two season than it was the 5 seasons before.
In 2007-2008, the win % against good teams was 52%, down 18% from 2005-2006; however, the Spurs made the WCF in the 2008 playoffs and failed to make it that far in the 2006 playoffs. Similarly, the Spurs win % against good teams in the regular season in their 2007 championship season was 59%, down 11% from the 2005-2006 season. Yet, they won the championship in 2007 and not in 2006.
Thoughts? Comments?
*Keep in mind I did not take into account teams' records at the time of playing the Spurs nor whether key players were injured; I went by end of the year records only
I would think that with the key players on the team it wouldn't make that much of a difference. However, with the role players on the team I think it might help build their confidence going into a playoff situation knowing that they have proven to be able to beat a +.500 team during the regular season.
Yea I think its important. It builds confidence and momentum. It always nice to have HCA too.
I wouldn't say its extremely important to win them, nor would I say it means nothing.
In the reg season, its relatively important to at least be compe ive against them.
At the end of the season and into the playoffs is when its absolutely important (duh).
All in all winning isnt as important as how well we play. I'll take any loss as long as we played hard and did our best to compete.
I can agree with Chomag's post.
I do think that there are games the team should win - those tend to be the games against sub-par teams.
But part of the problem with sweeping statistics like you posted (which would seem to suggest that the Spurs win when they are beating good teams), is precisely what you mentioned. It doesn't take into account roster issues, when in the season they were played, what the records were when they played, etc. It's only a final-tally snapshot.
The when is more important. If we aren't beating good teams in November, I'm not concerned. If we aren't at least competing with good teams in March, I'm biting my nails and wondering whether or not it's coming together.
In other words, there is a point at which I expect the Spurs to be holding their own against good teams. If they aren't by that point, it's important. I'm not overly concerned before that point, provided it is clear they are working to identify and correct their deficiencies.
Depends. To the critics and analysists, extremely. To Spurs franchise not as important. Like others have said here, it depends on how we play the team, especially if we lose.
Importance for playoffs:
1. Being healthy.
2. Having a top 3 seed.
3. SPAM.
4. Beating good teams in the regular season.
It's not that important for the Spurs. Our guys when healthy and playing well can beat anyone, and they know that.
If we aren't beating winning teams at the end of the season then I would say yes it is a problem. For us to get a high seed we probably will have to beat the majority of games against winning teams, but I'm not sure if a top seed is more important than health.
good stat work.
true, but if our guys do play hard and do their best, they'll win
It can be dangerous to say that games against winning teams aren't important until a certain point in the season (ASB, March, last 20 games) because if you are losing those games then you can always just push the "deadline" back.
I say that if there is a point when these games should start becoming more important is probably Christmas. The games between top teams on Christmas are huge in the media, and perhaps the first game of the season when the elevated excitement is undeniable. After this point there shouldn't be a game between 2 elite teams, without a viable excuse, that a team wanting to be considered contenders shouldn't make a point of trying to win.
And save the "you don't win a 'ship in December" argument, b/c I'm not talking about the finals, merely team at ude.
I separate team at ude from fan at ude.
I expect the team to always be competing. That may or may not equal winning, but if they are focused on building the pieces and putting together the machine so that it runs smoothly and well - I'm 100% ok with that.
If the team is half-assing it with the at ude that they can always turn it up a notch later - that's a totally different story, and totally worthy of ridicule. I don't see any indication that the Spurs are doing that, however.
To be more specific - I don't expect all the pieces to be put together in December, so I'm ok with losing to a +.500 team in December (not to mention that playing well in December is no guarantee of being one of the final teams standing). So long as the effort is there, if Pop is monkeying with a weird line up to see how RJ does with a different look or if Pop is limiting Tim's minutes, even though we would be more likely to win a game, because he knows that the knee is bothering him - that's cool, as long as they are making the effort when they are out there.
But I don't consider win/loss against 'good' teams a benchmark until later in the season, because by late February or March - the machine should be put together and they should be test driving it. That is the point at which I expect their play to be more taut, where being out of place on the rotation is less excusable, when I begun to get frustrated with their wins and losses. Because by that point, they should be firing all cylinders and have their game polished enough to produce for 40+ minutes a night.
If they aren't doing that in March, if they aren't holding their own and really competing with the good teams (and hey, some of those close games can go either way), then I'm concerned.
Does that make sense? It's not about coasting and flipping a switch, it's about seeing the season as a progression.
In order to do an accurate analysis, you would need to do all of the contenders records (find a way to define contender) compared to teams that are not (within a limit, of say playoff teams that had no real shot).
It becomes more relevant whaen you beat them.. preferably you display more consistency as you approach the postseason.
It means nothing in the standings other than a usual W..however, it is a good barometer for teams..beating the other good/great teams in the league is always very telling, and it usually translates to les..
vs. playoff teams in both conferences:
2009 Lakers: 27-12..
2008 Celtics: 26-14..
2007 Spurs: 24-16..
2006 Heat: 20-22..
2005 Spurs: 27-16..
2004 Pistons: 23-18..
2003 Spurs: 26-12..
2002 Lakers: 26-14..
2001 Lakers: 25-16..
2000 Lakers: 31-9..
1999 Spurs: 16-9..
1998 Bulls: 25-14..
I don't have the stats for years prior, and I don't really feel like actually researching it..
So looking at those, there is only 1 bad record, and 2 records that don't really stand out..generally, championship teams should have a good record vs. other playoff teams..
Miami is considered to be one of the weakest championship teams of all-time, probably the worst of the 3-pointer era..there's also the Wade-Mavs controversy, and the Spurs being eliminated in 7 in OT..
The 1999 lockout is understandable, too difficult to analyze..
The Pistons only had 3 of those losses after they acquired Rasheed Wallace, so their record is understandable as well..
We're currently 3-4 vs. playoff teams..obviously there's a lot of time left to go..
Lakers are currently 4-3 vs. playoff teams..Celtics are 5-3, Cavs are 5-3, Mavs are 5-2, Denver is 5-3, Orlando is 6-2, Phoenix is 3-2, Portland is 4-5..
Obviously this is all meaningless right now since the playoff teams aren't going to be the same by the end of the season..just pointing it out to compare the current Spurs team, even though there have been many reasons for our slow start..
Be careful that you don't impute cause to correlation.
Just because the Spurs had a better winning percentage against plus-500 teams in the years they won championships, does not mean that that CAUSED them to win championships.
One could just as easily argue that in those years, the championship PROVED that they were better, and therefore they won those games in the regular season.
Yes but there is also a difference in strong vs weak correlation. Wins against quality teams are strongly correlated with championship aspirations.
I think you misunderstand how he was using that statistic. Winning percentage against +.500 teams doesn't cause championships, it is a trait that championship teams display. Basically, if you are going to win a championship, you likely will have to be able to win against +.500 teams. Not that winning those games makes you a champion.
Some fine stat finding by td4mvp21 and HarlemHeat, appreciated. Shows +500 is not an absolute neccessity but sure seems like a team better be at least above .500 vs them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
