Reply With Quote
Especially for a Spursfan from germany - when most of the ppl around you keep their fingers crossed for the Mavs
If we play as well as we've played all year, We should win all of these. Key word: SHOULD. Go SPURS GO! Drive for 5!!
Especially for a Spursfan from germany - when most of the ppl around you keep their fingers crossed for the Mavs
I hate stats like this. When it favors one side so much it's bound to be the other.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not hard to comprehend.
Stats like those are just mind candy. They mean nothing. And as soon as everyone jumps on that stat like we're going to win it all we will be bound for a huge disappointment.
That makes no sense either.
If memory serves me correctly injuries slowed them in the playoffs-I think Hondo was hurt....
So good omen however the Mavs are the cautionary tale here despite not being the other team.
It makes sense. If you don't agree that's your opinion.
This is not the early 90s Bulls. Or any other ancient stat from some ancient team. This is a new era of basketball. Referencing stats like that means nothing. For example look at Dallas.
I agree.
It doesn't make sense.
In makes complete sense, bruh.
It's the same reason why a rational person can look at Wilt Chamberlain's stats, and anticipate that he would not be able to sustain the same numbers in this current NBA. All of his numbers would likely drop by something absurd like 50%.
I agree
that you believe this logic does not make sense
because your mind is inactive
That makes no sense.
I believe.
That you do not understand the American way.
It's one thing to not place any stock in a statistic like that.
I'm in that boat. I don't place any stock in that statistic.
Brutalis isn't doing that. He's actively suggesting that because we're on the favored side of history, it's "bound to be the other." That's just as ridiculous as suggesting that we're bound to win the championship because the historically 6 of 7 teams with similar regular season success have done so.
well, mavs was still a good guess. anytime there's a question about a team that should have but didn't, saying dallas mavericks is an automatic.
Well I think he has a good point but did not word it in the best possible way in the initial post...you might be reading it too literally.
What I mainly agree with is that these types of stats in sports when different eras are compared....are stupid.
Can you tell me why it makes no sense?
Do you believe the state of professional basketball has gone largely unchanged over the past 50 years?
I think I either worded my sentence wrong or, you just took it wrong.
Never the less alvarez didn't seem to have a problem picking up what I was saying.
Yeah, I completely agree with you. I think the statistic is utterly worthless.
The only meaningful statistic for predicting championship success in this day and age is scoring margin, and it reflects basically what everybody sees subjectively -
Top 4 championship contenders = LA/Boston/SA/Miami
Next two "2nd tier" championship contenders = Orlando/Chicago
Top 4 scoring margins = LA/Boston/SA/Miami = +7.xx
Orlando/Chicago scoring margin = +5.xx
Nobody else in the league comes even close.
No, but I need clarification on this statement in red. If you're saying what I think you are, your argument makes no sense:
By this, I think that you're extending the argument to the respective records of the other 6 teams....ie that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league as well?
Did I misunderstand you?
Good point.
I also consider the margin of loss as well.
The Spurs have 2 losses this season of 20 or more points. @ Orlando in December, and @ New Orleans last week. The other 5 losses came by less than 10 points.
What that tells me is...
a) The Spurs have a terrible game, Pop puts in bench players somewhere late in the 3rd, early 4th either giving up or trying to make a point to his starters I'm not sure which and we end up getting blown out.
b) The Spurs lose a close game over fouling at the end of a game and free throws inflating the score making it look like it was not a close loss even though the 5 losses were by less than 10
To add to my post- To me that is very very impressive, other than the two 20 point losses. It tells me this team is very strong and stronger than perhaps our championship teams of the past.
I agree, even scoring margin is imperfect for that reason alone.
Doc Rivers kept his starters in the game till the very end against the Lakers.
Pop pulls his starters during blowout victories or obvious losses. It's not uncommon to see us up 30 and Pop pulls the starters early in the 4th, allowing the opposing team to come back and "only" lose by 12-15 points.
I suppose you did misunderstand, because as stated earlier, I was focusing on the fact that apples are not oranges. So, Wilt's NBA is not Dwight Howard's NBA. I am not stating that those records would be proportionally worse in todays league.
If you consider the mid-90s "this day and age" then you can't ignore the 95 Rockets 2.1 pt differential vs the teams they beat: Utah +8, Phoenix +3.8, and the Spurs +6.6.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
