Reply With Quote
Great analysis!
With the return of Stephen Jackson, I decided to take a look back at the 2003 Player Pairs.
(A green cell means that the player in the column improved the number for the player in the row. A red cell means the opposite. So basically, the more green in a player's column, the better.)
Point Differential Per 100 Possessions
Points Scored Per 100 Possessions
Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions
Observations:
-Tim Duncan was obviously a beast back in 2003. He was a grand total of 1.2 points per 100 possessions on defense from posting green in each and every cell across the board.
-We know David Robinson was a great player but I think we may not fully understand how great he was. In the final year of his career, he posted better plus/minus numbers than everyone on a team that had three future Hall of Famers? That's pretty ridiculous. And look at his defensive numbers. No one was in the same zip code as Robinson defensively ... and this was a 37-year-old David Robinson.
Robinson's great numbers here aren't a fluke considering his overall plus/minus number was also higher than Duncan's 2002. If Robinson on his last leg out plus/minus'ed Tim Duncan in his absolute prime, just image the type of difference-maker Robinson was in his prime. Then again, we shouldn't be too surprised considering Robinson has the best WS/48 in the history of the NBA.
(WS/48 = win shares per 48 minutes, which basically attempts to measure how many wins a player is responsible for per minute played)
-The closest player to Robinson defensively was Bruce Bowen, which shouldn't surprise anybody. In fact, he's the only player who improved every other player on the team defensively. On offense, 2003 Bowen wasn't too much of a liability.
-Rookie Manu Ginobili was certainly an asset. He didn't have as much green as we've gotten used to since then but he was obviously very useful. It's worth noting how well Ginobili and Parker played together in their first year together. That turned out to be the start of the most successful backcourt pairing this franchise has ever seen.
Even more shocking is how well Ginobili played with Bowen. Their chemistry, particularly on the defensive end, was instant. Bowen defending the top scorer while Ginobili wreaked havoc worked well from Day 1.
Rookie Ginobili when paired with Bowen was great defensively (93.14). But without Bowen, rookie Ginobili was a liability defensively (103.34). That's a bit surprising since Ginobili's steals per minute were at a career-high his rookie season. Then again, that's just more proof that steals don't necessarily equate to good defense.
-It gets a bit overshadowed but perhaps the most amazing of all these plus/minus stats are Tony Parker's numbers. Considering he was just 20 years old and the first European point guard of note in the NBA, it's just awesome what he did. At an age where Cory Joseph can't even create one shot all season, Parker was right there with a prime Duncan as the most devastatingly effective offensive player on a championship team that won 60 regular season games. WoW.
-I didn't realize that Stephen Jackson was such a defensive liability back in 2003. He's deceptively a much better defender these days, which should help his overall value to the team. I also didn't realize how good he was offensively; Jackson was just behind Duncan and Parker as the best offensive weapon on the team.
These numbers give me even more hope for 2012 Stephen Jackson. Factoring in his improved defense, he doesn't even have to be as good as he was on offense to have the same net impact.
-Considering he was playing behind two of the best bigmen of all-time, Malik Rose's numbers are pretty darn good. I think there's a decent case for 2003 Rose being the best backup bigman in the NBA ... or at very least in the discussion.
-The man, the myth, the legend ... Speedy Claxton was all over the map. He was great when playing next to star players but was horrendous when paired with the lesser players. That fits with my subjective view of Claxton as one of the most feast or famine players of the Duncan Era.
-Most of Steve Kerr's value was on defense, surprisingly enough. Then again, he did make a few great defensive plays in the playoffs that year.
-Outside of his elbow pads and physical play, Kevin Willis didn't actually help the team too much that year during the regular season.
-Danny Ferry was great at funneling players to the Twin Towers and was also a fantastic passer into the post ... which makes it no surprise that he did his best work next to Duncan and Robinson.
-Steve Smith was literally that year's Richard Jefferson. Good shooter but so one-dimensional that he hurt the team on offense. And the only reason Smith wasn't more detrimental on defense was Bowen was able to allow him to hide.
This is stunning proof of Bowen's defensive abilities:
Smith played 546.8 minutes with Bowen and allowed 91.57 points per 100 possessions.
Smith played 485.9 minutes without Bowen and allowed 109.75 points per 100 possession.
That's a whopping difference of 18.18 points per 100 possessions. Damn, Bruce
It's always difficult for me to figure out how good the 2003 Spurs team was. There are good arguments that it was the best Spurs team of all-time. There are also good arguments that it was the worst Spurs championship team of all-time. On one hand, it's the only Spurs team with Duncan, Robinson, Ginobili, Bowen and Parker. But on the other hand, only Duncan was in his prime. Still not sure . . .
Last edited by timvp; 03-20-2012 at 04:43 PM.
Great analysis!
Man you are a statistical genius Timvp! I love your breakdowns. You put Hollinger to shame lol.
Great job, Timvp. You should patent this kind of analysis - using player pairs for Offensive and Defensive possessions. Most robust.
Awesome work as always.
One thing people may have not brought up yet. In Jackson's first stint in SA, the Spurs rarely if at all went small. Jackson was strictly a 2/3, and always had two traditional bigs on the floor whether it was Duncan Robinson, or Rose Duncan, or Rose Robinson or Duncan Willis. I wonder if Jackson can grasp the offense with him playing at the 4 if the Spurs do indeed go small.
Or defensively from the 4.
Great point. Jackson played PF next to Robinson, Duncan or Rose for a grand total of less than four minutes in 2003.
Going forward, I expect to see him at PF a healthy amount. We already saw some of that against the Mavs when he was defending Dirk.
For a closing lineup, I actually like Parker, Ginobili, Jackson, Leonard and Duncan. Yeah, it's small ball but it's also the most talented unit the Spurs can put on the court.
P.S.
Good to see ya posting, SFIA.
The point differential +29.97 of David and Speedy is a jaw dropper.
Thanks for this timvp.
2003 Spurs are my favourite team of all time. For me, even though they weren't all in their primes, a majority of my favourite players ever were on that team - 5-0, Duncan, Parker, Jackson, Ginobili, Bowen and Rose.
Ahhh the memories...
Yeah, I gotta say I agree with MI21 - 2003 was my favourite as well, what with beating the Lakers, my favourite players last season and it being the first championship experience that I could follow along with live - with the internet coverage being vastly improved from 99.
It definitely was more special, and I got chills just seeing the box scores live. Couldn't imagine what it must have been like to be there, let alone in the continent.
Nice stuff LJ.
if jax cant play the 4 for stretches of the game, pop can alwas chuck in KL...
This was the same year where the Spurs had two impressive win streaks. First they went 8-1 in the rodeo road trip and won 9 in a row. The second was 11 game win streak at the end of the season. It was an amazing season!
it was a fkn downgrade the season after it, got rid of jax and the vets for trailer trash who couldnt handle t he playoffs
IIRC, the '04 Spurs were one of the most dominant defensive teams in NBA history. It's just too bad that fluke 0.4 shot had to happen.
Great work timvp, thanks!
Just in case CoM didn't see it...
The last two charts are labeled the same.
Is the last chart supposed to be "Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions"?
Yup, really impressive. The overall numbers are really good.
The numbers are for reg season + playoffs, or only one of those?
Robinson is second all time in WS/48 to Jordan. Many of the statistically inclined don't view win shares as nearly as credible as, say, PER, though. If you go strictly by advanced stats, Robinson is hands down the most underrated player of all time. But what those stats don't tell you is, he debuted at 24 and retired with far less mileage than Ewing, Olajuwon, O'Neal, Garnett, Duncan, etc. So basically, for the most part, he avoided non prime years. Still, he's at least got to be in the discussion and two events can be directly attributed to that. 1) The '95 Western Conference Finals. 2) The '97 draft.
That's just regular season. Still trying to compile playoffs, tbh. So far, Playoff Rookie Ginobili is a beast
There are a couple ways to calculate WS/48. Some have Jordan one, some have Robinson one. Basketball-Reference has them tied at .250. Perhaps if you extend out that decimal point Jordan would pass Robinson but they are basically tied for first.
The statistically inclined scoff both win shares and PER, tbh.
Decent hypothesis but it doesn't hold water. Adjusting the numbers just to account for the ages Robinson was in the NBA (24 thru 37), Robinson goes from tied for first in WS/48 to third behind Jordan and LeBron (although obviously LeBron has a small sample size). Going by PER, Robinson goes from 5th all-time to 6th all-time (Dwyane Wade and his incomplete sample size jump over him). In plain ol' win shares, Robinson goes from ninth to fourth.
If you want to just look at everyone's first 14 seasons (how many seasons Robinson played), he's third in WS/48, sixth in PER and sixth in win shares. So, no, Robinson's unique career arc didn't have much if anything to do with his numbers appearing to be so gaudy.
Indeed. Both win shares and PER assign weights to certain statistical categories - the latter more-so - that skew their objective analysis of players. The latter in particular uses intuitive weights unlike the former which uses statistically derived weights, albeit which are not non-controversial.
Judging players by per minute/percentage possession stats are therefore quite effective. Check this post that does that (using Mysynergystats) to evaluate Kobe Bryant's defending (or relative lack thereof) -
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2012...ty-of-defense/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...48_career.html
They have Jordan 1st at .2505 and Robinson 2nd at .2502.
But more so win shares. PER is seen by many as a useful tool; something to confirm opinions, as opposed to formulating them.The statistically inclined scoff both win shares and PER, tbh.
It's not about the ages, it's about the mileage. At 24, his legs had zero NBA mileage on them. At 24, Duncan had already ac ulated nearly 10, 000 regular season minutes and nearly 2, 000 playoff minutes. So, yes, Robinson's unique career arc had something to do with his numbers appearing so gaudy. That's not to take anything away from them, it's merely to put them into context and perspective.Decent hypothesis but it doesn't hold water. Adjusting the numbers just to account for the ages Robinson was in the NBA (24 thru 37), Robinson goes from tied for first in WS/48 to third behind Jordan and LeBron (although obviously LeBron has a small sample size). Going by PER, Robinson goes from 5th all-time to 6th all-time (Dwyane Wade and his incomplete sample size jump over him). In plain ol' win shares, Robinson goes from ninth to fourth.
If you want to just look at everyone's first 14 seasons (how many seasons Robinson played), he's third in WS/48, sixth in PER and sixth in win shares. So, no, Robinson's unique career arc didn't have much if anything to do with his numbers appearing to be so gaudy.
Last edited by TD 21; 03-21-2012 at 06:24 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
