Reply With Quote
Games like tonight skewing numbers are why I hate the sabermetricing of basketball.
BTW, here's the filtered shots that qualify under the criteria presented... Which account for 15 out of the 50... debatable all those are prayers too, tbh.
But, as I said in my previous post, you win. Whatever it is, I hope the Spurs can keep capitalizing on it.
Games like tonight skewing numbers are why I hate the sabermetricing of basketball.
Well, there was a lot of prayers from Cleveland players tonight...
But that's been my root point.Well, there was a lot of prayers from Cleveland players tonight...
Numbers never reflect what's really going on or what some things have shown.
Heh. You lectured me about something I specifically put in my post. And when I point that out, you snipe at me about it being in a link, and snipe more about me patting myself on the back?
I dunno. It sure looks like you've got a bad case of the redass over something.
It's not a matter of "skipping". I'm working on a project, and my time has been limited. I simply can't read every single post in every single thread. I'll work harder at it, though. Any time I'm working on a project, what's important is to get it right. I never, ever... ever mind losing an argument, for just that reason. What I don't like is when a discussion/argument devolves into sniping. It gets in the way of understanding. This is just a fun project, but I approach things the same way.
The criteria of "5 points or less" clearly didn't get used in all of the numbers Timvp used. I could spend a bunch of time proving it, but why bother? I don't like to mix different criteria in the same analysis, so I figured looking at the last 5 minutes of close games is good enough, as long as it's consistent.
But - all of that aside, you filtered the list down to 15 out of 50 (late) missed 3's, and you don't think that affects the numbers? Even if the number of "prayers" is only 10 of those 15, that's still 20% of the clutch 3's being at a much lower-than-normal percentage. And you don't think that skews the numbers much? That's just not like you. I'd rather believe you're still holding a grudge from the other threads (and I do) than think you really don't see the problem with that.
And BTW - that "you win the argument, no matter what" is a weak-assed PMS play. Nobody thinks you really believe it, so it just makes you look like whiny. I'll try and find the stuff you posted last night. Maybe you're onto something I overlooked. I won't have any problem admitting it.
I'm going to address this question since it's simple mathematics...
Removing 10 out of the 50, leaves 40 shots...
With prayers: 9/50 = 18%
Without prayers: 9/40 = 22.5%
So, no, even removing 20% of the shots the percentages are still well outside what's average for the league.
I don't think I've been unreasonable in my arguments. But obviously, feel free to disagree.
Those numbers I posted were of final five minutes of a game with neither team up by five points, tbh.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying was "mixed" though.
And to add to the "", here are the Spurs stats in the final five minutes of the game with neither team up by more than five points.
81-173 from the field
17-37 from three-point land.
So opponents are 9-50 on three-pointers in clutch situations while the Spurs are 17-37. Tbh, I don't think either number is sustainable but I'm assuming I'll get some disagreement on that.
The disparity in three-point percentage could be why the Spurs are virtually unbeatable when leading after the third quarter. Can't really come back when one team shoots 18% on three-pointers while the other team shoots 46%.
To be fair, the Spurs are the best shooting team in the NBA.
More numbers to chew on:
Opponents against the Spurs on clutch three-pointers: 9-for-50 (18%)
Clutch three-point shooting against every other team in the NBA: 439-1415 (31%)
Haven't really made any conclusions with these new numbers yet, tbh.
And. They plan to not allow easy 3pt looks to their rivals.
This actually supports my argument that such low percentages are simply not the norm league-wide. Around 30% is what I would've expected seeing that's about the best defensive 3pt % in the league right now (Boston).
Oh, no - not that your numbers were mixed. I was saying that you can't count all of those 50 shots for one purpose, and then filter some of them out because they don't meet the "5 point" criteria later on. I was trying to use the same definition of "clutch" that you did, all the way through.
Here's the only point. If the Spurs opponents are 9/50 on 3's, late in the game, that's obviously too low. Nobody believes that the Spurs D could hold teams to that poor of a 3P%. But if a bunch of those 3's were desperation-type shots that you don't really expect to fall, that probably accounts for SOME of the low 3P%. Not all, but some. And maybe we can believe that the Spurs D could hold those teams closer to 9-36 if they were closing out hard.
It's sometimes a matter of perception. 9-50 is so low, it can't be right, so we throw away the whole thing as luck. But 9-36 is close enough that we can consider the Spurs may really be playing better D in the clutch.
[note: If you don't read anything else, read my last paragraph. That might help make more sense out of what I'm saying.]
Is that just 3-pointers in the last 5 minutes of games, or in the last 5 of close games? Or is there something else in there? Does it include the shots by the winners as well as the losers? Because this is what I'm seeing:
In the last 5 minutes, teams seem to put up around 10-11 shots. Let's say 10 for now, to make the numbers easy. The team that is behind puts up a lot of last-second shots. That makes sense, since they are trying to catch up, while the other team is trying to run clock. So far, I don't think any of that is too controversial.
Suppose a team puts up two 3P shots, somewhere in the last 5 minutes. Then they wind up chunking up a prayer, or even a meaningless 3, near the final buzzer. Except for the total flukes, that last shot isn't going in. So the BEST 3P% that team could have in the last 5 minutes is 66%. We can debate how often it happens, but when it does, it skews the losers 3P% in the last 5 minutes drastically.
That's why I asked if you included both winners and losers. Because I suspect that the losing team has a much lower 3P% in the last 5, for exactly the reason I just detailed.
Look at it this way. The Spurs opponents are shooting 9-50 in late game situations - right? Suppose the Spurs have been shooting their normal 3P% in those same situations. Let's round down, and say 19-50 for the Spurs. Add them up, and you get 28-100 for both teams. That's only 3 percentage points off the league average 31% that you just listed. Is that so difficult to believe? And if the Spurs really are closing out on 3's more in the final minutes, couldn't that account for some of the remaining difference?
Two theories:
1. Since the Spurs foul less than any team in the league, opponents are less liable to look for opportunities in the paint and more willing to force up contested threes than the Spurs shoot on offense.
2. Spurs play their main guys less minutes than the opponents play their main guys, even in close-and-tight ball games. Our guys should theoretically have more energy and legs in the closing minutes than their guys. You need legs to shoot threes.
Look, Nono, I'm working on a project that's so intense, I was still working on it while I was trying to sleep. I started crunching some basketball stats as a sort of diversion. (Mel13 reminded me that there's no subs ute for real Z's) I read the beginning of this thread, and skipped to the end to see if it had developed, and at the time, the last post was Timvp's. I jumped on it, started playing with the numbers, and skipped some stuff in the middle. Mea culpa. And if I mis-read your intent, well... mea bigger culpa.
Your math is impossible to argue with. I'd be a bonehead to try. I don't know, but I THINK, that there may be more to it. Some of it, undoubtedly, is just good fortune for the Spurs. Some of it, I still believe, is the Spurs clamping down, and closing out, in crunch time. (See how I avoided the word "clutch"?) But I also think that some of it is the fact that the Spurs have been leading, rather than trailing, in a big portion of those games.
Read the last paragraph of my post to Timvp, right before this one. I really do think that there's something there. I've never seen anyone look at it that way, but that doesn't mean a hundred people haven't done it.
And, to be extremely clear - yes, I think that some of it has just been good fortune for the Spurs, with opponents missing more shots than normal.
And to add to the "
81-173 from the field
17-37 from three-point land.
So opponents are 9-50 on three-pointers in clutch situations while the Spurs are 17-37. Tbh, I don't think either number is sustainable but I'm assuming I'll get some disagreement on that.
The disparity in three-point percentage could be why the Spurs are virtually unbeatable when leading after the third quarter. Can't really come back when one team shoots 18% on three-pointers while the other team shoots 46%.
Echhh... I didn't see this before I started writing.
Okay - the other teams are 9-50. Spurs are 17-37. Add them up, and you get 26-87, which is right at 30%. Pretty damned close to the league average.
I'm starting to think the 31% is made of both winners and losers 3P%'s. And I bet the winners typically shoot a much higher percentage. Maybe the discrepancy isn't as big, on average. But look - our opponents have shot 50 3's, even though they are bricking them. We've only shot 37, even though we're nailing them. What does that tell you? Probably that they HAVE TO shoot 3's, because they're behind. We don't have to, because we're ahead. And when you have to shoot 3's, rather than taking them when they're open, you probably don't make as many.
Like I've said from the start. I don't think it accounts for all of the low percentage. But I think it accounts for a good chunk. And I bet it's at least somewhat typical of the gap between the team that's ahead, and the team that's behind. I also still think the Spurs are playing better D in crunch time, than at other times. But proving it was always going to be a difficult task. It will still be there after sleepage.
When the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 9-for-17 on three-pointers. When opponents of the Spurs have been trailing between 1 and 5 points with under 5 minutes to go, they are 4-for-34 on three-pointers.
Even if they're shooting blindfolded, 4-for-34 is a ridiculously low percentage, tbh.
There's a lot more than can be computed but here's what I've learned:
1. This Spurs team seems like a clutch shooting team and the clutch-time numbers back that up so far.
2. The Spurs have more length and athleticism on the perimeter, sprinkle in some veteran know-how and theoretically the Spurs should be able to execute defensively down the stretch. I'll hope that their success to date in clutch-time defense isn't due to 100% luck. Even if it's 90% luck, maybe that 10% of skill is all the Spurs need since their offense is clicking so wonderfully right now.
Obviously, there's a bit of luck involved, but teams shooting a lower 3pt % isn't shocking.
It would seem like the Spurs are (in the last 5 minutes or so) are strongly committing to defending the perimeter, which might leave some interior weaknesses from not having men close to the rim to contest. Needs synergy data to back that up, but if you know the other team wants to shoot 3's, it makes sense to sell out defending the 3. If teams are guarded, they might try to exploit that interior weakness and take a 2, depending on the game situation. 30 seconds left and down 4, take the decent 2 point shot. 5 seconds left and down 3, take a heave and hope shot.
From you guys who watch all the games, is there any change in defensive philosophy noticeable in the last few minutes of close games, in how screens are defended, sticking to 3 shooters etc. I just think the optimal defense changes in those situations, so % are likely to change.
It is mostly luck.
A breakdown of these three pointers by team gives a more complete picture -
Game Attempt Made Attempts
20120104GSWSAS 1 5
20120107DENSAS 1 2
20120115PHXSAS 0 2
20120120SACSAS 0 1
20120123SASNOH 0 1
20120129SASDAL 1 1
20120206SASMEM 1 4
20120215SASTOR 0 2
20120218SASLAC 0 2
20120220SASUTA 0 1
20120316SASOKC 1 7
20120324SASNOH 0 2
20120328SASSAC 2 4
Grand Total 7 34
Except for games featuring OKC, MEM, GSW and SAC, most other games have featured either 1 or 2 attempts, very low to be seen as indicators of 3pt defense. And we can eliminate the SAC game as the 3pt% was 50%..and it leaves us with three games - OKC which featured 6 missed shots by Westbrook, Harden and Durant (who scored the only one), GSW which featured shots missed by high volume shooter Ellis and rookie Thompson, and MEM, featuring shots missed by Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo.
There isn't anything definite to say about these missed shots.
Green and Jax's hands were all over the place last night; doesn't really apply to 'late game defense' due to the blowout, but it's something to think about and look forward to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions