Reply With Quote
s got degrees for these kind of re eness???
espn
When did Bethesda start writing articles for ESPN?
s got degrees for these kind of re eness???
The hubris in this article is breathtaking.
When players and teams have consistently outperformed your analysis of how well they should do given your assumptions, your weighting of age, draft status, etc. etc., some sports analysts might examine several explanations, including...that the assumptions, the weightings,, the analysis itself might be wrong.
But not this guy. No, attributing team and player performance consistently above the level your model projects for them to luck is every bit as scientific and
unbiased as attributing it to the player's having sold their souls to the DEVIL.
psst, fella...I hate to break it to you...but YOUR MODEL STINKS!!
Lucky is out-drafting every other team in the league.
Lucky is valuing foreign talent as much as domestic and being the only team in the league to do it.
Lucky is trading George Hill (not a bad player honestly) for Kawhi Leonard (who's probably going to be an 18-9 all-star candidate next year).
Man, we're lucky that we're so lucky!
When I read the le alone, I almost agreed, but I was thinking from the angle of landing Robinson in the draft, riding his greatness to plenty of team success (not les during his reign, but we were a damn good team throughout his time in the league). Then the one year he goes down and we do poorly, we win the lottery of lotteries and draft the greatest PF of all time, who we ride to 4 les. THAT I consider lucky. FWIW, some #1 picks since Robinson have been:
Pervis Ellison, Joe Smith, Michael Olowokandi, Kwame Brown, Andrea Bargnani, Andrew Bogut, Greg Oden, John Wall (these are all the #1 overalls since the Admiral that have never made it to an all star game)
Boy that guy has chutzpah. Horrible logic.
how does the scouting and development of players and a system developed to optimize success and a coaching staff that refuses to be stagnant cons ute luck ? the only thing the spurs lucked out on was david and tim and that is all. and that really is no less luck than being in a market that is an attractive site for free agents such as miami, new york and los angeles.
San Antonio must have a larger fan base than any of us think if ESPN is going to continually troll them like this. There's simply no point in putting out there for a team "nobody cares about".
Lucky is having owners with deep pockets, being in a major media market, and playing in a weak conference.
Using google translator
From BSPN to English
"Luck" loosely translates to 14 straight 50-win seasons
another interesting thing, which my friend who isn't even a spurs fan necessarily pointed out, is (i'll use his words): "As far as I can tell, he's just lying about the pythagorean stats, anyway." Now, I don't think he's "lying," but the pythagorean stats on thenbageek.com actually say we're 1 game behind what we'd be expected to win. so do with that what you will. this might just be me sharing this awesome site with anyone who doesn't know about it.
http://www.thenbageek.com/teams/sas
if you look below all the stats, you'll see our expected record is 52-15, and we're actually 51-16, meaning we are "unlucky" by 1 game.
The Spurs are lucky to have one starter who hasn't missed a game.
doesn't take a brilliant scout to have drafted Robinson and Duncan tbh. Manu/Parker a different story
Obviously scouting is a part of it, but if the Spurs thought for a second that Manu would turn out to be this good (i.e Hall of Famer) they would have drafted him in the first round. Manu was a fluke.
Also, scouting had nothing to do with Robinson and Duncan. They were both jewels in their respective drafts, it was pure luck winning the #1. Furthermore, it was more luck to get the #1 pick in drafts with all time greats. If Robinson got injured in 97 instead of 96, maybe the Spurs end up with Antawn Jamison or, heaven forbid, Olowokandi instead of Duncan. , best case scenario we would have drafted Nowitzki or Pierce, and maybe the Spurs don't win a le at all in the next 10 years.
Parker you an attribute to scouting though. Pop said he thought Parker would have been a top 10 pick if he had played college ball.
Don't forget the luck of drob...lightening struck twice for the spurs. Even luckier though than getting the no 1 pick twice, is to have a guy like Tim or David available to pick. Would suck to win the lottery and have no franchise guy to select. I'd say they have been as lucky as any franchise in sports, but for those reasons mainly. Every good team is "lucky."
I stopped watching espn(for the most part), the summer the mavs won the le.. I haven't missed anything.
Seriously? You think the Spurs thought Manu would turn out to be even close to as good as he has been, yet decided they'd rather trade their 29th pick for Gordan Giricek and a 2000 2nd rounder than secure him in the first round? If the Spurs even thought Manu would turn out half as good as he did they would have taken him with #29.
If they really did think he would be a great player and waited 28 picks more they need to secure his draft rights, that makes them even more lucky.
Obviously they thought he was a good player, but it's a complete fluke that he turned out to be as good as he did.
Isn't it amusing that even if they slobber all over Durant they still suck up the 8th seed Lakers more than your Thunder?
Yeah I don't get that one bit. Go to lakersground and you have Laker fans biting the hand that feeds them that is the media and ESPN. The other day there was a thread about how the Lakers incessantly get "chewed" up on ESPN by analysts. I didn't believe what I was reading.Isn't it amusing that even if they slobber all over Durant they still suck up the 8th seed Lakers more than your Thunder?
Clearly I'm not saying Manu himself is simply a fluke. The fact is that if the Spurs thought he would be this good, they would have taken him at 29.
And I don't know where this idea comes from that the Spurs were the only team who scouted European basketball. There were 4 international players taken in the 99 draft before Manu. In 98 Nowitki was taken in the first round out of the German second division,and Nesterovic was also a first round pick taken out of Italy where Manu was playing.
Go back to the 97 draft and there were 6 international players drafted, 5 of them in the second round. The idea that the Spurs didn't need to pick Manu because there was no way any other team could have heard of him is ludicrous.
ie ty writing
That's just dumb. I'm gonna get a job at ESPN as a sport analyst just for the of it.
Can't believe how lucky the Spurs are this season. They keep getting favourable refereeing, no one is getting injured, we had an easy and resting schedule in the first half of the season and their best 3 players are all in their prime.
Oh wait...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
