Reply With Quote
tbh, I wonder what HarlemHeat37 thinks about this...
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/12/04/th...ng-in-the-nba/
A good read (regardless of what you think of Wins Produced as a meaningful stat). Covers the last 23 years and lists the Spurs as the best in not playing unproductive players (and yes that includes the Bonner years).
tbh, I wonder what HarlemHeat37 thinks about this...
thanks for link.
imho, another huge factor has to be in not paying guys who aren't worth it. we saw what the HWSNBN deal did to us. Orlando was gutted by that Rashard Lewis contract.
I'm sure Richard Jefferson is the reason why our numbers weren't perfect.
wages of wins..
The secret to winning is playing good players over bad ones. Who would have thought?
lol. . .look at where the Clippers are on that chart. Absolutely hilarious. . .way away from the pack in a negative way.
But yeah I doubt our only negative dude was Jefferson. He was only around for a little and was okay the first couple years. Not great but not terrible. Let's not forget about Stephen Jackson, Roger Mason Jr, and Michael Finley. These guys were not exactly gems either and got a lot of playing time.
the post-Bowen pre-Kawhi years were lost years imo... sure, the Spurs went 111-53 in that span, but still.
I like dat one: secret of winning it’s to avoid giving any meaningful minutes to really bad players
no sherlock !
I think that what this guy is trying to say is: If it is so simple, why dont teams do it?
To summarize, he is saying: GMs and Coaches are stupid...except the Spurs.
Ding. Many times, teams either play players who are making a lot of money, or draft picks that may be busts, but they don't want to admit it.
they could also want to play young prospects for them to get better or they also could want to tank... either way saying you need to play your best players to win is captain obvious level. For me this article is ty.
The underlying reason why Jax wasn't getting minutes was probably that Pop had reasons to rate his play as 'negative' in his last year here. Nando are you reading this blog?
Also Finley, RMJ, Bonner, Bogans, Blair, Neal
Bogans as well
Too many teams don't draft with a system in place, they draft with the idea that the really athletic guy can learn on the fly. so then he sucks but they can't dump him because they overpaid him and has no value. They then bring in a coach who either won with other players who bought into aneurysm, assistants that won because the team's they were on had superstars or guys who were built up by the media.
Yeah that's true, it does cover the past 23 years after all, so we have that one really awful tank year thrown into the mix.
Top 3 teams are the 3 Texas teams too. That can't be a coincidence.
Blair actually has a high PER, so technically he's an above average production player. He's only been below 15 once, and that was 14.6 in very limited minutes.
Agreed on the rest though. Plus Jackson.
avoid 8 turnovers from one of your big 3 and it's a start tbh
Lionel Hollins didn't play his best lineups the last few years. That's why he wasn't renewed. He clashed with their new FO about advanced stats and player efficiency. He was completely enamored of Rudy Gay, a low efficiency high usage scorer, and was very angry when they traded him, not realizing that their best two playoff runs, 2011 and 2013 were without him.
You don't have to be developing young players or tanking to not play your best lineups. You can just be stubborn and convinced that your "eye test" is better than statistics.
pretty ty article, always makes me laugh when statisticians think they discovered warm water. Anyway, Milwakee signing and playing caron butler is the perfect example of what the author says, just what are they thinking when they play him?
and obviously he was right.
I think the team that can score the most points has the best chance of winning.
Twice. Once because Gay was hurt, and the other time because Gay had been traded. Memphis may never have made the WCFs if Rudy Gay had been healthy in 2011 and available in 2013.
Hollins won in spite of himself because what he wanted was placed out of his reach.
Don't forget Boozer
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
