Apparently all the San Antonio Spurs do is win.
Yesterday at MIT's Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, the Spurs won the award for best analytical team in professional sports and their general manager R.C. Buford, was honored with a lifetime achievement award for his work in the field. Although the organization has had plenty of success, this was fantastic news but was still shocking for head coach Gregg Popovich.
Probably because he had no idea that this was something they could even win as Jeff McDonald of the San Antonio Express-News reports.
“I had no idea there was such a conference or such an award,” Popovich said before Saturday's 101-74 victory over the Suns.
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...nalytics-award
That award is mostly a sham. Instead of what it should be, which is "team that uses analytics the best," it appears to be "best team that happens to use analytics."
If the Sloan conference were to give the award to another team, the Spurs having dominated the league last year would be an indictment of their own studies.
Nerds trying to take credit for the Spurs championships imo
So a good/great team can never win the award without it being tainted? That's pretty flawed thinking.
I always got the impression the hack-a-shaq strategy was something the Spurs analysts came up with that Pop grudgingly decided to go along with.
Actually it was Dallas Mavs coach, Don Nelson, who devised the idea of putting poor free throwing shooting players on the line. I believe it was used on Dennis Rodman in Chicago first but was better known for its use on Shaq.
I think the point wasn't so much to say that nobody had ever thought of it before this, but to guess that someone statistically justified the strategy to Pop's satisfaction before he used it (and that other analytics departments hadn't done that, perhaps).
It's statistics, but not advanced or mysterious. If a player shoots 65% from the field, but 45% from the line, the line is where you want him.
Nellie used it on Bruce Bowen in Game 1 of the 2003 West Finals, too.
This popularizes the award as well.
The proper application of what the data gives you is what is important. This would be incredibly hard to measure for complex phenomena that have so many other variables. I imagine when used properly, it shows that use of analytics helped in reaching a very clear cut simple goal without a huge number of variables. I think he has a good point. But I understand your point.
Nellie used it on Bruce Bowen at times in the 2003 West Finals, too. Bowen responded by making 63% of his FTs, largely negating the strategy.
Pop with a big you to the analytics crowd
Except not. Just Pop doing his best Pop. Deflect, deny. The minute that every other team catches on, we lose our advantage.
No, it's that they'll find a way to praise the best team for using analytics, even if that team isn't the best at using them. If, for example, the Rockets had gotten the award, people might ask "how could they be the best at using analytics if they lost in the first round? Analytics must not be that great after all."
My main point is that we'll never really know if the Spurs are actually considered the best at using analytics because they were going to win this award anyway.
Except, we've never won in the past.
The Rockets problems have nothing to do with analytics, and everything to do with lack of continuity. They ship players out faster than Quik-Klean ships out dry cleaning.
Nah, it just means you want to keep the ball out of his hands in the zones he's shooting that well in. Sending him to the line would only make sense if it was less efficient than forming a defensive strategy around keeping the ball out of his hands while letting lesser players try to score.
I get you point though.
You're pretty much agreeing with him. The award has little to do with analytics usage and more to do with general success. The Spurs are actually mediocre in their emphasis on analytics. But because they were the best team that used it at all, they won the award.
AND taking a on the analytics losers.
He's from the old school, if it was up to Pop nobody would talk about analytics (it would exist, but in secret)
Pop is ting on all the analytics losers that have awards and pat each other on the back in public. ing losers. He doesn't believe in that.
Hater is a ing moron
water is wet
And how exactly would you know what stats the Spurs compile or use? I'm guessing you are talking out of your ass here.
What makes you say they're "mediocre?"
Didnt barkley say that the Spurs werent Analytical or the worst in analytics?
Pop is clearly an "eye-test" guy. He's a great strategist, but he's not a guy who's gonna be guided by numbers. Could have sworn he's said as much a few times. He's obviously smart, but not in the sense people consider Morey and Hinkie to be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
