Also for naysayesrs,
Spurs have a very good record vs some probable playoff bound teams. If I am off a game so be it but look at the trend:
Miami 1 and 1
Suns 2 and 0
Sonics 1 and 2
Mavs 3 and 0
Kings 3 and 1
Wiz 1 and 1
Pacers 1 and 0
Pistons 1 and 0
Rockets 0 and 2 (only due to a friggin miracle is this one 0 and 2)
Lakers 2 and 0
16 and 7 Pretty darn good and if you focus on top seeds out West very impressive at 8 and 3. Plus there is no team that they may face that they have already lost a season series too! One has to have realistic expectations for teams!
"Isn't the Spurs performance against "non-playoff" slugs an area of major heartburn and consternation for you?"
Yes, you've been paying attention, others don't.
But forget about that perspective because "Spurs losing to ty teams" is a different issue. We won't see those teams in the playoffs.
A different perspective:
1) Spurs record and stats vs playoff teams, and
2) Spurs record and stats vs playoff teams on the road
"Spurs have a very good record vs some probable playoff bound teams"
Too vague. Use where the WC/EC seedings today:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standi...l&seasontype=2
and then tighten it further be removing EC teams that are below EC 1-4 seed today. (eg, we won't see IND, PHI, BOS, CHI, ORL in the Finals).
so, from teams WC 1-8, and EC 1-4, what is our record, on the road? And since Nov/Dec are meaningless, only look at "on the road after 1 Jan".
We know the Spurs are best home team, so all the W's at @SBC are meaningless for this analysis. Spurs (and other teams) are SUPPOSED to win @SBC, and they have.
The whole point of winning the Finals is that you HAVE to win on the road to be champs (ask the 04 Spurs).
So the question becomes :
"What is the Spurs stats and record:
1. against WC 1-8 teams plus
2. against EC 1-4 teams and
3. after Jan1 and
4 on the road ?"
Put all those selection criteria together, then you have a metric the "might" show, removing all the "soft" data, what the the hard-core compe ivity of the Spurs (or any other contender).
Well the Lakers were getting a taste of their own medicine. They got away with that stuff for years. Winning in L.A was VERY hard to do because of the phantom calls and all that favoritism from the refs. Shaq still gets those calls just look at the Heat. I remember watching a game where this one team was called for ridiculous stuff and the Heat got away with everything. The Lakers definitely got a taste of their own medicine from those refs, and could they handle it? NOPE.
As for our record against playoff teams, it is good. Our western conference record (24-8) is the best out of the league. Yes, seven out of those 8 losses are on the road, but, if its meant for us to win it all, we will win those road games in the playoffs. Good teams do get it done at home, however. And if we get HCA for all or most of the playoffs, we will most likely be in pretty good shape.
"Good teams do get it done at home, however."
Well, duh, you don't qualify as a good team if can't win at home.
However, Champions get it done on the road.
Yes, they do. But they arent gonna win every important road game during the season.
Just for grins:
For the 2004-05 season, current through last night, here are the aggregate standings, given your criteria and including only the 12 teams you count (I've taken the liberty of assuming that by seeds 1-4, you actually mean records 1-4 in the EC, since Boston is technically #3, but doesn't have the 3rd best record):
PNX 2-3 (.400)
SAS 4-4 (.500)
SEA 4-1 (.800)
DAL 2-1 (.667)
SAC 1-2 (.333)
HOU 1-3 (.250)
MEM 2-1 (.667)
LAL 0-5 (.000)
MIA 0-3 (.000)
DET 1-0 (1.000)
CLE 0-4 (.000)
WAS 1-4 (.200)
By the way, I also looked at some past champions using your metric:
2003-04 DET 2-5
2002-03 SAS 9-4
2001-02 LAL 6-9
2000-01 LAL 5-5
1999-00 LAL 7-4
With the exception of the stellar play the Spurs exhibited in 2002-03, it sure doesn't look like a champion needs to do much more than play about .500 or so on the road against playoff quality teams -- that or there is no real conclusion that one can draw from the data.
I guess "Champions win on the road [some of the time at least]."
The 1987 or 88 lakers lost EVERY road game in the WC semis and finals. Lost all three to the Jazz on the road and all three to the Mavericks on the road. However the won all four at home and advanced to the finals v Detroit...winning one in Detroit and 3 at home to capture the le. By the way, they were a pretty decent team.
"With the exception of the stellar play the Spurs exhibited in 2002-03, it sure doesn't look like a champion needs to do much more than play about .500 or so on the road against playoff quality teams -- that or there is no real conclusion that one can draw from the data."
I never said it was an infallible stat, just that it could be more meaningful than overall record.
Plucking out champions which bad playoff road records is OK, but one would have to look at 20 or 30 years to see if they are exceptions to the rule, or if there even is a rule.
It's interesting that at this point, the EC teams are at the bottom of the list, and the WC teams are at the top.
With the EC #1 Heat at 0-5 (how can you have any serious confidence with a record like that?), you can see why the Heat were explosively happy to beat Spurs last Sunday. It showed the Heat that they could beat the best, at least @MIA. HUGE shot of confidence to the Heat.
Your question had me honestly curious, so I found an answer. Now that we have an answer, you don't think its all that big a deal? Come on.
You act as though I just went through and found a few examples to support a contrary argument. I didn't. I pointed to the last 5 NBA champions. If your point is that NBA champions have to, or at least should, dominate good compe ion on the road, it would seem to me that such an argument necessarily implies a concern for THIS ERA. The data shows that IN THIS ERA, contrary to your position, NBA champions don't necessarily dominate good teams on the road after January 1.
Now, if you want to talk about a trend, here are the HOME records (under the same cir stances proposed in your earlier metric-- after 1/1, against top 8 WC, top 4 EC) of the past 5 NBA champions:
2003-04 DET 7-2
2002-03 SAS 9-2
2001-02 LAL 10-1
2000-01 LAL 8-2
1999-00 LAL 10-2
Hmmm. No real trend there.
The teams in my earlier list are in order 1-8 of the West teams, then 1-4 of the East. If you put them in order by winning percentage, the list looks like this:
DET 1-0 (1.000)
SEA 4-1 (.800)
DAL 2-1 (.667)
MEM 2-1 (.667)
SAS 4-4 (.500)
PNX 2-3 (.400)
SAC 1-2 (.333)
HOU 1-3 (.250)
WAS 1-4 (.200)
MIA 0-3 (.000)
CLE 0-4 (.000)
LAL 0-5 (.000)
I saw the DET had played only one game, so they're disqualified for "not enough data"
So take off DET, and my point is valid.
and somehow the 3 games that Dallas, Sacramento, and Memphis have played are worlds more data.
Look, I understand your point, but I'm genuinely amused by how readily you change the criteria to suit your argument.
Since you started moaning about the Spurs "poor play" about a month ago or so, and tried to put some empirical data to it, you've: (1) changed the definition of a "good team;" (2) changed over what periods we should look to see how the Spurs have played against this varying group of good teams; and now (3) resisted the statistical history behind the very thing that you trumpet as a hallmark of champions. What is it?
(1) changed the definition of a "good team;"
people complained about my "too subjective" selection, so I went with numerical WC1-8 and EC1-4
"(2) changed over what periods we should look to see how the Spurs have played against this varying group of good teams;"
well, yes of course. When I started this approach, all I had was records of Nov through early Jan. Now we've got all of JAN and most of Feb, so Nov/Dec is discarded as meaningless since the "real" season is the second half leading up to the playoffs, when dangerous teams gell (eg HOU, DET) who were struggling badly in Nov/Dec.
"and now (3) resisted the statistical history behind the very thing that you trumpet as a hallmark of champions."
How have I resisted anything? People cherry-picking champions as exceptions to say they disprove the proposed generality is BS. That's why one would have to look back 20 or 30 years, but that's complicated by the changes in the playoff format, league expansion, etc.
I perfectl happy with your list. Let's look again later.
Your list is exactly the teams we have to be worried about in the WC, and the only one I think makes any sense in the EC, the Pistons.
As a epidemiologist, teacher of statistics in courses, and public health doctor examing the last 5 years of data = DEFINITE TREND, BOUTONS PREDICTED ANALYSIS DOES NOT HOLD WATER (but nice try it was a creative arguement).
Nice work above, the fact is that by this trend, Spurs in fine shape.
I will bet also if you look at teams with the dominance Spurs showing at home and point differential = most will be champions!!!
Home records do matter more I would expect than road, one must take care of that first to get the core wins.
Finally, is there one team this year that truly could raise their game arguebly like the Lakers of last year were feared to do - I don't think so, these playoffs will be a battle and teams like the Spurs and Pistons will be right there at the end, the only potential confounder is a lights out shooting streak by the Mavs or Sonics in my view.
Most probable team to get upset first round in my view = Suns! Watch closely they are not as dominant recently and as the game slows in playoff adios.
Again, how exactly is going with the last 5 champions "cherry-picking" anything. It's looking at the most recent data available. It's objective, historical data run through your very own criteria.
That the results tend to disagree with your theory provides no meaningful basis for questioning the validity of those results.
I'd gladly engage you over the long haul, too -- you'll obviously have to change the criteria used to undertake the analysis before, say, 1999 (since true Western dominance has been with us only really since 1999). There are other questions, though. If you want to go back more than 20 years, when only 6 teams or fewer made the playoffs in each conference, how would you decide which teams to count? Also, you have made no small point of your disdain for the current state of Eastern Conference basketball, but how do you apply that kind of wholly subjective criteria to other years -- do you not count the bottom 4 in the West between, say, 1988 and 1993? Until you can give me clear criteria that comport with your subjective definition of "good teams," I can't do much to give you any answers.
"could raise their game arguebly like the Lakers of last year"
I don't think the Lakers "raised their game" vs Spurs. They simply, belatedly shutdown the paint (Tim and Tony), which I do give them credit for executing, since not all teams could do it, and the Spurs collapsed, team and coaches, totally unpredictably, riding a 17-game win streak at the point of collapse. ie, it was more the Spurs failure rather the the Lakers "raising" anything the Spurs couldn't beat had they maintained the win streak excellence, and they couldn't beat the Lakers @Staples.
Last edited by boutons; 02-17-2005 at 09:11 PM.
They changed their strategy and played more physical defense and played with more effort than in the 1st two games. Whatever you want to call it, boutons. Give them some credit for coming back hard at the Spurs with a sense of urgency. The Spurs were averaging 43 ppg in the paint in the 1st two games and they averaged 26 ppg in the last four games. It takes effort to play strong D and contest shots. Give the Lakers credit.
I give LAL as little credit as possible, but they did execute the "no paint" very well, esp in the face of SA's total non-response.
And as I said Sunday, it's very worrisome that Heat killed the Spurs in the paint, 48 - 34, not exactly the same as LA tactic, but is a bad indicator about the vulnerability of these Spurs to anybody who really defends the paint well.
That's why you have to have guys that can move, pass, and most importantly - hit shots.
The Heat now with Shaq and Mourning may always slightly dominate in paint, that is why our strategy should begin and end with stopping Wade and Jones, shut them down give Shaq his points = win.
It was Wade that won game. Also, the differential was increased by the fact Duncan was hurt, Rose did not play, Rasho was cold etc.
Also, how are points in the paint calculated Tim got a lot of FTS from being clobbered ni paint and would have scored?
"got a lot of FTS from being clobbered ni paint and would have scored"
Exactly the same situation for Shaq. He got 16 pts on FGs (Heat had 48 paint points, so SA's paint defense was horrendous) and then 11/19 FTs.
btw, Mourning is not on the NBA player roster. When is he supposed to sign with Heat? It is sure he feels healthy enough to play through the toughest part of the season and playoffs?
You make fair points, but the truth is that the Heat game is the only game that the Spurs have layed an effort egg vs. the true top seeds in awhile and Duncan was hurting.
Who knows the impact of Mourning, or if the Pistons will knock them out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
