Top notch Stuff TIMVP..
i'm not as optimistic. i don't believe the sample size is legitimate. the spurs probably have one of the easiest schedule so far. all these games against under .500 teams and games at home obviously skew the statistics to the spurs' favor. the spurs have a long climb ahead of them. they will improve but the degree of difficult will also increase.
From that comment it sounds like only 82 games would be a sufficient amount of gmaes played to gauge the teams progress!
While the fact that difficulty of schedule (or lack thereof) is a mitigating factor, I think the OP did a great job addressing that as well.
He didn't say, "Expect Number 5. Book it", but rather that Number 5 is a possibility. And that, I think, is a fair assessment.
I've come to realize that the opposing camps of optimists vs pessimists are usually both right - at least to some degree.
All of you who want to complain and demand perfection, keep on doing it. I'm sure Pop, Timmy and Manu appreciate the critiques and take your ideas to heart as they read this board.
PPG is actually what I meant, thank you for pointing that out.....
OPP FG% will go down when it matters. Mark it down. Thatīs why Pop has his topsecret weapon on the bench until itīs time to unleash him.
Theo!
But it can also be misleading. Pop is known for not showing his entire hand during regular season matchups with potential playoff opponents. Not saying that it's definitely the case this year vs. above .500 teams, but it's safe to say he takes a lot more away from those games than just W's and L's.
Itīs also important to note that these numbers take into consideration the first 10/15 games of the season when both Finley and Bonner were part of the starting 5.
I think numbers show Pop realized at some point (probably the 2008 WCF) that with the current set of rules, defense alone would not get it done, like in previous years.
The thing with this team is: Can we stay healthy? That's concern number one.
The second question is wether we can take it up another notch during the playoffs. Last season's team, after Manu went down, played some decent basketball for the rest of the season (a 50+ wins season is always a good season). But when the playoffs came around, they couldn't take it to the next level (with the exception of TP, which was not nearly enough).
Looking at those numbers I see we're slowly improving defensively from last season, and that's a must if we want to get far. I think if we can match the defensive output from 2008 (a pretty modest output, if you look at the charts), without Bowen and with our newly improved offense, we'll have as good chances as everybody out there.
so far they are good for 1 round of the playoffs. that's all
eFG% is a better metric than FG%.
Last season the Spurs were very bad, considering their record in past years, defending the 3 pt line, allowing an opponent 3ptFG% of 37.9% (23th in the league). This season they've improved significantly and are allowing a 33.7% (good for 9th in the league). Curiously, the Spurs opponent shooting selection is basically identical, with the % of shots at the rim increasing from 30% to 31%, meaning that the improvement isn't more significant due to opponents hitting 2pt jump-shots more efficiently, which is a good sign in my book (to me you start building a defence by taking away the 3pt shot and the close shot from your opponent).
The conservative Spurs defence never over-relied on forcing turnovers, but they've been very bad in this aspect of the game in the last couple of years, ranking at the bottom of the league and that will be an aspect they'll have to improve if they want to regain the defensive success they achieved in the past.
I wouldn't be worried about the schedule. The Spurs rank fourth in SRS (a rating that takes in account point differential and strength of schedule) which is pretty good.
TIMVP, I'd suggest you to chart the 8 factors that win basketball games:
eFG%, Turnover rate, OR% and FTA/FGA for offence and defence.
Great stuff.
Point differential per 100 possessions IMHO is the most telling stat.
2005 and 2007 teams were really dominating. This year, though the Spurs improved compared to previous two seasons. They haven't reached the same level.
Let's hope they improve.
I have always thought that the most telling statistic of a team's performance might be points per possession, with a possession being defined as an attempted trip down court.
In other words, a turnover while dribbling towards half court would count as a possession, but an offensive rebound would NOT give the team a new possession, it would count as part of the previous possession. This would allow both teams to basically get the same number of possessions per game and normalize for pace.
Using this definition for points per possession accounts for foul shoots, three pointers, and fg% defense and effeciency. The goal of EVERY team should be to maximize its points per possession, and minimize its opponents. I'm sure some is/does look at this. It's similar to using point differential, but with less variation due to blowout wins/losses.
I agree, but you can't really expect there to be a similar point differential because Duncan and Manu aren't capable of playing the amount of minutes that they did during previous championship years. I don't really expect point differential to be as telling as it was previously.
I'm always a little cautious when it comes to compare stats from different years because the league change.
For example in 03-04, the league average points per 100 possessions were 102.9 with 6 teams allowing less then 100 points per 100 possessions. In 04-05, the league changed the hand checking rule and the league average points per 100 possessions were 106.1 with only 1 team allowing less then 100 points per 100 possessions.
The NBA is for the moment more in a high scoring period. Last year, the league average points per 100 possessions was 108.3 with the best defensive team allowing 101.9 points per 100 possessions. Spurs' fall in defensive efficiency isn't as big as it seems. Spurs aren't a top 3 defensive team but they aren't that far.
Funny you post that because I was just adding in the league averages into the points per possession graph. Here are the results:
Pretty interesting results.
-The big jump from 2004 to 2005 was a universal jump for the whole NBA. However, the Spurs were able to go from below average scoring team to easily above average.
-The teams from the last two years look even less impressive. The offense stayed almost exactly on the league average.
-The 2007 team's defense stayed about the same from 2006 once you factor in the league average. The offense getting much better was the difference.
-The 1999 team's offense got just barely better from the year before but considering that the league dropped hugely between the two years, the improvement was much more drastic than it appeared originally.
-That this year's team is better offensively can't be reasoned away due to changes in the NBA. That said, it makes the defensive improvement from last year look not as impressive.
^ so this is good right ?
Timvp, a suggestion on changing your graphing style. Rather than a 3 line chart (League Average PTS scored, PTS scored, PTS against), normalize around a zero value, with 2 lines (PTS Scored - League Average and PTS Against - League Average). This will allow Bruno's comparison between rule changes point, while keeping simplicity...
If the Spurs can elevate their game to the degree that Spurstalk has, in the last few days, then we are going to be in great shape. I truly am grateful for this meaningful dialogue going on here. Tonight will indeed be a big test to see where we stand. Boards will be huge determining factor for us. Again, as a dedicated Spurs fan many years, thanks timvp and the rest of you for your insight.
I don't think you can compare the numbers in general anyways..I think it's better to look at the rankings, even though that's flawed as well..B-R has our D as #9 in pp100, which is pretty good, especially compared to our previous ranking..
Points allowed in the paint is a discouraging stat for our Spurs though..this is by far the worst ranking we've ever had in that regard during the Duncan era..I don't think we have the tools to get better here though..
For all of this statistical grasping at straws and hair-splitting, we still can't beat good teams. And, let's face it, the Mavs have crawled inside our skulls big time. They own us at this point. We can't turn the corner on these dudes.
It's interesting and it would actually make sense, if the season ended after 82 games.
The only conclusions you can draw are that (i) Spurs win big against bad teams (unlike the two last years), and (ii) there are more players contributing to offense in a given night.
Those are positives, presumably because you can rest the only players that will get you the win against playeoffs teams.
However, the only stat that really matters -even from the mental point of view- is how well you do against contenders, and so far this is not very good.
The sampling, however, is too scant.
Boston 0-1.
Denver 0-1.
Dallas is not a contender and Portland is not a contender anymore.
No games against LA, Orlando, Cleveland yet.
I will hold my judgement untill 4-5 games with these teams are played.
PS. The defense stats are highly flawed, in a positive way, by the absence of Bonner and Finley lately.
With about 40% of the schedule by the wayside, the sample size is large enough to start analyzing how this year's Spurs team historically compares to the rest of the squads in the Tim Duncan Era. There's still a lot of season left but we can get a decent idea about what type of team we're watching this season.
This first graph has Pop's favorite stat: field goal percentage allowed. I also included offensive field goal percentage to compare.
As you can see, the field goal percentage allowed is a far cry from earlier in the TD Era but it there is at least an improvement from last season. Offensively, there has been a huge improvement -- to the point that this year's team shoots much better than any other team Duncan has played on.
This next graph looks at field goal percentage differential (field goal percentage allowed minus offensive field goal percentage):
This is a very promising graph. Currently, the differential is higher than any championship team since the 1999 squad. It also illustrates a big improvement from the last two seasons.
To look at it differently, here is points per game and points per game allowed:
This graph isn't as pretty as the two above. Even though the Spurs are holding teams to a lower field goal percentage, they are giving up more points. While the offense has improved, it is partially negated by the decline of the defense.
Here is the point differential throughout the years:
Again, this shows improvement for the Spurs over the last two seasons -- but there is still a ways to go to reach the level of the last two championship teams.
Since the above offensive numbers are impacted by pace, here's a look at more advanced stats: points scored per 100 possessions and points allowed per 100 possessions. This normalizes the pace across the era to make it a more even playing field prior to the comparison.
This graph shows that while the Spurs are giving up more points than last year, they are giving up fewer points per possession. In other words, the faster pace this team is playing at is masking their defensive improvements.
This final graph shows points scored per 100 possessions minus points allowed per 100 possessions:
When pace is normalized, it appears that the Spurs aren't quite as good as their field goal shooting makes it seem yet they aren't as bad as the points per game comparison. This middle ground is probably the most accurate picture of this year's team so far.
Conclusions
1. This team's offense is really good. All the above graphs show that this team is the best scoring team of the Tim Duncan Era. Considering the turnover issues we've witnessed, the slow start by a number of key players and the offseason overhaul, this has to be both surprising and exciting. What happens if this team continues to gel and becomes a well-oiled machine? In theory, the rest of the NBA should take heed.
2. The defense still isn't at a championship level, however it's safe to say that this year's team is a better defensive team than last year's team. Almost every year, the Spurs get much better at the defensive end in the second half of the year. If that happens again this season, perhaps they can get close to the level of defensive played by the 2007 team. Unlikely but it is at least a goal to aim toward.
3. Offense is important to the Spurs winning champions. Yes, defense is the most important, but the offensive improvements from 2004 to 2005 and 2006 to 2007 were huge reasons why those two teams won rings. If you look at the charts, the Spurs do well when they improve their offense year-over-year without losing too much of the defensive end. This season, such an outcome is possible.
4. That 2004 team sure was a weird one. They were very good at defense but they were almost equally as bad on offense. Looking at the charts, it's not too surprising that the reason that team lost was due to an inability to score when it counted.
5. The 2008 and 2009 Spurs teams were pretty damn bad. Compared to the 2007 team, the Spurs lost huge ground on the defensive end and weren't as good offensively either. By comparison, this year's team at least seems headed back in the right direction.
Caveats
A. The Spurs are undeniably fragile. Duncan broke down last season. Ginobili has broken down the last two seasons. If the Spurs lose the battle against the injury bug, the numbers can quickly start heading the wrong way.
B. The schedule has been extremely easy so far. In fact, Jeff Sagarin's schedule rating system indicates that the Spurs have played the second easiest schedule in the entire NBA. They've played 20 home games to only 13 road games -- and most of the contests have been against bad teams. This is important to note because the surge the Spurs usually experience in the second half of the season may be negated by the tougher schedule. If that happens, the theoretically improvements in the above stats may not occur.
Bottomline
Despite the rugged start and the uneven play, there is legit reason to honestly say number five is possible. The road will be treacherous and the obstacles will be many, however the current status of the Spurs is one containing silver linings aplenty.
Believe.
Could a chart be made showing how we currently are vs +.500 teams vs how we were after 35 games in other years?
I'd just like to compare with this chart.
The easy schedule the Spurs have had so far i fear is very telling. I think this years Spurs would have the worst record in the Duncan era vs +.500 teams so far. Don't count his injury year silly gooses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
