Under the Radar

[greyforest]

No one thinks about the Spurs until their team gets the systematic, fundamental asswhooping that Timmy & Co provide. Immediately following that they a while about flopping/boredom/dirty and forget soon after.

I call it the Spurs cycle.

[migol]

I'm kinda new here so i'm not sure how this board feels about advanced stats (i'm obviously somewhat partial to them lol) but I will say that in Miami's defense they are stronger than their record indicates.

SRS is historically a very good measure of team strength, even better than win/loss record. As an example, in 2007 we had 58 wins which was the 3rd best record in the league behind the 67 win Mavs and the 61 win Suns. Our margin of victory/point differential was actually that of a 64 win team while the 67 win Mavs actually only had the margin of victory/point differential of a 61 team. It also takes into account strength of schedule and strength of teams won/lost to (pretty sure on that 2nd part anyway).

As a result, in 2007 we were actually rated the strongest team in the NBA over the Mavs and Suns according to SRS despite have the worst win/loss record of the 3 teams. The playoffs that year displayed for everyone what SRS had already shown.

I said all of that to say that currently Miami is first in SRS, slightly ahead of New Orleans who is in turn a little ahead of us. While they have 5 losses, their margin of victory in their wins (typically blowouts) offsets their losses (which were closer games) to the point where they are actually quite a strong team statistically. It is early so the sample size is small...the stat tightens up as the season goes along and injuries can certainly skew its accuracy, but its still a solid advanced stat to look at to get an overall view of a teams performance since straight up win/loss record can be deceiving.

Yeah, but no. I agree to some extent but even the margin of victory is not at all together accurate. And that 2007 reference when the Spurs won, was about the last time that this "measuring tool" (if you can call it that) was right. Look at the last 3 or so years, and I don't think it has been consistent determining who the better team was. Last year the Cavaliers had the best margin of victory while they were blowing teams out left and right, along with having the best record. That didn't serve them any good.

Even back in 2008 when Celtics and Lakers faced off, the Lakers had a better margin of victory. I think the year after that in 2009, it was the Cavaliers again with the best SOS, SRS or margin of victory.

Now this year, with the Heat, the only teams they've been blowing out are the scrubs. With even a few of those losses coming to them. I'm just saying that their margin of victory isn't even indicative in this case for the Heat. I'm not convinced by them just yet.

I will agree like others have said that once we're midway into the season, that is when the Heat might definitely be on a roll. But for now, despite them having a huge margin of victory is not indicative of how good they are.

[mathbzh]

And that 2007 reference when the Spurs won, was about the last time that this "measuring tool" (if you can call it that) was right.

And in 2007 Dallas was 0-3 vs. GSW in the regular season.
Looking at statistics, people tend to forget how teams match up.

As of now Miami looks like a team with glaring weakness inside.
They will blow out any team that can't exploit that weakness but are very vulnerable to teams with quality bigs.

[EricB]

Its November.

The whole league is under the radar.

[dn0774]

Yeah, but no. I agree to some extent but even the margin of victory is not at all together accurate. And that 2007 reference when the Spurs won, was about the last time that this "measuring tool" (if you can call it that) was right. Look at the last 3 or so years, and I don't think it has been consistent determining who the better team was. Last year the Cavaliers had the best margin of victory while they were blowing teams out left and right, along with having the best record. That didn't serve them any good.

Even back in 2008 when Celtics and Lakers faced off, the Lakers had a better margin of victory. I think the year after that in 2009, it was the Cavaliers again with the best SOS, SRS or margin of victory.

Now this year, with the Heat, the only teams they've been blowing out are the scrubs. With even a few of those losses coming to them. I'm just saying that their margin of victory isn't even indicative in this case for the Heat. I'm not convinced by them just yet.

I will agree like others have said that once we're midway into the season, that is when the Heat might definitely be on a roll. But for now, despite them having a huge margin of victory is not indicative of how good they are.

Margin of victory =/= SRS, it is just a component that is taken into consideration of the stat.

In '08 the Celtics were 1st and the Lakers were 2nd in SRS. I am not claiming to stand by the stat as gospel, I am simply saying it can be more indicative of team performance than a simple win/loss record. Miami has their issues that need to be worked on and I don't think they will win the championship this season due to their frontcourt. They are a tougher team than what their record currently shows and they will win a lot of games this season if they stay somewhat healthy.

The Cavs of the last 2 seasons, while doing great in SRS, were much better regular season teams than playoff teams obviously (reminiscent of mid-'90s Spurs teams in many ways imo). Lebron is an incredible player and talent but his style of play is easier to neutralize in the playoffs. When you play against the same team up to 7 times in 2 weeks it becomes a meta-game of adjustments in conjunction to basketball.

[Thompson]

Jalen has no real insight on basketball.

The picture in your sig is hilarious.

[Trill Clinton]

Who cares? Flying under the radar is better than being in the limelight.

[99-03-05-07]

Who cares? Flying under the radar is better than being in the limelight.

we have always been a team that flys under the radar

[Cry Havoc]

The problem with Miami is that they are a donut team. Their bigs are junk. You don't even need great bigs to beat them, just a couple of good ones. They're going to get worked on the boards regularly, putting even more pressure on shooters that are not knockdown shooters like LeBron and Wade.

Yeah, not having good bigs really stopped the Bulls from winning les.

[mathbzh]

Margin of victory =/= SRS, it is just a component that is taken into consideration of the stat.

In '08 the Celtics were 1st and the Lakers were 2nd in SRS. I am not claiming to stand by the stat as gospel, I am simply saying it can be more indicative of team performance than a simple win/loss record.

My problem with that is that they also had the best win/loss record in their respective conference.

Now let say you want to predict playoff (2007-2008) results from SRS or W/L:

Boston vs. LA: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston

Boston vs Detroit: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston
LA vs Spurs: LA - SRS: LA - W/L: LA

Boston vs Cavs: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston
Detroit vs Orlando: Detroit - SRS Detroit - W/L Detroit
Lakers vs Jazz: Lakers - SRS Lakers - W/L Lakers
Spurs Hornets: Spurs - SRS Hornets - W-L: Draw

For the first round, all results are correctly predicted by SRS and W/L record but:

Spurs vs. Suns: Spurs - SRS: Suns - W/L: Spurs
Utah vs. Houston: Utah- SRS - Utah - W/L: Rocket.

No evidence here that the SRS is a better predictor than the W/L. Most time, SRS and W/L give the same (and correct) results. When there is a difference, the SRS and W/L records for both team are really close.

[migol]

Margin of victory =/= SRS, it is just a component that is taken into consideration of the stat.

In '08 the Celtics were 1st and the Lakers were 2nd in SRS. I am not claiming to stand by the stat as gospel, I am simply saying it can be more indicative of team performance than a simple win/loss record. Miami has their issues that need to be worked on and I don't think they will win the championship this season due to their frontcourt. They are a tougher team than what their record currently shows and they will win a lot of games this season if they stay somewhat healthy.

The Cavs of the last 2 seasons, while doing great in SRS, were much better regular season teams than playoff teams obviously (reminiscent of mid-'90s Spurs teams in many ways imo). Lebron is an incredible player and talent but his style of play is easier to neutralize in the playoffs. When you play against the same team up to 7 times in 2 weeks it becomes a meta-game of adjustments in conjunction to basketball.

There was a bit of misinformation on my part when I made that post. I was assuming you were using Hollinger's ranking system from ESPN. That's why I was thinking that you were basing on margin of victory and also the reason why I said the Cavaliers were ranked #1 in 2008, but I think I'm wrong about that too.

I see what you are saying though. I definitely wouldn't consider the Heat a mediocre team.

[migol]

Yeah, not having good bigs really stopped the Bulls from winning les.

But they did have Dennis Rodman.... and he was something else. So I too think bigs are crucial to winning les, unless of course you have Dennis Rodman.

[Cry Havoc]

My problem with that is that they also had the best win/loss record in their respective conference.

Now let say you want to predict playoff (2007-2008) results from SRS or W/L:

Boston vs. LA: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston

Boston vs Detroit: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston
LA vs Spurs: LA - SRS: LA - W/L: LA

Boston vs Cavs: Boston - SRS: Boston - W/L: Boston
Detroit vs Orlando: Detroit - SRS Detroit - W/L Detroit
Lakers vs Jazz: Lakers - SRS Lakers - W/L Lakers
Spurs Hornets: Spurs - SRS Hornets - W-L: Draw

For the first round, all results are correctly predicted by SRS and W/L record but:

Spurs vs. Suns: Spurs - SRS: Suns - W/L: Spurs
Utah vs. Houston: Utah- SRS - Utah - W/L: Rocket.

No evidence here that the SRS is a better predictor than the W/L. Most time, SRS and W/L give the same (and correct) results. When there is a difference, the SRS and W/L records for both team are really close.

Your sample size is far too small, mathbzh. I'm fairly certain SRS gives a better indication of a better team than W/L, because games that are won by 2-3 points can go either way with a lucky long rebound or 28 foot three-pointer.

All the years the Spurs were winning les, they were among the best in winning margin, even though they didn't necessarily have the #1 seed. In fact, we've never won a le as the #1 seed in the West except for 1999, if memory serves.

But they did have Dennis Rodman.... and he was something else. So I too think bigs are crucial to winning les, unless of course you have Dennis Rodman.

Not for the first three.

[Leonard Curse]

Jalen rose says spurs arent contenders. just sayin

did you notice how many times he said it to make his point and then the other night he stopped saying it so he can back out of that one hahaha loser as a player now as a n analyst. this is the best way our team wins championships its under the radar, but i think even if we werent the spurs just look that good

[BlairForceDejuan]

#2 Stein, #3 Hollinger, #1 NBA.com

And the Tiago muscle hasn't even been flexed yet.

[dn0774]

One thing I will add about SRS: I don't really use the stat by itself to replace win/loss record or anything, I prefer to use them in conjunction with each other.

Typically a teams win/loss ranking and SRS ranking will be within a spot or 2 of each other (using the 30 team ranking). When they are not is when I usually like to take a closer look and give that consideration when going into the playoffs.

Say if a team wins 65 games but according to their SRS they were closer to that of a 56 win team that tells me they likely overachieved and aren't necessarily as strong as their win/loss record would indicate. The opposite is true as well as was the case in 2007 when the Spurs won 58 games but were 1st in SRS and we statistically resembled a 64 win team.

Assuming all things are equal (namely schedule difficulty), which team would be stronger:

Team A goes 19-1 with an avg margin of victory of 4 pts/game and their only loss was by 15 pts

Team B goes 16-4 with an avg margin of victory of 18 pts/game and avg margin of defeat of 2 pts/game

In a head to head series i'd pick Team B to win handily despite the worse win/loss record. Of course their are other considerations as well such as match-ups/prior history between the teams/injuries/etc...the example I gave is a crude version of it for sake of simplicity.

[migol]

Not for the first three.

either way, i think teams are still more than likely to win les with at least one solid big.

the bulls are the exception.... and you can probably name a few other teams but it is still rare. no team since the 90s bulls have ever won a championship without a big. i'm not saying it's impossible, but it is more unlikely to win without one.

[dn0774]

The Bulls winning so many les without a dominant big was very surprising. They did have Rodman of course but he missed a lot of games in '95-96 and '96-97 but the Bulls didn't skip a beat. Granted that is much easier to cover up in the regular season. Their first 3-peat Horace Grant was solid but still nothing spectacular imo.

The fact that Michael and Scottie were both elite rebounders for their positions really helped mask their lack of quality bigs. I am more surprised that they built a dynasty without a true defensive anchor (ala Robinson/Mourning/Duncan, heck even a Mutombo). I consider that to be an almost essential component of winning a championship in the modern era but they managed it 6 times lol.

Perhaps with their perimeter defenders being so strong individually and capable of preventing penetration before it happens that would explain why they managed so well without having an anchor which is usually needed to cover up weak pg/wing defenders.

[TVI]

Bosh is too good to be playing this anemic. I think it's probably the coaching that hasn't been utilizing him to his strenths rather than force him to be a player he isn't.

You mean like asking him to actually work when he just wants to "chill?"

[Cry Havoc]

The fact that Michael and Scottie were both elite rebounders for their positions really helped mask their lack of quality bigs. I am more surprised that they built a dynasty without a true defensive anchor (ala Robinson/Mourning/Duncan, heck even a Mutombo). I consider that to be an almost essential component of winning a championship in the modern era but they managed it 6 times lol.

This is exactly the argument you could make for the Heat right now. Once they find their rhythm, they should be able to rebound extremely well given their lack of quality bigs, even with Haslem out.

[migol]

This is exactly the argument you could make for the Heat right now. Once they find their rhythm, they should be able to rebound extremely well given their lack of quality bigs, even with Haslem out.

That's very true. Bosh and James are very good rebounders, but I hope the trends continue working against them. Or not, would like to see the compe ion get more tense as the season goes. I want the Spurs to finally compete in a season where the Lakers and Celtics are contenders (that's the best 3 franchises in league history, mind you). Adding the Heat to the mix makes it more interesting.

By the way, speaking of under the radar, ESPN has the Spurs ranked at #2 on both Stein's and Hollinger's rankings. So maybe they're not so "under the radar" as much as they were.

[mathbzh]

Your sample size is far too small, mathbzh.

Actually this is just what I was trying to show. That you can't just say SRS is a good indicator because Boston and LA were #1 and #2.
So, we agree.
I guess you are right and the SRS is a better indicator of future success. But I never saw anywhere a demonstration of that (with good enough statistics). It probably exists... somewhere

Moreover, while your logic about close games sounds correct, the fact than a better W-L record can give you HCA may also have some influence on the prediction.

[DJ Mbenga]

kind of hard to remain under the radar with an olrando game coming up. after that we shall see

[Kuestmaster]

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime

Well, we just beat the magic and espn daily dime only give us 4 short lines. I think they won't take us seriously until we beat the lakers or the heat.

ing amazing that after defeating the team with the best record in the east and putting us alone in the top of the nba, espn prefer to talk about kobe-thibodeau connection

[024]

i doubt any of the analysts had bothered to watch a spurs game this early in the season.