Reply With Quote
Another reason not to become an ESPN Insider ...
So we are lucky.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-good-fortune
It's the summer of 2010, and it looks like the San Antonio Spurs' dynasty era is winding down. Coming off of an uncharacteristically mortal-looking 50-32 regular season, San Antonio ousted the Mavericks in the first round of the playoffs but were subsequently swept aside by the Suns, a team whose number they've traditionally had in the postseason. Worse yet, shrewd acquisitions like drafting Manu Ginobili 57th overall and signing Bruce Bowen from the scrap heap have been replaced by head-scratching moves, such as givingRichard Jefferson a $40 million extension. Nothing great can last forever, and the Spurs seem to be intent on proving that as their best days are fading further into the rearview mirror.
That's what most analysts were saying three years ago -- and who could blame them? But fast-forward to today, and the Spurs are sitting atop the Western Conference standings once again, a place they've occupied the last three seasons. And if anything, they seem to be getting stronger as more time has passed since the seeming crossroads they faced in 2010. Rather than a sign of trouble to come, or even the new normal, their aberrant 50-win 2009-10 campaign looks more and more like merely a flukish down year from one of the league's best clubs.
However, there is some evidence that the San Antonio narrative -- which seemed to be building back in 2010 (namely, that the team's true quality has in fact declined from the peak of Tim Duncan's heyday) -- wasn't 100 percent off the mark. Casual observers might point to the Spurs' stunning first-round loss to Memphis in 2011 and their collapse from a 2-0 lead against Oklahoma City a year ago as evidence, but there's even stronger underlying support for this hypothesis if you use a technique to identify teams that have been playing above their heads due to "luck."
To read more on the "luckiest" teams in the NBA and how sustainable their good fortune is, become an Insider today.
Another reason not to become an ESPN Insider ...
No joke!
Spurs fans are lucky but the success of the Spurs only had one luck factor and that were those ping pong balls that gave us TD21.
from the article: "That makes the Warriors the league's fourth-luckiest team this season (Brooklyn is third and the Clippers rank second), but even they haven't been as fortunate as the Spurs, who rank first with an estimated 8.8 more wins than they deserve due to luck. Some of that has been under the au es of schedule strength and Pythagoras, but mainly it's because of career years -- they've gotten unexpectedly great seasons from Tony Parker (adding 3.4 more wins than expected), Duncan (2.8 more wins), Boris Diaw (2.4 more wins) and Tiago Splitter (1.9 more wins), to name a few. Further, 8.2 of San Antonio's excess wins are due to players performing at a higher level than could have been foreseen based on their ages and established levels of play."
so we're lucky because our players are playing better than expected. In other words, we're lucky that our guys are playing well.
Okay.
i wonder if this is the same guy who "discovered the 'kobe assist'"
That isn't luck; that's a testament to the hard work the players put in, the coaching staff that works with them, and the world-class training facilities of a first-class organization.
When they said "lucky," I was expecting something along the lines of how well they perform in close games, since "clutch" is really just "luck" according to advanced statistics.
There's not doubt luck is a huge part of the Spurs continued success. Two #1 picks who became all time greats at their position? Not only is there luck involved in getting a #1, but even more in getting a #1 pick in a draft where there is hall of fame talent at the top.
Everyone knows what a crapshoot the 2nd round of the draft is, to get a player of Ginobilis quality at 57 is undoubtedly lucky.
yeah, i mean, if he said, "the spurs have won 9 of 10 close games they've played," then I'd say yes that is slightly lucky. But this is just kind of prideful and silly. "They're outperforming our projections, so they're lucky." I don't think anyone expected Duncan to do what he's doing this year, but it's not luck. It's hard work, rehab, maybe even procedures or PEDs, for all we know. But luck is such a weird word to use. What about Kobe? He's having an above average year for his standards, and the lakers would be sunk if he was having a normal kobe year. Why not say they're lucky to even be in the race?
I bet Lebron and Durant are outperforming projections. The difference is they're younger and so you can say, "Well they're just better than we thought," but since the old guys are having above average years it is "luck." it would make more sense to say, "This production is unlikely reproducible," which he does in fact say, although it is not the thrust of his article.
BSPN is a joke anyway
Neil Payne is usually good but that's one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen. I don't think "lucky" is the term that fits his model. "Lucky" in the NBA would be a team that wins a lot of close games or has a great record with a poor point differential (like the Warriors who are 39-30 despite hovering around a 0 point differential all season).
The Spurs are "lucky" because Parker, Duncan, Diaw (?!?!) and Splitter have been a lot better than expected? So because Parker keeps working on his game year in and year out, Duncan works all summer prepping his knee, Diaw actually tries now that he's not on the worst team in the league and Splitter has blossomed in the starting lineup, the Spurs are "lucky"? Yeah, no, that makes no sense.
If Payne wants to say the Spurs have "maximized their talents" more than any team in the league, that would make a lot more sense. I suspect using the term "lucky" is just an ESPN troll job for Insider page views.
Is the basis for concluding that a player has added more wins than expected in this piece derived from Hollinger's estimated wins added number or from win shares or from something else?
This is what happens when people with no common sense think the success of the MIT Sloan Conference means they can boil down everything to statistical analysis.
Fail.
A better way of putting it is that the Spurs are the best "do more with less" team in the league. I think this has been true throughout the Duncan era.
By contrast, I would say the Lakers take the "do more with more" crown given the embarrassing amount of talent (players and Phil Jackson) they have had, along with no payroll limitations.
I'm still thinking about the "do less with more" winner. For the early to mid 2000s, it would have to go to one of the Mavs, Blazers, or Knicks, each of which perennially underachieved despite huge payrolls. That or the pre-CP3 Clippers, who squandered a lot of lottery picks and even the ones they nailed would leave after their rookie contracts.
"Do less with less" easily goes to the recent Bobcats.
lolwut?
This. I think the term 'luck' is insulting.
Yeah, that has nothing to do with "luck." All that says is that the forecasting models for players are woefully incomplete and inadequate.
Inspiring your players to work hard and improve isn't luck. What a wad.
And what is unluckiest team ? Lakers ? Kobe is missing 2nd straight game, and they ing sucks. That`s unlucky to me.
Stupid. article. Luck plays such an isignificant part of basketball. This ain't baseball, where you argue luck plays a huge factor.
ter McGee
What in theThat makes the Warriors the league's fourth-luckiest team this season (Brooklyn is third and the Clippers rank second), but even they haven't been as fortunate as the Spurs, who rank first with an estimated 8.8 more wins than they deserve due to luck
I like the idea, but saying that players playing above expectations due to "luck" is insulting. We get punished in his formula because of the career year thing. I guess you could call it lucky that Parker and Duncan are having better years than last year, but Splitter, Green, and Diaw are playing better due to more minutes/more experience/continuity imo. He is saying that we're lucky because some players are better than expected, not because we're pulling out lucky wins. That's kind of dumb imo, but w/e.
What a ing terrible article. Perhaps they are performing better than expected because they work hard and play as a team.
I don't think Duncan's resurgence is due to plain ole luck, maybe Duncan had something to do with it himself?
Now that I think about it more, I see what happened. Some stats people at ESPN came up with projections before (and probably during) the season as to how each player would produce and aggregated all that to make team projections. They then took a snapshot today or yesterday and compared how each team has done to what the model projected. The model predicted an average record of 42.2-24.8 for the Spurs at this point, so 51-16 is "overachieving" by 8.8 games.
Still, to call that "luck" is asinine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
