Reply With Quote
We arent doing chit for the first 15 games or so.
We have to figure out team chemistry. LBJ at Miami first half season sucked. LBJ at cleveland first half season sucked.
We will be making late runs, but i dont see a complete dominating season
Advanced stats don't predict anything. Stats are NOT predictive. Rather, a model using advanced stats as input projected the Spurs at that range. There's a critical difference there, and it affects the strength of the argument.
We arent doing chit for the first 15 games or so.
We have to figure out team chemistry. LBJ at Miami first half season sucked. LBJ at cleveland first half season sucked.
We will be making late runs, but i dont see a complete dominating season
It's a weird grudge but as soon as talk began of Warriors being this all time great team based on their numbers/blowing out so many opponents I can't help being a little bitter about Pop "sabotaging" these emphatic victories sometimes.
Especially notable in our last championship season where even before half time or definitely in the 3rd period our leads were well on their way to absurd and Pop either starts some experiment messing with the most effective lineups (or put someone like Ayres in early) or just rest everyone.
It's kind of who cares but advanced stats and analytics is what will determine legacies in the future and I don't want Spurs to be in any way short changed. I think the 13-14 team could have done very similar to the Warriors if not better.
Of course advanced stats-guys will hopefully look a little deeper and see the impact of the best Spurs lineups and more judge us that way.
Most posters saying high 50's? Where? All Ive read so far are atleast 60
How so? Please elaborate.
That was the general consensus in the threads that came out immediately following the Aldridge signing.
There are a few posters in this thread saying that too.
Models contain bias, just like advanced stats do but to a higher degree. The modelers have to decide which constants to add to the equations. So stats aren't predicting the Spurs to do anything; rather it's someone's opinion that the numbers the players put up last season can carry over to this season, and those numbers when weighed they way that someone thinks is best lead them to assert the Spurs will win 60-plus games.
That doesn't make the model wrong. But it's not "just math" like plus-minus is. It's very open to criticism and dismissal, because it's subjective just like whatever Chuck says.
I don't know how anyone could come to a different conclusion. Even if you don't adjust squat from last year's squad this year's group is better. You've added a new #1 option. Anyone who thinks Kawhi will be the #1 option on offense is delusional. He'll get his for sure, but LA is a proven #1. Also, I think deep down we all think KL would make a great #2 offensive option on a championship caliber team. Jury is definitely out as to whether a team with him as the #1 option is Championship caliber. Doesn't matter any more. I think the base is 60 wins. Depending on how some of the new role players pan out will go a long way towards how many games above that they will go.
I don't think the Spurs are built to win that many games at this point. Too many guys needing rest. The goal is to win just enough to be in top 4. We just missed last year, but should get it this year.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Of course you're right that models have an element of subjectivity to them. Not all statistical models are made equal, and some are better than others in terms of predictive success.
But what's noteworthy about the two models I linked to is that they were based on real plus-minus, one of the more robust statistics in basketball with a high degree of predictive power. Neil Paine and Kevin Pelton are also two of the foremost names in the industry.
I'm not saying their models are perfect. Far from it. But there's good reason to believe in the reliability of their projections.
Also: I think you're putting too much stock in my thread le. I only phrased it that way to make it read like an attention-grabbing headline. Obviously, such things, by their nature, are not attentive to the nuances of semantics.
Last edited by Uriel; 07-28-2015 at 11:47 AM.
It's not that I think they all will win 60 games, just that considering how the West playoff race turned out last year it's not unreasonable to think the Rockets and Clips could make a solid run at 60. The Rockets certainly didn't get any worse, and they finished the last month of the regular season without Beverley.
Good point, but I think you might be overestimating how good the Western Conference is. Last year's #2 seed, Houston, won only 56 games. The Clippers, the #3 seed, won 55.
While it's true the West has gotten better, I don't think our compe ion has improved to the point where there will be multiple 60-win teams in the conference. If the Spurs finish with 60+ wins, that should easily clinch the 2 seed at least. Depending on how hard the Warriors fall back down to earth, it could very well earn us #1 overall.
It doesn't matter what G State does, the Spurs are better and will torch them just like last season.
The fact is, this Spurs team is better than every other team in the league, by a large margin, and we match up much better to G state than everyone else. This team is damn near perfect. So much so they could make the playoffs even if Tim Tony and Manu didn't play a single minute during the season. With those 3, this team is far beyond any other team out there.
Folks might want to check on how bad Austin Rivers was before he was traded to the Clippers.
I think either the Warriors or the Spurs will come out hot and go something like 20-3. Whoever does will win 60 plus and roll to a one seed. The other team will not want wear themselves out trying to win 63 games only to settle for a two seed. JMO
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
