Reply With Quote
You’d kind of expect a team in balance with net rtg to split those, though. We seem to get the short end of the stick much more often.
its not really a fluke. we've mostly been pretty bad in games that came down to big possessions in the last minute or so of the game. but sure we can put bad teams like orlando/detroit away in the 3rd quarter sometimes
You’d kind of expect a team in balance with net rtg to split those, though. We seem to get the short end of the stick much more often.
close games arent just coin flips that are supposed to fall your way. do you have a closer? how is your defense in crunch time? are you running good set plays? are you managing timeouts well?
mmmmuh someone say close games, strategy?
I mean they kind of are just coin flips actually. Not in the sense that if the Spurs come across the best team in the league and are tied going into the last minute they will win 1/2 of those games, but against another average team like the Spurs being tied at 1 minute to go and the game actually should be basically a coin flip. Yeah, the Spurs lack good closers, but so do most of the teams in the NBA. Against teams with lower net ratings the Spurs should be BETTER than a coinflip if tied going into the final minute. By definition not every team can have a Top 10 player. There's a reason net rating and other advance metrics that go into game forecasting models are predictors of what is going to happen.
I don't believe the Spurs "should be" a virtual .500 team even if thats what their net rating says. But I also don't believe that their current record is anything but a statistical outlier. They should have won more games to this point.
Honestly thats not a bad thing though. The net rating the Spurs have is indicative of the fact that this team is more watchable than their record would indicate.
A team's record in close games generally has little correlation to its overall record. See the first graph in this piece.
https://www.atthehive.com/2020/1/7/2...of-close-games
The Spurs' record in games decided by more than 5 points is 15-20, so their 3-10 record in close games in a normal year should be closer to 6-7.
While the Spurs' Pythagorean expected record based on their 0.0 Net Rating is 24-24, I can see a case for their "close games adjusted record" as something like 21-27. Still a below average team, but not bottom 6 in the league. 21-27 would actually be in the play-in (10th, just ahead of Portland at 20-27) if the season ended today.
Uh, there's a clear correlation in the plots you linked. That piece is written by someone with a very poor understanding of stats, IMO. (there's zero reason to use a log function just because the curve fits "better")
But those first charts that show a teams win percentage overall vs close game win percentage show a strong correlation with a lot of variance, which is exactly what you would expect since you're in no way accounting for injuries and other impactful factors.
I see a positive correlation but it doesn't look particularly strong (as in high r^2). Having "a lot of variance" necessarily weakens correlation (again, defining weakness as a low r^2 value) because it increases the denominator, which is why I called the amount of correlation "little".
Thus I'd expect a team's record in close games to be, on average, somewhere between its record in non-close games and 0.500. That's why I said that 21-27 is probably a better indicator of how the Spurs have been playing than 24-24 (expected record by Net Rating) or 18-30 (actual record).
Bottom line, Spurs should be sitting on a better record.
Refs don't give the Spurs any calls, especially late, and our shooters' balls freeze up at the end of games. We need a closer. The Spurs used to toy with teams until the last 5 minutes and then put them away. I miss those days.
Normally, this is a maybe thing, or a sometimes thing, but almost without exception this year, we shoot horribly on the second half of a B2B.
Happy 73rd birthday to the winningest Coach
that's what teams are doing to the Spurs now
Where are we at?
6 to tie
7 for the GOAT?
Except that we don't expect basketball games to be single factor systems, do we? So we don't expect a coefficient to explain a lot of the variance on its own. We're talking about games that factor in schedule, location, and personnel, so a low coefficient value doesn't mean the correlation isn't strong. In any event, pointing to those plots and acting like the relationship is weak is very wrong.
Phil Jackson .704
Low win percentage for the stacked talent he had. Plus he didn't even coach half of the court, Tex Winter did.
Going to be a struggle next game.
Rather then being a diss on Phil, this is a compliment to Phil that he is flexible to listen to those with better ideas and strategies vs being cement headed and having a bunch of Yes Men on his bench like Grandpa dictator has had.
2004 we certainly had the talent to match the Flamers.
Down 2-0, Phil listened to Gary Payton and switched the O to pick and roll.
Grandpa sat with his head up his ass per par offering no counter and got backdoor swept.
2006 we're rolling with Tall Balls and he switches to his pet Michael Finely on Dirk thus gets worked by rookie Avery Johnson.
The real downfall of 2006 tho was leaving Parker in up 20 in a done game with unmedicated thug Ron Artest Metta World Puss looking to injure someone.
Pop doing the right thing here. After a 2 game winning streak he gets us right back on the tankGoing to be a struggle next game.
We stand a pretty good chance of dropping the next 3 games, whether guys sit out or not. Top 2 teams in the west and top team in the east.Pop doing the right thing here. After a 2 game winning streak he gets us right back on the tank
The fact that Jackson never had an offensive system of his own is a terrible look for him. And as soon as he lacked Grade A+++ talent at a place, he jetted.Rather then being a diss on Phil, this is a compliment to Phil that he is flexible to listen to those with better ideas and strategies vs being cement headed and having a bunch of Yes Men on his bench like Grandpa dictator has had.
2004 we certainly had the talent to match the Flamers.
Down 2-0, Phil listened to Gary Payton and switched the O to pick and roll.
Grandpa sat with his head up his ass per par offering no counter and got backdoor swept.
2006 we're rolling with Tall Balls and he switches to his pet Michael Finely on Dirk thus gets worked by rookie Avery Johnson.
The real downfall of 2006 tho was leaving Parker in up 20 in a done game with unmedicated thug Ron Artest Metta World Puss looking to injure someone.
6 to Tie
7 to be the GOAT!
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/mos...a-coach-career
Wow Pop resting Derrick, DJ and Jakob. The tank is for real!!!Going to be a struggle next game.
s given about "a look" is most likely zero. So Popped is better for sticking to his archaic Stuck Ball offense in the Derozan Softridge Patty-Bryn era? Please.
And as far as jetting, if only Popped would follow suit. A long time ago.
Healthier for all involved.
He'll get the longevity award for most acquired reg season wins. As has been stated, we used to laugh at teams racking up reg season wins and then getting punked in the playoffs. Now, reg season wins good.
Popovich is so overrated...lmao. He blows another big lead and suffers another loss. This guy is a joke without Duncan carrying him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
