Discerning the Spurs’ win/loss record

This is what I’ve been saying all season. Our point differential has bee good all year. Our early season woes were mostly due to close losses to good teams. At the time, with Manu and TP not 100% we didn’t have either of our “closers”. On top of that with all the new pieces to integrate it’s hard to execute with precision at the end of games.

Of course, I kept waiting for things to change, and waiting … and waiting … And thankfully we finally got Manu back 100% and bam, we’re back beating good teams and looking like one of the best teams in the league.

Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that our win loss record determines our seeding, so we have a huge hill to climb to the top, but I still have hope.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Our Spurs are playing good now, and you did quantify by saying “going by what we see here…”

I love stats as much as anybody (really!), and I was a math geek in school, but this trend to input every single thing and massage it in to a formula, chart, stat, etc. It didn’t work in the financial arena (see 2009 Global Recession), and it won’t work in the basketball arena. I could go on, but you get the idea.

These charts are nice, and make me feel better, but in no way tell the whole picture (as I’m sure Tim and the gang know). What they don’t tell is the “Jekll & Hyde” season we have had. It doesn’t speak of the usual 3rd quarter collapses we’ve had, nor of the sudden offensive droughts that seem to come from nowhere. To see those things, you have to watch some games. ESPN has this playoff predictor game, and one shows us in the finals, and another one shows us losing in the first round. If you place the numbers where you want them, you’re going to get the result you want. Translation: good ____ in, good ___ out.

That being said, I feel pretty good about our chances to make some noise in the playoffs.

Take a 2nd look at your Margin of Victory Differential Chart. It has the Indiana Pacers as the 5th highest score. So while the chart might be helpful in determining who has played above or below their potential for the season, I don’t think it tells you who the best teams are.

Great work here, BlasE. Every day when I look at the standings, I’ve found in interesting how the Spurs point differential is one of the tops in the league, and yet they were barely in the playoffs. I love these charts.

Great post. Kudos to BlaseE.

The Western Conference race is WIDE OPEN as I think the charts and graphs illustrate. It might very well come down to team by team matchups.

Keep in mind though, that when/if Bynum returns healthy, LA’s bench is going to get a major boost with Odom. Bynum’s absence also factors into the momentum stats posted above. Since Bynum went down, they’ve haven’t played well, going 4-4. He should make them a better team when/if returns.

Having said that though, every team is beatable in the West. At the start of the season, everyone pegged the Lakers as having a 50% (vs. the field) or better shot to come out of the West. Now? It’s anyone’s game.

@ mikrobass33

You can see 3 point games here:

http://espn.go.com/nba/standings/_/type/expanded/sort/wins/group/1

Dallas and LA both have crazy close win-close loss differentials, 7 and 6 respectively. LA has played the third most 3 point or less games, 16. OKC and Milwaukee both have more.

We are 6-4 in 3 point losses:

L OKC 3
L @ UTA 3
W IND 1
W @ OKC 1, OT
W @ SAC 2
L @ POR 3
W @ IND 3
W PHX 3
L @ CLE 2
W @ OKC 3

Let’s avoid OKC.

Over the course of a season though, games decided by 3 points or less go to the lucky team, not necessarily the best team. Games that close come down to one bounce of the ball here, a referee’s call there – essentially chance. That’s why margin of victory holds the most weight when looking at playoff success – good teams blow out their opponents and don’t even bother with close games. If you’re constantly involved in close games, that says you aren’t good enough to put your opponent away.

Think of it this way, we’ve played better over the last month without a doubt. Is our improved record the result of winning nail biters in that time? No! We’re playing better, and that’s reflected in that fact we’ve been steam rolling people. Hence why margin of victory carries more weight than your record in close games.

I appreciate these charts. Our seeding, plus the over-used “their old” drives perceptions. Except the Spurs aren’t as old as they used to be, nor are they as old as some other teams that get plenty of championship potential hype. And hearing 7th or 8th seed is meaningless when you see that they’re two back of the second seed.

The Spurs have, and have had, just as good a chance as everyone else in the West of going to the Finals. Health will be the only issue. These charts prove that.

As I was saying in my earlier post… looked at the numbers myself and the Spurs are at a 67% blowout winning percent (aka 67% of their wins were blowouts), whereas the LA “Fakers” are only at 49% blowout wins.

Likewise only 28% of the Spurs’ losses were blowouts compared to the Lakers 55% blowout losses!

Say what you will but the Spurs are still the team to beat! (especially if we stay as consistant as we have been in march, of course minus the Nets game)

And yes… the wear and tear on our guys is way down this year, and especially compared to people like Kobe, Durant, and Dirk… so we’re looking good… George Hill please come back soon!

This reminds me of the spurs 4th championship year when everyone thought either Dallas, Detroit, or Pheonix would win it all, while San Antonio was under the radar. Then, there was an analyst who pointed out towards the latter part of the season of the spurs margin of victory, despite not having the best record, or not even being favored to win it. The spurs were either 1st or 2nd that year in margin of victory and when i realized that, there was a big relief in my mind. Regardles of these so called charts, the spurs now have their confidence back, and they could not have picked abetter time with the playoffs in a couple weeks. Teams, in the west need to beware, because I can easily see the spurs knocking off any one of those top seeds out west. Now the Lakers are still the Lakers, but I really am at peace when I see how the spurs have ‘upped’ their defensive play and are really causing teams to play at their pace and people are really starting to see why Ginobli is an absolute superstar. I love the way Jefferson has re-emerged this second half after going through a first part of the year and I think Mcdyse is playing some real good d. Duncan showed signs of his old self after several lack-luster performances on the offensive end against Gasol the other day. It’s almost like Duncan forgot how to back down and get the right shot, then he remembered again. I was tired of seeing him getting his shot blocked against Gasol and rushing other attempts. If he gets back to that level, which i definitely think he will once the playoffs start, along with Parker and Hill coming back, the spurs are going to be hell to take down for any team. Now I am for sure, that the early season struggles were due to the new members not being together long enough, because even then, when the spurs won games, they won big. That was something i could not understand until now. Don’t forget the spurs are an excellent, unselfish, disciplined team that can very well when the title without the home court. Example of their unselfishness which is so under the radar in my opinion, is the play of Manu Ginobli. Most people probably didn’t know he could be this dominating, because he has never had to lead the spurs like he hs had to of recent weeks. and look what he has done. He is definitely all-NBA, and I can tell his confidence in the team is soaring from what he said in an interview the other day: “:these teams are not far from us” -translation that means he thinks or knows the spurs can win it all.

SAinSLC
April 7th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

I do agree with you and Daniel. The data show some interesting trends and correlations, but they by no means provide a strong indication of our “playoff” chances, let alone “prove” anything. However, if one did produce the same data for, let’s say over the last five seasons, and then compared it against actual “playoff” results for those years, one might begin to get at a reasonable level of predictability. I’d certainly love to see this kind of stuff using a stronger methodology, because clearly a careful analysis of pertinent data can be very helpful when attempting to make predictions or drawn sound conclusions about an issue. Nevertheless, very interesting stuff, and a great effort by Tim & BlaseE. Thanks a lot, guys. I’d sure love to see more of this, but I realize it can be a bit time consuming.

@ BlaseE,

It was about 8 weeks ago, right before TP went out
I was having a barbershop debate with one of the barbers (a bigger Kobe fan than he is a Laker fan) and the rest of the non-statistical bandwaggoneers. I was (using my investment management intrinsic analysis) explaing to them that our win/loss record with regards to blowouts and close games showed an important factor. THis factor was that we consistently blowout teams, and primarily lose close ones. I pointed out that we dont (have have never ) relied on one player to score 30-50% of our offense like the “so-called” premier teams (LA, Cleveland, Denver), we have always spread it around (ie, we were depth). My primary point was that we had just undergone a “silent rebuilding”. More importantly, we had significant talent and depth. However, we lacked chemistry. As we can see from the last 6-8 weeks, depth and chemistry are the two key factors in the Spurs success- we have talent (above average, TD, TP, Manu, GH, RJ,Red Rck). If we can re-establish our chemistry when G Hill returns (with TP and now G Temple), we will be able to match up with any team on the Western Conference. As well, we have the ability to offset negative match-up with our talent and depth [ie- paint vs. Lakers, with perimeter (guard play), or perimeter vs. Denver, with our paint play (TD, Dice, Blair, maybe Ian)].

The Spurs are a must better team than the first half of season showed (as shown by the last 7 weeks. We have blown out LA, Denver, Boston, and had significant defeats of Cleveland and Orlando).