Games against the Suns always make me nervous. Dating back to the ‘06/’07 season, the Spurs have played the Suns 20 times, including the two times they met in the playoffs. The Spurs have won 12 of these contests and lost 8. In victories, the Spurs won by an average of 5.6 points. In defeats, the Spurs have lost by an average of 11.9 points. So basically, it’s either a nail biter or the Spurs lose. Of the past 20 meetings, 14 have been decided by 7 points or less.
This year, the Suns match up well with the Spurs. In the past, under the D’Antoni 7 seconds or less system, the Suns simply would try to outscore the Spurs and did not worry about defense. After consistently losing to the Spurs in the playoffs, the Suns made a change. They hired Steve Kerr as their General Manager and lost coach D’Antoni to the Knicks’ wallet. Kerr hired the defensive oriented Terry Porter to coach his club and then made a trade in which he acquired Shaquile O’Neal. This move was made specifically with the Spurs in mind. They hoped that Shaq would give them a competent defender to throw at Tim Duncan, and also give the Suns more options in the playoffs when the game slowed down.
Through the magic of the Suns’ outstanding medical staff, Shaq is playing as he did in the ‘05/’06 season when he helped the Miami Heat win a championship. Shaq is a scary defender for Tim Duncan. Although Tim is much quicker than Shaq, Shaq gets the All Star treatment from the refs and is able to use his body and arms to not let Tim by, which is a foul if it’s anyone else doing the pushing. Because of this, Tim needs his outside shot to drop in order to have a good game against Shaq.
Honestly, I feel this game is a coin flip. I think it will be decided in the final minute of the game, and given the stars that the Suns have and that the game is in Phoenix, I think they are going to get the critical calls. At the same time, the Spurs have been extremely clutch this season, so they have an edge there. Also, the Suns do not have anyone to guard Manu. In the past, Raja Bell would get that assignment, but they recently traded him. Look for Manu to have a big night. Bottom line, Spurs by 5.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
CAUTION: Bumpy Road Ahead
First, let me apologise for the crudeness of the chart posted below. Funny enough, I spent all of yesterday in Austin listening to Edward Tufte's lecture on "Presenting Data and Information." I had the data set up perfectly in Excel, and then in Word, but could not figure out how to transfer it to this blog. If you click on the data, it will take you to a cleaner version of the same chart, still imperfect though.
Before the season began, I printed out the Spurs' schedule and went through predicting whether we would win or lose each game. In the post below, I listed my results thus far. Overall, I am 32-12 in my predictions, which means I have guessed correctly 72% of the games. However, when I filled out my predictions, I was expecting to have a healthy Tony Parker. If I do not count the games in which we were missing Tony, my record improves to 23-5, or 82%.
Regardless of how you look at it, my predictions are normally pretty accurate. Now for the scary news, I have the Spurs going 7-6 over their next 13 games, and that is very optimistic. 9 of these games are on the road, thanks to the Rodeo Road Trip, and 10 are against teams competing for a playoff spot, 8 of which have winning records. Looking at it now, I would say we beat the Warriors and lose to the Nuggets, and we drop a game either to Dallas or Portland in that back to back, reducing the record to 6-7 over the next 13 games. After this stretch, get ready to hear the, "They're too old" talk for a while. Age has nothing to do with this extremely difficult schedule. If the Spurs can get through this with a winning record, it's looking good for the playoffs. If not, there is no need to panic. This stretch is absurdly difficult.
45 Thu, Jan 29, 2009 Phoenix Suns L
46 Sat, Jan 31, 2009 New Orleans Hornets L
47 Mon, Feb 2, 2009 Golden State Warriors L
48 Tue, Feb 3, 2009 Denver Nuggets W
49 Sun, Feb 8, 2009 Boston Celtics L
50 Tue, Feb 10, 2009 New Jersey Nets W
51 Wed, Feb 11, 2009 Toronto Raptors W
52 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 New York Knick W
53 Thu, Feb 19, 2009 Detroit Pistons L
54 Sat, Feb 21, 2009 Washington Wizards W
55 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 Dallas Mavericks W
56 Wed, Feb 25, 2009 Portland Trail Blazers W
57 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers L
Before the season began, I printed out the Spurs' schedule and went through predicting whether we would win or lose each game. In the post below, I listed my results thus far. Overall, I am 32-12 in my predictions, which means I have guessed correctly 72% of the games. However, when I filled out my predictions, I was expecting to have a healthy Tony Parker. If I do not count the games in which we were missing Tony, my record improves to 23-5, or 82%.
Regardless of how you look at it, my predictions are normally pretty accurate. Now for the scary news, I have the Spurs going 7-6 over their next 13 games, and that is very optimistic. 9 of these games are on the road, thanks to the Rodeo Road Trip, and 10 are against teams competing for a playoff spot, 8 of which have winning records. Looking at it now, I would say we beat the Warriors and lose to the Nuggets, and we drop a game either to Dallas or Portland in that back to back, reducing the record to 6-7 over the next 13 games. After this stretch, get ready to hear the, "They're too old" talk for a while. Age has nothing to do with this extremely difficult schedule. If the Spurs can get through this with a winning record, it's looking good for the playoffs. If not, there is no need to panic. This stretch is absurdly difficult.
45 Thu, Jan 29, 2009 Phoenix Suns L
46 Sat, Jan 31, 2009 New Orleans Hornets L
47 Mon, Feb 2, 2009 Golden State Warriors L
48 Tue, Feb 3, 2009 Denver Nuggets W
49 Sun, Feb 8, 2009 Boston Celtics L
50 Tue, Feb 10, 2009 New Jersey Nets W
51 Wed, Feb 11, 2009 Toronto Raptors W
52 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 New York Knick W
53 Thu, Feb 19, 2009 Detroit Pistons L
54 Sat, Feb 21, 2009 Washington Wizards W
55 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 Dallas Mavericks W
56 Wed, Feb 25, 2009 Portland Trail Blazers W
57 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers L
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Spurs, Jazz Preview
Quickly, I expect the Spurs to win this game by 12. The Jazz have been inconsistent all season, mainly due to injuries. But this means that they have not found their rhythm yet. The Spurs were destroyed by the Lakers in their last outing and had a few days to let it fester. They will come out tonight very focused. Manu was off against the Lakers, so look for him to pour in around 20. Bottom line, Spurs by 12.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Spurs, Lakers Preview
If we beat the Nets tonight, I have a really bad feeling for the rematch with the Lakers. First, the Lakers are going to want revenge. The Lakers probably played their best game of the year against the Spurs and still lost.
I was upset with all of the excuses ESPN came up with for the Lakers after the game. They claimed that the Lakers should feel great about the game because they nearly won with an injured bench on the backend of a back to back. First, the fact that their bench was injured helped the Lakers. It forced them to play their starters playoff minutes. Kobe only sat out for 6 minutes the entire game. So if Walton was in there, the Lakers would have won? Would you bet your life on that? Absolutely not. And although it was their second game in two nights, they were not fatigued at all. The Lakers were pushing it until the very end. I was there and kept telling myself, eventually they will run out of gas. That never happened. You cannot tell me that the Lakers could have played better. They shot 56% from the field and 56% from the three point line with only 11 turnovers. Gasol and Bynum were on fire and Fisher could not miss from three point land. Even some guy named Josh Powell could not miss. And Kobe was Kobe in the fourth. Hitting big shots, playing great defense, and keeping his team’s concentration peaked. And the Lakers still could not get the W.
Back to Sunday’s game, it really feels like one of those games where the Spurs forget to show up in the first quarter and Pop accepts the loss before halftime. The Lakers will be looking for revenge. The Spurs will be looking ahead to this brutal stretch of games coming up. (I have the Spurs going 8-7 over the next 15.) And the game is at 2:30pm. The Spurs never play well in these early afternoon games. I guess it takes a while for our old guys to wake up.
Plus, if the Spurs lose, it will give Pop an excuse to berate the team to get them ready for the rodeo road trip. I know he just did this, but I think it was a little early. He needs to yell at them one more time before the rodeo road trip begins.
Don’t get me wrong here. Nothing would make me happier than the Spurs beating the Lakers in LA. I just have a bad feeling about this one, and my bad feelings are normally spot on.
I was upset with all of the excuses ESPN came up with for the Lakers after the game. They claimed that the Lakers should feel great about the game because they nearly won with an injured bench on the backend of a back to back. First, the fact that their bench was injured helped the Lakers. It forced them to play their starters playoff minutes. Kobe only sat out for 6 minutes the entire game. So if Walton was in there, the Lakers would have won? Would you bet your life on that? Absolutely not. And although it was their second game in two nights, they were not fatigued at all. The Lakers were pushing it until the very end. I was there and kept telling myself, eventually they will run out of gas. That never happened. You cannot tell me that the Lakers could have played better. They shot 56% from the field and 56% from the three point line with only 11 turnovers. Gasol and Bynum were on fire and Fisher could not miss from three point land. Even some guy named Josh Powell could not miss. And Kobe was Kobe in the fourth. Hitting big shots, playing great defense, and keeping his team’s concentration peaked. And the Lakers still could not get the W.
Back to Sunday’s game, it really feels like one of those games where the Spurs forget to show up in the first quarter and Pop accepts the loss before halftime. The Lakers will be looking for revenge. The Spurs will be looking ahead to this brutal stretch of games coming up. (I have the Spurs going 8-7 over the next 15.) And the game is at 2:30pm. The Spurs never play well in these early afternoon games. I guess it takes a while for our old guys to wake up.
Plus, if the Spurs lose, it will give Pop an excuse to berate the team to get them ready for the rodeo road trip. I know he just did this, but I think it was a little early. He needs to yell at them one more time before the rodeo road trip begins.
Don’t get me wrong here. Nothing would make me happier than the Spurs beating the Lakers in LA. I just have a bad feeling about this one, and my bad feelings are normally spot on.
"Vegas, Baby, Vegas" -- Bill Simmons
I'm hitting up Las Vegas this weekend. Recap to come Monday. All in.
Also, I know a lot of you are reading this. And I know you have a Gmail account. So click 'follow this blog.' I promise not to raid your inboxes.
Also, I know a lot of you are reading this. And I know you have a Gmail account. So click 'follow this blog.' I promise not to raid your inboxes.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
'09 Spurs are Most Clutch Spurs Team in Recent Memory
Anyone else notice that the Spurs have had many games come down to the wire this year? Well, I took a closer look at the numbers and the ’09 Spurs are the most clutch Spurs team since at least the 2003 championship season. They are more clutch than the ’03, ’05, and ’07 championship teams and all the teams in between.
This season, the Spurs have played in 16 games that have been decided by 5 points or less. The Spurs’ record in these games is 12-4. If you only look at the games in which the Big Three played in, the record improves to a stunning 8-1. You can chalk this up to many different things, but I like to think that this means when Pop stops messing around with the rotation, and plays the lineups that are going to win, the Spurs take care of business. When the playoffs come around, and the good lineups that consist of Manu, Tony, and Tim spend the majority of the game on the floor, watch out.
Now, let’s take a look at the numbers I just derived to see how this team compares to those of the past. Up to this point in the season in previous years, the following are the Spurs records in games decided by 5 points or less:
Year W-L
’03 9-7
’04 4-6
’05 5-5
’06 8-2
’07 3-6
’08 3-5
’09 8-1 with full roster. 12-4 including games without Tony or Manu.
In the championship seasons, here is a complete record of games decided by 5 points or less including playoffs:
Year W-L
‘03 23-14
’05 13-12
’07 13-11
'08 12-4
Retrieved from 82games.com, here are our most clutch players. These points are based on how productive a player is in a game with five minutes remaining and neither team leading by more than 5 points, extending the 5 minutes of production to a 48 minute average. In other words, if Tony played as aggresivley as he does in the last 5 minutes of a close game, he would average 40.3 points over 48 minutes of playing time.
Tony Parker 40.3 Points
Manu Ginobili 28.0 Points
Tim Duncan 27.4 Points
Roger Mason 20.4 Points
So, now you can see why the Spurs are 8-1 with Tony, Manu, and Tim on the floor in close games. As the season progresses, expect to see Tony’s clutch points drop and Manu’s to increase. Manu’s are lower because he had been struggling to find his rhythm since returning from injury. But Manu has played much better recently and expect him to have the ball more often than not in tight games. Clearly, the addition of Roger Mason cannot be overstated. Two of those 8 victories can be credited to him. And in years past, we have not had a consistent fourth clutch player in the closing minutes of tight games.
Side note: The $100 I put on the Spurs to win it all is looking like a better and better bet as the season progresses.
This season, the Spurs have played in 16 games that have been decided by 5 points or less. The Spurs’ record in these games is 12-4. If you only look at the games in which the Big Three played in, the record improves to a stunning 8-1. You can chalk this up to many different things, but I like to think that this means when Pop stops messing around with the rotation, and plays the lineups that are going to win, the Spurs take care of business. When the playoffs come around, and the good lineups that consist of Manu, Tony, and Tim spend the majority of the game on the floor, watch out.
Now, let’s take a look at the numbers I just derived to see how this team compares to those of the past. Up to this point in the season in previous years, the following are the Spurs records in games decided by 5 points or less:
Year W-L
’03 9-7
’04 4-6
’05 5-5
’06 8-2
’07 3-6
’08 3-5
’09 8-1 with full roster. 12-4 including games without Tony or Manu.
In the championship seasons, here is a complete record of games decided by 5 points or less including playoffs:
Year W-L
‘03 23-14
’05 13-12
’07 13-11
'08 12-4
Retrieved from 82games.com, here are our most clutch players. These points are based on how productive a player is in a game with five minutes remaining and neither team leading by more than 5 points, extending the 5 minutes of production to a 48 minute average. In other words, if Tony played as aggresivley as he does in the last 5 minutes of a close game, he would average 40.3 points over 48 minutes of playing time.
Tony Parker 40.3 Points
Manu Ginobili 28.0 Points
Tim Duncan 27.4 Points
Roger Mason 20.4 Points
So, now you can see why the Spurs are 8-1 with Tony, Manu, and Tim on the floor in close games. As the season progresses, expect to see Tony’s clutch points drop and Manu’s to increase. Manu’s are lower because he had been struggling to find his rhythm since returning from injury. But Manu has played much better recently and expect him to have the ball more often than not in tight games. Clearly, the addition of Roger Mason cannot be overstated. Two of those 8 victories can be credited to him. And in years past, we have not had a consistent fourth clutch player in the closing minutes of tight games.
Side note: The $100 I put on the Spurs to win it all is looking like a better and better bet as the season progresses.
Timothy Varner of "48 Minutes of Hell" Reacts?
I randomly checked my Dartmouth email account this morning and while scanning over all the spam I noticed the name, “Timothy Varner.” So, against my better judgment I opened the email and low and behold, Timothy rebuts. I was under the assumption that I was typing and nobody was reading. Like in that "Office" episode where Creed thinks that Toby set up a blog for him but in actuality it’s just a blank Word document. So Creed types and types and it goes nowhere. That’s what I figured was happening here. But apparently, at least one person reads this aside from my friends. So sweet? I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. Regardless, below I will respond to the email’s contents because it seems more entertaining than simply replying to his email.
Timothy writes, “To start, you should know that I'm consistently criticized for being too bullish on San Antonio. So, your criticism of pessimism really strikes an odd chord. In short, it was a first. My guess is that this is simply a matter of sample size. Much of my stuff goes against the cliched grain of "too old, window is passing." But even a recent post, such as Gagging the Tired Old Nag would demonstrate this.”
I was unaware of your blog’s existence until two days ago when I was reading TrueHoop on ESPN.com. For those of you in the dark, ESPN recently decided to publish local blogs from the NBA cities around the nation so that if you follow a small market team, as we do, you no longer have to read about the Boston Celtics or the LA Lakers. But I digress, as I was reading TrueHoop I scanned to see if San Antonio had a blog. And thus I came across this article on 48MinutesofHell. I read it, completely disagreed, and left the site in disgust. I then wrote the post entitled, “48 Minutes of Hell = 3 Minutes in Purgatory.” After being disgusted by the first post I read at your site, I stopped. So I suppose you are correct here, my sample size is small. But my points are valid.
Timothy continues, “Second, I'm not really concerned about pandering to an audience, so I may be pessimistic, I may be optimistic, but I'm certain not to care either way. I try to be honest, and that's the best I can do for you.”
This cracked me up. Let’s start over. ESPN picked your blog so that people from San Antonio could read more about their favorite team. Fans do not want to read that their favorite team is worse than their mediocre record. You should be biased; straight Bill Simmons style. You should be feeding Spurs fans lines that they can scream at the horrible Lakers fan that is unfortunately sitting right behind them at the game. As a Spurs fan, I really could care less about the moral obligation you feel to be an honest blogger. Again, if I wanted to read about how bad the Spurs are, I would simply read what Marc Stein has to say.
Timothy continues, “Third, your stuff about the post being inaccurate also rings hollow. If the model that you suggest was viable, I'd have to adjust for every team in the league. In other words, every team has injuries. Every team goes through slumps. You can't woulda, coulda, shoulda your way through. That's all make believe. Nobody does statistical analysis like that. I would simply say that I've lauded the Spurs for overachieving despite injury. I could go on...”
First, you are attempting to use statistics to grade the Spurs currently and forecast how they will fare as the season progresses. Therefore, the statistics that you use should, at the very least, be those that represent our current team. Our current team consists of a healthy Manu and Tony. So, logically, it would make sense to throw out the games in which we did not have Manu or Tony on the court.
Second, you would not have to adjust for every team in the league. You are not writing about every team in the league. Your scope is the San Antonio Spurs. And you should go the extra mile to come up with statistics that are viable.
Third, I agree that every team goes through slumps, obviously. But slumps like the one Boston went through are very different than the one the Spurs experienced. The Spurs slump was solely caused by injuries to two of their three best players. Boston’s slump occurred with all their key players healthy. If the Spurs started the season 9-8 with a healthy roster, then it’s a completely different story.
And finally, ESPN uses statistical analysis like this all the time. All of the “During their 10 game winning streak, Team X has held opponents to 85 PPG while scoring 94.” Or, “During the month of January, Team Y shot 48% from the 3 point line.” Why not, “With a healthy team, the Spurs are 19-6, shot 48% from the field while holding opponents to just 88 PPG?” The 19-6 record is true, by the way. I made up the FG and PPG. If you expand 19-6 to make it comparable to team’s current records, the Spurs would be 32-10. The Lakers are 33-8. Look, I didn’t even have to manipulate the stats very much at all and came up with a favorable way of looking at the Spurs' record. Timothy, it’s really not that difficult.
Timothy finishes, “Please forgive any typos. I'm bed-ridden with the flu and writing in haste.”
The flu is going around. My girlfriend has it right now. Feel better and hope you do not mind this post. Oh, and forgive my typos; I do not proof read.
Timothy writes, “To start, you should know that I'm consistently criticized for being too bullish on San Antonio. So, your criticism of pessimism really strikes an odd chord. In short, it was a first. My guess is that this is simply a matter of sample size. Much of my stuff goes against the cliched grain of "too old, window is passing." But even a recent post, such as Gagging the Tired Old Nag would demonstrate this.”
I was unaware of your blog’s existence until two days ago when I was reading TrueHoop on ESPN.com. For those of you in the dark, ESPN recently decided to publish local blogs from the NBA cities around the nation so that if you follow a small market team, as we do, you no longer have to read about the Boston Celtics or the LA Lakers. But I digress, as I was reading TrueHoop I scanned to see if San Antonio had a blog. And thus I came across this article on 48MinutesofHell. I read it, completely disagreed, and left the site in disgust. I then wrote the post entitled, “48 Minutes of Hell = 3 Minutes in Purgatory.” After being disgusted by the first post I read at your site, I stopped. So I suppose you are correct here, my sample size is small. But my points are valid.
Timothy continues, “Second, I'm not really concerned about pandering to an audience, so I may be pessimistic, I may be optimistic, but I'm certain not to care either way. I try to be honest, and that's the best I can do for you.”
This cracked me up. Let’s start over. ESPN picked your blog so that people from San Antonio could read more about their favorite team. Fans do not want to read that their favorite team is worse than their mediocre record. You should be biased; straight Bill Simmons style. You should be feeding Spurs fans lines that they can scream at the horrible Lakers fan that is unfortunately sitting right behind them at the game. As a Spurs fan, I really could care less about the moral obligation you feel to be an honest blogger. Again, if I wanted to read about how bad the Spurs are, I would simply read what Marc Stein has to say.
Timothy continues, “Third, your stuff about the post being inaccurate also rings hollow. If the model that you suggest was viable, I'd have to adjust for every team in the league. In other words, every team has injuries. Every team goes through slumps. You can't woulda, coulda, shoulda your way through. That's all make believe. Nobody does statistical analysis like that. I would simply say that I've lauded the Spurs for overachieving despite injury. I could go on...”
First, you are attempting to use statistics to grade the Spurs currently and forecast how they will fare as the season progresses. Therefore, the statistics that you use should, at the very least, be those that represent our current team. Our current team consists of a healthy Manu and Tony. So, logically, it would make sense to throw out the games in which we did not have Manu or Tony on the court.
Second, you would not have to adjust for every team in the league. You are not writing about every team in the league. Your scope is the San Antonio Spurs. And you should go the extra mile to come up with statistics that are viable.
Third, I agree that every team goes through slumps, obviously. But slumps like the one Boston went through are very different than the one the Spurs experienced. The Spurs slump was solely caused by injuries to two of their three best players. Boston’s slump occurred with all their key players healthy. If the Spurs started the season 9-8 with a healthy roster, then it’s a completely different story.
And finally, ESPN uses statistical analysis like this all the time. All of the “During their 10 game winning streak, Team X has held opponents to 85 PPG while scoring 94.” Or, “During the month of January, Team Y shot 48% from the 3 point line.” Why not, “With a healthy team, the Spurs are 19-6, shot 48% from the field while holding opponents to just 88 PPG?” The 19-6 record is true, by the way. I made up the FG and PPG. If you expand 19-6 to make it comparable to team’s current records, the Spurs would be 32-10. The Lakers are 33-8. Look, I didn’t even have to manipulate the stats very much at all and came up with a favorable way of looking at the Spurs' record. Timothy, it’s really not that difficult.
Timothy finishes, “Please forgive any typos. I'm bed-ridden with the flu and writing in haste.”
The flu is going around. My girlfriend has it right now. Feel better and hope you do not mind this post. Oh, and forgive my typos; I do not proof read.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
48 Minutes of Hell = 3 Minutes in Purgatory
In a recent article published by 48 Minutes of Hell, Timothy Varner argues that the Spurs are not as good as their record indicates because the they were 21st in field goal defense and first in PPG allowed. He ties these two stats together to conclude that the Spurs are not solid defensively and are lucky to have the record that they do.
My main issue with this article is that it is pessimistic. 48 Minutes of Hell was recently chosen by ESPN as its local Spurs blog. (ESPN is selecting local blogs that focus on a single team so readers can enjoy more articles about their favorite NBA teams.) If I wanted to read something pessimistic about the Spurs, I would simply read what the ESPN analysts have to say. Shouldn’t a local blog about the Spurs be optimistic? It’s the first rule of writing; know you audience.
In addition, this article is inaccurate. The Spurs were without two of their three best players for long stretches early in the season. During this time, the Spurs lost a lot of games that they would have won if Tony and Manu had been healthy. So, in fact, the Spurs' record is actually understated.
Furthermore, with Tony and Manu out, of course the Spurs played worse on both ends of the floor and slowed the game down. I would argue that the games that Manu and Tony missed have skewed the data. This is why the Spurs were 21st in opposing field goal percentage and first in PPG. They slowed the game down and were playing with an inferior lineup. If Timothy Varner wanted to use accurate stats, he should have thrown out the games that Manu and Tony did not suit up for. He also should have thrown out the second game of back to backs, since there are no back to backs in the playoffs. And if he wanted to skew the data in the other direction, he should have ignored the first several games that Manu and Tony played in, since they were not playing their normal minutes and were rusty from the time off.
The article also references quotes from Popovich after a game in which they played poorly. Popovich tells the Spurs off at least once a year. It’s cyclical, seasonal, you could set your watch by it. He does this to fire up the team and get them to concentrate harder on the defensive end of the floor. It’s definitely not a reason to sound the alarm or something that should be used to support an argument.
So, why didn’t 48 minutes of Hell think of this? Maybe it’s because the author really doesn’t follow the Spurs all that closely.
My main issue with this article is that it is pessimistic. 48 Minutes of Hell was recently chosen by ESPN as its local Spurs blog. (ESPN is selecting local blogs that focus on a single team so readers can enjoy more articles about their favorite NBA teams.) If I wanted to read something pessimistic about the Spurs, I would simply read what the ESPN analysts have to say. Shouldn’t a local blog about the Spurs be optimistic? It’s the first rule of writing; know you audience.
In addition, this article is inaccurate. The Spurs were without two of their three best players for long stretches early in the season. During this time, the Spurs lost a lot of games that they would have won if Tony and Manu had been healthy. So, in fact, the Spurs' record is actually understated.
Furthermore, with Tony and Manu out, of course the Spurs played worse on both ends of the floor and slowed the game down. I would argue that the games that Manu and Tony missed have skewed the data. This is why the Spurs were 21st in opposing field goal percentage and first in PPG. They slowed the game down and were playing with an inferior lineup. If Timothy Varner wanted to use accurate stats, he should have thrown out the games that Manu and Tony did not suit up for. He also should have thrown out the second game of back to backs, since there are no back to backs in the playoffs. And if he wanted to skew the data in the other direction, he should have ignored the first several games that Manu and Tony played in, since they were not playing their normal minutes and were rusty from the time off.
The article also references quotes from Popovich after a game in which they played poorly. Popovich tells the Spurs off at least once a year. It’s cyclical, seasonal, you could set your watch by it. He does this to fire up the team and get them to concentrate harder on the defensive end of the floor. It’s definitely not a reason to sound the alarm or something that should be used to support an argument.
So, why didn’t 48 minutes of Hell think of this? Maybe it’s because the author really doesn’t follow the Spurs all that closely.
Beer Pong: Dartmouth
Rick Reilly recently wrote an article for ESPN about what he calls ‘Beer Pong.’ I do not understand how you can write an article about pong and get it completely wrong. He should have begun his article with the history of pong. Pong was invented in the 1950’s at a small college in Hanover, New Hampshire. Legend has it that two fraternity brothers were playing an afternoon game of ping pong, while simultaneously drinking beers. One player put his beer down on the table to serve, the opposing player accidentally returned the shot into his beer and said, “Drink it.” And thus pong was born.
The game of pong with paddles is fairly simple. It’s basically ping pong, but instead of trying to get your opponent to miss, you are trying to sink his cups. The game consists of a series of rallies in which players hit the ball back and forth high into the air to give the ball a better chance of sinking the cup. Pong is played on a table the same size, or slightly bigger than a regulation ping pong table. Beruit is generally played on smaller, shorter tables. The standard small game of pong is played with 14 10 oz. cups of beer, 7 on each side of the table in a shrub formation. The larger standard game is played with 22 cups of beer, 11 on each side of the table in a shrub formation. Beer is never thrown out. If you cannot finish your beer, you must grab the nearest trashcan, pull the trigger and then consume the beer. The inevitable ‘boot and rally.’ If you think throwing a ball into a cup is difficult, try returning a spin serve high into the air so it lands in a cup that is 10 feet away while you are drunk. Pong requires good footwork and finesse. Athletes are generally pretty good at pong because of their superior hand-eye coordination.
Over time, Pong traveled to colleges across the United States and at some point lost the paddles. The game that does not involve paddles is called Beruit and requires far less skill and stamina. If you venture to Dartmouth for a weekend of fun, you will find that paddles are required if you want to play Pong. In fact, I’ve seen fights break out in fraternity basements at Dartmouth when unknowing visitors attempt to throw the ball. Pong is not just something to do at Dartmouth, it is the thing to do. If you walk into any fraternity or sorority basement at Dartmouth, you will find between four and ten pong tables, depending on the size of the basement. The Greek culture revolves around the world of Pong. Many house traditions were created based on Pong. For example, each house has their own rules for pong. The general rules are the same, but each house has subtle differences that they enforce and take immense pride in. At Psi U, you can bounce the ball off your chest to give yourself an easier shot. At Chi Gam, if the ball hits a cup you can ‘slam’ it back. At some houses the ball is playable off the ceiling, at others off the wall. If you get skunked, some houses will make you chug a large ladle of liquor.
Reilly attempts to make it seem tolerable that people sometimes play with water. Again, I’ve seen fights break out when people attempted to play with water instead of beer. That is not allowed. The only time Pong with water is acceptable is if it is played by underage freshman at a substance free dorm. Freshman have not logged the hours necessary to compete with the upper class men, so even if they somehow managed to get on a table, it is very unlikely that they will win to continue playing. This means that they cannot get drunk while playing Pong and will be reduced to playing dice with upper class men that are too drunk to play Pong competitively. For this reason, some freshmen choose to improve their skills during off time in their dorms with water. However, when I was a freshman, we had water on the tables just in case campus security showed up, and had the beer on the side where it would be chugged at the appropriate times. I suspect most freshman still do this. Because, it is a drinking game after all. And by definition, the point of a drinking game is to get drunk.
I could go on and on about Pong, but for now this will do. I just had to clarify Reilly’s inadequate description of Pong. To insult the game of Pong is to insult the life of a Dartmouth student.
The game of pong with paddles is fairly simple. It’s basically ping pong, but instead of trying to get your opponent to miss, you are trying to sink his cups. The game consists of a series of rallies in which players hit the ball back and forth high into the air to give the ball a better chance of sinking the cup. Pong is played on a table the same size, or slightly bigger than a regulation ping pong table. Beruit is generally played on smaller, shorter tables. The standard small game of pong is played with 14 10 oz. cups of beer, 7 on each side of the table in a shrub formation. The larger standard game is played with 22 cups of beer, 11 on each side of the table in a shrub formation. Beer is never thrown out. If you cannot finish your beer, you must grab the nearest trashcan, pull the trigger and then consume the beer. The inevitable ‘boot and rally.’ If you think throwing a ball into a cup is difficult, try returning a spin serve high into the air so it lands in a cup that is 10 feet away while you are drunk. Pong requires good footwork and finesse. Athletes are generally pretty good at pong because of their superior hand-eye coordination.
Over time, Pong traveled to colleges across the United States and at some point lost the paddles. The game that does not involve paddles is called Beruit and requires far less skill and stamina. If you venture to Dartmouth for a weekend of fun, you will find that paddles are required if you want to play Pong. In fact, I’ve seen fights break out in fraternity basements at Dartmouth when unknowing visitors attempt to throw the ball. Pong is not just something to do at Dartmouth, it is the thing to do. If you walk into any fraternity or sorority basement at Dartmouth, you will find between four and ten pong tables, depending on the size of the basement. The Greek culture revolves around the world of Pong. Many house traditions were created based on Pong. For example, each house has their own rules for pong. The general rules are the same, but each house has subtle differences that they enforce and take immense pride in. At Psi U, you can bounce the ball off your chest to give yourself an easier shot. At Chi Gam, if the ball hits a cup you can ‘slam’ it back. At some houses the ball is playable off the ceiling, at others off the wall. If you get skunked, some houses will make you chug a large ladle of liquor.
Reilly attempts to make it seem tolerable that people sometimes play with water. Again, I’ve seen fights break out when people attempted to play with water instead of beer. That is not allowed. The only time Pong with water is acceptable is if it is played by underage freshman at a substance free dorm. Freshman have not logged the hours necessary to compete with the upper class men, so even if they somehow managed to get on a table, it is very unlikely that they will win to continue playing. This means that they cannot get drunk while playing Pong and will be reduced to playing dice with upper class men that are too drunk to play Pong competitively. For this reason, some freshmen choose to improve their skills during off time in their dorms with water. However, when I was a freshman, we had water on the tables just in case campus security showed up, and had the beer on the side where it would be chugged at the appropriate times. I suspect most freshman still do this. Because, it is a drinking game after all. And by definition, the point of a drinking game is to get drunk.
I could go on and on about Pong, but for now this will do. I just had to clarify Reilly’s inadequate description of Pong. To insult the game of Pong is to insult the life of a Dartmouth student.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Spurs 92 @ Bulls 87 (I was there)
I spent the weekend in Chicago and attended this game. Going in, I had my doubts. The Spurs are never good in the tail end of back to back games and they were trounced the previous night in Philadelphia. Tony Parker, specifically, has looked awful in the back to backs, (which really doesn’t make any sense given that he is one of the youngest players on the team.) The 78-90 loss in Orlando after losing 83-90 to New Orleans comes to mind. Tony was 3-17 from the field for 9 points with 4 turnovers and only 4 assists. So, having to chase the standout rookie Derrick Rose seemed like a recipe for disaster. Also, after beating the Lakers in a truly fantastic 112-111 battle, the Spurs were due for an emotional letdown. My hope was that the loss to the Sixers would serve as a brief letdown and that the Spurs would rebound against the Bulls. Historically, the Spurs rebound very well after a loss, especially to one of that magnitude.
The United Center is substantially bigger than the AT&T Center. The United Center was not sold out and still posted an attendance upwards of 22,000, compared to a sold out AT&T center crowd of 18,675. Even so, I swear you could hear a pin drop for most of the game. Several times during the game I asked aloud, “Why is it so quiet in here?” but did not receive a response. By far the loudest spectator was the ice cream peddler whom you could hear from 4 sections over, “ICE CREAM!” It became the running joke of the night. If you were in a Chicago bar later that night and heard people randomly screaming, “ICE CREAM!” That was us.
The game was, as expected, an ugly one. The Spurs led for most of the game, but seemed to be half awake and could never maintain a lead. However, the Spurs managed to grind out a win. This is a game that gives me confidence. In ’99, ’03, ’05, and ’07, these are the kind of games the Spurs seemed to always win. It would be ugly, low scoring, and frustrating in that you knew the Spurs were the superior team, but they could never get any separation. But with the score close and two minutes remaining, the Spurs would always make a few big shots and get a few big stops for the win. They have won many of these types of games this season.
Chicago is a great city. If you have never been, you should definitely give it a try. Chicago is incredible because it is the third biggest city in the US, but still has that Midwestern, Southern mellow feel to it. People are not as crazy or hurried as they are in other big cities, like NYC. My good friend from Dartmouth, The Big Talc, currently resides in Chicago, which is why I made the trip. He basically took me on a tour of his favorite bars, (we hit 12 different bars in two nights.) My favorite was a place called the Hidden Sham. It was a multi-story bar that offered a great drink special in the basement. $3 Jameson Shots. Seriously? Any place that gets people to drink straight whiskey is cool in my book. (I am Texan, remember?)
The United Center is substantially bigger than the AT&T Center. The United Center was not sold out and still posted an attendance upwards of 22,000, compared to a sold out AT&T center crowd of 18,675. Even so, I swear you could hear a pin drop for most of the game. Several times during the game I asked aloud, “Why is it so quiet in here?” but did not receive a response. By far the loudest spectator was the ice cream peddler whom you could hear from 4 sections over, “ICE CREAM!” It became the running joke of the night. If you were in a Chicago bar later that night and heard people randomly screaming, “ICE CREAM!” That was us.
The game was, as expected, an ugly one. The Spurs led for most of the game, but seemed to be half awake and could never maintain a lead. However, the Spurs managed to grind out a win. This is a game that gives me confidence. In ’99, ’03, ’05, and ’07, these are the kind of games the Spurs seemed to always win. It would be ugly, low scoring, and frustrating in that you knew the Spurs were the superior team, but they could never get any separation. But with the score close and two minutes remaining, the Spurs would always make a few big shots and get a few big stops for the win. They have won many of these types of games this season.
Chicago is a great city. If you have never been, you should definitely give it a try. Chicago is incredible because it is the third biggest city in the US, but still has that Midwestern, Southern mellow feel to it. People are not as crazy or hurried as they are in other big cities, like NYC. My good friend from Dartmouth, The Big Talc, currently resides in Chicago, which is why I made the trip. He basically took me on a tour of his favorite bars, (we hit 12 different bars in two nights.) My favorite was a place called the Hidden Sham. It was a multi-story bar that offered a great drink special in the basement. $3 Jameson Shots. Seriously? Any place that gets people to drink straight whiskey is cool in my book. (I am Texan, remember?)
PLAYERS: Jacque Vaughn
(Editor’s Note: I wrote this mid-season of the ‘07-‘08 campaign. Everyone take a moment to thank the Basketball Gods for George Hill.)
Alright, let’s get this party started. Jacque Vaughn is an abomination on the basketball court. Jacque Vaughn is averaging 4.1 PPG, 1 RPG, 2.2 APG, and .72 TPG in 15 minutes. He is shooting 42.4% from the field. His numbers look horrible, but what they do not capture is how the opposing point guards fare when going head to head against Vaughn. (They destroy him.) They also do not reflect his momentum killing contributions. When Jacque enters a game, you can expect a turnover, two wide open missed shots, and Vaughn’s go-to move which consists of driving into the lane, realizing he’s a midget, and circling back out, thereby wasting 5-10 seconds off the shot clock. He is also prone to air-balling lay-ups. This is due to the fact that he is tiny, can’t jump, and is not quick. If he gets a step on a defender, the defender can recover in plenty of time to alter his shot. So why does Popovich insist upon playing Jacque? He has the wily veteran Damon Stoudemire rusting on the bench while Vaughn handicaps the team. I am of the opinion that when Popovich looks at Jacque Vaughn, he sees Avery Johnson. Jacque Vaughn is a poor man’s Avery Johnson. For his career, Avery averaged 8.4 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 5.5 APG and 1.6 TPG in 25 minutes. Compare those numbers to Jacque's listed above. If you take into consideration that Avery averaged 10 more minutes per game, their numbers are nearly identical. Seriously, it’s almost spooky. Both players are short, slow, and they can’t jump. Avery had a knack for finding the open man, which is why Jacque is a step below him. Jacque should be playing golf, not playing backup point guard for the defending champs. Jacque Vaughn makes my head hurt.
San Antonio Spurs Insight
This blog will consist of four different sections all of which will be periodically maintained: Players, Games, “48MinutesofHell” Rebuttals, and Random Insight. “Players” will provide insight upon the individual players of the Spurs. I will provide analysis and thoughts that you will not find anywhere else. “Games” will consist of recaps from Spurs games and if something noteworthy happens outside of a Spurs game, you will find it here. “48MinutesofHell” is the blog that ESPN’s TrueHoop has chosen to represent San Antonio. I find most of their posts inaccurate and will prove their pessimistic arguments inadequate in this section. “Random Insight” will contain general analysis of the Spurs and whatever else I feel like writing about. The ideas and analysis that you find on this blog will be highly original, at least that is the goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
