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.