The Spurs have clinched the best record in the Western Conference. And they may finish with the best record in the NBA. But despite their lofty status in the NBA standings, the Spurs have not been a frequent topic in this forum. In fact, the last post dedicated to the Spurs was offered on the 3rd of December.
That post looked at the Spurs after just 18 games. Now that 80 games have been played, what stories can be told?
The Spurs have won 61 games, but that record is a bit of an illusion. The team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) is 6.3, a mark consistent with a team that would win about 55 or 56 wins in 80 games. When we turn to Wins Produced, we see that these 55 or 56 wins come from a familiar source.
- Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker have combined to produce 31.6 wins.
- Everyone Else on the roster has combined to produce 24.0 wins.
As I did back December, let’s take a similar look at the Spurs across the past four seasons.
- 2006-07: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (43.9 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (19.2 Wins Produced)
- 2007-08: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (41.2 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (12.4 Wins Produced)
- 2008-09: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (30.7 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (20.4 Wins Produced)
- 2009-10: Duncan-Ginobili-Parker (31.7 Wins Produced), Everyone Else (22.8 Wins Produced)
The big three in San Antonio are on pace to produce about as many wins as we have seen in each of the last two seasons. And if that was all the Spurs had, this team would struggle. But Everyone Else on the Spurs is clearly helping. Consequently, although the Spurs are not the “best” team in the NBA (in terms of efficiency differential or Wins Produced), this team does rank among the best.
The construction of the Spurs reminds me of a post offered this past week by Andres Alvarez. As Dre noted in A Rose does not Equal Love, a team can’t just focus on the best players on the team. A team also needs to focus on the worst players. Specifically, a team can also improve outcomes by not hiring players who are very unproductive.
The team that illustrates this point in Dre’s post was the Chicago Bulls. The San Antonio Spurs, though, also illustrate this observation. An average player posts a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.100. This season, the Spurs employ seven players – Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, DeJuan Blair, Tony Parker, Antonio McDyess, Tiago Splitter, and George Hill – who have posted above average marks and played more than 500 minutes. And the Spurs have employed six players in the negative range. But although these players have collected money from San Antonio, combined the negative players have only played 463 minutes. In other words, negative players have mostly stayed on the bench for the Spurs this season.
Okay, the Spurs have done a good job building a title contender. The team has a nice blend of productive stars and productive role players. And although I didn’t have Dre’s observation in December, this is essentially what I said after 18 games (see why I never talk about the Spurs?). So what can I say that hasn’t been said before (in this forum)?
Well, after 18 games, three more stories were offered:
- Richard Jefferson is above average again.
- DeJuan Blair is struggling.
- Tim Duncan looks older.
After 80 games, only one of these stories can still be told.
- Jefferson is once again below average.
- Blair is once again well above average.
- And Duncan – while still being the most productive player on the team – doesn’t look quite as good as he did in the past.
The play of Jefferson and Blair reminds us that small samples are a problem. Again, after 18 games the story for Jefferson and Blair was not the same story we see after 80 games. Although this is not surprising, it does seem like every season we start trying to draw conclusions before the season reaches the quarter pole.
As for the Duncan story, that story reminds us of the power of age. Next year (assuming there is a next year), Duncan and Ginobili – the two players leading the Spurs in Wins Produced – will be 35 and 34 years of age respectively. Although we can’t predict when age will ultimately end a player’s career, we do know that a player will eventually get too old to contribute at some point.
So although we don’t know if “some point” for Duncan and Ginobili is 2011-12, we do know that the Spurs need to find someone to replace these players someday. Yes, you can help your team win games by not hiring and playing negative players. But to contend for a title, you do need players who can produce wins in large quantities. And that means, if the Spurs wish to contend again in the future, the team will have to find some players to produce wins in the same quantities it is currently getting from Duncan and Ginobili (and yes, I think I have told that story before as well).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
GS
April 10, 2011
I’m sorry, but I can no longer let this go. In seemingly every post, you begin at least one sentence with “Again, …”. Please stop doing this, it is infuriating.
dberri
April 10, 2011
I also begin sentences with “and” a lot. Again, that is a problem. And I can’t seem to stop. Again, though, I think I will try. And maybe that will help.
Fred Bush
April 10, 2011
The Spurs have done much better than chance at the draft, I think, so I’m pretty sanguine about their future. All of their first-round picks over the last decade are currently playing in the NBA (is that true for any other team?), and none were picked higher than 20th.
Seems apparent to me that they’re on board with advanced player metrics too — consider Ime Udoka. They were required to bring a player on to reach the league minimum roster size, and they brought Ime back. He was a Spur for several years and knows the system, and they could’ve hired him for the season very cheaply — but his performance has clearly degraded and they got rid of him quickly, instead focusing on younger players.
Evan
April 11, 2011
It’s rather surprising that Ginobli and Duncan haven’t dropped off more, isn’t it? On the other hand, I guess compared with two years ago they have dropped off significantly.
Megalo Arenas
April 11, 2011
Why do people start their sentence with “im sorry”, while they actually mean something else entirely? It’s infuriating.
BTW, I really don’t count that many agains.
Funny thing is the three dominant big men of the last decade might be retiring around the same time.
I could see Duncan, Garnett and Shaq retiring after this season. I know Duncan has another year on his contract, but his body is not holding up. What a 2017 hall of fame ceremony THAT would make.
Devin
April 11, 2011
So again, we’d rather discuss verbal tics instead of talking about the Spurs :)
But seriously, there are only so many ways to begin a sentence. So, again, and, but, however, thus, therefore, as, also, although…write enough words and you tend to hit a lot of them. One again per post is fine (Dave, this could be your Balkman here!).
Greyberger
April 11, 2011
A Familiar Story on Wages of Wins
The season’s almost over. And at Wages of Wins, they realize they’ve written about Carmelo Anthony fifty-seven times but the Spurs only one time. On a blog with Wins in the title that would seem to be a big story.
Writing about the Spurs is hard. It might take some time to learn the new players and changes this year to a team we’re mostly familiar with. Instead the story they chose was to refer to that one previous post on the subject, slap up the obligatory table, and repeat the word ‘story’ six times and ‘stories’ another three.
… Now that, GS, is how you do written tics snark
Nerd Numbers
April 11, 2011
Grey,
Man thanks for the laugh. I really would love to do a study on the “anti-fans” Dave has collected over the years. I suppose it’s the Melo mentality, you keep expecting something different and are surprised when you don’t get it. . . odd
On that note one irk about criticism is the mad hyperbole. I actually have to give Mosi props when he stopped Arturo cold in a podcast and said something like “Just admit your exaggerating” I mean the word “most” gets thrown around a lot. The word crazy is used. Infuriated? I mean I am just loving the picture “Oh looks like I’ll enjoy a new post on my favorite blog (or my favorite blog to hate, pick your poison) What?? HE USED AGAIN. . . AGAIN? HULK SMASH!”
Finally I mean if there is one boring team that has the same story year after year it’s the Spurs. It’s actually one of two. 1) Wow looks like Duncan and Ginobli are still playing amazing. Will it last? 2) Looks like the Spurs big 3 are battling injuries and may be done.
Greyberger
April 11, 2011
“Finally I mean if there is one boring team that has the same story year after year it’s the Spurs.”
I suppose so – that would explain why everybody in the media is sick of the Spurs being around in the postseason and sick of ’em getting in the way of more marketable teams like Phoenix and the Hornets in years past.
Greyberger
April 11, 2011
I was thinking of leaving a reply about the criticism and comments thing, I had some thoughts about how Henry Abbott is always getting flamed for saying innocuous things… but before I could I read a link left by Henry himself, making the point better than I could.
Internet critics vs. Infinite jest:
http://lyndonswords.blogspot.com/2011/04/quick-word-on-critics.html
Gil Meriken
April 11, 2011
So Henry Abbott thinks he’s a good writer?
Dave McNulla
April 12, 2011
the best part of metrics is that they don’t care what motivation or mode of operation influences the metrics. that’s also the worst part. spurs lost games by 9, 9, 5, 22, 13, 2, 24, 13, 6, 10, 16, 30, 3, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 5. three losses were one possession games. 12 were at least 3 possession games. point being that the spurs usually win or pack it in. that MO, plus that most teams don’t do that, means they will look less efficient because they aren’t wasting energy for fruitless comebacks (or fruitless the next night when everybody is more tired). typical metrics are built on a faulty model when it comes to the spurs. maybe it would be wiser to use winning-game metrics and losing-game metrics, standard deviations, or devise a more intelligent model. on the other hand, maybe the spurs suck and only the media has figured that out.
dave
bills0
April 14, 2011
Dave,
I noticed what you are talking about a while ago. But it was not that way at the beginning of the season. Towards the start of the season the Spurs would time and again let them selves get into trouble in the first half and then put in a furious comeback in the second and pull out the win. For a while the Spurs did just did not lose close games or games against teams they should beat.
Pop was clearly unhappy with that trend. That is not a method that will work often in the playoffs and it requires the starters to play too many minutes and leaves them exhausted afterward. I don’t think it was more than 20 games into the season that Pop seemed to institute a new policy. If the Spurs were not executing in the first half or playing as well as he thought they should, he would shut down the starters and not allow them to go for the comeback. He would leave it up to the bench to see if they could win it. I think this was a method of disciplining the team. The message was clearly “you play well the whole game or I will not let you try to pull it out in the end”.