If shawns was coaching Spurs win

When I first started frequenting this forum I dropped an almost incredible amount of correctness in what turned out to be too short of a time. It was simply information overload for some of you mental midgets (SJ, other bitter old people, etc.) My ideas were simply too complex and too original for the averages sports fan/sheeple to comprehend.

Sadly I realized that you all could only process very basic types of information. However, some of you are intelligent enough to learn from me and it is for you few intellectualls who this post is dedicated.

How would the Spurs have beaten the Lakers if Shawns was coaching instead of that ingrate popobitch? Quite simply, Ginobili and Horry would have played 80-90% of their teams minutes. Allow me to explain with proof-

-cont-

The plus/minus is a statistic that tells us how a team performs with a certain player on the floor vs. off the floor. So, let's say when the Rec-league all stars have SJ on the floor they are -10 and when he's off the floor the team is +10, then SJ would have a plus/minus of -20. We could then scale that to find his plus/minus per 48 minutes played.

One caveat, the plus/minus should not be used to compare players on different teams as the stat is highly context-dependent. If you don't understand that point let me know and I will explain in greater detail.

Now if you remember back, I suggested months ago that Ginobili and Horry should not only be starting, but more importantly getting big minutes for the Spurs. You will also remember that I suggested those minutes come from Bowen and Nesterovic. Despite me owning all of you sheeple in the Bowen debates, you all still incorrectly maintained that he should be getting the majority of minutes.

Which is to say that all of you would probably suck just as much as Popobitch. As an aside, another of my brilliant assertions was that coaching only matters in one very specific way

-playing the right players the right number of minutes

All the other BS (motivation, play calling, etc.) is just that, BULLSHIT. I don't remember a single one of you jackasses agreeing with me on this point.

But these playoffs have demonstrated my correctness once again. Phil Jackson played the right guys the right number of minutes (call that genius if you want to) and Popobitch didn't.

-cont-

I know numbers can be scary but this is very simple stuff, this is not elementary school and we're not going to laugh at you because you're the dumb kid, just concentrate and you'll learn

Now what will follow is a list of Spurs players, the first number after their name is the percentage of their teams minutes they played IN THE PLAYOFFS, the second number is their plus/minus per 48 minutes.

Horry 43% 23.0

Ginobili 58% 10.5

Parker 80% 4.0

Duncan 84% 2.9

Turkoglu 56% 1.2

Ward 2% 3.8

Brown 27% 0.4

Willis 5% -8.0

Hart 13% -4.6

Rose 11% -5.9

Bowen 62% -1.9

Nesterovic 54% -7.5

You can find these stats with more detail at
http://www.82games.com/034PSAS1.HTM

-cont-

Now for the Lakers

O'Neal 86% 10.1

Bryant 91% 6.5

Payton 73% 6.3

George 43% 6.2

Fisher 46% 5.5

Malone 81% 3.1

Rush 28% 1.3

Medvedenko 20% -2.2



Russell 1% -36.5

Cook 1% -32.0

Fox 15% -5.2

Walton 9% -15.8

http://www.82games.com/034PLAL1.HTM

-cont-

They would have still lost! lol

eat a dick

Anyway, if you have followed this so far you understand why my pre-playoff assertion that Bowen and Nesterovic's minutes should be given to Ginobili and Horry was so astoundingly correct.

In other words Popobitch blew the series by playing the wrong guys the wrong number of minutes. Now can I guarantee that with my coaching adjustments the Spurs would have won? Of course not, but clearly them winning would have been far more likely.

Conversely you can see that Phil plays the right players the right number of minutes. Sadly, he is one of few coaches who do. You can see his only mistake was playing Fox and Walton, and I believe you'll see him adjust in the next rounds by mostly playing Rush. So the Lakers will correctly go with an 8 man rotation of: Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton, George, Fisher, Medvedenko, and Rush.

Now before responding in an anti-intellectual rage, reread several times until you understand. This is not school, there are dumb questions. So figure some shit out before you open your mouth and embarass yourselves.

For the intelligent forum members who have learned from this, kudos to you for having a functioning intellect. Maybe in the future you wiil be more receptive to my genius. I would make a great coach, but coaching is easy. I am far more brilliant in the the more challenging aspect of the game, the GM role. If I feel that you all are smart enough to comprehend I may bless you with some of my insights as to why most GM's couldn't tell their dumb asses from a hole in the ground.

Horry? lol

Hey Shawns you should "eat dick". since I took time to read your thread and said they'd still would have lost. I never said you where wrong. Go on ramble on more Spurz Blah blah this and that. The Surz Lost case closed, bring on the next team. Spurz GO HOME> lol@Shawns!!!

Surely you realize my "eat a dick" comment was in jest. You may be correct that the Spurs would still have lost. Sadly we will never know. Still Popobitch should be tarred and feathered for his horrible coaching and he will probably get away with little to no blame.

Fair enough!

Peace out!

not many coaches use the +/- system or Winval system to help. actually, the mavericks might be the only team who does.

" not many coaches use the +/- system or Winval system to help. actually, the mavericks might be the only team who does."

I've heard this too and it boggles my mind. Reason being is that Antoine Walker had maybe the worst +/- in the league of any player that played a high percentage of minutes. If Cuban really is getting this data it clearly is not having any effect on that ignoramus Nelson.

"It makes statistical sense but basketball is also a game of intangables."

I'm not advocating replacing subjective analysis with purely objective analysis, you need both. People are very comfortable with stats already, when you watch a game they're constantly throwing stats at you. The problem is the stats most everyone is comfortable with don't accurately quantify the action and usually only mislead the viewer or confuse matters even worse.

Maybe next time I watch a game I'll keep track of all the stats they give out and explain why they are lacking.

Just to add some subjective analysis-
Ginobili over Bowen is a no-brainer. Bowen may be a little better defensively, but Ginobili is twice the player overall: passing, rebounding, taking it to the hoop, etc.

Horry over Nesterovic is a bit more complex than just comparing the two head-to-head. Playing Horry with Duncan means Shaq has to guard Duncan, Shaq cannot cover Horry out to the three-point line. Even if he could that would be a good thing as the the basket area would be clear for Duncan to operate. And Duncan would have another shooter to pass to, making it hard for Malone to double team.

Shaq guarding Duncan is also very good for the Spurs because that will put Shaq in foul trouble. Conversely Duncan guarding Shaq will put Duncan in foul trouble. That matchup is a wash anyway and if I'm the Spurs I'd be glad to have those two produce evenly or have them both on the bench with foul trouble. The Spurs are deeper and it would give them a better chance of winning. Without Shaq the Lakers can't defend the paint, and are very susceptible to penetration. Without Duncan the Spurs still can defend the paint, though not nearly as well of course.

Just to further bolster my point go here and look at Duncans production when he was at C vs. when he was at PF.

Don't get confused and say "but Duncan is always at C". The way this is figured out is by looking at the lineup on the floor. So when Nesterovic is on the floor then Duncan is scored at PF. When you look at the link you'll see that Duncan only played 38% of his team's minutes at C (meaning Duncan was in the game and Nesterovic wasn't). Bump this up to 75% of the minutes and you can see that Duncan's effectiveness may have increased dramatically. In essence I would only have played Nesterovic as a backup C, never both C's in the game at the same time.

Let me know if these stats aren't clear

http://www.82games.com/P3SAS10C.HTM

if shawns was coaching, we would have swept the spurs. it's a damn shame you weren't =P

lol, it would've went five games instead of six:)

and you would have made some serious cash for those 5 games!! Any idea what pop makes? Probably 50 grand a game, somethin like that?

Yeah, he makes 4mil a year, figure about 100 games counting preseason and playoffs, he makes about 40K a game. Coaches are ridiculously overpaid.

Dammit why don't the Warriors hire me as GM? I'm sure I would get them in the playoffs the first year and I'd do the job for free! Bye bye Dunleavy, Murphy, Dampier, Van Exel, Robinson, hello better players.

The plus-minus statistic has massive conceptual problems.

You're either stupid or trolling if you rely solely on that statistic. And since you type three times more than anyone else, you're trolling yourself more than anybody.

I like use a combination of PER-differential, plus/minus, minutes played, and some other floor-time stuff to get a complete picture. If a stat doesn't stand up to my subjective analysis I try to figure out why before just accepting it.

Do you have a specific comment on my thoughts or would you just prefer to trade insults?