not really....it doesn't say that definitively at all. The R.C. Buford quote was preceded by this Earlier this month at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, Spurs general manager R.C. Buford was asked about how open-minded Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is in regard to analytics. Buford noted how Popovich liked how the numbers often confirmed his basketball beliefs, like the importance of corner 3-pointers. The article downplays that Buford noted that Popovich already knew all these things, and then it proceeds to say how it led to more discussions. It says nothing about what Popovich used or didn't. So, it was arguably a prelude to the journalist to log his required 4000 word article by extrapolating a vague quote into a fun discussion of analytics. So, what was the conclusion again? Did it explain what Pops did using analytics, or did it explain how the Spurs revamped their role players around young players like Kawhi (the Finals MVP), and better play by Tiago Let's read more: The key ingredient comes from Brazil A big key has been the improvement from Tiago Splitter, who has been the full-time starter next to Tim Duncan since mid-December, and whose minutes have increased about 5 1/2 minutes per game from last season. .... The Spurs’ defense has allowed a measly 91.9 points per 100 possessions in the 648 minutes that Duncan and Splitter have shared the floor this season and just 87.4 in 477 minutes with Duncan, Splitter and Kawhi Leonard on the floor. That’s a ridiculously good defensive trio. So analytics told Pops to use Splitter and Kawhi more? That would sound like a Coach who can't figure things out himself. That doesn't sound like Pops. You know how journalism works. People have article quotas and often recycle popular topics. There's an article that says the Heat used analytics to move Bosh to the left post. Like were the Heat going to lose? Did Bosh merely adapt to Lebron? "Fit in, Bosh." "Fit in, Love." Then there is another about the Mavs title...like Cuban suddenly started using Analytics and it had nothing to do with Nowitzki having a legendary playoff run along with them getting the key piece they were missing for Carlisle's defense -- Chandler. These are all overstatements by the media to write articles that get clicks. Barkley's comments are closer to the truth than anything here. Oh, and Mark Jackson defended the coaching profession tonight on ESPN, saying coaches like Pops have been using numbers for decades and the media frenzy over analytics is "unfair to the profession." Like I said in the post you quote...nothing new here.
^^ Analytics played a role. The reason they even considered Boston was because of what they saw in the stats. The discussion on strategy includes the stats guys -- that's what Buford himself said. Why even bring them to the table if they have no voice in the matter? And where are you getting that Popovich doesn't consider stats at all? Show me that quote. We are both "extrapolating", if you like, based on what has been said. I think my view is better supported than yours. Also, why should Popovich "like" that the stats confirm his belief the corner three? If he considered them irrelevant, than it shouldn't matter to him one way or the other. That quote indicates that it increased his confidence in his strategy. This is an important role.
Never hate on kenny smith. For all of those years we had a stable point guard who was a great ball handler, shooter and leader
Exactly. If people are going to be mad, they should be mad that Kenny agrees with Chuck, not that he didn't stand up for the Rockets.
If you are interpreting something I said as me saying he doesn't consider stats, then allow me to restate. All coaches look at stats/numbers. that's the job of their scouts...to chart players/teams/game situations/etc. They've been doing it for decades. See Mark Jackson's quote of mine. The quote said nothing about increasing Pops "confidence." Really? You believe that in 2013, Pops needed a confidence boost? My interpretation is the quote about Pops liking how the numbers proved him right, says Pops already knew that and the info didn't tell him anything new. At best, it was a confirmation that he didn't really need. Regardless, how to you go from that to it is an "important role." Sorry, don't agree. Don't see that article saying anything about Pops use of analytics at all. There is no Pops quote. All RC said was it "led to further discussions." And btw: you'd think that quote by RC would have led to someone clarifying the incomplete answer and asking Pops directly. Find me a Pops quote that says it played an "important role" in his return to top 5 defense in 2013.
Popovich is an intelligent man, and as such he knows that his views are not infallible. that's all. It is well known that he welcomes the input of a wide range of people from different backgrounds -- assistant coaches, players, people from overseas, former players from the WNBA. The more people agree that a particular strategy is correct, the more confidence one can rightly have in it. If stats have no value, then it can't be said to be confirmatory. You are contradicting yourself here.
Right, he relies heavily on his team of scouts/coaches and their ability to chart the game for him and the team. That's what I've been saying. He's been doing that for years...and perfected it way before SportsVU data. I never said stats have no value nor did I say that about Pops. Where are you getting that from? Have you ever sat with an NBA scout for a game and watched what they do, how they chart it? They are generating "advanced" stats with paper and pencil (at the specific direction of their coach) better than a computer can interpret SportsVU's reams of raw data. So, when I say that I interpret RC's quote to mean Pops already new that, I mean his traditional scouting already proved it. I can also explain the complexities of the statement that the corner 3 is a good shot. It's not about being 6 inches closer. It's how it fits in with the primary attack that the defense must defend first.
Don't underestimate human error. Traditional scouting is great and hugely valuable. But even the expert advance scout can miss things. The Spurs are a top notch organization because they are willing to consider different perspectives. I'm not claiming that Popovich is a closet stat nerd. I would even go so far as to call him a traditionalist, but one who can also be swayed by logical, evidence-based arguments. I have no reason to doubt that he will consider the input of the analysts in his organization from time to time, along with the input of his coaches and scouts. I asked a straightforward question which went unanswered. Why even invite the statisticians to the discussion regarding rethinking the defensive strategy, if they have no real voice in the matter? For that matter, why invest in SportsVU at all, if Popovich thinks its totally pointless? Have fun with the complexities. If the corner three wasn't a high percentage shot, it wouldn't be nearly as valuable as it is. That's the bottom line.
Kenny Smith tries to sound smart but he's not at all. His feeble attempt to demonstrate any comprehension of analytics was just as pathetic as Barkley's rant, IMO. If I wanted sound analysis, I wouldn't look to Kenny to provide it. RE: Morey - it wasn't him who fired the first shot. Barkley has been ridiculously anti-Rockets for some time now and it was great that someone finally called him out.
Sorry, didn't mean to avoid a question from you. My guess is (based on it being true with the Rockets and many other orgs) is the GM bought SportsVU and the GM invited the statisticians to present their data to the coach. Apparently, Adelman hated that while coach of the Rockets. There is quote proof that is what happened with Spurs too. Read quotes from the NBA scout who Buford hired to be Director of Analytics in 2012. He says his main job is to provide data about drafts and player acquisitions -- data that Buford wants. He says that data about the Spurs schemes and players is "hard to communicate." Read about him. He said in 2012 (or '13) that communicating the data to the coaching staff is one of the biggest challenges. And I do have fun with talking about the complexities of basketball offenses and defense. So here goes...as requested. The bottom line is different areas of the court have better chance for NBA shooters to camp out at and wait for a pass. The corner 3 is that spot. If we can't see how offensive schemes use the spot for that purpose, then we aren't fully understanding the data. So, it was the offensive schemes that created the data, not the other way around. see this article from Vantage that measured many things about 3s, which I merely skimmed over, and mainly provide for you consumption...since Vantage is a primary source of new analytics: http://blog.cacvantage.com/2013/02/How-Easy-Is-the-Corner-Three-Pointer-NBA-Defense.html What this data confirms is the corner three is the three that offers the highest chance for a set shot from three point range. The article tries to explain that closer distance isn't the issue so much as a spot on the court where you can camp out and wait for a pass with your feet already set and the player ready to fire. Pops already knew that many years ago. It is the three that does not disrupt your main attacks, and it is the hardest to guard, because those first option, two-man attacks operate at the top of the key (Parker/Duncan PNR) and the two-man game from the wing (Ginobili and Duncan). That's what makes it so available for set shooters. So, 3 and D people like Battier make a living practicing that shot and camping there, because there coach told them to because it gets them out of the way of the primary attack and help defense leaves them at the highest frequency ... ie...it spreads the floor Hell, even before the three point shot in college, that corner shot was a main feature of Tex Winter's Triangle strong side attack. How's that versus your simplistic "bottom line"?
Kenny tries to come off as being intelligent, but he is also dumb. He tries to use big words, but it comes off awkward.
Sorry, but I don't have any respect for dudes who have their own reality shows. I like Sam Cassell though.
I like Kenny Smith the ball player more than I like Kenny Smith the analyst. Something about his smile kind of creeps me out too, too much gums?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8W088765Vxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I spent a few minutes trying to find the quote you were referring to, but couldn't. I'd be interested to look at it, if its not a trouble for you to locate it. But from what you say, one of his jobs is to communicate the data to the coaching staff. I don't think the Spurs coaches are interested in pouring over excel sheets, and I never said this. It is the analysts job to convey the results in a way that's meaningful to others. Interesting. I appreciate the information. As you say, the stats also say its a good strategy. Maybe if people were studying the stats much earlier like they do today, then Pop wouldn't have been the first one to popularize it.
He did become a vocal leader on the team when Mad Max bailed. And he obviously had key moments in those 2 title runs(Game 4 against the Suns, Game 1 against Utah, Games 6 and 7 against the Knicks. Game 1 against the Magic). Does anyone know if he harbors any grudge against the organization for the way things ended? Remember his last year here wasn't a good one. He looked washed up and actually lost his starting job to Eldridge Recasner at one point. And once the Rockets moved on the following season and replaced him with Brent Barry, Emanual Davis, and Matt Maloney, he was basically a journeyman PG who was soon out of the league.
