A concern for the Clippers

You'll need Insider to read the whole thing but essentially Tom Haberstroh is breaking down the schedule and looking at how teams will handle the back to backs of this condensed season. He specifically discussed the Clippers.

But do familiar teams actually play better in a crunch? It sure seems that way. The following chart illustrates the relationship of continuity and performance in back-to-backs. If you're a coach, you want to see your team in the top right of the chart: good performance and familiar faces. The bottom left? Well, that's when you get some ugly play along with some new faces. Sorry, Clippers fans.

Evidently, continuity isn't just an empty load of coachspeak: We're seeing a pretty consistent relationship above (and a stronger relationship than what we see in regular games). Teams that play well on back-to-backs tend to have a lot of continuity on their roster. Other teams have struggled with their new teammates when they hit the grind.

You rarely see a team with low continuity and a good record or a bad record and a high retention rate (notice the empty pockets in the bottom right and top left corners). The Clippers, as good as they might be, have really struggled to maintain their performance when they play without any rest. So it's not just that bad teams play poorly; unfamiliar ones do, too.

4 months ago ClipperChuck 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not sure if I'm allowed to do this (so mods, please delete this if I'm breaking a rule)

But here’s the chart for non-insiders. This is really interesting, and it’s pretty compelling. We gotta start getting familiar quick.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Feb 9, 2012 11:21 PM PST reply actions

Ah yes thanks

just realized the excerpt I took referred to this graph. I guess this will help it make more sense visually.

Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.

by ClipperChuck on Feb 9, 2012 11:41 PM PST up reply actions

yes but that requires time playing together

they have to learn on the fly, no way around it.

Your capslock is stuck, please buy a new keyboard
"But can't the refs blow the whistle and stop play in certain situations?" Boltsfan21

by BelgianClipper on Feb 10, 2012 3:45 AM PST up reply actions

And they've been doing ok so far

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Feb 10, 2012 9:16 AM PST up reply actions

Well the chart is saying playing the 2nd night of a back-to-back (or 3rd of a back-to-back-to-back) is the one time they aren't playing very well.

Kind of nice that the one area we don’t win as much in is the one area that is improved as the season goes on.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Feb 10, 2012 9:42 AM PST up reply actions

Yep

And it’s clear that it’s to be expected too. So as they get familiar, the success on back-to-backs should improve. This is good since we have most of our back-to-backs in the second half of the season.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Feb 10, 2012 9:41 AM PST up reply actions

That rest before Cleveland sure didn't helped

"Cheikh Samb, the player who allowed us to emotionally move on from losing Keith Closs"

by PV Mike on Feb 10, 2012 7:02 AM PST reply actions

There's a positive here, actually

The regression line slopes upward, indicating that there is indeed a correlation. So any team ABOVE that diagonal regression line is outperforming expectations given their retention rate. It looks like the three teams over performing are Atlanta, Boston and the Clippers.

The other option was to improve retention, but that is water under the bridge; plus I’m happy with theacquisitions. I did complain during training camp that there was too much turnover, but I shouldn’t complain if I’m enjoying the victories.

by Thretch on Feb 10, 2012 8:09 AM PST reply actions

posted this on the other thread

How is this bad news? This is great news. The Clippers are 15-8 with a team that barely knows each other. By the time the playoffs roll around, the team will have been together for 66 games, and the continuity advantages enjoyed by teams like the Thunder will be significantly decreased as compared to a team like the Clippers. Besides, there aren’t any back to backs in the playoffs.

This analysis just indicates that the Clippers are being impacted by this issue now. Given that the playoffs are what matter, I see this as terrific news. The Clippers have much to gain in the area of continuity, which they will simply by playing out the rest of the season.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Feb 10, 2012 10:13 AM PST reply actions

I was thinking the same thing

One of the threats to internal validity (which is what article is trying to say) is maturation (thank you, BF Skinner). The Clippers as a team will develop over the course of the season and this stat line will change. There’s only room for growth (as a team) from here on out.

Also, come playoffs how often do teams play back-to-back? Surely it’ll be more this season due to scheduling, but I was just wondering how much this all impacts the team come playoff time.

by yaggiefresh on Feb 10, 2012 1:47 PM PST up reply actions

Faulty premise?

The biggest problem I have with this is that the Clippers haven’t actually fared as badly in b2bs as the chart indicates. Their record in the 2nd games of b2bs (or 2nd and 3rd games of b2b2bs) is currently 4-2, with wins over Miami, OKC, and Dallas — in other words, the best team in the East, the best team in the West, and the defending champs!

Haberstroh says he used efficiency differential instead of win-loss record because it’s a better measuring stick with a small sample size, but I call BS on that, because I don’t think the sample size is large enough to be meaningful there either. One of the two losses was the 30-point blowout in Utah when the Clips had to play without both CP3 and Mo. Gomes got 29 minutes and Courtney Fortson got 23. You think that this being 1/6th of the sample doesn’t skew the efficiency numbers? Puh-lease.

Of course, there’s also been a big home/road split here too, since that Utah blowout was also the only one of the six games that was on the road. Maybe this “concern” will actually become one when we start playing more of them away — 10 of the final 14 of these games will be road games, including the next 4 in a row. But for now, any implication that the Clippers have fared poorly in the 2nd half of back-to-backs just plain isn’t true.

Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Now living the good life in Lob City, CA.

by boltsfan21 on Feb 11, 2012 12:17 PM PST reply actions