The Spurs have been top 3 in tenure throughout the last 13 years. 10 times they've led the league, including the last 7 consecutive years. Projecting next year's minutes with Manu, the Spurs should place around 6th. Without Manu they drop to 21st.

Using my WAXT (Weighted Average eXperience with Team) metric, they retain the same "top 3 for 13 straight years" achievement (3rd the last two seasons). My projection has them at 11th with Manu and 20th without Manu next year.

The bigger drop in WAXT from 17-18 to 18-19 is because our most tenured players are bench players; all the minutes Manu and Mills have racked up over the years don't count for as much.

I'm still trying to decide whether I'm thinking about this right. Both measures seem to be predictive of wins though. I used all team-seasons going back to 1980-81 for a population of 1,051.

TLDR: continuity is important, but once you get past a certain point it stops helping. Applying that to the Spurs, we lost our continuity cushion when Timmy retired. Kawhi sitting the bench last year probably cost us around 4 wins purely due to the loss of continuity, and continued losses this offseason would cost us up to 17 more wins if we replaced them with new guys of the same talent level.



Both unweighted experience and my WAXT measure are predictive of wins with R2 values of 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. There's obviously a lot of other things going on, but that's strong enough to say that there is something to the idea that continuity is important.

The charts end up being fairly interesting, unfortunately I don't know how to upload pictures anymore.

Unweighted experience is linear with a slope of 4,000 minutes per win. The implication there is that losing 50k minutes (Parker, Green, and Anderson), would drop wins from 47 to 35. Losing Manu would cost another 6 games. Of course, there are plenty of other things going on such as our overall talent going up and those players not playing as much as an Aldridge does. I'm leaving Kawhi out since he didn't play and wasn't around the team that much, so it's not much different than if we traded him a month into the year.

If we weight the impact for how much they play, you come up with more of a logarithmic chart, basically saying that experience is really helpful up to a point, but once you get to a team WAXT around 8,000 more experience doesn't equal more wins. We've fallen into that sub 8,000 area though. We're probably looking at about 1 win for every 300 points of WAXT. By that measure, Parker/Green/Anderson/Leonard are worth about 11 wins and Manu is worth nearly 6 wins.

Spurs have until tomorrow to pick up or waive Paul.

Spurs waive Paul. One less defender on the team.

We will probably find a way to survive without our 5th string SG.

For a second I thought that said Pau.

Guitarsoup said:

---

We will probably find a way to survive without our 5th string SG.

---

This. Plus I don't want him taking any minutes from Murray, White, or Walker (when he's not in Austin).

PG:
* Murray
* Patty
* White

Wing:
* DeMar
* Beli
* Manu
* Lonnie
* Bryn
* Gay


Stretch 4:
* Bertans
* Cunningham

Post:
* TheMarcus
* Poeltl
* Gasol


That's 14 players, one open slot. Spurs still have the Bi-Annual Exception of $3.3mm.

Spurs have 117mm in salaries including Duncan's dead money.
Luxury tax is 123mm.
Spurs are hard capped at 129.7mm

So the Spurs can still spend the Bi-Annual on someone and stay under the luxury tax.

dave99ag said:

---

For a second I thought that said Pau.

---

If only.

Did anyone read that super high analysis from Ulrich?

Over under win total 43.5. Thoughts?

I'll take the over. Barring injuries, we should be over 50.

I would guess 48.

If I had any money I'd bet the over

West Texan said:

---

I'll take the over. Barring injuries, we should be over 50.

---

This is what I am thinking!

Can't wait to see #9 hanging up in the rafters in a few years. Manu is next though.

Ulrich said:

---

I would guess 48.

---

We replaced

Tony Parker (7.7p/3.5a)
Danny Green (8.6p/3.6r .387/.363 FG/3FG%)
Kyle Anderson (7.9p/5.4r/2.7a)
Joffery LSomething (4.1p/3.1r)


with

DeRozan (23p/5.2a/3.9r)
Belinelli (13.6p/.385 3fg%)
Poeltl (6.9p/4.8r)
Dante Cunningham (5.7p/4.1r)
Derrick White ?/?
Lonnie Walker ?/?

I think we are mid-50s.

We also don't have a legit point guard or small forward and no good wing defenders plus we're in the second consecutive year of massive roster turnover. I'll go mid-50s if we run it back in 19-20, but right now we need too many players to improve dramatically at too many things.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I would guess 48.

---

We replaced

Tony Parker (7.7p/3.5a)
Danny Green (8.6p/3.6r .387/.363 FG/3FG%)
Kyle Anderson (7.9p/5.4r/2.7a)
Joffery LSomething (4.1p/3.1r)


with

DeRozan (23p/5.2a/3.9r)
Belinelli (13.6p/.385 3fg%)
Poeltl (6.9p/4.8r)
Dante Cunningham (5.7p/4.1r)
Derrick White ?/?
Lonnie Walker ?/?

I think we are mid-50s.

---

The West should also be a lot tougher this year. But I think we can squeak out 50.

Ulrich said:

---

We also don't have a legit point guard or small forward and no good wing defenders plus we're in the second consecutive year of massive roster turnover. I'll go mid-50s if we run it back in 19-20, but right now we need too many players to improve dramatically at too many things.

---

I think Derozan is going to spend most of the time running the point similar to Harden in 16. Then we have Patty/White/Murray to split duty outside of that. Last year he averaged 5.2apg while playing next to an all-star PG.

We are weaker on defense for sure. But having a legit second scorer that can create for others will make up a huge hole in our offense. I hope White/Beli's shooting will be enough around him.

I don't think there's any question that we'll be better offensively, just like I don't think there's any question that we'll be worse defensively. But saying that we have a bunch of SGs who can fill in at point doesn't exactly invalidate my point, and we still don't have a small forward defender in the golden age of the small forward.

The last few years there have only been 2-3 mid-50s teams in the West each season and I'm not sure I see us as the second or third best team yet. The conference is too strong top to bottom right now for 5-6 WC teams to get around 55 wins.

Ulrich said:

---

I don't think there's any question that we'll be better offensively, just like I don't think there's any question that we'll be worse defensively. But saying that we have a bunch of SGs who can fill in at point doesn't exactly invalidate my point, and we still don't have a small forward defender in the golden age of the small forward.

The last few years there have only been 2-3 mid-50s teams in the West each season and I'm not sure I see us as the second or third best team yet. The conference is too strong top to bottom right now for 5-6 WC teams to get around 55 wins.

---

So we lose 4 to GSW.
Houston has no SF.
Portland has Aminu & Harkless? Meh.
Lakers aren't a complete team yet. Really strange group right now. But they do have Bron and Ingram.
Utah has Ingles.
OKC has Paul George, but I don't think they will be any better this year than last year.
NOLA has \_()_/
Minnesota has Wiggins.
Denver has rookie Michael Porter.
Dallas has rookie Donic.

Not so worried about having to compete at SF in the west right now.

Minnesota will likely marginally improve.
Lakers should take a big jump, but not enough to be elite.
Portland will be about the same.
Houston regressed.
NOLA regressed.
OKC regressed
Dallas improved, but won't be great.
Utah will be about the same.
Golden State is still the team to beat.


Meh.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I don't think there's any question that we'll be better offensively, just like I don't think there's any question that we'll be worse defensively. But saying that we have a bunch of SGs who can fill in at point doesn't exactly invalidate my point, and we still don't have a small forward defender in the golden age of the small forward.

The last few years there have only been 2-3 mid-50s teams in the West each season and I'm not sure I see us as the second or third best team yet. The conference is too strong top to bottom right now for 5-6 WC teams to get around 55 wins.

---

Not so worried about having to compete at SF in the west right now.

Minnesota will likely marginally improve.
Lakers should take a big jump, but not enough to be elite.
Portland will be about the same.
Houston regressed.
NOLA regressed.
OKC regressed
Dallas improved, but won't be great.
Utah will be about the same.
Golden State is still the team to beat.


Meh.

---

I agree with most of that except I am not sure they the Wolves improve. If the reports about Butler wanting out are true then the young guys may not have what it takes to take it to the next level.

I think the Spurs improvements outweigh their losses. I still think Pop is an elite coach and will get the most out of the players that are there. Who knows what DeRozan might do with a coach like Pop.

This and my bind optimism say the Spurs are the 3rd best team in the west and they push even harder than they did last year!

Seven teams finished with 49-46 wins in the west.

Portland (no significant changes)
OKC (Added Dennis Schroeder, who plays the same position as Westbrook, lost Melo - decline)
Utah (Added Grayson Allen, no real improvements)
NOLA (Lost DeMarcus Cousins and Rajon Rondo and replaced with Julius Randle and Elfried Payton. Decline)
Puro SA (Improved as discussed above)
TPups (No real improvement, have unhappy Jimmy Butler in contract year)
Thuggets (Added Isaiah Thomas, drafted Michael Porter, lost Wilson Chandler - some improvement.)

The Mavs and Lakers move into this tier now. But I think the Spurs moved up a notch, and are still a bit behind GSW/Houston.

Imo NOLA and OKC didn't get worse and may have gotten better. Utah will improve in Mitchell's second season.

The Spurs could finish anywhere among the top 10 in the West I'd only be slightly surprised.

Negatives
- Huge turnover in losing Green, Anderson and Parker. A lot of culture just left the locker room and that could be a problem with all the new guys.
- Counting on many youngsters to step up. At least two out of White, Forbes, Bertans, Walker, Murray, and Poeltl need to become real starting level players in order for the Spurs to be a top end Western team.
- The West looks brutal on paper right now. Not many easy wins and a lot of talent that could choke you out while the young guys get up to speed.
- LMA had his best season last year and is now a year older. Does he maintain that?
- Derozen, how does he fit? Does he buy into the defense?

Positives
- Turned the page on Kawhi while adding a highly motivating and (IMO) very underrated star in Derozan. I think the DD and LMA combo has the potential to be AWESOME.
- Gay was quietly our second best player the last half of the season. He's now back and could be even better since the injury is long past.
- A core of LMA, DD and Gay is pretty dang salty and compares well to anyone else in the West by most measures. The only question is how will they mesh and who will step up to support them? I think Walker, Bertans and Murray can all be special defenders. Beli, White and Mills can all be effective shooters. Sprinkle in some Manu and Gasol to promote the Spurs way of play and this could go VERY well.

The reality is the West is tough but almost everyone has questions to go along with promise. What coaching staff do you trust to get the most out their team? I would be pretty shocked if the Spurs don't make the playoffs unless there is an injury to LMA or DD.

Emailing a PDF to the SAEN 3 weeks later with an amateurish message that doesn't even sound like Leonard? Well, ok. Thanks for throwing us a raggedy bone in a weak ass attempt to salvage some rep, Uncle Whats-his-name.

AustinAg2012 said:

---

And I have two words for you, Kawho...

https://www.mysanantonio.com/file/338/5/3385-New%20Kawhi%20Thanks.pdf

Adios, mofo.

---

"Wait, Tony Parker did what? Well we better put out some statement as well..."

Wow.

Schedules are out!

Spurs schedule