Experience is supposed to matter in the NBA playoffs, but Victor Wembanyama and Dylan Harper didn't get the memo. Plus, our NBA Finals chat with special guest Nate Duncan!
I ran the same experiment with this post as with Nate Silver's bull case for the Knicks. This required AI, I had trouble picking any relevant opinion about the Spurs chances--lots of details, many not involving both teams, only qualitative directional information and often not even that, and frequently immediately undercut with a "but".
Like the Knicks piece, there's no base rate here and the points are all over the map. Wembanyama as the best player in the world who has taken it up a notch--that's a point if you're trying to push the Spurs up from 70%. But that's adjacent to most inexperienced team ever which is something to push below 30%.
The best I can distill from this is it started out to argue for the Spurs at below the betting market consensus, then talked itself down to well below what Nate Silver concluded for the Knicks bull case. If this is the bull case, it reads like a defense lawyer starting out "my client is guiltier than you think," and going down from there, only pulling up at the last minute to concede, "well, he's slightly more likely to be innocent than guilty."
Anyway, here was Claude's analysis of what the post way trying to convey:
Spurs beat the consensus #1 (Thunder) in Game 7, "calls Future of the Franchise into question" — the resume opener, most bullish beat — ~58%
"one of the most inexperienced teams ever," "experience does matter" — fade — ~48%
net rating +11.0 in playoffs vs +8.4 regular season — ~55%
Wemby "best player in the world," record playoff rim deterrence; 12-6 without him; Harper rising — strongest cluster — ~58%
"I don't exactly buy it… underrating the Knicks feels backwards" — author's own thumb on the scale, for the Knicks — ~50%
"almost never see runs this dominant," opponents "roadkill" — ~46%
KAT unlocks "a dimension the Spurs aren't entirely prepared for"; forward-depth/foul-trouble worries — ~46%
KAT body control / league-worst offensive fouls / Wemby roaming — back to ~52%
Also worth noting that four of the Spurs have big time experience on GLOBAL television...4 players have gone to the finals in the Olympics... Three have won gold medals, and Wemby led the French to a silver medal when he was 19... I know New Yorkers believe that MSG is the biggest deal on Earth... But when you're playing for the honor 65 mm people as THE Star, or 320mm as a backup, It gives you plenty of experience for the "Big Time". 👍🏻🌞🤠
This was a better argument for the Knicks than Nate's piece.
I ran the same experiment with this post as with Nate Silver's bull case for the Knicks. This required AI, I had trouble picking any relevant opinion about the Spurs chances--lots of details, many not involving both teams, only qualitative directional information and often not even that, and frequently immediately undercut with a "but".
Like the Knicks piece, there's no base rate here and the points are all over the map. Wembanyama as the best player in the world who has taken it up a notch--that's a point if you're trying to push the Spurs up from 70%. But that's adjacent to most inexperienced team ever which is something to push below 30%.
The best I can distill from this is it started out to argue for the Spurs at below the betting market consensus, then talked itself down to well below what Nate Silver concluded for the Knicks bull case. If this is the bull case, it reads like a defense lawyer starting out "my client is guiltier than you think," and going down from there, only pulling up at the last minute to concede, "well, he's slightly more likely to be innocent than guilty."
Anyway, here was Claude's analysis of what the post way trying to convey:
Spurs beat the consensus #1 (Thunder) in Game 7, "calls Future of the Franchise into question" — the resume opener, most bullish beat — ~58%
"one of the most inexperienced teams ever," "experience does matter" — fade — ~48%
net rating +11.0 in playoffs vs +8.4 regular season — ~55%
Wemby "best player in the world," record playoff rim deterrence; 12-6 without him; Harper rising — strongest cluster — ~58%
"I don't exactly buy it… underrating the Knicks feels backwards" — author's own thumb on the scale, for the Knicks — ~50%
"almost never see runs this dominant," opponents "roadkill" — ~46%
KAT unlocks "a dimension the Spurs aren't entirely prepared for"; forward-depth/foul-trouble worries — ~46%
KAT body control / league-worst offensive fouls / Wemby roaming — back to ~52%
Knicks beat weak guard defenders, Brunson vs Spurs length — ~54%
"not totally convinced this is a great series for either team" — 50%
closing "lean San Antonio," but "NY might simply be the better one," "wouldn't be surprised if they walk away with the trophy" — ~52%
Also worth noting that four of the Spurs have big time experience on GLOBAL television...4 players have gone to the finals in the Olympics... Three have won gold medals, and Wemby led the French to a silver medal when he was 19... I know New Yorkers believe that MSG is the biggest deal on Earth... But when you're playing for the honor 65 mm people as THE Star, or 320mm as a backup, It gives you plenty of experience for the "Big Time". 👍🏻🌞🤠
Two of my only paid subscriptions on the same pod! I’m in Vegas today in case there’s a way to stop by and say hi!
Just wondering, Nate. Care to reconsider the importance of the Spurs' inexperience?
We're going to learn a LOT in game 1, which I'll be watching on delay.
Hopefully it lives up to being a fascinating series as advertised.
Awesome write up.