From: aaronkoo [mailto:deano@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:37 PM
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
>> is on Allen's side too. But still that seems like a lot of
>> wins for an Allen-Payton swap, even given the other ingredients and
>Requires the defense to get better, which it wasn't going to do in
>the previous situation. I did an analysis that pretty much said they
>had a 10% chance of significantly improving the team D by standing
>pat (which partly explained why they hadn't improved it this year
>despite the major emphasis on it). Defense is how the team improves
>the most. Definitely a more fuzzy analysis of how much better they
>that Allen improves the team much. But this was at least as much
>about the nebulous concept of "chemistry" (which I am starting to
Well the holistic notion that the team is better off with Allen than
Payton, in the long run, is easy enough to buy (though losing Desmond
is a downer). In terms of concrete results, it sounds like you're saying
that the Sonics' defense should improve next season, barring unforeseen
happenstances? On the one hand, it's easy enough to believe, the Sonics'
defense has been soft for awhile so improvement is easy enough to come
buy. But on the other hand, it would seem that most of that softness
came from the C and PF positions, so if the Sonics do improve on D
it would come from improved defensive play there, rather than from
improved D from the guards.
I suppose that what you might be saying is that improved D from the
power positions would most likely come via a Payton-Allen trade ...
this is not outlandish, in fact I might buy it, but it's hard to
see the connection, except for the chemistry thing.