Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

259Re: Jordan

Expand Messages
  • harlanzo@yahoo.com
    Oct 2, 2001
      I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one
      question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play zone
      under the new rules might help his longevity? I can see arguments
      both ways on this and I don't have an opinion but I am interested in
      what people think.


      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
      > > Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
      > > about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
      > > threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really
      > don't
      > > have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in
      > seeing
      > > how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA.
      >
      > Well, since you showed that there really weren't good 38-year old
      > comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
      > calculated the most similar players to Jordan in his last playing
      > year:
      >
      > Player Team Season SimScore
      > wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 887
      > wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 879
      > jordan,michael chi 1997 869
      > jordan,michael chi 1996 860
      > bryant,kobe lal 2001 860
      > wilkins,dominiq atl 1992 856
      > wilkins,dominiq atl 1991 856
      > chambers,tom pho 1990 853
      > Hill,Grant det 2000 849
      > chambers,tom pho 1989 849
      > malone,karl uta 1996 847
      > wilkins,dominiq atl 1993 843
      > carter,vince tor 2000 841
      >
      > and decided to look at what they did 3 years later, regardless of
      > age. Of this list,Chambers or Wilkins might be considered the best
      > fit when considering age. The inclusion of Kobe, Vinsanity, and
      > Grant Hill is interesting, but doesn't help at all because the
      > seasons are too recent to tell us anything about 3 yrs down the
      line.
      > Given that they should be improving (maybe not Hill) and Jordan
      > should be declining means that we probably wouldn't trust those
      > comparisons anyway. So, the seasons we can use to estimate what
      > happens 3 yrs later:
      >
      > Wilkins 92
      > Wilkins 93
      > Wilkins 94
      > Wilkins 95
      > Chambers 92
      > Chambers 93
      > Malone 99
      >
      > These seasons are shown below:
      >
      > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
      > chambers,tom 69 28.2 6.2 14.3 0.3 0.7
      > chambers,tom 73 23.6 4.4 9.8 0.2 0.4
      > wilkins,dominiq 42 38.1 10.1 21.8 0.9 3.0
      > wilkins,dominiq 71 37.3 10.4 22.3 1.7 4.5
      > wilkins,dominiq 74 35.6 9.4 21.4 1.1 4.0
      > wilkins,dominiq 77 31.5 6.4 15.2 1.5 3.8
      > malone,karl 80 37.4 8.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
      > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
      >
      > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
      > chambers,tom 3.7 4.5 1.2 5.8 2.1
      > chambers,tom 3.3 3.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
      > wilkins,dominiq 7.0 8.4 2.5 7.0 3.8
      > wilkins,dominiq 7.3 8.8 2.6 6.8 3.2
      > wilkins,dominiq 6.0 7.1 2.5 6.5 2.3
      > wilkins,dominiq 3.5 4.4 2.0 5.2 2.2
      > malone,karl 7.7 9.8 2.2 9.4 4.1
      > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
      >
      > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
      > chambers,tom 0.83 1.5 0.54 2.8 16.3
      > chambers,tom 0.59 1.3 0.32 2.9 12.2
      > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.9 0.57 1.8 28.1
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.99 2.6 0.38 1.7 29.9
      > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.3 0.41 1.7 26.0
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.79 2.2 0.18 1.7 17.8
      > malone,karl 1.27 3.3 0.57 2.7 23.8
      > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
      >
      > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
      > chambers,tom 0.431 0.367 0.830 1.38 0.31
      > chambers,tom 0.447 0.393 0.837 1.10 0.40
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.464 0.289 0.835 1.30 0.39
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.468 0.380 0.828 1.23 0.40
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.440 0.288 0.847 0.98 0.33
      > wilkins,dominiq 0.424 0.388 0.782 0.96 0.29
      > malone,karl 0.493 0.000 0.788 1.24 0.60
      > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
      >
      > Frankly, these averages don't look all that different from what
      > harlanzo and Mike proposed. I don't look at that as a pure scorer;
      > he's still balanced. He appears to play less, too, only 69 games.
      >
      > I plugged in these Average #'s to determine how good a player this
      > is, from my calculations. I get a player like this:
      >
      > Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points
      > Poss. . Pct. . Prod.
      > 699 1343 0.520 109.6 1471
      >
      > Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
      > Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
      > 442 0.192 0.493 102.6 0.746 9.5 3.2
      >
      > Definitely still a good player, but not like the Mike of old.
      > Producing a little over 20 ppg, but not as efficiently (his lowest
      > rating before was 111.4 in his last season). The defensive #'s are
      > highly uncertain, but actually based on a team context like the
      > Clippers of last year, which may be a little too good for my
      tastes,
      > but not a bad comparison.
      >
      > Of course, this is missing the age factor, but harlanzo's was
      missing
      > the quality factor -- both of which are important -- showing how
      > unique MJ is.
      >
      > (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
      > years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)
      >
      > Dean Oliver
      > Journal of Basketball Studies
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic