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

Re: Cha at Mil, 5/20

Expand Messages
  • msg_53@hotmail.com
    ... defense. ... defensively, ... post. ... the most ... a lot ... lot of ... Ervin Johnson has been bad, as in good ... horrible ... back and ... I didn t
    Message 1 of 18 , May 23, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Dean Oliver <deano@t...> wrote:
      >
      > Some notes
      >
      > - Ervin Johnson was hailed as the hero in my local paper for his
      defense.
      > That doesn't happen much. I do generally consider him decent
      defensively,
      > but he also gave up a number of baskets to Campbell 1-on-1 in the
      post.
      > Can't do that against Shaq if they get that far. Johnson did had
      the most
      > stops of the Bucks, though. It's kinda like points -- does scoring
      a lot
      > of points mean more than scoring them efficiently? Does stopping a
      lot of
      > shots mean more than stopping them efficiently?

      Ervin Johnson has been bad, as in good

      > - Scott Williams was praised during the game for his work. He was
      > effective, but on the offensive end. He got the benefit of that
      horrible
      > call that killed the Hornets chances -- climbing over PJ Brown's
      back and
      > Brown getting the foul. The Hornets really had a legit beef for bad
      > reffing on a few key series, Brown especially.

      I didn't watch this game (no cable, bars expensive). But Scott
      Williams is the Bucks' 2nd most productive player by my method. Refs
      seem to favor the "hustle" plays, don't they?

      > - Here is a good example of why it's hard to calculate net points.
      PJ
      > Brown produced 8 pts on 5 possessions for a rating of 156 with a
      defensive
      > rating of 118. Mashburn produced 24 pts on 25 possessions for a
      rating of
      > 95, with a defensive rating of 122. Brown was more efficient both
      > offensively and defensively than Mashburn. But Mashburn "did
      more". Net
      > Pts version 1 says Brown was +2.0 and Mashburn was -6.7. Net Pts
      version
      > 2 says Brown was -8.7 and Mashburn was +5.5. In a team game, it is
      just
      > hard to say what Net Pts means.
      >
      > - Ray Allen gets caught on picks really easily. He also drew
      illegal pick
      > calls twice.
      >
      > - This game was also a good example of how rotations and cross-
      matchups
      > make Doug Steele's attempts to assign players to each other invalid
      at
      > times. Both teams switched A LOT. I tracked who was guarding whom
      and it
      > changed constantly in this game, from possession to possession.

      Some statistical methods beg to be defied. If you match up by
      position every time, a coach can deliberately wreck the scheme by
      putting 4 guards in the game, or otherwise confound a very methodical
      substitution pattern.

      > - Definitely two fun teams. I enjoyed this series. I particularly
      liked
      > it when Baron Davis took it to Cassell when it looked like everyone
      was
      > headed to the sideline in anticipation of a timeout.

      Baron Davis deserves to be alive in the playoffs as much as
      anyone. I also like David Wesley.

      > (I've got the LAL-San game 2, just no time to process yet.)
      >
      What about Aaron McKie: he seems to be another Reggie Miller come
      playoff time.


      > Dean Oliver
      > Journal of Basketball Studies
      > www.tsoft.com/~deano/index.html
      > deano@t...
    • msg_53@hotmail.com
      ... scoring ... Since ESPN classic has been running, I hear the same thing repeatedly: in the 70s, a 15-foot shot was always open. Maybe you had to take an
      Message 2 of 18 , May 23, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
        > I was watching the ESPN classic Phoenix-Boston finals of 76 with a
        > buddy. We both could not help but notice how weak the defense
        > looked. Have you scored any of these old games defensively. I
        > wonder if weaker defense would be reflected in the defensive
        scoring
        > system?
        >
        Since ESPN classic has been running, I hear the same thing
        repeatedly: in the '70s, a 15-foot shot was always open. Maybe you
        had to take an 18-ft. shot, but the point is valid: nowadays there
        is no open shot within 22 feet, exceptions granted.
        Nevertheless, I have to say that game 5 of 1976 was truly an
        astounding display. Of talent, of grit, of mayhem...
        Did you see Paul Westphal spinning 360 on the fast break, and
        dropping the shot? The offense was definitely there, back in the day.
        And the fans assaulting the refs, was this a forerunner of the WWF?
        But seriously. Today, a team that allows 97 ppg is considered a
        bad defensive team. The fact is , every NBA team today is better
        defensively than any team in 1985. It is all relative.
        Is it a defensive scorer's nightmare?
      • bchaikin@aol.com
        if you watch a game from the 1970s, early 1980s, and even the 1960s (i have a few on tape, including playoff games), you don t - in my opinion - see anywhere
        Message 3 of 18 , May 23, 2001
        • 0 Attachment

          if you watch a game from the 1970s, early 1980s, and even the 1960s (i have a
          few on tape, including playoff games), you don't - in my opinion - see
          anywhere near the amount of contact between players that you see in the games
          of the past 6-7 years. back then if a player was fouled where it was obvious
          the defender did not even try to go for the ball fights would erupt and
          players would be ejected. any of the major bumping you see (and i mean major)
          that they allow today was a foul 20-30 years ago....

          its my contention that this allowing of contact in today's game is the
          primary reason for the slow paced games of this past decade. you can say all
          you want about how back then (25-35 years ago, if not just 15-20) players did
          not play defense, but i firmly believe the game was called much tighter. any
          major contact was a called foul and thus you had a more open game...

          i'm convinced that if the rules were changed today to prevent hand checking
          and any major bumping, and any hard foul where in the ref's opinion the
          defender made no attempt to go for the ball was called a flagrant (and an
          immediate ejection), plus bring back the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 bonuses,
          the game would change in less than a year's time to higher scoring and more
          possessions per game...

          the league's attempt to correct this also is flawed. i believe the league is
          allowing zone defenses next year to force teams to run more to prevent a zone
          from being set up in the first place. but it will backfire in making the game
          even more slowed down with less true action...

          bob chaikin
          bchaikin@...





        • Dean Oliver
          ... scoring ... I think I had a defensive epiphany tonight. Epiphany may be strong. I ll fill you in later. Damn, I m obsessed. WRT old games, I don t get
          Message 4 of 18 , May 23, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
            > I was watching the ESPN classic Phoenix-Boston finals of 76 with a
            > buddy. We both could not help but notice how weak the defense
            > looked. Have you scored any of these old games defensively. I
            > wonder if weaker defense would be reflected in the defensive
            scoring
            > system?

            I think I had a defensive epiphany tonight. "Epiphany" may be
            strong. I'll fill you in later. Damn, I'm obsessed.

            WRT old games, I don't get espn classic, so I've never scored an old
            game. I would love to get hold of a bunch of these tapes and do some
            scoring. Heck, I'd love to have you guys get hold of them and do the
            scoring because I don't sleep anymore.

            I do think Bob is right about changing rules. I doubt the new rules
            will improve the violence of the league. It will change the game if
            they let it. It will make it more defensive, at least in the short
            term. Long term is harder to say. I would definitely like to see
            them call hard fouls the way they should. Throw people out much more
            often, as far as I'm concerned.

            Baron Davis is definitely good. He's playing well and he made big
            strides over his rookie year. My sense is that the guards are a big
            part of the defense on the Hornet team, an unusual thing. Davis is
            still raw, but is on his way. I have him with a win-loss record of
            10.1-3.8. In his 82 games, his O rtg was higher than his D rtg 48
            times. Pretty good. I have his Net Pts/48 minutes as 0.2 or 1.1,
            depending on how you calculate it.

            McKie is a little different. He, like Iverson, really benefits from
            Coach Brown, who has made this a good defense (I'd support his award
            more than Iverson's or McKie's). McKie's O rtg has been about 101
            the last 2 years. His D rtg has been about 98. His win-loss record
            the last 2 years is 10.1-5.7. This past year, his O rtg was better
            than his D rtg in 47 of 76 games. I haven't tracked his playoff #'s,
            but they seem to have been good.

            Dean Oliver
            Journal of Basketball Studies
          • deanlav@yahoo.com
            I get ESPN Classic. If you d like I ll try to score some. Do you have a step-by-step guide as to how to do it? Dean L ... From: Dean Oliver
            Message 5 of 18 , May 24, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I get ESPN Classic.  If you'd like I'll try to score some.  Do you have a step-by-step guide as to how to do it?
               
              Dean L
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@...]
              Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:35 AM
              To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Cha at Mil, 5/20

              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
              > I was watching the ESPN classic Phoenix-Boston finals of 76 with a
              > buddy.  We both could not help but notice how weak the defense
              > looked.  Have you scored any of these old games defensively.  I
              > wonder if weaker defense would be reflected in the defensive
              scoring
              > system? 

              I think I had a defensive epiphany tonight.  "Epiphany" may be
              strong.  I'll fill you in later.  Damn, I'm obsessed.

              WRT old games, I don't get espn classic, so I've never scored an old
              game.  I would love to get hold of a bunch of these tapes and do some
              scoring.  Heck, I'd love to have you guys get hold of them and do the
              scoring because I don't sleep anymore. 

              I do think Bob is right about changing rules.  I doubt the new rules
              will improve the violence of the league.  It will change the game if
              they let it.  It will make it more defensive, at least in the short
              term.  Long term is harder to say.  I would definitely like to see
              them call hard fouls the way they should.  Throw people out much more
              often, as far as I'm concerned.

              Baron Davis is definitely good.  He's playing well and he made big
              strides over his rookie year.  My sense is that the guards are a big
              part of the defense on the Hornet team, an unusual thing.  Davis is
              still raw, but is on his way.  I have him with a win-loss record of
              10.1-3.8.  In his 82 games, his O rtg was higher than his D rtg 48
              times.  Pretty good.  I have his Net Pts/48 minutes as 0.2 or 1.1,
              depending on how you calculate it.

              McKie is a little different.  He, like Iverson, really benefits from
              Coach Brown, who has made this a good defense (I'd support his award
              more than Iverson's or McKie's).  McKie's O rtg has been about 101
              the last 2 years.  His D rtg has been about 98.  His win-loss record
              the last 2 years is 10.1-5.7.  This past year, his O rtg was better
              than his D rtg in 47 of 76 games.  I haven't tracked his playoff #'s,
              but they seem to have been good. 

              Dean Oliver
              Journal of Basketball Studies



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • msg_53@hotmail.com
              ... . i believe the league is ... prevent a zone ... making the game ... I see it the same way as Bob. Allowing even more defense, and forcing more on the
              Message 6 of 18 , May 24, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
                >
                . i believe the league is
                > allowing zone defenses next year to force teams to run more to
                prevent a zone
                > from being set up in the first place. but it will backfire in
                making the game
                > even more slowed down with less true action...
                >
                > bob chaikin

                I see it the same way as Bob. Allowing even more defense, and
                forcing more on the offense seems transparently to favor defenses.
                How is it enhancing offense to force teams to move the ball up in 8
                sec. instead of 10?
                I have wondered if the shot clock should be 30 sec. instead of
                24. After a team brings the ball to within 25 feet, typically there
                are 16-18 sec. left; a couple of passes and there are 6-8 sec. left.
                Now it is desparation time. Another 6 sec. to set up gives offenses
                almost twice the time to set up a good shot.
                Didn't the ABA allow 30 sec? Were they plagued by low-scoring
                games?
              • msg_53@hotmail.com
                ... I would definitely like to see ... more ... I don t like the idea of ejecting players, except in desperation. If a star player or 2, or 3, are gone, the
                Message 7 of 18 , May 24, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                  I would definitely like to see
                  > them call hard fouls the way they should. Throw people out much
                  more
                  > often, as far as I'm concerned.
                  >
                  I don't like the idea of ejecting players, except in desperation.
                  If a star player or 2, or 3, are gone, the game is hardly worth
                  watching. Like locking up criminals and throwing away the key, in
                  practice it doesn't work.
                  Giving the damaged party 2 or 3 or 4 FTs, all the while the
                  opposing coach is chewing out his player, would be better.
                  Putting the onus on the refs, to eject Shaq in LA, would generally
                  result in no penalty at all. Ejection is so "all-or-nothing". How
                  to throw out the bathwater without tossing the baby.]
                  How about this rule: first team flagrant foul = 2 FT and the ball
                  out; 2nd team flagrant = 4 FT and the ball; etc...
                  What we want is that the game not get out of hand, right?


                  > Baron Davis is definitely good. He's playing well and he made big
                  > strides over his rookie year. My sense is that the guards are a
                  big
                  > part of the defense on the Hornet team, an unusual thing. Davis is
                  > still raw, but is on his way. I have him with a win-loss record of
                  > 10.1-3.8. In his 82 games, his O rtg was higher than his D rtg 48
                  > times. Pretty good. I have his Net Pts/48 minutes as 0.2 or 1.1,
                  > depending on how you calculate it.
                  >
                  I had Davis among the most-improved leaders all season. He really
                  brought it in the playoffs, too.

                  > McKie is a little different. He, like Iverson, really benefits
                  from
                  > Coach Brown, who has made this a good defense (I'd support his
                  award
                  > more than Iverson's or McKie's). McKie's O rtg has been about 101
                  > the last 2 years. His D rtg has been about 98. His win-loss
                  record
                  > the last 2 years is 10.1-5.7. This past year, his O rtg was better
                  > than his D rtg in 47 of 76 games. I haven't tracked his playoff
                  #'s,
                  > but they seem to have been good.
                  >
                  > Dean Oliver
                  > Journal of Basketball Studies

                  Aaron McKie is having his 3rd straight playoff overachieving year.
                  It seems to be a feature of his career: ok season, stupendous
                  postseason.
                • Andy Finkelstein
                  If you push the shot clock to 30 seconds, I would think that the games would be even *lower* scoring than they are now! I have always felt that if the league
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 24, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If you push the shot clock to 30 seconds, I would think that the games would be even *lower* scoring than they are now!  I have always felt that if the league wants to increase scoring, the shot clock should be reduced to *20* seconds. If nothing else, I think it should force even *more* shots per game, and therefore more chances for points to be scored.

                    Also, could someone explain to me how the "8 seconds to cross the backcourt line instead of 10" will increase scoring? Personally, I don't think there should be *any* limit... I mean, if there's a shot clock to control your possession, who cares *how* long it take you to cross halfcourt, as long as you get your shot off in time?

                    Any help would be greatly appreciated...

                    Thanks,
                    Andy

                    msg_53@... wrote:

                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
                    >
                    . i believe the league is
                    > allowing zone defenses next year to force teams to run more to
                    prevent a zone
                    > from being set up in the first place. but it will backfire in
                    making the game
                    > even more slowed down with less true action...
                    >
                    > bob chaikin

                        I see it the same way as Bob.  Allowing even more defense, and
                    forcing more on the offense seems transparently to favor defenses.
                    How is it enhancing offense to force teams to move the ball up in 8
                    sec. instead of 10?
                        I have wondered if the shot clock should be 30 sec. instead of
                    24.  After a team brings the ball to within 25 feet, typically there
                    are 16-18 sec. left; a couple of passes and there are 6-8 sec. left.
                    Now it is desparation time.  Another 6 sec. to set up gives offenses
                    almost twice the time to set up a good shot.
                        Didn't the ABA allow 30 sec?  Were they plagued by low-scoring
                    games?
                     
                     
                     
                     


                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                     
                     

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  • Ed Weiland
                    The Lakers didn t have a historic regular season in either W-L record or point differential. But they might be on their way to an unprecedented 15-0 sweep
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 26, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The Lakers didn't have a historic regular season in
                      either W-L record or point differential. But they
                      might be on their way to an unprecedented 15-0 sweep
                      through the playoffs. I know there's a lot of
                      basketball to be played yet, but whether it's the
                      Bucks or the Sixers, the East opponent will not only
                      be worn down, they'll also be possibly the worst team
                      the Lakers will face during their run. A four game
                      sweep in the finals is not only a possibility, it
                      seems downright likely. Especially if 15-0 (or
                      tree-fo-fo-fo as Moses Malone might put it) is a
                      possibility going in. You know the Lakers are thinking
                      about it now and will be gunning for it.

                      Here are some of the best playoff runs until this
                      season that I found:

                      '61 Celtics 8-2 11.9 point diff
                      '71 Bucks 12-2 14.5
                      '82 Lakers 12-2 6.1
                      '83 Sixers 12-1 6.5
                      '86 Celtics 15-3 10.3
                      '87 Lakers 15-3 11.4
                      '91 Bulls 15-2 11.8
                      '96 Bulls 15-3 10.6


                      The '01 Lakers are 10-0/14.1 so far. I don't ever like
                      to declare any team the best ever, especially a team
                      hasn't even been crowned champions yet and that's not
                      what I'm saying here. I will say that IF the Lakers go
                      on to run the table in the playoffs, you'd at the very
                      least have to call it the most impressive playoff
                      performance ever. Considering it's being done against
                      possibly the best eight team field one conference has
                      ever sent into the playoffs, it's that much more
                      amazing. Kind of a bummer, since I was looking forward
                      to a more exciting playoffs. At least we might get to
                      see history made.

                      Ed Weiland

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                    • msg_53@hotmail.com
                      The 1989 Lakers were 11-0 going to the Finals, but they got swept there by Detroit. Has anyone else even gone 11-0 in their conference? ( or anything-and-0
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 26, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The 1989 Lakers were 11-0 going to the Finals, but they got swept
                        there by Detroit. Has anyone else even gone 11-0 in their
                        conference? ( or anything-and-0 )?
                        The largest playoff margin of victory was not by anyone listed
                        below. The 1956 Lakers outscored their opponents by 18.7 ppg. They
                        lost to the Hawks 116-115, won 145-73, and lost again by 116-115.
                        Incredible but true, one of my favorite trivia items!
                        Maybe the Hawks all had food poisoning or something, in game 2.
                        For the record, I predicted the Lakers were due for one of their
                        30-point playoff losses, and I may have the record of being wrong by
                        69 points!
                        Beat that!

                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > The Lakers didn't have a historic regular season in
                        > either W-L record or point differential. But they
                        > might be on their way to an unprecedented 15-0 sweep
                        > through the playoffs. I know there's a lot of
                        > basketball to be played yet, but whether it's the
                        > Bucks or the Sixers, the East opponent will not only
                        > be worn down, they'll also be possibly the worst team
                        > the Lakers will face during their run. A four game
                        > sweep in the finals is not only a possibility, it
                        > seems downright likely. Especially if 15-0 (or
                        > tree-fo-fo-fo as Moses Malone might put it) is a
                        > possibility going in. You know the Lakers are thinking
                        > about it now and will be gunning for it.
                        >
                        > Here are some of the best playoff runs until this
                        > season that I found:
                        >
                        > '61 Celtics 8-2 11.9 point diff
                        > '71 Bucks 12-2 14.5
                        > '82 Lakers 12-2 6.1
                        > '83 Sixers 12-1 6.5
                        > '86 Celtics 15-3 10.3
                        > '87 Lakers 15-3 11.4
                        > '91 Bulls 15-2 11.8
                        > '96 Bulls 15-3 10.6
                        >
                        >
                        > The '01 Lakers are 10-0/14.1 so far. I don't ever like
                        > to declare any team the best ever, especially a team
                        > hasn't even been crowned champions yet and that's not
                        > what I'm saying here. I will say that IF the Lakers go
                        > on to run the table in the playoffs, you'd at the very
                        > least have to call it the most impressive playoff
                        > performance ever. Considering it's being done against
                        > possibly the best eight team field one conference has
                        > ever sent into the playoffs, it's that much more
                        > amazing. Kind of a bummer, since I was looking forward
                        > to a more exciting playoffs. At least we might get to
                        > see history made.
                        >
                        > Ed Weiland
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                        > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                      • Ed Weiland
                        ... The 89 Lakers are the only team to sweep their way through 11 playoff games. Back when the playoffs consisted of not so many games there were these teams
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 27, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- msg_53@... wrote:
                          > The 1989 Lakers were 11-0 going to the Finals,
                          > but they got swept
                          > there by Detroit. Has anyone else even gone 11-0 in
                          > their
                          > conference? ( or anything-and-0 )?

                          The '89 Lakers are the only team to sweep their way
                          through 11 playoff games. Back when the playoffs
                          consisted of not so many games there were these teams
                          going unbeaten in playoff games before the finals:

                          '49 Lakers 4-0
                          '50 Lakers 6-0
                          '54 Nats 6-0
                          '57 Hawks 5-0
                          '57 Celtics 3-0
                          '82 Lakers 8-0

                          Closest was the '96 Bulls who went 11-1 pre-finals,
                          losing only an OT game to the Knicks.

                          '> The largest playoff margin of victory was not by
                          > anyone listed
                          > below. The 1956 Lakers outscored their opponents by
                          > 18.7 ppg. They
                          > lost to the Hawks 116-115, won 145-73, and lost
                          > again by 116-115.
                          > Incredible but true, one of my favorite trivia
                          > items!
                          > Maybe the Hawks all had food poisoning or
                          > something, in game 2.

                          Perhaps the game one win gave St. Louis enough
                          confidence to coast through game 2. Seriously though,
                          that is a wacky fact. Thanks for mentioning it.

                          > For the record, I predicted the Lakers were due
                          > for one of their
                          > 30-point playoff losses, and I may have the record
                          > of being wrong by
                          > 69 points!
                          > Beat that!

                          I thought the Spurs would win game three also, but I'm
                          sort of a long time Laker-hater and I figured that was
                          probably just wishful thinking on my part. : (


                          >
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland
                          > <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The Lakers didn't have a historic regular season
                          > in
                          > > either W-L record or point differential. But they
                          > > might be on their way to an unprecedented 15-0
                          > sweep
                          > > through the playoffs. I know there's a lot of
                          > > basketball to be played yet, but whether it's the
                          > > Bucks or the Sixers, the East opponent will not
                          > only
                          > > be worn down, they'll also be possibly the worst
                          > team
                          > > the Lakers will face during their run. A four game
                          > > sweep in the finals is not only a possibility, it
                          > > seems downright likely. Especially if 15-0 (or
                          > > tree-fo-fo-fo as Moses Malone might put it) is a
                          > > possibility going in. You know the Lakers are
                          > thinking
                          > > about it now and will be gunning for it.
                          > >
                          > > Here are some of the best playoff runs until this
                          > > season that I found:
                          > >
                          > > '61 Celtics 8-2 11.9 point diff
                          > > '71 Bucks 12-2 14.5
                          > > '82 Lakers 12-2 6.1
                          > > '83 Sixers 12-1 6.5
                          > > '86 Celtics 15-3 10.3
                          > > '87 Lakers 15-3 11.4
                          > > '91 Bulls 15-2 11.8
                          > > '96 Bulls 15-3 10.6
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The '01 Lakers are 10-0/14.1 so far. I don't ever
                          > like
                          > > to declare any team the best ever, especially a
                          > team
                          > > hasn't even been crowned champions yet and that's
                          > not
                          > > what I'm saying here. I will say that IF the
                          > Lakers go
                          > > on to run the table in the playoffs, you'd at the
                          > very
                          > > least have to call it the most impressive playoff
                          > > performance ever. Considering it's being done
                          > against
                          > > possibly the best eight team field one conference
                          > has
                          > > ever sent into the playoffs, it's that much more
                          > > amazing. Kind of a bummer, since I was looking
                          > forward
                          > > to a more exciting playoffs. At least we might get
                          > to
                          > > see history made.
                          > >
                          > > Ed Weiland
                          > >
                          > > __________________________________________________
                          > > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
                          > prices
                          > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                          >
                          >


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                          http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                        • Dean Oliver
                          ... have a ... I have two scoring techniques, one for the offense and one for the defense. The offensive method is documented in a couple places
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., <deanlav@y...> wrote:
                            > I get ESPN Classic. If you'd like I'll try to score some. Do you
                            have a
                            > step-by-step guide as to how to do it?
                            >
                            > Dean L

                            I have two scoring techniques, one for the offense and one for the
                            defense. The offensive method is documented in a couple places

                            http://www.tsoft.com/~deano/articles/aa060897.htm

                            and

                            http://www.tsoft.com/~deano/methdesc.html#pss

                            For defense, I originally developed a similar-looking scoresheet
                            technique that is documented here

                            http://www.tsoft.com/~deano/articles/dscoresheet.html

                            This, however, is hard to do. It is an immense amount of work and
                            the analysis of the data takes and additional amount.

                            Instead, I have posted a spreadsheet under the Files section here

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/files/

                            called defstophandchart.xls that is just a tally sheet of
                            non-traditional numbers. Putting these numbers together with blocks,
                            steals, and defensive rebounds allows some counting of "Defensive
                            Stops" for individuals, one thing I really want to track. The
                            non-traditional stats are Forced Misses, Forced Turnovers, and Forced
                            missed free throws. I also have in there Allowed Field Goals and
                            Allowed Free throws. There is an explanation of how to score things
                            in the spreadsheet.

                            There clearly is some interpretation involved in doing the scoring.
                            I find that scoring off of offensive rebounds is hard -- I often
                            award a made FG off of an OR to the team unless it's obvious whose
                            man picked up the garbage.

                            Take a stab and ask me questions. I'd also be curious to score the
                            same game as you to see how scoring varies between scorers. (I have
                            found that official scorers occasional give steals to the wrong
                            person and blocks are sometimes very questionable.)

                            Dean Oliver
                            Journal of Basketball Studies
                          • Dean Oliver
                            ... desperation. ... generally ... ball ... I guess this is a sociological issue, isn t it? Increase the penalty or the likelihood of getting caught. I took
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., msg_53@h... wrote:
                              > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                              > I would definitely like to see
                              > > them call hard fouls the way they should. Throw people out much
                              > more
                              > > often, as far as I'm concerned.
                              > >
                              > I don't like the idea of ejecting players, except in
                              desperation.
                              > If a star player or 2, or 3, are gone, the game is hardly worth
                              > watching. Like locking up criminals and throwing away the key, in
                              > practice it doesn't work.
                              > Giving the damaged party 2 or 3 or 4 FTs, all the while the
                              > opposing coach is chewing out his player, would be better.
                              > Putting the onus on the refs, to eject Shaq in LA, would
                              generally
                              > result in no penalty at all. Ejection is so "all-or-nothing". How
                              > to throw out the bathwater without tossing the baby.]
                              > How about this rule: first team flagrant foul = 2 FT and the
                              ball
                              > out; 2nd team flagrant = 4 FT and the ball; etc...
                              > What we want is that the game not get out of hand, right?

                              I guess this is a sociological issue, isn't it? Increase the penalty
                              or the likelihood of getting caught. I took a class once called the
                              Economics of Crime. Very interesting studies of tax evaders and how
                              to deter tax crime, among other things. A general conclusion of the
                              profs was that increasing the likelihood of getting caught was the
                              greatest deterrent in avoiding crime -- not increasing the penalty.

                              Making the analogy to basketball, this would imply that flagrant
                              fouls actually get called, not that we increase the penalty for them.
                              I'm not convinced this is right because it is so ingrained in
                              players now that 2 fta's plus the ball is still not as bad as giving
                              up a layup. Maybe.

                              What I want is not that the game get out of hand, but there is not a
                              reward for fouling in a layup situation, which there is now.

                              Dean Oliver
                              Journal of Basketball Studies.
                            • Dean Oliver
                              ... games ... felt ... be ... even ... Highly likely that increasing the clock would mean lower scoring games. Likely that reducing the clock would increase
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Andy Finkelstein <andyf@b...> wrote:
                                > If you push the shot clock to 30 seconds, I would think that the
                                games
                                > would be even *lower* scoring than they are now! I have always
                                felt
                                > that if the league wants to increase scoring, the shot clock should
                                be
                                > reduced to *20* seconds. If nothing else, I think it should force
                                even
                                > *more* shots per game, and therefore more chances for points to be
                                > scored.
                                >

                                Highly likely that increasing the clock would mean lower scoring
                                games. Likely that reducing the clock would increase point totals
                                without significant impact on efficiency.

                                > Also, could someone explain to me how the "8 seconds to cross the
                                > backcourt line instead of 10" will increase scoring? Personally, I
                                don't
                                > think there should be *any* limit... I mean, if there's a shot
                                clock to
                                > control your possession, who cares *how* long it take you to cross
                                > halfcourt, as long as you get your shot off in time?
                                >

                                Here is why it _may_ help. By decreasing that time, you tempt
                                defenses to actually pull out a full-court press, which causes either
                                quick turnovers or quick scores on the other end. It's not clear
                                whether 8 seconds is enough to make a difference, esp. since common
                                wisdom is that you cannot press NBA point guards. I personally think
                                that this is going to make almost no difference next year. It may
                                have a difference in a couple years.

                                Dean Oliver
                                Journal of Basketball Studies
                              • Dean Oliver
                                ... Ed s points are very good here. I d been thinking about it myself. One thing I would add is that the Laker defense was the weakspot during the regular
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The Lakers didn't have a historic regular season in
                                  > either W-L record or point differential. But they
                                  > might be on their way to an unprecedented 15-0 sweep

                                  Ed's points are very good here. I'd been thinking about it myself.
                                  One thing I would add is that the Laker defense was the weakspot
                                  during the regular season. It is also what has improved
                                  significantly in the playoffs. This points to 2 things

                                  1. It emphasizes that defense is what takes effort and that the
                                  Lakers were a bit lazy during the season, knowing that they could
                                  turn it on in the postseason.

                                  2. The best offensive teams are probably better off in the playoffs.
                                  I did a quick study of this (using certain assumptions about whether
                                  teams slack off in the regular season) and posted it at

                                  http://www.tsoft.com/~deano/articles/aa082197.htm

                                  "They Say Defense Wins Championships"...

                                  For the record, I had the Lakers and the Bucks with the best offense
                                  this year.

                                  Dean Oliver
                                  Journal of Basketball Studies

                                  > through the playoffs. I know there's a lot of
                                  > basketball to be played yet, but whether it's the
                                  > Bucks or the Sixers, the East opponent will not only
                                  > be worn down, they'll also be possibly the worst team
                                  > the Lakers will face during their run. A four game
                                  > sweep in the finals is not only a possibility, it
                                  > seems downright likely. Especially if 15-0 (or
                                  > tree-fo-fo-fo as Moses Malone might put it) is a
                                  > possibility going in. You know the Lakers are thinking
                                  > about it now and will be gunning for it.
                                  >
                                  > Here are some of the best playoff runs until this
                                  > season that I found:
                                  >
                                  > '61 Celtics 8-2 11.9 point diff
                                  > '71 Bucks 12-2 14.5
                                  > '82 Lakers 12-2 6.1
                                  > '83 Sixers 12-1 6.5
                                  > '86 Celtics 15-3 10.3
                                  > '87 Lakers 15-3 11.4
                                  > '91 Bulls 15-2 11.8
                                  > '96 Bulls 15-3 10.6
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The '01 Lakers are 10-0/14.1 so far. I don't ever like
                                  > to declare any team the best ever, especially a team
                                  > hasn't even been crowned champions yet and that's not
                                  > what I'm saying here. I will say that IF the Lakers go
                                  > on to run the table in the playoffs, you'd at the very
                                  > least have to call it the most impressive playoff
                                  > performance ever. Considering it's being done against
                                  > possibly the best eight team field one conference has
                                  > ever sent into the playoffs, it's that much more
                                  > amazing. Kind of a bummer, since I was looking forward
                                  > to a more exciting playoffs. At least we might get to
                                  > see history made.
                                  >
                                  > Ed Weiland
                                  >
                                  > __________________________________________________
                                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                                  > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                  > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                • John Grasso
                                  For the record the score of the second game was Minneapolis 133 St. Louis 75 - a 58 point margin which at that time was the largest margin of victory in the
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 30, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    For the record the score of the second game was Minneapolis 133 St. Louis
                                    75 - a 58 point margin which at that time was the largest margin of victory
                                    in the NBA for any game - playoff or regular season.

                                    The regular season record was topped in 1960 by the Nats over the Knicks
                                    162-100. The current record is Cleveland's 148-80 win over Miami in 1990.
                                    But the Lakers still own the playoff record.


                                    > The largest playoff margin of victory was not by anyone listed
                                    > below. The 1956 Lakers outscored their opponents by 18.7 ppg. They
                                    > lost to the Hawks 116-115, won 145-73, and lost again by 116-115.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.