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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Cha at Mil, 5/20

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , May 23, 2001

      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 2 of 18 , May 23, 2001
        --- 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 3 of 18 , May 24, 2001
          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 4 of 18 , May 24, 2001
            --- 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 5 of 18 , May 24, 2001
              --- 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 6 of 18 , May 24, 2001
                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 7 of 18 , May 26, 2001
                  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 8 of 18 , May 26, 2001
                    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 9 of 18 , May 27, 2001
                      --- 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 10 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                        --- 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 11 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                          --- 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 12 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                            --- 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 13 of 18 , May 28, 2001
                              --- 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 14 of 18 , May 30, 2001
                                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.