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

Re: Cha at Mil, 5/20

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.