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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: How good are the Lakers?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.