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

east domination

Expand Messages
  • harlanzo
    I thought i d reply to mikeG s post here. the east does seem a little better especially the nets. my question is whether how bad the nets were relative to the
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought i'd reply to mikeG's post here. the east does seem a
      little better especially the nets. my question is whether how bad
      the nets were relative to the other teams to have made the finals.
      I have pegged as the worst since either the 85-86 rockets and if not
      them definitely the 80-81 moses rockets.
    • Mike G
      ... not ... The East wins 4 of 6 games tonight, so they are still winning 2/3 of the interconference games. When will this end? Last year, the lopsidedness
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
        > I thought i'd reply to mikeG's post here. the east does seem a
        > little better especially the nets. my question is whether how bad
        > the nets were relative to the other teams to have made the finals.
        > I have pegged as the worst since either the 85-86 rockets and if
        not
        > them definitely the 80-81 moses rockets.

        The East wins 4 of 6 games tonight, so they are still winning 2/3 of
        the interconference games. When will this end?

        Last year, the lopsidedness was only half what it was in 2000-01, in
        W/L record. One could have imagined a similar improvement would
        yield parity this year. Yet basically everyone has gone on assuming
        the West is best, the East is least.

        The early returns indicate not only a return to conference balance,
        but traditional big-man dominance might be getting eclipsed by the do-
        everything guards out there. It looks like 15 of the top 20 players
        this year might be guards and small forwards. Kobe, Francis,
        McGrady, Payton, Kidd, GRob, Pierce, Stack, Iverson, Mash, Baron
        Davis ... You might notice an abundance of these guys in the East.


        I don't know if those '80s Rockets were such weak finalists. I mean,
        they got hot at the right time. How about the '99 Knicks?
      • harlanzo
        ... mean, ... i forgot about them. but excluding any post pacer finalist i still dont love the rockets. granted they had great centers but no guards at all.
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > I don't know if those '80s Rockets were such weak finalists. I
          mean,
          > they got hot at the right time. How about the '99 Knicks?

          i forgot about them. but excluding any post pacer finalist i still
          dont love the rockets. granted they had great centers but no guards
          at all.
        • Dean Oliver
          ... guards ... One thing I ve wanted to do but never put aside time for is get Vegas preseason odds for teams winning a title and identify who the longest
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
            > > I don't know if those '80s Rockets were such weak finalists. I
            > mean,
            > > they got hot at the right time. How about the '99 Knicks?
            >
            > i forgot about them. but excluding any post pacer finalist i still
            > dont love the rockets. granted they had great centers but no
            guards
            > at all.

            One thing I've wanted to do but never put aside time for is get Vegas
            preseason odds for teams winning a title and identify who the longest
            shots were. I'm not sure if they have odds for a team getting to the
            Finals, but that would be interesting, too. Prior to the season, I'm
            guessing that the 1980 Celtics were listed as having no chance of
            getting to the Finals. They didn't, of course, but they came close.
            Thus began a legend.

            DeanO
          • harlanzo
            i don t have any numbers (wins or point differential) in front of me but off of the top of my head here is how i d rank the finals losers since Bird-Magic.
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              i don't have any numbers (wins or point differential) in front of me
              but off of the top of my head here is how i'd rank the finals losers
              since Bird-Magic. (let's exclude the losing la, boston, detroit,
              philly teams because people have already thought about them when they
              won). (also if a team made the finals with essentially the teammates
              i'll only count the better team)

              1. ny 93-94
              2. port 91-92
              3. sea 95-96
              4. pho 92-93
              5. utah 96-97
              6. orlando 94-95
              7. ind 99-00
              8. hou 85-86
              9. phil 00-01
              10. nj 01-02
              11. ny 98-99
              12 hou 80-81

              it'll be interesting to see how this jives with point differential.
            • harlanzo
              as a follow to the question of whether the nets were the worst finals team of recent history here is some extra data: (points differential per gam (pdpg), won
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                as a follow to the question of whether the nets were the worst
                finals team of recent history here is some extra data: (points
                differential per gam (pdpg), won loss record, expected won loss
                based on run differential (ew-l), playoff w-l (pw-l).

                pdpg w-l % ew-l pw-l
                1. ny 93-94 +7.0 57-25 .695 59-23 14-11
                2. port 91-92 +7.3 57-25 .695 60-22 13-8
                3. sea 95-96 +7.8 64-18 .780 61-21 13-8
                4. pho 92-93 +6.7 62-20 .756 58-24 13-11
                5. utah 96-97 +8.8 64-18 .780 64-18 13-7
                6. orlando 94-95 +7.1 57-25 .695 60-22 11-10
                7. ind 99-00 +4.6 56-26 .683 53-29 13-10
                8. hou 85-86 +2.6 51-31 .622 48-34 13-7
                9. phil 00-01 +4.3 56-26 .683 52-30 12-11
                10. nj 01-02 +4.2 52-30 .610 52-30 11-9
                11. ny 98-99 +1.0 44-38*.540 44-38 12-9 *(wins projected)
                12 hou 80-81 +0.4 40-42 .488 42-40 11-9

                I did not know utah was that good. but the fact they lost so many
                of these teams in the playoffs makes you think the numbers overrate
                them slightly. the barkley suns also look a bit worse than the
                other teams people associate them like the suns and portland of the
                90s look better.

                the numbers also bear out that the east post-bulls (including the
                pacers) were cleary inferior to the teams bulls, knicks and other
                runnerups of the 90s.
              • Dean Oliver
                ... What is this last sentence supposed to say? I was surprised you didn t have the Jazz of 98 on the list, too. Both teams would have been favored had MJ
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                  > as a follow to the question of whether the nets were the worst
                  > finals team of recent history here is some extra data: (points
                  > differential per gam (pdpg), won loss record, expected won loss
                  > based on run differential (ew-l), playoff w-l (pw-l).
                  >
                  > pdpg w-l % ew-l pw-l
                  > 1. ny 93-94 +7.0 57-25 .695 59-23 14-11
                  > 2. port 91-92 +7.3 57-25 .695 60-22 13-8
                  > 3. sea 95-96 +7.8 64-18 .780 61-21 13-8
                  > 4. pho 92-93 +6.7 62-20 .756 58-24 13-11
                  > 5. utah 96-97 +8.8 64-18 .780 64-18 13-7
                  > 6. orlando 94-95 +7.1 57-25 .695 60-22 11-10
                  > 7. ind 99-00 +4.6 56-26 .683 53-29 13-10
                  > 8. hou 85-86 +2.6 51-31 .622 48-34 13-7
                  > 9. phil 00-01 +4.3 56-26 .683 52-30 12-11
                  > 10. nj 01-02 +4.2 52-30 .610 52-30 11-9
                  > 11. ny 98-99 +1.0 44-38*.540 44-38 12-9 *(wins projected)
                  > 12 hou 80-81 +0.4 40-42 .488 42-40 11-9
                  >
                  > I did not know utah was that good. but the fact they lost so many
                  > of these teams in the playoffs makes you think the numbers overrate
                  > them slightly.

                  What is this last sentence supposed to say?

                  I was surprised you didn't have the Jazz of '98 on the list, too.
                  Both teams would have been favored had MJ tried to make it in MLB.
                  I think some people were still picking the Jazz over the Bulls in
                  those couple years. Mailman was MVP one of those years. Among the
                  best offensive teams in history.

                  > the barkley suns also look a bit worse than the
                  > other teams people associate them like the suns and portland of the
                  > 90s look better.

                  When I first saw your list, I would subjectively have put the Sonics
                  of '96 at or near the top with the Jazz. The Sonics of '96 had no
                  chance against the unbeata-Bulls but were a very good team. The Jazz
                  did have a chance in each of '97 and '98. These Suns you're
                  referring to nearly lost in the first round, if I recall correctly.
                  Spotty defense, lots of young talent (Ceballos, Dumas, Oliver
                  Miller), can make for inconsistent play.

                  DeanO
                • Gary Collard
                  ... Is the ew-l formula the same as the baseball Pythgorean formula (R^2 / (R^2 + RA^2))? I did not know if that works for the narrower range of scoring of
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    harlanzo wrote:
                    >
                    > as a follow to the question of whether the nets were the worst
                    > finals team of recent history here is some extra data: (points
                    > differential per gam (pdpg), won loss record, expected won loss
                    > based on run differential (ew-l), playoff w-l (pw-l).

                    Is the ew-l formula the same as the baseball Pythgorean formula (R^2 / (R^2
                    + RA^2))? I did not know if that works for the narrower range of scoring
                    of basketball.

                    --
                    Gary Collard
                    SABR-L Moderator
                    collardg@...

                    "How can they call the internet connection dying on me no big deal?
                    What if there's an emergency and I need to e-mail 9-1-1?"
                    -- Jennifer Taylor
                  • Gary Collard
                    ... Yes, the 92-93 Suns went down 0-2 at home in the first round to a weak Lakers team before rallying to win in 5. Game 5 is in the rotation on NBA TV s
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dean Oliver wrote:
                      >
                      > did have a chance in each of '97 and '98. These Suns you're
                      > referring to nearly lost in the first round, if I recall correctly.
                      > Spotty defense, lots of young talent (Ceballos, Dumas, Oliver
                      > Miller), can make for inconsistent play.

                      Yes, the 92-93 Suns went down 0-2 at home in the first round to a weak
                      Lakers team before rallying to win in 5. Game 5 is in the rotation on NBA
                      TV's "Greatest Games" series.

                      --
                      Gary Collard
                      SABR-L Moderator
                      collardg@...

                      "How can they call the internet connection dying on me no big deal?
                      What if there's an emergency and I need to e-mail 9-1-1?"
                      -- Jennifer Taylor
                    • harlanzo
                      for the expected wins formula i just took the one posted on apbr by i think bob chaikin (wins= point differential per game * 2.61 + 41). apologies for not
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        for the expected wins formula i just took the one posted on apbr by
                        i think bob chaikin (wins= point differential per game * 2.61 +
                        41). apologies for not attributing it on the first post.

                        Dean, what I meant about Utah is that they essentially had the same
                        team for so long and that team seemed to peak when malone and
                        stockton were a bit older that it could lead one to the conclusion
                        that the jazz stayed the same while every else got worse. this of
                        course underrates the hornacek acquisition. but if you go through
                        the playoffs year by year utah lost to the lakers, gstate, phoenix,
                        portland, seattle, and houston before they broke through.

                        of course if you're looking at a single year it is a different
                        question but i could not help but think about other head-to-head
                        matchups to downgrade/upgrade teams. my perception was that the 92-
                        93 knicks were the pretty much as good as any non-bull team in the
                        90s. this should not reflect so much on the survey but that colored
                        my initial rankings.
                      • Dean Oliver
                        ... And this isn t all that dissimilar from using an exponent of 13-17 in the Pythagorean formula. ... Yeah, I haven t looked to see why they broke through
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 8, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                          > for the expected wins formula i just took the one posted on apbr by
                          > i think bob chaikin (wins= point differential per game * 2.61 +
                          > 41). apologies for not attributing it on the first post.
                          >

                          And this isn't all that dissimilar from using an exponent of 13-17 in
                          the Pythagorean formula.

                          > Dean, what I meant about Utah is that they essentially had the same
                          > team for so long and that team seemed to peak when malone and
                          > stockton were a bit older that it could lead one to the conclusion
                          > that the jazz stayed the same while every else got worse. this of
                          > course underrates the hornacek acquisition. but if you go through
                          > the playoffs year by year utah lost to the lakers, gstate, phoenix,
                          > portland, seattle, and houston before they broke through.
                          >

                          Yeah, I haven't looked to see why they broke through then. The O got
                          a lot better when Hornacek joined and my sense is that they focused
                          on D more during that period of time.

                          > of course if you're looking at a single year it is a different
                          > question but i could not help but think about other head-to-head
                          > matchups to downgrade/upgrade teams. my perception was that the 92-
                          > 93 knicks were the pretty much as good as any non-bull team in the
                          > 90s. this should not reflect so much on the survey but that
                          colored
                          > my initial rankings.

                          Silly New Yorker. ;) That was a very hard nosed team that almost
                          literally strangled opponents before Giuliani came in and cleaned all
                          that up. Actually, it was more like David Stern in the Knicks'
                          case. I think the Knick defense gave that team an aura that scared
                          people. By my rankings that defense was so far ahead of any other
                          defense that it was, well, illegal. And, because people believe that
                          D wins championships, people thought this was a really strong team.
                          Losing to Houston (one of just 2 times in the '90's where the team I
                          wanted to win actually did win) with Starks throwing up so many
                          bricks said that you better have some O.

                          I am back to not having NBA TV or ESPN Classic and I am going through
                          withdrawal. I have managed to find stupid things like Kung Fu TV,
                          the Golf Channel, and the Food Network, but all those do is make it
                          worse. So many channels, so little of value.
                        • harlanzo
                          As a follow up to the rankings of runner up teams i thought i d post the expected wins vs. actual of nba champs since the shot clock came in. (lockout spurs
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 9, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            As a follow up to the rankings of runner up teams i thought i'd post
                            the expected wins vs. actual of nba champs since the shot clock came
                            in. (lockout spurs are projected to 82 season). the last column
                            (rank) is the team's ranking in point differential.

                            team w-l diff expectedw-l playoff w-l rank
                            2001-02 Lakers 58-24 +7.1 60-22 15-4
                            2000-01 Lakers 56-26 +3.4 50-32 15-1
                            1999-00 Lakers 67-15 +8.5 63-19 15-8 1
                            1998-99 Spurs 61-21 +8.1 62-20 15-2 1
                            1997-98 Bulls 62-20 +7.1 60-22 15-6 2
                            1996-97 Bulls 69-13 +10.8 69-22 15-4 1
                            1995-96 Bulls 72-10 +12.2 73-9 15-3 1
                            1994-95 Rockets 47-35 +2.1 46-36 15-7 11
                            1993-94 Rockets 58-24 +4.3 52-30 15-8 6
                            1992-93 Bulls 57-25 +6.3 57-25 15-4 4
                            1991-92 Bulls 67-15 +10.4 68-14 15-7 1
                            1990-91 Bulls 61-21 +9.0 64-18 15-2 1
                            1989-90 Pistons 59-23 +6.0 57-25 15-5 4
                            1988-89 Pistons 63-19 +5.8 56-26 15-2 4
                            1987-88 Lakers 62-20 +5.8 56-26 15-9 2
                            1986-87 Lakers 65-17 +9.3 65-17 15-3 1
                            1985-96 Celtics 67-15 +9.4 66-16 15-3 1
                            1984-85 Lakers 62-20 +7.3 60-22 15-4 1
                            1983-84 Celtics 62-20 +6.5 58-24 15-8 1
                            1982-83 Sixers 65-17 +7.7 61-21 12-1 1
                            1981-82 Lakers 57-25 +4.8 54-28 12-2 4
                            1980-81 Celtics 62-20 +5.9 56-26 12-5 3
                            1979-80 Lakers 60-22 +5.9 56-26 12-4 2
                            1978-79 Sonics 52-30 +2.7 48-34 12-5 6
                            1977-78 Bullets 44-38 +0.9 43-39 14-7 7
                            1976-77 Blazers 49-33 +5.5 55-27 14-5 1
                            1975-76 Celtics 54-28 +2.3 47-35 12-6 4
                            1974-75 Warriors 48-34 +3.3 50-32 12-5 3
                            1973-74 Celtics 56-26 +3.9 51-31 12-6 3
                            1972-73 Knicks 57-25 +6.8 59-23 12-5 4
                            1971-72 Lakers 69-13 +12.3 73-9 12-3 1
                            1970-71 Bucks 66-16 +12.2 73-9 12-2 1
                            1969-70 Knicks 60-22 +9.1 65-17 12-7 1
                            1968-69 Celtics 48-34 +5.6 56-26 12-6 1
                            1967-68 Celtics 54-28 +4.1 52-30 12-7 3
                            1966-67 Sixers 68-13 +9.4 65-16 11-4 1
                            1965-66 Celtics 54-26 +4.9 53-27 11-6 1
                            1964-65 Celtics 62-18 +8.3 62-18 8-4 1
                            1963-64 Celtics 59-21 +7.9 61-19 8-2 1
                            1962-63 Celtics 58-22 +7.2 59-21 8-5 1
                            1961-62 Celtics 60-20 +9.2 64-16 8-6 1
                            1960-61 Celtics 57-22 +5.6 48-32 8-2 1
                            1959-60 Celtics 59-16 +8.3 59-16 8-5 1
                            1958-59 Celtics 52-20 +6.5 53-19 8-3 1
                            1957-58 Hawks 41-31 +1.3 39-33 8-3 3
                            1956-57 Celtics 44-28 +5.3 50-22 7-3 1
                            1955-56 Warriors 45-27 +4.3 47-25 7-3 1
                            1954-55 Nats 43-29 +1.4 40-32 7-4 2

                            seems like there is a distinct lack of dominant teams in the time
                            between jordan's retirement and from 73-80 (or from wilt's
                            retirement to magic/bird). you'll notice after the knicks and
                            lakers of 73 got old the teams that filled the void (with the
                            exception of the blazers were not that good). generally no one
                            seemed to win a championship without a differential of at least +5.
                            but the 70s celtics, warriors, bullets, and sonics were well these
                            parameters. i wonder if it was a combination of losing so many
                            stars of the 60s and early 70s (walt, reed, wilt, russell, sam
                            jones, oscar, elgin, west etc) and the aba taking some top notch
                            talent.

                            a couple other wierd anomalies were the 94-95 rockets and the 00-01
                            lakers. both really did not outscore opponents by so much. but that
                            rocket team got drexler over halfway thru the year changing the
                            character of the team. the lakers of 00-01 were fighting a lot
                            (kobe v. shaq) i guess it affected them in the regular season but
                            their three record and playoff performance that seem to indicate a
                            one year fluke.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.