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

Re: east domination

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.