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

banter

Expand Messages
  • Mike G <msg_53@hotmail.com>
    OK, it seems the main combatants aren t even addressing the group as a whole, so I will start a new thread. I m not at all convinced that a high poss/48min
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      OK, it seems the main combatants aren't even addressing the group as
      a whole, so I will start a new thread.

      I'm not at all convinced that a high poss/48min rate will necessarily
      produce a higher scoring efficiency (pts/poss). It looks like the
      1990 Denver Nuggets scores were 114.6-113.2, and their overall
      shooting was .515.

      In 1991, they went retro; their scores were 119.9-130.8, and their
      shooting dropped to .491. So there was a clear inverse correlation
      between shots attempted and percent made.

      Maybe the fast-paced '60s were a matter of the Celtics perfecting the
      style, and everyone else trying and failing to copy them. But it
      wasn't and isn't the way to attain a high shooting %.

      So, my prediction (which we will test as soon as we get this time
      machine built) is that in a series between the '67 Sixers and the '83
      Sixers, we wouldn't see the '83 team running and gunning at 53%,
      scoring 140 points. Nor would the '67 team be playing halfcourt and
      still shooting 43% (or whatever).

      The pace would come and go, it would go 7 games, and both teams would
      shoot around 48%, scoring around 110. It's anyone's guess, and
      that's mine.

      Meanwhile, I have made another attempt to rank eras with one another,
      using minutes played by individuals from one year to the next.
    • schtevie2003 <schtevie@hotmail.com>
      ... msg_53@h... wrote: Mike: OK, it seems the main combatants aren t even addressing the group as a whole, so I will start a new thread. Me:
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G
        msg_53@h...>" <msg_53@h...> wrote:

        Mike: OK, it seems the main combatants aren't even addressing
        the group as a whole, so I will start a new thread.

        Me: Sorry about the tone, I am quite sure that I got a little pissed
        off, apologies again...

        *******************************

        Mike: I'm not at all convinced that a high poss/48min rate will
        necessarily produce a higher scoring efficiency (pts/poss). It
        looks like the 1990 Denver Nuggets scores were 114.6-113.2,
        and their overall shooting was .515.

        In 1991, they went retro; their scores were 119.9-130.8, and their
        shooting dropped to .491. So there was a clear inverse
        correlation between shots attempted and percent made.

        Me: Actually, the evidence you cite is entirely consistent with the
        theory I cited and the historical evidence of the "average NBA
        team". Let's stipulate that the two Denver teams were the same
        in pernonnel, with only offensive philosophy changing. What the
        data represents then is a true retrogression, where "more
        optimal" play was substituted for "less optimal" play. They
        foolishly replayed history, and came out on the wrong side (if the
        goal was in fact competitiveness as opposed to possible fan
        interest in a fast-paced train wreck.)

        ***************************
        Mike: Maybe the fast-paced '60s were a matter of the Celtics
        perfecting the style, and everyone else trying and failing to copy
        them. But it wasn't and isn't the way to attain a high shooting %.
        So, my prediction (which we will test as soon as we get this time
        machine built) is that in a series between the '67 Sixers and the
        '83 Sixers, we wouldn't see the '83 team running and gunning at
        53%, scoring 140 points. Nor would the '67 team be playing
        halfcourt and still shooting 43% (or whatever). The pace would
        come and go, it would go 7 games, and both teams would shoot
        around 48%, scoring around 110. It's anyone's guess, and that's
        mine.

        Steve: For what it's worth, my interpretation of the 60s Celtics is
        that they had a truly great defense for the era, and that is what
        carried them. It had to as they were only a slightly above-average
        offensive team. And if one accepts the anecdotal evidence of
        their teams getting a lot of easy fast-breaks off of Russell
        rebounds, then the necessary implication is that their half-court
        offense must have been decidedly below average! And as for
        perfecting the style, they too sequentially abandonned it, if that is
        how their slowing game pace too should be interpretted.

        As for the time machine, my bet is on Dr. J.....for all those
        reasons previously discussed.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.