Re: Seattle Resurgence?
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "monepeterson" <mone@s...>
> Something I'm not hearing about a lot in the national media isis
> Seattle's resurgence. They were left for dead at the time of the
> Payton-Allen trade, but since Allen has been in the lineup the team
> 12-7 and now only 2.5 games out of a playoff spot.A few comments.
> I know it's a small sample size, but what's changed? What are they
> doing better now?
1. Seattle is a better team with the trade. There were a lot of
things I saw in the numbers before the trade suggesting that a change
had to be made. The development of the young guys was just not
2. When the trade happened, I saw it as a boost for the offense with
a potential for making the team a 50+ win playoff caliber version
fairly soon. Ray Allen is that much better than Gary Payton at this
point. They key goes beyond Ray, though, to other guys like Rashard
Lewis, Radmanovic, and James.
3. There was an initial defensive spike in the team after the trade,
with the team also dominating the defensive side of the ball. That
had the team thinking playoffs right away, but it had to end. The
team should not have gotten significantly better on that end and,
sure enough, it has more evened out over the longer haul. There is
improvement that can be made on the defensive side in the offseason...
4. Jerome James could be a big part of that or not a part of it. He
is definitely erratic. In his short minutes on the court, he can
make a HUGE difference in the game, either on the positive side or
the negative. I have a lot of work to do in studying his potential
5. Someone mentioned statistical significance. Yes, the team has
not statistically significantly improved itself when looking only at
the team record. But there are a lot of ways to break down the team
and test for significance. Understanding when "significance"
is "significant" is part of the science. I just need to run a bunch
of tests. That's a task for the offseason -- may it come later
rather than sooner.
Sorry for the less-than-specific response, but I can't say too much
about what I have done for the Sonics without putting myself in an
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> What matters is that x points and y rebounds occurred in z minutes.This is actually misleading. I won't say wrong, but misleading.
Pace is very important. Many of the individual stats are offensive
and without adjustment for pace overweight players who just put up a
lot of offensive stats _per minute_. And pace is mostly (not
entirely) a function of a decision about pace, not ability (though
ability has a small impact). How fast or slow teams play reflects
primarily on their style not their substance. How many points and
rebounds per minute reflects both style and substance. Removing pace
more isolates the substance.
The way common possessions do it is by isolating another variable in
addition to minutes that is common between both teams on the floor.
Both teams have 48 minutes to win. Both teams have 100 possessions
to win in a fast game or 85 in a slow game or whatever. But both
opponents have the same number (not true with small possessions
= "plays"). So, yes, what matters is what happens per minute, but it
is equivalent to say that what matters is what happens per
possession. And what happens per possession isolates quality better
than what happens per minute.