RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?
- -----Original Message-----
From: monepeterson [mailto:mone@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:05 AM
Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?
>> 2. When the trade happened, I saw it as a boost for the offenseYes, prior to the trade the Sonics were on course for what, maybe 38
>>with a potential for making the team a 50+ win playoff caliber
>>version fairly soon. Ray Allen is that much better than Gary Payton
>Dean, if you can do so without compromising your position with the
>Sonics, can you comment more at length on #2? I understand Ray being
>more efficient than Payton, but how does this help the other players?
wins? Obviously the 50+ win prediction requires more than just the
Allen trade, and given that it is a prediction for the future, when
Payton will decline due to age while Allen is still at his peak, time
is on Allen's side too. But still that seems like a lot of additional
wins for an Allen-Payton swap, even given the other ingredients and time
>I'm just remembering earlier in the season when McMillan saidYes, the LA Times featured it in their quote of the day column/box,
>something about James being self-centered, and Jerome's response was
>"I don't know what he's talking about. I just take care of Jerome."
>Had to be the quote of the year.
but I think the quote should've gotten even more notice than it did,
because I agree it has to be one of the quotes of the year. Maybe
the kind of thing that Terry Pluto could use if he ever writes
"Tall Tales II" or whatever.
BTW, I recently finished reading Pluto's "Falling from Grace" a critique
of the NBA written in the late 1990s. Prescient in many ways, about the
decline of interest in the NBA post-Jordan. Granted that's not exactly
Karnak the Magnificent prescience, and there was much that I didn't agree
with in the book or that was poorly analyzed, but Pluto made some good
points too. Plus he had a good quote from Frank Layden about how
Adrian Dantley became such a pill on the Jazz that they traded him away,
jsut to get him off the team. ;)
- --- 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.