- ... Payton ... being ... players? ... 38 ... time ... additional ... time ... Requires the defense to get better, which it wasn t going to do in the previousMessage 1 of 34 , Apr 2, 2003View Source--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
> -----Original Message-----Payton
> From: monepeterson [mailto:mone@s...]
> 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 offense
> >>with a potential for making the team a 50+ win playoff caliber
> >>version fairly soon. Ray Allen is that much better than Gary
> >Dean, if you can do so without compromising your position with the
> >Sonics, can you comment more at length on #2? I understand Ray
> >more efficient than Payton, but how does this help the otherplayers?
> Yes, prior to the trade the Sonics were on course for what, maybe
> wins? Obviously the 50+ win prediction requires more than just thetime
> 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,
> is on Allen's side too. But still that seems like a lot ofadditional
> wins for an Allen-Payton swap, even given the other ingredients andtime
> factor.Requires the defense to get better, which it wasn't going to do in
the previous situation. I did an analysis that pretty much said they
had a 10% chance of significantly improving the team D by standing
pat (which partly explained why they hadn't improved it this year
despite the major emphasis on it). Defense is how the team improves
the most. Definitely a more fuzzy analysis of how much better they
can get there, but most signs said they had to make a change to do
so. It wouldn't help this year, but it would help next year or the
Based on a pure number for number side by side comparison, no way
that Allen improves the team much. But this was at least as much
about the nebulous concept of "chemistry" (which I am starting to
- ... This is actually misleading. I won t say wrong, but misleading. Pace is very important. Many of the individual stats are offensive and without adjustmentMessage 34 of 34 , Apr 11, 2003View Source--- 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.