Re: Seattle Resurgence?
- I know I'm late to this, but I'm throwing in my $0.02 anyway:
1) Barry's knee is clearly a lot better than it was. He got healthy
right around the time of the trade -- you can tell because he stopped
missing games, most obviously -- and that has been huge for their
offense, much more important than Gary-for-Ray IMHO.
2) Allen really WAS an awful defender last year, when his knee was
hurting him. The last two months of the year he got torched every
single night. But this year it hasn't seemed like a big problem.
3) GP's rep on D is based on several years ago. He can't defend quick
PGs anymore, which is why Ollie has seemed like such a revelation.
He's still difficult to post up however.
4) Forte was regarded as an ass in Boston as well. That and the fact
that he can't play should pretty much wrap up his pro career. I have
to think the Sonics will eat the last year of his contract.
But I thought the Sonics would win 50 this year, so take this with a
grain of salt.
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "monepeterson" <mone@s...>
> > > 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
> > >at this point. They key goes beyond Ray, though, to other guys
> > >Rashard Lewis, Radmanovic, and James.
> > Dean, if you can do so without compromising your position with
> > Sonics, can you comment more at length on #2? I understand Ray
> > more efficient than Payton, but how does this help the other
> Gary is ultracompetitive on a team that needs to improve before it
> gets ultracompetitive. The team was leading the league in close
> games as of mid-January or so (the last I looked) and it was Gary
> bringing them there by sheer will. While that is a good idea on
> teams, this team needed more shots from the young guys, allowing
> to understand what good shots were, not to defer to Gary all the
> time. There is a mathematical model behind all this, but I don't
> show that to the powers that be. The other thing was that it
> like Gary's high use of possessions was nonoptimal for the
> That relates to the skill curves, which is explained a lot more in
> the book. In general, possessions needed to be distributed
> differently for both short term and long term improvement. It says
> nothing about whether the team _should_ improve this way, which is
> topic I've seen discussed. Some have suggested that tanking the
> season to get a high draft pick is best. I haven't done that
> analysis. That's not an easy analysis to do.
- --- 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.