Re: 2003 Questions
- Adding some detail as I'm getting a chance.
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
> As I've finally gotten a chance to compile some numbers from this
> past season, these are some of the interesting questions I haven't
> had a chance to follow up on:
> 1. What the hell happened to Darius Miles? He wasn't a good
> in LA in 2002, but he was supposed to be getting better, not
> an Olowokandi type year.
I had him with a net win-loss record of 2.9-5.0 in 2002 and 0.2-8.8
in 2003. Both his offense and defense declined remarkably.
> 3. Was Chauncey Billups this good last year? Were there signs?
My numbers have him just about as good in 2002 as 2003. Offensive
rating in 2002 = 117 and in 2003 = 118. He increased his %age of
team possessions from 21% to 24% without a decline in efficiency.
> 9. Is Tracy McGrady really such a bad defender (as my initial cut
> stats suggested)? Was he just relaxing on D because he had to do
> much offensively?
The team's defensive rating was 106.3 with him and 99.1 without him.
The offensive rating was 106.6 with him and 97.6 without him. Both
were significant at 98+% when you account for strength of opposition.
> 19. How is it that so many measures of quality say that Antoine
> Walker is pitiful, yet even I wonder whether they'd be as good if
> they replaced him with even Walter McCarty?
I have Walker contributing 3.4 wins and 13.0 losses, the greatest net
loss total of any player. It's a complex analysis to evaluate how
much pressure he relieves for teammates. He certainly does that and
he is surrounded by a bunch of guys that kind of need that. But I
don't think that makes up for such a horrid individual record.
> 20. Can a team like the Kings without a clear leader win a title?
I've felt that the Kings seem to turn to Webber as their leader when
crunch time comes, but he's never been that kind of player. My
temptation is to say that his loss doesn't hurt the Kings in the
playoffs. That seems to have been true during the regular season
over the last several years.
- I was forced to watch a huge number of Hawks games this year. One
thing nobody talked about was how bad this team's bench was. Nazr
Mohammed just flat out sucked, and Alan Henderson wasn't much better.
Darvin Ham can't make a shot if it isn't a dunk, and Dan Dickau was a
total flop. The only halfway decent bench player was Ira Newble, and
he started half the season.
As for the Terry point/not a point issue, the real problem was that
he was the only guy who could handle the ball, especially when Newble
was starting at off guard, and that was why they made so many TOs.
The Hawks just need somebody else who can dribble and take the
pressure off; which guard spot he plays is almost irrelevant.
As for Big Dog, he should be a bench dog. The team played better
without him, and at this point Newble is better anyway.
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "lilnemoinslumber"
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:them?
> > 4. There are some good pieces in Atlanta. What to do to fix
> Take the ball out of Terry, Robinson, and Rahim's hands.
> Atlanta's "Big Three" are averaging a Big 3 TO's apiece.
> The Big Question is who exactly will be at the helm? Do they keep
> Stotts? Do they go after a Big guard to play point and keep Terry
> the 2? Do they undergo a Big overhaul in their offensive schemes tois
> try and eliminate the TO inducing iso's? Or do they punt?
> One at a time:
> We can't divine who will end up as coach, but we'll assume Stotts
> staying on. He brought the Hawks a bit of cohesion as their secondbe
> half finish can attest.
> I like the idea of a big guard playing point to Terry's 2. But it
> seems most tall ball-handling guards either look to score for
> themselves or are too easily harassed by quicker, smaller guards.
> Admittedly, getting Glenn to play D, or Theo to stay healthy would
> the answer. But playing better team D, and cutting down onturnovers
> really ought to be enough to get this crew into the playoffs. Inthe
> east at least.