Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jordan

Expand Messages
  • harlanzo@yahoo.com
    Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued about whether MJ s decision was right in terms of how it might threaten his historical
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
      about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
      threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really don't
      have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in seeing
      how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA. Obviously,
      time will tell. But I took the liberty of examining past precedent
      to see if there are any indicators for how Jordan might fare. I
      thought the best way to ascertain this was by looking at how similar
      players (ie big 2 guards and some small forwards) fared at age 34
      (Jordan's last season) and how much on average the players diminished
      at age 38 (Jordan's age now). I thought that if you could average
      the decline by statistical column we could get some rough estimate of
      where MJ will be at the end of the 2001-02 season. This is obviously
      a rough estimate (and very unscientific) but it at least is
      something. (I left out centers and big forwards because I felt that
      the nature of their roles are too different to compare with slashing
      guards like MJ).

      I put together a list of similar players to see how they fared at
      similar ages.
      age 34 ppg rpg apg age 38 ppg rpg apg
      Michael JOrdan 29 5.8 3.5 ?? ?? ??
      Elgin Baylor 24.8 10.6 5.4 retired
      Dave Bing 13.6 2.7 3.8 retired
      Rolando Blackman 7.3 1.7 1.4 retired
      Walter Davis 15.6 1.9 2.3 retired
      Clyde Drexler 18.0 6.0 5.7 retired
      Joe Dumars 13.1 1.4 3.5 retired
      Alex English 26.5 4.0 4.7 retired
      Julius Erving 20.0 5.1 3.0 retired
      World B. Free 6.4 0.8 1.0 retired
      George Gervin retired retired
      Gail Goodrich 16.1 2.2 4.8 retired
      Hal Greer 18.6 4.5 4.6 retired
      John Havlicek 19.2 5.9 5.3 retired
      Lou Hudson 9.8 1.8 1.8 retired
      Eddie Johnson 11.5 3.1 1.7 4.0 0.7 0.3
      Magic Johnson 14.6 5.7 6.9 retired
      Sam Jones 16.3 3.8 2.6 retired
      Jeff Malone 5.8 1.3 0.8 retired
      Pete Maravich retired retired
      Earl Monroe 12.3 1.2 3.0 retired
      Sidney Moncrief retired retired
      Oscar Robertson 15.5 4.9 7.5 retired
      Bill Sharman 16.0 3.7 2.4 retired
      James Worthy retired retired
      Chet Walker retired retired
      Reggie THeus retired retired
      Jerry West 22.8 4.2 8.8 retired
      Dominique Wilkins 17.8 5.2 2.2 5.0 2.6 0.6
      Paul Westphal retired retired
      Byron Scott 10.2 2.4 1.5 retired
      Dale Ellis 15.2 3.3 1.0 10.3 2.4 0.8

      But my attempts to crush numbers were not useful because, of these
      players few were star quality at 34 (Baylor, Drexler, English, Dr. J,
      Greer, Hondo, Sam Jones, Oscar, Nique, and West). At 38, only
      Nique, Dale Ellis, and Eddie Johnson were active and none of these
      scored more than 10 ppg. There is an argument that player
      condtioning is different today and more players will last longer than
      did in the 60s and 70s and some players (like West and Drexler)
      retired because they lost the desire to play and not necessarily the
      physical ability. Time will tell on this part. But it is clear that
      the great weight of evidence is against any perimeter player still
      being effective at age 38. That being said, Jordan was so much
      better than any of these players at 34 that it could be argued that
      he is so off the charts that at age 38 he will still be great. I
      hope this is true. However, I am skeptical how good he will be.
      Ultimately, i believe MJ will be a top 5 shooting guard (or small
      forward if he chooses to play this instead). It will be interesting
      to see.
    • Mike Goodman
      ... This list is quite impressive in what does not show up, which is any quality production from a 38-year-old guard in the NBA. Ever. So, If Jordan can get
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
        > I put together a list of similar players to see how they fared at
        > similar ages.
        > age 34 ppg rpg apg age 38 ppg rpg apg
        > Michael JOrdan 29 5.8 3.5 ?? ?? ??
        > Eddie Johnson 11.5 3.1 1.7 4.0 0.7 0.3
        > Dominique Wilkins 17.8 5.2 2.2 5.0 2.6 0.6
        > Dale Ellis 15.2 3.3 1.0 10.3 2.4 0.8

        This list is quite impressive in what does not show up, which is any
        quality production from a 38-year-old guard in the NBA. Ever.
        So, If Jordan can get over 10 ppg, 3 rpg, 2 apg, he is the best 38-yr-
        old guard ever. That would be yet another milestone for him.

        Of course everyone expects more than 10-3-2. If he insists on the
        minutes, 20-6-4 should be within reach.

        In fact, I did a little bit of 'analysis' along these lines.
        Excel does a crude extrapolation of Jordan's last 3 seasons ('96-
        '98), and 'predicts', for this year, 22.6, 5.5, 2.3.
        For next year, 20.5, 5.3, 1.9.

        This assumes he gets around 36 minutes, and for all we know, we may
        see him taken out 'for defensive purposes', shocking though the
        thought may be. Also assumed is that scoring will be his designated
        purpose, as it became increasingly toward the 'end' of his career.

        I haven't kept up on whether he can fire his coach, but in any event
        there will now be, for better or worse, a strange precedent in
        player/coach relations.


        >.... There is an argument that player
        > condtioning is different today and more players will last longer
        than
        > did in the 60s and 70s and some players (like West and Drexler)
        > retired because they lost the desire to play and not necessarily
        the
        > physical ability.

        I have long wondered if time away from the game might in fact enhance
        longevity. Perhaps not in the total of games or minutes one can
        accumulate in a career, but in just this factor we are considering:
        whether a player can contribute at age 38.
        In other words, in a parallel universe, where Jordan had been playing
        35-40 minutes a game for 3 more years, would he be completely spent
        at age 38?
        I do suspect the first retirement may have rejuvenated his desire,
        and that maybe playing through those years would have led to fewer
        than 6 titles, rather than more (as is commonly assumed).

        > Time will tell on this part. But it is clear that
        > the great weight of evidence is against any perimeter player still
        > being effective at age 38. That being said, Jordan was so much
        > better than any of these players at 34 that it could be argued that
        > he is so off the charts that at age 38 he will still be great. I
        > hope this is true. However, I am skeptical how good he will be.
        > Ultimately, i believe MJ will be a top 5 shooting guard (or small
        > forward if he chooses to play this instead). It will be
        interesting
        > to see.

        I think the Wiz need other than a designated scorer. Richmond was
        that. Look for Jordan to play 32 minutes, getting 15 pts, 5 reb, 6
        ast. (It takes less energy to pass than to score).
      • Dean Oliver
        ... don t ... seeing ... Well, since you showed that there really weren t good 38-year old comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
          > Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
          > about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
          > threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really
          don't
          > have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in
          seeing
          > how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA.

          Well, since you showed that there really weren't good 38-year old
          comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
          calculated the most similar players to Jordan in his last playing
          year:

          Player Team Season SimScore
          wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 887
          wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 879
          jordan,michael chi 1997 869
          jordan,michael chi 1996 860
          bryant,kobe lal 2001 860
          wilkins,dominiq atl 1992 856
          wilkins,dominiq atl 1991 856
          chambers,tom pho 1990 853
          Hill,Grant det 2000 849
          chambers,tom pho 1989 849
          malone,karl uta 1996 847
          wilkins,dominiq atl 1993 843
          carter,vince tor 2000 841

          and decided to look at what they did 3 years later, regardless of
          age. Of this list,Chambers or Wilkins might be considered the best
          fit when considering age. The inclusion of Kobe, Vinsanity, and
          Grant Hill is interesting, but doesn't help at all because the
          seasons are too recent to tell us anything about 3 yrs down the line.
          Given that they should be improving (maybe not Hill) and Jordan
          should be declining means that we probably wouldn't trust those
          comparisons anyway. So, the seasons we can use to estimate what
          happens 3 yrs later:

          Wilkins 92
          Wilkins 93
          Wilkins 94
          Wilkins 95
          Chambers 92
          Chambers 93
          Malone 99

          These seasons are shown below:

          G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
          chambers,tom 69 28.2 6.2 14.3 0.3 0.7
          chambers,tom 73 23.6 4.4 9.8 0.2 0.4
          wilkins,dominiq 42 38.1 10.1 21.8 0.9 3.0
          wilkins,dominiq 71 37.3 10.4 22.3 1.7 4.5
          wilkins,dominiq 74 35.6 9.4 21.4 1.1 4.0
          wilkins,dominiq 77 31.5 6.4 15.2 1.5 3.8
          malone,karl 80 37.4 8.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
          Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3

          Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
          chambers,tom 3.7 4.5 1.2 5.8 2.1
          chambers,tom 3.3 3.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
          wilkins,dominiq 7.0 8.4 2.5 7.0 3.8
          wilkins,dominiq 7.3 8.8 2.6 6.8 3.2
          wilkins,dominiq 6.0 7.1 2.5 6.5 2.3
          wilkins,dominiq 3.5 4.4 2.0 5.2 2.2
          malone,karl 7.7 9.8 2.2 9.4 4.1
          Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7

          Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
          chambers,tom 0.83 1.5 0.54 2.8 16.3
          chambers,tom 0.59 1.3 0.32 2.9 12.2
          wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.9 0.57 1.8 28.1
          wilkins,dominiq 0.99 2.6 0.38 1.7 29.9
          wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.3 0.41 1.7 26.0
          wilkins,dominiq 0.79 2.2 0.18 1.7 17.8
          malone,karl 1.27 3.3 0.57 2.7 23.8
          Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0

          Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
          chambers,tom 0.431 0.367 0.830 1.38 0.31
          chambers,tom 0.447 0.393 0.837 1.10 0.40
          wilkins,dominiq 0.464 0.289 0.835 1.30 0.39
          wilkins,dominiq 0.468 0.380 0.828 1.23 0.40
          wilkins,dominiq 0.440 0.288 0.847 0.98 0.33
          wilkins,dominiq 0.424 0.388 0.782 0.96 0.29
          malone,karl 0.493 0.000 0.788 1.24 0.60
          Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39

          Frankly, these averages don't look all that different from what
          harlanzo and Mike proposed. I don't look at that as a pure scorer;
          he's still balanced. He appears to play less, too, only 69 games.

          I plugged in these Average #'s to determine how good a player this
          is, from my calculations. I get a player like this:

          Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points
          Poss. . Pct. . Prod.
          699 1343 0.520 109.6 1471

          Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
          Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
          442 0.192 0.493 102.6 0.746 9.5 3.2

          Definitely still a good player, but not like the Mike of old.
          Producing a little over 20 ppg, but not as efficiently (his lowest
          rating before was 111.4 in his last season). The defensive #'s are
          highly uncertain, but actually based on a team context like the
          Clippers of last year, which may be a little too good for my tastes,
          but not a bad comparison.

          Of course, this is missing the age factor, but harlanzo's was missing
          the quality factor -- both of which are important -- showing how
          unique MJ is.

          (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
          years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)

          Dean Oliver
          Journal of Basketball Studies
        • harlanzo@yahoo.com
          I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play zone under the new rules might
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one
            question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play zone
            under the new rules might help his longevity? I can see arguments
            both ways on this and I don't have an opinion but I am interested in
            what people think.


            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
            > > Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
            > > about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
            > > threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really
            > don't
            > > have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in
            > seeing
            > > how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA.
            >
            > Well, since you showed that there really weren't good 38-year old
            > comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
            > calculated the most similar players to Jordan in his last playing
            > year:
            >
            > Player Team Season SimScore
            > wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 887
            > wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 879
            > jordan,michael chi 1997 869
            > jordan,michael chi 1996 860
            > bryant,kobe lal 2001 860
            > wilkins,dominiq atl 1992 856
            > wilkins,dominiq atl 1991 856
            > chambers,tom pho 1990 853
            > Hill,Grant det 2000 849
            > chambers,tom pho 1989 849
            > malone,karl uta 1996 847
            > wilkins,dominiq atl 1993 843
            > carter,vince tor 2000 841
            >
            > and decided to look at what they did 3 years later, regardless of
            > age. Of this list,Chambers or Wilkins might be considered the best
            > fit when considering age. The inclusion of Kobe, Vinsanity, and
            > Grant Hill is interesting, but doesn't help at all because the
            > seasons are too recent to tell us anything about 3 yrs down the
            line.
            > Given that they should be improving (maybe not Hill) and Jordan
            > should be declining means that we probably wouldn't trust those
            > comparisons anyway. So, the seasons we can use to estimate what
            > happens 3 yrs later:
            >
            > Wilkins 92
            > Wilkins 93
            > Wilkins 94
            > Wilkins 95
            > Chambers 92
            > Chambers 93
            > Malone 99
            >
            > These seasons are shown below:
            >
            > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
            > chambers,tom 69 28.2 6.2 14.3 0.3 0.7
            > chambers,tom 73 23.6 4.4 9.8 0.2 0.4
            > wilkins,dominiq 42 38.1 10.1 21.8 0.9 3.0
            > wilkins,dominiq 71 37.3 10.4 22.3 1.7 4.5
            > wilkins,dominiq 74 35.6 9.4 21.4 1.1 4.0
            > wilkins,dominiq 77 31.5 6.4 15.2 1.5 3.8
            > malone,karl 80 37.4 8.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
            > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
            >
            > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
            > chambers,tom 3.7 4.5 1.2 5.8 2.1
            > chambers,tom 3.3 3.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
            > wilkins,dominiq 7.0 8.4 2.5 7.0 3.8
            > wilkins,dominiq 7.3 8.8 2.6 6.8 3.2
            > wilkins,dominiq 6.0 7.1 2.5 6.5 2.3
            > wilkins,dominiq 3.5 4.4 2.0 5.2 2.2
            > malone,karl 7.7 9.8 2.2 9.4 4.1
            > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
            >
            > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
            > chambers,tom 0.83 1.5 0.54 2.8 16.3
            > chambers,tom 0.59 1.3 0.32 2.9 12.2
            > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.9 0.57 1.8 28.1
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.99 2.6 0.38 1.7 29.9
            > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.3 0.41 1.7 26.0
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.79 2.2 0.18 1.7 17.8
            > malone,karl 1.27 3.3 0.57 2.7 23.8
            > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
            >
            > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
            > chambers,tom 0.431 0.367 0.830 1.38 0.31
            > chambers,tom 0.447 0.393 0.837 1.10 0.40
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.464 0.289 0.835 1.30 0.39
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.468 0.380 0.828 1.23 0.40
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.440 0.288 0.847 0.98 0.33
            > wilkins,dominiq 0.424 0.388 0.782 0.96 0.29
            > malone,karl 0.493 0.000 0.788 1.24 0.60
            > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
            >
            > Frankly, these averages don't look all that different from what
            > harlanzo and Mike proposed. I don't look at that as a pure scorer;
            > he's still balanced. He appears to play less, too, only 69 games.
            >
            > I plugged in these Average #'s to determine how good a player this
            > is, from my calculations. I get a player like this:
            >
            > Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points
            > Poss. . Pct. . Prod.
            > 699 1343 0.520 109.6 1471
            >
            > Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
            > Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
            > 442 0.192 0.493 102.6 0.746 9.5 3.2
            >
            > Definitely still a good player, but not like the Mike of old.
            > Producing a little over 20 ppg, but not as efficiently (his lowest
            > rating before was 111.4 in his last season). The defensive #'s are
            > highly uncertain, but actually based on a team context like the
            > Clippers of last year, which may be a little too good for my
            tastes,
            > but not a bad comparison.
            >
            > Of course, this is missing the age factor, but harlanzo's was
            missing
            > the quality factor -- both of which are important -- showing how
            > unique MJ is.
            >
            > (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
            > years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)
            >
            > Dean Oliver
            > Journal of Basketball Studies
          • Mike Goodman
            ... Definitely
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
              > I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one
              > question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play
              >zone
              > under the new rules might help his longevity

              Definitely
            • Dean Oliver
              ... Something else to add. The player-seasons most similar to this average are shown below: Player Team Season SimScore chambers,tom pho 1991 898*
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
                >
                > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
                >
                > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
                > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
                >
                > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
                >

                Something else to add. The player-seasons most similar to this
                average are shown below:

                Player Team Season SimScore
                chambers,tom pho 1991 898*
                mobley,cuttino hou 2001 892
                wilkins,dominiq lac 1994 888
                rice,glen cha 1998 887*
                pierce,ricky sea 1992 882
                smith,steve atl 1998 876*
                wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 874
                richmond,mitch gol 1990 874
                richmond,mitch gol 1989 872
                gill,kendall njn 1997 872
                tripucka,kelly cha 1989 871
                pierce,ricky mil 1990 871
                wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 870*
                robinson,glenn mil 1995 870
                johnson,larry cha 1996 869
                campbell,tony min 1990 863
                campbell,tony min 1991 857
                hawkins,hersey phi 1990 856
                houston,allan nyk 1998 855

                A few all-stars (the *s) near the top (and, of course, matches to
                some of the guys making the average), though no MVPs. Mobley is the
                only player from last year who ranks as similar. His #'s

                Plyr G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                mobley,cuttino 79 38.0 6.7 15.4 1.1 3.2

                Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                mobley,cuttino 5.0 6.0 1.1 5.0 2.5

                Plyr Name stl tov blk pf pts
                mobley,cuttino 1.06 2.1 0.33 2.1 19.5

                Plyr Name fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                mobley,cuttino 0.434 0.357 0.831 1.18 0.39

                That's a good match on a lot of things, but Mobley is not quite as
                efficient as the hypothetical Jordan, due to shooting percentage...
                And it's just hard thinking that Jordan is gonna be like Mobley.

                Dean Oliver
                Journal of Basketball Studies
              • nikoz6@yahoo.com
                ... I m also sure it will help him. Watching European basketball, I always took zone defense for granted. It s more about being clever than being too athletic.
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 3, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I
                  > would pose one
                  > question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be
                  > allowed to play zone
                  > under the new rules might help his longevity?

                  I'm also sure it will help him. Watching European
                  basketball, I always took zone defense for granted.
                  It's more about being clever than being too athletic.
                  Even if Jordan is now 80% of his '98 self, he's still
                  athletic and he definitely is clever enough to change
                  and adjust his game as he has done many times in
                  the past.

                  I even tend to think that the new rules were made
                  just for MJ's comeback... with the zone defense
                  he will not often look rediculous when Iverson
                  for example will use his crossover. I've heard
                  also that he might move into small forward.

                  In offense, the fact that big men are not
                  allowed to stay in the paint for longer than 3''
                  will allow him to dunk instead of being rejected
                  (he sure can still dunk but over Shaq or Mutombo?
                  Not very likely to happen, at least more than once).

                  What do you think of my "conspiracy theory"? :)

                  I dont think there's any doubt that he can still
                  play well. If Dale Ellis can score 10 points in
                  his 38's, Jordan can sure score 20 (especially
                  playing in a team like Washington). He will
                  play well but seeing him being "just a good
                  player" is not exactly matching to his career
                  till now.

                  The fact is we don't really know how it will
                  be like and that's what makes it interesting.
                  Most guesses are that the battle "Jordan Vs Time"
                  will be something close to a draw cause it's the
                  most possible scenario. But then, either of
                  them might win totally as well...

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
                  http://phone.yahoo.com
                • HoopStudies
                  I was looking back on our old projections on Jordan, now that his season is done. A few things to comment on. 1. We seemed to think that the zone would help
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I was looking back on our old projections on Jordan, now that his
                    season is done. A few things to comment on.

                    1. We seemed to think that the zone would help Jordan's longevity.
                    He didn't quite make it through the season, but I don't think the Wiz
                    played much zone.

                    2. Below are the stats I projected using similarity scores:

                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                    > > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                    > > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
                    > >
                    > > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                    > > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
                    > >
                    > > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
                    > > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
                    > >
                    > > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                    > > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
                    > >
                    >

                    I feel pretty good about the games played being well less than 82.
                    The method forecasted injury. I don't feel very good about the FG%,
                    since MJ shot only 42%. Nor did he get to the line as much as this
                    said. Both of these are due to his jump shooting nature. The PPG of
                    22 is dead on. MikeG forecasted the same. Jordan's assists were
                    higher than forecasted here. MikeG forecasted that.

                    GP GS MIN PTS OFF DEF TOT AST STL BLK TO A/TO PF TECH
                    60 53 34.9 22.9 0.8 4.8 5.7 5.2 1.42 0.43 2.7 1.91 2.0 0.0

                    FGM FGA FG% 3PM 3PA 3P% FTM FTA FT% 2PM 2PA 2P% PPS ADJ.
                    9.2 22.1 .416 0.2 0.9 .189 4.4 5.6 .790 541 1271 .426 1.04 .420


                    3. I did a second analysis before, looking for the most similar
                    current player to the above forecasts. It gave Cuttino Mobley.

                    > only player from last year who ranks as similar. His #'s
                    >
                    > Plyr G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                    > mobley,cuttino 79 38.0 6.7 15.4 1.1 3.2
                    >
                    > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                    > mobley,cuttino 5.0 6.0 1.1 5.0 2.5
                    >
                    > Plyr Name stl tov blk pf pts
                    > mobley,cuttino 1.06 2.1 0.33 2.1 19.5
                    >
                    > Plyr Name fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                    > mobley,cuttino 0.434 0.357 0.831 1.18 0.39
                    >
                    > That's a good match on a lot of things, but Mobley is not quite as
                    > efficient as the hypothetical Jordan, due to shooting
                    percentage...
                    > And it's just hard thinking that Jordan is gonna be like Mobley.

                    It turned out that Mobley's numbers here are pretty similar to
                    Jordan's, except for the games played (and a few more 3's). So Mike
                    was a bit like Mobley.

                    If Mike comes back, I'm not sure if he would get better or worse. I
                    guess I'm thinking that he won't come back.

                    DeanO
                  • dlirag
                    I can t recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions regarding the Wizards win-loss record this season. Were there any?
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                      regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there any?
                    • HoopStudies
                      ... Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the most similar players to Jordan: (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 7, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
                        > I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                        > regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there any?

                        Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the
                        most similar players to Jordan:

                        "(One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
                        years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)"

                        I read a lot of predictions before the season and many of them were
                        around 35 wins.

                        DeanO
                      • alleyoop2
                        Right on. I had them going 32-50. http://www.alleyoop.com/preview/wash.htm ... any?
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 10, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Right on. I had them going 32-50.

                          http://www.alleyoop.com/preview/wash.htm

                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
                          > > I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                          > > regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there
                          any?
                          >
                          > Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the
                          > most similar players to Jordan:
                          >
                          > "(One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
                          > years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)"
                          >
                          > I read a lot of predictions before the season and many of them were
                          > around 35 wins.
                          >
                          > DeanO
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.