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

Re: [APBR_analysis] 12/2 Tor at Phi

Expand Messages
  • PDXWiz@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/3/2003 10:33:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... I have never been an AI fan, and always suspected that the 76ers Finals appearance vs the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/3/2003 10:33:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, deano@... writes:
      I can't believe Philly is
      below 0.500 and leading their division by a game and a half. 

      DeanO

      I have never been an AI fan, and always suspected that the 76ers' Finals appearance vs the LA Shaqers was a fluke due to how relatively weak the East was that season. However, my prejudice could have blinded me to a good team...said blind spot doesn't apply to the team, which is my favorite in the East. However, I've had the impression that the 76ers have essentially stood still as first the Nets and then Indiana, Detroit and the Hornets got better over that span. Barring a mid- or late-season surge by any Atlantic team...this could be a year when that division is so mediocre, every one in the Atlantic is at or below .500...and the Midwest sees all its members at or over .500.

      It's happened before--in 56-57, the entire West was sub-.500 and the East was at or over .500. In 1971-72 the whole Central division was under .500 (and the Midwest in 75-76), but no division was completely over .500 the same year... In 1970-71 the whole Midwest at or over _.549_, but the Bullets' 42-40 kept the Central from being totally under. And in the ABA in 69-70, the whole West was .500 or better, but half of the East played .500 or better. (An interesting aside...Indiana finished with the best record in the East--and the league--that year...and won the title...and now they are leading their division and contending for the league lead as well this year.) Logic would seem to suggest that the more teams in a given division, the better chances that division will not be all under or over .500. I'll have to keep an eye on this....

      My Blazers are on the playoff bubble right now...trying to keep the longest-active playoff seasons streak alive. It will be interesting to see if the Bonzi Wells for Wesley Person and a draft pick trade works for us (and the Grizzlies) or not. Good luck Wesley!

      Gordon
    • Dean Oliver
      Well, here is what I got for the game. This is actually a pretty inaccurate game, with Toronto s points produced figure being 5 points lower than actual of 95
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment

        Well, here is what I got for the game.  This is actually a pretty inaccurate game, with Toronto’s points produced figure being 5 points lower than actual of 95 – probably the worst I’ve seen.  They still end up a total of +4 over the Sixers, below the actual of +7.  Depending on what I’m doing, I look either at the Netpts column or at whether the offensive rating (RTG) is higher than the defensive rating (Def. Rtg).  Net points accounts for how often a guy creates for other people, whereas just looking at offensive rating vs defensive indicates how well a guy does his role.  So here, while AI contributed 8 net points, his offensive rating was lower than his defensive – he “lost” in that sense.  It’s a more complex way of looking at a game than MikeG’s basic production rating type thing, but I think that’s what I want when I’m looking at how a team did.

         

        Part of my purpose is to compare to other things.  Mike’s numbers, scaled down to get actual points as he said his tp2 roughly did, is in the MG* column.  Notice that I end up saying that Jalen Rose contributed a lot of negative points, a lot more than Lonny Baxter, while the MG* values are about the same.  In a season, I think I see more fluctuation in a player like Rose’s net points from game to game than probably is seen in MG*. 

         

        No real conclusions here, just numbers I found interesting.

         

         

        Scor.

        Poss.

        Floor

        RTG

        Points

        Def.

         

         

         

         

        Poss.

         

        Pct.

         

        Prod.

        Rtg.

        %TmPoss

        NetPts

        MG*

        V. Carter

        13

        25

        0.50

        110

        28

        94

        0.35

        9.0

        25

        D. Marshall

        8

        14

        0.59

        132

        19

        93

        0.17

        4.4

        22

        C. Bosh

        5

        12

        0.43

        81

        10

        85

        0.24

        0.5

        13

        A. Williams

        4

        6

        0.69

        153

        10

        95

        0.09

        0.3

        11

        J. Rose

        5

        16

        0.31

        65

        10

        104

        0.18

        -6.8

        6

        M. Peterson

        2

        3

        0.70

        167

        6

        95

        0.11

        1.1

        7

        L. Baxter

        2

        6

        0.27

        52

        3

        75

        0.25

        -1.0

        6

        M. Curry

        0

        0

        1.00

        221

        1

        93

        0.01

        -1.7

        2

        J. Moiso

        2

        6

        0.28

        63

        4

        98

        0.22

        -1.8

        2

         

        42

        90

        0.46

        100.0

        90

        94

         

        4

         

         

         

        Scor.

        Poss.

        Floor

        RTG

        Points

        Def.

         

         

         

         

        Poss.

         

        Pct.

         

        Prod.

        Rtg.

        %TmPoss

        NetPts

        MG*

        A. McKie

        4

        9

        0.48

        108

        10

        102

        0.15

        -1.1

        9

        K. Thomas

        8

        14

        0.56

        111

        16

        100

        0.19

        1.2

        18

        M. Jackson

        5

        8

        0.58

        114

        9

        103

        0.35

        2.7

        8

        E. Snow

        3

        6

        0.44

        89

        6

        106

        0.08

        -5.7

        8

        A. Iverson

        17

        37

        0.46

        96

        36

        100

        0.42

        8.1

        28

        A. McCaskill

        1

        2

        0.60

        121

        2

        103

        0.06

        -1.5

        3

        J. Salmons

        1

        5

        0.28

        75

        4

        99

        0.10

        -3.6

        7

        S. Dalembert

        2

        4

        0.44

        84

        4

        97

        0.11

        -2.2

        7

        G. Buckner

        0

        2

        0.00

        0

        0


        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.