Detroit vs. LA
- I have retained a copy of my season stat file from March. The
Pistons had played 54 games at the time.
Rasheed Wallace played 22 of the remaining 28 games for Detroit.
It's pretty well documented that the Pistons did a lot better
thereafter. How much better? Are they essentially a different team?
After 54 games, Sagarin gave Detroit a rating of 92.81 . At the same
time, the Lakers were at 93.43 .
The Lakers have been at full strength most of their last 32 games
and playoffs. After 82 games, Sagarin had Detroit at 94.7, LA at
For the Lakers to pick up that much means their stretch run had them
For the Pistons to get to their final rating of 94.7, they must have
been a 98.4 team, over the season's last 28 games. That is higher
than any team for the whole season.
It might be even higher considering we're watering down the
interpolation with 6 pre-Sheed games.
The Lakers' improvement might also be understated, of course. Shaq
is gathering steam, and Malone has loosened up. Also, the Fisher
In any case, the Pistons should not be considered patsies. They
don't have injuries that I'm aware of. They don't have holes on
offense or defense. And these numbers suggest they should be the
I don't know exactly what goes into the numbers Sagarin generates.
I do know it's based on strength of opposition and point
differential. (I used the number he calls the Predictor, not
the "politically correct" W-L number.)
- --- If having the best player in the regular season is no guarantee,
I'm not sure what else you can do as a GM. That's why they play the
In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>a
> >.. I don't know what
> > to conclude ...though... having the best player is anything but
> guarantee of a title. ..suggest
> Well, only 4/34 teams have lost when they had the best individual
> Finals performer. It's highly likely the top player will be from
> the Lakers this year.
> But if you have the best player coming in, but an opponent is the
> best in the Finals, there is almost no precendent that would
> you have a chance to win. It's been a 1-in-16 occurrance
> (Kemp/Jordan in '96).