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

Detroit vs. LA

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    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
    Message 1 of 49 , Jun 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      94.0

      For the Lakers to pick up that much means their stretch run had them
      at 94.9

      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
      factor.

      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
      favorites.

      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.)
    • mrintp2000
      ... I m not sure what else you can do as a GM. That s why they play the games. ... a ... suggest
      Message 49 of 49 , Jun 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
        games.

        In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>
        > wrote:
        > >.. I don't know what
        > > to conclude ...though... having the best player is anything but
        a
        > guarantee of a title. ..
        >
        > 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
        suggest
        > you have a chance to win. It's been a 1-in-16 occurrance
        > (Kemp/Jordan in '96).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.