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

Re: Predict regular season winning percentage here....

Expand Messages
  • John Hollinger
    Minnesota surprised me too. Age of Cassell and Spre is a big issue, and they had 56 expected wins compared to 58 real wins. For Washington, having Jamison
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Minnesota surprised me too. Age of Cassell and Spre is a big issue,
      and they had 56 expected wins compared to 58 real wins.

      For Washington, having Jamison replace Hayes/Jeffries at small
      forwards is worth at least 10 wins alone. Having Arenas and Hughes
      for a full year (theoretically) and the huge number of second and
      third year players on the roster make them likely to pull off a major
      gain in wins.


      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Coach McCormick
      <highfivehoopschool@y...> wrote:
      > Looks good. However, why did Minnesota drop precipitously? And, how
      did Washington get so high?
      >
      > There are a few that I think will change (Philly will be higher,
      LAL will make the play-offs, Phoenix a couple more wins), but it is
      definitely an intereting way to gamble....
      >
      > B
      >
      > John Hollinger <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
      > predicting
      > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team
      or
      > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
      >
      > OK, here goes. I took the PER of each player from the previous
      season
      > and made adjustments for his individual defense until the sum of
      (PER
      > x minute) for each team approximated their expected wins for the
      > season. Then I put the players on their new teams, rated the top
      nine
      > guys on each roster (making subjective adjustments for second-year
      > improvement, age, flukes, injuries, etc.), estimated the
      > effectiveness of the rookies, and summed up the results for each
      team.
      >
      > What I got was:
      >
      > EAST
      > Indiana 55 27
      > Detroit 52 30
      > Washington 47 35
      > Miami 44 38
      > Milwaukee 43 39
      > New York 41 41
      > Cleveland 40 42
      > Philadelphia 38 44
      >
      > Toronto 38 44
      > Boston 37 45
      > Chicago 30 52
      > Orlando 30 52
      > New Jersey 27 55
      > Charlotte 25 57
      > Atlanta 22 60
      >
      >
      > WEST
      > San Antonio 59 23
      > Dallas 56 26
      > Memphis 51 31
      > Denver 50 32
      > Minnesota 48 34
      > Houston 48 34
      > Utah 47 35
      > Sacramento 45 37
      >
      > L.A. Lakers 41 41
      > New Orleans 39 43
      > Phoenix 37 45
      > Golden State 37 45
      > Portland 35 47
      > Seattle 34 48
      > LA Clippers 33 49
      >
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>
      wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
      > predicting
      > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team
      or
      > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
      > >.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
    • mrintp2000
      Interesting approach, I think your predictions are probably closer to the midline than what the actual records will be. I expect Atlanta and Charlotte for
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting approach, I think your predictions are probably closer to
        the midline than what the actual records will be. I expect Atlanta and
        Charlotte for example, to do much worse than 22 and 25 wins respectively.

        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
        <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
        >
        > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
        > predicting
        > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team or
        > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
        >
        > OK, here goes. I took the PER of each player from the previous season
        > and made adjustments for his individual defense until the sum of (PER
        > x minute) for each team approximated their expected wins for the
        > season. Then I put the players on their new teams, rated the top nine
        > guys on each roster (making subjective adjustments for second-year
        > improvement, age, flukes, injuries, etc.), estimated the
        > effectiveness of the rookies, and summed up the results for each team.
        >
        > What I got was:
        >
        > EAST
        > Indiana 55 27
        > Detroit 52 30
        > Washington 47 35
        > Miami 44 38
        > Milwaukee 43 39
        > New York 41 41
        > Cleveland 40 42
        > Philadelphia 38 44
        >
        > Toronto 38 44
        > Boston 37 45
        > Chicago 30 52
        > Orlando 30 52
        > New Jersey 27 55
        > Charlotte 25 57
        > Atlanta 22 60
        >
        >
        > WEST
        > San Antonio 59 23
        > Dallas 56 26
        > Memphis 51 31
        > Denver 50 32
        > Minnesota 48 34
        > Houston 48 34
        > Utah 47 35
        > Sacramento 45 37
        >
        > L.A. Lakers 41 41
        > New Orleans 39 43
        > Phoenix 37 45
        > Golden State 37 45
        > Portland 35 47
        > Seattle 34 48
        > LA Clippers 33 49
        >
        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
        > predicting
        > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team or
        > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
        > >.
      • mrintp2000
        I completely agree on the Wizards. Further, based on the recent extension signed by Haywood I m expecting he may just get the minutes he deserves.
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I completely agree on the Wizards. Further, based on the recent
          extension signed by Haywood I'm expecting he may just get the minutes
          he deserves.

          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
          <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
          >
          > Minnesota surprised me too. Age of Cassell and Spre is a big issue,
          > and they had 56 expected wins compared to 58 real wins.
          >
          > For Washington, having Jamison replace Hayes/Jeffries at small
          > forwards is worth at least 10 wins alone. Having Arenas and Hughes
          > for a full year (theoretically) and the huge number of second and
          > third year players on the roster make them likely to pull off a major
          > gain in wins.
          >
          >
          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Coach McCormick
          > <highfivehoopschool@y...> wrote:
          > > Looks good. However, why did Minnesota drop precipitously? And, how
          > did Washington get so high?
          > >
          > > There are a few that I think will change (Philly will be higher,
          > LAL will make the play-offs, Phoenix a couple more wins), but it is
          > definitely an intereting way to gamble....
          > >
          > > B
          > >
          > > John Hollinger <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
          > > predicting
          > > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team
          > or
          > > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
          > >
          > > OK, here goes. I took the PER of each player from the previous
          > season
          > > and made adjustments for his individual defense until the sum of
          > (PER
          > > x minute) for each team approximated their expected wins for the
          > > season. Then I put the players on their new teams, rated the top
          > nine
          > > guys on each roster (making subjective adjustments for second-year
          > > improvement, age, flukes, injuries, etc.), estimated the
          > > effectiveness of the rookies, and summed up the results for each
          > team.
          > >
          > > What I got was:
          > >
          > > EAST
          > > Indiana 55 27
          > > Detroit 52 30
          > > Washington 47 35
          > > Miami 44 38
          > > Milwaukee 43 39
          > > New York 41 41
          > > Cleveland 40 42
          > > Philadelphia 38 44
          > >
          > > Toronto 38 44
          > > Boston 37 45
          > > Chicago 30 52
          > > Orlando 30 52
          > > New Jersey 27 55
          > > Charlotte 25 57
          > > Atlanta 22 60
          > >
          > >
          > > WEST
          > > San Antonio 59 23
          > > Dallas 56 26
          > > Memphis 51 31
          > > Denver 50 32
          > > Minnesota 48 34
          > > Houston 48 34
          > > Utah 47 35
          > > Sacramento 45 37
          > >
          > > L.A. Lakers 41 41
          > > New Orleans 39 43
          > > Phoenix 37 45
          > > Golden State 37 45
          > > Portland 35 47
          > > Seattle 34 48
          > > LA Clippers 33 49
          > >
          > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>
          > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
          > > predicting
          > > > regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to predict a team
          > or
          > > > all the teams, and share their methodology?
          > > >.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
          > >
          > >
          > > ---------------------------------
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ---------------------------------
          > > Do you Yahoo!?
          > > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
        • thedawgsareout
          ... I did something similar to John s method and posted it today: http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
            > predicting regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to
            > predict a team or all the teams, and share their methodology?

            I did something similar to John's method and posted it today:

            http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html
          • Coach McCormick
            Wow, looks like I should jump on the washington bandwagon and impress all my friends... Toronto as the #3 seed? Again, very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Wow, looks like I should jump on the washington bandwagon and impress all my friends...
               
              Toronto as the #3 seed?
               
              Again, very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'll look forwar to reading tomorrow for the analysis.
               
              B

              thedawgsareout <kpelton08@...> wrote:

              > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
              > predicting regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to
              > predict a team or all the teams, and share their methodology?

              I did something similar to John's method and posted it today:

              http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html





              Do you Yahoo!?
              Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

            • Mike G
              ... ^^ Another prediction system that doesn t expect any team to win fewer than 22 games. Even the Warriors are projected to 32 wins. And the Clipps 41 ! I
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
                <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                > ... posted it today:
                >
                > http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html


                ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
                fewer than 22 games.

                Even the Warriors are projected to 32 wins. And the Clipps 41 !

                I doubt I can do any better, though. One thing I do believe in, is
                getting rid of "leading zeroes" in your decimal fractions:
                i.e., .488 instead of 0.488

                Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
                looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.

                "Ted Williams batted four-hundred" sounds better than "Ted Williams
                batted oh-four-hundred".

                In Excel: Cell Format/ Number/ at the bottom of the list is Custom.
                Just enter ".000" (no parentheses), and your columns come up that
                way.

                What's the Real reason you didn't include the Sonics ?
              • Mike G
                OK, for the curious: I ve tabulated John s and Kevin s predictions and ranked them by the size of the teams difference in the two lists. John H gives the
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  OK, for the curious: I've tabulated John's and Kevin's predictions
                  and ranked them by the size of the teams' difference in the two
                  lists.

                  John H gives the Bulls 8 more wins than Kevin P does, so they head
                  the list. Kevin gives the Clippers and Magics 8 more wins than John
                  does, and they're at the bottom.

                  [I guess some people just have to believe in Magic.]

                  Sonics' "wins" by Kevin are inserted by deduction.

                  KP Tm. JH
                  22 Chi 30
                  49 Dal 56
                  45 Den 50
                  32 GSW 37
                  43 Was 47
                  55 SAS 59
                  49 Det 52
                  37 Cle 40
                  36 NO 39
                  42 Mia 44
                  46 Min 48
                  49 Mem 51
                  47 Hou 48
                  37 Phl 38
                  41 LAL 41
                  41 NYK 41
                  27 NJN 27
                  56 Ind 55
                  44 Mil 43
                  36 Sea 35
                  24 Atl 22
                  38 Por 35
                  40 Phe 37
                  51 Uta 47
                  42 Tor 38
                  41 Bos 37
                  30 Cha 25
                  51 Sac 45
                  38 Orl 30
                  41 LAC 33

                  I don't suppose there are common factors shared by teams at the top
                  or bottom of this listing. If there are, they might indicate what
                  factors play heavily in these 2 guys' systems.

                  The "subjective" factor is the most daunting to myself. I don't
                  read much background or watch them play very often.



                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                  <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                  > ..I took the PER of each player from the previous season
                  > and made adjustments for his individual defense until the sum of
                  (PER
                  > x minute) for each team approximated their expected wins for the
                  > season. Then I put the players on their new teams, rated the top
                  nine
                  > guys on each roster (making subjective adjustments for second-year
                  > improvement, age, flukes, injuries, etc.), estimated the
                  > effectiveness of the rookies, and summed up the results for each
                  team.
                • thedawgsareout
                  ... I think that s to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively closer to .500 than
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
                    > fewer than 22 games.

                    I think that's to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to
                    be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively
                    closer to .500 than they actually are. Injuries are usually the
                    reason that doesn't turn out.

                    > Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
                    > looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.

                    I just put it there because it's in the NBA's actual standings and I
                    copied over them for the HTML.

                    > What's the Real reason you didn't include the Sonics ?

                    I think you explained that in the second post.
                  • Michael Tamada
                    ... From: thedawgsareout [mailto:kpelton08@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM ... Yup, it is often a good idea to shrink or regress
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: thedawgsareout [mailto:kpelton08@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM

                      >> ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
                      >> fewer than 22 games.
                      >
                      >I think that's to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to
                      >be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively
                      >closer to .500 than they actually are. Injuries are usually the
                      >reason that doesn't turn out.

                      Yup, it is often a good idea to "shrink" or "regress" forecasts
                      and estimates towards the mean. Even if this results in biased
                      estimates, they may nonetheless have lower expected error. A
                      canonical example is batting averages early in the season; after
                      a week or two, the leaderboard will have some guy hitting .456.
                      Standard simple statistics would say that that represents a sample
                      of his hitting and we should estimate his eventual batting average
                      by using his sample mean, i.e. .456. Common sense, as well as
                      more sophisticated "shrinkage to the mean" statistics, tell us that
                      by the end of the season, he'll be batting something well under
                      .456.

                      The best easy-to-read article that I've seen explaining this phenomenon
                      is by the statistician Bradley Efron, in a 1977 _Scientific
                      American_ article, "Stein's Paradox in Statistics".

                      >> Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
                      >> looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.
                      >
                      >I just put it there because it's in the NBA's actual standings and I
                      >copied over them for the HTML.

                      Depends on the circumstance. Leading 0s can be highly valuable
                      at improving readability, and also reducing reader error. If you're
                      looking at a column of numbers such as

                      56
                      .81
                      4.2

                      it may not be instantly obvious that one of those numbers is much
                      smaller than the others. There are some circumstance where the
                      extra 0 is unnecessary or unhelpful, but there are other circumstances
                      where, just like adding commas (e.g. try reading 1648756 vs 1,648,756),
                      they vastly improve readability.



                      --MKT
                    • Mike G
                      ... What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ? John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                        > KP Tm. JH
                        > 49 Dal 56
                        > 55 SAS 59
                        > 49 Det 52
                        > 49 Mem 51
                        > 56 Ind 55
                        > 51 Uta 47
                        > 51 Sac 45

                        What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                        seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?

                        John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time looking
                        over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                        rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys likes
                        these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.

                        The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                        they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                        basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their primes.

                        Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                        everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                        playoffs we see That team.
                      • Carlos
                        ... Well, I don t know what they see or don t see in Detroit, but one thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last year. Their starters
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                          > > KP Tm. JH
                          > > 49 Dal 56
                          > > 55 SAS 59
                          > > 49 Det 52
                          > > 49 Mem 51
                          > > 56 Ind 55
                          > > 51 Uta 47
                          > > 51 Sac 45
                          >
                          > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                          > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                          >
                          > John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time looking
                          > over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                          > rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys likes
                          > these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.
                          >
                          > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                          > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                          > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their primes.
                          >
                          > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                          > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                          > playoffs we see That team.


                          Well, I don't know what they see or don't see in Detroit, but one
                          thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last
                          year. Their starters are playing 35+ minutes a game and their best
                          reserve seems to be McDyess (which by the way seems a downgrade
                          compared to Okur).
                        • jimmy_purnell
                          Good points. If Detroit was projected based on how they played once they got Rasheed, I assume they would fare much better (they went 20-6 in the regular
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Good points. If Detroit was projected based on how they played once
                            they got Rasheed, I assume they would fare much better (they went 20-6
                            in the regular season once they got him).

                            And so far, Detroit's bench does look weaker. However, it's definitely
                            too soon to say that for sure as the new players will need time to
                            adjust. That adjustment period could cost them some early season wins,
                            and if the bench remains inferior to last year's Detroit's overall win
                            total might not be as high. But in the playoffs, the bench won't
                            matter much because they will get fewer minutes. Last year, the
                            Pistons won it all despite very poor play from their bench in the
                            playoffs (Williamson and Okur basically disappeared).

                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Carlos" <carlosmanuel@b...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
                            wrote:
                            > > > KP Tm. JH
                            > > > 49 Dal 56
                            > > > 55 SAS 59
                            > > > 49 Det 52
                            > > > 49 Mem 51
                            > > > 56 Ind 55
                            > > > 51 Uta 47
                            > > > 51 Sac 45
                            > >
                            > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                            > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                            > >
                            > > John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time
                            looking
                            > > over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                            > > rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys
                            likes
                            > > these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.
                            > >
                            > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                            > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                            > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                            primes.
                            > >
                            > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                            > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                            > > playoffs we see That team.
                            >
                            >
                            > Well, I don't know what they see or don't see in Detroit, but one
                            > thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last
                            > year. Their starters are playing 35+ minutes a game and their best
                            > reserve seems to be McDyess (which by the way seems a downgrade
                            > compared to Okur).
                          • thedawgsareout
                            ... I don t think that s the issue. I rate Detroit s end-of-season roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by trading spare parts for
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 11, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                              > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                              > playoffs we see That team.

                              I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                              roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                              trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.

                              By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers at
                              48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                              underrating the 03-04 Pistons.

                              > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                              > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                              > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                              > primes.

                              It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                              combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's not
                              forget), Williamson another win and a half.

                              *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                              they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                              underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                              rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                              injury last year isn't factored in.

                              Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than four
                              games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                              so that lessens their value a little bit.

                              > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                              > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?

                              If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                              Brent. And Barry.
                            • Coach McCormick
                              For less analytical takes on basketball, please chck out my blog: http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com ... Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front
                              Message 14 of 19 , Nov 13, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment

                                For less analytical takes on basketball, please chck out my blog:

                                http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com

                                 


                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
                              • John Hollinger
                                Just to agree with everyone else here -- it s the bench. You can see it already now that they ve had an injury or two -- they ve got NOBODY to fill in, whereas
                                Message 15 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Just to agree with everyone else here -- it's the bench. You can see
                                  it already now that they've had an injury or two -- they've got
                                  NOBODY to fill in, whereas last year they had a ton of guys.

                                  McDyess, IMHO, will be exposed as a bust, although I must admit he's
                                  played better than I expected so far. If you look at his stats at the
                                  end of last year in Phoenix, they were nothing, but because people
                                  get all goofy about per game stats the Pistons looked at his last 10
                                  games and talked about him as a double-double guy. Ain't happening.
                                  And he definitely won't replace the production of Okur.

                                  They gave away Williamson and James and replaced them with
                                  replacement-level Ronald Dupree and Delfino, who based on my Euro
                                  conversions looks way over his head offensively.

                                  That leaves:
                                  -- 38-year old Elden Campbell. Useful at times, but a poor man's
                                  McDyess.
                                  -- Kneeless Derrick Coleman. No value.
                                  -- Lindsey Hunter, who is 35, can't play point but forced to be the
                                  backup point guard, and due for a fall after coming off his best year
                                  since leaving Milwaukee
                                  -- Darvin Ham, a locker room guy with the worst jumper in the league.

                                  So instead of James-Williamson-Okur as the three bench guys who see
                                  the most action, the Pistons have Hunter-Delfino-McDyess. That is a
                                  MAJOR downgrade, enough to make Indiana and San Antonio better
                                  choices as the favorite this year.



                                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
                                  <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                                  > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season
                                  and
                                  > > playoffs we see That team.
                                  >
                                  > I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                                  > roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                                  > trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.
                                  >
                                  > By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers at
                                  > 48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                                  > underrating the 03-04 Pistons.
                                  >
                                  > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                                  > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                                  > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                                  > > primes.
                                  >
                                  > It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                                  > combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's not
                                  > forget), Williamson another win and a half.
                                  >
                                  > *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                                  > they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                                  > underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                                  > rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                                  > injury last year isn't factored in.
                                  >
                                  > Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than four
                                  > games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                                  > so that lessens their value a little bit.
                                  >
                                  > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                                  > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                                  >
                                  > If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                                  > Brent. And Barry.
                                • jimmy_purnell
                                  I was wondering about your comments on Delfino. How do you make these Euro conversions? How accurate have they been in the past? From watching a few Pistons
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I was wondering about your comments on Delfino. How do you make these
                                    Euro conversions? How accurate have they been in the past? From
                                    watching a few Pistons games so far, he has impressed me on offense.
                                    Obviously his game is still a work in progress, and his jumper has
                                    been poor, but he's been very active and is fearless going to the
                                    hoop. He's had some spectacular drive and dunks. Defense has been his
                                    main problem from what I've seen.

                                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...
                                    > wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Just to agree with everyone else here -- it's the bench. You can see
                                    > it already now that they've had an injury or two -- they've got
                                    > NOBODY to fill in, whereas last year they had a ton of guys.
                                    >
                                    > McDyess, IMHO, will be exposed as a bust, although I must admit he's
                                    > played better than I expected so far. If you look at his stats at
                                    the
                                    > end of last year in Phoenix, they were nothing, but because people
                                    > get all goofy about per game stats the Pistons looked at his last 10
                                    > games and talked about him as a double-double guy. Ain't happening.
                                    > And he definitely won't replace the production of Okur.
                                    >
                                    > They gave away Williamson and James and replaced them with
                                    > replacement-level Ronald Dupree and Delfino, who based on my Euro
                                    > conversions looks way over his head offensively.
                                    >
                                    > That leaves:
                                    > -- 38-year old Elden Campbell. Useful at times, but a poor man's
                                    > McDyess.
                                    > -- Kneeless Derrick Coleman. No value.
                                    > -- Lindsey Hunter, who is 35, can't play point but forced to be the
                                    > backup point guard, and due for a fall after coming off his best
                                    year
                                    > since leaving Milwaukee
                                    > -- Darvin Ham, a locker room guy with the worst jumper in the
                                    league.
                                    >
                                    > So instead of James-Williamson-Okur as the three bench guys who see
                                    > the most action, the Pistons have Hunter-Delfino-McDyess. That is a
                                    > MAJOR downgrade, enough to make Indiana and San Antonio better
                                    > choices as the favorite this year.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
                                    > <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                                    > > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season
                                    > and
                                    > > > playoffs we see That team.
                                    > >
                                    > > I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                                    > > roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                                    > > trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.
                                    > >
                                    > > By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers
                                    at
                                    > > 48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                                    > > underrating the 03-04 Pistons.
                                    > >
                                    > > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                                    > > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                                    > > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                                    > > > primes.
                                    > >
                                    > > It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                                    > > combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's
                                    not
                                    > > forget), Williamson another win and a half.
                                    > >
                                    > > *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                                    > > they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                                    > > underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                                    > > rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                                    > > injury last year isn't factored in.
                                    > >
                                    > > Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than
                                    four
                                    > > games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                                    > > so that lessens their value a little bit.
                                    > >
                                    > > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than
                                    the
                                    > > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                                    > >
                                    > > If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                                    > > Brent. And Barry.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.