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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
      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 2 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
        > 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 3 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
          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 4 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
            --- 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 5 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
              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 6 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                > ^^ 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 7 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                  -----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 8 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                    --- 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 9 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                      --- 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 10 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                        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 11 of 19 , Nov 11, 2004
                          > 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 12 of 19 , Nov 13, 2004

                            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 13 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                              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 14 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                                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.