Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 118 Location: Sac Metro
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject:
I was surprised by John's low Wizards and Raptors totals, but moreso at the Atlanta jump. For what it's worth, here are my (less rigorous but stats-projection based) predictions for the East through my work at Ballhype.
1. Chicago (52-30)
2. Detroit (51-31)
3. Boston (49-33)
4. Orlando (44-3
--
5. Cleveland (50-32)
6. Toronto (45-37)
7. Washington (42-40)
8. New Jersey (41-41)
---------
9. Miami (40-42)
10. Charlotte (39-43)
11. New York (37-45)
12. Philadelphia (35-47)
13. Atlanta (31-51)
-- Milwaukee (31-51)
15. Indiana (25-57)
------
Judging by Dean's insight, maybe I didn't punish WAS/reward ORL enough... though I knew which way they were headed. We'll see. _________________ SactownRoyalty.com tziller@gmail.com
Wasn't Washington something like 10 games above .500 when Arenas went down (after Butler went down) and then they lose nearly the rest of their games. If there was a team whose record I wouldn't trust I think it would be Washington's.
If I have a quip with the record predictions part of the previews is that I just don't think you can reliably make a good prediction on any team whose primary scorers were injured. There is too much of viscious cycle.
You can't make any prediction reliably. That's why they're called "predictions" and not "destinies" or something else. But I agree that teams with huge disparities in player quality present unique challenges because one injury can have such an impact.
Washington was 39-34 when Gil went down (if you discount the game that he only played two minutes in), but only had seven more points scored than points allowed.
I had them going 41-41 and the No. 8 seed and their fans sent me hate mail over it. Turns out I was giving them too much credit.
Now we know you're making this stuff up!
The Clippers don't really have fans, do they?
There's a bit of a chicken-or-egg question with the Clippers' improved won-loss record in recent years, and the increased interest from fans. But yes, they've had a noticeable increase in fan interest, and it started several years ago with the seemingly promising young team that ultimately flopped: the team of Olowokandi, Lamar Odom, Quintin Richardson, Corey Maggette, and most of all Darius Miles. Miles turned out to be a bust or near bust, (as did the Kandi Man) but when they were still new players, they looked like they had potential and for the first time in years the Clippers looked like they might actually have some sort of future, with Miles' athleticism and flair capturing the imagination of LA. Okay, "capturing" is probably too strong a word, but people started taking notice of the Clippers. I'd see people on the street wearing Clippers jerseys -- and even in music videos on TV! That sort of thing was just about unheard of before. And Darius Miles' jersey was the most popular one.
Again, that team and Miles in particular turned out to be largely a dead end (though Odom, Maggette and Q have shown themselves to be useful players even if not all-stars). But the fan interest really did increase -- and quite possibly, Donald Sterling realized that he could and should utilize that fan interest, by actually paying for some decent players to produce wins and bring in even more fans. With Elton Brand and co. the Clippers soon had a truly promising team, a better one that the Odom-Miles-Kandi group (although one that may be petering out as all Clippers teams seem to eventually do, but hey at least they made it to the second round of the playoffs, something that the franchise hadn't done since its Buffalo days).
What strikes me is that teams with top point guards tend to be projected lower than expected (Arenas, Kidd, Ford/Calderon, Andre Miller), while teams with high scoring swing men, top rebounders and other "stat stuffers" (see Atlanta) are ranked higher than most common sense analysis would have them.
This is an inherent limitation of summary schemes (especially those based on logically assigned credits.) The failure of PER to account for interaction (team dynamic) is especially apparent when presented with something like the powerful, non-linear impact of elite play-makers.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:21 am Post subject:
John Hollinger wrote:
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7). ..
.
Jamison is 31, but his PER has risen each year in Was. A drop of 2.1 puts him at a career low (last year 18.4, career 18.2). He's basically 'peaking', in particular for last year's playoffs.
Butler's just 27, and has raised his PER over 4 straight seasons. Why is he projected to now reverse his trajectory?
Stevenson is 26 and was seeming to fit the team (before the playoffs, in which he sucked). Is PER of 13 flukishly high?
Thomas' PER seems to vary with his health. Last year, age 28, he seemed to be back on track.
I guess I don't see why any formula should predict major downturns for any of these guys. Even Daniels, age 32, is at his career norm (and improved over '06). Seems just as likely they'll all improve by the amounts listed above. _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7). ..
.
Jamison is 31, but his PER has risen each year in Was. A drop of 2.1 puts him at a career low (last year 18.4, career 18.2). He's basically 'peaking', in particular for last year's playoffs.
Butler's just 27, and has raised his PER over 4 straight seasons. Why is he projected to now reverse his trajectory?
Stevenson is 26 and was seeming to fit the team (before the playoffs, in which he sucked). Is PER of 13 flukishly high?
Thomas' PER seems to vary with his health. Last year, age 28, he seemed to be back on track.
I guess I don't see why any formula should predict major downturns for any of these guys. Even Daniels, age 32, is at his career norm (and improved over '06). Seems just as likely they'll all improve by the amounts listed above.
I agree. The other starter's number are largely a reflection of playing with Gil Arenas. Arenas is one of the real difference makers in the league and, as he has matured, the other starters have seen their PERs rise correspondingly. I think both Areans and the Wiz still have room to improve.
Also, it is not just a matter of age, Jamison had his career best numbers with Nash (like everyone), then dropped back badly with Washington. However, as Gilbert has improved, Jamison has improved (well, his PER has improved.)
In a case like the Washington, I don't think a player-by-player analysis is all that relevant. If Arenas is healthy, the Wiz should be a contender. If he misses a lot of games, expect to see them in the basement (Washington was -11.4 per 48 with Gil on the bench last season.)
Relative to years prior and since, Nash barely had the ball in 2003-04. Antoine Walker's numbers that year looked exactly like the year before and the two years that followed.
I'm confused. I'm used to that feeling, but I don't have to like it.
Relative to years prior and since, Nash barely had the ball in 2003-04. Antoine Walker's numbers that year looked exactly like the year before and the two years that followed.
I'm confused. I'm used to that feeling, but I don't have to like it.
You are correct, change "like everyone" to "like the great majority." (If you don't take every word literally, you might be less confused.)
The point is that Jamison's numbers have - to an extent - shadowed his point guard's effectiveness. An illustration of how a dominant play-maker might have a significant impact on teammates' individual statistics. Therefore, as long as Arenas keeps improving I think it is likely that his teammates' numbers will, at least, remain stable.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:32 am Post subject:
Except for 2004, Jamison has started every game he's played in the last 7 years. In that year, he started just 2 of 82.
He also went only 29 MPG that year (vs 37-41 other years). While putting up career-best shooting%'s and TO rate, he only looks best in 'efficiency' stats, not in productivity. He looks to me to have had a very normal output that year -- almost as if his role just changed, while he was the same player before, during, and after.
Since he only played against (estimated) 54% starting players in Dallas (vs 74% last season), it's reasonable to adjust his numbers accordingly. His last 2 years are both above his norm, not trending upward or downward, as I see him.
Antoine: In Dallas he shot a lot less and rebounded a lot more than he had in Boston. Next year (Atl/Bos) he rebounded even more, shot more but not better. Then in '06 (Mia) he boarded less but had career-high (easily) TS% (.524). What part looks exactly like? _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
Except for 2004, Jamison has started every game he's played in the last 7 years. In that year, he started just 2 of 82.
He also went only 29 MPG that year (vs 37-41 other years). While putting up career-best shooting%'s and TO rate, he only looks best in 'efficiency' stats, not in productivity. He looks to me to have had a very normal output that year -- almost as if his role just changed, while he was the same player before, during, and after.
Since he only played against (estimated) 54% starting players in Dallas (vs 74% last season), it's reasonable to adjust his numbers accordingly. His last 2 years are both above his norm, not trending upward or downward, as I see him.
Antoine: In Dallas he shot a lot less and rebounded a lot more than he had in Boston. Next year (Atl/Bos) he rebounded even more, shot more but not better. Then in '06 (Mia) he boarded less but had career-high (easily) TS% (.524). What part looks exactly like?
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:
Nash decided Walker should start (and play 35 MPG) and Jamison should come of the bench (for 29 min)? Or Nash caused Jamison to shoot .039 better than his previous best, while he could only get the usual out of Walker?
How many minutes are shared by a 33 mpg starter and a 29 mpg sub? Did Travis Best play most of his minutes (10 mpg) with Jamison? _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
Nash decided Walker should start (and play 35 MPG) and Jamison should come of the bench (for 29 min)? Or Nash caused Jamison to shoot .039 better than his previous best, while he could only get the usual out of Walker?
How many minutes are shared by a 33 mpg starter and a 29 mpg sub? Did Travis Best play most of his minutes (10 mpg) with Jamison?
Just having a little fun with someone who isn't you.
Before the NFL season started, football outsider's prediction system had the Bucs winning 9 games this year. Of course all the writers wrote it off as their system being off. With Tampa Bay off to a 3-1 start, it doesn't look so silly after all.
The best times to judge predictions are after the event has passed. _________________ KnickerBlogger.Net - now indispensable!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
