Wednesday, May 01, 2013
OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013
(www.baseballthinkfactory.org)
posted 3 weeks ago by Athletic Supporter gangnam style to basketball, nba, off-topic
|
988 comment(s)
I estimate only 10-12 Primates care about straight NBA players, but with our own thread, we won’t detract from what this site is really about: gay NBA players and craft beer.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 12 of 17 pages
‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >The argument about whether they are better with a superstar or "superstar" is largely hypothetical. In today's NBA, it's unlikely a true game changer will opt out of a contract to come to Denver, OKC, Indiana, Memphis. It's pretty cool that these are really good teams with varying shots at a playoff run despite their "geographical handicap."
Appreciate the Heat and good to see the Clippers succeed after so many years of ineptitude. As a hoops fan, good to see teams like Denver, Memphis, and OKC having great seasons using the draft and trades.
Basically, the follow-up is, if it's tougher to win with a superstar, what of it? Should they dramatically overpay with their depth to try to get a nominal No. 1 guy? And I think we'd mostly agree, as Joe C in 535, that the answer is probably no and they're doing what they should be doing.
I'd probably read 500-1500 words at some point on more of the "gravity" theory you were espousing on Twitter. Have you ever fleshed that out more?
I haven't. Not sure there's a whole lot more to write, other than to show examples (comparing OKC's 1-3 P&Rs; with Harden at SG and Sefolosha at SG might be interesting), but I probably need to put it somewhere at some point if only so I have something to link.
- On the discussion of the Raptors' sim, while I agree they're surely not there and I know nothing about chess, doesn't chess offer similar game theory? The difference is that there's no fundamental limitation on possible "moves" in basketball as there is in chess, but there's an enormous number of possible moves in chess such that at one point it was unclear whether a computer could ever handle them all. And eventually programmers were able to simplify things to the point where those calculations were manageable. I think it's possible something similar could happen with a model of positioning.
Kevin, I thought about the chess thing too. My gut reaction is that the fact 1)chess pieces are limited in the ways they can move and 2)only one piece can be moved at a time before I get to move again vastly simplifies the game theory from basketball where there isn't much of a limit on what players can do, all five players can do something at the same time, and they don't have to wait on me to do something before they move again. Someone who knows more than me about math and computers might have a different take, but it strikes me a vastly more complicated problem.
As you say though, the limitations on how close you can come to solving the game don't necessarily mean you can't make a lot of useful strides, as has happened in chess.
It seems simultaneously more ambitious and less useful than what is coming out of baseball at this point. I imagine football must also have some fascinating work going on but I don't know about it.
The issue of fatigue that they bring up is also interesting. LeBron matches some of their crazy optimal defensive help rotations but that's in part because he's one of the few guys who can hop all over the court the whole game without wearing down. I don't know how you factor fatigue into it; if the optimal move takes tiring exertion, how do you factor that in, especially since different players recover more quickly than others.
I do think it would be great, though, to see the least optimal defensive players. How far is Melo away from his optimal rotations and helpside positioning?
"With this trade you have decreased this team's projected wins by 16."
My first thought was yes, it helps the Wolves. But now I am not sure. This year has been so Wolves-terrible that I am no longer rational about them and the team. I really just need to wait for next year, because all change is not good change.
Well with that trade, you basically become the Nuggets, and you get 2 first round picks to boot. Sounds like a pretty good option to me.
Lawson Miller
Iguodala Brewer
Chandler Hamilton
Love Randolph
Mcgee Mozgov
Does having Love get them closer to contending? Kind of hard to say. Maybe I'm overrating him, but he was one of the top WS guys last year.
I don't think I'd call Love a star player. I consider star players guys that can carry their teams to playoffs most years even with a poor supporting cast. I might be wrong about that and he might be better than I think he is. Right now, I'd call him a rich man's version of David Lee, a pretty good player but not a star.
rubio - barea - shved
galinari - kirilenko - budinger - williams
pekovic - faried - koufos - stiemsma
they could play big with rubio - budinger - kirilenko - faried - pekovic or small with rubio - barea - shved - kirilenko - faried or they could play for the 3 with barea - budinger - galinari - williams - koufos or go for max defense with rubio - shved - kirilenko - stiemsma - pekovic.
i'd watch that team.
3. MEM 45-21 .682 5.5 back
4. LAC 46-22 .676 5.5 back
5. DEN 47-22 .681 5.0 back
I can see the logic of MEM being ahead of both of them, since they have the highest win pct, but how the heck is LAC above DEN? Edit: It's that division winner thing, isn't it?
I just noticed LAC has a pretty big week coming up. They've got Philly and Brooklyn at home this week, which isn't that bad, but then next week they go @DAL/@NOH, @SAS/@HOU. That's not as bad as the Grizzlies 4-in-5 from last week, but it's no picnic. They'll be doing well to go 2-2 like we did. I am now leaning towards DEN catching LAC, the question is going to be whether MEM can stay ahead of either one of them.
Dear Grizz, Tomorrow would be a good time to beat OKC.
Ex-Rockets: always good against LA in the 4th.
Ah, of course. DWTDD. I didn't even know he was on the Kings.
That's all.
milwaukee plays at charlotte in a few weeks and there are tickets listed for a dollar.
wow
Home to PHI, SAC, at NO
The Hornets game would be a loss in December, now it is looking like #16.
Clippers have 2 back-to-backs next week:
@DAL/@NO
@SA/@HOU
My understanding is that if the Nuggets finish with a better record than the Clippers, they get the #3 seed (assuming Memphis is below both). If they finish tied, the Clippers get the #3 seed by being the division leader.
No - the Celtics won their division last year but had to start on the road against the Hawks as the putative 5 seed because Atlanta finished one game better. All it guarantees is that you can't drop below that matchup. Confusing, I know.
So if LAC wins their division with less wins than DEN, LAC would be the 4 seed and DEN the 5, but DEN would have home court advantage in the 1st round matchup? Also, I can't remember if this has ever come into play, but after the 1st round, is HCA determined by record or by seed? So if the 1 seed is upset by the 8 seed does the 8 seed have HCA over hypothetical 4 seed LAC above? What about hypothetical 5 seed DEN above?
So basically at this point, if you get the 4 seed by winning your division only, it's just a empty honor, "Congratulations, you're the 4 seed, but the 5 seed gets home court?"
If the 1 seed is upset by the 8 seed, the 4/5 winner gets HCA in the 2nd round - this also happened with the Celtics last year.
Yeah, basically - the "bonus" is you can't drop below that matchup. So, in a theoretical West where the LAC won their division by had the sixth best record in the conference, they'd still be in the 4/5 matchup, and wouldn't be stuck playing the three seed. However, W/L record, NOT seed, determines home court advantage.
Well, the C's had a better record than the Sixers still. In my reading of NJ's hypothetical in [574], the 4 seed has the worst record of the 8 playoff teams but is the only team from their division to qualify for the playoffs. I have no idea what happens there, I'd guess it would still default to record.
We had this discussion quite a bit last year. Of course, Love has been alternately hurt and then less good this year, so it depends on whether this is just a bump in the road for him or if last year+ he was over his head.
Most of us here come (came?) down on the side of him being a star. I would love for the Bulls to find a way to pair him with Rose.
The even more perfect pairing would be Noah. Noah protects the rim, gets dirty inside, does all those little Noah things. Love can help spread the floor for Rose, shoot threes, and doesn't need to worry as much about post D/rim protection (things he's not so good at). You'd have great rebounding, floor spacing, and outstanding passing. He'd be a fantastic complement to those guys.
Yes - they'd play the team with the 4th best record in the 1st round, but then wouldn't have homecourt the rest of the way.
Winning your division guarantees a team at least a 4th seed, but that applies to playoff slotting only. The 5th seed will still have HC if they have a better record, so the 4th seed in this case will be the higher seed in name only. The Jazz were technically the 4th seed in both 2007 and 2008 since they won their division, but they started on the road against the 5th seeded Rockets both times.
Edit: partial cokes to several
Saw something earlier from ESPNStatsInfo about how the Nuggets have won the points in the paint battle for about 50 games in a row which is ~20 games longer than the previous record. This brought me back to the Nuggets need a star discussion we had last page and what the Nuggets probably need more/could benefit more from than a star is really just shooting. If they had one guy who the opposition could not leave open their offense could reach Heat-ian heights.
Speaking of questionable calls, isn't changing possession on an out of bounds call something officials can only do when the clock is at 2 minutes or less? There was a play with 8 minutes left in the 4th in the horrible Jazz/Knicks game from Monday where the ball went out of bounds and the refs originally ruled it Jazz ball, but the Knicks complained about it and the call was reversed to be New York possession. They didn't review the video, they just talked for a second and changed it on the spot. I don't know if it was the right call or not, I'm just wondering about the procedure. The Jazz play-by-play announcers said that shouldn't have been allowed since the clock wasn't below the 2 minute mark. Were they wrong? Anyone know the rule on this?
Gill, if y'all didn't know, had a brief career as a pro boxer after he washed out of the league. Don't be fooled by his record, the opponents were almost certainly professional tomato cans and Gill didn't show much technique, but as a trained fighter he should be sanctioned for assaulting someone unless he was attacked first.
I think I'd have the following three guys in spots 3-5 on my non-existent ballot:
-- Chris Paul: 3rd in PER, playing for a top five team, good defensively - just wish he played more than 33 minutes per game.
-- Tim Duncan: 5th in PER, best DRtg in the league, plays for team with best record - but only 30 minutes per game. Still, I like him better than Parker - I don't think Parker's playing time makes up the enormous defensive differences between the two. To me, Duncan is more indispensible to the Spurs than Parker.
-- James Harden: 8th in PER, has (along with some savvy marginal moves by Morey) made the Rockets both super entertaining and pretty good in a season they were supposed to stink. I like him the best of the "Guy who scores in high volume reasonably efficiently, gets 5-7 boards/assists, and plays zero defense" group, which also includes Tony Parker and Kobe.
Random sidebar: maybe we should vote our own awards? I'll set them up and tally them if others are interested.
Something sort of like "Value Under A Players Control" or "Value Contributing To A Team's Success".
They don't have the best record anymore.
Yeah, same. Especially since LeBron pretty much has to be a unanimous #1 and Durant a unanimous #2, the real interest will come from seeing people's 3-10 (if you want to go that deep) and their explanations as to why. I'd be up for that. Other awards (DPOY, ROY, COY, etc) wouldn't have to go 10 deep, obviously.
Page 12 of 17 pages
‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.