It’s currently a sad time in the Motor City (my hometown).
- The big three automakers are clearly in trouble. And it’s not just the manufacture and sale of cars that has proven difficult. Begging for money from Congress also appears to be something out of the skill-set of the CEOs of these companies.
- In September Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick resigned. And then in October he went to jail.
- The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News – two papers I read when I was young – are moving away from the newsPAPER business.
In sum, whether we look at business, politics, or the local media, Detroit is in trouble. So let’s not look at these things. Let’s go to that one place that can always make us happy. Let’s look at sports.
- The Detroit Tigers were considered a favorite to go to the World Series in 2008. Instead this team finished in last place.
- The Detroit Lions were the only undefeated team in the NFL preseason. And now they are the only winless team in the league. And they have a good chance of finishing the regular season with a spotless mark.
- The Michigan Wolverines just finished the worst season in the 129 year history of the football team (not sure this counts as Detroit, but I grew up rooting for the Wolverines).
- The Detroit Pistons started off 4-0, and looked like a team ready to make yet another trip to the Eastern Conference finals. Since this start, though, this team has gone 9-9. And just getting out of the first round of the playoffs might now be a challenge.
Wow, this list is not making me happy. So much misery. And so little explanation for how this could all happen.
Although I can’t end the misery, I think I can offer some explanation. At least, I think I can explain what has happened to the Pistons.
A Recap
First, let’s recap. The Pistons won 59 games last year and finished the season with the league third best efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). With essentially the same cast, the team started off 2-0.
And then the team traded Chauncey Billups to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson. At the time I argued (see Did I Mention I Was an Allen Iverson Fan?) this trade would cause the Pistons to decline in 2008-09 (and the Nuggets to get better). And since this trade, the Pistons have clearly declined and the Nuggets have gotten better.
Still, Michael Curry, the head coach of the Pistons, argued recently that we shouldn’t blame Detroit’s problems on Iverson (see Curry: Don’t blame Iverson). And when I read this, I felt a very strong urge to respond to what Curry said.
Before we get to my comment, let me note that if Curry meant that Iverson is not to blame for the problems in the Mayor’s office, the automobile industry, the newspaper business, the Lions, the Tigers, and the Wolverines; then he’s absolutely right.
Really, It’s Iverson
As for the Pistons… let’s just look at the numbers:
Table One: The Detroit Pistons after 22 Games in 2008-09
Table One reports the standard views of a team. First we have what the Pistons could expect given what their players did last year. And then we have what these players are doing this year. As one can see, both views are not much different. Given what these players did last year, the Pistons should be on pace to win about 48 games. Their performance this year, though, suggests about 41 victories.
About half the drop-off – from 48 to 41 – can be tied to a decline in Richard Hamilton’s production. But as I noted a few months ago (see The Misperceptions of Rip Hamilton) last year was Hamilton’s best season. In other words, Hamilton’s decline could be interpreted as a return to form.
Regardless of what’s going on with Hamilton, the big story is what the Pistons could expect from their current roster. Remember, Detroit won 59 games last year. This year – given what these players did last year – the team shouldn’t be expected to get to 50 victories.
People have argued that Detroit’s decline is all about coaching or chemistry. But do we need to search this hard for an explanation? Let’s just review the recent history of Allen Iverson.
- Iverson left Philadelphia and the Sixers got better.
- Iverson was expected to transform the Denver Nuggets into a title contender. Denver, though, never got out of the first round of the Western Conference playoffs.
- Iverson left the Nuggets and the team got better.
- Iverson has arrived in Detroit, and the team got worse.
Wins Produced tells exactly the same story. Replacing Chauncey Billups – a very productive point guard – with Iverson (a player who has never been far above average in production), means your team is going to lose more often. It’s not coaching. It’s not chemistry. It’s simply a roster move where a player who produced many wins was replaced by someone who produces less. In sum, the Answer is Iverson.
And I think Curry should embrace this explanation. The alternative is to blame the coach. Given how quickly coaches get fired in the NBA, taking the blame – especially when it’s not your fault – can’t help your job security.
Building a Contender
Although it’s hard to know for certain, one senses that Dumars knew the acquisition of Iverson wasn’t going to help. In fact, it seems likely that Dumars made this move because Iverson’s contract is expiring. If this is true, then Dumars knew after two games this season that another trip to the Eastern Conference Finals wasn’t going to happen. So fans of this team shouldn’t be too disappointed if this doesn’t happen.
When the season ends, though, fans of the Pistons can expect Joe Dumars to take Iverson’s salary slot and start building another title contender. Already some building blocks are in place. Tayshaun Prince has developed into an above average player. In addition, Rodney Stuckey and Amir Johnson – two very young players — are both above average performers this year (although Amir isn’t playing much). To this core, the Pistons are adding another draft pick (which might be good) and whatever Joe Dumars can find in the free agent market.
In sum, there’s some hope for Detroit. As for the automobile industry, local politics, the newspaper business, the Lions, the Tigers, and the Wolverines…. well, there’s only so much some salary cap space can accomplish.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
kevin
December 17, 2008
The Pistons gettng worse and the Nuggets better was perhaps the most predictable thing to happen this year, even more predictable than Dubya leaving office after getting a shoe tossed at his noggin.
Jared
December 17, 2008
This is great and I think no surprise to anyone that read WOW. Professor Berri, how about a post about the contenders this year?!
Daniel
December 17, 2008
The only point guards coming up for free agency that’s anywhere near as productive as Billups are Jason Kidd this summer and Steve Nash in the summer of ’10. The Pistons gave up their best player ( who was grossly underpaid by NBA standards) at a crucial position and they have nothing that can replace him.
Basically, instead of paying Billups $50m over the next 4 years to produce 60 wins and play great defense, they’re paying Hamilton $55 million over 5 years to produce 15 wins and play mediocre defense.
The Iverson trade was a good idea to free up space for the future, but Dumars traded the wrong Piston.
Tball
December 17, 2008
Hamilton would not have netted Iverson.
Millsap will be a free agent this offseason and there is talk Utah may not sign him. What is his WOW worth (admittedly, he plays a position where Detroit feels stocked)?
What is the un-“deck chair”-like D’Antoni doing in NY to squeeze more wins out of the team than Thomas could manage? Beyond grinding Marbury.
Jeremy
December 17, 2008
For what it’s worth…the Red Wings are the defending Stanley Cup champs. It can’t ALL be doom and gloom.
Vince Gagliano
December 17, 2008
Given Gasol’s value to his team, it shouldn’t have been any surprise that the Lakers would have struggled against the Knicks.
And as far as Rip is concerned, here’s a quick look at Hamilton’s true shooting percentage:
1999-00: 44.3%
2000-01: 45.4%
2001-02: 44.3%
2002-03: 45.6%
2003-04: 46.2%
2004-05: 45.5%
2005-06: 51.1%
2006-07: 48.6%
2007-08: 51.5%
2008-09: 48.0% (through 22 games)
Over the last three seasons, Hamilton has shot better with Billups at point guard (no surprise there). And it’s no accident that his scoring with Billups improved after his assists when up from 4 or 5 per game in his first 3 seasons to 7 or 8 per game afterword. With Iverson, who isn’t really a distributor, the numbers have slowly dropped down.
On the other hand, Tayshaun Prince has shouldered more of the productivity with Billups gone. However, by the time LeBron or D-Wade or Nash or Whoeveritis arrives in Motown, Prince will be 30, Hamilton 32, and ‘Sheed (assuming he stays) will be 36. But Stuckey will be 24, Amir Johnson 23, and Walter Sharpe 24.
The challenge for Joe Dumars will be meshing a team with a first-season free agent in his prime, cagey vets from the Eastern Conference finals years, as well as raw talent developed through the draft. He’s getting practice with A.I. now.
Now Dave, I know things aren’t always roses in Motown.
But forgetting the Red Wings? In Hockeytown, U.S.A. no less? That’s just naughty. Nothing but coal and Lions losses for you this season!
Okay, maybe a tie against Green Bay, but still, why ignore the Wings?
Alex
December 17, 2008
I’m sorry but how did the sixers get better after Iverson left? He was the only reason that they got to the finals that year and the only reason they won a game
Owen
December 17, 2008
Vince – I think you are confusing true shooting percentage and Efg%. Hamilton’s ts% of late has been pretty decent, above 55% for the last three years.
kevin
December 17, 2008
“He was the only reason that they got to the finals that year and the only reason they won a game”
I think Mutombo and Hill had a lot more to do with the Sixers success than Iverson did.
Vince Gagliano
December 17, 2008
I used points per shot/2. Thanks for clarification.
chris
December 17, 2008
Alex is right in arguing that the Sixers did not “get better” without Iverson. Measured by what? From 1999-2003, no East team won more playoff series than the Sixers (look it up). They were in the final eight four times in that stretch and were a Chucky Atkins busted-hump layup from the 03 conference finals.
And Kevin’s notion that Mutombo and Hill had more to do with Philly’s success than Iverson is just wrong. When they went to the Finals, the Sixers were 41-14 BEFORE Mutombo was acquired in a trade and 15-12 after he arrived. Virtually all of Hill’s points were garbage putbacks or spot-ups created by the attention paid to Iverson by the opposing D. And in the Finals, Iverson was putting the entire Lakers backcourt in foul trouble and singlehandedly sealing their only win while Hill was getting outplayed by Horace Grant, who was finished at that point.
Someone needs to quantify what Mike Fratello likes to call “adjusted assists,” or what a player like Iverson, Bryant, LeBron etc creates for teammates by going to the basket and taking two-plus defenders with him. My guess is AI would be among the all-time leaders in this area.
Steve
December 17, 2008
“The Pistons gave up their best player ( who was grossly underpaid by NBA standards) at a crucial position and they have nothing that can replace him.”
What about Stuckey? The kid is only 22 and still hasn’t played in 82 regular season games, but he’s really talented. He had some very impressive stretches in the playoffs last year and has been playing great lately. In his last 9 games he’s played 28 mpg, but since starting he’s averaged 36, so I’ll give you his per 36 minute numbers:
16.5 ppg, 9.8 apg, 4.5 rpg, 2.3 spg, 54% fg, 46% 3pt, and a 3.6/1 ast/to ratio.
The Pistons would have been a better team with Billups, but they’d be eliminated in the conference finals or semi’s. As a likely 4 seed, they’d have to beat both Boston and Cleveland just to make the Finals. We’d have the same team, but older in ’09 (and possibly minus Sheed) and long term contracts with Billups/Hamilton/Prince, so no cap space or flexibility. We’d slowly decline. As much as I love Billups, getting rid of his contract allows Stuckey to grow up faster and puts the Pistons in a much better position to retool and reload around a new core.
anon
December 17, 2008
@chris and alex
There are many, many others in this vein but I don’t have time to search for them.
anon
December 17, 2008
OK maybe one more…
mrparker
December 17, 2008
Off this particular topic but along the same lines Ahmad Rashad and Chris Webber had this exchange regarding the Clippers and the OKC game last night:
Payton: Zach Randolph had a very nice game. He’s averaging 25pts and 14 reb since the trade.
Ahmad Rashad: Lets not forget Durant he had a very good game. 29 pts….(trails off cant find another good stat,pauses for three seconds and stammers)…he’s really good.
Webber:(Nothing positive to add) Go see that kid play!!! Get him some help!
———————————————–
For someone reason fans see highlight moves as 95% of what makes a team succesful.
I’m not as confident that Dumars is as competent as everyone is making him out to be.
He’s drafted Milicic and Stuckey. While leaving other more productive players on the board.
He basically lucked into Rasheed Wallace. I’ll need to see him have success with a Detroit squad full of new faces before I annoint him some sort of gm genius. So far I give him a B-
David Friedman
December 17, 2008
Four points:
1) Who expected Denver to be a championship contender with Iverson? You don’t need advanced numbers to figure out that the Nuggets were not going to win a championship. That is a straw man argument.
2) Small sample size, anyone? For analysis that depends entirely on numbers and not on observation, wouldn’t it be prudent to see Denver and Detroit play more of their schedules? The Nuggets are just two or three losses from dropping out of the West playoff picture entirely.
3) Which is it–Dumars knew the Pistons were not going to be that good, so he made the trade to free up salary space or the Pistons were going to win 50+ games until Iverson arrived? You can’t have it both ways.
4) The Pistons started Kwame Brown at center for several games with McDyess not on the roster. The Pistons had no paint presence in those games (except, ironically, in one game when they beat Kwame’s old team, the Lakers, and he “broke out” for season-highs with 10 points and 10 rebounds).
For what it’s worth, my prediction (before the season) was that Detroit might be better coached this year and still finish with a worse record because several key players are declining. The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season. They are fifth right now and only 4.5 games behind third place Orlando.
At the start of the season, I had Denver missing the playoffs entirely–and that is still a distinct possibility. They have fattened up their record against weak teams and even though they are currently second in the West the Nuggets are only three games ahead of ninth place Dallas, a team that has been without All-Star forward Josh Howard for most of the season.
Just to be on the safe side, you might want to start working on the article that explains how the Pistons turned around their season “despite” Iverson and why the Nuggets missed the playoffs with Billups.
michael
December 17, 2008
Firts lets look at philly since Iverson left. Have they gotten out of the first round in the EAST. NO. They aren’t even on pace to make the playoffs this year. Second, you failed to mention that although Denver didn’t get out of the first round they did get better. They won 50 games last year if I remember right. Third lets wait till the end of the season to see how many games Denver wins compared to last year because they are not getting out of the first round this year.
Tball
December 17, 2008
I’ve linked to a suggestion at Basketball Prospectus that suggests Durant was playing at replacement level (not sure if .100 wp48 would be the WOW-equivalent) under PJ and is playing at a borderline all-star level under Brooks. Would WOW agree?
DF
1) When Iverson was traded from Philly, expectations were that Denver was going to contend for a title, that Iverson/Anthony/Camby were Denver’s big 3 that would allow Denver to contend against the likes of San Antonio.
2) The Nuggets are playing substantially better with Billups this year than they played last year while losing Camby and Iverson. The point is the level of improvement, not the playoff implications.
3) The Pistons were good enough for 50+ wins and that was not going to be good enough to reach the Eastern Conf. finals (do you disagree with either point?).
4)Not sure why you made this point. McDyess hasn’t started a game all year, so Kwame didn’t take the starting job from McDyess, he took it from Amir before surrendering it to Wallace. That was the ‘better coaching’ at work.
You may want to start working on your “Wow, look at the predictive powers of WOW” comment.
Vince Gagliano
December 17, 2008
Right now, compared to most championship-caliber teams, defensive efficiency is holding the Pistons back.
A.I. is one of the top steals guys in NBA history, but his rebounding has tapered off ever since his first few seasons in Philadelphia.
And the fact that he has not been overly efficient while taking shots hurts the Pistons’ offensive efficiency somewhat.
Using a generalized version of the formula
Possessions = Field goals attempted – offensive rebounds + turnovers + .4*free throws attempted,
We see that A.I. has had the ball for approximately 340 possessions, and has generated 314 points with those 340 possessions. By comparison, Stuckey has generated 201 points with approximately 215 possessions.
Before anyone responds, yes, I know that this does not take into account possessions of other individual players. However, possessions are not tracked by the league and need to be calculated with formulas such as the above.
When Iverson leaves Detroit (key word: when), all of Iverson’s possessions have to go to other players. Also, Stuckey has shown marked improvement in his second year in the league.
If Stuckey can take those possessions and use them in a very productive way, he, and the team around him, will play at a higher level than they did with Iverson.
For example, using the approximated possessions above, Iverson and Stuckey have combined for approximately 555 possessions.
If Iverson’s scoring rate was extrapolated to those 555 possessions, he would have accounted for an estimated 512.6 points.
Stuckey’s scoring rate with both his and Iverson’s possessions would account for 518.9 points.
This may not seem like a huge difference, but having Stuckey score those possessions instead of Iverson would translate to approximately 1.1 more points per 100 possessions on offense. That increase in production could translate to 3-5 more wins in a season.
Maybe I’m talking about this way too much. The point is, I think that Detroit will get better without A.I. even if they do not sign a single free agent in the summer of ’10.
Stuff Criminals Like
December 17, 2008
It can’t get any worse. Can it?
John W. Davis
December 17, 2008
Can we just blame the horrible defense and the fact that he doesnt play Amir!
Stuckey is getting pretty darn good Prof D!
What do you think about the Young Stuck?
David Friedman
December 17, 2008
TBall:
What is happening with Durant (aside from a young player learning the league) is that Brooks has moved him from shooting guard back to his natural position of small forward, a switch that I advocated as soon as PJ announced his plans to put Durant at sg.
1) Whose expectations are you referring to? I wrote the team preview for Denver for Lindy’s and did league previews on my site and I never predicted that Denver with Iverson would win a playoff series, much less win a championship. This is just a straw man to prop up WoW, saying “They said that Denver with AI would be great but we here at WoW knew better.” Anyone who understands basketball knew better and, what’s more, made that prediction for reasons that have nothing to do with WoW’s formulas. Did WoW predict that Iverson would lead Philly to the Finals in 2001?
2) The Nuggets are playing very well right now in a small sample of games mainly against weak competition (yes, I know that they beat the Celtics but so did Indiana). Before anyone here gets too excited about Billups “transforming” the Nuggets because he is so much better than Iverson, let’s see if Denver can even match last year’s win total.
3) Before the season, I picked the Pistons to be the third best team in the East (i.e., not make the ECF). I guess that means that I agree with both of your statements–that they could win 50+ games and not reach the ECF, though I did not assign a specific win total in my original prediction.
4) Maybe I emphasized “starting” too much but my point is that Detroit’s problems are in the paint (rebounding, defense), areas that 6-0 Iverson (or 6-3 Billups) cannot help.
The Pistons have a new coach and have altered their rotations in several ways, so it is too soon to simply blame everything on Iverson. Hamilton had some games where he missed many open jumpers from his usual hot spots. Is that Iverson’s fault, too?
What exactly is it that WoW is predicting here, other than praising Billups and bashing Iverson in a general sense because one player ranks highly in certain stats and the other doesn’t?
I have gone on record saying that I expect Denver to plummet in the standings and that by the end of the season they will be fighting for the last playoff spot. Obviously, injuries to key players on other contenders could affect this but assuming that all of the top nine teams in the West are reasonably healthy that is what I expect to happen.
As for Detroit, the Pistons went through a rough patch but by the end of the season I would expect them to be the third or possibly fourth seed in the East (a battle between them and Orlando). They are declining for reasons other than Iverson’s arrival and they will play their best ball down the stretch.
By the end of the year, Detroit will be peaking (relatively speaking, since the Pistons cannot surpass the Celtics or Cavs) and Denver will be slumping.
What, specifically, does WoW predict for those teams? It would be interesting to have a specific, verifiable prediction on record now, as opposed to an after the fact “Ah ha, of course we knew that this would happen” post in May.
So, let’s hear it: will Denver be the second seed in the playoffs because Billups is so much better than Iverson? Will Detroit be a 3-4, will they stay at 5 or will Iverson cause them to fall further?
Rob O
December 18, 2008
DF have you ever read any other article on WoW other than this? Prof Berri predicts things all the time with pretty remarkable accuracy. He actually already has a post immediately after the billups for iverson trade saying how the pistons would get worse and denver would get better. By almost every measure he has been correct. He has already predicted this, so you can go actually look throughout this webpage and see that.
This isn’t “after the fact” its just an observation and a follow up. Im sure Berri would feel pretty confident that the Nuggets, barring major injury or trade, would finish the season with a better record than the Pistons. I dont want to put words in his mouth but i have a feeling he would be pretty confident about that.
Vincent Gagliano
December 18, 2008
To be honest, David F, I think that it could be both.
Billups has not been the answer (no pun intended) in the paint – but Maybyner Hilario has. In fact, Nene has emerged as one of the biggest winners of the trade, since many possessions that would have gone to Iverson in the paint now go to someone one foot taller and 100 pounds heavier.
He is, at time of writing, averaging career highs in points, rebounds, blocks, field goal percentage, and free throw percentage.
As for Detroit, the East is catching up to the West as far as the strength of playoff teams is concerned, but the West still has a bit more depth. The Pistons are likely a 4th seed at best behind Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando with a healthy Dwight Howard. But if they continue to maintain a winning record, they should still be in.
If nothing else, being in the playoffs means not drafting in the lottery, and Dumars doesn’t like drafting in the lottery. Considering that he drafted Darko and Rodney White, would you blame him.
Vincent Gagliano
December 18, 2008
Whoops, I just pulled a Chad Johnson, errr, Chad Ocho Cino, errr, Whateveritis back there.
Sorry about that, Nene.
Tball
December 18, 2008
David
When the in-season trade occurred, there was plenty of talk that the trade was as lopsided as last year’s Gasol(s) trade and that Denver was a championship contender. Linked is Hollinger’s post-trade suggestion the Nuggets are championship contenders (requires ESPN Insider).
ESPN lists the Nuggets SoS this season as .502. The competition on the year is going to be about .500, so the small sample size is against average competition. And this would be a pretty dull blog if you had to wait until you had a large sample size (half a season, three quarters) before analyzing the results.
Hamilton missing open shots could be the fault of the trade. Good shooting guards coming off screens often position themselves for quick shots off the catch. They get their feet positioned, angle their bodies, etc. If they then have to catch the ball outside a comfort zone (e.g., over their heads, at their knees) it takes them out of rhythm. I don’t follow the Pistons, I do follow the Celtics. You can tell when a player like Eddie House, Ray Allen, or KG is open and positioned to shoot on the perimeter, but has to reach or take a step to catch the ball, the shot is going to be off more regularly than not. If a player doesn’t run off KG, he’ll actually take a second and reset before shooting. Anyway, Billups has more assists because he gets teammates the ball in position to score. Hamilton burned the Celtics at the beginning of the 2006-2007 season coming off a screen to catch and shoot a game winner when the Pistons took possession with about 2 seconds on the clock. If he isn’t getting fed coming off those screens where he can shoot in rhythm, I would expect his shooting percentage to dip.
Seeds require picking the finish of other teams. The article has a prediction of 41.3 wins for the season if they play the way they’ve been playing and 47.7 wins if everyone plays like they did last year. Split the difference and call it 45 wins. What’s your prediction?
The Nuggets are harder because I couldn’t find any WoW prediction for this season. However, the player with the most minutes on the team, other than Billups, who was not on the team last year is Dhantay Jones, followed by the Birdman. The significant losses for the team are Iverson and Camby. Last season, WoW indicated those two were worth 30.5 wins (21.5 to Camby, 9 to Iverson). Nene gets Camby’s minutes and, if he repeats last year’s WP48 of .143 (and Anderson produceds the wins Nene produced last season) Nene will make up 9 of those wins. Billups produced 16 wins in 70% of the time Iverson played. If the remaining 900 minutes are accounted for by a league average player, that would be another 2 wins. Thus, the trade of Camby and Iverson for Anderson and Billups would be a net loss of 3.5 wins from last season’s 51.0 expected wins. So a dirty prediction would be 48 wins (but hopefully we’ll see a cleaner prediction soon). Not an improvement on last year, but a notable improvement after the Camby give-away. What would your prediction be? And what was it after Camby left?
Troy
December 18, 2008
I love reading about how the Nuggets are going to simply fall off the map. Easy schedule?
Well, the Nuggets have played one of the top 9 teams in the west 10 times. They are 4-6 in those games with an even split of home/road games. They beat the Celtics on the road and have also played the Cavs on the road. So they are 5-7 in those contests. They are 10-1 against the rest of the league. (the lone loss being to the Warriors the day AI was dealt)
They still have 18 games vs. teams who currently have under 10 wins. How many of those do you think the Nuggets will lose? Do you think they’ll drop more than 3 or 4 of those? Let’s say disaster strikes and they only get 13 of those. That would put them at 30-13.
That’d mean 20-19 in the other 39 games to get to 50 and a playoff spot. (only 24 of which would come against the wests top 9 or Boston, Cleveland or Orlando)
And that’s really worst case. They aren’t just beating up on patsies right now. The odds they’d barely break drop 5 of those 18 games against the dregs of the league aren’t all that great. If healthy, they’ll do better than 20-19 in those other 39 games.
Keep in mind something about the Nuggets. They were winning despite the face that Carmelo Anthony, JR Smith and Linus Kleiza and Chauncey Billups shot like garbage. Melo (39%), Chauncey (40%), JR (39%) and Lk (43%) all were playing well below their PER’s and historical shooting percentages. And they were 11-3 when Chauncey played that month.
If everyone stays healthy for all of the teams in the west, Denver will easily make the playoffs, and likely do it as the division champion. (sorry Jazz fans, I love your team, but your remaining schedule is brutal)
John W. Davis
December 18, 2008
Stuckey as a Starter:
14 pts 8 asts 54% FG 1.9 TO’s
Billups as a Starter:
18 pts 7 asts 43% FG 1.7 TO’s
It’s alot closer than people would think.
There is always hope Prof D!
mrparker
December 18, 2008
Billups efg is 52.5.
stuckey is 47.8
Thats a huge difference.
Also Chauncey is getting to the ft line a higher rate and is turning the ball over much less(10% vs. 17%).
Stuckey is not bad but no way is here near Billups level yet.
Vince Gagliano
December 18, 2008
Potentially good news in store for Detroit:
Carlos Boozer has decided to exercise the opt-out portion of his contract after the 2008-09 season.
Watch for the Pistons to make a lucrative contract offer for him this offseason, for two reasons:
1. Teams are not as prepared to sign unrestricted free agents this year as compared to next year (Summer of LeBron) The Pistons are one of the very few teams with cap space open during THIS season.
2. The economy is down, but C-Booz wants a raise for his efforts. Not many teams have to money to handle both.
3. Boozer will be 27 going on 28 at the time he signs his contract. Given that he’ll be at the crossroads between his prime and the beginning of his decline, he could give the team that signs him anywhere from 3 to 5 decent years left for an NBA team.
If anything, his age would actually be an asset for the Pistons. First off, he provides a nice bridge between Rahsheed Wallace and Amir Johnson. And second, Detroit already has a solid supporting cast around Boozer, so he won’t have to be called on to have the weight of the world on his shoulders night after night like he would if he were peaking.
4. Boozer would have a better chance of getting a high playoff seed and going deep into the postseason in the East than in the West, especially with the Lakers already dominating as it is.
This plan would not be without risk. To sign Boozer, the Pistons would concede the James/Wade/Bosh sweepstakes the following offseason.
But for Dumars, signing Boozer would guarantee that 2009-2010 is not a rebuilding season, which is certainly an attractive prospect.
Also, the fact that Boozer is in an unheralded free agent class (With names such as Iverson, Stephon Marbury, Grant Hill [like they’d bring him back now], and post-Nash Shawn Marion) could allow the Pistons to sign him for cheaper than they would next season.
And that allows them to shop for potential bargains next year such as Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Marcus Camby, Mike Miller, Brent Barry, and yes, even the ageless-yet-aging Shaquille O’Neal.
jarett
December 19, 2008
So who is having a worse sports year Seattle or Detroit?
David Friedman
December 19, 2008
This is an interesting discussion. It will be even more interesting to see what happens in the next few months and what everyone has to say at that time.
Just to clarify and amplify my previous comment, prior to the season I picked Detroit to be the third seed in the East. Orlando is playing a little better than I expected and Detroit is playing a little worse than I expected. My prediction now is that those two teams will battle for the third and fourth spots (Orlando currently is 3.5 games ahead of Detroit, so I am saying that margin will shrink).
As for Denver, prior to the season I picked them to miss the playoffs. Looking at their roster and the rosters of the other top teams in the West, I still think that they will miss the playoffs. Could they grab the eighth spot? Yes, that is definitely possible; teams will be bunched together and one injury could change things.
Why do I think Denver will plummet?
Let’s take the easy stuff first: ranking the West, it should be obvious that the Lakers, Hornets, Spurs and Jazz have better teams than the Nuggets–these are veteran laden, playoff tested squads. The Hornets are just hitting their stride now, the Spurs recently returned Manu and Parker to the lineup and the Jazz have battled injuries to Boozer and Williams. When those players are back, those teams will pass the Nuggets in the standings. That slides Denver to fifth.
Houston has been battling injuries to their top three players and is still integrating Artest into their system. The Rockets are one game behind Denver despite all of this adversity. They too will pass the Nuggets.
The Blazers added Oden to their good mix of perimeter players. They were already a dangerous team last year and now they have some legitimate paint presence. Roy keeps improving, too.
The Mavs and Suns are two former powers who have seemingly slipped a bit–but Dallas has a new coach and has been without Howard for many games. Carlisle is a proven winner and Nowitzki has been playing better and better as the season progresses. The Suns obviously have undergone a lot of turmoil but they have a talented roster now. They were tough down the stretch of last season once they figured everything out and I expect something similar to happen this year.
Bottom line, Denver has a 2.5 game lead over 8th-9th place with 57 games to go. I just don’t believe that adding Billups and subtracting Camby and Iverson has turned them into some powerhouse that will stay near the top of the West ahead of all of these other teams.
Rather than looking at their opponents’ winning percentage–which is skewed because of playing Cleveland and Boston–let’s count how many horrible teams the Nuggets have beaten since Billups arrived:
Memphis, Charlotte, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Bulls, Clippers, Minnesota (again), Toronto, Minnesota (again), Golden State. Ten of their 15 wins with Billups are against horrible teams.
Bad news for Billups/Nuggets lovers: they only play Minnesota one more time this year :)
Winning at Boston is great. Of course, the Pacers also beat the Celtics, so we know that flukes happen. The Nuggets beat the Spurs sans Parker and Ginobili. They beat the Rockets without McGrady; in recent years, the Rockets have been a 50-plus win caliber team with T-Mac and a lottery caliber team without him. The Nuggets beat Dallas in Howard’s first (rusty) game back.
Denver’s next four games will be interesting: Cleveland, at Phoenix, Portland, at Portland. In January, Denver will play New Orleans twice plus Dallas, Phoenix, Utah and Houston.
Last year with Iverson, the Nuggets were a team that could blow out bad teams with regularity but did not do much damage against good teams (by the way, they swept Minnesota 4-0 last year). When we have a large enough sample size of games to consider, my prediction is that this year’s Denver team will turn out to be not too much different from last year’s team.
Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not.
The Nuggets have obviously played well so far but they are not that far ahead of the rest of the West with a long season to go. Yes, Nene is playing well; he put up similar numbers in ’07 in 64 games. We’ll see if he stays healthy and productive.
David Friedman
December 19, 2008
One more thing:
Considering WoW’s (over) emphasis on rebounding, I am surprised that everyone is so cavalierly dismissing my point about McDyess’ absence (and Kwame Brown’s presence). McDyess was Detroit’s leading rebounder last year, when the Pistons ranked seventh in rebounding differential (+2.3). This season, the Pistons rank 22nd in that category (-2.2). As I said, their problems in the paint (rebounding, defense) have hurt them much more than swapping Billups for Iverson. McDyess just recently returned and he is rounding into form. Not surprisingly, Detroit has won three in a row, albeit against the same kind of competition that Denver has been pounding (Ind/Cha/Was). Overall, the Pistons are 5-1 with McDyess this year.
Troy
December 19, 2008
I understand they’ve beat crappy teams. They’ve also beat good teams. They beat Dallas with a fully healthy lineup. In their home win against the Rockets, (the one you dismiss because of no TMAC), the Nuggets played a grand total of 14 mintues with Carmelo Anthony.
I like that you mention the Rockets game the other night. The Nuggets were playing on the second night of a back to back. The Rockets had three days of rest. The Rockets shot lights out. (55%) Yet the Nuggets were within three in the fourth quarter.
I guess what I’m wondering her though, is what you think is going to happen. I put out 18 games where the Nuggets will play pure garbage. Yeah, they only play Minnesota once more this year, but they play Oklahoma City four more times.
I understand it’s a long season. If Nene or Kenyon Martin go down, both of which are likely, the Nuggets are in trouble. But on the other side of it, if the Nuggets do stay healthy, this is a pretty damned good team.
As for the Celtics and Cavs improving our strength of schedule, I think maybe the Lakers twice, the Cavs (twice after tonight), the Celtics, the Rockets and Mavs (twice each)the Hornets and Utah make that happen. After these next four, the Nuggets will play the elite (top 9 in the West, Detroit, Orlando, Boston, Cleveland in the east) a total of 22 more times.
The Jazz play that group 28 more times. Portland 22 more times. Houston 26 more times. Phoenix 22 more times. Dallas 27 more times. Hornets 28 more times. Spurs 25 more times.
As a Denver fan, Portland scares me. They’ve played a tough schedule and are deep as hell. I don’t care if/when Utah gets healthy. Their schedule is brutal. They’ve never been a good road team. The Hornets are a better team than Denver and will show it throughout the rest of the year. The Mavs simply aren’t that good, no matter what anyone tries to make you believe. The Rockets? You really think their injury situation is going to improve?
Sorry man, if the Nuggets have any semblance of health, they are in the playoffs. If they have great health, they are going to win the NW division by 3 games.
Owen
December 19, 2008
David – What’s up, same program different channel here.
I am sort of confused. In your last comment, you begin by saying that the WOW (over)emphasizes rebounding. But then you note the fact that they have been without Mcdyess, one of their best rebounders, and cite their rebounding woes without him.
I don’t think anyone is dismissing your point about Mcdyess. I think it’s an excellent point actually. Mcdyess is a very productive player according to WP. He has posted well above average WP48 the last two years. And there is in fact a huge dropoff from Mcdyess to Kwame.
Now, the fact that they also have missed Mcdyess doesn’t invalidate the main point of the article, basically that Billups is better than Iverson. But I find it very refreshing to hear you using an argument that seems to employ exactly the kind of logic used by the WOW.
David Friedman
December 20, 2008
Troy:
My point about the Cavs/Celtics affecting the strength of schedule is that Tball said that the Nuggets’ SoS (not including Friday’s loss to the Cavs, more about that in a moment) was .502; however, this is a small sample of games, so the enormous amount that Cleveland and Boston are over .500 skews that figure. Denver split those games; I’m saying take those two games out and the SoS is not that great, as indicated by the roll call of sorry teams that I listed that Denver beat.
If I were a Nuggets fan, I’d gladly sit Melo in exchange for Houston sitting TMac. As I said–and this is exactly why I mentioned it–for the past several years Houston has played at a 50-55 win level when TMac plays but at a lottery level when he sits (regardless of whether or not Yao plays; they kept their long winning streak going last year even after Yao went down).
Yeah, the OKC games are almost certainly wins for Denver (and just about everyone else) but my point is two fold:
1) Denver with Iverson pretty consistently beat crappy teams, so this stretch of wins with Billups replacing Iverson does not prove anything, much less that Billups is clearly a better player than Iverson (as is being contended here).
2) When the Nuggets play strong teams, they are going to lose a lot more often than the posters here seem to think–and, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, they will not win every single game against “pure garbage.” It will also be interesting to see how the team reacts once their record settles back down to Earth after the good teams pound them a few times. The honeymoon will be over and malcontents like J.R. Smith, K-Mart (and perhaps Melo) will all have their own theories about what the team should be doing.
The Mavs may “not be that good” but my point is that Denver is not as good as everyone here seems to think. There will be a tight race for that last spot and it could very well come down to Dallas and Denver. I’ll take Dirk, Josh Howard and Carlisle over Melo, Billups and Karl.
Friday’s Cleveland-Denver game is a good example of what I’m talking about regarding the Nuggets. The Cavs strolled into Denver and scored a season-high 37 first quarter points. So much for Billups’ much ballyhooed transformation of Denver’s defense. Denver never got closer than 12 points the rest of the way. This was a good example of the difference between a championship caliber team and a team that by the end of the year will be fighting tooth and nail for the last playoff spot, a fight that I expect them to lose.
Since everyone here is throwing bouquets toward Billups, it’s worth noting that in this “statement game” (as LeBron James termed it) Billups shot 5-12 from the field and finished with 16 points and three assists. He had a game worst -21 +/- rating. He supposedly is helping make Melo better than he ever was with Iverson but Melo shot 5-14 and committed five turnovers.
Obviously, this was just one game against a very good team–but this was nevertheless a good preview of what is going to happen to Denver on most nights against the better teams.
Meanwhile, the Pistons lost in double overtime to the Jazz on Friday (Iverson shot 13-24 and finished with 38 points) but they are 5-2 with McDyess in the lineup this year (3-2 since McDyess returned to the team).
David Friedman
December 20, 2008
Owen:
There is no contradiction with what I said: I stated that WoW typically overemphasizes the importance of rebounding, which makes it all the more surprising to me that WoW is making all of this fuss about Billups vs. Iverson–the sample size of games is small and Occam’s razor suggests simpler answers than Billups being much better than Iverson, namely that Denver is beating weak teams just like they did last year with Iverson and Detroit has been missing McDyess’ presence in the paint.
If someone wants to make the case that Billups is better than Iverson that is fine–but what I am objecting to are the straw man arguments and highly selective use of stats employed in this particular article. If Billups is better than Iverson this article hardly proved it.
My guess is that in a month or two there will be a WoW article about how McDyess has turned around the Pistons no thanks to Iverson–meaning that Iverson will get blamed for Detroit’s slump but get no credit for the turnaround. I have no idea how WoW is going to try to explain Denver falling in the standings with Billups but that will be interesting to see.
David Friedman
December 21, 2008
Look at that: four days after my initial comment here and Denver has dropped from clear second in the West into a tie for fourth-fifth with Portland after the Nuggets lost to Phoenix. Melo shot 3-13 and committed four turnovers, while Billups shot 6-16 and committed seven turnovers. The Nuggets are now 4.5 games behind the first place Lakers (despite L.A.’s recent stumbles) and just one game ahead of Phoenix and Utah, who are tied for seventh/eighth in the West. The Nuggets play Portland in a back to back on Monday and Tuesday, so they could easily drop to ninth in the West before Christmas Eve.
Since this post said that “Really the Answer is Iverson,” we are forced to conclude that the answer to why Denver is collapsing is that the Nuggets traded a former league MVP for a point guard who showed signs of wear and tear in last year’s playoffs versus Boston, right?
Italian Stallion
December 21, 2008
Dave,
It’s interesting that you say rebounds are overemphasized here. I don’t think they are actually overemphasized (or overvalued really).
I think rebounds are more fungible than many other basketball skills (like assists for example) .
If a player gets a lot of defensive rebounds, it DOES add a lot of value to the team, it just doesn’t mean that the player getting them is as valuable as you would think based the value of his rebounds.
That because if you remove him, most or all of his rebounds will typcially be picked up by the player that replaces him plus the other players on the court. You don’t lose much that much.
So how valuable was that player to begin with?
On the flip side, if you remove a top assist guy, you rarely get the same number of assists from the combination of his replacement and the other players. It’s not that the assist guys contribute so much more than the top rebounders. It’s just that it’s so much harder to replace a top PG’s assists once you remove him.
That’s why you will often see a team improve sharply when they get a great PG. The team almost always improves a lot because the team’s assists go way up.
If you bring in a great rebounder, a lot of his rebounds come from the hide of the other players and you don’t get as much improvement.
I think the fungibility of some skills is not equal to the value to the team and that fungibility is NOT VALUED PROPERLY by almost anyone.
I can’t value it either.
I just know if a team adds a great rebounder it is unlikely to impove the team as much as if you would think, but if you add a great PG you are likely to improve a lot.
David Friedman
December 22, 2008
Italian Stallion:
I think that it is pretty well established that WoW places a high value on rebounding, so the only debatable point is whether or not that value is too high. I say that it is too high based on the WoW values assigned to players such as Dennis Rodman and Andrew Bynum (to cite just two examples out of many). I don’t agree with Berri’s assertion that Rodman was more efficient/valuable/productive (choose your adjective) than Jordan on a per game/per minute or any other basis during the Bulls’ title runs. I also don’t agree that Bynum is more valuable/productive/efficient than Kobe. I’m not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of something else by bringing up those examples; I’m just explaining my rationale for saying that WoW overvalues rebounding. Since WoW places such a high value on rebounding, it is odd that this post does not mention McDyess’ absence at all as a factor in Detroit’s record so far.
As for assists, one problem is that the stat is so subjective that it is almost meaningless, as I discussed in several posts at my site. As for the “fungibility” of assists, it is interesting that in the wake of D’Antoni’s move to NY Nash’s assists have gone down and Duhon is suddenly in the top ten in assists.
Italian Stallion
December 22, 2008
David,
I think Nash/Duhon is easily explained by issues like pace and the fact that D’Antoni actually does have a good offensive system.
I would argue that much of the improvement we have seen from the Knicks (at least in terms of being competitive) is the result of actually having a decent PG for the first time in quite awhile because Duhon’s assists and playmaking have been so valuable.
On the flip side, I don’t think the loss of Randolph’s rebounds have had a terrible impact because Lee is now getting some of them, Harrington is getting some etc…
It’s simply much easier to replace rebounds than it is to replace great play making.
However, that does not mean the rebounds aren’t valuable. If you didn’t replace them, it would be a disaster. It’s a fungibility issue.
David Friedman
December 23, 2008
Italian Stallion:
So if D’Antoni/pace explains why Duhon’s stats have gone up and Nash’s stats have gone down does that mean that Nash was overrated previously and that Duhon was underrated? Or is Nash underrated now and Duhon overrated?
The Knicks have dropped from middle of the pack in rebounding differential last year to almost last, so it does not make sense to say that losing a double figure rebounder did not hurt them; what the Knicks have done is improve in other areas to try to compensate for their lack of rebounding.
Anyway, although the issues you brought up are interesting, they ignore my point: WoW places a heavy emphasis on rebounding but because the author of this post has an agenda to “prove” that Billups is a better player than Iverson he chose to ignore the effects of McDyess’ absence on Detroit’s rebounding and construct a series of straw man arguments about why Denver had early success while Detroit struggled after the trade.
On the other hand, I not only explained what happened to both teams early in the season but I predicted what will happen to them down the stretch–and we are already seeing early signs that things will go exactly as I predicted, particularly with Denver.
As I said, when Denver falls to 8-9 in the standings while Detroit ends up in the 3-4 spot it will be interesting to see how WoW attempts to spin this. I’ve yet to see or hear WoW ever admit to being wrong, so there will have to be some very “creative” writing about these subjects–or maybe Denver/Detroit will just be ignored for the rest of the season.
Tball
December 24, 2008
WoW doesn’t project placement. Wow projects wins. Detroit will finish with fewer wins than Denver.
Carmelo Anthony has missed the last two games with an elbow injury (yet the Nuggets split a home and home with the Blazers), which may have contributed to his off game against the Suns. Certainly, if missing a back-up center can cripple the Pistons, an injured Anthony can slow the Nuggets. And, since the Blazers were healthy, I assume we are not discounting that Nugget win sans Carmelo.
Side note: the Nuggets strength of schedule is now .523 according to Hollinger and Detroit’s is at .477 and each team has played a total of four games against the big 3 (Lakers, Celts, Cavs). Between now and Jan. 30 the Nuggets only have 6 games against the teams Mr. Friedman expects to make the playoffs from the West (if you count Dallas) and nary a team from the big 3 and that count only rises to 8 if you go to the end of Feb., so perhaps this scheduling convenience that has elevated Denver will continue through the end of the season. They’ve played 13 such games to date and have 9 more in March and April.
And again, with the loss of Camby in the off-season, if the Nuggets match last season’s win total (which may leave them as an 8th/9th seed), it will be further evidence that Billups is better than Iverson.
David Friedman
December 24, 2008
Tball:
I don’t understand your first comment. If WoW projects wins doesn’t that mean that WoW makes a win projection for each team? Therefore it should not be difficult to say where each team will finish in the standings based on all of those wins predictions.
Since I first posted my comment here, the Nuggets went 1-3 versus plus-.500 teams and dropped from second in the West to a tie for the 5th-6th best record, so I’m not doing too badly; I said that the Nuggets would be fighting for 8th by the end of the season and they are already rapidly moving in that direction.
I love how WoW and its supporters want to have things both ways (or multiple ways). Rebounding is important when comparing MJ to Rodman or Bynum to Kobe–but it merits not one mention when looking at what has happened to Detroit this year, even though that is THE glaringly obvious problem. Injuries to San Antonio and other contenders that allowed Denver to move up to second in the West for a minute and a half are not mentioned but now Melo has a sore elbow and that lets Billups off the hook. So is that how “objective” analysis works? Billups gets all the credit for all of Denver’s wins AND all of Detroit’s losses but when Denver loses it is because of factors beyond his control?
In the past four games during which Denver went 1-3, Billups shot 18-48 from the field and had 25 assists against 14 turnovers. He also had nine rebounds, including 0 in one game. Somehow, this all must be Iverson’s fault…
Let me get this straight: Billups is clearly better than Iverson and this will be proven by Denver having the same record/place in the standings with Billups that the Nuggets had with Iverson? Did you forget that Denver has a healthy and very productive Nene now, something that the Nuggets did not have when they had Camby?
It is just amazing to me the lengths that “objective” observers will go to simply because they find Iverson’s style of play unappealing to watch. You may not like how Iverson looks or what he says or his style of play but it is silly to construct so many straw man arguments to try to prove that a top level player is only average (I don’t dispute that Billups is one of the top pgs, although he is not as good now as he was a few years ago).
Again, I am saying that Detroit will finish 3rd-4th (fighting with Orlando), while Denver will be battling for the last playoff spot–and I don’t think that the Nuggets will get it. For WoW to be right, Detroit should fall from 3rd-4th and Denver should move up significantly in the standings, barring other changes that affect the balance of power in either conference (trades, more injuries, etc.).
If someone wants to rewrite the original post and factor in McDyess and extenuating factors on Iverson’s behalf, then we can talk about Melo’s balky elbow–and decide if it is more or less significant that San Antonio being without the services of a Finals MVP and a perennial Sixth Man Award candidate.
Tball
December 29, 2008
If WoW predicted the Pistons to win 45 games and that would place them fourth behind Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando, but Dwight Howard misses 40 games with a broken leg, which moves Detroit’s 45 win team to third, was WoW right or merely close? Why should a projection about Detroit’s performance be dependent on Dwight Howard’s health? Why judge a system based on an outcome it is not predicting? You put the disclaimer right in your post – “barring other changes that affect the balance of power in either conference.” When you make predictions like this, you build convenient excuses to explain why you were wrong (e.g., I was right about Denver, but who knew Shaq wouldn’t play 82 games).
Why is it that a disagreement with you is automatically a straw argument? You dismiss Detroit’s performance for a month because of a 20min/gm missing bench player, but Denver has trouble winning against talented teams without its all-star and that is evidence you know all?
You thought Nene was as good as Camby? I am assuming that was part of your prediction with Lindy’s? I accounted for Nene in one of my comments. And he has not been as productive as Camby. As I mentioned, the loss there is akin to the gain of trading Iverson away to pick up Billups, nearly negating each other.
Since your original post, Denver is now 3-3 and has dropped to third in the standings. Ten games ago, Denver was 1.5 games up on Utah and Phoenix and tied with Portland. Now they are 2.5 games up on Utah and Phoenix and a game up on Portland.
The objectivity here is not from liking/disliking how someone plays. The objectivity comes from having a formula related to statistical production that provides a numeric value for a player’s contribution on the court. Billups has been more productive per minute than Iverson. Denver does not need to outperform Detroit to do for this to be true. Denver will finish with a better record than Detroit and I suspect this finish will run counter to your predictions (4th in the East for Detroit and 9th in the West for Denver).
I don’t have a problem with Iverson’s game, per se, I have a problem with people’s perceptions of Iverson’s game. He averages 40 minutes/game, regularly among the league leaders, which causes him to accumulate counting stats that cause too many talking heads to overvalue his game. My problem is with per game stats being valued over per minute stats. Last season, Iverson had 7.1 assists per game to Billups 6.8. But Iverson needed 1000 minutes than Billups to run up 57 more assists. Iverson also had 31 more rebounds, but Billups was the better rebounder and the better passer and is a better shooter.
Last season Iverson had 2164 points on 1556 FG attempts. Billups had 1324 points on 877 FG attempts. Iverson gets 1.39 points per FGA while Billups gets 1.51 points per FGA. Take out made free throws (where Billups is a better shooter) and Iverson gets 1519 points on 1556 FGA to Billups’ 923 points on 877 FGA. Who would you rather have taking the shot?
Billups turns the ball over once every 16 minutes for his career. Iverson turns the ball over once every 11 minutes. Billups gets an assist about once every 6 minutes while Iverson is at about once every 7 minutes. Who would you rather give the ball to (and regardless of whether Iverson is a PG, he has always dominated the ball).
Changing Camby out for a healthy Nene cost Denver 12 wins. For WoW to be right, Denver simply needs to get close to last years record, essentially conveying that Billups is worth ten more wins per season than Iverson.
Straw arguments are built on ‘extenuating circumstances’, rationalizing that your logic wasn’t flawed, it was circumstances outside your control or that Denver only looks good because Manu was hurt. A prediction about Denver’s season does not require discussion of Anthony’s elbow unless he misses a significant portion of the season, but it is a good reason not to draw much from a three or four game window in which he was hurt.
David Friedman
December 30, 2008
Tball:
According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, a “straw man” is “an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily defeated.”
The title of this post is “Really the Answer is Iverson.” The author purports to prove that Iverson is the main reason that Detroit did not do so well in the immediate aftermath of the Iverson-Billups deal; this also implies that Billups is the main reason that Denver did well in the immediate aftermath of that trade.
Even if those dual points are correct–and I disagree completely that Iverson is to blame for Detroit’s record and I think that Billups, while certainly an important factor, has received too much credit for Denver’s wins–the argument presented in this post fits the definition of “straw man” perfectly. Here are two examples to illustrate this:
1) The sample size of games being considered is far too small to make definitive pronouncements–and, as I’ve shown, Denver played a weak schedule during the time in question. I predicted that once Denver started playing strong teams the Nuggets would lose to most of them and that has been proven out (yes, this is also a small sample but it is the continuation of a trend that has been true of this team for multiple seasons). I’m not suggesting that the article therefore should not have been written; I’m suggesting that the author (and WoW in general) should have a bit more humility or, to put it another way, at least consider the possibility that “past performance will not guarantee future results,” particularly when the past performance being considered is a few victories against weak teams, victories that do not in any way portend success against good teams down the stretch.
2) Detroit is adjusting to having a new coach and, partially because of that, the Pistons have been changing their player rotations. Also, McDyess is not just some guy who fills up 20 mpg in the boxscore. He is a vitally important player to the team. Ask anyone in the organization–anyone who truly understands the NBA, for that matter–and you will hear the same thing. Since stats are given more weight here than such observations, let it be noted that McDyess is also the team’s best rebounder and the most glaringly obvious thing about the Pistons this season is that without McDyess they dropped from being one of the best teams in rpg differential to one of the worst. It is inexcusable to write an article about Detroit’s record since the trade without even mentioning this once. McDyess was part of the trade!
This is the reason that I feel quite comfortable in asserting that deliberate bias is involved here. This is not an inadvertent mistake by WoW or the author, who I am sure is quite intelligent enough to be aware of the difference between Detroit on the glass with McDyess and without McDyess.
My predictions most assuredly did not “build convenient excuses to explain why (I was) wrong.” One, I haven’t been wrong about anything in this thread to this point, so I hardly need to make excuses: Detroit is doing better with McDyess and Denver is struggling against good teams, exactly as I predicted on both counts. What you are calling “excuses” are simply examples that show that, unlike WoW, I am acknowledging that there are multiple factors involved in determining a team’s ultimate record/finish in the standings. Really, the answer is not JUST Iverson (or Billups or McDyess or Camby, etc.).
What I am predicting is that barring a “game changing” shift in the status quo (injuries/trades involving significant players in the playoff races in either conference) Denver will be fighting for the last playoff spot by the end of the season (and I don’t think that the Nuggets will get that spot), while Detroit and Orlando will battle to the wire for the third/fourth spots in the East. I also asserted that Denver will have difficulty beating plus-.500 teams. Those are two specific, verifiable predictions, plus a corollary assessment that can be documented precisely at the end of the year (Denver’s w-l record versus plus-.500 teams will be a matter of fact, not opinion).
In the short time since I first commented on this post, we have already seen Detroit show marked improvement with the return of McDyess. The Pistons have won four straight, including a victory over the Magic that snapped Orlando’s seven game winning streak. The Magic were at full strength and had a day of rest prior to the game; Detroit also had a day of rest but the Pistons were without the services of All-Star Rip Hamilton. McDyess had a team-high eight rebounds as Detroit outrebounded Orlando 43-36.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets–as I predicted–are having trouble with plus-.500 teams and that is why they are 3-5 in their past eight games. Atlanta routed them 109-91 on Monday. They have also lost recently to Houston, Cleveland, Portland and Phoenix, with four of those five losses coming by at least nine points.
The Nuggets have dropped from clear second in the West to a tie for fourth-fifth. More significantly, they are just 1.5 games ahead of the teams currently tied for eighth-ninth, Phoenix and Utah. The Suns have been playing better recently after a slow start and the Jazz are a proven playoff contender that has been slowed by injuries. My contention is that when those teams are at full strength (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) they are superior to the Nuggets.
I’m not making “excuses” for anything; over the course of the season, I fully expect Utah and Phoenix to gain ground while the Nuggets keep losing to the better teams. The Nuggets will be in that eighth-ninth area before long and they will be in a real dogfight to get that last playoff spot.
So, I have told you where I expect both Detroit and Denver will finish in the standings and I have explained the reasoning behind my predictions. My reasoning in both instances is not based on a small sample of games or on biases for/against certain players but rather my observations not just of these two teams but also the other contenders in both conferences.
Just to be clear, I did not write the team preview about Denver for Lindy’s this season; I wrote the team preview about Denver for Lindy’s prior to Iverson’s first full season with the team (2007-08) and for some seasons prior to that as well. I brought that up in reference to the idea that “everybody” thought that the Nuggets would be a championship contender after acquiring Iverson; my point is that I went on the record publicly–and not just in Lindy’s, but also at my website–questioning whether the Nuggets were truly a championship contender. In my Lindy’s article I noted numerous reasons to be skeptical of Denver’s championship bona fides and in my Western Conference preview at 20 Second Timeout prior to the 2007-08 season, I picked the Nuggets to finish seventh in the West and wrote, “Carmelo Anthony is well on his way toward stringing together a Kevin Garnett-like run of first round playoff losses” (of course, that was before Garnett landed in Boston).
I correctly did not buy any hype about the Denver team back then and I again don’t buy any hype about Denver now.
As a general note, it should go without saying–but I’m going to say it anyway–that even the most knowledgeable NBA observer is not going to be 100% right in terms of making predictions. Getting one prediction right or wrong does not prove–or disprove–that one is an expert. My disagreement with WoW, not just with Iverson/Billups but in a larger sense, is the nature of the methodology being used and, more critically, the nature of the reasoning that is provided to buttress the conclusions drawn by using that methodology. The bottom line is that this post is poorly reasoned and poorly argued, even if by some miracle it would turn out that Denver stayed in second place all year while Detroit became a non-factor in the East; the likelihood that neither of those things is going to happen just accentuates all of the flaws regarding how this article was constructed and I would suggest that the fundamental nature of those flaws should lead intelligent readers to question the rationale behind other WoW conclusions as well, such as Andrew Bynum being more important to the Lakers than Kobe Bryant or Rodman being more valuable/efficient/productive than Jordan for the championship-winning Bulls team.
David Friedman
January 3, 2009
Now the Pistons own an NBA best six game winning streak and have moved to within a half game of fourth place in the East.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets are 5-5 in their last 10 and with their new, improved Billups-led defense they gave up 120 points to the Thunder and needed a buzzer beater to win the game. Yeah, they sure look like a team that is going to thrive in head to head competition against the top West teams…
Tball
January 5, 2009
If I recall, the Thunder also lost to Detroit recently on a buzzer beater (by Iverson), so it seems this point is simply one more flimsy straw in your straw argument.
The Piston’s competition over the last 10 has a .422 winning percentage, while the Nuggets’ has been at .527, so the Pistons are getting fat on a week schedule but still lag the Nuggets.
The eight other teams at the top of the West only comprise a portion of the Nuggets schedule – less than half. The Nuggets have won four of their last five, are still playing better basketball than the Pistons, and have a showdown with the Pistons coming up at the end of the week.
And db just posted a prediction for the Nuggets for this season (his first post-Billups trade prediction). 51 wins. As well as a discussion of why the Nuggets are where they are. The Nuggets will finish the season with more wins than Detroit, which would not have happened without the Billups trade.
David Friedman
January 5, 2009
Tball:
It’s pretty funny that since I made my comment everything has gone as I predicted for both teams and yet you continue to believe that I am mistaken. Will you remain in denial all season long or at some point will you at least consider the possibility that I am right?
More to the point, the larger issue here is not even what records these teams finish with but rather how to properly and logically make a case to explain their performances. It is important to not lose sight of the fact that my primary critique of this post is that it is poorly argued, which is to say that even if Iverson is the “answer” for both team’s records this post does not prove it because it leaves out vital contextual information–specifically, McDyess’ impact on Detroit is ignored, as is Denver’s penchant for beating up on weak teams while losing to strong ones, a trend that was equally evident when Iverson was on the team instead of Billups. You completely failed to address any of those issues.
Instead, you introduced your own strawmen/red herrings. The title of this post is “Really, the Answer is Iverson.” Nowhere in the post is schedule strength discussed. Therefore, I do not understand how any acolyte of WoW can arbitrarily decide to mention schedule strength now. If the answer really is Iverson, then the questions must be “Why does Detroit have the longest current winning streak in the NBA” and “Why has Denver dropped to fourth in the West after briefly being in clear second place?” You cannot have it both ways–in other words, you cannot support an anti-Iverson argument that is completely devoid of any context and then start bringing up all kinds of mitigating factors when things start turning out exactly as I predicted (i.e., Detroit doing better when McDyess returned, Denver losing to winning teams) .
Why did you arbitrarily choose to look at Denver’s last five games? The Nuggets are 6-4 since I posted my comment, beating Portland, Philly, N.Y., Toronto, OK City and New Orleans, while losing to Cleveland, Phx, Portland and Atlanta. That works out to 2-4 versus plus-.500 teams and 4-0 versus sub.-500 teams. This sure seems to support my contention that this year’s Nuggets, like last year’s Nuggets, beat up on the weak teams but lose to the good ones.
Again, if you wish to discuss relative schedule strength, buzzer beating wins against weak teams and so forth, then first acknowledge that the original post did not provide any such contextual information about Detroit. Once you admit that the original post was flawed because it did not include such information then we can have an intelligent discussion about McDyess, schedule strength and so forth and attempt to realistically determine the impact of such factors.
As for a specific wins prediction, it is possible that Denver will win 51 games this year; the Nuggets won 50 games last season, so that would hardly be a major improvement. Essentially, the Nuggets added Billups and Nene (who was hurt almost all of last season) for Iverson and Camby, while Chris Andersen has taken up most of the minutes used by Najera last season. WoW’s argument is that Billups is significantly better than Iverson, so a one game improvement would hardly support that contention. My prediction, as noted above, is that by the end of the season the Nuggets will be battling for the eighth spot and I think that they will fall just short. That probably works out to somewhere around 47-48 wins but I am more interested in the final standings than the exact win totals.
By what objective measure do you say that the Nuggets are “still playing better basketball than the Pistons”? During this season, Denver has a .636 winning percentage, while Detroit has a .633 winning percentage. The Pistons are 8-3 with McDyess since his return; they also won two games against sub-.500 teams with him sitting out, so the Pistons are 10-3 since 12/9/08; the Nuggets are 9-5 during that same period of time.
Tball
January 6, 2009
David,
Your arguments are as wispy as a quiet breeze and just as compelling. You scream Denver’s wonderful record at the time of the article was based upon beating up on weak teams, but they had played a strong schedule. Strength of schedule is not necessary to explain why Denver’s quality performance, but it does explain why your objects to the article are meritless.
You also screamed “small sample size” in your original post, but then point to convenient ten game periods to make your argument whereas the articles always discuss season-to-date. Arbitrarily picking data to make your point is worthless.
If Denver finishes with the same record as last year, then Billups is as much an upgrade over Iverson as Camby is an upgrade over Nene. That would bolster the argument that Billups is significantly better than Iverson.
The Pistons have has many wins against plus-.500 teams in the last 6 weeks as the Nuggets have managed in the past 3 weeks. If teams do not get credit for beating up on sub-.500 teams, then Detroit is only on a one game winning streak.
You will note that Billups’ record this season is 27-9, while Iverson’s is 18-14. And the Nuggets will win Friday, regardless of Anthony’s availability.
David Friedman
January 6, 2009
Tball:
My 10 game sample size for Denver (cited in my last comment) was selected in response to your five game sample size. You are aware that 10 games is twice as many as five, right?
If the Nuggets miss the playoffs this year like they missed the playoffs last year then it is irrational to argue that their moves–individually or collectively–represent an upgrade.
The Nuggets are an excellent home team that has a good record there versus Detroit over the years, so the Nuggets may very well win on Friday–but that has nothing to do with the subject of this post, nor my well reasoned objections to this post, not one of which you have bothered to discuss, let alone try to refute.
Apparently, you either are unwilling or unable to understand my argument as I presented it, so I will try one more time to simplify it for you, by breaking it down into easily digestible bullet points:
1) This post contends that the primary reason for Detroit’s won-loss record after the Iverson for Billups/McDyess trade is that Iverson is not as good as Billups.
2) This post flagrantly disregards the fact that McDyess was part of the trade and therefore absent from Detroit’s roster for a month, until the Pistons were allowed (by NBA rules) to re-sign him. How can anyone in good conscience write about the results of a trade without even once mentioning that one of the teams traded away its leading rebounder and did not receive a rebounder in return?
3) McDyess was Detroit’s leading rebounder last season, when the Pistons were one of the top teams in the NBA in rebounding differential.
4) Without McDyess’ services, the Pistons dropped to near the bottom of the league in rebounding differential and, not surprisingly, their winning percentage dropped correspondingly.
5) Since McDyess’ return, the Pistons have resumed winning at a high rate, even though All-Star guard Rip Hamilton is injured.
6) When Iverson was a Nugget, the Nuggets were pretty good at beating up on the weaker teams but did not do well against the strong teams.
7) That trend did not change when Billups joined the team.
8) Looking at strength of schedule purely by adding up opponent winning percentages in a small sample of games is deceptive; if you play Boston and Cleveland those are only two games on the schedule but it will make the strength of schedule “look” strong. Take Cleveland and Boston out of the equation and calculate Denver’s strength of schedule in the games right after Billups joined the team.
8) As I predicted in my comment, once the Nuggets started playing the better teams they started losing.
If all of that is too much for you to follow, then at least answer this:
How can one justify writing a post about the results of a trade without even mentioning a key player who was involved in that trade?
Bottom line, if you are unwilling or unable to address that issue regarding Detroit then it is hypocritical of you to turn around and start making excuses for Denver’s declining winning percentage.
David Friedman
January 6, 2009
Just to be clear, I did not intentionally put those smiley faces in my previous comment; I’m not sure how they got there, so no special meaning should be ascribed to them.
Tball
January 7, 2009
Your argument: if the Nuggets fail to make the playoffs, it is irrational to argue the trade is an upgrade – despite the fact they gave away Camby.
Then, by that logic, if Detroit fails to secure the second seed in the Eastern Conference, it is irrational to argue this trade is anything but a downgrade. And Rudy, Bayless, and Oden will not have improved Portland this year if they fail to make the playoffs (1.5 games ahead of 9th place Phoenix with a game against Detroit tonight). Absolutely preposterous.
Presumably, if Denver wins the Northwest Division, you’ll comeback to announce the trade was a terrific upgrade and Billups is far superior to Iverson.
You discount Nuggets victories because of the quality of opponent, but you ignore the fact that Detroit has only played one beaten one good team since McDyess returned. Detroit has a history of beating up on weak teams and strong teams. That pattern has changed with the trade.
Since the trade, Denver is 7-9 against plus-.500 teams. Detroit is 4-6 (yup only 10 of 32 games against plus-.500 teams). And, as a point of reference for the Northwest Division, Portland is 11-12 against plus-.500 teams and Utah is 6-8, so it seems their divisional competition does not play any better against plus-.500 teams.
The post didn’t mention that Denver gave away its best low post player or that Detroit was missing McDyess for 30 days. Billups’ record this season is 27-9 (4-0 with McDyess or Camby), while Iverson’s is 18-14 (8-2 with McDyess or Camby on the roster). You want to take away those games to make it more even? Billups would be 23-9 and Iverson 10-12. And Camby is a much better player than McDyess.
“The Nuggets may very well win on Friday?” The Carmelo-free Nuggets? Was this inserted in your comment by someone else, like the happy faces? Was this a line from David “the Nuggets do not do well against strong teams” Friedman? Has Detroit fallen from the second best team in the NBA last season to not a strong team in your opinion? Any trade you know of that might be the source of this? Or does the Lindy’s prognosticator only make predictions in magazines that are thrown away long before the results are in?
Come on champ, step up to the plate. Predict who will win this game and/or which team will finish the season with more wins.
David Friedman
January 7, 2009
Tball:
Why are you so suddenly interested in attempting to provide various forms of context now but completely unconcerned about the total lack of context in this post? Why do you refuse to address that issue at all? Are you satisfied with the “logic” employed in this post, namely that the sole “answer” for Detroit’s early season performance was swapping Billups for Iverson, even though McDyess was also included in the deal?
You are like a politician who, regardless of what question is asked, delivers his prepared spiel. You conspicuously fail to address what I have said, so why should I chase after your red herrings? In the context of this discussion, I don’t care about Portland, or who is better among Nene, Camby or McDyess, or who will win one regular season game. Indiana has beaten L.A. and Boston this year; does that prove anything about any of those teams or have any predictive value overall about this season? Instead of trying to look at larger, relevant sample sizes, you are progressively moving to smaller ones. Pretty soon, you will be asking me to predict whether or not Billups will outscore Iverson in the first 5:02 of Friday’s game.
Obviously, Melo’s injury will end up affecting the equation; now when Denver drops in the standings by performing the way that I predicted that the Nuggets would perform (over a period of time, not in any one particular game), there will be a convenient–and to some degree valid–explanation. Was that Jeff Foster or Dave Berri who broke Melo’s hand? (just kidding)
As long as Detroit stays reasonably healthy, though, we will be able to monitor the Pistons’ progress and see if they can in fact move past Atlanta and challenge Orlando for the third best record in the East, as I predicted above.
I don’t understand why you are more interested in specific win total predictions rather than seedings (which will ultimately prove to be more important) but if I had to assign a predicted win total for each team right now I would say that Detroit will win 52-53 games this season and Denver, as I said above, will win 47-48 games. The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now; we can argue the relative individual merits of Iverson and Billups ad infinitum but this deal was not truly a status changer for either team this season (what it may mean down the road in terms of salary cap implications, other trades and so forth is a different discussion altogether). Does that mean that Detroit will win one specific road game in Denver? Not necessarily.
Tball
January 8, 2009
Quid pro quo. You gave a prediction, I’ll address your context question. The article provided all the content that was needed.
If you look at table one, it provided a projected win total for 07-08 and 08-09 using this season’s minutes (current up to the posting of the article). Thus the projection of last season’s win total of 48 wins only assigned 105 minutes to McDyess over the first 22 games and his minutes were divided between Kwame, Amir, and Maxiell, who combined (averaged) for a WP48 of about .150 compared to McDyess’s .172. A difference of .02 WP48 would take 2400 minutes to cost Detroit one win ((2400/48 minutes)*.02 = 1 win). That’s a non-story.
This season, Kwame, Amir, and Maxiell are combining for a WP48 of about .100 to McDyess’s .108. That would take 4800 minutes to cost Detroit one win. That’s a non-story. Even if, for the sake of conjecture, you argue McDyess would have put up the .172 WP48 of last season, .07 WP48 better than the replacement parts, it would still take his missing over 700 minutes to cost Detroit one win. McDyess only missed out on about 450 minutes (we’ll call it .7 wins). Stuckey’s improved play has been worth two additional wins. Iverson in place of Billups is costing Detroit at least .15 WP48 for more than 2500 minutes in the season. That’s a difference of no less than 8 wins. Which story would you write about?
I would expect David frequently crunches numbers and finds certain issues are of little magnitude. To spend his time writing about these non-issues when he barely has the time to write about issues would be a waste.
‘Melo’s injury will not affect the equation. His contributions this season have been that of an average player (.100 WP48). Kleinza presently charts as closer to 0 WP48, unfortunately. Even over 12 games or so, that shouldn’t cost Denver more than a game. Not much more consequential than Detroit missing McDyess.
You made the statement Denver still doesn’t beat good teams, but they are only a game under .500 against plus-.500 teams, just like their contemporaries in the top half of the West.
I’m not suggesting the Friday result decides whether Iverson or Billups is better. I’m suggesting it challenges your statement that Denver cannot beat good teams and/or that Detroit is a good team. And suggesting you think Denver will win diminishes your conviction in that statement.
You made the statement Detroit has the longest winning streak in the NBA – who has that title now?
You predict Detroit will finish the season with 5 more wins than Denver. I predict Denver will win more games than Detroit, which will happen because Detroit will not get to 50 wins. Now we have more than half a season to watch it happen.
David Friedman
January 8, 2009
Tball:
All of this WP/48 business that you are citing is hocus-pocus (which is really my main point, not that I expect everyone here to accept that but this post was so devoid of relevant context that I had to say something).
The actual, relevant, real world numbers that matter pertaining to Detroit’s early season performance is that Detroit went from being one of the top teams in the league in rebounding differential last season to one of the worst teams in the league in rebounding differential sans McDyess, who was the team’s leading rebounder last year.
Again, regardless of how you twist the numbers (the old line about lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind), it makes no sense to write about a trade that involved three primary rotation players and totally disregard the contributions of one of those players, particularly when that player led his old team in precisely the main statistical area in which that team began to struggle as soon as he departed.
Point blank, McDyess should have been mentioned in the post and it is very deceptive to leave him out of the equation (no pun intended).
Kwame Brown is one of the worst big men in the league and any Lakers’ observer could have told you that giving him minutes that used to belong to McDyess would spell trouble (ironically, one of Brown’s few semi-good performances of the season came against his old team).
Even though McDyess is battling some minor injuries (and the rust from being off for a month) he once again is leading Detroit in rpg this season.
My predictions about the final seedings/records of these two teams are not based on trying to justify the inner workings of a particular form of stat analysis. What I am saying is that based on the roster composition of these teams and the roster composition of the teams that they are competing against for playoff positioning, I expect Detroit to perform better in the second half of the season than the first while I expect Denver to perform worse in the second half of the season. Denver’s winning percentage against the other eight plus-.500 teams in the West will not be quite as good as the winning percentages of those other teams versus each other and that will cause Denver to drop to the eighth/ninth position (I am predicting ninth but would not be shocked by eighth, as I’ve said all along).
Since you consider Melo’s impact to be minor (I consider him to be less valuable than most observers but would not totally dismiss him the way that you did in your comment), does that mean that when Denver performs poorly in the upcoming stretch against plus.-500 teams you will consider that a confirmation of what I am saying and not dismiss it as being caused by his absence?
By the way, Detroit’s league-leading winning streak was ended by a one point loss in Portland while playing without All-Stars Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton.
Tball
January 9, 2009
DF,
You captured my problem with your injury discussion in a nutshell. Detroit wins and they are heaven’s gift. Detroit loses and there is a mitigating circumstance to rationalize why the loss should have been a win. Denver loses and they are worthless. Denver wins and there is a mitigating circumstance (injury on the opposing team, home game, etc.) so that the win should be ignored. The statistics don’t bend over backwards to rationalize close-minded support of preseason judgments.
If Denver had played that game you wouldn’t have mentioned Anthony, you’d have mentioned they lost to a plus-.500 team. And if Denver had won, you’d have mentioned the Blazers were without Roy (which you neglected in Detroit’s loss).
Denver has had some injuries. Denver has missed people they had last season. Detroit has had some injuries. Detroit has missed people they had last season. Detroit had injuries last season. Denver had injuries last season. Detroit finished 9 games better than Denver last season. Denver has a better record than Detroit now and has since early in the season. Detroit will finish worse than Denver this season and the Iverson-Billups trade is why.
Denver has 9 games in January against plus-.500 teams. Based on their record coming into the month, a 4-5 record against those teams would be expected. Yes, I’d still expect them to play to that level despite Anthony’s injury, although that wasn’t the entirety of my point. An injury that causes one player on a basketball TEAM to miss a small portion of the season will not significantly impact the end-of-season record. ‘Melo also hasn’t played 82 games in a season since his rookie year, so a prediction that has to be downgraded when he misses a few games, even ten to 12 games, is flawed.
I am not making this prediction to justify db’s stat. There are far more meaningful ways to justify a stat, and David has justified WoW in his book and other posts. Since you clearly do not put any stock in the statistic, I am giving you an independent reason to appreciate that Billups does more to bring his team a victory than Iverson – a 10+ game swing in the standings despite Denver’s surrender of a season’s worth of Camby (far more meaningful then a few weeks of no ‘melo). I am hoping you see value in the W-L statistic.
I won’t make excuses at season’s end. Similarly, if Denver outperforms your expectations (and I haven’t taken the time to predict finishes for NO/Hou/Pho/Utah/Por/Dal/SA, so I won’t predict placement beyond them collectively being grouped 2-9) I don’t expect to hear excuses about the injuries to Yao/Boozer/McGrady/Shaq/Grant Hill/Deron/Oden/Roy/Howard/Manu/Parker – unless they wipe out more than half the player’s season. Injuries happen and plenty of stars fail to play 82 games. The last thing I want to read is one more tired explanation of how, if circumstances had been different, your prediction would have been right. All you need to be a good prognosticator is a little poetic license as you rewrite history after the fact.
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W L GB Win Pace
Denver 25 12 – 55
Detroit 21 12 2 52
I_Hate_Flowers
January 10, 2009
Detroit 93, Denver 90.
In Denver.
Tball wrote “You will note that Billups’ record this season is 27-9, while Iverson’s is 18-14. And the Nuggets will win Friday, regardless of Anthony’s availability.”
Tball: Owned by David Friedman.
Not really, but by Tball imbecilic standards TBall himself would think so. Because if Denver had won, TBall would be boasting of it right now. But he was wrong on two counts:
Wrong in believing one game was significant in supporting his theories, and wrong in the actual prediction, too.
David Friedman
January 10, 2009
Tball:
I really don’t need to hear from you what I supposedly “would have said” if this, that or the other would have happened, particularly since you are struggling to come up with good answers for what I actually have said.
Let’s keep it real simple. This post purports to analyze the results of the Billups/McDyess-Iverson trade–but it neglects to even mention McDyess’ impact at all, despite the fact that he was his team’s leading rebounder last season (and is that same team’s leading rebounder now that they have re-signed him).
All I have said is that this post is completely devoid of meaningful context. I stand by that statement and you have not even come close to refuting that point.
You seem incapable of understanding that regardless of how these teams finish this post did not even begin to prove what it claims in the title. I don’t care if Detroit wins 20 in a row or loses 20 in a row, this post, written in this format (devoid of context), does not prove anything. The post will look even more foolish by the end of the season when we see both teams’ records, but that is a side issue from my perspective.
I then stated why Denver will fall in the standings by the end of the season and also said that I expect Detroit to challenge for the third spot in the East by the end of the season. Anyone reading your comments and mine can pretty quickly tell who is using strawmen, red herrings and cherry picked arguments.
By the way, those records should now read:
Denver 25-13
Detroit 22-12
By the way, it may interest you to see who led Detroit in scoring (Iverson, 23 points) and who led Detroit in rebounding (McDyess, 12 rebounds) on Friday night. I know, I know, based on WoW’s numbers Billups actually won the game due to his efficiency and Iverson actually lost the game but the NBA stubbornly will not list the game that way in the standings.
Tball
January 12, 2009
DF
You’ve written ten times the characters db used on this page and you still haven’t provided half the content. The article is not simply analyzing the results of the trade. The article is analyzing how surrendering Billups for Iverson (and, at this point, that is all this trade was) made Detroit worse. Specifically:
“Regardless of what’s going on with Hamilton, the big story is what the Pistons could expect from their current roster. Remember, Detroit won 59 games last year. This year – given what these players did last year – the team shouldn’t be expected to get to 50 victories.
People have argued that Detroit’s decline is all about coaching or chemistry. But do we need to search this hard for an explanation? …
“Replacing Chauncey Billups – a very productive point guard – with Iverson (a player who has never been far above average in production), means your team is going to lose more often. It’s not coaching. It’s not chemistry. It’s simply a roster move where a player who produced many wins was replaced by someone who produces less. In sum, the Answer is Iverson.”
The article then showed how many wins Iverson has produced over the years and how many wins Billups has produced over the years and concluded Detroit had made itself substantially worse this season to create cap space – a conclusion reached by other pundits as well.
McDyess’s impact was minimal, so why mention it. The article also doesn’t mention whether Dumars was wearing a tie when he executed the trade – who cares.
How will you explain it when Detroit’s win total drops by more than ten wins from last season? Are you going to blame missing McDyess? A new coach? Rasheed is older? All worthless because … (you know its coming) …
Really the Answer is Iverson.
David Friedman
January 12, 2009
Tball:
The error in your first paragraph precisely shows the problem with this post and your comments. You wrote, “The article is analyzing how surrendering Billups for Iverson (and, at this point, that is all this trade was) made Detroit worse.” In fact, “at this point” the trade consisted of Iverson for Billups/McDyess. Only later have the Pistons brought back McDyess. So it is incorrect to analyze the early results of the trade without mentioning that the Pistons gave up their leading rebounder.
The Pistons did not “make themselves substantially worse” than they were prior to the trade. The correct comparison is not with what Detroit achieved in previous years but what they reasonably could be expected to achieve this year vis a vis the other top teams in the East. I had Detroit as the third best team in the East prior to the start of the season. I still think that by season’s end the Pistons will be the third best team in the East. Trading Billups for Iverson did not substantially change how good the Pistons are, though it did alter some aspects of how they play.
Nor did this trade make Denver a better team, as will become very obvious by the end of the season.
If you think that what tie Dumars was wearing is of equal significance to a team giving up its leading rebounder–and that saying so is either clever or a meaningful contribution to this thread–then you are even more misguided than your comments suggest.
Tball
January 13, 2009
The day after the trade was announced, comments were circulated that McDyess would be bought out and return to Detroit. Don’t you keep up with this stuff? I’ve linked to an article by Marc Stein from Nov. 4th saying the same – before the trade was consumated.
The original db article was posted after McDyess had played three December games for Detroit. He was back. McDyess didn’t play for Denver and had already returned to Detroit. How much of an article did you want about him?
If he is so significant why doesn’t he start? Why doesn’t he average more than 25 minutes a game. Yes, losing a top bench player for 30 days is not significant in a blog that writes about each team twice over the course of the NBA season.
Misguided is putting up more than one comment in this post for each game McDyess missed.
I don’t care if Detroit finishes third or eighth in the EC. If they slip ten games or more in the win column and the only significant season-to-season roster change is Iverson instead of Billups, you are going to argue they are equal talents? If you can’t see the change, you aren’t looking closely.
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W L GB Win Pace
Denver 25 13 – 54
Detroit 22 13 1.5 52
When you lose, I’ll send flowers.
David Friedman
January 13, 2009
Tball:
Does Manu Ginobili start for San Antonio? I guess he must not be an important player.
What part of “leads his team in rebounding” and “fell from near the top of the league in rebounding differential to near the bottom of the league in rebounding differential” don’t you understand?
How can you possibly believe that it is fair/justified/rational to do an entire post about a trade and not even mention one of the principal parties? It does not matter that McDyess was expected to re-sign with Detroit. The fact is that he missed a month’s worth of games–precisely the games for which Berri boldly declared that Iverson is “the answer.”
I notice that he has not had much to say in this thread, because there is no rational, objective way to disagree with my critique of this post. I’m not saying that Iverson is better than Billups or vice versa; I’m saying that this post was poorly constructed. As a side issue, I explained how both teams will perform down the stretch of this season and the early returns have matched my prediction quite nicely.
Before the season, I picked Detroit to finish third in the East. I don’t see that this trade has made that big of a difference now that McDyess is back but Orlando is a little better than I expected, which is why I said that Detroit and Orlando will fight for the third spot by the end of the season.
I didn’t predict that the Pistons would match last year’s win total, so whether or not they do has nothing to do with what I have written here. You asked me to supply a predicted win total for both teams because that interests you for some reason, so I did so, but my predictions have to do with playoff seeding, not win totals.
Tball
January 14, 2009
DF
The db article is not simply looking at what happened to date (which was Dec. 16th) but trending forward to what would happen. Missing McDyess for a month over the course of a season is a blip.
San Antonio missed Manu for 12 games and after 36 games they are right where they belong, so that would also be a blip.
Giving up Billups for Iverson is not a blip, which is why this article was written. Detroit made themselves substantially worse and Detroit made themselves substantially better than they were when the season started (unfortunately they also made themselves substantially worse than they were last season by giving away Camby).
You enumerated multiple points in your first two posts in this thread and waited until the fourth point in each to get to McDyess. The point of the article was the difference in talent of these two players, who are both better than McDyess and have changed teams we presume for 78 games of the season, made Denver better and Detroit worse. Denver is on pace to finish with more wins than last season and with a better playoff seed. Detroit is on pace to finish with a worse record and a worse playoff seed. Denver is outpacing your win and seed predictions, while Detroit is falling short. Maybe the points you believe db failed to recognize are less relevant than you understand (will the real strawmen please stand up).
Detroit is 7.5 games back of Orlando (4 more than on 12/19 when you reported “3.5 and shrinking”), not much of a fight, although they may be in one to stay ahead of Atlanta and Miami. Denver is a two seed again, now 3.5 games ahead of the 9th WC team, and 3-1 against plus-.500 teams in January. Which of these predictions is “matching your predictions quite nicely”?
This article, this blog, is about wins. If Detroit’s win expectation falls back by ten games and db writes to explain why they are falling, what sense is a response that says “I predicted they’d finish third, and now they will fight for third with Orlando because Orlando is better than I thought, but Detroit isn’t really worse than I thought because they are getting the seed I expected.” The article is not about seeds, it is not about Orlando, and it is not about you. It is about wins. The book is called “Wages of Wins”, not “Wages of Seeds” or “Wages of Friedman’s Seed Expectations if Orlando Performs as Expected and McDyess Does Not Miss Significant Time.” If you don’t think wins and win totals are worth writing about in basketball, find a different blog.
The results speak for themselves.
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 26 13 – 55
Detroit 22 14 2.5 50
Billups 29 10 –
Iverson 19 17 8.5
David Friedman
January 15, 2009
Tball:
I must have missed something. Is the season already over? If we are talking about “projecting” wins, then we won’t know who is right until the end of the season–and, as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins. Your little contest with yourself does not interest me.
Also, before you become overconfident you should take a look back at the midseason NBA standings in years past and compare them to the final standings. There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.
I told you which seed I expect each of these teams to have by the end of the season, not the middle of January. Obviously, both teams have experienced ebbs and flows since the trade. I still have not seen Denver run off a string of wins against good teams but I have seen you stick your foot in your mouth by boldly predicting that Denver would beat Detroit in their head to head battle. Should I send you flowers for that game?
The real point that you completely fail to understand is that Iverson–alone–is no more the “answer” regarding Detroit’s record than Billups–alone–is the “answer” regarding Denver’s record.
When Manu was out, the Spurs struggled. He came back and now they are playing much better. An early season article about the Spurs that neglected to mention Manu’s absence would be just as tendentious and fraudulent as this article, which purports to explain Detroit’s record without noting that the team was missing its leading rebounder.
When McDyess was gone, the Pistons struggled. Since he came back, they have improved. Meanwhile, All-Stars Sheed and Rip have missed time, which has somewhat mitigated the impact of McDyess’ return.
Apparently, it is impossible for you to believe that anyone other than the players who interest you (Iverson, Billups) can affect a team’s w-l record.
My main point was, is and remains that this article is sloppy from a journalistic standpoint–writing about a trade without mentioning a principal party in that trade–and sloppy from a statistical standpoint; it is ironic–and telling–that a site that relies so much on rebounding chooses to neglect to note the impact of McDyess’ rebounding on Detroit’s early record because discussing that subject does not fit the longstanding “meta-story” of bashing Iverson as an average player.
Obviously, it is easier to attract attention by making outrageous claims about Iverson as opposed to really analyzing the game objectively and trying to figure out why a team is winning or not.
David Friedman
January 15, 2009
Tball:
Is the season already over? If we are talking about “projecting” wins, then we won’t know who is right until the end of the season–and, as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins. Your little contest with yourself does not interest me.
Also, before you become overconfident you should take a look back at the midseason NBA standings in years past and compare them to the final standings. There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.
I told you which seed I expect each of these teams to have by the end of the season, not the middle of January. Obviously, both teams have experienced ebbs and flows since the trade. I still have not seen Denver run off a string of wins against good teams but I have seen you stick your foot in your mouth by boldly predicting that Denver would beat Detroit in their head to head battle. Should I send you flowers for that game?
The real point that you completely fail to understand is that Iverson–alone–is no more the “answer” regarding Detroit’s record than Billups–alone–is the “answer” regarding Denver’s record.
When Manu was out, the Spurs struggled. He came back and now they are playing much better. An early season article about the Spurs that neglected to mention Manu’s absence would be just as tendentious and fraudulent as this article, which purports to explain Detroit’s record without noting that the team was missing its leading rebounder.
When McDyess was gone, the Pistons struggled. Since he came back, they have improved. Meanwhile, All-Stars Sheed and Rip have missed time, which has somewhat mitigated the impact of McDyess’ return.
Apparently, it is impossible for you to believe that anyone other than the players who interest you (Iverson, Billups) can affect a team’s w-l record.
My main point was, is and remains that this article is sloppy from a journalistic standpoint–writing about a trade without mentioning a principal party in that trade–and sloppy from a statistical standpoint; it is ironic–and telling–that a site that relies so much on rebounding chooses to neglect to note the impact of McDyess’ rebounding on Detroit’s early record because discussing that subject does not fit the longstanding “meta-story” of bashing Iverson as an average player.
Obviously, it is easier to attract attention by making outrageous claims about Iverson as opposed to really analyzing the game objectively and trying to figure out why a team is winning or not.
David Friedman
January 15, 2009
Tball:
I must have missed something. Is the season already over? If we are talking about “projecting” wins, then we won’t know who is right until the end of the season–and, as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins. Your little contest with yourself does not interest me.
Also, before you become overconfident you should take a look back at the midseason NBA standings in years past and compare them to the final standings. There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.
I told you which seed I expect each of these teams to have by the end of the season, not the middle of January. Obviously, both teams have experienced ebbs and flows since the trade. I still have not seen Denver run off a string of wins against good teams but I have seen you stick your foot in your mouth by boldly predicting that Denver would beat Detroit in their head to head battle. Should I send you flowers for that game?
The real point that you completely fail to understand is that Iverson–alone–is no more the “answer” regarding Detroit’s record than Billups–alone–is the “answer” regarding Denver’s record.
When Manu was out, the Spurs struggled. He came back and now they are playing much better. An early season article about the Spurs that neglected to mention Manu’s absence would be just as tendentious and fraudulent as this article, which purports to explain Detroit’s record without noting that the team was missing its leading rebounder.
When McDyess was gone, the Pistons struggled. Since he came back, they have improved. Meanwhile, All-Stars Sheed and Rip have missed time, which has somewhat mitigated the impact of McDyess’ return.
Apparently, it is impossible for you to believe that anyone other than the players who interest you (Iverson, Billups) can affect a team’s w-l record.
My main point was, is and remains that this article is sloppy from a journalistic standpoint–writing about a trade without mentioning a principal party in that trade–and sloppy from a statistical standpoint; it is ironic–and telling–that a site that relies so much on rebounding chooses to neglect to note the impact of McDyess’ rebounding on Detroit’s early record because discussing that subject does not fit the longstanding “meta-story” of bashing Iverson as an average player.
David Friedman
January 15, 2009
Tball:
Is the season already over? If we are talking about “projecting” wins, then we won’t know who is right until the end of the season–and, as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins. Your little contest with yourself does not interest me.
Also, before you become overconfident you should take a look back at the midseason NBA standings in years past and compare them to the final standings. There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.
Truth in Advertising
January 15, 2009
Tball:
Is the season already over? If we are talking about “projecting” wins, then we won’t know who is right until the end of the season–and, as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins. Your little contest with yourself does not interest me.
Also, before you become overconfident you should take a look back at the midseason NBA standings in years past and compare them to the final standings. There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.
I told you which seed I expect each of these teams to have by the end of the season, not the middle of January. Obviously, both teams have experienced ebbs and flows since the trade. I still have not seen Denver run off a string of wins against good teams but I have seen you stick your foot in your mouth by boldly predicting that Denver would beat Detroit in their head to head battle. Should I send you flowers for that game?
The real point that you completely fail to understand is that Iverson–alone–is no more the “answer” regarding Detroit’s record than Billups–alone–is the “answer” regarding Denver’s record.
When Manu was out, the Spurs struggled. He came back and now they are playing much better. An early season article about the Spurs that neglected to mention Manu’s absence would be just as tendentious and fraudulent as this article, which purports to explain Detroit’s record without noting that the team was missing its leading rebounder.
When McDyess was gone, the Pistons struggled. Since he came back, they have improved. Meanwhile, All-Stars Sheed and Rip have missed time, which has somewhat mitigated the impact of McDyess’ return.
Apparently, it is impossible for you to believe that anyone other than the players who interest you (Iverson, Billups) can affect a team’s w-l record.
My main point was, is and remains that this article is sloppy from a journalistic standpoint–writing about a trade without mentioning a principal party in that trade–and sloppy from a statistical standpoint; it is ironic–and telling–that a site that relies so much on rebounding chooses to neglect to note the impact of McDyess’ rebounding on Detroit’s early record because discussing that subject does not fit the longstanding “meta-story” of bashing Iverson as an average player.
Obviously, it is easier to attract attention by making outrageous claims about Iverson as opposed to really analyzing the game objectively and trying to figure out why a team is winning or not.
Tball
January 15, 2009
DF (you don’t need to go changing your name and hiding your identity)
You’re the self-described Liddy prognosticator. Yet all you do is make vague predictions, then prop up extenuating circumstances when your predictions falter. Today there are “no trophies for doing well in November, December or January”, but on Jan. 5th “It’s pretty funny that since I made my comment everything has gone as I predicted for both teams and yet you continue to believe that I am mistaken. ”
Denver loses a game, and you tout your predictions coming to pass. Denver wins a game and you trumpet the season is not over. Why must your message vacilate with every game?
As I’ve mentioned several times, a point you clearly have not understood or addressed, McDyess’s absence meant less than one game in the loss column over the course of the season. Stuckey’s improvement, the decline of Amir and Maxiell (sp?) have all meant more to the Detroit season than McDyess’s absence. None of these points were mentioned because they individually have minimally impacted the season compared to The Trade.
The article did not simply hone in on the play of the team through 22 games. db said “given what these players did last year – the team shouldn’t be expected to get to 50 victories.” He cited to a full season of McDyess to say that win expectations should fall at least 10 games for this team.
I was wrong about the Denver-Detroit game, but more importantly you also thought Denver would win. As you said, getting one prediction wrong doesn’t disprove one is an expert, so I will allow you this error.
Why is the article “bashing” Iverson. It is saying that Billups is much better than Iverson, a point with which (in your twenty posts here) you have yet to disagree. He called Iverson an average NBA player. I’d love to be an average player.
And, to date, the statements db made are bearing out – Denver is outpacing last season despite giving away this year’s best rebounder and second best shot-blocker, and Detroit is underperforming last season despite having a primarily identical roster and is no longer tracking toward 50 wins.
The results speak for themselves.
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 26 13 – 55
Detroit 22 15 3 49
Billups 29 10 –
Iverson 19 18 8.5
Truth in Advertising
January 15, 2009
Tball:
I’m not hiding my identity; the site would not accept my comment under my real name, which I guess is a not so subtle way of indicating that our dialogue (or at least my side of it) is coming to an end. Are you a paid employee of WoW or just a true believer?
You’ll “allow me the error” of YOUR incorrect prediction about the Denver-Detroit game? That is a fitting place to end this discussion.
Truth in Advertising
January 15, 2009
Tball:
Just to clarify this whole “predicting” thing, you wrote:
“And the Nuggets will win Friday, regardless of Anthony’s availability.”
I said, “The Nuggets are an excellent home team that has a good record there versus Detroit over the years, so the Nuggets may very well win on Friday–but that has nothing to do with the subject of this post, nor my well reasoned objections to this post, not one of which you have bothered to discuss, let alone try to refute.”
And: “The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now; we can argue the relative individual merits of Iverson and Billups ad infinitum but this deal was not truly a status changer for either team this season (what it may mean down the road in terms of salary cap implications, other trades and so forth is a different discussion altogether). Does that mean that Detroit will win one specific road game in Denver? Not necessarily.”
I made it perfectly clear that the outcome of one regular season game is meaningless and, unlike you, I never said that Denver would win. You own that faulty prediction all by yourself, so don’t drag my name into it.
If you ever remove the blinders from your eyes, then someday you could join me in having an intelligent discussion about why NBA teams win and lose games. For now, it is pointless for me to continue going back and forth with you.
This is what I have said/predicted, so don’t get things twisted:
1) It is irresponsible journalism/bad statistical analysis to analyze a trade without discussing all of the principals involved in the trade.
2) The writer simultaneously proposed that Dumars knew the Pistons would be worse this season and then blamed Iverson when the Pistons did not do well right after the trade.
3) Denver will battle for the eighth/ninth playoff seed, just like last year.
4) Detroit will battle for the third/fourth playoff seed with Orlando.
Conclusions:
With McDyess back in the fold, this trade was not a status changer for either team this season (the salary cap implications will possibly help Detroit down the line).
It is funny that you accuse me of waffling. What I am doing is analyzing the multiple factors that affect how well NBA teams perform. Apparently, you have spent so much time memorizing the tendentious posts here that you cannot tell the difference between analysis and waffling. I’ve never wavered from any of my predictions; I’ve just explained why various things have happened.
Whether you like it or not, injuries, key players being out of the lineup for a month and other factors affect wins/losses. There are larger issues here than Berri’s obsession with stating that Iverson is an average NBA player.
Tball
January 15, 2009
DF
At least now you are waffling between paragraphs instead of between games:
“It is irresponsible journalism/bad statistical analysis to analyze a trade without discussing all of the principals involved in the trade” and “With McDyess back in the fold, this trade was not a status changer”. If McDyess coming back didn’t change the status of the team, why do you feel he needed to be discussed in an article about the Piston’s chances going forward?
This is what you’ve predicted, so things don’t get twisted:
1) “At the start of the season, I had Denver missing the playoffs entirely” Has Denver become better since then? How?
2) “Before the season, I picked the Pistons to be the third best team in the East” and, more recently, “this trade is not a status changer”
3) “Orlando currently is 3.5 games ahead of Detroit, so I am saying that margin will shrink” and “It’s pretty funny that since I made my comment everything has gone as I predicted for both teams ”
4) “As for Denver, prior to the season I picked them to miss the playoffs. Looking at their roster and the rosters of the other top teams in the West, I still think that they will miss the playoffs”
5) “When we have a large enough sample size of games to consider, my prediction is that this year’s Denver team will turn out to be not too much different from last year’s team.” and, a few days later “Since I first posted my comment here, the Nuggets went 1-3 versus plus-.500 teams and dropped from second in the West to a tie for the 5th-6th best record, so I’m not doing too badly”
6) On Dec. 19th “Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not. ” and today “There are no trophies for doing well in November, December or January.”
7) “When Iverson was a Nugget, the Nuggets were pretty good at beating up on the weaker teams but did not do well against the strong teams. That trend did not change when Billups joined the team.” 9-10 against plus-.500 teams since The Trade. 7-7 against the other teams that make up the top 9 in the West. “I also asserted that Denver will have difficulty beating plus-.500 teams. Those are two specific, verifiable predictions, plus a corollary assessment that can be documented precisely at the end of the year (Denver’s w-l record versus plus-.500 teams will be a matter of fact, not opinion).”
8) “I would say that Detroit will win 52-53 games this season and Denver, as I said above, will win 47-48 games”
9) “Why do I think Denver will plummet?” “The Blazers added Oden to their good mix of perimeter players. They were already a dangerous team last year and now they have some legitimate paint presence. Roy keeps improving, too.” and “I don’t care about Portland.”
10) “the Nuggets may very well win on Friday” and “I have seen you stick your foot in your mouth by boldly predicting that Denver would beat Detroit.”
11) “What I am doing is analyzing the multiple factors that affect how well NBA teams perform” and “extenuating factors on Iverson’s behalf”, “mitigated the impact of McDyess’ return”, “Anyone reading your comments and mine can pretty quickly tell who is using strawmen, red herrings and cherry picked arguments.”
12) “In fact, “at this point” the trade consisted of Iverson for Billups/McDyess. Only later have the Pistons brought back McDyess.” and “It does not matter that McDyess was expected to re-sign with Detroit.”
13) “What I am predicting is that barring a “game changing” shift in the status quo (injuries/trades involving significant players in the playoff races in either conference)” When has a season passed without any significant players for a playoff team in either conference getting injured. Heck, this quote already puts any predictions you have made for this season in the crapper.
14) “I haven’t been wrong about anything in this thread.” You can’t go wrong at the Waffle House.
Truth in Advertising
January 16, 2009
Tball:
Obviously, what I meant in my comment about McDyess is that with him back they will be no worse going forward then they would have been had they kept Billups. The Pistons struggled without McDyess, then won eight of 11 games after he returned and helped to solve their rebounding problems.
1) Last year, the Nuggets were 24-16 after 40 games. This year they are 27-13. Is that a substantial improvement?
By the way, Denver is currently 3.5 games ahead of the eighth (final) playoff spot in the West. When they lose to the top teams down the stretch–and they will–it will not take long to drop to the eighth/ninth spot.
2) Again, the trade will not be a “status changer” by the end of the season. My predictions, as I have made very clear, relate to what the final seedings will be. The trade certainly changed Detroit’s status for the month that McDyess was out.
3) Well, the lead did shrink and then since that time the Pistons have been without two All-Stars (Rip, Sheed) and Orlando’s lead grew again. This might not fit into your Berri-driven world view that the “answer” for everything is Iverson but most teams that lose two All-Stars struggle.
4) I stand by this statement. Their roster, at full strength, is not better than the full strength rosters of the other eight West playoff contenders.
5-11) I have already addressed these points
12) You are taking my statement–“It does not matter that McDyess was expected to re-sign with Detroit”–completely out of context. Are you intentionally twisting my words or are you just incapable of understanding simple English?
You had just said that everyone knew that the Pistons were going to re-sign McDyess. My reply was “It does not matter that McDyess was expected to re-sign with Detroit”–meaning that what people knew was irrelevant because the Pistons were without his services for a month and they struggled mightily during that time.
Since you cannot refute my points, you have now sadly decided to twist and turn my comments. That is pathetic.
Truth in Advertising
January 16, 2009
Tball:
Of course, since you are devoting so much energy to defending a post that is faulty precisely because it is devoid of relevant context I guess I should not be surprised that your response to my refutations of that post is to selectively quote my comments out of context as well.
Tball
January 16, 2009
DF you are at it again.
1) “Bottom line, Denver has a 2.5 game lead over 8th-9th place with 57 games to go. ” on Dec. 19. Now its 3.5 games. Maybe your post at the end of the season will be “if they had been 5 games worse”
Also, I thought you were the one that said wins and losses don’t tell you if a team is better or worse from year to year, only seeding?
2) db – “Remember, Detroit won 59 games last year. This year – given what these players did last year – the team shouldn’t be expected to get to 50 victories.” DF – “My main point was, is and remains that this article is sloppy from a journalistic standpoint–writing about a trade without mentioning a principal party in that trade.” and, now “the trade will not be a “status changer” by the end of the season.” I guess we agree a prediction about where the Pistons are headed this season does not require a mention of McDyess.
BTW – Apparently an 8 and a back parenthesis is a smiley face.
Admit it. Your real beef with this article is you don’t think Billups is better than Iverson because, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Iverson is a uniquely entertaining player to watch.
Since the start of last season, the team with Billups is 89-33 and the team with Iverson is 69-50.
5)”The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.”
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 27 13 – 55
Detroit 22 15 3.5 49
Billups 30 10 –
Iverson 19 18 9.5
Tball
January 16, 2009
DF
I separated this one out because it was my favorite:
3) Today “Well, the lead did shrink and then since that time the Pistons have been without two All-Stars (Rip, Sheed) and Orlando’s lead grew again.” Detroit went 3-1 without Sheed, 4-1 if you include the NJ game he left after ten minutes, and 6-2 without Hamilton. “Anyone reading your comments and mine can pretty quickly tell who is using strawmen, red herrings and cherry picked arguments.” “What I am doing is analyzing the multiple factors that affect how well NBA teams perform.”
Keep picking the cherries, champ.
Truth in Advertising
January 16, 2009
Tball:
1) At the end of the season, we’ll see what’s what, won’t we?
2) I don’t know what point you are trying to make but this post asserts that, as the title says, “the Answer is Iverson.” I don’t believe that Iverson is the “answer” for Detroit’s record at the time that the post was made. I think that for the month after the trade the Pistons were worse off because they had no compensation/replacement for McDyess. With McDyess back in the fold, the Pistons–in my opinion–are roughly as good as they were before the trade.
You are probably right about the 8 and the back parenthesis.
I find Iverson and Billups each entertaining in their own way.
I find the idea of writing a post about a trade without discussing a principal player in the trade to be poor journalism/poor stat analysis. Regardless of how the teams do this season, I stand by that point.
5) I am referring to the composition of each team’s roster when both are at full strength (or reasonably close to full strength). The Pistons are a month behind Denver, so to speak, because of the McDyess situation. So, don’t be in such a rush to pass judgment. Let’s see the teams’ records at the end of the season. Det. has lost a few close games recently and Den. has won a few close games; that will even out over the course of the season.
3) The Pistons went 3-1 in the games that Sheed missed, 3-2 in the games that he did not start (he played just 22 minutes in the Utah loss).
Is your contention that it is helpful for a team first to have two All-Stars out of the lineup–forcing other players into new roles, more minutes, etc.–and then to have to work those All-Stars back into the lineup when they may or may not be 100% healthy?
In the two months since the trade, how many times have the Pistons had their core group of Sheed, Rip, Iverson, McDyess, Prince and Stuckey intact in the same game? Perhaps you think that this is fantasy basketball and you just throw guys out there but the reality is not quite so simple.
I maintain that the group of players listed above–along with the bench players that Det. has–is a slightly better roster than the one that Denver has now. The difference in the records of the teams can largely be attributed to the fact that the Nuggets have had their team together more often than the Pistons have. If you want to call that waffling, have at it. This is simply reality–as we saw when the teams played head to head in Denver and Detroit won, contrary to your bold prediction.
TBall
January 17, 2009
DF
My contention here is simple. You make a prediction. When things don’t work out to your prediction, you find excuses without attempting to seriously analyze why things are not working out. Example: Detroit isn’t winning the way you expect, they have injuries, therefore injuries are the reason they are not winning the way you expect. Except, they did win games when they had injuries and they are not winning when they are healthy. See OKC last night.
Why spit out a 3-2 number that includes Wallace’s game coming off the bench, but excludes the game he played for 10 minutes after starting, but unexpectedly having to sit out most of the game. Is it your contention the team is whole when Wallace starts and plays 10 minutes, but not when he comes off the bench for 22? Cherry-picking to justify a failing prediction.
My contention is simple. Injuries happen over the course of a season. A couple of games here and there do not materially impact the season’s record.
The point of the article is the status of the Pistons has changed as a result of the trade and your position is that the trade was not a status changer. db said their play to date reflected that of a 41 win team, but didn’t say the Pistons would end up a 41 team, only that they wouldn’t win 50. Without naming McDyess, I’d say he accounted for the fact that the first 21 games were an improper sample to make an overreaching prediction. If you agree his injury was not a status changer, then is exclusion from the article is moot. However, becoming a sub-50 win team is a change of status, and the reason is the trade.
Detroit is 9 games out of 3rd after the Magic beat the Lakers and the Pistons lost to the Thunder. Is today a good day to concede the third seed?
NBA
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 27 13 – 55
Detroit 22 16 4 48
Billups 30 10 –
Iverson 19 19 10
Truth in Advertising
January 17, 2009
Tball:
You have artfully shifted the conversation from what is wrong with how this post is structured to some kind of trumped up “contest” about what w-l record these teams will have. As I have said all along, what interests me is the final seeding, not the w-l totals. You asked my opinion about what the w-l totals will be and I gave it but what matters is the seeding.
My original comment, reprinted below, did not focus on which team would have the better record:
“Four points:
1) Who expected Denver to be a championship contender with Iverson? You don’t need advanced numbers to figure out that the Nuggets were not going to win a championship. That is a straw man argument.
2) Small sample size, anyone? For analysis that depends entirely on numbers and not on observation, wouldn’t it be prudent to see Denver and Detroit play more of their schedules? The Nuggets are just two or three losses from dropping out of the West playoff picture entirely.
3) Which is it–Dumars knew the Pistons were not going to be that good, so he made the trade to free up salary space or the Pistons were going to win 50+ games until Iverson arrived? You can’t have it both ways.
4) The Pistons started Kwame Brown at center for several games with McDyess not on the roster. The Pistons had no paint presence in those games (except, ironically, in one game when they beat Kwame’s old team, the Lakers, and he “broke out” for season-highs with 10 points and 10 rebounds).
For what it’s worth, my prediction (before the season) was that Detroit might be better coached this year and still finish with a worse record because several key players are declining. The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season. They are fifth right now and only 4.5 games behind third place Orlando.
At the start of the season, I had Denver missing the playoffs entirely–and that is still a distinct possibility. They have fattened up their record against weak teams and even though they are currently second in the West the Nuggets are only three games ahead of ninth place Dallas, a team that has been without All-Star forward Josh Howard for most of the season.
Just to be on the safe side, you might want to start working on the article that explains how the Pistons turned around their season “despite” Iverson and why the Nuggets missed the playoffs with Billups.”
I stand by those four points:
1) The Nuggets weren’t a championship contender with Iverson and they aren’t a championship contender now.
2) The Nuggets are still just a few games from dropping out of the West playoff picture.
3) As I said, it is logically inconsistent to say on the one hand Dumars knew that the team would not be a contender and then to blame Iverson for the team seemingly dropping from contender status (I say “seemingly” because more than half the season remains to be played).
4) The Pistons struggled for the first month after the trade primarily because of McDyess’ absence. They almost immediately improved once McDyess returned, winning seven in a row and 10 out of 12 at one point. Obviously, they are not playing well at the moment, losing four straight. Is Iverson “the answer” for that four game losing streak? The Pistons have been outrebounded in three of the four games.
The main issue here is whether or not it makes sense to purport to analyze a trade less than a month after it happened without mentioning one of the principal parties involved in that trade. Period. You can entertain yourself with your “standings” all you want but that does not have anything to do with my original comment about what is wrong with this post.
David Friedman
January 19, 2009
The next few weeks should be interesting for both teams: the Pistons are expected to finally establish a set rotation now that all of their key players are healthy at the same time. The “answer” for Detroit so far has been overall roster instability, which Berri recklessly took advantage of in this post to continue to advance his cherished belief that Iverson is an average player, a contention that any serious NBA observer would consider to be quite ludicrous.
The Pistons will play 10 of their next 13 games at home. They play some tough teams during that stretch, including Cleveland, Boston and San Antonio, but if the Pistons are going to make up ground in the standings they really need to win as many of these home games as possible.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets will play two games at home before a stretch in which they play 10 of 12 games on the road and then return home for tough games versus Boston, Atlanta and the Lakers.
It will be interesting to see which seeds Detroit and Denver are holding down by the end of February after the Pistons enjoy a homestand while the Nuggets hit the road.
Tball
January 20, 2009
DF
You have revealed yourself to be a fraud. You look blithely at last season’s rosters and the offseason’s changes and conjure a prediction for this season. You decide what you think is important to basketball without any thought, care, or analysis. Then you scream your predictions from a mountain top and denounce those who would disagree with you.
db has performed analysis. He has developed a formula that he believes illustrates the contribution each player makes to winning games – an important statistic recognized by everyone but yourself – and applies it blindly to all NBA players. The results show that Iverson is an average player – his turnovers, lack of effective shooting percentage at 2 and 3 point range, and other limitations detract from his scoring prowess. He writes about a trade that detracted from his team. He performs analysis using statistics from the first 20 or so games of this season and from all of last season. The trade for Iverson is going to cost Detroit wins.
No, you cry, “I picked Detroit to finish third in the conference.” Who cares – he said it was going to cost Detroit wins, which don’t interest you. No, you cry “Small sample size” and “look, they won 7 in a row at one point”. db was using every game available to him, you use every game that supports your point, you useless fraud. No, you cry “was it that Dumars knew they wouldn’t be good enough to go to the EC finals or that Detroit would have won 50+ games with Billups” – you yourself said you predicted 50+ wins for Detroit and no trip to the EC finals. You are such a mockery of a critic, you criticize others for agreeing with you. These were your good points.
You went on to ask if ‘the answer’ for each Detroit loss was Iverson. Iverson isn’t losing games, replacing Billups with Iverson is costing them wins. You cry that the article is based on how Iverson looks, when it was entirely statistically driven. You make inane references to fantasy basketball.
Finally, and best of all, you complain that Orlando (and third place) has distanced itself from the Pistons because of a recent losing streak caused by injuries to Hamilton and Wallace. Yet the Pistons were 6-2 and 3-1 in their absences, respectively. You fraud. So you reprint your original post, for what? To take a mulligan? You are wrong, yet as your prognostications twirl further down the porcelin, all you can do is cry injuries without looking at the facts. Just because the facts don’t help you, doesn’t mean you can ignore them.
That is irresponsible for a self-proclaimed ‘journalist’.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 27 15 – 53
Detroit 23 17 3 47
Billups 30 12 –
Iverson 20 20 9
David Friedman
January 20, 2009
Tball:
I will not bother to respond to the ad hominem attacks. I’ve been writing about the NBA for a while and my analysis and predictions have been on point (no one is 100% accurate, of course, but I do better than most).
The only thing that I will comment on is your statement that the WoW formula is “an important statistic recognized by everyone but yourself.” That is hardly true. Rosenbaum, Oliver and numerous other prominent figures in the stat analysis community have pointed out serious flaws in the WoW methodology. WoW is in fact largely isolated from the general stat analysis community, meaning that it often draws critiques not only from people like me–who actually watch games and interview players and coaches–but also from people who have created their own forms of statistical analysis.
It is irresponsible–from a journalistic standpoint and from the standpoint of presenting stat analysis as some kind of objective scientific endeavor–to write about the impact of a trade involving three key players but totally fail to mention one of those players. Period.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that injuries and other factors affect the performances of teams and that analyzing the impact of a trade is more complex than this post suggests.
My point about Rip and Sheed was not the Pistons’ w-l record in the games that they missed but rather that the Pistons have not had a stable player rotation yet this season. Perhaps I could have stated that more clearly.
So far, you are the only one who is a “fraud,” because you are the only one who made a prediction that has turned out to be demonstrably false: that Denver would beat Detroit in their most recent head to head meeting. My predictions may or may not turn out to be correct–and, by the way, getting a prediction wrong does not make one a “fraud.” If that were true, everyone would be a “fraud.” What truly makes one a “fraud” is when one lacks intellectual honesty and character. In previous posts, you deliberately took my words out of context to make them appear to mean things that I did not say. You are the one who cited increasingly small samples of games to “prove” your misguided points, while I have repeatedly counseled that we should wait until the season plays itself out.
I hope Berri pays you well to be his onsite attack dog.
David Friedman
January 20, 2009
Tball:
FYI:
In 2006-07, 13 of my 16 preseason selections made the NBA playoffs. I also correctly predicted the outcome of 12 of the 15 playoff series that year.
In 2007-08, 12 of my 16 preseason selections made the NBA playoffs. I also correctly picked the winner of 12 of the 15 playoff series.
Since I have been posting online playoff series predictions, my record is 43-17 (.716), so it is obvious that I am doing a bit more than just “blithely…conjuring” predictions.
We’ll see what happens to Detroit and Denver down the stretch but rest assured that my predictions and observations about those teams are a lot more objective than what was written in this post.
Tball
January 21, 2009
DF
Being a fraud has nothing to do with an errant prediction. Being a fraud is about making predictions, shouting everyone down that disagrees with your prediction to make yourself feel like an expert, then defending your errant predictions based on irrational rationalizations. You are a fraud.
Stop with the trade having 3 key players. We all knew McDyess was coming back. He was involved to make salaries work. No one ever analyzes the role of players who are involved in trades exclusively for salary cap purposes. I again link to the Marc Stein article about the trade, that analyzes Iverson’s impact, Billups’ impact, and McDyess being bought out – not his impact. “It is irresponsible–from a journalistic standpoint and from the standpoint of presenting stat analysis as some kind of objective scientific endeavor–to write about the impact of a trade involving three key players but totally fail to mention one of those players. Period.” Does Marc lack integrity – Question mark – Period.
You indicated on Dec. 19 that “Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not.” Then, five weeks later (yesterday) you follow up with “You are the one who cited increasingly small samples of games to “prove” your misguided points, while I have repeatedly counseled that we should wait until the season plays itself out.”
Detroit goes on a losing streak (all teams go on losing streaks) and you feel the need to explain it with this gem, “Well, the lead did shrink and then since that time the Pistons have been without two All-Stars (Rip, Sheed) and Orlando’s lead grew again. This might not fit into your Berri-driven world view that the “answer” for everything is Iverson but most teams that lose two All-Stars struggle.” They were 8-2 without Rip, 3-1 without Sheed. You were clearly not aware Detroit won without these all-stars, s that does not fit into your Berri-free zone.
You follow that up first by trying to start this tired string over, then with “My point about Rip and Sheed was not the Pistons’ w-l record in the games that they missed but rather that the Pistons have not had a stable player rotation yet this season.” So they have a stable rotation when those all-stars are out, but when they have to play extra all-stars, that’s a problem? And when Billups arrived in Denver and they started winning right away, how did they overcome rotation instability so quickly, while a Detroit team that has been together for years, save Iverson, gets confused when Wallace misses four games?
Oh, that’s right, Denver succeeded because it playing weak teams. Detroit’s losing streak meanwhile included the Pacers, Thunder, and Bobcats. Good thing Detroit won’t see those teams in the playoffs.
In a more primitive time, people used to worship various gods. These gods controlled the rains, the crops, their fortunes. When things would go badly, the people would think of ways they may have angered their gods that their gods would do these things to them. They found this process rational and it reassured them to know that they understood the world. I’m sure you find your processes rational as well.
Your predictions lack integrity, so why should I trust your numbers? Ten years ago I predicted in 2008 that GW Bush push through a $700 billion dollar bailout package to prop up companies insuring bad mortgages. See how smart I am?
Incidentally, you errantly indicated I said WoW was “an important statistic recognized by everyone but yourself.” Winning games – wins – is an important statistic recognized by everyone but yourself. I am sure Rosenbaum, Oliver, and whomever else you would care to prop up would tell you that wins tell you more about how good a team is than seeding. You may not care about wins, but the rest of the world does. To wit, if over the past four seasons, you had predicted the team with the most regular season wins would win their playoff series, you’d have had a 47-12-1 record. Your blithely conjured 43-17 record could have been bested by anyone that subscribes to the importance of wins. And if you predicted that every playoff team from 06-07 would return in 07-08, you’d have been right in 12 of 16 selections.
Hey, I could tack that on, my prediction is all of last season’s playoff teams go to the playoffs this year. I bet I nail at least 12 of 16. How are your predictions going?
I fail to understand the impact of injuries? You indicated Denver would play poorly against plus-.500 teams this month without; I indicated they would continue at their pace. Denver is 7-3 this month, 4-3 against plus-.500 teams and 3-3 against plus-.500 teams. You waggle injuries as explanations and rationalizations after the fact, but before the games are played (with known injuries) you have no idea what the impact of injuries will be. When the Pistons were without McDyess their play suffered, when he returned they were right as rain, when Hamilton was hurt the play improved, when he came back rotations were unsettled. That crap doesn’t qualify as understanding.
Your predictions and the rules by which they are analyzed change with the direction of the wind. You lack integrity in reviewing those predictions and you lack credibility in trying to rationalize every little movement in the standings. And every time you add to this thread, your ‘analysis’ spins off in a new direction and you reveal yourself to be a fraud that much more.
“The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.”
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 28 15 – 53
Detroit 23 17 3.5 47
Billups 31 12 –
Iverson 20 20 9.5
David Friedman
January 21, 2009
Tball:
I have not “shouted down” anyone. I’m not even sure what you really mean by that. This is not my website. I don’t control who comments here or what is said. I made a comment about the post and I have answered each response made to that comment. That’s all.
I don’t believe that Stein attempted to explain Detroit’s record in the first month after the trade. That is what this post mentions. Berri went through a whole recitation about what Det. should be expected to do and the pace that the Pistons were on since the trade. Well, that “pace” included games played sans McDyess. Berri said that the Pistons are on “pace” to win 41 games and concluded, “Replacing Chauncey Billups – a very productive point guard – with Iverson (a player who has never been far above average in production), means your team is going to lose more often. It’s not coaching. It’s not chemistry. It’s simply a roster move where a player who produced many wins was replaced by someone who produces less. In sum, the Answer is Iverson.” No where did he mention that McDyess would return, that the rebounding would improve and that therefore the Pistons would finish better than .500.
Forget this Friedman/Tball nonsense. Do you believe that Detroit is going to finish 41-41 because of the trade? That is what Berri suggests in this post, that swapping Billups for Iverson turned the Pistons into a .500 team–and I say that this is an irresponsible post because it purports to assess the impact of the trade for the whole season but it only examines games when McDyess did not play. It would have been much more objective for Berri to at least say at some point something to the effect that McDyess’ return will strengthen the Pistons in the paint and make them a better than .500 team.
By the way, your Friedman/Tball stuff is hilarious–are Billups and Iverson expansion teams in the NBA that I did not know about? I didn’t realize that one player on each team is responsible for all of the team’s wins. Do you understand that even though Billups and Iverson played for the same two franchises this year they have had different teammates on the court and have played against different opposition? What you are doing is perfect example of the folly both of this post and your response to it–you are blindly, recklessly and selectively using numbers with absolutely no context or understanding. I’d be very interested to know how much NBA basketball you watch.
Most of what you do in your comments is cherry pick a quote here or there from various comments that I have posted. You asked different questions and made different assertions and I have done my best to answer them but all you do is twist my words and take something out of context from one thread to use it in another thread, i.e. when I said that it does not matter that everyone knew that McDyess would return I clearly did not mean that McDyess’ return did not matter but rather I meant that whether or not it was known he would return does not change the fact that his impact should have been discussed in the post.
The only thing that I would take back from my comments is that I should have made it clear that I did not mean that Detroit’s record was bad in the games that Rip/Sheed missed but rather that the team has suffered overall from not having a set player rotation since the trade.
Also, your comment about primitives worshiping gods is a much better description of your blind adherence to WoW’s methodology than a description of how I analyze basketball.
As for “errantly” discussing what you wrote, here is the exact quote from your comment:
“He has developed a formula that he believes illustrates the contribution each player makes to winning games – an important statistic recognized by everyone but yourself – and applies it blindly to all NBA players.”
“Formula” is in the main clause, while “illustrates the contribution each player makes to winning games” is a subordinate clause. This can plainly be seen by taking out the subordinate clause and reading the entire resulting sentence: “He has developed a formula and applies it blindly to all NBA players.” Your comment about an “important statistic” refers, in a grammatical sense, to Berri’s formula. I simply responded to the literal meaning of what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should have made that clear. Thank you for doing so now.
To clarify my position in response, I did not mean to suggest that wins are not important. You kept asking me to predict an exact win total for each team and I told you that I am more interested in looking at playoff seeding. Obviously, wins are important but rather than saying whether a team will win 49 or 51 games I am more interested in assessing the various rosters and determining what order of finish I expect. I don’t think that Denver’s roster will prove to be as effective as the rosters of the other top eight West teams.
We will see, at the end of the season, whether or not Denver is in fact a better team than they were last year. My prediction, before and after the trade, is that by the end of the season Denver will be battling for the eighth/ninth spot and I think that the Nuggets will lose that battle.
We will see, at the end of the season, whether or not Detroit can move up to fight for the third spot in the East or if the Pistons will have to settle for fourth.
My predictions have not changed “with the direction of the wind.” I stand by what I predicted. I attempted, along the way, to explain things as they happened. Since you are uninterested in actually understanding how basketball games are won and lost at the NBA level, I prefer now to simply wait until the end of the season to comment further about specific games/winning streaks. You are right that teams go through ebbs and flows during the season, so I am perfectly content to wait until everything shakes out.
As for how easy or difficult it is to predict which teams will make the playoffs and which teams will advance, what is your published track record in that regard? You are quick to insult me as a fraud, so I’d be interested to know how well you have done as a predictor. My annual season previews and playoff predictions can be found at my website. As the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future results, so I could turn out to be wrong about Detroit and/or Denver–but I tend to be right about such things more than 70% of the time.
David Friedman
January 21, 2009
Tball:
As for the quote that you keep using as an epigraph to your silly standings–“The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now”–the fact is that Detroit won the head to head meeting between the two teams and the Pistons won that game in Denver. So far, the only fraudulent prediction here is your bold pick that Denver would win that game.
Tball
January 22, 2009
DF
“I have not “shouted down” anyone. I’m not even sure what you really mean by that. ”
Maybe there is a better term from it. But you choose to respond to the comments of others, generally, by repeating your views and then demeaning the opinions of others.
“You don’t need advanced numbers to figure out that the Nuggets were not going to win a championship. That is a straw man argument.” – 12/17
“I wrote the team preview for Denver for Lindy’s and did league previews on my site and I never predicted that Denver with Iverson would win a playoff series, much less win a championship. This is just a straw man to prop up WoW” – 12/17
“Anyone who understands basketball knew better” – 12/17
“Bad news for Billups/Nuggets lovers: they only play Minnesota one more time this year” 12/19
“My guess is that in a month or two there will be a WoW article about how McDyess has turned around the Pistons no thanks to Iverson–meaning that Iverson will get blamed for Detroit’s slump but get no credit for the turnaround. I have no idea how WoW is going to try to explain Denver falling in the standings with Billups but that will be interesting to see.” – 12/20
“Since this post said that “Really the Answer is Iverson,” we are forced to conclude that the answer to why Denver is collapsing is that the Nuggets traded a former league MVP for a point guard who showed signs of wear and tear in last year’s playoffs versus Boston, right?” – 12/21 (Collapsing? – another example of willingness to jump to conclusions when small sample size benefits you and chastize it otherwsie)
“WoW places a heavy emphasis on rebounding but because the author of this post has an agenda to “prove” that Billups is a better player than Iverson he chose to ignore the effects of McDyess’ absence on Detroit’s rebounding and construct a series of straw man arguments about why Denver had early success while Detroit struggled after the trade.” – 12/23
“As I said, when Denver falls to 8-9 in the standings while Detroit ends up in the 3-4 spot it will be interesting to see how WoW attempts to spin this. I’ve yet to see or hear WoW ever admit to being wrong, so there will have to be some very “creative” writing about these subjects–or maybe Denver/Detroit will just be ignored for the rest of the season.” – 12/23 (BTW – WoW makes projections, not predictions, and check the articles last season about the Bulls that discussed why the Bulls did not play as well as the season before and/or meet projections)
“Injuries to San Antonio and other contenders that allowed Denver to move up to second in the West for a minute and a half are not mentioned but now Melo has a sore elbow and that lets Billups off the hook. So is that how “objective” analysis works? Billups gets all the credit for all of Denver’s wins AND all of Detroit’s losses but when Denver loses it is because of factors beyond his control?” – 12/24
“It is just amazing to me the lengths that “objective” observers will go to simply because they find Iverson’s style of play unappealing to watch. You may not like how Iverson looks or what he says or his style of play but it is silly to construct so many straw man arguments to try to prove that a top level player is only average” – 12/24
This is a 7 day sample. Your comments are abrasive, insulting and conclusory. Everyone who would dare to disagree with you has an agenda or is an idiot. Most people attempted to carry on an intelligent thread over these seven days, then stopped because they realized you were a jerk and the more they disagreed, the more you’d be a jerk. I’ve carried on because I enjoy watching you hang yourself with your own rope. As the season wears on, I find I don’t have to use my own words to show that you are a fraud.
Tball
January 22, 2009
DF
“I don’t believe that Stein attempted to explain Detroit’s record in the first month after the trade. That is what this post mentions. ” This post mentions the information gathered to date. It indicates that the team, if it continued at its current trend, would project out to only 41 wins. However, tacitly admitting this is a small sample size (something regular readers saw explicitly mentioned in almost all of the December blog posts), db projects the team will record 49 wins if all the players perform the way they did last year. I’ve mentioned this half a dozen times and you ignore it because it doesn’t fit neatly into your petty tirade.
“Regardless of what’s going on with Hamilton, the big story is what the Pistons could expect from their current roster. Remember, Detroit won 59 games last year. This year – given what these players did last year – the team shouldn’t be expected to get to 50 victories.”
Check the big story.
BTW – Hamilton has been moved to the bench and, as you will note, Hamilton’s underperforming was the undercard in this article. In all your excuses for the Pistons failing to match last year’s preformance, I didn’t see you mention this once.
Tball
January 22, 2009
DF
“Do you understand that even though Billups and Iverson played for the same two franchises this year they have had different teammates on the court and have played against different opposition? What you are doing is perfect example of the folly both of this post and your response to it–you are blindly, recklessly and selectively using numbers with absolutely no context or understanding. I’d be very interested to know how much NBA basketball you watch. ”
Last year, Billups played with Wallace, Hamilton, McDyess, Prince, Maxiell, Amir, and Stuckey. This year, Iverson is playing with Wallace, Hamilton, McDyess, Prince, Maxiell, Amir, and Stuckey. Last year, Iverson played with Carmelo, Camby, Nene, JR, Kleiza, Carter, and Martin. This year, Billups is playing with Carmelo, Anderson, Nene, JR, Kleiza, Carter, and Martin. Feels comparable. Last season, all NBA teams averaged a 41-41 record, which I am going on record as predicting will happen this year. Feels comparable.
What you are doing is the perfect example of the folly of those who ignore numbers. You think nothing makes sense except your own rationalizations and, thus, you discard all available information that does not agree with your perceptions.
When Parcells used to coach in New England, the local media would throw around a comment approximating “What makes him such a good coach is that he can beat you with his guys and, if you wanted to, he could swap teams and beat you with your guys.” Obviously, that doesn’t happen and can’t happen. There will always be something that changes, something different, something you can use to rationalize an outcome or reconcile it with your own preconceived notions.
This trade is about as close as it gets. The Pistons did nothing in the off-season, despite the proclamations of Dumars. Denver made minor $ free agent pickups and shipped away Camby. Nene was injured for most of last year and has been healthy so far this year, cushioning some of the loss of Camby. Other than that, the conferences are more comparable than they’ve been in years. Although the West is polarized and the East has a Big Three and everybody else, the W-L records of the conferences are close.
So yes, this season is looking like a petry dish for Iverson and Billups. Billups is better. And his team produces more wins, whether he has the Detroit cast or the Denver cast. db didn’t say Billups was responsible for Detroit’s 59 wins last season or that Iverson is responsible for the anticipated 32 losses. The point he made is that having Iverson on your team and giving up Billups will result in less wins. In the last two years, Billups’ team has won 20 more games than Iverson’s. Rationalize it best you can, reconcile it with your own preconceived notions that we know could never be wrong. Billups’s game is more conducive to winning than Iverson’s.
Maybe you’ve watched every game Billups played last year and this year and every game Iverson played last year and this year. I haven’t (I am a Celtics fan, and generally only watch Billups or Iverson when they are playing against Boston), but it is pretty clear that if a team wants to win and it has to choose between Billups and Iverson, it should take Billups.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 28 15 – 53
Detroit 24 17 3 48
Billups 31 12 –
Iverson 21 20 9
Tball
January 22, 2009
DF
“I tend to be right about such things more than 70% of the time.”
For what you are measuring, 70% is a lousy. In football, we’ve seen 50% turnover in the playoffs from year to year. In the NBA, the turnover is under 30%. In the NBA, the team that won more during the regular season wins in the playoffs. Again, this is in the 70% range.
If playoff teams return to the playoffs 70%j of the time and the playoff team with more regular season wins prevails in playoff series 70% of the time, then a prediction accuracy rate of 70% is not an achievement. I could tell my 8 year old, who cannot be made to sit through a basketball game, the records of teams matched up in the playoffs and he’d predict the team that had the better regular season record – and be right 70% of the time.
That you have a 70% prediction rate is evidence that all the knowledge you think you have collected does not make you any more capable of predicting games than an 8 year old.
Again, here is my prediction in print. Last year’s teams will make the playoffs this season. And, in each series, I predict the team with more regular season wins will prevail.
Have you predicted the winners of each playoff series for the 2009 playoffs yet or have I beat you to the punch?
Fraud.
Tball
January 22, 2009
DF
“As for the quote that you keep using as an epigraph to your silly standings–“The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now”–the fact is that Detroit won the head to head meeting between the two teams and the Pistons won that game in Denver. So far, the only fraudulent prediction here is your bold pick that Denver would win that game.”
I am fascinated that you go to great lengths to explain why any of your predictions can be wrong without you being a fraud (to which I agreed), but you feel an incorrect prediction about one game (which you took great lengths to indicate did not reflect on the quality of the teams, the ability of the players in the trade, etc., etc.) should be termed fraudulent. Once again, you show that you feel your thoughts and predictions are beyond judgment while those who would disagree with you should be exposed to the harshest of criticisms.
Fraud.
The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 28 15 – 53
Detroit 24 17 3 48
Billups 31 12 –
Iverson 21 20 9
David Friedman
January 22, 2009
Tball:
It is interesting that you consider my comments to be so insulting and assume that I am the one who has allegedly chased away all other commenters, yet you are the one who has continually flung ad hominem comments in my direction. I have tried as much as possible to criticize your point of view without attacking you personally. On the other hand, you keep “shouting” at me that I am a “fraud” and a “waffler.”
I did not ask how well your eight year old can predict anything. I asked if you have a documented, public record of making NBA predictions. I’ll take your lengthy, evasive comments to be a “No.” Since you are so familiar with WoW’s win predictions, how many playoff teams did Berri correctly predict the past two years? How many playoff series did he accurately call? I honestly don’t know the answer, so feel free to fill in those blanks, preferably with links to said predictions if possible. Since it is supposedly so easy to pick such things at a 70% clip, I’d be interested to know how well Berri has done–and please don’t answer by giving one or two examples of picks that he nailed. I want to know the complete record, if he actually has a complete record of such predictions in a public forum. FYI, since you brought up the NFL, I correctly picked more playoff teams this year than four of the five major preseason mags (SI, Lindy’s, SN, Athlon, PFW).
Your prediction about the Den-Det game is “fraudulent” not so much because you were wrong but because of the absolute confidence with which you declared what the outcome of the game would be regardless of who played in the contest–and you know that if Denver had won that game you would have talked about this nonstop. So far, that is the only prediction made in this thread that has been put to the test–my predictions all relate to the final standings–and you came up short. You are the one who made a big deal about that game and you insisted that I make a definitive prediction, mocking me as a “waffler” (ad hominem again) when I tried to explain the factors that go into winning one NBA game.
The last time someone else besides you or I commented in this thread, he posted this gem right after that game:
“Tball: Owned by David Friedman.
Not really, but by Tball imbecilic standards TBall himself would think so. Because if Denver had won, TBall would be boasting of it right now. But he was wrong on two counts:
Wrong in believing one game was significant in supporting his theories, and wrong in the actual prediction, too.”
I think that the other commenters became tired of your poor logic and ad hominem comments. I’m the only one who is actually paying any attention to you and I probably should ignore you at this point also.
Are you going to post your “standings” and call yourself a “fraud” after Detroit has more wins and finishes with a better playoff seed than Denver?
Tball
January 26, 2009
DF
Is it your position that if Denver has more wins than Detroit at the end of the season, you are a fraud, and if Detroit finishes with more, than I am? You are the only one connecting predictions with being a fraud.
Last season, Berri predicted 13 of 15 series before the playoffs started. One better than your 12 (and it is unclear if you made all your predictions before the playoffs or at the start of each round). I’ve linked to it. Feel better about the 70%? Is picking football playoff teams meaningful in a basketball thread?
In October 2007, db predicted all 8 WC teams, but didn’t make a clear prediction in the EC (Grouping teams 6-10). At the end of October 2008, db predicted wins for every team. The playoff teams in the East were Celtics, Pistons (57 wins), Magic, Pacers, Cavs, Heat, Philly, Raptors. The playoff teams in the West were Lakers, Mavs, Hornets, Jazz, Spurs, Rockets, Suns, and Clippers. He predicted Denver would finish well out of the playoffs. The spreadsheet also shows Vegas odds had the Pistons at 50.5 wins and Denver at 41.5.
“The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.”
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 29 15 – 53
Detroit 24 19 4.5 45
Billups 32 12 –
Iverson 21 22 10.5
David Friedman
January 26, 2009
Tball:
You are the one who introduced the term “fraud” into this discussion, not I, so I am merely asking if your other predictions turn out to be wrong (your first bold prediction, about the Den-Det game, was already wrong) will you call yourself a “fraud” and stop calling me one?
My critique, from the beginning, has been that it is not correct to do a post shortly after a trade and arbitrarily assign all of the blame/credit for Detroit’s performance on one player. There are other factors involved–not just McDyess, who was actually traded away and then reacquired, but also the performance of other players, injuries and so forth.
It is my contention that Berri used this post more as a vehicle to pile criticism on Iverson–a highly regarded player in many quarters who does not rate highly in Berri’s system–than to objectively analyze Detroit’s team.
I have my opinion about how well Detroit will do, Berri has his and you have yours–but whatever Detroit does, whether matching my prediction to a “T” or matching yours, does not change the fact that a post about Detroit written at the time that this post was written should have mentioned McDyess and should have alluded in greater detail to other factors besides Iverson.
If your position is that Berri’s system is the greatest thing ever and he predicted one more playoff series correctly than I did simply by watching games and analyzing the teams then I must have a pretty good eye for the game :)
I alluded to my football predicting record because in a previous comment you brought up predictions in other sports (you sometimes seem to forget who mentioned things first, whether it is the term “fraud” or this matter).
In October 2008, I picked these teams to make the playoffs in the East: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Orlando, Philly, Toronto, Miami, Washington (oops…)
In October 2008, I picked these teams to make the playoffs in the West: Lakers, Hornets, Spurs, Rockets, Jazz, Suns, Blazers, Mavs.
Right now, it looks like I missed big time with the Wiz and Berri missed big time with the Clippers. Berri had the Pacers instead of the Wiz, otherwise our choices in the East were the same (wrote that the Pacers would fall just short of the playoffs).
David Friedman
January 26, 2009
Tball:
That last sentence should read “I wrote that the Pacers would fall just short of the playoffs.” Berri and I both apparently sold the Hawks short and gave too much credit to the Raptors.
Tball
January 27, 2009
DF
I didn’t bring fraud into the discussion because of predictions going well or badly. I brought fraud into the discussion because, when your prediction was going well, you were beating your chest (“look, Denver just lost 3 of their last 4, proving my prediction correct”) and using it as evidence you were an expert and, when you predictions went badly for a spell, you hid behind excuses that had to be rational because you were an ‘expert’ (Detroit loss because Hamilton and ‘Sheed were injured, er, I mean because they were used to players being healthy). Suggesting the NBA world revolves exactly as you define it is fraudulent (suggesting you have some insight or knowledge is not).
I brought the football playoffs up to put a comment I was making about basketball into context. I was not trying to find out who you predicted would make the playoffs or how that compared to other experts. You do, though, seem to feel this need to prop yourself up. “I wrote a prediction for Liddy’s”, “I have been right 70% of the time the last two years”, “I predicted more playoff teams correctly than these three people.” Who cares. If you aren’t willing to admit that the Iverson-Billups trade made Detroit weaker and Denver stronger, was a status-changer, I think you’re wrong and whether you picked the Colts to go to the playoffs is not going to change my mind.
The post was about Detroit falling from its lofty position. McDyess had returned to the team. If db did not think his favorite team would not recover its lofty position even with the return of McDyess, it was not encumbant upon him to mention McDyess. Again, he was speaking to the season, not the 18 games McDyess missed.
Further, if db did not think Detroit was significantly impacted in those games, he was under no obligation to mention his absence. Detroit was 9-9 in those games. They are 13-10 since. I am not sure his absence, while clearly impacting their rebounding, as clearly impacted their winning. It is a TEAM game and, as I’ve mentioned relative to Carmelo, losing one player for 3-4 weeks shouldn’t significantly impact winning (and Denver has been fine without Carmelo, who is due back in the next couple of games).
I am sure there are plenty of things you do not consider in your analysis that others think are important. The difference is in analysis, not in journalistic integrity.
With regards to the “Denver beats up on bad teams and cannot beat good teams” theme you’ve had in this thread, Denver has played .500 ball against plus-.500 teams. According to the Weekend Dime at ESPN.com, only 6 teams this league have played above .500 against plus-.500 teams (the Three in the East, the Lakers, Spurs, and Rockets – the stat was published this past weekend). Of those 6, only the Celtics and Lakers have more wins against plus-.500 teams than Denver. I invite you to join with me in concluding that characterization of Denver is no longer accurate.
Finally, I would like to point out, because you crapped on Minnesota earlier in this thread, that Minnesota has the chance to sweep the season series from Detroit tomorrow night. Minnesota enters the game with twice as many wins as Detroit for the month of January and (I believe) leads the NBA in wins for the month of January.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 29 15 – 53
Detroit 24 19 4.5 45
Billups 32 12 –
Iverson 21 22 10.5
David Friedman
January 27, 2009
Tball:
Regarding “beating my chest” in terms of earlier results, I agree that I should have followed my own advice and waited until the season is over. Can you also agree that it was silly on your part to place so much weight on the outcome of one Denver-Detroit game?
I still say that the Pistons clearly missed McDyess’ rebounding in the early portion of the season and that was a major reason that they were losing games at that time. When I watched them play sans McDyess and with Kwame playing heavy minutes the Pistons were getting pounded in the paint (except for the surprising win against the Lakers), so blaming all of this on Iverson blatantly disregarded reality.
Obviously, the Pistons have not set the world on fire recently even with McDyess back in the fold, so there are other problems that need to be addressed, too. Just because they are losing for other reasons now does not mean that it was OK to not mention McDyess at that time. Early in the season, no one could have predicted that the Pistons would use some of the odd player rotations that they have chosen or that so many of the players other than Iverson would underperform. The Pistons seem determined to play Stuckey no matter what, which has created the problem of figuring out whether to bench Rip or Iverson. I had assumed that Iverson and Rip would start for the remainder of this season and that Stuckey would continue to be a spark off of the bench. If I had realized that the Pistons would stick with Stuckey as a starter no matter what and try to make Rip into a bench player I would have made a different prediction. You can call that waffling or anything that you want but I don’t like the player rotation that Detroit is using. Rip and Iverson are career starters and Stuckey has been a career bench player. Even if Stuckey will be the starter in the future, thrusting him into that role now puts a multiple-time All-Star into an unfamiliar role.
I still don’t think that Iverson is the “answer” for Detroit’s record, nor am I convinced that if the Pistons had kept Billups that they would be doing better than they are now (although if that would have kept Stuckey on the bench and Rip in the starting lineup it would have helped somewhat).
As for Denver, the playoff situation in the West is very fluid, with several teams moving in and out of the top eight, and I still believe that the Nuggets will be at the bottom of that shuffle by the end of the season.
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF
I’d agree that predicting the outcome of a single regular season game is more luck than science. My only reason for raising it originally was to goad you into making a prediction, any prediction, beyond the seeding prediction you referenced and challenge your proposed absolutism that Denver ‘still cannot beat plus-.500 teams.’
With regards to the persistent and failed three-guard experiment, made worse by the fact that none of the three is a true point, I don’t think benching (relagating to sixth man status) one of those guards is going to materially improve the fortunes of the team. The Pistons have a couple of problems stemming from the trade. One is that they lack a true point guard, a fact brought into focus by Prince (the SF playing PF) handling a portion of those point duties. Relative to PG abilities, Stuckey is what Billups was in his second year in the NBA – a combo guard needing to improve his PG skills to earn a starting job. I don’t know Bynum’s game beyond the fact that he is listed as a PG, but he didn’t get off the bench in the Pistons’ win last night. A team assembled without a PG is a poorly assembled team (see Denver last season).
Beyond that, I mentioned back on Dec. 18 that I thought Hamilton’s problems would continue. A large part of his game is running his defender through screens, popping out, catching and shooting before his defender can get there. His game worked well, in large part, because Billups had developed a feel for Hamilton’s game. He knew where he would pop out, when he would want the ball, and provided precise passes that allowed Hamilton to shoot in rhythm. Stuckey lacks the feel. Iverson isn’t interested in developing that feel. Hamilton moves well without the ball on offense, but it is a useless talent if teammates do not find him at the proper moment.
Basketball Prospectus (Kevin Pelton?) wrote about this about a week ago with regards to Marion. Marion would receive passes from Nash that allowed him to shoot in rhythm and, for years, Marion has been an effective outside/3pt shooter. In Miami, Wade doesn’t look for Marion the way Nash did.
Wade, Iverson, and Stuckey are players who try to create off the dribble, forcing defenses to focus on them, help toward them, and collapse on them. They will then move the ball to a player from whom the defense has sagged. Standing around waiting for a pass while watching Iverson/Stuckey/Wade does not seem to be effecive for involving Marion or Hamilton in the offense.
Yes, any sentence with the following construction “If I had realized … I would have made a different prediction” will result in me calling you a waffler. Any begging off of your prediction following that sentence will result in me calling you a fraud. It ain’t much of a hammer, but its all I got.
Plenty of starters have transitioned to bench players and continued to make a positive impact. There is probably evidence of such a person in Detroit, if you look at the players on their bench. Calling Stuckey a ‘career bench player’ is a stretch. He’s a sophmore. And Billups was traded, at least in part, because Dumars wanted him to become a starter. Not a useful trade if you leave Stuckey on the bench. And before the season, Curry promised Stuckey would average 30 min/gm – a tough number to reach off the bench.
Say it with me, “Denver is no longer a team unable to beat plus-.500 teams.”
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 29 16 – 53
Detroit 25 19 3.5 47
Billups 32 13 –
Iverson 22 22 9.5
David Friedman
January 29, 2009
Tball:
During yesterday’s Mavs-G.S. massacre, JVG and Mark Jackson said the same thing that I said: Iverson and Hamilton should be starting, with Stuckey coming off of the bench. Stuckey is used to being a bench player and is better suited to that role. Even if Stuckey will be the starter in the future, that is not the best role to place him in for the team right now. By the way, I did not call Stuckey a “career bench player”; I simply noted that he has performed well in that role so far in his career. I understand that the long term plan is for him to be a starter but it makes no sense to trade for Iverson and then bring Iverson or Rip off of the bench. Yes, some players have adapted to that role but I’m not sure that either of those two are suited to it and it is particularly tough to expect them to adjust to that new role in the middle of the season.
Manu and other players have played 30 mpg and still come off of the bench. As I said, if I had realized how the Pistons were going to keep juggling their rotations then I would have made a different prediction but I obviously can’t and won’t change what I predicted so we’ll see what happens. I still think that Det. can be pretty good by the end of the year.
You will not be able to goad me into making a foolish one game prediction or into believing that such a prediction has any relevance to this thread, so you just wasted a lot of time and made yourself look silly by doing that.
Denver looked horrible against N.O. last night, so don’t get too cocky about the Nuggets’ ability to beat good teams. I did not say that they never win such games, I just pointed out that last season with Iverson they padded their record–and especially their point differential–against bad teams; they’ve done the same thing to a certain extent with Billups this year but they will have to beat some good teams to retain their current position in the West and I don’t think that they will prove to be up to that challenge.
Detroit’s problems this year are that their leading rebounder (McDyess) missed a month’s worth of games, Sheed is having his worst season in years, Rip is pouting about his role and Coach Curry is learning on the fly. The Pistons still have the pieces to be an upper echelon Eastern Conf. team by the end of the season but I wonder if they are placing so much emphasis on the future that they are not sufficiently focused on this season.
Whether Detroit wins 20 in a row or loses 20 in a row does not affect the validity of my basic premise: this post was poorly constructed.
I don’t know why it is so hard for you to understand the difference between changing a prediction and explaining what happened. If my predictions about the seeding of either or both teams turn out to be incorrect, there is nothing wrong with analyzing why those teams performed the way that they did.
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF
I’m not saying the Nuggets win against every plus-.500 team, but I’m not deterred by their playing horrible against one.
The problem with Hamilton and Iverson starting and Stuckey coming off the bench, is that Iverson is not a PG. Dominating the ball does not make you a point guard. Stuckey is the nearest approximation. Hamilton is a 2 and Iverson is a 2. When they are both on the court, someone is playing out of position, but you shouldn’t feel the need to start the game with someone out of position just because they are both ‘all-stars’.
I was goading you into a prediction, and I relented after you identified a predicted win total for each team.
Most teams do better against sub-.500 teams than plus-.500 teams. My point is Denver has played more plus-.500 teams than most teams in the league and they have played them even. Which teams don’t do better against weaker teams? What characteristic are they exhibiting that differentiates them from the other 2-9 teams in the West? I suppose if you say the exact same thing about the Hornets, Blazers, Jazz, Suns, and Mavs, then it would be easier to agree that the Nuggets are one of the many teams that pad their stats against weaker teams.
I’ll address your last question/statement separately.
David Friedman
January 29, 2009
Tball:
Iverson has ranked in the top ten in assists the past four seasons, so he certainly is capable of playing point guard even if some people do not find his style of play appealing. Stuckey is hardly a “pure” pg at this stage of his career. Anyway, in my opinion this is another example of a situation that cannot be understood just by looking at numbers. These are human beings, not robots who always will produce exactly the same numbers per minute in any situation; there are real chemistry issues involved with benching Rip (or Iverson) and I disagree with that decision.
I offered an estimated win total for each team but what interests me is the playoff seeding. I said that Det. would battle for the 3-4 spots, while Denver would fall into the 8-9 area, so we’ll see where each team stands by the end of the season.
You are of course correct that most teams do better against sub-.500 teams than plus-.500 teams. My reason for bringing that issue up in the first place goes back to when the post was originally made: Berri was touting Denver’s record but I pointed out that at that time Denver had beaten a lot of bad teams and that the Nuggets’ alleged improvement was in fact merely a continuation of a trend from last season. My overall contention is that over the course of a full season the Nuggets will not do as well against the other 8 good teams in the West as those teams will do against each other and hence the Nuggets will drop to the 8-9 position, exactly where they resided when Iverson was there.
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF,
“I don’t know why it is so hard for you to understand the difference between changing a prediction and explaining what happened.” Here is the problem, in a nutshell. db, with whom I agree in this instance, indicates Billups is significantly better than Iverson. He tracks them through their careers, using his stat, to back up his assertion. He says as a result of this trade, expectations for the Nuggets improve and the Pistons drop. This trade was a status changer.
You disagree. You get all offended that this is a subjective shot at Iverson, although you want to avoid the Billups/Iverson comparison and say db should have mentioned McDyess. Now that McDyess is back, the Pistons are fine and will perform to expectations. Not a status changer.
Six weeks pass since the article, Detroit is underperforming your expectations, Denver is continuing to outperform your expectations. Now you say, well if back then I had known a, b, c, and d, then my prediction would have been different, but otherwise my premise was right and I was right (no quotations, because this is an intepretation of the tone and tenor of your writing).
I don’t have a problem understanding the difference between changing a prediction and explaining events that play out after the prediction. The problem I have is that the predictions were based on a question/premise – was the trade a status changer. If both teams performed to previous expectations, the answer is it was not a status changer. If Denver outperforms expectations and Detroit underperforms expectations, you have to believe there is some merit to the premise that Billups is better (has a game more conducive to winning) than Iverson. When you explain away all events as coaches decisions, injuries, unexpected bad play, etc. you eviscerate that thought process you provided when you made your prediction. You essentially conclude: df’s thought process was right, db was wrong, but due to information unavailable at the time, db’s prediction was right.
“If my predictions about the seeding of either or both teams turn out to be incorrect, there is nothing wrong with analyzing why those teams performed the way that they did.” I would agree, but with the caveat that you have to entertain that, if db’s prediction is correct, his rationale that Billups is better than Iverson and this trade is was a ‘status changer’ is also correct.
To ignore this possibility (which I would venture to call a probability), to whistle away about being an expert while turning your back on analysis that led to an accurate prediction would be self-stunting of your own growth as an ‘expert’ and behavior that I would classify as fraudulent. Likewise, if Detroit and Denver were to finish as expected, I would consider it an intellectual imperative to re-entertain the rationale you provided as to why the trade was not a status changer.
Predictions can go wrong. You could have all the information in the world and still have a prediction go wrong. And there is nothing improper with considering why the prediction went wrong. What is wrong is ignoring a very real possibility about why you are wrong (the trade) because your eyes tell you otherwise. To simply shoo the incorrect prediction away as unfortunate luck and odd decisions is unproductive and intellectually backwards.
Iverson goes from Philly to Denver for Andre Miller. Philly gets better and Denver gets worse (falling from a 3rd seed to a 6th seed to an 8th seed). Iverson goes from Denver to Detroit. Denver gets better and Detroit gets worse. The evidence suggests Iverson is less useful than Billups in helping his team produce wins and no more useful than Andre Miller. If your eyes cannot see that, maybe you put too much faith in your lying eyes. Don’t sweep the reason your prediction is going to turn out incorrect under the rug.
BTW – I’ve linked to db’s first comment on the trade, which I am sure you’ll enjoy.
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF
“My overall contention is that over the course of a full season the Nuggets will not do as well against the other 8 good teams in the West as those teams will do against each other and hence the Nuggets will drop to the 8-9 position, exactly where they resided when Iverson was there.”
Excellent. At the end of the season we can take a look at the records of the top 9 West teams against each other. To this point, Denver does not simply pad its stats against weak teams, you are saying it pads its stats against the East and against weak teams.
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF,
You disagree with chemistry issues of benching Hamilton or Iverson, I disagree with compatibility issues of playing Hamilton and Iverson together (a necessity for a portion of each night because of the trade made by Dumars).
Tball
January 29, 2009
DF,
“Anyway, in my opinion this is another example of a situation that cannot be understood just by looking at numbers.” Couldn’t agree with you more. Over his career, Iverson has produced 7.2 assists/48 minutes. His assists/gm numbers look good because he is always among the league leaders in min/gm. Anyway, his assist numbers are below that of the average PG. This year he is averaging 6.7 assists/48 minutes and Stuckey is averaging 7.9 assists/ 48 minutes.
More importantly, Iverson gets his assists in shooting guard form, he generally looks to create something for himself and will pass to a teammate if he gets doubled or triple teamed (i.e., forces the defense to move out of position). A good point guard looks for ways to get teammates involved. Why is Hamilton going to spend his night running his guy off screens if he knows Iverson is going to hold the ball until he makes his move to the basket. He’s better off standing around on offense, waiting for his defender to sag toward Iverson to catch a pass. It creates a lousy offense.
At the end of December, Curry found they averaged a 6 point lead after one quarter when Stuckey was starting and no lead when Stuckey was coming off the bench. The prolonged three guard experiment was prolonged in the interest of ‘chemistry’.
We agree Stuckey is not a pure PG and, more accurately, he is a combo guard. Iverson, though, is a shooting guard. He gets his assists the same way Kobe, Pierce, Mo Williams, Wade, Roy, and Joe Johnson get their assists. The way a shooting guard gets assists. It kills the offensive flow. And when you stop looking at the numbers, it is all the more apparent.
David Friedman
January 29, 2009
Tball:
Berri and you are trying to boil this whole thing down to Billups/Iverson but I contend that the situation is more complex and that was my main beef with this post from the beginning:
1) McDyess’ absence for a month was clearly a factor in Detroit’s early season performance, because the bottom completely dropped out for the Pistons in terms of rebounding differential.
2) The Nuggets went through some good streaks during the time that Iverson was there, so unless/until they finish markedly better than they have previously and/or make it out of the first round, I don’t consider the trade to have changed their status.
3) Since the trade, the Pistons have not settled on a consistent player rotation (until very recently) and that type of instability is not conducive to success.
The way that I read this post is that it is little more than Berri essentially saying “I told you so” about Iverson about two and a half minutes after the trade was made. Maybe Detroit will end up with a worse record and maybe Denver will end up with a better record–but to say so early and so definitively that “the answer is Iverson” is not very scientific. It is one thing to predict that the Pistons will be worse because of the trade and it is quite another thing to attribute their early losses to Iverson when those losses were demonstrably not his fault.
If these teams perform differently than I predicted by the end of the season then of course I would be open to considering the possibility that Billups helped Denver more than Iverson helped Detroit–but that can only be figured out after the fact and after considering all of the evidence.
At the time the post was written, Denver was beating weak teams for the most part and Detroit was losing because they were getting killed on the glass. Those factors and my observations of the prior performances of these teams/players are the basis for my predictions about how they would do over the course of the season.
David Friedman
January 29, 2009
Tball:
As for the assists/pg-sg-combo guard issue, I have stated (elsewhere) that assists are an overrated and subjective stat. Unfortunately, they are the only measurement we have relating to passing. Iverson has certainly shown that he is willing and able to create shots for his teammates and your subjective criticism–which essentially amounts to saying that his assists are not as valuable as Billups’–strikes me as very odd, particularly from someone who apparently puts so much faith in what the numbers say.
Is Iverson a pass first player? Obviously not, but he is certainly willing to give up the ball to open teammates, particularly ones who have a proven track record of making shots.
As for the Philly/Miller situation and the Iverson/Denver situation, you are again subscribing to the belief that one move in isolation completely changed those teams, without looking at their schedules, their injuries and other factors. To cite just one example, some teams start slowly because of a heavy mix of road games and then pick up steam later in the season; Philly played 10 of their first 15 games on the road before Iverson was traded in ’07. That is one reason that I expect Denver to fall back in the standings after their upcoming series of road games.
Tball
February 2, 2009
DF
“McDyess’ absence for a month was clearly a factor in Detroit’s early season performance.” Not so. They were 11-9 at the time McDyess rejoined the team, 14-12 since. The 11-9 streak included 4 games against Bos/Cle/LAL. The style in which the results were achieved differed without McDyess as opposed to with him, but his absence did not cost them more than one game.
“it is quite another thing to attribute their early losses to Iverson when those losses were demonstrably not his fault.” He wasn’t indicating the losses were Iverson’s fault. db – “Replacing Chauncey Billups – a very productive point guard – with Iverson (a player who has never been far above average in production), means your team is going to lose more often.” The decrease in winning is not attributed to Iverson, it is attributed giving up Billups for Iverson.
I agree with you, Iverson will give the ball up to open teammates, but he is far less likely to give the ball up to a teammate with a defender on him/near him in a position in which the teammate can make a play. I watched the Celtics/Pistons game Friday and did not see Hamilton catch a ball off a screen.
If assists are overrated and subjective, then why use them to make your point? How about watching a game or two. You tell me that Iverson works to set his teammates up the same way that Billups does.
I’m telling you that Billups makes an effort to get his teammates involved. He will see teammates flashing to the post, he will work the ball to teammates with mismatches. I don’t see Iverson do that. On offense, Iverson is simply a shooting guard bringing the ball up the court. That doesn’t make him a point guard. And my comments have nothing to do with the weaknesses in Iverson’s game measured by the statistics. Statistically, Iverson cannot shoot with Billups’ accuracy from 2 or 3 point range, gets materially fewer assists/minute, and records substantially more turnovers/minute. Those differences make Billups a significantly better player than Iverson.
You can always make excuses with injuries, the calendar, etc. (which, by the way, is not more ‘scientific’ than db’s analysis). Last season, Detroit won nine more games than Denver. This year, Denver will win more games than Detroit. Why? It isn’t injuries and it isn’t schedule. The Answer is Iverson (and Billups).
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 31 16 – 53
Detroit 25 21 5.5 47
Billups 34 13 –
Iverson 22 24 11.5
David Friedman
February 2, 2009
Tball:
The Pistons lost those games sans McDyess primarily because they were getting killed in the paint/on the boards. When McDyess returned, the Pistons immediately improved in those areas and promptly won eight of their next 10 games. What has happened to them since that time has little to do with Iverson or McDyess; the primary problem is that the Pistons took so long to settle on a player rotation and then the one that they chose (Iverson/Stuckey starting, Rip coming off of the bench) may not be the best way to utilize their talent.
You seem to be incapable of considering that McDyess’ absence had an impact on the early season games (which were the subject of this post) and that other factors have had an impact on the most recent games. Everything in this post–and your comments–is all or nothing: according to you and Berri, “the answer” is Iverson and McDyess has no meaningful impact but the truth is that many factors affect winning and losing.
So, you watched one game and determined that you have figured out Iverson’s entire skill set and you now know exactly why the Pistons are struggling? The truth is that Iverson and Billups play different styles and it would not make sense to trade for Iverson and expect him to play like Billups (or vice versa). As Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy said during yesterday’s Cleveland-Detroit game, the Pistons should be playing at a faster tempo and looking for ways to take advantage of Iverson’s ability to score by breaking down the defense in transition.
Tball
February 3, 2009
DF
I am not ‘incapable of considering McDyess’s absence had an impact.’ I’ve considered it – the impact was likely not more than one game.
Did you watch all those games? How many of those 9 losses do you attribute to being outrebounded? What would they have been if McDyess had been around for those 18 games?
Who’s expecting Iverson to come in and play like Billups? I’m faulting Dumars for reassembling the team at the start of the season without a point guard. And explaining that a backcourt of Iverson and Hamilton is limited by a lack of a point guard and Hamilton’s dependence on a point guard. Watching Friday’s game confirmed what was obvious from watching each player over the years. Have you seen Hamilton catch and shoot much off of screens this season?
The problem with your analysis you look at windows of the Pistons’ season and break it up into excuses and winning streaks. And you break the Nuggets’ season up into excuses and losing streaks. Analysis cannot get more subjective than that. McDyess cannot turn a team that wins 50% of their games into a team that wins 80% of their games. And changing a rotation cannot turn a team that wins 80% of their games into one that wins less than 50%.
ESPN Daily Dime pointed out the other day that the Piston back court with the lowest +/- is Iverson/Hamilton (-15) compared to Stuckey/Iverson, Stuckey/Hamilton, and the three guard offense. This past week, Hollinger wrote that Hamilton looks obsolete on the floor with Iverson.
Here’s another reason Stuckey may have been inserted into the starting line-up. In 7 of those 18 games (including 5 of the losses), the opposing team’s PG was the high scorer for the game. Last season, Detroit allowed the opposing teams PG to be the high scorer 7 times from October thru February. The 8 of 10 winning streak coincided not just with McDyess returning to the team, but Stuckey being inserted in the starting lineup. Since then, the opposing team’s PG has been the game’s high scorer 5 times. Maybe they’d have won more games if they’d started Stuckey sooner.
As I’ve mentioned before, looking at a team as performing to expectation when they are winning and then mired by circumstance when they are losing is fraudulent analysis. With Hamilton and Sheed hurt, the Pistons won. If they’d have lost, this would have been the excuse. Instead they won, so it becomes a ‘look I was right’. When everyone is healthy and available in December playing a three guard offense and winning 8 of ten, ‘look I was right’. When everyone is healthy and available in January playing a three guard offense, but losing, ‘they have rotation problems’. You complain everything db and I present is black and white, but your positions are gray. You won’t say teams will lose because of an injury, but if they lose, you blame the injury. You won’t say teams are about to lose because the rotation is unsettled, but if they lose, you blame the rotation. Everything gets patched up after the fact to conform to your preexisting views. As discussed earlier in this thread, this type of analysis is fraudulent.
You don’t want Iverson to change the way he plays to play more like Billups (with which I agree, he can’t make that change), but you want the entire Pistons team to change the way they play to conform to Iverson? Ain’t gonna happen.
David Friedman
February 3, 2009
Tball:
What I really want is for something that purports to be a comprehensive analysis of a trade’s impact on two teams to not draw sweeping conclusions right after the trade is completed and before one of the involved teams gets its leading rebounder back. The reality is that during the month McDyess was out the Pistons went 9-8 and were outrebounded by more than 4 rpg after ranking seventh in the NBA in rebounding differential in ’08 (+2.3). I did not see every single one of those games–and I’m willing to bet that you did not, either–but I saw enough and understand enough to know that when a team loses its leading rebounder and takes a negative 6 rpg swing in rebounding differential that it will be very difficult to win at a 59-23 pace (last season’s record).
In 2008, the Pistons won 26 games before having their eighth loss. You and Berri dismiss the impact of being without McDyess for a month but that slow start made it all but impossible for the Pistons to match last year’s record–not only were they already a third of the way to last year’s loss total by the time McDyess returned, the Pistons still had to put together a good rotation, something that it could be argued they still have not done. As I note in a recent article about the trade (click on my name and it should be there), the Pistons have already used as many starting lineups this season as they did all of last year–and even that stat shortchanges the turmoil in Detroit, because last year one of their starting lineups amassed 63 starts (and went 46-17), while this year none of their starting lineups has lasted more than 13 games.
It is intellectually dishonest to assert that Iverson is the “answer” for Detroit’s problems in light of these facts. Iverson is not playing poorly this season, though he would most likely be even more productive if the Pistons took more advantage of his ability to break down defenses off of the dribble.
The bottom line is that what you call “excuses” or “waffling” is actually proper basketball analysis. I don’t know where else this conversation can go if you don’t understand the difference. Frankly, it has become a bit tiresome trying to explain such things.
P.S.: By the way, without looking it up do you know the difference between Denver’s record this year with a “changed culture” and Denver’s record last year with Iverson? The answer (no pun intended) is in the above article.
Tball
February 3, 2009
DF,
It is wonderful that when the stats favor your argument, you employ them and, when they don’t, you tell people they need to watch the game to understand your point.
The problem with your variety of “proper basketball analysis” is that everyone is much better than their record shows, with a little bit of ‘analysis’.
Minnesota started the year with the wrong coach, then took some time to get acclimated to McHale on the bench. The team that went 10-4 in January is the real Pistons team. It just took them a while to get there this year. With ten more wins in February and March, they will make their way to a .500 season and position themselves for higher expectations next season.
The Suns started the year 11-5. That’s when they were healthy and on the same page. Since then, Nash has sustained some bumps and bruises, Amare has had trouble sharing the post with Shaq, and the whole team has had difficulty playing at the pace dictated by the new coach. But this team is still the team that went 11-5 and, once they lick their wounds over the All-Star Break, can expect to complete their run for the third seed.
Since starting the season 12-12, new coach Erik Spoelstra has settled in and the real Miami team has shown its colors. He’s learned to keep a leash on Beasley’s minutes (the few games against plus-.500 teams in the last 6 weeks in which Beasley has played 20 minutes or more have been losses). If Spoelstra can keep tight reins on the first round pick, they are well on their way to the fourth seed.
The Clippers have been without the services of Baron Davis and Chris Kaman for much of the season. Baron has only recently returned and is still becoming acclimated to his realtively new teammates. Combined with another stellar year from Marcus Camby, you can expect this three-some to hang a winning record on the season’s second half.
I could go on. My expectation, after this ‘analysis’ of dismissing losing periods and embracing winning periods would be that every team can expect a winning record after the All-Star Break. Doesn’t feel productive, insightful, or intellectually honest.
Maybe the lineups have been changing, in part, because none of the combinations can win consistantly. I think the 8 of 10 run was with the three guard offense that you agreed needed to be dropped.
And McDyess has played more games for Detroit than he has missed and they still have a negative rebounding differential. Perhaps they have another rebounding problem related to Maxiell and Amir not rebounding this season like they did last season. My point remains the same, one injury to one player (who comes off the bench) for a portion of the season is not going to significantly impact win production of that team. Orlando is going to be without an All-Star, Nelson, possibly for the remainder of the season. Are you ready to make a prediction on how Orlando will fare the rest of the way? Will they play .500 ball like Detroit did without McDyess?
P.S.: As I projected Denver would have a similar record to the one they carried last year (just a better record than Detroit), I guess I’ll bet they had a similar record last year to the one they currently carry.
David Friedman
February 3, 2009
Tball:
I am not saying that “everyone” is better than their record. To cite just one example, I made it quite clear that I think that the Nuggets are “worse” than their current record.
Your method of arguing is classic bait and switch; instead of trying to refute my specific points–which you can’t–you just throw out several other examples as distractions. My article never said anything about Miami, Minnesota or Phoenix, so you are not going to lure me into an off-topic discussion about those teams.
This post supposedly analyzed why the Pistons started slowly after the trade with the Nuggets. During that time, the Pistons were without their leading rebounder, performed terribly on the boards and, not surprisingly in light of those facts, struggled to win half of their games. The fact that the Pistons are not performing well two months later for other reasons does not validate the sloppy “analysis” employed in this post. Iverson was not “the answer” for why Detroit went 9-8 in the first 17 games after the trade. If you want to talk about why Detroit is losing games now, that is a separate discussion from explaining what is wrong with this post, but you seem to get the two issues confused.
Tball
February 4, 2009
DF
I am not trying to switch the argument, I am throwing out your analysis on a bunch of other teams to show how preposterous it is (you do recognize that every team having a winning record after the all-star game is an impossibility, not a point of discussion). Your argument that the trade hasn’t been a ‘status changer’ has consistently been Denver won the same way last year (this position has a few incarnations) and Detroit won 8 of 10 after McDyess came back. Clutching the best ten game period of a team and saying, “Look how could this team is” and “the other 40 games they played this year should be ignored because other stuff was going on that caused losses in those stretches” is patently absurd. This Detroit team has played .500 ball with Iverson after winning over 70% of their games last season, with only one significant cast change since game 4 of the season (McDyess’s absence is less meaningful as he has played more games than he missed).
In the history of the NBA, how many teams have returned their 8-man rotation, and suffered a reduction in wins of more than ten games without suffering a significant injury (8+ weeks) to any player in that 8-man rotation? Accept for the trade, that is what Detroit is on pace to do. Hollinger is predicting presently Detroit will finish with a losing record and has a 40% chance of missing the playoffs. How many two-seeds have missed finished with a losing record and/or missed the playoffs the following season?
The reason for the drop off is easy to locate, because many NBA teams go through rough spots where they are missing players from their rotations. If the Pistons fielded the same lineup for 63 games last season, my expectation is they were missing one or more starters for 19 games. The Pistons haven’t suffered anything that out of the ordinary, certainly nothing as significant as losing Bynum for 8-12 weeks or Nelson for the season. They are a mediocre team, which they were not before the trade, but they have been since the trade. I dub this, ‘status change’.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 32 16 – 55
Detroit 25 21 6 47
Billups 35 13 –
Iverson 22 24 12
David Friedman
February 4, 2009
Tball:
We–or, more precisely, you–are just going around in circles. I’ve said my piece on this matter: the main thing that I wanted to communicate here is that this post is poorly constructed for reasons that I have quite clearly stated. If you want to persist in your misguided interpretations of events, there obviously is nothing that I can say to change your mind, so enjoy the rest of the season.
Tball
February 5, 2009
DF
Spin it as you see fit. What has become obvious is that db laid out a prediction that, based on the trade, the Pistons would underperform both last season and expectations for this season by producing a win total in the 40s, and that is clearly correct. You predicted they would battle for a third seed and land a win total in the low to mid-50s, which is clearly not going to happen. I congradulate you for sticking in this discussion for as long as you did, even while it was difficult to find anything of value in your spin. I presume you will not be back at season’s end to own up to your flawed reasoning.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 33 16 – 55
Detroit 26 21 6 47
Billups 36 13 –
Iverson 23 24 12
David Friedman
February 5, 2009
Tball:
Whether or not Berri’s win total prediction turns out to be correct, the “reasoning” in this post is flawed and tendentious. A person can stumble on a correct prediction without using correct reasoning. Iverson was not “the answer” for why Detroit struggled early in the season, contrary to the title of this post; the post is not titled “the Pistons would underperform both last season and expectations for this season by producing a win total in the 40s.”
If Detroit ends up with the fourth seed and Denver drops to eighth/ninth–both of which are clearly well within the realm of possibility–then my predictions will in fact have turned out to be correct, so–as usual–you are jumping the gun a bit. Just wait until the end of the season and let’s see how everyone finishes.
Tball
February 6, 2009
DF,
A person can stumble on a correct prediction without using correct reasoning, but all signs point to the prediction being correct and the reason the prediction will be correct is that they gave up Billups for Iverson. A person can come up with a correct prediction using correct reasoning. We call that person … correct.
The title of the article was also not “What went wrong over the 18 games since the trade.” And the articles (and basketball pundits) at ESPN, Sportsline, and SI agree – Detroit is a worse team this year than last year and the TRADE is the reason. The only person I can find disagreeing with that analysis is someone trying to defend a position they took on the trade two months ago.
Your first comment in this article brought up four points. The first was about the Nuggets, which was unrelated to the title of this article. The second was about sample size, which was a tacit admission the article was about the season not the 9-9 record since the trade. The third was about how good Dumars thought the team was going to be. And the last was about McDyess. As your first three points were unrelated to the title, at least as you spun it in your most recent thread, it is clear you did not feel the point of the article needed to be restrained by the title, so why bother hiding behind that concept now?
If you do want to discuss the title, then why not weigh in on who is more useful in bringing their team a victory, Billups or Iverson. This point is most clearly the focus of the article. They have each played enough games that you have probably seen them each play a few times. Lets have it. Who is more useful?
Your prediction was not that Detroit will get the fourth seed. Your prediction was Detroit would get the third seed. Then you indicated it would not surprise you if they ended up with the fourth seed. Then you expected them to get the third or fourth seed. Then you predicted they would get the third seed or battle with Orlando for the third/fourth seed. I cannot find a fourth seed prediction.
It is good to see that you are no longer expecting your predictions will come to pass, but acknowledging they remain within the ‘realm of possibility’. Hopefully, next month, this will age to ‘mathematically alive to’. But why jump the gun. Again, I hope you will revisit your prediction at the end of the season and acknowledge the fact that db’s prediction was based on the past 60-100 games of these players and not the first 18 games of the Iverson-Piston era and that he accurately predicted the result of the trade (whoops, jumped the gun again).
David Friedman
February 6, 2009
Tball:
I know that it is very exciting for you that recent events seem to justify the tendentious commentary in this post but let’s wait until the end of the season to see what seed Detroit has and what seed Denver has.
Tball
February 9, 2009
DF,
I just excited to hear each new explanation for the outcome of each game, complete with Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary word of the day.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 34 17 – 55
Detroit 27 22 6 47
Billups 37 14 –
Iverson 24 25 12
David Friedman
February 9, 2009
Tball:
Well, Denver sure looked splendid in New Jersey and, in case you missed it, there is at least one example of Iverson driving to the hoop and kicking out a perfect pass to Rip for a corner J (late in Det.’s win versus Milwaukee). I realize that Det. followed that win with a loss, so, as I keep saying, we’ll see at the end of the season what’s what.
Tball
February 10, 2009
DF
The teams each went 1-1 over the weekend, yet you report: 1) Nugget loss gleefully; 2) Detroit win proudly; 3) Detroit loss reluctantly; and 4) Nugget win omitted. More Friedman ‘analysis’.
And, as I said, the limitation of using Iverson as a point guard (compared to Billups) is Hamilton has to wait around for him to drive and kick – running around screens is now pointless for Hamilton.
We’ll see at the end of the season what’s what, but at this point we have a pretty good idea of what we’ll see. Hope you’ll be around to weigh in on the value of Billups v. Iverson.
David Friedman
February 10, 2009
Tball:
Obviously, my brief post was not meant to be an exhaustive recounting of everything that the teams did.
By the way, my take was neither “gleeful” nor “proud”; it was sarcastic, because you insist that Billups and Berri believe that Billups has dramatically changed the culture in Denver and that Iverson cannot throw a decent pass to Rip.
The Nuggets loss was one of the worst (by point margin) in the NBA history of the franchise. Detroit’s win featured more Iverson (42 minutes, 27 points, nine assists) and Rip (36 minutes, 38 points) and less Stuckey (27 minutes), which I think is a good formula for the Pistons.
Denver’s win was a blowout over the Butler-less Wizards. Is that really worthy of much comment? As the announcers noted during a recent telecast–and as I’ve said here more than once–the Nuggets have a phenomenal record against sub.-500 teams; I think that they are 20-2 after the loss to the Nets. This is no different from the (brief-lived) Iverson era. In order for the Nuggets to meet your expectations, they will have to beat some good teams–and win some road games–down the stretch. We’ll see if that happens.
Tball
February 11, 2009
DF
What is this ‘culture’ you keep mentioning? I haven’t suggested this. Neither has db. Near as I can tell, db thinks a team is the sum of the parts. Chemistry matters little. Diminishing returns matters little. Coaches do not make players better and they rarely make teams better. If asked, I would guess that db would say the culture in Denver hasn’t changed, but the talent level has improved (over game 1 of the 2008-2009 season, not necessarily over game 82 of the 2007-2008 season).
I said all Iverson can do is drive and kick. And the best way for Hamilton to catch a pass is to stand still and hope his man leaves him. Running around screens was a big part of Hamilton’s game, which is gone now because Billups was traded away and the Pistons lack anyone who will get him the ball off a screen.
I didn’t know we cared about point differential. If that interests you, it would be worth noting Detroit has surrendered more points than they have scored.
A Butler-less Wizard victory is irrelevant, but a Bogut-less, Redd-less, Ridnour-less, (who else is on the roster)-less, down to the wire victory over the Bucks is a headliner? How did Iverson do D-ing up on Sessions?
And on to last night’s action (giving it my best DF voice): Last night, the Pistons maintained their ironclad grip on the fifth seed despite being without the services of Allen Iverson. The game improved the harmony between their records against plus-.500 teams and sub-.500 teams. Meanwhile, the Nuggets suffered the same result playing Miami that they suffered last season with Iverson, showing once again that the new calendar purchase was a waste of money. Billups recorded a pedestrian 2 rebounds and five assists. No seeds changed hands.
We can describe the games any way we like, but the teams are moving like a freight train to the same foreseeable result. How about that Iverson/Billups analysis?
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 35 17 – 55
Detroit 27 23 7 44
Billups 35 13 –
Iverson 24 24 11
David Friedman
February 11, 2009
Tball:
If all that Berri had provided was an “Iverson-Billups” analysis then I would not have bothered to comment here in the first place. This post is flawed because it looked at a small sample of games from right after the trade–sans McDyess–and concluded “Iverson is answer.” Even if Detroit loses 30 in a row and ends up in the lottery, that would not “prove” that Iverson was the “answer” for why Detroit started out the season slowly in that first month.
Again, you seem incapable of understanding that Detroit could have been losing games for one reason right after the trade–poor rebounding differential–and for different reasons subsequent to that.
You have your storyline–Billups is great, Iverson is average/below average–and you will stick to it no matter what.
Tball
February 11, 2009
DF
Sorry my storyline doesn’t waffle, but you have yet to disagree with it, so I continue to ride it.
He provided the Iverson-Billups analysis a month earlier (to which I’ve linked). He included the comment, “If Iverson had played the same minutes as Billups last year – and his productivity stayed the same — he would have produced 7.0 wins. Billups produced 16.0 wins last year, so the difference is about nine victories.”
He wrote again about the trade after two weeks, in which you commented, “The nice thing about this post is that when the Pistons start winning again (with McDyess) and the Nuggets regress to the same level that they were at with Iverson anyone who reads this with an open mind will begin to understand the flaws and biases inherent in WoW’s methodology.” So if Detroit won 30 in a row, we’d be forced to understand the flaws and bias’s in WoW’s methodology, but if they lose 30 in a row, it proves nothing? Fascinating analysis.
Since the Pistons have not “started winning again (with McDyess) and the Nuggets” haven’t regressed, “anyone who reads this with an open mind will begin to understand” some of the value “inherent in WoW’s methodology.” Maybe you only agree with that logic if it supports your position.
David Friedman
February 11, 2009
Tball:
The Pistons did start winning again when McDyess returned and helped to fix the rebounding problems–and then they started losing again due to issues that are not primarily related to either Iverson or McDyess, but that does not fit in with your worldview. The Pistons have made a dramatic downturn in the past 20 games or so, not in response to the Iverson trade or to McDyess’ return but for other reasons.
For instance, some people understand that the fact that the numerous starting lineup changes that the Pistons have made this year compared to the stability that they had last year is relevant but all you want to talk about is Iverson, Iverson, Iverson.
You look at all of this in an overly mechanical way: the Nuggets supposedly simply subtracted Iverson’s numbers, plugged in Billups’ numbers and magically improved (though to this point their record is actually only a little better than last year’s with half of their current road trip still to be played), while the reverse is supposedly true of Detroit. In reality, Denver has made other personnel changes (Nene for Camby, in effect, plus Anderson for Najera) and Detroit was without their leading rebounder for what will amount to nearly a fifth of the season, in addition to changing coaches.
By the way, it is foolish to say that coaching does not matter but that is a subject for another day…
David Friedman
February 11, 2009
Tball:
Also, my “storyline” has not waffled. I made predictions about which seeds Denver and Detroit will have by the end of the season. I have not changed those predictions–trying to explain what has happened in certain games or certain stretches of the season is not “waffling.”
Obviously, to this point Detroit has performed worse than I predicted and Denver has performed better–but my predictions were for the end of the season, not now, so the jury is still out. If in fact Detroit finishes below four and Denver finishes better than 8/9, then it would certainly be worthwhile to look at why those teams did not perform the way that I predicted–but that analysis will not change the fact that the “answer” for Detroit’s slow start had a lot more to do with McDyess’ absence than it did with the Iverson/Billups swap.
Your “standings” are a completely separate issue–one of your own invention–than the issues that I raised with this post, but you should go into politics because you seem to enjoy creating diversions from the topic at hand, namely that this post is tendentious and poorly constructed.
Tball
February 11, 2009
DF,
Detroit has not had a slow start. They were .500 while McDyess was gone and they’ve been .500 since. They are a .500 team with Iverson.
You also predicted Detroit would battle for 3rd (Dec. 19th – “Orlando currently is 3.5 games ahead of Detroit, so I am saying that margin will shrink”), but that looks highly unlikely. You also predicted Detroit would win more games than Denver, which should get an explanation if it fails to pan out.
How did mechanical become magical? You replace Player A on a team with Player B, who is better, and the team improves. You replace Player B on a team with Player A, who is worse, and the team declines. Does that seem like magic to you? You expected when McDyess returned to the Pistons and took minutes from Kwame that they would improve.
Also on the 19th, “Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not.” Obviously you were not expecting the jury to stay out this long.
Again, I’ve told you the swing for the Pistons has been primarily the trade. If you are confused by the standings, the Pistons were 9 games better than the Nuggets last season and are now 7 games worse. The loss of Camby and health of Nene has been a net loss for the Nuggets. McDyess and ‘Melo each missed a month. Stuckey didn’t get regular playing time until late in the year last year. The Pistons have a new coach. Beyond the Trade, this is the roster activity I see, last season to this, that is worth mentioning and none of it, individually or in sum, is responsible for any significant part of that 16 game swing.
If your analysis does not support the notion that trading an average player for a very good player can make a team better or worse, or that such a change is ‘magical’, then I think you need to look at the inherent flaws and biases in your analysis.
I am glad you appreciate my standings. As you stated in early January, “The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.”
Both teams have played the same way before and after 12/17. Similar records, similar seed positions. Although Detroit has moved closer to the 9 seed in the East and Denver has moved further away. McDyess’s return hasn’t changed anything, although you continue to complain his presence is a difference-maker and you insisted that when he returned the Pistons would cruise. His return hasn’t been a status changer. The Trade, however, has been.
David Friedman
February 11, 2009
Tball:
Denver’s record this season is marginally better than it was at the same time last year. Last season, they were 32-20 and ended up 50-32; this year they are 35-17 and we’ll see how they finish (according to Basketball Reference.com, their “pythagorean w-l is 32-20 this year, for whatever that is worth). So Billups has not added a significant number of wins to the Nuggets. Did I think that the Nuggets would have dropped further in the standings by now? Yes. They have only dropped from second to third and I thought that they would be lower.
Why does Iverson have to be the one and only “answer” for Detroit’s performance? The Pistons have already used 10 different starting lineups this season, compared to 9 all of last year–and one of those 9 started 63 games, while not Detroit lineup has started more than 13 games this season. McDyess has missed nearly a quarter of the season (assuming that he does not miss any more games), while last year he started 78 games. You just blithely dismiss the fact that when he was out for a month a 59 win team started out barely above .500 but they started out 15-7 last year and then went on an 11 game winning streak.
The Pistons do have a more talented roster than the Nuggets but the Pistons have not had a stable lineup nor have their players collectively played up to their demonstrated potential. The “answer” is more complicated than you care to consider.
Tball
February 12, 2009
DF
There doesn’t have to be the one and only answer, but there is only one significant answer. The starting lineups have differed because the coach cannot decide on what big to start with Wallace or whether he should just go with a three guard starting lineup. That’s your rationale for why a 59 win team becomes a team on pace for 44 wins? Milwakee has had 13 starting lineups with none starting more than 14 games (and that lineup cannot reassemble for the remainder of the year). Would they own the 5th seed if they could settle on a lineup? As it stands, they are one win behind Detroit with a better Pythagorean record, if that’s the stat you like this week.
Then you have a cause and effect issue. If one lineup could win consistently (like they did last year) they’d stick to one lineup. When none can win consistently, they keep switching looking for the ‘right combination’. The problem is that this mediocre club lacks a ‘right combination’. Minn, NY, GS (wow), Sac, Wash, Tor, Chi, Char, Dal, Ind, and LAC, have not started a consistent lineup. Some have had starting lineup injuries and/or trades, but most have been looking for the ‘right combination’.
McDyess is the Piston’s best rebounder, averaging 12/36 minutes. Do you know who is second? Kwame, at 10/36. And that earns him a regular DNP-CD. More than half his minutes this season were recorded before You-Know-Who returned. McDyess is a good player, but their record of 9-9 when he was gone does not become 14-4 if he had played. With all the lineup changes, McDyess has not appeared in the starting lineup once, so his absence did not impact that.
And this was not a 59 win team that started out barely above .500. After the Trade, this was a barely above .500 team that started out barely above .500 – par for the course.
The Pistons do not have a more talented roster than the Nuggets, although, absent Billups and Iverson you could say they have equivalent rosters.
The problem with your ‘complicated’ answer is that it is arbitrary. I count five occasions when the Pistons used the same lineup for 5 consecutive games. On the 5th game in those streaks, when you might expect a little consistency to develop, they are 2-3 with the wins being over Memphis and the OT win over the Bucks. What’s their record in games where they provide a ‘new starting lineup’ (new over the previous game)? 7-7. They are a .500 team. A .500 team with a losing record at home against winning teams. Maybe that’s an Iverson thing because the Nuggets have a winning record against plus-.500 teams.
Unstable lineup? Not playing up to potential? These are excuses. With some minor discrepencies from luck, a team is what their record says the team is. And the Pistons are not in the Nuggets’ league this season.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 36 17 – 55
Detroit 27 24 7 44
Billups 36 13 –
Iverson 24 25 11
David Friedman
February 13, 2009
Tball:
Why the starting lineups have differed is not of primary importance to this discussion; the point is that the Pistons have yet to settle on an identity this season and their record reflects that (and could also perhaps be said to reflect that they are settling on the wrong identity–I do not agree with benching Rip in favor of Stuckey).
My “rationale” for a 59 win team being on pace for 44 wins is that this team lost its leading rebounder (from both last season and this season) for what amounts to nearly a fifth of this season’s total games, plus the coach has not settled on a consistent player rotation. When I predicted that the Pistons would do better after McDyess returned–which they did, but only for a relatively short time–I assumed that the Pistons would start Iverson and Rip, continue to bring Stuckey off of the bench and that the other key rotation players would be roughly as productive as they had been in the recent past. To the extent that my prediction (3/4 seed) has been wrong thus far, those are the predominant reasons/explanations.
To put it charitably, let’s just say that I disagree with your notion that a team can develop continuity by having the same starting lineup for five consecutive games.
So, as things stand now–with roughly 30 games to go–the Pistons are performing worse than I predicted, for the reasons noted above. The Nuggets have roughly the same record that they did last year at this time, though they rank higher in the West because some traditional powers (Utah, Phx, Dall) have experienced turbulence. As of yet, there is no conclusive proof that Billups has in fact changed Denver or even that Denver has actually changed at all; if the Nuggets go out in the first round, how is that progress, no matter how excited people are about the team right now? I still am not sold on Denver truly being an improved team, which is not at all a shot at Billups; he is having a very good season and is well deserving of his All-Star selection.
Tball
February 13, 2009
DF
Checking out those lineups at basketball-reference.com, it does not appear any starting lineup with Iverson and Hamilton has a winning record. Not sure it would help the Pistons to commit to that. And lets not forget, that brief spell when you felt good about your prediction coincided with Curry adopting a new, three guard, starting lineup followed by Hamilton being injured. Apparently the team can survive Hamilton not starting more easily than McDyess not being available and apparently discontinuity leads to success, unless the team is losing.
The reason your prediction has been wrong is the same reason your rationale is wrong. You start by saying this is a 59 win team and then try to explain why they are on pace to win 44 games. They only lost 8-9 games without McDyess – you think they could have turned those 8-9 losses into 15 wins? 8-9 wins? 3 wins? If he is around for that Laker game, maybe Kwame records a DNP-CD and they lose that one. How many of those losses become wins if you replace Kwame’s 10 boards/36 minutes with McDyess’s 12 rb/36 for 25 minutes each game?
I identified about 10 teams that have had the same rotational irregularity as the Pistons. How many of them would have won 10 more games this season if they had stuck to one primary lineup? Or is this just a rationale that is limited to teams that underperform your unfairly elevated expectations by 10 games or more?
You mentioned 2 months ago that Dallas and Phoenix would be one of the teams fighting for the 7/8 seed. Now that they are, they are fighting for those spots, it is due to turbulence? You expected those seeds would require win totals in the low 50s, which is where those teams are headed. Now that they are fulfilling expectations, that has unexpectedly elevated Denver? I don’t think you are trying as hard on these excuses as you once were.
Earlier in this thread, you said improvement isn’t measured by wins, it is measured by seeds. Last year Detroit was a two seed and Denver was an eight seed. Now Detroit is tied for the 6th seed and Denver is a third seed. That isn’t a sign of improvement for Denver? That Denver has changed?
Now you say it isn’t measured by seeds, it is measured by playoff advancement. When you aren’t coming up with excuses to explain why Detroit hasn’t become worse and Denver hasn’t become better, you are trying to change the rules by which the teams are measured.
You’ve described me as a politician and a magician, but the fact is you attached this article. You said Detroit’s trouble was all about McDyess being gone. You said your analysis would be proven out because Detroit would win down the stretch and Denver would flop, ending up in the predicted seeds. As both predictions have gone terribly wrong, you claim looking at those predictions is a diversion and not the point. I’ve found your profession.
You analyze basketball like an astrologist. A person gets in a car accident and you claim its because Venus and Jupiter are aligned in the sky, which is bad luck for a Capricorn. My twin had a great day, the same day, and met the love of his life and you claim that was caused by Pluto being at its furthest point from the Sun, a romantic time for a Capricorn. I call you out because my twin didn’t have bad luck and you insist I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t understand astrology like you do. Each little rule can be called a ‘causse’ and applied haphazardly in a manner that mirrors the ‘result’. McDyess is out and that’s why Detroit loses. Hamilton and Wallace are out, but the team wins because they are that good. Everyone’s healthy, but they lose because the starting lineup is unsettled. Other teams lose with unsettled starting lineups, but they are losing because they are not that good. Denver’s going to lose because they have good teams coming up on the schedule. Winning record against winning teams? Denver’s going to lose because they will be without ‘Melo for a month. Doesn’t happen? Denver’s going to lose because they have a long road schedule ahead. Doesn’t happen? Denver’s not good because they play well against bad teams. Ha, they are winning so they must not be that good. That doesn’t make sense to you? That because you don’t understand astrology.
Do me a favor and let me know in advance what situation, other than winning a few games, is going to be evidence of continuity in Detroit. Because I have a feeling the next good 10 game period they have is going to coincide with an “Aha, see they just needed that continuity right there.” And the only thing you will be pointing at is the winning.
David Friedman
February 13, 2009
Tball:
I’ll be perfectly honest with you: I did not even read the final few paragraphs of your most recent comment, so I hope you at least amused yourself or other people. Your increasing tendency to ramble on about so many subjects that have nothing to do with my original comment here have caused me to pay less and less attention to what you say. This post was about why Detroit had a mediocre record for the first month of the season. You have tried to turn this thread into some kind of predicting contest or your own soliloquy on a host of irrelevant subjects but I have said all along that no matter how the teams finish it will neither vindicate nor repudiate the analysis provided by Berri in this post; his explanation for what happened in the first month of the season was tendentious and incomplete–in order to refute that point, you have to address what I actually said in my original comment.
David Friedman
February 13, 2009
Tball:
Also, I would like to make it clear that when I try to explain Detroit’s record I am not “waffling” about my prediction. I predicted that Detroit would fight for the 3/4 seeds and if that does not prove to be the case by the end of the season–and it obviously does not look good for the Pistons right now–then my prediction was wrong. Period.
However, if my prediction is wrong that does not prove that Iverson is the “answer” for Detroit’s problems. The team has to be looked at in its entirety.
Tball
February 16, 2009
DF,
Your first post had 4 points and only one of them was about McDyess. In your first few posts, you indicated this article would be proven wrong because Denver would slide and Detroit would take off. You have been dead wrong on both accounts. Now his post, about how Detroit could not expect to do any better than they have done for the first month, is proving prescient you have chosen to retreat from all of those sarcastic, little barbs.
If you’d go back and read your comments once in a while, you’d realize how flimsy your ‘analysis’ is.
David Friedman
February 17, 2009
Tball:
My analysis is not “flimsy” at all. My four objections to this post–as outlined in the initial comment that I made–are quite soundly based:
1) Berri’s claim that Denver was expected to be a championship contender with Iverson is weak. Who expected that, other than maybe Stephen A. Smith? Berri put up that strawman in order to highlight Denver’s alleged failures with Iverson.
Moreover, so far this season the Nuggets have only won a few more games than they had at the same time last season; they were not a championship contender with Iverson and–unless Boston, L.A., Cleveland and San Antonio (in no particular order) disappear–they are not a championship contender this year.
2) My suggestion that Berri should have waited for a larger sample size before drawing sweeping conclusions is also sound; at the time Berri made this post, neither team had played enough games to make bold declarations about the impact of the trade. My analysis in that regard is quite correct; my subsequent prediction about how Detroit would perform–which is an entirely different matter from suggesting that a larger sample size would be more reliable–is a separate issue, one that apparently interests you much more than the flaws in this post or my refutations of said flaws.
3) My third point attacked an inherent contradiction in one aspect of Berri’s argument and I stand by what I wrote: “Which is it–Dumars knew the Pistons were not going to be that good, so he made the trade to free up salary space or the Pistons were going to win 50+ games until Iverson arrived? You can’t have it both ways.” Berri tried to simultaneously have his cake and eat it too by asserting on the one hand that with Billups instead of Iverson the Pistons would be a 50+ win team but he also said that the Pistons did this deal to free up salary space–i.e., with the tacit understanding that the team needed to be blown up because it had peaked. So, when it suits Berri he touts Detroit’s potential to win 50+ games–thereby setting Iverson up as the fall guy if the Pistons failed to do so after the trade–but he also acknowledges that Dumars may have made this deal precisely because he felt that this was not a 50 win team with Billups or anyone else.
I concluded my initial comment by writing:
“4) The Pistons started Kwame Brown at center for several games with McDyess not on the roster. The Pistons had no paint presence in those games (except, ironically, in one game when they beat Kwame’s old team, the Lakers, and he “broke out” for season-highs with 10 points and 10 rebounds).
For what it’s worth, my prediction (before the season) was that Detroit might be better coached this year and still finish with a worse record because several key players are declining. The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season. They are fifth right now and only 4.5 games behind third place Orlando.”
Unfortunately for the Pistons, lineup instability has still been an issue. You will note that in my initial comment I stated quite clearly that I had predicted that the Pistons would be worse this year than last year even before the trade. Before the season began, I still expected Detroit to battle for the third seed but Orlando has been surprisingly good.
There are two completely different topics in this comment thread; what interests me–and prompted me to comment in the first place–are the flaws in the reasoning behind this post. What interests you is making precise win predictions and then crowing if you are lucky enough to be “right” even if your reasoning is flawed. As I said from the start, I am not interested in your prediction contest, though it was amusing when you made a fool of yourself by boldly declaring that Denver would beat Detroit in a particular game; that little incident provided a nice example of exactly how clear your reasoning is in these matters. Perhaps some day you will actually address the four points that I made in my original comment, instead of just posting replies that are further and further removed from what I originally discussed.
Tball
February 17, 2009
DF,
I love when we try to start over because you’ve gone in so many different directions. It is fun to recap.
When the in-season trade occurred, there was plenty of talk that the trade was as lopsided as last year’s Gasol(s) trade and that Denver was a championship contender. Linked is Hollinger’s post-trade suggestion the Nuggets are championship contenders (requires ESPN Insider).
Why are you associating Denver’s wins with the question of whether they’ve improved? Your comment on 1/7: “I don’t understand why you are more interested in specific win total predictions rather than seedings (which will ultimately prove to be more important).” Do wins demonstrate improvement or seeds? Part of the reason this conversation keeps going in circles is you keep changing the rules by which you evaluate these teams.
2) The article: “First we have what the Pistons could expect given what their players did last year. And then we have what these players are doing this year. As one can see, both views are not much different. Given what these players did last year, the Pistons should be on pace to win about 48 games. Their performance this year, though, suggests about 41 victories.” He evaluated the team based on up to 100 games played by each player currently on the Pistons and judged they would not reach 50 wins. If he had relied on the small sample size, he’d have predicted 41 wins. Maybe the problem is that this stuff is just a little bit beyond your comprehension.
3) The article: “one senses that Dumars knew the acquisition of Iverson wasn’t going to help. In fact, it seems likely that Dumars made this move because Iverson’s contract is expiring. If this is true, then Dumars knew after two games this season that another trip to the Eastern Conference Finals wasn’t going to happen.” The comment was not that Detroit wouldn’t be good. The comment was Detroit would not reach the EC Finals. You: “Before the season, I picked the Pistons to be the third best team in the East (i.e., not make the ECF). I guess that means that I agree with both of your statements–that they could win 50+ games and not reach the ECF, though I did not assign a specific win total in my original prediction.” Why are you rehashing a point on which we agreed?
4) Before the season, you expected Detroit to win the third seed. After Orlando’s first 20 games, you expected Detroit to battle for the 3rd seed. The reason I sought the win prediction is because your flimflam rationale signaled that when Denver exceeded your seed expectation and Detroit failed to achieve theirs, that you’d argue Denver and Detroit are the teams you thought they were, but the surprise performance of other teams altered their seed placement. You did it with Orlando/Detroit. Now you are doing it with Denver. And how is it two teams you expected to be 7th and 8th seeds are battling for 7th and 8th seeds, but that has caused Denver to rocket to third? Hence the win total:
1/7: “If I had to assign a predicted win total for each team right now I would say that Detroit will win 52-53 games this season and Denver, as I said above, will win 47-48 games.” Denver will need to go 12-17 or 11-18 from here on out to prove you right, while Detroit needs to go 25-6 or 26-5.
You 12/17: “Just to be on the safe side, you might want to start working on the article that explains how the Pistons turned around their season “despite” Iverson and why the Nuggets missed the playoffs with Billups.”
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 36 17 – 55
Detroit 27 24 7 44
Billups 36 13 –
Iverson 24 25 11
David Friedman
February 17, 2009
Tball:
I have not gone in many different directions. My first comment stated my refutations of this post, which neither you nor Berri have ever addressed.
Since then, you are the one who has gone in many directions and I have quite patiently played along, even though Berri’s “science” is, to put it charitably, on the fringes of basketball stat research, as indicated by the discussion going on here:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/quantifying_shane_battier.php#comments
With all due respect, Hollinger and Stephen A. Smith saying something hardly makes it the consensus viewpoint of informed observers. The Nuggets were never a championship contender with Iverson, nor are they one now with Billups.
I emphasized Denver’s wins because that is the currency that you are interested in discussing. You are the one who keeps changing the rules. You keep saying that wins are most important, so by your standard Denver has hardly improved this season compared to last season at this time.
The previous individual production of certain players does not tell you how well those players will perform together collectively. Even if Berri happens to be “right” in this case (in terms of Detroit’s eventual win total) that does not mean that his methodology is right. My critique is of the methodology, the same methodology that purports to prove that Rodman was more productive than Jordan and that early last season Bynum was more productive than Kobe.
Again, your “standings” have nothing to do with my original comment but are merely a diversion that you have created to amuse yourself. The above thread from Yglesias’ site provides some nice context about what the rest of the stats world thinks of Berri’s methodology. I don’t know why I keep trying to reason with the Flat Earth Society.
Tball
February 17, 2009
DF
How are a handful of people that leave comments on the Yglesias site representative of the stats world? I did see you or your site cited in any of the basketball articles there. Why the omission?
I mention the wins because that is what db was discussing and, if you are going to criticize the article, you should discuss the subject matter – not seeds because that is what you chose to write about in some obscure location.
You do realize, of course, that I indicated early on in this thread that I didn’t think Denver would improve much, if at all, on its win total from last year and the same comment was made by db in a late December post. Camby is better than Nene, Billups is better than Iverson, and the two ‘transactions’ cancel each other out. So, instead of indicating they have hardly improved, feel free to simply tell me my prediction is proving true.
Individual production, on a per minute basis, actually seems to be fairly consistent. If you made a starting lineup of centers who were in conventional lineups previously, there would be significant changes, but short of this type of extreme, it seems to play out. Iverson, Billups, Garnett, Ray Allen and Al Jefferson, to name a few players who have changed teams recently, have put up similar rate statistics on new teams.
Since you have yet to explain why you disagree with the WoW conclusion that Billups is significantly better than Iverson, or recognize that db’s prediction relied on last year’s statistics, it is hard to appreciate your criticism of the methodology.
You did suggest if his prediction proved wrong, it would prove his methodology wrong. Of course I would not expect you to accept the converse proposition.
David Friedman
February 17, 2009
Tball:
The sentiments expressed in several of those comments at the Yglesias site echo what Dan Rosenbaum and other respected members of the APBR stats community have said about Berri’s methods. You should check out the APBR site with an open mind and learn the real deal.
I have not yet done a post about the NYT/Battier article, so that would be a good reason that I have not been mentioned. Yglesias linked to my work on other basketball subjects at his previous site (sometimes agreeing with me, sometimes not).
Do you honestly believe that Iverson is playing so poorly and/or so much worse than Billups did last season that he has singlehandedly transformed Detroit from a 59 win team to what the Pistons currently are?
Tball
February 18, 2009
DF
Again, I think it is wrong to say that Iverson is playing poorly or is responsible for losses. As I’ve expressed previously, I think replacing Billups with Iverson costs the Pistons nine wins. I think coming into the season the most productive players on the team were on the wrong side of 30, so a 56-57 win season would have been a reasonable expectation (an expectation you shared, I believe). You could take another win off the expectation for McDyess’s absence, which would leave you with an expectation of 46-47 wins this season.
They are on course to underperform that expectation. I think one reason for the underperformance is Hamilton whose underperformance compared to last year was alluded to by db, although the continuation and significance of that year-to-year decline has cost Detroit a few wins and, arguably, was exacerbated by the trade. I’ve explained my rationale for the trade influencing this decline, although that is simply conjecture. That decline may be responsible for 3-4 wins by season’s end, if the decline in play continues.
Beyond that, I do think Amir and Maxiell have underperformed last year’s effort, but I haven’t the slightest idea why. Stuckey has contributed more this season, but I am not sure it is enough to balance it out.
In sum, I don’t think replacing Billups with Iverson single-handedly transformed Detroit from a 59 win team to a team projected for 43 wins, but the roster change was the most significant cause of the transformation.
When Pythagorous (sp?) first suggested the world was round, he had doubters and critics in the scientific community. I don’t think that made him wrong. It simply meant educated people could develop different opinions based on the facts at hand. And the criticism of db in that forum seemed to be more directed to believing that he had too much faith in his one statistic that the idea that the statistic was not useful.
WoW is not unduly reliant on rebounds. Wow is reliant on possessions and and efficiency of converting possessions to points. Rodman essentially avoided the ball on offense, at least until it was coming off the rim. As a result, he avoided inefficiencies such as missed shots and turnovers, but he also gets penalized in the WoW statistic for failing to efficiently convert possessions to points due to infrequent shot attempts and assists. The real issue with Rodman is whether his lack of offense made his teammates more inefficient (comparable, perhaps, to defenders/Kobe leaving Rondo in the playoffs last year to clog lanes and double team) – so lacking that his team had to play 4 on 5. So extreme that some of his faults may have extended beyond the box score.
Keep in mind that MVPs have had holes in their games before. Iverson won the MVP without being a good rebounder, being turnover-prone, and not converting a high percentage of shot attempts. It is interesting that you could be the MVP in the league with that many holes in your game, as long as one of them isn’t PPG. How many times has an MVP been outside the top 25 in PPG? In rebounds/gm? In assists/gm? In FG%? You may think WoW overemphasizes one area over another, but maybe that’s because the league-wide perception has been overemphasizing the wrong performances for too long. I’m always willing to view evidence with an open mind, but too many spaces abandon measurable information for opinion and conjecture, neither of which is terribly persuasive.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 36 17 – 55
Detroit 27 25 7.5 43
Billups 36 13 –
Iverson 24 26 11.5
David Friedman
February 20, 2009
Tball:
If we can agree that Iverson is not playing poorly and is not primarily responsible for Detroit’s losses then is it logical to finger the trade as “the most significant cause of the transformation”? Maybe the trade is just the most obvious change that the Pistons made but has little causal relationship with the declining win total. Watching Detroit’s loss to the Spurs, Iverson and McDyess were Detroit’s two most productive players. Without them, the Pistons probably would have lost by 20. Just because the Pistons are playing poorly now that does not mean that Iverson and McDyess are not valuable–or that McDyess’ earlier absence was not a factor in Detroit’s slow start.
The Pistons’ collapse in the past month or so is really stunning; they were fighting for the fourth spot and then all of a sudden they can hardly win a game. The way that they are playing now does not fit either Berri’s prediction or mine, because at this pace they will fall short even of Berri’s predicted win total. There is something going on here beyond the trade.
One obvious difference between this Detroit team and previous ones is that Detroit no longer plays great defensively. Swapping Billups for Iverson did not help in this regard but the numerous missed rotations to Bonner were hardly his fault.
Stuckey’s production has been steadily declining since he became a starter. Coach Curry said something to TNT to the effect that slow starts have hurt the Pistons (though they actually got off to a fast start against the Spurs). I am not surprised that the Pistons start slowly; they have the wrong starting lineup on the court. Rip should be starting.
One interesting thing to consider is that although Iverson replaced Billups on the roster he has not actually replaced Billups in the lineup; Stuckey has taken over Billups’ position, Iverson has replaced Rip at shooting guard and Rip is now the first guard off of the bench. Looking at it that way, swapping Billups for Stuckey has not turned out well for Detroit and the Pistons better hope that Stuckey’s fabled “upside” becomes more apparent at some point.
Russell, Unseld, Walton and Nash quickly come to mind as MVPs who did not rank as top level scorers. Of course, winning and losing is determined by scoring more points than the opposition, so it would not make sense to completely devalue players who are adept at scoring. Most of the top scorers who won MVPs were above average (at least for their position) at rebounding and/or assists.
One thing that Berri’s system clearly undervalues is the ability to create one’s own shot; that is why players like Iverson and Kobe Bryant do not rate as highly in WoW as they should. A team of five Steve Kerrs may look super efficient on paper but without anyone to create open shots for them they would struggle.
Tball
February 20, 2009
DF,
I don’t think Iverson is playing worse than his career standard (maybe off his peak, due to age). And I don’t think you can point to one player on any NBA team and say ‘that player is the reason this team is losing.’ If a player is that defective, they will generally find their way to the bench. I do think this team was a 55+ win team this season without the trade, so I am going with causal relationship.
This really boils down to a comparison of Iverson and Billups that you’ve been reluctant to address.
Looking at last night’s game, Maxiell was as effective as McDyess, with a production difference stemming from minutes played. It was a very clean game, in that there were 9 turnovers for each side and no one was really in foul trouble. Bonner shot well, but Duncan and Parker shot 14-39. Maybe Detroit’s defense focused on the stars at the expense of defending everyone else well. It was one game, but it is tough to call ‘holding San Antonio to 40% shooting’ bad defense.
I would agree that Stuckey’s production declined from Dec. to Jan. and from Jan. to Feb., but I think he played better in Dec. than Nov., when he was coming off the bench. His starting is not the cause of the losses. He’s been getting 3rd guard minutes this season (fewer mpg than Hamilton or Iverson). Iverson took Billups’ minutes in the 3 guard rotation, and then some (since he averages more mpg than Billups did).
The Pistons have been 2-6 this month. They have outscored the opposition 3 times in the first quarter (and matched the opposition twice, for a 3-3-2 total). They have outscored the opposition twice in the second quarter. It isn’t bad starts that are sinking them.
Everyone on the team that is on the high side of 30, aside from McDyess, is shooting at or below their career average FG%. Last season, when the Bulls underperformed expectations, FG% was the year-to-year drop off that stood out.
Would Russell’s 18PPG have taken the MVP over Wilt’s 50PPG season in today’s voting?
PPG is not a useful metric for determining who is ‘adept’ at scoring. In his MVP season, Iverson averaged 31 PPG on 26 shots/gm. Kobe (who is recognized as a star player by WoW, just not an MVP candidate), this season, has a career high FG% and is scoring 27 PPG on 21 shots/gm. In ’05-’06, Wade scored 27PPG on 19 shots/gm. Last night, Iverson scored 31 points on 28 shots and it was described as one of his best games this season. In Detroit’s loss to the Bucks, Jefferson had 29 points on 13 shots and 1 TO. It isn’t enough to create a shot. That shot has to result in regular points. Creating a missed shot for your team is not valuable.
Tball
February 20, 2009
BTW – Last season, db mentioned Kobe was 9th in the NBA in wins produced. Chris Paul was first (not much of a rebounder either). WoW does value creating shots.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 37 17 – 55
Detroit 27 26 8.5 43
Billups 37 13 –
Iverson 24 27 12.5
David Friedman
February 21, 2009
Tball:
I did not think that the Pistons were a 55+ win team before the trade but, obviously, I did not expect them to perform the way that they are now, either. The Pistons were basically “on schedule” regarding my expectations until this recent horrible stretch, a stretch that not coincidentally coincides with the mistaken decision to promote Stuckey to the starting lineup; I believe that the Pistons are 4-9 now with Stuckey as the starting pg.
I am not “reluctant” to compare Iverson and Billups; I wrote a comment in response to the fallacies inherent in the construction of this post, namely that the post purports to analyze the results of a trade without considering all of the relevant factors. When I read this post, what I see is an author who has always been certain that Iverson is an inefficient, below average player; as soon as the Pistons lost a few games after the trade, the author rushed out to write this post to say to the world, “See, I was right about Iverson all along. I know more about basketball than NBA GMs, who foolishly value scoring over other aspects of the game.” My objection to this is that Iverson is not the sole “answer” for why Detroit got off to a slow start or for why the wheels have fallen off of the Pistons recently.
Evaluating a team’s defense–particularly when just looking at one game, when there can be random outcomes (i.e., “good” shots that don’t go in or “bad” shots that do)–involves more than just looking at the numbers. I agree with the analysis of the TNT crew from the Spurs game, namely that the Pistons played lackadaisically on defense–and that is something that I have observed in many other recent Det. games as well. Det. was largely single covering Duncan, so there is no reason for Bonner to be so wide open.
Nash just won two MVPs as a relatively low scoring player, so why couldn’t Russell win an MVP now?
You are underestimating the value of creating a shot–and the difficulty of doing so under the pressure of the 24 second shot clock.
Tball
February 23, 2009
DF,
By what dates would you bracket ‘this horrible stretch’. And, bear in mind, the one good ‘stretch’ (8-2) Detroit had this season featured Stuckey starting all 10 games. Detroit is 19-19 with Stucky in as the starting PG (according to Basketball Reference). As mediocre as every other part of the season.
If we want to talk defense, it is worth noting that Denver lost a defensive player of the year in Marcus Camby and improved its defensive rating this season (its best defensive rating since Karl took charge), while Detroit fell from 4th to 12th.
You haven’t been bashful about criticizing the post. I have not found anywhere, though, where you have suggested that Iverson is better/worse/comparable to Billups. Obviously they each bring different skills to the table, but that should not stifle the discussion. If we could throw tax issues out the window, who would you rather have in 08-09 with Denver’s roster? With Detroit’s?
Detroit is db’s team. He wasn’t rushing out to say ‘see, I was right’. He was writing for the third time in a month about his team and grieving for the fact that they would not challenge for a shot at the championship for the first time in years. And after a month, it was apparent that Iverson was playing the same way he has played throughout his career. Which is to say, if you thought it was unfair to believe a player cannot improve significantly year-to-year, it was clear no one on the team had improved enough to change his forecast from a month earlier.
It is fine to say they looked lackadaisical in that game, but they didn’t lose that game because of defense. They lost that game because of a lack of offense. And, not to judge by one game, the past two seasons, the Pistons have been 6th and 6th in offensive efficiency, while being 7th and 4th in defensive efficiency. This season, they are 23rd in offensive efficiency and 12th in defensive efficiency. They are making bad decisions when they have the ball.
Nash won the MVP awards for being an offensive star – captain of an outstanding offense – despite his defensive limitations. His selection is not comparable to Russell.
You are overestimating the value of creating bad shots. Antoine Walker used to launch shots from all over the court during his hay days with the Celtics and regularly was booed for launching 3’s with a hand in his face early in the clock. Anybody can launch 25+ shots a game and it will result in lots of points, but is not a good offensive approach for the team. Value resides in creating good shots.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 37 19 – 54
Detroit 27 27 9 41
Billups 37 15 –
Iverson 24 28 13
David Friedman
February 23, 2009
Tball:
The “horrible stretch” in question is, as I indicated in my previous comment, the past 14 games (i.e., since Stuckey replaced Rip in the starting lineup). Prior to that, the Pistons were 23-17 and positioned to enjoy home court advantage in the first round. I don’t have a problem with Stuckey starting so much as I have a problem with him replacing Rip in the starting lineup; that is what I consider to be the mistake.
Prior to the season, Denver Coach George Karl mentioned that he planned to emphasize defense in training camp in a way that he had not previously done with this team. Apparently, those efforts are paying off.
My issue with this post does not center on comparing Iverson to Billups. My issue with this post, as I have repeated ad infinitum because you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge what I am saying, is that the post is constructed tendentiously. Berri’s particular way of crunching numbers deems Iverson to be a below average player, which is of course a marked contradiction to the way that he is generally portrayed (i.e., as a future HoFer). It is my opinion that Berri seized on Detroit’s early struggles to, in effect, say, “See, I told you that Iverson is no good.” This post is not about objectively comparing Iverson to Billups.
I agree that the Pistons are making bad decisions with the ball. I don’t think that their offense or their defense is particularly good right now. If they keep using this same lineup and playing the same way, I expect them to miss the playoffs completely. This team is unrecognizable compared to the team that beat the Lakers and Magic early in the season, let alone previous editions of the Pistons.
Yes, Nash was/is an “offensive” star but he hardly is a major scorer. I thought that your assertion is that MVP voters place too high of a value on individual scoring.
We could probably have a very long debate about Walker. One important thing to remember about Walker is that early in his career he played inside, crashed the offensive boards and did not shoot so many threes. The coaching staff changed the style of play of the team and emphasized three point shooting, so he was doing what the coaching staff asked him to do. Whether or not that was the optimal strategy is a different issue.
Regarding the value of creating shots, the NBA has a 24 second shot clock. Up to a third of that time is consumed simply advancing the ball past midcourt, so there is a small window of opportunity to create shots. It is vitally important for a team to have at least one player who can create open shots by either dribble penetrating or else drawing a double team on the post. A team that has nothing but “efficient” shooters who cannot do either of those things will not be successful in the NBA, no matter what you think the numbers are telling you. The important question is how to accurately balance the positive value of the shots that Iverson and other such players create versus the negative value of their missed shots and turnovers. In my opinion, Berri’s system–and most stat systems, for that matter–does not do a great job of measuring this.
Dumars originally said that he was bringing in Iverson because Iverson’s ability to create shot opportunities with the shot clock winding down would give the team a dimension that it had not previously had and thus curtail some of the scoring droughts that afflicted the Pistons in recent years. However, the Pistons are not deploying Iverson in this manner. Stuckey is the starting pg and he is handling the ball. Iverson’s shot creating abilities–whatever you may think of them–are not really being utilized by the Pistons. I don’t understand why they would bring him in and then not utilize him but maybe the real “answer” is that this was nothing but a financial deal. Perhaps Dumars decided that the Pistons were not going to beat Boston or Cleveland with Billups, so he would roll the dice with Iverson for one year and then if it didn’t work he could get rid of Iverson and Sheed and start over; I realize that this aspect of the deal was mentioned from the start but I thought that the team could perform a lot better than it has for the past month or so. There is too much talent on that roster for the Pistons to be a .500 team.
Tball
February 24, 2009
DF,
I am not trying to rehash why you are criticizing the post. I said in the last few days that you were reluctant to compare Iverson and Billups and you said you weren’t, but I haven’t seen a comparison.
The Pistons, with Stuckey in the starting lineup and Hamilton out of the starting lineup, are 10-12. With Hamilton and Iverson in the starting lineup, without Stuckey, the Pistons are 6-8. The problem is not about who is starting.
If Iverson can create an open shot for himself, but can’t make the shot with adequate frequency, there is no value in creating that open shot. That was Walker’s problem as well. Any NBA player can get a shot off. If given the ball and told to get a shot off, I can’t think of a player that wouldn’t be able to do it. Ben Wallace could do it.
And if Ben Wallace started taking 20 shots per game, his PPG would go up, but the Cavs would start losing a few more games. And we’d say, the losses aren’t Wallace’s fault – look, he’s scoring at a career high level. Or maybe we’d notice Wallace shouldn’t be shooting because he looks so awkward trying to create his shot. But for some reason, when it comes to a player like Iverson, it is so much fun to watch him get the shot off, that we stop bothering to care if it goes in. But, it matters how often the shot goes in.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 37 20 – 54
Detroit 27 27 8.5 41
Billups 37 16 –
Iverson 24 28 12.5
David Friedman
February 24, 2009
Tball:
The Pistons are 4-10 in their last 14 games; the main change in that time is that Stuckey has been starting and Rip has been coming off of the bench. It is during this period of time that they dropped from fighting for the fourth seed to quite possibly missing the playoffs altogether. How can you so confidently state that Iverson was the “answer” for the first month of the season–when the Pistons were without McDyess and getting killed on the boards–and then turn around and ignore the obvious fact that benching Rip in favor of Stuckey is not working? McDyess’ absence was the “answer” early in the season, then the Pistons regrouped to improve to 24-17 (including a couple wins against bad teams with Stuckey starting) but recently the Pistons have completely collapsed. You want to impose one storyline on their season and have been trying to do so before the season had even played out but you are simply ignoring reality.
As for your Iverson-Wallace comparison, please reread my previous comment (regarding the 24 second shot clock) because I still think that you do not understand the dynamics of how an NBA offense works. Ben Wallace is a highly limited offensive player whose main offensive weapon during his career has been the slam dunk–and he still has a career FG% below .475. His ft% (.418) is abysmal. Wallace is a very good offensive rebounder and a better passer than most people realize but no one would think that it is a good idea for him to shoot 20 times a game. Iverson is a guard who can break his man down off of the dribble, penetrate into the lane and collapse the defense. He and Wallace could not be more different as players. Your Iverson-Wallace analogy makes about as much sense as comparing a toy car with a Ferrari because they both have four wheels.
Whether or not Iverson is “fun to watch,” he is leading the Pistons in scoring, assists and steals. If we were to make a list of why the Pistons are not as good as they were last year–or even as good as they were last month, when they had a seven game winning streak and also won a game in Denver–Iverson’s name would not be on that list.
Tball
February 24, 2009
DF,
If we are going to tell the starting lineup story, lets tell it right. Stuckey was inserted into the lineup on Dec. 9th and has not been removed since. From the 9th to the 26th of Dec., they played their 3-guard starting lineup and went 5-3. Then Hamilton was hurt and unavailable, and Detroit went 6-2 with a conventional lineup that included Kwame replacing Wallace for 5 games. Then Hamilton returned to the starting 3-guard lineup and the Pistons went 1-4. Then Hamilton went to the bench and the Pistons went 4-10. Their best run came when Hamilton was neither in the starting lineup, nor on the bench, so maybe the issue is that he needs to be sent home. In any case, Stuckey starting is not a change that has taken place in the last 14 games. Hamilton was replaced in the lineup by Amir Johnson. The only good run the Pistons have had featured Stuckey starting every game.
Obviously I picked on Wallace because he is an abysmal offensive player. But the fact is that you value Iverson because he produces counting stats, not because of his shooting percentages, and the reason he produces counting stats is because he gets so many opportunities. Iverson is leading the Pistons in min/gm, scoring, assists, and steals. But he is not leading the Pistons in points/minute. That honor goes to Hamilton. He is not leading the Pistons in assists/minute. That honor goes to Stuckey. He does have the worst FG% and the worst 3ptFG% among the primary 8 rotation players. Why does he lead the team in points/gm if he is the worst shooter on the team? Because he hoists more shots than anyone else. And, again, if Ben Wallace were to hoist more shots, he would score more points, but I agree with you “no one would think that it is a good idea for him to shoot 20 times a game.”
Incidentally, Iverson’s FG% mirrors Wallace’s FT%. You wouldn’t feel good about Wallace attempting a free throw, so why do you feel good about Iverson attempting a field goal?
David Friedman
February 24, 2009
Tball:
You insist on breaking the Pistons’ season into segments that suit you but my point is that I disagree with benching Rip in favor of Stuckey. Despite various challenges and problems, the Pistons were still in the hunt for the fourth seed until that change was made. I don’t think that this one move alone is the “answer” any more than I believe that the Billups/McDyess-Iverson trade is the “answer” but I do think that it is closer to the truth to say that benching Rip for Stuckey has led to the Pistons’ downfall than to cite anything else. Stuckey has not played well in his current stint as the starter (regardless of how well he may have played as a starter previously with other lineup combinations). Overall, the Pistons look listless and disinterested at both ends of the court. There may very well be something going on with the internal dynamics of the team that we outsiders will not fully know about until after this team is inevitably broken up. Coach Curry said at halftime of the Cavs game that the players were playing like they don’t know each other and don’t like each other. That is a very apt description, though of course describing the problem does not bring him any closer to actually solving it.
I don’t value Iverson because of his “counting” stats. I look at Iverson from a skill set standpoint. On the positive side of the ledger, he is quick, durable and plays hard (the latter may seem easy to dismiss but not all players truly play hard). He can create open shots for himself and for his teammates. On the negative side of the ledger, at times he dribbles too much and his shot selection is not always great. Evaluating him as a player comes down to how much you value the positive things versus how much you deduct for the negative things. Iverson is not a catch and shoot player, so putting him off of the ball and letting Stuckey run the show does not maximize either player’s talents; Stuckey is not really a pure point guard, either.
I would not feel good about Wallace attempting a free throw because he is one of the worst ft shooters in history. Iverson has proven that he can score and can create shot opportunities for his teammates on multiple teams that advanced past the first round of the NBA playoffs. I don’t agree with the stat analysis crowd that would say that he was the worst player in the rotation for those teams. We simply look at the game differently–obviously.
Tball
February 24, 2009
DF,
Stuckey has not been inserted in the lineup in place of Rip. All you are doing now is looking for a convenient scapegoat and you are rewriting history to get there. The Pistons are 4-10 with Hamilton coming off the bench. Before that, in games Hamilton was starting and McDyess was available, they were 6-7. And Hamilton is getting more minutes than Stuckey either way. You cannot come up with a rational explanation for the Pistons’ losing ways, so you are forging an empty one. Rip was benched for Amir Johnson and, since then, the Pistons are 4-10.
If you changed ‘quick’ to ‘quick for a pf’, I think your Iverson description would look just like my Antoine description. Stuckey does only play 31 min/gm, which means Iverson is the PG for 17 min/gm, almost half his time on the court. Iverson is not a good shooter, so having him lead his team in FGA also does not maximize his talents.
If a team played hack-a-Ben on 5 consecutive possessions, sending Wallace to the line 10 times, you’d expect he’d score 4 points (based on his FT%). If Iverson controlled the ball (determined the offensive outcome) for 5 consecutive possessions, you’d expect the team to score 5 points (based on shooting percentages, assists, and turnovers). You feel bad about the first option, while the second is hall of fame material? Really?
This is the problem. 102 points on 100 possessions is bad (Clippers bad). The Wallace option above is awful. The Iverson option is still not good. If Iverson is determining the outcome of a possession (FGA/FTA/As/To), the outcome is subpar.
David Friedman
February 25, 2009
Tball:
However you want to phrase it/twist it/turn it, Rip and Iverson should be starting and Stuckey should be coming off of the bench. At this point, I doubt that anything would save Detroit’s season because too many of the players are, as Gary Payton put it, on the “quit list,” but keeping Stuckey in the starting lineup at Hamilton’s expense is a bad move.
Amir Johnson was not a starter last year for even one game, so I don’t know why you are throwing his name in there. His presence in the starting lineup for part of this season actually reinforces my point about the team’s roster instability; the Pistons have now used 11 different starting lineups this season. Current starters Prince, Wallace and McDyess were starters last year, so essentially the starting lineup that Detroit has used for the past 15 games as their season has gone down the toilet involves Stuckey taking Billups’ spot and Iverson taking Rip’s spot. I have maintained all along that the Pistons should be starting Iverson and Rip at those positions.
The Pistons’ collapse in the past month hardly validates anything that Berri wrote in this post. The “answer”–if you insist on having only one “answer”–is Detroit insisting on starting Stuckey no matter how ineffectively he plays. Apparently, Detroit management has written off this season and decided to simply let Stuckey learn the pro game by trial and (mostly) error.
The way things are going, Berri’s predicted win total for Detroit is going to be way off, too. As Jim Mora would say, “Playoffs?? I hope we can just win a game.” The Pistons are without question the most disappointing, underachieving team in the NBA this season. There is way too much talent on this team to perform the way that they are performing now–and if you honestly believe that the main or sole reason for Detroit’s decline is Iverson then you are beyond hope.
Your Wallace/Iverson analogy is horribly flawed. Wallace’s value is that he defends and rebounds. On offense, his role is to set screens, pass and collect offensive rebounds. He does not have the necessary skill set to create scoring opportunities for himself or others (except by retrieving missed shots of course).
If Iverson controls the ball for x number of possessions, I would expect him to break down his defender consistently and create open shots for himself and his teammates. He ranks 14th in NBA history in free throw attempts, so I would expect him to draw fouls, putting the other team in foul trouble and putting his team in the bonus early. I would expect, as Doug Collins often pointed out during Iverson’s Philly days, that when Iverson collapses the defense even if Iverson misses his bigs will have offensive rebounding opportunities because their men had to slide over to contest Iverson after Iverson blew past his man. Could Iverson exercise better shot selection at times? Certainly, but the same could be said–to a lesser degree, perhaps–of most great players who are prolific scorers.
You greatly underestimate the value of creating a shot attempt in the NBA under the restrictions of the 24 second shot clock. It is silly to say that most NBA players can create their own shots. In fact, the opposite is true; that is precisely why a player like Iverson is valuable.
Have you ever played the game at any level and/or interacted with any successful basketball coaches? If not, you could really do yourself a favor by reading some of the interviews that I have done with Hall of Fame coaches and with other coaches who have been successful at various levels of the game ranging from high school to the NBA.
Tball
February 25, 2009
DF,
db posted again on the Trade. You should take a read.
Hamilton is playing as many minutes as he did last season. Arguing he has less of a role because he isn’t starting or that his coming off the bench has made the Pistons a sub-.500 team is ludicrous. I mentioned Amir Johnson because that is who took Rip’s starting job 15 games ago. Stuckey has been starting since early December.
Compare the guard minutes last year to this year. Stuckey is playing 12 more minutes a game due, primarily to the employment of a 3-guard offense. Iverson has taken Billups’ minutes and about 300 more.
If some throws the ball toward the basket they have created a shot. Admittedly, it isn’t a good shot. However, Iverson does not create good shots, he just creates shots.
According to Basketball-Reference this AM, Iverson has 254 assists, which, for the sake of argument, we’ll say results from 413 passes to teammates positioned to take a good, quick shot (60% conversion). Then we can say, Iverson controlled possessions this season have resulted in 413 passes to open teammates, 765 FGA, 313 FTA (we’ll call that 140 possessions plus 33 and-1’s from made FGs), and 129 turnovers for a total of 1447 possessions. Those 1447 possessions have turned into 1422 (914 + 254*2) points. By comparison, Stuckey has had 590 FGA plus 175 FTA (~80 possessions) plus 113 TOs and 411 passes for 253 assists. That’s 1193 possessions for 1196 (690 + 253*2) points. Your scapegoat has done a better job of putting points on the board than your HOFer. What about a deserving HOFer? 663+145+114 + 520 = 1442 possessions for 946 + 314*2 = 1574 points. Chauncy, Denver thanks you for creating good shots.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 37 20 – 54
Detroit 27 28 9 41
Billups 37 16 –
Iverson 24 29 13
David Friedman
February 25, 2009
Tball:
You analyze basketball like the game consists of nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet. I understand that that is what this site is about and that is why I rarely read what is here or comment about it. The only reason that I said anything about this post is that it is tendentious to “analyze” the results of a trade barely a month after it happened and then to completely ignore the fact that one team traded away its leading rebounder and, not coincidentally, got killed on the boards in his absence.
Until about a month ago, the Pistons were right in the mix for the fourth seed in the East, as their talent suggests that they should be. Since that time, they have changed their starting lineup and fallen off of the map. If you choose to ignore the obvious and get lost in a forest of numbers, so be it. The Pistons are going to finish with a worse record than either I or Berri predicted in December.
The other side of the equation over in Denver is interesting. If Billups is really so much better than Iverson–as you and Berri believe–then he should have made the Nuggets far better, just as you declare that Iverson has made the Pistons far worse. However, the fact is that Denver has only a marginally better record than last year and has recently suffered some of the worst losses in the team’s NBA history.
Tball
February 26, 2009
DF,
You are picking random dates, affixing random events to those dates, and blaming those events for the fall of the Pistons? Since Hamilton returned from injury, the Pistons are 5-16. While injured, the Pistons were 6-2. Maybe they should send Hamilton home.
Trying to match up wins and losses against lineup changes and, without more, find some correlation is a fool’s errand. Stop bothering.
With regards to Denver, we’ve covered this. I actually thought Denver would win a game or two less than last year because the loss of Camby was greater than the gain of Billups. But Nene has filled in nicely enough to allow an improvement of a few games rather than a decline by a few games. And, you indicated a change of win total is insignficant – a team has improved if their seed improves.
It doesn’t change the fact that, with essentially identical rosters, Billups has won more games than Iverson with both franchises.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 38 20 – 54
Detroit 27 29 10 40
Billups 38 16 –
Iverson 24 30 14
David Friedman
February 26, 2009
Tball:
I am not picking “random dates.” The Pistons were fighting for the fourth seed until they decided to go with their current starting lineup; they have dropped off precipitously since then. As Rip recently said, he was fine with the idea of going to the bench if it would help the team but it clearly is not helping so something has to change. If you did not have such an anti-Allen Iverson agenda that blinds you to everything else then you would see what any intelligent basketball observer can see: benching Rip Hamilton was a mistake.
I saw in a different thread that you said something to the effect that the only change in Detroit is Iverson for Billups so Iverson has to receive the brunt of the blame for Detroit’s record. That is a completely false and misleading statement.
The truth is that Detroit changed coaches, the Pistons were without their leading rebounder for a fifth of the season and–after a season of musical chairs with the starting lineups–they have elected to replace Billups with Stuckey and Hamilton with Iverson.
I love how with Denver that you focus on wins or seeding depending on what suits you most. You are the one who categorically stated that wins mean more than seeds. That is presumably why you are entertaining yourself–and no one else–with the stupid, false and misleading “standings” that you append to your comments. This year, the Nuggets are 38-20; last year, they were 35-23 at this time. You don’t like to focus on those numbers because they refute your central contention, namely that Billups is so much better/more efficient than Iverson that simply by switching teams Billups makes Denver markedly better and Detroit markedly worse. The truth is much more complicated and nuanced than you realize or are willing to admit. The Nuggets lost Camby but they gained a healthy Nene and a very productive Andersen. Overall, Billups has a Denver team that is similarly strong–though differently constituted–as the Denver team that Iverson had last year. That is why last year’s Denver team and this year’s Denver team have similar records. Denver has a better seeding this year than last year because several notable West teams have underperformed for various reasons, most notably Utah, New Orleans, Dallas and Phoenix–and despite this, Denver is only slightly ahead of those teams anyway. We’ll see by the end of the season and in the first round of the playoffs just how much Billups has really “transformed” the Nuggets from the “bad old” Iverson days.
The Pistons had one consistent starting lineup for virtually all of last season. This season, they lost their leading rebounder for a month right out of the box. They have never settled on one consistent starting lineup and the one that they have been using recently has been a disaster. If the idea of trading Billups was to free up a starting spot for Stuckey that may have been a huge mistake. You can discount chemistry all that you want but anyone who has either played sports and/or follows them with understanding realizes that players are not robots who automatically produce certain spreadsheet numbers when they are placed on the court. The lineup combinations that are used, the coaching strategies that are employed and the relationships between teammates all affect a team’s productivity. People inside and outside of the organization keep saying the same thing: the Pistons play like they don’t know and don’t like each other. When a coach benches a player who was a cornerstone of the team and insists on playing a young PG no matter how ineffective he is then it is not surprising that the team’s performance suffers.
If Berri had written in December, “After the first half of the season, the Pistons will rank among the top four teams in the East but then they will bench Rip Hamilton and completely collapse,” then I would say that he is a genius. What he actually did was look at a small sample size of games that the Pistons played without their leading rebounder, decided that this was a good opportunity to try to bash Allen Iverson and thus he wrote a post giving an incorrect explanation for why Detroit was a .500 team early in the season.
Tball
February 27, 2009
DF
This statement “The Pistons were fighting for the fourth seed until they decided to go with their current starting lineup” is in error. They have used only three lineups more than 5 times this season. Two of those three include Hamilton. The third was used 7 times since Hamilton was pulled from the lineup and went 4-3 in those games (and is 7-4 overall).
The Pistons are on pace to win 19 less games than last season and the biggest reason for that drop that you can devise is that Hamilton is getting his 30 minutes coming off the bench instead of starting? Is this what it comes to when you refuse to consider that Billups is better than Iverson?
The seed comment was yours from the beginning of the thread. 1/7/09 “I don’t understand why you are more interested in specific win total predictions rather than seedings (which will ultimately prove to be more important).” 1/15/09 “as I keep telling you, I am more interested in seeding than wins.” 1/17/09 “As I have said all along, what interests me is the final seeding, not the w-l totals.” 1/19/09 “It will be interesting to see which seeds Detroit and Denver are holding down by the end of February after the Pistons enjoy a homestand while the Nuggets hit the road.”
You’ll recall I didn’t like your seed prediction because, when it failed, you’d blame other teams – “I won’t make excuses at season’s end. Similarly, if Denver outperforms your expectations (and I haven’t taken the time to predict finishes for NO/Hou/Pho/Utah/Por/Dal/SA, so I won’t predict placement beyond them collectively being grouped 2-9) I don’t expect to hear excuses about the injuries to Yao/Boozer/McGrady/Shaq/Grant Hill/Deron/Oden/Roy/Howard/Manu/Parker – unless they wipe out more than half the player’s season. The last thing I want to read is one more tired explanation of how, if circumstances had been different, your prediction would have been right.”
What db did was predict that if the players played the way they had for the first quarter of the season, they’d finish with approximately 41 wins. If they played to last year’s standard, they’d get to 49 wins. What he actually did was ignore the missing rebounder because his absence did not significantly impact winning (it did create a rebounding disadvantage).
Turns out, they are playing the way they did to start the season, when they were trailing Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, and Atlanta, which they are still doing. Maybe McDyess missing did not make enough of a difference in their ability to win to change their fortunes when he returned. Maybe his absence wasn’t worth discussing in this post. Maybe that little 8 of 10 run was simply a fluke of small sample size and weak competition. Maybe this is a .500 team with Saunders coaching or Curry coaching. Maybe a quarter of a season is not too small a sample size on which to base a midseason prediction.
“The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now”
David Friedman
February 27, 2009
Tball:
What seed were the Pistons holding before they switched to the current starting lineup?
Or, if you prefer, what win total were they on pace for at that point?
I did not predict win totals for these teams at the start of the season; I predicted where they would finish relative to the other teams in their conference. That is why I was not–and am not–interested in the sideshow that you append to the bottom of your comments.
Since benching Rip in favor of Stuckey, the Pistons have performed worse than anyone would have reasonably expected this roster to perform. They are not going to reach Berri’s predicted win total, your predicted win total or my predicted final seed.
I am not “making excuses.” My prediction for Detroit’s seeding was wrong. Does that preclude me from offering an explanation for why they are underperforming? If a person makes an incorrect prediction does that mean that the person cannot look at the evidence and figure out what happened?
Tball
February 27, 2009
DF
Yesterday you didn’t want me to discuss seeds, now you don’t want me to discuss wins. What measure of improvement/decline is acceptable for discussion with you?
Their current lineup is 0-5 on the season and has been utilized for the past 5 games. It includes McDyess in the starting lineup over Amir Johnson. The lineup that had been 4-3 before that was the Stuckey, Iverson, Prince, Johnson, Wallace lineup. Apparently Curry decided he needed another veteran in the lineup who knew how to start.
Stuckey has been starting since early December. Rip was pulled from the starting lineup in mid-late January. You might as well say they benched Rip in favor of Iverson or benched Rip in favor of Amir Johnson (the actual player who took Rip’s spot in the starting lineup).
The excuses are for Denver’s success. “Denver has a better seeding this year than last year because several notable West teams have underperformed for various reasons.” Last year, Denver was four games behind the Jazz for their division and a fourth seed. Now that they are on pace to improve on last season’s record by four games, you are acting like their elevation in the standings is due to everyone else faltering. They are better than last season’s Nuggets and their increased performance is putting them on pace for home court advantage in the first round, as you’d expect.
Tball
February 27, 2009
Since Hamilton was benched for Johnson:
4-3 Stuckey, Iverson, Prince, Johnson, Wallace
0-5 Stuckey, Iverson, Prince, McDyess, Wallace
0-2 Stuckey, Iverson, Prince, Kwame, Wallace
0-1 Stuckey, Afflalo, Prince, Johnson, Wallace
Maybe the problem has been that Kwame shouldn’t be a starter and McDyess has forgotten how to be a starter.
Oh, or maybe its just this is a .500 team after the trade and 10 of these 11 losses are to teams with a better record than the Pistons (i.e., winning teams).
Tball
February 28, 2009
They played well with Hamilton in the starting lineup. Maybe they shouldn’t have benched him for iverson.
David Friedman
February 28, 2009
Tball:
You have the curious habit of saying a lot without really saying much at all. I’ll use the Socratic teaching method and just stick with my two questions from a previous comment:
1) What seed were the Pistons holding before they benched Hamilton in favor of Stuckey?
2) Or, if you prefer, what win total were they on pace for at that point?
Tball
March 2, 2009
DF,
I’ll stick with my previous answer. Hamilton has never been benched in favor of Stuckey. Only in your imagination has this event transpired.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 39 21 – 54
Detroit 29 29 10 41
Billups 39 17 –
Iverson 24 30 14
David Friedman
March 2, 2009
Tball:
Here is what Hubie Brown said about these issues yesterday:
“Everything in basketball comes down to chemistry. This team–whether you say it’s the lack of Chauncey Billups to take the big shots at the end of games and make the big free throws and three point plays–whatever the problem is, it is a team problem. It’s not just Allen Iverson and it’s not just Rip Hamilton. Let’s look at the lack of production by the frontcourt people. They tried the young players here and it didn’t work out. Now they have McDyess back in the lineup. But let’s look at Rasheed Wallace; his numbers are down. Whatever the problem is, the offensive creativity by the coaching staff is not there. You can’t be one of the best (point) differential teams in this league and win 59 games and then all of a sudden this year you’re 29th in scoring and you have a minus (point) differential. There is more to this than just one player.”
Jeff Van Gundy said this (during the Suns-Lakers telecast):
“There have been a lot of changes there (in Detroit). There have been coaching changes and changes in rotations. Who is to blame for putting Rip Hamilton on the bench if he’s better as a starter? That’s not Allen Iverson’s decision. That’s a coaching decision.
Let’s wait to coronate the Nuggets until they do something in the playoffs. They’ve had good seasons in the past and they’ve lost in the first round. To me, this idea of bashing Allen Iverson is way out of bounds, as if he is singularly the reason that the Pistons have struggled.”
It’s a tough choice–well, actually, it’s not–but I’ll go with the perspectives of a Hall of Fame contributor/ABA championship coach/NBA Coach of the Year and a coach who led a team to the NBA Finals over the perspective of…well, who exactly are you, anyway?
Tball
March 4, 2009
DF,
I have no idea where you are going with this. I have suggested there are a number of problems with the Pistons. The biggest one is The Trade. Hubie Brown doesn’t disagree with this analysis in your quote.
Similarly, I haven’t blamed Iverson for the Pistons losing. I’ve blamed Dumars for giving up Billups and replacing him with Iverson. Iverson and Hamilton play the same position. It isn’t Iverson’s decision to bench Hamilton, but one of them had to be benched. Clearly it took Curry too long to make the right decision there, but lets congratulate him for getting there.
I challenge you to find a HoF contributor, Championship coach, NBA CoY, etc. who says The Trade did not hurt the Pistons. To date, you are the only person I’ve seen suggest this.
I do like the progression. In December, your line was “Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not.” And, also in December, “It will be even more interesting to see what happens in the next few months and what everyone has to say at that time.” To “I agree that I should have followed my own advice and waited until the season is over” in January. Now, the cry is “wait until the playoffs”? My prediction was a win total and a comment that the Nuggets were a better team after the trade than they were for the start of the season. Your prediction was a regular season result. Postseason success has nothing to do with that. Just because your losing, doesn’t mean you get to change the rules.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 39 22 – 53
Detroit 30 29 9 41
Billups 39 18 –
Iverson 24 30 13.5
David Friedman
March 4, 2009
Tball:
I did not say that “the Trade did not hurt the Pistons.” I disagreed with the formulation of this post that Iverson is “the Answer” for why the Pistons lost early season games. McDyess’ absence and the corresponding negative rebounding differential is the main “answer” for why Detroit lost so many early season games.
You never refuted my main points but instead went off on a tangent and made predictions about win totals. I went along with your game and made predictions but told you that I am more interested in playoff seeding/playoff success. I have consistently counseled that we should take a long term view, while you are interested in sideshows like making a one game prediction (which I abstained from doing and about which you were laughably wrong). We’ve now seen the Pistons beat Billups’ Nuggets twice.
I said that the Pistons would fight for the third/fourth seed by the end of the season. They were in fourth place when Curry benched Hamilton, after which they went 4-12. The Pistons have a much better winning percentage this year when only Iverson or Hamilton plays then when both play, so maybe what we are really seeing is not that either guy is the “answer” but that the Pistons have yet to find a way to use both effectively at the same time; the Pistons have won three in row with Rip starting and Iverson out of action but the Pistons also had a nice run earlier in the season with Iverson starting and Rip out of action, including wins over the Lakers, Spurs and Cavs. After everything that has happened, the Pistons could still end up–after the “Trade”–right back in the fourth spot, as I predicted.
I also said that Denver was a good team with Iverson and that I did not think that swapping Iverson for Billups made as much of a difference as Berri and you say. The Nuggets were the second seed when this post was written and I predicted that they would fall into 8/9 territory by the end of the season. It has taken a bit longer than I expected due to injuries/instability on other teams that have better rosters than the Nuggets but those teams are getting healthier/more stable now and the Nuggets have dropped to fourth, with Utah, NO and Portland closing rapidly. Maybe I was “wrong” about Denver and the Nuggets will “only” drop to the seventh seed by the end of the season.
I was perfectly content to let hings lie there and see what would happen by the end of the season but you are the one who kept this thread going because you found it necessary to make a “witty” comeback to every piece of analysis I provided–and I just don’t believe in letting someone who does not know what he is talking about get the last word.
Tball
March 6, 2009
DF
If you are interested in a long term view, why do you insist on continuing to discuss an 18 game stretch at the start of the season. As you admitted then, as the season progresses, that 18 game stretch becomes less consequential.
I do like the fact that three games ago you admitted your prediction was wrong and that db’s lesser prediction could not be achieved. Now a few games later, you feel your prediction is back on track. Solid analysis.
As you admit, the Pistons do not play well with Hamilton playing along side Iverson. So, presumably, you now also agree that benching Stuckey was not the solution.
Once again, you rely on a faulty memory to produce your faulty analysis. “The Pistons also had a nice run earlier in the season with Iverson starting and Rip out of action, including wins over the Lakers, Spurs and Cavs.” Hamilton played 35 minutes against the Lakers, 27 minutes against the Spurs, and 33 against the Cavs. The Pistons are 6-2 without Hamilton and 6-1 without Iverson.
You have never said that Denver was a good team. You have said they would miss the playoffs with Iverson and they would miss the playoffs with Billups, possibly sliding up to the eighth seed. If that is how you describe a good team, Detroit must be very good right now.
I have enjoyed your weakness for getting in the last word. Of course, if you don’t like “letting someone who does not know what he is talking about get the last word,” why do you keep trying to get in the last word?
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 40 22 – 53
Detroit 30 29 9.5 41
Billups 40 18 –
Iverson 24 30 14
David Friedman
March 6, 2009
Tball:
This post was written in response to that 18 game segment and did not take into consideration at all what would happen during the balance of the season. As I have told you many, many times, that is my main critique of the post and the reason that I commented here in the first place. That 18 game segment also represents nearly a fourth of the season.
When I made my “admission” it appeared that the Pistons were going to stick with their flawed starting lineup. Now that Rip is starting again, the Pistons have a shot at reaching the fourth spot.
Was Stuckey a starter last year or a bench player?
Was Rip a starter last year or a bench player?
Was Iverson a starter last year or a bench player?
You should consider the answers to those questions when you are evaluating who is starting for whom and attempting to compare the Pistons before the Trade to the Pistons after the Trade. All you want to talk about is Iverson, but you leave out that the Pistons lost their leading rebounder for a fourth of the season, kept changing their starting lineups and used a less than optimal starting lineup for 16 games, which is a fifth of the season.
You are correct that I incorrectly described the Pistons’ “nice run.” The wins that I mentioned took place with Iverson and Rip both starting–which does not refute my contention that they should be the starters. The Pistons also won six out of eight with Iverson starting and Rip out of action.
I said that Denver did not improve by swapping Iverson for Billups and would end up in roughly the same spot as last year, battling for 8/9. You can have a good record, be a good team and still miss the playoffs in the West. The decline of several other teams has obviously helped the Nuggets but they need to win a tough game in Utah tonight and face some other tough games in order to hold on to their position in the West.
As I said in my last comment, the funny thing about this merry go round with you is that by the end of the season we could still end up with both teams being seeded pretty much where I said that they would be.
Tball
March 6, 2009
DF,
You said repeatedly in this thread that “With McDyess back in the fold, this trade was not a status changer for either team this season.” That his absence impacted their winning over the 18 game stretch, but would not impact the outcome of the season. Yet everytime it is mentioned that Detroit will not approach last year’s achievements, you march his absence out. They’ve lost nine games without McDyess in the lineup. How many of those games would they have won with him? 1? 3? 5? 9? More? Please put a value on this recurring rant.
You can have a good team and still not make the playoffs , but you never said Denver had a good team. Again, the nicest thing you said about Denver is they might slide into the 8th seed, which is not the same as saying they have a good team. You have a way of introducing new thoughts in this thread with the introduction “as I’ve said …”, which is as convenient and errant as many of your other statements.
Perhaps I misunderstood your previous comment. Which two guards should be starting for the Pistons, in your present opinion? You seemed happy Hamilton was starting in place of Iverson, but perhaps you still want Stuckey benched. As this thread meanders on, it’d be nice to know on which side of the fence you reside.
It is amazing that three games in a season of 82 can cause your expectations to flip-flop so much. As you’ve noted, Curry has not stuck with a consistent lineup all season long. He makes one more lineup change (foreseeable) that results in three consecutive wins, and suddenly Detroit is again your juggernaut. I am excited now for the next two-game Detroit losing streak, just to receive your next edumacated analysis of how Curry caused that debacle.
The nice thing about statistics is they are not subject the same whims and fancies of analysists who “know what they are talking about.”
David Friedman
March 6, 2009
Tball:
Compare Detroit’s record at the start of last season with McDyess starting to this year’s record and you can answer your own question. You might also factor in the effect it has on team chemistry to have to continually change around the rotations.
In my opinion, Iverson (when healthy) and Rip should be starting. I don’t agree with benching Rip. I don’t agree with benching Iverson either, per se, but it makes more sense than benching Rip.
My “expectations” are not flip-flopping. It is my opinion that this Detroit team, when healthy and employing the correct rotations, is good enough to be the fourth seeded team in the East. If they are going to be healthy and use the correct rotations, then there is still enough time left to fight for that spot. This is not about “three games,” but about how which rotation the Pistons are going to use the rest of the way.
Statistics are not “nice.” They are neutral, a tool that can be used to either educate or obfuscate. Making a post early in the season declaring that Iverson is “the Answer” for Detroit’s woes while ignoring all other factors is a misuse of statistics, regardless of what happens in the remainder of the season.
David Friedman
March 9, 2009
Tball:
The Nuggets are 8-8 in their last 16 games and have dropped to the seventh seed in the West. Berri wrote this post in reaction to a comparable number of games played by the Pistons, so where is the post explaining that Billups is the “answer” for why Denver is dropping like a rock in the standings? If we buy the dual premises in this post (and your comments) that Billups is a significant upgrade over Iverson and that no other factor–coaching changes, injuries, other roster moves, chemistry, starting lineup changes–is relevant regarding Detroit and Denver then we are forced to conclude that just like Berri gave Billups all of the credit for Denver’s rise he must now be willing to give Billups all of the blame for Denver’s fall.
Tball
March 9, 2009
DF,
You think if McDyess was around to start this season, this season’s start would have mirrored last season’s start? What happened to last year not meaning anything? What happened to having to look at the schedule, the level of competition, home/road splits, and the like? Is all your analysis bent on last season repeating itself? Because I’ve gotta say, games 20-60 of the Pistons’ season has not been a repeat of last year.
db’s article looked at the entire season to-date and the performance of the Pistons’ players last season. Why are you always trying to cut up portions of the season that are convenient to your discussions?
A quick prediction refresher: You (Jan. 7) – “I would say that Detroit will win 52-53 games this season and Denver, as I said above, will win 47-48 games.” Me – 48 wins for the Nuggets, 45 for the Pistons (not as concisely captured, but from Dec. 18). As I’ve mentioned numerous times, we have maintained a similar vision of where the Nuggets were headed, just a different explanation of why.
We both agree that the roster trade of Camby, Iverson, and Najera for Nene, Billups, and Anderson is a net zero (or minor loss for the Nuggets). You get there thinking Billups and Iverson are equivalent (implicitly, as you’ve yet to compare their values explicitly) and that Nene and Anderson make up for the loss of Camby and Najera. I get there thinking Nene and Anderson are materially less than the sum of Camby and Najera and that Iverson is of materially less value than Billups. Either way, it seems silly to suggest db has to write an article casting aspersions on any member of the Nuggets while they continue to outperform expectations.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 40 24 – 51
Detroit 31 30 7.5 42
Billups 40 20 –
Iverson 24 30 13
Tball
March 9, 2009
DF,
Looked back. Last season Detroit started 15-7. This year, they started 13-9. Presumably then, all this fuss about McDyess has been related to a drop of 2 wins? Really? Nearly 200 comments, including about 50 “my original comment was about not discussing one of the trade participants …” The aspersions to db’s integrity? All that was about your belief that McDyess’s absence cost them 2 games (while the math suggested it cost them one game)? That is messed up.
David Friedman
March 9, 2009
Tball:
No, what is “messed up” is that you have no understanding or appreciation for context. You also threw in two wins that McDyess played in prior to “The Trade.”
The Pistons went 9-8 during the time that McDyess missed in the wake of “The Trade.” This is a team that went 59-23 the previous year with him starting and leading the team in rebounding. Of course, those “minor” details take a back seat in this post because Berri wants to prove that only WoW rates Iverson correctly and that everyone else in the world overvalues scoring.
You chose an interesting date to make your comparisons, because right after that date last season the Pistons went on an 11 game winning streak. The Pistons were 26-7 on January 4, 2008, compared to 21-11 on January 4, 2009.
In other words, the Pistons got off to a slow start this year without their leading rebounder but after McDyess returned they made some progress. Then, Coach Curry elected to bench Rip and the Pistons went 4-12, dropping from battling for the fourth spot to the bottom half of the playoff contenders. You can argue the semantics of who was benched for whom all you want but the focus of this post is to compare last year’s Detroit team with this year’s team (and last year’s Denver team with this year’s Denver team). Last year, Iverson and Hamilton were starters for their teams and Stuckey was a bench player. The Pistons’ plummeted when Rip was sent to the bench and Stuckey started.
David Friedman
March 9, 2009
Tball:
Considering the team’s overall performance last year with McDyess and the rebounding problems that they had without him, yes I think that the Pistons would have gotten off to a better start this year if he had been playing.
The larger point is not if he is worth 5.3 wins per season or 6.2 wins–or whatever. There are two important points that you completely ignore:
1) When a team loses its leading rebounder, that is bound to have a negative effect, particularly when a suitable replacement is not available.
2) The 2008 Pistons enjoyed roster and starting lineup stability but that has not been the case at all for the 2009 Pistons. There are many “answers” for Detroit’s record this season, not just one “answer” that was contrived when we had yet to even see Detroit’s new roster at full strength.
The “entire season to date” that Berri looked at did not include McDyess, the team’s leading rebounder, so what you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone looked at the “entire season to date” of a baseball team when that team was without the services of its main closer (or any other key player).
One real “answer” that has emerged that no one–at least as far as I know–predicted is that the Pistons played well with Iverson sans Hamilton and with Hamilton sans Iverson but have yet to figure out how to play well with both All-Stars. That falls under chemistry, which of course is a forbidden word in these parts. It takes time to develop chemistry but it is also possible that certain combinations of players will not be able to develop chemistry. Does Philly’s improvement after Brand’s injury “prove” that Brand is not a good player? Or does it merely indicate that the 76ers had yet to figure out how to incorporate his skill set with the skill sets of their other players?
Last year, the Pistons had roster stability and posted an outstanding record. This season, they have had less roster stability and they lost their leading rebounder for a fifth of the season. That, along with some decline by players who were not involved in “the Trade,” is a better explanation for what is happening in Detroit than some overheated proclamation that Iverson and Iverson alone is the “answer” not just for the Pistons but also (in his absence) for the Nuggets. The Nuggets being the second seeded team in the West had a lot more to do with other teams being banged up than some vast improvement allegedly spearheaded by Billups. I told you months ago that when the good teams in the West were at full strength most of them would be better than Denver. You call that making excuses but what we have seen recently is that Utah has gotten healthy, the Hornets have gotten healthy, the Rockets have gotten healthy (by shutting down a star who was limping in favor of less talented but healthier players who are able to compete on defense) and a young Portland team is hitting their stride. If you look at the top eight teams in the West now, seven of them have gone 6-4 or better in the past 10 games; the other team, Denver, has gone 3-7. If the Suns, the ninth place team, had not lost Amare Stoudemire for the season then even they would probably have passed the Nuggets by now.
I realize that those teams are still closely bunched in the standings, so it is theoretically possible that the Nuggets will reverse their decline and move back up–but right now my prediction from months ago that by the end of the season they would be in the 8/9 spots looks pretty good. As for my Detroit prediction (3/4 spot), the Pistons obviously won’t fight for the third spot but even with all of the lineup changes–and the ridiculous interlude with Rip on the bench–they still have a shot to move up to 4 and a very good shot to move up to 5.
Tball
March 9, 2009
DF,
Once again you are running after time frames that support your arguments. db’s post reviewed the Pistons after the first 22 games of the season. Your criticism was focused on his analyzing 22 games. So why pick and choose convenient time frames rather than analyzing the games that were the point of this post?
This year the Pistons have been great when Stuckey and Hamilton were starting, good when Stuckey and Iverson were starting and Hamilton was unavailable, and mediocre when Hamilton started with Iverson.
Last season the Pistons were great with McDyess starting, but they are under .500 with him starting this season. Last season, Amir was a bench player, but this season the Pistons are 16-9 when he starts.
This is a team that went 59-23 with Billups leading the team in assists and everyone involved in the offense, but fell into mediocrity with Iverson dominating the ball.
The nice thing about all these vapid assertions that you like to make is there is no demonstrable cause and effect. We can make them about anyone and anything. Sometimes the team wins when starters are hurt, but when the team loses, we can blame injuries for all the losses. Sometimes the team wins with a consistent lineup, but if the lineup gets changed due to a lack of productivity on the court, lets blame the lineup change for a lack of productivity.
The Pistons have a better record this year when Stuckey is starting than they do when Iverson is starting, but lets blame Stuckey starting for the losses. After all, if anyone disagrees, I can just assert they don’t know what they are talking about.
Tball
March 9, 2009
DF,
When I say he looked at the entire season to date, all I’m saying is that he looked at all the information that was available to date. He did not cherry pick useful date ranges that satisified his arguments like some ‘analysists’. He used all the available information. There is no reason to pick the first 22 games of last season plus this season, except to cherry pick that 11 game win streak.
You ignore the fact that Iverson’s production over 22 games mirrored his career production. If Brand’s production in those losses was subpar and his career production was subpar, it would promote the notion that he is still a subpar player. Is that helpful?
Part of the reason for this year’s lack of stability is that Detroit traded away their starting PG for a starting SG, then couldn’t figure out how to accomodate two starting SGs on the roster. That was fallout of ‘The Trade’.
You keep making these proclamations that Iverson is not the only “Answer”, but no one has suggested he is. He is the primary answer. It is a communication shortcoming that you cannot recognize the difference.
Are you starting the process of creating a ‘close enough’ award for your predictions? Who cares if Detroit is a 5 or a 6 seed? That’s a statement on the East Conf., not the Pistons. Either way, they have significantly underperformed expectations.
David Friedman
March 9, 2009
Tball:
I already explained why I chose the “time frames” that I did and what those “time frames” show but since you did not read that paragraph I will present it again:
“Last year, the Pistons had roster stability and posted an outstanding record. This season, they have had less roster stability and they lost their leading rebounder for a fifth of the season. That, along with some decline by players who were not involved in “the Trade,” is a better explanation for what is happening in Detroit than some overheated proclamation that Iverson and Iverson alone is the “answer” not just for the Pistons but also (in his absence) for the Nuggets.”
I did not “blame” Stuckey starting for the losses. I “blamed” Stuckey starting over Rip. You are interested in the semantics of who started for whom but my point all along has been that Iverson and Hamilton are career starters while Stuckey has been a career bench player. I did not agree with starting Stuckey and benching Hamilton.
David Friedman
March 9, 2009
Tball:
Billups is essentially playing the same role in Denver that he did in Detroit. Iverson has been asked to play like Billups in Detroit, as opposed to having the freedom to score 26-27 ppg.
The title of this post is “Really the Answer is Iverson.” I don’t see the word “primary” in that title, nor is your “primary” concept mentioned explicitly or implicitly in the post, so if there is a “communication problem” it is not happening at my end. I understand exactly what this post is claiming.
I don’t want a “close enough award” or any other award. In my initial comment, I offered my assessment of where these two teams would finish by the end of the year. You are the one who is obsessed with the win totals and your laughable one game prediction.
I agree that the Pistons have “underperformed expectations.” What has really skewed things, though, is that 16 game run with Rip on the bench. When the Pistons are healthy and employ the correct starting lineup they can still be a dangerous team. Berri’s post asserts that the Pistons took a major step backward precisely because of the “Trade” and for no other reason. I say that the Pistons have struggled because McDyess missed a fifth of the season, they have not had a stable starting lineup and they used a poor starting lineup combination for a 16 game stretch during which they went 4-12. If the Pistons stick with their current starting lineup and find a way to reincorporate Iverson if/when he returns then they will be better than what Berri predicted (a .500 quality team).
As I said in one of my comments, the Pistons are a better team than the Nuggets. I know that you found that statement to be amusing but what I am talking about is a comparison of both teams’ rosters at full strength. The Pistons match up well with the Nuggets–as we have seen in their head to head battles–and they have more playoff tested veterans.
Tball
March 10, 2009
DF,
You’ve become entirely incoherent. You claim you explained your selected time frame, from which I expected to see some insight into why matching the first 33 games from each season was a meaningful choice of games and, instead, you provide this:
“Last year, the Pistons had roster stability and posted an outstanding record. This season, they have had less roster stability and they lost their leading rebounder for a fifth of the season. That, along with some decline by players who were not involved in “the Trade,” is a better explanation for what is happening in Detroit than some overheated proclamation that Iverson and Iverson alone is the “answer” not just for the Pistons but also (in his absence) for the Nuggets.”
That quote has nothing regarding time frames. You’ve progressed from illogical to nonsensical.
If you are going to continue hooting about Hamilton, you should include all of the games he was out of the starting lineup and not just the 16 game stretch. There is no rational reason to discard the other games, except for your cherry picking preferences.
The Nuggets are the better team. We have an easy way to measure superiority of one team over the other. It is the oldest statistic in the book. Wins and losses. The Nuggets will finish the season with more wins than the Pistons. This superior record will demonstrate they were the better team this year.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 40 25 – 51
Detroit 32 30 6.5 43
Billups 40 21 –
Iverson 24 30 12.5
David Friedman
March 10, 2009
Tball:
Since your reading comprehension skills apparently aren’t up to par, I’ll explain the relevance of the quoted passage:
Last year, the Pistons employed the same starting lineup for virtually the entire season and that stability helped them to be very successful. This year, the Pistons have been in a constant state of upheaval. That 33 game slice includes an 11 game winning streak. The better question would be why you arbitrarily chose a time frame that ended right before that winning streak. The 2008 Pistons kicked their season into gear at a point in time when the 2009 Pistons were still trying to figure out what their starting rotation should be. The games that McDyess missed AND the overall rotation instability have more to do with Detroit’s record this year than “the Trade.” We are seeing that now, because the Pistons are winning games against good teams without Billups or Iverson playing for them.
The Pistons this year have a better team AT FULL STRENGTH than the Nuggets do. What part of that don’t you understand? The Nuggets did a nice job of padding their record when a lot of West teams were banged up. Now that several of those teams are rounding into form, the Nuggets are plummeting–which is exactly what I told you would happen.
Forget all of your inane comments for the past few months and forget my attempts to reason with you and go back to my very first comment:
“For what it’s worth, my prediction (before the season) was that Detroit might be better coached this year and still finish with a worse record because several key players are declining. The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season. They are fifth right now and only 4.5 games behind third place Orlando.
At the start of the season, I had Denver missing the playoffs entirely–and that is still a distinct possibility. They have fattened up their record against weak teams and even though they are currently second in the West the Nuggets are only three games ahead of ninth place Dallas, a team that has been without All-Star forward Josh Howard for most of the season.”
In a subsequent comment, I wrote:
“I have gone on record saying that I expect Denver to plummet in the standings and that by the end of the season they will be fighting for the last playoff spot. Obviously, injuries to key players on other contenders could affect this but assuming that all of the top nine teams in the West are reasonably healthy that is what I expect to happen.
As for Detroit, the Pistons went through a rough patch but by the end of the season I would expect them to be the third or possibly fourth seed in the East (a battle between them and Orlando). They are declining for reasons other than Iverson’s arrival and they will play their best ball down the stretch.”
So, after all is said and done, the season for these two teams has played out remarkably like I predicted; I told you what would happen and why and I did not scapegoat one player (unlike this post): Denver is plummeting and in danger of missing the playoffs and the Pistons are playing their best ball at the end of the season. The third seed is out of reach for the Pistons, of course, but the fourth seed is still in play. If the Pistons had not benched Rip for 16 games (going 4-12 during that time) they would likely be in the fourth spot right now.
By the way, the New England Patriots had a better record than the New York Giants two seasons ago. Who had the better team? If a fully healthy Detroit team were to play a fully healthy Denver team in a playoff series, I would give the edge to Detroit.
Tball
March 11, 2009
DF,
So you admit you picked that 33 game slice of last season to cherry pick the 11 game winning streak? You are not selecting data to compare seasons and perform honest thought, you are purposefully selecting data to defend a position. And you are so obscured to the fraudulent nature of this analysis that you admit it?
The reason for picking the first 22 games of the season was it was the point of the post. You said it was unfair to look at the first 22 games because McDyess was unavailable. You said they would have done materially better in those 22 games if McDyess had been available. McDyess was a starter last year and available for the first 22 games. They won 2 more games last year over the first 22 as compared to this year. The analysis tests your hypothesis about McDyess’s influence, selecting the same range of games that was the point of the discussion. It is unfortunate that the unbiased data does not support your position. Live with it.
Maybe if Iverson had been hurt for those 16 games, they’d be in the fourth spot by now. If the Trade hadn’t have happened, maybe they’d be fighting for the third seed right now. If, if, if. It is wonderful that the only support to which you will cling to your beliefs is ‘what ifs’, ‘hypotheticals’, and a playoff series that will never happen. Beats letting the facts get in your way.
David Friedman
March 11, 2009
Tball:
IF you’d read my very first comment with THEN you would realize that the season for these two teams has unfolded virtually exactly the way that I predicted in terms of seeding and when each team would peak/plummet.
I did not “cherry pick” anything. My point, which you continue to either ignore or be incapable of understanding, is that when the Pistons had the advantage of having starting lineup stability last season they won 11 games in a row and were one of the top teams in the NBA. That talent base is still present in Detroit and with McDyess back and the correct starting lineup in place they have shown the ability to beat top teams and potentially challenge for the fourth seed.
Berri “cherry picked” games by looking at a small portion of the season, not waiting until the Pistons had a chance to deploy their new team and then trumpeting the supposed facts that Iverson was the “answer” in Detroit and that Billups was making the Nuggets much better. The Nuggets are not a better team this year than they were last year with Iverson. The Pistons have had an up and down season for the reasons that I have enumerated but despite the challenges that they have faced they are peaking at the right time.
The way that the season is concluding neither supports the contention that Iverson is “the answer” in Detroit nor that bringing in Billups has materially changed Denver’s fortunes. This post was poorly reasoned–as I told you months ago–and the facts (the results of this season, particularly the conclusion) are proving that out.
Tball
March 12, 2009
DF,
So now your point is that teams with lineup stability get 11 game winning streaks? How can a person who develops new points daily remain so dull? Good teams win 11 games in a row. It has nothing to do with roster stability. They did not mess with their lineup last season because they were a good team that performed well with good players. This year’s team is imbalanced and up and down and Curry is playing with the lineups to satisfy egos and find a winning formulas.
Cherry-pick – “to select the best or most desirable.” You picked an 11 game span because it was an 11 game winning streak. You picked an 11 game winning streak because it was the best winning streak the Pistons had last season. There was no other reason to pick an 11 game window or pick this 11 game window.
db picked all the available games of the current season. He did not pick most desirable, he picked ‘all available’.
Two weeks ago, you were arguing the post was poorly reasoned and the way the season is playing out should be ignored. You said Detroit is “not going to reach Berri’s predicted win total.” Now, apparently, Detroit is underperforming db’s expectations and they are proving you right that db undersold them?
You made your prediction of 53 wins for the Pistons after McDyess returned and after Hamilton had suffered his injury. In fact, you made the win prediction on the day of Detroit’s 33rd game. If anything happened in the first 33 games that took Detroit off its 53 win course, why didn’t you mention it then? Oh, right, the events of those 33 games did not portend doom, but are simply hindsight excuse for the team going in the tank.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 41 25 – 51
Detroit 32 31 7.5 42
Billups 41 21 –
Iverson 24 30 13
David Friedman
March 12, 2009
Tball:
You ignore the larger point that the season for both of these teams is unfolding almost exactly the way that I predicted but at least it has been mildly entertaining (well, not really) going back and forth with someone who has no idea whatsoever why NBA teams win or lose games.
Tball
March 13, 2009
I wondered what the white flag would look like. Clearly your knee jerk rationalizations fall apart when subjected to more than 20 seconds of thought.
As Detroit has mathematically eliminated their chances of achieving the record you predicted for them 33 games into the season (and only 28 games later and 19 games to go), I fail to see how their season unfolded as you predicted. I suppose this is no different than every other prediction you’ve made that you’ve rationalized to correctness.
David Friedman
March 13, 2009
Tball:
This is what I wrote in my initial comment:
“The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season.”
The Pistons can still “work their way back to the fourth seed” (obviously, the third seed is out of reach now but I said “fourth OR EVEN third,” a formulation that makes it clear that I meant that I thought fourth is more likely).
So, my prediction is still alive. Later in the thread, you predicted that Denver would beat Detroit (which did not happen in either meeting this year) and you asked me to assign a predicted win total for Detroit and Denver. I repeatedly told you that I am more interested in the seedings (i.e., the state of the entire league, not the exact win total of any particular team) but when you kept insisting I played along. The win total business is your game; my prediction related to seeding and, in a broader sense, how the season would progress, namely that Detroit would be stronger at the end of the season than the beginning while Denver would fade. How many teams out West do you think that Denver could beat in a playoff series now? The Nuggets took on the extra obligation of Billups’ contract (Iverson’s contract expires after this season) but did not substantially improve their team. Really, the “answer” is this deal looks a lot better for Detroit than Denver, when you consider not only the current on court product but the potential financial flexibility in the future.
Tball
March 13, 2009
DF,
Then why bother responding to this post? db didn’t comment on seeds, he predicted wins. You didn’t just enter this thread with comments on seeds, you entered it suggesting db’s prediction was wrong. Both teams are right on pace to do exactly what he predicted. Here was your comment about his prediction:
“Just to be on the safe side, you might want to start working on the article that explains how the Pistons turned around their season “despite” Iverson and why the Nuggets missed the playoffs with Billups.” Seems like db just needs to start working on an article explaining how his predictions were exactly right.
Here are some other predictions of yours (feel free to let me know how they are faring):
“As for Detroit, the Pistons went through a rough patch but by the end of the season I would expect them to be the third or possibly fourth seed in the East (a battle between them and Orlando). ” Don’t see that battle coming.
“What I am predicting … Denver will be fighting for the last playoff spot by the end of the season (and I don’t think that the Nuggets will get that spot), while Detroit and Orlando will battle to the wire for the third/fourth spots in the East.”
“I expect Detroit to challenge for the third spot in the East by the end of the season. ”
“Denver will battle for the eighth/ninth playoff seed, just like last year.”
“Well, the lead did shrink and then since that time the Pistons have been without two All-Stars (Rip, Sheed) and Orlando’s lead grew again. ”
“Orlando currently is 3.5 games ahead of Detroit, so I am saying that margin will shrink”
David Friedman
March 13, 2009
Tball:
These were my original four points:
“1) Who expected Denver to be a championship contender with Iverson? You don’t need advanced numbers to figure out that the Nuggets were not going to win a championship. That is a straw man argument.
2) Small sample size, anyone? For analysis that depends entirely on numbers and not on observation, wouldn’t it be prudent to see Denver and Detroit play more of their schedules? The Nuggets are just two or three losses from dropping out of the West playoff picture entirely.
3) Which is it–Dumars knew the Pistons were not going to be that good, so he made the trade to free up salary space or the Pistons were going to win 50+ games until Iverson arrived? You can’t have it both ways.
4) The Pistons started Kwame Brown at center for several games with McDyess not on the roster. The Pistons had no paint presence in those games (except, ironically, in one game when they beat Kwame’s old team, the Lakers, and he “broke out” for season-highs with 10 points and 10 rebounds).”
I didn’t say that Berri’s prediction (in terms of Detroit’s wins) was right or wrong; I said that he made a straw man argument regarding Denver, that he based his conclusions on a sample size of games that is too small to prove his points, that he contradicted himself regarding Dumars’ assessment of Detroit’s potential and that he ignored Detroit’s lack of paint presence sans McDyess.
Then, I made my prediction that Detroit would contend for the fourth or possibly even third seed, while Denver would plummet and quite possibly miss the playoffs. Detroit is battling for the fourth seed and Denver has plummeted (though thanks to a bigger plummet by the Suns the Nuggets will make the playoffs).
You are right about one thing, though. After I answered Berri’s post, I should have ignored your comments like everyone else apparently has. I said everything that needed to be said in my first comment. I should just clarify one thing: Detroit enjoys such a decided matchup advantage versus the Magic that I thought that the Pistons would finish with a better record than Orlando even though the Pistons started out the season behind the eight ball. However, the Magic turned out to be a little better than I expected and the Pistons wandered in the wilderness with Rip on the bench for 16 games.
EL
March 14, 2009
David,
You predict Orlando and Detroit will compete for the 3rd seed – Orl is only 14.5 games ahead.
2 days ago you wrote Det. is now compete for 4th seed just like you predicted, which by the way is 4 games ahead of them.
You predict Denver will slide out of top 8 in the West – They are now 6.5 ahead of the 9th seed and 1.5 games behind the 3rd.
You wrote two days ago “You ignore the larger point that the season for both of these teams is unfolding almost exactly the way that I predicted ”
Indeed.
————————————–
Thank you for making your contribution
I am now most delighted to reward your thoughtful or dare I say ‘inspired’ efforts toward a most worthy world by awarding you your OFFICIAL F U C K W I T CARD
See: http://www.fuckwit.info
————————————–
David Friedman
March 14, 2009
Tball:
I said that Det. would fight for the fourth or even third seed. Third seed is out of the question, fourth is still possible.
I said that Den. would fall to 8/9. The Nuggets have dropped to seven, eight is within reach.
On the other hand, Berri said that the “answer” is Iverson and that Iverson would be responsible for Det. dropping and Den. rising. Den. is no different than last year, while Det. has fallen for reasons not entirely related to Iverson.
David Friedman
March 14, 2009
EL:
My apologies. I didn’t even notice that I was responding to a different idiot, instead of the usual one. The last response was to you, not Tball.
EL
March 14, 2009
David,
I expect that.
Fuckwits talk lots and listen little.
http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
David Friedman
March 14, 2009
EL:
Your vocabulary is very impressive. Your family must be so proud of you. Keep up the good work. Way to be anonymous, also. That proves how smart you are and the courage of your convictions. I’m sure you’ve studied basketball very carefully.
EL
March 14, 2009
David,
Thank you. I am sure you are every thing I am not, in your polite words.
EL
March 14, 2009
Let’s get one thing clear right away – ‘Fuckwit’ is no more swearing than ‘Scunthorpe’ or ‘Penistone’.
David Friedman
March 15, 2009
EL:
Whatever you say, Mr. Roget.
David Friedman
March 15, 2009
I’m sure that Professor Berri is proud–and the rest of the world very impressed–by the caliber of people who actually believe what he is writing and run to his defense, as opposed to the people (i.e., not just non-statheads but also most of the rest of the basketball statistical analysis community) who say that there are serious flaws in his methodology. Gregg Popovich has won four championships without believing in this stuff, as his one-time disciple and current Cavs head coach Mike Brown told me in a recent interview, but what do those guys know about basketball compared to a genius like you, right?
EL
March 16, 2009
David “Fuckwit” Friedman, what do you know about anyone’s opinion on Popowich or Mike Brown? Were their names even mentioned here before?
Let me check the manual: http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
“Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness.”
Ah, I see!
dberri
March 16, 2009
No more F—wits please. Thankyou
Tball
March 16, 2009
DF,
Iverson has only been involved in four Denver games this season (two for, two against). Denver is 0-4 in those games. I did not see db state anywhere that Iverson would be responsible for Denver rising in the standings. db did say that Denver would outperform the initial forecast for the team because of Billups taking Iverson’s spot. You may have been confused.
You are discussing coaches not using statistics and, as db has opined that coaches rarely impact performance, I’m not sure it matters whether Pop, Mike Brown, or any other coach uses statistics. Who does use statistics? Danny Ferry. Danny Ainge. And many other GMs, who’s player acquisitions more directly impact team winning. Who won the title last year? Mike Zarren and Danny Ainge each took home a ring last year. Is winning a title really the proof you seek?
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 42 25 – 51
Detroit 33 32 8 42
Billups 42 21 –
Iverson 24 30 13.5
David Friedman
March 16, 2009
EL:
Check out the above link to find out what Coach Brown and Popovich think of using basketball statistical analysis to try to win basketball games.
Again, everyone associated with you–and this website–must be so proud of your extensive basketball knowledge and diverse vocabulary. You must be brimming with pride, which is why you remain anonymous.
There is not much of educational value here but it sure is an amusing diversion from the work of actually figuring out what factors are involved in winning basketball games and championships.
David Friedman
March 16, 2009
Tball:
That is yet another brilliant assertion: coaches have nothing to do with winning games. That makes about as much sense as saying that pilots have nothing to do with flying planes. Forgive me if I don’t waste any more time explaining the obvious to people who are not interested in comprehending it. If you really believe that coaches have no impact, Iverson is responsible for everything that happened to Denver and Detroit and the other WoW “pearls of wisdom” (Rodman > MJ, Bynum> Kobe, etc.), then congratulations and have a wonderful life.
Tball
March 17, 2009
DF,
Excellent analogy. When was the last time you flew? Who was your pilot? What sort of flying record did he/she have? Did you get any information on him/her whatsoever, beyond that pro forma moment when he/she introduced themselves over the loudspeaker (Quick side note, I fly rather infrequently, but I don’t recall ever hearing a female pilot make that introduction)? You may have made sure you had a reliable airline, avoided flying in a puddle jumper, but you took no mind of who the pilot was.
A team with a coach will outperform a team without a coach, but there is no reliable evidence that one coach is more capable of leading a team to victory than another coach. There is no reason to believe that Don Nelson, Avery Johnson, or Lenny Wilkens wouldn’t have won four titles if they’d been coaching the Spurs for the past ten years. The key to winning those titles was the accumulation of championship talent.
So there you go. If your assertion is simply that the Spurs would not have won a championship without a coach, just like a plane will not arrive at its destination without a pilot, I agree with you. However, if you think a different, qualified coach would not have won those championships, well, that’s a bit like saying if you’d flown with a different pilot, you’d have ended up at a different destination.
Kudos to Mr. Buford and Mr. Presti for their contributions to those championships.
Before your quaint exchange with EL, you quoted your original post. You left out “Just to be on the safe side, you might want to start working on the article that explains how the Pistons turned around their season “despite” Iverson and why the Nuggets missed the playoffs with Billups.” At the time, Detroit had been playing .500 ball with Iverson and that has not improved. And Denver was near or at the head of the 2-9 pack in the West behind LA. Detroit has not turned their season around and Denver will not be missing the playoffs. Instead, Denver is exceeding your previously stated expectations and Detroit is underperforming your previously stated expectations.
You didn’t simply state his expectations were wrong, you derided db’s position. As the season approaches its close, his predictions are looking pretty well on target and yours are not. Perhaps there is something to this statistical analysis thing after all.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 43 25 – 52
Detroit 33 32 8.5 42
Billups 43 21 –
Iverson 24 30 13.5
David Friedman
March 17, 2009
Tball:
As I have indicated in my recent comments, this has been an amusing diversion to pass a few moments each day during the season but I have lost interest in trying to preach to the converted. Enjoy the rest of the season–and keep believing that you know more about basketball than Popovich, Brown, et. al.
Tball
March 18, 2009
DF,
I have never suggested I know more about basketball than Popovich, but I reserve the right to have a different opinion. I feel the same way about President Obama (and President Bush and President Clinton) and government.
To bring this thread around full circle (in case your signing off is more genuine than your 1/15 or 2/4 sign off), I read a post today. It was about a team that recently acquired a shoot first PG/undersized shooting guard. In the words of the author, ever team the player has left has improved and every team the player has joined as worsened. Despite being in the EC finals last season, the team has only played .500 ball since the acquisition, although the acquisition was fairly recent and the team has lacked its best big man since the acquisition.
Now I know what you are thinking. It was a short stretch of games. I’m sure the author said, “we need to wait and see”, “get a greater sample size”, “give the team a chance to play at full strength.” But you’d be wrong. Instead, the author came out and blamed this shoot-first PG/undersized SG for the losses. Mentioned he had given the same opinion at the time of the transaction. Suggested this small sample size proved his point.
Am I just talking about db’s post on Iverson? No. Am I talking about someone else’s post on Iverson? No. Who then? Let’s go run to this guy’s site and start attacking his journalistic integrity. The player in question is Marbury and the author in question is David Friedman.
And here’s the thing. Marbury hasn’t played half the minutes played by Iverson and he hasn’t played NBA basketball for an extended period. And not only has the Defensive Player of the Year been injured (presumably more important than McDyess off the bench), but Scal (who started in KG’s place last year and this year) has been injured and, more recently, Glen Davis has been injured, comprimising the front court.
Let’s get DF’s take:
12/17 – “The [Celtics] have altered their rotations in several ways, so it is too soon to simply blame everything on [Marbury].”
12/18- “When we have a large enough sample size of games to consider, my prediction is that this year’s [Boston] team will turn out to be not too much different from last year’s team. Within the next four to six weeks we will be able to get some sense of whether my take on the Nuggets is correct or not.”
12/24 – “If someone wants to rewrite the original post and factor in [the other rotation injuries) and extenuating factors on [Marbury’s] behalf, then we can talk about [Detroit’s issues].”
12/30 – “The [Celtics] have been changing their player rotations. Also, [Garnett] is not just some guy who fills up 20 mpg in the boxscore. He is a vitally important player to the team. Ask anyone in the organization–anyone who truly understands the NBA, for that matter–and you will hear the same thing. [Garnett] is also the team’s best rebounder [and defender and has the best range of any Boston big man] and the most glaringly obvious thing about the Pistons this season is that without [Garnett] they [lack a defensive presence in the paint when Perkins sits and have trouble spacing the floor]. It is inexcusable to write an article about [Boston’s] since the trade without even mentioning [these deficiencies] once.
1/8 – “Point blank, [Tony Allen, Scal, and Big Baby] should have been mentioned in the post and it is very deceptive to leave [them] out of the equation (no pun intended).”
2/17 – “Do you honestly believe that [Marbury] is playing so poorly and/or so much worse than Cassell did last season that he has singlehandedly transformed [Boston] from a [championship] team to [a .500 team]?
3/11 – “[Fraudman] “cherry picked” games by looking at a small portion of the season, not waiting until the [Celtics] had a chance to deploy their new team and then trumpeting the supposed facts that [Marbury] was the “answer” in [Boston].”
1/15 – “Obviously, it is easier to attract attention by making outrageous claims about [Marbury] as opposed to really analyzing the game objectively and trying to figure out why a team is winning or not.”
ab congruentia, veritas.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 43 25 – 52
Detroit 33 33 9 41
Billups 43 21 –
Iverson 24 30 13.5
David Friedman
March 18, 2009
Tball:
First, in my article about Marbury I specifically said that Boston’s decline is not all his fault. He is not “the answer,” as someone else might put it. My point is that he was brought in to be part of the “answer” but he has played poorly and the team has done worse–and the team does poorly specifically when he is in the game due to his skill set weaknesses, which I documented in the article and (in more detail) in game recaps that I have written about the Celtics since he joined the team.
You might consider that “small” differences between Iverson and Marbury include the fact that Marbury is playing terribly, that the Celtics proved to be an .800 team this season even without KG prior to signing Marbury (in contrast to the Pistons, who were somewhat of an unknown quantity at the start of the season with a new coach and sans their best rebounder) and that Marbury has never proven that he can play a meaningful role on a good team while Iverson has carried one team to the Finals and other teams on playoff runs that extended past the first round.
Then again, you might just be a blind acolyte in the Temple of WoW and decide to not consider any context at all…
David Friedman
March 18, 2009
Tball:
When the Celtics first signed Marbury, I placed his potential role in the context of what Aguirre and McAdoo did in a previous era (click on the link above). I did not–and do not–for one second believe that he can have anything approaching the positive impact that they had on their championship teams.
I also did a game recap of Detroit’s win over Boston in which I specifically described exactly how Marbury played and what role he had in the loss (that post can be found here: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2009/03/rejuvenated-pistons-beat-celtics.html):
“Stephon Marbury made his second appearance in a Boston uniform, finishing with 0 points on 0-3 shooting, three assists, two turnovers and four personal fouls in 12 minutes. He had a plus/minus number of +6 after posting a -7 plus/minus number in 13 minutes in Boston’s 104-99 win over Indiana on Friday night. Let’s take a closer look at Marbury’s performance versus Detroit:
Marbury first entered the game at the start of the second quarter, with Boston leading 22-20. On his first possession, Hamilton shot a jumper right in Marbury’s eye. The Celtics inbounded the ball to Marbury, but Will Bynum picked his pocket and cruised in for a layup. On the next possession, Marbury got an assist by feeding a cutting Pierce for a layup.
Marbury got his first foul trying to chase Hamilton around a screen. Then, less than two minutes after Bynum stripped Marbury one on one in the backcourt, Bynum stole the ball from him again. This time, Marbury fouled him and Bynum split a pair of free throws.
Marbury fed Powe for a layup/three point play to tie the score at 29. Later, Marbury took a low percentage, fadeaway jumper with plenty of time on the shot clock but Powe bailed him out by rebounding the miss and converting the putback.
Marbury struggled on defense no matter who he was assigned to guard, leading to open shots for a variety of Pistons and a high foul total for such limited minutes. The Pistons repeatedly isolated seldom used reserve Walter Herrmann on Marbury, leading to two easy baskets plus a foul by Mikki Moore when Moore came over to double team Herrmann. Herrmann made both of the resulting free throws, so when Marbury went back to the bench the Celtics trailed 39-37. He had made a couple decent passes but they were both plays that other guards on the roster could also have converted; meanwhile, Marbury missed both of his field goal attempts, committed two backcourt turnovers that led to three easy points and he was a defensive sieve. All of that added up to a -4 plus/minus number for Marbury in the first half. The Pistons expanded their lead to 55-47 by halftime.
The Celtics used suffocating defense to open the third quarter with a 12-0 run but the Pistons battled back to take a 77-70 lead by the time Marbury checked back in with just :25.7 remaining in the third quarter. The final possession of the quarter was an isolation play for Pierce, who was not able to score.
Marbury stayed in the game to start the fourth quarter but the Celtics made a significant adjustment; Eddie House handled the ball instead of Marbury, who simply spotted up in the corner. While that -4 plus/minus number is a pretty accurate indicator of Marbury’s second quarter “contributions,” his +6 plus/minus number in the fourth quarter is very deceptive. Marbury was involved in many plays in the second quarter and most of them were negative: as noted above, he lost the ball twice, took a bad shot and was ineffective defensively. On the other hand, he was largely an on court bystander when the Celtics rallied early in the fourth quarter. House not only took care of the ballhandling responsibilities but he drained two big three pointers as the Celtics used an 11-2 run to take an 81-79 lead. The Celtics were up 87-84 when Marbury went back to the bench for good with 6:03 remaining; in the fourth quarter he shot 0-1, had one assist and committed two fouls. Pierce and House did most of the heavy lifting, while Marbury was not involved in the offensive action and continued to struggle to keep up defensively.
I understand that Marbury may be rusty after having so much time off–but there is a good reason why he has been inactive all season: he has proven on many occasions to be such a bad teammate that the Knicks decided that they were better off paying him not to play even though he is a more talented athlete than any of their point guards. That says a lot. The Marbury-House backcourt pairing is odd; both are shoot first players but House is a much better shooter, someone who should be paired with a player who is willing and able to distribute the ball. If the Celtics are simply going to have House or Pierce handle the ball when Marbury is in the game–as they did in the fourth quarter–then what is the point of having Marbury out there at all when he is clearly a defensive liability? The Celtics are shorthanded for the moment because Garnett and reserve guard Tony Allen are sidelined but whose minutes is Marbury going to take when the Celtics are once again at full strength? Marbury’s offensive contributions will probably increase as he gets acclimated to his new team but he is highly unlikely to improve much defensively. Since he is in a contract year, Marbury may very well exercise enough good judgment to not be a negative presence in the locker room–but that does not mean that he will actually make a positive on court contribution.”
There is a big difference between specifically describing how a player’s skill set weaknesses impact his team and making a post that blames one player entirely for his team’s decline when that team has a new coach, is missing its leading rebounder and has not even established a player rotation.
I contended prior to the Marbury signing that he would have a detrimental effect on the Celtics and since he joined the team I have outlined specifically exactly what he has and has not done, citing both visual and statistical information. I made a prediction (hypothesis) and then I have followed up that prediction by examining the evidence. I explained why it is difficult for a prominent player to accept a reduced role even on a championship contender and why it can be difficult for his new team to bring him into the fold, citing the examples of Aguirre, McAdoo and the 2001 Portland Trail Blazers (who fell apart after bringing in Detlef Schrempf). Thus I gave provided some historical context for the Marbury move.
That is a much more scientific approach than doing some hocus pocus with numbers to “prove” that Iverson is supposedly a below average NBA player.
Tball
March 19, 2009
DF,
You do seem to get quite verbose after saying goodbye.
Your indicate “that the Celtics proved to be an .800 team this season even without KG prior to signing Marbury”. That comment alone implies Marbury is the ‘answer’ for the difference in performance without KG (.800 to .500). Your posting did not mention that for most of those other games Garnett missed, Scal was available and started. Your posting did not mention that for most of those other games Tony Allen was available. Your posting did not mention that for most of Marbury’s games, the Celtics have been without up to 5 players from their 8-9 man pre-allstar break rotation. The roster impact has affected continuity, particularly with their defensive rotation. That sort of omission, as you’ve explained, shows a lack of journalistic integrity, as you just bash a player against whom you clearly have a grudge.
You say “that Marbury has never proven that he can play a meaningful role on a good team.” Again it is fascinating when db negatively characterizes Iverson’s past performance he is showing “deliberate bias” in your words.
Again, to adopt your words, ‘when I read this post, what I see is an author who has always been certain that [Marbury] is an inefficient, below average player; as soon as the [Celtics] lost a few games after the [acquisition], the author rushed out to write this post to say to the world, “See, I was right about [Marbury] all along. I know more about basketball than NBA GMs, who foolishly value scoring over other aspects of the game.” ‘
You say there is a reason he didn’t play for NY and I agree, but it isn’t simply an on-court issue. NY wanted to recoup more of the $20m due Marbury and by not letting him play, they submarined his value for future years, hoping that would press him into accepting a less desirable buyout and moving on sooner. Failing that, they kept him as a possible chip for the trading deadline. Someone also signed him to that $20m/year deal, putting him in Iverson’s class in their eyes.
Before this ‘defense’ of Marbury gets away from me, I don’t have any higher opinion of Marbury than you. I think he is less useful than Rondo/Ray Allen/House and can be more useful than Gabe Pruitt (at this point in his career). I don’t like the House/Marbury pairing. I really don’t like the fact Doc has started Marbury regularly and had him in to close regulation (or Marbury’s decision to surrender the ball to Pierce with 8 seconds left and a clear lane to the basket, which came from the coach). That’s Doc’s fault, not Marbury’s. Anyway, my commentary is strictly with regards to the outrageous hypocrisy exhibited.
“[db] contended prior to the [Iverson trade] that [the trade] would have a detrimental effect on the [Pistons] and since he joined the team [db has] outlined specifically exactly [(specifically exactly?)] what he has and has not done, citing … statistical information. [db] made a prediction (hypothesis) and then … followed up that prediction by examining the evidence.”
And stop with this solely Iverson stuff. db said in the post above “half the drop-off … can be tied to a decline in Richard Hamilton’s production.” No one said it is all Iverson. It is a lot Iverson.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 44 25 – 52
Detroit 33 34 10 41
Billups 44 21 –
Iverson 24 30 14
Tball
March 19, 2009
BTW – Houston, headlined by two of the most brittle stars in the league, has had as many lineup inconsistencies as Detroit (most frequently used startign lineup has started 15 games) and seems to be doing ok.
David Friedman
March 19, 2009
Tball:
It’s a more productive use of my time to interview NBA coaches, scouts and players but I just can’t resist the siren call of basketball ignorance crying out to be answered…
Your implication that I have ignored the impact of Boston’s injuries is completely false but quite typical of how you reason and write. Here is just one sample of what I have said at 20 Second Timeout about that issue (KG has of course missed more games since I made this particular post, so don’t comment back that I have the number wrong…):
“The Celtics, on the other hand, have been depleted by injuries. Kevin Garnett has missed eight straight games due to injury and it is not certain when he will be able to return. Rajon Rondo is battling a sprained ankle that forced him to miss Sunday’s loss to Orlando. Glen “Big Baby” Davis–who has played well in Garnett’s absence–sprained his right ankle versus Orlando and did not return to the game. Reserve guard Tony Allen is expected to be out until the playoffs as he recovers from thumb surgery. The strange thing with the Celtics is that, even though Garnett played a pivotal role in transforming them into a championship team, they have been successful without him in the lineup; last year, the Celtics went 9-2 in games that Garnett missed and they are 8-3 sans the “Big Ticket” this season.”
By the way, although Scalabrine has started eight games, he is 12th on the team in mpg, so I did not specifically mention his injury.
The reference that I made in a post about Boston being an .800 team during KG’s absences pre-Marbury is merely meant to demonstrate that the Celtics showed that they could survive without KG. In other words, my point is that KG’s absence alone does not explain Boston’s recent trouble. I NEVER said that Marbury is the sole or even primary reason for Boston’s decline. However, due to on court and off court reasons I predicted that Marbury could be “worth” an extra loss or two and that this alone could be enough to cost Boston the top seed. I would say that Marbury’s performance specifically in the Detroit and Orlando games is what I had in mind in terms of being “worth” an extra loss or two. The Celtics have tacked on some additional losses that Marbury “contributed” to but did not primarily cause.
To summarize, my thesis prior to his signing was that–all other things being equal (i.e., other players not getting hurt and missing time)–Marbury would play a role in Boston losing an “extra” game or two and that this could decide the race for the top spot. Marbury has performed as I expected but the injuries to other players have piled on to that “extra” game or two to place Boston four games behind Cleveland.
I don’t have a bias against Marbury or for Iverson. In both cases I simply analyze their performances and the performances of their teams.
David Friedman
March 19, 2009
Tball:
You seem to be completely oblivious to the issue of considering the replacement value of a player. The importance of McDyess’ absence early in the season related not only to his intrinsic value–which is also greater than you acknowledge–but to the value (or lack thereof) of his replacements. I’ve said before in another context that Kwame Brown will never again be a regular starter for a playoff team (Kobe deserved the MVP just for leading a team to the playoffs–in the West no less–with Kwame AND Smush starting).
In years past, the Rockets won roughly two thirds of their games when T-Mac played but only about a fourth of their games when he was out. This year, he limped around at half speed and was in and out of the lineup. Naturally, when he shut things down and the Rockets put a fully healthy player out there in his place they achieved better results, particularly on defense. The acquisition of Artest has been vitally important, along with the development of Aaron Brooks. Even so, it’s not exactly like the Rockets are running off a 22 game winning streak like they did last year–and they won the last 10 of those games without Yao, including victories over the Lakers, Hornets and Mavs.
Tball
March 20, 2009
DF,
Your quoted little post was not included in the Marbury post. As you’ve educated me in this thread, saying something in a previous post does not excuse journalistic dishonesty in a later post. The Marbury post clearly indicates the Celtics have a better record without KG and Marbury than without KG and with Marbury and fails to address the health of the supporting cast in the .800 periods compared to the recent .500 stretch.
Again, we discussed starting and mpg in this thread with regards to Hamilton. It didn’t matter to you that Hamilton was second only to Iverson in minutes during that 4-12 stretch, it was all about starting. Maybe Scal starting allows Powe and Davis to come in off the bench, in their comfort zone. Or maybe starting only matters for the Iverson story and maybe mpg only matters when you feel like bashing Marbury. You analysists are like tax specialists, finding a bottom line, then matching a system to it. You have a bias toward patting yourself on the back and crediting your own opinions.
Career #s
Marbury 43.3FG%; 78.5FT%; .36 FTA/FGA ratio; 7.3 assist/36min; 2.8 rb/36min; 1.2 steals/36min; and 2.9TO/36min.
Iverson 42.5FG%; 78.1FT%; .41 FTA/FGA ratio; 5.4 a/36min; 3.3 rb/36min; 1.9st/36min; 3.1TO/36min; and 1 ill-conceived MVP award. Iverson takes a shots (19 to 15, per 36m) and gets a couple less assists. I’m not feeling the difference.
McGrady isn’t the only injury Houston has dealt with and your lineup whining about Detroit came well after McDyess returned. Do you even read what you write? You complained about Detroit’s three guard lineup, the lineup with Hamilton coming off the bench, ‘Sheed and Hamilton coming back from injuries, etc. As a result Detroit has had 8 players start at least 10 games and 7 players start at least 20 games. And the Rockets have had it worse.
Detroit has had 4 players start at least 50 games, but Houston has only managed 2. If you still care about minutes, Detroit has had five players log more than 1900 minutes each. Brooks is fourth on Houston with 1675 minutes. Beyond McGrady, Artest and Battier have had trouble staying on the court and the team changed point guards mid-season.
And they haven’t won 22 games in a row, but they also haven’t fallen below .500 and blamed injuries and fluctuating rotations for falling short of (misplaced) expectations. They’ve played to their potential. Just like Detroit.
David Friedman
March 20, 2009
Tball:
My Marbury post addresses the Celtics’ injuries and makes it clear that I predicted that Marbury would be “worth” one or two extra losses for the Celtics, not all of the extra losses (“extra” meaning losses that have put them below their accustomed .800 pace) that the Celtics have had. If you would work on your reading comprehension skills then you would not experience all of the frustrations that you are having following what I have said in this thread.
Tball
March 23, 2009
DF,
You indicated that having Marbury would cost the Celtics the best record in the East. That was only one loss? What’s the difference between going .500 over 8 games and going .800 over 8 games? 2 losses, which you indicated Marbury was worth over those 8 games.
“However, due to on court and off court reasons I predicted that Marbury could be “worth” an extra loss or two and that this alone could be enough to cost Boston the top seed. I would say that Marbury’s performance specifically in the Detroit and Orlando games is what I had in mind in terms of being “worth” an extra loss or two.”
You even took the time to detail how he cost the Celtics those Detroit and Orlando games. What is it that causes you to make make strong, bold statements one second, then waffle and wither from them the next?
And check your grammar. You indicated Marbury would be worth “one or two extra losses,” not “one or two of the extra losses,” which would indicate the “one or two” was a portion of a larger group of “extra losses”. And the losses you attribute to injuries, you identify as “additional losses” or “piling on to that extra game or two [referring to Marbury’s extra losses],” not “extra losses”.
If “extra losses” identifies a group of losses exceeding Marbury’s one or two losses, you have yet to identify them. Don’t blame me for your shortcomings as a writer.
Again, Iverson is no better than Marbury, so why worship one and denegrate the other?
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 45 25 – 53
Detroit 34 35 10.5 41
Billups 45 21 –
Iverson 24 30 15
David Friedman
March 23, 2009
Tball:
I love how you are not satisfied to merely demonstrate that you have no idea how/why two teams (Denver and Detroit) win or lose basketball games, so you are now branching out to Boston, Houston and parts beyond. Why don’t you bring back your boy EL so we can read his fine tuned basketball analysis, too?
David Friedman
March 23, 2009
Tball:
Regarding my alleged “grammar” problem, it is unfortunate that you do not possess the necessary reading and/or mathematical skills to understand my use of the concept of “extra” losses. Let me try to break it down for you: the Celtics were winning at roughly an .800 clip prior to signing Marbury, who joined the team with 23 games remaining in the season. I suggested in my first post about the Marbury signing that adding him to the team might cause the Celtics to dip from an .800 pace to a .700 pace and that that this could potentially cost the Celtics the number one seed. The Celtics won 17 of the first 21 games that KG missed in 2008 and 2009, so they had shown that they could win at an .800 pace without him.
An .800 team would win 18 or 19 out of 23 (18.4 to be precise, but of course an NBA team cannot win 18.4 games), while a .700 team would win 16 games out of 23. My initial reaction to the Marbury signing was that, all other things being equal, Marbury would be “worth” an extra one or two losses (i.e., the difference between winning 16 games versus 18) and that this could potentially decide home court advantage in the East. Since that time, the Celtics have suffered injuries to other players besides KG. They are 7-5 in the “Marbury era” (i.e., below .700). I detailed in my posts how Marbury contributed significantly to two of those losses but I did not hold him responsible for all of the “extra” losses, i.e. the losses that represent the difference between .800 and their winning percentage since he joined the team.
Basically, all of the injuries have clouded the issue of exactly how much Marbury has “contributed” to transforming the Celtics from an .800 team to a .583 (7-5) team. Unlike you or the author of this post, I understand that one player is rarely if ever the “answer” for everything that happens in a game or with a team for a series of games. It will be interesting to see what kind of winning percentage the Celtics maintain when/if they get back to full strength, though it is worth repeating that in the first year and a half after KG joined the Celtics they went 17-4 without him. Their inability to win without him coincided with Marbury’s arrival and with injuries to other players.
What we’ve seen in a small sample size of games did not conclusively prove my prediction about Marbury’s effect to be right but it certainly did not disprove it either. The evidence–particularly from the two losses that I described in detail in one of my posts–strongly suggests that Marbury made a significant contribution to some “extra” losses. The Celtics got rid of Sam Cassell to lessen their salary cap/luxury tax burden but–cost considerations aside–I think that they would have been better off keeping him instead of signing Marbury.
Tball
March 24, 2009
DF,
Is there anything you get right the first time around? Now you’ve taken to revisionist history with your grammar just like you have with your predictions and your rationale.
Your post was written when Marbury had been with the Celtics for 8 games. They were 4-4 at the time, not 7-5 (which adds up to more than 8, if you don’t have a calculator handy and/or your shoes are already on). Trying to correct the flaws in your analysis by rewriting it now is silly and pointless.
You stroked your little ego in your post by proclaiming you had made the prediction that Marbury would cost the Celtics a game or two and that prediction had come to pass. Now, four games later, you back off that prediction with “we’ve seen in a small sample size of games did not conclusively prove my prediction about Marbury’s effect to be right.” That sort of back tracking is why you are such a fraud.
“I detailed in my posts how Marbury contributed significantly to two of those losses but I did not hold him responsible for all of the “extra” losses, i.e. the losses that represent the difference between .800 and their winning percentage since he joined the team. ” Again, the team was 4-4. Two losses represented all of the losses between an .800 record (1.6 losses for an .800 rounds up to 2 losses) and their .500 record. Of course this is your motivation for expanded the analysis to 12 games. Now bear in mind, the ‘Marbury era’ has not included 12 games without KG. If you are going to rewrite your post, you should recheck the facts that form its foundation.
I do like the fact that you explain your grammar problem by discussing math. Grammar is the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence. Grammar is not math. My complaint is that you had been using the phrase ‘extra losses’ to mean losses attributable to Marbury. The only time you ever used ‘extra loss’ was in relation to Marbury. Then in your weekend revision, you decided “Marbury would be “worth” one or two extra losses for the Celtics, not all of the extra losses.” But you had never provided a foundation for ‘extra loss’ to relate to anything other than a loss you attributed to Marbury. You want to go redefining your terms, knock yourself out, but don’t fault me for failing to read your revision before you write it.
“I understand that one player is rarely if ever the “answer” for everything that happens in a game.” “Marbury’s performance specifically in the Detroit and Orlando games is what I had in mind in terms of being “worth” an extra loss or two.”
Your predictions waffle, your analysis waffles, your opinion of whether your Marbury prediction has come to pass waffles, and the meaning of your adopted terms waffles. If you could keep any of this straight for even a short period of time, I might be able to show you how to have an intelligent exchange. If you insist on revising your previous statements and presenting them as your original thoughts, I will continue to call you out.
And Sam Cassell was moved to make space for Marbury. The cost savings came from trading him instead of outright releasing him. Marbury costs just as much against the cap for the C’s as Cassell did. This wasn’t a money decision. And the Celtics thought enough of what Sam could bring, that his sum total contribution this year was two fouls.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 45 26 – 52
Detroit 34 35 10 41
Billups 45 22 –
Iverson 24 30 14.5
David Friedman
March 24, 2009
Tball:
My first post about the Marbury signing (which you can click on above this comment) was written right after his first game with the team.
Again, you are doing an excellent job of showing that you do not understand grammar or math, so keep up the good work. Anyone who is actually interested in understanding basketball can visit my site, read the Marbury posts that I have cited here and draw their own conclusions instead of wading through your misinterpretations of what I wrote.
David Friedman
March 24, 2009
Tball:
By the way, one of the funniest things about this meandering discussion is that this site is supposedly producing scientific/objective basketball analysis, yet Berri jumped to conclusions about Detroit and Denver after a very small portion of the season was complete and while Detroit was without its leading rebounder. On the other hand, I am following the scientific method much more closely but you mock my conditional statements as “waffling.” I have not “waffled” about anything at any time in this thread. I have made predictions, I have made observations and then after events have taken place I have explained what happened and why. You have proven to be outstanding only at misunderstanding what I write and misinterpreting my explanations. I don’t know you, so it is impossible to say if you are simply dense or if you just enjoy the back and forth because no one else will waste his time trying to reason with you about basketball.
I made a prediction (hypothesis) about Marbury’s potential impact on the Celtics and since that time I have objectively analyzed what has actually happened. The facts certainly seem to support my initial hypothesis–i.e., Marbury seems to have cost the Celtics an “extra” loss or two (above and beyond the roughly two out of 10 games that they had been losing prior to his arrival) but I am honest enough to note that various injuries have clouded the picture. In contrast, this post and your incessant bleatings insist that one player is “the answer” no matter what injuries befall a team and no matter what decisions the coach makes (coaching moves don’t matter according to you and Berri).
Regardless of how frequently Cassell played this season, he was already familiar with the team and its system, he has been practicing regularly (i.e., he is in shape) and he made contributions last year late in the season and during the playoffs. In contrast, Marbury had not played in quite some time, was unfamiliar with the team and has tended to have a negative impact wherever he goes. If the Celtics’ only choice was to either play Cassell 15-20 mpg down the stretch or sign Marbury then I think that they should have played Cassell.
Tball
March 25, 2009
DF,
Check out the latest knickerblogger post. You’ve garnered more love for your analysis. Cherry picking. Dishonest. Disservice. I had to check the by-line to make sure I hadn’t written it. I guess this means someone else has read something you wrote. Don’t worry, I have already emailed him to let him know it wasn’t bad journalism, just ‘objective analysis.’
db arrived at a conclusion after 22 games. You arrived at a conclusion about Marbury after 8 games, yet you accuse db of jumping to conclusions? Wonderfully objective.
We have almost 250 comments on this page. I challenge you to find one in which I indicated Iverson was the answer for all of the team’s losses. As I’ve said right along, the loss of Billups and addition of Iverson is worth about ten more losses over last season. Last year they lost 23 games. They are on pace to lose 19 more than that. More than half are due to the trade of Iverson.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 45 26 – 52
Detroit 34 36 10.5 40
Billups 45 22 –
Iverson 24 30 14.5
David Friedman
March 25, 2009
Tball:
The fact that a site with “Knicks” in the name disagrees with the fact that the Knicks are not doing better in D’Antoni’s first season as coach than they did in Isiah Thomas’ first season is truly shocking! I would think that a team’s fans would love to hear that despite all of the buzz there is not a tangible difference between ’07 and ’09.
I have not reached a “conclusion” about Marbury after eight games. I made a post right after Boston signed him suggesting that he might not improve the team, that he might in fact be “worth” extra losses that could cost the Celtics home court. Since that time, I have done a few follow up posts analyzing how Marbury has performed. The evidence seems to support what I predicted but I am not foolish enough to “conclude” anything, other than that the evidence indicates that he has in fact cost them a game or two.
Again, it is pathetic that you interpret measured, conservative, rational statements to be “waffling.” I suppose if I had said that Marbury is “the answer” to Boston’s struggles then I’d be your hero because you apparently consider Marbury and Iverson to be of identical value (low). However, I don’t think that Iverson is “the answer” for all of Detroit’s woes, nor do I think that Marbury is “the answer” for all of Boston’s (relative) woes.
Tball
March 26, 2009
DF,
Maybe the problem is that it is difficult to form a thoughtful opinion when all you give yourself is a 20 second timeout.
I don’t interpret measured, conservative, rational statements to be waffling. First, I am discussing your statements, so rational isn’t part of the equation. Second, when you are patting yourself on the back, quoting yourself, or engaging in other egocentric behavior, you rarely do so conservatively. Of course the key to the waffling is the fact that your measured statements measure differently depending on the day, hour, and temperature. It is the inconsistency of your statements that cooks the waffles.
It remains irrational to suggest that losing McDyess for a month can cost the Pistons anything more than one or two games, while losing the Garnett should not inhibit the Celtics from winning at an .800 clip and losing Camby should not slow the Nuggets. That getting ‘Sheed back after a four game absence should throw the Piston rotation so out of whack that they lose 4 of 5 games, but Billups is able to move to the Nuggets and they play as if he had been there his entire career.
db indicated every team Iverson leaves gets better and every team he joins gets worse. Your opinion of that analysis was “As for the Philly/Miller situation and the Iverson/Denver situation, you are again subscribing to the belief that one move in isolation completely changed those teams, without looking at their schedules, their injuries and other factors.” Then you indicated every team Marbury leaves gets better and every team he joins gets worse.
If you could express any opinion about the game of basketball and apply that opinion evenhandedly across all situations, we’d be able to discuss those opinions. Instead, your opinion flip-flops depending on whether you like the player/team.
BTW – I know you are as excited about this as I am, but the next loss by the Pistons or win by the Nuggets clinches the Nuggets’ superior record this season. And Detroit hosts Kobe tonight.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
Denver 46 26 – 52
Detroit 34 36 11 40
Billups 46 22 –
Iverson 24 30 14.5
David Friedman
March 26, 2009
Tball:
Again, you should acquaint yourself with the idea of replacement value. The Pistons replaced McDyess with, among others Kwame Brown. The Celtics replaced KG with reserve players like Big Baby who proved that they could be effective enough for the Celtics to go 17-4 in the first 21 games that KG missed in the 2008 and 2009 seasons. The Celtics’ struggles sans KG coincided with Marbury’s arrival. I know that correlation does not equal causation and I have made it clear that Boston has bigger problems than just Marbury–but the Celtics signed Marbury with the idea that he could be a rotation player who makes a positive contribution and that has yet to be the case. Did you notice that last night Doc Rivers kept Marbury out of the game in the fourth quarter instead of giving him his usual few minutes? Boston rallied from a big deficit but fell just short. In Marbury’s limited first half run he made his “contribution” to the deficit, though of course Boston had problems in other areas also.
As fascinating as it would be to try to explain Marbury’s career to you and why it differs from Iverson’s, you are having enough trouble understanding Detroit and Denver so I will leave it to someone with more patience/time on his hands to fill you in about Marbury, who is in any case not the subject of this thread. You brought up my correct posts/predictions about Marbury, not I, so I guess I should thank you for patting me on the back.
No, I’m not really “excited” about Denver, Detroit, Boston, New York, L.A. or any other team. I report and analyze what happens.
I’d say more, but I’m busy transcribing my interview with Orlando Senior V.P. Pat Williams. You’ll love his take on basketball statistical analysis.
Tball
March 27, 2009
DF,
You really put so little effort into all of your analysis, it is almost as if you want to come off as shoddy and disinterested.
I am good with replacement value. When McDyess was out, Detroit had Amir, Maxiell, and Kwame. When Garnett has been out in the past, Boston has covered up with Scal, Davis, and Powe. Scal is out indefinitely. Davis went down right after Marbury’s acquisition and Powe went down when Davis returned. Every game since Marbury’s acquisition, Boston has been without at least two of those four players and Garnett has yet to be healthy enough to contribute 20 minutes. Moore has also not played well since his acquisition and has been forced to play with all the injuries at PF (but you don’t blame him for the ‘extra losses’ like you fault Marbury).
Twice against Miami in the last few weeks, Boston had Walker, a second round SF that spent the first half of the season in the D-League, defending Jermaine O’Neal for significant minutes because of the dearth of healthy low post players. How is the replacement player value at PF for Boston since the Marbury acquisition better than the replacement player value at PF for Detroit?
And you are right. Clearly, I lack your understanding of why the Pistons are better than the Nuggets this year. Or your prescient comment from two weeks ago, “the season for these two teams has played out remarkably like I predicted: Denver is plummeting and in danger of missing the playoffs and the Pistons are playing their best ball at the end of the season.” If only I understood basketball the way you do.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
c – Denver 46 26 – 52
Detroit 34 37 11.5 39
Billups 46 22 –
Iverson 24 30 14.5
c – clinched the superior record among Billups-Iverson trade participants.
David Friedman
March 27, 2009
Tball:
We’ll see where Denver finishes at the end of the year. Let’s see if the Nuggets end up better than they were when Iverson was there and, more importantly, if they actually make it out of the first round. Billups has a longer term contract, so the Nuggets are pretty much stuck with this nucleus. Part of the reason the Pistons made the trade was to have greater cap flexibility.
As for Detroit, anyone with objectivity or common sense understands that for significant portions of this season the Pistons did not have the lineup available that they expected to deploy after making the trade. Do you really think that your “standings” mean anything with McDyess missing roughly a fifth of the season and the Pistons not having Iverson, Sheed and Rip down the stretch?
Your “standings” are meaningless, as I told you the first time that you posted them. Billups and Iverson did not play one on one 54 or 58 times, as you are implying.
You completely distort everything that I write, so I don’t know why I bother but I did not blame Marbury for everything that has happened. When the Celtics signed him I suggested that this was a bad move that could cost them in the standings. Obviously, the various injuries have cost them even more but Marbury has yet to make a positive contribution, as I detailed in several posts.
David Friedman
March 27, 2009
Tball:
Also, I do still think that the Pistons–at full strength–have a better team than the Nuggets. The Pistons did win both head to head matchups or did you forget your infamous prediction about one of those games?
David Friedman
March 27, 2009
Tball:
Let’s wrap up all of this Marbury business. The bottom line is simple. When Boston signed him, I said that this was a mistake that could potentially cost them a game or two down the stretch, which could mean the difference between getting the first or second seed. Since that time, Marbury has played terribly and it certainly could be argued that he has been worth an “extra” loss or two. The Celtics have obviously also had a lot of injuries and that has cost them some losses, too. Do you disagree with me that signing Marbury was a mistake? Do you think that my analysis/recaps of his performances? I don’t see you marshaling any evidence against what I predicted or finding any flaws with my analysis of how he played, so I don’t see how any of that has any relevance to this thread but I guess I should thank you for all of the free publicity about my commentary about the Celtics.
As for the subjects of this post (Detroit and Denver), let’s look at what I said in my first comment:
“For what it’s worth, my prediction (before the season) was that Detroit might be better coached this year and still finish with a worse record because several key players are declining. The Pistons have been shuffling their lineups and need McDyess to return to form but it would not surprise me if they work their way back to the fourth or even third seed in the East by the end of the season. They are fifth right now and only 4.5 games behind third place Orlando.
At the start of the season, I had Denver missing the playoffs entirely–and that is still a distinct possibility. They have fattened up their record against weak teams and even though they are currently second in the West the Nuggets are only three games ahead of ninth place Dallas, a team that has been without All-Star forward Josh Howard for most of the season.”
I told you many times that I am more interested in seedings than win totals. Your artificial one on one Billups/Iverson standings are stupid but your Det./Den. standings are stupid, too. They are in different conferences, Det. won both head to head games and they won’t see each other again this season unless they both make the Finals (which means that they won’t see each other…).
The Nuggets were in second place when I first commented; they are currently tied for third-fourth but just two games ahead of seventh. They’re obviously going to make the playoffs but we don’t know what seed they will have so there is nothing yet to say about my prediction. If they end up seventh then they are one/two spots better than I thought they would be. We’ll see what happens.
I said that I would not be surprised if Det. got the fourth or even the third seed. Clearly, that won’t happen. What went wrong for Detroit?
1) Leading rebounder (last season and this season) McDyess missed more than a fifth of the season.
2) Leading scorer Rip Hamilton has missed 14 games and counting.
3) Iverson has missed 20 games and counting.
4) Sheed has missed 13 games and counting.
5) As a result of the above, the Pistons have used 16 different starting lineups–and, just as significantly, they have not used any one lineup more than 13 times. Discounting four lineups that they used only once or twice each, their two best starting fives have gone 5-1 and 7-4. In other words, even when they found combinations that worked they were not able to keep those quintets together. They have not once been able to use the starting five that I expected them to deploy: Iverson, Rip, McDyess, Sheed, Prince.
6) The Pistons never had the opportunity to develop good chemistry with Rip and Iverson and thus seemed to play better when one or the other was out of the lineup.
Note: Iverson has averaged 18.0 ppg, 5.0 apg, 3.2 rpg, .417 FG%, .286 3FG%, .792 FT%, 1.6 spg, 2.5 TO/pg in 37.5 mpg.
Last season, Billups averaged 17.0 ppg, 6.8 apg, 2.7 rpg, .448 FG%, .401 3FG%, .918 FT%, 1.3 spg, 2.1 TO/pg in 32.3 mpg.
Iverson scored more and got more rebounds and steals. Billups had more assists, shot better and committed fewer turnovers. Iverson played more minutes, which meant less court time for reserve players. One problem with this direct comparison is that Billups played pg for Det. in 2008, while in 2009 the Pistons had Iverson at pg sometimes but other times had him at sg and put Stuckey at pg.
When Dumars acquired Iverson, he said that the team would play at a faster tempo and try to take advantage of Iverson’s ability to break down defenders and draw fouls. For various reasons, the Pistons never did that, instead struggling all year to find a style that best suits the skill sets of their core players.
Iverson is not the “answer” for Detroit’s record this year and could in fact end up playing in less than 2/3 of the Pistons’ total games.
Tball
March 30, 2009
DF,
My one complaint with your Marbury analysis is the hypocrasy of it. You rail against db because he waited 18 games after The Trade to analyze the impact of Iverson on the Pistons. Then you waited 8 games to analyze the impact of Marbury. The Pistons were without McDyess. The Celtics were without Garnett and the two players that normally back up his position (Davis tends to back up Perkins).
And you said every team Marbury leaves does better, then you wrote that the team Marbury just left isn’t doing any better this season. You should keep notes because these inconsistencies are becoming outrageous.
So now regular season head-to-head matchups determine who the better team is? So the Lakers are not as good as Orlando or Charlotte because they failed to beat each team this season? Milwaukee is better than the Spurs because they swept the season series? Or is this just another case of you applying a rationale only when it supports your conclusions.
Again, with comparable teammates, it is amazing how much better Billups’ team did last year and has done this year. Regarding your stat line, Billups scored more points last season and scored more per minute. Iverson scored more per game because he played more minutes per game. He also has played less minutes because he has been sidelined more than Billups, leading to more minutes for reserves. Billups shot better from every spot on the floor. They averaged the same number of rebounds/minute. Iverson’s sole advantage is a slightly larger number of steals/gm, a number more than offset by his extra TO/gm.
You haven’t been interested in the win total because the Nuggets have had more wins all season. On January 10, as Detroit moved as close as it would get to Denver, you even offered to update the standings. Again, why would I expect you to be interested in any information that does not support your conclusions.
I do love your ‘what went wrong with Detroit’:
1. With McDyess: 25-29; without McDyess: 11-8 (did better without him).
2. With Rip: 29-30; without Hamilton: 7-7 (did better without him).
3. With Iverson: 24-29; Without him: 12-8 (better without him).
4. With ‘Sheed: 29-29; Without him: 7-8 (0.5 games better with him)
5. They have been able to use ‘your’ starting lineup plenty of times – they chose not to use it. Many of the lineup changes this year were coach’s decision, not injury related. When the team isn’t winning, you move pieces around to find something that works. And the team was as lousy (if not more so) when they had these players as when they were out.
The Pistons were a 59 win team last season and they have been a .500 team all season. No team in the NBA has every fallen 18 games in the standings on chemistry issues. Replacing Billups with Iverson cost Detroit about 10 games this season.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
c – Denver 48 26 – 53
Detroit 36 37 11.5 40
Billups 48 22 –
Iverson 25 30 15.5
c – clinched the superior record among Billups-Iverson trade participants.
Tball
April 1, 2009
As the season is winding to a close, I think a few predictions can be put to bed.
DF (12/17) – “I expect Denver to plummet in the standings and that by the end of the season they will be fighting for the last playoff spot.” Denver clinched yesterday (DF 0-1).
DF (12/17) – “As for Detroit, the Pistons went through a rough patch but by the end of the season I would expect them to be the third or possibly fourth seed in the East.” Detroit is one loss away from making this impossible (DF 0-2).
TBall (12/18) – “48 wins would be a dirty prediction” for the Nuggets. Denver surpassed this (TBall 0-1).
DF (12/19) – “My prediction now is that those two teams will battle for the third and fourth spots (Orlando currently is 3.5 games ahead of Detroit, so I am saying that margin will shrink).” The battle was over by the end of the month. (DF 0-3).
DF (12/19) – “As for Denver, prior to the season I picked them to miss the playoffs … I still think that they will miss the playoffs. ” Again, clinched last night. (DF 0-4).
DF (12/19) – “When we have a large enough sample size of games to consider, my prediction is that this year’s Denver team will turn out to be not too much different from last year’s team.” If you go by wins, this can still be true. If you worship at the alter of seeds, less so. Push (DF 0-4).
DF (12/20) – “My guess is that in a month or two there will be a WoW article about how McDyess has turned around the Pistons no thanks to Iverson.” Haven’t seen it. (DF 0-5).
DF (12/23) – “I not only explained what happened to both teams early in the season but I predicted what will happen to them down the stretch–and we are already seeing early signs that things will go exactly as I predicted.” (DF 0-6)
TBall (12/24) – “Detroit will finish with fewer wins than Denver.” Clinched. (TBall 1-1).
DF (12/24) – “For WoW to be right, Detroit should fall from 3rd-4th and Denver should move up significantly in the standings.” (WoW 1-0).
DF (12/30) – “I haven’t been wrong about anything in this thread to this point.” Check out the 0-6, now (DF 0-7).
DF (12/30) – “over the course of the season, I fully expect Utah and Phoenix to gain ground while the Nuggets keep losing to the better teams.” You do make a lot of predictions. (DF 0-8).
DF (12/30) – “if by some miracle it would turn out that Denver stayed in second place all year while Detroit became a non-factor in the East.” (Miracle 1-0).
“It’s pretty funny that since I made my comment everything has gone as I predicted for both teams and yet you continue to believe that I am mistaken. Will you remain in denial all season long or at some point will you at least consider the possibility that I am right?” I think you know who wrote this and who should be writing this now.
DF (1/5) – “My prediction, as noted above, is that by the end of the season the Nuggets will be battling for the eighth spot and I think that they will fall just short. That probably works out to somewhere around 47-48 wins.” I took the loss on ’48’ wins, so do you. (DF 0-9).
TBall (1/6) – “And the Nuggets will win Friday, regardless of Anthony’s availability.” (Tball 1-2).
DF (1/7) – “I would say that Detroit will win 52-53 games this season.” Mathematically impossible. (DF 0-10).
DF (1/7) – “The Pistons were the better team before the trade and they are still the better team now.” (DF 0-11).
TBall (1/8) – “I predict Denver will win more games than Detroit, which will happen because Detroit will not get to 50 wins.” Detroit cannot get to 50. TBall (2-2).
TBall (1/9) – “Based on [Denver’s] record coming into the month, a 4-5 record against [plus .500]teams would be expected. Yes, I’d still expect them to play to that level despite Anthony’s injury.” TBall (3-2).
I’ll get to more later – don’t you worry.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
c – Denver 49 26 – 53
Detroit 36 38 12.5 40
Billups 49 22 –
b- Iverson 25 31 16.5
b – despite playing only 2/3 of the season, accumulated more losses than Billups.
c – clinched the superior record among Billups-Iverson trade participants.
David Friedman
April 1, 2009
Tball:
It is entertaining and revelatory that you think that a season in which the Pistons rarely had their regular roster together and in which Iverson missed a ton of games is somehow a relevant referendum on the accuracy of a post titled “Really, the Answer is Iverson.” Similarly, the Nuggets have benefited from injuries to key West teams (Dallas, New Orleans, Phoenix, Utah). The Nuggets are a little better than I expected them to be but they still are not that far ahead of the lower rung playoff teams in the West and I maintain that at full strength those teams are better than the Nuggets are at full strength.
I am not going to waste my time with a point by point rebuttal of your “standings” or your account of predictions made but it is amusing how you count my statement that I had not been wrong about anything up to that point as an incorrect statement. Even if predictions I made subsequently turned out to be incorrect, they were not proven incorrect by the time that I made that statement–but this is typical about the way that you think in general. You are more interested in “proving” that you are right than actually trying to understand the factors involved in winning and losing basketball games.
As entertaining as it has been to discuss basketball with an anonymous know it all, with the playoffs approaching I have too much on my plate to continue this discussion any further, so if you think that you have “won” something then congratulations.
Tball
April 13, 2009
DF,
Thank you, DF. You stood as tall in defeat as you did in pending defeat. Good to note that all of the West teams were healthy last year and they all suffered injuries this year. Nice to see you signed off with that same characteristic ‘analysis’.
I don’t think Iverson missing a ton of games is irrelevant. I think it is fascinating that he appeared in 19 fewer games than Billups and still had the time to appear in 8 more losses. Clearly the Pistons didn’t suffer any when he was in the lineup.
Friedman/TBall Division
Team W – L GB Win Pace
c – Denver 53 27 – 54
Detroit 39 41 14 40
Billups 53 23 –
b- Iverson 26 31 17.5
b – despite playing only 2/3 of the season, accumulated more losses than Billups.
c – clinched the superior record among Billups-Iverson trade participants.
David Friedman
April 14, 2009
Tball:
It is reassuring to know that you are still as big of a clown now as you were at the start of this enterprise, with your fake “Iverson-Billups” standings–I must have missed the dozens of epic one on one duels that you have convinced yourself that they played this season.
Due to injuries (and some curious decisions by Coach Curry), the Pistons never settled on one starting lineup this season. Iverson is either hurt and/or banished now, so the Pistons at this point essentially traded Billups for air, yet you still keep updating your “standings.” Dumars rolled the dice because he apparently believes that the Pistons could not win the East with Billups. This season obviously did not turn out well for Detroit, but Dumars can get rid of Iverson and Sheed and use the cap space to rebuild the team. It remains to be explained why the Pistons never tried to play to Iverson’s strengths.
The Nuggets are stuck with Billups’ salary for two more years; they are not good enough to win the championship but they also do not have the cap room to significantly improve during that time.
The Nuggets will end up with three to five more wins this season than last season (depending on how they close out the season) but have moved up several spots in the standings due to the injuries suffered by numerous other West teams. That is reality. If you want to delude yourself to believe that Billups has changed the entire culture in Denver, have fun.
Tball
April 14, 2009
DF,
Due to injury the Rockets have never settled on a lineup this season. Settling on a lineup is not the issue. Teams with talented players win more games than teams with fewer talented players. The Pistons had fewer talented players this season than they did last season. And they had less talent than seven other teams in the EC.
The Nuggets moved up because of injuries? So last season, none of the teams in the WC suffered injuries? Maybe last season the Nuggets were the second best team in the WC but fell to 8th due to injuries. You are the only one to raise Denver’s ‘culture’ in this thread. Just like you predicted they’d slide to 7th, 8th, 9th, a prediction you clung to even 4-6 weeks ago, well after many of the WC injuries were known or realized. One more feather in your forecasting cap.
Every team Iverson leaves improves. The reason is he always gets traded for more talent than he has. You’ll also note the Pistons have a better record when Iverson is unavailable. Perhaps they should have traded Billups for air (a la Camby to the Clippers) if all they sought was financial freedom, as, like every other team, they seem to be better without him.
David Friedman
April 14, 2009
Tball:
It hardly makes sense to try to explain to you why other teams win and lose when you have already proven incapable of understanding what is happening in Denver and Detroit but perhaps one intelligent person will accidentally stumble on this exchange and be interested in reading legitimate basketball analysis:
1) The Rockets have had the same starting lineup this season for 25 games, nearly twice as often as the Pistons have used their most common starting lineup.
2) The Rockets have the same veteran coach this year that they had last year, a coach who has previously led teams to the NBA Finals; the Pistons have a new coach who has never been a head coach before.
3) In the offseason, the Rockets added a former Defensive Player of the Year who is fully capable of replacing McGrady. With a healthy McGrady, many people expected the Rockets to challenge for the best record in the West. With Ron Artest essentially taking McGrady’s spot, the Rockets have nearly matched last year’s win total.
You are gloating about how well Denver has performed this season but the reality is that the Nuggets are one game ahead of the fifth seed and just four games ahead of the seventh seed. We are talking about small margins here. The Jazz are a recent Western Conference Finalist who were without the services of their second best player (Boozer) for more than half of the season. I still am not convinced that Denver’s team is actually better than Utah’s when both are at full strength.
The issue here is that you and Berri believe that swapping Iverson for Billups has intrinsically strengthened Denver. This is not about predicting win totals, which is why I never wanted to do that in the first place. This is about matchups. A full strength Denver team does not match up well with a full strength Utah team.
As a top draft pick, Iverson went to a bad team, so let’s throw out his first three seasons. In his next seven full seasons in Philly, the 76ers won 49, 56, 43, 48, 33, 43 and 38 games. The 76ers made the playoffs in five of those seasons and advanced to the Finals in 2001. Each season of course had its own unique story in terms of injuries, coaching changes, personnel moves etc.–important factors that you of course blindly disregard. Since getting rid of Iverson, the Sixers have won 35, 40 and 40 games (with two games remaining). They have made the playoffs twice in three seasons. I fail to see any sign of “improvement” in the post-Iverson era. In five of Iverson’s last seven seasons the 76ers won more games than they won in the best two seasons of the post-Iverson era. Of course, since Berri is the high priest of the anti-Iverson cult and you are his top acolyte, I would not expect you to accept this information.
simon
April 17, 2009
David,
You are clearly very misinformed. Berri is actually the high priest of the WoW cult and Iverson is a heretic who’s trying to show dazzling shot-creation triumphs over efficiency.
David Friedman
April 17, 2009
Simon:
Iverson played the most minutes and took the most shots for a team that made it to the NBA Finals, although I know the high priest is convinced that every other player on that team had more to do with Philly’s success than Iverson did. Iverson averaged 32.9 ppg and 6.1 apg in 46.2 mpg during the 2001 playoffs but we should not let those pesky per game numbers confuse us into thinking that maybe, possibly Iverson could have had anything to do with Philly advancing to the Finals.
Nor should we be deceived by the fact that Iverson averaged 26.4 ppg and led the Nuggets in minutes played when they won 50 games in 2007-08, a whopping four fewer than they won this year when Chauncey Billups–a WoW hero–completely changed Denver’s fortunes (according to the WoW bible).
simon
April 18, 2009
David:
Ceteris paribus is a useful thing but you have to use it within reasons. For example, Chicago Bulls won 57 games in 1993 with a certain bald-headed player and 55 games in 1994 without him. Does that mean that Jordan guy was worth only two wins or would it probably meant there were other changes involved? I think we both would lean to the same conclusion.
David Friedman
April 18, 2009
Simon:
Quite correct but my point is that it does not make much sense to assert–as Berri has repeatedly–that Iverson was essentially at best an innocent bystander and at worst a hindrance when his teams had the successful seasons that I mentioned in my previous comment.
Tball
April 20, 2009
DF,
1) are you suggesting that if Detroit had a starting lineup that started 25 games instead of maxing out at over a dozen, they’d have won over 50 games instead of only 40? That’s ridiculous.
2) When you were discussing Isiah, it appeared coaching for a second year was actually a hinderance to the coach. For the Rockets, coaching for a second season has helped? And Curry was an assistant with the team last year, most of whom stuck around for this season, so they should not have taken long to get acquainted.
3) As you said back in December “[The Nuggets] beat the Rockets without McGrady; in recent years, the Rockets have been a 50-plus win caliber team with T-Mac and a lottery caliber team without him.” You didn’t seem to think Artest could fill in adequately two months into the season. You picked the Rockets as the fourth best team to start the season. Apparently only the unhealthy teams that fall short of your predictions need excuses.
Last season the Nuggets were only lost their division by four games, but you didn’t seem to treat it as such a small margin coming into this season. Rather, it was a sign of the team’s mediocrity. Billups now has one more playoff win with the Nuggets than Iverson managed. Interesting too that Iverson’s team seems poised for a sweep out of the playoffs.
I believe the 35 win season you referenced was actually the year in which they traded Iverson. They were a .500 team after the trade. That said, the last three years with him totaled 114 wins. The last three seasons (2.7 without him) totaled 116 wins. 116 is greater than 114. The last three seasons with him, 1 trip to the post season. The last three seasons without him, 2 trips to the post season. 2 is greater than 1. The last three seasons with him, 1 playoff win. The last three seasons without him, 3 playoff wins (and counting). 3 is greater than 1.
And Iverson was not a bystander on the championship team, or any of the other teams. He was a league average starting shooting guard. He could have been replaced by any other league average starting shooting guard and his team would have been expected to enjoy similar success. When looking at Iverson’s numbers, the problem (has you kindly illustrate) is that no one wants to look past the scoring.
In his best season (the MVP year, when the 76ers most frequent starting lineup logged 22 games), Iverson had the 10th best FG% of his team among players with 550+ minutes. In the playoffs, he was last on the team among players with 30+ shot attempts, shooting 38.9%. And shooting was his skill. They trusted him to take more than twice as many shots as any other player on the team, both in the regular season and in the postseason, and he couldn’t shoot well. Speaking only of players with 550+ minutes, Iverson was 4th in assists/min, 12th in reb/min, 1st in st/min, 9th in bl/min. 2nd in To/min. And, of course, the team was mediocre offensively and strong defensively.
db’s point is that Iverson leads his team in scoring because he leads the team in attempted shots and that skill is given more credit than it deserves relative to the other skills required for playing the game of basketball.
Friedman/TBall Division – End of season
Team W – L GB
Denver 54 28 –
Detroit 39 43 15
Billups 54 24 –
b- Iverson 26 31 17.5
b – despite playing only 2/3 of the season, accumulated more losses than Billups.
David Friedman
April 20, 2009
Tball:
I am suggesting that not having a set starting lineup is one reason that the Pistons struggled this season. Does that mean that no team in NBA history that had an unsettled rotation did well? Of course not but it is obvious that lack of continuity hurt the Pistons, particularly because they had experienced so much continuity (and good health) the previous year.
I don’t understand your compulsion to continually bring the Rockets, Knicks and other teams into a discussion about the Pistons and Nuggets. Please keep your lack of understanding about NBA basketball to two teams at a time.
I never said that coaching for a second season is a hindrance (or a “hinderance” for that matter). That is your misinterpretation of my article about the Knicks. I compared D’Antoni’s first year coaching in New York to Isiah’s first year coaching in New York because D’Antoni does not yet have a year two that can be compared. You interpreted that to mean that I am saying that year two is a “hindrance.” In fact, I made no comment about what the Knicks may or may not do in D’Antoni’s second year, not did I say or imply anything about a second year being a hindrance. My point in that article is that, contrary to the story line being spun in some quarters of the mainstream media, D’Antoni has not yet turned the Knicks around. They were a non-playoff team when Isiah coached them and they are a non-playoff team now. D’Antoni’s Knicks got worse as the season progressed and they are terrible on the glass and defensively.
The idea that Iverson could have been replaced on the Sixers by any other “average” shooting guard and that the Sixers would have made the Finals is ludicrous but I expect nothing less from someone who worships a formula that says that Rodman was better than Jordan and that Bynum was more valuable last season than Kobe. I suppose that your next “insight” will be that Rodman could have led the Bulls to the Finals playing alongside any “average” shooting guard.
The bottom line about Iverson and the 76ers is that since they got rid of him they have yet to win more than half of their games in a season or advance past the first round of the playoffs (which could change in a couple weeks…we’ll see). As I documented above, the 76ers had more consistent success with Iverson than they have had since getting rid of him. They certainly did not get some kind of quantum boost merely by trading him.
Tball
April 20, 2009
DF,
The reason to bring in other teams is your excuse for the Pistons is one of convenience. The Pistons fell short of your expectations and they did not maintain a regular starting lineup, so you blame the lack of a regular starting lineup for their falling short of your expectations. If other teams fail to maintain regular starting lineups without a significant impact in the standings, then failing to have a regular starting lineup is not a cause for teams to fall short of expectations.
When you focus all of your ‘analysis’ on one or two teams, the fiction falls out of focus. When you look at the big picture, it all becomes clear.
No one has every accused Jordan of being average, so your proposition of such is foolish.
How many times has Iverson made it out of the first round of the playoffs since that finals appearance? How many times did they win 50 or more games with Iverson? The 76ers averaged 39 wins/season with him on the team. Other than one season when the Eastern Conference was as weak as it has ever been, the 76ers in the Iverson era were never contenders for a championship. The fact you view him as comparable to Jordan is insane.
David Friedman
April 20, 2009
Tball:
Once again, your poor reading comprehension skills come to the fore. Each team’s situation in terms of roster, coaching, injuries, etc. is unique. The Rockets replaced an injured star with another star who had previously played for that team’s coach and knew his system. The Pistons changed coaches, traded away their starting point guard and leading rebounder (who they re-signed a month later) and brought in a new star whose skill set they decided not to properly utilize. People who actually understand the sport realize that Iverson is not the sole “answer” for what happened in Detroit; then there are people like you who are so fixated on the “numbers” that they lose track of reality. Keep in mind that Berri declared Iverson to be “the answer” before most of the season had even been played.
I did not compare Iverson to Jordan. I compared your “analysis” of Iverson’s impact to Berri’s faulty analysis of Jordan and Rodman’s relative impact on the Bulls. You have made it clear that such distinctions are far above your comprehension level but other people reading this thread will understand what I am talking about.
The Sixers have been a .500 or below team since getting rid of Iverson. During Iverson’s prime, the Sixers reached the Finals while he won the MVP. They also advanced past the first round in other seasons. They have not matched those accomplishments since getting rid of him. How much time has to pass since his departure before whatever success they eventually has can no longer rightly be attributed to simply trading him? If the Sixers make the Finals 10 years from now will that “prove” that they improved by getting rid of him? The Sixers traded Iverson and they did not get better at all in the aftermath. I’m not saying that trading him was right or wrong, simply that you and Berri are wrong for saying that they got better by trading him: they have not gotten better, period.
David Friedman
April 20, 2009
*In the previous comment, I meant to type “eventually have” not “eventually has.”
Tball
April 21, 2009
DF,
“The Rockets replaced an injured star with another star who had previously played for that team’s coach and knew his system.” That point didn’t seem relevant when you were devaluing the Nuggets victory over the McGrady-less Rockets earlier this year. Are they not as good without him or are they just as good without him? Your answer seems to depend on whether we are discussing the Nuggets or the Pistons.
If you give away a star and replace him with an average player, your team will get worse. This statement is true for every team’s roster. The Pistons experienced this fact this year when they surrendered Billups for Iverson. You are right to note that db recognized this before other pundits. It is gracious of you to laud his prediction. I didn’t expect that.
How many times has Iverson made it out of the first round of the playoffs since that finals appearance? How many times did they win 50 or more games with Iverson? How much time has to pass since his improperly credited MVP achievement before people recognize that success was errantly attributed to him?
The 2007 76ers traded Iverson for Andre Miller in Dec. 2006, after which time Miller played every game for the 76ers. They were 8-18 before the trade and 27-29 after the trade. Let me just grab my handy, dandy calculator … divide by … yup, “they got better by trading him: … period.”
Does a team that had been .500 the previous three seasons need to reach the Finals to show a trade improved the team?
David Friedman
April 21, 2009
Tball:
My “answer” depends on the situation regarding each team. You think that there is a one size fits all description for each team. The reality is that prior to this season the Rockets performed terribly when McGrady was out of the lineup and Artest had a history of, shall we say, unreliability–but when Artest stays out of trouble it is beyond dispute that he is a very good player.
The Pistons traded their starting point guard and their best rebounder in exchange for a shooting guard. They got their best rebounder back after a month. Over the course of the season, they benched Rip, then they benched Iverson, then they banished Iverson. They also dealt with injuries and the growing pains of a new coach. Prior to most of these things happening, Berri boldly asserted that Iverson would be “the answer” for the Pistons’ troubles. He had no basis to say that and it did not turn out to be true.
Here are the 76ers records the past five years:
43
38
35
40
41
As you are making quite clear in the Knicks’ thread, you have great difficulty understanding the concept of “improvement.” Iverson has been out of Philly for quite some time and the team has neither improved its regular season record nor advanced further in the playoffs (the latter may change this round…we’ll see).
You and Berri say that I “cherry picked” numbers about the Knicks–and Berri states that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks, which is a bold faced lie that he refuses to acknowledge or correct (revealing his true character)–but now you take one segment of a season from several years ago to “prove” that the 76ers are better off without Iverson, when several complete seasons’ worth of evidence show otherwise. By the way, you might want to go back and look at the season you cited and see how many other changes the 76ers made besides trading Iverson. Contrary to the obsession that you and Berri have, Iverson is not the “answer” for every single thing that happens to his current or former teams.
Tball
April 21, 2009
DF,
Your challenge earlier in the year “My guess is that in a month or two there will be a WoW article about how McDyess has turned around the Pistons no thanks to Iverson–meaning that Iverson will get blamed for Detroit’s slump but get no credit for the turnaround. I have no idea how WoW is going to try to explain Denver falling in the standings with Billups but that will be interesting to see.” The obvious point you were making is you did not think the season’s first six weeks were a sign of things to come and db did. He was right, you were wrong. Glad to see your integrity allows you to admit such things.
“Berri states that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks, which is a bold faced lie that he refuses to acknowledge.” I’ll acknowledge it. The statement “Berri states that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks” is a bold faced lie. db never states it. You may need to up the dosage of your medication because the delusions are taking over.
I see, so there were many changes in the 35 win season that explain why the club succeeded without Iverson, but you want to take several seasons without Iverson to show what? That they were as good without him as with him? That Andre Miller and Iverson are interchangeable? Is that your argument?
I think George Karl would have a hard time being convinced Iverson was as good as Miller, but it is an interesting point of discussion.
David Friedman
April 22, 2009
Tball:
Any person who has basic reading comprehension skills understands exactly what Berri’s opening statement in his N.Y. Knicks article means and it is easy to click on the link to my article and confirm that his inference about my article is incorrect: my article did not compare the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks. I actually think that it is good that Berri refuses to correct this because it shows exactly how disingenuous this whole site is.
If someone makes a prediction based on incorrect reasoning and the prediction transpires it does not mean that the reasoning was correct. Berri said that the Pistons would win fewer games primarily because of Iverson. The Pistons won fewer games for a whole host of reasons and Iverson was not the primary factor. What happened this season no more validated Berri’s approach than if the top eight Pistons players had blown out their ACLs and the team won 12 games after the trade; that (extreme) example would not have proven Berri’s theories right and neither did what happened this season.
I am “taking several seasons” to “prove” that the Sixers have yet to demonstrate any bottom line improvement in the post-Iverson era. If/when they do improve the team will have likely completely changed its roster to such a degree that no rational person will say that the improvement resulted from getting rid of Iverson.
You and Berri state quite forcefully that getting rid of Iverson and replacing him with even an average guard is enough to improve a team. Miller and Billups are clearly above average guards by any definition. The Sixers, as I showed above, have not improved–and Iverson has been gone for quite some time. The Nuggets won four more games, a modest increase that does not validate the idea that Billups is much better than Iverson –and that increase can in fact be traced to other factors (Andersen, Nene, declining West teams to list just three). If Iverson had stayed in Denver and played comparably to how he did in 2008 there is every reason to believe that the Nuggets could have won 54 games in the West this year (and, no, I would not have predicted that at the start of the year, just like I didn’t predict that these Nuggets would win 54 games, because I had no way of knowing that virtually every other team in the West would lose an All-Star player for a significant chunk of the season).
With Miller as pg, the Nuggets never had a 50 win season, but the Nuggets won 50 games with Iverson. There were more factors involved in all of those seasons than just Iverson or Miller but the Nuggets had more success with Iverson than they did with Miller. The Sixers also had more success with Iverson than they have had thus far with Miller. If you believe that the only significant changes with the Sixers and Nuggets in recent years have been the swaps of Iverson and Miller (and then Iverson and Billups) you cannot logically argue that Iverson made the Sixers better by departing or that he made the Nuggets worse on his arrival. This year’s Nuggets with Billups won four more games than they won with Iverson last year but the West is also a whole lot weaker (other than the Lakers).
Tball
April 22, 2009
DF,
First you say he said it, then you say he didn’t say it but you know what he means. As you have such trouble reading the words of others in a common sense manner, you’ll excuse me if I do not bestow value in your effort at reading between the lines of his statement. I agree with db, there is minimal value in comparing the 2005 Knicks with the 2009 Knicks. Do you disagree with this point?
Nothing cataclysmic happened to the Pistons this year. I can appreciate your finding that trading Billups for Iverson is comparable to the top 8 Pistons players blowing out their ACLs, but the ACL injuries didn’t happen. The trade did. And the trade cost the Pistons about 10 games in the win column. Other things happened, including injuries and a drop off in Hamilton’s game, that further depreciated the team’s performance.
Miller is not clearly an above average starting guard by any definition. The All-Star game had at least 5-7 guards invited from the East. Miller was not invited. Another 3-5 were discussed as snubs, but Miller was not among them. If there are 30 starting guards in the Eastern Conference and Miller is not among the top ten, then he is not clearly an above average starting guard by that definition. Do you think there are ten guards in the EC that are better than him? There’s another measure.
You made the statement in early March that the Pistons were going to get the 4 seed and the Nuggets were going to slip to 7th.
Nothing happened with the Nuggets that doesn’t happen every year. You saw Nene was on the team at the start of the year and in December and predicted the Nuggets would not make the playoffs. You saw Anderson was on the team at the start of the year and in December and predicted the Nuggets would not make the playoffs. You knew Boozer was hurt in December, you knew McGrady was hurt, you knew the Hornets were underperforming last year’s breakout, you knew the Suns and Mavericks were old, you knew Oden was day-to-day for the season, you knew, you knew, you knew. You had all of this information. To suggest now that the Nuggets surpassed your expectations by 6 games because you were caught of guard by information you had is both disingenuous and expected.
You are going to point to a season from 8 years ago to suggest the Sixers were better off with Iverson than with Miller? Mo Cheeks and Andrew Toney were better players than Iverson. The proof is that they won championships for the 76ers rather than simply making an ill-deserved finals appearance (the 76ers were probably the 7th best team in the NBA in 2001). Iverson’s not even the best player to don the number 3 for the 76ers, as Russ Schoene helped them win the championship in ’83 with the 3 on his back.
If you want to compare Miller and Iverson with similar teammates, it is pretty clear the team didn’t accomplish anything with Iverson that was superior to what the team has accomplished with Miller.
“You cannot logically argue that Iverson made the Sixers better by departing or that he made the Nuggets worse on his arrival.” You know, I’m content if you agree that Iverson and Miller are comparable. Miller has been a nice starter without nearly the accolades heaped on Iverson. I’ve never asserted Iverson is a horrible player, only that the accolades are undeserved.
I do think Andre Miller is better than Iverson, but the gap is less pronounced than that between Billups and Iverson, particularly when you consider wins/season as opposed to wins/48 minutes (which benefits Iverson’s affinity for being among the league leaders in minutes) and look at the last four years for each player.
David Friedman
April 22, 2009
Tball:
We have no way of knowing who you are and whether or not you are a wanted felon. That is a true statement–and considering the time I’ve wasted trying to educate you about basketball, it is a more relevant statement than Berri’s shameless attempt to imply that I made a comparison that I did not make in my article about the Knicks. Until you can prove that I am not in fact conversing with a convicted felon, I can’t really waste more time arguing with you…
Tball
April 23, 2009
DF,
Reading through your blog the last hour, I think that’s the first thing you’ve written in a while that didn’t require mentioning your conversations with Mike Brown and big Popa. The boys here in the clink are happy you can make statements without their support.
Tball
April 30, 2009
DF,
Noticed you picked the Nuggets to fall in round 1. We can add that to your list of errant predictions. Also, as the Nuggets have made it out of round 1, I believe that they have crossed another of your qualifications for showing improvement over last year.
If that doesn’t do it for you, here’s a quote from Chris Paul in which Chris Paul indicates that Billups is the best thing to happen to Denver:
“Chauncey is the best thing that happened to Denver. The mindset that he’s given this team right now is something that will fuel them in the next round.”
— Hornets guard Chris Paul on Chauncey Billups, who was traded from Detroit to Denver early in the season (for those of you unaware of the Trade of Billups for Iverson).
Also noticed you asked the Detroit Coach if missing McDyess for a month to start the season sank their season and he indicated it was other things. He also indicated he had two all-star shooting guards that he did not think could take the court together. Maybe I’m not a convict. Maybe I am Michael Curry. I cannot in fact prove that you are not conversing with Michael Curry, so you probably can’t argue with me about this.
Tball
April 30, 2009
Thoughts of a real journalist (as opposed to those posing as journalists):
Vince Ellis of the Detroit Free Press: “It wasn’t a hot-button topic since the fate of Pistons coach Michael Curry had been widely reported for several days. But if there was any doubt, president of basketball of operations Joe Dumars let his feelings be publicly known when he was asked about Curry’s job security at Wednesday’s season-ending news conference. ‘It’s a non-issue,’ he said simply. And with that, much to the chagrin of fans who want to blame Curry for this past season’s 39-43 disaster, Dumars let everyone know that he had his rookie coach’s back. It was the right call. Curry inherited a team at least capable of challenging for an Eastern Conference final. The core group of a team that won the 2004 NBA title and had reached the Eastern Conference finals six seasons in a row was poised to lead a repeat. Keep that core group intact, and Curry gets his 50-55 wins and probably advances to at least the second round of the playoffs. Had that happened, few would be dissecting Curry’s coaching abilities. Instead, Dumars decided this era of the Pistons had run its course, so with an eye toward the future he traded stabilizing force Chauncey Billups for the Denver Nuggets’ Allen Iverson.”
David Friedman
April 30, 2009
Tball:
It’s good to know that you are following my work. If you keep doing so–and stop taking this WoW junk so seriously–you have a chance to possibly understand NBA basketball. Of course, first you will have to improve your reading comprehension skills, because you apparently missed the part of the article in which Curry said, “As I said before back in Detroit (prior to game one on Saturday), I think that everything we’ve tried to do this year, if he had had Dice (Antonio McDyess) the entire time it would have been better–it still was going to be tough but we really got to see the value of having someone like Antonio McDyess on your team.” In case you still cannot follow the import of this, it means that if Coach Curry were to write an article about this season he would mention McDyess’ impact as opposed to completely disregarding him the way that Berri did in his post.
Interested readers can click on the above link to not only read all of Coach Curry’s comments in context but also to check out Cleveland GM Danny Ferry’s take on the role of basketball statistical analysis in making roster/strategic decisions.
Tball
April 30, 2009
DF,
Well of course having any good player for an entire season instead of 75% of the season is better (what’s he going to do, say McDyess is useless?), but the season was going to be tough regardless because they no longer had the parts to be good. Since this response followed a question that was tantamount to “didn’t missing McDyess for a month ruin the season?” I .. er, I mean, Curry did not agree with you.
Tball
April 30, 2009
Here’s the Detroit Free Press’s take after talking to Curry:
After unexplainable losses at home, Curry said things would be fine.
After an eight-game losing streak, he was still positive.
But toward the end of the season, he began to admit what everyone was watching unfold: This era of the Pistons was coming to an end.
He began to admit that things were thrown off-kilter when the team acquired Allen Iverson from the Denver Nuggets for stabilizing force Chauncey Billups.
He began to admit that maybe aging Rasheed Wallace had seen better days.
And after the Cleveland Cavaliers swept the Pistons, he openly talked of how this was really a transition year to the next era and the rebuilding process will being in earnest this off-season.
“I knew for sure once we traded Chauncey that we were going to be a different team,” said Curry, who is expected to return next season.
The Trade seems like an overriding theme. What did Dumars think of it? Detroit Free Press again:
Dumars acknowledged as much Wednesday, when he said he had “rolled the dice” for one season. Dumars joked that “it came up snake eyes.” It’s probably more accurate to say the dice rolled right off the table into a pile of dog poop.
And a comment on Iverson: After saying he would do whatever the team asked, he complained for three straight days about coming off the bench before the plug was pulled. He was put in a bad spot and caught a lot of blame, but he couldn’t have handled it worse.
I’ve linked to the Detroit Free Press’s Pistons’ page, if you’d like to read some journalists’ take on Detroit’s problems this year (quick preview, no mention of missing McDyess for a month).
David Friedman
April 30, 2009
Tball:
While you babble about what my question was “tantamount to,” I trust that intelligent, open minded people will read the whole interview and make their own judgments.
Tball
May 5, 2009
DF,
Is it my imagination or has your basketball analytic skill led you to a 63% accuracy in predicting finishes in this year’s playoffs? Just taking the superior seeded team – the team with home court advantage – would have netted you 75% accuracy.
Open minded people will make their own judgments.
david friedman
September 1, 2009
Tball:
You neither post your real name nor your playoff predictions, so open minded people realize that they don’t know who you are and they don’t have any reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.
For the past five years, I have posted round by round playoff previews/predictions online. I have correctly picked the winner of 53 out of 75 playoff series since 2005 (.707), including 10/15 (.667) in 2009 after going 12/15 in 2008 and 12/15 in 2007.
At the conclusion of my first playoff preview article each season, I predict who I think will make it to the Finals. During that time, I have correctly picked seven of the 10 teams that made it to the Finals. In three of the five years I correctly picked both Finalists. The only time that I correctly picked the Finals winner prior to the start of the playoffs is 2007, though in 2009 I did correctly pick the Lakers to beat the Magic prior to the start of the Finals (I had Cavs over Lakers in my playoff preview).
Tball
October 1, 2009
Who cares? It’s a mediocre percentage posted by a mediocre blogger.
Most of the world picked the Lakers to win the 2009 title before the season and before the Finals, so congrats for catching up with the rest of the world at the end. I can get equal or better predictions from reading the Vegas line or going to ESPN. Your ‘insight’ adds nothing of value to understanding the sport.
David Friedman
October 1, 2009
Troll:
When you post your real name and demonstrate that you have a public record of making accurate predictions then perhaps you will find someone other than yourself who cares about what you say.
I am not surprised that someone who thinks that this website presents state of the art basketball information fails to appreciate my writing skills or my basketball insight.
Evan
October 15, 2009
I care what Tball says. I do not care what David Friedman says.