Bill Simmons says ...

[3RA1N1AC]

The schedule is so jacked up though. I think it's going to have a profound affect on every team (ie. really good teams that "should" have a .700 win percentage in a normal year will be closer to .650 and bad teams are going to win more than they should as they get exhausted teams stumbling in to their building).

so the schedule will only effect good teams? all of the teams are gonna be beat man, i dont get this line of reasoning as anything more than projected statistical noise. it might happen here and there, and it might happen the other way as well.

old schedule, you would be going into a back to back on the road against a crap team and maybe lose, now THEY are gonna be just as beat as you are. also we are going to catch teams better than us on the shit end of THEIR stick as well, so shouldnt it even out?

i mean we are probably quibbling over a win or 2 so it really doesnt matter

 

[RR7]

He definitely has a slant toward Boston, but to say that he doesn't know the league or its history is just flat out wrong.

I didn't say he doesn't know its history. His knowledge of the league as a whole right now doesn't come across as any better, to me, than a big fan of a team. Which is what he is, and great for him getting a job out of it. I don't see his knowledge of the league as a whole as any better than mine or yours. I don't know how you can really say that's "flat wrong" either.

 

[Carlito]

i thought simmons gave us love! not a bad take on blazers.

he was also hilarious with the message board "rip city coming after us" comment

 

[Nikolokolus]

so the schedule will only effect good teams? all of the teams are gonna be beat man, i dont get this line of reasoning as anything more than projected statistical noise. it might happen here and there, and it might happen the other way as well.

old schedule, you would be going into a back to back on the road against a crap team and maybe lose, now THEY are gonna be just as beat as you are. also we are going to catch teams better than us on the shit end of THEIR stick as well, so shouldnt it even out?

i mean we are probably quibbling over a win or 2 so it really doesnt matter

No, I said it's going to have an affect on every team. Call it a "volatility index" if you like. The more stress and fatigue that gets introduced into a system the more random the outcomes. The more random the outcomes, the more likely records will regress to a mean (.500 in this case) over time.

A screwy schedule minimizes the real impact of talent and puts a greater emphasis on luck or depth or conditioning.

 

[magnifier661]

It should effect older teams more later on during the season and younger teams or new lineup teams in the beginning.

 

[SantaDora]

If this team stays mostly healthy, I think 40 wins is reasonable. 38 is the safe bet on my side, unless Nate realizes that Aldridge is a center and he plays Felton/Wes(or Crawford)//Nic/G-Wallace/Aldridge heavy minutes. If this happens - this team is a handful and an offensive force - at which point I would not be surprised to see 44-45 wins.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It should effect older teams more later on during the season and younger teams or new lineup teams in the beginning.

And who are the good teams and bad teams usually? I don't care which teams start out hot and which ones get on a roll at the end. I'm talking about the overall impact when you add up all the wins and losses for each team at the end.

 

[magnifier661]

And who are the good teams and bad teams usually?

Well okc was pretty young last year. Denver was also pretty young too. Lakers, spurs and Dallas in he west would arguably be the older better teams.

But in theory, a younger team would be considered the bad teams and the more experienced, older teams usually do very well.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Losing Roy won't hurt as much as some people are projecting.

Having Crash all season is a plus.

Unless Camby reverses his slide, that is a minus. (at least he gave us half a good season)

Losing Miller is going to hurt more than many people here think.

36 wins is a reasonable projection.

 

[magnifier661]

Btw I'm not disagreeing with your theory. I just wanted many in here to not shoot it down until we see an entire season because it may just even out in the end. We could see a laker team win 20 straight, then slow way down either due to injury or just age; which may even out in the end.

And on the flip side, we could see a young team do terrible in the beginning of the season, then finish out stronger later on.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

just as randomness can make a team that used to lose by 10 win a few games

it can take away a few of their wins and make them lose by 10

i understand your theory, i am only saying that you are grossly overstating it

 

[3RA1N1AC]

are you projecting teams point differentials to regress drastically and historically towards zero this year?

 

[Pinwheel1]

If this team stays mostly healthy, I think 40 wins is reasonable. 38 is the safe bet on my side, unless Nate realizes that Aldridge is a center and he plays Felton/Wes(or Crawford)//Nic/G-Wallace/Aldridge heavy minutes. If this happens - this team is a handful and an offensive force - at which point I would not be surprised to see 44-45 wins.

I think Nate realizes this is his best line-up, but doesn't thnk it is wise to do the whole game. I think we can all agree that LMA needs more rest so he can be fresh in the 4th. He will close with this line up

 

[magnifier661]

I think Nate realizes this is his best line-up, but doesn't thnk it is wise to do the whole game. I think we can all agree that LMA needs more rest so he can be fresh in the 4th. He will close with this line up

Maybe better to find the closer, maybe even jcrossover, like the early 2000 lakers had. Punish a team with your dominant inside scorer, then finish them like mortal combat with our 4th quarter specialist.

 

[SantaDora]

I think Nate realizes this is his best line-up, but doesn't thnk it is wise to do the whole game. I think we can all agree that LMA needs more rest so he can be fresh in the 4th. He will close with this line up

Nobody needs it the whole game. It is just that this line-up is so much more efficient than the one that has Aldridge/Camby with G-Wallace or Nic - that it is rather silly to play it much. Have Camby anchor the 2nd unit with Kurt Thomas or Rhino, whoever plays 3, Crawford and Nolan or Craford and Elliot - but the small-ball with Aldridge/Nic/G-Wallace was one of the most efficient offensive 5s in the league last year. That line-up had 114.6 points per 100 possessions on offense - which was much better than Denver's offensive efficiency last year (best in the NBA).

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well okc was pretty young last year. Denver was also pretty young too. Lakers, spurs and Dallas in he west would arguably be the older better teams.

But in theory, a younger team would be considered the bad teams and the more experienced, older teams usually do very well.

I said generally. There are of course going to be exceptions: teams that sit in that sweet spot of being both good and young or the bad spot of being old and not so good. They might be the ones most immune to the affects of the compressed schedule (winning through on talent for the former and losing no matter how many breaks they catch for the latter).

My point is that even in a normal year the schedule almost always builds in a certain number of losses and wins -- say 10% of the schedule, this year it could be as high as 20%. Ergo, when the schedule itself has a greater impact on record than talent alone normally would, it should theoretically have an "evening out" affect across the league; pushing records towards the mean (generally).

 

[Nikolokolus]

are you projecting teams point differentials to regress drastically and historically towards zero this year?

You can't isolate it because of roster turnover having an impact too. It won't be "drastic", but I think you'll see a regression to zero ... it may only be a slide of 1 or 2 points or less in some cases, but that would be my expectation. Possibly enough to increase/reduce wins and losses by 1 or 2 games.

Bear in mind this is all a hunch and not an actual statistical model; that would take considerably more work than I would be willing to do for "free."

 

[magnifier661]

I said generally. There are of course going to be exceptions: teams that sit in that sweet spot of being both good and young or the bad spot of being old and not so good and they might be the ones most immune to the affects of the compressed schedule (winning through on talent for the former and losing no matter how many breaks they catch for the latter).

My point is that even in a normal year the schedule almost always builds in a certain number of losses and wins -- say 10% of the schedule, this year it could be as high as 20%. Ergo, when the schedule itself has a greater impact on record than talent alone normally would, it should theoretically have an "evening out" affect across the league; pushing records towards the mean (generally).

So in other words okc will do very well. How depressing!

 

[Nikolokolus]

So in other words okc will do very well. How depressing!

Maybe ... but they may not win quite as much as you would expect (each team has its own special set of circumstances to deal with ... chemistry might be a concern for that squad).

 

[huevonkiller]

Simmons doesn't even understand what pace is. He's not that sharp.

He's just there for entertainment value but he is petty.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Nobody needs it the whole game. It is just that this line-up is so much more efficient than the one that has Aldridge/Camby with G-Wallace or Nic - that it is rather silly to play it much. Have Camby anchor the 2nd unit with Kurt Thomas or Rhino, whoever plays 3, Crawford and Nolan or Craford and Elliot - but the small-ball with Aldridge/Nic/G-Wallace was one of the most efficient offensive 5s in the league last year. That line-up had 114.6 points per 100 possessions on offense - which was much better than Denver's offensive efficiency last year (best in the NBA).

OK you convinced me. Because Camby, even healthy, in the starting line up was not working. As long as LMA stays out of foul trouble to start the games while playing the 5 then I guess it makes sense to start with that unit as well. No doubt it is the best line-up and we saw it again yesterday in the 1st and 4th. We need the extra outside shooter in the line-up, plus at the 4 Wallace can beat his man down the floor even more so. Plus if it takes him out of the corner.......