Can The Blazers Be Contenders In 2010? (For You Stats Geeks)

[ABM]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/can-portland-trail-blazers-be-contenders-in-2010

The Portland Trail Blazers have been viewed as an upcoming team filled with the talent necessary to go far in the playoffs. And before the 2009-2010 season, the Blazers were picked by a stat geek champion to be THE team to watch out for in the west. While the team struggled to meet such lofty expectations last season due to injuries, there is skepticism in some corners that the team is not good enough to compete in the playoffs.

Citing its last two playoff series evictions from the first round (against Houston in 2009 and Phoenix in 2010) as evidence, some analysts have stated that the style of basketball the Blazers play could easily be overcome during the playoffs when teams pay more attention to strategies; and where overdependence on one player could cause offensive stagnation.

To see whether these criticisms have any validity, let’s use the Wages of Wins approach to compare the team’s production during the playoffs and regular season.

Let’s begin with regular season numbers from the 2009-2010 season:........................

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'm not a big fan of Dave Berri's methodology ... I'll leave it at that.

 

[ABM]

I'm not a big fan of Dave Berri's methodology ... I'll leave it at that.

Repeat after me:

When someone's line of reasoning parallels our own, it's absolute fact. Conversely, when it doesn't, it's considered internet hogwash.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Repeat after me:

When someone's line of reasoning parallels our own, it's absolute fact. Conversely, when it doesn't, it's considered internet hogwash.

It's not hogwash, I just don't find his "wins produced" formula and the underpinnings of the logic behind it all that compelling ... every statistical formula has flaws and short-comings and the degree to which they predict success or failure is a good place to start, in many cases I don't think his formulae predict performance all that well.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The whole "WP per 48" argument is deeply flawed, when the players in question are missing a ton of time to injuries. Oden's performance over 20 games, no matter how impressive on a per minute basis, had little impact on the team's actual record. In the play-offs, they had zero impact. While the article purports to be an objective, statistical analysis, it arrives at a conclusion almost 180 degrees opposite of what the numbers show!

And for the record, I have NEVER been a big fan of Beri, regardless of whether he agrees with me or not.

 

[ABM]

It's not hogwash, I just don't find his "wins produced" formula and the underpinnings of the logic behind it all that compelling ... every statistical formula has flaws and short-comings and the degree to which they predict success or failure is a good place to start, in many cases I don't think his formulae predict performance all that well.

It's all good. I was just funnin'. Personally, I wouldn't know the differences between formulae and algae.

 

[Masbee]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/can-portland-trail-blazers-be-contenders-in-2010

2 years ago, most smart Blazer fans that post on boards like these was deeply afraid of the matchup with Houston. We did not have playoff experience (remember, no quality vets like Miller and Camby on the squad); Yao, when healthy, is very difficult to deal with, and as bad Blazer luck would have it, we got the healthy Yao to start. In addition, Roy, who had busted out to SuperStardom could have single handedly won that series for us, except for one tiny problem, Houston was the only team in the NBA to have TWO outstanding defenders to use on Roy for the entire game in Artest and Battier. Any other team in the first round and Roy was ready to explode with a monster series - and we get to the 2nd round.

Last season we had no depth on the front line with the Pryz and Oden injuries, and most importantly Batum and Roy played hurt. Instead of Miller; Roy; Batum; LA; Oden team which would have CRUSHED Phoenix we get Miller; Gimp; Gimp; LA; Camby (who should have come off the bench. Game over.

I am not sure what lessons we are supposed to learn from the last two post-seasons. When D-Wade was hurt and his team didn't even make the playoffs, did the stat geeks run their numbers and analyize the team and claim it was shit? Or do they ignore it? When you have injuries to key players anyalyizing the numbers of gimps who gave it a go is baloney.

 

[Haakzilla]

2 years ago, most smart Blazer fans that post on boards like these was deeply afraid of the matchup with Houston. We did not have playoff experience (remember, no quality vets like Miller and Camby on the squad); Yao, when healthy, is very difficult to deal with, and as bad Blazer luck would have it, we got the healthy Yao to start. In addition, Roy, who had busted out to SuperStardom could have single handedly won that series for us, except for one tiny problem, Houston was the only team in the NBA to have TWO outstanding defenders to use on Roy for the entire game in Artest and Battier. Any other team in the first round and Roy was ready to explode with a monster series - and we get to the 2nd round.

Last season we had no depth on the front line with the Pryz and Oden injuries, and most importantly Batum and Roy played hurt. Instead of Miller; Roy; Batum; LA; Oden team which would have CRUSHED Phoenix we get Miller; Gimp; Gimp; LA; Camby (who should have come off the bench. Game over.

I am not sure what lessons we are supposed to learn from the last two post-seasons. When D-Wade was hurt and his team didn't even make the playoffs, did the stat geeks run their numbers and analyize the team and claim it was shit? Or do they ignore it? When you have injuries to key players anyalyizing the numbers of gimps who gave it a go is baloney.

+1!

 

[Nikolokolus]

2 years ago, most smart Blazer fans that post on boards like these was deeply afraid of the matchup with Houston. We did not have playoff experience (remember, no quality vets like Miller and Camby on the squad); Yao, when healthy, is very difficult to deal with, and as bad Blazer luck would have it, we got the healthy Yao to start. In addition, Roy, who had busted out to SuperStardom could have single handedly won that series for us, except for one tiny problem, Houston was the only team in the NBA to have TWO outstanding defenders to use on Roy for the entire game in Artest and Battier. Any other team in the first round and Roy was ready to explode with a monster series - and we get to the 2nd round.

Last season we had no depth on the front line with the Pryz and Oden injuries, and most importantly Batum and Roy played hurt. Instead of Miller; Roy; Batum; LA; Oden team which would have CRUSHED Phoenix we get Miller; Gimp; Gimp; LA; Camby (who should have come off the bench. Game over.

I am not sure what lessons we are supposed to learn from the last two post-seasons. When D-Wade was hurt and his team didn't even make the playoffs, did the stat geeks run their numbers and analyize the team and claim it was shit? Or do they ignore it? When you have injuries to key players anyalyizing the numbers of gimps who gave it a go is baloney.

very well said.

The real problem with per minute adjusted "wins produced" in this context is that it might be able to tell you something about predicting outcomes spread over a broader range (like a whole season) but extrapolating team performance in the playoffs seems especially dubious, because of the matchup nature of playoff games, and the fact that indicators which attempt to extrapolate regular season wins aren't especially useful interpolators (predicting a discrete outcome from a range of aggregate observations)

 

[MickZagger]

very well said.

The real problem with per minute adjusted "wins produced" in this context is that it might be able to tell you something about predicting outcomes spread over a broader range of outcomes (like a whole season) but extrapolating team performance in the playoffs seems especially dubious, because of the matchup nature of playoff games, and the fact that indicators which attempt to extrapolate regular season wins aren't especially useful interpolators (predicting a discrete outcome from a range of aggregate observations)

lol

 

[Nikolokolus]

lol

I agree, the ecological fallacy is pretty funny.

 

[MARIS61]

2 years ago, most smart Blazer fans that post on boards like these was deeply afraid of the matchup with Houston. We did not have playoff experience (remember, no quality vets like Miller and Camby on the squad); Yao, when healthy, is very difficult to deal with, and as bad Blazer luck would have it, we got the healthy Yao to start. In addition, Roy, who had busted out to SuperStardom could have single handedly won that series for us, except for one tiny problem, Houston was the only team in the NBA to have TWO outstanding defenders to use on Roy for the entire game in Artest and Battier. Any other team in the first round and Roy was ready to explode with a monster series - and we get to the 2nd round.

Last season we had no depth on the front line with the Pryz and Oden injuries, and most importantly Batum and Roy played hurt. Instead of Miller; Roy; Batum; LA; Oden team which would have CRUSHED Phoenix we get Miller; Gimp; Gimp; LA; Camby (who should have come off the bench. Game over.

I am not sure what lessons we are supposed to learn from the last two post-seasons. When D-Wade was hurt and his team didn't even make the playoffs, did the stat geeks run their numbers and analyize the team and claim it was shit? Or do they ignore it? When you have injuries to key players anyalyizing the numbers of gimps who gave it a go is baloney.

Injury excuses aside, we flat out got out-coached and out-played both times.

The problem is there has never been a marriage of philosophy between our President, our GM, our coach and our star Brandon Roy, and the rest of the players.

They are completely different approaches which don't gel well.

One is gone now, one is on a short leash, Brandon is status quo, and most of the rest of our players are about to be traded for pieces of the new rebuild that just started.

Think 5 years (again) just to be optimistic.

 

[jlprk]

Injury excuses aside, we flat out got out-coached and out-played both times.

The problem is there has never been a marriage of philosophy between our President, our GM, our coach and our star Brandon Roy, and the rest of the players.

They are completely different approaches which don't gel well.

One is gone now, one is on a short leash, Brandon is status quo, and most of the rest of our players are about to be traded for pieces of the new rebuild that just started.

The best big picture summary of the embedded / structural problems that I've read all week.

 

[Idog1976]

Injury excuses aside, we flat out got out-coached and out-played both times.

The problem is there has never been a marriage of philosophy between our President, our GM, our coach and our star Brandon Roy, and the rest of the players.

They are completely different approaches which don't gel well.

One is gone now, one is on a short leash, Brandon is status quo, and most of the rest of our players are about to be traded for pieces of the new rebuild that just started.

Think 5 years (again) just to be optimistic.

Yeah I'm sure PA is thinking rebuild with his life expectancy.

I swear this forum has two parallel universes. One inhabited by OddEnormous, Jlprk, Maris61 and the other doom-sayers and the other filled with folks who range from objective to Pollyanna. It's very odd to say the least.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I agree, the ecological fallacy is pretty funny.

Is this related to sample bias? Of course w look like we shrink in the playoffs because we're winning at a .333 clip in the playoffs. But it's not that we're *shrinking* and because of that we're *losing*. It's just that we've been outmatched in our series. I wouldn't mind comparing wins to wins or losses to losses, but season versus postseason will always make the loser look worse than they are.

 

[Minstrel]

Is this related to sample bias? Of course w look like we shrink in the playoffs because we're winning at a .333 clip in the playoffs. But it's not that we're *shrinking* and because of that we're *losing*. It's just that we've been outmatched in our series. I wouldn't mind comparing wins to wins or losses to losses, but season versus postseason will always make the loser look worse than they are.

Agreed. I don't think playoffs reveal "character issues" about players. I think they show the current talent level of the team and the importance of match-ups. Losing doesn't mean you "shrunk" or "faded." It just means you lost, either because you were the inferior team or because you played a team that you didn't match up well with and weren't able to adjust to.

 

[HailBlazers]

Brandon is status quo, and most of the rest of our players are about to be traded for pieces of the new rebuild that just started.
Think 5 years (again) just to be optimistic.

Quoted for Future Bashing.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Just like what I said in a similar post like this.

The blazers are not a contender unless they get passed the first round and that won't be accomplished until the 2011-2012 season.

 

[LittleAlex]

Just like what I said in a similar post like this.

The blazers are not a contender unless they get passed the first round and that won't be accomplished until the 2011-2012 season.

I don't know how they are going to get past the second round in a season that doesn't actually happen.

Other then that I agree with the general statement.
Until Portland proves they can succeed in the playoffs they are an also-ran.