Reply With Quote
Of all these teams, here are the best winning percentages against other +.500 teams:
1. Cleveland 67%
2. Denver 65%
3. Dallas 61%
4. Orlando and LA 60%
I would say it's very equal.
Good thing Lakers only need to play against one since they're 2 and 3 in the standings and only 1 can advance.
Of all these teams, here are the best winning percentages against other +.500 teams:
1. Cleveland 67%
2. Denver 65%
3. Dallas 61%
4. Orlando and LA 60%
Yea, You're probably right. Im probably just overrating them because I've seen them play some really good games. One thing I know for sure is that they're gunna be really really good in the future, probably a championship contender. They will need to make moves for a post presence though to do this. I still remember making a thread like two seasons ago talking about how I felt bad for the Thunder because they kept losing lol, now look at them now playing championship level defense. I just hope they don't go the route of the 2009 blazers though...
you mean the direct shortcut to the next hospital?
kidding aside, i think baring some serious injuries OKC can become the next mavs (there are similarities in durants and dirks game, no real post presence).
that doesn't mean they will win a championship in the next few years, but they should be a regular play off team which can make some noise under the right cir stances.
Dallas is not a contender. Stop trying to convince yourself Fin. You too Ghazi, you little .
This thread isn't about the Mavericks. It's about metrics for all teams with winning records.
Mavs. The kings of regular season's
alchemist. The king of sucking .Mavs. The kings of regular season
Here's something interesting. Since Carlisle took over and Jason Kidd was freed from the tyrannical clutches of Avery Johnson, the Mavs are:
34-11 in games decided by 5 points or less
16-3 in games decided by 3 points or less
4-1 in games decided by a single point
Yes, but what is the teams win %
2nd round exit. Carlisle showing Avery how it's done.
Including playoffs, they are 100-59 under Carlisle.
Overall Winning %: 63%
Winning % in games decided by 5 or less:76%
Winning % in games decided by 3 or less: 69%
Winning % in games decided by 1 point: 80%
No, they were both able to facerape the spurs
sadly that is true.No, they were both able to facerape the spurs
What was it with Avery?
Haven't tallied that up. According to the stat nerds, games decided by 5 points or less are essentially coin flip affairs, so the Mavs should've gone 23-22 instead of 34-11. Now a few games in either direction is no big deal, but 11 games? I think a big part of it is having Kidd at the end of games and his decision-making. The Mavs had a rep as poor finishers. I'm guessing that before the 07-08 season, the Mavs won a load of close games because they won 60 and 67 games respectively in the regular season, and their winning % in all categories would be pretty gaudy.
Spurs remaining sched:
@ MIA
@ ORL (B2B)
vs GS
@ ATL
@ Zombie Sonics (B2B)
vs LAL
vs CLE
@ BOS
@ NJ (B2B)
vs HOU
vs ORL
@ LAL
@ SAC
@ PHX (B2B)
vs MEM
@ DEN (B2B)
vs MINN
@ DAL
7 Home, 11 Road, 14 vs +.500 teams, 5 B2B
Man, that's brutal
That's what I am saying. I think the Mavs %'s with Avery were very similar. They won a lot of close/last second games the year they went to the finals IIRC.
The stat nerd thesis though is that a team should roughly be around .500 in close games.
The Nets, for instance, this year:
1-13 in games decided by 5 or less
1-7 in games decided by 3 or less
0-1 in games decided by 1 pt
According to Hollinger and other stat nerds, the Nets should have anywhere from 4-8 more wins than they actually do.
Last season under Avery:
Avery/Devin Harris:
35-18 overall: 66% winning pct.
8-5 in games decided by 5 or less: 61%
4-3 in games decided by 3 or less: 57%
0-0 in games decided by 1 pt
Avery/Jason Kidd:
17-17 overall: 50% winning pct.
1-8 in games decided by 5 or less: 13%
1-3 in games decided by 3 or less: 25%
0-0 in games decided by 1 pt
Last edited by Findog; 03-16-2010 at 05:05 PM.
God thats gunna be a brutal finish for the Spurs, they're gunna have to play really hard to end up not sliding out of the playoff race. We'll see how it plays out.
theyll make the playoffs but based on that schedule they shouldnt expect to be higher than a 7 seed.
2006-07 season, 67 wins and upset by Golden State:
67-15 overall: 82% winning pct.
21-5 in games decided by 5 or less: 81%
12-3 in games decided by 3 or less: 80%
3-0 in games decided by 1 pt: 100%
That is what I was looking for. So you cannot pin everything on Avery. His play calling and coaching style that year lead to disgusting numbers.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing with Hollinger and the other stat nerd thesis that close games are essentially coin flips. The Nets lose this year in close games in proportion to all other games. They argue that the quality of the team doesn't matter, an elite team will be around .500 in close games, a mediocre team will be around .500 and so will a crap team. So the theory goes, in the final two minutes of a game that is still up for grabs, each team has 50% odds of winning, even if it's Lakers versus Nets and against all odds the game is still in doubt 46 minutes in.
The Mavericks win in the same pct in close games or even better it substantially than non-close games. The only discrepancy is the half-season under Avery when trying to incorporate Kidd into the lineup. It's not all on Avery, but it's clear that a major midseason trade threw a monkey wrench into that team:
Last season under Avery:
Avery/Devin Harris:
35-18 overall: 66% winning pct.
8-5 in games decided by 5 or less: 61%
4-3 in games decided by 3 or less: 57%
0-0 in games decided by 1 pt
Avery/Jason Kidd:
17-17 overall: 50% winning pct.
1-8 in games decided by 5 or less: 13%
1-3 in games decided by 3 or less: 25%
0-0 in games decided by 1 pt
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
