Via True Hoop, Kevin Pelton on wins lost to injury this season
Things that leap out immediately:
The Clippers have been no worse or better off than the Lakers or Celtics. It seems to me one would have to be incredibly dishonest to compare this in any way with losing Brand for a season, but I know that hasn't stopped everyone.
Milwaukee is near the top and has lost over 8 wins due to injury which would put them square in the playoff hunt as I noted against the silly Simmons piece. I'd call them in second since it doesn't feel honest to consider Yao lost for the season if he really isn't a basketball player anymore.
Despite being in an identical place before the season, the Bulls have lost more wins to injury than the Clippers and look poised to easily capture the first seed in the East.
The healthy third is actually a clump of bad teams. Perfect health doesn't seem to have much to do with overall season performance so whining about smaller injury losses seems out of place.
about 1 year ago
John R
102 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
To me this screams 2 trains of thoughts
The most obvious thought:
Clippers have no valuable backups
The more John R dive deep into things thought:
The players that have missed the most time the past couple of years, really aren’t that valuable since the team would probably be just as bad.
Get can
Open it up
Look at worms
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Griffin missing the entire season last year was probably REALLY bad for the win total.
by Michael White on Apr 6, 2011 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
The team is about .500 since the 5-21 start
That’s not a horrible team. What caused the 5-21 start?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Plus, due to a number of issues
They rely significantly on EJ for scoring and defense. In Jan, with EJ, the team was doing incredibly well. He went down for 20 games in February and the wheels came off. Perhaps some of the losses were caused by the lack of depth, and they relied too much on one guy, but it seems difficult to deny the fact that EJ is a very important part of the team’s wins.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
If I'm reading the data correctly
It seems to agree that losing EJ (and/or possibly Kaman?) was particularly damaging for LAC. When they rank the WARP of games lost to injury (the last chart) the Clippers are 7th most at 5.5 which is higher than the average of 4.1 and is higher than the Lakers at 5.4 (and the same as the Celtics.) I’m not sure what’s going into that number though and if that is attributed mostly to EJ. They mention that they use prior year stats in certain instances and if that’s the case, missing 2009-2010 Kaman for much of the season could be a reason for a chunk of that.
by Michael White on Apr 6, 2011 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
So . . . health does matter?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I think both of you guys are missing the main point
here is simple math.
Assume the Clippers had perfect health, in theory the team would only be around 36-37 wins.
With 5 games to play that would probably mean a team that is around .500 ball.
Now let’s do that half baked math for the Portland Trailblazers, which could be argued lost their best player for a huge chunk of the season. You have almost a 60 win team.
Essentially in a perfect world the Clippers are still a barely .500 team.
Now if you want to go into the John R territory of thinking…
A completely healthy Gordon would have only added 2-3 wins to this years total.
A completely healthy Kaman would have added only 1-2 wins to this years total.
Like I said: can of worms opened
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
I get that, I’m just analyzing the facts in the article.
It’s not like I am debating that the team was put together poorly.
by Michael White on Apr 6, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
well not necessarily
the article is saying the opposite of your statement
“It seems to agree that losing EJ (and/or possibly Kaman?) was particularly damaging for LAC.”
unless of course I completely didn’t understand your post
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
The Clippers lost more in WARP due to injury than all but 6 other teams.
by Michael White on Apr 6, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
BTW, I freely admit that I may not be reading the data properly. The idea that Portland lost 13+ games to injury doesn’t pass the smell test.
by Michael White on Apr 6, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Pelton is basing it all off of numbers
So bringing anything else into this is irrelevant to the discussion, hence anything Jax says is automatically wrong.
The main point is to look at the other teams, and see how they have fared with injuries.
In fact, you can just take a look at the last set of tables, the first set of teams.
Let’s take Chicago for instance, they missed two of their most productive players for a chunk of the season, yet they still have a chance to have the best record in the NBA.
This leads to 2 conclusions:
1. Like you and almost everyone agrees the team as a whole is not that good
2. The purported important players to the team are not that important
Like I said: can of worms opened
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Bacek, you should really tone it down
The numbers are subject to interprettion here as always.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
no it's not
Pelton is huge in the advanced metrics community
You don’t believe he has an agenda behind this?
Don’t respond, if you don’t care to read and understand the article, I don’t care to read what you think.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
bacek, whether or not the man is "huge" as you say
doesn’t mean that the numbers are subject to interpretation. I think you’re missing the point here, my man.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Speaking of numbers... how many wins did our new jerseys add?
I’m thinking that the improved jerseys not only made the other teams, referees, fans, etc. respect the team more, since they won’t remember them as the “it’s the Clippers” team of old. That’s +5 wins right there.
Also, the increased number of fans wearing the bright red road jerseys will have the same effect as the Golden State “we believe” shirts during their playoff run. That’s at least +5 wins.
So without those new jerseys, this could very well have been a 20-25 win team. Hmmm.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Hmm but actually
The brighter red color appears to be helping the shooters identify the basket, so that’s why they’re making so many three-pointers against us. -5 wins because of the jerseys.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I think it passes
The idea that Portland lost 13+ games to injury doesn’t pass the smell test.
The last time the Blazers had a Oden and Roy they won 54 games so imagining them winning 60 games isn’t tough if they had a fully health squad. Marcus Camby (who seems to always help his teams win) has missed 20 games (which is not surprising but in a perfect world he never misses a game) which is how you get to 13 games.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Why do you assume that they wouldn't be .500 with perfect health?
I don’t agree with that at all. In fact, with BG a rook and the key players playing the entire way through, I assume that they would be playing better than .500. See how they were playing in January. I also think that they would have signed some vets for the stretch run.
So no – IMO this outcome would be very different had BD shown up in shape and the team gone .500 in the beginning.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
BD wasn't the only player hurt
It was a knee infection just so you know
This doesn't make sense to me.
EJ missed 26 games. Is it outrageous to say had EJ played in those games, we’d have at least 7-8 more wins? I don’t think that’s crazy.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Apr 6, 2011 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
don't try to explain everything
take the numbers for what they are.
If you are able to do that, you will see the point in the article.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Hmm
It’s also about how difficult those games were. We didn’t have EJ for that entire road trip. So plenty of those losses weren’t because of EJ, but because we were on the road (for the 6th, 7th, 8th time) and we were playing against very good teams. Quite likely, we would have just lost those games by a little less, even if we had EJ.
Going back to November and the 1-13 start, we didn’t have Baron, right? Except Baron may not have helped us beat @Denver, @Utah, @New Orleans, @San Antonio. But he might have helped us beat Detroit, New Jersey, @Minnesota, @Indiana.
So if we really try to explain all of this in a meaningful way, looking at winning/losing months, it’s important to go into the specifics and figure out which ones EJ or Baron or Kaman would have really made a big difference in. At our best, if we’re only a .500 team, then there are quite a few games we could never have won.
Ultimately, trying to do-over the season is pointless since there are so many silly losses and silly wins that wouldn’t repeat themselves. Derrick Rose missing a free throw? Probably doesn’t happen again. Tyreke Evans missing a free throw? Well, we probably wouldn’t let a team that bad get that close to winning, on average. See? Pointless… it’s like talking in circles.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
no it's not
it’s because you are giving an excuse for everything.
This article does not only take a look at the Clippers, it takes a look at the NBA as a whole.
So bringing up specifics is taking the article out of context. In fact Pelton goes out of his way to make sure he brings up context, if you read the article you would know that.
So it isn’t going in circles.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
You seem to have a personal stake
in showing us all why the interpretations of the numbers in the article are not subject to debate.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
...you obviously didn't understand what I was saying.
I was saying exactly what you are saying: trying to bring up specific win streaks or loss streaks and analyzing them is pointless because it doesn’t take into account anything but that one particular viewing point. What you (and the article) are saying is that by taking a step back and viewing the entire league at once, meaningful data can be taken from it.
So maybe I should have been more specific—-“Ultimately, trying to do-over THE CLIPPERS’ season is pointless. And reliving SPECIFIC SITUATIONS is like walking in circles.”
Also, stop assuming I didn’t read the article. It’s incredibly insulting. Did I do something to offend you? Your aggressiveness towards me is completely unwarranted, and I really don’t appreciate it.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Honestly
I would have preferred a larger sample size than 1 year. Including the entire league makes the data actually useful and comparable, but including more than 1 year would allow us to see trends. It might allow us to determine whether players truly “step up” in a star’s absence, or if that’s just an eye-test phenomenon. Or it might allow us to figure out if it’s best to build a team around 1, 2, 3, or no high-usage players at all, based on teams’ performances with and without their high-usage players across various years. Or maybe we could figure out if benching players toward the end of the season really allows for better playoff performances.
Either way, as much information as you seem to think this article gives, the author himself states that this is a difficult subject to gauge and that his results show that A) Miluakee got the short end of the injury-stick, B) Philly got the long end of that stick, C) that being healthy only helps when your team doesn’t suck, and D) that looking simply at minutes/games missed is completely misleading.
So while Pelton does include context, his three methods are by no means a perfect measure of where teams would exactly be if they had certain players being healthy. They are more of an indicator about which replacement players are awesome, and which teams are really, really shallow. That’s what I got out of it, anyway. Feel free to disagree, but quit telling me that I’m “giving excuses” just because you reacted differently to the article (which is so short, I’m not sure why you assume people aren’t reading it).
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I think he assumes that people aren't reading it
because he can’t understand how anyone would come up with a conclusion other than his.
Good points above.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 6, 2011 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey bacek
READ THIS. STOP INSULTING ME.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I'm not insulting you
You are taking the article out of context.
How does taking all of these nuances about each team’s situation get anywhere?
You want to add all this extra stuff that the article doesn’t include. All of a sudden it is not the same article.
In fact, I haven’t given my opinion once on the article. So you can’t say because we disagree that I am calling you wrong.
I am strictly trying to tell people what the article is about. Many of you guys are trying to add so many other things into the article, which is not the article’s intentions.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
You're not insulting me? Oh, thanks for clarifying how I feel, I must have been confused.
Yeah, I’m adding new information to the article because those are my COMMENTS to the information that’s already given.
This is not new information (and if you can’t see that, then you are the one that doesn’t understand the article):
“By taking a step back and viewing the entire league at once, meaningful data can be taken from it.”
“The author himself states that this is a difficult subject to gauge and that his results show that A) Miluakee got the short end of the injury-stick, B) Philly got the long end of that stick, C) that being healthy only helps when your team doesn’t suck, and D) that looking simply at minutes/games missed is completely misleading.”
This is new information that I’m adding because that’s what you do in the comments section of a blog:
“I would have preferred a larger sample size than 1 year. Including the entire league makes the data actually useful and comparable, but including more than 1 year would allow us to see trends. It might allow us to determine whether players truly "step up" in a star’s absence, or if that’s just an eye-test phenomenon. Or it might allow us to figure out if it’s best to build a team around 1, 2, 3, or no high-usage players at all, based on teams’ performances with and without their high-usage players across various years. Or maybe we could figure out if benching players toward the end of the season really allows for better playoff performances.”
“So while Pelton does include context, his three methods are by no means a perfect measure of where teams would exactly be if they had certain players being healthy. They are more of an indicator about which replacement players are awesome, and which teams are really, really shallow.”
For FSM’s sake, what do you seem to think I’m misconstruing about this article? This isn’t rocket science, man.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Frankly, I don't think he understands it
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
read below
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
This is crazy
EJ missed 26 games. Is it outrageous to say had EJ played in those games, we’d have at least 7-8 more wins? I don’t think that’s crazy.
The Clips have gone 7-19 without EJ this year (21 of them being road games!). You think the Clippers go 14-12 with him with that many road games? Also only 8 of those games were against non-playoff teams. Maybe the Clippers win a extra 2-3 games but its not that big of a swing.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Huh?
That assumes that even if healthy they cannot win against playoff teams. In fact, they have.
Yah
The swing would be huge.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
show your work
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 9:36 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Any team can beat any other on any night in the NBA
That’s meaningless. The question is how much better does Gordon make the team on that road trip. The obvious and only honest answer is, not that much.
Not sure why you couch opinions in "honesty"
To me, that suggests that you can’t understand how anyone would reaonsably have a different point of view on the subject and thus that they are lying. That’s a “you” problem, my friend.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
If you say so - but I think you're incorrect here
For example, while it is true that any team can beat any other on any given night, some teams are better than others and have a better chance to beat those other teams. Why is that? Better players, better coaches, what?
It’s not unreasonable to assume that when a team’s best scorer / player gets injured, it can be difficult to replace that player, particularly where the team doesn’t other great scorers to replace them.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Way to change the subject!
It is a matter of fact that Eric Gordon’s injury is not anywhere near as important as Brand’s or Griffin’s.
Anyone who would hold them up together is an incredibly dishonest idiot.
Actually that’s two statements of fact. As a lawyer you should be better at this stuff.
Ok I think we are done here
You cross over into personal attacks far too easily for my taste.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
It absolutely is a matter of opinion
To say a team would have won a hypothetical game (with a different compliment of players than the reality game) is absolutely an unsubstantiated opinion and always will be.
Right - what he's doing
as I said below is interpreting statistics a certain way, and then confusing his interpretation as fact, and then attacking others for having different reasonable interpretations.
I wonder if (to use his words below) he’s being intentionally dishonest here or self-delusional.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
It's not meaningless
While it’s certainly theoretically possible, it’s not likely. It’s certainly not likely that this would happen in the fashion the Clippers accomplished that feat (repeatedly) in January.
As I’ve said, IMO the team just needs some tweaking. At least Q Ross isn’t the starting SF.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I think that there were some great signs with the types of wins we had this year
Home wins and wins against top-ranked teams. Sure, the total isn’t great, but I have to wonder if there is a trend with a team’s youth and winning road games/coming out aggressively for the easy games.
My hope is that as the young guys mature, they’ll start closing out the easy ones and not getting phased by opposing crowds. Both of those problems seem to be related to maturity, logically. So there’s hope for the future.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
So you believe this Clippers team was a playoff team is it weren't for injury?
Since you do seem to be too much of an idiot to see:
If you don’t believe that, that’s where the dishonesty of pursuing this line of “thought” comes in.
Which besides being an idiot, also makes you dishonest. A rare double!
Again, I think we are done here
There is no need for the personal attacks.
I would say, however, that you constantly confuse your own interpretation of statistics with facts, and then attack others for interpreting the statistics differently.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Disagree
If any team can beat any other team why do the Cavaliers have a poorer record than the Lakers? Because they’re not very good; not as good as the Lakers. If you take the “Any team can beat any other team” in this manner to an extreme, then the Lakers and Spurs are really not very good and thus the playoffs are a sham.
I’m confused. The Cavs did in fact beat the Lakers. Where are you going with this?
by Michael White on Apr 7, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
In general
The Cavs have only won about 15 games this year (just coincidence one happened to be vs Lakers). If any team can beat any team then why do the Cavs only have 15? Because they’re a bad team. So the “any team can beat any team on any given night” doesn’t really mean anything.
That's not what they mean
essentially the Cavs have a chance of beating team in the league but it doesn’t mean they have a equal chance between winning and losing. When they play a equally bad team like the Wolves maybe its 50/50. But when they play a good team then it might be 20/80 and so forth.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Sure, but that's not important
You said the Clips could not have improved much on the EJ-less record of 7-19 because some of those were against good teams. But they can (and have beaten) good teams, thus they could have improved on the 7-19 record. John R said they only beat good teams because “on any given night …” implying that they would not have won any more against good teams even if EJ was playing. Even in my most pessisimstic mood, I find that hard to believe.
In other words, if the Cavs have a 20% chance of beating a good team, why does he say the Clips with Gordon have a 0% chance?
Chuck is not suggesting that they could not have improved. Just that it would have been unlikely.
by Michael White on Apr 7, 2011 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
What does CC base that analysis on?
I think it’s safe to say that the Clippers were far better than the 5-21 record had indicated by January. Is there really any debate about that? The question then becomes why that is and whether the 5-21 record should be taken into account when attempting to determine how good the team was by the end of January. Stated another way, I really think when evaluating how good or bad a team is at a particular point in time, while W-L is a good starting point, it’s not the be-all, end-all.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
i base it on the entire season
The best teams will reveal themselves over time. The Clippers obviously aren’t a good team hence their record. Even if they had perfect health they would have been a 37-38 win team this season which is average at best.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 4:11 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That's where we disagree
For example, you think that 5-21 start would not have been significantly different had BD shown up healthy and in shape and Kamen healthy?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
define significantly
They had a tough schedule to start the year, a easy one in jan and then the super long road trip.
The first 26 games were a doozy and even with a healthy Baron and Kaman they would have only won a few more games. So does 9-17 sound okay? They weren’t going to go .500 against that schedule that’s for sure.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 4:25 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
l said
The Clips may have won a few more games but that would make them 10-16 during that run.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 4:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think John R means "on any given night"
i.e. specific wins and losses really don’t mean much, it’s the entire season sample size as a whole that is meaningful as to which teams are better than other teams. You have to assume the “freak wins,” like the Cavs and Timberwolves beating the Clippers, are offset by the “freak losses,” like the Clippers beating the Heat and Lakers.
We’re all so focused on having beat each of the division leaders, but you could probably offset those by the fact that we’ve also lost to all but 1 of the divisions’ worst respective teams: Toronto, Cleveland, Minnesota, Sacramento, and Houston, with the exception of Washington.
I don’t mean to be a Buzz Killington here so remember this: Beating the good teams indicates that this team has the potential to be great. Losing to the bad teams just indicates that our guys don’t always come in aggressive and focused when the game’s not on a big stage (LeBron, in his bitterness, pointed this out when we beat Miami, though he’s right). We already knew that second part. So not to worry, the future is bright… just not the present.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
and they have lost
To plenty of bad teams. They aren’t even close to .500 with EJ in the lineup. Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 9:38 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
If you had watched the team play in January
You would understand why people would have a different opinion. Whether they would have sustained that run if EJ didn’t get hurt is a matter of opinion. Certainly they could have used some better backups to help sustain the run in the face of the injuries.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
The one thing I do think that what I said below ignores
…is momentum. For example, announcers will say “the Clippers are on a 12-5 run in the last 3 minutes!” But they are ignoring that the Thunder were just on a 7-2 run 2 minutes before that. So then it’s just a 14-12 overall differential. However, the importance of the 12-5 run is that there is considerable momentum, which can carry a ton of weight with the crowd and be demoralizing to the other team.
I think the same may be true for win streaks. The Clips were definitely in a really nice groove in January, and if the Grizzlies are any indication, momentum can work with overall wins/losses as much as it works with games. I’m not sure if anyone’s ever tried to quantify the average effect of momentum runs, whether scoring-related or wins-related, but it’d surely be interesting. If I find the time, I might just do that.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I believe Jan was the first time EJ, BD and BG were playing together
consistently. BG is a rookie who was just coming into his groove. Etc.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
the point of the article
Is that every team has injuries. The Clips were affected more than average but not drastically.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 1:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That's where I would disagree
In terms of who was hurt and how that affected the team. Now, I suppose you could blame the FO for not ensuring that the team had better backups (of course some of the backups were also hurt like Kaman, Smith, etc.).
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Kaman isn't a backup
and DJ actually has outplayed Kaman this year. And Rhino doesn’t play that much to begin with and his replacement Diogu provided similar production.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
I basically agree with you, but Rhino is a bit better than Diogu and Kaman is much better than Diogu, Cook and Collins who got the backup C minutes while he was out.
by Michael White on Apr 7, 2011 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
the difference
Would have only been a few wins. Nothing drastic.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Apr 7, 2011 4:19 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Right, Kaman was another starter who was out
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
That brings up an interesting thought
If the Clips suck without EJ, is it because EJ is so good, or because the bench is so bad? So the extent to which injuries affects the team i not so much a factor of the player(s) missing games as it is who they have providing the minutes. If you had someone like Gordon on say the Nuggets (who now have a bunch of pretty good players) get injured for the same amount of games, you’d likely perform better than the Clips in that same situation. So if this analysis is a statement of the quality of a team’s bench … then who cares? We already knew the Clips had a poor bench.
I dunno, just seems like there are too many variables to believe that this analysis is really meaningful.
That's right
But if a team had a poor bench, that would serve to increase the value of the key players to the team.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with your point about the cited analysis
I find it very difficult to understand how someone can conclusively rule out injuries as significantly affecting W – L records. It depends on the player and the team. Why people became so aggressive here when that theory was questioned is beyond me.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Amen.
However, if you really, really want people here at Clips Nation to agree that EJ is just average it totally serves a purpose and so you ignore the variables and pretend that some important point has been made by said analysis.
by oneight on Apr 7, 2011 3:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
And call anyone who disagrees "dishonest"
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd hate to look at that statistic for the Blazers and Clippers over the last dozen years...
Just depressing, I’m sure. I don’t see excuses, but missed opportunities.
On the flip side, this might make some people who predicted 37 or so wins feel justified. IIRC, that’s around what LeBron’s Cavs had his rookie season, ya?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Sure, if you take away the losses, the Clippers are undefeated
In other words:
LOL
You are an idiot.
In other other words:
If I understand correctly, it’s just not as easy as to say “after this terrible streak, we were good.” Simply because we lost 21 of our first 26 games, and then we won 26 out of the next 53, it doesn’t mean that there are two teams: Clippers A (20% win%) and Clippers B (49% win%). As this article implies, probably some of those 21 losses were caused by circumstances that didn’t affect the next 53 games, like injuries and the resulting overplaying of the U23 squad, but more than likely the majority of those first 21 losses should be bundled with the latter 27 losses. So it’s not really fair to say that the current Clipper lineup, when healthy, is a .500 squad, just because from a certain point in time, they have that record.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
The whole just ignore these losses mindset
Is incredibly dishonest, either intentionally or through self-delusion.
It doesn’t really matter which.
Yeah, Erik O - you're dishonest
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
The point of this discussion is that you separate the games into situational categories. i.e. with or w/o EJ, etc. The comments above are doing just that. In certain situations, LAC performs poorly, when the situations are favorable (health squad) they do well. That’s what he is arguing, that certain hypothetical categories have implications on a broader trend.
If you don’t agree that these hypotheticals are worth discussing, then Kevin Pelton’s entire concept is invalid.
So the question then becomes
Which losses were caused by EJ and which were the Clippers going to lose anyhow? It’s anyone’s best guess, but this article tries to quantify it. Beyond the quantifications therein, you can try and throw in factors like lost momentum after repeated wins, EJ’s considerable drop in offensive efficiency since he came back from injury, etc.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
that isn't the point of the article
Pelton doesn’t break down each and every single teams situation
That is what you and many don’t get. It isn’t trying to look back and look at every single game individually. Pelton is taking a business like approach and just looking at the numbers.
I don’t see how some of you are completely missing this huge point
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
My lord jesus
Please read the post I said earlier in response to the article where I state EXACTLY that. You just replied to my comment that was in response to Thretch’s comment.
Quit treating me like I don’t understand this incredible simple article. It’s really ticking me off.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
So we aren't discussing the article anymore?
Because this article is not about explaining any of those things you are trying to.
Can you understand that crazy concept? Just to look at the stats?
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
I wasn't
I was just responding to someone else’s response, as they tried to go beyond the article. So I was staying in that realm—-going beyond what’s presented in the article.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Are you really this disinterested in exploring the possibilities that Pelton has only begun to explore?
He himself said that this is difficult to quantify and is only just diving into the fray. If you expand the sample size, you can use trends to try and make assumptions about specific types of situations, and perhaps apply those to the Clippers’ specific situations, if they seem similar.
i.e. if your star SG with X% usage rate goes out for Y amount of time, how, on average, does that affect total wins during a season?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
you can expand the sample size if you want to only explore the Clippers
but that wasn’t the point of the article.
The point of the article was simply “Injuries don’t effect good teams as much”
So then one could conclude that the Clippers aren’t a good team, with or without injuries.
You could expand it further, but that is so tangential and couldn’t be done with what Pelton created which is (drumroll please) WARP.
If you did not know Pelton was the one who developed WARP then I see why you would think he should be including various other stats. But, since he did he is using this article as another way to give WARP some publicity. So him not using all of this outside information makes sense, because there is no reason for him to devalue his creation.
Now you have my opinion on the article (blatant self promotion IMO). It isn’t that far from yours, the fact remains that if you were to take all that outside information, you would not be deconstructing the article but the Clippers season.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
It's funny
that some people think that one needs stats to show that “injuries don’t affect good teams as much,” but whatever.
Above you said that John R’s interpretation of the article is: “The players that have missed the most time the past couple of years, really aren’t that valuable since the team would probably be just as bad.”
First, why aren’t you ripping him like you did so many of us (lamely) for going beyond the article?
Second, do you agree with his argument or that this is what the article says or even implies?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Apr 7, 2011 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Expanding the sample
Why wouldn’t that work to explore every other team as well? If you include multiple years, I think you could only find more uses for the info.
I realize that this was one of his points made, and that good teams aren’t affected by injuries as much (goes in conjunction), but I think he also concluded, conversely, that bad teams aren’t really affected by being healthy as much either (as evidenced by the bottom 3rd of his WARP graph). So essentially, good teams that are deep are good no matter what, bad teams are pretty much just bad, and the only time good teams become bad teams because of injuries is if they have a shallow bench and talented starters (Miluakee, Philly). Does that seem accurate? If not, maybe I am reading this thing differently.
Didn’t know he created WARP… definitely a self-promotion aspect there…
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
So pretty much in summary
The Clippers lost about a net 2 games more than the league median from injury.
Memphis and Dallas lost about 3.4-3.5 games from injury, Clippers lost 5.4. 5.5- 3.5 = 2 games.
Judging from the comments above I get the feeling that some people are forgetting that the Clippers have benefited from other opposing team’s injuries (Grizzlies missing Gay, Bulls missing Noah, Blazers missing Roy etc etc) as well.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Judging from the comments above
People are still as delusional or dishonest as ever, depending on the commenter.
Eric Gordon is a good player, but he really isnt worth 7-8 wins
While Kaman was also lost too, and Baron, and Foye, together, it is probably around 5-6 wins total. So I guess I agree with the article.
If Portland had Greg Oden instead of Marcus Camby, and a healthy Brandon Roy instead of Nic Batum or Wes Matthews, I sure think they could be the best team in the league, possibly 65+ wins.
They would not have traded for Gerald Wallace in that case
Wonder what team he would have ended up on
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
