2013-14 - Around the League Thread

[MHSL82]

Great stuff, do you think starting a streak now is so much harder than starting a new season well? I say this because people say to get going on your New Year's Resolutions early because that's when the slate is clean and you're motivated. Not sure if the Lakers can play without the struggles in their minds and fresh - plus, the injuries add a physical thing to the mental difficulty. I'm not a Lakers fan, but for the sake of shutting up all the laughter, I'd like them to come back. Then get bounced in the first round. You know + - + - + - ^v^v^v^v etc.

 

[nuraman00]

You know + - + - + - ^v^v^v^v etc.

No I don't know.

 

[nuraman00]

Great stuff, do you think starting a streak now is so much harder than starting a new season well?

The Lakers usually have an easier schedule at the beginning of the year, as they play mostly home games. Then in January and Mid February, they start to take long road trips, as the Grammys and Oscars happen. They don't necessarily take place at STAPLES, but my guess is that with the celebrities occupied, they wouldn't be able to spend $30,000 on courtside seats during those 3-4 weeks.

(Clippers have a similar schedule, but always a worse late January / early February road trip than the Lakers. It's always at least 8 games long (sometimes with the AS break in between). This year it's an 8 game trip before the AS break, and 12 of 15 on the road before the AS break).

With that said, they did play well to finish 2003-2004.

If you're asking me in general if I think it's easier to start a streak midseason, vs. a streak at the beginning of the season, I think it depends on each team's schedule. Some teams have a harder 1st half, some teams easier.

But even looking at Boston as an example, there were a few years, in the Garnett era, where they started the season on fire. But then the last two years, Boston has been more consistent month to month, although a little better to finish the year. So who knows, there probably is no reason.

If you're asking about the Lakers, I think it would be a little harder to start one midseason, because of their harder schedule in the second half, but then if you really are a good team, you'll still win most of those games.

I do think the injuries are a major factor this year. They better start winning right when Gasol gets back.

As for importance, I don't think regular season streaks matter. Even the Clippers 17 game streak, I studied what all of the teams who had previously done it did. You still have some teams that didn't make the Finals. Even playoffs streaks, it's the matchup with the opposing team that's more important.

 

[MHSL82]

No I don't know.

I mean, ups and downs, so that one side (the Laker hating) and the other (the Laker loving) never are up for too long. So right after getting bounced in the playoffs (the one the haters said was impossible), they'd get Phil Jackson back. Then, after getting him back, he coaches them to a 19-6 record, resigns due to health, to bring them back down to earth...

 

[MHSL82]

I like assists.

LeBron's more meaningful milestone

 

[MHSL82]

Haven't read it yet but the title sounds interesting.

Where have all the gunners gone?

 

[nuraman00]

Haven't read it yet but the title sounds interesting.

Where have all the gunners gone?

I agree with all of the conclusions, that defenses are tougher on the strong side of the ball; that the top scorers are making more plays partially because they're well-guarded; and surprisingly that free throws are down.

I remember when Iverson or Pierce or Nowitzki would get 18-23 FTs in some big playoffs games.

During opening day of the playoffs in 2003, Pierce went 21-21 from the line.

 

[MHSL82]

Sad news for some, inevitable for others, and I'm sure some are in denial, claiming that Sacramento won't be OKC'd.

NBA office makes it official: Deal to sell Kings to Seattle group reached. Gavin Maloof makes statement. | ProBasketballTalk

 

[MHSL82]

If they are going to take them to Seattle, I wish they just come out and say it. I know it might not be smart to do so, but I hated the OKC move because they kept saying they had no intentions, until they did it. I felt that they asked for too much money from the Seattle and acted like, oh well, we tried. I think it's the same for St. Louis owners and Jacksonville Jaguars. The uncertainty and distrust can't be good for business. Just move if you can - but I know it's not that simple, they need to sometimes keep two pots cooking at the same time.

 

[nuraman00]

The Board of Governors has to review the financial viability, and that happens at the Board of Governors meeting just after the regular season.

That's why they can't say it now.

For example, Minnesota's relocation was rejected in 1994 due to financial uncertainty of the Top Rank ownership group.

Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That probably won't be the case with the Hansen-Ballmer group though. But the Board Of Governors have to review it all the same.


There is also the possibility that Mayor Johnson of Sacramento can pull together an ownership group, along with the arena plan that the Maloofs backed out of last year. That's what Mayor Johnson is trying to do right now, anyways. He's been putting together local buyers, as well as re-opening talks with AEG from the arena plan last year.

Seattle didn't have an arena plan in 2008, at least nothing that the city agreed to.

Sacramento had an arena plan that the city agreed to, and AEG agreed to, and the Maloofs had initially agreed to, only to change their minds. (They said they didn't want to pay for pre-development costs, nor sign a 30 year lease).

 

[nuraman00]

I suppose Twitter's fine if you have a network, but right now I see it as a one-man show thing where you just send your thoughts out there into outer space. If I were more interesting, I suppose it could work. But if I posted this... ehh.

140 characters is too little.

I can't paste articles, stats, or videos (or links to videos).

Not that I'm advocating Twitter, but isn't posting on Facebook posting in outer space too?

You could essentially have a similar network on Twitter as on FB, but add a few more people who you know on an online-basis only.

 

[MHSL82]

Not that I'm advocating Twitter, but isn't posting on Facebook posting in outer space too?

You could essentially have a similar network on Twitter as on FB, but add a few more people who you know on an online-basis only.

I'm maxed out between here and the Niners board and Facebook. I mean, I prefer talking to people I know, I've made an exception for this and the Niners message board because I feel it's a set number of regulars. People come and go, but a certain few will stay for a long time. That's true for twitter, but I don't like the format - as you can tell, I post loooong sometimes.

I get to know people here without having to "know" them. I've only really known you outside of it, because I typically want anonymity. But I have posted before the same things here as Facebook, so if someone cared they could figure it out if I post on a team page. For example, if I posted Hayward's streak on the Utah Jazz's Facebook and here, all you'd have to do is be subscribed to both and remember what you've read (and read things regularly, I suppose). I know Clintonite's name based upon the John Stockton Day article, for example. But I haven't looked him up because that's a bit stockerish, unless we talked all the time anyway.

If you're going to Twitter and you're asking me to join, sure, I'll do it, but I can't promise you that I will post there as often or more than here. 140 characters?

 

[nuraman00]

I'm maxed out between here and the Niners board and Facebook. I mean, I prefer talking to people I know, I've made an exception for this and the Niners message board because I feel it's a set number of regulars. People come and go, but a certain few will stay for a long time. That's true for twitter, but I don't like the format - as you can tell, I post loooong sometimes.

I get to know people here without having to "know" them. I've only really known you outside of it, because I typically want anonymity. But I have posted before the same things here as Facebook, so if someone cared they could figure it out if I post on a team page. For example, if I posted Hayward's streak on the Utah Jazz's Facebook and here, all you'd have to do is be subscribed to both and remember what you've read (and read things regularly, I suppose). I know Clintonite's name based upon the John Stockton Day article, for example. But I haven't looked him up because that's a bit stockerish, unless we talked all the time anyway.

If you're going to Twitter and you're asking me to join, sure, I'll do it, but I can't promise you that I will post there as often or more than here. 140 characters?

No, I'm not asking you to join. Nor am I joining. I agree that I don't have time to check it, between message boards, and other forms of communication. And I don't like the format, as you're limited to 140 characters per post/tweet.

I just thought that posting on FB with some frequency was similar to posting on Twitter, in that both were broadcast to a murky set of viewers in "outer space". Also your phrase "outer space" just brought up some good/funny imagery. Just like your "man of steel" reference a few weeks ago.

So phrases like that deserve a "good post", or a thread bump.

Whenever Clintoninte33 and BlueMoon_76 meet up, they scheme of ways to get me on Twitter. They say they spend 1/2 their time talking about that.

 

[MHSL82]

Obviously, this means he's out for the season. If not for Garnett, I'd feel bad for the Celtics.

Rajon Rondo of Boston Celtics has torn ACL, will undergo surgery

 

[MHSL82]

The Lakers are currently 15-20, which means there are 47 games left. The last spot of the Western Conference playoffs is Portland, who is on pace to win 46 games. So if the Lakers were to catch them, they'd have to win 31 of the 47 games, a 66% winning percentage, which would be good for 7th best right now (6 teams have a winning percentage above 66%).

The Lakers have 17 games against teams with a worse record than they have, but even if they were to win all of those, they'd still need to win 14 games out of 30, a winning percentage of 47%, higher than their current winning percentage. They have 21 games against non-playoff teams. If they were to somehow win all of those games, they'd still need to win 10 of 26 games against playoff teams - that's 38.5% a little under the 42.9% they are winning now.

In 2006-07, 42 wins made it, shared coincidentally by the Lakers (Golden State tied and lost the tiebreaker). But ever since, 8th best in the WC usually carries a 46-50 wins in the record.

Do they have a chance at all?

If they got their shit together and it's a big if, I can see the Lakers finishing 47-35, at best (within limits, but not close to likely). My low guess is 43-39, though. This is not because they are good. It's their schedule. But, I wouldn't have guessed them to be 19-25 now, either; so they could continue to disappoint. Didn't take into account the home and away, and I know, that's a cardinal sin in guessing outcomes. - Which I know you, Nuraman, don't like anyways.

Los Angeles Lakers 2013 Schedule - Lakers Home and Away

 

[nuraman00]

Kings led by 12 and trailed by 56 against the Knickerbockers. I can't recall ever seeing a bigger swing, in which the losing team not only lead, but by double-figures.

 

[MHSL82]

If they got their shit together and it's a big if, I can see the Lakers finishing 47-35, at best (within limits, but not close to likely). My low guess is 43-39, though. This is not because they are good. It's their schedule. But, I wouldn't have guessed them to be 19-25 now, either; so they could continue to disappoint. Didn't take into account the home and away, and I know, that's a cardinal sin in guessing outcomes. - Which I know you, Nuraman, don't like anyways.

Los Angeles Lakers 2013 Schedule - Lakers Home and Away

Given our home games left (and I know we're not invincible any more), this is absurd. I know it's mathematical, but we have a better record than both the Rockets and Lakers, more home games left, and a better last 10.

Hollinger's 2012-13 NBA Playoff Odds - National Basketball Association - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

Given our home games left (and I know we're not invincible any more), this is absurd. I know it's mathematical, but we have a better record than both the Rockets and Lakers, more home games left, and a better last 10.

Hollinger's 2012-13 NBA Playoff Odds - National Basketball Association - ESPN

Margin of victory.

Jazz are at -0.76.

Houston is at +3.08.

L.A. Lakers are at +1.65.

In the last 25%:

Jazz are at -1.31.

Houston is at +5.08.

L.A. Lakers are at +3.38.

 

[MHSL82]

Margin of victory.

Jazz are at -0.76.

Houston is at +3.08.

L.A. Lakers are at +1.65.

In the last 25%:

Jazz are at -1.31.

Houston is at +5.08.

L.A. Lakers are at +3.38.

But this puts them ahead of Utah. Mind. Does. Not. Compute. They need to go back and rearrange the numbers until they fix it! I sense another one of your veiled insults by saying you agree with their clear mistypo or that the Jazz are mediocre and not a playoff team, just a bubble team. We're the best, foo. (Mistypo is my typo of typo. I tried tipo for awhile but thought people would actually think it was a typo... all two of you.)

 

[MHSL82]

LeBron James is shooting 55.5% for the year this season. His current streak is 136-225 (60.4%) over his last 12 games. He had only one sub-50% game in that span, a 14-31 shooting in a 100-98 loss to the Celtics. His shooting has gone up every year but once where he went up by 0.8% and then down 0.4%.

I was curious to see whether he is just picking his shots better or is shooting much better. Here's what I found:

Compared to last year, in:

0-2 feet shots: shooting 2% better and attempting 2% more of his shots from this distance.
3-9 feet shots: shooting 3.5% worse and attempting 0.1 percent more shots from this distance.
10-15 feet shots: shooting 4.8% worse but attempting 2 percent fewer shots from this distance.
16-3-Pt shots: 3.6% better but attempting 3.8 percent fewer shots from this distance.
3-PT shots: shooting 14% better and attempting 3.5 percent more shots from this distance.

Don't know what to conclude from this. Obviously he is shooting better. And his two worst category distances are lowered in attempts, but the percentage shot has increased and decreased.

I have the number if you'd like to see them, but if it's ehh, it'd be easier not to post it.