I want to believe! I want to see Damian come down from the heavenly clouds and point me to the glorious RipCity!
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense now. I guess the math just flew over my head there.
Hey, kevin pelton reads the site: Kevin Pelton @kpelton 5m Wanted to clear up something from yesterday's column based on the response here, since I wasn't clear enough: http://sportstwo.com/threads/250908-ESPN-Kevin-Pelton-today-projects-us-to-finish-6-games-above-.500 …
Cool Kevin Pelton @kpelton 5m The "projections" at the end are the level at which a team would be expected to play *the rest of the season*: They're not a projection of wins, because they don't include record to date. So the Blazers' actual projected win total would be higher
This is frustrating. I can assure you that the simplistic computer simulation did not consider things like the team having a coherent offensive and defensive plan (a la BNMs awesome post in another thread), players buying into that plan, players fitting into that scheme, ... Creating a computer simulation is an interesting and useful tool. It helps people not make foolish decisions. However, these simulations all have significant weaknesses that can't be assessed with the information given. For example, some computer simulations decided Lillard was not 1st round material. The problem here is that KP2 is treating the simulation like a pet and trying to protect it, plain and simple. Yawn.
So, by my quick calculations then he's predicting 47 wins (47.1).... which is what I predicted before the season (while he predicted 41 I think).
It seems to me we are reliant on the 3 point shot because A) we are good at it B) we are not as good at breaking down our opponents on the dribble drive I am all for playing to our strengths. And maybe the Phoenix games are just exceptions, but it seems to me that tight pressure on our PG's will be an issue for us. I am anxious to see how we do against Westbrook and Conley. Bledsoe has been disruptive.
But their margins of victory are all significatly better than ours. I'm surprised anyone is a) surprised and b) upset that some still aren't drinking the Blazer koolaid after 11 games. If another team like Dallas or New Orleans started 9-2 and had only two wins against teams with winning records, how would we look at them? Would we think they're suddenly a top 5 team or would we need to see more? It wouldn't mean they aren't, just that it's way way too early to tell. Teams like San Antonio and Miami have been legit for years so that's a different story. They have less to prove at this point in the year, and deservingly so.
For a team that was as bad as it was last year 44 wins would be a pretty damned good turn-around. Of course fans are always going to expect more, that's the nature of fanatics, but a 50+ win "goal" isn't particularly realistic given the turnover we saw in the roster.
so the difference between 6 and 7 is significant? And I don't really know what you mean by "non-commercialized" rankings. Amateurs? If you don't like the human rankings perhaps then you'll trust ones based on statistical models where there's no human input. Hollinger's model puts at 6, I'd have to look around at some of the others, but I'm guessing they're similar too.
After the way we played in Boston & Toronto - I'm not sold just yet. We should have thrashed those two teams and we were VERY lucky to come away with two wins. Defense is still a problem - particularly Aldridge and the interior points in the paint. Crisp execution on both sides of the ball could be better. I will say that having this record, with the way we have played and with the blatant biased reffing, is promising though; because I feel once we do 'click', the team can take it to another level. The biggest obstacle to the Blazers, and the only thing holding them back IMO, seems to be themselves.
So when a Ben Golliver type put out, "Pelton: SCHOENE Projection System Predicts 41 Wins, Lottery Trip For Blazers", is Kevin saying that's not a prediction of wins? Where is the disconnect? Does the word prediction mean something other than what it means to Kevin, or Ben, or basically anyone reading what he's saying? Can someone please explain how this is not semantics, if not the exact same thing? I don't fault anyone for playing with numbers or looking at data in different ways, but it seems disingenuous to say a team is playing at a 41 win pace or level based on a system, and then say, but I'm not saying they are a 41 win team. That's the way everyone interprets it. And you can't fault fans when the guys who report on this stuff for a living interpret it that way as well.
Just an fyi for anyone who sees this as a slight if you add Peltons projections to our current record the team is just slightly over a 47 wins which should make them a solid playoff team.
Those were the predictions before the season, though. As the team performs better, the prediction adjusts, and the predictor claims credit for it. I wish I could have that sort of arrangement when I pick stocks. What a gig predicting NBA records must be. "Here is my prediction as of right now, but if the stock overperforms, I'll go back in time and claim credit for the stock, even though I originally undervalued it". Sweet.
...and if the team gets to 15-4, then the Blazers will be projected to win 51ish games, although they are still a 44 win team (or 41, apparently, before the season started). I can't be the only one not buying those type of adjustments based on present reality.
If the Blazers somehow go 56-26, they will still be predicted to win 44 games. They just outperformed the prediction. Not Pelton's fault!