just as randomness can make a team that used to lose by 10 win a few games it can take away a few of their wins and make them lose by 10 i understand your theory, i am only saying that you are grossly overstating it
are you projecting teams point differentials to regress drastically and historically towards zero this year?
I think Nate realizes this is his best line-up, but doesn't thnk it is wise to do the whole game. I think we can all agree that LMA needs more rest so he can be fresh in the 4th. He will close with this line up
Maybe better to find the closer, maybe even jcrossover, like the early 2000 lakers had. Punish a team with your dominant inside scorer, then finish them like mortal combat with our 4th quarter specialist.
Nobody needs it the whole game. It is just that this line-up is so much more efficient than the one that has Aldridge/Camby with G-Wallace or Nic - that it is rather silly to play it much. Have Camby anchor the 2nd unit with Kurt Thomas or Rhino, whoever plays 3, Crawford and Nolan or Craford and Elliot - but the small-ball with Aldridge/Nic/G-Wallace was one of the most efficient offensive 5s in the league last year. That line-up had 114.6 points per 100 possessions on offense - which was much better than Denver's offensive efficiency last year (best in the NBA).
I said generally. There are of course going to be exceptions: teams that sit in that sweet spot of being both good and young or the bad spot of being old and not so good. They might be the ones most immune to the affects of the compressed schedule (winning through on talent for the former and losing no matter how many breaks they catch for the latter). My point is that even in a normal year the schedule almost always builds in a certain number of losses and wins -- say 10% of the schedule, this year it could be as high as 20%. Ergo, when the schedule itself has a greater impact on record than talent alone normally would, it should theoretically have an "evening out" affect across the league; pushing records towards the mean (generally).
You can't isolate it because of roster turnover having an impact too. It won't be "drastic", but I think you'll see a regression to zero ... it may only be a slide of 1 or 2 points or less in some cases, but that would be my expectation. Possibly enough to increase/reduce wins and losses by 1 or 2 games. Bear in mind this is all a hunch and not an actual statistical model; that would take considerably more work than I would be willing to do for "free."
Maybe ... but they may not win quite as much as you would expect (each team has its own special set of circumstances to deal with ... chemistry might be a concern for that squad).
Simmons doesn't even understand what pace is. He's not that sharp. He's just there for entertainment value but he is petty.
OK you convinced me. Because Camby, even healthy, in the starting line up was not working. As long as LMA stays out of foul trouble to start the games while playing the 5 then I guess it makes sense to start with that unit as well. No doubt it is the best line-up and we saw it again yesterday in the 1st and 4th. We need the extra outside shooter in the line-up, plus at the 4 Wallace can beat his man down the floor even more so. Plus if it takes him out of the corner.......
