Leaguepass wrote:Sedale Threatt wrote:Posted in another thread, an analysis from an online bookmaker. (Note, they arrived at these figures by simulating the remaining games on our schedule 50,000 times.)
2012-13 Los Angeles Lakers with Mike D’Antoni as head coach
Projected record: 54.5-27.5
Projected Western Conference Playoff seed: 3 (after the Spurs and Thunder)
Points-per-game: 103.8
Opponent Points-per-game: 97.9
2012-13 Los Angeles Lakers with Phil Jackson as head coach
Projected record: 52.9-29.2
Projected Western Conference Playoff seed: 4 (after the Spurs, Thunder and Grizzlies)
Points-per-game: 101.4
Opponent Points-per-game: 96.3
Ultimately, the analysis is pretty straightforward. Steve Nash is far more important to have on this roster under D’Antoni than just about anyone else ever. With D’Antoni as his coach, Nash became one of the more efficient scorers and dynamic playmakers in the league. A true, distributing point guard is almost an irrelevant position in any other system in the league right now - especially to Phil Jackson who won 11 championships without getting value out of the point guard position. In Brown’s system, Nash’s value was already going to be limited. Now, assuming he can get and stay healthy, it should be maximized.
Defensively, there can be concerns with D’Antoni’s approach, but it is not as if defense is ignored. Plus, while players like Kobe Bryant and Metta World Peace are certainly more than capable defensive players, Dwight Howard has the type of defensive talent and size that I alluded to earlier that can transcend scheme. On that end of the court, he should not really be a much better or worse defender (the rebound rate may go down a little, but his actual rebounds may increase due to pace, while his offensive game will have very little pressure and is a luxury), which will help this team considerably.
And then there is the bench. Long a glaring weakness of the Lakers, output from the bench was considerably lacking in the short-lived Mike Brown era (which is really more the front office’s fault than Brown’s). While it is not like Jordan Hill will become Channing Frye overnight, the rest of the bench looks well suited to adapt to D’Antoni’s style, spacing and pace, as opposed to remaining afterthoughts as they likely would have under Jackson. Watch for Steve Blake to contribute more as an outside shooter, for Antawn Jamison (and starter Pau Gasol) to become an even stronger mid-range weapon and for Jodie Meeks to play the role he was always destine to as he starts launching threes more often (of all Lakers, Nash, Meeks, Jamison and Darius Morris have the most to potentially gain from the hire, while Hill, World Peace, Devin Ebanks and Earl Clark to struggle shoul struggle most as bad fits).
Summing it up, D’Antoni is the better hire – barely – and the team is a threat no matter who coaches.
Sorry but that's complete trash. How in the world are you going to come up with accurate numbers through simulating the games 50000? That's absolute bogus IMO....what's the system behind it?How does the computer calculate D'antoni's impact vs. Jackson's impact?
you're not one of those republicans who didn't like nate silver are you?
that said, whether you believe it or not, how are you going to argue with a computer?