When Does Addition By Subtraction Work?

[LUKE23]

Yet Philly went from 38 wins the last year with Iverson to 35 wins and then 40, while Denver went from 44 wins the last year with Miller to 45 wins and then 50.

And Denver won 20 more games in a much tougher conference in the two years combined.

So Philly increased by 2 wins in two years in a much easier league, and Denver increased by 6 wins in two years in a much tougher league.

It sure seems like Philly improved more than Denver did.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Yet Philly went from 38 wins the last year with Iverson to 35 wins and then 40, while Denver went from 44 wins the last year with Miller to 45 wins and then 50.

And Denver won 20 more games in a much tougher conference in the two years combined.

So Philly increased by 2 wins in two years in a much easier league, and Denver increased by 6 wins in two years in a much tougher league.

It sure seems like Philly improved more than Denver did.

You're trying to show correlation without showing casualty. Marcus Camby is easily Denver's best player, and here are his games played per year:

05-06: 56
06-07: 70
07-08: 79

Obviously if your best player plays 40% more games in one year than he did in another, your team record should reflect that. And it does. And Winscores would absolutely predict such an occurrence.

[TheGhostDog]

Yep. Sadly the Bucks don't have the ability to draw in free agents like the Suns do.

I certainly agree with you that this has been the case, but I think maybe, just maybe, by hiring Hammond, Skiles and all the Bucks have opened up a window of opportunity for the franchise. If Hammond makes a couple decisive roster moves this offseason and the Bucks improve significantly next year, given the respect level Hammond and Skiles already command in NBA circles, I believe the Bucks could gain the reputation of a well-run team on the rise and actually stand a chance at landing a significant FA. I know the Milwaukee will never have the star appeal of LA, NY or Miami, but we shouldn't completely dismiss the siren call of a well-run winning franchise, which we haven't been in years but could become.

I hate to mix sports analogies, but Green Bay was the Siberia of the NFL before Lombardi and, later, Wolf came along. Now consider the Chicago Bulls, who couldn't buy a star player when they were saddled with Tim Floyd and a bad rep http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basket ... agents_ap/
...but who, after a few years of Skiles coaching up some talented youngsters, became major players in the Garnett, Gasol and Kobe market (even if Paxson never could bring himself to act decisively and seal a deal). I think this year's quick-fix Celtics are an anomoly, but given a series of smart roster moves over time even a small-market NBA team like the Bucks can leverage themselves up into being a FA player. Hammond just has a lot of work ahead of him.

[LUKE23]

You specifically quoted an article saying Philly would be better off without Iverson. I'm showing that is not the case. They went -3 and then +2 off of where they were once he left in the two seasons. Meanwhile, Denver improved both years in a tougher conference.

Philly was at 43+ for wins 5 times with Iverson, they are 0 for 2 in that matter without him. Miller is simply not a better player than Iverson is, Iverson was a guy that could take over a game and carry a team, sometimes for full seasons (as evidenced in their ECF run), Miller is a solid starting player, not capable of doing so.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

You specifically quoted an article saying Philly would be better off without Iverson.

They are.

I'm showing that is not the case.

You're trying your best, but you can't undo the fact that they got drastically better immediately after the Iverson trade to finish the season stronger than all the ppg-junkies could have ever believed. And apparently still don't believe.

Meanwhile, Denver improved both years in a tougher conference.

And once again, that has everything to do with Marcus Camby, and almost nothing to do with Allen Iverson.

[LUKE23]

If it has everything to do with Camby's health, why did they win 49 games in 04-05 with Camby missing 16 games (the second most he's missed in the past five seasons, and since they added Carmelo).

Denver has improved for three reasons:

1. Melo's improvement
2. Addition of Iverson
3. Health of Camby

But it's not ONLY because of Camby. Camby also missed 23 and 19 games in 99-00 and 00-01 and the Knicks still posted a 27-23 and 50-32 records with him missing a significant time.

But the notion that Philly has "improved" without Iverson is hogwash, and that is clearly viewable by looking at wins and losses.

[paulpressey25]

I'd cite the Iverson trade as a rich man's version of Mo for Haslem. Most fans do not appreciate what Andre Miller brings to the table, instead focusing on the scoring of Iverson.

I think it actually helped both teams. In Philly's case, they dumped a ton of contract dollars owed Iverson and got a less flashy guy who probably was a better fit for them. For Denver, it got them some respectability and excitement.

[Simulack]

I'd cite the Iverson trade as a rich man's version of Mo for Haslem. Most fans do not appreciate what Andre Miller brings to the table, instead focusing on the scoring of Iverson.

I don't think they are comparable enough even if you add in the "rich man's" qualifier.

Miller's a really talented player who was a lottery pick and for a season or two was considered by many to be one of the best PG's in the NBA. He's not an under-appreciated role player type but a guy who was formerly one of the top players at his position and had 16/11/5 type seasons. I think the biggest factors in his being overlooked a bit were:

a) Age, at over 30 people thought his best years were long behind him

b) Victim of playing on an underachieving team, being on the Nuggets gave him the stigma of being on a talented team that always lost in the first round

Miller was also overlooked because he was being judged in a trade with a former MVP.

Haslem isn't considered to be a guy with a lot of value simply because he isn't that good and never has been. His team situation was the opposite of Miller's: Haslem was the beneficiary of being on a team with multiple superstars who won a championship. If he'd been playing for the Bucks the last 5 seasons I doubt many would be categorizing him as guy who "does the little things a winning team needs" or whatever else some are saying about him.

Guys like Miller who were once top tier players will sometimes have a resurgence with a change of teams after a few down years... but guys who were never anything but below average players at their position for 5 years rarely suddenly become anything else.

[Johnny Newman]

Yet Philly went from 38 wins the last year with Iverson to 35 wins and then 40, while Denver went from 44 wins the last year with Miller to 45 wins and then 50.

And Denver won 20 more games in a much tougher conference in the two years combined.

So Philly increased by 2 wins in two years in a much easier league, and Denver increased by 6 wins in two years in a much tougher league.

It sure seems like Philly improved more than Denver did.

You're trying to show correlation without showing casualty. Marcus Camby is easily Denver's best player, and here are his games played per year:

05-06: 56
06-07: 70
07-08: 79

Obviously if your best player plays 40% more games in one year than he did in another, your team record should reflect that. And it does. And Winscores would absolutely predict such an occurrence.

Camby is a Hammond kinda guy. But I doubt we can land him unless it was for Redd. Then Mo has to be dealt for Cook and Wright and Blount?

[paulpressey25]

You done a nice job of putting the "poor man's" qualifiers on Haslem in comparison to Miller.

However, I'd add that I can "poor" man Mo equally as well. We can all recall those excellent defensive jobs Mo did on AI a couple years ago when AI averaged 47ppg against Williams. Or Iverson leading a team to the finals while Mo as starting PG has lead us to picks #1, #6 and #8.

[REDDzone]

You done a nice job of putting the "poor man's" qualifiers on Haslem in comparison to Miller.

However, I'd add that I can "poor" man Mo equally as well. We can all recall those excellent defensive jobs Mo did on AI a couple years ago when AI averaged 47ppg against Williams. Or Iverson leading a team to the finals while Mo as starting PG has lead us to picks #1, #6 and #8.

Wow never thought of it like that. That's really, really horrible.

[Nowak008]

Or Iverson leading a team to the finals while Mo as starting PG has lead us to picks #1, #6 and #8.

So did Redd, why does that matter? We have had some **** teams.

[midranger]

In Bogut's 2 years as starting center we've won 54 combined games.

He has to be gone.

[El Duderino]

In Bogut's 2 years as starting center we've won 54 combined games.

He has to be gone.

That is no doubt one thing on this board that i find funny. So many selectively like to tie the record of the Bucks or other teams to a single player, while ignoring context of what happened each year or other players on the roster.

As for addition by subtraction being true, IMO it depends on each individual case and what other moves are made. Regardless if the Bucks trade say Mo or Redd, there will be roster turnover and a new better coach from last season. I expect the Bucks to be better next year regardless if we trade Mo, trade Redd, trade both, or trade neither guy.

[midranger]

In Bogut's 2 years as starting center we've won 54 combined games.

He has to be gone.

That is no doubt one thing on this board that i find funny. So many selectively like to tie the record of the Bucks or other teams to a single player, while ignoring context of what happened each year or other players on the roster.

As for addition by subtraction being true, IMO it depends on each individual case and what other moves are made. Regardless if the Bucks trade say Mo or Redd, there will be roster turnover and a new better coach from last season. I expect the Bucks to be better next year regardless if we trade Mo, trade Redd, trade both, or trade neither guy.

Agree with all, especially the last sentence.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

When you are a lottery team consistently with what you have and you have high paid players who are your so called 'leaders' who don't, or won't, or can't win under 3-4 coaches in a short 4 year span, then that is when there is additition by subtraction!

Say what you want, but Redd and Mo and others have not won here after being together for 3-4 years under 3 or 4 different coaches! That should tell you something...