Predict the Wizards record in 2012-2013

[Ruzious]

During nate's 19 game stretch the Wizards played

Hawks twice
Memphis
Indy 3 times
Boston
Philly
Orlando
NY

That's 10 games against playoff teams.

So?

[tontoz]

During nate's 19 game stretch the Wizards played

Hawks twice
Memphis
Indy 3 times
Boston
Philly
Orlando
NY

That's 10 games against playoff teams.

So?

So that isn't "mostly bad" teams. I would have thought that was self evident.

[Zonkerbl]

They were playing mainly against bad teams, injured teams, and teams that didn't care.

Teams that didn't care = last six games of the season, which Nate has excluded from the sample.
Bad and injured teams = and yet more than half of games were against playoff teams.

Ruzious, this 19 game sample seems to be immune from all the deficiencies you accuse it of.

Not saying you're wrong, but Nate's 19 game sample certainly doesn't support the conclusion you're trying to make.

We'll see, I guess. My take on this is that the team plays well when one of Nene, Seraphin, or Vesely (or James Singleton) is having a good game, which I guess was the case during that stretch. Our frontcourt had to play well, because our SG and SF sucked.

So now it looks like we've improved the SG position, so we have more margin for error. But the season will still depend on the health of Nene's feet, or Seraphin's continued improved play, or the unlikely re-emergence of Vesely from his burger-induced somnolescence. And Wall's health. Not too encouraged about that right now. I guess we'll see where we are a month from now and really know what we have.

[Ruzious]

During nate's 19 game stretch the Wizards played

Hawks twice
Memphis
Indy 3 times
Boston
Philly
Orlando
NY

That's 10 games against playoff teams.

So?

So that isn't "mostly bad" teams. I would have thought that was self evident.

I said "bad teams, injured teams, and teams that didn't care". How many of those playoff teams played at their best when they played the Wizards?

[tontoz]

I said "bad teams, injured teams, and teams that didn't care". How many of those playoff teams played at their best when they played the Wizards?

You said mostly bad teams which they weren't. 10 of their 19 games were against winning teams.

Injured? The Wizards were injured too. Nene and Booker both missed extended time.

And why would playoff teams not care?

No team plays their best all time so i don't see where you are going with that.

[Ruzious]

The power of rationalization is an amazing thing. The Wizards had the 2nd worst record in the NBA, they made only marginal improvements in the offseason, and yet fans here (perhaps a majority) have convinced themselves that the evidence clearly shows they're a legit good team right now. I wish you guys were right.

[tontoz]

The power of rationalization is an amazing thing. The Wizards had the 2nd worst record in the NBA, they made only marginal improvements in the offseason, and yet fans here (perhaps a majority) have convinced themselves that the evidence clearly shows they're a legit good team right now. I wish you guys were right.

Who is saying they are a good team?

And it isn't just about what they did during the offseason. It is also about what they did during last season.

[Ruzious]

I said "bad teams, injured teams, and teams that didn't care". How many of those playoff teams played at their best when they played the Wizards?

You said mostly bad teams which they weren't. 10 of their 19 games were against winning teams.

Injured? The Wizards were injured too. Nene and Booker both missed extended time.

And why would playoff teams not care?

No team plays their best all time so i don't see where you are going with that.

You really didn't understand that I meant they were bad, injured, or playing out the string? Really?

Just using your memory - How many of those playoff teams do YOU THINK played anywhere near their best against the Wizards?

[Ruzious]

The power of rationalization is an amazing thing. The Wizards had the 2nd worst record in the NBA, they made only marginal improvements in the offseason, and yet fans here (perhaps a majority) have convinced themselves that the evidence clearly shows they're a legit good team right now. I wish you guys were right.

Who is saying they are a good team?

And it isn't just about what they did during the offseason. It is also about what they did during last season.

If you're now saying they're not a good team, why are you arguing? We agree then. THEY ARE NOT A GOOD TEAM.

[Zonkerbl]

Is a sub-.500 team that barely squeaks into the playoffs because of a weak Eastern Conference a "good team"?

Wow.

The Zards finished last season 20-46, equivalent to a 25 win pace in an 82 game season. Let's suppose they could squeak into the playoffs with 38 wins. That would be a 13 game improvement.

Replace Nick Young/Jordan Crawford at SG with Beal.

Replace McGee with Okafor.

Replace ... gosh, who the heck ended up being our starting PF for the majority of last season? Was it Booker? Seraphin? Vesely? Replace the PF by committee with Nene.

I could see a 13 win improvement from that, sure, why the heck not? I can see a million ways it might not work also. I could see Nene's foot giving him trouble for half the season. I could see John Wall, say, missing the first month. I could see Okafor going down to injury. I could see Beal crashing and burning.

I don't agree with Nate, but not because he's interpreting the data incorrectly. I just have a bad feeling. I don't trust the starters to stay healthy.

[tontoz]

I said "bad teams, injured teams, and teams that didn't care". How many of those playoff teams played at their best when they played the Wizards?

You said mostly bad teams which they weren't. 10 of their 19 games were against winning teams.

Injured? The Wizards were injured too. Nene and Booker both missed extended time.

And why would playoff teams not care?

No team plays their best all time so i don't see where you are going with that.

You really didn't understand that I meant they were bad, injured, or playing out the string? Really?

Just using your memory - How many of those playoff teams do YOU THINK played anywhere near their best against the Wizards?

I understand what you said. What you meant may have been something else.

Playoff teams don't "play out the string" until the last handful of games when their playoff position is set. They then rest their starters to get ready for the playoffs.

The schedule they faced during nate's 19 game stretch is very representative of the schedule they will face during an 82 game season. Many of their opponents will be injured or not at their best during the season. That is the case every year.

If you can show an excessive number of opponent injuries during that time or that these teams had a string of poor play because they didn't care then by all means feel free.

[tontoz]

The power of rationalization is an amazing thing. The Wizards had the 2nd worst record in the NBA, they made only marginal improvements in the offseason, and yet fans here (perhaps a majority) have convinced themselves that the evidence clearly shows they're a legit good team right now. I wish you guys were right.

Who is saying they are a good team?

And it isn't just about what they did during the offseason. It is also about what they did during last season.

If you're now saying they're not a good team, why are you arguing? We agree then. THEY ARE NOT A GOOD TEAM.

I predicted at least 35 wins (assuming reasonably good health) in this thread which hardly qualifies as good. If you care to post who said they will be a good team feel free. It shouldn't be hard to do since you said that maybe a majority of fans think they will be a good team.

[Ruzious]

You said mostly bad teams which they weren't. 10 of their 19 games were against winning teams.

Injured? The Wizards were injured too. Nene and Booker both missed extended time.

And why would playoff teams not care?

No team plays their best all time so i don't see where you are going with that.

You really didn't understand that I meant they were bad, injured, or playing out the string? Really?

Just using your memory - How many of those playoff teams do YOU THINK played anywhere near their best against the Wizards?

I understand what you said. What you meant may have been something else.

Playoff teams don't "play out the string" until the last handful of games when their playoff position is set. They then rest their starters to get ready for the playoffs.

The schedule they faced during nate's 19 game stretch is very representative of the schedule they will face during an 82 game season. Many of their opponents will be injured or not at their best during the season. That is the case every year.

If you can show an excessive number of opponent injuries during that time or that these teams had a string of poor play because they didn't care then by all means feel free.

Again, the way I remember it is that the Wiz opponents towards the end of the season played poorly - almost every single game that the Wiz won. I'm not going to take the time to prove that in every game. If you disagree with that, that's fine. We just disagree.

[tontoz]

Again, the way I remember it is that the Wiz opponents towards the end of the season played poorly - almost every single game that the Wiz won. I'm not going to take the time to prove that in every game. If you disagree with that, that's fine. We just disagree.

Nate specifically excluded the last 6 wins. During the 19 game stretch Nate is talking about the Wizards won only 5 games.

[Ruzious]

Who is saying they are a good team?

And it isn't just about what they did during the offseason. It is also about what they did during last season.

If you're now saying they're not a good team, why are you arguing? We agree then. THEY ARE NOT A GOOD TEAM.

I predicted at least 35 wins (assuming reasonably good health) in this thread which hardly qualifies as good. If you care to post who said they will be a good team feel free. It shouldn't be hard to do since you said that maybe a majority of fans think they will be a good team.

Dat made the comment that 38 wins is the best he could see. Nate completely disagreed with him - insisting that he was vastly underrating them. I took that to mean he thinks they're a good team. Maybe I shouldn't have. God please forgive me if I jumped to a conclusion there! I said I agreed with Dat, and you and others took nate's side. That's why I assumed you, nate, and others considered the Wiz to be a good team. I didn't bother to do research how many wins you predicted.

[Ruzious]

Again, the way I remember it is that the Wiz opponents towards the end of the season played poorly - almost every single game that the Wiz won. I'm not going to take the time to prove that in every game. If you disagree with that, that's fine. We just disagree.

Nate specifically excluded the last 6 wins. During the 19 game stretch Nate is talking about the Wizards won only 5 games.

What is your purspose in keeping up this argument? If they won 5 of 19 games, doesn't that pretty much indicate they were bad?

[tontoz]

Again, the way I remember it is that the Wiz opponents towards the end of the season played poorly - almost every single game that the Wiz won. I'm not going to take the time to prove that in every game. If you disagree with that, that's fine. We just disagree.

Nate specifically excluded the last 6 wins. During the 19 game stretch Nate is talking about the Wizards won only 5 games.

What is your purspose in keeping up this argument? If they won 5 of 19 games, doesn't that pretty much indicate they were bad?

RIF

I would point out the statistical analysis that Nate did on those 19 games but since you didn't read it the first time i don't see the point of repeating it.

Dat made the comment that 38 wins is the best he could see. Nate completely disagreed with him - insisting that he was vastly underrating them.

Pretty sure that Nate's prediction was 38-42 wins.

[Ruzious]

tontos, was going through that discussion worthwhile for you in any way?

[nate33]

Dat made the comment that 38 wins is the best he could see. Nate completely disagreed with him - insisting that he was vastly underrating them. I took that to mean he thinks they're a good team. Maybe I shouldn't have. God please forgive me if I jumped to a conclusion there! I said I agreed with Dat, and you and others took nate's side. That's why I assumed you, nate, and others considered the Wiz to be a good team. I didn't bother to do research how many wins you predicted.

Let's not distort things. Dat2U predicted something less than 30 wins and called 38 wins an absolute, best case, slightly unrealistic scenario. When I disagreed with Dat2U, I was saying that they Wizards wouldn't be bad but I never said they would be "good". I've maintained all along that they'll probably win around 39 games and finish just shy of the playoffs.

[Ruzious]

Dat made the comment that 38 wins is the best he could see. Nate completely disagreed with him - insisting that he was vastly underrating them. I took that to mean he thinks they're a good team. Maybe I shouldn't have. God please forgive me if I jumped to a conclusion there! I said I agreed with Dat, and you and others took nate's side. That's why I assumed you, nate, and others considered the Wiz to be a good team. I didn't bother to do research how many wins you predicted.

Let's not distort things. Dat2U predicted something less than 30 wins and called 38 wins an absolute, best case, slightly unrealistic scenario. When I disagreed with Dat2U, I was saying that they Wizards wouldn't be bad but I never said they would be "good". I've maintained all along that they'll probably win around 39 games and finish just shy of the playoffs.

God help me if I distorted things of such great importance. My sincerest possible apologies.