How Meaningful is Preseason Success?

[Klomp]

"But its only preseason." How many times have we heard that throughout our 5-1 start? I thought it'd be interesting to compare past preseasons with their regular season counterparts:

2009-2010
Preseason: 3-5
Reg. Season: 15-67


2008-2009
Preseason: 6-2
Reg. Season: 24-58


2007-2008
Preseason: 3-5
Reg. Season: 22-60


2006-2007
Preseason: 5-3
Reg. Season: 32-50


2005-2006
Preseason: 4-4
Reg. Season: 33-49


2004-2005
Preseason: 4-4
Reg. Season: 44-38


2003-2004
Preseason: 4-4
Reg. Season: 58-24


2002-2003
Preseason: 4-3
Reg. Season: 51-31

These numbers actually surprise me a bit. What are your thoughts?

[Foye]

It's important to work on the chemistry of the team. Record doesn't matter at all.

[wilt]

Why do those surprise you ? For one i don´t see some great trend and also the reason those winning teams were better than the last few years was simply that it was a better team, not because they were decent in preseason.

Sure as hell winning in the preseason is better than loosing in the preseason, especially for a young team. Veteran teams can coast and then flip the switch for the regular season (or after all star break or for the playoffs ...), young team generally can´t and thus a good preseason definitely is good for the Wolves. Doesn´t mean they´ll win this or that many games, but imo means they´ll be playing better at the start of the season than they would when going 1-6 or sth.

[wolfbourne]

Sure as hell winning in the preseason is better than loosing in the preseason, especially for a young team. Veteran teams can coast and then flip the switch for the regular season (or after all star break or for the playoffs ...), young team generally can´t and thus a good preseason definitely is good for the Wolves. Doesn´t mean they´ll win this or that many games, but imo means they´ll be playing better at the start of the season than they would when going 1-6 or sth.

+1

I would like to see a solid formula pulled out of Preseason = Post Season X, but i really doubt anyone could number crunch enough to form a solid trend that had any validity. Without looking into it, i would think that perhaps a common trait would be that teams with poor previous seasons actually win more preseason games, based on the thinking above.

[Yes We Kahn]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=17596

Over the last five years the top eight teams in Preseason have made the post season with a lot of regularity. In fact, the top 8 teams made the post-season 87.5% of the time in 2010 - (7 of 8), 87.5% of the time in 2009 - (7 of 8), 62.5% of the time in 2008 – (5 of 8), 75% of the time in 2007 – (6 of 8) and 100% of the time in 2006 - (8 for 8).

Hardly a mathematical windfall, but having Preseason success historically tends to bode well for Post-season aspirations.

For Memphis, Minnesota and Golden State that would be a huge jump forward in progress. Based on historical trends at least one of them could get in, if they continue to run the table in Preseason play.

[Diggler]

I think young players want to win every game they play, while older veterans realize that some games are more important than others and play accordingly. A preseason win only has as much importance as the players give to it.

[C.lupus]

Preseason means too many things to too many teams for there to be any reasonable correlation to regular season W-L record. This is a young team that needs to learn how to win and close out games so they've probably been taking these games more seriously than a lot of their opponents. One thing that is crystal clear from watching this preseason - this Wolves team is vastly different than last year's team.

[bluethunder0005]

If a team looks bad in preseason then it seems to be okay to jump on them. If we went 2-6 people would already be claiming we'd be awful for the season. Also when young players look bad in preseason some people criticize them and say they are going to struggle.

However, if those same teams or players do good then you hear the phrase "it's only preseason". Yes the games don't count but for a team with many new pieces or some big new pieces then it's an excellent warmup for the regular season and helps get chemistry going.

[revprodeji]

I think the way we look is more important than the record. We look night and day different from last year.

[Esohny]

Some of the guys at Canis Hoopus have been debating this subject and have some analysis done (I have mixed feelings on the validity of the results).

http://www.canishoopus.com/2010/10/18/1 ... erspective

[TMo519]

Yeah, it's not just the 5-1 record, it's how we've looked doing it. You got so many guys who are contributing, and, if the true comparison is last year, it is really like night and day as far as athleticism, defensive ability, and offensive skill. Of course, I'm going off mostly the 2 Europe games and the Denver game since those were the only two on TV, but I think we'll see a far improved product on the floor this year.

One thing that I think this preseason has definitely shown is that we are a much deeper team. Depth is probably a bigger factor in this record than anything, because when teams are only playing their top line guys 20, 25 minutes a game, that bench will win you more games. When things get serious, we're gonna need our top line guys to step up regularly if we want to compete our there.

[revprodeji]

Competition with guys roughly the same age is pushing everyone to improve. That kind of push is something we have not had for a while. Most of these guys are looking for a chance to fulfill the promise that came with their potential. That chip on the shoulder is some nice swagger.

[Dewey]

The little things...
Who has an impact off the bench?
What group of starters will have the best chance to get the game off to a good start?
Who can create?
Who takes care of the ball in a crunch?
Who can defend certain types of players?
Who can handle minutes without fall-off?

Sounds trivial, but it's all about chemistry as mentioned in one of the first posts. These are things Rambo needs to try to clarify in the pre-season. Seeing the depth has been a credit to the preseason and that will certainly allow the coaches to substitute much more than ther past and keep players fresh. Last year, we typically could not hold our own for 4 quarters, and the banch rarely brought any lift.

[revprodeji]

Those answers likely will not be answered until christmas.

[bball_jay]

it's meaningful to this team. it's a confidence builder. i think this team right now does not believe they are a bottom dweller anymore. it's good to see the w's in the column. it's also significant because it's not like rambis is playing the starters 30 min to achieve preseason success. he's playing the whole team and they are responding.

[shrink]

I heard an interesting thing about pre-season a few months ago. Astute gambles loved to bet the NFL pre-season because you could pick the coaches who cared (generally young ones), and the ones who didn't care a bit about winning, and simply wanted to audition the end of the bench to make cuts.

I think the same holds true in the NBA, though its more player-oriented. Hooray - we had a win against MIL, but we had Kevin Love in at the end of the game, while MIL was being careful with Bogut, limiting his minutes as he recovered from surgeries and a migraine. I watched MIA get their butt handed to them last week, while LeBron, Wade, and Bosh yucked it up on the sidelines. Those guys would never act like that if they were losing a regular season game.

I'm glad the Wolves are winning these pre-season games. these are young guys with a lot to prove. However, we saw Pecherov put up a nice pre-season last year too. I don't put a lot of weight into pre-season games.

[eyeteeth]

I listened to the last 10 min of that Bucks game. With like 8 minutes to go we were down by 9, which was Mil's best lead of the game. Any Timberwolves team of the last 4 years would have just wilted, preseason, regular season or, haha, postseason. This team came out and took the lead in a remarkably short time, featuring back to back threes by KLove and Wayne Ellington. It blew my mind how much competitiveness they brought and how easily they put points on the board. THAT is a huge difference. And if the preseason lets them establish that, then that matters.

But note this: Our schedule starts out pretty tough. It's going to be interesting to see how well that competitiveness and swagger stand up to stiff competition and far more games on the road than at home.

[Klomp]

FYI, the OKC Thunder went 2-5 last preseason.

[Krapinsky]

FYI, the OKC Thunder went 2-5 last preseason.

I was looking for 2009-2010 preseason standings. If anyone can link me I'd appreciate it.

[Klomp]

FYI, the OKC Thunder went 2-5 last preseason.

I was looking for 2009-2010 preseason standings. If anyone can link me I'd appreciate it.

The best way is to go to the ESPN team schedules. You can then choose the year, and select preseason.

EDIT: Or go here: http://espn.go.com/nba/standings/_/year/2010