RealGM

If anyone has any thoughts about what I could improve analysis-wise, they'd be greatly appreciated. I think I found something with this though.

Good article. Roster continuity is one thing, lineup continuity another. Less to far less lineup continuity.

A year and a half. They still get better from being together longer but I think most the downside from discontinuity is over after a year and a half.

One think to watch out for when looking for patterns between continuity and success is that failing increases the number of changes being made and success reduces the number of changes being made. That could exagerate the correlation between continuity and winning.

pushthepace wrote:If anyone has any thoughts about what I could improve analysis-wise, they'd be greatly appreciated. I think I found something with this though.

I think age/experience of the incoming and incumbent players would have an effect on how quickly teams start playing in sync. For example the 2007-08 Boston Celtics were able to assimilate themselves quite quickly, but Pierce/KG/Ray were also 30+ and 10+ year vets. The counter argument to this might be the Thunder, but Melo was just plain bad with that team.

How did you chose the teams? Are they the teams with the least amount of Roster continuity?

The net ratings after fifths of the season prove your hypothesis somewhat, even if the teams take a dip first.

JamesA22103 wrote:

pushthepace wrote:If anyone has any thoughts about what I could improve analysis-wise, they'd be greatly appreciated. I think I found something with this though.

I think age/experience of the incoming and incumbent players would have an effect on how quickly teams start playing in sync. For example the 2007-08 Boston Celtics were able to assimilate themselves quite quickly, but Pierce/KG/Ray were also 30+ and 10+ year vets. The counter argument to this might be the Thunder, but Melo was just plain bad with that team.

Experience and age is definitely important. That's why teams get a lot of veterans as role players. Sometimes age hinders the gelling of the team though, think about the Lakers 2012-13, Brooklyn Nets 2013-14, Lakers 2003-04, Houston Rockets teams of the late 90s.

Pierce/KG/Ray were experienced, but still fit and healthy and quite close to their primes.

When you bring together some stars that are a little bit washed up it is harder to build chemistry, their time is running out anyway and they have a lot of injuries and fatigue.

Gigante_ wrote:

JamesA22103 wrote:

pushthepace wrote:If anyone has any thoughts about what I could improve analysis-wise, they'd be greatly appreciated. I think I found something with this though.

I think age/experience of the incoming and incumbent players would have an effect on how quickly teams start playing in sync. For example the 2007-08 Boston Celtics were able to assimilate themselves quite quickly, but Pierce/KG/Ray were also 30+ and 10+ year vets. The counter argument to this might be the Thunder, but Melo was just plain bad with that team.

Experience and age is definitely important. That's why teams get a lot of veterans as role players. Sometimes age hinders the gelling of the team though, think about the Lakers 2012-13, Brooklyn Nets 2013-14, Lakers 2003-04, Houston Rockets teams of the late 90s.

Pierce/KG/Ray were experienced, but still fit and healthy and quite close to their primes.

When you bring together some stars that are a little bit washed up it is harder to build chemistry, their time is running out anyway and they have a lot of injuries and fatigue.

It's interesting to note that in each of those examples, there was a mix of guys excited and thinking they were en route to a ring and guys who had won their ring:

2013-14 Brooklyn Nets: Pierce/KG had their ring while Deron and Joe Johnson thought they were on their way to a ring
2012-13 LA Lakers: Kobe, Pau, and World Peace all had rings while Dwight and Nash were chasing
2003-04 LA Lakers: Shaq and Kobe had their rings while Karl Malone and Gary Payton were still chasing
1996-97 Houston Rockets: Hakeem and Clyde had their rings while Chuck was still chasing his ring. Barkley got screwed again by this theory in 1998-99 when Scottie Pippen replaced Clyde Drexler and Scottie obviously already had a few rings himself.

Interestingly enough, the 1994-95 Houston Rockets dealt for Clyde Drexler (who didn't have a ring), but I supposed Hakeem was just too in the zone for his second ring to care that he already had one.

Overall it seems like being a champion might be detrimental to integrating as a team...or the Lebron Heat, Duncan Spurs, and MJ Bulls were just the better teams?

JamesA22103 wrote:It's interesting to note that in each of those examples, there was a mix of guys excited and thinking they were en route to a ring and guys who had won their ring:

2013-14 Brooklyn Nets: Pierce/KG had their ring while Deron and Joe Johnson thought they were on their way to a ring
2012-13 LA Lakers: Kobe, Pau, and World Peace all had rings while Dwight and Nash were chasing
2003-04 LA Lakers: Shaq and Kobe had their rings while Karl Malone and Gary Payton were still chasing
1996-97 Houston Rockets: Hakeem and Clyde had their rings while Chuck was still chasing his ring. Barkley got screwed again by this theory in 1998-99 when Scottie Pippen replaced Clyde Drexler and Scottie obviously already had a few rings himself.

Interestingly enough, the 1994-95 Houston Rockets dealt for Clyde Drexler (who didn't have a ring), but I supposed Hakeem was just too in the zone for his second ring to care that he already had one.

Overall it seems like being a champion might be detrimental to integrating as a team...or the Lebron Heat, Duncan Spurs, and MJ Bulls were just the better teams?

Interesting hypothesis.

Some counter examples
-Steve Smith joined David Robinson and Tim Duncan to win a ring.
-Ray Allen joined Wade and Lebron in South Beach(everybody had a ring in this case)
-Bob Mcaddo joined the Lakers with no ring

Well the counter examples, I suppose are not the best because the teams still had players in their prime, same as in your example of 1995 Rockets Hakeem was still dominant.

It might have something to do with ego and letting go of the main role. Kobe and Nash were better players in their prime then Howard, but that team should have probably focused more on Dwight. There was some tension between Malone and Bryant in 2004. Another similar example could be Melo this year, given his adamant refusal to sit on the bench.