RealGM

what is the odds of a team with only an elite PG winning a ring in the NBA

compared to a team with Elite Wing

or

a team with Elite Center

?

Because seem like Wizards only have an elite PG.

This is the first I've heard about us acquiring an elite PG. I assume this was a trade? Do you have a link?

According to my statistical models, the odds are 43.6 to 1

MJG wrote:This is the first I've heard about us acquiring an elite PG. I assume this was a trade? Do you have a link?

So you saying the Wizards don't have what it takes to get a playoff slot?
So should they tank if that we're the case?

nate33 wrote:According to my statistical models, the odds are 43.6 to 1

Sure, if you use European odds. In Vegas, odds are presented with integers. 109:25, which is highly specific. That's some model you've got there nate.

I'm thinking Elite Wing must be some kind of special shoe. Yes?

The Celtics were close.

You can win with an elite big:
Shaq x 4
Duncan x 4
Dream x 2

You can win with an elite wing:
Jordan x 6
Pippen x 6
Kobe x 5
Lebron x 1
Wade x2

But recent history has said you cannot win with an elite scoring point guard who has no one else who is an elite scorer

copied from elsewhere on the forum.

Chauncey Billups had no one else as an elite scorer. Then again, I don't think many people would consider Billups elite even though he's made it to two NBA Finals and six conference championships.

Knighthonor wrote:You can win with an elite big:
Shaq x 4
Duncan x 4
Dream x 2

You can win with an elite wing:
Jordan x 6
Pippen x 6
Kobe x 5
Lebron x 1
Wade x2

But recent history has said you cannot win with an elite scoring point guard who has no one else who is an elite scorer

copied from elsewhere on the forum.

If you're talking about that thread in the Stats forum, I hope you read the rest of the thread. The conclusions are premature at best because the guy's research is incomplete (at best). His "study" looked only at one position, used only one measure of offensive effectiveness, used a purely offensive measure to look at overall results, used a remarkably narrow measure for success, and then didn't compare these results to every position. That's the most charitable way I can characterize the guy's "research."

If I'm being less charitable, I'd say that he went in knowing what he wanted to prove, and cherry-picked the data necessary to support his pre-held conclusion.

Either way, his "findings" are either wrong or not supported by the data he presented.

I imagine at minimum you'd need four other people in the arena to be good sports and nominally fill the other four positions.

And there's some sports science that's a lot like sports journalism in that you know that **** wouldn't fly in any field with standards.

Do not characterize the manure this guy posted on the stats thread as having anything to do with science, sports or otherwise.

With that attitude you'll never get to make up a stat for ESPN.

Ruzious wrote:I'm thinking Elite Wing must be some kind of special shoe. Yes?

I thought it was a new menu choice at Buffalo Wild Wings.

I don't think the problem is only having an elite PG.

I think the problem is just having one elite player on the roster.

Assuming Parker and Gasol make the HOF only teams without multiple HOF players since 1980 are the 2003-4 Detroit Pistons(none) and you could argue the Mavs. Kidd should be a HOF player, but is not at that level at this point in his career.

Halcyon wrote:

Ruzious wrote:I'm thinking Elite Wing must be some kind of special shoe. Yes?

I thought it was a new menu choice at Buffalo Wild Wings.

True. In fact, that's what Romney eats when dining with his family there.

IMO, the best chance to a ring is w/ an elite post player. A dominant post scorer can command double teams and the other players on the floor can feed off him the most.

But any team can win a ring as long as they have a lot of great players at multiple positions a la MIA.

Allen Iverson came really close to winning a ring in 2000.

....but that WAS in 2000, when having just two superstars was enough to put your team over the top.

Things have gotten a whole lot difficult in 2012, where apparently, "Big 3s" have gotten obsolete. Now teams go for "Big 4" to go over the top. You would need at the very least, 3 elite-level players to keep up with the Kardashians these days.

The Laker Kid wrote:Allen Iverson came really close to winning a ring in 2000.

Meh. Not really. They won against perhaps the weakest conference in NBA history and went on to get demolished by the Lakers. At best, they were the 4th best team in the NBA that year. The Spurs, Kings, Mavericks, Jazz, Blazers and Lakers all had a better regular season record going by the Simple Rating System (win percentage adjusted by strength of schedule).

The Laker Kid wrote:Allen Iverson came really close to winning a ring in 2000.

One OT win and 3 10+ point losses in the finals is not close to winning a ring. I did think of that team with the mention of elite PG and not much else. That was a very strong team defensively, which I think was the key to their success.

In some ways that team seems to be close to what the Wizards seem to be trying to build. One thing in the Wizards favor in comparison is that Beal hopefully will be better the 2nd best player on that team. Now if only Wall ends up being as good as Iverson(although hopefully more efficient)