Post#5 » by count55 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:40 pm
I had done this elsewhere a while ago, but this seems like a decent place to drop in a breakdown of last year's 36 wins:
Pacers overall 36-46 (.439)
Pacers were 19-23 (.452) with JO in the lineup, 17-23 (.425) without him. They were 13-20 (.394) prior to his injury-enforced absence with him, 6-3 after his return (when he averaged 7.2 pts and 4.8 rebs in 19.2 mins).
Pacers were 16-23 (.410) with JT in the lineup, 20-23 (.465) without him.
Pacers were 10-16 (.385) with both players in the lineup, 11-16 (.407) with neither player in the lineup, and 15-14 when just one or the other played, but not both. (That's kind of intriguing.)
When JO played, but JT did not, the Pacers were 9-7 (.563), but that included the 6-3 stretch to end the season. Prior to JO's injury, the Pacers were 3-4 (.429) with just JO, but no JT.
When JT played, but JO did not, the Pacers were 6-7 (.462).
There's little question that there was a stretch where this team was unrelentingly bad. In January and February combined, the Pacers were 8-19 (.296). Thirteen of those games were played with neither JO or JT, and we were 4-9 (.308) in those games. We were 1-2 (.333) in that stretch when both played, 2-2 (.500) when just JO played, and 1-6 (.143) when just JT played. We were 5-7 against losing teams in that period, 2-1 against teams @ .500, and a horrific 1-11 (.083) against winning teams at that time.
Outside of that two month period, the Pacers were 28-27 (.509). This includes a 7-17 (.292) record against winning teams, 1-2 against .500 teams, and 20-8 (.714) against losing teams. For the full year, the P's were 3-3 against .500 teams, 25-15 (.625) against losing teams, and a woeful 8-28 (.222) against winning teams.
So, how important were JO & JT to last year's record?
When both played, the team was worse than it's overall record at 10-16, but they played a higher % of those games against teams at .500 or better (54% vs. 51%), and were 3-11 against teams .500 or better, 7-5 against losing teams.
When neither played the team was slightly more successful than when both played at 11-16, but only 48% (13) of those games were played against teams .500 or better, and they lost 11 of those thirteen (with the only two wins coming against teams at .500).
JO's 9-7 record when playing without JT is skewed high because 11 of those 16 games were played against losing teams, and the Pacers won 8 of them. They only had 1 win in 5 tries against winning teams in this scenario.
JT's 6-7 record when playing without JO is a little misleading because 10 of the 13 games were against teams with records of .500 or better, and the Pacers were 5-5 in those games. Oddly, they were only 1-2 against losing teams.
It appears that JO and JT, or just JT by himself, made the Pacers more competitive against the better teams. It also looks like the two playing together didn't translate into wins on the court, or a significant difference.
The team was 16-20 (.444) when JT started. They were 6-15 (.286) when Travis Diener started at the point, leaving them at 14-11 when somebody else started at the point...which bodes well for the fact that somebody else will certainly be starting at the point this year.
In looking at the splits, there are some alarming things that come out. The initial review of the splits vs. winning teams, .500 teams, and losing teams seems to indicate that they were a mediocre team who largely beat the teams they should but were defenseless (in more ways than one) against good teams. However, there are some splits that should cause concern.
The Pacers were 13-10 over March and April last year, or .565. That's a pretty positive thing, right? However, a closer look shows that the Pacers were 13-2 against losing teams during that stretch, and 0-8 against winning teams. Of those losing teams, only in the wins against Philly and Atlanta could you be certain that the game meant something to the opponent.
While that takes the lustre off last year's finish, it also makes something else pop: the record against losing teams prior to March. The 25-15 looks good overall, but removing the late season record, where motivation and effort could be questioned, leaves the Pacers at 12-13 against losing teams entering March.
So, while I believe that the Pacers have improved themselves on the court with their offseason moves, it's appears that it's possible that won't necessarily translate into more wins. Or, more to the point, that the 36-win figure from last year could arguably have been inflated by some late season "differences in priorities" between the Pacers and the teams they played.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
