Over .500, here we come

[Dat2U]

Were the best 24-23 team I've ever seen.

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm changing my avatar to Luv-a-Bull Evadney until the Wizards break thru the .500 mark.

Just so you'all can see her everywhere I post.

GD

Does the filter work on a mod?

^
Wow dude, really?

Anyway, it's all good. The Luv-a-Bull power cannot be doubted any more.

I'm going to change my avy back to normal now.

Go Wizards!

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

I'm changing my avatar to Luv-a-Bull Evadney until the Wizards break thru the .500 mark.

Just so you'all can see her everywhere I post.

GD

Does the filter work on a mod?

^
Wow dude, really?

Anyway, it's all good. The Luv-a-Bull power cannot be doubted any more.

I'm going to change my avy back to normal now.

Go Wizards!

Don't do it Pine. Need us some Luv a Evadney. We're on a roll. Don't leak the juju.

[GhostsOfGil]

Saw this on BF

[Knighthonor]

YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY

[hands11]

So when they are talking about since Oct 31 2009 since they were over .500, that was only a 2-1 record.

Its been since 2007 since they were over .500 this late in the season.

So its been a long time since things have looked this good. That same season 2007, they got to 5 games over .500 at 24-19 and ended the year at 43-39.

45-37 happened in 2004. Here is what that team looked like. Gil year 4
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/nam ... on-wizards

I'll take this team over that team.

So those are the next records to beat. This was a milestone, not a goal
6 games over .500 and 43 or 45 wins on the year with a solid playoff slotting. Home court.

44 wins would match the Lynam Nash built team from 1996

5 games over .500 at 46 wins makes them the best team since 1978 that won 54 when they lost in the final the year after they won it all.

[fishercob]

Okay photoshoppers, I want to see some really strong efforts with Ted, EG, and the Wizards logo after we win tonight.

Hop to it people.

[Donkey McDonkerton]

Finally, and I was actually able to be there in person!

[Bigwig]

With all due respect--and a lot of respect is due to your opinions in general--these observations miss the point. The average teams do not knock off the top teams very often, much less in convincing fashion, like the 'Zards have recently.

The Wizards havent done it very often. They are 7-14 against teams .500 or better.

I remember watching the 13 win Hawks blow out the defending champion Pistons in Detroit years ago. When you start looking at small sample sizes they can lead you to faulty conclusions.

If "top" = ".500 or better", I guess you would say that the Wizards are a top team today, but that's not how I expected anyone to construe my statement.

What faulty conclusion did I draw from a small sample size? The point of my post was to question Nivek's methodology on the issue of consistency.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

By the way, I found Mike Lee's use of the "the Wizards need to find consistency" storyline kinda amusing. It carries with it the underlying assumption that this is a good team that sometimes plays bad, and that if they could JUST manage to cut out some of those not-so-good performances...why then they'd be just terrific.

As I've mentioned before: this is kinda true of EVERY team. EVERY team looks good when they win. REALLY good. EVERY team looks bad when they lose.

In reality, the Wizards are an about average team. That means they play well and they play bad in roughly equal proportion. Good teams play better more often; bad teams play bad more often.

As for consistency: they've actually been a little more consistent this season than they have been in previous seasons. Their standard deviation on offensive rating (pts per possession x 100) is 10.8; for drtg is 10.1. The team's average since 06-07: 11.2 on offense and 10.8 on defense.

When I last looked at consistency league-wide, the Wizards fell solidly within league norms.

Code: Select all

YEAR    ORTG    DRTG    COMB
2013-14 10.8    10.1    10.5
2012-13 11.5    9.7     10.6
2011-12 11.8    12.8    12.3
2010-11 10.3    11.4    10.9
2009-10 10.4    9.7     10.1
2008-09 12.0    11.2    11.6
2007-08 11.1    12.6    11.9
2006-07 11.9    9.1     10.5


COMB = ortg and drtg COMBined.

The reason the Wizards have been hanging around .500 (and are likely to continue doing so the rest of the season) isn't consistency. It's that the team is neither good nor bad -- it's average.

With all due respect--and a lot of respect is due to your opinions in general--these observations miss the point. The average teams do not knock off the top teams very often, much less in convincing fashion, like the 'Zards have recently. I know it's a small sample, but it still leads fans to hope for an improving record going forward.

Put another way, the stats you cited don't directly address the consistency of the team's play because the individual game ratings do not take into account the quality of the opposition.

I wondered if the 2011-2012 team, which had James Singleton, and which started Vesely with Seraphin the last 15 games was the best; since it had a higher rating.

[Nivek]

With all due respect--and a lot of respect is due to your opinions in general--these observations miss the point. The average teams do not knock off the top teams very often, much less in convincing fashion, like the 'Zards have recently. I know it's a small sample, but it still leads fans to hope for an improving record going forward.

Thanks very much for at least part of that first sentence.

Now, do average teams knock off top teams "often"? I don't have time for a full study on the issue, but at quick glance, it happens at least some of the time. OKC, for example, has losses to Minnesota, Toronto, Brooklyn, Utah, Denver, Memphis, and Washington so far this season. I'm open to the argument that Minnesota is a lot better than their record. Utah is terrible, but they beat the league's best team.

The Spurs have losses this season to the Knicks and the Bulls.

The Pacers have losses to Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Atlanta, and Denver.

The Clippers with losses to the Lakers, Orlando, Atlanta, Cleveland, Brooklyn, Charlotte, and Denver.

Golden State with losses to the Lakers, Charlotte, Brooklyn, Denver and Washington.

And so on. Good teams lose to average teams, and to bad teams sometimes.

Put another way, the stats you cited don't directly address the consistency of the team's play because the individual game ratings do not take into account the quality of the opposition.

I could construct something that would account for quality of opponent, but it's one of those "juice ain't worth the squeezing things." Over the course of the season, strength of schedule tends to even out -- the Wizards, for example are now at 20th in strength of schedule, but only 0.39 points easier than average.

Their record against top 5 teams (by basketball-reference's Simple Rating System): 2-7.

[Higga]

It feels good to have a winning basketball team in D.C. again.

Now lets stay over .500.

[Nivek]

I wondered if the 2011-2012 team, which had James Singleton, and which started Vesely with Seraphin the last 15 games was the best; since it had a higher rating.

In this case, a higher number means more variance -- less consistent. That 2011-12 team was the least consistent Wizards team since 06-07.

But, consistency is not necessarily good or bad. A relatively weaker team can boost it's odds of winning by doing things to increase variance (by being less consistent).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Okay photoshoppers, I want to see some really strong efforts with Ted, EG, and the Wizards logo after we win tonight.

Hop to it people.

Each time I see this picture, I recall being married with my wife in Iraq the first time; right when W was getting a photo op and proclaiming victory and a job well done. In another thread (someone mentioned a short bus) I described what life was like with three boys, then all 7 and under, and one with special needs. Living alone, knowing no one well in the area, and having to work and drop off three kids with the now ex-wife in Iraq … the first time.

Was trying a new career and in my first year, too…

After that victory shot for W, about 2 years after she got back the first time she had to go for another 13-month tour. When she got back the second time she soon filed for divorce. She's been filing all kinds of stupid stuff since. Will be in family court (again) at least a couple more times. She wants sole custody and to show what a bad dad I am.

The reason I put this out for the whole darned world to see is I already know GOD IS GOOD. Love is always the answer. Everything happens for a reason. I do know children whose parent didn't come back from Iraq. I'm certainly not alone in divorce after deployment. I even know another formerly-married dad who stayed behind while his wife went with me ex-wife's unit. He had a severely debilitated special needs child PLUS three more to care for. His ex came back and divorced him, too. So, I'm not asking for pity. Quite the opposite. I've had one son's team coached by an amputee who was so highly functional I didn't realize until he wore shorts that he was an amputee.

No, I ask for prayers for the SEAL member I met the last time in family court. He can't talk beyond slurred speech and he's paralyzed on one side of his body. He was shot while parachuting down. Blood loss caused the stroke. When I met him, I thought he had ALS. (My ex-wife's brother died of ALS between her Iraq tours. He was a veteran, too. Went and saw him in the VA hospital before he died.) No, the SEAL is NOT IN NEED OF SYMPATHY. He literally swims with sharks ten years after being wounded. He was there in court because his ex was trying to keep him from seeing his kids.

When I see that picture above, I think of all the veterans and their dependents who are being overprescribed anti-depressants, anti-pyschotics, and anti-anxiety meds. I think of an acquaintance who is deeply troubled over some things I won't even detail. Just say comes with his job and what takes place when you're in the hurt business. He's well adjusted and tells me GOD won't help me, I have to help myself. He said he gave up on religion. I don't judge. I just know he's not a murderer for what he did in combat.

When I see W smiling on that ship, I just say God is Good, all the time. In due season, instead of all the patriotic halftime tributes we will see the people at the top see just the hell what's going on at the bottom of the military industrial complex. MOST OF IT IS GREAT BECAUSE SO FEW HAVE ANY STORIES LIKE THIS. But some things going on need to be exposed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRNPKwsXrPw[/youtube]

Medicating the problem often IS the problem. Seymour Hoffman also had prescription drug issues. Don't get me wrong. Closely-monitored medications, particularly those prescribed over a short-term can help. But the problem is psychiatry is a multibillion dollar industry. Doctors habitually prescribe more and more meds. Pfizer is IMO much more of the enemy than various terrorist groups. Pfizer and other drug companies. The wars that Bush and other jumped into and which Obama loves to drop drones for have caused a lot of damage.

Sorry for the rant, but the family court system bothers me even more than the stuff above. It can force your hand as a parent and it keeps lawyers, judges, and the system rich while generally ruining families.

I'm doing fine. God is keeping me and mine healthy and well. Problems are there for all of us. I just reacted to that picture above. He was smiling then but the wars went on and on. I don't fault Bush for the wars. THE LOVE OF MONEY is what I fault. Plus, you have to be a part of this and suffer to understand what needs to be addressed. I just pray and love each day and try not to think about the things I can't change. Each `can change the world for the better.My part is just to say this is a common story among military families.

[tontoz]

With all due respect--and a lot of respect is due to your opinions in general--these observations miss the point. The average teams do not knock off the top teams very often, much less in convincing fashion, like the 'Zards have recently.

The Wizards havent done it very often. They are 7-14 against teams .500 or better.

I remember watching the 13 win Hawks blow out the defending champion Pistons in Detroit years ago. When you start looking at small sample sizes they can lead you to faulty conclusions.

If "top" = ".500 or better", I guess you would say that the Wizards are a top team today, but that's not how I expected anyone to construe my statement.

What faulty conclusion did I draw from a small sample size? The point of my post was to question Nivek's methodology on the issue of consistency.

Consistency doesn't necesarily mean good as Nivek has repeatedly pointed out. it can also mean bad. For example Seraphin's rebounding has been consistently bad his whole career.

Feel free to point out any average team that has knocked off top teams "often". Do you have any examples of this?

[BigA]

Rather than focusing on something "squishy" (like consistency or focus), I'd rather have them looking at specific things they can do to improve. Not "play as a unit" but "shoot layups and threes instead of 2pt jumpers." Because if they actually did the work to shoot layups and threes, and took fewer 2pt jumpers, the result would be a more efficient offense and more wins. And then Mike Lee could write stuff about how they've become more consistent or improved their focus or that they're playing more as a unit.

In other words, they need to come to the gym every game ready to play, with a great work ethic. Ready to give a 110 percent effort. Game in and game out, taking it one game at a time. They need to play within themselves in order to take it to the next level. They need to continue to build on the solid chemistry that they've established.

[fishercob]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeVca9MwDX8[/youtube]

[Zonkerbl]

You guys don't seem to grasp statistics very well...

[Nivek]

You guys don't seem to grasp statistics very well...

They really ought to come with handles.

[Bigwig]

With all due respect--and a lot of respect is due to your opinions in general--these observations miss the point. The average teams do not knock off the top teams very often, much less in convincing fashion, like the 'Zards have recently. I know it's a small sample, but it still leads fans to hope for an improving record going forward.

Thanks very much for at least part of that first sentence.

Now, do average teams knock off top teams "often"? I don't have time for a full study on the issue, but at quick glance, it happens at least some of the time. OKC, for example, has losses to Minnesota, Toronto, Brooklyn, Utah, Denver, Memphis, and Washington so far this season. I'm open to the argument that Minnesota is a lot better than their record. Utah is terrible, but they beat the league's best team.

The Spurs have losses this season to the Knicks and the Bulls.

The Pacers have losses to Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Atlanta, and Denver.

The Clippers with losses to the Lakers, Orlando, Atlanta, Cleveland, Brooklyn, Charlotte, and Denver.

Golden State with losses to the Lakers, Charlotte, Brooklyn, Denver and Washington.

And so on. Good teams lose to average teams, and to bad teams sometimes.

Put another way, the stats you cited don't directly address the consistency of the team's play because the individual game ratings do not take into account the quality of the opposition.

I could construct something that would account for quality of opponent, but it's one of those "juice ain't worth the squeezing things." Over the course of the season, strength of schedule tends to even out -- the Wizards, for example are now at 20th in strength of schedule, but only 0.39 points easier than average.
Their record against top 5 teams (by basketball-reference's Simple Rating System): 2-7.

The overall strength of schedule is not the primary consideration. Suppose Team A and Team B have the same schedule and distribution of game ratings, so that they have the exact same standard deviations. If Team A gets its good ratings against the good teams, and hence its bad ratings against the bad teams, and if Team B is the opposite, then can we agree that the data suggests that Team A is less consistent than Team B? The flaw in your metric is in the individual game ratings: it should count for more to achieve a good offensive/defensive rating against a good defensive/offensive opponent.

I agree that it's not worth trying to squeeze the juice out of this lemon in general--I'm certainly too lazy to do the research--but at least for the past couple of weeks the Wizards fit the profile.