PDA

View Full Version : Detroit is really good..


dude1394
12-20-2005, 09:58 PM
I'm pretty impressed with detroits win tonight. Although it's against Portland it's on a back-to-back after a double-overtime game with traveling from memphis to detroit.

Pretty stout.

birdsanctuary
12-20-2005, 10:11 PM
Mavs will win 3 of the 4 games of the season... Mark my words!

aexchange
12-20-2005, 10:44 PM
Mavs will win 3 of the 4 games of the season... Mark my words!

uhh, they only play detroit twice.

Male30Dan
12-20-2005, 10:55 PM
uhh, they only play detroit twice.

Hilarious! :D

birdsanctuary
12-20-2005, 11:02 PM
Hilarious! :D

Yes that was quite a silly blunder....

Season Sweep... 2 for 2 vs the East's best...:p

EricaLubarsky
12-21-2005, 01:36 AM
I'd be happy winning 5 games against the Pistons this year. 6 would be too sweet for my tastes.

AxdemxO
12-22-2005, 01:10 PM
Spurs got lucky last year and beat Detroit.
I have always believed that we are the only team that can beat detroit in th finals.
I kno Detroit will be in the finals and i would just love to see Mavs vs. Pistons it would be a great matchup and i kno we would win.
Otherwise Pistons are the champs if they play any1 else.

AnMan21
12-22-2005, 02:53 PM
I'd be happy winning 5 games against the Pistons this year. 6 would be too sweet for my tastes.

hmmmmm, unless 2 of those 5 come during the regular season...

alby
12-22-2005, 06:21 PM
go back to threads from a few months ago, i always said it'll be detroit vs dallas =]

blahblehblah
12-22-2005, 11:14 PM
IF shaq and wade are healthy... i think they beat detroit in a 7game series... But thats a BIG IF
But yeah Detroit is a great TEAM and are playing unbelievably well.

alby
12-23-2005, 11:23 AM
detroit owns shaq.

sike
12-23-2005, 05:51 PM
IF shaq and wade are healthy... i think they beat detroit in a 7game series... But thats a BIG IF
But yeah Detroit is a great TEAM and are playing unbelievably well.
great name.

MavsFanFinley
12-23-2005, 09:55 PM
Warriors were down by 16-18 points and have cut it to 7 with just under 4 minutes left. The starters were on the bench and they've had to come back in.

As soon as I type that the Warriors buckle under pressure.

chumdawg
12-24-2005, 02:46 AM
Just saw on ESPN that they are 21-3, and only five other teams in NBA history have started 21-3 or better. Among them, our own Dallas Mavericks. (2003)

Only one team ever started better, at 22-2: the 72-win Bulls.

alby
12-24-2005, 09:48 AM
will detroit win 70?

yes or no.

TripleDipping
12-24-2005, 04:05 PM
Yes, because of 2 reasons:

1. They are that good.
2. They play in the east... plenty of easy wins.

alby
12-25-2005, 12:16 AM
that sucks.. cause imo, they are not a 70 win team =\

MavsFanFinley
12-25-2005, 02:42 PM
Pistons looked sharp against the Spurs today.

I don't think I've ever seen the Spurs play with less energy, hustle, and attitude before. They came out flat and as if they had already lost the game. They should be embarrassed by there performance today. I don't think Pop would even have to say anything the players should just look in the mirror.

Good for the Mavs in terms of standings.

nowitzki_prophecy
12-25-2005, 02:52 PM
EXCELLENT for the Mavs in terms of standings,we're one indiana blowout away from tieing the west best record.

birdsanctuary
12-25-2005, 03:35 PM
The one thing the Pistons don't have is a quality assistant coach. Flip Saunders is a monkey, because Chauncy Billups is the head coach of that Detroit team...

birdsanctuary
12-25-2005, 03:37 PM
Pistons looked sharp against the Spurs today.

I don't think I've ever seen the Spurs play with less energy, hustle, and attitude before. They came out flat and as if they had already lost the game. They should be embarrassed by there performance today. I don't think Pop would even have to say anything the players should just look in the mirror.

Good for the Mavs in terms of standings.

The Mavs are going to have the best record in the Southwest this year... its just too much for the Spurs to hold on to, this team is relying on way too many over the hill players. NVE, Fin, Bowen, Big Shot Bob, and add Duncan to that list...with the bumps and bruises that guy has endured since he's been in the league...he's already an old man..

SaltwaterChaffy
12-25-2005, 04:51 PM
I wouldn't call Flip Saunders a monkey. The reason that they are playing so well is a combination of the old defensive systems installed by Brown combined with a revitalized motion offense that Saunders put in. This team had the ability to score as much as it is doing now, but Brown wanted to slow the game down too much for it to happen. Saunders has opened up their game, and although they are giving up a few more points than before, that can easily be attributed to increased number of possesions. They are also scoring much more, so their point differential is even higher than in previous years.

alby
12-25-2005, 08:29 PM
thank you detroit for beating the spurs today, now go on a losing streak =]

grndmstr_c
12-29-2005, 01:36 AM
I hadn't really taken a look at the individual stats and specific statistical areas in which Detroit had been enjoying success this season until the Christmas game when the announcers noted that Detroit was shooting 40% from three as a team for the season. Hearing that surprised the heck out of me since they've only got one heavy minute player on that team who could be considered a real threat from long range (Billups). And the figure has only gone up since that game, as they've now at 41% from three for the year.

Now, I won't try to argue that it's unreasonable to expect offensive systems to have different success rates, but it's one thing to set up an offense so that the most efficient three point shooters take most of the three point shots, and an entirely different thing to turn unexceptional three point shooters into all-world marksmen. And the fact of the matter is that Detroit's gaudy record this season has been predicated very heavily on the latter, which makes me somewhat skeptical that it's going to continue.

To the nitty gritty, then. Here are the current 3pt fga and 3pt% stats for 05/06 for every Piston player who's taken a three pointer this season, as well as the career 3pt% for the same group:

Player.....3pt fga.....3pt%.....career 3pt%
Hamilton.....36........47.2%......30.9%
Billups........132.......45.5%......38.4%
Prince.........62........35.5%......36.1%
Sheed........116.......43.1%......33.8%
Ben.............1..........0%..........12.9%
Evans..........46........37%.........33.6%
Arroyo.........1..........0%..........31.2%
Delfino........12.........8.3%.......21.3%
Darko..........1...........0%.........0%

What immediately jumps out is that all the major three point takers with the exception of Prince, who's pretty close to his career average, are having career years. So what I'm curious about is just how many points per game the Pistons are getting out of all these absurd shooting performances.

For the same nine guys, here are the total number of points they've contributed through three pointers this season, followed by the total number of points they would have contributed through three pointers had they all taken the same number of attempts but converted at their career percentages:

Player.....actual points.....points by career %
Hamilton.....51................33
Billups........180...............152
Prince.........66................67
Sheed........150...............118
Ben.............0..................0
Evans..........51................46
Arroyo.........0..................0
Delfino.........3..................8
Darko...........0..................0

For those keeping score, that's an extra 77 points over and above what the career averages suggest Detroit should be getting in terms of three point production based on their actual shot distribution. Of course, it wouldn't be fair to suggest that they'd lose all 77 of those points if they were all shooting their career averages, since some of those 26 or so extra misses would turn into offensive rebounds. So let's assume that 1/3rd of the missed threes would turn into second chance opportunities, which would in turn be converted at a rate of 1 point per extended posession. That leaves us with an estimate of ~68 extra points - about 2.6 points per game or 3 points per 100 possessions - that Detroit has gotten this season off their hot shooting. That figure is particularly significant when you consider that Detroit's scoring differential this season is, you guessed it, 3 points per 100 possessions better than the Mavs (going off knickerblogger's stats). What's the point of all this? I have a growing suspicion that Detroit's start is to some extent fools gold. They're an elite team; no doubt about that. But I think the odds are against them continuing to play the role of pace setters the way they've done so far. It'll be interesting to see how long they're going to be able to keep it up, and how quickly they'll come back to the pack when the law of averages kicks in.

dirno2000
12-29-2005, 02:30 AM
Nice analysis. You would think that at some point they'd have to cool off. The one that really surprises me is Chauncey. I know that historically he's their best 3-point shooter but he takes a lot of contested 3's. To shoot 46% when you have a hand in your face as often as he does is impressive and may not be sustainable.

While Rasheed's number should come down too, I wonder if we're not seeing the Joe Johnson effect there. Johnson was a 34% career shooter before last year. Then he joins Steve Nash and plays in that wide open offense and all of a sudden he's knocking them down at a 47% clip. I just checked his numbers for this year and he’s back to 35%

Based on the games that I've watched, Rasheed gets a ton of open looks off of kick-outs and just superior ball movement. Don’t know if that theory will hold up or not…time will tell.

At one point last year, PHX was 31-4 so obviously there’s still a lot of basketball to be played. Of course the Suns were playing in the West. Det is in the watered down East and they’ve already made trips to Dallas, Memphis, PHX and LA.

dude1394
12-29-2005, 11:07 AM
Great stuff g_c.. One third or so of a season is pretty statistically significant it seems. Billups has always made me think he was going to make every 3ptr he threw up. Kevin McHale should be fired for letting him go, one of the stupidest GM moves in history.

Mavdog
12-29-2005, 11:46 AM
Billups signed with Detroit as a free agent. Dumars stepped up and gave Billups a 6 year deal, while Minny didn't want to go that far out (remember they were still feeling the affects of the Brandon debacle).

Rather than say that McHale was the "stupidest GM" IMO flip it around and say that Dumars is one of the best. The crowd laughed at the Grant Hill deal, but who is laughing now (see Ben Wallace)?

dude1394
12-29-2005, 11:54 AM
Whichever way you want to put it. It was pretty obvious when I watched billups beat the heck out of the mavs that they were insane to not re-sign that guy...How good would garnett/billups look the last 4 years. Another stupid move by what continues to be a stupid franchise it seems to me. If they had done much since you might make the case that it wasn't stupidity by McHale, but it would seem that he continues to underwhelm.

Detroit was smart to take advantage of McHales stupidity,imo.

Mavdog
12-29-2005, 03:55 PM
if I recall right the puppies made it to the WCF after Billups left

look, I'm not going to be a McHale defender. have they (and he) been stupid? two words...Joe Smith.

I think they have been more unlucky than stupid. lot of injuries, and malcontents.

but re: Billups, yes that series was a turning point in his career. but he was a no 4 pick, he was with about 4 other teams before Dumars signed him, and those other teams didn't get enough out of Billups to keep him. Dumars too kthe risk and gets the reward.

dude1394
12-29-2005, 03:57 PM
Sure mchale brought on the cancer cassell/sprewell instead of keeping the younger billups. Just a bad move imo. If that's being unlucky then no gm should ever be fired.

Keeping the malcontents out of the locker room is McHales responsibility as well.

Mavdog
12-29-2005, 04:13 PM
sam is not a cancer. he is a very competitive player. he's very talented. the clips success speaks a lot to his leadership.

it's hard to judge "malcontents". NVE was a "malcontent" until he came to the mavs. rumour was that Billups was the "malcontent" in puppyland, that he didn't get along with kg.

it has worked out well for Dumars. I'd expect the pistons offer for 6 years was the only one for that length that Billups got.

dude1394
12-29-2005, 05:39 PM
I don't know mavie. A guy who's been with what 7 teams or so. Doen't sound like a solid guy to me. And sure it's hard to judge "malcontents" but dallas seems to send 'em out before they disrupt the team. Minnie does not.

Mavdog
12-29-2005, 06:13 PM
well, it's only 6 :)

the current mav regime sure sends them out. it was nellie that showed em. remember oli miller? nellie didn't want sam then, that does say something. it seems that his biggest issue is losing. very similar to NVE....

I expect sam has matured a bit since then. he was great for the puppies in 03-04, and IMO if he had been healthy at the end of that season, he would probably have a ring. they would have triumphed over the lakers, and Billups would have faced sam instead of a tired, older payton.

we would still be extolling the job done by dumars even if that occured...

dirno2000
12-29-2005, 06:26 PM
A guy who's been with what 7 teams or so. Doen't sound like a solid guy to me.

KVH is on his 5th team.

Cassell has helped every team he's been on. Minn's collapse last year had more to do with Sam's health than his attitude.

Thespiralgoeson
12-29-2005, 07:47 PM
Yes, because of 2 reasons:

1. They are that good.
2. They play in the east... plenty of easy wins.

Hell no they won't. And they are not "that good." Does anyone here even remember the Mavericks handing their asses to them last month? 37 points was it?

The Bulls team that holds the record had three hall of famers in their starting lineup; the greatest player of all time, the greatest defensive wingman of all time, and the greatest defending, rebounding 4 of all time. Detroit OTOH doesn't have anyone capable of putting up 20 on a nightly basis. The Pistons' schedule so far this year has been very very kind to them (like Denver's schedule was at the end of last year) I'm personally not counting on them winning 60 games, let alone 70. Detroit's current team is nothing compared that juggernaught Chicago had in the 90's.

Edit: BTW, I remember last year people were talking about the Suns winning 70 games... It didn't happen for Phoenix and it won't happen for Detroit.

MavsFanFinley
12-31-2005, 02:28 PM
Detroit is struggling on the road against Cleveland today. It's halftime and the Cavs are up 14. I believe they led as many as 20 before the Pistons chipped some of it away before the half.

Milles
12-31-2005, 04:21 PM
Chauncey had an off game. He shot 2/11, had only 4 assists to 6 turnovers. Heck, he even missed a free throw. All that in 37 minutes. Did not see the game just looking at the boxscore.

Final score .. 84 / 97 for Cleveland

alby
01-01-2006, 12:45 PM
I missed the game, who was guarding him for most of the game? hughes? or was he on rip

i ask this because stopping chauncey is key to beating the pistons
it was/is the same for nash and the mavs/suns

Five-ofan
01-01-2006, 01:31 PM
Problems with the pistons for 70 campaign. No singular personality like jordans to "will" the team to victory. Yeah they play hard and Chauncey is a good clutch player but he isnt exactly MJ. 2. Nowhere close defensively. The bulls were better at every position but the 5 defensively. Scottie pippen is the only guy who I have ever seen make playing defense look like an art form. The best defensive swingman in nba history. Any young athletic swing man should be force fed film of him. Dennis Rodman. One of the most underrated players of recent years. That team was awesome. Almost a perfect basketball team. Also they were HUGE favorite going into the year and everyone knew they were gonna win the ring. There was no team they had to worry about staying fresh to play in the playoffs and there are at least 2 teams capable of beating detroit in the playoffs so they dont have that luxury. Last difference between the two and though i have already said it, simply put, Michael Jordan.

alby
01-01-2006, 08:58 PM
nowhere close defensively?

Chicago is my favorite team in history.
and Michael Jordan is my favorite player in history.
(although, have you guys read the new book on him) =\

BUT.

Chicago gave up 92.9 a game
Detroit gives up 91.6 a game

With that being said, Chicago is vastly superior to this year's Pistons. I predict Detroit to finish with 59-66 wins, probably 63-19.

Detroit has a +7 point advantage per game
Chicago had a +15 point advantage per game

that is just sickening, especially because MJ and Pip would sit out most 4th quarters because games were already out of reach...

Five-ofan
01-01-2006, 09:05 PM
The nba back then was a different animal. More teams ran. I dont have the stats to do it nor particularly know where to get them but i would ask GMC if he could look it up to the points per 100 possessions thing. The nba was just a better offensive league at the time. Of course the bulls gave up more points but the fact that it was close means that the Bulls were better defensively. Im pretty sure they were first in defensive fg% and points allowed

grndmstr_c
01-01-2006, 09:54 PM
Ask and you shall receive, 5-0. Using the formula Pelton indexes the '96 Bulls allowed opponents to score at a rate of 102.8 pp100. The current Pistons team is giving up points at a rate of 105.6 pp100. To put those numbers in better perspective, here are the two teams' defensive rankings in the four defensive factors:

Stat-category.....Bulls.....Pistons
efg%.................6..........10
TO-rate.............5..........24
Def-Reb%..........8..........27
ft-ratio...............7..........2

dude1394
01-01-2006, 10:18 PM
Is TO-Rate higher number better?

grndmstr_c
01-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Lower numbers are better.

alby
01-02-2006, 07:37 AM
We all agree, that Bulls team is the G.O.A.T. yes?

Five-ofan
01-02-2006, 02:42 PM
I do. The only team I could see challenging them would be and i hate to say this, the first shaq and kobe team. Shaq was SOOOOOOOOOO dominant at that time and that is the bulls only weakness. I think that bulls team would win mainly because of jordan and i think pippen would give kobe fits. Would be fun to watch though. This pistons team loses in 5. I would say sweep but the bulls never swept people.

Five-ofan
01-02-2006, 02:56 PM
Oh yeah, thanks alot GMC.

alby
01-02-2006, 08:31 PM
I would say sweep but the bulls never swept people.

The Bulls wanted to make some money for the NBA and thus added some drama during their reign =]

Thespiralgoeson
01-03-2006, 03:55 AM
If the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, who steamrolled over everything in their path for 3 years coudldn't win 70 games, then the superstar-less Pistons damn sure won't.

grndmstr_c
01-03-2006, 01:37 PM
I had missed the part on the page for the Bulls stats where it had their overall defensive efficiency ranking in pp100 allowed (that's why I put up the rankings for the individual categories), but I just found it when I was looking through the Mavs' stats for 02/03. The Bulls ranked 1st that year (on both offense and defense). Knickerblogger currently has the Pistons ranked 14th in defensive pp100 (1st in offensive pp100).