Hammond & Skiles Conference Call - Today - Page 5

emunney · Post #301 » by **emunney** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:16 pm

Yet in this thread, it's the optimists arguing that we'd have won more games last year, and the realists laying the groundwork for easier claims of improvement.

InsideOut · Post #302 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:29 pm

emunney wrote:Yet in this thread, it's the optimists arguing that we'd have won more games last year, and the realists laying the groundwork for easier claims of improvement.

I don't see that. Luke is a realist and he says the Bucks would have won more games last season than most optimists. There are always exceptions but the guy leading the way for a better last season Bucks record is a realist. And I'm not saying EVERYONE is making their claims due to my reasoning.

emunney · Post #303 » by **emunney** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:34 pm

I see Luke as more on the fence, and he's arguing against mid, twirl and DB, three of The Four Horsemen of Realism. Agree with LP, though -- this is all academic and historical. The season can't get here quickly enough.

Post #304 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:37 pm

"mid, twirl and DB, three of The Four Horsemen of Realism. "

LOL I like that.

jerrod · Post #305 » by **jerrod** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:42 pm

DrugBust wrote:"mid, twirl and DB, three of The Four Horsemen of Realism. "

LOL I like that.

damn, that's a good nickname, you should get a cool sig.

something like a guy with john hammond's face riding a horse through the sky, maybe with flames coming out of the head. 8-)

Post #306 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:48 pm

I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Twirly, and Hammond was following close behind him.

step3profit · Post #307 » by **step3profit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:57 pm

DrugBust wrote:"mid, twirl and DB, three of The Four Horsemen of Realism. "

LOL I like that.

Damn, you guys are winning the words war... Pessimist got upgraded to Realist.

Newz · Post #308 » by **Newz** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:03 pm

DrugBust wrote:"mid, twirl and DB, three of The Four Horsemen of Realism. "

LOL I like that.

Is that better or worse than being part of the three biggest d-bags with me and Twirly?

Dobber-16 · Post #309 » by **Dobber-16** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:09 pm

DrugBust wrote:I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Twirly, and Hammond was following close behind him.

Twri the Pale Rider"?

smooth 'lil balla · Post #310 » by **smooth 'lil balla** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:24 pm

InsideOut wrote:One optimist said ....

That person should be ashamed of themself for being optimistic.

LUKE23 · Post #311 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:32 pm

DrugBust wrote:All the above post broke down was whom we beat and when we beat them as it pertains to our health. Our wins were against the dreggs of the league and when we played .500 or better teams we got smoked. That was with a healthy Bogut and Redd.

Doesn't matter, we had a winning record with Bogut/Redd and with only Bogut, and both of those sample sizes the OVERALL schedule was tougher than the schedule we finished the year with. It doesn't matter who we beat and who we lost to if we had a winning record in a tougher portion of the schedule than what they would have played had they stayed healthy.

I wish you could find SOS broken down by increment for last year, Hollinger tracked it but it was a running total. People would then see what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter who your wins are against, it matters what your overall record is vs. your overall schedule.

LUKE23 · Post #312 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:37 pm

I don't see that. Luke is a realist and he says the Bucks would have won more games last season than most optimists. There are always exceptions but the guy leading the way for a better last season Bucks record is a realist. And I'm not saying EVERYONE is making their claims due to my reasoning.

I don't think 43-45 wins is more than the optimists projected. I think if you really take the time to break everything down, you'd probably agree with a 43-45 win assessment.

I don't consider myself overly optimistic or pessimistic. I don't agree with a lot of what Hammond has done, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take an extremist view on last season to try and prove some point that we were terrible last year. We were over a .500 team last year with reasonable health, and I will debate to the death on that.

It doesn't mean I think that team was great or that that team was the right way to build, I'm just viewing the team for what it was if Bogut/Redd hadn't gone down.

Post #313 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:22 pm

So if we were the one team in the history of the NBA to enjoy perfect health, we might have won 43-45 games.

ETA.

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get my head around this idea.

If Redd and Bogut were healthy last season and we would have won 10 more games over the final 60% of the year, it stands to reason that you would believe they accounted for roughly 7 wins over the time period when they were healthy.

OK.

So now we look at what we lost vs what we replaced.

Sessions
Jefferson
Villanueva
Allen

vs

Jennings
Ukic
Delfino
Warrick
Ilyasova
Thomas

Well I've already been told that Ersan is going to be as productive as CV, so right there is a wash. Kurt Thomas is a better backup center than anyone on the current roster at backup C so there's a positive. Jefferson is was one of the most overrated players in the league and the 4th (maybe 5th!) most productive on a 34 win team so losing him shouldn't be any big loss. Warrick, Delfino and additional minutes for LRMAM should easily cancel that out.

It sounds like we're a complete wash, or maybe even better, than last season until you come to Sessions vs Ukic and Jennings. How big a loss is this, though, really? Sessions had a rough couple of months early on. Jennings has shown a lot of potential. Ukic is better than our 3rd PG last season. I've read he could be a sleeper.

My point is that we won 34 games last year and are apparently bringing in replacements that should at least give us close to the same production. If you add in those 10 games with Redd and Bogut and 1 + 1 still equals 2, I should expect 44 wins and the playoffs if we see good health.

Correct, optimists?

LUKE23 · Post #314 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:29 pm

Nope, wouldn't need perfect health. Need 70-75 games from each guy. Bogut averaged 75.3 games heading into last season (that includes 16 games he was held out to tank) and Redd only played under 72 games once in the previous six seasons.

It's whatever you want to look at. Winning record with just Bogut, winning record with both Redd/Bogut, 10 spot drop in D without Bogut, drop in offense without Redd (don't know the spots for sure). Record with both players vs. tough schedule. Take your pick.

95 games combined missed. I don't think people honestly realize how significant that is. It's more than 5-6 wins.

Newz · Post #315 » by **Newz** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:36 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Nope, wouldn't need perfect health. Need 70-75 games from each guy. Bogut averaged 75.3 games heading into last season (that includes 16 games he was held out to tank) and Redd only played under 72 games once in the previous six seasons.

It's whatever you want to look at. Winning record with just Bogut, winning record with both Redd/Bogut, 10 spot drop in D without Bogut, drop in offense without Redd (don't know the spots for sure). Record with both players vs. tough schedule. Take your pick.

95 games combined missed. I don't think people honestly realize how significant that is. It's more than 5-6 wins.

Why does it matter what we WOULD have done if we were healthy? Honestly, what difference does it make?

Part of the package with Redd is that he is injury prone and Bogut has now missed some significant stretches since he has come to the NBA as well. That's just the way it is. Yes, we would have been better with those guys healthy... How much better? Who knows because it didn't happen.

I guess I don't see the value of arguing if we would have had 38 or 42 or 45 or 50 wins... Does it really matter? We won 34, that's what happened, it isn't going to change.

LUKE23 · Post #316 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:40 pm

No kidding we won 34. This is a hypothetical argument. If you don't see the value, why comment on it at all?

step3profit · Post #317 » by **step3profit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:44 pm

Along the same vein, why comment on the future? It hasn't happened yet and is therefore irrelevant, and no points can be proved about it.

I like ham.

Newz · Post #318 » by **Newz** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:50 pm

LUKE23 wrote:No kidding we won 34. This is a hypothetical argument. If you don't see the value, why comment on it at all?

I'm just kind of curious as to what the people arguing the topic are trying to accomplish. If you convince everyone we would have been a 40+ win team and in the playoffs, what does that really matter?

And for bplus, predicting the future of this team has a purpose... Because the season is coming up and nothing has been decided yet. If our roster was the same (or near the same) as it was last season, I would see the value of arguing how many games we would have won if fully healthy. Our team has changed dramatically though. Arguing what our teams record will be actually means something because he hasn't been determined yet.

Post #319 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:51 pm

Can I just get the optimists and the stat heads to agree that 44 wins should be expected this season? Because that's what all these arguments seem to add up to.

step3profit · Post #320 » by **step3profit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:55 pm

LukePliska wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:No kidding we won 34. This is a hypothetical argument. If you don't see the value, why comment on it at all?

I'm just kind of curious as to what the people arguing the topic are trying to accomplish. If you convince everyone we would have been a 40+ win team and in the playoffs, what does that really matter?

And for bplus, predicting the future of this team has a purpose... Because the season is coming up and nothing has been decided yet. If our roster was the same (or near the same) as it was last season, I would see the value of arguing how many games we would have won if fully healthy. Our team has changed dramatically though. Arguing what our teams record will be actually means something because he hasn't been determined yet.

I see your point, but I don't know why the team's record is any different than anything else that happened in the past.

We argue about Alexander being drafted.
We what-if about Chris Paul instead of Bogut.
We argue if Sessions should have been matched.
We argue that RJ should have been traded mid season.
We argue if CV should have been traded mid season.

Most of the arguments all boil down to one thing: does Hammond suck, or not?

That's basically the only open question on this whole board right now.