Their SRS for the season was -1; but with 1/3 of the season left, they made some trades and improved by 4.6 PPG --talkingpractice wrote:... I agree that CHA was projected to be a bit worse than in the regular season (and the Heat way better), due in large part to Gary Neal presumably getting mucho minutes, and Al probably getting less than normal minutes. But that makes them maybe a -1.5 or -2 or something (CHA's SRS was -1). I don't see that -4 there anywhere. Al was crippled in that series which isn't accounted for in that -2ish estimate. But I don't see a -4 for that Bobcats team, if you ignore the crippled issue. .Mike G wrote:So, how does a +2 team become a -4 team?
Even with a weak SOS for their last 27 games, their current (going into the playoffs) roster had performed at something like +2 ppg.After the Bobcats traded Sessions for Neal (et al.) they went from 25-30 (-1.8 ppg) to 18-9 (+2.8)
Whether you consider 27 or 82 games as the basis for evaluation, a team that's doing better than their players' historic APM may in fact just be better than those APM would predict.
If they weren't "really" better, does that suggest a failure of APM?
The common wisdom is that Miami was saving its best for the postseason. This seemed to be the case through the ECF. Then the wheels came off, and no Mike Miller came off the bench to deliver -- except for the Spurs.
Battier came, but he was out of daggers.
