How many losses before it's BLOWN UP!

[mountio]

Depends on whether blowing it up is even an option for Ujiri. He has only gone on record to say hat he is evaluating the team for now. Regardless of how good or how bad he may not see blowing it up as a viable option.

Not sure about that. I think the one thing that is safe to say with MU is that everything is potentially an option. While you can argue whether or not tanking is his #1 choice (it doesnt appear that way right now) - his moves and public statements certainly suggest that hes open to anything. I simply can not imagine that he would be fundamentally against anything if the situation presented itself and it was the right thing to do long term for the team.

As for the direction question .. I think people are in the right ballpark. If we are struggling (ie below .500) through 30 or so games, I wouldnt be surprised at all to see him move RG or DD. In fact, I am predicting that one of those two players will be moved by the end of the year (maybe both).

As people correctly point out, just because we decide that we are ready, doesnt mean a trading partner will be there the next day .. but it shouldnt take that long to find a deal for DD or RG if MU puts out feelers.

Detriot, for example, will be there with a similar deal to what they offered before (and maybe more now that they are a little more "all-in" with Jennings.

[DanH]

You can be a half game ahead/behind in the standings, when two teams have played a different number of games (with the difference in # of games played being an odd number). However, when you're looking at a particular team's record as a %, or relative to .500, every game counts as a full game.

Standings
Team #1: 41-40
Team #2: 39-41
Team #3: 37-40

Team #1 - in first place, 1 game over 500
Team #2 - 1.5 games out of first place, 2 games under 500
Team #3 - 2 games out of first place, 0.5 games out of second place, 3 games under 500

Yeah, but just look at the numbers you posted. The team that is +1 games versus .500 against the team that is -2 games versus .500 - it only makes sense that one team is 3 games back of the other, the difference between +1 and -2. Yet you state that in spite of this they are 1.5 games back. Your uses don't line up. Consider this - if an odd number of games can be considered the prerequisite to be 0.5 games back, then by definition 1 win (the difference between an even number versus an odd number) must be worth 0.5 games.

I find it odd that you'd use the concept of a game differently when comparing teams versus comparing a single team's records. They are both the same quantity. If you accept that the 0.5 game back model is correct (and it is - as well as being universally accepted) then you have to accept that it applies in both cases. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.

[Joey]

No, games over .500 is the same concept as games back in a playoff race. The unit, "game", is the same. And by your definition you can never be 0.5 games back or over .500, which teams often are. A game is a win AND a loss.

You can be a half game ahead/behind in the standings, when two teams have played a different number of games (with the difference in # of games played being an odd number). However, when you're looking at a particular team's record as a %, or relative to .500, every game counts as a full game.

Standings
Team #1: 41-40
Team #2: 39-41
Team #3: 37-40

Team #1 - in first place, 1 game over 500
Team #2 - 1.5 games out of first place, 2 games under 500
Team #3 - 2 games out of first place, 0.5 games out of second place, 3 games under 500

Yeah, but just look at the numbers you posted. The team that is +1 games versus .500 against the team that is -2 games versus .500 - it only makes sense that one team is 3 games back of the other, the difference between +1 and -2. Yet you state that in spite of this they are 1.5 games back. Your uses don't line up. Consider this - if an odd number of games can be considered the prerequisite to be 0.5 games back, then by definition 1 win (the difference between an even number versus an odd number) must be worth 0.5 games.

I find it odd that you'd use the concept of a game differently when comparing teams versus comparing a single team's records. They are both the same quantity. If you accept that the 0.5 game back model is correct (and it is - as well as being universally accepted) then you have to accept that it applies in both cases. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.

Not to interfere, but I'm pretty sure Calgary is right on this one Dan.
"Games Above/Under .500" is not measured in half games, like "Games Back of 1st" is. To my knowledge.

The difference being that when you compare two teams, you need the half games because a win/loss or loss/win combination creates the full game of difference.
Where as looking at your own record, there is only how many wins/losses are required to get you to .500.

[DanH]

Not to interfere, but I'm pretty sure Calgary is right on this one Dan.
"Games Above/Under .500" is not measured in half games, like "Games Back of 1st" is. To my knowledge.

The difference being that when you compare two teams, you need the half games because a win/loss or loss/win combination creates the full game of difference.
Where as looking at your own record, there is only how many wins/losses are required to get you to .500.

I see. So who decided this? Isn't it more reasonable, when describing the record, which by definition is a description of the games already played, to define it in terms of the games already played? If a team is 2-0, and they had lost one game rather than win it, then they would be 1-1, or .500. So they are one game above .500. Defining a record in terms of games yet to be played makes no sense. Nor does defining two different ways to use "games" as a unit when you are ostensibly describing the same thing.

[magoon]

At what point in the season does MJ find the max value for Rudy Gay?

The answer? Prior to the deadline in 2014. I think the Raptors are looking at a 1st rounder in picks 5-16. It's that hard to tell right now.

We've had this discussion before, but: I think it ends up being earlier than that. The trade deadline doesn't make a trade more likely as it approaches because teams are more cautious about messing with team chemistry - the JJ Redick/Tobias Harris trade is a great example of that because the Bucks traded for Redick, but because he didn't gel with the team he ended up riding the bench for far too much time as compared to his ability and what the Bucks gave away for him.

I think in the case of Rudy, who by definition has to be a primary option whenever he's on the floor, teams will get more gunshy the closer they get to the playoffs. If a Rudy trade happens late, I think we're looking more at end of December/start of January.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I see. So who decided this? Isn't it more reasonable, when describing the record, which by definition is a description of the games already played, to define it in terms of the games already played? If a team is 2-0, and they had lost one game rather than win it, then they would be 1-1, or .500. So they are one game above .500. Defining a record in terms of games yet to be played makes no sense. Nor does defining two different ways to use "games" as a unit when you are ostensibly describing the same thing.

That's just the way it is in all sports that don't use points for the standings (ie: basketball, baseball).


For individual team records, your logic is off. If my team is 2-0, I am 2 games above .500, since I'd need to lose my next 2 games to be at the .500 level. The point is to compare your current state to future state, not comparing your current state to what-could-have-been state.

Just think about it as wins being a +1 and losses being a -1. A team starts the season at 0, with a finite number of games to be played (82 in NBA). If a team goes 82-0, they'd be 82 games above .500. If a team goes 0-82, they'd be 82 games below .500. If a team goes 41-41, they'd be exactly .500. If a team goes 52-30, they'd finish at 0.634 (52/82 = 63.4 winning %) and finish the season 22 games over .500 (+ 52 - 30 = +22).

---

For standings, the half games are necessary to account for teams not playing the same number of games, at any given time. Come the end of the season, when all teams will have played an equal number of games, the standings will all be reflective of 'full games' (ie: teams will be 1.0 or 5.0 games behind, but it is impossible to see a 3.5 games behind). It all comes down to teams having the same finite number of available games to play.

For example, lets say you and I are involved in a 10 game season. You're in first place and I'm in second place.

If your team is 6-2 and my team is 5-2, then I am only 0.5 games behind you. I have played 1 less game and, depending how I do in that one game I have in-hand, I will either be tied with you (win puts me at 6-2) or be a full 1.0 games behind you (loss puts me at 5-3). If I win the one game in-hand, we'll have an identical record and be tied in the standings (obviously). If I lose the one game in-hand, I will then have BOTH 1 less win than you and 1 more loss than you; hence me being 1.0 games behind you and the need for half games. You have to compare the current state to all possible future states, which include the possibility of all teams either winning or losing each of their remaining games.

[Letter N]

I see. So who decided this? Isn't it more reasonable, when describing the record, which by definition is a description of the games already played, to define it in terms of the games already played? If a team is 2-0, and they had lost one game rather than win it, then they would be 1-1, or .500. So they are one game above .500. Defining a record in terms of games yet to be played makes no sense. Nor does defining two different ways to use "games" as a unit when you are ostensibly describing the same thing.

I understand what you're saying but you're just wrong about this.

If you're 2-0 you're 2 games above .500 because you would need 2 losses to become .500.
Don't think of the past, think of the future.

[DanH]

I understand what you're saying but you're just wrong about this.

If you're 2-0 you're 2 games above .500 because you would need 2 losses to become .500.
Don't think of the past, think of the future.

Yeah, I get that this is how people use it. I just disagree that it should be this way. It seems ridiculous, like two entirely different sets of people came up with two ways of talking about it, and rather than reconcile it into a reasonable way to talk about it, we just stick to two different systems because that's the way it is.

[Joey]

Yeah, I get that this is how people use it. I just disagree that it should be this way. It seems ridiculous, like two entirely different sets of people came up with two ways of talking about it, and rather than reconcile it into a reasonable way to talk about it, we just stick to two different systems because that's the way it is.

I agree and disagree.

I agree, in saying that they contribute similar information in two totally different ways.
But in my eyes, they are different enough to justify this.

Otherwise you could say the same thing about Points and Assists.
Why not measure Assists by how many points you've assisted on?
Why use Field Goals for one measure, but Points for another?
They're measuring similar things, but ultimately, the information they convey is different.

"Games above/below .500" creates no relation to Playoff Standings, Opponents Standings etc.
It is merely another way of summarizing your overall record. "Games back of..." does no such thing.

With "Games Back of...", creating those relations and comparisons between other teams Records, is its sole purpose to exist. And half-games are required to properly distribute the wins AND losses from BOTH teams, that have an equal play toward gaining ground or losing ground.

I know you understand the difference between the two; was just hoping that by pointing out the differences, it would help you understand why there is a need to use different metrics.