Stan Van Gundy | Magic Basketball

3-on-3 roundtable: A look at the road ahead

August 16, 2011 at 9:39 am Eddy Rivera 11 comments

Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images

A week ago, Magic Basketball’s team of writers were featured on a recent 5-on-5 roundtable discussion at ESPN.com, answering offseason questions pertaining to the Orlando Magic and providing our opinions on several topics, including our thoughts on Dwight Howard‘s future and more. But we didn’t stop there.

As a supplement, here is our 3-on-3 roundtable discussion on the Magic.

_______

What are your thoughts on Gilbert Arenas’ Twitter account?

Nate Drexler: Gilbert’s tweets are highly entertaining, but highly discouraging. I hate to make a big deal out of nothing, especially while there is no NBA season happening, but it’s almost all the evidence you need that he does not care about this game anymore. Being a goofball is one thing, but the aura that Gilbert has created in his tweet-o-sphere is childish to me. If I’m Otis Smith, Stan Van Gundy, or any Magic player, I’m thinking to myself, “I cannot wait until this guy is not my problem anymore.”

Eddy Rivera: Following Gilbert Arenas on Twitter has been one of my more hilarious endeavors since I signed up in 2009. If you want to see Arenas without a filter, then you’ve come to the right place. It’s refreshing to see that Arenas doesn’t hold anything back and you feel like you’re getting his real personality when he tweets. Sure, Arenas has gotten fined an undisclosed amount of money by the NBA for some of his content but at least he’s not playing it by the book. For Arenas, there is no book, just random pages.

Matt Scribbins: The pictures of him planking are the most entertaining I have even seen on Twitter and it’s not even close. His daily shoe contests are a fun way for him to interact with fans and reward his followers with a cool prize. I’ll give him credit for being honest, but he is probably to the point where he has offended nearly everyone. I think Foghorn Leghorn could probably sum it up the best – “It was the best of times, I said it was the worst of times.”

Remembering Game 1 of the 2009 NBA Eastern Conference Finals

August 9, 2011 at 10:29 am Nate Drexler 3 comments

Photo by Elsa/Getty Images

I recently revisited Game 1 of the 2009 NBA Eastern Conference Finals between the Magic and Cavs. Cleveland was hot, and maybe even the team to beat coming into the series. Orlando had other intentions, though. My foggy memory was filled with ideas of a three-point shootout, a lot of LeBron isolation, and a big shot from Rashard Lewis. After revisiting, I realized my memory had failed me.

This was an epic showdown between two superstars — Dwight Howard and LeBron James. More than that, though, it was a showdown between two coaches, two benches, and two sets of roll players. The Magic won in all three of those categories, which meant they would win the game too.

No one on the corner has swagger like us
I remember watching every second of this series. In fact, I remember watching every second of the Cavs’ season. The Mo Williams pick up had me hooked from preseason on, and when LeBron and company arrived in the playoffs, I was convinced nothing could stop them. Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals was no exception. In fact, it probably epitomized that untouchable feeling more than any other game. The way the Cavs took the floor against the Magic was daunting. The Cavs were like a fresh rap group that, even if you didn’t like their song, you had to respect their swagger. LeBron was a man on a mission, and at that point had empowered Mo Williams and Delonte West to their max potential. It did not take long for LeBron to assert himself as a juggernaut, either. Ultimately, there was something special about that Cavs team, and what stopped them (perhaps the only thing that could have stopped them) were Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic.

Style of play and wins

July 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm Matt Scribbins 4 comments

Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

Pythagorean wins is a formula that converts points scored and allowed into a predicted winning percentage. The results can show, among other things, teams that over/under perform, win/lose many close games, or just experience good/bad luck.

To predict an NBA team’s winning percentage, the following calculation is performed:

(Points Scored^16.5) / (Points scored^16.5 + Points allowed^16.5) = Winning Percentage

Approach
This article will focus on the NBA teams with the most total wins over the last four regular seasons (Lakers-236, Celtics-234, Magic-222, Spurs-221, Mavericks-213). The last four seasons are used because:

Stan Van Gundy’s tenure in Orlando started four years ago (LAL, BOS, SA same coach all four years too)
Rick Carlisle has coached the Mavericks for three of the last four seasons
The stars (Howard, Bryant, Duncan, Nowitzki, Garnett, etc.) played with same team entire span

This piece counts a close game as any contest with a final margin of three points or fewer (one possession). A blowout is any contest with a final margin of fifteen points or more (five possessions).

Wins
Only the Timberwolves (do they even count?) have fallen short of their Pythagorean win total by a greater margin than the Orlando Magic over the last four seasons. During the same span, Orlando never finished a season with more actual wins than Pythagorean wins.

The Dallas Mavericks check in on the other end of the spectrum as they exceeded their Pythagorean win total by a greater margin than any other team (10). As I mentioned in a Hoopdata article, some of the Mavericks’ success can be attributed to their record in close games (34-18). The Mavericks’ scoring differential predicted 203 wins over the last four years, but they actually won 213. On the other hand, Orlando’s scoring differential predicted 232 wins, but they actually won 222.

The Lakers amassed the most regular seasons win during the period, but their Pythagorean win total was equal to Orlando’s. In other words, they were victorious 14 more times than Orlando even though their scoring differentials indicated the same number. The Spurs collected just one fewer win than Orlando, but their scoring differential indicated 14 fewer wins.