Comments on: Most Personnel Turnover Between Seasons

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:58:26 +0000

The most striking thing about your high turnover list is the lack of pairs of veterans of any significance as top newcomers. They're mostly rookies and journeyman. So it's not a very good predictor of how Miami will do. The closest comparison on your list would be the '04 Timberwolves (Sprewell & Cassell), who dipped slightly but still won 50+ games. If you look at teams that brought in significant newcomers, the '08 Celtics (Garnett & Allen) stand out. Or the '08-'10 Lakers (Gasol, then Artest). Or the '70s Knicks adding Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Jerry Lucas, and Earl Monroe over a relatively short period. You can't just look at quantity. You have to consider quality.

By: Walter

Walter — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:47:19 +0000

What I find interesting is how different the era's were. Looking at the decades and see how many times a team makes each of the two list yeilds the following: Decade.... List 1... List 2 70's........6.........8 80's........4........10 90's........9.........8 00's.......11.........3 In the 70's and 80's there were more teams that had very little turnover than those with significant turnover. In the 90's it was evenly split. But in the 2000's there are almost 4 times as many teams on the high turnover list than the low turnover list.

By: khandor

khandor — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:57:28 +0000

Hi, Neil.

If I'm reading your charts correctly, the Average Win Total for the 30 teams you have listed in Chart 1 is 30.

I'd also be curious to know how the Average Win Total would look, if you adjusted your parameters to include:

i. All teams that changed at least 50% of their roster from the previous season;
ii. All teams that changed less than 50% of their roster from the previous season.

Thanks, in advance.

By: AYC

AYC — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:38:55 +0000

Alot of championship teams on the second list....

Surprised the 08 Celts weren't on the first list

By: P Middy

P Middy — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:37:38 +0000

Here's the win increase percentages on the biggest turnovers. Of course, there are many other factors, but a quick glance suggests lots of turnover is probably not a good thing (duh).

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AowDfK6gQsDJdEN0a2NRbUx4OVhtMFNRZ2FWUDY0cVE&hl=en&output=html