What if…?
Without Pete Nance, Milwaukee Bucks were 11.1 points per game better
47 games with him · 22 without, in 2025-26
11.1
points per game
The question
What would have changed if Pete Nance had not played?
The evidence
Without Pete Nance, Milwaukee Bucks were 11.1 points per game better
The fact
What actually happened, game by game, in 2025-26. None of this is an estimate.
With Pete Nance in the box score
-11.13 points per game
47 games · 14-33 · 107.1 – 118.2
Without him
0.00 points per game
22 games · 10-12 · 113.3 – 113.3
The assumptions
What we decided in order to answer. If an assumption does not hold for you, neither does the answer.
- That the 22 games without him represent a whole season without him.
- That opponent quality is spread evenly across both groups. We have not controlled for it.
- That other absences do not systematically coincide with his.
The estimated result
Arithmetic on the two figures above, nothing else: the per-game difference carried over a 82-game season.
- points of margin per game+11.13
- Across 82 games that is +913 points of accumulated margin.
FactDerivedAssumption
What this does not prove
- This does not say he is the cause. A team without its best player also changes rotation, opponent and schedule at the same time.
- It rests on 22 games without him. At that sample size, a couple of odd games move the number.
- It is not a forecast for next season: it is what happened in the one already played.
From here
Where it comes from
Source
2026-04-08
Model input
not stated
Computation
not stated
This answer
2026-11-05
Where this comes from