594Re: nice methods
- Feb 6, 2002--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> >...... The Clips are better with Brand. Theyear.
> > Bulls are better without Brand. So how good is Brand? Context
> > sensitive.
> "The Bulls are better without Brand" is only half a comment.
> "...than they would be if they still had him"?
> or "...than they were when they had him"?
> One might imagine that 10-36 is a better mark than 15-67, but the
> Bulls' average score is 85.7-94.4, compared to 87.5-96.6 last
> No significant change in the scoring.dropped
> Ron Artest is suddenly a star this year. Brad Miller and Marcus
> Fizer are suddenly serious players. Mercer and Hoiberg have
> off, but Anthony has come along, with Oakley, while nobodySpeculation. Would Fizer and Artest and Miller have "suddenly"
> significant has been dumped.
> With the coaching change, I would agree "the Bulls are better"; but
> with Brand they might actually be contending.
improved with Brand there? (I don't think Artest is a star, but
haven't fully looked at his numbers.) Maybe Brand was a negative
influence, keeping down the hopes of these guys. It's a plausible
story, if just because Brand was getting all the touches.
The only thing that is clear is that it wasn't that hard to make up
for Brand's loss; they didn't drop to a 4 win franchise and it's hard
to name any 15 win team that got worse by losing its "best player".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>