Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

594Re: nice methods

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    Feb 6, 2002
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > >...... The Clips are better with Brand. The
      > > 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
      year.
      > No significant change in the scoring.
      >
      > Ron Artest is suddenly a star this year. Brad Miller and Marcus
      > Fizer are suddenly serious players. Mercer and Hoiberg have
      dropped
      > off, but Anthony has come along, with Oakley, while nobody
      > significant has been dumped.
      >
      > With the coaching change, I would agree "the Bulls are better"; but
      > with Brand they might actually be contending.

      Speculation. Would Fizer and Artest and Miller have "suddenly"
      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".

      DeanO
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic