947Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: replacement level players
- May 6 11:23 AMOn Mon, 6 May 2002, alleyoop2 wrote:
> I'll take this a step further and say that you may be seeing a self-Both are excellent points, although implicitly covered by MikeG when he
> selected sample. There's two possibilities:
> 1) With marginal players like Scott Williams and John Wallace, it
> only makes sense to play them when there's a particular matchup
> that's in their favor, which is why they look good when they play a
> lot of minutes (and have a matchup in their favor), and not so good
> when they don't.
> 2) With a guy like John Wallace, he may get 15+ minutes mostly in
> games that are blowouts, where he tends to be playing against the
> other teams scrubs, where he thus produces more offensively than one
> might reasonably expect.
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:[...]
> > Most likely, he is a streaky shooter, as well as a limited player.[...]
> > In other words, when he isn't hitting, he doesn't bring much game
> > all.
> > This might be where coaches earn their money (and why we don't get[...]
> > paid for This). If Wallace is on, play him. If not, back to the
> > bench.
> > Again, when your 4th- or 5th-best player has a strong game, you areYup, another way to re-state what MikeG and Alleyoop2 wrote is that we
> > much more likely to win. That doesn't mean playing this guy 30-40
> > minutes, regardless, is going to get you the same results.
have to look at cause-and-effect, not just the raw stats and the
correlations in those stats. Sometimes, especially for star players, good
stats ==> victory. But for a 12th man, and sometimes for 4th or 5th men,
the causality will typically be the opposite: victory ==> good stats.
> > Consistency is a much-sought quality in players.Yeah, those standard deviations again, that we were looking at a couple of
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>