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

Re: Height impacts

Expand Messages
  • Mike G <msg_53@hotmail.com>
    ... try ... Hey, the table looks great, until you try to reply to it. ... 1995 ... Nah, 1996 is consistent. You might have noticed 1988 looking expansive
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 3, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      wrote:
      > (I don't remember how to post tables so they format right, so I may
      try
      > this a couple times.)

      Hey, the table looks great, until you try to reply to it.


      > (MikeG - did you notice that your minutes played ratio is over 1 in
      1995
      > before expansion and less than 1 in 1996, the year of expansion?)

      Nah, 1996 is consistent. You might have noticed 1988 looking
      expansive while '89 should have but didn't. But '85 also shows
      inflated minutes, for no good reason.

      In any case, I don't entirely 'trust' this table any more than the
      previous one I did. So just for kicks, here are the two side-by-
      side. A 3rd column is merely the average of the other 2.

      I'm only listing the year of measurement (against the previous year);
      then the average ratio in minutes played, for guys playing both
      years; then the average in minutes-per-game; then the average of
      those 2.

      yr min. mpg. avg.
      53 .951 1.023 .987
      54 .905 .946 .925
      55 .891 .918 .905
      56 .922 .935 .929
      57 .998 .944 .971
      58 .995 .955 .975
      59 .975 1.010 .993
      60 .983 .921 .952
      61 .941 .964 .953
      62 1.107 1.050 1.079
      63 .901 .912 .907
      64 .969 .940 .955
      65 .925 .960 .943
      66 .968 .976 .972
      67 1.079 1.061 1.070
      68 1.188 1.201 1.195
      69 1.046 1.014 1.030
      70 .974 .971 .973
      71 1.052 1.050 1.051
      72 .917 .933 .925
      73 .938 .954 .946
      74 1.008 .971 .989
      75 1.019 .963 .991
      76 .951 .923 .937
      77 .942 .870 .906
      78 1.000 .983 .992
      79 .970 .976 .973
      80 .986 .950 .968
      81 1.003 1.003 1.003
      82 .945 .936 .940
      83 .992 .956 .974
      84 .962 .993 .978
      85 1.012 .943 .977
      86 .987 .960 .974
      87 .988 .962 .975
      88 1.010 .987 .998
      89 .990 1.014 1.002
      90 1.025 1.016 1.020
      91 .989 .957 .973
      92 .971 .979 .975
      93 .955 .928 .941
      94 .970 .947 .959
      95 .998 .947 .973
      96 1.012 1.010 1.011
      97 .992 .988 .990
      98 .970 .963 .967
      99 .948 .960 .954
      00 .973 .947 .960
      01 1.015 no data

      Now '88 has sunk beneath the waves, as has '85. Every expansion year
      shows minutes-inflation, while every non-expansion year <1.
    • Mike G <msg_53@hotmail.com>
      I doubt I can explain how I came up with this, tho it s a cumulative index of inflation/contraction of competition for minutes, year by year. Explanation could
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 3, 2003
        I doubt I can explain how I came up with this, tho it's a cumulative
        index of inflation/contraction of competition for minutes, year by
        year.

        Explanation could be forthcoming, with prompting. But in the name of
        timeliness, here's what I have. A low number is a tight year, where
        minutes are relatively hard to come by. A larger number is a year of
        accumulated expansion, or of dilution of competition.

        yr2 cumX
        53 1.080
        54 1.049
        55 1.007
        56 .980
        57 .975
        58 .971
        59 .976
        60 .961
        61 .947
        62 .991
        63 .953
        64 .940
        65 .921
        66 .917
        67 .956
        68 1.052
        69 1.077
        70 1.072
        71 1.108
        72 1.076
        73 1.056
        74 1.060
        75 1.065
        76 1.041
        77 1.000
        78 1.005
        79 1.000
        80 .993
        81 1.004
        82 .982
        83 .978
        84 .976
        85 .974
        86 .970
        87 .966
        88 .974
        89 .984
        90 1.002
        91 .997
        92 .994
        93 .973
        94 .962
        95 .957
        96 .971
        97 .975
        98 .967
        99 .953
        00 .943
        01 .941


        The software is behaving weirdly (editing produces deletions), so I
        have to be careful. These numbers might be a factor that could be
        divided into other T#nd$x-like number for the designated year.

        For those of us who are into such things.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.