Re: Yao and Amare
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, nik <nikoz6@y...> wrote:
>That's what I felt happened, too.
> All of the above make sense. Also...
> Amare came "out of nowhere" (in some people's
> opinion) and impressed, while Yao underachieved,
> compared to some people's inflated expctations.
> Kirilenko's case is similar. Many ppl thnk thatDave Berri at CSUB has pointed out that Bob Belotti's points created
> he deserved the 6th man award. But Bobby Jackson
> won it and he's not a bad choice (just like Amare
> isn't either). IMVHO this tends to show that the
> strongest factor is team success. Also, that people
> care basically just about the per game averages,
> not per/36min and formulas results.
> Could politics/increased patriotism have something
> to do with it as well?
method (and probably other linear weights methods) actually do a
pretty decent job reflecting voter perceptions. See
Not that this is the goal of the methods, or maybe it is. I think
politics have some role and that's intertwined with expectations.
Yao set the bar for his success quite high early in the season,
whereas Amare had almost no expectations and subsequent team success
with high visibility. As Dave likes to point out, Carlos Boozer was
also a good rookie but didn't even make the 1st team. My sense is
that Boozer wasn't the impact rookie, more like a Horace Grant type
who does well what he needs to do, but doesn't try to take over a