I saw it and a response to you was that it was too small a data size. I'll let one of the stats folks tackle it. Not my forte.
Maybe you enjoy tiny things like using a small screen but the first results for me were Feedback of the writer and footballer, then your boy's twitter followed by wiki articles on the aforementioned gentlemen. But hey, if giggling over male p*rn performers and making gay jokes are your things...I ain't judging, just playing along for laughs.
You sound pretty emotionally invested in this and a quick check of your post history tells me all I need to know. You aren't laughing at anything unless you're standing in front of a mirror
Sample size is irrelevant. Here is what I said: "Lineups with Beverley outperform identical lineups with Lin, offensively and defensively. That is not me putting anyone down, that is just what the data shows." The data is a measure of all past performance with the starting lineup. It does not cherry pick one game, it does not focus on just rebounding, or FG%. It is a measurement of what has happened thus far. So far, as the thread title goes, Lin has not made a good case for being a starter. I am sorry I am not as willing as you are to put sub par performing lineups on the floor in hopes of some potential greatness, which depends upon tons of changes which are not going to occur.
You know, the first ones to make these "u mad" claims are usually the angriest. Oh and investigating post history ? Yea, that says a lot about who's emotionally invested sis.
I never once made a "u mad" claim but you can try and deflect all you want. Takes the same amount of time that it did for you to make your google search. You spent your New Years Eve posting on the internet about video games. That's beyond pathetic. Give me a shout out in your suicide note
You know, you made a gay joke and I just played along. Is there any particular reason why you're this angry ? I certainly wasn't occupied throughout every minute of the holidays but I don't remember "spending the night posting" either. Your obsession with exaggerating the mundane is telling.
It certainly helps. You go out there and "PARTY HARD xD", wouldn't wanna be caught posting on the internet on the weekends now would we.
You can predict changes that will occur? If so, you should be a psychic. As a matter of fact, we've seen the potential in a few games already.
I responded to you specifically on this issue, because you asked and said that you were willing to have an open mind on the subject. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8575970&postcount=331 You're welcome to read it or not, but I thought I made it pretty clear that from a statistical perspective the numbers you are providing do not have the sample size from which one can draw strong conclusions. Lineups are incredibly context-sensitive, and the ideal comparison would be to have each lineup face the same opposition (read: the exact same opposing lineup) for a large number of possessions. An alternative would be to have them face a varied enough opposition so as to constitute (as closely as possible) a random sample. That is clearly not happening given the number of games that have been played thus far in the season and the number of possessions being listed. To use a better analogy than the one I provided, it would be like someone saying that the Hawks (18-15) are a better team than the Timberwolves (16-16) because they have a better record thus far in the season. I know you think that what you're saying is some sort of proven fact, but it's not. You can say that the data thus far indicates or suggests that the starters play better with Beverley than they do with Lin, but that's not the same thing as you repeating this data over and over again and saying it's some sort of definitive proof. It's not. People who understand statistics can clearly see that, and it just makes you look like you are biased to the point of ignorance or willing to repeat things you know to be untrue for the sake of winning an argument (or at least appearing to win an argument against those who don't know any better).
It depends on the conclusion we're talking about. If the conclusion is "We're better off with Lin coming off the bench", I agree we have to hold off. But if the question is whether the evidence so far this season supports the case for Lin starting, then those numbers are surely relevant in answering that.
So in essence, you are saying that the evidence is inconclusive. We can't prove that Lin should start and we can't prove that Beverley should start. That pretty much answers my question of evidence to prove either way. I trust durvasa's interpretation of statistics more than anyone on this board.
No I read it, but you weren't addressing the issue at hand. The poster who originally quoted my post acted as if I misinterpreted the stats, which I did not. The limitations of the data was not what was in question, which is what you seem to be focusing on. The data is an accurate representation as to what has occurred thus far. Are there differences in opponents, absolutely, but this the best most conclusive apples to apples comparison that we have. To dismiss this is to dismiss any stat because of the unique nature of every single possession in any NBA game.
Posted by another user earlier. Bev - 5 pts. (24min) vs. (Nets: Livingston (10min.) 0 pts., Tyshawan Taylor 16 pts.) Bev - 11 pts. (37 min) vs. (Spurs: Parker - 27 pts.) Bev - 8 pts. (38 min) vs. (Jazz: Burke - 21 pts.) Bev - 12 pts. (42 min) vs. (Suns: Dragic - 19 pts.) Bev - 6 pts. (33 min) vs. (Warriors: Curry - 22 pts.) Bev - 9 pts. (39 min) vs. (Magic: Afflalo - 16 pts.) Bev - 6 pts. (31 min) vs. (Kings: Thomas - 19 pts.) Bev - 15 pts. (34 min) vs. (Bulls: Augustin - 8 pts.) Bev - 8 pts. (30 min) vs. (Pacers: Hill - 12 pts.) Games so far this season where Lin played and Bev did not: Lin- 14 points (30 min) vs (Mavericks: Calderon-0 pt). Lin--20 point s(36 min vs (Jazz: Tinsley-0 pt) Lin--14 points (30 min) vs (Clippers: Paul-23 pts) Lin -20 points (37 min) vs (Mavericks: Calderon: 15 pts) Lin--13 points (34 min) vs (Spurs: Parker--6 pts) Lin--18 points (37 min) vs (Grizzlies: Conley--11 pts) Lin--10 points (34 min) vs (Pelican: Holiday--3 pts) Lin--6 points (24 min) vs (Thunder: Jackson--16 pts) Lin--14 points (34 min) vs (Kings: Thomas--17 pts)
I am not exactly sure what your point is exactly. Are you trying to use raw PPG of each team's PG position to prove "who is better" ?
We want the team defensive stats for those games, too. Folks claimed Lin contained Thomas during the last Sacramento game, but when you look at Thomas' FGAs, you see that Thomas still blew by Lin, but other teammates either blocked or changed his shot. We need individual stats, including player defensive rating, along with team defensive stats. McHale argues the team D is better with Bev on the floor. That could mean some PGs score more, while the rest of their team scores less, since players don't have to rotate as often to cover for the weaker defender. We don't know, yet. But the NBA offensive, defensive, and net ratings support McHale's argument.
