http://www.iheart.com/live/2257/?autoplay=true 790am right now "Carmelo for TJ/Asik/Lin?" (most of the callers are saying "no")
Ok who's the pinoy that just called in and said Melo would ruin team chemistry and turn more of our guys into role players? I know you're in here!
Who says this isn't what they did? If I had to guess, that's exactly what happened. The coaching staff, who sees this team infinitely more than the fans, felt what they saw in practice is a team that would be better served with Lin off the bench. And wouldn't you know it, the numbers on the season back up what they were thinking.
But of course they didn't use statistics or numbers to analyze the data. It was probably all eye test. No coach would ever use numbers. That's crazy talk right there!
Yeah man, you too? My mom's like this one: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wESgcExetso?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Lin had his chance to seize the starter's job and did not do it. Until I see substantial statistical proof that having Bev start hurts the team, I'm going to have to go with the coaches on this. One thing I do agree with the Lin-backers (myself included in that group) is that Lin should be given a longer leash (that goes for DMo too) and should usually be on the court during crunch time. He has performed very well in the fourth.
Yes, it is a fact that the lineup with Beverley has outproduced the lineup with Lin. It's also a fact that the starting lineup (Harden, Dwight, Jones and Lin) with Brewer has greatly outproduced the lineup with Parsons. It even outproduced the one with Beverley and Parsons. Also a fact that the Thunders regular starting lineup with Westbrook is in the negative using Netrtg and is greatly outproduced by the same starting 4 plus Jackson. But that doesn't make it a fact to say Houston's best starting lineup is the one with Brewer. Or that the Thunders best lineup is the one with Jackson. Or what your saying that the Rockets best starting lineup is the Beverley lineup. Netrtg is not an infallible determinant of the best starting lineup. That's the point you seem to be missing. Your attributing words to me that I've never said. I've never said it's "an irrational thing that the Rockets do". You do realize it's hard to have a intelligent discussion with someone when they respond to things that I've never said. And yes your wrong, because it's not a fact that the Rocket's best starting lineup is the Beverley lineup. I't just your opinion.
Just nitpicking. Not entirely disagreeing. I wouldnt say it'd be 100% airtight cos they were playing different teams of different strengths. From the data, one can say the following. """ In the matches that PBev started, the starters had better numbers against the teams compared to the the matches against different teams that JLin started in. """ Maybe if in the "formula", there should be a weighting factor, like a difficulty level, just like in sports like diving and stuff, where say if you have a raw score of 5 and your opponent has a raw score of say 3, with the difficulty level, the 3 is worth more. Not saying that that is the case here, but something to consider. eg it would be harder to get a high score playing a defence like the Pacers than it would be against someone like the Knicks. Anyways...
So it's a 100% fact that we won a bunch of games without Harden. Who's going to start a thread "Harden deserves to be traded"? (slowly backing out of thread..)
Geez. Game and practice film is not statistical evidence, look up the definition of words before you use them. You should pay attention to what was written and the context it was written. Now answer me this question. Do you Believe that Mchale or any coach uses the Netrtg statistics to determine the starting lineup?
Your missing my point. It's not about focusing on certain stats. I love the use of stats in arguments. But stats help support a point of view, they don't PROVE the point of view in this case. Clutch has written that it's not even arguable of what's the better starting lineup. And that's where I disagree strongly. I feel it is debatable.
With all these Houston medias that Jeremy is getting, he is not going anywhere. A little bit disappointed.
I'm not missing anything, and the holes you think you're punching in the argument aren't really holes at all. The Rocket lineup you're referring to has played 55 minutes together, coming from three games against the Lakers, Wizards and Hawks. It is not even close to the apples-to-apples comparison of four set starters that each point guard had stretches running with for ~250 minutes in the starting lineup. The OKC Thunder situation is not one I'm familiar with like I am the Rockets, but it is what it is -- for whatever reason, that lineup has not played well this year despite strong success together in the past. Westbrook is coming back from a major injury and has struggled with it -- two surgeries sandwiched around his minutes. I would assume that has a lot to do with that lineup not working, plus Durant's explosion in the last month or more. But if you think this relates to the Rockets in that it means Lin should start as Westbrook will when he returns, I've got news for you: Jeremy Lin's not Russell Westbrook. I don't have to quote you directly: You're saying the Rockets intentionally start (and consistently go back to starting) an inferior lineup. That's all we need to know. Remember, before the season, Carl Fudge wrote an article with stats suggesting that the Rockets may bench Jeremy Lin for Patrick Beverley -- you did the same thing you're doing now and completely dismissed that. And here we are. That didn't work out too well for you. The Rockets are running their most effective starting lineup. They're running Jeremy Lin off the bench to maximize his production. That's what the article said and it stands solid. You can make it about me as much as you like and scream how wrong I am until your face turns blue (and I'm sure you will)... but you're raging against facts, not opinions.
So, if while reviewing game film, you notice Lin is more successful (read, scores or creates more plays) off of a pick than he does ISO, you don't consider that information as statistical? If I said empirical evidence would that be more clear? Dude, where do you think we GET all these numbers? Observation. Yes, the film itself is NOT a statistic (well, unless you're classifying it into a larger data set). I think you're hung up on the grammatical: Statistic = Number. I'm talking about Statistics, the overall science of evaluating and or interpreting data. Your definition is perfectly valid, it's your overall opinion I disagree with. And the fact that you obviously can't take a joke. Maybe you should practice what you preach, since we're nitpicking every detail. You said no NBA coach would base a starting line up on "the numbers". You didn't specify NetRTG. But to answer your question, no I don't think many coaches would use a single stat to determine their entire lineup. So if you believe that is what Clutch's entire post was about I'll leave you to it.
There is nothing wrong with starting an inferior lineup. Gmaes are won by the whole team, not 5 starting guys.
