Another injury signals our destiny: is it realistic to bench Amen ever again?

Well, you did.

 

No, they wouldn't ever play that long, it's just to help contextualize the numbers. Like if I told you that some lineup has played 561 possessions and scored 592 points in those possessions, I don't think you'd be able to tell me if that was good or not. Most people wouldn't, the numbers just feel kind of meaningless. But if you stretch it out to the length of one NBA game it makes a lot more sense. If I can tell you "the rate this lineup scores is the same as scoring 77 points in a game" you can look at that and say woah, that's bad offense. And then if I tell you the defense gives up points at a rate of roughly 127 points per game, you can also say woah, that's bad defense.

 

But eye test.

@Stephen_A

 

Replacing who?

 

Extrapolating is a fools errand because the smaller minute line ups are more likely against opposing team bench units.

 

Brooks is the most obvious candidate.

 

You're conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other. Net rating is not extrapolating, it's normalizing. Nobody is saying that minutes played against bench units would hold up against starters.

 

Its extrapolation when you extrapolate to a full NBA game which assumes the same line ups the entire game which will probably be line ups full of opposing team bench players.

 

No it's not. That's just not what net rating is or what net rating is trying to do or say. It doesn't assume any of that. It's just normalizing data to per 100 so that the numbers are more meaningful.

 

You are not extrapolating the net rating. You are extrapolating or maybe a better term "assuming" the same line up the entire game. That's a type of extrapolation or assumption.

 

If Amen continues to perform, one idea is would be to trade FVV for a couple of smaller rotation pieces. This would boost our depth and maintain our trade flexibility with a couple of smaller contracts. I don't think it will happen, but I do think our best lineup would be Amen / Green / Brooks / Smith / Sengun.

 

But I'm not doing that either. I'm explaining why we use per 100 possessions instead of per 50 or per 200 or per 1. Per 100 is used to normalize at a rate that is roughly equivalent to one game. I'm not assuming what would happen if the same lineup played 100 possessions in a row. I'm explaining what it means and why it's used. We normalize it to a rate that makes sense to any regular basketball fan who doesn't like looking at graphs or using calculators.

 

How should one compare different line-ups without equating their number of possessions?

 

I understand what it means. I'm saying a flaw with per 100 possessions when analyzing it is the assumption of same line ups the entire game, assumption of the same energy levels, assumption of the same levels of stamina in the legs.

It's like playing a NBA 2k game with the "player stamina" setting off.

 

By not making it the only aspect of analysis. That is my point. It is that simple. People are making claims only based on these metrics without any utilization of context. Use them, but don't use them ONLY as you soul criteria to judge players and effectiveness of line ups.

It's like playing NBA 2k with the "player stamina" setting to off

 

Jater spotted and reported.

 

Okay, but you quoted me specifically and called me out for doing something that I'm not doing. I haven't made any of these assumptions or made any of these claims that you're criticizing.

 

As I said Backed with analysis, context, and knowledge. Specific In game observations and what the correct read or incorrect read or decision is. You know, The type of information that’s lacking in your posts.

 

You replied to OS trig who was pointing out a flaw in per 100 possessions and you said "nah uh".