You probably haven't taken the time to think through what he's saying. Every minute players are making plays that either help their team win or don't. You can average out all these plays to figure out how many games they helped their team win and then you can divide it by the number of minutes they played to get a RATE of their ability to help their team win. Let's say instead of 5 on 5, it's a game of 1 on 1, first person to score wins. And let's say you've got two players who are exactly the same at everything, except Player A makes 1 point per minute and player B makes 0 point per minute. Obviously, player A will win every game. He only needs to play one minute to produce a win. So his rate of helping his team win is 1 win per minute. Ok, still playing games of "first to score wins". But what if player A averages 1.1 point per minute and player B averages 1 point per minute. Those are just averages, so player B could win just by chance and variance. But over time, player A would win a little bit more. His wins per minute played would be a little over .50. And the more games they played, the more games (minutes) they played, the more wins he would produce. And, the more games they played the bigger the absolute gap in the number of player A's victories over player B. It turns out that using statistical models we can determine how much the various box score stats contribute to winning. We know the statistical models are pretty accurate because we can make predictions that come true the vast majority of the time[1][2]. So, based on a players' box score stats, we can figure out how much he contributed to winning and by dividing that by the number of minutes played, we can determine his rate of contributing to winning. And if we know that someone has a high rate of contributing to winning, we definitely want to play him as many minutes as possible. [1] http://wagesofwins.com/2012/09/20/breaking-down-wins-produced/ [2] John Hollinger uses statistical models to accurately predict the seasons results. Last season he was the most accurate forecaster among all of ESPN's 30 analysts: http://blog.pundittracker.com/nba-pundits-2011-12-report-card/
Basically, if you have great starters and sucky bench players, you are a great coach. If you have mediocre starters and good bench players, you are a bad coach. That's a damn stupid reasoning.
Doesnt matter how many minutes they play...the outcome of a game is not based on MPG played...but rather total points...Lebron could be playing at a 10MPG clip but if he is dropping 30 during those ten minutes...he scored 30 points...which has a direct impact on the outcome of a game..conversely...If Lebron played for 40MPG and only scored 20 points...he only scored 20 points..which once again...directly affects the chance at a win...its all about points...not the number of minutes a player plays...
It's very obvious that the person who wrote the article doesn't have any idea of what they are talking about.
It's about right. JVG was a below average coach and he should keep his butts on the commentator's bench of ESPN or work as a defensive coordinator for some team. Adelman was a good coach who did an average job here in Houston.
According to the chart, Rockets had 4% coaching last year and Bobcats had 22%. Lets trade teams and coaches!
Jvg's work ethic is what separated him and tough mentality, bad at developing/paying rookies is his setback. Adelman's system does wonders but his favoritism sets him back. Rudy T. knows the game very well but wasn't too strict. Mchale is a cool guy to drink a beer with.
