http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/braesss-paradox-and-the-ewing-theory/ It is a very interesting article about how a team could still remain efficient on offense or even play better when their best player goes out (commonly known as "The Ewing Theory"). I thought this is very relevant to our team's predicament. The quantitative support for the article could be quite technical to some but I think most of ya'll will be able to understand what the author is trying to get at. In the above concluding section of the article, I felt the bolded was especially applicable to the Rockets and provides some explanation to how we were able to take the Lakers to 7 games. Here's to Adelman and the Rockets "finding the global optimum"...
I theory is somewhat sound even though Ewing and that Knicks team is a poor example. The Knicks had a lot of fire power on that squad and Ewing was definitely on the decline. Houston, Sprewell, LJ, Kurt Thomas, Ward, and Camby were not scrubs. Right now our best offensive player are Scola and Brooks.
I don't think he actually uses numbers from those Knicks team in the graphs. It's just purely hypothetical of how it "could" happen, he just used Ewing's name because of the popular theory.
"The Ewing Theory" works if the star player that got injured was actually not that good in the first place, everyone just thought he was the same guy because he'd been doing it for so long and looked the same. It also helps to have guys in place that are ready for a bigger role. The Knicks lost Ewing at the end of his career and discovered that Marcus Camby was pretty good. The Rockets lost a struggling Tracy Mcgrady last year and found that Ron Artest could miss just as many bad shots, (this is not a joke at Ron's expense, sometimes teams need a guy to go 4/23 and keep jacking). In order apply the theory to this year's team, 3 or more guys have to really really step up on both ends just to sustain the level of play from last year, there is no way to go beyond last year unless Mcgrady can play like he did his first year here, in which case it wouldn't be the Ewing theory.
If you read the article, the author's take on the Ewing theory is not the conventional one. He doesn't even use any of Patrick Ewing's numbers, just his name. He illustrates how optimal allocation of shots of "average" players (shooting 45%) could be just as if not better than having a team built around a guy shooting 60%.
The author assumes that these guys shooting 45% will still shoot at 45% if Ewing was playing a reduced role or no role at all. He doesn't understand that it is incredibly difficult for most role players to get shots off against good defenses unless they play off their superstar. The all for one stuff is cute and all, but rarely works in the NBA where skill rules, the Detroit Pistons are the only team in the last 10 years that this all for one stuff worked for.
I think the Pistons get overplayed as a team without stars. Because even though the team itself may not have a clear cut superstar, it is an incredibly talented team where everyone complemented each other. They actually had no real weaknesses. Defensive presence in the paint? Check. Defensive stopper on the perimeter? Check/ Players who can create offense? Check. Shooting ability? Check. Go-to guy down the stretch? Check. The Rockets, however, has no inside presence, has no one who can create quality shots, and has no go-to guy down the stretch.
We used up our Ewing Theory against LA. Now we're working on the David Robinson misses most of the season theory.
The fact that somebody is taking a scientific approach to a Bill Simmons gimmick is deeply depressing to me, it's like trying to prove the John Madden Turkey leg made players play harder on Thanksgiving.
The true definition of optimism When someone has hope, even though they know they are going to get there butt wooped.
Ward wasn't that great; in fact, he was more of a football player... LJ had hurt his back already and wasn't the player he was... They had no match for the Spurs in the Finals. Duncan and Robinson did whatever they wanted - no interior defense or rebounding or offense.
