I am not dodging the question. Deke is a good rebounder. However, will I take him over a worse rebounder who can be productive for a longer period? The answer is no. I don't care is someone is great for 5 minutes if I can get a solid 10 from the other guy (and no I'm not saying Deke is only good for 5 minutes). So I guess you are now conceding that it's pretty silly to rely on the mpg stats of Hayes? My whole point of bringing up Mutombo was to show how it's useless to say a player can be good for a stretch that they can't play for whatever reason (i.e. age, fouls issues).
Doesn't it depend on the current makeup of the team, and the depth at that position? Maybe you don't need a player to play "solid" for close to a full game. Maybe you already have a player or two who can play very solid for you for 20-30 minutes. In that case, you could actually benefit more from a player who plays "great" for 20 minutes a game, compared to a player who plays "solid" for a full game. Hope that makes sense.
I just found out that there is this sport called "baseball" where they use these bogus "ratio" type stats instead of the more meaningful per game stats to equalize things. Apparently, each game consists of 9 "innings" and they have this thing called "runs allowed per 9 innings" instead of "runs allowed per game" even though few "pitchers" play all 9 innings and some even play less than 1 inning per game when they go in (while others typically play 5 or more innings per game). Still, they apply this misleading "runs allowed per 9 innings" stat to all of these "pitchers." It's completely meaningless cuz the guys who pitch less than 1 inning per game can never pitch 5 or more innings. Isn't this highly annoying? They also have this thing called "hits made per 1000 at bats" when nobody gets 1000 "at bats" in a season.
I agree 100%. Did the Rockets have a lot of depth at the PF position? Could we have benefitted from him playing a solid 30 minutes a game? What keeps him from getting more minutes, besides him?
Good. No, but if you want to specifically talk about Chuck last season, consider this scenario. Suppose there was a player with Juwan Howard's abilities who played 38 minutes a game for a crappy Eastern Conference team. He probably would have put up bigger per game numbers (points, rebouds, assists) than Chuck Hayes in those 38 minutes. Would replacing Chuck with such a player have made us a better team? Having players than can play big minutes is an asset, don't get me wrong. But sometimes, you're better off with an effective player who'll play more limited minutes than a mediocre player who plays big minutes and consequentially puts up bigger numbers. Well, since you asked: how about JVG's man love for Juwan Howard, or Yao missing a big chunk of the season which resulted in Chuck's minutes being cut significantly (with some justification). Lots of factors determine the minutes a player gets. Of course, foul trouble was a big limiting factor for Chuck.
Chuck is a good role player. A role player will only play limited minutes. He has his share of weaknesses also, but the point is that he contributes a lot of intangibles towards us winning a game as a role player. A team needs role players who will not deprive more capable players of their shots ( a.k.a. rafer) and who will change the course or outcome of the game in our favor ( like the charge he drew on fisher). Overall , his strengths overwhelmingly outweigh his weaknesses as a role player not to mention cost effectiveness.
In my first post, I explained the confounds of a player giving more effort (eg, hustling for rebounds, gambling on steals, shooting more) when he plays less time, because he is less concerned about conserving energy and/or fouling out, or alternatively, he may not have time to get into a rhythm and underperform. Thus, the confounds of potentially inflated or depressed stats still exist, whether, you divide that players game numbers by his minutes played (production per min), or divide that players numbers by minutes played and then subsequently multiply by 48 (production per 48 min). I think we are on the same page about using stats as a supplementary tool to what we observe. I also agree with you that you have to consider minutes when looking at per game numbers, but you also have to realize that there are multiple other factors that affect a player's production also. The difference in our opinions stems only from what stats we use. For example, when I see a player averaging 6.7 rpg in only 22 min, I can reasonably predict that he will average more in 30 min. Does that mean that he will average 9.1 rpg (his per 30 min stat)? Not necessarily. Will he average more than 6.7 rpg? Almost definitely. And frankly, even if he only reached 8 rpg, that is pretty decent production from a PF in today's league.
If you think Mutumbo is a good rebounder despite the fact that he ranks 21st in rebounds amongst centers, I feel perfectly justified in saying that Chuck is a good pickpocket depsite ranking 13th in steals amongst power forwards. According to you: Ranking 21st = good Ranking 13th = average No contradiction there, champ.
If your point is "the minutes a player gets per game can impact his production", I don't dispute that at all. More generally, the way a coach chooses to use a player can impact his "per-minute productivity" -- and that includes the length of time he keeps him on the court, the way he asks him to play defense, the role he's asked to play on offense, etc. When I reference Chuck's production per minute, I'm not saying that will hold regardless of his minutes played. But it is, at least, a first-order approximation of the production you can expect from him in more minutes. For some players, it might end up being very accurate, and for others less so. When making quick statistical comparisons between players, I think it generally makes more sense to use per-minute stats as a starting point than per-game stats (which people rely on far too much). A more useful, in-depth comparison would require many other factors to be considered. But we aren't writing term papers here. I don't disagree with anything you said there.
