The fact is, your calculations explain a lot of things, and by not including everything else that would be a cause to your 9 game sample size, then your argument is moot. You're trying to argue that the trade made the Rockets 19% worse. By not implying other factors, your have no point.
Yes, that was my exact methodology. What's amusing is that some of the mouth-breathers here asked me to describe my methods because they couldn't figure it out on their own. The one thing you left out though is that I tested the figures derived via that process for statistical significance.
You do know that Carl Landry and Kevin Martin are about the same age? The reason why people think Carl is much younger than Martin is because he just came into the league. But Landry was drafted when he was already 23 years old. So, Landry is probably at his peaked right now. The reason why the Rockets was losing lately isn't because they made a bad trade. I mean losing 2 of your rotational players are pretty big. Kyle Lowry is hurt and Ariza has been out too. Plus Morey know what he's doing and trust me, your statistics numbers can't even come close to Morey. The Rockets are paying Morey big bucks for a reason. And that reason is because he knows whats he doing. Even with Carl Landry, the Rockets was already struggling with Lowry has been out. Plus the Rockets probably got the best deal out of that trade. The Kings and Knicks both just got extra cap room and the Rockets got Martin, high potential Jordan Hill and some first round picks from the Knicks. You have to understand, the Rockets aren't going to start winning automatically as soon as Martin came over. They need time to adjust and get used to their surroundings, teammates and the new system. Martin isn't used to playing at a fast pace but he's working on it. Carl Landry is a good player but he will never be an all star player just like Martin. But Martin is a way better scorer and we needed a SG badly. When Hill developed down the line, he can easily picked up where Landry left off. Hill is still a young rookie but he have everything to be a great player in this league. He's bigger than Landry, stronger and probably more athletic. He can run the floor very well and is a good rebounder. He is also fast for a big man. So overall, the Rockets lost Carl Landry for Jordan Hill, a player that has the potential to be better than Landry and the Rockets lost Tmac who doesn't even wants to play here anymore. So we got Hill and Martin and 2 first round picks from the Knicks basically for Landry. So tell me, is that still a bad trade?
Your reading comprehension is lacking. The 19% was just a datapoint arrived at through calculations, not the conclusion. I have only concluded that the trade almost certainly made the Rockets worse. There is not enough data yet to say exactly how much worse though. The confidence interval would be too large. However, since there appears to be so much interest in my work I will continue to update this thread throughout the season as I gather more data and expand on my earlier findings.
Wow! That's AMAZING!! You've taken the difference in winning percentages and somehow described that in terms that even the casual basketball fan can understand!! Did you go to MIT, too?!?
Its a good trade if you want to be mediocre, but it won't win us any championships anytime soon. And I'm not mad that they got rid of Landry. I'm mad at who they traded Landry for. Like I've said many times, Martin is nothing but a stat guy. And if you guys think he can help us in the championship with him being one of the main piece, then you need to slap yourself in the face
i like how a guy posting a half-assed theory with minimal statistical analysis (riddled with unaccounted for variables) sets off an 8 page rant on proper method. no joke, i love this board. you better come correct with your stat 101!
So basically, you're saying that your own calculations are lacking data. For the record, I like feeding trolls or arguing with stupid for that matter. It makes my day go by much faster. :grin:
Is it beyond your understanding that there could be enough data to make one claim, but to make another more specific claim would require additional data? That's how statistics work, champ.
Yes, but not all of the facts. Fact: Rockets record since the trade Fact: Rockets record for the entire season before the trade But you left out a few facts: Fact: Kyle Lowry has played zero minutes since the trade Fact: Rockets had a horrible record the previous 20 games before the trade. Fact: Rockets have had at least 2 players miss games due to injury almost every game since the trade. Now, why is it that: Applies to your conclusions, but not those given by others in this thread using even more facts to obtain said conclusion than you?? Nice unbiased facts that you are using, trying to tell the entire story.
This has to be the stupidest thread I have read in a long time. You obviously have are full of yourself when you say you analyze financial data for re-sell. Because if you did you analyze the finance for the current cost and future cost to properly sell. That's like selling your Google stock way back when it was $50 a share and not looking at their future trends and missing out on their current $500+ per share. You idiot. There are huge variables that are not known to consider the trades a bust. Biggest will be if NY gets 2 large cap guys. If they just get one then they will tank giving us a high pick possible and the following year could even be better. Look at their 07-08 record of 23-59 and 08-09 record of 32-50. Things will be worse then that if they don't have role players and just one mediocre star. We got what we wanted in Martin whether you believe it or not. He is good and will get better next year. Hill could be a bonus or not. Jefferies contract will give us room next year for spending. So this deal was not for the next 8 games or even for the next year. Hints why we got future draft picks.
dude - what you did is not statistics, it's 2nd grade math. You would need to assign some sort of weighted variable for strength of sechedule for each period analyzed (what if the Rockets pre-trade schedule was all Timberwolves and post-trade scheudle was all LAkers?). Then you need to account for home/road games and injuries. Finally, you would have to create some kind of factor - lets call it beta - for the impact of practice time reletive to each team (remember, the Rockets had more players moving) give me THAT number - and I will tell you it was still a good trade...but at least you will have done a proper statistical analysis
Don't forget about Walt Frazier, free Cable Vision for the entire city of Houston, a NY Knicks championship trophy, and the chicken and rice stand on 53rd and 6th. And the number eight overall draft pick, Jordan Hill.
this thread needs to die...the bottom line is the OP generalized his "findings" by implying the effect the trade had is over with. Even he can't deny that his "findings" don't indicate the trend will continue. That's the question to ask. Does he believe this will continue, especially when introducing new variables such as lowry and Ariza? How about extra rest for battier and brooks? He can only answer "no" or that he "isn't sure". /thread.
Kevin Martin is 7 months older than Landry, and yet he's reached his peak and is on the decline? But Landry is a young player with potential compared to Martin? Seriously....an injury-riddled history does not mean Martin is on the decline. Neither player has reached their peak. Martin may seem he is close because of his injury history, but if he stays healthy, he'll be a big contributor to the Rocket's future success. When you consider we got 2 first round draft picks and a young talent with a lot of potential in Jordan Hill as well, we definetely won this trade.
Nice summation. What's worse is that if he was trying to prove a trend pre & post trade, he chose an exceptionally poor method for doing so.
You can throw all of the statistics you want out there for this season, it doesn't make a difference. The fact of the matter is, the Rockets got a reliable SG, two 1st round picks (one of them being Jordan Hill, of course), a better 1st round pick for next season, and Jeffries+Hilton.... all while giving up Carl Landry. Think about it, the Rockets weren't going to get anybody like Kevin Martin in free agency this offseason... so the Rockets pulled off a trade to get him, while still building a group of assets to possibly trade for something else. And all they gave up was Carl Landry. How could this be considered a "loss" at all? Well, unless, of course, you were putting a lot of weight into this season. In which case, you would just be kidding yourself.
Well, yes, it won't lead us to championships instantly, and if that's your criteria for what is a good trade, prepare to be disappointed a lot (pretty much if a trade isn't a Pau Gasol level of ripoff, it's a bad deal for you as far as I can tell). After all, as good as Landry was, he wasn't leading us to one either. Generally, when people call someone a "stat guy", the implication is that they have the ball a lot and chuck a lot, so they get a lot of points that way. If you think Martin's like that, I can't help you. < Good. >
see my sig...did your statistical genius tell you he was gonna shoot below 40%? how about a sig bet when he does shoot over 40%?
