Ferry Avenue wrote:Jailblazers7 wrote:Ferry Avenue wrote:Then they're certainly not large enough for any sort of eye test to be sufficient. Do you figure the eye test becomes more reliable as the sample size decreases?
No but it’s something that you’ve gotta weight more heavily in your evaluation when sample sizes are too small for a simple correlation to be very valuable. We don’t have access to the good stuff that the Sixers analytics staff is using like tracking data and **** to analyze his burst and athleticism so we’ve gotta lean on the eye test.
Then do it systematically -- measure burst and athleticism in every game and correlate it with number of days of rest. Until I see an analysis with that level of rigor I'll go with scoring as a proxy for burst and athleticism, since it's likely to be strongly related to it and it has a great deal to do with winning.
You’re never gonna see that analysis. That is only really possible for the teams to perform given their access to proprietary tech & data. Just because you don’t have access to good analysis doesn’t mean you should rely on bad analysis lol.
I mean, you’re making an assumption that the impact of his athletic performance would show up mostly in his scoring numbers and then taking a basic correlation off a tiny sample size. And the conclusion is that stormi’s original point can’t be proven or disproven because…the sample size is too small and the analysis is too simplistic.
This convo is a good example why analytics suck the fun out of sports lol. People run with some BS statistic and then the rest of the convo sounds like a debate in a Stats 101 class.