Lunartic wrote:SF_Warriors wrote:JN61 wrote:Giannis. We saw Curry this year and it wasn't pretty.
Can someone please, please justify how using a five game regular season sample size for any type of basketball analysis is something a logical person would do? Especially with the first 4 games coming at the beginning of the regular season, and one game coming after a four month layoff?
If you are not quite understanding, let's say you were one of the best workers at your job, and let's say your boss were to give you a terrible yearly performance and based it on 3 weeks of the whole year, after you've come back from a long vacation and being unable to work due to injury, while ignoring excellent performance in the past five years.. That is essentially what you are doing and its beyond ridiculous.
What if during those three weeks, the only thing different was your coworkers weren't covering for you and helping you with your PowerPoint presentations?
The thing is,the team never "covered" for steph in the past. Look at the warriors' record without steph, even with KD. They were basically a .500 team. One could counter-argue that the company's performance in the past, even with other great co workers, essentially became average without said employee. No good company would throw out half a decade of elite performance based on 3 weeks of below average performance, especially after a very long lay off and other strong co workers having left the team. There is obviously an adjustment period that needs to be made there. Any good leadership, and honestly anybody with common sense would wait a longer period and for a larger sample size before making a decision regarding said employee.
Its not just in basketball, but just common sense in life. You don't use a very small sample size to come to a conclusion, especially with years of data saying otherwise. Only an idiot would do something like that? Its even more obvious in sports where players tend to perform worse coming back after the offseason or after coming back from injury..
It works the other way too, no one is going to proclaim trey burke is all of a sudden an all star if he were to have a five game stretch of 25 ppg, so why would it be different for a great player having a not so great five game stretch?
I honestly don't know how to explain it any clearer than that.