Colbinii wrote:Spoiler:rate_ wrote:Butler: 26/7/3/2 | +1.6 rTS | 28.6 PER | 1.3 Win Shares | 22.0 Game Score
Tatum: 25/8/6/1 | +5.0 rTS | 19.8 PER | 0.9 Win Shares | 18.7 Game Score
Jimmy had the better series statistically. Tatum had better supporting cast.
Averages aren't really great for a 7 game series though.
Jimmy Butler had 3 games with a sub-10 Gamescore while Tatum had only 1 game sub-10.
Think of it this way. Would you prefer a guy with a 2 perfect games, 2 good games and 3 bad games or 5 good games, one average game and 1 bad game?
Jimmy's 2 perfect games average out his 3 bad games but the fact is his lows were much lower than Tatums and much more common in this series.
Something to think about when evaluating series where perhaps the "Median Outcome" is a better evaluation and indicator than the "Mean Outcome".
Statistically speaking, Tatum's sub-set of games is more valuable than Butler and a simple algorithm proves this.
it goes both ways tbh
if a player has 4 trascendent games and 3 awful ones it could be in many circunstance better than a player with 7 good but not particularly great games
both, the steady good and the inconsistent great have arguments here to be more impactful to win a series