I thought people from Utah weren't allowed to speak badly of other people from Utah, some sort of state law... That article is great.
No, and I usually listen to Wheels, but I must have missed that segment. I'm glad I'm not the only one with that problem.
Which is why I pointed out that it's somewhat of a coincidental stat, due to Oden and Rudy postponing their rookie years. The odds are against such a thing occurring otherwise.
That's like saying Kobe's 81 isn't impressive because hardly anyone ever does it. The fact of the matter is nobody (or very few) have won with 4 rookies. You are in fact only pointing out that it's even more unlucky to be done... A. because hardly anyone plays with 4 rookies B. If they do, they don't do very well. IMHO of course
It's not that a team with 4 rookies hasn't played well in the past. We've already said that Chicago did. What's crazy is that a team with 4 rookies is playing GREAT, unbelievable, possible top 5 in the league, great.
The 1977-78 Phoenix Suns finished 16 games over 0.500 (49-33) with the 4th best record in the entire NBA with four rookies that all played in at least 64 games. Three of their rookies played in at least 80 games that season. BNM
Not at all the same. Every player and every team scores points, there's a huge sample of players scoring points which makes an outlier like 81 so freaking unbelievable. In any case this is becoming a really stupid argument; I've been completely misunderstood, and/or I have done a completely piss poor job of making my point (I'm guessing the latter). It's not important.
Yes, and every team in the history of the NBA has had a roster, there's a huge sample of teams putting players on the floor and playing games which makes an outlier like this years Blazers so freaking unbelievable. Your saying it's not a big deal because nobody ever does it... That's exactly what makes it a big deal.
No I didn't say it's not a big deal, I just said it's an oddball statistic because there's barely anything to compare it to. Look, I already said my point was missed and I can't seem to explain it, so forget about it.
Right, Like Wilt's 100 point game. It's not that your point has been missed, some of us just don't agree with you. Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs was an "oddball" statistic when he did that as well, completely and totally off the charts. Honestly, I'm not going to drop this, what's your phone number? I'll give you a call and we can sort this out.
Trying another form of trolling, I see? I think you were actually easier to read when you spoke ebonics.
Staying after him when he already conceded is a form of trolling. You made a joke of yourself and now you expect me to take you seriously? You can't have it both ways boyo, you're either a characature, or you're legit. Which is it?
Well, until you establish that it is in fact "statistically insignificant", how can we continue this argument? You admitted you were too lazy to look it up. How do you even know your "feeling" about how many teams rolled out 3 or more rookies is true? I would agree that Portland has played 3 rookies in the rotation. Bayless is a bit of a stretch for the 4th. He is on the team and he has played. But at less than 1,000 minutes, I don't consider him part of the rotation. Chicago, truly did play 4 rookies in their rotation.
Chrissakes, people are bulldogging the hell out of something that basically amounted to me wondering aloud about something fairly trivial in my original post. Here's the deal: Statistically significant in the 'nuts and bolts' sense of real statistical analysis. And by that I mean in order for a statistic to be meaningful in the world of inferential statistics you need a sample size large enough to create either a normal distribution or a T distribution and then you would look at how many standard deviations above zero a team sits on the continuum of a distribution of wins, but you must have enough elements in your population or sample in order for it to be statistically significant (ie. useful) -- too few in the sample equals too little data to make any kind of inferences about one element in comparison to the rest of the population. I do agree with the basic premise that a team with a lot of rookies in the rotation winning is unusual, I just wondered aloud about the "4 rookies playing in 50+ games" thing as possibly being a somewhat dubious stat, because it is so difficult to tell if a successful team is actually an outlier or not when there are more than likely too few teams in league history satisfying the fairly narrow parameters given in the stat to actually create any kind of inference that means anything. Here, I'll spell it out boldly and in big letters so people can hopefully get it: This team is young and they are playing well --which is unusual in this league! (Yay! We agree) But, does that make them unique amongst the small population of teams that have fielded 4 rookies? I don't know (because I'm too lazy to spend hours looking it up), but I wonder about A) how many teams have played 4 rookies, and B) would that population size be big enough to make a meaningful inferential statistic out of it? That's it, nothing else to see here. Everybody happy now?
