Great stats in Mike Barrett's blog

[Nikolokolus]

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.

 

[OddEnormous]

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.

 

[OddEnormous]

Trying another form of trolling, I see? I think you were actually easier to read when you spoke ebonics.

Edit: OH SHIT, you were being funny weren't you?


(call me)

 

[Natebishop3]

A. I wasn't talking to you

B. I disagree with him

C. Some of you are out of your minds when it come to talking on a fucking message board.



Since when has disagreeing with someone been classified as trolling?



OH SHIT, you were being funny were't you?

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?

 

[OddEnormous]

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?

Please see "C."

I gave you too much credit

 

[Natebishop3]

Please see "C."

I gave you too much credit

Now you're trying to troll me, nice try though

 

[OddEnormous]

Now you're trying to troll me, nice try though

Wow, you're weird.

 

[Masbee]

I'm not arguing the point that winning with 4 rookies in the rotation isn't amazing, I just think the sample size of teams that have actually played 4 rookies is meaningless and misleading because the sample size is statistically insignificant.

It's just a comment about the oddball nature of the statistic, not a comment about how unusual it is for a young team to win; I probably phrased my original comment poorly.

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.

 

[Nikolokolus]

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?

 

[Minstrel]

Sheesh, nik...why don't you get that what the Blazers are doing is pretty rare and remarkable?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Sheesh, nik...why don't you get that what the Blazers are doing is pretty rare and remarkable?

Clearly I'm a daft cunt.