[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.nbcsports.com/nba/600326/detail.html
[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno, his sample size seems really really small to be drawing any conclusions whatsoever. Or, to look at it another way, let's say that the chances of a team winning are 50% in each scenario. What are the chances of the author going through the data and NOT jumping to some conclusion? Also, why 4?
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, this some of the worst sports analysis I've read in a while. There's all sorts of things wrong with it. And his conclusion is general b-ball common sense. Teams with better players are more balanced. Shots spread around. No crap. Worse teams have worse players and the best of the bunch needs to take more shots.
i.e., if he could model the '05-'06 Philly team and AIs attempts down to 17, I'm pretty damn sure they'd have a worse record than they did.