Re: Oh yeah

[KK <Kestutis.Kveraga@Dartmouth.EDU>]

peter delevett wrote:

> I'm actually surprised the disparities aren't wider. Especially in Walker's
> case, the only major differential is in his 3 point percentage. Which to me
> says that perhaps Walker's performance is not to blame for most of our losses,
> that in fact he holds pretty steady. Then again, those of us who hate to see
> him hoist up a quick 3 certainly have statistical fodder for feeling that way.
<...>
> Given Mercer's increased tendencies this year to shoot more than last year,
> someone should show him how there's almost a 10% swing in his shooting
> percentage between Celtics wins and losses. Maybe he'd start paying more
> attention on nights when his shot's not dropping.

Not trying to have facts get in the way of a good argument but:

Correlation *does not* necessarily indicate a causal relationship, nor, if
there indeed is one, its direction (as Alex might've pointed out).  Any number
of variables could've caused BOTH the drop in Walker's and Mercer's shooting
numbers and a Celtics' loss: tighter defense by opponent, tiredness on those
days, unlucky stars....(just kidding about the last one!). It could even be
that Walker and Mercer started jacking up bad shots BECAUSE they were losing
and wanted to get back into the game quickly. It could even be random. We just
don't know. 

> Alex Wang wrote:
> >
> >  Walker:
> >  W: 43.3% fg, 41.5% 3fg, 21.2 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 3.6 apg
> >  L: 40.1% fg, 30.6% 3fg, 17.9 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.7 apg
> > Mercer:
> >  W: 49.3% fg, 18.7 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 2.3 apg
> >  L: 40.9% fg, 16.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.6 apg
> >