Phenom's_Revenge wrote:I keep reading posts that assume KMart is a lost cause. Doesn't anyone else think he will revert to the mean? He isn't this bad. He just needs to correct his shooting form, which isn't right. I think he will be an integral piece down the stretch.
Sorry Phenom, Reversion to the mean can be a real fallacy when things are changing rather than remaining steady state. I work in investment markets and it's a mistake that so many people seem to make - previous performance was good, so current poor performance is due to correct shortly. But if something is trading below its fair value, is it more likely that the price increases back to its fair value, or is it more likely that the fair value is will be adjusted down to reflect the poor performance?
In Martin's case, when you've got declining performance coinciding with aging, the longer it goes, the longer it's likely to suggest a trend or a change. In fact, the longer it goes, the less likely we are to see the performance revert to the mean and the more likely we are to see the mean move towards the current data.
Disclaimer - Martin may break out of his slump and revert to the mean, but I think the balance of probabilities suggest that is becoming less and less likely.
I think it's a little of both. In terms of his decline, if you look at Win Shares and VORP, this is the third year in a row that he's slid in those categories. That said - it's pretty clear that he's in a slump and I have to believe he will perform somewhat better for two reasons: First - I think he'll benefit from playing with Rubio vs. LaVine as Rubio is just better at getting the ball to guys at the time time/at their spots. Second, I think Martin was shot hunting more than ever with the second unit because he was pissed he got demoted. I don't know that. It's just my opinion. But I know at the start of camp he went on record that he considered himself the starter and I doubt anything changed.
Probably the best answer possible in terms of just playing the probabilities - a bit of both.
I probably just have bee in my bonnet about 'reversion to the mean' because I've been arguing about it at work for years as our analysts have been telling me to buy resources and oil stocks because they are cheap and due to bounce.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:I keep reading posts that assume KMart is a lost cause. Doesn't anyone else think he will revert to the mean? He isn't this bad. He just needs to correct his shooting form, which isn't right. I think he will be an integral piece down the stretch.
Sorry Phenom, Reversion to the mean can be a real fallacy when things are changing rather than remaining steady state. I work in investment markets and it's a mistake that so many people seem to make - previous performance was good, so current poor performance is due to correct shortly. But if something is trading below its fair value, is it more likely that the price increases back to its fair value, or is it more likely that the fair value is will be adjusted down to reflect the poor performance?
In Martin's case, when you've got declining performance coinciding with aging, the longer it goes, the longer it's likely to suggest a trend or a change. In fact, the longer it goes, the less likely we are to see the performance revert to the mean and the more likely we are to see the mean move towards the current data.
Disclaimer - Martin may break out of his slump and revert to the mean, but I think the balance of probabilities suggest that is becoming less and less likely.
My argument would be that Martin's "mean" isn't all that good to begin with. Certainly not starting caliber SG on a contender.
It's a hollow argument to make it about starting or not. That isn't the issue. People just plain don't want him on the floor and that's a mistake. He can be a superb supplemental piece to our playoff run.
When we're counting on him to start, and he's playing starters minutes, it certainly is an issue. He's not good enough.
I'm not counting on him to start. I'm counting on him to contribute. Tossing him aside is foolish and something we need to stop expecting as Wolves fans.
Martin is a heat check player you give some run to see if he's got his stroke going that night or not, I really hope they are playing him to "increase his trade value" but without making this the K. Martin thread, I think they are playing them because the coaching staff just isn't that good.
Now on to the part about MN playing their best yet? That depends quite a bit on health, but with some good health I see a team that could grow by leaps and bounds if they just start playing the kids significant minutes.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:I keep reading posts that assume KMart is a lost cause. Doesn't anyone else think he will revert to the mean? He isn't this bad. He just needs to correct his shooting form, which isn't right. I think he will be an integral piece down the stretch.
Sorry Phenom, Reversion to the mean can be a real fallacy when things are changing rather than remaining steady state. I work in investment markets and it's a mistake that so many people seem to make - previous performance was good, so current poor performance is due to correct shortly. But if something is trading below its fair value, is it more likely that the price increases back to its fair value, or is it more likely that the fair value is will be adjusted down to reflect the poor performance?
In Martin's case, when you've got declining performance coinciding with aging, the longer it goes, the longer it's likely to suggest a trend or a change. In fact, the longer it goes, the less likely we are to see the performance revert to the mean and the more likely we are to see the mean move towards the current data.
Disclaimer - Martin may break out of his slump and revert to the mean, but I think the balance of probabilities suggest that is becoming less and less likely.
My argument would be that Martin's "mean" isn't all that good to begin with. Certainly not starting caliber SG on a contender.
It's a hollow argument to make it about starting or not. That isn't the issue. People just plain don't want him on the floor and that's a mistake. He can be a superb supplemental piece to our playoff run.
When we're counting on him to start, and he's playing starters minutes, it certainly is an issue. He's not good enough.
I'm not counting on him to start. I'm counting on him to contribute. Tossing him aside is foolish and something we need to stop expecting as Wolves fans.
I don't hear anybody saying he can't contribute
That's where the recent talk has been headed, hence my bringing it up. I don't hear anyone saying that we are counting on him starting. Not even Mitchell had been counting on that. He tried to force Lavine and Prince into that role first.
As a couple of others said, the biggest change in this team is defense. And to me defense is as much influenced by coaching as it is by player personnel. Mitchell has done a wonderful job making it a point of emphasis and coaching up the weaker defenders on the squad. We still aren't great, but we're solid, which is miles and miles ahead of last year.
I think taking and making more 3's is where there is the most room for improvement. A healthy Bjelica and non-slumping K-Mart will help the cause.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:I keep reading posts that assume KMart is a lost cause. Doesn't anyone else think he will revert to the mean? He isn't this bad. He just needs to correct his shooting form, which isn't right. I think he will be an integral piece down the stretch.
Sorry Phenom, Reversion to the mean can be a real fallacy when things are changing rather than remaining steady state. I work in investment markets and it's a mistake that so many people seem to make - previous performance was good, so current poor performance is due to correct shortly. But if something is trading below its fair value, is it more likely that the price increases back to its fair value, or is it more likely that the fair value is will be adjusted down to reflect the poor performance?
In Martin's case, when you've got declining performance coinciding with aging, the longer it goes, the longer it's likely to suggest a trend or a change. In fact, the longer it goes, the less likely we are to see the performance revert to the mean and the more likely we are to see the mean move towards the current data.
Disclaimer - Martin may break out of his slump and revert to the mean, but I think the balance of probabilities suggest that is becoming less and less likely.
My argument would be that Martin's "mean" isn't all that good to begin with. Certainly not starting caliber SG on a contender.
It's a hollow argument to make it about starting or not. That isn't the issue. People just plain don't want him on the floor and that's a mistake. He can be a superb supplemental piece to our playoff run.
When we're counting on him to start, and he's playing starters minutes, it certainly is an issue. He's not good enough.
I'm not counting on him to start. I'm counting on him to contribute. Tossing him aside is foolish and something we need to stop expecting as Wolves fans.
I don't hear anybody saying he can't contribute
That's where the recent talk has been headed, hence my bringing it up. I don't hear anyone saying that we are counting on him starting. Not even Mitchell had been counting on that. He tried to force Lavine and Prince into that role first.
But Phenom, he IS starting, and that's the problem. He shouldn't be, no effing way.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:I keep reading posts that assume KMart is a lost cause. Doesn't anyone else think he will revert to the mean? He isn't this bad. He just needs to correct his shooting form, which isn't right. I think he will be an integral piece down the stretch.
Sorry Phenom, Reversion to the mean can be a real fallacy when things are changing rather than remaining steady state. I work in investment markets and it's a mistake that so many people seem to make - previous performance was good, so current poor performance is due to correct shortly. But if something is trading below its fair value, is it more likely that the price increases back to its fair value, or is it more likely that the fair value is will be adjusted down to reflect the poor performance?
In Martin's case, when you've got declining performance coinciding with aging, the longer it goes, the longer it's likely to suggest a trend or a change. In fact, the longer it goes, the less likely we are to see the performance revert to the mean and the more likely we are to see the mean move towards the current data.
Disclaimer - Martin may break out of his slump and revert to the mean, but I think the balance of probabilities suggest that is becoming less and less likely.
My argument would be that Martin's "mean" isn't all that good to begin with. Certainly not starting caliber SG on a contender.
It's a hollow argument to make it about starting or not. That isn't the issue. People just plain don't want him on the floor and that's a mistake. He can be a superb supplemental piece to our playoff run.
When we're counting on him to start, and he's playing starters minutes, it certainly is an issue. He's not good enough.
I'm not counting on him to start. I'm counting on him to contribute. Tossing him aside is foolish and something we need to stop expecting as Wolves fans.
I don't hear anybody saying he can't contribute
That's where the recent talk has been headed, hence my bringing it up. I don't hear anyone saying that we are counting on him starting. Not even Mitchell had been counting on that. He tried to force Lavine and Prince into that role first.
But Phenom, he IS starting, and that's the problem. He shouldn't be, no effing way.
Yea, I would going back to square one and putting Zach at the 2 next to Ricky. That's where the most potential is.
The Wolves can and have to keep playing better ball if they top out the way they are playing now they won't win 30 games but that's the way any season is. There is a ton of room for improvement though especially offensively. The other inprovement can come from guys with less experience. The Wolves haven't had it easy with some injuries and a Martin who can't buy a basket. On the other hand some other guys have played well so maybe they cool off. If Pek can play some solid minutes for 40 games or something that would improve this team quite a bit.
monsterpile wrote:The Wolves can and have to keep playing better ball if they top out the way they are playing now they won't win 30 games but that's the way any season is. There is a ton of room for improvement though especially offensively. The other inprovement can come from guys with less experience. The Wolves haven't had it easy with some injuries and a Martin who can't buy a basket. On the other hand some other guys have played well so maybe they cool off. If Pek can play some solid minutes for 40 games or something that would improve this team quite a bit.
Two big IFs, but IF Pek could give them 20-25 minutes a game the least half of the season and Rubio could stay healthy they may not just make the playoffs, they would be a really tough out for some teams. What fun would it be to watch that team?
