Give the ball to Early!

[WstateU]

Not to make additional excuses for Cle, however Marshall mentioned he was ‘very sick’ and had it coming out of both ends prior to Saturday's game. Rumor around the Lou had him wearing ‘Adult Depends’ during the ISU (Red) and CU games.

[Snapshot9]

The bottom line is that we did not win the game in St. Louis. Defensive effort was here and there, Early's production was down, and I have noticed that Demetric's offensive effort has been down last few games. And I don't know why they can't get the ball more to Carl Hall. It's almost a free basket when they do.

[Rlh04d]

And lets not forget that Cle was also very ill during the tournament.

Absolutely. That was what I was thinking of when I said "other matters."

However, while I think Cle is a tremendous player, and I'm very impressed with his desire to be on the court even when feeling so bad ... I think it was a mistake to play him in the tournament. He wasn't great on defense, and he was shooting 24%. Obviously his health was the major problem, but when your health problems cause you to be a downgrade from the people sitting on the bench, there's no reason to be out there.

Hindsight and all that. I'm sure Cle wanted to be out there and he thought he could play at a high enough level to help the team. It didn't turn out that way, though, and I wish we'd be able to just rest him for the big tourney. We're a deep team ... we don't need to play Cle if he's at 40%.

[1972Shocker]

No doubt we need Cle to be on top of his game to do well in the dance. However, it is not totally on Cle. It will take a combined team effort of hard, smart and good play for the Shocks to do some damage. Cle and D-Will in particular need to refresh and refocus, but the rest of the team has to be ready as well. Malcolm needs to be careful not to try and carry the team on his own. The rest of the guys need to make sure it's not necessary for one or two guys to have to carry the team.

Go Shocks!

[im4wsu]

He only really shot more poorly during the last three games. Just throwing out stats without context is not good. Basically, 10 games isn't enough of a sample to balance out the three games where Early was sick. The next game, I'd expect Early to shoot more like he has all year than he did in St. Louis. I do disagree with the point of this thread. Just because Early didn't score in St. Louis does not mean that he's due for a big game.

Ten games is 30 percent of the games played, so if that is not enough of a sample, then anything less than a full season should be ignored, so everything you've been touting

[SubGod22]

But his games while ill slant things to favor your agenda. When relatively healthy, his numbers haven't really changed. That's the point.

[Shockeriffic]

Ten games is 30 percent of the games played, so if that is not enough of a sample, then anything less than a full season should be ignored, so everything you've been touting

A full season should be considered over a small sample unless there is a good reason for using the smaller window. In this case it was that you had already picked that 24/10 game split before. The percentages for Early were all in line with what he'd done before except for the three games in St. Louis. One thing you would expect to see if Early was taking worse shots is that he would get to the free throw line less. Over the whole season, Early has attempted 4.3 free throws per game. Over the last ten games he's averaged 4.3 free throws per game. Just make sure you aren't looking at random noise and mistaking it for something meaningful. And almost everything I've been touting has been data over the entire season.

[ShockTalk]

But his games while ill slant things to favor your agenda. When relatively healthy, his numbers haven't really changed. That's the point.

Ten games is 30 percent of the games played, so if that is not enough of a sample, then anything less than a full season should be ignored, so everything you've been touting

I'm really surprised that you don't understand what is being said here. You are taking 10 games in which you have anomalies in 30% of the games that you do not have either in the first 24 or the other 7. 3 games in 3 days where the player was sick all 3. Under normal circumstances, a player that was sick for 3 days, might have it affect 1 game maximum and if it happened in the first 24 games, a bad performance in that single game would have been mostly countered by the other 23 because of the large number. Lastly, when you take out those 3 games, one finds that there is very little difference between the 24 and other 7 games. The point that he statistically shot worse over the last 10 is true. The point that the player shot worse throughout or scattered throughout those 10 games is not true. He basically had a 3 game slump which many feel was due to illness.

How or why did you pick 24 vs the last 10 games? Look, I can help make your case to the point others will probably agree with you.

Let's compare the first 21 games with the last 13 games, and also minus the last 3. Now we even have little more balance samples.
First 21: Inside the arc, .568, from 3 point .338
Last 13: Inside the arc, .438, from 3 point .271
Minus 3: Inside the arcf, .500, from 3 point .273

Now we clearly see that those 3 games had little impact on the other 10 from 3 point range and that there is still a reasonable difference (certainly more than making just 1 more shot) inside the arc. Point is made whether you include or exclude the last 3 games which were anomalies.

[garylee]

Forget past stats. Let games develop and adjust to game day performances.