|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 2, 2012 13:52:05 GMT -5
I don't know if I agree regarding Hooker. Yes I think she brings a lot to the team and is definitely our best option at OPP, but I think this past week has proven the team has good second-strings at pretty much every position. The past week only proved our depth could beat a watered-down WGP. Not to take away from the three-peat accomplishment, but the level of play that will be required to win Gold in London will far exceed what we saw this past week. The level of play that we just displayed probably wouldn't medal a month from now. Make no mistake, we NEED Hooker to win Gold. She averages over 5 points/game against other A squads internationally, her wins-above-replacement based on point efficiency is the highest on our entire team, even above Logan Tom. *Not saying Tom is more replaceable, that's debatable based on how much losing her effects Hooker's stats based on passing. If you've added that asterisk, methinks you don't understand WAR correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Jul 2, 2012 13:54:20 GMT -5
The Olympics is a different playing field....USA has yet to face RUSSIA and ITALY...it will be full of upsets and USA's ranking does not mean or guarantee anything....this is the tournament that makes for all those years of hardwork...in 2004 USA was expected to win the Gold and came in 4th I think Hugh summed it up perfectly in a recent interivew.. he said "Our ranking only means that we have a chance, a real chance to clinch gold, I mean, it's not like were ranked 38th in the world trying to win a gold medal. So we have a shot". |
|
|
|
Post by DiggUH on Jul 2, 2012 14:10:25 GMT -5
Just curious...do the alternates accompany the team to London, or do they just hang back until called?
|
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Jul 2, 2012 14:13:58 GMT -5
Just curious...do the alternates accompany the team to London, or do they just hang back until called? Alternates are only eligible to replace an athlete on the Olympic roster up UNTIL the start of competition. They (usually) don't travel with the team. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 2, 2012 14:19:49 GMT -5
The past week only proved our depth could beat a watered-down WGP. Not to take away from the three-peat accomplishment, but the level of play that will be required to win Gold in London will far exceed what we saw this past week. The level of play that we just displayed probably wouldn't medal a month from now. Make no mistake, we NEED Hooker to win Gold. She averages over 5 points/game against other A squads internationally, her wins-above-replacement based on point efficiency is the highest on our entire team, even above Logan Tom. *Not saying Tom is more replaceable, that's debatable based on how much losing her effects Hooker's stats based on passing. If you've added that asterisk, methinks you don't understand WAR correctly. It's clear that you're the one that doesn't understand WAR. It's a metric showing the value of substitutable players. Last I checked, Hooker and Tom don't play the same position, do they? To understand who's more valuable to the overall team's success/wins, you need a different metric. One that shows aggregate performance of a likely starting unit featuring each player without the other. In baseball, that would be something like win-shares, which isn't to be confused with WAR. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 2, 2012 15:01:13 GMT -5
If you've added that asterisk, methinks you don't understand WAR correctly. It's clear that you're the one that doesn't understand WAR. It's a metric showing the value of substitutable players. Last I checked, Hooker and Tom don't play the same position, do they? To understand who's more valuable to the overall team's success/wins, you need a different metric. One that shows aggregate performance of a likely starting unit featuring each player without the other. In baseball, that would be something like win-shares, which isn't to be confused with WAR. WAR shows how well the team does with a merely "average" player in her place. You say Hooker's WAR is incontrivertibly highest, but then have to asterisk that with how Hooker (and everyone else) would be less effective with a merely average player in Tom's stead. Hooker's lesser effectiveness is a PART of Tom's WAR. You don't have to play the same position, the whole point of WAR was to adjust a player's impact for position (and era) |
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 2, 2012 15:51:32 GMT -5
It's clear that you're the one that doesn't understand WAR. It's a metric showing the value of substitutable players. Last I checked, Hooker and Tom don't play the same position, do they? To understand who's more valuable to the overall team's success/wins, you need a different metric. One that shows aggregate performance of a likely starting unit featuring each player without the other. In baseball, that would be something like win-shares, which isn't to be confused with WAR. WAR shows how well the team does with a merely "average" player in her place. You say Hooker's WAR is incontrivertibly highest, but then have to asterisk that with how Hooker (and everyone else) would be less effective with a merely average player in Tom's stead. Hooker's lesser effectiveness is a PART of Tom's WAR. You don't have to play the same position, the whole point of WAR was to adjust a player's impact for position (and era) No, that's just how WAR can be explained in general terms. But when teams are building rosters, they use it as a way of comparing available substitutes. It makes zero sense to use average production for the replacement value if you know who the available substitutes are, and what their production happens to be. Yes, WAR is a component of win shares, but they're not perfect correlates. Just because one player has the highest WAR doesn't mean they have the highest win shares. Again, you don't measure against average replacement value, you measure against value of the expected replacement. It makes no sense to not use the specific substitute since n=1, and their production can vary wildly from the mean. In simple terms, even if Hooker's WAR is higher than Tom's, Tom's win shares may be higher because we don't have the data showing which line-up--US starters minus Tom w/best replacement vs. US starters minus Hooker w/best replacement--produces the most wins. If one of those players is so clearly ahead of their replacement, then it affects the team aggregate wins produced far more than their individual WARs. In practical terms, it's a debate of whether losing Tom's receptions/passing and defense would significantly hinder Hooker's attack efficiency and drop the wins produced more than losing Hooker's attack efficiency vs. her replacement given Tom is reinserted into the line-up. There are far more variables introduced when judging which line-up would be producing more wins vs. a generic opponent. More than that, the specific opponent would also factor in if you want to get technical. For example, an opponent that serves great but has a weak left side block would be tougher to deal with when Tom is out of the line-up than Hooker. |
|
|
|
Post by DiggUH on Jul 2, 2012 19:37:39 GMT -5
Just curious...do the alternates accompany the team to London, or do they just hang back until called? Alternates are only eligible to replace an athlete on the Olympic roster up UNTIL the start of competition. They (usually) don't travel with the team. OK. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jul 2, 2012 23:36:12 GMT -5
Just curious...do the alternates accompany the team to London, or do they just hang back until called? Just an history tidbit for all you young uns - Chris Marlowe took Rod Wilde's spot in '84 when Rod broke his leg like a week before the Olympics. Always felt so bad for Rod. |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jul 3, 2012 21:05:52 GMT -5
WAR shows how well the team does with a merely "average" player in her place. You say Hooker's WAR is incontrivertibly highest, but then have to asterisk that with how Hooker (and everyone else) would be less effective with a merely average player in Tom's stead. Hooker's lesser effectiveness is a PART of Tom's WAR. You don't have to play the same position, the whole point of WAR was to adjust a player's impact for position (and era) No, that's just how WAR can be explained in general terms. But when teams are building rosters, they use it as a way of comparing available substitutes. It makes zero sense to use average production for the replacement value if you know who the available substitutes are, and what their production happens to be. Yes, WAR is a component of win shares, but they're not perfect correlates. Just because one player has the highest WAR doesn't mean they have the highest win shares. Again, you don't measure against average replacement value, you measure against value of the expected replacement. It makes no sense to not use the specific substitute since n=1, and their production can vary wildly from the mean. In simple terms, even if Hooker's WAR is higher than Tom's, Tom's win shares may be higher because we don't have the data showing which line-up--US starters minus Tom w/best replacement vs. US starters minus Hooker w/best replacement--produces the most wins. If one of those players is so clearly ahead of their replacement, then it affects the team aggregate wins produced far more than their individual WARs. In practical terms, it's a debate of whether losing Tom's receptions/passing and defense would significantly hinder Hooker's attack efficiency and drop the wins produced more than losing Hooker's attack efficiency vs. her replacement given Tom is reinserted into the line-up. There are far more variables introduced when judging which line-up would be producing more wins vs. a generic opponent. More than that, the specific opponent would also factor in if you want to get technical. For example, an opponent that serves great but has a weak left side block would be tougher to deal with when Tom is out of the line-up than Hooker. Okay, after reading all the heated debate about this metric's usefulness I'm still confused about WAR --- what is it good for? I mean, good god y'all. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 3, 2012 21:14:12 GMT -5
O&A kudos. Great tune.
Sent from my MB860 using ProBoards
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 3, 2012 23:23:27 GMT -5
Okay, after reading all the heated debate about this metric's usefulness I'm still confused about WAR --- what is it good for? I mean, good god y'all. Absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jul 4, 2012 3:53:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Jul 4, 2012 20:04:25 GMT -5
Okay, after reading all the heated debate about this metric's usefulness I'm still confused about WAR --- what is it good for? I mean, good god y'all. Absolutely nothing. oh ok, good ... b/c i didn't wanna have to go back an re-read everything above ...  |
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Jul 10, 2012 15:51:14 GMT -5
From Russia: Russia's coach said in an interview that Kosheleva will most likely not compete in the OGs... as she won't recover from her injuries in time.
From Brazil: Marianne Stienbrecher has been cut from the team by Ze Roberto, she will not compete in the OGs.. Tandara and Natalia are the only two left on the roster that could fill in the back-up OPP spot.. but Natalia hasn't played in a looooong time.
|
|
