lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Jamie, I'm talkin' at you.
Yes, I understand the concept, and I actually think it's a very important stat. I'll come back to that. But why lessen its importance by labeling it incorrectly, or with a term that means something different?
To be clear, the topic came up last year with criticisms of the language. It isn't a hard fix. It took Streets all of two minutes to tie the terminology into the common language of the sport. "He parked it!" While I've been thinking of "the parking lot," the fact is that SD has a better term for it as the ICH.
One of the reasons I like Steve Dodge is that when he makes a mistake, he tends to fix it. On top of that, he tends to admit he's made a mistake. Please listen to the Smash from three weeks ago. That takes Chutzpah, guts, you name it. I don't always agree with Steve, but I almost always admire and respect him.
Jussie tends to go the opposite way. When he makes mistakes, he doesn't fix them, he can't admit it, and he tends to find excuses or blame others. Now, his mistakes haven't been huge, but they are there. This one is minor but easily fixed. Why not?
The ICH - cause that's what I'm calling it. A player that gets an ICH from 150 feet and out has done something. IMO, he should have gained a statistically measurable advantage over a player that has hit outside of twenty feet in such a situation. My impression is that he doesn't, and I'm pretty sure you can now determine that from what DGWT has done. Good on them.
We often debate baskets and how they catch. Being arbitrary, I would argue that a player who hits inside 10 feet on ten holes should have a twenty percent advantage over a player who hits outside of 20 feet on the same ten holes. That is, player A should get 10 out of 10 and player B should get 8 out of 10, on average over lots and lots of holes. If I can get you to accept that as a starting point, now you can think about basket design. You want to make a basket that rewards this situtation. Of course how you get there is a lot tougher. But, you can imagine a putting machine with certain parameters, speed, height of putt etc. and you design baskets that give you the result you've prerequested. Nope, won't be perfect, but you can get close.
Should you do this? Maybe. But At least you can ask the questions and see what is going on with Jussie's measurement. So, I'm not criticising the concept, just the rather silly name.
And as always, I'm having fun. I hate Bullseye, no really, but I'm certainly not taking myself seriously on that name. On the other hand, I do think the measurement is important and will allow us to think about rewarding a player who has a good, wait for it, ICH metrix.
