OK, So What Changed?

[Epic Voidfield]

But still the right move. The FO had to do something. We'd be way more pissed and be assuming we'd have made the playoffs with him if we HADN'T got him.

Bottom line this season just SUCKED. .

This. We'd be shatting if The Sabean didn't make a move.

 

[mistgl]

Known Nolan Alternates:

AlvinTostig'sSon
HarbaughHooey
jimsan15
Mozart'sGhost
NineCoronas
Sisyphus
AlbertFlasher
Hysteria

He's blaming all these alternates on his drunken son and brother. Not sure if that is two different people or not.

He really is that desperate to troll you guys? damn...

 

[tzill]

He really is that desperate to troll you guys? damn...

I know, right?

He's a psychopathic turd.

 

[Mays-Fan]

LOL, thank you very little for that Myspace image, tz. Perhaps she thought it was sexy to send the message that "my rectum is empty now, I'm ready".

Back to the topic...

Team sports success or failure is a very interrelated equation. One can look at a team's success as the multiplied product of each individual's efforts. If 1.0 is considered an individual's average success factor, with 25 guys at average, the product (1 to the 25th power) is still 1.

Lower the average by just .02 to 0.98, and you get 0.60, rounded. (ie, our 2011 season).

Raise the average to 1.02, and you get 1.64 (ie, our 2010 season), almost 3 times higher than 0.60.

A very small difference in an individual's success, when multiplied by the number of players on the squad, make's a huge difference in the end between "clicking on all cylinders" and "lacking good chemistry".

It's hard to point a finger at an individual when his factor fluctuates even a small amount (1.02 to 0.98), but when taken together, the impact can be huge (1.64 vs 0.60).

 

[tzill]

LOL, thank you very little for that Myspace image, tz. Perhaps she thought it was sexy to send the message that "my rectum is empty now, I'm ready".

Back to the topic...

Team sports success or failure is a very interrelated equation. One can look at a team's success as the multiplied product of each individual's efforts. If 1.0 is considered an individual's average success factor, with 25 guys at average, the product (1 to the 25th power) is still 1.

Lower the average by just .02 to 0.98, and you get 0.60, rounded. (ie, our 2011 season).

Raise the average to 1.02, and you get 1.64 (ie, our 2010 season), almost 3 times higher than 0.60.

A very small difference in an individual's success, when multiplied by the number of players on the squad, make's a huge difference in the end between "clicking on all cylinders" and "lacking good chemistry".

It's hard to point a finger at an individual when his factor fluctuates even a small amount (1.02 to 0.98), but when taken together, the impact can be huge (1.64 vs 0.60).

I don't disagree with your premise, but your math is sketchy. It assumes that all contributions are equally weighted and that all 25 individuals fluctuate in the same direction.

 

[Mays-Fan]

I don't disagree with your premise, but your math is sketchy. It assumes that all contributions are equally weighted and that all 25 individuals fluctuate in the same direction.

Absolutely agree. My example was intended to be oversimplified by design to introduce the concept. Some would increase, some would decrease (some by a LOT, Audrey), and they would have different weights, as you surmise.

My point with this is that it only takes a slight tilt in the individual factors (so that you could not necessarily point to one or two players) to produce a dramatic team result, up or down.

It's another way of looking at "synergy" or "chemistry" is all.