 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 978
Location: Seattle
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jambalaya
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 282
|
 Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 6:36 pm Post subject: dallas and phoenix |
 |
|
i generally accept mark cuban yearly retooling, search for the right combination until you get it right and go further in effort to win a championship. i dont necessarily accept the pieces he has tried to make it work with. dampier is the lastest example of a guy most would say wasn't a smart choice (or smart contract) to rely heavily on and the same could be said of walker, jamison, stackhouse, van horn, etc.
in retrospect i would have resigned nash and then probably would have looked to trade him in two years. and there might have been cheaper alternatives to dampier to get some defense down there without the long term commitment.
dallas has some good pieces but they need to make some more trades.
they waited too long on trading finley but i think they should aggressively try to deal him anyway possible. dampier is probably not moveable unless packaged with a young piece. terry is ok but they could use a truer lead point and i dont think harris is going to be it.
82 games.com says about 45% of dirk's time in the playoffs is at center. against most teams i'd prefer it be 2/3 thirds or more like amare stoudemire is doing (with dampier being a regular season workhorse / playoff backup and situational matchup when necesary), but in this series dirk cant guard amare without getting tired or in foul trouble. what dallas really needs is a 6'10 quick jumper who could stay with amare or post marion. that should be on their shopping list.
phoenix is well constructed. a supreme inside player, a supreme passer/breakrunner and three guys who can all rebound, run and shoot. it fits together well. and i think they shrwedly improved their bench with cheap veteran pickups, banking on the twin attraction of nice weather/desired city (6-8 teams have the strong advantage here) and the winning. whether there is enough defense remains to be determined in the next rounds. both stoudemire and marion showed some improvement in fg% against. johnson is decent and q can be. they should be set for at least 3 years. if johnson asks for too much he could be replaced but i think they'll re-sign him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | One final point to consider while watching the Suns' running show. Colangelo did not sign Nash and Richardson with the idea that Richardson necessarily would start. But, according to Colangelo, "after watching several weeks of informal workouts, [D'Antoni] decided that he would try an unconventional lineup and put the best athletes/basketball players on the floor. Bottom line is that we put out five players that all run and attack at all times."
So rather than fit the players into the standard one-size-fits-all puzzle, the Suns found the puzzle that fit their players. Such "out of the box" thinking has propelled the Suns into championship contention.
Ironically, last summer my own statistics on the Suns were begging me to peek outside the box, but I arrogantly told Colangelo that "I [was] pretty skeptical that the deals [he] just signed with Nash and Richardson [were] a good idea."
I was pretty badly wrong, and I suppose that is why Colangelo and D'Antoni are paid the big bucks, and I am not. |
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/nba/specials/playoffs/2005/05/13/rosenbaum/1.html
This piece brought up an issue that I have wanted to discuss for awhile. Last summer I was having a discussion with Bryan Colangelo about another issue when I said that I was skeptical about the Nash and Richardson signings. Both players had pretty mediocre adjusted plus/minus ratings and so I had reason to be skeptical.
But it was dumb of me to stop there. Amare Stoudemire was a high-scoring big guy who shot a decent percentage but turned the ball over a lot and got few assists. Those kinds of players have been terrible in my system. He was easy to double team because he often shared the floor with a non-shooter like Jake Voskuhl or Bo Outlaw. Stoudemire had lots of talent if he could be put in a situation that could play to his strengths.
Playing him at the 5 with a great shooter in Marion at the 4 completely changed how effective Stoudemire could be. Surrounded by three point shooters, no longer could he be double teamed effectively. Add in the one of the best passing point guards in the league and also give him lots of room to operate and whoila we have the super-successful Phoenix Suns.
The key to making the Suns a better team was not adding better players - it was adding the "right" players so that their existing players could play roles they were better suited for. This is where my analysis completely missed the point. Context matters and when we pretend that it doesn't, we are misleading ourselves.
The fact that context matters does not negate the value of statisitcal analysis. It just means that we can't be blind when we look at our numbers; it means we have to think. We have to think about what kinds of players can fit well together - or not fit well together. We need to figure out what part of that is predictable. I think quite a bit is, but it will require sophisticated statistical analysis paired with solid basketball thinking.
Any system that ignores the possibility that players can become more or less efficient as their roles change - and that change is more than just possession usage - is going to miss out on a lot. I think we all will become more relevant as we do a better job understanding how context matters to players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: |
The fact that context matters does not negate the value of statisitcal analysis. It just means that we can't be blind when we look at our numbers; it means we have to think. We have to think about what kinds of players can fit well together - or not fit well together. We need to figure out what part of that is predictable. I think quite a bit is, but it will require sophisticated statistical analysis paired with solid basketball thinking.
Any system that ignores the possibility that players can become more or less efficient as their roles change - and that change is more than just possession usage - is going to miss out on a lot. I think we all will become more relevant as we do a better job understanding how context matters to players. |
I will second this. What I tend to say is that explaining the present is a very different exercise than predicting the future. Role is important for non-stars and some teams can use certain roles more than others because of "fit" (a lesson that player agents and GMs would mutually benefit by learning). Possession usage is only one part of that. Dan mentions several other measurable things that do matter. There are also somewhat unmeasured things that matter. At least I don't know how to see those characteristics in measured stats. (There are a few specific players I'm thinking of but can't talk about.) It does come down to fit -- players who can play well with a certain set of teammates, but not others due to offensive and defensive considerations. I'm finding that it is mostly guards where the qualitative factors are coming in, I'm finding. I have a handle on this in a lot of quantitative ways, but there definitely is some art to it. Working on quantifying it, though.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | Playing him at the 5 with a great shooter in Marion at the 4 completely changed how effective Stoudemire could be. Surrounded by three point shooters, no longer could he be double teamed effectively. Add in the one of the best passing point guards in the league and also give him lots of room to operate and whoila we have the super-successful Phoenix Suns.
The key to making the Suns a better team was not adding better players - it was adding the "right" players so that their existing players could play roles they were better suited for. This is where my analysis completely missed the point. Context matters and when we pretend that it doesn't, we are misleading ourselves. |
Dan,
Thank you. That's the closest thing to a manifesto this group has seen in a while and I think it's fantastic. I remember how much useful discussion was prompted when you first posted about your work with adjusted plus/minus statistics, I'd love to see more "what are we trying to accomplish" big picture discussions.
Let me play skeptic for a moment and ask some questions.
1) Part of what makes your argument compelling is that you offer an easy narrative for how the Phoenix Suns' changes achieved their results. But there are a number of other surprising teams. Most notably the Seattle Supersonics also looked like a team that was better than the sum of its parts. But there are also teams like Miami (overachieving, thanks in part to Damon Jones going crazy), Chicago (overachieving), Utah (underachieving), and Portland (underachieving -- particularly Darius Miles and Zach Randolph). Do we have a theory that explains any of these other cases? If we don't, does it make it sound like your claim that Phoenix's success was, in an ideal world, predictable in advance, less likely and makes it seem more like an act of fitting the theory to the facts retrospectively.
2) You make no mention of the rule changes which seem like an important element. Is there any way to try to statistically predict the effect of rule changes or will we inevitably be saying, "in retrospect that made a big difference"?
3) Phoenix's strength is almost entirely in their offense which is almost 4 points per 100 possessions better than the second place team and one of the best offenses in league history. Isn't it true that any time you see a team have a performance for the ages like that there will be a combination of predictable factors and luck which, by definition can't be predicted? If Phoenix had merely had an an offensive efficiency of 109 points per hundred possessions and all else was the same they would have scored 8813 points and given up 8470 for 52 expected wins. If they had fell short of that by 3 wins (the same margin by which they exceeded their expected wins) they would have won 49 games and nobody would have been talking about them.
The overall question that I have is that there are additional, predictable, factors that aren't included in current analysis that should be included. I want to question the "predictable" portion of that sentence. I believe that it's possible that those factors are predictable, but I also think that the fact that we have an easy narrative in retrospect doesn't imply that narrative was describable in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickS wrote: | | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | Playing him at the 5 with a great shooter in Marion at the 4 completely changed how effective Stoudemire could be. Surrounded by three point shooters, no longer could he be double teamed effectively. Add in the one of the best passing point guards in the league and also give him lots of room to operate and whoila we have the super-successful Phoenix Suns.
The key to making the Suns a better team was not adding better players - it was adding the "right" players so that their existing players could play roles they were better suited for. This is where my analysis completely missed the point. Context matters and when we pretend that it doesn't, we are misleading ourselves. |
Dan,
Thank you. That's the closest thing to a manifesto this group has seen in a while and I think it's fantastic. I remember how much useful discussion was prompted when you first posted about your work with adjusted plus/minus statistics, I'd love to see more "what are we trying to accomplish" big picture discussions.
Let me play skeptic for a moment and ask some questions.
|
Good questions.
| NickS wrote: |
1) Part of what makes your argument compelling is that you offer an easy narrative for how the Phoenix Suns' changes achieved their results. But there are a number of other surprising teams. Most notably the Seattle Supersonics also looked like a team that was better than the sum of its parts. But there are also teams like Miami (overachieving, thanks in part to Damon Jones going crazy), Chicago (overachieving), Utah (underachieving), and Portland (underachieving -- particularly Darius Miles and Zach Randolph). Do we have a theory that explains any of these other cases? If we don't, does it make it sound like your claim that Phoenix's success was, in an ideal world, predictable in advance, less likely and makes it seem more like an act of fitting the theory to the facts retrospectively.
|
I have some inside insight on the Sonics, of course, but can't give that away now.
The one that surprises me the most is Utah. I do agree with Hollinger that the rule change hurt them most, though there are other factors that I haven't yet figured out.
I do like to point out with Chicago, though, that a lot of people picked the Bulls to do well in 2003-04. So the potential had been there before, but people somehow forgot about it when 2004 went badly.
And, actually, I was very surprised that Denver did as well as they did. I picked them to fall out of the playoffs and they were right on track until $^%!$# George Karl took over and nearly caught us. Karl did a brilliant job salvaging a team that was hurting. I've studied his job pretty well (since we could have faced them in the playoffs) and am taking some of those lessons to my future practice.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben F.
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly it's quite a double-edged sword that you're now with the Sonics' organization, Dean, with the negatives mostly for us since we can't get nearly as much insight from you as before.
So I'm pretty sure you won't be able to answer this, but what did you garner from Karl regarding the incredible run? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickS wrote: | | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | Playing him at the 5 with a great shooter in Marion at the 4 completely changed how effective Stoudemire could be. Surrounded by three point shooters, no longer could he be double teamed effectively. Add in the one of the best passing point guards in the league and also give him lots of room to operate and whoila we have the super-successful Phoenix Suns.
The key to making the Suns a better team was not adding better players - it was adding the "right" players so that their existing players could play roles they were better suited for. This is where my analysis completely missed the point. Context matters and when we pretend that it doesn't, we are misleading ourselves. |
Dan,
Thank you. That's the closest thing to a manifesto this group has seen in a while and I think it's fantastic. I remember how much useful discussion was prompted when you first posted about your work with adjusted plus/minus statistics, I'd love to see more "what are we trying to accomplish" big picture discussions.
Let me play skeptic for a moment and ask some questions.
1) Part of what makes your argument compelling is that you offer an easy narrative for how the Phoenix Suns' changes achieved their results. But there are a number of other surprising teams. Most notably the Seattle Supersonics also looked like a team that was better than the sum of its parts. But there are also teams like Miami (overachieving, thanks in part to Damon Jones going crazy), Chicago (overachieving), Utah (underachieving), and Portland (underachieving -- particularly Darius Miles and Zach Randolph). Do we have a theory that explains any of these other cases? If we don't, does it make it sound like your claim that Phoenix's success was, in an ideal world, predictable in advance, less likely and makes it seem more like an act of fitting the theory to the facts retrospectively.
2) You make no mention of the rule changes which seem like an important element. Is there any way to try to statistically predict the effect of rule changes or will we inevitably be saying, "in retrospect that made a big difference"?
3) Phoenix's strength is almost entirely in their offense which is almost 4 points per 100 possessions better than the second place team and one of the best offenses in league history. Isn't it true that any time you see a team have a performance for the ages like that there will be a combination of predictable factors and luck which, by definition can't be predicted? If Phoenix had merely had an an offensive efficiency of 109 points per hundred possessions and all else was the same they would have scored 8813 points and given up 8470 for 52 expected wins. If they had fell short of that by 3 wins (the same margin by which they exceeded their expected wins) they would have won 49 games and nobody would have been talking about them.
The overall question that I have is that there are additional, predictable, factors that aren't included in current analysis that should be included. I want to question the "predictable" portion of that sentence. I believe that it's possible that those factors are predictable, but I also think that the fact that we have an easy narrative in retrospect doesn't imply that narrative was describable in advance. |
Nice post. I am not sure I have answers for why all of the teams improved this season. But I can tell you what I have learned from each of them and what I think might have been predictable.
The point about context means that no single narrative is going to work in all circumstances. The point is that we need to filter the statistics through what we understand about the game of basketball and in many cases, what we understand about how people relate to and work with each other.
For Seattle I think the rule changes helped (as they did with Phoenix) especially making Ridnour, Daniels, Lewis, Radmanovic, and Allen more effective. And I think DeanO helped Seattle exploit their strengths and hide their weaknesses. I think this was particularly important in the dramatic improvement of Radmanovic, which I think was largely a product of putting Radmanovic into defensive match-ups where he would not be so exploited. But I think adding Collison and Fortson changed the culture among the big guys for Seattle and that is probably where the biggest improvements came. Last season I do not think Evans, Potapenko, James, and Booth provided a critical mass of hard-working players ready to accept roles. But replacing Booth (and Potapenko) with Collison and Fortson resulted in a group that took pride in outworking their opponents. I think this may have even had a positive effect on James. And Collison and Fortson simply were much better players than Booth and Potapenko. And finally, 1500 less minutes for Flip Murray had to help; he is consistently ineffective for them.
Seattle had such a glaring problem of rebounding and toughness inside that the value of adding Fortson was reasonably predictable from a stats standpoint. The effect of Collison was not predictable through stats, but this is where a good basketball person might have seen this coming. But the bigger point is that it is tough to be a good team with such a glaring weakness. Basketball is not so linear that contributions in other areas can offset such a glaring weakness. In that respect Seattle's improvement was somewhat (but not completely) predictable.
With Miami, I think one of the advantages of having a superstar is that the other players generally accept their roles better. This is something that is probably missed with adjusted plus/minus ratings, because it probably would mean that players play better even when the superstar is on the bench. But overall Miami is about what my adjusted plus/minus ratings would have suggested; haslem and laettner are more effective but other than that, guys are doing pretty much what should be expected in terms of overall effectiveness. Remember by the end of last season, Miami had a pretty good team.
With Chicago, I think Duhon was a lot more important than folks realized and this was not entirely predictable. In 2003-04 the Bulls had a terrible time defending the point guard position. By adding Duhon, Hinrich was moved from defending point guards (where he was OK) to defending the shooting guards (where he is quite good). Also, the addition of Deng and Nocioni gave the Bulls enough scoring at the SF position that they could afford to only play guys at the PG/SG (they were horrible at the SF position in 2003-04) that could defend. Thus, they did not have to play a mediocre defender in Crawford all of the time; they could pick their spots with a player like Ben Gordon.
How much of this was predictable? Not very much, because even the Bulls were not predicting much for this season. But what the Bulls did was plug all of their holes on defense and again the effect was nonlinear. Adding Duhon and Deng might not have helped most teams that much, but for the Bulls they were huge. And with as offensively challenged as the Bulls are, Gordon was huge for them, especially since Skiles only allowed him to play in situations where he was likely to be successful.
Utah was probably predictable once the rule changes came into effect (and if we had known Kirilenko would get hurt). The rule changes made it important for teams to be quicker, especially on the perimeter. Except for Kirilenko, Utah is a very slow team. And the additions of Boozer and Okur made that even worse. But was this predicable? Not so much by statistical analysis, but by solid basketball thinking Utah probably was not so surprising.
Portland tried to play three non-shooters in Pryzbilla/Ratliff, Randolph, and Abdur-Rahim/Miles and that strategy has gotten more and more difficult to employ as teams have learned to play defense in the post-illegal defense world. It is much tougher to exploit size advantages than it used to be. Randolph has always been pretty terrible in my system, so Portland's performance was pretty predictable to me, especially as Portland did just the opposite of what Phoenix did with Stoudemire. They decided to crowd him more, making him even easier to double team. With Randolph being a terrible passer, this was bound to kill them.
The point here is that without a solid basketball understanding, it would have been very difficult to apply statistical analysis to predict what would happen with these teams. (Even with a solid basketball understanding, it sometimes is still quite difficult.)
I am not saying that my basketball understanding is that great, but I think that is where I as an analyst need to improve. Putting together a winning team is about putting players into situations where they can excel and a blind devotion to stats is not going to get us there. Neither is analysis without stats, because there just is too much going on to understand it all without stats. Over the key to us being more relevant is to bring more under our umbrella. Right now, we throw up our hands and say that a lot is unpredictable. But I think we can do better. Statistical analysis is a complement to old-fashioned thinking about basketball - not the substitute we often lazily (and arrogantly) pretend it to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KD
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: |
I am not saying that my basketball understanding is that great |
I'll go out on a limb and say that it is.
Great post, great article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 864
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What makes analyzing basketball stats more fun for me than baseball is that the basketball information is sooooo much more context dependent. I love that it still takes knowledge of the game to draw truly meaningful conclusions.
Where we're going to make progress using stats to scrutinize hoops is in increasing our understanding of the variables that go into building teams, and constructing ways of measuring those variables. One key to that is to retain humility, and -- as Dan did in this article -- admit when we're wrong or just don't know.
I've had a fair amount of interaction with some NBA coaches this season in conjunction with my defensive stat collection efforts. I have enormous respect for what they're doing and for the astounding level of their game knowledge. My goal in each of those conversations has been to restrain my desire to be an expert, and instead ask questions to find out what they're thinking, and to find out what they want to know. I've learned a tremendous amount from them, and what's interesting is that with one guy in particular -- he says he's learned a lot from me about how to use stats to evaluate what he's seeing.
Anyway, terrific article, Dan. Good read, and good work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 978
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | The effect of Collison was not predictable through stats, but this is where a good basketball person might have seen this coming. |
I think Collison's college stats portended his success rather well. Adjusted for strength of schedule and minutes played, here's how my projections compare to his actual statistics:
| Code: | PPG RPG APG SPG BPG TPG FG%
---------------------------------------------
Projected 6.8 4.2 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 .489
Actual 5.6 4.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 .537 |
Those miss Collison becoming more of a role player in the NBA, but his overall value is about what I expected (maybe lower, since I expected him to play more minutes).
| Quote: | | But the bigger point is that it is tough to be a good team with such a glaring weakness. Basketball is not so linear that contributions in other areas can offset such a glaring weakness. In that respect Seattle's improvement was somewhat (but not completely) predictable. |
Wellllllll ... I'm not sold on this one. If you break the game into isolated offense and defense and offensive and defensive rebounding percentages, or even just Offensive and Defensive Ratings, you can predict records essentially as accurately as with point differential. So I do think the game is linear at the team level.
| Quote: | | The point here is that without a solid basketball understanding, it would have been very difficult to apply statistical analysis to predict what would happen with these teams. (Even with a solid basketball understanding, it sometimes is still quite difficult.) |
I would say more than sometimes. As I've mentioned in the past, about the only "expert" I found touting the Suns in preseason was Bill Simmons.
| Quote: | | Putting together a winning team is about putting players into situations where they can excel and a blind devotion to stats is not going to get us there. |
I think the more important lesson is what Dean has been teaching for years, that oerall ratings aren't that useful. I see movement towards rating players in terms of skill sets with comparisons to players to similar skill sets and analysis of combined team skill sets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jambalaya
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: summary of team models and who is using them |
|
|
this is something of a continuation on the theme of Dan's article about team construction and what we can learn about how to do it right:
How many models (or model elements in a multi-part strategy) are there for running teams? here is a quick stab at a summary of them and who is using them.
1 get a rare 20/10 inside player and build around them with three point shooters, a rebounding/interior defense sidekick, and 1 or more penetrators
2 a) be a great defensive team all-around or better b) lots of solid two way players
3 just shoot a lot of threes
4 get a great wing and have a guy to get him the ball and other guys to set picks and rebound
5 let a talented point guard be dominant
6 play the young guys and build skills, confidence and unity
7 run a lot
8 a inside /outside combo
9 big three
10 balanced attack of 5
11 just playing your best players, no real strategy or edge, or who really knows what they are trying to do
12 have deep bench, play with intensity, wear teams out
and on top of these, some add a master coach
mostly model 1- san antonio (has developed into model 9 with parker and ginobli this year and has model 2 incorporated), miami (with maybe third best model 2 element), dallas (with some model 7), indiana and minnesota (had more model 2 in them as well last year)
model 1 and 10 hybrid- memphis (more 1 and less 10 with fratello? not clear where they go next year), with model 12 as a major element especially under hubie
has best model 2, with flexibility to use model 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 as needed on offense- detroit
phoenix, at various times, seems to touch models 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (proving they are overlapping and not exclusive descriptions)
mostly model 4- lakers (could be model 8 if they used odom more), boston (at times model 9 with payton and davis, could be going toward model 10 longterm), milwaukee (going to model 8 with bogut?)
mostly model 5- new york (would like to be model 9 with crawford and thomas but i dont think they are really there), orlando (would like to be model 9 as howard matures and if hill stays strong)
mostly model 6 and 10 now- chicago (wants to develop big three of curry, gordon and hinrich / model 9)
mostly model 8- houston, clippers, philly, cleveland
a little of model 1, 2, 4, 7- denver with model 12 as a major element to take advantage of altitude issue
mostly model 3 and 4- seattle
mostly model 9- new jersey, washington
mostly model 10- golden state, utah (wants to recapture model 2 defense hurt by rule change and not enough strong all game defenders), toronto (if you think they have a strategy, model 11 if you don’t)
models 3, 7 and 10- sacramento (deep, but maybe not intense enough; doesnt seem to wear teams out with model 12 element)
model 6 and/or 11- portland, new orleans, charlotte, atlanta
more could be said or developed from this start at a team model / strategy typology. if folks want to extend the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
