casewinter13
Well-known member
Here's my issue with everything you just stated...it's all theory and completely ignores arguably the two largest pieces of the 3 piece reaching your potential puzzle . That's not how athletes get better. Athletes get better by drilling their skills into muscle memory on top of innate talent level. Game experience is the final piece of the piece, but I can assure you, as an evaluator of talent, Bradshaw's reasons for limited minutes don't stem from an "experience bias".UMGriz75 said:Well, no. It's how talent develops with experience, when experience is not equal. The "talent" then looks lacking in precisely that metric, because that's how "Experience Bias" shapes the athlete selection process.casewinter13 said:I won't argue the premise, but your example is God awful. You chose to compare a slower than average, less than average overall athlete with average ball skills and average at best height(all on a position played basis) to an athletic freak with above average balls skills and touch around the basket(again, per position).
I didn't dump on your premise, it's not without merit, I dumped on your example because the experience bias only accounts for actual game experience in your"study", it doesn't account for skill building during and in off season. I'm not even saying Riley has reached his limited potential, what I'm saying is that he'd get much closer to reaching it by being a better shooter, for example, which has been within his control and has little to do with an experience bias.