@EvanZ- Wasn't looking for any cheers or any of the sort. Point is actual observation of actual game play is useful without made up probability models. Plain statistical comparison is enough to see they are slumping at the same time and by watching footage of HOW they play now and in the Past is enough to figure out Why. And Yay to you to EvanZ!LOL

Point taken, but the take-home message was not intended to be "this is when you use the eye test", rather simply explaining the difference between slump and SLUMP. I suppose one could argue the eye test is never necessary (maybe sufficient in certain cases?). We can have that discussion another day.

:]

I'm calmly explaining to you, that you didn't say anything insightful in this thread. At every step neil disproved your criticisms, now and in the past.

Neil has posts that account for external factors, like two conflicting playing styles that might take time to mesh.

Two high free throw rate drawing players can have great trouble meshing together. You're right in the definitions of slump and SLUMP, but you fail to make your case how the eye test is necessary in this situation.

There is a difference between a slump that is statistically probable and one that is not. The statistically probable slump indicates that the player's skills (and or "external" factors) have not changed. In other words, the "slump" is simply caused by normal probabilities/statistical variation. The statistically improbable slump indicates that the player is at a level that is so far below what is statistically probable, that it is likely due to something other than statistical variation. Let me give you a simple example, and you tell me if you can see the difference:

Scenario A (statistically probable): A 90% free throw shooter (let's say John Stockton) at some point during the season misses 6 free throws. Sure, that is unlikely. I don't remember seeing Stockton actually doing this. But if you take enough free throws, at some point even a 90% FT shooter will likely miss 6 consecutive free throws. Would you call that a slump?

Scenario B (statistically improbable): A 90% free throw shooter (let's say John Stockton) at some point during the season has a string where he hits only 30 of 60 free throws. The statistics would tell you that a 90% free throw shooter is almost certainly not going to have a slump of this duration. Therefore, it is likely that there is something else going on. Maybe he hurt his elbow. Maybe his dog died. Whatever.

The point is that Scenario A is a slump. Scenario B is a SLUMP. The former doesn't really mean anything. The latter is worth worrying about. In fact, to really understand the mechanism for the latter, guess what? You would use your eyes! See, you still win! Yay, Lorrance!

This article proved that they clearly weren't in a slump. It didn't say that they would continue to play like this the rest of the season, or that chemistry wasn't the issue.

BTW, chemistry problems aren't the same as slumping. You've addressed absolutely nothing and have written nothing insightful. Basketball-reference predicts the post-season a lot better than you do, with your eye test.