The Effect of Joel Embiid's Injury in the Playoffs

[Sixerscan]

One stat that is missing and explains everything: MPG 33 vs 41.

Still no statistically significant effect for points per minute. Regular season average was 1.04 points per minute (SD = 0.27). Playoffs average was 0.81 points per minute (SD = 0.29). P-value = 0.11. Random variation can't be ruled out.

Again, it wouldn't be difficult to obtain a statistically significant effect here. Simply drop points in game 2 from 50 to 35 and points in game 6 from 39 to 25 and you'd have it. That's the kind of difference one might expect due to the injury, but that's not what happened.

Legitimately you must either be trolling or completely out of your depths here.

[Ferry Avenue]

One stat that is missing and explains everything: MPG 33 vs 41.

Still no statistically significant effect for points per minute. Regular season average was 1.04 points per minute (SD = 0.27). Playoffs average was 0.81 points per minute (SD = 0.29). P-value = 0.11. Random variation can't be ruled out.

Again, it wouldn't be difficult to obtain a statistically significant effect here. Simply drop points in game 2 from 50 to 35 and points in game 6 from 39 to 25 and you'd have it. That's the kind of difference one might expect due to the injury, but that's not what happened.

Legitimately you must either be trolling or completely out of your depths here.

Do you have an actual rebuttal of the subject matter or are you just talking about me?

[Snotbubbles]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Points are statistics and points win games.

If statistics are worse than lies, did the Sixers really beat the Knicks?

The quotes is used when people try and use statistics to bolster a weak argument. See for example, the first post in this this thread. You see, sample sizes are important and a small sample size undermines the validity of the theory/study.

If you really wanted to make a statistical point about regular season vs. post season it would have made more statistical sense to use ALL the games Embiid has played to date from every season. You literally have 67 games worth of post-season data (and have chosen to use 6) and 433 games worth of regular season data (and have chosen to use 39).

I have no idea how the numbers will come out if you used all the data available to you, but if you want people take you seriously, you shouldn't cherry pick small sample sizes.

[the_process]

Assume Joel is going to be hurt in April from now on. The pattern is clear, even when he sits out half the year. That is all.

[Ferry Avenue]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Points are statistics and points win games.

If statistics are worse than lies, did the Sixers really beat the Knicks?

The quotes is used when people try and use statistics to bolster a weak argument. See for example, the first post in this this thread. You see, sample sizes are important and a small sample size undermines the validity of the theory/study.

If you really wanted to make a statistical point about regular season vs. post season it would have made more statistical sense to use ALL the games Embiid has played to date from every season. You literally have 67 games worth of post-season data (and have chosen to use 6) and 433 games worth of regular season data (and have chosen to use 39).

I have no idea how the numbers will come out if you used all the data available to you, but if you want people take you seriously, you shouldn't cherry pick small sample sizes.

What you're saying is true -- however, the question at hand here is how Embiid's injury in 2024 affected his postseason performance in 2024 statistically. The question is not how he plays in the regular season versus the postseason over his entire career. Had the question been his career-long performance I certainly would've gathered all the relevant data.

And again, a statistically significant result could be obtained regarding PPG in 2024 if we simply change two playoff games -- 35 points instead of 50 in game 2 and 25 points instead of 39 in game 6. If those games are ordinary instead of extraordinary for him, we could safely say his injury significantly affected his PPG in the playoffs. Absent that however, there is no significant difference in PPG between regular season and postseason in 2024.

Sometimes there is a consensus or a conventional wisdom about something that just isn't borne out by the data. This is one such case. Anybody who says Embiid's playoffs performance statistically was affected significantly by his injury is simply wrong. It wasn't.

[Murray_17]

You're not understanding how standard deviation is used in these computations.

Yes, i understand, i have a master in statistics dude.

edit: also, a confidence interval is not a complex "computation" and it's something you learn in a cursory introduction to statistics, don't make it sound like it's cryptic or something.

You should know that the null hypothesis that Embiid’s injury had no statistically significant effect on his performance can’t be rejected in this case. And that’s the only point being made here.

Your point is irrelevant if the sample you're using skews the test. It's fine to admit you're wrong you know?

You talk about SDs and the first thing you should have noted is that the Standard deviations you're using are too big to conclude anything. Hell, is in the third paragraph of your OP.

For example, the intervals of confidence for the points you're using are of 20 points each. That's ridiculous

What you're saying is true -- however, the question at hand here is how Embiid's injury in 2024 affected his postseason performance in 2024 statistically. The question is not how he plays in the regular season versus the postseason over his entire career. Had the question been his career-long performance I certainly would've gathered all the relevant data.

And your sample doesn't allow you to answer this question with a test of mean differences. Again, this is statistics 101.

[Ferry Avenue]

Yes, i understand, i have a master in statistics dude.

edit: also, a confidence interval is not a complex "computation" and it's something you learn in a cursory introduction to statistics, don't make it sound like it's cryptic or something.

You should know that the null hypothesis that Embiid’s injury had no statistically significant effect on his performance can’t be rejected in this case. And that’s the only point being made here.

Your point is irrelevant if the sample you're using skews the test. It's fine to admit you're wrong you know?

You talk about SDs and the first thing you should have noted is that the Standard deviations you're using are too big to conclude anything. Hell, is in the third paragraph of your OP.

For example, the intervals of confidence for the points you're using are of 20 points each. That's ridiculous

What you're saying is true -- however, the question at hand here is how Embiid's injury in 2024 affected his postseason performance in 2024 statistically. The question is not how he plays in the regular season versus the postseason over his entire career. Had the question been his career-long performance I certainly would've gathered all the relevant data.

And your sample doesn't allow you to answer this question with a test of mean differences. Again, this is statistics 101.

I'm fully willing to agree that the sample size doesn't permit one to conclude there was a significant difference in Embiid's performance, statistically speaking, between the regular season and postseason. However, that's completely consistent with the point being made -- there isn't a significant difference.

Again however, change a mere two playoff games -- 35 points instead of 50 in game 2, and 25 points instead of 39 in game 6 -- and we have a significant difference in PPG. So with the very same sample size, we could've obtained statistical significance with a relatively minor change in Embiid's scoring. The sample size was hardly prohibitive here.

Surely your contention isn't that that there was a statistically significant difference in his scoring in the postseason? If it is, how can you possibly support that?

[Murray_17]

I'm fully willing to agree that the sample size doesn't permit one to conclude there was a significant difference in Embiid's performance, statistically speaking, between the regular season and postseason. However, that's completely consistent with the point being made -- there isn't a significant difference.

No it's not, the point being made, again. Is that the test is always gonna say there is no difference because there is too much variance.

The reality is that the test you're using is flawed and you should not draw any conclusions from it, in any direction.

Again however, change a mere two playoff games -- 35 points instead of 50 in game 2, and 25 points instead of 39 in game 6 -- and we have a significant difference in PPG. So with the very same sample size, we could've obtained statistical significance with a relatively minor change in Embiid's scoring. The sample size was hardly prohibitive here.

Holy hell, you have done this 3 times and i already told you this is precisely the point. I don't understand how to repeat it.

If two games can change the result, then what you're showing is a big variance swing, you cannot prove this two gams are a random occurence if they're 1/3 of your entire example.

You're making a point that contradicts your premise.

Surely your contention isn't that that there was a statistically significant difference in his scoring in the postseason? If it is, how can you possibly support that?

No, I contend that the test you're doing is useless and you cannot draw any conclusions from it, in favor or against. I have repeated this 4 times in different ways, i don't know if you don't understand statistics or you're being obtuse on purpose at this point.

[Ferry Avenue]

I'm fully willing to agree that the sample size doesn't permit one to conclude there was a significant difference in Embiid's performance, statistically speaking, between the regular season and postseason. However, that's completely consistent with the point being made -- there isn't a significant difference.

No it's not, the point being made, again. Is that the test is always gonna say there is no difference because there is too much variance.

The reality is that the test you're using is flawed and you should not draw any conclusions from it, in any direction.

Again however, change a mere two playoff games -- 35 points instead of 50 in game 2, and 25 points instead of 39 in game 6 -- and we have a significant difference in PPG. So with the very same sample size, we could've obtained statistical significance with a relatively minor change in Embiid's scoring. The sample size was hardly prohibitive here.

Holy hell, you have done this 3 times and i already told you this is precisely the point. I don't understand how to repeat it.

If two games can change the result, then what you're showing is a big variance swing, you cannot prove this two gams are a random occurence if they're 1/3 of your entire example.

You're making a point that contradicts your premise.

You don't "prove" random occurrences. Random variation is the default conclusion in statistical testing.

No, I contend that the test you're doing is useless and you cannot draw any conclusions from it, in favor or against. I have repeated this 4 times in different ways, i don't know if you don't understand statistics or you're being obtuse on purpose at this point.

Are you aware that we start with the null hypothesis -- that differences are due to random variation -- and when we say the null hypothesis cannot be rejected based on the data, we aren't making a conclusion? We're simply saying the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. That's what's happening here.

The default explanation for any differences in Embiid's performance between the regular season and postseason is random variation. The data don't allow us to reject that explanation, and so it's impossible to say with enough certainty that his injury affected him significantly statistically. Whatever is attributable to his injury cannot overcome what would be expected on the basis of random variation alone.

[Murray_17]

Are you aware that we start with the null hypothesis -- that differences are due to random variation -- and when we say the null hypothesis cannot be rejected based on the data, we aren't making a conclusion? We're simply saying the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. That's what's happening here.

The default explanation for any differences in Embiid's performance between the regular season and postseason is random variation. The data don't allow us to reject that explanation, and so it's impossible to say with enough certainty that his injury affected him significantly statistically. Whatever is attributable to his injury cannot overcome what would be expected on the basis of random variation alone.

And in this case, you cannot discard the possibility of the random variation being an effect of the small sample, if that's the case you're gonna approve the null hypothesis even if there is an actual effect. That's why i'm telling you the test is useless.


This is the last time i'm gonna answer you because i'm tired of having to repeat the point 1.000 times in different ways to no avail.

[Ferry Avenue]

Are you aware that we start with the null hypothesis -- that differences are due to random variation -- and when we say the null hypothesis cannot be rejected based on the data, we aren't making a conclusion? We're simply saying the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. That's what's happening here.

The default explanation for any differences in Embiid's performance between the regular season and postseason is random variation. The data don't allow us to reject that explanation, and so it's impossible to say with enough certainty that his injury affected him significantly statistically. Whatever is attributable to his injury cannot overcome what would be expected on the basis of random variation alone.

And in this case, you cannot discard the possibility of the random variation being an effect of the small sample, if that's the case you're gonna approve the null hypothesis even if there is an actual effect. That's why i'm telling you the test is useless.


This is the last time i'm gonna answer you because i'm tired of having to repeat the point 1.000 times in different ways to no avail.

If you're going to reject the null hypothesis and say there was a significant effect of Embiid's injury on his statistical performance in the postseason, then yes, the sample size, the effect size, and the variation involved all have to support that sufficiently to permit that conclusion. They don't, and so that conclusion can't be made. We simply can't say Embiid's injury affected him significantly in the postseason, in terms of his statistical performance. That's the only point being made here, and that point is irrefutable. And don't answer if you want, because there's really nothing else to say.

[GoSixersBro]

Anybody who says Embiid's playoffs performance statistically was affected significantly by his injury is simply wrong. It wasn't.

Who's to say he wouldn't have averaged 40 and 15 if healthy?

[Ferry Avenue]

Who's to say he wouldn't have averaged 40 and 15 if healthy?

No one can say that. Likewise no one can say his injury significantly affected his postseason performance in comparison to his regular season performance, statistically speaking. There are things we can know and things we can't know, and there are things we can say and things we can't say, if we're being true to the data.

[Mik317]

Injuries def play a role in it.

but not all of it.

During the regular season you simply don't have time or energy to truly gameplan for a team or player...in the playoffs you get at least 4 cracks at it. Hence why most players numbers drop at least efficiency wise. You also have to factor in the fact that starters play more which means not only are you playing more minutes and more likely to get tired you are also doing it consistently against the better players on the best teams

Then there is the fact that Biid lives off of making what is still one of the least efficient shots AND foul grifting. Lots of the mid range or tough shot maker guys have run into runs in which the shot just isn't falling. Dirk is one of the most elite shooters of all time but often flamed out heavy despite this until one magical run (in which IIRC he got to the rim a lot more).

Add it all together and that is the answer. IDK how you fix it... Biid is too damn big and too damn clumsy and often tries to do too much...which has lead to all of these injuries. Getting him a closer AND him being willing to give up that role also will assist in his fatigue issues IMO. But also just can't have a team that relies on your 7ft center to be your main source of offense no matter how skilled he is at it.

IDK if all parties involved are willing to change that tho soooooooo

[GoSixersBro]

Damn. And I remember thinking Kobble was stubborn. This thread just isn't being argued in good faith so what's the point. I think you must've never played an organized sport to look at Joel limping running back and actually believing he was at 100% ability just because you compared some numbers of small sample sizes and validated your hate for the guy. I'm not even an Embiid simp come postseason time but was finally proud he didn't completely turn to Mopel this series.

[Ferry Avenue]

Damn. And I remember thinking Kobble was stubborn. This thread just isn't being argued in good faith so what's the point. I think you must've never played an organized sport to look at Joel limping running back and actually believing he was at 100% ability just because you compared some numbers of small sample sizes and validated your hate for the guy. I'm not even an Embiid simp come postseason time but was finally proud he didn't completely turn to Mopel this series.

There is nothing here that says he was at 100% ability. The original post says he experienced an injury without question. The only point being made here is that there appeared to be a consensus or conventional wisdom that Embiid's postseason contribution to the team was diminished because of his injury, whereas in reality his postseason contribution to the team -- as measured statistically at least -- wasn't significantly different from the one he had prior to the injury. There was no significant decrement in his postseason numbers.

[rzzzzz]

Assume Joel is going to be hurt in April from now on. The pattern is clear, even when he sits out half the year. That is all.

Kareem made the decision to improve his flexibility/durability through stretching/yoga, and reduce the wear and tear a big man puts on his body by maximizing the efficiency of his movement. (Remember “Rodger’s” response in Airplane to the kid telling him his dad said that Kareem didn’t hustle?) We’ve seen Embiid work on his skills continually during his career. I wish he’d seek out Kareem.

[76ciology]

Just place a lot of length and rebounding at the 3&4 positions, that would counter Embiid’s lack of lift on defense and let us suffer so much on defense if he goes through the motion.

Something like Ingram or George at the 3 then Jalen Smith or John Collins at the 4 would get it done.

I dont think Batum at the 4, or an Oubre + Ingram or George at the 3&4 would solve the problem.

Markkanen is also a very good rebounder

[76ciology]

Its best to assume Embiid will never be healthy. He just doesnt have a professional athlete’s durability and endurance.

[Ferry Avenue]

Its best to assume Embiid will never be healthy. He just doesnt have a professional athlete’s durability and endurance.

The thing about Embiid is that it's impossible to know whether he'll ever play at the sustained capacity needed to be the player the team revolves around in the playoffs because he has spells of being lethargic both when he's injured and when he's not injured. The on and off performance he had in the playoffs this year can't be attributed to his injury because it wasn't any different overall than his performance pre-injury, and it also wasn't any different from the periodic lethargy he displays when he isn't injured.

At this point we just have to realize he's a player who simply can't bring it all the time, and you have to ask yourself whether you can win in the playoffs by revolving your team around a player of that nature. I don't think you can. The more you make personnel moves with the intent of buttressing or compensating for Embiid, the more you're potentially going down the wrong road as a team. At this point I think you make Embiid a more peripheral player and assign him a more peripheral role, while you regroup and revolve the team around a different player, preferably a wing or point guard.