During our days at Hartford (from 76 until the strike) my father
and I would concentrate on a player's first game a great deal
- we even kept records of how certain players played in their
first game of the evening, or, as a separate category, how they
played in their first game or two back after time off.
Where it really came into play was for the early games, especially
when a middle gamer was scheduled to play early games, or had
to sub. into early games. In those days in Hartford there was
a tendency for the crowd to bet early game subs. down (the assumption
being, I suppose, that any sub. into an early game was necessarily
a better player). We tried to identify those subs. that wouldn't
play well - and there were many - so we could bet against them.
The interesting thing we found was that the same player might
react differently if they were subbed. down into the early games,
or if they were scheduled down in the early games (either because
of punishment or just not playing well). I remember that, early
in his career, when Arriaga II was moved down from lates to middles,
he would be just awful, almost pouting on the court. If he was
subbing down, though, you couldn't beat him.
The players who would drive me nuts, though, were the ones that
weren't consistent throughout the performance. Garamendi (a backcourter
from the old Hartford days) was like that. He could drop three
balls in his first game and then play perfectly the second, and
then put his head back up you know where the next time he was
on the court. I liked the guy a lot, but he drove me nuts - I
just wanted him to be on the whole night (so I could bet him)
or off the whole night (so I could bet against him). Remen was
like that to a certain extent as well.
