Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chinook
Well, Paradox just ate #ceperez alive.
Nope, rather you just confirmed ignorance in the statistical model behind DRPM.
Here's a free course from Stanford Univ. that you can take to get yourself familiar with the science: https://www.coursera.org/course/pgm
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ParadoxEN
Lol? What's my argument? Since it seems like you've forgotten, this is all I said:
These are all TRUE; your link practically quotes me. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong for insulting me bro, it's okay.
Also what Drtg did I quote? Lol, you don't even remember who you're talking to.
(PS: I think it would help your case if you stopped throwing out fancy math terms, IMO. We all know that Bayes Rule is completely unrelated.)
Let me requote and bold what I just said because you still don't get it:
Your argument is like saying some a drop of shit fell into a lake therefore the lake is completely tainted and not fit for drinking. It is an oversimplification by someone who knows nothing about statistical modeling.
Bayes rule is related, that what ESPN said they were using to calculate their predictions. You just don't understand what it means.
I'm sorry, you can't really argue with folks who really don't have the education. All you are doing is cherry picking some favorable sentences in an article and then making an over simplification.
There are a ton of advanced metrics and these all rely on Bayes Rule to build their calculations/simulations. The fact that it is the first time you ever even heard of "Bayes Rule" tells me that you are ignorant as to the mechanics of how this works out.
So please, don't make up simplifications that honestly untrue.
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ceperez
Your argument is like saying some a drop of shit fell into a lake therefore the lake is completely tainted and not fit for drinking. It is an oversimplification by someone who knows nothing about statistical modeling.
Bayes rule is related, that what ESPN said they were using to calculate their predictions. You just don't understand what it means.
I'm sorry, you can't really argue with folks who really don't have the education. All you are doing is cherry picking some favorable sentences in an article and then making an over simplification.
There are a ton of advanced metrics and these all rely on Bayes Rule to build their calculations/simulations. The fact that it is the first time you ever even heard of "Bayes Rule" tells me that you are ignorant as to the mechanics of how this works out.
Well, umm, I think the issue is that I didn't make an argument. I just stated some widely known and accepted facts about RPM, which you so kindly backed up with your link.
Look up Bayes Rule. Besides its namesake, it has nothing to do with Bayesian priors, IMO. To be honest, I'd expect someone with your "advanced knowledge of statistical modeling" to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ceperez
So please, don't make up simplifications that honestly untrue.
What simplifications, exactly?
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ParadoxEN
Well, umm, I think the issue is that I didn't make an argument. I just stated some widely known and accepted facts about RPM, which you so kindly backed up with your link.
That said, now that we've covered what RPM is (and what it isn't), I have a homework assignment for you:
Look up Bayes Rule. Besides its namesake, it has nothing to do with Bayesian priors, IMO. To be honest, I'd expect someone with your "advanced knowledge of statistical modeling" to know that.
Quoted you for posterity. No need to make further arguments here. Ignorance in full display.
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ParadoxEN
What simplifications, exactly?
You said that is only uses data from previous seasons in its calculations.
Just to prove you wrong, just look at this: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rp...RPM/position/9
for Centers this season.
Mr. Boban Marjanovic is in the list? I don't recall him playing last season. So how come he has numbers to his name?
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ceperez
You said that is only uses data from previous seasons in its calculations.
Just to prove you wrong, just look at this:
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rp...RPM/position/9
for Centers this season.
Mr. Boban Marjanovic is in the list? I don't recall him playing last season. So how come he has numbers to his name?
Lol. I said, exactly, "RPM is based on data from previous seasons." Which is true, as we've already addressed. Adding words like "only" to my statements isn't very becoming, IMO. I really haven't made any assertions about the stat, tbh, this all widely known info. Not really sure what we're talking about anymore.
However, once you've finished googling Baye's Rule, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about how it's related to Bayesian priors. In fact, since you're such an expert in "statistical modeling" could you show how Boban's RPM is calculated? Should be easy since there's less data to consider, IMO.
Re: Pop on Lamarcus: He's a better defender than we thought when we signed him
Aldridge seems to have a good BB IQ and I think is at least on track for expectations on adapting to the Spurs system. Remember that some players never could (example Blair). What I see is a smart basketball player that reminds me of Duncan in some ways as to craftiness, not wasting energy, and making smart plays. Mostly at first Aldridge's smart plays have been more individual as compared to the eventual level of team synergy I think we will see with him.
