I think you REALLY need to learn more about statistics as you obviously don't have a clue. This is a 50/50 chance (shot made, shot missed) which any player has when shooting a free throw. Probability is the likelihood of it.
Shaq, Kobe, Nash, Tony, Duncan all have the same 50/50 chance of making a free throw, but they all have different probabilities.
SUNS playoff history dictates that they'll somehow reach deep down for a gritty,gutsy road win in game 5 in S.A............then they'll come home and come out soft,tight, and otherwise flat and get bounced in front of the home crowd. Never ing fails. Sometimes i wish that the SUNS could play a 7 game series at either a nuetral site or just play every game on the road.
This is the most logically flawed argument I've seen on the board in some time. Just because there are two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's an equal chance of both happening.
Shaq shooting free throws is like flipping a fair coin: 50-50.
Nash shooting free throws is like flipping a "fixed" coin which is going to land heads 90% of the time.
Let's put it another way, that YOU can understand. If you shoot a layup, or if you shoot a halfcourt shot, you have two possible outcomes: either make or miss. That doesn't mean there's a 50-50 chance in either situation. Otherwise it wouldn't matter where you shot from, or who took the shot.
You are agreeing with me actually. There's no guarantee that Nash makes 9 out of 10 free throws everytime. He might shoot 10 out of 10 or 0 out of 10 on any given day. Your "fixed-coin" is due to probability.
Now how do you know Nash is going to make it 90% of the time? How do you know that Shaq is going to make it 60% of the time? It's due to probability, even though Shaq and Nash have even chances. Even though Nash is a 90% shooter, he could miss 2 free throws in a row while Shaq makes 2 free throws in a row. Both have even chances of making 2 free throws in a row. But it's not likely that Shaq outshoots Nash because they have different probabilities.
So even though the Suns have already lost 2 straight games in San Antonio, they could lose a third straight game in San Antonio but it's not likely.
Last edited by Allanon; 04-29-2008 at 09:11 AM.
No. You're using simultaneously "chance" as synonym of both "event" and "probability" and therein lies the confusion. You probably think there are two chances, therefore each has a 50-50 chance of happening. Well, as you've been told, that's flawed. Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right because nothing would make me happier than having a 50-50 chance of doing Jessica Alba... but it just doesn't work that way.
No I am stating that chance is NOT a synonym for both while the others are posting that they are. There is chance and probability, two very separate things.
No. You're using simultaneously "chance" as synonym of both "event" and "probability" and therein lies the confusion.
There aren't two chances at making a basket? If the shot is not a make or a miss, what other chance is there? Perhaps there's a third chance the ball will just disappear or maybe get abducted by aliens?You probably think there are two chances, therefore each has a 50-50 chance of happening. Well, as you've been told, that's flawed. Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right because nothing would make me happier than having a 50-50 chance of doing Jessica Alba... but it just doesn't work that way.
Last edited by Allanon; 04-29-2008 at 09:19 AM.
I've never seen a thread about probability where any of the people posting knew what the they were talking about.
Yes you are, you just don't realize. Here you're using "chance" meaning "event":
Here you're using "chance" meaning "probability":There aren't two chances at making a basket? If the shot is not a make or a miss, what other chance is there? Perhaps there's a third chance the ball will just disappear?
So even though there are two "chances" (events), the ball either goes in or it goes out, there isn't necessarily a 50-50 "chance" (probability) of either happening because that would imply in the long term out of a hundred times you'd get an average of 50 occurrences of each.
...yeah, you would have flunked Stats. That's pretty similar to the example most professors use on the first day to show that many people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground in regards to statistics.
Yes, I thought so.
You left out the rest of the paragraph that says it's NOT just as simple as 50/50 since there is probability. Sure please educate us as to why that's not true, K State Spur or you're just talking out of your ass.
The problem with Hollinger's analysis is the same thing that makes it interesting at times - it's entirely based on stats. But the problem with stats is that they don't measure the intangibles: Exhibit A is Bruce Bowen. He is possibly the most important person in the Spurs 3 championships, yet statistically goes way under the radar all the time.
Statistically speaking, Utah should go far in the playoffs, based on their domination at home. But it is the sign of a young, vulnerable team that plays as inconsistently as they have on the road, and that could easily be their downfall against a confident, experienced team like the Spurs.
Statistically speaking, the Celtics should sweep their way to the Finals, because they've been dominant all year long. Yet they find themselves 2-2 with the Hawks, because they are also young and inexperienced when it comes to playoff pressure.
Statistically speaking, it is unlikely that the Suns will come back, but it is certainly possible, statistically speaking. However, if the Spurs go on to lose 4 games in a row, they certainly don't deserve to repeat their championship. Statistically speaking, Diaw and Bell probably won't continue to shoot 80% for the rest of the series, and that will make a huge difference.
he said the Suns finished ahead in his power rankings. If he's gonna have any cred at all on his rankings, he has to support them in the name of objectivity.
He does say we have a 94% chance of winning, based on past series--but leaves open a door to the 6% chance for the Suns because of their ranking inhis system.
I can't wait to mock Hollinger even more when his stat champs are eliminated tonight.
live by the numbers, die by the numbers
No team in the NBA can beat this Spurs 4 in-a-row in the playoffs... Period. Ha Ha.
That was not from some imagined lock down D the Suns provided.
You make statements like this:
"Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq."
If there's only a 50/50 chance, then he's not more likely. The likelihood of anybody to hit a free throw would 50/50 in that scenario. But that's obviously not the case.
Number of possible outcomes has little to do with the odds and chances when one outcome is much more likely than the other. It's like saying that you have a 50/50 shot of winning the lottery - either you'll win or you won't. That's obviously not true.
You've been owned this entire thread. Take a stats course ( , half of this stuff is simple ALGEBRA) and get back to us.
Maybe in Hollingers dream Spurs can lose 4 games in a row. Maybe in regular season, but not in playoffs.
Hollinger is such a great expert.
Is that the only thing you learned coming out of that big bad statistics course? Love how your reading skills skip parts of the post.
50/50 chance, different probability as my post states.
Owned yet again.
I'll admit that I've not taken even a basic statistics course and can't begin to truly expound on these matters. But this issue seems pretty simple to me.
There may be two outcomes for any Steve Nash free throw, but we all know that the probability of any one free throw going in is 90% and the probability of any one free throw missing is 10%.
There may be two outcomes for any Shaquille O'Neal free throw, but we all know that the probability of any one free throw going in is 50% and the probability of any one free throw missing is 10%.
The same is true, in a general sense, with dunks or three pointers. That there are only two potential outcomes doesn't increase or reduce the likelihood of one of those outcomes occurring in a given situation.
I still don't understand how there is any logical basis for a conclusion that the Suns are somehow more likely to win Game 5 because of statistical probabilities. Notwithstanding the lack of data to support the underlying premise, there is no connection between the assumption and the conclusion. The sole connection is that a bunch of ESPN experts thought, about two weeks ago, that this series was likely to go to 7 games. But that's not data -- that's opinion. Ultimately, I think Allanon is doing precisely what Hollinger is doing with his argument -- there are opinions out there and Allanon is trying to fit those opinions into an unrelated statistic that has far too many variables to be binding in this situation.
I'll say it again -- the Suns might well win Game 5 (I honestly wouldn't be surprised) but if that comes to pass I don't think winning game 5 will somehow be a matter of statistical inevitability. Likewise, if the Suns somehow extend the series to 7 games, I don't think they'll be somehow unlikely to win that game because they will have happened to win Game 5. The outcome of any one single game is largely unrelated to the outcome of any game that came before it. Things like acquired knowledge, confidence, injuries, and fatigue do make a difference, but the fact of a past win doesn't make the next game a more likely loss and the fact of past losses doesn't make the next game a more likely win.
As usual, you come up with a well thought out intelligent post FWD.
The statistical relevance is that it's highly unlikely that Suns will lose 3 straight in San Antonio. Just like Nash is more likely to hit 9 shots out of 10 instead of missing 9 out of 10.
It's not a prediction, it's just more probable that the Suns win 1 instead of lose 3 straight in SA given that the 2 teams are very even.
Again, these are just the numbers as one previous poster said but I can see where Hollinger is coming from
See, I think you're making an assumption there, too. Assuming your statistical data are correct, what they show is that it's highly unlikely that the Suns will lose 4 straight in San Antonio. It doesn't say where within those 4 games the Suns are likely to win; it just says that if the Suns play 4 games in San Antonio, they're likely to win 1.
The rub, in the context of this thread, is that the Suns might not get a chance to play the hypothetical 4 games in San Antonio. And there's nothing, statistically (from what I can tell), to say that they're unlikely to lose 3 straight in San Antonio. Losing 3 straight and then winning the 4th is as consistent with the statistical trend as losing 2 straight, winning 1, and then losing 1 more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
