Letter FOR THOSE WHO USE +/- as evidence

[tholdren]

It's as biased towards winning teams as winning percentage is tbh. If a mediocre player like Bonner has a huge +/-, it means the coach is using him properly. It is one stat to look at; I don't think anyone is arguing is makes all other stats irrelevant.

no, it may only mean that he is using him at a correct time... i.e. when he is behind in a game and someone on the team is making 3s and the other team is getting fouled making FTs.

could be subbing in and out for defensive purposes on FTS.

ITS A 10 player stat not a 1 player stat.

[tholdren]

See, to me, individual DRtg is misleading. It heavily factors in rebounding and is based primarily off team numbers. So it doesn't do a good job at all at isolating perimeter defense, especially by lockdown guys who don't get a ton of rebounds and who play on average defensive teams. There is bias because people choose to weigh certain factors more than others, and it has a name that makes it seem like it's more inclusive than it is. Real plus-minus has a similar flaw. It's not any "realer" than regular plus-minus. In fact, it's manufactured arbitrarily by people who are trying to fudge numbers to meet their expectations. It may or may not correlate well to the eye-test, but it's misleading.



That's not what I said. I agree that it simply means the Spurs were outscored with him on the floor. I'm saying that the explanation as to why he was -12 is because he made everyone worse -- because he did. He was awful. His stats were not a trick of the light. Every time he came in, he was replacing a better player, which made the lineup tank. He messed up spacing, didn't defend well, missed his looks. That's determined by actually looking at the game, not the number. And if SAC had made seven threes in a row, that would have been the explanation of the number. The point I was making is that the -12 was the reality no matter what explanation you give. And if he has enough games with -12, it's going to become hard to create a model that explains what happened without putting the blame on him.



I think you're confusing stats with the philosophy of stats. The average in this case is a real number that we can observe. It's not an estimate or approximation, because it's taken out of the entire sample. There's no ideal mean that the average is pretending to be, because there's no hidden variance. You have ALL of the data. If someone asks you how many fingers you have, you're not going to give them a confidence interval. You'll give them an integer (counting parts of fingers as whole to eliminate that loop hole). And if they asked you to give the average number of fingers each person in your house/building/whatever has, you will be able to give a correct number provided you can see everyone's hands. There'd be no variance, save perhaps your own fallability in reporting.

That's the entire point of this debate from my view. Plus-minus is not a statistical model. It's not a sampling. And it's not a suggestion of greatness. It's just a number. And no amount of misuse changes that.

See all of the misused and misleading uses of plus minus based on this thread alone. It is a number, that's presented for an individual player in a box score. Why? It's not an individual stat. It's a stat that involves a minimum of 10 players. You literally can be subbed in an out for a FT and get a plus minus for STANDING ON THE BLOCK. Therefore the whole idea of +/- is misleading as represented by ESPN or NBA.com Easily proven by the responses on here.

Stats is the philosophy of stats - that is what stats is/are. A representation of a hypothetical based on averages. A stat really is only a mark in the past that cannot be replicated 100% of the time, so you're correct, it is just a number. But the whole concept behind stats is that they "prove" something. In reality, they only prove one thing. A mark in the past. It cannot represent anything more or anything less. Which is what you are alluding to, but keep trying to disprove at the last moment of each response.

[NameLess Scrub]

Some interesting discussion here...

I think Chinook is hitting the mark in this discussion, but still, seems like what actually bothers tholdren is the use of +/- as an official individual, game to game stat (along with the similar use in this board).

Which makes me ask, regardless of its individual or lineup wise usefulness, is this stat and adequate one to be presented as it is now?

[NameLess Scrub]

This is stat that's only useful unless you're witnessing the game live.

Off topic but.. go Magic! (too)

[HarlemHeat37]

Some interesting discussion here...

I think Chinook is hitting the mark in this discussion, but still, seems like what actually bothers tholdren is the use of +/- as an official individual, game to game stat (along with the similar use in this board).

Which makes me ask, regardless of its individual or lineup wise usefulness, is this stat and adequate one to be presented as it is now?

Nobody uses single-game +/- anymore, and any knowledgeable fan would never use unadjusted +/-, regardless, same with offensive or defensive rating for an individual(probably the most misused stats in the basketball realm, the same number that has had Carlos Boozer as an elite defender, etc)..advanced +/- metrics are unquestionably useful in both the individual and team unit setting, and just like with any good stat, it should be used in conjunction with other metrics and common sense, of course(which is something anti-stats people always ignore in their criticisms of the numbers, they always act like stat people are basing an entire argument on 1 metric)..

OP's point is silly, but it's mostly agenda-driven..he constantly moves the goal posts in the way that he evaluates players..the reason he hates +/- numbers is because they are very kind to players he dislikes on the Spurs(Kawhi, specifically, and DG, as well)..he was the biggest Splitter hater on this forum, too, and pro-Splitter posters would use metrics to display his on-court impact..that's the primary reason, but the actual thread itself was created after one of his favorites(Jimmer) had a poor game, and I'm assuming people were citing his individual game +/-..

[Chinook]

See all of the misused and misleading uses of plus minus based on this thread alone. It is a number, that's presented for an individual player in a box score. Why? It's not an individual stat. It's a stat that involves a minimum of 10 players.

Again, there's a ton of noise if you create a model from a small sample. But if a player has thousands of minutes in many lineups and still has that bad of a number, it's going to be pretty hard to suggest it's not his fault. Possible, but pretty hard.

You literally can be subbed in an out for a FT and get a plus minus for STANDING ON THE BLOCK.

Actually, no. The second FT doesn't count against the new player. It counts against whoever was on the court when the foul occurred. Have had that same question myself.

Stats is the philosophy of stats - that is what stats is/are.

Stats are equal parts data and theory. You're trying to apply a critique of a theory to data. Plus-minus is just data. It's not mislead, it's not flawed and it's not incorrect. It is just what it is.

A stat really is only a mark in the past that cannot be replicated 100% of the time, so you're correct, it is just a number.

In some cases, maybe. But you're trying to read variance into a place that most people would agree is pointless. There could be some score-keeping bias. But besides that, plus-minus is 100-percent accurate.

But the whole concept behind stats is that they "prove" something.

Nah. The models based off the data aim to prove something. But the data themselves ARE something. And it's like saying that the number 2 is asserting something. It's not. Plus-minus is a counting stat. It is not subject to inherent bias.

In reality, they only prove one thing. A mark in the past. It cannot represent anything more or anything less. Which is what you are alluding to, but keep trying to disprove at the last moment of each response.

I think you're trying to say that stats are descriptive and not prescriptive. I agree. Jimmer's plus-minus isn't proof he'll always suck. But Jimmer's poor on-off numbers are evidence that he's sucked his whole NBA career. The weaknesses of models to predict the future are much more severe than their weaknesses against explaining the past.

Also, as a overall critique of your reasoning, it takes more than pointing out a possible issue with a theory to discredit it. That you can create a scenario in which plus-minus could be used incorrectly doesn't no invalidate the stat.

[snickles]

so to sum up.

small sample sizes and the use of a single analytical tool / stat generally will not provide any reliable conclusions. doing this shows you either have a limited understanding of statistics or are just pushing an agenda.

always use the largest sample size possible, and as many different measurements before trying to compare players.

/thread

[NameLess Scrub]

Nobody uses single-game +/- anymore, and any knowledgeable fan would never use unadjusted +/-, regardless, same with offensive or defensive rating for an individual(probably the most misused stats in the basketball realm, the same number that has had Carlos Boozer as an elite defender, etc)..advanced +/- metrics are unquestionably useful in both the individual and team unit setting, and just like with any good stat, it should be used in conjunction with other metrics and common sense, of course(which is something anti-stats people always ignore in their criticisms of the numbers, they always act like stat people are basing an entire argument on 1 metric)..

OP's point is silly, but it's mostly agenda-driven..he constantly moves the goal posts in the way that he evaluates players..the reason he hates +/- numbers is because they are very kind to players he dislikes on the Spurs(Kawhi, specifically, and DG, as well)..he was the biggest Splitter hater on this forum, too, and pro-Splitter posters would use metrics to display his on-court impact..that's the primary reason, but the actual thread itself was created after one of his favorites(Jimmer) had a poor game, and I'm assuming people were citing his individual game +/-..

Thanks.. I understand.

I still wonder though.. from a box-score perspective, every traditional stat will tell us how a particular player did in that single game without question.
Scored a lot? Shoot poorly? Grabbed rebounds? Fouled?

However, is +/- a definite indication of a player's performance in a single game, so it needs to be in the box-score?..

[Kidd K]

no, it may only mean that he is using him at a correct time... i.e. when he is behind in a game and someone on the team is making 3s and the other team is getting fouled making FTs.

could be subbing in and out for defensive purposes on FTS.

ITS A 10 player stat not a 1 player stat.

Uh, if the coach puts a player in and the team makes a run, he's using him properly. Defensive subbing also = using player properly.

If it was a 10 player stat, everyone on every team would have the same stat, and yet they don't. Same with offensive and defensive ratings. Yes they are "biased towards winning teams" because winning teams have good stats in those categories.

For example, take some player who scores 25 PPG but is a ballhog and ty defender. Some may argue he's great and has just been on bad teams, or you can look at how his production is not at the end of the day leading to outscoring the opponent because he gives up too many points or consumes too many of his team's possessions in an inefficient manner while not helping his team enough when he doesn't have the ball as he gets his 25 PPG. Thus he has a low O and D Rating and a low +/-.

[Mikeanaro]

Uh, if the coach puts a player in and the team makes a run, he's using him properly. Defensive subbing also = using player properly.

If it was a 10 player stat, everyone on every team would have the same stat, and yet they don't. Same with offensive and defensive ratings. Yes they are "biased towards winning teams" because winning teams have good stats in those categories.

For example, take some player who scores 25 PPG but is a ballhog and ty defender. Some may argue he's great and has just been on bad teams, or you can look at how his production is not at the end of the day leading to outscoring the opponent because he gives up too many points or consumes too many of his team's possessions in an inefficient manner while not helping his team enough when he doesn't have the ball as he gets his 25 PPG. Thus he has a low O and D Rating and a low +/-.

Also winning a game doesnt guarantee certain player will end up getting a positive +/-.

[tholdren]

Nobody uses single-game +/- anymore, and any knowledgeable fan would never use unadjusted +/-, regardless, same with offensive or defensive rating for an individual(probably the most misused stats in the basketball realm, the same number that has had Carlos Boozer as an elite defender, etc)..advanced +/- metrics are unquestionably useful in both the individual and team unit setting, and just like with any good stat, it should be used in conjunction with other metrics and common sense, of course(which is something anti-stats people always ignore in their criticisms of the numbers, they always act like stat people are basing an entire argument on 1 metric)..

OP's point is silly, but it's mostly agenda-driven..he constantly moves the goal posts in the way that he evaluates players..the reason he hates +/- numbers is because they are very kind to players he dislikes on the Spurs(Kawhi, specifically, and DG, as well)..he was the biggest Splitter hater on this forum, too, and pro-Splitter posters would use metrics to display his on-court impact..that's the primary reason, but the actual thread itself was created after one of his favorites(Jimmer) had a poor game, and I'm assuming people were citing his individual game +/-..

Many use single game plus minus. It's included in 2 major sports site's box scores.
Someone is mad. Sorry you overrated splitter. Don't dislike Leonard, and yes seeing people on the board using plus minus is ridiculous

[tholdren]

Again, there's a ton of noise if you create a model from a small sample. But if a player has thousands of minutes in many lineups and still has that bad of a number, it's going to be pretty hard to suggest it's not his fault. Possible, but pretty hard.

You obviously do not understand plus minus. I t takes 10 players to create a net score. A player does not have to contribute anything to get a plus minus. 9 other players could all score,defend, assist, and that one player could stand in the corner and do nothing and have a plus minus.


Actually, no. The second FT doesn't count against the new player. It counts against whoever was on the court when the foul occurred. Have had that same question myself.
nice to know. So where does that net point go? Strange and seemingly erroneous and invalid.



Stats are equal parts data and theory. You're trying to apply a critique of a theory to data. Plus-minus is just data. It's not mislead, it's not flawed and it's not incorrect. It is just what it is.
stats are a measure, true, but think about a stat ppg. 23.8 not able to happen nor replicated

In some cases, maybe. But you're trying to read variance into a place that most people would agree is pointless. There could be some score-keeping bias. But besides that, plus-minus is 100-percent accurate.



Nah. The models based off the data aim to prove something. But the data themselves ARE something. And it's like saying that the number 2 is asserting something. It's not. Plus-minus is a counting stat. It is not subject to inherent bias.



I think you're trying to say that stats are descriptive and not prescriptive. I agree. Jimmer's plus-minus isn't proof he'll always suck. But Jimmer's poor on-off numbers are evidence that he's sucked his whole NBA career. The weaknesses of models to predict the future are much more severe than their weaknesses against explaining the past.

Also, as a overall critique of your reasoning, it takes more than pointing out a possible issue with a theory to discredit it. That you can create a scenario in which plus-minus could be used incorrectly doesn't no invalidate the stat.

[tholdren]

No, the point is that the statistic is not valid to make any individual assumption about a player of performance.

Think of it this way. If only 5 people played from each team, then at the end 5 players from the winning team would have 5 identical positive plus minus points. The losing team would have 5 identical negative points. By using this to determine player value, there would be 5 who played well and 5 who didnt. The stat is not idicative of how any of the ten played.

[HarlemHeat37]

No, the point is that the statistic is not valid to make any individual assumption about a player of performance.

Think of it this way. If only 5 people played from each team, then at the end 5 players from the winning team would have 5 identical positive plus minus points. The losing team would have 5 identical negative points. By using this to determine player value, there would be 5 who played well and 5 who didnt. The stat is not idicative of how any of the ten played.

[Chinook]

No, the point is that the statistic is not valid to make any individual assumption about a player of performance.

Think of it this way. If only 5 people played from each team, then at the end 5 players from the winning team would have 5 identical positive plus minus points. The losing team would have 5 identical negative points. By using this to determine player value, there would be 5 who played well and 5 who didnt. The stat is not idicative of how any of the ten played.

Yes, but the reason why it's an individual stat is because games don't work that way. There are rotations and not just line subs. There are injuries, spots subs for big moments, garbage time. As each of those scenarios is encountered and factored in, the situational arguments you make lose strength. It becomes less likely that any scenario you come up with explains the whole of the model. Jimmer for example, has been a strong net-negative player despite playing on three different teams and in four or five different systems, despite playing a lot or a few minutes, despite the constant roster flux and role and despite the dozens of opponents. When someone carries a net-negative rating through all that, it's pretty likely that it's because he doesn't help his team win. Along the same lines, Bonner carrying an elite plus-minus is likely because he helped his teams win.

In your scenario, the plus-minus would still be accurate, but because it only speaks to the lineup, that would be the focus. There would be something wrong with that lineup, and switching out players would give more data to isolate bad players. Again, the stat is just fine, but the application has to be understood to use it effectively.

[tholdren]

Yes, but the reason why it's an individual stat is because games don't work that way. There are rotations and not just line subs. There are injuries, spots subs for big moments, garbage time. As each of those scenarios is encountered and factored in, the situational arguments you make lose strength. It becomes less likely that any scenario you come up with explains the whole of the model. Jimmer for example, has been a strong net-negative player despite playing on three different teams and in four or five different systems, despite playing a lot or a few minutes, despite the constant roster flux and role and despite the dozens of opponents. When someone carries a net-negative rating through all that, it's pretty likely that it's because he doesn't help his team win. Along the same lines, Bonner carrying an elite plus-minus is likely because he helped his teams win.

In your scenario, the plus-minus would still be accurate, but because it only speaks to the lineup, that would be the focus. There would be something wrong with that lineup, and switching out players would give more data to isolate bad players. Again, the stat is just fine, but the application has to be understood to use it effectively.

You keep changing the argument. The stat can no way be used to determine the individual worth of a player. It doesn't even say anything about the whole lineups performance.

If it were a useful individual stat you would bd able to tell me the best player out of the 10 players in the scenario above. But there is no way to do that. Which has everything to do with the usefulness of the statistic. You trying to argue only supports the fact that this stat is misused and misleading. Again the original post states that individual worth cannot be derived from plus minus.

You keep admitting this in ambiguous fashion. You're in too deep

[Mikeanaro]

Yes, but the reason why it's an individual stat is because games don't work that way. There are rotations and not just line subs. There are injuries, spots subs for big moments, garbage time. As each of those scenarios is encountered and factored in, the situational arguments you make lose strength. It becomes less likely that any scenario you come up with explains the whole of the model. Jimmer for example, has been a strong net-negative player despite playing on three different teams and in four or five different systems, despite playing a lot or a few minutes, despite the constant roster flux and role and despite the dozens of opponents. When someone carries a net-negative rating through all that, it's pretty likely that it's because he doesn't help his team win. Along the same lines, Bonner carrying an elite plus-minus is likely because he helped his teams win.

In your scenario, the plus-minus would still be accurate, but because it only speaks to the lineup, that would be the focus. There would be something wrong with that lineup, and switching out players would give more data to isolate bad players. Again, the stat is just fine, but the application has to be understood to use it effectively.

Are you saying Jimmer sucks!?!?!?!
I think its a conspiracy to make him look bad, those 3 teams players coaches and 58 systems are involved.

[tholdren]

http://wagesofwins.com/2011/03/05/de...s-minus-model/

Here

[tholdren]

Are you saying Jimmer sucks!?!?!?!
I think its a conspiracy to make him look bad, those 3 teams players coaches and 58 systems are involved.

It's not about that. Eyeballs tell you jimmer sucked, plus minus has nothing to do with it. To say jimmer sucked because he had a bad plus minus makes you look like you have had zero education

[ElNono]

Thanks.. I understand.

I still wonder though.. from a box-score perspective, every traditional stat will tell us how a particular player did in that single game without question.
Scored a lot? Shoot poorly? Grabbed rebounds? Fouled?

However, is +/- a definite indication of a player's performance in a single game, so it needs to be in the box-score?..

If a team fields the same 5 starters and the same 5 guys off the bench (more or less the same rotation), +/- doesn't really mean much individually. How could it? It's measuring a scoring differential for 5 guys on the floor. If those 5 guys are largely the same guys, then this particular stat doesn't help you measure anything individually, no matter how large your sample size is. Now, while not all 5 players are subs uted at the same time (except when Pop is drunk), the rotations in most NBA teams generally are a 5 starters / 5 primary bench players. That's what you're going to get the biggest sample size from (and thus the most significant statistical data from this stat). If the team rotation is more random (due to injuries, coaches tinkering with lineups, etc), then yeah, you'll get more significant samples of player triplets, duets, and down to the individual level.

This is not even taking into account who you're playing against, which can obviously insert it's own bias, but that's what adjusted +/- tries to address.

All that doesn't mean the stat is broken or it doesn't work or it's unusable. It measures certain impact on the floor, and for example, it can show certain player duets or triplets being really dominant due to factors that individual stats could never measure (good chemistry, good communication, etc). It's no silver bullet, it's just one more stat you need to combine with others to get a good picture about the team as a whole.

[Chinook]

You keep changing the argument.

No, what I'm doing is responding to all the you're throwing against the wall hoping for it to stick. The argument is that plus-minus isn't misleading, and you're twisting yourself in a knot trying to find out exactly how you can misinterpret it. But again, it's just like points, rebounds, assists. It doesn't have a bias, because it's not based on what people feel is more important.

The stat can no way be used to determine the individual worth of a player.

You've done nothing to establish this. You've simply asserted that it can't in certain scenarios. Certain completely contrived and unrealistic scenarios. Saying something can fail is not the same thing as saying it doesn't work. It's like saying planes are a bad mode of transportation because they sometimes crash.

It doesn't even say anything about the whole lineups performance.

Of course it does. If a lineup constantly gets outscored by its opponents, it's a poor lineup. As Nono said, it's even stronger than individual plus-minus.

If it were a useful individual stat you would bd able to tell me the best player out of the 10 players in the scenario above.

No, again, you made an unrealistic scenario, and no real model has to be viable under unrealistic conditions. Let's take TS% for example. Player A shoots 60 percent, while player B doesn't make a shot ( , none of his shots are particularly close) but gets 75 percent of his shots goaltended because of a rookie big man who doesn't end up seeing the end of his 10-day contract. In that situation, player B has a higher TS%, but no reasonable person would assume he was more efficient than player A. Does this mean TS% is somehow a poor stat?

Or assists: Player A runs 10 PnRs to perfection, but his running mate is Ayres who fumbles the passes out of bounds. Player B does 10 isos for 23 seconds before kicking the ball out to Mills, who manages to make a couple of those shots. Player A has no assists and potentially a couple of TOs, while player B has a couple of assists and no TOs. Is player B a better playmaker? No. Does that mean assists aren't a good stat? No.

That's why your strategy is silly. You can't break system by showing it can be beaten. No one claims models based on plus-minus always work. But there's a large gap between workability and perfection.

You keep admitting this in ambiguous fashion. You're in too deep

Man, you're in too deep trying to defend Jimmer. If you are a statistician like you suggest you are, then you know all about models and confidence intervals. And if you know about those, you know it's silly to attack stats by pointing out they don't work 100 percent of the time. And you should know about sample sizes and how having a large sample normalizes almost all variation. These are first-week concepts in any stats class. So why are all of your arguments ignoring them?

[Mikeanaro]

It's not about that. Eyeballs tell you jimmer sucked, plus minus has nothing to do with it. To say jimmer sucked because he had a bad plus minus makes you look like you have had zero education

Eyeballs have very short memory span and perception, thats why we as humans write things down and measure stuff to have references and as chinook said, if you have a bad plus minus on every one of those 3 teams and 58 systems it means you are not a great player, hence why he is struggling to find a team, he was a college sensation a ¨shimmer¨ but now he is just a ¨jiver¨.

[tholdren]

No, what I'm doing is responding to all the you're throwing against the wall hoping for it to stick. The argument is that plus-minus isn't misleading, and you're twisting yourself in a knot trying to find out exactly how you can misinterpret it. But again, it's just like points, rebounds, assists. It doesn't have a bias, because it's not based on what people feel is more important.



You've done nothing to establish this. You've simply asserted that it can't in certain scenarios. Certain completely contrived and unrealistic scenarios. Saying something can fail is not the same thing as saying it doesn't work. It's like saying planes are a bad mode of transportation because they sometimes crash.



Of course it does. If a lineup constantly gets outscored by its opponents, it's a poor lineup. As Nono said, it's even stronger than individual plus-minus.



No, again, you made an unrealistic scenario, and no real model has to be viable under unrealistic conditions. Let's take TS% for example. Player A shoots 60 percent, while player B doesn't make a shot ( , none of his shots are particularly close) but gets 75 percent of his shots goaltended because of a rookie big man who doesn't end up seeing the end of his 10-day contract. In that situation, player B has a higher TS%, but no reasonable person would assume he was more efficient than player A. Does this mean TS% is somehow a poor stat?

Or assists: Player A runs 10 PnRs to perfection, but his running mate is Ayres who fumbles the passes out of bounds. Player B does 10 isos for 23 seconds before kicking the ball out to Mills, who manages to make a couple of those shots. Player A has no assists and potentially a couple of TOs, while player B has a couple of assists and no TOs. Is player B a better playmaker? No. Does that mean assists aren't a good stat? No.

That's why your strategy is silly. You can't break system by showing it can be beaten. No one claims models based on plus-minus always work. But there's a large gap between workability and perfection.



Man, you're in too deep trying to defend Jimmer. If you are a statistician like you suggest you are, then you know all about models and confidence intervals. And if you know about those, you know it's silly to attack stats by pointing out they don't work 100 percent of the time. And you should know about sample sizes and how having a large sample normalizes almost all variation. These are first-week concepts in any stats class. So why are all of your arguments ignoring them?

This has no bearing on any player, or all bearing on every player. In every scenario there are too many variables for plus minus to be used. Read the article.

If I play in a lineup with Tim Duncan and three other spurs players, I would always play the worst. Yet our plus minus would be equal. You cannot attribute value individually from that stat.

And again, the original post was about that point. Many on here look at the box and say "plus minus shows" then they list an individual. It's re ed. And no, plus minus does not give specifics about lineups either. How many times do players like harden, Bryant, kd, curry, go on runs? 9 players get plus minus adjustments from a player scoring 8 in a row, but that has no correlation with 8 players on the court other than the scorer and the defender.

If plus minus were really that great why did it get adapted? Why are there still many who don't buy in? It's evident you understand the basis of statistical measurement, but it's interesting you cannot put it into context other than just stating the typical "sample size" bs

[tholdren]

You make the perfect pointsc about TS percent and assists. Many feel hockey assists should count, or if a good pass is fumbled by a player then the to should not be attributed to the passer. However none of those instances you give relate to 10 players being statistically affected by one play, then that stat be used to determine individual worth. A better example would be opp points scored per game means everyone on the team is a good of bad defender.

[Spur Bank]

Chinook, we appreciate your attempts to educate tholdren -- I'll admit I was tempted to go line-by-line with his "arguments" as well. But I humbly suggest you stop wasting your time on him.

tholdren... I don't know what to say to you. The sheer volume of factually incorrect statements you've made in this thread boggles my mind.