Reply With Quote
I agree.
When did Brazil become such a ? Wtf brah.
I agree.
these threads are cancerous by nature... its the gots who keep starting them that are the problem
lol ray mccallum > parker
it is not my thread tho
Last thread I started was months ago
Without Barnes, spurs over Clits in 5
Would have been a repeat. Kiwi left yet another ring on the table, smh
Don't equate the two points, re . Rique sucking actually has a lot of merit. Kawhi OTOH is a Top 15 (atleast) player.these threads are cancerous by nature... its the gots who keep starting them that are the problem
Without Barnes, spurs sweep the Clits. I've got a huge man crush onMatt Barnes
Real Plus Minus>Plus minus
So RPM can help us determine who's more valuable to his team? You know, stats don't tell the whole story but...
#1 Curry, #2 James, #3 Harden, #4 Davis, #5 Kawhi, #6 Westbrook...#45 Matt Barnes.
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM
Sounds legit
This is what the issue is. That's like saying PER>Points. Better at what? Does it make creating models to measure a player's value easier? Sure. Is it something you can put on a box score? Not in the least.
I don't know why people have a hard time understanding the difference between a datum an a statistically generated solution. A datum is only wrong if it is recorded incorrectly. A statistically generated solution can be wrong/uninformative for so many more reasons. Plus-minus is just data. RAPM, is a solution. Plus-minus is RIGHT in the sense that it is just a number that's self-evident. Solutions have to say something, so RAPM can totally be off base if it doesn't say that the statistician wants it to say.
I'm not equating the points. I'm equating the ty threads
There aren't many people who look a box score without any context today. I mean, there are a lot of fans who cares only about ppg but that number, like you say, is just a datum.
Yes, obviously. But it's not flawed any more than "2" is a wrong answer. It needs to be contextualized to make sense. But that doesn't make "2" somehow lacking.
It's like if you said, "Kawhi's 6-7," and someone replied with, "Yeah, so? That doesn't tell us if he's a good shot-blocker." I mean, it doesn't. But it also doesn't negate the value of knowing Kawhi's height.
None of this changes the fact that OP claims to be a statistician, yet has no concept or understanding of how any of these numbers work, evidently..he continues to use them horribly, with no context or understanding, including using sample sizes of less than 10 games for the base of some of his arguments(in a serious manner, too)..
Making a 2nd thread to attempt to prove his point and take shots at you is what somebody having a meltdown would do, tbh..
The only argument that these anti-numbers guys make is that some of these numbers and systems have flaws aren't perfect, and then they falsely equate all systems as having the same accuracy/predictive value(which has been proven to be false, many times)..well, ya, that has never been denied by anybody
MATT BARNES MATT BARNES DOES ANYONE ELSE PLAYER FAN MATT BARNES PORKER GOOD �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� GOOD
Why are the Rique threads as ty if there's a lot of truth to what is being said in them? I don't care if it's been beaten to death. As long as he keeps sucking there's no reason why Rique sucks threads shouldn't be going up. Bonner sucks threads were going up all the time for as long as he was in the rotation and nobody complained.
Every thread you post in becomes lol Enrique. Get the French out your mouth. Just because something is true doesn't mean it deserves 6 threads per day. Let's also start many threads every day about Aldridge mid range jumper being good.
Not the same thing... It is so strange that you seem smart enough to communicate yet your analogies are terrible, and you cir navigate to try and prove an irrelevant point.
The issue, once again, is the fact that you are trying to prove PLUS MINUS shows individual worth. It does not. It has nothing to do with being a point calculated in the past. It has to do with being in a box score of other INDIVIDUAL statistics. It is misleading, and since it is published that way, it is misused because it is taken out of context.
But it does have to do with the fact that you are blatantly making up things, name-calling, and avoiding the argument....None of this changes the fact that OP claims to be a statistician, yet has no concept or understanding of how any of these numbers work, evidently..he continues to use them horribly, with no context or understanding, including using sample sizes of less than 10 games for the base of some of his arguments(in a serious manner, too)..
Making a 2nd thread to attempt to prove his point and take shots at you is what somebody having a meltdown would do, tbh..
The only argument that these anti-numbers guys make is that some of these numbers and systems have flaws aren't perfect, and then they falsely equate all systems as having the same accuracy/predictive value(which has been proven to be false, many times)..well, ya, that has never been denied by anybody
all the photos in your sig are of men.
No. ing no. This is seriously your problem. Plus-minus doesn't indicate anything by itself. It's just like points. There isn't an assertion with plus-minus. It's just a fact. Jimmer was -12 against SAC. That's a fact. The question becomes why was he -12. He was -12 because he sucked. He didn't suck because he was -12. He sucked for other reasons. Nevertheless, that he was -12 is informative, just as it was informative that he scored zero points and played 11 minutes. They're just data. You put them together with constants and operators, and you create an assertion. The constants and operators you add in are subjective and are thus open to questions of bias and can be misleading. But the actual data are not, provided they were measured correctly.
Your lack of understanding when it comes to data and theory is extreme. You're trying to claim that "2" is misleading because some people might thing "2+2=5". And if you feel like that's a bad analogy, you really don't know how absurd your stance is.
Wow. It took you 8 pages worth of still trash analogies, to finally admit I was correct in my first post. Then you go on a rant about jimmer. Are you really that stuck on trying to fit your anti jimmer agenda? Your absurdity lies in the fact that you argued incorrectly for several threads now you state I am right. Plus minus has no correlation with individual performance. Thanks for agreeing
does da got still refuse to prove he's a civil engineer? CROFL
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions