And Lance must have a pretty bad case of self-loathing, seeing how he thought he'd be better served as a backup too. What a moron.
If you want to read more on ORtg.
Juries are much more formulaic than most people think. That's why when cases come out (like Casey Anthony) in ways that shock the country, many lawyers will state that the jury "made the right call."
I don't understand why this has to be either or. I think intuition is important. And I think statistics can support opinions and intuition. But intuitions can be proven wrong, and statistics can used to "prove" things that they don't really prove. And there's also observations, which stats tend to be unable to fully prove and tend to be more complex than intuition.
Player x averaging 6 threes a game means that player x averages 6 threes a game. It doesn't mean player x is a chucker. It doesn't mean that player x is a good shooter (player x could take 20 threes a game.) All the statistic means is what the statistic says it measured. In this example, three pointers per game.
Regardless, it can all be wrong or right.
The first time I watched Paul George play, I thought he was special and had a chance to be a fantastic player. (Intuition) I thought he looked like he could be a good shooter, despite his percentage, because of his form. (observation.) Everything I learned about him suggested he was the type of player that would improve, and have it in him to reach his potential. (facts.) And last season the statistics backed me up. I was completely right there.
The first time I saw Lance play an NBA game. I thought Larry Bird was out of his mind. He was too slow, too flashy. (observation.) Statically, players like Lance never learn how to play a team game. Statistically, players like Lance end up destroying team chemistry. I had intuition, observation, and statistics on my side. Yet, the guy grew up, proved me wrong and Bird right :P
Now here we have Danny versus Lance. I suppose.
Emotionally, yes..I'm tied to Danny. I think Danny has done a lot for the Pacers and deserves to have a role when the team finally has a shot at competing. I hope that if the Pacers and Danny part, it's Danny who makes that decision and not Bird. (understanding of course, that the Pacers have limited financial resources, and if Danny chooses to go somewhere that can pay him more, that's not Bird choosing to get rid of Danny.). I think Danny has earned that. And I would be very upset with the Pacers if that wasn't granted to him.
But you know what, I think people on "Lance's side" have emotional investments there. Either they don't like Danny or REALLY like Lance. There's a lot of hyperbole (which is the result of emotional reactions.).
If Danny's healthy, this isn't a bad problem to have.
It's comical how derailed this thread has become for the past 15 pages :laugh:
No judge uses "intuition" to make a judgement in a case. A judge uses reasoning, precedent, and evidence to make a judgement (and to determine if a jury did NOT use those things when making their decision and therefore whether to overturn a verdict). Judicial decisions must be supported with statements of fact, including statements as to why certain evidence was or was not chosen.
Intuition might give you a starting point, or a flash of insight, or a new way of looking at something, but without supportive evidence it is just an idea.
judg·ment or judge·ment
In any event, I question the Granger crowds' judgment. He's not healthy, he will not be a Pacer in less than a year and allowing him to come up to speed in actual games early in the season is going to hurt our record if he's playing at key times...and that may just lose us home court. Quite frankly (pardon the pun), I doubt Frank makes the mistake of starting Granger or having him finish for the remainder of this calendar year.
Last year when Paul said he likes the matchups better at SF because he can better use his quickness to his advantage (something I was saying from the day I got to PD) it was pretty much universally ignored around here because aparently players say **** they don't mean sometimes. :whoknows:
I was routinely corrected on this by multiple college profs, so I "corrected" myself. Of course, at the time, I wasn't spelling it with an -e because I knew there was (purportedly) an alternative spelling.
One of them I particularly respected (and he was prolific, meticulous, and highly respected in his research/writing, not to mention very modest about his success). Coupled with Blue and Gold's note of the court's preference for judgment, there at least appears to be a strong preference for it, at least in certain fields/areas. I'm curious as to why given the alternatives presented in the dictionary.
And in case anyone cares, perhaps not surprisingly we've got an American/British English divergence:
Judgment vs. judgement
In American English, judgement is generally considered a misspelling of judgmentfor all uses of the word, notwithstanding individual preferences. In British popular usage, judgment was traditionally the preferred form, but judgement has gained ground over the last couple of centuries and is now nearly as common as judgment.
Pay no attention to the myth, widely repeated on the web, that judgement is the original spelling and that judgment is a 19th-century American invention. This is simply untrue, as shown by an abundance of readily available evidence anyone can view online.
When it comes to legal contexts, English reference sources say varying things. Most seem to agree that judgment is preferred in legal contexts even in British English, and some say that American and British English differ in their strict legal meanings of judgment. Bryan Garner, in his Modern American Usage, says judgment in American English refers to “the final decisive act of a court in defining the rights of the parties,” whereas, he writes, the word in British English refers to a judicial opinion. We find nothing to contradict this, though there are many English reference sources that do not mention a legal/nonlegal distinction or an American/British distinction.