Page 27 of 36 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #651
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,228

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is it really both sides, you think? Or for that matter, what exactly are the two sides, when I'm arguing against one side while admitting Lance is currently the better player? How does that work? Will it fall deaf on Nuntius's ears, too, for example?
    Hey, don't bring Nuntius in. Nuntius and I are always on the same side, even if we disagree

    That's why I put "side" in quote marks btw. Certainly there's no side that doesn't think Lance is a good player. But if there's ever a suggestion of Danny being "done", certain posters rush to his defense, just as certain posters rush to attack. Poor Lance has just become a debating tool for the Danny critics and defenders.

    To me, the only reasonable position on Danny is that time will tell. Hence why I like docpaul's post so much (you know, about having more data). But of course this opinion is pretty boring and wouldn't interest the people who want to debate.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  3. #652
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think BillS made a good contribution, but he didn't win the thread. He shut it down, along with all of PD. This is an opinion board. Questioning decisions at every level is what we do.

    Beyond that, let's not forget Vogel failed to start Lance last year (and West said we would have started out much better if he had) and that Bird extended JOB. Questioning the decision makers is not always tilting at windmills.
    The problem isn't the opinions, or the questioning. The problem is the methods selected to express them.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  5. #653
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I will agree with this at one level. Documented observation is more reliable down the road and allows for various types of analysis. But by "eyeballs" I mean "Intuition over Integers."

    It's like watching your garden for a few hours to see what's eating the lettuce. You write down your observations and see that rabbits are hanging out around the lettuce more than the other creatures. This helps you if a few weeks later you can't quite remember if it was rabbits or deer or turtles. But it doesn't help you figure out if the rabbits are actually taking a bite, if spraying the lettuce will cause more problems than solutions, or if the rabbits' "activity" around the lettuce is actually helping to fertilize it. Data is helpful, but it doesn't compete with higher level thinking and intuition.
    Statistics are a collaboration from several eyeballs, designed to help generate a more accurate replication of what was seen so that we can look back and analyze what happened. Sort of like how detectives and lawyers document evidence and take witness testimony to try to piece together what happened at the scene of a crime. You're basically poo-pooing documented evidence and the case itself because your gut tells you someone was or wasn't guilty based off a smaller piece of the evidence pie that you managed to consume yourself personally.

    I'm all for intuition. I just don't put it above integers. They both belong.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  7. #654
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,228

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But it doesn't help you figure out if the rabbits are actually taking a bite, if spraying the lettuce will cause more problems than solutions, or if the rabbits' "activity" around the lettuce is actually helping to fertilize it. Data is helpful, but it doesn't compete with higher level thinking and intuition.
    It would help if you have more data though, like if you have video cameras installed. You know, kind of like the SportsVU data on player movement that the NBA has now made public. Now all you need is to automate your video equipment so it can quantify rabbits' eating activity without you have to do the boring counting yourself

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  9. #655
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I know people single you out for making wrong predictions all the time.
    They actually hate me because I'm right must of the time

    And regarding Rush I think is time to let it go Lance is not Brandon Rush plus Lance has proven that the last 3 games are not a fluke, his numbers on the playoffs were pretty good too so is not like his number were inflated by playing againts scrubs either and believe me I don't think he is going to keep those numbers up but I think they are going to be close.(14,7 and 5 while shooting at 44%).

  10. #656
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hey, don't bring Nuntius in. Nuntius and I are always on the same side, even if we disagree

    That's why I put "side" in quote marks btw. Certainly there's no side that doesn't think Lance is a good player. But if there's ever a suggestion of Danny being "done", certain posters rush to his defense, just as certain posters rush to attack. Poor Lance has just become a debating tool for the Danny critics and defenders.

    To me, the only reasonable position on Danny is that time will tell. Hence why I like docpaul's post so much (you know, about having more data). But of course this opinion is pretty boring and wouldn't interest the people who want to debate.
    For me personally, I just get tired of reading 'he's done' or 'he sucks' or 'he always sucked'. I shouldn't have to be labeled as some kind of radical (not saying you did, just generally) because I think he MIGHT be healthy again and that he is/was a good player.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  12. #657
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,078

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're basically poo-pooing documented evidence and the case itself because your gut tells you someone was or wasn't guilty
    You know, they don't process the evidence with a computer to get a verdict. They ask 12 jurors to vote, having reviewed the evidence, with their "gut."
    Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-04-2013 at 01:52 PM.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  14. #658
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know, they don't process the evidence with a computer to get a verdict. They ask 12 jurors to vote, having reviewed the evidence, with their gut.

  15. #659
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,518

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They actually hate me because I'm right must of the time

    And regarding Rush I think is time to let it go Lance is not Brandon Rush plus Lance has proven that the last 3 games are not a fluke, his numbers on the playoffs were pretty good too so is not like his number were inflated by playing againts scrubs either and believe me I don't think he is going to keep those numbers up but I think they are going to be close.(14,7 and 5 while shooting at 44%).
    If you're going to selectively quote my post, at least do me the favor of selecting a full sentence. Don't lop a sentence in half and change the punctuation.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  17. #660
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,980

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know, they don't process the evidence with a computer to get a verdict. They ask 12 jurors to vote, having reviewed the evidence, with their "gut."
    The topic was lawyers/dectectives not jury. Kind of fitting in this thread, considering a main complaint about the discussion is how one thing is said, and people run with something that wasn't.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  18. #661
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,520

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They actually hate me because I'm right must of the time
    Well, this time...you were wrong in the way that you spelled "most".
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  20. #662
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,518

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know, they don't process the evidence with a computer to get a verdict. They ask 12 jurors to vote, having reviewed the evidence, with their "gut."
    Actually, the whole reason behind havng multiple jurors is to eliminate the influence of gut feelings. If literally everybody in the courtroom knows a defendant committed a crime but the only evidence condemning the defendant is thrown out because it was obtained illegally, according to law the defendant hasn't been proven guilty and will walk away free if no further evidence can be found.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  22. #663
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,078

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The topic was lawyers/dectectives not jury. Kind of fitting in this thread, considering a main complaint about the discussion is how one thing is said, and people run with something that wasn't.
    Reread his post. It was about judging someone guilty or not. It was about Intuition not being over Integers. But human judgment (intuition) trumps documentation and analysis in the court of law.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  24. #664
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,078

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually, the whole reason behind havng multiple jurors is to eliminate the influence of gut feelings. If literally everybody in the courtroom knows a defendant committed a crime but the only evidence condemning the defendant is thrown out because it was obtained illegally, according to law the defender hasn't been proven guilty and will walk away free if no further evidence can be found.
    Yes, but it is always "humans" making the final decision, not a formula. Not a computer. And that guy whose case was thrown out—he went free because of a law drafted by . . . wait for it . . . humans.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  26. #665
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,980

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Reread his post. It was about judging someone guilty or not. It was about Intuition not being over Integers. But human judgment (intuition) trumps documentation and analysis in the court of law.
    I'm pretty sure he was talking about the process of bringing charges, not the guilt/innocence. The process of weighing evidence from a lawyer/detective is different than the process a jury goes through. EDIT: Hence the "to try to piece together what happened at the scene of a crime" part.
    Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013 at 02:15 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  28. #666
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know, they don't process the evidence with a computer to get a verdict. They ask 12 jurors to vote, having reviewed the evidence, with their "gut."
    Right, and I'm saying you're in the jury ignoring any of the evidence you don't care for because it contradicts your gut instincts.

  29. #667
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm pretty sure he was talking about the process of bringing charges, not the guilt/innocence. The process of weighing evidence from a lawyer/detective is different than the process a jury goes through. EDIT: Hence the "to try to piece together what happened at the scene of a crime" part.
    A little of both, I suppose, but the main point being we don't just ignore evidence (well, we do, but we're not supposed to do it) that doesn't agree with our gut, we're supposed to document and consider ALL of the evidence. Whether we're a detective, a lawyer, a juror, or a judge. The main point is, I see "intuition over integers," and I think, "He wants to pick and choose the evidence."

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  31. #668
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,518

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, but it is always "humans" making the final decision, not a formula. Not a computer. And that guy whose case was thrown out—he went free because of a law drafted by . . . wait for it . . . humans.
    Who has ever said that you don't have to interpret statistics? Statistics are not right or wrong, they're observations of what happened. The problem with statistics is that it is possible for people to draw incorrect conclusions from them. This does not, however, mean that all conclusions drawn from statistics are incorrect.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-04-2013 at 02:22 PM.

  32. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  33. #669
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,518

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    The thing that really hasn't been talked about much is how good Lance has been statistically this season. Right now, he's getting results. There's no way he continues at the pace he is now, but if Lance can shoot around 50% for the season and above 35% from 3, he will have a lot more "believers" before half of the season is even gone. If he really is going to be this good all year, it is ultimately statistics that will convince the "haters" that he is for real.

    The only reason there's resistance right now is because people are waiting to see what level he's performing at when he comes back down to earth. He is quite clearly on a hot streak right now, but if he's going to be shooting 12+ shots a game all season we are also going to be watching a change from a power-post offense to an offense where we use power post players to set up our perimeter scorers.

  34. #670
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,078

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right, and I'm saying you're in the jury ignoring any of the evidence you don't care for because it contradicts your gut instincts.
    Both sides present "evidence." The jurors decide which "evidence" is valid or not.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  36. #671
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,986

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aye, and it's amazing how posters hop back and forth between "I don't need stats" and "here's some stats" depending on how well the stats back up their eyes...

    And otherwise, saying you watch the games means nothing on a forum where everybody is watching the games.

    Also, spoiler-alert:

    Statistics are a collection of observations put down on paper! They are 100% generated BY WATCHING THE GAME.
    I know Danny Granger slipped quite a bit. I know Lance has improved quite a bit. Also, they are very different players. With very different skillsets. Danny's slippage might've been due to age, his knee, or too much time spent with Jim O'Brien. Or all of the above. I don't need stats to tell me any of that stuff.

    Here's the big thing with me, even IF Granger can fully recover and play the game like a 25 year old.... Both he and PG are natural SF's. Lance is more a natural guard. Sure there is some crossover in ability and those roles (SF/SG) but all things being equal I prefer players to play the positions that are naturally suited for. In this case, all things aren't equal.... Lance is up and coming, started all year for the ECF finalist Pacers, continues to improve, was part of a starting lineup that wasn't the weak spot of the team, and fits very well with the starting lineup.

    Granger is 30 years old, coming off injury, has barely played in over a year, has looked rusty, is currently wearing a suit, hasn't proven to be able to stay healthy or consistent, and is a prototypical SF. The position where we already have a budding star.

    This whole argument is really moot in my mind because really the argument should be between Danny or PG at SF.... and that has been settled a long long time ago.

    Right now I think the place for Granger is to try to find a role off the bench. And the longer he wears a suit and the more success the team has I'm going to be even less inclined to want to try very hard to find a place for Granger. IMHO the only place on this team that might be able to utilize Granger is the bench. There is no role to carve out for Granger with the starters. He's a SF and we have that position covered. He should be penciled in to backup Paul George with some time together in matchups where interchangeable SF/SG roles work. Neither PG or DG have superstar potential at the SG spot. Lance gives us more of a prototypical SG and some potential to be fairly special and perhaps even the batman and robin combo we've all talked about in Pacerland for years.

    And for those who'd argue it doesn't matter who starts, then why would you argue that Granger should start?
    Last edited by Bball; 11-04-2013 at 03:03 PM.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  38. #672
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Is now a good time to mention that Jim O'Brien was the first person I'm aware of who said after the 2010 draft that the acquisitions of Paul George and Lance Stephenson were going to be seen looking back as the real turning point for the franchise? It's true.

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  40. #673
    can't wait to see this v Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,326

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is now a good time to mention that Jim O'Brien was the first person I'm aware of who said after the 2010 draft that the acquisitions of Paul George and Lance Stephenson were going to be seen looking back as the real turning point for the franchise? It's true.
    Irrelevant.

  41. #674
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,582

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is now a good time to mention that Jim O'Brien was the first person I'm aware of who said after the 2010 draft that the acquisitions of Paul George and Lance Stephenson were going to be seen looking back as the real turning point for the franchise? It's true.

    Ha, I forgot about that.

    It's looking like it will easily be the best Pacer draft in history. Heck, it would have a chance at that if it were just Paul. But when you add Lance to the mix, it's going to be a runaway.

  42. #675
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,980

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This whole argument is really moot in my mind because really the argument should be between Danny or PG at SF.... and that has been settled a long long time ago.
    So really we need to dig back up the Vogel quotes where he says it doesn't make a difference on who is the 2 and who is the 3 then, because the sets aren't for a specfic position, but rather for specific players?

    EDIT: Here's the link if you'd like to pay for it, but the second sentence sums it up.
    Indiana Pacers coach Frank Vogel said there's not a significant difference.
    http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...S04/302260097/
    Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013 at 03:05 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •