Page 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 700 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #676
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    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 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?
    I don't understand why you're launching back into your views on Danny that aren't statistically-based while you are quoting a response having specifically to do with stats. It kind of confuses the flow of conversation.

  2. #677
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    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?
    That and the fact that Paul defends shooting guards as well as he defends any other position, plus he will fit very well with Lance or with Danny, is why I have no worries about him playing with another SG or another SF. It doesn't matter at all in terms of how he will perform.

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


  4. #678
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,057

    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.
    Well, detectives and lawyers don't have the ultimate say. It's those 12 people who decide with their "gut" if the person is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." It's not science. It's not math. It's not a formula. It's human judgment/intuition, and their decision trumps the detective and the lawyers.

    Intuition over Integers.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

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


  6. #679
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    Well, detectives and lawyers don't have the ultimate say. It's those 12 people who decide with their "gut" if the person is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." It's not science. It's not math. It's not a formula. It's human judgment/intuition,and their decision trumps the detective and the lawyers.
    The problem I have with your stance is you're basically saying what you believe is more important than all of the facts put together.

    And, perhaps ironically, I find that to be counter-intuitive.

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


  8. #680
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    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
    Well, detectives and lawyers don't have the ultimate say. It's those 12 people who decide with their "gut" if the person is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." It's not science. It's not math. It's not a formula. It's human judgment/intuition,and their decision trumps the detective and the lawyers.
    Who said anything about the ultimate say? You, that's it. The subject of the statement was lawyers/detectives, and you changed it to jurors, to make a point. If we stuck with the original subject, and not changed it, we wouldn't need to discuss which it is.
    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.

  9. #681
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,057

    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
    Who said anything about the ultimate say? You, that's it. The subject of the statement was lawyers/detectives, and you changed it to jurors, to make a point. If we stuck with the original subject, and not changed it, we wouldn't need to discuss which it is.
    Sorry, I have an inclination for making points. I'll try to refrain in deference to the weak.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

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


  11. #682
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,057

    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
    The problem I have with your stance is you're basically saying what you believe is more important than all of the facts put together.

    And, perhaps ironically, I find that to be counter-intuitive.
    Thanked for the last line.

    Regarding the first line, who determines which facts are really facts, which facts are strong, weak, misleading or irrelevant? Both sides present all kinds of facts, and I've it heard said some attorneys actually stretch the truth once in a while.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

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


  13. #683
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    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
    Sorry, I have an inclination for making points. I'll try to refrain in deference to the weak.
    Yeah, it's my fault for pointing out that Hicks mentioned something specifically, and you changed who he was talking about specifically in order to make your point.


    Goes right back to what I said is a major complaint about this discussion, instead of rolling with what people actually do say, the readers change the point so they can then argue what they'd like. I don't think it's too much to ask, to stay with what people actually said. If that makes me weak, I'll wear it proudly. Just don't ***** when I purposefully change what you said, in order to argue something different.
    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.

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


  15. #684
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,030

    Sports Logo

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

    if ever a thread needed it


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  17. #685

    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
    Well, detectives and lawyers don't have the ultimate say. It's those 12 people who decide with their "gut" if the person is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." It's not science. It's not math. It's not a formula. It's human judgment/intuition, and their decision trumps the detective and the lawyers.

    Intuition over Integers.
    So to tie the analogy back to basketball, if Vogel came out and said "The numbers say this, and that makes sense to me, so that's why the decision was made the way it was" that would be intuition over integers because a human had the ultimate say? That seems to be what you're saying with the jury analogy. That it matters less which evidence they choose to believe (the physical evidence vs any eyewitness evidence for example) but rather just that a person is weighing all the evidence and using their judgement to decide which to put more credence to. Am I characterizing your position correctly?

  18. #686
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,435

    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
    Well, detectives and lawyers don't have the ultimate say. It's those 12 people who decide with their "gut" if the person is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." It's not science. It's not math. It's not a formula. It's human judgment/intuition, and their decision trumps the detective and the lawyers.

    Intuition over Integers.
    Not completely.

    First, the jury isn't allowed to just introduce "well, the guy seems calm in court, so my eyes tell me he couldn't have violently assaulted someone". Therefore, some of the "intuition" is disallowed.

    Second, besides the lawyers and detectives, there is a judge who is educated in the weights that should be given to certain types of evidence and can instruct the jury appropriately. Therefore, it is someone who knows how the numbers work who is guiding the intuition.

    It all boils down to the idea that we are actually starting with objective facts that then are interpreted through the guidance of people who know how those facts are usually compiled. "Intuition over integers" too often is assumed to mean "the numbers don't mean anything compared to my gut feeling", which is not the way a jury works nor is it the way the world works. Numbers (statistics) are facts. What those facts add up to (the "truth", one might say) requires understanding how those numbers were compiled, what they do and do not say, and an ability to explain why if a number is counter-intuitive it comes out that way. That's thought and integers working together, not gut feeling ignoring the numbers altogether.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

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


  20. #687
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    Who said anything about the ultimate say? You, that's it. The subject of the statement was lawyers/detectives, and you changed it to jurors, to make a point. If we stuck with the original subject, and not changed it, we wouldn't need to discuss which it is.
    Even further, the real point I've been trying to illustrate the whole time is that it's important to not dismiss facts just because we don't like what they might suggest. Just because there are stats that say Danny Granger is/was an efficient scorer doesn't mean anything other than saying Danny Granger is/was an efficient scorer. But for some reason a lot of people can't seem to leave it at that.

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


  22. #688
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    Thanked for the last line.

    Regarding the first line, who determines which facts are really facts, which facts are strong, weak, misleading or irrelevant? Both sides present all kinds of facts, and I've it heard said some attorneys actually stretch the truth once in a while.
    Again, this doesn't have to be a metaphor for a criminal case, the real point is to not dismiss facts just because we don't like what they might suggest. That's the real point I'm trying to make. As for which facts 'are really facts', well, sports statistics are as close as you're probably ever going to get to 'real facts'.

    And if the stats are about scoring efficiency, they're nothing strong or weak, they just are what they are. The only thing I've seen misleading about them is how they've been purposefully misrepresent to be a measurement for a player's OVERALL quality, which was NOT ever the point of those who were bringing them up to support Danny Granger.

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


  24. #689
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    if ever a thread needed it

    I've always had mixed feelings about that image. It's so right in one sense, yet on the other hand it's human nature to be negatively captivated by another human being when you hear, see, read them communicating a message you find false or otherwise 'wrong'. It can be difficult to ignore in any social context.

  25. #690
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not completely.

    First, the jury isn't allowed to just introduce "well, the guy seems calm in court, so my eyes tell me he couldn't have violently assaulted someone". Therefore, some of the "intuition" is disallowed.

    Second, besides the lawyers and detectives, there is a judge who is educated in the weights that should be given to certain types of evidence and can instruct the jury appropriately. Therefore, it is someone who knows how the numbers work who is guiding the intuition.

    It all boils down to the idea that we are actually starting with objective facts that then are interpreted through the guidance of people who know how those facts are usually compiled. "Intuition over integers" too often is assumed to mean "the numbers don't mean anything compared to my gut feeling", which is not the way a jury works nor is it the way the world works. Numbers (statistics) are facts. What those facts add up to (the "truth", one might say) requires understanding how those numbers were compiled, what they do and do not say, and an ability to explain why if a number is counter-intuitive it comes out that way. That's thought and integers working together, not gut feeling ignoring the numbers altogether.
    I feel like laymen who don't work in or around law kind of assume that lawyers and judges 'make it up' with regards to which evidence is credible, not credible, or how credible it is. Smart people put a lot of time and effort into figuring this stuff out, guys. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than people typically give it credit for, too.

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


  27. #691
    RING THE BELL! Sandman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Area55
    Posts
    6,176

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    http://instagram.com/p/gTjH1AJGBu/

    Remember when we worried about Lance's maturity? I'm not all that concerned anymore.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
    Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sandman21 For This Useful Post:


  29. #692
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,860

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

    Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
    Your math is off. Player A misses 6 shots not 4. So, the difference is only 2 shots.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  30. #693
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,181

    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
    I've always had mixed feelings about that image. It's so right in one sense, yet on the other hand it's human nature to be negatively captivated by another human being when you hear, see, read them communicating a message you find false or otherwise 'wrong'. It can be difficult to ignore in any social context.
    Not that you're asking for life advice, but you (as in any one person) can't fix all that's wrong in the world (or worse, on the internet lol). Sometimes it's about picking your battles, etc.

    I think it might be worse on the internet because it takes so little investment to get sucked into an argument, and before long you realize you're in the middle of a flame war.

  31. #694
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,030

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman21 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    http://instagram.com/p/gTjH1AJGBu/

    Remember when we worried about Lance's maturity? I'm not all that concerned anymore.
    if Frank started rocking some Burberry instead of those weird clipped collar shirts he wore last year I'd appreciate it, just saying

  32. #695
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,057

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So to tie the analogy back to basketball, if Vogel came out and said "The numbers say this, and that makes sense to me, so that's why the decision was made the way it was" that would be intuition over integers because a human had the ultimate say? That seems to be what you're saying with the jury analogy. That it matters less which evidence they choose to believe (the physical evidence vs any eyewitness evidence for example) but rather just that a person is weighing all the evidence and using their judgement to decide which to put more credence to. Am I characterizing your position correctly?
    I think you're close. The jury determines what evidence they want to give preference to. They may determine that based on physical vs eye-witness or not. They decide. It's not a formula or a science. Someone is not thrown off the jury for being illogical. They actually DETERMINE what is logical. They are the ultimate judge, not any particular party's definition of "evidence."
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

  33. #696
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,336

    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
    And for those who'd argue it doesn't matter who starts, then why would you argue that Granger should start?
    Okay...I will give the same answer that I've been giving for the 100000th time in this thread.

    Unless there is a way to "start" Lance at the beginning of the game and then figure out some egg-timer rotation ( assuming that he's not red-hot from the field and therefore shouldn't be taken out ) where he would end up playing the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit, doing this would likely result in pushing Lance to the Bench as the 6th Man ( while getting Starter Minutes ) and pushing Granger up into the Starting Lineup as a 4th/5th Scoring option.

    Starting Granger is the by-product of making Lance a "Super-Sub" a la Manu with the Spurs.....not because we want to bestow the Starting spot out of loyalty, favoritism to him or because we "hate" Lance and are willing to ignore all of the issues that Granger has now.

    NOTE - to be clear, so that it is not misunderstood for the millionth time....I am referring to the role that Manu played on that Team as a 6th Man that played Starter minutes while finishing games...not comparing the current Pacers to the Championship Spurs a few years back.

    Before you say, "Why on earth would you want to mess with a good thing and not put your Best lineup on the floor for the majority of the Time while settling for putting the lesser Player in the Starting lineup?"...my answer is that I am willing to accept any short comings that having Granger in the Starting Lineup ( cuz I do not believe that the dropoff from the Best lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Lance is that significant compared to the 2nd Best Lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Granger ) if it means having Lance greatly improve the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit.

    This doesn't mean that there won't be any minutes for the Best lineup that we have on the floor....nor does it mean that Lance won't close/finish games. It means that I am willing to live with more minutes of Granger in the Starting Lineup if it means improving the overall Team as a whole over the course of the regular season. Improving the offensive production of the bench by having Lance help create shots for the many shooters/scorers on the bench ( something that Granger CANNOT do ) would only decrease any heavy reliance on PG/GH/West/Hibbert....something that caused significant issues over the course of the regular season and Playoffs.

    This is something that I ( and many ) have been posting for the entire thread. We recognize that Lance is the better Player and that he makes up the BEST Lineup that Vogel can put on the floor. But that does not mean that we have to put him in the Starting Lineup for the entire Game if he is capable of improving the Team as a whole...which is what we are looking for in the end.
    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.

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


  35. #697
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,057

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not completely.

    First, the jury isn't allowed to just introduce "well, the guy seems calm in court, so my eyes tell me he couldn't have violently assaulted someone". Therefore, some of the "intuition" is disallowed.

    Second, besides the lawyers and detectives, there is a judge who is educated in the weights that should be given to certain types of evidence and can instruct the jury appropriately. Therefore, it is someone who knows how the numbers work who is guiding the intuition.

    It all boils down to the idea that we are actually starting with objective facts that then are interpreted through the guidance of people who know how those facts are usually compiled. "Intuition over integers" too often is assumed to mean "the numbers don't mean anything compared to my gut feeling", which is not the way a jury works nor is it the way the world works. Numbers (statistics) are facts. What those facts add up to (the "truth", one might say) requires understanding how those numbers were compiled, what they do and do not say, and an ability to explain why if a number is counter-intuitive it comes out that way. That's thought and integers working together, not gut feeling ignoring the numbers altogether.
    Good post.

    I never said numbers, statistics, or evidence is not important. But, at the end of the day, whether Vogel or Bird is making a decision or juries are deciding someone's fate, their human judgment/intuition is the ultimate "judge."
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

  36. #698
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    And for those who'd argue it doesn't matter who starts, then why would you argue that Granger should start?
    Pretty simple, we want the bench to be a "super bench" so moving the much better player(Danny "more efficient than Kobe Bryant" Granger) to the starting unit makes the bench more amazing, it's called the trickle down effect, plus we know that Lance is coming down to earth like a meteor making the bench even better.


    Told you that it made sense
    Last edited by vnzla81; 11-04-2013 at 03:45 PM.

  37. #699
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,442

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your math is off. Player A misses 6 shots not 4. So, the difference is only 2 shots.
    Oops, that was dumb. My mistake.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  39. #700
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    Not that you're asking for life advice, but you (as in any one person) can't fix all that's wrong in the world (or worse, on the internet lol). Sometimes it's about picking your battles, etc.

    I think it might be worse on the internet because it takes so little investment to get sucked into an argument, and before long you realize you're in the middle of a flame war.
    You're correct. Human nature fights this wisdom, is what I'm saying.

Posting Permissions

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