Who's fault?: Kobe, D'Antoni, or entire team?

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by e-monk

two things

1) his usage is actually down from the last 2 seasons, back to where it was when they won their last two titles and his efg/ts #s are at a career high

The EFG and TS stat both comprise multiple stats all in one formula. There is no way one can precisely interpret the meaning of such stat. In other words, it's a fancy, but bogus stat.

The best analysts have trouble interpreting even simple stats like assists, so to bring up EFG and TS won't prove anything. I would be highly surprised if any statistician would consider EFG or TS as a mathematically valid stat.

Originally Posted by e-monk

2) you are a dumb mother****er

I disagree! You also can't prove this either.

[Wilt_The_Stilt]

Originally Posted by JBKB

The EFG and TS stat both comprise multiple stats all in one formula. There is no way one can precisely interpret the meaning of such stat. In other words, it's a fancy, but bogus stat.

The best analysts have trouble interpreting even simple stats like assists, so to bring up EFG and TS won't prove anything. I would be highly surprised if any statistician would consider EFG or TS as a mathematically valid stat.

I disagree! You also can't prove this either.

You just did.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by JBKB

The EFG and TS stat both comprise multiple stats all in one formula. There is no way one can precisely interpret the meaning of such stat. In other words, it's a fancy, but bogus stat.

two things are pertinent here:

1) efg and ts% are actually relatively simple and straight forward stats that take into account 3pt shots and ftas, most second graders can understand the basic principles even if you cant

2) Enough of that

I would be highly surprised if any statistician would consider EFG or TS as a mathematically valid stat.

two things are also pertinent here:

1) who do you think created this kind of advanced statistic? hobos? statisticians did you dumb mother****er
2) Enough of that

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by Wilt_The_Stilt

You just did.

No I didn't. The only thing we all can prove is that Kobe is a ballhogger. Kobe's own words... "at this point, I wouldn't even pass a kidney stone." Refute facts all you want. : )

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by e-monk

two things are pertinent here:

1) efg and ts% are actually relatively simple and straight forward stats that take into account 3pt shots and ftas, most second graders can understand the basic principles even if you cant

2) Enough of that



two things are also pertinent here:

1) who do you think created this kind of advanced statistic? hobos? statisticians did you dumb mother****er
2) Enough of that

No, the formula for those stats includes more than just 3pt shots and ftas. Anyway, just because a statistician created it, that doesn't make it a mathematically valid stat. If it were a stat that was very comprehensible, then all sophisticated analysts would be using it in their analyses. Very few people, if anyone, would take that stat seriously in an educated NBA debate.

[Adam]

Mods (Hyperion)?

Taken care of

Why do you more than anybody insult people when you disagree with their opinion? It should be pretty easy to refute this guy, he doesn't seem like the greatest debater. Maybe you're just not that smart if your only retort is, "Five rings," or to call somebody a dumb mother****er.

[JBKB]

@e-monk

Stick to the basics: Points, assists, steals, etc Even those alone are tricky enough to interpret, but at least they are the basics. Fans should stick with those very basic stats in their analysis or they will not be taken seriously. For instance, lets look at assists.

Let's say Rondo averages 15 assists playing with 50%fg shooters, but Chris Paul averages 12 assists playing with 38%fg shooters. If this occured for their entire seasons, Rondo will retire with far more assists than Chris Paul, BUT does that mean he was better at assists than Chris Paul? : ) In this case, it's very well possible that Chris Paul was better at assisting, but his teammates missed so many open shots due to poor shooting. We have to be very careful with interpreting even the most basic stats, so stats with extended formulas should never ever be used.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Adam

Mods (Hyperion)?





Why do you more than anybody insult people when you disagree with their opinion? It should be pretty easy to refute this guy, he doesn't seem like the greatest debater. Maybe you're just not that smart if your only retort is, "Five rings," or to call somebody a dumb mother****er.

a) I get tired of idiots
b) obvious trolls and idiots dont deserve respect
c) each of my posts clearly did refute the idiocy in question
d) no reason why I cant both refute and insult, In fact there is

[Adam]

Originally Posted by e-monk

a) I get tired of idiots
b) obvious trolls and idiots dont deserve respect
c) each of my posts clearly did refute the idiocy in question
d) no reason why I cant both refute and insult, idiot

Pretty sure this goes against site TOS (Hyperion)?

You've got a long history of making compelling arguments. Like that time last year when I said Gasol was over-the-hill and you responded saying, "He has been on X of the last All-NBA teams, douche."

"Five rings, idiot."

[King Sancho Fantastic]

Snitch

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by JBKB

No, the formula for those stats includes more than just 3pt shots and ftas.

eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal.

TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * TSA). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

Anyway, just because a statistician created it, that doesn't make it a mathematically valid stat.

you shouldnt use words you dont understand it just makes you look even more stupid - for instance - 'mathematically valid' is not a concept that applies here

If it were a stat that was very comprehensible, then all sophisticated analysts would be using it in their analyses.

you are not a 'sophisticated analyst', quite the opposite in fact; nor are you capable of following 'sophisticated analysis' so how the hell would you know?

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Adam

You've got a long history of making compelling arguments.

so far so good, now stop whinning

[Adam]

Originally Posted by e-monk

so far so good and stop whinning

Is that like winning + whining? No. Make me.

[e-monk]

I dont make idiots, I just make fun of them for my own amusement

[Adam]

Originally Posted by e-monk

I dont make idiots, I just make fun of them for my own amusement

You're the funniest guy you know.