Bucks/Wolves - 1/10

[carmelbrownqueen]

joana,

Don't even bother, it's not worth the key strokes.

[paulpressey25]

he believes a method doesn't have validity if it brings you to the conclusion that Finley is a better defender than Bowen but if the same method says that Sessions is a better defender than Redd.

I didn't say that. I was simply pointing out the Bowen example as one you completely dismissed outright to presumably discredit Ty on much of other things he does. And even if you discredit the Bowen analysis, I'm not sure why you can't at least think about the Redd/Sessions analysis at the two guard spot which is where his stats are from (not the PG spot which is what people think).

[Joana]

I used stats analysis a lot. I chartered games as a job. The difference - to you, for example, I don't know about Epi - is that I know how can stats be used (and useful) and when they're extremely misleading.

Nah, you didn't just say PP didn't know, you said that you DID know, first of all.

Secondly look at the above quote, "I know how stats can be used and useful, and when they are extremely misleading".

To me that sounds as if you are just using stats for confirmation bias purposes as well.

Well, you're forcing me to make an appeal to authority, but I don't know what else to say. I worked with basketball stats, I read a lot about the issue, I collected data, I built them. I'm pretty sure I know more the issue than pressey25. What's wrong with that? How could I point out he was using stats wrongly if I wasn't assuming I knew what I was talking about? I usually don't talk about things I don't know.

For the LAST time: if I said something you think it's wrong, stats related or some other subject, talk about that subject, not me.

[Joana]

he believes a method doesn't have validity if it brings you to the conclusion that Finley is a better defender than Bowen but if the same method says that Sessions is a better defender than Redd.

I didn't say that. I was simply pointing out the Bowen example as one you completely dismissed outright to presumably discredit Ty on much of other things he does. And even if you discredit the Bowen analysis, I'm not sure why you can't at least think about the Redd/Sessions analysis at the two guard spot which is where his stats are from (not the PG spot which is what people think).

How do you discredit the Bowen analysis and not the Sessions one??? It's the exact same one! Either you think you can trust on a given counterpart production method to analyze the quality of defense or you don't.

Saying that "it's a bad method if it tells me something I don't like" or "it's a good method if it tells me something I like" is just idiotic, from my POV.

What do you think that Sessions does better than Redd defensively? Why is he a superior defender?

[paulpressey25]

Well, you're forcing me to make an appeal to authority, but I don't know what else to say.

This argument is the last resort of a message board poster and doesn't tend to play well. The "I'm smarter, you guys are dopes, so I'm right" reply.

Why don't you share with us your personal background and some of the things you've written and done in your biography to give us some basis to judge things like this?

[carmelbrownqueen]

We have a lot of experts on this board on everything. Perhaps they all should share their bio as you suggest that joana should.

[ReasonablySober]

We have a lot of experts on this board on everything. Perhaps they all should share their bio as you suggest that joana should.

Who else is pulling the "I'm an expert, you're not" argument?

[Joana]

Well, you're forcing me to make an appeal to authority, but I don't know what else to say.

This argument is the last resort of a message board poster and doesn't tend to play well. The "I'm smarter, you guys are dopes, so I'm right" reply.

Why don't you share with us your personal background and some of the things you've written and done in your biography to give us some basis to judge things like this?

Because I don't want to. Focus on what I write, not on me. For example:

How do you discredit the Bowen analysis and not the Sessions one??? It's the exact same one! Either you think you can trust on a given counterpart production method to analyze the quality of defense or you don't.

Saying that "it's a bad method if it tells me something I don't like" or "it's a good method if it tells me something I like" is just idiotic, from my POV.

I wrote plenty about basketball statistical analysis on this board - from one liners to more sophisticated stuff. You have never, not a single time, replied to them. Instead, you have opted for making uneducated personal remarks about me when the subject were stats.

[ReasonablySober]

I must have missed this argument. Someone want to give me the recap?

[Joana]

I know how can stats be used (and useful) and when they're extremely misleading.

I think everyone realizes that stats have their limitations. The question is whether you have an open mind on all the new stats and analysis that have come out in recent years. Whether you agree or not with everything that Ty for example is doing, the bottom line is that he's making people re-think assumptions they may have had. And that's for the good.

You can pick and choose stats you think hold water when taken in context of what you see. But if you choose to highlight his bigger leaps like Finley v. Bowen to discredit everything else he does, I think you are missing out on increasing your own knowledge base.

Oh, of course, you're an expert and I'm just a clueless person who doesn't understand how stats can be so helpful and, unlike you, I'm missing out on increasing my knowledge base. Unlike you, I don't have an open mind and I don't want to re-think my assumptions.

That argument is the last resort of a message board poster and doesn't tend to play well. The "I'm smarter, you guys are dopes, so I'm right" reply.

Why don't you share with us your personal background and some of the things you've written and done in your biography to give us some basis to judge things like this?

[paulpressey25]

I wrote plenty about basketball statistical analysis on this board - from one liners to more sophisticated stuff.

I've complimented you plenty of times on a number of things. You are a very interesting and insightful poster. But one thing you have been consistent on is a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis whether they be Dave Berri, Hollinger or now Ty.

If you want to say I have confirmation bias, that's fine. I can plead guilty to that one. But if you want to play the "I'm an expert in this field card" then you need to show your cards so to speak.

[Joana]

I wrote plenty about basketball statistical analysis on this board - from one liners to more sophisticated stuff.

I've complimented you plenty of times on a number of things. You are a very interesting and insightful poster. But one thing you have been consistent on is a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis whether they be Dave Berri, Hollinger or now Ty.

If you want to say I have confirmation bias, that's fine. I can plead guilty to that one. But if you want to play the "I'm an expert in this field card" then you need to show your cards so to speak.

But you're the one playing that card. Why the double-standard? If you want to keep accusing me of obscurantism and not having an open mind, of "a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis", if you don't know how to discusse without using appeals from authority and ad hominem arguments, well, show your cards so to speak.

Once again, and hopefully for the last time, I don't have any kind of disdain you accuse me. I endorse most of the stuff Hollinger says about this issue - sometimes he goes out of his way, but generally he makes sure people stay more or less aware of the limitations of his analysis. Berri... not so much; but he's more interested on selling books and his hubris is a great marketing tool.

But there's no disdain, that's another false - and once again, merely personal - accusation you make. Don't confuse mocking people who use their work without knowing what it means with disdaining their opus de per si.

[REDDzone]

Joana, you have called Berri's system laughable, pointless, and says it intends to trick people.

Maybe a little disdain?

[SupremeHustle]

I wrote plenty about basketball statistical analysis on this board - from one liners to more sophisticated stuff.

I've complimented you plenty of times on a number of things. You are a very interesting and insightful poster. But one thing you have been consistent on is a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis whether they be Dave Berri, Hollinger or now Ty.

If you want to say I have confirmation bias, that's fine. I can plead guilty to that one. But if you want to play the "I'm an expert in this field card" then you need to show your cards so to speak.

But you're the one playing that card. Why the double-standard? If you want to keep accusing me of obscurantism and not having an open mind, of "a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis", if you don't know how to discusse without using appeals from authority and ad hominem arguments, well, show your cards so to speak.

Once again, and hopefully for the last time, I don't have any kind of disdain you accuse me. I endorse most of the stuff Hollinger says about this issue - sometimes he goes out of his way, but generally he makes sure people stay more or less aware of the limitations of his analysis. Berri... not so much; but he's more interested on selling books and his hubris is a great marketing tool.

But there's no disdain, that's another false - and once again, merely personal - accusation you make. Don't confuse mocking people who use their work without knowing what it means with disdaining their opus de per si.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

But one thing you have been consistent on is a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis whether they be Dave Berri, Hollinger or now Ty.

It's not a stats thing. She also doesn't respect the non-stats writers/commentators such as Chard Ford, Ric Bucher, Steve Kerr, and Kenny Smith. I don't know what to make of it all.

[Joana]

But one thing you have been consistent on is a certain disdain for different types of statistical analysis whether they be Dave Berri, Hollinger or now Ty.

It's not a stats thing. She also doesn't respect the non-stats writers/commentators such as Chard Ford, Ric Bucher, Steve Kerr, and Kenny Smith. I don't know what to make of it all.

Geez... when have I been disrespectful to those gentlemen?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Geez... when have I been disrespectful to those gentlemen?

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=866071&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Steven A Smith, Bill Walton, Ric Bucher, and literally dozens of others who have been given a national platform at ESPN, NBA.com, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, SLAM Magazine, and plenty of other places.

Are you serious? I don't care about the opinion of those guys - I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules.

[Joana]

Geez... when have I been disrespectful to those gentlemen?

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=866071&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Steven A Smith, Bill Walton, Ric Bucher, and literally dozens of others who have been given a national platform at ESPN, NBA.com, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, SLAM Magazine, and plenty of other places.

Are you serious? I don't care about the opinion of those guys - I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules.

You purposely misquoted me - the sentence didn't end there. That's a very dishonest thing to do, isn't it?

Almost as dishonest as accusing them of claiming the same kind of predictive power Berri claims.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

It's only a misquote if the impression it leaves is false. So am I to assume that in spite of the fact that those guys don't watch hoops and don't even know the rules, and also in spite of the fact that you don't care about their opinions - you do respect them?

That's quite the fine line you've crafted!

[Joana]

It's only a misquote if the impression it leaves is false. So am I to assume that in spite of the fact that those guys don't watch hoops and don't even know the rules, and also in spite of the fact that you don't care about their opinions - you do respect them?

That's quite the fine line you've crafted!

´´

It left a false impression. There's a reason you misquoted - we were talking about pre-season predictions and the predictive power of them, and you erased the part of the sentence that makes it clear. Anyway, to each his own, I guess.

those guys - most sportswriters and pundits (for example, I'm always pretty amazed by the knowledge of, say, Kenny Smith, among others - Doug Collins and JVG are generally very good).

don't watch hoops - don't even watch a decent number games

I'm sorry if I don't care about the pre-season predictions of those guys or the basketball opinions of a majority of sportswriters and guys like Barkley, Stephen A. Smith or Bill Walton. And David Berri. Call the inquisition! How do I dare?!? Blasphemy! It must be because I'm close-minded!

And yeah, I respect a lot of people about whose opinions on basketball issues I don't care. I'm sorry for your inability to understand that's possible.