Draft Day/Today's Trade Rumors

[jeffjtk1234]

All I'll say is...228 minutes equates to only 4.5 full games. Or, 5.7% of the whole seasons minutes. If you are basing your opinion on 5% of the season then I don't really know what to say.

too small and again after acquiring Gay the team played inspired ball and a lot of home games. Thornton always played better at home, while the rookie logged a lot of minutes after the all star break on the road.

THANK YOU! Someone else see's this.

I have already shown that 228 minutes is enough. You can try to intimidate others with "5.7%", but that does not change the fact that 228 minutes is statistically enough.

This isn't business math or calculus. You aren't getting it. Your basing this off of less than 6%, of the entire first season, of bens rookie year.

Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds?

[jeffjtk1234]

You just strike me as someone who doesn't watch the games. And really doesn't understand basketball. You want to dump Ben after 1 year based on 5.7%. That's just ridiculous.

[teerfour+40LG]

This isn't business math or calculus. You aren't getting it. Your basing this off of less than 6%, of the entire first season, of bens rookie year. Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds?

It's not ridiculous because 228 minutes is a big enough sample size, as I have shown.

You just strike me as someone who doesn't watch the games. And really doesn't understand basketball. You want to dump Ben after 1 year based on 5.7%. That's just ridiculous.

I do watch the games. I download them and play em at half speed and replay every play. This is what led me to ask "Just how bad is Ben McLemore?" and what led me to the stats that I am sharing today.

[City of Trees]

All I'll say is...228 minutes equates to only 4.5 full games. Or, 5.7% of the whole seasons minutes. If you are basing your opinion on 5% of the season then I don't really know what to say.

too small and again after acquiring Gay the team played inspired ball and a lot of home games. Thornton always played better at home, while the rookie logged a lot of minutes after the all star break on the road.

THANK YOU! Someone else see's this.

I have already shown that 228 minutes is enough. You can try to intimidate others with "5.7%", but that does not change the fact that 228 minutes is statistically enough.

At only 228 minutes for the entire season what can you even argue? 228 minutes divided into 82 games is only 2.78 minutes per game. I mean really there is no argument to be made here.

Sent from my SM-G900T using RealGM Forums mobile app

[jeffjtk1234]

This isn't business math or calculus. You aren't getting it. Your basing this off of less than 6%, of the entire first season, of bens rookie year. Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds?

It's not ridiculous because 228 minutes is a big enough sample size, as I have shown.

Context! Jesus man it was his rookie year. It's not all about numbers dude. Wake up.

[teerfour+40LG]

At only 228 minutes for the entire season what can you even argue?

based on the sample size we have for both lineups...

We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Ben can produce no better than a 57.1 win percentage.
We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Thornton can produce no worse than a 56.8 win percentage.

[jeffjtk1234]

At only 228 minutes for the entire season what can you even argue? 228 minutes divided into 82 games is only 2.78 minutes per game. I mean really there is no argument to be made here.

based on the sample size we have for both lineups...

We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Ben can produce no better than a 57.1 win percentage.
We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Thornton can produce no worse than a 56.8 win percentage.

This has no context. You need to consider other factors. Such as who they played during the minutes you are using, opponent win percentage, etc. I now realize you are surely a troll so no real reason to continue this.

I'm just glad you aren't in our front office.

[teerfour+40LG]

This has no context. You need to consider other factors. Such as who they played during the minutes you are using, opponent win percentage, etc. I now realize you are surely a troll so no real reason to continue this.

I'm just glad you aren't in our front office.

The purpose of having a good sample size is so that we can be confident in our results no matter what stupid "other factors" you come up with. The sample size accounts for EVERY "other factor".

[City of Trees]

At only 228 minutes for the entire season what can you even argue?

based on the sample size we have for both lineups...

We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Ben can produce no better than a 57.1 win percentage.
We can be 95% confident that the lineup with Thornton can produce no worse than a 56.8 win percentage.

But for only 2.7 minutes per game who cares?

Sent from my SM-G900T using RealGM Forums mobile app

[teerfour+40LG]

But for only 2.7 minutes per game who cares?

Why did you even bring up statistics if you don't understand them at all?

[jeffjtk1234]

This has no context. You need to consider other factors. Such as who they played during the minutes you are using, opponent win percentage, etc. I now realize you are surely a troll so no real reason to continue this.

I'm just glad you aren't in our front office.

The purpose of having a good sample size is so that we can be confident in our results no matter what stupid "other factors" you come up with.

Except it's not a good indication of the difference in production. You are looking at one set of numbers.

Why do you think when the NCAA selects teams for the final four they don't just look at win loss records? Quality of wins, opponent win loss %, among others are considered.

It's incredibly nieve and short sighted to look at such a small % of the entire nba season of Ben Mclemores rookie year and compare it to a lineup containing a veteran player and making hard line conclusions.

[City of Trees]

But for only 2.7 minutes per game who cares?

Why did you even bring up statistics if you don't understand them at all?

I understand them just fine. I have tried explaining to you different variables can alter an outcome but since that would hurt your argument you won't accept a variable such as "difficulty from opposing team" in your process. I've gotten to the point now where I don't even care anymore- hence my last post. As silly as that post sounded that is how sully some of this argument of your sounds. I really don't want to make this personal, you are entitled to your opinion. As I said earlier let's agree to disagree.

Sent from my SM-G900T using RealGM Forums mobile app

[sdballer]

But for only 2.7 minutes per game who cares?

Why did you even bring up statistics if you don't understand them at all?

It was bad enough when you were just spouting nonsense without mishandling statistical analysis to try and justify your ranting.

Obviously your lack of knowledge about statistics rivals your basketball acumen.

Bottom line. Context does matter in stats and even if this suggests that one particular five man lineup was effective against certain variables while another was less effective against another set of variables, it does nothing to prove your overall point.

Just stop.

[jeffjtk1234]

Look we get it maybe the team was better with Thornton for those 228 minutes but it doesn't mean we conclude that bmac has got to go based in it. That's all I'm saying.

[teerfour+40LG]

Except it's not a good indication of the difference in production. You are looking at one set of numbers.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it's a good indicator that if you replace Ben McLemore in the following lineup

IT - Ben - Gay - Thompson - Cousins

with a player who is a better defender, rebounder, and/or passer, then the lineup improves significantly.

Why do you think when the NCAA selects teams for the final four they don't just look at win loss records? Quality of wins, opponent win loss %, among others are considered.

Can you stay on topic, please?

It's incredibly nieve and short sighted to look at such a small % of the entire nba season of Ben Mclemores rookie year and compare it to a lineup containing a veteran player and making hard line conclusions.

No, it's not, because our sample size is big enough.

[jeffjtk1234]

Except it's not a good indication of the difference in production. You are looking at one set of numbers.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it's a good indicator that if you replace Ben McLemore in the following lineup

IT - Ben - Gay - Thompson - Cousins

with a player who is a better defender, rebounder, and/or passer, then the lineup improves significantly.

Why do you think when the NCAA selects teams for the final four they don't just look at win loss records? Quality of wins, opponent win loss %, among others are considered.

Can you stay on topic, please?

It's incredibly nieve and short sighted to look at such a small % of the entire nba season of Ben Mclemores rookie year and compare it to a lineup containing a veteran player and making hard line conclusions.

No, it's not, because our sample size is big enough.

It's called an example. Honestly you are just starting to sound pretty ridiculous.

[teerfour+40LG]

Bottom line. Context does matter in stats and even if this suggests that one particular five man lineup was effective against certain variables while another was less effective against another set of variables, it does nothing to prove your overall point.

Just stop.

I've explained over and over that the sample size in this particular case takes care of all "contexts", "factors", and "excuses". It does a lot to strengthen my argument.

[bleeds_purple]

Wow guys, you really need to stop feeding the troll.

[longfellow44]

Statistics are irrelevant without context.

Context determines the validity of all statistical data.

[teerfour+40LG]

We have a 228 minute sample where the Thornton lineup had a 63.1 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence interval = 6.08. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 63.1 +/- 6.08 (no less than 57.02).

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

We have a 316 minute sample where the McLemore lineup had a 51.8 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence interval = 5.28. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 51.8 +/- 5.28. (no more than 57.08).