coldfish wrote:Recently, someone was calling Hinrich for being injury prone. Duck rightly pointed out that so far, Derrick Rose is orders of magnitude more injury prone.
Here's the post you're referring to:
Ben wrote:I think that Derrick has missed 22% of his total possible regular-season games over his career.
By comparison, Hinrich has missed 12.4% of the possible games over his career (unless my count is wrong).
I think you could also say Rose's injury history can be explained away as one snakebit year and that the things such as tendonitis which he never missed games with are normal things NBA players must deal with. Also, using total percentage of career games missed is incredibly misleading because Hinrich has had more than double the possible games played in his career. If Rose had never missed a game in his career prior to tearing his ACL in the 1st game of the playoffs, and then he missed every game up to this point in the current season, his percentage of career games missed would be 14%, which would still be higher than Hinrich's percentage of games missed. If you used that criteria to judge Michael Jordan's inury proneness vs Kirk Hinrich at the same point in his career as Derrick Rose(363 possible games played), he'd come out to missing 17% of his possible games played. Would that be in any way an accurate reflection of the frequency with which those 3 players have missed games to injury(which is what people usually refer to when using the phrase injury prone)?
Outside of that, LOL. Orders of magnitude? I really think you might hate Derrick Rose because you try to exaggerate or omit things in order to judge him more harshly. It is mathematically impossible for Rose to be even one order of magnitude more injury prone, much less
orders of magnitude more, because that would mean he'd have missed more than 100% of his possible career games.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/orders.htmlMany pretentious writers have begun to use the expression “orders of magnitude” without understanding what it means. The concept derives from the scientific notation of very large numbers in which each order of magnitude is ten times the previous one. When the bacteria in a flask have multiplied from some hundreds to some thousands, it is very handy to say that their numbers have increased by an order of magnitude, and when they have increased to some millions, that their numbers have increased by four orders of magnitude.
Number language generally confuses people. Many seem to suppose that a 100% increase must be pretty much the same as an increase by an order of magnitude, but in fact such an increase represents merely a doubling of quantity. A “hundredfold increase” is even bigger: one hundred times as much. If you don’t have a firm grasp on such concepts, it’s best to avoid the expression altogether. After all, “Our audience is ten times as big now as when the show opened” makes the same point more clearly than “Our audience has increased by an order of magnitude.”