Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Stratmaster]

If there was a number that was 35M would you think it should be removed?

I wouldn't. I would want to know it.

Knowing it, and including it, are 2 different things. But if the range is 20-30 mil, 12.5 is way more of an outlier than 35. End of bench players often get 12.5. An argument could be reasonably made that there are players in the 30-35 range who have no more value than Giddey.

If the median is 25, it is 2.5M more of an outlier, so let's say it's 37.5M. I'd still want to know it. The mean, again, is more or less irrelevant. You're hyperfocused on a meaningless piece of data.

As usual, you ignore the context to support your argument, which has now expanded to the point where I expect world peace will be the next part of the discussion. You're doing math. I explained that end of bench players often get 12.5 mil and that Giddey is far closer to the level of players who make 30-35 mil a year than he is an end of bench player.

I'm not hyperfocused on anything. I made one simple point which you seem hyperfocused on shooting down through whatever spinning and twisting is necessary. When asked what a fair contract for Giddey is, with no other qualifications, 12.5 mil is an idiotic response that shouldn't be factored into a median calculation. That's all I said. I didn't say anything about the calculation being meaningful. In fact this entire discussion should have pretty much solidified in your mind that I don't find it meaningful at all.

It's not me who made this molehill into a mountain. Now you're trying to dig it back down into a molehill

[jnrjr79]

Do you want to go dancing sometime? I think I could learn a lot from you.

So the question was exactly what I said it was. The answer is 12.5 is idiotic.

They didn't ask "what would you be willing to pay Giddey?". If they had there are only a couple teams in the league who could answer at a 20 mil or more level.

The question is obviously not asking these personnel to provide an answer that takes into account that team’s own cap space, or lack thereof. It’s anonymous! The question is very clearly “in a vacuum, what would you pay this guy?” The fact that this guy’s answer is “idiotic” demonstrates you are misconstruing the question, because nobody predicting Giddey’s market value would give that answer. And in responding, he specifically acknowledged the market value was higher!

I am not trying to be a jerk about this, but your answers make me conclude there are only two possibilities for your position here: 1) you know what the question means, but are deliberately pretending it means something else, or 2) you do not know what the question means (i.e. you think “fair contract” means “market value,” which it does not).

You keep quibbling over my use of FMV. It's shorter than typing "fair contract". Quibble away.

It’s not a quibble. They are totally different concepts. And that’s why one would lead to your conclusion and the other would not.

The argument you just gave supports my point perfectly. It's exactly what I have been saying lol. The fact you keep trying to make a simple question mean something else tells me you either:

1) are deliberately pretending it means something else or:

2) you don't understand what the word "fair" means.

-The question was "what is a fair contract"

-not a single poster on here, including you, thinks 12.5 is a fair contract.

-the responder, as you said, more or less admitted as much and did not answer the question that was asked.

No, this demonstrates your misunderstanding of the question and answer. To the responder, Josh Giddey is not nearly as good as the market thinks he is, so he thinks a “fair” contract is $12.5 million because that is reflective of his actual value. I disagree with his perspective here, but he’s offered an appropriate answer to the question that was posed.

- therefore, the response, while reasonably reported, should not have been considered in the calculation.

IMO, all responses should be included, and in any event, his outlier response, given 16 people were polled, didn’t really move the needle on the average number. But, as has been discussed ad nauseum in the thread, the average number doesn’t matter anyway, because players are paid based upon the highest available offer, not the average.

You can decide whether the responder was being sarcastic, facetious, idiotic, or just wanting to blow smoke up his own ass. I honestly don't care how you rationalize it.

I don’t think he was doing any of those things and I find it truly bizarre that you ascribe some sort of malicious intent to him. He just holds a non-consensus view on Giddey.

[sco]

Man, I really like how Josh finished last season, but the passion around signing him and making sure he's happy is reaching a Ievel I can't remember happening on this board on the 20+ years of being here. It's crazy!

IMO, we haven't had a legitimately great player on this team in so long, we don't know what one looks like. I don't think that it's Josh. IMO, he's good...ie a top 15 starting "PG", with top 10 potential, and those guys have value, but really don't deserve the level of arguing I see here. Some here are pretending that there is really a "right" market price for good, but not elite players...there is, but it's a range of MLE to $35M.

I want to keep him. I don't think he'll play remotely differently or change his view about wanting to stay whether he signs a $20M or $30M deal.

I'm sure of 2 things: 1 that AK won't let him leave...he has too much tied up (reputationally) in keeping him after the Caruso trade. And 2, Josh is unlikely to find another situation where he will look as good or have as much value to his team.

[dougthonus]

As usual, you ignore the context to support your argument, which has now expanded to the point where I expect world peace will be the next part of the discussion. You're doing math.

You made the one single point that the author was lazy and the journalism was poor.

Objectively, that isn't true if you understand data fluency / presentation / what the data was saying, but if you think otherwise I'll leave you to it.

[Stratmaster]

As usual, you ignore the context to support your argument, which has now expanded to the point where I expect world peace will be the next part of the discussion. You're doing math.

You made the one single point that the author was lazy and the journalism was poor.

Objectively, that isn't true if you understand data fluency / presentation / what the data was saying, but if you think otherwise I'll leave you to it.

Lol. You are the one that gave the thesis on statistical theory that was false. Them tried to make the claim that I was questioning integrity. Maybe its not me who doesn't understand. Or maybe it is. So tell me. What was this meaningless (your word) data trying to say that disputes my wild (your word again) claim that 12.5 mil was a ridiculous number that should not have been included in calculations.

Is it still your assertion that bad data points should always be included in statistical analysis? That might explain your belief that comparison to pre-season Vegas win totals are the best available method to assess coaching performance.

[nomorezorro]

i think this line of discussion might be the closest this board has ever gotten to the bodybuilding forums debate over how many days there are in a week

[Infinity2152]

Man, I really like how Josh finished last season, but the passion around signing him and making sure he's happy is reaching a Ievel I can't remember happening on this board on the 20+ years of being here. It's crazy!

IMO, we haven't had a legitimately great player on this team in so long, we don't know what one looks like. I don't think that it's Josh. IMO, he's good...ie a top 15 starting "PG", with top 10 potential, and those guys have value, but really don't deserve the level of arguing I see here. Some here are pretending that there is really a "right" market price for good, but not elite players...there is, but it's a range of MLE to $35M.

I want to keep him. I don't think he'll play remotely differently or change his view about wanting to stay whether he signs a $20M or $30M deal.

I'm sure of 2 things: 1 that AK won't let him leave...he has too much tied up (reputationally) in keeping him after the Caruso trade. And 2, Josh is unlikely to find another situation where he will look as good or have as much value to his team.

Wouldn't that depend on whether your opinion of Giddey in the short time he's been here is correct? Seriously doubt any of the Giddey detractors actually watched him much before he got here, and he played pretty damn well here after he got his legs under him and Lavine was gone.

What if Giddey is actually going to be a star? As defined by stats and awards, not any advanced stats that people use to criticize him. Because they can't use his actual stats from last year. You're saying he's good, but not elite. Define elite. Is 20pt close to triple double elite? Can 10-20% of the players in the NBA do what he does if put in the exact same position? We're talking about a possible 4–5-year contract for a 22-year-old. Most players hit their prime around 25, 26, 27 so whether he's elite now really doesn't say much about whether he's elite at 25, when he would still be under contract unless we mess up.

It's fine you think he's a good, not elite player and won't be that during the duration of his contract, isn't it fine for people to think the opposite? If you think the opposite, doesn't it make sense those people would be more concerned about keeping him and willing to pay him more?

In this age of feelings, sensitivity, players demanding out every year, tons of endorsement and internet money available to players, I think it's more important than ever to have young players here who actually want to be here and feel appreciated. Players are asking to be traded nearly every year. Our team is young, player turnover is high and he's likely an important part. Chemistry means something. Anyone can disagree, doesn't make them right. My opinion, their opinion.

It's like we're not supposed to value keeping any Bulls players, no belief, no support, just criticism. Of pretty much every Bulls player except Caruso, who missed a ton of games, and the Great Matas and his half season of good play. If you're not a two way superstar, you're not good enough to be on this low talent team. Guys better than 90% of this team aren't good enough to be here, almost nobody in the league. We have two players on this team that look like maybe they could be stars, big surprise guys are really supporting the 22 year old who energized our entire team? Should we all dump on him?

[DuckIII]

It would be much more wrong to alter the data given.

That's not one of the choices. This whole thing has gone wildly off the rails anyway.

[Infinity2152]

We need some Green Bay or Pacers fans in here to jump on, we're snapping at each other out of boredom, lmao!

[dougthonus]

It would be much more wrong to alter the data given.

That's not one of the choices. This whole thing has gone wildly off the rails anyway.

I agree it has gone off the rails.

That said, not including data is altering the dataset. I think it's okay to remove outliers in statistical analysis depending on your rationale for doing so, but you should then disclose your methodology and the data you're removing as part of that presentation.

Thus I think the two acceptable things to do would be to say:
The mean is 22.9 if we remove the outlier data of 12.5M per year and offer an explanation as to why you removed it.
The mean is 22.3.

For me, no conclusion is changed with either of these approaches. You know there is an outlier in both cases (and what it is), the mean isn't particularly relevant in either case. The change in mean is ultimately not large enough to be impactful in the context of a contract value even if you did think the mean was meaningful a reference point vs the max/median/concentration points.

I would choose not to remove the data in this case, because the impact is negligible and the explanation would distract from the article for no real benefit.

[DuckIII]

It would be much more wrong to alter the data given.

That's not one of the choices. This whole thing has gone wildly off the rails anyway.

I agree it has gone off the rails.

That said, not including data is altering the dataset.

Part of the reason its off the rails. If you go back you'll see that I explicitly say the outlier data should always be included in the study and that if it is properly disregarded when making the final calculations/conclusions, the reason for its exclusion should be stated.

I would choose not to remove the data in this case, because the impact is negligible and the explanation would distract from the article for no real benefit.

That's fine. But you also just said that removing the outlier and presenting that mean is fine as well. Hence my confusion at your response to Strat saying that same outlier data should be excluded by dismissing it as a "wild take" that is somehow out of line with how data analysis works. When the opposite is true.

[nomorezorro]

It was either BS, or the guy was an idiot. Using an idiots opinion as part of the survey casts doubt on everyone involved. That's all I am saying. Take his number out of the calculation and it actually sounds like a pretty reasonable number was arrived at. 23-24 mil

Pretty wild take that having an outlier opinion makes you an idiot or that including an outlier opinion from someone in the market in an article about assessing market value removes your credibility.

this is what he actually said was a "wild take"! he was talking about stratmaster repeatedly calling the one response "bs" or the respondent an "idiot", and saying the inclusion of that response *in the survey* "cast doubt on everyone involved!

this whole thing is just bad communication

[ThisGuyFawkes]

I haven’t read any of the last 5 pages, but I totally agree with the original post that everyone is clamoring about. 90 pages of nothing happening will do that to us.

[DuckIII]

It was either BS, or the guy was an idiot. Using an idiots opinion as part of the survey casts doubt on everyone involved. That's all I am saying. Take his number out of the calculation and it actually sounds like a pretty reasonable number was arrived at. 23-24 mil

Pretty wild take that having an outlier opinion makes you an idiot or that including an outlier opinion from someone in the market in an article about assessing market value removes your credibility.

this is what he actually said was a "wild take"! he was talking about stratmaster repeatedly calling the one response "bs" or the respondent an "idiot", and saying the inclusion of that response *in the survey* "cast doubt on everyone involved!

this whole thing is just bad communication

The part I emphasized reads to me that it’s a wild take to criticize the inclusion of an obvious outlier when aggregating data and that when it does include the outlier stating it raises questions about be credibility or value of the conclusion. And my interpretation was essentially confirmed by the continued discussion based on that assumption. When I pointed out that discounting outliers when aggregating data is in fact an appropriate methodology, that was challenged as a premise. So one way or another it is what it is about now.

At least as to the only part I was debating.

[nomorezorro]

strat didn't say it was bad to include the data point in the average, though; he said it was bad to use that opinion "as part of the study." based on how i read that post, and the dozens of posts that have followed, it seems like he thought the author should have flat-out ignored that response and rejected the notion that it is a valid way to answer the question.

when i posted "it's bad data analysis to discard a data point after the fact for being an outlier," i meant "discard" in that context — as in throw it out completely and pretend it never existed. being transparent about the entirety of the data set is good data analysis, even if you don't ultimately think each data point is equally meaningful.

i gather that doug feels similarly, given that he has since clarified that he thought it would be fine to omit that data point in the actual statistical analysis (with a proper disclosure). he was objecting to strat questioning the integrity of the author of the article over the fact that it was included at all.

[dougthonus]

The part I emphasized reads to me that it’s a wild take to criticize the inclusion of an obvious outlier when aggregating data and that when it does include the outlier stating it raises questions about be credibility or value of the conclusion. And my interpretation was essentially confirmed by the continued discussion based on that assumption. When I pointed out that discounting outliers when aggregating data is in fact an appropriate methodology, that was challenged as a premise. So one way or another it is what it is about now.

At least as to the only part I was debating.

Nope, that is not what you argued, this is your foray into this discussion

It was either BS, or the guy was an idiot. Using an idiots opinion as part of the survey casts doubt on everyone involved. That's all I am saying. Take his number out of the calculation and it actually sounds like a pretty reasonable number was arrived at. 23-24 mil

Pretty wild take that having an outlier opinion makes you an idiot or that including an outlier opinion from someone in the market in an article about assessing market value removes your credibility.

Some outlier opinions are certainly idiotic and choosing to include outlier idiocy in what purports to be an objective article does weaken credibility. Far from a “wild” take. Pretty reasonable observation when thinking about something critically and determining how much value to give its conclusions.

Your rational for removing this data is you think it is idiotic.
You think including an opinion you think is idiotic lowers credibility.
You infer the author of the article is biased.

I'm okay removing the datapoint with disclosure from the single (of many) stats it was used in a calculation for, but find it unnecessary since it changes no conclusions and doesn't move the data much.

[cocktailswith_2short]

Hes stupid for not taking the security . Anything could happen . This team is not good . Injuries happen. Down years happen .

[ThisGuyFawkes]

I just desperately want someone to post the popcorn gif. I've tried, but I don't know what a "gfycat" or a "tweet" is. A little help please.

[DuckIII]

The part I emphasized reads to me that it’s a wild take to criticize the inclusion of an obvious outlier when aggregating data and that when it does include the outlier stating it raises questions about be credibility or value of the conclusion. And my interpretation was essentially confirmed by the continued discussion based on that assumption. When I pointed out that discounting outliers when aggregating data is in fact an appropriate methodology, that was challenged as a premise. So one way or another it is what it is about now.

At least as to the only part I was debating.

Nope, that is not what you argued, this is your foray into this discussion

Pretty wild take that having an outlier opinion makes you an idiot or that including an outlier opinion from someone in the market in an article about assessing market value removes your credibility.

Some outlier opinions are certainly idiotic and choosing to include outlier idiocy in what purports to be an objective article does weaken credibility. Far from a “wild” take. Pretty reasonable observation when thinking about something critically and determining how much value to give its conclusions.

Your rational for removing this data is you think it is idiotic.
You think including an opinion you think is idiotic lowers credibility.
You infer the author of the article is biased.

I'm okay removing the datapoint with disclosure from the single (of many) stats it was used in a calculation for, but find it unnecessary since it changes no conclusions and doesn't move the data much.

I state that the outlier is idiotic, which is something no one is debating. It’s clearly not a number with any meaning. And that including an idiotic outlier - or whatever equally meaningless term you use to express the extreme nature of that data point - in a mean is a legitimate reason to question the credibility of the article in assessing how much value to give it.

And then I just restated that exact thing above to nomo, albeit it in a run on sentence rather than two sentences. It’s what I’ve been saying all along and then it veered into the also-challenged notion that disregarding outliers is valid in assessing data.

Yes, when someone makes the choice to aggregate the data in a questionable way it raises questions regarding credibility and the value of the conclusion - in this case the mean. This is hardly a novel concept. Except in this thread.

[DuckIII]

Hes stupid for not taking the security . Anything could happen . This team is not good . Injuries happen. Down years happen .

He’s still going to get all that. The Bulls aren’t going to let him take the QO and he doesn’t want to take the QO.

He’s just not going to get quite as much as he wanted.