DBC10 wrote:Q00 wrote:I think you missed a word. I never said you proclaimed that they succeed together, but you have been proclaiming all season that they can succeed together, which was what I said. And the fact is you have no evidence that they can succeed together. So to call my argument invalid over a 5 game sample size is pretty hypocritical is all I'm saying.
Not at all. Again, I only implied with the right mixture of player, coaching staff, and atmosphere, the Monroe and Dre tandem would have a chance to work. All season, since January I've been saying we need to give them the chance with the right way. I'm still waiting on the proof that I said to the contrary. The only proclamation I made was that they had a good chance to work given the right circumstances. Implied =/= proclamation.
Here's how statistics work, 5 meaningless games =/= flimsy evidence and anyone who took a statistics course knows not to ever draw any assumptions from such a tiny sample size. 5 games = statistically insignificant, therefore no actual meaning can be derived from it. I can't believe I have to explain this. Seriously, any statistics high school teacher will tell you this, and they'll also tell you not to draw significant meaning out of it, no matter if it's "DATA!" or not.
I mean, I can flip a coin 5 times and they land 4 out of 5 heads. I'm not going to draw a conclusion that the coin has a 80% chance of landing on heads and therefore is rigged, am I? No.Q00 wrote:Lack of evidence does not equal evidence in support of the opposition and I never claimed that. I think maybe you need to go back to school and take another statistics course, because 5 games of evidence in support of an argument > 0 games of evidence against it, and that's all I said. Even if its only marginally better, its still better than nothing, which is the amount of evidence you have in favor of your argument.
Funny enough, the evidence you have for them not working is such a flimsy evidence that it may as well be cherry picked data to support your version of validity. Look at the supporting cast that Monroe and Dre had in those 5 games. They had, ISO Stuckey, a defenseless Singler, Jennings being Jennings, and a bunch of young guys that are still learning the game. Not to mention one of the worst coaching staff that outright has no motivation to win anymore. The fact that you keep trying to draw out any conclusion with those statistics without any context and to account for those variable above is mind-boggling.
And Like I said above, 5 games = statistically insignificant. And you're grasping at straws because of your bias. I can bring up those the last 5 games last year when they did play Monroe and Dre together to finish out the season in which they went 4-1. So basically, we have no actual significant nor good evidence that Monroe and Dre can work or cannot work since it's never been fully documented with good samples.Q00 wrote:So while I agree that it would be nice to have a bigger sample, the fact is that's all they have, and so if you are going to dismiss that as nothing, then your whole argument in favor of keeping them together means nothing as well.
Since you implied that the sample was marginally better a bit earlier, let's look at what the word means.marginal
: not very important
: very slight or small
: not included in the main part of society or of a group /merriam-webster
Oh look at that, not very important is at the top of the list. Like how I've been stating all along. It's statistically insignificant since you need at least 30 to try and conclude anything and even then, this is basketall, which you have to account for oh so many variables in which your 5 game stat does not. But go ahead if you want to continue to trumpet the horn about how Dre and Monroe do not work based on those 5 game stats. I have funerals to attend to, to all the statistics professors killing themselves from frustration over how misused and exploited statistics are.Q00 wrote:And I don't agree that Monroe would be easily tradeable with a fresh 60 mil contract. GM's look at him now and see potential. Once he's making 15 mil/yr he will no longer be judged on how much potential he has. He will only be judged on whether or not he is producing like a 15 mil/yr player. Right now he isn't. So unless he has some major improvement over the summer, the Pistons will likely be hindered with anothr big contract that they can't move if it doesn't work out. Being that there's no way to know if that big improvement over the summer will happen, and 4 years of evidence to say that it likely won't, its only wise to get what you can in a S&T and just move on. If he turns out to be an all-star Center somewhere else, oh well, we already have a superstar Center in the middle who's even better.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think Monroe will still hold up in value since there's no indication that he'll somehow regress after getting his fresh contract. If that were the case, then yes, the value of trading him would go down significantly. But as it stands, I don't see any team offering Monroe a fresh draft pick or any significant players via S&T that I currently see. I think the best value we could get from him would likely be 1 or 2 year rentals of God knows who that'll likely bolt after their duration of their contracts. And like I said, his contract in comparison to his talent level isn't imbalanced either. At worst he'll always be that 16/10 player that he is in which any team could use considering how valuable that is in the league right now.
You're wasting your breath bro, Q is a lost cause.