spree8 wrote:Owly wrote:spree8 wrote:That’s why I’ve had posters like this tell me that what I watch (phrased it as eye-witness testimony) is unreliable? I’m not deeply mistaken… gaslighting attempts are too frequent around here.
He’s not the only one either. I’ve had “reputable” posters here try to convince me that what I’ve been watching wasn’t truly the case.
Hmmm ...
I don't quite understand. Are you say your output on what you saw isn't your testimony, through your brain, of things that you witnessed? That your brain isn't fallible? You seem to simultaneously take personally a criticism of eyewitness testimony and ... I don't know, are you objecting to it as characterizing what your recollections of events are ("what I watch"/"what I've been watching" perhaps being distinct, being stored somewhere other than your head, perfectly preserved, with no personal interpretation or difference from any other "eye-test"?).
This post wasn't about gaslighting you or about you in particular at all. It's about recording things versus any one person's memory. It's how reliable is the human brain at tracking every detail and then preserving it perfectly. Now box-scores don't track everything and the don't track everything they do track perfectly and some stuff is fuzzy at the edges. And impact side stuff is noisy, especially on smaller samples. But, for myself, I do tend to trust that it's generally tracked accurately and the data has access to far more basketball than any of us can have watched.
Without writing stuff down down (and without others doing so) do I think I'd know the difference between a 44% 3pt shooter over a season and a 38% one (heck even just seeing the shots in a compilation, rather than over a season, seeing the games I happen to see or imagining I catch them all, and am remembering over the months)? Or even who's winning a game and by how much if no one tracks (i.e. so not informed by play-style because of those who are tracking it) nor displays it until the end? My guess, for myself, would be no in each case.
As has been outlined watching and looking at data aren't mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of what information is most reliable and how can it be best aggregated. And that's tricky and complex which is why everyone's lists differ.
And hopefully you'll all be on a new page soon and so long as no-one quotes the spoilery stuff, there'll be a readable page.
I’m saying that comparing watching (closely) years and years of Jordan games live in addition to rewatching them and other games of his via the internet or NBA classics, to the statistics of “eye witness testimony” (as in an old lady walking a dog and thinking she witnessed certain characteristics of a perpetrator committing a crime from a far, and being asked to recall every detail precisely) is not the same. It’s a false equivalency to say the least.
And yes comparing data (which is not accurate in assessing a players true impact because of how nuanced the game is and how faulty these computations are due to penalizing or propping up a player for things out of their control) to years (past and present) of “eye test” is tricky.
I’m simply stating that when people use data (they don’t truly understand) to tell you what you’ve been watching for years is incorrect because you’re not capable of comprehending what you’re watching (based on even more bs ”eye-witness data”), is a concern, and yeah, it’s bordering on gaslighting.
1) Multiple times you have said that people are using data that they “don’t understand.” You are projecting onto others because you don’t understand the data or what’s being argued in this thread. Not a single post of yours shows that you have any understanding of what has been argued in this thread. None.
2) Nobody is saying what you “watched is incorrect” because that doesn’t even make any sense. What is being argued here is data about individuals and their respective on court impact as well as how their teams did without them. I watched all of those same games. I lived through the hagiographic narratives. At the time that they were created and at the time that you and I watched those games, the scrutinizing of a player’s impact on winning margins taking into account lineups was not available in numeric form. It is obviously plain to see that Jordan was making an enormous impact on winning but we can take those games, and watch those games, and have numeric values on the impact that was made, numbers we have for LeBron and others. This thread has teased out some of those granularities.
3) it is truly astonishing to me that if there is even a single space on the Internet that dares to even say that
perhaps Jordan isn’t the best/greatest player ever because of XYZ, posters such as you come out of the woodwork talking about gaslighting.
TheGOATRises007 wrote:This thread might be the biggest car-crash of a thread I've ever seen on the PC board.
The thread was just fine before it got derailed. There are dozens of posts with a lot of data and interesting thoughts posited. But again, somebody daring to suggest that perhaps, maybe, possibly that there’s numeric evidence that suggests that possibly, maybe Jordan isn’t the greatest/best ever, and it’s a “car crash.”
spree8 wrote:Heej wrote:spree8 wrote:
You see I never said my eye test yet you continue to drive this home because you’re clearly raddled for some reason. You’ve got the highest ball IQ on the board huh? You feel so threatened by me simply asking to see somebody break down these stats that support Lebron as the goat and you can’t do it because admittedly you’re not a stats guy, so you have the need to come to the defense of the other stats guy and try to make some shyt up out of nowhere about me not having any knowledge of the sport. You’re criminally weak with your attempts to deflect and silence people who question your beloved player and need to try another method. Your almighty ball IQ shtick isn’t working here. Now shut up and go back to watching some more Lebron tape and continue salivating at stats you don’t understand that support what you think you’re watching.
"What don’t you understand in what you bolded? Lebron hasn’t produced anything on the court that backs up the “data” that shows he’s better than Jordan."
"Even going to lengths to make others believe that what they’ve seen isn’t reliable and equating what they’ve been watching closely for years past and present is no more credible than “eye witness testimony” which obviously has a negative connotation"
"And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth."
"My eye test is the same as the majority of fans who believe MJ is the goat."
You've been falling over and embarrassing yourself talking about your worthless eye test this entire time LMAO. And imagine thinking appealing to public opinion lends you any kind of credibility when you see idiotic examples like the public voting that they'd rather have a quarter pounder at McDonald's instead of a 1/3rd pounder because they thought it had more meat
.
No one here cares about public opinion because the whole point of this board is to go in-depth and challenge long-standing dogma. And as such no one here is going to take your eye test seriously either seeing as how you don't actually come across as having one worth taking seriously and aren't producing any kind of argument beyond "well why did the general board rate Jordan higher and why don't you copy and paste the explanations behind the stats that you used which were already posted in this thread??"
And you wonder why I'm so dismissive of you right now
Wow. I’m so confused how your thought process works, and I’m supposed to believe you know basketball schemes when you can’t even comprehend something so simple?
I never said “my eye test” … Enigma did.
So when I respond by saying “my eye test is the same as everyone else’s on the planet” you interpret that as me saying I have some almighty eye test ability lmao. These posts are more and more crazy by the minute.
I haven’t fallen over anything, you just don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. I started this whole thing today simply asking for someone who uses stats to say that Lebron is better than Jordan to explain the stats. That’s it. Then you come strolling in outta nowhere talking about basketball schemes and telling me out of the blue I don’t know basketball
This is truly the weirdest encounter I’ve ever had on this site.
You obviously are biased towards Lebron.. you have a man crush avy of him and get thrown off your rocker when someone questions his greatness. I suggest you get some coping skills dude because typing crazy like this isn’t a way to respond to people that hurt your feelings.
Nobody’s eye test is completely the same — that’s the point that was made pages ago but you can’t understand that. Numbers are numbers regardless. You can combine both of them although this thread is simply about metrics.
In the last part of this post? Finally it comes out
