Trade Talk (Part Thirteen): 2023 Offseason Edition

[thinktank]

Actually, it’s going to be VERY difficult for this team to play at the same level as or worse than last year.

I've said from basically since the day the trade was made....basically, worst-case scenario of the trade is what we saw last year. I really think that was the worst it can get on the court, and that largely had to do with injuries. But there were promising glimpses at multiple points in the season that convinced me it wouldn't be the norm.

We’ll see what Vegas says but I would guess they have us at several wins more than 42, what we earned last year. But hey, what does Vegas know?

[SO_MONEY]

No. It’s not the mean for all the reasons I stated (56 games lost to injury for KAT and several uncharacteristic losses to bad teams). Also, no training camp for KAT negatively influenced the validity of your sample size. WITH all of these factors, we were only a few games from the 4 or 5 seed.

If these factors are mitigated (healthier KAT, full team at camp, average performance commensurate to the team ie fewer outlier losses), it’s very easy to see this team hit a 4 or 5 seed.

In short, it’s going to be VERY difficult for this team to play at the same level or worse than last year.

You are claiming things will go towards the mean, but don't know what the mean is, though you feel it is unlikely the team will play as poorly as they did last year... presumably this is based on your gut. That is fine, but what happened last year, happened, I have made my gut call, your gut call isn't going to change mine. I have heard all the arguments posited and until there is compelling information to make me question my position it won't change and I am not sure it exists because it is all speculation. If you question the accuracy of the sample, that is fair enough, but I don't have substantial concerns from it. I think your concerns of external factors are off-set by both the size of the sample and that these factors are the same factors that would produce growth for all teams. So you would have to assume our growth exceeds that of other teams to proportionally improve.

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, you’re claiming a 27 game sample size is reflective of the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES. I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary opinion to you.

I guess I don't exactly know what all future games means exactly, data has a recency bias, so this would not be reflective of all future games, just games in the near future. I don't know if it will statistically bare out or not, but I am not wrong in that 27 games is a very large sample size that in theory should have a high degree of accuracy. There are marginal roster changes it doesn't account for, player development, resolving cohesion and a great many things, but it is not in a vacuum we not just need to keep pace, but outpace our competition in these areas to see improvement.

[thinktank]

You are claiming things will go towards the mean, but don't know what the mean is, though you feel it is unlikely the team will play as poorly as they did last year... presumably this is based on your gut. That is fine, but what happened last year, happened, I have made my gut call, your gut call isn't going to change mine. I have heard all the arguments posited and until there is compelling information to make me question my position it won't change and I am not sure it exists because it is all speculation. If you question the accuracy of the sample, that is fair enough, but I don't have substantial concerns from it. I think your concerns of external factors are off-set by both the size of the sample and that these factors are the same factors that would produce growth for all teams. So you would have to assume our growth exceeds that of other teams to proportionally improve.

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, you’re claiming a 27 game sample size is reflective of the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES. I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary opinion to you.

I guess I don't exactly know what all future games means exactly, data has a recency bias, so this would not be reflective of all future games, just games in the near future. I don't know if it will statistically bare out or not, but I am not wrong in that 27 games is a very large sample size that in theory should have a high degree of accuracy. There are marginal roster changes it doesn't account for, player development, resolving cohesion and a great many things, but it is not in a vacuum we not just need to keep pace, but outpace our competition in these areas to see improvement.

Your sample size just doesn’t take into enough account the below things. Period:

-No camp for KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-56 games of no KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-No continuity at end of season (unlikely to reoccur)

I look forward to seeing how this works out! Conversation bookmarked. And I do look forward to Vegas win predictions. I think they’ll trend toward my prediction and away from yours. Ie, I think your opinion is in the minority. That doesn’t mean you can’t be right in the end.

[younggunsmn]

The irony.

Pot meet kettle.

I have witnessed what you have we have different assessments, you have admittedly spent a second on it, I watched hoping I was wrong, no different than I will this season if they do nothing, but I don't think I am wrong here, I was only wrong in that it was much worse than I expected. I think we need to move on I have seen enough. That is my call, that my opinion on the matter. You can keep telling me he is a great fit, he offered what we needed... you are not going to gaslight me me.

Just because you watched the same thing, doesn't mean you saw the same things.

You were only wrong in how right you actually were, lol. You're hilarious.

So money responded to me while I was still formulating my reply to him. I have a process of making a quick reply then evaluating and making improvements. Here is my final reply replacing what he responded to. It was made without seeing his response, but it addressed his concern that I was coming to my conclusion based on very little evidence.

The Depth of my insight is the entire career of Rudy Gobert and the desperate need the Wolves have for interior defense and rebounding. That's far more than your one season where we only had a few games to install Rudy with the rest of our core.
The Rudy I saw in Utah impressed the hell out of me. I see him as providing exactly what we need. Hopefully this year we see that player he was in Utah.
My analysis was based on the entirety of Rudy's career, the entirety of KAT's career and the Wolves obvious weakness in interior defense and rebounding. His analysis was based on conditions of almost never having the Wolves core together and IMO very knee Jerk.
As for the accusation of me gaslighting him I know it's a big buzz word, but I didn't even know what it means so I googled it and found this definition.
Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions. And it's always a serious problem, according to psychologists.Jul 13, 2018
I'm guilty of trying to get So Money to question his reality, memory and perceptions, because I think his reality isn't reality at all. If that's a bad thing I guess I did a bad thing. However, I won't be doing it again due to having his posts blocked. I felt obligated to reply to this one when I saw it because it was a reply to a post I had retracted within a minute or two of my original post.

KG, not stating you are engaging in this, but
Gaslighting is a process where one person tells another that not only are they wrong in their perception of reality, there is something WRONG with them for seeing things as they do.

Most commonly referenced to people who cheat/are abusive in relationships.
Or basically most things you hear from your government.
It involves a concentrated effort to blur the lines of truth and fiction.
It can involve deconstructing the past and reconstructing it falsely through omissions, bent truths, and outright fabrications (Orwell gives great examples of this in 1984).

The gaslighter elevates anything to their advantage and minimizes, twists, unjustly degrades, or outright hides anything not to their advantage (oh those worthless draft picks, who cares about those things).

Check any opinion outside Minnesota on the Gobert trade, random fan or professional writer.
They'll be much harsher than anything you will read on this board.
The new CBA has also made huge contracts like Rudy's more of a burden than they were a year ago.
We gave up 5 picks and a swap for Gobert. To trade him again TODAY we would likely have to attach picks we no longer have.
Walker Kessler, the first of those draft picks, on a non playoff team, got All-Defense votes this year. Rudy got exactly ZERO.

You want to say you believe in Gobert, that he and KAT will work, this year will be great, future is bright,
Fine, I'm 100% behind your right to do that.
But don't try and tell people what they've seen with their own eyes in year one is wrong.
When people start dipping their toes into gaslighting is when they start attacking other posters for their negativity.

I think you and so money are probably better off disengaging.

[KGdaBom]

No. It’s not the mean for all the reasons I stated (56 games lost to injury for KAT and several uncharacteristic losses to bad teams). Also, no training camp for KAT negatively influenced the validity of your sample size. WITH all of these factors, we were only a few games from the 4 or 5 seed.

If these factors are mitigated (healthier KAT, full team at camp, average performance commensurate to the team ie fewer outlier losses), it’s very easy to see this team hit a 4 or 5 seed.

In short, it’s going to be VERY difficult for this team to play at the same level or worse than last year.

You are claiming things will go towards the mean, but don't know what the mean is, though you feel it is unlikely the team will play as poorly as they did last year... presumably this is based on your gut. That is fine, but what happened last year, happened, I have made my gut call, your gut call isn't going to change mine. I have heard all the arguments posited and until there is compelling information to make me question my position it won't change and I am not sure it exists because it is all speculation. If you question the accuracy of the sample, that is fair enough, but I don't have substantial concerns from it. I think your concerns of external factors are off-set by both the size of the sample and that these factors are the same factors that would produce growth for all teams. So you would have to assume our growth exceeds that of other teams to proportionally improve.

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, your opinion is that a noisy at best 27 game sample size can be used to accurately project the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES (played by this same lineup). I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary, opinion to you.

It does surprise me that you can’t see strongly negative factors from last year that are unlikely to manifest themselves two seasons in a row. That’s very common in the NBA (injured last year, healthier this year, for example—factors that commonly regress to the mean).

I advise putting So Money on Foe list so you don't see his posts therefore don't get aggravated by them.

[SO_MONEY]

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, you’re claiming a 27 game sample size is reflective of the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES. I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary opinion to you.

I guess I don't exactly know what all future games means exactly, data has a recency bias, so this would not be reflective of all future games, just games in the near future. I don't know if it will statistically bare out or not, but I am not wrong in that 27 games is a very large sample size that in theory should have a high degree of accuracy. There are marginal roster changes it doesn't account for, player development, resolving cohesion and a great many things, but it is not in a vacuum we not just need to keep pace, but outpace our competition in these areas to see improvement.

Your sample size just doesn’t take into enough account the below things. Period:

-No camp for KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-56 games of no KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-No continuity at end of season (unlikely to reoccur)

I look forward to seeing how this works out! Conversation bookmarked. And I do look forward to Vegas win predictions. I think they’ll trend toward my prediction and away from yours. Ie, I think your opinion is in the minority. That doesn’t mean you can’t be right in the end.

It takes into account the middle one because it only includes games where he played, not games he missed.

I haven't said if I think they will be better or worse, but I think they should be slightly better, but I think a sizable enough improvement to put us on a path that gets us closer to the goal is unlikely. This is where I see the data as important. To me I would be moderately surprised if Vegas didn't have us in that territory, something like 44.5-45.5 range.

[thinktank]

I guess I don't exactly know what all future games means exactly, data has a recency bias, so this would not be reflective of all future games, just games in the near future. I don't know if it will statistically bare out or not, but I am not wrong in that 27 games is a very large sample size that in theory should have a high degree of accuracy. There are marginal roster changes it doesn't account for, player development, resolving cohesion and a great many things, but it is not in a vacuum we not just need to keep pace, but outpace our competition in these areas to see improvement.

Your sample size just doesn’t take into enough account the below things. Period:

-No camp for KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-56 games of no KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-No continuity at end of season (unlikely to reoccur)

I look forward to seeing how this works out! Conversation bookmarked. And I do look forward to Vegas win predictions. I think they’ll trend toward my prediction and away from yours. Ie, I think your opinion is in the minority. That doesn’t mean you can’t be right in the end.

It takes into account the middle one because it only includes games where he played, not games he missed.

I haven't said if I think they will be better or worse, but I think they should be slightly better, but I think a sizable enough improvement to put us on a path that gets us closer to the goal is unlikely. To me I would be moderately surprised if Vegas didn't have us in that territory, something like 44.5-45.5 range.

Yeah but you’re totally ignoring the transitions and continuity from KAT’s return from injury after training camp and at the end of season. You’re viewing those games as if KAT was healthy and playing games with the team going into those games. But he wasn’t. The NBA is not a switch that you flip. It is very temporal.

I think Vegas had us at 46-ish wins last year. That would’ve been good for the 4th seed. I think they’ll have us at 46-ish again this year, minimum.

I’m not a big KAT guy, but I do believe that 56 games of KAT is worth more than 2 additional wins /6 seed (for example), and maybe even 4 additional wins / 4 seed.

[KGdaBom]

Just because you watched the same thing, doesn't mean you saw the same things.

You were only wrong in how right you actually were, lol. You're hilarious.

So money responded to me while I was still formulating my reply to him. I have a process of making a quick reply then evaluating and making improvements. Here is my final reply replacing what he responded to. It was made without seeing his response, but it addressed his concern that I was coming to my conclusion based on very little evidence.

The Depth of my insight is the entire career of Rudy Gobert and the desperate need the Wolves have for interior defense and rebounding. That's far more than your one season where we only had a few games to install Rudy with the rest of our core.
The Rudy I saw in Utah impressed the hell out of me. I see him as providing exactly what we need. Hopefully this year we see that player he was in Utah.
My analysis was based on the entirety of Rudy's career, the entirety of KAT's career and the Wolves obvious weakness in interior defense and rebounding. His analysis was based on conditions of almost never having the Wolves core together and IMO very knee Jerk.
As for the accusation of me gaslighting him I know it's a big buzz word, but I didn't even know what it means so I googled it and found this definition.
Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions. And it's always a serious problem, according to psychologists.Jul 13, 2018
I'm guilty of trying to get So Money to question his reality, memory and perceptions, because I think his reality isn't reality at all. If that's a bad thing I guess I did a bad thing. However, I won't be doing it again due to having his posts blocked. I felt obligated to reply to this one when I saw it because it was a reply to a post I had retracted within a minute or two of my original post.

KG, not stating you are engaging in this, but
Gaslighting is a process where one person tells another that not only are they wrong in their perception of reality, there is something WRONG with them for seeing things as they do.

Most commonly referenced to people who cheat/are abusive in relationships.
Or basically most things you hear from your government.
It involves a concentrated effort to blur the lines of truth and fiction.
It can involve deconstructing the past and reconstructing it falsely through omissions, bent truths, and outright fabrications (Orwell gives great examples of this in 1984).

The gaslighter elevates anything to their advantage and minimizes, twists, unjustly degrades, or outright hides anything not to their advantage (oh those worthless draft picks, who cares about those things).

Check any opinion outside Minnesota on the Gobert trade, random fan or professional writer.
They'll be much harsher than anything you will read on this board.
The new CBA has also made huge contracts like Rudy's more of a burden than they were a year ago.
We gave up 5 picks and a swap for Gobert. To trade him again TODAY we would likely have to attach picks we no longer have.
Walker Kessler, the first of those draft picks, on a non playoff team, got All-Defense votes this year. Rudy got exactly ZERO.

You want to say you believe in Gobert, that he and KAT will work, this year will be great, future is bright,
Fine, I'm 100% behind your right to do that.
When people start dipping their toes into gaslighting is when they start attacking other posters for their negativity.

I guess I wasn't gaslighting then if it entails everything you are claiming. I was showing to the best of my ability that So Money's reality, memories, and perceptions were faulty. Do I attack other posters for negativity? No I don't think I do. I let them know I don't appreciate their negativity, but I don't see that as an attack. Rudy going from the best defender in the NBA prior to us getting him to just mildly good last year was something I didn't think could possibly happen. I think it was an aberration due to getting acclimated to a new team and system. I expect his return to DPotY form this year. I always maintained that the biggest asset we were giving up was Walker Kessler. He's the one part of the trade that makes me regret it. Still we have an extremely talented team and I expect big things from us this season.
PS: Critical I have zero problem with, but some posters give me a vibe that they just get their jollies, by cutting down our players. I'm not a mind reader, but that is the way they often seem to me.

[thinktank]

You are claiming things will go towards the mean, but don't know what the mean is, though you feel it is unlikely the team will play as poorly as they did last year... presumably this is based on your gut. That is fine, but what happened last year, happened, I have made my gut call, your gut call isn't going to change mine. I have heard all the arguments posited and until there is compelling information to make me question my position it won't change and I am not sure it exists because it is all speculation. If you question the accuracy of the sample, that is fair enough, but I don't have substantial concerns from it. I think your concerns of external factors are off-set by both the size of the sample and that these factors are the same factors that would produce growth for all teams. So you would have to assume our growth exceeds that of other teams to proportionally improve.

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, your opinion is that a noisy at best 27 game sample size can be used to accurately project the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES (played by this same lineup). I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary, opinion to you.

It does surprise me that you can’t see strongly negative factors from last year that are unlikely to manifest themselves two seasons in a row. That’s very common in the NBA (injured last year, healthier this year, for example—factors that commonly regress to the mean).

I advise putting So Money on Foe list so you don't see his posts therefore don't get aggravated by them.

I appreciate that but I feel like I have to wear kid
gloves when talking to both of you!

You’re not going to see me catch feelings around here, no sir.

[KGdaBom]

Nobody knows what the mean is, for a fact. But, your opinion is that a noisy at best 27 game sample size can be used to accurately project the population of ALL FUTURE GAMES (played by this same lineup). I disagree.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I realize what your opinion is and I accept that.

I was just trying to explain my personal, and it just so happens to be, contrary, opinion to you.

It does surprise me that you can’t see strongly negative factors from last year that are unlikely to manifest themselves two seasons in a row. That’s very common in the NBA (injured last year, healthier this year, for example—factors that commonly regress to the mean).

I advise putting So Money on Foe list so you don't see his posts therefore don't get aggravated by them.

I appreciate that but I have to wear kidd gloves when talking to both of you!

Are those Jason Kidd gloves?
You and I have been like oil and water in the past. So far this season I'm having zero issues with you. I hope it stays that way.

[SO_MONEY]

Your sample size just doesn’t take into enough account the below things. Period:

-No camp for KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-56 games of no KAT (unlikely to reoccur)
-No continuity at end of season (unlikely to reoccur)

I look forward to seeing how this works out! Conversation bookmarked. And I do look forward to Vegas win predictions. I think they’ll trend toward my prediction and away from yours. Ie, I think your opinion is in the minority. That doesn’t mean you can’t be right in the end.

It takes into account the middle one because it only includes games where he played, not games he missed.

I haven't said if I think they will be better or worse, but I think they should be slightly better, but I think a sizable enough improvement to put us on a path that gets us closer to the goal is unlikely. To me I would be moderately surprised if Vegas didn't have us in that territory, something like 44.5-45.5 range.

Yeah but you’re totally ignoring the transitions and continuity from KAT’s return from injury after training camp and at the end of season. You’re viewing those games as if KAT was healthy and playing games with the team going into those games. But he wasn’t. The NBA is not a switch that you flip. It is very temporal.

I think Vegas had us at 46-ish wins last year. That would’ve been good for the 4th seed. I think they’ll have us at 46-ish again this year, minimum.

I’m not a big KAT guy, but I do believe that 56 games of KAT is worth more than 2 additional wins /6 seed (for example), and maybe even 4 additional wins / 4 seed.

Let's put it this way, my view of this team is so "extreme" that if Vegas puts us where we were last year it is a difference of 1.5 to 0.5 games, the ultimate question is if that is really good enough, does this translate to playoff wins? My view is it doesn't. That is the basis of my position, not regular season, but playoffs.

[thinktank]

It takes into account the middle one because it only includes games where he played, not games he missed.

I haven't said if I think they will be better or worse, but I think they should be slightly better, but I think a sizable enough improvement to put us on a path that gets us closer to the goal is unlikely. To me I would be moderately surprised if Vegas didn't have us in that territory, something like 44.5-45.5 range.

Yeah but you’re totally ignoring the transitions and continuity from KAT’s return from injury after training camp and at the end of season. You’re viewing those games as if KAT was healthy and playing games with the team going into those games. But he wasn’t. The NBA is not a switch that you flip. It is very temporal.

I think Vegas had us at 46-ish wins last year. That would’ve been good for the 4th seed. I think they’ll have us at 46-ish again this year, minimum.

I’m not a big KAT guy, but I do believe that 56 games of KAT is worth more than 2 additional wins /6 seed (for example), and maybe even 4 additional wins / 4 seed.

Let's put it this way, my view of this team is so "extreme" that if Vegas puts us where we were last year it is a difference of 1.5 to 0.5 games, the ultimate question is if that is really good enough, does this translate to playoff wins? My view is it doesn't. That is the basis of my position, not regular season, but playoffs.

Alright. At the start of this conversation I asked you if we got a 4 or 5 seed if that meant you would be wrong, literally, and you, literally said yes. What the heck?

I guess we can talk about the playoffs tomorrow…

[younggunsmn]

I guess I wasn't gaslighting then if it entails everything you are claiming. I was showing to the best of my ability that So Money's reality, memories, and perceptions were faulty. Do I attack other posters for negativity? No I don't think I do. I let them know I don't appreciate their negativity, but I don't see that as an attack. Rudy going from the best defender in the NBA prior to us getting him to just mildly good last year was something I didn't think could possibly happen. I think it was an aberration due to getting acclimated to a new team and system. I expect his return to DPotY form this year. I always maintained that the biggest asset we were giving up was Walker Kessler. He's the one part of the trade that makes me regret it. Still we have an extremely talented team and I expect big things from us this season.

How would you feel if another poster told you that they didn't appreciate your positivity?
Two sides of the same coin.
Plenty of people called homers and apologists on the internet too.

Nobody wins in either scenario, everyone involved loses.

[younggunsmn]

Yeah but you’re totally ignoring the transitions and continuity from KAT’s return from injury after training camp and at the end of season. You’re viewing those games as if KAT was healthy and playing games with the team going into those games. But he wasn’t. The NBA is not a switch that you flip. It is very temporal.

I think Vegas had us at 46-ish wins last year. That would’ve been good for the 4th seed. I think they’ll have us at 46-ish again this year, minimum.

I’m not a big KAT guy, but I do believe that 56 games of KAT is worth more than 2 additional wins /6 seed (for example), and maybe even 4 additional wins / 4 seed.

Let's put it this way, my view of this team is so "extreme" that if Vegas puts us where we were last year it is a difference of 1.5 to 0.5 games, the ultimate question is if that is really good enough, does this translate to playoff wins? My view is it doesn't. That is the basis of my position, not regular season, but playoffs.

Alright. At the start of this conversation I asked you if we got a 4 or 5 seed if that meant you would be wrong, literally, and you, literally said yes. What the heck?

I guess we can talk about the playoffs tomorrow…

I want to be bullish, I think a full season of a healthy Conley is worth 5 wins.
But the west is going to be absolutely brutal. Not a single team is tanking.
Almost every team feels exactly like we do, that they could be a top 4-5 seed if things go right.
I'm not hung up on seeds so much.
I want a conference finals appearance minimum to be sold on running back this current iteration though.

[KGdaBom]

I guess I wasn't gaslighting then if it entails everything you are claiming. I was showing to the best of my ability that So Money's reality, memories, and perceptions were faulty. Do I attack other posters for negativity? No I don't think I do. I let them know I don't appreciate their negativity, but I don't see that as an attack. Rudy going from the best defender in the NBA prior to us getting him to just mildly good last year was something I didn't think could possibly happen. I think it was an aberration due to getting acclimated to a new team and system. I expect his return to DPotY form this year. I always maintained that the biggest asset we were giving up was Walker Kessler. He's the one part of the trade that makes me regret it. Still we have an extremely talented team and I expect big things from us this season.

How would you feel if another poster told you that they didn't appreciate your positivity?
Two sides of the same coin.
Plenty of people called homers and apologists on the internet too.

Nobody wins in either scenario, everyone involved loses.

I would have zero problem with somebody letting me know they don't appreciate my positivity. If somebody is legitimately critical I have no problem with that either. I believe (I could be wrong) some people here get their jollies by cutting down our players. It makes them feel manly or something like that. This is my team and yes I take it a bit personal when people crap on it.

[Klomp]

But the west is going to be absolutely brutal. Not a single team is tanking.
Almost every team feels exactly like we do, that they could be a top 4-5 seed if things go right.

To be fair, we did much better against good teams than we did against tanking teams.

[TimberKat]

So money responded to me while I was still formulating my reply to him. I have a process of making a quick reply then evaluating and making improvements. Here is my final reply replacing what he responded to. It was made without seeing his response, but it addressed his concern that I was coming to my conclusion based on very little evidence.

The Depth of my insight is the entire career of Rudy Gobert and the desperate need the Wolves have for interior defense and rebounding. That's far more than your one season where we only had a few games to install Rudy with the rest of our core.
The Rudy I saw in Utah impressed the hell out of me. I see him as providing exactly what we need. Hopefully this year we see that player he was in Utah.
My analysis was based on the entirety of Rudy's career, the entirety of KAT's career and the Wolves obvious weakness in interior defense and rebounding. His analysis was based on conditions of almost never having the Wolves core together and IMO very knee Jerk.
As for the accusation of me gaslighting him I know it's a big buzz word, but I didn't even know what it means so I googled it and found this definition.
Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions. And it's always a serious problem, according to psychologists.Jul 13, 2018
I'm guilty of trying to get So Money to question his reality, memory and perceptions, because I think his reality isn't reality at all. If that's a bad thing I guess I did a bad thing. However, I won't be doing it again due to having his posts blocked. I felt obligated to reply to this one when I saw it because it was a reply to a post I had retracted within a minute or two of my original post.

Actually, he once told me his analysis was based on the size of his man crush on the player which totally explains his perspective on Towns and Gobert and I am totally good with the explanation

I did no such thing, why do people feel the need to do this? You don't like me fine, but as low as your opinion of me is, just think what I think of people who cross lines I would never cross... I don't need to lie or create stories to knock people down a peg. It isn't sporty and it is classless. It is beyond the pale and doesn't compare to anything I do. This stuff is why I am the way I am on here, it shows a lack of respect and when this became normalized was the exact moment I lost my patience with people.

And me saying you might have a man crush on a player wasn't t an insult.. See, I respected you enough to provide clarification and a definition so you understood not to take offense, because I didn't want you to feel insulted. If I had a man crush on a player I would just laugh and admit it because it isn't a big deal... you make up stories over benign slang. You have to give to get sir, if I can remember I will not afford you the luxury or that respect in the future... if that is what you want?

Bingo and reeling it in now: So, you say "I must have a man crush on Watanabe to think he is better value than TP" is not an insult but I say "you must have man crush on players" is knocking you down? Why such double standards? Do you belong to the privileged class?

[SO_MONEY]

Actually, he once told me his analysis was based on the size of his man crush on the player which totally explains his perspective on Towns and Gobert and I am totally good with the explanation

I did no such thing, why do people feel the need to do this? You don't like me fine, but as low as your opinion of me is, just think what I think of people who cross lines I would never cross... I don't need to lie or create stories to knock people down a peg. It isn't sporty and it is classless. It is beyond the pale and doesn't compare to anything I do. This stuff is why I am the way I am on here, it shows a lack of respect and when this became normalized was the exact moment I lost my patience with people.

And me saying you might have a man crush on a player wasn't t an insult.. See, I respected you enough to provide clarification and a definition so you understood not to take offense, because I didn't want you to feel insulted. If I had a man crush on a player I would just laugh and admit it because it isn't a big deal... you make up stories over benign slang. You have to give to get sir, if I can remember I will not afford you the luxury or that respect in the future... if that is what you want?

Bingo and reeling it in now: So, you say "I must have a man crush on Watanabe to think he is better value than TP" is not an insult but I say "you must have man crush on players" is knocking you down? Why such double standards? Do you belong to the privileged class?

You saying I have a man crush on a player isn't knocking me down, you saying I said I value players based on the size of my man crush and that is the whole of my analysis, when I didn't is. See that is a lie to insult me... you are taking light hearted ribbing and overreacting by being mean spirited. I never said you only value a player because of a man crush, a noted by me saying "IDK", "I think" and "might", if you go back. Since you probably won't here is what I said "IDK, I think you might just have a man crush on him... ". Is three qualifiers not enough to tip you off the comment is tounge in cheek, in jest or what have you? Where were your qualifiers? You didn't offer them because you weren't kidding around, you were trying to be mean. I was simply saying you see something in him I don't in what should have been viewed as humor and friendly banter. That is the difference. You do this, I don't ... as much as you don't like me I try and ethically comprt myself and if you think I am a jerk maybe there is a reason? People do this stuff all the time it is not just you... There is no double standard because what you did and what I did are not comparable and if there is a privileged class it is those who feel they can stoop to such things. Are you now reeling it in?

[urinesane]

I don't care who you are, what you do, how much information is put in front of you, you can still screw up.

We know, we have read your posts/replies.

Let's see how SO_MONEY's opinions hold up to a chatbot that has been trained on data through September 2021.

My problem is statistically it isn't a small sample size.

The amount of games under their belts together would in theory produce a fairly small margin of error. Many predictive models use as few as four games to extrapolate data across 82 games. Anything under 4 games is a small sample size, so the question is, is 13-14 actually the mean?

To ChatGPT: How many predictive models use four games to extrapolate data across 82 games?

(Note that it took a while to reply... probably because it was searching forever to find anything it could reference that actually used 4 games as a sample size)

Using only four games to extrapolate data across an 82-game season is generally considered insufficient in most predictive models, especially in professional sports like the NBA. Predictive models typically require a larger sample size to make accurate projections and predictions.

In sports analytics, analysts and statisticians typically use more extensive data sets to develop predictive models. They consider multiple seasons' worth of data, including numerous games and various variables such as player performance, team dynamics, injuries, and other contextual factors.

While initial observations and trends can emerge from a small sample size, it is challenging to capture the complexities and nuances of an entire season with only four games. Larger sample sizes provide a more robust and representative dataset, allowing for a more accurate understanding of teams' and players' performance.

It is important to note that different models and approaches exist within sports analytics, and some models may utilize smaller sample sizes in specific situations. However, when it comes to predicting data across an 82-game NBA season, relying on only four games would generally be considered insufficient for most predictive models.

To ChatGPT: For an NBA executive, would 4 games be considered a large enough sample size statistically to make an important decision or predict data across 82 games?

When it comes to making important decisions or predicting data across an 82-game NBA season, a sample size of only 4 games is generally considered too small. Statistically speaking, a larger sample size is typically required to draw reliable conclusions or make accurate predictions.

In the NBA, various factors such as injuries, matchups, team dynamics, and player performance can significantly impact the outcome of individual games. With just 4 games, the influence of these factors may overshadow the true abilities and potential of the team or players.

To obtain more meaningful and reliable insights, NBA executives often rely on a larger sample size that includes a significant portion of the season. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis of team and player performance, accounting for variations, streaks, and other important factors over a more extended period.

While initial observations and trends can emerge from a small sample size, it is generally considered insufficient to make informed decisions or predictions for the entirety of an 82-game NBA season. Executives typically look for trends and patterns over a larger body of data before making significant decisions or drawing conclusions.

To ChatGPT: If a team were trying a new concept that was counter to the norm in the NBA and their top player missed 52 games in a row, would the data from the 52 games missed be valuable in assessing the new concept? Keep in mind that this concept is very much reliant upon that player being healthy.

If a team is implementing a new concept that relies heavily on a specific player who missed 52 consecutive games, the data from those missed games may not be directly valuable in assessing the effectiveness of the new concept.

In this scenario, the team's performance during the 52 games without their top player may not accurately reflect the potential of the new concept when that player is healthy and actively participating. The absence of the key player could have a significant impact on the team's performance, making it difficult to isolate the effects of the new concept.

To properly evaluate the new concept, it would be more valuable to analyze the team's performance when the top player is present and actively involved in implementing the new strategy. This would provide a more accurate representation of how the concept functions with the intended player's involvement.

While the data from the missed games could still provide some insights into other aspects of the team's performance, such as the abilities of supporting players or the team's overall depth, it may not be directly applicable to assessing the effectiveness of the new concept that relies on the specific player being healthy and involved.

To ChatGPT: If that player played 21 games before the injury and the team only won 10 of those games, would that be a large enough sample size to say that it wouldn't work?

A sample size of 21 games can provide some initial insights into the performance of a team and its new concept. However, it may still not be sufficient to definitively conclude that the concept would not work based solely on the team's record of winning 10 out of those 21 games.

There are several factors to consider when evaluating the success of a new concept within a team:

Sample size: While 21 games is a larger sample size than just a few games, it is still relatively small when compared to an 82-game season. The limited number of games may not fully capture the potential of the new concept, and there could be variations or anomalies within that small sample.

Player performance: Assessing the effectiveness of a concept requires considering the performance of all players involved, including the key player who is central to the concept. It is important to evaluate how well the player performed within the concept during those 21 games and if any improvements or adjustments can be made to optimize their impact.

Adjustments and learning curve: Implementing a new concept often involves a learning curve for both players and coaches. It takes time for teams to fully adapt, understand, and execute a new strategy. The early record of 10 wins in 21 games may reflect this adjustment period rather than an indication that the concept is inherently flawed.

External factors: Various external factors can influence a team's performance, such as injuries to other key players, strength of schedule, or even off-court issues. It is important to consider these factors when evaluating the team's record and the impact on the new concept.

In summary, while the record of 10 wins in 21 games provides some initial information, it may not be conclusive enough to definitively determine that the new concept would not work. A larger sample size, along with a more comprehensive analysis of player performance, adjustments, and external factors, would be necessary to make a more accurate assessment.

To ChatGPT: Would it be accurate to say that "Many predictive models use as few as four games to extrapolate data across 82 games"?

No, it would not be accurate to say that "many" predictive models use as few as four games to extrapolate data across 82 games, especially in the context of professional sports like the NBA. While there might be some rare instances where analysts or models utilize smaller sample sizes for specific purposes, it is not a common or recommended practice.

As mentioned earlier, predictive models in sports analytics typically require larger sample sizes to account for various factors and capture the complexities of team and player performance over an 82-game season. These models often incorporate data from multiple seasons, numerous games, and a range of variables to make accurate predictions.

Using only four games as a basis for extrapolation is generally considered insufficient due to the limited amount of data available. It can lead to skewed results, misinterpretations, and inaccurate predictions. Larger sample sizes provide more reliable and representative data, allowing for better analysis and prediction capabilities.

While it's important to remain open to different approaches and methodologies, it is not common practice in sports analytics to rely on such a small sample size for extrapolating data across an 82-game season.

ChatGPT thinks you're wrong (like many of us here). Maybe I should try another chatbot that agrees with you (maybe one that only uses 4 samples for a data set)?

[TimberKat]

I did no such thing, why do people feel the need to do this? You don't like me fine, but as low as your opinion of me is, just think what I think of people who cross lines I would never cross... I don't need to lie or create stories to knock people down a peg. It isn't sporty and it is classless. It is beyond the pale and doesn't compare to anything I do. This stuff is why I am the way I am on here, it shows a lack of respect and when this became normalized was the exact moment I lost my patience with people.

And me saying you might have a man crush on a player wasn't t an insult.. See, I respected you enough to provide clarification and a definition so you understood not to take offense, because I didn't want you to feel insulted. If I had a man crush on a player I would just laugh and admit it because it isn't a big deal... you make up stories over benign slang. You have to give to get sir, if I can remember I will not afford you the luxury or that respect in the future... if that is what you want?

Bingo and reeling it in now: So, you say "I must have a man crush on Watanabe to think he is better value than TP" is not an insult but I say "you must have man crush on players" is knocking you down? Why such double standards? Do you belong to the privileged class?

You saying I have a man crush on a player isn't knocking me down, you saying I said I value players based on the size of my man crush and that is the whole of my analysis, when I didn't is. See that is a lie to insult me... you are taking light hearted ribbing and overreacting by being mean spirited. I never said you only value a player because of a man crush, a noted by me saying "IDK", "I think" and "might", if you go back. Since you probably won't here is what I said "IDK, I think you might just have a man crush on him... ". Is three qualifiers not enough to tip you off the comment is tounge in cheek, in jest or what have you? Where were your qualifiers? You didn't offer them because you weren't kidding around, you were trying to be mean. I was simply saying you see something in him I don't in what should have been viewed humor and friendly banter. That is the difference. You do this, I don't ... as much as you don't like me I try and ethically comprt myself and if you think I am a jerk maybe there is a reason? People do this stuff all the time it is not just you... There is no double standard because what you did and what I did are not comparable and if there is a privileged class it is those who feel they can stoop to such things. Are you now reeling it in?

I did use a smiley, but let me rephrase: IDK, Actually, he once told me his analysis was based on the size of his man crush on the player which totally explains his perspective on Towns and Gobert and I am totally good with the explanation

I am getting way off topic and I made my point. In general, for everyone, stay away from personal attack, apologize if wrong/misunderstood (that is not being homophobic), don't overplay the victim card. You can take the parting shot if you want.