89 Jordan Assist-Tracking: A Peek at Point-MJ

[jjgp111292]

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit

???????????????????????????????????

Hopefully this answers your (implied) question

I had no question, that was my sarcastic expression of befuddlement with the part of the post you omitted - but that's neither here nor there.

[Lost92Bricks]

See what’s funny and ironic is that “LeBron something something (usually pejorative in nature)” threads discrediting every facet of his career and game and personal things, threads that “pick on him,” abound on this site and their quantity dwarf any about Jordan or other ‘80’s players, but you (and others here) didn’t notice/care/overlooked those threads because you agreed with them/saw them as evident truth/etc., but are upset now because there are a few threads where anyone dares discuss the hagiographied one in ways other than hagiography.

Also, if we’re talking about the 2000s and 2010s, then add on the hundreds and hundreds of threads about Kobe.

Not on here (PC board).

Look at how much bigger than official Lebron thread is than it is or any other player. Its not even close.

Y'all know exactly what I'm talking about and are playing dumb.

There is a negativity around MJ on here. There is a clear agenda.

[lessthanjake]

FWIW, I just bothered to spend a little bit of time looking at this tracking and the Magic tracking (that’s found at: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2411062&p=115129660&hilit=Dto#p115129660), and it very quickly confirmed that subjectivity/bias is heavily at play here.

Just a few examples that I quickly found just in perusing some of these:

- For Magic Assist 6 at 3:55, Magic goes up the court in transition and has no defender near him and throws a routine sideways pass to a teammate who also has no defenders near him, and that teammate ends up with a somewhat-contested shot. This is somehow counted as Magic “taking out” 2 defenders. Meanwhile, Jordan’s Assist 6 at 28:48 is a similar type of swing pass (and actually has a better argument for “taking out” a defender since Jordan actually had a defender that came up right behind him), and was not counted as taking out any defenders.

- For Jordan Assist 12 at 1:20:45, the description itself correctly notes that Jordan was triple teamed and passed out for an open shot. But yet, inexplicably, Jordan passing out of a *triple* team for an open shot is only counted as taking out 2 defenders. And, to be clear, Magic is consistently given credit for “taking out” any defender that is on him when he passes the ball, including getting credit for “taking out” his defender anytime he makes a simple post entry pass to Kareem.

- In Jordan’s Assist 13 at 1:29:53, Jordan is double teamed and gets the pass by the double team and into a cutter where Laimbeer is supposed to be covering. Yet this is only counted as taking out 2 defenders. Laimbeer isn’t draped all over the cutter, but there are many instances in the Magic tracking where Magic gets credit for “taking out” any defender who is at all in the vicinity of the pass recipient. For instance, Magic Assist 7 at 4:09 is counted as taking out four defenders, which is only possible if you count a guy who was nowhere near the recipient (Hakeem is sitting at the FT line—seeming to pay attention to others still coming up the court—and the pass is to someone right under the basket and Hakeem doesn’t really react at all to the pass). A similar point could be made about Jordan’s Assist 1 at 3:19, which is only counted as taking out 2 defenders, even though Jordan beats two himself and slots the jump pass by Laimbeer who is there right near the pass recipient and can’t get much of any contest because of where the pass was.

- Magic’s Assist 8 at 4:20 is somehow credited as taking out 3 defenders, even though what actually happened is when Magic received the ball from Byron Scott he was already level with or past two of the three relevant defenders and they were on the other side of him than the guy Magic passed to (which was, again, Byron Scott). Magic’s pass didn’t take them out of the play. It was just transition basketball, where a teammate did a very simple give and go with Magic and two of those defenders were just never near Byron Scott and could not have gotten to him. Saying the third defender was “taken out” is definitely more defensible, though even there Magic’s pass didn’t penetrate past him nor did Magic drive by him, and the defender did manage to contest Byron Scott’s layup. There happens to not be an analogous play to this in the Jordan game that was tracked (not a surprise, since these are tiny samples), but I’ll note that Jordan Assist 7 at 36:15 is also a give and go in transition and Jordan’s pass took out the relevant defender more than anyone was taken out by Magic’s passing in Magic’s Assist 8—given that there was a defender who was *actually* positioned to be able to potentially contest either player in the give and go, and he ended up having zero contest whatsoever on Jordan’s pass recipient.

Anyways, that’s just a few of the things I noticed without even looking at all of the timestamps for each player. Unsurprisingly, I also did not locate any instance where I thought the analysis was skewed against Magic or in favor of Jordan. Honestly, I found this to be more clearly biased than I even thought it would be.

Relatedly, and in some defense of the OP’s judgments, I also found the exercise to be even more subjective than I expected. When looking at the timestamps that I looked at, I was often thinking to myself how many players I would say were “taken out,” and honestly for a lot of them my reaction was to basically think “I have no idea” because it’s a vague concept that is really difficult to draw the line for with each specific permutation that occurs in a particular play. There were a ton of instances where my answer in my mind as to whether a defender was “taken out” was basically “I don’t know, maybe?” And that’s not a great sign for the analysis. Obviously that level of subjectivity in the exercise leads to more room for bias to affect the results of the analysis (as we’ve seen here), but it also just generally calls into question the analysis either way. Having thought about it, I wouldn’t even trust my own results in this sort of analysis, and I think if I did the analysis twice I’d probably come to different results each time.

[KembaWalker]

???????????????????????????????????

Hopefully this answers your (implied) question

I had no question, that was my sarcastic expression of befuddlement with the part of the post you omitted - but that's neither here nor there.

I’d be smashing rocks in Siberia on a life sentence if I posted something like that in here about LeBron stans. Crazy

[tsherkin]

See what’s funny and ironic is that “LeBron something something (usually pejorative in nature)” threads discrediting every facet of his career and game and personal things, threads that “pick on him,” abound on this site and their quantity dwarf any about Jordan or other ‘80’s players, but you (and others here) didn’t notice/care/overlooked those threads because you agreed with them/saw them as evident truth/etc., but are upset now because there are a few threads where anyone dares discuss the hagiographied one in ways other than hagiography.

Also, if we’re talking about the 2000s and 2010s, then add on the hundreds and hundreds of threads about Kobe.

Not on here (PC board).

Look at how much bigger than official Lebron thread is than it is or any other player. Its not even close.

Y'all know exactly what I'm talking about and are playing dumb.

There is a negativity around MJ on here. There is a clear agenda.

I don't think it is (mostly) negativity so much as the beginnings of Jordan's untouchable aura finally eroding as more data and more mature approaches emerge. You'll obviously always have a few voices who are actively negative but address of Jordan's game in critical fashion is not universally negative. Same same with any player, current or former. There does have to be space for countering evidence.

[falcolombardi]

Man, i think fans of the most well regarded older greats are -really- not accostumed to their favs getting criticism or being valued less than the media consensus

That is one area where the fans of newer players are much, much, much more accostumed to debate their players when they take heat

[lessthanjake]

One pretty obvious thing I do want to note, since there seems to be some failure to acknowledge this, is that there is definitely a difference between tracking vague, subjective criteria, and tracking things that are either objective facts or that at least involve minimal subjectivity.

While it’s not clear what Djoker posts were being referred to since a link was simply provided to Djoker’s profile, Djoker has done some tracking. But, from what I can recall, Djoker’s tracking has involved tracking players’ on-off, as well as tracking how opponents have done statistically (in terms of scoring, assists, FG%, etc.) with a specific player as the primary defender. The on-off stuff is purely objective information. Meanwhile, tracking opponents’ stats with a specific player as the primary defender is very close to purely objective information, with the only subjectivity just being a judgment of when someone was the primary defender. There’s potentially some wiggle room there, but it seem obvious to me that that is not at all comparable to tracking analysis that is tallying things that are vague and highly subjective (“defenders taken out”). Djoker did have one analysis where he also gave an entirely subjective “grade” to Jordan’s defense in each game, but of course one can definitely appreciate the tracking of objective information even if one doesn’t put much stock in Djoker’s personal grading that was included along with it. For me, at least, that’s where I’d land on that. Djoker’s personal grading is an interesting read, but ultimately is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and therefore isn’t something I’d put much independent stock in. Djoker mostly tracked objective information, though, and receiving new, objective information is nice, and is not comparable to receiving subjective information.

Of course, that just goes to the subjectivity/bias issue. Regardless of whether it involves subjective or objective information, any tracking of small samples has a sample-size issue that definitely greatly limits the value of the analysis. I definitely wouldn’t say we should look at Djoker’s tracking of a few games and try to extrapolate it as if it has much broader meaning. That would be being far too trusting of a small sample. But, in contrast to the analysis in this thread, I don’t think that’s what Djoker was asking anyone to do (and, if he was, then I’d definitely have concerns about it being a small sample). I see Djoker’s analysis as actually trying to shed light on what happened in the specific games Djoker tracked, rather than trying to use those games to draw more general conclusions about a player. And, of course, tracking of specific games isn’t too small a sample when trying to analyze only what happened in those specific games.

So yeah, I don’t think the comparison between this and Djoker’s tracking is at all apt. And, honestly, I think the aggressive attempt to draw a comparison is actually indicative of a failure to really understand the issues with this analysis.

[OhayoKD]

FWIW, I just bothered to spend a little bit of time looking at this tracking and the Magic tracking (that’s found at: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2411062&p=115129660&hilit=Dto#p115129660), and it very quickly confirmed that subjectivity/bias is heavily at play here.

Confirmed is it?

Okay then

Just a few examples that I quickly found just in perusing some of these:

- For Magic Assist 6 at 3:55, Magic goes up the court in transition and has no defender near him and throws a routine sideways pass to a teammate who also has no defenders near him, and that teammate ends up with a somewhat-contested shot.


This is somehow counted as Magic “taking out” 2 defenders. Meanwhile, Jordan’s Assist 6 at 28:48 is a similar type of swing pass (and actually has a better argument for “taking out” a defender since Jordan actually had a defender that came up right behind him), and was not counted as taking out any defenders.

Weird equivalency.

https://youtu.be/BBNQFaUkg0s?t=238
Magic has 2 defenders keyed on him, dribbles past one and his pass creates major distance between both of them and the shot-taker to the point they are out of the play. The simplicity is why it's only rated as "decent" but that's pretty textbook. Magic is not credited as doing anything to the defender who ultimate contests the shot, so i'm not sure why this is being brought up.

On the other hand

https://youtu.be/uNi_3ex83ts?t=1726
Jordan receives the ball well ahead of the defender behind him, takes a longer time to get his pass off and the defender with the potential to affect the shot looking at Jordan is not taken out.

While the pass in a vacuum looks similar, the actual affect it as well as the ball-carrying has on the defense is significantly different and the latter is what the specific countable you're criticizing is tracking. This play also is an example of how handling the ball more can offes players an advantage in terms of defensive draw.

- For Jordan Assist 12 at 1:20:45, the description itself correctly notes that Jordan was triple teamed and passed out for an open shot. But yet, inexplicably, Jordan passing out of a *triple* team for an open shot is only counted as taking out 2 defenders. .

Because the third defender rotates on back to his assignment on time and was never in range of the attacking player Jordan creates the opening for? Jordan is credited with 2 dtos and an ada. He is not given 3 dtos because he did not take out 3 defenders. However, despite it really not affecting anything, I gave him extra credit for making Laimbeer move. If you can find an example where Magic is given a DTO for taking out a defender who rotates to his assignment on time, you have fair reason to ask if bias affected my interpretation of this play.

Entry passes are a red-herring here.

n Jordan’s Assist 13 at 1:29:53, Jordan is double teamed and gets the pass by the double team and into a cutter where Laimbeer is supposed to be covering. Yet this is only counted as taking out 2 defenders.

Yeah it should be 3. I'll update the numbers. Laimbeer being distracted by Jordan creates he space. Alternatively Magic should have a dto turned into an ADA and Jordan should get an ADA. I'll have to think on which is more consistent with other tracking.

A similar point could be made about Jordan’s Assist 1 at 3:19, which is only counted as taking out 2 defenders, even though Jordan beats two himself and slots the jump pass by Laimbeer who is there right near the pass recipient and can’t get much of any contest because of where the pass was.

He is also credited with an ADA for getting Laimbeer in poor position. The reason it isn't a dto is Laimbeer is still able to offer resistance. Potentially more if he immediately moves towards the basket rather than taking a step towards the ball-carrier. In the play you highlighted above Laimbeer starts moving with the attacker already between him and the basket. Another weak equivalency.

Magic’s Assist 8 at 4:20 is somehow credited as taking out 3 defenders, even though what actually happened is when Magic received the ball from Byron Scott he was already level with or past two of the three relevant defenders and they were on the other side of him than the guy Magic passed to (which was, again, Byron Scott). Magic’s pass didn’t take them out of the play.

They were level and ahead by the time he brought the ball down and his pass created sufficient distance that none of the three were able to challenge the shot. That seems like textbook "taking out of the play" to me and is something I've counted for everyone I think. The contest happens after the defender has already been bypassed with neither his hand or body in any position to impede Scott physically. The simplicity is why it was only credited as good but simplicity has never been used as justification to not count defenders being taken out as defenders being taken out.

If you want an analog for Jordan, I think this qualifies:
https://youtu.be/-Q3WUdxDH8M?t=1826

I gave Jordan 3 dtos for this. Probably about as generous of a judgment I've made for anyone since I started dto-counting.

but I’ll note that Jordan Assist 7 at 36:15 is also a give and go in transition and Jordan’s pass took out the relevant defender more than anyone was taken out by Magic’s passing in Magic’s Assist 8—given that there was a defender who was *actually* positioned to be able to potentially contest either player in the give and go, and he ended up having zero contest whatsoever on Jordan’s pass recipient.

And it was counted as a dto,,,

Anyways, that’s just a few of the things I noticed without even looking at all of the timestamps for each player. Unsurprisingly, I also did not locate any instance where I thought the analysis was skewed against Magic or in favor of Jordan. Honestly, I found this to be more clearly biased than I even thought it would be. .

So in summary

You listed 6 examples, one of which showcases an inconsistency (3 of which even attempt to), and then concluded there was "clear and obvious bias"

Definitely not projecting.

Regardless I'll give Jordan an extra DTO. If you find anything else you consider a discrepancy let me know.

Frankly though, if you are incapable of distinguishing between when there are two defenders around a player...as opposed to no defenders around a player, I'd cool it with the "clear and obvious bias" crap.

[lessthanjake]

FWIW, I just bothered to spend a little bit of time looking at this tracking and the Magic tracking (that’s found at: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2411062&p=115129660&hilit=Dto#p115129660), and it very quickly confirmed that subjectivity/bias is heavily at play here.

Confirmed is it?

Okay then

Just a few examples that I quickly found just in perusing some of these:

- For Magic Assist 6 at 3:55, Magic goes up the court in transition and has no defender near him and throws a routine sideways pass to a teammate who also has no defenders near him, and that teammate ends up with a somewhat-contested shot.


This is somehow counted as Magic “taking out” 2 defenders. Meanwhile, Jordan’s Assist 6 at 28:48 is a similar type of swing pass (and actually has a better argument for “taking out” a defender since Jordan actually had a defender that came up right behind him), and was not counted as taking out any defenders.

Weird equivalency.

https://youtu.be/BBNQFaUkg0s?t=238
Magic has 2 defenders keyed on him, dribbles past one and his pass creates major distance between both of them and the shot-taker to the point they are out of the play. The simplicity is why it's only rated as "decent" but that's pretty textbook. Magic is not credited as doing anything to the defender who ultimate contests the shot, so i'm not sure why this is being brought up.

On the other hand

https://youtu.be/uNi_3ex83ts?t=1726
Jordan receives the ball well ahead of the defender behind him, takes a longer time to get his pass off and the defender with the potential to affect the shot looking at Jordan is not taken out.

While the pass in a vacuum looks similar, the actual affect it as well as the ball-carrying has on the defense is significantly different and the latter is what the specific countable you're criticizing is tracking. This play also is an example of how handling the ball more can offes players an advantage in terms of defensive draw.

- For Jordan Assist 12 at 1:20:45, the description itself correctly notes that Jordan was triple teamed and passed out for an open shot. But yet, inexplicably, Jordan passing out of a *triple* team for an open shot is only counted as taking out 2 defenders. .

Because the third defender rotates on back to his assignment on time and was never in range of the attacking player Jordan creates the opening for? Jordan is credited with 2 dtos and an ada. He is not given 3 dtos because he did not take out 3 defenders. However, despite it really not affecting anything, I gave him extra credit for making Laimbeer move. If you can find an example where Magic is given a DTO for taking out a defender who rotates to his assignment on time, you have fair reason to ask if bias affected my interpretation of this play.

Entry passes are a red-herring here.

n Jordan’s Assist 13 at 1:29:53, Jordan is double teamed and gets the pass by the double team and into a cutter where Laimbeer is supposed to be covering. Yet this is only counted as taking out 2 defenders.

Yeah it should be 3. I'll update the numbers. Laimbeer being distracted by Jordan creates he space. Alternatively Magic should have a dto turned into an ADA and Jordan should get an ADA. I'll have to think on which is more consistent with other tracking.

A similar point could be made about Jordan’s Assist 1 at 3:19, which is only counted as taking out 2 defenders, even though Jordan beats two himself and slots the jump pass by Laimbeer who is there right near the pass recipient and can’t get much of any contest because of where the pass was.

He is also credited with an ADA for getting Laimbeer in poor position. The reason it isn't a dto is Laimbeer is still able to offer resistance. Potentially more if he immediately moves towards the basket rather than taking a step towards the ball-carrier. In the play you highlighted above Laimbeer starts moving with the attacker already between him and the basket. Another weak equivalency.

Magic’s Assist 8 at 4:20 is somehow credited as taking out 3 defenders, even though what actually happened is when Magic received the ball from Byron Scott he was already level with or past two of the three relevant defenders and they were on the other side of him than the guy Magic passed to (which was, again, Byron Scott). Magic’s pass didn’t take them out of the play.

They were level and ahead by the time he brought the ball down and his pass created sufficient distance that none of the three were able to challenge the shot. That seems like textbook "taking out of the play" to me and is something I've counted for everyone I think. The contest happens after the defender has already been bypassed with neither his hand or body in any position to impede Scott physically. The simplicity is why it was only credited as good but simplicity has never been used as justification to not count defenders being taken out as defenders being taken out.

If you want an analog for Jordan, I think this qualifies:
https://youtu.be/-Q3WUdxDH8M?t=1826

I gave Jordan 3 dtos for this. Probably about as generous of a judgment I've made for anyone since I started dto-counting.

but I’ll note that Jordan Assist 7 at 36:15 is also a give and go in transition and Jordan’s pass took out the relevant defender more than anyone was taken out by Magic’s passing in Magic’s Assist 8—given that there was a defender who was *actually* positioned to be able to potentially contest either player in the give and go, and he ended up having zero contest whatsoever on Jordan’s pass recipient.

And it was counted as a dto,,,

Anyways, that’s just a few of the things I noticed without even looking at all of the timestamps for each player. Unsurprisingly, I also did not locate any instance where I thought the analysis was skewed against Magic or in favor of Jordan. Honestly, I found this to be more clearly biased than I even thought it would be. .

So in summary

You listed 6 examples, one of which showcases an inconsistency (3 of which even attempt to), and then concluded there was "clear and obvious bias"

Definitely not projecting.

Regardless I'll give Jordan an extra DTO. If you find anything else you consider a discrepancy let me know.

Frankly though, if you are incapable of distinguishing between when there are two defenders around a player...as opposed to no defenders around a player, I'd cool it with the "clear and obvious bias" crap.

I’m not going to go around and around with you on this with extremely micro-level, subjective analysis of a tiny sample. As I said earlier in this thread, when I was asked to provide examples of your analysis being biased:

Spoiler:

First, I could do the analysis and come to different results. This is almost certainly the most likely outcome when it comes to subjective analysis. People would then argue with me over my extremely micro-level analysis, which I personally would find not all that interesting because whether I was right or wrong, the small-sample size issue would make the stakes of such play-by-play discussions essentially zero. It doesn’t *actually* matter how many “defenders taken out” a player had in one specific possession in their career.

Having gone through it, I am *very* comfortable concluding that your analysis is biased. Indeed, there was even one example that you can’t even *try* to defend, even though this exercise is so inherently subjective that it’s possible to try to defend almost anything (as you’ve proven above). It was that bad. You will never admit that your analysis is biased, because of course you won’t. Others can make up their own mind. I’ve explained my thoughts already. I am not going to spend my time going around and around with you about extremely micro-level subjective analysis of tiny samples. There will never be any end to such a discussion, because it’s such vague and subjective criteria so you will virtually always just insist you’re right and suck up both of our time arguing about it. Of course, the fact that it is all so vague and subjective that you can even try to launch a defense of most of the things I noted is itself reflective of the fact that the exercise is inherently flawed. Different people will obviously come to very different results trying to apply the same criteria, with you not surprisingly coming to results that confirm your priors through tallying that strikes me as clearly silly/biased. Meanwhile, as I’ve previously noted (including in the spoilered text above), it is also a waste of time to go around and around arguing subjective, micro-level points when the tiny sample makes the analysis virtually meaningless either way, particularly in terms of your attempt to try to use these tiny-sample analyses to draw general conclusions about players.

[OhayoKD]

I’m not going to go around and around with you on this with extremely micro-level

"I can't actually show you're biased but you are definitely biased"

You **** up on the first play you pulled and are now claiming "well actually it's way too hard to tell if a play is called incorrectly or now" while also claiming "but you're biased" because you found one inconsistency over 30 tracked assists.

If you're too lazy to backup your accusations, then stop making them.

[AEnigma]

So neat that basically nothing that we see on court actually matters; we can just disregard film as we see fit because one person might be able to “subjectively” mark a wide open pass as tight and difficult.

Love to see people so tilted about film review that they decide their best bet is to claim that watching and understanding the sport is actually a micro-issue.

[lessthanjake]

I’m not going to go around and around with you on this with extremely micro-level

"I can't actually show you're biased but you are definitely biased"

You **** up on the first play you pulled and are now claiming "well actually it's way too hard to tell if a play is called incorrectly or now" while also claiming "but you're biased" because you found one inconsistency over 30 tracked assists.

If you're too lazy to backup your accusations, then stop making them.

No, I did explain examples of your bias. You disagreeing that your own analysis was biased doesn’t make you right. Others can make up their minds.

[OhayoKD]

I’m not going to go around and around with you on this with extremely micro-level

"I can't actually show you're biased but you are definitely biased"

You **** up on the first play you pulled and are now claiming "well actually it's way too hard to tell if a play is called incorrectly or now" while also claiming "but you're biased" because you found one inconsistency over 30 tracked assists.

If you're too lazy to backup your accusations, then stop making them.

No, I did explain examples of your bias. You disagreeing that your own analysis was biased doesn’t make you right. Others can make up their minds.

That's not how accusations work buddy. I don't have to prove myself right. You have to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is yours. Now meet it.

[capfan33]

So neat that basically nothing that we see on court actually matters; we can just disregard film as we see fit because one person might be able to “subjectively” mark a wide open pass as tight and difficult.

Love to see people so tilted about film review that they decide their best bet is to claim that watching and understanding the sport is actually a micro-issue.

Second this, at the end of the day this is about the game itself and not a spreadsheet. Especially in the playoffs, you’re going to miss a lot of things if you don’t actually watch the games. While there are improvements that can be made to the above approach, this is the direction that basketball analysis should go towards.

I think ideally something along the lines of what Pro Football Focus does in football is what high-level basketball analysis should look like. There’s always going to be a degree of subjectivity to any analysis, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try or that there isn’t any value debating in the realm of the subjective.

[tsherkin]

How about, if you disagree with Ohayo, start your own thread for film analysis and use your measure there? Y'all have semantic and methodology differences, which is inevitable but this scrap isn't really productive...

[lessthanjake]

"I can't actually show you're biased but you are definitely biased"

You **** up on the first play you pulled and are now claiming "well actually it's way too hard to tell if a play is called incorrectly or now" while also claiming "but you're biased" because you found one inconsistency over 30 tracked assists.

If you're too lazy to backup your accusations, then stop making them.

No, I did explain examples of your bias. You disagreeing that your own analysis was biased doesn’t make you right. Others can make up their minds.

That's not how accusations work buddy. I don't have to prove myself right. You have to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is yours. Now meet it.

Lol, I’ve already met it. You seem to think that you responding effectively erases the existence of someone’s prior posts and obligates them to respond back to you or you can act like they’ve conceded the argument. That’s not how it works. I made my point. You responded to it. I’m sure you think your response was effective, because of course you do. Others can make up their own mind.

As a sidenote, this idea of applying a burden of proof here is odd. I think you’re invoking concepts you don’t exactly understand the application or import of. This isn’t a legal issue with a formal burden of proof or burden shifting framework that is applied pursuant to statutory or common law. Nor is there anyone obligated to judge the arguments using any such legal framework. You are making arguments using your analysis, so I could easily say the burden is on you to demonstrate the usefulness and propriety of your analysis. But really there’s not actually burdens of proof on people in a discussion on an Internet forum. These are just informal discussions. Anyone reading this can and will read the discussion and come to their own conclusions about it irrespective of any kind of burden-of-proof framework you want to shoehorn here as a way of demanding that someone keep going around and around with you as you try to outlast their willingness to engage with you.

[lessthanjake]

How about, if you disagree with Ohayo, start your own thread for film analysis and use your measure there? Y'all have semantic and methodology differences, which is inevitable but this scrap isn't really productive...

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here. As I explained in an earlier post (see spoilered portion below), I think this exercise is so vague and subjective that I often don’t know how I’d apply it myself and I think that I’d probably come to different results if I did the analysis twice.

Spoiler:

Relatedly, and in some defense of the OP’s judgments, I also found the exercise to be even more subjective than I expected. When looking at the timestamps that I looked at, I was often thinking to myself how many players I would say were “taken out,” and honestly for a lot of them my reaction was to basically think “I have no idea” because it’s a vague concept that is really difficult to draw the line for with each specific permutation that occurs in a particular play. There were a ton of instances where my answer in my mind as to whether a defender was “taken out” was basically “I don’t know, maybe?” And that’s not a great sign for the analysis. Obviously that level of subjectivity in the exercise leads to more room for bias to affect the results of the analysis (as we’ve seen here), but it also just generally calls into question the analysis either way. Having thought about it, I wouldn’t even trust my own results in this sort of analysis, and I think if I did the analysis twice I’d probably come to different results each time.

Basically, given how this inherently requires a line-drawing exercise using really vague and subjective criteria, I don’t really think there’s a way to do this analysis in a particularly reliable way, such that I wouldn’t even really trust my own results or even think I would come to the same results if I analyzed the same thing twice. It’s just a deeply flawed exercise. Moreover, as I’ve also explained multiple times in this thread, the sample size of this analysis is tiny, and that makes the analysis basically meaningless to me regardless of any issues of subjectivity/bias. Which naturally makes me not keen on spending time formally redoing the analysis myself to make it less biased, since I’ll think the analysis isn’t worth much either way.

So what are you asking me to do? Should I take even more of my time to fully redo this analysis even though I won’t think it’s reliable and will still think is too small a sample-size to be at all meaningful? That seems like a real waste of my time. Should I try to eliminate the sample size issue by doing this analysis across a very large number of games? I still would think the exercise is deeply flawed, and, even more importantly, doing that would require an enormous time commitment that is just not realistic for me (or probably anyone here). Should I try to come up with my own less flawed version of the analysis that is less vague and subjective? Theoretically, that might be possible to do, but I hardly think I’m obligated to do that in order to discuss the flaws in OhayoKD’s analysis. Nor would such a thing avoid the sample size issue unless I were willing to spend a prohibitively long time on this hypothetical alternative approach. None of these are good options IMO, and I would generally reject the notion that I can’t critique the analysis someone else has put forth without doing my own improved version of the analysis.

That said, maybe your post actually just comes down to asking that I don’t continue critiquing OhayoKD’s analysis anymore, which is actually fine with me since I’ve made my point and am now just responding to OhayoKD by saying that I’ve made my point and others can make up their mind.

[tsherkin]

How about, if you disagree with Ohayo, start your own thread for film analysis and use your measure there? Y'all have semantic and methodology differences, which is inevitable but this scrap isn't really productive...

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here. As I explained in an earlier post (see spoilered portion below), I think this exercise is so vague and subjective that I often don’t know how I’d apply it myself and I think that I’d probably come to different results if I did the analysis twice.

Honestly? A little less confrontational approach to his work. Disagreeing is fine, but there's a lot of negativity flowing and it isn't productive or conducive to good conversation. We've grokked for a while that you disagree, which is fair. But the phrasing isn't really helping.

If you don't want to try and arrange appropriate criteria, that's fine, but if all you're gonna do is bang the "this is too subjective" gong, then you've achieved that and don't really need to continue at this point.

[OhayoKD]

No, I did explain examples of your bias. You disagreeing that your own analysis was biased doesn’t make you right. Others can make up their minds.

That's not how accusations work buddy. I don't have to prove myself right. You have to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is yours. Now meet it.

Lol, I’ve already met it. You seem to think that you responding effectively erases the existence of someone’s prior posts and obligates them to respond back to you or you can act like they’ve conceded the argument. That’s not how it works.

That depends on the situation. And in the situation where someone decided to spent 2 pages making a baseless accusation, insisted it was too hard to actually assess bias, and then folded at the first instance of scrutiny, while also still insisting the other party was biased, taking it an admission you're full of **** is really the only way to operate. Lest you feel enabled to keep well-poisoning while struggling with the subjectivity of 2 defenders being > 0.

As a sidenote, this idea of applying a burden of proof here is odd. I think you’re invoking concepts you don’t exactly understand the application of. This isn’t a legal issue

It doesn't need to be. The Legal principle is rooted in a moral principle and the absence of a legal threat is not an excuse for your bull. If you can engage in doubling down on accusations, then you shall be expected to engage in defending the analysis justifying those accusations. Your failure to do should and will be held against you.

As it will be held against every single Jordan fan who decided to partake in your farce.

You bit off way more than you can chew. Either stop chewing, or swallow.

[lessthanjake]

That's not how accusations work buddy. I don't have to prove myself right. You have to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is yours. Now meet it.

Lol, I’ve already met it. You seem to think that you responding effectively erases the existence of someone’s prior posts and obligates them to respond back to you or you can act like they’ve conceded the argument. That’s not how it works.

That depends on the situation. And in the situation where someone decided to spent 2 pages making a baseless accusation, insisted it was too hard to actually assess bias, and then folded at the first instance of scrutiny, while also still insisting the other party was biased, taking it an admission you're full of **** is really the only way to operate. Lest you feel enabled to keep well-poisoning while struggling with the subjectivity of 2 defenders being > 0.

As a sidenote, this idea of applying a burden of proof here is odd. I think you’re invoking concepts you don’t exactly understand the application of. This isn’t a legal issue

It doesn't need to be. The Legal principle is rooted in a moral principle and the absence of a legal threat is not an excuse for your bull. If you can engage in doubling down on accusations, then you shall be expected to engage in defending the analysis justifying those accusations. Your failure to do should and will be held against you.

As it will be held against every single Jordan fan who decided to partake in your farce.

You bit off way more than you can chew. Either stop chewing, or swallow.

Lol, it’s quite ironic that this post comes hot on the heels of you having accused others of having “tantrums.” Anyways, I can see I’ve hit a real nerve for you, and I don’t think it’s productive to engage with someone who is behaving like this. It’s also really not substantively necessary IMO. As I’ve said, I’ve made my points. Others can read our posts and make up their own minds. I’m quite comfortable with that.