Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[jnrjr79]

Wait. A "front office staffer" admitted he was talking BS and yet they included his ridiculous12.5 mil a year in the calculations? What kind of reporting did that lol.

No one said they were talking BS. They admitted their opinion would be an outlier because they don't like his game. That seems quite different than "BS". How credible you want to take the whole article is certainly up for debate. Who knows what motivations people had for their answers or who specifically in the orgs was being asked. That said, assuming the author didn't fabricate it, it's a much better data point than any other data points that exist.

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

"I don't like this guy as much as others do, and therefore I wouldn't pay him as much as others would" does not make a guy an "idiot."

[jnrjr79]

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

Ignoring this particular case, outlier data can be very important to consider and often reveals something useful to avoid group think. In terms of both largest risks and largest opportunities, it is outlier data that often reveals these things. That data shouldn't ever be hidden, but should be reviewed in context correctly.

In this particular case, I think the above was done correctly. It was pointed out as an outlier and the emphasis in the conclusion was on the commonality in both dollars and deal length.

The thought that someone loses integrity by presenting the actual data in a balanced way is pretty abhorrent to me and seems like a trend that has become quite popular today.

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

Your analogy is inapt. The staffer wasn't predicting what Giddey would get; he was saying what he would pay Giddey, while acknowledging others would pay more.

Trying to turn this into lying or trolling is odd.

[Red8911]

i think we can get everyone to agree on his precise value if we spend 100 more pages having the same argument

I doubt it.Its been the same arguments over and over again since page 1 without an agreement.

Turned into a continuous cycle,another 500 pages wouldn’t change anything.

90% of this threads posts are also Doughtonus doing most of the arguing with everyone lol.

[Stratmaster]

No one said they were talking BS. They admitted their opinion would be an outlier because they don't like his game. That seems quite different than "BS". How credible you want to take the whole article is certainly up for debate. Who knows what motivations people had for their answers or who specifically in the orgs was being asked. That said, assuming the author didn't fabricate it, it's a much better data point than any other data points that exist.

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

"I don't like this guy as much as others do, and therefore I wouldn't pay him as much as others would" does not make a guy an "idiot."

No it doesn't. The amount he gave makes him an idiot. It is asinine four anyone to even try to justify it.

[PaKii94]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

[Stratmaster]

Ignoring this particular case, outlier data can be very important to consider and often reveals something useful to avoid group think. In terms of both largest risks and largest opportunities, it is outlier data that often reveals these things. That data shouldn't ever be hidden, but should be reviewed in context correctly.

In this particular case, I think the above was done correctly. It was pointed out as an outlier and the emphasis in the conclusion was on the commonality in both dollars and deal length.

The thought that someone loses integrity by presenting the actual data in a balanced way is pretty abhorrent to me and seems like a trend that has become quite popular today.

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

Your analogy is inapt. The staffer wasn't predicting what Giddey would get; he was saying what he would pay Giddey, while acknowledging others would pay more.

Trying to turn this into lying or trolling is odd.

Twist and shout all you want. There is no way that number is anywhere near reasonable. You know it. Doug knows it. I know it. The reporters knew it. But they included it anyway. Hey. I just polled 16 women I know who think Giddey is good. Oh... and they all think Giddey is cute. They all said pay him the max.

It's called bias.

By the way, the correct answer based on the staffers opinion was "I wouldn't pay him anything because he is not a piece I want on my team"

[DuckIII]

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

Ignoring this particular case, outlier data can be very important to consider and often reveals something useful to avoid group think. In terms of both largest risks and largest opportunities, it is outlier data that often reveals these things. That data shouldn't ever be hidden, but should be reviewed in context correctly.

In this particular case, I think the above was done correctly. It was pointed out as an outlier and the emphasis in the conclusion was on the commonality in both dollars and deal length.

The thought that someone loses integrity by presenting the actual data in a balanced way is pretty abhorrent to me and seems like a trend that has become quite popular today.

[DuckIII]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

I'd like the article re-written to include Josh Giddey's agent's opinion as a legitimate data point. And his mother's. These outlier data points, even though acknowledged as tainted by unreasonable subjective preferences, is absolutely critical and much lacking in our sadly deficient discourse in modern America. It may, in fact, save us all.

[GetBuLLish]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

The guy wrote an article based on what people within organizations would pay Giddey. Including the outlier and specifically pointing out that it was an outlier is, by far, the most reasonable way of approaching it.

I know this is upsetting to hear, but believe it or not, just because a player dons a Bulls jersey doesn't mean every other person around the league falls in love with the player the way Bulls fans here do.

[GetBuLLish]

I'd like the article re-written to include Josh Giddey's agent's opinion as a legitimate data point. And his mother's. These outlier data points, even though acknowledged as tainted by unreasonable subjective preferences, is absolutely critical and much lacking in our sadly deficient discourse in modern America. It may, in fact, save us all.

If you were trying to prove Doug's point, I don't think you could have done a better job.

[DuckIII]

Ignoring this particular case, outlier data can be very important to consider and often reveals something useful to avoid group think. In terms of both largest risks and largest opportunities, it is outlier data that often reveals these things. That data shouldn't ever be hidden, but should be reviewed in context correctly.

In this particular case, I think the above was done correctly. It was pointed out as an outlier and the emphasis in the conclusion was on the commonality in both dollars and deal length.

The thought that someone loses integrity by presenting the actual data in a balanced way is pretty abhorrent to me and seems like a trend that has become quite popular today.

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

Your analogy is inapt. The staffer wasn't predicting what Giddey would get; he was saying what he would pay Giddey, while acknowledging others would pay more.

Trying to turn this into lying or trolling is odd.

I think the complaint here is even including that opinion at all as a legitimate data point in discussing Giddey's contract value. If 20 of us are having a debate about the reasonable cost of a restaurant quality burger, and 18 people say between $11-14 dollars and two people say they don't like burgers and so wouldn't pay more than a dollar, two of those opinions aren't relevant and would be rejected in trying to reach any meaningful consensus.

Basically, the opinion of the guy who openly says he doesn't want Giddey on his team so throws out an insulting number to express his distaste doesn't mean any more than Giddey's mom's opinion.

[Stratmaster]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

I'd like the article re-written to include Josh Giddey's agent's opinion as a legitimate data point. And his mother's. These outlier data points, even though acknowledged as tainted by unreasonable subjective preferences, is absolutely critical and much lacking in our sadly deficient discourse in modern America. It may, in fact, save us all.

Well played

[Stratmaster]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

The guy wrote an article based on what people within organizations would pay Giddey. Including the outlier and specifically pointing out that it was an outlier is, by far, the most reasonable way of approaching it.

I know this is upsetting to hear, but believe it or not, just because a player dons a Bulls jersey doesn't mean every other person around the league falls in love with the player the way Bulls fans here do.

Oh FFS. Ok. I'll play... again.

Do you see this survey as a useful way of setting what Giddey's FMV is? Just to prove I am playing fair, I will give you at least 4 reasons it should be discounted immediately without any consideration.

[DuckIII]

I'd like the article re-written to include Josh Giddey's agent's opinion as a legitimate data point. And his mother's. These outlier data points, even though acknowledged as tainted by unreasonable subjective preferences, is absolutely critical and much lacking in our sadly deficient discourse in modern America. It may, in fact, save us all.

If you were trying to prove Doug's point, I don't think you could have done a better job.

Only if the opinion of the front office person were not revealed up front to be unreasonably subjectively negative, the same way it would be from someone subjectively unreasonably positive. But that was part of the article. The justification was "I just don't like his game" followed by throwing out a number that everyone reading would recognize as so outrageously unreasonable as to be facetious to make a point.

[jnrjr79]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

This is right and this is the point - the guy is admitting he would not pay the market price for Giddey. Saying he would sign Giddey to that number does not make Giddey's market value that number, and the article says as much.

People getting mad that there's a single front office person that does not want to pay Giddey is bizarre. I presume this happens all the time - some front office likes a guy substantially more or less than the general consensus.

[GetBuLLish]

Oh FFS. Ok. I'll play... again.

Do you see this survey as a useful way of setting what Giddey's FMV is? Just to prove I am playing fair, I will give you at least 4 reasons it should be discounted immediately without any consideration.

Yes, I find it very useful hearing front people in various front offices opine about what they would value Giddey at. In fact, negotiations between Giddey and the Bulls seem to be playing out pretty consistent with what those front office members stated in the article.

Go ahead and list all your reasons for discounting the article. Just understand there are probably 10x more reasons to discount what you believe to be Giddey's value.

[jnrjr79]

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

Your analogy is inapt. The staffer wasn't predicting what Giddey would get; he was saying what he would pay Giddey, while acknowledging others would pay more.

Trying to turn this into lying or trolling is odd.

I think the complaint here is even including that opinion at all as a legitimate data point in discussing Giddey's contract value. If 20 of us are having a debate about the reasonable cost of a restaurant quality burger, and 18 people say between $11-14 dollars and two people say they don't like burgers and so wouldn't pay more than a dollar, two of those opinions aren't relevant and would be rejected in trying to reach any meaningful consensus.

Basically, the opinion of the guy who openly says he doesn't want Giddey on his team so throws out an insulting number to express his distaste doesn't mean any more than Giddey's mom's opinion.

I mean, for crying out loud here Duck, the article literally says " a front-office staffer who admitted he would be far lower than the consensus because he wasn’t a fan of Giddey’s game..."

The article goes out of its way to say this opinion was an outlier and not part of the consensus, and yet you're saying the opinion "would be rejected in trying to reach any meaningful consensus." Yes, that's exactly what th article says!

[DuckIII]

The outlier point would be analyzed and then taken out after put into context. The context here is the guy doesn't like his game so no point in getting his opinion on contract value. His data point is still valuable to show that there is still uncertainty among people about if he's worth investing anything as a player.

This is like asking someone to estimate how much a bmw m5 is worth but one person is like screw bmw I don't like them I like benz amg but I'll offer $5k for the bmw. That doesn't make the m5 worth 5k and people aren't going to take that bid into serious consideration when evaluating the value of the m5

This is right and this is the point - the guy is admitting he would not pay the market price for Giddey. Saying he would sign Giddey to that number does not make Giddey's market value that number, and the article says as much.

People getting mad that there's a single front office person that does not want to pay Giddey is bizarre. I presume this happens all the time - some front office likes a guy substantially more or less than the general consensus.

That's not really what unfolded here. Strat criticized the inclusion of that data point in evaluating the merit of the over-all conclusion. Doug said it was a "wild take" to exclude it as an outlier data point. As someone who argues data points all the time, including through expert witnesses whose job is to evaluate the relative significance and weight of different data points and how that is to be factored in as well, I can tell you that chucking outliers - or questioning the inclusion of outliers in assessing a conclusion - is far from a "wild" or unreasonable approach. And in this case, I'd say its clearly the appropriate approach.

The odd part is people who seem to insist on defending its inclusion even though we all know its an utter hogwash number. If the number was $45 AAV would anyone seriously be saying its a valuable data point to weigh?

[jnrjr79]

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

Your analogy is inapt. The staffer wasn't predicting what Giddey would get; he was saying what he would pay Giddey, while acknowledging others would pay more.

Trying to turn this into lying or trolling is odd.

Twist and shout all you want. There is no way that number is anywhere near reasonable. You know it. Doug knows it. I know it. The reporters knew it. But they included it anyway. Hey. I just polled 16 women I know who think Giddey is good. Oh... and they all think Giddey is cute. They all said pay him the max.

It's called bias.

By the way, the correct answer based on the staffers opinion was "I wouldn't pay him anything because he is not a piece I want on my team"

The whole point here is that the number is not the market number and therefore this guy would effectively just not sign Giddey. The article admits as much. So this critique is very strange.

[Stratmaster]

Oh FFS. Ok. I'll play... again.

Do you see this survey as a useful way of setting what Giddey's FMV is? Just to prove I am playing fair, I will give you at least 4 reasons it should be discounted immediately without any consideration.

Yes, I find it very useful hearing front people in various front offices opine about what they would value Giddey at. In fact, negotiations between Giddey and the Bulls seem to be playing out pretty consistent with what those front office members stated in the article.

Go ahead and list all your reasons for discounting the article. Just understand there are probably 10x more reasons to discount what you believe to be Giddey's value.

I am within 2 mil of the figure they are at. That isn't the issue.

1. The question is worded ambiguously and doesn't ask for the info they want.

2. The parties being polled have inherent bias.

3. They don't state the sources. I don't mean names or team names. I mean positions. We know 1 is an "executive" and one is a "staffer". What kind of staffer? PR? What do they know about NBA salaries? What type of executive? How many are execs and how many are staffers?

4. They included obviously tainted, outlier opinions.

5. WTF is an "average mean"? Don't you first have to have multiple means to average them? Is it the average? Or the mean?

I can keep going. Back to the point. Including the staffer who said 12.5 mil was idiocy.