Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[nomorezorro]

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.

why are you acting like this dude hates giddey on a personal level and not on a "as a basketball evaluator, i do not think he is a particularly good player" level

it's like if you were having a debate about the reasonable cost of a specific restaurant burger, and a professional burger taster said "i know some people like the burgers at the place, but i actually think the burger is not very good and would not pay a lot of money for that burger."

[jnrjr79]

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.

If you'd bother to read the quote from the article, you'd see that all 16 people worked in NBA front offices, so no, it's not a PR person.

[DuckIII]

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..."

I know it says that. Its part of my point.

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!

It neither says nor does that. Either you are misreading the article, or that data point actually being excluded from the article's calculations is stated elsewhere in the article and not quoted in this thread. The portions quoted in this thread specifically refer to the "mean" point of the study and include all 16 data points - including the one that but for its inclusion would represent a mere 50% of that mean:

Fourteen of the 16 participants proposed an average annual salary between $20 million and $25 million. (His mean average yearly value in the poll came to $22.3 million a year.) One executive pinned him as an $18 million player. Another, a front-office staffer who admitted he would be far lower than the consensus because he wasn’t a fan of Giddey’s game, suggested $50 million over four years, $12.5 million a year

Further, I don't really need the article to tell me a 4 year deal to Giddey at less than the MLE is outside the consensus. No one does. It being so for outside the consensus is kind of the point being made here. Its not a serious data point. And yet it was included.

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

[DuckIII]

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.

why are you acting like this dude hates giddey on a personal level and not on a "as a basketball evaluator, i do not think he is a particularly good player" level

it's like if you were having a debate about the reasonable cost of a specific restaurant burger, and a professional burger taster said "i know some people like the burgers at the place, but i actually think the burger is not very good and would not pay a lot of money for that burger."

I really do think some of you are having totally different debate than the people you are debating are having.

[nomorezorro]

i am pretty confused at this point, i guess!

[GetBuLLish]

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

Big time "I'm not mad, you're mad!" energy.

[DuckIII]

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.

But you don't think its strange that the article "admits as much" but then still uses his obviously phony number in his mean calculation. To the point that you criticize people for pointing it out as an obvious flaw tainting the credibility of the study. To me, that is where it gets hard to follow.

[Stratmaster]

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.

If you'd bother to read the quote from the article, you'd see that all 16 people worked in NBA front offices, so no, it's not a PR person.

"NBA front office staff positions encompass a wide range of roles focused on both the business and basketball operations of a team. These roles involve player personnel, salary cap management, scouting, analytics, and marketing..."

But really? That was your take on what I posted?

[nomorezorro]

it's bad data analysis to discard a data point after the fact for being an outlier. they asked 16 people what they thought he was worth, and they reported that data. they also took the time at the beginning of the story to specifically emphasize how far outside of the consensus that one response was.

and they included each individual response in the full story, so you can calculate for yourself what the consensus on giddey would be if you just ignored that one response. (it bumps up the average AAV from $22.3 million to $23 million.)

[DuckIII]

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

Big time "I'm not mad, you're mad!" energy.

Ah GetBullish, always finding your way to a MAGA-style response in every discussion. Not interested in the rest of my post about the actual content of the article? Or just here to engage me with insults, as usual?

[Stratmaster]

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.

But you don't think its strange that the article "admits as much" but then still uses his obviously phony number in his mean calculation. To the point that you criticize people for pointing it out as an obvious flaw tainting the credibility of the study. To me, that is where it gets hard to follow.

It's not the position they are arguing with. It is the person stating it. I'm good with that. It's a message board. Proving the size of the member is more important than the point.

[jnrjr79]

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..."

I know it says that. Its part of my point.

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!

It neither says nor does that. Either you are misreading the article, or that data point actually being included from the article's calculations is stated elsewhere in the article and not quoted in this thread. The portions quoted in this thread specifically refer to the "mean" point of the study and include all 16 data points - including the one that but for its inclusion would represent a mere 50% of that mean:

Fourteen of the 16 participants proposed an average annual salary between $20 million and $25 million. (His mean average yearly value in the poll came to $22.3 million a year.) One executive pinned him as an $18 million player. Another, a front-office staffer who admitted he would be far lower than the consensus because he wasn’t a fan of Giddey’s game, suggested $50 million over four years, $12.5 million a year

Further, I don't really need the article to tell me a 4 year deal to Giddey at less than the MLE is outside the consensus. No one does. It being so for outside the consensus is kind of the point being made here. Its not a serious data point. And yet it was included.

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

Well, if you want to be critical of the article, it seems to me the right critique is that it's averaging the numbers at all, not that it's including an outlier data point. An NBA player's market value isn't determined by averaging - setting aside the limitations of who has cap space available, an NBA player is worth whatever the most any NBA team is willing to pay that player. The Bulls will probably luck out in this regard, though, since there aren't any other teams capable of bidding right now.

[DuckIII]

it's bad data analysis to discard a data point after the fact for being an outlier.

That's definitely not true in many, many circumstances. It is in fact a common and encouraged practice as part of the scientific method to remove outlier data from final conclusions and recommendations so long as the data point itself is not concealed but rather is accompanied by an explanation fo why it was excluded.

In this case that reason would be "Data point excluded due to expressed personal bias confirmed by presentation of facetious number."

I really don't see why anyone is defending it. Its a flaw. Strat rightly pointed it out. And even if for some objective reason you think it should be included as a data point (what that objective reason could be I can't really imagine since no is taking the position this is a real number to be taken seriously), Strat's criticism is hardly a "wild take" and is in fact a method of data analysis undertaken by experts in all fields every day.

[nomorezorro]

i don't understand the insistence that the response is facetious and the result of "bias". they asked people what they thought a fair contract would be for giddey. if you are a basketball evaluator who does not think giddey is a particularly valuable basketball player, you could earnestly and genuinely respond to that question with a pretty low number.

if someone was willing to pay him the max because they were really high on his game, that would also be a giant outlier, but it'd be a perfectly valid response. it's not "biased" in this context to have a heterodox evaluation of how good josh giddey is at basketball

[jnrjr79]

it's bad data analysis to discard a data point after the fact for being an outlier.

That's definitely not true in many, many circumstances. It is in fact a common and encouraged practice as part of the scientific method to remove outlier data from final conclusions and recommendations so long as the data point itself is not concealed but rather is accompanied by an explanation fo why it was excluded.

In this case that reason would be "Data point excluded due to expressed personal bias confirmed by presentation of facetious number."

I really don't see why anyone is defending it. Its a flaw. Strat rightly pointed it out. And even if for some objective reason you think it should be included as a data point (what that objective reason could be I can't really imagine since no is taking the position this is a real number to be taken seriously), Strat's criticism is hardly a "wild take" and is in fact a method of data analysis undertaken by experts in all fields every day.

Whoever this staffer is is no more biased than anyone else. Bias isn't even the right way to think about this. He was asked for his subjective opinion on what he would pay Josh Giddey, not to predict what Giddey will actually get. His number is not facetious (or, there's nothing in the article to suggest it is), he just wouldn't pay Giddey all that much.

I would not pay $50,000 for a Tesla Cybertruck, because I think they are stupid. My opinion in this regard, though, does not mean the correct market price for a Cybertruck is less than $50K. I wouldn't be being facetious, though, if you asked me what I'd pay for one and I said "not even 50 grand."

So, it's fine to include this data point in the average, as long as you understand that the average amount a front office person would pay is by definition going to be less than a player's market value, just like the average number someone would be willing to pay for something at an auction is not going to be the winning bid.

I think it's also useful to see it because it helps avoid the inevitable herding effects when you ask these sorts of questions.

[PaKii94]

Lol you can easily tell who actually does data analysis and who doesn't with this thread.

The outlier being not including in the averaging is valid. (Guy is just not interested in giddey)

Acknowledging why it's an outlier is valid. (There is at least some legitimate concerns/unknown about giddeys game that produced this outlier result)

A generic graph representing this situation is the one under model 3 below



The outlier is still "valid data" (present on the graph) but it's not heavily factored into when estimating the low high boundary on his market value

[Stratmaster]

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..."

I know it says that. Its part of my point.

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!

It neither says nor does that. Either you are misreading the article, or that data point actually being included from the article's calculations is stated elsewhere in the article and not quoted in this thread. The portions quoted in this thread specifically refer to the "mean" point of the study and include all 16 data points - including the one that but for its inclusion would represent a mere 50% of that mean:

Fourteen of the 16 participants proposed an average annual salary between $20 million and $25 million. (His mean average yearly value in the poll came to $22.3 million a year.) One executive pinned him as an $18 million player. Another, a front-office staffer who admitted he would be far lower than the consensus because he wasn’t a fan of Giddey’s game, suggested $50 million over four years, $12.5 million a year

Further, I don't really need the article to tell me a 4 year deal to Giddey at less than the MLE is outside the consensus. No one does. It being so for outside the consensus is kind of the point being made here. Its not a serious data point. And yet it was included.

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

Well, if you want to be critical of the article, it seems to me the right critique is that it's averaging the numbers at all, not that it's including an outlier data point. An NBA player's market value isn't determined by averaging - setting aside the limitations of who has cap space available, an NBA player is worth whatever the most any NBA team is willing to pay that player. The Bulls will probably luck out in this regard, though, since there aren't any other teams capable of bidding right now.

Yes. I haven't even gotten into the problems with lack of context.

Speaking of outliers; I guess the next point of contention would be whether one believes a one season outlier in available bidders is context that should be a main factor in establishing the fair value of a 3, 4, or 5 year contract.

[jnrjr79]

I know it says that. Its part of my point.



It neither says nor does that. Either you are misreading the article, or that data point actually being included from the article's calculations is stated elsewhere in the article and not quoted in this thread. The portions quoted in this thread specifically refer to the "mean" point of the study and include all 16 data points - including the one that but for its inclusion would represent a mere 50% of that mean:



Further, I don't really need the article to tell me a 4 year deal to Giddey at less than the MLE is outside the consensus. No one does. It being so for outside the consensus is kind of the point being made here. Its not a serious data point. And yet it was included.

No one is "mad" that one unnamed FO lackey has this opinion. If anything I'm encouraged because it means he can't be someone in our organization.

Well, if you want to be critical of the article, it seems to me the right critique is that it's averaging the numbers at all, not that it's including an outlier data point. An NBA player's market value isn't determined by averaging - setting aside the limitations of who has cap space available, an NBA player is worth whatever the most any NBA team is willing to pay that player. The Bulls will probably luck out in this regard, though, since there aren't any other teams capable of bidding right now.

Yes. I haven't even gotten into the problems with lack of context.

I'm presuming you haven't actually read the article (understandable, it's paywalled), but the article is not limited to what these front office employees think. It goes on to discuss factors that could result in Giddey getting more than these employees think is a "fair" deal - the Bulls have available money, Giddey finished the year really strongly, Giddey's agents will likely use the Patrick Williams contract against the Bulls, Giddey's agents will cite to the Suggs contract, etc. The context may not be in the snippet, but it's in the article.

Speaking of outliers; I guess the next point of contention would be whether one believes a one season outlier in available bidders is context that should be a main factor in establishing the fair value of a 3, 4, or 5 year contract.

Yeah, I think the whole point here is the fact that there is a dearth of cap space on the market means the Bulls may end up signing Giddey to a below-market contract, though obviously this isn't certain since the option to play on the QO exists.

[Stratmaster]

Lol you can easily tell who actually does data analysis and who doesn't with this thread.

The outlier being not including in the averaging is valid. (Guy is just not interested in giddey)

Acknowledging why it's an outlier is valid. (There is at least some legitimate concerns/unknown about giddeys game that produced this outlier result)

A generic graph representing this situation is the one under model 3 below



The outlier is still "valid data" (present on the graph) but it's not heavily factored into when estimating the low high boundary on his market value

So for those of us who you believe don't understand data analysis, help us understand what those graphs are stating and how it applies to this situation.

I don't disagree with your general statement. I am just curious how you are translating it. The vertical measure is listed as a weighting factor. How was the Athletic article end result weighted to adjust for the outlier ?

[DuckIII]

Well, if you want to be critical of the article, it seems to me the right critique is that it's averaging the numbers at all, not that it's including an outlier data point. An NBA player's market value isn't determined by averaging - setting aside the limitations of who has cap space available, an NBA player is worth whatever the most any NBA team is willing to pay that player. The Bulls will probably luck out in this regard, though, since there aren't any other teams capable of bidding right now.

My criticism is really just of criticism. Strat made a perfectly valid point - again, a legitimate method of critique used by experts in a massively wide variety of fields every day - and received responses like he was coming out of left field with some baseless concern. "Wild take" was the first phrase and then everyone started defending inclusion of the outlier.

Come on, many of these same posters minimize if not outright reject Giddey's performance post-Lavine trade in evaluating him as a player because its a statistical outlier in certain categories and they default to criticisms based on the larger, older historical data. Just like yesterday and the day before Doug said Giddey was "incapable" of contributing offensively off the ball despite that he shot 38% from 3 last year on 5 attempts per 36. The only way someone make that argument is by ignoring an entire year's worth of data (the most recent year's worth of data) because its unlike the prior 3 years. And that full season worth of objectively verifiable data matters substantively a hell of a lot more than one random FO employee's subjective opinion which no one disagrees is, in fact, utter nonsense.