Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[Infinity2152]

Hes stupid for not taking the security . Anything could happen . This team is not good . Injuries happen. Down years happen .

I'd say he'd be pretty stupid to let the possibility of a career ending injury at 22, something that has less than a 5% chance, convince him to make a deal he feels will net him $60-$100 mill less guaranteed money over the next few years.

Scenario 1: He accepts the 3yr/22.5 mill AAV contract Bulls are reportedly at. He gets $67.5 mill next three years guaranteed. He plays the same or better than last year and he survives the season like most players do every year.

Scenario 2: He takes the QO. $11.1 mill this year. He plays the same or better than last year and survives the season, like most young players do.

We know he believed he was worth $30 mill AAV before he took over the team last season. Let's just assume his expected floor for improved 2026 Giddey is at least 4yr contract/$35 mill on an expanded cap. Max say $50 mill. 4yrs/$35 mill + 11.1 mill is $151.1 mill guaranteed. 4yrs/$50 mill +11.1 mill is 211.1 mill guaranteed.

$67 mill guaranteed vs expected range of $151.1 mill to $211.1 mill guaranteed. Even at $30 mill, which we KNOW he thinks he's already worth, in his mind all he has to do is play well and survive the season, like most young players do, and he's looking at $131 mill guaranteed vs $67 mill.

He would not be stupid to take the QO if he believes he's worth $30 mill right now. It would probably be a smart move, especially if he's worried about guaranteed money. Doesn't look likely he signs a 4yr contract at this point. May end up 2-3 years guaranteed. He take the QO and get a 4 year contract he has 5 years guaranteed and he just had to survive a year. Even at 25 mill he'd have much more guaranteed money over a longer period.

[nomorezorro]

I state that the outlier is idiotic, which is something no one is debating. It’s clearly not a number with any meaning. And that including an idiotic outlier - or whatever equally meaningless term you use to express the extreme nature of that data point - in a mean is a legitimate reason to question the credibility of the article in assessing how much value to give it.

And then I just restated that exact thing above to nomo, albeit it in a run on sentence rather than two sentences. It’s what I’ve been saying all along and then it veered into the also-challenged notion that disregarding outliers is valid in assessing data.

Yes, when someone makes the choice to aggregate the data in a questionable way it raises questions regarding credibility and the value of the conclusion - in this case the mean. This is hardly a novel concept. Except in this thread.

i think you are smart enough to know that you are conflating "credibility" and "usefulness"/"significance" in a way that makes it seem like it's reasonable to suggest an article/journalist/survey isn't credible just because of one hinky response

i also think you are treating the mean like it is the purpose of the survey, or the focus of the article, or even a particularly meaningful part of the article. it is a one-sentence, 14 word parenthetical in a 1,160 word article. that parenthetical is followed by 70+ words specifically highlighting that the lowest response is a significant outlier from someone who "admittedly isn't a fan of giddey's game" that does not necessarily comport with giddey's 2024-25 statline (and even more impressive end-of-season numbers)

it is, ultimately, a journalist quickly going "fyi, here's the average AAV from all the responses" before diving into the actual substance of the article. there is no claim to it being a rigorous statistical analysis. all the necessary context is included in the article to let the reader make an informed assessment of how useful they think any/all of the responses are, with extra emphasis given to the unusual nature of the one data point in question.

[Infinity2152]

Just for fun, can we debunk the theory it's safer for Giddey to take accept any offer the Bulls make him versus taking the QO.

Way they're going, let's go with 3-year contract, $24 mill AAV. I'll even give us a team option for year 4. Or 3 years straight, doesn't matter.

His guaranteed money is $72 mill. If he suffers a career ending injury in 2025, 2026, 2027, that's all the NBA money he ever sees.

He takes the QO. $11.1 mill. If he's injured in 2025, that's all he ever sees. Ok. He makes it, I'll lowball and say he gets 4yrs/$25 mill AAV. He gets career injured in 2026, 2027 he has $111 mill guaranteed.

He'd only have to average $12 mill total extra to make up for the $12 mill he lost taking the QO, and he has far more guaranteed money if his career injury is in 2026 or 2027, since he's worried about this low probability occurrence. If the goal is more guaranteed money in case of career ending injury.

So technically, if his career ending injury happens at 22, he should have taken the cheap contract. Any year after that, he likely has more guaranteed money in the event of a career ending injury and a longer contract.

[nomorezorro]

this thread when josh giddey signs a 3 year/$70 million deal on august 29

Watch on YouTube

[dougthonus]

I state that the outlier is idiotic, which is something no one is debating. It’s clearly not a number with any meaning. And that including an idiotic outlier - or whatever equally meaningless term you use to express the extreme nature of that data point - in a mean is a legitimate reason to question the credibility of the article in assessing how much value to give it.

And then I just restated that exact thing above to nomo, albeit it in a run on sentence rather than two sentences. It’s what I’ve been saying all along and then it veered into the also-challenged notion that disregarding outliers is valid in assessing data.

Yes, when someone makes the choice to aggregate the data in a questionable way it raises questions regarding credibility and the value of the conclusion - in this case the mean. This is hardly a novel concept. Except in this thread.

No one starts data analysis by removing data before even doing any work. As I demonstrated by reversing the data out, the removal of the data would have no impact on any conclusions or points made in the article, nor does it meaningfully move any numbers reported. There are many metrics used in the article, and this number only impacts the mean.

The mean is not talked about at length in the article and isn't the basis point for any conclusions drawn. The mean moves from 22.3 to 22.9 with the removal of this data point which is a rounding error in terms of NBA contracts and feels entirely irrelevant. Do you think even slightly differently about any data given if the mean is 22.9M?

Based on that, no, I don't think it is a rational argument to say you should remove it, nor do I think anyone even remotely serious about data science would remove it.

The number itself is 12.4M off mean without it included, 12.4M in the other direction is 35.3M. If one person said 35.3M would you want that removed from the mean? I wouldn't make that argument either and would think it's equally ridiculous.

I suspect not a single person would be complaining about the mentioning of that outlier or its inclusion, because the complaints feel like a thinly veiled attack on the overall conclusion that the most aggressive and optimistic people in the NBA placed Giddey's value at 25M which is well below many opinions here, and I would suspect well below your opinion as well.

[dougthonus]

Just for fun, can we debunk the theory it's safer for Giddey to take accept any offer the Bulls make him versus taking the QO.

Way they're going, let's go with 3-year contract, $24 mill AAV. I'll even give us a team option for year 4. Or 3 years straight, doesn't matter.

His guaranteed money is $72 mill. If he suffers a career ending injury in 2025, 2026, 2027, that's all the NBA money he ever sees.

He takes the QO. $11.1 mill. If he's injured in 2025, that's all he ever sees. Ok. He makes it, I'll lowball and say he gets 4yrs/$25 mill AAV. He gets career injured in 2026, 2027 he has $111 mill guaranteed.

He'd only have to average $12 mill total extra to make up for the $12 mill he lost taking the QO, and he has far more guaranteed money if his career injury is in 2026 or 2027, since he's worried about this low probability occurrence. If the goal is more guaranteed money in case of career ending injury.

So technically, if his career ending injury happens at 22, he should have taken the cheap contract. Any year after that, he likely has more guaranteed money in the event of a career ending injury and a longer contract.

Based on the market data I provided, his FMV is 4/100. That's the most anyone could pay him given they can't do 5 years and no one was over 25M per year. If you use 1/11 (QO) + 25M AAV (FMV AAV), you get 3/61, 4/86, or 5/112 as his risk adjusted deals based on his QO + new contract.

I'd guess the Bulls would sign him to any of those deals today without questioning it. Based on that, I would say Giddey is unlikely to be in a situation where the risk/reward proposition makes sense for him to take the QO. The bulls present reported offer of 4/80 is already in the ballpark, feels really unlikely to me that they wouldn't move to any one of those above deals easily.

As I've said before, I'd guess this gets done at 25M and both sides really just end up haggling over years / options. Hard to say what both sides want there, but I'd guess 4/100 no options feels like the most fair deal to me. Not that either side has to land on fair.

[DuckIII]

i think you are smart enough to know that you are conflating "credibility" and "usefulness"/"significance" in a way that makes it seem like it's reasonable to suggest an article/journalist/survey isn't credible just because of one hinky response

I have explicitly now three separate times said that the use of the random outlier in the mean calls into question the credibility AND value of the study. Yes, I'm absolutely saying that when you see someone do something like that, and you are assessing the merit of the data, it is absolutely appropriate to then question its credibility when continuing to assess it. I did say that, and I did mean it, and then I said it two more times. So hopefully that is abundantly clear at this point, and that we agree its exactly what I was doing. And if a survey is not credible, it lacks value or you have to play with the data yourself to get to a set that is more useful. Hence why from the very beginning you see me use credibility and value together in all these posts.

i also think you are treating the mean like it is the purpose of the survey, or the focus of the article, or even a particularly meaningful part of the article. it is a one-sentence, 14 word parenthetical in a 1,160 word article. that parenthetical is followed by 70+ words specifically highlighting that the lowest response is a significant outlier from someone who "admittedly isn't a fan of giddey's game" that does not necessarily comport with giddey's 2024-25 statline (and even more impressive end-of-season numbers)

This is an easy one. Whomever posted it chose the quoted sections. Its a pay article. My comments have only been about the part of the article posters chose to post and discuss.

it is, ultimately, a journalist quickly going "fyi, here's the average AAV from all the responses" before diving into the actual substance of the article. there is no claim to it being a rigorous statistical analysis. all the necessary context is included in the article to let the reader make an informed assessment of how useful they think any/all of the responses are, with extra emphasis given to the unusual nature of the one data point in question.

Same response. Also, the only thing I've said in this whole discussion is that its appropriate in a wide variety of fields of data analysis, throwing out bizarre outliers is common to reach a more meaningful conclusion and so there's nothing "wild" about Strat raising that specific complaint since its not only common, but perfectly valid. And then really weirdly people acted like that's not accurate, when it is, so I debated it.

[DuckIII]

I state that the outlier is idiotic, which is something no one is debating. It’s clearly not a number with any meaning. And that including an idiotic outlier - or whatever equally meaningless term you use to express the extreme nature of that data point - in a mean is a legitimate reason to question the credibility of the article in assessing how much value to give it.

And then I just restated that exact thing above to nomo, albeit it in a run on sentence rather than two sentences. It’s what I’ve been saying all along and then it veered into the also-challenged notion that disregarding outliers is valid in assessing data.

Yes, when someone makes the choice to aggregate the data in a questionable way it raises questions regarding credibility and the value of the conclusion - in this case the mean. This is hardly a novel concept. Except in this thread.

No one starts data analysis by removing data before even doing any work. As I demonstrated by reversing the data out, the removal of the data would have no impact on any conclusions or points made in the article, nor does it meaningfully move any numbers reported. There are many metrics used in the article, and this number only impacts the mean.

The mean is not talked about at length in the article and isn't the basis point for any conclusions drawn. The mean moves from 22.3 to 22.9 with the removal of this data point which is a rounding error in terms of NBA contracts and feels entirely irrelevant. Do you think even slightly differently about any data given if the mean is 22.9M?

Based on that, no, I don't think it is a rational argument to say you should remove it, nor do I think anyone even remotely serious about data science would remove it.

The number itself is 12.4M off mean without it included, 12.4M in the other direction is 35.3M. If one person said 35.3M would you want that removed from the mean? I wouldn't make that argument either and would think it's equally ridiculous.

I suspect not a single person would be complaining about the mentioning of that outlier or its inclusion, because the complaints feel like a thinly veiled attack on the overall conclusion that the most aggressive and optimistic people in the NBA placed Giddey's value at 25M which is well below many opinions here, and I would suspect well below your opinion as well.

None of my comments have been about what Giddey will or should get. Find me even one. I haven’t given a thought to what he’ll get in months because I know a deal is going to get done in a reasonable range.

I was making an academic point - about which I am 100% right - about critiquing data compilations in studies. And then the rest happened.

You can argue the data point should be included til the cows come home. I won’t argue against it. Was never the point.

And to be clear:

The number itself is 12.4M off mean without it included, 12.4M in the other direction is 35.3M. If one person said 35.3M would you want that removed from the mean?

Yes! That’s the whole point! And I’ve already said that at least once. Mutiple times now you have tried to make a point only for me to tell you I already explicitly addressed it. It’s hard to debate you when you aren’t even reading what I’m saying.

[sco]

Man, I really like how Josh finished last season, but the passion around signing him and making sure he's happy is reaching a Ievel I can't remember happening on this board on the 20+ years of being here. It's crazy!

IMO, we haven't had a legitimately great player on this team in so long, we don't know what one looks like. I don't think that it's Josh. IMO, he's good...ie a top 15 starting "PG", with top 10 potential, and those guys have value, but really don't deserve the level of arguing I see here. Some here are pretending that there is really a "right" market price for good, but not elite players...there is, but it's a range of MLE to $35M.

I want to keep him. I don't think he'll play remotely differently or change his view about wanting to stay whether he signs a $20M or $30M deal.

I'm sure of 2 things: 1 that AK won't let him leave...he has too much tied up (reputationally) in keeping him after the Caruso trade. And 2, Josh is unlikely to find another situation where he will look as good or have as much value to his team.

Wouldn't that depend on whether your opinion of Giddey in the short time he's been here is correct? Seriously doubt any of the Giddey detractors actually watched him much before he got here, and he played pretty damn well here after he got his legs under him and Lavine was gone.

What if Giddey is actually going to be a star? As defined by stats and awards, not any advanced stats that people use to criticize him. Because they can't use his actual stats from last year. You're saying he's good, but not elite. Define elite. Is 20pt close to triple double elite? Can 10-20% of the players in the NBA do what he does if put in the exact same position? We're talking about a possible 4–5-year contract for a 22-year-old. Most players hit their prime around 25, 26, 27 so whether he's elite now really doesn't say much about whether he's elite at 25, when he would still be under contract unless we mess up.

It's fine you think he's a good, not elite player and won't be that during the duration of his contract, isn't it fine for people to think the opposite? If you think the opposite, doesn't it make sense those people would be more concerned about keeping him and willing to pay him more?

In this age of feelings, sensitivity, players demanding out every year, tons of endorsement and internet money available to players, I think it's more important than ever to have young players here who actually want to be here and feel appreciated. Players are asking to be traded nearly every year. Our team is young, player turnover is high and he's likely an important part. Chemistry means something. Anyone can disagree, doesn't make them right. My opinion, their opinion.

It's like we're not supposed to value keeping any Bulls players, no belief, no support, just criticism. Of pretty much every Bulls player except Caruso, who missed a ton of games, and the Great Matas and his half season of good play. If you're not a two way superstar, you're not good enough to be on this low talent team. Guys better than 90% of this team aren't good enough to be here, almost nobody in the league. We have two players on this team that look like maybe they could be stars, big surprise guys are really supporting the 22 year old who energized our entire team? Should we all dump on him?

So are you saying that he IS elite or COULD BECOME elite?

[dougthonus]

Jesus Christ. None of my comments have been about what Giddey will or should get. Find me even one. I haven’t seen Ben given thought to what he’ll get in months because I know a deal is going to get done in a reasonable range.

I was making an academic point - about which I am 100% right - about critiquing data compilations in studies. And then the rest happened.

Your academic point is not correct.

Removing data from a study is not a default pattern. It's an acceptable pattern to remove outliers if you disclose their removal and have reason to do it.

You've not shown any reason to do it. I backed out the data for you since you decided to attack the author without reading the article or doing any work to show whether the data actually had an impact. The mean moves from 22.3 to 22.9 with the removal of this point. The mean is not featured in the article for any conclusions or mentioned again.

I see no demonstrable reason to remove it, but I also wouldn't care if they removed it and noted it. You've not shown any reason to remove it, and your argument is based on an incorrect view of data science as, again, you don't start this type of work by removing data.

[dougthonus]

The number itself is 12.4M off mean without it included, 12.4M in the other direction is 35.3M. If one person said 35.3M would you want that removed from the mean?

Yes! That’s the whole point! And I’ve already said that at least once. Mutiple times now you have tried to make a point only for me to tell you I already explicitly addressed it. It’s hard to debate you when you aren’t even reading what I’m saying.

If someone included a 35.3M value, I sure as hell would want to know and would find it absolutely outrageous to not have that info included. Though same stipulations, inclusion in the mean isn't really important to me, but not disclosing the number in the article would be outrageous.

[dougthonus]

FWIW,

For

and

you guys

Apologies on any overstated points, I don't agree with the assertion about how the two of you view the data based on the impact and usage within the article, but probably went overboard in my arguments as I tend to do on the internet.

[Infinity2152]

Man, I really like how Josh finished last season, but the passion around signing him and making sure he's happy is reaching a Ievel I can't remember happening on this board on the 20+ years of being here. It's crazy!

IMO, we haven't had a legitimately great player on this team in so long, we don't know what one looks like. I don't think that it's Josh. IMO, he's good...ie a top 15 starting "PG", with top 10 potential, and those guys have value, but really don't deserve the level of arguing I see here. Some here are pretending that there is really a "right" market price for good, but not elite players...there is, but it's a range of MLE to $35M.

I want to keep him. I don't think he'll play remotely differently or change his view about wanting to stay whether he signs a $20M or $30M deal.

I'm sure of 2 things: 1 that AK won't let him leave...he has too much tied up (reputationally) in keeping him after the Caruso trade. And 2, Josh is unlikely to find another situation where he will look as good or have as much value to his team.

Wouldn't that depend on whether your opinion of Giddey in the short time he's been here is correct? Seriously doubt any of the Giddey detractors actually watched him much before he got here, and he played pretty damn well here after he got his legs under him and Lavine was gone.

What if Giddey is actually going to be a star? As defined by stats and awards, not any advanced stats that people use to criticize him. Because they can't use his actual stats from last year. You're saying he's good, but not elite. Define elite. Is 20pt close to triple double elite? Can 10-20% of the players in the NBA do what he does if put in the exact same position? We're talking about a possible 4–5-year contract for a 22-year-old. Most players hit their prime around 25, 26, 27 so whether he's elite now really doesn't say much about whether he's elite at 25, when he would still be under contract unless we mess up.

It's fine you think he's a good, not elite player and won't be that during the duration of his contract, isn't it fine for people to think the opposite? If you think the opposite, doesn't it make sense those people would be more concerned about keeping him and willing to pay him more?

In this age of feelings, sensitivity, players demanding out every year, tons of endorsement and internet money available to players, I think it's more important than ever to have young players here who actually want to be here and feel appreciated. Players are asking to be traded nearly every year. Our team is young, player turnover is high and he's likely an important part. Chemistry means something. Anyone can disagree, doesn't make them right. My opinion, their opinion.

It's like we're not supposed to value keeping any Bulls players, no belief, no support, just criticism. Of pretty much every Bulls player except Caruso, who missed a ton of games, and the Great Matas and his half season of good play. If you're not a two way superstar, you're not good enough to be on this low talent team. Guys better than 90% of this team aren't good enough to be here, almost nobody in the league. We have two players on this team that look like maybe they could be stars, big surprise guys are really supporting the 22 year old who energized our entire team? Should we all dump on him?

So are you saying that he IS elite or COULD BECOME elite?

Why can't he become elite? Are all elite players super athletes? Elite in what way? I'd consider a guy bringing 23 pts, 8rbs, 9assts as elite and valuable as a player bringing 28pts, 4rbs, 4 assts, which is probably All-Star numbers. 450 players in the league. Top 45 is top 10%. Yes, I believe Giddey could be a top 45 player. He's putting up 20 pt triple doubles at 21, but he can't be elite at 25? Why?

Doug, great breakdown of contract value. I agree with you. Problem is, what we think Giddey's fair market value is irrelevant as far as Giddey's expectations. If Giddey believes his fair market value is $30 mill, those numbers change.

Somebody said he'd be stupid to turn down guaranteed money and take the QO. Bulls are not even at $23 mill AAV to my knowledge. If/when Giddey makes his decision and calculations using $30 mill as his AAV floor, and 4-5 years as his projected contract length to get maximum guaranteed money, vs say a 3yr/$70 mill, risk/reward changes with the QO.

He wouldn't have to be "stupid" if his (and his agent's) estimate of market value is more accurate than others. The estimate would be primarily his market value next summer, not this one. No one knows what that will be, or can even give a close estimate. Not just an emotional reaction, although I believe Kuminga was fine re-signing with the Warriors at the start of FA. Reports are that he does not want to play there anymore now.

It's people acting like taking the QO is unthinkable. It's not. It's a calculated risk, and those calculations depend on the number he believes are accurate.

[DuckIII]

Jesus Christ. None of my comments have been about what Giddey will or should get. Find me even one. I haven’t seen Ben given thought to what he’ll get in months because I know a deal is going to get done in a reasonable range.

I was making an academic point - about which I am 100% right - about critiquing data compilations in studies. And then the rest happened.

Your academic point is not correct.

Removing data from a study is not a default pattern. It's an acceptable pattern to remove outliers if you disclose their removal and have reason to do it.

Oh my god doug, we just discussed this like a page or two ago. I didn't say remove it from the study. I said remove it from the final compilation with an explicit reference to what the outlier data was and a statement for why it was removed. That's how its done. Like literally, in peer reviewed articles and academic journals. I have to read this **** all the time for work and apply these principles.

And I didn't say its a default pattern. You're making an army of strawmen. I said its a perfectly valid and common criticism of a study that includes obvious outliers in its final conclusions and data compilations. I did not say studies don't or shouldn't include and discuss outliers. I said the opposite. Please actually read my posts.

You've not shown any reason to do it. I backed out the data for you since you decided to attack the author without reading the article or doing any work to show whether the data actually had an impact. The mean moves from 22.3 to 22.9 with the removal of this point. The mean is not featured in the article for any conclusions or mentioned again.

I see no demonstrable reason to remove it, but I also wouldn't care if they removed it and noted it. You've not shown any reason to remove it, and your argument is based on an incorrect view of data science as, again, you don't start this type of work by removing data.

Its fine that you don't want to remove it. What the hell is going on here?

[jnrjr79]

Just for fun, can we debunk the theory it's safer for Giddey to take accept any offer the Bulls make him versus taking the QO.

Way they're going, let's go with 3-year contract, $24 mill AAV. I'll even give us a team option for year 4. Or 3 years straight, doesn't matter.

His guaranteed money is $72 mill. If he suffers a career ending injury in 2025, 2026, 2027, that's all the NBA money he ever sees.

He takes the QO. $11.1 mill. If he's injured in 2025, that's all he ever sees. Ok. He makes it, I'll lowball and say he gets 4yrs/$25 mill AAV. He gets career injured in 2026, 2027 he has $111 mill guaranteed.

He'd only have to average $12 mill total extra to make up for the $12 mill he lost taking the QO, and he has far more guaranteed money if his career injury is in 2026 or 2027, since he's worried about this low probability occurrence. If the goal is more guaranteed money in case of career ending injury.

So technically, if his career ending injury happens at 22, he should have taken the cheap contract. Any year after that, he likely has more guaranteed money in the event of a career ending injury and a longer contract.

I think it would be smarter for him to take whatever he can get now, potentially on a shorter deal, and reenter free agency in his mid-20s.

Yes, the probability of him having a career-ending injury this upcoming season is very low. But the financial result would be extremely significant. He's so young that he'll have plenty of time to make big bucks if he turns into a very productive player. I wouldn't chance it, but I'm fairly risk-averse by nature.

[jnrjr79]

i think you are smart enough to know that you are conflating "credibility" and "usefulness"/"significance" in a way that makes it seem like it's reasonable to suggest an article/journalist/survey isn't credible just because of one hinky response

I have explicitly now three separate times said that the use of the random outlier in the mean calls into question the credibility AND value of the study. Yes, I'm absolutely saying that when you see someone do something like that, and you are assessing the merit of the data, it is absolutely appropriate to then question its credibility when continuing to assess it. I did say that, and I did mean it, and then I said it two more times. So hopefully that is abundantly clear at this point, and that we agree its exactly what I was doing. And if a survey is not credible, it lacks value or you have to play with the data yourself to get to a set that is more useful. Hence why from the very beginning you see me use credibility and value together in all these posts.

It makes no sense to question the credibility of the study based upon a throwaway reference to the mean when including the data point you don't like did not have a material impact on the mean in the first place.

i also think you are treating the mean like it is the purpose of the survey, or the focus of the article, or even a particularly meaningful part of the article. it is a one-sentence, 14 word parenthetical in a 1,160 word article. that parenthetical is followed by 70+ words specifically highlighting that the lowest response is a significant outlier from someone who "admittedly isn't a fan of giddey's game" that does not necessarily comport with giddey's 2024-25 statline (and even more impressive end-of-season numbers)

This is an easy one. Whomever posted it chose the quoted sections. Its a pay article. My comments have only been about the part of the article posters chose to post and discuss.

I think Doug and I both posted snippets from it. I chose the section I chose because Infinity asked a question when someone made reference to an article having been published based on 16 front office employees. But it is inappropriate to be condemning the whole article as you're doing when you haven't read it. What is appropriate is to say "I haven't read the whole thing, so I can't determine whether the thing I'm critical of in this quote is really a big deal without seeing the broader context."

it is, ultimately, a journalist quickly going "fyi, here's the average AAV from all the responses" before diving into the actual substance of the article. there is no claim to it being a rigorous statistical analysis. all the necessary context is included in the article to let the reader make an informed assessment of how useful they think any/all of the responses are, with extra emphasis given to the unusual nature of the one data point in question.

Same response. Also, the only thing I've said in this whole discussion is that its appropriate in a wide variety of fields of data analysis, throwing out bizarre outliers is common to reach a more meaningful conclusion and so there's nothing "wild" about Strat raising that specific complaint since its not only common, but perfectly valid. And then really weirdly people acted like that's not accurate, when it is, so I debated it.

I agree it's sometimes ok to excise outlier data. But given it makes no material difference here to the mean, and given the mean is not a focus of the article, I don't think it's something anyone should be worried about.

[jnrjr79]

Yes! That’s the whole point! And I’ve already said that at least once. Mutiple times now you have tried to make a point only for me to tell you I already explicitly addressed it. It’s hard to debate you when you aren’t even reading what I’m saying.

In that instance, that would actually be a terrible decision. Because NBA contracts are not a product of the mean but are rather the product of "what's the most anyone with cap space would pay this guy," it would be super duper relevant to know there is some team in the league that values Giddey significantly higher than others. The fact that one team is way down on him is less relevant because it just means that team just won't sign him. But knowing someone would be willing to go to $35M? That's a big deal.

[DuckIII]

The number itself is 12.4M off mean without it included, 12.4M in the other direction is 35.3M. If one person said 35.3M would you want that removed from the mean?

Yes! That’s the whole point! And I’ve already said that at least once. Mutiple times now you have tried to make a point only for me to tell you I already explicitly addressed it. It’s hard to debate you when you aren’t even reading what I’m saying.

If someone included a 35.3M value, I sure as hell would want to know and would find it absolutely outrageous to not have that info included. Though same stipulations, inclusion in the mean isn't really important to me, but not disclosing the number in the article would be outrageous.

So for about the 5th time now I’ll repeat that the outlier data should be present. It’s a question of usage. Actually it’s a question of whether or not the criticism directed at its usage was valid.

[DropStep]

You're not wrong though, he is a tricky player to evaluate, because there simply aren't that many comparable to him as far as NBA skillset goes, and he is one of those players that either excel or flounder based on the type of players around him and he definitely is suited to a specific style of play.

I haven't done the homework on this, but when I think of comps I keep coming back to Ben Simmons, who started out better than Giddey and then, well, things happened. But the size, rebounding, elite passing skills and suspect shooting kind of bring me there. I guess you'd be swapping early Simmons's defensive chops and better ability to get to the basket for Giddey's relative lack of neuroses and hopefully improving shot?

[DuckIII]

In that instance, that would actually be a terrible decision. Because NBA contracts are not a product of the mean but are rather the product of "what's the most anyone with cap space would pay this guy," it would be super duper relevant to know there is some team in the league that values Giddey significantly higher than others. The fact that one team is way down on him is less relevant because it just means that team just won't sign him. But knowing someone would be willing to go to $35M? That's a big deal.

It would be relevant if the team had cap space. But if there were such a team that viewed Giddey this way we wouldn’t be dealing in hypotheticals. Otherwise it’s just an isolated wild outlier in the opposite direction.