What Statistic Would you Look at to Determine if a Player ..

[ILikeTheGrizz]

-= original quote snipped =-



You don't have to find every mult-var metric out there to compare to. Just fine 9 others. Regress, use excel, use your brain. Your argumentation sucks to the point that you can't acknowledge that you made an assertion and failed to provide adequate proof other than "trust me, it's the best for sure." Is PER "pretty good" in organizing a top 20 list? Yes. Is it the "best", like you said?

If it's not the best, prove it! Show me something that does it better. Don't rely on me to do your work- disproving my point- for you. Show me something that does it better or sulk away.

You're the one who brought up my graduate degree in this thread, not me.

I'm making fun of you for even bringing it up on a basketball website, like anyone cares.

And look at you now, qualifying yourself to me. If it really didn't matter, it'd be a dead issue. But there's a gap in logical reasoning between the two of us, and at the very least our respective education levels are a proxy for that.

No, I'm still just making fun of you.

That's why it's germane, because you need to admit when your reasoning is just plain BAD. By the way, you're making only a little less than me without a graduate degree? That's pretty amazing.
According to this USoPM table, http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/gs.asp you'd have to be Grade 15-Step 10 to be sniffing that kind of salary. A little suspect, especially without a Masters, much less a PhD (Econ PhD's in the DoC make under 120k a year), and without having accumulated more than 5 years of experience at a top position. Even Silicon Valley/SF DA's don't make 120k by their 2nd or 3rd year, and that's with a graduate degree.

http://www.nro.gov/

Look into it. When you already have a TS/SCI clearance with the appropriate accesses, you're fluent in another language, and have combat military experience, doors open up really easily.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



http://www.nro.gov/

Look into it. When you already have a TS/SCI clearance with the appropriate accesses, you're fluent in another language, and have combat military experience, doors open up really easily.

Burden of Proof is still on you. You'd think that with your background and position as a NRO Acquisition Analyst (Close to 160k? 100k is not close. And it's DEFINITELY not close pre-bonus) you'd understand what a positive assertion were, and how that forces you to prove its existence. Nobody has a negative obligation to prove your hypothesis for you.

[Reks]

why is finals MVP excluded?

[ILikeTheGrizz]

-= original quote snipped =-



Burden of Proof is still on you. You'd think that with your background and position as a NRO Acquisition Analyst (Close to 160k? 100k is not close. And it's DEFINITELY not close pre-bonus) you'd understand what a positive assertion were, and how that forces you to prove its existence. Nobody has a negative obligation to prove your hypothesis for you.

Are you gonna buy a personality that isn't obnoxious with all that money? Again, I'm not doing your work for you. Prove me wrong. Go.

[Optimism Prime]

-= original quote snipped =-



Are you gonna buy a personality that isn't obnoxious with all that money? Again, I'm not doing your work for you. Prove me wrong. Go.

Just from an outsider's perspective, this isn't really the best way to act in your first week on the boards...

[A.J.]

PPG

[EiRON]

Just like that one guy said

Kobe Bryant

[GJense4181]

why is finals MVP excluded?

Because there's a limit to how many poll options there can be.
Otherwise we'd have DPOY, ROY, Finals MVP, regular season MVP, All-NBA defensive teams, All-NBA teams, MIP, 6MOY, and so on, as well as ppg, rbg, apg, spg, bpg, FG%, FT%, 3PT%, pps, PER, and so on.
Wouldn't that be fun!

[Bgil]

-= original quote snipped =-



Burden of Proof is still on you. You'd think that with your background and position as a NRO Acquisition Analyst (Close to 160k? 100k is not close. And it's DEFINITELY not close pre-bonus) you'd understand what a positive assertion were, and how that forces you to prove its existence. Nobody has a negative obligation to prove your hypothesis for you.

Eatyourchildren, do you have an email addy where I can contact you? Tried to PM but apparently the mods disabled it.
Just wanna pick your brain about studying econ, finance, and business. I'm already 90% done with a degree in computer science but I know I want to be in the business and finance world. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

[benjipwns]

regress each of them against some objective ranking of the top 50 players

And just where would you ever be able to find an objective ranking?

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-


And just where would you ever be able to find an objective ranking?

That's a good point. I shouldn't have said objective, I should have said something like...a ranking by committee.


BGil: I tried to PM you but it didn't work. I don't want to give my email out here. If you use aim, you can tell me a screenname to msg you at, if that works. Doesn't have to be your actual one, just make up something.

[benjipwns]

Isn't that just cherry-picking until we find a system that agrees with our opinion?

PER isn't wrong about what it tells us, neither are any of the other stats. The question is what do we think it is telling us...

I do think the point "TheGrizz" was making was not terrible, even if his methods were not ideal. Bird is 18th for career-PER, but from 1982-1988 he posts six straight top three finishes, all above 24 PER, and finishes first twice, and would've kept doing so if it wasn't for some jerk in Chicago. I think the conventional wisdom would not argue that Bird wasn't the best player in the league during that period, other than perhaps Magic and eventually Jordan, who does surpass him in PER. Jordan drops seven straight first finishes. Shaq does five straight. Taking just Bird's stretch of 1982-88 would probably put him in the top five, possibly top three PERs. And since we can't definitively say where he should rank.

I think it is too easy to get caught up in the decimal points of PER, instead of looking at it in tiers. And only as an initial identifier.

Any PER before 1975 won't have turnovers, blocks, steals, etc. And we already know it does not count defense, and Russell is probably the best defender in history.

I don't know why anyone would want to boil everything down to one stat and lose all the nuance and information about the players.

[Bgil]

-= original quote snipped =-



That's a good point. I shouldn't have said objective, I should have said something like...a ranking by committee.


BGil: I tried to PM you but it didn't work. I don't want to give my email out here. If you use aim, you can tell me a screenname to msg you at, if that works. Doesn't have to be your actual one, just make up something.

you can send an email to junkmailfiltertest@gmail.com.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

-= original quote snipped =-



Just from an outsider's perspective, this isn't really the best way to act in your first week on the boards...

? Why? Do I need to be deferential to my superiors here? Because they joined a messageboard before I did?

He's saying he's sure something is better and I should run the regression on virtually every stat and metric out there in order to...? Prove myself wrong? If he's so sure there's something out there that's better, show the board! Wouldn't everyone appreciate learning? I know I would. But he simply doesn't want to. PER looks the best out of all the stats I've seen, if there's something better I'd love to see it. benjipwns helped flesh it out- Bird's PER takes a hit because of his injured seasons. His prime is in fact shown very favorably with PER.