Retro Player of the Year Project

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#541 » by Silver Bullet » Tue May 18, 2010 3:06 am

Baller 24 wrote:Cause KG would constantly have 50 win teams with terrible talent, while putting up terrific statistics in the Western Conference. McGrady had even crappier talent, put up good numbers, impacted well, was solid, but KG would constantly do better in a tougher conference and still pull out 50 win seasons.


Revisionist history - his teams were never seen as substantially less talented than the Spurs - It was all on him. Now you guys have all become box score nymphs - and act like Marc Jackson, for example, was a scrub. Whereas I remember the guy that almost made the all star team in the loaded West as a center before he came to the Wolves.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 19
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#542 » by Baller 24 » Tue May 18, 2010 3:10 am

You're talking about Marc Jackson the big man?
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,144
And1: 20,175
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#543 » by NO-KG-AI » Tue May 18, 2010 3:14 am

Silver Bullet wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:The second best player on the Spurs, and a guy that could only go for 32 minutes a game is better than the guy that was second in MVP voting.

Yea, and the KG fans are the biased ones. :roll:


Possibly the best guy on a championship contender vs the best guy on a team that is guaranteed to be first round fodder. I mean, why is KG the only guy consistently getting credit for not winning. The same argument doesn't work for McGrady, Steve Francis, Marbury or any other perpetual looser.



Really? The Spurs are championship caliber without Duncan? And is Robinson possibly the best player with Duncan there?

How many times have McGrady, Francis, or Marbury led a team to 50 wins? Thought so.

Your comparisons to players is only matched by your ability to pump scrubs on KGs teams, like Marc Jackson and Mike James.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,927
And1: 666
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: Poland
   

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#544 » by bastillon » Tue May 18, 2010 4:06 am

lol @ calling KG loser. that argument worked like 3 years ago.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
Minge
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,421
And1: 6
Joined: Jul 03, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#545 » by Minge » Tue May 18, 2010 7:41 am

semi-sentient wrote:-snipped-
A 35 year old Karl Malone made the All-Defensive 1st team in 1998-99, so I don't want to hear anything about competition at his position.

I never thought of Malone as a great defender until he played for the Lakers. I attributed much of Utah's success against O'Neal to Ostertag and to Stockton; relative success, as O'Neal wasn't dropping 40pt20rb games on Utah. Malone played the best defense against Duncan and Garnett in those playoffs that I've ever seen. He consistently boxed-out, tipped 50/50 loose balls away, and to my surprize, was superb in screen/roll defense, as Malone could switch on guards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3lAOW3Yo_A (through 7:00 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A38fzkBfyjc (Fratello)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3jmePRePc (Collins)

It really changed my opinions about Malone, enough to prompt this reponse. He may even be the 4th best defensive PF behind Duncan, Rodman, and Garnett, with all do respect to Bobby Jones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjd8wlSaIU (I'll finish that series next week.)

bastillon wrote:-snipped-
1)who was responsible for Blazers' collapse offensively against the Wolves ?

Game 1, CNN/SI: Video Highlights
Portland 91, Minnesota 88

Minnesota star forward Kevin Garnett recorded a triple-double but scored only 12 points, 11 below his season average, on 6-of-20 shooting. He had 11 assists and 10 rebounds.

Rasheed Wallace covered Garnett most of the day and held him to two points in the fourth quarter. Meanwhile, Wallace scored seven of his 15 points in the final period.

"I was pleased with the job we did on Kevin Garnett," Trail Blazers coach Mike Dunleavy said. "He is a tough guy but he had an off day. Rasheed always does a good job with him because Rasheed, like Kevin, has a lot of length to his game."

After Garnett hit a 20-footer from the left side to give Minnesota a 77-71 lead with 10:35 left, the Timberwolves made only four of their last 17 shots.

After Pippen's jump hook increased Portland's lead to 83-80 with 3:08 left, Minnesota again had a chance to tie when Sealy was fouled by Smith while converting a shot in the lane. Sealy missed the free throw, however.

On Portland's ensuing possession, Stoudamire missed a 3-pointer, but Wallace grabbed the rebound and dunked. After a miss by Garnett, Pippen was fouled on a drive and converted both free throws, giving the Blazers an 87-82 cushion with 1:26 left.

"They made some stops. We didn't execute the way we would like down the stretch," Garnett said. "We have to give their defense credit, but at the same time, we were impatient."

Game 2, CNN/SI: Video Highlights
Portland 86, Minnesota 82

Garnett had 23 points and 10 rebounds for the Timberwolves, who are in the playoffs for the fourth straight year but never have won a postseason series. They return home, where they are 1-4 all-time in the playoffs.

Portland led 67-58 entering the fourth quarter, but Minnesota used a 7-0 spurt capped by Sam Mitchell's 3-pointer to close to 69-67 with 8:29 remaining, and it was tight thereafter.

A follow shot by Rasho Nesterovic kept the Wolves within 73-69 before Pippen drove for a three-point play with 6:27 to go. Garnett slammed home a lob pass but Pippen responded with a 3-pointer that extended the lead to 79-71 with 5:21 left.

"Scottie made good plays again," Blazers coach Mike Dunleavy said. "We got a lot from our veteran leadership. We look forward to him leading the way the rest of the series."

Baskets by Malik Sealy and Nesterovic and two free throws by Terrell Brandon pulled Minnesota within two before Sabonis hit a jumper for an 81-77 edge with 1:45 to play. Pippen answered Garnett's two free throws with two of his own to keep the lead at four with 1:12 left.

"Every time we battled back, something would happen," Garnett said.

Garnett made 1-of-2 free throws and Brandon missed a potential tying 3-pointer that was tipped in by Anthony Peeler with 17 seconds to go. The Wolves fouled Damon Stoudamire, who sank a pair from the line. Sealy missed another potential tying shot and Pippen clinched it with one from the line.

"I thought we did a real good job tonight of when they got down to a late (shot) clock situation, we stayed down and continued to work on defense," Pippen said.

Game 3, CNN/SI: Video Highlights
Minnesota 94, Portland 87

Garnett had 23 points, 13 rebounds and 10 assists, improving upon his sloppy triple-double in Game One, when he made just 6-of-20 shots.

"You expect that of him," Portland forward Brian Grant said. "He had a triple-double in one of the first two games and we still won. Tonight I think, moreso than his points, it was the energy he brought for his other teammates. That was a key, because he really kept the crowd in it. That's what you have to do when you're the superstar on your team."

Garnett made a clutch jumper with 2:04 to go and got some help from Anthony Peeler, who scored 10 of his 13 points in the fourth quarter.

Meanwhile, Blazers forward Scottie Pippen, who averaged 24.5 points in the first two games, was limited to 16 -- none in the fourth quarter.

Game 4, CNN/SI: Video Highlights
Portland 85, Minnesota 77

Minnesota's Kevin Garnett nearly had his third triple-double of the series with 17 points, 10 rebounds and nine assists. But he made just 5-of-20 shots, missing his last six.

"Through the course of the game, you try to find a way to spark yourself, the team and the crowd," Garnett said. "I'm one that sometimes tries too hard. You can say, 'Live by the jump shot, die by the jump shot,' but in my mind, I say, 'Keep shooting.'" "I think KG tired in the fourth quarter," Portland reserve forward Brain Grant said. "TB (Terrell Brandon) was tired as well. Our depth helped us get through it."

Garnett opened the fourth quarter with a jumper to give the Wolves a 66-57 lead. A 3-pointer by reserve guard Greg Anthony cut the deficit to 68-64 and triggered a 9-0 run. Wallace made a runner and backup forward Detlef Schrempf hit a jumper and two free throws to give Portland a 70-68 lead with 7:36 to go.

"The guys off the bench came in and did a great job," Portland coach Mike Dunleavy said. "Detlef and Greg were huge for us tonight."

Smith had a shoving match with Wolves guard Anthony Peeler and both received technical fouls. The teams traded points for the next three minutes until Smith hit a 3-pointer to give Portland the lead for good at 77-75 with 3:48 remaining.

"(Scottie) Pippen really helped me by driving and drawing two defenders," Smith said. "I was wide open and that's one I thought, If I hit it, it would really take some life out of them. And I think it did."

As an aside, that was Malik Sealy's last game. He died May 20th. "This is one of those valleys, but I don't think anyone expected us to play them that hard throughout the series," Sealy said.
DumbyTheWizard
Starter
Posts: 2,172
And1: 58
Joined: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Israel, Jerusalem

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#546 » by DumbyTheWizard » Tue May 18, 2010 2:05 pm

The Dolem site is Amazing, well done!!!

Just one pointer, I think you should put a different Garnett pic in 2004, with a 'Sota uniform....
Image
Kobe>Jordan>God wrote:I'm starting to suspect that Rivers isn't even a real doctor.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 19
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#547 » by Baller 24 » Tue May 18, 2010 3:20 pm

Good post on Malone.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
semi-sentient
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,149
And1: 5,624
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Location: Austin, Tejas
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#548 » by semi-sentient » Tue May 18, 2010 3:25 pm

DumbyTheWizard wrote:The Dolem site is Amazing, well done!!!

Just one pointer, I think you should put a different Garnett pic in 2004, with a 'Sota uniform....


OK, I've got this working. Had to put a little "hack" in place just for Garnett, and I'll probably do the same for other players that win POY on different teams, which is something I don't see happening very often.

The only other players that I can see this happening for is Kareem and Wilt.
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#549 » by Silver Bullet » Tue May 18, 2010 4:33 pm

bastillon wrote:lol @ calling KG loser. that argument worked like 3 years ago.


Exactly my point - if he was a loser 3 years ago, what has changed ? Well he won a title on an all-star team, that's hardly gonna take him from perrenial loser to legendary warrior.
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#550 » by Gongxi » Tue May 18, 2010 6:57 pm

"Perennial loser" and "legendary warrior" are irrelevant to his level as a basketball player.

You make the argument that playing on the team he played on when he won a title shouldn't discount all the team failures he experienced for a decade beforehand. I make the argument that all the team failures he experienced have nothing to do with how good or bad he was at playing basketball, so it's moot.
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#551 » by Silver Bullet » Tue May 18, 2010 7:47 pm

Gongxi wrote:"Perennial loser" and "legendary warrior" are irrelevant to his level as a basketball player.

You make the argument that playing on the team he played on when he won a title shouldn't discount all the team failures he experienced for a decade beforehand. I make the argument that all the team failures he experienced have nothing to do with how good or bad he was at playing basketball, so it's moot.


Only in your opinion. If a guy puts up 50-50-50 and doesn't help his team win, then I don't want him on my team or as my POY.

There are hundreds of players like that - Marbury, SAR, Randolph, Marbury, Francis et. all.... who've had the stats and never been able to help his team win.

I've always seen KG as the Greatest Second Banana in the history of the game - and by winning the title with the Celtics, it just reinforces my belief.

Throughout the 00's - KG was never seen on Duncan's level - Now you have people left and right arguing that he was possibly better. I mean the worst thing that has happened to the game in recent years is this statistical re-evaluation of history. We have people claiming Iverson was over rated because he was not efficient - Give me a break. The guy with the biggest heart in the history of the game is seen as some sort of a cancer by these newage idiots. Dave Berri - the statistical legend, thinks Kobe is the 4th best player on the Lakers. Uh.
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#552 » by Gongxi » Wed May 19, 2010 1:53 am

Silver Bullet wrote:
Gongxi wrote:"Perennial loser" and "legendary warrior" are irrelevant to his level as a basketball player.

You make the argument that playing on the team he played on when he won a title shouldn't discount all the team failures he experienced for a decade beforehand. I make the argument that all the team failures he experienced have nothing to do with how good or bad he was at playing basketball, so it's moot.


Only in your opinion. If a guy puts up 50-50-50 and doesn't help his team win, then I don't want him on my team or as my POY.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he puts up 50-50-50 and your team still loses, it's not because of him. Somehow you've created in your head a subjective "winning ability" that some players have and some players don't in order to justify being a fan of one and not another. It's sad.
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#553 » by Silver Bullet » Wed May 19, 2010 3:20 am

Gongxi wrote:
Silver Bullet wrote:
Gongxi wrote:"Perennial loser" and "legendary warrior" are irrelevant to his level as a basketball player.

You make the argument that playing on the team he played on when he won a title shouldn't discount all the team failures he experienced for a decade beforehand. I make the argument that all the team failures he experienced have nothing to do with how good or bad he was at playing basketball, so it's moot.


Only in your opinion. If a guy puts up 50-50-50 and doesn't help his team win, then I don't want him on my team or as my POY.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he puts up 50-50-50 and your team still loses, it's not because of him. Somehow you've created in your head a subjective "winning ability" that some players have and some players don't in order to justify being a fan of one and not another. It's sad.


It's not in my head - any one who's ever played basketball knows this - When your playing on the court, sometimes this one guy comes in and suddenly everyone is getting layups and open jumpers....
I mean, your one of those basketball on paper guys - zero understanding of the game...
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#554 » by Gongxi » Wed May 19, 2010 4:22 am

...said the guy who thinks Shaq, Nash, and Kobe are the three best basketball players ever.

You just don't like objective measurements because it makes your baseless, emotional compulsions look...well, baseless and emotional.

Whether Garnett- or anyone else- has good or bad teammates, good or bad coaching, good or bad management, and on good or bad teams has nothing to do with how well they can play basketball. That truth bothers you because of what you have to face in consequence, but your feelings about it really don't matter.
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#555 » by Silver Bullet » Wed May 19, 2010 4:25 am

Gongxi wrote:...said the guy who thinks Shaq, Nash, and Kobe are the three best basketball players ever.

You just don't like objective measurements because it makes your baseless, emotional compulsions look...well, baseless and emotional.

Whether Garnett- or anyone else- has good or bad teammates, good or bad coaching, good or bad management, and on good or bad teams has nothing to do with how well they can play basketball. That truth bothers you because of what you have to face in consequence, but your feelings about it really don't matter.


The truth ?

You're the out lier - not me...

I think 95% of the people in this project will agree with me, that some players help a team in winning more than others.
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#556 » by Gongxi » Wed May 19, 2010 4:27 am

Objective fact isn't a popularity contest. You can see that every day, everywhere.
User avatar
Tim_Hardawayy
RealGM
Posts: 30,460
And1: 10,041
Joined: Sep 17, 2008

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#557 » by Tim_Hardawayy » Wed May 19, 2010 4:27 am

Silver Bullet wrote:
I think 95% of the people in this project will agree with me, that some players help a team in winning more than others.

They might, but those same 95% will disagree with the majority of your player ballots. So I'm not sure what exactly that is worth.
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#558 » by Silver Bullet » Wed May 19, 2010 4:27 am

Gongxi wrote:Objective fact isn't a popularity contest. You can see that every day, everywhere.


question for you Gongxi -

Stephon Marbury and Zach Randolph - or Kirk Hinrich and Joakim Noah


which pair would you prefer ?
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#559 » by Silver Bullet » Wed May 19, 2010 4:32 am

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:
Silver Bullet wrote:
I think 95% of the people in this project will agree with me, that some players help a team in winning more than others.

They might, but those same 95% will disagree with the majority of your player ballots. So I'm not sure what exactly that is worth.


My player ballots are my opinion - I don't parade them around as facts.
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#560 » by Gongxi » Wed May 19, 2010 4:32 am

Production is a fact. Do you disagree? Everything else is mostly just some random hindsight gifting or any of these:

* Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.
* Backfire effect - the tendency for corrections to initial misinformation to increase misperception [1]
* Base rate fallacy – the tendency to ignore available statistical data in favor of particulars.
* Bias blind spot – the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.[2]
* Choice-supportive bias – the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
* Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
* Congruence bias – the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
* Contrast effect – the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object.
* Denomination effect – the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).[3]
* Distinction bias – the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[4]
* Endowment effect – "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it".[5]
* Experimenter's or Expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[6]
* Extraordinarity bias – the tendency to value an object more than others in the same category as a result of an extraordinarity of that object that does not, in itself, change the value.[citation needed]
* Focusing effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
* Framing – using an approach or description of the situation or issue that is too narrow. Also framing effect – drawing different conclusions based on how data is presented.
* Hyperbolic discounting – the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.
* Illusion of control – the tendency to believe that outcomes can be controlled, or at least influenced, when they clearly cannot.
* Impact bias – the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
* Information bias – the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
* Interloper effect – the tendency to value third party consultation as objective, confirming, and without motive. Also consultation paradox, the conclusion that solutions proposed by existing personnel within an organization are less likely to receive support than from those recruited for that purpose.
* Irrational escalation – the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.
* Just-world phenomenon - the tendency to rationalize an inexplicable injustice by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it.
* Loss aversion – "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".[7] (see also sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
* Mere exposure effect – the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.
* Money illusion – the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.
* Moral credential effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
* Need for Closure – the need to reach a verdict in important matters; to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.[8]
* Negativity bias – the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
* Neglect of probability – the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
* Normalcy bias – the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
* Not Invented Here – the tendency to ignore that a product or solution already exists, because its source is seen as an "enemy" or as "inferior."
* Omission bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
* Outcome bias – the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
* Planning fallacy – the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
* Post-purchase rationalization – the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
* Pseudocertainty effect – the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
* Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
* Restraint bias - the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
* Selective perception – the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
* Semmelweis reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm.[9]
* Status quo bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).[10]
* Von Restorff effect – the tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.
* Wishful thinking – the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.
* Zero-risk bias – preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

[edit] Biases in probability and belief

Many of these biases are often studied for how they affect business and economic decisions and how they affect experimental research.

* Ambiguity effect – the tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown."
* Anchoring effect – the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (also called "insufficient adjustment").
* Attentional bias – the tendency to neglect relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.
* Authority bias – the tendency to value an ambiguous stimulus (e.g., an art performance) according to the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority on the topic.
* Availability heuristic – estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples.
* Availability cascade – a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").
* Belief bias – an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
* Clustering illusion – the tendency to see patterns where actually none exist.
* Capability bias – the tendency to believe that the closer average performance is to a target, the tighter the distribution of the data set.
* Conjunction fallacy – the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.
* Disposition effect – the tendency to sell assets that have increased in value but hold assets that have decreased in value.
* Gambler's fallacy – the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the Law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
* Hawthorne effect – the tendency to perform or perceive differently when one knows they are being observed.
* Hindsight bias – sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable.
* Illusory correlation – beliefs that inaccurately suppose a relationship between a certain type of action and an effect.[11]
* Last illusion – the belief that someone must know what is going on. Coined by Brian Eno[citation needed].
* Neglect of prior base rates effect – the tendency to neglect known odds when reevaluating odds in light of weak evidence.
* Observer-expectancy effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
* Optimism bias – the tendency to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions.
* Ostrich effect – ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
* Overconfidence effect – excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of question, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.
* Positive outcome bias – the tendency to overestimate the probability of good things happening to them (see also wishful thinking, optimism bias, and valence effect).
* Pareidolia – a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.
* Primacy effect – the tendency to weigh initial events more than subsequent events.
* Recency effect – the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events (see also peak-end rule).
* Disregard of regression toward the mean – the tendency to expect extreme performance to continue.
* Selection bias – a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected.
* Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
* Subadditivity effect – the tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.
* Subjective validation – perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
* Survivorship bias - the tendency to concentrate on the people or things that "survived" some process and ignoring those that didn't, or arguing that a strategy is effective given the winners, while ignoring the large number of losers.
* Telescoping effect – the effect that recent events appear to have occurred more remotely and remote events appear to have occurred more recently.
* Texas sharpshooter fallacy – the fallacy of selecting or adjusting a hypothesis after the data is collected, making it impossible to test the hypothesis fairly. Refers to the concept of firing shots at a barn door, drawing a circle around the best group, and declaring that to be the target.
* Well travelled road effect - underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and over-estimate the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.

[edit] Social biases

Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.

* Actor-observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also fundamental attribution error). However, this is coupled with the opposite tendency for the self in that explanations for our own behaviors overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality.
* Dunning–Kruger effect – a two-fold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as they assume the others have a similar understanding.
* Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would.
* Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
* False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
* Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
* Halo effect – the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of their personality to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
* Herd instinct – common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.
* Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.
* Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
* Illusory superiority – overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect," "better-than-average effect," "superiority bias," or "Dunning-Kruger effect").
* Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
* Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people "get what they deserve."
* Notational bias – a form of cultural bias in which the notational conventions of recording data biases the appearance of that data toward (or away from) the system upon which the notational schema is based.
* Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
* Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.
* Self-serving bias (also called "behavioral confirmation effect") – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
* Self-fulfilling prophecy – the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm existing attitudes.[12]
* System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
* Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
* Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

[edit] Memory errors
Further information: Memory bias

* Consistency bias – incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behavior as resembling present attitudes and behavior.
* Cryptomnesia – a form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination.
* Egocentric bias – recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g. remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as being bigger than it was.
* False memory – confusion of imagination with memory, or the confusion of true memories with false memories.
* Hindsight bias – filtering memory of past events through present knowledge, so that those events look more predictable than they actually were; also known as the "I-knew-it-all-along effect."
* Reminiscence bump – the effect that people tend to recall more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than from other lifetime periods.
* Rosy retrospection – the tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.
* Self-serving bias – perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for undesirable ones.
* Suggestibility – a form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.

You exhibit many of them.

Return to Player Comparisons