mysticbb wrote:kaima wrote:Just to be clear, I wasn't making a concentrated accusation about bias, instead I was questioning the overall coherence of your system and previously stated standards through this point.
First of all, my "system" is coherent, but I obiously can see things slightly different than you.
If it's so coherent, why do the explanations for it seem so incoherent?
I don't base my voting purely on stats, neither do I vote purely on gut feelings. If you feel that Malone gets not enough credit from me, I'm fine with that.
What would it mean if you weren't fine with it? Just curious.
kaima wrote:As far as it goes, that's why I got specific as far as prior votes and points. The questions you ask above are some of my own, and I didn't think they were answered.
No, you actually did that, because of your preconception that I would have a bias and you specifically looked for evidence. You ignored several things in your questions, like the explanations in prior years I gave for my voting. You also only looked specifically how I placed Karl Malone in prior votes. It is rather clear to me that you tried to see a pattern in this.
Your point would be...what?
And I did find a pattern in it. A pattern that you continue to talk around. *wink* *nudge*
Well, if you look long enough with that kind of mind setting, you will find something which you will think is a proof that there is a pattern. But that is not a good scientific analysis.
I think you're talking to yourself, as what I found in your analysis was keyed off an admitted outlier -- i.e. incoherence -- from your side on this Hakeem vote.
Note no matter how many times you reply, you never explain the Hakeem vote in a context that works with your prior votes or system.
Thus, my analysis is only of your lack of coherence, and thus is scientific in its approach -- as opposed to your voting, which is itself a violation of prior methods. At least, that's how it has appeared, and continues to appear.
Just to be clear again: Utah's record was good enough for me to consider BOTH John Stockton and Karl Malone as Top5 worthy. And to be honest I first wanted to put Stockton at 4th, Malone at 5th and Olajuwon would have been 6th. But I looked again in those playoff matchups and the Jazz really lost in a SWEEP to an inferior team while the Rockets lost to a superior team. Stockton/Malone, two Top5 players aren't able to win at least one game? Something doesn't add up here.
So, we're back to the same problem: you justifying a vote, not backed by your statistical method, by a playoff series win. A single win.
When, in the past, you've attacked the idea of looking at the playoffs in such a manner. You've now overvalued the playoffs to a ridiculous degree, and managed to contradict yourself in the process.
Again, you've violated your own standards with this vote. Repeating it, again and again, will not change that. That goes for both of us, to a degree -- but you seem to think that repeating will somehow justify it, when the very factor you're so key on stating is the problem itself.
But, as you continue to make clear, you're happy with that.
My only point is just the very underlying facts here; what you've said and done in the past, as opposed to what you're so happy with now. So I think we're both satisfied, but coming from opposite directions. The key irony is, that you also appear to disagree with yourself (as standardized in prior threads, anyway).
Your system appears to involve voting for who you want just...because. At the very least (and perhaps, at best), that's what you did with Olajuwon, here.
Well, OK.
