Over .500, here we come

[tontoz]

I am definitely curious to see if they are able to maintain their defensive intensity. Gortat was kind of thrown off the deep end of the pool to start the season. I think a big cause of their early season defensive lapses was that he just didn't know what to do. By now he should be comfortable with the rotations.

They are still the same flawed team that shoots too many long 2s and is heavily dependent on good health. Their offense lately hasn't been noticably better than ealier in the season. but their defense could be cause for some optimism.

[payitforward]

In the context of my original post, the "definition" was a high fraction of the time, but, as I already told you, the idea was to question Nivek's metric for consistency. Lucky for me, he was willing to discuss the idea respectfully instead of misconstruing/dismissing/ignoring it as you seem determined to do.

And my point what that when you look at a two week sample size, as you are doing with the Wizards, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions. Portland has lost 5 games in the last two weeks. What conclusions do you draw from that?

When we beat Miami it was their 3rd straight loss to a losing team. Big deal.

The two most common mistakes in statistical "science" are selection bias and confirmation bias.

In the first you choose the dataset that you know will support your hypothesis. A classic example was the 7 Nation Study that "proved" that a high-fat diet led to high cholesterol and that high cholesterol "caused" heart disease. France was on the list of nations at first, then they removed it -- because the French ate a high-fat diet but had low rates of heart disease!

In the 2d, you look at the evidence that supports your hypothesis and ignore or bracket the evidence that undercuts your hypothesis. The first "proves what we've known along"; the second is "odd, and we'll have to keep an eye on it; there's probably an explanation" (i.e. it doesn't show we're wrong even though it shows we're wrong).

It goes w/o saying that there's a lot of both of those here! Especially every time we hear positive evaluations of Seraphin and Vesely. Poor Singleton, he's always left out, even though he's shooting 44% from 3pt range and rebounding well above league average for a 3. He's way improved from his first 2 years in most things -- heck, he's shooting 82% from the line. Yet, he gets no love....

Selection bias and Confirmation bias in action!

[tontoz]

The two most common mistakes in statistical "science" are selection bias and confirmation bias.

In the first you choose the dataset that you know will support your hypothesis. A classic example was the 7 Nation Study that "proved" that a high-fat diet led to high cholesterol and that high cholesterol "caused" heart disease. France was on the list of nations at first, then they removed it -- because the French ate a high-fat diet but had low rates of heart disease!

In the 2d, you look at the evidence that supports your hypothesis and ignore or bracket the evidence that undercuts your hypothesis. The first "proves what we've known along"; the second is "odd, and we'll have to keep an eye on it; there's probably an explanation" (i.e. it doesn't show we're wrong even though it shows we're wrong).

It goes w/o saying that there's a lot of both of those here! Especially every time we hear positive evaluations of Seraphin and Vesely. Poor Singleton, he's always left out, even though he's shooting 44% from 3pt range and rebounding well above league average for a 3. He's way improved from his first 2 years in most things -- heck, he's shooting 82% from the line. Yet, he gets no love....

Selection bias and Confirmation bias in action!

The only things i know for sure about Seraphin is that he sucks on the boards and turns it over too much. He has been consistent there. But his TS is up to 55.6% on the season. Since he hasn't played that much it could be a small sample size issue or maybe he is turning a corner. I have no clue.

Ves just blows. He has made only 4 shots outside the basket area on the season, shoots 25% from the foul line, and averages 5 fouls per 36 minutes. H

[Nivek]

Don't forget recency bias.

[Bigwig]

In the context of my original post, the "definition" was a high fraction of the time, but, as I already told you, the idea was to question Nivek's metric for consistency. Lucky for me, he was willing to discuss the idea respectfully instead of misconstruing/dismissing/ignoring it as you seem determined to do.

And my point what that when you look at a two week sample size, as you are doing with the Wizards, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions. Portland has lost 5 games in the last two weeks. What conclusions do you draw from that?

When we beat Miami it was their 3rd straight loss to a losing team. Big deal.

I agree that a two-week sample size isn't very meaningful evidence for the quality of a team; I just don't see how that point relates to my post. And it bothers me that you keep implying that I drew a faulty conclusion after ignoring my request to identify it.

[tontoz]

I agree that a two-week sample size isn't very meaningful evidence for the quality of a team; I just don't see how that point relates to my post. And it bothers me that you keep implying that I drew a faulty conclusion after ignoring my request to identify it.

Here is exactly what i said.

When you start looking at small sample sizes they can lead you to faulty conclusions.

I said they can lead you to a faulty conclusion. I did not said they did/will lead you to a faulty conclusion. Conceivably a small sample size can on occassion lead to the correct conclusion, it just can't do it reliably. I am always suspect of any conclusions drawn from a small sample of data.

And it relates to your post because you (admittedly) were talking about what the Wizards have done over a short time span.

[dckingsfan]

Don't forget recency bias.

That must be the most important bias?

[Nivek]

Don't forget recency bias.

That must be the most important bias?

Not until lately.

[tontoz]

^Yeah this is the same team that lost to Boston/Utah/Detroit not long ago. They didn't suddenly become a different team. They are trending in the right direction but the offense still blows. If either Nene or Wall gets hurt it's curtains.

[Youheardme90]

^Is that on purpose?

[Illmatic21]

The Starters crew on NBATV spent the first portion of their show yesterday talking about the Wiz, good stuff:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH4u9xiuq_s[/youtube]

[hands11]

The Starters crew on NBATV spent the first portion of their show yesterday talking about the Wiz, good stuff:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH4u9xiuq_s[/youtube]

[pineappleheadindc]

Can't do it this second.

But sometime later tonight or tomorrow morning, Luv-a-Bull Evandney is going back to be my avatar and she'll remain there until the Wizards go back above .500 again.

[dobrojim]

cruel^

[pineappleheadindc]

Can't do it this second.

But sometime later tonight or tomorrow morning, Luv-a-Bull Evandney is going back to be my avatar and she'll remain there until the Wizards go back above .500 again.

[hands11]

The team has been breaking some old records and hitting some marks they haven't seen in a while.

75 pt first half.... still counts even if they had a melt down.
fastest three players have gotten over 100 three.
And Trevor A is on pace to break the single season record for 3

and while not a record, they hit 4 games over .500 for the first time this late in the season in a long time.

MIA up next. Not going to be easy for they to stay 4 over, but its a taste.

[hands11]

Oh.. and did I heard Buck and Phil say they are the hottest team since the All Star Break ?

They are on a 8-1 run. So I guess that could be true.