bisme37 wrote:XxIronChainzxX wrote:This thread has gotten ridiculous. First of all, the numbers of people who vote for Kyrie poll by poll can vary by things as basic as "people have better **** to do than consistently vote in an online realgm poll on player ranking." People probably lose interest as we get out of the top 10. Second of all, the theories surrounding people voting
against Kyrie are silly. For example,
bisme37 wrote:
But if the same people are voting for Kyrie in every poll he would have been chosen by now because that is a larger and more consistent block of votes as compared to people who are "redistributing" their votes to assorted other players in each poll. I feel like I'm in bizarro world here, where people are explaining something to me like an enormous idiot but what is being explained makes absolutely no logical sense.
You're certainly in bizzaro world, because you're assuming there's going to be a consistent group of people voting in these polls at all times. That's now how it works. People are explaining things to you like you're "an enormous idiot" because you seem to making really weird assumptions about voting.
Dude is there any way you could stop insulting me? It's not necessary or nice.
I assumed (in this one comment) that there is a consistent block of Kyrie voters in every poll because that's what was explained to me as the reason for the results by like 5 different people. Now I'm an idiot for accepting that argument and debating its merits?
I relented yesterday because I thought I must have been having a giant brain fart about the whole thing and who really cares anyway. But since folks are still mad at me for sharing an opinion, I do still think most of the answers I got make little sense.
If a large and consistent block of C's fans are voting for Kyrie in every poll, he would have been selected by now. Because if other fans are changing their votes to a variety of other assorted players in each poll, they would be outnumbered by the Kyrie voters who are voting for him each time. The non-Kyrie voters are not coordinating their votes, so their votes would spread across the filed while the Kyrie votes would be consistent. Now have a Snickers, bro.
I didn't insult you. I said what you're saying is silly, but that's not really an insult. If you feel it is, I'm sorry.
I don't understand what you're struggling to understand. The bolded and underlined makes no sense. Votes aren't being distributed randomly.
Beyond that, the voting numbers are not static - it's not the same distribution of people voting in every poll. Even if there is a consistently block of Kyrie voters, they won't constitute the same proportion of the voting public in each poll. Even if that block was the (essentially) same size, that doesn't mean that they'd always constitute the same % of voters (there might be new voters with each poll). Even if they were the same size and the same % of the voting public, it wouldn't mean they'd be able to vote Kyrie given their relative size to "everyone else". Like, the only explanation for any of this is that you just don't understand, or lack an intuition for, statistics.
There's nothing magical about Kyrie being a lot of people's 1st choice, and not a lot of people's 2nd choice. That's all this poll has shown so far. As I said to you in my reply days ago, there are plenty of "logical" explanations for this, ranging from your proposed anti-Kyrie conspiracy theory, to the fact that the majority of people don't have Kyrie in their top 15 despite there being a block who has him top 10.
Edit:
Let me give you an example. Let's say 30% of people think Kyrie is the 10th best player in the NBA. 70% think he's the 19th best player in the NBA. You're posing that 30% should outvote the 70%, because those 70% of votes will be distributed across a group of players. But that's an unjustified assumption, because a majority of those 70% of voters could all happen to prefer a different player at any one slot. And it doesn't always have to be the same group of people.
That 35% block of voters would constantly outvote the 30%, but it wouldn't be the same block of voters and it wouldn't be for the same reason. There's nothing special about these results.
