Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 408 of 452 FirstFirst ... 308358398406407408409410418 ... LastLast
Results 6,106 to 6,120 of 6768
  1. #6106
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Are you saying Mike DíAntoniís offense isnít a system? Are you saying the Rockets donít play a system?

    Youíre right about one thing, I was definitely not having a basketball conversation, I was responding to a biased guy who thinks the one on one basketball in his day was somehow better than the one on one basketball of today.

    I understand exactly what youíre saying, Iím saying the same hypocritical trash youíve been spewing. Youíre aware more teams primarily went one on one than just the triangle? Did you not enjoy watching all of them or was every scheme that had their players go one on one in the 90ís better than the schemes that do the exact same thing today?

    If I wanted to have a basketball conversation, I certainly wouldnít be having one with someone who says he doesnít like one on one basketball and then says he likes 90ís/00ís basketball
    Yes, I am saying the rockets don't play a system (not one where guys are genuinely involved in the offense). I don't like one-on-one basketball where that is most of the offense. The 90s did not have that kind of basketball. The 90s/00s actually had a good amount of inside out play where most of the team was involved and there was an actual system and plays built around that system. The only biased guy here is you and your bias is against anyone who goes against the grain. Why don't you go ahead and point out where I said the one on one basketball was better back then then it is now? Go ahead and show me where I said that.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-09-2020 at 07:35 PM.

  2. #6107
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    The goal is to win bc itís fun and a competition and your desire to win makes you reach further and improves your performance and it teaches you about life, loyalty, team work....
    I agree those are all good things, but if the 10,000 basketball games youíve already played in your life donít team you about those things, I donít think the extra 5-10 theyíre missing a season is going to.

    We always talk about this in the context of trades and when it comes to teams releasing players but oftentimes we lose site of the fact this is a business. If all that mattered was learning about teamwork they could go play in a rec league. They are paid to play a game, and the primary goal is to win a title. As counter intuitive as it sounds, if not playing some games gives them a better chance to win a title, why shouldnít they?

    Itís interesting that we donít really see this mentality in regards to football. When teams clinch a bye or a top seed before the final season, teams oftentimes sit out their top players so they can be ready for the playoffs and they donít really get criticized for it. Iím curious on why you think that is so different from the NBA?

  3. #6108
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    LOL that's not how you adjust mathematically for those things. Moreover, I'm not quite sure why you're subtracting steals from turnovers, you definitely should not be. What I asked for was the partitioning of turnovers that were forced versus those that were not. Steals shouldn't be included in here at all. You basically provided 1 of the 3 things I asked for. This is the issue with people who are not trained in using statistics. You think it means one thing, but it really doesn't (and yes, i am going to trust my opinion on this because I am an expert here and I have earned the right to have my opinion count more than some dude who clearly doesn't know how to use these things).

    Additionally, these numbers don't strongly suggest that play was sloppier before (even ignoring the issues I stated above), because as I've now stated for maybe the 3rd or 4th time, sloppy play does not only encompass turnovers. Turnovers and sloppy play are different. What you are looking at here is turnovers. What these numbers show is a very, very incomplete picture and fail to provide suggestive evidence at all. You said that you could provide 2 of the 3 things I asked for. This only includes 1 of the 3.
    Itís as I suspected. I asked if you just dismissed them and you said you would agree they were suggestive and then you dismissed them. You are a liar, just as you are lying about being an expert I. Statistics. If you were an expert in statistics you wouldnít hate them.

    If you knew anything about Statistics youíd understand your argument about how many were forced vs unforced means youíre claiming that there are wide variances by team over extremely large sample sizes in terms of forced candidates unforced turnovers. Are you saying that?

    And those numbers only talk about turnovers. So letís go over what we know. We know the modern teams I listed turn the ball over less per possession, we know that even after accounting for opponents steals they still turn the ball over less than the other teams I showed. If you want to argue that the older teams didnít have as many unforced turnovers, go ahead and try to prove it. If you want to argue ha I g less turnovers per possession is a meaningless stat, well it just affirms my assertion you think all stats are evil.

    But since you want to differentiate, give me examples of what you believe are sloppier play since you donít believe turnovers are indicative of sloppier play.

  4. #6109
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Itís as I suspected. I asked if you just dismissed them and you said you would agree they were suggestive and then you dismissed them. You are a liar, just as you are lying about being an expert I. Statistics. If you were an expert in statistics you wouldnít hate them.

    If you knew anything about Statistics youíd understand your argument about how many were forced vs unforced means youíre claiming that there are wide variances by team over extremely large sample sizes in terms of forced candidates unforced turnovers. Are you saying that?

    And those numbers only talk about turnovers. So letís go over what we know. We know the modern teams I listed turn the ball over less per possession, we know that even after accounting for opponents steals they still turn the ball over less than the other teams I showed. If you want to argue that the older teams didnít have as many unforced turnovers, go ahead and try to prove it. If you want to argue ha I g less turnovers per possession is a meaningless stat, well it just affirms my assertion you think all stats are evil.

    But since you want to differentiate, give me examples of what you believe are sloppier play since you donít believe turnovers are indicative of sloppier play.
    I said statistics can be suggestive if they DO NOT leave out something that would be critical and can completely change the interpretation. These numbers do. I was very specific about what needed to be included and you said that you could include that (you very clearly did not)

    And I dont hate statistics...I hate people like you trying to use them when they have no idea what the heck they mean. It's also not at all clear why you are including steals in here. A steal does not mean that a turnover occurred due to sloppy play, as I've elaborated on in previous posts on this topic. Without looking at forced versus unforced turnovers, these aren't particularly meaningful. You said that you had this data and that you could present it...you failed to deliver on what you said.

    I've also now said this again and again. Turnovers can be indicative of sloppy play, if we're looking at forced versus unforced turnovers. Other things that factor into sloppy play are broken plays and missed assignments.

  5. #6110
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yes, I am saying the rockets don't play a system (not one where guys are genuinely involved in the offense). I don't like one-on-one basketball where that is most of the offense. The 90s did not have that kind of basketball. The 90s/00s actually had a good amount of inside out play where most of the team was involved and there was an actual system and plays built around that system. The only biased guy here is you and your bias is against anyone who goes against the grain. Why don't you go ahead and point out where I said the one on one basketball was better back then then it is now? Go ahead and show me where I said that.
    You are literally saying it this very post. Youíre literally saying one on one back then was Ok because the schemes that ended in one on one play were somehow superior. Aside from being completely not true, its a very large demonstration of your bias.


    Hereís an article talking about the Rockets ISO offense:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbn...tyle-isolation

    Whatís interesting to note is the league was going away from ISO offense before the Rockets. The fact is, they play less ISO now than they did in the 90ís/00ís.

    Here is an article talking about the revolution of offenses:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...offensive-boom


    So when you say you donít like watching players go one on one, what specific years are you talking about? Because weíve seen less ISO ball in the past 10 years than we have the past 20.

  6. #6111
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I said statistics can be suggestive if they DO NOT leave out something that would be critical and can completely change the interpretation. These numbers do. I was very specific about what needed to be included and you said that you could include that (you very clearly did not)

    And I dont hate statistics...I hate people like you trying to use them when they have no idea what the heck they mean. It's also not at all clear why you are including steals in here. A steal does not mean that a turnover occurred due to sloppy play, as I've elaborated on in previous posts on this topic. Without looking at forced versus unforced turnovers, these aren't particularly meaningful. You said that you had this data and that you could present it...you failed to deliver on what you said.

    I've also now said this again and again. Turnovers can be indicative of sloppy play, if we're looking at forced versus unforced turnovers. Other things that factor into sloppy play are broken plays and missed assignments.
    No, I very clearly said what if I could only provide some of what you asked, you said it would be suggestive. I then provided some and you said itís not. You are a liar.

    If you donít hate statistics, then tell me statistics you use for basketball. Because so far your answer has been none, which strongly suggests you hate them.

    I also asked you a question you did not answer, because I suspect that by doing so you admit what Iíve been saying is true.

    Do you think that the statistics would show a large discrepancy in unforced errors given the sample sizes? Do you think the unforced errors would be so massive for teams today compared to back then itíd demonstrate sloppier play?

  7. #6112
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You are literally saying it this very post. Youíre literally saying one on one back then was Ok because the schemes that ended in one on one play were somehow superior. Aside from being completely not true, its a very large demonstration of your bias.


    Hereís an article talking about the Rockets ISO offense:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbn...tyle-isolation

    Whatís interesting to note is the league was going away from ISO offense before the Rockets. The fact is, they play less ISO now than they did in the 90ís/00ís.

    Here is an article talking about the revolution of offenses:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...offensive-boom


    So when you say you donít like watching players go one on one, what specific years are you talking about? Because weíve seen less ISO ball in the past 10 years than we have the past 20.
    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "literally". And no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I don't mind one-on-one basketball when it is a component of a much larger offensive system. I don't like it when that is the primary strategy that a team uses. I also don't get why you are only focusing on the one-on-one aspect of the game. I ALSO said I don't like to see teams shoot a million 3s per game. Yes, I very much disliked the D'Antoni offense. I really don't see why you have an issue with this. You seem to mostly be the only one.

  8. #6113
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No, I very clearly said what if I could only provide some of what you asked, you said it would be suggestive. I then provided some and you said itís not. You are a liar.

    If you donít hate statistics, then tell me statistics you use for basketball. Because so far your answer has been none, which strongly suggests you hate them.

    I also asked you a question you did not answer, because I suspect that by doing so you admit what Iíve been saying is true.

    Do you think that the statistics would show a large discrepancy in unforced errors given the sample sizes? Do you think the unforced errors would be so massive for teams today compared to back then itíd demonstrate sloppier play?
    You said that you could provide 2 of the 3. You only included the turnovers per 100 possessions

    The larger your sample size is, the more likely you are to detect small differences, so yes almost certainly the statistics would show a discrepancy in unforced errors (so long as there are at least small differences).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-09-2020 at 08:01 PM.

  9. #6114
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "literally". And no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I don't mind one-on-one basketball when it is a component of a much larger offensive system. I don't like it when that is the primary strategy that a team uses. I also don't get why you are only focusing on the one-on-one aspect of the game. I ALSO said I don't like to see teams shoot a million 3s per game. Yes, I very much disliked the D'Antoni offense. I really don't see why you have an issue with this. You seem to mostly be the only one.
    Well first off, saying ďwhen it is a component of a much larger offensive schemeĒ and ďwhen itís the primary strategy that a team usesĒ are not mutually exclusive. Because the 90ís/00ís the ISO was their primary strategy that they used you were just OK with it because it was somehow part of a larger scheme.

    The reason Iím getting on you so hard is you are repeating the same tired falsifies that the illiterate basketball fans on here have been repeating for years. You dislike ISO but donít even realize the league uses far less ISO than they did before, but then when I had to educate you changed to but I like the ISO they did in the 90ís better.

    It shows you have a belief: that the 90ís was better, and itís not based on anything concrete.

    The reason I focused on the one on one aspect of the game is it illustrated your ignorance in that:

    1). You didnít realize they do less one on one today than before

    2). That was the primary offense of the 90ís and 00ís.


    It would be like me saying ďthe reason I love this era better than the 90ís is because I love the post upĒ. By saying that you immediately demonstrate basketball ignorance, just as you did when you said you love the 90ís and hate today because of all the one on one.
    Last edited by valade16; 06-09-2020 at 08:08 PM.

  10. #6115
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,761
    wait, so the guy dislikes 1v1 but adores 90s ball and kobe?

  11. #6116
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    You said that you could provide 2 of the 3. You only included the turnovers per 100 possessions

    The larger your sample size is, the more likely you are to detect small differences, so yes almost certainly the statistics would show a discrepancy in unforced errors (so long as there are at least small differences).
    Yeah see the second sentence is why I know youíre lying about being an expert on statistics. The larger the sample size the smaller the discrepancies become (unless they are very pronounced). If I flip a coin 3 times and it hits heads 2/3 times the discrepancy between heads and tails is massive, if I flip a coin 1,000 times the chances of a discrepancy of heads/tails flips will be nowhere near 2/3.

    So itís pretty clear you definitely believe there are far more unforced turnovers today than their were back then.

    You also refused to State what statistics you use for basketball.

  12. #6117
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    wait, so the guy dislikes 1v1 but adores 90s ball and kobe?
    Yes because that one on one was part of a scheme, so itís ok.

  13. #6118
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yeah see the second sentence is why I know youíre lying about being an expert on statistics. The larger the sample size the smaller the discrepancies become (unless they are very pronounced). If I flip a coin 3 times and it hits heads 2/3 times the discrepancy between heads and tails is massive, if I flip a coin 1,000 times the chances of a discrepancy of heads/tails flips will be nowhere near 2/3.

    So itís pretty clear you definitely believe there are far more unforced turnovers today than their were back then.

    You also refused to State what statistics you use for basketball.
    Nope, you are wrong dude and this is not debatable. Go ahead and look up any textbook (I teach this stuff man lol). The differences are not likely to become smaller, the variance is likely to decrease. What a larger sample, you will get closer to the true population mean, meaning what ever the true value is for whatever you are measuring you are more likely to get close to it. Your example, actually demonstrates a common misunderstanding among undergraduate students. With a coin flip you get closer to 50% the more flips you have because the true value is 50%. I can't believe you legitimately just tried to school a scientist with a triple PhD, on statistics (only in the internet would someone like you dare try something so hilariously outlandish)

  14. #6119
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well first off, saying ďwhen it is a component of a much larger offensive schemeĒ and ďwhen itís the primary strategy that a team usesĒ are not mutually exclusive. Because the 90ís/00ís the ISO was their primary strategy that they used you were just OK with it because it was somehow part of a larger scheme.

    The reason Iím getting on you so hard is you are repeating the same tired falsifies that the illiterate basketball fans on here have been repeating for years. You dislike ISO but donít even realize the league uses far less ISO than they did before, but then when I had to educate you changed to but I like the ISO they did in the 90ís better.

    It shows you have a belief: that the 90ís was better, and itís not based on anything concrete.

    The reason I focused on the one on one aspect of the game is it illustrated your ignorance in that:

    1). You didnít realize they do less one on one today than before

    2). That was the primary offense of the 90ís and 00ís.


    It would be like me saying ďthe reason I love this era better than the 90ís is because I love the post upĒ. By saying that you immediately demonstrate basketball ignorance, just as you did when you said you love the 90ís and hate today because of all the one on one.
    In the 90s/00s, the game was played inside out and there was an entire offensive system built around having all players involved. We don't see that anymore. That's not what the game is today.

  15. #6120
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yes because that one on one was part of a scheme, so itís ok.
    It is okay, because it's what I like. Questioning that is analogous to questioning someone who likes ketchup on a burger but not a hot dog, they can like whatever they want.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •