What's new
By:

I want apologies for all the Niang hate on this board!!!

Guys... here is the solution to all our problems... ya ready.

Niang shoots 46% on threes at home and 24% on the road.

Bojan shoots 47% from three on the road and 30% at home.

Niang starts the home games and plays 30 minutes... Bojan starts the road games and plays 30 minutes.

You're welcome.
 
MT Steve said:
I'm not attacking you Log. I'm trying to keep the conversation civil, and I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of things like "taking this so personally", "lose their freaking minds".

It feels like a projection - and I don't even know how to respond to it.
Click to expand...
If you want to take "some people" as meaning you directly that's your choice. I addressed you directly then made a couple of more general comments.

And your started this off previously with a smart-*** comment that you admitted was mocking. Not sure how I'm supposed to take the rest of what you say.

But I did not mean the last 2 paragraphs to be you specifically. Unless you are one of them that got hung up on the "outlier"piece I guess.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Guys... here is the solution to all our problems... ya ready.

Niang shoots 46% on threes at home and 24% on the road.

Bojan shoots 47% from three on the road and 30% at home.

Niang starts the home games and plays 30 minutes... Bojan starts the road games and plays 30 minutes.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Brilliant!
 
LogGrad98 said:
If you want to take "some people" as meaning you directly that's your choice. I addressed you directly then made a couple of more general comments.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
LogGrad98 said:
And your started this off previously with a smart-*** comment that you admitted was mocking. Not sure how I'm supposed to take the rest of what you say.
Click to expand...
It wasn't mocking you personally, it was mocking the principle of using data to support a conclusion while placing the most importance on the most recent fraction of the population.

If it helps, I fall for recency bias all the time. Everybody does. The takeaway wasn't "People who fall for recency bias are dumb", and I apologize if it came across that way.
 
MT Steve said:
Gotcha.

It wasn't mocking you personally, it was mocking the principle of using data to support a conclusion while placing the most importance on the most recent fraction of the population.

If it helps, I fall for recency bias all the time. Everybody does. The takeaway wasn't "People who fall for recency bias are dumb", and I apologize if it came across that way.
Click to expand...
To be fair I was taking this entire season, which is a big enough sample to draw some conclusions.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To be fair I was taking this entire season, which is a big enough sample to draw some conclusions.
Click to expand...
I get that, but think about the volume.

He's shot 37/101 from 3 - 36.6%. If he'd made just 3 more of those 3's - think about that, just 3 total, he'd basically be in line with last year at 40%. Just 3. Spread those 9 points out over this season, we're talking about 0.3 points per game.

With a 40% 3 point shooter, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to make 40 of them every time he takes 100 shots. More realistically, the first 100 might be 35, the next might be 45, etc... Making 37 of 100 isn't alarming for a 40% 3 pt shooter.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To be fair I was taking this entire season, which is a big enough sample to draw some conclusions.
Click to expand...
I think he's trying to expand his game a bit and is taking some additional contested threes. I think guys are staying closer too... so he might feel he has to force a couple up to keep his high volume. Catch and shoot 3s he is at 38% and was 40% last year. Really a small, small difference. I think he should limit his looks just a hair tbh. Play a little more within himself.
 
MT Steve said:
I get that, but think about the volume.

He's shot 37/101 from 3 - 36.6%. If he'd made just 3 more of those 3's - think about that, just 3 total, he'd basically be in line with last year at 40%. Just 3. Spread those 9 points out over this season, we're talking about 0.3 points per game.

With a 40% 3 point shooter, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to make 40 of them every time he takes 100 shots. More realistically, the first 100 might be 35, the next might be 45, etc... Making 37 of 100 isn't alarming for a 40% 3 pt shooter.
Click to expand...
I also think bench players are also going to have more variance. They may have a few games where they get 12 minutes and go 0-2 and just aren't in the flow of the game at any point. They don't get the chance to right the ship.
 
MT Steve said:
I get that, but think about the volume.

He's shot 37/101 from 3 - 36.6%. If he'd made just 3 more of those 3's - think about that, just 3 total, he'd basically be in line with last year at 40%. Just 3. Spread those 9 points out over this season, we're talking about 0.3 points per game.

With a 40% 3 point shooter, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to make 40 of them every time he takes 100 shots. More realistically, the first 100 might be 35, the next might be 45, etc... Making 37 of 100 isn't alarming for a 40% 3 pt shooter.
Click to expand...
This is why you have to drop the outlier. Again I ask, what is more indicative of his performance, the 7/7 or the multiple 1/X games this year? Is it more reasonable to expect his next game to be 2/7 or 7/7?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top