What's new
By:

The "Official" How many Turnovers did Trey Burke have in this game thread.

dalamon said:
Before being a **** and slamming me with the label of "talking out of my ***", how about you develop a shred of communicational skills, and simply say "Well Dalamon, I think turnover percentage is a much more accurate statistic than turnovers/game. Heres why: "--
Click to expand...

So, *you* are asking for someone to treat you respectfully? I laughed out loud.
 
I find it hard to believe that because one is already good at something, that becomes a negative because he then cant show as much improvement in that area.
Improvement means you were lacking, why is not lacking a bad thing? So his ceiling isn't as high because his floor is higher?
I swear that made sense when I typed it.
 
Scorpjazz said:
I find it hard to believe that because one is already good at something, that becomes a negative because he then cant show as much improvement in that area.
Improvement means you were lacking, why is not lacking a bad thing? So his ceiling isn't as high because his floor is higher?
I swear that made sense when I typed it.
Click to expand...

kanter was really good in rbeounding. suddnely he cant rbeound when playing against 3rd graders
 
Sirkickyass said:
Oh I know that, but all I had to do to redeem a $20 offer was "find a single published "literature" article involving turnover percentage by an academic journal."

I'd say it qualifies.
Click to expand...


It does qualify-- and while I won't be sending you $20 dollars any-time soon (sorry doe) maybe I'll buy you a beer or something if I ever see you. I genuinely had no idea that these sorts of articles are published in academia.




But seeing as academic literature on basketball is prevalent...

Sirkickyass said:
It means that there are fewer "easy" improvements to make and "easy" mistakes to cut down on.

If you read the literature this is a conclusion that, while somewhat counterintuitive, jumps out at you.
Click to expand...


Pls link the the 'literature' makes this conclusion. I'll wait. Cuz so far, all you've mentioned is a single John Hollinger article.
 
dalamon said:
Pls link the the 'literature' makes this conclusion. I'll wait. Cuz so far, all you've mentioned is a single John Hollinger article.
Click to expand...

Wow, shifting the goalposts and asking someone else to do your homework for you. Nice work for two sentences.
 
dalamon said:
It does qualify-- and while I won't be sending you $20 dollars any-time soon (sorry doe) maybe I'll buy you a beer or something if I ever see you. I genuinely had no idea that these sorts of articles are published in academia.
Click to expand...

Since you're not paying me the $20 I feel entitled to make this a life lesson: just cause you don't know about it doesn't mean it ain't so.

But seeing as academic literature on basketball is prevalent...


Pls link the the 'literature' makes this conclusion. I'll wait. Cuz so far, all you've mentioned is a single John Hollinger article.
Click to expand...

It is somewhat amusing to see someone declare that no such literature exists, get proven wrong, and then get huffy and declare that they're waiting for the evidence on a specific article several days later.

I had more time for this on the weekend. I'm an adult and have a job. If you'd asked back then I might have spent 30 minutes digging it up for you but the Hollinger quote should indicate for you that such research exists. Now that you're aware that this is a statistical conclusion if you read enough NBA material you may see it pop up from time to time. I know David Thorpe has also referenced this historical development curiosity in a handful of articles over the years. Maybe if I feel like continuing this discussion later I'll do your googling for you.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Since you're not paying me the $20 I feel entitled gloat like a condescending, 'told-ya-so' douche
Click to expand...

I clearly understand that I do not know everything-- and I am glad that I have the pride to admit that I don't, and be receptive to others perspectives if theirs are more well-thought than mine. I'll let you enjoy this brief period of you being right, as it seems to really make you feel warm inside. Glad I could provide that service for you :)



It is somewhat amusing to see someone declare that no such literature exists, get proven wrong, and then get huffy
Click to expand...

Get huffy? What about the post that you quoted was 'huffy'? I stated that GVC was wrong, that you were right, and that I learned something that I didn't know before. You're just being melodramatic, quite honestly. It's kinda cute.

and declare that they're waiting for the evidence on a specific article several days later.
Click to expand...

Well you made a reference to literature. I am still waiting for you to cite your sources. This is a common academic process. Your justifications completely collapse if you cite to unreptuable, or non-existent sources. I am simply offering you an opportunity to lend credence to your (laughable) claims.

I had more time for this on the weekend. I'm an adult and have a job.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are an adult AND you have a job? Somebody get this guy a medal. Not sure how you manage tbh.


If you'd asked back then I might have spent 30 minutes digging it up for you but the Hollinger quote should indicate for you that such research exists. Now that you're aware that this is a statistical conclusion if you read enough NBA material you may see it pop up from time to time. I know David Thorpe has also referenced this historical development curiosity in a handful of articles over the years. Maybe if I feel like continuing this discussion later I'll do your googling for you.
Click to expand...

If you feel like it, then go on ahead. If you don't, its your point's credibility that loses, not mine. So feel free to do as you wish.
 
In other news, Trey Burke dropped 30 points tonight. **** bros. He's peaking right now. Let's trade him while his stock is high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top