Trade deadline discussion

[LogGrad98]

What’s amazing is that this argument appeals to the ‘smart’ people who don’t want to look stupid getting hyped by an outlier, but Quin’s strategy in winning the post season is about getting a good roll on an outlier. It’s literally based on that. Have a baseline mean where the positively skewed outliers mean you’re the champion. That’s a globally true strategy, but when we pretend that we don’t need adjustments because our assumption is that that positive outlier only exists a standard deviation above the mean, it’s problematic.

Agreed. But I do not believe Quin views it that way. I'm sure his belief is that the process as designed will lead to the championship and we just have to weather the statistical outliers, such as bad shooting nights, games with especially poor defensive effort, and other teams with systems that counter ours not being threats significant enough to win more than 3 games in a 7-game series. He believes his system is the engine that gets us there and anything that disrupts it is the outlier.

 

[KqWIN]

What’s amazing is that this argument appeals to the ‘smart’ people who don’t want to look stupid getting hyped by an outlier, but Quin’s strategy in winning the post season is about getting a good roll on an outlier. It’s literally based on that. Have a baseline mean where the positively skewed outliers mean you’re the champion. That’s a globally true strategy, but when we pretend that we don’t need adjustments because our assumption is that that positive outlier only exists a standard deviation above the mean, it’s problematic.

Why is that whenever the "smart" or "analytical" conversation is brought up, people always get it backwards? If you believe that Quin is too dependent on his one strategy, he is depending on outliers not happening. It can't be, he's indifferent to the possibility of outliers and he's also dependent on outliers. Pick one or the other. You can't criticize a coach for doing two things that are direct opposites of each other.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why is that whenever the "smart" or "analytical" conversation is brought up, people always get it backwards? If you believe that Quin is too dependent on his one strategy, he is depending on outliers not happening. It can't be, he's indifferent to the possibility of outliers and he's also dependent on outliers. Pick one or the other. You can't criticize a coach for doing two things that are direct opposites of each other.

You miss the point. It's that he thinks he's doing one of them but in practice he's actually doing the other.

 

[Jingled]

I think Clarkson is on the do not trade list.

I don't think this is true at all. If Ainge finds a deal that makes sense, I don't think he would hesitate at all to trade him.

 

[KqWIN]

You miss the point. It's that he thinks he's doing one of them but in practice he's actually doing the other.

The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.

 

[infection]

The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.

The point was that people (and Quin) aren’t going to get too excited about positive small samples (like last night, for instance) because they are believed to be outliers (fair enough), and we’ll also tolerate bad things because we view those bad things as outliers to (what we believe is) the mean. But our strategy for going all the way, however, is based on an outlier theory (“peaking at the right time”). So yes, it’s contradictory. And that’s what I’m pointing out.

But that strategy gets mainstream traction because it “makes sense.” But if someone suggests “what if…” that’s simply the inverse of peaking at the right time, suggesting what if the wheels fall off at the wrong time, we dismiss it, say it’s preposterous, and just negative fanspeak, and that we need to ground ourselves in the middle of the distribution and not outliers.

 

[LogGrad98]

The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.

You're missing the point. It means he thinks he's doing one when in practice he's really doing the other.

 

[KqWIN]

The point was that people (and Quin) aren’t going to get too excited about positive small samples (like last night, for instance) because they are believed to be outliers (fair enough), and we’ll also tolerate bad things because we view those bad things as outliers to (what we believe is) the mean. But our strategy for going all the way, however, is based on an outlier theory (“peaking at the right time”). So yes, it’s contradictory. And that’s what I’m pointing out.

Quin's strategy and philosophy on not changing strategy is not based on outliers. If you think that we are not adjusting on the basis of counting on outliers, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[KqWIN]

You're missing the point. It means he thinks he's doing one when in practice he's really doing the other.

I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

So, JC has missed the last two games and we finally win those two games. I hope Quin is catching this.

 

[infection]

I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.

You can describe it in numerous different ways that have different angles on the same concept. I say half-dozen and you’re insistent on “well, no, actually it’s 6. Lol. You can say it’s 6 but it’s not half dozen.”

Quin is rigid. Why is Quin rigid? Because he thinks what he has works more than it does. He thinks our 75th percentile performance is our 50th percentile.

But I’ll call it six, if you want me to.

ETA: expecting next response to be “lol I don’t think it’s six at all, it’s definitely not six. It’s 3+3.”

 

[LogGrad98]

I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.

You need to think outside the three-dimensional quadrilateral parallelogram. You are stuck on thinking we think Quin is thinking that way. He's not. He's thinking he's doing one thing, but in reality he's doing the other. He thinks his system will win it, when in reality winning it is based on leveraging positive outliers, not staying within control limits of the process. But that isn't what he thinks he's doing, but that is, in actuality, what he is doing.