Who will lead in PPG this season?

[fishonjazz]

No he doesnt. You are saying nonsensical stuff and that doesn't mean anything meaningful.

I'm not even saying theres meaning to it. Just saying it's true. Sorry you don't like the truth.

 

[fishonjazz]

No he doesnt.

He doesn't what?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Over 7 years.

Inferring results over an insufficient sample size breaks one of the commandments of statistics.

I know everyone is so horny about flipping the bird to the ex that left them, but that doesn't change that in no way, shape, or form could the Jazz be better without Hayward. It sucks. You move on.

The only hope to be better with Hayward gone is it clears room for someone to step up and break out.

We are worse without him. Although we might be better or the same as last season if we have average league health this year. But we would be better if we had average league health and Hayward.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I'm not even saying theres meaning to it. Just saying it's true. Sorry you don't like the truth.

You are clearly making a statistical inference that is not true. I'm going to call it out.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Sometimes you can just say "yep, you were right" and then move on.

This discussion was never about debating the raw data, and you know that.

Wait, do you know that?

 

[fishonjazz]

You are clearly making a statistical inference that is not true. I'm going to call it out.

This discussion was never about debating the raw data, and you know that.

Wait, do you know that?

Here is how it went cause you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so i will clear it up.

Pretty funny how they seemed to win more games (% wise) when hayward was hurt or sick than when he was on the court doe.
Including the playoff game when he was sick.

Here was my first post (i put the parenthesis part in) which was a response to franklin who posted a doom and gloom post about how bad the jazz will suck without hayward (frank gonna frank). I was only saying that it was funny (not funny ha ha but funny as in a strange weird way) that we seemed to actually do better without him than with him. (at this point it was just something that i remembered hearing but didn't have the raw data)

Not funny. Also your supposition is flat wrong, and using a microscopic sample size does as much to undermine your argument as support it.

Franklin is 100% correct. Sorry if stating simple, obvious reality isn't macho enough.

Here you tell me that im flat wrong. Siro came with the raw data later on to show that i was actually flat right. You were flat wrong. Not that you would ever admit it. Also you didn't find it funny. Thats fine. The sample size is small. we both agree on that. it is what it is. In my original post i wasn't claiming that it wasn't a small sample size.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Jazz record without Hayward for the past 5 years is 18-14. For the past 2 years, it's 7-4.

There was the raw data showing that i was right.

Wow. It's even better than I remembered. **** haywood.

That's pretty crazy considering some of those years were tank type years when the roster was crap yet a crap roster minus haywood still did pretty good (and did better than with haywood which was my point)

Thanks for posting that

It ended up being a better record without him than i thought. (was thinking about .500) I do think its pretty crazy/unexpected/weird that a roster during our tanking years with no haywood on it won at a pretty good rate, small sample size and all. I would think that we would lose more when he doesn't play since he is a good player. Apparently you think it to be perfectly normal and maybe even likely(?) that we would win at a better rate without him than with.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Here is how it went cause you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so i will clear it up.

Here was my first post (i put the parenthesis part in) which was a response to franklin who posted a doom and gloom post about how bad the jazz will suck without hayward (frank gonna frank). I was only saying that it was funny (not funny ha ha but funny as in a strange weird way) that we seemed to actually do better without him than with him. (at this point it was just something that i remembered hearing but didn't have the raw data)

Here you tell me that im flat wrong. Siro came with the raw data later on to show that i was actually flat right. You were flat wrong. Not that you would ever admit it. Also you didn't find it funny. Thats fine. The sample size is small. we both agree on that. it is what it is. In my original post i wasn't claiming that it wasn't a small sample size.


There was the raw data showing that i was right.


It ended up being a better record without him than i thought. (was thinking about .500) I do think its pretty crazy/unexpected/weird that a roster during our tanking years with no haywood on it won at a pretty good rate, small sample size and all. I would think that we would lose more when he doesn't play since he is a good player. Apparently you think it to be perfectly normal and maybe even likely(?) that we would win at a better rate without him than with.

You just said you werent trying to put meaning behind it but this clearly shows you are. It's a small sample that has no meaning.

 

[fishonjazz]

Wow, that's not a very good record and an incredibly small sample size.

18-14 with a crap roster is pretty good imo. We can agree to disagree. apparently you think a tanking team without hayward should be really really good. Strange.

It's a winning record during years when our record was horrible

18-14 is a win % that could get you into the playoffs. And thats with some horrible rosters and no amazing hayward out there either.
Did you forget that we missed the playoffs for many years before last year.

I'm shocked that a team that couldn't make the playoffs would have a winning record without their "best" player.

As for sample size. It's not huge but 32 games isn't tiny either.

It what is. We had a better winning % when hayward didn't play than when he did, no matter what excuses you want make and how you want to spin it. Which was my original point.

So things you were wrong about were: 1. That my supposition was flat wrong. It was actually totally right. 2. That the discussion was never about raw data. That is exactly what i was discussing. 3.That I was making a statistical inference. If you inferred something out of me stating that the jazz won at a better rate without him than with him like that i was trying to say that haywood sucked or we will be better without him or something then that is on you. I never said any of that. In fact i have often said the opposite and I wanted him to stay with the jazz. Losing him was a bad thing imo.

What you were right about was the small sample size. I agree its a small sample size. Also i dont care. I never made reference that it was a big sample size in my original post. Just that the jazz won at a better clip when hayward was out than when he was in. Which i was right about.

Im curious to see if you own up to the fact that i was right about what i said after you told me i was flat wrong. I doubt it though.

 

[fishonjazz]

You just said you werent trying to put meaning behind it but this clearly shows you are. It's a small sample that has no meaning.

What did i say that shows im putting meaning behind it? All my post was about was defending myself for when i stated that the jazz did better without him than with him and then i was told i was wrong. Thats it. I agree that its a small sample size that has no meaning. I found it to funny (weird/odd/strange) There is no more to it than that.
What meaning, in your opinion, was i trying to get out there?

 

[NUMBERICA]

What did i say that shows im putting meaning behind it? All my post was about was defending myself for when i stated that the jazz did better without him than with him and then i was told i was wrong. Thats it. I agree that its a small sample size that has no meaning. I found it to funny (weird/odd/strange) There is no more to it than that.
What meaning, in your opinion, was i trying to get out there?

That Hayward isn't that good/that the Jazz are as good or better without him, otherwise, why bring it up (and harp on it)?

"It's funny."?

Oh, okay.

 

[fishonjazz]

That Hayward isn't that good/that the Jazz are as good or better without him, otherwise, why bring it up (and harp on it)?

"It's funny."?

Oh, okay.

I already said that I don't think those things.
Sorry that you read into something that wasn't there. In the end my simple statement was correct.

 

[ghsartin]

Scoring wise, Hayward was 7th in efficiency among high volume scorers. Your perception of him is wrong.

If you are only talking about last season, Hayward was very good indeed. My argument, though, was that Hayward was clearly "the man" for three seasons and only during the last one his offensive efficiency was high, so it's not like he was consistently good at that role.