Lakers would be better off with Gortat

[D-Dogg]

In related news, the last 20 times I flipped a coin, I got 13 heads, so I must be getting better at that too.

Yawn.

Tell me about the last 82 times. That's the stretch he's shooting 61% over. That's the last 9 games. That's what directly contradicts dawg's assertion. It's 30% of the total number of free throws he's shot this year.

All he needs to do is shoot better than 50% consistently. Right now he's progressing to the mean, which will be around 56%-58% at the end of the year. That is enough to stop the hack a howard strategy and cease him from being a liability.

 

[desertdawg]

Yawn.

Tell me about the last 82 times. That's the stretch he's shooting 61% over. That's the last 9 games. That's what directly contradicts dawg's assertion. It's 30% of the total number of free throws he's shot this year.

All he needs to do is shoot better than 50% consistently. Right now he's progressing to the mean, which will be around 56%-58% at the end of the year. That is enough to stop the hack a howard strategy and cease him from being a liability.

Flukey at the line means you won't never know what he is going to do there. I remember Shaq had some good free throw spurts too. Howard can't shoot free throws man, that means the Laker's postseason is a bust until they get rid of him or Dantoni. If Howard shoots 60% free throws for over a month (any month) I'll take you to the bar. 53% is where he will end up, that's no bueno like Jay Leno.

 

[elindholm]

Tell me about the last 82 times. That's the stretch he's shooting 61% over.

The probability of a coin coming up at least 61% heads in 82 trials is about 3%, or roughly the same probability as rolling double sixes with two dice in one try. (http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx) So if you want to roll double sixes and do, did you get lucky, or are you getting better at rolling dice?

Right now he's progressing to the mean, which will be around 56%-58% at the end of the year. That is enough to stop the hack a howard strategy and cease him from being a liability.

Whether the strategy is a good bet depends on many other variables, including how much the Lakers are expected to score on a normal possession, the likelihood of an offensive rebound off of a Howard miss, which team benefits more from the slowing of the pace (hint: it probably isn't Nash's team), and who knows what else. It's very unlikely that any opposing coach is going to have access to all of that information. Instead he'll go by feel, and if he feels that hacking Howard is the right play, he'll do it.

 

[D-Dogg]

The probability of a coin coming up at least 61% heads in 82 trials is about 3%, or roughly the same probability as rolling double sixes with two dice in one try. (http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx) So if you want to roll double sixes and do, did you get lucky, or are you getting better at rolling dice?

That would be awesome if shooting free throws were a random coin flip scenario that is not impacted by outside events. However, free throws are directly influenced by several adjustments made by the player. Improvements in percentage there are tied to a player's ability. He's a career 58% shooter from the line.

If one could generate a hard twelve 90% of the time by holding my hands in a certain position, and I was able to increase my hard 12 percentage from 47% to 61%, then yes I've gotten better at rolling a hard 12. Dice don't work that way, but free throws do. His mean is 58%, so him shooting in that range is expected. Shooting 47% like he was is not expected over a long period of time. Again, he's simply progressing to his mean.

BTW, there isn't "luck" involved. I simply hit the statistical probablity of hard 12 in the first try rather than the 35th or so. Distribution isn't luck. It's awesome, especially if you just threw down $20 on the hard 12 on the craps table, but it's not luck.

Whether the strategy is a good bet depends on many other variables, including how much the Lakers are expected to score on a normal possession, the likelihood of an offensive rebound off of a Howard miss, which team benefits more from the slowing of the pace (hint: it probably isn't Nash's team), and who knows what else. It's very unlikely that any opposing coach is going to have access to all of that information. Instead he'll go by feel, and if he feels that hacking Howard is the right play, he'll do it

Giving a guaranteed point every trip is already a disadvantage. Slowing of the pace benefits THIS Nash team of older legs. It also allows the defense to set up making the ensuing possession more difficult, especially when the Lakers half court defense is stronger than their transition defense. Likelyhood of an offensive rebound in a Howard miss adds to the shooting team's odds even moreso, as they may get an extra offensive possession.

Hack a defenses rely on the shooter choking two free throws. The instand that shooter starts making 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 in succession those dogs are called off. It had been very successful in November because Dwight was bricking 3 or 4 in a row, and making one. This successfully got teams back in the games. It's a statistical game, much like deciding whether to call a bet when you have an open ended straight in your hand...look at the outs, calculate the pot odds and make the call. Of course, you could go on gut, but you'll lose a lot more than you win that way. Initiating and sticking with the Hack a Guy defensive strategy can be statistically a great decision, but the conditions have to be right. Dwight is currently making the conditions wrong, and he hasn't been hacked. A lot of that is confidence, too (by which our friendly coin and dice aren't impacted).

 

[D-Dogg]

If Howard shoots 60% free throws for over a month (any month) I'll take you to the bar. 53% is where he will end up, that's no bueno like Jay Leno.

You are REALLY benefiting from one of his worst games being the start of December, because that game alone brings his December down from 61% to 57%.

But now I have something interesting to watch over the next few games. He'll have to get a hot streak though over these four games to erase the impact of that 9/21 effort on 10/2. You going to give me the rounding up if it is .595 and above?

He will end up the season at 56%-58%.

 

[elindholm]

That would be awesome if shooting free throws were a random coin flip scenario that is not impacted by outside events. However, free throws are directly influenced by several adjustments made by the player. Improvements in percentage there are tied to a player's ability. He's a career 58% shooter from the line.

I guess the question is whether last year's 50% was an anomaly, or evidence of a detrimental change in technique (or confidence, if you like).

BTW, there isn't "luck" involved. I simply hit the statistical probablity of hard 12 in the first try rather than the 35th or so. Distribution isn't luck. It's awesome, especially if you just threw down $20 on the hard 12 on the craps table, but it's not luck.

Well, I guess you can come up with a specialized definition of "luck" that excludes experiencing a low-probability event under favorable circumstances, but I'm not sure what the point is. Luck is luck; there's no reason to be ashamed of it.

Giving a guaranteed point every trip is already a disadvantage.

Whoa, where did a "guaranteed point" come from?

50% FT shooter:
misses both 25%
makes one, misses one 50%
makes both 25%
makes at least one 75%

58% FT shooter:
misses both 18%
makes one, misses one 49%
makes both 34%
(adds up to 101% due to rounding)
makes at least one 82%

Slowing of the pace benefits THIS Nash team of older legs.

Obviously there's no way to know what the best pace of the Nash Lakers is, since they've never won a single game.

Hack a defenses rely on the shooter choking two free throws. The instand that shooter starts making 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 in succession those dogs are called off.

You're probably right, but that's an illogical approach. If Howard makes 4 out of 6, it's not because he's "on" or "focused" or "relaxed" or "confident," but because he happened to make 4 out of 6. And ditto in the other direction.

O'Neal used to rush his shots around the rim because he was afraid of getting fouled. His poor free-throw shooting had a broader impact on his game. His 53% career FT mark is only a little worse than Howard's.

Initiating and sticking with the Hack a Guy defensive strategy can be statistically a great decision, but the conditions have to be right.

Right, but whether the decision is a great one or a lousy one doesn't depend on whether he has shot 50% or 60% recently.

 

[D-Dogg]

I guess the question is whether last year's 50% was an anomaly, or evidence of a detrimental change in technique (or confidence, if you like).

Fair. Given his historical percentage, it is more than likely an anamoly. Changed technique can be fixed. Confidence is a much more tricky beast.

Well, I guess you can come up with a specialized definition of "luck" that excludes experiencing a low-probability event under favorable circumstances, but I'm not sure what the point is. Luck is luck; there's no reason to be ashamed of it.

I fundamentally disagree with that. Luck is commonly sourced to some nature of fate that fortune smiles on this person or that thing. Prescriptive luck. Improbabilities are often called "luck" but with the embedded prescriptive meaning I hate using luck in any way other than silly superstition. Am I lucky because I hit the outside straight on the river? Am I unlucky because someone else did and cracked my aces? No, I am just the recipient of improbable odds hitting.

I may curse my luck or talk about luck, but when its time to lay it on the table, I play the odds because there is no such thing as luck. I might be fortunate, but not lucky. It's a semantical difference maybe, but I do distinguish between the two.

Whoa, where did a "guaranteed point" come from?

50% FT shooter:
misses both 25%
makes one, misses one 50%
makes both 25%
makes at least one 75%

58% FT shooter:
misses both 18%
makes one, misses one 49%
makes both 34%
(adds up to 101% due to rounding)
makes at least one 82%

Well stated..no, there isn't a guaranteed point. But there is a much larger likelihood of the miss two with the poorer shooter. And in the stretch of hack a dwight, he was dipping down into the upper 30% section, which really inflates the double-miss scenario (which is what the other team really wants to happen). But solid point nonetheless.

Obviously there's no way to know what the best pace of the Nash Lakers is, since they've never won a single game.

True, but you are ascribing the Nash-paced Suns to your comment as well. I'm augmenting the current speed of the Lakers team with Nash's aged legs and extrapolating. I'm confident the Lakers will not play at the pace the Suns did, and hack an anything won't be as detrimental to the Lakers with their better half court defense and slower transistion offense.

You're probably right, but that's an illogical approach. If Howard makes 4 out of 6, it's not because he's "on" or "focused" or "relaxed" or "confident," but because he happened to make 4 out of 6. And ditto in the other direction.

I disagree - confidence absolutely has an impact on shooting. It is not a chance element. Rushed shots, concentration, etc can cause misses or makes. Tension or "fear" of missing can cause misses. It isn't the dice or coin scenario..both minute changes in form, and especially mental approach can have a major impact on the success or failure of a shot.

Fundamentally I think this is where our little disagreement is here. Shooting a free throw can not be compared to a coin flip in general statistical odds. There are so many more impacts on the shot, from form adjustments to confidence, and fatigue to pressure situations. If I miss 8 out of 10, make adjustments to my shot, or even meditate and clear my head, then go out and make 8 out of 10, that's not because I just happened to do it. There can be a demonstrable cause and effect in shooting free throws that is not present in standard or straight probabilities of random events. Free throws are not random events governed by basic statistics. If Dwight is clanging free throws all night and looks shaky at the line, by all means I'm hacking the guy. Stats don't tell me to do that, and in fact stats tell me NOT to do that. But when he's shaken, his entire shot goes wild. Unlike other players who are good at going shot by shot, not mentally getting caught up in misses or makes...Dwight's not that guy. He crashes hard if things aren't going his way. Hence, he gets nights of 3-14 and 3-12...hack nights.

 

[elindholm]

I fundamentally disagree with that. Luck is commonly sourced to some nature of fate that fortune smiles on this person or that thing.

I think we associate with people who have differing concepts of what is meant by "luck," but no big deal.

I might be fortunate, but not lucky. It's a semantical difference maybe, but I do distinguish between the two.

Most references say that "lucky" and "fortunate" are synonyms, so whatever semantical difference you're trying to draw, you should be aware that it isn't embraced by the general population.

I disagree - confidence absolutely has an impact on shooting. It is not a chance element.

You're right that it's not a chance element, but the variables are so complex as to render useless any prediction of the outcome that is based on anything other than chance.

Rushed shots, concentration, etc can cause misses or makes. Tension or "fear" of missing can cause misses.

But look at Bryant. I think most people would agree that his concentration and confidence are exceptionally high, particularly at the ends of games. Yet the numbers show clearly that he is not a good "clutch" shooter, in spite of his reputation. In other words, all of those intangibles aren't improving his bottom line; in fact they might even be hurting it.

If I miss 8 out of 10, make adjustments to my shot, or even meditate and clear my head, then go out and make 8 out of 10, that's not because I just happened to do it. There can be a demonstrable cause and effect in shooting free throws that is not present in standard or straight probabilities of random events.

No, unfortunately the cause and effect aren't demonstrable, unless you were to do a very sophisticated and controlled experiment. Once you'll follow up a 2-10 with an 8-10, and think, "Ah ha! I was concentrating better!" The next time after that, you'll go 3-10 and think, "I guess I wasn't really concentrating." Things like confidence and concentration are always assessed with the benefit of hindsight.

If Dwight is clanging free throws all night and looks shaky at the line, by all means I'm hacking the guy. Stats don't tell me to do that, and in fact stats tell me NOT to do that.

I think you're misunderstanding regression to the mean. If his FTs were completely governed by chance, how well he did early in the game would have no impact at all on your correct strategy.

But when he's shaken, his entire shot goes wild. Unlike other players who are good at going shot by shot, not mentally getting caught up in misses or makes...Dwight's not that guy. He crashes hard if things aren't going his way. Hence, he gets nights of 3-14 and 3-12...hack nights.

I'd love to see an analysis of whether Howard's immediate-past FT performance is useful as a predictor of what he'll do next. In all of the games when he started 2-8 from the line, did he really miss the 9th one more often than he made it? These analyses usually come up negative -- they show that, as the saying goes, past performance tells you nothing about future results. But I can believe that there are probably some players out there who, for a narrowly defined skill like FT shooting, really do run "hot" and "cold" in a way that can be predictive. If that's the case for Howard, it would be immensely valuable information for both sides. But I won't believe it until I see the numbers.

 

[D-Dogg]

I think we associate with people who have differing concepts of what is meant by "luck," but no big deal.

Most references say that "lucky" and "fortunate" are synonyms, so whatever semantical difference you're trying to draw, you should be aware that it isn't embraced by the general population.

Luck usually carries with it a mystical concept that fortunate usually does not. That is the distinction I see.

You're right that it's not a chance element, but the variables are so complex as to render useless any prediction of the outcome that is based on anything other than chance.

I find that a cop out. It truly means you need to do a deeper analysis on THAT person to determine the variables and their impact. Statistical analysis meets behavioral analysis to get the true picture of what you are looking at.

But look at Bryant. I think most people would agree that his concentration and confidence are exceptionally high, particularly at the ends of games. Yet the numbers show clearly that he is not a good "clutch" shooter, in spite of his reputation. In other words, all of those intangibles aren't improving his bottom line; in fact they might even be hurting it.

Here you take two disparate things...free throw shooting and end of game shots (the clutch statistic) and try to normalize them. This is not possible. At the end of a game, Kobe is most likely going to take the shot, and the defense is most likely going to funnel to him, causing a difficult shot. In a free throw situation, you are still doing the same thing...shooting a fifteen foot shot at a hoop ten feet high. Kobe is clutch in those moments as he is mentally strong. It was this season where he was jawing with Crash on the free throw line for two game clinching shots, and talked until time to focus, cleared his head and canned the shot...he did it again for the next shot.

D12 can NOT do this. His mental focus isn't remotely in that realm. Game pressure or misses won't affect Kobe, but they DO affect Dwight. It's visible.

No, unfortunately the cause and effect aren't demonstrable, unless you were to do a very sophisticated and controlled experiment. Once you'll follow up a 2-10 with an 8-10, and think, "Ah ha! I was concentrating better!" The next time after that, you'll go 3-10 and think, "I guess I wasn't really concentrating." Things like confidence and concentration are always assessed with the benefit of hindsight.

Cause and effect are demonstrable especially if you track what you are doing. I am going through this right now. My kids 12 and 9 are going through an intense 16 week shooting clinic with one on one coaching. They have daily practices and drills they have to do focusing on several elements of the shot. I can demonstrably chart the differences in their shot based on when they hit all the elements of the jump shot (as many as a golf swing) or when they missed certain things (legs not to 120 degrees, ball released too high or started too low in the pocket, etc). Shooting a basketball is a physical mechanic..improving that mechanic is possible, and it is measurable.

Performing those basic mechanics under pressure or fatigue situations is the part that is hard to measure, but you can assess situations such as intentionally being fouled or shooting with a close game and compare them to performance in other less "stressful" situations.

I think you're misunderstanding regression to the mean. If his FTs were completely governed by chance, how well he did early in the game would have no impact at all on your correct strategy.

If his free throws were completely governed by chance, and he had missed 10 of 12 early in the game it would not behoove me to continue to foul him and give more 50/50 opportunities. Regression to the mean occurs within a wider data set, so if he's missing and there's a fifty/fifty he misses, expanding the data set goes against my odds. If I've flipped a coin 20 times and have seen 5 heads, and I get $5 per head, I'm going to flip the hell out of that coin to see the odds even back out and bring the expected heads that will come by pure chance.

However, with an event not governed by chance, but rather by skill and mental approach such as free throws, and a player that demonstrates frustration with pressure-filled free throws and struggles to make them, a 2-12 start would behoove me to foul him more, put him back on the line and watch his mind melt and see him grip at the line and brick a few more, letting the failure continue to compound.

The variable here is the human component, which can be statistically accounted for via behavioral analytics.

I'd love to see an analysis of whether Howard's immediate-past FT performance is useful as a predictor of what he'll do next. In all of the games when he started 2-8 from the line, did he really miss the 9th one more often than he made it? These analyses usually come up negative -- they show that, as the saying goes, past performance tells you nothing about future results. But I can believe that there are probably some players out there who, for a narrowly defined skill like FT shooting, really do run "hot" and "cold" in a way that can be predictive. If that's the case for Howard, it would be immensely valuable information for both sides. But I won't believe it until I see the numbers.

You are still too buried in analyzing this based on random chance. I'd rather see if his immediate past FT performance is a predictor of what he will do in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. Example, was the 9th one after an intentional foul? Was it in a game within 4 points. Then compare that with games within 15 points, or if the foul was after a made basket in an And one scenario.

You'd need a rather large data set, but if you did perform this type of very deep, detailed analysis, you'd have a much truer picture of D12 and his FT woes and strengths, including mental likelihood of makes in situations.




BTW, this is one of the better and more interesting basketball discussions I've had in a while.

 

[elindholm]

Luck usually carries with it a mystical concept that fortunate usually does not. That is the distinction I see.

Fair enough. No one I deal with believes in mysticism, and we still use the word "luck," but I don't think it's productive to argue definitions to this degree.

I find that a cop out. It truly means you need to do a deeper analysis on THAT person to determine the variables and their impact. Statistical analysis meets behavioral analysis to get the true picture of what you are looking at.

Well, right, you could try to measure heart rate and other vitals, and maybe come up with a way of getting instantaneous measurements of muscle fatigue. And theoretically you could have real-time EKGs that could give you some indication of concentration levels. But so far I've seen no evidence that any athlete, or watcher of athletes, can predict when someone is going to have an unusually good or bad day.

Here you take two disparate things...free throw shooting and end of game shots (the clutch statistic) and try to normalize them. This is not possible. At the end of a game, Kobe is most likely going to take the shot, and the defense is most likely going to funnel to him, causing a difficult shot.

Yes, that's true.

It was this season where he was jawing with Crash on the free throw line for two game clinching shots, and talked until time to focus, cleared his head and canned the shot...he did it again for the next shot.

But Bryant is an 84% career free throw shooter, so his chance of making a pair is better than 70% regardless of the circumstances. I wouldn't say that he was particularly more likely after a bout of late-game trash talk.

D12 can NOT do this. His mental focus isn't remotely in that realm. Game pressure or misses won't affect Kobe, but they DO affect Dwight. It's visible.

Again, I can believe it's true, but I'd have to see numbers. "It's visible" doesn't cut it, because our anecdotal memories are so imperfect.

Cause and effect are demonstrable especially if you track what you are doing. I am going through this right now. My kids 12 and 9 are going through an intense 16 week shooting clinic with one on one coaching. They have daily practices and drills they have to do focusing on several elements of the shot.

I don't think that's a valid comparison. Your children are still learning a technique and are still early on in their improvement curve. Howard has shot, what, maybe a million free throws in his life, if you count practice? Aside from overhauling his technique completely, I seriously doubt that he can go from a 50% shooter to a 60% one -- in terms of actual ability, not short-term results -- in a few weeks.

Performing those basic mechanics under pressure or fatigue situations is the part that is hard to measure, but you can assess situations such as intentionally being fouled or shooting with a close game and compare them to performance in other less "stressful" situations.

Definitely. In fact I have long suspected that technical free throws are missed more often than would be predicted given the players who shoot them, but I wouldn't have the data to evaluate that theory.

If his free throws were completely governed by chance, and he had missed 10 of 12 early in the game it would not behoove me to continue to foul him and give more 50/50 opportunities. Regression to the mean occurs within a wider data set, so if he's missing and there's a fifty/fifty he misses, expanding the data set goes against my odds. If I've flipped a coin 20 times and have seen 5 heads, and I get $5 per head, I'm going to flip the hell out of that coin to see the odds even back out and bring the expected heads that will come by pure chance.

Unfortunately that's mathematically incorrect, known as the "gambler's fallacy." If a 50-50 coin starts with only 5 heads out of 20, it is not more likely to "catch up" by having more heads in store. Regression to the mean means that the percentages will even themselves out over time. If a coin starts with 5 heads out of 20 -- that's 25% -- the most likely outcome for the next 80 trials is (still) 40 heads. That would give a total of 45 out of 100, which looks a lot closer to 50% than 5 out of 20 did.

However, with an event not governed by chance, but rather by skill and mental approach such as free throws, and a player that demonstrates frustration with pressure-filled free throws and struggles to make them, a 2-12 start would behoove me to foul him more, put him back on the line and watch his mind melt and see him grip at the line and brick a few more, letting the failure continue to compound.

I'd be inclined to do the same, but I'd also really want to see numbers to confirm whether I was making the right decision. And for that matter, if I'm against someone known to be a shaky free-throw shooter, and he starts 8 of 10, I might be more tempted to foul him, because even though I know he's not "due" for a couple of misses, he might not know that.

You've referenced poker a couple of times. Even though a good poker player has no business being superstitious, he can modify his strategy according to the superstitions of his opponents, and potentially gain an advantage that way.

You are still too buried in analyzing this based on random chance. I'd rather see if his immediate past FT performance is a predictor of what he will do in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. Example, was the 9th one after an intentional foul? Was it in a game within 4 points. Then compare that with games within 15 points, or if the foul was after a made basket in an And one scenario.

Excellent, I'd be all for that, and I agree that it would be more useful than the more narrow approach I suggested.

BTW, this is one of the better and more interesting basketball discussions I've had in a while.

Likewise, and it speaks to the respect that the board's moderators have for you that the thread hasn't been moved or censored. I'd never get away with this otherwise.

 

[D-Dogg]

Unfortunately that's mathematically incorrect, known as the "gambler's fallacy." If a 50-50 coin starts with only 5 heads out of 20, it is not more likely to "catch up" by having more heads in store. Regression to the mean means that the percentages will even themselves out over time. If a coin starts with 5 heads out of 20 -- that's 25% -- the most likely outcome for the next 80 trials is (still) 40 heads. That would give a total of 45 out of 100, which looks a lot closer to 50% than 5 out of 20 did.

Ah..no, I don't think that he's going to "catch up" really (again, this is saying that FTs are simply random events and pure chance governs make/miss). I'm more saying that if the 50% FT guy has gone 5-20, I'm not giving him more opportunities thinking that he's going to start missing them. It's just as likely (more so, really) that he goes 5-10 over the next five fouls I put on him. I wouldn't want to expand his data set, and allow the odds to even out. Not that I would expect him to go on a 9-10 streak to get to 50% on the game, but that I'd expect him to go 1-2 each time, which would put my hack a guy plans in jeopardy. That's if they were purely random.

But again, I don't believe FTs are random chance events, so I'd foul the guy who is 5-20 on the night, especially if he has exhibited mental struggles at the line when put in intentional foul or pressure situations, or if he is the kind of guy who tightens up when he misses. Those variables throw the basic laws of averages out the window. And while I agree that "its visible" is clearly subjective and anecdotal, I would foul the living hell out of Dwight if he's having a bad shooting night, because he is simply shook, and his failure compounds.


Good discussion, e. I don't think it has anything to do with moderator respect, just that it's an interesting, civil discussion. Plus, I haven't thought about stats any deeper than surface level since hanging up my MBA advanced stats book for good and never looking back.

 

[D-Dogg]

% career free throw shooter, so his chance of making a pair is better than 70% regardless of the circumstances. I wouldn't say that he was particularly more likely after a bout of late-game trash talk.
.

Oh, I don't disagree his chances of making both is high. I'm only saying that you have to take into account the persona of the player as well in how they deal with a pressure scenario. I would contend that someone talking mess to D12 with the game on the line would turn him into jello, while in Kobe's case he has the ability to flush it out as white noise. I'm honestly more in the camp that Crash's decision to yap at Kobe was detrimental to his desired outcome (making Kobe miss one of the shots) than helpful. Some players take that and focus harder on mechanics; some take that and it turns their insides into sugar water.

As I coach, I would have told Crash to do that kind of thing to Metta, or Pau, or Dwight. Not a guy like Kobe. Or a guy like Bird. Or Jordan. Or Jerry West. Guys who elevate their game when challenged. Know thine enemy. Know their weakness. Now, end game scenario NOT on the line? Bait Kobe into taking a long, tough shot because he will rise to that occasion, and likely miss because its a high degree of difficulty. But don't jaw him on a FT that relies on focus and simple shooting mechanics.

 

[D-Dogg]

You've referenced poker a couple of times. Even though a good poker player has no business being superstitious, he can modify his strategy according to the superstitions of his opponents, and potentially gain an advantage that way.

Oh, absolutely! And there is a ton of advantage to be gained. Your example of fouling the 50% shooter who's shooting 9-10 is a great example...could easily make HIM cinch up and clang a few.

But isn't that, in a way, what I'm saying as well? If you would foul him because you think his superstition of hot/cold and "due" could affect the outcome, aren't you in a sense buying what I'm selling, at least at a base level? His mental makeup can affect his shooting and throw the statistical "random event" chart out the window.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Likewise, and it speaks to the respect that the board's moderators have for you that the thread hasn't been moved or censored. I'd never get away with this otherwise.

Oh I think it speaks more to the lack of interest in the Suns than anything else. As traffic drops, moderator involvement dwindles too or so it appears. This is such a lonely board, even a spirited discussion on statistics is welcomed IMO.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

But isn't that, in a way, what I'm saying as well? If you would foul him because you think his superstition of hot/cold and "due" could affect the outcome, aren't you in a sense buying what I'm selling, at least at a base level?

No, because I'm saying that I would be tempted to make what is probably a mistake.

It reminds me of when Michael Dukakis was running against George I, and one of the pivotal moments was when someone asked Dukakis hypothetically, if his wife were to be the victim of a violent crime, wouldn't he want revenge against the attacker. The context was whether Dukakis would be an adequately tough law-and-order guy or whether he was a soft liberal weenie. Dukakis fumbled the question, then later tried to make up for it by climbing into a tank, and it was over. But really his answer was easy. He should have said, "Hell yes, if someone did something to my wife, I'd want to kill him with my bare hands. But that would be a decision influenced by the heat of the moment, and our society demands that people make some attempt to keep their emotions in check, even in times of great stress. What I would do in rage is not the same as what I think 'should' be done."

So, could I see myself guilty of irrational behavior when I'm doing whatever I can to coach my team to victory? Sure thing. But it would still be irrational, and I'd like to think that, if someone showed me an analysis afterward demonstrating the poor logic, I'd learn from the mistake and do better the next time.

 

[BC867]

No, because I'm saying that I would be tempted to make what is probably a mistake.

It reminds me of when Michael Dukakis was running against George I, and one of the pivotal moments was when someone asked Dukakis hypothetically, if his wife were to be the victim of a violent crime, wouldn't he want revenge against the attacker. The context was whether Dukakis would be an adequately tough law-and-order guy or whether he was a soft liberal weenie. Dukakis fumbled the question, then later tried to make up for it by climbing into a tank, and it was over. But really his answer was easy. He should have said, "Hell yes, if someone did something to my wife, I'd want to kill him with my bare hands. But that would be a decision influenced by the heat of the moment, and our society demands that people make some attempt to keep their emotions in check, even in times of great stress. What I would do in rage is not the same as what I think 'should' be done."

So, could I see myself guilty of irrational behavior when I'm doing whatever I can to coach my team to victory? Sure thing. But it would still be irrational, and I'd like to think that, if someone showed me an analysis afterward demonstrating the poor logic, I'd learn from the mistake and do better the next time.

Well done! I would never want to bring harm to or, worse, kill someone. But in self defense, of course I would react to an aggressor.

I have kept a 1969 model Cleon Jones 34 ounce baseball bat under my bed for over forty years. Luckily I have never had to use it (except when I used to take my sons out to a ball field).

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well done! I would never want to bring harm to or, worse, kill someone. But in self defense, of course I would react to an aggressor.

I have kept a 1969 model Cleon Jones 34 ounce baseball bat under my bed for over forty years. Luckily I have never had to use it (except when I used to take my sons out to a ball field).

That's Amazing, Met him once myself.

Steve

 

[desertdawg]

I thought it would be a mess in LA but I thought it would be a 6 or 7th seed in the playoffs bad. Then the early exit in the playoffs, because it's easy to beat this team. Howard is a LA bust. I think I will now refer to him as Labust, or Labrick, maybe Lafreethrow?

 

[desertdawg]

Lakers should trade Howard while they can.

 

[BC867]

Lakers should trade Howard while they can.

Howard for Gortat.

 

[SirStefan32]

Howard for Gortat.

I know I am in a very small minority, but no thanks. Howard is probably the third most overrated player in the league, as well as the biggest crybaby. Those who said he looked as good as he did in Orlando because everything went through him were indeed right.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I know I am in a very small minority, but no thanks. Howard is probably the third most overrated player in the league, as well as the biggest crybaby. Those who said he looked as good as he did in Orlando because everything went through him were indeed right.

I've always considered him overrated but that was when he was being talked about as a top 5 kind of guy. But, overrated or not, he's much better than Gortat when both are at their best and in their current down year, he's still better than Marcin IMO.

Steve

 

[SirStefan32]

I've always considered him overrated but that was when he was being talked about as a top 5 kind of guy. But, overrated or not, he's much better than Gortat when both are at their best and in their current down year, he's still better than Marcin IMO.

Steve

Oh I don't dispute that Howard is better than Gortat. I didn't realize my post would come across that way. Howard is a much better player than Gortat.
My argument is that there are better ways to spend money than max out Dwight Howard.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Oh I don't dispute that Howard is better than Gortat. I didn't realize my post would come across that way. Howard is a much better player than Gortat.
My argument is that there are better ways to spend money than max out Dwight Howard.

Agreed.

Steve

 

[BC867]

Oh I don't dispute that Howard is better than Gortat. I didn't realize my post would come across that way. Howard is a much better player than Gortat.
My argument is that there are better ways to spend money than max out Dwight Howard.

That is why I used a .