Posted by jetsrok68 on 2/14/2014 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 2/14/2014 6:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 2/14/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by headpirate on 2/14/2014 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 2:49:00 AM (view original):
Every game it picks 5 minutes for my team to just stop playing and let the other team win no matter what the rest of the game looks like. Seems like the outcome is predetermined before the game is even played. Is the play by play just window dressing and the result actually determined before it's generated? That's what it seems like. 

Today it rewarded a team for playing an SF at C...really wish I hadn't let someone talk me into continuing to play. I guess I just have to hope I recruit well enough to override all of the sim problems. Not sure if that's possible.

Also, anything personal toward me is getting flagged immediately. Admin misunderstood what happened on the last thread...making sure that doesn't happen this time. There's going to be no question who escalated what...

Assess and evaluate by rating attributes, not by listed position. I have often played a SF at C, because often more ATH/SPD for FCP.

It's insulting that someone thinks I don't know this. And indicative that they haven't looked at my team's games at all.

You asked about one game.  Few of us have time to  study multiple games, analyze your actions, and determine your level of knowledge about this game.

Seems many have plenty of time to attack, belittle and insult me here. 

But that aside, if you don't have that time, if you don't know what I've shown I know already, fine...but don't then assume I don't know.

Surprisingly, it isn't always about YOU.  I sometimes post basic information about the game for the benefit of other new coaches who might be reading. Not to insult YOU, but to help others. I know other coaches who do the same. 

+1 etta your saying stupid things that make no sense. Other users are trying to help you with giving you facts that could help you but you keep turning them away and telling people how much they "suck" even though they dont.

Grow Up

Reported.

Weak.

A second thread? Can we stop this already?

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Yay more infer vs. imply games! That's just what we need. My point is, and this is absolutely undeniable, that you clearly lack knowledge of my team if you think I'm doing the same things over and over again.

2. Exactly what do you think is the chance of a coin landing one side up vs. the other? There's no simplistic assumption there, only a simple fact. You're the one that brought in the coin toss analogy -- if you essentially say that everything that happens in the game is a coin flip, then you are saying that the result of the game is the combined result of many coin flips, which while the full data set would of course be much different, the probability of that combined result tending toward one direction or another (not being right on the mean) is 50%. So any deviation from that would be randomness, or "luck". The logical breakdown here, of course, is in saying that a bad 3-5 min stretch is caused by a series of 50-50 coin tosses. That leads to the obvious logical follow-up that other "stretches" of the game are governed by those same coin tosses which resolve themselves in a more statistically likely fashion, leading to the game's result being largely a function of that anomalous period. Of course, we know that's not how it works, but those are the logical extensions of your flawed analogy.

What was clear was that you made a bad analogy. What wasn't clear, at least to you until now, is why. It's disappointing to me that I have to break down something so simple to such an elementary level in order for you to have a chance to understand what you yourself said.

Posted by terps21234 on 2/14/2014 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Jesus ******* christ, will somebody shut this ************ up. At no point in this thread did anyone say u were stupid, didn't know anything, or u were ignorant. You're here to bash anyone who doesn't agree with u. REPORT ME *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Done.

Posted by killbatman on 2/14/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):
I think what you said about his stats knowledge is relevant.  I do think that's a big part of his frustration.  Although to be fair to etta, it might be more that he isn't used to thinking about this game or basketball in general in that context.  That's a little different than sitting in a college stats class and learning some concepts, which I think he's probably done.

Personally I have a degree in it, so I see little bell curves everywhere I look in real life.  I have to remind myself sometimes that everyone isn't wired like that.

personally, I've always considered myself to be an outlier, but when it comes to my opinion about these last two threads I bet that I would fall very nicely inside the parameters of such a bell curve.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 2:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Yay more infer vs. imply games! That's just what we need. My point is, and this is absolutely undeniable, that you clearly lack knowledge of my team if you think I'm doing the same things over and over again.

2. Exactly what do you think is the chance of a coin landing one side up vs. the other? There's no simplistic assumption there, only a simple fact. You're the one that brought in the coin toss analogy -- if you essentially say that everything that happens in the game is a coin flip, then you are saying that the result of the game is the combined result of many coin flips, which while the full data set would of course be much different, the probability of that combined result tending toward one direction or another (not being right on the mean) is 50%. So any deviation from that would be randomness, or "luck". The logical breakdown here, of course, is in saying that a bad 3-5 min stretch is caused by a series of 50-50 coin tosses. That leads to the obvious logical follow-up that other "stretches" of the game are governed by those same coin tosses which resolve themselves in a more statistically likely fashion, leading to the game's result being largely a function of that anomalous period. Of course, we know that's not how it works, but those are the logical extensions of your flawed analogy.

What was clear was that you made a bad analogy. What wasn't clear, at least to you until now, is why. It's disappointing to me that I have to break down something so simple to such an elementary level in order for you to have a chance to understand what you yourself said.

exactly - toss a coin 1000 times to simulate - roughly - 1000 events in a game (not game results) - and one will find stretches where there is a huge preponderance of heads.  One could find those coincidental events - like your 5 minute slumps - remarkable and attribute them to the SIM deciding to have lots of heads - or one could realize that it is how large numbers of events behave.


what has not changed is your analysis - never said your game plans didnt change....although YOU said at one point that you were giving up game planning - but you must have been misrepresenting your actions when you said that......but I digress - your analysis of SIM results is the same web of mistaken inferences - it is insulting to all posters that you fail to understand the basics

your persistent mischaracterization of simple comments and obvious fundamentals of probability behavior is insulting and frustrating. 

yet, it is exactly what all posters should expect - no reason to expect etta's comments or analysis to change

Seriously, Etta, you have to be just trolling here. The coin flip example used is an absurdly common model used to show statistical principle. It's using simple fifty fifty chance to demonstrate that just because a chance is fifty fifty - or sixty forty, or 65.5678 to 34.4322 it won't necessarily match that probability over any given length of time but will tend towards it as the sampling gets larger and larger.

I thought it was pretty cool when etta kept talking to himself for a couple pages.....soon (I hope) no one will take the time to respond to such a knucklehead.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by headpirate on 2/14/2014 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by headpirate on 2/14/2014 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 2:49:00 AM (view original):
Every game it picks 5 minutes for my team to just stop playing and let the other team win no matter what the rest of the game looks like. Seems like the outcome is predetermined before the game is even played. Is the play by play just window dressing and the result actually determined before it's generated? That's what it seems like. 

Today it rewarded a team for playing an SF at C...really wish I hadn't let someone talk me into continuing to play. I guess I just have to hope I recruit well enough to override all of the sim problems. Not sure if that's possible.

Also, anything personal toward me is getting flagged immediately. Admin misunderstood what happened on the last thread...making sure that doesn't happen this time. There's going to be no question who escalated what...

Assess and evaluate by rating attributes, not by listed position. I have often played a SF at C, because often more ATH/SPD for FCP.

It's insulting that someone thinks I don't know this. And indicative that they haven't looked at my team's games at all.

Regular participants of HD and the forums post to get some kind of positive (or sometimes negative) feedback on their observations or questions; I now realize your posts are rants without desire for feedback or edification.

So now it's my fault that you didn't bother to find out whether or not what you were telling me was actually new information or not. You just assumed that I didn't know something that's very basic, saying in so many words that I'm not capable of learning in more than half a season that listed positions barely matter.

After people talked about how bad my team's rebounding is, I'm amazed at the lengths people are going to in order to defend the sim making a 20ish REB "center" effective enough to keep from getting destroyed. This is what I mean about the ambiguity behind terms like "awful", "terrible", etc...seems like those terms might aptly apply here, but no one seems to have used them.

While this post quotes someone else's post, this responsive post is not intended solely for the author of the quoted post. To the extent the author of the quoted post assumes the response is intended solely for them, nothing written further is intended nor implies any assumptions on your knowledge of the game, nor implies in any manner that you do not otherwise know this, and understands it may have already entered your thought process, and that you have already accounted for this variable.

Attributes do not effect play in isolation. For the purposes of this point, will use the Reb attribute; while a D3 Reb attribute +50 and above is desirable, it's effectiveness is further modified by the same players ATH rating (for effective Reb, such rating being +50, and some would say +60 for D3), and then further modified by the team rating.

etta, noone has time to review all your games and decipher what you're learned about this game...geez. To assume that we'd even WANT to do that is the epitomy of arrogance.  Yet, if we post helpful tidbits about the game, and they just happens to fall within your realm of knowledge, you feel insulted that we didn't already know it. 

So, what you want is: 1) for us to read your play-by-plays
                                        2) make notes of what you've learned
                                        3) answer your questions, being careful not to tread on your sensitivites by mentioning something you already know.

Is that about it?

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 6:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 2:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Yay more infer vs. imply games! That's just what we need. My point is, and this is absolutely undeniable, that you clearly lack knowledge of my team if you think I'm doing the same things over and over again.

2. Exactly what do you think is the chance of a coin landing one side up vs. the other? There's no simplistic assumption there, only a simple fact. You're the one that brought in the coin toss analogy -- if you essentially say that everything that happens in the game is a coin flip, then you are saying that the result of the game is the combined result of many coin flips, which while the full data set would of course be much different, the probability of that combined result tending toward one direction or another (not being right on the mean) is 50%. So any deviation from that would be randomness, or "luck". The logical breakdown here, of course, is in saying that a bad 3-5 min stretch is caused by a series of 50-50 coin tosses. That leads to the obvious logical follow-up that other "stretches" of the game are governed by those same coin tosses which resolve themselves in a more statistically likely fashion, leading to the game's result being largely a function of that anomalous period. Of course, we know that's not how it works, but those are the logical extensions of your flawed analogy.

What was clear was that you made a bad analogy. What wasn't clear, at least to you until now, is why. It's disappointing to me that I have to break down something so simple to such an elementary level in order for you to have a chance to understand what you yourself said.

exactly - toss a coin 1000 times to simulate - roughly - 1000 events in a game (not game results) - and one will find stretches where there is a huge preponderance of heads.  One could find those coincidental events - like your 5 minute slumps - remarkable and attribute them to the SIM deciding to have lots of heads - or one could realize that it is how large numbers of events behave.


what has not changed is your analysis - never said your game plans didnt change....although YOU said at one point that you were giving up game planning - but you must have been misrepresenting your actions when you said that......but I digress - your analysis of SIM results is the same web of mistaken inferences - it is insulting to all posters that you fail to understand the basics

your persistent mischaracterization of simple comments and obvious fundamentals of probability behavior is insulting and frustrating. 

yet, it is exactly what all posters should expect - no reason to expect etta's comments or analysis to change

Yes, changing my mind after the fact clearly means I'm misrepresenting at the time. Fact is other than changing a few depth chart things and changing to fatigue for subs, I didn't game plan much for this game. I was trying to lose to B-W but apparently didn't try hard enough because we won and so then it didn't make sense to tank for the 6 seed anymore.

This is the probability of getting 50 heads in a row: 8.8817842e-16. So by this we can see that even less likely versions of your original proposed 50 toss anomaly carry far more remote probabilities than you represent them to have, else you wouldn't have even brought up the chance of it happening, so remote that chance is.

But I'm misrepresenting probability....riiiiiiiiight.

"and one will find stretches where there is a huge preponderance of heads"

This is what he said. He didn't say that there would be 50 heads in a row. Take a look it's right there in the text that you quoted

Frankly I'm insulted that you would try to say that he insinuated 50 heads in a row. Perhaps you need to work on you're reading comprehension. Damn man, people on these boards still want to help you. The first time I posted on your original thread I was really trying to be helpful. You didn't accept my help and you told me to take a class in logic. That was nice. The only reason I'm not offering to help you now is because there are far better coaches than me already offering their sincere help

LOL this is help? Wow. I think about two posts on this thread so far would fit that description for me.

50 in a row is easy math with the google. So how does one define "huge preponderance" then? 48 out of 50? 45 out of 50? Surely has to be at least 45 right? At what number out of 50 do you think the probability increases to even 1%? Bottom line is he made a bad analogy. It also wasn't helpful in any way toward furthering knowledge of the game, only making excuses for the sim.