Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/06/2010

trust me, I understand what you said - and one can discuss issues without suggesting that what you say is not understood - an alternative hypothesis is that what one says is fully understood and wrong I almost didn't type it, but I decided that I didn't think you understood, not because of lack of intelligence or anything, but because you were arguing something different than I was. Yes I brought up consistent randomness and you said it only gets more consistent the more you do it, but that fails to address the issue of extreme/excessive randomness, and that's why I said what I said. You weren't addressing the entire context of what I was saying.

if I toss a coin 10 times, and repeated the process 1000 times, I would expect wide variation in the aggregate number of heads - from 10 to zero

if I toss a coin 1000 times, and repeated the process 1000 times, I would expect the great bulk of the experiments to produce close to 500 heads The coin thing is way too simplistic of an example when comparing to HD. We could at least presume something like HD picking random numbers out of 100 via a random number generator, that's a lot more realistic as to what goes on.

consistency is a characteristic of randomness only when repeated

expecting "consistent randomness" when looking at any one or two events makes no sense at all - it is oxy moronic Again, this doesn't cover the problem of excessive randomness...playing things 5000 times over isn't going to eliminate the perceived problem of extreme/excessive randomness. Like I told billyg...saying it'll be better next time, especially in this game, simply isn't good enough. If its "broken" no amount of "playing it out" is going to fix/compensate for the fact that its "broken".

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/06/2010How exactly do you explain Bridgewater State's 27.5% FG% in game 1 and and its 53.5% FG% in game 2, despite changing their motion offense from regular to slow down mode?

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/06/2010
If by consistent randomness you mean less variability - randomness with narrower fluctuations, smaller standard deviations, smaller beta, chunkier middle of the distribution - then I understand that that is what you would prefer

Still, "consistent randomness" made a mathemetician friend of mine laugh when I mentioned it at the coffee station this afternoon

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/06/2010How exactly do you explain Bridgewater State's 27.5% FG% in game 1 and and its 53.5% FG% in game 2, despite changing their motion offense from regular to slow down mode?

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/06/2010
How exactly do you explain Bridgewater State's 27.5% FG% in game 1 and and its 53.5% FG% in game 2, despite changing their motion offense from regular to slow down mode?

exactly how? trivial. You're kidding right? You guys give me every last reason why Bridgewater State JUSTLY won this 2nd game and I ask why/what led to the great difference in FG% which helped lead to the win and that's TRIVIAL...HILARIOUS! its one game. there are N shots, the probability distribution on the # of made shots follows a bell curve. in the two cases, two different points on the probability curve came up, as you would expect in the vast majority of cases

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010no, you are the one who keeps saying btown got screwed. which is it? btown or the other guy who got screwed? you can't have it both ways, as much as you try

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/06/2010
How exactly do you explain Bridgewater State's 27.5% FG% in game 1 and and its 53.5% FG% in game 2, despite changing their motion offense from regular to slow down mode?

Get bridewater state's coach in here. Most likely it was his distro that he used and even the depth chart. The slow down does get better shots as they work the ball around and wait longer to take OPEN shots, where more up paced causes you to shoot faster and not always be open. Wouldn't slow down make it easier for the defense to keep pace and better guard the offense? You're more likely to get a better shot with normal pace because your team isn't intentionally trying to run the shot clock down while operating their offense, thus they're shooting when they have the best shot available, which isn't necessarily going to happen in slow down.

Bridewater works the ball around gets it to the open man and scores easier and with a higher percentage the second game

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/06/2010
Look at Btowns Defense setup he went from a -2 the first game to a +2 the second game! There is a huge difference in the second game where he probably was getting burnt by the other offense while he was on D.

Thus less turnovers and also getting higher percentage shots after beating their man to the basket.

I had never even looked at this until now but this is a huge difference in the fact that Btown took away what his strength on defense the first time.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/06/2010Look at Btowns Defense setup he went from a 0 the first game to a +2 the second game. There is a pretty big difference in the second game where he probably was getting burnt by the other offense while he was on D.

Thus less turnovers and also getting higher percentage shots after beating their man to the basket.

I had never even looked at this until now but this is a huge difference in the fact that Btown took away what his strength on defense the first time