"This is why you cannot read statistics in a vacuum. Without an understanding of a player's role on a team, any statistic can be meaningless. For example, do you think it is more effective or valuable to his team for Allen Iverson to score 30 points per game while shooting 41% from the field or for Boozer to score 18 points per game while shooting 53% from the field? If you just see the raw 30 ppg versus 18 ppg, one might assume it is the former. Many statisticians, however, would conclude that this assumption may be inaccurate".
Explain your obsession with statistic's, when you are knowing that they are not the complete factor in judging a player.
If it's a piece, maybe the "black and white posters" like the other puzzle parts better than stats and value their worth more than you do?
Is it possible that you are seeing people's ideas as black and white based on your opinion?
I check stats, but I do not live stats. Does that make my knowledge of stats black or white?
If a trial lawyer dwelled on one piece of the puzzle would his argument be better or worse than if he presenting an overall view of the pieces? Or would he lose because of his obsession with only one part of the evidence?
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is why you cannot read statistics in a vacuum. Without an understanding of a player's role on a team, any statistic can be meaningless. For example, do you think it is more effective or valuable to his team for Allen Iverson to score 30 points per game while shooting 41% from the field or for Boozer to score 18 points per game while shooting 53% from the field? If you just see the raw 30 ppg versus 18 ppg, one might assume it is the former. Many statisticians, however, would conclude that this assumption may be inaccurate". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this an example of black or white? It is not putting stats as the sole factor, nor is it dismissing stats. It's giving them weight like it gives other factors. How can you feel the same as the majority of the posters here, yet call their attitude black or white?
Quote:Explain why I keep getting bombarded with questions from people who see the world solely in black and white and clearly don't read posts for content.
Quote:How can you feel the same as the majority of the posters here, yet call their attitude black or white?
I've never called the "attitude" of the "majority of posters here . . . black or white." There are very few posters, in fact, who seem compelled to post "a ha, I gotcha" type questions that are clearly calculated only to attempt to identify inconsistencies in my posts.
It seems that some people see the world as all or nothing -- if you even cite statistics in support of an argument, for example, well, then, you're "relying" too much on statistics, when a rational view would and could acknowledge that the mere citation of statistics in support of a position does not necessarily imply that the poster "relied" on the statistics to reach his or her conclusion.
There are a only very few posters on this board who do this, but one or more of these few posters seem to respond to almost ANY post of mine that contains ANY statistical support or reference to statistics with an attack on my "reliance" on statistics -- as though even a reference to statistical support for a position is evil or misguided. These posters seem more bent on criticizing even the mere citation of statistics than they do in understanding what value the statistics might have.
The fact that nearly every thread in which I cite a statistic turns into me responding to criticisms with yet ANOTHER explanation that, no, I do NOT think the statistics provide the FULL picture or that they are the FINAL word on the subject, is tiresome and irritating. If one must respond, why not respond with something substantive supporting a contrary view? Such as, this season I have seen Collins do X, Y, and Z, and that seems to fly in the face of the statistical data you cite from last season. Or, your statistics show X, but these other statistics or my observation support Y, and here's why. NOT, your statistics show X, but your reliance on statistics is misguided because Sloan knows more than your statistics could possibly ever show and why do you rely so much on statitistics? There was a time when posting on this board and exchanging opinions and views was enjoyable for me, but that time appears to be nearing an end.