• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is rj right about the hot hand and the nerds are wrong?

Wakeforest22890 said:
No I dispute that these factors make up a 10% difference or 15% or whatever you claim, which is why I asked you your thoughts earlier on a 30 v. 40% situation.
Click to expand...

In a totally random situation, with no other shots having been taken, obviously you want the 40% shooter. But if one sucks that game and the other is playing great, I will take the guy who is playing well as long as you aren't making inane set-ups like Steph versus a scrub.

It's not even a close call.
 
You've asked several times if I believe Penn State should be in the NCAAT which belies an understanding that looking to KenPom is an effort in looking ahead for a team.
 
Your insistence is Penn State still hasn't beaten anybody when they 3 wins over ranked teams while accusing others of never admitting that they're wrong is hilarious. You are literally legendary for doubling down on failed arguments that you will never give up.
 
RJKarl said:
I haven't "lost" anything. I'm the one who hasn't changed criteria over and over.
Click to expand...

ae3375506dbf8fa11d4e752a838f0480.jpg
 
No, it's an effort to see if you truly believe how good PSU is.

But there you go changing the subject again. For years, you have said the hot hand doesn't exist because a couple of stat geek say so. All you do is fall back on long term numbers. You have nothing to say about a human factor in anything.

As much sports as you have watched, it's stunning you can't say that a shooter can get into a groove; a hitter can't do better in X stadium or against Y pitcher than what he does in general.

Your position denies realistic human factors. A player may have been out all night or had a fight with his significant other, is pissed a teammate or other factors that you can't put into a computer. You also deny that having more confidence may skew a night for you. Sometimes playing baseball you see the ball better and damn what happened in the past or you may see the basket better than usual.

If it can't be found in a computer program it doesn't exist.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Your insistence is Penn State still hasn't beaten anybody when they 3 wins over ranked teams while accusing others of never admitting that they're wrong is hilarious. You are literally legendary for doubling down on failed arguments that you will never give up.
Click to expand...

I had been discussing Numbers calling for the last 7 games and DID admit they beat one good team, but don't be bothered by facts that you can check.

You changed the discussion.
 
I believe in clustering and I believe that you may exceed for short periods of time your historical average over a small number of shots (or at bats) but I think it's difficult to separate this from clustering in the first place. If it does exist, it's at a very small percentage level which, again, is why I keep trying to ask about 30 v. 40 percent or to get any kind of cut off.

Yes I find your position about a 25 v. 40 or 30 v. 45 percent shooter during one game to be ridiculous. Nobody is making up 15 percentage points in a game because of a hot hand and if someone does make the last shot of a game as a 25 percent shooter after they made the first three or four, it's still just clustering.
 
RJ, do you see any difference between having a hot hand and being in the zone?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I believe in clustering and I believe that you may exceed for short periods of time your historical average over a small number of shots (or at bats) but I think it's difficult to separate this from clustering in the first place. If it does exist, it's at a very small percentage level which, again, is why I keep trying to ask about 30 v. 40 percent or to get any kind of cut off.

Yes I find your position about a 25 v. 40 or 30 v. 45 percent shooter during one game to be ridiculous. Nobody is making up 15 percentage points in a game because of a hot hand and if someone does make the last shot of a game as a 25 percent shooter after they made the first three or four, it's still just clustering.
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph shows your don't understand the concept of a hot hand. Klay hit 10/11 this year. That's more than 40% higher than his norm.

You are descending and not reading what I have posted many times. It's called a hot hand or in the zone expressly because it doesn't happen that often.

There's no cut off. The most basic difference between us is you can't understand that sometimes numbers don't and can't explain everything.
 
RJKarl said:
That was NEVER the point. It wasn't about whether you want a 25% shooter or 40% shooter to take a shot NEXT WEEK. It was about who should take a shot TONIGHT if the 25% shooter was 4-4 and the 40% shooter was 0-4.

Then, District changed it to 3-4 and 0-5.

Then, he changed it to 3-5 vs. 0-4.

Now, he's changing it to long term.

Hang around a little while and he'll be asking if you'd want a 1-5 , 25% shooter over Steph.

Hell, he even brought up which Klay I would prefer. When I showed him there very well wouldn't be a difference in 4-6 YEARS and there was rational difference in that case, he still wouldn't relent.

He also changed multiple times about how to play poker.

These are tremendous lengths for anyone to go to rather than admit they are wrong or admit the possibility of being wrong.

He's just going to move the goalposts again.

On this thread, he's proven he's incapable of admitting his lack of knowledge and changing the criteria over and over. The only sensible conclusion is that it might cause a nervous breakdown on his part to admit I am right and he is wrong.
Click to expand...

If you don’t understand how all those examples are linked, there’s no hope for you.
 
So what we know about hot hands is:

1) we can't predict when they're going to happen
2) can't predict when they're going to end
3) looking back at data, can't really see them
4) we only "know" when someone is in the middle of one and it is projected it will continue despite #2
 
The lack of hope is for the person who changes the criteria when proven wrong. The main link is your complete lack of understanding of the game and how it's played.

Just like you don't understand how poker is played but act like you do.

But thanks for proving my point again. you can't ever admit you are wrong discussing anything with me.
 
MHBDemon said:
RJ will always be wrong on this, because he just conflates different arguments and doesn't understand that percentages over longer sample sizes (ABs/FGAs) are more predictive than shorter sample sizes.

I've tried many times to explain the pitcher vs hitter data argument to him, provided statistical proof, and he just sticks his fingers in his ears and plays the victim. Fun times!
Click to expand...

RJKarl said:
We're not talking about longer sample sizes. You don't have a hot hand for game after game. Even Steph has off games.

The difference between us is you don't believe there's a human element or anything like momentum or a hot hand. Which shows you don't understand the game.
Click to expand...

Your response to my post makes it pretty clear that you don't understand the argument.
 
I understand what you are saying and think it's total bullshit.
 
awaken said:
So what we know about hot hands is:

1) we can't predict when they're going to happen
2) can't predict when they're going to end
3) looking back at data, can't really see them
4) we only "know" when someone is in the middle of one and it is projected it will continue despite #2
Click to expand...

This isn’t true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top