basketball study

[bigdoublezero]

You'd think RJ would be 100% in favor of basketball drones. :noidea:

 

[IrishSlim]

What percentage of shooting the basketball is magic? That's really the only thing left undefined by Wrangorscience at this point.

Responding to Wrangor's callouts and thoughtful posts with more snark. Not a good look, though statistically predictable

 

[RJKarl]

Well that's a good point, because that's exactly what I said. You probably could though assuming its mechanics were fluid enough to move like a basketball player. It's not all that different from a robot playing chess.

Then your robot is useless in a game and has nothing to do with whether it's all about mechanics.

 

[RJKarl]

As Jodie Meeks is about to put up 50 on the Thunder

But he's not hot or in the zone.

 

[Deacfreak07]

But he's not hot or in the zone.

Or a robot.

 

[bigdoublezero]

Responding to Wrangor's callouts and thoughtful posts with more snark. Not a good look, though statistically predictable

Just because things aren't understood doesn't mean they can't be understood. That's a pretty basic fact of the human condition. If we can't see eye to eye on this, it's not worth my time to hash out, and I'd rather be snarky. If IrishSlim doesn't like that look, I'm cool with it.

 

[IrishSlim]

Just because things aren't understood doesn't mean they can't be understood.

Sure, but what does that have to do with what you and Wrangor were debating?

Again, stat-geeks love to mischaracterize even healthy skepticism into "STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID." It's bizarre.

 

[bigdoublezero]

I'm not really debating Wrangor on this. Just making peanut gallery comments. #snarkIN #irishOUT

 

[IrishSlim]

I'm not really debating Wrangor on this. Just making peanut gallery comments. #snarkIN #irishOUT

Haha, fair enough

 

[RJKarl]

Meeks just hit a shot over his shoulder, not looking at the basket and going away from the hoop. But there is no such thing as being in a zone.

 

[IrishSlim]

Meeks just hit a shot over his shoulder, not looking at the basket and going away from the hoop. But there is no such thing as being in a zone.

Please, RJ, I'm begging you. Quit while you're behind.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Please, RJ, I'm begging you. Quit while you're behind.

He's in a zone. A Queens fan would never understand.

 

[IrishSlim]

He's in a zone. A Queens fan would never understand.

 

[RJKarl]

Please, RJ, I'm begging you. Quit while you're behind.

If you think I'm behind this, you are clueless.

 

[DeacHead]

You anti science types make me laugh. No the world isn't flat, nor is it 6,000 years old, sorry. Further, human activity can be analyzed via statistical means.

 

[IrishSlim]

The last two posts are clear (albeit anecdotal) evidence of why this discussion was fucked from post 1.

 

[RJKarl]

You anti science types make me laugh. No the world isn't flat, nor is it 6,000 years old, sorry. Further, human activity can be analyzed via statistical means.

Thanks for proving my point. At no time did I say I was "anti-science". The point Wrangor, others and I have made is that some things cannot be defined by science. Some things just are.

It's a great idea to use shot charts to set up offenses and defenses. But they have nothing to do with this issue.

Since no one can define at which point someone is "hot" or "in the zone" using stat runs after someone hits one shot, or two or goes 3/4 is pointless.

 

[bigdoublezero]

The last two posts are clear (albeit anecdotal) evidence of why this discussion was fucked from post 1.

#snark

 

[bigdoublezero]

Thanks for proving my point. At no time did I say I was "anti-science". The point Wrangor, others and I have made is that some things cannot be defined by science. Some things just are.

Does not compute.

 

[bigdoublezero]

RJ, can you make us a list of the things that cannot be defined by science?

1. God.
2. Shroud of Turin.
3. The "hot hand."
4. ...