Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.

Post by Squishalot

Posession has a great deal to do with it.

Suppose a player has a 30% block rate and a 70% shot rate. Let's measure how many points are scored before next obtaining posession (i.e. game resets).

If they make a shot, then they get two points, and posession is handed to the opposition. The opposition has a 70% chance of scoring two points and equalising, at which point, you have posession. Total score difference: 2 points (for your shot) - (0.7)*2 = 0.6 average. Then you have posession.

If you block a shot and take posession, then you then have the opportunity to make a shot. You have a 70% chance of scoring 2 points and creating a net score difference of 0.6 by the next time you have posession (as above), and a 30% chance of handing over posession, at which point, they have a 70% chance of scoring, at which point you have posession after they shoot.

2 points (for what you saved) + (0.7) * 0.6 points (your shot goes in, as in the first example) - 0.3 * 2 * 0.7 (your shot misses and they score) = 2 points.

So with these % numbers, your block is worth more than 3 times more than your shot. Blocking =/= shooting, in terms of game value.

Edit: I just realised that you missed the point.

So matter what, he gets the ball.

If you block, you get the ball. If you shoot, you lose the ball. Therefore, blocking <> shooting in terms of value, despite them both being worth 2 points initially. This much should be obvious, no?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

<all your math>
That's all subjective; it depends on another player having a certain skill level. Again, you're bringing subjective into the equation.

If you block, you get the ball. If you shoot, you lose the ball. Therefore, blocking <> shooting in terms of value, despite them both being worth 2 points initially. This much should be obvious, no?
Your opponent is about to score a point. You can either block him or not block him, no? If you block him you get the ball. If you don't, he scores and you still get the ball. No matter what you get the ball. You're portraying it as some sort of extra bonus. It's not.

Post by Squishalot

That's all subjective; it depends on another player having a certain skill level. Again, you're bringing subjective into the equation.

Doesn't matter, you can change the numbers around if you want. Fact is, the value of a block and a shot are not simply the two points that you save/get, and that any value is variable depending on your skill (and opponent's skill). I didn't make reference to their skill at all, I just said that you had a 30% chance to block and a 70% chance of shooting. If that implies something about their skill, then your block and shot %s are relative, despite you wanting to use it as an objective measurement of skill, thus continuing to destroy your argument.

Your opponent is about to score a point. You can either block him or not block him, no? If you block him you get the ball. If you don't, he scores and you still get the ball. No matter what you get the ball. You're portraying it as some sort of extra bonus. It's not.

I don't care about that, and you don't seem to understand.

Hyper: It's inherenetly true that scoring a point has the same net effect as blocking the other team's point

Squish: If you block, you get the ball. If you shoot, you lose the ball. Therefore, they don't have the same net effect. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Post by Squishalot

Squish: If you block, you get the ball
And my point is that this is wrong. You get the ball whether you block or not. That you blocked has no effect on you getting the ball.

Strawman again. You're arguing that scoring a point is the same as saving a point. I'm demonstrating that they're different, because scoring results in the opposition having the ball. That blocking or not blocking results in you getting the ball is irrelevant. I've lost count of the number of times you've tried to strawman an argument in this thread on purpose. Stop it. You're ruining any respect that I had for your arguments in the past.

Doesn't matter, you can change the numbers around if you want.
There should be no numbers to change. I can't seem to get you to see things without relativism added in.

Strawman again. Your shot% can change. Your block% can change. There is still no relativism in here, assuming that your shot% and block% are not relative.

Post by Orranis

Squish: If you block, you get the ball
And my point is that this is wrong. You get the ball whether you block or not. That you blocked has no effect on you getting the ball.

Doesn't matter, you can change the numbers around if you want.
There should be no numbers to change. I can't seem to get you to see things without relativism added in.

Meh, the problem with this argument is that it's about fundamentals of the universe, so neither one of you can see it from the others side. Personally, Perfection is a concept as much as infinity is.

Post by Squishalot

Meh, the problem with this argument is that it's about fundamentals of the universe, so neither one of you can see it from the others side.

I can see it from his side, I just think it's wrong ;p

I mean, he's arguing that block% is a suitable non-relative, objective measure of basketball skill. How on earth is block% non-relative? How is shot% non-relative, other than free shots? Who does he think the player is playing against, a universal machine?

Hyper's overall argument is so contradictory on so many levels. I'm just trying to pick them down one at a time.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Strawman again. Your shot% can change. Your block% can change. There is still no relativism in here, assuming that your shot% and block% are not relative.
Who is this "you" you're referring to? I have never stopped talking about the absolute. And the absolute would not have changing stats. So no, they can not change.

Strawman again. You're arguing that scoring a point is the same as saving a point. I'm demonstrating that they're different, because scoring results in the opposition having the ball. That blocking or not blocking results in you getting the ball is irrelevant. I've lost count of the number of times you've tried to strawman an argument in this thread on purpose. Stop it. You're ruining any respect that I had for your arguments in the past.

I'm going to spell this out very very very slowly.

What is the object of the game? To win.
How does one win? By having the most points.
How does one score points? By shooting baskets.
How does one lose? By having the least amount of points.

So I start with the ball. What is the best thing I can do? Shoot the ball and make 3 points. I do that. Oh no, the other team has the ball now. Does that make those 3 points any less desirable? No, because without points I can't win.
So what have I done by shooting? I have worked towards the end of winning, by increasing my score.

So now the other team has the ball. What is the best thing I can do? Block his 3-pointer. I do that. I know if he scored, I'll get the ball anyways. Does that affect my need to block his shot? No, because without points he can't win.
So what have I done by blocking? I have worked towards the end of winning, by decreasing my opponent's score.

Neither action can occur in the same play, one is defensive, the other is offensive. And they both contribute equally to the end goal -- actualizing two of my potential points or decreasing two of my opponents'.

You're ruining any respect that I had for your arguments in the past.
So, you accept arguments no because of logic or validity or anything else, but only because the person doesn't !@#$ you off? If that's the case, I don't know why I bother.

Post by Squishalot

Who is this "you" you're referring to? I have never stopped talking about the absolute. And the absolute would not have changing stats. So no, they can not change.

Your brother has (let's say) a 70% shot percentage. Unless you're referring to free shots only (which I'm assuming you're not, in the context of a basketball game), then this 70% must be relative to the ability of his opponents' blocking skill. Therefore, to use your brother's shot% as a determinant of whether he is above the median 50% shot percentage that you've defined to be 'good', it is relative to his playing pool, meaning that your measurement is biased due to his playing pool, something you strenuously denied earlier. Against NBL players, his shot% will be lower than against the local high school team. You can't have an absolute number, unless you're playing against the perfect basketballer, in which case, your shot% will be 0, because they'll block everything.

No matter what you do, all of your observations about a player's statistics are all relative, but for their free-shot%. So all of your claims about talking about the absolute are garbage.

So, you accept arguments no because of logic or validity or anything else, but only because the person doesn't !@#$ you off? If that's the case, I don't know why I bother.

I'm not accepting your arguments because, in this instance, they're illogical and invalid. I have less respect for your previous arguments because they're essentially 'lucky' ones. If someone shoots a 3 pointer from the half way line, you're impressed. If someone does it a couple of times, you think that they're pretty good. If someone does it a couple of times, then misses a hundred in a row, you realise that the first two were flukes, and you no longer respect their playing ability.

So on that note - GG, and I hope you bring your A-game to the next argument, because I've been disappointed by this thread.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Your brother has (let's say) a 70% shot percentage. Unless you're referring to free shots only (which I'm assuming you're not, in the context of a basketball game), then this 70% must be relative to the ability of his opponents' blocking skill. Therefore, to use your brother's shot% as a determinant of whether he is above the median 50% shot percentage that you've defined to be 'good', it is relative to his playing pool, meaning that your measurement is biased due to his playing pool, something you strenuously denied earlier. Against NBL players, his shot% will be lower than against the local high school team. You can't have an absolute number, unless you're playing against the perfect basketballer, in which case, your shot% will be 0, because they'll block everything.
Against NBA he'd get less shots, against some non-basketball player he'd get more. That's all arbitrary. The human mind has this amazing ability so abstract. I haven't seen him play against an NBA player, but I know how an NBA player plays. I haven't see him play against a non-basketball player his own age, but I know how they play.
You keep bringing in relative examples (playing against an NBA player) and refuse to bring in an example that matters (i.e. playing against everybody). An absolute is an absolute.

I'm not accepting your arguments because, in this instance, they're illogical and invalid. I have less respect for your previous arguments because they're essentially 'lucky' ones. If someone shoots a 3 pointer from the half way line, you're impressed. If someone does it a couple of times, you think that they're pretty good. If someone does it a couple of times, then misses a hundred in a row, you realise that the first two were flukes, and you no longer respect their playing ability.
You you are basing your respect for the argument on respect for the person like I said. I think that stupid. Either something is true or not. If you think it's not true fine, but that should not be affected at all by the person who is advocating it. I don't care whether you respect me or not, I just think it's irrational to use your respect for me as a measure for whether you respect my positions.

__________

I normally would keep this to myself, but I'm going to say it because it fits with what you've said about me.
I've been banging my head against the wall ever since you joined this thread, because the concept I'm trying to convey is very simple. The entire thread has been me advocating <insert absolute here> and you responding with <insert relative principle here>. You have not answered a single one of my statements on common ground. So, I do take offense at your self-righteous attitude.

Post by Squishalot

You keep bringing in relative examples (playing against an NBA player) and refuse to bring in an example that matters (i.e. playing against everybody). An absolute is an absolute.

In that case, you cannot possibly measure your brother's shot% in an unbiased manner, and can therefore not come up with an unbiased decision on whether he's good or not. Common ground, end of argument. Happy?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

you cannot possibly measure your brother's shot% in an unbiased manner
That's a blatant assumption.

Post by Squishalot

you cannot possibly measure your brother's shot% in an unbiased manner
That's a blatant assumption.

Prove me wrong then, if you think my assumption is incorrect. I think it's formulated on fairly logical grounds, if you ask me.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

As I said, all of your "logical grounds" are based on relativistic principles.

Post by Squishalot

Not in this case. Why do you assume that you can speak for the skill of all every possible person throughout the history and future of time?

Again, if you think my assumption is wrong, demonstrate to me how you can judge your brother's skill at playing against every possible person, in an unbiased manner, without it actually happening.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Why do you assume that you can speak for the skill of all every possible person throughout the history and future of time?
Because I know basketball, therefore I know what's possible within the bound of basketball.

Knowing people has nothing to do with it.

Post by Squishalot

refuse to bring in an example that matters (i.e. playing against everybody)

That's what you said. I'm asking you to continue with that example and demonstrate to me how you 'know' that your brother will have a shot % and block % above 50% against every possible person.

Expert basketballers and commentators, they can't even compare statistics between different basketball eras, limiting themselves only to an NBA pool of players. What in your arrogance makes you believe that you can compare your brother's skill to people who don't even exist yet?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I'm asking you to continue with that example and demonstrate to me how you 'know' that your brother will have a shot % and block % above 50% against every possible person.
Why would I want to demonstrate something like that? I can assure you my brother does not have a 50% shot rate against Shaq.

What in your arrogance makes you believe that you can compare your brother's skill to people who don't even exist yet?
I'm not comparing him to "people." I thought you'd understand what I meant by every-possible-body.
What is possible in a Basketball player? That is what I'm comparing him against. Does it matter that some of those possibilities happened to be real people? No. That's arbitary and irrelevant. I'm not comparing him to any individual. I'm comparing him to the whole, culminating in the 'perfect' possible player.

Post by Squishalot

Why would I want to demonstrate something like that? I can assure you my brother does not have a 50% shot rate against Shaq.

Context fail. 50% on average against a group that includes every possible person.

What is possible in a Basketball player? That is what I'm comparing him against.

You're comparing him to the median. You've defined the median as the middle value of the sample...

And what is the sample? The number of possible shots.

The number of possible shots is infinite, based on the defence that you're up against. To show that he is above the median, you must demonstrate that his performance against every possible opponent yields a greater shot % than 50%. Again, what makes you think that you can do this?

Otherwise, you're either talking about undefended shots (in which case, it's not terribly meaningful in terms of how good a basketball player he is - even I used to get 9/10 undefended lay ups in basketball in, during school sport) or you're not adequately measuring his performance against the 'absolute'.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Again, what makes you think that you can do this?
All you need to know is the act (sport) itself, and you can make any judgments you want.
Everything is based on the absolute.

Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.

Post Reply