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

Postado por Squishalot

Would you classify passing the ball to the wrong player (i.e. a poor shooter) as an 'own mistake'?

And presuming that a ball gets passed back to him, and he passes it on - does that count as one play, or two, as far as your median counting is concerned? To me, that would count as two, with the first one resulting in no score, and the second resulting in whatever happens subsequently.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Would you classify passing the ball to the wrong player (i.e. a poor shooter) as an 'own mistake'?
Passing to a player who is covered or in a bad position would be a mistake on the part of the passer. The player that you pass to does not have to be a shooter, and if he makes a bad shot/pass, it's not the original passer's fault (assuming the first two things mentioned weren't the case).

And presuming that a ball gets passed back to him, and he passes it on - does that count as one play, or two, as far as your median counting is concerned? To me, that would count as two, with the first one resulting in no score, and the second resulting in whatever happens subsequently.
No that's still the same play. Every single pass is part of a single play until a field goal or a turnover, and every single pass derives its worth from the play scoring or not. Now, time is an issue too. If you're behind, every second spent not scoring diminishes the value; but if you're ahead, it doesn't.

Postado por Nitewalkr

BASKETBALL SUCKS!

Postado por Squishalot

No that's still the same play. Every single pass is part of a single play until a field goal or a turnover, and every single pass derives its worth from the play scoring or not.

But in that respect, you can't say that a pass that is part of (eventually) a scoring play is worth equal in value to the game as the scoring field goal itself. Otherwise, you're double (triple? quadruple?) counting the value of each pass and shot.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Postado por Squishalot

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

No, it's valued with the shot. Any given shot is the result of the passes leading up to it.

And so, relative to blocks?

To create a weighting scale, you currently weight shots and blocks equal at 100 - where would your pass fit in? Also 100? Or would it have to be less, seeing as a good pass may not necessarily result in a field goal, due to other people's mistakes?

An offensive play that ends in a field goal or a defensive play that ends in a turnover is 2 or 3 (+ or - variable amounts based on time taken, fouls committed/drawn, etc.). An offensive play that ends in a turnover or a defensive play that ends in the other team scoring is 2 or 3 (+ or - variable amounts based on time taken, fouls committed/drawn, etc.).

Shooting is the one necessary part of the play, and the shot may or may not depend on previous passes.

Postado por Squishalot

An offensive play that ends in a turnover or a defensive play that ends in the other team scoring is 2 or 3 (+ or - variable amounts based on time taken, fouls committed/drawn, etc.).

Zero, you mean?

I'm still not seeing a clear cut weighting methodology. Are you suggesting that passing = blocking = shooting, for the sake of weighting to determine 'goodness'?

(Recall - you were suggesting that you can take an average of blocking and shooting %'s, because they're equally weighted in their contribution to the game)

Postado por 87606

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por 260787

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Squishalot

What's wrong with Americans not speaking proper English? Last time I checked, everything is slang and everyone accepts it. That's fine. Do not compare this to some psychotic act of rage (i.e. rape, murder, etc) because it really isn't the same category. Please do not say "If everyone accepts murder/rape/etc, does it make it right?" If you understand it, then it's fine. It may annoy you a bit, but you understood it. That is all that matters.

Murders and rapes are not usually done as acts of rage.

Murder often is. That's why most Western countries have legal defences of provocation (mitigates from murder to manslaughter/murder 2 i.e. without pre-determined intent).

If you understand it, then it's fine. It may annoy you a bit, but you understood it. That is all that matters.

If I give you a ten dollar bill, when I owe you a twenty, you understand my intent to shortchange you; it may annoy you, but you understood it. Is that all that matters?

It's not that it's not understandable. It's that it's harder to read. Imagine if your computer was powerful enough to decode bugs in programs on the fly as you played WoW. So because of that, Blizzard programmers get lazy (read: lazier), and leave bugs and syntax errors in their code. As a result, your computer's WoW performances plummets and you end up with 5 frames per second.

The computer understands it, slowly, so is it fine?

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Postado por 166665

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

I didn't read all 15 pages, but wouldn't "American" group all the people from North America and South America?

Not necessarily. There is no term for a citizen of the USA except 'United States of American' (which really doesn't exist), and since that is quite a mouthful, American is the term used.

Members of the whole continents are referred to generally as North Americans and/or South Americans.

Postado por Squishalot

-2 or -3. I missed the minus sign.

I'm saying you can't equate things that are dependent on each other.

So how are you determining its contribution to the end of winning a basketball game?

I didn't read all 15 pages, but wouldn't "American" group all the people from North America and South America?

Not necessarily. There is no term for a citizen of the USA except 'United States of American' (which really doesn't exist), and since that is quite a mouthful, American is the term used.

Members of the whole continents are referred to generally as North Americans and/or South Americans.

It's also worth noting that the use of 'American' or 'African' or 'Chinese' isn't necessarily linked to their citizenship, but also their ancestral background. For example, there are Chinese people living in China (who are citizens of China), and there are Chinese people living in America, England, Australia, Africa (who have an ancestral background linked back to China).

So it wouldn't be necessarily correct to assume generally that the context of 'American' refers to geographical location.

Postado por 157714

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Postado por Nitewalkr

So it wouldn't be necessarily correct to assume generally that the context of 'American' refers to geographical location.
That's actually not totally true with America.

If I go and live in Germany for 40 years, I may become a citizen; however, I will never become "German." Same with pretty much every other country. But with America, being a citizen = being American. So, yes, geography isn't everything, but in the case of America, neither is heritage.

Funny, actually read what you wrote here and proved that you the same prospective as Americans, that you think everything else is a minority and if you live in America you have to accept the American way and kill the ways you followed of your home land.

Actually you are wrong on this, if I move to America and live for 40 years, become a citizen, I will still be called by my native land, but not an American. People would still say that I am Asian (not American) some phrase you'll always hear, "oh hez chinies and have an American citizenship." and other phrases related to that.

Carry on with your basket balls discussion if you do not know how America works.

"Hell I have the Canadian Citizenship and I would not ever wish to be called a Canadian because by doing that I will be niglecting where am I originally from."

Postado por Squishalot

That's actually not totally true with America.

If I go and live in Germany for 40 years, I may become a citizen; however, I will never become "German." Same with pretty much every other country. But with America, being a citizen = being American. So, yes, geography isn't everything, but in the case of America, neither is heritage.

I disagree, your kids will probably grow up thinking that they are "German". I think the difference is that there isn't as rich a heritage from America or Australia, so once you move, your ancestry refers back to your pre-American or pre-Australian roots.

I've got a very clear distinction between my citizenship and my ancestry, and I'm happy to call myself both, as and when appropriate. I was born and raised in Australia, I'm an Australian citizen, so I see myself as an Australian. But at the same time, I don't forget the fact that by appearance and by heritage, I have a Chinese background. If you refer to Australians, I'll see myself as part of that group, since there isn't really an 'Australian heritage' (indigenous aside). If you refer to Chinese, I'll look at the context first, before deciding what you're referring to.

Same way you determine a shot's contribution (i.e. whether it scores or not).

And its contribution relative to shooting/blocking?

You're saying that your brother is good at basketball because he is above the median in terms of shooting, blocking, passing, not commiting fouls, and all the other aspects of basketball. You're saying that you can't look at any single aspect in isolation, that you have to look at his whole game. So I'm asking - how can you measure his whole game? Quantifiably? (is that a word? I don't think so...)

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

And its contribution relative to shooting/blocking?
...you can't equate things that are dependent on each other.

Who contributed more into you coming into being, your mother or your grandmother? You can't compare them because your mother's existence is dependent on your grandmother's.

So I'm asking - how can you measure his whole game?
How do you measure a stick?
You compare it to a standard.

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

Resposta da Mensagem