Kansas Crimson

See, and there's where subjective answers come in.
You look at a particular player with a more critical eye while ignoring that Dotson, Grimes, Garrett, Dedric all make frustrating bone-headed mistakes too, or get lost on defense.
The eye test argument does nothing because we all have our preferences.

You can say someone is better because they look better on the court.
Fine, I can say someone is better because they look better on the court.
Then you can say, well I know basketball better than you.
And vice versa.

Goes nowhere.

Self was very happy post game, obviously.

But going in to halftime that might have been the most upset he was all year.

Both of those were with Vick gone

Does anyone know what Dedric said just before halftime that caused Self to yank him the last few minutes of the first half, that was reported by Holly Rowe?

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:30 pm See, and there's where subjective answers come in.
You look at a particular player with a more critical eye while ignoring that Dotson, Grimes, Garrett, Dedric all make frustrating bone-headed mistakes too, or get lost on defense.
The eye test argument does nothing because we all have our preferences.

You can say someone is better because they look better on the court.
Fine, I can say someone is better because they look better on the court.
Then you can say, well I know basketball better than you.
And vice versa.

Goes nowhere.

Well, you want to cherry-pick shooting stats (to support your guy), but completely disregard plus/minus.

I get it - you're pot-committed to defending your guy. That's fine.

Cherry picking stats is finding statistics that aren't normally shown in a box score or mentioned in articles.
Field goal percentage and three point percentage is a very important statistic.
Maybe one of the most important.

Basketball is largely a game of putting a basket into a hoop.
If you shoot 100% of your shots as a player ( and you are shooting as many shots or more than other players on your team ), well, you're a very good player.

Plus/minus is a failure of a statistic because it has so many external variables.
So many.
It's why it's not listed as a stat on an ESPN college BB team page or even the more robust sports-reference page.

To call 3pt % a and pts per game in conference play cherry picked stats is a bit much...

You don't hear Fran Fraschilla mention, 'his plus and minus is through the roof, plus 18 over his last five,' but you would hear him say, 'he's averaging 19 points per game and shooting 50 percent from 3 in his last five games.'

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:42 pm Cherry picking stats is finding statistics that aren't normally shown in a box score or mentioned in articles.
Field goal percentage and three point percentage is a very important statistic.
Maybe one of the most important.

Basketball is largely a game of putting a basket into a hoop.
If you shoot 100% of your shots as a player ( and you are shooting as many shots or more than other players on your team ), well, you're a very good player.

Plus/minus is a failure of a statistic because it has so many external variables.
So many.
It's why it's not listed as a stat on an ESPN college BB team page or even the more robust sports-reference page.

What? No it's not. That's not at all what cherry-picking is.

The subject of declining play is far from just an objective measure, of course, but when using an objective measurement, like statistics, either use all of it or none of it. To not do so is cherry picking.

I think if you asked, oh, 90% of basketball fans if they thought when supporting an argument that a player was playing well, if PPG, FG% and 3FG% was cherry picking stats, they'd say no.

But maybe then i'd be cherry picking stats.

Maybe any stat that we mention at all times because it proves an argument is cherry picking.
We should just do away with stats altogether then.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:59 pm The subject of declining play is far from just an objective measure, of course, but when using an objective measurement, like statistics, either use all of it or none of it. To not do so is cherry picking.

Incorrect.
Not if some statistics are far more fallible than others.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:03 pm I think if you asked, oh, 90% of basketball fans if they thought when supporting an argument that a player was playing well, if PPG, FG% and 3FG% was cherry picking stats, they'd say no.

But maybe then i'd be cherry picking stats.

Maybe any stat that we mention at all times because it proves an argument is cherry picking.
We should just do away with stats altogether then.

I...I honestly think you do not know what cherry-picking is. Which is weird because it literally means what it's called.

Conference PER:

Lawson 26.3
Azubuike 25.4 (1 game)
Agbaji 21.0
Dotson 18.3
Garrett 16.6
Vick 14.4
Lightfoot 12.0
Lawson 9.9
Grimes 6.1 (!!!)
McCormack 5.7
Moore 2.8

"How are sales today?"

"We've sold 10% more than we do on a typical Wednesday."
"Well stop cherry picking stats."

"Errr, OK, we've sold 3% less than our typical type of store in this geographical region on a Wednesday in a year of this level economic productivity would."
"That's more like it."

Has anyone stopped to consider that Vick has or might have mental health issues like anxiety or manic depression? I remember something being mentioned about that. Those things almost never get spoken about, especially in sports. Maybe Vick is fighting battles on many fronts. I wish him well, always liked him and thought he was a talented player, I was super excited to get him when he decommitted from SMU. I hope he returns refreshed and ready to play but if not I understand and respect his decision.

"Cherry-picking occurs when a person makes a claim about a subject and then selects only the tests that support the claim or ignores any translation of the data that could refute the claim. In other words, it's about selecting your data to prove your claim."

This is of course generic and should be grounded in the fact that many statistics are more reputable than others.

I would hope you would understand that even moreso given our current political climate.
Otherwise, global warming isn't real and mexicans really are all rapists and murderers.

PortlandHawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:13 pm Has anyone stopped to consider that Vick has or might have mental health issues like anxiety or manic depression?

It was mentioned by I believe an assistant coach on a hawk talk or other radio interview that Vick battles severe anxiety and possibly clinical depression. Hard to comment on something that we rightly don't know much about.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:14 pm "Cherry-picking occurs when a person makes a claim about a subject and then selects only the tests that support the claim or ignores any translation of the data that could refute the claim. In other words, it's about selecting your data to prove your claim."

This is of course generic and should be grounded in the fact that many statistics are more reputable than others.

I would hope you would understand that even moreso given our current political climate.
Otherwise, global warming isn't real and mexicans really are all rapists and murderers.

Cherry-picking is, quite literally, picking the desirable part from among the whole.

It is cherry-picking to point only to stats that are favorable to Vick (as shooting percentage is).

There are murderers in Mexico.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:10 pm Conference PER:

Garrett 16.6
Vick 14.4

Grimes 6.1 (!!!)

Has Garrett played better overall in conference than Vick?
I think it's close ( and looking at PER it is close ).
He had a great three game stretch - scattered with bad games.

I could see argument for, i'm not debating that.
I think Vick has been better in conference but not much better.
I'm also not arguing that Dotson and Agbaji haven't been better.

Look back at what the argument has been.
I think you're getting lost.