[Grades] Grades v. Wizards 3/18/2014
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
- Status
I'm going to disagree here, because you patently accused someone (in this case, Bricklayer) of doing something he simply did not do. Had he wanted to comment on your view he would have done so - Brickie isn't shy about speaking his mind. I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but it seems like you found a way to take offense when none was meant. I don't think that's fair. I would have said so if it were anyone other than Brickie, so I'm saying it because it was Brick.
I'll be totally honest. I tend to agree with the idea that IT will not, most likely, put up multiple triple-double performances in his career. It's an opinion, not a curse that will prevent IT from proving me (or Bricklayer or anyone else who feels the same way) wrong.
I'll be totally honest. I tend to agree with the idea that IT will not, most likely, put up multiple triple-double performances in his career. It's an opinion, not a curse that will prevent IT from proving me (or Bricklayer or anyone else who feels the same way) wrong.
My point was fairly simple, and irrefutable.
IT has NEVER in 211 previous career games grabbed double figure rebounds. Presumably he has been a warrior for al 211 of those previous games as well, no? THEREFORE -- note logic/intelligence/analytical portion of brain should kick in now -- the odds of him duplicating a feat which requires him to not only do something he does once every 211 games, but to also combine that with something he does once every 20 games or so (double figure assists), are NOT high.
People may express their hopes, dreams, and aspirations on the matter as much as you wish. I, however, have this annoying tendency to decorate my analyses with facts and numbers and other inconvenient stuff. You will notice I did not question his heart, did not resort to a childish taunt form the other side "be hard to do that from the bench!" or "we won't care when he does it for Orlando!" or anything else silly.
FACT 1: you need to record double figure rebounds in order to notch a triple double
FACT 2: Isaiah Thomas has recorded double figure rebounds one time in 212 career games now (and it was in OT even).
In fact: Isaiah Thomas has grabbed 7 or more rebounds a grand total of 5 times in his career. His previous career high was 8 rebounds. Inconvenient little factoids the analytical portion of a person's brain should absorb and go...hmmm. Its not anti-IT anymore than noting that Ben is shooting 31% from 3pt land is anti-Ben.
So to put a positive spin on that, just translate it as: celebrate IT's triple double, don't take it for granted, because the numbers suggest it may be a long time before he ever records another.
IT has NEVER in 211 previous career games grabbed double figure rebounds. Presumably he has been a warrior for al 211 of those previous games as well, no? THEREFORE -- note logic/intelligence/analytical portion of brain should kick in now -- the odds of him duplicating a feat which requires him to not only do something he does once every 211 games, but to also combine that with something he does once every 20 games or so (double figure assists), are NOT high.
People may express their hopes, dreams, and aspirations on the matter as much as you wish. I, however, have this annoying tendency to decorate my analyses with facts and numbers and other inconvenient stuff. You will notice I did not question his heart, did not resort to a childish taunt form the other side "be hard to do that from the bench!" or "we won't care when he does it for Orlando!" or anything else silly.
FACT 1: you need to record double figure rebounds in order to notch a triple double
FACT 2: Isaiah Thomas has recorded double figure rebounds one time in 212 career games now (and it was in OT even).
In fact: Isaiah Thomas has grabbed 7 or more rebounds a grand total of 5 times in his career. His previous career high was 8 rebounds. Inconvenient little factoids the analytical portion of a person's brain should absorb and go...hmmm. Its not anti-IT anymore than noting that Ben is shooting 31% from 3pt land is anti-Ben.
So to put a positive spin on that, just translate it as: celebrate IT's triple double, don't take it for granted, because the numbers suggest it may be a long time before he ever records another.
Last edited:
Not to throw any fuel on this fire, but I thought this was worth a quick look. The assertion is pretty straightforward - that high assist totals will be independent of high rebound totals will be independent of high scoring totals, and thus one can calculate the probability with a simple multiplication:
P(triple-double) = P(10+ pts) * P(10+ rebs) * P(10+ asts)
Now, I doubt anybody would say these stats should be 100% independent. For instance, there will obviously be a factor of minutes per game - the more minutes you play the more likely you are to notch high totals (last night was an example, as IT didn't complete the triple-double until overtime). But they should be relatively independent, right?
Well, it seemed to me that the obvious thing to do is to look at a lot of data, and the obvious way to look at a lot of data is to look at Jason Kidd. Kidd notched 107 triple-doubles in his career over 1391 games. That's definitely a big enough sample size that we can make some conclusions. Kidd ended up having 887 games of 10+ points, 569 games of 10+ assists, and 216 games of 10+ rebounds. I'll spare the math, but the result is that if an independent calculation sufficed, Kidd would have been expected to record only 56 triple-doubles - he got almost twice as many.
Clearly independent multiplication does not suffice. Lots of factors could play a role - in addition to playing time, there's quality of opponent, there's the artificial benchmark effect (Kidd's coaches are more likely to leave him in if he's close to a triple-double; Kidd's teammates are more likely to consciously concede a rebound to him if he's close, etc.), and there are probably other things I haven't thought of.
Determining how all of those factors play together to determine a player's "true probability" of getting a triple-double would take massive amounts of time that I'm not willing to put in, but it's probably not as simple as just saying, "Oh, multiply by 2". For his own part, IT would be expected to have 0.04 triple-doubles at this point, which would suggest (but is way too small of a sample size to make a solid conclusion) that players who do not approach triple-double stats often are much more than twice as likely to get a triple-double than the independence assumption would suggest.
P(triple-double) = P(10+ pts) * P(10+ rebs) * P(10+ asts)
Now, I doubt anybody would say these stats should be 100% independent. For instance, there will obviously be a factor of minutes per game - the more minutes you play the more likely you are to notch high totals (last night was an example, as IT didn't complete the triple-double until overtime). But they should be relatively independent, right?
Well, it seemed to me that the obvious thing to do is to look at a lot of data, and the obvious way to look at a lot of data is to look at Jason Kidd. Kidd notched 107 triple-doubles in his career over 1391 games. That's definitely a big enough sample size that we can make some conclusions. Kidd ended up having 887 games of 10+ points, 569 games of 10+ assists, and 216 games of 10+ rebounds. I'll spare the math, but the result is that if an independent calculation sufficed, Kidd would have been expected to record only 56 triple-doubles - he got almost twice as many.
Clearly independent multiplication does not suffice. Lots of factors could play a role - in addition to playing time, there's quality of opponent, there's the artificial benchmark effect (Kidd's coaches are more likely to leave him in if he's close to a triple-double; Kidd's teammates are more likely to consciously concede a rebound to him if he's close, etc.), and there are probably other things I haven't thought of.
Determining how all of those factors play together to determine a player's "true probability" of getting a triple-double would take massive amounts of time that I'm not willing to put in, but it's probably not as simple as just saying, "Oh, multiply by 2". For his own part, IT would be expected to have 0.04 triple-doubles at this point, which would suggest (but is way too small of a sample size to make a solid conclusion) that players who do not approach triple-double stats often are much more than twice as likely to get a triple-double than the independence assumption would suggest.
All of the squabble back and forth just makes my brain hurt.
I was at the game Tuesday night and it was amazing. Gay was clutch, Cuz was calm/dominant late and IT had his first career triple-double.
Will IT have more? At this point, that's a totally petty and irrelevant question. Leave it to Kings Fans to ruin a player's triple-double (our own player, ironically.)
I'm not the biggest IT fan but kudos to him for an amazing game and hopefully many, many more in the future.
I was at the game Tuesday night and it was amazing. Gay was clutch, Cuz was calm/dominant late and IT had his first career triple-double.
Will IT have more? At this point, that's a totally petty and irrelevant question. Leave it to Kings Fans to ruin a player's triple-double (our own player, ironically.)
I'm not the biggest IT fan but kudos to him for an amazing game and hopefully many, many more in the future.
I don't know of anyone who is "upset" that he scored a triple-double. What you have is some folks taking that event to show that IT is approaching top-X PG status and getting Pizza Guys tattoos like the commercial and others saying "Great, and nice win, but don't expect them on any kind of a regular basis" - I don't see a whole lot of "discord" outside the normal IT "division."
You're right in the fact that this is nothing new as far as people being divided on IT and what he does, how he plays, etc.
I understand the differing opinions. I just find both arguments on a night like Tuesday a little bit unnecessary and petty. That's just my opinion though. In a season with so few high points, IMO, it turned a celebratory moment into more of a he-said, she-said argument.
I understand the differing opinions. I just find both arguments on a night like Tuesday a little bit unnecessary and petty. That's just my opinion though. In a season with so few high points, IMO, it turned a celebratory moment into more of a he-said, she-said argument.
I don't like continuing this but these kind of comments force me to. I, in no way now or ever have had IT in the top anything let alone Top 10 PGs. But I have been saying on here since the posts here following the triple double "quit falling all over your selfs making sure no thinks he'll ever do it again". Just say "good game, IT, and congrats on doing your first triple double" and once you've said it, move on to talking about something else. The majority of such posters if not all are officials of kingsfans.com so I can't imagine my comments too serious sounding in comparison but, there I've done it and I feel better because of it. Thank you.
I wasn't singling out anyone; I think my post was more a reaction to the article someone linked to somewhere comparing IT to top -10 PGs or whatever after the game. I thought it was awesome he got the triple-double. More glad that we won the game. Still think his best role will be as a top 6th man in the league. Hope we can keep him at a reasonable cost.
- Status