Moses Moody vs James Bouknight: Better rookie year?
- Thread starter The_Jamal
- Start date
I find it funny that the player with the better ppg, assists per game, rebounds per game, the better free throw percentage, higher rebound rate, assists rate, and steals rate is voted to have the worse year.
https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm...oodymo01&player_id1=bouknja01&sum=0&request=1
Bith sucked, but this poll is a popularity contest that is not rooted in facts.
https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm...oodymo01&player_id1=bouknja01&sum=0&request=1
Bith sucked, but this poll is a popularity contest that is not rooted in facts.
Last edited:
Better check your stats. https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm...oodymo01&player_id1=bouknja01&sum=0&request=1
The reality is it’s not worth comparing two horrible players, but if you’re going to do so, you should at least relay accurate data. Moody had a lower points per game (your Moody ppg is wrong) and lower free throw percentage while playing more minutes. Bouknight had a higher assists, rebound, and steal percentage. But, of course, those stats were omitted, because it didn’t fit your narrative.
The reality is it’s not worth comparing two horrible players, but if you’re going to do so, you should at least relay accurate data. Moody had a lower points per game (your Moody ppg is wrong) and lower free throw percentage while playing more minutes. Bouknight had a higher assists, rebound, and steal percentage. But, of course, those stats were omitted, because it didn’t fit your narrative.
Last edited:
I like both of you guys and still voted for Moody because I thought he looked better than Bouknight. His advanced stats are much better too. Bouk with a -0.4 VORP in limited time on the court? That basically has him on pace to be dead last in the league.
I couldn't even remember who either of you guys had picked anyway.
I couldn't even remember who either of you guys had picked anyway.
Because of the sample size and the delta between the two in various categories, the differences are really rounding errors. Moody had a -0.1 VORP, Bouknight had a -0.4 VORP, but what does that say exactly when the delta is meh. Bouknight edges Moody in every traditional counting stat (PPG, APG, RPG), but the delta is meh. There is no world, beyond one based on a popularity contest, where the data leads to the conclusion that Moody was the better player by an 18 to 1 margin.
In betting terms, a $100 bet on Moody would've returned $106. While a bet on Bouknight would've returned $1.8K. While the delta on the data is effectively a rounding error in various categories and where Bouknight had better stats in roughly half the categories. Vegas would call the feds.
In betting terms, a $100 bet on Moody would've returned $106. While a bet on Bouknight would've returned $1.8K. While the delta on the data is effectively a rounding error in various categories and where Bouknight had better stats in roughly half the categories. Vegas would call the feds.
Last edited:
You'd have a leg to stand on if you put any of these stipulations into the bet, but you didn't. What you're doing is just not a good look, whether you think it's fair or not. I don't think it's as much of a popularity contest as you think. If you had bet Herb Jones instead of Bouk, you'd be winning the poll 20-0 but you just didn't make the correct bet.
People just thought that Moody had a better year, despite neither guys playing that much. Bouk may have some counting stats in his favor but more important stats like TS% are down in the dumps for him while they're respectable for Moody.
I've bet a coworker 4 times over the years about the Kings and I've won all 4 times because I told him I don't make bets unless I know I'm going to win them. Your bet was never a sure thing from the start so it should be no surprise to you that you didn't win.
People just thought that Moody had a better year, despite neither guys playing that much. Bouk may have some counting stats in his favor but more important stats like TS% are down in the dumps for him while they're respectable for Moody.
I've bet a coworker 4 times over the years about the Kings and I've won all 4 times because I told him I don't make bets unless I know I'm going to win them. Your bet was never a sure thing from the start so it should be no surprise to you that you didn't win.
If you would have replied with these stats backings your argument in the first place or even went with, it’s a tie and we both lose so we should both donate $100 to a charity of our choosing, instead of “I didn’t lose” and “I’m not donating to sh*t”, you wouldn’t have lost the respect of 98% of this forum. Even though most of the board doesn’t agree with your views on fox or other aspects, most of the time you try to back up your argument with stats, data or situations etc. I’m probably one in the board that disagrees with you a lot but respect that you stick to your guns but back it up with your own data. While I respect that you donated to a charity in the end, it was done after you backed out of a bet and were called out on it which does little to earn back what little respect most of us had left for you. Which you stated you probably don’t care about anyways. For one that keeps claiming it’s a popularity contest, backing out of a charity bets isn’t the way to get people on your side
The poll wasn’t based on merit, it was a popularity contest. This will be the last bet that i make that leaves the final decision to subjective views. It’ll be black and white going forward. i made the donation based solely on closing the drama. Yhall can see how you want it.
As for respect, don’t need it. My self esteem certainly isn’t based on what a board thinks. I’ll call things like how I see them. McNair is middlng GM. Fox doesn’t play winning ball. The sooner both are gone, the better.
As for respect, don’t need it. My self esteem certainly isn’t based on what a board thinks. I’ll call things like how I see them. McNair is middlng GM. Fox doesn’t play winning ball. The sooner both are gone, the better.