Revisiting the 9-6 debate (split from Merdiesel's question thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
twslam07 said:
They had a 60% winning percentage with the 2nd toughest schedule. Even if the level of their play dropped, they could still maintain that winning percentage due to the competition being worse. Taking these factors into account, you could probably make a fair assumption that the confidence interval would skew higher Maybe something like 57%-67% winning percentage range is realistic considering the early success, the defensive first approach (typically s recipe to win consistently in the NBA), and the strength of schedule.
Click to expand...
But what if the winning percentage of Malone the year prior? You have to take that into account. Because the sample is so little it doesn't have the impact you think statistically speaking. The numbers would Trend upward but just because we did well for a small stretch against good teams that perhaps penciled in W before the game that it would continue. I just think there is a lack of evidence to guarantee sustained success. Now that doesn't mean it isn't possible I'm just saying there is no guarantee and fans often show "homer" bias in projecting future outcomes. Ala McLemore or Jimmer
 
Glenn said:
Perhaps we are looking at the small sample size in the wrong way. What if we were 8-7 instead of 9-6? That's only one game that became a loss instead of a win.
Click to expand...
If my memory serves that stretch also included the griz game with the Hollins tip that could/should have swung us to 10 and 5. For me the improved effort on defense in those games along with the grind it out, historically playoff style of ball, had me starting to hope again and was the reason for any optimism even over wins.
 
Čarolija said:
He also had the most talented roster in that span. Last year's team was more talented than this year's team as well. Not sure why the Karl fan club keeps overlooking that.

EDIT: Gay had the worst season in a long while under Karl.
Click to expand...

You think so? Temple is much better than Rondo and Lawson/Afflalo are much better than Marco as well as Barnes being better than anyone we lost. I'm not sure what you're seeing unless you're severely overvaluing Rondo.
 
Lopes said:
But what if the winning percentage of Malone the year prior? You have to take that into account. Because the sample is so little it doesn't have the impact you think statistically speaking. The numbers would Trend upward but just because we did well for a small stretch against good teams that perhaps penciled in W before the game that it would continue. I just think there is a lack of evidence to guarantee sustained success. Now that doesn't mean it isn't possible I'm just saying there is no guarantee and fans often show "homer" bias in projecting future outcomes. Ala McLemore or Jimmer
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that I guarantee success. I'm saying that the odds are saying that we would have been successful. If you don't know what the outcome would be, play the odds. It's that simple.

I've already addressed the winning percentage of Malone his first year. Did you miss that post?
 
twslam07 said:
I'm not saying that I guarantee success. I'm saying that the odds are saying that we would have been successful. If you don't know what the outcome would be, play the odds. It's that simple.

I've already addressed the winning percentage of Malone his first year. Did you miss that post?
Click to expand...
Odds maybe statistically lower than you expect and that you would probably be surprised by them. All due to bias. No I didn't miss the post. But I think you have to admit your bias for what you think would happen bias your small sample. Which is what the original poster was arguing
 
Fifteen games does not a season make. We don't need to get back to anything. We simply need to slowly get to losing less frequently. The drip-drip method. Today's Bee talked to the direction we want to move in. Be there at six and I'll be whispering to them.
 
Lopes said:
Odds maybe statistically lower than you expect and that you would probably be surprised by them. All due to bias. No I didn't miss the post. But I think you have to admit your bias for what you think would happen bias your small sample. Which is what the original poster was arguing
Click to expand...
I'm just playing the odds, my friend. That's all any of us can do. Odds are in my favor. I'd rather be the house than the player....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top