Not sure why people are sleeping on the Pelicans. With a healthy squad they're more than capable of having a better record than us or just as good. Key word is healthy though which I personally don't seem to think they'll have this season.
I'm not trying to derail the thread so I won't post again on this subject but I respectively disagree; even knowing SOME of the risk factors would allow you to make an educated attempt at prior probability in this situation. For example, even if Derrick Rose has a completely healthy season next year, his likelihood of injury is higher in subsequent seasons given his past history than, say, Taj Gibson (I won't name Rockets for superstitious reasons). So even in the absence of a sophisticated model of injury risk, which I agree does not exist within a fan's grasp (I bet team front offices have such models), even some data are better than nothing from a Bayesian view. But again, you could probably argue your side as well depending on your views on statistics in general. So I'll just leave it at that.
because even if they were healthy, they at this point just look good on paper imo. alot of their wing players do not complement each other very well and the fact that they're always injured does not allow them to play together as a team at full strength.
People really think the Pelicans, could be better than the Rockets? Rockets arnt getting any type of respect this year
One other factor is their age. As far as producing immediate wins, I think Dragic is the best fit. Because of Bledsoe's turnovers. Bledsoe gets more steals but not enough to offset his high turnover rate and the last thing we need on this team is more turnovers. The greatest thing we need on this team is low turnover players around Dwight and Harden. However, Bledsoe is only 24. And his turnover rate has come down the last couple seasons. Dragic is 28. In a year or two, Bledsoe may be more efficient. What it boils down to for me is I'll take whichever one doesn't cost us the Pelies pick in the trade.
Pelicans have a poorly constructed roster and an average head coach. Jrue Holiday is solid, but his scorers on the wing are Gordon (more or less a bust) and Evans (unpredictable, great talent, makes questionable decisions). It's not the worst backcourt/wing setup in the league, but it's average at best. Davis is obviously a top 5 player in this league, but Asik won't bring much to them offensively other than rebounding. They look to be an above average defensive team, with one of the best defensive frontcourts in the league, but a below average to average offensive team. And that's when healthy. Houston clearly has a better team.
I just don't see how PHX accepts a deal without the NOP pick. There are players and prospects out there like TJones, Capela, and Cannan. Picks like the NOP 1st are in much shorter supply. All the more power to Morey if he can deal for either of them without trade the NOP pick........but I'd be shocked.
No, that's not true if you consider all the flips a part of a sequence. At a low number you might get a percentage that might gravitate heavily one way or the other, but at a large clip you'll come very close to that 50 - 50 number. The probability of throwing heads a billion times is practically zero. Although I agree it's a bad way to predict future injuries.
Those things are already considered and spit out a result, the result is called their injury history. You have two people with basically the same everything (play style, body type, etc), but one gets injured every season and one hasn't suffered anything going on 10 seasons, if you argue that player 1 is as likely to get injured as player 2, then you're an idiot.
Aleron, I've quoted you but this isn't only directed at you. There are a lot of good points being made here by plenty of posters, but can we please discontinue the vitriol, hostility, and absolutism? It makes your argument look weaker than it really is.
Completely agree. See the bottom of the pyramid in the article below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions
There is no formula or model available to properly quantify the odds of major injury to an NBA team in a future season. People that do so based simply on past injury history are just guessing.
Pretty sure it's called an EDUCATED guess. They aren't just fishing, and throwing things at the wall. If a player has a torn ACL, he is more likely than someone who has not had a prior major injury to the knee or ankle to have another serious injury. They aren't guaranteed to have such an injury, but their past injury history, coupled with their bone density and muscle strength is the only way to predict future injuries. Most injuries just come from unlucky circumstances, but it's silly to pretend that you can't look at a player's injury history and not get a decent picture of their likeliness of being injured. So. Are you saying that there is absolutely no reason to even consider past injury history? Or are you saying there is just simply no way to ACCURATELY predict a future injury? Obviously the latter is true, as I said, most injuries are a result of bad luck (landing on a foot, running into someone, knee on knee, etc.).
Neither. I am saying there is no way to accurately calculate one team's odds of major injury being greater or less than another team's odds in an upcoming season. Past injury history is simply one factor. We don't know all the factors (although we have some pretty good ideas) and we don't know how all those factors are weighted.
I wonder what JoPat's/BBH's post count was when this topic first started? I also find it hysterical that he brushed aside someone with like 700 posts in the last 5 years because that guy was obviously trying to "up" his post count by putting forth a logical argument. There's so much irony there that Eric Gordon's knees just got a little wobbly.
No...no...no....any given flip of a coin will produce a 50/50 outcome. It does not matter whatsoever what happened the previous flip or the previous one billion flips. Of course the probability of the flip landing heads one billion times in a row is ridiculously minute, but that is irrelevant to any given toss. The poster said that if you flipped a coin 50 times and it came up heads 35 times, then the chances INCREASE that tails will come up more often than heads on the next 50 flips. That is simply not true. Statistically speaking, you can expect 25 heads and 25 tails over a series of 50 flips, but the outcome of any 50 flips has absolutely no bearing on the next 50 flips.
can you please abandon the "injury" conversation?. this thread isn't for that at all..why exactly are you trying to jinx us?..just abandon it
