OP is probably some community college kid who read about statistics once on wikipedia and thought he'd look clever trying to apply it to the real world. Guess what? Didn't work...
We were 27-22, up 12 on the 76ers and in 7th place in the western conference, when KYLE LOWRY was injured. We collapsed and loss to sixers, went 4-10 since and dropped to 11th in the west. Nuff said.
Correct! This trade was for the future, next year at the earliest. Therefore the rest of this season is a pre training camp training camp. We're trying to find the best rotation(minus Yao) & that's hard to do when 2 or 3 of our rotation are injured. Any 9 game analysis is relevent only in the NFL(16 games), not the MBL(162 games) or NBA(82 games).
I wouldn't go as far as making a personal attack, because that is not why we are all here. The issue is the fact that your data is incomplete. Your opinion is based on a sample of only 9 games since the trade, most of which key players have been injured, and not to mention the biggest player all season--Yao Ming. I agree with most posters that would suggest that any evaluation of this trade cannot come after a nine game stretch of an 82 game season. Let's wait until the draft picks have been made, the new players have a chance to get a full training camp under their belts and we know how they all fit in with Yao.
I don't understand the words that are coming out yo mouth. All joking aside, I completely agree. These are the same people that want to call Morey a failure as a GM because he is stuck with the pieces of CD and JVG's former team. Give it time.
What's the sample size of JCDenton's horrible posts and threads? Probably bigger than the sample size he used for this thread.
ah, not surprised that worked its way in there.....aren't we all injury prone in some way then? I'm sure Brooks has cut his finger, possibly scraped his knee, maybe stepped on a rock once that left him a bruise. Almost certain he's had a papercut, maybe two. If his numbers go down by any amount, we better ship him out, he's injury prone AND declining,.
Decent analogy, but a better one is the guy who wears a tight speedo, exposing just how little he has to show the world. (thanks for the thread, Mr. Debbie Downer. Kudos!)
Hang in there JC. Don't let them city slickers get ya' down. Now git on back 'n here 'n show 'em some more of that fancy cipherin' that'd make Jethro proud.
A funny thread, but you at least need a p vaule of -0.05 to say any meaningful things. Even that with the scientific p value, the trade is not for one week or month action, we should have a better idea after next year.
OP was a troll, clearly no "detailed statistical analysis" was happening. He's probably just prodding the bbs for a response, and probably poking fun at stats people at the same time. What I was saying was that the Rockets were already in a decline. As someone else mentioned, it is stupid to compare 9 games to the previous 50 and draw conclusions from that "analysis." All I was saying was that the Rockets have been on a decline since January. They were at .606 at the end of December, and then proceeded to go .400 up to the trade deadline. Since the trade deadline, they've been at .300. The .300 should be taken with the context of the already existing .400. Causation and correlation aren't the same, but in this case, you can hardly even make an correlation argument (much less causation) since they've been playing losing ball for quite a few games prior to the trade deadline.
How about the more simpler and probably more correct reason that the OP is just dumb. If you have seen any of his old posts, you will realize that the OP knows nothing about basketball at all and has been called out on it multiple times. He is a poster trying to look smart, but fails miserably at it.
I don't think I require assistance from someone who makes it very clear from the context of his sentences that he uses mathematical terms without understanding them. For example, only someone with no formal education mathematical education at all would confuse the proper term "margin of error" with "marginal error." Similarly, "six sigma calculation" is a concept normally discussed in terms of reducing errors in business processes down to the minimum feasible amount. It has no role in analyzing whether the Rockets are better before or after a trade. I could spend more time pointing out all of your ridiculous errors, but at this point I think it's just safe to say that you are an internet poster who googled some terms to attempt to sound clever but ended up unwittingly exposing himself as a moron. As for all of those who say the sample size is not large enough, you are tragically incorrect. First, a crash course in statistics for the uneducated. Statistical predictions and analysis can never be performed with 100% accuracy. Instead, claims are made with a certain degree of Confidence. As parameters like the sample size and differences between the samples increase, it is possible to claim that the samples are significantly different with a higher degree of confidence. In the case of the Kings and Knicks, the confidence level was not high enough to conclude a statistically significant difference. However, the Rockets have played so much worse since the trade that I can conclude with a high degree of confidence that they are a worse team (well over 50% confidence). I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who did not receive a proper education, but your criticisms are invalid. Only one of you made an even plausible argument, and that argument is that my calculations did not include strength of schedule. Unfortunately you, like the others, did not carefully consider your argument. The Rockets had by far the weakest strength of schedule. I originally did not touch on that because I wanted to ease you all in to how bad the Rockets have become. I wanted to give you all time to comprehend this so that you would not be emotionally traumatized. But since you are all upset anyways and are making personal attacks, I no longer care how you feel. Since the trade, the Rockets have played teams that are a combined 259-306 (45.8%). The Knicks have played teams that are a combined 314-310 (50.3%). The Kings have played teams that are a combined 303-264 (53.4%). As you can see, the Rockets had by far a weaker schedule than their trade partners. This means the difference is actually larger than I claimed in the OP. Sometimes facts can be painful.
WOW. If I were Clutch, I would seriously consider it. If nothing else, just to see you eat your words. :grin:
