We are certainly better with Yao if his teamates know when to give him the ball and when not to...but it takes time before that...we are better without Yao when the game is on the line and Yao is fronted by an athletic C.... it's so frustrating to see players forcing to feed Yao and results in a TO
Nothing except be a terrible mod and clean this bull**** up. It happens every single game day. Someone decides to make some random thread and we just read through this ****. About 80% of the members on this site should be demoted to rookie status or banned for life.
If Coach Adelman needs Yao to be effective in the last 5 minutes of the game, he should not have played Yao for more than 24 (3 times 8) minutes in the first 3 quarters, in particular, not playing a full quarter therein. For every 8 minutes of play, Yao needs at least 4 minutes to get a second wind. He is what he is, having regard to his 7'6" and 310 lbs body frame, you can't ask something more out of it. That's the reason why we need a coach for determing player rotations.
Could you imagine what we could get for Yao and T-Mac ? Lebron plus a throw in center or scrub just to stand where Yao used to stand !!!!! Nice, What do you say Morey ?
The Base Rate Fallacy Alias: Neglecting Base Rates Type: Probabilistic Fallacy Thought Experiment: Suppose that the rate of disease D is three times higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, that is, the percentage of homosexuals who have D is three times the percentage of heterosexuals who have it. Suppose, further, that Pat is diagnosed with the disease, and this is all that you know about Pat. In particular, you don't know anything else about Pat's sexual orientation; in fact, you don't even know whether Pat is male or female. What is the likelihood that Pat is homosexual? [Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/baserate.html]
What is the "base rate" that I neglected to show in the post? You wrote, "Use some f'king logic ok?" which would suggest I'm making a fallacious argument. But I didn't even make an argument. I provided the information, and told others to draw their own conclusions.
if yao is out for the season, you will just see this team crumble with him out of the playoffs so lock this irrelevant thread.
I apologize. I received a C+ in Introduction to Statistics. The correct name for the fallacy you committed is "Instrumentation". "Sampling error statistics and tests of statistical significance measure a form of measurement unreliability: the probability of error in the measurement of a single statistic and the likelihood that a numerical difference due to sample size." (Source:http://lilt.ilstu.edu/jpda/interpreting/interpreting_the_numbers.htm) Simply put, I meant that a 65% win is not necessarily close to 63%, if you consider the big difference in sample sizes - 165 games v. 65 games. Now tell me if you get it!
Because of the half-joking manner in which it was placed??? Because someone would likely try to make a serious point that this argument has merit. The team is not better without Yao, but sometimes when a big stud is down a game the other guys can rally around and come up with a big win.
I think 65 games is a decent enough sample size for one to say that the Rockets have played pretty well in general without Yao the last couple years (mostly the previous two years, when they had McGrady, Mutombo, et al. to pick up the slack). I'm no stats expert, but logically I don't see why the difference in sample sizes matters as long as both sample sizes are sufficiently large. Your link on instrumentation says nothing about there being a fallacy simply if there's a difference between sample sizes.
this is a good chance to calculate the yao-hater ratio on this site. premise: hates rate it 5 stars, normal people rate it 1star. I guess this is a fair presumption. equation: (5*x%+1*(1-x%))=2 x%=25% with the star-rating system inaccuracy, we should put x% within a range of 15%-35%. I'll choose the lower boarder value(15%), for ****'s sake. the good news is: when I reconsider the algorithm and psychology, I believe hates have a much higher probability to actually RATE such a thread. so, this is a meanless computation and result.
