What's new
By:

14th Tank Platoon

infection said:
It doesn't matter whether we tie, win or lose coin flip, or beat out the Lakers, because they're going to jump us in the lottery anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me your one of those crazy lottery rigged people. Plus if the lakers do jump ahead, then you'll be all hindsight bias saying, "I told you so."
 
Doublea said:
Don't tell me your one of those crazy lottery rigged people. Plus if the lakers do jump ahead, then you'll be all hindsight bias saying, "I told you so."
Click to expand...

That's actually the opposite of a hindsight bias. In any case, I'm not a huge "lottery is rigged" guy in the sense that I think every lottery is fixed and they sit in a room splitting hairs about who they can get to land the #2 pick. Typically the outcome of how lottery positions would effect league profit is vague and total guess work at best. This draft is a little different. You won't be seeing the league spin nonsense for teams like the Knicks who can't get their **** together. The Lakers have proven themselves and they really don't need that many favors except a little help from the refs here and there to keep things exciting. If you throw them a bone now, it will make that franchise (and league) incredibly profitable and stabilizing for the league for the next ten years. The financial implications for the league as a whole are substantial and people have murdered for much, much less. Also, every owner would know that it's a lot more pleasing to their pocket for LA to land a top three than Cleveland. Or Milwaukee. Or Utah. Or Sacramento. Etc., etc. This is why LA will be in the top 3.
 
infection said:
That's actually the opposite of a hindsight bias. In any case, I'm not a huge "lottery is rigged" guy in the sense that I think every lottery is fixed and they sit in a room splitting hairs about who they can get to land the #2 pick. Typically the outcome of how lottery positions would effect league profit is vague and total guess work at best. This draft is a little different. You won't be seeing the league spin nonsense for teams like the Knicks who can't get their **** together. The Lakers have proven themselves and they really don't need that many favors except a little help from the refs here and there to keep things exciting. If you throw them a bone now, it will make that franchise (and league) incredibly profitable and stabilizing for the league for the next ten years. The financial implications for the league as a whole are substantial and people have murdered for much, much less. Also, every owner would know that it's a lot more pleasing to their pocket for LA to land a top three than Cleveland. Or Milwaukee. Or Utah. Or Sacramento. Etc., etc. This is why LA will be in the top 3.
Click to expand...

Especially if they draft a bust.

That's not the opposite of hindsight bias (which is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place).
 
Doublea said:
Especially if they draft a bust.

That's not the opposite of hindsight bias (which is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place).
Click to expand...

I understand your definition, but the application of a hindsight bias occurs after the fact, where you presume you were more sure about something than you were, or felt that the answer to something was more obvious than it was (using hindsight). You see this on the board all the time regarding drafts. If I was wishy-washy then there'd be a case for hindsight bias. I'm stating resolutely pre-hindsight that they'll get a top 3 pick.
 
infection said:
I understand your definition, but the application of a hindsight bias occurs after the fact, where you presume you were more sure about something than you were, or felt that the answer to something was more obvious than it was (using hindsight). You see this on the board all the time regarding drafts. If I was wishy-washy then there'd be a case for hindsight bias. I'm stating resolutely pre-hindsight that they'll get a top 3 pick.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that makes much sense. You stating that it is fact that they will move up in the draft, but it isn't. So if the Lakers do move up (and they will probably have a high chance to do so), then it will be hindsight bias. If they don't move up, then your pre-hindsightness will be false and prove hindsight bias right? The Jazz will probably have the same chance of moving up, so I'll just say that the jazz will move up no doubt.
 
Doublea said:
I don't know if that makes much sense. You stating that it is fact that they will move up in the draft, but it isn't. So if the Lakers do move up (and they will probably have a high chance to do so), then it will be hindsight bias. If they don't move up, then your pre-hindsightness will be false and prove hindsight bias right? The Jazz will probably have the same chance of moving up, so I'll just say that the jazz will move up no doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm saying resolutely that that is my opinion. If I didn't have such a string opinion and they moved up, then I came back later and said "I knew it," then that'd be a hindsight bias. What you're suggesting would qualify any opinion of future events to be considered a hindsight bias if it unfolds as predicted. I'll give two examples:

Hindsight bias:

Draft is coming up an John likes players A, B, C and D. He can't decide for certain who he wants his team to draft. He wants to go big with A, get shooting with B or get athleticism with C. He likes D for having a winning attitude but isn't certain if his lack of athleticism will hurt him, so he prefers A and B but really does like D. His team takes A. Four years later, A is out of the league due to foot injuries and D is a coach's selection All-star. He proclaims, "I knew we should have taken D!"

Not a hindsight bias:

Draft is coming up an John likes players A, B, C and D. He is fairly certain who he likes but does appreciate other options too. He has some reservations about taking D for his lack of athleticism, but thinks his winning attitude is too good to pass up. He still really likes A for his size, B for his shooting and C for his athleticism. Despite this, D is his guy. His team takes A. Four years later, A is out of the league due to foot injuries and D is a coach's selection All-star. He proclaims, "I knew we should have taken D!"
 
Last edited:
infection said:
I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm saying resolutely that that is my opinion. If I didn't have such a string opinion and they moved up, then I came back later and said "I knew it," then that'd be a hindsight bias. What you're suggesting would qualify any opinion of future events to be considered a hindsight bias if it unfolds as predicted. I'll give two examples:

Hindsight bias:

Guy and his wife are pondering upon taking a new job offer out of state. It pays well, but they've been established where they are and they'd have to move their kids and uproot their family. The offer is very generous and he has good room for advamcent in the company. Guy looks to his wife for help making a decision and she states that she's conflicted, that the job is promising but they'd like to stay where they are. She feels there's some risk involved. She ultimately agrees, but with some insecurity, that they should move, though she's optimistic. A month after getting to the new location, buying a house and getting settled, her husband is fired. She proclaims, "I knew it! We shouldn't have come down here!"

Not a hindsight bias:

Guy and his wife are pondering upon taking a new job offer out of state. It pays well, but they've been established where they are and they'd have to move their kids and uproot their family. The offer is very generous and he has good room for advamcent in the company. Guy looks to his wife for help making a decision and she states that she does not have a good feeling about it, that the job is promising but it is just too risk and she'd like to stay where they are. She feels there's some significant risk involved. She ultimately agrees, stating that she will defer to his feelings, but does not feel it's a good decision. She's not optimistic. A month after getting to the new location, buying a house and getting settled, her husband is fired. She proclaims, "I knew it! We shouldn't have come down here!"
Click to expand...

That part to me makes it hindsight bias stating that she knew it., why do you say that the first one is, but the second isn't. Also so what happens if the Lakers don't move up, with your statement?
 
Doublea said:
That part to me makes it hindsight bias stating that she knew it., why do you say that the first one is, but the second isn't. Also so what happens if the Lakers don't move up, with your statement?
Click to expand...

Then I'm wrong. Thankfully. If I were to say "yeah I thought it was unlikely they'd move up to the top three," then that would be hindsight bias.
 
Sorry but if you ever read how revenue sharing works in the NBA you wouldn't make such statements. The only ones profiting from a strong Lakers team are the Lakers and Adam Silver aka the NBA. To fix a lottery and stuff you'd need multiple guys you trust to never turn onto you. You'd have 29 unhappy and mad owners if that happened. Because their personal income and the money with which they pay coaching staff etc comes from arena related money. And if LA getts all the talents and calls, whose arena stays empty and who doesn't make money, unless they stay below the salary cap and use player money for their own income? BINGO! All the 29 other owners. So ask yourself if SIlver is going to upset 29 owners to please 2 siblings who can't stand each other?
 
akirac73 said:
This how I see the Jazz's final 13 games going down:

Orlando W
Detroit W
Memphis L
@New Orleans L
@OKC L
NY Knicks L
New Orleans W
@Golden State L
Dallas L
Portland L
@Denver L
Lakers W
@Minny L

4-9 with a 26-56 final record, I don't think that gets us in the bottom 4, which is why losses to Orlando and LA would be monumental down the stretch. Saturday will make or break our tanking efforts...
Click to expand...

I think that record would get the Jazz the 4 or 5th spot. Jazz have a three game lead on detroit. 2 game on sactown and a one game lead on Boston. The Jazz are tied with LA but up two in the loss column. Unless some team finishes like o-14 the Jazz have a good chance to get a top 4 pick. This is going down to the wire.
 
BTP said:
Sorry but if you ever read how revenue sharing works in the NBA you wouldn't make such statements. The only ones profiting from a strong Lakers team are the Lakers and Adam Silver aka the NBA. To fix a lottery and stuff you'd need multiple guys you trust to never turn onto you. You'd have 29 unhappy and mad owners if that happened. Because their personal income and the money with which they pay coaching staff etc comes from arena related money. And if LA getts all the talents and calls, whose arena stays empty and who doesn't make money, unless they stay below the salary cap and use player money for their own income? BINGO! All the 29 other owners. So ask yourself if SIlver is going to upset 29 owners to please 2 siblings who can't stand each other?
Click to expand...

I don't think the whole league is in in it as some kind of massive conspiracy theory. I think NBA owners hire a commissioner for the sole purpose of creating a valuable, sustainable product. This is why they (save someone like Cuban) never raise issue with things like superstar calls, officiating, etc. It adds to the value of the league. A superstar in LA will add a lot of value to the league in general.
 
infection said:
I don't think the whole league is in in it as some kind of massive conspiracy theory. I think NBA owners hire a commissioner for the sole purpose of creating a valuable, sustainable product. This is why they (save someone like Cuban) never raise issue with things like superstar calls, officiating, etc. It adds to the value of the league. A superstar in LA will add a lot of value to the league in general.
Click to expand...

But the money that the superstar generates goes to the players and the league ;) And every team can get superstars. If you manipulate the lottery you have 29 teams whose team selling values are sinking potentially.

SO having superstars getting superstar calls doesn't hurt the league. It can even increase it. It's if you distribute them unevenly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top