What's new
By:
Filters

Trade deadline discussion

LogGrad98 said:
You miss the point. It's that he thinks he's doing one of them but in practice he's actually doing the other.
Click to expand...

The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.
 
KqWIN said:
The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.
Click to expand...
The point was that people (and Quin) aren’t going to get too excited about positive small samples (like last night, for instance) because they are believed to be outliers (fair enough), and we’ll also tolerate bad things because we view those bad things as outliers to (what we believe is) the mean. But our strategy for going all the way, however, is based on an outlier theory (“peaking at the right time”). So yes, it’s contradictory. And that’s what I’m pointing out.

But that strategy gets mainstream traction because it “makes sense.” But if someone suggests “what if…” that’s simply the inverse of peaking at the right time, suggesting what if the wheels fall off at the wrong time, we dismiss it, say it’s preposterous, and just negative fanspeak, and that we need to ground ourselves in the middle of the distribution and not outliers.
 
KqWIN said:
The post clearly says Quin does not make adjustments because he's counting on positive outliers. That's a contradiction. If you stick to one strategy, you are choosing to be indifferent to outliers.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. It means he thinks he's doing one when in practice he's really doing the other.
 
infection said:
The point was that people (and Quin) aren’t going to get too excited about positive small samples (like last night, for instance) because they are believed to be outliers (fair enough), and we’ll also tolerate bad things because we view those bad things as outliers to (what we believe is) the mean. But our strategy for going all the way, however, is based on an outlier theory (“peaking at the right time”). So yes, it’s contradictory. And that’s what I’m pointing out.
Click to expand...

Quin's strategy and philosophy on not changing strategy is not based on outliers. If you think that we are not adjusting on the basis of counting on outliers, I don't know what to tell you.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You're missing the point. It means he thinks he's doing one when in practice he's really doing the other.
Click to expand...

I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.
 
KqWIN said:
I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.
Click to expand...
You can describe it in numerous different ways that have different angles on the same concept. I say half-dozen and you’re insistent on “well, no, actually it’s 6. Lol. You can say it’s 6 but it’s not half dozen.”

Quin is rigid. Why is Quin rigid? Because he thinks what he has works more than it does. He thinks our 75th percentile performance is our 50th percentile.

But I’ll call it six, if you want me to.

ETA: expecting next response to be “lol I don’t think it’s six at all, it’s definitely not six. It’s 3+3.”
 
KqWIN said:
I get it, Quin think's he's doing what's best and it's not actually best. But to say that Quin's strategy is based on one thing, and that's why he does the complete opposite is not a fair criticism. Makes no sense. It would make sense to say Quin is resistant to change and new information which causes him to have suboptimal strategy. It doesn't make sense to say that he is too resistant to variance on the basis of being too resistant to variance.
Click to expand...
You need to think outside the three-dimensional quadrilateral parallelogram. You are stuck on thinking we think Quin is thinking that way. He's not. He's thinking he's doing one thing, but in reality he's doing the other. He thinks his system will win it, when in reality winning it is based on leveraging positive outliers, not staying within control limits of the process. But that isn't what he thinks he's doing, but that is, in actuality, what he is doing.
 
LoPo said:
We talked a lot in the off-season about guys like Batum for a reason. Rudy can't play 48 minutes a game, and teams will go small whether we like it or not.

Sent from my SM-A516U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
That’s what we got Gay and EP for, or did you forget?
LoPo said:
Stop crying. Throwing out ideas is part of the process. I threw out an idea and people shot it down.

If my feelings aren't hurt, why the actual f should you care? Don't like the idea? Say so and we move along.

The world hates whiners. Don't be one.

Sent from my SM-A516U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
If you’d stop Irritating me with some of your crap trade idea’s, I wouldn’t have a need to whine.
LogGrad98 said:
Butler had some real pro NBA glimpses last night. Imagine where he might be right now if he had been playing some minutes instead of Clarkson going 2-12 from 3 in 32 mpg most nights?
Click to expand...
Yep, over the last two weeks I’ve been laminating the fact that Forrest is getting minutes over Butler, because Forrest was more of a paperweight on offense, but he’s been impressed the last two games so now I’m just confused, if Butler learns to finish at the basket better at the nba level, look out.
 
At this point I’d just assume use JC to free up time for both Butler and Forrest, both good defenders and bring something different on offense, trade JC for two seconds for all I care, we’ll probably need them to throw away more picks at this years draft anyways.
 
jom2003 said:
it's not even the misses. it's him ball hogging and holding the entire offense hostage. his net rtg are atrocious even when he makes shots.
Click to expand...
And when he initially can’t get a shot he doubles down then gets double and triple teamed and still doesn’t pass out to a wide open shooter
 
LoPo said:
We don't lose playoff series because of Donovan's performances on either side of the court.
Click to expand...
Of course we do. If Donovan was a good defender, we'd win all those series we've lost. That said, we'd win them because of Donovan.
 
hgb said:
Of course we do. If Donovan was a good defender, we'd win all those series we've lost. That said, we'd win them because of Donovan.
Click to expand...
Donovan played great defense against Denver at times but couldn't carry all the weight on both sides.

I want his regular season defense to improve, but his postseason effort on both sides is fine. Our issue is that we don't have a great perimeter defender.

He can always do more, but we aren't losing series because of Donovan outside of 2019 Houston.

Sent from my SM-A516U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top