Undercutting NBA players - Page 6 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

left texas · 04-05-2007, 10:42 AM

[QUOTE=u2sarajevo]He was proving a point. I am certain that he is a member of a Suns board as well. I am. I'm also a member of a Spurs board. The thing that strikes me about those two boards is that they don't automatically call you a troll if you are a fan of another team. I also didn't have to kiss the collective arse of the board before I was accepted (no offense Rob).QUOTE]

I agree, sometimes emotion is great, but when someone brings out intelligent, well thought ideas, he should not be cussed out. True Mavericks fans should be intelligent enough to rebuke their position with knowledge of game, not by an emotional cussing out.

RingTheBell · 04-05-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big_pth

Yet, you still have not answered my question as to motivation. Why are you here? I know why I am here, since I am a Mavs fan and this is a Mavs site, specifically, in the "General Mavs Discussion" forum. You are a Suns fan, here at a Mavs site, specifically in the "General Mavs Discussion" forum. Why?

Is this a secret society? Do I need to be "jumped" into your gang? Give me a break bro.

I am a fan of the game and happen to be a suns fan. Sorry if it really bothers you. This is a forum about a basketball team. Get over yourself.

I guess anyone can use the word troll and not know what it really means so I will give you the definition - "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding."

left texas · 04-05-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RingTheBell

Is this a secret society? Do I need to be "jumped" into your gang? Give me a break bro.

I am a fan of the game and happen to be a suns fan. Sorry if it really bothers you. This is a forum about a basketball team. Get over yourself.

I guess anyone can use the word troll and not know what it really means so I will give you the definition - "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding."

To me all are welcome, it is what makes things interesting, dicussing different points of veiw. The only problem is when some fan from another team comes on and has no other purpose than to bash us and make us mad. There is a solution to that which is just not to respond, and they will go away.

chumdawg · 04-05-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

c) I'm still looking for an example of one teammate *unintentionally* undercutting another teammate in practice, and I've yet to find it....I don't think it's because players don't close out on jumpshooters in practice.

Where do you expect to find this evidence you are looking for?

alexamenos · 04-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where do you expect to find this evidence you are looking for?

combing through injury reports. yesterday I went through miami's. I figure that if anyone is doing it intentionally then miami is a good place to start......kopono and wade have both missed a little time from ankle injuries, but these injuries occured during games.

chumdawg · 04-05-2007, 05:30 PM

Not everyone who steps on an ankle is going to miss a game, or make an injury report.

alexamenos · 04-05-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Not everyone who steps on an ankle is going to miss a game, or make an injury report.

I don't expect that would be the case. The point is that one or two examples of this happening in practice would be sufficient to convince me that undercutting is an unintentional thing.

chumdawg · 04-05-2007, 07:00 PM

What percentage of missed player-games do you think come from injuries (or any sort) suffered in practice?

I'm not sure you are going to determine anything meaningful here.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What percentage of missed player-games do you think come from injuries (or any sort) suffered in practice?

I'm not sure you are going to determine anything meaningful here.

chum....you seem to be having a problem understanding a really simple concept.

"one or two examples of this happening in practice would be sufficient to convince me that undercutting is an unintentional thing."

it doesn't need to be a large percentage, the players need not even miss the game--just be reported as doubtful, or something like that.......

cheers

Flacolaco · 04-06-2007, 10:43 AM

To be fair, injuries that come in practice are not described in detail as far the "how" goes.

If that happens in practice, you would never hear about it. All you would hear is that someone rolled their ankle in practice, and is questionable.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

To be fair, injuries that come in practice are not described in detail as far the "how" goes.

If that happens in practice, you would never hear about it. All you would hear is that someone rolled their ankle in practice, and is questionable.

you'd hear about it, and you could look into deeper.

...

it looks like maybe I've unintentionally over-stated the case for in-practice undercutting. I have my reasons for thinking that undercutting is an intentional act -- reason 1 being that the offender receives a substantial reward at virtually no cost....

In addition to having my reasons for thinking it's intentional, I am also open to evidence to the contrary and I even go so far as to look for evidence to the contrary (that's just the way I roll, I'm a helluva reasonable guy)....evidence to the contrary being even a single example of in-practice undercutting.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy to find, I'm just saying I've looked and I haven't found an example. it maybe hard, but it's not impossible...

like you, I see and hear dozens and dozens and dozens of Laura Green injury reports and anecdotes a year (however, unlike you I don't watch these reports with a bottle of hand lotion and a damp terry-cloth towel). I don't think I've ever heard her say, "Dirk turned his ankle in practice when he landed on Greg Buckner's foot after shooting a 3."

(Granted, it could be that the Mavs never close out on 3 point shooters in practice, they certainly didn't against the Suns last week.)

i ain't saying that the absence of evidence proves anything, I'm just saying it fails to disprove something (and there's a difference).

How else might a disprove the contention that undercutting is an intentional act? I dunno....perhaps I should just say that it is conceivably possible to come up with an argument better than "lol, you guys think it's intentional. ur stoopid." I'm making an honest effort to come up with an argument.

cheers

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

chum....you seem to be having a problem understanding a really simple concept.

"one or two examples of this happening in practice would be sufficient to convince me that undercutting is an unintentional thing."

it doesn't need to be a large percentage, the players need not even miss the game--just be reported as doubtful, or something like that.......

cheers

I have no problem understanding your "really simple concept." I think it's a far-fetched fantasy, but I understand it. Have fun with your searches.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I have no problem understanding your "really simple concept." I think it's a far-fetched fantasy, but I understand it. Have fun with your searches.

Chum....

Do you have a problem with a guy a) taking a position; and b) actively seeking evidence to disprove the position?

Or do you just want to be an ass?

Cheers

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Chum....

Do you have a problem with a guy a) taking a position; and b) actively seeking evidence to disprove the position?

Or do you just want to be an ass?

Cheers

Chum just stirs up crap and leaves. He doesn't care about the answer, he cares about keeping up the commotion in frivolous "debates".

Usually Lurkin · 04-06-2007, 12:21 PM

alexamenos,
I tend to agree with you that undercutting is done on purpose (at times). But at best, your search of at-practice injury reports would prove that it's not always on purpose.

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Chum....

Do you have a problem with a guy a) taking a position; and b) actively seeking evidence to disprove the position?

Or do you just want to be an ass?

Cheers

I have no problem at all with a guy taking a position. I also have no problem with a guy seeking evidence to support the position. In fact, I encourage it.

What I would have a problem with would be someone using evidence fallaciously.

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I have no problem at all with a guy taking a position. I also have no problem with a guy seeking evidence to support the position. In fact, I encourage it.

What I would have a problem with would be someone using evidence fallaciously.

He said he's seeking evidence AGAINST the position.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I have no problem at all with a guy taking a position. I also have no problem with a guy seeking evidence to support the position. In fact, I encourage it.

What I would have a problem with would be someone using evidence fallaciously.

...and if you're suggesting that I'm using evidence (or lack thereof) fallaciously it's only because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 12:46 PM

Okay, then. Let's figure it out. You are trying to use evidence of what does (or does not) happen in practice to prove a point about what does (or does not) happen in games.

Seems fallacious to me.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Okay, then. Let's figure it out. You are trying to use evidence of what does (or does not) happen in practice to prove a point about what does (or does not) happen in games.

Seems fallacious to me.

....like I said, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

dirkadirkastan gets it, Usually Lurkin gets it (and he points out how I'm using the evidence fallaciously, tho I'd say to him that I'm attempting to be as generous as possible).

i don't feel like I need to explain further.

cheers

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Okay, then. Let's figure it out. You are trying to use evidence of what does (or does not) happen in practice to prove a point about what does (or does not) happen in games.

Seems fallacious to me.

Please show us why you think it's "fallacious", instead of continuously making everyone else do all the work and then putting them down for it.

The question is whether undercutting is intentional. If we assume all injuries in practice are unintentional, then all undercutting injuries in practice are also unintentional.

Technically we only want to find out whether undercutting happens in practice, and that doesn't require injury, but when else is info about practice released? It would sure be nice to attend a practice or two, then we'd have more data...

The point is, if undercutting happens in practice, that would suggest unintentional undercutting is a reasonable possibility. If there are no instances, that could mean any number of things, including that we just don't get enough information about what goes on in practice.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

The point is, if undercutting happens in practice, that would suggest unintentional undercutting is a reasonable possibility. If there are no instances, that could mean any number of things, including that we just don't get enough information about what goes on in practice.

like I said, Dirkadirkastan gets it....

cheers

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 01:08 PM

I already mentioned it upthread, Dirka. What's this about "making everyone else do all the work?" How many injuries, of ANY sort, occur in practice? What fraction of basketball-related injuries, of the sort that cause guys to miss games, occur in practice? Not that many.

It's really QED from there, which is why the whole exercise is fallacious.

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I already mentioned it upthread, Dirka. What's this about "making everyone else do all the work?" How many injuries, of ANY sort, occur in practice? What fraction of basketball-related injuries, of the sort that cause guys to miss games, occur in practice? Not that many.

It's really QED from there, which is why the whole exercise is fallacious.

Not only is it not QED, I don't even see how it's relevant to the question at hand. The question is testing whether undercutting is intentional or not. That's all we're interested in. Practice injuries may provide insight, or they may not. That doesn't relate to other types of injuries; that doesn't relate to the frequency of injuries. If we see undercutting in practice, that's a damn good indication undercutting is unintentional, don't you think?

The reverse isn't true of course, but the idea is that maybe, just maybe, we'll find undercutting in practice and put this baby to bed once and for all.

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 01:23 PM

You are assuming that if undercutting happens, unintentionally, in games that it will also happen, unintentionally, in practice. That's the root of your problem.

Usually Lurkin · 04-06-2007, 01:24 PM

here's my favorite analogy from stats class:

alexamenos posits a strong hypothesis: that all turtles are green (all undercutting is intentional)
in order to test that, he looks for a red turtle (unintentional undercutting)
He only needs to find one red turtle (one instance of undercutting in practice) in order to eliminate the strong hypothesis.

That's good hypothesis testing. Percentages of this or that would be applicable perhaps to a test of a weaker hypothesis (x% of turtles are green; x% of undercutting is intentional).

Good hypothesis testing is one thing. Good hypothesizing is another. I think a weaker hypothesis (it's intentional sometimes, but not always) is more likely to be real than the strong one.

Edit:
I don't see anything wrong with the assumption you just posted, Chum.

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You are assuming that if undercutting happens, unintentionally, in games that it will also happen, unintentionally in practice. That's the root of your problem.

Nope. You just flipped the causality.

I said:

"If it happens in practice, then it happens in games."

You said:

"If it happens in games, then it happens in practice."

Those are two wildly different statements, Chum. You've made this fallacy before. Please get the if/then sides correct before posting.

chumdawg · 04-06-2007, 01:31 PM

Who said anything about causality? I'm arguing that there is no relationship at all (of any interest here) between practice and games.

alexamenos · 04-06-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Good hypothesis testing is one thing. Good hypothesizing is another. I think a weaker hypothesis (it's intentional sometimes, but not always) is more likely to be real than the strong one.

you're absolutely right, it's just that refuting the strong hypothesis is easier than refuting the weak hypothesis. and i always prefer the easy way out.

cheers

Dirkadirkastan · 04-06-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You are assuming that if undercutting happens, unintentionally, in games that it will also happen, unintentionally, in practice. That's the root of your problem.

Ok, so you said "that" instead of "then". Logically, you said then. The point is you got my message wrong, so when you thought you saw a "flaw", you really said something totally irrelevant.

dude1394 · 04-08-2007, 07:11 PM

Suns scouting report on the Mavs.

Quote:

"I started thinking about Dallas as soon as this one was over," says Bell. "Right now my own game plan is all about my principals and their tendencies. When Jason Terry is coming off a screen-roll to his right hand, you must have your big [a Suns forward or center] up. You can't just let him step into the pocket and shoot a jump shot. And he likes to go right. With Dirk [Nowitzki], you can't play off him. You have to stay up underneath him because he's all about footwork and balance. [Guard] Devin Harris likes to go to the basket."

Note that the way to guard dirk is to stay up under him and possibly get him to land on your foot.

alexamenos · 04-09-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Note that the way to guard dirk is to stay up under him and possibly get him to land on your foot.

interesting comment.

left texas · 04-09-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Suns scouting report on the Mavs.
Note that the way to guard dirk is to stay up under him and possibly get him to land on your foot.

Which brings up back 360 degress to dude1394's original thread, Undercutting NBA players.

Thread starts again.