“He was on the other side of the court, screaming: ‘Good shot, Kev!’” Durant said, shaking his head in delight. “I’m thinking, this guy’s an All-American type of teammate right there.”
- Member for
- 6 years 2 days
|11 weeks 15 hours ago||Thank you for sharing.||
One helluva piece and beautifully written.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||Webber was quite close to||
Webber was quite close to being convicted of perjury if not for the death of Ed Martin. The perjury was committed well after he was 18-years-old. It's ridiculous to excuse something like that just because he was a basketball star, unless you were unaware of it. That's not bitterness; that's a felony.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||These blog posts are both informative and hilarious.*||
Keep up the good work, CRex.
|5 years 19 weeks ago||This is great stuff Brian,||
This is great stuff Brian, and you get an extra gold star because it came on a Friday afternoon.
As for Gladwell, as annoyingly simplistic as he is at times, I must admit that he is thought-provoking, not in any profoundly original way, but in a manner that will make you to want to revisit and reanalyze a well-worn topic with more nuance and sophistication.
|6 years 2 days ago||For the lack of subtlety, jeesh.||
You want an example? How about SuperBowl XXXVIII, when Carolina missed two 2-point conversions in the fourth quarter, the first of which was attempted w/ 12:39 left in the game. The final score was 32-29. Had Carolina kicked both extra points, they could have gone for two on a third 4Q TD they scored with one-minute left in the game.
I'm not sure why you are so adamant that I provide an example, because one example does not prove my point per se, not to mention that the example may not be analagous to the Michigan game. Only a study using a decent sample size would be useful. My question was not proferred as proof, but as anecdotal consideration. Likewise, Brian's a priori assumptions of probabilities should not necessarily be taken at face value. And that is my point: not that the 2-point attempt was a bad idea; rather, people's conceptions of likely final scores with a lot of time left in the game are in many cases flawed, and thus have a major effect on strategy. In other words, it's a NOT no-brainer to me (even though I would have gone for two in the same situation.)
|6 years 2 days ago||My problem with the 2-point||
My problem with the 2-point conversion chart is that the statisticians who developed it should have included several pages of footnotes--not that anyone would bother to read them. To arrive at those numbers, they are using estimates for a large number of variables, whose reliability is highly sensitive to time. The smaller the score discrepancy and fewer the minutes left in the game, the more accurate those estimates are; the converse is also true. To provide concrete figures for 30 minutes left in a game for example are silly. No statistician in good faith should offer a definite figure (which creates the illusion of precision) without a glaring caveat emptor. As an analogy, predicting the temperature and precipitation over the next 48 hours is fairly reliable; predicting an exact temperature (and not just a range) for a day a year from now is much less so.
|6 years 2 days ago||Princess Bride & Inconceivable||
Methinks you do not undertand the meaning of "no brainer".
|6 years 2 days ago||Not so fast my buddy guy friend||
Ask yourself when the last time was in college or the pros that a
Off the top of my head, I can't recall even one time. On the other
A really solid argument would incorporate a statistical analysis using a large number of games. But who wants to do that?
My point is not that Michigan should not have gone for 2 points. My