Ferry as GM Poll

[Admin]

There's a 100% chance that continuing this discussion will lead to more disagreeing over semantics LOL :hump:

[Nicholasp27]

The variance of points scored is higher with 3s in our exampleHigher payout but less frequent payout increases varianceYour standard deviation is going to be higher taking 3s at 30% than 2s at 45%You are correct that variance is a measure of how far from the mean results are...and when you reduce the odds and increase the payout you will increase how far results are from the mean

[Endy9]

I guess the other question than how we fans feel about Ferry as GM, is how do you think star players are looking at us now. Before Ferry, it was doubtful any big name star would even look our way, figuring Joe had already gobbled up all the overpayment fund and that we were inept and wouldn't be winning a championship or even playing for one anytime soon. Dwight has expressed his disdain for the Hawks org in the past. Wonder if Ferry has improved that image at all in the league.

[lethalweapon3]

Just once, I'd love for my stats class to break out into a discussion about Hawks basketball.~lw3

[Guest]

The variance of points scored is higher with 3s in our example Higher payout but less frequent payout increases variance Your standard deviation is going to be higher taking 3s at 30% than 2s at 45% You are correct that variance is a measure of how far from the mean results are...and when you reduce the odds and increase the payout you will increase how far results are from the mean

Nope. Less frequent actually reduces variances. Let's jus shoot with saying we have a player who shoots 20 times a game and it is either all long 2s or 3s. We are actually dealing with a binomial distribution here (look it up). We can agree with him scoring, on average, 18 points a game regardless of whether it is 2s or 3s. Now if we are arguing over variance, this is a simple measure of how often we see deviations from the mean. Or in another term, how far we are away from what we expect, squared, on average. Since I am sure you went to the wikipedia page on the binomial distribution, you should be able to see the variance is equal to n*p*(1-p) where n is the number of trials and p is the probability of success (aka fg%). Once you plug in those numbers, you will see variance is HIGHER for 45% shooting than it is for 30%. This occurs because the actual chance of making all 20 shots for long 2s is higher than for 3s. So again, you must be thinking of something different than variance.

[Guest]

Just once, I'd love for my stats class to break out into a discussion about Hawks basketball. ~lw3

Strange. I usually hope that our Hawks discussion turns to a stats class.

[Nicholasp27]

Nope. Less frequent actually reduces variances. Let's jus shoot with saying we have a player who shoots 20 times a game and it is either all long 2s or 3s. We are actually dealing with a binomial distribution here (look it up). We can agree with him scoring, on average, 18 points a game regardless of whether it is 2s or 3s. Now if we are arguing over variance, this is a simple measure of how often we see deviations from the mean. Or in another term, how far we are away from what we expect, squared, on average. Since I am sure you went to the wikipedia page on the binomial distribution, you should be able to see the variance is equal to n*p*(1-p) where n is the number of trials and p is the probability of success (aka fg%). Once you plug in those numbers, you will see variance is HIGHER for 45% shooting than it is for 30%. This occurs because the actual chance of making all 20 shots for long 2s is higher than for 3s. So again, you must be thinking of something different than variance.

A "yes" for 3s is different than for 2s...you aren't taking that into account Simply plug into a variance calculator 10 trials of each: 3,3,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 and 2,2,2,2,2,0,0,0,0,0 (I know this is 50% but it'll do for illustrative purposes) and see the variance double for 3s compared to 2s

[Nicholasp27]

Basically you took half my statement (less frequent) and ignored the other half (higher payout)I assume you would agree that 50% shooting 3s would be higher than 50% shooting 2s...same frequency but different payout....higher standard deviation with higher payoutSo the only thing left would be to convince yourself that the increase payoff isn't overcompensated for by the reduced probability, which it isn't in this case

[Guest]

Changing the payout does nothing for changing the variance. You have no basis here, but it is funny to see you try.You clearly meant more frequent but used variance as a buzz word.

[Sothron]

Just once, I'd love for my stats class to break out into a discussion about Hawks basketball. ~lw3

My win win share beats your shooting variance but loses to TS and eFG. To sum up: win share.

[Nicholasp27]

Changing the payout does nothing for changing the variance. You have no basis here, but it is funny to see you try. You clearly meant more frequent but used variance as a buzz word.

I definitely did not mean more frequent...that is overly obvious that higher fg% means more frequent And I don't use buzz words...when you have two paths that have the same EV but one is less frequent and higher payout while the other is more frequent and lower payout (ldo or you wouldn't have same EV), then the former is higher variance than the latter Go to a variance calculator and put in 6 3s and 14 0s for your 20 trials and get a variance of 2.82 Same calculator put in 9 2s and 11 0s and get a variance of 2.04 You can't just say both paths are binomial (yes/no, heads/tails, 1/0) when they have different payouts They are 0/2 and 0/3 and your formula doesn't accommodate that because it is for binomial 0/1

[Nicholasp27]

How about this:The mean for either is .9....your difference from mean for a made 3 is 2.1 and then you square that to 4.41...a missed 2 or 3 is -.9 squared or .81...a made 2 is 1.1 squared or 1.21If the frequency of 3s made dropped a bit more then the .81s would override the 4.41s to make it lower variance than the 2s...but then the EV would drop which defeats the pointMaybe I left implicit what I should have made more explicit: assuming equal EV the lower frequency higher payout is higher variance

[Guest]

Not so sure why I was so fixated on percentages rather than points scored. You're right about variance in points scored, my mind must have been stuck on how your fg% varies.

[lethalweapon3]

Holy Bernoulli, Batman!~lw3

[Nicholasp27]

There's a 100% chance that continuing this discussion will lead to more disagreeing over semantics LOL :hump:

Good call, lol

[NineOhTheRino]

Fire Ferry Now!!!

[Admin]

Fire Ferry Now!!!

Ferry no carey!