Required reading

H

hawkeye4life68

Banned
These message boards really come down to one of two groups with a few small outliers.

1. Those that post opinions stated as fact that have no supporting evidence and are shrouded more in what they hope, wish and want to believe rather than what they actually see.

2. Those not blinded by their allegiances to the degree that it prevents them from evaluating and seeing things for how they are rather than how they want them to be.

You can figure out what group you're in after reading the below which separates fact from myth for the 2014-15 Men's Basketball season.

https://twitter.com/thebstiles
 
Last edited:
How about you give us your analysis of what that Stiles guy had in his tweets. What did his numbers show to you?
 
I see the overall season points for and points against cumulative totals. I see a tweet about these same types of stats in the Gonzaga game. But I am not sure what you are trying to say or mean. Yeah it is great to have stats. But stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game. Especially in an outlier type game like Gonzaga which probably had the best shooting game of the year anyone had against the hawks.

So what truths were these stats saying to you?
 
uihawk82 said:
I see the overall season points for and points against cumulative totals. I see a tweet about these same types of stats in the Gonzaga game. But I am not sure what you are trying to say or mean. Yeah it is great to have stats. But stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game. Especially in an outlier type game like Gonzaga which probably had the best shooting game of the year anyone had against the hawks.

So what truths were these stats saying to you?
Click to expand...

He gives the most efficient and inefficient lineups for the entire entire year based on lineups/games played/minutes played as well as season individual ratings.

Stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game? The larger the sample size the more accurate statistics become. It is impossible to draw any supportive statistical conclusions in looking at just one game or event.

The +/- efficient/inefficient ratings dispels a lot of the non factual crap that gets posted on this and all other message boards as fact . You're free to infer on your own what that has been.
 
hawkeye4life68 said:
He gives the most efficient and inefficient lineups for the entire entire year based on lineups/games played/minutes played as well as season individual ratings.

Stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game? The larger the sample size the more accurate statistics become. It is impossible to draw any supportive statistical conclusions in looking at just one game or event.

The +/- efficient/inefficient ratings dispels a lot of the non factual crap that gets posted on this and all other message boards as fact . You're free to infer on your own what that has been.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've (maybe, I'm not sure) proven that message board fans tend to let their emotions blind them either positively or negatively. I don't know how any of us could have reached this conclusion without your help.
 
hawkeye4life68 said:
He gives the most efficient and inefficient lineups for the entire entire year based on lineups/games played/minutes played as well as season individual ratings.

Stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game? The larger the sample size the more accurate statistics become. It is impossible to draw any supportive statistical conclusions in looking at just one game or event.

The +/- efficient/inefficient ratings dispels a lot of the non factual crap that gets posted on this and all other message boards as fact . You're free to infer on your own what that has been.
Click to expand...

Why be so cryptic? Who do you think was wrong about what, exactly? I personally have no idea what you're trying to say, and I see nothing surprising whatsoever in the numbers from the tweets.
 
I think our obtuse friend is trying to say we are better with Woody on the floor than Gabe.
 
sioux34 said:
I think our obtuse friend is trying to say we are better with Woody on the floor than Gabe.
Click to expand...

I prefer the eye ball test as opposed to any goofy stats. My eyes tell me we would be better off playing a smaller, more athletic line up and use Woody as our designated fouler.
We could use Woody in situations where we need to foul the other team's big guy.
 
I too, fail to see the point you are so obtusely trying to make. Following your link takes me to the Twitter account of some guy with a manifesto about why his Hawkeye website has failed.

How about you just tell us what your point is.
 
1hawkeye1 said:
I too, fail to see the point you are so obtusely trying to make. Following your link takes me to the Twitter account of some guy with a manifesto about why his Hawkeye website has failed.

How about you just tell us what your point is.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you could just scroll down a whole one or two tweets previously from that to see for yourself?
 
I have learned from this that there are two kinds of internet posters.

1. The kind that post what they mean in a clear fashion.

2. this guy.
 
Last edited:
Stats are always interesting and worth considering but the eyeball cannot be discounted as others have pointed out.

I took just a quick glance and several things come to mind like what % of the minutes came against what level of competition? How many minutes were played against Wisky vs some weak non con opponent? These minutes are being compared. I also see some of these lineups have 4-5 minutes but are compared to lineups with 75-100+ minutes. Is that really a fair comparison?
 
SpecialKHawk said:
Stats are always interesting and worth considering but the eyeball cannot be discounted as others have pointed out.

I took just a quick glance and several things come to mind like what % of the minutes came against what level of competition? How many minutes were played against Wisky vs some weak non con opponent? These minutes are being compared. I also see some of these lineups have 4-5 minutes but are compared to lineups with 75-100+ minutes. Is that really a fair comparison?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about this. The OP is very clearly an innumerate dum-dum who does not deserve to be paid any attention. If his argument is that Woodbury is better than Gabe, then the data he presents weakly refutes his position.

I think any reasonable fan can see that Woodbury and Gabe are reasonably even players, albeit with differing strengths and weaknesses. On any given night, match-ups and frankly random variance (i.e. a player getting a hot hand on a given night) explain differences in productivity as well as any other hypothesis.
 
hawkfan340 said:
Don't worry about this. The OP is very clearly an innumerate dum-dum who does not deserve to be paid any attention. If his argument is that Woodbury is better than Gabe, then the data he presents weakly refutes his position.

I think any reasonable fan can see that Woodbury and Gabe are reasonably even players, albeit with differing strengths and weaknesses. On any given night, match-ups and frankly random variance (i.e. a player getting a hot hand on a given night) explain differences in productivity as well as any other hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I think what OP is trying to say is that there was very little difference between Olaseni and Woodbury, although he sure as heck was reluctant to actually say it (for a reason I do not understand).

I think anyone watching the entire season would conclude that Olaseni was the more dangerous offensive player (and a better OFFENSIVE rebounder) but that Woody was the far better defender, defensive rebounder and passer.

I think Woodbury will take another step next year and turn into a very good post player. He will never be a great scorer because his shooting mechanics SUCK (get the elbow in, Woody)
 
hawkfan340 said:
Don't worry about this. The OP is very clearly an innumerate dum-dum who does not deserve to be paid any attention. If his argument is that Woodbury is better than Gabe, then the data he presents weakly refutes his position.

I think any reasonable fan can see that Woodbury and Gabe are reasonably even players, albeit with differing strengths and weaknesses. On any given night, match-ups and frankly random variance (i.e. a player getting a hot hand on a given night) explain differences in productivity as well as any other hypothesis.
Click to expand...

LOL. Only a complete zero, as yourself, could possibly come to the bizarre conclusion that the purpose of the post was to promote Woodbury over Gabe???? Good god. If you do not possess the ability to decipher statistical information that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from then why don't you start over by learning to count on your fingers and when you catch up you can rejoin this discussion.
 
hawkeye4life68 said:
These message boards really come down to one of two groups with a few small outliers.

1. Those that post opinions stated as fact that have no supporting evidence and are shrouded more in what they hope, wish and want to believe rather than what they actually see.

2. Those not blinded by their allegiances to the degree that it prevents them from evaluating and seeing things for how they are rather than how they want them to be.

You can figure out what group you're in after reading the below which separates fact from myth for the 2014-15 Men's Basketball season.

https://twitter.com/thebstiles
Click to expand...

Uh.......Welcome to a message board.


Really Brendan, way to promote your twitter account. What hack site is Hawkeyedrive.com anyway?

Who advertises themselves as "Former Iowa football/men's basketball reporter for http://HawkeyeDrive.com ." Former, really?
 
Last edited:
hawkeye4life68 said:
He gives the most efficient and inefficient lineups for the entire entire year based on lineups/games played/minutes played as well as season individual ratings.

Stats for a whole season can be misleading compared to stats for one game? The larger the sample size the more accurate statistics become. It is impossible to draw any supportive statistical conclusions in looking at just one game or event.

The +/- efficient/inefficient ratings dispels a lot of the non factual crap that gets posted on this and all other message boards as fact . You're free to infer on your own what that has been.
Click to expand...

A lot of good this statistical analysis does now after the season. You are correct that the best studies have a lot of data. The only way one can use this info is after the season, which is a moot point now. That's what I get from it. This is insignificant in early season or mid season. At the end is a moot point, so what's the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top