DunkinDerozan wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ED Davis' FG% Ranking... If He Qualified: 2nd In The NBA
Collapse
X
-
Prime wrote: View PostThis doesn't hold at all logically, no matter how you look at it.
If you take 10 shots, and start 0-2, you can still finish the night shooting 80%.
If you take 4 shots, and start 0-2, you can theoretically only shoot 50% for the game.
Very basic, but essentially how it works.
Ed takes SMART shots that are within his skill set. THAT is why he shoots a high percentage.
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostThank you.
If you take 10 shots, and start 0-2, you can still finish the night shooting 80%.
If you take 4 shots, and start 0-2, you can theoretically only shoot 50% for the game.
Very basic, but essentially how it works.
Ed takes SMART shots that are within his skill set. THAT is why he shoots a high percentage.
Comment
-
DunkinDerozan wrote: View Postassuming all player start at 100% obivously not at 0 that wouldn't make sense you start at 100% see in that case 0/0 = 100%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.Last edited by Joey; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 08:46 AM.
Comment
-
-
DunkinDerozan wrote: View Postlol your clearly not understanding my sarcasm ... im just trying to point out the obvious the less shots you take the more likely you are to shoot a higher percentage..
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostWhat?! 0/0 = 0%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.
the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:
if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2
see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%
and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.
Comment
-
heinz57 wrote: View Postthe argument for 0% - ZERO by definition, has no value.. so regardless of what the sum is, the percentage of NO VALUE from ANY sum would be 0%
the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:
if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2
see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%
and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.
But, Yes!Last edited by Joey; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:00 AM.
Comment
-
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostWhich is actually known as 'The Law of Increasing Relative Cost'.
Though relevant in manufacturing, has NOTHING to do with Basketball.Last edited by DunkinDerozan; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:42 AM.
Comment
-
DunkinDerozan wrote: View PostIn economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories
'Increasing Relative Cost' and 'Diminishing Returns'?
If you go here, you will see they are very much one and the same.
I see what you are saying, but it just doesn't work when it comes to basketball.Last edited by Joey; Thu Mar 10, 2011, 11:54 AM.
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostWhat?! 0/0 = 0%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.
Comment
-
DunkinDerozan wrote: View PostIn economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories
but adding -ED to an adjective it the equivalent of a double negative. it's like saying "That chick is beautifuled"
(sorry... i was also good at english)
Comment
-
DunkinDerozan wrote: View PostOh wait unless you just wanna become one of those overrated poster who likes to keep padding his post totals by responding to stupid comments.
But since you just called your own comments 'stupid', I suppose that is where I stop entertaining your argument.
Comment
Comment