Uptown wrote:For a team that doesn't have many 3 point shooters, I think we rely on the 3 way too much. I love the pressure defense, but we are not utilizing all of the weapons on this team as of yet. We (USA) should be slashing and cutting off the ball more than we are doing. Also, would like to see Lebron in the post some....

The FIBA 3 is shorter than an NBA 3 by like 2 ft.

BasketballJones wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

callmened wrote:@bball jones...how could u or anyone criticize the half melo had...not only is he making shots...but hes playing GREAT D

sarcasm

...without smileys....

Papabear Says

Well you better get used to Melo because he ain't going nowhere. You will probably become a Nets fan before Melo stop being a Knicks. LOL

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

Since when do you look at footage?

Its all in the numbers, my friend

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

Since when do you look at footage?

Its all in the numbers, my friend

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

Since when do you look at footage?

Its all in the numbers, my friend

You've misinterpeted me - at least, there is no currently available form of sabermetrics that explains 100% of the variance in team wins. In almost every field, statistical forms of assessment work best but intuition then makes a slight but meaningful additional contribution. Even if I did think it was all in the currently available numbers, though, I could still watch footage just for enjoyment.

Would you enjoy seeing Melo play well or will that just infuriate you ?

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:What is that evidence? I am filing a motion for discovery.

If you look up "actuarial vs. clinical assessment" or "statistical vs. intuitive assessment" and use related terms, you'll find a huge body of research. Most of it is in the context of predicting violent behavior but some of it is in other contexts and the same general pattern emerges - actuarial (or statistical) approaches do best but clinical or intuitive ones do add a little.

Those assessments are mostly focused on Life Insurance policy/expectancy or similar assessments.

In sports, knowledge and understanding statistics will support intuition with the data in hand.

Both are important - not sure which one is more important but I would say stats but then, stats/people can delve deeper and deeper and I am not sure that there is a return at that point, and, when this happens, they start watching fewer and fewer games.