mrKnickShot wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:We're also seeing a recency bias in people's assessments. Fields has had one very good and one bad season, including one with very good and one with bad shooting. That's sufficient to make a 2 year, $5 mil contract a reasonable offer.
Intersting ...
Let me "appear" to understand what your saying.
Lacking any statistical evidence assisting your statement/ASSESMENT, you are stating that 1 bad year and 1 good year warrants a 2 year contracts at 5 million? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!! THAT IS WIERD, WILD STUFF!
Help us repair our bias:
Does it make a difference if the "bad" year came 2nd?
Is there any relevancy in how good the good year was?
How about how bad the bad year was?
You have the coolest internal metrics for analytic assessments I have ever come across.
Now you're being a troll but I'll give you credit for not smelling bad. I did not say I used statistics to arrive at my estimate that 2 yrs, 5 mil was reasonable; I'm just trying to avoid a recency bias. Does it matter that the bad year came 2nd? Yes, a little but not to the extent people think. People usually give more weight than is justifiable to recent observations. And if the the order were reversed, Fields would be getting $25 mil offers.