palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 01:42 PM - Post#240775
In response to Jeff2sf
Sure. I always did. What I said consistently was that we would be better with Antonio than with Matt because it allows us to do things (and Antonio does things) that we couldn't do last year.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
12-20-17 01:50 PM - Post#240778
In response to palestra38
Looks to me like Matt was actually replaced with a combination of Antonio and Max. Those are the two additions to the lineup combined with reduced minutes and/or focused roles for some of the other guards (Jackson, Caleb, jones) to allocate Matt's minutes. The roles of Antonio/Max/et al combine to make us a better team in my view.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 02:10 PM - Post#240782
In response to PennFan10
Exactly
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
12-20-17 02:29 PM - Post#240787
In response to palestra38
While I agree, what does this have to do with the food at Smokes?
Have any of you spent the entire day at Smokes from opening to close? It's quite an experience but not for the faint of heart.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 02:34 PM - Post#240788
In response to TheLine
I drank with the hockey team all night after the announcement of the decision to cancel the program in '78. Something in pitchers they called "Black Squids". As Dr. Smith moaned, "Oh the pain, the pain..."
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
12-20-17 02:43 PM - Post#240792
In response to palestra38
The last time I was at Smokes - and it was awhile - the downstairs had been hermetically sealed off. Probably for good reason. Is that still the case?
I fondly remember the 2-for-1 pitcher promotion on Fridays. Good times.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 03:32 PM - Post#240801
In response to TheLine
I'm pretty sure that another business took the downstairs for a while, but I believe it is vacant now. Here's the street view.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/210+S+40th +St,+P...
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-20-17 03:35 PM - Post#240803
In response to TheLine
We are a better team. I'm not sure how much better and to what we're comparing. If we're comparing to last season's non-conf, we get to start Betley (our best player), Woods and Rothschild (our two worst starters).
Rothschild for Howard - a huge loss. Max is just mediocre, clogs up spacing, puts our 2nd best player out of position, turns over the ball too much.
Woods for Wood. Well even though 2017 Wood is better than 2017 Woods, 2017 Woods is better than 2016 Wood. So that's a win.
Betley for Macdonald. A ginormous gain. Not only in the ORat, but more importantly the usage and the gravity he provides to help spacing.
We're the 134th best team in the country. last year in our last 8 games we were 130 (though we finished more like a top 200 team). So I dunno, I predicted we'd be between 120 and 130 KenPom and so I guess we've underperformed. shrug.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
12-20-17 03:48 PM - Post#240805
In response to Jeff2sf
I'm pretty sure that last year at this time we were KP 180-225 or so. Let's see where we end up over our last 8 games or so this year, which if we perform over the last 8 games this year like we did last year is likely to improve our current KP rating.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 03:52 PM - Post#240806
In response to Jeff2sf
We're a much better defensive team. Way better. Unless you have another explanation for why 3 point shooting against us is down 70 points this year. Other than luck...it isn't luck.
Where does that fit in your ORAT analysis?
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-20-17 04:06 PM - Post#240807
In response to palestra38
yeah listen, colin, if you don't understand variance and the idea that 3 point shooting % isn't controlled by the defense, LACK of 3 point attempts is, I don't know what to tell ya buddy.
I'm allowing that defense is better though. We'll have some shooting reversion, as we have already.
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1171
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
12-20-17 04:11 PM - Post#240809
In response to palestra38
I seem to recall the downstairs had been converted to some chicken wing place. No idea what's there now.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 04:16 PM - Post#240810
In response to Jeff2sf
Being serious for a moment, I do understand variance (which applies to all statistics, not just 3 point shooting), but it makes no sense to me that defense does not affect 3 point shooting. The difference between getting close enough to change a shot and not getting close enough is real. And closing time (not the bar kind) between the time a shooter receives a pass and the time you can get close enough to him to affect a shot is important. Indeed, logically, it would be more effective to play off a shooter if you have the quickness to close in and affect a shot than playing close and stopping him from taking it. Moreover, you are not as vulnerable to the drive.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-20-17 04:20 PM - Post#240811
In response to palestra38
I'm sorry it makes no sense to you. I concede some statistical empiricisms are tough to intuit. But just because Colin sees that we had a cold December so how can there be global warming, you need to rise above and acknowledge that WAY smarter people than you and I have studied this.
or you could ask Mike questions, in a respectful way and not the "i'm dripping with sarcasm" way some people on this board do. He explained this basic point to a Princeton guy on the Penn board a month or so ago.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-20-17 04:21 PM - Post#240812
In response to Jeff2sf
while i'm talking about difficult to intuit, the Monty Hall problem is my all time favorite.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 04:28 PM - Post#240814
In response to Jeff2sf
You mean taking the box instead of the curtain?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-20-17 04:31 PM - Post#240815
In response to Jeff2sf
Mike can speak for himself if he chooses. Right now, I'm sure you can provide a layman's explanation, just as I was able to show Colin that there is no natural source of CO2 to explain the increased concentration in the atmosphere and that it is directly correlated to world temperature.
So explain what part of my basketball analysis is incorrect.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
I'd like to have an argument, please.
12-20-17 04:31 PM - Post#240816
In response to palestra38
well i refuse to look it up  but basically the idea of changing your mind when monty allows you to do so.
3 doors to find a car, you pick door 3, he opens door 1 to reveal a goat and says do you wanna change doors, you're supposed to say yes despite every fiber of my being saying it shouldn't matter.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
12-20-17 04:36 PM - Post#240818
In response to Jeff2sf
Bayes’ theorem in action.
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1171
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
12-20-17 04:49 PM - Post#240823
In response to Jeff2sf
well i refuse to look it up but basically the idea of changing your mind when monty allows you to do so.
3 doors, you pick door 3, he says do you wanna change doors, you're supposed to say yes despite every fiber of my being saying it shouldn't matter.
It's actually a lot simpler than that, and comes down to a crucial, additional piece of information that Monty provides you. Your initial choice has a 1/3 shot at being correct. The chances of the car (or whatever) being behind EITHER OF THE TWO REMAINING DOORS are 2/3. Monty then TELLS YOU that the car is NOT behind one of those two remaining doors. Therefore the odds of the car being behind the third door are still 2/3.
So pick the other door.
I honestly never understood all the confusion. (Unless my grasp of the initial problem is incorrect, which is possible.)
|
