Jim Sparancle with another moronic comment

[Mano22]

That's not the how Statistics work.

Each flip of a coin has a 50-50 chance.

In the very long run it will even out.

I know it's counter intuitive, but that's just how it works.

I refuse to believe this. All of the heads flips will be used up, only tails flips will be left at some point (5 flips? 10 flips? 100 flips?)

 

[Townie72]

I refuse to believe this. All of the heads flips will be used up, only tails flips will be left at some point (5 flips? 10 flips? 100 flips?)

Take a Statistics course, Mano.

I know it’s hard to get you head around, but one coin flip is independent of another coin flip. And if the flip is being made without bias, it’s a 50-50 probability each time.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

That’s like saying if you flip a coin 99 times and it all comes up as tails. Saying the next toss is certainly going to be a head is inane. Prior attempts have no effect on the next attempt. With flipping a coin it’s still 50/50

That’s true with a discrete binary outcome like flipping a coin, where there is no skill involved. Each flip is a true independent event.

Not necessarily the same with a free throw shot. The shooter’s skill and past experience (both short -term and long-term) come into play when calculating the probability of making a shot.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I don't get it. If you flip a coin and get 4 heads in a row, you have to be AT LEAST 75% to get tails on the next one? Prolly closer to 85% I would think.

Also I do not remember hearing a more biased announcer in a long time. Does he hate SU? Or just love ASU/Pac 12 or something? I never jump on the "oh the announcers/refs all hate us blah blah blah" bandwagons, as 90+% of the time it is just Cuse fans with huge blinders on, but it felt like he was truly rooting for ASU last night.

Stats aren’t really based on one observation. The power of statistics is across multiple observations (sample size). The outcomes of the observations can be plotted, forming a distribution.

It’s like this: say you observe 100 trials of someone flipping a coin 10 times. The outcome of each trial would range from 0 heads to 10 tails; or 10 heads to 0 tails. In the middle would be 5 heads and 5 tails. You will probably observe the full range of outcomes during your 100 trial experiment. However, the outcome you will most often experience is 5 heads and 5 tails. It doesn’t mean you won’t get 0 heads during a trial, it’s just less probable.

Go ahead and try it.

 

[Mano22]

Stats aren’t really based on one observation. The power of statistics is across multiple observations (sample size). The outcomes of the observations can be plotted, forming a distribution.

It’s like this: say you observe 100 trials of someone flipping a coin 10 times. The outcome of each trial would range from 0 heads to 10 tails; or 10 heads to 0 tails. In the middle would be 5 heads and 5 tails. You will probably observe the full range of outcomes during your 100 trial experiment. However, the outcome you will most often experience is 5 heads and 5 tails. It doesn’t mean you won’t get 0 heads during a trial, it’s just less probable.

Go ahead and try it.

I just tried it! I waited until I got 4 heads in a row, and then I got tails on THE VERY NEXT FLIP!!! QED.

 

[justgold315]

About halfway through the first half, they were showing a reply, and (referring to Battle) they said, "If you look at number 25 slide over on defense..." Ya dope, you have one job, and you cannot remember Cuse's leading scoring and minutes leader.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Stats aren’t really based on one observation. The power of statistics is across multiple observations (sample size). The outcomes of the observations can be plotted, forming a distribution.

It’s like this: say you observe 100 trials of someone flipping a coin 10 times. The outcome of each trial would range from 0 heads to 10 tails; or 10 heads to 0 tails. In the middle would be 5 heads and 5 tails. You will probably observe the full range of outcomes during your 100 trial experiment. However, the outcome you will most often experience is 5 heads and 5 tails. It doesn’t mean you won’t get 0 heads during a trial, it’s just less probable.

Go ahead and try it.

I would try it, but I have to go watch paint dry in the other room.

 

[sufandu]

I noticed that, but what frosted my biscuits was the post came, and the female studio commentator (Kara Lawson?) stated that on that falling down circus shot, it should have been an "And 1" for ASU.
A. Wrong on facts, wrong on the law. The guy fell down, on his own.
B. It should have been a travel. He established his pivot foot, then changed his pivot foot on his move the the basket. The guy covered at least 10' after having established his pivot foot.

Kara Lawson is usually pretty good. I would rather have her doing analysis or color commentary over most of who we get. I hope Candace Parker keeps her resume updated.

 

[MSOrange]

Kara Lawson is usually pretty good. I would rather have her doing analysis or color commentary over most of who we get. I hope Candace Parker keeps her resume updated.

Agree. I think Kara is a solid analyst.

 

[dollarbill44]

Guess I didn't notice it with Spanarkle but it did seem to me that Ian Eagle wasn't too disappointed in the closing moments when we sealed the deal.

Well, he is Newhouse guy.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

How do you think casinos make money. The more they can get to play the better the chances they make money. Roulette has 37 spaces for the little ball to land. 18 are red 18 are black. One space is green.. So the chances of someone winning is 36 out of 37. The chances of the casino winning is one in 37. Chances of casino winning are slim. But they just give the money bet back to the winner in 36 out of 37 chances. But in one out of 37 they take the money, and the casinos didn’t bet anything they just waited for the statistics to pay them. The more plays the likelihood that they get $ in one of 37 plays. Someone being hot or singing the ball makes no difference once a number of plays reaches a statistical level.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Bu

That’s true with a discrete binary outcome like flipping a coin, where there is no skill involved. Each flip is a true independent event.

Not necessarily the same with a free throw shot. The shooter’s skill and past experience (both short -term and long-term) come into play when calculating the probability of making a shot.

t after a appropriate level of shots are taken you get a valid probability. So if he shoots 67% over a 1000 shots his next shot everything being equal wil. Be 67%. Not 0 not 100

 

[longtimefan]

I noticed that, but what frosted my biscuits was the post came, and the female studio commentator (Kara Lawson?) stated that on that falling down circus shot, it should have been an "And 1" for ASU.
A. Wrong on facts, wrong on the law. The guy fell down, on his own.
B. It should have been a travel. He established his pivot foot, then changed his pivot foot on his move the the basket. The guy covered at least 10' after having established his pivot foot.

I think that move is common in the women's game, much like the "Euro step" is in the men's game.

It was a different Tennessee grad though--Candace Parker, not Kara Lawson.

 

[TinyManInside]

That's not the how Statistics work.

Each flip of a coin has a 50-50 chance.

In the very long run it will even out.

I know it's counter intuitive, but that's just how it works.

That's how statistics work if each individual action is defined by a simple statistical probability that is influenced by nothing other than it's own random probability.

Shooting free throws doesn't really work like that. You cannot neglect the human element. Good shooters tend to calibrate their shot/adjust their mechanics. Some players will start out poorly but figure out how to adjust to make shots (like Chukwu last night). Then on the other hand, poor performance on one trip can influence future poor performance ("getting into a player's head"). Most players will follow a regression to their mean percentage if given enough chances.

 

[TinyManInside]

That’s like saying if you flip a coin 99 times and it all comes up as tails. Saying the next toss is certainly going to be a head is inane. Prior attempts have no effect on the next attempt. With flipping a coin it’s still 50/50

This is completely untrue when you inject a human element into the random statistical probability. When you are shooting free throws, past performance can certainly influence future performance. Some guys gain confidence with makes, some guys lose confidence with misses. Some can be pretty much immune to previous performance (this would be be where their percentage chance of making a shot is purely a random probability). And this doesn't even begin to describe extrinsic factors such as pressure (some players respond very well, other wilt) and situational conditions.

Players aren't robots.

 

[Townie72]

That's how statistics work if each individual action is defined by a simple statistical probability that is influenced by nothing other than it's own random probability.

Shooting free throws doesn't really work like that. You cannot neglect the human element. Good shooters tend to calibrate their shot/adjust their mechanics. Some players will start out poorly but figure out how to adjust to make shots (like Chukwu last night). Then on the other hand, poor performance on one trip can influence future poor performance ("getting into a player's head"). Most players will follow a regression to their mean percentage if given enough chances.

Yup!

But my response to was coin flips and I even qualified that by addressing the possible bias in the process.

Good foul shooting is the result of good process repeated exactly. Players can become better, more consistent foul shooters. It's not too much different from a golf swing.

I learned the skill because in my neighborhood the way you got to play in the next pickup game was by making foul shots.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

i'm pretty sure Mano22 was playing you stats nerds...

 

[Millhouse]

yet it was only the second most moronic that I myself recall in a cuse game

Tonight he claimed that the odds were chukwu was likely to miss the second FT after he hit the first because he’s a 60 percent FT shooter .. umm this isn’t how percents work dude .. he has a 60 % chance at each attempt .. once he made the first .. he was still more likely to make than miss the 2nd .. he would have been correct had he stated he’s unlikely to make BOTH BEFORE the first shot

As for his most moronic moment .. that was when he was whining for a charge on Johnny Flynn when he humiliated Mike Rosario on a dunk

everyone messes up bayesian stats

 

[Funk Doc]

yeah his "comfortable offense" comment brought my first hearty guffaw of the night

Yeah, me too. I also like the halftime interview with JB, where he was asked about his teams slow start. The one thing I really appreciate about him is that he says it like it is. So of course he disagreed that the start was slow...he just said "it wasn't a slow start...we are just an offensively challenged team."

Gotta love JB!!!!

Go Nation!

 

[EastCoast2]

This guy probably does very well at casinos.

 

[Col. Bleep]

PC had hit 3 in a row at that point, meaning he was comfortable and locked in.

Or that he was thinking he'd just made 3 in a row and was due to miss.

But let's cut Spanarkel some slack about his statistical misinformation.
After all, he went to Duke.