I don't know whether some of you guys worked with any models in any area. Model has to be based on reality, and abstracted from reality. That's why you normally get use case or physical model first, then you can ABSTRACT based on the REAL use case and Physical model. Any "model" based on false assumption or unrealistic premise is a false model, or better to so, it's deemed to fail.
The models littlefish mentioned were all statistic models, which are based on statistics, in other words, it's based on REAL DATA and probability. There is no subjective assumption involved. That's why it's valid.
I am not saying your maths was wrong. It plays NO role at all. Let's simplify your theory:
Premise 1: One team can make 33% of the attempts if every shot is a 3 pointer.
Premise 2: Every team can get 50% of rebounds, including both defensive and offensive rebounds.
calculation...
Result: 3 pointer team wins
Conclusion: NBA is stupid, hasn't figured out that if you shoot more 3s, you will win more - if you shoot all 3s, you will win all, based on your calculation.
Do you know why you are wrong? Because both of your premises were wrong.
First of all, no team can shoot 33% for contested 3s. The best 3 pointer shooters' FG% in history is below 50%. They still shoot more 2s than 3s, because contested jump shots are NOT high percentage shots, contested 3s are the worst shots you can take. Normally those are desperate shots. You would thank God if you could even make 13%, not to mention 33%.
Second, even more importantly, your second premise was even more wrong! You assumed each team get 50% of rebounds, and you brought in a hidden premise that 3 pointer teams can grab 50% of available offensive rebounds, which translates to almost 50% more offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds. Do you know how wrong that is? There is no team in NBA history, NOT a single team, NOT a single game, where offensive rebounds came to close of defensive boards, not to mention 50% more. When you step back from that pseudo math, you will realize why that assumption doesn't make sense.
You kept arguing, with supports of some posters as well, that your calculation was correct, why people can't understand that your conclusion.
But you have to know:
Wrong premise + right process of calculation = wrong conclusion
Wrong premise + wrong process of calculation = wrong conclusion
Therefore, your calculation is non-factor. Your wrong assumption leads to your wrong conclusion.
Let me give a simple analogy, if you assume that the Sun rises from the South, lots of natural rules have to be changed, you can calculate it all you want. Will you question others why they don't agree with your conclusion, because your calculation was correct? I guess you will not.
Let's go even further. If I paid the money for a PC, according to business rules, and laws, I should be allowed to take the PC home. Can I argue for a second that they should give me the PC, even I didn't pay (wrong assumption)? Certainly not.
I don't think anyone is angry with you. What for? That's just a simple discussion to clear things up.
It's NOT a model.
所有跟帖:
•
good points! but man, can u write in chinese? hehe...
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
09:13:25
•
Can't:( never learned, too damn slow:(
-Warsteiner-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
09:17:19
•
Good points, but let look at some statistical data
-NewKen-
♂
(1266 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
09:21:02
•
good stat, but please, don't just read one column
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
09:21:51
•
As I mentioned in couple of past posts.
-Warsteiner-
♂
(1098 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
09:38:05
•
谢谢NewKen,我就借花回答Warsteiner的两个问题,如下.
-答案大全-
♂
(1437 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:10:43
•
When you dig into those data more,
-Warsteiner-
♂
(2090 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:37:42
•
我同意你这一点,答案的模型是很粗糙,但是他的idea
-看比赛-
♂
(74 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
10:04:50
•
科学和科学哲学里对model和validity有多种定义和理解,
-bscz-
♀
(190 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
10:33:55
•
同意你的看法,在学术界呆很久了才体会到,就我自己而言,
-看比赛-
♂
(104 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
10:44:31
•
我也一样,只有欣赏叫好然后跟着做的份儿
-bscz-
♀
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
10:49:51
•
过奖,刚拜读你们以前贴子,专业功底很多真知灼见.我只看问题角度怪点
-答案大全-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:22:35
•
答案大全的题目到是好题目,也是一个好猜想,但是
-贪玩-
♂
(90 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
10:55:21
•
可以帮助球队的地方很多,比如教练的战略,比如一个
-看比赛-
♂
(357 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:02:43
•
物理模型和关于人的模型是有很大的不同的,
-贪玩-
♂
(389 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:22:23
•
这一点说的很好!
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:24:15
•
生物就是这样,不过现在还是有很多关于动物和植物的模型
-看比赛-
♂
(102 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:50:04
•
The question was raised before the 3 point line
-Warsteiner-
♂
(1195 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:08:25
•
exactly! one step ahead of my posting. hehe
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:15:20
•
:) guess I need to go back and get some work done.
-Warsteiner-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:17:54
•
me too, well, my analysts can take care of them for me. ;)
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:20:10
•
You are lucky. I even postponed a meeting.
-Warsteiner-
♂
(45 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:21:38
•
哈哈,真是那样的话,篮球界就多了一位专业评论家了.
-答案大全-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
16:53:37
•
come on now, don't make fun of me:-) But I do love
-Warsteiner-
♂
(11 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:15:26
•
而且你欣赏篮球也是蛮高水平的,多次指教一并谢过
-答案大全-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:28:46
•
Bu gan dang, yi qi tan tao, I learned a lot here
-Warsteiner-
♂
(49 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
17:59:31
•
请教Proval of Concept?Protection of Value?参考文献?
-答案大全-
♂
(0 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
16:26:03
•
My apology. Should be "approval of concept",
-Warsteiner-
♂
(111 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
16:30:22
•
加强三分早就已经不是一个新的"idea"
-江小鱼儿-
♂
(983 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:12:38
•
对。如果球都抢不到,提高命中率和3分球有多大的用处呢?
-贪玩-
♂
(266 bytes)
()
03/01/2006 postreply
11:44:09