Aldridge MRI as knee still hurts and some notes from todays practice

[PapaG]

Actually, this thread / debate was framed about LMA and his "soreness" and injury. Reading failure on your part....again.

It also included examples of LMA complaining of fatigue. Reading failure on your part ... again. (BTW - there are only three periods in an ellipse. How did you score well enough on the English portion of your SAT to get into Stanford?).

You just keep making it extremely clear you don't understand statistics. Keep going with it... it is cute. I'll just leave it at this: You can't seem to comprehend the difference between "proving" something and showing a correlation.

60% there!! 6/10 is 60%, so I must know something about statistics, Will Hunting!

Also, I obviously know the difference, since I pointed it out in this thread. What good does a correlation show us about LMA as an individual? What are we correlating? What are the variables, time frames, etc.?

You still won't answer it.

Strange strawman and tangent to run off on. Ignored.

Haha! Yes, I pointed out your logical failure, so you ignore me. I hope you at least read the portion about ellipses, because as a 'Furd Man, you're embarrassing your alma mater.

Also, my burger station got backed up. Lunch run is a bitch.

I asked if anybody had data to back up their claims. You're the one getting butthurt about it. I honestly don't know if the data exists or if a correlation exists. That is why I asked if anybody had something. That is was reasonable people do instead of just jumping to random conclusions about how many minutes a player *should* be playing.

Again, you stated that data won't prove anything. Why would somebody go to the trouble of compiling a boatload of data that means nothing on an individual basis? Without such "proof", all we have are LMA's words and circumstantial evidence. Putting two and two together, he is complaining of fatigue frequently, and he has had 2 MRIs in the past few months on two separate joints. Plus, his statistics have declined over the past few weeks. I don't know if they teach this at Stanford, but part of the scientific method involves observation, which helps form a hypothesis. My observation tells me that LMA may be tired, and fatigue may have something to do with his body being run down, or even getting injured. This is a realistic hypothesis.

See above about your lacking of reading comprehension and how this was about injury, not being tired. Westnob mentions that below as well.

My reading comprehension is just fine, at least in terms of what was included in this thread. You can't even understand your own words, though, so perhaps I should consider you an 'expert' on people who lack the ability to comprehend what they're reading.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you've already mentioned this. That seems to be your own problem, and not anybody elses. Why don't you provide the data to show that playing more minutes doesn not have any impact on injury, and then tell us how that applies to LMA. You haven't provided any variables on what would quench your statistical thirst, so how is somebody else going to know what variables and data points to include in their analysis?

STOMP's argument was related to minutes played as well, not necessarily injury. he provided statistics of elite players who played major minutes. Some of them have an injury history; others don't. Those links certainly have absolutely zero to do with LMA's situation, although I could argue that playing rec league ball was an even bigger laugh. Plus, you never defined what data you were looking for until I called you out on it. No wonder you didn't get the answers you were seeking. Since you've now defined the debate in terms of what statistics would satisfy you, isn't it up to you to do the research yourself?

You might want to keep me on ignore, because other than ad hominem attacks and fucking up basic grammar, you don't really have much more to say to me.

Not sure why that hurts your tender feelings so much.

Aren't you the one who ignored me? There you are, getting all confused about what you're reading again.

 

[blazerboy30]

It also included examples of LMA complaining of fatigue. Reading failure on your part ... again. (BTW - there are only three periods in an ellipse. How did you score well enough on the English portion of your SAT to get into Stanford?).





60% there!! 6/10 is 60%, so I must know something about statistics, Will Hunting!

Also, I obviously know the difference, since I pointed it out in this thread. What good does a correlation show us about LMA as an individual? What are we correlating? What are the variables, time frames, etc.?

You still won't answer it.




Haha! Yes, I pointed out your logical failure, so you ignore me. I hope you at least read the portion about ellipses, because as a 'Furd Man, you're embarrassing your alma mater.

Also, my burger station got backed up. Lunch run is a bitch.





Again, you stated that data won't prove anything. Why would somebody go to the trouble of compiling a boatload of data that means nothing on an individual basis? Without such "proof", all we have are LMA's words and circumstantial evidence. Putting two and two together, he is complaining of fatigue frequently, and he has had 2 MRIs in the past few months on two separate joints. Plus, his statistics have declined over the past few weeks. I don't know if they teach this at Stanford, but part of the scientific method involves observation, which helps form a hypothesis. My observation tells me that LMA may be tired, and fatigue may have something to do with his body being run down, or even getting injured. This is a realistic hypothesis.




My reading comprehension is just fine, at least in terms of what was included in this thread. You can't even understand your own words, though, so perhaps I should consider you an 'expert' on people who lack the ability to comprehend what they're reading.

Yes, you've already mentioned this. That seems to be your own problem, and not anybody elses. Why don't you provide the data to show that playing more minutes doesn not have any impact on injury, and then tell us how that applies to LMA. You haven't provided any variables on what would quench your statistical thirst, so how is somebody else going to know what variables and data points to include in their analysis?

STOMP's argument was related to minutes played as well, not necessarily injury. he provided statistics of elite players who played major minutes. Some of them have an injury history; others don't. Those links certainly have absolutely zero to do with LMA's situation, although I could argue that playing rec league ball was an even bigger laugh. Plus, you never defined what data you were looking for until I called you out on it. No wonder you didn't get the answers you were seeking. Since you've now defined the debate in terms of what statistics would satisfy you, isn't it up to you to do the research yourself?

You might want to keep me on ignore, because other than ad hominem attacks and fucking up basic grammar, you don't really have much more to say to me.



Aren't you the one who ignored me? There you are, getting all confused about what you're reading again.

You're such an angwy wittle guy. It is cute that you're so caught up and concerned about what school I went to, burger man. You're just cute in general.

 

[PapaG]

You're such an angwy wittle guy. It is cute that you're so caught up and concerned about what school I went to, burger man. You're just cute in general.

Angry? I was having fun. You got all butthurt and ignored me.

You're still at 60%, Will Hunting. Can we make it to 80% this afternoon?

Also, didn't the 'burger thing' start when you tried to insult some poster by insinuating that they managed a Burger King? Or, did you get all confused about things, again?

 

[RR7]

Fuckin' A, another thread where PapaG is bickering back and forth off topic with someone. This shit never gets old.

 

[PapaG]

Fuckin' A, another thread where PapaG is bickering back and forth off topic with someone. This shit never gets old.

Statistics related to injury, fatigue, and minutes played are off topic?

I disagree...

 

[RR7]

Take a look at blazerboy's posting history, and how many of the posts are directed at posters, and not Blazer topics in the thread. Ironic, don't ya think?

You're baiting posters? Interesting. I guess I don't see it.

"Meh"

"You don't get it"

"Like I said"

"You're welcome"

Fantastic reply, blazerboy.

I also understood the linear correlation between USG and PER; it just had no bearing at all on how that correlation applied to individual players, which was the entire point of that thread. A thread in which you were arguing against me, then realized that the data actually supported my opinions on outliers to some degree. Yet here you are again, asking for macro-level "stats/data" and trying to apply them as a tool of validiation people's opinions on LMA.

I still don't think you went to Stanford, btw, but that's for PMs, I guess.

Call what good? Your own analysis says that number means nothing in terms of assessing an individual player, which was the point of this thread.

You contradicted yourself, which should be obvious to almost everyone at this point. Of course you're done discussing this with me. you asked for correlating stats in order for RoyToy to back up his claims about LMA, yet you then also stated that these stats mean nothing in an individual case.

I hope you didn't go to Stanford. You didn't get your money's worth (or your parents didn't).

Gee, LMA now says he is tired and could use some rest.

Clearly he needs to consult the experts in this thread to get his head straight!

Even more funny is that blazerboy participated in this thread, yet had to ask me for the link to it.

Why I don't consider blazerboy an expert, in a nutshell.

Clearly a statistical whiz like you has better things to do than arguing logic with a burger flipper/fry cook, right?

Those aren't strawman statements, either. Those are separate arguments that you have made on this board. Don't get mad at me because I called you out on a rather contradictory argument, Will Hunting. You asked for a link; I provided a link, unrelated to you, yet that included you. I then read the thread again, and see you tie yourself up in a logical pretzel, and instead of treating it as a learning experience, you get upset at me.

You didn't like them apples, did you Will?

5 down, 5 to go! HALF WAY THERE!

That's neat, but the debate was framed about LMA, and his comments on being tired.



Then why the fuck did you ask for them? They obviously also wouldn't prove that LMA playing extra minutes helps him. Also, since you apparently have defined the statistical parameters, why didn't/don't you just provide the statistics on your own, and explain to the rest of us dummies how they apply individually to LMA? LMA has said repeatedly that he is tired from playing so many minutes. Since you agree that no stat will prove this, don't we have to take him at his word?

You have defined the argument, yet you won't share your data. Better run to the correlation website and churn out some numbers that won't prove anything about LMA's individual case!

Angry? I was having fun. You got all butthurt and ignored me.

You're still at 60%, Will Hunting. Can we make it to 80% this afternoon?

Also, didn't the 'burger thing' start when you tried to insult some poster by insinuating that they managed a Burger King? Or, did you get all confused about things, again?

Statistics related to injury, fatigue, and minutes played are off topic?

I disagree...

Yep. All of this stupid inane blabber is "relevant" to the discussion. The only discussions you have on here is to nitpick people's posts, and argue semantics, instead of actually arguing basketball. And then argue of what people said. Not how it pertains to basketball. just argue the actual framework of the argument. It is all off topic. What does a burger stand, will hunting, stanford, linking this topic, etc. have to do with the topic? What's that? Nothing? Because you can't actually argue BASKETBALL. You just argue arguments. Like how you ran from our argument about Miller getting torched by quick guards once stats were brought up. If I, however, put forth a strawman, or had an avatar of my school, I'm sure the argument would have went further.

 

[blazerboy30]

Angry? I was having fun. You got all butthurt and ignored me.

I ignored that particular comment. Why would I ignore you? Interacting with people that take awhile to get it is a good skill for me to work on.

Back on topic...

Were you able to find any data correlating minutes played with injury probability?

 

[PapaG]

Yep. All of this stupid inane blabber is "relevant" to the discussion. The only discussions you have on here is to nitpick people's posts, and argue semantics, instead of actually arguing basketball. And then argue of what people said. Not how it pertains to basketball. just argue the actual framework of the argument. It is all off topic. What does a burger stand, will hunting, stanford, linking this topic, etc. have to do with the topic? What's that? Nothing? Because you can't actually argue BASKETBALL. You just argue arguments. Like how you ran from our argument about Miller getting torched by quick guards once stats were brought up. If I, however, put forth a strawman, or had an avatar of my school, I'm sure the argument would have went further.

It is relevant, though. And I was arguing basketball in many of those posts.

I was actually commenting on the actual quotes from a basketball player (LMA) when all of this irrelevant statistical mumbo-jumbo was brought up. I found it humorous, and I find it humorous that you are now so far off-topic, that I don't think you even know what the thread was about.

If you can't follow this, how is that my fault? Are you going to comment on LMA's comments? That's the real question here, since I'd expect you to lead by example, and pull blazerboy and me out from the weeds and back into the herd.

 

[PapaG]

I ignored that particular comment. Why would I ignore you? Interacting with people that take awhile to get it is a good skill for me to work on.

Back on topic...

Were you able to find any data correlating minutes played with injury probability?

Again, based on what variables? MRIs? Games lost? Declining production? Declining minutes?

And for what? To estimate how that may impact LMA? It has literally nothing to do with LMA as an individual. If you'd like to find a pattern, go for it, but that's not the discussion here.

You don't know what you're asking for, and it amuses me.

 

[blazerboy30]

Again, based on what variables? MRIs? Games lost? Declining production? Declining minutes?

Anything that you are concerned about happening to LMA. I wasn't one of the posters claiming he should play less minutes. You were one of them. Why do you think he should play less minutes? So he can spend more time with his family? To keep reduce the chance of ....what?

And for what?

To back up the claim that playing less minutes will reduce whatever you are concerned with in the above question. On average, across the population of players.

To estimate how that may impact LMA? It has literally nothing to do with LMA as in individual.

How do you know? What is the r-squared value of the correlation you are referring to? If the r-squared value is very high, then it probably has a LOT to do with LMA as an individual.

If you'd like to find a pattern, go for it, but that's not the discussion here.

It is part of the discussion. Without ANYTHING to back up your claim, how can you state this magic number of minutes that LMA should be playing? Should he not play at all, all season?