Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy2579
I guess, but its still bunk.
3 months early in the regular season are just not enough to extrapolate a career from. And if you do (which is BS IMO), its @ a 35 game/year rate anyway because you can't deny that during the entire course of the sample, he played 35/82 reg. season games and 0 playoff games.
Why not? I'm not saying it is, but I think you guys need to examine what it is that's important about sample size.
You don't stake a guy on a 200 hand heater because the variance of dealing cards from an independently shuffled deck is ginormous. But what if you saw him make 5 astute laydowns and turn a marginal made hand into a bluff in a great spot? Wouldn't that at least influence your opinion a bit?
What if you saw him dunk repeatedly on NBA teams, and the rest of the time it looks like Kareem is controlling him with a PS3 controller from behind the Laker's bench?
How many 100m races does someone have to win against world-class competition before you'd say he's an elite sprinter?
What about this silly horse that's like a 1:10 favorite for the Preakness after winning basically 1 big race? Don't you need to see the horse run for at least 6 more years before making that sort of call?
"OMG SAMPLE SIZE" isn't a complete argument. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xorbie
or pervis ellison.
Is this the last gasp at counter-examples? I'd hope not. I'm still having fun.