You are saying absolutely fucking nothing, here.

No. You are missing the point.

Teams are shooting a lot more 3s now because of the math behind it and because they saw the success of the Warriors (success always gets copied), but the math changes in the playoffs and especially for role players as you go deeper and get to the finals.

No one would say “we have to copy the Lakers and just find another Shaq to win a title” because he was so successful. They know that would be impossible. But everyone seems to think they can find guys that can nail 3s from everywhere under finals pressure like Steph, Kevin and Klay. They can’t.

IMO, the NBA has overshot on their use of 3s. More attention should be placed on trying to find guys that can be very efficient in the post and get to the rim and finish. The 3 point shooters should be there to help those guys. They shouldn’t be the primary weapons unless you have a Durant, Steph, Lillard etc… that you know can handle that job and won’t fold. There aren’t too many of those guys.

The issues with Kahneman & Tversky are less about reproducibility for me, but rather with methodology.

For instance, in the article I linked I believe they give the following example (paraphrased):

Is an avid reader more likely to be:

(a) a banker
(b) a banker and feminist

K&T argue that (a) is the correct answer because logically the set of bankers includes the set of people who are bankers AND feminists. Put another way, if X is a banker AND feminist, then X is a banker.

But few people actually use language according to strictures of formal logic. Most people hear the 2 options and assume (a) is supposed to mean “bankers who aren’t feminists” or reformat the question in some other way.

There’s also several critiques about what it means get the right answer. Gerd Gigernzer, who I liked, did some work on this. A lot of Kahneman & Tversky’s work assumes you have an infinite amount of time and infinite amount of processing power, however, no humans have either one.

A simple, but exaggerated, thought experiment is trying to catch a fly ball. Under K&T’s notion of rational, as soon as the ball leaves the bat you would immediately sit down in the outfield, take out a calculator, pen, & paper, use spin, force and various other inputs to figure out the exact landing spot of the ball, then run over to catch it. Of course by that point, the ball has landed, the hitter has rounded the bases, and both teams went home for the night 4 hours ago.

A better solution is using your eyes and running to the ball. You don’t get the right answer 100% of the time, but you do get the out.

I recently read a relevant paper reconciling contrasting ideas, co-authored by Kahneman: Conditions for Intuitive Expertise.

K&T are right, but I qualify it. They’re right in…

KnickFanInCelticLand: 4.Tatum impaired due to chronic COVID symptoms

Yes. Thank you. He looked so good in a couple of games I saw I forgot about that.

Ptmilo

Sorry but I lost some respect after that last post.

1. The league used to think you could not win the TITLE the way the Warriors played because D’Antoni & others failed with smaller faster ball & shooting lots of 3s in the playoffs previously. That’s why Gentry was publicly celebrating that first title as vindication of D’Antioni. It DID change the thinking about how you could win a championship and accelerated the use of 3s. However, again, it’s one thing to win that way with 2-3 all time great 3 point shooters and another to win with role players like Eric Gordon, Trevor Ariza, and PJ Tucker that happen to shoot 3s well. That was a misunderstanding around the league.

2. I’m going to assume you’ve never competed at anything for large sums of money or in front of peers where you are under extreme pressure and your reputation can be destroyed if you fail to perform.

There is a huge difference between how you can perform in the regular season or “in the playoffs” and how you can perform in the finals against an equal or superior opponent with everything on the line and all eyes watching you. The great ones can do it. That’s part of what makes them great. Eric Gordon, Trevor Ariza, and PJ Tucker? Way less likely. If Morey doesn’t understand my “choking theory” then he’s an idiot. That’s why many great players mock stats guys. You don’t experience many things (like extreme performance pressure) on a spreadsheet.

3. D’Antoni himself said in the past that the greater volatility from shooting 3s gave the inferior team a better chance. That’s part of what drove his and Morey’s thinking last year. They looked around the league and knew they didn’t match up well and thought their only chance was to go so insane with small ball and shooting 3s they’d pull out a miracle. It was dumber than a pile of rocks and that’s why they are all gone now. It could never work with those players. Durant, Steph and Klay? YES.

It’s most applicable to one-off decisions and described or imagined outcomes. It isn’t a good description of repeated decisions where outcomes have been experienced, for example. And, like almost all decision theories, it doesn’t have much to say about important decisions which involve multiple choices with multiple outcomes – rather than binary choices with single unambiguous consequences

i know this is a basketball site, but – yeah, this is the real good stuff…well, that and funk music links…yeah man, express yourself…

things are good here…still splitting working from home and the office, finding it harder and harder though to be productive at home…

z-man mentioned this current pandemic situation helping to extend his time in the workforce, i can understand that…fortunately the beginning of the year is traditionally a slow period for me, but, i definitely feel as though my perception of work has changed some this last year…i’m able to let go of work things much easier these days…

other than work, just trying to be a good son and god dad…need to get back to spending more time in the garden, looking forward to being able to plant stuff in a few more weeks…

it was early in my 20’s that i learned that it was nearly impossible to continually make yourself happy, and that consistent happiness can only really be achieved through service to others/”greater” purpose, to be honest though – i was pretty self serving up until my early 40’s 🙂 i’ve always been cautious with my commitments, mom and the kids though mean more to me now than ever before…

Deeefense: I agree.That quote was some serious BS right there.There were clearly chemistry issues on the team (because Kyrie is a nut) and plenty of people were making a pretty good case they were actually better without him.

What’s the great mystery here.

1. Kemba has been hurt and is slowly regaining his form.
2. Smart is out.
3. They lost Gordon Hayward

(they also lost Rozier (who was a pretty solid role player) the year before

They’ll be fine when they are healthy, but they have to add another piece.

4. Tatum impaired due to chronic COVID symptoms

Early Bird: Not that the Tversky & Kahneman are entirely wrong

Reproducibility problems are a big thing in many sciences including psychology. Prospect theory is an exception. It’s built on a large body of very useful research that’s been rigorously examined and reproduced across studies, across research teams, and across cultural settings. So, I’d go further than saying they’re not entirely wrong. They got a lot right.

It’s most applicable to one-off decisions and described or imagined outcomes. It isn’t a good description of repeated decisions where outcomes have been experienced, for example. And, like almost all decision theories, it doesn’t have much to say about important decisions which involve multiple choices with multiple outcomes – rather than binary choices with single unambiguous consequences. So it’s got a somewhat limited range of applications. But they don’t give out those Nobels (amongst the many awards they got) for work that’s kinda meh.

I was majoring in Philosophy & Psychology

i have a friend whom majored in psychology, he has such an incredible ability to read others, also he’s really at connecting with folks…he’s cool to be around…

i imagine both disciplines together allow for some excellent insight in to others…

The human mind is so wedded to stereotypes and so distracted by vivid descriptions that it will seize upon them, even when they defy logic, rather than upon truly relevant facts.

ain’t that the truth…it’s so fascinating how much of reality is actually our minds “filling in the blanks”…