BuzzerBeater Forums

on this whole extrapolation rubbish, it is a game of basketball. right. so how can we assume that because a player missed his first 8 shots he wont hit say 2-8 of his next 8 shots. you cant give someone the benefit of the doubt and say because he stopped the first 8 he will consequently not be scored on in the second 8 shots. we can only go off what has happened and the 1-17 player has stopped far more shots that the 0-8 player. you know what happens when we 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.

Wrong. this is not a game of basketball, it is a computer simulated representation of basketball based on mathematical formulas. So extrapolation is quite relevant. To demonstrate extrapolation more clearly let me ask you the following question:
If Player A has kept his opponent to the following: 0-100. Would you bet that the opponent makes the next shot? I doubt it.
Then it can be extrapolated that the opponent will be kept to 0-200.
In another scenario, if a Player has missed 0-100 free throws, it can be extrapolated that he will miss the next 100 as well.
And as this is a game based on mathematics, and not reality, extrapolation is a key aspect of any analysis.

the 1-17 imo is not as good as the 0-16/15/14/13. but about the 0-12 mark i start to sway towards the 1-17 because he has defended 5 more shots. if those shots are taken by 0-12's opponent there could be a possibility of 2 f those 5 being hit.

So why have you arbitrarily drawn the line at 0-12? You have essentially agreed with my point, without realising it, because you have accepted that 0-13 is better than 1-17, and I am simply saying that 0-8 is better than 1-17.

its a game of basketball not a maths equation

Wrong, as illustrated above.

Last edited by Naker Virus at 5/13/2011 10:48:20 PM

I agree that the time is limited, but I disagree that there is a limited number of possessions in the game (at least no identifiable number). If you think there are (hypothetically) 100 possessions per team each game, then I agree with you that the 1-17 is better because they are wasting an additional 9 possessions, however, I do not believe this to be the case. I do not think there is a set number of possessions per team per game, and thus wasted possessions are irrelevant, and only the result of scoring or not scoring from such possessions ought to be considered.

How can there be limited time, yet not a limited number of possessions per game?

I can't even believe I'm getting myself in to this.

0-8 vs 1-17 is what I would call a statistically insignificant difference. You need to look at the quality of the offensive players and the strategy used and that will tell you more than this.

Both players were defending equally crap players with equally crap gameshape, it won't tell you anything.
And it is not statisticall insignificant. 0-8 can be extrapolated to 0-16 which is better than 1-17.

What about their other offensive stats? What if mr 0-8 also had 9 assists and 5 offensive rebounds, wouldn't that impact more on your opinion of his defender that a difference of 1 made basket?

We are assuming that all other facets are the same. I.e. number of assists, rebounds etc are identical. We are simply talking about this one point isolated from external factors.

It's not very realistic to say that just because the player missed his first 8 shots, he will definitely miss his next 8, 9, 10 etc.

Firstly, there is technically an unlimited amount of time (due to potential overtimes), but we shall ignore that aspect for now.
The reason there can be a limited time yet unlimited number of possessions is simple.
A possession can occur after the smallest increment of time, and thus there can be an infinite number of increments and an infinite number of possessions.

That could be hard to follow so try the following:
Let's imagine a number scale from 0 to 10.
The amount of numbers within this set is infinite. You can have the straight forward 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc
But you can also have 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 etc
But you can also have 0.25, 0.75, 1.25 etc.
Between any 2 numbers there is an infinite amount of numbers.
In the same way, between the finite time in the game, there is an infinite number of potential possessions.

It's not very realistic to say that just because the player missed his first 8 shots, he will definitely miss his next 8, 9, 10 etc.

You can't say "definitely", but you can say "quite likely too".
Simply look at some of the players on here that have missed 100 free throws in a row, it can be extrapolated further to indicate they would miss the next 100 free throws. This would not be certain as their is always an element of uncertainty in extrapolating, but would be highly likely.

Ok, well, I'm not even going to reply to that.

Btw, what do you study at Uni?

I have studied Biomedical Science, Mathematical and Computer Science, and Business at Uni. But I am currently finishing my Law degree.

i know it is a simulation game based on mathematical formulas. but do you reasonably think that the BB's would have made it so that as you said if a player missed his first 10 shots it would be reasonable to think the player would miss the next 10 based on the fact that he missed the first 10. the BB's are pretty smart people, i believe they wouldve put somewhere into the formula, and i dont know how, because lets face it im doing justice. but it seems to me that they wouldve thought of a way to adapt the formula that eventually the player will hit a shot.

If Player A has kept his opponent to the following: 0-100. Then it can be extrapolated that the opponent will be kept to 0-200.
In another scenario, if a Player has missed 0-100 free throws, it can be extrapolated that he will miss the next 100 as well.
And as this is a game based on mathematics, and not reality, extrapolation is a key aspect of any analysis.

ok so if somehow he misses his first 100 shots and then second 100 shots is it then reasonable to assume that he would then shoot a further 200 shots without making 1. therefore he has gone 0-400. at what point does he then make a shot?

So why have you arbitrarily drawn the line at 0-12? You have essentially agreed with my point, without realising it, because you have accepted that 0-13 is better than 1-17, and I am simply saying that 0-8 is better than 1-17.

in some ways i am agreeing with you. in that 0-13 is better that 1-17. however i figure that 12 is where i draw the line being that 5 more shots he is likely to hit a shot or 2. 0-8 simply in my view not as good as 1-17 because the player only has to hit 2 from 9 to have a better shooting perfomance that 1-17, regardless of what he shot before those last 9 shots.

that may be confusing but hey i never was good at essays and concise organised arguements

was just about to ask this same question lol

Yes, there are only a limited number of possession in a game, 48 minutes worth to be exact. Around 80-90 possessions per team in the game, so yes, there's limited possessions. By jacking up more shots that don't hit, you're effectively reducing the number of scoring possessions your team has.

This.

The more points a player prevents, the more possessions are wasted (because possessions in a game are limited).

And this.

Possessions are limited in a game, because the time is limited. There is no question about that. There is never an unlimited amount of possessions in a game of basketball. It's just simply not possible.

Because their are a limited number of possessions, keeping a player to 1-17 is more beneficial to your team than what 0-8 is. that's not to say 0-8 isn't a good job, it just means 1-17 is a better job.