ED Davis' FG% Ranking... If He Qualified: 2nd In The NBA

[Prime]

lol your clearly not understanding my sarcasm ... im just trying to point out the obvious the less shots you take the more likely you are to shoot a higher percentage..

This doesn't hold at all logically, no matter how you look at it.

[Joey]

This doesn't hold at all logically, no matter how you look at it.

Thank you.

If you take 10 shots, and start 0-2, you can still finish the night shooting 80%.
If you take 4 shots, and start 0-2, you can theoretically only shoot 50% for the game.
Very basic, but essentially how it works.

Ed takes SMART shots that are within his skill set. THAT is why he shoots a high percentage.

[DunkinDerozan]

Thank you.

If you take 10 shots, and start 0-2, you can still finish the night shooting 80%.
If you take 4 shots, and start 0-2, you can theoretically only shoot 50% for the game.
Very basic, but essentially how it works.

Ed takes SMART shots that are within his skill set. THAT is why he shoots a high percentage.

assuming all player start at 100% obivously not at 0 that wouldn't make sense you start at 100% see in that case 0/0 = 100%

[DunkinDerozan]

This doesn't hold at all logically, no matter how you look at it.

law of dimishing returns my freind

[Joey]

assuming all player start at 100% obivously not at 0 that wouldn't make sense you start at 100% see in that case 0/0 = 100%

What?! 0/0 = 0%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.

[Joey]

law of dimishing returns my freind

Which is actually known as 'The Law of Increasing Relative Cost'.
Though relevant in manufacturing, has NOTHING to do with Basketball.

[Apollo]

lol your clearly not understanding my sarcasm ... im just trying to point out the obvious the less shots you take the more likely you are to shoot a higher percentage..

Probability doesn't work this way. You would be just as likely to have a bad percentage.

[heinz57]

What?! 0/0 = 0%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.

the argument for 0% - ZERO by definition, has no value.. so regardless of what the sum is, the percentage of NO VALUE from ANY sum would be 0%

the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:

if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2

see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%

and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.

[Joey]

the argument for 0% - ZERO by definition, has no value.. so regardless of what the sum is, the percentage of NO VALUE from ANY sum would be 0%

the argument against 0% - there really is none... there are some algebraic fallacies which allow for ZERO to have a value.. for instance:

if 1x0=0 and 2x0=0, then 1x0=2x0.. then 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2... then 1=2

see the problem? thats why it's a fallacy... but at no point would 0/0 ever be 100%

and that, kiddies, is why you cant even trust NUMBERS.

... My brain hurts.

But, Yes!

[heinz57]

... My brain hurts.

But, Yes!

i was totally the kid in high school who was surprisingly really good at math even though he had no business being good at it at all.

i failed grade 9 science twice though.

[DunkinDerozan]

Which is actually known as 'The Law of Increasing Relative Cost'.
Though relevant in manufacturing, has NOTHING to do with Basketball.

In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories

[Joey]

In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories

What are two different Theories?

'Increasing Relative Cost' and 'Diminishing Returns'?
If you go here, you will see they are very much one and the same.
I see what you are saying, but it just doesn't work when it comes to basketball.

[DunkinDerozan]

What?! 0/0 = 0%
Why would you assume all players start at 100%? That makes ZERO sense.
Stop saying stupid things just to get people to talk to you.

you must clearly be finding my comments intreguing since you seem to have a response for each one of them.. Oh wait unless you just wanna become one of those overrated poster who likes to keep padding his post totals by responding to stupid comments.

[heinz57]

In economics we like to call that long run aggregated supply. Two totally different theories

AGGREGATE is an adjective. you can't add the -ED string to an adjective. the -ED string can be added to a verb to convert it into a past tense adjective.

but adding -ED to an adjective it the equivalent of a double negative. it's like saying "That chick is beautifuled"

(sorry... i was also good at english)

[Joey]

Oh wait unless you just wanna become one of those overrated poster who likes to keep padding his post totals by responding to stupid comments.

Not at all actually. You seemed to know what you were talking about, or at least pretending to know, so I figured I'd entertain your argument and see where you were going with it.

But since you just called your own comments 'stupid', I suppose that is where I stop entertaining your argument.