|
udscott, against all rational wisdom I'm going to try to lay this out logically for you.
1. You are claiming that something which is statistically unlikely is actually statistically unlikely. Not a huge leap.
2. Others are pointing out that statistically unlikely <> impossible.
3. There are many forms of statistically unlikely. Winning the lottery is statistically unlikely but mathematically random. Surviving a catastrophic airplane accident is statistically unlikely but pure luck. Making a full court shot is statistically unlikely. . . BUT, much more likely for Steph Curry than for you and me.
4. This explains the difference in assumptions, which underlies almost all disagreements. You are assuming we pick a guy from a 300+ RPI roster at random, or based on a single game performance, and expect him to be a major contributor at UD. That would be called "luck."
5. We are assuming that Grant (who is a more skilled talent evaluator than you and me, and also knows exactly what he's looking for) will look only at a subset of a subset of a subset; probably only 2 or 3 players out of the >600 in this category, and then critically evaluate the player, and then there's a 90% chance he still would not take the player.
6. Because there is only a small chance, we are assuming that Grant would take only 1% - 5% of his available time and allocate it to such an activity.
7. You are implying that it's Grant's central recruiting strategy, or that we think it should be.
You see, when you act like brooding teenager, you're going to get ridiculed. When you ask a question or answer a question is a reasonable way, people engage with you in a thoughtful way.
|
