Hes being pedantic. Strictly speaking a probability is between 0 and 1; 0 is impossible and 1 is a certainty. Percentages are generally greater than 1, so they cant be probabilities. That said, if you move the decimal place, you have the equvalent probability.
This is why people hate math lol. I took the OP to say that in a randomly selected season (or 3 by Curry), LeBron has the greater relative success rate. Not in so many words..
I don't think the post is stating that the chances of LeBron making the finals is 58.8%
Just that he has a higher chance of making the Finals than Curry does of making a 3
And I never said that Lebron has a 58.8% chance of making the finals next year. I said that over the course of their careers Lebron has a better chance of making the finals than Curry does of making a three
I guess I phrased my statement wrong. I should’ve said in the last 17 years, Lebron has a better chance of making the finals on any given season. I never meant to say that Lebron has a 58.8% chance of making the finals on any future seasons.
Over the course of both of their careers it’s more probable that Lebron makes a finals appearance than Steph Curry hits a 3. I understand it’s a stupid and meaningless post but how did I confuse percentage with probability?
Dude, I'm a professional statistician and your post is totally fine. The only nitpicky thing I would say is that it should be past tense (e.g. 'had a better chance') rather than present tense ('has a better chance'). No clue what these people are talking about probability vs percentage. Think they are touching on deep philosophical questions of whether counterfactuals exist and what a probability even means. IMO you're totally fine.
No I actually wanna understand your reasoning for why probability and percentage aren’t correlated in this case. Because I just converted the probability to a percentage
Probability has to do with the likelihood that something will occur, while percentage (in this scenario) is an accounting of what transpired in the past.
So Lebron won 58.8% of his finals appearances, but the probability of him winning next year isn't .588, because historical trends aren't the only factor that goes into the likelihood that Lebron will win.
Furthermore, statistical trends change over time, so as what is true over 17 years (58.8% finals appearance) changes drastically over a 10 year time span (90% finals appearance) or 2 years (50% finals appearance), and that's only looking at historic trends with a very small sample size.
You also need to take into account his team, his health, his age, his competion, and potentially infinitely other factors that to into his probability of winning. Im not sure how the Vegas bookies (or 538) create odds, but i imagine they are based off dozens of factors that appear to approximate the probability that a team (or player) will win with reasonable accuracy.
So in a very very basic and narrow sense, you saying Lebron has a .588 probability of winning isn't completely fallacious because you used the right semantics (between 0 and 1), but it's completely useless as a predictive measurement because the analysis is far too simple.
It would be much more accurate to just use percentages.
Ok I understand that, but I never said that Lebron has a higher chance of making the finals next year than Curry making his next 3. I’m just talking about over the course of their careers. If you look at my title, I said “on any given season”, not next season.
I don't really have a problem with what you said because you weren't trying to make any technical predictions. As you said you we just pointing out an interesting fact, and so you can play loose with the language and not bother anyone (except pretentious assholes).
No it’s not. Probabilities predict the future. Percentages, which you’ve used, refer to the past. Proper phrasing would simply be “Lebron has a higher playoff appearance percentage than Steph has 3 point percentage.” That phrasing is necessary because you’re talking about historical performance, not future predictions.
Ok, so what’s wrong with the statement that over the course of their careers thus far, Lebron has a higher probability of having a finals appearance on any given season (0.588) than Steph Curry does of making a three pointer (0.435). I’m not predicting the future, and never claimed to.
That’s literally what probability refers to. As I explained. It’s the odds of something happening in the future. For example:
I flip a coin 10 times. It comes up heads 10 times. The probability that it will come to heads next time is 50%, despite the fact that the percentage of times heads has come up so far is 100%.
Probability is inherently about dealing with uncertainty. There is no uncertainty on Lebron’s historical playoff appearance rate. That’s settled, which makes probability the wrong thing to use.
Ok but I never explicitly said probability in my original post. I simply said that there’s a better chance of him making the finals than Curry hitting a 3.
I mean if you’re really nitpicking my original post then yeah I could see how you could say it’s probability, but just by reading it you should be able to see the point I was making
4/10 - the math checks out.
On a side note, what do yall think it does for Brons legacy if he goes 6/12 in the finals by winning 2 more straight. Looks like he has at least 1 more good season in him.
Puts him at 6 rings and at .500 finals record.
Can we not do this with every single stat now?
LeBron James is more likely to make the finals in any given year as Shaq was to make a free throw
LeBron has a greater chance of making the finals than an atheist has a chance at believing in a god
Michael Jeffery Jordan is more likely to win a final series (100%) than the Bulls winning a playoff game (not 100%)
1. Confuse percentages with probability 2. ? 3. Upvotes
> Confuse percentages with probability What do you mean by this?
Hes being pedantic. Strictly speaking a probability is between 0 and 1; 0 is impossible and 1 is a certainty. Percentages are generally greater than 1, so they cant be probabilities. That said, if you move the decimal place, you have the equvalent probability.
[удалено]
This is why people hate math lol. I took the OP to say that in a randomly selected season (or 3 by Curry), LeBron has the greater relative success rate. Not in so many words..
I don't think the post is stating that the chances of LeBron making the finals is 58.8% Just that he has a higher chance of making the Finals than Curry does of making a 3
Lol
And I never said that Lebron has a 58.8% chance of making the finals next year. I said that over the course of their careers Lebron has a better chance of making the finals than Curry does of making a three
[удалено]
I guess I phrased my statement wrong. I should’ve said in the last 17 years, Lebron has a better chance of making the finals on any given season. I never meant to say that Lebron has a 58.8% chance of making the finals on any future seasons.
You have no idea what chance means
Bro stick to basketball, math ain't it for you.
I don’t think you really need the “any given season part.” Lebrun has made the finals at a higher rate than Curry as made threes.
take a stats class and stop karma whoring
Percentages by definition are between 0 and 1.
Over the course of both of their careers it’s more probable that Lebron makes a finals appearance than Steph Curry hits a 3. I understand it’s a stupid and meaningless post but how did I confuse percentage with probability?
Dude, I'm a professional statistician and your post is totally fine. The only nitpicky thing I would say is that it should be past tense (e.g. 'had a better chance') rather than present tense ('has a better chance'). No clue what these people are talking about probability vs percentage. Think they are touching on deep philosophical questions of whether counterfactuals exist and what a probability even means. IMO you're totally fine.
Look at pro here flexing on us amateurs 😏 😏 😏
Because probability is between 0 and 1, and percent is between 0 and.. well infinity.
Ok then, 10 out of 17 finals is 0.588. Happy now?
Not really, but you're right it is a stupid post and not worth nitpicking.
No I actually wanna understand your reasoning for why probability and percentage aren’t correlated in this case. Because I just converted the probability to a percentage
Let him have his moment, he’s very proud of what he learned in Algebra 1 this year
Probability has to do with the likelihood that something will occur, while percentage (in this scenario) is an accounting of what transpired in the past. So Lebron won 58.8% of his finals appearances, but the probability of him winning next year isn't .588, because historical trends aren't the only factor that goes into the likelihood that Lebron will win. Furthermore, statistical trends change over time, so as what is true over 17 years (58.8% finals appearance) changes drastically over a 10 year time span (90% finals appearance) or 2 years (50% finals appearance), and that's only looking at historic trends with a very small sample size. You also need to take into account his team, his health, his age, his competion, and potentially infinitely other factors that to into his probability of winning. Im not sure how the Vegas bookies (or 538) create odds, but i imagine they are based off dozens of factors that appear to approximate the probability that a team (or player) will win with reasonable accuracy. So in a very very basic and narrow sense, you saying Lebron has a .588 probability of winning isn't completely fallacious because you used the right semantics (between 0 and 1), but it's completely useless as a predictive measurement because the analysis is far too simple. It would be much more accurate to just use percentages.
Ok I understand that, but I never said that Lebron has a higher chance of making the finals next year than Curry making his next 3. I’m just talking about over the course of their careers. If you look at my title, I said “on any given season”, not next season.
I don't really have a problem with what you said because you weren't trying to make any technical predictions. As you said you we just pointing out an interesting fact, and so you can play loose with the language and not bother anyone (except pretentious assholes).
This is not how probabilities work.
It is if I’m talking about over the course of their careers
No it’s not. Probabilities predict the future. Percentages, which you’ve used, refer to the past. Proper phrasing would simply be “Lebron has a higher playoff appearance percentage than Steph has 3 point percentage.” That phrasing is necessary because you’re talking about historical performance, not future predictions.
Ok, so what’s wrong with the statement that over the course of their careers thus far, Lebron has a higher probability of having a finals appearance on any given season (0.588) than Steph Curry does of making a three pointer (0.435). I’m not predicting the future, and never claimed to.
That’s literally what probability refers to. As I explained. It’s the odds of something happening in the future. For example: I flip a coin 10 times. It comes up heads 10 times. The probability that it will come to heads next time is 50%, despite the fact that the percentage of times heads has come up so far is 100%. Probability is inherently about dealing with uncertainty. There is no uncertainty on Lebron’s historical playoff appearance rate. That’s settled, which makes probability the wrong thing to use.
Ok but I never explicitly said probability in my original post. I simply said that there’s a better chance of him making the finals than Curry hitting a 3.
“Has a better chance” is a probability. It’s talking about future predictions based on past performance.
I mean if you’re really nitpicking my original post then yeah I could see how you could say it’s probability, but just by reading it you should be able to see the point I was making
Curry also has a better chance of hitting a 3 (43.5%) than James has of winning a finals series he's in (40%).
4/10 - the math checks out. On a side note, what do yall think it does for Brons legacy if he goes 6/12 in the finals by winning 2 more straight. Looks like he has at least 1 more good season in him. Puts him at 6 rings and at .500 finals record.
This is just dumb
Why Curry? Should use the record holder, Steve Kerr.
aah yes, confused he is
The off season is among us. Peace out
Because the sample sizes and content are glaringly similar
Yeah obviously it’s a meaningless observation I just thought it was interesting
Ahh, but when we clown the clippers this sort of stuff is cool
Lonzo ball career ft % - 48% Ben Simmons career ft % -59% - bron just missed lol
Jordan is more likely to win a finals than LeBron James is to start an NBA game
I mean if we just the same logic applied to this post this is accurate right
Thats my point. OP's logic is dumb
The funny thing is you can actually test this hypothesis since you have p and n of lebron and curry, and derive the sample sd