The Official NBA Season Thread: SFA Prevails

[osh kosh bosh]

Iirc there was definitley eyebrows raised even if he was at the end of his career and the Spurs were really good.

I think there were more eyebrows raised at the possibility of James Harden signing a supermax with the Rockets, essentially ending his chances of winning a ring.
than David West's ring chasing.

 

[dacomeup]

if you humans really had perfect knowledge of what will and wont make them happy
that would really solve a lot of problems,


but they obviously don't.

Yet you’re sitting here telling us that YOU know. This is the irony that you’re refusing to see

 

[dacomeup]

There is no absolutely other reason to go this hard and make the points that he is making.

Osh gone Osh regardless of the debate.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yet you’re sitting here telling us that YOU know. This is the irony that you’re refusing to see

im telling you what the research says.

happiness plateaus at 500k.
and doesn't increase if you are unhappy and rich.

should the prediction of a hypothetical NBA player outweigh the research?

how much weight should I give an individual NBA player making a prediction about here future happiness levels?

 

[B Sox]

So what does it plateau at for NBA players making way more

 

[addict4sneakers]

does NBA players telling you that the money means everything matter or are we going to the scholarly studies?

 

[RustyShackleford]

im telling you what the research says.

happiness plateaus at 500k.
and doesn't increase if you are unhappy and rich.

should the prediction of a hypothetical NBA player outweigh the research?

how much weight should I give an individual NBA player making a prediction about here future happiness levels?

Dude, please

The research doesn't prove your point in any firm way like you are acting

You already admitting your position takes some level of guessing. And you naturally just think your guess is better.

But the research you presented doesn't come close to definitively tipping the scales to your position

 

[storm2006]

im telling you what the research says.

happiness plateaus at 500k.
and doesn't increase if you are unhappy and rich.

should the prediction of a hypothetical NBA player outweigh the research?

Please stop quoting that research and study in a misleading manner to make your point.

One study said happiness peaked at $75,000 in income. Now, economists say it's higher — by a lot.

It turns out that money can buy happiness for most people — although some may remain miserable no matter what.

www.cbsnews.com

With co-author Barbara Mellers, also of the University of Pennsylvania, they ran a new experiment, asking 33,391 working U.S. adults with a median household income of $85,000 to answer questions about their sense of well-being.

Their new findings suggest that, for most people, happiness does improve with higher earnings, up to $500,000 a year — although participants above that income were "quite rare," providing a lack of comprehensive data for that group, the study notes.

Only ~33,000 participants and those above half a mill were “rare” and you are using it as the underpinnings of your argument. Horrible.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

If you are using the 500K thing as evidence, and applying it to players, then nearly all NBA players acting rationally should be ring-chasing

So your theory doesn't apply to the individuals making the largest salaries, those who should be also indifferent to the money?

They can still be acting rationally in the context of the life cycle of an NBA player.

when you are young you have the most impact on winning
but the least about of control over where you go,
relatively flattened salaries
more theoretical chances to win a ring.
personal relationships with teammates and organization that drafted you.
individual standing within the league

you are weighing more than just ring vs money there are way more factors,
not to mention money in the context of the league money is often a proxy for respect.
so the diminishing value of the money might make how it ranks you relative to your peers more important that the money itself.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dude, please

The research doesn't prove your point in any firm way like you are acting

You already admitting your position takes some level of guessing. And you naturally just think your guess is better.

But the research you presented doesn't come close to definitively tipping the scales to your position

of I think guess is better, if I didn't I wouldn't be saying it.

i think there is basically no evidence pointing in the other direction other than intuition.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yet you’re sitting here telling us that YOU know. This is the irony that you’re refusing to see

I think this is a classic osh kosh bosh argument

That he has a strong point, if he would apply is narrowly

But he applies it broadly instead

People point out the issues with applying it broadly.

He then restates the argument he has, using specific examples of a narrow application

Then acts like everyone is either unreasonable or not smart enough to keep up with the knowledge he is pushing

Everyone leaves frustrated.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Please stop quoting that research and study in a misleading manner to make your point.

One study said happiness peaked at $75,000 in income. Now, economists say it's higher — by a lot.

It turns out that money can buy happiness for most people — although some may remain miserable no matter what.

www.cbsnews.com

Only ~33,000 participants and those above half a mill were “rare” and you are using it as the underpinnings of your argument. Horrible.

lets say the 500k is off by an order of magnitude, lets say the plateau is 5 million.
lets say it's 10 million.

even if that number is way off it's still far away from 50 million.

and you can quibble with the sample size if you want. what is the sample size of your evidence?
...oh wait, you don't have any.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think this is a classic osh kosh bosh argument

That he has a strong point, if he would apply is narrowly

But he applies it broadly instead

People point out the issues with applying it broadly.

He then restates the argument he has, using specific examples of a narrow application

Then acts like everyone is either unreasonable or not smart enough to keep up with the knowledge he is pushing

Everyone leaves frustrated.

I think im applying narrowly to the 50 million + a ring vs 100 million and no ring.

5 million vs 50. my answers would be different.
1 vs 100 million i wouldn't make the same formulaiton.

im responding specifically to Stacks 50 vs 100 million question. and I think he's right.


everyone else is bringing up alternate scenarios. and im responding and clarifying based on those alternate scenarios.

 

[dacomeup]

I think this is a classic osh kosh bosh argument

That he has a strong point, if he would apply is narrowly

But he applies it broadly instead

People point out the issues with applying it broadly.

He then restates the argument he has, using specific examples of a narrow application

Then acts like everyone is either unreasonable or not smart enough to keep up with the knowledge he is pushing

Everyone leaves frustrated.

 

[RustyShackleford]

of I think guess is better, if I didn't I wouldn't be saying it.

i think there is basically no evidence pointing in the other direction other than intuition.

You are taking a number that every NBA player is above, and using that to make a claim about NBA players. NBA players would probably all be clustered in the NBA set. Many would probably be outliers.

The second and equally important part of the claim is to have zero evidence for it.

When it is pointed out that it can't be universally applied, you want to only focus on a smaller subgroup.

Your evidence, in the context of NBA players, could also be statistically insignificant. Which I have the feeling it is.

Which would make it as valuable as..... nothing.

Simply intuition as well

 

[osh kosh bosh]

does NBA players telling you that the money means everything matter or are we going to the scholarly studies?

an nba player making a prediction about his future state of mind under a hypothetical scenario.
it doesn't mean nothing, but you have to admit this is a pretty weak form of evidence.

and again this is contradicted by Gilberts own self reports. he said his lowest moment in the NBA came when he was making the most money.
so how can I trust his future self report of his hypothetical state of mind when his past seems to indicate the opposite?

 

[storm2006]

lets say the 500k is off by an order of magnitude, lets say the plateau is 5 million.
lets say it's 10 million.

even if that number is way off it's still far away from 50 million.

and you can quibble with the sample size if you want. what is the sample size of your evidence?
...oh wait, you don't have any.

Why do EYE need evidence? I’m not the one trying to make a point or convince anyone of anything.

You quoted a study for two pages and it it was revealed that the author said there was little evidence backing your claim. You then arbitrarily decided it was okay to apply an order of magnitude to the upper bound of that limited evidence and assume your point is ow valid.

I am mostly critical of your methods behind your argument. You are arguing a point that you can’t definitively prove and all you had in terms of research was that study that doesn’t hold. Sorry man.

 

[Based Jesus]

The whole hypothetical is ridiculous. As if players don't take the situations that give them the best chance to win and make money. Being paid the most you can over your career typically comes with winning, unless you play for the Wizards.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Why do EYE need evidence? I’m not the one trying to make a point or convince anyone of anything.

You quoted a study for two pages and it it was revealed that the author said there was little evidence backing your claim. You then arbitrarily decided it was okay to apply an order of magnitude to the upper bound of that limited evidence and assume your point is ow valid.

I am mostly critical of your methods behind your argument. You are arguing a point that you can’t definitively prove and all you had in terms of research was that study that doesn’t hold. Sorry man.

we can't definitively prove anything on this.
we must apply some deductive reasoning. again the evidence is limited. it points in a direction.

what are the chances it's wrong. and by how much? even if it's off by a lot, it's still beyond the range we are talking about.
and the same study concluded people who aren't happy and rich, money doesn't improve things at all and in some cases it negatively correlated.

it's pointing directionally that money above a certain amount has diminishing returns. and 50 vs 100 is likely above that rate.

and the only argument I see in favour of the 100 is people simply feel like they would be happier. if im weighing the evidence. the 100 million seems signmificantly weaker.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The whole hypothetical is ridiculous. As if players don't take the situations that give them the best chance to win and make money. Being paid the most you can over your career typically comes with winning, unless you play for the Wizards.

I agree with this.

but hypotheticals are generally formulated to test intuitions.
so they kind have to be ridiculous. because you aren't likely to face a clear choice between money and a ring in the real world. .

 

[lynchpin33]

David West opted out of $12M with the Pacers to ring chase with the Spurs on the minimum. Ended up getting two rings for the minimum with the Warriors.

and nobody thought this was bizarre or strange at the time.

players union was furious

 

[lawdog1]

Just found some data online that cocaine use is beneficial to the memory:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881118783299

Make yourselves better people, get to snorting.

 

[dacomeup]

and again this is contradicted by Gilberts own self reports. he said his lowest moment in the NBA came when he was making the most money.
so how can I trust his future self report of his hypothetical state of mind when his past seems to indicate the opposite

Stripping the additional contextual factors away and making it purely the case of most money vs. not most money is so disingenuous

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You are taking a number that every NBA player is above, and using that to make a claim about NBA players. NBA players would probably all be clustered in the NBA set. Many would probably be outliers.

The second and equally important part of the claim is to have zero evidence for it.

When it is pointed out that it can't be universally applied, you want to only focus on a smaller subgroup.

Your evidence, in the context of NBA players, could also be statistically insignificant. Which I have the feeling it is.

Which would make it as valuable as..... nothing.

Simply intuition as well

if you had to bet, and we had a perfect happiness machine monitor that could disentangle all the variables
do you think within the 50 to 100 million career earnings range happiness would be correlated with increase in utility from higher salaries?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Stripping the additional contextual factors away and making it purely the case of most money vs. not most money is so disingenuous

I don't know what you mean by this, or what context is missing.
I don't think Gils statements are definitive proof either way.

but if you are going to take self report seriously
I think self reports the player actually experience should be taken more seriously than predictions about future states of mind.