kironepraktičar

pa brate gušći je raspored ali imaju najbolje uslove za oporavak, tako da su na kraju balade u neizmerno boljoj poziciji al da ne tupimo

@MetalHead nije besmisleno određivanje maksimalnog broja sati za trening, zato što se 4-5 najboljih ekipa lige približe do kraja sezone nekom broju tekmi koji naginje ka nba brojci. kada se uzme u obzir kako se oporavak radi tamo, kako u evropi a kako ovde, jasno je da ti igrači nisu u zavidnoj poziciji. klubove pri tome zabole, nije kao da imaju pola rostera pod ugovorom na 3-4 godine kao u nba, pa da mogu da im propadnu uložene pare, već su većinom za sezonu ili famozni 1+1 i onda ih arcis, a ako se nešto desi, takav je posao odavno se pokazalo da struka nije baš osetljiva na zdravlje i prava igrača - i oni su uglavnom sa ugovorom sezonu po sezonu a prvi su na spisku da popiju otkaz.

@Kronostime daj yt video ya OCA

oni realno mogu i autostopom : Đ

Mike Woodson is coming back to the Knicks “in a capacity” https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/_25NgKpA_mb_uwQSnYr_T7f2IcA=/0x0:458x250/620x413/filters:focal(193x89:265x161):gifv():no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/67133459/UnhealthyFlashyCub_size_restricted.0.gif

moram da priznam da nisam juče kontao do kraja priču iako mi je bila lepa ali danas razumem. naravoučenije, treba mi cca 24h da razumem ♥️

jako. pratim sa jednim od mnogih čorbi koje sam mogao izabrati .... inače, kod bajaginih pesama uvek imam osećaj kako on sedi negde u prostoriji i onda krene da gleda oko sebe: soba, predmeti, priroda, PRIRODA!!1 IDEMO NAPOLJE onda krene dalje redom da ređa Текст Maslina je oliva Mene sunce poliva Procvale su kajsije rumene Pa se vidi jasnije Pa se cuje glasnije Na celom svetu od sto milja Mene sunce nervira Zrake lose servira Pa te dobro ne vidim Ovaj put, onda vidim Jebo te, nigde takve lepote Na celom svetu od sto milja Niko lepsi nego ti Lepa Janja ribareva kci Na celom svetu lepote Takve ni samo lepa Ribareva kci Maslina je oliva Mene sunce poliva Procvale su kajsije rumene Pa se vidi jasnije Pa se cuje glasnije Na celom svetu od sto milja Mene sunce nervira Zrake lose servira Istopi ti maskaru svaki put Pa se ljutis na mene Pa mi trazis zamene Na celom svetu od sto milja Niko lepsi nego ti Lepa Janja ribareva kci Na celom svetu lepote Takve ni samo lepa Ribareva kci Onda pesme drugi deo Da promenim ja bih hteo Jer ne volim depresivne krajeve Zato zelim ribarima puno srece S virovima i pune mreze Ribe sveze Niko lepsi nego ti Lepa Janja ribareva kci Na celom svetu lepote Takve ni samo lepa Ribareva kci

bitno je da uživate u toj igri inače džaba titule

@Neme sve je jasno i uglavnom očekivano, uključujući "ownership of project" i ostalo što je ispisano @major josip dugujem ti pm reply, samo što ću ga svesti na minimum jer mi je @Nemeveć iskristalisao to malo nedoumica da se poslužim svetom floskula, wait and see approach.

da li će biti funkcionalniji? da li će biti prikladniji 2020oj nego 2004oj? da li je bogatstvo pravilnika važnije od suštine pravilnika? a suština pravilnika ima veze sa jednim jedinim pitanjem: šta je to iza čega mi kolektivno kao forum možemo da stanemo -> koje su to vrednosti koje nas ujedinjuju?? ako smo "forum za sve", onda pravimo grešku odavno proživljenu kod brendova koji žele da "njihovi korisnici budu svi, od 7 do 77", od qanona do tanje fajon. = odnosno, mogu i qanon i tanja fajon da budu vredni korisnici ovog foruma ako pronalaze zajednički razlog zbog kojeg dolaze i doprinose ovde. mislim da ekipa koja sve ovo radi mesecima ne uviđa da je pravilnik, makar i od 10 strana i xy karaktera, bezvredan ako nemaš 1) uporište u realnosti & 2) viziju ponuđeno je dosta toga overall na vox 2.0, niko od nadležnih nije došao i pitao kako & zašto se to radi, što je meni prilično jasan signal namera. ali živ nisam da vidim taj finalni produkt, možda me iznenade i samim tim oduševe (pa makar me iznenadili negativno).

kad jebeš pedere i dalje si peder, samo kažem da, ovo što navodis može biti veliki zajeb ali ako ga metnes u draymond green sa dubsima situaciju, može da ispadne pobeda.

koliko razumem, ne žele da osmisle trening proces, već da ga stave u norme koje već postoje u nba npr Edit po trajanju ma daj brate, nikada to nije duplo u ceni kod takvih dilova. a single sobe smo ionako osudili kao lud zahtev

ima ljudi koji su plaćeni da se bave statusom i statutima, sindikat se bavi igračima u zadatim okvirima super je sto se to pojavilo, makar kao neka rudimentarna ideja

znaći, ako bi igrao super, predlozi bi bili prihvatljiviji (: poenta po meni je da nisu neki "smešni" predlozi, bilo je makar 3-4 posta sa tim opisom, nego prilično regularne stvari nešto od toga je teže ili nikako za ispuniti (eto dajem fore) a većina stavki je sasvim ostvariva .... zamislite da traže neke recovery uslove koji bi isto trebalo da budu normalni ali su nažalost nedostupni ovdašnjim klubovima : bilo bi, u moje vreme se pobijes sa lokalnom bandom da uđeš u halu, zasrafis natrag sutersku ruku na telo i ubaciš 5/8 za tri poena, iako sam tricu pretpostavljao, jer nije bila obeležena. a ne ovi milenijalci danas (:

šta je toliko smešno, čitao sam samo tekst? jasno je da je lova problem ali sama ideja da ideš na tekmu avionom do ljubljane ili još bolje, podgorice bi trebalo da bude normalna. ja kada putujem poslom imam svoju sobu u hotelu, ne delim je sa kolegama mislim, jebalo i siromaštvo te naše klubove al ajde kao, lud zahtev. jel ima još čega u tom docsu a da je tino nino

ono ako nije neki prosecco, proseci me ovde (:

koliko znam i u nba poslednjih godina postoji pravilo o maksimalnom broju časova za trening dnevno ili nedeljno što kaže twister, nije tu niko izmišljao nešto neviđeno, samo je pitanje šta je izvodljivo i koliko su naši po prirodi delovanja mafijaški klubovi raspolozeni da izađu u susret. Edit meni sve što je izdvojeno u tekstu monda zvuči okej, osim tog aviona i jednokrevetne sobe, zbog novca i nedostatka muške ljubavi na putu 😕

Nylon Calculus: Conjunction and disjunction bias in the NBA draft by Joseph Nation2 weeks ago One of the keys to improving decision-making in front offices is understanding the biases that impact how we perceive value. Here, we break down a major pair of biases and how they could impact the way teams scout the NBA Draft. Projecting the NBA Draft is, at its core, a probability exercise. Players have variable outcomes with a band of possibilities, and their landing spot along that band of possibilities is impacted by an innumerably large number of factors, both controllable and uncontrollable. As a result, in order to improve the draft process, we have to have a fundamental understanding of probability, and more importantly, how humans evaluate probability. Spoiler: we suck at it. There’s a series of known fundamental biases in handling probability in behavioral economics. Some, like the endowment effect, are already known in basketball: Teams tend to value their own assets more highly than assets that aren’t their own. In fact, we know that the trade that sent Kyle Lowry to Toronto was explicitly made because the Rockets were aware of the endowment effect, per Michael Lewis’s famous feature on Daryl Morey. But a pair of those biases that are less often mentioned, despite possibly being the most relevant to the scouting process, is conjunction and disjunction bias. Put simply, humans tend to overestimate the probability of a set of events all happening, and we tend to underestimate the probability of any one of a set of events happening. How do conjunction and disjunction bias apply to the NBA Draft? For example, say you have a prospect that needs all of traits A, B, and C to develop in order to succeed, and those traits develop independently, with probabilities a, b, and c. If that’s the case, then that prospect will succeed a*b*c percent of the time. If a, b, and c are all 50 percent, then that prospect succeeds a paltry 12.5 percent of the time, even though none of the individual traits are exceedingly likely to fail on their own. Or say you have a prospect that will succeed if any of traits D, E, and F develop, and all of those traits develop independently with probabilities d, e, and f. If that’s the case, then that prospect will succeed a + b + c – ab – ac – bc + abc = 87.5 percent of the time. Now, that model is a drastic oversimplification for illustration’s sake. Development is not necessarily independent, and the probabilities are not usually 50/50. But the general principle will absolutely hold across any set of assumptions: When multiple things need to go right, the probabilities get really low really fast. When you only need one thing to go right, it’s likely that something will. And fortunately for this writing, this class has a pair of players at its top that slides neatly into this kind of thinking in LaMelo Ball and Anthony Edwards. LaMelo Ball needs a bunch of things to go right. He needs to learn how to finish through contact. He needs for his jump shot to be usable. He needs to be an average off-ball defender so that he can be hidden. He needs to improve his burst. And if any of those traits is missing, he’s probably not a good player, and it’s highly likely that some of those traits will be missing given that he ranges from bad to exceptionally bad at all of them currently. Anthony Edwards, by comparison, only needs one of a few things to go right. This idea has been discussed in places like the Prep2Pro podcast, but essentially, if Edwards is a high-level pull-up shooter, he will be a successful NBA player. If Edwards learns to consistently use his excellent first step, he will be a successful NBA player. If Edwards learns how to consistently make the right decision within the offense, he will be a successful NBA player. He only needs one to be successful, and even though the probabilities of each of those aren’t exceptionally high when taken in disjunction, his success becomes likely. If, then, those two are viewed without adjustment for bias as having approximately equal odds of success, it makes sense to view Ball more weakly and Edwards more strongly. If conjunction bias tells us that we’re likely to overestimate the probability of multiple things all being true, then LaMelo’s odds of success are likely overestimated. If disjunction bias tells us that we’re likely to underestimate the probability of any one thing out of multiple being true, then Anthony Edwards’ odds of success are likely underestimated. But it doesn’t have to be those two guys or even at the top of the draft. Think about a guy like Georgios Kalaitzakis, who has the potential to be a 6-foot-7 point guard that’s a capable handler, passer, shooter, and defender. What he could be is incredibly valuable. Except there’s the problem that he has to do every single one of those in order to be successful, and the odds that he does all of them, when none of those traits are guaranteed given his inconsistency, are lower than we would naturally tend to think. Or think about a guy like Vernon Carey. For Carey to be a relatively successful NBA player, he only needs one path out of multiple to hit. If he gets the drop coverage defense to a passable level, he’s probably an NBA player. If he expands the 3-point volume to be a credible threat, he’s probably an NBA player. If he’s enough of a passer that he can be a credible change-of-pace plodding big, that’s valuable to at least some teams. And with that many paths to success, the odds are probably more favorable that one of them will happen than we tend to instinctively think. Now, this kind of analysis isn’t absolutely rigorous or perfectly informative. A guy like Kalaitzakis might have a 10 percent chance of being that truly valuable player, but the version of a valuable player he can be is just worth so much more than the player that Vernon Carey becomes 90 percent of the time, that it’s worth selecting Kalaitzakis earlier anyway. This effect could be mitigated by only applying the reasoning to prospects viewed similarly or not applying it in comparison based reasoning. Further, not every player is even clear how they should be classified. Take Patrick Williams for example. He might need to become all three of a great team defender, a good off the dribble playmaker, and an above-average shooter in order to succeed. But maybe he only really needs one of those and any one will do. So is his probability of success being biased upwards or downwards? But what this can do is inform how we advocate for players. It’s important to understand that multiple paths to success is valuable. It’s also important to understand that making large leaps in anticipating improvement or success against uncertainty across multiple areas is not necessarily strategically correct. So while it can’t be taken as an absolute, since the player with more paths to success isn’t automatically more valuable, it must form a piece of the analysis for any prospect because otherwise, the analysis comes out with error. https://fansided.com/2020/07/10/nba-draft-conjunction-disjunction-bias/

odlican je primer isključivo ako si sklon zajebanciji tipa srpski košarkaši su vanzemaljci za hrvatske košarkaše.

markanen je možda četvrti najbolji igrač bullsa ali nebitno baš me zanima najiskrenije da vidim koja će ekipa ili ekipe biti zainteresovane za lavinea. moja procena je niko bolji od indijane ili pojma nemam, sakramenta daklem, ništa prva liga contendera a ni druga liga a možda ni treća. opet, moje mišljenje iz fotelje, ke vidime. ja ga ne vidim kao nosioca ozbiljne ekipe. kao nekog 5-6-7 igrača u contenderu, verovatno.

pa lepo sam napisao, to je neki moj lični ukus (kod lavinea dodao i "verovatno grešim") ali iskreno me zanima zašto bi trejdovao go-to baticu ako je toliko dobar a da nije nešto nezadovoljan i traži trejd? cenim da bi vest bila drugačije sročena da je tako a za wendella sam napisao imaju wendell carter jra, koji je po meni potencijalno strava igrač u budućnos' "po meni", "potencijalno strava" "u budućnosti (not podgorica)" ne znam koliko više da se ogradim i naglasim da je to neka moja lična projekcija a ne trenutno stanje stvari

ne znam ne znam, meni je on definicija empty stats batice. nema smisla za knickse da se otvore ni za dobrog igrača, kao što je npr devin booker a ne za ovog lika koji često izgleda kao da igra za svoj groš (hoću da kažem, ne isplati se knicksima sada da daju bilo šta za bilo koga ko je percipiran kao vredan) na stranu moj ukus ili procena, zašto bi ga bullsi trejdovali ako je toliko dobar? imaju i markkannena (koji je isto u trade rumosima), imaju wendell carter jra, koji je po meni potencijalno strava igrač u budućnos' nije da nemaju neku mladu osovinicu. plej im fali i još puno toga ali ne bih išao u rat sa lavineom kao glavnim igračem a ako je tačan rumor, ni bullsi

OLYMPICS Hitting the Wall At the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, Milorad Cavic lost the 100-meter butterfly to Michael Phelps by one one-hundredth of a second. Or maybe he won and there was a timing error. It depends on who you ask, what parts of the internet you read, and how deep down the rabbit hole you go—a place Cavic still finds himself 12 years after one of the closest and most controversial races in history. By John Gonzalez Jul 29, 2020, 6:30am EDT https://www.theringer.com/2020/7/29/21345181/milorad-cavic-michael-phelps-2008-olympics-beijing-100-butterfly-conspiracy