which you readily dismiss.
Ok - I can't agrue with that.
Talking about "overall probability" does nothing like this. On the contrary -- it introduces a variable, about which you can't make any realistic assumptions at this point (other than "well, it depends on too many factors to be able to say for sure"), which makes the model essentially worthless.
I still don't see the difference between this and your arguments. In my mind, both models are essentially worthless once you break them down.
I can't agree with this. I don't think the probability of making a any given shot is known in advance, since we also know that defenses are adaptive. It might be, that in the sense that given the same input parameters you get the same probability for a positive outcome, but the parameters change, so you can't quite tell the exact parameter for any given shot, since shot opportunities are somewhat stochastic.
Yes, both offenses and defenses adapt. Yes, many other things are going on at the same time. There are probably also many different types of shots (driving shots, pull-up jumpers, hook shots, etc) which adds even more complexity. So I guess neither of our models is really workable so really what's the point in continuing to discuss it?
Run of the Mill Canadian Manager