brownjeans wrote:

swishh_15 wrote:

brownjeans wrote:I think the more interesting question is, what the hell is an "x-factor"?

I know you were trying to be funny, but literally the exact defintion of x factor perfectly fits the question.

I actually wasn't trying to be funny, I was seriously wondering what the intent of the question was. The fact that the definition uses the word "variable" makes this an elusive, difficult to pin down, quality and therefore tough to define. Even after seeing your definition, I bet if you asked a dozen people they couldn't explain it.

I mean, take definition no. 1. What does that mean? Wouldn't the BEST player have a significant outcome? If one player consistently has a significant impact doesn't that make him consistent and therefore, NOT a variable and NOT an x-factor - so it couldn't be the best player. But then, the question asks us to identify the x-factor for an entire season. If someone is the x-factor for an entire season that would give them consistency, wouldn't it? And therefore, not an x-factor?

Take definition no. 2. What is the special talent or quality that we're talking about? Sounds undefined.

I'm kind of a word nerd, so I may be picking at semantics, but it just seems to be a hard thing to pin down.

Maybe I understood you incorrectly, but I think you might be using a different meaning of the word variable in relation to the first definition of x factor than the meaning of variable that I understood.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/variable

adjective
1.
apt or liable to vary or change; changeable:
variable weather; variable moods.

...

noun
9.
something that may or does vary or change; a variable feature or factor.
10.
Mathematics, Computers.
a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values.
a symbol that represents this.

I think you may have understood variable as an adjective while I understood it as a noun. Thus, for x factor, I think you understood "a <changeable performance from a player> in a given situation that could have the most significant impact on the outcome" while I understood "a <specific player's impact as if part of a mathematical formula> in a given situation that could have the most significant impact on the outcome". I always thought the term x factor was trying to relate the situation to a formula or equation where you were trying to solve for or enter a value for the variable named x. I also always considered it to be in relation to the idea that some items in the formula or equation were considered to be constants rather than variables (for example, I always expect Bobby Wagner to have a good defensive game so that's a constant, but I don't always expect him to hurdle the long snapper and block a field goal, so that's a variable).

Now that I've indulged the word nerd in me, I'm going to break out the math nerd and wonder how each player on the team fits into the equation. Will Moore be consistent to the point that we treat his input as a constant instead of a variable? What about the other players? I think we need at least Moore, Rector, and McEwen to be pretty constant in terms of points and assists. I think we need our new bigs to be pretty constant in terms of rebounds. I think both of those can be fairly constant, meaning that they will generally produce what we expect from them. I don't know what to expect for points or rebounds or assists or steals from Pearre and Merrill, or from Taylor, Janicek, and Barnaba in terms of points or assists or blocks. Dargenton was a lot more productive in the exhibition than I anticipated in several ways. I could see each of the players whose input I can't anticipate being an x factor if they turn out to provide more success to the team, whether measurable as stats or not, than what is currently expected from them.

brownjeans wrote:

josephconlin wrote: Maybe I understood you incorrectly, but I think you might be using a different meaning of the word variable in relation to the first definition of x factor than the meaning of variable that I understood.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/variable

adjective
1.
apt or liable to vary or change; changeable:
variable weather; variable moods.

...

noun
9.
something that may or does vary or change; a variable feature or factor.
10.
Mathematics, Computers.
a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values.
a symbol that represents this.

I think you may have understood variable as an adjective while I understood it as a noun. Thus, for x factor, I think you understood "a <changeable performance from a player> in a given situation that could have the most significant impact on the outcome" while I understood "a <specific player's impact as if part of a mathematical formula> in a given situation that could have the most significant impact on the outcome". I always thought the term x factor was trying to relate the situation to a formula or equation where you were trying to solve for or enter a value for the variable named x. I also always considered it to be in relation to the idea that some items in the formula or equation were considered to be constants rather than variables (for example, I always expect Bobby Wagner to have a good defensive game so that's a constant, but I don't always expect him to hurdle the long snapper and block a field goal, so that's a variable).

Now that I've indulged the word nerd in me, I'm going to break out the math nerd and wonder how each player on the team fits into the equation. Will Moore be consistent to the point that we treat his input as a constant instead of a variable? What about the other players? I think we need at least Moore, Rector, and McEwen to be pretty constant in terms of points and assists. I think we need our new bigs to be pretty constant in terms of rebounds. I think both of those can be fairly constant, meaning that they will generally produce what we expect from them. I don't know what to expect for points or rebounds or assists or steals from Pearre and Merrill, or from Taylor, Janicek, and Barnaba in terms of points or assists or blocks. Dargenton was a lot more productive in the exhibition than I anticipated in several ways. I could see each of the players whose input I can't anticipate being an x factor if they turn out to provide more success to the team, whether measurable as stats or not, than what is currently expected from them.

I was thinking variable as a noun as well, but a variable (noun) represents a person, place or thing. I was thinking the variable represented a player. Are you saying it represents the outcome?
I like what you did in the second paragraph. I see how a constant can also introduce uncommon results - the Wagner example is a good one.
This question certainly offers a wealth of conversation.
Initially I went with one of Janicek, Barnaba and Stall. At that time I was thinking about our area of biggest need and the potential for positive contribution from the relative starting point. I figured that we're pretty good at PG and wing so McEwen wasn't likely to offer that much when compared to the relative starting point. However, after the way McEwen played in the exhibition, I could have been wrong. Dargenton opened my eyes as well.

I can see the variable being a player or an outcome depending on the circumstances and the way someone looks at it. I currently expect our 3 main bigs to each get 5 to 7 rebounds per game. If, as in an example from an earlier post, Barnaba gets 14 rebounds in a game, it could be that Barnaba was the x factor or it could be the extra 7 to 9 rebounds that were the x factor, or it could even be the impact of those rebounds that is the x factor (increased offensive possessions or reduced opportunities for the opponent). However, if one of our players gets hit hard in the face and has to wear a plastic face shield for multiple games, that will automatically be the x factor in my mind!