PDA

View Full Version : How much do stats matter?



sp1derm00
11-27-2008, 12:57 AM
Let's say that Lebron (using him because he's a stat machine) at the PEAK of his prime racks up insane numbers... like...

35ppg, 10rpg, 10apg, 2spg, 2bpg and shoots 50% from the field...

But he never ever wins a championship despite having some decent help (think Cavs team right now)...

Where would he go down as?

JordansBulls
11-27-2008, 01:00 AM
Let's say that Lebron (using him because he's a stat machine) at the PEAK of his prime racks up insane numbers... like...

35ppg, 10rpg, 10apg, 2spg, 2bpg and shoots 50% from the field...

But he never ever wins a championship despite having some decent help (think Cavs team right now)...

Where would he go down as?

No player who gets those numbers is not going to get a title. But with those numbers he jumps into the top 10. It's kinda difficult at this point to even get into the top 10 without winning mulitple titles as the best player on your team and putting up great numbers.

LeBrowns
11-27-2008, 01:01 AM
Dan Marino is probably the best QB to ever play in the NFL, but he never won the big one. Therefore, he is overlooked.

Frrrrank!!!
11-27-2008, 01:03 AM
Let's say that Lebron (using him because he's a stat machine) at the PEAK of his prime racks up insane numbers... like...

35ppg, 10rpg, 10apg, 2spg, 2bpg and shoots 50% from the field...

But he never ever wins a championship despite having some decent help (think Cavs team right now)...

Where would he go down as?

First I would be bowing down to that player:worthy:

then I would be really confused why he never won a ring. There is no way a player puts that up and doesnt win.

Chronz
11-27-2008, 01:04 AM
Stats are descriptors, how the player affects his teams overall output is all that matters when discussing stats. If hes averaging those numbers the Cavs would probably be a 70 win team with the talent they got so they would most likely win the title like that.

You cant use hypothetical scenarios like that because they are just impossible to recreate. It would take a massive failure from the players around him to not win if hes playing at such a high level.

SAVAGE CLAW
11-27-2008, 01:06 AM
Scoring stats? mean nothing.

Stats in General mean nothing, only if you are a hog or you actually care about your team.

sp1derm00
11-27-2008, 01:08 AM
Why wouldn't it be possible?

What if in the playoffs, in any series, another team always ends up outperforming his team?

SAVAGE CLAW
11-27-2008, 01:08 AM
Do you think is casual that Jordans Stats, even still being UNEARTHLY were a little "lower" on scoring and "higer" on Assists after the first 5-6 years and that once he started to trust mates he won 6 rings?

The Day Lebron or Kobe are able to reach the same Conclussion MJ discovered .....watch out!!!

king4day
11-27-2008, 01:11 AM
For a contract they mean a lot.
For a championship they mean squat.

sp1derm00
11-27-2008, 01:13 AM
But where would he go down as? In this day and age, where it's a lot harder to rack up stats the way Wilt did back then... if a player racked up MONSTER stats and ended up never winning... would he even be in consideration with the elites?

Lakers4ItAll
11-27-2008, 01:18 AM
Stocton has plenty of Stats and is the best PG of all time IMO yet he never won a title...

ARMIN12NBA
11-27-2008, 01:21 AM
Do you think is casual that Jordans Stats, even still being UNEARTHLY were a little "lower" on scoring and "higer" on Assists after the first 5-6 years and that once he started to trust mates he won 6 rings?

The Day Lebron or Kobe are able to reach the same Conclussion MJ discovered .....watch out!!!

MJ actually averaged his lowest assist numbers during their championship years. His highest assist average was with Doug Collins when he played PG basically.

Chronz
11-27-2008, 01:22 AM
Why wouldn't it be possible?

What if in the playoffs, in any series, another team always ends up outperforming his team?
I dont know man, Im kind of struggling to understand what your getting at and how it would happen but assuming the rest of the players maintain their effectiveness, it would take the other team playing well above their abilities to beat a team thats not only fairly talented but has the most dominant player in the game. That usually doesnt happen.

ARMIN12NBA
11-27-2008, 01:22 AM
BTW--If Lebron averages those numbers and improves his defense to an all-defensive team level then he is the greatest of all time. No doubt.

Frrrrank!!!
11-27-2008, 01:28 AM
Why wouldn't it be possible?

What if in the playoffs, in any series, another team always ends up outperforming his team?

if a player is good enough to put up those stats then i would assume that he could do it in the playoffs, and in a 7 game series I dont know how he would consistanly be beat. Maybe if another player was averaging the same numbers on a different team.

SAVAGE CLAW
11-27-2008, 01:43 AM
Impressive stats players(either in scoring, blocking, passing stealing or whatever) that have no titles. Caps for AWESOME players.

KARL MALONE, John Stockton, Pete Maravich, Adrian Dantley,Eaton :Jazz

Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe : Nuggets.

Shawn Kemp : Sonics.

Marbury: Wolves.

Buck Williams: Blazers

ELGIN BAYLOR: Lakers.

......: Clippers.

CHARLES BARKLEY, Kevin Johnson,Walter Davis: Suns

Chris Webber : Kings

World B Free: Warriors


GEORGE GERVIN:Spurs

Rolando Blackman: Mavs.

Calvin Murphy: Rockets.

....:Grizzlies.

Larry Johnson: Hornets.


PAT EWING, BERNARD KING, Mike Ray Richardson: Knicks.

Vince Carter: Raptors.

Reggie Lewis: Celtics.

Petrovic: Nets.

IVERSON: Sixers.

ArTIS GILMORE: Bulls.

Kelly Tripucka: Pistons

Brad Daugherty, Nance, Price: Cavs.

Alvin Robertson: Bucks.

REGGIE MILLER: Pacers.

Manute Bol:p :Bullets.

....:Bobcats.

Penny Hardaway: Magic ( or was he in the roster at the end in 06?)

Steve Smith:Heat

DOMINIQUE WILKINS: Hawks.

Frrrrank!!!
11-27-2008, 01:50 AM
Impressive stats players(either in scoring, blocking, passing stealing or whatever) that have no titles. Caps for AWESOME players.

KARL MALONE, John Stockton, Pete Maravich, Adrian Dantley,Eaton :Jazz

Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe : Nuggets.

Shawn Kemp : Sonics.

Marbury: Wolves.

Buck Williams: Blazers

ELGIN BAYLOR: Lakers.

......: Clippers.

CHARLES BARKLEY, Kevin Johnson,Walter Davis: Suns

Chris Webber : Kings

World B Free: Warriors


GEORGE GERVIN:Spurs

Rolando Blackman: Mavs.

Calvin Murphy: Rockets.

....:Grizzlies.

Larry Johnson: Hornets.


PAT EWING, BERNARD KING, Mike Ray Richardson: Knicks.

Vince Carter: Raptors.

Reggie Lewis: Celtics.

Petrovic: Nets.

IVERSON: Sixers.

ArTIS GILMORE: Bulls.

Kelly Tripucka: Pistons

Brad Daugherty, Nance, Price: Cavs.

Alvin Robertson: Bucks.

REGGIE MILLER: Pacers.

Manute Bol:p :Bullets.

....:Bobcats.

Penny Hardaway: Magic ( or was he in the roster at the end in 06?)

Steve Smith:Heat

DOMINIQUE WILKINS: Hawks.

and none of these players were avg numbers like 35, 10, 10, 2, 2, and 50%

SAVAGE CLAW
11-27-2008, 01:54 AM
^Yeah but i mean, that making awesome numbers, wich all of them did in some of the possible stats does not automatically mean success/titles.


I could make a list of Players that got rings BEING an important part of the team Wining those rings without noticiable stats, like the Coopers, Horrys, Kerrs and James Edwards of the world...

valade16
11-27-2008, 03:05 AM
It's funny to me that someone says if LeBron averages a triple double then he will have to be considered the best ever yet Oscar Robertson has already averaged a triple double (yes, AVERAGED a triple double) and is not considered the best ever.

Stats are good, but they don't tell who is better, otherwise there would be NO debate that Russell is the best C ever (with those rebound numbers)...

ee
11-27-2008, 03:11 AM
alot, unless you have 3 all stars in one team where the ball gets distributed to the teams advantage, but if you only have one like the cavs, stats matters coz without that one guy named Lebron putting up 30 8 7 every night, they won't be 12-3.......Stats don't matter if you have many players that can get it done, like right now, Kobe is is probably averaging one of his lowest, same with Gasol only averaging one of his lowest at 16ppg, it's all good because they're pretty deep.....stats matter to a one man show team....When they were on the own, their numbers now is not acceptable...

NJrockPD
11-27-2008, 03:25 AM
It depends on what your goals are. If your main intention is to get a huge contract then stats mean everything, if your trying to win a championship then stats mean less because its a team effort. If lebron had those numbers and no championship he would still get a max contract and be living very comfortablly, but he wouldnt go down as the best player of all time.

Lakersfan2483
11-27-2008, 04:00 AM
Let's say that Lebron (using him because he's a stat machine) at the PEAK of his prime racks up insane numbers... like...

35ppg, 10rpg, 10apg, 2spg, 2bpg and shoots 50% from the field...

But he never ever wins a championship despite having some decent help (think Cavs team right now)...

Where would he go down as?

He better win a title or two playing at that level.

theuuord
11-27-2008, 04:01 AM
stats are extremely important.
they are a reflection of performance on the court.
they are not made up from thin air, they are a record of what has happened.

anti-statheads are weird... i mean, obviously not everything can be deduced from looking at statistics, but it's not like more information is going to hurt your enjoyment of watching basketball.

Chronz
11-27-2008, 04:38 AM
It's funny to me that someone says if LeBron averages a triple double then he will have to be considered the best ever yet Oscar Robertson has already averaged a triple double (yes, AVERAGED a triple double) and is not considered the best ever.

Stats are good, but they don't tell who is better, otherwise there would be NO debate that Russell is the best C ever (with those rebound numbers)...

Big O averaged a triple double on bad teams in an era of plenty more missed shots and higher tempo. You have to account for these changes in the game or else your opinion on stats = poop

Russel is alot of things but statistical master is not one of them, again your not accounting for pace.



alot, unless you have 3 all stars in one team where the ball gets distributed to the teams advantage, but if you only have one like the cavs, stats matters coz without that one guy named Lebron putting up 30 8 7 every night, they won't be 12-3.......Stats don't matter if you have many players that can get it done, like right now, Kobe is is probably averaging one of his lowest, same with Gasol only averaging one of his lowest at 16ppg, it's all good because they're pretty deep.....stats matter to a one man show team....When they were on the own, their numbers now is not acceptable...
Umm arent the Cavs 11-3?
Besides people actually account for that change in role, problem is most people dont want to accept reality, its why Billups has been so underrated throughout his career. Billups stats have been incredible yet people think they are pedestrian.

Hellcrooner
11-27-2008, 04:51 AM
That stats generally are ones of a player playing with NO HELP.

Example, My Man Orlando Woolridge ( i was always a fan of his)

He was just a good, borderline allstar but later on his career he suddenly found himself as the leader of an horrible Denver team.

Stats line from that season 25.1 Points 6.8 rpg 2.2 apg.

Highest in his career, almost won the scoring title, did those stats mean a ****? No he didnt even make the allstar nor did the team qualify for the playoffs.

sp1derm00
11-27-2008, 05:10 AM
I think stats don't matter as much and are a product of the system teams run for their stars. If Lebron or Wade for a legit PG, like Calderon or someone, someone capable of setting up other players with good shots... they would not average the apg they do.

If a player averages 35/10/10/2/2 because everything is running through him, maybe it's not the most effective team there is. Maybe he has good shooters, and decent finishers around the basket, but they can't create their own shots or don't have good post moves.... so they rely on that player setting them up with a shot.

There would be no doubt that the player is a GREAT player.... but his stats are a product of the system he runs coupled with the players he is playing with.

I think the greatness of players come in the form of winning... doing whatever is needed to win a game, whenever it's needed. Not so much stats.

Chronz
11-27-2008, 05:16 AM
Its much more complex than that, being on a bad team can also hinder your rate of production due to all the defensive attention. There are different advantages to different system but thats what you analyze the numbers and dig deeper than any simple one sided universal way of thinking.

MrBloop
11-27-2008, 01:38 PM
My theory on stats is that 99% of all stats tell the whole story, its that one percent thats bullsh1t.

theuuord
11-27-2008, 01:57 PM
I think stats don't matter as much and are a product of the system teams run for their stars. If Lebron or Wade for a legit PG, like Calderon or someone, someone capable of setting up other players with good shots... they would not average the apg they do.

If a player averages 35/10/10/2/2 because everything is running through him, maybe it's not the most effective team there is. Maybe he has good shooters, and decent finishers around the basket, but they can't create their own shots or don't have good post moves.... so they rely on that player setting them up with a shot.

There would be no doubt that the player is a GREAT player.... but his stats are a product of the system he runs coupled with the players he is playing with.

I think the greatness of players come in the form of winning... doing whatever is needed to win a game, whenever it's needed. Not so much stats.

There are statistics to look at the efficiency of a player based on how many possessions he uses in a game, or at what rate per possession he gets rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals.
All of it can be adjusted for pace.

There are also offensive ratings that do a fantastic job judging how many points a player produces per 100 possessions. Defensive ratings are more crude but they get the job done as well.

JayW_1023
11-27-2008, 02:06 PM
I don't like stats...because there are so many things in basketball that key victory that you can't show in statistics. Setting a good screen, make timely defensive rotations, wether steals are a result of gambling or great anticipation, wether the amount of blocks compromises good position defense, wether assists is a result of drawing double teams or seeing the floor, wether easy rebounds count the same without box outs as opposed to tough in traffic boardwork. Even if player X averages more rebounds than player Y, if player Y has more offensive rebounds...it still indicates to me player Y is the better rebounder.

Stats are just overrated...people always measure teams with how many players average this and that as opposed to how players actually mesh. I often see how some people compare teams by matching up their players individually...negating things like which team has the best game plan and which players impact the game in more than one level.

theuuord
11-27-2008, 02:15 PM
I don't like stats...because there are so many things in basketball that key victory that you can't show in statistics. Setting a good screen, make timely defensive rotations, wether steals are a result of gambling or great anticipation, wether the amount of blocks compromises good position defense, wether assists is a result of drawing double teams or seeing the floor, wether easy rebounds count the same without box outs as opposed to tough in traffic boardwork. Even if player X averages more rebounds than player Y, if player Y has more offensive rebounds...it still indicates to me player Y is the better rebounder.


a lot of your problems are measured in statistics...
offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding are two different skills, that are measured effectively.

most of your issues are case-by-case basis stuff that evens out as the year and the careers go on as luck fades and skill shines through.

JayW_1023
11-27-2008, 02:25 PM
a lot of your problems are measured in statistics...
offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding are two different skills, that are measured effectively.

most of your issues are case-by-case basis stuff that evens out as the year and the careers go on as luck fades and skill shines through.

Probably...but for instance lockdown defense is something you can't measure with individual numbers. Players like Battierl, Bowen, Posey play great position defense, yet their defensive stats don't blow you away. If you looks at Howard or Camby their blocks are a result of piss poor defensive rotations...yet KG is one of the best bigs at getting into defensive position and force players into high percentage shots. That hard defensive labor doesn't get much stats because it's bothering shots instead of getting the block. Alot of people go out to say Howard is a great defensive payer because of his impressive stats, while KG is actually the better post defender if you looks at what is happening on the floor.

Court awareness is another thing...Baron Davis may average 8 assists, but his court awareness is atrocious because he often chooses for his own offense over passing the ball to open teammmates. Meanwhile a player like Kobe averages about 3 assists, because being a willing passes isn't measured in assists. How do you measure court awareness and basketball IQ in statistics. Athletic ability and talent is one thing, but knowing the game of basketball is just as important if not more.


Basketball players aren't the robots stats sometimes make them out to be.

theuuord
11-27-2008, 02:37 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone in the NBA knows the game of basketball. You're right about one thing: Individual defense is very poorly measured in statistics, and will likely never be measured accurately. This is just due to the nature of statistics; they are excellent at measuring offensive output because the offense controls that which you score with, while defense is a lot more based on the team scheme.
It's the same in most every sport.

It all depends on what you're trying to measure. Statistics are a reflection of past performance, and that is all they are. They also can be a predictor of future performance, but obviously they don't say everything about a player. However, since none of us on this site are top-level NBA scouts, we don't have the luxury of studying every single player's efficiency game in and game out. So we do have to rely on statistical output to an extent when judging players. Even scouts do, too.

If I didn't see the Nets game last night but saw Carter had 25 points, I'd think well, Carter had a great game. The "box score" stats would reflect this. The deeper look into the statistics (the play-by-play, etc.) would show Harris hitting two huge shots at the end of both regulation and overtime to give us the win.

Without even seeing the game, I can tell that both Harris and Carter were instrumental to the victory. Lopez too. Your argument suffers from the question of merit and worth: Yes, a good screen is important, but so many players can set good screens that would you sign a player simply based on watching him rotate on offense?



The quote in your signature is right - they don't tell the whole story. But they do tell a lot of it that we forget about. The thing about basketball games is that watching it for two hours can be a grind, and we tend to subconsciously pick out three or four plays that we remember. I call this "the Kobe effect." Kobe can shoot 5 for 21 on a night and all I'd remember is how pretty those five made shots looked. But, in reality, missing sixteen shots is a huge hindrance to your team.
We have to rely on statistics to some degree because they, unlike humans, do not have bias. They don't have a tricky memory or shade towards a player they like better. They are raw numbers, that only reflect what has happened.

Long post, but all worthwhile.

JayW_1023
11-27-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone in the NBA knows the game of basketball. You're right about one thing: Individual defense is very poorly measured in statistics, and will likely never be measured accurately. This is just due to the nature of statistics; they are excellent at measuring offensive output because the offense controls that which you score with, while defense is a lot more based on the team scheme.
It's the same in most every sport.

It all depends on what you're trying to measure. Statistics are a reflection of past performance, and that is all they are. They also can be a predictor of future performance, but obviously they don't say everything about a player. However, since none of us on this site are top-level NBA scouts, we don't have the luxury of studying every single player's efficiency game in and game out. So we do have to rely on statistical output to an extent when judging players. Even scouts do, too.

If I didn't see the Nets game last night but saw Carter had 25 points, I'd think well, Carter had a great game. The "box score" stats would reflect this. The deeper look into the statistics (the play-by-play, etc.) would show Harris hitting two huge shots at the end of both regulation and overtime to give us the win.

Without even seeing the game, I can tell that both Harris and Carter were instrumental to the victory. Lopez too. Your argument suffers from the question of merit and worth: Yes, a good screen is important, but so many players can set good screens that would you sign a player simply based on watching him rotate on offense?



The quote in your signature is right - they don't tell the whole story. But they do tell a lot of it that we forget about. The thing about basketball games is that watching it for two hours can be a grind, and we tend to subconsciously pick out three or four plays that we remember. I call this "the Kobe effect." Kobe can shoot 5 for 21 on a night and all I'd remember is how pretty those five made shots looked. But, in reality, missing sixteen shots is a huge hindrance to your team.
We have to rely on statistics to some degree because they, unlike humans, do not have bias. They don't have a tricky memory or shade towards a player they like better. They are raw numbers, that only reflect what has happened.

Long post, but all worthwhile.


Definately, this post was great read. You're right...but indeed, my beef is really about people not looking past statistics enough. I know stats have their function...my argument was really based on how people measure an individual players stats and turn a blind eye on what makes the stats possible.

I just DESPISE these kind of comparisons for example, where teams are measured by individual matchups:

Rose=Kidd
Hinrich>Terry
Deng=Howard
Thomas<Nowitzki
Gooden>Dampier

'see Chicago iz better lolz'

:rolleyes:

theuuord
11-27-2008, 02:59 PM
Definately, this post was great read. You're right...but indeed, my beef is really about people not looking past statistics enough. I know stats have their function...my argument was really based on how people measure an individual players stats and turn a blind eye on what makes the stats possible.

I just DESPISE these kind of comparisons for example, where teams are measured by individual matchups:

Rose=Kidd
Hinrich>Terry
Deng=Howard
Thomas<Nowitzki
Gooden>Dampier

'see Chicago iz better lolz'

:rolleyes:

Well system definitely matters. Especially with coaches like D'Antoni, where you can see the difference in the statistics, and Jackson, whose triangle offense helped Jordan become the greatest player of all time. But the players still have to perform within the systems, and that's what is shown in the stats.
Also when it comes to run-n-gun D'Antoni versus the more plodding teams like San Antonio, that's where you adjust for possessions. A team with a slower pace may look like a worse offensive and better defensive team solely because they play fewer possessions per 48 minutes. Adjusted for pace, a lot of these inaccuracies really correct themselves.

Individual offensive stats are usually pretty good measures of players, but there is no doubt that having a great offensive system (or player) can heighten everyone's offensive stats... Kidd is a prime example of this. However, stats like Offensive Rating (in conjunction with usage rate), and different rate statistics, are excellent ways of rating a player's individual efficiency.

Chronz
11-27-2008, 11:22 PM
Probably...but for instance lockdown defense is something you can't measure with individual numbers. Players like Battierl, Bowen, Posey play great position defense, yet their defensive stats don't blow you away. If you looks at Howard or Camby their blocks are a result of piss poor defensive rotations...yet KG is one of the best bigs at getting into defensive position and force players into high percentage shots. That hard defensive labor doesn't get much stats because it's bothering shots instead of getting the block. Alot of people go out to say Howard is a great defensive payer because of his impressive stats, while KG is actually the better post defender if you looks at what is happening on the floor.

Court awareness is another thing...Baron Davis may average 8 assists, but his court awareness is atrocious because he often chooses for his own offense over passing the ball to open teammmates. Meanwhile a player like Kobe averages about 3 assists, because being a willing passes isn't measured in assists. How do you measure court awareness and basketball IQ in statistics. Athletic ability and talent is one thing, but knowing the game of basketball is just as important if not more.


Basketball players aren't the robots stats sometimes make them out to be.

Have you ever seen a detailed listing of a players individual defensive numbers, or do you categorize an entire collection of defensive data as simply steals and blocks? How exactly are you defining defensive stats, because for the most part the players you mentioned have outstanding defensive stats. KG is a great team defender but I wouldnt call him an elite post defender though I understand your point, defense will never be accurately measured through stats (though it has improved alot through the years) but I dont consider defense a stat really. Its a separate part of a players game, and I know it seems like Ive told you this rant for years but there is just no way stats can be overrated, they are what they are, peoples opinions on what they mean and what they reveal can be overrated, but the stats themselves are only meant to measure what we want to quantify. Its not the numbers fault that JoeNobody thinks he can pull the _>_ argument.

Your also right about assists, they are easily the most subjective but you cant fault a player for being a teams primary playmaker, you only judge a player by what his team asks of him and how he handles his role. Its not like having to constantly break down a defense to create for your teammates is any easier than moving the ball around. The system and players around him, dictates the players stats. But what never changes is how a players rate of production affects the teams output. You measure the team stats then the players, always. When you break down a players possession efficiency, the reasons for a teams success become clear. Stats may not be 100% accurate but they are very useful.