PDA

View Full Version : Are "old school" statistics useless now?



lakers4sho
09-26-2010, 08:55 PM
With the advent of new, in-depth, and more advanced statistics (such as PER, DRTG, ORTG, eFG%, etc.), are the old "per game" metrics (PPG, RPG, BPG, FG%, etc.) now obsolete?

Do you still use them (the old stats) in evaluating a player, especially in comparison with others?

ChiSox219
09-26-2010, 09:00 PM
With the advent of new, in-depth, and more advanced statistics (such as PER, DRTG, ORTG, eFG%, etc.), are the old "per game" metrics (PPG, RPG, BPG, FG%, etc.) now obsolete?

Do you still use them (the old stats) in evaluating a player, especially in comparison with others?

I still use them but usually on a pace and minute adjusted level (http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.php?year=2009/10&league=NBA&per=per40pace&qual=qual&sort2=DESC&pos=all&stage=&min=All&conference=&sort=6).

Baller1
09-26-2010, 09:02 PM
To be honest, I see no use for them now. Ever since I was introduced to these new analytical stats, I have no interest in using old school stats. Of course I'll always check them out and follow them as they'll always be around; but I'll never use them to compare players or anything of that sort.

lakers4sho
09-26-2010, 09:05 PM
I still use them but usually on a pace and minute adjusted level (http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.php?year=2009/10&league=NBA&per=per40pace&qual=qual&sort2=DESC&pos=all&stage=&min=All&conference=&sort=6).

So would it be safe to conclude that ones not adjusted for pace/minute/possession are pretty much useless now?

ChiSox219
09-26-2010, 09:49 PM
With the advent of new, in-depth, and more advanced statistics (such as PER, DRTG, ORTG, eFG%, etc.), are the old "per game" metrics (PPG, RPG, BPG, FG%, etc.) now obsolete?

Do you still use them (the old stats) in evaluating a player, especially in comparison with others?


So would it be safe to conclude that ones not adjusted for pace/minute/possession are pretty much useless now?

I wouldn't say that.

If you look at the link, I don't think Ryan Andersen could play 40 minutes a night and average 21 PPG.

lakers4sho
09-26-2010, 09:59 PM
hey, you never know :laugh2:

Hawkeye15
09-26-2010, 11:37 PM
per game reflects a player's ability to play a lot of minutes, and stay healthy, but I rarely care about their per game stats.

abe_froman
09-27-2010, 12:53 AM
I wouldn't say that.

If you look at the link, I don't think Ryan Andersen could play 40 minutes a night and average 21 PPG.

this

but i rarely look at per game stats anymore,or at least dont keep them in my memory

Patman
09-27-2010, 05:47 AM
I don't look at per game numbers that much because per possesion numbers etc. are more interesting. You can ***** if sombody plays high minutes and carries a huge load by looking at mpg and usg%.

KnicksorBust
09-27-2010, 11:22 AM
With the advent of new, in-depth, and more advanced statistics (such as PER, DRTG, ORTG, eFG%, etc.), are the old "per game" metrics (PPG, RPG, BPG, FG%, etc.) now obsolete?

Do you still use them (the old stats) in evaluating a player, especially in comparison with others?

As a math teacher I love the advanced stats but the old stats are all relevant as long as you put them in perspective. The adjusted statistics are usually extremely similar anyway. Plus in my everyday life, if I'm lucky enough to find a coworker who follows basketball or get a couple of buddies to go to a Knicks game, I'm much more likely to discuss players and standings using simple statistics.

I mean I had a coworker who thought Shaq was still on the Heat. What are my chances of this guy staying with me while talking about true shooting percentage?

Patman
09-27-2010, 11:54 AM
Hm i don't use them that much any more mpg, and usage rate tell's me if a player does it while taking a huge load or while only contributing a small percentage. But yeah for discussion with casual fans per game stats are still the way to go, also i see them on TV and on the normal news pages so i still see them and have a look at them.
But since where i live there are nearly no people that follow Basketball even remotely i don't need to use per game stats because i can't discuss it anyways.

Basketash
09-27-2010, 01:31 PM
As a math teacher I love the advanced stats but the old stats are all relevant as long as you put them in perspective. The adjusted statistics are usually extremely similar anyway. Plus in my everyday life, if I'm lucky enough to find a coworker who follows basketball or get a couple of buddies to go to a Knicks game, I'm much more likely to discuss players and standings using simple statistics.

I mean I had a coworker who thought Shaq was still on the Heat. What are my chances of this guy staying with me while talking about true shooting percentage?

This. More widely known statistics are the "old school" statistics and can be useful when looking at them in perspective, maybe when the boxscore has only the advanced stats then you could probably say they are obsolete until then i say no.

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 01:20 PM
As a math teacher I love the advanced stats but the old stats are all relevant as long as you put them in perspective. The adjusted statistics are usually extremely similar anyway. Plus in my everyday life, if I'm lucky enough to find a coworker who follows basketball or get a couple of buddies to go to a Knicks game, I'm much more likely to discuss players and standings using simple statistics.

I mean I had a coworker who thought Shaq was still on the Heat. What are my chances of this guy staying with me while talking about true shooting percentage?

this is exactly why I came to PSD

bholly
09-29-2010, 07:43 PM
this is exactly why I came to PSD

Try living in New Zealand and being a basketball fan.

daleja424
09-29-2010, 08:23 PM
I like per game stats to quickly look at output for guys who play similar roles for teams.

Baller1
09-29-2010, 09:05 PM
As a math teacher I love the advanced stats but the old stats are all relevant as long as you put them in perspective. The adjusted statistics are usually extremely similar anyway. Plus in my everyday life, if I'm lucky enough to find a coworker who follows basketball or get a couple of buddies to go to a Knicks game, I'm much more likely to discuss players and standings using simple statistics.

I mean I had a coworker who thought Shaq was still on the Heat. What are my chances of this guy staying with me while talking about true shooting percentage?

Damn, that's bad.

DenButsu
09-29-2010, 09:12 PM
I like per game stats to quickly look at output for guys who play similar roles for teams.

They're not so useless that they tell us nothing about what's happening on the court. They can serve a purpose as long as we understand their limitations.

But here's a pretty good example of their limitations, using two players who play similar roles for their teams in similar minutes.

If you look at these two players' per game stats, I think you'd probably agree that they look pretty similar, right?


PER GAME:
MP FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS FG% 3P% FT%
Player A 38.8 9.8 21.5 1.4 4.1 6.0 7.4 1.1 4.3 5.4 5.0 1.5 0.3 3.2 2.6 27.0 .456 .329 .811
Player B 41.4 9.9 22.0 1.2 3.6 4.6 6.1 0.7 3.3 4.0 5.3 2.2 0.4 3.8 3.0 25.5 .449 .338 .753


Comparing their efficiency stats, though, we see a more divergent picture emerge:


PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS
Player A 21.9 .545 .488 3.1 12.2 7.7 23.8 2.1 0.5 11.4 32.3 109 104 5.4 4.0 9.4
Player B 16.7 .517 .476 1.9 9.0 5.4 21.2 2.6 0.7 13.4 29.4 99 112 0.0 1.3 1.3




I think most of us might agree that those per game stats deceptively make Monta (player B) look more like Kobe (player A), while the efficiency stats make, well, Kobe look more like Kobe.

Raoul Duke
09-29-2010, 10:46 PM
They're still useful. The old school stuff is like checking something out with a scanning lens, whereas the advanced stuff is more like an oil immersion. Most of the stat buffs I see here on PSD are still using the per game stuff initially, even if it's just a cursory glance that gives them an idea of what areas they want to delve deeper into.

Also, yeah... I can't discuss TS% or AST% with my co-workers. I'd probably get punched if I brought that much math to the water-cooler.

Hawkeye15
09-30-2010, 01:55 PM
I like per game stats to quickly look at output for guys who play similar roles for teams.

agreed. By no means do I not look through the boxscores. But I can also check quickly how many attempts it took to get the points, free throws, offensive rebounds for big men (which create possessions), etc.

Patman
09-30-2010, 04:03 PM
agreed. By no means do I not look through the boxscores. But I can also check quickly how many attempts it took to get the points, free throws, offensive rebounds for big men (which create possessions), etc.

Yeah thats probably the way to go, you can look at Box scores and put them in perspective if you look at FGA, FTA and so on.

DenButsu
01-05-2011, 09:42 PM
Nets-Bulls announcer just did Chicago a disservice by using per game statistics. He said:

"The Chicago Bulls come into this game allowing just 93.9 points per game, that's good for 7th in the NBA."

In fact, the Bulls are 2nd in the league in defensive efficiency, at 96.8.

(Boston is first at 96.6, and Miami 3rd at 97.8).

Is it really too much to ask that announcers start using some of the more basic efficiency stats? It's really not that complicated. People would learn and get used to it quickly.

Chronz
01-07-2011, 04:56 AM
Yes they are useless, the sooner we all come to this consensus the more intelligent and interesting basketball will become. Ironically its this lack of appreciation for APBR thats killing the games history.

The league wants to make historical players out to be mythical beings (example how they continuously are in awe of Big O's triple double season, Wilts 50PT Season) when in reality its only leading to people discrediting the earlier eras (such as Wilt played with white midgets), when what they should be doing is making the eras more comparable.

Baller1
01-07-2011, 06:56 PM
I really wish the media would integrate advanced statistics into the general basis of the NBA. As Den said, it really isn't that complicated.