PDA

View Full Version : better way to judge players: advanced stats or an ex-player/expert opinion?



el hidalgo
10-25-2012, 02:35 PM
What do you value more?

dh144498
10-25-2012, 02:39 PM
a mix of both. But the best way to judge a player is to simply watch the games. No numbers on papers can truly evaluate what that player did for that particular game.

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 02:39 PM
neither by itself, but I have come to not respect ex-players opinions in over half the cases.

Corey
10-25-2012, 02:40 PM
Depends. Considering the crap Shaq has said lately, ill go with stats as well as my personal opinion from watching games and clips.

Most former players have a strong degree of bias because of their experiences in the league.

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 02:42 PM
Depends. Considering the crap Shaq has said lately, ill go with stats as well as my personal opinion from watching games and clips.

Most former players have a strong degree of bias because of their experiences in the league.

yep

LongIslandIcedZ
10-25-2012, 02:42 PM
Players are more bias than numbers.

ewing
10-25-2012, 02:45 PM
Stats. For example i plan on drafting a fantasy team tonight based these preseason fantasy ratings i found on NBA.com.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Fantasy.jsp?league=00&season=12012&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=0&splitScope=COMBINED&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=0&sortOrder=9&statType=FSPI

DerekRE_3
10-25-2012, 02:46 PM
Whatever Skip Bayless thinks of them.

Supreme LA
10-25-2012, 02:49 PM
Watch the games and form your own opinion.

maddBat
10-25-2012, 02:56 PM
neither. polls on psd. LOL

bagwell368
10-25-2012, 02:56 PM
Whatever Skip Bayless thinks of them.

(Skip's opinion) apply rotation of 180 degrees == correct answer

There are some writers and a few analysts that know which end is up, but most TV, ESPN, radio, players, and x-players are non analytical biased clowns.

bagwell368
10-25-2012, 02:57 PM
Watch the games and form your own opinion.

With the TV volume at 0, or better yet listen to the other teams broadcasting crew.

tredigs
10-25-2012, 03:39 PM
Stats can't convey locker room/practice intangibles and gauge the massive amount of value (positive or negative) that particular players can have on a franchise. Scalbrine was talking the other day on how KG could not play a single game in a season but still make a team 12-15 games better based on how differently/effectively the entire organization is run when he's there. Anybody who's played worked with transcendent talent/workers in their day knows what he's talking about.

Love me some advanced stats though.

seikou8
10-25-2012, 03:44 PM
Depends. Considering the crap Shaq has said lately, ill go with stats as well as my personal opinion from watching games and clips.

Most former players have a strong degree of bias because of their experiences in the league.

this

JordansBulls
10-25-2012, 04:38 PM
How many series lost with HCA is another one, but of the two of the options advanced stats.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-25-2012, 04:39 PM
both.

ManRam
10-25-2012, 04:43 PM
How many series lost with HCA is another one.

Yes, because that's totally an individual stat, which therefore means it's a totally great way to judge individual players.



I only form my opinions based on what great players like Shaquille O'Neal, Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, and Dennis Rodman say. Who knows the game better than them?

The rest of my opinions are formed by Skip Bayless, Chris Palmer and Mike Wilbon...a triad of intelligence.

Spurred1
10-25-2012, 05:12 PM
Stats, because former players either are biased because of their experiences in the league(they may loathe certain players and just can't give them credit or praise, or some simply will say nonsense just for attention, even when they and everyone knows it is crap.
Ratings are more important than accuracy or logic much of the time from what I've seen.

Ebbs
10-25-2012, 05:56 PM
It depends. Magic Johnson saying something like Kobe is the best player in the game it's tough to trust the source.

However if there isn't an element of personal bias in the room most* players have a better idea of how the game works and what players are capable of than we do. It's a no brained they've played longer, spent more time watching film, and they were on the inside.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 06:54 PM
Players are more bias than numbers.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain

amos1er
10-25-2012, 06:55 PM
Another anti-Kobe thread from none other than El-Hidalgo. We all know who this was directed at and is clearly baiting. Next time try to be a little less obvious with your ******** bro.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 06:56 PM
both.

Agreed!

There should be an option in his poll for both. But of course he didn't add it because he is trying to start ****.

abe_froman
10-25-2012, 07:02 PM
stats,people's personal opinions,whoever they are can be corrupted,menories are usually very inaccurate and are colored by emotions ,ect. by thing other than what actually happened.this why eye witness testimony isnt given the same weight as forensics

Baller1
10-25-2012, 07:06 PM
The answer is obviously both, but I'll take advanced statistics.

abe_froman
10-25-2012, 07:11 PM
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain
"your eyes can deceive you.dont trust them"
-obi wan kenobi

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-25-2012, 07:15 PM
Advanced stats are just stats and they are deceiving most of the times

Players opinions is what I care about! They tell it like it is!

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-25-2012, 07:17 PM
Another anti-Kobe thread from none other than El-Hidalgo. We all know who this was directed at and is clearly baiting. Next time try to be a little less obvious with your ******** bro.

Agree

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 07:18 PM
I find it ironic that its usually Kobe, Iverson, Melo, and any other players fans whose stats don't show them belonging with some other players, or as good as their fan base thinks they are/were, are the ones so against stats.

Should tell you something..

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 07:20 PM
Advanced stats. And only Laker fans have voted for the second option so far. Odd.

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 07:21 PM
"your eyes can deceive you.dont trust them"
-obi wan kenobi

:laugh2:

amos1er
10-25-2012, 07:32 PM
"your eyes can deceive you.dont trust them"
-obi wan kenobi

Exactly. We can argue stats vs. expert opinions till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our own personal opinions. Until stats and expert opinions are both flawed arguments...until someone is able to come up with a means of absolute proof through a new method, or even a mix of both stats and expert analysis, everyone should be entitled to their own opinions and shouldn't be so butt hurt when people don't happen to agree with them.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 07:33 PM
stats,people's personal opinions,whoever they are can be corrupted,menories are usually very inaccurate and are colored by emotions ,ect. by thing other than what actually happened.this why eye witness testimony isnt given the same weight as forensics

Too bad they don't have forensic evidence for basketball.

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 07:35 PM
Exactly. We can argue stats vs. expert opinions till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our own personal opinions. Until stats and expert opinions are both flawed arguments...until someone is able to come up with a means of absolute proof through a new method, or even a mix of both stats and expert analysis, everyone should be entitled to their own opinions and shouldn't be so butt hurt when people don't happen to agree with them.

there will never be a perfect method. I will say, there are a few ex-players that I take what they say to the bank, but so many of them have a complete bias, and with a huge portion of them being terrible GM's, I really don't think they are credible. Short fat bald dudes actually understand the game better I think. They spend hours researching it, studying it, and looking at it analytically, not forming biased opinions while playing it.

That being said, there is no perfect way. Its a mix of a lot of things, and even then, its only an opinion..

Vinylman
10-25-2012, 07:37 PM
Thread is stupid because the question provides no context...

better way to judge players at what?

potential? rank among elite? what?

the irony is that the OP can't even construct a scientific poll yet relies heavily on AS for his opinions...

amos1er
10-25-2012, 07:37 PM
Honestly, the title of this thread should really be "Who is your favorite player? Kobe or Lebron". Obviously all the Lebron fans are going to say stats and the Kobe fans are gonna say expert opinions.

Just wanted to call it out to everyone who still can' see what Hidalgo is trying to do here.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 07:41 PM
there will never be a perfect method. I will say, there are a few ex-players that I take what they say to the bank, but so many of them have a complete bias, and with a huge portion of them being terrible GM's, I really don't think they are credible. Short fat bald dudes actually understand the game better I think. They spend hours researching it, studying it, and looking at it analytically, not forming biased opinions while playing it.

That being said, there is no perfect way. Its a mix of a lot of things, and even then, its only an opinion..

Same goes with stats. There are few that I will take to the bank, as the majority of them have significant flaws.

abe_froman
10-25-2012, 07:41 PM
I find it ironic that its usually Kobe, Iverson, Melo, and any other players fans whose stats don't show them belonging with some other players, or as good as their fan base thinks they are/were, are the ones so against stats.

Should tell you something..

so true,people have bias towards/against certain players and only want it to be parroted,anything that doesnt do that is obviously lying.its depressing,but so typical of people

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Honestly, the title of this thread should really be "Who is your favorite player? Kobe or Lebron". Obviously all the Lebron fans are going to say stats and the Kobe fans are gonna say expert opinions.

Just wanted to call it out to everyone who still can' see what Hidalgo is trying to do here.

Even if the OP has a personal bias against Kobe that doesn't make it any less of a legitimate question. Also there is a fundamental flaw in your argument due to the fact that advance stats smile on Kobe quite well, just not as much as LeBron.

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 07:44 PM
Same goes with stats. There are few that I will take to the bank, as the majority of them have significant flaws.

Which ones in particular?

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 07:47 PM
Same goes with stats. There are few that I will take to the bank, as the majority of them have significant flaws.

individually, you can pick many stats apart. But when an overwhelming number of advanced stats say player A is better, they become extremely accurate.

Like I said though, Kobe/AI/Melo fans, and fans of players who just don't agree with their hearts in what the numbers say, hate stats.

I will take stats anyday over someones opinion. Are stats perfect? No. But at least they don't have bias.

abe_froman
10-25-2012, 07:47 PM
Exactly. We can argue stats vs. expert opinions till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our own personal opinions. Until stats and expert opinions are both flawed arguments...until someone is able to come up with a means of absolute proof through a new method, or even a mix of both stats and expert analysis, everyone should be entitled to their own opinions and shouldn't be so butt hurt when people don't happen to agree with them.
perfect no? but better than the alternate.its an objective measurements ,totally with out the bias that people hold.i like player a,but he's inefficient,so i can either admit it as a fault or attack the measurable as stupid/wrong/conspiracy out to attack my fav player.people are so filled with this,people on here make such an argument all the time

i'd rather take something void of such emotional reactions than rely on something filled with it

Too bad they don't have forensic evidence for basketball.
it is,but the science of statistics is the closest we have to it

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 07:48 PM
so true,people have bias towards/against certain players and only want it to be parroted,anything that doesnt do that is obviously lying.its depressing,but so typical of people

basically, its "wait, but my favorite player is so awesome, these stats say he may not be quite as good as my short term human memory suggest. Noooo, stats suck!"

Vinylman
10-25-2012, 07:56 PM
individually, you can pick many stats apart. But when an overwhelming number of advanced stats say player A is better, they become extremely accurate.

Like I said though, Kobe/AI/Melo fans, and fans of players who just don't agree with their hearts in what the numbers say, hate stats.

I will take stats anyday over someones opinion. Are stats perfect? No. But at least they don't have bias

better than another player?

Seriously, i am asking in what context you use them for?

How you would assemble a team? Rate potential? comparing elites? what exactly do you value AS for most?

Personally, i think advance stats are one of many tools but a rather small piece of the puzzle when trying to assemble a championship team...

ultimately that is why the game is played... to win chips... right?

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 07:59 PM
better than another player?

Seriously, i am asking in what context you use them for?

How you would assemble a team? Rate potential? comparing elites? what exactly do you value AS for most?

Personally, i think advance stats are one of many tools but a rather small piece of the puzzle when trying to assemble a championship team...

ultimately that is why the game is played... to win chips... right?

You are expanding the question now. I am answering it as it was asked by the OP. No, moneyball isn't the right way to operate for a championship, but stats tell me a lot more than some biased ex-player.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 08:01 PM
it is,but the science of statistics is the closest we have to it

Statistics are a very distant comparison to forensic science. Forensic Science, when used as evidence can have up to a proven 98% accuracy level where as it's impossible to measure accuracy in basketball statistics. Likewise, they are significantly more flawed than Forensic Science.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 08:06 PM
basically, its "wait, but my favorite player is so awesome, these stats say he may not be quite as good as my short term human memory suggest. Noooo, stats suck!"

One can argue the exact opposite by saying..."wait, but my favorite player is so awesome, these damn experts say he may not be quite as good as these Hollinger stats say he is. Noooo, expert opinions are worthless!"

abe_froman
10-25-2012, 08:06 PM
Statistics are a very distant comparison to forensic science. Forensic Science, when used as evidence can have up to a proven 98% accuracy level where as it's impossible to measure accuracy in basketball statistics. Likewise, they are significantly more flawed than Forensic Science.

and statistics are based on mathematics,mathematics have an even greater accuracy rate.why is it impossible? than why are they kept and relayed upon ,why do coach and gm's use them when evaluating players and putting together teams?

because you say so?

amos1er
10-25-2012, 08:11 PM
individually, you can pick many stats apart. But when an overwhelming number of advanced stats say player A is better, they become extremely accurate.

Like I said though, Kobe/AI/Melo fans, and fans of players who just don't agree with their hearts in what the numbers say, hate stats.

I will take stats anyday over someones opinion. Are stats perfect? No. But at least they don't have bias.

Lumping Kobe in with AI and Melo is not an accurate comparison.

Vinylman
10-25-2012, 08:14 PM
You are expanding the question now. I am answering it as it was asked by the OP. No, moneyball isn't the right way to operate for a championship, but stats tell me a lot more than some biased ex-player.

really? you are answering the original question?

the question doesn't even make sense

judging them in terms of what?

That is what i am asking you... are you saying it is on judging who is the better player.

If so, then it is clear that all advance stats prove is who is the better statistical player at a point in time within the context of his team and his relative competition versus other players

amos1er
10-25-2012, 08:17 PM
and statistics are based on mathematics,mathematics have an even greater accuracy rate.why is it impossible? than why are they kept and relayed upon ,why do coach and gm's use them when evaluating players and putting together teams?

because you say so?

Coaches and GM's also use the opinions of experts to put their teams together as well. There is no way for us to actually compare which of these coaches and GM's rely on more, so the point your are making is moot.

I only said that it's impossible to measure their accuracy in the same way as forensic evidence. There are many forensic experts who can prove to a jury that the evidence they gathered is 98% or more accurate. In basketball, there are no experts who have even been able to prove that any statistic or metric is even close to 98% accurate in measuring a players greatness. There are just too many flaws and arguments that can be made against most of them.

Can you find me any sort of proof where anyone was able to measure the accuracy level for a specific stat?

amos1er
10-25-2012, 08:20 PM
really? you are answering the original question?

the question doesn't even make sense

judging them in terms of what?

That is what i am asking you... are you saying it is on judging who is the better player.

If so, then it is clear that all advance stats prove is who is the better statistical player at a point in time within the context of his team and his relative competition versus other players

Exactly, if we go by PER, than Wilt was the GOAT without a doubt.

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 08:33 PM
Coaches and GM's also use the opinions of experts to put their teams together as well. There is no way for us to actually compare which of these coaches and GM's rely on more, so the point your are making is moot.

I only said that it's impossible to measure their accuracy in the same way as forensic evidence. There are many forensic experts who can prove to a jury that the evidence they gathered is 98% or more accurate. In basketball, there are no experts who have even been able to prove that any statistic or metric is even close to 98% accurate in measuring a players greatness. There are just too many flaws and arguments that can be made against most of them.

Can you find me any sort of proof where anyone was able to measure the accuracy level for a specific stat?

What are you measuring?


Exactly, if we go by PER, than Wilt was the GOAT without a doubt.

1) Nobody should use one stat to prove to argue over who is better.
2) Wilt is 5th all time in career PER
3) His PER is an estimate anyways.

mdm692
10-25-2012, 08:38 PM
It depends who the "ex-player" is. For example Bruce Bowen is garbage he just uses any time he has to dick ride the Spurs. At on point prior to the beginning of last season he had Duncan ranked in the top 5 of all NBA players.

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 08:38 PM
Lumping Kobe in with AI and Melo is not an accurate comparison.

To clear up the comparison.

Kobe doesn't belongs statistically with (LeBron, MJ, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, etc)
Melo doesn't belong with (Kobe, Cp3, Bron, Wade, Dirk, Durant, etc)
Iverson doesn't belong with (Tmac, Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, etc).

Common theme most fans of those players argue that they do and they crap on advanced stats because it doesn't shed a favorable light on the player in question.

Andrew32
10-25-2012, 08:44 PM
Exactly, if we go by PER, than Wilt was the GOAT without a doubt.

No he isn't.


#1.
Jordan : Post Season - PER

Peak : 32
Top 5 : 30.16
Top 7 : 29.61
Top 10 : 28.89
Top 13 : 28.6

------------------------------------------------------------

#2.
Shaq : Post Season - PER

Peak : 31
Top 5 : 30
Top 7 : 29.56
Top 10 : 28.52
Top 13 : 26.55
14th to 16th Season (Final 3 Seasons) - 18.33

------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem : Post Season - PER

Peak : 32.4
Top 5 : 27.4
Top 7 : 25.64
Top 10 : 25.42
Top 13 : 24.7

------------------------------------------------------------

Wilt Chamberlain : Post Season - PER

Peak : 31.3
Top 5 : 28.36
Top 7 : 27.59
Top 10 : 25.46
Top 13 : 22.8

------------------------------------------------------------

Magic Johnson : Post Season - PER

Peak : 26.2
Top 5 : 24.62
Top 7 : 24.03

------------------------------------------------------------

#15.
Kobe : Post Season - PER

Peak : 26.8
Top 5 : 24
Top 7 : 23
Top 10 : 22.98
Top 13 : 21.62

------------------------------------------------------------

Korman12
10-25-2012, 08:47 PM
Stats. Styles of the game change over time.

I'm not saying I totally dismiss player opinion. I don't at all. But one is empirical, one is not.

Vinylman
10-25-2012, 08:49 PM
No he isn't.


so only postseason PER should matter?

Not arguing for Wilt at all... i just find it hilarious that you assume he is talking about postseason PER or that you would only use postseason PER to refute his point

Andrew32
10-25-2012, 08:51 PM
so only postseason PER should matter?

Not arguing for Wilt at all... i just find it hilarious.

Glad you find it hilarious and yes playoffs are more important then the regular season.

Vinylman
10-25-2012, 09:08 PM
Glad you find it hilarious and yes playoffs are more important then the regular season.

interesting... but again, you missed his point...

he was merely pointing out that using a single statistic to measure a players greatness ranking is patently absurd...

You constantly post the postseason PER as some important metric... is that your barometer for all time greatness ranking?

sjoerdje
10-25-2012, 09:18 PM
Go and have a look at wins produced (WP and WP/48) at wagesofwins.com they try to explain, purely mathematical, how wins are produced.
It can explain about 95% of a players value, at least they say to. And the stat correlates 100% with win margins.

Kobe/Iverson/Melo/JJ fans be causious!

sjoerdje
10-25-2012, 09:21 PM
nothing

KnicksorBust
10-25-2012, 09:21 PM
I hate this misconception that it's one or the other. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of posters on this site that have been accused of being stat obsessed... watch more of the games and can provide more than enough detailed subjective opinions of their own!

Andrew32
10-25-2012, 09:32 PM
You constantly post the postseason PER as some important metric... is that your barometer for all time greatness ranking?

No but it is something I take strongly into account especially when a player fits a certain mold.

JasonJohnHorn
10-25-2012, 11:05 PM
I respect the opinions of certain players, but I find even the ones I respect most I still disagree with one some players. Like Charles Barkley, I think he was right when he would go on about how Orlando should start Gortat alongside Howard, and I think Gortat play in Phoenix has justified that, but at the same time Orlando had an offence that was built around jump shooting and Howard and Gortat's post game were quite where they needed to be at that point. Shaq, just doesn't seem to get it. Larry Bird, I listen to him. Magic, I generally a little too nice when it comes to evaluating players, but I listen to him to. Reggie Miller is usually on the ball. It's hit and miss. John Salley is a guy whose opinion I respect a lot, and he's had some pretty wierd evaluations of players, but he also has an interesting perspective even though i don't agree with him.

Advance stats... they don't always speak to certain intangibles, but at the same time, they are quantifiable.

b@llhog24
10-25-2012, 11:29 PM
so only postseason PER should matter?

Not arguing for Wilt at all... i just find it hilarious that you assume he is talking about postseason PER or that you would only use postseason PER to refute his point


Glad you find it hilarious and yes playoffs are more important then the regular season.

Doesn't matter what you think is more important. It's an assumption that he was talking about the playoffs like Vinylman said. Not that anything you posted was wrong but normally in instances like this people tend to refer to regular season production.


I hate this misconception that it's one or the other. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of posters on this site that have been accused of being stat obsessed... watch more of the games and can provide more than enough detailed subjective opinions of their own!

+1

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 11:31 PM
One can argue the exact opposite by saying..."wait, but my favorite player is so awesome, these damn experts say he may not be quite as good as these Hollinger stats say he is. Noooo, expert opinions are worthless!"

no, that is not the exact opposite. At all. That is basically exactly what I said dude.

Hawkeye15
10-25-2012, 11:33 PM
Lumping Kobe in with AI and Melo is not an accurate comparison.

yes it is. Its all perspective. Kobe's numbers do not stack up against many of the guys he is amongst, his longevity is why he is top 10. His peak is sure as hell not. Guys like T-Mac and Wade have had better years than Kobe ever has, but they will never be ranked with him due to longevity.

JordansBulls
10-25-2012, 11:34 PM
Exactly, if we go by PER, than Wilt was the GOAT without a doubt.

Actually no he wouldn't be. MJ is #1 all time in PER in the season and playoffs and WS/PER 48 minutes in the season and playoffs.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 11:47 PM
What are you measuring?

I was asking him to take any given basketball stat and measure its accuracy terms of determining greatness.


1) Nobody should use one stat to prove to argue over who is better.

I agree


2) Wilt is 5th all time in career PER

Yes, but in terms of peak, Wilt had the top two seasons and three out of the top five. Wilt's career PER was hurt by his final seasons where he played past his prime. Guys like Jordan, Shaq, and Robinson have him beat in terms of longevity.


3) His PER is an estimate anyways.

It's still his official ranking and thats what I am going off of. For all we know, his blocks and steals could have been higher than what was estimated.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 11:50 PM
Actually no he wouldn't be. MJ is #1 all time in PER in the season and playoffs and WS/PER 48 minutes in the season and playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html


NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER Season Tm
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.84 1962-63 SFW
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.76 1961-62 PHW
3. Michael Jordan* 31.71 1987-88 CHI
4. LeBron James 31.67 2008-09 CLE
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.64 1963-64 SFW

amos1er
10-25-2012, 11:57 PM
yes it is. Its all perspective. Kobe's numbers do not stack up against many of the guys he is amongst, his longevity is why he is top 10. His peak is sure as hell not. Guys like T-Mac and Wade have had better years than Kobe ever has, but they will never be ranked with him due to longevity.

Depends on what your criteria is. If you are talking about PER, than yes. Also, Kobe was also closer to guys like T-Mac and Wade in terms of PER than to guys like AI and Melo. Besides, PER only accounts for overall statistical efficiency and is flawed in that it does not accurately depict how effective a player is defensively as it is only off of steals and blocks. It does not account for individual defensive matchup. If player A keeps player B 10 points below his scoring average on a consistent basis, they will get no credit for that under the PER ranking system.

amos1er
10-25-2012, 11:59 PM
no, that is not the exact opposite. At all. That is basically exactly what I said dude.

In correct, I took what you said and reversed the use of stats and expert opinion. Hence making it the opposite.

amos1er
10-26-2012, 12:03 AM
Advance stats... they don't always speak to certain intangibles, but at the same time, they are quantifiable.

So are expert opinions. If the majority of the expert opinions see it on way, then that speaks volumes.

amos1er
10-26-2012, 12:06 AM
No he isn't.

Wilt had the top two seasons in terms of PER. He also had 3 out of the top five.

amos1er
10-26-2012, 12:08 AM
To clear up the comparison.

Kobe doesn't belongs statistically with (LeBron, MJ, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, etc)
Melo doesn't belong with (Kobe, Cp3, Bron, Wade, Dirk, Durant, etc)
Iverson doesn't belong with (Tmac, Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, etc).

Common theme most fans of those players argue that they do and they crap on advanced stats because it doesn't shed a favorable light on the player in question.

I don't crap on them at all. I just don't hold them in the same high esteem that certain fans do. They are not the end all be all. Please prove to me why stats like PER and WS should be taken to be the ultimate factor in determining greatness.

Guppyfighter
10-26-2012, 12:30 AM
So are expert opinions. If the majority of the expert opinions see it on way, then that speaks volumes.

Wow. An argument from authority fallacy and and an ad populum fallacy in one post.


Advanced stats in basketball are not as accurate as baseball, yet. Baseball's advanced stats margin of error is about five percent while the margin of error in basketball is nine percent.


Every human action is quantifiable. Advanced Stats > Lack of Metrics

Guppyfighter
10-26-2012, 12:31 AM
I don't crap on them at all. I just don't hold them in the same high esteem that certain fans do. They are not the end all be all. Please prove to me why stats like PER and WS should be taken to be the ultimate factor in determining greatness.

Use rebounding rate, assist ratio, and true shooting percentage. PER is better for mapping out peaks and declines.

Hawkeye15
10-26-2012, 12:41 AM
Depends on what your criteria is. If you are talking about PER, than yes. Also, Kobe was also closer to guys like T-Mac and Wade in terms of PER than to guys like AI and Melo. Besides, PER only accounts for overall statistical efficiency and is flawed in that it does not accurately depict how effective a player is defensively as it is only off of steals and blocks. It does not account for individual defensive matchup. If player A keeps player B 10 points below his scoring average on a consistent basis, they will get no credit for that under the PER ranking system.

Criteria? Well, every single advanced statistic, when taken as a picture, paints Kobe below Jordan, LeBron, Wilt, Jabbar. If you want to pick and choose one stat, that is the wrong way to go about it.

Again, I am not wrong here. Fans of certain players who believe they are better than their numbers paint are the opponents of stats. That is a fact. You are one of these fans.

Hawkeye15
10-26-2012, 12:42 AM
In correct, I took what you said and reversed the use of stats and expert opinion. Hence making it the opposite.

No, no you didn't. Not at all.

thenaj17
10-26-2012, 08:09 AM
Go and have a look at wins produced (WP and WP/48) at wagesofwins.com they try to explain, purely mathematical, how wins are produced.
It can explain about 95% of a players value, at least they say to. And the stat correlates 100% with win margins.

Kobe/Iverson/Melo/JJ fans be causious!

Win shares is a load of rubbish. All stats are manipulated in certain ways. Who decides how these are calculated? No credible coach in the NBA would build a team by stats but they would watch a player, listen to colleagues etc round the league.

It may not show on the stats sheet but certain players being on the floor, literally just be being on the floor, makes defences adjust. I'd certainly trust a Head Coaches opinion and the fact he changes the way his team defends solely because of a certain player. Some coaches have even ignored players like Kobe and LeBron to a certain degree and basically said it doesn't matter what you do, they will get theirs so concentrate on shutting down the other options. That sort of thing never shows up in any stats.

You can't take 1 without the other and i certainly take each of these options with a grain of salt.

thenaj17
10-26-2012, 08:26 AM
Use rebounding rate, assist ratio, and true shooting percentage. PER is better for mapping out peaks and declines.

TS% is ridiculous to judge a player. This stat does not take into account how their shots are created, their teammates around them, how easy the basket actually is (not whether it's a FT, 2 pt or 3pt. e.g. Last season Tyson Chandler number 1 yet he is completely and utterly inept on the offensive end. Almost all of his shots were putbacks or dunks/layups set up by a teammate. Number 2 Steve Novak, great open shooter but no way is he creating his own shot. He gets the ball (set up by teammate) and jumps and hit a shot. No indication here of how good an overall player is.

I like rebounding rate, this does interest me as basic rebound stats can be very misleading.

Assist ratio is OK to a certain degree but it will never take into context something such as teammates. Rajan Rondo is a very good PG, great defensively but his assists are inflated because he played with 3 HoF's who are all good shooters/finishers.

PER - Well when Derek Rose and Westbrook are top 10 efficient...you know something is wrong. Faried, Brandon Wright, Millsap, Ryan Anderson and Pekovic and Gortat have a higher PER than Melo. Does that make them better players? Hell no.

Don't take this as a Kobe defence because i'm a Laker, i know he makes horrible decisions sometimes and you don't have to remind me...

Swashcuff
10-26-2012, 08:41 AM
I find it ironic that its usually Kobe, Iverson, Melo, and any other players fans whose stats don't show them belonging with some other players, or as good as their fan base thinks they are/were, are the ones so against stats.

Should tell you something..

:mad:

Swashcuff
10-26-2012, 08:42 AM
Honestly, the title of this thread should really be "Who is your favorite player? Kobe or Lebron". Obviously all the Lebron fans are going to say stats and the Kobe fans are gonna say expert opinions.

Just wanted to call it out to everyone who still can' see what Hidalgo is trying to do here.

Dude you do realize that LeBron is probably more renowned by former players than Kobe right?

Swashcuff
10-26-2012, 08:46 AM
Glad you find it hilarious and yes playoffs are more important then the regular season.

Not when we're talking based solely on stats. One has to be holistic rather that cherrypick. Why not using the bigger and better sample size of the regular season and compare that to the post season. We're talking solely stats here and if you're using the post season on its own you're going to be wrong more times than not.

Swashcuff
10-26-2012, 09:00 AM
I hate this misconception that it's one or the other. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of posters on this site that have been accused of being stat obsessed... watch more of the games and can provide more than enough detailed subjective opinions of their own!

The best part is the so called "stats guys" don't even use stats often if at all in their arguments but because they have an understanding and appreciation for them they know nothing :laugh2:

Heediot
10-26-2012, 09:14 AM
It depends on which player lol.

Advanced stats are more reliable than biases, affiliations and in Shaq's case ego protection as well.

There should be a balance between the two.

3RDASYSTEM
10-26-2012, 09:35 AM
Best way is to play the actual game, rather it be organized or gym/park

nothing beats playing the game and knowing what you have to do to win and testing your game against that player/team

and nothing beats experience of actually doing it, being involved physically, you know actually having to run off a screen,take a bunch of shots and so on

but if you never play and just spectate then im sure nothing and i mean nothing beats a advanced stat/ws%, those nerds are all over here on psd, i salute you non bball players...just remember the game is 'played' on the hardwood, not on ws%

its like how do you judge a actor/actress, off of emmys/oscars or flat out acting on screen? like how LEDGER destroyed(to me) NICHOLSON as JOKER but NICHOLSON has the advance stats edge right? but from flat out 'acting' that part out,its not even close and i didnt think NICHOLSON could ever get done that bad

bball opinions are just that,opinions ...some have agendas and others dont when on ESPN/TNT ..so i like to listen to coaches and players and gms and cream of the crop scouts

of course a players opinion is bias, but no more than is anybodys on here..what a lady mentality from you people on here, unless you guys are actually women than i apologize

they know more about the pressure/action than an advanced stat,speaking for former players, and former players turned coached/gm

this is coming from multiple bball players who i've had discussions with over this dumb *** advanced stat/PER rule....the game is based on 'play' from players

adv.stats are to cause confusion, players game on the hardwood doesnt do that at all, you can tell whos more of a force between SHAQ vs SABONIS but if you dont watch the matchup of DREAM vs DROB then how can you go by advanced stats as who was better when DROB was MVP but DREAM destroyed him(took his bball manhood) in head to head series?

who was better JORDAN or WILKINS? if you watched the actual games it was pretty much even everytime, or at least the contests i watched, regardless of who won

i never deal with stats ws% so it really doesnt bother me, i just cant believe it has taken the place of the live/eye test...thats the funny part behind it

also i cant stand for life when people on here say they cant stand ex-players opinions just because it doesnt fit they fav player or it boosts up a player they dont like

but i get it you never played or picked up a ball in your life, so carry on

lets not believe the opinion of actual players

but lets believe something made up by actual...hired statsmen by the 'nba', they hire rogue refs also, who also affect the game in a non playing fashion

advanced stats/WS% and refs are the key to figuring out how 'great' a player, not a former nba players or coach or gm for that matter

all you have to do is watch with the tv on mute, its a beauty to see whos who and what is what..or just go to advanced stats or read DONAGUE book,its a beauty to read also

C_Mund
10-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Another anti-Kobe thread from none other than El-Hidalgo. We all know who this was directed at and is clearly baiting. Next time try to be a little less obvious with your ******** bro.

What? Kobe never once crossed my mind until I read this.

But....I'm not really a fan of either.
Advanced stats don't often tell me things I couldn't see by watching the game, and although they give a (usually) fairly accurate depiction of a player's on-court performance it's nothing more than an arguing point. Until I see a "moneyball" team put together based only on advanced stats, I'll see their use as purely frivolous. I've even called on them once or twice and I had to shower afterward. I don't need some kind of crazy metrics to tell me that Derozan isn't efficient. Or that Igoudala is a great defender. Like, watch the game.

.....and I respect ex-player's opinions but I take them with a grain of salt. As much as I love Charles Barkley, he has a true opinion on about six players in the game and if you're not one of them he doesn't care. The guy acts like he knows everything about winning championships. Wait, what? To be honest, the guys that I'd like to hear from aren't the Shaq's and Chuck's, it's the role players. I loved Steve Kerr as an analyst, I'd like to hear what Horry has to say, when he's done I'd read a book by Shane Battier. There has to be more to broadcasting than just personality and I'm not a huge fan of lots of the guys they've gotten to run the show.

C_Mund
10-26-2012, 10:11 AM
Best way is to play the actual game, rather it be organized or gym/park

nothing beats playing the game and knowing what you have to do to win and testing your game against that player/team

and nothing beats experience of actually doing it, being involved physically, you know actually having to run off a screen,take a bunch of shots and so on

but if you never play and just spectate then im sure nothing and i mean nothing beats a advanced stat/ws%, those nerds are all over here on psd, i salute you non bball players...just remember the game is 'played' on the hardwood, not on ws%

its like how do you judge a actor/actress, off of emmys/oscars or flat out acting on screen? like how LEDGER destroyed(to me) NICHOLSON as JOKER but NICHOLSON has the advance stats edge right? but from flat out 'acting' that part out,its not even close and i didnt think NICHOLSON could ever get done that bad

bball opinions are just that,opinions ...some have agendas and others dont when on ESPN/TNT ..so i like to listen to coaches and players and gms and cream of the crop scouts

of course a players opinion is bias, but no more than is anybodys on here..what a lady mentality from you people on here, unless you guys are actually women than i apologize

they know more about the pressure/action than an advanced stat,speaking for former players, and former players turned coached/gm

this is coming from multiple bball players who i've had discussions with over this dumb *** advanced stat/PER rule....the game is based on 'play' from players

adv.stats are to cause confusion, players game on the hardwood doesnt do that at all, you can tell whos more of a force between SHAQ vs SABONIS but if you dont watch the matchup of DREAM vs DROB then how can you go by advanced stats as who was better when DROB was MVP but DREAM destroyed him(took his bball manhood) in head to head series?

who was better JORDAN or WILKINS? if you watched the actual games it was pretty much even everytime, or at least the contests i watched, regardless of who won

i never deal with stats ws% so it really doesnt bother me, i just cant believe it has taken the place of the live/eye test...thats the funny part behind it

also i cant stand for life when people on here say they cant stand ex-players opinions just because it doesnt fit they fav player or it boosts up a player they dont like

but i get it you never played or picked up a ball in your life, so carry on

lets not believe the opinion of actual players

but lets believe something made up by actual...hired statsmen by the 'nba', they hire rogue refs also, who also affect the game in a non playing fashion

advanced stats/WS% and refs are the key to figuring out how 'great' a player, not a former nba players or coach or gm for that matter

all you have to do is watch with the tv on mute, its a beauty to see whos who and what is what..or just go to advanced stats or read DONAGUE book,its a beauty to read also

Haha, I love the way you started out this post but I got to the part about the joker and have to disagree like crazy. NICHOLSON DID THE PERFECT JOKER haha

Bellz
10-26-2012, 10:38 AM
Someone who has played the game for years or somebody who never played the game..... I would lean towards the retired player. They played in the league the know what you have to what adjustment you may to make etc. And stats don't always tell the whole story of a player

ManRam
10-26-2012, 11:12 AM
Someone who has played the game for years or somebody who never played the game..... I would lean towards the retired player. They played in the league the know what you have to what adjustment you may to make etc. And stats don't always tell the whole story of a player

I disagree. I trust people like Sebastian Pruiti, Dean Oliver, Jonathan Givony, Kevin Pelton, Jon Hollinger etc. far more than I trust Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, Chris Webber, Michael Jordan and so on.

Sam Presti, R.C. Buford, Kevin O'Connor, Donnie Nelson, Gar Forman, Daryl Morey etc. are far better evaluators of NBA ability than 99.99999% of any retired NBA player, and none of them ever played a second in the NBA.

Why do you think most NBA scouts now AREN'T former players? Most every team now has at least a few people on their staff who simply work with advanced stats. Many teams groups full of people doing this.


Stats have little bias. Sure, a lot of them are flawed, but if you know how to interpret them and how to judge them all fairly, it's far more telling than what any former NBA player can tell you. Those players are coming from a place chock full of bias, false perceptions and archaic ideologies.


I'd honestly at this point rather poll a panel of 100 of the best NBA bloggers for their opinions than 100 former NBA players.

SteBO
10-26-2012, 11:13 AM
Depends. Considering the crap Shaq has said lately, ill go with stats as well as my personal opinion from watching games and clips.

Most former players have a strong degree of bias because of their experiences in the league.
Ding-Ding. This.

I know people like to hold former-players/experts' opinions up as gospel because they've played in the league, but it isn't like they don't have their bias'. Stats, while they can be skewed in a way to support one's argument, is the most objective way to evaluate an individual player. Combine it with an opinion of your own by watching players' perform, and you can form your own accurate assessment that rational people might find hard to disagree with.

It just comes down to the willingness to understand advanced statistics. That's the problem many posters have on here.

Chronz
10-26-2012, 11:53 AM
Someone who has played the game for years or somebody who never played the game..... I would lean towards the retired player. They played in the league the know what you have to what adjustment you may to make etc. And stats don't always tell the whole story of a player

Can you explain Michael Jordan? Isnt he the greatest player to ever play, why has he failed so exorbitantly as a GM? Can you explain why he hired a stats guy to be the decision maker for HIS team? Its odd isnt it

I dont have to waste your time saying its best to combine both but lets not confuse our priorities. You can be contending for the greatest of all time the way Wilt, Magic, and MJ have and still be utterly clueless to quantifiable aspects of the game. However you can be some joe genius off the street, have never seen a game in your life, but because of your statistical insight, can land a job in the NBA. But I suppose thats a moot point when people are offering Shaq a GM job.

Chronz
10-26-2012, 11:58 AM
Ding-Ding. This.

I know people like to hold former-players/experts' opinions up as gospel because they've played in the league, but it isn't like they don't have their bias'. Stats, while they can be skewed in a way to support one's argument, is the most objective way to evaluate an individual player. Combine it with an opinion of your own by watching players' perform, and you can form your own accurate assessment that rational people might find hard to disagree with.

It just comes down to the willingness to understand advanced statistics. That's the problem many posters have on here.

I trust players more when they talk about their careers and who they faced, how tough they had it etc... but when they are retired they lose some cred. Wilt used to mock players in the 80's-90's for not rebounding/scoring as much as he has, apparently blind to the pace evolution of the game.

Chronz
10-26-2012, 12:00 PM
So are expert opinions. If the majority of the expert opinions see it on way, then that speaks volumes.

What? He ended his sentence by saying "they are quantifiable", can you explain how expert opinions are quantifiable?

SteBO
10-26-2012, 12:13 PM
I trust players more when they talk about their careers and who they faced, how tough they had it etc... but when they are retired they lose some cred. Wilt used to mock players in the 80's-90's for not rebounding/scoring as much as he has, apparently blind to the pace evolution of the game.
Yes. They played in a different era, so when they reflect on their careers, it's wayyyy more reliable. It's when they talk about today's game where their bias' clearly show......

LongIslandIcedZ
10-26-2012, 12:28 PM
If there was a completely unbiased athlete out there, I would absolutely value his opinion.

If he said "X's numbers dont do him justice, he's one of the most difficult guys to cover"

I would listen. Unfortunately, who knows if there is a completely unbiased player out there.

b@llhog24
10-26-2012, 01:59 PM
I was asking him to take any given basketball stat and measure its accuracy terms of determining greatness.

Give the stat and what you think is being measured by the stat then somebody will probably answer you. Your question is lacking some serious context imo.


Yes, but in terms of peak, Wilt had the top two seasons and three out of the top five.

This is why heís a debatable GOAT.


Wilt's career PER was hurt by his final seasons where he played past his prime. Guys like Jordan, Shaq, and Robinson have him beat in terms of longevity.


And that's where these guys come in.


It's still his official ranking and thats what I am going off of. For all we know, his blocks and steals could have been higher than what was estimated.

I'm not only talking about that, via basketball reference.


I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books.

Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

1979-80 ó debut of 3-point shot in NBA
1977-78 ó player turnovers first recorded in NBA
1973-74 ó player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA
The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.




Depends on what your criteria is.

I can't speak for Hawkeye personally but if you read my post I think you'll see what he's referring to.


If you are talking about PER, than yes. Also, Kobe was also closer to guys like T-Mac and Wade in terms of PER than to guys like AI and Melo.

True but he's still inferior to them in other metrics when discussing Peak ability.


Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 3277 28.0 .559 .491 2.6 12.7 7.6 24.1 2.4 0.7 9.0 38.7 114 105 11.6 3.7 15.3 .224
2 Tracy McGrady 2002-03 23 75 2954 30.3 .564 .505 4.6 14.6 9.5 30.0 2.2 1.5 8.4 35.2 116 104 13.2 2.9 16.1 .262
3 Dwyane Wade 2008-09 27 79 3048 30.4 .574 .516 3.5 12.2 7.8 40.3 3.0 2.8 11.6 36.2 115 105 10.3 4.4 14.7 .232


Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 7 314 19.9 .587 .545 1.5 16.9 8.8 21.5 1.3 0.8 16.6 28.9 108 114 0.5 0.1 0.6 .087
2 Tracy McGrady 2002-03 23 7 308 27.0 .561 .497 3.9 14.1 9.1 26.4 2.5 1.7 11.6 34.9 110 105 0.8 0.3 1.2 .181
3 Dwyane Wade 2008-09 27 7 285 26.3 .565 .497 1.9 12.8 7.8 31.4 1.2 3.3 12.2 37.2 112 106 0.8 0.4 1.2 .195

Last in PER by a pretty wide margin, in TS%, eFG%, TRB%, AST%, Ortg, and WS/48. When you factor in how they well they played against playoff competition then it's a no brainer.


Besides, PER only accounts for overall statistical efficiency and is flawed in that it does not accurately depict how effective a player is defensively as it is only off of steals and blocks.

Well that's why those stats need context, PER underrates those who have a massive defensive impact. (Dwight, Bron, Pip, Rodman). Hollinger even admitted to as such:


Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals.


It does not account for individual defensive matchup. If player A keeps player B 10 points below his scoring average on a consistent basis, they will get no credit for that under the PER ranking system.

Get Synergy and move on with your life.


I don't crap on them at all.

I wasn't accusing you personally.


I just don't hold them in the same high esteem that certain fans do.

And you're entitled to that, but at the same time when you (people) are making player comparisons with other posters on here and your (their) best argument is "I watch games" I tend to find their analysis lacking. Chances are if you're on a sports forum you probably watch a **** load of games.


They are not the end all be all.

I only know of one such poster who acts as if it is, and most people on this board tend to take his opinion with a grain of salt when it comes to statistical analysis.


Please prove to me why stats like PER and WS should be taken to be the ultimate factor in determining greatness.
Lol who says it is? Itís a measure of the productivity (mostly offensive production) or to put it simply itís an amalgamation of per game statistics which account for pace.

PER takes into account positive accomplishments, such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones, such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls. The formula adds positive stats and subtracts negative ones through a statistical point value system. The rating for each player is then adjusted to a per-minute basis so that, for example, substitutes can be compared with starters in playing time debates. It is also adjusted for the team's pace. In the end, one number sums up the players' statistical accomplishments for that season.

bagwell368
10-26-2012, 02:43 PM
No credible coach in the NBA would build a team by stats but they would watch a player, listen to colleagues etc round the league.

Coaches don't build teams. GM's do - along with input from scouts, stat guys, and coaches. Right. Every NBA team uses advanced stats as part of their decision making.


It may not show on the stats sheet but certain players being on the floor, literally just be being on the floor, makes defences adjust. I'd certainly trust a Head Coaches opinion and the fact he changes the way his team defends solely because of a certain player. Some coaches have even ignored players like Kobe and LeBron to a certain degree and basically said it doesn't matter what you do, they will get theirs so concentrate on shutting down the other options. That sort of thing never shows up in any stats.

Of course it does.

bagwell368
10-26-2012, 03:07 PM
Best way is to play the actual game, rather it be organized or gym/park

nothing beats playing the game and knowing what you have to do to win and testing your game against that player/team

and nothing beats experience of actually doing it, being involved physically, you know actually having to run off a screen,take a bunch of shots and so on

but if you never play and just spectate then im sure nothing and i mean nothing beats a advanced stat/ws%, those nerds are all over here on psd, i salute you non bball players...just remember the game is 'played' on the hardwood, not on ws%

Nice theory. A person's experience address the league, players, teams they played in/with/against - true. But I'm pretty sure an observant person that has never played can learn what a give and go is quite easily.


what a lady mentality from you people on here, unless you guys are actually women than i apologize

Again with the insulting women. :facepalm:


they know more about the pressure/action than an advanced stat,speaking for former players, and former players turned coached/gm

You know what sucks? TV following the ball. I watch pro, college, HS, and AAU ball (coach AAU), and I watch play away from the ball as much or more than play at the ball. If all you ever watched was TV, and had to listen to those inspid announcers - yeah - it would be tough to have a good idea. But if you sit with someone that knows, and work hard it, you could get most or all of it.


this is coming from multiple bball players who i've had discussions with over this dumb *** advanced stat/PER rule....the game is based on 'play' from players

You something? I don't watch that much of the Western Conference night games. You know how I catch up? Highlights and advanced stats which kick the living **** out of traditional stats. You going to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Just words Jack.


adv.stats are to cause confusion, players game on the hardwood doesnt do that at all, you can tell whos more of a force between SHAQ vs SABONIS but if you dont watch the matchup of DREAM vs DROB then how can you go by advanced stats as who was better when DROB was MVP but DREAM destroyed him(took his bball manhood) in head to head series?

Hakeem nailed DROB live, adv stats or regular stats - no mistaking that. And zero confusion, except for some with an agenda or the truly feeble.


who was better JORDAN or WILKINS? if you watched the actual games it was pretty much even everytime, or at least the contests i watched, regardless of who won

Your memory has betrayed you, Jordan and 'Nique scored a similar amount of points per game, but MJ has a much higher rate of assists, steals, higher FG%, almost the same rebounds. MJ's teams were 30-18 if you include playoffs. Easy call. MJ was better, and as usual DW was a volume scorer.


lets not believe the opinion of actual players

Players and x players most often have an agenda. When they play it straight, they can be great resources.

Your view is losing ground every day BTW.

Jamiecballer
10-26-2012, 03:31 PM
With the TV volume at 0, or better yet listen to the other teams broadcasting crew.

agreed! i watch the other teams broadcast whenever humanly possible. you will notice a lot of real homers just regurgitate what they hear from their own broadcast team.

sjoerdje
10-27-2012, 12:58 PM
Win shares is a load of rubbish. All stats are manipulated in certain ways. Who decides how these are calculated? No credible coach in the NBA would build a team by stats but they would watch a player, listen to colleagues etc round the league.

It may not show on the stats sheet but certain players being on the floor, literally just be being on the floor, makes defences adjust. I'd certainly trust a Head Coaches opinion and the fact he changes the way his team defends solely because of a certain player. Some coaches have even ignored players like Kobe and LeBron to a certain degree and basically said it doesn't matter what you do, they will get theirs so concentrate on shutting down the other options. That sort of thing never shows up in any stats.

You can't take 1 without the other and i certainly take each of these options with a grain of salt.

Win Shares and Wins Produced are different things. Wins Produced show, like I said, a very high correlation with the actual wins of teams. And an even higher correlation with win margins. The methods used are exactly the same as the forensic ones.

Then if 98% correlation is enough to convict someone, then how much worth will you put in 95%?

If you want a further explaination just ask, I'm not saying WP is the end of it all though!