PDA

View Full Version : Reggie Miller trolling the stat geeks of the world



Chronz
10-27-2012, 02:34 PM
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=961

YT Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k_AqTReRt3g




It seems the Nuggets are high on alot of projections

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 03:11 PM
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=961

YT Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k_AqTReRt3g




It seems the Nuggets are high on alot of projections

John Hollinger's response -

John Hollinger ‏@johnhollinger

Seriously, thanks for pointing out that they're playing actual basketball games. That changes everything.
Expand
26 Oct John Hollinger John Hollinger ‏@johnhollinger

Just heard the Reggie clip. OMG. But I did learn that rats wear pocket squares.

JasonJohnHorn
10-27-2012, 03:15 PM
I understand what Reggie is saying. I think Denver has a lot going for it as a team, but there are a lot of ifs, just as there are a lot of ifs for the Lakers. OKC has brought back all the pieces it had last season, and it's fair to expect them to do just as well or better. LAL has added a couple of great pieces in Howard and Nash, but it's hard to know what changes they will bring with them. Likewise, it's hard to know what kind of changes Iggy is going to bring to Denver, and what McGee will be like on the floor.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 03:16 PM
They will be good in the regular season, their playoff chances depend on McGee developing properly.

Evolution23
10-27-2012, 03:23 PM
You need to watch the game and look at numbers. They both count.

KnicksorBust
10-27-2012, 03:29 PM
There's a reason the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference gets more popular ever year. I've yet to meet the person that said "I studied advanced statistics and realized they are useless" but I consider myself one of many people to say "I used to think advanced stats were useless but now I see how valuable they can be."'

In a related note, I'm always ready to add to my list of reasons to hate reggie miller.

Chronz
10-27-2012, 03:31 PM
Did Hollinger really respond like that? Reggie was clearly exaggerating, him not being able to take a joke isnt helping his geek persona

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 03:33 PM
Someone told me I had to watch the game while we were both in a chat for a steaming site on a preseason basketball game.

The phrases "you need to watch the game" and "you don't watch the game and just use stats" are their go to phrase when arguing because that's all they know how to argue. For god sake, I watching a preseason Clippers-Lakers game and he knew that. He still said it, over and over again until I pointed out that we were on a ****ing streaming site.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 03:34 PM
Did Hollinger really respond like that? Reggie was clearly exaggerating, him not being able to take a joke isnt helping his geek persona

His comments were hilarious.

I am surprised you think his comments were overreacting and not jokes opposed to Reggie Miller's comments which do think are jokes when they weren't.

Stop baiting/trolling .

Hawkeye15
10-27-2012, 04:23 PM
Reggie's very last comment is the only thing that bothers me. So, if you haven't played basketball, you can't possibly understand anything about it, right Reggie?

Like I have said before, I trust these "geeks" over ex players in almost every case. They don't have bias, they pay attention to every single little variable, while ex-players just go off feel. Couple in their natural biases, and they end up missing a lot of little things.

Ebbs
10-27-2012, 04:24 PM
Reggie's very last comment is the only thing that bothers me. So, if you haven't played basketball, you can't possibly understand anything about it, right Reggie?

Like I have said before, I trust these "geeks" over ex players in almost every case. They don't have bias, they pay attention to every single little variable, while ex-players just go off feel. Couple in their natural biases, and they end up missing a lot of little things.

Most times I agree. However their are certain things that the ex players are better at. If the bias is laid down.

Hawkeye15
10-27-2012, 04:26 PM
Most times I agree. However their are certain things that the ex players are better at. If the bias is laid down.

there are certain things they are better at. But win projections and player rankings are certainly not better coming from the ex-players versus the geeks.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 04:27 PM
Reggie was a bit arrogant in his statement, but there was some truth to it. He seemed bothered that a lot of people now a days are judging statistical analysis just as heavily, if not more, than the opinions of expert analysts. Perhaps Reggie is just insecure because his job security is being threatened with the ever growing popularity of statistical analysis. Or perhaps there is some merit to what he is saying and people should not be so quick to ignore the opinions of people who actually played the game. My guess...it's a bit of both.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 04:30 PM
Reggie was a bit arrogant in his statement, but there was some truth to it. He seemed bothered that a lot of people now a days are judging statistical analysis just as heavily, if not more, than the opinions of expert analysts. Perhaps Reggie is just insecure because his job security is slowly diminishing with the ever growing interest in statistical analysis. Or perhaps there is some merit to what he is saying and people should not be so quick to ignore the opinions of people who actually played the game. My guess...it's a bit of both.

There was basically no truth to what Reggie Miller was saying. You can understand basketball and not play it. I don't know how you define expert, but I consider experts the ones that are good at scouting and projecting performances from teams.

There is no reason to arbitrarily trust former players, that's an argument from authority.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 04:39 PM
There was basically no truth to what Reggie Miller was saying. You can understand basketball and not play it. I don't know how you define expert, but I consider experts the ones that are good at scouting and projecting performances from teams.

There is no reason to arbitrarily trust former players, that's an argument from authority.


The fallacy in "an argument from authority" exists only when the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

A lot of people feel that certain ex-players, analysts, coaches, or GM's could be defined as "subject matter experts". As you said, it all depends on how you define expert. Most of these opinions, should be taken with a grain of salt and are subjective. However, when there is a general consensus among these experts, then we must accept the fact that there is some credibility to what they are all saying.

Hawkeye15
10-27-2012, 04:40 PM
why has Hollinger beat vegas, or any ex-player when it comes to win projections?

Hawkeye15
10-27-2012, 04:41 PM
The fallacy that exists in "an argument from authority" is that the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

A lot of people feel that certain ex-players, analysts, coaches, or GM's could be defined as "subject matter experts. As you said, it all depends on how you define expert. Most of these opinions, should be taken with a grain of salt and are subjective. However, when there is a general consensus among these experts, then we must accept the fact that there is some credibility to what they are all saying.

yes. It's when people take the word of most ex-players that bothers me. So many of them, MOST in fact, have proven to be inept at running a team, or evaluating talent, that I have started to side with those short, fat, bald dudes who didn't play past high school, but instead started studying the game as if they were going for a doctorate.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 04:51 PM
The fallacy in "an argument from authority" exists only when the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

A lot of people feel that certain ex-players, analysts, coaches, or GM's could be defined as "subject matter experts". As you said, it all depends on how you define expert. Most of these opinions, should be taken with a grain of salt and are subjective. However, when there is a general consensus among these experts, then we must accept the fact that there is some credibility to what they are all saying.

You are using the ad populum fallacy to say the argument from authority fallacy is A-Okay.

Kevj77
10-27-2012, 04:57 PM
Reggie's very last comment is the only thing that bothers me. So, if you haven't played basketball, you can't possibly understand anything about it, right Reggie?

Like I have said before, I trust these "geeks" over ex players in almost every case. They don't have bias, they pay attention to every single little variable, while ex-players just go off feel. Couple in their natural biases, and they end up missing a lot of little things.How do you know they don't have biases? Even in statistics the results can reflect the bias of the one who calculated it. I actually like Hollinger I read once how he calculates his power rankings and it made sense. Road wins are weighted higher than home wins. Wins against above .500 teams are weighted higher than wins against sub .500 teams and so on, but he decides by how much, which can reflect a bias if he has one, which I'm not saying he does.

DreamShaker
10-27-2012, 05:02 PM
Ex-players know what it takes to be a true athlete. To train your body, mind, and emotions to ready yourself for a game. Those are things statistics will never understand, as well as how outside variables affect performance among other things. However, stats and math are obviously a part of the game. Coaches use it, teams use it, and the media uses it to judge all sorts of variables. I read somewhere (mighta been here) about the eyes, ears, and numbers philosophy used by Dennis Lindsey (correct me on any mistakes hre). Using all those things to properly judge the whole of player evaluation. There are things as fans we dont see, but to dismiss non-athletes as totally ignorant, is troubling. Buy then again, I don't need advanced metrics to see that Reggie Miller is a bit of a d-bag.

JasonJohnHorn
10-27-2012, 05:05 PM
Stats can be misleading, especially when it comes to defence. You look at a stat like steals-per-game, and Iverson looks like an amazing defender, but when you watch him play you see how much size he gives on defene and realise he's actually a bit of a liability on defence, even if he can get you 2 or 3 fast breaks a game off of steals. Bird likewise got a lot of steals, and he was a good 'team' defender, but not a very good one-on-one defender. He just didn't have the athleticism required. Obviously steals-per is a basic stat, and there are others to look at (+/- for example).

Stats give you a lot of insight. I would base 90% of evaluation on stats to be frank. But then there is that last 10% that can be incredibly important.

I'm curious to see how the season turns out to be frank. A lot of people are putting Denver on top of the West. I personally think it's hard to compare teams after offseason moves have been made, regardless of stats, because chemistry is such a big issue on the court. Like with Miami, when they signed James, Bosh and Wade, it's not like you can just take their scoring averages and add them up. There are only so many shots a game, and so many minutes. When you add Dwight's 14.5 rebounds a game to Gasol's 10.4, you don't get 24.9, because now Dwight will be on a team that actually has a good rebounder. Looking at percentages helps you get a better understanding, but still, stats aren't going to tell you how Nash and Howard are going to blend with Kobe and Pau and if Jamison is going to get the 6th man award.

If every team was static in the offseason, then stats would be more reliable, but there are just so many variables.

KnicksR4Real
10-27-2012, 05:06 PM
Reggie Miller is just the worst announcer. From his actual voice of both him and his sister, to the terrible points he makes.

Hawkeye15
10-27-2012, 05:08 PM
How do you know they don't have biases? Even in statistics the results can reflect the bias of the one who calculated it. I actually like Hollinger I read once how he calculates his power rankings and it made sense. Road wins are weighted higher than home wins. Wins against above .500 teams are weighted higher than wins against sub .500 teams and so on, but he decides by how much, which can reflect a bias if he has one, which I'm not saying he does.

they have a **** load less bias then a human.

Kashmir13579
10-27-2012, 06:12 PM
When Denver wins the west, then we can criticize Miller for this.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 06:22 PM
When Denver wins the west, then we can criticize Miller for this.

I am not sure anyone said Denver would win the west. A lot of people said they'd be damned good in the regular season and be in trouble in a shorter rotation against star-studded teams. Reggie's premise is a strawman.

Clippersfan86
10-27-2012, 07:20 PM
I gotta say I'm sick and tired of all these rankings having them at 1-3 seeds. Like really? What makes them jump from 6 seed to 3 and above when Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies all finished better last year and should be better this year? I just don't see any scenario where Nuggets get better than 4 seed.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 07:22 PM
I gotta say I'm sick and tired of all these rankings having them at 1-3 seeds. Like really? What makes them jump from 6 seed to 3 and above when Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies all finished better last year and should be better this year? I just don't see any scenario where Nuggets get better than 4 seed.


I guess you did not seem them pick up Iguodala in the off season and Javale at the half way point. Iggy is a top 15 player and if Javale keeps developing like he is projected to they will be much better.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:01 PM
I guess you did not seem them pick up Iguodala in the off season and Javale at the half way point. Iggy is a top 15 player and if Javale keeps developing like he is projected to they will be much better.

Are you sure about that?

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:08 PM
You are using the ad populum fallacy to say the argument from authority fallacy is A-Okay.

Really??? Maybe you need to look up the definition of "Argument From Authority" and get back to me.

Here is the appeal to "Argument From Authority" quoted directly from Wikki.
the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The fact that if there is no consensus among experts implies that the majority of legitimate experts must be in agreement in order for the opinion to be taken seriously.


The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:

[1] The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.

[2] There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

Chronz
10-27-2012, 09:11 PM
I gotta say I'm sick and tired of all these rankings having them at 1-3 seeds. Like really? What makes them jump from 6 seed to 3 and above when Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies all finished better last year and should be better this year? I just don't see any scenario where Nuggets get better than 4 seed.

Nuggets were on a tear before injuries killed their momentum. Now they are healthy and have added Javale/Iggy and should play that rookie PF alot more this year.

Clippersfan86
10-27-2012, 09:17 PM
I guess you did not seem them pick up Iguodala in the off season and Javale at the half way point. Iggy is a top 15 player and if Javale keeps developing like he is projected to they will be much better.

JaVale may not even be the best center or starter on that team. Iggy is not a top 15 player, sorry. Sure he's an improvement but the Clippers added more talent overall not to mention the core of Bledsoe, Griffin and DJ all look tremendously improved. I'll bet anybody on this forum that the Clippers finish better in the west and go deeper in the playoffs than Denver.

Corey
10-27-2012, 09:27 PM
Iggy is a top 15 player

Lebron, Durant, Paul, Dwight, Rose, Love, Wade, Kobe, Westbrook, Deron, Dirk, Bynum, Griffin, Parker, Gasol, Rondo, Carmelo, Aldridge, Nash, Garnett, Bosh, Kyrie, Manu, Harden....

Lets not go that far.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:35 PM
Lebron, Durant, Paul, Dwight, Rose, Love, Wade, Kobe, Westbrook, Deron, Dirk, Bynum, Griffin, Parker, Gasol, Rondo, Carmelo, Aldridge, Nash, Garnett, Bosh, Kyrie, Manu, Harden....

Lets not go that far.

I hope that list in not in order.

Rose is not top 5.

Wade and Love are not better than Kobe.

Westbrook is not better than Deron.

Bosh should be in the top 20.

John Walls Era
10-27-2012, 09:38 PM
Hes right, but not entirely. Unlike baseball, stats tell a lot less of the story. I can use stats in basketball to tell my story how I want it to be told. There is no absolute stat that nullifies all short term variances.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 09:39 PM
Lebron, Durant, Paul, Dwight, Rose, Love, Wade, Kobe, [Westbrook, Deron, Dirk, Bynum, Griffin, Parker, Gasol, Rondo, Carmelo, Aldridge, Nash, Garnett, Bosh, Kyrie, Manu, Harden....

Lets not go that far.

By every advanced metric Iggy is better than the bolded names.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:41 PM
By every advanced metric Iggy is better than the bolded names.

Too bad the criteria is not solely based on advanced metrics.

Gritz
10-27-2012, 09:42 PM
Lolnerds

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 09:43 PM
Too bad the criteria is not solely based on advanced metrics.

LOL

What the **** metrics are you using?

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:49 PM
LOL

What the **** metrics are you using?

I'm not, I'm just letting you know that the criteria for judging players is not 100% based on metrics.

Can you name me one other credible expert that agrees Iggy is a top 15 player. Or even Hollinger for that matter?

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 09:50 PM
I'm not, I'm just letting you know that the criteria for judging players is not 100% based on metrics.

Can you name me one other credible expert that agrees Iggy is a top 15 player. Or even Hollinger for that matter?

Why the **** do you insist on using the argument from authority fallacy and then claiming the ad populum fallacy justifies that.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 09:59 PM
Why the **** do you insist on using the argument from authority fallacy and then claiming the ad populum fallacy justifies that.

I'm just saying that there is more to take into account than only stats. Stats are not the supreme judgement for everything.

Why do you insist on using a statistical argument as an absolute for everything?

You even said that every advanced metric agrees that Iggy is top 15. Isn't that an ad populum?

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 10:01 PM
I'm just saying that there is more to take into account than only stats. Stats are not the supreme judgement for everything.

Why do you insist on using a statistical argument as an absolute for everything?

You even said that every advanced metric agrees that Iggy is top 15. Isn't that an ad populum?

Are you high?

DenButsu
10-27-2012, 10:14 PM
I think the answer to this is simple. Reggie Miller makes predictions for the season, and after everything shakes out we can see how well he did against the "geeks". I'd be surprised if he out-guesses Hollinger.

FWIW, I do think the Nuggets are being projected too high in some corners. 57 wins? 58 wins? That would be a franchise record. I think 53/54 is probably more realistic. The opening schedule is absolutely brutal (17 of 23 games on the road) and they still have a lot of work to do on the chemistry building and finding workable rotations fronts. I can't imagine they won't hit a few bumps in the road.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 10:24 PM
Are you high?

Nice rebuttal.

b@llhog24
10-27-2012, 10:24 PM
Lebron, Durant, Paul, Dwight, Rose, Love, Wade, Kobe, Westbrook, Deron, Dirk, Bynum, Griffin, Parker, Gasol, Rondo, Carmelo, Aldridge, Nash, Garnett, Bosh, Kyrie, Manu, Harden....

Lets not go that far.

In fairness some of those guys are arguable.


I hope that list in not in order.

Rose is not top 5.

Wade and Love are not better than Kobe.

Westbrook is not better than Deron.

Bosh should be in the top 20.

Based on what?


By every advanced metric Iggy is better than the bolded names.

I wo

Why the **** do you insist on using the argument from authority fallacy and then claiming the ad populum fallacy justifies that.

He only speaks in fallacies and youtube links.

Guppyfighter
10-27-2012, 10:25 PM
Nice rebuttal.

You asked if what I said was ad populum. I asked if you were high. That's a fair response.


I ask what other metric do you use besides stats? All you did was say "stats ain't everything yo"