PDA

View Full Version : Advanced stats



el hidalgo
08-17-2013, 12:40 PM
Are they good? opinions on them? If they aren't good, why does almost every team have an analytical staff which uses advanced statistics? Are all these NBA teams wrong?

Minimal
08-17-2013, 12:52 PM
Most of them are, not all of them.

macc
08-17-2013, 01:07 PM
I think alot of people dislike advanced stats simply because they don't understand them. In saying that. I don't think anything will ever beat the eye test. I think the basic stats cover alot of the essentials when evaluating a player.

Advanced stats work in baseball because individuals typically stand on their own. You either get on base or you don't, you either have an error or you don't. Basketball is different in the sense that it's more of a team concept, and your team can affect your advanced stats for the better or worse.

There are simply to many things that come into play that can obscure advanced stats. Offensive/defensive paces, offensive/defensive sets, number of touches a particular player gets. Going to advanced defensive stats, what if you're playing your guy great on D but then have to help out on someone else which opens up your man for an easy bucket? I mean there are a million different situations that come into play that affect a particular players advanced stats.

I'm not going to throw all stats out the window. I think the basic stats cover alot of things as far as efficiency goes. Between that and the eye test, that's all I really pay attention to. Per can be important as well.

Though I'm sure a case can be made with the other stats, I just think at that point you are over analyzing a bit. Which is possible to do. Instead of focusing on who has the best advanced stats in the leauge, figure out a way to make the players on your team better and more effiecient which under the right system everyone is capable of.

FOXHOUND
08-17-2013, 01:20 PM
Are they good? opinions on them? If they aren't good, why does almost every team have an analytical staff which uses advanced statistics? Are all these NBA teams wrong?

Advanced Stats are anything that doesn't show up in a box score, for the most part. Well, now they show +/- there too.

Most teams definitely use advanced stats like shot charts, tendencies, on/off court data, lineup combination data, 2-man, 3-man, 4-man unit data, splits by quarter, splits by clutch, positional splits for individual players, defensive stats like the % a player allows at the rim, hot spots vs cold spots, on hand drives/off hand drives, etc. Many of advanced stats are phenomenal. The new SportVU system that 15 or so teams have running now is also fantastic and I'm jealous that the information from it is private.

Now the baseball stats being used, like WS, WARP, etc., I doubt many teams are actually using those to make decisions. At the end of the day it's all about watching film and using the advanced stats I listed above for hard evidence. You can watch film on a guy and notice/wonder, hey, he likes posting on the left block, is he effective from there? Just pull that info right up, rather than having to watch him posting up for 20 hours and writing down his success rate.

But at the end of the day no stat is going to show you how he posts on the left block, what his moves are, how effective he is as fooling his defender with fakes, etc. Is he drawing a lot of fouls? Is that because of him faking players out, getting them in the air or at a bad angle and attacking them to draw it? Is that because he's a mountain of a man and his man can't help but slap him as he powers through? Is he always good posting on the left block or only when he has a mismatch? Is he effective against the top post defenders? Well, they may have stats for that last one, or individual numbers for post defenders they can crunch together if they find them to be the top post defenders or something like that.

Stats are fantastic, but they'll never be able to tell the whole story. You won't have any computer GM's anytime soon.

mngopher35
08-17-2013, 01:23 PM
Stats are great, if you know what they mean and how to use them. I think many people just throw out stats here and there that support a point and rarely look at the whole picture. So in that case stats can be bad because of the posters bias.

Obviously watching the game is the most important part of analyzing a player but stats are fantastic at showing me things that I didn't catch with my eyes etc (no one can watch every single game every year). Probably used too much by some and too little by others but it is definitely here to stay as many teams realize their value.

FOXHOUND
08-17-2013, 01:29 PM
Here is a great example of what I talked about. Kirk Goldsberry always has fantastic analytic breakdowns with his Courtvision analysis, I'm glad Grantland snatched him up so fast. He also uses SportVU data in this article, which is always fascinating.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/66111/courtvision-when-lebron-attacks

Marriage of scouting + analytic breakdowns.

Goose17
08-17-2013, 02:32 PM
I appreciate what advanced stats can do and they're going to play an even bigger part in the future than they do now.

But if anyone thinks you can judge a team or player based solely on stats, you're an idiot.

The people that completely dismiss stats and say they are pointless and the people that love stats and think that's all you need. Those two types of people are one and the same; Ignorant.

Advanced stats can tell you what has previously happened and can help predict future trends and what MIGHT happen. But they can't and never will be able to tell you why these things happened or what influenced these things.


You need to look at the full picture to truly admire the art.

Bruno
08-17-2013, 05:07 PM
"I love the NBA as a sport because it is one that cannot be quantified as directly as say, baseball but still has enough data&information to challenge assumptions and draw useful conclusions."
-Morey.

^from the man himself. your poll is too black and white. stats are good when used correctly, but they are not the end all be all. all aspects of NBA basketball can not be boxed into what we call statistics. although a lot of it can be.

Chronz
08-17-2013, 05:24 PM
They were invented by the devil to make kobe look bad

abe_froman
08-17-2013, 05:28 PM
They were invented by the devil to make kobe look bad
the funny thing they ignore is they dont make him look bad,he looks very good with them...just not the best

Hawkeye15
08-17-2013, 05:40 PM
They are great as long as you understand how to use them properly. The people who don't like advanced stats tend to be one of the following:

- they don't understand them
- advanced stats don't support their favorite player as highly as that persons eyes do

TheGreaterFool
08-17-2013, 05:45 PM
My only knock on advance stats are that they don't tell the whole story. I think advance stats have a place in the league and for evaluating players, but should be used in conjunction with the eye test.

ramsizzle
08-17-2013, 05:46 PM
They are great as long as you understand how to use them properly. The people who don't like advanced stats tend to be one of the following:

- they don't understand them
- advanced stats don't support their favorite player as highly as that persons eyes do.

Basketball advanced stats are just now starting to become credible. advanced stats work in baseball due to the insane amount of data accumulated throughout its history. Basketball is just scratching the surface with this.

Hawkeye15
08-17-2013, 05:49 PM
.

Basketball advanced stats are just now starting to become credible. advanced stats work in baseball due to the insane amount of data accumulated throughout its history. Basketball is just scratching the surface with this.

It's further along than you think, but sure, it's still a growing science. But are we supposed to wait to get onboard until it's perfected? Everyone is measured under the same equations. It's fair game.

ramsizzle
08-17-2013, 05:55 PM
It's further along than you think, but sure, it's still a growing science. But are we supposed to wait to get onboard until it's perfected? Everyone is measured under the same equations. It's fair game.

Fair game doesn't mean that the stats are correct, which is why teams are just now in the last couple years starting to use them. There are always those statistical anomalies that aren't going to work within the stats but work in the game (ex. Kobe, AI, hell even dating back to Russell.) Baseball has been around so long that pretty much every type of analysis has been collected and the outliers are very few and far between. Basically what I'm saying is the stats are VERY raw still and with added years they'll be perfected.

Hawkeye15
08-17-2013, 06:56 PM
Fair game doesn't mean that the stats are correct, which is why teams are just now in the last couple years starting to use them. There are always those statistical anomalies that aren't going to work within the stats but work in the game (ex. Kobe, AI, hell even dating back to Russell.) Baseball has been around so long that pretty much every type of analysis has been collected and the outliers are very few and far between. Basically what I'm saying is the stats are VERY raw still and with added years they'll be perfected.

absolutely false.

Guppyfighter
08-17-2013, 07:07 PM
Fair game doesn't mean that the stats are correct, which is why teams are just now in the last couple years starting to use them. There are always those statistical anomalies that aren't going to work within the stats but work in the game (ex. Kobe, AI, hell even dating back to Russell.) Baseball has been around so long that pretty much every type of analysis has been collected and the outliers are very few and far between. Basically what I'm saying is the stats are VERY raw still and with added years they'll be perfected.


If we didn't know how to find correlation rates this would be correct, but we do.

Bruno
08-17-2013, 07:22 PM
They were invented by the devil to make kobe look bad

and larry bird.

JeremiahWing
08-17-2013, 07:26 PM
I think alot of people dislike advanced stats simply because they don't understand them. In saying that. I don't think anything will ever beat the eye test. I think the basic stats cover alot of the essentials when evaluating a player.

Advanced stats work in baseball because individuals typically stand on their own. You either get on base or you don't, you either have an error or you don't. Basketball is different in the sense that it's more of a team concept, and your team can affect your advanced stats for the better or worse.

There are simply to many things that come into play that can obscure advanced stats. Offensive/defensive paces, offensive/defensive sets, number of touches a particular player gets. Going to advanced defensive stats, what if you're playing your guy great on D but then have to help out on someone else which opens up your man for an easy bucket? I mean there are a million different situations that come into play that affect a particular players advanced stats.

I'm not going to throw all stats out the window. I think the basic stats cover alot of things as far as efficiency goes. Between that and the eye test, that's all I really pay attention to. Per can be important as well.

Though I'm sure a case can be made with the other stats, I just think at that point you are over analyzing a bit. Which is possible to do. Instead of focusing on who has the best advanced stats in the leauge, figure out a way to make the players on your team better and more effiecient which under the right system everyone is capable of.

This post is perfect.

Hawkeye15
08-17-2013, 07:45 PM
This post is perfect.

not really. Everything he says can be refuted.

ramsizzle
08-17-2013, 08:27 PM
absolutely false.

Absolutely not.... If people took it seriously then guys like hollinger and morrey would've had jobs decades ago...

All-In
08-17-2013, 08:46 PM
Here is a great example of what I talked about. Kirk Goldsberry always has fantastic analytic breakdowns with his Courtvision analysis, I'm glad Grantland snatched him up so fast. He also uses SportVU data in this article, which is always fascinating.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/66111/courtvision-when-lebron-attacks

Marriage of scouting + analytic breakdowns.

Yea I’m a fan of Kirk Goldsberry as well….have you read his “Dwight Effect” on interior defense? I don’t think it’s a perfect stat when solely judging how good a “big man” is on defense….but in conclusion of his paper…..Larry Sanders is good at defense and David Lee isn’t lol So it does a fair representation

WadeKobe
08-17-2013, 08:56 PM
and larry bird.

Agreed. The funny thing is, though, that while WP views Kobe a little less highly than does WS or PER, WP absolutely loves Larry Bird. I will admit that this was a positive thing for me during all my research. I can't help but keep an open mind and kind of like a statistic that says Larry Bird was one of the 5 best of the turnover era.

bagwell368
08-17-2013, 09:04 PM
My only knock on advance stats are that they don't tell the whole story. I think advance stats have a place in the league and for evaluating players, but should be used in conjunction with the eye test.

Any rational person would agree at first blush - but then this point comes up: what you say is true only if the brain behind the eye is very experienced AND objective.

Evidence on this site strongly suggests the average poster is a homer AND became a fan after ESPN took over much of the perception/reporting of players. I don't trust the opinions of such people because they tend to be overly subjective and biased.

Even an experienced old salt like me has some biases - like volume scorers/hero ball players.

So in the perfect world, you're right, sadly this isn't it.

Bruno
08-17-2013, 09:13 PM
Any rational person would agree at first blush - but then this point comes up: what you say is true only if the brain behind the eye is very experienced AND objective.

Evidence on this site strongly suggests the average poster is a homer AND became a fan after ESPN took over much of the perception/reporting of players. I don't trust the opinions of such people because they tend to be overly subjective and biased.

Even an experienced old salt like me has some biases - like volume scorers/hero ball players.

So in the perfect world, you're right, sadly this isn't it.
I took it that he wasn't talking about the average fan though. more so players and coaches (many of which have chosen the most famous volume scorer of the past generation as the best player from that generation). An opinion that seems to clash with our advanced stats. what do we do with the opinions of our most respected coaches and players, even when those opinions clash with what we see on advanced lines?

know what I mean?

Bruno
08-17-2013, 09:14 PM
Agreed. The funny thing is, though, that while WP views Kobe a little less highly than does WS or PER, WP absolutely loves Larry Bird. I will admit that this was a positive thing for me during all my research. I can't help but keep an open mind and kind of like a statistic that says Larry Bird was one of the 5 best of the turnover era.

I know, i know. it makes it hard to take it seriously.

Larry Bird is my second favorite player of all time.

WadeKobe
08-17-2013, 09:19 PM
I know, i know. it makes it hard to take it seriously.

Larry Bird is my second favorite player of all time.

the fact that it says Larry Bird was one of the 5 best of the turnover era makes it hard to take seriously?

Bruno
08-17-2013, 09:27 PM
the fact that it says Larry Bird was one of the 5 best of the turnover era makes it hard to take seriously?

no sorry- i misread (and meant to say the opposite). what i meant to say is that its hard to take certain cumulative stats seriously when players like Larry Bird don't even crack its top 15 (Like PER). I think PER has use to it, I'm just saying on first glance it makes it hard to take it seriously.

lol, please
08-17-2013, 09:30 PM
I think alot of people dislike advanced stats simply because they don't understand them.
This.


This argument never goes anywhere on a forum because the stat heads know the foundation and appropriate context/usage, and know they are tools, wheras people against advanced metrics, well, they are in a form of denial basically, and 9 of of 10 are pretty ignorant to the sport in question, advanced metrics isn't something new, the applications may be, but anyone who argues against math, is just, well, uneducated, plain and simple. No one should have to explain why advanced metrics in sports are useful to the common college educated person, they would already know the answer or reach the conclusion using common sense.

Those who don't know/understand won't/shouldn't be figuring this out on a discussion board, they should be furthering themselves through education at a credible institution.

It's not a right/wrong argument, there really is not argument, there are facts, and theories. Math consists of facts. Not opinions. Numbers never lie. Arguing against math is basically exposing your level of education/intelligence.

bagwell368
08-17-2013, 09:33 PM
I took it that he wasn't talking about the average fan though. more so players and coaches (many of which have chosen the most famous volume scorer of the past generation as the best player from that generation). An opinion that seems to clash with our advanced stats. what do we do with the opinions of our most respected coaches and players, even when those opinions clash with what we see on advanced lines?

know what I mean?

Magic says Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, and so many more stupid comments by him and others don't even deserve to be disproven because they are so idiotic. So I'm disinterested generally in what "they" say. I mostly listen with volume down so I don't get influenced by these dummies.

RollingWave
08-17-2013, 09:53 PM
it's not there yet, but it does already tell you a lot of things, worth keeping track as long as your aware of it's potential weakness

All-In
08-17-2013, 10:49 PM
Magic says Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, and so many more stupid comments by him and others don't even deserve to be disproven because they are so idiotic. So I'm disinterested generally in what "they" say. I mostly listen with volume down so I don't get influenced by these dummies.

LOL That’s hilarious that you said that…I turn down the volume as well…recently I was watching the 2013 USA Basketball Blue vs White game….Isiah Thomas was a commentator….right before Andre Drummond shot his free throws…he said how for a big man he has a good looking FT shot and such great ball rotation(no joke)…Drummond then proceeded to brick both FT’s

jerellh528
08-18-2013, 12:04 AM
I love the nba because I watch, not analyze. stats are great but you can read all the advance stats you want and still know zero about the game if you don't make judgments based on other things like your own eyes or playing. Stats tell about 25% of the story IMO.

Hawkeye15
08-18-2013, 12:18 AM
Absolutely not.... If people took it seriously then guys like hollinger and morrey would've had jobs decades ago...

You said that last couple of years. That is absolutely, positively, false. Period. Advanced metric guys have been involved in the NBA for nearly 10 years.

Goose17
08-18-2013, 10:03 AM
You said that last couple of years. That is absolutely, positively, false. Period. Advanced metric guys have been involved in the NBA for nearly 10 years.

True but he's right in a sense as they haven't been truly appreciated until the last 3 years or so. There still exists NBA teams with no analytic department whatsoever.

Just because some teams have had advanced metric guys involved in some way over the last 8 years or so doesn't make him wrong, they weren't really appreciated or relied on as much as they are now.

D-Leethal
08-18-2013, 12:39 PM
It makes plenty of sense for teams to have analytical staffs. For one, they have the resources (aka $$$) so why not cover all your bases and get as much information as you can? And two, they can be tremendous when analyzing your own team, the best lineups, the hot spots of each player, which player thrives next to each other on the court, which sets are most successful, what positions your best players thrive in. You find out a lot about your team and you get a better idea how to maximize your teams potential for success.

The problem in the stats lie when you start crossing them over and using them to rate/judge/compare players on completely different teams, in completely different situations. Once you take them outside the context of the team, and take them at face value to rate individuals like you can in baseball which, unlike basketball, is a team sport predicated on individual 1 on 1 matchups, you start to run into problems and the flaws start to get exposed.

They will never be as accurate a judge of individuals as they are in baseball, and they will never be able to tell the whole story like they do in baseball. The nature of the 5 on 5 game won't allow for it to ever get to that point. You will never be able to truly and accurately isolate the individual like you can in baseball.

Guppyfighter
08-18-2013, 03:57 PM
It makes plenty of sense for teams to have analytical staffs. For one, they have the resources (aka $$$) so why not cover all your bases and get as much information as you can? And two, they can be tremendous when analyzing your own team, the best lineups, the hot spots of each player, which player thrives next to each other on the court, which sets are most successful, what positions your best players thrive in. You find out a lot about your team and you get a better idea how to maximize your teams potential for success.

The problem in the stats lie when you start crossing them over and using them to rate/judge/compare players on completely different teams, in completely different situations. Once you take them outside the context of the team, and take them at face value to rate individuals like you can in baseball which, unlike basketball, is a team sport predicated on individual 1 on 1 matchups, you start to run into problems and the flaws start to get exposed.

They will never be as accurate a judge of individuals as they are in baseball, and they will never be able to tell the whole story like they do in baseball. The nature of the 5 on 5 game won't allow for it to ever get to that point. You will never be able to truly and accurately isolate the individual like you can in baseball.

"They lie because they don't say what I feel."


All the things you say can't be measured, can be measured.

Child please.

IndyRealist
08-18-2013, 04:18 PM
I love the nba because I watch, not analyze. stats are great but you can read all the advance stats you want and still know zero about the game if you don't make judgments based on other things like your own eyes or playing. Stats tell about 25% of the story IMO.

And if you don't look at the stats and just watch you know zero about the game as well. If all you did was watch games you'd think a 20ft fadeaway with a hand in your face was a great shot, because all the great wing players do it.

The argument is not stats over watching, or watching over stats. It's that stats are integral to understanding what happened. Pick any game, and don't look at the boxscore or any of the stats splashed on the screen. Watch the entire game, then tell me who was the 2nd leading scorer on each team and how many field goals they took. Exactly.

People have limited attention spans and simply can't pay attention to everything that happens on the court in real time. That's where stats and video analysis comes in. But fans seem to think they can just watch a game in real time and know everything that happened. IT'S HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. Our brains can simultaneously track 5 things at one time. There are 12 moving objects on the floor (5 players per side, the ball, and the shot clock). So if you are giving the game your full, undivided attention, you are still missing more than half of what's going on. That's why stats exist.

Bravo95
08-18-2013, 07:26 PM
My teams don't normally spend money like the top dogs, so I expect the decision makers to keep up with the times and seek all the info they need, even if it doesn't reveal what we want it to say about favored players. But yeah the people who know the most usually have experience (played/coached/scouted/etc) and an understanding of advanced metrics to support their arguments.

Trueblue2
08-18-2013, 08:27 PM
I think advanced stats are extremely useful when evaluating players and tells you more about their values in comparison to one another than the 'eye test' ever can. People that knock them dont understand them. But i have a bigger problem with people that dont understand them using them to back up an argument. If you dont have a basic understanding of how theyre calculated, what each stat weighs more heavily, and what each stat's flaws are then you shouldnt be using them. Advanced stats used IN CONTEXT are without a doubt the most useful tool in evaluating players. Taken out of context theyre as useful/useless as basic counting stats and subjective opinion.

Heatcheck
08-19-2013, 04:40 PM
win shares is the dumbest **** i have ever seen. aside from that, theyre pretty good.

jerellh528
08-19-2013, 04:49 PM
And if you don't look at the stats and just watch you know zero about the game as well. If all you did was watch games you'd think a 20ft fadeaway with a hand in your face was a great shot, because all the great wing players do it.

The argument is not stats over watching, or watching over stats. It's that stats are integral to understanding what happened. Pick any game, and don't look at the boxscore or any of the stats splashed on the screen. Watch the entire game, then tell me who was the 2nd leading scorer on each team and how many field goals they took. Exactly.

People have limited attention spans and simply can't pay attention to everything that happens on the court in real time. That's where stats and video analysis comes in. But fans seem to think they can just watch a game in real time and know everything that happened. IT'S HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. Our brains can simultaneously track 5 things at one time. There are 12 moving objects on the floor (5 players per side, the ball, and the shot clock). So if you are giving the game your full, undivided attention, you are still missing more than half of what's going on. That's why stats exist.

This post actually hurts your argument I feel like.i think it would be a great idea to not look at a box score or stats during a game and just focus on the play. It would show who the beast player on the court actually is. Not who filled up the stat box best

amos1er
08-19-2013, 04:56 PM
Needs to be more than just two poll options. The options are too black and white... No middle ground. What if someone feels that advanced stats are good, just need to be coupled with eye test, opinion... etc.

jerellh528
08-19-2013, 04:57 PM
Needs to be more than just two poll options. The options are too black and white... No middle ground. What if someone feels that advanced stats are good, just need to be coupled with eye test, opinion... etc.

Hidden agenda is obvious by op

el hidalgo
08-19-2013, 04:57 PM
Needs to be more than just two poll options. The options are too black and white... No middle ground. What if someone feels that advanced stats are good, just need to be coupled with eye test, opinion... etc.

well., thats a given. iv never seen anybody say they rely solely on advanced stats.

amos1er
08-19-2013, 04:58 PM
Hidden agenda is obvious by op

Figured. Lol

amos1er
08-19-2013, 04:58 PM
well., thats a given. iv never seen anybody say they rely solely on advanced stats.

Then why not have more poll options?

el hidalgo
08-19-2013, 05:00 PM
Then why not have more poll options?

if you think they are useful when used in the correct context and combined with other options, that makes advanced stats good, does it not?

jerellh528
08-19-2013, 05:01 PM
if you think they are useful when used in the correct context and combined with other options, that makes advanced stats good, does it not?

What if they think some are useful and some suck?

IndyRealist
08-19-2013, 05:23 PM
This post actually hurts your argument I feel like.i think it would be a great idea to not look at a box score or stats during a game and just focus on the play. It would show who the beast player on the court actually is. Not who filled up the stat box best
Because you would be able to remember what happened on the 27th play of the game? The point is that human perception is limited, memory is fallible, and both are biased by emotion. That's why some people think Kobe is the GOAT when stats generally agree he's good or even great, but not even close to the best. Your eyes lie.

jerellh528
08-19-2013, 05:44 PM
Because you would be able to remember what happened on the 27th play of the game? The point is that human perception is limited, memory is fallible, and both are biased by emotion. That's why some people think Kobe is the GOAT when stats generally agree he's good or even great, but not even close to the best. Your eyes lie.
Goat is relative. When determining the best basketball player, human perception, no matter how limited is always the determining factor. You're eyes tell you your own perceived truths. Stats can be very arbitrary.

bagwell368
08-19-2013, 08:41 PM
Goat is relative. When determining the best basketball player, human perception, no matter how limited is always the determining factor. You're eyes tell you your own perceived truths. Stats can be very arbitrary.

Your eyes don't have any part of it, it's your mind. I was raised less than 10 miles from Boston Garden, and I was raised to believe that William Felton Russell was the greatest player of all time. I was also raised to believe Wilt was literally the anti-Bill. By 1980 I started to have doubts.

If I didn't change my mind through a long process of viewing games, thinking about games and players, and breaking away from that initial bias I was raised with, I'd still think Russell was the greatest.

The mind that's "educated" by ESPN highlights of dunks, steals, 3 pointers, and blocks and a homer announcer is practically worthless to me, since only frustration can result talking almost any subject with them.

Stats, in particular advanced ones since the ABA merger are far less arbitrary then 90% of the posters at PSD. The 10% often/mostly have views, opinions, and arguments that often outstrip stats - but even they, can and do show bias. Still, in almost every walk of life, subjective perceptions are crucial as is objective data. But here one can ignore posters of proven low quality.

IndyRealist
08-19-2013, 11:36 PM
Goat is relative. When determining the best basketball player, human perception, no matter how limited is always the determining factor. You're eyes tell you your own perceived truths. Stats can be very arbitrary.

Perception is arbitrary, stats are not. Perception is clouded by the whims of the perceiver, like Bagwell pointed out with the Wilt bias. Stats do not change because someone is a Lakers fan as opposed to a Bulls fan. Perception does. That's pretty much the definition of arbitrary.

el hidalgo
08-19-2013, 11:48 PM
stats may not be arbitrary, but perception of stats is arbitrary, which makes kobe the GOAT

Hawkeye15
08-19-2013, 11:50 PM
I go back to my point. Those who don't like advanced stats typically fall into the following categories:

- They don't understand them
- They don't support their favorite player

SportsFanatic10
08-20-2013, 12:04 AM
they're a great tool and should never be ignored.

PLAYERS FAN
08-20-2013, 01:40 AM
Does the hockey assist exist in advance stats? For me to respect advance stats, it got to be more advance how buckets are score. Example:fast break buckets shouldn't equal to mid or long range buckets ,and open jump-shots made, shouldn't be the same as contested jump-shots.

SportsFanatic10
08-20-2013, 01:44 AM
Does the hockey assist exist in advance stats? For me to respect advance stats, it got to be more advance how buckets are score. Example:fast break buckets shouldn't equal to mid or long range buckets ,and open jump-shots made, shouldn't be the same as contested jump-shots.

i'm sure teams track them. i know the heat make a big deal about the hockey assists.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/miamiheat/post/_/id/15718/the-heat-and-the-hockey-assist

b@llhog24
08-20-2013, 03:01 AM
Does the hockey assist exist in advance stats?

More than likely, just probably not available to the masses.


For me to respect advance stats, it got to be more advance how buckets are score. Example:fast break buckets shouldn't equal to mid or long range buckets ,and open jump-shots made, shouldn't be the same as contested jump-shots.

Not sure why anyone would find this relevant. A dunk, layup, mid range jumper= the same 2 points.

amos1er
08-20-2013, 03:41 AM
I go back to my point. Those who don't like advanced stats typically fall into the following categories:

- They don't understand them
- They don't support their favorite player

If your not with us... Your against us.

amos1er
08-20-2013, 03:44 AM
Goat is relative. When determining the best basketball player, human perception, no matter how limited is always the determining factor. You're eyes tell you your own perceived truths. Stats can be very arbitrary.

Phil Jackson agrees with this 100%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBZb_X5qjMg

JLynn943
08-20-2013, 03:51 AM
Advanced stats are definitely good, but it is important to remember that they are not perfect and that they don't tell you everything. Too often people forget to consider the context that players earned their stats in.

WadeKobe
08-20-2013, 04:03 AM
.

WadeKobe
08-20-2013, 04:04 AM
Does the hockey assist exist in advance stats? For me to respect advance stats, it got to be more advance how buckets are score. Example:fast break buckets shouldn't equal to mid or long range buckets ,and open jump-shots made, shouldn't be the same as contested jump-shots.

This is horrible. Lol. Shots have value, they don't become more valuable based upon how difficult the shot was. However, 82games is looking at game charting and finding the value of shots taken in shot-clock ranges, and then valuing a player's shots base upon when they were in the shot clock. This makes sense.

If it was a contested 2 or a layup, who cares? Getting a layup is valuable shot creation. Getting a contested jumper is miserable shot creation. If you can consistently add above average value given one's role as a shooter of last resort, that should matter. Your suggestion is horrid.