PDA

View Full Version : When Did Being a Good/ Great Scorer Become a Bad thing?



Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 05:56 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

FYL_McVeezy
11-04-2013, 06:01 PM
When advanced statistics became the new trend.

5ass
11-04-2013, 06:09 PM
When advanced statistics became the new trend.

Its not a trend, its a breakthrough in basketball analysis.

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 06:16 PM
When advanced statistics became the new trend.

That's kind of a messed up way to look at the game though. Call me a caveman but I'd much rather enjoy the game with some good booze instead of a advanced stat sheet....

alexander_37
11-04-2013, 06:20 PM
Because wasting possessions on bad shots makes you lose games....

ShockerArt
11-04-2013, 06:23 PM
You're a caveman

Mr_Jones
11-04-2013, 06:25 PM
lol advanced stats

Jamiecballer
11-04-2013, 06:33 PM
when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.

tredigs
11-04-2013, 06:35 PM
Just depends if you prefer entertainment (in the form of high scoring games by one person) or winning, I guess. And there's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Not often you see KD getting bagged on for taking too many ill advised shots, right? And he's the preeminent scorer of this generation.

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 06:45 PM
Just depends if you prefer entertainment (in the form of high scoring games by one person) or winning, I guess. And there's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Not often you see KD getting bagged on for taking too many ill advised shots, right? And he's the preeminent scorer of this generation.

KD gets completely disrespected in the MVP voting despite having great regular season numbers and great team success in a tougher conference. His biggest criticism is "he's just a scorer".......

YoungOne
11-04-2013, 07:03 PM
its a problem if you bring nothing else than scoring to the table.
(Nick Young, Marshon Brooks etc.)

TheIlladelph16
11-04-2013, 07:05 PM
KD gets completely disrespected in the MVP voting despite having great regular season numbers and great team success in a tougher conference. His biggest criticism is "he's just a scorer".......

He gets criticized in the MVP debate only when its in comparison to Lebron James, and that's only because James is one of the, if not the best THE best wing defender in the NBA and a great rebounder for his position. Durant surely has the advantage on James on the offensive side of the ball, but James' impact beyond just offense outweighs the advantage Durant does have offensively.

I'm not sure that's really a criticism though in regards to Durant.

nycericanguy
11-04-2013, 07:15 PM
I didn't get to see Nique in his hay day, this thread made me check his stats and it struck me how similar they are to Melo all around, though Melo is a bit more efficient.

Did Nique ever have a 2nd legit star? That has a lot to do with players efficiency.

I mean it's an extremely small sample size but Durant shot only 42% after Westbrook went down last year. And then this year he shot 36% without WB in the first 2 games, and then when WB came back he shoots 53% last night. Coincidence ?

Melo I believe only played 1 full season with another 20ppg scorer (AI) and that just happened to be the year that he shot a career high .492% from the field.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 07:18 PM
February 6th, 2002

b@llhog24
11-04-2013, 07:21 PM
I still love to watch them. I just know they aren't as great as people think they are.

b@llhog24
11-04-2013, 07:25 PM
I didn't get to see Nique in his hay day, this thread made me check his stats and it struck me how similar they are to Melo all around, though Melo is a bit more efficient.

Did Nique ever have a 2nd legit star? That has a lot to do with players efficiency.

I mean it's an extremely small sample size but Durant shot only 42% after Westbrook went down last year. And then this year he shot 36% without WB in the first 2 games, and then when WB came back he shoots 53% last night. Coincidence ?

Melo I believe only played 1 full season with another 20ppg scorer (AI) and that just happened to be the year that he shot a career high .492% from the field.

Durant's 2nd and 3rd year apparently didn't happen.

Hawkeye15
11-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

around the time where information on whether or not those 40 points came at the expense of his team, or were neutral, or helped.

bholly
11-04-2013, 07:37 PM
when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.

This. We understand the game better now. It's not that being a good / great scorer is now a bad thing, it's that being a volume scorer purely because of the number of shots you take is no longer enough to be considered a good scorer.

SportsFanatic10
11-04-2013, 07:37 PM
when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.

exactly this, the whole point of the game is to win in the end. so if a player puts up big scoring numbers at the expense of the team's success then there is a problem.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 07:45 PM
I still love to watch them. I just know they aren't as great as people think they are.

In that case, you shoud be watching the D-League

alexander_37
11-04-2013, 07:50 PM
In that case, you shoud be watching the D-League


This makes no sense...

Chronz
11-04-2013, 07:52 PM
Define good/great. Was Jerry Stackhouse a great scorer? How about Monta Ellis?

hugepatsfan
11-04-2013, 07:55 PM
I still love to watch players like that. I just don't think building around them is the best way to win a title.

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 07:57 PM
exactly this, the whole point of the game is to win in the end. so if a player puts up big scoring numbers at the expense of the team's success then there is a problem.

Who is to say their scoring was at the expense of the team. Advanced stats? Even when their own coaches say things like there is no way we wouldn't have got as far as we did without them playing like they did?

Nique for example dropped like 40 something against Bird in the playoffs but lost because so did Bird but his team was better. Back then you just said great game, no shame. Now we would say "hey you should've shot less, made Kevin Willis better, and shut down Bird while you were at it...."

Guppyfighter
11-04-2013, 08:04 PM
Who is to say their scoring was at the expense of the team. Advanced stats? Even when their own coaches say things like there is no way we wouldn't have got as far as we did without them playing like they did?

Nique for example dropped like 40 something against Bird in the playoffs but lost because so did Bird but his team was better. Back then you just said great game, no shame. Now we would say "hey you should've shot less, made Kevin Willis better, and shut down Bird while you were at it...."

If you are scoring 40 points you were probably efficient. On the other hand, if your play style allows for that many shots, IE Ellis, you are probably not conductive to winning in the long run.


Get with the times, Starks. Otherwise you have dumb opinions, like thinking Jennings is a good player.

NYKalltheway
11-04-2013, 08:05 PM
Who is to say their scoring was at the expense of the team. Advanced stats? Even when their own coaches say things like there is no way we wouldn't have got as far as we did without them playing like they did?

Nique for example dropped like 40 something against Bird in the playoffs but lost because so did Bird but his team was better. Back then you just said great game, no shame. Now we would say "hey you should've shot less, made Kevin Willis better, and shut down Bird while you were at it...."

thank you for making me simply quote you rather than making a whole new post :)

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 08:06 PM
Define good/great. Was Jerry Stackhouse a great scorer? How about Monta Ellis?

Nique, Benard King, AI, TMac, Melo, young Wade.... great. Dirk, Vince, young Ray Allen, young Steph, Stack.... very good.

Did we not enjoy all their respective games at one point? Were they not doing the best they had with the teams they had? Still recognized as allstars?

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 08:18 PM
This makes no sense...

Because?

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 08:19 PM
Nique, Benard King, AI, TMac, Melo, young Wade.... great. Dirk, Vince, young Ray Allen, young Steph, Stack.... very good.

Did we not enjoy all their respective games at one point? Were they not doing the best they had with the teams they had? Still recognized as allstars?

Yeah, Nets had Marbury. I preferred winning

Jamiecballer
11-04-2013, 08:53 PM
I didn't get to see Nique in his hay day, this thread made me check his stats and it struck me how similar they are to Melo all around, though Melo is a bit more efficient.

Did Nique ever have a 2nd legit star? That has a lot to do with players efficiency.
that's funny i did the exact same thing and came up with the exact same conclusion. Melo is this generations Dominique.

Jamiecballer
11-04-2013, 09:08 PM
being a great scorer hasn't change. just our definition of it.

for instance, 10 years ago Allen Iverson might have fit my definition of great scorer. now he doesn't.

P&GRealist
11-04-2013, 09:12 PM
Michael Jordan 10x scoring champion and 9x field goal attempt leader says hi.

koreancabbage
11-04-2013, 09:19 PM
Who is to say their scoring was at the expense of the team. Advanced stats? Even when their own coaches say things like there is no way we wouldn't have got as far as we did without them playing like they did?

Nique for example dropped like 40 something against Bird in the playoffs but lost because so did Bird but his team was better. Back then you just said great game, no shame. Now we would say "hey you should've shot less, made Kevin Willis better, and shut down Bird while you were at it...."

horrible shooting percentages for most. If you're not getting the basketball into the basket, you're giving a possession right back to the other team.

I think its as simple as that. non-efficient scorers cost their own teams possessions. and especially when you can't do anything else on the court as well.

and coaches allow players to be like that b/c they enable them to do so. they are enablers. might win you some games but it'll cost you some games as well. Percentages are always right. I would say the league average for FG% is around 45%. THAT's AVERAGE and thats pretty bad, percentage wise. compared to 100%. nothing is a sure thing but making basketball plays sure gets you better %s than league average as a team.

so ya, being a scorer and not being efficient is bad. especially when you don't excel at both ends of the floor.

Chronz
11-04-2013, 09:35 PM
Nique, Benard King, AI, TMac, Melo, young Wade.... great. Dirk, Vince, young Ray Allen, young Steph, Stack.... very good.

Did we not enjoy all their respective games at one point? Were they not doing the best they had with the teams they had? Still recognized as allstars?
I suppose, but they weren't all doing the job equally well either. Inevitably people will praise the best and mock the lesser scorers.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 09:51 PM
I suppose, but they weren't all doing the job equally well either. Inevitably people will praise the best and mock the lesser scorers.

And you think that is what has happened?

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 10:16 PM
being a great scorer hasn't change. just our definition of it.

for instance, 10 years ago Allen Iverson might have fit my definition of great scorer. now he doesn't.

Well we can agree to disagree. I refuse to let whatever the popular defenition of a great scorer is tell me who is a good player and who isn't.

Some of the very same players that get dismissed as "inefficient" by today's standards would have rings if they had been in the right situation....

Jamiecballer
11-04-2013, 10:20 PM
Michael Jordan 10x scoring champion and 9x field goal attempt leader says hi.

Michael Jordan the extremely efficient scorer waves and blows a kiss right back.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 10:26 PM
Well we can agree to disagree. I refuse to let whatever the popular defenition of a great scorer is tell me who is a good player and who isn't.

Some of the very same players that get dismissed as "inefficient" by today's standards would have rings if they had been in the right situation....

Or possibly had the proper attitude about winning

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=Jamiecballer;27343541]Michael Jordan the extremely efficient scorer waves and blows a kiss right back.[/QUOTE

MJ was undoubtely the best NBA player ever. MJ was all about doing what it took to make his team the best that it could be.

Eventually, that turned into 6 NBA Titles.

IndyRealist
11-04-2013, 10:43 PM
when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.

Pretty much this.

People who hold out against advanced statistics fail to realize that pro (and college) sports are BIG business. Sooner or later someone was going to use every resource available to gain an advantage. It's no different than bringing in specialized physical trainers or assistant coaches with radically differing strategies. If it gets you wins, you do it.

Heck, Kobe was applauded for going to Germany (?) and getting a procedure on his knee, WHEN IT HASN'T ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN TO WORK It might even make things worse, long term. Anti-stats people would rather have him rub dirt on it and walk it off.

You take every advantage you can get.

IndyRealist
11-04-2013, 10:54 PM
Well we can agree to disagree. I refuse to let whatever the popular defenition of a great scorer is tell me who is a good player and who isn't.

Some of the very same players that get dismissed as "inefficient" by today's standards would have rings if they had been in the right situation....

And had those players been in the right situation, they would still get all the accolades even though their teams carried them. You don't have to look at any advanced metrics, at all, to show that some volume scorers are overrated. All you have to do is compare them to the league averages of the basic box score, for their position.

The problem, which I've said repeatedly, is that people marginalize parts of the box score as inconsequential, if not outright ignoring them. Turnovers matter. Field goal attempts matter. Offensive rebounds matter. But every discussion about great players revolves around points per game, and little else. Points per game doesn't even take into account MINUTES PLAYED, let alone the shot attempts it took to get there. 20 years from now, no one's going to remember Monta Ellis, except Warriors fans.

Tony_Starks
11-04-2013, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE=Jamiecballer;27343541]Michael Jordan the extremely efficient scorer waves and blows a kiss right back.[/QUOTE

MJ was undoubtely the best NBA player ever. MJ was all about doing what it took to make his team the best that it could be.

Eventually, that turned into 6 NBA Titles.

Before Jordan got Phil he would be called a selfish player by today's standards. All about scoring, didnt trust or even respect his teammates.

Phil and Tex got him to buy into the triangle and trust the role players. Also challenged him defensively. Exact same with Kobe. The rest is history.

Like I said sometimes you have to be in the right situation...

ThuglifeJ
11-04-2013, 11:10 PM
Nique, Benard King, AI, TMac, Melo, young Wade.... great. Dirk, Vince, young Ray Allen, young Steph, Stack.... very good.

Did we not enjoy all their respective games at one point? Were they not doing the best they had with the teams they had? Still recognized as allstars?

Id say Dirk, Vince, Ray are more reliable than Melo...


to this thread, it's simply because back then (and early 2000s) most of the high volume scorers were GOOD. Like they were dominant offensively and had repitoirs that were incredible. Scoring was looked higher upon because those guys were capable of winning games themselves. JENNINGS, ELLIS, etc are NOT good examples to go off. They might be some of the better scoring talents TODAY but anytime before 2005 and those guys are NOT.

So if we had Tmacs, young Vince, Iverson, Nique, Hardaways, whoever right now...wed still have the same outlook..cuz those guys are dominant scorers. We dont have that besides maybe Durant.


No one wants to watch Ellis take 30 shots.
Everyone wants to watch Tmac take 30 shots.

setman2000
11-04-2013, 11:17 PM
When you shoot 37% trying to get 30. ..cough...cough...Melo.

Jamiecballer
11-04-2013, 11:25 PM
Before Jordan got Phil he would be called a selfish player by today's standards. All about scoring, didnt trust or even respect his teammates.

Phil and Tex got him to buy into the triangle and trust the role players. Also challenged him defensively. Exact same with Kobe. The rest is history.

Like I said sometimes you have to be in the right situation...

selfish or not he was still exceptionally efficient scoring the basketball, something the other guys on your list were not. and that's the difference. if you're shooting so much puts your team at a disadvantage you are not a great scorer, no matter how many points you score.

TheMightyHumph
11-04-2013, 11:52 PM
Id say Dirk, Vince, Ray are more reliable than Melo...

Except for Vince when it counts

DreamShaker
11-05-2013, 12:11 AM
I didn't get to see Nique in his hay day, this thread made me check his stats and it struck me how similar they are to Melo all around, though Melo is a bit more efficient.

Did Nique ever have a 2nd legit star? That has a lot to do with players efficiency.

I mean it's an extremely small sample size but Durant shot only 42% after Westbrook went down last year. And then this year he shot 36% without WB in the first 2 games, and then when WB came back he shoots 53% last night. Coincidence ?

Melo I believe only played 1 full season with another 20ppg scorer (AI) and that just happened to be the year that he shot a career high .492% from the field.

Never really had a true second option. Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Mookie Blaylock, and Stacey Augmon were the best players I remember him playing with.

ThuglifeJ
11-05-2013, 01:12 AM
Id say Dirk, Vince, Ray are more reliable than Melo...

Except for Vince when it counts

More game winners than melo.

jstone0716
11-05-2013, 04:34 PM
What about dudes like Reggie Evans? All he can do is rebound. He doesn't get knocked on all day for it though, it's just what he does.

alexander_37
11-05-2013, 04:39 PM
What about dudes like Reggie Evans? All he can do is rebound. He doesn't get knocked on all day for it though, it's just what he does.

Rebounding isn't wasting shot attempts. Rebounding can only help your team.

Sandman
11-05-2013, 04:44 PM
I didn't get to see Nique in his hay day, this thread made me check his stats and it struck me how similar they are to Melo all around, though Melo is a bit more efficient.

Did Nique ever have a 2nd legit star? That has a lot to do with players efficiency.

I mean it's an extremely small sample size but Durant shot only 42% after Westbrook went down last year. And then this year he shot 36% without WB in the first 2 games, and then when WB came back he shoots 53% last night. Coincidence ?

Melo I believe only played 1 full season with another 20ppg scorer (AI) and that just happened to be the year that he shot a career high .492% from the field.

^^ This

It depends on what youre looking for in the stats and what you're looking for in the performance

The adv stats will tell you how efficient the finished product is. This is like looking at inventory turnover or debt ratios in your business. Hey, our turnover ratios are great! We should just invest in more inventory! Well it doesnt work like that.

Watching the game can tell you a whole lot more. For example, it doesnt matter if Steve Novak is efficient, simply feeding him the ball and getting him more shots isn't conducive to him staying efficient. By that same respect, an extra 5 touches for Aaron McKie isn't exactly going to give you better results than AI.

Look at KG/PP/Allen's numbers before they got together, or the guys in Miami

By all means, if you think Carmelo and AI are inefficient chuckers, I dare you to leave them open :D

ewing
11-05-2013, 04:47 PM
I agree with the OP. Guys are somewhat obsessed with defining things through stats. Stats can help you access performance. They can lead to to look for things you otherwise would have missed but they are only a tool. As far the scoring thing. yes, there are some inefficient chuckers in the league however when Kobe strings together nine 40 pt games you are supposed to holy **** and tune in

Hawkeye15
11-05-2013, 05:30 PM
I agree with the OP. Guys are somewhat obsessed with defining things through stats. Stats can help you access performance. They can lead to to look for things you otherwise would have missed but they are only a tool. As far the scoring thing. yes, there are some inefficient chuckers in the league however when Kobe string however that shouldn't stop anyone from going holy **** when Kobe strings together nine 40 pt games

That isn't what it this is about though. Anyone old enough to remember the Jordan/Wilkins peak years, remembers the media asking, "who is the better scorer"? Well, now we know it was Jordan in a landslide, only because his points came at a much more efficient rate, and helped the bottom line.

ewing
11-05-2013, 05:33 PM
That isn't what it this is about though. Anyone old enough to remember the Jordan/Wilkins peak years, remembers the media asking, "who is the better scorer"? Well, now we know it was Jordan in a landslide, only because his points came at a much more efficient rate, and helped the bottom line.


must of us knew it then too.

valade16
11-05-2013, 05:38 PM
^^ This

It depends on what youre looking for in the stats and what you're looking for in the performance

The adv stats will tell you how efficient the finished product is. This is like looking at inventory turnover or debt ratios in your business. Hey, our turnover ratios are great! We should just invest in more inventory! Well it doesnt work like that.

Watching the game can tell you a whole lot more. For example, it doesnt matter if Steve Novak is efficient, simply feeding him the ball and getting him more shots isn't conducive to him staying efficient. By that same respect, an extra 5 touches for Aaron McKie isn't exactly going to give you better results than AI.

Look at KG/PP/Allen's numbers before they got together, or the guys in Miami

By all means, if you think Carmelo and AI are inefficient chuckers, I dare you to leave them open :D

This is a great point. People look at the advanced stats and think they are completely, 100% produced by the person they belong to as if the team around them had 0% to do with it. Look at the Heat:

LeBron w/Cle - 47.5% FG
LeBron w/Mia - 53.5% FG

Wade w/o Bron - 48.2% FG
Wade w/Bron - 50.5% FG

Bosh w/Tor - 49.2% FG
Bosh w/Mia - 50.7% FG

Or the Celtics big 3:

KG w/Min - 49.1% FG
KG w/Bos - 52.0% FG

Pierce w/o Big 3 - 44.0% FG
Pierce w/ Big 3 - 46.1% FG

Allen w/o Big 3 - 44.6% FG; 39.7% 3PT
Allen w/ Big 3 - 47.2% FG; 40.9% 3PT

Did they magically just become better shooters when the coincidentally teamed up with other superstars that could demand attention? Or were they simply put in a superior situation that increased their efficiency?

Advanced stats will show the finished product, not necessarily how they arrived there. I mean, if advanced stats are the arbitor of knowledge without context then Amir Johnson is the best scorer thus far this season because he has an ungoldy .779 TS%.

Who was a better scorer, Amir Johnson or Dominique Wilkins? What about 'Nique's inferior TS%?

ewing
11-05-2013, 05:40 PM
Someone people love to relay totally on stats for player comparisons. I really don't think stats can do better then someone who knows wtf they are taking about watching a decent sample of games when it comes to that. A person watching and looking at some stats might be best. I do find it very interested when i see stats the give info about where guys are efficient from, who defends pick roll better then who, etc etc. These kind of scouting things being revealed through stats is what i'd like to see more often

5ass
11-05-2013, 05:46 PM
This is a great point. People look at the advanced stats and think they are completely, 100% produced by the person they belong to as if the team around them had 0% to do with it. Look at the Heat:

LeBron w/Cle - 47.5% FG
LeBron w/Mia - 53.5% FG

Wade w/o Bron - 48.2% FG
Wade w/Bron - 50.5% FG

Bosh w/Tor - 49.2% FG
Bosh w/Mia - 50.7% FG

Or the Celtics big 3:

KG w/Min - 49.1% FG
KG w/Bos - 52.0% FG

Pierce w/o Big 3 - 44.0% FG
Pierce w/ Big 3 - 46.1% FG

Allen w/o Big 3 - 44.6% FG; 39.7% 3PT
Allen w/ Big 3 - 47.2% FG; 40.9% 3PT

Did they magically just become better shooters when the coincidentally teamed up with other superstars that could demand attention? Or were they simply put in a superior situation that increased their efficiency?

Advanced stats will show the finished product, not necessarily how they arrived there. I mean, if advanced stats are the arbitor of knowledge without context then Amir Johnson is the best scorer thus far this season because he has an ungoldy .779 TS%.

Who was a better scorer, Amir Johnson or Dominique Wilkins? What about 'Nique's inferior TS%?
If your reasoning is that simplistic you shouldnt be debating basketball, or anything for that matter. Most of the posters that use advanced stats take all that into consideration (ie teammates, usg%).

Guppyfighter
11-05-2013, 05:47 PM
We do know the relation to usage and efficiency, actually.

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

The works a bit dated, but there is a reason why this guy got hired by an NBA team.

valade16
11-05-2013, 05:57 PM
If your reasoning is that simplistic you shouldnt be debating basketball, or anything for that matter. Most of the posters that use advanced stats take all that into consideration (ie teammates, usg%).

No, they really don't. People are in here saying Wilkins wasn't a good scorer because he was inefficient.

1992-93: highest TS% on the Hawks
1991-92: 2nd highest TS%

He was the most efficient scorer on those early 90s Hawks teams. He had a terrible supporting cast and that caused him to have to shoot more. But that's an advanced concept to many.

If your team is bad there generally isn't as much ball movement, spacing, cuts, etc. This causes the offense to stagnate, which usually leads to a bad shot attempt at the end of the shot clock. 'Nique is being penalized for the result of a collective offensive failure because he was the player they gave the ball to when they couldn't think of anything else to do.

It's not rocket science. My friend's GF actually kept stats of our rec league. I shot 41% FG, 35% 3PT on a team that did exactly what I just described and thus it fell on me to take the tough shots nobody was capable of taking. We went 1-7. Next "season" I joined a far better team and even though my PPG dropped from 21 to 14 my shooting % went up to 46% FG, and 38% 3PT.

The point of that whole diatribe? Is that you said you take context like that into account and then called 'Nique inefficient. Which is wrong.

IndyRealist
11-05-2013, 05:58 PM
Someone people love to relay totally on stats for player comparisons. I really don't think stats can do better then someone who knows wtf they are taking about watching a decent sample of games when it comes to that. A person watching and looking at some stats might be best. I do find it very interested when i see stats the give info about where guys are efficient from, who defends pick roll better then who, etc etc. These kind of scouting things being revealed through stats is what i'd like to see more often

Nobody can watch enough games to see a decent sample size and then remember enough of it to accurately make judgements after the fact. You can absolutely watch and draw generalities, adding what you see into your overall impression of a player. But it's extremely difficult to, say, remember if a player is turnover prone if you weren't actively tracking that to begin with, or know how many weakside screens a player set, or ran through before they took their shot. You can only pay attention to so much, after all.

valade16
11-05-2013, 05:59 PM
We do know the relation to usage and efficiency, actually.

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

The works a bit dated, but there is a reason why this guy got hired by an NBA team.

That was excellent and was as I suspected.

ewing
11-05-2013, 06:05 PM
Nobody can watch enough games to see a decent sample size and then remember enough of it to accurately make judgements after the fact. You can absolutely watch and draw generalities, adding what you see into your overall impression of a player. But it's extremely difficult to, say, remember if a player is turnover prone if you weren't actively tracking that to begin with, or know how many weakside screens a player set, or ran through before they took their shot. You can only pay attention to so much, after all.

It not hard to remember if i guy turned the ball over, or if a guy was being run off ball and getting screens to set up his J. No you cant pay attention to everything, for instances JVG thought me that Kobe is the best offensive re bounder on missed free throws in the NBA. I never ever would have picked up on this but if Jeff or a stat tell me something like this and I'm coaching I'm going to tell my team. It might take a while to pick up on tendencies players have when driving right or left and here too stats can help you. You are right, but your examples aren't very good. When it comes to player comparison in most cases i am taking my eyes over just stats

Guppyfighter
11-05-2013, 06:06 PM
Nobody can watch enough games to see a decent sample size and then remember enough of it to accurately make judgements after the fact. You can absolutely watch and draw generalities, adding what you see into your overall impression of a player. But it's extremely difficult to, say, remember if a player is turnover prone if you weren't actively tracking that to begin with, or know how many weakside screens a player set, or ran through before they took their shot. You can only pay attention to so much, after all.


I don't think people who think all you have to do is watch the game to get a good idea realize how our brain works. Our memory is not as reliable as people think and our brain likes to focus it attention.

Guppyfighter
11-05-2013, 06:09 PM
It not hard to remember if i guy turned the ball over, or if a guy was being run off ball and getting screens to set up his J. No you cant pay attention to everything, for instances JVG thought me that Kobe is the best offensive re bounder on missed free throws in the NBA. I never ever would have picked up on this but if Jeff or a stat tell me something like this and I'm coaching I'm going to tell my team. It might take a while to pick up on tendencies players have when driving right or left and here too stats can help you. You are right, but your examples aren't very good. When it comes to player comparison in most cases i am taking my eyes over just stats

Can your eyes quantify how much that screen is worth offensively? What about that offensive rebound?

Heatcheck
11-05-2013, 06:15 PM
KD gets completely disrespected in the MVP voting despite having great regular season numbers and great team success in a tougher conference. His biggest criticism is "he's just a scorer".......

I disagree, I never hear "he's just a scorer", hes just not Lebron. and if LeBron would've been retired the last couple years he'd probably have 3 mvp trophies in his case.

Tony_Starks
11-05-2013, 06:21 PM
Jamal Crawford is another perfect example. Dismissed by stat guys for years as a selfish, inefficient chucker. He now finds himself in a perfect situation in LA. When the 2nd units offense gets stagnant they can give him the rock and get out of his way. Buying CP3 precious time.

Now do you really think that Doc is going to tell him: "hey I was analyzing your stats and I'm going to need you to be more efficient. I dont really like your PER. The stats also show ykure much more likely to score when operating from this area of the floor.Take less shots, get more production out of Barnes and Mullins." No way! When he sends him in the game I promise you he's telling him to do what you do!

Jamiecballer
11-05-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't think people who think all you have to do is watch the game to get a good idea realize how our brain works. Our memory is not as reliable as people think and our brain likes to focus it attention.

not just likes. there are thousands of things we could be paying attention to in a given moment. we have no choice but to pick and choose. great point though.

Guppyfighter
11-05-2013, 06:47 PM
Jamal Crawford is another perfect example. Dismissed by stat guys for years as a selfish, inefficient chucker. He now finds himself in a perfect situation in LA. When the 2nd units offense gets stagnant they can give him the rock and get out of his way. Buying CP3 precious time.

Now do you really think that Doc is going to tell him: "hey I was analyzing your stats and I'm going to need you to be more efficient. I dont really like your PER. The stats also show ykure much more likely to score when operating from this area of the floor.Take less shots, get more production out of Barnes and Mullins." No way! When he sends him in the game I promise you he's telling him to do what you do!

You are arguing against things no one has argued. IE a strawman. PER isn't a measure of efficiency and no one here has used it as one.


Jamal has always been criticized for his defense. He is a selfish scorer, but he is rather efficient and has only been inefficient one year in the last five years. Not sure why you would even bring him up.

Thirdly, yes, coaches do tell players what to do based on stats. We know Pop does and spo definitely has with Bosh and others.


http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/miamiheat/post/_/id/4356/how-advanced-stats-changed-chris-boshs-game

He stopped posting up on the left side because of Spo.

IndyRealist
11-05-2013, 07:37 PM
It not hard to remember if i guy turned the ball over, or if a guy was being run off ball and getting screens to set up his J. No you cant pay attention to everything, for instances JVG thought me that Kobe is the best offensive re bounder on missed free throws in the NBA. I never ever would have picked up on this but if Jeff or a stat tell me something like this and I'm coaching I'm going to tell my team. It might take a while to pick up on tendencies players have when driving right or left and here too stats can help you. You are right, but your examples aren't very good. When it comes to player comparison in most cases i am taking my eyes over just stats

Without looking, can you really say you can tell me how many turnovers any given player had in, say, his last 3 games? I watched all 3 Pacers games (two of them this morning), and while I could tell you that Paul George was turnover prone, I couldn't tell you how many he had without looking at the boxscores, even for 1 game. I'd just be guessing. There's a thousand ways your perception lies to you, which most acknowledge, and yet everyone thinks it only applies to other people.

NoahH
11-05-2013, 07:45 PM
Too be fair, you're picking on Dominique Wilkins when his career FG% is 46% which is pretty solid. He was a pretty efficient player.

THE MTL
11-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

Advanced Statistics ruined the game.

I hate them cause they can be manipulated to a point to prove anyone is a good player.

Guppyfighter
11-05-2013, 08:02 PM
Advanced Statistics ruined the game.

I hate them cause they can be manipulated to a point to prove anyone is a good player.

Lolwut

lol, please
11-05-2013, 08:37 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

Advanced Statistics ruined the game.

I hate them cause they can be manipulated to a point to prove anyone is a good player.math cannot be manipulated, only the presentation of data can be, as with any marketing scheme, it's the fault/responsibility of the target audience to question the validity of the construct, not the presenter with his agenda.

lol, please
11-05-2013, 08:38 PM
PSD's NBA forum: where opinions pass off as facts, and the language of mathematics is flawed and inconsistent. :rolleyes:

Hellcrooner
11-05-2013, 08:50 PM
Being a good scorer is not making a ton of points .

Being a good scorer is not bad.

If you get 10 ppg in 8 shots you are indeed a great scorer and its fantastic.


If you get 30 ppg in 25 shots you are not a great scorer you are a ****ing chuker.


Nique was more the second case than the first.

Hellcrooner
11-05-2013, 08:52 PM
Advanced Statistics ruined the game.

I hate them cause they can be manipulated to a point to prove anyone is a good player.

what can be manipulated is the hightlits on tv, who gets to do shoe ads, who appears in the cover of the magazine who is talked a lot by media.

maths do not lie.

and im not sold 100% into advanced stats because they can be manipulated too.
But denying/demissing them completely is stupid.

too bad for those looking for " the answer".

:p

FOBolous
11-05-2013, 08:58 PM
Just depends if you prefer entertainment (in the form of high scoring games by one person) or winning, I guess. And there's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Not often you see KD getting bagged on for taking too many ill advised shots, right? And he's the preeminent scorer of this generation.

i don't enough if you know but KD is an efficient scorer.

lol, please
11-05-2013, 08:59 PM
maths do not lie.

and im not sold 100% into advanced stats because they can be manipulated too.
:facepalm: proof you don't know what you are talking about. Advanced stats is math. Keep making yourself look intelligent.

FOBolous
11-05-2013, 09:00 PM
Its not a trend, its a breakthrough in basketball analysis.


Because wasting possessions on bad shots makes you lose games....


when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.

this.


Who is to say their scoring was at the expense of the team. Advanced stats? Even when their own coaches say things like there is no way we wouldn't have got as far as we did without them playing like they did?

Nique for example dropped like 40 something against Bird in the playoffs but lost because so did Bird but his team was better. Back then you just said great game, no shame. Now we would say "hey you should've shot less, made Kevin Willis better, and shut down Bird while you were at it...."

common sense and logic? when one person hogs the ball, takes bad shots, and misses most of them...they hurt the team. why is that so hard to understand? there's a time/possession limits in a basketball game...you win by scoring more than the other team...and you score more when you take advantage of most of time/possessions within the limit. that's efficiency. why is that so hard to understand?

FOBolous
11-05-2013, 09:10 PM
Someone people love to relay totally on stats for player comparisons. I really don't think stats can do better then someone who knows wtf they are taking about watching a decent sample of games when it comes to that. A person watching and looking at some stats might be best. I do find it very interested when i see stats the give info about where guys are efficient from, who defends pick roll better then who, etc etc. These kind of scouting things being revealed through stats is what i'd like to see more often

the problem is that everything THINKS they know wtf they're talking about. stats is a great way to decide which of the two people who thinks they know wtf they're talking is really right. why? because EVERYTHING that happens in the physical world can be measured by numbers. because stats is impartial. because it's objective.

Hellcrooner
11-05-2013, 09:13 PM
:facepalm: proof you don't know what you are talking about. Advanced stats is math. Keep making yourself look intelligent.

you can manipulate the INTERPRETATION of maths.

economists and politicians do it everyday.

bagwell368
11-05-2013, 09:37 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

Unsophisticated fans like scoring and like heroes - in any era (and hero ball). On top of that ESPN highlights have brought emphasis to dunks, steals, blocks, and long 3's far beyond their actual value.

It's no wonder that > 75% of the folks that post here have a poor basis for understanding what's under the hood of a successful team. Things such as passing (not just assists), defensive intensity (on ball, in space, rotations, zones), rebounding, boxing out, picks, screens, give and go's, intensity, and oh yeah, scoring efficiency. That means guys that have certain spots they are good from actually get the ball there and shot from there, and guys that are not good in other situations (such as 1 on 3), or off balance, or not squared PASS UP those shots and dribble or pass to create a better shot (assuming the clock isn't running out).

Wilkins is the poster boy for poor shot selection, ball hogging, failure to elevate his team (he played on two teams that could have been serious title contenders instead of being a vehicle for his own massive ego), inefficient shooting.

You may not like it, but it's the truth and any Coach from Freshman year in HS and above will agree with me. Even the Coaches that are tied to "star" players who dominate the ball too much.

lol, please
11-05-2013, 10:04 PM
:facepalm: proof you don't know what you are talking about. Advanced stats is math. Keep making yourself look intelligent.

you can manipulate the INTERPRETATION of maths.

economists and politicians do it everyday.which is not what you said. My point stands.

Hawkeye15
11-05-2013, 10:04 PM
must of us knew it then too.

you would be surprised.

ThaDubs
11-05-2013, 10:09 PM
All I know is whenever Steph scores high we lose. 38 this year- loss, 54- loss, 38 last year- loss, 44- loss, etc, etc. Put this is partly because he has to step up his scoring due to the rest of the team playing badly.

JasonJohnHorn
11-05-2013, 10:15 PM
I loved watching Nique play for two reason. HE WAS AN ATHLETIC FREAK.... AND I knew that my team would win.

Those dunks were amazing, but at the end of the day, if you aren't scoring efficiently, you aren't winning.

Nique never even got to the conference finals.

People overrated scoring for a while because Jordan lead the league in scoring AND won championships, but when was the last time that happened other than when Jordan did it? You'd have to go back DECADES.

Monta Ellis could score 30 a game if you give him enough shots, as could 60% of the league, but few guys could shoot that much AND post percentages like LBJ and Durant.

ohreally
11-05-2013, 10:22 PM
Nique, Benard King, AI, TMac, Melo, young Wade.... great. Dirk, Vince, young Ray Allen, young Steph, Stack.... very good.

Did we not enjoy all their respective games at one point? Were they not doing the best they had with the teams they had? Still recognized as allstars?

Please don't ever mention Bernard in comparison to Melo. Bernard is one of the greats.

Hellcrooner
11-05-2013, 10:24 PM
which is not what you said. My point stands.

well if you think i was attacking adv stats then you surely didnt understand anything on my post.

ThaDubs
11-05-2013, 10:30 PM
the problem is that everything THINKS they know wtf they're talking about. stats is a great way to decide which of the two people who thinks they know wtf they're talking is really right? why? because EVERYTHING that happens in the physical world can be measured by numbers. because stats is impartial. because it's objective.

This

5ass
11-05-2013, 10:48 PM
No, they really don't. People are in here saying Wilkins wasn't a good scorer because he was inefficient.

1992-93: highest TS% on the Hawks
1991-92: 2nd highest TS%

He was the most efficient scorer on those early 90s Hawks teams. He had a terrible supporting cast and that caused him to have to shoot more. But that's an advanced concept to many.

If your team is bad there generally isn't as much ball movement, spacing, cuts, etc. This causes the offense to stagnate, which usually leads to a bad shot attempt at the end of the shot clock. 'Nique is being penalized for the result of a collective offensive failure because he was the player they gave the ball to when they couldn't think of anything else to do.

It's not rocket science. My friend's GF actually kept stats of our rec league. I shot 41% FG, 35% 3PT on a team that did exactly what I just described and thus it fell on me to take the tough shots nobody was capable of taking. We went 1-7. Next "season" I joined a far better team and even though my PPG dropped from 21 to 14 my shooting % went up to 46% FG, and 38% 3PT.

The point of that whole diatribe? Is that you said you take context like that into account and then called 'Nique inefficient. Which is wrong.

I never even mention Dominique.

ewing
11-06-2013, 08:48 AM
Can your eyes quantify how much that screen is worth offensively? What about that offensive rebound?

both are worth zero points.

ewing
11-06-2013, 08:59 AM
Without looking, can you really say you can tell me how many turnovers any given player had in, say, his last 3 games? I watched all 3 Pacers games (two of them this morning), and while I could tell you that Paul George was turnover prone, I couldn't tell you how many he had without looking at the boxscores, even for 1 game. I'd just be guessing. There's a thousand ways your perception lies to you, which most acknowledge, and yet everyone thinks it only applies to other people.

no i couldn't but if a watched two different players for 3 games and you asked me who made better decisions with the ball i could tell what i think and i think most of the time i would be right even when I picked the guy that had more TOs. Not knowing how many TOs PG had is not your eyes lying to you, you weren't counting.

ewing
11-06-2013, 09:01 AM
the problem is that everything THINKS they know wtf they're talking about. stats is a great way to decide which of the two people who thinks they know wtf they're talking is really right. why? because EVERYTHING that happens in the physical world can be measured by numbers. because stats is impartial. because it's objective.

that's not true

ewing
11-06-2013, 09:01 AM
you would be surprised.

no i was watching and everyone who wasn't a homer or Steven A Smith class moron knew Micheal was better

Chronz
11-06-2013, 01:30 PM
Advanced Statistics ruined the game.

I hate them cause they can be manipulated to a point to prove anyone is a good player.

lol... only if ur dumb enuf to fall for it

use more intricate analysis to offset weak analysis.

Chronz
11-06-2013, 01:36 PM
no i couldn't but if a watched two different players for 3 games and you asked me who made better decisions with the ball i could tell what i think and i think most of the time i would be right even when I picked the guy that had more TOs. Not knowing how many TOs PG had is not your eyes lying to you, you weren't counting.
We all think we can, but change that number to 30 teams for 82 games and you can see why nobody would believe you on pure opinion.

Quick, without cheating, tell me who were the best/worst 3pt shooting and ft shooting teams. Rank them all and then rank them all based on their most effective lineups in that regard. Thats when your opinion begins to mean less and the numbers tell more of a tale.


And you didn't address the points raised, which is any moron can claim to knowing the game, you still need the objective evidence to differentiate your argument ("the i saw wat i saws" argument) from each other.

And thats without mentioning what a feeble sample size 3-4 games are. Those players are playing different defenses alongside different teammates with different responsibilities, but your going to be able to tell me who made better decisions? Not only would I not care but I would need alot more than just opinion to even stir up a debate.

Goose17
11-06-2013, 01:51 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.


They can't be a great player if they weren't efficient. End of conversation.

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2013, 01:55 PM
KD gets completely disrespected in the MVP voting despite having great regular season numbers and great team success in a tougher conference. His biggest criticism is "he's just a scorer".......

That's not even an accurate statement, he's a great rebounding and solid (but not great) defender.

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2013, 01:57 PM
its a problem if you bring nothing else than scoring to the table.
(Nick Young, Marshon Brooks etc.)

I agree with this 100%....saying the if Dominique played today he'd be a chucker (from original post, TC not calling him that saying majority probably would) is ridiculous because there is more to his game than that, the examples mentioned above are the guys that make it a bad thing...an even worse term, volume shooter.

FOBolous
11-06-2013, 02:00 PM
you can manipulate the INTERPRETATION of maths.

economists and politicians do it everyday.

self-interest and money usually involved in the manipulation of numbers in politics. what self-interest and who's money is involved in basketball analytics? what do analysts and scouts gain from purposely manipulating the numbers and making their calculations inaccurate?


that's not true

what in the physical world can't be measured by numbers?

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2013, 02:01 PM
being a great scorer hasn't change. just our definition of it.

for instance, 10 years ago Allen Iverson might have fit my definition of great scorer. now he doesn't.

How does Iverson not fit the definition of scorer today?

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2013, 02:04 PM
What about dudes like Reggie Evans? All he can do is rebound. He doesn't get knocked on all day for it though, it's just what he does.

Doesn't typically get talked about either....at least being a scorer or shot blocker makes you relevant (relevant in conversation or in most people's thoughts about players)

donovanmcnabb
11-06-2013, 02:22 PM
Monta Ellis is a top 10 player

JLynn943
11-06-2013, 02:46 PM
There are issues that those who heavily rely on advanced metrics often refuse to acknowledge. Usage helps to address what is essentially a large disregard for context, but it is imperfect. A player who has talented and/or offensively versatile options to defer to on his team will be able to be more selective in their shots than someone who is by far the most talented offensive option on his team. That first player will appear to be better than the second to those who place immense value on advanced statistics because their ability to be selective is going to result in them not having to take many bad shots and thus inflate their efficiency. Meanwhile, the other player is essentially forced to take those bad shots because his teammates (who may appear to be better than they are because they only take the good shots that they can make consistently) aren't versatile or talented enough to be a better option, thus making the player's efficiency and shooting percentages a misleading measure of worth as they are artificially low. Switch the two players and the efficient player on the talented team may very well struggle when faced with a situation where they suddenly can no longer be bailed out of having to take bad shots while the player who was less efficient on a bad team may suddenly improve statistically because they no longer have to force shots.

That is where scorers can become underrated. I'm not suggesting that all or even most shoot-first volume scorers are more valuable than people give them credit for, but some most certainly are. Some teams effectively force players into that role, which will obviously hurt their efficiency and overall shooting percentages. Then, when those who focus so heavily on advanced metrics pass judgment, they are penalizing and rewarding players based on their teammates without acknowledging that they are doing so (because I honestly don't believe that most who are big advanced stats enthusiasts are even aware of the importance of context in team sports).

ewing
11-06-2013, 02:46 PM
We all think we can, but change that number to 30 teams for 82 games and you can see why nobody would believe you on pure opinion.

Quick, without cheating, tell me who were the best/worst 3pt shooting and ft shooting teams. Rank them all and then rank them all based on their most effective lineups in that regard. Thats when your opinion begins to mean less and the numbers tell more of a tale.


And you didn't address the points raised, which is any moron can claim to knowing the game, you still need the objective evidence to differentiate your argument ("the i saw wat i saws" argument) from each other.

And thats without mentioning what a feeble sample size 3-4 games are. Those players are playing different defenses alongside different teammates with different responsibilities, but your going to be able to tell me who made better decisions? Not only would I not care but I would need alot more than just opinion to even stir up a debate.

you are completely missing the point. He told me he just watched three Pacers games and didn't know how many Tos PG had and acted like him not knowing was his eyes lying to him and he would have a better idea how Paul played if he knew that number. Well, that number doesn't matter and he should be able to tell more from his eyes then if he had numbers alone at this point. He just watched the games.

With regard to your question. IDK, the answer and this is another area where stats help. I think they help most with coaching. You can show guys how certain teams kill you from the line. You can show players how well they shoot after multiple dribbles, going left, off screens etc. I never said they don't have value. As, far as their value in determining a debate winner, well i really don't care.

I do understand that stats have value, they just don't always have the value ascribed to them, and aren't always the better assessment tool

ewing
11-06-2013, 02:51 PM
self-interest and money usually involved in the manipulation of numbers in politics. what self-interest and who's money is involved in basketball analytics? what do analysts and scouts gain from purposely manipulating the numbers and making their calculations inaccurate?



what in the physical world can't be measured by numbers?

emotions, the value of relationships, drive, etc

Heatcheck
11-06-2013, 03:04 PM
self-interest and money usually involved in the manipulation of numbers in politics. what self-interest and who's money is involved in basketball analytics? what do analysts and scouts gain from purposely manipulating the numbers and making their calculations inaccurate?



what in the physical world can't be measured by numbers?

team chemistry, ball movement, influencing someones shot, or disrupting the flow of the opposing teams offense, versatility on defense, tipped passes, timely fouls, the focus veteran leadership brings....basically Shane Battier.

FOBolous
11-06-2013, 03:09 PM
team chemistry, ball movement, influencing someones shot, or disrupting the flow of the opposing teams offense, versatility on defense, tipped passes, timely fouls, the focus veteran leadership brings....basically Shane Battier.

advanced stats can and have proven that. except for veteran leadership...that's an intangible...not something that's part of the "phyiscal world."


emotions, the value of relationships, drive, etc

so an analyst or scout is going to purposely undermine his credibility possibility at the cost of his job because of emotions and value of friendship? really? i don't know if you know but credibility is everything to an analyst or scout....they're job is to provide an accurate report and purposely misrepresenting a player serves them no purpose.

Heatcheck
11-06-2013, 03:15 PM
advanced stats can and have proven that. except for veteran leadership...that's an intangible...not something that's part of the "phyiscal world."



so an analyst or scout is going to purposely undermine his credibility possibility at the cost of his job because of emotions and value of friendship? really? i don't know if you know but credibility is everything to an analyst or scout....they're job is to provide an accurate report and purposely misrepresenting a player serves them no purpose.

which ones and how? just curious.

koreancabbage
11-06-2013, 03:21 PM
They can't be a great player if they weren't efficient. End of conversation.

pretty much this but its not the end all statement.

there are exceptions but if you're going to win a championship, you just can't do it by yourself either. AI made it to the finals but he wasn't even close to winning a title even when he was in the Finals.

ewing
11-06-2013, 03:21 PM
advanced stats can and have proven that. except for veteran leadership...that's an intangible...not something that's part of the "phyiscal world."



so an analyst or scout is going to purposely undermine his credibility possibility at the cost of his job because of emotions and value of friendship? really? i don't know if you know but credibility is everything to an analyst or scout....they're job is to provide an accurate report and purposely misrepresenting a player serves them no purpose.


you said nothing in the physical world cannot be quantified and i said that what you said is not true. It isn't. I don't know what you are talking about in this post

Guppyfighter
11-06-2013, 03:32 PM
Ewing. Melo scored 32 points against the Bobcats. And they lost. I would love to hear an explanation why his great scoring ability and closing touch did not finish off the Bobcats.

valade16
11-06-2013, 03:38 PM
pretty much this but its not the end all statement.

there are exceptions but if you're going to win a championship, you just can't do it by yourself either. AI made it to the finals but he wasn't even close to winning a title even when he was in the Finals.

Allen Iverson was a great scorer and a great player, inefficiency and all.

As for the winning, the 76ers were the only team to beat the Lakers in those playoffs and had AI not run into an absoutely all-time dominant team like Shaq/Kobe Lakers, they would have had a fighters chance at a title...

Guppyfighter
11-06-2013, 03:39 PM
Allen Iverson was a great scorer and a great player, inefficiency and all.

As for the winning, the 76ers were the only team to beat the Lakers in those playoffs and had AI not run into an absoutely all-time dominant team like Shaq/Kobe Lakers, they would have had a fighters chance at a title...

Bucks should have won that series vs them. They were screwed by the refs.

ManRam
11-06-2013, 04:03 PM
Remember the good ol days when the Dominique Wilkins of the world would put up like 30 a night? Sometimes go for 40 or 50 +? Remember when we used to actually LIKE that? We didn't care how efficient it was, didn't have any of that stuff, we just liked watching great players do what they were great at.

How did we get from that to this new philosophy of "well anybody can score?" No they can't. If they could, they would. If Nique was playing today he'd probably get called a "chucker."

There is often value in these lower efficiency shooters that we are too willing to dismiss. Their ability to get shots off and create for themselves can have a beneficial impact on that player's teammates as, at the very least, it demands more attention from the defense.

But still, there's no reason to sit here and argue that scoring efficiently isn't something incredibly desirable. Scoring 30 points a game on 30 shots a game probably isn't gonna help you're team out a whole lot. I agree that we ignore the fact that a lot of players couldn't get 30 shots off a game even if they tried, but that doesn't mean the ones that can should just go out there every night and chuck away.

Efficiency matters. No reason to pretend like it doesn't. Like every other sport, as time goes on we become more aware of what really is valuable and what really isn't. The reason why we care about efficiency more now than before is because we've gotten smarter as a whole.

ewing
11-06-2013, 04:35 PM
Ewing. Melo scored 32 points against the Bobcats. And they lost. I would love to hear an explanation why his great scoring ability and closing touch did not finish off the Bobcats.

He scored on the wrong basket

ewing
11-06-2013, 04:39 PM
Bucks should have won that series vs them. They were screwed by the refs.

They also went 7 with the Raps in round 1. The East was bad.

Jamiecballer
11-06-2013, 05:12 PM
How does Iverson not fit the definition of scorer today?

oh he's a scorer all right. just not a great scorer. if you are shooting to the detriment of your team it doesn't matter how many points you score, you aren't a "great" scorer.

Sandman
11-06-2013, 05:20 PM
oh he's a scorer all right. just not a great scorer. if you are shooting to the detriment of your team it doesn't matter how many points you score, you aren't a "great" scorer.

Not quite sure if its to the detriment of his team. that suggests that guys like Aaron McKie would keep producing and wouldn't see diminishing returns with more touches.

lol, please
11-06-2013, 05:57 PM
you said nothing in the physical world cannot be quantified and i said that what you said is not true. It isn't. I don't know what you are talking about in this post
Emotions, like veteran leadership and drive are intangibles, what you are referring to by saying "physical world" are tangibles. All tangibles related to the sport are quantifiable.

You can't ask two separate questions in one, and expect one answer to cover them. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing, if you really are "curious" about what some of the advanced metrics consist of then do your own research, instead of hoping another poster does it for you.

Guppyfighter
11-06-2013, 06:08 PM
The great thing about stats is they all add up at one end. Maybe veteran leadership does help? Do we have a stat to quantify that? No. But when it's all said and done everything on the offensive end adds up for the players so if that person is helping the team it will show up in the stats. It's not ignoring anything, it's just the result.


I personally think it has no affect, but if it does, it is showing up in the stats, just not being specified.

lol, please
11-06-2013, 06:29 PM
Mathematics is a universal language that when spoken, never lies. If you don't want to learn the language, that's one thing, but don't pretend like it doesn't exist.

Sly Guy
11-06-2013, 06:34 PM
when we realized what they were doing was not conducive to winning.


+1

JLynn943
11-07-2013, 02:27 AM
Mathematics is a universal language that when spoken, never lies. If you don't want to learn the language, that's one thing, but don't pretend like it doesn't exist.

It may not lie, but it can be used very deceivingly and is only as good as the thought that went into it, like determining what variables to consider. If you only consider a few factors or have poor measures of them, the math is going to give you accurate information only for what you include. It can't make up for not thinking some through enough or not measuring something well. Likewise, people can infer something incorrect with "good" math.

LeperMessiah
11-07-2013, 02:58 AM
After reading several pages, do some of you not understand the bloody game?

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 03:57 AM
It may not lie, but it can be used very deceivingly and is only as good as the thought that went into it, like determining what variables to consider. If you only consider a few factors or have poor measures of them, the math is going to give you accurate information only for what you include. It can't make up for not thinking some through enough or not measuring something well. Likewise, people can infer something incorrect with "good" math.

It's like, when I read stuff like this I believe you didn't finish grade school. Are you so dense and naive your worry about statistics is that you are being lied to?

What kind of dumb **** opinion is that? You are too stupid to put in the work to understand advanced stats and you don't like them because you think people will lie to you about their meaning.

Jesus ****ing christ. It takes a cynic to believe that. But a stupid cynic. I am literally baffled.

Not only that, but you are clearly still using statistics. You are just using objectively worse ones.

ewing
11-07-2013, 09:35 AM
The great thing about stats is they all add up at one end. Maybe veteran leadership does help? Do we have a stat to quantify that? No. But when it's all said and done everything on the offensive end adds up for the players so if that person is helping the team it will show up in the stats. It's not ignoring anything, it's just the result.


I personally think it has no affect, but if it does, it is showing up in the stats, just not being specified.

This is just a ridiculous answer. We are not quantifying it at all but it is there. Where? In the final score. In plus/minus type states. Yeah we know one team wins and one team loses based on points, that does not mean every aspect of the game is quantifiable. If it were you'd be able to predict games. Much of the game is quantifiable however another part of it is art and luck.

ewing
11-07-2013, 09:35 AM
Mathematics is a universal language that when spoken, never lies. If you don't want to learn the language, that's one thing, but don't pretend like it doesn't exist.


hahahhahhahahhaha

Jamiecballer
11-07-2013, 10:16 AM
Not quite sure if its to the detriment of his team. that suggests that guys like Aaron McKie would keep producing and wouldn't see diminishing returns with more touches.

that's a good point. in my opinion the sixers front office did a great job of complimenting iverson with players whose agenda would not interfere with his own. you can see what happened for him on other teams though where there was more talented offensive help.

Quinnsanity
11-07-2013, 10:23 AM
Here's the simplest way to explain it: In any given basketball game, your team gets a finite number of offensive possessions. Your goal is to generate as many points out of those possessions as possible while remember that they are finite. A player who scores 20 points on fewer possessions is more valuable than a player who scores 20 points on more possessions. At a certain point, those possessions become more valuable than the points because of the opportunities each provides for more points. It's better to have a player who generates 10 points while using only seven possessions than someone who generates 20 points on 25 possessions because that first player gives you 18 more possessions to generate those extra 10 points with other players. Obviously an extreme example, but it proves the point. Efficiency is what wins basketball games. The ideal is someone who can score those 20 points or more on few possessions. If you have a guy like that (main example being LeBron) you're in great shape.

GiantsSwaGG
11-07-2013, 11:05 AM
Because Clipperfan and LTBaby will make a thread about how they're the greatest to ever play the game!

IndyRealist
11-07-2013, 11:54 AM
Here's the simplest way to explain it: In any given basketball game, your team gets a finite number of offensive possessions. Your goal is to generate as many points out of those possessions as possible while remember that they are finite. A player who scores 20 points on fewer possessions is more valuable than a player who scores 20 points on more possessions. At a certain point, those possessions become more valuable than the points because of the opportunities each provides for more points. It's better to have a player who generates 10 points while using only seven possessions than someone who generates 20 points on 25 possessions because that first player gives you 18 more possessions to generate those extra 10 points with other players. Obviously an extreme example, but it proves the point. Efficiency is what wins basketball games. The ideal is someone who can score those 20 points or more on few possessions. If you have a guy like that (main example being LeBron) you're in great shape.

Efficiency is not the only thing that wins ballgames, but that is a great example. It also highlights the importance of net possessions, I.e. generating steals and offensive rebounds while not turning the ball over.

Quinnsanity
11-07-2013, 03:28 PM
Efficiency is not the only thing that wins ballgames, but that is a great example. It also highlights the importance of net possessions, I.e. generating steals and offensive rebounds while not turning the ball over.

Exactly. Efficiency isn't the only thing that wins games, but generally you should have the following goals as a basketball team:

1. Make the most of your opportunities with the ball.

2. Make sure your opponent makes the least of their opportunities with the ball.

3. Generate as many opportunities with the ball as possible (i.e steals, offensive rebounds, drawing offensive fouls etc...).

4. Stop your opponent from generating as many opportunities with the ball as possible (i.e defensive rebounds, not fouling them, not turning the ball over etc...).

Everything you do on the court should correspond to one of those four goals. For so many years we thought that chuckers corresponded to goal No. 1, but they don't. They end up giving away as many possessions as they maximize. That's why being a chucker is a bad thing.

And for the record, the title to this thread is a very misleading. It's not a bad thing to be a great scorer, you just have a false definition of a great scorer. A great scorer is Kevin Durant, because he can score 30 points efficiently. He makes enough of his shots to justify the number that he takes. Compare that to someone like Carmelo Anthony, who usually comes near 30 points, but does so far less efficiently. He is not a great scorer in the sense that Durant is. Last year alone Durant needed only 17.7 shots per game to get to 27.8 points while Anthony needed 4.5 more shots to get one more point (22.2 shots and 28.8 points). Did Carmelo score more points? Yes, but do you think it's reasonable to assume that, if given 4.5 shots, Kevin Durant's teammates will score more than that one point difference? Absolutely. That is why Kevin Durant is a better scorer than Carmelo Anthony even though he's scoring less points. The same idea can be applied to any chucker. Yes, they may be scoring more points, but they are doing it on more shots, and what the team could do with those extra shots usually exceeds what the chucker is doing, hence the label of chucker. This is efficiency in a nutshell.

Think of it economically, for every player there is an equilibrium quantity of shots taken. This is the quantity of shots taken that has the greatest benefit for the player's team. If he's below it, that means he's not shooting enough (you could make a very strong argument that this is the case with LeBron. He's too efficient, he could help the Heat more by scoring 40 points per game. Not necessarily an argument I'd make, but it exists), and if he's above it he's taking too many shots and it's hurting his team (think Carmelo). The better a scorer someone is, the higher their equilibrium quantity of shots taken is. What exactly is that equilibrium? It's impossible to say. We can make one up, but it would be impossible to know if it could be improved upon or not. Let's say a rough estimate for a perimeter player in 50% shooting. It benefits your team to take as many shots as you can while staying above 50% from the field. Once you've hit 50%, that should be your max. Is this mathematically correct? No, I just pulled that number out of my *** since it's around where people deem perimeter guys efficient. Point is, the goal of every scorer should be to find and remain at that equilibrium quantity of shots taken. Your goal isn't to score as many points as possible, it's to score the highest amount of points you can at that equilibrium quantity.

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 04:22 PM
This is just a ridiculous answer. We are not quantifying it at all but it is there. Where? In the final score. In plus/minus type states. Yeah we know one team wins and one team loses based on points, that does not mean every aspect of the game is quantifiable. If it were you'd be able to predict games. Much of the game is quantifiable however another part of it is art and luck.

I guess you think people who gamble and cap are flipping coins then.

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 04:23 PM
This is just a ridiculous answer. We are not quantifying it at all but it is there. Where? In the final score. In plus/minus type states. Yeah we know one team wins and one team loses based on points, that does not mean every aspect of the game is quantifiable. If it were you'd be able to predict games. Much of the game is quantifiable however another part of it is art and luck.


Also, luck is quantifiable. Like, last year when the Bobcats were 7-5 to start the season we knew they were objectively lucky to be where they were. And that we start to suck at some point.

Sandman
11-07-2013, 04:34 PM
Exactly. Efficiency isn't the only thing that wins games, but generally you should have the following goals as a basketball team:

1. Make the most of your opportunities with the ball.

2. Make sure your opponent makes the least of their opportunities with the ball.

3. Generate as many opportunities with the ball as possible (i.e steals, offensive rebounds, drawing offensive fouls etc...).

4. Stop your opponent from generating as many opportunities with the ball as possible (i.e defensive rebounds, not fouling them, not turning the ball over etc...).

Everything you do on the court should correspond to one of those four goals. For so many years we thought that chuckers corresponded to goal No. 1, but they don't. They end up giving away as many possessions as they maximize. That's why being a chucker is a bad thing.

And for the record, the title to this thread is a very misleading. It's not a bad thing to be a great scorer, you just have a false definition of a great scorer. A great scorer is Kevin Durant, because he can score 30 points efficiently. He makes enough of his shots to justify the number that he takes. Compare that to someone like Carmelo Anthony, who usually comes near 30 points, but does so far less efficiently. He is not a great scorer in the sense that Durant is. Last year alone Durant needed only 17.7 shots per game to get to 27.8 points while Anthony needed 4.5 more shots to get one more point (22.2 shots and 28.8 points). Did Carmelo score more points? Yes, but do you think it's reasonable to assume that, if given 4.5 shots, Kevin Durant's teammates will score more than that one point difference? Absolutely. That is why Kevin Durant is a better scorer than Carmelo Anthony even though he's scoring less points. The same idea can be applied to any chucker. Yes, they may be scoring more points, but they are doing it on more shots, and what the team could do with those extra shots usually exceeds what the chucker is doing, hence the label of chucker. This is efficiency in a nutshell.

Think of it economically, for every player there is an equilibrium quantity of shots taken. This is the quantity of shots taken that has the greatest benefit for the player's team. If he's below it, that means he's not shooting enough (you could make a very strong argument that this is the case with LeBron. He's too efficient, he could help the Heat more by scoring 40 points per game. Not necessarily an argument I'd make, but it exists), and if he's above it he's taking too many shots and it's hurting his team (think Carmelo). The better a scorer someone is, the higher their equilibrium quantity of shots taken is. What exactly is that equilibrium? It's impossible to say. We can make one up, but it would be impossible to know if it could be improved upon or not. Let's say a rough estimate for a perimeter player in 50% shooting. It benefits your team to take as many shots as you can while staying above 50% from the field. Once you've hit 50%, that should be your max. Is this mathematically correct? No, I just pulled that number out of my *** since it's around where people deem perimeter guys efficient. Point is, the goal of every scorer should be to find and remain at that equilibrium quantity of shots taken. Your goal isn't to score as many points as possible, it's to score the highest amount of points you can at that equilibrium quantity.
I agree with 99% of what you're saying here but with one caveat

I DON'T think they are good for comparing players, to say player X is better than player Y because of the stats. BUT they are GREAT to use for the coach to manage and develop his players. It shows strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness of the group.

Stats could definitely prop up an argument for X or Y, but with guys like Dominque, Melo and AI, their teams were built that way and the numbers don't tell the whole story.

When it comes to the shot clock or the general offensive flow, these guys have the ball in their hands almost by default when other guys can't get it going or when the offense breaks down and there is 5 seconds on the clock. This will undoubtedly lead to ugly shots and you end up punishing the guy for being the best player on his team.

Turnovers are similar, if they're taken at face value it won't tell you how many times they were trapped, double teamed, missed a pass, etc.

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 04:37 PM
I agree with 99% of what you're saying here but with one caveat

I DON'T think they are good for comparing players, to say player X is better than player Y because of the stats. BUT they are GREAT to use for the coach to manage and develop his players. It shows strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness of the group.

Stats could definitely prop up an argument for X or Y, but with guys like Dominque, Melo and AI, their teams were built that way and the numbers don't tell the whole story.

When it comes to the shot clock or the general offensive flow, these guys have the ball in their hands almost by default when other guys can't get it going or when the offense breaks down and there is 5 seconds on the clock. This will undoubtedly lead to ugly shots and you end up punishing the guy for being the best player on his team.

Turnovers are similar, if they're taken at face value it won't tell you how many times they were trapped, double teamed, missed a pass, etc.


We have shot clock data as well. Typically the players we think take the most bail out shots are taking their bad shots early in the shot lock.

Melo has the same exact shot clock distribution as your average NBA player for example.

ewing
11-07-2013, 04:42 PM
Also, luck is quantifiable. Like, last year when the Bobcats were 7-5 to start the season we knew they were objectively lucky to be where they were. And that we start to suck at some point.

That's not luck. That's realizing over that over 82 games that they could not sustain that winning % given their talent level. Luck is when i was in 8th and i hit a gamer winner for my traveling team. We were down one, i drove the lane, got bottled up, and then tried and up and under move. The defender left his feet and when he came down his elbow bashed me in the mouth. The ref did not see it but i threw the ball up in the air with my left. It hit the top of the backboard and then bounced in. I didn't even have to shoot free throws. Pure luck

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 04:45 PM
That's not luck. That's realizing over that over 82 games that teams talent could not sustain that winning %. Luck is when i was in 8th and i hit a gamer winner for my traveling team. We were down one, i drove the lane, got bottled up, and then tried and up and under move. The defender left his feet and when he came down his elbow bashed me in the mouth. The ref did not see it but i threw the ball up in the air with my left. It hit the top of the backboard and then bounced in. I didn't even have to shoot free throw. Pure luck

Yep, completely quantifiable too. Winning any close game takes a degree of luck. I am not sure you realize this, but there have been advanced, sophisticated mathematical models done on luck in sports.

It's basically random variation.

ewing
11-07-2013, 04:47 PM
Yep, completely quantifiable too. Winning any close game takes a degree of luck. I am not sure you realize this, but there have been advanced, sophisticated mathematical models done on luck in sports.

It's basically random variation.

Please explain it to me or give me a link. If there is some stat geek who has never picked up a ball making judgement call on what is lucky, i might laugh it though.

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 04:50 PM
Please explain it to me or give me a link. If there is some stat geek who has never picked up a ball making judgement call on what is lucky, i might laugh it though.

I will start you off with something simple.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/pyth.html

I don't really care what you laugh at though. These are well-established principles.

ewing
11-07-2013, 04:51 PM
I will start you off with something simple.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/pyth.html

I don't really care what you laugh at though. These are well-established principles.

thanks

Sandman
11-07-2013, 04:58 PM
We have shot clock data as well. Typically the players we think take the most bail out shots are taking their bad shots early in the shot lock.

Melo has the same exact shot clock distribution as your average NBA player for example.
That's still not going to tell you anything about the defense or the offensive flow other than the time he received or shot the ball. I also wouldn't be surprised at the shot clock distribution because he gets the ball constantly not just when the shot clock is going down.

The stats can give you symptoms but they can't make a diagnosis.

Melo's iso ball slows the Knicks down & can get in the way of the flow of their offense. The stats show this & the tape shows this, this is no statistical revelation.

The stats say the Knicks would be better off using these possessions on other players. The tape says these other players can't create their own shot and the Knicks need a new PG before they can think about a new offense.

Quinnsanity
11-07-2013, 05:04 PM
I agree with 99% of what you're saying here but with one caveat

I DON'T think they are good for comparing players, to say player X is better than player Y because of the stats. BUT they are GREAT to use for the coach to manage and develop his players. It shows strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness of the group.

Stats could definitely prop up an argument for X or Y, but with guys like Dominque, Melo and AI, their teams were built that way and the numbers don't tell the whole story.

When it comes to the shot clock or the general offensive flow, these guys have the ball in their hands almost by default when other guys can't get it going or when the offense breaks down and there is 5 seconds on the clock. This will undoubtedly lead to ugly shots and you end up punishing the guy for being the best player on his team.

Turnovers are similar, if they're taken at face value it won't tell you how many times they were trapped, double teamed, missed a pass, etc.

I think it's partially circumstantial, but also partially related to the player. Like someone mentioned with 'Melo, he takes a lot of bad shots early in the shot clock. He's also had some fairly good teams around him in Denver and even last year with the Knicks but consistently shot low percentages from the field. Compare that to someone like LeBron, who in Cleveland had far worse teams, shot higher percentages. That's a big part of LeBron's game: He doesn't take a lot of bad shots. That might be because he's smart or it might be because there is no such thing as a bad shot for LeBron, but it's worth noting.

And there are several circumstances of players in great situations still not playing efficiently. Kobe never topped 47% from the field during the Shaq title years and was at only 45% in the second title with Pau. At that point his inefficiency was costing his team possessions that could have gone to other stars. Russell Westbrook is in a similar boat. You have to take points away from guys who cost their teams major possessions.

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 05:17 PM
That's still not going to tell you anything about the defense or the offensive flow other than the time he received or shot the ball. I also wouldn't be surprised at the shot clock distribution because he gets the ball constantly not just when the shot clock is going down.

The stats can give you symptoms but they can't make a diagnosis.

Melo's iso ball slows the Knicks down & can get in the way of the flow of their offense. The stats show this & the tape shows this, this is no statistical revelation.

The stats say the Knicks would be better off using these possessions on other players. The tape says these other players can't create their own shot and the Knicks need a new PG before they can think about a new offense.

No. That's not what the stats are trying to say. I think I found the problem for you. You think the stats are trying to measure things they aren't trying to measure.

Rockice_8
11-07-2013, 05:19 PM
Michael Jordan 10x scoring champion and 9x field goal attempt leader says hi.

Get outta here with that. Jordan had a career 50% fg. He scored efficiently and did it with ease. The guys like Iverson who shot in the low 40's and guys like Melo now who tend to shoot mid to low 40's are the chuckers this thread is about. You can take 40 shots a game for all I care if you hitting half of them.

It's the guys that take 28 shots to get 30 points that shouldn't be shooting as much. It's not that they're bad shooter (not all of them) it could be shot selection that causes them to miss. Is it better to get an open teammate a look or take a contested fade away when your shooting in the low 40% fg?

How can you insult the GOAT like that.

Sandman
11-07-2013, 05:32 PM
I think it's partially circumstantial, but also partially related to the player. Like someone mentioned with 'Melo, he takes a lot of bad shots early in the shot clock. He's also had some fairly good teams around him in Denver and even last year with the Knicks but consistently shot low percentages from the field. Compare that to someone like LeBron, who in Cleveland had far worse teams, shot higher percentages. That's a big part of LeBron's game: He doesn't take a lot of bad shots. That might be because he's smart or it might be because there is no such thing as a bad shot for LeBron, but it's worth noting.

And there are several circumstances of players in great situations still not playing efficiently. Kobe never topped 47% from the field during the Shaq title years and was at only 45% in the second title with Pau. At that point his inefficiency was costing his team possessions that could have gone to other stars. Russell Westbrook is in a similar boat. You have to take points away from guys who cost their teams major possessions.
He jacks up shots like nobodies business (so does his little protege JR), but the idea isn't really to give Melo somebody to pass to its that it gives everybody else on the team somebody else to pass to. Or if Melo had a good PG next to him he wouldn't have the ball so early so often and he could spread the ball around and take advantage of the defense' attention on Melo.

No. That's not what the stats are trying to say. I think I found the problem for you. You think the stats are trying to measure things they aren't trying to measure.

So when you say player X is better than player Y based on these numbers, or that player X needs to take fewer shots, thats not trying to be all-inclusive?

I disagree in general that you can make your team more efficient by simply taking shots from one guy and giving them to another.

Perhaps I agree with you two and my argument is meant for somebody else :p

Guppyfighter
11-07-2013, 05:41 PM
He jacks up shots like nobodies business (so does his little protege JR), but the idea isn't really to give Melo somebody to pass to its that it gives everybody else on the team somebody else to pass to. Or if Melo had a good PG next to him he wouldn't have the ball so early so often and he could spread the ball around and take advantage of the defense' attention on Melo.


So when you say player X is better than player Y based on these numbers, or that player X needs to take fewer shots, thats not trying to be all-inclusive?

I disagree in general that you can make your team more efficient by simply taking shots from one guy and giving them to another.

Perhaps I agree with you two and my argument is meant for somebody else :p


Like I said. Stats aren't telling you to do anything. They are merely a recording of what happened. They aren't saying they should give player X more looks.

Tyson Chandler is an elite offensive player, all the stats suggest it. Why? Because of his screen setting, offensive rebounding, and he will give you the most efficient ten points a game ever. That's why he is an elite offensive player.

No where does his stats say, "yeah, give Tyson the ball yo." That wouldn't make any sense because that's not why he is amazing. Offensive stats aren't telling you who is the better scorer. They tell you what they did on offense though.

lol, please
11-07-2013, 05:47 PM
People are still trying to argue against facts? Hilarious. I can't wait to see what ewig's response to that link is, though a few college level stats classes is what I think he needs, and to not be so stubborn.

ewing
11-07-2013, 05:48 PM
People are still trying to argue against facts? Hilarious. I can't wait to see what ewig's response to that link is, though a few college level stats classes is what I think he needs, and to not be so stubborn.


i cant wait, myself

Sandman
11-07-2013, 05:49 PM
Like I said. Stats aren't telling you to do anything. They are merely a recording of what happened. They aren't saying they should give player X more looks.

Tyson Chandler is an elite offensive player, all the stats suggest it. Why? Because of his screen setting, offensive rebounding, and he will give you the most efficient ten points a game ever. That's why he is an elite offensive player.

No where does his stats say, "yeah, give Tyson the ball yo." That wouldn't make any sense because that's not why he is amazing. Offensive stats aren't telling you who is the better scorer. They tell you what they did on offense though.
In the forum thats how they are used a lot, for sure. Like I said, it sounds like we agree

lol, please
11-07-2013, 06:03 PM
Like I said. Stats aren't telling you to do anything. They are merely a recording of what happened. They aren't saying they should give player X more looks.

Tyson Chandler is an elite offensive player, all the stats suggest it. Why? Because of his screen setting, offensive rebounding, and he will give you the most efficient ten points a game ever. That's why he is an elite offensive player.

No where does his stats say, "yeah, give Tyson the ball yo." That wouldn't make any sense because that's not why he is amazing. Offensive stats aren't telling you who is the better scorer. They tell you what they did on offense though.
In the forum thats how they are used a lot, for sure. Like I said, it sounds like we agreepeople misuse things all the time, it doesn't make what they misused invalid, it's just being misused. Just because 29 out of 30 people misuse a statistic doesn't make that statistic any less valid. Numbers don't lie, period. There is no way around that and that's the problem with many fans. They don't care to learn, especially if in doing so it would require them to accept a reality they don't agree with.

Sandman
11-07-2013, 06:12 PM
people misuse things all the time, it doesn't make what they misused invalid, it's just being misused. Just because 29 out of 30 people misuse a statistic doesn't make that statistic any less valid. Numbers don't lie, period. There is no way around that and that's the problem with many fans. They don't care to learn, especially if in doing so it would require them to accept a reality they don't agree with.

oh no I never said the numbers were invalid, just that I liked them better from a management/development end and not the talent-evaluation end.

lol, please
11-07-2013, 06:16 PM
people misuse things all the time, it doesn't make what they misused invalid, it's just being misused. Just because 29 out of 30 people misuse a statistic doesn't make that statistic any less valid. Numbers don't lie, period. There is no way around that and that's the problem with many fans. They don't care to learn, especially if in doing so it would require them to accept a reality they don't agree with.

oh no I never said the numbers were invalid, just that I liked them better from a management/development end and not the talent-evaluation end.fair enough, I find it hard to assess a player without them, but fair enough. I was more speaking to the fact that tons of fans around here just flat out ignore the metrics or act like they don't exist. It just makes no sense to me.

PurpleLynch
11-07-2013, 06:41 PM
KD gets completely disrespected in the MVP voting despite having great regular season numbers and great team success in a tougher conference. His biggest criticism is "he's just a scorer".......

I agree,KD puts Lebron's like numbers and get disrespected in the Mvp voting each damn year.

IndyRealist
11-07-2013, 11:46 PM
I agree,KD puts Lebron's like numbers and get disrespected in the Mvp voting each damn year.

Because MVP voting is done by the media, and the media has little to no understanding of how basketball really works. They're just writing compelling storylines. The media are not "experts" no matter what ESPN tells you. They certainly have almost no understanding of advanced metrics and what they say about the game.

ewing
11-08-2013, 10:53 AM
I will start you off with something simple.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/pyth.html

I don't really care what you laugh at though. These are well-established principles.

If i am understanding this right, it is basically determines how many games a team should win and then looks at how many they actually did win to see how lucky they where. i don't see this as quantifying luck. It doesn't even define luck and it certainly cant be used on to see how luck is influencing an individual game as it happens.

Miltstar
11-08-2013, 12:05 PM
There are a lot of very smart people out there who werent physically gifted enough to be athletes so they have to feel like they are elite at something. Unfortunately where most stat heads fail is realizing that every year is different and players change! Too many times I see these guys relying on 3-year performace analysis as opposed to basing their opinion on the actual talent level of players in questions. You will get torn apart on the forums for going against "advanced statistics" but it really doesnt make their opinion any more valid than yours.

The people who know the most about basketball are the ones who have played the game at a high level AND watch and observe live play daily. Although stats dont necessarily lie, they certainly can be manipulated in many different ways to tell un-truths

lol, please
11-08-2013, 02:04 PM
advanced metrics absolutely makes an opinion stronger and more valid than one with nothing but emotion and vision. It's called supporting freaking data. To suggest otherwise is madness.

slashsnake
11-08-2013, 02:54 PM
I agree,KD puts Lebron's like numbers and get disrespected in the Mvp voting each damn year.

By Lebron like you mean close but not quite? last year fewer assists, fewer rebounds, fewer steals, more turnovers, lower fg%, more personal fouls... Year before, same thing.

I think Lebron has deserved the award the past couple years. Durant finishing #2 isn't disrespecting his game.

ewing
11-08-2013, 02:57 PM
advanced metrics absolutely makes an opinion stronger and more valid than one with nothing but emotion and vision. It's called supporting freaking data. To suggest otherwise is madness.



That's not true. The SA Spurs are bad rebounding team and they would be a much better team if they focused more on offensive rebounding is a statement i could make and back up with the fact that they don't get many offensive rebounds. I have a opinion and a stat to back it however, the opinion is not valid. Why?

B/c i know from watching the SA Spurs that they are a strong defensive team that likes to control tempo. In order to do this they generally sacrifice offensive rebounding to make sure they keep the floor balanced and have their D set. The fact that they don't get a lot of offensive rebounds is not a bad thing when talking about the Spurs it goes with there style of ball.

slashsnake
11-08-2013, 04:58 PM
That's not true. The SA Spurs are bad rebounding team and they would be a much better team if they focused more on offensive rebounding is a statement i could make and back up with the fact that they don't get many offensive rebounds. I have a opinion and a stat to back it however, the opinion is not valid. Why?

B/c i know from watching the SA Spurs that they are a strong defensive team that likes to control tempo. In order to do this they generally sacrifice offensive rebounding to make sure they keep the floor balanced and have their D set. The fact that they don't get a lot of offensive rebounds is not a bad thing when talking about the Spurs it goes with there style of ball.

But here you are relying again on stats to prove your point. If SA gave up the most fast break points in the league and a high fg percentage, you would have a tough time proving your point just based on your emotion. Yours isnt based on just what you see but backed up by the fact that the spurs are giving up the 3rd fewest fastbreak points in the NBA with a roster that isnt the fleetest of foot.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 05:16 PM
That's not true. The SA Spurs are bad rebounding team and they would be a much better team if they focused more on offensive rebounding is a statement i could make and back up with the fact that they don't get many offensive rebounds. I have a opinion and a stat to back it however, the opinion is not valid. Why?

B/c i know from watching the SA Spurs that they are a strong defensive team that likes to control tempo. In order to do this they generally sacrifice offensive rebounding to make sure they keep the floor balanced and have their D set. The fact that they don't get a lot of offensive rebounds is not a bad thing when talking about the Spurs it goes with there style of ball.

Uh Lol

Oh jeez, ewing.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 05:16 PM
If i am understanding this right, it is basically determines how many games a team should win and then looks at how many they actually did win to see how lucky they where. i don't see this as quantifying luck. It doesn't even define luck and it certainly cant be used on to see how luck is influencing an individual game as it happens.


It's that luck only matters when teams are of similar strength. In the long run a team that is good will show it.

KG21
11-08-2013, 05:16 PM
I value defense and put it at the top of my list. And defense can't be thought, you can train and get better but you still suck at it. Same kinda goes for offense, but still it's a whole new world when it comes to comparison.

You can get a shooting coach, shoot 1000 shots a day and you would be able to put 5-10 points in the NBA.
Every fool can shoot a ball and it will drop, but not every fool can play quality defense.

And We have ppl like that, but time has proven that, those people are volume scorers and they stay at that. Plus we were all younger back then so it was different. :)

My opinion.

ThaDubs
11-08-2013, 05:18 PM
advanced metrics absolutely makes an opinion stronger and more valid than one with nothing but emotion and vision. It's called supporting freaking data. To suggest otherwise is madness.

Very true.

Also sorry I changed my sig. :laugh2:

Don't worry tho, I'm sure we'll get some new material tonight.

D-Leethal
11-08-2013, 05:20 PM
I think the defensive attention one garners needs to be weighed when it clearly never is around here. Same reason dudes say Kawai Leonard is better than Paul George.

Player A is the #1 offensive weapon facing the oppositions best perimeter defender AND multiple help defenders shading his side of the court every possession, he has less talent around him and is forced to take tougher shots more often as a result.

Player B is the # 3 or 4 offensive weapon facing nothing but single coverage and the oppositions B or C perimeter defenders, he is never asked to create a shot that isn't already there and is able to focus mainly on rebounding, moving without the ball and hitting open jumpers while HOF teammates take the brunt of the offensive burden on their shoulders while player B feasts of scraps.

Player B scores more efficiently - he is the better offensive player and nothing else matters (according to the stat brigade on this forum).

D-Leethal
11-08-2013, 05:20 PM
Being an elite screen setter doesn't make you an elite offensive player. Tyson Chandler is not an elite offensive player. He is what you would call an "outlier" or a "flaw in the system".

Chronz
11-08-2013, 05:48 PM
Oh look, the empty generalizations made their appearance, finally. Call out who ever it is you intend to call out because the stat brigade doesn't exist.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 06:47 PM
Being an elite screen setter doesn't make you an elite offensive player. Tyson Chandler is not an elite offensive player. He is what you would call an "outlier" or a "flaw in the system".

Yeah, who'd want the most efficient ten points a game ever, and elite offensive rebounder, and someone who makes everyone around him better because he is a big body.

Wait till you see the Knicks offense without him.

D-Leethal
11-08-2013, 07:21 PM
And another thing. The only "fact", is that they put up those stats. There are no factual conclusions you can draw on the impact that statline had on the game. There is absolutely no "fact" out there that determines how much that statline contributed to a W, made the team better, positively impacted the rest of the team. The only fact is that they put up the stat. Stoudemire put up ungodly efficiency stats for us last season, but never once made the team better while he was doing it. Without him and his hyper efficient 14 points we were a much better team and anyone who followed would tell you that. Same goes for losing Chandler and his league leading ORTG - we followed up with our best run of the season.

Now I am not saying were better without Chandler, but if those efficiency stats are the best tell-tale sign of a great offensive player and are of utmost importance for a teams offense, how can you be a .500 team for 40 games with those guys, than lose your two most efficient scorers and follow it up with your best offensive stretch of the season? My answer? A lot of the time, those great stats come at the expense of the other 4 guys on the floor, and those stats don't always positively impact your team or push you closer to a W. Those are all things you cannot avoid given the nature of the game of basketball, where every action forces an instinctive reaction from a teammate, and every movement forces a movement from a teammate. Its not 5 guys playing 1 on 1 on separate courts and thats what the stat heads portray the game to be.

Just another shortcoming of individual stats in a free flowing, team sport where all guys on the court impact the other and 5 guys act as 1 unit simultaneously. The only fact is that the statline is there. The impact that statline had on the outcome of the game is still very much in the dark and always will be.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 07:25 PM
And another thing. The only "fact" the stats are, are that they put up those stats. There is absolutely no "fact" out there that determines how much that statline contributed to a W, made the team better, positively impacted the rest of the team. The only fact is that they put up the stat. Stoudemire put up ungodly efficiency stats for us last season, but never once made the team better while he was doing it. Without him and his hyper efficient 14 points we were a much better team and anyone who followed would tell you that. Same goes for losing Chandler and his league leading ORTG - we followed up with our best run of the season.

Just another shortcoming of individual stats in a free flowing, team sport where all guys on the court impact the other and 5 guys act as 1 unit simultaneously. The only fact is that the statline is there. The impact that statline had is still very much in the dark and always will be.

Do you always do the adult equivalent of "LALALALA."

Stop repeating yourself. We've went down this ******** before.

lol, please
11-08-2013, 07:28 PM
And another thing. The only "fact", is that they put up those stats. There are no factual conclusions you can draw on the impact that statline had on the game. There is absolutely no "fact" out there that determines how much that statline contributed to a W, made the team better, positively impacted the rest of the team. The only fact is that they put up the stat. Stoudemire put up ungodly efficiency stats for us last season, but never once made the team better while he was doing it. Without him and his hyper efficient 14 points we were a much better team and anyone who followed would tell you that. Same goes for losing Chandler and his league leading ORTG - we followed up with our best run of the season.

Now I am not saying were better without Chandler, but if those efficiency stats are the best tell-tale sign of a great offensive player and are of utmost importance for a teams offense, how can you be a .500 team for 40 games with those guys, than lose your two most efficient scorers and follow it up with your best offensive stretch of the season? My answer? A lot of the time, those great stats come at the expense of the other 4 guys on the floor, and those stats don't always positively impact your team or push you closer to a W. Those are all things you cannot avoid given the nature of the game of basketball, where every action forces an instinctive reaction from a teammate, and every movement forces a movement from a teammate. Its not 5 guys playing 1 on 1 on separate courts and thats what the stat heads portray the game to be.

Just another shortcoming of individual stats in a free flowing, team sport where all guys on the court impact the other and 5 guys act as 1 unit simultaneously. The only fact is that the statline is there. The impact that statline had on the outcome of the game is still very much in the dark and always will be.
Yea, because PER, WS, and WS/48 don't exist.

Numbers didn't lie yesterday, don't lie today, and won't lie tomorrow.

D-Leethal
11-08-2013, 07:47 PM
Yea, because PER, WS, and WS/48 don't exist.

Numbers didn't lie yesterday, don't lie today, and won't lie tomorrow.

Of course they exist. And everything I said still holds true. Can you explain how those manufactured math formulas accurately portray how an individual's statline positively impacted their team, made their team better, contributed to a W?

I guess production from players on crappy team's don't contribute to Ws, or make a positive impact on the team just because their team sucks and doesn't win the game? Win shares are skewed by the quality of team you are on the same way defensive efficiency stats are skewed by the quality of team defense you are a part of.

Whether or not your team won the game shouldn't determine how much your individual production has a positive impact on your team. Look at the top 20 in WS/48 last year - you have about 6 teams represented on that list. You can't isolate individuals in a team sport - every which way you try is going to be skewed by the quality of the team said player is player on.

Don't be a sheep and actually believe win shares truly depicts your impact towards winning just because your told it does. It doesn't.

D-Leethal
11-08-2013, 07:52 PM
If the stats don't lie, I guess Tyson Chandler is the best offensive player in the league, Carlos Boozer is a better defender than Omer Asik, and Tiago Splitter contributed more to his teams success last season than Kevin Love did 2 years ago when he put up 26-13.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 07:53 PM
Of course they exist. And everything I said still holds true. Can you explain how those manufactured math formulas accurately portray how an individual's statline positively impacted their team, made their team better, contributed to a W?

I guess production from players on crappy team's don't contribute to Ws, or make a positive impact on the team just because their team sucks and doesn't win the game? Win shares are skewed by the quality of team you are on the same way defensive efficiency stats are skewed by the quality of team defense you are a part of.

Whether or not your team won the game shouldn't determine how much your individual production has a positive impact on your team. Look at the top 20 in WS/48 last year - you have about 6 teams represented on that list. You can't isolate individuals in a team sport - every which way you try is going to be skewed by the quality of the team said player is player on.

Don't be a sheep and actually believe win shares truly depicts your impact towards winning just because your told it does. It doesn't.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

Anyways, 95 percent correlation to actual W-L totals with a standard deviation of 2.73 games.

Guppyfighter
11-08-2013, 07:54 PM
If the stats don't lie, I guess Tyson Chandler is the best offensive player in the league, Carlos Boozer is a better defender than Omer Asik, and Tiago Splitter contributed more to his teams success last season than Kevin Love did 2 years ago when he put up 26-13.

You don't know how to do anything.


You aren't stupid, but you are most certainly ignorant.

lol, please
11-08-2013, 07:58 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

Anyways, 95 percent correlation to actual W-L totals with a standard deviation of 2.73 games.

I'll take that percentage of correlation and standard deviation 8 days out of 7 a week, 366 days out of a year, over just "the eye test".

ewing
11-09-2013, 07:40 AM
But here you are relying again on stats to prove your point. If SA gave up the most fast break points in the league and a high fg percentage, you would have a tough time proving your point just based on your emotion. Yours isnt based on just what you see but backed up by the fact that the spurs are giving up the 3rd fewest fastbreak points in the NBA with a roster that isnt the fleetest of foot.


not true, I didn't know any of those stats. I knew from watching that the Spurs get back on D and don't crash the offensive glass.

ewing
11-09-2013, 07:45 AM
It's that luck only matters when teams are of similar strength. In the long run a team that is good will show it.


Sounds like tells you, i'm not going to get lucky playing one on one with KD. Thats not much of an insight. Honestly i think just like the math. This also does not quantify luck.

ewing
11-09-2013, 07:47 AM
But here you are relying again on stats to prove your point. If SA gave up the most fast break points in the league and a high fg percentage, you would have a tough time proving your point just based on your emotion. Yours isnt based on just what you see but backed up by the fact that the spurs are giving up the 3rd fewest fastbreak points in the NBA with a roster that isnt the fleetest of foot.

even if i used the stats to prove my point, I would be cherry picking stats that go along with my point. I came to correct conclusion regarding why they don't get offensive rebounds based on context that i could only understand by using my eyes.

ewing
11-09-2013, 07:51 AM
Yeah, who'd want the most efficient ten points a game ever, and elite offensive rebounder, and someone who makes everyone around him better because he is a big body.

Wait till you see the Knicks offense without him.


You telling me an D leathal to wait to see the Knicks offense without Tyson? Ha! We know that offense better then anyone one on this board. Putting the ball in the hole without Tyson will not be the problem.

D-Leethal
11-09-2013, 10:50 AM
I saw the Knicks offense without him last year - it was the best run we had all season for about 20 games.