PDA

View Full Version : Question For Advanced Stat Guys....



Tony_Starks
03-04-2014, 08:56 PM
From what I understand from the advanced stat guys it's basically all about efficiency now. If the numbers say you're efficient you are good. I get it.

My question: can a so called non efficient player, dare I say a volume scorer, ever be considered a great player by you fellows? Or would that be a glitch in the Matrix?

Swashcuff
03-04-2014, 09:04 PM
I'm considered by some on PSD as an advanced stat guy and I'm an Allen Iverson fanboy. I think their just might be a glitch in the matrix.

For the rational open minded thinkers among us (Hawkeye15, Manram, tredigs, PSK, MBT, KoB etc) I think the answer to the question is yes but for most others who don't really have an opinion of their own and rely solely on what the advanced stats and the opinion of those who use advanced stats say (Guppy) its not likely.

I have realized however that with advanced stats becoming more accessible to the masses so many of these dudes pop up with opinions based solely on stats without having the slightest understanding of how the stats are achieved or calculated and completely ignoring the context of said stats.

ManRam
03-04-2014, 09:14 PM
I think high volume with meh efficiency can often be very valuable, especially considering who you are playing with. It's just that in general, if you had to chose, why would you take inefficiency over efficiency?

Jefferson, Aldrdige, Wall, Irving, etc. aren't terribly efficient but they still have hugely positive impacts on their team. Like everything else you can't compare things in a vacuum. There's always more to the stats than the stats themselves: context.

Westbrook has a lot more value than people give him credit for, and he gets slammed for his inefficiency. He takes a burden and attention of KD, and that's the most easiest example of how a high volume "chucker" can have a positive impact on those around him: lowering burden. Rose wasn't hyper efficient but was quite valuable.



But, hypothetically speaking, if all other variables are the same, you're going to want the guy who needs 10 possessions to score 18 points over the guy who needs 18 to score the same. In the most basic way efficiency and its value should be glaringly intuitive. But, again, like everything else it's not that simple. I do think sometimes I'm at fault for slamming inefficient players, but for the most part I think the criticism is fair.


But yes, there are some guys I'd refuse to credit for being great offensive players because of their inefficiency. I can't consider guys like Josh Smith, who is averaging a tiny 1.03 points per shot, a great offensive player. JR, Boozer, Turner, ZBo etc. Nah. Those guys listed above are quite inefficient, but I don't bash a ton. I'll bash Aldridge in comparison to someone like Love, but that's an extreme case of inefficiency vs efficiency.


And if you've made it thru my babbling....this is only talking about SCORING. It's one aspect of a player's game. You can be a great player and be an inefficient scorer, for sure. Maybe shoulda just said that.

Sadds The Gr8
03-04-2014, 09:15 PM
See, who the Hell said u need to have amazing efficiency to be a great player? People just get butthurt because statistics show their players aren't as productive as they thought they were and take **** out of context. Nobody said Iverson wasn't great....just not as great as you think he is.

Hawkeye15
03-04-2014, 09:19 PM
where is the threshold of "great"?

Iverson was a great player, but an inefficient one. It's not a crime to say you would have trouble building a championship team around him. MANY great players have come and gone without winning a ring. Take Kobe for instance. By advanced stats alone, he would never be considered a top 10 player. But, when you factor in CONTEXT (you know, being a top 5 player for 14 years, and his playoff runs, even if they weren't Jordanesque/LeBronesque), you come to the conclusion that he was a great player.

Stats are a great tool, but basketball isn't a math test. Need some substance and context to each statistic.

abe_froman
03-04-2014, 09:24 PM
I have realized however that with advanced stats becoming more accessible to the masses so many of these dudes pop up with opinions based solely on stats without having the slightest understanding of how the stats are achieved or calculated and completely ignoring the context of said stats.
this.

context is very important and i've notice a trend of poster lately ignoring context.using things like TS% as the same as say WAR in baseball,it isnt.

...this doesnt mean efficiency doesnt matter,it does,because its bad to waste shots,and good players tend not to waste them.

Jamiecballer
03-04-2014, 09:31 PM
From what I understand from the advanced stat guys it's basically all about efficiency now. If the numbers say you're efficient you are good. I get it.

My question: can a so called non efficient player, dare I say a volume scorer, ever be considered a great player by you fellows? Or would that be a glitch in the Matrix?
a really inefficient player IMO can be a great player only as long as they don't take a lot of shots. Rubio can still be great IMO as long as he continues to take less than 10 shots per game, for example. Not saying he is great, or even that he will be great, just an example.

if you take 15-20 shots a game and you are in the bottom 3rd or so of the league efficiency wise, no you can't be great. you can be a great talent. you can be great fun to watch. but you can't be great.

Tony_Starks
03-04-2014, 09:32 PM
where is the threshold of "great"?

Iverson was a great player, but an inefficient one. It's not a crime to say you would have trouble building a championship team around him. MANY great players have come and gone without winning a ring. Take Kobe for instance. By advanced stats alone, he would never be considered a top 10 player. But, when you factor in CONTEXT (you know, being a top 5 player for 14 years, and his playoff runs, even if they weren't Jordanesque/LeBronesque), you come to the conclusion that he was a great player.

Stats are a great tool, but basketball isn't a math test. Need some substance and context to each statistic.

But Hawk here is the problem. A whole lot of people use advanced stats as a measure to say a certain player isn't "great" or greater than someone else with better advanced stats.

Just for make believe purposes I can say well Love's stats are better than Rodman, so he's a better player than Rodman ever was. But does that really take into account the whole story? What Rodman did? The chips he played a major role in? No way.

That's the problem I have.

Chronz
03-04-2014, 09:35 PM
Can we just stop calling them advanced stats? Whats wrong with just stats?

Jamiecballer
03-04-2014, 09:36 PM
But Hawk here is the problem. A whole lot of people use advanced stats as a measure to say a certain player isn't "great" or greater than someone else with better advanced stats.

Just for make believe purposes I can say well Love's stats are better than Rodman, so he's a better player than Rodman ever was. But does that really take into account the whole story? What Rodman did? The chips he played a major role in? No way.

That's the problem I have.

its highly unlikely anyone who was into stats would abuse them this way. for starters, Rodman was pretty efficient when he did shoot. secondly, it's pretty obvious that low efficiency/high volume is much more damaging than low efficiency/low volume. and Rodman had the good sense to do what he was good at and leave the shooting to others.

i get what you mean though. Rubio would be an example of someone that shot little but at low efficiency so that would be a better example.

KnicksorBust
03-04-2014, 11:03 PM
where is the threshold of "great"?

Iverson was a great player, but an inefficient one. It's not a crime to say you would have trouble building a championship team around him. MANY great players have come and gone without winning a ring. Take Kobe for instance. By advanced stats alone, he would never be considered a top 10 player. But, when you factor in CONTEXT (you know, being a top 5 player for 14 years, and his playoff runs, even if they weren't Jordanesque/LeBronesque), you come to the conclusion that he was a great player.

Stats are a great tool, but basketball isn't a math test. Need some substance and context to each statistic.

But Hawk here is the problem. A whole lot of people use advanced stats as a measure to say a certain player isn't "great" or greater than someone else with better advanced stats.

Just for make believe purposes I can say well Love's stats are better than Rodman, so he's a better player than Rodman ever was. But does that really take into account the whole story? What Rodman did? The chips he played a major role in? No way.

That's the problem I have.

Hmmmm... I wonder if the Bulls would have been able to win a title with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Kevin Love...

SPURSFAN1
03-04-2014, 11:06 PM
Can we just stop calling them advanced stats? Whats wrong with just stats?

They're advanced for like tons of people including like 95% of psd posters. hahhahahaha

KnicksorBust
03-04-2014, 11:11 PM
I am someone who likes to use "advanced" stats but still strongly supports players like Kobe and Melo because even though they may never lead the league in TS% because they take a high degree of difficulty of shot, use a higher percentage of their teams plays, draw defensive attention, etc. This is why it is important that in a deeper understanding of these statistics you take the advice of swash and manram and look at context as well.

This is why players like LeBron and Durant are so highly touted because they (like previous greats like MJ/Magic/etc.) meet all the criteria for superstardom from the classic eye test to the analytic experts with their metrics.

Hawkeye15
03-04-2014, 11:28 PM
But Hawk here is the problem. A whole lot of people use advanced stats as a measure to say a certain player isn't "great" or greater than someone else with better advanced stats.

Just for make believe purposes I can say well Love's stats are better than Rodman, so he's a better player than Rodman ever was. But does that really take into account the whole story? What Rodman did? The chips he played a major role in? No way.

That's the problem I have.

You seem to have a problem with people who just throw stat A out there to say a player is better. Again, everything needs to be put in context.

Your example....

Love is a great rebounder, Rodman was easily better. Love may be a better scorer, but Rodman is one of the greatest defenders to ever play. Love has played with weak rosters so we have no idea where his 25 year old self will wind up, Rodman played with multiple championship teams and we have his legacy.

Context must be used, I get it. If this is stemming from the AI thread, like I stated in there, AI supporters claim he was a superstar. Stat heads say he was an inefficient chucker. Truth obviously lies in between.

bucketss
03-04-2014, 11:29 PM
advanced stats > judging someone soley based on a team achievement.

dhopisthename
03-04-2014, 11:31 PM
advanced stats > judging someone soley based on a team achievement.

and a randoms persons "eye" test

Baller1
03-04-2014, 11:34 PM
Of course some players can be great without being efficient, but that doesn't mean they're not inefficient. That's why players like KD and Lebron are viewed as better players... In any sport, the idea is to be as efficient as humanly possible. Efficiency is the essence of winning in most cases.

Kobe and AI are all time greats, but there are reasons for why they don't crack as high on the lists as some of their fanboys want them to.

Jamiecballer
03-04-2014, 11:42 PM
Of course some players can be great without being efficient, but that doesn't mean they're not inefficient. That's why players like KD and Lebron are viewed as better players... In any sport, the idea is to be as efficient as humanly possible. Efficiency is the essence of winning in most cases.

Kobe and AI are all time greats, but there are reasons for why they don't crack as high on the lists as some of their fanboys want them to.

+1 what he said.

Swashcuff
03-04-2014, 11:44 PM
and a randoms persons "eye" test

If that random person is an informed basketball mind I'd value their eye test over stats being used by someone who has no understanding of how those stats came into being.

Swashcuff
03-04-2014, 11:47 PM
Of course some players can be great without being efficient, but that doesn't mean they're not inefficient. That's why players like KD and Lebron are viewed as better players... In any sport, the idea is to be as efficient as humanly possible. Efficiency is the essence of winning in most cases.

Kobe and AI are all time greats, but there are reasons for why they don't crack as high on the lists as some of their fanboys want them to.

Kobe was never really inefficient though he just isn't as efficient as most of the great perimeter players that he has been compared to.

dhopisthename
03-04-2014, 11:54 PM
If that random person is an informed basketball mind I'd value their eye test over stats being used by someone who has no understanding of how those stats came into being.

random implies most fans not someone who has an informed basketball

Baller1
03-04-2014, 11:54 PM
Kobe was never really inefficient though he just isn't as efficient as most of the great perimeter players that he has been compared to.

True, that's more or less what I meant.

For anyone looking for an example... You could say the the word "inefficient" and "Rudy Gay" are synonymous. Kobe is not inefficient, but he's far from elite efficiency at the same time.

eibbor
03-05-2014, 12:09 AM
regular stats like points rebounds and assists dont matter. and neither do advanced stats.

Just watch the games. it takes traditional stats and advanced outta the way.

You get everything you need to know by watching. There is no advanced formula for that.

Let your eyes evaluate... Simple

Baller1
03-05-2014, 12:15 AM
regular stats like points rebounds and assists dont matter. and neither do advanced stats.

Just watch the games. it takes traditional stats and advanced outta the way.

You get everything you need to know by watching. There is no advanced formula for that.

Let your eyes evaluate... Simple

You've only got half the equation.

Kashmir13579
03-05-2014, 12:16 AM
Can we just stop calling them advanced stats? Whats wrong with just stats?

i'm so right there with you, man... btw holy moly Blake...

Tony_Starks
03-05-2014, 12:31 AM
You seem to have a problem with people who just throw stat A out there to say a player is better. Again, everything needs to be put in context.

Your example....

Love is a great rebounder, Rodman was easily better. Love may be a better scorer, but Rodman is one of the greatest defenders to ever play. Love has played with weak rosters so we have no idea where his 25 year old self will wind up, Rodman played with multiple championship teams and we have his legacy.

Context must be used, I get it. If this is stemming from the AI thread, like I stated in there, AI supporters claim he was a superstar. Stat heads say he was an inefficient chucker. Truth obviously lies in between.

Very true.

sixer04fan
03-05-2014, 01:20 AM
Sometimes it's hard to judge volume vs efficiency. At a certain point, the higher a player's usage rate, the more inefficient he might become, unless you're a Lebron James or someone else on that level.

If you're a great player, you should be dominating the ball more and taking more shots. At the same time, you're probably seeing more double teams and teams are specifically game planning against you. This will drive down your efficiency numbers. So in general, it's just harder to maintain a high efficiency at a high usage.

But yeah, in general it's more helpful to look at the advanced stats to tell the whole story about a player. They're much more indicative of how someone is actually performing versus traditional stats.

I was just discussing this in the Sixers forum today when we were debating Randle vs. Vonleh in the draft. Many of the advanced stats favor Vonleh as the better player this season even though Randle had the better bulk stats. Randle has a higher usage rate and plays more minutes, so his PPG and RPG are higher. But at the same time, maybe since Randle has the ball more, maybe he's getting double teamed more and things like that, which drives down his efficiency. It doesn't mean he's a worse player than Vonleh necessarily. It just means there's a case to be made for both of them.

Another example discussed often in the Sixers forum this year was Evan Turner. He was putting up monster traditional stats, but that's mostly because of his high volume/usage on a team that had no other options. The advanced stats weren't favorable for him at all, indicating he was really just a below average player. At the same time, now on a better team in a smaller role, maybe he can be a more efficient player. Does that mean he's a better player than before? Not really, it's more a matter of circumstance.

slashsnake
03-05-2014, 01:31 AM
Every stat has a fault. And not many ever take into consideration the opponent, which to me is a huge deal. Go against Lebron all game and score 30, bravo. Go against Jameson and score 30.. ehhh. Get 10 boards vs. Dwight, nice game, get 10 vs. Bargnani... well you should have.

Or the good seasons by guys on horrible teams (Beasley with the Wolves, Shannon Brown with the Suns, Crawford in Washington, Afflalo in Orlando) where you can say on a team with better options he would do less.

Then there is the short minutes, high energy guy. The Robert Pack type guy (or Birdman for example). The guy who knows, he is only going to be out there 20 minutes max a night so don't pace yourself, go all out every posession.


I think a stat like PER is pretty good. Granted I don't think Iverson was as efficient as Patrick Ewing, but it isn't like we are seeing JR Smith or Raymond Felton near the top of the list.

bucketss
03-05-2014, 01:31 AM
regular stats like points rebounds and assists dont matter. and neither do advanced stats.

Just watch the games. it takes traditional stats and advanced outta the way.

You get everything you need to know by watching. There is no advanced formula for that.

Let your eyes evaluate... Simple

so pretty much who ever has the sickest crossover is the best?!!?

Hawkeye15
03-05-2014, 01:36 AM
Hmmmm... I wonder if the Bulls would have been able to win a title with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Kevin Love...

omg yes

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 03:13 AM
Advanced statistics aren't all that advanced. They just tell you exactly what happened. If a player rebounds the ball 20 percent of the time, the stat will tell you that.

If a player scores 18 points a game in 14 possessions that's a good thing.

IndyRealist
03-05-2014, 03:19 AM
regular stats like points rebounds and assists dont matter. and neither do advanced stats.

Just watch the games. it takes traditional stats and advanced outta the way.

You get everything you need to know by watching. There is no advanced formula for that.

Let your eyes evaluate... Simple

Can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

"One of my biggest pet peeves in basketball (and more broadly, sports) is the “eye test”. The belief is that to truly understand the game you need to watch players play. Sure, stats are good but they’re not match for watching the game, right? Well I vehemently disagree with this.

A great book I’m currently reading is called “Mindless Eating” by Brian Wansink. It turns out humans aren’t great at being able to judge how much food they eat. Small things like the size of the plate or if the person thinks they are drinking an expensive wine with dinner will influence their judgement of their food. Basically, in regards to food, the eye test fails miserably.

One of the craziest tricks is height. If food looks taller then we think there’s more of it. This works in drinking glasses in fact. Give someone a tall slender glass with the same amount of liquid as that in a short stout glass and they’ll think they drank more in the tall glass. The author notices a funny aspect is that many people respond to such finding as “Sure that works on others, but not on me!” The punch line is then of course that experiments dispute this.

Their solution was to bring in a group of experts. They experimented with a group of bartenders. They gave them either a tall glass or short glass and asked them to pour a shot (1.5 ounces). In the tall glasses they were pretty close (1.6 ounces) but they over-poured in the stout glasses. How could this be? Bartenders are experts at pouring shots! Should you ask for your drink out of a shorter glass next time you hit the bars?

The trick is that the experimenters took away the bartenders tools. Bartenders may have bottles or drink dispensers that flow at a specific rate. The bar tender can count to two to know they’ve poured a shot. Bar tenders also have measuring devices they can use to measure out a shot. Take these away and trust them to just their eyes and they fail at a seemingly simple task.

This is huge in regards to basketball and sports. People make the claim that watching the game will give them extra information. Except, it’s the other way around. Without tools to guarantee they’re getting the right information, then even an experts’ eyes aren’t that useful! We want to believe our brains don’t have major flaws in them and that years of practice will help us overcome them. If bartenders can’t even judge a glass right using their eyes then why would something like a basketball combine even work? It’s tempting to believe the alternative, that these studies apply to other people and not us. "
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/14/bartenders-height-and-the-eye-test/

b@llhog24
03-05-2014, 03:49 AM
No they can't. Are you happy?

b@llhog24
03-05-2014, 03:50 AM
Can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

"One of my biggest pet peeves in basketball (and more broadly, sports) is the “eye test”. The belief is that to truly understand the game you need to watch players play. Sure, stats are good but they’re not match for watching the game, right? Well I vehemently disagree with this.

A great book I’m currently reading is called “Mindless Eating” by Brian Wansink. It turns out humans aren’t great at being able to judge how much food they eat. Small things like the size of the plate or if the person thinks they are drinking an expensive wine with dinner will influence their judgement of their food. Basically, in regards to food, the eye test fails miserably.

One of the craziest tricks is height. If food looks taller then we think there’s more of it. This works in drinking glasses in fact. Give someone a tall slender glass with the same amount of liquid as that in a short stout glass and they’ll think they drank more in the tall glass. The author notices a funny aspect is that many people respond to such finding as “Sure that works on others, but not on me!” The punch line is then of course that experiments dispute this.

Their solution was to bring in a group of experts. They experimented with a group of bartenders. They gave them either a tall glass or short glass and asked them to pour a shot (1.5 ounces). In the tall glasses they were pretty close (1.6 ounces) but they over-poured in the stout glasses. How could this be? Bartenders are experts at pouring shots! Should you ask for your drink out of a shorter glass next time you hit the bars?

The trick is that the experimenters took away the bartenders tools. Bartenders may have bottles or drink dispensers that flow at a specific rate. The bar tender can count to two to know they’ve poured a shot. Bar tenders also have measuring devices they can use to measure out a shot. Take these away and trust them to just their eyes and they fail at a seemingly simple task.

This is huge in regards to basketball and sports. People make the claim that watching the game will give them extra information. Except, it’s the other way around. Without tools to guarantee they’re getting the right information, then even an experts’ eyes aren’t that useful! We want to believe our brains don’t have major flaws in them and that years of practice will help us overcome them. If bartenders can’t even judge a glass right using their eyes then why would something like a basketball combine even work? It’s tempting to believe the alternative, that these studies apply to other people and not us. "
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/14/bartenders-height-and-the-eye-test/

Great quote, but why is it so small?

Baller1
03-05-2014, 03:53 AM
Can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

"One of my biggest pet peeves in basketball (and more broadly, sports) is the “eye test”. The belief is that to truly understand the game you need to watch players play. Sure, stats are good but they’re not match for watching the game, right? Well I vehemently disagree with this.

A great book I’m currently reading is called “Mindless Eating” by Brian Wansink. It turns out humans aren’t great at being able to judge how much food they eat. Small things like the size of the plate or if the person thinks they are drinking an expensive wine with dinner will influence their judgement of their food. Basically, in regards to food, the eye test fails miserably.

One of the craziest tricks is height. If food looks taller then we think there’s more of it. This works in drinking glasses in fact. Give someone a tall slender glass with the same amount of liquid as that in a short stout glass and they’ll think they drank more in the tall glass. The author notices a funny aspect is that many people respond to such finding as “Sure that works on others, but not on me!” The punch line is then of course that experiments dispute this.

Their solution was to bring in a group of experts. They experimented with a group of bartenders. They gave them either a tall glass or short glass and asked them to pour a shot (1.5 ounces). In the tall glasses they were pretty close (1.6 ounces) but they over-poured in the stout glasses. How could this be? Bartenders are experts at pouring shots! Should you ask for your drink out of a shorter glass next time you hit the bars?

The trick is that the experimenters took away the bartenders tools. Bartenders may have bottles or drink dispensers that flow at a specific rate. The bar tender can count to two to know they’ve poured a shot. Bar tenders also have measuring devices they can use to measure out a shot. Take these away and trust them to just their eyes and they fail at a seemingly simple task.

This is huge in regards to basketball and sports. People make the claim that watching the game will give them extra information. Except, it’s the other way around. Without tools to guarantee they’re getting the right information, then even an experts’ eyes aren’t that useful! We want to believe our brains don’t have major flaws in them and that years of practice will help us overcome them. If bartenders can’t even judge a glass right using their eyes then why would something like a basketball combine even work? It’s tempting to believe the alternative, that these studies apply to other people and not us. "
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/14/bartenders-height-and-the-eye-test/

Awesome.

Hawkeye15
03-05-2014, 03:53 AM
Great quote, but why is it so small?

its like reading the rules at Wonkaland

b@llhog24
03-05-2014, 03:57 AM
its like reading the rules at Wonkaland

Lmao. I loved that movie.

KnicksorBust
03-05-2014, 10:18 AM
The "eye test" is essential because it's a huge part of how people game plan. Advanced Stats don't tell you how a player gets their numbers, just what they were. Except now with SportsVu tracking and categorizing every play even scouting will now be taken to a completely different level.

Goose17
03-05-2014, 01:54 PM
Not a "stat head" as such but I do value them. I think to disregard stats completely is just as ignorant as the people who rely on them solely and disregard everything else.

There's a lot of players in this league who do things that don't really show up until you delve DEEP into the advanced stats stuff.

As for volume scorers, it depends on the individual and the team they are on. I mean is that all they do? Or can they play defense as well? Do they strictly spot up or can they create for themselves? Are they good at rebounding? Do they help the ball movement? Are they the number one option? Sixth man? Are they on a contending team or a bottom feeder?

Kashmir13579
03-05-2014, 02:37 PM
Advanced statistics aren't all that advanced. They just tell you exactly what happened. If a player rebounds the ball 20 percent of the time, the stat will tell you that.

If a player scores 18 points a game in 14 possessions that's a good thing.
Perfect example of someone you don't want to ask about stats..

tredigs
03-05-2014, 03:04 PM
The "eye test" is essential because it's a huge part of how people game plan. Advanced Stats don't tell you how a player gets their numbers, just what they were. Except now with SportsVu tracking and categorizing every play even scouting will now be taken to a completely different level.
I agree here. The stat that I'm still waiting/searching for and is actually possible with SportsVu (or a derivative of it) is the ability of a given player to "bend" a defense from different spots on the floor, and how good they are at capitalizing on that with their playmaking ability (or a teams ability to play the most likely rebound when he misses).

If you're a volume scorer, that can be looked past if we know that you're creating more opportunities for your team as a result. There are plenty of volume scorers out there who get that tag and I'm just not sure I buy it. A lot of this also has to do with your offense and whether or not you stagnate its flow (see: Monta's volume shooting for GS). That hurts everyone.

Stats just aren't at the point where they can understand the context of an entire game, but they're getting better each year.

Pacerlive
03-05-2014, 03:27 PM
From what I understand from the advanced stat guys it's basically all about efficiency now. If the numbers say you're efficient you are good. I get it.

My question: can a so called non efficient player, dare I say a volume scorer, ever be considered a great player by you fellows? Or would that be a glitch in the Matrix?

Define non efficient?

Are we talking a high useage low TS% like below 50%? NO IMO.

Now if we talking a high useage mid TS% then I would say sure based on what else he did.

The other perameters of great players would have to come into play and be a much greater factor though such as assist percentage or rebound percentage and dare I say a high volume scorer can play defense at a high level and not just in a way that points to steal % or block percentage.

For the record great player doesn't equal HOF player to me so I would say yes but if he "just" a high volume scorer and that it then my answer is no. He is not a great player.

IndyRealist
03-05-2014, 03:41 PM
Great quote, but why is it so small?

It's small because I wanted to show it was a quote and not my words, and didn't want it to be confused with the quote I was responding to.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 03:55 PM
Advanced stats and efficiency mean nuffn when determining who's a better player, all it really means is one player just takes better shots than the next....prime example would be Kobe, T Mac, Melo and AI, versus players like LB, KD, Dirk and Nash.

The former are all better offensive players than the latter but it wont show in the stats bcuz those players never take easy shots, as oppose to the others who pick and choose theirs and often get backdoor cuts, leak outs, uncontested spot ups, and reb stick backs (KD and LB mostly), u couple that with the help of friendly refs that bail em out and u have an efficient monster.

Ever notice when the Melo, Kobe, T Mac, and AI's have big nights its like WOW what an incredible performance? Well its bcuz they literally....literally, abuse their defenders hittin contested shot after contested shot in their opps face...but when Dirk, LB and KD's get 40 it looked like 20 cuz of how easy it came due to them not forcing bad contested shots.

Its pretty simple, smart vs dumb, but doesnt necessarily mean more skilled or talented.

tredigs
03-05-2014, 04:06 PM
Advanced stats and efficiency mean nuffn when determining who's a better player, all it really means is one player just takes better shots than the next....prime example would be Kobe, T Mac, Melo and AI, versus players like LB, KD, Dirk and Nash.

The former are all better offensive players than the latter but it wont show in the stats bcuz those players never take easy shots, as oppose to the others who pick and choose theirs and often get backdoor cuts, leak outs, uncontested spot ups, and reb stick backs (KD and LB mostly), u couple that with the help of friendly refs that bail em out and u have an efficient monster.

Ever notice when the Melo, Kobe, T Mac, and AI's have big nights its like WOW what an incredible performance? Well its bcuz they literally....literally, abuse their defenders hittin contested shot after contested shot in their opps face...but when Dirk, LB and KD's get 40 it looked like 20 cuz of how easy it came due to them not forcing bad contested shots.

Its pretty simple, smart vs dumb, but doesnt necessarily mean more skilled or talented.
Nuffn you said made sense.

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 04:11 PM
If that random person is an informed basketball mind I'd value their eye test over stats being used by someone who has no understanding of how those stats came into being.

if i had to choose between the two i'd take someone who knew how to really read stats over the opinion of someone who only watches. a person who only watches i find spends a lot of time justifying or rationalizing or valuing things that really have zero impact on results. not saying there isn't value to both though. obviously stats don't tell you what a player can do on the court. only what he does. a stat nerd who watches a lot of ball would be the best judge possible.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 04:13 PM
Nuffn you said made sense.

Do u really think LBJ is a better offensive player than T Mac? (If so ur on drugs, and im not talkin weed).

But if u looked at his "efficiency" u would think so when the fact of the matter is he just takes easier shots than T Mac, what is it u dont understand about that?

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 04:13 PM
regular stats like points rebounds and assists dont matter. and neither do advanced stats.

Just watch the games. it takes traditional stats and advanced outta the way.

You get everything you need to know by watching. There is no advanced formula for that.

Let your eyes evaluate... Simple
so for a comparison between two players you are the last person i should ask. unless you are somehow able to watch all the games and your mind can process all that data and recall whenever necessary then. because otherwise you will remember some things, mis-remember others, and just flat out be guessing on the rest.

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 04:17 PM
Can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

"One of my biggest pet peeves in basketball (and more broadly, sports) is the “eye test”. The belief is that to truly understand the game you need to watch players play. Sure, stats are good but they’re not match for watching the game, right? Well I vehemently disagree with this.

A great book I’m currently reading is called “Mindless Eating” by Brian Wansink. It turns out humans aren’t great at being able to judge how much food they eat. Small things like the size of the plate or if the person thinks they are drinking an expensive wine with dinner will influence their judgement of their food. Basically, in regards to food, the eye test fails miserably.

One of the craziest tricks is height. If food looks taller then we think there’s more of it. This works in drinking glasses in fact. Give someone a tall slender glass with the same amount of liquid as that in a short stout glass and they’ll think they drank more in the tall glass. The author notices a funny aspect is that many people respond to such finding as “Sure that works on others, but not on me!” The punch line is then of course that experiments dispute this.

Their solution was to bring in a group of experts. They experimented with a group of bartenders. They gave them either a tall glass or short glass and asked them to pour a shot (1.5 ounces). In the tall glasses they were pretty close (1.6 ounces) but they over-poured in the stout glasses. How could this be? Bartenders are experts at pouring shots! Should you ask for your drink out of a shorter glass next time you hit the bars?

The trick is that the experimenters took away the bartenders tools. Bartenders may have bottles or drink dispensers that flow at a specific rate. The bar tender can count to two to know they’ve poured a shot. Bar tenders also have measuring devices they can use to measure out a shot. Take these away and trust them to just their eyes and they fail at a seemingly simple task.

This is huge in regards to basketball and sports. People make the claim that watching the game will give them extra information. Except, it’s the other way around. Without tools to guarantee they’re getting the right information, then even an experts’ eyes aren’t that useful! We want to believe our brains don’t have major flaws in them and that years of practice will help us overcome them. If bartenders can’t even judge a glass right using their eyes then why would something like a basketball combine even work? It’s tempting to believe the alternative, that these studies apply to other people and not us. "
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/14/bartenders-height-and-the-eye-test/

are you asking if his post is trolling, or the text you linked to underneath?

Baller1
03-05-2014, 04:20 PM
Do u really think LBJ is a better offensive player than T Mac? (If so ur on drugs, and im not talkin weed).

But if u looked at his "efficiency" u would think so when the fact of the matter is he just takes easier shots than T Mac, what is it u dont understand about that?

Who cares if they're easier shots? Two points is two points.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 04:21 PM
Can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

"One of my biggest pet peeves in basketball (and more broadly, sports) is the “eye test”. The belief is that to truly understand the game you need to watch players play. Sure, stats are good but they’re not match for watching the game, right? Well I vehemently disagree with this.

A great book I’m currently reading is called “Mindless Eating” by Brian Wansink. It turns out humans aren’t great at being able to judge how much food they eat. Small things like the size of the plate or if the person thinks they are drinking an expensive wine with dinner will influence their judgement of their food. Basically, in regards to food, the eye test fails miserably.

One of the craziest tricks is height. If food looks taller then we think there’s more of it. This works in drinking glasses in fact. Give someone a tall slender glass with the same amount of liquid as that in a short stout glass and they’ll think they drank more in the tall glass. The author notices a funny aspect is that many people respond to such finding as “Sure that works on others, but not on me!” The punch line is then of course that experiments dispute this.

Their solution was to bring in a group of experts. They experimented with a group of bartenders. They gave them either a tall glass or short glass and asked them to pour a shot (1.5 ounces). In the tall glasses they were pretty close (1.6 ounces) but they over-poured in the stout glasses. How could this be? Bartenders are experts at pouring shots! Should you ask for your drink out of a shorter glass next time you hit the bars?

The trick is that the experimenters took away the bartenders tools. Bartenders may have bottles or drink dispensers that flow at a specific rate. The bar tender can count to two to know they’ve poured a shot. Bar tenders also have measuring devices they can use to measure out a shot. Take these away and trust them to just their eyes and they fail at a seemingly simple task.

This is huge in regards to basketball and sports. People make the claim that watching the game will give them extra information. Except, it’s the other way around. Without tools to guarantee they’re getting the right information, then even an experts’ eyes aren’t that useful! We want to believe our brains don’t have major flaws in them and that years of practice will help us overcome them. If bartenders can’t even judge a glass right using their eyes then why would something like a basketball combine even work? It’s tempting to believe the alternative, that these studies apply to other people and not us. "
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/14/bartenders-height-and-the-eye-test/

Cute but silly.

If a player shot 4 for 12, lookin at stats u would say he was off and had a bad night, right?

But what if he hit 2, 25 foot stepbacks, and 2, 18 foot post up fadeaways, all 4 nuffn but net, but at the end of 3 qutrs he threw up half court heaves, another 3 possessions he got the ball at the end of the shot clock at an inconvenient setting/spot on the floor, and he missed 2 lay ups at the rim where he was obviously fouled but didnt get the call....he shot terribly right, smh? Idiot.

Eye test >>>>

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 04:23 PM
Advanced stats and efficiency mean nuffn when determining who's a better player, all it really means is one player just takes better shots than the next....prime example would be Kobe, T Mac, Melo and AI, versus players like LB, KD, Dirk and Nash.

The former are all better offensive players than the latter but it wont show in the stats bcuz those players never take easy shots, as oppose to the others who pick and choose theirs and often get backdoor cuts, leak outs, uncontested spot ups, and reb stick backs (KD and LB mostly), u couple that with the help of friendly refs that bail em out and u have an efficient monster.

Ever notice when the Melo, Kobe, T Mac, and AI's have big nights its like WOW what an incredible performance? Well its bcuz they literally....literally, abuse their defenders hittin contested shot after contested shot in their opps face...but when Dirk, LB and KD's get 40 it looked like 20 cuz of how easy it came due to them not forcing bad contested shots.

Its pretty simple, smart vs dumb, but doesnt necessarily mean more skilled or talented.

that's silly. why would you reward poor decision making?

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 04:25 PM
Cute but silly.

If a player shot 4 for 12, lookin at stats u would say he was off and had a bad night, right?

But what if he hit 2, 25 foot stepbacks, and 2, 18 foot post up fadeaways, all 4 nuffn but net, but at the end of 3 qutrs he threw up half court heaves, another 3 possessions he got the ball at the end of the shot clock at an inconvenient setting/spot on the floor, and he missed 2 lay ups at the rim where he was obviously fouled but didnt get the call....he shot terribly right, smh? Idiot.

Eye test >>>>

do you think this kind of thing doesn't happen regularly to the superstar player that is efficient as well? it tends to even itself out in the end.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 04:29 PM
I clearly said they were SMARTER players but not necessarily more skilled or talented.

LBJ cannot beat a T Mac in a 1 on 1, nor can a Nash beat an AI, simply cuz they arent better offensive players, or better yet I should say scorers...they just have a higher B Ball IQ.

Takes more "skill" to shoot 10 for 22 on contested shots than 12 for 20 on leak outs, backdoors and spot ups, thats all im saying.

tredigs
03-05-2014, 04:29 PM
Do u really think LBJ is a better offensive player than T Mac? (If so ur on drugs, and im not talkin weed).

But if u looked at his "efficiency" u would think so when the fact of the matter is he just takes easier shots than T Mac, what is it u dont understand about that?

He's easily a better playmaker and can do things on the offensive end (like finish @ the rim over and over and over) that T-Mac couldn't do on his level. McGrady had better moves, but I'm not watching NBA Street. You think if Kobe or Melo just took better/smarter shots, they'd be able to put up 32 ppg on a 64% TS? I'm thinking you're a little lost on the difference between having cool moves and actually having the ability to do what KD/Bron do on a night to night basis over the course of years.

"Skilled or talented" is another debate in and of itself (one i'd highly disagree with you on with the players you mentioned), and it does not make you a better offensive player than the next guy. It's much more than "smarts", its ability.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 04:42 PM
He's easily a better playmaker and can do things on the offensive end (like finish @ the rim over and over and over) that T-Mac couldn't do on his level. McGrady had better moves, but I'm not watching NBA Street. You think if Kobe or Melo just took better/smarter shots, they'd be able to put up 32 ppg on a 64% TS? I'm thinking you're a little lost on the difference between having cool moves and actually having the ability to do what KD/Bron do on a night to night basis over the course of years.

"Skilled or talented" is another debate in and of itself (one i'd highly disagree with you on with the players you mentioned), and it does not make you a better offensive player than the next guy. It's much more than "smarts", its ability.

I'll give u KD but certainly not, most definitely not LB, are u shittin me?..def isnt better than T Mac, IDC what his efficiency says, use a zone defense to clog the lane, a capable defender his height or taller thats agile, and that man's done, finished...he has zero iso moves, zilch, nada, nothing, no swag, stiff as a board...all he'll do is bull his way into the zone hoping to get the bail out, and if he doesnt he'll shrivel like a prune, all this was proven in the 11' finals.

Zone, tall (6'8-6'10) agile capable defender, no superstar calls from the refs, and LB is a pedestrian 18ppg, 42fg guy lmao...sad.

U hav a better argument for KD since he is actually a skilled offensive player that can do anything on the court in terms of scoring.

And if it werent for Kobe's B Ball IQ, ego and selfishness he wouldve been even better than MJ and avg'd 35ppg on 70%TS...facts.

tredigs
03-05-2014, 04:50 PM
I'll give u KD but certainly not, most definitely not LB, are u shittin me?..def isnt better than T Mac, IDC what his efficiency says, use a zone defense to clog the lane, a capable defender his height or taller thats agile, and that man's done, finished...he has zero iso moves, zilch, nada, nothing, no swag, stiff as a board...all he'll do is bull his way into the zone hoping to get the bail out, and if he doesnt he'll shrivel like a prune, all this was proven in the 11' finals.

Zone, tall (6'8-6'10) agile capable defender, no superstar calls from the refs, and LB is a pedestrian 18ppg, 42fg guy lmao...sad.

U hav a better argument for KD since he is actually a skilled offensive player that can do anything on the court in terms of scoring.

And if it werent for Kobe's B Ball IQ, ego and selfishness he wouldve been even better than MJ and avg'd 35ppg on 70%TS...facts.

Lmfao. "Lebron has zero/zilch/no moves and Kobe could average 35 ppg on 70% and be better than MJ if he had less of an ego".

I refuse to acknowledge you any further than to put that on blast again. We're done here. That was awesome.

Chronz
03-05-2014, 04:54 PM
Lmfao. "Lebron has zero/zilch/no moves and Kobe could average 35 ppg on 70% and be better than MJ if he had less of an ego".

I refuse to acknowledge you any further than to put that on blast again. We're done here. That was awesome.
A snapshot of......

lol, please
03-05-2014, 04:56 PM
From what I understand from the advanced stat guys it's basically all about efficiency now. If the numbers say you're efficient you are good. I get it.

My question: can a so called non efficient player, dare I say a volume scorer, ever be considered a great player by you fellows? Or would that be a glitch in the Matrix?
If you understood the definition of the word "effciency", you would agree. If a volume shooter (a volume scorer would be efficient if he had a high sucess rate) is efficient, then of course he could perhaps be in the conversation of being great. But volume shooting without efficiency? Is that really a question? Again I would have to ask, do you know what efficiency means? Personally, I can't find a single reason to not be as efficient as you can be, anywhere in life, ever. Why would you?

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 05:04 PM
Lmfao. "Lebron has zero/zilch/no moves and Kobe could average 35 ppg on 70% and be better than MJ if he had less of an ego".

I refuse to acknowledge you any further than to put that on blast again. We're done here. That was awesome.

lol I exaggerated with Kobe, but seriously I think if he had a higher IQ, and picked his spots the way MJ did he couldve been better but he didnt so he's not....skillwise tho I would say he's better tho, by a hair.

And LB J is a beast, an absolute monster and a better PLAYER than T Mac, Melo etc, what im talkin bout is pure skill, he has avg skills, he's avg at everything offensively, avg shooter, ball handler, post up player, but ofc his sheer size coupled with his speed puts him over the top..1 on 1 he doesnt beat KD, T Mac, Melo, MJ, or Kobe, those guys are just much more polished than him OFFENSIVELY...footwork, agility, jumpshot, ball handling, finesse etc...if u disagree ur a liar, end of.

lol, please
03-05-2014, 05:07 PM
Nothing you ever say here will ever be taken seriously by anyone intelligent until you publicly accept mathematics as fact, snapshot. No one educated mocks and shrugs off relevant, applicable information.

tredigs
03-05-2014, 05:16 PM
Nothing you ever say here will ever be taken seriously by anyone intelligent until you publicly accept mathematics as fact, snapshot. No one educated mocks and shrugs off relevant, applicable information.

It would help if he understood how size affects athleticism and could acknowledge that what a player of Lebron's build (dudes the size of Karl ****ing Malone, if not bigger) can do with the ball in his dribbling/driving/off balanced jumpers-layups/playmaking is anything but an insane level of talent/skill.

He can't crossover like a 6'0" AI you say?? No ****ing ****. Lmfao

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 05:16 PM
Nothing you ever say here will ever be taken seriously by anyone intelligent until you publicly accept mathematics as fact, snapshot. No one educated mocks and shrugs off relevant, applicable information.

I do but its not the end all be all with me, I like to watch and see for myself...mathematics can be shaky, and doesnt acct for the missed calls by the refs lowering a players efficiency (D Rose, Ellis), or special treatment from the ref boostin a players efficiency (KD, Harden)...I wanna watch and see the BS calls u got that bailed u out on that missed shot, I wanna see that u forced shots at the end of qutrs/24 sec sc etc lowering ur %..I wanna see that u had 3 of ur layups blocked countin against u as missed shots when u didnt even really miss lol...eyetest >>> math

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 05:19 PM
I do but its not the end all be all with me, I like to watch and see for myself...mathematics can be shaky, and doesnt acct for the missed calls by the refs lowering a players efficiency (D Rose, Ellis), or special treatment from the ref boostin a players efficiency (KD, Harden)...I wanna watch and see the BS calls u got that bailed u out on that missed shot, I wanna see that u forced shots at the end of qutrs/24 sec sc etc lowering ur %..I wanna see that u had 3 of ur layups blocked countin against u as missed shots when u didnt even really miss lol...eyetest >>> math

again, these things tend to even out. it's not about dissecting each game.

Chronz
03-05-2014, 05:20 PM
I do but its not the end all be all with me, I like to watch and see for myself...mathematics can be shaky, and doesnt acct for the missed calls by the refs lowering a players efficiency (D Rose, Ellis), or special treatment from the ref boostin a players efficiency (KD, Harden)...I wanna watch and see the BS calls u got that bailed u out on that missed shot, I wanna see that u forced shots at the end of qutrs/24 sec sc etc lowering ur %..I wanna see that u had 3 of ur layups blocked countin against u as missed shots when u didnt even really miss lol...eyetest >>> math

Even if you were right (which isn't the case), what difference would it make? Those players STILL produced those PTS in that manner, your team still benefits from the production. So long as it impacts the game, its a part of their legacy/game.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 05:25 PM
Again, eyetest...."he's bigger than K Malone" hahahahaha, a blind man could see that's a lie, but keep reading the back of upper deck cards that tell u they're the same size....if they were the same size for a million dollars (cuz ur gna have to pay a hefty hospital bill lol) who would u rather fight one on one, Malone or LB? Well thats ur ansa rite there in regards to who's really the bigger man...he's bigger than Malone...ha! smh

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 05:32 PM
Even if you were right (which isn't the case), what difference would it make? Those players STILL produced those PTS in that manner, your team still benefits from the production. So long as it impacts the game, its a part of their legacy/game.

Ur right, cant argue that...but as long as I know the truth thats what matters to me.

Was Wade a beast against the Mavs in 06'? Sure, was pretty good....but was he THAT good, or did he get a bunch of bogus calls to inflate those #'s? Dont answer that it was rhetorical...but he got that ring and FMVP right?!....and thats all that matters, but again, we all know the truth.

tredigs
03-05-2014, 05:47 PM
Again, eyetest...."he's bigger than K Malone" hahahahaha, a blind man could see that's a lie, but keep reading the back of upper deck cards that tell u they're the same size....if they were the same size for a million dollars (cuz ur gna have to pay a hefty hospital bill lol) who would u rather fight one on one, Malone or LB? Well thats ur ansa rite there in regards to who's really the bigger man...he's bigger than Malone...ha! smh
Let's put it this way kid. Malone had bigger arms, and Lebron had twice his speed. They are about the same height and Malone probably had 10-12 lbs on him (with higher body fat). Here's some math: Mass X Acceleration = Force. Lebron is capable of more force on a court than Malone ever had. Want eye test? I've seen them both live numerous times. That's clear as day.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 06:21 PM
Perfect example of someone you don't want to ask about stats..

Which I why I stated in my first post that he's the type of guy who really can't make an opinion of his own only sways in the statistical wind. AKA the abusers of advanced metrics.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 06:32 PM
if i had to choose between the two i'd take someone who knew how to really read stats over the opinion of someone who only watches. a person who only watches i find spends a lot of time justifying or rationalizing or valuing things that really have zero impact on results. not saying there isn't value to both though. obviously stats don't tell you what a player can do on the court. only what he does. a stat nerd who watches a lot of ball would be the best judge possible.

Completely disagree. A "stats geek" doesn't understand the nuances and intangible value a player brings to the table he just has a comprehensive understanding of the way the game is scored but what goes into that scoring and what differentiates each player will always be confusing to him because he wouldn't fully understand the way his teammates, system and coaches affect his production.

Stats on a whole are GREAT tools in assessing professional athletes especially with the statistical boom in the last 6 years or so but in the wrong hands (brains) they are being extremely misused. I think someone who actually understands what a player does to get those stats is more credible than someone who only uses those stats to evaluate players.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 06:35 PM
Let's put it this way kid. Malone had bigger arms, and Lebron had twice his speed. They are about the same height and Malone probably had 10-12 lbs on him (with higher body fat). Here's some math: Mass X Acceleration = Force. Lebron is capable of more force on a court than Malone ever had. Want eye test? I've seen them both live numerous times. That's clear as day.

lol at that backtrack, I knew u knew u were spewing nonsense to make LB seem better smh...but i'll concede to the fact that at his size he shouldnt be as fast in the open court with the ball in his hands without losing it, as that does take skill...but everything else u said a few posts ago in regards to his size/skill made no sense.

Wtf does his passing and playmaking have to do with his size? Vlade and C Webb were good passers and they were big men, if u have good court vision u have good CV, doesnt matter if ur 4'9 or 8ft smh.

Then u talkin bout fadeaways and off balance shots lol, so did Hakeem, whats ur point, what does that have to do with his size?

U act as if he has a mean handles or he zigs zags and weaves his way thru defenses, he doesnt, he's doofy wit it, I cringe watchin him try...so again, the only skill, the only thing he does that he shouldnt be doin for his size is fly up the court at the speed he does all while handling the ball well...thats it *shrugs*.

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 07:47 PM
Perfect example of someone you don't want to ask about stats..

It sucks when that person is more right than you more often.

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 07:49 PM
Cute but silly.

If a player shot 4 for 12, lookin at stats u would say he was off and had a bad night, right?

But what if he hit 2, 25 foot stepbacks, and 2, 18 foot post up fadeaways, all 4 nuffn but net, but at the end of 3 qutrs he threw up half court heaves, another 3 possessions he got the ball at the end of the shot clock at an inconvenient setting/spot on the floor, and he missed 2 lay ups at the rim where he was obviously fouled but didnt get the call....he shot terribly right, smh? Idiot.

Eye test >>>>

I would say he is taking dumb shots. And be pissed that he took them. If he was on my team that is.

Expected value > What happened

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 07:51 PM
Which I why I stated in my first post that he's the type of guy who really can't make an opinion of his own only sways in the statistical wind. AKA the abusers of advanced metrics.

I make money betting.

You should put your money where your mouth is and try your hand at it.

I remember explaining last year that JR Smith was bad at defense and then coming up with a comprehensive diagram that even Knick fans could understand to show why his defensive stats were ****.

The response to that? "You can choose from any play, you really got to watch the game." And then they sourced his steal stats.

As if they aren't using a stat to help their argument and completely ignoring the "eye" test.

People who prefer the eye test over good old fashioned statistics are wrong a lot more often than us stat geeks.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 07:56 PM
I make money betting.

You should put your money where your mouth is and try your hand at it.

Based on your take on stats I don't believe it for a second but that's great. I make money off of those who bet. You should come to my country lets make money together (I'm SURE I'll make more off of you than you do of me).

Seriously though I don't care how you make your money this is basketball we're talking about. In basketball what a player does to get his stats are what's most important. You clearly don't understand that.

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 07:58 PM
Based on your take on stats I don't believe it for a second but that's great. I make money off of those who bet. You should come to my country lets make money together (I'm SURE I'll make more off of you than you do of me).

Seriously though I don't care how you make your money this is basketball we're talking about. In basketball what a player does to get his stats are what's most important. You clearly don't understand that.

And in either case you still need the statistics to make educated decisions. You aren't going to be able to do that ignoring stats for your feelings.

How you feel doesn't really matter ever, actually. Which is why I cap.

When the Raptors traded Rudy Gay everyone said "Tank." They were at +500 to win the atlantic division. I put 1,000 grand for them to win the Atlantic.

I will win 5,000 grand off that bet. I know why Gay was bad, but I didn't have to know that to know taking his negative production would make the Raps take off.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 08:00 PM
I make money betting.

You should put your money where your mouth is and try your hand at it.

I remember explaining last year that JR Smith was bad at defense and then coming up with a comprehensive diagram that even Knick fans could understand to show why his defensive stats were ****.

The response to that? "You can choose from any play, you really got to watch the game." And then they sourced his steal stats.

As if they aren't using a stat to help their argument and completely ignoring the "eye" test.

People who prefer the eye test over good old fashioned statistics are wrong a lot more often than us stat geeks.

YOU are a stat geek? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They must have drastically lowered the standard for someone who calls himself a geek. You must be the type of geek that constantly gets picked on in school not the type who is routinely acing all his tests.

PSK where are you? I honestly can't believe Guppy just described as a stat geek :laugh2:

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:02 PM
YOU are a stat geek? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They must have drastically lowered the standard for someone who calls himself a geek. You must be the type of geek that constantly gets picked on in school not the type who is routinely acing all his tests.

PSK where are you? I honestly can't believe Guppy just described as a stat geek :laugh2:

No medication to procure. Makes me pure, there's no cure, I am sure

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 08:04 PM
And in either case you still need the statistics to make educated decisions. You aren't going to be able to do that ignoring stats for your feelings.

Thing is as it relates to basketball you don't make educated decisions when you use stats. You use whatever looks better at the time. You can't formulate your own opinion. I've seen you quote countless articles that have been refuted and proven to be inaccurate but because someone who is seen as being smarter than you wrote it you yap it up word for word. One a real basketball forum where true knowledgeable stat heads meet you'd be laughed off the board a long time ago.


When the Raptors traded Rudy Gay everyone said "Tank." They were at +500 to win the atlantic division. I put 1,000 grand for them to win the Atlantic.

I will win 5,000 grand off that bet. I know why Gay was bad, but I didn't have to know that to know taking his negative production would make the Raps take off.

How much money did you make on the impact the negative Gay would have on the Kings?

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:06 PM
Thing is as it relates to basketball you don't make educated decisions when you use stats. You use whatever looks better at the time. You can't formulate your own opinion. I've seen you quote countless articles that have been refuted and proven to be inaccurate but because someone who is seen as being smarter than you wrote it you yap it up word for word. One a real basketball forum where true knowledgeable stat heads meet you'd be laughed off the board a long time ago.



How much money did you make on the impact the negative Gay would have on the Kings?


No money to be had there. I knew Gay was shooting sixty points below his career average for his TS. So I stayed away from him while he was on the Kings waiting for his averages to even out.

Do you think he has changed his play style? Because to me it seems like he has all the same issues.

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-05-2014, 08:14 PM
And in either case you still need the statistics to make educated decisions. You aren't going to be able to do that ignoring stats for your feelings.

How you feel doesn't really matter ever, actually. Which is why I cap.

When the Raptors traded Rudy Gay everyone said "Tank." They were at +500 to win the atlantic division. I put 1,000 grand for them to win the Atlantic.

I will win 5,000 grand off that bet. I know why Gay was bad, but I didn't have to know that to know taking his negative production would make the Raps take off.

Its not a big deal but you are using your money terms incorrectly. You say 1,000 and 5,000 grand. 1,000 grand is actually one million bucks. So in short..

$1,000.00= One grand
$5,000.00= Five grand

lol, please
03-05-2014, 08:14 PM
I make money betting.

You should put your money where your mouth is and try your hand at it.

I remember explaining last year that JR Smith was bad at defense and then coming up with a comprehensive diagram that even Knick fans could understand to show why his defensive stats were ****.

The response to that? "You can choose from any play, you really got to watch the game." And then they sourced his steal stats.

As if they aren't using a stat to help their argument and completely ignoring the "eye" test.

People who prefer the eye test over good old fashioned statistics are wrong a lot more often than us stat geeks.


And in either case you still need the statistics to make educated decisions. You aren't going to be able to do that ignoring stats for your feelings.

How you feel doesn't really matter ever, actually. Which is why I cap.

When the Raptors traded Rudy Gay everyone said "Tank." They were at +500 to win the atlantic division. I put 1,000 grand for them to win the Atlantic.

I will win 5,000 grand off that bet. I know why Gay was bad, but I didn't have to know that to know taking his negative production would make the Raps take off.

:clap:

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:15 PM
Its not a big deal but you are using your money terms incorrectly. You say 1,000 and 5,000 grand. 1,000 grand is actually one million bucks. So in short..

$1,000.00= One grand
$5,000.00= Five grand

You are right. I made a mistake because I was thinking in terms of 100's.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 08:21 PM
Its not a big deal but you are using your money terms incorrectly. You say 1,000 and 5,000 grand. 1,000 grand is actually one million bucks. So in short..

$1,000.00= One grand
$5,000.00= Five grand

Dude he's a stat geek he knows more than you or anyone else here.

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Dude he's a stat geek he knows more than you or anyone else here.


I am not smarter than anyone, but I am immune to mental mistakes while typing.

I am just going to own that.

But, pretty sure everyone knew what I meant.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 08:23 PM
No money to be had there. I knew Gay was shooting sixty points below his career average for his TS. So I stayed away from him while he was on the Kings waiting for his averages to even out.

Do you think he has changed his play style? Because to me it seems like he has all the same issues.

What are those issues?

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:27 PM
What are those issues?

Shot selection, the hitch in his shot, only having 226 shots at the rim despite being an elite finisher. A higher isolation rate in the fourth quarter + overtime than other quarters for him.


His stats would greatly improve if he was smarter. This really hasn't happened on the Kings. His shot distribution hasn't changed.

Jamiecballer
03-05-2014, 08:31 PM
Completely disagree. A "stats geek" doesn't understand the nuances and intangible value a player brings to the table he just has a comprehensive understanding of the way the game is scored but what goes into that scoring and what differentiates each player will always be confusing to him because he wouldn't fully understand the way his teammates, system and coaches affect his production.

Stats on a whole are GREAT tools in assessing professional athletes especially with the statistical boom in the last 6 years or so but in the wrong hands (brains) they are being extremely misused. I think someone who actually understands what a player does to get those stats is more credible than someone who only uses those stats to evaluate players.

Its implied when I say "who watches a lot of ball" that the person would develop a good understanding of the game.

Hawkeye15
03-05-2014, 08:35 PM
Do u really think LBJ is a better offensive player than T Mac? (If so ur on drugs, and im not talkin weed).

But if u looked at his "efficiency" u would think so when the fact of the matter is he just takes easier shots than T Mac, what is it u dont understand about that?

my eye test and the numbers both point to LeBron being a superior offensive player than TMac ever was.

Hawkeye15
03-05-2014, 08:37 PM
Advanced stats and efficiency mean nuffn when determining who's a better player, all it really means is one player just takes better shots than the next....prime example would be Kobe, T Mac, Melo and AI, versus players like LB, KD, Dirk and Nash.

The former are all better offensive players than the latter but it wont show in the stats bcuz those players never take easy shots, as oppose to the others who pick and choose theirs and often get backdoor cuts, leak outs, uncontested spot ups, and reb stick backs (KD and LB mostly), u couple that with the help of friendly refs that bail em out and u have an efficient monster.

Ever notice when the Melo, Kobe, T Mac, and AI's have big nights its like WOW what an incredible performance? Well its bcuz they literally....literally, abuse their defenders hittin contested shot after contested shot in their opps face...but when Dirk, LB and KD's get 40 it looked like 20 cuz of how easy it came due to them not forcing bad contested shots.

Its pretty simple, smart vs dumb, but doesnt necessarily mean more skilled or talented.

omfg. Well, give me the LeBron's playoff runs over your 38% AI during his finals run.

You literally just showed how ignorant your knowledge of not only stats, but of the game of basketball is.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 08:42 PM
From what I understand from the advanced stat guys it's basically all about efficiency now. If the numbers say you're efficient you are good. I get it.

My question: can a so called non efficient player, dare I say a volume scorer, ever be considered a great player by you fellows? Or would that be a glitch in the Matrix?

Yes! IMO Kobe, AI, Durant, Melo, Tmac, Wade, and Jordan are all great players.

Guppyfighter
03-05-2014, 08:44 PM
All of those players are efficient.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 08:51 PM
Shot selection, the hitch in his shot, only having 226 shots at the rim despite being an elite finisher. A higher isolation rate in the fourth quarter + overtime than other quarters for him.

His stats would greatly improve if he was smarter. This really hasn't happened on the Kings. His shot distribution hasn't changed.


Wait aren't we speaking of since he has become a King?

Since going to the Kings Rudy has improved his % at the rim by 15%, his shot selection has improved IMMENSELY and he's hand the best AST% of his career while shooting as a less frequent rate than any span since entering his prime.

Its clear you haven't watched him play and taken the time to understand and breakdown the stats because you've been wrong on all those things essentially. He has done all those things and his numbers have been the best over any 20 game span of his career (right now its at 36 games). His issue now is whether he'll continue on in this vein (his numbers would be expected to take a dip) or go back to his black hole ways.

Its because he's played smarter more contained basketball why his numbers have reflected as such. Sigh stat geek you strike again.

I would LOVE to see you post on a forum with a larger majority of active stat heads than PSD. You'd be laughed into exile Guppy.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 08:57 PM
But Hawk here is the problem. A whole lot of people use advanced stats as a measure to say a certain player isn't "great" or greater than someone else with better advanced stats.

Just for make believe purposes I can say well Love's stats are better than Rodman, so he's a better player than Rodman ever was. But does that really take into account the whole story? What Rodman did? The chips he played a major role in? No way.

That's the problem I have.

But the problem with what you said is that Love is definitely better than Rodman.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 09:02 PM
Hmmmm... I wonder if the Bulls would have been able to win a title with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Kevin Love...

I hope this is a joke.

Swashcuff
03-05-2014, 09:05 PM
Guppy you know what's foolish about your narrow minded "statistical" arguments is that you have NO idea how these numbers come into being. You clearly DO NOT watch players in an attempt to understand how they get these stats. You say Rudy is an elite finisher because of his FG% at the rim according to BBref right? But according to SportsVu (the guys who actually tracking "attacking the rim") Gay is far from elite shooting 48.4% (34th among perimeter players since December 13th) on drives since joining Sactown as compared to 33.3% in Toronto.

I wonder what your BBref stats tell you about that now? They don't track player styles but rather player zones. Basically ALL you are is stats without context. You are what you read and not what you read really means. This is why when it comes to advanced statistical analysis you are without question THE WORST person on PSD listen to. I'm not the first person here to echo that statement either and I am quite certain I won't be the last.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 09:28 PM
Do u really think LBJ is a better offensive player than T Mac? (If so ur on drugs, and im not talkin weed).

But if u looked at his "efficiency" u would think so when the fact of the matter is he just takes easier shots than T Mac, what is it u dont understand about that?


Part of taking easier shots is the ability to make easier shots for yourself. Someone who can get to the hole at will isn't forced to fade away. Are you saying that Tmac and Kobe can get to the hole as easy as Lebron, but they choose to take fadeaway jumpers instead of layups. Is Pat Ewing a better offensive player than Shaq too? The difference between Lebron and Tmac is that Tmac has to take more hard shots to get his points because he is physically not able to get to spots on the floor that present him with easy shots with the consistency of a Lebron. IF Lebron was 40 pounds lighter and 2 steps slower he'd be jacking up long distance fadeaways too if he wanted to score 30 a game. And he would not be a better player for it.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 09:40 PM
Cute but silly.

If a player shot 4 for 12, lookin at stats u would say he was off and had a bad night, right?

But what if he hit 2, 25 foot stepbacks, and 2, 18 foot post up fadeaways, all 4 nuffn but net, but at the end of 3 qutrs he threw up half court heaves, another 3 possessions he got the ball at the end of the shot clock at an inconvenient setting/spot on the floor, and he missed 2 lay ups at the rim where he was obviously fouled but didnt get the call....he shot terribly right, smh? Idiot.

Eye test >>>>

If this was an occurrence that happened 99% of the time rather than 1% of the time, you would have a point.

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 09:53 PM
I do but its not the end all be all with me, I like to watch and see for myself...mathematics can be shaky, and doesnt acct for the missed calls by the refs lowering a players efficiency (D Rose, Ellis), or special treatment from the ref boostin a players efficiency (KD, Harden)...I wanna watch and see the BS calls u got that bailed u out on that missed shot, I wanna see that u forced shots at the end of qutrs/24 sec sc etc lowering ur %..I wanna see that u had 3 of ur layups blocked countin against u as missed shots when u didnt even really miss lol...eyetest >>> math

eyetest+math >>>>>>>>>>>eyetest

IKnowHoops
03-05-2014, 10:01 PM
lol at that backtrack, I knew u knew u were spewing nonsense to make LB seem better smh...but i'll concede to the fact that at his size he shouldnt be as fast in the open court with the ball in his hands without losing it, as that does take skill...but everything else u said a few posts ago in regards to his size/skill made no sense.

Wtf does his passing and playmaking have to do with his size? Vlade and C Webb were good passers and they were big men, if u have good court vision u have good CV, doesnt matter if ur 4'9 or 8ft smh.

Then u talkin bout fadeaways and off balance shots lol, so did Hakeem, whats ur point, what does that have to do with his size?

U act as if he has a mean handles or he zigs zags and weaves his way thru defenses, he doesnt, he's doofy wit it, I cringe watchin him try...so again, the only skill, the only thing he does that he shouldnt be doin for his size is fly up the court at the speed he does all while handling the ball well...thats it *shrugs*.

And at the end of the day, that is harder to stop than mean handles and zig zags, that shy his ball goes in the hole at a higher rate than your zig zaggin all stars.

Snapshot
03-05-2014, 11:58 PM
omfg. Well, give me the LeBron's playoff runs over your 38% AI during his finals run.

You literally just showed how ignorant your knowledge of not only stats, but of the game of basketball is.

I'll take any of those guys with 10 secs left complete isolation at the top of the key over LB any day, offensively he doesnt have as many go to moves as the rest...whats he gonna do, 3 jab steps and a forced pull up? Or bull his way to the whole wit the defender riding him hoping for a whistle? Prolly miss the gw ft's as well cuz he's the nervous type.

Like I said he gets 7 points off FT's, 2 open spot up/call for a pick 3's, 3 leak outs, 2 backdoor/alleys, cpl offensive putbacks and thats his 30 pts for the night....doesnt impress me offensively, when u make all those easy/good/uncontested shots, much rather watch a Kobe , Melo, T mac, AI, KD dismantle ppl making tough shots while making it look effortless etc...thats just me tho. He's a great PLAYER tho not taking that away from him, just could polish his offense a bit.

Snapshot
03-06-2014, 12:16 AM
Part of taking easier shots is the ability to make easier shots for yourself. Someone who can get to the hole at will isn't forced to fade away. Are you saying that Tmac and Kobe can get to the hole as easy as Lebron, but they choose to take fadeaway jumpers instead of layups. Is Pat Ewing a better offensive player than Shaq too? The difference between Lebron and Tmac is that Tmac has to take more hard shots to get his points because he is physically not able to get to spots on the floor that present him with easy shots with the consistency of a Lebron. IF Lebron was 40 pounds lighter and 2 steps slower he'd be jacking up long distance fadeaways too if he wanted to score 30 a game. And he would not be a better player for it.

Shaq was more SKILLED than Pat Ewing? LMAO now ive heard it all smfh.

So bascally all it is, is if ur stronger than someone else ur better than em, sad way to look at things.

Last weekend I hooped at my local YMCA, im 6ft 170 give or take, I played 1 on 1 with this older guy, a bum, straight scrub for the most part, he was bout 6'4 220, basically just way stronger than me, he backed me down up all game and beat me 11-9...so he's the better player bcuz he was able to score easily on me due to his strength and size?

Cuz thats basically what ur saying when comparing Pat to Shaq and T Mac to LBJ....FYI I torcghed that guy in the 4 on 4 we played after when he couldnt really post me up in a cluttered half court 4 on 4 game where I had a lil help D...he wasnt so good anymore smh

PatsSoxKnicks
03-06-2014, 04:10 AM
The "eye test" is essential because it's a huge part of how people game plan. Advanced Stats don't tell you how a player gets their numbers, just what they were. Except now with SportsVu tracking and categorizing every play even scouting will now be taken to a completely different level.

SportVu is so horribly behind or at least whats publicly available is horribly behind. Honestly, the stats that are public right now just suck. For example, if you were to use RAPM or Adjusted +/-, you sit there and see someone like Amir Johnson as a great player and wonder why. It doesn't tell you why because there aren't any great defensive stats that are publicly available.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-06-2014, 04:17 AM
I agree here. The stat that I'm still waiting/searching for and is actually possible with SportsVu (or a derivative of it) is the ability of a given player to "bend" a defense from different spots on the floor, and how good they are at capitalizing on that with their playmaking ability (or a teams ability to play the most likely rebound when he misses).

If you're a volume scorer, that can be looked past if we know that you're creating more opportunities for your team as a result. There are plenty of volume scorers out there who get that tag and I'm just not sure I buy it. A lot of this also has to do with your offense and whether or not you stagnate its flow (see: Monta's volume shooting for GS). That hurts everyone.

Stats just aren't at the point where they can understand the context of an entire game, but they're getting better each year.

Yes they are, you just don't know it yet :)

PatsSoxKnicks
03-06-2014, 04:25 AM
YOU are a stat geek? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They must have drastically lowered the standard for someone who calls himself a geek. You must be the type of geek that constantly gets picked on in school not the type who is routinely acing all his tests.

PSK where are you? I honestly can't believe Guppy just described as a stat geek :laugh2:

I'm here :) Just been really busy with grad school and other stuff.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-06-2014, 04:27 AM
Dude he's a stat geek he knows more than you or anyone else here.

A real stat geek would admit he knows nothing. No assumptions and then you start from there and see where you go. Ask the Thunder analytics guy.

Sadds The Gr8
03-06-2014, 04:29 AM
And in either case you still need the statistics to make educated decisions. You aren't going to be able to do that ignoring stats for your feelings.

How you feel doesn't really matter ever, actually. Which is why I cap.

When the Raptors traded Rudy Gay everyone said "Tank." They were at +500 to win the atlantic division. I put 1,000 grand for them to win the Atlantic.

I will win 5,000 grand off that bet. I know why Gay was bad, but I didn't have to know that to know taking his negative production would make the Raps take off.
Betting on the Raptors to win something? That is BALLSY.

tredigs
03-06-2014, 04:53 AM
I'm here :) Just been really busy with grad school and other stuff.

There's my guy. Keep me on the beta on that PSK.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
03-06-2014, 05:18 AM
so pretty much who ever has the sickest crossover is the best?!!?

hottttt sauce!!! kid from and1 all time nba goat without ever stepping on an nba floor! lol

amos1er
03-06-2014, 05:29 AM
I'm considered by some on PSD as an advanced stat guy and I'm an Allen Iverson fanboy. I think their just might be a glitch in the matrix.

For the rational open minded thinkers among us (Hawkeye15, Manram, tredigs, PSK, MBT, KoB etc) I think the answer to the question is yes but for most others who don't really have an opinion of their own and rely solely on what the advanced stats and the opinion of those who use advanced stats say (Guppy) its not likely.

I have realized however that with advanced stats becoming more accessible to the masses so many of these dudes pop up with opinions based solely on stats without having the slightest understanding of how the stats are achieved or calculated and completely ignoring the context of said stats.

Solid post. There are many glitches in the matrix that most don't understand. Are advanced stats useful? Yes, but are they the end all be all? No, if they were, then GM's would just play money ball all the time and guys like Phil Jackson wouldn't be so successful. There is so much context that is left out of equations that can't possibly be accounted for. There will always be eye test unless we find a computer that can act as an AI and account for every single possession of every game for every player and every match up in every conceivable situation. One fault I always found with TS% (though I think it's a great stat) is that it accounts for FT's by a general figure of .44. What about and ones? Surely they throw that figure off because it was a three point play on a single possession rather than two free throws given on a single possession. Players with more and one conversion rates should be rewarded for their efficiency and not lumped into a single average that penalizes them by figuring them into a general calculation of .44. PER doesn't account for defense at all and what stat really can account for how an individual player guards another player unless you monitor every single match up for every player while they are guarding specific players. Maybe one day... Lol. Regardless, I could go on and on about how each stat if flawed and anyone who really knows their stuff will acknowledge that for sure.

Jamiecballer
03-06-2014, 05:38 AM
Solid post. There are many glitches in the matrix that most don't understand. Are advanced stats useful? Yes, but are they the end all be all? No, if they were, then GM's would just play money ball all the time and guys like Phil Jackson wouldn't be so successful. There is so much context that is left out of equations that can't possibly be accounted for. There will always be eye test unless we find a computer that can act as an AI and account for every single possession of every game for every player and every match up in every conceivable situation. One fault I always found with TS% (though I think it's a great stat) is that it accounts for FT's by a general figure of .44. What about and ones? Surely they throw that figure off because it was a three point play on a single possession rather than two free throws given on a single possession. Players with more and one conversion rates should be rewarded for their efficiency and not lumped into a single average that penalizes them by figuring them into a general calculation of .44. PER doesn't account for defense at all and what stat really can account for how an individual player guards another player unless you monitor every single match up for every player while they are guarding specific players. Maybe one day... Lol. Regardless, I could go on and on about how each stat if flawed and anyone who really knows their stuff will acknowledge that for sure.

You can always calculate yourself, basketball reference tracks AND 1's. Or since the data is clearly available you can just wait, won't be long now.

I've already calculated that data for most of the NBA so far this season.

Guppyfighter
03-06-2014, 07:09 AM
A real stat geek would admit he knows nothing. No assumptions and then you start from there and see where you go. Ask the Thunder analytics guy.

I always do that. So I don't see your point.

WadeKobe
03-06-2014, 09:26 AM
I clearly said they were SMARTER players but not necessarily more skilled or talented.

LBJ cannot beat a T Mac in a 1 on 1, nor can a Nash beat an AI, simply cuz they arent better offensive players, or better yet I should say scorers...they just have a higher B Ball IQ.

Takes more "skill" to shoot 10 for 22 on contested shots than 12 for 20 on leak outs, backdoors and spot ups, thats all im saying.

One day we will make progress. One day.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-06-2014, 05:23 PM
There's my guy. Keep me on the beta on that PSK.

You see that article on ESPN Insider on setting screens? Good stuff.

tredigs
03-06-2014, 06:45 PM
You see that article on ESPN Insider on setting screens? Good stuff.

Haven't had Insider the past couple months so I missed it, but if it did some rankings based on the research I'm guessing Nick Collison and Bogut showed very well (KG would've, not sure anymore), and D. Lee showed as a matador.

Jamiecballer
03-07-2014, 12:55 AM
Haven't had Insider the past couple months so I missed it, but if it did some rankings based on the research I'm guessing Nick Collison and Bogut showed very well (KG would've, not sure anymore), and D. Lee showed as a matador.

Amir Johnson, best in class.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-07-2014, 01:17 AM
There will always be eye test unless we find a computer that can act as an AI and account for every single possession of every game for every player and every match up in every conceivable situation.

It could already be in existence but just no one knows about it.



PER doesn't account for defense at all and what stat really can account for how an individual player guards another player unless you monitor every single match up for every player while they are guarding specific players. Maybe one day... Lol.

That one day might've happened already. I mean a stat that would track what someone is shooting when they go left to right crossover would be pretty crazy. Or what Manu Ginobili does when Wade guards him and he does his Euro step. But who knows, those stats might already be tracked.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-07-2014, 01:23 AM
Haven't had Insider the past couple months so I missed it, but if it did some rankings based on the research I'm guessing Nick Collison and Bogut showed very well (KG would've, not sure anymore), and D. Lee showed as a matador.

Collison did well (saw it on Pelton's twitter), didn't see Bogut in there. It was setting screens so not the whole screen itself, just the person who sets it. For example, if he re-routes his defender on the screen would be a solid screen. Anyways, was some great stuff. Too bad it was published

John Walls Era
03-08-2014, 07:08 AM
can you guys just find the equation to predict games accurately?

just something that correlates to that, doesn't have to be too accurate. Maybe 60%<.

but continue changing the world with individual stats....

tredigs
03-08-2014, 07:12 AM
can you guys just find the equation to predict games accurately?

just something that correlates to that, doesn't have to be too accurate. Maybe 60%<.

but continue changing the world with individual stats....
On straight bets I'm at 57.2 this year, but as you know this is not an easy system to beat. There are far, far more lucrative endeavors business wise if you can hit games at a 55%+ clip.

John Walls Era
03-08-2014, 07:15 AM
On straight bets I'm at 57.2 this year, but as you know this is not an easy system to beat. There are far, far more lucrative endeavors business wise if you can hit games at a 55%+ clip.

I should've mentioned the criteria. I meant on spread bets. SU bets can't be used because anyone can bet on the huge fave.

IKnowHoops
03-08-2014, 07:21 AM
Solid post. There are many glitches in the matrix that most don't understand. Are advanced stats useful? Yes, but are they the end all be all? No, if they were, then GM's would just play money ball all the time and guys like Phil Jackson wouldn't be so successful. There is so much context that is left out of equations that can't possibly be accounted for. There will always be eye test unless we find a computer that can act as an AI and account for every single possession of every game for every player and every match up in every conceivable situation. One fault I always found with TS% (though I think it's a great stat) is that it accounts for FT's by a general figure of .44. What about and ones? Surely they throw that figure off because it was a three point play on a single possession rather than two free throws given on a single possession. Players with more and one conversion rates should be rewarded for their efficiency and not lumped into a single average that penalizes them by figuring them into a general calculation of .44. PER doesn't account for defense at all and what stat really can account for how an individual player guards another player unless you monitor every single match up for every player while they are guarding specific players. Maybe one day... Lol. Regardless, I could go on and on about how each stat if flawed and anyone who really knows their stuff will acknowledge that for sure.

Thats pretty funny. Phil had Mike and Shaq. They are two of the top four advanced stats guys of all time so...thats pretty much why he was so successful and the advanced stats say its no coincidence that a guy with those many rings had arguable to two most dominant players in history the NBA.

tredigs
03-08-2014, 07:27 AM
I should've mentioned the criteria. I meant on spread bets. SU bets can't be used because anyone can bet on the huge fave.

Lol yes spreads, JW. I bet far less often than a common sports gambler, but I know my ****.

3RDASYSTEM
03-08-2014, 11:08 AM
I'm considered by some on PSD as an advanced stat guy and I'm an Allen Iverson fanboy. I think their just might be a glitch in the matrix.

For the rational open minded thinkers among us (Hawkeye15, Manram, tredigs, PSK, MBT, KoB etc) I think the answer to the question is yes but for most others who don't really have an opinion of their own and rely solely on what the advanced stats and the opinion of those who use advanced stats say (Guppy) its not likely.

I have realized however that with advanced stats becoming more accessible to the masses so many of these dudes pop up with opinions based solely on stats without having the slightest understanding of how the stats are achieved or calculated and completely ignoring the context of said stats.

im a bball player and watcher who call it how it Is type player which may convert to AI fanboy because of the lack of bball game players on here and they just throw out PER/WS and say they are the best without I guess watching that player and seeing they have been or near the top for yrs

reason why I know PER/WS is a joke Is because WILT/BIG O/ALCINDOR/BIRD/MAGIC/JORDAN and many many others all dominated individually on the hardwood and you knew who shot a lot or shot 3pt ball the best or who was in that club, like NIQUE/K MALONE were top scorers battling JORDAN for scoring title but somehow I need a PER/WS today to notice that

or even better example was J KIDD final season, the media said his PER of 15 or 17(during a stretch that season) was his highest in 5 yrs and im thinking to myself he hasn't been the same player for long while so why would this PER matter when we all know he wont sustain it but since he was so damn good younger he stilled show a flash in the pan at 40yr old, nobody is the same at 40yrs old as they were at 25 and J KIDD game shows it so why show me a ****ing PER/WS to prove something that I know?

that's why PER/WS is stupid because it just shows you that certain players played with supreme talent and also had supreme game to go with it

to me BRON was the same player shooting 48-50pct in CLE that he is now shooting 58pct this year with HEAT, now go look at the options he has at his disposal where he can pick and choose his spots more and shoot 16x per game, then go back and look at could he pace himself and shoot that little in CLE? hell to the no he couldn't and PER/WS had nothing to do with it, it was situation, same with IVERSON who shot low pct in philly but as 33yr old with MELO he shot career high 46pct, now imagine him 25yrs old with MELO he easily shoots 48-50+ fg pct and he would still be the same dynamic devastating individual player that he was at 5'10'' and played like a 6'8'' two guard(BRON's quote)

same **** I said about IVERSON in philly, he was just a whole foot shorter than BRON basically which in essence made it more difficult for him and playing with fringe d league type talent in mckie/snow fory 7yrs out of his 10 1/2 in philly

like I said PER/WS is mainly for non players because I couldn't imagine a nba current or former using that ******** to say this legendary player is better than this legendary player or this avg to good player is better because of a PER/WS, that's the dumbest **** to ever hit sports when speaking on who's the best

like why would I need advance stats to show me that BIRD/KD could just flat outshoot JORDAN from perimeter(especially 3pt shot)?

or why would I need to see a PER/WS when I know K LOVE has put up monster numbers but his impact is not on SHAQ level individually?

I just know individual game/impact from watching and playing and taking it serious, that's really all you need right there, nba league pass ticket and where ever you play at rather gym/park you can tell who is good and who is avg or who can do what once you play with them 2x max, they wont get any better because they are who they are, same with players in the nba

when KD was at TEXAS I knew he was going to win scoring titles or be right there contending because of his killer cross handle and dead eye flame from anywhere and he was grabbing like 12 boards a game at damn near being a FOOTER, now what in the ****ing hell does PER/WS have to do with that? just like this year he Is battling BRON for mvp and people on here say his PER has passed BRON so he is the mvp, but im like he has been battling BRON past 3yrs for mvp so maybe its just his time since his game has been self explanatory, no PER needed

that's why I know the PER is ********, because its only used for agenda, game is game and impact is impact since the MIKAN era

3RDASYSTEM
03-08-2014, 11:11 AM
Thats pretty funny. Phil had Mike and Shaq. They are two of the top four advanced stats guys of all time so...thats pretty much why he was so successful and the advanced stats say its no coincidence that a guy with those many rings had arguable to two most dominant players in history the NBA.

they are arguably 2 of the best 5 to ever do it also so that is what I mean by advance stats, they just remind of of that player and what they had surrounding those players since it is a reflection of that

just look at KD without RUSS in playoffs, he was a 50-40-90 guy reduced to ''''''IVERSON''' inefficient level, I wonder why?