PDA

View Full Version : Statistics and there role in the NBA



ballallday
03-24-2015, 01:16 PM
So much time is dedicated now to people talking stats about players rather then watching games.

I watch basketball nightly probably about 5-7 games a week, don't watch a specific team just pick the best games / match ups that are on nightly. I rarely dive into stats as in my opinion they seem like a waist of time, especially when I've just watched a game. For example, why look at stats to see how players did when I just watched them play and watched them react to plays developing on the floor? Sometimes stats are an easy way to check in on players to see how they are doing since its impossible to watch all the games - i get that but do they have any meaning? Is it fair to use as a player comparison? What role do they play? Is it a waist of time? Is it because of fantasy basketball? If you watch a game do you instantly go to the stats after to better understand and see what happened in the game? Do stats have some greater meaning then what actually happened live in the game? Do you think if a player turned the ball over 10 times and the team lost the game that it was there fault, drawing the conclusion from that stat? Or a player that blocked 10 shots so they are now the second coming of alonzo morning? Or a player shot 33% and if they only shot 35% we would have won?

Thoughts? Where do you stand on stats? Have we gone to far? Waist of time or not?

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 01:23 PM
Its honestly just PSD. I never hear anyone in the real world putting this much weight on advanced stats when judging players.

valade16
03-24-2015, 01:45 PM
Its honestly just PSD. I never hear anyone in the real world putting this much weight on advanced stats when judging players.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77951766/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/nba-embraces-advanced-analytics-as-moneyball-movement-sweeps-pro-basketball/2013/10/25/1bd40e24-3d7a-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html

Somebody should tell the NBA they don't use advanced stats, they'd be surprised to hear it.

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 01:46 PM
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77951766/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/nba-embraces-advanced-analytics-as-moneyball-movement-sweeps-pro-basketball/2013/10/25/1bd40e24-3d7a-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html

Somebody should tell the NBA they don't use advanced stats, they'd be surprised to hear it.

I meant no one really cares...........

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 01:47 PM
I meant no one really cares...........

except the 100% of NBA teams, they all use them. Some more than others.

valade16
03-24-2015, 01:51 PM
I meant no one really cares [to click on links]

Fixed that for you. Had you clicked on the links you would have seen these headlines:

Stat-conscious NBA switches to the (advanced) metric system

NBA embraces advanced analytics

So to answer the question: who really cares about advanced stats the answer is the NBA.

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 01:53 PM
except the 100% of NBA teams, they all use them. Some more than others.

Definitely watch out for this guy, hes the advanced stat team "enforcer".

Hey Hawk! let me tip toe around what I want to say so i wont get banned for dumb **** that you guys make up like usual. My point is that i listen to sports talk radio, watch espn, have basketball conversations outside of psd. I never hear anyone speak about "per", "W/S", "TS". So in my mind, no one cares. Do any of you work for an NBA franchise? No? Then why do you care? Just watch the damn games and enjoy!

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 01:55 PM
Fixed that for you. Had you clicked on the links you would have seen these headlines:

Stat-conscious NBA switches to the (advanced) metric system

NBA embraces advanced analytics

So to answer the question: who really cares about advanced stats the answer is the NBA.

How amazing. The internet with all of its infinite wisdom was able to conjure up THREE meaningful articles to help you support your case?

ballallday
03-24-2015, 02:01 PM
This isn't gonna go well maybe we should /thread?

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 02:04 PM
Definitely watch out for this guy, hes the advanced stat team "enforcer".

Hey Hawk! let me tip toe around what I want to say so i wont get banned for dumb **** that you guys make up like usual. My point is that i listen to sports talk radio, watch espn, have basketball conversations outside of psd. I never hear anyone speak about "per", "W/S", "TS". So in my mind, no one cares. Do any of you work for an NBA franchise? No? Then why do you care? Just watch the damn games and enjoy!

Because the general audience isn't going to listen to radio guys talk about advanced metrics. That should be obvious. In reality, really researching a sport is boring to even those who claim to be a super fan.

I only care because it gives me a more detailed, and many times accurate view on what my eyes are watching, or missing. Can't watch all 10 guys every second. And our brains can't compute everything that happens, in fact we don't compute much of it.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 02:08 PM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-1028-nba-stats-20131028-story.html#page=1

Its interesting that the NBA released the data to the fans as well as teams at the same time:

The NBA recently decided to pay for every team to have the system so that a complete data set would be available league-wide and selected information could be distributed to fans via NBA TV and NBA.com. Some teams will put a sampling of the data on their scoreboards, such as how many miles a player has run in a game.

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 02:11 PM
Because the general audience isn't going to listen to radio guys talk about advanced metrics. That should be obvious. In reality, really researching a sport is boring to even those who claim to be a super fan.

I only care because it gives me a more detailed, and many times accurate view on what my eyes are watching, or missing. Can't watch all 10 guys every second. And our brains can't compute everything that happens, in fact we don't compute much of it.

That makes zero sense at all. Why cant a radio guy support an athlete with a number? He doesn't have to overly explain it if its as prevalent as you guys would like us to think. "Westbrook has a 'PER' of ..., that's why he should win MVP". That doesnt happen. There is never ANY mention of advanced stats amongst casual fans. So you guys come off as pretentious. You dont know any more about basketball just because you believe in what the apostle Hollinger invented.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 02:15 PM
Because the general audience isn't going to listen to radio guys talk about advanced metrics. That should be obvious. In reality, really researching a sport is boring to even those who claim to be a super fan.

I only care because it gives me a more detailed, and many times accurate view on what my eyes are watching, or missing. Can't watch all 10 guys every second. And our brains can't compute everything that happens, in fact we don't compute much of it.

Ya i agree with this 100% we can't compute everything that happens, the game is too quick. Rotations/screens/cuts sometimes can't see anything until replay.

Doesn't it feel weird though looking at stats and making a judgment on them, can't they tell a different story then what you just watched? Or what you believed you just watched? Its really an odd thing if you think about what the digital world has done to our perception of reality (not trying to say stats are wrong here just talking about the actual phenomenon of the process we go through when looking at stats). Am I off base?

valade16
03-24-2015, 02:19 PM
How amazing. The internet with all of its infinite wisdom was able to conjure up THREE meaningful articles to help you support your case?

I could have posted literally hundreds of meaningful articles, I felt 3 was sufficient to combat your absolute zero sources to back up your claim.

So to recap, we have you saying no one cares, which was proved false. So you are incorrect factually. You are wrong.

Do you have anything to dispute that notion or are you going to fall back onto "what I say is right because I say it!"?

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 02:20 PM
Ya i agree with this 100% we can't compute everything that happens, the game is too quick. Rotations/screens/cuts sometimes can't see anything until replay.

Doesn't it feel weird though looking at stats and making a judgment on them, can't they tell a different story then what you just watched? Or what you believed you just watched? Its really an odd thing if you think about what the digital world has done to our perception of reality (not trying to say stats are wrong here just talking about the actual phenomenon of the process we go through when looking at stats). Am I off base?

oh you have to watch, a lot. Hell, even the stats geeks that work for the NBA are just part of a department that watches hours upon hours of tape.

nickdymez
03-24-2015, 02:22 PM
I could have posted literally hundreds of meaningful articles, I felt 3 was sufficient to combat your absolute zero sources to back up your claim.

So to recap, we have you saying no one cares, which was proved false. So you are incorrect factually. You are wrong.

Do you have anything to dispute that notion or are you going to fall back onto "what I say is right because I say it!"?
Your three articles proved nothing to me

Chronz
03-24-2015, 02:28 PM
Is this meant to be an Anti-Stat circle jerk or is it really a legit thread about the (increasing)importance of Analytics within the NBA?

To answer your Q in short. I dont wouldn't trust the opinion of someone who watches so few games and has nothing in the way of objective evidence in his favor. Thats just me tho.

NYKalltheway
03-24-2015, 02:30 PM
It's one thing to use them as an indication and another to use them for arguments as absolute truth as if they have any more bearing than being tools for coaches and GMs. Using statistics to compare players and teams over different generations is naive at best.

valade16
03-24-2015, 02:36 PM
Your three articles proved nothing to me

Of course not. You've already said you don't base your analysis on anything other than opinion. So if I wanted to convince you your opinion was wrong about a particular player, how could I do it?

(Legitimate question, how could someone actually change your opinion on a particular player)

ewing
03-24-2015, 02:36 PM
They likely help people within NBA circles make rational informed decisions. Unlike NBA decision makers internet forum users do not necessarily have the needed background to make sound judgements regardless of the amount of data used or ignored.

Chronz
03-24-2015, 02:38 PM
It's one thing to use them as an indication and another to use them for arguments as absolute truth as if they have any more bearing than being tools for coaches and GMs. Using statistics to compare players and teams over different generations is naive at best.

But you compare across time all the time. Hell, you just posted in the best player to never win thread and "definitely" thought it was Baylor.

Its no more naive than your baseless presumption. The only difference, some of us actually investigate further into the quant aspects of their game in ADDITION to our subjective interpretations.

NYKalltheway
03-24-2015, 03:14 PM
But you compare across time all the time. Hell, you just posted in the best player to never win thread and "definitely" thought it was Baylor.

Its no more naive than your baseless presumption. The only difference, some of us actually investigate further into the quant aspects of their game in ADDITION to our subjective interpretations.

You can't quantify quality. And quality is subjective to some extent but objective to a greater extent.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 03:17 PM
I could have posted literally hundreds of meaningful articles, I felt 3 was sufficient to combat your absolute zero sources to back up your claim.

So to recap, we have you saying no one cares, which was proved false. So you are incorrect factually. You are wrong.

Do you have anything to dispute that notion or are you going to fall back onto "what I say is right because I say it!"?

hes gotcha there atleast he is trying with the articles.

however on the other comment of "" "Westbrook has a 'PER' of ..., that's why he should win MVP". That doesnt happen."" is also a valid argument

I think this is why the MVP voting is an eye test and why they have a large sample size judging who wins rather then taking the stats and going heres your trophy your PER is this.

Chronz
03-24-2015, 03:24 PM
You can't quantify quality. And quality is subjective to some extent but objective to a greater extent.

You've lost me. If its nothing but conjecture, its purely subjective. In order for it to be objective, you have to provide some semblance of a scientific measure.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 03:25 PM
hes gotcha there atleast he is trying with the articles.

however on the other comment of "" "Westbrook has a 'PER' of ..., that's why he should win MVP". That doesnt happen."" is also a valid argument

I think this is why the MVP voting is an eye test and why they have a large sample size judging who wins rather then taking the stats and going heres your trophy your PER is this.

but anyone who tries to rate a player with one stat is talking out of their ***. Don't hate the stats, hate the person who doesn't know how to use them correctly.

Chronz
03-24-2015, 03:27 PM
hes gotcha there atleast he is trying with the articles.

however on the other comment of "" "Westbrook has a 'PER' of ..., that's why he should win MVP". That doesnt happen."" is also a valid argument

I think this is why the MVP voting is an eye test and why they have a large sample size judging who wins rather then taking the stats and going heres your trophy your PER is this.

I dont think you know enough about these voters to decide how they actually vote. I know several analysts/writers who vote and have referenced several statistics when ranking their players. But thats just a few that I actually read, Im sure the other 95% of the voting cast has their own methods. But we should all strive to provide more than just the eye test.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 03:30 PM
Is this meant to be an Anti-Stat circle jerk or is it really a legit thread about the (increasing)importance of Analytics within the NBA?

To answer your Q in short. I dont wouldn't trust the opinion of someone who watches so few games and has nothing in the way of objective evidence in his favor. Thats just me tho.

My take is obviously against it but as for looking to get a jerk no thanks... I just wanted to open up a discussion about it as i thought there would be a way to bring people to talk about something they feel strongly about. Sorry my post was very anti but atleast it opened up a discussion about it.

As for me watching so few games: 5-7 games = 3 hours per game 15-21 hours a week i spend on watching basketball thats like a part time job dude, so few games? How many games do you watch?

Chronz
03-24-2015, 03:48 PM
My take is obviously against it but as for looking to get a jerk no thanks... I just wanted to open up a discussion about it as i thought there would be a way to bring people to talk about something they feel strongly about. Sorry my post was very anti but atleast it opened up a discussion about it.

As for me watching so few games: 5-7 games = 3 hours per game 15-21 hours a week i spend on watching basketball thats like a part time job dude, so few games? How many games do you watch?

Im talking big picture on why I wouldn't trust such a small sample of the regular season and that individuals ability to properly assess the league at large.

I dont watch much more than that, which is I wouldn't trust me either if I was anyone else. What carries weight with me is the conviction and evidence of your testimony. You dont have to use stats, just dont disregard them if others do, fight their argument without resorting to an anti-stat cliche drivven argument.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 04:01 PM
I dont think you know enough about these voters to decide how they actually vote. I know several analysts/writers who vote and have referenced several statistics when ranking their players. But thats just a few that I actually read, Im sure the other 95% of the voting cast has their own methods. But we should all strive to provide more than just the eye test.

You are right I was under the impression the voting was made up majority from coaches and people who are within the nba - I knew broadcasters and reporters had a say but didn't think it was greater then that of the association. I now feel like an idiot, thanks :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_MVP

This now makes me see the mvp trophy in a different light, more of a joke to be honest. I think the players and coaches should have the only vote they are experiencing the game dealing with the players first hand and know who is the best. not the reporters who are basically fans writing about the game.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 04:04 PM
You are right I was under the impression the voting was made up majority from coaches and people who are within the nba - I knew broadcasters and reporters had a say but didn't think it was greater then that of the association. I now feel like an idiot, thanks :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_MVP

This now makes me see the mvp trophy in a different light, more of a joke to be honest. I think the players and coaches should have the only vote they are experiencing the game dealing with the players first hand and know who is the best. not the reporters who are basically fans writing about the game.

for MVP vote, it should have plenty of voters not just players/coaches. You need all possible opinions of those whose career is to be involved in the NBA.

Tony_Starks
03-24-2015, 04:15 PM
Advanced stats have a somewhat significant place but you're extremely na´ve if you don't see there is a huge agenda behind pushing them. Basically like any other business it's the corporate approach of using tangible numbers in your favor to justify spending/ not spending. It also justifies front office positions for a suit with a degree and limited real life basketball knowledge/ experience as opposed to someone that's been in and around the game for decades.

Its also a great debate tool for those that never played the game competitively to "validate" their opinion or give them "proof" their most favorite player is superior to their most hated player.

Its also a extremely effective way to be a complete pompous know it all I'm right you're wrong a $$ hole about your all time great players list......on a Tuesday.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 04:17 PM
for MVP vote, it should have plenty of voters not just players/coaches. You need all possible opinions of those whose career is to be involved in the NBA.

ok ya i guess i could get on board but just media not even coaches/players seems crazy right?

ballallday
03-24-2015, 04:21 PM
Im talking big picture on why I wouldn't trust such a small sample of the regular season and that individuals ability to properly assess the league at large.

I dont watch much more than that, which is I wouldn't trust me either if I was anyone else. What carries weight with me is the conviction and evidence of your testimony. You dont have to use stats, just dont disregard them if others do, fight their argument without resorting to an anti-stat cliche drivven argument.

Ok fair enough

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 04:36 PM
ok ya i guess i could get on board but just media not even coaches/players seems crazy right?

I don't think players need to be voting on the MVP award.

ballallday
03-24-2015, 04:53 PM
I don't think players need to be voting on the MVP award.

why not? wouldn't they know who is the most talented out of anyone on the court? when i play i can tell you after a couple times back and forth who the best player is / most talented...

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 05:07 PM
why not? wouldn't they know who is the most talented out of anyone on the court? when i play i can tell you after a couple times back and forth who the best player is / most talented...

no, they would have their personal biases more than anyone. Players jobs is to play. It has been shown time, time, and time again, that players do not make the best talent evaluations much of the time.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2015, 05:30 PM
So much time is dedicated now to people talking stats about players rather then watching games.

I watch basketball nightly probably about 5-7 games a week, don't watch a specific team just pick the best games / match ups that are on nightly. I rarely dive into stats as in my opinion they seem like a waist of time, especially when I've just watched a game. For example, why look at stats to see how players did when I just watched them play and watched them react to plays developing on the floor? Sometimes stats are an easy way to check in on players to see how they are doing since its impossible to watch all the games - i get that but do they have any meaning? Is it fair to use as a player comparison? What role do they play? Is it a waist of time? Is it because of fantasy basketball? If you watch a game do you instantly go to the stats after to better understand and see what happened in the game? Do stats have some greater meaning then what actually happened live in the game? Do you think if a player turned the ball over 10 times and the team lost the game that it was there fault, drawing the conclusion from that stat? Or a player that blocked 10 shots so they are now the second coming of alonzo morning? Or a player shot 33% and if they only shot 35% we would have won?

Thoughts? Where do you stand on stats? Have we gone to far? Waist of time or not?

There is this myth that "stat heads" wait until a game is over and they can check a box score before they decide who had a good game. The most important point that I like to make in these discussions is that the people who love to use stats the most tend to be the ones that also watch the most games. To me, if I can form my subjective opinion from watching a player live and back it up with objective information (like advanced statistics) isn't that the best way to have an open discussion?

KnicksorBust
03-24-2015, 05:32 PM
You can't quantify quality. And quality is subjective to some extent but objective to a greater extent.

I would argue that advanced statistics have shown "quality" players like Josh Smith and Rudy Gay to be overrated far earlier than the rest of the league would recognize and it is no coincidence that Atlanta and Memphis have been better in the years since they left.

MassoDio
03-24-2015, 06:43 PM
There is this myth that "stat heads" wait until a game is over and they can check a box score before they decide who had a good game. The most important point that I like to make in these discussions is that the people who love to use stats the most tend to be the ones that also watch the most games. To me, if I can form my subjective opinion from watching a player live and back it up with objective information (like advanced statistics) isn't that the best way to have an open discussion?

All of this

The reality is that statistics are a record of what happened. The only issues come from how they are used and understood.

Understanding how to take the data, understand the data available, and apply it correctly, is incredibly important. Most people on a message board probably can't do that accurately. That is not to say that those people don't "know anything about basketball" or that they "don't watch the games/player play". It simply means that they have not fully grasped the entire scope of the statistics they are using.

Many people do cherry-pick stats that back up their opinion of player evaluations. It doesn't make them wrong in their opinion because they used a stat wrong either. It just means that they should probably find a better way to argue their opinion.

The only absolute wrongs are 1. Discrediting the use of statistics and the people who use them (As people who don't watch the games/players) and 2. thinking you can make a complete judgement solely from statistics.

Both of those stances are completely and utterly ignorant.

And KnicksorBust is probably correct in that, those who use advanced stats, are probably those who watch as much or more than those who don't. The reason being, they watch the games and have enough interest to delve into and understand what they saw. Then they watch more games to confirm and understand what they researched. It becomes a cycle.

Anyone willing to do research into a subject probably has a more vested interest than those who merely watch. Neither is a bad thing. Both are perfectly acceptable ways to be a fan. One is not worse than the other as far as fans go. One just has more informed opinion than the other. (And that doesn't mean the more informed opinion is correct either. Well informed people can still be wrong. They can still be biased.) Having MORE information is not a bad thing.

And memory/eyes are NEVER completely accurate on such a fast moving sport with as many variables as it has.

Try winning a court case with nothing but eye witness accounts, with no tangible evidence. It won't happen. There is a reason for that. People's eyes are not perfect. No one ever see's everything. No two people ever see or remember the same thing exactly the same. There are biases in EVERYONE.

Simply put you have to watch, and understand and use statistics to get a complete picture.

NYKalltheway
03-24-2015, 08:33 PM
You've lost me. If its nothing but conjecture, its purely subjective. In order for it to be objective, you have to provide some semblance of a scientific measure.

Scientific measure based on what though? Do you need a specific test to see and accept that Shaq was a stronger/more powerful player than Tim Duncan for example?
If a team needs a specific type of a player they can't use stats to pick one who has the most appealing resume. They have to watch him move with the ball, off the ball, how he communicates with his teammates in defense and in offense, how fast his decision making is and many other things that someone who doesn't have the readiness and skill to recognize such abilities. This is what makes scouts. Sure, they can use some statistical analysis to see if there are tendencies but the way you're presenting it, it's as if anyone with a statistics degree can get a scouting job which is far from the truth. I've worked with scouting teams and for basketball teams and stats was the last thing that was being discussed unless you were looking for a scorer.



I would argue that advanced statistics have shown "quality" players like Josh Smith and Rudy Gay to be overrated far earlier than the rest of the league would recognize and it is no coincidence that Atlanta and Memphis have been better in the years since they left.

Well, I've always thought that Rudy Gay was overrated as hell and thought that Josh Smith doesn't have the type of style needed to become a superstar in the league before ever seeing their stat line. On the other hand, the first time I laid eyes on Melo and on Wade I thought they'd dominate the league. Some things are just obvious. Atlanta and Memphis are better without these players because they have changed their attitude towards games. It's not because these were bad players, it's only because they were forced to take a role that was above them and they didn't have the necessary set of skills.

I seriously advise you to try talking about basketball without Advanced Stats or even a basic box score. Other than being more fun to watch basketball this way (as a fan), it's also far more entertaining to discuss with people. Stats are fun to talk about on a player's or team's bad day, nothing more.


P.S: Basic stats are great for players who are looking to better themselves (beat personal records) or have been doing things well for so long and are in a position to hold a historic record as it puts them in a position of great legacy. Who remembers and who knows Mark Jackson (as a player ofc) other than those who've watched him play? Yet he's one of the most successful assistmen and ball thieves in the history of the league.

ewing
03-25-2015, 09:08 AM
I would argue that advanced statistics have shown "quality" players like Josh Smith and Rudy Gay to be overrated far earlier than the rest of the league would recognize and it is no coincidence that Atlanta and Memphis have been better in the years since they left.


this is a good point.

ewing
03-25-2015, 09:09 AM
I think the best use and what seems by the "eye test" to be the most under utilized use for our wealth of data is scouting. Someone posted a Shane Battier article recently where he said Melo was one of the most predictable offensive players in the league. Shane studies this **** and as a result knew where Melo was going. With all this info out there though we consistently see guy not taking away strengths on D and playing a guy like he knows little about him.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 10:55 AM
Scientific measure based on what though?
Based on scientific findings. It doesn't have to be a holy grail of a barometer but there has to be some kind of objective reasoning.


Do you need a specific test to see and accept that Shaq was a stronger/more powerful player than Tim Duncan for example?
No. Not seeing the relevance when what you were criticizing was cross era comparisons, the kind we all make anyways, including statistical analysis only strengthens ones opinion.



If a team needs a specific type of a player they can't use stats to pick one who has the most appealing resume. They have to watch him move with the ball, off the ball, how he communicates with his teammates in defense and in offense, how fast his decision making is and many other things that someone who doesn't have the readiness and skill to recognize such abilities. This is what makes scouts. Sure, they can use some statistical analysis to see if there are tendencies but the way you're presenting it, it's as if anyone with a statistics degree can get a scouting job which is far from the truth. I've worked with scouting teams and for basketball teams and stats was the last thing that was being discussed unless you were looking for a scorer.

I dont agree with your opinion, today they have advanced scouts who combine the subjective view with the objective data. Anyone who relies solely on one but not the other is handicapping themselves. Guys like Hubie Brown used to have his scouts track all sorts of stats that the NBA wouldn't. They did it for College players and upcoming opponents alike. This was back in the 70's too.

KnicksorBust
03-25-2015, 11:03 AM
All of this

The reality is that statistics are a record of what happened. The only issues come from how they are used and understood.

Understanding how to take the data, understand the data available, and apply it correctly, is incredibly important. Most people on a message board probably can't do that accurately. That is not to say that those people don't "know anything about basketball" or that they "don't watch the games/player play". It simply means that they have not fully grasped the entire scope of the statistics they are using.

Many people do cherry-pick stats that back up their opinion of player evaluations. It doesn't make them wrong in their opinion because they used a stat wrong either. It just means that they should probably find a better way to argue their opinion.

The only absolute wrongs are 1. Discrediting the use of statistics and the people who use them (As people who don't watch the games/players) and 2. thinking you can make a complete judgement solely from statistics.

Both of those stances are completely and utterly ignorant.

And KnicksorBust is probably correct in that, those who use advanced stats, are probably those who watch as much or more than those who don't. The reason being, they watch the games and have enough interest to delve into and understand what they saw. Then they watch more games to confirm and understand what they researched. It becomes a cycle.

Anyone willing to do research into a subject probably has a more vested interest than those who merely watch. Neither is a bad thing. Both are perfectly acceptable ways to be a fan. One is not worse than the other as far as fans go. One just has more informed opinion than the other. (And that doesn't mean the more informed opinion is correct either. Well informed people can still be wrong. They can still be biased.) Having MORE information is not a bad thing.

And memory/eyes are NEVER completely accurate on such a fast moving sport with as many variables as it has.

Try winning a court case with nothing but eye witness accounts, with no tangible evidence. It won't happen. There is a reason for that. People's eyes are not perfect. No one ever see's everything. No two people ever see or remember the same thing exactly the same. There are biases in EVERYONE.

Simply put you have to watch, and understand and use statistics to get a complete picture.

probably? :) Good post MassoDio. Agreed.

KnicksorBust
03-25-2015, 11:28 AM
Well, I've always thought that Rudy Gay was overrated as hell


When I read your post I went back and read that line a couple of times. I thought to myself "I doubt it. He seems like exactly the type of player that NYKalltheway would have liked. I don't buy it." So I went back and did a quick search. Two minutes later I had found a thread of PSD posters ranking the top players after the 2009 NBA Season listed by position.

The most common list for SF:

#1.) LeBron James
#2.) Kevin Durant
#3.) Carmelo Anthony
#4.) Paul Pierce
#5.) Danny Granger

Your list:
Lebron James
Carmelo Anthony
Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Danny Granger

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?518155-Top-5-top-5-players-for-each-position-in-ORDER&p=14417822#post14417822

Why no Paul Pierce? I used to like Rudy Gay and 2009 was a long time ago. Maybe leaving Paul Pierce off the list for Rudy Gay wasn't that big of a mistake? Let's find out... They played about the same amount of minutes. They scored about the same points per game. And Rudy Gay was the young stud on the highlight reel. Here's where we dig deeper and advanced stats paint a different picture:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&y1=2009&p1=piercpa01&y2=2009&p2=gayru01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Paul Pierce - 58% TS (way more efficient)
Rudy Gay - 53% TS

Paul Pierce - 16% AST
Rudy Gay - 9% AST

Paul Pierce - 5.5 offensive win shares (112 ORtg)
Rudy Gay - 0.7 offensive win shares (101 ORtg)

Paul Pierce - 4.8 defensive win shares (104 DRtg)
Rudy Gay - 2.6 defensive win shares (110 DRtg)

The comparison is no longer fair. Paul Pierce destroys Rudy Gay. So I agree with you that Rudy Gay has been "overrated as hell" (by you) and the advanced statistics proved it at the time. That's a prime example of how valuable they can be when used appropriately. Let's just not act like your eye test was doing you any favors back when you first thought he was better than a HOFer.

nickdymez
03-25-2015, 12:52 PM
When I read your post I went back and read that line a couple of times. I thought to myself "I doubt it. He seems like exactly the type of player that NYKalltheway would have liked. I don't buy it." So I went back and did a quick search. Two minutes later I had found a thread of PSD posters ranking the top players after the 2009 NBA Season listed by position.

The most common list for SF:

#1.) LeBron James
#2.) Kevin Durant
#3.) Carmelo Anthony
#4.) Paul Pierce
#5.) Danny Granger

Your list:
Lebron James
Carmelo Anthony
Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Danny Granger

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?518155-Top-5-top-5-players-for-each-position-in-ORDER&p=14417822#post14417822

Why no Paul Pierce? I used to like Rudy Gay and 2009 was a long time ago. Maybe leaving Paul Pierce off the list for Rudy Gay wasn't that big of a mistake? Let's find out... They played about the same amount of minutes. They scored about the same points per game. And Rudy Gay was the young stud on the highlight reel. Here's where we dig deeper and advanced stats paint a different picture:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&y1=2009&p1=piercpa01&y2=2009&p2=gayru01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Paul Pierce - 58% TS (way more efficient)
Rudy Gay - 53% TS

Paul Pierce - 16% AST
Rudy Gay - 9% AST

Paul Pierce - 5.5 offensive win shares (112 ORtg)
Rudy Gay - 0.7 offensive win shares (101 ORtg)

Paul Pierce - 4.8 defensive win shares (104 DRtg)
Rudy Gay - 2.6 defensive win shares (110 DRtg)

The comparison is no longer fair. Paul Pierce destroys Rudy Gay. So I agree with you that Rudy Gay has been "overrated as hell" (by you) and the advanced statistics proved it at the time. That's a prime example of how valuable they can be when used appropriately. Let's just not act like your eye test was doing you any favors back when you first thought he was better than a HOFer.

What about the payers around each guy? What about the offensive scheme? What about coaching? What about role on the team? Do your advanced stats say anything about that? Does your advanced stats give us a number if we were to swap teams? Would pierce still "destroy" gay? Whats the advanced stats say?

I'll tell you what I say, Advanced stats are only good in baseball.

valade16
03-25-2015, 01:41 PM
What about the payers around each guy? What about the offensive scheme? What about coaching? What about role on the team? Do your advanced stats say anything about that? Does your advanced stats give us a number if we were to swap teams? Would pierce still "destroy" gay? Whats the advanced stats say?

I'll tell you what I say, Advanced stats are only good in baseball.

Alright, let's use the eye test: Paul Pierce was better than Rudy Gay.

If your eyes tell you different that is perhaps the most compelling reason ever to use stats instead of your eyes.

So what is wrong with the advanced stats in this instance when they clearly tell us what everyone already knows?

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 01:42 PM
Alright, let's use the eye test: Paul Pierce was better than Rudy Gay.

If your eyes tell you different that is perhaps the most compelling reason ever to use stats instead of your eyes.

So what is wrong with the advanced stats in this instance when they clearly tell us what everyone already knows?

but, you also have to understand, many of the advanced stats haters are fans of players where the stats don't shine so brightly on what their eyes saw. Kobe and Iverson fans are huge culprits of not wanting to buy into them.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 01:43 PM
What about the payers around each guy? What about the offensive scheme? What about coaching? What about role on the team? Do your advanced stats say anything about that? Does your advanced stats give us a number if we were to swap teams? Would pierce still "destroy" gay? Whats the advanced stats say?

I'll tell you what I say, Advanced stats are only good in baseball.

What about them? Teams do in fact look at stats when projecting success in different environments, its how teams try to target prospective players.

Ill tell you what I know, you are no authority on the use of statistics within any sport. know who I would trust when it comes to stats? An ACTUAL STATISTICIAN

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 01:51 PM
What about them? Teams do in fact look at stats when projecting success in different environments, its how teams try to target prospective players.

Ill tell you what I know, you are no authority on the use of statistics within any sport. know who I would trust when it comes to stats? An ACTUAL STATISTICIAN

Spurs have been doing this a long time. Seems to have worked out for them alright.

valade16
03-25-2015, 02:04 PM
but, you also have to understand, many of the advanced stats haters are fans of players where the stats don't shine so brightly on what their eyes saw. Kobe and Iverson fans are huge culprits of not wanting to buy into them.

I'm a huge advocate that Iverson is unfairly **** on and generally underrated because of advanced stats however even using the eye test, it should be very obvious to anyone who watches basketball he was a fairly one dimensional player (in an all-time context) who certainly took more shots than he ever needed to or should have.

But I see your point on why some people are holdouts.

ballallday
03-25-2015, 02:13 PM
I'm a huge advocate that Iverson is unfairly **** on and generally underrated because of advanced stats however even using the eye test, it should be very obvious to anyone who watches basketball he was a fairly one dimensional player (in an all-time context) who certainly took more shots than he ever needed to or should have.

But I see your point on why some people are holdouts.

+1 on iverson

Just read an article about Lou Williams this is where advanced stats should glue this kids *** to the bench for the last :30 seconds of every quarter: http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/730181

So in circumstances like this advanced stats are 100% relevant because its isolation ball like a baseball batter standing at the plate waiting for the pitch. What's the percentage Lou will hit this step back three with -24 seconds left.

I think maybe we need to start picking and choosing when the best time to use the stats are? And when not to? Agree? Disagree?

nickdymez
03-25-2015, 02:14 PM
Lol. You guys sound like clowns trying to convince people to think like you do. I never said Rudy gay was better than Paul Pierce, not once in my life. But I don't need flawed number systems to tell me that.

ballallday
03-25-2015, 02:19 PM
http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/730181

Ummm check out harden on the first chart

nickdymez
03-25-2015, 02:19 PM
+1 on iverson

Just read an article about Lou Williams this is where advanced stats should glue this kids *** to the bench for the last :30 seconds of every quarter: http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/730181

So in circumstances like this advanced stats are 100% relevant because its isolation ball like a baseball batter standing at the plate waiting for the pitch. What's the percentage Lou will hit this step back three with -24 seconds left.

I think maybe we need to start picking and choosing when the best time to use the stats are? And when not to? Agree? Disagree?

Disagree. In baseball there are far less variables, the game moves at a drastically slower pace, and not everyone is as involved in the play. But listen, you can let these guys convince you to join the cult. They can never get me. Ive played ball for to many years. The only progress i see in the game is from rule changes. Coming up with formulas then saying "I was wrong this whole time, Allen Iverson wasnt really good at all." is ****in silly.. lmao

valade16
03-25-2015, 02:25 PM
Lol. You guys sound like clowns trying to convince people to think like you do. I never said Rudy gay was better than Paul Pierce, not once in my life. But I don't need flawed number systems to tell me that.

You rely on your flawed eyes.

ballallday
03-25-2015, 02:28 PM
Disagree. In baseball there are far less variables, the game moves at a drastically slower pace, and not everyone is as involved in the play. But listen, you can let these guys convince you to join the cult. They can never get me. Ive played ball for to many years. The only progress i see in the game is from rule changes. Coming up with formulas then saying "I was wrong this whole time, Allen Iverson wasnt really good at all." is ****in silly.. lmao

That's why advanced stats in baseball is easy because of the players who aren't involved there are less variables. You can easily see how many times a ball gets passed a short stop or how well a player hits against left vs rights or where to hit a ball on the field when to steal when not to. Metrics and odds on every play in baseball can be used because it's all quantified by stats. Because everything in baseball is 1on1. Basketball has 10 people affecting each play down the court that's why even when using stats it's impossible to use them as fact for every circumstance. No?

nickdymez
03-25-2015, 02:30 PM
That's why advanced stats in baseball is easy because of the players who aren't involved there are less variables. You can easily see how many times a ball gets passed a short stop or how well a player hits against left vs rights or where to hit a ball on the field when to steal when not to. Metrics and odds on every play in baseball can be used because it's all quantified by stats. Because everything in baseball is 1on1. Basketball has 10 people affecting each play down the court that's why even when using stats it's impossible to use them as fact for every circumstance. No?
I've been sayin this from the beginning. Advanced stats are relevant in baseball, not so much basketball. But there is a small group of people who have this weird agenda of pushing it on the masses

KnicksorBust
03-25-2015, 02:35 PM
Lol. You guys sound like clowns trying to convince people to think like you do. I never said Rudy gay was better than Paul Pierce, not once in my life. But I don't need flawed number systems to tell me that.

You said he'd have a PER of 30. That might be worse.
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?808796-Future-30-PER-players&p=25652416#post25652416

Why do you think NYKAllTheWay overrated him and said Rudy Gay was better than Paul Pierce if not for a flawed eye test?

nickdymez
03-25-2015, 02:36 PM
You said he'd have a PER of 30. That might be worse.
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?808796-Future-30-PER-players&p=25652416#post25652416

Why do you think NYKAllTheWay overrated him and said Rudy Gay was better than Paul Pierce if not for a flawed eye test?
Some people know more about basketball than others obviously

Chronz
03-25-2015, 02:42 PM
That's why advanced stats in baseball is easy because of the players who aren't involved there are less variables. You can easily see how many times a ball gets passed a short stop or how well a player hits against left vs rights or where to hit a ball on the field when to steal when not to. Metrics and odds on every play in baseball can be used because it's all quantified by stats. Because everything in baseball is 1on1. Basketball has 10 people affecting each play down the court that's why even when using stats it's impossible to use them as fact for every circumstance. No?

What do you mean easy? I hate speaking on fields I dont know **** about but several studies have shown that basketball statistics are actually more consistent and reliable on a projection/predictive level.

Now, I spent my life devoted to knowing all things roundball and even I cant understand what it is you 2 are arguing. One thing I do know, I wouldn't trust either of you when it comes to assessing the GROWING importance of APBR metrics.

Why would I care about baseball when its basketball Im interested in? Its of no use to me and based on how little you guys have offered, makes you look presumptuous rather than insightfull. So I would rather stick to the actual topic. BASKETBALL

LOL at "small group" of people. Hate to break the news but its a fact that the majority of the league invests in this and its grown exponentially. Amongst fan bases, Im sure people who care about quantifiable aspects of the game is small but I would expect that, it takes more effort to keep up with where the game is heading. If you ignore the stats altogether, you will find yourself handicapped and thats become more and more true with every year that passes. I know what Im about to say will likely piss off the masses but only the true die hards care to investigate the game in its quantifiable form and it takes very little intelligence to disregard them entirely.

Until one of you 2 gives actual data to back their subjective interpretation, Ill stick to what the guys within the game are actually looking at. The variables are plenty, but its only until you decide to look at the influence those variables have on statistics that you will ever be able to understand them fully.

NYKalltheway
03-25-2015, 03:04 PM
The most common list for SF:

#1.) LeBron James
#2.) Kevin Durant
#3.) Carmelo Anthony
#4.) Paul Pierce
#5.) Danny Granger

Your list:
Lebron James
Carmelo Anthony
Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Danny Granger

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?518155-Top-5-top-5-players-for-each-position-in-ORDER&p=14417822#post14417822

Why no Paul Pierce? I used to like Rudy Gay and 2009 was a long time ago. Maybe leaving Paul Pierce off the list for Rudy Gay wasn't that big of a mistake?

Rudy Gay being overrated as hell doesn't mean he was not a top 5 SF in his peak/prime. It also doesn't mean I don't like him. Rudy Gay is no superstar and he was dubbed as one. That means overrated.
Why Gay over Pierce? Because, that was also 5 years ago mind you, Paul Pierce was a player that didn't do that much and wasn't really a star player until RayRay and Garnett came to town. I don't tend to rate players who "scientifically proven" require 2 other stars to shine. Sure, a great SF over the years, but being great doesn't mean I have to rate you in a particular year over 5 other SFs I rate higher than you.

Now back to Rudy Gay being overrated = I've seen people who were comparing him to Melo at some point. There's a huge drop from the top 3 SF positions. And it's not a position that has anyone special other than those 3. And to complete the top 5 you'd get like 4-5 names. I also think Granger is overrated as hell. He was also in discussions for being on par with Melo at some points. I also find Pierce overrated(among other things :p ). I found Deng to be ridiculously overrated. Calling someone overrated doesn't mean I'm saying they're not good. Both Durant and Lebron are overrated and overhyped while Melo is underrated. They both are still overall better than Melo in my book, but that doesn't change my view that they're overrated.
One of my favorite SFs in the league has been Iguodala. The thread you quoted said 'no fanboyism' and that kind of stuff. At that point I thought Iggy was underrated as hell [and if you remember I had him on my redraft team that made the finals with no real star just because his actual value caught up with his name value due to excellent form] but I wouldn't seriously consider saying that Andre Iguodala is a better player than Rudy Gay back in 2010. He wasn't. Did I prefer Iggy over Gay? Probably yeah, I tend to prefer players who are great on D but it's all up to the situation. The SF has been a scoring position in the NBA for many years now, so you have to consider that scorers should be ranked higher than those who can't score as well.

It's as easy as that. No need for that TS% stuff that makes 0 sense. Want to bring some stats in that particular duel? Paul Pierce hit almost twice as many free throws as Rudy Gay. Does that mean anything? Well, it depends on what kind of free throws. Last minute FTs, on the shot FTs, +1 FTs... were they actual fouls or 'star' calls that the NBA loves (and this situation cost us a few playoff games vs the Celtics since 2010-11 as well)

You can talk stats all you want, but there's no context. There never is. It's like car nerds talking about how fast a car accelerates. It means nothing and makes no sense to use in any argument.

ballallday
03-25-2015, 03:58 PM
What do you mean easy? I hate speaking on fields I dont know **** about but several studies have shown that basketball statistics are actually more consistent and reliable on a projection/predictive level.

Now, I spent my life devoted to knowing all things roundball and even I cant understand what it is you 2 are arguing. One thing I do know, I wouldn't trust either of you when it comes to assessing the GROWING importance of APBR metrics.

Why would I care about baseball when its basketball Im interested in? Its of no use to me and based on how little you guys have offered, makes you look presumptuous rather than insightfull. So I would rather stick to the actual topic. BASKETBALL

LOL at "small group" of people. Hate to break the news but its a fact that the majority of the league invests in this and its grown exponentially. Amongst fan bases, Im sure people who care about quantifiable aspects of the game is small but I would expect that, it takes more effort to keep up with where the game is heading. If you ignore the stats altogether, you will find yourself handicapped and thats become more and more true with every year that passes. I know what Im about to say will likely piss off the masses but only the true die hards care to investigate the game in its quantifiable form and it takes very little intelligence to disregard them entirely.

Until one of you 2 gives actual data to back their subjective interpretation, Ill stick to what the guys within the game are actually looking at. The variables are plenty, but its only until you decide to look at the influence those variables have on statistics that you will ever be able to understand them fully.

This is why I posted this:

think maybe we need to start picking and choosing when the best time to use the stats are? And when not to? Agree? Disagree?

I don't think all statistical data people throw out is useful in debates, before this convo started I would have just said stats are a waist but I've been swayed to think some have there place.

KnicksorBust
03-26-2015, 08:18 PM
Rudy Gay being overrated as hell doesn't mean he was not a top 5 SF in his peak/prime. It also doesn't mean I don't like him. Rudy Gay is no superstar and he was dubbed as one. That means overrated.
Why Gay over Pierce? Because, that was also 5 years ago mind you, Paul Pierce was a player that didn't do that much and wasn't really a star player until RayRay and Garnett came to town. I don't tend to rate players who "scientifically proven" require 2 other stars to shine. Sure, a great SF over the years, but being great doesn't mean I have to rate you in a particular year over 5 other SFs I rate higher than you.

Now back to Rudy Gay being overrated = I've seen people who were comparing him to Melo at some point. There's a huge drop from the top 3 SF positions. And it's not a position that has anyone special other than those 3. And to complete the top 5 you'd get like 4-5 names. I also think Granger is overrated as hell. He was also in discussions for being on par with Melo at some points. I also find Pierce overrated(among other things :p ). I found Deng to be ridiculously overrated. Calling someone overrated doesn't mean I'm saying they're not good. Both Durant and Lebron are overrated and overhyped while Melo is underrated. They both are still overall better than Melo in my book, but that doesn't change my view that they're overrated.
One of my favorite SFs in the league has been Iguodala. The thread you quoted said 'no fanboyism' and that kind of stuff. At that point I thought Iggy was underrated as hell [and if you remember I had him on my redraft team that made the finals with no real star just because his actual value caught up with his name value due to excellent form] but I wouldn't seriously consider saying that Andre Iguodala is a better player than Rudy Gay back in 2010. He wasn't. Did I prefer Iggy over Gay? Probably yeah, I tend to prefer players who are great on D but it's all up to the situation. The SF has been a scoring position in the NBA for many years now, so you have to consider that scorers should be ranked higher than those who can't score as well.

It's as easy as that. No need for that TS% stuff that makes 0 sense. Want to bring some stats in that particular duel? Paul Pierce hit almost twice as many free throws as Rudy Gay. Does that mean anything? Well, it depends on what kind of free throws. Last minute FTs, on the shot FTs, +1 FTs... were they actual fouls or 'star' calls that the NBA loves (and this situation cost us a few playoff games vs the Celtics since 2010-11 as well)

You can talk stats all you want, but there's no context. There never is. It's like car nerds talking about how fast a car accelerates. It means nothing and makes no sense to use in any argument.

LOL. You are unreal.

This is essentially our exchange:
You "Rudy Gay is overrated as hell."
Me "You ranked him the #4 SF in the league ahead of a hall of famer 1 year after he won Finals MVP."
You "That doesn't mean I didn't think he was overrated as hell."

:laugh: Just admit you got caught. Is it really that hard for people on a sports forum to admit when they are wrong about something? The guy never even made an all-star team. How can you honestly get away with saying he's "overrated as hell" when the most complimentary comment I can think of reading about Rudy Gay is when YOU ranked him ahead of Paul Pierce. Your the biggest criminal of your own crime. It's ridiculous.

Vendetta_
03-26-2015, 08:39 PM
So much time is dedicated now to people talking stats about players rather then watching games.

I watch basketball nightly probably about 5-7 games a week, don't watch a specific team just pick the best games / match ups that are on nightly. I rarely dive into stats as in my opinion they seem like a waist of time, especially when I've just watched a game. For example, why look at stats to see how players did when I just watched them play and watched them react to plays developing on the floor? Sometimes stats are an easy way to check in on players to see how they are doing since its impossible to watch all the games - i get that but do they have any meaning? Is it fair to use as a player comparison? What role do they play? Is it a waist of time? Is it because of fantasy basketball? If you watch a game do you instantly go to the stats after to better understand and see what happened in the game? Do stats have some greater meaning then what actually happened live in the game? Do you think if a player turned the ball over 10 times and the team lost the game that it was there fault, drawing the conclusion from that stat? Or a player that blocked 10 shots so they are now the second coming of alonzo morning? Or a player shot 33% and if they only shot 35% we would have won?

Thoughts? Where do you stand on stats? Have we gone to far? Waist of time or not?

Honestly stats are mostly a waste of time for the most part. For example.

Assists. One of the worst stats ever. Someone's assists just mean you were the guy that passed before the score. It might not of even been the pass that set up the score. Just the one that was before the score. This is so blatantly stupid. Anyone who has played basketball in a team setting knows that passing is just as important before the assist as it is for the assist most of the time.

Defense. All horrible stats. Defensive win shares are proven inconsistent and unreliable while things like BPG, and steals are simply flawed stats. Especially steals where the guy coming up with the ball is considered playing good defense even if you had nothing to do with the ball coming loose in the first place. While blocks are usefull in a way (even though altered shots are better) but most fans look at blocks and say "that guys is a good defender"... Or is he just lengthy with good timing? To act like that is the only thing that determines how good a center is straight misleading, and ignorant.

There are at least 5 or 6 other common stats that I could pick apart, but plain out if you're in any game other than baseball (or other one on one sports), stats are extremely misleading. They tell a very small percentage of the story, and if you rely on them more than your own understanding of the game you're hurting yourself and the way your basketball IQ progresses.

NYKalltheway
03-26-2015, 09:25 PM
LOL. You are unreal.

This is essentially our exchange:
You "Rudy Gay is overrated as hell."
Me "You ranked him the #4 SF in the league ahead of a hall of famer 1 year after he won Finals MVP."
You "That doesn't mean I didn't think he was overrated as hell."

:laugh: Just admit you got caught. Is it really that hard for people on a sports forum to admit when they are wrong about something? The guy never even made an all-star team. How can you honestly get away with saying he's "overrated as hell" when the most complimentary comment I can think of reading about Rudy Gay is when YOU ranked him ahead of Paul Pierce. Your the biggest criminal of your own crime. It's ridiculous.


I was "caught" lol. You dug a post that was made FIVE years ago and you wanna pride about it. It's quite pathetic to be frank. And there's nothing to say about being wrong. I don't rate Paul Pierce. I don't care if he's getting in the HoF. I don't care he was given the MVP in the Finals he went because of Garnett and Ray Allen. I don't care if you don't understand that there's like 3 top SFs(back in 2010) and then the rest were rather subjective. I don't care if you don't understand what I'm saying.

Paul Pierce is overrated as hell.
Danny Granger is overrated as hell.
Rudy Gay is overrated as hell.
Back in 2010, these along with the only 3 SFs that can be called superstars in this league, consisted of the top 6 SFs.
Next thing we know is that you're gonna argue that I used "advanced stats" to say BACK IN 2010, that Gay was better than Pierce...
Got it? Or do you want me to translate it in French or Spanish?

NYKalltheway
03-26-2015, 09:28 PM
Honestly stats are mostly a waste of time for the most part. For example.

Assists. One of the worst stats ever. Someone's assists just mean you were the guy that passed before the score. It might not of even been the pass that set up the score. Just the one that was before the score. This is so blatantly stupid. Anyone who has played basketball in a team setting knows that passing is just as important before the assist as it is for the assist most of the time.

Defense. All horrible stats. Defensive win shares are proven inconsistent and unreliable while things like BPG, and steals are simply flawed stats. Especially steals where the guy coming up with the ball is considered playing good defense even if you had nothing to do with the ball coming loose in the first place. While blocks are usefull in a way (even though altered shots are better) but most fans look at blocks and say "that guys is a good defender"... Or is he just lengthy with good timing? To act like that is the only thing that determines how good a center is straight misleading, and ignorant.

There are at least 5 or 6 other common stats that I could pick apart, but plain out if you're in any game other than baseball (or other one on one sports), stats are extremely misleading. They tell a very small percentage of the story, and if you rely on them more than your own understanding of the game you're hurting yourself and the way your basketball IQ progresses.

Exactly.
It's beyond stupid that whenever people want to talk about players they dig up a spreadsheet full of numbers as if we're comparing cars or something...

YesMcCann
03-26-2015, 09:29 PM
Statistics are far more fallible in basketball than in baseball.

They are useful, but they don't wield nearly as much authority as in the other sport. In the NFL, they mean even less.

NYKalltheway
03-26-2015, 09:36 PM
Basketball is a mobile game, there's nothing statistics can say that beat what an expert can see with his eyes. Statistics are for those who have a hard time understanding what they're seeing.

YesMcCann
03-26-2015, 09:40 PM
Basketball is a mobile game, there's nothing statistics can say that beat what an expert can see with his eyes. Statistics are for those who have a hard time understanding what they're seeing.

Which is completely different in baseball, since that is basically a one-on-one game and the action can be isolated and measured reliably.

ewing
03-26-2015, 10:05 PM
Stats are great, they are only annoying thing about them is that in discussion they make people think that they don't have to put them in an overall context. They become annoying to me when someone on a forum want to debate by racing to see who can find more links to confirm there confirmation basis.

ballallday
03-26-2015, 10:38 PM
Stats are great, they are only annoying thing about them is that in discussion they make people think that they don't have to put them in an overall context. They become annoying to me when someone on a forum want to debate by racing to see who can find more links to confirm there confirmation basis.

But don't they have there place in some circumstances?

This is where I think maybe we can discuss what statistics we should be using in debates rather then just picking sides on wether or not to use stats? Some stats we should all be able to agree on, are useful...

ewing
03-26-2015, 10:52 PM
But don't they have there place in some circumstances?

This is where I think maybe we can discuss what statistics we should be using in debates rather then just picking sides on wether or not to use stats? Some stats we should all be able to agree on, are useful...

they are very useful. sometimes they show me i am wrong, sometimes they tell i am right. when i just don't know, stats are a real good place to go. what is annoying is when someone's opinion is b/c of a stat and then they want to debate. The context is important. i think it easier to get and overall impression by watching and then confirm or change your views based on numbers. they make you pay attention to other things.

NYKalltheway
03-26-2015, 11:00 PM
they are very useful. sometimes they show me i am wrong, sometimes they tell i am right. when i just don't know, stats are a real good place to go. what is annoying is when someone's opinion is b/c of a stat and then they want to debate. The context is important. i think it easier to get and overall impression by watching and then confirm or change your views based on numbers. they make you pay attention to other things.

Some stats are decent. Almost all stats are helpful to those who know what to do with them but they are not really basketball related, at least in terms of how basketball should be appreciated. Technical stuff don't belong to the fan's side of the game and fans of the game who want to talk technical are just kidding themselves because 99,9999% of the times they have no idea of what they're saying.
Imo, the most helpful stat in basketball is +-. But still, it needs context as your huge + figure might come against the benchwarmers... or you may never have touched the ball on offense and neither had the man you were on, it may have happened by luck. Stats cannot be the main topic of discussion in a basketball forum, just a side dish at best.

PowerHouse
03-27-2015, 12:05 AM
but, you also have to understand, many of the advanced stats haters are fans of players where the stats don't shine so brightly on what their eyes saw. Kobe and Iverson fans are huge culprits of not wanting to buy into them.

Say what? Whats wrong with Kobe's advanced stats? Between those two guys that you put into the same sentence Kobe absolutely crushes Iverson. Those two names should be nowhere near each other when talking about progressive metrics.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 02:37 AM
Honestly stats are mostly a waste of time for the most part. For example.

Assists. One of the worst stats ever. Someone's assists just mean you were the guy that passed before the score. It might not of even been the pass that set up the score. Just the one that was before the score. This is so blatantly stupid. Anyone who has played basketball in a team setting knows that passing is just as important before the assist as it is for the assist most of the time.
Off to a bad start. We actually have numbers that track passes that lead up to the score, guess what, the list of the games elite playmakers doesn't change much, turns out, the guys who rack up assists tend to lead the league on those very same hockey assists. So your claim that the pass before the pass is just as important is simply a cliche.


Defense. All horrible stats. Defensive win shares are proven inconsistent and unreliable while things like BPG, and steals are simply flawed stats. Especially steals where the guy coming up with the ball is considered playing good defense even if you had nothing to do with the ball coming loose in the first place. While blocks are usefull in a way (even though altered shots are better) but most fans look at blocks and say "that guys is a good defender"... Or is he just lengthy with good timing? To act like that is the only thing that determines how good a center is straight misleading, and ignorant.
You have exposed how little you actually know about how stats are tracked. Its actually the guy who poked the ball lose that gets the credit, not the recipient of the deflection, tho in their defense, its not exactly a fluke.



There are at least 5 or 6 other common stats that I could pick apart, but plain out if you're in any game other than baseball (or other one on one sports), stats are extremely misleading. They tell a very small percentage of the story, and if you rely on them more than your own understanding of the game you're hurting yourself and the way your basketball IQ progresses.
LOL, then by all means try again. This time, try showing some actual research to support your theories(like the baseball comp and how exactly the existence of hockey assists devalues actual assists. Regurgitating the originally flawed argument that these posters havent been able to respond to gets old quick. Try quoting the posts that go against your idea, saves us some time.

FlashBolt
03-27-2015, 02:44 AM
Kobe fans who say stats are meaningless forget that the amount of ring(s) a player has IS a stat in itself.. Buncha hypocrites. Let's reword it. Stats only matter when it helps their player. Clearly, if we go by stats, James is a top five player and possibly up there with MJ.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 02:46 AM
That's why advanced stats in baseball is easy because of the players who aren't involved there are less variables. You can easily see how many times a ball gets passed a short stop or how well a player hits against left vs rights or where to hit a ball on the field when to steal when not to. Metrics and odds on every play in baseball can be used because it's all quantified by stats. Because everything in baseball is 1on1. Basketball has 10 people affecting each play down the court that's why even when using stats it's impossible to use them as fact for every circumstance. No?

Show me these variables and how they have influenced the consistency of their projections. Otherwise, you guys are just regurgitating irrelevant material. Think about it, even if it were true, which I honestly dont know, I've always felt it was easier but I dont follow the sport to know of the variables. Its still irrelevant, but plz, inform me of these trends.

That way we can actually compare it to basketball. Seriously guys, Im just looking for a reason to believe you guys know the methods behind statistical analysis more than the actual statisticians the NBA employs. Its almost like you guys want these tools to do all the work for you when they are here to help illuminate. If you guys are standing in the dark and all you can say is you dont respect my light bulb, then enjoy the darkness.

Stat heads and eye test whores are the worst kind of fans, there is a better way guys. Utilize EVERYTHING.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 02:52 AM
Basketball is a mobile game, there's nothing statistics can say that beat what an
expert can see with his eyes.
Unfortunately for you, there are advanced scouts that utilize both the numbers and his eyes. That trumps being an extremist more often than not.


Statistics are for those who have a hard time understanding what they're seeing.
Like the time you actually thought Rudy Gay was a superior player than Paul Pierce.....

Seriously tho, that kind of mindset is outdated in today's nba, and its getting older with every passing year.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 03:01 AM
Some people know more about basketball than others obviously

lol. That was pretty good.

jerellh528
03-27-2015, 03:32 AM
I think the main difference in how advanced stats are used here as opposed to the teams that are implementing them more is, here most guys are like omgz per and shooting efficiency meanz dat player A rulez over da player B! They are slaves to statistical formulas that try to evaluate a player's worth, made famous by the likes of guys like hollinger. Where as NBA teams are utilizing statistics along with technological advances to improve thier respective team, such as finding that the corner 3 is amongst the most efficient shots, or tracking what spot on the floor a specific targeted player is likely to succeed in producing a quality basketball play, ways to reduce injuries, fatigue metrics, etc.

ballallday
03-27-2015, 07:56 AM
I think the main difference in how advanced stats are used here as opposed to the teams that are implementing them more is, here most guys are like omgz per and shooting efficiency meanz dat player A rulez over da player B! They are slaves to statistical formulas that try to evaluate a player's worth, made famous by the likes of guys like hollinger. Where as NBA teams are utilizing statistics along with technological advances to improve thier respective team, such as finding that the corner 3 is amongst the most efficient shots, or tracking what spot on the floor a specific targeted player is likely to succeed in producing a quality basketball play, ways to reduce injuries, fatigue metrics, etc.

+1 well said

valade16
03-27-2015, 08:56 AM
Exactly.
It's beyond stupid that whenever people want to talk about players they dig up a spreadsheet full of numbers as if we're comparing cars or something...

So how are you supposed to determine who is a better player? How do you know what you are seeing is correct or accurate analysis?

ewing
03-27-2015, 09:10 AM
So how are you supposed to determine who is a better player? How do you know what you are seeing is correct or accurate analysis?

lets be honest trying to verify what they see on the court isn't what most do on here. People from a conclusion based on the narrative they like and then race the internet for #s to confirm their bias. no context is provided for the #s and whoever post the most links wins. Its just annoying. Chronz needs too get off his high horse but he provides context for his #s. like he said people should utilize both, sometimes it seems like some posters have there head so far up there *** that they don't even understand there is anything other then raw data.

ballallday
03-27-2015, 09:11 AM
So how are you supposed to determine who is a better player? How do you know what you are seeing is correct or accurate analysis?

Maybe we need to discuss the parameters of how to do this and what stats have a role in player analysis?

valade16
03-27-2015, 09:42 AM
Maybe we need to discuss the parameters of how to do this and what stats have a role in player analysis?

Luckily for us you created such a thread!

I'm just curious for those that are hard line against statistics. If you wanted to prove to someone that player X was better than player Y, how would you do it? If you said they are a better scorer, how would you show that without at least mentioning PPG, FG%, TS%, etc.?

ewing
03-27-2015, 10:03 AM
Luckily for us you created such a thread!

I'm just curious for those that are hard line against statistics. If you wanted to prove to someone that player X was better than player Y, how would you do it? If you said they are a better scorer, how would you show that without at least mentioning PPG, FG%, TS%, etc.?


better is not provable. If i wanted to make an argument with out using stats i would might say player X is a better shooter both off the catch and off the dribble, can drive to both side, and can finish with contact, while player Y simply is a finisher who is dependent on penetrating guards, transition opportunities, and offensive rebounds to find buckets. He has no range and limited ball skils. Player X has a much more varied tool kit and can score under a lot more circumstances and is therefore a better scorer.

valade16
03-27-2015, 10:43 AM
better is not provable. If i wanted to make an argument with out using stats i would might say player X is a better shooter both off the catch and off the dribble, can drive to both side, and can finish with contact, while player Y simply is a finisher who is dependent on penetrating guards, transition opportunities, and offensive rebounds to find buckets. He has no range and limited ball skils. Player X has a much more varied tool kit and can score under a lot more circumstances and is therefore a better scorer.

But again, we have stats for that. They have catch and shoot shooting %'s. We have % of shots w/3ft. of the basket, we have FT rate. So if you wanted to say all that couldn't you use stats to bolster your argument?

Additionally, suppose you said all that about player Y therefore he is better than player X and the other guy said "I don't agree". You are now at an impass where your observation of his skillset was not enough to convince the other guy that player Y was indeed the better scorer.

So now what would you do? Both agree to disagree? Say the other guy is wrong (or an idiot, or never played actual basketball, doesn't understand basketball as people on PSD tend to do)?

KnicksorBust
03-27-2015, 11:32 AM
I was "caught" lol. You dug a post that was made FIVE years ago and you wanna pride about it. It's quite pathetic to be frank. And there's nothing to say about being wrong.

Didn't have to dig very far. "NYK + Rudy Gay" :)


I don't rate Paul Pierce.

You don't rate Paul Pierce as good as Rudy Gay and that was ridiculous. That's the whole point.


I don't care if he's getting in the HoF. I don't care he was given the MVP in the Finals he went because of Garnett and Ray Allen. I don't care if you don't understand that there's like 3 top SFs(back in 2010) and then the rest were rather subjective. I don't care if you don't understand what I'm saying.

So salty!! Why get so dismissive in a debate? Accomplishes nothing.


Paul Pierce is overrated as hell.
Danny Granger is overrated as hell.
Rudy Gay is overrated as hell.

Don't you see the lengths that you have to go to just to cover your one statement "Rudy Gay is overrated as hell?" You now have to call multiple players the same exact thing just to mask that you used to overrate him. The more players you talk about (luol deng/iguodala) the more of a fallacy your original point becomes.


Back in 2010, these along with the only 3 SFs that can be called superstars in this league, consisted of the top 6 SFs.
Next thing we know is that you're gonna argue that I used "advanced stats" to say BACK IN 2010, that Gay was better than Pierce...

No the point is clear. You said Rudy Gay was overrated as hell. In a moment of pure clarity, I pegged you as someone who would think the opposite. That Rudy Gay was really good and better than players that he actually wasn't. 2 minutes later I had my proof. THIS IS THE EXACT ARGUMENT OF THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Rudy Gay is someone who gets overrated by the "eye test." He was so overrated that a PSD poster (you) actually ranked him at minimum 2 spots higher than Paul Pierce. Pierce, while not an athletic dynamic young player at the time, was still clearly superior to Rudy Gay. The eye test failed you. Advanced statistics and a deeper look showed that Paul Pierce was significantly more effective than Rudy Gay. That's the whole point of the thread. The eye test is important but combining it with statistical support would have showed that maybe Rudy Gay was overrated and you needed to watch him more.


Got it? Or do you want me to translate it in French or Spanish?

English was good. Thanks. :)

ewing
03-27-2015, 11:56 AM
But again, we have stats for that. They have catch and shoot shooting %'s. We have % of shots w/3ft. of the basket, we have FT rate. So if you wanted to say all that couldn't you use stats to bolster your argument?

Additionally, suppose you said all that about player Y therefore he is better than player X and the other guy said "I don't agree". You are now at an impass where your observation of his skillset was not enough to convince the other guy that player Y was indeed the better scorer.

So now what would you do? Both agree to disagree? Say the other guy is wrong (or an idiot, or never played actual basketball, doesn't understand basketball as people on PSD tend to do)?

i agree, that is why they are useful. i actually love the those specified stats. its real interesting stuff. the all encompassing stats are the ones that i fine lame- b/c they don't tell me anything specific about the player.

PhillyFaninLA
03-27-2015, 12:11 PM
Eye test is most important, you need to watch the way a guy moves, lateral quickness, vertical in traffic, how they pass in different situations, shot selections, effort on defense and rebounds. Stats cannot tell you any of how they do that.

Stats, to me, in all sports supplement a player.

When the Sixers traded MCW and we got Ish, I got to see a guy that shoots at smart times (even when the shot isn't so smart), a guy who knows how and when to drive or dish, and a guy who attacks. His stats don't show that he may turn into a player but since the first game I saw him I really liked him as a 3rd or 4th guard of the future for us, but that stats don't support that.

PhillyFaninLA
03-27-2015, 12:13 PM
but anyone who tries to rate a player with one stat is talking out of their ***. Don't hate the stats, hate the person who doesn't know how to use them correctly.


Hawk this may be my favorite post I've ever read by you. I could not have said it any better.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 01:01 PM
Off to a bad start. We actually have numbers that track passes that lead up to the score, guess what, the list of the games elite playmakers doesn't change much, turns out, the guys who rack up assists tend to lead the league on those very same hockey assists. So your claim that the pass before the pass is just as important is simply a cliche.


You have exposed how little you actually know about how stats are tracked. Its actually the guy who poked the ball lose that gets the credit, not the recipient of the deflection, tho in their defense, its not exactly a fluke.



LOL, then by all means try again. This time, try showing some actual research to support your theories(like the baseball comp and how exactly the existence of hockey assists devalues actual assists. Regurgitating the originally flawed argument that these posters havent been able to respond to gets old quick. Try quoting the posts that go against your idea, saves us some time.

My bad on the steals thing.

That being said you so blatantly are an arm chair GM it's not even funny. You defend stats because it's what you use in every argument you ever have in this site I'm sure.

Why is the burden of proof on me to explain why stats you probably don't even truly understand are BS.

Do me a favor. We'll do math class since you clearly like that better than sports.

Define defensive win shares. Explain how this data directly correlates to a rating that is accurate. No copy and pasting use your own words.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 01:03 PM
I've just read your posts and you so desperately try to impress people with your vocabulary and statistics in order to feel superior. Put the thesaurus away and talk basketball. This isn't an English/Math paper.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 01:09 PM
Luckily for us you created such a thread!

I'm just curious for those that are hard line against statistics. If you wanted to prove to someone that player X was better than player Y, how would you do it? If you said they are a better scorer, how would you show that without at least mentioning PPG, FG%, TS%, etc.?

Through the same way you would with any other opinion based claim. Through discussion and debate. I don't think anyone is saying that stats are ultimately useless. They just don't explain things like playing good zone defense, or smart ball movement, or when a guard takes a lower percentage shot because he see's his big is dominating someone on the glass (Kobe did this **** all the time with SHaq). All they do is measure results, and they leave out context. Basketball is so much more complicated, and to take a result of a play and minimize it to something as PPG APG RPG or win shares is straight offensive to anyone who's played the game competitively. Whether in the NBA or in High school.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 01:18 PM
I've just read your posts and you so desperately try to impress people with your vocabulary and statistics in order to feel superior. Put the thesaurus away and talk basketball. This isn't an English/Math paper.

My bad on the steals thing.

That being said you so blatantly are an arm chair GM it's not even funny. You defend stats because it's what you use in every argument you ever have in this site I'm sure.

Why is the burden of proof on me to explain why stats you probably don't even truly understand are BS.

Do me a favor. We'll do math class since you clearly like that better than sports.

Define defensive win shares. Explain how this data directly correlates to a rating that is accurate. No copy and pasting use your own words.

You're so blatantly presumptuous that your criticism runs hallow. The reason the burden of proof lies on you is because you (among others) have made claims about stats between 2 sports (one of which (baseball) I've never studied) so feel free to provide more than just conjecture in an argument about the objective measures.

And also, if you cant get something as simple as raw steals right, why the **** would anyone really care what you think with the big picture stats?


I'd rather be an arm chair GM than whatever you call yourself. Trying to understand how GM's understand the game is much more important than anything I've seen from you.

valade16
03-27-2015, 01:26 PM
Through the same way you would with any other opinion based claim. Through discussion and debate. I don't think anyone is saying that stats are ultimately useless. They just don't explain things like playing good zone defense, or smart ball movement, or when a guard takes a lower percentage shot because he see's his big is dominating someone on the glass (Kobe did this **** all the time with SHaq). All they do is measure results, and they leave out context. Basketball is so much more complicated, and to take a result of a play and minimize it to something as PPG APG RPG or win shares is straight offensive to anyone who's played the game competitively. Whether in the NBA or in High school.

Well of course, you have to supply and understand the context of the statistics but they are still useful tools.

Discussion and debate is good, but if you have no objective measurements at all in the debate it dies out pretty quickly.

If someone says "that was good a good pass" and you don't agree. Well, that's the end of the discussion. You have no way of proving to the other guy your eyes said that was a good pass when his said it wasn't.

I mean, do you at least acknowledge the correlation between the guys most people's eyes say are the best and who statistics say is the best? If statistics are so terrible and not good for analysis how come they manage to confirm what the eye test tells us so frequently?

Chronz
03-27-2015, 01:33 PM
Through the same way you would with any other opinion based claim. Through discussion and debate. I don't think anyone is saying that stats are ultimately useless. They just don't explain things like playing good zone defense, or smart ball movement, or when a guard takes a lower percentage shot because he see's his big is dominating someone on the glass (Kobe did this **** all the time with SHaq). All they do is measure results, and they leave out context. Basketball is so much more complicated, and to take a result of a play and minimize it to something as PPG APG RPG or win shares is straight offensive to anyone who's played the game competitively. Whether in the NBA or in High school.

Yet we still track them and GM's still rely on them for various uses. If you tell me this random guy is a better offensive rebounder despite posting inferior numbers individually and despite his team influence being statistically marginal, guess whos opinion carries more weight, the guy who swears his eyes are telling him otherwise, or the guy who has the objective evidence in his favor. We can all cite variables, only with an understanding of stats can you understand how those variables influence those same numbers. Again, its as if you softcore fans want these stats to do all the work for you when they are tools, very useful tools, not something that does the job for you in every situation.

Its why Im asking you guys to provide just a single shred of proof behind the baseball analogy. Show me some actual data for once, jesus you wouldn't think its so much to ask for some stats in a thread devoted to stats. Stop with the unsubstantiated opinions and actually back your talk up.




Also this line gave me a good laugh:

I don't think anyone is saying that stats are ultimately useless.
Oh really? You said this a few pages back:


Honestly stats are mostly a waste of time for the most part. For example ......(continues to expose ignorance to said stats)


So you fancy yourself a debater, yet it looks like you contradict yourself within a single day. This is why conjecture is far more fallible than statistically backed opinions.

There are 3 types of fans, softcore stat heads, softcore eye whores and then the hardcore fans who want to absorb all things NBA.

LongIslandIcedZ
03-27-2015, 01:38 PM
I think without a doubt, that when watching a game, the eye test trumps all. That is of course if you're knowledgeable on the game and know what your're watching.

But, like someone mentioned earlier, its tough to watch all 13 players on all 30 teams every single game. Stats give you a pretty good idea of what a players strengths and weaknesses are. So much of the game relies on teammates and system, that sometimes even stats can steer you wrong.

So while stats are getting better, I think game tape trumps all. Of all the sports its probably the best blend of eye test and stats, though.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 02:42 PM
Well of course, you have to supply and understand the context of the statistics but they are still useful tools.

Discussion and debate is good, but if you have no objective measurements at all in the debate it dies out pretty quickly.

If someone says "that was good a good pass" and you don't agree. Well, that's the end of the discussion. You have no way of proving to the other guy your eyes said that was a good pass when his said it wasn't.

I mean, do you at least acknowledge the correlation between the guys most people's eyes say are the best and who statistics say is the best? If statistics are so terrible and not good for analysis how come they manage to confirm what the eye test tells us so frequently?

I understand that people want something sustainable and factual to argue sports, but to act like those measures are in any way accurate through things like rule changes and context are kidding themselves. Guys like Rajon Rondo and Demarcus Cousins have tons of stats, and Rondo even has a championships, and records. Guys like Pistol Pete are idolized for playing selfish winless basketball.

I agree that they have they're uses, but the real finer points of basketball in my opinion separate players. It's not there stats it's there effect on the team. This isn't an and 1 mix tape where you're all playing 1 on 1. It's team basketball and just because you don't have the ball doesn't mean you're not making a huge play.

To me when you talk about sports if you're ONLY throwing stats out there you're missing the whole point. Anyone can use google.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 02:45 PM
Yet we still track them and GM's still rely on them for various uses. If you tell me this random guy is a better offensive rebounder despite posting inferior numbers individually and despite his team influence being statistically marginal, guess whos opinion carries more weight, the guy who swears his eyes are telling him otherwise, or the guy who has the objective evidence in his favor. We can all cite variables, only with an understanding of stats can you understand how those variables influence those same numbers. Again, its as if you softcore fans want these stats to do all the work for you when they are tools, very useful tools, not something that does the job for you in every situation.

Its why Im asking you guys to provide just a single shred of proof behind the baseball analogy. Show me some actual data for once, jesus you wouldn't think its so much to ask for some stats in a thread devoted to stats. Stop with the unsubstantiated opinions and actually back your talk up.




Also this line gave me a good laugh:

Oh really? You said this a few pages back:



So you fancy yourself a debater, yet it looks like you contradict yourself within a single day. This is why conjecture is far more fallible than statistically backed opinions.

There are 3 types of fans, softcore stat heads, softcore eye whores and then the hardcore fans who want to absorb all things NBA.

Hmm those don't contradict each other thanks for playing. I'm done acknowledging your little temper tantrums by the way.

Vendetta_
03-27-2015, 02:47 PM
I think without a doubt, that when watching a game, the eye test trumps all. That is of course if you're knowledgeable on the game and know what your're watching.

But, like someone mentioned earlier, its tough to watch all 13 players on all 30 teams every single game. Stats give you a pretty good idea of what a players strengths and weaknesses are. So much of the game relies on teammates and system, that sometimes even stats can steer you wrong.

So while stats are getting better, I think game tape trumps all. Of all the sports its probably the best blend of eye test and stats, though.

I agree with this.

Chronz
03-27-2015, 04:12 PM
Hmm those don't contradict each other thanks for playing. I'm done acknowledging your little temper tantrums by the way.

Figured you might say that. So theres a big difference between being a "waste of time for the most part" and "ultimately useless".

Cmon guy.

KnicksorBust
03-27-2015, 05:09 PM
Hmm those don't contradict each other thanks for playing. I'm done acknowledging your little temper tantrums by the way.

Figured you might say that. So theres a big difference between being a "waste of time for the most part" and "ultimately useless".

Cmon guy.

People should have to type quack quack after they go full blown duck mode.

Rudy gay is overrated as hell but I think he is good and definitely better than overrated as hell danny granger and overrated as hell paul pierce

#QUACKQUACK

Jamiecballer
03-27-2015, 05:32 PM
So much time is dedicated now to people talking stats about players rather then watching games.

I watch basketball nightly probably about 5-7 games a week, don't watch a specific team just pick the best games / match ups that are on nightly. I rarely dive into stats as in my opinion they seem like a waist of time, especially when I've just watched a game. For example, why look at stats to see how players did when I just watched them play and watched them react to plays developing on the floor? Sometimes stats are an easy way to check in on players to see how they are doing since its impossible to watch all the games - i get that but do they have any meaning? Is it fair to use as a player comparison? What role do they play? Is it a waist of time? Is it because of fantasy basketball? If you watch a game do you instantly go to the stats after to better understand and see what happened in the game? Do stats have some greater meaning then what actually happened live in the game? Do you think if a player turned the ball over 10 times and the team lost the game that it was there fault, drawing the conclusion from that stat? Or a player that blocked 10 shots so they are now the second coming of alonzo morning? Or a player shot 33% and if they only shot 35% we would have won?

Thoughts? Where do you stand on stats? Have we gone to far? Waist of time or not?
You can't watch and evaluate the quality of 10 players efforts simultaneously.

Jamiecballer
03-27-2015, 08:49 PM
I've been sayin this from the beginning. Advanced stats are relevant in baseball, not so much basketball. But there is a small group of people who have this weird agenda of pushing it on the masses
This whole baseball thing is nonsense. In baseball you've only got one place to focus your attention. Its not humanly possible to process and put a value to everything that is happening on the court and full speed.

THE MTL
03-27-2015, 09:11 PM
Disregarding advanced metrics but i believe stats are a fun part of the game as well. NBA is so stat-driven too. Think about all you hear about when it comes to Westbrooks' triple doubles, 50pt games, 37pt klay thompson quarter

PatsSoxKnicks
03-28-2015, 01:15 AM
Not sure who said they don't believe teams are using analytics but here's an (out of date) list on how many teams have analytics guys:
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Depar tment/

And the Hornets (formerly Bobcats) have at least 3 guys if not more between interns etc. even tho they aren't listed there. The Clippers also have 3 guys (one of whom used to be with the Rockets). Almost all of these teams have more guys then are listed on there- i.e the Celtics, Rockets, Sixers, Mavs have way more (obviously). Utah isn't even listed but they also have a Director of Analytics. And some of the titles are out of date- in reality a lot of those guys have higher positions then listed i.e. the Pacers guy is actually a Manger of Analytics and not a consultant.

Basically, that list is out of date and under represents the amount of people and yet almost every team is still listed there. And the one's that aren't, actually have people there, it's just not updated.

D-Leethal
03-28-2015, 08:40 AM
Its a great way to analyze your own team, lineups, matchups, spots on the floor etc.. it gets dicey when you try to streamline those analyses across the board since every roster and system is different, and it gets even dicier when you try to rank players across the board with an all-encompassing formula guised as a player rater.

I don't think it will ever get to the point where it responsibly accounts for the dozens of external factors that go into an individual players production and statline that have nothing to do with that player himself.

D-Leethal
03-28-2015, 08:41 AM
Basketball is much closer to hockey than it is to baseball. I am not a hockey guy but how big are advanced stats in that sport? Curious because I have no idea.

D-Leethal
03-28-2015, 08:43 AM
Not sure who said they don't believe teams are using analytics but here's an (out of date) list on how many teams have analytics guys:
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Depar tment/

And the Hornets (formerly Bobcats) have at least 3 guys if not more between interns etc. even tho they aren't listed there. The Clippers also have 3 guys (one of whom used to be with the Rockets). Almost all of these teams have more guys then are listed on there- i.e the Celtics, Rockets, Sixers, Mavs have way more (obviously). Utah isn't even listed but they also have a Director of Analytics. And some of the titles are out of date- in reality a lot of those guys have higher positions then listed i.e. the Pacers guy is actually a Manger of Analytics and not a consultant.

Basically, that list is out of date and under represents the amount of people and yet almost every team is still listed there. And the one's that aren't, actually have people there, it's just not updated.

It would be foolish for an NBA team with unlimited resources NOT to try and stay ahead of the curve and have an analytics department. Analytics is a massive umbrella though, I think a lot of guys here use sectors of the analytical movement to connect dots that aren't there and draw false conclusions all over the place in the name of analytics.

Chronz
03-28-2015, 12:25 PM
Basketball is much closer to hockey than it is to baseball. I am not a hockey guy but how big are advanced stats in that sport? Curious because I have no idea.

They're the reason +/- has found its way into the sport. Tho I was watching this Knicks-Bulls classic yesterday, the game where MJ was just heated at JVG for calling him a conman, and they showed a graphic of the Bulls net differential with and without MJ. They even showed the catch and shoot vs pull up numbers for Allan Houston. I couldn't understand why it took so long for these numbers to infiltrate the league.

NYKalltheway
03-28-2015, 12:43 PM
So how are you supposed to determine who is a better player? How do you know what you are seeing is correct or accurate analysis?

The whole thing about comparing and discussing players is to exchange opinions of how one person uses his eyes and basketball knowledge to understand what he's seeing compared to another person's view. Using spreadsheets is eliminating any discussion as numbers are hardcore. And in basketball they have no place in player comparison discussions. They have use for analyzing one player on his own and the comparison falls to a coach that wishes to use a system that supports the strengths of all his players so it must be used in wide context and in combination with various factors. Saying this guy's stats >>> that guy's stats is as meaningless as it can get. Using numbers to talk about basketball as a fan only shows deficiencies in understanding the game.

NYKalltheway
03-28-2015, 12:52 PM
Its a great way to analyze your own team, lineups, matchups, spots on the floor etc.. it gets dicey when you try to streamline those analyses across the board since every roster and system is different, and it gets even dicier when you try to rank players across the board with an all-encompassing formula guised as a player rater.

I don't think it will ever get to the point where it responsibly accounts for the dozens of external factors that go into an individual players production and statline that have nothing to do with that player himself.

Thank you. There's nothing to add to this post.

ballallday
03-28-2015, 01:36 PM
Thank you. There's nothing to add to this post.

+ 1

prodigy
03-28-2015, 02:00 PM
I mean stats are important. avgs, shooting percentages are very important. Eye test is also important, because the little things or the dirty work does not always show up in the box. but stats are important.

Jamiecballer
03-28-2015, 05:00 PM
The average basketball fan armed with superior info to supplement or inform his opinion is much more knowledgeable a fan than one who avidly watches the product but pays little attention to the numbers.

The former is generally a good source of information and the latter is not.

D-Leethal
03-29-2015, 10:42 AM
The average basketball fan armed with superior info to supplement or inform his opinion is much more knowledgeable a fan than one who avidly watches the product but pays little attention to the numbers.

The former is generally a good source of information and the latter is not.

The average basketball fan armed with numbers they can't responsibly pick apart and deviate might be the least knowledgeable of them all.

D-Leethal
03-29-2015, 10:51 AM
Who is to say grabbing a rebound is more important than boxing your man out, creating a lane that allows your teammate to slide in and grab a rebound?

Who is to say getting an assist is more important than drawing a double team, kicking it out for 2 swing passes for a corner 3? Does the guy making the 3rd pass deserve more credit than the guy drawing the double? No, but he gets it.

In either scenario, which action has a bigger impact on the court? Does one have a bigger impact than the other? They are both vital components, created by different players, to get the end result, but only one player gets credit for the end result on the stat sheet, while it took multiple actions from multiple players to make it happen.

These are 2 minor examples of how basketball impact is difficult to track and substantiate statistically. And stats can get as advanced as they want, but I don't think they are ever gonna get to the point where they can pinpoint these subtleties and gauge TRUE impact on the court. The good thing they CAN do is pinpoint these situations separately with sportVU and situational stats. I don't think there will ever be a way to judge your impact as a whole though. Maybe one day, but I'm skeptical we are anywhere remotely close to that.

I understand you can't watch everything, and your eyes are gonna miss some things, and you need aggregated data to supplement your individual analyses, but at the end of the day, the right set of eyes analyzing a game is gonna tell you much more than the box score will, and any advanced formulas derived from the box score will.

Jamiecballer
03-29-2015, 01:00 PM
The average basketball fan armed with numbers they can't responsibly pick apart and deviate might be the least knowledgeable of them all.

people with the curiosity to learn and understand the game at a deeper level are likely to invest considerable time and effort into understanding the purpose behind the numbers. i will stand by my assertion 100%.

if your statement was amended to non-followers of the sport i would agree, but the average basketball fan for the most part is able to understand the significance in the numbers due to familiarity with the game.

D-Leethal
03-29-2015, 05:21 PM
people with the curiosity to learn and understand the game at a deeper level are likely to invest considerable time and effort into understanding the purpose behind the numbers. i will stand by my assertion 100%.

if your statement was amended to non-followers of the sport i would agree, but the average basketball fan for the most part is able to understand the significance in the numbers due to familiarity with the game.

IndyRealist sounds like one of the older and more intelligent guys on this forum yet tried to say with a straight face that Mason Plumlee is a better offensive player than Nikola Vucevic because his advanced stats told him so. That is my case in point. People get so caught up in the data they let it tell them things their eyes don't see.

Jamiecballer
03-29-2015, 06:54 PM
IndyRealist sounds like one of the older and more intelligent guys on this forum yet tried to say with a straight face that Mason Plumlee is a better offensive player than Nikola Vucevic because his advanced stats told him so. That is my case in point. People get so caught up in the data they let it tell them things their eyes don't see.
Sure, but the same thing happens far more often in the other direction IMO.

I assume that discussion happened some time ago? What do the numbers suggest now and what impact would that have on his opinion?

In my experience a numbers guy is far more likely to change his stance when circumstances change and newer better information is available.

KnicksorBust
03-30-2015, 12:47 PM
IndyRealist sounds like one of the older and more intelligent guys on this forum yet tried to say with a straight face that Mason Plumlee is a better offensive player than Nikola Vucevic because his advanced stats told him so. That is my case in point. People get so caught up in the data they let it tell them things their eyes don't see.

But isn't that best part of a discussion when you can use your subjective opinions and back them up with objective data?

http://grantland.com/features/department-of-defense/

For example: That link above is an article I posted on PSD from February. It shows what makes Kawhi Leonard so special defensively. "Players defended by Kawhi Leonard hardly ever shoot 3's...and they are more likely to shoot at average rates inside the arc." Meanwhile James Harden's shot chart is lit up with red from the perimeter and at the rim. I'm a teacher/basketball coach I had a great discussion with some students from the basketball team about this. I asked them what makes Kawhi Leonard a great defender? What makes James Harden a bad defender? THEY made the arguments and then I was able to show them if they were right/wrong based on the article from Grantland. They loved it.

NYKalltheway
03-30-2015, 05:36 PM
But isn't that best part of a discussion when you can use your subjective opinions and back them up with objective data?

http://grantland.com/features/department-of-defense/

For example: That link above is an article I posted on PSD from February. It shows what makes Kawhi Leonard so special defensively. "Players defended by Kawhi Leonard hardly ever shoot 3's...and they are more likely to shoot at average rates inside the arc." Meanwhile James Harden's shot chart is lit up with red from the perimeter and at the rim. I'm a teacher/basketball coach I had a great discussion with some students from the basketball team about this. I asked them what makes Kawhi Leonard a great defender? What makes James Harden a bad defender? THEY made the arguments and then I was able to show them if they were right/wrong based on the article from Grantland. They loved it.


This has nothing to do with the PSD stats brigade mentality. This is graphs, mobile examples and the numbers used on their own mean nothing and cannot really be used to compare players.

ewing
03-30-2015, 09:00 PM
But isn't that best part of a discussion when you can use your subjective opinions and back them up with objective data?

http://grantland.com/features/department-of-defense/

For example: That link above is an article I posted on PSD from February. It shows what makes Kawhi Leonard so special defensively. "Players defended by Kawhi Leonard hardly ever shoot 3's...and they are more likely to shoot at average rates inside the arc." Meanwhile James Harden's shot chart is lit up with red from the perimeter and at the rim. I'm a teacher/basketball coach I had a great discussion with some students from the basketball team about this. I asked them what makes Kawhi Leonard a great defender? What makes James Harden a bad defender? THEY made the arguments and then I was able to show them if they were right/wrong based on the article from Grantland. They loved it.


I don't see what your post has to do with his.

PatsSoxKnicks
03-31-2015, 12:05 AM
It would be foolish for an NBA team with unlimited resources NOT to try and stay ahead of the curve and have an analytics department. Analytics is a massive umbrella though, I think a lot of guys here use sectors of the analytical movement to connect dots that aren't there and draw false conclusions all over the place in the name of analytics.

It is a massive umbrella- some teams have their scouting and analytics integrated into one. And essentially some of the scouting- i.e services like Synergy or Vantage- can be called analytics itself. Something like- Kawhi is shooting 52% when going left vs. 49% when driving right- thats an analytic stat that can be useful for scouting reports. And you obviously then watch the video to see why that player is worse going to the right.

But player interaction is also big- if I trade for so and so, will they improve my team or will they not fit correctly. It's a lot harder to quantify that but yet if you can do something with that, teams would be really interested. One number metrics are going to hold no appeal to teams, nor are rankings etc.

lol, please
03-31-2015, 12:17 AM
So much time is dedicated now to people talking stats about players rather then watching games.

I watch basketball nightly probably about 5-7 games a week, don't watch a specific team just pick the best games / match ups that are on nightly. I rarely dive into stats as in my opinion they seem like a waist of time, especially when I've just watched a game. For example, why look at stats to see how players did when I just watched them play and watched them react to plays developing on the floor? Sometimes stats are an easy way to check in on players to see how they are doing since its impossible to watch all the games - i get that but do they have any meaning? Is it fair to use as a player comparison? What role do they play? Is it a waist of time? Is it because of fantasy basketball? If you watch a game do you instantly go to the stats after to better understand and see what happened in the game? Do stats have some greater meaning then what actually happened live in the game? Do you think if a player turned the ball over 10 times and the team lost the game that it was there fault, drawing the conclusion from that stat? Or a player that blocked 10 shots so they are now the second coming of alonzo morning? Or a player shot 33% and if they only shot 35% we would have won?

Thoughts? Where do you stand on stats? Have we gone to far? Waist of time or not?

Seriously, why does this topic always come up in the mains, every season?

I really think people that post this stuff have never taken a basic statistics class in school.

Statistics measure events that happen, and give us a picure of what happened, to a certain extent, and help identify trends, which in turn help make projections. Nothing more. It's great to use them, it would be foolish not too, but they don't predict the future with infallible accuracy, nor are they flawless, like all science, mathematics evolve as time goes along, theorems, formulas, and reasoning can all change. It's a tool. You don't need stats to enjoy a game but you can't argue against numbers, and if you use them to strengthen your argument it's a wise thing to do. Statistics are used in every successful business, it would make sense for franchises to utilize them as well. Why is this so mind-boggling for some people? :confused: I really don't understand the aversion to using metrics in any way, shape or form. Someone really needs to explain that to me.

prodigy
03-31-2015, 09:01 AM
Who is to say grabbing a rebound is more important than boxing your man out, creating a lane that allows your teammate to slide in and grab a rebound?

Who is to say getting an assist is more important than drawing a double team, kicking it out for 2 swing passes for a corner 3? Does the guy making the 3rd pass deserve more credit than the guy drawing the double? No, but he gets it.

In either scenario, which action has a bigger impact on the court? Does one have a bigger impact than the other? They are both vital components, created by different players, to get the end result, but only one player gets credit for the end result on the stat sheet, while it took multiple actions from multiple players to make it happen.

These are 2 minor examples of how basketball impact is difficult to track and substantiate statistically. And stats can get as advanced as they want, but I don't think they are ever gonna get to the point where they can pinpoint these subtleties and gauge TRUE impact on the court. The good thing they CAN do is pinpoint these situations separately with sportVU and situational stats. I don't think there will ever be a way to judge your impact as a whole though. Maybe one day, but I'm skeptical we are anywhere remotely close to that.

I understand you can't watch everything, and your eyes are gonna miss some things, and you need aggregated data to supplement your individual analyses, but at the end of the day, the right set of eyes analyzing a game is gonna tell you much more than the box score will, and any advanced formulas derived from the box score will.

If u box out well ur prob gonna have a good number of rebounds, if ur a good passer gonna have a good number of assits etc... etc... etc... Setting picks is great but a lot of of players can do that well.

and ur sig is stupid. Bet Smith is thrilled to get outta the **** hole the Knicks are.

nickdymez
03-31-2015, 02:08 PM
Who is to say grabbing a rebound is more important than boxing your man out, creating a lane that allows your teammate to slide in and grab a rebound?

Who is to say getting an assist is more important than drawing a double team, kicking it out for 2 swing passes for a corner 3? Does the guy making the 3rd pass deserve more credit than the guy drawing the double? No, but he gets it.

In either scenario, which action has a bigger impact on the court? Does one have a bigger impact than the other? They are both vital components, created by different players, to get the end result, but only one player gets credit for the end result on the stat sheet, while it took multiple actions from multiple players to make it happen.

These are 2 minor examples of how basketball impact is difficult to track and substantiate statistically. And stats can get as advanced as they want, but I don't think they are ever gonna get to the point where they can pinpoint these subtleties and gauge TRUE impact on the court. The good thing they CAN do is pinpoint these situations separately with sportVU and situational stats. I don't think there will ever be a way to judge your impact as a whole though. Maybe one day, but I'm skeptical we are anywhere remotely close to that.

I understand you can't watch everything, and your eyes are gonna miss some things, and you need aggregated data to supplement your individual analyses, but at the end of the day, the right set of eyes analyzing a game is gonna tell you much more than the box score will, and any advanced formulas derived from the box score will.

Great post.

crewfan13
03-31-2015, 02:11 PM
Who is to say grabbing a rebound is more important than boxing your man out, creating a lane that allows your teammate to slide in and grab a rebound?

Who is to say getting an assist is more important than drawing a double team, kicking it out for 2 swing passes for a corner 3? Does the guy making the 3rd pass deserve more credit than the guy drawing the double? No, but he gets it.

In either scenario, which action has a bigger impact on the court? Does one have a bigger impact than the other? They are both vital components, created by different players, to get the end result, but only one player gets credit for the end result on the stat sheet, while it took multiple actions from multiple players to make it happen.

These are 2 minor examples of how basketball impact is difficult to track and substantiate statistically. And stats can get as advanced as they want, but I don't think they are ever gonna get to the point where they can pinpoint these subtleties and gauge TRUE impact on the court. The good thing they CAN do is pinpoint these situations separately with sportVU and situational stats. I don't think there will ever be a way to judge your impact as a whole though. Maybe one day, but I'm skeptical we are anywhere remotely close to that.

I understand you can't watch everything, and your eyes are gonna miss some things, and you need aggregated data to supplement your individual analyses, but at the end of the day, the right set of eyes analyzing a game is gonna tell you much more than the box score will, and any advanced formulas derived from the box score will.

But that's the exact reason for the exact metrics. The old statistical measures like rebounds and assists are the outdated stats that can't be trusted. Now you can add in DRtg, ORtg Real Plus/Minus and a whole plethora of other stats that, when combined properly, should be able to paint a better picture of a players true value.

Let's look at your examples. If a guy keeps his guy off the glass to allow a teammate to get the rebound, that player's team will have a better rebounding rate when he's on the floor. If a guy is getting hockey assists, his team will have a higher assist rate and likely a better ORtg when he's on the floor.

And the thing with a lot of the advanced stats and charts are based off of more than just box score stats. I agree that if you're basing all of your data on the box score stats, you'll be off. But with the Synergy cameras and all that stuff determining more about player movement and things, there are a lot more analytical things that can be done with that data.

And I agree, advanced metrics aren't the only thing that should be used to analyze a player, but neither should straight scouting. If you're just watching a game, do you realize how often every player boxes out to allow someone else to get a rebound? Its noticeable occasionally when it goes wrong, but how often do you see if thoughout the season. And even with teams of the right sets of eyes, it would take more manpower than any scouting department has to chart and map all of the things advanced stats can show for every player for every minute they're on the floor.

crewfan13
03-31-2015, 02:18 PM
And to the OP, none of us on here have anywhere near the resources of an NBA scouting department. Even if we were all intelligent basketball scouts, there's no way any of us could watch enough games of every player in the league to determine who's comparably a better player than someone else. Someone on the East Coast may watch every Cavs game, but do they watch every Thunder game, every GS game, every Houston game and so on? Its unlikely that anyone watches that much NBA. So the reason advanced stats are prevalent is because its a more effective way of comparing players than saying I watch Lebron every night and I've watched Russell Westbrook 3 times this season, so I know Lebron is definitely better. And the advanced stats, depending on which ones you use and how you use them, are more effective than the traditional stats that people use otherwise (like the radio show hosts you mentioned). With things like TS% and eFG%, we can now more accurately compare how efficient of shooter a 3 PT specialist is compared with a big underneath the hoop. They aren't used by your local TV show anchor or the local radio show host because regular Joe listener was no idea what PER is, but that doesn't make it a crappy stat.

Chronz
03-31-2015, 03:05 PM
But that's the exact reason for the exact metrics. The old statistical measures like rebounds and assists are the outdated stats that can't be trusted. Now you can add in DRtg, ORtg Real Plus/Minus and a whole plethora of other stats that, when combined properly, should be able to paint a better picture of a players true value.

Let's look at your examples. If a guy keeps his guy off the glass to allow a teammate to get the rebound, that player's team will have a better rebounding rate when he's on the floor. If a guy is getting hockey assists, his team will have a higher assist rate and likely a better ORtg when he's on the floor.

And the thing with a lot of the advanced stats and charts are based off of more than just box score stats. I agree that if you're basing all of your data on the box score stats, you'll be off. But with the Synergy cameras and all that stuff determining more about player movement and things, there are a lot more analytical things that can be done with that data.

And I agree, advanced metrics aren't the only thing that should be used to analyze a player, but neither should straight scouting. If you're just watching a game, do you realize how often every player boxes out to allow someone else to get a rebound? Its noticeable occasionally when it goes wrong, but how often do you see if thoughout the season. And even with teams of the right sets of eyes, it would take more manpower than any scouting department has to chart and map all of the things advanced stats can show for every player for every minute they're on the floor.

Might just be me, but these newfangled cam stats are actually showing me just how small all those allegedly important offensive variables actually were. I mean, there will always be an intangible element to the game but theres a reason NBA heads have referred to them as the "Small" things that win games.

jerellh528
03-31-2015, 03:10 PM
Might just be me, but these newfangled cam stats are actually showing me just how small all those allegedly important offensive variables actually were. I mean, there will always be an intangible element to the game but theres a reason NBA heads have referred to them as the "Small" things that win games.

True

Chronz
03-31-2015, 03:14 PM
True

Yup. Glad we agree. The small things that help win games are still important. Just like the bigger things to win are similarly more important.

ballallday
04-01-2015, 12:06 AM
Seriously, why does this topic always come up in the mains, every season?

I really think people that post this stuff have never taken a basic statistics class in school.

Statistics measure events that happen, and give us a picure of what happened, to a certain extent, and help identify trends, which in turn help make projections. Nothing more. It's great to use them, it would be foolish not too, but they don't predict the future with infallible accuracy, nor are they flawless, like all science, mathematics evolve as time goes along, theorems, formulas, and reasoning can all change. It's a tool. You don't need stats to enjoy a game but you can't argue against numbers, and if you use them to strengthen your argument it's a wise thing to do. Statistics are used in every successful business, it would make sense for franchises to utilize them as well. Why is this so mind-boggling for some people? :confused: I really don't understand the aversion to using metrics in any way, shape or form. Someone really needs to explain that to me.

I wrote long post it got erased maybe for the best. Here are some bullets:

- I am obviously an idiot, who needs school anyway?
- stat review after watching a game is like homework, see previous bullet re school
- why bother review stats after watching a game when you know what you saw on the court: watching a game is fun looking at stats is not
- saying x stat makes x player better isn't possible (yet) but people do all the time because they either have an agenda against x player or didn't watch the game (just a guess but 99% of psders do this type of bs)
- why does this happen every season: people take statistics too far in convos

We need to figure out when we should use stats in an argument and when we shouldnt. There have been some great post throughout here talking about when stats should be applied in comparisons or play on the court. Maybe start compiling theses points rather then both sides saying there right and other is wrong?

crewfan13
04-01-2015, 09:20 AM
But the point is, do you watch every minute of every NBA game? And that's where stats become important. Its not like a guy averaging 25/5/5 is going to get those exact numbers every night. And even with shooting percentages and all the other variables, guys fluctuate really heavily from game to game. Take Ersan Ilyasova for the Bucks. Let's say you watched 5 Bucks games all year. He's a really up and down player so it would be possible that you watched 5 of his 8 best games, or maybe 5 of his worst games. Isn't your opinion of him going to be skewed?

Even if you're just watching a game while you're on your computer or making dinner or something. You'll likely even miss portions of games, and its possible the guy you'll be comparing happens to hit a few jumpers while you're not watching. Heck, some guys even contribute more quietly than others. Take another Buck, Khris Middleton for example. He's been an advanced stat sweetheart all year. Maybe those advanced metrics are wrong on him, but when you watch him, he doesn't always jump off the page at you, especially prior to us trading Knight. He got his looks at an efficient rate within in the offense and wasn't forcing things while also playing good defense, especially team defense, which is sometimes hard to see on TV. After the game, you'd look at his stats and he'd score a relatively quiet 20 points, and his guy would usually have a fairly low output game too. Its pretty overwhelming to try to watch that and remember that for every player throughout the game.

I would also argue your point that people use stats to further their bias against player X or Player Y. That's very true, but that's something that happens more often when you just use the eye test. Maybe its not true for everyone, but I think you're more likely to change someone's opinion if you come to them with real hard data on why someone has a bigger impact. I agree there's no one stat, and you can probably manipulate the data you use to skew your argument, but there's always flip side data to that as well. Its much more informative to me at least than someone saying I watched the Pelicans game last night and Anthony Davis is the best player on the planet.

NYKalltheway
04-01-2015, 10:44 AM
But the point is, do you watch every minute of every NBA game?

If you don't, then your opinion is not really your opinion but it's guided by various parameters that depend from person to person. Hence, it's not worth someone's while. I don't comment on modern NBA that much because I barely watch 2-3 games a week and I don't even pay too much attention to them as it doesn't get interesting unless it's the last 2-3 minutes or an important playoff game.
It's even worse when people talk about players they've never seen play and cannot watch play because they're retired. I'm not really old myself at around 30 but by looking around I can say that I'm well above the average age of these boards and have started watching games since I was 5-6 years old (despite not having the best understanding at those tender ages, you get a stigma from some superstars' performances) and I've rewatched many of those older games I vaguely remember as a child. My opinion on Bob Pettit and Bill Russell is not really educated. On the other hand, I can talk about Clyde Drexler, Alex English, Shaquille O'Neal and even guys like Charlie Ward and Kerry Kittles because I've watched over 50 of their games at various points in their careers. I can't have an opinion on Klay Thompson at this moment though. I've barely watched 5 of his games. I've seen people who've seen 1 and think they have an opinion. Why? Because they use some statistics.

Comparing players using the 'eye test' is also more fun as a discussion as no one can have an absolute or fixed opinion (assuming it's a proper, unbiased discussion). You can talk about basketball that way and nothing else. Statistics is nice as a tool for those who can interpret them. Pretending to interpret stats because you've read a book or a blog about them is fooling yourselves initially and then trying to fool others who have the knack of understanding the game the way it's supposed to be understood.

ballallday
04-01-2015, 10:51 AM
But the point is, do you watch every minute of every NBA game? And that's where stats become important. Its not like a guy averaging 25/5/5 is going to get those exact numbers every night. And even with shooting percentages and all the other variables, guys fluctuate really heavily from game to game. Take Ersan Ilyasova for the Bucks. Let's say you watched 5 Bucks games all year. He's a really up and down player so it would be possible that you watched 5 of his 8 best games, or maybe 5 of his worst games. Isn't your opinion of him going to be skewed?

Even if you're just watching a game while you're on your computer or making dinner or something. You'll likely even miss portions of games, and its possible the guy you'll be comparing happens to hit a few jumpers while you're not watching. Heck, some guys even contribute more quietly than others. Take another Buck, Khris Middleton for example. He's been an advanced stat sweetheart all year. Maybe those advanced metrics are wrong on him, but when you watch him, he doesn't always jump off the page at you, especially prior to us trading Knight. He got his looks at an efficient rate within in the offense and wasn't forcing things while also playing good defense, especially team defense, which is sometimes hard to see on TV. After the game, you'd look at his stats and he'd score a relatively quiet 20 points, and his guy would usually have a fairly low output game too. Its pretty overwhelming to try to watch that and remember that for every player throughout the game.

I would also argue your point that people use stats to further their bias against player X or Player Y. That's very true, but that's something that happens more often when you just use the eye test. Maybe its not true for everyone, but I think you're more likely to change someone's opinion if you come to them with real hard data on why someone has a bigger impact. I agree there's no one stat, and you can probably manipulate the data you use to skew your argument, but there's always flip side data to that as well. Its much more informative to me at least than someone saying I watched the Pelicans game last night and Anthony Davis is the best player on the planet.

Yes my opinion would be skewed just like the stats would be skewed for those games as well.

Dude i get the fact that its more informative to say x player is better because of y stat. It makes for a good conversation and you can prove it with numbers: x player better because of y. I also get that using the eye test has a bias opinion just like using stats can have a bias opinion to find certain statistics that can skew a player in negative/positive light. You don't have to prove to me that this is the case. As per your Middleton comment i get that as well, you can watch him and see he plays great then turn away and he is terrible. However stats will never accurately explain what happened in the game so don't try to spin it in favour of that. Its a good talking point yes, player x shot 70% for x stretch and 30% for y stretch. Unless you watch the game there is no use for those stats because it won't tell the story. Did he have to force up shots at the end of the shot clock? Did he get wide open looks for the 70% because Giannis was doubled?

The whole reason why I brought this thread to light is to draw attention to the meaningless of saying this stat makes player better then this other player. Its all based on a bias opinion on wether or not person likes x player or not and what kind of statistic they want to put forward to argue with. The game tells a story when watching and stats need to be used lightly.

IMO When bringing stats to a conversation we should be using them not in player comparison but on how they might show weakness in the players game... Like player x can't drive when a team has 2 seven footers on the court at the same time, so watch out for tonights game when Lillard plays against OKC and they have Adams and Kanter on the floor cause he will shoot below 30%. If people made threads talking stats like that then great. Or watch out for x player when he plays against the spurs he usually keeps parker from penetrating the lane and forces him to shoot outside jumpers.

Stats are great tools for team/player improvement. Evaluations just need to stop with the player comparisons too many factors affect players on teams, touches, offensive formations, defenses, double teams, etc.

Thats what I'm getting at

KnicksorBust
04-01-2015, 10:52 AM
This has nothing to do with the PSD stats brigade mentality. This is graphs, mobile examples and the numbers used on their own mean nothing and cannot really be used to compare players.

Why can't that information (graphs/numbers/etc) be used to compare Kawhi Leonard and James Harden defensively?

KnicksorBust
04-01-2015, 10:53 AM
I don't see what your post has to do with his.

His Post: "People get so caught up in the data they let it tell them things their eyes don't see."

I was giving an example where the numbers support the eye test and provide a deeper contextual understanding of the information.

ewing
04-01-2015, 10:57 AM
His Post: "People get so caught up in the data they let it tell them things their eyes don't see."

I was giving an example where the numbers support the eye test and provide a deeper contextual understanding of the information.


OK, just seemed like you he gave an example where someone somewhatly blindly followed a stat trail and it lead to a poor judgement. you countered with a different example where you effectively used stats as a learning tool. Just seemed like two different examples. One good, one bad

KnicksorBust
04-01-2015, 12:50 PM
OK, just seemed like you he gave an example where someone somewhatly blindly followed a stat trail and it lead to a poor judgement. you countered with a different example where you effectively used stats as a learning tool. Just seemed like two different examples. One good, one bad

Right. That's the whole point.

Tony_Starks
04-01-2015, 01:15 PM
Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

ewing
04-01-2015, 01:29 PM
Right. That's the whole point.

I don't think Dee-Leeethal was arguing that stats cant be used effectively.

Chronz
04-01-2015, 02:12 PM
Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

What do you mean need calculators? Are you suggesting we ignore the numbers just because a guy hit a game winner? If you are, then you're going to far with the hero ball.

Tony_Starks
04-01-2015, 02:17 PM
Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

What do you mean need calculators? Are you suggesting we ignore the numbers just because a guy hit a game winner? If you are, then you're going to far with the hero ball.

I'm going to tell you a secret, don't tell anyone........sometimes numbers lie!

crewfan13
04-01-2015, 02:20 PM
Yes my opinion would be skewed just like the stats would be skewed for those games as well.

Dude i get the fact that its more informative to say x player is better because of y stat. It makes for a good conversation and you can prove it with numbers: x player better because of y. I also get that using the eye test has a bias opinion just like using stats can have a bias opinion to find certain statistics that can skew a player in negative/positive light. You don't have to prove to me that this is the case. As per your Middleton comment i get that as well, you can watch him and see he plays great then turn away and he is terrible. However stats will never accurately explain what happened in the game so don't try to spin it in favour of that. Its a good talking point yes, player x shot 70% for x stretch and 30% for y stretch. Unless you watch the game there is no use for those stats because it won't tell the story. Did he have to force up shots at the end of the shot clock? Did he get wide open looks for the 70% because Giannis was doubled?

The whole reason why I brought this thread to light is to draw attention to the meaningless of saying this stat makes player better then this other player. Its all based on a bias opinion on wether or not person likes x player or not and what kind of statistic they want to put forward to argue with. The game tells a story when watching and stats need to be used lightly.

IMO When bringing stats to a conversation we should be using them not in player comparison but on how they might show weakness in the players game... Like player x can't drive when a team has 2 seven footers on the court at the same time, so watch out for tonights game when Lillard plays against OKC and they have Adams and Kanter on the floor cause he will shoot below 30%. If people made threads talking stats like that then great. Or watch out for x player when he plays against the spurs he usually keeps parker from penetrating the lane and forces him to shoot outside jumpers.

Stats are great tools for team/player improvement. Evaluations just need to stop with the player comparisons too many factors affect players on teams, touches, offensive formations, defenses, double teams, etc.

Thats what I'm getting at

I think I tend to agree to an extent. There's no one stat that says this guy is definitively better as an overall player. I tend to think player comparisons is sort of a fools game anyways. We have such a need in society to have everything ranked neatly and definitively. If you read these forums (doesn't really matter which sport) there's always a top X amount of players at each position or in each league. ESPN and sports networks feed off of that too. They spend hours every day and week discussing who the third best PG is or who the 5th best QB is (current and historically). And there's really no one stat that is the end all be all of who is better or worse.

But where I think stats start becoming valuable, and I think its sounds like you generally agree, is in determining value to the team, and just value overall. I think you can use stats to start generally lumping guys together in tiers as opposed to definitive rankings. Who's the better PG? Some argue Paul, some argue Westbrook, and I think you can look at the stats and say those guys are in the upper tier of PGs because they do X, Y and Z statistically. Back to the Middleton example. You use the advanced stats to determine how valuable he's ben to the Bucks this season. The team is significantly better with him on the floor than with him not on the floor. At one point, he was top 6 in Real Plus/Minus and I believe had the best individual DRtg of qualifying players. Does that make him the best defender and a top 6 player in the league? No, probably not, but it does illustrate his value to the Bucks, and shows were his value lies on the team (Generally an elite 3 and D guy). I think it sounds as if you generally agree.

The reason I sometimes get defensive is because there's a lot of people out there who think stats are basically useless. They think they can just casually watch the game and determine the good vs bad players. For instance, my Dad has been complaining all season that Middleton shoots too much and gets too many minutes. He doesn't realize by just watching, that although Middleton misses more shots than other guys, he's shooting more valuable shots and his TS% and eFG% indicate that he should be taking those shots. And he doesn't appear to be the great defender he has been this year. He doesn't rack up a ton of box score stats, just quietly does a really nice job against the oppositions best wing player. That's stuff that a lot of eye test guys miss.


Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

But this is the attitude about the eye test that frustrates me. A guy hitting a game winner falling out of bounds with a guy draped on him doesn't make him a great player. Its sometimes means he got lucky. I watched Brandon Jennings go off for 55 in his rookie year. Heck yea that was an impressive game, but that didn't make him a great player. Granted it was early in his career so you didn't have much of a baseline, but if you compare that stat line to his full season stat line, you'll see how he shot so much better from the field than he shot the rest of the year. He was 7-8 from 3 that game. He had 11 more games that season where he shot 8 or more 3s and made over 50% of them only once. Unless you're watching every game and focusing on every player, you can going to be susceptible to the eye test bias.

Chronz
04-01-2015, 02:27 PM
I'm going to tell you a secret, don't tell anyone........sometimes numbers lie!
Whew, good to know. Now I can live life safe because only numbers lie, people are always honest tho. Thanks you honest citizen you.

Jamiecballer
04-01-2015, 07:00 PM
Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

an impressive moment and a good game are two very different things. if a guy has a terrible shooting game and hits a tough game winner and you put that in your mental filing cabinet under "good game" then you are extremely short sighted.

Tony_Starks
04-01-2015, 07:15 PM
Simply put if you watch a player explode for say 60 points, or perhaps put up a triple double for a month, or perhaps have a horrible shooting game but still hit a game winner falling out of bounds with defenders draped on him, and you need calculators and spreadsheets to figure out if it was impressive or not..... you're going too far with the stats dude.

an impressive moment and a good game are two very different things. if a guy has a terrible shooting game and hits a tough game winner and you put that in your mental filing cabinet under "good game" then you are extremely short sighted.

If we're talking about a mediocre player that lucks up on a game winner then your point is valid. If we're talking about somebody like Westbrook who can have a horrible shooting night but everyone in the building knows he's still taking the last shot....AND you still can't stop him from winning the game? Yeah I'm sorry that goes under "good game bro" in my short sighted mental Rolodex.....

I also mentioned scoring 60 or averaging triple doubles for a month. When players do stuff like that my simple mind gets impressed, I'll leave it to the smart people to check their usage rating.. + -....per....otr or whatever it is to say if it was a according to Hoyle great game or not.

Chronz
04-01-2015, 07:57 PM
If we're talking about a mediocre player that lucks up on a game winner then your point is valid. If we're talking about somebody like Westbrook who can have a horrible shooting night but everyone in the building knows he's still taking the last shot....AND you still can't stop him from winning the game? Yeah I'm sorry that goes under "good game bro" in my short sighted mental Rolodex.....
What if role players are better at shooting those shots? What do you mean luck into? Even Westbrook admits hes wrong when he takes a contested shot for the win when his teammate was wide open. Its definitely short sighted to focus on the final shot of the game. Had that player been efficient to begin with, the team would be better off in the long run. Context matters, both with stats AND the eyes. If a player aint hitting **** all game, Im not gonna forget those struggles just because he happened to finally hit something. Its still a bad game if you suck for 95% of it. That your team wins doesn't mean you won them the game, it means they carried you to victory and you just hit the last shot.


I also mentioned scoring 60 or averaging triple doubles for a month. When players do stuff like that my simple mind gets impressed, I'll leave it to the smart people to check their usage rating.. + -....per....otr or whatever it is to say if it was a according to Hoyle great game or not.

Smart people like JJ Reddick? Guys who understand the uselessness of raw stats and arbitrary lines like triple doubles that basic fans rely on?

Jamiecballer
04-01-2015, 08:47 PM
If we're talking about a mediocre player that lucks up on a game winner then your point is valid. If we're talking about somebody like Westbrook who can have a horrible shooting night but everyone in the building knows he's still taking the last shot....AND you still can't stop him from winning the game? Yeah I'm sorry that goes under "good game bro" in my short sighted mental Rolodex.....

I also mentioned scoring 60 or averaging triple doubles for a month. When players do stuff like that my simple mind gets impressed, I'll leave it to the smart people to check their usage rating.. + -....per....otr or whatever it is to say if it was a according to Hoyle great game or not.

don't ever buy stocks bro, you will get killed.

it's entirely possible to appreciate a play and still acknowledge that a guys play throughout the game was lacking.

SportsFanatic10
04-01-2015, 10:44 PM
it all comes down to a certain middle ground. the people that dismiss advanced stats like they're meaningless and the people that think they're the end all of all arguments are both wrong. it's about balance. they are certainly useful and when understood correctly and used properly they reveal a new layer to the game that cannot be seen by the naked eye.

Tony_Starks
04-02-2015, 12:46 AM
If we're talking about a mediocre player that lucks up on a game winner then your point is valid. If we're talking about somebody like Westbrook who can have a horrible shooting night but everyone in the building knows he's still taking the last shot....AND you still can't stop him from winning the game? Yeah I'm sorry that goes under "good game bro" in my short sighted mental Rolodex.....

I also mentioned scoring 60 or averaging triple doubles for a month. When players do stuff like that my simple mind gets impressed, I'll leave it to the smart people to check their usage rating.. + -....per....otr or whatever it is to say if it was a according to Hoyle great game or not.

don't ever buy stocks bro, you will get killed.

it's entirely possible to appreciate a play and still acknowledge that a guys play throughout the game was lacking.

I'm quite sure it is, but this is a basketball forum full of opinions right? I have no problem saying my eye test is far from foolproof and I have my bias. My issue with stat guys isn't so much their use of them its more the arrogance that comes with it. The notion that since xyz random stats support my argument then I am absolutely right and anyone that denies that is uniformed and/or ignorant.

nickdymez
04-02-2015, 10:53 AM
I can't wait till some of you guys get hired by an NBA team.

KnicksorBust
04-02-2015, 11:16 AM
I'm quite sure it is, but this is a basketball forum full of opinions right? I have no problem saying my eye test is far from foolproof and I have my bias. My issue with stat guys isn't so much their use of them its more the arrogance that comes with it. The notion that since xyz random stats support my argument then I am absolutely right and anyone that denies that is uniformed and/or ignorant.

I have no problem saying advanced stats are far from foolproof and they have flaws. My issue with eye test guys isn't so much their use of them its more the arrogance that comes with it. The notion that since what I saw in the game last night supports my argument then I am absolutely right and anyone that denies that must not watch games and just checks the box score.

NYKalltheway
04-02-2015, 11:19 AM
I can't wait till some of you guys get hired by an NBA team.

I've worked with a couple professional teams (semi-crap to decent levels, similar level to D-League perhaps was the best team I was with) in Europe and have knowledge of what's going on with a few of the elite ones. Based on statistics, you see much more efficient numbers. Then you ask the coaches, they don't give a rats *** about stats.... You ask the scouts, it's the last thing they pay attention to...
In the NBA where coaching has been quite terrible overall for many years and players are free to do what they want for most of the game, stats probably have more of a bearing for a coach that can't control his team but wants the most efficient guys out there.

Chronz
04-02-2015, 01:15 PM
I've worked with a couple professional teams (semi-crap to decent levels, similar level to D-League perhaps was the best team I was with) in Europe and have knowledge of what's going on with a few of the elite ones. Based on statistics, you see much more efficient numbers. Then you ask the coaches, they don't give a rats *** about stats.... You ask the scouts, it's the last thing they pay attention to...
In the NBA where coaching has been quite terrible overall for many years and players are free to do what they want for most of the game, stats probably have more of a bearing for a coach that can't control his team but wants the most efficient guys out there.

Sounds like you havent paid much attention to the NBA. The defense they play nowadays is more intricate and intense than it was in the past, how can you say coaching is quite terrible when they are getting the players to play with more vigor than they used to? AGAIN, Larry Bird AND Ainge have admitted to the complexities of todays nba, both with regards to defense and technological scouting/tracking.

You ask scouts in the BEST league in the World and they absolutely care about it. So who should we trust more with regards to the NBA game?

Chronz
04-02-2015, 01:22 PM
I can't wait till some of you guys get hired by an NBA team.

Same to you... maybe we'll get picked up by the same team and we can both clean the same bathroom stall.

Chronz
04-02-2015, 01:28 PM
Again, coaches have been tracking stats and per possession efficiency since the days of Hubie Brown at the latest. So if coaching has been terrible, then its always been terrible. At which point, anyone actually believing that has reached the height of hubris.

Jamiecballer
04-02-2015, 01:35 PM
I'm quite sure it is, but this is a basketball forum full of opinions right? I have no problem saying my eye test is far from foolproof and I have my bias. My issue with stat guys isn't so much their use of them its more the arrogance that comes with it. The notion that since xyz random stats support my argument then I am absolutely right and anyone that denies that is uniformed and/or ignorant.

well hold up man because you just said in your previous post that someone like Westbrook can have a horrible shooting night but if he hits the game winner than it's a good game. so don't say that it's possible to appreciate a great play, or moment, and acknowledge that a player played poorly because you just told us that you can't. in your eyes, heroic ending = good game, no?

Chronz
04-02-2015, 01:39 PM
I'm quite sure it is, but this is a basketball forum full of opinions right? I have no problem saying my eye test is far from foolproof and I have my bias. My issue with stat guys isn't so much their use of them its more the arrogance that comes with it. The notion that since xyz random stats support my argument then I am absolutely right and anyone that denies that is uniformed and/or ignorant.

You can always agree to disagree. I've never met a statistical argument where I couldn't find my own theories to combat. Its just a matter of understanding those statistics.

nickdymez
04-02-2015, 02:05 PM
You can always agree to disagree. I've never met a statistical argument where I couldn't find my own theories to combat. Its just a matter of understanding those statistics.
It becomes a condescending conversation when you believe your right and I'm wrong because I use "caveman tactics" to evaluate a basketball player. In other words, arguments start when you tell me player a is better than player b because his "per" for example is higher. If that's how you choose to judge a player, that's on you. If I choose to judge another way, that's on me. No one is wrong unless we are about to get hired by an NBA team, which I can almost guarantee none of us here are.

Mell413
04-02-2015, 08:08 PM
I'm more of a baseball fan than basketball, but I do find it interesting that basketball fans seem reluctant to use them. I know they don't tell you as much in basketball as they do in baseball, but they certainly have their place. It seems like if the stats don't support your preconceived narrative than the stats aren't useful. From my perspective it seems like some people will just hide behind the stats are misleading argument. They can be misleading at times in this sport but it doesn't mean they all are. I think my issue with anti stat people is that they just say they are misleading and leave it at that. If you feel that way then you should explain why. Similar to what D Leethal did with the Vucevic example. It seems to me the people that use stats also use context so it's not like they are simply looking at a box score.

Ty Fast
04-02-2015, 08:19 PM
Stats are how guys get paid

Jamiecballer
04-04-2015, 12:53 PM
Stats are how guys get paid
That kind of perversion of stats is the opposite of what's being endorsed here.

lol, please
04-04-2015, 11:12 PM
well hold up man because you just said in your previous post that someone like Westbrook can have a horrible shooting night but if he hits the game winner than it's a good game. so don't say that it's possible to appreciate a great play, or moment, and acknowledge that a player played poorly because you just told us that you can't. in your eyes, heroic ending = good game, no?
Stop it. Just because you hit a game winner doesn't mean you weren't inefficient for the duration of the game.

ewing
04-05-2015, 12:38 AM
I used to like guys that shot the ball 50 times a night and scored b/t 10 and 20 a night. Stats saved my life

Jamiecballer
04-05-2015, 02:49 PM
Stop it. Just because you hit a game winner doesn't mean you weren't inefficient for the duration of the game.

i think you might have misunderstood the post, badly.