Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 132 of 132 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132
Results 1,966 to 1,969 of 1969
  1. #1966
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    56,223
    Quote Originally Posted by ecart View Post
    There aren't that many ESPN writers/reporters that use advanced stats. Mostly Chris Herring and Kevin Pelton. Their TV people are all ex-players and coaches so they're unlikely going to use stats.
    That was when O thought that the panel wasnt as big as you had mentioned. If its that big, then maybe it averages out. Either way though a ton of rankings out there generally rank guys with lesser advanced stats or “unappealing styles” lower imo.

  2. #1967
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    56,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    i believe in the value of advanced stats as a whole. you are right, Val has pretty pedestrian BPM as well, negative early career, mostly positive since but not hugely so. however, and this is just my belief, is that when all the advanced stats are excellent, you deserve a little bit of benefit of the doubt, especially when you've been given almost no consistency over the years in when your minutes will come, with whom, and role. but mainly i speak up for JV because I think his contribution has been criminally underrated during his time here. i don't have to worry about that with DeMar. whereas BPM and DeMar, it's such an anomaly that I do not think you can dismiss it unless you are so invested in your feeling that DeMar is an elite player.
    Lol a big reason he has good stats is because hes has been protected so much in his career here. He has those good stats because he plays when the style caters to him, on the bench when it doesnt, doesnt have a bigger workload, etc. Dont get me wrong, i think JV can out up great stats in other situations because theres more than 1 way to play basketball and how we play might not have catered to him. but its a joke to give someone who has been so protected the benefit of the doubt but punish someone who doesnt have that same luxury and assume they couldnt adapt elsewhere and be similarly effective.

    I think that goes back to my post on thats probably why i dont take yor advanced stats posts that seriously because youre so biased on style of play that it affects how you end up using the stats.

  3. #1968
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    56,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    It's more than 400 mins. Its certainly not a small sample. I dont think so. Zach Lowe certainly doesnt think so.

    Both guys have reputations that greatly exceed their actual impacts so its utterly unsurprising that the Spurs are competing practically despite there supposed "best players". And it's totally inline with their history.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Did you do the analysis on the circumstances (ie opposition level, opposition lineup familiarity, etc) between when demar/lma on the court and without then?

    Ie If demar/lma arent doing good against starters but the spurs bench does well against the opposing teams bench (or they tore the house down against a team that ran a lineup they previously never ran), theres a lot more things in there outside of just criticizing LMA/DD.
    Last edited by Raps08-09 Champ; Yesterday at 10:39 PM.

  4. #1969
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    It's more than 400 mins. Its certainly not a small sample. I dont think so.
    You don't have a sample size of more than 400 minutes. Whomever created this spurious statistic essentially extrapolated from a series of small samples and then minute weighted each and summed everything together to pretend you have a larger sample size than you actually do. Which basically renders any inference from this stat worthless because of collinearity effects.

    Besides, even if I humour you and pretend the this is a valid statistic, of the 93 DD/LMA-less lineups, you only have 7 lineups that have played more than a total of 10 minutes together (vast majority are 2 minutes or less) and with a positive net rating. These 7 lineups account for the majority of the sample effect. Two of these lineups contain Eubanks and Metu, so it is fairly obvious that these are garbage minutes since neither of these players play very frequently.

    Looking at the remaining lineups it is fairly obvious that they suffer from a small sample size. Even when isolating to the lineups with the largest minute totals (54 and 53 minutes), the numbers indicate badly skewed, highly variable data. For example, the lineup with Gay, Belinelli, Bertans, Mills and Poeltl is heavily skewed by their garbage minutes when they got blown out by Golden State.

    This is why we use regularization techniques like ridge regression in statistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    Zach Lowe certainly doesnt think so.
    I mean if Zach put that out there, he should be criticized alongside with you. Generally speaking most lineup data suffers from a small sample size. This is why a lot of statistics that build off of lineup data present multiple seasons. It takes a decent amount of time for the statistic to stabilize.

    Simply put it's a bad use of stats and extremely misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    Both guys have reputations that greatly exceed their actual impacts so its utterly unsurprising that the Spurs are competing practically despite there supposed "best players". And it's totally inline with their history.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    I don't rate either highly either but this reads more like confirmation bias than actually deriving insight from empirical evidence.
    Last edited by ecart; Today at 09:08 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •