Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 261

Thread: Wade/Tmac/Kobe

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    As someone who was born in 83, I grew up in the 90s and loved watching the Knicks. It was a very exciting time to be a basketball fan. I feel very confident talking about players from that era up until the present. However, if you ask me to wax poetic about Oscar Robertson I'm at a loss. But because of numbers I knew he was a legend. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50ppg? How could do it?
    I've done a lot of reading and watching old clips of the Russell/Wilt/West generation of players because the numbers got me curious and I wanted to see what those players were like before my time. Mikan, however, he can still go **** himself, I'm not watching that basketball. But the era before me I tried my best. In your world, every 20 years a generation of basketball would be lost because kids can't look up numbers and form opinions. At least if they are wrong, it starts a conversation. What a bummer.



    That's the beauty of sports. Everyone gets to step up to the table and debate. Imagine this scenario:

    Kid: "Rings and points per game!! KOBE is the GOAT!"
    Old man (just finished telling the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn): "You don't know what you're talking about. You never saw Elgin Baylor. He was the greatest player ever."

    There are no 7 year old kids on this forum doing the things that you complain about. Valade/Chronz/others all want to get the full picture. Numbers are part of that picture. Arguing purely objective opinion is pointless and circular. Stats help tell a story and pretty convincingly. That's why that kid on the street with the spreadsheet of stats, if he knows how to read it, is still going to be right an awful lot. That's a good thing. There are exceptions of players whose stats over/under rate them but for the most part if you want to see a lot of the greatest players of all-time looking at the right advanced statistics is a great way to start.
    Numbers provide a very crude assessment. Sure, we can look at numbers and get a basic reading of the class of player someone was (e.g., a HOF caliber player, an all-star caliber player, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. They should not be used, at least in their current form (imo), to assess which players were better, at least among players who are in or around the same caliber.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    113,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Numbers provide a very crude assessment. Sure, we can look at numbers and get a basic reading of the class of player someone was (e.g., a HOF caliber player, an all-star caliber player, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. They should not be used, at least in their current form (imo), to assess which players were better, at least among players who are in or around the same caliber.


    you never quit... numbers are by far the best understanding of a players skill and what they provide to their team and the game itself... numbers dont lie. The eye test is the biggest load of crap in sports because nobody can watch every single minute of every game over every player to determine how good said player is... stats help show over years and years of data.... good try though

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    You've done zilch to prove it, just flawed conjecture was given. I know the numbers enough to know you're full of ****.

    Show me a post. U talk zero ball and ur complaints don't pass the sniff test.

    They're mentioned because they will ALWAYS be a part of the debate, none of your unsubstantiated whining will ever change that. Just straws about stats not being the end all when we already know that.



    See what I mean about straws, gospel lmfalololol
    Different doesn't mean radically so (iirc, indyrealist referenced a study done a few years back showing just how more consistent basketball stats are vs other sports). Nobody ever took them as gospel, we just know they're more important than you wish and the game has already agreed. You lost.



    Its literally never ignored. we just do a better job of quantifying roles.
    What do you mean show you a post?? Go back and read a few of the posts in the previous page. Discussing a player's skillset and how that impacts the game is talking basketball. Frankly, you have a hard time with ambiguity and so you don't like arguments that bring into question the flawed conclusions that you're drawing from the numbers. There is very little conjecture about the flaws I've raised in the numbers you like to cite.

    At best, and this is being extremity generous, the numbers are entirely correlational and provide mildly suggestive evidence, which is largely incomplete and amount to minuscule differences when translated to actual in game outcomes, at least when comparing great players that are of similar classes. That's not conjecture, that is fact. You might not like it, because as you've shown, you don't like ambiguity, but that changes nothing.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post


    you never quit... numbers are by far the best understanding of a players skill and what they provide to their team and the game itself... numbers dont lie. The eye test is the biggest load of crap in sports because nobody can watch every single minute of every game over every player to determine how good said player is... stats help show over years and years of data.... good try though
    Numbers don't state conclusions, so yes they don't lie and they also say nothing about anything other than numbers. The interpretations from those numbers is what's in question and those interpretations are coming from us, not the numbers.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    113,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Numbers don't state conclusions, so yes they don't lie and they also say nothing about anything other than numbers. The interpretations from those numbers is what's in question and those interpretations are coming from us, not the numbers.
    yet numbers say lebron james is better than steve kerr....Number say Giannis is having some of the best seasons ever... numbers say everything and just because you dont understand TS/PER/VORP and so very many other stats or advanced stats and thus dismiss them doesnt mean they dont show a conclusion... it just means you are ignorant because you cant comprehend or are so lazy you just refuse to do the work and instead would rather be ignorant.

    or you just have such a hard on for kobe being a laker fan and love the rings argument and thus because every statistical measure in the universe of basketball has lebron over kobe and thus you shun stats..... I am banking on it being all 3 in all honesty

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Disagree but let's assume you're right.

    Am I allowed to talk about Oscar Robertson? He retired in 1974. I wasn't even born until 1983.

    I hate to live in a world where every 20 years an entire generation of basketball can't be talked about anymore.
    You are allowed to talk about him.

    If you want to rate him and compare him with more recent players then at least have the decency to watch at least 30 games of this player throughout his career and have an understanding of who he was playing with and against.

    If all you're gonna do ia read a piece of paper with numbers and then say you're impressed or not impressed, there's no need to even bother. If that was the case I could say that I'm a huge Lacrosse fan and pick up some stat lines from the 70s to 00s and say who the best player was with my non-existent understanding of the sport. The numbers must be true I guess, so I'm obviously going to be at a decent enough level. What if I don't even know what Lacrosse is, the stats are there to back me up.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    A picture painted with both stats and the eye test is going to be more complete than a picture painted with just the eye test.
    But you refuse the eye test.

    At least be consistent. I never said that stats are completely irrelevant as you think I am some guy who never uses them. I've said many times that I probably use this kind of data more than anyone here. But you keep saying how they are more important because you don't think that someone's...eyes can be good. Or okay, objective. But you keep ignoring that you are using metrics, not evidence or facts. A metric is a made up set of a series of numbers, it's not "the truth". Yet for some reason you are arguing that coaches, scouts , players and even fans that have multiple years of experience cannot tell **** without these numbers.

    That's actually more of your argument on stats than what you're saying about my relationship with them.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post


    you never quit... numbers are by far the best understanding of a players skill and what they provide to their team and the game itself... numbers dont lie. The eye test is the biggest load of crap in sports because nobody can watch every single minute of every game over every player to determine how good said player is... stats help show over years and years of data.... good try though
    Ok Valade, please stop talking to me about stats and talk to this guy now.

    When you decide what your "faction" believes in, you can return to trying to argue against what you think I believe in, in your futile attempt to understand my point.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,713
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    A picture painted with both stats and the eye test is going to be more complete than a picture painted with just the eye test.
    I don't see how anyone can refute this. If I have an opinion... and factual information supports it... shouldn't I use it?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Numbers provide a very crude assessment. Sure, we can look at numbers and get a basic reading of the class of player someone was (e.g., a HOF caliber player, an all-star caliber player, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. They should not be used, at least in their current form (imo), to assess which players were better, at least among players who are in or around the same caliber.
    You and I completely agree on this. But if you and I are comparing similar players, like Kobe and Wade for example, and I have the opinion that Kobe is the better perimeter shooter, why can't I just use their career 3pt percentages as a part of my argument? It's a simple statistic. Sure. I concede that. I also concede that is possible for someone to have a higher percentage than someone who is actually a better shooter. The degree of difficulty on Steve Kerr's 3pt shots was significantly easier than Stephen Curry for example. That is why people rate Curry as the greatest shooter of all-time and not Kerr.

    The raw 3pt% also doesn't factor in that Kobe played with Fisher at one point while Wade was playing with Chalmers or if there was a waxing moon and 2 minutes left in the 3rd quarter or any crap like that but what the hell? They took thousands of shots from the same spots on the floor and Kobe made a bunch more of them. Doesn't that help my argument? Can't I talk about that even though they were similar players? It's a part of the argument.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Numbers provide a very crude assessment. Sure, we can look at numbers and get a basic reading of the class of player someone was (e.g., a HOF caliber player, an all-star caliber player, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. They should not be used, at least in their current form (imo), to assess which players were better, at least among players who are in or around the same caliber.
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    You are allowed to talk about him.

    If you want to rate him and compare him with more recent players then at least have the decency to watch at least 30 games of this player throughout his career and have an understanding of who he was playing with and against.

    If all you're gonna do ia read a piece of paper with numbers and then say you're impressed or not impressed, there's no need to even bother. If that was the case I could say that I'm a huge Lacrosse fan and pick up some stat lines from the 70s to 00s and say who the best player was with my non-existent understanding of the sport. The numbers must be true I guess, so I'm obviously going to be at a decent enough level. What if I don't even know what Lacrosse is, the stats are there to back me up.
    That's fair I just think it sets an unrealistic expectation for any sports conversations until the end of time that no one is allowed to compare players unless they watched 30 games of that player throughout his career. Lot of players are going to go extinct real quick. Bummer.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,835
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    But you refuse the eye test.

    At least be consistent. I never said that stats are completely irrelevant as you think I am some guy who never uses them. I've said many times that I probably use this kind of data more than anyone here. But you keep saying how they are more important because you don't think that someone's...eyes can be good. Or okay, objective. But you keep ignoring that you are using metrics, not evidence or facts. A metric is a made up set of a series of numbers, it's not "the truth". Yet for some reason you are arguing that coaches, scouts , players and even fans that have multiple years of experience cannot tell **** without these numbers.

    That's actually more of your argument on stats than what you're saying about my relationship with them.
    I do not refuse the eye test. In fact, you have already said you donít watch basketball nowadays, so you are actually ignoring the eye test for the very players youíre now saying are inferior.

    And youíve claimed you use data more than anyone here before, but when I asked which stats specifically you did not answer. So, what stats do you actually use?

    And I never said that the eye test is not objective: I said yours was not. And itís true. You believe everything about the modern NBA is worse, that is bias.

    I bet Iíve watched more classic basketball than you have recent basketball. And until you tell me what data you use I have no reason to believe your boasts. So not only do I use stats more than you (and have a better understanding of them), I use the eye test more than you.

    And you claim youíre the more knowledgeable one? Donít make me laugh

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,835
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Ok Valade, please stop talking to me about stats and talk to this guy now.

    When you decide what your "faction" believes in, you can return to trying to argue against what you think I believe in, in your futile attempt to understand my point.[/LIST]
    I understand your points, because you keep repeating them:

    Modern basketball sucks
    LeBron isnít that good
    Stats are useless

    All bad points. And itís not a faction of hive minds, we donít all believe the same thing. You want to lump everyone who uses stats in the same category when in reality the only thing they have in common is they are not luddites like you that ignore stats to maintain your hatred of modern basketball

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Numbers provide a very crude assessment. Sure, we can look at numbers and get a basic reading of the class of player someone was (e.g., a HOF caliber player, an all-star caliber player, etc.), but that's about as far as it goes. They should not be used, at least in their current form (imo), to assess which players were better, at least among players who are in or around the same caliber.
    Thereís no one stat that is going to definitively state a player is superior to another, the fact you keep harping on that as an excuse to dismiss all statistics and the value they can bring, especially for a scientist, is troubling.

    Stats can tell us who is more impactful at specific skills, in specific situations, and who provides more impact in specific situations.

    If a player is consistently superior at providing impact for certain skills and in situations, we can then conclude that heís superior (at the very least superior at providing impact if not outright better).

    Itís like how we can tell that there are celestial bodies in specific areas of the cosmos without being able directly observe it. Thereís not stat that can directly observe whose better, but there are a number of stats that can let us know who is with a string degree of certainty.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,835
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    I don't see how anyone can refute this. If I have an opinion... and factual information supports it... shouldn't I use it?
    I just found out from PSK that NYK told him he doesnít even watch basketball anymore. So the guy who preaches about the eye test doesnít even use it

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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