Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 149
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    You're preaching to the wrong crowd here, or maybe it's more applicable to say that they don't want to hear these things. This analytics mindset has become the norm on this forum and anyone who disagrees is a heretic. The irony is that they don't even understand what these numbers show and what their use is.
    It's not just here sadly. It's everywhere except for some corners where older basketball fans and historians reside.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    It's not just here sadly. It's everywhere except for some corners where older basketball fans and historians reside.
    I can assure you that in Europe, while Synergy is quite popular with teams and coaches, fans don't generally care about these things at all.

    NBA fans seem to be captivated by numbers probably because the game itself has regressed so much and has become like an arcade game nowadays. Rather than complaining about how sad the league's quality has become, they have something else to be occupied with.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I can assure you that in Europe, while Synergy is quite popular with teams and coaches, fans don't generally care about these things at all.

    NBA fans seem to be captivated by numbers probably because the game itself has regressed so much and has become like an arcade game nowadays. Rather than complaining about how sad the league's quality has become, they have something else to be occupied with.
    That's an interesting take. I tend to attribute it more to the fact that people want to sound like they know a lot about all teams, but don't want to bother to watch games to understand and it's far easier to just look at a number and state that a guy is good or bad.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    That's an interesting take. I tend to attribute it more to the fact that people want to sound like they know a lot about all teams, but don't want to bother to watch games to understand and it's far easier to just look at a number and state that a guy is good or bad.
    That's also true.

    There is a wide variety of tendencies that lead to this kind of mindset, but I think the way it has been promoted by the media has helped this. The media doesn't really know how this thing really works, most prominent members of it are former players who didn't have much to do with this principle and they kinda present it in a simplified way and the data available is minimal and not contextualized.

    So you have this distorted view of seeing a bunch of % on some metrics (which by definition are just a pile of numbers that are supposed to show something, so it's not without flaws and it's not really something conclusive most times, it's just someone's numerical interpretation from the available data; most times insufficient as basketball is a fluid sport).

    This flawed interpretation of what analytics truly means allows the casual fan to pretend that he'd land a job with an NBA team by learning all these metrics and what they're supposed to do. Making them as you say, some sort of expert, without even watching the game. What they don't realize is that watching the game, player movement and spatial awareness is like 95% of basketball analytics. The numbers are just the cherry on the top and they're not supposed to compare two players to give a conclusion on who's the better between the two, because they cannot do that. No sensible basketball analyst or scout would even dare to suggest it does. Only amateurs say this because they don't know any better.

    But when you have this idea that "analytics run the sport" now, which is untrue, but they are becoming more significant even if not all teams really empower their development teams with these tools, and you have guys like Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban say how important they are, people directly assume that Morey and Cuban say that "advanced stats is the best thing since Spalding made a basket ball". when what they mean by analytics and what the casual fan understands do not have a high correlation between them and almost none when talking about how they are applied.


    But back to my initial point, at least from my circle which has always been very pro-basketball, I've worked with professional and semi professional teams and have managed to widen my network in European basketball and have several acquaintances in the US basketball scene, including the NBA.. honestly, you don't hear a lot of praise about the playing level these days. It has a greater impact now due to social media and more globalization, as well having the money to lure pretty much the best players from everywhere else (which was not the case from the 80s till the early 2010s), so the impression that since it's more popular than everyone it must be better than ever exists. But everyone knows this is like WWE basketball nowadays when it comes to the regular season and even when you reach playoffs, you see that teams aren't very well accustomed to play strong defense apart from well coached teams. Coaching has improved, but coaching is about drilling. In the past you had teams that had very strict regimes even if their coaching was simple, so they worked better. Nowadays most teams do not execute well and let's be real, defense is a non-factor.

    I know many here consider that the NBA is greater than ever now and probably think of Ben Wallace, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson and some guy called John Green as martyrs for effectively killing the best era that the NBA had seen since Michael Jordan's first retirement and creating this debacle of a cup cake league

    I have a lot of pet peeves with people who misuse stats for basketball, mostly because when asked to properly assess a player or a game they have no clue of how to do it without throwing random numbers at you in an attempt to scare you away as they pretend to appear superior and more knowledgeable (coming to your example) or by simply running circles around different numbers each time, completely ignoring what the actual discussion and question was in the first place.
    But my main issue is that they do not understand how these numbers come to life. They do not understand that players' have changed their mentality, exactly because a large number of fans put too much emphasis on these numbers and metrics, and focus their game to enhance these things when in the past you never had players worry about their shooting %, their efficiency ratings etc. And on top of it all, you used to get average a bruise per 5 attempts - since they only understand stuff with numbers - and you barely won a foul per 5 hits, while now you don't even get to be hit to earn a trip to free throw land, the lanes are wide open, traveling seems illegal for refs to call these days rather than actually traveling, double dribbling or just failing to properly dribble being illegal and to top it, players don't even seem to bother in defense so that also boosts and inflates the very stats these people hold in a high regard.

    This thread also highlights the other nuisance with the forum. Everything's a popularity contest. Yesterday's heroes are usually forgotten. When I first signed up, the consensus had Kobe on par with GOAT, now he barely makes top 10. I had constant arguments with people as I said that he wasn't even top 10, how can he even be a candidate for GOAT? Same arguments changed with the same people over different players. They just switch the name. Steph Curry was also on track of being a GOAT during 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Now people barely mention him in their top 20 lists.

    Kawhi Leonard of all people is considered to have a top 15 peak of all time according to this poll. I cannot even comprehend how his name was even allowed to be in the conversation! Granted that this list didn't have more than 10 votes each time iirc so it's not really reflective of a wide group of people but just a collection of a handful of very active forumites, if you compare it with an all time list with no restraints, the outcome would look very similar. Players with a very high peak that never had a career to follow are completely ignored because they're not popular enough to be associated with players that this community and generally modern NBA fans consider elite.

    Recency bias is PSD's disease.
    Bandwagoning is another and it has many applications. Either bandwagoning for players and you have pro-Lebron camps, pro-Kobe camp, pro-Wade, pro-Duncan, pro-Curry, pro-Durant camp etc, so anyone who talks bad about any of the guys that have a bandwagon must be part of someone else's bandwagon. Another application is opinion hopping. People have respect for several posters here for their reasons and you'll see them just follow whatever trend is set about a player, even if the alternative would be to be voiceless if they didn't have an opinion or even overriding their own just to be part of the cool kids' table.


    Anyway, rant over

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290
    Absolutely great rant @NYKalltheway as you took all my feelings of the fandom of the NBA right now and put words to it. It's a lengthy read but just absolutely spot on.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,019
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Absolutely great rant @NYKalltheway as you took all my feelings of the fandom of the NBA right now and put words to it. It's a lengthy read but just absolutely spot on.
    It's really not. It's combination of complaining, bragging, condescension, and victimhood.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    It's really not. It's combination of complaining, bragging, condescension, and victimhood.
    So where is he wrong? Because that's exactly why I feel that way that I do. Too many fans look at these advanced numbers without context and rely on them to tell them who's good and who isn't.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,254
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    So where is he wrong? Because that's exactly why I feel that way that I do. Too many fans look at these advanced numbers without context and rely on them to tell them who's good and who isn't.
    He's wrong pretty much everywhere.

    First, his contention that NBA organizations aren't really using analytics is wrong. Every team in the league is using it, there is not a single team that eschews stats at this point, he is right that they are using different stats to determine different things, but wrong on why. They are simply not concerned with who is the better historical player is since it has no bearing on their job. It's not important for the current New Orleans Pelicans to know who was more impactful between George Gervin or Alex English, but it is important to know which FA will be more impactful on their team right now.

    Second, the idea that nobody is actually watching games. It's such an arrogant and conceited claim. How do you know that people who also use stats aren't watching the games? I think what you and he mean is you don't watch the games, so you assume no one else does.

    Third, the idea that there is a consensus that the NBA as a product sucks nowadays. This is again not true. If you ask literally any coach or GM or analysist or announcer and they all say a variation of the same thing: that the current league is among the most talented it's ever been and the players are better than ever. But of course he ignores it because he thinks somehow that coaches also fall to ESPN bias or whatever he's blaming it on.

    Fourth, he says that recency bias is a problem, and while that is true in that there is always going to be recency bias, there is also hindsight bias; and he displays more of that than anyone on this sight has ever had recency bias.


    The entirety of his posts on this forum are the sad last gasps of a husk of a man yelling "back in my day" before he fades away to irreverence. And his long years have done nothing but bestow bitterness and hatred in his heart, to the point he is now incapable of appreciating anything due to his animosity and pomposity.

    Don't look to him as a role model unless you too want to end up a bitter, hate filled old man who no longer appreciates the sport.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,019
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    He's wrong pretty much everywhere.

    First, his contention that NBA organizations aren't really using analytics is wrong. Every team in the league is using it, there is not a single team that eschews stats at this point, he is right that they are using different stats to determine different things, but wrong on why. They are simply not concerned with who is the better historical player is since it has no bearing on their job. It's not important for the current New Orleans Pelicans to know who was more impactful between George Gervin or Alex English, but it is important to know which FA will be more impactful on their team right now.

    Second, the idea that nobody is actually watching games. It's such an arrogant and conceited claim. How do you know that people who also use stats aren't watching the games? I think what you and he mean is you don't watch the games, so you assume no one else does.

    Third, the idea that there is a consensus that the NBA as a product sucks nowadays. This is again not true. If you ask literally any coach or GM or analysist or announcer and they all say a variation of the same thing: that the current league is among the most talented it's ever been and the players are better than ever. But of course he ignores it because he thinks somehow that coaches also fall to ESPN bias or whatever he's blaming it on.

    Fourth, he says that recency bias is a problem, and while that is true in that there is always going to be recency bias, there is also hindsight bias; and he displays more of that than anyone on this sight has ever had recency bias.


    The entirety of his posts on this forum are the sad last gasps of a husk of a man yelling "back in my day" before he fades away to irreverence. And his long years have done nothing but bestow bitterness and hatred in his heart, to the point he is now incapable of appreciating anything due to his animosity and pomposity.

    Don't look to him as a role model unless you too want to end up a bitter, hate filled old man who no longer appreciates the sport.
    Absolutely great rant @valade16. It's a lengthy read but just absolutely spot on.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,464
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well that explains why Hakeem was better than him that one series, but not all the others. Hakeem was better in the playoffs even when getting doubled and triple teamed.

    But also, looking at their career head to head is misleading because it encompasses Hakeem's later years where he was a shell of his former self, but consider:

    https://www.landofbasketball.com/gam...d_robinson.htm


    Hakeem outscored D-Rob 29 times, D-Rob outscored Hakeem 13 times. D-Rob has a slight edge in games for rebounds, assists, and steals, but Hakeem a sizeable league in games with more blocks (25 to 18).


    And, when you look at their stats head to head through 96 you get:

    Hakeem:
    24.9 PPG | 12.2 RPG | 3.2 APG | 2.0 SPG | 3.6 BPG | 3.1 TO | 45% FG

    D-Rob:
    21.8 PPG | 11.9 RPG | 3.2 APG | 2.2 SPG | 3.7 BPG | 3.5 TO | 47.5% FG


    Those are fairly close. Hakeem scores more but at a lesser FG%, but also commits less turnovers.

    And even then, Hakeem was more prone to top performances against D-Rob, than D-Rob against Hakeem. Here were all the times each player scored over 35 points in the regular season:

    Hakeem: 47
    Hakeem: 45
    Robinson: 40
    Hakeem: 38
    Hakeem: 37
    Hakeem: 36


    D-Rob is most certainly not crapping on Hakeem in the regular season, unless you count him crapping on a 39 year old Raptor Hakeem...
    So they are almost even when competing against each other, but When competing against the field Robinson is certainly better.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It's not important for the current New Orleans Pelicans to know who was more impactful between George Gervin or Alex English, but it is important to know which FA will be more impactful on their team right now.

    Fourth, he says that recency bias is a problem, and while that is true in that there is always going to be recency bias, there is also hindsight bias; and he displays more of that than anyone on this sight has ever had recency bias.
    I know you wrote much more than this but itís at the core of the way things like ďall timeĒ lists shake out. Advanced metrics werenít really intended to be backwards applied. You said it yourself. So if we were making a list and you were arguing whoís better, Dame or AI, what are you going to use to compare them? Advanced analytics? Well Dame has a huge edge with that because he plays in an era where they have them and use them to help guide his game. AI didnít have that so of course his numbers in the advanced areas wonít look as great. And I think thatís where fans certainly have a recency bias.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,254
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    So they are almost even when competing against each other, but When competing against the field Robinson is certainly better.
    I would say they are nearly equal when competing against each other (the one playoff series aside, which I think is not a good gauge of who is superior for reasons you mentioned and I agree with), but I would also say David Robinson is better against the field in the regular season whereas Hakeem is better against the field in the playoffs.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,254
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I know you wrote much more than this but itís at the core of the way things like ďall timeĒ lists shake out. Advanced metrics werenít really intended to be backwards applied. You said it yourself. So if we were making a list and you were arguing whoís better, Dame or AI, what are you going to use to compare them? Advanced analytics? Well Dame has a huge edge with that because he plays in an era where they have them and use them to help guide his game. AI didnít have that so of course his numbers in the advanced areas wonít look as great. And I think thatís where fans certainly have a recency bias.
    I say the same answer every time someone asks this: you should use everything.

    I think a big problem is you donít realize how far advanced analytics have come. As an example, you talk about the advantage Dame has playing in an era that stresses analytical driven play, except analytics can tell us that. If you simply look at Dameís efficiency and compare his TS% to AIís youíre not using analytics correctly. We now have analytics that can tell us how their TS% compares to the rest of the league, it can also tell us the average TS% of the league itself as a whole. So in comparing Dame to AI solely on efficiency, the first thing Iíd do is look at the precipitous drop in playoff efficiency for Dame. Did you know he has the 5th lowest TS% of any 20+ PPG scorer in the playoffs in the 2010ís? So looking at it, even amongst his peers he is not overly efficient as a #1 option.

    But thatís the surface level. Defenses were tougher during AIís peak (in large measure because of the rules), so while his TS% was still bad for his era, it is not nearly as relatively bad as it appears (for reference in 2001 the league average TS% was 51.8% whereas the 2020 league average was 56.0%).

    Then you look at their scoring volume and notice that due to the far slower pace during AIís prime (about 95 possessions a game compared to about 114 to todayís), AI was a far higher volume scorer during his peak in the playoffs (Dame scored 32 points per 100 possessions in the playoffs at his peak, whereas AI scored 39 Points per 100 possessions at his peak in the playoffs). Then you look at how their points are scored: AI primarily through FTs and shots at the basket where as Lillard on 3ís (though he has become quite good at getting to the basket), and we can say that although Dameís scoring is more suited to the modern game, AIís game actual scales fairly well, and his efficiency may improve slightly in this era relative to the era (because it would certainly improve statistically).

    So what we could say is: at the surface level Dame is more efficient, but when accounting for all contextual factors, Dame would still be slightly more efficient than AI but AI would probably be a better offensive engine and scorer in this era because even though heíd have lower efficiency, heíd have a higher volume and his combination of scoring volume and efficiency would be less likely to be drop in the postseason.


    So if all you thought was people who use advanced analytics do is look at their TS% and say ďLillard higher = betterĒ, you simply donít understand how people actually use advanced analytics to compare players.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,290

    PSD Top 25 GOAT Rankings Summary (Opinion Thread - Overrated/Underrated/Snubbed?)

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I say the same answer every time someone asks this: you should use everything.

    I think a big problem is you donít realize how far advanced analytics have come. As an example, you talk about the advantage Dame has playing in an era that stresses analytical driven play, except analytics can tell us that. If you simply look at Dameís efficiency and compare his TS% to AIís youíre not using analytics correctly. We now have analytics that can tell us how their TS% compares to the rest of the league, it can also tell us the average TS% of the league itself as a whole. So in comparing Dame to AI solely on efficiency, the first thing Iíd do is look at the precipitous drop in playoff efficiency for Dame. Did you know he has the 5th lowest TS% of any 20+ PPG scorer in the playoffs in the 2010ís? So looking at it, even amongst his peers he is not overly efficient as a #1 option.

    But thatís the surface level. Defenses were tougher during AIís peak (in large measure because of the rules), so while his TS% was still bad for his era, it is not nearly as relatively bad as it appears (for reference in 2001 the league average TS% was 51.8% whereas the 2020 league average was 56.0%).

    Then you look at their scoring volume and notice that due to the far slower pace during AIís prime (about 95 possessions a game compared to about 114 to todayís), AI was a far higher volume scorer during his peak in the playoffs (Dame scored 32 points per 100 possessions in the playoffs at his peak, whereas AI scored 39 Points per 100 possessions at his peak in the playoffs). Then you look at how their points are scored: AI primarily through FTs and shots at the basket where as Lillard on 3ís (though he has become quite good at getting to the basket), and we can say that although Dameís scoring is more suited to the modern game, AIís game actual scales fairly well, and his efficiency may improve slightly in this era relative to the era (because it would certainly improve statistically).

    So what we could say is: at the surface level Dame is more efficient, but when accounting for all contextual factors, Dame would still be slightly more efficient than AI but AI would probably be a better offensive engine and scorer in this era because even though heíd have lower efficiency, heíd have a higher volume and his combination of scoring volume and efficiency would be less likely to be drop in the postseason.


    So if all you thought was people who use advanced analytics do is look at their TS% and say ďLillard higher = betterĒ, you simply donít understand how people actually use advanced analytics to compare players.
    Valade - this is all great but not everyone does the work you just did. Most people just look at things like TS%, eFG%, and, one of my favorites I saw used against AI, 3PT attempts (to say he wasnít a deep ball shooter); then use the uncontextualized stats to knock a guy like AI.

    FWIW, I use AI as the example because I think his career has been ďdamagedĒ the most by fans incorrectly using advanced stats.

    EDIT:
    Basically back to my very original point of cross comparing eras, which was when it comes to lists like this, most (not all) do not contextualize like you just did. Iíve seen in many places these lists use that data and knock a player for not being as good as modern era players.

    So even though we agree that advanced metrics need to be contextualized, we disagree on how widespread itís usage (the contextualization numbers) is. I still think thereís deeper issues with it (like how teammates around them) impact some of these numbers. Going back to my AI example, is there a way to calculate expected TS% if he were surrounded by more and better shooters? Like if you put him in Giannisís spot right now how would that impact his stats? Do you agree or disagree thereís a chance it would be higher because it would be harder to pack the lane and force him to shoot when you have to spread out to defend guys who can hit 3ís? I donít know how much of an impact but I do believe that if you were to put AI in a situation like that he would become a better shooter. And I know the comeback to that is ďAI was a chicken and not a passerĒ, but we canít know the impacts that more floor space would have had on AI. Which makes cross era comparisons a challenge to me.

    But even past that some, do some of these modern players deserve to be that high already? I donít feel that way. I think weíre too quick to throw guys on top 10/20/30 lists and quick to dismiss some older players for a multitude of reasons, advanced stats being a small part of it.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by warfelg; 10-27-2020 at 09:21 AM.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I say the same answer every time someone asks this: you should use everything.

    I think a big problem is you donít realize how far advanced analytics have come. As an example, you talk about the advantage Dame has playing in an era that stresses analytical driven play, except analytics can tell us that. If you simply look at Dameís efficiency and compare his TS% to AIís youíre not using analytics correctly. We now have analytics that can tell us how their TS% compares to the rest of the league, it can also tell us the average TS% of the league itself as a whole. So in comparing Dame to AI solely on efficiency, the first thing Iíd do is look at the precipitous drop in playoff efficiency for Dame. Did you know he has the 5th lowest TS% of any 20+ PPG scorer in the playoffs in the 2010ís? So looking at it, even amongst his peers he is not overly efficient as a #1 option.

    But thatís the surface level. Defenses were tougher during AIís peak (in large measure because of the rules), so while his TS% was still bad for his era, it is not nearly as relatively bad as it appears (for reference in 2001 the league average TS% was 51.8% whereas the 2020 league average was 56.0%).

    Then you look at their scoring volume and notice that due to the far slower pace during AIís prime (about 95 possessions a game compared to about 114 to todayís), AI was a far higher volume scorer during his peak in the playoffs (Dame scored 32 points per 100 possessions in the playoffs at his peak, whereas AI scored 39 Points per 100 possessions at his peak in the playoffs). Then you look at how their points are scored: AI primarily through FTs and shots at the basket where as Lillard on 3ís (though he has become quite good at getting to the basket), and we can say that although Dameís scoring is more suited to the modern game, AIís game actual scales fairly well, and his efficiency may improve slightly in this era relative to the era (because it would certainly improve statistically).

    So what we could say is: at the surface level Dame is more efficient, but when accounting for all contextual factors, Dame would still be slightly more efficient than AI but AI would probably be a better offensive engine and scorer in this era because even though heíd have lower efficiency, heíd have a higher volume and his combination of scoring volume and efficiency would be less likely to be drop in the postseason.


    So if all you thought was people who use advanced analytics do is look at their TS% and say ďLillard higher = betterĒ, you simply donít understand how people actually use advanced analytics to compare players.
    You went in depth to just focus on the same thing, ignoring that the question was Lillard vs Iverson.

    You only commented on how they fared in a statistical category (or you could put them all, still irrelevant) against the league, somehow pretending this holds any weight to the initial question:

    Do you pick Iverson over Lillard or Lillard over Iverson. And why?

    What does each player bring to the table, what is their weakness, how do they fare against tougher opposition, how do they fare when they have to carry a team of scrubs, how much that differs from playing in a strong team where they do not need to be as selfish, how coachable are they, in how many ways can a team play using either player on the court, does either player restrict a gameplan in order to highlight his strengths and hide his weaknesses... Those are just basic questions a scout asks himself when compiling a review of a player's report.

    All this TS% stuff is fancy talk for just ignoring the actual question. And all you did now is just prove that you really do not get why gluing yourself into this narrative of advanced statistics is at all relevant to comparing players from different eras, heck, even across a different division in the same season at times.

    You cannot standardize basketball, not within the same season and it's a heck no across different seasons.
    Last edited by NYKalltheway; 10-27-2020 at 10:09 AM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 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
  •