Obsession with stats? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 03:26 PM

It should never be all or nothing, but individual biases just come into play too often unless some objective measures are used.

And a lot of time the biases are things we aren't even aware of.

I argued for years on here that Kobe actually doesn't excel in game winning situations to near the extent his fans claimed. We went back and forth and back and forth...and then the stats came out and ended it. Because they are objective measures and once you tell someone that their "guy" shoots 30% in those situations while other players shoot much better....that's it.

So in a case like that, stats are great.

Where they get poor, is when someone would want to use a single stat to quantify how good a player is. Basketball has been and always will be a mixture of art and science. There are certain things that simple stats can't quantify.

For example, Dirk's impact on the floor on offense without him doing anything but standing in the corner can be hugely beneficial to a team. Sure, you might capture that in offensive efficiency with and without him, but when comparing players...usually stuff like that doesn't come up.

So you have to be careful to try to define a player overall just by stats. But using a stat like ft% or game winning shot % to debate who is better at those specific things is fine.

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 03:27 PM

stats are overrated. watch the game sometimes guys.

why not do both. because you watch a game differently than others and all that would lead to is a battle of opinions with very little objectivity.

you have built in biases that you aren't even aware of...everyone does.

BrickingStar

03-31-2013, 03:28 PM

OP is retarded if he seriously can't see the difference between both sports when measuring players by stats and he's lying to himself if stats aren't brought up when determining who's the better player in a serious debate when it comes to soccer/football

tmacattack33

03-31-2013, 03:28 PM

PER is just a combination of stats.

It doesn't tell u who the best player is, it tells u who has the best stats (and even that is up for debate...who is to say that one assist equals one rebound or whatever PER uses).

TimmyDuncan

03-31-2013, 03:28 PM

Basketball is really well suited for stats.
You have tons of points in a game, clear actions having impact on the game (rbd, block etc...) that occurs plenty of time in game

Soccer on the other hand has not all of that so we are left with the global impression

lilgodfather1

03-31-2013, 03:29 PM

This is a forum dedicated to sports, basketball in specific, not acting. Although European culture has impacted basketball in terms of flopping, so kuddos to soccer for impacting a real sport :cheers: .

As for why stats are so important in sports, it's simple. In a sport with such a limited amount of players on the court at one time their impact can be measured much more effectively. In a sport like real football where there's offense and defense your impact on the game is harder to measure through stats.

ZenMaster

03-31-2013, 03:29 PM

QuebecBaller

03-31-2013, 03:33 PM

player mix/highlights on youtube >>> games >>> stats

:lol :lol :lol

madmax

03-31-2013, 03:45 PM

But doesn't the player who scores the most goals make the most money?

it's very subjective again...it depends on the level of competition and matchups, since there are so many different competitions in soccer (cups, league championships and etc). NBA is a very good at measuring stats, since it's a closed league with the same rules and same talent level throughout

ILLsmak

03-31-2013, 04:25 PM

why not do both. because you watch a game differently than others and all that would lead to is a battle of opinions with very little objectivity.

you have built in biases that you aren't even aware of...everyone does.

This is untrue. ALMOST everyone does. And for an "unbiased" person, it would come down to something like... overvaluing one aspect of the game that they feel is important. Like, say, pick and roll defense. You could say X player can't guard shit because he can't defend a pick and roll. But then someone would say BUT HE GETS 3 STEALS AND 3 BLOCKS. Nothing is proved on either side.

Rebounding is also really out of wack. I don't really care about overall rebounding numbers. Plenty of dudes get like 6+ bullshit rebounds a game. A rebound, to me, is something you have to fight for. That's why I believe offensive rebounds are a much better way to measure, but if you are missing your own shot and rebounding it, again, that's misleading.

The ability to look at something and understand it is extremely rare. We have a tendency to break everything down to smaller pieces, but you can't always do that. A stat like PER is a failure because it doesn't account for people TRYING to be efficient at the expense of their team. Most people can tell when a player is good. He just shines above all of the others. that's how you can tell through a lot of mix tapes of players who is really good... because most mix tapes look the same, doing the same shit... but you can still observe differing nuances.

Nuances can not be measured, mentality can not be measured... by stats.

Stats are like history. It is the result. Not what happened. If that makes sense...

-Smak

chips93

03-31-2013, 04:31 PM

stats never lie, its only when people (intentionally or not) misuse them, or ignore context, that you get into trouble.

Rubio2Gasol

03-31-2013, 04:44 PM

Hollinger Generation.

With that being said, stats in basketball are mildly useful, unlike stats in football.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

03-31-2013, 04:46 PM

stats never lie, its only when people (intentionally or not) misuse them, or ignore context, that you get into trouble.

This.

ILLsmak

03-31-2013, 05:03 PM

stats never lie, its only when people (intentionally or not) misuse them, or ignore context, that you get into trouble.

lol, the reason stats never lie is because of what I stated. It already happened. So, it's the same as saying, "One time I dunked." Even "I can usually dunk." "I've dunked every day in my life."

That doesn't mean it will happen again. So, how can we use stats to compare players or predict outcomes? How can we use them to see who is good? We even have used stats to compare cross generation. CONTEXT is what stats lack, as you said.

But there are no stats without context. To me, context is more important than outcome. I will say, again, that everything that leads up to a recordable result is NOT recorded. That makes stats seem pretty useless other than "this is what happened on that day." Nobody can deny that. Especially keeping in mind that they most often reference end-game stats or season stats, so what I said about the end result is even more magnified.

And whenever something deviates from stats (which happens nearly every game) they call it an anomaly.

Then you've got players saying "I won't shoot this shot because it will have a negative effect on my stats..."

-Smak

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 05:05 PM

This is untrue. ALMOST everyone does. And for an "unbiased" person, it would come down to something like... overvaluing one aspect of the game that they feel is important. Like, say, pick and roll defense. You could say X player can't guard shit because he can't defend a pick and roll. But then someone would say BUT HE GETS 3 STEALS AND 3 BLOCKS. Nothing is proved on either side.

Rebounding is also really out of wack. I don't really care about overall rebounding numbers. Plenty of dudes get like 6+ bullshit rebounds a game. A rebound, to me, is something you have to fight for. That's why I believe offensive rebounds are a much better way to measure, but if you are missing your own shot and rebounding it, again, that's misleading.

The ability to look at something and understand it is extremely rare. We have a tendency to break everything down to smaller pieces, but you can't always do that. A stat like PER is a failure because it doesn't account for people TRYING to be efficient at the expense of their team. Most people can tell when a player is good. He just shines above all of the others. that's how you can tell through a lot of mix tapes of players who is really good... because most mix tapes look the same, doing the same shit... but you can still observe differing nuances.

Nuances can not be measured, mentality can not be measured... by stats.

Stats are like history. It is the result. Not what happened. If that makes sense...

-Smak

You started with..."this is untrue"

That is wrong. Sorry, we all have individual biases that cloud our judgment when watching a game. You simply aren't paying attention enough to notice everything. And, most likely, you are pulling for one team over another...even if it's just because you want a close game or something. And those biases cloud judgment...that is an accepted fact in the psychology community.

That doesn't mean that stats are the only way to evaluate basketball, but you can't ignore them.

Sorry, you simply can't ignore rebounding stats because you value offensive rebounding more.

You have it correct. Stats merely tell you what happened...getting 14 rpg vs 12 rpg does not mean one player is a better rebounder for getting more. Context is needed.

But that surely is not a problem with the stats...it's a problem with someone trying to use rpg or ppg to tell you something.

josh99

03-31-2013, 05:07 PM

Horatio33

03-31-2013, 05:09 PM

American sports seem to be more stat obsessed, although football in Europe seems bo be catching up. We are a year behind here in Europe,and media don't use stats as much here as American media does. Not knocking America, just saying that's how it is.

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 05:10 PM

Not many people watch all 1,230 games of the season and so its quite hard to quantify how good players are from teams that you aren't a fan of. Plus personal bias comes into account as well.

For example if you just watched a couple of Golden State games and they happened to be ones where Steph Curry went off and you didn't look at the stats you would think that he is the best player in the league. After looking at stats you would realize that he doesn't play like that every night.

That being said stats are often misleading and deceptive so you need to be careful when using them to evaluate players.

Yea. That is the other side of it. Even if you watched all 82 games for one team...you still are at most watching 10 games of other teams...honestly, probably less.

So your sample size is so damn small it's useless to begin with...let alone the personal biases we all have.

ILLsmak

03-31-2013, 05:17 PM

You started with..."this is untrue"

That is wrong. Sorry, we all have individual biases that cloud our judgment when watching a game. You simply aren't paying attention enough to notice everything. And, most likely, you are pulling for one team over another...even if it's just because you want a close game or something. And those biases cloud judgment...that is an accepted fact in the psychology community.

That doesn't mean that stats are the only way to evaluate basketball, but you can't ignore them.

Sorry, you simply can't ignore rebounding stats because you value offensive rebounding more.

You have it correct. Stats merely tell you what happened...getting 14 rpg vs 12 rpg does not mean one player is a better rebounder for getting more. Context is needed.

But that surely is not a problem with the stats...it's a problem with someone trying to use rpg or ppg to tell you something.

But what are stats worth? You said you can't notice everything that's happening, why not? How many official score keepers are there? How are stats measured? It could be said, then, that stats are equally misleading because stat-keepers can't notice everything.

I really don't have biases. I don't give a shit who does what. I think that, like I said, I value certain parts of the game more than others... am impressed by things that people don't think are impressive. Might not be what produces "statistical results." Is that a bias, though? You say it as if I would watch two players and like one better... because of some preconceived idea not because of what I saw. I definitely disagree with that. I would say most people who do that are of lower intelligence.

There are also scouts, you know?

The underlying problem is that if you can't compare 12 rpg to 14 rpg and say someone is the better rebounder because he had better stats, then what use do stats have? To say that someone who gets 14 rpg is better than someone who gets 6rpg? You don't think by watching a game you could pick that up?

I don't ignore stats. I have seen many stats. When I was a kid, I used to look at stats a lot... I was autistic with stats at like age 12-13. Then I reached ENLIGHTENMENT.

but yea, I can see why you wouldn't understand because whenever someone says something against what is written in print, they are labeled crazy or, at least, irrational.

-Smak

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 05:19 PM

But what are stats worth? You said you can't notice everything that's happening, why not? How many official score keepers are there? How are stats measured? It could be said, then, that stats are equally misleading because stat-keepers can't notice everything.

I really don't have biases. I don't give a shit who does what. I think that, like I said, I value certain parts of the game more than others... am impressed by things that people don't think are impressive. Might not be what produces "statistical results." Is that a bias, though? You say it as if I would watch two players and like one better... because of some preconceived idea not because of what I saw. I definitely disagree with that. I would say most people who do that are of lower intelligence.

There are also scouts, you know?

The underlying problem is that if you can't compare 12 rpg to 14 rpg and say someone is the better rebounder because he had better stats, then what use do stats have? To say that someone who gets 14 rpg is better than someone who gets 6rpg? You don't think by watching a game you could pick that up?

I don't ignore stats. I have seen many stats. When I was a kid, I used to look at stats a lot... I was autistic with stats at like age 12-13. Then I reached ENLIGHTENMENT.

but yea, I can see why you wouldn't understand because whenever someone says something against what is written in print, they are labeled crazy or, at least, irrational.

-Smak

You do have biases. Everyone does.

In terms of the rebounding thing. You could look at rebounding rates...on both sides. You could look at the rebounding rate of his team while he's on the floor versus off. You could do so many things all of the rebounding stats...my point is that you can't just pick out one and run with it.

But looking in depth at rebounding while using all the stats is far better than you just claiming that someone is better than the other because "you watch the games"

Because you really don't watch the games. You have an absurdly small sample size even if you are a die hard NBA fan that spends 5 hours watching a night. There simply isn't enough time to watch it all.

ILLsmak

03-31-2013, 05:21 PM

Not many people watch all 1,230 games of the season and so its quite hard to quantify how good players are from teams that you aren't a fan of. Plus personal bias comes into account as well.

For example if you just watched a couple of Golden State games and they happened to be ones where Steph Curry went off and you didn't look at the stats you would think that he is the best player in the league. After looking at stats you would realize that he doesn't play like that every night.

That being said stats are often misleading and deceptive so you need to be careful when using them to evaluate players.

Well, by watching Steph Curry go off, you can get an assessment for his psyche... and know that he would likely have games where he shot like shit. and maybe even say that in games he shoots like shit, he would play more poorly overall.

I always look at box scores and try to imagine what "really happened." It's just sad that people believe it's the Bible truth or that its irrefutable when everything happens because of something. It's a chain of events that leads to the end result. Basketball skill, like anything else, is intangible. That's why people talk about empty stats.

-Smak

ILLsmak

03-31-2013, 05:24 PM

You do have biases. Everyone does.

Just as everyone can't notice nuances? Do you have biases when you watch a ping pong game? I think you are misusing the word. I have a point of view. And my point of view is defined by what happens. If I watch a player for the first time and he chucks up a 30 footer... I might be like wow why did he do that? I would need more information to judge him, though. I wouldn't be biased because of what color jersey he was wearing, though.

If I was in the 99.9th percentile of "most unbiased people" since "everyone is biased", do you think that it would still cloud my judgment so much that I couldn't make a rational observation?

-Smak

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 05:45 PM

Just as everyone can't notice nuances? Do you have biases when you watch a ping pong game? I think you are misusing the word. I have a point of view. And my point of view is defined by what happens. If I watch a player for the first time and he chucks up a 30 footer... I might be like wow why did he do that? I would need more information to judge him, though. I wouldn't be biased because of what color jersey he was wearing, though.

If I was in the 99.9th percentile of "most unbiased people" since "everyone is biased", do you think that it would still cloud my judgment so much that I couldn't make a rational observation?

-Smak

Biases can mean any number of things. You already showed yours. You think offensive rebounding is more important than defensive rebounding. That is your bias coming through. I think defensive rebounding is more important.

How are you going to prove to me that offensive rebounding makes a better rebounder without resorting to some type of evidence or statistic?

I'm not talking about someone being a huge fan of a player and it clouding their judgment. I'm talking about the things we all have somewhat hard wired into us just like the above example.

Honest discourse with the use of as much information as possible is the best way to discuss things in life. Not using information because you don't think it's valuable is just yet another one of your biases. You are against stats...LOL

But I can't help you if you think your opinion on the best rebounder in the game trumps what using all the data combined with opinion and honest discourse and debate can give you.

Kovach

03-31-2013, 06:07 PM

cotdt

03-31-2013, 06:09 PM

josh99

03-31-2013, 06:43 PM

Well, by watching Steph Curry go off, you can get an assessment for his psyche... and know that he would likely have games where he shot like shit. and maybe even say that in games he shoots like shit, he would play more poorly overall.

I always look at box scores and try to imagine what "really happened." It's just sad that people believe it's the Bible truth or that its irrefutable when everything happens because of something. It's a chain of events that leads to the end result. Basketball skill, like anything else, is intangible. That's why people talk about empty stats.

-Smak
Wait so making lots of assumptions is more accurate than stats? :rolleyes: I'm not saying that stats are Biblical truth but they are extremely useful. You cannot watch every single player every single game, if you watch every single game of one team how are you going to compare players from that team to players from teams that you hardly ever watch?

chips93

03-31-2013, 06:49 PM

what stats are you looking at? the stats this year say kobe is the best performer in the clutch in close games.

i dont want to get off topic and turn this into a 'kobe' thread, or a 'clutch' thread, but i think when you look at his career stats in the clutch, they arent very good.

#number6ix#

03-31-2013, 06:50 PM

Stats are the facts of sports simple as that

DMAVS41

03-31-2013, 06:51 PM

what stats are you looking at? the stats this year say kobe is the best performer in the clutch in close games.

talking about the overall stats up to I think 2011 when we were having the debate.

haven't looked that the clutch stats this year at all though.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 07:11 PM

Stats are the facts of sports simple as that

Basketball to me is too important for that.

The most important things in life, stats are no good for. Try to define your relationship with your parents, children or loved ones trhu stats. If basketball to you is an issue of the heart, stats are not very useful. If it is 'just a game', sure, go ahead with your stats.

Cherry Picker

03-31-2013, 07:22 PM

Cheaper to watch box scores online than to subscribe to sports channels

Y2Gezee

03-31-2013, 07:28 PM

I've always wondered if Soccer hasn't become popular in US Culture because it can't be gauged in a statsheet. Sure you see goals, but stats really don't show worth on the soccer field.

And in reality they barely do in Football, Basketball, maybe Hockey either.

People that use stats for every debate, really don't know the game. I mean even a stat as simple as assists are overrated in basketball.

chips93

03-31-2013, 07:35 PM

The most important things in life, stats are no good for. Try to define your relationship with your parents, children or loved ones trhu stats. If basketball to you is an issue of the heart, stats are not very useful. If it is 'just a game', sure, go ahead with your stats.

:rolleyes:

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 07:47 PM

:rolleyes:

I'm not bad with numbers, so I can assure you I can prove everything and its opposite with stats. What's more: you tell me what you want to hear as the result and I can design the right stat for you. You really like arguing ppg, PER, win shares, most off reb. on Sundays and whatnot? Go ahead. :cheers:

It bores me to death.

chips93

03-31-2013, 07:51 PM

I'm not bad with numbers, so I can assure you I can prove everything and its opposite with stats. What's more: you tell me what you want to hear as the result and I can design the right stat for you. You really like arguing ppg, PER, win shares, most off reb. on Sundays and whatnot? Go ahead. :cheers:

It bores me to death.

you can come up with faulty arguments for anything, you cant prove anything with stats, but you can use them as evidence, a piece in the puzzle.

they dont prove anything beyond doubt, but they are certainly very useful.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 08:01 PM

they dont prove anything beyond doubt, but they are certainly very useful.

I din't know Larry Bird's and Magic Johnson's career stats, even though I've seen their respective careers. But there was no internet at the time, stats were not readily available like now.

At the time there was a great debate: Who is better, Magic or Bird? Bird or Magic? I can look up the stats now. How much do you think it helps whan I want to answer the question? Exactly.

Stats can help me say things like: Nash is a better passer than Kobe. Thanks, I knew that without stats. WEhenever there is a really hard debate, stats won't help you decide.

They help you argue. If that's what you want... arguing... stats are a great tool. But for deciding who is better when it's close... forget it.

chips93

03-31-2013, 08:05 PM

NumberSix

03-31-2013, 08:09 PM

Basketball to me is too important for that.

The most important things in life, stats are no good for. Try to define your relationship with your parents, children or loved ones trhu stats. If basketball to you is an issue of the heart, stats are not very useful. If it is 'just a game', sure, go ahead with your stats.
What a douche.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 08:10 PM

Surely you have missed a lot of magic or bird's games right? so even if you are going by the eye test, you dont have a full sample. there is a lot of information that you miss.

tbh, i think its arrogant to think that you can perfectly quantify everything thats going on on a basketball court, and to think that additional information wouldnt be helpful.

Information is helpful, if you want to argue. I have yet to see a person who is convinced by stats when it comes to hard decisions in life. (Not just basketball, everything.) I said tough decisions. It usually is the other way round.

Step 1: Make up your mind
Step 2: Find the right stat for 'proof'

We humans tend to do it this way. At first, we have the feeling and we later on rationalize it, because in Western civilization we were taught using 'logic' is the 'right way'. (It cannot be proven though, logically. You have to 'believe' in logic's supremacy.)

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 08:12 PM

What a douche.

Sure. So why don't you go fu(k your mom, asshole? It's not hard saying things like that.

Qwyjibo

03-31-2013, 08:17 PM

Information is helpful, if you want to argue. I have yet to see a person who is convinced by stats when it comes to hard decisions in life. (Not just basketball, everything.) I said tough decisions. It usually is the other way round.

Step 1: Make up your mind
Step 2: Find the right stat for 'proof'

We humans tend to do it this way. At first, we have the feeling and we later on rationalize it, because in Western civilization we were taught using 'logic' is the 'right way'. (It cannot be proven though, logically. You have to 'believe' in logic's supremacy.)
So because making uninformed decisions and then trying to rationalize the ones that become mistakes is present, we should accept that and continue along that path?

You are mixing a lot of cliches with nonsense here. Stats are intended to prevent exactly what you just said. That's a good thing. It's doing wonders in baseball and having more in depth analysis will help basketball. It's just a matter of using the data correctly. Trying to understand a sport more is a great thing. Not everything that comes out initially will be correct but that's why the studies continue.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 08:23 PM

So because making uninformed decisions and then trying to rationalize the ones that become mistakes is present, we should accept that and continue along that path?

You don't have to accept it, but you are going to go along that path anyway. Simply because all decisions are uninformed to an extent, always. Actually, the less you know abgout things the more you believe that you are well informed. If you have 100 different stats, you will have a lot more information -- and a lot more you don't know than ever before. And the same dilemma.

You are mixing a lot of cliches with nonsense here. Stats are intended to prevent exactly what you just said. That's a good thing. It's doing wonders in baseball and having more in depth analysis will help basketball. It's just a matter of using the data correctly. Trying to understand a sport more is a great thing. Not everything that comes out initially will be correct but that's why the studies continue.

It's a great thing until one takes it too seriously. It's great that you can argue back and forth. But you are not going to understand the sport more via advanced stats.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 08:33 PM

Advanced stats are a relatively new thing. Do you think coaches like:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Pat Riley and
Jerry Sloan

didn't understand the sport well enough? Or players like Bird or Russell didn't understand offense and defense well enough because there were no stats to measure 'win shares'?

:oldlol:

Sarcastic

03-31-2013, 08:47 PM

Baseball stats >>>> all

TaLvsCuaL

03-31-2013, 09:30 PM

Individual stats in a team game can be used to get a idea but don't show the whole truth and can be manipulated in many ways.

For example, Marc Gasol has been averaging just 7.7 rebounds per game. You can say that Marc Gasol is bad rebounder if you rely only on stats but He shares with Z-Bo and basically don't dispute with their teammates for rebounds. Normally the stats can't show that kind of thing. Therefore, stats are useful but can not be used as the sole argument to defend an opinion. And there are many people who do it continuously.

chips93

03-31-2013, 09:42 PM

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 09:49 PM

auerbach, if given more information, could have absolutely increased his understanding of the game. you never totally undersand it, but he could have learned something from stats. guys like erik spolestra, brad stevens, rick carlisle, are known to heavily use stats.

fwiw, marc gasol was a poor rebounder even when z-bo wasnt there.

and winshares are pretty much completely pointless imo, same for PER. they give very very rough estimations of a players worth.

Stats are useful, I won't tell you they are not. You just don't make your tough decisions based on stats, ever, when it comes to deciding a game or making a decision on who do you think was better Bird or Magic. Stats give a reasonably accurate picture of the thing in general but don't tell you much about the action to be taken in particular. Even if you combince stats with probabilities, you are better off to use your instincts.

Do you think a computer with real time access to all stats would make better in-game decisions than an actual coach ? (save for D'Antoni)

chips93

03-31-2013, 10:11 PM

i cant rrally get my head around your 'making tough decisions' logic, they are on tool, of many tools tht can inform a tough decision. why cant you just combine your instict with what the stats say?

i might be of the opinion that bird is a marginally worse player than magic, then learn that say, stats say that magic was a much better rebounder than i gave him credit for, and that might, alongside insticts and what have you, bring me to the new conclusion that magic was actually better. i see that as a pretty logical train of thought.

chips93

03-31-2013, 10:17 PM

advanced sats informed the mavs of some more subtle tendencies of lebron, carlisle being a big stats guy, used this information to craft a defensive strategy to slow lebron. and it worked prety well and they won a title.

im sure it was a tough decision, how to slow lebron, and it was well informed by stats.

elementally morale

03-31-2013, 10:25 PM

i cant rrally get my head around your 'making tough decisions' logic, they are on tool, of many tools tht can inform a tough decision. why cant you just combine your instict with what the stats say?

I have nothing against what you are trying to say here.

Stats can be used as one tool, yes. But if you are using stats as one tool, moreover, if you can decide whether to use them or not (stats CAN be used as ONE tool)... it basically means that stats are not THAT useful in determining who the better player was. Yes, you MAY use them and it is one of MANY factors... in other words it is incomplete and blown out of proportion by people who would like to use them as the 'right' way to measure a player's worth.

I'm out of this thread for now, so I'll leave you here with the repetition of the following thought: You cannot prove logic is the right way to determine the value of things. You have to believe logic is the right way. Then you have to accept some axioms. And only then can you logically prove anything. So at first you have to believe stats are important and then you have to accept some axioms about how these stats are kept. Only then can you start using them as a tool.

Believing stats are useful is the first step. Axioms are the second. Measuring and keeping the stats is third. Using stats is fourth. Finding that stats are useful is fifth... wait a minute... it was first...

Good night.

comerb

03-31-2013, 10:29 PM

Advanced stats, per etc etc, I am from England, and we don't really bother with stats when stating who we think are the best player in footbal/soccer for example, so is this part of American culture or is it specific to basketball, I don't follow other sports in America.

Jordan, Shaq, Lebron, (Wilt if they kept them)etc have advanced stats that are off the charts. They're a pretty damn good indication of ability for any high usage player.

They have a tendency to break down for lower usage guys though.

Otherwise you get nonsense where people blow up the reputations of guys like Iverson (or to a lesser extend Kobe) because they take lots of dumb but tough highlight shots that end up on Sportcenter or Youtube and generate hype. For instance, Kobe is widely considered the best finisher in the game in the clutch... but statistically he isn't actually very good compared to some players in the league. He's just taken so many big and difficult shots in the waning moments of the game that it's been beaten into the fanbase.

Ultimately, advanced stats let you hold players accountable for negative tendencies and give you a clearer picture of what they actually contribute.

ILLsmak

04-01-2013, 04:29 AM

Biases can mean any number of things. You already showed yours. You think offensive rebounding is more important than defensive rebounding. That is your bias coming through. I think defensive rebounding is more important.

How are you going to prove to me that offensive rebounding makes a better rebounder without resorting to some type of evidence or statistic?

I'm not talking about someone being a huge fan of a player and it clouding their judgment. I'm talking about the things we all have somewhat hard wired into us just like the above example.

Honest discourse with the use of as much information as possible is the best way to discuss things in life. Not using information because you don't think it's valuable is just yet another one of your biases. You are against stats...LOL

But I can't help you if you think your opinion on the best rebounder in the game trumps what using all the data combined with opinion and honest discourse and debate can give you.

Well, let me say this as my last reply. Show me an "objective" way to use stats. Aren't you simply stating your opinion and backing it up with cherry picked information?

I am against stats. Every time I see stats, whether in scientific articles or on sports forums, I can always say, "Yeah, but this..." meaning, there is at least one other possible cause of the outcome. Without using them to prove your "biased" arguments, stats are meaningless. Not to mention stat keepers are probably biased, too. Players understand stats and thus create a bias (like letting Jason Kidd get rebounds.)

I hate to tell you but there really isn't objective truth in sports or nearly anything that has more than one possible outcome. Stuff like "The sun will rise", "You will die" is not in the same league as saying so-and-so gets this result that must mean they are the best at it.

It may be true at times, but it's just as often not true. And how do we tell the difference? By using our minds. Stats are just numbers on a page, they are meaningless without our ideas of what they mean. Thus, one can argue that trying to measure with stats creates an even more convoluted point of view.

Also, I'd argue that defensive rebounding is more a team thing where as offensive rebounding has more to do with an individual.

Edit: While we are talking about stats like what players do, I believe that is an important part of scouting. As in, so and so always goes left after this move. That's something that's ingrained in them and to force them out of that is a good idea. But I am speaking about stats like RPG, PPG. And, of course, it could be argued that by watching someone you wouldn't need a "goes right 89% of the time" because you'd see it.

-Smak

theBIGjabroni

04-01-2013, 04:47 AM

Only stats I care about
Wins/pts/ast/reb/stls/blk/to

Everything else is made for nerds that dont play the sport

theBIGjabroni

04-01-2013, 04:49 AM

Baseball stats >>>> all
Also this.

Anaximandro1

04-01-2013, 08:41 AM

Whether you are the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or the head coach of the Miami Heat,life consists on using information to make decisions.

Stats do not automatically lead to good decision making.You have to understand the problem in order to know what data is appropriate for your needs.If you fail to understand what's going on,you will select irrelevant data,make bad decisions and lose your job.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 12:02 PM

JtotheIzzo' thread.....

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...
let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.

stats are about 15% - 20% useful in basketball ( when trying to figure out what/who is good at basketball)

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 12:33 PM

Well, let me say this as my last reply. Show me an "objective" way to use stats. Aren't you simply stating your opinion and backing it up with cherry picked information?

I am against stats. Every time I see stats, whether in scientific articles or on sports forums, I can always say, "Yeah, but this..." meaning, there is at least one other possible cause of the outcome. Without using them to prove your "biased" arguments, stats are meaningless. Not to mention stat keepers are probably biased, too. Players understand stats and thus create a bias (like letting Jason Kidd get rebounds.)

I hate to tell you but there really isn't objective truth in sports or nearly anything that has more than one possible outcome. Stuff like "The sun will rise", "You will die" is not in the same league as saying so-and-so gets this result that must mean they are the best at it.

It may be true at times, but it's just as often not true. And how do we tell the difference? By using our minds. Stats are just numbers on a page, they are meaningless without our ideas of what they mean. Thus, one can argue that trying to measure with stats creates an even more convoluted point of view.

Also, I'd argue that defensive rebounding is more a team thing where as offensive rebounding has more to do with an individual.

Edit: While we are talking about stats like what players do, I believe that is an important part of scouting. As in, so and so always goes left after this move. That's something that's ingrained in them and to force them out of that is a good idea. But I am speaking about stats like RPG, PPG. And, of course, it could be argued that by watching someone you wouldn't need a "goes right 89% of the time" because you'd see it.

-Smak

I'm not saying all stats are worth the same or saying that stats are the only thing that should be used.

But when you state..."offensive rebounding is more important than defensive rebounding" or "player x is better in game winning situations than player y"

If you don't use some type of evidence other than your opinion...it's useless when another person has a different opinion.

You should use all the information at hand...and that includes watching the games and evaluating everything possible.

Honestly, what do you think is more credible;

Someone saying that Carmelo is a great game winning shot maker because of all the evidence. Or someone saying Wade is because he watches the games and Wade seems to make a lot of shots.

Again, stats are far better on the sample size argument alone. Throw out the biases if you think you don't have any. Your sample size of watching games isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of minutes logged for players and teams over a single season...let alone a career.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 12:40 PM

I'm not saying all stats are worth the same or saying that stats are the only thing that should be used.

But when you state..."offensive rebounding is more important than defensive rebounding" or "player x is better in game winning situations than player y"

If you don't use some type of evidence other than your opinion...it's useless when another person has a different opinion.

You should use all the information at hand...and that includes watching the games and evaluating everything possible.

Honestly, what do you think is more credible;

Someone saying that Carmelo is a great game winning shot maker because of all the evidence. Or someone saying Wade is because he watches the games and Wade seems to make a lot of shots.

Again, stats are far better on the sample size argument alone. Throw out the biases if you think you don't have any. Your sample size of watching games isn't even a drop in the bucket in terms of minutes logged for players and teams over a single season...let alone a career.

- I don't care about advanced stats when it comes to this point....I have watched both Melo's and Wade's whole career's...

- I know there is a ton of evidence about Melo's Clutch greatness.....( and I have watched most of his games).....from watching both players...I would take Wade over Melo all day eryday and twice on sunday.

- Wade is winner....and has won multiple championships through his overall essence of play( especially in the clutch)... Melo has not...despite all the clutch evidence.

From My eye test...I would have Wade with ball and the game on the line over Melo

reason 1,987 how stats are misguided.

( using stats ...might as well give Lou Williams the ball over anyone)

chips93

04-01-2013, 12:44 PM

reason 1,987 how stats are misguided.

stats are never ever misguided, its just peoples application of stats that is misguided

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 12:48 PM

stats are never ever misguided, its just peoples application of stats that is misguided

- who's using the stats?....dogs?....cats?......what are they using them for?.....learning how to cook a meatloaf?

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 12:52 PM

- I don't care about advanced stats when it comes to this point....I have watched both Melo's and Wade's whole career's...

- I know there is a ton of evidence about Melo's Clutch greatness.....( and I have watched most of his games).....from watching both players...I would take Wade over Melo all day eryday and twice on sunday.

- Wade is winner....and has won multiple championships through his overall essence of play( especially in the clutch)... Melo has not...despite all the clutch evidence.

From My eye test...I would have Wade with ball and the game on the line over Melo

reason 1,987 how stats are misguided.

( using stats ...might as well give Lou Williams the ball over anyone)

LOL

So you've had the time to watch all of Melo's career and Wade's career. And I'm assuming you've watched all of Kobe as well.

Don't buy it for a second. And if you have, it makes my point even stronger. Melo is definitely a better game winning shot maker than Wade. Not even close really.

So...you know...you are just objectively wrong.

Ne 1

04-01-2013, 01:04 PM

I hate stat geeks, I hate advanced stats, and I have only a moderate level of concern for regular stats. Stats do not tell the whole story of a player, a team, a game or a season. There are a lot of things that go into an NBA game that you can't measure with stats. I assign value to what I feel is important and I don't need advanced stat to tell me that I'm right or wrong.

You have to actually watch games to accurately know the whole story, stats are just an indicator. There will always be things that you can't see by looking at the stats. That's the problem with these guys who don't watch games and just throw out a bunch of numbers and come to conclusions by simply looking at box scores. Read Simmon's "the book of basketball." Do you know the "secret" of basketball? You do not judge a player by points, rebounds and assists. These only account for at most 20% of what happens on the court.

But with that said, I only really have a problem with John Hollinger type analysts. All they use is pure stats and no context or understanding of the game to justify their opinions of placing one player over another etc.

FYI, Hollinger once said he watches 4 NBA games a year. :oldlol:

Ne 1

04-01-2013, 01:05 PM

My main problem with it is that every stat combined...might give you 45 seconds of information on what happened. Might. If you take 20 shots, get 8 rebounds, and a few blocks and FTs...really..how much of your gameplay did the stats cover? 35-45 seconds? Perhaps 1 minutes...or a little more if we count time at the line? Of 35-40 minutes? As my old coach used to tell us...you are playing basketball even when you arent holding the ball. And really...its everything that isnt recorded in any way that wins games. Its the extreme vast majority of what goes into playing well. And there is no way to give a number to positioning, off the ball movement, man to man defense, smart passing, rotation, knowing who to force left or right, not biting on pump fakes, boxing out, and all that. You just cant account for it and every game those things are why the 40 seconds we CAN count...happens.

Besides every single individual stat gives an inaccurate result if you try to equate it to the ability its said to represent. All of them. And people just compound the error by adding the numbers up...to get one even less accurate number. Or small groups of them up to get 3-4 different inaccurate numbers...give you the disclaimer stating they know they arent 100% accurate..tell you to ignore Amir Johnson being ranked over Kobe, or Steve Kerr over Kareem, or Elton Brand over Bill Russell...then act like they prove whatever they want to show anyway. As if...needing to throw out half its results or only compare one position with another(which the stat itself...does not do) as not to clash with common sense is a sign of an accurate stat.

Really...the leading scorer in a game or the league...is often not the best scorer. Guys like Hakeem might go from 21 a game up to 27 with no change in talent. Just depends what the team and coach asks.

Often the leading rebounders arent so much...more talented at it than guys a little lower...as they are dedicated to getting them all. Some at the expense of defense.

The leaders in assists are often not better passers than guys lower. Assists are the most system impacted stat there is probably. Nash goes from like 7-8...to 12...off nothing but teammates and a new system. Not like he just learned to pass over a summer.

Often...blocked shots are used to prop up bigmen as great defenders. Often they do go together. But more often a block is the result of a breakdown in help D to begin with that allowed a player to get in position to shoot. The point of defense is to deny a good shot. Not let a guy get what he thinks is a good one and have a guy have to save the day.

Tim Duncan and KG block less shots than a number of people who only get to block so many because they dont show in time to prevent the drives in the first place.

Field goal percentage often drops directly due to having more talent. Because the better you are at making shots compared to your teammates the more leaned on to make them you will be. And then you end up taking a ton of bailout shots against the clock...1-2 of which can drop you from 50% to 42. Guys like Kobe and Iverson take(took) so many shots their teammates pretty much force them to take by deferring so fully that using their field goal percentage to judge them is pretty useless. When one miss a game takes you from 50% to 44...and these guys hoist up 2-3 shots a game just to beat the shot clock. Says nothing of their ability to make shots within their offense. Broken play shots probably knock 8-10 points off half the star players field goal percentages.

:applause:

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 01:09 PM

LOL

So you've had the time to watch all of Melo's career and Wade's career. And I'm assuming you've watched all of Kobe as well.

Don't buy it for a second. And if you have, it makes my point even stronger. Melo is definitely a better game winning shot maker than Wade. Not even close really.

So...you know...you are just objectively wrong.

- I haven't watched every game they played....but I watched many of thier games over the last 10 years ( every post season game)

- Melo may have a better ( advanced stats)..whatever that means......But I don't think he is a better clutch player.....

and..

what are these game winning shots stats???.....post them so we can see the overwhelming evidence

nightprowler10

04-01-2013, 01:09 PM

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 01:35 PM

LOL

So you've had the time to watch all of Melo's career and Wade's career. And I'm assuming you've watched all of Kobe as well.

Don't buy it for a second. And if you have, it makes my point even stronger. Melo is definitely a better game winning shot maker than Wade. Not even close really.

So...you know...you are just objectively wrong.

a breakdown of "clutch" I guess???

‘clutch' is defined as "the shots that occur during the 4th quarter or overtime, with less than five minutes remaining, and neither team ahead by more than five points". Playoffs are included. up to the 12' season

Wade...FG Made = 321....FG ATT = 774.....FG% = 41%

Melo....FG Made = 276...FG Att = 655...Fg% = 42%

so Wade has took more Clutch shots...made more Clutch shots...and has had alot more post seasons success...

you are corect..melo is overwhelmingly better then Wade in the clutch!:hammerhead:

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 01:40 PM

a breakdown of "clutch" I guess???

up to the 12' season

Wade...FG Made = 321....FG ATT = 774.....FG% = 41%

Melo....FG Made = 276...FG Att = 655...Fg% = 42%

so Wade has took more Clutch shots...made more Clutch shots...and has had alot more post seasons success...

you are corect..melo is overwhelmingly better then Wade in the clutch!:hammerhead:

Stop it. I said game winning shots.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time

Wade doesn't even make the list...while Melo is first. LOL

I will look for a more updated list, because since then Melo has made quite a few more and Wade has struggled.

Also, my favorite part of that article shows just how biased we can be when we watch;

"In that player poll, Chauncey Billups got the second-most votes as the preferred go-to crunch-time scorer. Billups is 3-of-27 with the game on the line over the past five seasons. Dead last in the NBA among those who have attempted at least 15 shots."

LOL...so literally the worst game winning shot maker over the past 5 seasons got the 2nd most votes as the guy players and gm's want taking the last shot. How does that not prove my point?

Legends66NBA7

04-01-2013, 01:53 PM

Wade doesn't even make the list...while Melo is first. LOL

I will look for a more updated list, because since then Melo has made quite a few more and Wade has struggled.

If there is an updated link, can you post it here. I've been looking one myself. I remember someone quoted Wade being 13-48 in Game winning make/attempts. He's also something like 2-10 in Game winning make/attempts in the playoffs, but I'm just going off my head here...

LOL...so literally the worst game winning shot maker over the past 5 seasons got the 2nd most votes as the guy players and gm's want taking the last shot. How does that not prove my point?

The GM is probably looking at reputation, no doubt. I also believe the GM (and most/all of us would too) base it on who can create their own offense in those scenarios. The conversion rate is terrible, but on those Pistons and Nuggets team, he was the right first or second option (had Anthony in Denver) to go to.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 01:56 PM

Stop it. I said game winning shots.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time

Wade doesn't even make the list...while Melo is first. LOL

I will look for a more updated list, because since then Melo has made quite a few more and Wade has struggled.

Also, my favorite part of that article shows just how biased we can be when we watch;

"In that player poll, Chauncey Billups got the second-most votes as the preferred go-to crunch-time scorer. Billups is 3-of-27 with the game on the line over the past five seasons. Dead last in the NBA among those who have attempted at least 15 shots."

LOL...so literally the worst game winning shot maker over the past 5 seasons got the 2nd most votes as the guy players and gm's want taking the last shot. How does that not prove my point?

Because you didn't even list Wade???

From 03' - 2010...

Wade Game winning shots.

1.Dec. 14, 2003: Heat 90 - Raptors 89 (jumper w/ 28 secs and key block)
2.Apr. 18, 2004: Heat 81 – Hornets 79 (PO, 7 ft. jumper w/ 1.3 seconds)
3.Nov. 19, 2004: Heat 107 – Jazz 105 (OT buzzer-beater, jumper over Raja Bell)
4.Mar. 15, 2005: Heat 98 – Knicks 96 (buzz-beater, 22 ft. jumper)
5.Nov. 7, 2005: Heat 90 – Nets 89 (game-winning 1 of 2 FTs w/ 5.2 seconds)
6.Feb. 12, 2006: Heat 100 – Pistons 98 (PO, 16 ft. jumper w/ 2.3 seconds)
7.Jun. 18, 2006: Heat 101 – Mavericks 100 (OT Playoffs, game-winning 2 of 2 FTs w/ 1.9 seconds)
8.Dec. 18, 2006: Heat 101 – Hornets 99 (fadeaway jumper w/ 1.3 seconds)
9.Dec. 22, 2007: Heat 104 – Jazz 102 (buzz-beater, 20 ft. jumper)
10.Mar. 9, 2009: Heat 130 – Bulls 127 (OT buzz-beater, running 3-pointer off a steal)
11.Nov. 14, 2009: Heat 81 – Nets 80 (3-pointer w/ 0.1 seconds)

Melo..03' - 10'

1.Dec. 17, 2003: Nuggets 99 - Sonics 98 (layup w/ 6 secs)
2.Dec. 15, 2004: Nuggets 100 - Celtics 99 (jumper w/ 3.6 secs)
3.Jan. 8, 2006: Nuggets 92 - Rockets 90 (jumper over David Wesley w/ 1 sec)
4.Jan. 10, 2006: Nuggets 139 - Suns 137 (3OT, jumper w/ 2.9 secs)
5.Feb. 24, 2006: Nuggets 102 - Timberwolves 101 (3-pointer over Trenton Hassell w/ 3.4 secs)
6.Mar. 15, 2006: Nuggets 101 - Pacers 99 (fade-away jumper w/ 2.2 secs)
7.Apr. 6, 2006: Nuggets 110 - Lakers 108 (OT, jumper over Devean George w/ 3.8 secs)
8.May 9, 2009: Nuggets 106 - Mavericks 105 (PO, 3-pointer over Antoine Wright w/ 1 sec)
9.Jan. 2, 2009: Nuggets 122 - Thunder 120 (3-pointer over Desmond Mason w/ 0.1 sec)
10.Feb. 4, 2009: Nuggets 114 - Thunder 113 (runner w/ 5.3 secs)
11.Mar. 27, 2009: Nuggets 103 - Mavericsk 101 (layup and FT w/ 12 secs)
12.Feb. 18, 2010: Nuggets 118 - Cavaliers 116 (OT, jumper over LeBron James w/ 1.9 secs)

- so inbetween 03' - 10 Melo made 1 more game winning shot.....

- meanwhile Wade was better in the Clutch( Final 5 minutes....) and has had much more post season success...

- again...uou are just arguing for your own agenda...you mention Chauncey billups.....what about lou williams ranking ahead of Billups?..

who would you have take the last shot?....williams or wade?.....

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 02:00 PM

[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24]Because you didn't even list Wade???

From 03' - 2010...

Wade Game winning shots.

1.Dec. 14, 2003: Heat 90 - Raptors 89 (jumper w/ 28 secs and key block)
2.Apr. 18, 2004: Heat 81

I<3NBA

04-01-2013, 02:01 PM

football, or soccer, has less recorded stats than basketball. but they'll catch up soon enough. they're now recording assists and completed passes. they didn't before.

to all those valuing eye tests over stats, the only thing i can say is, numbers don't lie, but people do. if the numbers don't add up, then it means you're a bad mathematician.

stats in basketball are far from complete. there are so many things going on the court which are not tracked. once all these "intangibles" are identified, tracked, and categorized, stats would reflect a much more complete picture than an eye test would.

it's just a matter of time before all important stats are tracked.

Mr Exlax

04-01-2013, 02:06 PM

Stats are not the end all be all, but they aren't useless either. They are unbiased results, but context must be used. I'll say Demarcus Cousins. I thought he sucked this season from the games I saw. That's my opinion. I saw his stats for the season and I was completely wrong.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 02:11 PM

Ummm...your info, as usual, is wrong. Melo has 21 confirmed game winners by ESPN stats and info as of 1/28/11.

So your list is missing a lot.

umm...no.

- Your babbling and lying using your Brothers computer....

- Your kobe Hating article did not say Game winning shots....
Trailing by one or two points, or tied, in the final 24 seconds of regular-season and playoff games since 1996-97, with a minimum of 30 shots. From Alok Pattani of ESPN Stats & Information.

Melo from 03' - 10' he had 12 GW shots...he prolly hit a few more since then.....

- recap..YOU said Game winning shots.....not tying the game...game winning shots.

clearly you and your brothers don't know shit!...a family full of scrubs.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 02:21 PM

Since they brought up football I'll give you my beef with stats in football. The stat I despise the most is possession. You know what possession is in football? Number of completed passes...that's how they calculate it.

So what does possession tell you? You had an advantage somewhere? you controlled the ball in a dangerous zone? For all you know the other team could want you to have possession. It's correlation vs causation...it's this happened and we're going to generalize it into a number. Barca can have 70 % possession and it can mean something and then Joe Allen and Liverpool can pretend they doing the same and it means nothing. Possession for possesion is worthless yet everyone obsessed with it.

The same thought can be applied to basketball? You take FG% , you look at the opportunity cost of missed shots...and there's so much you can derive from it. But how do you mathematically represent opportunity cost of misses shots? How do you mathematically represent the opportunity cost of shots NOT TAKEN...it's impossible. It's a stat that unnecessarily credits the cautious, not the smart.

You take rebounds...what did you give up to get that rebound...look at Love, what's the statistical measurement reflecting the trade-off of defense for rebounding, look at Durant, what's showing his weak ass defensive rebounds for what they are, that is opportunities to leak.

You take assists, adoes that reflect your ability to create a shot? No...assists reflect your teammates ability to make the shot you create....it's a team stat, not a individul one.

Then you have the advanced percentage metrics like rebound rate and all that crap....but they still got the same problems. There's no context, no understanding of alternatives, and sometimes they don't even represent what happened accurately because they marketed worng as ( in the case of assists and assists percentage or whatever you want to derive from them)

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 02:22 PM

umm...no.

- Your babbling and lying using your Brothers computer....

- Your kobe Hating article did not say Game winning shots....

Melo from 03' - 10' he had 12 GW shots...he prolly hit a few more since then.....

- recap..YOU said Game winning shots.....not tying the game...game winning shots.

clearly you and your brothers don't know shit!...a family full of scrubs.

I was using the accepted definition. And we are not arguing Wade vs Melo. We are arguing the use of stats. That example came up because you want to throw away the evidence in favor of your biased opinion.

It would be one thing if the two had performed somewhat similarly in these situations, but Melo has pretty much been the best and Wade has been below average in the situations.

So why would anyone go with your biased opinion over objective facts?

Now, if you want to talk about a subset of the criteria or something like that...then feel free to, but we both know what definition I was using and resorting to personal attacks is always the first sign of a lost argument.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 02:31 PM

I was using the accepted definition. And we are not arguing Wade vs Melo. We are arguing the use of stats. That example came up because you want to throw away the evidence in favor of your biased opinion.

It would be one thing if the two had performed somewhat similarly in these situations, but Melo has pretty much been the best and Wade has been below average in the situations.

So why would anyone go with your biased opinion over objective facts?

Now, if you want to talk about a subset of the criteria or something like that...then feel free to, but we both know what definition I was using and resorting to personal attacks is always the first sign of a lost argument.

don't change the subject Ho azz ****!....

- You said Game winning shots...melo made 1 more from 03' - 10'....

- now you are changing to another criteria...trying to prove that melo is overwhelmingly better???...what's next?

-I gave you my opinion( I would take Wade with the ball in the clutch)........then you said Stats will overwhelmingly prove that melo is a better game winning shooter.....

- stats don't overwhelmingly prove anything....Wade Took more shots in the Final 5 minutes and OT...made more shots in the Final 5 Minutes and OT...and IMO is a better crunchtime player...( despite a marginal GW shot diffrence)

PS: I didn't have to look up all these stupid stats...I already knew it by watching the games.

get back in my pocket...you and yo brothers ( 100) ISH accounts..
ho azz ****'s..

( thumps chest)

next

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 02:38 PM

don't change the subject Ho azz ****!....

- You said Game winning shots...melo made 1 more from 03' - 10'....

- now you are changing to another criteria...trying to prove that melo is overwhelmingly better???...what's next?

-I gave you my opinion( I would take Wade with the ball in the clutch)........then you said Stats will overwhelmingly prove that melo is a better game winning shooter.....

- stats don't overwhelmingly prove anything....Wade Took more shots in the Final 5 minutes and OT...made more shots in the Final 5 Minutes and OT...and IMO is a better crunchtime player...( despite a marginal GW shot diffrence)

PS: I didn't have to look up all these stupid stats...I already knew it by watching the games.

get back in my pocket...you and yo brothers ( 100) ISH accounts..
ho azz ****'s..

( thumps chest)

next

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you are saying.

Melo has been much better than Wade in game winning situations. You bringing up crunch time or whatever else is irrelevant to the point I made.

I was using the accepted definition of game winning situations in the basketball community.

But forget that if you want to argue about facts.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 02:45 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you are saying.

Melo has been much better than Wade in game winning situations. You bringing up crunch time or whatever else is irrelevant to the point I made.

I was using the accepted definition of game winning situations in the basketball community.

But forget that if you want to argue about facts.

- no he hasn't.....a game winning situation is the whole damn game!:roll:

- again...wade has took/Made more FG's in the final 5 minutes/OT then Melo has!!!

- wade has had much more post season/winning success then melo has....

- Melo has made 1 more GW shot from 03' - 10'.

- There is no accepted game winning situation?....IMO the Final 5 minutes of a game ( with a 5 point diffrence) is a much better look into a players ability then the Final possesion...

- Fact is Wade is a better clutch player..despite the marginal stat diffrence...

anything else you need schooling on?...if not...I'm of to the OTC

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 02:48 PM

- no he hasn't.....a game winning situation is the whole damn game!:roll:

- again...wade has took/Made more FG's in the final 5 minutes/OT then Melo has!!!

- wade has had much more post season/winning success then melo has....

- Melo has made 1 more GW shot from 03' - 10'.

- There is no accepted game winning situation?....IMO the Final 5 minutes of a game ( with a 5 point diffrence) is a much better look into a players ability then the Final possesion...

- Fact is Wade is a better clutch player..despite the marginal stat diffrence...

anything else you need schooling on?...if not...I'm of to the OTC

I never brought up clutch.

I said game winning shots (based on the criteria accepted by the basketball world that you very well know)

So let me ask it this way. Who has performed better in the final 24 seconds of 1 possession games...Wade or Melo?

97 bulls

04-01-2013, 02:53 PM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-01-2013, 02:57 PM

get back in my pocket...you and yo brothers ( 100) ISH accounts..
ho azz ****'s..

( thumps chest)

next

:biggums: :roll:

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 03:06 PM

I never brought up clutch.

I said game winning shots (based on the criteria accepted by the basketball world that you very well know)

So let me ask it this way. Who has performed better in the final 24 seconds of 1 possession games...Wade or Melo?

- ok...Like I showed you melo made 1 more game winning shot from 03' - 10'

- who has made a couple more shots in the final seconds?...or who has performed better in the Final 24 seconds?....Wade..he has played better defense, his play has lead to Post seasons success....he has come up with timely blocks/steals......and he has made some huge shots.( especially in the post season)

- especially looking at the Final 5 minutes of Close games.....Wade is IMO a clear choice over Melo as a Clutch winner!

- I never even looked at Wade's vs Melo " clutch stats" before this thread...I already knew just by watching teh games wade was better and his play translates more to winning.

alright Kid...school is over...spring break it.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 03:24 PM

- ok...Like I showed you melo made 1 more game winning shot from 03' - 10'

- who has made a couple more shots in the final seconds?...or who has performed better in the Final 24 seconds?....Wade..he has played better defense, his play has lead to Post seasons success....he has come up with timely blocks/steals......and he has made some huge shots.( especially in the post season)

- especially looking at the Final 5 minutes of Close games.....Wade is IMO a clear choice over Melo as a Clutch winner!

- I never even looked at Wade's vs Melo " clutch stats" before this thread...I already knew just by watching teh games wade was better and his play translates more to winning.

alright Kid...school is over...spring break it.

I hope you really aren't this dense.

Euroleague

04-01-2013, 04:38 PM

The people that base everything in basketball on stats are retarded. That's the bottom line.

Quickening

04-01-2013, 04:44 PM

I am liking the responses in this thread, lots if detail and debate, good stuff Murica.:applause:

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 04:54 PM

The people that base everything in basketball on stats are retarded. That's the bottom line.

Of course. And the people that base everything on their own opinion are retarded.

It is an extremely sad state of affairs if people are genuinely against more information.

Euroleague

04-01-2013, 04:56 PM

Of course. And the people that base everything on their own opinion are retarded.

It is an extremely sad state of affairs if people are genuinely against more information.

That's funny, because it's almost always the stats Geeks that base things on the LEAST amount of info possible.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 04:57 PM

That's funny, because it's almost always the stats Geeks that base things on the LEAST amount of info possible.

Explain that...I'm a bit confused as to your point.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 05:00 PM

Of course. And the people that base everything on their own opinion are retarded.

It is an extremely sad state of affairs if people are genuinely against more information.

Analyzing the validity of something is not being against information, it's merely evaluating the usefulness and applicability of that information. Measure what you want, get access to it, but the process of deciding whether that information is important or not and the process of explaining the circumstances that produced the set of events that allowed it to occur is largely ignored.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 05:02 PM

Analyzing the validity of something is not being against information, it's merely evaluating the usefulness of that information.

Ok. Which is why it is certainly reasonable for someone to say that they don't find PER or TS% useful...

The only people here being one sided are the ones that claim watching games is the only way to evaluate a team or player...etc.

Euroleague

04-01-2013, 05:03 PM

Explain that...I'm a bit confused as to your point.

Stat geeks are the guys that base everything on numbers on paper without watching a game........that's an incredibly LOW amount of information.

Compared to watching an actual game, which is a HUGE amount of information.

No amount of stats or numbers can ever even come remotely close to generating the amount of info gained from simply watching a game.

In truth, the stats obsession is for the basketball guys that don't have the mental capacity to assess by simply watching a game.

The stats stuff helps out those guys like Daryl Morey that are not smart enough to assess things with their own eyes and brains.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 05:14 PM

Stat geeks are the guys that base everything on numbers on paper without watching a game........that's an incredibly LOW amount of information.

Compared to watching an actual game, which is a HUGE amount of information.

No amount of stats or numbers can ever even come remotely close to generating the amount of info gained from simply watching a game.

In truth, the stats obsession is for the basketball guys that don't have the mental capacity to assess by simply watching a game.

The stats stuff helps out those guys like Daryl Morey that are not smart enough to assess things with their own eyes and brains.

Doing solely one or the other is flawed.

But there is so much going on during a game and so many games being played...that you simply are going to miss things.

Take the following very reasonable scenario;

You are a coach and are preparing a game plan to stop a player on the other team. You'd roughly watched him play 15 games this year. You noticed that he seems to make a high percentage of jump shots when he goes right. However, the stats for the entire year show that he's actually a far worse shooter when he goes right.

If you didn't have the stats, your limited sample size could prove very costly to your game plan.

I think you and others are being very narrow minded. It's almost as if you think we are talking about 1 singular game. Of course, watching a game gives you more information than just looking at the box score and advanced box score. That is not what we are talking about....we are talking about hundreds and thousands of games being played that you simply aren't watching. And the games you are watching...you are bringing your own personal biases to those as well.

I'm not sure why people can't see the difference.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 05:14 PM

Ok. Which is why it is certainly reasonable for someone to say that they don't find PER or TS% useful...

The only people here being one sided are the ones that claim watching games is the only way to evaluate a team or player...etc.

Watching games is the ideal way...if you do that you see it evolve, you don't need stats to tell you.

If you don't watch games and try to analyse from stats you're inevitably going to go about making assumptions based on stats and that's a problem. I mean stats in basketball ain't transitive, you can't just assume fixed contexts, analysis but more importantly comparison is always going to be flawed if you don't watch.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 05:19 PM

Watching games is the ideal way...if you do that you see it evolve, you don't need stats to tell you.

If you don't watch games and try to analyse from stats you're inevitably going to go about making assumptions based on stats and that's a problem. I mean stats in basketball ain't transitive, you can't just assume fixed contexts, analysis but more importantly comparison is always going to be flawed if you don't watch.

Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't get it.

Nobody is arguing that never turning on the TV to watch a game is good. But how many games a year do you actually watch start to finish? Each NBA team plays 82 regular season games and then you have the playoffs. You are looking at thousands of games...and you aren't watching them. So how do you come up with an informed opinion without looking at some numbers.

I mean. Do wins and losses matter to you? Or is that just another stat? I could just see some of you trying to say..."yea, Bobcats have won 17 games, but don't give me that stat...they are much better than that because I've watched the games...etc."

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 05:36 PM

Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't get it.

Nobody is arguing that never turning on the TV to watch a game is good. But how many games a year do you actually watch start to finish? Each NBA team plays 82 regular season games and then you have the playoffs. You are looking at thousands of games...and you aren't watching them. So how do you come up with an informed opinion without looking at some numbers.

I mean. Do wins and losses matter to you? Or is that just another stat? I could just see some of you trying to say..."yea, Bobcats have won 17 games, but don't give me that stat...they are much better than that because I've watched the games...etc."

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It's just worthy noting that one is a pretty flawless method, the other is flawed on many different levels. If you want to combine them that's good, but it still involves watching games.

When you start analyzing on stats it's difficult. If you watch a representative sample of games and you are willing to scrutinize the information given to you then stats can be useful for analyzing performance over a period of time. But there are very few people willing to do that.

And if people aren't willing to do that how can they be asked to compare contexts specific time periods, teams. player roles, it's a large task..but its worth it if you want to be accurate.

But people prefer to list a stat and come to a conclusion...and that's the worst commonly practiced pattern of analysis I noticed on this site.

Wins are a stat - a team stat that reflect team performance....but every day on this site people try to make wins an individual stat....in fact the NBA - the organization that organizes basketball tries to make wins an individual stat with the MVP award. Even a pretty straightforward stat such as wins can be misguidedly applied.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 05:49 PM

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It's just worthy noting that one is a pretty flawless method, the other is flawed on many different levels. If you want to combine them that's good, but it still involves watching games.

When you start analyzing on stats it's difficult. If you watch a representative sample of games and you are willing to scrutinize the information given to you then stats can be useful for analyzing performance over a period of time. But there are very few people willing to do that.

And if people aren't willing to do that how can they be asked to compare contexts specific time periods, teams. player roles, it's a large task..but its worth it if you want to be accurate.

But people prefer to list a stat and come to a conclusion...and that's the worst commonly practiced pattern of analysis I noticed on this site.

Wins are a stat - a team stat that reflect team performance....but every day on this site people try to make wins an individual stat....in fact the NBA - the organization that organizes basketball tries to make wins an individual stat with the MVP award. Even a pretty straightforward stat such as wins can be misguidedly applied.

Watching games is by no means a flawless way to analyze the game.

I'll try to explain this. Who do you think is the most clutch player in the league?

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 05:51 PM

Watching games is by no means a flawless way to analyze the game.

I'll try to explain this. Who do you think is the most clutch player in the league?

Carmelo or Dirk :lol

No but seriously....that's what I think..don't tell me you disagree lol

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 05:53 PM

Carmelo or Dirk :lol

No but seriously....that's what I think..don't tell me you disagree lol

I think Durant or Paul is the most clutch player in the league. Now tell me I'm wrong without using stats.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 05:56 PM

Watching games is by no means a flawless way to analyze the game.

I'll try to explain this. Who do you think is the most clutch player in the league?

- Watching games is a flawless way to determine who plays at a certain level...a far...far...far better way then looking at stats.

- Like I said before...stats give you 15% - 20% of the picture.....vs actually watching experiencing the player/games.

- It doesn't matter who thinks who is the most clutch...anyone can come up with a stat/formula to fit an agenda.

Like I showed you before...Wade is better clutch player then Melo....

NumberSix

04-01-2013, 05:57 PM

eFG% is the best stat for field goal efficiency. It's literally mathematically flawless.

People argue that Kobe is inefficient. This season his FG% is 46.4%. Others say that it only appears that way because of his 3 point attempts. The second group are actually correct. Kobe's eFG% is 50.6%. That's pretty good, right?

Dwyane Wade's FG% this season is 52.1%. He shoots VERY few 3 pointers. Less than 1 per game. His eFG% is 52.9%. Nearly identical.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 05:58 PM

I think Durant or Paul is the most clutch player in the league. Now tell me I'm wrong without using stats.

Carmelo got more moves in the clutch, Dirk got the most unstoppable specific set of moves. Naturally, one they use them or the nature of their games doesn't change in those moments (which they don't from the games I've seen over the years) - they'll be the most clutch because they have the best moves for that situation.

This is a bad one.....you might catch me on another one but not this :coleman:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-01-2013, 06:00 PM

Why not do BOTH? Obviously watching the games are more important - using stats just help back your opinions. :confusedshrug:

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 06:01 PM

Carmelo got more moves in the clutch, Dirk got the most unstoppable specific set of moves. Naturally, one they use them or the nature of their games doesn't change in those moments (which they don't from the games I've seen over the years) - they'll be the most clutch because they have the best moves for that situation.

This is a bad one.....you might catch me on another one but not this :coleman:

Paul is able to create at will. He's a better passer than Dirk and Melo combined. He's also capable of making extremely difficult shots.

Durant has unlimited range and can make shots from everywhere. He's quite easily a better shooter than Melo and Dirk this year.

You have proved nothing with your response. I can give just as valid reasons why Paul or Durant are the correct choice.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 06:03 PM

Why not do both? Obviously watching the games are more important, using (certain) stats just help back your opinions. :confusedshrug:

That's using one to analyse the game, using the other as evidence of what you saw occur.

I think that's different.

NumberSix

04-01-2013, 06:04 PM

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 06:06 PM

I think Durant or Paul is the most clutch player in the league. Now tell me I'm wrong without using stats.

Because watching the Clippers or Pauls career as a whole...he can go long periods of playing disengaged on the offensive end...too passive.

Durant has to play with another star Guard who himself is capable of creating his own shot...sometimes Durant lets the offense flow through Russ.

- Kobe is the most Clutch player...and has been for well over a decade.

- His skillset to create a shot for himself and or a play for others is 2nd to no one...work ethic and ability has made him a main COG for 5 championships ..countless clutch plays in the post season....countless points in the final 5 minutes and overtime has helped his teams to 7 NBA Finals

- Voted the greatest player of his generation in 2010...and is viewed by the majority of fans as one of the greatest Clutch players ever!!!!

come on son...Give us your stats to change everyone's...mind!....Give it to us....

come on son....aint no stat gonna change that....neener...neener...neener.:banana:

again.....no amount of stats....can change that.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 06:08 PM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-01-2013, 06:10 PM

That's using one to analyse the game, using the other as evidence of what you saw occur.

I think that's different.

The thing is, MOST of what I see is backed by statistics. You can't debate, have no evidence, facts, or stats to back you up and expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 06:16 PM

Paul is able to create at will. He's a better passer than Dirk and Melo combined. He's also capable of making extremely difficult shots.

Durant has unlimited range and can make shots from everywhere. He's quite easily a better shooter than Melo and Dirk this year.

You have proved nothing with your response. I can give just as valid reasons why Paul or Durant are the correct choice.

I'd say you over-estimate Paul's ability to score and that Durant's situation is much different as he has better teammates, allowing defenses to not collapse onto him. His range is good, but he's over reliant on it and he prefers to catch and shoot from 30 rather than get into the positions he needs to. He doesn't have the triple threat - rather he more of a slasher/shooter and he stops using one of those skills in clutch moments, while Melo uses all of them.

But you believe differently. What's wrong with that? Nothing I'm going to tell you will make you believe what I believe, If stats does it then you stupid and not worth the effort of convincing.

I don't need to prove something so subjective..best I could do is argue my case based on what I value in those contexts.

Was I supposed to use a stat to argue my point? That would be cool, except I dunno what happened to derive those stats so I can't really say they mean this or that.

AlphaWolf24

04-01-2013, 06:19 PM

The thing is, MOST of what I see is backed by statistics. You can't debate, have no evidence, facts, or stats to back you up and expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

- yes but in sports...esp Pro sports.....statistical attributes analysis is only a small importance.

- Basketball ( sports in general) rely too much on a cerebral aspect....too many Non statistcal ocurrences that have huge impact on games.

- The games have to played out....we can't just type in players attributes and see who is better......why even play sports then?

- of course if you watch the game....and have stats to back up an opinion...then what does that mean?....:confusedshrug: you are even more right?

- that's like saying...It rained today...I think the ground got wet.....Let me go outside....( takes water sample) yes..it did get wet....

we aleardy knew that...it's engrained in our minds through life expieriences...and word of mouth...we already know when it rains it gets wet!

phew!

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 06:22 PM

I'd say you over-estimate Paul's ability to score and that Durant's situation is much different as he has better teammates, allowing defenses to not collapse onto him. His range is good, but he's over reliant on it and he prefers to catch and shoot from 30 rather than get into the positions he needs to. He doesn't have the triple threat - rather he more of a slasher/shooter and he stops using one of those skills in clutch moments, while Melo uses all of them.

But you believe differently. What's wrong with that? Nothing I'm going to tell you will make you believe what I believe, If stats does it then you stupid and not worth the effort of convincing.

I don't need to prove something so subjective..best I could do is argue my case based on what I value in those contexts.

Was I supposed to use a stat to argue my point? That would be cool, except I dunno what happened to derive those stats so I can't really say they mean this or that.

But there is an objective answer that makes the most sense. We could look at offensive efficiency for the teams of all these players in crunch time. We could look at records in close games. We could like at plus minus. We could look at individual efficiency in both crunch time and game winning situations.

How on earth do you want to avoid all that kind of talk in favor of you telling me my opinion is wrong? LOL

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-01-2013, 06:31 PM

- yes but in sports...esp Pro sports.....statistical attributes analysis is only a small importance.

- Basketball ( sports in general) rely too much on a cerebral aspect....too many Non statistcal ocurrences that have huge impact on games.

- The games have to played out....we can't just type in players attributes and see who is better......why even play sports then?

- of course if you watch the game....and have stats to back up an opinion...then what does that mean?....:confusedshrug: you are even more right?

- that's like saying...It rained today...I think the ground got wet.....Let me go outside....( takes water sample) yes..it did get wet....

we aleardy knew that...it's engrained in our minds through life expieriences...and word of mouth...we already know when it rains it gets wet!

phew!

Two people watch the SAME game. Person A and B come out of it w/ two COMPLETELY different views of...say..a superstar?

Person A backs his opinion with facts (statistics). Everything he's saying checks out. It's proven by data. Person B on the other hand, repeats his opinion, but has literally ZERO evidence to support it. Nothing.

What then? :confusedshrug:

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 06:32 PM

But there is an objective answer that makes the most sense. We could look at offensive efficiency for the teams of all these players in crunch time. We could look at records in close games. We could like at plus minus. We could look at individual efficiency in both crunch time and game winning situations.

How on earth do you want to avoid all that kind of talk in favor of you telling me my opinion is wrong? LOL

3/5 you just listed are literally team stats...by definition applicable to something larger than the player. The other 2 are individual stats determined by a whole range of factors, of which only a proportion is the player himself.

Well if you want to do that lets do it thoroughly.

-Lets go ahead and quantitatively assess defense and offense in each and every one of these teams crunch time possessions

-Lets go ahead and quantitatively assess these players roles in those possessions,

-Lets go ahead and create models of opportunity cost for players actions in each situation, show be the success rate of not just an alternative event (shoot or pass) - but an alternative series of events (pass,pass,pass,shoot).

On and on.

You telling me these simplistic stats tell you if someone is clutch....maybe it can tell you if someone ain't clutch, if they miss every shot and lose every game, but when you start grading the percentages you realize how diluted they are by context.

I'm telling you your opinion is YOURS. It is an opinion based on what YOU VALUE. I didn't tell you it was wrong.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 06:43 PM

3/5 you just listed are literally team stats...by definition applicable to something larger than the player. The other 2 are individual stats determined by a whole range of factors, of which only a proportion is the player himself.

Well if you want to do that lets do it thoroughly.

-Lets go ahead and quantitatively assess defense and offense in each and every one of these teams crunch time possessions

-Lets go ahead and quantitatively assess these players roles in those possessions,

-Lets go ahead and create models of opportunity cost for players actions in each situation, show be the success rate of not just an alternative event (shoot or pass) - but an alternative series of events (pass,pass,pass,shoot).

On and on.

You telling me these simplistic stats tell you if someone is clutch....maybe it can tell you if someone ain't clutch, if they miss every shot and lose every game, but when you start grading the percentages you realize how diluted they are by context.

I'm telling you your opinion is YOURS. It is an opinion based on what YOU VALUE. I didn't tell you it was wrong.

I'm telling you that if you combine everything you get the right answer...or at least the most informed answer.

We aren't picking names out of a hat...we have met on common ground about which players to look into for a reason. Guys like Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Melo, Paul...etc.

We could all sit here and give reasons why each of them is the best clutch player.

So what if it is a team stat. Do these players not impact the team? For example, Paul's teams have had by far the best efficiency in crunch time situations dating all the way back to the 06 season...do you really think that is random? Or could it possibly be in part due to Paul and his ability to create good shots for his teammates.

Stats are not manipulations. It is a simple fact that Carmelo has made a higher percentage of game winning shots than Dirk and Kobe for his career. That doesn't mean Carmelo is more clutch, but it is certainly information that is useful...and it makes it really hard for someone to claim that Dirk and Kobe are more likely to come through in those situations than Melo.

Doesn't have to mean everything, but if someone is going to make a claim against the evidence...at some point you would think the evidence and watching the games would line up.

Literally for years on here...Kobe fans argued with me to death how much more clutch Kobe was than Dirk. The reason? They were biased and they hadn't seen enough of Dirk to really understand just how good he was. I was biased as well...I had seen pretty much every game Dirk had played and knew just how good he was. And it wasn't until the stats came out that they admitted Dirk was clutch and in that league.
is
Will you at least admit that your sample size watching the games is extremely limited compared to the totality of games played?

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 06:53 PM

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 07:02 PM

My sample size is not the entirety of games played, sample size of watching these situations is probably higher due to highlights...but still not the totality of games played.

And the evidence and your opinion could line up...but that don't make your opinion right. Not when the evidence is generated by so many things left unaccounted for.

Anyway - Circles so it's getting pointless.

It's not circles...you just aren't even making sense at this point.

An opinion can either be informed or not...or less informed.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the best players and teams always seem to have the best stats?

How do you judge free throw shooting? Do you solely go off watching the games, or do you look at the stats?

Which player has been the better ft shooter in the clutch this year?

Dirk or Lebron or Kobe or Nash?

Don't look it up. Tell me how each of those guys has shot free throws in crunch time this year.

Graviton

04-01-2013, 07:18 PM

Problem with Paul is his size, you put a bigger but just as quick defender on him and he can't do much. Case in point his games vs Thunder this year, with Thabo/Westbrook on him he couldn't do anything and ended up with "bad shooting nights" and bricks down the stretch. When you can't drive past a player quicker than you or shoot over a taller defender, you have a very little chance to be clutch and make shots. Rose against Lebron is another example.

Durant gets bodied up by physical defenders and settles for long jumpers too often, he also has trouble getting free to catch the ball, when Westbrook feeds him the ball in the 4th it's usually at 3pt line or 20 feet out because Durant gets pushed there by his defender. He doesn't have the strength to get an open shot around the post or drive through contact, so he scores on long jumpers, which do go in a lot of the time but that's not a good tactic to have in the playoffs.

Dirk and Melo both have the size, length and strength to get close and hit a higher percentage shot, they are more "clutch" due to their size+skillset.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 07:23 PM

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 07:35 PM

It's not circles...you just aren't even making sense at this point.

An opinion can either be informed or not...or less informed.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the best players and teams always seem to have the best stats?

How do you judge free throw shooting? Do you solely go off watching the games, or do you look at the stats?

Which player has been the better ft shooter in the clutch this year?

Dirk or Lebron or Kobe or Nash?

Don't look it up. Tell me how each of those guys has shot free throws in crunch time this year.

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare. The stats only tell you what happened, it's your job to think... Why?.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.

niko

04-01-2013, 07:38 PM

The thing i don't like with the stats now is twofold, the fact people take them blindly with no thought, and that people look for specific stats to prove their points even if it is the opposite of what they see with their eyes.

I remember someone telling me the Knicks would fold because their schedule in the 2nd half was so weak compared to the Nets. The difference was literally NOTHING (like hundreths of a percent different) but because the Nets were something like 10th and the Knicks 20th, they assumed it's a big difference and kept arguing even though the number different was nothing. I also hate when people say LEBRON SUCKS and show that he is one of the lower players in the last 3 minutes of games on Tuesday vs. Teams whose names start with S. :facepalm

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 07:44 PM

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.

but you don't watch enough to know how a player actually performs unless it is your team.

do you not understand? if you watch all 82 Knicks games...you simply can't watch all the games of other teams as well. lets say you can watch enough of 2 teams throughout the year to accurately gauge things by watching.

well, what the hell do you do with the other teams. if you don't want to use stats.

basically you people are saying this..."don't tell me what a player or team actually did...i'd rather watch half the game or the highlights on SC and that is better"

It's just hilarious. You learn so much about a team through stats....

I'll give you a perfect example. If you watched the Mavs play the Bulls and Clippers you would come away thinking that they are great in close games...with Dirk making clutch shots and the defense really stepping up. But in reality they have been terrible all year with a horrible record in tight games.

Rubio2Gasol

04-01-2013, 07:54 PM

but you don't watch enough to know how a player actually performs unless it is your team.

do you not understand? if you watch all 82 Knicks games...you simply can't watch all the games of other teams as well. lets say you can watch enough of 2 teams throughout the year to accurately gauge things by watching.

well, what the hell do you do with the other teams. if you don't want to use stats.

basically you people are saying this..."don't tell me what a player or team actually did...i'd rather watch half the game or the highlights on SC and that is better"

It's just hilarious. You learn so much about a team through stats....

I'll give you a perfect example. If you watched the Mavs play the Bulls and Clippers you would come away thinking that they are great in close games...with Dirk making clutch shots and the defense really stepping up. But in reality they have been terrible all year with a horrible record in tight games.

But what idiot says a team has been great in close games over the course of a year when the player who been carrying them through these games been injured for half of it?

Then you think close games? What is that? Is that really only when games are tied with 2 seconds to go? Nope. Games are close all the time, things are tight and they get resolved without anyone having to make a game winner or anything as simple as that.

You learn half the story....and then some (not specifically you) preach it like the bible. You learn something, you ask why, you learn more about that same thing, until you actually have a grasp of what you're trying to understand.

As I said, it's your evaluation of the stats that is critical...and there is clearly a lack of evaluation or flat out wrong evaluation that makes stats very toxic.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 08:02 PM

But what idiot says a team has been great in close games over the course of a year when the player who been carrying them through these games been injured for half of it?

Then you think close games? What is that? Is that really only when games are tied with 2 seconds to go? Nope. Games are close all the time, things are tight and they get resolved without anyone having to make a game winner or anything as simple as that.

You learn half the story....and then some (not specifically you) preach it like the bible. You learn something, you ask why, you learn more about that same thing, until you actually have a grasp of what you're trying to understand.

As I said, it's your evaluation of the stats that is critical...and there is clearly a lack of evaluation or flat out wrong evaluation that makes stats very toxic.

How you define close games is up for debate. I was talking more about relatively winnable games with 5 or so minutes left. The Mavs have been horrible...even with Dirk back.

But yes, how you evaluate and use stats matters. But that is obvious and a reflection the people using them...and not the stat.

Could I not say the same thing about opinions? How someone watches a game and forms and opinion matters...and it can be very toxic if they are biased.

How you use them properly is certainly up for debate, but objective evidence is always a good thing to have.

Everyone watches games differently and forms different opinions...so I still don't see the point for your side. I remember on here when everyone was calling me crazy for picking the Celtics over the Cavs in 2010. We all watched the games...I saw them differently than most. But it was just a feeling I had...nothing more. It happened to be right that time...but I was wrong the following year about just about everything. Not saying stats are better, but there is no flawless way of looking at the game or evaluating it. You just should try to use as much information as possible.

There is no argument to ignore information unless it is false.

97 bulls

04-01-2013, 08:58 PM

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare. The stats only tell you what happened, it's your job to think... Why?.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.
Great post Rubio. The only way to fairly compare players statistics is if theyre put in the exact same situation. And that means the same teammates, opponant, situation, everything. Such as FTs. Thats the onky stats that I feel you can look at and draw a fair conclusion. All other stats must be taken into context. How is the opponant defending said player? Whats said players role on the team? Was said player injured? Who is said player defending (people really never take this into account)? The toll playing defense takes on a player is rarely acknowledged.

Whats more, is this insane infatuation with choosing players based on game winning shots. Robert Horry hit a lot of game winning shots during his career. I still wouldnt take him over a Rudy Gay for example.

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 10:17 PM

Great post Rubio. The only way to fairly compare players statistics is if theyre put in the exact same situation. And that means the same teammates, opponant, situation, everything. Such as FTs. Thats the onky stats that I feel you can look at and draw a fair conclusion. All other stats must be taken into context. How is the opponant defending said player? Whats said players role on the team? Was said player injured? Who is said player defending (people really never take this into account)? The toll playing defense takes on a player is rarely acknowledged.

Whats more, is this insane infatuation with choosing players based on game winning shots. Robert Horry hit a lot of game winning shots during his career. I still wouldnt take him over a Rudy Gay for example.

A lot of that stuff evens out over time...especially when comparing elite players.

In terms of Gay vs Horry...well, Horry is better suited to be a role player and a better team player. Gay might be more talented, but he's probably not good enough to be even the 2nd best player on a title winning team. So when you factor that in...and salary...I'd say Horry is more valuable than Gay on any given team.

Simple Jack

04-01-2013, 10:41 PM

Statistics are a great way of verifying what you watch. Ultimately they are a source of information, and information should never be disregarded.

You can, and often do, have differing opinions from a large number of people who view the same game.

I mean look at all the discussion here on a nightly basis; you got topics and posts on the same exact issue (Ex: Kobe/LeBron having a good or bad game) and you have completely different views on it with an absurd amount of bias. Stats are a simple way to strengthen one's argument, if applied correctly (meaning in the right context). It's not a coincidence that many of the stats utilized (let's say clutch for example, or superclutch according to 82games) have the guys you'd expect to be there at the top of the list. It's not some voodoo magic, established to tear down one's favorite player; rather those guys are up there because given the metric used, they tend to perform really well in the clutch situation (however the stat quantifies it).

The notion that stats are "toxic" though? In what other facet of life do you willingly choose to be ignorant about something? If information that can quantify something is available and helps to paint the bigger picture (even if it doesn't do so to a large degree, it's still information) it should be utilized or at least acknowledged. Again, I'm not suggesting that stats should be the only thing used to form one's opinion or a conclusion but it should definitely be taken into consideration.

The reality is, also, that a lot of the things people mention that aren't able to be quantified, are pretty irrelevant if they don't bring about some impact to the game. What good is "mentality", "hustle", etc., if it doesn't impact the game in some way?

DMAVS41

04-01-2013, 10:49 PM

AlphaWolf24

04-02-2013, 12:00 PM

Two people watch the SAME game. Person A and B come out of it w/ two COMPLETELY different views of...say..a superstar?

Person A backs his opinion with facts (statistics). Everything he's saying checks out. It's proven by data. Person B on the other hand, repeats his opinion, but has literally ZERO evidence to support it. Nothing.

What then? :confusedshrug:

- I took my little cousin to Oakland to watch a Bull's vs Warriors Game in 97' ( yeah I'm pretty sure it was 97' or 98')

- Jordan shot like 2 for 17....had like 10-15 points....3 - 4 ast and a couple rebounds....he was off.....way off.

- Jordan never quite playing defense...and the more his shot was off the more he hustled on the defensive end.( at least I recognized it)

- in the closing minutes of the game....( a very close game)...MJ blocked a shot....and got fouled on the offensive end....his FT's Iced the game.

- my cousin looked at me and said...." MJ sucked this game"....I said...no he didn't....his shot was off.....but he dominated doing everything else.....especially on defense.....he hustled and made all the little disruptive defensive plays.

Looking at MJ's stats.....someone who didn't watch the game......would think MJ had a very bad game...in fact it was IMO one of his best( trust me...If you know/understand basketball...he F'ing dominated).....he dominated with pure heart and will.

I remember watching Bird dominate games just by making great bounce passes .....while only scoring 10pts and maybe getting 6 REB.....He still was by far the most important player.

- did stats back up my arguement?....absolutley not...watching the game....having knowlege/understanding of the game did. ( Those are far more important then data)

Like I said...Stats are 20% of the knowlege....the main course will always be watching the games....especially in basketball.