The "ORtg" advanced stat is absurd

[TheMarkMadsen]

All advanced stats should be taken with a grain of salt but this one should be completely thrown out.

For example.

2011 finals game 3.

Dirk puts up 34 points on 52 % shooting and has an ORtg of 128...

Tyson Chandler puts up 5 points on 25% shooting and has an ORtg of 137..

Deshawn Stevenson puts up 3 points on 1 shot and has a ORtg of 278..

An even better example is game 5.

Dirk puts up 29 on 50% shooting and gets an ORtg of 125..

Jj barrea puts up 17 on 54% shootings and gets an ORtg of 146..

Dirk actually had the 4th lowest ORtg on his team for that game while being his teams leading scorer and puttin up 29 on 50%..

This stat can officially hit the road..

[avonbarksdale]

dirk is a better scorer than kobe

[Eric Cartman]

dirk is a better scorer than kobe

There is already a +30 page thread on that topic.

[BankShot]

All statistics are worthless unless you take the time to understand what they convey.

Simply posting single-game point totals and the corresponding advanced metric, and then thinking you made a point is flat-out ignorant

[TheMarkMadsen]

All statistics are worthless unless you take the time to understand what they convey.

Simply posting single-game point totals and the corresponding advanced metric, and then thinking you made a point is flat-out ignorant


So you think ORtg is legit?

5 pts on 25% shooting is worth a higher rating than 34 on 52%?

Look through the 2011 finals boxscore for the Mavs..every game is like this where Tyson chandler or some other guy who only took 6 shots but made 4 has an extremely high ortg

[BankShot]

So you think ORtg is legit?

5 pts on 25% shooting is worth a higher rating than 34 on 52%?

Look through the 2011 finals boxscore for the Mavs..every game is like this where Tyson chandler or some other guy who only took 6 shots but made 4 has an extremely high ortg

I dont know/care how ORtg is calculated, what variables are included, or what it is attempting to convey as a cumulative metric..... so I have no idea if its legit or crazy, nor should/will I make a statement that it is or is not.

All I'm saying is that you look ignorant by posting a portion of a box score and the corresponding advanced stats and saying its broke without even attempting to understand or show what the advanced stat says.

Run along son :rolleyes:

[BankShot]

Case in point:

ORtg is a statistic to extrapolate the points per 100 possessions from a given sample. It has nothing to do with efficiency, skill, or statistical impact.

So yeah, making one basket on one shot will give a higher points-per-100-possessions stat than making 52% of your shots, or 90% of your shots.

Damn son.... at least try to know what you're talking about before you open your trap. :facepalm

[Inactive]

You think FG% is legit? Some guy scored 2 points and got 100%. Another scored 30 points and only got 45%! It's clearly just a meaningless number pulled from thin air, intended to make Kobe look bad.

[aj1987]

So you think ORtg is legit?

5 pts on 25% shooting is worth a higher rating than 34 on 52%?

Look through the 2011 finals boxscore for the Mavs..every game is like this where Tyson chandler or some other guy who only took 6 shots but made 4 has an extremely high ortg
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html



You think FG% is legit? Some guy scored 2 points and got 100%. Another scored 30 points and only got 45%! It's clearly just a meaningless number pulled from thin air, intended to make Kobe look bad.

You should compare FG%'s only if both the players are on the same tier.

[Inactive]

You should compare FG%'s only if both the players are on the same tier.Can't tell if you're serious, or just playing along.

[gts]

So you think ORtg is legit?

5 pts on 25% shooting is worth a higher rating than 34 on 52%?

Look through the 2011 finals boxscore for the Mavs..every game is like this where Tyson chandler or some other guy who only took 6 shots but made 4 has an extremely high ortg

Context...

It's a legit stat, but you have to look at the big picture.

Is Robert Horry better than Jordan because he has more rings? of course not, we look at Horry's role in winning rings vs Jordan's and we know Horry's rings are not more valuble than Jordan's.

Same thing with stats, context.

[OldSkoolball#52]

dirk is a better scorer than kobe

[aj1987]

Can't tell if you're serious, or just playing along.
Actually I think you're trolling now. Efficiency is a pretty important stat. It only matters when you compare players who are on the same tier though. For instance, you can't say Chandler > Kobe because he has a higher FG% and not look like a complete retard.

[andz]

It's usefull if the sampl size is large enough, otherwise no.

[TheMarkMadsen]

It's usefull if the sampl size is large enough, otherwise no.

In 93 regular season Horace grant had a 118 ORtg to MJ's 119 while Mj put up 20 more ppg on a 1% FG% difference.

That same year Scottie Pippen had a ORtg of 108, 10 less than Grant..

Scottie that year only took 5 more shots per game, averaged 19ppg to Grants 13 ..not to mention he averaged 4 more assist per game..yet is 10pts behind Grants ORtg...

[BankShot]

In 93 regular season Horace grant had a 118 ORtg to MJ's 119 while Mj put up 20 more ppg on a 1% FG% difference.


This means that in the 1993 regular season, Horace Grant produced more points-per-100-possessions than Michael Jordan.

He didn't score more points; he didn't do it more efficiently; he simply produced 1 more point per 100 possessions used.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?? Damn, son. :rolleyes:

[knickscity]

In 93 regular season Horace grant had a 118 ORtg to MJ's 119 while Mj put up 20 more ppg on a 1% FG% difference.

That same year Scottie Pippen had a ORtg of 108, 10 less than Grant..

Scottie that year only took 5 more shots per game, averaged 19ppg to Grants 13 ..not to mention he averaged 4 more assist per game..yet is 10pts behind Grants ORtg...
I havent looked at the formula in a while, but I'm sure assists are not heavily favored, so I'm sure Pippens assists dont negate the more shots he took on less effiiency.

[Inactive]

Actually I think you're trolling now. Efficiency is a pretty important stat. My post regarding the illegitimacy of FG% was an ironic parody of the OP. My intent was to highlight the problem with thread by applying his reasoning to a simpler, more familiar analog.


It only matters when you compare players who are on the same tier though. For instance, you can't say Chandler > Kobe because he has a higher FG% and not look like a complete retard. Any division of players into separate tiers is entirely subjective. By looking at FG% you can say Chandler hit a higher percentage of his FGA than Kobe. There's no reason why they can't compared.

If Chandler had a higher TS% than Kobe, you can say C scored more efficiently than K. This is true for any two players. To say C is a more efficient scorer than K is slightly different, since it implies that C will continue to score more efficiently. Your ability to predict with confidence that C will continue to be more efficient depends on a lot of contextual factors, sample size, etc. and you can never reach 100% confidence.

Even if you get to the point where everyone agrees that C is more efficient than K, it's far from clear that C is contributes more to winning basketball games than K. It would in fact be very easy to disprove that scoring efficiency absolutely determines success.

Individual stats tell you specific things, not who is better than whom in general. If one does not understand what a stat is meant to tell them, it does not necessarily mean that the stat is absurd, or meaningless.

[Marchesk]

GOAT Offensive Rating:

1. CP3
7. Chuck
14. MJ
20. Dirk
29. Lebron
81. Shaq
108. Kobe
248. Carmelo

CP3 is a better scorer than Kobe. :confusedshrug:

[BankShot]

GOAT Offensive Rating:

1. CP3
7. Chuck
14. MJ
20. Dirk
29. Lebron
81. Shaq
108. Kobe
248. Carmelo

CP3 is a better scorer than Kobe. :confusedshrug:

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

[G-train]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

What's the practical point of the stat then?

[chips93]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

what else would you want from an offensive player?

[branslowski]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

But the "given formula" is called Offensive rating. So if you follow this formula and use it as your main argument when it has Barkley as a better offensive player than Jordan, then you my friend are a dumbass.

[branslowski]

What's the practical point of the stat then?

I hope it isn't saying players ranked the highest on this list means their the best offensive player in the league. Because if it is, then it should be abolished and used by no one. Especially once you view the actual rankings of the list.

[BankShot]

What's the practical point of the stat then?

Relax... I'm not a proponent of the stat. I haven't really looked into how exactly its formulated, how that formulation came to be, nor have I ever heard anyone use it as a basis for an argument.

I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.

[BankShot]

But the "given formula" is called Offensive rating. So if you follow this formula and use it as your main argument when it has Barkley as a better offensive player than Jordan, then you my friend are a dumbass.

Sure, if I were to "use it as [my] main argument" I could in fact be a dumbass. :rolleyes:

However, I'm not using it as an argument, nor have I ever heard anyone using it as a primary source towards furthering an argument.... so at this point it just kinda makes you sound silly for getting so worked up about an equation and the metric it produces. :facepalm

[BankShot]

I hope it isn't saying players ranked the highest on this list means their the best offensive player in the league. Because if it is, then it should be abolished and used by no one. Especially once you view the actual rankings of the list.

:roll:

Nobody has used it as an end-all-be-all ranking of all that is basketball. :facepalm

Anyone that understands what a statistic is, understands that its simply part of a conversation, not the answer. :facepalm

[Marchesk]

I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.

Sure, I just found the all-time ranking interesting. Was not expecting to see Chris Paul at the top. Now Charles Barkley and Adrian Dantley in the top 10 doesn't surprise me. But then it has Sydney Moncrief ahead of both of them. I would like to know exactly what the formula is trying to measure. Or what it means and how you can apply it. Nobody is going to say Moncrief was a superior scorer to Jordan. You wouldn't even troll that. So what does it mean to have him 8 spots ahead of MJ? If they both had 100 possessions, are we really going to say that Sid the Squid would score (or facilitate) more points?

All that being said,

El Sid > the King > Black Mamba

... and it isn't even close.

[Nuff Said]

what else would you want from an offensive player?

To do it at a high volume?:confusedshrug:

[Marchesk]

Oh look, Chris Paul is 4th all-time in win shares per 48 minutes. Lebron is 6th and Kobe is 31. Advanced stats like Chris Paul apparently. It's clearly a conspiracy to keep Kobe out of the top 10.

[G-train]

Relax... I'm not a proponent of the stat. I haven't really looked into how exactly its formulated, how that formulation came to be, nor have I ever heard anyone use it as a basis for an argument.

I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.

Would have thought it was a pretty calm post, containing a simple question.
You came out pretty aggressive towards OP.

[BankShot]

After looking into the ORtg.... here's an interesting excerpt from the creator and author of the publication in which it made its first appearance:


In a later chapter of Basketball on Paper, Oliver emphasized that Offensive Ratings shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Introducing a concept he called "Skill Curves", he acknowledged that a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role.


LOL even the creator explicitly has said its not the end-all-be-all rationale for player judgement and that it has its limitations. :applause:

[BankShot]

Would have thought it was a pretty calm post, containing a simple question.
You came out pretty aggressive towards OP.

:rolleyes: :facepalm

[BankShot]

Sure, I just found the all-time ranking interesting. Was not expecting to see Chris Paul at the top. Now Charles Barkley and Adrian Dantley in the top 10 doesn't surprise me. But then it has Sydney Moncrief ahead of both of them. I would like to know exactly what the formula is trying to measure. Or what it means and how you can apply it. Nobody is going to say Moncrief was a superior scorer to Jordan. You wouldn't even troll that. So what does it mean to have him 8 spots ahead of MJ? If they both had 100 possessions, are we really going to say that Sid the Squid would score (or facilitate) more points?



As far as I can gather, its yet another examination of statistical production that attempts to take many single metrics and combine them into a encompassing metric to quantitatively express a player's impact on the court.

This impact is gauged by point production versus usage.

As for the actual "rankings"..... its not really an ordinal system where the difference between 1-2 is the same as 8-9 and so on. I haven't seen the values associated with the top 10 or 20 or whatever, so I won't comment on how much better one's career ORtg is than another's.

[DMAVS41]

As far as I can gather, its yet another examination of statistical production that attempts to take many single metrics and combine them into a encompassing metric to quantitatively express a player's impact on the court.

This impact is gauged by point production versus usage.

As for the actual "rankings"..... its not really an ordinal system where the difference between 1-2 is the same as 8-9 and so on. I haven't seen the values associated with the top 10 or 20 or whatever, so I won't comment on how much better one's career ORtg is than another's.

It's really not hard. It's an estimate of how many points said player produces while trying to use a possession to score.

When comparing players...you simply need to look at similar scoring volumes and usages otherwise it is pretty worthless. But that is literally true with almost any stat. Nobody cares that Tyson Chandler has a better fg% than Kobe because we factor in Kobe scoring 3 times as many points or whatever it is.

So comparing Chandler and Kobe on offensive rating or fg% does not make sense. But comparing Lebron and Kobe on these metrics make a lot more sense.

It's not hard. It's just Kobe stans trying discredit every single metric other than ppg. They really, honestly, just want to go back in time when people thought ppg was all that matters.

[BankShot]

Nobody cares that Tyson Chandler has a better fg% than Kobe because we factor in Kobe scoring 3 times as many points or whatever it is.


Even then, without further context of where their shots are taken from, usage isn't even a proper variable if one was to compare Kobe and Chandler in terms of offensive impact.

All of these things are very small pieces of a large complex puzzle when trying to quantitatively compare players

[DMAVS41]

Even then, without further context of where their shots are taken from, usage isn't even a proper variable if one was to compare Kobe and Chandler in terms of offensive impact.

All of these things are very small pieces of a large complex puzzle when trying to quantitatively compare players

Of course they are all part of the big puzzle. I actually made that exact point in another thread.

My point is that you compare like with like. You don't compare a 10ppg scorer to a 30ppg scorer.

Trying to invalidate what a measure is in that way is just lazy and probably dishonest.

Same thing with PER...people think it's invalidated because sometimes a player rates higher than expected

[gts]

Even then, without further context of where their shots are taken from, usage isn't even a proper variable if one was to compare Kobe and Chandler in terms of offensive impact.

All of these things are very small pieces of a large complex puzzle when trying to quantitatively compare players

This...

Most stats are not for comparing players to players on other teams or eras. they're created for looking at a certain player within his team environment.

[BankShot]

Of course they are all part of the big puzzle. I actually made that exact point in another thread.

My point is that you compare like with like. You don't compare a 10ppg scorer to a 30ppg scorer.

Trying to invalidate what a measure is in that way is just lazy and probably dishonest.

Same thing with PER...people think it's invalidated because sometimes a player rates higher than expected

I agree what your'e saying with the like-with-like idea.... and how people try to invalidate advanced metrics because "Player X is higher than Player Y, but Player Y is a 10-time allstar.

I've said all along that it comes down to actually taking the time to critically think about what these metrics are conveying.

Take PER for instance.... its a per-minute accrual of basic statistical output. Everybody got in a huff about Eddy Curry having like a 35 PER a couple years ago at one point... but if they took the time to think about his stats and what PER means, they'd realize that he was averaging like 30/20/2 per-36 because he only played 2 minutes.

[zoom17]

I know is is off topic but I think the QBR rating is really absurd.

[I<3NBA]

i like stats. it's a science. science is better than religion. stats>eye test

[Young X]

That's because you don't understand what it means. It's a points per possession (efficiency) stat that doesn't factor in volume, it's not a "who's a better player" stat. The player with the higher ORTG is the player that used his possessions more efficiently. Plain and simple.

Player A: 20 pts on 50 TS% with 5 assists and 6 turnovers
Player B: 20 pts on 60 TS% with 5 assists and 2 turnovers

Player B used his possessions more efficiently and will have the higher ORTG. Simple.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Shaqs 2001 regular season, considered by most to be the MDE during this period..

his ORtg in 2001 was 114

Chris Bosh's Ortg in 06 was 118..

Chris Bosh a better offensive player than 2001 Shaq?

Bosh has had 6 or more seasons with a higher ORtg than 2001 Shaq


:facepalm @ people defending this stat, it's hot garbage

[Young X]

Shaqs 2001 regular season, considered by most to be the MDE during this period..

his ORtg in 2001 was 114

Chris Bosh's Ortg in 06 was 118..

Chris Bosh a better offensive player than 2001 Shaq?

Bosh has had 6 or more seasons with a higher ORtg than 2001 Shaq


:facepalm @ people defending this stat, it's hot garbageNo, it's saying Chris Bosh used his possessions more efficiently than Shaq without looking at volume. It's an efficiency stat only. Chris Bosh in '06 was more efficient than Shaq in '01.

[Marchesk]

i like stats. it's a science. science is better than religion. stats>eye test

There are lies, damned lies, and Lebron stans.

[DMAVS41]

Shaqs 2001 regular season, considered by most to be the MDE during this period..

his ORtg in 2001 was 114

Chris Bosh's Ortg in 06 was 118..

Chris Bosh a better offensive player than 2001 Shaq?

Bosh has had 6 or more seasons with a higher ORtg than 2001 Shaq


:facepalm @ people defending this stat, it's hot garbage

Are you really this dumb?

Shaq had a usage of 32% and scored 29 ppg.

Bosh had a usage of 25% and scored 23 ppg.

A difference in 1 or 2 ppg is negligible...but when you start factoring in larger differences like that...it makes the stat less useful.

You have to do your best to compare like with like.

It's really not hard.

[Young X]

2011 finals game 3.

Dirk puts up 34 points on 52 % shooting and has an ORtg of 128...

Tyson Chandler puts up 5 points on 25% shooting and has an ORtg of 137...You're not mentioning that Chandler had 7 offensive boards to Dirk's 1 and 0 turnovers to Dirk's 3. When you take every offensive category into account, Chandler did have a slightly more efficient statline than Dirk. But that's it, Dirk had a much better game offensively because he did far more for his team. If Chandler had a 137 ORTG while posting 34 pts like Dirk - then he'd have had a better game offensively (numbers wise).

ORTG is an offensive efficiency metric only, just because a player has a higher ORTG doesn't mean he's the better offensive player, it means he made better use of his possessions (more efficient) without factoring in volume. Once you factor in volume that's when you should start looking at who's better offensively. Comparing a role player's ORTG to a superstars' is idiotic.

[DMAVS41]

You're not mentioning that Chandler had 7 offensive boards to Dirk's 1 and 0 turnovers to Dirk's 3. When you take every offensive category into account, Chandler did have a slightly more efficient statline than Dirk. But that's it, Dirk had a much better game offensively because he did far more for his team. If Chandler had a 137 ORTG while posting 34 pts like Dirk - then he'd have had a better game offensively (numbers wise).

ORTG is an offensive efficiency metric only, just because a player has a higher ORTG doesn't mean he's the better offensive player, it means he made better use of his possessions (more efficient) without factoring in volume. Once you factor in volume that's when you should start looking at who's better offensively. Comparing a role player's ORTG to a superstars' is idiotic.

We've been trying to explain this to him for a day now. He doesn't get it.

[TheMarkMadsen]

We've been trying to explain this to him for a day now. He doesn't get it.


It's an efficiency metric that means nothing when comparing how good offensively 2 players are yet your dumbass uses it as an argument for Dirk being a better offensive player than Kobe.

ORtg is meaningless

[Legends66NBA7]

If you don't like the metric, don't bother using it.

:confusedshrug:

Besides, I always find most, if not all, advanced metrics better to be used as team stats.

[DMAVS41]

It's an efficiency metric that means nothing when comparing how good offensively 2 players are yet your dumbass uses it as an argument for Dirk being a better offensive player than Kobe.

ORtg is meaningless

That is comparing like with like. And that wasn't my only argument.

Kobe and Dirk both score 26 ppg in the playoffs...etc.

And it's not perfect...Kobe has a higher usage...but it's at least applicable in a way here that it isn't with your Shaq and Bosh example.

[Young X]

The top 5 teams of all time ORTG wise are:

'87 Lakers
'92 Bulls
'88 Celtics
'10 Suns
'96 Bulls

Led by Magic, Jordan, Bird, and Nash - 4 of the best, most efficient offensive players in NBA history.

The 2 best teams last season ORTG wise are:

OKC
Miami

Led by 2 of the best, most efficient offensive players in the league - Bron and Durant. You can't make this sh!t up.

[KG215]

All advanced stats should be taken with a grain of salt but this one should be completely thrown out.

For example.

2011 finals game 3.

Dirk puts up 34 points on 52 % shooting and has an ORtg of 128...

Tyson Chandler puts up 5 points on 25% shooting and has an ORtg of 137..

Deshawn Stevenson puts up 3 points on 1 shot and has a ORtg of 278..

An even better example is game 5.

Dirk puts up 29 on 50% shooting and gets an ORtg of 125..

Jj barrea puts up 17 on 54% shootings and gets an ORtg of 146..

Dirk actually had the 4th lowest ORtg on his team for that game while being his teams leading scorer and puttin up 29 on 50%..

This stat can officially hit the road..
It's almost as if you've never even heard of the word context before, never mind having any clue what it means.

[DMAVS41]

It's almost as if you've never even heard of the word context before, never mind having any clue what it means.

He doesn't understand the death of using a 1 game sample size for anything...or the word volume either

If those players could keep that efficiency up on volume and usage...they would be the best offensive players

He's either trolling or just has no brain...reminds of branslowski

[Young X]

GOAT Offensive Rating:

1. CP3
7. Chuck
14. MJ
20. Dirk
29. Lebron
81. Shaq
108. Kobe
248. Carmelo

CP3 is a better scorer than Kobe. :confusedshrug:All this means is so far in his career, CP3 has been the most efficient offensive player in NBA history within the possessions that he uses. He's an extremely efficient offensive player. That's where you need to look at volume also. Paul doesn't have the same responsibilty (possessions wise) as the guys behind him. If he had to take 20-24 shots per night like Kobe or Bron there's no way he'd maintain that efficiency.

That's why you have to compare efficiency among players that play the same role possessions wise. Jordan being 14th on that list reinforces why he's the best offensive player ever - every player ahead of him has no where near the same volume as him. He had the best combination of volume and efficiency in league history. He was able to maintain a high efficiency while jacking up 24 shots per night.

[branslowski]

He doesn't understand the death of using a 1 game sample size for anything...or the word volume either

If those players could keep that efficiency up on volume and usage...they would be the best offensive players

He's either trolling or just has no brain...reminds of branslowski

Wat u mean, I've seen the light! I also agree that Tyson Chandler was the Best offensive player last season. Was actually shocked he didn't win the MVP last season.

[Young X]

Wat u mean, I've seen the light! I also agree that Tyson Chandler was the Best offensive player last season. Was actually shocked he didn't win the MVP last season.SMH. You still don't get it, it's not saying Chandler was the best, it's saying he was the most efficient offensive player within the possessions he used. It's not hard.

[DMAVS41]

Wat u mean, I've seen the light! I also agree that Tyson Chandler was the Best offensive player last season. Was actually shocked he didn't win the MVP last season.

See what I mean? You expect me to value your take on anything when you are either too stupid to comprehend this or just choosing not to?

Thanks for making my point for me...dat ether

[branslowski]

See what I mean? You expect me to value your take on anything when you are either too stupid to comprehend this or just choosing not to?

Thanks for making my point for me...dat ether

Yes, dat ether. Even though I agree Tyson Chandler was the best offensive player last season. Because I, unlike the Op, use the Ortg stat. Chandler is num 1 offensive player. Agreed? He's num 1 in rankings, thats a fact.

[DMAVS41]

Yes, dat ether. Even though I agree Tyson Chandler was the best offensive player last season. Because I, unlike the Op, use the Ortg stat. Chandler is num 1 offensive player. Agreed? He's num 1 in rankings, thats a fact.

But it doesn't say that. You are just too ****ing stupid to understand it I guess....

See how you can't just admit you were wrong? Exactly the opposite of what you accused me of.

I was wrong about something...took me 5 minutes to admit I was wrong.

Yet you refuse....

[branslowski]

But it doesn't say that. You are just too ****ing stupid to understand it I guess....

See how you can't just admit you were wrong? Exactly the opposite of what you accused me of.

I was wrong about something...took me 5 minutes to admit I was wrong.

Yet you refuse....

Refuse what?:oldlol:

What am I wrong on? My opinion is that Tyson Chandler was the best offensive player last season, and the Facts back it up, he was #1 last season in ortg. These are the facts, but continue your personal attacks and ad hominem.

[DMAVS41]

Refuse what?:oldlol:

What am I wrong on? My opinion is that Tyson Chandler was the best offensive player last season, and the Facts back it up, he was #1 last season in ortg. These are the facts, but continue your personal attacks and ad hominem.

The facts don't back it up though.

That is the point. You don't understand them...that has been my point all along...

And we know you won't stay consistent. If you really felt that...great.

Dirk's 118 offensive rating destroys Kobe's 110 offensive rating.

On your own metric Dirk is better. Thanks for finally admitting it. ROFL

[branslowski]

The facts don't back it up though.

That is the point. You don't understand them...that has been my point all along...

And we know you won't stay consistent. If you really felt that...great.

Dirk's 118 offensive rating destroys Kobe's 110 offensive rating.

On your own metric Dirk is better. Thanks for finally admitting it. ROFL

Agreed with that Dirk post, I also:

Cause I use to argue with Kareem stans about Terry Porter.

Terry Porter 119 otrg in the Playoffs

KAJ 113 otrg in the Playoffs

Destroys Kareem in the playoff with this amazing metric!

[gts]

Besides, I always find most, if not all, advanced metrics better to be used as team stats.

Offensive rating is one of those stats. It was never meant to compare players from team to team, it's worthless for that. Even the creator Dean Oliver tells us that in his book. It's a predictor stat of how a player does within his own team structure.

Secondly, even then it's of no use if you don't look further and ask why is that players rating what it is. Example: each free throw made or missed counts as a possession in ORTG so a player that shoots a higher % on free throws will rank higher vs a player like say Dwight Howard that sucks on his free throws. Howard ends up having a lot of one point possessions in his final ratings. If you don't investigate the numbers and just look at it at face value you're not using the stat right, matter of fact you're pretty much wasting your time

It's a great stat for team breakdown and where a player stands within his team but basically worthless for player comparison from team to team.

[riseagainst]

Actually I think you're trolling now. Efficiency is a pretty important stat. It only matters when you compare players who are on the same tier though. For instance, you can't say Chandler > Kobe because he has a higher FG% and not look like a complete retard.

:biggums:

#retard

[Kovach]

This...

Most stats are not for comparing players to players on other teams or eras. they're created for looking at a certain player within his team environment.
You must be fun at (fantasy basketball) parties...

[chips93]

Besides, I always find most, if not all, advanced metrics better to be used as team stats.

thats a good point

[chips93]

The top 5 teams of all time ORTG wise are:

'87 Lakers
'92 Bulls
'88 Celtics
'10 Suns
'96 Bulls

Led by Magic, Jordan, Bird, and Nash - 4 of the best, most efficient offensive players in NBA history.

The 2 best teams last season ORTG wise are:

OKC
Miami

Led by 2 of the best, most efficient offensive players in the league - Bron and Durant. You can't make this sh!t up.

comparing across eras is very tricky

the style of the league, as well as rules have changed over the years

i wouldnt take too much from these kinds of stats, for comparing across more than a couple years.

[gts]

You must be fun at (fantasy basketball) parties...
Never been involved with a fantasy league in my life

btw sorry they cancelled your show. it was a good one...lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This...

Most stats are not for comparing players to players on other teams or eras. they're created for looking at a certain player within his team environment.

I would say most ADVANCED stats. They're adjusted for a reason.

Raw metrics like PPG/REB/AST/STL/BLK/TO/FG% aren't perfect and can't be fully quantified because different teams run different schemes, but they're still the best way to evaluate players....other than watching games of course.

[DMAVS41]

I would say most ADVANCED stats. They're adjusted for a reason.

Raw metrics like PPG/REB/AST/STL/BLK/TO/FG% aren't perfect and can't be fully quantified because different teams run different schemes, but they're still the best way to evaluate players....other than watching games of course.

The problem with the eye-test is that everyone sees the game differently on some level. Stats...even advanced stats simply record data for what happens on the court. Raw stats aren't put through a biased filter first.

Your eye-test tells you one thing...another person's tells him another. It gets you nowhere unless there is universal consensus on something...like Dirk being better than Chandler or Kobe being better than Gasol. Oh wait...there actually isn't consensus on those things for a couple title runs.

The best way to evaluate players is to watch the games and then go to the objective stats to see if they match up with your take on something.

The best example of this was Kobe and all the game winning shot stats. Without the stats...people, near consensus when I first came here, thought Kobe as by far the best shot maker in those situations.

Yet, in reality, he's been slightly above average in the regular season and slightly below average in the playoffs.

Which one do you trust? The confirmation bias from watching games or a record of what actually happened.

The other problem with the eye-test is that the human brain can't absorb everything that's happening on the court while watching...and the sample size of watching games is absurdly low.

It's always important to try and bring context, but at some point "opinion" just won't cut it.

[I<3NBA]

eye test is the stupidest method of evaluating players. the eyes lie. this has already been proven. numbers don't.

[DMAVS41]

eye test is the stupidest method of evaluating players. the eyes lie. this has already been proven. numbers don't.

not only that, but even the biggest fan of the NBA can only watch a small fraction of all the games played.

[Kblaze8855]

Im gonna say what I said when someone posted a stat years ago(saying Amir Johnson was top 5) with the disclaimer that you can only compare similar players....


When you have to modify the results to get something close to reality....**** the results to begin with.

Either its good or it isnt. When it has Dirk behind Chandler...it isnt good.

Comparing like with like?

You know how I know dirk is better than Chandler?

Having seen a basketball game.

What is so wrong with that?

A pile of numbers being objective does not make them accurate. Right but arguable>idiotic and definitive.

Every time.

[DMAVS41]

Im gonna say what I said when someone posted a stat years ago(saying Amir Johnson was top 5) with the disclaimer that you can only compare similar players....


When you have to modify the results to get something close to reality....**** the results to begin with.

Either its good or it isnt. When it has Dirk behind Chandler...it isnt good.

Comparing like with like?

You know how I know dirk is better than Chandler?

Having seen a basketball game.

What is so wrong with that?

A pile of numbers being objective does not make them accurate. Right but arguable>idiotic and definitive.

Every time.

There are varying degrees of this. It's obvious that a player like Dirk is better than Chandler. You don't really need to run to evidence to back that up because someone would have be irrational to claim otherwise.

However, there are more nuanced debates between players on a similar level.

I've seen you say you'd take Hakeem over Lebron every time. Okay, but that distinction is a lot different than just saying something obvious like Dirk is better than Chandler.

I watch basketball as well. I'd take Lebron over Hakeem every time. Where do we go from here if we aren't allowed to use any evidence? It's just a highly subjective and biased battle.

[Kblaze8855]

And?

Is a string of numbers gonna get us closer to the truth or just closer to something you can call objective long as it favors your side?

Thats all people do.

Establish an opinion and search for numbers to back it up. If you cant explain it with the information that gave you the initial opinion I dont know if it was justified to begin with.

You had the opinion before the numbers.

What about your process to get to that opinion is so wrong you need to break out a calculator and fight over numbers from games you didnt even see?

[branslowski]

eye test is the stupidest method of evaluating players. the eyes lie. this has already been proven. numbers don't.

Actually the eye ball test does work, it helps you put together context aswell as seeing players impact the game without it showing up on a stat sheet. That's like waking up from a coma, going to bball reference, looking up game 6 of the finals and saying "Ray Allen scored a little bit of points, he wasn't important" yet while watching you would knoe that he hit the shot that gave Heat a shot at a game 7 and LeBron's 2nd title.

If you just looked at the stats, you would swear LeBron dominated the Finals...But check all those Finals threads, while we were watching LeBron was just playing horrible in a few games...Even some LeBron fans started giving up on him....But now everyone acts as if his Finals was dominating because they checked the stats.

Also, no one is saying "stats don't matter", IMO Pts, reb, ast, blk, stls, 3pt% and fg% stats matter. That's how majority of the worlds fans look at it...My gripe is with these nerd advanced stats like ortg, ortg tells me Terry Porter was better offensive player in the Playoffs than Kareem, do you really believe that? Do you really believe Tyson Chandler was the best offensive player last season? Hell no, but this is the stat yawl like to use? Smh.

Look, I get that It's an "objective measure used to blah blah blah" but how can anyone take it seriously when it has rankings like this: Mutumbo 115.1 offensive rating in the playoffs and LeBron 114.5 offensive rating in the playoffs?:biggums:

Sorry, me and majority of sain fans won't view this blatantly garbage stat as a serious objective measures. Kick rocks with that.

[branslowski]

And?

Is a string of numbers gonna get us closer to the truth or just closer to something you can call objective long as it favors your side?

Thats all people do.

Establish an opinion and search for numbers to back it up. If you cant explain it with the information that gave you the initial opinion I dont know if it was justified to begin with.

You had the opinion before the numbers.

What about your process to get to that opinion is so wrong you need to break out a calculator and fight over numbers from games you didnt even see?

Bingo.:applause:

[DMAVS41]

And?

Is a string of numbers gonna get us closer to the truth or just closer to something you can call objective long as it favors your side?

Thats all people do.

Establish an opinion and search for numbers to back it up. If you cant explain it with the information that gave you the initial opinion I dont know if it was justified to begin with.

You had the opinion before the numbers.

What about your process to get to that opinion is so wrong you need to break out a calculator and fight over numbers from games you didnt even see?

Not at all. I had the opinion and if the numbers don't back it up...you change. That is how it works. For example...I thought, through watching the games...as did most others, that Kobe had more low fg% games than Dirk in the playoffs. Then someone looked it up an Dirk actually had slightly more...therefore I now change my opinion on that. As it's not an opinion anymore...it's a fact.

And, under your thinking, we should throw out something as simple as fg%...because in your misunderstanding of how to use something like ortg...you think fg% determines which player is better. And that is not what any stat does.

It's obvious that you wouldn't compare Chandler's fg% to Kobe's fg% because it's not comparing like with like. Just because Chandler has a higher fg% does not mean it's bad to begin with...or as you put it "****" the results to begin with.

Stats, at their core, are a recording of what happens on the court.

[DMAVS41]

Bingo.:applause:

How can you agree with this when you are one of the most guilty in this with your game winning arguments.

The "stats" in that case are merely actually what happened. It doesn't need to come in the form of numbers. We could sit down and watch the video of every single miss to illustrate the point as well.

This notion that the highly biased opinions of fans should trump what actually is taking place on the court just floors me.

[Kblaze8855]

Who has the most number of games doing ___ isnt an opinion. Its a recorded fact.

An opinion is...Dirk is a better scorer than Kobe.

Which is why you can look one up and prove it so or prove it isnt...and the other you cant.

And my favorite player is Derrick Rose, it used to be Ben Gordon, I love Allen Iverson, and Tim Hardaway is one of my all time favorites.

How do you think I feel about field goal percentage?

I care more about numbers from players I had no way to see.

If you are right in front of me your numbers arent making me believe anything my eyes disagree with.

[branslowski]

How can you agree with this when you are one of the most guilty in this with your game winning arguments.

The "stats" in that case are merely actually what happened. It doesn't need to come in the form of numbers. We could sit down and watch the video of every single miss to illustrate the point as well.

This notion that the highly biased opinions of fans should trump what actually is taking place on the court just floors me.

What game winning argument? My only words on that was that Kobe has the 2nd most gamewinning shots made ever only to Jordan. You were the one stuck on hating looking for percentages. I never said Kobe was the most fg% accurate game winning shot maker.

If Trey Burke hits a gamewinner on opening night, he's at 100%. I could really give 3 shits.

[DMAVS41]

Who has the most number of games doing ___ isnt an opinion. Its a recorded fact.

An opinion is...Dirk is a better scorer than Kobe.

Which is why you can look one up and prove it so or prove it isnt...and the other you cant.

And my favorite player is Derrick Rose, it used to be Ben Gordon, I love Allen Iverson, and Tim Hardaway is one of my all time favorites.

How do you think I feel about field goal percentage?

I care more about numbers from players I had no way to see.

If you are right in front of me your numbers arent making me believe anything my eyes disagree with.

That is an obvious distinction. But when debating something...not presenting evidence and just resorting to one's own biased opinion is horribly flawed. It's not even an acceptable form of debate on any level.

The assertion..."Dirk is a better scorer than Kobe" is an opinion like you said. But what matters is backing that opinion up with argument and evidence.

And we all know you'd use some form of evidence in your reasoning for taking Hakeem over Lebron every time.

[DMAVS41]

What game winning argument? My only words on that was that Kobe has the 2nd most gamewinning shots made ever only to Jordan. You were the one stuck on hating looking for percentages. I never said Kobe was the most fg% accurate game winning shot maker.

If Trey Burke hits a gamewinner on opening night, he's at 100%. I could really give 3 shits.

If you had a shot to tie or win a game in the playoffs...would you want Dirk or Kobe taking it?

[Kblaze8855]

It isnt a debate team(which by the way...I was on).

And even on a debate team you often cant prove anything.

I could make an idiot believe a lot of things using impressive sounding stats and a few facts and opinions mixed in. Wouldnt mean I believed it. Means im talking to an impressionable idiot who doesnt know any better.

Thats not what im going for. Id rather fail to convince you of something by explaining what I think in basketball terms than get you to agree to something because I googled it.

Im the same here and offline. If im not talking to a guy at the bar about offensive ratings why would I do it to you?

He gets what I mean just s well as you would. I can explain myself clearly.

If you dont agree....**** it. You arent gonna agree after a gang of stats says something you dont like anyway.

[branslowski]

Who has the most number of games doing ___ isnt an opinion. Its a recorded fact.

An opinion is...Dirk is a better scorer than Kobe.

Which is why you can look one up and prove it so or prove it isnt...and the other you cant.

And my favorite player is Derrick Rose, it used to be Ben Gordon, I love Allen Iverson, and Tim Hardaway is one of my all time favorites.

How do you think I feel about field goal percentage?

I care more about numbers from players I had no way to see.

If you are right in front of me your numbers arent making me believe anything my eyes disagree with.

This. I use to love watching Iverson and Tim Hardaway ball. I was electrified watching Ben Gordan hit shot after shot vs the Celtics thru a long 7 game series. I enjoy watching Derrick Rose make amazing buckets and dribble drive to the rack at will...But now all of a sudden with the constant Insidehoops efficiency team, It's like your condemned if you enjoy those players because they didn't shoot high fg%. So now the posters who didn't watch these guys go and pull up fg% stats just to prove a point.

It's a disgrace that Basketball has come to this for these types of fans.

[DMAVS41]

It isnt a debate team(which by the way...I was on).

And even on a debate team you often cant prove anything.

I could make an idiot believe a lot of things using impressive sounding stats and a few facts and opinions mixed in. Wouldnt mean I believed it. Means im talking to an impressionable idiot who doesnt know any better.

Thats not what im going for. Id rather fail to convince you of something by explaining what I think in basketball terms than get you to agree to something because I googled it.

Im the same here and offline. If im not talking to a guy at the bar about offensive ratings why would I do it to you?

He gets what I mean just s well as you would. I can explain myself clearly.

If you dont agree....**** it. You arent gonna agree after a gang of stats says something you dont like anyway.

I could say literally the exact same thing directed at you.

It's about putting substance behind claims.

You, for example...have talked about there not being much of a difference, if any, between Wade and Kobe when healthy in their primes. Where do you go when someone constantly asserts that there was a huge difference? You go to actual evidence that supports your side and negates his.

You make a claim and then defend it as best you can. If you claim Hakeem was so much better than Lebron that you'd take him every time...it have to support that with argument and evidence. If you don't...it's just your biased opinion not supported by anything other than your biased opinion.

That may work for you just fine because you value your opinion very highly...probably more highly than anyone's...but I don't value your opinion. It's meaningless to me...

[branslowski]

If you had a shot to tie or win a game in the playoffs...would you want Dirk or Kobe taking it?

Kobe. He's done it the 2nd most times in NBA history, has multiple playoff gamewinners, and is a proven winner and a top 10 All time great.

[DMAVS41]

This. I use to love watching Iverson and Tim Hardaway ball. I was electrified watching Ben Gordan hit shot after shot vs the Celtics thru a long 7 game series. I enjoy watching Derrick Rose make amazing buckets and dribble drive to the rack at will...But now all of a sudden with the constant Insidehoops efficiency team, It's like your condemned if you enjoy those players because they didn't shoot high fg%. So now the posters who didn't watch these guys go and pull up fg% stats just to prove a point.

It's a disgrace that Basketball has come to this for these types of fans.

Who doesn't enjoy watching that stuff? There is a difference between enjoying it...and arguing a guy like Rose vs Dirk or Lebron...

And I could say the following...

I enjoy watching Dirk carve up defense on super high efficiency in the playoffs when he gets going. But now all of sudden with the constant ISH Kobe stans trying to pretend he's the worst defender ever...it's like your condemned if you enjoy offensive powerhouses like Dirk play because they don't make the all defensive team every year.

It's a disgrace that basketball has come to this for these types of fans.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe. He's done it the 2nd most times in NBA history, has multiple playoff gamewinners, and is a proven winner and a top 10 All time great.

Okay. So you use stats to support your position.

Now I'm confused. Why did you use stats if you don't need them to support your position?

[branslowski]

Who doesn't enjoy watching that stuff? There is a difference between enjoying it...and arguing a guy like Rose vs Dirk or Lebron...

And I could say the following...

I enjoy watching Dirk carve up defense on super high efficiency in the playoffs when he gets going. But now all of sudden with the constant ISH Kobe stans trying to pretend he's the worst defender ever...it's like your condemned if you enjoy offensive powerhouses like Dirk play because they don't make the all defensive team every year.

It's a disgrace that basketball has come to this for these types of fans.

What does this mean? I watch the games, and Dirk is simply amazing. He scores in more ways than most Forwards, he's fun to watch on offense. He's not a great defensive player obviously, and I and the fellow NBA coaches know that, even he knows that. But I'm not searching advanced stats to prove that point.:confusedshrug:

[Kblaze8855]

And there is the issue...

If you dont care what I think why are you talking to me in the first place?

Once I stop caring about what people think...I dont talk to them anymore.

What is the point of convincing someone of something when you dont care what they think?

Ive seen some of the long Bs arguments you have on these issues.

You cant even be enjoying them........

[DMAVS41]

What does this mean? I watch the games, and Dirk is simply amazing. He scores in more ways than most Forwards, he's fun to watch on offense. He's not a great defensive player obviously, and I and the fellow NBA coaches know that, even he knows that. But I'm not searching advanced stats to prove that point.:confusedshrug:

It meant the exact same thing your little diatribe did.

Nobody is telling you not to enjoy watching Rose play or Kobe play. We are saying, at times, that making certain claims about some players need to be backed up by evidence.

That is all. Nobody is saying that Rose isn't good or that you shouldn't enjoy watching him play.

My post was in response to the nonsense your were posting.

[branslowski]

Okay. So you use stats to support your position.

Now I'm confused. Why did you use stats if you don't need them to support your position?

Read my first long post of the thread. (and serious post)

I use stats that have been and will always be used by majority of Fans. Like pts, rebs, ast, blk, stls, exc...What I'm not a fan of is advanced stats. But at the same time while using the regular stats you still have to watch games to gain context.

[DMAVS41]

And there is the issue...

If you dont care what I think why are you talking to me in the first place?

Once I stop caring about what people think...I dont talk to them anymore.

What is the point of convincing someone of something when you dont care what they think?

Ive seen some of the long Bs arguments you have on these issues.

You cant even be enjoying them........


I think the better question is. If you refuse to ever back up anything you say...why should anyone care what you think?

That is the real issue.

I'm talking about valuing one person's opinion over another person's. The opinion doesn't matter...it's the arguments and evidence that matter.

[DMAVS41]

Read my first long post of the thread. (and serious post)

I use stats that have been and will always be used by majority of Fans. Like pts, rebs, ast, blk, stls, exc...What I'm not a fan of is advanced stats. But at the same time while using the regular stats you still have to watch games to gain context.

Do you consider a record of made and missed shots an advanced stat?

[Kblaze8855]

If you dont consider talking about basketball backing up a basketball opinion this just isnt going anywhere.

So ill leave you to agrue in a circle with people with opinions you dont care about anyway.

[DMAVS41]

If you dont consider talking about basketball backing up a basketball opinion this just isnt going anywhere.

So ill leave you to agrue in a circle with people with opinions you dont care about anyway.

Of course I do. Those are the arguments part...that is talking about basketball. It's a huge part of this. You can't make an argument...and then not have it supported by the evidence and expect it to not fall under attack.

That is what this all is about. Arguments and talking about basketball.

But you also need evidence to support those arguments.

[branslowski]

Basically, I understand Dmavs argument for providing evidence to back up your claims. This is completely true.

Yet claiming the eye ball test is flawed is a complete lie.


And all advanced stats like the one in the op (where Chandler is the best offensive player) is complete crap and should be takin serious by no one.



Thread/

[branslowski]

If you dont consider talking about basketball backing up a basketball opinion this just isnt going anywhere.

So ill leave you to agrue in a circle with people with opinions you dont care about anyway.

Wow, you caught on to Dmavs ways quicker than most have.:lol

You made the right decision by just walking away.lol

[Darius]

Who has the most number of games doing ___ isnt an opinion. Its a recorded fact.

An opinion is...Dirk is a better scorer than Kobe.

Which is why you can look one up and prove it so or prove it isnt...and the other you cant.

And my favorite player is Derrick Rose, it used to be Ben Gordon, I love Allen Iverson, and Tim Hardaway is one of my all time favorites.

How do you think I feel about field goal percentage?

I care more about numbers from players I had no way to see.

If you are right in front of me your numbers arent making me believe anything my eyes disagree with.

#oldmanviewpoint

[DMAVS41]

Basically, I understand Dmavs argument for providing evidence to back up your claims. This is completely true.

Yet claiming the eye ball test is flawed is a complete lie.


And all advanced stats like the one in the op (where Chandler is the best offensive player) is complete crap and should be takin serious by no one.



Thread/

Not one is claiming the eye ball test is 100% flawed...just that because everyone sees the game differently and is biased...we must use actual evidence to support or negate the conclusions we reach from watching...and also because we simply can't watch enough games for all these players as well.

Our watching sample size is extremely low.


But you continue to not comprehend what ortg says. It does not say who the best offensive player is. No more than ppg say who the best scorer is...or no more than fg% dictates the best offensive player.

I'm assuming you think fg% is a valid stat. If so...then why did you use context with that...and not with something like ortg.

Pleas look at this example...because it is exactly what you are doing...I'll even use your words;

And all stats like fg% one in the op (where deandre jordan is the best offensive player) is complete crap and should be takin serious by no one.

Do you really not see the flaw in your thinking?

[gts]

Basically, I understand Dmavs argument for providing evidence to back up your claims. This is completely true.

Yet claiming the eye ball test is flawed is a complete lie.


And all advanced stats like the one in the op (where Chandler is the best offensive player) is complete crap and should be takin serious by no one.



Thread/

I understand DMavs point too but he's being hypocritical. He only wants to use certain stats or certain time frames while ignoring large blocks of a players career. Example in the Kobe/Dirk thread he only wanted to debate the playoffs because he considers the regular season not worthy of discussion.

I'm not going to waste my time talking hoops with a guy who searches out only information that reinforces his pre-existing bias while ignoring massive amounts of information and huge chunks of a players career.

[Legends66NBA7]

Im gonna say what I said when someone posted a stat years ago(saying Amir Johnson was top 5) with the disclaimer that you can only compare similar players....

What stat was this ?

There was this new defensive RAPM or whatever showing Amir in the Top 5 of last season, but I guess that's not the same thing.

[DMAVS41]

I understand DMavs point too but he's being hypocritical. He only wants to use certain stats or certain time frames while ignoring large blocks of a players career. Example in the Kobe/Dirk thread he only wanted to debate the playoffs because he considers the regular season not worthy of discussion.

I'm not going to waste my time talking hoops with a guy who searches out only information that reinforces his pre-existing bias while ignoring massive amounts of information and huge chunks of a players career.

But that is just a lie. I didn't want to debate the regular season because it's just obvious Kobe was the better scorer...not even worth our time debating. Don't know any rational person supporting Dirk in the regular season as a scorer over Kobe.

I never argued that Dirk was the better scorer in the regular season or overall if you combine the two.

So please don't lie.

And this is hilarious coming towards me when in the debate itself about the playoffs...it was the pro Kobe side needing to ignore huge chunks of his playoff career.

Come back to reality GTS..seriously.

[branslowski]

Pleas look at this example...because it is exactly what you are doing...I'll even use your words;

And all stats like fg% one in the op (where deandre jordan is the best offensive player) is complete crap and should be takin serious by no one.

Do you really not see the flaw in your thinking?

Umm....One says "offensive rating" and the other says "field goal percentage".

One is saying WHERE you rate offensively, while the other is rating Field Goal percentage. In which Those playing closer to the basket will have higher fg%.

[DMAVS41]

Umm....One says "offensive rating" and the other says "field goal percentage".

One is saying WHERE you rate offensively, while the other is rating Field Goal percentage. In which Those playing closer to the basket will have higher fg%.

See...you just are ignorant then.

Offensive rating is a measure of how you use your possessions to score. So those players that don't score a lot of points or have lower usages...don't have the same burden on them.

Just like the player being close to the basket has it easier to maintain a higher fg%...and of course you left out volume. Volume can impact efficiency...

So you put context around fg% and not offensive rating...

It's a horribly flawed way of thinking just because you don't like the result. You know not to compare Jordan with Kobe in terms of fg% because it doesn't make sense on volume alone. Yet you don't make that same distinction when comparing Chandler and Kobe...when it's an almost identical issue.

[branslowski]

See...you just are ignorant then.

Offensive rating is a measure of how you use your possessions to score. So those players that don't score a lot of points or have lower usages...don't have the same burden on them.

Just like the player being close to the basket has it easier to maintain a higher fg%...and of course you left out volume. Volume can impact efficiency...

So you put context around fg% and not offensive rating...

It's a horribly flawed way of thinking just because you don't like the result. You know not to compare Jordan with Kobe in terms of fg% because it doesn't make sense on volume alone. Yet you don't make that same distinction when comparing Chandler and Kobe...when it's an almost identical issue.

No dude....Fg% just rate field goals. And the "context" is something blatant. You know those who play close to the rim will have a higher fg%. You can easily determine this while watching the games.

Meanwhile Jose Calderon was a higher offensive rated player than Durant according to ur metric.

[Young X]

That means Jose used his possessions more efficiently than Durant without looking at volume. Which is a true. It's not saying he was a better player. Get it?

Understand the meaning of a metric before you criticize it.

[DMAVS41]

No dude....Fg% just rate field goals. And the "context" is something blatant. You know those who play close to the rim will have a higher fg%. You can easily determine this while watching the games.

Meanwhile Jose Calderon was a higher offensive rated player than Durant according to ur metric.

The context for ortg is blatant as well. You are just choosing to ignore it.

ortg does not say a player is a better offensive player than another. you just don't understand what it is.

it measures points produced by a player when said player uses a possession. it factors in more things, but it's still just a measure of something and does not mean that chandler or calderon is better than durant...in no way more than it means that deandre jordan is a better offensive player than durant because he has a higher fg%

both are blatant...you have just chosen to ignore one in terms of context.

you really don't think it's obvious in the same way?

[Kblaze8855]

What stat was this ?

There was this new defensive RAPM or whatever showing Amir in the Top 5 of last season, but I guess that's not the same thing.

Turns out Amir was 15th not top 5. But here is something from that topic years ago:


Me:


List has Amare in the 200s, Dwight near 100, guys like Kevin Martin waaaaaaaay down the list. Durant in the 300s meaning he performs like an average 10th man I guess? It wouldnt be hard to compare guys who play big minutes to that and show it to be foolish. It has Iggy over Kobe, Odom over Dirk, and Jamison, Lewis, and Artest over Tim Duncan. There is no end to the ways to ridicule this lists findings no matter who you wish to use. But if you are delusional enough to say things like Dwight is just slightly above average of what use is it showing you the obvious? You either see it and pretend you dont or you are blind to it.

Im not sure ive ever seen such a combo of obvious and inarguable incorrectness paired with such confidence. You are as wrong as wrong can be....face virtual consensus on the fact that you are wrong....and speak as if you are right and it can be proven.

Its almost impressive.

And Mr.Objectivity comes back with



Once again, listen to how you are arguing. You are arguing against the RESULTS, which you don't like. Not the way the statistic is computed. You do this because you are not intelligent enough to either understand the statistic is computed, nor are you intelligent enough to realize how to make a proper argument. So let me teach you.

If you want to argue that Kevin Durant DOESN'T suck, then you have to say..this statistic DOESN'T capture so and so aspect of his game..the statistic is flawed because it doesn't account for X,Y,and Z...

but you can't nor have ever done that. You can't just say, "I think Kevin Durant is good, and the statistic says he's bad. Therefore the statistic must be wrong! Because I can't be!"...errr..sorry, that's not a proper argument.

Kevin Durant sucks. Most people know it now. There's even an article about it on ESPN. Educate yourself.

And:



If the statistic says somebody sucks that you think is good..it's because they SUCK and you are wrong. It's not because the stat is bad..the stat is good, it's your intuition that is terribly wrong.

Unless you can offer evidence to the contrary.....which you haven't done...at all..

And:


Iggy is better than Kobe. Why? Because he plays FAR FAR better defense. You can't deny this.


These people are all the same.

"Give me evidence..."

"Your opinion means nothing..."

Same argument different year.

[DMAVS41]

That means Jose used his possessions more efficiently than Durant without looking at volume. Which is a true. It's not saying he was a better player. Get it?

Understand the meaning of a metric before you criticize it.

Yep. They don't get it.

It could not be more similar. The same context for fg% if applied to ortg would be just fine.

But he refuses....and I can't think of any reason other than he doesn't like the results.

[Kblaze8855]

Also...



Ignoring for a moment the fact that you are saying I need to argue against the stat when it goes against common sense and you dont need to argue to support what it says because it saying it is proof enough of its correctness.....


What im gonna do here is simply repost the things you have said in this topic that best do the job of ridiculing you. Its rare someone is so brazenly wrong...that their own words serve as better mockery than I can come up with...but you are a special special person...


Quote: Odom was over Dirk last year


Quote: Dwight Howard is nothing more than a slightly above average player in the NBA


Quote: Kevin Durant sucks. Most people know it now.


Quote: Iggy is better than Kobe


Quote: You think Kevin Martin is a good basketball player. PROVE IT. Because I think he sucks


Quote: Maybe your ignorance as to why Brad Miller is better than Dwight Howard is because you aren't aware that Brad is far better than Dwight at denying his man the ball, or not allowing the opposing big man to establish position down low...etc...


Quote: An average team A with Amir Johnson, playing an average team B with Kobe Bryant beats them. You see, since Amir Johnson is a bad offensive player, his team will score 98 points instead of 100, but since Kobe is a bad defender, he'll give up two points on d so Amir's team is back at 100 points scored. But playing his lockdown defense Amir's defense will cause his opponents team to score 8 less points than normal. Which means Kobe's average team would normally score 92 points, but since they have Kobe, they will score 7 points above their average meaning they will score 99 points per 100 possessions.

Team A of four average players and Amir Johnson at power forward would beat Team B of four average players and Kobe Bryant at sg 100-99.



You are what I used to consder a wildly unrealistic worst case scenario in regards to fans becoming too in love with stats. You have taught me a valuable lesson. No matter how low I set the bar...someone...somewhere....is gonna find a way to crawl under it.

You may be the death of my faith in common sense.


That topic was just....amazing.

[Young X]

Like I said before, offensive rating is just an efficiency metric - just like FG%, EFG%, FT%, TS%, etc. There all useless without context, but once you add context they start to become more useful.

Is a player that scored 10 pts on 60 TS% a better scorer than a player that scored 25 pts on 55 TS%? No, but he did score more efficiently within the possessions that he used. Once you compare scoring efficiency among players that score a similar amount of points that's when should start to come to "best scorer" conclusions - same with ORTG.

[DMAVS41]

Also...





That topic was just....amazing.

I don't get it. I've seen people here tell me all the time that Chandler was more valuable to the Mavs than Dirk.

And they don't do it through stats. They do it with "watching the games"

Seems like all this does is prove that people are morons at times...which we all already know.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yeah, reading through that thread and continuing with the Amir theme for a second:


An average team A with Amir Johnson, playing an average team B with Kobe Bryant beats them.

Man, I wish...

The rest of the stuff just relies to heavily on numbers. It's a really bad example and not a good way to show his view point.

[Kblaze8855]

Yea....I was waiting for him to go with the "You cant compare blah blabh blabh even if the very list im showing you is doing exactly that". Dude just repped his stat like he didnt know any better. Iggy is better than Kobe because it says so. And if your eyes say otherwise...your eyes are wrong.

[juju151111]

This is the reason I barly post. This thread should of ended on page 3 when the freaking creater of the stat said you can't judge it without context/usage %. How did this thread get pass that point is beyond me. Everybody just ignored it and continue posting nonesense.:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

This is the reason I barly post. This thread should of ended on page 3 when the freaking creater of the stat said you can't judge it without context/usage %. How did this thread get pass that point is beyond me. Everybody just ignored it and continue posting nonesense.:facepalm

Agreed. While I don't endorse the stat, it's pretty understandable in context.

Although, both the eye test and stats need a proper form of context to understand why the results are what they are. It needs a balance.

EDIT - I should say that I endorse this stat for teams, not individuals.

[juju151111]

Agreed. While I don't endorse the stat, it's pretty understandable in context.

Although, both the eye test and stats need a proper form of context to understand why the results are what they are. It needs a balance.

EDIT - I should say that I endorse this stat for teams, not individuals.
:applause: agreedmost advance stats require context through.

[gts]

:applause: agreedmost advance stats require context through.
yep...

They all require context on some level. At minimum you need to investigate why they are what they are and not just take the numbers at face value. usually just looking at the numbers involved to create the advanced stat or a box score will give you a frame of reference to put the stat in it's proper place.

[KG215]

That means Jose used his possessions more efficiently than Durant without looking at volume. Which is a true. It's not saying he was a better player. Get it?

Understand the meaning of a metric before you criticize it.
No, he'll never understand. Understanding context and using simple logic is something branslowski and a lot of other Kobe stans are incapable of doing.

[Doranku]

DMavs I have a question for you.

Say you have 2 players who both shoot 50%.

One player shoots 50% every game. The other shooting 60% in half of his games and 40% in the other half.

Who would you rather have?

[DMAVS41]

DMavs I have a question for you.

Say you have 2 players who both shoot 50%.

One player shoots 50% every game. The other shooting 60% in half of his games and 40% in the other half.

Who would you rather have?

I honestly don't know. You?

[DMAVS41]

No, he'll never understand. Understanding context and using simple logic is something branslowski and a lot of other Kobe stans are incapable of doing.

He understands it just fine. Branslowski is actually smart, he just plays dumb when it suits his agenda.

He knows perfectly well how to use context with fg%...and then turns around and acts like he can't do the same thing with ortg. Why? Because that would destroy his entire point.

It's like he sees something called "offensive rating" and thinks just because of the name it's supposed to tell which player is better. It's hilarious...and he knows it.

There is no difference in using context for something as simple as fg% and as complex as ortg.

[juju151111]

He understands it just fine. Branslowski is actually smart, he just plays dumb when it suits his agenda.

He knows perfectly well how to use context with fg%...and then turns around and acts like he can't do the same thing with ortg. Why? Because that would destroy his entire point.

It's like he sees something called "offensive rating" and thinks just because of the name it's supposed to tell which player is better. It's hilarious...and he knows it.

There is no difference in using context for something as simple as fg% and as complex as ortg.
Pretty much this

[Doranku]

I honestly don't know. You?

I'm not sure either. Theoretically, I'd lean towards the one who shoots 50% every game because I think consistency is more valuable than fluctuating volume.

Actually, I think it depends on what kind of team you're on. If someone plays on a top defensive team who preaches defense first, I think I'd take the one who shoots 60%/40% because their team's defense can keep them in games during the off nights while they would likely have an insane winning% during the 60% nights.

Alternatively, if a team is more offensive-based in it's game plan. I think I'd value the consistency more.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not sure either. Theoretically, I'd lean towards the one who shoots 50% every game because I think consistency is more valuable than fluctuating volume.

Actually, I think it depends on what kind of team you're on. If someone plays on a top defensive team who preaches defense first, I think I'd take the one who shoots 60%/40% because their team's defense can keep them in games during the off nights while they would likely have an insane winning% during the 60% nights.

Alternatively, if a team is more offensive-based in it's game plan. I think I'd value the consistency more.

I've thought about this a lot now. I think I'd go with the 60/40 guy. 40% shooting just isn't that bad. In the sense that it's not killing your team if a guy shoots 40%, but a guy shooting 60% helps a lot.

Put it this way...if it was 70/30 vs 50/50...I'd go with 50/50...I think. But I don't think 40% is bad enough to just kill your teams chances of winning.

It's probably team dependent though like you said. I agree with everything you say above.