What the hell are "empty stats"?

[Jameerthefear]

like seriously what are they. i don't understand.

[NumberSix]

Stats that count, but don't matter. Obvi. :hammerhead:


edit: Or is it stats that matter but don't count?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6pws7p06H1rq8uaj.gif

[moe94]

The idea that a player with great statistics that don't translate into wins has no real impact.

[CelticBaller]

The word has literally no meaning. Basketball is a team sport, and most of the time your team doesn't accommodate to cover your weakness.

[Jameerthefear]

Stats that count, but don't matter. Obvi. :hammerhead:


edit: Or is it stats that matter but don't count?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6pws7p06H1rq8uaj.gif
but... why don't they matter?

[Qwyjibo]

It's a way for people to stupidly discredit great players they don't like when they have shitty and/or injured teammates.

KG on the Twolves, empty stats.
Kobe post-Shaq pre-Gasol, empty stats
Dirk for most of his career, empty stats

Funny how their stats were no longer "empty" once they were surrounded with competent players.

[b1imtf]

Stats that count, but don't matter. Obvi. :hammerhead:


edit: Or is it stats that matter but don't count?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6pws7p06H1rq8uaj.gif
I'd **** her untill my death

[GASOL IS GOAT]

The idea that a player with great statistics that don't translate into wins has no real impact.
^This

Don't know what's so hard to understand. OP is kinda stupid. :lol

[NumberSix]

I'd **** her untill my death
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28700000/JA-jennifer-aniston-28755716-500-202.gif

[La Frescobaldi]

The idea that a player with great statistics that don't translate into wins has no real impact.
Michael Jordan in the '80s?

[CelticBaller]

Michael Jordan in the '80s?
Or almost every hofer at a point in their career

[Mr Exlax]

Great individual player with shitty teammates.

[Dr.J4ever]

It's not that they have no impact(the stats). I mean 20/8/4 is 20/8/4. It is what it is, but the point of playing basketball is to win, and not to produce stats.
This is where Euros can teach us a lesson. Look at the Team USA teams that lost in the Olympics. Big stat guys like AI and marbury were sent. Did they hinder their teams from winning the Gold against supposedly inferior competition? I saw those games, and I can say very surely, yes.

Stats are a good indication of the caliber of a player, but stats can change drastically even, when a player changes teams from a losing to a winning culture. Look at Even Turner this year. He's putting up "good stats". Anyone care to take him and think he will be a main cog on a contending team and still put up those numbers? I mean he may, but it is a risk. Correct? I wouldn't bet on it.

[HylianNightmare]

prime tmac

[Marchesk]

Great individual player with shitty teammates.

What is a great player supposed to do when they're carrying a crappy team? Defer? Be more efficient? What would make there stats less empty?

[NumberSix]

What is a great player supposed to do when they're carrying a crappy team? Defer? Be more efficient? What would make there stats less empty?
get meaningful stats, not empty stats. Duh. :hammerhead:

[NauruDude]

Answerr? Yes

[moe94]

The argument known as "empty stats" is getting BLOWN THE **** OUT.

[Mr Exlax]

What is a great player supposed to do when they're carrying a crappy team? Defer? Be more efficient? What would make there stats less empty?

That's just what I think they mean on ISH. There's no such thing to me honestly. If you're getting the most out of your teammates then there's nothing else you can do besides getting better teammates lol.

[Dro]

That's just what I think they mean on ISH. There's no such thing to me honestly. If you're getting the most out of your teammates then there's nothing else you can do besides getting better teammates lol.
This. Empty stats is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Kevin Love comes out trying to score as many points and grab as many rebounds he can in every game. He is doing as much as he possibly can to win EVERY game. Whether or not his team gets the win is up to his teammates as long as he's doing his part.:rolleyes:

[moe94]

That's just what I think they mean on ISH. There's no such thing to me honestly. If you're getting the most out of your teammates then there's nothing else you can do besides getting better teammates lol.

You're supposed to make them better. All great players make their teammates better. That's what separates the good from the great.

Michael Jordan MADE Pippen into what he was. Without Jordan, Pippen would have never realized his potential and would have been a decent role player, at best.

Shaq MADE Kobe into what he was. Without Shaq, Kobe would have been lucky to even be compared to Stackhouse.

Bird MADE Parish and McHale into what they became. Parish was getting helped from college Bird while he was in the NBA. People forget that.

Are they not good? MAKE them good.

[Mr Exlax]

You're supposed to make them better. All great players make their teammates better. That's what separates the good from the great.

Michael Jordan MADE Pippen into what he was. Without Jordan, Pippen would have never realized his potential and would have been a decent role player, at best.

Shaq MADE Kobe into what he was. Without Shaq, Kobe would have been lucky to even be compared to Stackhouse.

Bird MADE Parish and McHale into what they became. Parish was getting helped from college Bird while he was in the NBA. People forget that.

Are they not good? MAKE them good.

Pippen was drafted high so he had potential. I'll admit Jordan taught him a lot, but don't give him 100% of the credit.

Buss wanted Kobe before they got Shaq. He knew he was special. I guess he didn't know he was a snitch and a rapist though.

couldn't tell you about Parish.

These people you claim were "made" already had a ton of talent. How come the players before them weren't "made" into something special then?

[moe94]

These people you claim were "made" already had a ton of talent. How come the players before them weren't "made" into something special then?

I tried to make my sarcasm as potent as possible. Must try harder next time, I guess.

I mean, the college Bird line alone...

[Dro]

I tried to make my sarcasm as potent as possible. Must try harder next time, I guess.

I mean, the college Bird line alone...
I thought you were serious too...I'm over here like wtf? So why didn't Kobe make Smush better?:lol

[Dr. Ice]

See jrue holiday last year

[VIntageNOvel]

there is no such thing as empty stat



unless you're dwight howard

[knicksman]

it is otherwise known as lebron james stats. A guy who has great nos. in the regular season but is given wide open jumpers in the playoffs but still cant shoot.

[LAZERUSS]

it is otherwise known as lebron james stats. A guy who has great nos. in the regular season but is given wide open jumpers in the playoffs but still cant shoot.

Really? Just where have you been in the last couple of years?

Lebron had a miserable Finals in '11, and has been spectacular since. But yes, let's continue to hold '11 against him the rest of his career. I imagine you will be bringing this up even after Lebron leads his teams to another 3-4 more rings.

[Lebron23]

it is otherwise known as lebron james stats. A guy who has great nos. in the regular season but is given wide open jumpers in the playoffs but still cant shoot.


Lebron at age 28 = same numbers of NBA titles at the Knicks at 60.

[iamgine]

Stats that carries no weight/negative towards the result of the game for your team.

For example, assists that's the result of the skill of the shooter and not of the passer, taking 60 shots to score 40 points, etc.

[moe94]

Lebron at age 28 = same numbers of NBA titles at the Knicks at 60.
http://www.grimeforum.com/forum/images/smilies/woah.gif

[bdreason]

Defensive rebounds that don't matter. Assists that don't really benefit the scorer. Scoring buckets when the game is already decided.

[AirFederer]

This. Empty stats is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Kevin Love comes out trying to score as many points and grab as many rebounds he can in every game. He is doing as much as he possibly can to win EVERY game. Whether or not his team gets the win is up to his teammates as long as he's doing his part.:rolleyes:
+1

Empty stats imho is Harden, who plays no defence which cancels out his offensive impact.

[moe94]

+1

Empty stats imho is Harden, who plays no defence which cancels out his offensive impact.

You're right. Rockets would be better off without Harden.

I love how it's fashionable to hate Harden. He's so horrible. No defense. Lives at the line. No midrange. Am I right? :banana:

[All Net]

That don't result in wins...

[Legends66NBA7]

Defensive rebounds that don't matter. Assists that don't really benefit the scorer. Scoring buckets when the game is already decided.

This is more accurate.

Most in this thread are just going off on what other have called elite players (in this case "empty stats" argument) and are considering them the norm. Infact, it's really about players who are considered "pseudo superstars" or "pseudo stars" in this case.

An example of empty stats player (IMO) is a guy like Corey Maggette. A guy, no matter how much he tried to impact the game with his scoring, would not pass, play defense, and was pretty much considered selfish and a determinant. I believe Kevin Garnett called him out for something like this after a blowout game, where it looked like he was just going for his numbers.

Not sure if that was a great example. But guys who looks for their own numbers, pad them, or do so on many losing teams, seems to be the case for "empty stats" players. Kevin Love is not an empty stats player, obviously.

[knicksman]

empty stat is a stat that adds value to a player but decreases the value of another player. Just like assists. Wade is capable of averaging 8-9 apg esp now that he becomes a pass first due to lebron being the primary scorer. But Since lebron wants stats then he reduces the value of wade to increase his. So the net effect really is 0. Lebron is no different than oscar robertson. He knows he aint winning shet just like robertson so he needed a super stacked team to win. Whereas jordan made pippen. Pippen wouldnt be the player he is had he played with lebron instead. But because jordan settled to be an off the ball player to let pippen shine, pippen then became a great player or else he would just be another iguodala. And that makes jordan more unstoppable coz off the ball>>>on the ball. You dont see jordan disappearing despite being defended better than lebron coz he is great off the ball.

[FiveRings]

Rudy Gay is an example of empty stats. He'll give you close to 20 ppg but make your team worse in the process.

[Tmuston Beltics]

Defensive rebounds that don't matter. Assists that don't really benefit the scorer. Scoring buckets when the game is already decided.


What are those? At what point of game it doesn't matter if you give your opponent an offensive rebound?

[jzek]

For example, Kevin Love missing a very easy layup on purpose so he can pad his rebound stats.

[La Frescobaldi]

For example, Kevin Love missing a very easy layup on purpose so he can pad his rebound stats.
concrete example of this with a clip.

[LAZERUSS]

Jordan stats-padding in '90, and not stats-padding in '91.
Magic stats-padding in '86 and not stats-padding in '87.
Kareem stats-padding in '72, but not stats-padding in '71.
Russell stats-padding in '67 and not stats-padding in '68.
Bird deciding to stats-pad in '87, after not stats-padding in '86.
Moses stats-padding in '82, and not stats-padding in '83.
Duncan stats-padding in '02 and not stats-padding in '03.
Shaq stats-padding in '99 and not stats-padding in '00.
Hakeem stats-padding in '93, and not in '94.
Wilt stats-padding in the entire decade of the 60's, except in '67.

Just some of the many examples...

[TimmyDuncan]

What are those? At what point of game it doesn't matter if you give your opponent an offensive rebound?

Not focusing on contesting the shot and focusing on the defensive rebound. That's stat padding

Other example of stat padding:
- Playing a superstar in the 4th when the game is already won and the other team has already subbed the starters
- For a big, missing on purpose a layup on the rim to get the rebound and then making the layup

[Qwyjibo]

- For a big, missing on purpose a layup on the rim to get the rebound and then making the layup
Do people actually think that this happens in the NBA? Really? Sure some idiot might do it and you'll see it once or twice over an entire season but the point of offense is to score points. You're not going to have players missing layups on purpose to pad their rebounding stats. Some players will simply miss easy layups and happen to get their own rebound.

This is a ridiculous narrative applied when someone should score an easy and doesn't. "Oh, he's clearly padding his rebounding stats!". How about he just happened to miss the shot?! What's more reasonable?

[D.J.]

It's basically putting up good numbers without impacting games or helping out teammates. Marbury on the Nets(22/8), Pierce's early years in Boston(25/6/3), Kevin Love for awhile(20+/14-15), Steve Francis before Yao arrived(20/7/6). These are all guys who were great individual talents putting up elite numbers, but not making teammates better and not leading their teams to victory.

[Qwyjibo]

It's basically putting up good numbers without impacting games or helping out teammates. Marbury on the Nets(22/8), Pierce's early years in Boston(25/6/3), Kevin Love for awhile(20+/14-15), Steve Francis before Yao arrived(20/7/6). These are all guys who were great individual talents putting up elite numbers, but not making teammates better and not leading their teams to victory.
Because their teammates weren't talented enough. No player can suddenly infuse another player with talent. All they can do is produce as much as they can on their own masking the flaws of others.

[Heavincent]

Antawn Jamison

[atljonesbro]

Empty stats don't exist. Kevin Love is the main target of this, but what if his teammates hit a couple more shots a game and his stats stay EXACTLY the same and they win a lot more games? Are they MAGICALLY not empty?

[D.J.]

Empty stats don't exist. Kevin Love is the main target of this, but what if his teammates hit a couple more shots a game and his stats stay EXACTLY the same and they win a lot more games? Are they MAGICALLY not empty?


From a numerical perspective, they don't exist. But when it comes to winning games(or at the very least, impacting them) and making teammates better, they most certainly exist.

[atljonesbro]

From a numerical perspective, they don't exist. But when it comes to winning games(or at the very least, impacting them) and making teammates better, they most certainly exist.
My question still stands. If his teammates make a few more shots a game and they win more games and he does the EXACT same thing, are his stats magically not empty?

[D.J.]

My question still stands. If his teammates make a few more shots a game and they win more games and he does the EXACT same thing, are his stats magically not empty?


That would apply more to a point guard than a big man. It's the point guard's job to get others involved. Marbury putting up 22/8 on a 25-30 win team is empty, especially when he has periods of unnecessary chucking and thinking he's Iverson. Someone like Kevin Love isn't handling the ball so it doesn't really apply to him as much. But still, even big men can make their teammates better through intangibles.

[DMAVS41]

I don't know about empty, but the impact of, for example, Kevin Love...is not line with his numbers....

25/14/4 58% TS should be making more of an impact. The Wolves are 11-12...with the kind of help he has...the record should just be way better than that. Now, it's early this year, but if the Wolves don't win around 50 ...you have to start questioning his true impact.

They are a really good team talent wise with a very good to great coach...

Too many guys at that position in history would be easily winning 50 or more games on that Wolves this year...


I think I saw someone mention it earlier, but Antawn Jamison is probably the poster boy for empty stats imo of this era...

[russwest0]

LeBron James

[moe94]

It's basically putting up good numbers without impacting games or helping out teammates. Marbury on the Nets(22/8), Pierce's early years in Boston(25/6/3), Kevin Love for awhile(20+/14-15), Steve Francis before Yao arrived(20/7/6). These are all guys who were great individual talents putting up elite numbers, but not making teammates better and not leading their teams to victory.

Their teammates were putrid, for the most part.

[chazzy]

Defensive rebounds that don't matter. Assists that don't really benefit the scorer. Scoring buckets when the game is already decided.
This pretty much covers it

[D.J.]

Their teammates were putrid, for the most part.


Kevin Garnett's teammates were no better and they were still winning 50 games.

[Owl]

I don't know about empty, but the impact of, for example, Kevin Love...is not line with his numbers....

25/14/4 58% TS should be making more of an impact. The Wolves are 11-12...with the kind of help he has...the record should just be way better than that. Now, it's early this year, but if the Wolves don't win around 50 ...you have to start questioning his true impact.

They are a really good team talent wise with a very good to great coach...

Too many guys at that position in history would be easily winning 50 or more games on that Wolves this year...


I think I saw someone mention it earlier, but Antawn Jamison is probably the poster boy for empty stats imo of this era...
That's not empty stats though thats one, or a combination of:

(a) Bad interpretation of stats e.g. people ignoring his low fg% and low for a big man ts%, people rounding up a career 7.6 rpg (and one season in double figures) and calling him a 20-10 guy.

(b) Bad defense.

You can say a players impact is not in line with his numbers and that's fine if you're saying theres poor D or something which stats can't capture (at least not conventional boxscore ones, adv metrics are trying). But you can't say the stats are empty because that implies there's something.

I'd say there's no such thing as empty stats.

At the margins there are numbers that are soft. That would be where team context boosts numbers such as playing on a bad rebounding team will make a big man's rebound numbers more impressive (arriving on a bad rebounding team more "easy" rebounds, which the team would get anyway, are available) or maybe home scorekeepers being generous with assists.


That would apply more to a point guard than a big man. It's the point guard's job to get others involved. Marbury putting up 22/8 on a 25-30 win team is empty, especially when he has periods of unnecessary chucking and thinking he's Iverson. Someone like Kevin Love isn't handling the ball so it doesn't really apply to him as much. But still, even big men can make their teammates better through intangibles.
I've never been a Marbury fan (and I disliked how much Slam was in love with him), I'd agree he's a negative entangiables, bad defense player but, per the above that doesn't mean the numbers are empty.

That perhaps means that either the numbers are badly interpreted (ignoring pedestrian %s, moderately high turnovers). But if it's the above factors like D, then it's not that the numbers are empty, the numbers are helping the team exactly as much as you would expect, it's that they aren't good and non-boxscore elements. Usually we know when this is the case.

Postscript: An example of the non-emptiness of Marbury's numbers comes by looking at the substantial drop off in his numbers between 05 and 06 (when looked at properly) and the corresponding 10 game drop in wins. Of course roster instability means we can't state absolutely that Marbury was the prime cause of that drop, but it seems like a fairly logical conclusion. The numbers tell the story and it does fit with team performance, when he was good, they were okay, when he became bad they were awful.

Again I'm not usually a Marbury apologist. I think you want better D, better shot selection, less turnovers and better intangiables from a pg. But the numbers aren't the problem.

[ProfessorMurder]

Kevin Garnett's teammates were no better and they were still winning 50 games.

Just because Garnett is a better player than Love doesn't make Love's stats empty.

[DMAVS41]

That's not empty stats though thats one, or a combination of:

(a) Bad interpretation of stats e.g. people ignoring his low fg% and low for a big man ts%, people rounding up a career 7.6 rpg (and one season in double figures) and calling him a 20-10 guy.

(b) Bad defense.

You can say a players impact is not in line with his numbers and that's fine if you're saying theres poor D or something which stats can't capture (at least not conventional boxscore ones, adv metrics are trying). But you can't say the stats are empty because that implies there's something.

I'd say there's no such thing as empty stats.

At the margins there are numbers that are soft. That would be where team context boosts numbers such as playing on a bad rebounding team will make a big man's rebound numbers more impressive (arriving on a bad rebounding team more "easy" rebounds, which the team would get anyway, are available) or maybe home scorekeepers being generous with assists.


I've never been a Marbury fan (and I disliked how much Slam was in love with him), I'd agree he's a negative entangiables, bad defense player but, per the above that doesn't mean the numbers are empty.

That perhaps means that either the numbers are badly interpreted (ignoring pedestrian %s, moderately high turnovers). But if it's the above factors like D, then it's not that the numbers are empty, the numbers are helping the team exactly as much as you would expect, it's that they aren't good and non-boxscore elements. Usually we know when this is the case.

Postscript: An example of the non-emptiness of Marbury's numbers comes by looking at the substantial drop off in his numbers between 05 and 06 (when looked at properly) and the corresponding 10 game drop in wins. Of course roster instability means we can't state absolutely that Marbury was the prime cause of that drop, but it seems like a fairly logical conclusion. The numbers tell the story and it does fit with team performance, when he was good, they were okay, when he became bad they were awful.

Again I'm not usually a Marbury apologist. I think you want better D, better shot selection, less turnovers and better intangiables from a pg. But the numbers aren't the problem.

I agree with this mostly...that is why I said I'm not sure about "empty stats"

My point was that a guy like Jamison is nowhere near as valuable as his numbers suggest.

[moe94]

My point was that a guy like Jamison is nowhere near as valuable as his numbers suggest.

His numbers weren't even THAT great, though. 20/8 on bad efficiency for his position without much of a defensive presence. You think he wasn't even that? Give the guy his credit, man.

[DMAVS41]

His numbers weren't even THAT great, though. 20/8 on bad efficiency for his position without much of a defensive presence. You think he wasn't even that? Give the guy his credit, man.

Well...20/8 is not something done that is routine, but he put up better numbers than that.

Had many seasons better than that. I'm pretty sure he had a 21/10/2 season in Washington...

[moe94]

Well...20/8 is not something done that is routine, but he put up better numbers than that.

Had many seasons better than that. I'm pretty sure he had a 21/10/2 season in Washington...

I know. I was talking his career. Still, that should answer your question as to why his stats appear empty and without impact. Wizards were/are horrific.

[magnax1]

I don't know about empty, but the impact of, for example, Kevin Love...is not line with his numbers....

25/14/4 58% TS should be making more of an impact. The Wolves are 11-12...with the kind of help he has...the record should just be way better than that. Now, it's early this year, but if the Wolves don't win around 50 ...you have to start questioning his true impact.

They are a really good team talent wise with a very good to great coach...

Too many guys at that position in history would be easily winning 50 or more games on that Wolves this year...


I think I saw someone mention it earlier, but Antawn Jamison is probably the poster boy for empty stats imo of this era...
Yeah, I was going to bring up Kevin love too. IDK about Jamison. Nobody thinks of him as anything more than a third option. He put up 20-10 on mediocre shooting for 13 years with no defense. No one thinks he was a first option or anything. Just very consistent

[Owl]

I agree with this mostly...that is why I said I'm not sure about "empty stats"

My point was that a guy like Jamison is nowhere near as valuable as his numbers suggest.
Yeah it can just be semantics. That's why I took your phrase "impact ... not in line with numbers" as something reasonable and a basis for explaining why that might be the case. A player can have less impact than you would expect from his numbers (by having worse non-boxscore impact than you would expect, or even negative non-boxscore impact). But I believe that people throw rhetoric around like "empty stats" just to attack stats because they don't want anything concrete with which we can compare players, just their "expert" opinions.

FWIW with Love, the T'Wolves points differential is +3.61 points per game, and that's against a difficult schedule. Typically a such a team would have a better record. If they just perform up to their points diff they should be a solid playoff team, if they develop a bench, or Pekovic gets back where he was the last 2 years (usage, %s and rebounds all down this year) they could become semi-contenders.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah it can just be semantics. That's why I took your phrase "impact ... not in line with numbers" as something reasonable and a basis for explaining why that might be the case. A player can have less impact than you would expect from his numbers (by having worse non-boxscore impact than you would expect, or even negative non-boxscore impact). But I believe that people throw rhetoric around like "empty stats" just to attack stats because they don't want anything concrete with which we can compare players, just their "expert" opinions.

FWIW with Love, the T'Wolves points differential is +3.61 points per game, and that's against a difficult schedule. Typically a such a team would have a better record. If they just perform up to their points diff they should be a solid playoff team, if they develop a bench, or Pekovic gets back where he was the last 2 years (usage, %s and rebounds all down this year) they could become semi-contenders.

Well said...completely agree.

With Love, I think it's fair to say that if they miss the playoffs...his "impact" needs to be questioned in terms of any company he finds himself in by putting up those numbers.

Take current Dirk. I'm just still not sure if Love impacts the game more than current Dirk in terms of winning. I think both teams are pretty close overall in strength...certainly with Martin playing as well as he has so far. So the sample is small right now and the schedule has been tough...I'm just not sure Love is any more valuable than old Dirk.