We know our eyes DEFINITELY lie and fool us

[I<3NBA]

as evidenced by optical illusion and confirmation bias.

and yet people cling to this stupid belief that the "eye test" has any validity.

ofc i'm not saying confirmation bias doesn't happen in statistics, but at least the numbers in statistics don't lie. statisticians lie (by using methodology that would reflect their own agenda, or cherry picking stats) but by the whole, the numbers themselves cannot lie.

i guess those who hate stats and cling strongly to the eye test as the superior gauge of reality hasn't really realize that the only reason stats doesn't reflect everything is because not all facets of the sport has had a stat created for it, and had this stat tracked religiously and correctly. but once this happens, everything would become clear, and ALL stats would reflect the true state of things in the sport.

[riseagainst]

"There are 3 types of lies. Good lies, bad lies, and stats."

[SavageMode]

Eye test is for people in denial

[moe94]

It doesn't matter what you say as long as my eyes are telling me player x is better than player y. You can't question my eyes. Does god exist? Can I see it? No? Doesn't exist.

What the hell is air, dude? You're tripping.

[Milbuck]

I think we can all agree that James Harden fails all of the tests. Eye test, stat test, smell test, IQ test, etc.

[Kblaze8855]

Once it happens? It isn't going to happen.

Explain to me how you could measure defensive communication, apt play calling or good tempo setting out of a pointguard, or measure passing ability? You could I suppose measure percentage of passes leading to a turnover....but it wouldn't measure a mans ability to make a bounce pass on the dribble...or throw an accurate lob. Would percentage of lobs resulting in an assist not be skewed if one guy has Dwight or Lebron to throw to and the other is lobbing it to guys less likely to convert it off a bad pass?

You wont ever be able to measure basketball. Ever.

Really now....lets say we stop recording all stats but wins and losses.

If you really wouldn't be able to tell who the best players are you are just an idiot.

You would have to watch more teams....but once you watched you would get a good idea.

We knew the best players in the league when I was a kid. And I didn't know a guys numbers till I got his basketball card or CBS mentioned the top 5 of everything around the all star break.

Give yourself more credit than this. You don't need numbers to tell you who the best is. You just might think so because you never had a world without them.

I couldn't tell you what Jordan was averaging in 1989.....in 1989. But I knew he was better than almost everyone we played.

How do you think that is?

[oarabbus]

"There are 3 types of lies. Good lies, bad lies, and stats."


It's there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" :coleman:

[iamgine]

as evidenced by optical illusion and confirmation bias.

and yet people cling to this stupid belief that the "eye test" has any validity.

ofc i'm not saying confirmation bias doesn't happen in statistics, but at least the numbers in statistics don't lie. statisticians lie (by using methodology that would reflect their own agenda, or cherry picking stats) but by the whole, the numbers themselves cannot lie.

i guess those who hate stats and cling strongly to the eye test as the superior gauge of reality hasn't really realize that the only reason stats doesn't reflect everything is because not all facets of the sport has had a stat created for it, and had this stat tracked religiously and correctly. but once this happens, everything would become clear, and ALL stats would reflect the true state of things in the sport.
Just like stats, eye test is quite useful. It can catch valuable things that stats hasn't recorded because it's unreasonable to record every minute thing into stats. Things like leadership, communication, injury, hustle, etc.

[riseagainst]

It's there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" :coleman:

same sh1t, different toilet.

:coleman:

[moe94]

Can we put heart, killer instinct, effort, drive and other shit into stats? They help us decide the worth players, after all.

For instance, check out T-Mac and Iverson.

The stats tell us T-Mac peaked higher and it's not even arguable, however, we must realize stats do not tell the whole story. The eye test, if I do say so myself, is not at work here as both players make you say "wow, he's awesome" so we need to put other variables in that favor Iverson.

Iverson had a lot of heart and his killer instinct is undeniable. I've come up with a formula I think most reasonable people can be comfortable with.

x = amount of heart + willingness to play through injuries + amount of angry faces during a game + desire to succeed (different from heart, mind you)

x is added onto the PPG and then divided by 30 and this value is added onto the PPG

Whatever the result is, you'll see that Iverson has the edge and if not, we need to tweak the formula because it's BS.

I love Iverson.

[riseagainst]

Can we put heart, killer instinct, effort, drive and other shit into stats? They help us decide the worth players, after all.

For instance, check out T-Mac and Iverson.

The stats tell us T-Mac peaked higher and it's not even arguable, however, we must realize stats do not tell the whole story. The eye test, if I do say so myself, is not at work here as both players make you say "wow, he's awesome" so we need to put other variables in that favor Iverson.

Iverson had a lot of heart and his killer instinct is undeniable. I've come up with a formula I think most reasonable people can be comfortable with.

x = amount of heart + willingness to play through injuries + amount of angry faces during a game + desire to succeed (different from heart, mind you)

x is added onto the PPG and then divided by 30 and this value is added onto the PPG

Whatever the result is, you'll see that Iverson has the edge and if not, we need to tweak the formula because it's BS.

I love Iverson.

:coleman:

[Kblaze8855]

Just like stats, eye test is quite useful. It can catch valuable things that stats hasn't recorded because it's unreasonable to record every minute thing into stats. Things like leadership, communication, injury, hustle, etc.


Imagine trying to put a number to Isiah Thomas' leadership.

The Pistons would have killed for Isiah. Dude 6 feet tall...just punch Robert Parish, Patrick Ewing, Bill cartwright, or Charles Barkley in the face. You cant back down when a guy half your size wont. So they played tough.

Scores 25 or so in a quarter on an ankle he could barely walk on. Game 6 of the finals. Knock down the jumper bouncing on one leg....drive right at worthy...collapse on the ankle out of bounds jump up and hobble back on defense. Damn near carried off the floor in tears dropping 43 points refusing to come out of the game. The Lakers walking over paying respect after the game. Those guys had a respect for Isiah you could see in the way they would react to him speaking....the way they would fight when he called them out.

You just cant measure it.

[I<3NBA]

Once it happens? It isn't going to happen.
that's what they all say until someone does it


Explain to me how you could measure defensive communication, apt play calling or good tempo setting out of a pointguard, or measure passing ability?
i could, but then i would be performing a task that is worth about a year's salary as a top statistician in a basketball team. and i'm not going to do this for free. with the tools, manpower, and resources available, i could do what you ask. no one's paying me to do it though. and i don't have the qualifications to make anyone hire me. i have the brains tho, and the education to do it.


You could I suppose measure percentage of passes leading to a turnover....but it wouldn't measure a mans ability to make a bounce pass on the dribble...or throw an accurate lob.
well, why would you measure a man's ability to make a bounce pass or throw an accurate lob by the percentage of passes leading to a turnover? you measure each facet separately, in combination, and conjunction with each and every facet.


Would percentage of lobs resulting in an assist not be skewed if one guy has Dwight or Lebron to throw to and the other is lobbing it to guys less likely to convert it off a bad pass?
yes it would. but that's why you would factor all that into consideration.


You wont ever be able to measure basketball. Ever.
yes i could. all i'd ever really need are enough footage, a lot of manpower, and enough time to crunch the numbers.

If you really wouldn't be able to tell who the best players are you are just an idiot.
would you say Kevin Love is one of the best players in the NBA?


Give yourself more credit than this. You don't need numbers to tell you who the best is. You just might think so because you never had a world without them.
the numbers are not for finding who is the absolute best. but finding out the optimum usage of each player and finding out how to utilize the best out of the team you have.


I couldn't tell you what Jordan was averaging in 1989.....in 1989. But I knew he was better than almost everyone we played.

How do you think that is?
because he was absolutely dominant?

[I<3NBA]

Just like stats, eye test is quite useful. It can catch valuable things that stats hasn't recorded because it's unreasonable to record every minute thing into stats. Things like leadership, communication, injury, hustle, etc.
it's not unreasonable to record every minute thing. when it's money and championships riding on the line, wouldn't you say doing everything you can is reasonable?

things like leadership, communication, injury, hustle, etc can all be quantified using a formula. a formula that can be derived, perfected, and be found reliable through scientific method.

Imagine trying to put a number to Isiah Thomas' leadership.

The Pistons would have killed for Isiah. Dude 6 feet tall...just punch Robert Parish, Patrick Ewing, Bill cartwright, or Charles Barkley in the face. You cant back down when a guy half your size wont. So they played tough.

Scores 25 or so in a quarter on an ankle he could barely walk on. Game 6 of the finals. Knock down the jumper bouncing on one leg....drive right at worthy...collapse on the ankle out of bounds jump up and hobble back on defense. Damn near carried off the floor in tears dropping 43 points refusing to come out of the game. The Lakers walking over paying respect after the game. Those guys had a respect for Isiah you could see in the way they would react to him speaking....the way they would fight when he called them out.

You just cant measure it.
yes you can. you're just not thinking about it correctly. you know this thing called EQ? somehow, scientists have found a way to measure somethings as intangible as emotions.

and yet here you are blindly believing something as determination, perseverance, leadership, respect, etc. can't be measured. they can, and they will be.

[9erempiree]

Eye test is definitely fool proof. There is a reason why we WATCH basketball. Nobody says they need to be home and READ a basketball game. Unless you are these new age dumb-down NBA fans who partake a game by watching and reading a damn NBA Game Log. I have seen people sit in front of a computer and just partaking the game this way.

While stats are somewhat important to me, stats are not in front of me when I am watching a game. I critique a player and game from my own observation. While people like to bring up stats I can recollect and bring up situations in every game I watch. That is why most of my threads tend to talk about key situations when a guy won or lost his team the game.

[moe94]

Eye test is definitely fool proof. There is a reason why we WATCH basketball. Nobody says they need to be home and READ a basketball game. Unless you are these new age dumb-down NBA fans who partake a game by watching and reading a damn NBA Game Log. I have seen people sit in front of a computer and just partaking the game this way.

While stats are somewhat important to me, stats are not in front of me when I am watching a game. I critique a player and game from my own observation. While people like to bring up stats I can recollect and bring up situations in every game I watch. That is why most of my threads tend to talk about key situations when a guy won or lost his team the game.

Literally every single thread you make is about stats and how a player isn't meeting certain statistical expectations. :coleman:

[Bush4Ever]

You wont ever be able to measure basketball. Ever.

Really now....lets say we stop recording all stats but wins and losses.

If you really wouldn't be able to tell who the best players are you are just an idiot.



Most of your post is ridiculous. But especially this part.

Yes, you could reasonably tell an A+ player from a C level player with the eye test. No kidding.

However, the value and utility of statistics comes when the margins are close, not ridiculously wide.

With the eye test, could you tell...

The difference between a C+ player from a B- player? How about controlling for all potential confounding variables?

The value of a B+ guard vs. a B- big man...considering the fact that you have a greater hole on your team on the interior? Is the difference small enough to still justify taking the big man over the guard?

And so on...

By the way, that is where scouts earn their money. Not by pointing out the Tim Duncans in the room, but by pointing out where a player is over or undervalued on the margins (Manu, Parker).

To be perfectly frank, the people who have a violent, teeth-gnashing reaction to the idea of advanced metrics in basketball are usually old people or people who want to engage in ego-protection over the fact that they are uneducated (usually in general, but especially with the content in question).

[9erempiree]

Once it happens? It isn't going to happen.

Explain to me how you could measure defensive communication, apt play calling or good tempo setting out of a pointguard, or measure passing ability? You could I suppose measure percentage of passes leading to a turnover....but it wouldn't measure a mans ability to make a bounce pass on the dribble...or throw an accurate lob. Would percentage of lobs resulting in an assist not be skewed if one guy has Dwight or Lebron to throw to and the other is lobbing it to guys less likely to convert it off a bad pass?

You wont ever be able to measure basketball. Ever.

Really now....lets say we stop recording all stats but wins and losses.

If you really wouldn't be able to tell who the best players are you are just an idiot.

You would have to watch more teams....but once you watched you would get a good idea.

We knew the best players in the league when I was a kid. And I didn't know a guys numbers till I got his basketball card or CBS mentioned the top 5 of everything around the all star break.

Give yourself more credit than this. You don't need numbers to tell you who the best is. You just might think so because you never had a world without them.

I couldn't tell you what Jordan was averaging in 1989.....in 1989. But I knew he was better than almost everyone we played.

How do you think that is?

If people need stats, that can only mean one thing, they need to start over and learn what they are watching rather than just watching.

[Jameerthefear]

ya i agree with op so much like why do we even watch basketball it's all about the BOX SCORE

[moe94]

If people need stats, that can only mean one thing, they need to start over and learn what they are watching rather than just watching.

Kobe fans hate stats until they need to talk about 81, scoring more than Mavs in 3 quarters, his sublime 03 season, his 35 PPG season. At that point, stats are a holy things that need to be examined and used to critique players. When PER and TS% are thrown around, suddenly these stats become absolute jokes that nerds parade around because they lack knowledge of the game. The consistency is outstanding.

[riseagainst]

Kobe fans hate stats until they need to talk about 81, scoring more than Mavs in 3 quarters, his sublime 03 season, his 35 PPG season. At that point, stats are a holy things that need to be examined and used to critique players. When PER and TS% are thrown around, suddenly these stats become absolute jokes that nerds parade around because they lack knowledge of the game. The consistency is outstanding.

you mean FG%.

[9erempiree]

Kobe fans hate stats until they need to talk about 81, scoring more than Mavs in 3 quarters, his sublime 03 season, his 35 PPG season. At that point, stats are a holy things that need to be examined and used to critique players. When PER and TS% are thrown around, suddenly these stats become absolute jokes that nerds parade around because they lack knowledge of the game. The consistency is outstanding.

Yet, you don't see me going around bringing up what you mentioned and I am a fan of his.

[I<3NBA]

ya i agree with op so much like why do we even watch basketball it's all about the BOX SCORE
if you tell me you watch the game so you can analyze it and break it down, i'd laugh at you.

people primarily watch the game to be entertained. it's a way for people to have an adrenalin rush without ever having to do something dangerous. it's a way to pass the time or enjoy the time together with friends and family.

but when it comes to discussing basketball, breaking it down, analyzing it - why would eye test be even superior to stats?

when we all know our eyes fool us, and selective memory recall happens to those with confirmation bias.

you may try to cling stubbornly to eye test, but the league in general has grown to accept that stats (when collected correctly and interpreted correctly) is infinitely more valuable and more reliable than some old codger's interpretation of "what his eyes saw."

millions are being spent on stats. eye test believers are being shown the door. two of the most successful organization in basketball are firm believers of stats. and those who have recently adopted advanced metrics as part of their program have seen an improvement in their team's performance.

face the facts. break the illusion.

[9erempiree]

Most of your post is ridiculous. But especially this part.

Yes, you could reasonably tell an A+ player from a C level player with the eye test. No kidding.

However, the value and utility of statistics comes when the margins are close, not ridiculously wide.

With the eye test, could you tell...

The difference between a C+ player from a B- player? How about controlling for all potential confounding variables?

The value of a B+ guard vs. a B- big man...considering the fact that you have a greater hole on your team on the interior? Is the difference small enough to still justify taking the big man over the guard?

And so on...

By the way, that is where scouts earn their money. Not by pointing out the Tim Duncans in the room, but by pointing out where a player is over or undervalued on the margins (Manu, Parker).

To be perfectly frank, the people who have a violent, teeth-gnashing reaction to the idea of advanced metrics in basketball are usually old people or people who want to engage in ego-protection over the fact that they are uneducated (usually in general, but especially with the content in question).

Yes, general managers may need stats to make a decision but since the inception of "money ball" a method to judge a player's worth based off of stats, the GM position has been horrible.

The league is ran by star players who are hungry for their own individual glory. They stat pad and join one another to get that prize possession, which is a ring. They want to get it the easy way. You don't need to be a good GM to do that.

[KyrieTheFuture]

The eye test is the most subjective thing of all time. My eye test tells me that Kobe Bryant is incredibly overrated but 9er would never accept my eye test as fact, only his eye test and those that agree with his.

[Jameerthefear]

if you tell me you watch the game so you can analyze it and break it down, i'd laugh at you.

people primarily watch the game to be entertained. it's a way for people to have an adrenalin rush without ever having to do something dangerous. it's a way to pass the time or enjoy the time together with friends and family.

but when it comes to discussing basketball, breaking it down, analyzing it - why would eye test be even superior to stats?

when we all know our eyes fool us, and selective memory recall happens to those with confirmation bias.

you may try to cling stubbornly to eye test, but the league in general has grown to accept that stats (when collected correctly and interpreted correctly) is infinitely more valuable and more reliable than some old codger's interpretation of "what his eyes saw."

millions are being spent on stats. eye test believers are being shown the door. two of the most successful organization in basketball are firm believers of stats. and those who have recently adopted advanced metrics as part of their program have seen an improvement in their team's performance.

face the facts. break the illusion.
why are u being so simple minded? when i watch my team i can tell things that i can't tell from a box score. i can tell if kyle o'quinn is rotating quick enough to defend the basket. i can tell if oladipo is missing the open man or if jameer is playing bad defensively because he's playing the passing lanes. i can tell if Oladipo is handling the ball sloppily causing us not to get into our offensive sets quick enough.
you're being so dumb.

[9erempiree]

The eye test is the most subjective thing of all time. My eye test tells me that Kobe Bryant is incredibly overrated but 9er would never accept my eye test as fact, only his eye test and those that agree with his.

Your eyes are lying to you and you don't know what you are watching. You are a Cavs fans you, so you don't know what good basketball is.

When we are use to witnessing crap, we think everything is crap.

[riseagainst]

For statistics to be relevant, you have to link them to the game in some manner. If a player makes 4 steals in a game but gives up 4 layups on steal attempts that weren’t successful. Was that really good defense? Shooting over 50% does not necessarily mean great shooting, it might just mean a lot of layups in transition/fast breaks.

you can't tell those from stats. You either have to read play by play or watch the game. And let's be honest here, if you rather read play by play when you have the opportunity to watch the game, you aren't a basketball fan.

[Bush4Ever]

Yes, general managers may need stats to make a decision but since the inception of "money ball" a method to judge a player's worth based off of stats, the GM position has been horrible.

The league is ran by star players who are hungry for their own individual glory. They stat pad and join one another to get that prize possession, which is a ring. They want to get it the easy way. You don't need to be a good GM to do that.

I honestly have no clue what you are addressing in my post with the second paragraph.

Your first paragraph is simply an assertion.

[ILLsmak]

if you tell me you watch the game so you can analyze it and break it down, i'd laugh at you.

people primarily watch the game to be entertained. it's a way for people to have an adrenalin rush without ever having to do something dangerous. it's a way to pass the time or enjoy the time together with friends and family.

but when it comes to discussing basketball, breaking it down, analyzing it - why would eye test be even superior to stats?

when we all know our eyes fool us, and selective memory recall happens to those with confirmation bias.

I watch the game to break it down. Just like I watch this forum to break down how you nubs are going to act whenever something happens in the NBA. lol. I like to talk about stuff as well, but the whole analytical part of me can not change.

It's not even worth arguing over the same topics on this board anymore, but watching new people come in and say different stuff is kind of interesting. Just like it's slightly funny to watch the same debate develop between the same people.

I was thinking about it, though. It's weird... if I played guitar or if I was a karate master, I wonder if I would look at those two things with the same scrutiny that I do basketball. I can always tell you when someone is doing something wrong. I can also tell you when someone does something that is measured as an achievement or a stat and it's not really equal to what people believe it is.

I'm not gonna tell anyone I know a certain player is better than a certain player. I even know if two players play and one has a better game, that the other player/team might have been better. There is variance. But I can definitely tell you when someone does something that's worthwhile, whether it's measured as a stat or not. That's what I think the eye test is, picking up things that stats or casual fans will not.

-Smak

[Bush4Ever]

[QUOTE=riseagainst]For statistics to be relevant, you have to link them to the game in some manner. If a player makes 4 steals in a game but gives up 4 layups on steal attempts that weren

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You need both. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.

oh and a BIG lol @ morons using all these adjusted stats that were originally made for TEAMS. Clueless baseball fans. :oldlol:

[KyrieTheFuture]

Your eyes are lying to you and you don't know what you are watching. You are a Cavs fans you, so you don't know what good basketball is.

When we are use to witnessing crap, we think everything is crap.
But eyes can't lie to you according to you

[Jameerthefear]

stats can be manipulated too anyways. what impact does the rebound that lebron stole from wade make? what impact does the shot that dwight blocked into the arms of another offensive player make? what impact does the guy who chooses to take it himself on a 2 on none fastbreak make? not much.

[I<3NBA]

why are u being so simple minded? when i watch my team i can tell things that i can't tell from a box score. i can tell if kyle o'quinn is rotating quick enough to defend the basket. i can tell if oladipo is missing the open man or if jameer is playing bad defensively because he's playing the passing lanes. i can tell if Oladipo is handling the ball sloppily causing us not to get into our offensive sets quick enough.
you're being so dumb.
why are you being so obtuse? my opening post explicitly stated this

the only reason stats doesn't reflect everything is because not all facets of the sport has had a stat created for it, and had this stat tracked religiously and correctly. but once this happens, everything would become clear, and ALL stats would reflect the true state of things in the sport.
the box score is the most incomplete stat record ever and the most misleading way to follow a game.

i can assure you though, most teams with advance metrics programs have their own box scores, with their own proprietary stats and formulas (which they won't share obv) and a whole range of numbers you can only dream of.

it's the "eye test" teams who are failing miserably in the league.

[Bush4Ever]

You need both. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.


Ding Ding Ding.

[Jameerthefear]

why are you being so obtuse? my opening post explicitly stated this

the box score is the most incomplete stat record ever and the most misleading way to follow a game.

i can assure you though, most teams with advance metrics programs have their own box scores, with their own proprietary stats and formulas (which they won't share obv) and a whole range of numbers you can only dream of.

it's the "eye test" teams who are failing miserably in the league.
thanks. ill take the word of a random isher on this. u know so much. jk

[I<3NBA]

thanks. ill take the word of a random isher on this. u know so much. jk
why will you take my word for it, when you can discover it for yourself?

[Legends66NBA7]

You need both. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.

oh and a BIG lol @ morons using all these adjusted stats that were originally made for TEAMS. Clueless baseball fans. :oldlol:

Pretty much this. You need full context from everything. It's just like building a team: You need scouts and management to draft, make trade, and sign free agents. Every way can bring you the proper vision.

[Legends66NBA7]

What's even better is watching the games live. I was the Pelicans @ Raptors game last night. I can see who did good, great, bad, sucked, what changed the momentum, etc... Just by watching everything in context. I don't even need to refer to the box scores, although if I'm interested I will check on them if I missed something.

[STATUTORY]

Stats are recorded by people with eyes. When you invoke stats you are implicitly resorting to the eye tests, except eyes of other people

[I<3NBA]

Stats are recorded by people with eyes. When you invoke stats you are implicitly resorting to the eye tests, except eyes of other people
this is so 20th century. what are we, a bunch of data gatherers without a computer and video tracking technology?

[BoutPractice]

You're vastly overstating the case for stats, and it doesn't have anything to do with the eye test.

The problem is that stats have to be interpreted in order to make sense, and only a human being can perform that task... The reason for that is simple: no stat can tell you how to interpret stats, because then you would need to interpret that interpretative stat, and so on ad infinitum. And yes, rational people disagree about the proper interpretation of stats, so you can't just say there will eventually be a consensus. In fact the more sophisticated data you have the more likely it is that rational people will disagree about its interpretation.

[9erempiree]

You're vastly overstating the case for stats, and it doesn't have anything to do with the eye test.

The problem is that stats have to be interpreted in order to make sense, and only a human being can perform that task... The reason for that is simple: no stat can tell you how to interpret stats, because then you would need to interpret that interpretative stat, and so on ad infinitum. And yes, rational people disagree about the proper interpretation of stats, so you can't just say there will eventually be a consensus. In fact the more sophisticated data you have the more likely it is that rational people will disagree about its interpretation.

That's because if the stats are too sophisticated then they are deceiving. Just like PER, what the F is that and how do those numbers apply. Just like percentages, we can relate a certain percentage to 100 percent but we cannot relate to some random number.

When the stat gets too sophisticated, there has to be something they are covering for.

Let's say Lebron James for example, I don't think he has a case for being one of the greatest players of all time but the only reason why he gets brought up into conversations is because of his stats.

Nobody brings up Magic, MJ, Kobe or Kareem's stats when they are making a case for them. They pass the eye-test but somebody like Lebron, when someone is making a case for him, they bring up his stats. The stat argument was never brought up for his predecessors.

Just like Peyton Manning, a known choker. He is not better than Joe Montana and everyone can agree. His fans argue for him as great by bringing up his stats but he is still a known choker.

[BoutPractice]

But LeBron stans will often talk about his accolades, not just his stats, and stats were and still are used to make the case for MJ, Kareem, Magic etc.

The eye test is no good when it's just used to support an agenda. And it certainly can't be a substitute for argument... you can say player X knows how to do Y or Z, but you can't just invoke "the eye test", leave it there and expect to be taken seriously... The whole basis of making an argument is that you're trying to speak a common language with other people. There has to be a bridge between your opinion and their world, otherwise they have no way of knowing if it's not just crazy nonsense.

[knicksman]

only idiots judges through stats alone.

[9erempiree]

By reading everyone's response and those that participated. It seems like a majority of ISH think stats are crap and the eye-test, not 100% valid, is still the go-to criteria when judging a player.

ISH is predominantly eye-test.

[bukowski81]

Once it happens? It isn't going to happen.

Explain to me how you could measure defensive communication, apt play calling or good tempo setting out of a pointguard, or measure passing ability? You could I suppose measure percentage of passes leading to a turnover....but it wouldn't measure a mans ability to make a bounce pass on the dribble...or throw an accurate lob. Would percentage of lobs resulting in an assist not be skewed if one guy has Dwight or Lebron to throw to and the other is lobbing it to guys less likely to convert it off a bad pass?

You wont ever be able to measure basketball. Ever.

Really now....lets say we stop recording all stats but wins and losses.

If you really wouldn't be able to tell who the best players are you are just an idiot.

You would have to watch more teams....but once you watched you would get a good idea.

We knew the best players in the league when I was a kid. And I didn't know a guys numbers till I got his basketball card or CBS mentioned the top 5 of everything around the all star break.

Give yourself more credit than this. You don't need numbers to tell you who the best is. You just might think so because you never had a world without them.

I couldn't tell you what Jordan was averaging in 1989.....in 1989. But I knew he was better than almost everyone we played.

How do you think that is?

Its unbelievable to me that people think they can judge basketball by just watching a stat sheet.

[iamgine]

it's not unreasonable to record every minute thing. when it's money and championships riding on the line, wouldn't you say doing everything you can is reasonable?

things like leadership, communication, injury, hustle, etc can all be quantified using a formula. a formula that can be derived, perfected, and be found reliable through scientific method.

But it is unreasonable. And faulty to say the least. The stats, ironically, rely on human accuracy and interpretation. Even now with the limited stats we get many people recording stats wrong. Imagine trying to measure leadership. Lets say Kenneth Faried fights back after being elbowed. Is that good or bad leadership? One could make the case for both.

[I<3NBA]

You're vastly overstating the case for stats, and it doesn't have anything to do with the eye test.

The problem is that stats have to be interpreted in order to make sense, and only a human being can perform that task... The reason for that is simple: no stat can tell you how to interpret stats, because then you would need to interpret that interpretative stat, and so on ad infinitum. And yes, rational people disagree about the proper interpretation of stats, so you can't just say there will eventually be a consensus. In fact the more sophisticated data you have the more likely it is that rational people will disagree about its interpretation.
this is good argument and i do agree that interpretation varies. but i think eventually, over time, a consensus will arise. just like evolution, the good stats will survive while the bad stats will die.

however, i disagree that only a human being can interpret stats. we're not far off into the future when machines can do the task. which would make the data they gather truly accurate and truly objective.

[FaceBack]

Entertainment value.

The NBA is by and large entertainment and not as competitive as college. What players compete for in the NBA is $. Public image certainly drives media and self promotion. LeBron is easily the best player in the NBA right now, but he will never rival MJ's marketing success nor his actual basketball skills. As a basketball player, I'm watching Kobe all day long. I'd attend 100 Kobe clinics before 1 LeBron clinic. He is the closest rival to MJ when it comes to skills.

[iamgine]

this is good argument and i do agree that interpretation varies. but i think eventually, over time, a consensus will arise. just like evolution, the good stats will survive while the bad stats will die.

however, i disagree that only a human being can interpret stats. we're not far off into the future when machines can do the task. which would make the data they gather truly accurate and truly objective.
Negative. Machine can't ever interpret everything accurately since it only has the brain without the understanding.

[Swaggin916]

Most players stats reflect their play pretty much on the money.

[I<3NBA]

Most players stats reflect their play pretty much on the money.
no it doesn't. the most lacking thing stats today don't tell is defensive impact. there haven't been much stats created to reflect accurately a player's defensive impact.

[Dr.J4ever]

as evidenced by optical illusion and confirmation bias.

and yet people cling to this stupid belief that the "eye test" has any validity.

ofc i'm not saying confirmation bias doesn't happen in statistics, but at least the numbers in statistics don't lie. statisticians lie (by using methodology that would reflect their own agenda, or cherry picking stats) but by the whole, the numbers themselves cannot lie.

i guess those who hate stats and cling strongly to the eye test as the superior gauge of reality hasn't really realize that the only reason stats doesn't reflect everything is because not all facets of the sport has had a stat created for it, and had this stat tracked religiously and correctly. but once this happens, everything would become clear, and ALL stats would reflect the true state of things in the sport.
Okay, once you have a stat for "all facets of the sport", let me know. This is not fantasy basketball. Stats are a useful tool, but the "eye test" or better yet common sense should rule. When stats can record production during the most crucial parts of a game, or adjust a player's stats on how he is used from one team to another when traded, or a multitude of little things seen only by a human being like passes that lead to assists, or a great pick, leadership by example, the proper attitude handling your teammates, and probably many more that I forgot, then we're talkin.

[Simple Jack]

Stats should be utilized to support what we think we see. It's rather clear that posters like 9er, will have their bias reflected in anything they see. An easy way to reject their assertions is to bring up objective measures. There's other ways to make arguments, of course, but sometimes it simply comes down to 2 people seeing the same exact thing, but interpreting it completely differently, with good rationale behind their assertions (non-numbers related).

On another note, every little minute detail CAN'T be reflected in stats because like others have mentioned, an interpretation is needed. However, when larger scales and sample sizes are used, stats are a pretty solid indicator of the more general facet of the game that you are looking at.

Taking KBlaze's example regarding accurate passes; it seems obvious to me that if a player is consistently throwing inaccurate passes, it will be reflected somewhere. Maybe not for one game, or even for a bunch of them - but after seasons and seasons worth of it - do you really think the player will be successfully diming if he's so inconsistently accurate in passing the ball? In other words, you can break down a player's offense for example, on specific plays using the eye-test in a way that you may not be able to using stats; but will that player really continue being an effective scorer (which is represented by some stats) if he's lacking certain material things only caught by the eye-test?