How much faith do you put into the eye test versus data/stats

[mehyaM24]

:confusedshrug:

i personally give the eye test a 70/30 advantage over stats. why? because giving half credit to stats is supernumerary considering what we know actually seeing things in CONTEXT. stats are important (i use them all the time, as most know) - but they are merely to back up my opinions. game footage and tape doesn't and will NEVER lie.

[IncarceratedBob]

Any idiot can go online, look at stats and make basic assumptions aka half this forum. The eye test from someone reliable means infinitely more.

[Xsatyr]

I trust what I see more than stats because there are too many unknown variables in these so called "advanced" stats.

[FKAri]

Both are flawed. Using both is superior to either/or alone.

[navy]

Use both. Only use stats if someone is contradicting or unaware what can clearly be seen though.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This is pretty a big "debate" in basketball for whatever reason. Too many claim the eye test will give them much needed extra info, except stats do as well. Without data to guarantee they’re not saying a bunch of bullshit, then the eye test will only tell you so much.

You need both; they're mutually exclusive. Some stats lie. Obviously. Just like some people do too.

[knicksman]

quitting on bran now OP??

[dunksby]

Can't claim anything without proof, it could be stats or footage or both. I check out stats to confirm my observations from watching a game or when a particular player grabs my attention. You can't watch every player in the NBA all the time unless you are an analyst for one of the teams and even those guys use stats heavily.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

There is no substitute for watching games. Take Kevin Durant, for instance. You look at his stats and you think "wow he's playing well right now" but when you actually watch him play he's not making a huge impact out there.

This why I developed the Impact/Stats Ratio™. Players like say LeBron for instance has an impact/stats ratio significantly higher than 1....i.e he has a greater impact than his stats would indicate, whilst Durant is the opposite - significantly less than 1.

[Pushxx]

Both are flawed. Using both is superior to either/or alone.

Nothing else needs to be said.

[Shep]

:lol this guy.

all you hear about is RAPM this RAPM that when he makes a post yet he uses the eye test 70/30? :sleeping

[I<3NBA]

As much faith as i put into optical illusions

[AirFederer]

A combination. Leadership for instance is not possible to measure in a stat. Or help defence outright.

Ototh highlight plays are usually valued too much.

Take Kobe for instance. The average fan has imho clearly overratded his value, based on ppg and highlights. Not saying he wasn`t a super player, but as said, clearly overrated if you check (advanced) stats.

For me, Lebrons scoring in half court is not very pretty. Stiff moves, screens etc, but no one can deny it`s effective.

:confusedshrug:

[RightTwoCensor]

Hold this L, OP.