is Jokic a top 10 player in the NBA?

The people touting advanced stats dismiss advances stats. All they fall back on to ignore the massive inexcusable mistakes is "No dont use it like that." and "You cant compare ___ to ____" when ____ and ____ are on the same list being ranked by the same metric. Theres always a reason why the system itself isnt just giving wrong results. Be it Hakeem not leading his own team in winshares in the playoffs while leading a team to a title or the dozens of insane PER rankings or...*scrolls up a bit* ....

Leonard being behind Vucevic in all 3 of the numbers listed. We hear about exceptions like its one or two....when its hundreds you simply have to ignore to stay within the confines of common sense.

When I see an advanced stat that doesnt give me "You cant be serious...." results the very instant I look at its rankings ill be shocked.

Give me an advanced stat that doesnt come with a "Well dont count him.....or him...or him....or him...or them....NO...dont compare number 18 to number...16....throw that guy out too....yea I know this one is also insane but on the whole..." list of exceptions like the side effects at the end of a new pill commercial and ill consider it.

I just feel like if you cant fin a way for your results to not tell me David Lee is ahead of Kobe who is leading his team to a title I need you to go back to the drawing board.

[QUOTE=tontoz]LMAO front offices are notorious for giving out bad contracts. The wizards have been run by an incompetent buffoon for 14 years, and this is the third team he has run.

Is Westbrook worth his contact? Wall wasn't worth his deal even before he got hurt. I could go on all day but what's the point?

When someone dismisses all advanced stats because they don't match up with their opinions that tells me all I need to know.[/QUOTE]

What front offices are using advanced stats? When teams are asked who are the top players where are the advanced stats replies at? You

All the tams have advanced stats people....like they have old school scouts. The GMs still want the same players people with common sense see are great.

The advanced stats probably factor in more with which role players to favor.

Any stories of teams turning down stars who wish to be there because the advanced numbers suggest they are a bad fit?

Melo? Anyone calling him a star now?

Think it happens in 2010?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The people touting advanced stats dismiss advances stats. All they fall back on to ignore the massive inexcusable mistakes is "No dont use it like that." and "You cant compare ___ to ____" when ____ and ____ are on the same list being ranked by the same metric. Theres always a reason why the system itself isnt just giving wrong results. Be it Hakeem not leading his own team in winshares in the playoffs while leading a team to a title or the dozens of insane PER rankings or...*scrolls up a bit* ....

Leonard being behind Vucevic in all 3 of the numbers listed. We hear about exceptions like its one or two....when its hundreds you simply have to ignore to stay within the confines of common sense.

When I see an advanced stat that doesnt give me "You cant be serious...." results the very instant I look at its rankings ill be shocked.

Give me an advanced stat that doesnt come with a "Well dont count him.....or him...or him....or him...or them....NO...dont compare number 18 to number...16....throw that guy out too....yea I know this one is also insane but on the whole..." list of exceptions like the side effects at the end of a new pill commercial and ill consider it.

I just feel like if you cant fin a way for your results to not tell me David Lee is ahead of Kobe who is leading his team to a title I need you to go back to the drawing board.[/QUOTE]

Bingo

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The people touting advanced stats dismiss advances stats. All they fall back on to ignore the massive inexcusable mistakes is "No dont use it like that." and "You cant compare ___ to ____" when ____ and ____ are on the same list being ranked by the same metric. Theres always a reason why the system itself isnt just giving wrong results. Be it Hakeem not leading his own team in winshares in the playoffs while leading a team to a title or the dozens of insane PER rankings or...*scrolls up a bit* ....

Leonard being behind Vucevic in all 3 of the numbers listed. We hear about exceptions like its one or two....when its hundreds you simply have to ignore to stay within the confines of common sense.

When I see an advanced stat that doesnt give me "You cant be serious...." results the very instant I look at its rankings ill be shocked.

Give me an advanced stat that doesnt come with a "Well dont count him.....or him...or him....or him...or them....NO...dont compare number 18 to number...16....throw that guy out too....yea I know this one is also insane but on the whole..." list of exceptions like the side effects at the end of a new pill commercial and ill consider it.

I just feel like if you cant fin a way for your results to not tell me David Lee is ahead of Kobe who is leading his team to a title I need you to go back to the drawing board.[/QUOTE]


You can do that for literally any number... advanced or simple.

Thats why the eye test and contextual explanations are paramount.

We know jokic is on some larry bird shit right now from all available information.

[QUOTE]You can do that for literally any number... advanced or simple. [/QUOTE]

Thats entirely the point.

It all comes down to needing to know something about the people in question.....

TS is the best example of that to me. You see guys say so and so has a TS of this which shows hes a better shooter than ____. Someone asks "Well why is*insert terrible shooter* so high on the list?" with the obvious answer being all he does is dunk and hes not a terrible FT shooter. But you need to go find that out if you dont already know the game.

If I need to go see the numbers that make TS% to know if the person in question is actually a good shooter...why not just give me those numbers to begin with? Why make me do the extra step?

So often these numbers require so much context you might as well post only the context and leave the metric out of it.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Thats entirely the point.

It all comes down to needing to know something about the people in question.....

TS is the best example of that to me. You see guys say so and so has a TS of this which shows hes a better shooter than ____. Someone asks "Well why is*insert terrible shooter* so high on the list?" with the obvious answer being all he does is dunk and hes not a terrible FT shooter. But you need to go find that out if you dont already know the game.
[B][COLOR="Red"]
If I need to go see the numbers that make TS% to know if the person in question is actually a good shooter...why not just give me those numbers to begin with? Why make me do the extra step?[/COLOR][/B]

So often these numbers require so much context you might as well post only the context and leave the metric out of it.[/QUOTE]


TS is used to measure scoring efficiency... we could give you the full breakdown but ultimately it would be just as much, if not more data to sift through. If you want to talk numbers being irrelevant then they all are because theres anomalies everywhere.

but i agree... too much of it all is circumstantial and you can only evaluate things in life by context to assess true value. thats why i rarely drop numbers and basically only talk game.

Pretty much any stat will have some bias. That doesn't mean it is wrong.

Rebounding is clearly biased towards bigs. They have a better chance to get rebounds than small guards running around the perimeter.

Does that mean the stat is "wrong" because it doesn't treat all positions equally? No

A rebound gives teams possession which is obviously very important. You can't score without the ball. I think this is why some advanced stats are biased towards bigs.

Vuc averages over twice as many rebounds per 36 minutes as kawhi which explains a higher rating in some advanced stats. That doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means that position should be taken into account.

When you are comparing players at the same position they can be taken more at face value.

As far as PER goes the flaw is that you can increase your rating by shooting, even if you shoot like crap. I forget what the cuttoff percentage was but i remember it seemed very low.

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D55KcRdVUAAOGL6.jpg:large[/IMG]

What so often makes them "wrong" isnt that positions have a better shot at this number or that one...is that a human has to decide how to value them across the entire board with no context. Deciding if some random rebound is more valuable than a random assist with no knowledge of what led to either is just....not gonna get you to accurate results.

Ive read someone explain away the reason every stat gives you a stack of totally laughable results. Be it PER, win shares, plus/minus or whatever. Whoever is pushing it always has to contend with "You know ____ is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than ____ right?" and they always do know....but tell you to just ignore it for this reason or that.

If the answer is "Yea but just ignore that one...and that...and those" I feel like progress is needed to get me an advanced stat I can value.

Im fine that you do. I dont know what else to say about it. IVe heard "I know Gary Payton isnt worse than 100 people" too many times.

Maybe when one of these things figures out defense....

You would think defensive rating or defensive plus minus or some of them would have Leonard as elite this year but....no. PER did get him to #7 but then KAT is #4 and you just....

I dont know.

These numbers make a lot more sense till you actually read the rankings.

Too much needs to be factored in.

Drtg is a garbage stat when used for individuals. It is a team stat. When you try to break it down for individuals it becomes a mess. I dismissed it a long time ago.

+/- is useful as long as the sample is large. It can give some bizarre results in small samples.

Also you have to remember that young players/teams typically take the regular season much more seriously than established stars/teams because they are trying to prove themselves.


LeBron/KD and other top players frequently coast during the regular season, and that can show up in the stats.

At the end of the day who gives a f*ck. Jokic is top 3 without a doubt at this point. Arguably the best big. I don

Probably. Yea.