The Trouble with Data and Statistics

[ThaSwagg3r]

We have concluded that Dirk and Wade a better than LeBron, right JtotheIzzo?

[chips93]

its true that stats can be misleading, but thats only when people take them out of context, or only when they are used as a sole tool for evaluation.

id maintain that many stats can show us something that we didnt know, they can shed light on a player who doesnt grab your attention and is deserving of more praise.

you have to find a healthy middle ground with stats.

[bagelred]

They say that 73% of all statistics are made up.

[ThaSwagg3r]

They say that 73% of all statistics are made up.

So is there a 73% chance you made that up?

[G-train]

So is there a 73% chance you made that up?

That's the joke dummy.

[JtotheIzzo]

We have concluded that Dirk and Wade a better than LeBron, right JtotheIzzo?

I think in this year's final they proved them to be number 1 and 2, and LeBron 3, without a doubt. However, would LeBron have won once or twice with Shaq, or perhaps not at all? Would LeBron have lost in 06 like Dirk did?

LeBron was at the lowest point in his basketball career at any level during the finals, so obviously Dirk and Wade proved to be better, but would you start a team this year with Dirk or Wade instead of LeBron? That might be a bit foolish.

[Yung D-Will]

great so you won't argue with the majority of fans who already voted Kobe the greatest player of his generation by a landslide...


you will only argue with the very very very small percentage of online fans who are "hardcore" and use flawed stats....

great....you can have em'...we already know Kobe is the best.....and I speak for the people....





next

I wouldnt argue with them either cause most of the people who vote are casual fans who cant put achivements into context without being biased

[ThaSwagg3r]

However, would LeBron have won once or twice with Shaq, or perhaps not at all? Would LeBron have lost in 06 like Dirk did?

If LeBron were to replace Wade in 2006 would the Heat have still won the championship? Hell to the ****ing no. The Mavericks dared Dwyane Wade to beat them with his jump shot and guess what? He did, Wade dominated the Mavericks with his mid-range shot. LeBron James was an inferior shooter to Wade then. In '08-'09 LeBron became a better shooter than Wade but seasons prior Wade was the better shooter.

I think in this year's final they proved them to be number 1 and 2, and LeBron 3, without a doubt.

LeBron was at the lowest point in his basketball career at any level during the finals, so obviously Dirk and Wade proved to be better

but would you start a team this year with Dirk or Wade instead of LeBron? That might be a bit foolish.

Maybe so but most people wouldn't take Dirk or Wade over Durant or Rose to start a franchise either. You won't find many people or at least many sane people that think Durant and Rose are currently better than Dirk and Wade.

[97 bulls]

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...

let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.

Great post bro. Its just so maddening to watch and read posters trying to compare players in different roles and from different eras.

Look at the stockton/thomas comparison. A bunch of people trying to go off stats. And more often than not, its the scoring stats that are most overrated. It was never stocktons job to try to score 25 ppg. His job was to get easy baskets for his teammates. And he was great at it.

And its most frustrating is when posters try to compare the statistics of the 80s to the 90s. Its obvious a lot of these posters don't know what they're talking about.

[97 bulls]

Vegas bookies use VOLUMES of DATA and STATISTICS in their football betting lines...AND, where MILLIONS of DOLLARS are at stake.

Of course statistics CAN be mis-leading. So what? Every year major professional sports ADD more-and-more of them. Why?

Im sure "so what" wouldn't be asked by you if 95% of your arguments for chamberlain didn't revolve around statistics.

[knickswin]

I hate it when I'm trying to discuss two players and it turns into a stat war. It's very boring to me.

[Dasher]

because as Time continues to keep ticking we have numbers to help guide us when discussing (fill in random area )___________...But stats are hardly ever used as the main contributor when trying to pin point greatness...that's reserved for us watching and receiving how "said athlete".... captures our Imagination...and makes us feel.


No one ever watches a game and doesn't understand what they see....no one ever needs to go back and look at stats and get "informed" to find out who was the best.....Combat sports doesn't do that, either does team sports.

Actually combat sports do use advanced stats to compare boxers. Part of Floyd Mayweather's legend will be his Compubox numbers.

[jlauber]

Im sure "so what" wouldn't be asked by you if 95% of your arguments for chamberlain didn't revolve around statistics.

You didn't have to know Chamberlain's statistics to understand just how dominant he was. All you had to do was WATCH the games. He was CLEARLY the most dominant player on the floor in the vast majority of games he played in. And in all phases of the game, too. He was easily the best scorer, most efficient shooter, the best rebounder, and he dominated at the defensive end in both man-to-man and lane defense. On top of all of that, there were many games in which he was the best passer, too. The fact was, he was the most physically gifted player of all time. He was among the strongest athletes in the world, among the highest leapers that ever played the game, and he was among the fastest to ever play the game, as well.

As for statistics...yes, they can be deceptive. Fred Anderson led the NL in ERA in 1917 with a 1.44 ERA. Was he a more dominant pitcher than Pedro Martinez was in his 2000 season? Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 2000. However, Anderson's 1.44 ERA came in a league that averaged a 2.70 ERA. His nearest competitor was at 1.83, and there were a total of four pitchers that were under 2.00. Pedro's 1.74 ERA came in a league that averaged a 4.91 ERA. And his nearest competitor was Roger Clemens at 3.70.

And I have long maintained that Willie Mays' 52 HRs in 1965 was perhaps the greatest HR season in the "post-Ruth" era. Why? He led the entire MAJOR league leaders by 13 HRs (teammate Willie McCovey was next at 39...and the AL leader, Tony Conigliaro hit 32.) No other player, aside from Ruth, ever led the entire major league by that amount in a season.

And once again, you didn't need "statistics" to know just how dominant the '85 Bears defense was. True, they surrendered a lot of passing yards, but those that actually witnessed them play would tell you that most of them were meaningless yards late in games in which they had "called off the dogs." For the first three quarters, opposing QB's were ducking for cover before the ball was even snapped.

Same with Sandy Koufax. Hell, it was widely known throughout the league that he "tipped" his pitches. Yet, opposing batters were lucky to get a piece of the bat on the ball. And some "historians" will argue that Koufax's road ERA was nearly twice as high as his home ERA in his dominant seasons (from '62 thru '66.) How come his winning percentages were nearly identical on the road at home then? All you had to do was WATCH Koufax pitch. At his best, he was nearly unhittable.

How about Wilt's "statistics?" Throw out the actual mind-boggling numbers, and just COMPARE his stats to his peers. He won scoring titles by as much as +10.8 and even +18.8 ppg. He won rebounding titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. He won FG% titles by .162 and .157 margins (and he outshot entire leagues by as much as .244 and .271.) He was blocking shots at a unfathomable rates, too. AND, he won MULTIPLE statistical titles in the SAME seasons. He won the scoring AND rebounding titles in the same season, FIVE times. He won the scoring and FG% titles in the same season, FOUR time. He won the rebounding and FG% titles in the same season a staggering EIGHT times. He even won the rebounding, FG%, AND assist title in the same season. In fact, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG% in the same season, THREE times. He had an entire season in which he LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of 22 statistical categories, and had MANY seasons in which he was among the top-5 in 15+ statistical categories.

In any case, Wilt's dominance went well beyond "simple statistics." Having said that, however, he is the current holder of some 130 NBA records. No one else is even remotely close.

[97 bulls]

You didn't have to know Chamberlain's statistics to understand just how dominant he was. All you had to do was WATCH the games. He was CLEARLY the most dominant player on the floor in the vast majority of games he played in. And in all phases of the game, too. He was easily the best scorer, most efficient shooter, the best rebounder, and he dominated at the defensive end in both man-to-man and lane defense. On top of all of that, there were many games in which he was the best passer, too. The fact was, he was the most physically gifted player of all time. He was among the strongest athletes in the world, among the highest leapers that ever played the game, and he was among the fastest to ever play the game, as well.

As for statistics...yes, they can be deceptive. Fred Anderson led the NL in ERA in 1917 with a 1.44 ERA. Was he a more dominant pitcher than Pedro Martinez was in his 2000 season? Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 2000. However, Anderson's 1.44 ERA came in a league that averaged a 2.70 ERA. His nearest competitor was at 1.83, and there were a total of four pitchers that were under 2.00. Pedro's 1.74 ERA came in a league that averaged a 4.91 ERA. And his nearest competitor was Roger Clemens at 3.70.

And I have long maintained that Willie Mays' 52 HRs in 1965 was perhaps the greatest HR season in the "post-Ruth" era. Why? He led the entire MAJOR league leaders by 13 HRs (teammate Willie McCovey was next at 39...and the AL leader, Tony Conigliaro hit 32.) No other player, aside from Ruth, ever led the entire major league by that amount in a season.

And once again, you didn't need "statistics" to know just how dominant the '85 Bears defense was. True, they surrendered a lot of passing yards, but those that actually witnessed them play would tell you that most of them were meaningless yards late in games in which they had "called off the dogs." For the first three quarters, opposing QB's were ducking for cover before the ball was even snapped.

Same with Sandy Koufax. Hell, it was widely known throughout the league that he "tipped" his pitches. Yet, opposing batters were lucky to get a piece of the bat on the ball. And some "historians" will argue that Koufax's road ERA was nearly twice as high as his home ERA in his dominant seasons (from '62 thru '66.) How come his winning percentages were nearly identical on the road at home then? All you had to do was WATCH Koufax pitch. At his best, he was nearly unhittable.

How about Wilt's "statistics?" Throw out the actual mind-boggling numbers, and just COMPARE his stats to his peers. He won scoring titles by as much as +10.8 and even +18.8 ppg. He won rebounding titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. He won FG% titles by .162 and .157 margins (and he outshot entire leagues by as much as .244 and .271.) He was blocking shots at a unfathomable rates, too. AND, he won MULTIPLE statistical titles in the SAME seasons. He won the scoring AND rebounding titles in the same season, FIVE times. He won the scoring and FG% titles in the same season, FOUR time. He won the rebounding and FG% titles in the same season a staggering EIGHT times. He even won the rebounding, FG%, AND assist title in the same season. In fact, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG% in the same season, THREE times. He had an entire season in which he LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of 22 statistical categories, and had MANY seasons in which he was among the top-5 in 15+ statistical categories.

In any case, Wilt's dominance went well beyond "simple statistics." Having said that, however, he is the current holder of some 130 NBA records. No one else is even remotely close.

Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

[jlauber]

Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

Hmmm...in a TEAM game. How many rings did Jordan win before he had Pippen and Grant? How many rings did Kareem have before Magic arrived? And we know that from day one, Russell played with the most loaded rosters in NBA history.

Was Jordan a "loser" in his '86 playoffs? He hung 63 points in a double OT LOSS (and in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT.)

Using your logic, Jordan was a LOSER in NINE seasons; Bird in TEN; West and Oscar in TWELVE; Kareem in FOURTEEN; Shaq in FIFTEEN; and Hakeem in SIXTEEN seasons.