Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-2010, 02:55 PM   #76
dutchguy
uses velcro
 
dutchguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 485
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

OK, I'm convinced.
Just can't beat that. I won't abandon looking at stats any time soon.

1 thing though
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMaster
Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:
2010: 5th 32% going to win
2009: 2nd 31% won
2008: 8th 35% lost finals
2007: 10th 35% 1st rnd exit
2006: 14th 40% 1st rnd exit
2004: 6th 31% lost finals
2003: 14th 40% 2nd rnd exit
2002: 6th 31% won
2001: 3rd 27% won
2000: 10th 37% won
It doesn't really add up, the correlation between 3pt% and playoffs outcome is way too weak, which I think is obvious, but goes to show that this isn't the end-all be-all stat, but you said that yourself. However a smart combination of stats like you proposed offensive and defensive TS% interpreted the right way can lead to interesting conclusions.

and ehh....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMaster
Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:
2010: 5th 32% going to win
Hell no....celtics baby
dutchguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 03:09 PM   #77
ZenMaster
Whap'em
 
ZenMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,133
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchguy
OK, I'm convinced.
Just can't beat that. I won't abandon looking at stats any time soon.

1 thing though

It doesn't really add up, the correlation between 3pt% and playoffs outcome is way too weak, which I think is obvious, but goes to show that this isn't the end-all be-all stat, but you said that yourself. However a smart combination of stats like you proposed offensive and defensive TS% interpreted the right way can lead to interesting conclusions.

and ehh....

Hell no....celtics baby

But what you have to remember is that this whole statistical revelation in the NBA is no more than a few years old and it's very much still going on. So all this focus on covering the 3pt line is a fairly new concept to a lot of teams. Like I said in an earlier post, Popovich was the guy to go with this concept first and thus his success during this last decade.

It's going to be one hell of a finals series this year
ZenMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 04:22 PM   #78
dutchguy
uses velcro
 
dutchguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 485
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMaster
But what you have to remember is that this whole statistical revelation in the NBA is no more than a few years old and it's very much still going on. So all this focus on covering the 3pt line is a fairly new concept to a lot of teams. Like I said in an earlier post, Popovich was the guy to go with this concept first and thus his success during this last decade.
I can quite distinctly remember my coach teaching us the same thing when I was about 15. So I don't think it's really new. And believe me, in my league there were no NBA/NCAA caliber shooters
But the more advanced statistics have come over from Baseball only a few years ago, agreed. One of these 'advanced' statistics I hate is PER. That might work in baseball which is much more static and it's also understandable that you want to try to get as much info as possible in one clearly comparable number, but it's not working in a dynamic game as bball.

Makes me think of Ginobli, who in my opinion does so much on the floor, but it's impossible to translate that in objective stats. He always makes passes that get the advance the offence, but that are not direct assists. Can't translate that. Just like floor spacing.
And than you have people like this guy from the Mavs, who has this Mathletics site and he's saying stuff like "Durant's +/- is so low we wouldn't sign him if we could" You can't make coaching or acquisition decisions based on those stats.
But we've discussed that and I believe you agree.

Quote:
It's going to be one hell of a finals series this year
Epic
dutchguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 04:50 PM   #79
magnax1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,883
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Players lost their midrange jumpers and fans lost the ability to talk basketball because of the agendas driven by the need to be right all the time...and to prove it. The strive for proof is where these numbers come from. And its in these numbers we lose our all around fanhood.
Very true. I always try to stay away from conversations I know I'm biased on, and it really starts to become idiotic when a person pulls out the same argument which sort of makes sense, but everyone disagrees except for the biased few who pull out the exact same argument.

I also agree that the three pointer is over rated. Its an especially terrible shot in the last few minutes of the game because, while it might be more efficient statistically you're only going to make it 1/3 times and you might only have 3 possessions left while you'd be making an inside shot half the time even if its less efficient.
However just shooting a spot up three mid game instead of a jump shot is better because it is more efficient, it creates better spacing and its a momentum shifting shot if you keep making them.
magnax1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 07:01 PM   #80
Jailblazers7
will-to-bigness
 
Jailblazers7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 20,749
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwyjibo
What's with the backlash against stats? They are a great tool to help you determine which players and teams are better. If you look at a combination of most advanced metrics, they give you a good idea of who is playing well and who isn't whether it's on offense or defense. People who don't know how to interpret the stats or use them wrong ("this guy has a higher FG% so he is a better shooter.") are the problem. Sure there are many intangible aspects to all sports but the main stuff comes down to are you a productive player on both ends or not? That can be captured using many statistics. Someone in this thread mentioned intangible aspects like "effect of the crowd". Really? I mean come on, do you realize how small of an effect this has on the production of players? This can also be shown by looking at home/away splits among other things.

Unless someone watches every single game of every single team/player, you should be using stats in your argument because it gives you a bigger sample for a basis of comparison. No, the 10 games you watched of Chris Paul and Deron Williams this year to compare them is not enough. Baseless arguments is what pisses me off about ISH. People spouting off claims without any sort of proof to support them.

Deeper statistical analysis is a good thing. Why not try to become smarter about the game? Why not try to look for things that will be better predictors of future performance? People are finally coming around on this when it comes to baseball and it's becoming a valuable tool. Basketball is a different sport obviously but learning more about the game is not a bad thing.

Good post.

The problem on this board is that no one really uses stats properly in the context of an argument. They will say player X has more assists than player Y because they average more assists. A lot of guys who do this provide absolutely no real interpretation or observations on the players or teams or coaches they are debating about. Its gotta make you question whether or not they even watch these players.

That is the reason I like reading posts by guys like Thorpe, KBlaze, Da KO King, wang4three, and a bunch of other guys because they provide their opinions of playing style and observations they have made while actually watching games.

I do agree that statistics are a valuable tool tho. For instance, I probably only get to watch like 5 or 6 Kings games a year so I won't have very much first hand knowledge about Tyreke Evans. However, by looking at stats and doing comparisons I can come up with a reasonable estimate of where he should be placed among NBA players. I still refrane from speaking about guys like this who I don't watch very often because I don't have much to offer except stats that everyone has access to. What I really enjoy in a post is something unique within the anaylsis and not just a statistical breakdown I can get from NBA.com.
Jailblazers7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 12:12 PM   #81
ZenMaster
Whap'em
 
ZenMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,133
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

No in-depth response from you Kblaze? I was hoping for it.
ZenMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 05:47 PM   #82
Kblaze8855
Titles are overrated
 
Kblaze8855's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I love me some me.
Posts: 20,578
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Im looking over it now. When first I saw it my only thought was "Did this guy really create a series of charts and graphs?". Not that im complaining about too much effort being put in. I respect taking the time to explain yourself well. I just....was suprised by it.
Kblaze8855 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 05:50 PM   #83
BlueandGold
Lakers 2017
 
BlueandGold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,777
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

BlueandGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 08:11 PM   #84
ZenMaster
Whap'em
 
ZenMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,133
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kblaze8855
Im looking over it now. When first I saw it my only thought was "Did this guy really create a series of charts and graphs?". Not that im complaining about too much effort being put in. I respect taking the time to explain yourself well. I just....was suprised by it.

Well they where already made, I just used them as I thought they where relevant for the discussion.
ZenMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 09:09 PM   #85
Hamburgers
bang on em flex on em
 
Hamburgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 282
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Hamburgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 10:46 PM   #86
Gifted Mind
Objectivity
 
Gifted Mind's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Google
Posts: 823
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

I think the problem is not having a in-depth use of statistics. Most just post 1 or 2 and think they have proven their point. However, 1-2 stats rarely tell the whole picture. But if you include more and more, you will get a more clearer understanding and get closer to the actual truth.

I think Zenmaster in this thread has shown good examples of this.


I can also give an example for one of the examples the OP used to show statistics don't tell the real story

Quote:
We have people on here talking about Chris Pauls backup point having good numbers proves hes overrated when anyone who watched them both sees that Paul is far better setting the tempo, knowing when to defer to others, and most importantly...when not to. A point is supposed to have command. Not bend to the will of more established teammates.

Here is a classic case where the given numbers don't tell the whole story. So what added statistics will cover for this case? Team production. Your team's offensive production when Paul was the PG vs. Darren. I mean, essentially that is what you said Paul does better. It can be shown by statistics.


I could go on, but essentially almost everything can somehow be quantified. The key is to analyze the situation correctly. Nonetheless, you still will never have proven anything. "Prove" is too strong of a word. You will have greatly strengthen your argument, and that's usually all that is needed.

In summary, proper analyzation and statistical use can get you pretty close to the truth. Notice, analyzation requires watching the game. But after that, to make it more than just your interpretation of the game, you have to somehow quantify it, this is usually possible. If not, use strong logic.
Gifted Mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 01:49 AM   #87
eliteballer
3-time NBA All-Star
 
eliteballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,547
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

eliteballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 09:59 AM   #88
The Iron Fist
College superstar
 
The Iron Fist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,414
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

And still, this place is a cesspool.
The Iron Fist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 11:20 AM   #89
AirFederer
WIND DEFENDER
 
AirFederer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,730
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kblaze8855
Isnt that pretty much saying that teams that make their shots while keeping the other team from making theirs tend to win? Might as well say playing basketball well makes you good at basketball.

For a team I can see how that would be a factor in winning because really all a team needs to do is outscore the opponent. For a single player compared to another there are way too many issues unrelated to the individuals.

Its almost like using simple games won and lost to judge players. You can judge a teams ability by it(for the most part). Not players.


AirFederer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 03:15 PM   #90
Leviathon1121
Dunking on everybody in the park
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 679
Default Re: Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iron Fist
And still, this place is a cesspool.
Kblaze tried but I’m fairly certain he was told not to ban any of Simons accounts anymore because that is all this forum is at this point.
Leviathon1121 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:


Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:19 PM.






NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:

NBA Basketball

NBA Rumors

Basketball Blog

NBA Videos

Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy