CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Other / General Sports => Topic started by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 08:03:29 PM
-
They definitely don't encompass everything.
But they obviously do mean something.
In which aspects are they good? Some things, like Bradley's defense are hard to express in our current statistical measures. Some players' stats are massively overrated (and some massively underrated). Different systems yield different numbers, and it's hard to compare two players playing in two different systems through stats.
What are "you guys"'s thoughts on this? What are stats good for?
-
Providing a baseline to judge performance over a long period of time (like a season). Our brains are really bad at processing information and tend to settle on highlights, what we saw last, and what we already believe to be true.
-
My Roto and fantasy teams would be rendered useless without them.
-
If it's rings it tells you who was a champion.
Otherwise it tells you about efficiency
-
I smell an Edwin Starr song ;D
-
Does it REALLY tell you about efficiency?
-
If you don't win they mean absolutely nothing. Stats are for losers. I only admire stats after the victory. If we're losing I couldn't care less.
-
It's all about the context
-
If you don't win they mean absolutely nothing. Stats are for losers. I only admire stats after the victory. If we're losing I couldn't care less.
So when we win, you become a loser? :P
I think you've got it a bit backwards, at least from a team's perspective. When a teams is losing is exactly when breaking down the numbers can help identify where the team is going awry. When they win, you certainly want to keep winning, but preserving good trends is less pressing than reversing bad ones. From a fan's perspective it can certainly work the other way though.
-
If you don't win they mean absolutely nothing. Stats are for losers. I only admire stats after the victory. If we're losing I couldn't care less.
So when we win, you become a loser? :P
I think you've got it a bit backwards, at least from a team's perspective. When a teams is losing is exactly when breaking down the numbers can help identify where the team is going awry. When they win, you certainly want to keep winning, but preserving good trends is less pressing than reversing bad ones. From a fan's perspective it can certainly work the other way though.
I think he means that if some guy has like 30/20/20 in a losing effort, it's meaningless :D
-
If you don't win they mean absolutely nothing. Stats are for losers. I only admire stats after the victory. If we're losing I couldn't care less.
So when we win, you become a loser? :P
I think you've got it a bit backwards, at least from a team's perspective. When a teams is losing is exactly when breaking down the numbers can help identify where the team is going awry. When they win, you certainly want to keep winning, but preserving good trends is less pressing than reversing bad ones. From a fan's perspective it can certainly work the other way though.
I think he means that if some guy has like 30/20/20 in a losing effort, it's meaningless :D
That's exactly what I meant ^ and he knew what I meant. He just wanted to be a smartA.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
-
The most important stat by far *And its not even close* Is wins and losses. If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.
There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.
*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.
As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like undersized gunners. :)
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.
There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.
*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.
As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like players who don't score well in that category. :)
Whoops. Meant to hit modify instead of quote. Sorry!
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.
For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.
There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.
*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.
As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like undersized gunners. :)
This is true. Lebrons stats say hes the best in the game, and he is. Still, if his team was losing that would mean absolutely nothing. That was my only point. Of course stats are useful and fun to pay attention too.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.
For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.
I think it evens itself out.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.
There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.
*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.
As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like undersized gunners. :)
This is true. Lebrons stats say hes the best in the game, and he is. Still, if his team was losing that would mean absolutely nothing. That was my only point. Of course stats are useful and fun to pay attention too.
Yeah, I read a quote from Coach Pop that said something similar. I agree with about half of that sentiment.
-
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=63357.msg1424854;topicseen#new
Well, looking at that thread, per36 stats are also not too good.
All the stats have downsides! :)
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.
For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.
I think it evens itself out.
Then I have to say you're not understanding.
3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.
The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.
For most teams their eFG% and FG% end up being very close, as they are closely correlated naturally. But for plenty of teams there is a big difference due to high percentage of 3s taken or extremes in their 3PT%.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.
For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.
I think it evens itself out.
Then I have to say you're really bad at math.
3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.
The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.
That's what I meant when I wrote my comment.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.
Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.
For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.
For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.
I think it evens itself out.
Then I have to say you're really bad at math.
3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.
The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.
That's what I meant when I wrote my comment.
And eFG% is a better measure of shooting percentage than raw FG%. That's what we're all saying. It dominates it because it contains more of the information that is important (how many points you're getting out of your made shots)
-
Absolutely nothing.
Show me a basketball stat and I show you itīs fallacy.
The idea that we can use abstract placeholders to describe dynamic processes is theoretically feasible, but practically useless.
Games arenīt played in a vacuum.
How do you quantify experience, chemistry, KGīs will to win or the effect on your motivation a series of wins or losses have?
The only reason stats have entered basketball discussions is to have a "killer argument" if you want to justify why Player A is better or worse than Player B.
So, basically, itīs just media talk.
-
they are interesting as hell. especially the way they're done today. some of the "less analytical" folk may disagree
-
One important caveat of sports stats - you should use them to try to understand what is going on. You should never use them to try to win a debate. You can always pick and choose stats to win a debate. Stats are extremely important to uncover our misperceptions.
In fact, we need more stats in everyday life. Most people make horrible decisions on many things because they rely on anecdote, completely oblivious to stats. We have degenerate gamblers thinking they are "due". Independent events, fool! We have people playing scratch-off lottery games every week when their paycheck comes in. We have people complaining about weather reports, completely ignorant of what it means when the weather reporter says 40% chance of rain. We have people who demand absolute answers when absolute answers are impossible.
-
they are interesting as hell. especially the way they're done today. some of the "less analytical" folk may disagree
Thatīs funny.
I thought stats are for the "less analytical" folk.
-
They're good for using as a litmus, (depending on the situation), for disagreement, for misleading assumptions, for confusion, and mostly for blog fodder.
-
Absolutely nothing.
Show me a basketball stat and I show you itīs fallacy.
The idea that we can use abstract placeholders to describe dynamic processes is theoretically feasible, but practically useless.
Games arenīt played in a vacuum.
How do you quantify experience, chemistry, KGīs will to win or the effect on your motivation a series of wins or losses have?
The only reason stats have entered sports discussions is to have a "killer argument" if you want to justify why Player A is better or worse than Player B.
So, basically, itīs just media talk.
One result of the general ignorance of most people when it comes to stats is the all or nothing attitude. It is hard to convince the stats illiterate of the value of stats when they don't understand how to think mathematically.
For example, it would be complete nonsense to say that if we embrace stats, then we cannot consider chemistry important. That is not how stats are used. No statistician claims that any combination of stats can account for 100% of variation in performance. When they can claim though is that stats can help us find value that is often missed when using our clearly flawed and biased perceptions. They help us make the best choice amidst the always present uncertainty. If a GM can use stats to make 10% better decisions, that will add up over time to serious gain.
So the fallacy is not in the stat. It is in the idea that stats are all or nothing. Understanding the implications of stats help you make better decisions because our intuitions are incredibly subjective and often far from reality. This is obvious is we read this forum or watch sports tv and see intelligent fans arguing for opposite positions. The reason for the disagreement is typically not that either fan is a fool. It is typically due to the reality that sports judgments are highly subjective and even what we are talking about is often very imprecise.
-
Best stats I know of: Ts%, total Rebound rate
TS% is an excellent measure of how efficient a player is when scoring. It factors in FT's, added value of 3pters, and horoscope sign.
Total Rebound rate (and defensive rebound rate, offensive rebound rate) is the best measure of how effective a rebounder a player is. Rebounds per 36 minutes is also a good measure, but rebound rate is more comprehensive.
Opponent Production per 48 (from 82 games): only really useful when a large sample size is present, and isn't by any means an end all description of how good a defender one is. It does however provide some light. It can show how well a combo guard defends 2's vs 1's, for example.
Positional offensive production per 48: shows how well a player scores when they're often playing multiple positions in a season. Great example Thad Young. Highlights his inefficiency as a 3, and his mismatch as a 4.
Points/rebounds per 36 minutes: a good number to use when looking at a contextual contrast of a bench player vs a starter on equal footing. Not a great stat because almost always per minute production drops the more minutes per game a guy plays, but useful nonetheless.
-
they are interesting as hell. especially the way they're done today. some of the "less analytical" folk may disagree
Thatīs funny.
I thought stats are for the "less analytical" folk.
The reason why the stat haters are typically the less analytical people (we should never generalize to all) is that they are typically the people who would rather rely on their perceptions. They are unwilling to challenge their own perceptions with objective data such at metrics.
Still, someone can be very analytical but still statistically illiterate. There are many ways to be analytical, though some may be very unreliable.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I disagree completely.
But I think you could climb the corporate ladder in Bristol with that mindset. I think ESPN frowns upon their "analysts" actually watching games.
-
Absolutely nothing.
Show me a basketball stat and I show you itīs fallacy.
The idea that we can use abstract placeholders to describe dynamic processes is theoretically feasible, but practically useless.
Games arenīt played in a vacuum.
How do you quantify experience, chemistry, KGīs will to win or the effect on your motivation a series of wins or losses have?
The only reason stats have entered basketball discussions is to have a "killer argument" if you want to justify why Player A is better or worse than Player B.
So, basically, itīs just media talk.
Literally every front office in the NBA disagrees with you.
We don't consider "the eye test" or "common sense" or whatever people call the alternatives to stats useless if they can't explain 100% of what happens in a game, so why are only stats held to that standard?
Statistical analysis isn't useful because it can perfectly quantify every aspect of a game, it's useful because it usually provides better explanations than subjective methods. Which is why every front office uses it, and many are spending a lot of money and effort trying to push the analytic envelope to gain an edge.
-
Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]
Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.
Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.
I disagree completely.
But I think you could climb the corporate ladder in Bristol with that mindset. I think ESPN frowns upon their "analysts" actually watching games.
This is a great example of why people need stats and not just subjective opinions. Your ESPN comments are demonstrably way off-base. ESPN has tons of analysts that don't use much in the way of stats.
We needs stats to control for the fact that people see what they expect or want to see. We are all prone to confirmation bias. Beyond that, we also all are very limited in what we can perceive and very flawed in how we perceive it. Instead of boldly making statements like the one you made about ESPN analysts, the more thoughtful commenter would generate a list of analysts and count the stat-geeks among them.
What gets ratings on TV is loud, opinionated, over-confident analysts, not stat-geeks. So the type of people you seem to prefer are quite well represented.
-
I like how you guys put words into my mouth. Iīm not ignorant of stats, Iīm over them.
No statistician claims that any combination of stats can account for 100% of variation in performance.
So, the placeholders donīt represent constant values. 1 isnīt actually 1, at least not always. You understand that this little sign (=) becomes a lie, right? All laws derivating from math involving them arenīt really laws, theyīre more like general rules of thumb, yes?
When they can claim though is that stats can help us find value that is often missed when using our clearly flawed and biased perceptions. They help us make the best choice amidst the always present uncertainty.
Youīre making stuff up now, arenīt you? Which "clearly flawed perception" are you talking about? Stats are just a bunch of numbers without proper interpretation, just like the action on the court has to be interpreted. Considering how I read deeply flawed application of stats on this board alone on a daily basis, I have a hard time accepting their, at best, "general rule of thumb" as the incorruptible judge in any debate.
So, first of all, I question the neutrality of numbers interpreted by humans, and thus, all laws derivating from them. But you understand that, basically, as you wrote
So the fallacy is not in the stat. It is in the idea that stats are all or nothing. Understanding the implications of stats help you make better decisions because our intuitions are incredibly subjective and often far from reality. This is obvious is we read this forum or watch sports tv and see intelligent fans arguing for opposite positions.
I challenge this view, too. The fallacy is also in the stat alone. The matter youīre trying to explain with not 100% exact placeholders in a closed system is a dynamic one in an open system, in other words, their applicability is limited per se.
Only if the framing conditions stay exactly the same (which they never do), and the stat is trying to explain a simple cause and effect (which every 10 year old could do with words), and 1 is actually always 1, then they tell you something definitive about a limited aspect of the game, which then has to be interpreted and put in itīs proper context by humans with their, as you called it, "clearly flawed perception".
An assist isnīt simply an assist, there are a myriad of angles on the court from which the ball could go from point A to B, and the distance between the assists man, the receiver and the opponent(s) is never the same, but paramount to contextualize the assist. Just this one, lousy assist. To cover this aspect alone, youīd need 3D graphics instead of simple numbers.
Theoretically feasible, pratically useless.
Considering that every NBA team employs professional statisticians, and there are still countless braindead decisions made in the NBA every year, Iīd say the advantage of relying on stats over common sense still has to be proven.
We don't consider "the eye test" or "common sense" or whatever people call the alternatives to stats useless if they can't explain 100% of what happens in a game, so why are only stats held to that standard?
Because if theyīre not even saying what they are supposed to say, then theyīre simply misleading, and have the same meaningfulness as your daily horoscope. These NBA teams might just as well employ a bunch of priests and rabbis to give them advice.
Consequently, and maybe even more importantly, considering their arbitrary nature, their only purpose is to justify whatever anyone wants to justify, and are only distracting from the actual debate, often to the point that itīs impossible to carry on with the discussion without addressing them first in long, drawn-out and boring math exercises.
So, to make an already long post shorter:
I issue my challenge again. Show me a stat, tell me what it is supposed to say, and I will explain itīs fallacy.
-
This is why scouts watch players at live games, not GameCasts from home!
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
-
Casperian you dismiss stats because they're "fallacies" because they aren't some sort of higher truth? That's ridiculous, they're just pieces of evidence you use to examine the game. You don't throw away evidence just because its not complete telling of the entire game that happens on the court.
Advanced statistics are useful because human beings are crappy observers of reality. We make bad eye witnesses and are bad at considering the totality of performance, we focus on what we've just seen or what excites us.
Your attitude would have us never investigate physical mechanics or thermodynamics with models because they don't 100% describe the reality of what's happening in the physical world.
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
I predicted this would be somebody's response the second I posted this.
-
Absolutely nothing.
Show me a basketball stat and I show you itīs fallacy.
The idea that we can use abstract placeholders to describe dynamic processes is theoretically feasible, but practically useless.
Games arenīt played in a vacuum.
How do you quantify experience, chemistry, KGīs will to win or the effect on your motivation a series of wins or losses have?
The only reason stats have entered basketball discussions is to have a "killer argument" if you want to justify why Player A is better or worse than Player B.
So, basically, itīs just media talk.
I agree with your statements about how stats can't definitively measure any aspect of a basketball game (although some simpler stats measured over time are fairly accurate) but I don't think that makes them useless. All stats have limitations and only measure what they measure. Whether they indicate other things is a bit more nebulous.
I personally think that understanding stats can improve your understanding of the game. Frequently I'll see stats that don't seem to jibe with what I see on the court. I'll try and figure out why that is. It generally improves my understanding of what stats do and don't measure and what their limitations are. You shouldn't use stats to form your opinions of players or teams but if my opinion of a player is significantly different from what the stats show I try and figure out why the stats don't reflect what I see. For instance Rondo and PP having the same fg% from a given range would IMO be related to Paul being blanketed by defenders, Rondo having a higher TO% than many point guards would be due to their shooting the ball more often than Rondo and passing less often.
I will say that the only stats that I generally rely on over my observations are offensive and defensive efficiency for teams. I think that good or bad stretches influences your overall opinion and that I don't spend enough time watching other teams to decide how good they are overall and how they compare to each other. Obviously I can tell top teams from bottom teams but it's hard to see the difference between the 9th team and the 20th if you only see those teams a couple of times a year. Not to mention that a team might just be a good or bad matchup for the Celts. For instance I'm shocked every time I see teh Wizards are among the top defensive teams, not so shocked that I'd claim that they're really as bad as teams that have been giving up 7-8 more ppp than the Wizards for 2/3 of a season.
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
I predicted this would be somebody's response the second I posted this.
I can frequently predict the kind of responses my posts will generate as well. I just think there's a certain amount of "throw the baby out with the bath water" element to your statement.
-
Statistics can be very accurate and almost to the point of being unbelievable. They can also be highly misleading. Approxiamately 40 years ago the U.S. and the Soviet Union competed in a track meet with only the two counties in the meet. The U.S. rolled over the Soviets but the headline in the Soviet paper the next day read "Soviet Union takes 2nd place at world track meet, U.S. takes second to last". Well this was somewhat accurate but still very misleading.
One other I heard was this- If you have your head in a freezer and your behind in an oven, on average, you are doing pretty well. Again, very misleading.
-
Statistics can be very accurate and almost to the point of being unbelievable. They can also be highly misleading.
I don't like the term misleading, I prefer misused. One places the blame on the stat, the other (rightfully) places the blame on the person using the stats to show what they weren't meant to measure.
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
But if we can get 'Toine shooting those four point shots...
-
All about team stats and rankings. They're highly indicative of overall capabilities and philosophies (like Doc's disdain for O rebounds in lieu of getting back on defense). They typically tell a much more interesting story than individual stats.
-
All about team stats and rankings. They're highly indicative of overall capabilities and philosophies (like Doc's disdain for O rebounds in lieu of getting back on defense). They typically tell a much more interesting story than individual stats.
I don't know the new camera systems are really cool. I loved the paper about shooting attempts and percentages based on distance from and court position of all the NBA big men.
If you're talking predictive power, sure team statistics are very robust compared to individual ones.
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
But if we can get 'Toine shooting those four point shots...
That's one of my favorite Celts quotes, right up there with "it stinks and it sucks".
-
If pierce is averaging 55 points a game but the celtics are losing then it means nothing and its obviously not working.
I disagree with this. PP averaging 55 a game might be having a strong positive impact on the game, Antoine going 6-25 from behind the arc might be the reason you're losing those games. Trying to figure out whether we need PP to take fewer shots or keep Toine from taking all those threes is valuable, stats can help with that analysis.
I also disagree with the thought that making s positive impact on a game is only worthwhile if your team ultimately wins the game but that's probably for another thread.
But if we can get 'Toine shooting those four point shots...
That's one of my favorite Celts quotes, right up there with "it stinks and it sucks".
Agreed. Those bad Celtic teams were a lot of fun (away from the court, that is).
-
Casperian you dismiss stats because they're "fallacies" because they aren't some sort of higher truth? That's ridiculous, they're just pieces of evidence you use to examine the game. You don't throw away evidence just because its not complete telling of the entire game that happens on the court.
Advanced statistics are useful because human beings are crappy observers of reality. We make bad eye witnesses and are bad at considering the totality of performance, we focus on what we've just seen or what excites us.
Your attitude would have us never investigate physical mechanics or thermodynamics with models because they don't 100% describe the reality of what's happening in the physical world.
Quantum physics is just as useful as a horoscope. ::)
I think a lot of these kinds of extreme stances boil down to conflating descriptive and inferential stats. Reading between the lines I think that's what Casperian's doing, hence the "100% accurate or it's meaningless" refrain.
-
Stats are good at backing up what you see with your eyes.
Advanced stats are getting to the point where they not only tell how many rebounds or points a player puts up but players overall value to their team and around the league.
Stats are useless however without the knowledge to understand exactly what they mean in the context of team basketball.
-
Statistics are 100% accurate. Cuz numbers. Inferences based on those statistics vary widely. Cuz people. Science.
-
Statistics are 100% accurate. Cuz numbers. Inferences based on those statistics vary widely. Cuz people. Science.
Pretty much. Stats mean nothing if you don't know how to use them, everything if you do.
-
Stats help do things like keep the score and determine what your record is. Seems pretty important.
-
I like how you guys put words into my mouth. Iīm not ignorant of stats, Iīm over them.
No statistician claims that any combination of stats can account for 100% of variation in performance.
So, the placeholders donīt represent constant values. 1 isnīt actually 1, at least not always. You understand that this little sign (=) becomes a lie, right? All laws derivating from math involving them arenīt really laws, theyīre more like general rules of thumb, yes?
Your answer seems like a non sequitor.
1 isn't 1? What is that supposed to mean? "Constant values"? What are you talking about?
Games stats can describe what happened. For example RBIs can tell you what happened in a game, but they don't really tell us much about the ability of a player. Batting average with runners in scoring position would give us insight into a players ability beyond how it describes outcomes.
We should also take note that a players batting average is typically different every month. Why does that happen? That happens because for a hitting ability N, there is a distribution of likely outcomes. Someone who doesn't understand statistics might assume that if a player hits .320 one year, and the .300 the next, then he was more skilled the earlier year. Not necessarily. There is a pretty good chance that the difference could be accounted for by things other than his skill, such as facing better pitchers on average, fielder position, or other variables.
No stat gives us a full understanding of a players ability. Even Hollinger does not contest this. For example, Harden's PPG gives us good insight into his scoring ability, but PPG cannot give us a full picture. When he had 2 teammates who were elite scorers, he scored less. So, while the PPG is a very useful metric for understanding a player's scoring ability, it only tells us part of the story. Let's say, PPG gives us 25% of the story. That is still extremely significant. If we add to that other quantitative data, such as shooting percentages, and qualitative information, such as information about the system that the team plays, we get a very good understanding of the player's scoring ability.
For those who avoid nuance and want to believe that the world is black and white, I don't see this being appealing.
When they can claim though is that stats can help us find value that is often missed when using our clearly flawed and biased perceptions. They help us make the best choice amidst the always present uncertainty.
Youīre making stuff up now, arenīt you? Which "clearly flawed perception" are you talking about? [/quote]
"Making stuff up"? I suspect this means you are completely unfamiliar with any research in neuroscience/cognitive science. Problems such as confirmation bias are universally accepted as flaws in our perceptions. There is such robust literature on how poor human memory is (and how selective), that there is no need for me to make stuff up. Stats help us to partially control for our cognitive biases by checking our opinions against objective data that independent observers agree is accurate. Perhaps assists may be to a degree a subjective stat, but field goals made is not.
Stats are just a bunch of numbers without proper interpretation, just like the action on the court has to be interpreted. Considering how I read deeply flawed application of stats on this board alone on a daily basis, I have a hard time accepting their, at best, "general rule of thumb" as the incorruptible judge in any debate.
Yes, there are people who wrongly act like throwing out a stat closes their case. The truth is, most of the interesting discussions here are ones that fundamentally cannot be resolved. For example, we cannot run a controlled experiment where in one universe, Perk is not traded for Green, and in one, he is. On the other hand, we also often hear people make absurd claims that the statistical data make exceedingly unlikely to be true. You should not confuse the abuse of statistics with a lack of value.
So, first of all, I question the neutrality of numbers interpreted by humans, and thus, all laws derivating from them. But you understand that, basically, as you wrote
I am not claiming that interpretation is neutral. What is neutral is that stats represent shared, objective facts.
There is a reason why front offices love stats. The reason is that their decisions matter. Since their decisions matter, they need to make the best decisions they can. On a forum like this, we don't make decisions about players. We usually just try to justify our opinions. This often leads to the abuse of statistics or to people sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la la" when stats show the unlikelihood that their opinion holds any water.
-
Deleted
-
deleted
-
Casperian you dismiss stats because they're "fallacies" because they aren't some sort of higher truth? That's ridiculous, they're just pieces of evidence you use to examine the game. You don't throw away evidence just because its not complete telling of the entire game that happens on the court.
No, thatīs not what Iīve said. I said the very basis on which these stats are built is wishy-washy, making it less than 100% certain that 1 is actually 1, thus any conclusion derived from it is not more than guesswork.
Let me put it this way:
You ever had word problems (in a mathematical sense) back in first grade? 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples?
I say no apple is the same. For all we know, one could be an orange.
Your attitude would have us never investigate physical mechanics or thermodynamics with models because they don't 100% describe the reality of what's happening in the physical world.
Can we stick to basketball, please?
Thermodynamics is a closed system, thatīs what the first law explicitly states, and I said nothing about the value of math there. However, thatīs not the case for a basketball game.
Games stats can describe what happened. For example RBIs can tell you what happened in a game, but they don't really tell us much about the ability of a player. Batting average with runners in scoring position would give us insight into a players ability beyond how it describes outcomes.
Again, can we stick to basketball? I wasnīt talking about baseball stats, I was specifically talking about basketball stats. The framing conditions of a baseball match are far more constant than of stats taken in a basketball game, anyway.
Statistics are 100% accurate. Cuz numbers. Inferences based on those statistics vary widely. Cuz people. Science.
Yep, except that basketball statistics are not 100% accurate. Cuz people....moving people. Btw, do you know of any spacing statistics? I mean, isnīt that what most coaches design their offense for? To create space? Seems pretty important to me, yet thereīs not a single stat about that (at least none Iīm aware of).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, guys, while I appreciate all the attention Iīm getting, I really canīt reply to every single post with the attention it deserves, however snarky itīs tone might be.
So, now that we all had a good laugh at my expense, how about some of you highly-educated folks prove your reading comprehension by actually answering my question, instead of me having to argue on 7 different level?
Show me a basketball stat which actually says what it is supposed to say, maybe with a nice, short explanation how that helps anyone instead of using deduction or experience, and I will explain to you while that is not the case. It really is that simple.
-
Show me a basketball stat which actually says what it is supposed to say, maybe with a nice, short explanation how that helps anyone instead of using deduction or experience, and I will explain to you while that is not the case. It really is that simple.
What you are doing is using a technique called "breaking it down to the ridiculous" to minimize the importance of stats as a tool for determining the performance of players or teams. You want to disprove something and hence prove your point.
But statistics in sport isn't about one stat and what it represents. Its about taking the stats and comparing them to others that other players and teams have accumulated and using them to judge the performances of the players or teams. No one statistic can do that. Only the accumulated total of all the stats can do that and even then, interpretation needs context and is still subjective.
If a PF gets 10 rebounds a game for three years does that make him a great PF? Such a question begs multiple other questions including statistical questions for proper context as well as what stats would a great PF have to have to be considered great?
In today's stat driven world its hard to describe a great PF as simply someone who scores a lot, rebounds a lot, and plats great defense. Details are needed. Sometimes statistical details.
-
http://www.blazersedge.com/2013/3/6/4069874/blazers-edge-mailbag-stats-sloan-sports-analystics-conference
A good post, like always, from BE
-
EDWIN STARR
"STATS" sung as "War"
STATS, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
STATS, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
STATS, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
-
Statistics are 100% accurate. Cuz numbers. Inferences based on those statistics vary widely. Cuz people. Science.
Yep, except that basketball statistics are not 100% accurate. Cuz people....moving people. Btw, do you know of any spacing statistics? I mean, isnīt that what most coaches design their offense for? To create space? Seems pretty important to me, yet thereīs not a single stat about that (at least none Iīm aware of).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, guys, while I appreciate all the attention Iīm getting, I really canīt reply to every single post with the attention it deserves, however snarky itīs tone might be.
So, now that we all had a good laugh at my expense, how about some of you highly-educated folks prove your reading comprehension by actually answering my question, instead of me having to argue on 7 different level?
Show me a basketball stat which actually says what it is supposed to say, maybe with a nice, short explanation how that helps anyone instead of using deduction or experience, and I will explain to you while that is not the case. It really is that simple.
TRB%: Total Rebound Percentage (available since the 1970-71 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * (TRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm TRB + Opp TRB)). Total rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.
This stat is great because it reduces noise from inflated rebound numbers from playing in an up-tempo pace, and allows one to compare players who spend varying amounts of time on the floor (The 'Jeff Green is a good rebounder because he got 7 rebounds per game' conundrum).
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/reboundRate
Simple, easy, informative.
-
http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/3/7/4071420/sloan-sports-analytics-conference-recap-ssac-2013
I should go see it one day ;D
-
Statistics are 100% accurate. Cuz numbers. Inferences based on those statistics vary widely. Cuz people. Science.
Yep, except that basketball statistics are not 100% accurate. Cuz people....moving people. Btw, do you know of any spacing statistics? I mean, isnīt that what most coaches design their offense for? To create space? Seems pretty important to me, yet thereīs not a single stat about that (at least none Iīm aware of).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, guys, while I appreciate all the attention Iīm getting, I really canīt reply to every single post with the attention it deserves, however snarky itīs tone might be.
So, now that we all had a good laugh at my expense, how about some of you highly-educated folks prove your reading comprehension by actually answering my question, instead of me having to argue on 7 different level?
Show me a basketball stat which actually says what it is supposed to say, maybe with a nice, short explanation how that helps anyone instead of using deduction or experience, and I will explain to you while that is not the case. It really is that simple.
TRB%: Total Rebound Percentage (available since the 1970-71 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * (TRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm TRB + Opp TRB)). Total rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.
This stat is great because it reduces noise from inflated rebound numbers from playing in an up-tempo pace, and allows one to compare players who spend varying amounts of time on the floor (The 'Jeff Green is a good rebounder because he got 7 rebounds per game' conundrum).
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/reboundRate
Simple, easy, informative.
Unless there's five great rebounders on a team. There are only so many rebounds to go around.