Stats. What are they good for?

[CelticConcourse]

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?

[Fafnir]

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.

[Redz]

My Roto and fantasy teams would be rendered useless without them.

[Eja117]

If it's rings it tells you who was a champion.

Otherwise it tells you about efficiency

[Redz]

I smell an Edwin Starr song   

[CelticConcourse]

Does it REALLY tell you about efficiency?

[Lightskinsmurf]

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.

[ScottHow]

It's all about the context

[fairweatherfan]

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? 

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.

[CelticConcourse]

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? 

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

[Lightskinsmurf]

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? 

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

That's exactly what I meant ^ and he knew what I meant. He just wanted to be a smartA.

[banty19]

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.

[CelticConcourse]

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.

[Lightskinsmurf]

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.

[D.o.s.]

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.