Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?

[Roy H.]

No, and here's why:

Metrics/Analytics do not always tell the story. For all of the number-crunching, trend analysis, stat-hounding that is apparent in sports (and even non-sports), numbers (and computers) don't measure human emotion.

Numbers don't measure toughness, guile, locker room leadership.

Advanced metrics/analytics are subject to - no matter how good they appear - human error. computers, supercomputers, anything technologically driven - is made by humans.

Humans make mistakes. Always have. Always will.

What's the non-human alternative then?  Because it seems like every possible alternative is also human or made by humans, so I don't see why this is something unique to analytics.

For me, Faith.

Why do we feel the need to be able to analyze everything? To be able to quantify everything?

Do we want to become God? Not possible.

Because to believe in what we cannot see is crazy, psychotic - to some analysts.

But Faith is enduring, faith can see you through the tough times. Faith is believing in what you cannot see - what we cannot quantify.

Faith, to some - is crazy.

Does faith work in analyzing basketball players, though?

I mean, we all want KO to become the next Dirk.  Some probably have faith that he will be.  Does that mean it's a legitimate projection, though, when compared to other methods?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Love advanced metrics, detest how it's applied and the conclusions people draw from them.

[GreenFaith1819]

No, and here's why:

Metrics/Analytics do not always tell the story. For all of the number-crunching, trend analysis, stat-hounding that is apparent in sports (and even non-sports), numbers (and computers) don't measure human emotion.

Numbers don't measure toughness, guile, locker room leadership.

Advanced metrics/analytics are subject to - no matter how good they appear - human error. computers, supercomputers, anything technologically driven - is made by humans.

Humans make mistakes. Always have. Always will.

What's the non-human alternative then?  Because it seems like every possible alternative is also human or made by humans, so I don't see why this is something unique to analytics.

For me, Faith.

Why do we feel the need to be able to analyze everything? To be able to quantify everything?

Do we want to become God? Not possible.

Because to believe in what we cannot see is crazy, psychotic - to some analysts.

But Faith is enduring, faith can see you through the tough times. Faith is believing in what you cannot see - what we cannot quantify.

Faith, to some - is crazy.

Does faith work in analyzing basketball players, though?

I mean, we all want KO to become the next Dirk.  Some probably have faith that he will be.  Does that mean it's a legitimate projection, though, when compared to other methods?

What you speak of is hope. KO could become the next Dirk...I hope he does.

I believe, though, that believing in something greater than the person is not a bad choice and can/does keep people grounded. This does not mean that people won't falter, but it is a sound foundation to have.

Analytics can't measure what that superstar athlete (or regular person) will do if/when tragedy strikes, or bad things occur.

That is why I shy away from number-crunching. It simply doesn't/will not ever - tell the entire story.

The vast array of human emotions, faith, intangibles - simply cannot be measured. But they play a HUGE role in the makeup of an individual.

[e4sym0de]

I agree that metrics don´t show the full story but that does not mean, they are not usefull. There are two options:
1) you don´t use metrics
2) you use metrics and are still able to take everything else into consideration

The second option gives you an advantage by having more informations you can use for making your decision. Only because numbers do not tell the full story, does not mean they are not telling some part of it.

[BornReady]

i trust my eye test first a foremost
but then check the advanced stats to see if it backs up

advanced stats can be very misleading
eye test usually evaluates the player and how the coach uses them

also i dont think any team in pro sports has soley relied on advanced stats and have had won a championship

people look at morey and say him getting harden was advanced stats
but people dont realize we were already saying harden was a good player before he was even drafted in the nba based on how his playing style looked

[indeedproceed]

I'm pro-literacy. I believe that people should understand things.

This quote, without context, is kind of hilarious. Like there is a horde of people burning box scores and calculators.

[tstorey_97]

How did KC Jones have a career that included two national collegiate titles and 8 NBA titles?

Where are the metrics there? how did Red "project" KC?
 
Sure, Bill Russell....but, it's a team sport...all the metrics and stats are influenced quite profoundly by the other guys on the floor.

KC Jones-metrics analytics don't belong in the same sentence do they?

In today's game, the Celtics are playing quite well with no front court and ten bench players.

I respect attempting to quantify human behavior of any type.
I also have a far deeper appreciation of "unquantifiable" behavior....like Dave Cowens.

[indeedproceed]

How did KC Jones have a career that included two national collegiate titles and 8 NBA titles?

Where are the metrics there? how did Red "project" KC?
 
Sure, Bill Russell....but, it's a team sport...all the metrics and stats are influenced quite profoundly by the other guys on the floor.

KC Jones-metrics analytics don't belong in the same sentence do they?

In today's game, the Celtics are playing quite well with no front court and ten bench players.

I respect attempting to quantify human behavior of any type.
I also have a far deeper appreciation of "unquantifiable" behavior....like Dave Cowens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNEcQS4tXgQ

This seems appropriate.

[Celtics4ever]

They can be useful but not the end all.

[Chris22]

I am interested in one stat that is not kept.

Keeping balls alive.

Jerebko is great at that.

[D.o.s.]

I'm pro-literacy. I believe that people should understand things.

This quote, without context, is kind of hilarious. Like there is a horde of people burning box scores and calculators.

There more or less are: I'll refer you to Chuck's diatribe at the beginning of this thread.

I am interested in one stat that is not kept.

Keeping balls alive.

Jerebko is great at that.

There's a big difference between stats you can find in an informal Google search and what the average NBA front office has access to.

[fairweatherfan]

No, and here's why:

Metrics/Analytics do not always tell the story. For all of the number-crunching, trend analysis, stat-hounding that is apparent in sports (and even non-sports), numbers (and computers) don't measure human emotion.

Numbers don't measure toughness, guile, locker room leadership.

Advanced metrics/analytics are subject to - no matter how good they appear - human error. computers, supercomputers, anything technologically driven - is made by humans.

Humans make mistakes. Always have. Always will.

What's the non-human alternative then?  Because it seems like every possible alternative is also human or made by humans, so I don't see why this is something unique to analytics.

For me, Faith.

Why do we feel the need to be able to analyze everything? To be able to quantify everything?

Do we want to become God? Not possible.

Because to believe in what we cannot see is crazy, psychotic - to some analysts.

But Faith is enduring, faith can see you through the tough times. Faith is believing in what you cannot see - what we cannot quantify.

Faith, to some - is crazy.

Setting aside how faith would help franchises assemble teams that are likely to win basketball games, faith also comes from human beings, who will make mistakes.  Same problem.  What's the difference there, other than that you personally prefer faith to numbers? 

And no disrespect intended on that, though I might have a problem if you were a GM with that approach 

[indeedproceed]

I'm pro-literacy. I believe that people should understand things.

This quote, without context, is kind of hilarious. Like there is a horde of people burning box scores and calculators.

There more or less are: I'll refer you to Chuck's diatribe at the beginning of this thread.

It is a pretty ridiculous hill to die on for Chuck. It's like a dumbed down version of Crash Davis's monologue in Bull Durham, but instead of being endearing, it just makes Chuck seem very out of touch.

I am interested in one stat that is not kept.

Keeping balls alive.

Jerebko is great at that.

There's a big difference between stats you can find in an informal Google search and what the average NBA front office has access to.

This is something I think a lot of fans don't realize. I was once hired to watch game tape as part of a project from someone who used to run one of the original 'outside the box' websites who was eventually hired on by one of the NBA teams at the forefront of the advanced metrics movement. Basic data entry, watch 5 seconds, check the appropriate box (player a location, action, etc..)..at the time I didn't know what it was for, but now I see it was basically the precursor to the service synergy sports would eventually provide. And its moved so far beyond that.

I would pay a hundred dollars for a few hours with unlimited access to whatever the heck the Mavs and Rockets have in their in-house systems. I bet its incredible.

[moiso]

Yes, with some reservations.  I have a strong background in the subject, so I'm pretty attuned to their use and abuse.  I do think their usage can go too far, but I don't trust other people's eyeball tests or my own for that matter.

Yep.  For example my eye test told me that Lance Stephenson was a star in the making, but the analytics thought not.  My eye test doesn't look to have been right.

[moiso]

i trust my eye test first a foremost
but then check the advanced stats to see if it backs up

advanced stats can be very misleading
eye test usually evaluates the player and how the coach uses them

also i dont think any team in pro sports has soley relied on advanced stats and have had won a championship

people look at morey and say him getting harden was advanced stats
but people dont realize we were already saying harden was a good player before he was even drafted in the nba based on how his playing style looked

Harden's PER hardly changed from his last year in OKC and his first year in Houston.  I always thought of this when people acted like Morey was a genius or Harden came out of nowhere.  He was that good already.