Poll

Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?

Yes
21 (77.8%)
No
6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Author Topic: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?  (Read 13264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2015, 11:52:14 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17833
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
a request for substance from stats advocates who say stats provide substance. i am not opposed to stats, quite the opposite, in baseball they can be informative, sometimes predictive, and even entertaining.

with basketball, i am not saying stats dont matter nor am i saying no meaningful stats will ever appear.

my point here is that i am lost by many of the stats invoked on this board. PER? great, no, only sometimes, depends, maybe. and so on. efg%? ok, but why bother? what does it tell us that tells us anything important, and how?

so, i honestly ask our folks who have some modicum of knowledge about, and like stats, to present us non-stat folks with a sort of "cliffs notes".

which stats are best, what do they tell us, and why should we understand them?

many, many, many thanks in advance. i am eager to learn.  :)
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2015, 12:02:27 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
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  :)

While this is true, that Faith, being placed in a Supreme being that is greater than us - is what makes the difference.

This can be the thing that drives some folks...makes them persevere in the face of adversity - the one thing that can mean the difference between winning and losing.

While the analysts could (and do) claim that "drive" numerically, the source is something that can't be quantified.

Analysts call this "motor".

But, say - in the cases of athletes like Tebow, David Robinson, Coach Joe Gibbs, the great Darrell Green - that "motor" is something that is sourced from someone greater than them.

This doesn't make them better than anyone else - but again - cannot be quantified.

Man has to come to grips with the fact that "we" can't solve everything...can't explain everything......can't categorize/count/graph - everything. No matter how many buses we land on Mars or people we send into space.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2015, 12:05:01 AM »

Offline RAAAAAAAANDY

  • NCE
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 995
  • Tommy Points: 57
a request for substance from stats advocates who say stats provide substance. i am not opposed to stats, quite the opposite, in baseball they can be informative, sometimes predictive, and even entertaining.

with basketball, i am not saying stats dont matter nor am i saying no meaningful stats will ever appear.

my point here is that i am lost by many of the stats invoked on this board. PER? great, no, only sometimes, depends, maybe. and so on. efg%? ok, but why bother? what does it tell us that tells us anything important, and how?

so, i honestly ask our folks who have some modicum of knowledge about, and like stats, to present us non-stat folks with a sort of "cliffs notes".

which stats are best, what do they tell us, and why should we understand them?

many, many, many thanks in advance. i am eager to learn.  :)

eFG weights the fact that 3>2... Regular FG percentage does not. Useful IMO. Especially since 3 pt shooting is more important than ever.

True Shooting percentage weights FT/2P/3P to gauge overall efficiency in shooting. Kobe never had a great floor game, but he was unreal at getting to the line and converting.

Rebounding percentages weight opportunities instead of just counting overall rebounds. Ditto Block and Steal Percentage.

O/D Rating weight pace in determining the skill of an offense or defense(the 7SOL Suns we much better defensively than ppl realized).

And on and on.

Metrics don't replace scouting, they replace the crap line stats currently being used.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2015, 12:10:37 AM »

Offline RAAAAAAAANDY

  • NCE
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 995
  • Tommy Points: 57
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  :)

While this is true, that Faith, being placed in a Supreme being that is greater than us - is what makes the difference.

This can be the thing that drives some folks...makes them persevere in the face of adversity - the one thing that can mean the difference between winning and losing.

While the analysts could (and do) claim that "drive" numerically, the source is something that can't be quantified.

Analysts call this "motor".

But, say - in the cases of athletes like Tebow, David Robinson, Coach Joe Gibbs, the great Darrell Green - that "motor" is something that is sourced from someone greater than them.

This doesn't make them better than anyone else - but again - cannot be quantified.

Man has to come to grips with the fact that "we" can't solve everything...can't explain everything......can't categorize/count/graph - everything. No matter how many buses we land on Mars or people we send into space.

We it sure as hell doesn't make Tim Tebow better than anybody else, because he wasn't good once he faced NFL caliber athletes. 

Tim Tebow sucked in the NFL. Anybody with eyeballs or a box score saw that a mile away. Yet the faith of the defensively led winning streak kept his career alive 2 years longer than it should have been.

That's a terrible example.

And please tell me how you use faith to build a basketball team. This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2015, 12:20:55 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Quote

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.

It would be fascinating. Even more, I wonder what they do with the information. Ideally, we typically quantify behavior with an end in mind - to assess, yes... but ultimately we want to make positive changes. Else, why would we really care?

I'd love to see what the aforementioned teams do with the data as much as I want to see what it looks like, & how they collect it.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2015, 12:55:06 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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  :)

While this is true, that Faith, being placed in a Supreme being that is greater than us - is what makes the difference.

This can be the thing that drives some folks...makes them persevere in the face of adversity - the one thing that can mean the difference between winning and losing.

While the analysts could (and do) claim that "drive" numerically, the source is something that can't be quantified.

Analysts call this "motor".

But, say - in the cases of athletes like Tebow, David Robinson, Coach Joe Gibbs, the great Darrell Green - that "motor" is something that is sourced from someone greater than them.

This doesn't make them better than anyone else - but again - cannot be quantified.

Man has to come to grips with the fact that "we" can't solve everything...can't explain everything......can't categorize/count/graph - everything. No matter how many buses we land on Mars or people we send into space.

I think the thing missing in that kind of viewpoint is that there are ways to quantify 'drive'.

Activity on the court (they literally measure how much a guy runs when on the floor, how fast, how far) can help discern motor. It can't define it, but it can be an indicator that it is there.

But in the words of John Wooden, do not confuse activity with accomplishment.

So, you need more. Well, we have all manner of +/- numbers that quantify how a team produces when a player is on and off the court. That kind of indication can sometimes help see beyond a boxscore to help quantify that "feeling" you get that having this one guy out there, doing this one thing, helps you win games, even if maybe he only manages 5 points 5 rebounds and 2 steals in 33 minutes of play in a boxscore or something.

But sometimes +/- can lie to you. Sometimes, the starters will actually have a worse +/- than the reserves, because the starters well, they play against the other teams' starters and the reserves, well, you get the picture. So +/- isn't definitive really. Just another piece of the puzzle.

And this goes on and on. But highlighting the shortcomings of the statistics doesn't make them flawed, because they're known. You don't blame a hammer because it can't cut a steak.

But the flaw isn't that these metrics can't project 'motor', or grit, or whichever ephemeral quality a person may want to choose. I think, while I don't know of any stat that can actually show "hustle" or any of that, one can look to signs that point in that direction.

It doesn't replace actually watching basketball games, but I think it can help you make a more informed personnel decision as a GM, or give more substance to your analysis as a basketball writer/analyst. And ignoring these statistics, it opens people up to their greatest flaw; human bias.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2015, 02:01:13 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
All anyone needs to know is the game is about buckets.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2015, 02:41:59 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
All anyone needs to know is the game is about buckets.
;D
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2015, 02:45:02 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
a request for substance from stats advocates who say stats provide substance. i am not opposed to stats, quite the opposite, in baseball they can be informative, sometimes predictive, and even entertaining.

with basketball, i am not saying stats dont matter nor am i saying no meaningful stats will ever appear.

my point here is that i am lost by many of the stats invoked on this board. PER? great, no, only sometimes, depends, maybe. and so on. efg%? ok, but why bother? what does it tell us that tells us anything important, and how?

so, i honestly ask our folks who have some modicum of knowledge about, and like stats, to present us non-stat folks with a sort of "cliffs notes".

which stats are best, what do they tell us, and why should we understand them?

many, many, many thanks in advance. i am eager to learn.  :)

Which stas are best tends to boil down to personal preference, but the 'ranking stats' like PER tend to be the least trustworthy, since they attempt to bite off a whole lot more than any stat should chew.

But, for example, available rebound percentage is actually pretty interesting: while raw rebound numbers look good, players like David Lee actually (and consistently) see his team getting fewer boards overall when he's on the floor, even though a 20-10 guy is someone you'd think would be good at rebounding.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2015, 07:44:58 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
+/- is one of my least favorite advanced stats.  KO can post a good one, for instance in games where he is soft and 1-9.   A lot of it depends on who is one the court with you at the time.

Rebound percentage, true shooting are interesting to me.  Points against and the stats of opponents versus a player are a good indicator of lack  of or true defensive prowess.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2015, 08:17:01 AM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
I like advanced stats but they're just like anything else - you need to state what claim you are making and how the evidence supports your claim.

"x player is good at defense because this random stat is the be-all end-all of defense and he rates highly in it" tells me nothing. To me you need to explain to what the stat actually measures and why you think that shows what you are trying to say.

There isn't really a stat that measures "efficiency". There are stats that measure efficiency with the shots you choose to take, and some that take into account things like turnovers and assists but that doesn't make you an "efficient" player overall.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2015, 08:36:43 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There isn't really a stat that measures "efficiency". There are stats that measure efficiency with the shots you choose to take, and some that take into account things like turnovers and assists but that doesn't make you an "efficient" player overall.

What's your definition of "efficient"?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2015, 08:46:16 AM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2009
  • Tommy Points: 261
+/- is one of my least favorite advanced stats.  KO can post a good one, for instance in games where he is soft and 1-9.   A lot of it depends on who is one the court with you at the time.

Rebound percentage, true shooting are interesting to me.  Points against and the stats of opponents versus a player are a good indicator of lack  of or true defensive prowess.

Espn's Real Plus Minus (RPM) adjusts for who you're on the court with and against on each possession.  Looking at their top ten is interesting:

Curry
Harden
James
Leonard
Paul
Davis
Westbrook
Middleton
Cousins
Draymond Green

Since 8 out of 10 of those are conventional wisdom stars, makes you think Green and Middleton might have greater value than you'd otherwise suspect.  That sends you to the tape to see if that confirms.  To me that's the value of these stats.

For the Celtics, best to worst:

Olynyk
Sullinger
Jerebko
Smart
Thomas
Crowder
Bass
Bradley
Datome
Zeller
Turner
Young.

Rondo and Green are both pretty bad, those trades are looking pretty good right now.


Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2015, 08:50:23 AM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
There isn't really a stat that measures "efficiency". There are stats that measure efficiency with the shots you choose to take, and some that take into account things like turnovers and assists but that doesn't make you an "efficient" player overall.

What's your definition of "efficient"?
Good results per opportunity to do stuff. I mean obviously you in some way have to describe an opportunity to do stuff. I think most people think in terms of touches. However, if you touch the ball and just pass it away to the weakside which generates a good opportunity for someone else, a stat that's just looking at made fg (for x points), free throws, turnover or assist will credit you with not having an opportunity in the first place, rather than having an opportunity and using it to make a positive play.

I think in general when people refer to "efficiency" they are saying "do I want to involve this player in a play?" to compare players who rarely touch the ball with players who may get the ball multiple times in a possession and see if players are using the opportunities they do get with good effectiveness. However, many players who don't frequently touch the ball are constantly involved by setting picks. I don't think there exists a stat to truly measure if a player is making the most of the offensive opportunities they get.

I do think TS% is an awesome stat and I look at it a lot - I'm just saying you can't say "x player is inefficient - look at the TS%" - that's the point I was originally making - that stats are like any other evidence and you need to put all evidence in context to draw conclusions from it.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2015, 08:58:23 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
+/- is one of my least favorite advanced stats.  KO can post a good one, for instance in games where he is soft and 1-9.   A lot of it depends on who is one the court with you at the time.

Rebound percentage, true shooting are interesting to me.  Points against and the stats of opponents versus a player are a good indicator of lack  of or true defensive prowess.

Espn's Real Plus Minus (RPM) adjusts for who you're on the court with and against on each possession.  Looking at their top ten is interesting:

Curry
Harden
James
Leonard
Paul
Davis
Westbrook
Middleton
Cousins
Draymond Green

Since 8 out of 10 of those are conventional wisdom stars, makes you think Green and Middleton might have greater value than you'd otherwise suspect.  That sends you to the tape to see if that confirms.  To me that's the value of these stats.

I agree.  You also have to examine whether the trends hold up over time, or whether they're anomalies.  For instance, last year Andre Iguodala (3), Nick Collison (7), Channing Frye (11), Amir Johnson (16), Vince Carter (18), and Patrick Beverly (20) were all in the top-20.  This year, only Iguodala is in the top-55. 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes