Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?

[Roy H.]

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 think that looking at Synergy stats goes a long way toward determining this.  Points per possession is a really interesting stat, especially when you break it down for individual play types (i.e., pick-and-roll, iso, spot ups, post-ups, etc.)  Points per possession plus USG% usually gives a pretty good indication of how impactful a guy is offensively.

It's all a package, and nobody should rely exclusively on any one stat, nor should they disregard personal observation.  However, we're so lucky as basketball fans to be able to dig into the numbers in ways we never have before.

[chilidawg]

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.
[/quote]

Channing Frye, never would have guessed at that.  Players can thrive in the right system.

[Roy H.]

Channing Frye, never would have guessed at that.  Players can thrive in the right system.

Yep.  A floor-stretching big can do wonders to open up an offense, which will reflect positively in the RPM numbers even if a guy's individual stats aren't spectacular. 

The thing that teams need to be wary of, though, is that it requires that "right system" that you mentioned.  If you don't put Frye into the right type of offense, you're just going to end up with an overpaid quasi-starter.

[D.o.s.]

I have to say, a lot of the knocks against analytics that I've seen in this thread seem to display a relative misunderstanding of what they're capable of/what they do/how you can use them. It's not dissimilar to the vaccine discussions, actually (although much lower-stakes, obviously).

[Eja117]

I'm not as familiar with advanced metrics as I'd like to be.

I hope they take into account that rings are the most valuable statistic there is.

If you have a bunch of stats to try to show me Wilt Chamberline was better than Russell or that Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or Brett Farve are better than Tom Brady I will laugh at you for a very very long time.

On some level I think numbers look at people like robots when they are actually people. If you have no idea the players you are looking at you might come to the conclusion that Peyton Manning's stats are similar to Tom Brady's.

But will metrics show you this.....That guy spends every off season making as many commercials as he can and that guy lives in the gym and watches video of the opposing team.  That guy called his teammate "an idiot kicker" and that guy never says anything bad about his teammates ever. He invited the back up Qb over to his house to watch video.  That guy plays in a dome so he is totally lost in cold weather. That guy wants it more and you can tell because he's at the facility first every single morning. That guy took a pay cut so he could have better teammates while that guy goes after every dollar.

Bill Russell won a championship....as a player/coach. Will the metrics account for that if you compare him to other players? Jordan won a ring....playing with food poisoning. Will the metrics account for that? 

You can compare them as parts all you want but at some point you have to compare them as people.

Right now in the Mariotta vs Winston debate I am curious if the metrics have a "Likelihood of being arrested" or a "Likelihood of being suspended for marijuana" category.

[D.o.s.]

I'm not as familiar with advanced metrics as I'd like to be.

I hope they take into account that rings are the most valuable statistic there is.

If you have a bunch of stats to try to show me Wilt Chamberline was better than Russell or that Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or Brett Farve are better than Tom Brady I will laugh at you for a very very long time.

On some level I think numbers look at people like robots when they are actually people. If you have no idea the players you are looking at you might come to the conclusion that Peyton Manning's stats are similar to Tom Brady's.

But will metrics show you this.....That guy spends every off season making as many commercials as he can and that guy lives in the gym and watches video of the opposing team.  That guy called his teammate "an idiot kicker" and that guy never says anything bad about his teammates ever. He invited the back up Qb over to his house to watch video.  That guy plays in a dome so he is totally lost in cold weather. That guy wants it more and you can tell because he's at the facility first every single morning. That guy took a pay cut so he could have better teammates while that guy goes after every dollar.

Bill Russell won a championship....as a player/coach. Will the metrics account for that if you compare him to other players? Jordan won a ring....playing with food poisoning. Will the metrics account for that? 

You can compare them as parts all you want but at some point you have to compare them as people.

Right now in the Mariotta vs Winston debate I am curious if the metrics have a "Likelihood of being arrested" or a "Likelihood of being suspended for marijuana" category.

Winston's more likely to be arrested because he's black.

To the rest of your post, I don't think there's a metric for how effective marketing a player to the fans are, no. Maybe jersey sales.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I'm not as familiar with advanced metrics as I'd like to be.

I hope they take into account that rings are the most valuable statistic there is.

If you have a bunch of stats to try to show me Wilt Chamberline was better than Russell or that Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or Brett Farve are better than Tom Brady I will laugh at you for a very very long time.

On some level I think numbers look at people like robots when they are actually people. If you have no idea the players you are looking at you might come to the conclusion that Peyton Manning's stats are similar to Tom Brady's.

But will metrics show you this.....That guy spends every off season making as many commercials as he can and that guy lives in the gym and watches video of the opposing team.  That guy called his teammate "an idiot kicker" and that guy never says anything bad about his teammates ever. He invited the back up Qb over to his house to watch video.  That guy plays in a dome so he is totally lost in cold weather. That guy wants it more and you can tell because he's at the facility first every single morning. That guy took a pay cut so he could have better teammates while that guy goes after every dollar.

Bill Russell won a championship....as a player/coach. Will the metrics account for that if you compare him to other players? Jordan won a ring....playing with food poisoning. Will the metrics account for that? 

You can compare them as parts all you want but at some point you have to compare them as people.

Right now in the Mariotta vs Winston debate I am curious if the metrics have a "Likelihood of being arrested" or a "Likelihood of being suspended for marijuana" category.

This is pure drivel. For one, Rings aren't an individual stat. Are you laughing at people who say Dan Marino is better than Trent Dilfer?

Joe Montana has the same number of SB rings as Tom Brady.

Metrics do account for teams that play in Domes.

None of the things you're talking about are things metrics attempt to answer. You're asking why your computer doesn't take out your trash. Because that's not the point.

They're used to validate or refine what you see on a court. And one of the biggest reasons they came about was to measure the things that the box scored failed on.

If you score 50 points on 100 shots and I score 35 on 15 shots I'm better that you despite "pointzzz!!"

If you aren't a great shot blocker, but work hard to have great position defensively and can still protect the rim metrics attempt to measure that.


If you're going to blast something you should at least know what it is. Because Clint Eastwood was more coherent when he spent half an hour talking to a chair than you were during that rant.

[Eja117]

I'm not as familiar with advanced metrics as I'd like to be.

I hope they take into account that rings are the most valuable statistic there is.

If you have a bunch of stats to try to show me Wilt Chamberline was better than Russell or that Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or Brett Farve are better than Tom Brady I will laugh at you for a very very long time.

On some level I think numbers look at people like robots when they are actually people. If you have no idea the players you are looking at you might come to the conclusion that Peyton Manning's stats are similar to Tom Brady's.

But will metrics show you this.....That guy spends every off season making as many commercials as he can and that guy lives in the gym and watches video of the opposing team.  That guy called his teammate "an idiot kicker" and that guy never says anything bad about his teammates ever. He invited the back up Qb over to his house to watch video.  That guy plays in a dome so he is totally lost in cold weather. That guy wants it more and you can tell because he's at the facility first every single morning. That guy took a pay cut so he could have better teammates while that guy goes after every dollar.

Bill Russell won a championship....as a player/coach. Will the metrics account for that if you compare him to other players? Jordan won a ring....playing with food poisoning. Will the metrics account for that? 

You can compare them as parts all you want but at some point you have to compare them as people.

Right now in the Mariotta vs Winston debate I am curious if the metrics have a "Likelihood of being arrested" or a "Likelihood of being suspended for marijuana" category.

This is pure drivel. For one, Rings aren't an individual stat. Are you laughing at people who say Dan Marino is better than Trent Dilfer?

Joe Montana has the same number of SB rings as Tom Brady.

Metrics do account for teams that play in Domes.

None of the things you're talking about are things metrics attempt to answer. You're asking why your computer doesn't take out your trash. Because that's not the point.

They're used to validate or refine what you see on a court. And one of the biggest reasons they came about was to measure the things that the box scored failed on.

If you score 50 points on 100 shots and I score 35 on 15 shots I'm better that you despite "pointzzz!!"

If you aren't a great shot blocker, but work hard to have great position defensively and can still protect the rim metrics attempt to measure that.


 

I definitely laugh at people that think that Marino had the better career than Dilfer. From the point of view of a GM Dilfer had the more successful career. The word "Marino" is now a synonym for "disappointing loser".

Yes. Montana does have the same number of Super Bowl rings. Brady has his in the salary cap era and he has more Conference Championship rings.

Yes Winston is black, but there are other black QBs less likely to be arrested.

[fairweatherfan]

I have to say, a lot of the knocks against analytics that I've seen in this thread seem to display a relative misunderstanding of what they're capable of/what they do/how you can use them. It's not dissimilar to the vaccine discussions, actually (although much lower-stakes, obviously).

Definitely.  What's weird is how often "analytics aren't perfect/can't tell you absolutely everything with immaculate accuracy" is seen as a "gotcha", when it's the first thing anyone who understands analytics will acknowledge.  They're just the worst way of understanding performance, except for all the other ways of doing it.

[Eja117]

I suppose all stats are only as good as the interpreter.

[D.o.s.]

They're just the worst way of understanding performance, except for all the other ways of doing it.

Yes. A million times this.

[bdm860]

Here's some advanced stats for you (saw this over on reddit):







Full list here, with a bunch of good ones.
http://imgur.com/a/fx6Nc

[MBunge]

I'm not as familiar with advanced metrics as I'd like to be.

I hope they take into account that rings are the most valuable statistic there is.

If you have a bunch of stats to try to show me Wilt Chamberline was better than Russell or that Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or Brett Farve are better than Tom Brady I will laugh at you for a very very long time.

On some level I think numbers look at people like robots when they are actually people. If you have no idea the players you are looking at you might come to the conclusion that Peyton Manning's stats are similar to Tom Brady's.

But will metrics show you this.....That guy spends every off season making as many commercials as he can and that guy lives in the gym and watches video of the opposing team.  That guy called his teammate "an idiot kicker" and that guy never says anything bad about his teammates ever. He invited the back up Qb over to his house to watch video.  That guy plays in a dome so he is totally lost in cold weather. That guy wants it more and you can tell because he's at the facility first every single morning. That guy took a pay cut so he could have better teammates while that guy goes after every dollar.

Bill Russell won a championship....as a player/coach. Will the metrics account for that if you compare him to other players? Jordan won a ring....playing with food poisoning. Will the metrics account for that? 

You can compare them as parts all you want but at some point you have to compare them as people.

Right now in the Mariotta vs Winston debate I am curious if the metrics have a "Likelihood of being arrested" or a "Likelihood of being suspended for marijuana" category.

This is pure drivel. For one, Rings aren't an individual stat. Are you laughing at people who say Dan Marino is better than Trent Dilfer?

Joe Montana has the same number of SB rings as Tom Brady.

Metrics do account for teams that play in Domes.

None of the things you're talking about are things metrics attempt to answer. You're asking why your computer doesn't take out your trash. Because that's not the point.

They're used to validate or refine what you see on a court. And one of the biggest reasons they came about was to measure the things that the box scored failed on.

If you score 50 points on 100 shots and I score 35 on 15 shots I'm better that you despite "pointzzz!!"

If you aren't a great shot blocker, but work hard to have great position defensively and can still protect the rim metrics attempt to measure that.


If you're going to blast something you should at least know what it is. Because Clint Eastwood was more coherent when he spent half an hour talking to a chair than you were during that rant.

I definitely laugh at people that think that Marino had the better career than Dilfer. From the point of view of a GM Dilfer had the more successful career. The word "Marino" is now a synonym for "disappointing loser".

There isn't a GM in the world who wouldn't take Marino over Dilfer, which is one reason you're posting on a message board instead of being a GM.

Why don't you next enlighten us on how Tiago Splitter has had a more successful career than Patrick Ewing.

Mike

[MBunge]

The only thing wrong with advanced metrics is the people who will grab onto one or two such stats to argue "Player X sucks" and refuse to accept that there might be more to consider.

Mike

[fairweatherfan]

I'm just saying, any "statistic" that doesn't tell me Robert Horry was twice the player Larry Bird was (and then some) is plain bogus.  Case closed!