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 13265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2015, 01:14:27 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
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

This is pretty fantastic.
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 #61 on: April 01, 2015, 01:16:17 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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
Have you ever heard of the Tiago Splitter theory?

In a draft obviously a GM should choose Marino. But looking back at their careers Dilfer had the more successful one despite Marino being the "better" or "more talented" QB.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2015, 01:17:27 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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!
Apples and oranges. Horry definitely had twice the fun.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2015, 01:20:02 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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
Have you ever heard of the Tiago Splitter theory?

In a draft obviously a GM should choose Marino. But looking back at their careers Dilfer had the more successful one despite Marino being the "better" or "more talented" QB.

By that logic Derek Fisher was a better PG than Jason Kidd.

"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 #64 on: April 01, 2015, 01:20:16 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
So I guess the theory is that as a GM it's preferable to have a QB that will never lead you to a Super Bowl win over one that will? Or it's preferable to look back at a QBs career and say "Man. He never won us a ring, even though Trent Dilfer did, but it was totally worth having one of the best QBs?"

Give me Dilfer.

You're a fan. You can have a great QB that you never win a Super Bowl with or you can have a decent QB that you win a Super Bowl with. What situation do you want?

Winning is the only thing. It's why they play the game. QBs have more to do with it than any player on the field.

Dilfer's career is preferable to Marino's.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2015, 01:22:55 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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
Have you ever heard of the Tiago Splitter theory?

In a draft obviously a GM should choose Marino. But looking back at their careers Dilfer had the more successful one despite Marino being the "better" or "more talented" QB.

By that logic Derek Fisher was a better PG than Jason Kidd.
No. He just had the better career outcomes. You accept you are part of a team. You accept that winning is what matters. You define your career by winning. Not other stats. Otherwise all stats are meaningless. If rings aren't the main stat you're after than any stat is equally good. Why say points matter? Maybe it's just least turnovers or most free throws. If wins aren't the stat we are after then Marino can be the best QB.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2015, 01:25:13 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
looks like the risk of brain damage isn't just contained to NFL athletes, but to NFL fans as well.  :P

To go back to the QB example quickly: You take Marino, the player, every time. That's what's being evaluated -- not his career, which is subject to a million different factors that can't possibly be known ahead of time.

Also, the Ewing theory is hamfisted sophistry.

To your most recent post: Winning can't be the only metric used to define an individual player against another individual player, because winning is a team outcome, not an individual one.
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 #67 on: April 01, 2015, 01:29:53 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
looks like the risk of brain damage isn't just contained to NFL athletes, but to NFL fans as well.  :P

To go back to the QB example quickly: You take Marino, the player, every time. That's what's being evaluated -- not his career, which is subject to a million different factors that can't possibly be known ahead of time.

Also, the Ewing theory is hamfisted sophistry.

To your most recent post: Winning can't be the only metric used to define an individual player against another individual player, because winning is a team outcome, not an individual one.
As much as I agree with this post..... assuming we fire up the flux capacitor, do some handy dandy work, and bring 22 year old Qbs all together for a redraft in a vacuum....yeah you can go look at all the advanced metrics you want and take Marino. I'll look at rings and take Brady. If that makes me a bad GM then I'm a bad GM.

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2015, 01:32:04 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Out of curiosity when the Pats won the Super Bowl this year...did anyone in this thread say Brady was the best QB of all time? How did you come to that conclusion may I ask? What was the statistic or set of statistics you looked at to come to that conclusion?

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #69 on: April 01, 2015, 01:42:30 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
looks like the risk of brain damage isn't just contained to NFL athletes, but to NFL fans as well.  :P

To go back to the QB example quickly: You take Marino, the player, every time. That's what's being evaluated -- not his career, which is subject to a million different factors that can't possibly be known ahead of time.

Also, the Ewing theory is hamfisted sophistry.

To your most recent post: Winning can't be the only metric used to define an individual player against another individual player, because winning is a team outcome, not an individual one.
As much as I agree with this post..... assuming we fire up the flux capacitor, do some handy dandy work, and bring 22 year old Qbs all together for a redraft in a vacuum....yeah you can go look at all the advanced metrics you want and take Marino. I'll look at rings and take Brady. If that makes me a bad GM then I'm a bad GM.

Marino/Brady is a far different question than Marino/Dilfer, which is what I thought we were discussing.

Also, you wouldn't be able to look at the rings in a redraft, because they wouldn't have happened yet.  ;)
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 #70 on: April 01, 2015, 01:45:21 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58551
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Back on topic, please.  The "rings are the only thing that matters" argument is 1) silly, 2) beat to death, and 3) off-topic.


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 #71 on: April 01, 2015, 01:47:25 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Back on topic: "Motor" is probably the worst (i.e. most subjective) 'anti-stat' that's still used.
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 #72 on: April 01, 2015, 01:51:13 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58551
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Back on topic: "Motor" is probably the worst (i.e. most subjective) 'anti-stat' that's still used.

It is definitely subjective, and too often gets misapplied as a moniker to explain a guy who just isn't as talented as his teammates.

Do you think it exists, though?



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 #73 on: April 01, 2015, 01:52:18 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30937
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Getting away from the "look at me" stuff, I think Evantime summed up my feelings pretty well on page one when he talked about using stats in conjunction with eyeball scouting. 

I think a healthy mix of both is good.  If you lean too hard one way, I feel like things start to get more distorted.   I think some of the advanced stuff can be too complex or just over-thinking things but, for the most part, I think a lot the stuff we seen thrown around these boards, stats-wise, are really good.   

I think both can tell you a lot.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Are you a believer in advanced metrics/analytics?
« Reply #74 on: April 01, 2015, 01:55:36 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Back on topic: "Motor" is probably the worst (i.e. most subjective) 'anti-stat' that's still used.

I think within statistic circles they call it "activity level" now, but I know for certain I've read Zach Lowe or someone talking about I think Anthony Davis and using SportVU data to track movement across the floor during defensive possessions. They called it motor then.

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