Michael Wilbon: Black Folks and analytics don't mix

[Swagnificent]

for the second time in this thread, people who eschew anything beyond the eye test have shyt backwards. people who dig deeper, and look for anything beyond what they see with their own eyes arent the lazy ones. the ones ignoring everything besides what they tell themselves to see are the lazy ones

No.

Basketball is a simple game. If you played it as a kid, you'll know it's easy to tell who is better than who.

Lets me just put it this way, when we were picking teams in the playground, we didn't need spreadsheets as kids to know who should get picked first.

So please stop with this bullsh1t about needed analytics to tell who is better than who.

If all you're saying analytics is good for is reminding us what player X shoots from some spot on the floor....then fine.


However, that's not all the analytics crowd is trying to prove. They also try to show whether player X is better or more valuable than player Y based on arbitrary numbers. And that is a step too far imo. Because I think it's easy to see who the better player is based on the eye test. And there's alot of factors that go into a great player that numbers can never fully appreciate.

 

[Absolut]

No.

Basketball is a simple game. If you played it as a kid, you'll know it's easy to tell who is better than who.

Lets me just put it this way, when we were picking teams in the playground, we didn't need spreadsheets as kids to know who should get picked first.

So please stop with this bullsh1t about needed analytics to tell who is better than who.

If all you're saying analytics is good for is reminding us what player X shoots from some spot on the floor....then fine.


However, that's not all the analytics crowd is trying to prove. They also try to show whether player X is better or more valuable than player Y based on arbitrary numbers. And that is a step too far imo. Because I think it's easy to see who the better player is based on the eye test. And there's alot of factors that go into a great player that numbers can never fully appreciate.

serious question. do you know what analytics are? they are mostly used for none of those reasons

 

[SunZoo]

Always the Kobe stans who hate analytics

Call it what you want...da fukk would some kinda nerd analysis tell me about the experience of watching that game?

 

[Bilz]

No. Because there are a billion factors that affect the game. There could be injuries, suspension, guys could get into foul trouble in a close game, etc.

This is why analytics is stupid. There is too much going on in a basketball game to think it can be reduced to a few numbers.

Analytics is for people to lazy to watch the games.

Because if you watch teams like Golden State and OKC play consistently, you'll have no use for analytics.

So analytics is flawed because it can't expect the unexpected? You are going above and beyond to make your argument dumber than it needs to be.

If you are perceptive and have a great understanding of the game, you could know all about a game without taking notes or looking at any data. The data would still be collected and analyzed just the same.

 

[duckbutta]

The biggest problem is when analytics work...analytics gets all the credit...

When it doesn't work...something else gets blamed besides analytics....

 

[Trip]

There is so much data produced from these sports that it'd be silly not to analyze trends for future decisions. It's all it is.

 

[Swagnificent]

I know why people like him. And I know why stans try to argue he is the best because he's their favorite and not because any actual measures support it.

5 championships (tied for most in the post-Jordan era)
11 time all-nba 1st team (tied for most in nba history)
9 time all-defense 1st team (tied for most in nba history)

So you're lying about there being no objective measures of Kobe's greatness. You just choose to ignore them.

For as biased as you say we are, you're just as biased as well. If not moreso since you cloud your biased opinions under the cloak of objectivity.

 

[Bilz]

5 championships (tied for most in the post-Jordan era)
11 time all-nba 1st team (tied for most in nba history)
9 time all-defense 1st team (tied for most in nba history)

So you're lying about there being no objective measures of Kobe's greatness. You just choose to ignore them.

For as biased as you say we are, you're just as biased as well. If not moreso since you cloud your biased opinions under the cloak of objectivity.

So 1st team selections and having more team championships than all of the people that don't have more than him makes him the best?

 

[Swagnificent]

serious question. do you know what analytics are? they are mostly used for none of those reasons

I know what analytics is and don't try to play dumb. The stat nerds ain't just trying to remind us what percentage Steph shoots from the corner versus the top. They also try to put value on players.

That is the line they cross that makes most people say no.

No one has a problem with the scouting application. Its when you say player X is better than player Y because his "wins above replacement" or "win shares" is higher that most people go WTF.

 

[Swagnificent]

So 1st team selections and having more team championships than all of the people that don't have more than him makes him the best?

You stated there were "no actual measures" that supported him being the best. I provided 3.

Just like I don't give a shyt about analytics, you can dismiss them. But don't state lies like that.

There are plenty of measures that say Kobe is the best of his generation. There are others that say he's not. We're both picking and choosing.

I'm just not lying to myself like you are.

 

[Absolut]

I know what analytics is and don't try to play dumb. The stat nerds don't just trying to remind us what percetage Steph shoots from the corner versus the top. They also try to put value on players.

That is the line they cross that makes most people say no.

No one has a problem with the scouting application. Its when you say player X is better than player Y because his wins above replacement is higher than people go WTF.

from what youve stated in this thread, you dont seem to grasp the difference in how most people use analytics in sports between how you use them in message board individual player stan wars

 

[Blade]

Every coach, black and white, uses numbers and has been using it before analytics got popularized ... and not just at the NBA level. Every single video software that are being used by teams to organize/break down film has an analytic component. It's just the numbers they value are not the ones you see being referenced publicly by media members (i.e. PER, WS, other box-score/play-by-play derivatives).

 

[Full Measures]

The Rockets are very hypocritical when it comes to analytics. That roster they put out there was NOT advanced metrics-friendly. That was the "what NOT to do analytics roster."

They let Terramce Jpnes and Corey Brewer shoot threes

But in all honesty, it's truly hard to find enough advanced metrics friendly players to build a team with and it's even harder to get that team to win and compete for a title.

The Grizzlies drafted Jarnell Stokes because he was an any tics darling even though they obviously needed shooting. That's the stuff that grinds my gears

 

[tremonthustler1]

I know what analytics is and don't try to play dumb. The stat nerds don't just trying to remind us what percetage Steph shoots from the corner versus the top. They also try to put value on players.

That is the line they cross that makes most people say no.

No one has a problem with the scouting application. Its when you say player X is better than player Y because his wins above replacement is higher than people go WTF.

Putting value on players is VERY important if I have to decide whether it would be foolish or not to dish out 8-9 figure salaries.

That rarely if ever happens even during those types of debates. They supplement your argument, but not to where it's a deal breaker. With context, you can find out why that number is what it is. Stats like that further discussion, not determine it.

 

[tremonthustler1]

They let Terramce Jpnes and Corey Brewer shoot threes

But in all honesty, it's truly hard to find enough advanced metrics friendly players to build a team with and it's even harder to get that team to win and compete for a title.

The Grizzlies drafted Jarnell Stokes because he was an any tics darling even though they obviously needed shooting. That's the stuff that grinds my gears

Corey Brewer was given $15 mil TWICE because of where he shot his threes. What they don't tell you is that it's a volatile statistic that can go either way. Brewer is proof of that.

The Grizzlies are like the Oakland A's of basketball. Yeah they use it and yes it has been very successful, but without that over the top guy, your ceiling is capped and you're ultimately in the playoffs just to be there.