its not that serious bruv
Michael Wilbon: Black Folks and analytics don't mix
- Thread starter Alexander The Great
- Start date
its not that serious bruv
Pretty much the opposite. Not sure I've seen one time where someone tried to say any analytics were the only part of the equation. They are always used in conjunction with other things. It's the dinosaurs that swear by the eye test and other stuff and ignore anything remotely advanced who are the ones with the all inclusive approachExactly. There is a place for analytics, but too many people (the vast majority that love analytics) believe that they are the be all and end all, and that the analytics will always show which player is superior or which team will win a game. They should be used to see trends and favorable and unfavorable match-ups, but many of these analytic geeks think they are GM's when they have never stepped on a field, court, or rink..
The way many people view analytics, there should be no need for a GM or any front office employees as they think analytics will predict everything perfectly.
The only sport I use it heavy in is baseball because baseball is almost all statistics based and it fits because it's a team sport but played individually. You are what your numbers say you are
In the other sports especially football they'res too many variables
In basketball you can use your eyes to know that Lebron is the best player in the league and without having an all time great on your team your chances of winning a title is close to zero. You cant analytics your way to a title in basketball. The only way to win is pretty simple: get lucky and find the best 2 or 3 players in the league
In the other sports especially football they'res too many variables
In basketball you can use your eyes to know that Lebron is the best player in the league and without having an all time great on your team your chances of winning a title is close to zero. You cant analytics your way to a title in basketball. The only way to win is pretty simple: get lucky and find the best 2 or 3 players in the league
Last edited:
Cac of all Cacs
Rookie
There's tons of white fans who don't care or hate on analytics but that doesn't fit Wilbon's agenda. But if you want to get a front office job and you've never played in the league of course analytics is gonna be your way in.
Bilz
Superstar
Yes they do. Whether or not they are putting it down on paper, ballers are absolutely analyzing trends, tendencies, and probabilities when playing.
You will definitely get the older crowd that do not like analytics a ton, but the reason for much of that is that many younger people use analytics as if they are gospel. They use them and think they are qualified to be a GM, and it's absurd. At the end of the day, there are so many variables that can throw off many of the analytics that are used. They are a tool and should be used as such.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Exactly. There is a place for analytics, but too many people (the vast majority that love analytics) believe that they are the be all and end all, and that the analytics will always show which player is superior or which team will win a game. They should be used to see trends and favorable and unfavorable match-ups, but many of these analytic geeks think they are GM's when they have never stepped on a field, court, or rink.
The way many people view analytics, there should be no need for a GM or any front office employees as they think analytics will predict everything perfectly.
I mean, I've never come across someone who supports analytics that thinks stats are more important than actually watching games
seems like this is what happens when comparing older stars or teams to todays game, tho.
They are used as one of the many tools to try and analyze and quantify what happens during a game. "I can see with my eyes Ben Wallace was a great defender" why would anyone who had beyond a casual interest in the game hate on trying to quantify just how great on d he is? Yet the "eye test" only folks do. It's baffling. The main reason is some of their "eye test" and "instinct" notions they grew up thinking are flat out wrong, I'd imagine, so they poo poo anyone who brings out data in an argument showing how wrong they are
Lord_Chief_Rocka
Superstar
And my response would be Leonard is your best player so give him the fukking ball
tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
if you're paying an insane amount of money to build a winner do you not want every statistical advantage you can get? Granted, there are several stats that I just can't buy into, but at the end of the day the average baller ain't in the front office. The whole "you don't understand. I played this before" excuse ain't valid if the game passes you by. Look at Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman, Kevin McHale, RIP Flip Saunders but him too. Basketball evolves over time, so to get an edge, you gotta make sense of everything you see and everything your eye may not catch.
I'm surprised because with sites such as Draft Kings, Fan Duel, etc, you have so many people just trying to use analytics to build their own fantasy team. I am not saying that is the exact same as using analytics when building an actual team, but these people have the mindset that analytics are far superior to the "eye test". I'm sure people would agree with your stance, but I think many will also agree about many younger people using analytics as their main source as they grew up when analytics and social media started taking off.
The people I generally discuss sports with aren't incredibly hung up on analytics, but I've run into so many little analytic and fantasy geeks that literally never mention anything other than numbers.
.
I think some people who weren't around for those eras may rely more on stats but the knowledgeable people that I know use a combination of numbers and the eye test, which to me is the best way to do it.
Advanced stats are fine as long as they're used within the right context