UpAndComing
Veteran
Well personally, I think Analytics is pure bullshyt
Which I can assume the experienced Black coaches also think so, which is why they don't use it, and why most aren't employed
- Raw stats can tell the story pretty well actually. I also like cross reference stats too, like how many points allowed against West Conf teams, or how many ppg James Harden scores against the Cavs, etc etc. To me, those are pretty good in painting a picture on how a coach can adjust to make his players and team more successful, and what to emphasize on, so they can improve
- Analytics is extremely flawed, because those Stats are calculated in the moment, have have no bearing on how that person is doing overall, and has no bearing on the many factors that influence those analytics. It's similar to Calculus. It's cool to calculate what's happening instantaneously, but it applies nothing to the real world. I took a couple Statistics classes before. Influential factors can change alot of things. For instance someone's + / - of a player depends alot on who's on the floor with him, how talented is the person he's guarding and scoring against, the pace of the game, is someone in foul trouble and not giving it 100%, is someone injured/hobbled, how good is the floor spacing, etc etc. It can go on and on. And just like the nature of Statistics, you can manipulate the numbers to fit any narrative you want
- I think there's a real effort to promote and bring in more white players in the NBA. The influx of Zone defense/offense and highly structured system offense overrates average players. And Analytics is the perfect tool to promote AVERAGE. This is why CACs love college basketball so much. Look at the propaganda lingo they say. "Ugh, I would hate to see an offense where they ISO you to death", "Look how much shot attempts that player has"
News flash. If you are a superstar player, YOU WILL HAVE ISO PLAYS CALLED FOR YOU. That's basically what being a star means. shyt, even a post up by a center is basically an isolation play
Which I can assume the experienced Black coaches also think so, which is why they don't use it, and why most aren't employed
- Raw stats can tell the story pretty well actually. I also like cross reference stats too, like how many points allowed against West Conf teams, or how many ppg James Harden scores against the Cavs, etc etc. To me, those are pretty good in painting a picture on how a coach can adjust to make his players and team more successful, and what to emphasize on, so they can improve
- Analytics is extremely flawed, because those Stats are calculated in the moment, have have no bearing on how that person is doing overall, and has no bearing on the many factors that influence those analytics. It's similar to Calculus. It's cool to calculate what's happening instantaneously, but it applies nothing to the real world. I took a couple Statistics classes before. Influential factors can change alot of things. For instance someone's + / - of a player depends alot on who's on the floor with him, how talented is the person he's guarding and scoring against, the pace of the game, is someone in foul trouble and not giving it 100%, is someone injured/hobbled, how good is the floor spacing, etc etc. It can go on and on. And just like the nature of Statistics, you can manipulate the numbers to fit any narrative you want
- I think there's a real effort to promote and bring in more white players in the NBA. The influx of Zone defense/offense and highly structured system offense overrates average players. And Analytics is the perfect tool to promote AVERAGE. This is why CACs love college basketball so much. Look at the propaganda lingo they say. "Ugh, I would hate to see an offense where they ISO you to death", "Look how much shot attempts that player has"
News flash. If you are a superstar player, YOU WILL HAVE ISO PLAYS CALLED FOR YOU. That's basically what being a star means. shyt, even a post up by a center is basically an isolation play
