Word....the nerds are invading the NBA

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

No. I watch the games. I don't need a all-in-one stat to determine whose the best.

I don't have a problem with more information. I have a problem with made-up stats like QBR, PER, or whatever other shyt ESPN will think of next. I can read a box score and tell whether a dude had a good game. I can also watch the game.

 

[Spaceman Piff]

as a fan, most of these new stats mean nothing to me and i love baseball.

i don't need to know a player's war/uzr/etc.. and i need to know their formulas even less. i don't care how many sections you can divide an outfield into.. what percentage of fielders would make that play, etc.

i'm just watching and enjoying the game. i do fukk with obp though.

but as a gm/coach, i can totally understand why you would want these new numbers. you want every advantage, every piece of information out there. stats don't replace watching games. they aid it.

if you could prove everything you see during the game with numbers? that's great.

if you can prove shyt that you CAN'T see during games.. that's even better.

also, moneyball isn't small ball.

and it's more about sabermetrics/advanced stats to find hidden value in players than the "money" part.

teams use sabermetrics. they're not playing moneyball with a 200 mil payroll.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

what a hustle advanced stats is in the NBA. It literally makes no sense.

Advanced stats works in baseball, because you have one-on-one events between pitcher vs. batter, with very little variance between the variables from one hitter to the next. Therefore, you can realistically evaluate a player using stats, because they are all roughly operating from the same level, and with the same singular focus --- they all are trying to get on base, either by walk or hit, and there is no assistance from teammates or coaches.

Basketball has a million variables going on and once, and no two plays are the same. Players, no matter how good they are, are wholly dependent on teammates, coaches, and a fluid workable system. Great players can be bogged down playing with bad teammates or a poor coach. Also, objectives can vary from team to team, in terms of approaches and styles.

Bottom line is advanced states can give a rough idea about a player in basketball, but it doesnt have anywhere near the relevancy of baseball which is tailor made for statistical analysis.

These nerds are playing off of the moneyball phenomenon, and hustling their way into some undeserved paychecks, big time!

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Bottom line is advanced states can give a rough idea about a player in basketball, but it doesnt have anywhere near the relevancy of baseball which is tailor made for statistical analysis.

It may not have near the same relevancy as baseball, but it certainly doesn't mean that advanced stats only provide a 'rough idea' about a player or team.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

It may not have near the same relevancy as baseball, but it certainly doesn't mean that advanced stats only provide a 'rough idea' about a player or team.

thats my opinion, and I explained why. Do you have anything to add?

 

[yseJ]

The only stupid people I see, are those content with not winning a championship. I'm sorry, but I play to win.

youre an alias, but you probably a lakers fan anyway so you cant relate to teams that never are in it to win it.

any model of improvement of a team (and moneyball is exactly that) is aimed to improve a team.

nothing guarantees you a title. a team improvement in general shows a model works. its that simple.

by your logic if a team goes from a laughing stock to a title contender but never actually wins, the improvement of team was useless and a failure.

thats not the case.

 

[tremonthustler1]

in the end though no amount of stats can be better than actually watching the game

Thats how you can tell the difference between whether an INT was the QB's fault or the receiver. Thats how you can tell whether a player with 10 assists had a great game playmaking or just had teammates who made alot of difficult shots that night.

All those stats mean nothing if you are not also seeing how they are accumulated.

Not quite true. You need both. The eye test to see it for yourself, the stats to validate what you are watching.

The extremes on either side of the argument can't be sustained.

 

[Eternal Tecate]

It's gonna be like baseball within like 5 years. Hop on board or get left behind, brehs.

 

[Eternal Tecate]

ITT: People who think it's bad to be more informed.

The fukk

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

IMO all advanced stats are doing is trying to mathematically approach (and enhance/verify) what a well trained and skilled person "senses" naturally. There aren't very many people who would not benefit from including at least some stats into how they look at the game.

Nothing wrong with that. More available information the better, just a matter of how to use it best.

 

[Swagnificent]

Well, that's a pretty stupid way to look at things.

Unless you're the Lakers or Yankees...and MAYBE a couple other teams, this is a really dumb way to view things.

you play to win the games (Herm Edwards)

Can't believe nikkas are happy with losing. If you don't win a title its a FAILURE. Only time its not a failure is if you can see a title on the horizon. For example, lets say your team is young and was worst in the league last year. This year they make the playoffs and challenge the eventual champions (like OKC against the Lakers in 09). Although they didn't win, I could agree that was successful because it laid the blueprint for what they're doing now.

However, if they never win a title, I wouldn't call what they did successful. It was a failure.

 

[Swagnificent]

what a hustle advanced stats is in the NBA. It literally makes no sense.

Advanced stats works in baseball, because you have one-on-one events between pitcher vs. batter, with very little variance between the variables from one hitter to the next. Therefore, you can realistically evaluate a player using stats, because they are all roughly operating from the same level, and with the same singular focus --- they all are trying to get on base, either by walk or hit, and there is no assistance from teammates or coaches.

Basketball has a million variables going on and once, and no two plays are the same. Players, no matter how good they are, are wholly dependent on teammates, coaches, and a fluid workable system. Great players can be bogged down playing with bad teammates or a poor coach. Also, objectives can vary from team to team, in terms of approaches and styles.

Bottom line is advanced states can give a rough idea about a player in basketball, but it doesnt have anywhere near the relevancy of baseball which is tailor made for statistical analysis.

These nerds are playing off of the moneyball phenomenon, and hustling their way into some undeserved paychecks, big time!

Great post.

Don't see how these advanced stats make a difference when 10 of the last 13 titles have been won by just the Lakers, Spurs, and Heat. In basketball you need 2-3 HOF players to win titles most of the time. PERIOD. All that other stuff is just fluff.

 

[Swagnificent]

Not quite true. You need both. The eye test to see it for yourself, the stats to validate what you are watching.

The extremes on either side of the argument can't be sustained.

I go eye test 100% of the time. I've never been swayed by stats after seeing a player perform live. I only go with stats when I rarely watch the player or team play. The reason this works is because my opinions on teams and players from the eye test usually coincides with what the stats would say.

The few times the stats say someone is good but I've seen them play and I know they're not good, I got with my eyes. For example, stats say Kevin Love is a beast. I watch him play and I don't think he's very good. Thus, I'll go with my eyes that he's barely an above average player than the superstar his stats say he is.

 

[HookersandIceCream]

Why are Laker fans such a ignorant retarded fan base

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

For advanced stats to be truly effective/reflective and work (as much as stats can possibly be) in basketball, they have to go past the equivalent formulas used in SABRmetrics for baseball.

None of this: +/-, EFF, PER, TS%, OTRG, DTRG etc etc. shyt like that really has no place in the game.

Even though more information is in itself inherently good and I'm all for breaking down the impact/strengths/flaws in the game - I don't see the information being used appropriately with the above metrics. You can't quantify statistics through a strict one-size-fits-all metric, because the formula has to keep in tune (forever changing) with the variables: role, circumstance, position, progression, situation, teammates, opponents, schedule - basically everything that can be somewhat be measured by numbers.