If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   The last thing the NBA needs is yet a another statistical measure. Wait... this one is actually pretty cool   (regressing.deadspin.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, NBA, statistics, Kawhi Leonard, extreme sports  
•       •       •

2670 clicks; posted to Sports » on 07 Feb 2014 at 9:45 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 08:13:29 AM
I read this and the Grantland article and I am not sure I fully grasp the state.

I am not against it being included in a box score so fans can get used to it though.
 
2014-02-07 10:03:59 AM
Is it the "questionable foul to neutralize an offensive threat by the end of the first period so that we can drag the playoffs out for the most games possible" stat?
 
2014-02-07 10:08:18 AM
Or is it the "Ignoring flagrant walks, carries and double dribbles because hero player" stat?
 
2014-02-07 10:08:58 AM
Of course they use the Spurs as an example of how credit doesn't belong to just 1 or 2 players.
 
2014-02-07 10:10:23 AM
What about the "charge into the lane with your head down hoping for a bail-out foul call" stat?
 
2014-02-07 10:20:32 AM
Carats per rape?
 
2014-02-07 10:28:24 AM
That was pretty stupid.

There are great benefits to analytics in sports.  Then it is taken into statistical masturbation which becomes nonsense.
 
2014-02-07 10:35:47 AM
i was told there would be no math
 
2014-02-07 10:41:39 AM

MugzyBrown: That was pretty stupid.

There are great benefits to analytics in sports.  Then it is taken into statistical masturbation which becomes nonsense.


What was wrong with it? I read it late last night, but the crux of the stat seems to be let's use all the data possible to figure out the 'little things' that players do to maximize scoring.

Statistical masturbation is that crap that baseball announcers use. 'When the Braves wear red jerseys on the second sunday game of the month, Freddy hits .789 when Heyward hits a double in front of him'.

This stat might end up being meaningless, but there are a bunch of advanced stats in baseball that were built upon other stats.
 
2014-02-07 10:51:35 AM

ladodger34: MugzyBrown: That was pretty stupid.

There are great benefits to analytics in sports.  Then it is taken into statistical masturbation which becomes nonsense.

What was wrong with it? I read it late last night, but the crux of the stat seems to be let's use all the data possible to figure out the 'little things' that players do to maximize scoring.

Statistical masturbation is that crap that baseball announcers use. 'When the Braves wear red jerseys on the second sunday game of the month, Freddy hits .789 when Heyward hits a double in front of him'.

This stat might end up being meaningless, but there are a bunch of advanced stats in baseball that were built upon other stats.


The example in particular is self-contradicting for one.  It's trying to break down a very fluid event into such minute detail it's idiotic.

A Tim Duncan screen sets up a Tony Parker to drive, slightly decreasing EPV as he drives right at a defender (Zeller)-a quintessential Parker move-but then increasing EPV once the point guard enters the paint.

Why would the expected points go down as Parker starts to drive and then back up as he continues the same move.  It even says that Parker does this a lot, and probably his whole point of driving at a player is to open up another player.

Then the expected points of the 3 pointer goes down because the defender, who is miles away, tries to uselessly close out?

You don't even need a metric to analyse this play.  It's really simple: WTF is Dion Waiters doing?  He moved to a position where he can't defend a Parker shot, he can't defend a Parker pass and the man he is marking is wide open.

The metric should be: EPV once Dion Waiters puts his head in his ass is 3
 
2014-02-07 11:06:24 AM
What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."
 
2014-02-07 11:09:02 AM

obeymatt: What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."


The stat my find some outliers and we could learn something from them?
 
2014-02-07 11:09:41 AM

MugzyBrown: ladodger34: MugzyBrown: That was pretty stupid.

There are great benefits to analytics in sports.  Then it is taken into statistical masturbation which becomes nonsense.

What was wrong with it? I read it late last night, but the crux of the stat seems to be let's use all the data possible to figure out the 'little things' that players do to maximize scoring.

Statistical masturbation is that crap that baseball announcers use. 'When the Braves wear red jerseys on the second sunday game of the month, Freddy hits .789 when Heyward hits a double in front of him'.

This stat might end up being meaningless, but there are a bunch of advanced stats in baseball that were built upon other stats.

The example in particular is self-contradicting for one.  It's trying to break down a very fluid event into such minute detail it's idiotic.

A Tim Duncan screen sets up a Tony Parker to drive, slightly decreasing EPV as he drives right at a defender (Zeller)-a quintessential Parker move-but then increasing EPV once the point guard enters the paint.

Why would the expected points go down as Parker starts to drive and then back up as he continues the same move.  It even says that Parker does this a lot, and probably his whole point of driving at a player is to open up another player.

Then the expected points of the 3 pointer goes down because the defender, who is miles away, tries to uselessly close out?

You don't even need a metric to analyse this play.  It's really simple: WTF is Dion Waiters doing?  He moved to a position where he can't defend a Parker shot, he can't defend a Parker pass and the man he is marking is wide open.

The metric should be: EPV once Dion Waiters puts his head in his ass is 3


I can see your point as well, especially the minute details stuff. It might be too much data for what is essentially a fluid play.

Like I said, it could end up being a useless stat. Or a part of it could end up being super useful. Another researcher could build on it.

If you have that much data available and can figure out a way to use it effectively, more power to you. It would be silly to not try, though.

FWIW, statistical analysis in basketball seems like a long, uphill battle.
 
2014-02-07 11:13:54 AM

Gunny Highway: obeymatt: What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."

The stat my find some outliers and we could learn something from them?


For example, Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio are at the bottom of the list.  Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?
 
2014-02-07 11:16:26 AM

Dafatone: Gunny Highway: obeymatt: What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."

The stat my find some outliers and we could learn something from them?

For example, Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio are at the bottom of the list.  Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?


Actually, Ricky Rubio just sucks at shooting.
 
2014-02-07 11:18:21 AM

Dafatone: Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?


"Mommy, what's a 'Carmelo Anthony'?"
 
2014-02-07 11:19:35 AM

JerseyTim: Dafatone: Gunny Highway: obeymatt: What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."

The stat my find some outliers and we could learn something from them?

For example, Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio are at the bottom of the list.  Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?

Actually, Ricky Rubio just sucks at shooting.


Makes sense.  I haven't actually watched them much, despite living in the Minneapolis sports footprint, because oof.
 
2014-02-07 11:20:36 AM

Dafatone: Gunny Highway: obeymatt: What good is this stat? I'm just curious because I don't see why anyone would care about this. It's a mathematical way of saying, "Guess what, the guy on the team that handles the ball most often will have a lot to do with who scores and who doesn't."

The stat my find some outliers and we could learn something from them?

For example, Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio are at the bottom of the list.  Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?


I think a stat like this might be more useful for finding role players to fit offensive systems who might be undervalued.

For example, a big man at the end of the bench that is often overlooked might have some value for a certain team that hasn't been observed.
 
2014-02-07 11:23:58 AM

MugzyBrown: ladodger34: MugzyBrown: That was pretty stupid.

There are great benefits to analytics in sports.  Then it is taken into statistical masturbation which becomes nonsense.

What was wrong with it? I read it late last night, but the crux of the stat seems to be let's use all the data possible to figure out the 'little things' that players do to maximize scoring.

Statistical masturbation is that crap that baseball announcers use. 'When the Braves wear red jerseys on the second sunday game of the month, Freddy hits .789 when Heyward hits a double in front of him'.

This stat might end up being meaningless, but there are a bunch of advanced stats in baseball that were built upon other stats.

The example in particular is self-contradicting for one.  It's trying to break down a very fluid event into such minute detail it's idiotic.

A Tim Duncan screen sets up a Tony Parker to drive, slightly decreasing EPV as he drives right at a defender (Zeller)-a quintessential Parker move-but then increasing EPV once the point guard enters the paint.

Why would the expected points go down as Parker starts to drive and then back up as he continues the same move.  It even says that Parker does this a lot, and probably his whole point of driving at a player is to open up another player.

Then the expected points of the 3 pointer goes down because the defender, who is miles away, tries to uselessly close out?

You don't even need a metric to analyse this play.  It's really simple: WTF is Dion Waiters doing?  He moved to a position where he can't defend a Parker shot, he can't defend a Parker pass and the man he is marking is wide open.

The metric should be: EPV once Dion Waiters puts his head in his ass is 3


Because he is driving towards the basket but before he began his move that wasn't the optimum play. His successful drive to the paint made it more likely that they would score than when he started the dribble. I infer from that info that driving to the basket is inherently risky but if successful is more likely to result in points.


There is the element of guessing about how effective each choice is and how it is effected by individuals on both offense and defense. They have some player weighting in there because passing to Leonard for a 3 makes the EPV go up but if he passed to someone who can't shoot a corner 3 the EPV would have went down.

As they gather more data about individuals this stat should start to become more reliable.
 
2014-02-07 11:28:16 AM

rickythepenguin: Dafatone: Good players who get a lot of touches and force tough shots/plays because they're still their team's best options, or bad players who put up big numbers because the rest of the team sucks too?

"Mommy, what's a 'Carmelo Anthony'?"


According to stats Carmelo makes his team better and the other team worse.
 
2014-02-07 11:34:01 AM

JerseyTim: Actually, Ricky Rubio just sucks at shooting

 
2014-02-07 11:36:20 AM
Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?
 
2014-02-07 11:38:11 AM
Have I made it in before the NHL hosers flooding in to say how hockey will soon be a top three sport in the country?

How about the others tripping over themselves to describe basketball as 'thug-ball'?
 
2014-02-07 11:50:46 AM

doubled99: Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?


Because players, coaches, and GMs like winning?
 
2014-02-07 11:56:12 AM

ladodger34: I think a stat like this might be more useful for finding role players to fit offensive systems who might be undervalued.

For example, a big man at the end of the bench that is often overlooked might have some value for a certain team that hasn't been observed.


A lot of it, I'd say, is about finding those guys who "make the right decision" and "don't hurt the team," as well, but having data to quantify it rather than looking at a small set of plays.

Plus now we have a quantification of the thing everyone says about Westbrook - dude makes a lot of plays that are either risky or sub-optimal.
 
2014-02-07 12:04:34 PM

IAmRight: ladodger34: I think a stat like this might be more useful for finding role players to fit offensive systems who might be undervalued.

For example, a big man at the end of the bench that is often overlooked might have some value for a certain team that hasn't been observed.

A lot of it, I'd say, is about finding those guys who "make the right decision" and "don't hurt the team," as well, but having data to quantify it rather than looking at a small set of plays.

Plus now we have a quantification of the thing everyone says about Westbrook - dude makes a lot of plays that are either risky or sub-optimal.


Exactly, this might show that Joe Bigman is an expert at spacing or something like that and when he is on the floor, a team's 3-point percentage goes up. A really good scout probably could tell you this from observation (maybe) but having data to back that up is extremely valuable.
 
2014-02-07 12:15:00 PM
as an extremely casual hoops fan -- basically, christmas day and finals -- i'm curious if the Suns are using these metrics.  when we hired McDonough or whatever his name is, part of his cachet was supposedly, he was at the vanguard of, in my words, "Moneyball-izing" the NBA.

And, while you might say 7th in the West (29-20) isn't exactly Moneyball, keep in mind in preseason, Vegas had the Suns o/u for wins at something like 17.5, maybe 18.5.  EIGHTY TWO GAME SEASON, FOLKS.   we were picked to be absolute dogs.  whether it was Mcdonough's alleged metrics, rookie coach what's his nuts (hornacek, just came to me), a combination thereof, or maybe just good ol fashioned dumbassery by the bookmakers, something good is happening in the Six Oh Deuce.

we've almost doubled the preseason win prediction before the ASG.
 
2014-02-07 12:33:20 PM
Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?

Because players, coaches, and GMs like winning?



What's the correlation?
 
2014-02-07 12:37:27 PM

ladodger34: Exactly, this might show that Joe Bigman is an expert at spacing or something like that and when he is on the floor, a team's 3-point percentage goes up. A really good scout probably could tell you this from observation (maybe) but having data to back that up is extremely valuable


You don't even have to look at a stat sheet for something like this though.

Can the 7'0" Joe Bigman hit a 18' jumpshot on a regular basis?  If Yes, then having him on the floor can open up the lane, if not, then he's clogging it up.
 
2014-02-07 12:40:40 PM

doubled99: Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?

Because players, coaches, and GMs like winning?


What's the correlation?


Read the post above yours.  The one right above yours.  One above.

Come on.
 
2014-02-07 12:42:44 PM

MugzyBrown: ladodger34: Exactly, this might show that Joe Bigman is an expert at spacing or something like that and when he is on the floor, a team's 3-point percentage goes up. A really good scout probably could tell you this from observation (maybe) but having data to back that up is extremely valuable

You don't even have to look at a stat sheet for something like this though.

Can the 7'0" Joe Bigman hit a 18' jumpshot on a regular basis?  If Yes, then having him on the floor can open up the lane, if not, then he's clogging it up.


Yes, but half the time, you get Joe Bigmen who can't do that right.  Guys who have somewhat of a shot, but try to pretend they're 3 point specialists (Josh Smith, Rasheed Wallace) or guys who just can't get into the right position while still having an eye for rebounds.
 
2014-02-07 12:47:01 PM
Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?

Because players, coaches, and GMs like winning?


What's the correlation?

Read the post above yours.  The one right above yours.  One above.

Come on.



okay.

"Ricky Rubio sucks at shooting"


not seeing how math helped with this bit of info but whatever...
 
2014-02-07 12:55:34 PM

doubled99: Why can't stat geeks and mathheads stick to scholastic subjects and leave sports alone?

Because players, coaches, and GMs like winning?


What's the correlation?

Read the post above yours.  The one right above yours.  One above.

Come on.


okay.

"Ricky Rubio sucks at shooting"


not seeing how math helped with this bit of info but whatever...


Let me help you:

as an extremely casual hoops fan -- basically, christmas day and finals -- i'm curious if the Suns are using these metrics.  when we hired McDonough or whatever his name is, part of his cachet was supposedly, he was at the vanguard of, in my words, "Moneyball-izing" the NBA.

And, while you might say 7th in the West (29-20) isn't exactly Moneyball, keep in mind in preseason, Vegas had the Suns o/u for wins at something like 17.5, maybe 18.5.  EIGHTY TWO GAME SEASON, FOLKS.   we were picked to be absolute  dogs.  whether it was Mcdonough's alleged metrics, rookie coach what's his nuts (hornacek, just came to me), a combination thereof, or maybe just good ol fashioned dumbassery by the bookmakers, something good is happening in the  Six Oh Deuce.

we've almost doubled the preseason win prediction before the ASG.
 
2014-02-07 12:57:49 PM

Dafatone: Josh Smith


Perhaps the most frustrating player in the league.
 
2014-02-07 01:01:05 PM
And, while you might say 7th in the West (29-20) isn't exactly Moneyball, keep in mind in preseason, Vegas had the Suns o/u for wins at something like 17.5, maybe 18.5.  EIGHTY TWO GAME SEASON, FOLKS.   we were picked to be absolute dogs.  whether it was Mcdonough's alleged metrics, rookie coach what's his nuts (hornacek, just came to me), a combination thereof, or maybe just good ol fashioned dumbassery by the bookmakers, something good is happening in the Six Oh Deuce.

we've almost doubled the preseason win prediction before the ASG.


wow. This rambling bit of speculation is closer to supporting my view than yours.
 
2014-02-07 01:01:34 PM

MugzyBrown: ladodger34: Exactly, this might show that Joe Bigman is an expert at spacing or something like that and when he is on the floor, a team's 3-point percentage goes up. A really good scout probably could tell you this from observation (maybe) but having data to back that up is extremely valuable

You don't even have to look at a stat sheet for something like this though.

Can the 7'0" Joe Bigman hit a 18' jumpshot on a regular basis?  If Yes, then having him on the floor can open up the lane, if not, then he's clogging it up.


But that isn't the point of a stat like this. Joe Bigman hitting an 18 footer is easily observable. You can look at a stat sheet and see that.

This is more useful for a guy who plays 10 minutes a night and puts up 2 shots but for whatever reason, the team's field goal % rises whenever he is on the floor. Having this data could show that it is a coincidence, more shooters are on the floor when he is playing, or something he is doing is opening up shots for other guys. That's kind of the point of statiscal analysis.

In baseball terms, I don't need someone to tell me that Albert Pujols (pre-injury obviously) is a great player. His traditional stats can tell me that he is one of the better hitters ever. My eyes can generally tell me that he is a really good 1st baseman. The Tony Parker shiat falls into that category. We don't really need a stat like this to tell us he is good.

Advanced stats can tell me that a guy like Ben Zobrist is more valuable than traditional stats or our eyes can tell us.

In a cap sport with smallish rosters, finding guys that might be traditionally undervalued because he can't hit an 18 foot jumper but adds value that traditional stats can't quantify seems extemely valuable.
 
2014-02-07 01:06:15 PM

doubled99: And, while you might say 7th in the West (29-20) isn't exactly Moneyball, keep in mind in preseason, Vegas had the Suns o/u for wins at something like 17.5, maybe 18.5.  EIGHTY TWO GAME SEASON, FOLKS.   we were picked to be absolute dogs.  whether it was Mcdonough's alleged metrics, rookie coach what's his nuts (hornacek, just came to me), a combination thereof, or maybe just good ol fashioned dumbassery by the bookmakers, something good is happening in the Six Oh Deuce.

we've almost doubled the preseason win prediction before the ASG.

wow. This rambling bit of speculation is closer to supporting my view than yours.


Do advanced stats effect your enjoyment of the watching the sport right now?

These guys are so fringe that fringe might be too generous of a description.

I mean in baseball, advanced stats say that Jeter can't field worth a lick. For a Yankees fan that has watched him throughout his career and counts the rings, have advanced stats hurt the product?
 
2014-02-07 01:07:34 PM
It's hard to wrap my head around the subjectivity of this idea, but it at least passes the eye test -- in that it identifies players who seem to be offensively effective and puts them ahead of risky/inefficient or (sometimes and, in the case of Rubio) hamfisted shooters.

Specifically, and all this is coming from my reading of the paper YMMV, I find it interesting that it seems to value players who can consitently manufacture a good shot from midrange. Most efficiency measures underrate that skill.

Also, it seems to rate smart and/or good shooting ballhandlers much higher than your ball dominant Westbrook/ Gay type gunners than other measures. This isn't a surprise in that we all know that the latter type's innefficiency can hurt an offense's rhythm. But the revelation here is how highly it rates the contribution of a good PG to a teams offense.

This is my extrapolation, but it seems like it is not so much that the play of a guy like Gay on the 2013 Raptors is innefficient in a vacuum as it is that there's a bigger oppertunity cost to putting the ball in his hands over Calderon/ Lowry than we realized. I'll admit I'm only guessing that they rate highly in this measure, but they fit the mould of PG that's listed in the top 10.

My guess is that the moneyball takeaway from this will be that traditional stats overrate athletic ball-dominant scorers and severely underrate the value of smart, good-shooting ballhandlers, ie: the gap between the two is wider than we thought.

The one criticism I have is that it doesn't touch defence, and because of that it doesn't seem to show an obvious correlation with winning. If you can do this on the offensive end, surely you can lump in denfensive play and create a two-way stat. It would be as simple as find out the opponent's EPVA and combining the two for a net rating.

From the paper: http://www.sloansportsconference.com/w p-content/uploads/2014/02/2014_S SAC_Pointwise-Predicting-Points-and-Va luing-Decisions-in-Real-Time.pdf

Player EPVA Top 10 (2012-2013)
Chris Paul
Dirk Nowitzki
Deron Williams
Stephen Curry
Jamal Crawford
Greivis Vasquez
LaMarcus Aldridge
Steve Nash
Wesley Matthews
Damian Lillard

Bottom 10 (2012-2013)
Kevin Love
Russell Westbrook
Evan Turner
Austin Rivers
Rudy Gay
Jrue Holiday
Paul George
Chris Singleton
Roy Hibbert
 
2014-02-07 01:30:01 PM

TeamEd: The one criticism I have is that it doesn't touch defence, and because of that it doesn't seem to show an obvious correlation with winning. If you can do this on the offensive end, surely you can lump in denfensive play and create a two-way stat. It would be as simple as find out the opponent's EPVA and combining the two for a net rating.


Obviously they're working toward that, but that'll require quite a bit more work and data.

/it's nice to see stats develop and grow and improve
 
2014-02-07 01:36:04 PM

IAmRight: TeamEd: The one criticism I have is that it doesn't touch defence, and because of that it doesn't seem to show an obvious correlation with winning. If you can do this on the offensive end, surely you can lump in denfensive play and create a two-way stat. It would be as simple as find out the opponent's EPVA and combining the two for a net rating.

Obviously they're working toward that, but that'll require quite a bit more work and data.

/it's nice to see stats develop and grow and improve


Sure, it'll take a lot of work to come up with the expected value of player movement on the defensive end. But, with a years' worth of offensive data it should be relatively simple to come up with a net rating the same way opponent's PER is calculated. Since EPVA measures a players overall contribution to team offensive, opponent's EPVA should be a fairly holistic measure of team defence (I know, that logic has problems). It wouldn't be the most sophisticated use of very sophisticated data, but it would be informative.
 
2014-02-07 01:36:28 PM

IAmRight: TeamEd: The one criticism I have is that it doesn't touch defence, and because of that it doesn't seem to show an obvious correlation with winning. If you can do this on the offensive end, surely you can lump in denfensive play and create a two-way stat. It would be as simple as find out the opponent's EPVA and combining the two for a net rating.

Obviously they're working toward that, but that'll require quite a bit more work and data.

/it's nice to see stats develop and grow and improve


Agreed.  This conference is really cool.
 
2014-02-07 01:42:23 PM

Gunny Highway: IAmRight: TeamEd: The one criticism I have is that it doesn't touch defence, and because of that it doesn't seem to show an obvious correlation with winning. If you can do this on the offensive end, surely you can lump in denfensive play and create a two-way stat. It would be as simple as find out the opponent's EPVA and combining the two for a net rating.

Obviously they're working toward that, but that'll require quite a bit more work and data.

/it's nice to see stats develop and grow and improve

Agreed.  This conference is really cool.


Yeah, just letting guys have access to this amount of data is pretty cool.
 
2014-02-07 02:18:32 PM

doubled99: And, while you might say 7th in the West (29-20) isn't exactly Moneyball, keep in mind in preseason, Vegas had the Suns o/u for wins at something like 17.5, maybe 18.5.  EIGHTY TWO GAME SEASON, FOLKS.   we were picked to be absolute dogs.  whether it was Mcdonough's alleged metrics, rookie coach what's his nuts (hornacek, just came to me), a combination thereof, or maybe just good ol fashioned dumbassery by the bookmakers, something good is happening in the Six Oh Deuce.

we've almost doubled the preseason win prediction before the ASG.

wow. This rambling bit of speculation is closer to supporting my view than yours.


The Suns greatly overachieving after emphasizing advanced stats supports your view?
 
2014-02-07 03:07:38 PM
The stat rewards players who are physically limited and technically skilled, while devaluing athleticism.
 
2014-02-07 03:16:40 PM

damn yanks: The stat rewards players who are physically limited and technically skilled, while devaluing athleticism.


Maybe that's because athleticism is overrated...  On offence. Only on offence. On defence it's king.

/ Not saying it is overrated, but it might be a Moneyball type thing where the NBA over values players' physical tools without properly looking at outcomes.
 
2014-02-07 03:19:29 PM

damn yanks: The stat rewards players who are physically limited and technically skilled, while devaluing athleticism.


I don't see where it rewards guys for being physically limited. I do see where it rewards guys for being technically skilled, which seems like a good thing to work toward.
 
2014-02-07 03:29:20 PM
3 Allstars in the Dunk Contest this year.
New rules for the dunk, three, and skills competition.
Lillard is in all three competitions.
 
2014-02-07 03:33:01 PM

damn yanks: The stat rewards players who are physically limited and technically skilled, while devaluing athleticism.



well, that's just because those guys, the physically limited guys, they're also high motor guys, high basketball IQ, gym rats, they are just better human beings than the naturally talented athletes.  Even the well-spoken naturally talented athletes.  Those high motor guys, they see the game within the game.  Very heady guys.  They may not be the most naturally gifted, but you can't outwork them.  They get the most out of their limited ability, unlike the naturally athletic guy.  They're just special, special guys.  Lots of heart.  Gym rats.
 
2014-02-07 03:37:10 PM

Dafatone: The Suns greatly overachieving after emphasizing advanced stats supports your view?


Huh.  I was right.  Here's one story on the McDonoguh hire:


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/22212318/suns-name-ry an -mcdonough-general-manager

McDonough joins the Suns after most recently serving the past three seasons as the assistant general manager of the Boston Celtics, where he assisted Celtics President of Basketball Operations Danny Ainge on all basketball-related matters, while being principally responsible for the draft evaluation of college and international players. He combines the experience of nearly a decade of in-person scouting of prospects across the globe with an understanding of advanced metrics and statistical analysis. During his tenure with the Celtics, Boston made two appearances in the NBA Finals, and claimed the 2008 title.
 
2014-02-07 04:06:45 PM

IAmRight: damn yanks: The stat rewards players who are physically limited and technically skilled, while devaluing athleticism.

I don't see where it rewards guys for being physically limited. I do see where it rewards guys for being technically skilled, which seems like a good thing to work toward.


Of the players in the top 10 only the 3 Blazers would be considered  average NBA athletes.

The stat measures offensive decision making as far as I can tell. I feel it does not compensate well enough for when athletic advantage trumps the logical decision to be considered an overall offensive rating. Everyone  in the bottom 10 except Rivers is considered an exceptional NBA athlete, and players often considered to be the most efficient on the offensive end are not in the top 10, with above average athletic talent being a common trait among the players not in the top 10 but considered by other measure to be the best almost universally.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report