|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lakers0505 wrote: | I think it's silly to look at talent and analytics separately, because their value is an interplay between both of them.
The real advantage is having someone who can analyze them together in proper context. AKA what the Spurs have done, system, talent and analytics. |
Yeah, the trouble is people try to make it an either/or, instead of simply accepting that analytics is an additional input for decision making.
I understand its more emotionally satisfying and an easier argument to win by using the strawman of "the stats-obsessed geeks who never played the game versus the experts who relied on their eyes." But that dichotomy doesn't exist in real life for the most part. The people who pretend it exists are either trying to hype or bash analytics.
You see this in business too. It's related to the fear over relatively new technology. In no time at all, analytics are going to be so ingrained in all kinds of decision-making that we won't even think of analytics as a separate thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ExPatLkrFan wrote: | | They always could have amnestied Perkins but Bennett didn't want to pay somebody to not play for him. It's that simple. |
Not using amnesty on Perkins had nothing to do with either being cheap or with Bennett. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | ExPatLkrFan wrote: | | They always could have amnestied Perkins but Bennett didn't want to pay somebody to not play for him. It's that simple. |
Not using amnesty on Perkins had nothing to do with either being cheap or with Bennett. |
I assume it had to do with whom they thought they might be defending against in a playoff matchup?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dont_be_a_wuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 21458
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| did the Spurs win with analytics? I thought they won with scouting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | did the Spurs win with analytics? I thought they won with scouting? |
Their scouts and coaching staff heavily use analytics.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
When using a statistic analytically, you're basically trying to drill down to a meaningful output
What am I actually looking for?
Why is this stat useful?
What factors would make it not useful?
etc
I don't think there's a team invested in analytics that uses box score stats for anything besides very general reference (ie nothing of substance), because for the most part they're just not useful.
Points? field goal %? no not really, it's team ppp that matters, if you get triple teamed every time you drive, and your team rebounds those shots at some absurd rate, then missing isn't as poor value as the Rondo's of the world that can't make open shots
Assists? useless really, it's the quality of shot that matters, a miss on a created wide open shot is better than a make on a contested shot, not on scoreboard obviously but in terms of quantifying the player quality, the make, miss or foul of the receiver doesn't matter but it is what creates the assist stat
Rebounds? Does the box score how many you grabbed unnecessarily from your team mates when you could have been running the break? of course not, and this goes on for every single box score stat.
_________________
I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
|
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
To follow onto GT's comment- the style of play that you like kikanga is no longer very practical because of the way that coaches are taking advantage of legal zone defense. It's not about analytics- it's about reality.
| kikanga wrote: | | I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense. |
| kikanga wrote: | | I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not. |
There's no Shaq in the league anymore. The most efficient low post scorer is Al Jefferson, who averages a points per post up of 0.97. In contrast, the most efficient spot up player is Danny Green who gets a point per spot up of 1.17. Extrapolate that out 90 possessions, and you get a huge point difference.
Post ups help more when you factor in passing into the equation, but you also clog up the paint so that other kind of efficient getting to the basket plays like hitting the roll man or attacking close outs are squeezed out.
It should still be used as a weapon, but you have to factor in the other hurdle these days which is actually getting the ball into the post. Look how the Hawks limited Demarcus Cousins to 3-9 shooting:
http://on.nba.com/18xT59p
Horford can front the post because he knows that his teammate is sagging on the weak side ready to rotate in case of a lob pass. By the time they get it to him, it's already late on the shot clock, and the Hawks know as soon as the pass goes out that they need to recover and close out on the shooter. Sometimes they had two help defenders waiting to pounce, and many times the ball never even got there. This kind of stuff wasn't legal in the 90s.
| kikanga wrote: | | I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line. |
This I agree with, assuming the big can hit a high percentage from there and also be a good and willing passer. Also, because this can counter the semi-zone schemes that I was talking about above, being a threat to move the ball on either side of the court in the direction of the help, and also be a triple threat.
If you think about it, the positioning that works against a aggressive 2-3 zone is the kind that also works against this kind of scheme. The weak points are the high post, short corner and wing 3 point line, where if you space them out enough and get the ball moving, there's always a hole to attack.
| kikanga wrote: | | I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll. |
Penetration via the pass is either via post play and cutters. We covered post play above, where you see it's difficult even with a top 3 back to the basket player. And with cutters, with all the sagging help defenders, you aren't going to get very many baskets there without having first, penetration off the dribble or yes, the pick and roll with other players spacing the floor.
| kikanga wrote: | These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
Again, it's the realities of modern NBA defenses that lead to the "space and pace" style of play, not analytics. Analytics simply provide the evidence that what worked before doesn't work now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiendishoc wrote: | | To follow onto GT's comment- the style of play that you like kikanga is no longer very practical because of the way that coaches are taking advantage of legal zone defense. It's not about analytics- it's about reality. |
I'm not sold on the argument that zone defenses are the root cause, but let's skip that argument. One factor that no one disputes is the rise of the three point shot in the college game. Once the college game went to the shorter three point line around 1990 (I don't remember the exact year offhand), and once college coaches began to emphasize the three point shot, we got a generation of players who shot three pointers as a major weapon in their arsenal. The zone defense rule may have contributed to this, but in fact the game was changing rapidly at the NBA level long before the zone defense rule was changed.
It was just a matter of time before the NBA as a whole adapted to the reality that three point shooting is a winning strategy, as opposed to a novelty as it was in the '80s. We have a lot of players who can make a high percentage of open threes, especially from the corner. Even if the zone defense rule had not changed, post offense would be on the decline today.
I expect that we will see a reaction to this over the next few years. As teams have revamped their defensive strategies to deal with the three point shot, there are opportunities for high efficiency post games. The problem is that the college game is not doing a good job of producing post scorers. But sports are cyclical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | fiendishoc wrote: | | To follow onto GT's comment- the style of play that you like kikanga is no longer very practical because of the way that coaches are taking advantage of legal zone defense. It's not about analytics- it's about reality. |
I'm not sold on the argument that zone defenses are the root cause, but let's skip that argument. One factor that no one disputes is the rise of the three point shot in the college game. Once the college game went to the shorter three point line around 1990 (I don't remember the exact year offhand), and once college coaches began to emphasize the three point shot, we got a generation of players who shot three pointers as a major weapon in their arsenal. The zone defense rule may have contributed to this, but in fact the game was changing rapidly at the NBA level long before the zone defense rule was changed.
It was just a matter of time before the NBA as a whole adapted to the reality that three point shooting is a winning strategy, as opposed to a novelty as it was in the '80s. We have a lot of players who can make a high percentage of open threes, especially from the corner. Even if the zone defense rule had not changed, post offense would be on the decline today.
I expect that we will see a reaction to this over the next few years. As teams have revamped their defensive strategies to deal with the three point shot, there are opportunities for high efficiency post games. The problem is that the college game is not doing a good job of producing post scorers. But sports are cyclical. |
Wait until the 4 point shot comes out.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
Well, I believe in the soul... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap...
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter.
I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and
I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | fiendishoc wrote: | | To follow onto GT's comment- the style of play that you like kikanga is no longer very practical because of the way that coaches are taking advantage of legal zone defense. It's not about analytics- it's about reality. |
I'm not sold on the argument that zone defenses are the root cause, but let's skip that argument. One factor that no one disputes is the rise of the three point shot in the college game. Once the college game went to the shorter three point line around 1990 (I don't remember the exact year offhand), and once college coaches began to emphasize the three point shot, we got a generation of players who shot three pointers as a major weapon in their arsenal. The zone defense rule may have contributed to this, but in fact the game was changing rapidly at the NBA level long before the zone defense rule was changed.
It was just a matter of time before the NBA as a whole adapted to the reality that three point shooting is a winning strategy, as opposed to a novelty as it was in the '80s. We have a lot of players who can make a high percentage of open threes, especially from the corner. Even if the zone defense rule had not changed, post offense would be on the decline today.
I expect that we will see a reaction to this over the next few years. As teams have revamped their defensive strategies to deal with the three point shot, there are opportunities for high efficiency post games. The problem is that the college game is not doing a good job of producing post scorers. But sports are cyclical. |
I agree the three was a coming thing, and that it changed how a lot of players play, but it also worked quite well with the post game under the old defensive rules. Seal a single defender, and then go if the double was late, or simply kick it out to the open man off the rotation (and then on around the horn against secondary and tertiary rotations), ending up with an open three or a repost on the other side. Rudy T took it even further with Horry, inserting a three shooting sf at the pf spot (a decade before mda would popularize it, and itself a nod to Riley using a long two point shooting four in AC Green to spread the floor in the previous decade). And he did it around adominant post man.
What changed was the rule precluding sagging, hedging, and doubling without the ball (this is why you saw the typical pg who didn't shoot disappear, because the first reaction was simply to sag off him into the lap of the post man). Also, since the post feed almost always comes from the side (feeding the post from up top opens up steal opportunities), the post game creates a significant strong and weak side dynamic, allowing weak side defenders an easier hedge to the back side of the lane.mit is stagnant in that way.
This is why the high pick and roll is favored, and why so many teams try to ice it (force it to the baseline). The ball handler can rotate the ball either way rapidly from up high, and you need to force him to a strong side before you can sag the weak side to help.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pass only PGs who can't shoot
ISO low post bigs who can't pass
2 relics in 2015 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Telleris wrote: | When using a statistic analytically, you're basically trying to drill down to a meaningful output
What am I actually looking for?
Why is this stat useful?
What factors would make it not useful?
etc
I don't think there's a team invested in analytics that uses box score stats for anything besides very general reference (ie nothing of substance), because for the most part they're just not useful.
Points? field goal %? no not really, it's team ppp that matters, if you get triple teamed every time you drive, and your team rebounds those shots at some absurd rate, then missing isn't as poor value as the Rondo's of the world that can't make open shots
Assists? useless really, it's the quality of shot that matters, a miss on a created wide open shot is better than a make on a contested shot, not on scoreboard obviously but in terms of quantifying the player quality, the make, miss or foul of the receiver doesn't matter but it is what creates the assist stat
Rebounds? Does the box score how many you grabbed unnecessarily from your team mates when you could have been running the break? of course not, and this goes on for every single box score stat. |
I find this to be a thoughtful and intelligent, yet curious post.
If box score stats, which most every analytic uses to some extent, less maybe pure RAPM, which is no longer readily available (and susceptible to its own problems), are not of much value, what is? Even RPM uses box stats to adjust predictability and 82games uses the PER-like Production for its Simple Rating--although it also factors on/off (weighted at 33%) as well.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | Telleris wrote: | When using a statistic analytically, you're basically trying to drill down to a meaningful output
What am I actually looking for?
Why is this stat useful?
What factors would make it not useful?
etc
I don't think there's a team invested in analytics that uses box score stats for anything besides very general reference (ie nothing of substance), because for the most part they're just not useful.
Points? field goal %? no not really, it's team ppp that matters, if you get triple teamed every time you drive, and your team rebounds those shots at some absurd rate, then missing isn't as poor value as the Rondo's of the world that can't make open shots
Assists? useless really, it's the quality of shot that matters, a miss on a created wide open shot is better than a make on a contested shot, not on scoreboard obviously but in terms of quantifying the player quality, the make, miss or foul of the receiver doesn't matter but it is what creates the assist stat
Rebounds? Does the box score how many you grabbed unnecessarily from your team mates when you could have been running the break? of course not, and this goes on for every single box score stat. |
I find this to be a thoughtful and intelligent, yet curious post.
If box score stats, which most every analytic uses to some extent, less maybe pure RAPM, which is no longer readily available (and susceptible to its own problems), are not of much value, what is? Even RPM uses box stats to adjust predictability and 82games uses the PER-like Production for its Simple Rating--although it also factors on/off (weighted at 33%) as well. |
I don't think he's saying box score stats are useless (except stats like assists, which can be more effectively encapsulated in ppp and in other metrics off passes that measure the pass more objectively), merely that they needed to be combined in context to be meaningful.
FG%
EFG%
TS%
PPP
That progression all comes from some basic stats, but each is a bit more precise at contextualizing the information.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | Telleris wrote: | When using a statistic analytically, you're basically trying to drill down to a meaningful output
What am I actually looking for?
Why is this stat useful?
What factors would make it not useful?
etc
I don't think there's a team invested in analytics that uses box score stats for anything besides very general reference (ie nothing of substance), because for the most part they're just not useful.
Points? field goal %? no not really, it's team ppp that matters, if you get triple teamed every time you drive, and your team rebounds those shots at some absurd rate, then missing isn't as poor value as the Rondo's of the world that can't make open shots
Assists? useless really, it's the quality of shot that matters, a miss on a created wide open shot is better than a make on a contested shot, not on scoreboard obviously but in terms of quantifying the player quality, the make, miss or foul of the receiver doesn't matter but it is what creates the assist stat
Rebounds? Does the box score how many you grabbed unnecessarily from your team mates when you could have been running the break? of course not, and this goes on for every single box score stat. |
I find this to be a thoughtful and intelligent, yet curious post.
If box score stats, which most every analytic uses to some extent, less maybe pure RAPM, which is no longer readily available (and susceptible to its own problems), are not of much value, what is? Even RPM uses box stats to adjust predictability and 82games uses the PER-like Production for its Simple Rating--although it also factors on/off (weighted at 33%) as well. |
I don't think he's saying box score stats are useless (except stats like assists, which can be more effectively encapsulated in ppp and in other metrics off passes that measure the pass more objectively), merely that they needed to be combined in context to be meaningful.
FG%
EFG%
TS%
PPP
That progression all comes from some basic stats, but each is a bit more precise at contextualizing the information. |
No, what I'm saying is the teams themselves don't use any box score stats (or play by play data), but keep in mind, they have the resources to spend on gathering what they do want to find. These analytics departments have people watching every moment of every game to gather them (some of the lesser involved teams outsource Vantage for play by play), the rest of us, we have to live with composites of score keepers. In terms of professional application, yeah they are useless. Keep in mind when i say that, i mean they need to come up with somewhat similar stats but actually derive proper value (ie not having glaring holes in them).
Like for example, I'm sure everyone remembers Artest's putback, the reason why team ppp is what matters, the lakers having more rebounders at the ball is a function of defenders draping themselves over Kobe like some sort of harem, so while the outcome on any given play is luck, there was a probability element favoring that scenario from defending him that way, and the team doesn't care who wearing their uniform actually scores. Given that Odom had no position in the play (and wasn't being defended at all), that his man was shading Kobe created a 2 on 2 rebounding situation that should have been 3 on 2.
_________________
I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^
This is correct, and it is one of the problems we have in these discussions. The cutting edge work being done with analytics does not involve anything as simplistic as box score stats. It isn't that analytics ignores box score stats, but rather that analytics is looking deeper into what is going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Telleris wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | Telleris wrote: | When using a statistic analytically, you're basically trying to drill down to a meaningful output
What am I actually looking for?
Why is this stat useful?
What factors would make it not useful?
etc
I don't think there's a team invested in analytics that uses box score stats for anything besides very general reference (ie nothing of substance), because for the most part they're just not useful.
Points? field goal %? no not really, it's team ppp that matters, if you get triple teamed every time you drive, and your team rebounds those shots at some absurd rate, then missing isn't as poor value as the Rondo's of the world that can't make open shots
Assists? useless really, it's the quality of shot that matters, a miss on a created wide open shot is better than a make on a contested shot, not on scoreboard obviously but in terms of quantifying the player quality, the make, miss or foul of the receiver doesn't matter but it is what creates the assist stat
Rebounds? Does the box score how many you grabbed unnecessarily from your team mates when you could have been running the break? of course not, and this goes on for every single box score stat. |
I find this to be a thoughtful and intelligent, yet curious post.
If box score stats, which most every analytic uses to some extent, less maybe pure RAPM, which is no longer readily available (and susceptible to its own problems), are not of much value, what is? Even RPM uses box stats to adjust predictability and 82games uses the PER-like Production for its Simple Rating--although it also factors on/off (weighted at 33%) as well. |
I don't think he's saying box score stats are useless (except stats like assists, which can be more effectively encapsulated in ppp and in other metrics off passes that measure the pass more objectively), merely that they needed to be combined in context to be meaningful.
FG%
EFG%
TS%
PPP
That progression all comes from some basic stats, but each is a bit more precise at contextualizing the information. |
No, what I'm saying is the teams themselves don't use any box score stats (or play by play data), but keep in mind, they have the resources to spend on gathering what they do want to find. These analytics departments have people watching every moment of every game to gather them (some of the lesser involved teams outsource Vantage for play by play), the rest of us, we have to live with composites of score keepers. In terms of professional application, yeah they are useless. Keep in mind when i say that, i mean they need to come up with somewhat similar stats but actually derive proper value (ie not having glaring holes in them).
Like for example, I'm sure everyone remembers Artest's putback, the reason why team ppp is what matters, the lakers having more rebounders at the ball is a function of defenders draping themselves over Kobe like some sort of harem, so while the outcome on any given play is luck, there was a probability element favoring that scenario from defending him that way, and the team doesn't care who wearing their uniform actually scores. Given that Odom had no position in the play (and wasn't being defended at all), that his man was shading Kobe created a 2 on 2 rebounding situation that should have been 3 on 2. |
And another good post.
I must assume you have some insider knowledge. My first thought here, just shooting from the hip, it would seem, to accomplish what you suggest would require, optimally, five observers (or even ten), unless these guys can aim each eye separately, and then these five would have to work in such a way that they also account for the players as a unit and as they effect each other, in setting picks and screening and whatnot. Then these observers must convert these many hundreds, or more, observations to some digestible, relatable, repeatable and consistent format. Then, the coaches would need to make sense of these analytics, at least more sense than simple observation and a good look at a stat sheet--including shot selections, game flows, and play by play and whatever else is readily available.
I guess the real question I have is does this insider approach work that much better, if at all, than what the (objective) fan can see and use as a resource? Is is measurable? How often? How often does some team sign a player (using some insider data) to what appears to be an inflated contract to the fan, that works out better than what the fan thought--especially considering the failure rate as a comparison? I not talking about all the nuances of trade value such as with Hill or legacy or loyalty value as with Kobe) but just pure value. For instance, some say Rondo is worth the max. If so, they must have some mighty powerful inside data, cause I don't see it.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Last edited by ribeye on Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | ^^^^
This is correct, and it is one of the problems we have in these discussions. The cutting edge work being done with analytics does not involve anything as simplistic as box score stats. It isn't that analytics ignores box score stats, but rather that analytics is looking deeper into what is going on. |
Correct. It uses some of them, but combines them with when, where, and how, as individuals or units, and by type of action. ppp, btw, which is a widely used metric to compare relative things, uses fg, fga, points, ft, fta, to, etc. It just allows you to see them as a result of a particular action (tony Parker initiates a high pick and roll from the left side and goes right), and determine things with a wide level of filter (TP's ppp, that of the team, etc.)
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
Well, I believe in the soul... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap...
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter.
I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and
I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
Well, I believe in the soul... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap...
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter.
I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and
I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. |
|
You do realize what that was in reference to, right?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | I have no ill will towards the analytical study of basketball.
I just don't agree with some of the philosophies that are associated with analytics in recent years.
I guess you could call it a basketball bias.
I believe the best type of all-star to have (especially in the playoffs) is a 7-foot Center. I believe in slow paced, low post offense.
I believe a Power forward can be just as effective in the high post than he can be at the 3 point line.
I think penetration via the pass is superior to penetration off the dribble in the pick and roll.
I want my best player to score over the double team more often than not. As opposed to kicking it out to a role player for an open shot more often than not.
These are all generalities.
And of course, no team wins just playing 1 way 48 minutes, every game.
But generalities like that are the only thoughts of mine that don't allign with the thinking of some modern analytic guys. |
When was the last time a low post centric offense won a title? It's been at least since the '07 Spurs, and more likely the '05 Spurs. This style of basketball that you believe in died years ago.
And the role players yield a higher PPP on that open shot than your best player yields over a double team, by an enormous margin. |
Well, I believe in the soul... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap...
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter.
I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and
I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. |
|
You do realize what that was in reference to, right? |
Nope, but I still think its funny. Reminds me of different monologues from different films.
I like to laugh at myself. Life's too serious as it is.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
