About guarding Kobe: Shane Battier explains analytics using playing against Kobe as example
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:22 pm    Post subject:

Lowest Merion wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What just happened here?


Same old, same old:

KBCB is throwing around credentials and jargon, slightly miffed that alone isn't enough to end the debate.

Hunter is having a thoughtful discussion up to the point he become frustrated that the other side is being evasive, at which points he throws in some sarcastic comments.

Larry is plugging ahead like a trooper, no matter what childishness he encounters.

Goldenthroat is trying to stop the madness, which, ironically, stirs up the people he's trying to stop because they enjoy the madness.

I am being an annoying contrarian.

So we have the typical mishmash of people who are trying to communicate and people who are simply enjoying being inside their own little vaccuums. It's LG, baby!


That was pretty damn funny, verb.


Thank you, folks. Please tip your waitress on the way out. I'll be here all week
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:26 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I try not to venture into topics that I don't know much about, but the medical analogy I'd make would be that analytics are similar to laboratory work. They identify what's working well and what isn't on a more specific level than the eye test does in the form of numbers, and then it's up to an expert to diagnose the problems and prescribe the proper remedies.



I'm going to ignore the personal attacks on me and answer this question because it is actually germain to the topic. A better analogy would be something like the New England Journal of Medicine Rational Clinical Exam Series where they examine a specific clinical disease entity and use meta-analysis in an attempt to determine which physical exam findings give the best relative risk ratios, sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing these disease processes.

It's a good series but as with all meta-analysis, there are problems inherent due to multiple confounding factors in both heterogenicity, homogeneity as well as differences in trial design and weighting abnormalities.

Ok, carry on gentlemen.


Any clinical study is going to face confounding factors that need to be considered. This is true since the beginning of science. But I'd imagine that the NEJM series that you're referring to still carries a significant amount of value, and similar studies have allowed medicine to operate far more efficiently over the last 100 years.

The notion that there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at basketball analytics is something that no one would argue with you over, and a far cry from the point that you've been making all along. I'm not even sure what your point is now, considering how much it's shifted around.



You need to learn the difference between a clinical study and a meta-analysis to engage in this discussion.


I know the difference between the two. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference is irrelevant, and just another attempt to obfuscate in an argument that you're losing badly. Confounding factors exist in both individual studies themselves, and then again in the analysis of multiple studies.

But once again, no one would be arguing with you if that's what your point had been all along.


Uh....no. And that you further argue the point disproves your conclusion.


Sorry, I'm not going to further assist your red herring by engaging you on this. At this point, you're reaching for points that are so far removed from the topic of discussion that it's nothing more than obfuscation. Baffle 'em with (bleep), as they say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:58 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
We all approach analogies like this in light of our own backgrounds and aptitudes. Naturally, your IT background colors your thought processes, just as my legal background colors mine. Your analogy strikes me as useful, but for reasons that are quite different from yours.


Sorry -- didn't get to this one last night.

Well...of course my background colors my perceptions and thought processes, but I don't think I'm approaching this any differently than you. For example, your explanation of why you found my analogy enlightening was pretty much the same way I see it.

Sorry, but your response kinda reminded me of the kind of people who think taking a science-y approach to nature means I fail to recognize its intrinsic beauty (yes, I've talked to those people). Quite the opposite, I can appreciate the immediate beauty of a sunset AND I understand the underlying processes of astronomy and physics that produce it (and I appreciate the beauty and understanding of that in addition).

Same thing here -- your explanation makes it sound like you think I'm missing the end-user usefulness of the tool.

Quote:
Let me explain why I found your analogy to be enlightening.

Traditional medicine involves observation and testing. What are the symptons? "Where does it hurt?" Blood tests. Urine tests. If I see X, Y, and Z, the logical diagnosis is A, and the correct treatment is B. This is much like traditional scouting, box score stats, coaching wisdom, and the like. Basically, it's analogous to "the eyeball test." It is useful stuff, and it has worked pretty well for a long time.

The MRI takes things to a different level. It allows us to see things that we could never see before, by using data that we couldn't gather and arrange before. It allows doctors to make better diagnoses and to prescribe better treatments. It doesn't change medicine, per se, but it allows doctors to practice medicine more effectively. Likewise, analytics allows us to see things that we could not see before, by using data that we couldn't gather and arrange before. It doesn't change basketball, per se, but it allows coaches, GMs, and players to do their jobs more effectively.


Yes, and I would have given much the same explanation. A patient presents to KBCB with certain symptoms, and he will use the patient's history, symptoms, and other factors to form a differential diagnosis. But just because symptom X is indicative of disease Y, it doesn't mean he's found Y -- there can be MANY diseases that are indicated by symptom X*. So he orders further tests to either confirm or rule out his differential diagnosis.

[*Also guided by heuristics, such as a symptom being more likely to be the result of an atypical presentation of a common disease than a typical presentation of a rare disease. Or as Sherlock Holmes put it, when you hear hoofsteps on the streets of London, you think horse, not zebra.]

An MRI is one such test that may be indicated, and as I said above, it's a sophisticated process of data gathering, algorithmic analysis, and visualization that are then presented to him (or the radiologist) as the SME to interpret, and then it's also up to him as the SME to determine what to do about it.

This really is not that much different from basketball analytics. We have a symptom -- say, we're loosing too many close games in the last minute. We make a differential diagnosis -- say, maybe we're launching the semipenultimate shot at the wrong time in two-for-one situations. We order a test -- let's say we analyze the raw SportsVU data for thousands of games looking for two-for-one situations, looking at the time the semipenultimate shot was launched. We then group this data by the specific time of this shot, and calculate the average net points that result. For fun we might even visualize this -- forming a graph which as it turns out is bell-shaped with a mean of around 30.5 seconds. (Or more realistically, we probably already have this available so we know what an optimal two-for-one SHOULD look like, just as KBCB already knows what a clear MRI should look like). So now we apply this knowledge to our patient (the basketball team) looking specifically at what they are doing in this situation with the best diagnostic tool at our disposal (the SportsVU data). The information goes to a SME, who notices that our team is launching its semipenultimate shots roughly three seconds later than optimal, with an average loss of 1.2 net points, which for this team would translate to three additional losses over the course of a season.

So now we order an intervention, which in the case of the basketball team would be working with the coaching staff to understand the situation and show how it can be improved. The coaching staff devises drills to simulate these situations and get the team used to launching these shots a little sooner. Over time, this becomes second nature, repeated analytics of post-intervention play shows that the team is now launching its semipenultimate shot at an average of 30.1 seconds, and the team has seen a net gain of 1.1 points in these situations. Finally, the analytics guy gets a raise.


Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics. Perhaps it's the way the media has used the term to advance certain agendas that turns people off when what is completely obvious to the eye. i.e LBJ being better than Kobe, Kobe not being clutch, the lack of acknowledgment of the over-proportioned effect of one dominant player on the game, and ignoring how the psyche relates to performance, situations and outcomes is dismissed after the issue has "analytics" shine "The Light" onto the subject at hand. Ultimately, I have no issue with capturing the added information as long it's use is valid towards the situation.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays


Last edited by KobeBryantCliffordBrown on Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:04 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
I love how so many here who skewer me for daring to offer an opinion on advanced basketball statometrics because they think I don't have a clue are debating medicine with such conviction.


I think it's funny that you think we are debating medicine. We aren't. We're discussing analogies in the medical field because some of the others are trying to find a way to get through to you. They don't realize that you aren't going to budge because that's just who you are.



So when did you lose the ability to distinguish between "They" and "I?"
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:17 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I try not to venture into topics that I don't know much about, but the medical analogy I'd make would be that analytics are similar to laboratory work. They identify what's working well and what isn't on a more specific level than the eye test does in the form of numbers, and then it's up to an expert to diagnose the problems and prescribe the proper remedies.



I'm going to ignore the personal attacks on me and answer this question because it is actually germain to the topic. A better analogy would be something like the New England Journal of Medicine Rational Clinical Exam Series where they examine a specific clinical disease entity and use meta-analysis in an attempt to determine which physical exam findings give the best relative risk ratios, sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing these disease processes.

It's a good series but as with all meta-analysis, there are problems inherent due to multiple confounding factors in both heterogenicity, homogeneity as well as differences in trial design and weighting abnormalities.

Ok, carry on gentlemen.


Any clinical study is going to face confounding factors that need to be considered. This is true since the beginning of science. But I'd imagine that the NEJM series that you're referring to still carries a significant amount of value, and similar studies have allowed medicine to operate far more efficiently over the last 100 years.

The notion that there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at basketball analytics is something that no one would argue with you over, and a far cry from the point that you've been making all along. I'm not even sure what your point is now, considering how much it's shifted around.



You need to learn the difference between a clinical study and a meta-analysis to engage in this discussion.


I know the difference between the two. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference is irrelevant, and just another attempt to obfuscate in an argument that you're losing badly. Confounding factors exist in both individual studies themselves, and then again in the analysis of multiple studies.

But once again, no one would be arguing with you if that's what your point had been all along.


Uh....no. And that you further argue the point disproves your conclusion.


Sorry, I'm not going to further assist your red herring by engaging you on this. At this point, you're reaching for points that are so far removed from the topic of discussion that it's nothing more than obfuscation. Baffle 'em with (bleep), as they say.


i.e. "In an attempt to be as insulting and condescending as I can, I have overextended myself."
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays


Last edited by KobeBryantCliffordBrown on Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
I love how so many here who skewer me for daring to offer an opinion on advanced basketball statometrics because they think I don't have a clue are debating medicine with such conviction.


I think it's funny that you think we are debating medicine. We aren't. We're discussing analogies in the medical field because some of the others are trying to find a way to get through to you. They don't realize that you aren't going to budge because that's just who you are.



I think it funny that your complete inability to let go of the fact that you can't deal with someone from my er....um....background to disagree with you without your showing your true colors, pun intended, compels you to make some pretty asinine statements.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:24 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What just happened here?


Same old, same old:

KBCB is throwing around credentials and jargon, slightly miffed that alone isn't enough to end the debate.

Hunter is having a thoughtful discussion up to the point he become frustrated that the other side is being evasive, at which points he throws in some sarcastic comments.

Larry is plugging ahead like a trooper, no matter what childishness he encounters.

Goldenthroat is trying to stop the madness, which, ironically, stirs up the people he's trying to stop because they enjoy the madness.

I am being an annoying contrarian.

So we have the typical mishmash of people who are trying to communicate and people who are simply enjoying being inside their own little vaccuums. It's LG, baby!


Yep, Got em. Did the work, save the lives. What do you do AV?.....Yeah, what I thought. Why don't you write that LG is also the place where people who write feature articles mock those who change the World in order to hide their feelings of inadequacy?
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:26 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
I love how so many here who skewer me for daring to offer an opinion on advanced basketball statometrics because they think I don't have a clue are debating medicine with such conviction.


Well, debating and dismissing are two different things.

I'd say if someone was dismissive of established methods of doing research in medicine based on their experience with basketball, then they'd be fair game.



Really? In this context, functionally, no they aren't. As for fair game. Ya'll can't faze me. Not even close.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:33 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Same thing here -- your explanation makes it sound like you think I'm missing the end-user usefulness of the tool.


Actually, I'm responding to your comment that the data are not part of the analytics. That's the difference between our interpretations of the analogy.

But there is no reason to belabor this. KBCB doesn't care. He got credit on a couple papers as a medical student, and he knows some statistical jargon. Consider your arguments deflected.



No. You again show why this is a ridiculous argument for you folks with the apparent exception of LC to be having. That "Statistical Jargon" is an extensive fund of knowledge that myself and other doctors use to evaluate the usefulness and applicability of published data. In my case, it happens that my position gives me the ability to affect how this analysis of this research is implemented within a regional medical center and therefore affects clinical care and ultimately morbidity and mortality of many people.

IOW, whether people live or die.


Deflect that counselor.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23744

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:52 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
.



Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics.


Maybe you should share your idea of what analytics actually is so there is no more need to take this conversation into the medical field in order to reach common ground with you.

It sounds more like your beef is not with analytics itself or its use in analyzing offensive and defensive strategies against teams and players, etc, it's with the fact that some people use statistics or analytics to come to a conclusion that Kobe might be fallible or he might have players that are/were as good or better than him in certain areas.

Am I close?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:56 pm    Post subject:

Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
.



Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics.


Maybe you should share your idea of what analytics actually is so there is no more need to take this conversation into the medical field in order to reach common ground with you.

It sounds more like your beef is not with analytics itself or its use in analyzing offensive and defensive strategies against teams and players, etc, it's with the fact that some people use statistics or analytics to come to a conclusion that Kobe might be fallible or he might have players that are/were as good or better than him in certain areas.

Am I close?


Close. But I clearly laid out my beef with analytics and it explicitely stated my other concerns. But if you and 24 want to roll with that as you have, I'm cool. Makes me no never mind.


And BTW, I find little in the way of attempting to "reach common ground" with me. More like several people for whom there is shared disdain from me and towards me, doing what they do and me doing what I do in return.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:04 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I try not to venture into topics that I don't know much about, but the medical analogy I'd make would be that analytics are similar to laboratory work. They identify what's working well and what isn't on a more specific level than the eye test does in the form of numbers, and then it's up to an expert to diagnose the problems and prescribe the proper remedies.



I'm going to ignore the personal attacks on me and answer this question because it is actually germain to the topic. A better analogy would be something like the New England Journal of Medicine Rational Clinical Exam Series where they examine a specific clinical disease entity and use meta-analysis in an attempt to determine which physical exam findings give the best relative risk ratios, sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing these disease processes.

It's a good series but as with all meta-analysis, there are problems inherent due to multiple confounding factors in both heterogenicity, homogeneity as well as differences in trial design and weighting abnormalities.

Ok, carry on gentlemen.


Any clinical study is going to face confounding factors that need to be considered. This is true since the beginning of science. But I'd imagine that the NEJM series that you're referring to still carries a significant amount of value, and similar studies have allowed medicine to operate far more efficiently over the last 100 years.

The notion that there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at basketball analytics is something that no one would argue with you over, and a far cry from the point that you've been making all along. I'm not even sure what your point is now, considering how much it's shifted around.



You need to learn the difference between a clinical study and a meta-analysis to engage in this discussion.


I know the difference between the two. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference is irrelevant, and just another attempt to obfuscate in an argument that you're losing badly. Confounding factors exist in both individual studies themselves, and then again in the analysis of multiple studies.

But once again, no one would be arguing with you if that's what your point had been all along.


Uh....no. And that you further argue the point disproves your conclusion.


Sorry, I'm not going to further assist your red herring by engaging you on this. At this point, you're reaching for points that are so far removed from the topic of discussion that it's nothing more than obfuscation. Baffle 'em with (bleep), as they say.


i.e. "In an attempt to be as insulting and condescending as I can, I have overextended myself."


I understand that telling yourself this sort of thing is a way to quell the dissonance of narcissistic injury, but I simply lack the desire to once again demonstrate your wrongness on a semantic that's so far removed from what this thread is supposed to be about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:09 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I try not to venture into topics that I don't know much about, but the medical analogy I'd make would be that analytics are similar to laboratory work. They identify what's working well and what isn't on a more specific level than the eye test does in the form of numbers, and then it's up to an expert to diagnose the problems and prescribe the proper remedies.



I'm going to ignore the personal attacks on me and answer this question because it is actually germain to the topic. A better analogy would be something like the New England Journal of Medicine Rational Clinical Exam Series where they examine a specific clinical disease entity and use meta-analysis in an attempt to determine which physical exam findings give the best relative risk ratios, sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing these disease processes.

It's a good series but as with all meta-analysis, there are problems inherent due to multiple confounding factors in both heterogenicity, homogeneity as well as differences in trial design and weighting abnormalities.

Ok, carry on gentlemen.


Any clinical study is going to face confounding factors that need to be considered. This is true since the beginning of science. But I'd imagine that the NEJM series that you're referring to still carries a significant amount of value, and similar studies have allowed medicine to operate far more efficiently over the last 100 years.

The notion that there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at basketball analytics is something that no one would argue with you over, and a far cry from the point that you've been making all along. I'm not even sure what your point is now, considering how much it's shifted around.



You need to learn the difference between a clinical study and a meta-analysis to engage in this discussion.


I know the difference between the two. For the purposes of this discussion, the difference is irrelevant, and just another attempt to obfuscate in an argument that you're losing badly. Confounding factors exist in both individual studies themselves, and then again in the analysis of multiple studies.

But once again, no one would be arguing with you if that's what your point had been all along.


Uh....no. And that you further argue the point disproves your conclusion.


Sorry, I'm not going to further assist your red herring by engaging you on this. At this point, you're reaching for points that are so far removed from the topic of discussion that it's nothing more than obfuscation. Baffle 'em with (bleep), as they say.


i.e. "In an attempt to be as insulting and condescending as I can, I have overextended myself."


I understand that telling yourself this sort of thing is a way to quell the dissonance of narcissistic injury, but I simply lack the desire to once again demonstrate your wrongness on a semantic that's so far removed from what this thread is supposed to be about.



Seriously? Wow.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:20 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
I love how so many here who skewer me for daring to offer an opinion on advanced basketball statometrics because they think I don't have a clue are debating medicine with such conviction.


I think it's funny that you think we are debating medicine. We aren't. We're discussing analogies in the medical field because some of the others are trying to find a way to get through to you. They don't realize that you aren't going to budge because that's just who you are.



I think it funny that your complete inability to let go of the fact that you can't deal with someone from my er....um....background to disagree with you without your showing your true colors, pun intended, compels you to make some pretty asinine statements.


Even by your standards, this is lame. Yeah, sure, I think your arguments are silly because you're black. Absolutely. That must be it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23744

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:20 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
.



Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics.


Maybe you should share your idea of what analytics actually is so there is no more need to take this conversation into the medical field in order to reach common ground with you.

It sounds more like your beef is not with analytics itself or its use in analyzing offensive and defensive strategies against teams and players, etc, it's with the fact that some people use statistics or analytics to come to a conclusion that Kobe might be fallible or he might have players that are/were as good or better than him in certain areas.

Am I close?


Close. But I clearly laid out my beef with analytics and it explicitely stated my other concerns. But if you and 24 want to roll with that as you have, I'm cool. Makes me no never mind.


And BTW, I find little in the way of attempting to "reach common ground" with me. More like several people for whom there is shared disdain from me and towards me, doing what they do and me doing what I do in return.


In all fairness, the only thing that has been clearly laid out is that your fear of analytics is greater than your understanding of it, unless of course you are deliberately misrepresenting it for the sake of your own arguments.

Teams that focus on analytics are not trading in game tapes in favor of statistical databases. They also are not trading in superstar players for statisticians and actuaries. Teams that put a lot of stock in analytics are watching game tapes and trying to build talented rosters just like everyone else. An analytics heavy team not winning a championship doesn't disprove analytics just like a Kobe Bryant led team not winning a championship doesn't disprove the value of having a superstar. Resorting to such absolutes to try to prove your point is a dishonest argument tactic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:32 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
I love how so many here who skewer me for daring to offer an opinion on advanced basketball statometrics because they think I don't have a clue are debating medicine with such conviction.


I think it's funny that you think we are debating medicine. We aren't. We're discussing analogies in the medical field because some of the others are trying to find a way to get through to you. They don't realize that you aren't going to budge because that's just who you are.



I think it funny that your complete inability to let go of the fact that you can't deal with someone from my er....um....background to disagree with you without your showing your true colors, pun intended, compels you to make some pretty asinine statements.


Even by your standards, this is lame. Yeah, sure, I think your arguments are silly because you're black. Absolutely. That must be it.



Yeah, that's my argument. I wish I could say that your counter was lame by your usual standards.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:33 pm    Post subject:

Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
.



Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics.


Maybe you should share your idea of what analytics actually is so there is no more need to take this conversation into the medical field in order to reach common ground with you.

It sounds more like your beef is not with analytics itself or its use in analyzing offensive and defensive strategies against teams and players, etc, it's with the fact that some people use statistics or analytics to come to a conclusion that Kobe might be fallible or he might have players that are/were as good or better than him in certain areas.

Am I close?


Close. But I clearly laid out my beef with analytics and it explicitely stated my other concerns. But if you and 24 want to roll with that as you have, I'm cool. Makes me no never mind.


And BTW, I find little in the way of attempting to "reach common ground" with me. More like several people for whom there is shared disdain from me and towards me, doing what they do and me doing what I do in return.


In all fairness, the only thing that has been clearly laid out is that your fear of analytics is greater than your understanding of it, unless of course you are deliberately misrepresenting it for the sake of your own arguments.

Teams that focus on analytics are not trading in game tapes in favor of statistical databases. They also are not trading in superstar players for statisticians and actuaries. Teams that put a lot of stock in analytics are watching game tapes and trying to build talented rosters just like everyone else. An analytics heavy team not winning a championship doesn't disprove analytics just like a Kobe Bryant led team not winning a championship doesn't disprove the value of having a superstar. Resorting to such absolutes to try to prove your point is a dishonest argument tactic.


You lost me in the first three words. That shouldn't even be a statement coming from you towards me.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:36 pm    Post subject:

To state the obvious: Time to lock this one up. This just went from mildly amusing to ugly. Nothing good is going to come from this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:41 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Treble Clef wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
.



Frankly, I find this post to be outstanding. To the extent that the tool in this sort of fashion, I agree it is a useful extension of scouting and game watching. I'd buy in if that is/were the extent of analytics.


Maybe you should share your idea of what analytics actually is so there is no more need to take this conversation into the medical field in order to reach common ground with you.

It sounds more like your beef is not with analytics itself or its use in analyzing offensive and defensive strategies against teams and players, etc, it's with the fact that some people use statistics or analytics to come to a conclusion that Kobe might be fallible or he might have players that are/were as good or better than him in certain areas.

Am I close?


Close. But I clearly laid out my beef with analytics and it explicitely stated my other concerns. But if you and 24 want to roll with that as you have, I'm cool. Makes me no never mind.


And BTW, I find little in the way of attempting to "reach common ground" with me. More like several people for whom there is shared disdain from me and towards me, doing what they do and me doing what I do in return.


In all fairness, the only thing that has been clearly laid out is that your fear of analytics is greater than your understanding of it, unless of course you are deliberately misrepresenting it for the sake of your own arguments.

Teams that focus on analytics are not trading in game tapes in favor of statistical databases. They also are not trading in superstar players for statisticians and actuaries. Teams that put a lot of stock in analytics are watching game tapes and trying to build talented rosters just like everyone else. An analytics heavy team not winning a championship doesn't disprove analytics just like a Kobe Bryant led team not winning a championship doesn't disprove the value of having a superstar. Resorting to such absolutes to try to prove your point is a dishonest argument tactic.


You lost me in the first three words. That shouldn't even be a statement coming from you towards me.


You lost me, and your posting privileges, with this kind of behavior.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:56 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What just happened here?


Same old, same old:

KBCB is throwing around credentials and jargon, slightly miffed that alone isn't enough to end the debate.

Hunter is having a thoughtful discussion up to the point he become frustrated that the other side is being evasive, at which points he throws in some sarcastic comments.

Larry is plugging ahead like a trooper, no matter what childishness he encounters.

Goldenthroat is trying to stop the madness, which, ironically, stirs up the people he's trying to stop because they enjoy the madness.

I am being an annoying contrarian.

So we have the typical mishmash of people who are trying to communicate and people who are simply enjoying being inside their own little vaccuums. It's LG, baby!


Yep, Got em. Did the work, save the lives. What do you do AV?.....Yeah, what I thought. Why don't you write that LG is also the place where people who write feature articles mock those who change the World in order to hide their feelings of inadequacy?


Dude, my original thought was: "It must be hard being God's gift to the world, when the world stamps you 'return to sender.' "
But I'm going to be less flippant. All I know about you is this what you post on LG. I know you go on and on and on that you're a doctor. I've known lots of doctors. Some are brilliant, some are quacks. Some are great human beings, some are people I need to wash my hands after I shake theirs.
What are you? …
I don't care.
I don't care about your credentials. I don't care about your accomplishments. I don't care about comparing whether you or I have done more for the world. Maybe you have, maybe I have. If the question obsesses you, you probably feel you haven't done enough. The question doesn't obsess me.
Anyway, this isn't the place for that. This is a place for simply expressing your opinion about basketball.
I know you've been banned. And you deserved to be. You went on a disconcerting tear where it felt like your were drunk posting.
I know I can be a jerk. But I try to attack ideas, not people.
So, in the future, focus on thoughts, not people. Debate ideas, and don't assume people have some secret agenda against you.
Because they don't. You don't matter enough, not here. No person matters as a person. So argue, debate, slam or whatever, but take none of it personally.
I don't.
I hope you regain your equilibrium. And I hope we can discuss basketball without all the other unncessary undercurrents. Peace and love to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:31 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
To state the obvious: Time to lock this one up. This just went from mildly amusing to ugly. Nothing good is going to come from this thread.

I'd rather not lock it up. What's wrong with a little heated discussion over a controversial topic? It's a way to learn and IMO a great feature about public forum. I don't mind if it gets awkward or heated at times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:44 am    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
To state the obvious: Time to lock this one up. This just went from mildly amusing to ugly. Nothing good is going to come from this thread.

I'd rather not lock it up. What's wrong with a little heated discussion over a controversial topic? It's a way to learn and IMO a great feature about public forum. I don't mind if it gets awkward or heated at times.


I think part of the issue is that analytics aren't really controversial. There might be components of it that are, and the degree to which it is leaned on is certainly debatable, but the fact that numbers and measurements have any value at all?

It's just a pointless argument. It's like arguing whether the mathematics of 2 + 2 = 4 is based on a faulty premise/assumption called the number system. We're beyond that at this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:12 am    Post subject:

Within the actual basketball community, the debate is how to fuse analytics with traditional methods. It's only an either/or debate on message boards and in off the cuff comments from guys like Barkley. As is the case in baseball, analytics is everywhere. It's just a question of how much weight a particular team places on it. There is no "correct" answer to that question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:42 am    Post subject:

One problem is the discussion on a board like this tends to be pretty shallow -- we never even approached anything that was really controversial about the topic itself. And often, after everyone has repeated their position three or four times, someone gets frustrated and starts lashing out at others.

So the problem isn't about debate over the topic. In this case, the problem was a poster charging that others disagreed with him because of racism and jealousy of him and other such ridiculous things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:43 am    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
To state the obvious: Time to lock this one up. This just went from mildly amusing to ugly. Nothing good is going to come from this thread.

I'd rather not lock it up. What's wrong with a little heated discussion over a controversial topic? It's a way to learn and IMO a great feature about public forum. I don't mind if it gets awkward or heated at times.


Controversial? Analytics have been part of the NBA for decades, I am not sure where any controversy comes in.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 13 of 14
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB