K. Pelton: Lakers non believers in advanced stats

[DEEP3CL]

It kills me when these people claim the "mid range" jumper is the least effective shot in basketball. It's pretty idiotic and ignorant to be truthful. I can name HOF players who made their career on nailing the mid range shot. Analytics has nothing to do with where shots are taken on the floor.

These analytic freaks may be able to explain how the advance info plays into team development, but they have NO CLUE whatsoever on how a mid range shot works in basketball. To dumb it down for these clowns....certain shots opens up certain parts of the floor. For players that use a mid range shot, it opens up his ability to keep his defender at bay. So a player who can hit the pull up mid range or can hit it out of an offensive set is a deadly player.

Those guys will never be able to figure that out.

[MAMBAEMD]

I think the utility of advanced stats in the NBA is in it's infancy.
Frankly the notion that teams like the Rockets, Spurs, and Warriors use advanced stats to drive their strategy is a gigantic reach.
I would argue that the type of talent and players they have is what drives their strategy.

[Sedale Threatt]

It kills me when these people claim the "mid range" jumper is the least effective shot in basketball. It's pretty idiotic and ignorant to be truthful. I can name HOF players who made their career on nailing the mid range shot. Analytics has nothing to do with where shots are taken on the floor.

These analytic freaks may be able to explain how the advance info plays into team development, but they have NO CLUE whatsoever on how a mid range shot works in basketball. To dumb it down for these clowns....certain shots opens up certain parts of the floor. For players that use a mid range shot, it opens up his ability to keep his defender at bay. So a player who can hit the pull up mid range or can hit it out of an offensive set is a deadly player.

Those guys will never be able to figure that out.

No, what they've figured out is that 3-point shots provide the same impact, but with the value of an added point at the price of marginally lower percentage, it's way, way more efficient over the long haul. So why waste possessions taking long-range 2s when you could take a few step backs, or spot up deeper, and take basically the same shot with the same impact that's worth an extra point? Not even really all that analytic, just common sense. Doug Moe was talking about it in the 80s more than 20 years before teams starting binging on 3s.

At some point NFL coaches are going to come to a similar conclusion with fourth downs and start going for it at a much higher frequency.

EDIT: NBA teams shot 38 pct in 2012-13 from 16-23 feet, and 36 pct on 3s. This provides an absolutely massive incentive for passing up the former in favor of the latter -- about 32 points per 100 possessions, or the equivalent of shooting 54 pct on 2s. It's not even really arguable -- mid-range Js are a huge waste over the long haul.

[Sedale Threatt]

A pretty good summation of the whole analytics non-debate.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378 ... stats-wave

Ben Alamar, ESPN director of analytics: There are some analysts out there on Twitter and such that actually believe that (the numbers trump everything). There's no way that's true, especially in basketball, where we're nowhere close to solving anything....It's really hard to be involved in the decision-making at an NBA team and really look at your data seriously and think that it is the be-all, end-all of decision making. There are so many dimensions to a player and an organization, to think that the data we have trumps everything else is just ridiculous.

Daryl Morey, Houston GM: If I were to say "former player decision-makers, all they do is talk to a guy and make decisions," that's idiotic. But that's not what they do. Even great former player GMs like Danny Ainge, they watch a lot of games, they talk to players, they look at data, they talk to coaches. Everyone is always factoring in every piece of data, whether that's the games they've watched or the coaches they've talked to, or the drill work they've put them through in a workout....All analytics is, is how do you best take that data and make the best decision for increasing your odds of winning a championship in the NBA?

John Hollinger, Memphis VP: What, now we're just going to ignore scouting? Which nobody has ever said. It's this myth that in order to use new information, you have to discard every other piece of information that came before it. Somehow that's become the argument that gets made, when that's never been anywhere close to the reality.

Anonymous analytics director: We care about numbers a lot more than traditionalists, but the stat guys I know watch a lot more NBA games and film than most basketball guys. Scouts and execs often watch parts of games, then chat away the rest....But I honestly don't know of a traditional basketball person who watches as much NBA action as the analytics guys I respect and/or work with. Stat guys care about using data to get insight, and what you see helps you to make sense of the data. Yes, I watch many games. I also know that humans are quite bad at observing things and are heavily influenced by cognitive biases, and that data is an excellent tool to both overcome those things and to ascertain things that we can't readily see.

Alamar: Well, when [Morey] got Harden, Barkley himself thought that Morey was overpaying for him. Analytics help you identify talent and to project forward who is going to be that superstar. When we drafted Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City, a lot of people said we were dumb....Now he's being talked about as an MVP candidate. The analytics helped that (choice). (SIDE NOTE: Kawhi Leonard, who was far from a can't miss prospect, was identified as a player that could help the Spurs via analytics.)

R.C. Buford, Spurs GM: The people that attack the use of analytics are ignoring the fact that, once you keep score, once you pay people for the amount of points they produce, the amount of rebounds they produce, once you recognize that that's of value, as a comparison tool, then you're recognizing that they are using analytics. They may not want to espouse advanced metrics, but they are keeping score. I don't think analytics is a magic formula; it's an approach.

[Penberthy]

It kills me when these people claim the "mid range" jumper is the least effective shot in basketball. It's pretty idiotic and ignorant to be truthful. I can name HOF players who made their career on nailing the mid range shot. Analytics has nothing to do with where shots are taken on the floor.

These analytic freaks may be able to explain how the advance info plays into team development, but they have NO CLUE whatsoever on how a mid range shot works in basketball. To dumb it down for these clowns....certain shots opens up certain parts of the floor. For players that use a mid range shot, it opens up his ability to keep his defender at bay. So a player who can hit the pull up mid range or can hit it out of an offensive set is a deadly player.

Those guys will never be able to figure that out.

No, what they've figured out is that 3-point shots provide the same impact, but with the value of an added point at the price of marginally lower percentage, it's way, way more efficient over the long haul. So why waste possessions taking long-range 2s when you could take a few step backs, or spot up deeper, and take basically the same shot with the same impact that's worth an extra point? Not even really all that analytic, just common sense. Doug Moe was talking about it in the 80s more than 20 years before teams starting binging on 3s.

At some point NFL coaches are going to come to a similar conclusion with fourth downs and start going for it at a much higher frequency.

EDIT: NBA teams shot 38 pct in 2012-13 from 16-23 feet, and 36 pct on 3s. This provides an absolutely massive incentive for passing up the former in favor of the latter -- about 32 points per 100 possessions, or the equivalent of shooting 54 pct on 2s. It's not even really arguable -- mid-range Js are a huge waste over the long haul.

Agree, the thing is too, the few players in the NBA who can make mid range jumpers these days are the best shooters in the league, meaning they can also make their 3s. So might as well take that step back and get the extra point even if your percentage drops just marginally.

[ALL HAIL]

A pretty good summation of the whole analytics non-debate.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378 ... stats-wave

Ben Alamar, ESPN director of analytics: There are some analysts out there on Twitter and such that actually believe that (the numbers trump everything). There's no way that's true, especially in basketball, where we're nowhere close to solving anything....It's really hard to be involved in the decision-making at an NBA team and really look at your data seriously and think that it is the be-all, end-all of decision making. There are so many dimensions to a player and an organization, to think that the data we have trumps everything else is just ridiculous.

Daryl Morey, Houston GM: If I were to say "former player decision-makers, all they do is talk to a guy and make decisions," that's idiotic. But that's not what they do. Even great former player GMs like Danny Ainge, they watch a lot of games, they talk to players, they look at data, they talk to coaches. Everyone is always factoring in every piece of data, whether that's the games they've watched or the coaches they've talked to, or the drill work they've put them through in a workout....All analytics is, is how do you best take that data and make the best decision for increasing your odds of winning a championship in the NBA?

John Hollinger, Memphis VP: What, now we're just going to ignore scouting? Which nobody has ever said. It's this myth that in order to use new information, you have to discard every other piece of information that came before it. Somehow that's become the argument that gets made, when that's never been anywhere close to the reality.

Anonymous analytics director: We care about numbers a lot more than traditionalists, but the stat guys I know watch a lot more NBA games and film than most basketball guys. Scouts and execs often watch parts of games, then chat away the rest....But I honestly don't know of a traditional basketball person who watches as much NBA action as the analytics guys I respect and/or work with. Stat guys care about using data to get insight, and what you see helps you to make sense of the data. Yes, I watch many games. I also know that humans are quite bad at observing things and are heavily influenced by cognitive biases, and that data is an excellent tool to both overcome those things and to ascertain things that we can't readily see.

Alamar: Well, when [Morey] got Harden, Barkley himself thought that Morey was overpaying for him. Analytics help you identify talent and to project forward who is going to be that superstar. When we drafted Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City, a lot of people said we were dumb....Now he's being talked about as an MVP candidate. The analytics helped that (choice). (SIDE NOTE: Kawhi Leonard, who was far from a can't miss prospect, was identified as a player that could help the Spurs via analytics.)

R.C. Buford, Spurs GM: The people that attack the use of analytics are ignoring the fact that, once you keep score, once you pay people for the amount of points they produce, the amount of rebounds they produce, once you recognize that that's of value, as a comparison tool, then you're recognizing that they are using analytics. They may not want to espouse advanced metrics, but they are keeping score. I don't think analytics is a magic formula; it's an approach.

Good stuff.

The problem in this discussion, like most, is the use of a word -- analytics.

That last Buford quote is the best because it shares the idea that, truth be told, damn near everyone is on an analytics tip--even Buss.

How can you not? In evaluating talent, people who do the job, like the ones you outlined, understand the balance of numbers, watching, and following your gut.

At least 51% of those on basketball forums who profess to the importance of analytics don't really understand that balance, and, quite honestly, without recognition of that missing balance, they don't truly understand the real, practical applications of the numbers they swear by.

Most, not all, but definitely most, novice "analyticists" are just that--novices. I call them armchair scientists because they think having a cursory understanding of the manner in which advanced metrics are calculated trumps the other elements of evaluation, that quickly running to share a player's TS% or defensive tracking numbers over another player, alone, proves superiority.

[Sedale Threatt]

I try to use everything collectively. One of the guys said that using PER or win shares or whatever in a vaccuum is kind of useless -- and I've been guilty of that. More than anything you try to throw things together to give you a broader picture.

The frustrating thing is that in baseball, because it's such a static game, you can measure just about everything outside of defense, so they've pretty much gotten it down to a couple of catch-all measures that do tell the story. But in basketball, there's so much stuff that just can't be captured statistically. Or rather, they have all this data now, and the trick is figuring out how to put it to practical purposes. Like one of the things I've seen recently is trying to come up with models, through actual motion capture, that determine what players' defensive assignments are so we can come up with better assessments on that end. That kind of information would be insanely valuable. And while a lot of the stuff we already know -- i.e. Kawhi Leonard is a great option for Leonard -- a lot isn't, like how Chris Paul is apparently a ridiculously good defender, in addition to being maybe the best pure point guard in the game.

All I can say is that, going to Spurs games, they have this small army of MIT types who oversee the computers plugged into their SportVU cameras during the games. They put an absolutely massive value on that information...and yet Pop only picks and chooses, and doesn't even have a computer in his office. Which I think is the true of any successful approach -- you're not completely married to one or the other, but you use every tool at your disposal. Frankly, you're stupid if you don't. Or, in Buss' case, you think you're smart enough to come up with your own proprietary stuff on your own, with minimal help. You have a billion-dollar company; there's no excuse not to use every edge you can.

And as for the nitwits like Barkley, they don't even understand what the debate is, so why bother? Indeed, there IS no debate.

[TyCobb]

I try to use everything collectively. One of the guys said that using PER or win shares or whatever in a vaccuum is kind of useless -- and I've been guilty of that. More than anything you try to throw things together to give you a broader picture.

The frustrating thing is that in baseball, because it's such a static game, you can measure just about everything outside of defense, so they've pretty much gotten it down to a couple of catch-all measures that do tell the story. But in basketball, there's so much stuff that just can't be captured statistically. Or rather, they have all this data now, and the trick is figuring out how to put it to practical purposes. Like one of the things I've seen recently is trying to come up with models, through actual motion capture, that determine what players' defensive assignments are so we can come up with better assessments on that end. That kind of information would be insanely valuable. And while a lot of the stuff we already know -- i.e. Kawhi Leonard is a great option for Leonard -- a lot isn't, like how Chris Paul is apparently a ridiculously good defender, in addition to being maybe the best pure point guard in the game.

Actually, the use of defensive shifts in baseball has had a pretty dramatic effect on runs saved. There's a number of defensive formulas that teams don't allow the public to use or come in contact with. Once you put a number on offensive players' tendencies, the defensive gameplan becomes much more apparent.

[Sedale Threatt]

No, I'm saying that, as far as I know -- and I'm not a baseball fan -- they still have a certain amount of trouble assessing individual defensive ability. Probably still easier than basketball and football, but it's still harder than batting and what not. I could be wrong...

[Slava]

As much as I want us to put the money we get from being the NBA's most profitable franchise to good use, I find the witch hunt from writers and anonymous analytical personnel is rather distasteful at best and downright scandalous at worst. I work in a research facility and the first thing anyone trying to sell us something new tells us is how inefficient our current work is and how awesome we'd be if we bought their product.

This seems like the same train of attack:

"Do the Lakers have analytical personnel?" - May be
"No one I know works for them"
"None of their personnel are widely respected in our community"

I mean is there supposed to be a union for saber-metrics professionals that we need to consult before hiring someone?

This seems like a classical case of someone pressuring the franchise in a rather public manner to hire a team and knowing how small that community of professionals is, I bet they know who they want to sell us too.

[TyCobb]

No, I'm saying that, as far as I know -- and I'm not a baseball fan -- they still have a certain amount of trouble assessing individual defensive ability. Probably still easier than basketball and football, but it's still harder than batting and what not. I could be wrong...

In baseball there are more distinguished defensive zones for each position.

For basketball, it should be pretty easy to tell what's important defensively just by watching; length, athleticism, strength, position versatility, and effort level.

However, team wise the best defense is learning the oppositions offensive tendencies and minimizing their ability to get to their successful spots.

[Mamba Venom]

Advanced stats are a great tool for role players

But Duncan, lebron, dirk, Kobe, kg, shaq, wade Jordan, Hakeem are trump all stats and are the reason for 20 chips.

Gm101 get an all time great by any means necessary and surround him with 2 all-stars and use advanced stats to find role players. Personalities, toughness and work ethic matter too.

[Sedale Threatt]

As much as I want us to put the money we get from being the NBA's most profitable franchise to good use, I find the witch hunt from writers and anonymous analytical personnel is rather distasteful at best and downright scandalous at worst. I work in a research facility and the first thing anyone trying to sell us something new tells us is how inefficient our current work is and how awesome we'd be if we bought their product.

This seems like the same train of attack:

"Do the Lakers have analytical personnel?" - May be
"No one I know works for them"
"None of their personnel are widely respected in our community"

I mean is there supposed to be a union for saber-metrics professionals that we need to consult before hiring someone?

This seems like a classical case of someone pressuring the franchise in a rather public manner to hire a team and knowing how small that community of professionals is, I bet they know who they want to sell us too.

Some good points, but I think it's fairly clear, based on the amount and substance of the adherents, that "analytics" -- whatever this actually means, because it's still an extremely vague term -- has moved well beyond the kind of snake-oil salesmanship you're describing here. I expect it to continue to evolve and shift over the years, and I have no idea what that will look like. But I feel fairly certain that the quest for more and more specialized data, relating to everything from defensive tactics to salary decisions to injury prevention, is here to stay. With so much money at stake, how could it not?

I for one like that because I feel like it helps me understand the game I love and follow, not just personally but professionally, on a deeper level. I trusts the insights of adherents like, say, Zach Lowe or RC Buford far more than I do a blowhard like Charles Barkley who doesn't even really understand what he's blustering about.

As for the rest, I do agree. We actually don't know what's going on inside the Lakers organizations, and there are lots of axes to grind. Personally, I'm not filled with a lot of confidence that we're being led by a guy who reportedly gutted our scouting department and, again reportedly, thinks he's smart enough to come up with his own statistical models rather hiring people who have an actual expertise in that area. But I fully and absolutely recognize that I'm pretty biased on the subject because, based on what I've seen and read, I just don't like or respect the guy. I think he's an unqualified rich kid who was handed the keys to a kingdom because of who he is, not what he is. Time will tell...

[Sedale Threatt]

Personalities, toughness and work ethic matter too.

And nobody is saying otherwise. If you read some of those quotes, these guys fully recognize that there are things we'll never be able to know strictly through stats. It needs to be a multi-faceted approach, and "analytics" needs to be one of those facets or you're voluntarily sacrificing a potential edge.

[Slava]

As much as I want us to put the money we get from being the NBA's most profitable franchise to good use, I find the witch hunt from writers and anonymous analytical personnel is rather distasteful at best and downright scandalous at worst. I work in a research facility and the first thing anyone trying to sell us something new tells us is how inefficient our current work is and how awesome we'd be if we bought their product.

This seems like the same train of attack:

"Do the Lakers have analytical personnel?" - May be
"No one I know works for them"
"None of their personnel are widely respected in our community"

I mean is there supposed to be a union for saber-metrics professionals that we need to consult before hiring someone?

This seems like a classical case of someone pressuring the franchise in a rather public manner to hire a team and knowing how small that community of professionals is, I bet they know who they want to sell us too.

Some good points, but I think it's fairly clear, based on the amount and substance of the adherents, that "analytics" -- whatever this actually means, because it's still an extremely vague term -- has moved well beyond the kind of snake-oil salesmanship you're describing here. I expect it to continue to evolve and shift over the years, and I have no idea what that will look like. But I feel fairly certain that the quest for more and more specialized data, relating to everything from defensive tactics to salary decisions to injury prevention, is here to stay. With so much money at stake, how could it not?

I for one like that because I feel like it helps me understand the game I love and follow, not just personally but professionally, on a deeper level. I trusts the insights of adherents like, say, Zach Lowe or RC Buford far more than I do a blowhard like Charles Barkley who doesn't even really understand what he's blustering about.

As for the rest, I do agree. We actually don't know what's going on inside the Lakers organizations, and there are lots of axes to grind. Personally, I'm not filled with a lot of confidence that we're being led by a guy who reportedly gutted our scouting department and, again reportedly, thinks he's smart enough to come up with his own statistical models rather hiring people who have an actual expertise in that area. But I fully and absolutely recognize that I'm pretty biased on the subject because, based on what I've seen and read, I just don't like or respect the guy. I think he's an unqualified rich kid who was handed the keys to a kingdom because of who he is, not what he is. Time will tell...

Oh sure I use enough data science at work to know how effective it is and I understand and respect the message but it's the messengers that make me question their motivation.

Does ESPN have anything to gain from planting a few of it's ex-employees into a notoriously secretive organization?

Do anyone from ESPN have a vested financial interest in sportsVU?

One cannot underestimate that.

[Sedale Threatt]

As much as I want us to put the money we get from being the NBA's most profitable franchise to good use, I find the witch hunt from writers and anonymous analytical personnel is rather distasteful at best and downright scandalous at worst. I work in a research facility and the first thing anyone trying to sell us something new tells us is how inefficient our current work is and how awesome we'd be if we bought their product.

This seems like the same train of attack:

"Do the Lakers have analytical personnel?" - May be
"No one I know works for them"
"None of their personnel are widely respected in our community"

I mean is there supposed to be a union for saber-metrics professionals that we need to consult before hiring someone?

This seems like a classical case of someone pressuring the franchise in a rather public manner to hire a team and knowing how small that community of professionals is, I bet they know who they want to sell us too.

Some good points, but I think it's fairly clear, based on the amount and substance of the adherents, that "analytics" -- whatever this actually means, because it's still an extremely vague term -- has moved well beyond the kind of snake-oil salesmanship you're describing here. I expect it to continue to evolve and shift over the years, and I have no idea what that will look like. But I feel fairly certain that the quest for more and more specialized data, relating to everything from defensive tactics to salary decisions to injury prevention, is here to stay. With so much money at stake, how could it not?

I for one like that because I feel like it helps me understand the game I love and follow, not just personally but professionally, on a deeper level. I trusts the insights of adherents like, say, Zach Lowe or RC Buford far more than I do a blowhard like Charles Barkley who doesn't even really understand what he's blustering about.

As for the rest, I do agree. We actually don't know what's going on inside the Lakers organizations, and there are lots of axes to grind. Personally, I'm not filled with a lot of confidence that we're being led by a guy who reportedly gutted our scouting department and, again reportedly, thinks he's smart enough to come up with his own statistical models rather hiring people who have an actual expertise in that area. But I fully and absolutely recognize that I'm pretty biased on the subject because, based on what I've seen and read, I just don't like or respect the guy. I think he's an unqualified rich kid who was handed the keys to a kingdom because of who he is, not what he is. Time will tell...

Oh sure I use enough data science at work to know how effective it is and I understand and respect the message but it's the messengers that make me question their motivation.

Does ESPN have anything to gain from planting a few of it's ex-employees into a notoriously secretive organization?

Do anyone from ESPN have a vested financial interest in sportsVU?

One cannot underestimate that.

I think it's probably better to take this stuff at face value. Like I said, the sheer size and obvious impact of this movement should be able to take us past flimsy, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. I mean, there are way more "messengers" than just the big, bad media. The reality is pretty simple: This basically stems from the grassroots movement that started 20-some years ago with baseball. It was bound to spread to other sports.

[crazyeights]

I don't take what Slava's saying as conspiracy theory so much as human nature. This is sort of OT, but it does have to do with ESPN's bullying nature:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7_Mc6Ag_k[/youtube]

To me this sort of video is indicative of ESPN and their various TrueHoops/Grantlands networks. These writers are drunk with power haha this Amin dude acts like he's part of ISIS or something the way he gloats about his writer buddy "taking down" Rick Carlisle--who is a freaking basketball coach and shouldn't discuss those sort of details in public.

IDK, was it always this way? There's this arrogance with the sports media like they're owed every single thing about a team. Personally, I find it tabloid and I want to let a team be a team. I don't need to know every little detail.

To me it's the same group of guys, the same saber metric mafiosos who bully players, coaches, and teams as if they're reliving high school. It's on that note that I unfortunately agree with Barkley....

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't take what Slava's saying as conspiracy theory so much as human nature. This is sort of OT, but it does have to do with ESPN's bullying nature:

To me this sort of video is indicative of ESPN and their various TrueHoops/Grantlands networks. These writers are drunk with power haha this Amin dude acts like he's part of ISIS or something the way he gloats about his writer buddy "taking down" Rick Carlisle--who is a freaking basketball coach and shouldn't discuss those sort of details in public.

IDK, was it always this way? There's this arrogance with the sports media like they're owed every single thing about a team. Personally, I find it tabloid and I want to let a team be a team. I don't need to know every little detail.

To me it's the same group of guys, the same saber metric mafiosos who bully players, coaches, and teams as if they're reliving high school. It's on that note that I unfortunately agree with Barkley....

But what does that video have to do with "analytics"? These "saber metric mafiosos" are a small part of the overall picture, of which people seem to be missing the obvious point -- this initiative isn't media-driven. "Analytics" have been adopted by pretty much every NBA team on some level, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, because it very probably could help them achieve their goal of having success on the basketball court.

So I really don't see how the ESPN boogeyman applies here. Barkley raging about "analytics" is pointless, because they're here to stay. That ship has launched and is well out of the harbor. The league as a whole is jumping in head first, just as baseball did a decade ago, so harping on Big Media is missing the forest for the trees.

Let's talk about Barkley as an analyst -- he flat-out sucks. It's obvious he doesn't do any homework, and he just spouts a bunch of tired axioms of which the majority aren't even true anymore. "Jump shooting teams don't win championships, etc." Shaq is even worse. "Teams that rely on tactics are soft" is an actual thing that came out of his mouth the other night when the Spurs were intentionally fouling Jordan. (Think about that one for a second.) And I'm supposed to give them automatic respect just because they played? F that. I give them about as much, in terms of analytic ability, as I do Skip Bayless or Stephen A. Smith, which is none. (This dude you posted would seem to fall in this category.)

I am much more interested in the observations of guys like Lowe or Haberstroh or Pelton who are trying to figure out what's actually happening on the court, and putting in the necessary work. Just as I have reverential respect for coaches and SOME players and color guys like Hubie Brown and Doug Collins because I know they're doing work, instead of riding their personalities and pulling stuff out of their ass like Chuck and Shaq. It doesn't matter to me if you played or not. This isn't brain surgery or rocket science. If you do your work and you know your stuff, I am interested in what you have to say. And there are more than enough writers who use these newer tools effectively as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, if you do want to talk about the media and its role in this whole "debate", I read a fairly fascinating article on that today. (Sorry, from Grantland. The link keeps f'ing up but it's titled Moneyball II: Charles Barkley, the Sports Media, and the Second Statistical War)

An excerpt:

Barkley belongs to an interesting demographic: players who were rewarded by one set of statistics during their careers, but who lived long enough to see (and then confront as TV panelists) the rise of a different set. They are the Jack Morris generation: witnesses to their own reevaluation.

“I have a lot of experience with guys in his position,” said MLB Network’s Brian Kenny. “They were exceedingly productive players in the ’80s and ’90s. They had success in the game. They understood the game. Their views were validated every stop along the way, in playing and broadcasting. Now, there’s this new wave of people telling them to learn a new language, and there’s bound to be some resistance.”

Barkley’s problem with reporters isn’t that they’re using the wrong tools. It’s that they’re reporters.

And more:

One thing that’s hard for sportswriters to understand is that writing an article is by its nature an aggressive act. Every time we write, we are claiming a piece of the game for ourselves: I understand this in a way that you, the athlete, do not. This is no less true of the guy who uses sabermetrics than it was of the guy who sat in a drafty press box, pulled Camels out of his wide-lapelled sports coat, and used two fingers to peck away on his Underwood.

This is honest work. Even noble, in a certain light. But it’s also part of a power struggle. And using numbers to say someone ought to be unemployed doesn’t make the news go down any easier. “If anything, it’s tougher when someone does it with numbers, because it has at least a patina of objectivity,” said Neyer. The writer insists it’s not personal, but the athlete sees it as highly personal.

Basically, nothing is ever going to change on that front. Ever since guys starting playing sports for money in front of a paying crowd, reporters have always been intrusive, they have always been aggressive, they have always been critical and there is nothing that will change the resentment that breeds from the guys who are out in the arena. Hence the "nerds who couldn't get chicks in high school" insults. Reporters ask those kinds of questions we saw being posed to Carlisle because sometimes you'll get answers -- Phil would talk about stuff all the time -- and a sizable portion of the audience will eat it up with a spoon and demand more.

But, again, the key point is that this thing isn't happening because of writers. These are GMs, front office executives, coaches, even some players -- like Manu Ginobili and Shane Battier -- who see the incredible value in deep statistical study and are adopting them on a broader level than ever before. So while I do agree that there's a huge media element to the criticism, it in no way diminishes the validity of the measures that are being implemented.

Joe Morgan was raging against this stuff in baseball for years, and he came across as a complete dumb ass in the process. Barkley's now filling the same role in basketball.

[crazyeights]

Sedale, bear with me here, man, I'm not disagreeing with you about the value of analytics. In fact I +1'd one of your first posts on it here.

My point was pretty simple: ESPN is very, very agenda driven. It's not even a conspiracy as much as they have talking points like any other network and they try to hit them hard.

An obvious talking point of theirs is the narrative that the Lakers are a fading franchise, their star, Kobe's body has failed him after years of overuse (read: chucking), their golden king owner had passed succeeding power to his underserving, incompetent son and his business savvy daughter. Throw in a love triangle (see what I did there? and technically it can be familial love or obligation) for Shakespearean drama and you're there.

So that was their premise. And as far as the talking points:

The Lakers are old, irrelevant, misguided, and stuck in their ways.

To say these talking point aren’t pervasive and haven't reached critical mass this season is wrong. You see it from their national/local radio programming, flagship show, and spearheaded with particular zeal by their affiliate blogs.

So I'd that's true then you have to ask yourself why? Why can't the Lakers simply rebuild? Why are they trashing us nonstop more then they are simply praising the winning teams?

At a certain point it seems personal. And it is for these analysts--these guys are Laker haters. They loathe Kobe Bryant and the team he's kept in relevance. We're at a tipping point and they're going for blood with potshots about analytics and hit pieces that are in no way journalism.

The video I posted is to illustrate just who we are dealing with here. And yes you can say the True Hoop guys are a small vocal minority and be absolutely correct.

However, to say they don't have an agenda as you inferred in the post I was responding to I think it’s fair to look at the evidence of these “journalists” and take a look at their motives. They don’t seem to be benevolent to me. They’re not trying to help the Lakers find their way. They’re trying to take them down. Slava suggested they have something to gain, beyond simple Laker hate, which to me makes sense because the Lakers are such a popular franchise, that I bet as a whole it isn’t good for business (ESPN or NBA) that so many people around the country who don’t even live in Los Angeles, their favorite team is the Lakers, rather than the team a half state away, because when the Lakers are this bad, it doesn’t bode well.

Maybe that’s off-base, and really it’s not on me to know. I pointed out, though, something that was admittedly off-topic (you know what OT stands for, right?). I said it was human behavior to be tribal.

You and I don’t disagree on analytics. I do think there are different issues here. ESPN’s affiliated analysts dislike the Lakers so they use any means necessary to delegitimize them. It has a personal flavor to it, which is why I brought up that I agree with Barkley: some of the most vocal proponents of analytics just happen to be these wesley guys who have a zeal in ragging on the old guard. Barkley is being defensive, but I actually agree the way guys like in the video and specifically ESPN act are like high school kids who were bullied and now turning the tables. There’s something very distasteful about it all.

Again, this was a post replying to the fact that it’s not a conspiracy. I said it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy, it can simply be human nature, and the unfortunate direction sports journalism and journalism in general is going.

(Note: With ernest respect--I didn’t read any of your post about Charles Barkley.

I brought him in to suggest the one aspect of his quote on analytics: a lot of the messengers here with advanced stats are guys who seem desperate to have power, and now they have the numbers (in amounts of people.)

It’s a mob mentality. TBH, I don’t care about Barkley, he’s a craggily old blowhard who occasionally hits the nail on the head. Regardless, he used to be funnier.

My point was never about analytics, or their value. I totally agree that we should invest heavily in them and that they are a tool and not an end all, and that very few proponents of them seem to think they are an end all—it is a sort of straw man argument, however I can also see that some of the sports writer advanced stats guys seem to be so overzealous about selling them, they act like they are the end all.

These are separate issues, man. I get that. As I said, slightly OT. And still not a conspiracy theory. I don’t usually take to those. I do take to simple observations to human behavior, which I think Barkley attempted.)

[dockingsched]

Here's a good article on a possible use of advanced analytics other than finding that diamond in the rough or avoiding the mid range shot which some people seem to think is all that the information you can get.

This piece talks about how the dodgers are hoping to use advanced analytics to better help them with injury prevention.

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/dodgers-652520-pitchers-john.html

While the Dodgers won’t go into specific details, it seems they’re intent on extending the sport's analytics revolution to a new branch. They’re trying to gain an edge on other teams by using enhanced data both to better gauge the risk of signing an oft-injured player and to increase the efficacy of preventative steps taken to decrease the frequency of injuries.

“As we are going through available players, we find requisite upside, and we dig into their medical histories to see if it’s a fool’s errand or not,” Friedman said this week. “We appreciate the risk and appreciate the upside.”

“I would contend,” Friedman said, “that any kind of advantage in injury prevention is significant.”

That’s where they’ll turn to biomechanics – physics, as it relates to how humans move.

Friedman brought in biomechanics consultant Brent Pourciau this spring to analyze video of Dodger pitchers and suggest small optimizations to their deliveries.

Pourciau gained popularity as an Internet-based coach for amateur pitchers, then grew his Top Velocity brand to work with recent draft choices, and, this last offseason, Aardsma and Barry Zito. He even consulted for an MLB team last season – Friedman’s Tampa Bay Rays.

In the original article by Pelton he mentioned how the Spurs also use advanced analytics for the purpouse of injury prevention.