RealGM

Something I see on this board from time to time is someone laying some statistic on us as "proof" that one player is better than another. The problem, as I see it, is that it is always a selective statistic from a selected moment which backs up the poster's poiint of view. I believe it needs to be pointed out, from time to time, how those statistics are fickle and do not always (or ever) prove anything.

Here is my example for the moment ...

The Sixers game against the Hornets on January 26, 2008.

The vaunted +/- statistic ....

Thad Young has -8, Reggie Evans has + 12
Therefore, Evans is better than Young

Jason Smith has +12, Sam Dalembert has -7
Smith better than Dalembert

Jason Richardson, who had 35 points and was 7 of 11 from 3 pt line,
had -10.

So, the next time it occurs to you to present us with this +/- statistic as "proof" of something .... think again ... please ...

BTW ... I am doing the exact same thing to "prove" my point.

Silly , isn't it ? LOL ....

The vaunted +/- statistic ....

Most people who actually believe in sabermetrics don't believe in +/- to be a definitive stat used directly in comparisons between player. They put even less stock a single game's plus minus. All you've really done here is not proved your point, but proved your limited understanding of the stat and use of it.

Furthermore, you severely contradict yourself. First, you say people use it as "proof". You then go on to say "which backs up the poster's poiint of view". Those are very different uses of statistics. Statistics, if used correctly, which the correct stat, in the correct situation, can be a supportive argument. Supportive, not proof. All you've "proven" in this over simplistic example is a lack of understanding (and willingness to understand) basketball sabermetrics.

BTW, the "vaunted +/- statistic". Why do you think it made it's way onto nba boxscores this year (both nba.com and yahoo)? I'll give you a hint. It's not because it's worthless, because it's silly, or because it's always wrong. It's because the nba has been keeping track of it for years, as has every team in the league themselves, and demand from the public perspective has finally caught up (the timberwolves have been offering it for years). It's only worthless when incorrectly applied, as you have today. Corrective use of statistics is most certainly more scientific and accurate than the arm chair psychologist you have become. "Iguodala played better because cheeks sat him down and had a chat with him and got him focused". Oh really? And you know THAT is 100% accurate? Please.

If you would actually like to learn and understand the use of sabermetrics in basketball (which I don't think you do), this site is an invaluable resource with some very smart individuals.
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/

LOL basketball "sabermetrics." Boy oh boy I bet Charles Barkley is rolling over in his grave at that word.

Anything over just 1 game is not going to be very valid. Wow.

People who try and do stuff like this aren't worth taking seriously. If you're going to do this at least figure out how to do it properly.

+/- in the grand scheme of things isn't really used as "proof" by anyone with any kind of sense. it can back something you say up, maybe, but even then there are better stats to do that with than +/-.

As with anything else, its usually the poster and not the numbers that are the problem. Its easy to misuse or misinterpret numbers. That doesn't make them inherently flawed.

Numbers can help disprove conventional wisdom. Like when Salmi praises Sam's jumper- which he shoots at a lousy 38%.

Sounds like a way for people to think that LouWill is actually better then Willie Green.

When in reality Green is the most underrated and Williams is the most overrated.

Give me the guy who will make 45%-48% of his shots and doesn't get to the line as often to a guy who will make 36%-38% of his shots but can get to the line. What good is getting to the line if you can only make 70%-76% of his foul shots?

Not popular but it is the truth.

PhillyRocks1 wrote:Sounds like a way for people to think that LouWill is actually better then Willie Green.

When in reality Green is the most underrated and Williams is the most overrated.

Give me the guy who will make 45%-48% of his shots and doesn't get to the line as often to a guy who will make 36%-38% of his shots but can get to the line. What good is getting to the line if you can only make 70%-76% of his foul shots?

Not popular but it is the truth.

You would rather have willie green on your team than lou. Wow you could be the only one.

Grenerd686 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




You would rather have willie green on your team than lou. Wow you could be the only one.

Yeah I have to admit. I rather have the better player. Problem is that nobody wants to eat crow and admit it. Facts are facts and it's kind of hard to ignore them.

SendEm wrote:LOL basketball "sabermetrics." Boy oh boy I bet Charles Barkley is rolling over in his grave at that word.

What the hell is Charles Barkley doing in a grave?

youngcrev wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



What the hell is Charles Barkley doing in a grave?

rolling over

PhillyRocks1 wrote:Sounds like a way for people to think that LouWill is actually better then Willie Green.

When in reality Green is the most underrated and Williams is the most overrated.

Give me the guy who will make 45%-48% of his shots and doesn't get to the line as often to a guy who will make 36%-38% of his shots but can get to the line. What good is getting to the line if you can only make 70%-76% of his foul shots?

Not popular but it is the truth.

Green has a higher +/- than Louis.

Please don't try and take threads off topic for no apparent reason, thanks.

Green started this year playing like crap- and was one of the worse +/- player on the team after the first few weeks.

Green really turned his game around in the last month. He has played much more under control and dribbled less before taking jumpers. His rise in +/- has paralleled this improved play. In his case the numbers support his improved play.

Willie's FG% (up) and FGA/min (down) both support his improved play.

He still is not a legit NBA starter, but he no longer kills the team with his play- and the number support this. I'm sure he still is one of the least efficient scorers in the league- but those numbers have probably improved a bit too.

Nothing wrong with pointing to numbers to support what you see on the floor.

Sixerscan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Green has a higher +/- than Louis.

Please don't try and take threads off topic for no apparent reason, thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you made the decision what was on topic and what was off topic. I thought the thread title was "Statistics-not always valid proof". My bad. I didn't realize we could only talk about +/-, i'll know better next time.

PhillyRocks1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you made the decision what was on topic and what was off topic. I thought the thread title was "Statistics-not always valid proof". My bad. I didn't realize we could only talk about +/-, i'll know better next time.

Well, uh, that's kind of what a mod does.

I was more talking about how you began beating that "Green>Williams" drum that you've had for the past 2-3 months without provocation.

Give me the guy who will make 45%-48% of his shots and doesn't get to the line

That's nice.

Now who on our team's shooting 45-48%? Clearly not green, who's shooting 43% for the year, and 40% for his career.

youngcrev wrote:What the hell is Charles Barkley doing in a grave?

Nice to see someone is paying attention ... LOL ...

dbodner wrote:

"Iguodala played better because cheeks sat him down and had a chat with him and got him focused". Oh really? And you know THAT is 100% accurate? Please.
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/

Merely commenting on what I read ...


http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/six ... _did_.html

Sorry if I upset you ...

Just pointing out the fallacies in your argument.

But hey, if you read it, it must be true

Mo should tell them to win more basketball games. Bad coaching on his part not thinking of that.

dbodner wrote:Just pointing out the fallacies in your argument.

Well, great ... thank you for that. I've noticed that is one of your strengths and (I might add) something we need more of on this forum.