Least compelling argument for or against advanced stats?

[Witzig-Okashi]

While watching the Grantland special on the Bad Boys on ESPN yesterday, I recall hearing Jalen Rose speaking out on the overuse of stats (advanced stats, presumably, but you couldn't tell with the example he used), with his hypothetical example of Kyrie Irving becoming the all-time assist leader in NBA history, and the people of the next generation could be led to believe that he would be better than both Magic and Oscar.

My problem with that is nobody (or at least most people), whether they are for or against advanced statistics, uses them w/o some form of context. Of course anybody can be prone to doing so, but nobody thought that Jason Kidd and Steve Nash were worse point guards than Mark Jackson until they passed him in the all-time assists list. And most people would not think of Irving being better than Oscar or Magic if Irving hypothetically passed the latter two (which seems unlikely giving his playing style; I think Rondo or even Paul would be a better comparison, but that's another issue in itself).

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Rose was disingenuous with his argument, and did nothing more but foster more ignorance between some those who favor the "eye test" and those who favor "stats" (esp. advanced stats).

Has anybody encountered a worse argument for the favor or disfavor of advance statistics becoming more commonplace in the league? I'm very much under the impression that there are worse, and I would like to hear them. (Hopefully this won't get too out of hand....)

[JNelson43]

The least compelling argument against advanced stats to me is the assertion that the stats guys "don't watch the games". It misses the point of advanced stats, its irrelevant, and its not even true.

Not that there are many good arguments against advanced stats themselves. In my mind, the best argument "against" advanced stats is that people misuse them in order to advance their own favorite narrative... but that's just sports fans in general, not the stats themselves. Sometimes number guys do make claims that are too grand based off their favorite models, but again that's just misusing the numbers. And people misusing numbers is not a good reason not to have them at all.

[bondom34]

The least compelling argument against advanced stats to me is the assertion that the stats guys "don't watch the games". It misses the point of advanced stats, its irrelevant, and its not even true.

Not that there are many good arguments against advanced stats themselves. In my mind, the best argument "against" advanced stats is that people misuse them in order to advance their own favorite narrative... but that's just sports fans in general, not the stats themselves. Sometimes number guys do make claims that are too grand based off their favorite models, but again that's just misusing the numbers. And people misusing numbers is not a good reason not to have them at all.

This. Every word of it.

And also, Jalen's point was poorly made. Noone (advanced stats or not) would make that arguement for Irving. If you're going to argue against stats using stats, make sure you're at least right. Leaders in assists per game this season: Paul, Rondo, Lawson

Assist % (minimum 900 minutes): Paul, Rondo, Kendall Marshall

So it was not only a poor argument, but also poorly made.

[VanDamme]

Rudy Gay.

Edit: Can't find link for the video.

[denimourson]

Can you post the link and time stamp where Jalen was talking about that? As I watch Grantland as well and the example he gave is

1. Melo shooting with only 4 seconds on clock speaking to the way the offense is run or guys just standing around.
2. If Kyrie and Aldridge were on the same teams instead of Lillard he would have more assists than he does currently with the Cavs.

[snomeister]

Jalen Rose clearly doesn't understand advanced stats. That's why he is against them.

[Prokorov]

I think the biggest knock against advanced stats as that it doesnt really measure a players ability to put his stamp on a game and dictate how it is played. I think guys like barkley in his MVP season, shaq during his prime, and Jason Kidd during his nets finals run... their advanced stats(while still great) dont come near measuring their impacts on the game and how they dominated the pace flow and changed what others were doing. That season barkley was the best player on the floor. everyone knew it, and he dominated how the games where played. Same with kidd in 2001. you played the nets and you were playing it the way kidd wanted.

My other issue with advanced stats is that they are so easily misused, not matched with the proper context, and people will just find the ones that work and apply them.... and that scoring efficency has become some standard of who is good and who is not.

Last year brook lopez was like 4th in the NBA in PER. he had nowhere near that kind of impact on the floor. he did not come close to having a lebron/chris paul/durant type impact offensively or scoring wise. Yet in 15 years people will look at his PER and TS% and put him up there with great bigman scorers

[Keller61]

I think you have to treat advanced stats (and all stats, for that matter) as guidelines, not rules, for determining how good players are. When you're comparing two players, there's always going to be circumstantial reasons why certain stats might be biased towards one of them, such as quality of teammates, role on the team, etc.

[Witzig-Okashi]

Can you post the link and time stamp where Jalen was talking about that? As I watch Grantland as well and the example he gave is

1. Melo shooting with only 4 seconds on clock speaking to the way the offense is run or guys just standing around.
2. If Kyrie and Aldridge were on the same teams instead of Lillard he would have more assists than he does currently with the Cavs.

Rudy Gay.

Edit: Can't find link for the video.

I couldn't find the link either. I'm sure some clip, if not the whole show will be on YouTube and posted for about two weeks before it's deleted

[Witzig-Okashi]

I think the biggest knock against advanced stats as that it doesnt really measure a players ability to put his stamp on a game and dictate how it is played. I think guys like barkley in his MVP season, shaq during his prime, and Jason Kidd during his nets finals run... their advanced stats(while still great) dont come near measuring their impacts on the game and how they dominated the pace flow and changed what others were doing. That season barkley was the best player on the floor. everyone knew it, and he dominated how the games where played. Same with kidd in 2001. you played the nets and you were playing it the way kidd wanted.

My other issue with advanced stats is that they are so easily misused, not matched with the proper context, and people will just find the ones that work and apply them.... and that scoring efficency has become some standard of who is good and who is not.

Last year brook lopez was like 4th in the NBA in PER. he had nowhere near that kind of impact on the floor. he did not come close to having a lebron/chris paul/durant type impact offensively or scoring wise. Yet in 15 years people will look at his PER and TS% and put him up there with great bigman scorers

I'm generally wary of PER. I use to be fully against it, but I've come to see it's purposed. I truly don't think of it as an advanced stat compared to something like RAPM.

But I essentially agree with most of what you said.

[Prokorov]

I think the biggest knock against advanced stats as that it doesnt really measure a players ability to put his stamp on a game and dictate how it is played. I think guys like barkley in his MVP season, shaq during his prime, and Jason Kidd during his nets finals run... their advanced stats(while still great) dont come near measuring their impacts on the game and how they dominated the pace flow and changed what others were doing. That season barkley was the best player on the floor. everyone knew it, and he dominated how the games where played. Same with kidd in 2001. you played the nets and you were playing it the way kidd wanted.

My other issue with advanced stats is that they are so easily misused, not matched with the proper context, and people will just find the ones that work and apply them.... and that scoring efficency has become some standard of who is good and who is not.

Last year brook lopez was like 4th in the NBA in PER. he had nowhere near that kind of impact on the floor. he did not come close to having a lebron/chris paul/durant type impact offensively or scoring wise. Yet in 15 years people will look at his PER and TS% and put him up there with great bigman scorers

I'm generally wary of PER. I use to be fully against it, but I've come to see it's purposed. I truly don't think of it as an advanced stat compared to something like RAPM.

But I essentially agree with most of what you said.

im not against PER, or advanced stats... was more just responding to what some of the flaws i see are that the OP asked about.

[jax98]

I agree that the least compelling argument is the "these guys don't watch games" BS. Totally agree. I find that argument rather offensive to be honest. It belittles everyone who likes advanced metrics, including those who knows how to combine them with the eye-test.

The most compelling argument, however, is the fact that stats guys tend to forget chemistry and the human element. This has happened some over the past few years, where some stat guys (not all, far from it) are kind of looking at the NBA as it's the MLB, maybe forgetting about the fact that you have five guys all in motion out there at the same time.

The NBA is rather unique in that sense. Advanced metrics are used to advance the game, and it's working, but at the same time, you just get soooo much additional non-stats data from analyzing body language, chemistry, how much time they've spent together, etc.

To really maximize ones understanding of the NBA, you need to be able to know when to ignore the metrics and when to use them in large quantities. Combining advanced stats and the eye-test is the best way to get a firm picture/idea of what's happening. And that can be difficult for a lot of people, especially those who are emotionally invested.

[sp6r=underrated]

The best argument against advanced stats is that they are frequently misused. A lot of people who look at this stuff find one advanced stat that they think is methodologically sound and make that stat almost the entirety of their analysis. I think the PC board has done that with RAPM.

[AttitudeAjusta]

I think the biggest knock against advanced stats as that it doesnt really measure a players ability to put his stamp on a game and dictate how it is played. I think guys like barkley in his MVP season, shaq during his prime, and Jason Kidd during his nets finals run... their advanced stats(while still great) dont come near measuring their impacts on the game and how they dominated the pace flow and changed what others were doing. That season barkley was the best player on the floor. everyone knew it, and he dominated how the games where played. Same with kidd in 2001. you played the nets and you were playing it the way kidd wanted.

My other issue with advanced stats is that they are so easily misused, not matched with the proper context, and people will just find the ones that work and apply them.... and that scoring efficency has become some standard of who is good and who is not.

Last year brook lopez was like 4th in the NBA in PER. he had nowhere near that kind of impact on the floor. he did not come close to having a lebron/chris paul/durant type impact offensively or scoring wise. Yet in 15 years people will look at his PER and TS% and put him up there with great bigman scorers

Couldn't agree with this more.

-Did he hustle/work/box out/jump for the rebound VS did the ball just kinda bounce out to him?

-Were those wide open/screen set shots VS were they creating and fighting/guarded shots?

-Was it a real set-up assist VS did he just pass the ball to the closest teammate and they had no choice but to shoot the ball?

(Just to list a few "discrepancies"" that I feel are not necessarily important enough to have its own stat column, but important enough to not ignore.)

Although the way our stats & metrics systems are set in the sport are top level and very accurate, I feel that there are enough of these discrepancies scattered all throughout the game, that it throws off and/or creates small, but noticeable inaccuracies in some of our advanced stats.

Therefor, it is still important to base any analysis off of both the eye test and numbers test.

I really like a balance of stats, and watching the games about equally, but for any person to base their arguments only off of advanced stats leaves plenty room for error.

I'm sure there's an advanced stat for that

[RealRapsFan]

Least Compelling argument against advanced stats - "It doesn't match up with, or needs to match up with, the eye test"

Why science works is because we as humans are bias and that bias influences us, and influences us all differently. Because a stat says X, and you or I don't think a player is worth X or comparitively should be worth X, doesn't mean the stat is in err. Yet it seems to be the single most common response.

Mixing objectivity with subjectivity is an incredibly dangerous practice. Its like saying the best type of science is science that factors in perception. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to attempt to eliminate perception (or atleast as much as reasonably possible) from our equation.



Least Compelling argument for advanced stats:

I don't have a least compelling argument for advanced stats per se, but rather people not taking the time to continually evolve their understanding of a stat or stats in general. In my experience, some of the most blind individuals come from the stats community... those who willingly try to tear down other people stats or understanding of stats (good thing), but refuse to do that with their own or acknowledge others (or simply attack others) who do that to their preferred #s. Refusing to believe you are or could be wrong, or assuming anyone who doesn't agree/criticizes is wrong, is the worst kind of science.

[Prokorov]

Least Compelling argument against advanced stats - "It doesn't match up with, or needs to match up with, the eye test"

Why science works is because we as humans are bias and that bias influences us, and influences us all differently. Because a stat says X, and you or I don't think a player is worth X or comparitively should be worth X, doesn't mean the stat is in err. Yet it seems to be the single most common response.

Mixing objectivity with subjectivity is an incredibly dangerous practice. Its like saying the best type of science is science that factors in perception. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to attempt to eliminate perception (or atleast as much as reasonably possible) from our equation.



Least Compelling argument for advanced stats:

I don't have a least compelling argument for advanced stats per se, but rather people not taking the time to continually evolve their understanding of a stat or stats in general. In my experience, some of the most blind individuals come from the stats community... those who willingly try to tear down other people stats or understanding of stats (good thing), but refuse to do that with their own or acknowledge others (or simply attack others) who do that to their preferred #s. Refusing to believe you are or could be wrong, or assuming anyone who doesn't agree/criticizes is wrong, is the worst kind of science.

i agree with you in general. the problem is that stats will never be able to perfectly quantify something that isnt measureable. how do you measure intimidation, fatigue, emotion, distraction, and attitude? these are all things that need to be observed, as well as tested and measured.

It would be like trying to quantify how depressed someone is without observing them, and simply going by a chart someone gave you of their day to day schedule. it might give you an idea, but you'd need to observe them along with the numbers to get a clear picture

[RealRapsFan]

Least Compelling argument against advanced stats - "It doesn't match up with, or needs to match up with, the eye test"

Why science works is because we as humans are bias and that bias influences us, and influences us all differently. Because a stat says X, and you or I don't think a player is worth X or comparitively should be worth X, doesn't mean the stat is in err. Yet it seems to be the single most common response.

Mixing objectivity with subjectivity is an incredibly dangerous practice. Its like saying the best type of science is science that factors in perception. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to attempt to eliminate perception (or atleast as much as reasonably possible) from our equation.



Least Compelling argument for advanced stats:

I don't have a least compelling argument for advanced stats per se, but rather people not taking the time to continually evolve their understanding of a stat or stats in general. In my experience, some of the most blind individuals come from the stats community... those who willingly try to tear down other people stats or understanding of stats (good thing), but refuse to do that with their own or acknowledge others (or simply attack others) who do that to their preferred #s. Refusing to believe you are or could be wrong, or assuming anyone who doesn't agree/criticizes is wrong, is the worst kind of science.

i agree with you in general. the problem is that stats will never be able to perfectly quantify something that isnt measureable. how do you measure intimidation, fatigue, emotion, distraction, and attitude? these are all things that need to be observed, as well as tested and measured.

It would be like trying to quantify how depressed someone is without observing them, and simply going by a chart someone gave you of their day to day schedule. it might give you an idea, but you'd need to observe them along with the numbers to get a clear picture

absolutely we should observe subjective ideas and attempt to test/measure them, I didn't intend to claim otherwise so my apologizes if it came across that way. But why do we do observe, test and measure? In order to give what was once subjective ideas an objective (or atleast more objective) value.

Until we do/can accomplish that, we can't assume they do have a measurable impact on the information at hand. Only that they COULD have one.

We need falsifiable ideas to test. Until we can find a way to make subjective ideas falsifiable (and we may at some point in time in the future - in fact we really should assume that at some point in time we will be able to, no matter what that subjective idea is), they are a non-factor in our current decision making.

There is a reason why science doesn't consider the hand of God is keeping the earth in orbit around the sun, and won't bother to factor God into an equation. Now, if the day comes that someone can reasonable prove that God exists, then they absolutely should. Until that day, God's existence or lack there of, has a value of 0 to science.

[BmanInBigD]

Last year brook lopez was like 4th in the NBA in PER. he had nowhere near that kind of impact on the floor. he did not come close to having a lebron/chris paul/durant type impact offensively or scoring wise. Yet in 15 years people will look at his PER and TS% and put him up there with great bigman scorers

That's why they have to be put in context. He wasn't that impactful because he only scored 10 points. If he was scoring 25+ points at that PER and TS, he'd be in the conversation about great scorers. PER and TS are only useful when comparing comparable volumes of scoring.

[montestewart]

The most compelling arguments against advanced stats come from people that actually understand and use advanced stats, although most of the arguments I hear, even from people that understand them, tend toward their misuse rather than on the stats themselves. When it comes to misuse of stats, they can all lie, with the most honest stat being the final score (at least you know who the true winner/loser is).

Focusing in on single measurements can lead to very skewed results (like the Brook Lopez example, although at 36-40 mpg, he might actually merit a little more attention), and I see arguments that key in solely on TS%, RB%, PER, etc, but really all those are fine stats as part of an argument for or against, just as one player consistently shutting down another player is a perfectly fine part of an argument, all of them pieces of evidence.

Honestly, most of the arguments I hear from coaches, players, former players, sportscasters, etc, against advanced stats sound less like arguments against how advanced stats are actually used, and more against some vague and imaginary form of use.

To me, the least compelling argument for advanced stats is as a substitute for the games themselves. I get the sense that some posters perhaps derive their pleasure primarily from the numbers that result from the games. Granted, I enjoy the box scores and the advanced stats that flow from the box scores, and I've learned a lot about the game by looking at those numbers, but without the games I wouldn't care about the numbers. Not judging (maybe I just don't grasp the numbers well enough), I'm just not that compelled by advanced stats.

[Dr Positivity]

Never really had a problem with any advanced stats material until the ESPN article about RPM that nobody could know how it was calculated. I feel like that's the wrong route. We have to know what we're dealing with, instead of just trusting advanced stats because it's wearing a white doctor's coat and giving orders

Other that everything new is largely interesting and useful and the "relationship" between casual fans and the statistical community seems fair. Other sports seem to have a harsher pushback from "casual fans" about stats (MLB in the past, recently, NHL). I think Dave Berri aside, a credit I can give to the basketball stats community is they've been low on the arrogance and "if you don't believe in this you're stupid" attitude that came up in the other sports. The insecure, arrogant attitude of the stat side in the NHL debate that blew up this year has been pretty disheartening and demeans a lot of the good (but more imperfect than they think) progress they made