RealGM

What is it?

The basic box scores? PER? ASPM? SPM? xRAPM? RPM?? etc...

Or is the good ol' fashion eye test?

I do not think there is one that definitively measures the entire game of basketball.

Bucketz_McGee wrote:What is it?

The basic box scores? PER? ASPM? SPM? xRAPM? RPM?? etc...

Or is the good ol' fashion eye test?

I do not think there is one that definitively measures the entire game of basketball.

Neither do I. But I know some people prefer certain stats over others. Personally, I don't like PER as it explicitly does not include defensive stats. That is half of the game.



"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfy or reassuring" C.S

I'm not sure there's one single stat we can ever look at to tell us the whole story.

BombsquadSammy wrote:I'm not sure there's one single stat we can ever look at to tell us the whole story.

I disagree; everything can be parsed down to a single element of information, and basketball is no different.

BombsquadSammy wrote:

BombsquadSammy wrote:I'm not sure there's one single stat we can ever look at to tell us the whole story.

I disagree; everything can be parsed down to a single element of information, and basketball is no different.

You guys are both wrong; it's all about finding a balance.

there is no mother. Just stats

The final score.

Bucketz_McGee wrote:

Bucketz_McGee wrote:What is it?

The basic box scores? PER? ASPM? SPM? xRAPM? RPM?? etc...

Or is the good ol' fashion eye test?

I do not think there is one that definitively measures the entire game of basketball.

Neither do I. But I know some people prefer certain stats over others. Personally, I don't like PER as it explicitly does not include defensive stats. That is half of the game.

did you seriously just respond to yourself in the 3rd person?

PER does include defensive stats, by the way. just not sufficiently or well

Definitely not +/-(for basketball players). It works great in hockey because they only play around 20 minutes a game max. Its completely useless for Lebron since he plays the whole game. Its useless for anybody who plays probably more than 36 minutes in a particular game. I don't think the person who decided to use it in the NBA completely understands how it works.

(Wins)
for most arguments it should be VORP probably

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

dice wrote:

Bucketz_McGee wrote:

Bucketz_McGee wrote:What is it?

The basic box scores? PER? ASPM? SPM? xRAPM? RPM?? etc...

Or is the good ol' fashion eye test?

I do not think there is one that definitively measures the entire game of basketball.

Neither do I. But I know some people prefer certain stats over others. Personally, I don't like PER as it explicitly does not include defensive stats. That is half of the game.

did you seriously just respond to yourself in the 3rd person?

PER does include defensive stats, by the way. just not sufficiently or well

Nearly fell out of my chair reading this guy and Sammy sarcastically replying himself

Eye test > stats

PPG (You said mother, PPG came first lol)

BombsquadSammy wrote:

BombsquadSammy wrote:

BombsquadSammy wrote:I'm not sure there's one single stat we can ever look at to tell us the whole story.

I disagree; everything can be parsed down to a single element of information, and basketball is no different.

You guys are both wrong; it's all about finding a balance.

What the hell?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

DoItALL9 wrote:(Wins)
for most arguments it should be VORP probably

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

This.

Even then, in those arguments when they're being used, VORP still needs to be taken with a grain of salt because there is no true exact stat we can solely rely on as the "mother" of all stats.

But personally, I've found myself using VORP as a solid factor when arguing for a player's impact being larger than another's.

Best all in one stat available.

http://www.numbersbyknuckles.com/

I check WS/48 and defensive rating first. Then I check out the assist: turnover and FT and 3 point rates. I add steals, blocks, and rebounds together, relate all these numbers to his size and minutes and I can get a pretty good sense of a player. If he’s tough or soft, high IQ or Andrew Wigginsy.

Could somebody not make a stat like “points created” like Bill James did for Baseball? Linear weighting rebounds, steals, points free throws ...etc to a given point allowance and adding it up to get a total points created. Then do the same for the players on the other team at the same position. Then take the points a player created and the points the player he was guarding created and use the Pythagorean theorem on these numbers would give you a winning percentage.

So let’s say an average shooting guard created 15 points a game. Steph Curry created 35 points a game and shooter guards he played against created 12.

.895 winning % for Curry.

It would show a defensive impact as well as offensive.

BombsquadSammy wrote:

BombsquadSammy wrote:I'm not sure there's one single stat we can ever look at to tell us the whole story.

I disagree; everything can be parsed down to a single element of information, and basketball is no different.

I'd like an example of this outside of basketball. I cant imagine a scientist or engineer utilizing on do all statistic but be my guest

mrsocko wrote:Could somebody not make a stat like “points created” like Bill James did for Baseball? Linear weighting rebounds, steals, points free throws ...etc to a given point allowance and adding it up to get a total points created. Then do the same for the players on the other team at the same position. Then take the points a player created and the points the player he was guarding created and use the Pythagorean theorem on these numbers would give you a winning percentage.

So let’s say an average shooting guard created 15 points a game. Steph Curry created 35 points a game and shooter guards he played against created 12.

.895 winning % for Curry.

It would show a defensive impact as well as offensive.

Idk that it would. If the Warriors and Knicks played a game and Steph Curry was matched up against Frank Ntilikina I seriously doubt Frank's best defense would drop Currys scoring average dramatically while at the same time Frank's inability to score would be a poor indicator of how well Curry defended him. He misses routine open shots, Steph makes what normally would seem like impossible shots.

I dont think your stat accounts for the change in efficiency forced onto the offensive player by the defender.