bsilver wrote:payitforward wrote:bsilver wrote:Not much context there. ...
No need for context. This is data analyzed using a carefully worked out methodology, then presented as a result, as information. Since the same methodology was used to understand last year's players as is being used on this year's players (i.e. the data used is their performance last year, or maybe on their overall career), all the "context" is there; it's just been fed into the methodology. You want to critique it, you have to critique the methodology. Nivek's defence would be that it's been pretty reliable in the past. Narratives about who should or shouldn't be an upgrade carry no weight against that.bsilver wrote:Sato wasn't included at all in the stats... a combo-guard as was Sessions. ...He may make no difference, or could be a big upgrade.
Whew... I sure am glad to hear that those are the only possibilities, that no way could he be a downgrade from Sessions -- not even a little as a rookie. It's a real relief to have that possibility eliminated.
The data was presented as data only in the original post, and some were using the data to show that the 2016-7 team is not as good as the 2015-6 team. It shows nothing of the sort. It only shows comparative WARs, with the omission of Sato.
No one to be taken seriously uses the data only to make a point. The argument must contain the corresponding analysis. As opposed to "no need for context", the opposite is true. Context is everything. As popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I should have been a little clearer. Classically, in the computer software field, people have always talked about data, information, and knowledge as three progressive levels of value (sometimes with "wisdom" as a 4th level).
Kevin took a bunch of data and subjected it to analysis -- which, classically, is how you get from "data" to "information." Comparative WARs, in other words, is information. It reflects an analysis. That's why I said that if you wanted to argue with it, you'd have to argue with the analytic methodology.
Still, you are correct in your skepticism if what you mean is that his table didn't provide "knowledge." It doesn't have the certainty or reliability of knowledge. Precisely because, as you say, it doesn't provide context. IOW, if a person wants to use some of the information (e.g. the info about the Wizards) in any particular, well-defined way, for sure context must be examined very carefully. But that's not what Kev was doing here. You'll note that he didn't suggest what any team should do w/ the information he supplied.
Everyone knows the Mark Twain old saw about statistics, and everyone has encountered plenty of examples of its truth. OTOH, "context" is used to tell just as many lies as statistics!
E.g. the narrative you spun about Satoransky -- "the wild card", etc. -- and I'd be happy if what you envisioned came true, btw. Just as I'd be happy if it turned out that Nicholson had been badly used (by I think 4 coaches in a row, btw) and all of a sudden turned into a big positive for us. But there's no data, no information, & no knowledge behind this kind of contextual speculation. Just hope.
Hence, if I were going out to look for FAs to sign, I'd be looking for guys who have performed well but have been underrated for some reason. Now, if there aren't guys like that out there, then you're stuck. But there were, and there still are. I'd have signed Quincy Acy over Nicholson, for example. And there are many young PGs I'd have signed over Burke.
How do you tell if someone has "performed well" but is "underrated?" You use a methodology like Kevin's, you factor in salaries, and you add real context as best you can (i.e. not hope). At the end of which... you take a risk! Nothing eliminates risk in anything future-oriented that a person does.
Given Kevin's table, I'd say a number of teams operated in this way. But we didn't. I'd say those other teams did very well, but I don't think we did particularly well at all.
The proof will be in the pudding, however. I imagine you'll agree that if we are improved over last year -- and especially if it's because of the off season acquisitions -- it'll mean I was wrong. Unfortunately, if it turns out we are worse than last year, I'm pretty sure you won't agree that it means I was right. Instead, if you are like most who post here, you will fabricate some "context" to explain failure away. That has also been the way of the Wizards FO, alas.
In that case, given how bad they were, Wittman being gone would make me more optimistic about Brooks' effect. But, really, we have no reason to believe Brooks had any input in OKC, do we? Overall, most people think Presti has been a fantastic talent evaluator (and GM overall). I've seen nothing to suggest Brooks had much of a role.
