How Unreliable is the 'Eye-Test' for NBA analysis?

[JayMKE]

There is definitely a lot that stats doesn't tell us and actually watching a player is necessary to evaluating them

[Yoshun]

I hate the term "eye test." Can we just call it "observation" instead?

You could. However observation is usually deemed so as part of any scientific study or anaylsis. Where (and this is a ballpark) the majority of the actual analysis is based on 'numbers' and it's proven through putting it in action and 'observing it' Which is more just a confirmation or rejection of the numbers crunched.

It's rare that any field has 'observation' deemed as reliable source. NBA shouldn't be any different, especially given how intricate it is.

Of course, and I agree with you to some degree, that's why I hate calling it "the eye test." That term makes it sound official or something, it's just people watching (observing) games.

I will say though, I think observation is important. It's full of bias, but statistics can also be full of bias, in how they're formulated and applied. Observation helps gather context, which is important. Statistics also have limitations and require context for proper analysis.

[SNPA]

At least you are consistently clueless i'll give you that Happy hunting.

I have noticed with a little push back you guys tend to fold. You actually aren’t as bad as some of your brethren. You got people on your side making absurd statements like:

“Everything can be expressed by numbers.”

It’s just comical. The give away is how the whole thing is divided into two parts… quantitive and “eye test” by which you mean literally every other factor that impacts how humans would interact. Little imbalanced, right?

Show me how you calculate for the psychology of the players and group(s)?

Show me how you calculate for the cultural elements of players backgrounds, locales and teams?

Show me how you calculate for team chemistry?

Oh…that’s right. There is no stat for those and you can’t. So instead you lump them into an absurd category (a favorite technique of stat nerds) and call the whole thing eye test and talk bad about how it’s inferior to numbers. The language of stats isn’t able to describe all elements of human behavior. This is not making widgets or A/B testing, this is a group of humans we are talking about.

If we both had the same team and access to the same basic counting stats and you got access to all the advanced stats and I got access to the team psychologist who do think would be a better coach?

Every heard of a straw man?

I never said the eye test included 'everything else'. You keep pretending that's what I said so you can ramble on about things to support your narrative.

It's exactly what 'you people' do. Since you aren't able to have an honest discussion on its own merits.

You talk about cultural elements, players backgrounds and locales. Or Whether or not they have an effective psychologist. These things can impact a person's mindset in a number of ways. So show me how it impacts their game?

Did someone having a different cultural impact mean they were a less efficient? If so how?

They grew up in a poor neighbourhood, is there ability to pass the ball hindered?

Even if they said it was true, how could your
proove it? What relevance does it have when comparing two players impact on the court?

You claim these things have an impact yet havent given a shred of evidence as to how they impact a player. I'm not even asking for 'stats' like a nerd. Anything that's not laughable will do.

It's easier to believe that I am 'folding' or 'struck a nerve' then it is to address what's being said.

So as I said before I'll leave it there. It's clear this conversion isnt going anywhere. You are welcome to reply but that will be it for me.

Wow. I take it back. You are as bad as your brethren. You presented data vs eye test, it’s your binary. That’s on you…not me.

Humans. Not widgets. Humans. Complex, imperfect, full of needs and insecurities and shaped by their life experiences. You continue to refuse to engage with these facts. Show me the stat for the best way for a 55 year old coach from Kansas to speak with and gain the trust of a 21 year old from New York City? Oh…again…you don’t have one. You can’t have one. It doesn’t exist. I’ll assume you agree a coach gaining trust of players is important (this is for free because you haven’t demonstrated it in the slightest).

If you don’t believe psychological and culture elements impact how someone performs at their job and works with others we can definitely be done. It’s far too stupid to engage with.

Quantitative stats tell part of what happened. They don’t tell you why and often not even how. It’s an incomplete picture of reality. It’s a limited way to understand reality, you guys presented as though it’s the primary and best way. It’s not. And when push back comes these types tend to throw fits and disengage. Maybe it’s because they like to argue with numbers?

Good luck with your spreadsheets.

[NbaAllDay]

[SNPA]

:crazy:

Bye.


1122334325536.00006


That means bye in your language.

[scrabbarista]

I have noticed with a little push back you guys tend to fold. You actually aren’t as bad as some of your brethren. You got people on your side making absurd statements like:

“Everything can be expressed by numbers.”

It’s just comical. The give away is how the whole thing is divided into two parts… quantitive and “eye test” by which you mean literally every other factor that impacts how humans would interact. Little imbalanced, right?

Show me how you calculate for the psychology of the players and group(s)?

Show me how you calculate for the cultural elements of players backgrounds, locales and teams?

Show me how you calculate for team chemistry?

Oh…that’s right. There is no stat for those and you can’t. So instead you lump them into an absurd category (a favorite technique of stat nerds) and call the whole thing eye test and talk bad about how it’s inferior to numbers. The language of stats isn’t able to describe all elements of human behavior. This is not making widgets or A/B testing, this is a group of humans we are talking about.

If we both had the same team and access to the same basic counting stats and you got access to all the advanced stats and I got access to the team psychologist who do think would be a better coach?

Every heard of a straw man?

I never said the eye test included 'everything else'. You keep pretending that's what I said so you can ramble on about things to support your narrative.

It's exactly what 'you people' do. Since you aren't able to have an honest discussion on its own merits.

You talk about cultural elements, players backgrounds and locales. Or Whether or not they have an effective psychologist. These things can impact a person's mindset in a number of ways. So show me how it impacts their game?

Did someone having a different cultural impact mean they were a less efficient? If so how?

They grew up in a poor neighbourhood, is there ability to pass the ball hindered?

Even if they said it was true, how could your
proove it? What relevance does it have when comparing two players impact on the court?

You claim these things have an impact yet havent given a shred of evidence as to how they impact a player. I'm not even asking for 'stats' like a nerd. Anything that's not laughable will do.

It's easier to believe that I am 'folding' or 'struck a nerve' then it is to address what's being said.

So as I said before I'll leave it there. It's clear this conversion isnt going anywhere. You are welcome to reply but that will be it for me.

Wow. I take it back. You are as bad as your brethren. You presented data vs eye test, it’s your binary. That’s on you…not me.

Humans. Not widgets. Humans. Complex, imperfect, full of needs and insecurities and shaped by their life experiences. You continue to refuse to engage with these facts. Show me the stat for the best way for a 55 year old coach from Kansas to speak with and gain the trust of a 21 year old from New York City? Oh…again…you don’t have one. You can’t have one. It doesn’t exist. I’ll assume you agree a coach gaining trust of players is important (this is for free because you haven’t demonstrated it in the slightest).

If you don’t believe psychological and culture elements impact how someone performs at their job and works with others we can definitely be done. It’s far too stupid to engage with.

Quantitative stats tell part of what happened. They don’t tell you why and often not even how. It’s an incomplete picture of reality. It’s a limited way to understand reality, you guys presented as though it’s the primary and best way. It’s not. And when push back comes these types tend to throw fits and disengage. Maybe it’s because they like to argue with numbers?

Good luck with your spreadsheets.

Often, they don't even tell what happened. Tracking data has a lot of issues, like what's the difference between a post up or a duck in, what's the difference between wide open, open, and not open jump shots; no stats are perfectly, evenly, applied. I heard of a recent game where a player was credited with a "running, leaning, one handed, banked, jump shot from five feet" or something like that. Sounded like a layup to me... And then, traditional stats have their issues as well: scorekeepers, Tim Donaghys and Scott Fosters, stat-padders, etc., etc., etc....

We gotta have stats, because they fill in the massive gaps in our observation, but actually seeing what happened is always better than just being told what happened, which is basically what stats are.

Just a side note, but since I happened to watch it today, check out the Van Exel "assist" at 2:40 of this video!

Watch on YouTube