RealGM

whitehops wrote:I've added in the brackets the league average TS% and the difference in percentage between the MVP and league average TS%.

Buzzard wrote:TS% .644 2018-19 (0.560, +0.084) Giannis Antetokounmpo
TS% .619 2017-18 (0.556, +0.063) James Harden
TS% .554 2016-17 (0.552, +0.002) Russell Westbrook
TS% .669 2015-16 (0.541, +0.128) Stephen Curry
TS% .638 2014-15 (0.534, +0.104) Stephen Curry
TS% .635 2013-14 (0.541, +0.094) Kevin Durant
TS% .640 2012-13 (0.535, +0.105) LeBron James
TS% .605 2011-12 (0.527, +0.078) LeBron James
TS% .550 2010-11 (0.541, +0.009) Derrick Rose
TS% .604 2009-10 (0.543, +0.061) LeBron James
TS% .591 2008-09 (0.544, +0.047) LeBron James
TS% .576 2007-08 (0.540, +0.036) Kobe Bryant
TS% .589 2006-07 (0.541, +0.048) Dirk Nowitzki
TS% .606 2005-06 (0.536, +0.070) Steve Nash
TS% .632 2004-05 (0.529, +0.103) Steve Nash
TS% .547 2003-04 (0.516, +0.031) Kevin Garnett
TS% .564 2002-03 (0.519, +0.045) Tim Duncan
TS% .576 2001-02 (0.520, +0.056) Tim Duncan
TS% .518 2000-01 (0.518, 0.000) Allen Iverson
TS% .578 1999-00 (0.523, +0.055) Shaquille O'Neal

so none of the MVPs in that list have shot below league-average efficiency, though the vast majority shoot considerably better than league average.

That is pretty much it. Now a lot of other things are apparent to; like how they score, touches, and minutes played. But to me, most players will never achieve greatness being inefficient. Old people like myself called them chuckers and volume scorers.

They are called inefficient these days and TS% is a pretty good stat to prove the point. You expect your new draft pick to be great, he better be efficient or you can forget about it.

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:

IgorK wrote:Analytics are great for analysis, which comes after the game has concluded.

Or before the next game...

Analytics won't win you the next game.

Front offices pay smart people a lot of money to develop analytics whose purpose is exactly that. Not saying they’re there yet of course. Baseball is much ahead in that regard but of course that game is very very different

People who disregard analytics most likely has a weak grasp of it.
They probably think analytics is just 3>2 so take more threes.
Data is the most valuable resource now, more valued than oil.
Better read on it than continue being ignorant.

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:

IgorK wrote:Analytics are great for analysis, which comes after the game has concluded.

Or before the next game...

Analytics won't win you the next game.

Then what will?

AussieRules wrote:If analytics was the be all and end all then the Rockets would’ve dominated this decade and won at least ONE CHAMPIONSHIP.

Kobe is right and only morons would hate on what he said, he wasn’t anti-analytics at all, if anything he was very complimentary of analytics and it does have its place in the game.

With how much Morey looks to get stars when possible, it's quite clear that even the Rockets know that analytics aren't the be all, end all. Analytics also can't make up for lack of talent or for injuries.

Now, if the Rockets had the perfect roster to support / play out their analytics, then sure, that would've dominated or at least gotten them one championship.

Of course if any other team had that "perfect roster", it would work out pretty well for them too.

Buzzard wrote:

fianchetto wrote:

Buzzard wrote:He has a point that analytics and advanced stats are not the end all be all. But check this list of MVP players. The common theme I listed is they are all around .550 TS% or better except Iverson. TS% listed is for the year they won it. I don't think it is a accident that the year Kobe won his, was also his 2nd most efficient season.

The ones who won multiple MVP's were all above the .550 thresh hold. Another thing that stood out is how many of these MVPs have never won a Championship. Quite a few of course are still playing.

TS% .644 2018-19 Giannis Antetokounmpo
TS% .619 2017-18 James Harden
TS% .554 2016-17 Russell Westbrook
TS% .669 2015-16 Stephen Curry
TS% .638 2014-15 Stephen Curry
TS% .635 2013-14 Kevin Durant
TS% .640 2012-13 LeBron James
TS% .605 2011-12 LeBron James
TS% .550 2010-11 Derrick Rose
TS% .604 2009-10 LeBron James
TS% .591 2008-09 LeBron James
TS% .576 2007-08 Kobe Bryant
TS% .589 2006-07 Dirk Nowitzki
TS% .606 2005-06 Steve Nash
TS% .632 2004-05 Steve Nash
TS% .547 2003-04 Kevin Garnett
TS% .564 2002-03 Tim Duncan
TS% .576 2001-02 Tim Duncan
TS% .518 2000-01 Allen Iverson
TS% .578 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal

I don’t think it’s that shocking that efficient scorers were voted MVP... doesn’t say anything about the game itself other than people think efficient scorers are good. MVP is subjective after all

It might say something else to, I am pretty sure everyone of them will be in the HOF. Only things I found shocking were the ones who were not as efficient as I would have thought; and then Curry, Harden, and Nash being so much more efficient than the rest of the MVP Guards.

Those guys shouldn't be surprising as they were impacting winning through other areas, defense, rebounding, etc so their impact on winning wasn't all about how much or how efficiently they scored. TS% is simply one part, and you'll find good correlation, yes, but it's just on thing.

KG for example was never a great scorer, there are many players who are better scorers and even better overall offensive players than him, but not better overall players. His per possession scoring was never highly impressive, and if you look at 30, 40 point games, even more so in the playoffs, KG was not one to get those kinds of games.

A good amount of volume scoring bigs were not necessarily more efficient scoring wise than the guards/wings, they might have had higher FG%, but when you take into account 3PT shooting, FT shooting, many perimeter guys were better. Hakeem wasn't more efficient than Drexler, though the volume he was shooting at in comparison, and the consistency at which he gave you that scoring made his offensive presence obviously much greater than a simple TS% comparison, but just an example of the guard vs big TS% comparison.

Of course when you add other areas of impact, then it can more then make up for who is a more efficient scorer.

KyRo23 wrote:Kind of rich coming from Kobe, a guy who went for numbers instead of winning for awhile.

I agree. Kobe is smart enough to acknowledge and likely interpret most advanced stats... But let's not act like they guided much -- if any -- of his play.

fianchetto wrote:

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:
Or before the next game...

Analytics won't win you the next game.

Front offices pay smart people a lot of money to develop analytics whose purpose is exactly that. Not saying they’re there yet of course. Baseball is much ahead in that regard but of course that game is very very different

Analytics point to past performance trends. They're not great at predicting true winning, and they never will be since they don't take into account intangible factors like motivation and health.

Side beard wrote:

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:
Or before the next game...

Analytics won't win you the next game.

Then what will?

Skills & effort. Motivation & tutelage. Health & rest. Go ahead and quantify those things for me now.

thebigbird wrote:

KyRo23 wrote:Nothing says building the momentum like an airball fadeaway 3 over 4 defenders!

But he did it with that look in his eye!

And he won 5 titles. I don't think you are a Lakers fan btw.

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:

IgorK wrote:
Analytics won't win you the next game.

Front offices pay smart people a lot of money to develop analytics whose purpose is exactly that. Not saying they’re there yet of course. Baseball is much ahead in that regard but of course that game is very very different

Analytics point to past performance trends. They're not great at predicting true winning, and they never will be since they don't take into account intangible factors like motivation and health.

Huh?

Even publicly available analytics do a good job predicting wins. Even bpm based models outperform vegas consensus.

Literally zero champions in the past decade haven't made extensive use of analytics.

donnieme wrote:I wish there was more research into the streakiness of shots to see if it's a thing. By time the law of averages evens out you might be 20 down in a game

In my KIN class a long time ago they taught us that there was no such correlation to the "hot shooter" phenomena. I recently read an article/report that stated they did find some positive effect on a player who was on a hot streak and made a number of attempts in a row.

However, I think those benefits are overblown and extremely subjective to selection bias. For instance, we remember when the guy makes the 4th in a row, but when he doesn't, we forget and move on to find the next trend.

IgorK wrote:

Side beard wrote:

IgorK wrote:
Analytics won't win you the next game.

Then what will?

Skills & effort. Motivation & tutelage. Health & rest. Go ahead and quantify those things for me now.

And what about scouting?

AussieRules wrote:If analytics was the be all and end all then the Rockets would’ve dominated this decade and won at least ONE CHAMPIONSHIP.

Kobe is right and only morons would hate on what he said, he wasn’t anti-analytics at all, if anything he was very complimentary of analytics and it does have its place in the game.

False narrative. Essentially you're saying that Rockets = analytics, and all other teams = no analytics. It's not black or white. You're right, however, in that analytics is not the most important thing - talent is.

That's why the Warriors were so successful with their super team, but when one of their MVP's dropped suddenly they got rolled by the Raps 4-2.

pr0wler wrote:

AussieRules wrote:If analytics was the be all and end all then the Rockets would’ve dominated this decade and won at least ONE CHAMPIONSHIP.

Kobe is right and only morons would hate on what he said, he wasn’t anti-analytics at all, if anything he was very complimentary of analytics and it does have its place in the game.

False narrative. Essentially you're saying that Rockets = analytics, and all other teams = no analytics. It's not black or white. You're right, however, in that analytics is not the most important thing - talent is.

That's why the Warriors were so successful with their super team, but when one of their MVP's dropped suddenly they got rolled by the Raps 4-2.

Talent is just laymen for versatility. And anyway the warriors weren't as good as the bucks all season, so "talent" is being greatly overrated here.

freethedevil wrote: Talent is just laymen for versatility. And anyway the warriors weren't as good as the bucks all season, so "talent" is being greatly overrated here.

Using regular season record as an evaluation of talent for a team that has already won back to back titles, and clearly wasn't intrinsically motivated to give it 100% until the playoffs, isn't the greatest illustration imo. Is that the same Bucks that fizzled out in the Conference Finals whereas the Warriors, when they were at full strength, steamrolled through the entire West? And largely the same Warriors who annihilated the Cavs two finals in a row?

I don't think regular season W/L is as important as you're making it out to be, and a lot of teams have already came to that same conclusion.

pr0wler wrote:

freethedevil wrote: Talent is just laymen for versatility. And anyway the warriors weren't as good as the bucks all season, so "talent" is being greatly overrated here.

Using regular season record as an evaluation of talent for a team that has already won back to back titles

I'm using srs, playoff point differential, # of blowout wins, ect. All of which do a much better job predicting championships then "erneh defending champs" or "erneh talent."

Warriors at full health were 6-4, bucks without their key player were 8-1. In the rs before hand they were one of 11 teams(all finalists and 9 of whom were champions) to blowout 45 wins with a top 30 all time srs. They kept that up in the playoffs until they ran into a radical defensive scheme and van vleet had a baby.


Nothing says the warriors were the bucks when healthy. And their players repeatedly got injured because they kept leaning heavily on a"talented" starting lineup due to a lack of depth everywhere. The bucks were better in the playoffs, better vs the raptors, better vs elite teams, better vs playoff teams, better in the regular season, better when banged up, and better when healthy.

2018 isn't relevant because the warriors were nowhere near as good as their 2018 selves who were the #1 defense in the playoffs.

I also have no idea why you brought up the cavs when their true rival last season was the rockets whose healthy srs matched up with there's and who nearly beat them despite missing a starter 7 games and their second best player two games.

IgorK wrote:

fianchetto wrote:

IgorK wrote:
Analytics won't win you the next game.

Front offices pay smart people a lot of money to develop analytics whose purpose is exactly that. Not saying they’re there yet of course. Baseball is much ahead in that regard but of course that game is very very different

Analytics point to past performance trends. They're not great at predicting true winning, and they never will be since they don't take into account intangible factors like motivation and health.

The goal of analytics is to make intangibles tangible. How can you say they never will?

IgorK wrote:

Side beard wrote:

IgorK wrote:
Analytics won't win you the next game.

Then what will?

Skills & effort. Motivation & tutelage. Health & rest. Go ahead and quantify those things for me now.

Skills and effort: analytics will eventually find you players with the right skill for your team composition

Motivation and tutelage: analytics shape that tutelage. Why do you think people review their stats after games? For fun?

Health and rest: analytics help medical staff understand what the body can’t do, and they make rest decision based on that to maintain health.

This isn’t black and white IgorK, and you’re simply incorrect about the fact that analytics won’t win you the next game.