Stalwart wrote:Advanced stats and "mathematics" are not objective ways of evaluating players lol. Advanced stats are formulas someone had to design based on their view of the game. Someone had to assign values to the different variables involved in the formula. So, no.
You just proved that you don't know how people create these mathematical models. The most successful and more recent ways to evaluate impact tries to capture how a team plays with vs without one player, they try to adjust it for lineup changes and hot/cold shooting runs, they try to capture player's impact within his role and the value of this role. Modern models have nothing to do with assigning values to different variables. If you really believe that things like PER or BPM are the stats I'm talking about, then you clearly don't understand how advanced sport analysis is in 2021.
Now, does it mean that all you need to do is look at the stats? Definitely not, because stats alone are just objective measures of certain things and they require interpretation. You have to watch the game, analyze each possession and build a massive amount of tracking data (which analytics also do).
Only when you combine mathematical models with empiric observations, only then you can call this a legitimate analysis. This is much more advanced and exhausting than counting accolades, so I understand that not everyone has enough time and knowledge to do so. Don't try to tell analytics that they don't understand their job then though.
Basic stats are objective to a degree but even then stats without context are meaningless.
It's true, all stats without context are meaningless. They are still better than opinion of some random media journalists who vote based on their preferences, not based on evaluating massive amount of tracking data.
You don't play the game for stats, mathematics, and formulas. You play to first win and secondly showcase your abilities. Thats just a completely flawed way of looking at basketball.
It's you who has extremely flawed way of looking at analytics. Nobody "plays for stats, mathematics and formulas". The game is played and then it's analyzed and compared to mathematical models. These models are created to capture and quantify what's happening on the floor. They exist to help people do everything to win, not the other way around.
Your post simply show that you don't understand the work of analytics.
You guys think because you're using math, formulas, and numbers that you're being "scientific" or something. Thats not how it works.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but do you have any scientific or engineer degree? Do you know how actually being "scientific" works?
To call anything scientific, you need to have strict and well defined methodology. Do you really believe that the consensus of poorly informed opinions is a good methodology?
Again, accolades typically represent consensus opinion at the time. Consensus opinion = objective, to a degree. Mathmatical models with assigned values = fully subjective.
Consensus opinion in the 13th centry was that the Earth was in the center of Solar System. Consensus opinion in the 19th century was that the eter existed. All these opinions had their values to some degree, but they weren't objective, or true in this situation.
Do you think that MVP voters in 1994, who usually watched only few selected teams throughout the season, knew more about Hakeem Olajuwon tendencies, weaknesses and strengths than me who just watched, tracked and created shot chart for all of Hakeem's available games from that season? I highly doubt it, most people back then voted looking at boxscore stats and the number of wins team had.
