PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[falcolombardi]

Btw, who you guys got winning eurobasket?

I dunno,just know that i need giannis to have a great tournament

i always like when fiba elitists (the kind of euro basketball fans that say nba is fake and false and the real basketball is in europe) have to eat corn

[Jaivl]

Btw, who you guys got winning eurobasket?

I dunno,just know that i need giannis to have a great tournament

i always like when fiba elitists (the kind of euro basketball fans that say nba is fake and false and the real basketball is in europe) have to eat corn

I mean, France should crush.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Read on Twitter

Players are horrible talent evaluators who don't watch games, part 23892

The 2nd part wasn't bad, so we can cut him a break.

[HeartBreakKid]

I dont think either of those takes are horrible, granted I did not read the article only the headline.

How is John Stockton being a better passer than Magic a "horrible" take? The point of passing is to get the ball into a good scoring position and Stockton did that more than anyone.

I would not favor John over Magic for passing, but it isn't out of this world that he might be a better passer. That doesn't sound like much of a hot take.

When I initially glanced over the headline yesterday I thought it said "Stockon is BETTER than Magic" like as an overall player, which indeed would be a horrible take.


Nikola is pretty easily a better passer than Lebron. Unless we are talking overall playmaking then that's different as you're comparing a person who plays point to a post player.

[jalengreen]

the article is from a lakers blog so makes sense that the headline highlights the players who are ranked above the two lakers (magic/lebron). but i think the worst part of it is rondo at #5 to be honest

Read on Twitter

[HeartBreakKid]

the article is from a lakers blog so makes sense that the headline highlights the players who are ranked above the two lakers (magic/lebron). but i think the worst part of it is rondo at #5 to be honest

Read on Twitter

Mark Jackson seems just as bad

[falcolombardi]

Kinda off topic but is interesting that european basketball analysis never really got into plus-minus stats it seems, at least among fans i mean

When i watched european basketball fans discuss basketball they only used box score stats and what seemed like a per equivalent. I never saw them calculatr rapm or apm equivalents for euroleague or european leagues

[Goudelock]

Kinda off topic but is interesting that european basketball analysis never really got into plus-minus stats it seems, at least among fans i mean

When i watched european basketball fans discuss basketball they only used box score stats and what seemed like a per equivalent. I never saw them calculatr rapm or apm equivalents for euroleague or european leagues

This is somewhat tangentially related to what you're talking about, but I've noticed that the European model of covering and discussing sports seems to be even more hot take-related than it is in the USA. I enjoy F1 and european football, and it seems like fans are somehow more obsessed with overreacting to the athlete's/manager's recent performances than fans in the USA do.

Which is weird, because the soccer discourse can get really granular when it comes to talking about tactics........and then go into hot take mode two minutes later. I guess it's like how America talks about American football.

Then again, I'm basing this off what I read in Marca and SkySports and mainstream places like that, so I might be completely off base.

[falcolombardi]

Kinda off topic but is interesting that european basketball analysis never really got into plus-minus stats it seems, at least among fans i mean

When i watched european basketball fans discuss basketball they only used box score stats and what seemed like a per equivalent. I never saw them calculatr rapm or apm equivalents for euroleague or european leagues

This is somewhat tangentially related to what you're talking about, but I've noticed that the European model of covering and discussing sports seems to be even more hot take-related than it is in the USA. I enjoy F1 and european football, and it seems like fans are somehow more obsessed with overreacting to the athlete's/manager's recent performances than fans in the USA do.

Which is weird, because the soccer discourse can get really granular when it comes to talking about tactics........and then go into hot take mode two minutes later. I guess it's like how America talks about American football.

Then again, I'm basing this off what I read in Marca and SkySports and mainstream places like that, so I might be completely off base.

I am talking mostly about how "advanced stats" just never became a big thinghs in european sports, only recently did some analytics stuff get semipopular in soccer

When i got briefly into following euroleague basketball it just striked me they never used any non box-score metric,they wouls mentiom plus-minus for individual games (maybe) and had "valoracion" a equivalent of per of sorts from what i understood

Otherwise there was nothingh else but basic boxscore which i just found interesting

It may be they just dont believe in stuff like that (?) Or run thinghs more old school and dont believe in analytics much? Or those kind of stas are not as useful in their kind of seasons european teams play (divided across 2-3 differenr tournaments) sample size wise

[Jaivl]

Kinda off topic but is interesting that european basketball analysis never really got into plus-minus stats it seems, at least among fans i mean

When i watched european basketball fans discuss basketball they only used box score stats and what seemed like a per equivalent. I never saw them calculatr rapm or apm equivalents for euroleague or european leagues

This is somewhat tangentially related to what you're talking about, but I've noticed that the European model of covering and discussing sports seems to be even more hot take-related than it is in the USA. I enjoy F1 and european football, and it seems like fans are somehow more obsessed with overreacting to the athlete's/manager's recent performances than fans in the USA do.

Which is weird, because the soccer discourse can get really granular when it comes to talking about tactics........and then go into hot take mode two minutes later. I guess it's like how America talks about American football.

Then again, I'm basing this off what I read in Marca and SkySports and mainstream places like that, so I might be completely off base.

I am talking mostly about how "advanced stats" just never became a big thinghs in european sports, only recently did some analytics stuff get semipopular in soccer

When i got briefly into following euroleague basketball it just striked me they never used any non box-score metric,they wouls mentiom plus-minus for individual games (maybe) and had "valoracion" a equivalent of per of sorts from what i understood

Otherwise there was nothingh else but basic boxscore which i just found interesting

It may be they just dont believe in stuff like that (?) Or run thinghs more old school and dont believe in analytics much? Or those kind of stas are not as useful in their kind of seasons european teams play (divided across 2-3 differenr tournaments) sample size wise

Can't speak for other countries, but spanish basketball discourse is stuck in the 90s. And yeah, "valoración" is just a simplified PER.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yes, the European media does not use a lot of stats in general for many of their sports which reflect on the populace.

Could be a number of variables for why. Could be as simple as when baseball was the most popular sport in USA there were fun, easily digestible stats for it that made Americans more into developing interesting stats. In Europe or most of the world where football is supreme there weren't many stats back in the day other than goals scored and that's pretty boring.

Maybe it stems from there, and then it evolved into the whole "STATS CANT MEASURE PASSION!!!" type of stuff you see in sports media in both the States and Europe, but I would guess it is stronger in Europe.

[falcolombardi]

This is somewhat tangentially related to what you're talking about, but I've noticed that the European model of covering and discussing sports seems to be even more hot take-related than it is in the USA. I enjoy F1 and european football, and it seems like fans are somehow more obsessed with overreacting to the athlete's/manager's recent performances than fans in the USA do.

Which is weird, because the soccer discourse can get really granular when it comes to talking about tactics........and then go into hot take mode two minutes later. I guess it's like how America talks about American football.

Then again, I'm basing this off what I read in Marca and SkySports and mainstream places like that, so I might be completely off base.

I am talking mostly about how "advanced stats" just never became a big thinghs in european sports, only recently did some analytics stuff get semipopular in soccer

When i got briefly into following euroleague basketball it just striked me they never used any non box-score metric,they wouls mentiom plus-minus for individual games (maybe) and had "valoracion" a equivalent of per of sorts from what i understood

Otherwise there was nothingh else but basic boxscore which i just found interesting

It may be they just dont believe in stuff like that (?) Or run thinghs more old school and dont believe in analytics much? Or those kind of stas are not as useful in their kind of seasons european teams play (divided across 2-3 differenr tournaments) sample size wise

Can't speak for other countries, but spanish basketball discourse is stuck in the 90s. And yeah, "valoración" is just a simplified PER.

Interesting, Does it manifest in ways other than use of stats?

Like do spanish basketball people still believe in triangle offenses ran through the post being the pinacle of basketball and stuff like that?

What does being stuck in the 90's imply here?

[70sFan]

Have you ever watched 1988 Lakers game? That's a serious question, answer it.

I think I actually did. Kareem did look much diminished but Magic was still largely not making much of an impact on my viewing. I have more memories of Byron Scott and A.C. Green on the screen.

That's one of the worst takes I've ever heard on RealGM (GB). I was so shocked by this that I didn't even know how to answer. Do you think there is any sense in trying to change this perspective?

[Owly]

Have you ever watched 1988 Lakers game? That's a serious question, answer it.

I think I actually did. Kareem did look much diminished but Magic was still largely not making much of an impact on my viewing. I have more memories of Byron Scott and A.C. Green on the screen.

That's one of the worst takes I've ever heard on RealGM (GB). I was so shocked by this that I didn't even know how to answer. Do you think there is any sense in trying to change this perspective?

Depends on context.

In and of itself, with no statement as to sample (one, two games?), when watched (over thirty years ago?), age/basketball intelligence when watching (typical 8-year-old?) and especially one of the points of measure "I have more memories" that could well all be true ... and mean nothing ("I think" is interesting ... seems to suggest a significant time ago). If they're asserting things as though with authority that A.C. Green was a bigger needle mover or things like that ... my suggestion would be "get out".

[Owly]

Yes, the European media does not use a lot of stats in general for many of their sports which reflect on the populace.

Could be a number of variables for why. Could be as simple as when baseball was the most popular sport in USA there were fun, easily digestible stats for it that made Americans more into developing interesting stats. In Europe or most of the world where football is supreme there weren't many stats back in the day other than goals scored and that's pretty boring.

Maybe it stems from there, and then it evolved into the whole "STATS CANT MEASURE PASSION!!!" type of stuff you see in sports media in both the States and Europe, but I would guess it is stronger in Europe.

Certainly the baseball thing has something to it (and to a lesser extent American Football behind it with the clear downs and 10 yard target and time and obvious utility of tracking stats). Soccer/football/calcio ... low scoring, many events, difficulty in telling which events matter ... it's not that nobody tried to do stuff with numbers, but there's less data, less good data, less of a box-score culture in telling the story.

Can't speak to state of the art but cricket, baseball's nearest popular equivalent (rounders is closer, but not a spectator sport) has I think always been pretty number obsessed. If that's the number one sport you probably get more of a numbers culture around sports ... to the extent that that there is a general sports culture (some sports could be stratified by class in some places).

[falcolombardi]

Yes, the European media does not use a lot of stats in general for many of their sports which reflect on the populace.

Could be a number of variables for why. Could be as simple as when baseball was the most popular sport in USA there were fun, easily digestible stats for it that made Americans more into developing interesting stats. In Europe or most of the world where football is supreme there weren't many stats back in the day other than goals scored and that's pretty boring.

Maybe it stems from there, and then it evolved into the whole "STATS CANT MEASURE PASSION!!!" type of stuff you see in sports media in both the States and Europe, but I would guess it is stronger in Europe.

Certainly the baseball thing has something to it (and to a lesser extent American Football behind it with the clear downs and 10 yard target and time and obvious utility of tracking stats). Soccer/football/calcio ... low scoring, many events, difficulty in telling which events matter ... it's not that nobody tried to do stuff with numbers, but there's less data, less good data, less of a box-score culture in telling the story.

Can't speak to state of the art but cricket, baseball's nearest popular equivalent (rounders is closer, but not a spectator sport) has I think always been pretty number obsessed. If that's the number one sport you probably get more of a numbers culture around sports ... to the extent that that there is a general sports culture (some sports could be stratified by class in some places).

Baseball, basketball and gridiron football just lend themselves much more easily to stats

Imagine if in basketball we kept track of scoring but not of efficiency, that is what happens in soccer with scoring and while now some fans and analytics people track this stuff it has not yet catched on with the public

I think the much smaller amount of goals scored just make statistics a lot harder to track too

[sp6r=underrated]

It amazes me MLB hasn't adopted a pitch clock. Manfred has implemented tons of bad ideas that harm the game but this is one that is all upside with no down.

And on the NBA they really should enforce the 10 second free throw rule. PLayers are just siking themselves out with no benefit to performance.

[Dr Positivity]

The pitch timer might help a bit but when you look at how delayed the NFL is with replays, commercials and flags and that it's still obscenely popular, it makes me think pace of play might be a red herring for wondering why baseball isn't what it once was interest wise.

[sp6r=underrated]

The pitch timer might help a bit but when you look at how delayed the NFL is with replays, commercials and flags and that it's still obscenely popular, it makes me think pace of play might be a red herring for wondering why baseball isn't what it once was interest wise.

It is not the primary cause of baseball's decline but it is a fixable problem. And you should always fix fixable problems.

[Texas Chuck]

The pitch timer might help a bit but when you look at how delayed the NFL is with replays, commercials and flags and that it's still obscenely popular, it makes me think pace of play might be a red herring for wondering why baseball isn't what it once was interest wise.

It is not the primary cause of baseball's decline but it is a fixable problem. And you should always fix fixable problems.

Yep. And the NFL is 1 of 1. They are completely irrelevant to improving baseball's popularity. You have to set them completely aside.