Heej wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Heej wrote:With falcolombardi chiming in and adding like 3 or 4 more lmao. The reason you're not seeing a pattern here is because you don't want to
. I respect your right to choose a side and dig in your heels instead of neutrally considering the possibility that there's something valuable I'm bringing up here though
As I scroll up, I see that '70s posted an updated list of creation, which continues the trend of being dominated by on-ball players, but you're not even responding to this. So to recap:
1. You made a thread in which which you accused someone of biasing a stat according to their own aesthetics.
2. In your original post you didn't delve into the actual stat at all, but instead just highlighted a few video clips.
3. When people brought up the actual data that you're accusing of being biased, it didn't show the bias you implied.
4. And you didn't respond with any actual analysis of the data yourself.
If you feel this is an unfair characterization - possibly because I've missed something you've posted where you actually dive into the data - please do correct me.
As is, I just can't help but think that you got yourself very confused as to how to contribute meaningfully to a community looking to build up basketball knowledge. You seem like you're trying to take short cuts rather than put in the effort that someone like Ben does.
In fairness, I also have never had any intention of putting in the kind of hours Ben puts into this stuff, so I'm taking a short cut too, as are virtually all of us on here...but I'm not looking to discredit the guy to justify not prioritizing basketball analysis to the degree he has.
Lmao the reason I didn't respond to the on-ball creation numbers post is because of a problem that had been beaten to death had you bothered to catch up in that we have no comparable videos identifying what Ben would consider on-ball creation. It's incredibly foolish to think that just because on-ball creators create more (no s*** Sherlock
), that off-ball creators can't be overly credited for the scoring opportunities they create
.
But, if Ben's goal were to create a stat that made Off-Ball guys look good, then why would he create a stat that's dominated by On-Ball guys? Can someone make a stat he knows will be dominated by On-Ball guys and then overrate Off-Ball guys by it? Sure, but if you're trying to "juice" things to make your guy look good, there are much simpler and more effective ways of doing this.
This is the sort of trap you can run into very easily when focusing on something like "bias". You focus on it because it's the thing that seems simplest to understand, but when you lay out the entirety of the situation, you end up with something that's really overly complicated.
Back on the actual stat though:
I can understand that the attraction of looking to identify a divergence in outlook between you and a statmaker if you're specifically thinking about how to make use of his stat, but what leaves my eyebrows furrowed is the way you seem to be asserting something that biases a stat that you don't seem to actually use.
Perhaps you think this is important because you think other people religiously use that stat and they need to adjust their perspective, but it doesn't really seem like you think this.
So if you don't use it, and you're not trying to get the attention of others who use it, how are you looking to apply this putative bias of his toward something meaningful in basketball analysis?
Heej wrote:If he did and I saw him having examples where he was giving outsized credit to guys pulling off what I affectionately term "Rondo assists" as in low effort passes to guys moving off of screens wide open then I would be just as quick to point out that I think it's unfairly over-crediting players for creating a play that manifested without much influence on their part. But unfortunately this is what we have to work with.
Just to make clear that other options are possible, what you could have done instead is make a thread asking how significant they see Player X's role in a particular clip, and used their responses to earnestly analyze whether you were missing something.
Instead, you posted a topic that implied a conspiracy on his part specifically focused on a particular stat whose general orientation runs counter to the narrative you're assuming.
Heej wrote:As far as the actual stat goes, I'd be interested in seeing how exactly it's automated (which it seems reasonable to assume we have insight into the criteria he's using going by what he's posting in these analysis videos), and whether the inputs are juicing creation rates for off-ball players as I already said in the opening post.
He did player tracking years back, he ran that data through regression to get weights, those weights can then be used to automatically on new data (scraped from official sources) without any further human involvement. If you're looking up stats from basically any independent site nowadays, they're doing something pretty analogous.
Heej wrote:Also I resent your statement about by ability to "contribute meaningfully to a community looking to build up basketball knowledge" considering the very thing I'm questioning here is in regards to is knowledgeably breaking down what actually happened during the minutiae of a possession and what actually constitutes someone breaking the defense wide open to create an advantage scoring opportunity
But there's tons to this process you don't seem to have any notion on how it works, and instead of focusing your energy to learn about it, you're making threads implying conspiracies.
Am I saying you cannot contribute meaningfully? Nope, I'm just saying that what you're doing here isn't. This is destructive behavior rather than constructive behavior.
Heej wrote:Also I don't agree with your assessment that I'm taking shortcuts here as I've already mentioned in this thread (which it seems you haven't really perused through) how I've put in a lot more hours than most in terms of actually learning how to break down action on the court and digesting hours upon hours of professional level free coaching content on YouTube in order to get myself there in the first place.
You alleged conspiratorial motivations to someone who a) has learned a lot of things you haven't, and b) whose process you didn't understand. You didn't do your due diligence before you did this, and that, is most certainly a short cut.
To be clear: I don't think you taking short cuts is fundamentally that huge of an issue per se, it's the specific short cut you're taking that's the problem.
Also to be clear: I don't want to imply I think you're the only one doing this. I think this sort short-cut-through-bias-assumption is utterly rampant on the internet now, and it's causing a lot of problems all over the palce.
In my role as a physics teacher, my biggest pet peeve is actually the flat-earthers, who have really gained a lot of traction among those falling into these traps.
Heej wrote:It's interesting to see how this thread has evolved though, and I suppose the only real resolution of it would be to get a better look at how Ben derives his creation numbers for on-ball players. Because it's just as likely he's over-crediting them (in my eyes) for fairly mundane plays. Alas since we have nothing to work off of in that regard (for now), best I can do is point out that it seems he's giving off-ball guys way more credit than they deserve for creating plays they had little role in. But I guess that touched some people's no-no spot on PC board for some reason *shrugs-*
I would actually say the best you could do would be to go through and do a similar in-depth process to what he did.
I might say the least you could do is not put forth conspiracy theories of bias with vague downstream motives based on a few clips.
