rapz101 wrote:Scase wrote:Because it has way too many variables to have any real use. Quality of the defender, the team they are playing, the health of the player, and so on. Basic efficiency stats work because they aren't hyper specific, player shot x from y, attempt a is worth b in the weighting and that's about it.
Analytics like these exist for the sake of existing, they do have some seemingly useful stats, but they ultimately serve no other purpose than creating more metrics to get people to sign up for their website, which I totally get, but is more of an ends to a means. Like this type of list doesn't really mean anything, you look at stuff like EPM and then you look at the rankings, and the players in that list and it passes the smell test. But these types of stats always have their weird ass outliers that just make the stat seem artificial and for the sake of creating them.
There was a stat used earlier this year (or in the summer I cant remember) that showed Jak as being in the top 10 of a list, and that's cool no problem there, but then he's surrounded by literal GOAT level players like Lebron, Jokic, and so on. I dont discount Jak being a good player like at all, but when you see lists like that, it just dumps a whole lot of water on that fire.
So I take their stuff with an extremely large grain of salt, they want engagement, not actual in depth analysis.
I have no leg in this discussion, but the logic that bball index has many useless stats doesn't mean all the stats are useless. Just as you point out in the bolded above, if they do have some crunchy data, before dismissing them altogether it should be looked at on a case by case basis. And if someone presents how it could be useful, or in what way it can be useful, that shouldn't be dismissed because, well "bball index has a bunch of trash stats, so this must be trash too." <-- That's a super lazy and rather convenient way to dismiss something that may not agree with your initial premise.
I guess we all interact with these conversations and takes in different ways, but what's the point of engaging when logic and reason isn't something we are open to receiving and dishing back. I'm not even saying that what you're saying is wrong, but my question is, why dismiss something worth discussing because you don't like what bball index has presented in the past? Be open, you may appreciate a different perspective, you might even find over time that it was more correct, who knows?
I'm not saying that because they have some bad stats that all of them are meaningless. I'm saying that they have a rather large amount of stats that have obvious outliers that make me question the use case of the stats. Like if there is a stat that shows 8 or 9 of the players listed are the best players in the league, and then you see like a player that doesnt really fit in there, say like Kuzma or something, then that right there raises a red flag to me.
A list of the top 10 most efficient players by position is super useful, the top 10 players for efficiency in expected difficulty of shots from generated data, I have much less faith in. And I have seen a fair amount of their stats that have those oddities, and I have also seen a fair amount of them posted on these boards and used to "prove" that a player is worthy of "respect" etc. It just feels like the Thad Young stats thing.
I'm not discounting all of their stats, and I'm not dismissive of this one just because of this one. I have seen plenty of them that make me extremely suspect of a lot of the stats they put out. Like I mentioned before, they create these for people to engage with and pay for their service.
raptorforlife88 wrote:Scase wrote:Analytics like these exist for the sake of existing, they do have some seemingly useful stats, but they ultimately serve no other purpose than creating more metrics to get people to sign up for their website, which I totally get, but is more of an ends to a means. Like this type of list doesn't really mean anything, you look at stuff like EPM and then you look at the rankings, and the players in that list and it passes the smell test. But these types of stats always have their weird ass outliers that just make the stat seem artificial and for the sake of creating them.
There was a stat used earlier this year (or in the summer I cant remember) that showed Jak as being in the top 10 of a list, and that's cool no problem there, but then he's surrounded by literal GOAT level players like Lebron, Jokic, and so on. I dont discount Jak being a good player like at all, but when you see lists like that, it just dumps a whole lot of water on that fire.
So I take their stuff with an extremely large grain of salt, they want engagement, not actual in depth analysis.
The outliers are what make these lists interesting. It's what can advance a stat and raise it's profile and value if it winds up being meaningful when understanding why an outlier makes a list.
If an outlier is on a list, maybe it is meaningless but understanding it can be the difference in finding a player that is undervalued (and it doesn't have to be a guy in the top ten of a stat but just broadly lands higher than expected on it).
As an example I think on these types of lists a few years back, Derrick White was consistently landing on them and I really wanted the Raptors to get him, and when the Celtics got him, the fact that he was undervalued became apparent.
Basketball has more variables than baseball so it's more difficult to measure these things, but that does not mean it's pointless looking to discover how to measure value in a player in increasingly complex ways.
That's a fair POV, and there are definitely instances where that's the case, but more often than not, they are obscure or extremely specific skills/stats, that just really don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
pingpongrac wrote:
Why does bball index have too many variables to be useful? Those things that you listed (quality of defender, team they’re playing and health of the player) play just as much of a role in basic efficiency stats too. If anything, these stats that take into account a variety of data paint more of an accurate picture than just basic efficiency stats. Basic efficiency stats are all fine and dandy, but you can’t just go off of them alone because it ignores various aspects (role, quality of shots, defensive attention, etc.) that would clear things up a bit for the average fan. 58-60 TS% from a high-volume guy that garners defensive attention is significantly more impressive than a 3+D player in the low-to-mid 60s that is spoon-fed the majority of his looks for instance.
Every kind of stat is always going to have outliers. Even EPM has FVV at 14, Hartenstein at 16, White at 22 and Zubac at 24 while there are a bunch of all-star level talents floating around 100th or below (Brown, Jalen Johnson, DeRozan, Ingram, Paolo, etc.). Does that make EPM a sham of a stat? No, and it usually makes more sense when you dig deeper into the numbers as guys like FVV, Hartenstein and White have historically been high-impact players despite not having eye-popping stats while Brown, DeRozan and Ingram have typically been more neutral in their impact due to a variety of reasons (lack of playmaking/turnovers, poor defence, injuries, etc.).
BBall index overall doesn't have too many variables, but this particular stat is weird. Overall shooting talent is a derivative of their other stat, Shot making, which is a derivative of their other stat, Shot making efficiency, and that stat relies on data they use to create an "expected" eFG. So when you have a stat 3 deviations down that are inspired or based off the one prior o it, and the base stat is built around a "created/manufactured" stat, not something objective like flat FG% for instance, then you have something that to me, is ultimately meaningless.
This is the caveat with advanced stats, PER is a great example, people used that for a hot minute as the be all end all to showcase a players impact/value. Fast forward a few years, and it's a joke stat that nobody uses, and that was based off of objective stats. But assigned weighting that ultimately made it not very useful.
This is a case of them making up a stat, and using that as the basis for 2 other stats. I don't think those hold much value. I'm not saying I'm right/wrong on this one, but personally I don't value these types of stats, and I typically only see them posted here to try and prop up our players with obscure stats.
If you want to believe they mean something, be my guest, but they come across too fishy to me.
