Lacob & Co. in Attack Mode

[TaylorMonkey]

Too bad they don't make a stat when someone like Curry is in the game. Curry's teammates up their level of defense and defensive intensity to compensate for having a weaker and slower player on the floor.

That's grasping at straws but I'll take that kind of team D.

[GSForever]

It wasn't even an argument! It was a slap in the face of what I think about Steph All First Team D. Whatever. I don't argue about such worthless things! LOL

[Jester_]

You see the problem with using stats to base your entire conclusion is that you're leaving out a very important part of it which is observation. Even in science, empirical observation is a big part of making deterministic outcomes. The numbers only give you half of it.

Umm, no. Empirical observation doesn't mean watching something from "experience", it means taking data points from a large sample set and seeing what trends it signifies. You've missed the entire point of stats if you think they're up for personal interpretation as you've brought up on many occasions.

[FNQ]

FNQ nailing my take on fans not understanding that nobody, not even Rondo, can stop today's quick gaurds from getting into the lane..Then FNQ takes it to a new level..I love it. That's why he's a 1st ballot realgm HOFame poster in my book.

Cheers, but I'm just parroting a good take from 5 years ago, and 4 years ago, and 3 years ago... Etc. credit is due to the original take

Its 100% true though. PG defense is as important as a cleanup hitters' ability to bunt.. A punter's ability to throw.. Goalie's ability to skate. The rules render those abilities to have minimal impact

[turk3d]

You see the problem with using stats to base your entire conclusion is that you're leaving out a very important part of it which is observation. Even in science, empirical observation is a big part of making deterministic outcomes. The numbers only give you half of it.

Umm, no. Empirical observation doesn't mean watching something from "experience", it means taking data points from a large sample set and seeing what trends it signifies. You've missed the entire point of stats if you think they're up for personal interpretation as you've brought up on many occasions.

No. It means having the experience and the knowledge to know what you're looking at and thus make a fair evaluation. Stats can then enhance and sometimes help to clarify but numbers by themselves are pretty meaningless (unless you don't get a chance to actually watch the games but it's never going to be as accurate unless integrated with observation).

You can't separate just the numbers unless you're to trying to decide on a contest or something. If you were right then scouts, coaches and GMs wouldn't even have to watch games. They could just peruse the stats and make their decisions based on that alone. They don't do that if you haven't noticed.

[and1GS]

My eyes tell me Curry is an ok defender that gambles for steals in the passing lanes pretty well.

The stats tell me Curry is an ok defender that gambles for steals in the passing lanes pretty well.

What were you saying turk?

[Jester_]

They could just peruse the stats and make their decisions based on that alone. They don't do that if you haven't noticed.

Coaches are the same idiots that made Kobe and Paul first-team all defense. I could care less what they do. Just because that's how it's always been done doesn't mean it's the right way.

The moneyball approach to sports is becoming increasingly pervasive. Sports is just another dynamic system. There's nothing special about it... it can be analyzed and predicted using Math like any other system.

This "use your eyes" nonsense is dark age gibberish.

[FNQ]

Both conclusions are opinions, both sides

However, one side has evidence backing it up, while the other side is trying to discount it by any means possible

In a nutshell

[turk3d]

My eyes tell me Curry is an ok defender that gambles for steals in the passing lanes pretty well.

The stats tell me Curry is an ok defender that gambles for steals in the passing lanes pretty well.

What were you saying turk?

Some of us have better eyes than others (based on experience). But it's fine, you think what you want and I (and others) will think what we want. It's just when people try and claim they have it right and are so sure they do. I don't get it when it comes to Curry. He's great offensively (stats do say that) but he's been terrible on D so far his career (much harder for stats to show that). Here's an example of stats failing to beat out the eyeball. Take D Wright for example this past year:

Stats say (using per to normalize since he averaged less minutes last year):

2010 fg% 42.3%. 3pt% 37.6%, FT% 78.9%. PER 15.0, TS% 53.9%, EFG% 50.8%, RPG 4.9. 2.8 apg, 1.4 bpg, 0.7 spg, 1.5 topg

2011 fg% 42.2%. 3pt% 36.0%, FT% 81.6%, PER 15.0, TS% 55.3%. EFG% 52.2%, RPG 6.1, 2.1 apg, 1.3 bpg, 0.6 spg, 1.1 topg

I've highlighted some of the signficant ones (that most of you guys like to use). Now just looking at those numbers, you'd think that he had at least as good a year as the previous one if not better, that is unless you watched him play, you'd know it was much worse. I guess the stats didn't get this one though. That's where you use your experience with the game of basketball and your analytically skills which if you don't have any (or they are poor) you're going to come to the wrong conclusions. How about try this, look at the games and see if the numbers jibe with what you see. They don't always.

[Jester_]

With Dorell Wright on the floor, opponents scored 110 ppg versus 105 ppg with him off. He had a +1 defensive RAPM last year, -1.7 this year. That's why he sucked. His offensive stats were skewed because of a few good games near the end, but offensively he was about the same this year.

Just because you don't understand stats doesn't mean they're wrong.

[turk3d]

They could just peruse the stats and make their decisions based on that alone. They don't do that if you haven't noticed.

Coaches are the same idiots that made Kobe and Paul first-team all defense. I could care less what they do. Just because that's how it's always been done doesn't mean it's the right way.

The moneyball approach to sports is becoming increasingly pervasive. Sports is just another dynamic system. There's nothing special about it... it can be analyzed and predicted using Math like any other system.

This "use your eyes" nonsense is dark age gibberish.

They are also the same guys who make millions and millions of dollars directing basketball teams and who you stat guys will wind up working for. Even Dave DePodesta, the stat guy from Harvard who worked for Billy Beane in Moneyball, actually played the game, yes, he wasn't some pencil necked geek as portrayed in the movie by Jonah Hill in the movie. Here's an article on him in addition to a few quotes:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/ ... ta-040412/

But after an injured shoulder suffered at the end of the following spring left him effectively unable to throw, DePodesta soon realized his baseball career was over. He decided to solely focus on football—where he only needed to catch—and played his senior year in 1994 under current Crimson coach Tim Murphy, who had just arrived from the University of Cincinnati.

“Depo was not the most talented kid on the team, but he was a smart, tough, high-character guy,” Murphy recalls.

Look at what he said about numbers and peoples experience:

“On the one hand, I’ve always had some sort of facility with numbers,” he says. “But on the other hand, I was always interested in what some people would refer to as the softer side of it too, and really trying to understand on a real world basis why people do what they do.”

He worked with the old timers in Oakland (not stats guys) so it wasn't just stats alone, he drew on their experience which he didn't have:

“I came up with a lot of my working theories because of an inadequacy of my own, which was a lack of experience,” he says. “I still had that with me even when I was in Oakland, so to the guys that did have a lot of experience, I tried to be very respectful and tried to learn as much from them as I possibly could. Even some of the ’metrics we came up with were things that were born out of conversations we had with longtime scouts. So it really was an organization which I think was bound together much more than has been portrayed.”

This was ideal for a team like the As who had to skimp on money and allowed them to field a decent team without a lot of cash. This is great for talent evaluation but doesn't help to much once you're on the field or on the court.

[FNQ]

All I got from that post is that metrics are made from guys who knew the game very well and were smart enough to turn takes into a numerical value...

Which I agree with. Making advanced stats is grueling and insanely tough.. But they are becoming popular for a reason: they work.

[turk3d]

With Dorell Wright on the floor, opponents scored 110 ppg versus 105 ppg with him off. He had a +1 defensive RAPM last year, -1.7 this year. That's why he sucked. His offensive stats were skewed because of a few good games near the end, but offensively he was about the same this year.

Just because you don't understand stats doesn't mean they're wrong.

Sleepy already explained why those stats are possibly flawed. You don't even know exactly how they're derived and whether or not they are due to Wright or others and I don't need stats to tell me he sucked this year. It's pretty obvious by watching the games but I guess you need advanced statistics to figure that out, lol. I know the game well enough to figure that out without having to do that. Maybe you should do a thesis on it. I'm sure some one has. "Statistical Analysis and Proof that Dorelle Wright Sucked in 2011". Take it to you advisor. LOL.

[turk3d]

All I got from that post is that metrics are made from guys who knew the game very well and were smart enough to turn takes into a numerical value...

Which I agree with. Making advanced stats is grueling and insanely tough.. But they are becoming popular for a reason: they work.

Hey, I'm not saying to throw stats out, they have their place no doubt and their use of course. I just get upset when people go overboard and make them the end all be all which I've said before and anyone would agree. I realize that people like to impress their views upon people and although it's alright for them to have them, it's alright for everyone to have theirs.

I just to give them the same emphasis as you do or certain other may but that doesn't mean that I don't see the value or use them. I just rely on my observation (along with stats) to come to my own conclusions and the point I'm trying to make here is that I think people with less experience (as evidenced by DePodesta) tend to migrate towards stats to get all their takes.

[Jester_]

Actually I used the exact stats that Sleepy used. Your problem, Turk, is that you're not even bothering to learn what these stats are about. You have this traditional opinion that stats are some "new fangled technurlogy" that intrude on your claim to "experience" and "knowledge of the game", that you're not even bothering to learn what these stats are. You're arguing against something you haven't even bothered learning about.

It's the same nonsense that herbalists and spiritual healers have been ranting about with modern medicine.

[turk3d]

Actually I used the exact stats that Sleepy used. Your problem, Turk, is that you're not even bothering to learn what these stats are about. You have this traditional opinion that stats are some "new fangled technurlogy" that intrude on your claim to "experience" and "knowledge of the game", that you're not even bothering to learn what these stats are. You're arguing against something you haven't even bothered learning about.

It's the same nonsense that herbalists and spiritual healers have been ranting about with modern medicine.

Not true Jester. I see it as you (and others) trying to diminish the value of experience and empirical observation in lieu of just stats. Even FNQ agrees that it takes both which is what I've been saying all along. It seems that whenever I mention some flaws in the analysis (and yes numbers don't lie, but they do get misinterpreted which I've said before) you come back with the claims that I don't understand them or I ignore them out of ignorance.

Statistics have certainly been around for a long time (since around the 9th Century I believe). I've never said that they have no value, I've just disagreed on some of your takes on them, so if you want to debate your take on them and why your interpretation is correct then go right ahead, that's what should be debated, not whether or not statistics have any place in professional sports because they do, always have since they've always kept them.

And if you want to come with some "new way" to come up with something that gives you an edge of your opponents, then by all means, do it. I'm just a fan, not a GM or a Coach so it's just not all that important to me. I feel it's more like you wanting to discount ones experience rather than me discounting statistics. I think that the two MUST coexist for the sport to remain a sport. I don't consider video games to be a sport in the same vein.

[Jester_]

You're missing the point of stats. I never said you didn't need observation. It's the scientific method: you come up with a hypothesis through observations, and you look for evidence to back it up. If you watch the game, and you believe that Curry is a bad defender, then you look to the stats for evidence. If the evidence is there then you can make a case that your hypothesis is correct.

Stats are evidence for a claim. That's it. The issue is that you think they're mutually exclusive, that a statistical conclusion is equally valid as an "observational" conclusion. If you make an observation, look for numbers to back it up. If there aren't any numbers, you're probably wrong. Sleepy and I had a 3 page discussion about Monta's defense that didn't include using our "observations" as ammo. Sleepy observed Monta to be an average defender, I observed him to be a poor defender, we used the stats as evidence to back-up our respective points. But the moment you use your own observation as evidence in an argument you lose all credibility because that ends up being a logical fallacy.

It's a pretty simple methodology.

[Twinkie defense]

God are we still arguing Steph vs. Monta?

[ChuckDurn]

God are we still arguing Steph vs. Monta?

Yep. Just like the thread is titled....

[facerizon]

For the record, I don't think Curry is a great defender, but agree that it's nearly impossible for a PG to exist as a lockdown force in today's game.

Nevertheless, it's not merely "simple methodology" Jester. You should really try to avoid such buzz phrases when asserting what you think is the right opinion.

Sometimes numbers are deceiving and are merely just numbers. They should always be used in conjunction with experience and observation, and never the Only benchmark that separates one argument from an another.

A classic example from the world of Sociological statistics: In the mid-20th century a correlation was drawn between Ice Cream sales and murder rates in the inner-city. Statistics showed that every time ice cream increased in quantities sold, more murders occurred. On the surface, this lead some to ponder if ice cream consumption was actually the root cause of homicide. Logically, this was not the case, and later became known as "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or a logical fallacy. Ice cream sales increased simply because it was hot outside. Murders rate also increased because it was hot outside, as people's tension levels were unable to adapt to their suddenly uncomfortable environments. Ice cream however, regardless of the correlational statistic, did not contribute to higher frequencies in homicidal tendencies.

While you may be right, in that Curry could be a better defender than many of us credit, I'd be careful when claiming that stats can back up any assertion...