Why doesnt ESPN use advanced stats

[way2dynamc]

How come the main stream sports media (ESPN) almost ignores this all together? I cant even remember a time when I have seen even TS% displayed in any comparisons or efficiency ratings. They use the basic stats of PPG, RPG, APG, SPB, BPG and FG%.

My question is do you think ESPN does this because it isnt interesting and wont sale or is it to because they want to keep the average from being fully informed so they can blur the lines and market what they feel will sale?

[Doctor MJ]

It's got to be because they just think it's too hard to explain to casual fans because while they refuse to use TS% on TV, they jumped all in with Dean Oliver (king of basketball statisticians) as their cross-sport analytics lead. Drives me nuts every time I see "points per shot" mentioned. Like so many other things in sports, if they'd just used the right stats to begin with, much of what's now called "advanced stats" would just be the stats Joe Sixpack used. Instead we get a layer wedged in that ensure many fans will go their entire life just a little bit dumber.

[perun]

the key word here is ADVANCED.

the traditional stats give you good description of whats going on the court. if you want to go into more details thats when advanced stats come into play.

[mopper8]

the key word here is ADVANCED.

the traditional stats give you good description of whats going on the court. if you want to go into more details thats when advanced stats come into play.

Yeah but most baseball fans now seem to know things like On Base Plus Slugging, etc.

There's no reason basketball couldn't be similar, except, as Doc rightly noted, the advanced stats we do get fed are generally online (PER on espn's website) and not the best advanced stats around.

The best use of advanced stats in the mainstream basketball media is undoubtedly Tom Haberstroh, and he covers the Heat exclusively for ESPN. If you're not reading the Heat Index, you're not seeing him

[perun]

the key word here is ADVANCED.
the traditional stats give you good description of whats going on the court. if you want to go into more details thats when advanced stats come into play.

Yeah but most baseball fans now seem to know things like On Base Plus Slugging, etc.
There's no reason basketball couldn't be similar, except, as Doc rightly noted, the advanced stats we do get fed are generally online (PER on espn's website) and not the best advanced stats around.
The best use of advanced stats in the mainstream basketball media is undoubtedly Tom Haberstroh, and he covers the Heat exclusively for ESPN. If you're not reading the Heat Index, you're not seeing him

dont think you can compare different sports.

in baseball its one pitch vs one hitter

so individual performance n efficiency are very useful n having advanced stats helps alot

football its the complete opposite. there are so many different variables

so its all about volume. thats why there are not many advanced stats in football.

bball is in between. its volume + efficiency.

thats why sometimes it seems ppl tend to focus too much on advanced stats n efficiency n completely forget about the volume.

[mopper8]

The question isn't why there aren't more (or better) advanced stats, its why the advanced stats we do have aren't used popularly.

Saying "the sports are different" doesn't really cover it. The problem is nobody who covers basketball really believes in them enough to learn about them.

Not sure why you think the NBA is about volume - teams all get the same # of possessions as their opponents, roughly speaking.

[G35]

It's got to be because they just think it's too hard to explain to casual fans because while they refuse to use TS% on TV, they jumped all in with Dean Oliver (king of basketball statisticians) as their cross-sport analytics lead. Drives me nuts every time I see "points per shot" mentioned. Like so many other things in sports, if they'd just used the right stats to begin with, much of what's now called "advanced stats" would just be the stats Joe Sixpack used. Instead we get a layer wedged in that ensure many fans will go their entire life just a little bit dumber.

I don't know why we don't start teaching kids trig in the 3rd grade. If only we started earlier in the learning process everyone would be that much smarter....

[perun]

The question isn't why there aren't more (or better) advanced stats, its why the advanced stats we do have aren't used popularly.
Saying "the sports are different" doesn't really cover it. The problem is nobody who covers basketball really believes in them enough to learn about them.
Not sure why you think the NBA is about volume - teams all get the same # of possessions as their opponents, roughly speaking.

individually speaking

scoring 30 points or grabbing 15 boards > x ts% or y rbs%.

[Doctor MJ]

It's got to be because they just think it's too hard to explain to casual fans because while they refuse to use TS% on TV, they jumped all in with Dean Oliver (king of basketball statisticians) as their cross-sport analytics lead. Drives me nuts every time I see "points per shot" mentioned. Like so many other things in sports, if they'd just used the right stats to begin with, much of what's now called "advanced stats" would just be the stats Joe Sixpack used. Instead we get a layer wedged in that ensure many fans will go their entire life just a little bit dumber.

I don't know why we don't start teaching kids trig in the 3rd grade. If only we started earlier in the learning process everyone would be that much smarter....

Okay, so I get what you're saying about having to build up, but:

1) Is there any evidence that TV analysts are building up, or even letting potentially curious people know about where they can learn more?

2) One of the things that's so hard about math education is that preparedness levels are so drastically different. There are contingencies who try to insist we should move algebra education back into high school because brain development is not ready in middle school, and then meanwhile there is ample evidence of other kids going deep into symbolic mathematics in elementary school. There's no easy solution, but it's quite clear that the one way to ensure that a kid doesn't understand trig at a young age is to not teach it to him.

[Doctor MJ]

its volume + efficiency.

thats why sometimes it seems ppl tend to focus too much on advanced stats n efficiency n completely forget about the volume.

Well, I'd agree that people have difficulty knowing how exactly to put together volume & efficiency in basketball, but when we're talking about advanced stats in basketball, this is only one small part of the discussion.

I'll also note, that it would certainly be possible to help fans along with this if the folks in charge just made it a priority and got creative. For example, people already know what "profit" is roughly (or they should). Why not present a "shooting profit" stat (I know that's not what people in ****metrics call it btw)? Simple in concept:

Profit = Margin * Volume
Volume = TSA
Margin(Player TS%, Replacement TS%)

(Granted Replacement TS% is itself a tricky concept, but they don't need to understand that to start)

Of course there's more to a scorer's impact than the direct profit, but that's no different from economics either. Beginners would start with a good baseline volume/efficiency perspective, and as they grew they'd see the need for further nuance.

So yeah, there are avenues to explore here if that's something people consider to be even a minor goal.

[wiLQ]

How come the main stream sports media (ESPN) almost ignores this all together?

Because they try to reach as many fans as possible and it's not their mission to educate people.
BTW, as this forum shows, you really don't need main stream media to learn about it.

My question is do you think ESPN does this because it isnt interesting and wont sale or is it to because they want to keep the average from being fully informed so they can blur the lines and market what they feel will sale?

IMHO ESPN will use adv stats as soon as they receive millions of e-mails "hey, please do this" in short period of time. They just don't get them right now and probably won't any time soon.

[jambalaya]

Points per shot comments do irk me.

Oliver has done very little to change the public face of ESPN with regard to stat use. They throw out a few more situational stats in truehoop but that is really the only change from a year or two ago.

[thizznation]

they invented their own!

[EvanZ]

Points per shot comments do irk me.

Oliver has done very little to change the public face of ESPN with regard to stat use. They throw out a few more situational stats in truehoop but that is really the only change from a year or two ago.

What's wrong with points per shot?

[jambalaya]

Points per shot comments use total points / FGAs. They roll all the FTs scored into the top without including FTAs in the bottom.

[EvanZ]

Points per shot comments use total points / FGAs. They roll all the FTs scored into the top without including FTAs in the bottom.

Ah, that's odd. Didn't know they do it that way. Does Synergy do it that way? I never checked.

[LUKE23]

Speaking of advanced stats, are there any current sites or applications that provide LIVE advanced stat boxscores during games? Or is everything "day after" such as bb reference, hoopdata, etc? I figured Synergy would have a live update type thing, but didn't see anything on their site.

[BossHoggin]

they invented their own!

It sure feels like espn makes up or cherry picks stats. I almost feel like they use stats to persuade instead of to inform.

[UGA Hayes]

Is oliver still with ESPN-I remember reading about his hiring. If he has done something I haven't really noticed.

[Dr Positivity]

The question isn't why there aren't more (or better) advanced stats, its why the advanced stats we do have aren't used popularly.

Saying "the sports are different" doesn't really cover it. The problem is nobody who covers basketball really believes in them enough to learn about them.

Not sure why you think the NBA is about volume - teams all get the same # of possessions as their opponents, roughly speaking.

Is advanced stats really that in the media for baseball though? I'm not sure if the OP meant ESPN as in online or on TV, but I definitely see an overwhelming reliance on Ws/ERA/BA/RBI on TV at least from the little MLB coverage exposure I get

If he's talking about online, I think ESPN.com has done a pretty good job incorporating stats actually. Hollinger gets a lot of play obviously, but TS% and PER seem to show up quite a bit. Baseball moreso w/ stats, but it's impossible for a baseball writer online to be credible anymore without using stats, he'll get eaten up and spit out. With that said even for baseball ESPN.com isn't totally innocent, a front page ESPN.com article last week was about Jeter leading the MLB in total hits

Also on a random point I disagree about OPS being called a great stat and separated from PER. I actually think PER is a great comparison for OPS, I might actually call OPS worse. The fact that walks/singles are treated the same is a HUGE area of error, and arbitrarily treating OBP/SLG as 1:1 also seems like a massive assumption. (OBP always struck me as more valuable) All together with those flaws it seems like a "ballpark" stat like PER, not something precisely showing a player's value. I'm actually surprised at the popularity of OPS within the sabermetrics community (well actually for all I know the real guys have been saying OPS blows for years and it just hasn't risen above the surface to non baseball guys like me), it seems pretty straight forward at the very least that treating walks and singles equally when the latter advances players at 2nd/3rd much much better and more bluntly, singles score runs and walks don't (!!!), ruins almost the entire stat