Build around KG or DIRK?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

KG probably tripped all the players who got injured on his team. Wasn't all those free agents leaving the fault of KG's contract? Didn't KG force McHale to tamper with Joe Smith and lose all those draft picks?

[MisterWestside]

KG probably tripped all the players who got injured on his team. Wasn't all those free agents leaving the fault of KG's contract. Didn't KG force McHale to tamper with Joe Smith and lose all those draft picks?

Must be

[G35]

KG probably tripped all the players who got injured on his team. Wasn't all those free agents leaving the fault of KG's contract? Didn't KG force McHale to tamper with Joe Smith and lose all those draft picks?

Nah he probly punched them in the face in practice like he did to Wally and Ricket. Or he might have tripped them you never know. I mean who else does this.....




And who did this to Big Baby!!!





This is a good read also.....

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/sports-ed ... is-legacy/

[G35]

Terrell Brandon was an All Star with Cleveland. Before KG

Chauncey Billups was an All Star with Detroit. After KG

Stephon Marbury was an All Star with NJ and Phx. Post KG

Rasho Nesterovic another Minnesota alum was the starting center for the SA Spurs 2005 championship team and according to PER played his best with SA.


.

Rasho had not yet become the solidly mediocre player he was with the spurs but he may have been KGs best Center. Other contenders, are Garrett and 36 year old Ervin Johnson. Did Gugliotta play Center with KG? He plays the same position as KG but he was one of the 3 best teammates that KG ever had so they must have found a way to play him with KG. Rasho left as a free agent.

Brandon probably was KG's best teammate. Dallas always had a quality 3rd player and a bunch of decent players.

Cassell is the next best player but that did not last long. Sprewell had one good playoffs.

Starbury was a talented knucklehead. Immature very young Starbury played with young KG and Gugliotta. 21 year old Marbury was traded for Brandon and that improved the Twolves. Gugliotta got injured and left.

Chauncy Billups was a slow developer who signed as a free agent with the Pistons before he really got good. Bobby Jackson was another player who was a slow developer who left before he became good. Of course the Dirk fans can blame KG for Billups and Jackson not being good as Twolves.

You know this is actually what I like to read. I like to read context. I like to read where there are reasonable explanations for why sometimes results aren't met. I like to see that people understand that circumstances aren't the same for everyone.

The problem is that people only provide context for players that they like. For players they don't like they don't give a damn about context, or reasons, or explanations, or circumstances. It just is what it is. You play with the cards you are dealt. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!!!.......

[Texas Chuck]

Unbelievable. What else should I consider someone who has consistently ignored or deemed pointless other people's arguments and then demanded proof without providing any themselves other than dense? You have repeatedly discounted KG's defense in the "PS," which doesn't even makes sense, and then make an excuse for Dirk, since you can hide him. By your terms we can give greater credit to KG's offense because of his teams offensive ranking. Which then takes away the only way Dirk can be considered better. You keep making excuses as to why Dirks scoring shadows his defense and outweighs KG's elite defense, passing, rebounding, and very good scoring. So I guess its also Dirks fault that his team lost to Miami in the finals.

The 06 finals imo comes down mainly to Wade's brilliance and Dirk's failure in some key spots absolutely. More about what Wade did than what Dirk didnt do but yeah Dirk absolutely didnt come through in spots when his team needed him to.

Im not going to respond to the rest of your post because it is clear further dialogue between us on this subject serves no purpose. I think KG is great. I think Dirk is better. You disagree and thats just how Im going to leave it.

[ahonui06]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

[MisterWestside]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

Just like how you've made excuses for Dirk every season until 2011? You know, if Dirk is so great, why just one ring? Shouldn't he be the leader of the decade in rings?

*end ahouni06-style argument*

[Mattya]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

Just like how you've made excuses for Dirk every season until 2011? You know, if Dirk is so great, why just one ring? Shouldn't he be the leader of the decade in rings?

*end ahouni06-style argument*

This.

[ahonui06]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

Just like how you've made excuses for Dirk every season until 2011? You know, if Dirk is so great, why just one ring? Shouldn't he be the leader of the decade in rings?

*end ahouni06-style argument*

This.

No excuses for DIRK. DIRK was the leader of his teams. He only got the job done once as the man, but that's more time than KG.

[Mattya]

KG was the clear cut best player on that Boston team that won the championship a few years ago. But somehow he wasn't the man on that team

[drza]

Why do you sigh? You do realize his Minny resume is far and away the worst of any top 20 player of all time, right? Does he not have to take any responsibility for his team's epic failures? Are we really just going to say he played for a terrible organization and throw up our hands and say great job KG?

The last page or two of this thread has descended a bit into the two sides talking past each other, but I'm hoping to revive this part of the thread that at least has a chance for productivity (I was too busy to post at the time). If the underlined is a sincere question from you, the answer is "no", we don't have to leave it there. That's the really great thing about doing detailed and responsible statistical analysis...we have plenty enough data to work with to get a sense of DEGREE. I see all types of posts on both sides of this debate where folks just throw out names and then spin their conclusions based on the point that they want to make...but that's kind of useless, as that's just one poster's opinion vs. another. Opinion alone doesn't settle anything...but if we start to quantify it, we have the basis to perhaps come to some common ground. So, let's continue this with a quote of yours from the other recent KG/Dirk thread:

Again as you already perfectly summed up--its how much weight are you going to give the coach/role players. Ardee thinks they are worth somewhere between 20-35 wins a year plus playoff series wins. I (along with most I should hope) think they are worth considerably less than that and that it is the stars elevating the team with an assist from the others instead of the others elevating the star.

If someone wants to focus an individual comparison (like KG vs Dirk) on team results, you HAVE to account for teammate quality. But how? Here, it seems that you want that question to be answered purely based on opinion. And as I mentioned above, that predictably degenerates into both sides espousing the opinion that supports their previously held position, and nothing is solved. Is there a better way to estimate how many wins a cast might be worth? Well, there are four reasonably popular, publicly available statistical methods in which someone has attempted to quantify how much value a player has to a team based off of their boxscore stats: PER, win shares, wins produced, and wins over replacement player (WARP).

PER (not corrected for minutes played) and WARP (not easily available for all teams, all years) are not the best for this exercise. But both win shares and wins produced are a) derived from linear regressions of actual historical trends, b) calculated in ways that estimated player values are additive and produce team win estimates similar to what occurred in real life, and c) easily accessible for all of the years in question. Win shares resulted from analysis that identified scoring efficiency as the most important characteristic for team success, while wins produced came from analysis that suggested that possession efficiency/changes were the most important. Neither are perfect, and in these parts win shares are held in higher esteem. Nonetheless, knowing the foundation of both methods helps me (as an analyst) to be aware of the ways that each method may be over-biased in a particular direction. Thus, to the extent I use either, I tend to see win shares through the lens of "probably too focused on scoring efficiency, self-correct as such" and wins produced through a similar lens of "probably too reliant on rebounds/steals/blocks so self-correct as such".

But here are the key factors for their usage here in this debate: a) both methods are based on actual historical NBA trends, b) neither method cares a whit about the KG vs Dirk argument (and thus aren't biased towards either side), and c) these two methods are about as far from each other as you can get when dealing with boxscore data and are thus pretty much independent methods of estimating.

So, tying back to this quote about how many wins the cast should be worth. First, the highest number of win shares accorded to a single player in the 2000s is 20.25, and the highest number of wins produced accorded to a single player in the 2000s is (I believe) 31.5. Since these are outlier marks for individuals and we know that the best teams can win in the upper 60s of games, that would suggest that with either method supporting casts would generally be attributed with more responsibility towards a team winning than the best player on the team...especially on championship contending teams. This is not a radical concept, nor is it an abdication of responsibility for the best player...as having that one guy worth an estimated 20 (or 30) wins obviously can help take a solid supporting cast to contending status...but it also helps to put into perspective that the other 11 - 14 players on the team (plus the coaches) are actually hugely important. In basketball a single player can be worth a LOT...and 20 - 30 wins from a single player is actually a monster estimated impact...but they can't come close to doing it by themselves, and the amount of help that they need from their cast can be quantifiably estimated (e.g. we don't just have to name names and then hand-wave so that our argument sounds better).

Next, KG and Dirk (and Duncan) are very often compared with each other, for good reason. The default in public opinion in these debates often comes down to team results, so let's use these two methods to estimate just how much their supporting casts have been contributing to their team results. For KG and Duncan the periods under the most scrutiny are from 1999 - 2007 (the bookends of Duncan's titles, and KG"s prime Minnesota years) while for Dirk the years under most scrutiny are 2003 - 2011 (the first team some think could have won the title if Dirk didn't get injured up through his actual title-winning year). So, let's add up the win shares and wins produced for everyone on the team EXCEPT them in the years in question:

Win Shares:

Code: Select all

              KG   Duncan   Dirk
99, 99, 03   33.1   50.3   47.1
00, 00, 04   37.7   46.0   43.4
01, 01, 05   34.9   51.4   42.0
02, 02, 06   38.8   41.1   42.1
03, 03, 07   32.2   40.5   46.7
04, 04, 08   40.3   49.3   42.5
05, 05, 09   29.7   52.6   37.0
06, 06, 10   21.7   50.3   37.9
07, 07, 11   21.7   51.4   41.6

Wins Produced

Code: Select all

              KG   Duncan   Dirk
99, 99, 03   25.2   45.7   49.7
00, 00, 04   27.5   38.5   48.4
01, 01, 05   27.2   44.2   47.0
02, 02, 06   27.2   32.0   39.4
03, 03, 07   15.1   29.9   42.2
04, 04, 08   25.3   40.8   39.7
05, 05, 09   14.8   44.3   35.6
06, 06, 10    9.4   42.3   39.5
07, 07, 11   10.8   43.4   46.1

Summary: According to these two estimates, over the periods being compared Duncan's supporting casts were worth on average about 16 - 20 more wins than KG's while Dirk's casts were worth on average between 10 - 23 more wins.

In KG's non-playoff years of 2005 - 2007, these two methods estimate that the cast of the Spurs were worth on average 27 - 32 more wins than the cast of the Wolves, and that the cast of the Mavs were worth on average 20 - 31 more wins than the cast of the Wolves.

Similarly, in Dirk's three mega team success years (2006, 2007 and 2011), win shares estimates that his teammates were worth on average 43.5 wins/year and wins produced estimates them worth 42.6 wins/year. Both methods agree that the Mavs' cast in each of those three years was worth more wins than any cast that Garnett ever played with in Minnesota.

Are we still really wasting time on teammates? Dont we all agree that KG mostly had subpar teammates due to poor management and that Dirk while not loaded down with superior talent(JET is the best player hes played with post Nash) has at least had competent management who assembled better fitting teams(Again post-Nash)

That much is a given. Again my position is that Dirk overachieved with most (if not all) of those teams. KG certainly kept his teams from being the current day Bobcats or the 90s Mavs but again had some playoff failures in his early prime when he actually had some good and reliable players. Specifically the 01-03 Wolves werent filled with the Ricky Davises of the world--yet KG couldnt advance them. Then you had the 05 team that failed to make the playoffs.

No one seems to be talking about those specific KG teams that failed--only the trainwreck teams of his final 2 years in Minny.

So yes Dirk had better teammates and a far superior and supportive organization. Its still impossible for me to believe that those account for all of the difference. While its clearly not fair of me to dismiss KG because of Minny's failures--its equally unfair to not give Dirk the lion's share of the credit for what the Mavs have done for the last decade plus.

Conclusion: I hope you can concede after this TL;DR post that a) supporting cast can't just be swept under the rug (or even acknowledged but minimized) as factors if you are going to use team results to compare individual players and b) there is quite a bit of objective, quantified evidence to support that (conservatively) the vast majority of the difference in team results between the three dominant PFs of this era comes down to differences in supporting cast. You'll never, ever hear me argue that either win shares or wins produced are anywhere near perfect...but at the same time, they weren't just pulled from the air either. At worst, these are two different, independent estimates that should at least give a ball-park estimate. And by both methods, KG's casts were not only "worse" than Dirk's and Duncan's...they were quantifiably MUCH worse, to an order that more than covers the difference in their team results. And even if the estimates are only giving ball-parks, those ball-parks are plenty clear enough that simply pointing to team results when comparing KG with either Dirk or Duncan should NEVER be done. We HAVE to actually compare the individual, and not the team.

And thankfully, by this generation where we have access to every game via satellite and the internet...as well as professional-caliber scouting software such as Synergy...as well as professional mathematicians with doctorate degrees doing historical analysis on the box scores...as well as an entirely separate group of professional mathematicians doing analysis on team result trends and +/-...we should have plenty of evidence with which to actually make an excellent comparison of the individuals. Trying to limit analysis to sound bytes and narrative with team results as the de facto evidence for judging individuals is just lazy...and as I hopefully just helped show, is also factually inaccurate.

[G35]

The day you can factually analyze a player with stats is the day I'll stop watching the game.....

[drza]

The day you can factually analyze a player with stats is the day I'll stop watching the game.....

In that incredibly long post, I never once said what you just responded to.

What I did say in my conclusions was:

a) supporting cast can't just be swept under the rug (or even acknowledged but minimized) as factors if you are going to use team results to compare individual players and b) there is quite a bit of objective, quantified evidence to support that (conservatively) the vast majority of the difference in team results between the three dominant PFs of this era comes down to differences in supporting cast. You'll never, ever hear me argue that either win shares or wins produced are anywhere near perfect...but at the same time, they weren't just pulled from the air either. At worst, these are two different, independent estimates that should at least give a ball-park estimate.

and

Trying to limit analysis to sound bytes and narrative with team results as the de facto evidence for judging individuals is just lazy...and as I hopefully just helped show, is also factually inaccurate.

So I did use stats (which I acknowledge as ballpark estimates) to support my point and I did say that limiting analysis of individuals to narrative, sound bytes and team results was lazy and factually inaccurate. But combining the two of those thoughts into one line that you can use as a strawman to beat on to win a cheap argument point is exactly the kind of lazy analysis that makes debates on this board less beneficial than they otherwise could be.

And by the way...you CAN factually analyze a player with stats. That doesn't make your CONCLUSION fact, but statistical analysis is by definition an analysis of a series of facts.

[ardee]

KG has the most excuses ever for a player considered to be a Top 5 PF. It was never his fault in Minnesota just everyone elses.

Just like how you've made excuses for Dirk every season until 2011? You know, if Dirk is so great, why just one ring? Shouldn't he be the leader of the decade in rings?

*end ahouni06-style argument*

Actually, I'm willing to bet he only became a "DIRK" fan after 2011 Finals

[G35]

The day you can factually analyze a player with stats is the day I'll stop watching the game.....

In that incredibly long post, I never once said what you just responded to.

What I did say in my conclusions was:

a) supporting cast can't just be swept under the rug (or even acknowledged but minimized) as factors if you are going to use team results to compare individual players and b) there is quite a bit of objective, quantified evidence to support that (conservatively) the vast majority of the difference in team results between the three dominant PFs of this era comes down to differences in supporting cast. You'll never, ever hear me argue that either win shares or wins produced are anywhere near perfect...but at the same time, they weren't just pulled from the air either. At worst, these are two different, independent estimates that should at least give a ball-park estimate.

and

Trying to limit analysis to sound bytes and narrative with team results as the de facto evidence for judging individuals is just lazy...and as I hopefully just helped show, is also factually inaccurate.

So I did use stats (which I acknowledge as ballpark estimates) to support my point and I did say that limiting analysis of individuals to narrative, sound bytes and team results was lazy and factually inaccurate. But combining the two of those thoughts into one line that you can use as a strawman to beat on to win a cheap argument point is exactly the kind of lazy analysis that makes debates on this board less beneficial than they otherwise could be.

And by the way...you CAN factually analyze a player with stats. That doesn't make your CONCLUSION fact, but statistical analysis is by definition an analysis of a series of facts.

You have your preferred method of analyzing the game. That doesn't make how others do it lazy or factually inaccurate. It makes it different.

Now you say that you are using estimates. Doesn't an estimate mean that it isn't accurate right off the top? I don't think anyone uses just narratives anymore with the availability of statistical resources. Intimating that using narratives and sound bites are lazy ways to analyze players is just arrogant. I would say that the acronym "TL;DR" was invented because the statistical narratives that are written here can distract from actually comparing the players instead of comparing numbers.

I mean are comparing stats or are we comparing players? I hear that this is a team game. All the stats that players produce are dependent on the environment they were produced in and are unique to that players situation. Some players are asked to do more than others because there is a need for it. Does that make one player inferior than another because they don't have the opportunity that another player has? What statistical analysis doesn't provide is context.....

[tsherkin]

None of what you just said makes it any less true than relying on team results, sound bytes and narratives that tend to fly in the face of statistical evidence any less lazy. To properly analyze a player, you need a liberal mix of information and a properly-set context coupled with a specific question that you're trying to answer.

Ignoring the statistics is foolish in the extreme... but so too is relying upon them as a holy grail. There is a great deal of readily-available statistical information that routinely proves that the eye test isn't all that valuable on its own and that media personalities offering sound bytes (including other players) either don't know what they're talking about or are saying nice things in the wake of a loss to make themselves feel better about that loss.

I agree with you that context is critical, but in no way is any of what you're saying detracting from drza's point or stance. Moreover, it's not arrogance to say what he did, it's simply true. Using EITHER stats alone or just sound bites/narrative/team results is a foolish way to approach a debate. Some people reflexively use available stats because they seem to support their point, but it's important to understand what is being said by those stats and when there's a disconnect there, that's when you start to have people looking at someone like Corey Maggette and being thrilled by his efficiency and raw averages and missing out on the context of his late, weak passing, clock-eating habits, etc and labeling him better simply because of a higher TS%. An appropriate analysis would include having watched the player so that things of that nature can be accounted for.

The issue stands, though; long-held beliefs about the game are constantly being overturned (or validated) through the use of statistical information and that's not just in basketball, it's in all sports. A lot of our comfortable little myths fall away when we have the data in front of us and that makes a lot of the trite soundbites that come up largely irrelevant. We've seen some pretty amazing and totally incorrect commentary being made by other players, coaches, etc, so those sorts of things need to be qualified and vetted just as much as the specific nature of what a statistic is telling you... and just because a stat flies in the face of a common narrative doesn't immediately mean that it is wrong: the appropriate thing to do is check facts and see where the disconnect lies.

Meantime, remember what it was that drza said:

And thankfully, by this generation where we have access to every game via satellite and the internet...as well as professional-caliber scouting software such as Synergy...as well as professional mathematicians with doctorate degrees doing historical analysis on the box scores...as well as an entirely separate group of professional mathematicians doing analysis on team result trends and +/-...we should have plenty of evidence with which to actually make an excellent comparison of the individuals. Trying to limit analysis to sound bytes and narrative with team results as the de facto evidence for judging individuals is just lazy...and as I hopefully just helped show, is also factually inaccurate.

We have never-before-seen access to game tape and a much greater focus from the professional academic community performing these analyses. I'm not talking about John Hollinger and his ridiculous ESPN tripe, but the APBRmetrics stuff that's going on and the sort of data we see at the MIT conference, etc.

Meantime, as drza noted, you're pulling a BS strawman argument on him. He said that LIMITING analysis to sound butes and narrative with team results is lazy analysis... and it is. It misses a ton of information, including much of the context that you claim to support. Without the numbers, it's hard to establish things like actual team strengths, which can shed light on how important certain players are. It also helps cast light on things like performance relative to league average (and to individual peers), which are important alternate angles to take in player debates. League context is important, both in terms of the statistical representation of the average performance and knowledge of what is different between the eras in which given players played.

Limiting yourself is always a bad move; using all of the available data and trying to see where that takes you is always going to end up with a superior net result if you remain intellectually honest in the process.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Just looking at who played in KG's playoffs to figure out what position KG played.

For KG's first round exits, at KG's age 20 Flip Saunders went big with KG at SF, Googs at PF and DEAN GARRETT!!! at Center.

The next year Googs got injured and Garrett was not there. At 21 KG was the Center.

The next few years had KG at Center or Power forward.

One year Hammonds playing 22 minutes a game was the only power Forward or Center other than KG to play. So KG who I think of as a PF particularly prior to age 30 played Center while mediocre small forwards played power forward. That year Cherokee Parks and Stanley Roberts had been collectively playing 38 minutes a game during the regular season and the Saunders just benched them against the Sonics in the playoffs.

One Year very young Joe Smith and very young KG were the bigs. I don't know which of them played Center when DEAN GARRETT!!! who played 23 a game sat. Both Smith and KG were both lighter than the average power forward when the were young.

Rasho Nesterovic got 30 minutes two years and 28 minutes another year. In the 28 Minute year Mark Jackson played 18 a game at Center.

Rasho Nesterovic had bad rebound and block per 36 numbers. Sometimes a guy who is doing a good job boxing out does not get good numbers but helps his teammates get rebounds by boxing out. There was an article about Jason Collins saying that though he has horrible numbers you can see why coaches play him by looking at 5 man units and noticing that Collins teammates all rebound better when Collins is on the floor. I have a feeling that the same may be true for Nesterovic.

It looks like Joe Smith spent some time in Flip Saunder's doghouse.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Brandon probably was KG's best teammate.
Cassell is the next best player but that did not last long.

Starbury was a talented knucklehead. Immature very young Starbury played with young KG and Gugliotta. 21 year old Marbury was traded for Brandon and that improved the Twolves. .

By the stats and in my mind what I said looked correct but I did not watch the TWolves much.

Twolves fans rank Brandon as their third best point guard. They say that due to chronic injuries Brandon could not defend while he was a Twolve. Most of their fans ranked Marbury as best. Some ranked Cassell as best.
Maybe the fans who should know better than me are wrong. If Marbury was better how does the team lose Marbury and Gugliatta and improve? Maybe that was KG approaching his peak. Maybe Wally. Brandon's PER is better than Marbury's but PER is probably a bit overrated. Maybe Marburry was just more exciting. You could hope you were watching an emerging superstar.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

I appreciate you taking the time to put together those numbers for me on the teammates of the big 3 pfs. Im glad you pointed out that those numbers arent really an accurate representation but they do give us a little more basis for discussion. Those numbers do appear to show that I have in fact minimized the difference between the various supporting casts. I am publicly acknowledging that here.

I feel somewhat bad that you felt the need to do all of that work just due to my posts. Those posts you quote are a result of my frustration wiht a couple of posters who seemed to make no other arguments other than defense and terrible teammates over and over and over.

I think team success always has a place in player debates. I cant imagine ever removing it. In no way do I think it is the only factor or even the most important factor. But it is a significant factor. I have posted lots of other reasons why I think Dirk is the better player that I wont rehash here. KG clearly has a statistical edge in the RS just as surely as Dirk has a dominant statistical edge in the PS. I didnt bother to go into things like clutch play because again they are harder to quantify but Dirk has countless enormous clutch shots and plays in huge moments esp deep into the PS. KG has some as well but not to the degree of Dirk.

[G35]

Now you say that you are using estimates. Doesn't an estimate mean that it isn't accurate right off the top? I don't think anyone uses just narratives anymore with the availability of statistical resources. Intimating that using narratives and sound bites are lazy ways to analyze players is just arrogant. I would say that the acronym "TL;DR" was invented because the statistical narratives that are written here can distract from actually comparing the players instead of comparing numbers.

I mean are comparing stats or are we comparing players? I hear that this is a team game. All the stats that players produce are dependent on the environment they were produced in and are unique to that players situation. Some players are asked to do more than others because there is a need for it. Does that make one player inferior than another because they don't have the opportunity that another player has? What statistical analysis doesn't provide is context.....

I think some people missed this line. I haven't said not to use statistics or that they are not useful in creating a pov. What is going on is that some people are VERY liberal with how much of statistics they use. Then once they put these numbers out there, if others don't agree with that conclusion then comes the:

"You don't understand what these numbers mean"

"You are being lazy and not taking the time to learn"

"This is the new way of analyzing basketball and if you aren't using this then you shouldn't talk"

Well if that isn't a draconian way of talking to someone I don't know what is. You can use all the stats you want. You can apply them in any way that you want. It doesn't make any of them FACT. What kills me is that people think they can better analyze a game from 10-30 years ago and come to a conclusion with just numbers. There are too many outliers in sports in general to rely on the numbers for a conclusion.

I understood what drza said. He's saying it in a way that says, "I'm not going to totally dismiss video, narratives, or the eye test but you should be using these numbers right here." I think we have all been here long enough to cut the bs and say who is liberally using AS in their player analysis and whose not.

Imo stats can give you the framework of a player, a general idea. What they don't do is give the essence of the player. The problems arise when the AS do not provide the desired result and then that's when you see people going to narratives, video, and context. The proponents of statistical analysis have to stick by what their numbers say and have less flexibility. Because quite often on this board I see inconsistencies because someone doesn't like a player or has an agenda. I do agree that soundbytes by "experts" and players often are worthless. I can't stand pre-game shows in any sport. They are just filler for the fans. I would rather be doing something until tip off than watch pre game/halftime shows.

drza I'm not disagreeing with how you analyze. You should keep doing what works for you. That way of analyzing doesn't work for everyone. These forums should be prime examples of how hard it is to make a team work when everyone doesn't think the same way. We all may have the same goal but we get there with different methods.

Facts are stubborn, statistics are more pliable and using stats can be used to support or undercut almost any argument.

I don't argue from the point of this being an academic forum.

I never was brought into the league thinking as far as, you know, statistics, things like that. We were really brought into the league in a team concept. Everything was focused around winning.
Mark Messier