Thugger HBC wrote:bigbreakfast wrote:Thugger HBC wrote:Eye test dont though.
My rule for thumb...stats enhance what you see, they dont change your mind of what you saw.
I take the subjective over objective approach in evaluating small samples, ie. playing good defense but the offense was just hot and hit tough shots in a single game. However, I believe it is very hard to argue against a sizeable amount of data and objective evidence with sufficient sample size. Let's not forget the way we judge who wins the games is based on who tallies the higher total in a statistical category (pts scored). Stats are an integral in evaluating individual and team performance, the eye test only serves to enhance that.
You got it backwards IMO.
The stats enhance the eye test, otherwise no need to watch the games.
Sometimes I wonder what fans did back in the day before all this.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
21shumpshumpst wrote:Btw can someone explain to me how these great stats on isolation by the all mighty Synergy are compiled?
They have a bunch of guys looking at video on a computer, annotating each play they see. I know because I took the online test to become one of those guys (but I guess I didn't do well enough to qualify).
21shumpshumpst wrote:Does it take into account that sometimes when you are isolated and your man breaks your ankle the opposing team may or may not have a good help defending big that stops points from being scored?
Closest man that contests the shot, causes the TO, or commits the shooting foul is credited with being the defender in isolation. If no one contests the shot, it is left to the judgment of the analyst to determine who the closest defender is.
21shumpshumpst wrote:Does it take into account the defensive scheme being used for help defending vs said isolations? Because it is rare in the nba to see a man be left on his own in isolation situations without
No it does not. The offensive play is annotated (isolation, pnr ball handler, pnr roll man, post up, spot up, off screen, cut, handoff), but the defensive scheme is not, not that I know of.
21shumpshumpst wrote:How about does it take into account number of isolations ? For example, maybe Lin was allowed to be isolated 10 times vs 100 for another pg.
The stats include the number of instances.
For example, Lin defended 91 plays in isolation, which is 16.4% of the total plays he has defended this year. Opponents have scored .76 points per possession on isolation plays on Lin. It also gives the FGM, FGA, 3PM, 3PA, % of isolation plays that ended in a Shooting Foul, and 1's, % that ended in a TO, and % that ended in a score.
For synergy, a "play" means a possession that ends in a FGA, TO, or FTA.
You can check
http://www.mysynergysports.com/ to see for yourself. Apparently they give you three freebies, so you can look up 3 players' stats for free.
21shumpshumpst wrote:Or the fact that sometimes pgs are hidden from the best iso scorer on the other team as part of hte initial defensive scheme? So for example you wouldn't put Nash on CP3 you would put Kobe. Thanks
The Synergy analyst is instructed to record the closest defender to the offensive player when the offensive player shoots, turns it over, or draws a shooting foul.
21shumpshumpst wrote:Sorry one last thing what is their criteria for isolation? Thanks
Any play that ends in a FGA, TO, or FTA that's not a PnR, post up, spot up, catch and shoot shot off a screen, cut, or a handoff.
If the play falls into a grey area, the analyst (video guy annotating the play) uses their best judgment in assigning which play type it is.
