Barkley: Analytics are @#$%

Badbeats · Post #1 » by **Badbeats** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:39 am

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/tnt_overtime/2015/02/11/20150210-inside-chuck-analytics.nba/?cid=nbacomsocial_20150211_40305906&adbid=565409610547609600&adbpl=tw&adbpr=1373313666

Axl Rose · Post #2 » by **Axl Rose** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:19 am

i give analytics more credit then Barkley but yeah they can be very skewed at times and shouldn't be the end-all be-all when judging a team or player

lostonbase · Post #3 » by **lostonbase** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:40 am

I like Charles but he's the laziest talking head around.

Post #4 » by **Rerisen** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:42 am

[tweet]https://twitter.com/dmorey/status/565339947931287552[/tweet]

gstephanopulos · Post #5 » by **gstephanopulos** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:28 am

Chuck is TV personality. Morey is GM. If analytics were crap roles would be opposite.

'What 'analytics' does Spurs have?
Bunch of guys who never played'

I'm losing my respect for Charles.

Post #6 » by **DuckIII** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:45 am

On the one hand, analytics are helpful. Assuming you know what you are doing with them and use the appropriate ones to analyze what you are trying to analyze. There has been an evolution in the use of metrics - at least on message boards, but who knows about FOs. It started with badly using metrics like PER to "rank" players. Understandable since we were all getting used to them. Now it has evolved to the point where most understand them so well, that the "eye test" has become an afterthought. Which is also a mistake. The two need to be used in conjunction.

Barkley is wrong. But the Morey tweet is childish. Maybe you feel a little defensive about your supposed cutting edge reliance on analytics when you trade Asik to a division rival, dump Parsons for Ariza and sign Josh Smith. Not that Houston is having a bad season. But they could certainly be better than they are.

Post #7 » by **kulaz3000** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:00 pm

gstephanopulos wrote:Chuck is TV personality. Morey is GM. If analytics were crap roles would be opposite.

'What 'analytics' does Spurs have?
Bunch of guys who never played'

I'm losing my respect for Charles.

This doesnt make much sense to me. Just because he isn't a GM of a team doesn't mean he lack knowledge. He is one of the greatest players of all time, and what has Morey done so far? Built together talented teams but none which have ever really threatened at winning a championship.

Now I agree that Charles talks out of his behind most of the time for entertainment sake (even he admits to that), but as of right now Morey hasn't proven sh** and him being all sissy and defensive about people who challenge analytics makes him seem insecure about the value and importance of if. Just do your job, Morey, and don't get sucked in by talking heads, especially against a talking head who actually played basketball, won a load of games and actually was one of the best players of all time.

gstephanopulos · Post #8 » by **gstephanopulos** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:21 pm

kulaz3000 wrote:
gstephanopulos wrote:Chuck is TV personality. Morey is GM. If analytics were crap roles would be opposite.

'What 'analytics' does Spurs have?
Bunch of guys who never played'

I'm losing my respect for Charles.

This doesnt make much sense to me. Just because he isn't a GM of a team doesn't mean he lack knowledge. He is one of the greatest players of all time, and what has Morey done so far? Built together talented teams but none which have ever really threatened at winning a championship.

Now I agree that Charles talks out of his behind most of the time for entertainment sake (even he admits to that), but as of right now Morey hasn't proven sh** and him being all sissy and defensive about people who challenge analytics makes him seem insecure about the value and importance of if. Just do your job, Morey, and don't get sucked in by talking heads, especially against a talking head who actually played basketball, won a load of games and actually was one of the best players of all time.

Being on of the greatest players of all time doesn't mean that he have knowledge required from GM. He took it too far with saying that Houston is terrible at defense and that analytics are bunch of crap. He doesn't realize that analytics are part of evaluating process, not the whole thing. He did pointed at baseball and it seems like he only have seen Moneyball and thinks that players are based on numbers only.

I understand what he ment to say. That you can't build a team based on analitycs only (truth) and that you need star players to do it. But the way that he says that seems pretty dumb and he doesn't seem like a GM material. Since you need to look at every possible way to get just a little better and if you say stuff like it doesn't seem wise.

He also presented terrible examples. Spurs don't have analytics? R u kidding me. One of the first teams to acknowledged value of corner three. First team to really start resting players during the season. Always ahead of the curve.

No team have ever won with analitycs approach? How about Red Socks? I don't know much about baseball but haven't they adapted large portion of Moneyball?

I understand what is Charles job. Be entertaing, say controversial stuff, create intrest, create statements that'll make a lot of movement on internet. Just like he did with me writing all that stuff. But he loses a lot by saying ignorant stuff like that. He have a point but his interpretation is way off.

Post #9 » by **Rerisen** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:33 pm

There are legit criticisms of the over use of analytics, but Charles doesn't know how to elaborate them, from him it just seems more of an arrogant, "I played, these pinheads didn't" type dismissal without much thought.

If people want to hear some insightful considered thoughts on the matter they should listen to someone like Stan Van Gundy at the MIT sports analytics conference, who does a far better job playing Devil's Advocate than just a generic lambasting.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZaCcg20TuY[/youtube]

spectacularmove · Post #10 » by **spectacularmove** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:16 pm

Rerisen wrote:There are legit criticisms of the over use of analytics, but Charles doesn't know how to elaborate them, from him it just seems more of an arrogant, "I played, these pinheads didn't" type dismissal without much thought.

If people want to hear some insightful considered thoughts on the matter they should listen to someone like Stan Van Gundy at the MIT sports analytics conference, who does a far better job playing Devil's Advocate than just a generic lambasting.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZaCcg20TuY[/youtube]

Wow SVG made a great point about actual FG% . Thanks Re

Post #11 » by **Ice Man** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:34 pm

As others are saying, Charles is in over his head here. He's a smart enough guy to say something useful about the subject if he did the work. But he doesn't.

musiqsoulchild · Post #12 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:49 pm

Analytics are important. But so is your inherent sense of reason.

How does one decide "We need a metric like PER." That comes from within....the inner sense of rational. Because your basketball acumen tells you that Larry Hughes shouldn't be making 16 Million, you then try to find metrics that help justify your reason.

It's not the other way around. To determine what needs to be measured is a qualitative and intuitive excersise. How it gets measured is a quantitative one.

Post #13 » by **Rerisen** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:00 pm

spectacularmove wrote:Wow SVG made a great point about actual FG% . Thanks Re

Catch the rest if you get a chance, he also makes some interesting comments about Thibs and Rose.

gstephanopulos · Post #14 » by **gstephanopulos** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:Analytics are important. But so is your inherent sense of reason.

How does one decide "We need a metric like PER." That comes from within....the inner sense of rational. Because your basketball acumen tells you that Larry Hughes shouldn't be making 16 Million, you then try to find metrics that help justify your reason.

It's not the other way around. To determine what needs to be measured is a qualitative and intuitive excersise. How it gets measured is a quantitative one.

PER isn't advanced metric.

lastmanstanding · Post #15 » by **lastmanstanding** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:28 pm

lostonbase wrote:I like Charles but he's the laziest talking head around.

The laziest and one of the dumbest.

blumeany · Post #16 » by **blumeany** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:28 pm

Rerisen wrote:
spectacularmove wrote:Wow SVG made a great point about actual FG% . Thanks Re

Catch the rest if you get a chance, he also makes some interesting comments about Thibs and Rose.

Do you have the timestamp on that? It's an hour long video.

blumeany · Post #17 » by **blumeany** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:30 pm

Analytics are just one tool in a GM's arsenal. In some sports, they are more relevant than others. To either ignore them or be too dependent on them is foolish. (This basically applies to everything in life though - everything in moderation).

Post #18 » by **Rerisen** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:39 pm

blumeany wrote:
Rerisen wrote:
spectacularmove wrote:Wow SVG made a great point about actual FG% . Thanks Re

Catch the rest if you get a chance, he also makes some interesting comments about Thibs and Rose.

Do you have the timestamp on that? It's an hour long video.

On minutes and Thibs: 33:40

On minutes restrictions being BS and about Rose: 39:00 to 41:30

Mech Engineer · Post #19 » by **Mech Engineer** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:51 pm

Morey is not dumb at basketball to not understand the importance of eye-test but the inner meaning of Barkley's words is that people get carried away with their numbers especially if it worked a few times in their evaluations.

And, obviously it has to go through iterations before it makes sense in the majority of the cases. It is trying to take baseball formulas and convert to basketball which can mislead them.

I don't even want to say anything about some of the message board stats....anyone can smell out agendas.

musiqsoulchild · Post #20 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:58 pm

gstephanopulos wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:Analytics are important. But so is your inherent sense of reason.

How does one decide "We need a metric like PER." That comes from within....the inner sense of rational. Because your basketball acumen tells you that Larry Hughes shouldn't be making 16 Million, you then try to find metrics that help justify your reason.

It's not the other way around. To determine what needs to be measured is a qualitative and intuitive excersise. How it gets measured is a quantitative one.

PER isn't advanced metric.

No it's not. In fact it's a third rate metric today.

But it's what kicked off the evolution of NBA metrics. And that's why I chose that particular example.

So, chronologically, someoneust have asked the question "How do we compare players better than just average points per shot?".

First wave metrics: PER. Then after a while, when eye test and common sense kicks in again, people start seeing that there are real anomalies with PER and so the evolution to TS and eFG.

And today we have a ton of context based metrics thanks to the works of several dedicated basketball fiends and SAP Hana.