Obsession with stats?

[DMAVS41]

It's not circles...you just aren't even making sense at this point.

An opinion can either be informed or not...or less informed.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the best players and teams always seem to have the best stats?

How do you judge free throw shooting? Do you solely go off watching the games, or do you look at the stats?

Which player has been the better ft shooter in the clutch this year?

Dirk or Lebron or Kobe or Nash?

Don't look it up. Tell me how each of those guys has shot free throws in crunch time this year.

Waiting...

[Rubio2Gasol]

It's not circles...you just aren't even making sense at this point.

An opinion can either be informed or not...or less informed.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the best players and teams always seem to have the best stats?

How do you judge free throw shooting? Do you solely go off watching the games, or do you look at the stats?

Which player has been the better ft shooter in the clutch this year?

Dirk or Lebron or Kobe or Nash?

Don't look it up. Tell me how each of those guys has shot free throws in crunch time this year.

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare. The stats only tell you what happened, it's your job to think... Why?.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.

[niko]

The thing i don't like with the stats now is twofold, the fact people take them blindly with no thought, and that people look for specific stats to prove their points even if it is the opposite of what they see with their eyes.

I remember someone telling me the Knicks would fold because their schedule in the 2nd half was so weak compared to the Nets. The difference was literally NOTHING (like hundreths of a percent different) but because the Nets were something like 10th and the Knicks 20th, they assumed it's a big difference and kept arguing even though the number different was nothing. I also hate when people say LEBRON SUCKS and show that he is one of the lower players in the last 3 minutes of games on Tuesday vs. Teams whose names start with S.

[DMAVS41]

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.

but you don't watch enough to know how a player actually performs unless it is your team.

do you not understand? if you watch all 82 Knicks games...you simply can't watch all the games of other teams as well. lets say you can watch enough of 2 teams throughout the year to accurately gauge things by watching.

well, what the hell do you do with the other teams. if you don't want to use stats.

basically you people are saying this..."don't tell me what a player or team actually did...i'd rather watch half the game or the highlights on SC and that is better"

It's just hilarious. You learn so much about a team through stats....

I'll give you a perfect example. If you watched the Mavs play the Bulls and Clippers you would come away thinking that they are great in close games...with Dirk making clutch shots and the defense really stepping up. But in reality they have been terrible all year with a horrible record in tight games.

[Rubio2Gasol]

but you don't watch enough to know how a player actually performs unless it is your team.

do you not understand? if you watch all 82 Knicks games...you simply can't watch all the games of other teams as well. lets say you can watch enough of 2 teams throughout the year to accurately gauge things by watching.

well, what the hell do you do with the other teams. if you don't want to use stats.

basically you people are saying this..."don't tell me what a player or team actually did...i'd rather watch half the game or the highlights on SC and that is better"

It's just hilarious. You learn so much about a team through stats....

I'll give you a perfect example. If you watched the Mavs play the Bulls and Clippers you would come away thinking that they are great in close games...with Dirk making clutch shots and the defense really stepping up. But in reality they have been terrible all year with a horrible record in tight games.

But what idiot says a team has been great in close games over the course of a year when the player who been carrying them through these games been injured for half of it?

Then you think close games? What is that? Is that really only when games are tied with 2 seconds to go? Nope. Games are close all the time, things are tight and they get resolved without anyone having to make a game winner or anything as simple as that.

You learn half the story....and then some (not specifically you) preach it like the bible. You learn something, you ask why, you learn more about that same thing, until you actually have a grasp of what you're trying to understand.

As I said, it's your evaluation of the stats that is critical...and there is clearly a lack of evaluation or flat out wrong evaluation that makes stats very toxic.

[DMAVS41]

But what idiot says a team has been great in close games over the course of a year when the player who been carrying them through these games been injured for half of it?

Then you think close games? What is that? Is that really only when games are tied with 2 seconds to go? Nope. Games are close all the time, things are tight and they get resolved without anyone having to make a game winner or anything as simple as that.

You learn half the story....and then some (not specifically you) preach it like the bible. You learn something, you ask why, you learn more about that same thing, until you actually have a grasp of what you're trying to understand.

As I said, it's your evaluation of the stats that is critical...and there is clearly a lack of evaluation or flat out wrong evaluation that makes stats very toxic.

How you define close games is up for debate. I was talking more about relatively winnable games with 5 or so minutes left. The Mavs have been horrible...even with Dirk back.

But yes, how you evaluate and use stats matters. But that is obvious and a reflection the people using them...and not the stat.

Could I not say the same thing about opinions? How someone watches a game and forms and opinion matters...and it can be very toxic if they are biased.

How you use them properly is certainly up for debate, but objective evidence is always a good thing to have.

Everyone watches games differently and forms different opinions...so I still don't see the point for your side. I remember on here when everyone was calling me crazy for picking the Celtics over the Cavs in 2010. We all watched the games...I saw them differently than most. But it was just a feeling I had...nothing more. It happened to be right that time...but I was wrong the following year about just about everything. Not saying stats are better, but there is no flawless way of looking at the game or evaluating it. You just should try to use as much information as possible.

There is no argument to ignore information unless it is false.

[97 bulls]

Sure Sure.

FT shooting is a good stat, It's a purely individual stat. The game is stopped, no one is taking your free throws for you and no one influences how well you shoot them. If a situation is that fixed then cool - go to town on it. Are there people that say FT % is irrelevant or unreliable?

That's a rare case maybe the only case where stats tell the whole story

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best players on the best teams have the best stats....that's the damn point. They are intrinsically liked. As is opposition, as is situation as is everything you can think of that goes un quantified and un-measured.

Point out to me where I told you not to use stats.

I said properly evaluate them literally from the beginning, but you here talking about opinions being informed or un-informed.

The only way to fully understand anything is to watch it take place. If you decide to use stats you need a great deal of application, knowledge and context which is possible and can generate useful results, but judging from this site exceedingly rare. The stats only tell you what happened, it's your job to think... Why?.

What's worse is you're using one of the worst group of statistics, the ones that attempt to reflect degrees of clutchness. You arguing that percentages on game winning shots or team offensive efficency reflect the "clutchness" of a player. That all the things I outlined don't matter.

Cool...I'm not going to go around arguing with that.

Great post Rubio. The only way to fairly compare players statistics is if theyre put in the exact same situation. And that means the same teammates, opponant, situation, everything. Such as FTs. Thats the onky stats that I feel you can look at and draw a fair conclusion. All other stats must be taken into context. How is the opponant defending said player? Whats said players role on the team? Was said player injured? Who is said player defending (people really never take this into account)? The toll playing defense takes on a player is rarely acknowledged.

Whats more, is this insane infatuation with choosing players based on game winning shots. Robert Horry hit a lot of game winning shots during his career. I still wouldnt take him over a Rudy Gay for example.

[DMAVS41]

Great post Rubio. The only way to fairly compare players statistics is if theyre put in the exact same situation. And that means the same teammates, opponant, situation, everything. Such as FTs. Thats the onky stats that I feel you can look at and draw a fair conclusion. All other stats must be taken into context. How is the opponant defending said player? Whats said players role on the team? Was said player injured? Who is said player defending (people really never take this into account)? The toll playing defense takes on a player is rarely acknowledged.

Whats more, is this insane infatuation with choosing players based on game winning shots. Robert Horry hit a lot of game winning shots during his career. I still wouldnt take him over a Rudy Gay for example.

A lot of that stuff evens out over time...especially when comparing elite players.

In terms of Gay vs Horry...well, Horry is better suited to be a role player and a better team player. Gay might be more talented, but he's probably not good enough to be even the 2nd best player on a title winning team. So when you factor that in...and salary...I'd say Horry is more valuable than Gay on any given team.

[Simple Jack]

Statistics are a great way of verifying what you watch. Ultimately they are a source of information, and information should never be disregarded.

You can, and often do, have differing opinions from a large number of people who view the same game.

I mean look at all the discussion here on a nightly basis; you got topics and posts on the same exact issue (Ex: Kobe/LeBron having a good or bad game) and you have completely different views on it with an absurd amount of bias. Stats are a simple way to strengthen one's argument, if applied correctly (meaning in the right context). It's not a coincidence that many of the stats utilized (let's say clutch for example, or superclutch according to 82games) have the guys you'd expect to be there at the top of the list. It's not some voodoo magic, established to tear down one's favorite player; rather those guys are up there because given the metric used, they tend to perform really well in the clutch situation (however the stat quantifies it).

The notion that stats are "toxic" though? In what other facet of life do you willingly choose to be ignorant about something? If information that can quantify something is available and helps to paint the bigger picture (even if it doesn't do so to a large degree, it's still information) it should be utilized or at least acknowledged. Again, I'm not suggesting that stats should be the only thing used to form one's opinion or a conclusion but it should definitely be taken into consideration.

The reality is, also, that a lot of the things people mention that aren't able to be quantified, are pretty irrelevant if they don't bring about some impact to the game. What good is "mentality", "hustle", etc., if it doesn't impact the game in some way?

[DMAVS41]

Statistics are a great way of verifying what you watch. Ultimately they are a source of information, and information should never be disregarded.

You can, and often do, have differing opinions from a large number of people who view the same game.

I mean look at all the discussion here on a nightly basis; you got topics and posts on the same exact issue (Ex: Kobe/LeBron having a good or bad game) and you have completely different views on it with an absurd amount of bias. Stats are a simple way to strengthen one's argument, if applied correctly (meaning in the right context). It's not a coincidence that many of the stats utilized (let's say clutch for example, or superclutch according to 82games) have the guys you'd expect to be there at the top of the list. It's not some voodoo magic, established to tear down one's favorite player; rather those guys are up there because given the metric used, they tend to perform really well in the clutch situation (however the stat quantifies it).

The notion that stats are "toxic" though? In what other facet of life do you willingly choose to be ignorant about something? If information that can quantify something is available and helps to paint the bigger picture (even if it doesn't do so to a large degree, it's still information) it should be utilized or at least acknowledged. Again, I'm not suggesting that stats should be the only thing used to form one's opinion or a conclusion but it should definitely be taken into consideration.

The reality is, also, that a lot of the things people mention that aren't able to be quantified, are pretty irrelevant if they don't bring about some impact to the game. What good is "mentality", "hustle", etc., if it doesn't impact the game in some way?

Yep. If you had two different airlines...and one had a crash 10% of flights and the other had a crash .01% of flights...nobody is jumping on the plane that crashes 10% of the time.

Doesn't matter how many flights you've seen land safely.

Just like nobody would want Lebron taking a free throw to send a game over Dirk or Nash....historically..not this season.

No matter how many times you've seen Lebron make a free throw.

But if you didn't have stats, personal bias and views would get in the way.

It's really not hard people.

[AlphaWolf24]

Two people watch the SAME game. Person A and B come out of it w/ two COMPLETELY different views of...say..a superstar?

Person A backs his opinion with facts (statistics). Everything he's saying checks out. It's proven by data. Person B on the other hand, repeats his opinion, but has literally ZERO evidence to support it. Nothing.

What then?

- I took my little cousin to Oakland to watch a Bull's vs Warriors Game in 97' ( yeah I'm pretty sure it was 97' or 98')

- Jordan shot like 2 for 17....had like 10-15 points....3 - 4 ast and a couple rebounds....he was off.....way off.

- Jordan never quite playing defense...and the more his shot was off the more he hustled on the defensive end.( at least I recognized it)

- in the closing minutes of the game....( a very close game)...MJ blocked a shot....and got fouled on the offensive end....his FT's Iced the game.

- my cousin looked at me and said...." MJ sucked this game"....I said...no he didn't....his shot was off.....but he dominated doing everything else.....especially on defense.....he hustled and made all the little disruptive defensive plays.

Looking at MJ's stats.....someone who didn't watch the game......would think MJ had a very bad game...in fact it was IMO one of his best( trust me...If you know/understand basketball...he F'ing dominated).....he dominated with pure heart and will.


I remember watching Bird dominate games just by making great bounce passes .....while only scoring 10pts and maybe getting 6 REB.....He still was by far the most important player.

- did stats back up my arguement?....absolutley not...watching the game....having knowlege/understanding of the game did. ( Those are far more important then data)

Like I said...Stats are 20% of the knowlege....the main course will always be watching the games....especially in basketball.