When Stats lie

[DMAVS41]

I want to see the defensive RAPM for those guys when they defensively changed other teams. You are saying that they changed the team defensively. I'm telling you that both Gill and Newman were better defensively than Kittles and Jefferson. T-mac had some problem moving quickly (forgot what it was but he retired because of it). Collins had good energy on defense. But I want to see stats that the other three were good defensively.

Oh yeah I will tell in time but I want to see the stats tell you first.

I'm saying that adding two centers along with Jason Kidd...while removing the awful defender Marbury, giving less burn to a bad defender in Van Horn, and less minutes to a negative defender in Harris...led to the improved defense.

I don't understand what you mean...see the stats...

T-Mac was a positive 1.1 defender for the Nets in 02
Collins was a positive .9 defender for the Nets in 02


Like I said. You remove Marbury, let Van Horn and Harris play less, allow Byron Scott to coach the way he wants, add Kidd and two centers...and you see in the stats why they'd improve defensively.

Do you think it's magic or something? It's about how the players fit together...etc.

I have no doubt that Gill was better than Kittles on defense. I don't see the relevance here for that though. It has to do with how these guys all fit together around Kidd...

Johnny had a -2.4 defensive rapm in 01 by the way. But again. that isn't really the point. He might have been positive next to Kidd...

My point about adding players is simply that it's a different team so it's hard to compare. You get that...right? It would be one thing if you just removed Marbury and put in Kidd, but that didn't happen. It was Kidd...along with Kittles, jefferson, T-Mac, and Collins. Then you saw Van Horn play a lesser role, and Harris and Williams play lesser roles.

That was my point...not that Jason Collins deserves a ton of credit for the defense or Jefferson or something. the point is that it was a different team with 4 new key players around Kidd...so comparing 01 and 02 and using it as a referendum on Kidd and Marbury is a bit fallacious. Not completely out of bounds, but also not this direct relational deal you want it to be...

Especially as you simply ignored so much in your initial post...

[MMM]

Because stats are not whole they are always partial. They always have a slant. They are not neutral as many think they are. They take on the flavor of the person using them 90% of the time.

Stats can back up concept and context but it you look to them for context you are very susceptible to being duped. Stats are not interchangeable with reality, and do not carry a full truth with it... it is always a representation of a small piece at best, and even when dead on, it is but is one dimension in a three dimensional world... .

Nonetheless, Kidd never had great stats to me. But he was definitely one of the best PG's. He had modest numbers.

Agreed with most of your sentiment. I am aware that stats are just a snapshot in time they are still useful with the right interpretation.

[Smoke117]

it's really ****ing ridiculous how so many people can bicker back and forth about utter bullshit. I made my thread and I thought I said something (the arrogance of self I suppose), but you seem to be all bickering back and forth like a couple of country boys fighting over who gets to **** the prize pig. I mean... really, DMAVS ( you should hold me in high regard for even putting you in caps), you know what you are talking about, but you are here growling and gnawing at animals as if you should be sleeping and eating the shit they do. Why take the bait? Were all animals in the end, but he stupidest ones? They are around as much...or altogether because ate the shit the were fed...which honestly puts me at a crossroads...well I suppose that is life. It all ends in the middle and it all is going to end in shit for everybody. Cheers.

[Pointguard]

You only listed a few of the stats though...clown.

Oh...more stats!...ahahahahah;

Clutch play

Kidd shot 34% fg / 31% from 3 / 40%efg...on 95 shots
Marbury shot 26% fg / 23% from 3 / 29% efg...on 74 shots

You are a deranged lunatic... You have serious trouble just trying to stay away. Please find more stats you are about 1/10th away from explaining 80% of the bulk of the game.

Way better defense, way better clutch play, 4 other brand new key rotation players...

Bu bu bu bu but....intangibles!

Explain what the four players were better at and show it thru your stats.

Maybe if Marbury didn't play like complete shit in close games his team would have won more. In 01, the Nets went into crunch time in 26 games that Marbury played. In 02, the Nets went into crunch time in 31 games that Kidd played.

That's 57 games out of 164. You got this on lock. You doing it.

Guess what...having a key player shoot 11% better in terms of efg% in close games is going to be a huge factor in winning close games all else equal. But the Nets had better players and better defense in 02 to begin with...LOL

You are incorrigible. What happened to your great fall back on TS%. That's your lifeline. You are now abandoning it for EFG%?

[Pointguard]

Agreed with most of your sentiment. I am aware that stats are just a snapshot in time they are still useful with the right interpretation.

I agree with where you are coming from - as I usually do. I just think the application of stats is hard and usually overstated by people using it.

[Budadiiii]

Agreed with PG.... stats don't take into account how much of a retard Derrick Rose is and how much of a detriment the injury prone chucker is to that franchise.

[Pointguard]

it's really ****ing ridiculous how so many people can bicker back and forth about utter bullshit. I made my thread and I thought I said something (the arrogance of self I suppose), but you seem to be all bickering back and forth like a couple of country boys fighting over who gets to **** the prize pig. I mean... really, DMAVS ( you should hold me in high regard for even putting you in caps), you know what you are talking about, but you are here growling and gnawing at animals as if you should be sleeping and eating the shit they do. Why take the bait? Were all animals in the end, but he stupidest ones? They are around as much...or altogether because ate the shit the were fed...which honestly puts me at a crossroads...well I suppose that is life. It all ends in the middle and it all is going to end in shit for everybody. Cheers.

You really believe that?

[ILLsmak]

You really believe that?

He does.

Chekkit. I'm gonna break it down from both sides. I personally don't like stats, either...

PG: You want DMAVS to concede that stats are not the end all be all or, even, that they can be outright wrong. You try to prove this by comparing stats that a casual fan would bring up.

DMAVS, however, is replying that you must select the stats with a discerning mind. OK, well.... the first point that needs to be made is that it seems DMAVS is exactly the same as you are except he is using stats as his 'facts.' He has reached the same conclusion and sought stats to back them up.

Therein lies the issue with advanced stats, however, is you can keep digging and find a stat for everything. Funny that Collins should be mentioned when he is an intangible player. Someone may look at players like Collins (or Perkins, for all of you guys who say he sucks) and try to measure their impact numerically... and create a new stat. However, that stat wouldn't be applicable to other types of players.

Again, an issue with stats is that you can't cross compare them. At least, that's how I feel. Certain stats DO invalidate or contradict others... simply because they are so many.

Lastly, WINS is also a stat. Keep that in mind. It is implied that getting wins is a desirable result. And IT IS, however, so much more goes into a win than goes into a stat. Therefore, it's hard to say... well let's see... a team had 10 wins and then they got this player and had... 50!

But wins are better that stats, too... so really, I mean if your mind can house all of this information, it's kind of numbing to take it all into account or, even more, express it.

Just like the "eye test" is not some intangible thing. It's watching and noticing outcomes you recognize and grading them based on circumstance.

PEACE

-Smak

[f0und]

stats lie only to the person looking at it as the only truth.

[Pointguard]

stats lie only to the person looking at it as the only truth.

Thanks

[Pointguard]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.

[atljonesbro]

I find it funny how people have this superiority complex when they disregard stats. People are quick to disregard factual information and feel big and smart but are quick to talk about "heart" and "dedication".

[DMAVS41]

You are a deranged lunatic... You have serious trouble just trying to stay away. Please find more stats you are about 1/10th away from explaining 80% of the bulk of the game.


Explain what the four players were better at and show it thru your stats.

That's 57 games out of 164. You got this on lock. You doing it.



You are incorrigible. What happened to your great fall back on TS%. That's your lifeline. You are now abandoning it for EFG%?

Dude.

I could only get efg% for the clutch play. If I had TS%...I would have used it.

I already have done what you asked.

I explained that Kidd was a far better defender. It's something equivalent to replacing Chris Webber with KG or Duncan at the PF position. Webber wasn't even nearly as bad as Marbury though...

What can't you get. Marbury was a terrible defender...Kidd is a great defender.

Then you take a team that wasn't even really playing a center...and you give them T-Mac and Collins.

You are going to see a huge swing on defense by adding those 3 guys...which in turn removes the biggest defensive problem, Marbury, and allows you to play the likes of Van Horn and Harris less.

In 01, with Marbury on the court, they had a 106.7 drtg. That would have been the 26th ranked defense. When Marbury went to the bench or didn't play...the Nets had a 102.5 drtg. That would have been good for the 11th best defense.

So, please follow this, just on subtracting Marbury...you would see a big leap on defense. Now imagine subtracting Marbury and adding one of the truly best defensive/rebounding guards ever in his prime. Then add two centers on a team that didn't really have one. But wait...there is more evidence why this would make an impact. The Nets actually played really good defense with Evan Eschmeyer on the court in 01. With him on the court...the Nets had a 100.8 drtg...which would have been the 8th best defense in the league. So obviously the Nets were lacking at center as he's really the only guy they had and he only played 18 mpg. In 02...they got a combined 42 minutes a game out of Collins and T-Mac.

So what more do you want? You can see that just subtracting Marbury is huge just by itself. Then you replace him with the best defensive/rebounding guard in the league...then you add an extra two centers that give you 42 minutes a game at a position that was clearly lacking the year before.

Everything points to them having a vastly improved defense.


You factor in all the defensive stuff. Factor in the fact that is was just a different team...that Kidd performed much better in crunch time. And you start seeing a solid case as to why, just using stats, the Nets would be significantly better in 02.

The problem with you is that you talked out of your ass in the OP. It's not even a good comparison because of the 4 new players coming over. But even then if we try to do it...the first thing you'd look at here is defense because the offense isn't what changed.

Do you really not see how stupid that is? Asking how offensive stats only could explain why a team won more games...when the team in question went from having a shit defense to the best defense in the league?

Then your conclusion is that stats lie?

And don't get me wrong, sometimes stats do "lie"...at least in the sense you are talking about and you really have to unpack what some stuff means.

But not in this case. This case is just one of you being ignorant to the real reasons a team got better and instead of talking about real stuff. You just appeal to intangibles (which I'm not against by the way) to explain something like it's magical...when in reality it's just a simple case of removing one of the worst defenders in the league and replacing him with one of the best...while also improving the center position.

Not complicated at all...and all perfectly shown through your hated "stats"...

[DMAVS41]

I find it funny how people have this superiority complex when they disregard stats. People are quick to disregard factual information and feel big and smart but are quick to talk about "heart" and "dedication".

I find this hilarious as well.

People say things like "stats can mean anything" or "all stats have a slant to them"

Okay...what the shit do people have? People all see the game differently and we all a drawn to one thing over the other and have all these biases when doing anything in life.

Not to mention the serious lacking of sample size when just relying on the "eye test"

Unless you watch thousands upon thousands of nba games a year start to finish...you just can't have a big enough sample size about a team or player.

I watch like every Mavs game...and a lot of some other teams. But I hardly ever turn on a raptors or bobcats or hawks game...I've pretty seen like 10 games each max on the year. I have absolutely not seen enough to use the "eye test" in any meaningful way....

Also, stats are simply records of what happened...there is no difference in bringing up someone's ft%...than there is linking to a youtube video of all the ft's a player shoots.

Generally you find people, like PG, that oppose stats so strongly aren't in search of the truth. They want to make claims and not support them and keep thinking they know everything...reminds me of Kblaze trying to say why we can't use rapm. And then in his response about why it's terrible...he exhibits a profound ignorance of what it actually is. Then he'll say something about how people at the barber shop don't talk like this.

Okay...as if that is supposed to mean something? Some clown at the barber shop that doesn't watch enough games and doesn't know any of the stats is supposed to be this guru of the game? I find it ****ing comical...

The Marbury vs Kidd thing is a perfect example of this. PG thinks that it's some intangible magic that makes Kidd better than his stats. And while Kidd does have good leadership etc....it's really just his great defense...or it was his great defense and rebounding that makes him "better" than his basic splits would indicate.

But who, other than an ignorant casual fan, is only going to talk about points and assists when discussing a guy like Kidd? Nobody does this. It's Duncan is ranked so highly all time. It's why we all value what Leonard does and why some here already put him top 25 in the league.

What guys like PG and Kblaze are clamoring for is literally already being done by everyone.

[DMAVS41]

Smak to make it simple, my emphasis is on qualitative not quantitative. Kidd had a very unique quality that doesn't lend itself personal quantitative measure.

Measuring qualities is out of reach if you can't decipher a basic understanding of how players are functioning and are interconnected. If you are discerning where the stats are without knowing how they mature in different players you are in it for the stats and not the game itself. You are hypnotized by the stats and fail to see how the game reveals itself.

Ben Wallace was an intense, fearless, hustle defensive player and leader. The second he says, "I can guard Shaquille alone and keep him under 30," his team is transformed and convinced they can win it all. His value is that of a superstar. But because the stats don't support this status few will go there.

If folks are stuck on quantitative measure, or better yet lead by it, I just don't think they are going to do too well when measuring the quality, function and player interaction. I've been saying for years that I think Durant will be the most proficient scorer there is, but I would take MJ over h because of MJ's qualities.

So your only point is that there are things like leadership and toughness and chemistry that some stats might not pick up...or don't.

Totally agree.

But you picked a terrible example of this. Horrible...all the stats in this case explain why you'd see a pretty big turn around defensively for this team.

I find some of the stuff you say funny...especially to me. I rank Russell 2nd all time, Magic 3rd all time, and Duncan 4th...

You really think I'm in love with stats so much? LOL...of course you can't encompass everything about the game with them. But what you and your side needs to realize...the "eye test"...doesn't work by itself either. There are too many things going on during the games and too much information to process to just use "watching the games"

I will ask the same thing...why can't we use both? Why can't I watch the game and see Marbury literally playing with his nuts on defense for an entire year rather than actually trying. Why can't I watch Kidd give far better effort on defense and rebounding? It's all there to watch...and that difference is perfectly shown in the defensive stats.

We all knew from watching the games and from the stats that by getting Kidd in 02...the Nets were getting rid of a terrible defender/rebounder and replacing him with a great one.

Why invoke "magic" to explain the Nets then?