Are Stats overrated?

[SouBeachTalents]

Stats can definitely be overrated on losing teams, or misleading on an individual game or playoff series basis. Obviously you have to keep into account era as well, but generally, I think besides what I mentioned earlier, stats can usually be a pretty accurate barometer

[knicksman]

Stats is like quantity. It is a number but quality is more important. Same goes for effectiveness. You cant measure it but its more important than efficiency/PER. This is where kobe and bran stans dont get along. Bran stans prefer efficiency over effectiveness while kobe stans otherwise.

[BigKAT]

Stats is like quantity. It is a number but quality is more important. Same goes for effectiveness. You cant measure it but its more important than efficiency/PER. This is where kobe and bran stans dont get along. Bran stans prefer efficiency over effectiveness while kobe stans otherwise.

What is the major stat representing Efficency?
What is the major stat representing Effectiveness?

Are you speaking of PER vs PPG? Please elaborate.

[Smoke117]

Stats is like quantity. It is a number but quality is more important. Same goes for effectiveness. You cant measure it but its more important than efficiency/PER. This is where kobe and bran stans dont get along. Bran stans prefer efficiency over effectiveness while kobe stans otherwise.

Do us all a favor and slither back down the drain.

[knicksman]

What is the major stat representing Efficency?
What is the major stat representing Effectiveness?

Are you speaking of PER vs PPG? Please elaborate.

Efficiency is PER. While theres no stat for effectiveness just like quality. Its otherwise called eye test. Its about whether he plays the right way or not. Thats why there are players that shrink coz their game isnt effective at the highest level of competition. Like shaq who could be nullified when hacked

[knicksman]

Do us all a favor and slither back down the drain.

Youre mad coz its the truth. Most bran stans dont have the iq to understand effectiveness so they prefer stats

[NBAGOAT]

stats are overrated but so is the eye test. Most fans including myself will miss a lot of things during a game and be affected by our biases etc. Pretty obvious just reading what a lot of people say here. You really need to do legit film review like coaches or scouts to really have a good eye test which I doubt many fans do and even then you're not going be always right. Coach Nick has one of the better channels on youtube for that and he gets criticized all the time.

[jlip]

Stats also sometimes say more about a player's role than his ability.

[G-train]

I personally think that Stats are important, but they can also be misleading. A good example would be Marc Gasol on the 14' Grizz. A 55-win team, with their best guy averaging 17, 8 and 3. I bet that when people revisit that season 15 years from now they'll write him off as nothing special. But anyone who watched games just saw that the guy could ball and just made winning decisions.

You just need the right stats.

When Gasol won DPoY in 2013 he was 3rd in league for VORP, 4th for BPM, 5th DBPM, 9th in WS/48, 6th in WS, and 2nd in DWS.

He averaged 14/8/4 in basic stats.

[tamaraw08]

I've seen stats being used as a major point in arguments.
Heck, I often turn to them myself when trying to prove a point.
How else are we meant to convince anyone if not by showing them FACTS rather then opinion..?

But still, I can't help but think that stats aren't everything.

When the 24 PPG come matters alot. Do they come in garbage time/losses or perhaps they usually come when the rest of the key guys are slumping and the offense stagnats?

Do the 12 Rebounds come in the last two minutes or the first quarter?

Is the FG% only so high because the player refuses to take bad shots? Or perhaps it is so low because teammates throw them the ball when the 24 second clock runs out..?

If so, what is the true rate for greatness? Is it simply winning?

What do you guys think? Are stats the flawed yet best way to compare players? Or is it an overhyped collection of data that doesn't reflect true skill?

I personally think that Stats are important, but they can also be misleading. A good example would be Marc Gasol on the 14' Grizz. A 55-win team, with their best guy averaging 17, 8 and 3. I bet that when people revisit that season 15 years from now they'll write him off as nothing special. But anyone who watched games just saw that the guy could ball and just made winning decisions.

Yes, stats can be manipulated to stress a point.
Take the case of a Kobe basher who kept stating that the 21 yr old Kobe only averaged 15+ pts the first time he won the ring. Ofcourse it's misleading bec in one of those games, he scored only 2 pts because he got injured 9 minutes into the game. coupled with Shaq taking the bulk of the shots.
Or the fact that he shot a low % in the finals where he faced the toughest defenses put up by the Celtics, Sixers and the Pistons where they allowed much tougher physical plays. Forget the fact too that the same Celtics also played great defense vs Lebron that they themselves also shot poorly bec of the same rules applied.

[Da_Realist]

.
Stats are very overrated without having access to ALL the relevant stats

Example 1:

Lebron's 36/13/9 from the 2015 Finals sounds great until you see that his time of possession was a preposterous 12.0 minutes per game, or 50% higher than the regular season leader John Wall's 8.2 minutes.. He was also barely double-teamed, as noted by ESPN.

So basically, the team was just clearing out for Lebron on every possession with no double-teaming [COLOR="darkred"]like a playground game[/COLOR] - knowing these things makes his stats less impressive even WITHOUT knowing he could only muster 39% shooting under this optimal, stat-padding format.

Especially the ESPN link showing he was single covered the whole series.

[El Gato Negro]

Stats are better than a biased eye test. But are not an end all either, good tool for non trolls.

[bigkingsfan]

.
Stats are very overrated without having access to ALL the relevant stats

Example 1:

Lebron's 36/13/9 from the 2015 Finals sounds great until you see that his time of possession was a preposterous 12.0 minutes per game, or 50% higher than the regular season leader John Wall's 8.2 minutes.. He was also barely double-teamed, as noted by ESPN.

So basically, the team was just clearing out for Lebron on every possession with no double-teaming [COLOR="darkred"]like a playground game[/COLOR] - knowing these things makes his stats less impressive even WITHOUT knowing he could only muster 39% shooting under this optimal, stat-padding format.

Example 2:

In the playoffs, Lebron averages 6.8 APG compared to Jordan's 5.7.. However, Lebron's assist average was achieved by REDUCING the assists of all his key teammates (as shown in previous post), whereas Jordan achieved his assists while often INCREASING his teammates' assists.

Unlike off-ball play, Lebron's ball-dominance doesn't require assisting from teammates, and the excessive time of possession further serves to reduce his teammates opportunity to playmake.. this "playground" style is optimal for individual stat accumulation, but not for winning.. Otoh, Jordan achieved superior scoring and efficiency with equal assists WITHIN a Spurs-like, equal-opportunity, non-ball-dominant system - [COLOR="darkRed"]this nuanced, sophisticated, winning approach requires far greater skill than Lebron's playground approach.[/COLOR]

Jordan is the #1 usage all time player.

[GimmeThat]

besides a few good point that's been mentioned

stats is pretty much using 5 conclusions to make 1 decision

if you make 1 decision off of 1 conclusion, unless that stat can recalculate itself (we are touching artificial intelligence category here)

imagine the chances for you to be wrong, as well as that 1 decision's effectiveness to the efficiency of a vast amount of conclusions

[aj1987]

Efficiency is PER. While theres no stat for effectiveness just like quality. Its otherwise called eye test. Its about whether he plays the right way or not. Thats why there are players that shrink coz their game isnt effective at the highest level of competition. Like shaq who could be nullified when hacked

Is that why LeBron has 3 more MVP's and 1 more FMVP in 7 less seasons played?