Question for advanced stat geeks

[90sgoat]

If you have so much confidence in these advanced stats do you use them to bet on?

I mean, if they're so much better than the eye test of the basketball afficionado (such as myself), then you all be ballin out of control right?

Sarcasm aside, which stats do you use to pick winners?

Also, is there a betting thread here? I'm going to place some bets going forward, starting tonight.

[ISHGoat]

If you have so much confidence in these advanced stats do you use them to bet on?

I mean, if they're so much better than the eye test of the basketball afficionado (such as myself), then you all be ballin out of control right?

Sarcasm aside, which stats do you use to pick winners?

Also, is there a betting thread here? I'm going to place some bets going forward, starting tonight.

I solely use advanced stats to determine a player's value when a player is removed/inserted into a line up. However, "the eye test" can also be useful/accurate when used in conjunction with #s and applied by a knowledgeable individual with very little bias.

Every day I update my own "point rankings" for every team; to figure out a winning margin I just subtract the teams in question, add home court advantage (usually a flat 2.5), account for lineup changes, and factor in situation trends.

Tonight, there is huge value on Charlotte +3, Orlando +3, and Portland +4. There is also value on SAS -14.5.

FYI, Kobe is an objective net negative. I add about 2-3 points to the Lakers differential when he sits out and his minutes/usage go to more efficient players such as Lou, Clarkson, and even Russel. This was also the case last year.

[j3lademaster]

Steve Novak at least 5x as good as prime MJ. His per confirms it.

Honestly though, stats are good because it's the only way to debate with complete objectivity. Eye test is just so subjective.

Then we look at gm/coaching. Who are you taking over Thibs as a coach? Which top 10 atg? MJ? Shaq? Only one with a chance is Bird.

Morey is a complete stat-nerd while Isiah Thomas and MJ are atg players "schooled in the sport" who go with their gut. Both ends of the spectrum are bad, you need a balance(though stat nerd wins by a landslide in this case).

Numbers are great if you know how to use them. For example TS tells me that hitting a 2 is better than getting an and 1 and missing the free throw. And anyone who watches understands not all 2 points are equal. Shaq dunking on a triple team is going to have other affects on the other team than just 2 points added to the scoreboard. You have to know the strength and weaknesses of the stat you use and watch enough games to understand where the numbers are being drawn from.

[feyki]

Eye test is about talents .

Statistics is about performances .

Statistics also can't calculate the clutches . You need read the game history or watch the game at that point .

[HurricaneKid]

If you have so much confidence in these advanced stats do you use them to bet on?

I mean, if they're so much better than the eye test of the basketball afficionado (such as myself), then you all be ballin out of control right?

Sarcasm aside, which stats do you use to pick winners?

Also, is there a betting thread here? I'm going to place some bets going forward, starting tonight.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dol...op-nba-gambler

Great follow on Twitter as well.

And YES. If you are betting NBA and don't have an insanely good handle on analytics you are a fool. You are the fish that feeds the professional betters and sportsbooks in general.

[Fallen Angel]

Eye Test says Allen Iverson is an all-time great scorer
Statistics say he's one of the most inefficient scorer in league history

[ISHGoat]

Eye Test says Allen Iverson is an all-time great scorer
Statistics say he's one of the most inefficient scorer in league history

Advanced stats say despite Iverson being terribly inefficient, he still added lots of value on the offensive side to his team.

[mehyaM24]

Eye Test says Allen Iverson is an all-time great scorer
Statistics say he's one of the most inefficient scorer in league history

yes, if you're a blind person.

people that watched iverson using the "eye test" could see he clanked most of his shots.

nobody that paid attention thought he was efficient.

Advanced stats say despite Iverson being terribly inefficient, he still added lots of value on the offensive side to his team.

this too.
he's an overrated shot-jacker, but still a VERY good player that could help teams win depending on his role.

[UK2K]

Eye test is about talents .

Statistics is about performances .

Statistics also can't calculate the clutches . You need read the game history or watch the game at that point .

Stats would tell you if someone performs better or worse during clutch time.

You don't need to watch anything.

[ISHGoat]

Stats would tell you if someone performs better or worse during clutch time.

You don't need to watch anything.

"Clutch", for the most part, is just a myth and can be attributed to variance from a small sample size (i.e. less than 30 seconds remaining, down single possession)

[HurricaneKid]

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dol...op-nba-gambler

Great follow on Twitter as well.

And YES. If you are betting NBA and don't have an insanely good handle on analytics you are a fool. You are the fish that feeds the professional betters and sportsbooks in general.

To all you folks that think your "eye test" is stronger than analytics read the article and tell me you feel comfortable competing with this guy. Because when you enter a marketplace like this HE is your counterparty. And even without the analytics and black box, his basketball knowledge alone is just better than yours.

Yes, I AM linking to my own posts. Because you ****s haven't acknowledged what is right in front of your eyes.

[feyki]

Stats would tell you if someone performs better or worse during clutch time.

You don't need to watch anything.

During clutch time ? When ?

I don't think clutch time about last five or last minutes .