Am I the only one who hates the stat culture of the NBA?

[jmoneybaggz]

I really can't stand that %%#+. These number crunchers and sports writers who don't even watch the games....You can always tell who watches basketballwhen they speak by how often they bring up stats and try to use it as a tool to proclaim one player better than the other.

 

[lnmymind]

Yeah I hate it when dudes live and die by numbers.

 

[allen3xis]

I hate it in all sports, except for baseball

 

[bullsrepeat3peat]

ya I completely agree

 

[2wenty thre3]

i agree... i hate those fantasy basketball dudes that only talk about stats and don't care who wins or loses

 

[chikickz]

The general managers care about this data. They use it frequently in their evaluation of players, 5 man combinations, whether to dress a player or not.

Stats probably come up in reports more often because they are numbers we can replicate. We cannot replicate thinking like trading Shaq for Marion and Banks.

 

[jmoneybaggz]

For example, there was a writer last year who stated that Wade was better than Kobe. He start bringing up Wades FGA and Kobe's FGA. He stated that if Wadeshot as many times as Kobe..he would have a higher ppg average, so therefore Wade's scoring ability is on par with Kobe's scoring ability.

I'll find the article, but I find this so much when it comes to the NBA.

 

[dmbrhs]

I hate it when they create unneccessary stats in order to justify their argument that Player A is better than Player B. You could easily find some other weirdstat that would prove the opposite.

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Fantasy Basketball and Fantasy Football.....

 

[mneezy1]

Stats don't lie though. You can't rely exclusively on stats when arguing Player A > Player B, but it def. helps to buttress one's argument.

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by mneezy1

Stats don't lie though. You can't rely exclusively on stats when arguing Player A > Player B, but it def. helps to buttress one's argument.

"There are 3 kinds of lies: there are lies, there are dammed lies, and then statistics. "- Mark Twain

or something to that effect.

accurate statistics can be used to fortify inaccurate claims. whatevs man. just let it be.

 

[eddiehouse5]

being that most of us don't watch every game, stats are the best way for most of us to talk about a particular player. the problem arises when youhaven't seen a player play, then you can't just go by stats.

 

[lobotomybeats]

40% of people that complain about the emphasis of stats only do so because someone has used the stats to make a case against their favorite player.

 

[jmoneybaggz]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

40% of people that complain about the emphasis of stats only do so because has used the stats to make a case against their favorite player.

Yo, where did you get these numbers? Send 'em to me please. What survey was this? Why do the other 60% complain about stats?

The fact is the argument over stats take away from the beauty of the game and competitively play. People will argue over stats, but let's get an argumentin over who has the best game, footwork, dribble, help defense, etc..Most of these fools who talk will be left out in the cold...

 

[the gr8]

Originally Posted by jmoneybaggz

I really can't stand that %%#+. These number crunchers and sports writers who don't even watch the games....You can always tell who watches basketball when they speak by how often they bring up stats and try to use it as a tool to proclaim one player better than the other.

preach

"There are 3 kinds of lies: there are lies, there are dammed lies, and then statistics. "- Mark Twain
completely true. some players dont put up huge #s, but obviously do a number to help their teams win. and than there are dudes that put up #s butdo it sefishly and/or in garbage time.

I mean look at Mardy collins, he is trash but last April he led the NBA in minutes and averaged like 16/6/5 and was putting up near tripple doubles some games.

 

[dyyhard]

Stats don't lie though. You can't rely exclusively on stats when arguing Player A > Player B, but it def. helps to buttress one's argument.

really good point...how much sports are YOU really watching? unless it's your team, probably not much of the other ones.

even the best analysts rely on stats, bc in reality, you can't watch every game/team/player.

i don't know what you all do for a living (but I'm sure most of you are students or work 9-5) but you can make a same argument for your school work...

"but professor/teacher, my grades don't really indicate how well I apply these concepts in the real world.."

there was a small discussion on NT about this a few months ago...

 

[airjordan jb23]

Yeah I hate it when dudes live and die by numbers.
Same. Those & the people that only go by what they here on Sports Center. Both basically go hand in hand.

Yo, where did you get these numbers? Send 'em to me please. What survey was this? Why do the other 60% complain about stats?

 

[lnmymind]

Stats don't lie though.
Yeah they do...

If you never saw Zach Randolph play and you just saw his numbers you would want him on your team.

If you never saw Brandon Roy and and you just saw his numbers you wouldnt believe he was an all star caliber player

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by lnMyMind

Stats don't lie though.

Yeah they do...

If you never saw Zach Randolph play and you just saw his numbers you would want him on your team.

If you never saw Brandon Roy and and you just saw his numbers you wouldnt believe he was an all star caliber player

It isnt so much that stats themselves lie they dont.

It is when people make inferences from these stats that have no basis.

A perfect example?? People think because you have high steal numbers you are a good defender.

All ppg tells you is how many points you score per game...that is it. It doesnt tell how good you are or how valuable you are to your team.

 

[ghenges]

How you get your points is VERY important and that is why some stats can be misleading.

EXAMPLE: Look at a player like Dwight Howard. He is a physically, athletic, gifted beast @ 6-11 265lbs and he gets most of his points because of hisathleticism..out jumping, out muscling, out running people. He averages 21 and 14. His basketball skills are not polished. He doesn't have footwork orany kind of jump shot and shoots poor from the FT line.

Next, look at a player like Al Jefferson. He's 6-10 265lbs but nowhere near as gifted athletically as Dwight but he averages the same points (21 per game)and 2 less rebounds (12pg). He gets his points from his basketball skill...from his footwork in the low post, mostly.

KG and Duncan...same thing. Duncan = skill. KG = athleticism.

What it boils down to, is a person with actual basketball skill will get you 2 points when you need them the most..or atleast they have a better chance ofgetting you those two points. This is why the people who claim Duncan is boring to watch really don't know squat about basketball...they just watch it forthe cool uniforms ...you know who you are

So a guy who scores with basketball skill and averages 18pts 10rbs is more valuable than a guy who averages 20 and 12 out of raw athleticism IMO because skillbeats athleticism any day of week and that's how statistics can fool you.

PERFECT example of someone who made the transition from raw athleticism to pure skill is Money. From '85 to '91 he was slashing, cutting and dicingthrough defenses and rising over dudes for 2. From '92 - '98 he developed a nice mid range game and one of the most deadliest fade-aways ever. He wasstill athletic, but relied less on it as he got older.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by 2wenty thre3


i agree... i hate those fantasy basketball dudes that only talk about stats and don't care who wins or loses

This guy I know is just like that. I can't even talks BB to himanymore because he starts throwing stats around. Does him no good, he tries so hard to defend D. Wade; and I am like, "you know the Heat suck and Wadehas led them to 9 wins right?" then come, "but, but, but he has this, this and this!"

When he brings up sports now I just change the subject.

 

[lnmymind]

Originally Posted by Ghenges


KG and Duncan...same thing. Duncan = skill. KG = athleticism.

Ehh...I was with you until this. KG has the skill set to go along with his athleticism.

 

[beats05]

Stats aren't everything, but they are important. The truth of it is that a lot of you who complain about stats and a lot of the sportswriters and fans whouse the stats you complain about, don't know much at all about statistics past the level of a simple freshman college class (which really teaches younothing). There is such a thing as sound and unsound statistical reasoning, as well as widespread incompetence and philosophical debates in the application ofstatistics to humans. Like the person who said D. Wade would score as much as Kobe if he shot as much. That's not competent statistics. In order to usestatistics to make a claim like that, first you would need to make a bunch of stupid, stupid assumptions, then create a forecasting model with probably 200 ormore variables (most dummy), and even then you'd have all sorts of biases because there's so much in basketball and in the human mind and body youcan't measure, and even then you'd likely have a substantial standard error around your estimate. The person who made that claim was probably justlooking at Wade's FG% and multiplying it by Kobe's FGA, which is by common sense, stupid.

But stats are good for a lot. Fans and coaches alike can get so caught up in games and not realize little things that can add up (also some things are justhard to eyeball), and that if fixed, could help win games. For example, people can get so distracted by the up and down excitement of the game and not realizethat more than half of their team's total turnovers come from their big men--that may make the coach want to adjust how/when they get the 4's and5's the ball. Also, when picking the guy you want to shoot the technicals, would you rather pick the guy who 'looks' like he makes a lot of freethrows, or the guy who has the highest % given a certain amount of attempts and experience? I don't think that's too debatable.

And a lot of you who are making claims about this player having great stats but actually being a bad player aren't necessarily making arguments that areany sounder than the stats guys; like them, you may be confusing correlation with causation, and the question still remains, how do you really know? (Becauseyou don't). Like in judging who has the better first step, what are you basing that on? How often he blows past his defender, how quick you think it isrelative to other guys in the argument, etc, etc? That's heuristically a form of statistics...unless you judge it based on your own unsupported opinion,which is by it's nature of being unsupported, not sound

 

[rasmekpeace]

Stats are important, it can define a players salary and helps track a players progress. Just imagine if statistics were thrown out the window. BSPN articleswould turn out like this:

"Gasol had tons of points and countless rebounds in his Los Angeles debut, and the Lakers beat the New Jersey Nets by several points on Tuesday nightdespite very few points from Bryant, the least amount of points that he scored in a long time. Derek Fisher might have matched a season high with alot ofpoints to lead the Lakers, who improved to a good record on their very long road trip . Bryant shot very poorly from the floor but had many assists in whatmight possibly be his lowest scoring effort. His previous low might have been against the Nuggets a long time ago."

With statistics:
"Gasol had 24 points and 12 rebounds in his Los Angeles debut, and the Lakers beat the New Jersey Nets 105-90 on Tuesday night despite a season-low sixpoints from Bryant, his first single-digit effort in more than a year.Derek Fisher matched a season high with 28 points to lead the Lakers, who improved to 3-1on their nine-game road trip. Bryant shot 3-of-13 from the floor but had eight assists in his lowest-scoring effort since an eight-point game against Denver onJan. 5, 2007.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

40% of people that complain about the emphasis of stats only do so because someone has used the stats to make a case against their favorite player.

Why 40%?