lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,199
- 18,617
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
it was a joke. people were complaining about statistics...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Yeah they do...
I've seen him play about 12-15 times this season. He should NOT be an all star. Period.Originally Posted by dland24
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
Originally Posted by gko2408
If you hate stats, you MUST hate baseball.
In basketball, stats really fail to tell the story. There are so many ways players can contribute that are not recorded in the box score. Offensively, things like a point guard's ability to force a certain tempo are not recorded nor is a good first step or a perfect pass that then leads to an easy assist or a quaility screen. Even some of the things that are recorded like FG% can vary based on things like health and quality of teammates.
I see what you're saying - but you're also talking about a very specific set of stats when you talk about the box score.. there are guysout there doing amazing stat work using exponential smoothing models and other algorithms that are proving to be HIGHLY predictive in terms in success tofailure ratios.
There are also a lot of coaches out there that for years now have been keeping track of things like "deflections", and probably even tap outs onrebounds as well.
Basketball is certainly more difficult to get a complete picture of just through stats because there's a lot more that can happen than in baseball, andtracking all of that night after night can be a difficult task... but if the last 10 years are any indication of where stats in basketball are headed, Idon't think it'll be long before we get meaningful numbers on all facets of every game, team, and player in the world.
Originally Posted by 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 his athleticism..out jumping, out muscling, out running people. He averages 21 and 14. His basketball skills are not polished. He doesn't have footwork or any 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 of getting 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 for the 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 skill beats 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 dicing through 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 was still athletic, but relied less on it as he got older.