Want to play a game?

I've noticed that recently, given Monta's fluctuation between efficiency in some years and inefficiency in others, Biedrins' low TS but high rebound and WP48, Lee's decreased production, Monta vs. Steph debates, etc., there have been a lot of debates on GSoM as to how much we should invest in statistics. I have been vocal on this topic, so my intent is not to spark another debate, merely to provide a short, interesting read on the matter.

ONEDUB!

over 1 year ago bradyk2 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Its all a chemistry and motivation issue

Warriors goes through a radical change every single year which means some years Monta will have more help so he is more efficient

by saint.dee on Nov 18, 2010 2:12 PM PST reply actions

Westbrook v. Lebron

nice

by tafkasam on Nov 18, 2010 2:20 PM PST reply actions

Comparing numbers for numbers sakes is stupid

Showing us 4 per game stats for two players is a silly exercise. Those numbers have no real meaning unless we know some other numbers. How many FGA and FTA does each player take? What are their 3FG% and their FT%? These are important. If you can score more while taking less shots, then you will invariably help your team win. How fast does their teams play? How many total shots does their team make that are assisted? These add context to the assist stats. How does each team rebound with that player on the floor? How many missed shots are available to be rebounded? How many of those rebounds are offensive? Rebounding numbers can be kind of hollow without knowing these.
Comparing per game numbers can create false equivalencies between. None of this is to say that Lebron is great and Westbrook sucks, or vice versa. This just means that just comparing a couple numbers without context is meaningless.

Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*

by philthiest on Nov 18, 2010 2:21 PM PST reply actions

…and it goes from stupid to stupider when the sample size is 11 games…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 18, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions

This too.

by philthiest on Nov 18, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions

@ philthiest

Except when has anyone (including GSOM) ever done an intricate study of every statistical piece of data needed to compare players? Better yet, how many times do you see it?

by Jayd92009 on Nov 18, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

Point missed

We don’t need to. People have already done this for us.
Stats that people on here quote all the time like True Shooting, Rebound Rate, Assist Rate, Pace, Offensive efficiency, Wins Produced, Win Shares, per 36 numbers, shooting percentages by shot location, Assisted Field Goal Percentage, hell, even PER all add context to numbers. They are much better ways of comparing two players than just look at a set of 3 per game stats and field goal percentage.

by philthiest on Nov 18, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions

I kinda liked the article

in that the point was actually “numbers without names attached are valued differently”. Or at least that’s how I read it. I did a similar post on four players a couple of weeks ago, albeit with quite a bit more data and related to draft choices, here – http://geniusnow.com/2010/11/05/darlings-of-wp-1-the-rookies-part-2/ .

Of course those numbers have changed, but the principle that external factors cause us to overvalue some choices and undervalue others is still the same.

Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.

by Rasputin10 on Nov 18, 2010 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

I don't mind the blind comparison of two players

I just think it was a bit disingenuous in how it presented the numbers. It seemed that the author was trying to say that the numbers are meaningless because we know that Lebron is a superstar and Westbrook is not, but the numbers say their the same, therefore we shouldn’t trust numbers. But what it should be trying to say is we shouldn’t trust these numbers, because these numbers don’t supply any context. Their just a couple per game numbers.

by philthiest on Nov 18, 2010 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

ah got it

Baseball is a chamber orchestra. Football is a marching band. Basketball is a modern quintet. jazz, rock, hiphop, pop/ all about the beat./ still my revolution not/ til you dance through it.

by Rasputin10 on Nov 18, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions