Heard Magic and Wilbon Ragging on Metrics.

[Diesel]

Here's what Wilbon has said previously:

"second part of answer...If numbers prevent you from making those kinds of judgement, based on your own watching and listening to coaches/players/trainers, etc. then to me you're not doing your job. Now, again, I KNOW Hollinger does his job and works at it passionately...I just completely disagree with any of these stat metrics which have contributed to a tyrrany of statistics, many of which obscure the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter this year is that NO player in the NBA has meant as much to his team, has played as well, has led as effectively, has been as accountable and as responsible as D. Rose of the Chicago Bulls. Fortunately, I think the vast majority of the voters know this. I know Doc Rivers pulled me aside in January and said, "Rose is going to the MVP of the league THIS year." Doc said that. I'll take his informed judgement over all the numbers Hollinger and anybody else can produce"

Last night when talking about the lineups without Duncan, Magic and Wilbon made a case that this was metrics gone wild. Later, Simmons used Metrics to prove that Wade shouldn't play so much.

SO my understanding is that metrics has been used to determine the best players to play together. I'm sorta of the opinion of Magic and Wilbon: You play your best 5.

According to 82 games, Our best metricly determined lineup would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Smith-Horford

Our worst would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best offensive would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best defensive would be:

Teague-Stevenson-Korver-Johnson-Smith

If I were a metric head, I would say that moving AL from C to PF increases scoring but decreases defense. In fact, I guess Al is too slow to defend most PFs? So metricly, it would be a mistake to move him to PF unless we had a C who can make up the difference defensively.

[Randy]

Well, I always say numbers are the only thing you can count on. Then again, aren't advanced metrics pretty much useless in Fantasy Basketball?

[Buzzard]

Here's what Wilbon has said previously:

Last night when talking about the lineups without Duncan, Magic and Wilbon made a case that this was metrics gone wild. Later, Simmons used Metrics to prove that Wade shouldn't play so much.

SO my understanding is that metrics has been used to determine the best players to play together. I'm sorta of the opinion of Magic and Wilbon: You play your best 5.

According to 82 games, Our best metricly determined lineup would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Smith-Horford

Our worst would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best offensive would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best defensive would be:

Teague-Stevenson-Korver-Johnson-Smith

If I were a metric head, I would say that moving AL from C to PF increases scoring but decreases defense. In fact, I guess Al is too slow to defend most PFs? So metricly, it would be a mistake to move him to PF unless we had a C who can make up the difference defensively.

According to 82 games, Our best metricly determined lineup would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Smith-Horford

Our best offensive would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

I think you guessed right with the center need. Seriously, do you think ZaZa or God forbid Smith is a better option at center than Horford? We need a good defensive big man so Al can flourish at PF.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Buzzard

[AHF]

If I were a metric head, I might think that when you flip Zaza in for Smith you get a better offensive team and worse defensive team. If you were inserting Dalembert for Smith, you might get a different result defensively. According to win share models, you would be improving your offense by 1.5 win shares by putting Zaza in for Smith (-.3 WS for Smith; 1.2 WS for Zaza) while you lose 3 defensive win shares by making that change (1.5 for Zaza; 4.5 for Smith).

Edited June 21, 2013 by AHF

[lethalweapon3]

I guess back in the 90s they used metrics to determine who should and shouldn't have a late night talk show.

~lw3

[Buzzard]

"Metric head", sounds like some rock band.

Anything Magic or Wilbon say is going to be bullshit to begin with. They do not even have the slightest understanding that metrics are used to enhance your scouting. You don't just blindly go with what the metrics say, you use it as a tool. As far as that goes, since Magic and Wilbon cannot comprehend this and make it a stats v. eyes argument they have completely missed the point. They are about as dumb as the "old time" scouts in Moneyball. No one, who is good at their job, makes the fundamental mistake of taking a metric to be 100% accurate (which is why we have confidence intervals) or 0% valuable. It is somewhere in between. And you most certainly do not just look at 1 holy grail metric.

Bingo, if it was just stats/metrics, Samuel Dalembert, Kyle Korver, and JJ Reddick would be playing for at least 12 to 15 million a season. Or using stats, about one half to two thirds their eligible max.

[Buzzard]

I guess back in the 90s they used metrics to determine who should and shouldn't have a late night talk show.

~lw3

Yes, it was called ratings ;)

[MaceCase]

Wilbon sounds like he's using the same rhetoric to justify Iverson's MVP over Shaq. The hilarity of him raging against the "tyrrany of stats" with his eye test, subjective conversations with folk and blatant homerism to justify Rose as MVP over Lebron that year is that he's stating how important he is to the Bulls yet two seasons later where he's managed to miss 109 games they seem to be still trucking on waiting for that moment that he decides to grace them with his pressence again.

It's sad that it's 2013 and the same tired old "jock" vs. "nerd" black and white debate and classification is still going on with stats.

Can you read a stat?

Oh you use your "eyes" *snicker*?

"how cute"

Middleground, people. Middleground.

[NBASupes]

Here's what Wilbon has said previously:

Last night when talking about the lineups without Duncan, Magic and Wilbon made a case that this was metrics gone wild. Later, Simmons used Metrics to prove that Wade shouldn't play so much.

SO my understanding is that metrics has been used to determine the best players to play together. I'm sorta of the opinion of Magic and Wilbon: You play your best 5.

According to 82 games, Our best metricly determined lineup would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Smith-Horford

Our worst would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best offensive would be:

Teague-Harris-Korver-Horford-Pachulia

Our best defensive would be:

Teague-Stevenson-Korver-Johnson-Smith

If I were a metric head, I would say that moving AL from C to PF increases scoring but decreases defense. In fact, I guess Al is too slow to defend most PFs? So metricly, it would be a mistake to move him to PF unless we had a C who can make up the difference defensively.

No, you don't understand what you are watching. Al is just fine at PF more than C but when he plays with Zaza instead of Josh, he doesn't have someone to protect the rim and play great helpside ball. I've always said, you need a shot blocking presence next to Horford. That's why Josh-Zaza work much bettter together than Horford-Zaza

[benhillboy]

I think intelligent basketball fans don't put much stock into what Magic, who, I love him to death, one of the 10 Greatest easily, but can barely get his tenses, prepositions, and verbs together. I knew Wilbon wasn't very shrewd when he thought he was on to something driving the Ming-McGrady Finals bandwagon.

[NBASupes]

I think intelligent basketball fans don't put much stock into what Magic, who, I love him to death, one of the 10 Greatest easily, but can barely get his tenses, prepositions, and verbs together. I knew Wilbon wasn't very shrewd when he thought he was on to something driving the Ming-McGrady Finals bandwagon.

Agreed. Magic is an amazing player but he's not very good at analyzing. He's like Terry Bradshaw.

[Admin]

Wilbon sounds like he's using the same rhetoric to justify Iverson's MVP over Shaq. The hilarity of him raging against the "tyrrany of stats" with his eye test, subjective conversations with folk and blatant homerism to justify Rose as MVP over Lebron that year is that he's stating how important he is to the Bulls yet two seasons later where he's managed to miss 109 games they seem to be still trucking on waiting for that moment that he decides to grace them with his pressence again.

It's sad that it's 2013 and the same tired old "jock" vs. "nerd" black and white debate and classification is still going on with stats.

Can you read a stat?

Oh you use your "eyes" *snicker*?

"how cute"

Middleground, people. Middleground.

How funny I was just posting that picture of Ogre in the "what if" thread.

As far as Magic and Wilbon and metrics go, I'm pretty sure that neither of them have a clue about advanced or maybe even basic stats.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Diesel, the "problem" with metrics, is that if someone can look at one stat that proves or disproves their opinion about a player, they'll tend to roll with that to make a TOTAL evaluation about a player.

Whether it be PER, or eFG%, or TS% or Offensive/Defensive rating, or any other metric, if a stat can prove/disprove things about a player, "statheads" will roll with that.

Kyle Korver, by all metrics, is one of the best offensive players in the league. He had an off the chart TS% of .637 an eFG% of .618. Kobe Bryant has a TS% of .570 and an eFG% of .504

So which player would you want to see most of your offense going through? If you simply looked at the stats, there's no question the answer to that would be Kyle Korver. But if you actually watched them play, it would hands down be Kobe Bryant.

You can come to a lot of conclusions by looking at stats. But those stats also need to coincide with what you actually SEE that player do.

I think that's what Magic and Wilborn really allude to. They trust their eyes more than they trust analytics.

[NBASupes]

Diesel, the "problem" with metrics, is that if someone can look at one stat that proves or disproves their opinion about a player, they'll tend to roll with that to make a TOTAL evaluation about a player.

Whether it be PER, or eFG%, or TS% or Offensive/Defensive rating, or any other metric, if a stat can prove/disprove things about a player, "statheads" will roll with that.

Kyle Korver, by all metrics, is one of the best offensive players in the league. He had an off the chart TS% of .637 an eFG% of .618. Kobe Bryant has a TS% of .570 and an eFG% of .504

So which player would you want to see most of your offense going through? If you simply looked at the stats, there's no question the answer to that would be Kyle Korver. But if you actually watched them play, it would hands down be Kobe Bryant.

You can come to a lot of conclusions by looking at stats. But those stats also need to coincide with what you actually SEE that player do.

I think that's what Magic and Wilborn really allude to. They trust their eyes more than they trust analytics.

Korver is one of the best role players in the NBA due to

A. Our system

B. His ability to play his role as a great shooter, off ball ball movement, and his team defense.

C. He got to play with Josh Smith who is one of the best rim protectors in the NBA during the regular season. In the playoffs his lack of size gets him exposed especially next to Al.

D. His BBIQ is extremely high. I love Korver. I felt he was one of our best players last year. I know why you don't like him. His man defense is bad and he can't shoot off the dribble or create his own shot but he add a ton of value. Especially in a ball movement system.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Korver is one of the best role players in the NBA due to

A. Our system

B. His ability to play his role as a great shooter, off ball ball movement, and his team defense.

C. He got to play with Josh Smith who is one of the best rim protectors in the NBA during the regular season. In the playoffs his lack of size gets him exposed especially next to Al.

D. His BBIQ is extremely high. I love Korver. I felt he was one of our best players last year. I know why you don't like him. His man defense is bad and he can't shoot off the dribble or create his own shot but he add a ton of value. Especially in a ball movement system.

It's not that I don't like him, I just think the value that people place in him is vastly overrated. How can he have high value, when he almost has to be in the perfect situation for his skill set to be put on display? The metrics say he has high value. The eye test says that the guy can be easily taken out of a game. So if you can easily be taken out of a game, do you really have high value?

This is why he became expendable in Philly . . and in Utah . . and in Chicago.

[NBASupes]

It's not that I don't like him, I just think the value that people place in him is vastly overrated. How can he have high value, when he almost has to be in the perfect situation for his skill set to be put on display? The metrics say he has high value. The eye test says that the guy can be easily taken out of a game. So if you can easily be taken out of a game, do you really have high value?

This is why he became expendable in Philly . . and in Utah . . and in Chicago.

While I see your point, he is only making like 5 mil and he will probably make less next year. For his value and price, he's a vastly valuable.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I think intelligent basketball fans don't put much stock into what Magic, who, I love him to death, one of the 10 Greatest easily, but can barely get his tenses, prepositions, and verbs together. I knew Wilbon wasn't very shrewd when he thought he was on to something driving the Ming-McGrady Finals bandwagon.

Well Magic was dead on with his analysis bout the NBA Finals. Everything he said was right on point, right down to Lebron having to "score" more, instead of just trying to get everyone involved. Magic, on most nights, knows what the hell he is talking about.

Wilborn is simply a homer. He's the opinion that you should shun, not Magic's.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

While I see your point, he is only making like 5 mil and he will probably make less next year. For his value and price, he's a vastly valuable.

Well I could care less if he was making the league minimum. I'm talking about his on the court value. His ability to affect the outcome of games on a nightly basis. It's always great to see him knock down 2 or 3 threes in a row, and maybe spark a run. But because that's just about ALL he can do, he spends a great deal of a game simply being a "threat", rather than a "weapon". The guys that have true value in this league, are not only "threats", they are "weapons".

Most people hate Nate Robinson and the way he plays. But he had much more value to the Bulls this year, than Korver had last year on the Bulls. The fact that he can elevate his game to be a big time weapon at times, even a superstar like weapon, puts him over a guy like Korver, who only shows that superstar-like shooting ability maybe 15% - 20% of the time. And when I say that, I'm talking about games in which he'll take over a game in a short stretch with his 3 point or mid range shooting.

[NBASupes]

Well I could care less if he was making the league minimum. I'm talking about his on the court value. His ability to affect the outcome of games on a nightly basis. It's always great to see him knock down 2 or 3 threes in a row, and maybe spark a run. But because that's just about ALL he can do, he spends a great deal of a game simply being a "threat", rather than a "weapon". The guys that have true value in this league, are not only "threats", they are "weapons".

Most people hate Nate Robinson and the way he plays. But he had much more value to the Bulls this year, than Korver had last year on the Bulls. The fact that he can elevate his game to be a big time weapon at times, even a superstar like weapon, puts him over a guy like Korver, who only shows that superstar-like shooting ability maybe 15% - 20% of the time. And when I say that, I'm talking about games in which he'll take over a game in a short stretch with his 3 point or mid range shooting.

This is where we disagree. His value is extremely important and he is far more impactful and consistent than Nate generally is.

I think you underestimate what Korver does like EasyRoc underestimates Westbrook. Korver is excellent at shooting off of movement, screens, and he is smart on offense and defense. Bring a consistent effort and does a great job in terms of defensive rotations. That is much more important than you are giving him credit for.

What you don't like about Korver is his ability to be the man. That's understandable but even Nate with his talent level has many flaws that usually glues him to some teams bench.

[MaceCase]

Diesel, the "problem" with metrics, is that if someone can look at one stat that proves or disproves their opinion about a player, they'll tend to roll with that to make a TOTAL evaluation about a player.

Whether it be PER, or eFG%, or TS% or Offensive/Defensive rating, or any other metric, if a stat can prove/disprove things about a player, "statheads" will roll with that.

Kyle Korver, by all metrics, is one of the best offensive players in the league. He had an off the chart TS% of .637 an eFG% of .618. Kobe Bryant has a TS% of .570 and an eFG% of .504

So which player would you want to see most of your offense going through? If you simply looked at the stats, there's no question the answer to that would be Kyle Korver. But if you actually watched them play, it would hands down be Kobe Bryant.

You can come to a lot of conclusions by looking at stats. But those stats also need to coincide with what you actually SEE that player do.

I think that's what Magic and Wilborn really allude to. They trust their eyes more than they trust analytics.

No, this is the exact ignorance that Wilbon and Magic are guilty of. "A fella uses stat analysis? Clearly he's never seen a game. Take that Hollinger character for instance, while he's sitting there at Phillips Arena for more games than any if not most members on Hawksquawk combined, I don't think he lifts his head up once from looking at Excel on his laptop to even peek at a cheerleader."

That is a ridiculous example that any "stathead" could tear apart in a second by just looking over at other things such as %assisted, usage% or just something as mundane as field goal attempts to determine the volume and responsibility of the offense entrusted to each player. This is like saying that mathematicians just came up with Pi but there's no significance to it or logic behind how they reached it and are definitely no real world applications that inspired. It's just a number a guy came up with in his basement.

........Mathmaticians can also tell the difference between an apple and orange despite the fact that nothing biological grows in the deepest darkest basements of either their mom's or MIT's basement.......

You are also more likely to see selective stat bias from any "meathead" that uses the eye test than a "stathead" because the hilarity is that the latter actually go about looking at a combination of stats and that even metrics such as PER or WS are cumulative of multiple different factors. Guys such as Magic and Wilbon will tell you that because Kobe has done a more faitful impersonation of Jordan's moves, grins, fist pumps and manuerisms for 20 years that he's in a closer tier to him than Lebron based on the eye test. They also sat there flabberghasted that such scrubs as Green, Neal, Battier and Miller had any impact on the Finals.