How do you all feel about analytics?

[Guest]

You're so pretty! I love that you used [green font] instead of using the [ sarcasm ] tags [ /sarcasm ] around your text to make it sarcastic.

And yes these signings are terrific. Jury is out on Baze but Thabo, DMC and Sap were all terrific signings and the trade for Korver has been enormous as well.

Give a girl a break - I'm on my phone and can never seem to remember the sequence. Lol Edited October 18, 2014 by JayBirdHawk

[Admin]

Give a girl a break - I'm on my phone and can never seem to remember the sequence. Lol

 

Ask your husband to give you a hand next time {/sarcasm}

 

Sometime in the near (God willing) future if they release a full version of IP.Board 4, the new mobile version will be much easier to use BBCode tags without having to type them in. 

[Diesel]

Apparently we are using these now to rate players etc. How do you all feel about the process? Does it make a difference or is analytics just a fad? Could this be why a lot of B/C level players got paid major cash this summer?

 

I think that analytics helps you to make a bunch of specialist into a good team but lacking a superstar, analytics haven't taken a team to championship.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You know you finna get North cranked up.

The comparison was always funny to me, though. James' points per shot at any given time can be almost twice Joe's.

 

No he's not, because I was one of the people who were saying that Harden was going to be a star.   His analytic numbers were off the charts.

 

The main problem with analytics, is that people try to compare the stats of players who may play the game in two entirely different ways.  Kyle Korver is a much better shooter than Kobe Bryant.  But he isn't a better SCORER than Kobe, because Kyle can't get his shot off vs pressure defense, nor create his own shot on occasion.

 

So when you see shooting statistics that say that Kyle is a better shooter, people have to keep in mind that a spot up shooter's game is far different than a "main scorer's" game.  Kyle isn't asked to score 20 points a game.  He's simply asked to make open shots.  Kobe is not only asked to score 20 points a game, he's asked to make extremely difficult shots ( sometimes even during crunch time ).

 

As for Harden, that dude had star scorer all over him.  He could handle the rock, shoot off the dribble, go strong to the hole, and even be a playmaker if need be.  I saw that in him even before the numbers validated what he was.

 

 

 

As for Joe Johnson, the same remains when talking about him.  While people may love Kyle Korver and see him as a better shooter ( which he is ), he isn't a better SCORER than JJ, and can't make the difficult crunch time plays that JJ can.  If people simply didn't leave Korver open, his effect on a game is greatly diminished.   But for scorers, they can have an effect on a game even if they are double teamed at times.

 

That's why so-called "chuckers" make much more money than spot up shooters.   Those shooters are actually dependent on the chuckers to draw people toward them, so that the shooter can receive a pass from the chucker for a wide open shot.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I have to think the Millsap and DMC signings were all about the metrics. Therefore I consider analytics a great tool that should be used in all circumstances.

 

And that's why we're in the spot we are in now.   Millsap's "metrics" were better than Al Jefferson's "metrics".  But if you swap Jefferson for Millsap, the Hawks are a top 3 seed in this conference . . hands down.

 

Why?

 

Because Jefferson's "metrics" provides everything that the Hawks lack.   Elite defensive rebounding.  Elite post scoring.  A big body that could move Horford to PF, while also giving them the "flexibility" to also still play him at center at times.

[BrazilianHawk]

And that's why we're in the spot we are in now.   Millsap's "metrics" were better than Al Jefferson's "metrics".  But if you swap Jefferson for Millsap, the Hawks are a top 3 seed in this conference . . hands down.

 

Why?

 

Because Jefferson's "metrics" provides everything that the Hawks lack.   Elite defensive rebounding.  Elite post scoring.  A big body that could move Horford to PF, while also giving them the "flexibility" to also still play him at center at times.

 

Jefferson's salary = (Millsap + Thabo + DMC) salaries roughly, or (Millsap + Korver). I'd have a hard time picking Jefferson over those combos.

 

also... Why should I be happy about moving Horford to PF? He's a freaking all-star C!

Edited October 20, 2014 by BrazilianHawk

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

I love analytics, but I'm also a numbers guy. I love stats. As Wretch said though, they should be used as an aid, not as a system for building a team. When it boils down, they are just numbers. Building chemistry and getting guys that fit what you are trying to accomplish is most important.

[Guest]

I prefer charcoal ole skoo BBQ ..$hit takes better seriously. They can find a billion new ways to cool meat but I like ole skoo stuff..just me

 

Yeah Spud.  Charcoal grill everytime for me.  Gas grillers are pretentious dbags.  (I will issue a tear-filled apology for offending gas grillers later)

 

Really? To hear some tell it, they were signed because we couldn't get any stars and no other team wanted them, they had no other offers and the Hawks overpaid for them, same with Thabo and Korver [green font]

 

My ears are burning JayBird .... (hehe)

 

Seriously though, I agree with @hawksfanatic on the nimbuhs game ('cause it makes me look smart).  Like @Wretch said, good tool to supplement your other analysis and can be very useful when used properly.  The problem is now folks appear to be going too far with it and using it to replace other analysis.

 

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a metric or combination of stats that tell me James is the best player in the league, but that doesn't mean I can use that same metric to tell me who to draft.  There are many other facts and factors to consider and that's where the disconnect lies IMEO (in my expert opinion *wink*)

Edited October 20, 2014 by kg01

[Wretch]

Yeah Spud.  Charcoal grill everytime for me.  Gas grillers are pretentious dbags.  (I will issue a tear-filled apology for offending gas grillers later)

 

 

My ears are burning JayBird .... (hehe)

 

Seriously though, I agree with @hawksfanatic  and on the nimbuhs game ('cause it makes me look smart).  Like @Wretch said, good tool to supplement your other analysis and can be very useful when used properly.  The problem is now folks appear to be going too far with it and using it to replace other analysis.

 

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a metric or combination of stats that tell me James is the best player in the league, but that doesn't mean I can use that same metric to tell me who to draft.  There are many other facts and factors to consider and that's where the disconnect lies IMEO (in my expert opinion *wink*)

 

And honestly, that's an example of people making things more complicated than they are.  Most people can see the difference between Rudy Gay and LeBron.  Most educated fans can see the difference between Carmelo and LeBron.  Crazy thing is, people want to stress the importance of high level analysis in player evaluation.  However, when it comes time to pick a guy they stress that he needs to "fit the ystem."

 

...and what tells you MORE about a player's "fit"?  

 

Simply looking at his stats or looking at your lineup and visualizing where he would make an impact and how he would mesh?  This is my entire point.  It can't be the primary tool you're using in this situation.  You have to "eyeball" it - and if you like what you see, then evaluate his character, work ethic, and other intangibles...and run his numbers though the analytics department.  Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not at all comfortable with that being the driving force behind our player evaluation.

 

(Gas grill....hah, I say.  HAH!)

[Wretch]

Who the hell is saying to only use analytics? Where is this straw man coming from?

I don't think anyone should take a poster seriously if their whole premise begins with total ignorance to what analytics entails. It's a philosophy and different perspective of analysis. It is not a mandate for decisions. If you think it is then stay out of the conversation because you don't even have a clue what you're talking about. That's like saying smoking BBQ with a digital thermometer makes your BBQ robotic and all BBQ cooked with digital thermometers tastes the same. That's such a stupid statement.

 

I think people put too much importance on analytics. Also, didn't say "only" or "mandate."  That's you taking my comments out of context and making assumptions to take shots at me.

 

...and hiding under that "ignore" blanket that I put on you to do it.

[AHF]

It's actually been proven that a players numbers tend to hold true when his minutes increase, far more than they fail to meet that level. Of course it gets less accurate the further from 36 you go, but say 12-14 minutes going to 30ish it's very accurate.

Agreed. Check out DMCs numbers. So many people said he made a huge leap in productivity last year but his per 36 numbers are almost identical. His one jump was in shooting efficiency.

[MaceCase]

I think old school curmudgeon Greg Popovich's quote on the proliferation of 3 point shooting in the league applies to the advanced stats debate:

 

"I hate it," Popovich said. "To me it's not basketball but you got to use it. If you don't use it, you're in big trouble...

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/8/5790178/gregg-popovich-threes-nba-finals-notebook-heat-vs-spurs

 

Your eyes can point you to the big guns in Duncan, Parker and Ginobili but when you see washouts, busts and late picks in Belinelli, Diaw, Mills, Green, and Leonard take turns making cases for and winning Finals MVP then you have to say that yea, perhaps these new fangled nimbers have merit.  Acquiring the top talent is one thing but how do you find all the right pieces to surround them all while not having to take a 2nd mortgage out on your Maui mansion or flipping your yacht to P Diddy is where you have to go farther with your evaluative tools.

[AHF]

I am glad to see the end of the days when PPG was the holy metric and low efficiency chuckers were admired because they put up a volume of shots.

[curtmcgirt]

I love analytics.

 

I got promoted two years ago and I manage 17 guys. But due to the nature of our business 34 people report to me. For YEARS we'd been basing everything on how people "felt" about things. "This guy does a great job." "I really like how that guy works."

 

We have two employees, who are the same age, and people had completely opposing views on them. Everyone loved one and hated the other. That feeling crept into management. So I decided to look into it. They are both personable so its not a "likeability" issue. But the one everyone hated did a better job when you looked at the actual numbers. His production was 40-50% higher than the other guy. Then I looked into other workers. A lot of the people we "thought" did a good job didn't. They were atrocious.

 

I think our eyes see what they want to see sometimes. And we let others opinions become part of our own and shape reality around that.

 

Analytics are great for clearing away personal biases and seeing what actually exists. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Jefferson's salary = (Millsap + Thabo + DMC) salaries roughly, or (Millsap + Korver). I'd have a hard time picking Jefferson over those combos.

 

also... Why should I be happy about moving Horford to PF? He's a freaking all-star C!

 

I hate to break this to you, but Jefferson at 13.5 million compared to Millsap at 9.5 million, isn't much of an issue. Not when we're still 5+ million under the salary cap right now.

 

Instead of looking at it like it's Millsap + Thabo + DMC . . you should look at it like it's Millsap + Brand + Antić.    Those are the "bigs" on the team.   You subtract those 3 ( which equals about 12.75 million for this season ) and the difference between them and Jefferson is a mere $750,000.

 

This is your team if we'd added Jefferson, but not had Millsap, Brand, and Antić

 

Starters

 

PG - Teague

G - Korver

F - Carroll

PF - Horford

C - Jefferson

 

Bench

 

G - Mack

G - Schröder

G - Jenkins

G - Bazemore

G/F - Sefolosha

F - Scott

F - Payne

F/C - Muscala

 

That's 13 players on the roster, with the ability to add 2 more if need be.   And like I said, you'd still could play Horford at Center with the 2nd unit, in a lineup like this

 

PG - Mack/Schröder

G - Jenkins

F - Sefolosha

PF - Scott

C - Horford

 

And you'd have much more opportunity to develop the young bigs like Payne and Muscala if need be, if you wanted to give them more time at the backup C spot, or play them as a stretch PF.  Maybe a mixed lineup like this.

 

PG - Teague

G - Korver

F - Sefolosha

PF - Payne

C - Jefferson

 

Or a really big and active lineup like this

 

PG - Mack

G - Sefolosha

F - Carroll

PF - Horford

C - Jefferson

 

A lot of the people on this very board argue that "positions don't matter anymore".  Yet, whenever the subject comes up with moving Horford to PF, while still playing him spot minutes at center, excuses come out the woodwork as to why we couldn't add a center on the team.

 

I think deep down, most of the fan base knows we blew a great chance to really balance out this team and create a very good and versatile frontline that could play in a variety of ways and against a variety of teams.  

 

I don't put much stock in preseason, but the Detroit game is a prime example of how lack of size can affect the Hawks at times.   As soon as Horford went out of the game, the team looked like crap, because the Detroit bigs were just too big and powerful to contain.  And honestly, if Van Gundy can find a way to maximize the effectiveness of his 3 big players, Detroit becomes a dark horse team to make the playoffs.   I'm assuming that he's going to tell Josh to be a playmaker when the other 2 are in the game with him, and a scorer around the rim when one of them are out.

[taz]

I look at it this was. An engineer can probably tell you a building is unstable by looking at it but he needs the math to prove it. With out analytics teams are making decisions based on opinions with analytics teams can make a real scientific decision on if a player is legit or not

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I love analytics.

 

I got promoted two years ago and I manage 17 guys. But due to the nature of our business 34 people report to me. For YEARS we'd been basing everything on how people "felt" about things. "This guy does a great job." "I really like how that guy works."

 

We have two employees, who are the same age, and people had completely opposing views on them. Everyone loved one and hated the other. That feeling crept into management. So I decided to look into it. They are both personable so its not a "likeability" issue. But the one everyone hated did a better job when you looked at the actual numbers. His production was 40-50% higher than the other guy. Then I looked into other workers. A lot of the people we "thought" did a good job didn't. They were atrocious.

 

I think our eyes see what they want to see sometimes. And we let others opinions become part of our own and shape reality around that.

 

Analytics are great for clearing away personal biases and seeing what actually exists. 

 

I agreed with everything you said, until you came to this statement.  Because what happens in sports, is that even if the analytics favor a player, your biases can deter you from bringing him in.   And it can work the opposite way as well.   If you don't like a person, the numbers almost have to overwhelm you in his favor, in order for that person to set aside the negative beliefs, and see what he actually does.

 

That's why the Carmelo Anthony debate is so baffling to me.   That dude played at a 1ST TEAM ALL-NBA level last year, but didn't make a single All-NBA team, because the negative bias against Melo saw him as a guy who can't elevate his team to the next level.

 

But this is what the raw AND analytical numbers showed about Melo's game last year.

 

27.4 ppg 

8.1 rebs 

3.1 asst 

1.2 stls 

0.7 blks 

 

FG% - 45.2%

3FG% - 40.2%

FT% - 84.8%

 

PER - 24.4 

TS% - 56.1%

eFG% - 50.3%

 

ORtg - 113

DRtg - 108

 

Win Score - 10.7

Win Score/48 - .172

 

Matter of fact, the last 2 seasons that Melo have had, by analytic standards, were 2 of his best seasons of his career.  But because of the negative perception of Carmelo as a star in this league, people act like he's underachieving or not good enough.   That's why he calls himself "the most underrated superstar in the league", and people have a damn fit when he says it.  IF they actually looked at the numbers, they'd see why he says that about himself.

 

The reality of the NBA is this though.  Without other All-Star talent around you, you're not winning a damn thing in this league . .  no matter who you are.

[curtmcgirt]

I agreed with everything you said, until you came to this statement.  Because what happens in sports, is that even if the analytics favor a player, your biases can deter you from bringing him in.   And it can work the opposite way as well.   If you don't like a person, the numbers almost have to overwhelm you in his favor, in order for that person to set aside the negative beliefs, and see what he actually does.

 

That's why the Carmelo Anthony debate is so baffling to me.   That dude played at a 1ST TEAM ALL-NBA level last year, but didn't make a single All-NBA team, because the negative bias against Melo saw him as a guy who can't elevate his team to the next level.

 

But this is what the raw AND analytical numbers showed about Melo's game last year.

 

27.4 ppg 

8.1 rebs 

3.1 asst 

1.2 stls 

0.7 blks 

 

FG% - 45.2%

3FG% - 40.2%

FT% - 84.8%

 

PER - 24.4 

TS% - 56.1%

eFG% - 50.3%

 

ORtg - 113

DRtg - 108

 

Win Score - 10.7

Win Score/48 - .172

 

Matter of fact, the last 2 seasons that Melo have had, by analytic standards, were 2 of his best seasons of his career.  But because of the negative perception of Carmelo as a star in this league, people act like he's underachieving or not good enough.   That's why he calls himself "the most underrated superstar in the league", and people have a damn fit when he says it.  IF they actually looked at the numbers, they'd see why he says that about himself.

 

The reality of the NBA is this though.  Without other All-Star talent around you, you're not winning a damn thing in this league . .  no matter who you are.

 

I agree with your statement, and now for the contradictory part. I think people just don't like Melo because me makes "bad" career decisions. Leaving Denver for NY, then not going to Chicago are thing the writers are going to make him pay for until he wins big.

 

And as far as stats go, more isn't always better. I think analytics have come lightyears in terms of monitoring the flow of the game. I think  Melo gets amazing stats outside of the needs of the system. 

[Wretch]

I think part of a reason why people misconstrue per36 numbers is because people misinterpret the scaling factor.

Statistics that are of the per 36 variety are rate statistics, they give you a sense of what a player does per minute on the floor. It is identical to a per minute statistic, except it is scaled to by 36 minutes of action so people can interpret the numbers more easily. The scaling is there to make it easier to read because you aren't messing with as many decimals. If you are comparing two players, one may have 15 points per 36 versus 18 points per 36. Those same values on a per minute basis are 0.4167 points per minute versus 0.5 points per minute, which doesn't seem like that big of a difference. It's human nature to say the difference between 0.4167 and 0.5 is not as much as the difference between 15 and 18. But those values are in different units and are actually the same difference, and humans aren't good at recognizing this (a longer tangent would be to say this is why cable and phone companies like to bill by month instead of for the entire year...).

The per 36 statistics are not to be interpreted as "if this player played 36 minutes, their output would be X". It is that their current production per minute played gives you X where X is not in per minute units but per 36 units so it is easier to see the difference. It's similar to price indexes being scaled to 100. The metric isn't meant to tell you the player *would produce* this amount across 36 minutes. Now, a fool trying to interpret the statistic may tell you that but this is where you make a distinction between someone who is good or bad at analysis. The analytics itself is not the problem here.

 

The point of the metric is to get an idea of what a player does with the time he is given...not necessarily to predict what the player will do with the time that any given GM is willing to give him.  That wasn't my point.  Moreover, I don't take issue so much with the usage of advanced metrics, exclusively or otherwise.  My issue is with the raw data used to establish them in the first place.

 

Like win shares...the point is to establish a universal value that illustrates how important a player's performance is to a team's success.  You take a player's points, possessions, and team pace contrasted against league's median performance and pace (so as not penalize players in slower offenses).  The math is solid and the logic is sensible...but the raw data gives the same weight to all games, all shots, and all possessions.  We know that no two shots are the same and there is a BROAD spectrum to classify each shot/possession in.  So, the nature of the game makes the stat imperfect.

 

Inherently, any sports stat that doesn't filter out non-qualitative data is going to suffer from that same imperfection.  That does not make them useless.  I certainly don't mean to imply that all, but it does keep me from putting a great deal of weight into them.  That's all I'm saying here.  I'm not a huge fan of advanced stats if you can't tell.  

On a more sticky note...if I considered myself an SME on something, I'd never seek to exclude someone from a conversation simply because I don't think they're "on my level."  If I were at odds with a poster on something, the first thing I'd do is try to establish an amicable dialogue.  In the case that I'd uncovered a fallacy, I might use some lazy but colorful rhetoric to keep the conversation entertaining.  I can get aggressive when attacked, and have put my foot in my mouth more times than I care to admit, but I try to be mindful of my ego and avoid that sort of thing.

 

That being said...I'm not sure if people have me measured wrong, because I honestly don't creep out of lurker status that much and I don't like the spotlight.  But...I don't want to be seen as "that guy."  So, I'm putting this out there.  You are a very intelligent poster.  I acknowledge your knowledge and expertise and I value what you bring to the board.  If I've misread you somehow, then my apologies.  Otherwise, I'd like to put that out there and kick some dirt over it. We can even put it on the silly ol' Wretch and chalk it up to his defensive nature.

If we're cool, then quote me when you disagree with me and call me out directly.  But lets understand each others' POV and treat each other with respect.  We're both grown, intelligent, and mature fans of the same team.  We should be able to do that. 

 

(Once upon a time, I had a really comfortable house resting on "the fence"...one of these days, I'm going to move back there!)

Edited October 23, 2014 by Wretch

[benhillboy]

I agreed with everything you said, until you came to this statement. Because what happens in sports, is that even if the analytics favor a player, your biases can deter you from bringing him in. And it can work the opposite way as well. If you don't like a person, the numbers almost have to overwhelm you in his favor, in order for that person to set aside the negative beliefs, and see what he actually does.

That's why the Carmelo Anthony debate is so baffling to me. That dude played at a 1ST TEAM ALL-NBA level last year, but didn't make a single All-NBA team, because the negative bias against Melo saw him as a guy who can't elevate his team to the next level.

But this is what the raw AND analytical numbers showed about Melo's game last year.

27.4 ppg

8.1 rebs

3.1 asst

1.2 stls

0.7 blks

FG% - 45.2%

3FG% - 40.2%

FT% - 84.8%

PER - 24.4

TS% - 56.1%

eFG% - 50.3%

ORtg - 113

DRtg - 108

Win Score - 10.7

Win Score/48 - .172

Matter of fact, the last 2 seasons that Melo have had, by analytic standards, were 2 of his best seasons of his career. But because of the negative perception of Carmelo as a star in this league, people act like he's underachieving or not good enough. That's why he calls himself "the most underrated superstar in the league", and people have a damn fit when he says it. IF they actually looked at the numbers, they'd see why he says that about himself.

The reality of the NBA is this though. Without other All-Star talent around you, you're not winning a damn thing in this league . . no matter who you are.

Melo has shown he has the power to select the team and players he wants to play with. If you or he feels his surrounding talent isn't up to par, that's his fault. I'm pretty sure the Nuggets still have won more games than the Knicks since his departure in the much tougher Conference, that pretty much sums up Melo's value. Exquisite individual scoring skills no doubt, but if I were a voter I couldn't dream of selecting a guy All-NBA who leads a losing team AND has no chance of sniffing All-Defense, just me. I'm anxious to revisit the Melo debate at the end of the year when Fish and Phil both hate his guts and lememt the countless ways he doesn't measure up to MJ and Kobe. Edited October 20, 2014 by benhillboy