Why don't the advance stats like the Hawks?

[HawkItus]

I notice even our best players(past or present) aren't big in the "geek world".  WAR, PER etc. are at best blah to our players.  Is it the formulas, our systems, or the players?

[AHF]

John Collins blows up the advanced stats.  He has arguably the best set of them in his draft class.

Dedmon also stacked up pretty well with a nice blend of relatively efficient offense and significant defensive contributions helping him put up solid numbers in basically every advanced metric.

Trae stacks up pretty well in a number of metrics but his defense hurts him in some of them and he won't really look good in any of them until he ups his shooting %s - 41.8% FG%, 32.4% 3pt% won't cut it to stand out in advanced stats when you are shooting a high volume of shots.  

Huerter has the same challenge early in his career - 41.9% from the floor (although his 3pt shot helps him, unlike Trae).

I don't think it is an issue with the formulas (although it is worth looking at them to understand what they are saying about our players) so much as the fact that our guys are really young and young wings and guards tend not to look stellar until they learn how to get good shots on the floor and to convert them at above average rate.

[kg01]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think it is an issue with the formulas (although it is worth looking at them to understand what they are saying about our players) so much as the fact that our guys are really young and young wings and guards tend not to look stellar until they learn how to get good shots on the floor and to convert them at above average rate.

Why don't you think that?

'Cause the reality is they're all pretty much made up.  All we have to do is change a few elements of the formulas and the entire thing changes.  This is the problem I have with analytics.  There isn't one, universal way to "value" players.

They basically have to be team-specific based on how each team tries to play.

[AHF]

10 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Why don't you think that?

'Cause the reality is they're all pretty much made up.  All we have to do is change a few elements of the formulas and the entire thing changes.  This is the problem I have with analytics.  There isn't one, universal way to "value" players.

They basically have to be team-specific based on how each team tries to play.

I agree there isn't one universal way to value players but there are things that correlate to successful NBA play and the formulas are built around using numbers with the strongest correlations possible.  

Now why don't I think the advanced stats are systemically programmed to rate low our Hawks?  Well, first the Hawks have sucked in terms of record in recent years and so you would expect them to have low numbers if the advanced stats are truly predictive.  This actually is born out by our team's performance.  We were absolute garbage without JC.  JC is the guy the advanced stats love.  JC returns and we start winning a much higher % of games.  That all ties out.  Trae starts shooting the ball much better, his advanced numbers drastically improve and we win more games.  All ties out.

Second, I don't think the formulas are stacked against the Hawks in particular or our style of play in general so I see no reason to think that our guys are just being underrated because of the fault of the formulas.  One of the great things the advanced stats have done is highlight the emptiness of volume, low efficiency scoring.  So when our guys are shooting 41.8% and 41.9% from the floor it doesn't shock me that they wouldn't get a big boost from their scoring.  That will improve as their shooting improves and their advanced numbers will jump up even if their total scoring numbers remain stagnant.  That is all how it should be.  As their defense improves, their advanced metrics will as well.  All good.

So I just don't see the issue with the formulas applying to the Hawks.  (There are limitations around the formulas themselves that need to be understood and kept in mind to contextualize the meaning of those stats and stats alone are never enough to evaluate a player).

[kg01]

46 minutes ago, AHF said:

I agree there isn't one universal way to value players ...

Blah, blah, blah ... I agree with kg.

This is what I read.

[NBASupes]

Because we sucked last year for the most part without Collins. 26th offensive efficiency, 29th Def. 

With him 6th on offense and 30th. We could improve a lot as our 2nd half was superior to our 1st half unfortunately analytics don't start in mid December. It covers the entire year. Most of our guys were bad last year. Facts.

[IheartVolt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Blah blah blah.... I just luv me some nimbers

This is what I read

[IheartVolt]

48 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Because we sucked last year for the most part without Collins. 26th offensive efficiency, 29th Def. 

With him 6th on offense and 30th. We could improve a lot as our 2nd half was superior to our 1st half unfortunately analytics don't start in mid December. It covers the entire year. Most of our guys were bad last year. Facts.

Well what do you expect with two rookies on the floor at the same time?

I mean fresh too the NBA.. It is very deceiving

[NBASupes]

2 minutes ago, IheartVolt said:

Well what do you expect with two rookies on the floor at the same time?

I mean fresh too the NBA.. It is very deceiving

What we got but the question wasn't what do you expect for 2019-20, it was why is our analytics trash. 

I got us locked in for 44 wins min but our analytics won't say that

[IheartVolt]

6 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

What we got but the question wasn't what do you expect for 2019-20, it was why is our analytics trash. 

I got us locked in for 44 wins min but our analytics won't say that

I know that Supes, that is why I take the analytics with a great big grain of salt. We both know the rookies had horrible ratings the first month of the season last year while they adjusted. It's not the whole story

[NBASupes]

1 minute ago, IheartVolt said:

I know that Supes, that is why I take the analytics with a great big grain of salt. We both know the rookies had horrible ratings the first month of the season last year while they adjusted. It's not the whole story

I don't understand your question, what do you mean by not the whole story? What are you looking for?

[IheartVolt]

27 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I don't understand your question, what do you mean by not the whole story? What are you looking for?

The numbers are construed due to their less then stellar play to start the year. It does not present how well they actually played due to that month and a half of adjustment. 

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, IheartVolt said:

The numbers are construed due to their less then stellar play to start the year. It does not present how well they actually played due to that month and a half of adjustment. 

Many numbers are reported in full season increments.  If you look at a full year number and expect to see only how well people played after a month or two of adjustment then the problem is you and not the numbers.  

Just don't rely on full year numbers if that is what you are looking to see!  Not that hard to find the splits for many numbers or to see at a rough level how the change in splits feed into the full season number.  

[Buzzard]

I have harped on efficiency as much as anyone. A missed shot is equal to a turnover 8-9 out of 10 times. The times it is not is when we get the offensive rebound. I really don't dive into stats that much but for me FG%/FT%/3PT%/TS%/eFG% are as close to end/all be alls you can get on the offensive end. AST/TO Ratio is another. Our rankings from last season below:

FG% 21st

FT% 21st

3PT% 16th

TS% 17th

eFG% 17th

AST/TO Ratio 29th

At best we are middling to the bottom 3rd in every offensive stat ( next to last in AST/TO ) I like to keep up with. These are hard stats that indicate how poor we were at taking good high percentage shots and taking care of the ball. These do not take a rocket science formula; just look and you can figure out we were a pretty bad offensive team. We know this without even looking at defensive stats.

I am sure these in depth formulas take our bad offense, throw it into our bad defense, and you end up with a team that only won 29 games last year. It is not the formula that made us the 5th worse team, record wise, in the league last season. The formula just accounts for it in some way that is above my head; or at least not worth my time to spend hours on.

[NBASupes]

We always have to remember, almost every metric in the NBA had Trae Young as the worst offensive player in the NBA by the middle of December and the 2nd worst defensive player above Collin Sexton who passed Trae up during the season. We must also remember that both Trae and Collin tremendously improved defensively in the 2nd half of the season where before their defense was historically bad. 

Trae offense went from one of the worst in NBA to a positive by the end of the season by every metric and finish the 2nd half with the 12th best offensive player rating of all NBA players. 

We have to remember that most rookies outside of Luka Doncic metrics are usually wack due to the transition from college to the pros as teens. Just facts.

Like I said in the other threads, these metrics are best used once a player has played 3 NBA seasons at the least. Not so much for rooks, Sophomores and Juniors.

[AHF]

3 hours ago, NBASupes said:

We have to remember that most rookies outside of Luka Doncic metrics are usually wack due to the transition from college to the pros as teens. Just facts.

I think a better way of looking at this is not that the metrics are wack but that the players are raw when they come in and don't really help a team win games most of the time until they successfully make that transition.

[NBASupes]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think a better way of looking at this is not that the metrics are wack but that the players are raw when they come in and don't really help a team win games most of the time until they successfully make that transition.

Exactly in a more subtle way of saying it.

Most metrics will like your defense more than your offense as a rookie as well. That's why Lonzo Ball has the value of 257 million by the CARMELO but no one has him tabbed as a top end prospect 

Edited July 24, 2019 by NBASupes

[NBASupes]

For me it wouldn't be a surprise if Indy, Toronto, Detroit and Brooklyn missed the playoffs. I wouldn't be a surprise if Atlanta, Chicago, Miami and Washington made it either. With the exception of Cleveland, Charlotte and New York, I think the east is extremely fluid.

[Gray Mule]

15 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

For me it wouldn't be a surprise if Indy, Toronto, Detroit and Brooklyn missed the playoffs. I wouldn't be a surprise if Atlanta, Chicago, Miami and Washington made it either. With the exception of Cleveland, Charlotte and New York, I think the east is extremely fluid.

Health, or lack thereof, will make a difference.  Remember, last season.  Our backup PG was recovering from major injury.  Huerter missed some of pre season and Collins was out when the Hawks had that terrible start.

Our summer league was "blah!" as Hunter played in only one game, Cam missed it all, due to injury and Spellman didn't get his weight under control and therefore was shipped off.

Hawks did have one player that had a great summer league.  He just wasn't a Hawk at the time, but a Nugget. (Our new two way)

[NBASupes]

15 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

Health, or lack thereof, will make a difference.  Remember, last season.  Our backup PG was recovering from major injury.  Huerter missed some of pre season and Collins was out when the Hawks had that terrible start.

Our summer league was "blah!" as Hunter played in only one game, Cam missed it all, due to injury and Spellman didn't get his weight under control and therefore was shipped off.

Hawks did have one player that had a great summer league.  He just wasn't a Hawk at the time, but a Nugget. (Our new two way)

Great points all around.