Advanced Metrics Nonsense

#53
#53
There are a couple reasons.

First, there aren't many American centers that are dominate or that can excel in international play. Dwight Howard and Chris Bosh are about the only American players that could have significantly helped in the frontcourt. International play is very different than regular NBA basketball. The biggest adjustment if for American frontcourt players.

Second, we were trying to play to our strength. Our strength was the backcourt. Additionally, we had speed and quickness all over the place. Thus, we tried to push the tempo whenever we could. The thought was that we would use suffocating defense via being both quicker and stronger at positions 1-4 than our opponents. Scoring was not going to be a problem for this team. Rebounding was only a concern in so far as the four and five positions. If Lebron was in the game at four, then it was only the five position. The other positions on the court were occupied by American players which were both bigger and stronger than their competitors. They would all crash the boards to help with our five guy not being a dominate player. Furthermore, on offense, if there wasn't a play where our five guy was going to score, we would spread him out thus drawing their big guy away from the basket in one-on-one defenses. That meant our other players would give us an advantage on the offensive glass.

Overall, it was a smart strategy given the make-up of the team. It worked well for us.
 
#54
#54
PKT_VOL said:
There are a couple reasons.

First, there aren't many American centers that are dominate or that can excel in international play. Dwight Howard and Chris Bosh are about the only American players that could have significantly helped in the frontcourt. International play is very different than regular NBA basketball. The biggest adjustment if for American frontcourt players.

Second, we were trying to play to our strength. Our strength was the backcourt. Additionally, we had speed and quickness all over the place. Thus, we tried to push the tempo whenever we could. The thought was that we would use suffocating defense via being both quicker and stronger at positions 1-4 than our opponents. Scoring was not going to be a problem for this team. Rebounding was only a concern in so far as the four and five positions. If Lebron was in the game at four, then it was only the five position. The other positions on the court were occupied by American players which were both bigger and stronger than their competitors. They would all crash the boards to help with our five guy not being a dominate player. Furthermore, on offense, if there wasn't a play where our five guy was going to score, we would spread him out thus drawing their big guy away from the basket in one-on-one defenses. That meant our other players would give us an advantage on the offensive glass.

Overall, it was a smart strategy given the make-up of the team. It worked well for us.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. If our strength was the back court why are we playing guys at PF who will take shots rather than do the dirty work and be the role players the back court needs them to be?

Lebron is the best rebounding SF, probably, but that's nothing like being an elite rebounding PF. You saw the problems David West gave him.

Why is it supposedly so hard for American bigs to play internationally? I don't see the reasoning. It's still all about controlling the paint. Something Chandler and Love do very well.
 
#55
#55
n_huffhines said:
That doesn't make sense. If our strength was the back court why are we playing guys at PF who will take shots rather than do the dirty work and be the role players the back court needs them to be?
Click to expand...

They are all great scorers, good defensive players, and decent rebounders in their own right. Our team was going to be a run and gun team with full ball pressure the whole game (some full court press) because we had speed, quickness, and agility at all spots on the court. That tempo would give us a big advantage. The only teams that gave us a hard time were those that could successfully slow the tempo down the whole game.

We did not need our PF and C to play the traditional roles. We did not build our team that way. There is a reason for that. We created match-up problems all over the place on the offensive side of the ball by not having those frontcourt players. On the defensive side of the ball, we just needed them to hold their own. If they couldn't, we had enough speed to be able to collapse and still recover if their PF or C passed it back out.

n_huffhines said:
Lebron is the best rebounding SF, probably, but that's nothing like being an elite rebounding PF. You saw the problems David West gave him.
Click to expand...

Yeah but he is the best SF rebounder. I am not sure about the David West match-up as I did not watch every game of the Olympics. Was it that we were playing zone defense or was Lebron shading in man-on-man defense? Lebron is normally used to shade in man-on-man defense because he is freak athletically. If you are shading in man-on-man defense or playing zone, your rebounding will suffer because of it.

n_huffhines said:
Why is it supposedly so hard for American bigs to play internationally? I don't see the reasoning. It's still all about controlling the paint. Something Chandler and Love do very well.
Click to expand...

It is a very different game. It is the same reason Dirk Nowitzki is so successful in the NBA. International basketball tends to have less emphasis on the traditional roles of all the positions. Thus, they all have similar skill sets which make it very hard for a Shaq to defend against.

Additionally, international teams tend to play with each other on a constant basis. They have more team chemistry which will cover their individual deficiency against players from the USA.
 
#57
#57
Magic Johnson was a great player by any standards, but especially so when measure on Wins Produced. Magic played 11 full seasons (in 1980-81, he lost much of the season to injury, and in 1995-1996, he played a partial season in his comeback from HIV). During those 11 seasons, Magic led the league in Wins Produced four times, was second twice, and third another three times. (In contrast, Michael Jordan only led the league in Wins Produced once, during the 1988-89 season)
Click to expand...

The Magic Effect: Can you make your team mates better? | The Wages of Wins Journal
 
#58
#58
#59
#59
Actually that can't prove anything. All it proves is that you believe in the eye test.

I'm reading a book called Thinking Fast & Slow by behavioral economist Daniel Khaneman. It has nothing to do with sports, but everything to do with our conversation. Human beings are not nearly as good at assessing their experiences as they think they are. Example...subjects underwent test 1, then test 2, then were asked which they would like to repeat.

Test 1:
Endure having hand placed in 14 degree Celsius water for 60 seconds
Test 2:
Endure having hand placed in 14 degree Celsius water for 60 seconds, followed by 30 seconds of 15 degree water

Not knowing exactly what was going on, and simply basing it on the experience/memory of the experience, 80% of subjects said they would rather repeat Test 2 than Test 1.

Subjects voluntarily chose to go through an extra 30 seconds of discomfort based on their experience. This book is 400 pages of crap like this that will astonish you. We think we’re better at judging our experiences than we really are.
 
#60
#60
My friends and family have read that book and raved about it. To me, it sounds like modern day Descartes.

They have had countless social experiments that test people abilities to be eye witnesses to crimes. It turns out, we suck at it. Shockingly suck at it actually.

When it comes basketball, watching a game and knowing what the hell is going on is infinitely more valuable than strictly looking at stats. They can surely help as a tool though. I can't tell you how many times I have been at basketball game and the "fans" around me truly have no clue about basketball. So strictly relying on human perception is not the answer either. Then again, your list of Kobe, Carmelo, Williams, and Stoudemire being ranked 181-330 is ridiculous. To me, the only answer is pure knowledge of the game and applying that to what you see on the court.
 
#61
#61
No matter how knowledgeable you are your eyes will fool you. We think Iverson looks amazing when he misses a double-clutch layup among the trees and think Ostertag looks like an idiot when he makes a layup. How can we fairly assess those players with our eyes? We can't.

It's the same thing Billy Beane went through. He couldn't produce, but no matter how many times he failed he always got another chance because he looked the part.

It's the same reason Sam Bowie got drafted over Charles Barkley. Barkley was two times the player (and had crushed him head to head in college), but he wasn't 7', and our eyes like to see 7'. Same reason Lin bounced around before getting a chance. We're not used to seeing a Chinese PG. It doesn't agree with what our eyes have associated with good basketball.

Economist Bastiat talked about the seen vs the unseen. The principle works similarly with regard to the obviously visible vs the less visible. In our minds we closely associate points with winning because of the visibility. What we don't see is that each rebound on average is worth 1 point. We don't make that connection, and fail to properly value them.

Revisiting the 1984 Draft: Was Bowie Really the Right Choice at the Time? | The Wages of Wins Journal
 
#63
#63
That would be my dream, though I would need grad school. I know enough about stats to interpret, but building models is not my thing.
 
#64
#64
n_huffhines said:
No matter how knowledgeable you are your eyes will fool you. We think Iverson looks amazing when he misses a double-clutch layup among the trees and think Ostertag looks like an idiot when he makes a layup. How can we fairly assess those players with our eyes? We can't.

It's the same thing Billy Beane went through. He couldn't produce, but no matter how many times he failed he always got another chance because he looked the part.

It's the same reason Sam Bowie got drafted over Charles Barkley. Barkley was two times the player (and had crushed him head to head in college), but he wasn't 7', and our eyes like to see 7'. Same reason Lin bounced around before getting a chance. We're not used to seeing a Chinese PG. It doesn't agree with what our eyes have associated with good basketball.

Economist Bastiat talked about the seen vs the unseen. The principle works similarly with regard to the obviously visible vs the less visible. In our minds we closely associate points with winning because of the visibility. What we don't see is that each rebound on average is worth 1 point. We don't make that connection, and fail to properly value them.

Revisiting the 1984 Draft: Was Bowie Really the Right Choice at the Time? | The Wages of Wins Journal
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that some people get fooled. Nobody is going to be 100% right. However, you act as if stats don't lie. They do. They can be more easily skewed than a eye test. Recruiting is a classic example. You hear all the time that such and such has X. Y, Z stats. Most people are like, "Wow! I want this guy." What they don't realize is that this same player, plays against lower level competition or in a system which over inflates his numbers. Similarly, there are players who play in a system which tampers their statistical prowess. Furthermore, statics can't decipher attitude, character, etc.

You mentioned Allen Iverson. It is true that he made things look pretty. What stats didn't tell you was how he would impact defenses via shading, double teams, etc. Stats would not tell you about his character; we are talkin' about practice mayne! Stats would not tell you about how he had the best crossover to ever play the game. In the NBA, that last one counts. In college, two points is two points. The NBA is a business. Two points are not two points in the NBA. Iverson's two points were two points, plus the wow factor, highlights on SC, increased revenue, more jersey sales, more tickets sold, etc. That is in stark contrast to Ostertag's goofy ass.

As far as your other examples, they were about drafts. Drafts are a different animal in my opinion.
 
#66
#66
I have learned from the best. My econ professor is maybe the most famous (if you can call it fame) sports economist.
 
#67
#67
Update: I asked my professor for a letter of recommendation...he obliged but he told me that the people he knows who do this don't really like it. It appears it's not what it seems. He also said that his endorsement of me will probably work against me since the basketball establishment hates him.

I'm holding out hope that the Suns are willing to shift their paradigm*. Probably couldn't get the job without his endorsement either way.

*Dragic was a nice move considering Nash wasn't going to re-sign. Signing Beasley, and letting Childress go were horrible moves, and their record will suffer. Maybe they'll be more open to a paradigm shift in 2013.
 
#69
#69
n_huffhines said:
Update: I asked my professor for a letter of recommendation...he obliged but he told me that the people he knows who do this don't really like it. It appears it's not what it seems. He also said that his endorsement of me will probably work against me since the basketball establishment hates him.

I'm holding out hope that the Suns are willing to shift their paradigm*. Probably couldn't get the job without his endorsement either way.

*Dragic was a nice move considering Nash wasn't going to re-sign. Signing Beasley, and letting Childress go were horrible moves, and their record will suffer. Maybe they'll be more open to a paradigm shift in 2013.
Click to expand...

Good luck. Don't be afraid to contact those people in the front office directly and ask about positions available. You'll stand out more than some person sending in their resume through Teamwork.
 
#71
#71
Really cool article demonstrating that Joakim Noah was the best offensive player on the Bulls last season:

A player who doesn’t get much attention and is one of my favorites to watch is Joakim Noah. The Bulls don’t utilize some of his skills. Not only is he a good rebounder but he’s an excellent passer. A good passer is more important to a team than a good shooter on offense. - Bill Russell
Click to expand...

Bill Russell, Joakim Noah and What Wins Games | The Wages of Wins Journal
 
#75
#75
As to the other two articles, rebounding, defense, and passing/court vision/unselfishness are all more important than shooting/scoring abilities.

However, the NBA is more entertainment than a real game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top