Presented Without Comment to the Basketball Nerds of the Board

Grantland's basketball articles are dreck.
Click to expand...

Disagree, I thought this article was interesting and Zach Lowe is really good.
Click to expand...

Zach Lowe is the worst. Long wind bag articles that have very little substance. These articles are all written by geeks who never played basketball.
 
Generally speaking I'm not a huge analytic guy because in a lot of ways it's just putting numbers behind things that intuitively we already know. For instance, the part where they talked about Paul running Curry off the line and contesting is simple shit for anybody that has played hoops their entire life.

However, the ability to create defensive shot charts and being able to quantify is very interesting from a relative standpoint. You know that CP3 is a good defender ... but you didn't know how good. You knew that Harden was a bad defender ... but hard to measure how bad.

And I think the parts where they talked about guys like Duncan, Hibbert, etc. were very telling. It also goes a long way in my mind to also illustrating why you have to look at the data in the context of how the game is played.

And for whatever you want to say about Lowe, that's whatever. But the articles that Goldsberry writes are some of the more educational and interesting articles on basketball that I've ever read.
 
Warning: Tequilla Long

Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.

There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.

On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.

Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.

There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable.http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense

The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.

Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).

Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.

Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.

Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.

These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something.
 
Warning: Tequilla Long

Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.

There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.

On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.

Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.

There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable.http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense

The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.

Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).

Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.

Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.

Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.

These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something.
Click to expand...

disagree
 
Warning: Tequilla Long

Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.

There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.

On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.

Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.

There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable.http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense

The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.

Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).

Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.

Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.

Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.

These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something.
Click to expand...

SEC? I'm on the fence considering I didn't read it
 
I would like to hear how I'm wrong about the typical worthless, stat nerd Grantland article. DNC? Anyone? Buehler?
 
Last edited:
I'm with RD. I've probably only looked at Gland 5-10 times ever, but the 15% of the content that's good is drowned by the 85% that's dorks writing lengthy articles and useless pop culture crap.
 
Zach Lowe is a windbag dork that writes TL;DR garbage. I generally like Grantland but that place sometimes thinks way too highly of themselves for a blog that writes about sports and TV sitcoms. You're not the New Yorker for fucks sake. Simmons talking about Oscars likes he's Leonard Maltin - FO; DIAFF wannabe hipster.

The reductionist take on the game of Basketball and the need for analytics is LOL. I'm sure YMCA all-stars here said similar things about baseball and analytics in the 90s. These teams are printing money and throw a million or two a year at analytics to get an edge in a hyper-competitive sport. I'm sure it has real value to them winning and managing their assets.
 
Last edited:
I read Grantland sometimes, but it's mostly terrible. Most of the time I look at the headlines and skim through TL, DR articles. Sports articles that over analyze everything. I actually enjoy the pop culture more than their spots.

Wesley Morris is the worst movie critic I have ever read. Is the movie entertaining or not? Enough with the bullshit about how many black actors there are, how gays in movies are portrayed, and all the bullshit psych-analysis of every character.

And the 2015 version of Simmons sucks. I was a big fan in his early days. I liked the knowledgeable fan with some humor and pop culture mixed in. Now, he's a whiny cunt who acts like he's such a rebel for not always toeing the line at ESPN. Part of it is the backlash of fame, but his writing sucks compared to his past work.

I don't think analytics are worthless. Far from it, and front offices should use them. Advanced plus-minus and finding out statistical evidence of what the best line ups to use is kind of obvious stuff. Zach Lowe and Grantland overdo it. Formulas and obscure stats are not needed to know who the best players and teams are.

Charles Barkley was wrong when he ranted about Morey and stats geeks, but in his rant, he had a point. The Rockets have gotten better because they acquired James Harden, Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, Corey Brewer, Ariza, etc. You can use a bunch of stats and bullshit, but it's really that simple.
 
I've enjoyed bits and pieces such as Andy Greenwald's Breaking Bad recaps last year, but most of the site can be pretty accurately be described as TL;DR

Having Bill and Wesley Morris talking about the Oscars on ESPN in the middle of weekend was odd, sort of like when MTV dropped the pretense of showing music videos. Bill's writing peaked when he wrote about his dog passing away.
 
Last edited:
I've enjoyed bits and pieces such as Andy Greenwald's Breaking Bad recaps last year, but most of the site can be pretty accurately be described as TL;DR

Having Bill and Wesley Morris talking about the Oscars on ESPN in the middle of weekend was odd, sort of like when MTV dropped the pretense of showing music videos. Bill's writing peaked when he wrote about his dog passing away.
Click to expand...
I figured that was ESPN throwing him a bone after he got suspended and even before that booted off NBA countdown. My guess is Bill bitches about Espns investment in GL & 538 a lot these days. His web traffic is actually pretty mediocre. Wouldn't surprise me if his bullshit gets called one of these days and he gets booted from espn permanently.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top