Presented Without Comment to the Basketball Nerds of the Board

Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.

Edit: Tell the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, etc that analytics are overrated and largely driven by nerdy slapdicks. It's almost like some of you haven't heard of synthesizing differing modalities of data.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Click to expand...

Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.

All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.

Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are.
 
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Click to expand...

Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.

All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.

Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are.
Click to expand...

You don't think the analytics guys watch league pass? That's a really strange assumption.
 
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.

Edit: Tell the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, etc that analytics are overrated and largely driven by nerdy slapdicks. It's almost like some of you haven't heard of synthesizing differing modalities of data.
Click to expand...

The Spurs were good long before the analytics craze. You actually think Popovich needed a bunch of fancy stats to realize the spot up corner 3 was a good shot? Bowen made a career out of standing in the corner and knocking down open 3's. He stood in the corner not because of some fucking analytics, but wait for it..

wait for it..

wait for it...

Spacing the fucking floor. Wings stand in the corner so there is room in the post for Duncan and up top for pick and rolls. High school teams do the same thing. Pass out the double team for an open 3. Drive and kick when the defense collapses. Basketball 101.

Mark Cuban said Charles Barkley was half right. The analytics say Monta Ellis isn't a good fit. They also didn't agree with the Rajon Rondo trade. He uses them, like every owner and team should, but he doesn't rely on them. Once again, a tool, not the bible.

You think the Mavs needed analytics to know Tyson Chandler helps their team?

The Heat had LeBron and were really fucking good. Now without him they aren't. I don't need any stats besides their record to know that.
 
After the game tonight Sir Charles had another great Barkleyism briefly touching on analytics and how a lot of the time they are pointing the obvious. Said it's just a fancy word for stats so they can charge more money. Then said something like:

"It's like calling a black guy a cook and a white guy a chef. Just a different word for the same thing"

Made me laugh, but as Roadie pointed out, analytics are fine and it would be neglectful to not explore available data, but ultimately the game is the game and we don't need to explore charts explaining Shaq is going to help your team dominate the paint...which is good for your team...because it's close to the basket...which is where the most makable shots exist...
 
Last edited:
That teams were not going after the corner like they have been over the last few years would seem to say otherwise. But you must know more than Hollinger et al.
 
I generally agree with the idea that what you're going to find in the data are slight nuances that may give you a little extra information or the ability to have a slightly better idea of how to quantify how good somebody is at something where the traditional stats may tend to be lacking (think 10 years ago and the revelation about how good of a defender Shane Battier was).

Where I think stats can really help you when it comes to the next level stats are having a strong understanding of areas on the floor where players are above average, likely to take shots, etc. Having that information may be able to give you the insight to adjust your defense to something that you'd otherwise not play for. That's valuable.

Having information about whether a player is likely to go right or left and to be able to quantify the difference between the two is also helpful not only for the defender, but also for the offensive player. You may know that you have a weakness in your game ... but the numbers will help you in not only magnifying the problem, but realizing how big of a problem it may be.

However, the general principals of what you find out of the most successful teams in the game are what they are ... the game will not be revolutionized because of the stat heads (the numbers are going to play this out). The game still consists of spacing the court ... moving the ball ... creating mismatches ... finding open, high % shots. IMO, one of the reasons you see so many more 3's taken today is because so many more people practice that shot and are relatively competent in taking those shots (compare to when the NBA brought the arc in and then more guys shot the shot who really had no business shooting it).

Everybody thinks from the standpoint that if they can shoot 33% from behind the arc, it's the equivalent of shooting 50% from the field. That's missing the mark in my book. The best stat in my mind in measuring offensive efficiency will always be points per shot attempt (for an individual) and points per possession (for the team). Stat heads today would tell you that the mid-range jumper is a terrible shot. In time, that will become an area where players can exploit holes in the defense as defenders become fixated on either protecting the rim or the arc. Most good, sound shooters will make shots that are the equivalent of a college 3 at a 60-70% clip if uncontested. I'd take that shot every single time if you gave that to me for a possession. As this area becomes exploited, it will compromise defenses.

Growing up, a focal point of learning to play the game was how to run a fast break properly. The purpose of offense is to find a good, open shot. Generally speaking, it's easier to find that shot in a transition situation instead of in the half court. The ultimate goal of any transition opportunity was to get a layup. However, as a guard, if you were able to get to a free throw line jumper, you'd take that every single time. Today, you see the fast break turn into a layup or a 3 point shot. Even a wide open 3 point shot for most shooters is no better than a 50/50 proposition.

For all the talk about being more efficient offensively, etc. that we're seeing from the stat heads, are the numbers really showing that? Compare the current in-season stats versus those of 1988. Today, teams are averaging 93.8 possessions per game and averaging 105.6 points per 100 possessions. In 1988, teams averaged 99.6 possessions per game, but averaged 108 points per game. While effective FG% is higher today because of the influence of the 3 point shot, true shooting % was higher in '88 due to not only the influence of getting to the line more and shooting a higher % from the line. If there's a big difference in offensive play today, it can be seen in the offensive rebound rate as today you see maybe 1 or 2 offensive players crashing the glass due to how spaced the court is whereas 25+ years ago it wasn't uncommon to see 3 offensive players trying to rebound.
 
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Click to expand...

Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.

All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.

Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are.
Click to expand...

Your basic basketball knowledge includes rebounding. Something that, a team that just went to 4 straight Finals, didn't care about at all. The game is the game though. Whatever that means.
 
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Click to expand...

Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.

All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.

Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are.
Click to expand...

Your basic basketball knowledge includes rebounding. Something that, a team that just went to 4 straight Finals, didn't care about at all. The game is the game though. Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Offensive rebounding isn't that important. Lots of teams such as the Celtics and Spurs do not crash the boards much at all.

Defensive rebounding is important. Giving up 2nd and 3rd shots is bad. Often they are open 3's.

The Heat are an anomaly because of the havoc of their defensive system with the trapping and switching. That leads to scrambling which leads to guys not getting boxed out. And the Heat were good at rebounding the first two years of the LeBron era. Not the best point, but I don't buy that rebounding isn't important at all.
 
Last edited:
Saying that offensive rebounding isn't important is FS.

A few different ways to think about it:

1) An offensive rebound creates an extra possession - which is the same as creating a turnover on defense

2) Often times, if you find yourself with an offensive rebound (particularly near the basket), the likelihood of finishing with a basket or a trip to the line is high.

The benefits to offensive rebounding are vast.

Now, the reasons why people don't do it have a lot to do with transition basketball and one of the cardinal sins where it is easy for people to criticize the coach for having his team poorly prepared is the number of transition baskets given up. It's why IMO you see so many teams make sure that they always have 3 back on defense ... harder to criticize that way.

And for people that counter with saying that crashing the boards against teams that want to run is playing right into their hand, forcing them to rebound can often slow down the fast break as it forces them to put more numbers closer to the basket to get the initial rebound. The 80s Lakers were the greatest fast breaking team of all time ... but the one sure fire way to beat them was to abuse them on the glass. If you did that, you most likely beat them.
 
The Heat were dead last in offensive rebounding last year and the Spurs were 26th. Vast.
Click to expand...

Sounds like more possessions and more threes is a good thing. Especially more corner threes.

I don't really care to go deeper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top