Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2798Re: Kirilenko

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Pelton
    Dec 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      wrote:
      > General agreement with statements about usefulness (or lack
      > thereof) of pop stats like triple-double. I don't know if I'd
      > phrase it as harshly. Most people really don't care about being
      > precisely accurate, so if a triple double usually is a good
      > indicator of a good game, it's ok to use it that way.

      I would maybe call them "fun stats", because while they don't have
      much analytical value, they're fun/interesting to look at and add to
      our enjoyment of the game. If they don't actively detract from
      analysis -- and I don't think triple-doubles or 50-point games do,
      though "categories" like 20-10 players and guys averaging double-
      doubles can -- then I think they're a good thing.

      Plus junk stats are quite useful when I'm doing postgame notes. How
      many times do you think I've used DeanO's stuff for that?

      > One thing that has impressed me is the media's use of OPS in
      > baseball. Now there is a complicated concept for traditional media
      > to use. It even involves addition! Seriously, it really is more
      > about acceptance of a scale (OPS of over 1.0 is very good, for
      > example) and acceptance that a number is something real -- not an
      > arbitrary mix of numbers. Quarterback rating being a prominent
      > exception. I do think the media could end up using TENDEX or PER
      > or Floor % or Offensive and Defensive Ratings in a couple years.

      Does anyone know when stat types started using OPS? It predates my
      interest in baseball statistics, but it seems like it caught on
      fairly quickly.

      I think TENDEX -- or at least "NBA.com's exclusive efficiency
      rating" -- does have a pretty good chance of catching on. In its
      simple, non-pace form, it's extremely simple to understand, and the
      league itself tracking it has legitimized it for use by the general
      media. (Thus, when I want to get statistical in my work for the
      Sonics and Storm, I always turn to it.) I also tend to think that
      Lauren Jackson leading the league in efficiency per game and per-
      minute, as well as overall, had something to do with her winning
      WNBA MVP despite playing for a non-playoff team (and I made sure to
      emphasize these facts on the LJ for MVP site).
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic