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

Re: Detroit vs. LA

Expand Messages
  • dktomar
    ... is ... measure ... believing ... Shaq takes over games, not Kobe. Kobe just looks more impressive doing it (low percentage fade aways, driving floaters).
    Message 1 of 49 , Jun 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > I think this raises an issue that needs to be re-raised because it
      is
      > forgotten. How do we know he takes over a game? If you can't
      measure
      > it, how do you know it? That was baseball's excuse until the recent
      > enlightenment -- "well, you just can't measure the value of a
      > sacrifice, you just 'see' it." So many many years of people
      believing
      > things that they couldn't prove in any way. Finally, baseball is
      > recognizing that if the numbers don't support use of the sacrifice
      > bunt, there might be a very obvious reason for it -- it ain't very
      > effective.

      Shaq takes over games, not Kobe. Kobe just looks more impressive
      doing it (low percentage fade aways, driving floaters). He's fluid,
      and this year he was very effective. But Shaq is still the man. Shaq
      takes ugly looking 8 footers or power dunks shooting at 55-60% or gets
      fouled and makes 50% from the line (which is awful, but he's there so
      often, i.e., isn't 10 for 20 is better than 5 for 5, when teams employ
      the hack-a-Shaq?). The only way to stop Shaq is for Shaq to stop
      himeself, which happens more often than it should.

      >
      > We can measure anything! Define "crucial" and Roland has the data
      > that says _something_. Whether it says something meaningful is
      what I
      > specialize in. DanVal accounts for clutch play and Kobe isn't the
      > best player there. People say they just "see" it when they know the
      > numbers don't support them. They use numbers if it does support
      them.
      > How to Lie with Statistics 101. I'm betting that Kobe does use
      more
      > possessions at the end of the game. I'm betting that he is no more
      > effective than he is normally. I'd place a bet that he is slightly
      > less effective at crucial times.

      Stats have been used to justify, excuse, explain, and massage for
      centuries. Politicians are the masters, but sports isn't far behind.
      Be it agents, GMs, or writers, we all have used stats to bolster our
      positions which are based on our perceptive beliefs. That's not to
      say it should happen, but it does. My favorite is hearing that the
      violent crime rate went down by 10%. Of course, their were 50 more
      murders that year, but as a percentage this was a decrease. It's
      called spin.

      >
      > I will agree that some things _haven't_ been measured. But can't be
      > measured? The tooth fairy can't be measured and I'm pretty sure
      it's
      > because she doesn't exist.
      >
      > Besides, the problem with making projections without numbers is that
      > most of the people doing it are flat out wrong.
      >
      > (Not to pick on you, but I have to hear about how such-and-such
      can't
      > be measured ALL THE TIME from NBA people. And it's almost always a
      > case of defending the traditional way of thinking, not a forward
      > thinking 'how can we measure it' approach. So I'm pretty sick of
      it.
      > It's bad basketball. It's bad science. It's bad business.)

      I agree. Baseball is slowly turning the corner with the influx of new
      blood in front offices. Basketball needs the same. Start by
      encouraging teams to hire people with open minds about the importance
      and usefulness of stats. I, for one, would be happy to stop
      practicing law and join a front office.

      >
      > DeanO
      >
      > Dean Oliver
      > Author, Basketball on Paper
      > http://www.basketballonpaper.com
      > When basketball teams start playing Moneyball, this is the book
      > they'll use!
    • mrintp2000
      ... I m not sure what else you can do as a GM. That s why they play the games. ... a ... suggest
      Message 49 of 49 , Jun 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- If having the best player in the regular season is no guarantee,
        I'm not sure what else you can do as a GM. That's why they play the
        games.

        In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "mrintp2000" <shzys@n...>
        > wrote:
        > >.. I don't know what
        > > to conclude ...though... having the best player is anything but
        a
        > guarantee of a title. ..
        >
        > Well, only 4/34 teams have lost when they had the best individual
        > Finals performer. It's highly likely the top player will be from
        > the Lakers this year.
        >
        > But if you have the best player coming in, but an opponent is the
        > best in the Finals, there is almost no precendent that would
        suggest
        > you have a chance to win. It's been a 1-in-16 occurrance
        > (Kemp/Jordan in '96).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.