Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 126

Thread: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

  1. #101
    Member TinManJoshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,316

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So was mine. And it made just about as much sense.

    "That stat" in my poorly worded response, was referring to EFG%.
    I'm glad you can tell the difference between green and black, but you completely missed why my post was in jest.

    Reggie is the choice for a late game three. He played in a world where there was a difference between a 12 ft shot and a 25 ft shot, and their respective approach to the game should be obvious.

    The part that's in jest is where I assumed that Oscar, because he's clearly a superior player should have a supreme stat line in every facet of the sport that it rendered something as unique as the invention of the three point shot as insignificant(the big O did shoot 2-18 in the two years he played with a three point line). It's jestful not because oscar wouldn't be a better three point shooter than Reggie, but because there is literally no stats-believer that would feel that 3 pt fg% is a fair comparison for two players almost 2 decades apart, and wouldn't recognize the difference in approach to jump shots between the eras.

    3pt % tells a lot. What it tells me about Oscar Robertson is that it was never a priority for him to develop an outside game, because he only played 2 seasons with the three point line and managed to score 6 points on 18 attempts. That does, in fact, make him a terrible three point shooter. But any statistician worth their salt would understand why he was terrible. Eye-testers would just believe he would be as good at that as his contemporaries, with literally no evidence than the lore behind his name.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TinManJoshua For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    7,920

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yall didn't understand my point.

    Give me one situation, or scenario, where any of those stats gives you new information that is the least bit useful.
    When you are trying to compare two players abilities to score efficiently from the field and they do not take an equal amount of shots from 3.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  5. #103
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,220

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm glad you can tell the difference between green and black, but you completely missed why my post was in jest.

    Reggie is the choice for a late game three. He played in a world where there was a difference between a 12 ft shot and a 25 ft shot, and their respective approach to the game should be obvious.

    The part that's in jest is where I assumed that Oscar, because he's clearly a superior player should have a supreme stat line in every facet of the sport that it rendered something as unique as the invention of the three point shot as insignificant(the big O did shoot 2-18 in the two years he played with a three point line). It's jestful not because oscar wouldn't be a better three point shooter than Reggie, but because there is literally no stats-believer that would feel that 3 pt fg% is a fair comparison for two players almost 2 decades apart, and wouldn't recognize the difference in approach to jump shots between the eras.

    3pt % tells a lot. What it tells me about Oscar Robertson is that it was never a priority for him to develop an outside game, because he only played 2 seasons with the three point line and managed to score 6 points on 18 attempts. That does, in fact, make him a terrible three point shooter. But any statistician worth their salt would understand why he was terrible. Eye-testers would just believe he would be as good at that as his contemporaries, with literally no evidence than the lore behind his name.
    Man I just flat out misunderstood what you were trying to say and even misread your post, I had a few too many during that dreadful game last night. I apologize, sorry for my confusion. I was on my phone and I didn't notice the green.

    I agree with you on all those points.

    I'm gonna try to better explain my POV just to clarify and then I'm gonna leave this alone, cause I've done a really crappy job of that and things have gotten way off the tracks....

    If you are a NBA scout, and you got two college players in your sights, and Player A is better than the other in every advanced stat, even by a significant margin in some cases.......but Player B has better character, is a harder worker, maybe played in a system that wasn't the best fit OR is bigger, stronger, quicker.....which guy are you gonna take? Basketball is a lot more about fit than the "numbers". Scouting is a lot more about potential than production. I have repeatedly watched NBA teams ignore traditional metrics in the draft and free agency over the years, and pay on potential instead. So I don't see them really valuing these new stats, that much, at least in PLAYER evaluations. I think they use them more to evaluate THEIR COACHES PERFORMANCE more than anything. And if that's how their used, then ok, I can see their value. But thats not the impression I get from these articles and fans take on them.

    I think in Houston, just for example, Morey's really just there to evaluate Kevin McHale/Rick Adelman (before McHale) and their staff, not necessarily to make the basketball decisions in terms of drafting/signing/trading players based on advanced metrics. Which is still a change from how things are traditionally done. So no, I don't think Morey has done a good job because the player moves ultimately fall on him. And they have traded just about everybody since hes been there. And I don't see their approach as one that is conducive to winning. And I don't see all the number crunching helping with player evaluation, in their case. Their drafts have been beyond mediocre, despite having a lot of picks over the last 7 years, in fact they've had 19 draft picks in that 7 year span, and they actually traded their best draft pick for pretty much nothing, which was Nicholas Batum for Darrell Arthur and Joey Dorsey. On top of that they've spent 10 of those picks on PF's. Only 3 of those players are still with the team, I believe, with only 2 contributing. They have a good record this year but that's due to a trade and a no brainer FA signing. Are all these trades a result over using analytics? I doubt it. But I wonder if having a basketball minded Gm who understand continuity and chemistry would've benefited them. I just know they could've done a much better job in the draft and had more guys left after all these trades to surround their 2 superstars right now.

    I see a belief, both with the media and fans alike, that these advanced stats are revolutionizing the game and the way teams see players but I have a hard time buying that a GM would take any player based on these numbers, thats all. I don't think they are worth having conferences over and I just feel like this is another product of a game that has gotten way too big. Over analyzing every little thing is NOT good for anybody, in ANY situation.
    Last edited by Taterhead; 03-05-2014 at 12:51 PM.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

  6. #104
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In most situations you see on this board, people are drawing conclusions from the use of stats.
    I've found that most of the time, people drawing conclusions from the stats are those who don't understand them. I go back to my example about TS% and someone laughing because they thought the point was that the particular player was better than MJ because they had a better TS%.

    This quote from taterhead is just really funny, and shouldn't be overlooked, because it gets straight to the heart of the issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So how important is it to winning basketball games? That's my problem with it. I think it's probably the dumbest stat I've ever heard of and have no clue what it's for.
    One would think a little education on what the stat is, and what it represents, would be needed in order to judge the validity of it. But Tater doesn't understand it, so it's dumb.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  7. #105
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
    Posts
    3,542
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by FlavaDave View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm glad you brought up the issue of hot streaks. I assume that because you put the phrase in quotation marks, you don't believe they exist.

    In basketball circles, the issue of hot streaks has become the classic "nerds vs. jocks" argument. Jocks believe that they get a Hot Hand - they "catch fire" and are able to hit shots at a higher rate than normal. Nerds ran the numbers and showed evidence that the FG% of NBA players decreases after every shot they made. IE, if you have hit three shots in a row, your expected FG% is lower than it would be if you have hit zero/missed your last shot.

    As a dude who likes numbers but also was a decent ball player back in the day, I've always been conflicted by this. I saw the numbers and saw the logic, but I have also played and felt the Hot Hand effect. I always thought that an increased shot distance and defensive scrutiny explained the drop in FG%.

    Well, read this:

    http://www.sloansportsconference.com...w-Approach.pdf

    This is a Sloan paper attacking the "Hot Hand Fallacy". It used SportVU cameras to run the numbers on people with Hot Hands while adjusting for shot distance and defensive distance. Their data seems to indicate that the Hot Hand exists, but is obscured by those two factors.

    See? Jocks and nerds can live in harmony, people.
    No, I very much believe that hot streaks do exist. I put it in quotes because there was a very lengthy debate about it here in a thread from back in the JOB days.

    I attribute hot streaks to players becoming increasingly confident after each successful outcome, so much so that they are no longer actively thinking about what their bodies are supposed to be doing, and are simply relying on their muscle memory and subconcious to perform at a higher level but still be within the flow of the game. The old school descriptive term of being "unconcious" when a player makes a lot of shots in a row, or at least an uncharacteristically high percentage during a given stretch during a game, likely is derived from this same thought process.

    As far as running the numbers and showing that expected FG% drops after every made shot, I would say that is a given when running the numbers. Every time a shot is made, unless the player has never missed, the FG% increases by definition. In order for the player to have a FG% of less than 1.000, they must miss, and every time they miss the FG% drops. The further the FG% is from 1.000, the more often that there was a miss instead of a make after a made shot.

    Conversely, the stats would also likely show that expected FG% increases after every miss unless a player never ever hits a shot and has a .000 FG%. That is why shooters believe that the best way to get out of a slump is to keep shooting. Statistically speaking, that would more often than not be correct.

  8. #106

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    I always thought Troy Murphy was an interesting case. One primary argument against him was that his rebounds weren't "earned". He was accused of hogging all of the uncontested rebounds, and didn't get the "big boy" contested rebounds.

    Good news: there is a stat that sheds light on that, Contested Rebound Percentage! A "Contested Rebound" is a rebound that is grabbed by a player when an opposing player is within 3.5 feet of him. Remember the SportVU cameras? This stat is possible with those things. If you compare a players Total Rebounds to his Contested Rebounds, you get Contested Rebound Percentage. Your rough-and-tumble guys like Jeff Foster should have a larger percentage, and your pretty boys like Troy Murphy should have a low percentage.

    Obviously, we can't go back in time and look at data for those Pacer legends. But, we can for the current season. Out of all the players who have played at least 40 games and average 7 or more rebounds per game, here is a list of players ranked in order of lowest Contested Rebound Percentage:

    http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingR...&sortOrder=ASC

    Same list, ranked from the highest:

    http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingR...&sortOrder=DES

    Lance is a poacher, mainly from Hibbert. How do I know that? By watching the games. We talk about it all the time on the podcast. It is a pretty obvious thing, and the Pacers have talked about it in the media.

    But did you know that Hibbert grabs more contested boards than BAMF David West?

    http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingR...&sortOrder=DES

    Or that Stretch-4 Pretty Boy Kevin Love grabs the 3rd most contested rebounds per game?

    http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingR...&sortOrder=DES

    Well, are Kevin Love's rebounding numbers inflated by pace? Head over to the Timberwolves' basketball-reference page and look at Minny's Pace numbers and Love's individual rebounding %:

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2014.html

    If you were a GM, wouldn't you like to know that LaMarcus Aldridge sucks at grabbing contested boards, while Robin Lopez is a beast at it? Perhaps that might motivate you into trading for Lopez to pair with Aldridge, making your team jump from 24th to 2nd in the NBA in total rebounds in the process?

    "But Dave, you could just watch the games to figure that out!"

    If you are a GM, you need to know about ever player in the NBA. There are 30 teams in the NBA playing 82 games. If you use a DVR (or if you watch pre-edited versions of every game) and can watch each game in 1.5 hours, it would take you 184.5 days to watch every NBA game (assuming you watched for 10 hours a day with no breaks). Want to scout the D-League or Europe? Grab some coffee!

    Or, you could use sophisticated stats like this to narrow down a list, and use Synergy's scouting service (which breaks down plays by type, like - say - every Robin Lopez rebound) to use your eyes to evaluate specific targets.

    The application for coaches to gain wisdom about opposing players quickly as they are flying between games, running practices, and trying to sleep are so obvious it hurts.

    Has anyone actually used Synergy's scout service? I have, and I know many others have as well. It will give you a stat (say, points per possession in spot-up shooting situations). That stat will be in blue text. Why? Because it is a direct link to a series of videos that this stat applies to.

    And that is the goal. Collect the data. Refine the data. Add nuance to the data. And use the data to direct you to - and add context and understanding to - actual basketball plays.

    In this sense, this stuff is very valuable. TS% and PER are kind of ancient. This new SportVU data is pretty amazing. But the most amazing part? Contested Rebound Percentage is child's play compared to what we will know once we have enough data to do some truly crazy stuff with this:

    http://grantland.com/features/expect...nba-analytics/

    Sorry for the TL;DR post. Guess I had a lot to say about this.
    Last edited by FlavaDave; 03-05-2014 at 03:43 PM. Reason: "nuisance" and "nuance" are very different words.

  9. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to FlavaDave For This Useful Post:


  10. #107

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad8888 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As far as running the numbers and showing that expected FG% drops after every made shot, I would say that is a given when running the numbers. Every time a shot is made, unless the player has never missed, the FG% increases by definition. In order for the player to have a FG% of less than 1.000, they must miss, and every time they miss the FG% drops. The further the FG% is from 1.000, the more often that there was a miss instead of a make after a made shot.

    Conversely, the stats would also likely show that expected FG% increases after every miss unless a player never ever hits a shot and has a .000 FG%. That is why shooters believe that the best way to get out of a slump is to keep shooting. Statistically speaking, that would more often than not be correct.
    First, sorry for putting words in your mouth.

    Second, we agree that Hot Streaks exist. I highly recommend reading the article.

    Third, you misunderstand. The old study calculated FG% as independent events. Let's say you took six shots in a game. The results, in order, were "Make Make Miss Make Make Make". Your FG% with a 0-make streak would be 1.000 (2-2), with a 1-make streak would be 1.000 (2-2), and with a 2-make streak would be .500 (1-2). Make sense?

  11. #108
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,220

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've found that most of the time, people drawing conclusions from the stats are those who don't understand them. I go back to my example about TS% and someone laughing because they thought the point was that the particular player was better than MJ because they had a better TS%.

    This quote from taterhead is just really funny, and shouldn't be overlooked, because it gets straight to the heart of the issue.


    One would think a little education on what the stat is, and what it represents, would be needed in order to judge the validity of it. But Tater doesn't understand it, so it's dumb.
    SMH

    Well, I find it funny that I'm the one who don't understand, yet you imply I'm someone who draws conclusions from the stats because I don't understand them. When clearly my position is that these stats contain no useful information to draw conclusions from. I understand the stats, how they are calculated and what they are supposed to say. I don't agree with what most people think they say, that is all.


    Its not just fans who use the stat to compare players, John Hollinger VP of the Grizz used it all the time when comparing players as an analyst at ESPN, and clearly feels like it translates to winning basketball. Guys in the media use it constantly. ESPN has a show called Numbers Never Lie. They are doing conferences on them. There is a movement on advanced stats, and ESPN is behind it. Why? Because there is a lot of money in convincing someone they can gain an edge.

    But I haven't seen one guy credit these new metrics with any type of significant success, in any sport.

    Its a gimmick.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

  12. #109

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    SMH

    Well, I find it funny that I'm the one who don't understand, yet you imply I'm someone who draws conclusions from the stats because I don't understand them. When clearly my position is that these stats contain no useful information to draw conclusions from. I understand the stats, how they are calculated and what they are supposed to say. I don't agree with what most people think they say, that is all.


    Its not just fans who use the stat to compare players, John Hollinger VP of the Grizz used it all the time when comparing players as an analyst at ESPN, and clearly feels like it translates to winning basketball. Guys in the media use it constantly. ESPN has a show called Numbers Never Lie. They are doing conferences on them. There is a movement on advanced stats, and ESPN is behind it. Why? Because there is a lot of money in convincing someone they can gain an edge.

    But I haven't seen one guy credit these new metrics with any type of significant success, in any sport.

    Its a gimmick.
    I don't think any GM would ever say that they solely used computer models to build their team, or even that it was by far the primary method if that's what you're saying. But significant input in any sport? Baseball is chock full of examples. Here's a good SI story from a couple years ago on the Red Sox success with statistical analysis being a huge part of it:

    http://sportsillustrated.ca/vault/ar...32/1/index.htm

    Basketball is a much tougher sport to quantify. I don't think it will ever get like baseball. And even baseball still has significant areas where scouting is essential (such as evaluating a young prospect where body development and different quality of competition matters a great deal). Basketball also has less conventional wisdom strategy wise to battle than baseball did (for example how baseball has drastically reduced things like bunting with non-pitchers, stealing, etc. because the numbers show how they are typically non-efficient plays).

    But there's still significant ways basketball is being changed by statistical analysis. One easy example is the proliferation of the three point shot. Basic statistical analysis has helped drive offenses that are shooting the three point shot at record levels and defenses that are being geared to stop it. It's not going to be nearly as easy to point to data driven elements in basketball that are giving the top teams an advantage precisely because the sport is so progressive. Every team is embracing statistical analysis in some way, so the gap between the teams is not nearly as large as it was in baseball. And the best stuff is being kept behind closed doors. Teams have learned from Moneyball, and they aren't about to get rid of their proprietary secrets.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  14. #110
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,973

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've found that most of the time, people drawing conclusions from the stats are those who don't understand them. I go back to my example about TS% and someone laughing because they thought the point was that the particular player was better than MJ because they had a better TS%.

    This quote from taterhead is just really funny, and shouldn't be overlooked, because it gets straight to the heart of the issue.

    One would think a little education on what the stat is, and what it represents, would be needed in order to judge the validity of it. But Tater doesn't understand it, so it's dumb.
    That may be true. The issue is not that drawing conclusions from statistics cannot be done. It really can. Many basic truths can be determined with basic or advanced stats. In the right hands, more complex truths can be determined.

    The problem is when someone (a non-expert) attempts to draw anything beyond a basic conclusion. They quickly step into the deep end of the pool and they don't even know it.

  15. #111

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Well, here's more fuel for someone's fire:

    http://gizmodo.com/entire-nba-game-m...zed-1536754289

    The NBA recently announced that the players of all 30 teams—and the balls they use!—would have tracking devices installed to analyze player movements during games. Now, the first dribles of the fascinating data are available.

    Fathom Information Design has taken a look at some of the early data from an Oklahoma City versus San Antonio game. The image above shows, in orange, the motion of the ball throughout the entire game. Interesting, if expected, but there's more to sink your teeth into.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PacerDude For This Useful Post:


  17. #112
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    SMH

    Well, I find it funny that I'm the one who don't understand, yet you imply I'm someone who draws conclusions from the stats because I don't understand them. When clearly my position is that these stats contain no useful information to draw conclusions from. I understand the stats, how they are calculated and what they are supposed to say. I don't agree with what most people think they say, that is all.


    Its not just fans who use the stat to compare players, John Hollinger VP of the Grizz used it all the time when comparing players as an analyst at ESPN, and clearly feels like it translates to winning basketball. Guys in the media use it constantly. ESPN has a show called Numbers Never Lie. They are doing conferences on them. There is a movement on advanced stats, and ESPN is behind it. Why? Because there is a lot of money in convincing someone they can gain an edge.
    I'm not implying anything. You said it. You think it's the dumbest stat in the world, but you don't have a clue what it's for. And now you're going for a conspiracy theory generated by ESPN to get money? Goodness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But I haven't seen one guy credit these new metrics with any type of significant success, in any sport.
    Just like no one with a stats background would become GM, right?
    Last edited by Since86; 03-06-2014 at 09:22 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  18. #113
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think any GM would ever say that they solely used computer models to build their team, or even that it was by far the primary method if that's what you're saying. But significant input in any sport? Baseball is chock full of examples. Here's a good SI story from a couple years ago on the Red Sox success with statistical analysis being a huge part of it:
    I've already given him the MLB version in the NBA, the Houston Rockets. Brad Stevens is heavily into advanced stats. There are numerous examples throughout the NBA of coaches/teams that rely heavily on them.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  19. #114

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But I haven't seen one guy credit these new metrics with any type of significant success, in any sport.

    Its a gimmick.
    I wonder if you are aware of the string of championships that the Boston Red Sox have put together, or the extreme dearth of midrange shots the #3 offense in the NBA (the Houston Rockets) take, or the maniacal over-the-top-of-screens, uncontested-midrange jumper strategy the league's #1 defense (the Indiana Pacers) employ, or this famous Shane Battier article early on in the modern analytics movement:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ma...nted=all&_r=1&

    But I think we are in agree-to-disagree territory.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to FlavaDave For This Useful Post:


  21. #115

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Of possible interest - This article from Mark Montieth discussing the trend of hiring video co-ordinators (young guys who are used to dealing with advanced stats) as Head Coaches, including Eric Spolestra and Frank Vogel:

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/vogel...wing-trend-nba

    Spolestra's comfort with advanced stats is interesting in light of this article/interview that LeBron James did with advanced stats guru Kirk Goldsberry for Grantland:

    http://grantland.com/features/lebron...olved-offense/

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to FlavaDave For This Useful Post:


  23. #116
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,220

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by FlavaDave View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if you are aware of the string of championships that the Boston Red Sox have put together, or the extreme dearth of midrange shots the #3 offense in the NBA (the Houston Rockets) take, or the maniacal over-the-top-of-screens, uncontested-midrange jumper strategy the league's #1 defense (the Indiana Pacers) employ, or this famous Shane Battier article early on in the modern analytics movement:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ma...nted=all&_r=1&

    But I think we are in agree-to-disagree territory.
    Yeah you're right. That success isn't because of talent, its because of the advanced stats. SMH

    Exactly my point.

    Here's one of my quotes from early in this thread, for those who have a reading comprehension problem.

    "The only problem with advanced stats is that people try to use them to evaluate players. They are best used for game planning and management, but even then, they are just a tool."

    BTW since86, Daryl Morey has a basketball background.

    admin: namecalling? really?



    Heres a quote from the best coach in professional basketball that sums it up pretty well:

    "I think today we've had a proliferation of geniuses who have come up with new formula to prove what wins and what loses. … So everything being copacetic, maybe shots and making stops on demand wins a lot of games."
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

  24. #117
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah you're right. That success isn't because of talent, its because of the advanced stats. SMH
    Which was never said, nor implied.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  26. #118
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,220

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Falvadave just gave 3 examples and posted 3 articles implying it.. Another lie.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

  27. #119
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    I won't speak for him, but I didn't get that impression at all. Goes back to my example about TS% and thinking if you have a better one than MJ, you're saying that player is better than MJ. That's not what was said then, and I don't believe that's the implication towards advance stats now.

    I've yet to see someone on the side of advanced stats stake their claim as being the most important thing out there, but rather just a tool in the toolbox. It's not some obscure tool, like a square drive bit, but rather something that is used quite often like a hammer or a phillips head screw driver. From how I see it, one side of this discussion is saying use both while the other side is saying use one.

    Maybe a direct quote where you see that implication?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  29. #120
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
    Posts
    3,542
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by FlavaDave View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    First, sorry for putting words in your mouth.

    Second, we agree that Hot Streaks exist. I highly recommend reading the article.

    Third, you misunderstand. The old study calculated FG% as independent events. Let's say you took six shots in a game. The results, in order, were "Make Make Miss Make Make Make". Your FG% with a 0-make streak would be 1.000 (2-2), with a 1-make streak would be 1.000 (2-2), and with a 2-make streak would be .500 (1-2). Make sense?
    Let me make sure I am following you correctly.

    Using the methodology you describe of independent sequences of any given combination of events coupled with your example, results in any given make being followed by a make 3 out of the 4 times that there is a data point, leading to an expected FG% of .750. If the 5th time a shot was made assumed that there was simply a non-make following it, the expected FG% becomes (3-5) .600.

    Any given miss has an expected FG% of 1.000 as well at 1 miss being followed by 1 make.

    If a 0 make streak is not simply defined as any shot following a miss, but rather following either the beginning of the dataset (where the actual result of 0 for 0 being undefined and therefore inconclusive) or a miss then your result would be correct at 1.000 (2-2).

    Two make streaks happened 3 times, with outcomes following them happened twice. So the expected FG% is either (1-2) .500, or (1-3) .333.

    I did follow your link and started to read the article, but did not have time to fully digest it. It seems well written and thorough, and I am sure that it would provide interesting insights. I look forward to actually fully digesting it sometime soon. Thank you for sharing it!

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Brad8888 For This Useful Post:


  31. #121
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
    Posts
    3,542
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, here's more fuel for someone's fire:

    http://gizmodo.com/entire-nba-game-m...zed-1536754289
    Would redefine what both "ball movement" and "player movement" are, huh?
    Last edited by Brad8888; 03-06-2014 at 11:58 AM.

  32. #122
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,860

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, here's more fuel for someone's fire:

    http://gizmodo.com/entire-nba-game-m...zed-1536754289
    How the heck do this put this tracking device on the players?

    Putting a tracking device on a human being is a no-no for me unless it is removed right after the game.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  33. #123

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    ^^ I would assume that it's in the jersey or something. Might be a few complaints if they micro-chipped the players.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to PacerDude For This Useful Post:


  35. #124
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How the heck do this put this tracking device on the players?

    Putting a tracking device on a human being is a no-no for me unless it is removed right after the game.
    Most, if not all, wear some type of compression shirt underneath their jerseys. You can put some sort of device in the shirt. They also have devices that strap around your chest, although they tend to slip. They are doing this with NBDL players right now. I read an article that says the Pacers do it at practice. They measure heart rate, blood pressure, and all those goodies. The article in question though is about the old missile tracking cameras being used. They setup like 30 cameras in each arena, and assign one camera to an individual player and one to the ball. The camera then tracks everything that player does, to the number of steps they take, to how far they've ran/walked, down to how many dribbles they use before taking a shot or passing it.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  37. #125
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,860

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^^ I would assume that it's in the jersey or something. Might be a few complaints if they micro-chipped the players.
    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Most, if not all, wear some type of compression shirt underneath their jerseys. You can put some sort of device in the shirt. They also have devices that strap around your chest, although they tend to slip. They are doing this with NBDL players right now. I read an article that says the Pacers do it at practice. They measure heart rate, blood pressure, and all those goodies. The article in question though is about the old missile tracking cameras being used. They setup like 30 cameras in each arena, and assign one camera to an individual player and one to the ball. The camera then tracks everything that player does, to the number of steps they take, to how far they've ran/walked, down to how many dribbles they use before taking a shot or passing it.
    I see. Well, that makes sense. I just panicked
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •