Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    Efg% is clearly biased towards big men and I'm just not sure what it's purpose is. Mark West and Tyson Chandler are top 5 all time in that stat. Bo Outlaw is #10. I just think it's useless.
    Well there is your problem. If you don't understand the stat, nor are willing to take the time to learn, it makes it hard to understand how they can be useful.

    eFG% is a stat that is designed to adjust for the 3pt shot. For example, if you go 2-6 with only shooting 2 point shots, you score 4 points, and have a FG% of .3334 and a eFG% of .3334. Now if you consider someone else shoots 2-6 all from 3, they scored 6 points. Their FG% is still only .3334, but their eFG% is .500 because they produced the same amount of points as if they shot 3-6 from 2 point range. The point is to compare two players who have an unequal ratio of 2PA to 3PA.

    The reason eFG% favors big men is because FG% favors big men. In either case, when using statistics it is rarely a good idea to compare two players of two different positions. Best to compare players of a similar position, and a similar role. Different positions and different roles come with different expectations. Foster wasn't beloved because he scored 20ppg, if that was expected of him he would have been hated. He was loved because he was great at was expected of him for his role on this team.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Well there is your problem. If you don't understand the stat, nor are willing to take the time to learn, it makes it hard to understand how they can be useful.

      eFG% is a stat that is designed to adjust for the 3pt shot. For example, if you go 2-6 with only shooting 2 point shots, you score 4 points, and have a FG% of .3334 and a eFG% of .3334. Now if you consider someone else shoots 2-6 all from 3, they scored 6 points. Their FG% is still only .3334, but their eFG% is .500 because they produced the same amount of points as if they shot 3-6 from 2 point range. The point is to compare two players who have an unequal ratio of 2PA to 3PA.

      The reason eFG% favors big men is because FG% favors big men. In either case, when using statistics it is rarely a good idea to compare two players of two different positions. Best to compare players of a similar position, and a similar role. Different positions and different roles come with different expectations. Foster wasn't beloved because he scored 20ppg, if that was expected of him he would have been hated. He was loved because he was great at was expected of him for his role on this team.
      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.

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      TS% isn't used to evaluate a player's ability, it's used to evaluate their scoring efficiency. If you try to use it to measure the effect on winning basketball games, you're doing it wrong.

      PER is an offensive-biased stat, which explains your player mixups.

      EFG% is actually clearly biased toward 3 point shooters, since the 3 point shots are weighted 1.5 times. Tyson Chandler just happens to take shots he's basically always going to make. His EFG% is essentially his FG%.

      The stats are useless if you try to use them for things they're not intended for, yes.
      I don't use them for anything really. I'm just saying I've debated players with people who pull those stats out to say player a is better because he has a high PER or TS% or whatever. You'll never catch me doing that.

      I just find them unnecessary. They don't tell anyone anything new.
      Last edited by Taterhead; 03-04-2014, 09:28 PM.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
        Three point % is a worthless stat because Reggie Miller is ranked higher on the all-time list than Oscar Robertson.

        Exactly my point. If you need a 3 at the end of a game you would rather have Reggie than Oscar any day. And the stat tells you the exact opposite.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          I don't use them for anything really. I'm just saying I've debated players with people who pull those stats out to say player a is better because he has a high PER or TS% or whatever. You'll never catch me doing that.
          You should just explain to those people that those stats are not supposed to indicate which player is better
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            Exactly my point. If you need a 3 at the end of a game you would rather have Reggie than Oscar any day. And the stat tells you the exact opposite.
            Actually, it doesn't. His comment was in jest.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

              Not sure how the signings of Lin and Asik are not included in the Rockets discussion since free agent moves would probably lean more on analytics since the numbers would be based on league play rather than college. As for the use of stats measuring trends and habits, I believe they have a place and use. I'm sure many players use them when facing a player and when trying to improve their own game. Pitchers have been studying hitters and vice versa for years. Why not apply that in other sports?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I'm in the "use them properly" crowd and I can throw out the standard for all such discussions on PD - Troy Murphy. He was nowhere near as effective as his stats alone might have shown. To take that conversely, though, he was nowhere near as ridiculously ineffective as many people's "eye test" implied. It really is a classic example of the numbers and the eye test both raising questions that the opposite piece is required to understand.
                I think the "eye test" was actually more effective with him than most players. Especially if you watched him in the 4th quarter.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Actually, it doesn't. His comment was in jest.
                  So was mine. And it made just about as much sense.

                  "That stat" in my poorly worded response, was referring to EFG%.
                  Last edited by Taterhead; 03-04-2014, 10:07 PM.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    So was mine. And it made just about as much sense.

                    "That stat" in my poorly worded response, was referring to EFG%.
                    I probably need a sarcasm sign then
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                      Give me one situation, or scenario, where any of those stats gives you new information that is the least bit useful.

                      I don't use them for anything really. I'm just saying I've debated players with people who pull those stats out to say player a is better because he has a high PER or TS% or whatever. You'll never catch me doing that.

                      I just find them unnecessary. They don't tell anyone anything new.
                      In most situations you see on this board, people are drawing conclusions from the use of stats. Advanced stats might be a little more useful but they suffer from the same issues. They are either too generalized or too specific to apply alone while making some kind of meaningful judgment. At least in most cases I've seen...because those conclusions can be shot down without much effort.

                      It all comes down to what a person is attempting to prove with a stat, regardless of what it is.

                      Edit: That's not to say they are not useful. They are just of limited utility unless many additional factors in a scenario are taken into account.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 03-04-2014, 10:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                            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, 12:51 PM.
                            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              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.
                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X