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
Collapse
 
  • Page of 9
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 template Next
  • #106
    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, 03:43 PM. Reason: "nuisance" and "nuance" are very different words.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Comment

    • #107
      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
      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?
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment

      • #108
        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        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"

        Comment

        • #109
          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          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.

          Comment

          • #110
            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            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.

            Comment

            • #111
              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.

              Comment

              • #112
                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                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.


                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                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, 09:22 AM.
                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment

                • #113
                  Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • #114
                    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    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.
                    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                    RSS Feed
                    Subscribe via iTunes

                    Comment

                    • #115
                      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/
                      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                      RSS Feed
                      Subscribe via iTunes

                      Comment

                      • #116
                        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                        Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                        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"

                        Comment

                        • #117
                          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • #118
                            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"

                            Comment

                            • #119
                              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.

                              Comment

                              • #120
                                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                                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!

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 template Next
                                Working...
                                X