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

  • #46
    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

    Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    Except he didn't say anything about "fit" or "schemes". He said "talent". He clearly said Jim O'Brien wasn't the reason we were ten games under .500, it was the lack of talent on the roster. Nobody could win with that. But Vogel did.

    Van Gundy is a blowhard and if he dismisses the analytical crowd, then there must be something worth studying I'm these stats, because he's already shown he can't evaluate talent without them.
    That's a silly reason to believe in advanced statistics JMO. I don't think anyone has said they don't have a place, they do. There is a group of coaches in the league that use them, but when they evaluate players they use the eye test. I don't honestly believe any coach uses them to the extent some fans do.

    I also strongly disagree with Nuntius assertion that it's two sides of a coin. The eye test severely out weighs advanced stats, and it's not even close. There are no stats for work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence, etc. Stats can only tell you what happened in a certain situation at a certain time. But they can't PROJECT. The eye test along with knowledge that stems from experience can. I've seen players with horrible stats have a HUGE impact on games many times. And I've seen players with great stats not impact games at all. So stats in general are just a tool designed for people who didn't get to see the game. And that is actually how stats came about BTW, so people could fallow the game before highlights and TV deals came along.

    We are becoming way too computerized and lazy and advanced stats are a product of that. It's just people trying to gain an edge.


    As far as SVG, he wasn't the only person that thought our roster was horrible at the time, most of us did too, and our roster sucked so bad when Bird pursued Rick Adelman the fallowing off season he got turned down for f'n Minnesota!

    A lot has happened in the last 3 years.

    Edit: so Lebron wasn't on a hot streak last night? Those 30 footers were completely normal?
    Last edited by Taterhead; 03-04-2014, 11:41 AM.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      I don't honestly believe any coach uses them to the extent some fans do.
      Coaches rely on them much more than the casual fan, as organizations have much much much more detailed stats. I mean, the Houston Rockets have practically been built around them. Brad Stevens hired a kid at Butler that had no clue about basketball, just crunched numbers. And then took him to Boston.
      Last edited by Since86; 03-04-2014, 11:50 AM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

        Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
        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.
        I compare that to momentum within a game. I bet if you ran the numbers you could disprove that there is such a thing as momentum. After a team outscores the other 4-0, or 8-2. I bet you cannot prove momentum is any more real than a player having a hot hand. But I know they are both real, but just not statitically proveable
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-04-2014, 03:01 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          As far as SVG, I think he was just sticking up for a friend and if you read his quotes he's right to a certain extent. Obie definitely didn't have the players to run his system effectively.
          What does it say about his ability to coach if he's trying to force a "system" that doesn't take into account the players he had on the team?

          I usually enjoy SVG, but he was way off the mark when he said that Obie was a victim of the circumstances. Vogel meaningfully proved that by his results that very season.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

            Originally posted by docpaul View Post
            What does it say about his ability to coach if he's trying to force a "system" that doesn't take into account the players he had on the team?

            I usually enjoy SVG, but he was way off the mark when he said that Obie was a victim of the circumstances. Vogel meaningfully proved that by his results that very season.
            SVG doesn't understand losing a team and what that looks like. He has had it happen more than once in his tenure as a coach and he didn't recognize that JOB had lost the team with his constant griping and iron fist approach that emotionally drained the team into a bad record.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 03-04-2014, 12:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              I also strongly disagree with Nuntius assertion that it's two sides of a coin. The eye test severely out weighs advanced stats, and it's not even close. There are no stats for work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence, etc. Stats can only tell you what happened in a certain situation at a certain time. But they can't PROJECT. The eye test along with knowledge that stems from experience can. I've seen players with horrible stats have a HUGE impact on games many times. And I've seen players with great stats not impact games at all. So stats in general are just a tool designed for people who didn't get to see the game. And that is actually how stats came about BTW, so people could fallow the game before highlights and TV deals came along.
              A guy with a great work ethic can still suck on the court.

              A guy with good character can be a bad player.

              A tough guy can be a bad ballhandler.

              None of those characteristics are what stats are addressing. In fact, if you're a coach who hasn't watched every single time a guy plays, how do you KNOW about his work ethic, or his character, or his toughness? You get descriptions of them from someone else - which are basically non-numeric statistics, if you will.

              To say that statistics are only for people who don't see the players implies that watching a player tells you everything about the game and tells everyone who watches him exactly the same thing about that player's game. The reality is that is not the case. Everyone has biases for or against certain things. No one can watch everything every single time, even if you could spend 24 hours a day breaking down film of the same player over and over and over. Statistics are numbers that (in general) give you something measurable to help you determine if what you are seeing is real. The numbers themselves have no opinions, which is why interpretations vary. But the eye test itself is really nothing but the beholder's subjective opinion. I mean, we've all known players who look great to one observer but look like they suck to another one - and the difference between the two observers isn't that one of them knows basketball and the other one is an idiot. They could be two different championship-winning NBA coaches.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I compare that to momentum within a game. I bet if you ran the numbers you could disprove that there is such a thing as momentum. But the real problem is when do you start running to the numbers. After a team outscores the other 4-0, or 8-2. I bet you cannot prove momentum is any more real than a player having a hot hand. But I know they are both real, but just not statitically proveable
                Just look at the Pacers. The third quarter is the magic quarter but really the only real difference I see in the lineup is effort and focus.

                The stats guy would point out that pace of the pacers is increased and there for statistically more points should be generated at a more efficient rate since the opposing teams defense isn't getting set every single time down the court.

                Some on here would call that momentum and some wouldn't but the stats and the observer would probably agree that its a by product of a more focused team.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I compare that to momentum within a game. I bet if you ran the numbers you could disprove that there is such a thing as momentum. But the real problem is when do you start running to the numbers. After a team outscores the other 4-0, or 8-2. I bet you cannot prove momentum is any more real than a player having a hot hand. But I know they are both real, but just not statitically proveable
                  I think an 8-2 run is a statistical example of a momentum swing. YMMV.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    That's a silly reason to believe in advanced statistics JMO. I don't think anyone has said they don't have a place, they do. There is a group of coaches in the league that use them, but when they evaluate players they use the eye test. I don't honestly believe any coach uses them to the extent some fans do.

                    I also strongly disagree with Nuntius assertion that it's two sides of a coin. The eye test severely out weighs advanced stats, and it's not even close. There are no stats for work ethic, overcoming adversity, character, competitive drive, momentum, toughness, intelligence, etc. Stats can only tell you what happened in a certain situation at a certain time. But they can't PROJECT. The eye test along with knowledge that stems from experience can. I've seen players with horrible stats have a HUGE impact on games many times. And I've seen players with great stats not impact games at all. So stats in general are just a tool designed for people who didn't get to see the game. And that is actually how stats came about BTW, so people could fallow the game before highlights and TV deals came along.

                    We are becoming way too computerized and lazy and advanced stats are a product of that. It's just people trying to gain an edge.


                    As far as SVG, he wasn't the only person that thought our roster was horrible at the time, most of us did too, and our roster sucked so bad when Bird pursued Rick Adelman the fallowing off season he got turned down for f'n Minnesota!

                    A lot has happened in the last 3 years.

                    Edit: so Lebron wasn't on a hot streak last night? Those 30 footers were completely normal?
                    We pursued Rick Adelman? Also, he made a terrible assessment of our talent too. Here's a stat to show it. Our team record the next year was better than the team he turned us down for. I mean, come on. These guys are failing out of the league for a reason. Their eye test(which they believe to be infallible) is causing them to be losers.

                    They either make bad choices to put themselves into positions with rosters that don't fit their scheme(all while being terribly stubborn about changing the scheme to fit personnel) or they simply don't have an actual damn clue about evaluating talent, and we certainly can't blame the use of stats on that.
                    Last edited by TinManJoshua; 03-04-2014, 01:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                      We pursued Rick Adelman? Also, he made a terrible assessment of our talent too. Here's a stat to show it. Our team record the next year was better than the team he turned us down for.
                      Yes we pursued Adelman, Bird has a history with him. And Adelman is a great coach who has won everywhere he's been, and he is starting to win in Minnesota as well.

                      If our roster was so good, why is Lance, PG, and Hibbert the only guys who are still here?
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                        What does it say about his ability to coach if he's trying to force a "system" that doesn't take into account the players he had on the team?

                        I usually enjoy SVG, but he was way off the mark when he said that Obie was a victim of the circumstances. Vogel meaningfully proved that by his results that very season.
                        I agree he was off, all I said was there were a lot of people off about our roster back then.

                        It is really easy to look back in hindsight and rip a guy to pieces for his opinion.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          Yes we pursued Adelman, Bird has a history with him. And Adelman is a great coach who has won everywhere he's been, and he is starting to win in Minnesota as well.

                          If our roster was so good, why is Lance, PG, and Hibbert the only guys who are still here?
                          It was good enough to make the playoffs, and we're still better than his team that's figuring out how to win now. At least, until Love makes the move in the offseason.

                          Are you saying what Van Gundy was saying? That we were ten games under .500 because Jim was lifting up a roster that was atrocious? Because yeah, looking back, those guys were better than SVG and Adelman thought. They may not have been what we have now, but they damn sure showed they weren't some piddling lottery team.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                            I agree he was off, all I said was there were a lot of people off about our roster back then.

                            It is really easy to look back in hindsight and rip a guy to pieces for his opinion.
                            That's the point of hindsight. To adjust, moving forward, your expectations of ones ability to do what they were wrong about.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                              Why did we overhaul the roster? Because the roster stunk.

                              Listen I'm not an Obrien fan I was calling for his head about 2 weeks after he was hired, lol. But you are making too much out of a comment made by someone sticking up for a friend.

                              SVG knows a lot about basketball and he's proven it many times over. Is he an elite coach in the NBA no he's not, but he knows how to win games, he's won a lot of them.

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              A guy with a great work ethic can still suck on the court.

                              A guy with good character can be a bad player.

                              A tough guy can be a bad ballhandler.

                              None of those characteristics are what stats are addressing. In fact, if you're a coach who hasn't watched every single time a guy plays, how do you KNOW about his work ethic, or his character, or his toughness? You get descriptions of them from someone else - which are basically non-numeric statistics, if you will.

                              To say that statistics are only for people who don't see the players implies that watching a player tells you everything about the game and tells everyone who watches him exactly the same thing about that player's game. The reality is that is not the case. Everyone has biases for or against certain things. No one can watch everything every single time, even if you could spend 24 hours a day breaking down film of the same player over and over and over. Statistics are numbers that (in general) give you something measurable to help you determine if what you are seeing is real. The numbers themselves have no opinions, which is why interpretations vary. But the eye test itself is really nothing but the beholder's subjective opinion. I mean, we've all known players who look great to one observer but look like they suck to another one - and the difference between the two observers isn't that one of them knows basketball and the other one is an idiot. They could be two different championship-winning NBA coaches.
                              I agree with that, all I'm saying is that people put way too much stock in the stats.

                              That's what makes the great coaches great, is that their eye test is superior to everyone else. They have a vision, an ability to project what a player is CAPABLE of. They can do what the advanced stats can't, and that will never change.

                              If people buy into these stats to that level, they will rely on them more. That means they will value the eye test less and less as time goes on. And they will find that those stats are very deceiving, if they put too much emphasis on them.

                              My comment about stats being for people who don't watch the games is a simple one. Because no matter what happens and is recorded, you have to watch the game and understand it to know how it happened. To me the stats are the when and where, and the eye test is the how and why.

                              Read the article uncle buck posted, a lot of these guys are mathematicians who have no history with basketball, but are incredibly versed in analytics. It doesn't take any basketball knowledge to be a good statistician. They are not running teams, or making decisions. They are their to support GM and Coach in game planning and evaluation, but they are never gonna be a GM or a coach.

                              SVGs comments are directed at the people who think they can read those stats and understand who is good, who is bad and why teams win or lose. And he is 100% correct in doing so. That is not what those stats are for.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Stan van Gundy dismisses the analytics crowd

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                Read the article uncle buck posted, a lot of these guys are mathematicians who have no history with basketball, but are incredibly versed in analytics. It doesn't take any basketball knowledge to be a good statistician. They are not running teams, or making decisions. They are their to support GM and Coach in game planning and evaluation, but they are never gonna be a GM or a coach.
                                This guy thinks otherwise. (Daryl Morey)


                                From wiki
                                Morey is in his seventh season as the General Manager of the Houston Rockets. The team has made the playoffs three times.

                                Prior to his time with the Celtics, Morey worked as a Principal consultant with an emphasis on sports at The Parthenon Group, a leading strategy consulting firm. Morey was also a statistical consultant with STATS, Inc., the industry pioneer in the use of sports statistics highlighted in the Michael Lewis book Moneyball.
                                Also
                                His hiring follows the recent Moneyball trend of adding more advanced statistical-based analysis to the traditional use of qualitative scouting and basic statistics.[1] Several teams have hired executives with non-traditional basketball backgrounds, but the Rockets are the first NBA team to hire a general manager in this vein. He continues to be the chairperson for the annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. He is an avid Esports supporter and has gone to multiple MLG (Major League Gaming) events, and will serve on the Esports panel at the 2013 MIT Sloan Conference.
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Morey
                                Last edited by Since86; 03-04-2014, 01:49 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X