Hollinger Rankings: C's #11

[FallGuy]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

[KGs Knee]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Although to avoid accusations of dodging your question, try the 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Heavily focused on statistically based analysis. Won championship.

What?

Statisical measurements were neede to know KG was a beast?  Pierce and Allen were unknown commodities, that absent "stats", would have never been known to be high level players?  James Posey, the perfect example of an "intangibles guy" was somehow discovered through advanced metrics?

Come on!  Anyone with even a modicum of basketball knowledge could see how good these players were.

[FallGuy]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Although to avoid accusations of dodging your question, try the 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Heavily focused on statistically based analysis. Won championship.

What?

Statisical measurements were neede to know KG was a beast?  Pierce and Allen were unknown commodities, that absent "stats", would have never been known to be high level players?  James Posey, the perfect example of an "intangibles guy" was somehow discovered through advanced metrics?

Come on!  Anyone with even a modicum of basketball knowledge could see how good these players were.

I think I'm going to check out of this conversation. I think you're unwilling to really engage the topic. Cheers.

[KGs Knee]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Where have you looked? I really don't think you've thought hard about this at all. Happy to be proven wrong.

Whatever.

You don't know me, so to even attempt to judge what I have or haven't "thought about" or investigated is absurd.

But, by all means, go right ahead and believe what you will.  If you disagre, just say so, don't try to make assumptions you have know idea about.

[byennie]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Although to avoid accusations of dodging your question, try the 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Heavily focused on statistically based analysis. Won championship.

What?

Statisical measurements were neede to know KG was a beast?  Pierce and Allen were unknown commodities, that absent "stats", would have never been known to be high level players?  James Posey, the perfect example of an "intangibles guy" was somehow discovered through advanced metrics?

Come on!  Anyone with even a modicum of basketball knowledge could see how good these players were.

So what's your requirement to show that it works - a team of 2nd round picks wins the NBA title? The point is that nearly all successful teams employ these principles now. Let me ask you - can you name a recent champion that is NOT using advanced metrics?

You can't have it both ways - the Oakland A's didn't win a championship (metrics didn't help!) - the Red Sox, Celtics, Mavericks do (their players were too good!).

Your argument about KG / Posey is a strawman argument. Nobody said that advanced metrics give totally different answers. Of course some things are obvious (like that the Big 3 were talented), but that doesn't mean that advanced metrics weren't used to fill out the roster, influence the playbook, scout opponents, and so on and so forth.

[FallGuy]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Where have you looked? I really don't think you've thought hard about this at all. Happy to be proven wrong.

Whatever.

You don't know me, so to even attempt to judge what I have or haven't "thought about" or investigated is absurd.

But, by all means, go right ahead and believe what you will.  If you disagre, just say so, don't try to make assumptions you have know idea about.

I asked you what kind of research you did. You've chosen not to answer.

No offense intended, I just think you're closed off to really studying this material and making an intellectually honest judgement, so I don't want to pursue this line of discussion.

Really not a big deal.

[Employee8]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

[FallGuy]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

I was responding to a specific question about what teams have used statistical analysis to win championships. I named two.

[byennie]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

For the most part, this stuff isn't going to be publicly available. It's more that they are outspoken about their use of the stats.

That said, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd is a prime example of a stat-driven decision:

http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-jason-kidd-and-win-time-and-greatest.html

This is just one small example, and while I don't have a readymade citation these teams are pretty clear that they constantly look at this type of stuff.

[MBunge]

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

What I'd like to see is the statistical analysis that projected the Mavs over the Heat as decisively as it turned out.  I believe that Hollinger had the Heat over the Lakers in last year's finals and predicted a Dallas loss in the 1st round.

Mike

[FallGuy]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

For the most part, this stuff isn't going to be publicly available. It's more that they are outspoken about their use of the stats.

That said, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd is a prime example of a stat-driven decision:

http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-jason-kidd-and-win-time-and-greatest.html

This is just one small example, and while I don't have a readymade citation these teams are pretty clear that they constantly look at this type of stuff.

Exactly. Both have advanced statisticians on staff (I've met the guy from the C's) and Ainge speaks, even on stations like WEEI, where the audience is not typically open to this stuff, about things like defensive and offensive efficiency and overall productivity and efficiency of five-man units. These kinds of things have informed their decisions for years.

[Employee8]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

For the most part, this stuff isn't going to be publicly available. It's more that they are outspoken about their use of the stats.

That said, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd is a prime example of a stat-driven decision:

http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-jason-kidd-and-win-time-and-greatest.html

This is just one small example, and while I don't have a readymade citation these teams are pretty clear that they constantly look at this type of stuff.

Exactly. Both have advanced statisticians on staff (I've met the guy from the C's) and Ainge speaks, even on stations like WEEI, where the audience is not typically open to this stuff, about things like defensive and offensive efficiency and overall productivity and efficiency of five-man units. These kinds of things have informed their decisions for years.

Ah gotcha.  Makes sense to me.  I would think statistics play a role in trading/acquiring/releasing players as well as evaluating their personality and the ability of his skills to mesh in with the team.  Seems to me both of you guys are dug in deep on both sides of the trench when there should be a fair balance between the two. 

I think people take offense to Hollinger because his predictions/rankings are purely on a statistical approach and personally, I don't think that works.  And that serves to explain why he is pretty much 50/50 with his predictions in the playoffs.

[FallGuy]

Another good one is the 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks. They're on the cutting edge of statistical analysis. Also won the title.

Just an outsider reading on this thread but I find it rather amusing that you chide others for disagreeing with Hollinger and say they're lazy in their opinions while your own arguments prove to be extremely lazy as well.

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

For the most part, this stuff isn't going to be publicly available. It's more that they are outspoken about their use of the stats.

That said, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd is a prime example of a stat-driven decision:

http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-jason-kidd-and-win-time-and-greatest.html

This is just one small example, and while I don't have a readymade citation these teams are pretty clear that they constantly look at this type of stuff.

Exactly. Both have advanced statisticians on staff (I've met the guy from the C's) and Ainge speaks, even on stations like WEEI, where the audience is not typically open to this stuff, about things like defensive and offensive efficiency and overall productivity and efficiency of five-man units. These kinds of things have informed their decisions for years.

Ah gotcha.  Makes sense to me.  I would think statistics play a role in trading/acquiring/releasing players as well as evaluating their personality and the ability of his skills to mesh in with the team.  Seems to me both of you guys are dug in deep on both sides of the trench when there should be a fair balance between the two. 

I'm not dug in. I'm not dismissing the value of subjective scouting. I'm dismissing anyone who thinks there's no value in objective analysis.

[byennie]

I'm interested in the statistical side of the 2007-2008 Celtics and the recent Mavs squad.  Let's hear it.

What I'd like to see is the statistical analysis that projected the Mavs over the Heat as decisively as it turned out.  I believe that Hollinger had the Heat over the Lakers in last year's finals and predicted a Dallas loss in the 1st round.

Mike

Wow, his stats must be awful considering the Heat came within 2 games of the championship (and 3 points of a 3-1 lead), and the Mavs played a close 6 game series in the 1st round.

Do you call people stupid for betting on red at the casino, when it comes up black?

[byennie]

Ah gotcha.  Makes sense to me.  I would think statistics play a role in trading/acquiring/releasing players as well as evaluating their personality and the ability of his skills to mesh in with the team.  Seems to me both of you guys are dug in deep on both sides of the trench when there should be a fair balance between the two. 

I think people take offense to Hollinger because his predictions/rankings are purely on a statistical approach and personally, I don't think that works.  And that serves to explain why he is pretty much 50/50 with his predictions in the playoffs.

No they aren't - he just maintains one ranking list based on a stats system as an exercise. He also writes scouting reports of every NBA player and offers his personal opinion frequently beyond "just the numbers".

He just gets more attention for his numerical systems, because that's his unique schtick.

Also, is there ANYONE consistently good on playoff predictions, beyond a little pure luck (exhibit: all NCAA pools).