Stats. What are they good for?

[D.o.s.]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.

There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.

*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.

As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like players who don't score well in that category.

Whoops. Meant to hit modify instead of quote. Sorry!

[Lightskinsmurf]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

[CelticConcourse]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.

For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.

There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.

*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.

As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like undersized gunners.

This is true. Lebrons stats say hes the best in the game, and he is. Still, if his team was losing that would mean absolutely nothing. That was my only point. Of course stats are useful and fun to pay attention too.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.

For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.

I think it evens itself out.

[D.o.s.]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

I'll agree with this. Statistics go together with watching the game to make the experience better after the fact. And it doesn't mean that you need to look at the game any differently*--I love watching Monta Ellis, for example, even though I know he's an inefficient gunner that takes way too many long 2's.

There's enough space in my brain to appreciate the beauty of a sweet 18 foot stepback and still acknowledge that it's the "worst" shot in the game of basketball--a long two, lowest percentage shot that still counts for the basic unit of points scored.

*what I really mean here is that if you're a fan of, say, Kendrick Perkins, you can still be a fan even after his stats don't wow you. That's ok.

As for best and worst stats, I've got a little bit of fluency--things like Assist Ratio, Pace, and Turnover ratio make sense to me, but I don't pay much attention to the "efficiency stats"--and not just because I like undersized gunners.

This is true. Lebrons stats say hes the best in the game, and he is. Still, if his team was losing that would mean absolutely nothing. That was my only point. Of course stats are useful and fun to pay attention too.

Yeah, I read a quote from Coach Pop that said something similar. I agree with about half of that sentiment.

[CelticConcourse]

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=63357.msg1424854;topicseen#new

Well, looking at that thread, per36 stats are also not too good.

All the stats have downsides!

[Fafnir]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.

For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.

I think it evens itself out.

Then I have to say you're not understanding.

3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.

The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.

For most teams their eFG% and FG% end up being very close, as they are closely correlated naturally. But for plenty of teams there is a big difference due to high percentage of 3s taken or extremes in their 3PT%.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.

For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.

I think it evens itself out.

Then I have to say you're really bad at math.

3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.

The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.

That's what I meant when I wrote my comment.

[Fafnir]

Anybody that doesn't appreciate the value of stats is [going to avoid making any personal attacks but it's such an ignorant viewpoint I feel like I need to]

Just looking at a basic box score, you can get a great feel for who the best players in the game are. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a basic box score is far more accurate than anybody using the eye test.

Now ideally, you want to use objective and subjective analysis. But anybody ignoring stats out of fear or ignorance is missing out on a lot of knowledge about the game.

Nobody totally ignores stats. I'm questioning, which stats do you guys think are the best? Which are the worst? Best for calculating efficiency? Worst? etc.

Overall field goal percentage is the best for efficiency.

For example, the problem with that (imo) is that it weighs equally open threes, contested threes, half-court heaves, fastbreak layups, dunks, turnaround fadeaway double-clutches...... I suppose eventually it equalizes but that can't be the greatest stat, TS% is a little better I suppose.

For FG%: Steve Novak's 40% on only threes would be better than some guy's 50% from only two-pointers. Easy flaw detected.

I think it evens itself out.

Then I have to say you're really bad at math.

3PT shots and free throw percentages dramatically alter how efficient a team is. As do turnovers and offensive rebounds. Shooting percentage is the most important individual statistic, and eFG% or TS% are superior to raw FG% when it comes to shooting.

The Knicks are below average at FG% but well above average when you account for three point shots.

That's what I meant when I wrote my comment.

And eFG% is a better measure of shooting percentage than raw FG%. That's what we're all saying. It dominates it because it contains more of the information that is important (how many points you're getting out of your made shots)

[Casperian]

Absolutely nothing.

Show me a basketball stat and I show you it´s fallacy.

The idea that we can use abstract placeholders to describe dynamic processes is theoretically feasible, but practically useless.

Games aren´t played in a vacuum.
How do you quantify experience, chemistry, KG´s will to win or the effect on your motivation a series of wins or losses have?

The only reason stats have entered basketball discussions is to have a "killer argument" if you want to justify why Player A is better or worse than Player B.

So, basically, it´s just media talk.

[ItStaysYang]

they are interesting as hell. especially the way they're done today. some of the "less analytical" folk may disagree

[guava_wrench]

One important caveat of sports stats - you should use them to try to understand what is going on. You should never use them to try to win a debate. You can always pick and choose stats to win a debate. Stats are extremely important to uncover our misperceptions.

In fact, we need more stats in everyday life. Most people make horrible decisions on many things because they rely on anecdote, completely oblivious to stats. We have degenerate gamblers thinking they are "due". Independent events, fool! We have people playing scratch-off lottery games every week when their paycheck comes in. We have people complaining about weather reports, completely ignorant of what it means when the weather reporter says 40% chance of rain. We have people who demand absolute answers when absolute answers are impossible.

[Casperian]

they are interesting as hell. especially the way they're done today. some of the "less analytical" folk may disagree

That´s funny.

I thought stats are for the "less analytical" folk.

[Bahku]

They're good for using as a litmus, (depending on the situation), for disagreement, for misleading assumptions, for confusion, and mostly for blog fodder.