No, and here's why:
Metrics/Analytics do not always tell the story. For all of the number-crunching, trend analysis, stat-hounding that is apparent in sports (and even non-sports), numbers (and computers) don't measure human emotion.
Numbers don't measure toughness, guile, locker room leadership.
Advanced metrics/analytics are subject to - no matter how good they appear - human error. computers, supercomputers, anything technologically driven - is made by humans.
Humans make mistakes. Always have. Always will.
What's the non-human alternative then? Because it seems like every possible alternative is also human or made by humans, so I don't see why this is something unique to analytics.
For me, Faith.
Why do we feel the need to be able to analyze everything? To be able to quantify everything?
Do we want to become God? Not possible.
Because to believe in what we cannot see is crazy, psychotic - to some analysts.
But Faith is enduring, faith can see you through the tough times. Faith is believing in what you cannot see - what we cannot quantify.
Faith, to some - is crazy.
Setting aside how faith would help franchises assemble teams that are likely to win basketball games, faith also comes from human beings, who will make mistakes. Same problem. What's the difference there, other than that you personally prefer faith to numbers?
And no disrespect intended on that, though I might have a problem if you were a GM with that approach
While this is true, that Faith, being placed in a Supreme being that is greater than us - is what makes the difference.
This can be the thing that drives some folks...makes them persevere in the face of adversity - the one thing that can mean the difference between winning and losing.
While the analysts could (and do) claim that "drive" numerically, the source is something that can't be quantified.
Analysts call this "motor".
But, say - in the cases of athletes like Tebow, David Robinson, Coach Joe Gibbs, the great Darrell Green - that "motor" is something that is sourced from someone greater than them.
This doesn't make them better than anyone else - but again - cannot be quantified.
Man has to come to grips with the fact that "we" can't solve everything...can't explain everything......can't categorize/count/graph - everything. No matter how many buses we land on Mars or people we send into space.
I think the thing missing in that kind of viewpoint is that there are ways to quantify 'drive'.
Activity on the court (they literally measure how much a guy runs when on the floor, how fast, how far) can help discern motor. It can't define it, but it can be an indicator that it is there.
But in the words of John Wooden, do not confuse activity with accomplishment.
So, you need more. Well, we have all manner of +/- numbers that quantify how a team produces when a player is on and off the court. That kind of indication can sometimes help see beyond a boxscore to help quantify that "feeling" you get that having this one guy out there, doing this one thing, helps you win games, even if maybe he only manages 5 points 5 rebounds and 2 steals in 33 minutes of play in a boxscore or something.
But sometimes +/- can lie to you. Sometimes, the starters will actually have a worse +/- than the reserves, because the starters well, they play against the other teams' starters and the reserves, well, you get the picture. So +/- isn't definitive really. Just another piece of the puzzle.
And this goes on and on. But highlighting the shortcomings of the statistics doesn't make them flawed, because they're known. You don't blame a hammer because it can't cut a steak.
But the flaw isn't that these metrics can't project 'motor', or grit, or whichever ephemeral quality a person may want to choose. I think, while I don't know of any stat that can actually show "hustle" or any of that, one can look to signs that point in that direction.
It doesn't replace actually watching basketball games, but I think it can help you make a more informed personnel decision as a GM, or give more substance to your analysis as a basketball writer/analyst. And ignoring these statistics, it opens people up to their greatest flaw; human bias.