Chuck has a message for Q

[60WinTim]

This cracked me up!

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/tnt_overtime/2015/02/11/20150210-inside-chuck-analytics.nba

So, Q, did you get the girls in high school?!? :-)

[Hicks123 [enjin:6700838]]

Barkley, while obviously not the smartest person alive, certainly has an understandable point. Games are not won and lost by metrics. There are many key non-measurable characteristics that happen during each and every game that influence the outcome. That being said, analytics can certainly help us better understand certain aspects of individual and team play that may be impacting games over time.

[60WinTim]

I agree, Hicks. I am not taking a shot at Q -- just thought most here would find this pretty hilarious!

[Carlos Danger]

Barkley, while obviously not the smartest person alive, certainly has an understandable point. Games are not won and lost by metrics. There are many key non-measurable characteristics that happen during each and every game that influence the outcome. That being said, analytics can certainly help us better understand certain aspects of individual and team play that may be impacting games over time.

Agreed. I think where people get themselves in trouble are when they use advanced stats as absolutes. Analytics/Advanced stats are important and interesting review. But often there are other things that should be factored in before drawing any conclusions from the data.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think the beauty of basketball is that it transcends advanced analytics in a lot of ways.

There's such a thing as "a hot hand" in basketball. Or, chemistry. Heck, sometimes NBA players simply play poorly because it's a back-to-back and a guy had a bender or a hot date with a groupie the night before. Other times, he's fighting for a contract, or his way out of town.

So many variables on any given play make those who rely on advanced stats as the end-all, be-all for basketball seem desperate to ride the coat-tails of the baseball trend. It doesn't translate as well, no matter how hard the boxscore bullies want it too.

That being said... I'm still a stats guy. They tell us a lot. And some advanced metrics are great. For example, if you knew that your opponent's SF shot 48% from the left wing but only 27% from the right wing... why not try to force him there, right?

My beef is with guys who take stats as the holy grail and miss all the context that goes into those stats... because it's in the nuances of the context that makes basketball so much fun. Right now, the math guys (some with disdain toward guys who actually played) are gaining ground... I hope they don't take over. Basketball analysis wouldn't be the same. And, certainly not as much fun.


[note: imagine a book like "the breaks of the game" or "loose balls" written today with the advanced analytics crowd's input.]

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Heh, good stuff. A few thoughts -

- It's funny how defensive either extremes of this debate get. As far as the analytics extremists, their defensiveness could be rooted in the insecurities that Barkley cited. However, when he completely dismisses analytics as useless, he demonstrates his own insecurity. It's much easier to pooh-pooh this stuff than actually take the time to understand it. Or may be he's tried and is simply incapable of understanding it, therefore it's much easier to simply dismiss it as hogwash. That's a classic ploy by folks who don't understand something and feel insecure about it. Just call it B.S., thump your chest, and kick sand in the face of those that do understand it.

- He's absolutely right that sheer talent ultimately wins NBA games. And the names he cited - LeBron, Wade, Jordan, etc. - all do spectacularly well in the world of advanced stats. So there really is not a whole lot of disagreement on that front.

- That being said, once you get beyond the obvious superstars, front offices are looking for any edge they can get to help surround those stars with the right kind of players. Shane Battier is a classic example of a guy that always seemed to do better in terms of advanced stats than what a traditional eye-test would suggest. You can also use advanced stats to help determine what kind of production you are getting from the money you are paying out, such that you aren't overpaying or underpaying mid-level players. Demarre Carroll vs. Corey Brewer is a classic example where an analytics person would pick Demarre 9 times out of 10 over Brewer. Guess who gets paid twice as much to produce less? Corey Brewer.

At the end of the day, advanced stats are another tool in the toolbag for front offices and coaches. Why wouldn't you want more information and data to help make decisions? So while it's foolish to rely ONLY on statistical data, it seems foolish to completely dismiss it as well.

[thedoper]

Heh, good stuff. A few thoughts -

- It's funny how defensive either extremes of this debate get. As far as the analytics extremists, their defensiveness could be rooted in the insecurities that Barkley cited. However, when he completely dismisses analytics as useless, he demonstrates his own insecurity. It's much easier to pooh-pooh this stuff than actually take the time to understand it. Or may be he's tried and is simply incapable of understanding it, therefore it's much easier to simply dismiss it as hogwash. That's a classic ploy by folks who don't understand something and feel insecure about it. Just call it B.S., thump your chest, and kick sand in the face of those that do understand it.

- He's absolutely right that sheer talent ultimately wins NBA games. And the names he cited - LeBron, Wade, Jordan, etc. - all do spectacularly well in the world of advanced stats. So there really is not a whole lot of disagreement on that front.

- That being said, once you get beyond the obvious superstars, front offices are looking for any edge they can get to help surround those stars with the right kind of players. Shane Battier is a classic example of a guy that always seemed to do better in terms of advanced stats than what a traditional eye-test would suggest. You can also use advanced stats to help determine what kind of production you are getting from the money you are paying out, such that you aren't overpaying or underpaying mid-level players. Demarre Carroll vs. Corey Brewer is a classic example where an analytics person would pick Demarre 9 times out of 10 over Brewer. Guess who gets paid twice as much to produce less? Corey Brewer.

At the end of the day, advanced stats are another tool in the toolbag for front offices and coaches. Why wouldn't you want more information and data to help make decisions? So while it's foolish to rely ONLY on statistical data, it seems foolish to completely dismiss it as well.

That is way to rational of a response Q. I will try for you. Barkley is a fat moron who choked in big games. :)

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Doper, someone has to be the rational thinker amongst this crowd!

(actually Mikkeman has added greatly on the analytics angle, as have others. I think it's increasingly creeping into the dialogue everywhere. Even J-Pete and Benz are doing it. But I enjoy a variety of takes. It would be no fun if everyone agreed with each other).

[thedoper]

Doper, someone has to be the rational thinker amongst this crowd!

(actually Mikkeman has added greatly on the analytics angle, as have others. I think it's increasingly creeping into the dialogue everywhere. Even J-Pete and Benz are doing it. But I enjoy a variety of takes. It would be no fun if everyone agreed with each other).

Stats are great. My issue with analytics has nothing to do with the usefulness of stats but more on how easily they are being misused. If people don't have a strong statistical background and try to use analytics it can be a disaster. I think that is a huge danger not just on message boards but also on teams. The high level analytics were developed by some really smart people who studied statistical modelling at some top educational institutions. Logic compels me to believe that this type of information doesn't always translate easily to the average Joe on the street or even the GM with mostly a basketball background. For instance I have read people throwing out raw stats in favor of analytics which defeats the simplest premise of any deep analytical statistical analysis; that it should explain and compliment raw stats and not make them obsolete.

[JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]]

"Hi, I'm Charles Barkley. I know the importance of defense in winning championships. That's why I have exactly zero of them because I played defense exactly 24 seconds in my career".

Let's set aside the analytics and high-school-cassanova debates for a second and ask the real questions: Does anyone FOR ONE SECOND think CHARLES F'ING BARKLEY would be a better GM than half the people on this board, much less former Eagan resident Darryl Morey? If everyone on this board is so tired of BSPN and, well, their BS, why are you reading it? Why does Charles Barkley so need me to believe he has intercourse? I read the articles about the downfall of Tiger Woods and his role in it, so I was pretty much aware. And last but not least, does anyone really think that Charles Barkley, Mike Milbury, Matt Millen, and Curt Schilling wouldn't jump at the chance to be a GM if someone asked, rather than a talking head in the SportingIndustrialComplex? It's not JUST THE PAY, it's the fact that you can start keeping mirrors at your house again.

Batting Average is analytics, just bad analytics. Rebounds is analytics, just bad analytics. Passing yards is analytics, just bad analytics.

It's not the analytics, it's what you do with them. I read a great article on Flip's favorite team, the Spurs. They track a pro/college/international guy to make sure he can do some things well, and if he can't shoot, they give a tape of the guy to their shooting guru (forget his name). If that guy says he can fix him, they get him. If he says no dice, they forget about him. Of course, none of that means anything without Duncan and Robinson, but it's a start.