Chuck has a message for Q
-
mrhockey89
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
Am I the only one still wondering if Q got the ladies in high school?
-
SameOldNudityDrew
- Posts: 3100
- Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
This seems like a tempest in a teapot. I think pretty much everybody, Barkley and Morey included, would agree with the following two claims:
1) analyzing stats can be useful
2) it takes more than analyzing stats to win championships
The main difference is that guys like Barkley emphasize point 2, while guys like Morey emphasize point 1. Usually, they do so simply by putting the point they want to emphasize after the word "but" in a sentence. So they might each make the following claims.
Barkley: Analyzing stats can be useful, but it takes more than analyzing stats to win championships.
Morey: It takes more than analyzing stats to win championships, but analyzing stats can be useful.
We interpret the meaning of those sentences to be completely different, even in opposition to one another. But if you look purely at the facts claimed by both sides, they are in absolute agreement. Heck, this is the format for half the political arguments out there, and probably a good 75% of the arguments I have with my wife. It's a disagreement on emphasis. How useful are advanced stats? One side says more, the other says less, but they probably are much closer than they think because people seem so ready to disagree these days.
To me, the real question is not how effective advanced stats are, but how they are effective. What can advanced stats tell us and what can't they tell us? To me, the danger is in thinking they can be used as a predictive tool. PER and true shooting percentage and whatnot are great, more round pictures of how players have played in the past, but it's when guys start claiming that they can predict which players are going to get a lot better or what style of play will definitely win championships that hubris starts to come into it.
Stats are, by definition, measures of the past. And sometimes the past can give us a sense for what might come in the future. But the more we know about the past, the more we think we can predict the future, and history has shown time and again that our ability to do that is really limited. And worse, as David Kahn's arrogant tenure demonstrated, it's often when we are most confident in our ability to see the future that we make the biggest mistakes.
That's why I advocate using advanced stats with humility as just one way to try and understand a game that is full of possibilities and surprises--the things that make basketball so great.
I don't know about Q, but I for one did not get the girls in high school.
1) analyzing stats can be useful
2) it takes more than analyzing stats to win championships
The main difference is that guys like Barkley emphasize point 2, while guys like Morey emphasize point 1. Usually, they do so simply by putting the point they want to emphasize after the word "but" in a sentence. So they might each make the following claims.
Barkley: Analyzing stats can be useful, but it takes more than analyzing stats to win championships.
Morey: It takes more than analyzing stats to win championships, but analyzing stats can be useful.
We interpret the meaning of those sentences to be completely different, even in opposition to one another. But if you look purely at the facts claimed by both sides, they are in absolute agreement. Heck, this is the format for half the political arguments out there, and probably a good 75% of the arguments I have with my wife. It's a disagreement on emphasis. How useful are advanced stats? One side says more, the other says less, but they probably are much closer than they think because people seem so ready to disagree these days.
To me, the real question is not how effective advanced stats are, but how they are effective. What can advanced stats tell us and what can't they tell us? To me, the danger is in thinking they can be used as a predictive tool. PER and true shooting percentage and whatnot are great, more round pictures of how players have played in the past, but it's when guys start claiming that they can predict which players are going to get a lot better or what style of play will definitely win championships that hubris starts to come into it.
Stats are, by definition, measures of the past. And sometimes the past can give us a sense for what might come in the future. But the more we know about the past, the more we think we can predict the future, and history has shown time and again that our ability to do that is really limited. And worse, as David Kahn's arrogant tenure demonstrated, it's often when we are most confident in our ability to see the future that we make the biggest mistakes.
That's why I advocate using advanced stats with humility as just one way to try and understand a game that is full of possibilities and surprises--the things that make basketball so great.
I don't know about Q, but I for one did not get the girls in high school.
-
AbeVigodaLive
- Posts: 10164
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
I'm intrigued by the situation in Houston. Isn't McHale more of an "old school" guy who believes in character, intangibles, blah blah blah? He's partnered with one of the most radical, stats-driven management teams in pro sports.
It seems to be working.
[note: as any rational person without a career in stats/sports management/journalism on the line would probably agree... you need a bit of both. i try to avoid some newer journalists simply because of their uber-pro-analytics takes every time even when it makes their stuff insufferable and awful to read and downright silly. i'm looking at you jonah keri.]
It seems to be working.
[note: as any rational person without a career in stats/sports management/journalism on the line would probably agree... you need a bit of both. i try to avoid some newer journalists simply because of their uber-pro-analytics takes every time even when it makes their stuff insufferable and awful to read and downright silly. i'm looking at you jonah keri.]
-
Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
- Posts: 13844
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
mrhockey89 wrote:Am I the only one still wondering if Q got the ladies in high school?
To answer the burning question, no, I did not get the ladies in high school. But once I took up drinking in college, things came easier! A shot of courage as they say.....
-
Coolbreeze44
- Posts: 12831
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
Q12543 wrote:mrhockey89 wrote:Am I the only one still wondering if Q got the ladies in high school?
To answer the burning question, no, I did not get the ladies in high school. But once I took up drinking in college, things came easier! A shot of courage as they say.....
More likely much lower standards.
-
mrhockey89
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Chuck has a message for Q
Q12543 wrote:mrhockey89 wrote:Am I the only one still wondering if Q got the ladies in high school?
To answer the burning question, no, I did not get the ladies in high school. But once I took up drinking in college, things came easier! A shot of courage as they say.....
If there was a like button