Blackfoot wrote:You'd be right.

I am 18. And you are right on your assumption, there are more young dudes more willing to accept new ideas because they are, well young. Basically every new thing that is supposed to be universal will be more used by younger dudes than older dudes despite the design being for everyone.

I remember that age. The adult awakening happens at about 13 and by the time you hit your age, you've reached the point where you can put all of your intellectual tools together and use them effectively. Sponge-like mind at age 18, bro. Enjoy it. I learned more than I've ever learned between ages 16 to 22.

At age 26, I'm by no means ancient, but I'm starting to enter a strange period where I'm a little more mellow overall, yet my methods and routines have been a little more set in their ways and it's begun turning me into a crotchety old man. I'm really stretched between the old guard of traditional stats; the means of understanding most often used in the 90's and early 2000's (what I consider, the Golden Age of basketball) and new school advanced stats that are used to find value in players like Tyson Chandler and Shane Battier; players who put up laughable traditional stats (by 90's/2000's standards), but get tons of love because of their less tangible advanced stats.

I ultimately land with 8th Ave on this subject: nothing can substitute watching the games. Stats will never be as effective as observation. With all due respect to your previous statement, there are some things that just aren't quantifiable.

I disagree, everything is quantifiable on the court.

How do you quantify a good show on a screen that results in the offensive player passing the ball away instead of being able to drive or shoot an open jumper?

32 wrote:How do you quantify a good show on a screen that results in the offensive player passing the ball away instead of being able to drive or shoot an open jumper?

I can't find the site now, but they have points per possession for each type of play.

However, there is no reliable defensive metric, yet. Right now, the accuracy lies on offense, so currently you can't show that, but probably later down the line you will be able to.

So what you mean is that eventually everything in basketball will be quantifiable.

Well, yeah, but everything is quantifiable, we just haven't done it yet.

I'm among the oldest and though I don't get to watch many nba games, let alone Warriors games every season, I'll admit that nothing is like watching the games.

I watch the games, in fact, everyone who uses these stats watch the game. There is literally no reason to bring up the fact we watch games when talking about stats, because we all do.

Welllll, throttle it back a bit, Blackfoot. We have a lot of international members here who rely on torrents to download but a few games a year because the files are so massive, so box scores and their statistics become paramount in some people's quest to understand the status of the team. To say that everyone has the luxury of watching the games isn't exactly accurate.

And, again, as Bejamin Disraeli once said: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Stats can be incredibly useful as a tool, but to rely so heavily on them opens oneself up for deception and/or misunderstanding. Social statistics quantify a subject with the purpose of paraphrasing it for the benefit of those that don't pay 100% attention to said subject. Today is a prime example. Don't want this conversation to degenerate into political banter, but you have two political parties trying to claim two opposite points on the same subject by way of tunnel-vision statistics. And the only way to make an informed decision is to review the context of these numbers.

You speak of an age where statistics will become so comprehensive, that they'll be able to tell the entire story of the game. I simply disagree with that. I don't believe baseball is that way either. Explain to me why Jason Bay is hitting like crap even though he's swinging and connecting on the same percentage of balls and strikes as when he was an all-star. Explain why Scutaro's line drive percentage stayed constant throughout the year, but those balls dropped for SF and got caught in Colorado. Explain through numbers why Zito suddenly found his stride this year and couldn't pitch in SF before 2012.

I suppose the bottom line is that stats are a tool, not an all-encompassing representation of what happens in sport. I feel as though we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this topic, so I'll bow out here and leave you the last word. Go Warriors!

32 wrote:Welllll, throttle it back a bit, Blackfoot. We have a lot of international members here who rely on torrents to download but a few games a year because the files are so massive, so box scores and their statistics become paramount in some people's quest to understand the status of the team. To say that everyone has the luxury of watching the games isn't exactly accurate.

And, again, as Bejamin Disraeli once said: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Stats can be incredibly useful as a tool, but to rely so heavily on them opens oneself up for deception and/or misunderstanding. Social statistics quantify a subject with the purpose of paraphrasing it for the benefit of those that don't pay 100% attention to said subject. Today is a prime example. Don't want this conversation to degenerate into political banter, but you have two political parties trying to claim two opposite points on the same subject by way of tunnel-vision statistics. And the only way to make an informed decision is to review the context of these numbers.

You speak of an age where statistics will become so comprehensive, that they'll be able to tell the entire story of the game. I simply disagree with that. I don't believe baseball is that way either. Explain to me why Jason Bay is hitting like crap even though he's swinging and connecting on the same percentage of balls and strikes as when he was an all-star. Explain why Scutaro's line drive percentage stayed constant throughout the year, but those balls dropped for SF and got caught in Colorado. Explain through numbers why Zito suddenly found his stride this year and couldn't pitch in SF before 2012.

I suppose the bottom line is that stats are a tool, not an all-encompassing representation of what happens in sport. I feel as though we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this topic, so I'll bow out here and leave you the last word. Go Warriors!

That quote is because people use misleading stats to push an agenda. Points per 100 possession is tangible and real. This isn't hypothetical, this is based on what actually happened.

Baseball is actually very easy to quantify. Contact rate is not a dictate on how good of an offensive player you are. wOBA and wRC+ is a good indicator. Scutaro has been league average in both for his entire career (Yes, there is a stat for clutch and he is clutch as ****.)

And BAPIP is what you are asking about. It shows how lucky and unlucky a player has been. If a person has a low BAPIP their wOBA will go back up and if they have a high BAPIP their wOBA will go down. It predicts regression and improvement. Scutaro had a normal BAPIP in Colorado and a very high one in SF. So he was where he should be in Colorado and started getting more lucky in SF. He will probably regress a bit next year in terms of production.

And it does it with a low margin of error.

As for Jason Bay, it's his eye. His walk rate is down to eight percent and his strike out rate is up to 27 percent. His ISO is a career .227, now it is 127. That basically means his eye has gone to **** and his natural power is gone, which is probably due to his shitty knees and the fact he plays in Mets stadium. All very easy to explain.

Baseball is a lot easier to quantify than basketball. A basketball game has 48 minutes, while a baseball game a just 10-15 of actual play. Also, baseball has far more individual play. Basketball is a team game with all 5 players playing as one. In baseball, there aren't that many plays where more than 2 players are involved. And in baseball, you do not have your opponent directly, physically challenging your every move. This is the major difference. Maybe on a play at the plate, or a stolen base......but other than that, you are free to swing with no opposition, field the ball with no one challenging your move to it, etc........ Even the pitcher, the defense controlling the ball, is free to throw as he wishes. It's much easier to quantify this sort of competition in a way that is revealing.

We can find advanced ways of quantifying basketball, and I am all for that. I realize that the traditional stats can be absolutely enhanced and improved. But even quantifying every move will not give a true understanding of what is going on in the game, and all the little games that are going on within the game, to gain an edge here and there, just enough of an edge to squeak out a win.

Baseball is different. I can see a lot easier why the stats are such a holy grail in baseball. But it still doesn't tell the whole story. Do they have a stat for when an outfielder makes an unbelievable diving catch ? No, it's just a fly ball out. Only by watching how they play the game can you really know what somebody's doing and how good they are.

Yes, you are right about why baseball is farther head. A lot more moving parts in basketball. Even more in football, which is why there are no reliable advanced stats in football.

Yes, there are reliable defensive metrics in baseball. Trout made plenty of amazing catches in the outfield and it showed in his range stat.