|
On May 07 2014 10:06 Ace wrote:
It isn't a red herring. You can look at the deals GMs hand out to overrated and bad players and make a simple case of guys not even knowing basic things about players they want. We can get into mismanaged long term plans, PR fan talk about "rebuilding", and the stupidity of the coaching carousel of the NBA. Bottom line is coaches get most of the blame from media and fans because they are the most visible extension of management, when responsibility for droughts can usually be found by looking at the Front Office. You guys joke about the Eastern Conference time and time again in these threads over the years - look at the personnel running those teams, not the coaches.
I agree with what you say about about coaching, but that's separate from the larger point. Bringing up the Eastern conference is interesting because most people would say the bad GM/Owners are over there. What you're asking is are there institutional reasons why the East is so bad, which has been discussed at length, or is there just something about the Eastern Conference that attracts bad owners and GMs? It's like at the beginning of Starcraft 2 when we were debating whether Terran was too strong or if all the best players just picked Terran. (I suggested that the best players' favorite color was blue and Terran was the 'bluest race'.) Until I have evidence I'll suspect the former.
As another experiment, let's look at three of the most dominant teams in the last 15 years and what their secret to success was:
-LA Lakers: location+money+cache+bizarrely beneficial trades
-SA Spurs: International scouting+ lucky drafts
-Miami Heat: The Power of Friendship+ brodeals
How can you go to any other GM and tell them to replicate these strategies? You can't. You can't ask the Bucks to hope the #2 pick throws a hissy fit and demands to be traded to them. You can't hope that you happen to snag 2 of the best 5 foreign players ever.
The power curve is almost exactly defined by a few really good players. If you have these good players your range might be great to good. If you don't you might have a range of average to dumpster tier.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 07 2014 11:40 Ace wrote:what a useless article. Those 538 guys are just shitting out content that doesn't even mean much. God, these analytic articles popping up every day are getting more and more dumb.
538 is pretty bad.
|
On May 07 2014 11:40 Ace wrote:what a useless article. Those 538 guys are just shitting out content that doesn't even mean much. God, these analytic articles popping up every day are getting more and more dumb.
I've been unimpressed by a lot of the 538 articles. Most seem like they were cobbled together with pre existing stats by a high school economics student.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
The Rock-Paper-Scissors thing between teams boggles the mind. Portland beats Houston. Houston beats San Antonio (regular season, obviously). San Antonio trashes Portland.
|
On May 07 2014 11:40 Ace wrote:what a useless article. Those 538 guys are just shitting out content that doesn't even mean much. God, these analytic articles popping up every day are getting more and more dumb.
about as useless as people basing everything on PER and thinking that alone means something. For most of these"analytic articles" it is not about the actual result or numbers, it is about the thought process that actually went into it. Even if some things these guys are putting out doesn't say much in terms of actuality, there are some things that might jump out when reading an explanation. The most interesting thing you'll find isn't really in the numbers (maybe not in this article).
And even then, why so late on your response? And then you come at me with your copycat spiel that everyone is saying not about 538 now? It is easy to kick down on something when it is popular. But the site is a new thing and a work in progress.
edit:
Some articles are plain out bad I agree(spec in sports). Then there are others were they just lack the time/manpower to do it really well. Then there are other ones that just spark up some good responses from people. I just think of it as something still in its guinea-pig stage though.
|
On May 07 2014 12:00 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 10:06 Ace wrote:
It isn't a red herring. You can look at the deals GMs hand out to overrated and bad players and make a simple case of guys not even knowing basic things about players they want. We can get into mismanaged long term plans, PR fan talk about "rebuilding", and the stupidity of the coaching carousel of the NBA. Bottom line is coaches get most of the blame from media and fans because they are the most visible extension of management, when responsibility for droughts can usually be found by looking at the Front Office. You guys joke about the Eastern Conference time and time again in these threads over the years - look at the personnel running those teams, not the coaches. I agree with what you say about about coaching, but that's separate from the larger point. Bringing up the Eastern conference is interesting because most people would say the bad GM/Owners are over there. What you're asking is are there institutional reasons why the East is so bad, which has been discussed at length, or is there just something about the Eastern Conference that attracts bad owners and GMs? It's like at the beginning of Starcraft 2 when we were debating whether Terran was too strong or if all the best players just picked Terran. (I suggested that the best players' favorite color was blue and Terran was the 'bluest race'.) Until I have evidence I'll suspect the former. As another experiment, let's look at three of the most dominant teams in the last 15 years and what their secret to success was: -LA Lakers: location+money+cache+bizarrely beneficial trades -SA Spurs: International scouting+ lucky drafts -Miami Heat: The Power of Friendship+ brodeals How can you go to any other GM and tell them to replicate these strategies? You can't. You can't ask the Bucks to hope the #2 pick throws a hissy fit and demands to be traded to them. You can't hope that you happen to snag 2 of the best 5 foreign players ever. The power curve is almost exactly defined by a few really good players. If you have these good players your range might be great to good. If you don't you might have a range of average to dumpster tier.
The secret to success for LA/SA/Miami is the same reason Detroit/Indy/Dallas/Phoenix also were great - get undervalued players. That's it. Player evaluation. The question isn't "how can other we expect other GMs to do what these teams did?". It's really about how can you keep making the same mistakes over and over when you already know the results from past experiences. These FOs aren't getting better at player evaluation. We thought Dumars was a genius for the mid 2000s Pistons but we know for a fact now that it was a lucky accident. Billy King has been ruining franchises for years. The Knicks...ok. The Bucks and Magic are prime example of teams with good players that can't value them properly and sign players they don't need. Charlotte is awful, and the Wizards are a prime example of FO incompetence run amok. In some cases these teams don't even have a strategy beyond "get 15 guys to play for the season". It would be nice to have great GMs everywhere, and while that isn't realistic, there shouldn't be so many bad ones that keep getting hired while the coaches shoulder the blame. There are still idiots that think D'Antoni is a bad coach but can't actually tell you what offense he is running, that he hasn't run SSOL in like 9 years, and praise Pop for reinventing San Antonio's offense which he borrowed heavily from D'Antoni.
|
some advanced stats right here
|
I know it's a surprise, but their sports stuff is not aimed at pushing forward the boundaries of sports statistical analysis. They read like primers for people who really like sports and would like to dabble their toes into stats. The articles are what you think they are. Move along.
I do hope Game 2's are more competitive. (Free KD!)
|
But they used regression analysis. Ipso facto ergo propter.
|
On May 07 2014 12:13 Ace wrote:
There are still idiots that think D'Antoni is a bad coach but can't actually tell you what offense he is running, that he hasn't run SSOL in like 9 years, and praise Pop for reinventing San Antonio's offense which he borrowed heavily from D'Antoni.
Tangent! Remember when D'Antoni was choosing between the Knicks and Bulls? What might have been had he paired up with Rose instead...
|
On May 07 2014 12:11 MassHysteria wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 11:40 Ace wrote:what a useless article. Those 538 guys are just shitting out content that doesn't even mean much. God, these analytic articles popping up every day are getting more and more dumb. about as useless as people basing everything on PER and thinking that alone means something. For most of these"analytic articles" it is not about the actual result or numbers, it is about the thought process that actually went into it. Even if some things these guys are putting out doesn't say much in terms of actuality, there are some things that might jump out when reading an explanation. The most interesting thing you'll find isn't really in the numbers (maybe not in this article). And even then, why so late on your response? And then you come at me with your copycat spiel that everyone is saying not about 538 now? It is easy to kick down on something when it is popular. But the site is a new thing and a work in progress. edit: Some articles are plain out bad I agree(spec in sports). Then there are others were they just lack the time/manpower to do it really well. Then there are other ones that just spark up some good responses from people though. I just think of it as something still in its guinea-pig stage though.
Yea PER is garbage too, surprise. I didn't actually see much thought in that article - that's my problem. It's just a bunch of numbers run against a regression with a blase conclusion and no actual insight. No talk about lineups or players or minutes. What is that article actually doing? My response is late because it just is, I didn't read most of the past few pages. I'm not familiar with what everyone else is saying, just been pointed at 538 articles quite a few times and they are just writing unforgivable garbage.
Yea it's new - so what? They are putting out shit content like this written by the same guy:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hidden-value-of-the-nba-steal/
It's a work in progress and they deserve criticism until it gets better.
|
I hope D'antoni signs with Golden state. I think he will really fit there
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 07 2014 12:15 Haiq343 wrote:I know it's a surprise, but their sports stuff is not aimed at pushing forward the boundaries of sports statistical analysis. They read like primers for people who really like sports and would like to dabble their toes into stats. The articles are what you think they are. Move along. I do hope Game 2's are more competitive. (Free KD!)
i do note the intentional hand holding, but those tend to be 'i use this fancy thing' [link to some maths out of the R manual!] without actually doing much analysis. the handholding comes out more on the maths side, with little in the way of motivating his statistical analysis in the first place. there's a lot of "here's what i'll do now".
it's not the best introduction to sports analytics. the espn insider stuff is better but those guys do more college than nba back when they were basketball prospectus
|
On May 07 2014 12:22 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 12:11 MassHysteria wrote:On May 07 2014 11:40 Ace wrote:what a useless article. Those 538 guys are just shitting out content that doesn't even mean much. God, these analytic articles popping up every day are getting more and more dumb. about as useless as people basing everything on PER and thinking that alone means something. For most of these"analytic articles" it is not about the actual result or numbers, it is about the thought process that actually went into it. Even if some things these guys are putting out doesn't say much in terms of actuality, there are some things that might jump out when reading an explanation. The most interesting thing you'll find isn't really in the numbers (maybe not in this article). And even then, why so late on your response? And then you come at me with your copycat spiel that everyone is saying not about 538 now? It is easy to kick down on something when it is popular. But the site is a new thing and a work in progress. edit: Some articles are plain out bad I agree(spec in sports). Then there are others were they just lack the time/manpower to do it really well. Then there are other ones that just spark up some good responses from people though. I just think of it as something still in its guinea-pig stage though. Yea PER is garbage too, surprise. I didn't actually see much thought in that article - that's my problem. It's just a bunch of numbers run against a regression with a blase conclusion and no actual insight. No talk about lineups or players or minutes. What is that article actually doing? My response is late because it just is, I didn't read most of the past few pages. I'm not familiar with what everyone else is saying, just been pointed at 538 articles quite a few times and they are just writing unforgivable garbage. Yea it's new - so what? They are putting out shit content like this written by the same guy: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hidden-value-of-the-nba-steal/It's a work in progress and they deserve criticism until it gets better.
That is actually just a general 538 problem. The entire website is based around an assumption that what Silver did for politics is a desired commodity in all sorts of other spheres, but there is a real question about that assumption.
In addition, its hard to find a group of writers who present less diverse of viewpoints. Its like going into a writers room with 15 really boring and unfunny John Stewart clones.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well nate silver used to do baseball analysis, with a rather wide brush regression approach to historical means. that type of thing works better with large data sets like politics. baseball is the easiest sport to do statistical analysis because each game event is relatively discrete and involve an individual batter/pitcher doing his own thing. but something like basketball where each player's stats is not nearly as isolated game events as baseball, the simplistic regressions on boxscore stats are not worth that much. (especially when it's just guesstimates like PER)
true basketball analytics has to use more information, like player position tracking and stuff like that. you can't get that much otu of the boxscore stats.
|
On May 07 2014 13:16 oneofthem wrote:
well nate silver used to do baseball analysis, with a rather wide brush regression approach to historical means. that type of thing works better with large data sets like politics. baseball is the easiest sport to do statistical analysis because each game event is relatively discrete and involve an individual batter/pitcher doing his own thing. but something like basketball where each player's stats is not nearly as isolated game events as baseball, the simplistic regressions on boxscore stats are not worth that much. (especially when it's just guesstimates like PER)
true basketball analytics has to use more information, like player position tracking and stuff like that. you can't get that much otu of the boxscore stats.
yes,
same applies to hockey.
ok, if Brooklyn win the NBA Championship this year then the Raptors should try to keep their team together as much as possible.
if Brooklyn gets ROFL-stomped by Miami then the Raptors need to have the balls to make substantial changes to their team.
|
I don't have a problem with the articles per se, but they seem way too one- dimensional. It also gives off this impression that these problems can be solved in a neat and tidy fashion.
|
is it me or did portland actually look perplexed when they were finally getting calls against them. lol
ok ok, i'll stop being petty XD
|
Foul calls were the only thing holding them up. I think at one point they had taken 24 free throws to SA's 10. That was nearly half their total points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
