smackeddog wrote:Morey's plan the past two offseason have been: Sign Josh Smith to a near max deal (Detroit saved him), signed Melo! Sign Chris Bosh! Sign any big FA! He's the patron saint of analytics, but even he knows analytics can only get you so far.My main problem with them (actually I have a few), is:
a) they are self perpetuating: Player A is a great player because of his analytics stats, and the proof is their analytic stats.
b) the advocates make out they are scientists and that their opinion based on them is more scientific. In reality they are just as biased as anyone else- they pick and choose the stats that suit their argument and ignore context. I like arguing with people and hearing their opinions, but it annoys me when they pretend they are being objective.
c) there is no such thing as an objectively good player- it all depends on what you value, it's all subjective. Do you like flashy play, streaky play? Toughness? Defense? Volume shooting, efficient shooting? rebounding? Intangibles? Clutch players? Analytics people try to dictate what players we need to like, when really it's all personal preference. You like efficiency, great, personally I like a bit of grit and an edge to my players. Both are perfectly valid.
(a) is not a self-perpetuating or circular statement. all statistics do is illuminate what we see. now, if you don't have the ability to see, then maybe you use stats as a crutch. but for those who do see, analytics help confirm what we intuit to be the case. you're statement would have validity if it were true that players are being evaluated sight-unseen. this is patently false.
(b) not so much scientists but mathematicians. i agree that you can "pick and choose" stats, but the deeper question is how valid the stats are in the first place. i have a personal bias against those stats that try to cram too many variables into their formulae. PER is one that comes to mind, which is why i don't rely on it to confirm what i intuit to be the case. science has one thing always going for it: it gathers empirical evidence, concocts a theory, tests the theory, and if the theory passes the test, the theory turns into a valid "law." good scientists are always willing to abandon a theory when disproved. neil degrasse tyson stressed that very process in the reboot of "cosmos" last year.
(c) winning is objective. everything is dictated by that, unless you are james dolan. he doesn't care about winning otherwise we would not have been the laughingstock of the nba for 15 years.
knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
2/11/2015 7:07 AM
