Bonn1997 wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:
Actually, it's the exact reverse: the sabermetrics have much more validity in basketball than in baseball.
They do not! Please explain how and why and why it has yet to be adopted in basketball. I am sure that they have seen Moneyball.
Gonna be interesting to see how they figure out how Kobe was such a low pct scorer and will go down as one of the greatest players of all time.
Oh right ... Win Shares and Wins Produced which you still cannot explain hahahaha
Now you're just making stuff up. I've explained everything you've asked about WS and WP; you just don't have the background to understand it.
Berri discusses the issue of sabermetrics in baseball vs. basketball in his books. Basketball stats are more stable across seasons for individual players (including when players switch teams) than any baseball stats are for players. And more importantly, WP scores explain more of the variance in wins in basketball than any sabermetrics do in baseball.
Your questions about basketball are easily understood once you realize that the understanding of basketball stats now by most GMs and fans is roughly where it was fifteen years ago in baseball.
Didnt Berri have Kevin Love at #3 last year, behind Chris Paul and Dwight Howard but ahead of Lebron James and Dwyane Wade? 18 Wins produced on a 17 win team.
Now it's possible and the Timberwolves had a terrible team last year, but I think it’s much more likely that something is wrong with the formula.
Berri’s formula is something like points - shot attempts while I think Hollinger is closer to points - missed shots.
He criticizes other formuli for overrating the scorers, but in reality he is just not giving them credit. His metric will rate very highly a center who shoots for a high FG% but rarely shoots a ball that he can’t dunk, like Tyson Chandler. He’ll rank a point guard high who rarely shoots and takes only high percentage shots.
Problem is, you can’t build a real offense around players like that. They rate well because they have above average efficiency while taking a below average number of shots. Players like that are only useful if you have a scorer or two on the team who take an above average number of shots.
You put 5 low usage, high percentage players out there together and the result is that A) somebody has to take a lot more shots of greater difficulty, lowering his percentage or B) 24 second clock violation.
Now I understand that you are a professor with a PHD so this is something that you must buy into since you are part of "the team" or "the religion" but there are many non PHD smart folks who find Berri's findings and analysis seriously flawed.
