Bonn1997 wrote:

3G4G wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If you say I flip flop enough times...it still isn't true. I value WS and WP. Flip-flopping would mean that I only sometimes value them but you haven't established that to be the case.
You're presenting a new argument here about Kobe's shot totals in wins and losses. If you have data you want me to take a look at, I will.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-kobe-bryant-shooting-lakers-out-20121220,0,2359134.story

It's hard to know what to make of that. We can come up with many explanations other than the idea that Kobe's taking shots is causing the team to lose. (Maybe when the team is losing and he sees his teammates struggling, he then decides to shoot more?) The following players also are shooting less in wins than in losses: Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony (only a slight difference), Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Chris Bosh, and Zach Randolph

Not everything is quantified or qualified by metrics. At least not yet since the practice of sabermetrics in basketball is a small sample size in itself. 150 pages of validation data will look like a silly joke in 5 years when they will have +100,000 of pages and actually figure out how to better cross reference them.

Unfortunately with players like Kobe, there is no "is he dick" stat to see what he is doing to his team. Chemistry-killer is not a stat yet though I am sure they will compile enough data and AI to someday get closer.

If you just wanna be a pioneer at this point and lobby that this is more than what it is at this point, be my guest.

Kobe has messed up your position and always will.

You post a link to what I factual stated...the link shows in December, they were 12-14. When Kobe shoots over 20fga/gm Lakers are 4-11, when he shoots less than 20fga/gm they are 8-3...Since this time they have gone 3-4 with Nash back mind you and the numbers stay the course....

Kobe has blown his stance to smithereens

I think I see what the issue is: You are confusing correlation and causation. If fewer shot attempts (in this small sample) are correlated with more wins, you're incorrectly concluding that the fewer shot attempts must be causing the wins.
This link may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Ha Ha Ha...Ha Ha(Fake Laugh in cheesy Chinese Kung Fu Flick Style) I see Bonn still stubborn in continual denial...

Let's look at Kobe's career over a few yrs(my numbers are very minimally/slightly off as I didn't check to see if Kobe played all 82gms each season) it would have more bearing on what the team overall record was when he shot 20 or more FGAs. I simply did subtraction from when he shot less... as we'll see it won't matter. Even if you fact check games he missed it's not going to make the other numbers better by much. The games in which he shot less than 20FGA are accurate because I actually counted them......

Okay you might want to take a seat for this one, look long and hard at these numbers, try not to blink your eyes rapidly in shock because the numbers are that revealing

2011-2012 Lakers Record when Kobe shoots less than 20FGA 10-3 77%

2011-2012 Lakers Record when Kobe shoots 20FGA or more 31-22 58%

2010-2011 Lakers record when Kobe shoots less than 20FGA 35-8 81%

2010-2011 Lakers record when Kobe shoots 20FGA or more 22-17 56%

2009-2010 Lakers record when Kobe shoots less than 20FGA 23-5 82%

2009-2010 Lakers record when Kobe shoots 20FGA or more 34-20 63%

Coorelation and Causation have nothing to do with these Pure Ownage Metrics. The Lakers have greater success when Kobe shoots less. This is a simple reality. It's just COLD HARD FACTS smacking you in the face.

And What A Sample This Was.....How did Sheed put it?

GOD BLESS AND GOODNIGHT!

mrKnickShot wrote:Bonn, if he was one of your students and did this in class, you would and should feel a tad humiliated. You got owned. Keep playing Upwords though to deflect the attention.

Causation vs Correlation vs Humiliation

YEA, BONN is being a bit stubborn here.... bonn might have a point of the percentages were all over the place.. in other words, it is very consistent, 3g showed a huge difference in win percentage when kobe shoots less.... pretty simple stuff here...

Bonn1997 wrote:Every year except his rookie season Lebron took more shots in losses than wins. He needs to stop shooting. I'd recommend 4 to 5 FGA a game. Four straight years of more shots in losses than wins for Durant too. He should just be sent to the D league.

So when they shot less they won more games? Like you found a threshold in their FGA that equated to win and losses. Is that what you're saying? And if so is that primarily because Lebron/Durant spend a huge portion of their time on offense trying to get everyone involved or allowing others to get into a personal flow?

I knew DAT DATA on KOME would hit home with Bonn, hit right at the heart because even he didn't imagine the numbers would look like that.

3G4G wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Every year except his rookie season Lebron took more shots in losses than wins. He needs to stop shooting. I'd recommend 4 to 5 FGA a game. Four straight years of more shots in losses than wins for Durant too. He should just be sent to the D league.

So when they shot less they won more games? Like you found threshold in their FGA that equated to win and losses. Is that what you're saying? And if so is that primarily because Lebron/Durant spend a huge portion of their time on offense trying to get everyone involved or allowing others to get into a personal flow?

I knew DAT DATA on KOME would hit home with Bonn, hit right at the heart because even he didn't imagine the numbers would look like that.

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If every case is different, MrK, you need to identify the variables differentiating them so that we know when to trust and when not to trust the sabermetrics. Otherwise, you're just saying "they're not trustworthy when they don't confirm my pre-existing beliefs," which basically just means you think they are useless.

Did I say useless? Please provide evidence that I said this since I do not recall this.

I believe that they are a work in progress and therefore not to be relied on.

And yes. I can take it for what it is and use it as an assistant especially when the numbers are alarmingly bad. However, nothing beats the eye test.

If you don't watch games then stats is all you have.

If you watch Kobe play and see the glaring issues that don't make it into saberville you start seeing that numbers are good but often can lie

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If every case is different, MrK, you need to identify the variables differentiating them so that we know when to trust and when not to trust the sabermetrics. Otherwise, you're just saying "they're not trustworthy when they don't confirm my pre-existing beliefs," which basically just means you think they are useless.

Did I say useless? Please provide evidence that I said this since I do not recall this.

I believe that they are a work in progress and therefore not to be relied on.

And yes. I can take it for what it is and use it as an assistant especially when the numbers are alarmingly bad. However, nothing beats the eye test.

If you don't watch games then stats is all you have.

If you watch Kobe play and see the glaring issues that don't make it into saberville you start seeing that numbers are good but often can lie

I didn't say that you said they were useless. I think that follows from the way you're using them though.
If nothing beats the eye test, why are GMs so clueless about how much to pay players?

Are you talking about clueless GM's or good ones.

Data is certainly use and should be used to judge players. Do you think that there is no point in then going to a game and watching a player in person? I know you don't think that.

If a scout or a GM sees good numbers and then go to a game and see an as$hole ...

I've always said that you need both. You don't watch games and don't see how Kobe is proving the numbers fail when it comes to him.

Use numbers to decide who to scout, then go an scout and make the call on a player. Thats what a good non clueless GM should do.

I am not a homer and I am pretty fair. I think that I see/saw positive qualities in Melo and that he could overcome the numbers but that the numbers did shed light on his selfishness.

The numbers cannot handle Kobe's Diva personality. If Kobe was not such a prick, perhaps he could have won 8 rings. He certainly has the talent.

Bonn1997 wrote:

3G4G wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Every year except his rookie season Lebron took more shots in losses than wins. He needs to stop shooting. I'd recommend 4 to 5 FGA a game. Four straight years of more shots in losses than wins for Durant too. He should just be sent to the D league.

So when they shot less they won more games? Like you found threshold in their FGA that equated to win and losses. Is that what you're saying? And if so is that primarily because Lebron/Durant spend a huge portion of their time on offense trying to get everyone involved or allowing others to get into a personal flow?

I knew DAT DATA on KOME would hit home with Bonn, hit right at the heart because even he didn't imagine the numbers would look like that.

I never thought about it but it does not surprise me at all and has no bearing on the validity of the sabermetrics. In addition to the obvious correlation-causation issue, you appear to have the mistaken belief that one data point (meaning one player) is sufficient to support or disprove an analytic framework. It would be like saying "Smoking didn't kill my uncle. Therefore smoking doesn't kill."

Wrong because I found an actual threshhold of FGA with the particular player. Like why didn't I choose 19 or 22 or 26. The 20FGA were thrown out there by the number crunchers because they found how KOME's FGA affect the team's W-L column and it's no different say with a player at the point guard position and looking at Ast/To ratio or say when a team scores a certain amount of points or allows a certain amount of points, you can discern a lot more from these statistical measures in regards to end results.

But let's go back to your wickity wacky WS WP SMs which prove nothing and you haven't provided enough data they are heavily considered to determine anything, especially related to MVP candidacy. Now you did said they should be...... well so what so should other metrics

But let's look at the list on BBR.com again for a moment

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2013_leaders.html

Offensive WS

1. Kevin Durant-OKC 5.9
2. LeBron James-MIA 5.7
3. Chris Paul-LAC 5.3
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 5.0
5. Tyson Chandler-NYK 4.5
6. James Harden-HOU 4.4
7. Tony Parker-SAS 3.8
8. Carmelo Anthony-NYK 3.8
9. David Lee-GSW 3.1
10. Chris Bosh-MIA 3.1
11. Ryan Anderson-NOH 3.0
12. Russell Westbrook-OKC 3.0
13. Kevin Martin-OKC 2.9
14. Stephen Curry-GSW 2.8
15. Blake Griffin-LAC 2.7
16. Marc Gasol-MEM 2.6
17. Serge Ibaka-OKC 2.6
18. Deron Williams-BRK 2.5
19. Tim Duncan-SAS 2.5
20. Jose Calderon-TOR 2.5

These are the current leaders. So Ryan Anderson and Tyson are higher than Duncan as is Kevin Martin who comes off the bench Jose Calderon tied with Duncan? There's nothing to discern here if I'm trying to determine an MVP

Defensive WS

1. Paul George-IND 2.6
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 2.5
3. Joakim Noah-CHI 2.3
4. Roy Hibbert-IND 2.2
5. Blake Griffin-LAC 2.1
6. Marc Gasol-MEM 2.1
7. David West-IND 2.1
8. Zach Randolph-MEM 2.0
9. Josh Smith-ATL 2.0
10. Kevin Durant-OKC 2.0
11. Chris Paul-LAC 1.9
12. Rudy Gay-MEM 1.9
13. Dwight Howard-LAL 1.9
14. Mike Conley-MEM 1.8
15. Carlos Boozer-CHI 1.8
16. Larry Sanders-MIL 1.8
17. George Hill-IND 1.7
18. Greg Monroe-DET 1.6
19. DeAndre Jordan-LAC 1.6
20. Al Horford-ATL 1.6

So is one to take this and suggest since Paul George leads the league in DWS he should be a Top of the DPOY award? Where's Kobe @? Boozer has more defensive impact than he does?

Overall WS(combines OWS and DWS)

1. Kevin Durant-OKC 7.8
2. LeBron James-MIA 7.3
3. Chris Paul-LAC 7.3
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 6.0
5. Tyson Chandler-NYK 5.6
6. James Harden-HOU 5.6
7. Tony Parker-SAS 5.0
8. Tim Duncan-SAS 5.0
9. Blake Griffin-LAC 4.8
10. David Lee-GSW 4.7
11. Marc Gasol-MEM 4.7
12. Carmelo Anthony-NYK 4.6
13. Russell Westbrook-OKC 4.5
14. Chris Bosh-MIA 4.2
15. Serge Ibaka-OKC 4.1
16. Stephen Curry-GSW 4.1
17. Zach Randolph-MEM 4.0
18. George Hill-IND 3.9
19. David West-IND 3.7
20. Kenneth Faried-DEN 3.7

Now this exposes how bad KOME is in regards to DWS because he only got a score of 1.0 added to overall WS from it. Which means defensively he isn't doing a damn thing to help his team impact games for Wins. All it means is Kobe is a big reason why the Lakers have 15wins he may be more responsible than other players contributing to their team wins singularly...... OTOH he's largely responsible as to why his team has 18 losses.

Carmelo would be ranked 12th in MVP candidacy based on overall WS and Chandler 5th. This in of itself makes this Metric AMBIGUOUS and I'm the furthest thing from a Melo supporter.

Wrong because I found an actual threshhold of FGA with the particular player. Like why didn't I choose 19 or 22 or 26. The 20FGA were thrown out there by the number crunchers because they found how KOME's FGA affect the team's W-L column and it's no different say with a player at the point guard position and looking at Ast/To ratio or say when a team scores a certain amount of points or allows a certain amount of points, you can discern a lot more from these statistical measures in regards to end results.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:If every case is different, MrK, you need to identify the variables differentiating them so that we know when to trust and when not to trust the sabermetrics. Otherwise, you're just saying "they're not trustworthy when they don't confirm my pre-existing beliefs," which basically just means you think they are useless.

Did I say useless? Please provide evidence that I said this since I do not recall this.

I believe that they are a work in progress and therefore not to be relied on.

And yes. I can take it for what it is and use it as an assistant especially when the numbers are alarmingly bad. However, nothing beats the eye test.

If you don't watch games then stats is all you have.

If you watch Kobe play and see the glaring issues that don't make it into saberville you start seeing that numbers are good but often can lie

I didn't say that you said they were useless. I think that follows from the way you're using them though.
If nothing beats the eye test, why are GMs so clueless about how much to pay players?

Basically since you're not open to the possibility that your eye test is wrong and the stats are right, all you're really doing is using an eye test. If we simplify the scenario by evaluating players simply as either "good" or "bad," we have the following scenarios

A) Eye test: player is good; stats: player is good. Your conclusion: Player is good, stats are right
B) Eye test: player is good; stats: player is bad. Your conclusion: Player is good, stats are wrong
C) Eye test: player is bad; stats: player is good. Your conclusion: Player is bad, stats are wrong
D) Eye test: player is bad: stats: player is bad: Your conclusion: Player is bad, stats are right

This both an exaggeration and simplification but I believe it fits how you're using the stats. It doesn't take a genius to see that your just doing an eye test and the stats have no bearing on your evaluation of the player. Of course, if you can provide examples of when you thought the stats were right and your eye test was wrong, it will invalidate my A through D statements.

Simple Bonn (please don't make me take out the puppets)

Data will tell me who to scout. Eyes will finalize my decision.

Watch 20 laker games (with an open mind) and come back to me.

Why use the data to determine who to scout? If you've got tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, why not just send several scouts to each game and have them write up reports based on their eye tests (which you say are superior to the #s)?

Because I believe in data and respect statistics.

I am also aware of their potential to be wrong. Or at least misleading.

Watch me turn it around. Why have scouts? Just use stats. Why even go to a game? Just play fantasy GM from the caman islands while enjoying da hooka