Presented Without Comment to the Basketball Nerds of the Board
Comments
-
tl;dr
-
Grantland's basketball articles are dreck.
-
Disagree, I thought this article was interesting and Zach Lowe is really good.RoadDawg55 said:Grantland's basketball articles are dreck.
-
Zach Lowe is the worst. Long wind bag articles that have very little substance. These articles are all written by geeks who never played basketball.dnc said:
Disagree, I thought this article was interesting and Zach Lowe is really good.RoadDawg55 said:Grantland's basketball articles are dreck.
-
Completely disagreeRoadDawg55 said:
Zach Lowe is the worst. Long wind bag articles that have very little substance. These articles are all written by geeks who never played basketball.dnc said:
Disagree, I thought this article was interesting and Zach Lowe is really good.RoadDawg55 said:Grantland's basketball articles are dreck.
-
Generally speaking I'm not a huge analytic guy because in a lot of ways it's just putting numbers behind things that intuitively we already know. For instance, the part where they talked about Paul running Curry off the line and contesting is simple shit for anybody that has played hoops their entire life.
However, the ability to create defensive shot charts and being able to quantify is very interesting from a relative standpoint. You know that CP3 is a good defender ... but you didn't know how good. You knew that Harden was a bad defender ... but hard to measure how bad.
And I think the parts where they talked about guys like Duncan, Hibbert, etc. were very telling. It also goes a long way in my mind to also illustrating why you have to look at the data in the context of how the game is played.
And for whatever you want to say about Lowe, that's whatever. But the articles that Goldsberry writes are some of the more educational and interesting articles on basketball that I've ever read. -
Warning: Tequilla Long
Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.
There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.
On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.
Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.
There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense
The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.
Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).
Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.
Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.
Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.
These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something. -
disagreeRoadDawg55 said:Warning: Tequilla Long
Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.
There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.
On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.
Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.
There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense
The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.
Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).
Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.
Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.
Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.
These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something. -
SEC? I'm on the fence considering I didn't read itRoadDawg55 said:Warning: Tequilla Long
Zach Lowe wrote an article a few weeks ago about not sleeping on the Clippers. Another one "The Arrival of John Henson." John Henson is a role player on the fucking Bucks. I know it's probably tough to come up with topics sometimes when you write that much, but Christ. If you think the Clippers have a shot at winning the title, you are an idiot. I also remember him jizzing all over the Spencer Hawes signing.
There are basic fundamentals in basketball. You don't need advanced metrics to tell you that on offense: move the ball, attack the basket, score in the paint, shooting off the pass is better than the dribble, try and avoid long, contested two's.
On defense: Play team defense, protect the paint, contest every shot, don't commit stupid fouls, and rebound.
Analytics aren't all worthless. There is just too much information and much of it is useless. I find it interesting the shot charts about how a player shoots from certain spots. If I was involved with a team, I would definitely use those as a teaching tool for players so they were aware of where to look for their shots and hopefully avoid throwing up bad ones.
There are advanced metrics this season that say James Harden is a good defender. We all know he's not (at least consistently), but it shows that metrics can be a lot of times be skewed to what you want them to prove. PER had Kevin Love as one of the best players in the league last year. That is laughable. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12041846/the-truth-james-harden-defense
The article posted by Tequilla can be countered pretty easily. Chris Paul is a good defender. He's smart, quick hands, and plays the pick and roll well. He is also defending more shots off the dribble as a result of guarding PG's. I would also assume a lot of those are off pick and rolls where the PG decides to shoot. PG's also take many of the low percentage shots when the shot clock is winding down. Paul is a good defender, but not every shot is the same and should not be graded as so. Take any advanced statistic you want, but Chris Paul was abused by Russell Westbrook last year so badly that Darren Collison started being the primary guy on Westbrook.
Harden is giving up more spot up jumpers therefore he will give up a higher percentage than Chris Paul regardless of the fact that he is a worse defender (which he is).
Oh gee, you mean Roy Hibbert plays great defense at the rim, but gives up a lot of open jumpers. And to think those open jumpers are being hit at a higher percentage. What riveting information.
Individual defense is important, but team defense is much more important. That's why these analytics are often worthless and why many involved in basketball disregard them. It's not baseball. Basketball is a team game.
Let's say Paul is guarding Curry. Curry blows by him. JJ Redick steps up to help. Curry passes to Harrison Barnes. Barnes knocks down a jumper. Anyone who knows basketball knows the play started with Curry getting by Paul, but Redick would be punished with these stats because he was the guy who gave up the jumper.
These charts also don't tell what the defense's plan was. A guy guarding Draymond Green will probably give up open shots because he's helping on Curry and Klay Thompson. If Draymond Green has a great game and hits 4/6 three's, it doesn't necessarily mean the defender was playing worse defense than if Green hit 1/6. I get that it should mostly balance out, but it's still flawed. A lot of times, you have to give up something. -
I would like to hear how I'm wrong about the typical worthless, stat nerd Grantland article. DNC? Anyone? Buehler?
-
Zach Lowe is a gaseous windbag
-
I think we need to find gasoline and a match for this thread.
-
"You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."RoadDawg55 said:I would like to hear how I'm wrong about the typical worthless, stat nerd Grantland article. DNC? Anyone? Buehler?
-
I'm with RD. I've probably only looked at Gland 5-10 times ever, but the 15% of the content that's good is drowned by the 85% that's dorks writing lengthy articles and useless pop culture crap.
-
Zach Lowe is a windbag dork that writes TL;DR garbage. I generally like Grantland but that place sometimes thinks way too highly of themselves for a blog that writes about sports and TV sitcoms. You're not the New Yorker for fucks sake. Simmons talking about Oscars likes he's Leonard Maltin - FO; DIAFF wannabe hipster.
The reductionist take on the game of Basketball and the need for analytics is LOL. I'm sure YMCA all-stars here said similar things about baseball and analytics in the 90s. These teams are printing money and throw a million or two a year at analytics to get an edge in a hyper-competitive sport. I'm sure it has real value to them winning and managing their assets. -
I read Grantland sometimes, but it's mostly terrible. Most of the time I look at the headlines and skim through TL, DR articles. Sports articles that over analyze everything. I actually enjoy the pop culture more than their spots.
Wesley Morris is the worst movie critic I have ever read. Is the movie entertaining or not? Enough with the bullshit about how many black actors there are, how gays in movies are portrayed, and all the bullshit psych-analysis of every character.
And the 2015 version of Simmons sucks. I was a big fan in his early days. I liked the knowledgeable fan with some humor and pop culture mixed in. Now, he's a whiny cunt who acts like he's such a rebel for not always toeing the line at ESPN. Part of it is the backlash of fame, but his writing sucks compared to his past work.
I don't think analytics are worthless. Far from it, and front offices should use them. Advanced plus-minus and finding out statistical evidence of what the best line ups to use is kind of obvious stuff. Zach Lowe and Grantland overdo it. Formulas and obscure stats are not needed to know who the best players and teams are.
Charles Barkley was wrong when he ranted about Morey and stats geeks, but in his rant, he had a point. The Rockets have gotten better because they acquired James Harden, Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, Corey Brewer, Ariza, etc. You can use a bunch of stats and bullshit, but it's really that simple. -
RoadDawg has Grantland dialed in
-
I've enjoyed bits and pieces such as Andy Greenwald's Breaking Bad recaps last year, but most of the site can be pretty accurately be described as TL;DR
Having Bill and Wesley Morris talking about the Oscars on ESPN in the middle of weekend was odd, sort of like when MTV dropped the pretense of showing music videos. Bill's writing peaked when he wrote about his dog passing away. -
I figured that was ESPN throwing him a bone after he got suspended and even before that booted off NBA countdown. My guess is Bill bitches about Espns investment in GL & 538 a lot these days. His web traffic is actually pretty mediocre. Wouldn't surprise me if his bullshit gets called one of these days and he gets booted from espn permanently.Citrus4Troogs said:I've enjoyed bits and pieces such as Andy Greenwald's Breaking Bad recaps last year, but most of the site can be pretty accurately be described as TL;DR
Having Bill and Wesley Morris talking about the Oscars on ESPN in the middle of weekend was odd, sort of like when MTV dropped the pretense of showing music videos. Bill's writing peaked when he wrote about his dog passing away.
-
Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Edit: Tell the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, etc that analytics are overrated and largely driven by nerdy slapdicks. It's almost like some of you haven't heard of synthesizing differing modalities of data. -
Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.doogsinparadise said:Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.
Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are. -
You don't think the analytics guys watch league pass? That's a really strange assumption.RoadDawg55 said:
Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.doogsinparadise said:Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.
Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are. -
The Spurs were good long before the analytics craze. You actually think Popovich needed a bunch of fancy stats to realize the spot up corner 3 was a good shot? Bowen made a career out of standing in the corner and knocking down open 3's. He stood in the corner not because of some fucking analytics, but wait for it..doogsinparadise said:Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
Edit: Tell the Spurs, Mavs, Heat, etc that analytics are overrated and largely driven by nerdy slapdicks. It's almost like some of you haven't heard of synthesizing differing modalities of data.
wait for it..
wait for it...
Spacing the fucking floor. Wings stand in the corner so there is room in the post for Duncan and up top for pick and rolls. High school teams do the same thing. Pass out the double team for an open 3. Drive and kick when the defense collapses. Basketball 101.
Mark Cuban said Charles Barkley was half right. The analytics say Monta Ellis isn't a good fit. They also didn't agree with the Rajon Rondo trade. He uses them, like every owner and team should, but he doesn't rely on them. Once again, a tool, not the bible.
You think the Mavs needed analytics to know Tyson Chandler helps their team?
The Heat had LeBron and were really fucking good. Now without him they aren't. I don't need any stats besides their record to know that. -
After the game tonight Sir Charles had another great Barkleyism briefly touching on analytics and how a lot of the time they are pointing the obvious. Said it's just a fancy word for stats so they can charge more money. Then said something like:
"It's like calling a black guy a cook and a white guy a chef. Just a different word for the same thing"
Made me laugh, but as Roadie pointed out, analytics are fine and it would be neglectful to not explore available data, but ultimately the game is the game and we don't need to explore charts explaining Shaq is going to help your team dominate the paint...which is good for your team...because it's close to the basket...which is where the most makable shots exist... -
That teams were not going after the corner like they have been over the last few years would seem to say otherwise. But you must know more than Hollinger et al.
-
I generally agree with the idea that what you're going to find in the data are slight nuances that may give you a little extra information or the ability to have a slightly better idea of how to quantify how good somebody is at something where the traditional stats may tend to be lacking (think 10 years ago and the revelation about how good of a defender Shane Battier was).
Where I think stats can really help you when it comes to the next level stats are having a strong understanding of areas on the floor where players are above average, likely to take shots, etc. Having that information may be able to give you the insight to adjust your defense to something that you'd otherwise not play for. That's valuable.
Having information about whether a player is likely to go right or left and to be able to quantify the difference between the two is also helpful not only for the defender, but also for the offensive player. You may know that you have a weakness in your game ... but the numbers will help you in not only magnifying the problem, but realizing how big of a problem it may be.
However, the general principals of what you find out of the most successful teams in the game are what they are ... the game will not be revolutionized because of the stat heads (the numbers are going to play this out). The game still consists of spacing the court ... moving the ball ... creating mismatches ... finding open, high % shots. IMO, one of the reasons you see so many more 3's taken today is because so many more people practice that shot and are relatively competent in taking those shots (compare to when the NBA brought the arc in and then more guys shot the shot who really had no business shooting it).
Everybody thinks from the standpoint that if they can shoot 33% from behind the arc, it's the equivalent of shooting 50% from the field. That's missing the mark in my book. The best stat in my mind in measuring offensive efficiency will always be points per shot attempt (for an individual) and points per possession (for the team). Stat heads today would tell you that the mid-range jumper is a terrible shot. In time, that will become an area where players can exploit holes in the defense as defenders become fixated on either protecting the rim or the arc. Most good, sound shooters will make shots that are the equivalent of a college 3 at a 60-70% clip if uncontested. I'd take that shot every single time if you gave that to me for a possession. As this area becomes exploited, it will compromise defenses.
Growing up, a focal point of learning to play the game was how to run a fast break properly. The purpose of offense is to find a good, open shot. Generally speaking, it's easier to find that shot in a transition situation instead of in the half court. The ultimate goal of any transition opportunity was to get a layup. However, as a guard, if you were able to get to a free throw line jumper, you'd take that every single time. Today, you see the fast break turn into a layup or a 3 point shot. Even a wide open 3 point shot for most shooters is no better than a 50/50 proposition.
For all the talk about being more efficient offensively, etc. that we're seeing from the stat heads, are the numbers really showing that? Compare the current in-season stats versus those of 1988. Today, teams are averaging 93.8 possessions per game and averaging 105.6 points per 100 possessions. In 1988, teams averaged 99.6 possessions per game, but averaged 108 points per game. While effective FG% is higher today because of the influence of the 3 point shot, true shooting % was higher in '88 due to not only the influence of getting to the line more and shooting a higher % from the line. If there's a big difference in offensive play today, it can be seen in the offensive rebound rate as today you see maybe 1 or 2 offensive players crashing the glass due to how spaced the court is whereas 25+ years ago it wasn't uncommon to see 3 offensive players trying to rebound. -
Your basic basketball knowledge includes rebounding. Something that, a team that just went to 4 straight Finals, didn't care about at all. The game is the game though. Whatever that means.RoadDawg55 said:
Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.doogsinparadise said:Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.
Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are. -
Offensive rebounding isn't that important. Lots of teams such as the Celtics and Spurs do not crash the boards much at all.allpurpleallgold said:
Your basic basketball knowledge includes rebounding. Something that, a team that just went to 4 straight Finals, didn't care about at all. The game is the game though. Whatever that means.RoadDawg55 said:
Christ. They aren't for finding guys 3-8. Where the fuck did you come up with that? They are for evaluating the entire program, finding league wide trends, and trying to find little advantages.doogsinparadise said:Everyone knows who the best players are, analytics are to find guys 3-8. Christ, it's getting to be like preschool paste eating around here.
All the advanced statistics do is reinforce basic basketball knowledge. The best shots are at the rim, free throws, and 3's. Long 2's are bad. Assists are good. Limit turnovers. Rebound. The game is still the game. The bullshit about analytics changing the game are exactly that... Bullshit. If you shoot a higher percentage and get to the line more than the other team, you are probably going to win. Winning the battle in the paint often leads to success because the jumper doesn't always fall.
Stop reading Grantland like a Muslim reads the Koran and learn the game a little bit. Order League Pass, watch with your own eyes, look at the box scores, check plus-minus. You will find the same thing as these analytics. They are a tool, not the end all be all that dweebs like Zach Lowe and John Hollinger believe they are.
Defensive rebounding is important. Giving up 2nd and 3rd shots is bad. Often they are open 3's.
The Heat are an anomaly because of the havoc of their defensive system with the trapping and switching. That leads to scrambling which leads to guys not getting boxed out. And the Heat were good at rebounding the first two years of the LeBron era. Not the best point, but I don't buy that rebounding isn't important at all. -
Saying that offensive rebounding isn't important is FS.
A few different ways to think about it:
1) An offensive rebound creates an extra possession - which is the same as creating a turnover on defense
2) Often times, if you find yourself with an offensive rebound (particularly near the basket), the likelihood of finishing with a basket or a trip to the line is high.
The benefits to offensive rebounding are vast.
Now, the reasons why people don't do it have a lot to do with transition basketball and one of the cardinal sins where it is easy for people to criticize the coach for having his team poorly prepared is the number of transition baskets given up. It's why IMO you see so many teams make sure that they always have 3 back on defense ... harder to criticize that way.
And for people that counter with saying that crashing the boards against teams that want to run is playing right into their hand, forcing them to rebound can often slow down the fast break as it forces them to put more numbers closer to the basket to get the initial rebound. The 80s Lakers were the greatest fast breaking team of all time ... but the one sure fire way to beat them was to abuse them on the glass. If you did that, you most likely beat them. -
The Heat were dead last in offensive rebounding last year and the Spurs were 26th. Vast.
