Assists vs. Hero Ball

[Ski11585]

I read an interesting article on Grantland today about the changing nature of the NBA game and how it's moving towards a pass-happy offensive style predicated on assists.

I post it for two reasons. First, because it is an important article that should help disabuse many of our staunch anti-NBA posters of the notion that NBA basketball is all one-on-one, no defense games.

Secondly, I can't help but think of Dixon's offensive style and his emphasis on passing as a way of getting a great shot. I'm not posting this article to advocate that Dixon's offensive system is perfect. In a game as flawed as college hoops, you need an elite offensive talent that can seemingly score at will. But I think it's an interesting piece to stoke the hoops fires as we near the start of the season.

 

[Scruffy the Panther]

I read an interesting article on Grantland today about the changing nature of the NBA game and how it's moving towards a pass-happy offensive style predicated on assists.

I post it for two reasons. First, because it is an important article that should help disabuse many of our staunch anti-NBA posters of the notion that NBA basketball is all one-on-one, no defense games.

Secondly, I can't help but think of Dixon's offensive style and his emphasis on passing as a way of getting a great shot. I'm not posting this article to advocate that Dixon's offensive system is perfect. In a game as flawed as college hoops, you need an elite offensive talent that can seemingly score at will. But I think it's an interesting piece to stoke the hoops fires as we near the start of the season.

I think it's pretty darn close for the players we get. We rank high in offensive efficiency every year, and it's not because we have a wealth of offensive talent on the roster every year. It's because he stresses pass-first and finding the best shot. It's not sexy, but it's the basis of how Dixon wins.

Would also like to note that although us stats "nerds" get the business from time to time, it's pretty clear that advanced statistics are changing the game at the highest level. If you aren't incorporating them in some way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Also, James Robinson "pleased".

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Would also like to note that although us stats "nerds" get the business from time to time, it's pretty clear that advanced statistics are changing the game at the highest level. If you aren't incorporating them in some way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

This closing paragraph from an article written by Sam Miller sums up the whole advanced stats thing well (the "debate" referenced was whether front offices and teams should go all in on advanced stats -- and yes, they chose stats/data unanimously where it really matters):

Whether you [like advanced stats or not] is up to you and ultimately matters only to you. In the larger perspective, the debate is over, and data won. So fight it if you'd like. But at a certain point, the question in any debate against science is: What are you really fighting and why?

 

[Scruffy the Panther]

This closing paragraph from an article written by Sam Miller sums up the whole advanced stats thing well (the "debate" referenced was whether front offices and teams should go all in on advanced stats -- and yes, they chose stats/data unanimously where it really matters):

Whether you [like advanced stats or not] is up to you and ultimately matters only to you. In the larger perspective, the debate is over, and data won. So fight it if you'd like. But at a certain point, the question in any debate against science is: What are you really fighting and why?

A big part is a bias towards remembering the dramatic. People often forget the five preceding missed fade-away jumpers if the last one happens to win the game. Levance Fields wasn't a great shooter or scorer really, but people will always remember the Duke and Xavier game for his heroics at the end.

 

[levance2]

A big part is a bias towards remembering the dramatic. People often forget the five preceding missed fade-away jumpers if the last one happens to win the game. Levance Fields wasn't a great shooter or scorer really, but people will always remember the Duke and Xavier game for his heroics at the end.

I think more than that, it is the fact that the majority of people did not employ statistics in their own younger lives, and are unwilling to now acknowledge that it may have helped. If you spent 10 years of your life playing youth/HS/college basketball, and are now told something statistically true that you never understood practically, how can you reconcile that you know a lot less than you think? There's also an air of elitism or arrogance when you start abstracting practical execution into cold numbers. Kind of like how your CEO probably doesn't really care about you as a person, only what your productivity brings to the company.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I was in quality assurance. I certainly know the role and value that data plays. I also know a lot of math geeks lose the ability to read or look at things and just have their faces buried in data. Because you have to know what you are looking at, before analyzing the data. I used to watch ridiculous arguments on trying to determine if things are out of control, because they violate Shewhart's or Deming's rules, yet the Y axis was infinitely within the overall specification.

And a great point about people tend to forget the 4-5 missed shots that preceded the winner at the buzzer. But the fact is, the guy hit the shot to win the game. And winning the game is what counts.

The worst sport for these "advanced" stats to apply is hockey. It is almost hilarious seeing them try to come up with these analytics to try and measure a player's value. I think obviously the easiest is baseball. In basketball, I think again there is enough traditional stats, that you can see a guy who averages say 24 points a game, but is shooting 40% from the field because he takes 50 shots a game.

There still is a subjective quality to watching sports. It is not all a Stratomatic game or a computer game where you just plug in the players and run whatever program/algorithm and produce a result.

 

[KiwiJeff]

I was in quality assurance. I certainly know the role and value that data plays. I also know a lot of math geeks lose the ability to read or look at things and just have their faces buried in data. Because you have to know what you are looking at, before analyzing the data. I used to watch ridiculous arguments on trying to determine if things are out of control, because they violate Shewhart's or Deming's rules, yet the Y axis was infinitely within the overall specification.

And a great point about people tend to forget the 4-5 missed shots that preceded the winner at the buzzer. But the fact is, the guy hit the shot to win the game. And winning the game is what counts.

The worst sport for these "advanced" stats to apply is hockey. It is almost hilarious seeing them try to come up with these analytics to try and measure a player's value. I think obviously the easiest is baseball. In basketball, I think again there is enough traditional stats, that you can see a guy who averages say 24 points a game, but is shooting 40% from the field because he takes 50 shots a game.

There still is a subjective quality to watching sports. It is not all a Stratomatic game or a computer game where you just plug in the players and run whatever program/algorithm and produce a result.

All the shots count. Not just the one that won the game. If he made the four or five he missed and was 4-5 instead of 1-5, a game winning shot would not have been needed. I can't tell if you are acknowledging that or not from your sentence construct, but I think the general point is like McCutcheon goes 3-5 but flies put to the wall with the tying run at 2nd in the 9th, they say he isn't clutch, even if he knocked in or scored the runs that kept them within one. Good players are good, bad players are bad. ANYONE can hit (or miss) the game winning shot in a small sample size. I think that is what the stat gurus are pushing and it's hard not to agree with them.

Of course nobody is saying it is a Stratomatic game. All you can do is put yourself in the best position you can to win. It might be increasing your odds from a 30% chance to a 40% chance, but either way you still lose more than not, but over time it would pan out. No different than bringing in a lefty to face a guy hitting .125 against lefties and he hits it out, or fouling Shaq late game and he sinks both. Sometimes that happens, but it didn't make it the wrong choice, sometimes it just happens. That's why sports are fun.

We could be saying the same thing, so I could be building on your point, not arguing.

 

[Ski11585]

I think it's a bit unfair to say stats-oriented people can't enjoy the game. Zach Lowe and some of the other writers at Grantland have turned out some absolutely fabulous pieces that utilize advanced stats to illuminate parts of the NBA game that I wouldn't have appreciated without that new insight. That doesn't mean I still can't enjoy the aesthetics of the game.

Additionally, I find myself less and less interested in the cliched nonsense I find in most writing nowadays. I don't care about some sportswriter waxing about some guy being "clutch" any more than I enjoy hagiographies of historical figures. Stats help peel away some of that stuff.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I think it's a bit unfair to say stats-oriented people can't enjoy the game. Zach Lowe and some of the other writers at Grantland have turned out some absolutely fabulous pieces that utilize advanced stats to illuminate parts of the NBA game that I wouldn't have appreciated without that new insight. That doesn't mean I still can't enjoy the aesthetics of the game.

Additionally, I find myself less and less interested in the cliched nonsense I find in most writing nowadays. I don't care about some sportswriter waxing about some guy being "clutch" any more than I enjoy hagiographies of historical figures. Stats help peel away some of that stuff.

Ski, it is entertainment. It is okay for it to be romanticized. I mean, if Bill Mazaroski hits a HR sometime say during the 6th inning of 1960 WS Game 7, the Pirates win 10-9. But he hit is the bottom of the 9th and it becomes immortal. Dan Marino could have hit John Brown with a long TD pass sometime during the 3rd quarter of the 1981 Sugar Bowl, but he did on 4th down with under a minute to go...and it is immortalized. Doesn't make either player any better overall, but it adds to their immortality. It is fun. When you stop stripping away the fun of watching sports, why bother?

I am just saying some of these stats geeks with now every play being on a laptop, and 2500 math geeks with little time on their hands can break down every play and run it and rerun it and assign value to each player on what they did or didn't do. Don't get me wrong, always appreciated the Bill James stuff on baseball and some of those stats. And in baskerball, take a guy like Magic Johnson or Larry Bird. What "advanced" stats do you need to emphasize their greatness? They scored, they rebounded, they distributed, they made players around them better.

Hockey is even fuzzier. They have invented this CORSI and Fenwick ratings which is essentially "puck possession" and "driving play" which is incredibly stupid. Because the object of the game is to score goals, and to a lesser extent to prevent goals. I have seen teams get the puck in the offensive zone, and the other team packs it is defensively, so the offensive team cycles the puck around the perimeter, around the perimeter, around the perimeter, and have actually seen them do this so long that they have a line change, and still cycle then end up with a weak, basic 'hail mary" type of shot from 50 feet out that either gets blocked or saved. Contrast this with the Mario Lemieux Pens where they would come down in your zone and TIC-TAC-TOE Red Light is on, the Pens lead 1-0. Again, the statisticians in many ways are outthinking the sports.

 

[levance2]

And in baskerball, take a guy like Magic Johnson or Larry Bird. What "advanced" stats do you need to emphasize their greatness? They scored, they rebounded, they distributed, they made players around them better.

We all know apples fall from trees. Who cares why.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

This closing paragraph from an article written by Sam Miller sums up the whole advanced stats thing well (the "debate" referenced was whether front offices and teams should go all in on advanced stats -- and yes, they chose stats/data unanimously where it really matters):

Whether you [like advanced stats or not] is up to you and ultimately matters only to you. In the larger perspective, the debate is over, and data won. So fight it if you'd like. But at a certain point, the question in any debate against science is: What are you really fighting and why?

Hockey learned this a while back... It's why enforcers are done. They are net negative players.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Owt, I'll simply say the longer you possess the puck... The higher the odds both you score and you aren't allowing goals.

There are rarely transcendent players like Mario who only need a window to capitalize . Most goals are ugly goals, especially off rebounds and deflections , no??

Nobody is suggesting to strictly follow the metrics...but, it should be the guidepost were intuition and hunches are then used to augment the gameplan for success...rather than relying only on hunches for strategy and decisions.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Hockey learned this a while back... It's why enforcers are done. They are net negative players.

Well that and the fact that for obvious reasons, fighting has been minimalized. And you are right, part of that is the realization that 90% of the fights by "enforcers" were gratuitous and had no outcome on anything.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Owt, I'll simply say the longer you possess the puck... The higher the odds both you score and you aren't allowing goals.

There are rarely transcendent players like Mario who only need a window to capitalize . Most goals are ugly goals, especially off rebounds and deflections , no??

Nobody is suggesting to strictly follow the metrics...but, it should be the guidepost were intuition and hunches are then used to augment the gameplan for success...rather than relying only on hunches for strategy and decisions.

Can't argue that, of course if you have the puck, ball, whatever, the other team doesn't and therefore can't score. Look, again a lot of my background and career involve numbers, stats, analytics, etc.... So I am not against them, not saying in this old fashioned way that they don't have value, but have seen enough sites on the web and some fans using them, where they try to hard to quantify and explain performance and you wonder if they actually watched the game, and not just crunched numbers.

And....there is the human side, again these aren't robots or computer games. These are humans, and effort sometimes is variable. And sometimes the great ones rise up when they have to. I always hear a win in June counts the same as in September in baseball, or a HR in the 2nd inning counts the same as the 9th inning, and an 18 foot jumper in the first half counts on the scoreboard the same as it does at the end of the game. BUT.......in those instances, so much more pressure, things change, people sweat, they get notted up, they tense up, where sometimes some of the greats WANT that situation and they deliver. Analytic devotees discount this, but any of us who have followed sports over the years knows this exists.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

And sometimes the great ones rise up when they have to. I always hear a win in June counts the same as in September in baseball, or a HR in the 2nd inning counts the same as the 9th inning, and an 18 foot jumper in the first half counts on the scoreboard the same as it does at the end of the game. BUT.......in those instances, so much more pressure, things change, people sweat, they get notted up, they tense up, where sometimes some of the greats WANT that situation and they deliver. Analytic devotees discount this, but any of us who have followed sports over the years knows this exists.

Do we know this? Or have we been told over and over and over that it exists and now it's just become ingrained and accepted? Wouldn't this actually manifest itself in some way other than our minds if it existed? I used to think it did -- definitely do not believe at all that it does now. Particularly when reading who/where/when/why it gets applied (to).

There is a general decline in offense in September in baseball. But, it has nothing to do with guys freaking out and wilting under the pressure of a pennant chase -- it's because teams are carrying 20 pitchers on the roster in any given game and can just kill guys with a quick hook on a bad starter and then send out a bunch of matchup bullpen arms.

Derek Jeter was, actually, less clutch than A-Rod in the postseason. Kobe Bryant and Robert Horry both shoot nearly identically in "pressure" situations as they do normally.

I think, given enough opportunities to smooth out the random noise, good players play like good players in big moments, bad players don't play like good players in big moments, and when you're more prone to remember the big moments, it leads to pretty large cognitive biases.

I feel like there are subjective parts to sports for sure (scouting and projection in particular) and I genuinely enjoy that aspect of it as well, but I feel like there's always a temptation in the hot-take culture to infuse subjectivity and storylines and (at times) controversy in places that they're not necessary (hi Rob Rossi). Maybe it makes it more enjoyable for the fan, I don't know, but I think there's a pretty clear divergence at this point between the media (and, by extension, the fans they used to inform) and the teams they follow in terms of mindset, with little done to try to bridge that gap. Personally, I don't enjoy that type of coverage in the least. When it comes to games and analysis, tell me the facts, don't tell me a story. Tell me a story when the PR feeds you the material for the next puff piece.

 

[Ski11585]

This reminds me of a conversation from First Take the other day. Skip and Stephen A were debating Kobe's ranking as the 93rd best player in the NBA. Stephen A was outraged; he cited all these "intangibles" ad Kobe's "clutch-ness."

Skip, for once, was a voice of reason and talked about PER and win shares and how Kobe's pretty wretched. It reminds me a bit of this conversation here as we try to weigh stats with narrative.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I don't know how to feel about that coversation as a rule I believe the opposite of what those two say with a strong track record.

I like it better when they agree to both be wrong .

 

[Harve74]

Do we know this? Or have we been told over and over and over that it exists and now it's just become ingrained and accepted? Wouldn't this actually manifest itself in some way other than our minds if it existed? I used to think it did -- definitely do not believe at all that it does now. Particularly when reading who/where/when/why it gets applied (to).

There is a general decline in offense in September in baseball. But, it has nothing to do with guys freaking out and wilting under the pressure of a pennant chase -- it's because teams are carrying 20 pitchers on the roster in any given game and can just kill guys with a quick hook on a bad starter and then send out a bunch of matchup bullpen arms.

Derek Jeter was, actually, less clutch than A-Rod in the postseason. Kobe Bryant and Robert Horry both shoot nearly identically in "pressure" situations as they do normally.

I think, given enough opportunities to smooth out the random noise, good players play like good players in big moments, bad players don't play like good players in big moments, and when you're more prone to remember the big moments, it leads to pretty large cognitive biases.

I feel like there are subjective parts to sports for sure (scouting and projection in particular) and I genuinely enjoy that aspect of it as well, but I feel like there's always a temptation in the hot-take culture to infuse subjectivity and storylines and (at times) controversy in places that they're not necessary (hi Rob Rossi). Maybe it makes it more enjoyable for the fan, I don't know, but I think there's a pretty clear divergence at this point between the media (and, by extension, the fans they used to inform) and the teams they follow in terms of mindset, with little done to try to bridge that gap. Personally, I don't enjoy that type of coverage in the least. When it comes to games and analysis, tell me the facts, don't tell me a story. Tell me a story when the PR feeds you the material for the next puff piece.

I believe whole-heartedly in the metrics. Numbers don't lie and they so often prove decisively that so much of what we think we've seen didn't actually happen that way. Black and white numbers have clearly and really, inarguably, proven a lot of the arguments on here are one-sidedly absolutely wrong. Over the course of a game or a season or a career, the statistics define the truth.

The question is, do they define one critical instant? Over numerous chances, the percentage of any player's success is easily calculated. But, like flipping a coin, the chance of a given result on ONE instant becomes a lot more uncertain. I know, in my brain, that going with career statistics is the way to bet.

But, nevertheless, emotionally, it is very difficult to ignore the idea of "clutchedness" in play. Almost all of us would rather have Player A take that critical shot than Player B. I'm not sure if most of the statistical analysis packages go into enough depth to reflect the "pucker factor" that accompanies such moments or not. Even if they do, emotionally, I still want "my guy" taking that shot or catching that ball etc. Guys' careers and legacy have been made by making that one timely play. Or that one horrible error. No matter how much math can show it was just normal variation, it is almost impossible to remove subjectivity and memory from those critical memories. It's just human nature.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Tiger Woods was a great golfer. So was Niklaus. A lot of guys were great golfers. A lot hit just as far. Hit greens in regulation just as much. But when it came down to the time the tourney was on the line, those two still hit the great shots, and hit the great putts. There is a human factor that is included with the metrics. Is it subjective? Sure. But humans are not as predictable as machines. Way too many variables and inputs.

 

[Ski11585]

Tiger Woods was a great golfer. So was Niklaus. A lot of guys were great golfers. A lot hit just as far. Hit greens in regulation just as much. But when it came down to the time the tourney was on the line, those two still hit the great shots, and hit the great putts. There is a human factor that is included with the metrics. Is it subjective? Sure. But humans are not as predictable as machines. Way too many variables and inputs.

How do you account for the fact that Tiger never came from behind to win a major? Isn't that part of "clutch" or something similar? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I think it's an interesting part of the conversation.

 

[levance2]

There's also something called the "optimism bias" that makes people believe that no matter how slim the chance, something good can happen. When the Pirates were down 4-0 against the Cubs and had the bases loaded with one out, the place was nuts. Everyone is thinking the Pirates break through here finally. They GIDP and that's the last time anything good happened. Even though the odds of success there were quite low, everyone convinces themselves "it COULD happen". Maybe call it the "Dumb and Dumber Bias"

It seems like a lot of sports fans then take that "optimism bias" and spin it way negatively. A guy who hits 20 homers per year is expected to do it to win in the 9th. A guy who shoots 35% from 3 is expected to hit a shot to tie in the final seconds. Even though those are unlikely outcomes, people crap all over them for not being clutch.

There may be people who are better at dealing with pressure, but that isn't going to elevate their natural talent. No player is going to have sharpshooter accuracy in the final seconds of a basketball game while throwing up bricks for 39 minutes.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

I believe whole-heartedly in the metrics. Numbers don't lie and they so often prove decisively that so much of what we think we've seen didn't actually happen that way. Black and white numbers have clearly and really, inarguably, proven a lot of the arguments on here are one-sidedly absolutely wrong. Over the course of a game or a season or a career, the statistics define the truth.

The question is, do they define one critical instant? Over numerous chances, the percentage of any player's success is easily calculated. But, like flipping a coin, the chance of a given result on ONE instant becomes a lot more uncertain. I know, in my brain, that going with career statistics is the way to bet.

But, nevertheless, emotionally, it is very difficult to ignore the idea of "clutchedness" in play. Almost all of us would rather have Player A take that critical shot than Player B. I'm not sure if most of the statistical analysis packages go into enough depth to reflect the "pucker factor" that accompanies such moments or not. Even if they do, emotionally, I still want "my guy" taking that shot or catching that ball etc. Guys' careers and legacy have been made by making that one timely play. Or that one horrible error. No matter how much math can show it was just normal variation, it is almost impossible to remove subjectivity and memory from those critical memories. It's just human nature.

I don't really disagree, particularly with the fact that in one instant it doesn't really matter what the numbers are -- literally anything can happen and sports in any one instance are random. After Ronald Ramon hit the game-winning 3 against WVU he told the sideline reporter that it felt good off his hands but you can never trust a shot. I feel like that sums it all up perfectly.

Still, I think in general (and maybe even subconsciously), the yearning for one player over another is based more on the preferred player being better than being more "clutch". Josh Newkirk made a season-salvaging, incredible shot at the buzzer against Clemson 2 years ago. Pretty much the definition of clutch. But I don't think anybody, before or after that play, wanted him to be the guy with the ball in his hands with time winding down. And that was the correct view, IMO. You can say the same for James Robinson who, objectively, has made some huge plays and some huge shots during his time here. I wouldn't oppose having him take the shot as much as I would Newkirk, but I still would have preferred Patterson or Artis or Young because they're just better.

Same goes for Pedro Alvarez after his huge NLDS a few years back. Or Max Talbot after Game 7. There comes a point where, I think, people realize that "clutch" isn't really applicable to those players even though they produced in really high-pressure situations -- situations we kill great players for not producing in despite limited opportunities. Clutch, from what I've seen, is something that's generally reserved for fan favorites, media darlings, and the great players who are just plain good at what they do in all situations (clutch or not).

Obviously emotions will play a big part with fans, but in an era when teams and coaches are striving to strip the emotions away and make rational decisions, I don't know that they're particularly constructive when trying to figure out what truly ails a team and what can reasonably be done to fix it.

 

[Harve74]

I don't really disagree, particularly with the fact that in one instant it doesn't really matter what the numbers are -- literally anything can happen and sports in any one instance are random. After Ronald Ramon hit the game-winning 3 against WVU he told the sideline reporter that it felt good off his hands but you can never trust a shot. I feel like that sums it all up perfectly.

Still, I think in general (and maybe even subconsciously), the yearning for one player over another is based more on the preferred player being better than being more "clutch". Josh Newkirk made a season-salvaging, incredible shot at the buzzer against Clemson 2 years ago. Pretty much the definition of clutch. But I don't think anybody, before or after that play, wanted him to be the guy with the ball in his hands with time winding down. And that was the correct view, IMO. You can say the same for James Robinson who, objectively, has made some huge plays and some huge shots during his time here. I wouldn't oppose having him take the shot as much as I would Newkirk, but I still would have preferred Patterson or Artis or Young because they're just better.

Same goes for Pedro Alvarez after his huge NLDS a few years back. Or Max Talbot after Game 7. There comes a point where, I think, people realize that "clutch" isn't really applicable to those players even though they produced in really high-pressure situations -- situations we kill great players for not producing in despite limited opportunities. Clutch, from what I've seen, is something that's generally reserved for fan favorites, media darlings, and the great players who are just plain good at what they do in all situations (clutch or not).

Obviously emotions will play a big part with fans, but in an era when teams and coaches are striving to strip the emotions away and make rational decisions, I don't know that they're particularly constructive when trying to figure out what truly ails a team and what can reasonably be done to fix it.

There's a cynical but very true old saw something like "The race goes not always to the swift nor the contest to the strong...but that's the way to bet!"

Building a roster or a lineup has to go by sound statistics. But, fans can and almost MUST dream. Otherwise, the underdogs' fans would never buy tickets.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

No doubt, and I think the beautiful thing about sports is that within one game, anything really can happen. I feel like there's a general mindset where you can't acknowledge luck in sports, a win is always earned and a loss is always some sort of indictment. And, typically, over the course of a long season that is true. The bounces will largely see themselves even out, the hot streaks will balance out the slumps, and the cream rises. But within one game? It's huge.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

How do you account for the fact that Tiger never came from behind to win a major? Isn't that part of "clutch" or something similar? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I think it's an interesting part of the conversation.

Because we all have an inherent mental functional flaw, where people create narratives to fit what they see...even when it is not logical or frankly, not explainable.

HUMANS LOVE TO CREATE A STORY to explain the world, when some things are unexplainable.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

How do you account for the fact that Tiger never came from behind to win a major? Isn't that part of "clutch" or something similar? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I think it's an interesting part of the conversation.

That's a good point. Don't know. Maybe part of it was not him in his much as people wilting in his presence.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No doubt, and I think the beautiful thing about sports is that within one game, anything really can happen. I feel like there's a general mindset where you can't acknowledge luck in sports, a win is always earned and a loss is always some sort of indictment. And, typically, over the course of a long season that is true. The bounces will largely see themselves even out, the hot streaks will balance out the slumps, and the cream rises. But within one game? It's huge.

This is true. But as you know with math, the sample size matters. Why baseball is great to apply these stats is it has 162 games, 600 AB's, so it really allows it to be more predictable. Over say a 10-11 game series. What is also different, is how dependent (in sports) a player is on others, again in baseball a batter is at the plate, he is in the field, and pretty much determines his own fate where in other team sports, there is more dependence on others for your success.

I still think there definitely is a human aspect, pulses rise, some people excel when this happens and some people fail. I think that is undeniable. You see it in life. And certainly in a moment who knows.

Funny, someone brought up Max Talbot and his 2 goals in Game 7, but Talbot also was famous in Canada for having the game winner in the World Jr Championships when he was a teenager. So maybe luck (definitely some luck) but also luck is a product of many things.

I guess I will leave it at this...Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Brett Favre have overall statistics that blow most QB's away. But in a moment, in one game, winner takes all, would you take them or would you take Joe Montana or Tom Brady?

 

[KiwiJeff]

This is true. But as you know with math, the sample size matters. Why baseball is great to apply these stats is it has 162 games, 600 AB's, so it really allows it to be more predictable. Over say a 10-11 game series. What is also different, is how dependent (in sports) a player is on others, again in baseball a batter is at the plate, he is in the field, and pretty much determines his own fate where in other team sports, there is more dependence on others for your success.

I still think there definitely is a human aspect, pulses rise, some people excel when this happens and some people fail. I think that is undeniable. You see it in life. And certainly in a moment who knows.

Funny, someone brought up Max Talbot and his 2 goals in Game 7, but Talbot also was famous in Canada for having the game winner in the World Jr Championships when he was a teenager. So maybe luck (definitely some luck) but also luck is a product of many things.

I guess I will leave it at this...Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Brett Favre have overall statistics that blow most QB's away. But in a moment, in one game, winner takes all, would you take them or would you take Joe Montana or Tom Brady?

With the same teammates on the same teams?

 

[Scruffy the Panther]

This reminds me of a conversation from First Take the other day. Skip and Stephen A were debating Kobe's ranking as the 93rd best player in the NBA. Stephen A was outraged; he cited all these "intangibles" ad Kobe's "clutch-ness."

Skip, for once, was a voice of reason and talked about PER and win shares and how Kobe's pretty wretched. It reminds me a bit of this conversation here as we try to weigh stats with narrative.

About that...
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/1/3/7485611/kobe-bryant-clutch-lakers-data

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time

 

[KiwiJeff]

Tiger Woods was a great golfer. So was Niklaus. A lot of guys were great golfers. A lot hit just as far. Hit greens in regulation just as much. But when it came down to the time the tourney was on the line, those two still hit the great shots, and hit the great putts. There is a human factor that is included with the metrics. Is it subjective? Sure. But humans are not as predictable as machines. Way too many variables and inputs.

This comment captures why you continue to be confused. Advanced stats are not necessarily "predictive" stats, it's all about putting your team in a better position to win than they were. You may lose 4-3 rather than 5-3, still lost, but you gave yourself a better chance. Over time, you likely win more. You keep saying robots, video games, human factor. I think that shows you haven't grasped what these stats are used for.

A hoops coach puts hits best FT shooters on the floor in a tight game with the lead at the end, even if they are not necessarily his best 5 players (McGhee was one of our best 5 players his senior year, but came off the floor late in the game). Nevertheless, Levance misses 2 against VCU to win the game, guys miss all the time. The stats don't tell you WHAT will happen, only that most time, if you use them, you will put yourself in a better position to win than ignoring the stats and worrying about someone's hands being sweaty of whatever.

Baseball managers use advanced stats to align their defense differently by opposing hitter. Guys still get hits into a shift if they really smash it or hit it over the wall. But if a guy hits 80% of his balls to the right side of the field, you'd be dumb not to shift, even if sometimes he gets a hit because of it.

It is ALL about being in a better position to make a play, it does nothing to guarantee the play. These stats are not predictive, like the stats you used for work. They are for improving your chances mathematically over a large sample size. I am not sure how to state that more simply for you.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I mean you're in industry sales, right owt?

If one line of machines consistently has better up times and produces more parts per hour with fewer defects ...compared to another line of machines.

Would you recommend line a, or are you going to play a hunch line b is a better fit?

Playing the odds is almost always the smarter bet.