Quote:
Originally Posted by freemoney
you have no way of knowing what they have created statistically in houston so its u talking about something u have no knowledge of to say most are public. also statistical interpretation is def a step forward, it is still created by a human who makes flawed assumptions so saying player x has higher PER than player y therefore player x is definitively better than player y is more narrow minded thinking than the people who simply dismiss these numbers all together.
PER is a good all encompassing stat that does a good job of measuring a player's offensive value. It is not flawless, however it will be right far more often than speculation from your average fan. Lebron is not better than Kobe because he has a higher PER. He is better because he scores more points more efficiently, is a better rebounder (bulk and rate), and is a better passer (bulk and rate), which is why his PER is higher than Kobe's. Basketball is not baseball(which is more or less solved statistically), there are lot of variables that are difficult to account for. Anyone interested in analyzing basketball must realize the stats are imperfect, but if you conclude the stats are flawed, therefore they are useless and my personal opinion is more likely to be correct is a much bigger mistake.
If Harabalos or KBFC posted their comparison of two players I would be incredibly interested because they analyze hundreds of games a year. However when posters (or sportswriters) who as far as I know have no basketball expertise make arguments that appear to be largely based on small amounts of empirical evidence it is not particularly convincing.
A few months ago in SI, Phil Jackson was asked if he could have one player in the NBA to start a team would it be Lebron James? He said no, it would be Dwight Howard. Do I belive Phil Jackson thinks Dwight is the best player in the NBA? No. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find another interview where he said he would take someone else. The sports media is so large, that its very easy to find quotes from experts supporting whatever you are trying to prove, its not particularly meaningful.
The following is from Football Outsiders, it does a very good job explaining explaining the results-oriented/flawed thought process of most sports fans/members of the media.
Quote:
Let's review an alternate scenario here. The Eagles play the Cowboys at 1 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. Every outcome is the exact same, except the Buccaneers beat the Raiders 31-24. The Eagles still destroy the Cowboys 44-6, doing so at the same time as the Bucs game, but because Tampa Bay wins, the Eagles don't make the playoffs. The Eagles still have the best DVOA in the league on Monday morning; they're just not making the playoffs because something that was absolutely out of their control didn't get there. We look stupid, since the best team in the league didn't make the playoffs. The Philly media becries the fact that the Eagles' great game was too little, too late. Andy Reid likely gets fired, Donovan McNabb's out, and the Eagles probably start rebuilding.
If the Eagles make a huge playoff run, every columnist will be falling over themselves to make some sort of argument about how Week 17/the McNabb benching got their momentum going, but it's blindly groping for a narrative in a situation where there isn't one. The Eagles got astoundingly lucky on Sunday when the Buccaneers lost. It was one of the great upsets of the decade. What happens from here on out cannot be removed from that fact -- without that loss, the Eagles' regular season (as good as it was according to DVOA) would have been absolutely irrelevant and disappointing.
If this sounds reminiscent of my tone in the Giants chapter of PFP 2008, it's because it's the same sort of conflation of cause and effect that frustrates me as an analyst so much. The line between success and failure in the NFL is so impossibly thin as to be barely existent at points. The idea that a team is destined to win or a supreme conqueror of the other 31 teams as "the best" is flimsy at best. It's the same stupid logic I read all week about Lovie Smith going on a rant at halftime about the Bears refusing to go down like they were appearing to against Green Bay in Week 16. That was such a good motivator that the Bears needed a blocked field goal at the end of regulation to save themselves. (And for those of you [readers] who would say that it was Smith's words that caused the kick to be blocked, I wonder whether those same words inspired the other Adrian Peterson to commit that personal foul penalty on the kickoff.) Had the Bears not blocked that kick, would we have heard about Smith's words, or would they have rung hollow hours later? How many famous last words, to steal a phrase, do we get to hear? Were the Chargers really the BEST team in the AFC West? Probably shouldn't have had to rely upon an onside kick to give them a chance to prove it.
I think that the Eagles are a great team, one of the league's best this year, and that they'll show it in the playoffs. The fact that they'll get a chance to do so is in spite of their regular season performance, not because of it, but on the other hand, they would have been a great team regardless of whether the Buccaneers lost to the Raiders or not. The backwards definitions of their performance you're going to see because of what happened around them is exactly the reason Football Outsiders exists.
edit: Cliff notes Just please read the quoted portion from football outsiders.