Stats vs Sight: The great debate....

but your point is true. That’s why Dwight was the MVP to me because his stats were amazing and I could see his impact in games with my eyes.

I don’t like when stats are used to marginalize players who are clearly gifted. But it is true that some of these great players make bad decisions too often based on their athletic ability. Guys like Kobe will dominate the ball and come up empty to the detriment of their team. On the flipside, Kobe’s determination I think definitely fuels his team and his athletic talents cover up a lot of issues with his decision making.

Kendrick Perkins was the only player on the Celtics who had a backbone. As you mentioned, he provided the Celtics toughness that no one else (not even KG) could bring. He made me nervous every time we played the Celtics. If we were to play them now, I think we would beat them down even despite our meltdown in the playoffs this year. It’s like they have become the Spurs of the East. A nice finesse team that won’t beat teams with much more star-power or an array of bigs. I’m anticipating a sweep at this point and I think the Heat would blaze through the Bulls in the ECF assuming the Bulls make it there. The Celtics’ day in the sun is over.

As for your point about Westbrook, I agree. A few weeks ago, I probably would’ve argued that Westbrook is better but yeah, his 4th quarter management is mediocre and there are times he takes way too many shots despite having arguably the best scorer in the league. At least with Rose, it’s understandable that he take the Lions share of the shots since he’s the 1st scoring option on his team even though I think he could spread the ball around more. With Westbrook, unless Durant is having an off night, there’s no way he should be shooting more than him. However, I think they’re pretty even for the most part but if my team doesn’t currently have a superstar, I’d probably take Rose.

Some people think they are though, and that’s all I’m gonna say about that.

Some people, however, seem stubbornly committed to ignoring the stats (especially the beyond-the-boxscore stats like ORtg, 5 man plus-minus, FG% for specific shot locations, on/off numbers, etc) when they don’t line up with the “eye test.” I.e. Derrick Rose jumps high and is fun to watch, so he’s the MVP.

You are hard pressed to find a “stat head” who does not have an eye test component to their analysis (go ahead and try to find a legit example). But it is easy to find someone in the “what my eyes tell me” camp who will flatly ignore statistical information.

Here is the link:

http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2011/2/28/2021987/the-perfect-futility-of-basketball-analytics#comments

That FanShot, like most FanShots which fall to the bottom of the blog, didn’t draw much attention. In short, one may call it “stats” v. “observation” or “quantitative” v. “qualitative” as she/he wishes, but it would be false to think that there are conflicts or contradictions in play here. In fact, it would be prudent to think that these seemingly different approaches complement each other.

There is the danger in statistical data being incorrectly ‘collected’ and/or ‘interpreted’. For the same token, there is the danger of “observation” being too ‘subjective’ and/or lacking logical sense. The difference is that we can always go back and check the “collection process” and/or “interpretation methods” of statistical data. On the contrary, we cannot do the same with “subjective views” and/or “lack of logic” (i.e., many debates on this blog on subjective or illogical views could not be resolved even after long debates). Therefore, I personally prefer the two approaches to complement each other, but if not possible, I prefer a flawed – or less than perfect – statistical analysis over an observational/subjective one.

Thanks for the link.

I would hope that Russell Westbrook will eventually realize that it’s not in his best interests to take so many shots when he has Kevin Durant to pass the ball to.

The Western World has been brainwashed by Aristotle for the last 2,500 years. The unconscious, not quite articulate, belief of most Occidentals is that there is one map which adequately represents reality. By sheer good luck, every Occidental thinks he or she has the map that fits. Guerrilla ontology, to me, involves shaking up that certainty. I use what in modern physics is called the “multi-model” approach, which is the idea that there is more than one model to cover a given set of facts. As I’ve said, novel writing involves learning to think like other people. My novels are written so as to force the reader to see things through different reality grids rather than through a single grid. It’s important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world. My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. If one can only see things according to one’s own belief system, one is destined to become virtually deaf, dumb, and blind. It’s only possible to see people when one is able to see the world as others see it. That’s what guerrilla ontology is — breaking down this one-model view and giving people a multi-model perspective.