Another example, what I've found interesting reading some of the NBA statisticians blogs is this argument about "clutch". Most fans and media insist that Kobe Bryant, a player who shoots a lot of shots at the end of games and makes spectacular shots sometimes is the best closer in the game. Meanwhile almost all statistical evidence points to Chris Paul, a player who runs boring routine plays down the stretch, as by far the best closer in the league in terms of actually winning close games.
Until the NBA stats can predict winners like baseball, the public will always go by the "look." The teams themselves however, are almost all hiring statisticians now.
For example: pitcher vs. batter -- each pitch is essentially a new, repeatable experiment.
In basketball, I would guess that there are very few repeatable experiments. (Different players, strategies, locations, etc). It is a much more fluid game and therefore determining an indicator of success is much more difficult.
I once read an interview with a Major League scout who said he relied heavily on the numbers. He basically said, "We can get any stats, on any of these guys, at any minute, and find out exactly where they are, and if they have the numbers for the big leagues."
Talk about pressure. . it was an eye opener.
The clock completely changes the approaches you have to take in analyzing any other sport.
At the core, stats tell a story of what a player has done in the past. Projections predict what a player might do based on what comparable players have done in the past. Statistics don't tell the future. They are just one tool of the scouting process.
Plus the models are always evolving. What was considered an indicator of talent 20 years ago might be inferior to the indicator 10 years ago that is actually inferior to what is in vogue today.
Statistics don't lie, but what story do you think they actually tell?
Pretty hard to believe I accept.
That's exactly it. People often argue that something or other isn't accounted for, but the statistical methods are sophisticated.
Besides, it's not about being perfect, it's about getting an edge.
An apt quote from the movie Moneyball: "I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat and not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They will bet you're crazy. I mean, anybody who's not building a team right and rebuilding it using your model, they're dinosaurs. They'll be sittin' on their ass on the sofa in October, watch the Boston Red Sox win the world series."
It is gaining popularity. Boston Celtics are one of the pioneers. The Nets even Bought a sports video/stats startup recently. Time will tell if talent evaluation will also change as Lin has been a paradigm-destroyer of the old way of scouting.
Name ONE team with a stats department that consists of a SINGLE Assistant Coach.
What you said is not true. Stats is HUGE! Try to get drafted if the stats department gives you a thumbs down.
but for the other side of the argument you should check out mark cuban's post http://blogmaverick.com/2010/10/03/building-teams-using-quan...
The "common wisdom" of sabermetrics (if you can call it such a thing) holds that clutch hitting doesn't exist, but many including James, aren't quite ready to completely write it off.
Your example is a good one: name someone who has a "skill" at draining game-winning buzzer-beaters.
Unfortunately for the As (and fortunately for those of us who embrace the statistical analysis of sports) other teams caught up and surpassed their approach. But it's still going on. In every sport. And there is much evidence that it works.