NBA media and fans are much much more resistant to empirical stuff than baseball. I think it's because the appeal of the game is more about emotions and hype than baseball. There's this feeling that things can't be captured in the numbers, but what they use instead is so inferior for judging players. I mean the Knicks acquired Carmelo Anthony at the cost of all the efficient players on the team. All of the stats guys were very skeptical the media blared on and on about how they would be contenders and they were terrible until this undrafted rookie came along.

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.