[Mr. HookShotParticipant]

Recently, Charles Barkley and Daryl Morey had words about the use of statistics in basketball. Morey and a wave of people in front offices have increased the importance of statistics within basically all teams in the NBA. Sir Charles clearly doesn’t believe in the use of statistics for basketball, or in any other sport (e.g. baseball), saying "those light-weight teams in baseball never win" and "no team in the NBA plays better because of statistics". 

My question for you guys on this forum is: how large is the value of statistics within basketball and the NBA? Can it provide a competitive advantage to those teams that are better at analyzing and translating stats into insights?

Me personally I would say there is definitely use for statistics within basketball, but the insights are used differently than in a more static sport like baseball. For baseball the main part of the game is the duel between pitcher and batter, which is something that happens multiple times per game, 162 games per season with a low variability between every at-bat. This provides possibilities to analyze the game in great detail and provide valuable insights that can be used to maximize the value of every player (e.g. via platoon) or minimize the value of the oppossing player (e.g. via defensive shifts). I believe however that in basketball there is too much variability between in-game situations (much like soccer). Rarely two situations are completely similar, providing less detail that can be used to maximize talent of an individual basketball player. However, in terms of game strategy statistics do provide valuable insights. You already see that teams focus more on shooting 3s and getting to the basket/drawing fouls as it leads to most points per attempt and thus most points per possession. So unlike Sir Charles I do believe in the use of statistics, I do believe teams changed the way they play the game, but I agree talent will always remain the most important aspect in any sport. However, statistics can help in every sport getting the most out of players’ talent. 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Stats tell you what a guy is — a shot blocker, a volume scorer, a double-double machine.

The eye test and intuition tell you HOW GOOD the guy is.

There should be confirmation if a player is good.  

If there is not then that should send up a red flag.  

Another thing: is a guy better than his stats? If so, he should be a good value. If not, he is probably a bad value.

with Charles Barkley, the eye test matched the great stats — and confirmed by the advanced metrics.

then you watched the Dream Team and thought, wow, this is the best guy on the court!

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Stats tell you what a guy is — a shot blocker, a volume scorer, a double-double machine.

The eye test and intuition tell you HOW GOOD the guy is.

There should be confirmation if a player is good.  

If there is not then that should send up a red flag.  

Another thing: is a guy better than his stats? If so, he should be a good value. If not, he is probably a bad value.

with Charles Barkley, the eye test matched the great stats — and confirmed by the advanced metrics.

then you watched the Dream Team and thought, wow, this is the best guy on the court!

[King CaluchaParticipant]

You don’t need stats to know who the stars are. But there are some players whose contribution goes unnoticed. That’s where advanced stats come into play. I believe some people just bash stats because they don’t understand them. For some people, it’s just hard to move forward.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

You don’t need stats to know who the stars are. But there are some players whose contribution goes unnoticed. That’s where advanced stats come into play. I believe some people just bash stats because they don’t understand them. For some people, it’s just hard to move forward.

[hoopscopParticipant]

but he is not anything more than a very entertaining clown. There is no controversy, because would anybody trust Morey or Barkley giving executive decisions?

[hoopscopParticipant]

but he is not anything more than a very entertaining clown. There is no controversy, because would anybody trust Morey or Barkley giving executive decisions?

[SgtMcSquigglesParticipant]

 There is a reason that Morey has a job with an nba team, and Barkley doesn’t. I think stats are very important, and are often discredited because a vast majority of fans don’t take the time to understand what they mean, or how they are derived.

[SgtMcSquigglesParticipant]

 There is a reason that Morey has a job with an nba team, and Barkley doesn’t. I think stats are very important, and are often discredited because a vast majority of fans don’t take the time to understand what they mean, or how they are derived.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Barkley still criticizes Houston for a problem he had in 1999 with them when he played there. There goes his credibility. What’s hilarious with him is that he says analytics are crap,but then praises Dean Smith,one of the pioneers of analytics,and then says Memphis is the best team in the west(I may agree with him on that one),while forgetting this team hired Joerger…because of his precedent work in the analytics. I guess he must be one of those “untalented” guys he was talking about. Just Barkley clwning around,like another journalist said,he’s no analyst,you’re not learning anything about basketball when you listen to him,you watch inside the nba for the show. Except Kenny sometimes maybe can comeup with good analysis. He uses analytics while not even knowing what he’s talking about “NBA is about talent not analytics” what if someone told him both are linked? As king calucha said,it’s like every science,you don’t understand it? oh let’s say it’s just useless that’s way you don’t bother learning it.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

Oh man… the other day Gervin said Klay Thompson didn’t break his record because he had the benefit of the 3pt shot, which is somewhat true. But then he said the 3pt shot is the worst, because it’s converted at a low percentage. He said it’ better to shoot 50% from 2 than 40% from 3… SMH…

[King CaluchaParticipant]

Oh man… the other day Gervin said Klay Thompson didn’t break his record because he had the benefit of the 3pt shot, which is somewhat true. But then he said the 3pt shot is the worst, because it’s converted at a low percentage. He said it’ better to shoot 50% from 2 than 40% from 3… SMH…

[SgtMcSquigglesParticipant]

 Not to mention Barkley is under the impression that the Spurs aren’t an analytical team despite them being one of the more analytically inclined teams in the nba. He acts as if them being able to collect the talent they have with having mostly late picks is just some wild coincidence. The spurs clearly use analytics for the draft and if they didn’t their team would be nothing compared to what it is.

[SgtMcSquigglesParticipant]

 Not to mention Barkley is under the impression that the Spurs aren’t an analytical team despite them being one of the more analytically inclined teams in the nba. He acts as if them being able to collect the talent they have with having mostly late picks is just some wild coincidence. The spurs clearly use analytics for the draft and if they didn’t their team would be nothing compared to what it is.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Barkley still criticizes Houston for a problem he had in 1999 with them when he played there. There goes his credibility. What’s hilarious with him is that he says analytics are crap,but then praises Dean Smith,one of the pioneers of analytics,and then says Memphis is the best team in the west(I may agree with him on that one),while forgetting this team hired Joerger…because of his precedent work in the analytics. I guess he must be one of those “untalented” guys he was talking about. Just Barkley clwning around,like another journalist said,he’s no analyst,you’re not learning anything about basketball when you listen to him,you watch inside the nba for the show. Except Kenny sometimes maybe can comeup with good analysis. He uses analytics while not even knowing what he’s talking about “NBA is about talent not analytics” what if someone told him both are linked? As king calucha said,it’s like every science,you don’t understand it? oh let’s say it’s just useless that’s way you don’t bother learning it.

[mgreener_34Participant]

 I think statistics are increasingly important, but I don’t think they are more important in Basketball than in other sports. Most noticably baseball. 

Statistics can show you if someone is a plus defender or plus on offense, and can even show you who is your most effective lineup, but after that I would take them with a grain of salt, and only use them to back up what my gut was telling me. 

I think implementing a sound system is more important than studying statistics, so in this case I think Barkley has a point. You have to watch the games and the players play too. Just to give you an example, lets look at 2 similar players from the 2000-2001 NBA season.

Jerry Stackhouse was putting up 29.8/5/4 on 40% shooting in 2001, and you could say that was a good statistical year. That same year Allen Iverson put up 31/5/4 on 42% shooting. Both sported a 35% usage, both had a TSP% around .50%, both Had a offensive WS around +7, and both were plus defenders (AI being slightly better that year). Similarily, Both teams were top 10 in defense that year as well. Statiscally speaking, those two players could have been interchangable, but one went on to play in the NBA Championship, and the other barely cracked 30 wins. The reason for this is that the 76’ers were coached by the great Larry Brown, who created a defensive system around AI, and used his high usage to his advantage to grind out game. The Pistons were coached by the horrible George Irvine, who decided to play an uptempo game (Pistons were #1 in Pace that year), thus mitigating the advantage of having a high usage player and top 10 defense in the league. 

A player like Iverson would be shunned by some people who focus only on statistics because he had a ridiculous 32% Usage, while spotting a 52% TSP and 12.2 Turnover % for his career. Those stats are a recipe for disaster, yet Allen Iverson is a player that you could build a team around. Allen Iverson, for all the grief and criticism he gets, was a player who could win you championship.  

Likewise, you need to have a coach who can construct a winning system, and a GM to get the right pieces to perfect it. If analytics is helpful in that search, than go for it, use them all you want; but if you’re just using statistics to judge if a player is good, than you’re doing it all wromg in my opinion

[mgreener_34Participant]

 I think statistics are increasingly important, but I don’t think they are more important in Basketball than in other sports. Most noticably baseball. 

Statistics can show you if someone is a plus defender or plus on offense, and can even show you who is your most effective lineup, but after that I would take them with a grain of salt, and only use them to back up what my gut was telling me. 

I think implementing a sound system is more important than studying statistics, so in this case I think Barkley has a point. You have to watch the games and the players play too. Just to give you an example, lets look at 2 similar players from the 2000-2001 NBA season.

Jerry Stackhouse was putting up 29.8/5/4 on 40% shooting in 2001, and you could say that was a good statistical year. That same year Allen Iverson put up 31/5/4 on 42% shooting. Both sported a 35% usage, both had a TSP% around .50%, both Had a offensive WS around +7, and both were plus defenders (AI being slightly better that year). Similarily, Both teams were top 10 in defense that year as well. Statiscally speaking, those two players could have been interchangable, but one went on to play in the NBA Championship, and the other barely cracked 30 wins. The reason for this is that the 76’ers were coached by the great Larry Brown, who created a defensive system around AI, and used his high usage to his advantage to grind out game. The Pistons were coached by the horrible George Irvine, who decided to play an uptempo game (Pistons were #1 in Pace that year), thus mitigating the advantage of having a high usage player and top 10 defense in the league. 

A player like Iverson would be shunned by some people who focus only on statistics because he had a ridiculous 32% Usage, while spotting a 52% TSP and 12.2 Turnover % for his career. Those stats are a recipe for disaster, yet Allen Iverson is a player that you could build a team around. Allen Iverson, for all the grief and criticism he gets, was a player who could win you championship.  

Likewise, you need to have a coach who can construct a winning system, and a GM to get the right pieces to perfect it. If analytics is helpful in that search, than go for it, use them all you want; but if you’re just using statistics to judge if a player is good, than you’re doing it all wromg in my opinion

[Ghost01Participant]

 You can be a huge Barkley fan, but his comments he made were just stupid.

Of course everyone wants to get star players if possible. Analytics don’t tell you exactly which players to acquire. They do provide you with data that helps build a philosophy, which if you watch the Rockets, they play an analytics friendly style with lots of 3s and lots of FTs. 

There is more than stats to basketball, but there is nothing wrong with how the Rockets do business, and most teams wish they operated that way. 

[Ghost01Participant]

 You can be a huge Barkley fan, but his comments he made were just stupid.

Of course everyone wants to get star players if possible. Analytics don’t tell you exactly which players to acquire. They do provide you with data that helps build a philosophy, which if you watch the Rockets, they play an analytics friendly style with lots of 3s and lots of FTs. 

There is more than stats to basketball, but there is nothing wrong with how the Rockets do business, and most teams wish they operated that way. 

[Mr. HookShotParticipant]

Has there actually been any credible person within basketbal who said he had a proper ‘formula’ for factors that accumulate into wins? Much like OBP was an important predictor for wins for the game of baseball. Maybe something related to three-point shooting considering every teams started shooting more 3s and teams pay big bucks for players than can shoot from distance?

[Mr. HookShotParticipant]

Has there actually been any credible person within basketbal who said he had a proper ‘formula’ for factors that accumulate into wins? Much like OBP was an important predictor for wins for the game of baseball. Maybe something related to three-point shooting considering every teams started shooting more 3s and teams pay big bucks for players than can shoot from distance?

[HitsterParticipant]

The important stats are really the unmeasurable ones, let’s take Tim Duncan when he was putting up say 20/10 he was a lot more effective and his presence on court was far greater than another PF putting up nearly as good stats.

The +/- stats can be useful but it gives false valuation sometimes to fringe players on successful teams whilst also highlighting the intangibles type player who does the spade work behind the superstars.

Coaches would use stats to get the right line ups on court, knowing he scores or defends well against each other, getting the right mixture of players on court. Let’s take Miami when LBJ was there and Ray Allen was on the bench, I’d guess Miami would work situations where the Big 3 or a combo of them could draw double teams to allow Ray to get a free shot and use his excellent off the ball play to create these opportunities.

I’m sure teams break down stats far more than even ESPN does, how many points each player scored against each match up, what line up gave certain players the best scoring percentages etc.  

[HitsterParticipant]

The important stats are really the unmeasurable ones, let’s take Tim Duncan when he was putting up say 20/10 he was a lot more effective and his presence on court was far greater than another PF putting up nearly as good stats.

The +/- stats can be useful but it gives false valuation sometimes to fringe players on successful teams whilst also highlighting the intangibles type player who does the spade work behind the superstars.

Coaches would use stats to get the right line ups on court, knowing he scores or defends well against each other, getting the right mixture of players on court. Let’s take Miami when LBJ was there and Ray Allen was on the bench, I’d guess Miami would work situations where the Big 3 or a combo of them could draw double teams to allow Ray to get a free shot and use his excellent off the ball play to create these opportunities.

I’m sure teams break down stats far more than even ESPN does, how many points each player scored against each match up, what line up gave certain players the best scoring percentages etc.  

[rich.homie.mitchParticipant]

 I don’t get how charles could make an argument when 2 of the last 4 teams that won the title and look closely  at analytics. Also the Spurs have like the 2nd largest analytics department in the league. Also when he said you gotta have a top 10 player or w/e to win, no duh. There has been no team that said, "We can rely only on analytics and don’t need any stars." Even Morey the King of analytics in the NBA has said they’ve been working to get a star, (James Harden). And Barkley was trying to act like Harden just fell into the Rockets lap. Also analytics played a part into telling the Rockets James Harden was better than just a 6th man. 

[sitlbitoParticipant]

It just shows that not only is he wrong,he doesn’t know what he’s talking about just judging by the way he talks about it ‘what analytics do they have” this sentence just doesn’t make sense. That’s the problem with Barkley he says NBA is about talent,well talent often equals a player that has good analytics

[sitlbitoParticipant]

It just shows that not only is he wrong,he doesn’t know what he’s talking about just judging by the way he talks about it ‘what analytics do they have” this sentence just doesn’t make sense. That’s the problem with Barkley he says NBA is about talent,well talent often equals a player that has good analytics

[rich.homie.mitchParticipant]

 I don’t get how charles could make an argument when 2 of the last 4 teams that won the title and look closely  at analytics. Also the Spurs have like the 2nd largest analytics department in the league. Also when he said you gotta have a top 10 player or w/e to win, no duh. There has been no team that said, "We can rely only on analytics and don’t need any stars." Even Morey the King of analytics in the NBA has said they’ve been working to get a star, (James Harden). And Barkley was trying to act like Harden just fell into the Rockets lap. Also analytics played a part into telling the Rockets James Harden was better than just a 6th man. 

[Jco4Participant]

 Stats definitely have a purpose but like OP said should not be the be all and end all. I think it’s possible to both over-analyze and under-analyze situations and ultimately it’s on the coach and GM how the stats are perceived and used / not used.  

[Jco4Participant]

 Stats definitely have a purpose but like OP said should not be the be all and end all. I think it’s possible to both over-analyze and under-analyze situations and ultimately it’s on the coach and GM how the stats are perceived and used / not used.  

[Author]

Posts