Why would anyone use w/l to justify anything?
NBA Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Why would anyone use w/l to justify anything?
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
People use it in other sports, you this dense?
Doesnt make it logical
chop2chip
Well-known member
Ahh. Was wondering when you would pop your head into this to say something beside the point.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Not only is this correct, but it's an undisputed no brainer by the people with a brain community.
Yeah, but thats a completely different scenario because Waiters was still taking 18 foot 2 point shots falling away. Kanter has a much more sustainable game.
NOt on a per game basis. Thats up for debate.
Westbrook is playing at an all time level this year production that you just don't see often.
Win shares per 48 and PER; both have the same top 3.
The "all time level" crap gets comical man. I don't know how to tell you to contain yourself. Based on win shares/48, he's havint the 118th best season in just NBA history (and ranked 4th in 2014)
only 118 times.
Thats ok. It terms of his raw statistics few hvae done what he has done. You can get into analytics all you want (all of which aren't 100% proven to corrleate to wins as much as some would believe) but in terms of producing on the floor Westbrook is doing it at levels we just haven't seen that often.
He has a much higher PER than Curry/Harden all at a higher usage which makes his PER even better.
chop2chip
Well-known member
The argument that the advanced analytics don't correlate to wins is a really poor argument for using raw statistics.
I'm not saying that we can't look at them but to use them as the gospel as so many people are using nowadays is insanity. Raw stats still have a place in conversations.
The analytics movement in basketball is going way too fast if you ask me. When there are only 5 guys on a court and their skills must work together you can't accurately everything or nearly eveyrthing that impacts wins and losses.
And just because its the most accurate model does not make it as accurate as it needs to be before we start using it as the end of all arguments.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Advanced analytics are in every capacity better than box score statistics. There is no argument for that.
I could understand that analytics have holes, but far far far fewer than ppg, apg, rbg etc
chop2chip
Well-known member
I agree but it's certainly better than box score stats in all situations.
True, but it also breaks down a players efficiency per minute and just jacking up shots and missing them isn't going to help that. You still have to produce which Russel is doing. I'm not saying he should win the MVP. I'm just saying he should be in the discussion and if OKC keeps winning like they have recently and he keeps having crazy performances then the argument gets that much stronger.
When you have such an incredibly large sample size of players and their performances over the course of a season and the fact that few have done the raw production that RW is doing this year says something to me. They are counting stats but you still have to get them .