i just put very very very little value in the "eye test", or "basketball knowledge", or whatever. Just a different view i suppose. When the metrics really differ from what i see though, i try to find more metrics
Q: What do you do for a living? A: I binge watch Rockets teams annually, never miss a game......but I hate the eye test and only use metrics Q: well why would you watch the games? A: because I Am bored and scared to go to park/gym and shoot layups, so I kill time to watch the game only to go directly to the metrics after the player(s) get done with the game and that is all that matters as far as Value Q: wait, so there is no value in actually watching the game/players showcase what they can do on hardwood? A: Huh huh huh.......... Metrics Rule (butthead voice)
It’s really simple to me. It’s about having more information, facts, and knowledge to back up your assessments. How do you assess or analyze something you are observing if you don’t have any knowledge or baseline of what the standards or correct way to do things are? Compubox says a boxer landed 40% of his punches. Great. But how do you declare a boxer to be “good” or not with no knowledge of what good boxing is besides compubix stats? For a more complete or in depth analysis and before declaring anyone good or bad you would need to understand the technical aspects of the sport. Boxer X has a very good stiff cross that he uses like a jab to set up combinations. Boxer X really effective using a side step with that great cross to get out of the line of sight of opponents. Same applies to Basketball. What exactly is a player not doing in accordance to good basketball practices and fundamental principles?
But for that to be valuable you would need to be 1. Know the gameplan and what every player is supposed to do. 2. Watch all teams games (maybe 50-60 games of each team). While obviously metrics aren’t perfect, when you look at a bunch of them, you will usually get a good picture.
"Metrics" also known as estimates (WS/48) or estimates based on estimated fictional players (VORP) and people consider them the be all and end all. They never can explain how James "Metric Darling" Harden is nowhere near as good or successful a player as Kobe Bryant though. Metrics don't measure heart. It'd be so much easier discussing sports with people if they understood that "metrics" aren't really used for player evaluation as much as they're used to inform decision making during games/roster construction where you can use the insights they bring to get better performance out of lesser players or find players who fill anomalous niche roles which allow you to game the system until people figure out what you're doing. Actual statistics and knowledge of the game will always be more valuable than made up estimates, the made up estimates can be great at identifying niche players for niche situations you can use when you can't afford the real superstars though. The niche has to actually pay off though (we did nearly manage that under Morey/Harden) and most of the time it's more like you'll win if you just get Lebron James or Kobe Bryant instead (if you can convince or afford them.)
You don’t necessarily need to know what offense they’re running. But after watching a bulk of games you should know the basics of how we run our offense. That’s besides the point. When people talk about how bad or good a player is the basis should be a fundamental understanding of the game and correct reads. A player staying low on defense as his man goes high to the perimeter and guarding the perimeter guy going low. The wing on the perimeter helping the top of key guy close down a dribble drive. A dribble drive guy dumping down to short corner when the defender comes up into the paint. Pulling up for a 15 ft J after a dribble drive off a screen with the paint packed. What do we see and what do correct reads or actions look like? Also most if not all people on here watch the majority of games as they’re on here cheering or arguing on game nights
Markkanen single-handedly kept the Jazz from being the worst team in the league. The Spurs had the worst record — does Wemby not impact winning?
Imagine somebody arguing they know more basketball because they don't pay attention/watch the games but read "the metrics." Daryl Morey was an awesome GM, but he absolutely destroyed some of these fans and the way they view the sport.
As great as that team in 17-18 was they sucked because PJ and Ariza weren’t good at handling, mid range, or dribble drive. It was simply shoot 3’s and defend. That team was fundamentally flawed and whatever data driven philosophy Morey believed in didn’t work. I thought if only the SF position had a decent guy that could dribble drive more we would have been tough to beat. But we weren’t built that way.
We were built moneyball/moreyball style, and it was actually a damn good strategy and got us closer than most non-Lebron people to beating that Dynasty, but Draymond's interviews have said it best in all honesty "we knew we were going to win, just had to tire out James" because in fact "metrics" and "moneyball" are great for leveraging niche skills in a way that you can overperform with significantly lesser talent (we had 1 true all star for most of the Harden run and were routinely competing with a team that sometimes had 4-5) but it's very rare you're going to compete with the supreme upper echelon of talent. Beard is a next level player, and we maximised his abilities about as good as any player's ever been maximised. The problem is for the most part we were all-in on that one guy to carry it all. As much as Morey was able to maximise his lesser talent earlier in the run, by the end they were all stood doing nothing and watching the Beard show, and it nearly worked, it really did. It'll just never work as well as having actual elite-players throughout your roster. Regardless of what the metrics show, the mentality of a champion is more important, and Beard's never had it.
Are you talking about the team that won 65 games, smashed everyone in the playoffs, took the greatest team in nba history to 7 games where it took one of the greatest performances in playoff history from foster to even beat them? That team sucked and was fundamentally flawed?
Lebron never did as well against the kd warriors as that rockets team did, not even close. He never had a remotely competitive series against them, nobody did.
Yes, because that Dynasty knew every single time with no fear that they were going to win. All they had to do was tire out the metric darling and watch us crumble. That's why the top players ever aren't the top metric guys ever, moneyball/moreyball is so weak teams can overperform, it rarely if ever builds a championship.
Obviously they did not suck and I am bitter but Yeah it was flawed. Flawed in construction and flawed in philosophy. 27 consecutive missed 3s. The 3 and 4 starting spots simply were both 3-D guys with little to no dribble drive ability. What would happen if they drove more or shot elbow jumpers? We never will truly know. I would wager they wouldn’t have missed 27 consecutive 2 pt attempts. All we know is they stuck to the team philosophy and did not succeed.
Imagine watching how inflexible and rigid we were and us shooting ourselves to death following Morey's narrow-minded perspective on how to win and not thinking we had MASSIVE flaws? It's bonkers.
I believe Rockets had an opportunity to get Tomball’s own Jimmy Butler in 18-19 but missed. That team would have gone deep I felt. And again in 19-20 Rockets missed in Free Agency that would have teamed him up with Westbrook Harden. Those teams would have made some noise in that 2 year span as that starting SF spot would be solidified. Missed opportunities.
