EVERYONE believes that there are other elements to creating a winning team so you might as well stop creating straw men to argue with. The idea that anyone at all thinks that use of data analysis is all it takes to win is pretty idiotic. Literally no one in the world thinks that.
For sure. What I was saying was I'd like to see an informed article discussing/critiquing the Rockets interpretation of the data revealed via their analytics. I'm tired of hearing embarrassingly incoherent things like, "talent > analytics" or "teamwork > analytics".
If we knew the answer to that question and could apply it consistently, we'd all have Morey's job. :grin:
So many elements that go into a winning team, culture (Spurs), coaching (Spurs), talent (Miami), chemistry (Gstate/Hawks), etc...
I feel like you are just ignoring the posts in this thread that are detrimental to your point...and just posting along haha. That's cool... As people have mentioned, analytics certainly does not promote taking the 3 over passing to a teammate for an open lay-up.
Read an extra page now of this thread, see you taking a slight step back and saying much more reasonable things (or defensible at least), but other posters not letting up. I can only assume that is because they don't like you. Your comments on the first page and a half of this thread have tainted their perception of you. Losing battle from here on out on the e-forums lol.
Not really, I'm actually reading posts and just offering a different opinion. I was actually refering to what the Rockets are doing on the floor. So my questions, was are the coaching staff/mgmt supporting the theory of taking an open 3 instead of passing for the layup. Just watching teams like the Hawks, which appear more impressive in ball movement/sharing. It's a healthy debate..
You could definitely make the case that the Hawks are deeper but what have we always been told. With a healthy Howard I take the Rockets starting lineup all day, every day over Atl.
The problem with this view is that it's false. The last couple seasons we were one of the top offenses in the entire league. Personnel has changed so that we aren't as effective at carrying out the offensive game plan as we have been in the past so our efficiency has gone down. Our problem is not our philosophy or analytics it's the talent we have. We have shifted to a more defensive minded roster. The fact that our offense has taken a hit is not remotely surprising to me when you compare this team to last years.
I've been on the site since it was ClutchCity, I don't mind the shade being thrown, sometimes it goes overboard, so I'm good with it. As a person who supports analytics I sometimes like to take the contrarian point of view. Some times it's good to view points through another lense.
What has been called "Moreyball" emphasizes scoring from 3 point range, free throws, and shots in the paint.....a pass to get a layup is one of those, thus they would teach their players to try and get them. Unfortunately, the Rockets have very few players capable of passing the ball worth a damn. Other than Harden, Smith, DMo, and Papanikolaou you really don't have players that can pass, thus those players would probably be more likely to take the 3 rather than trying to make a pass they aren't capable of making successfully. That's not the fault of "analytics", it's just having a flawed team. The only shot that "analytics" says not to take is the long 2.
I agree but Horford is healthy and playing great, Howard is not so we get Dorsey A healthy Howard all year long and we might be 2nd seed in the West right now.
To be fair, there are facts ABOUT analytics. Math is facts. But there are also facts about math many people don't know. You can't say that if you don't like math you don't like facts. There's a difference. My observation is that a lot of a the anti-analytics sentiment is based on ignorance about what analytics really is.
Most people hating on analytics don't know what analytics mean. Like what Zack Lowe said, "analytics" is just a fancy word for being smart, or like how I always see it is just a portmanteau of "analyze" and "statistics". There's nothing on analytics that says you don't play team ball or whatever, all it really cares about is using stats to analyze where you should be shooting and where the opponent should be shooting. There is no debate here to be had simply because GSW, Spurs and whoever else the article is claiming plays team ball uses analytics as well, the moment you check the box score that's already analytics. As for "team ball" or whatever, try telling the Spurs that they have no team ball, that club only started using analytics BEFORE Morey got hired as GM. This article is stupid, misinformed and ignorant, and if you think it's great then I'm sorry, but you're stupid too.
The things separating us from being championship contenders are talent and coaching. It's not analytics. Analytics is a fancy term for basketball analysis in non traditional measures--traditional meaning box score related.
Why hurly insults and what does that say about your intellectual makeup. It's just a point of view, nothing more, nothing less.
The goal isn't to rely solely on analytics, it's to be the most proficient and advanced users of them. If you are going to do something, you strive to be the best at it to gain a competitive advantage. People confound this with everything under the sun to strawman analytics to all hell.
Also, specifically on the Hawks comparison, Morey wanted to hire Mike Budenholzer as head coach. It just so happens that Budenholzer declined all interviews that year when we were looking for a coach, choosing to stay with the Spurs for 2 more years before he finally agreed to interview.
Did you ZNB and seeingred get your talking points from the same place? All three of you keep talking about some kind of strawman argument everytime someone says something about analytics. Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Making a strawman argument is precisely what the current "anti-analytics" crowd is doing. Setting up some false definition of analytics and attacking it. Strawman.
