Stats

Well that Non-convo should include rebounds/steals/assists per game as well, which pretty much wipes out any convo about bball

And while we are at it then it should also include this jacking up 3's era which is not that impressive when it seems like each time is hoisting 45+ per game, not literally but you get where I Am coming from

And based on most of your posts I come across nothing really seems to impress you that much(or at all)

Until they eliminate PPG/scoring title category then the raw PPG will always be a heavy part of bball convo, unless we talk about the Rodman/B Russell&Wallace etc types, then the centerpiece of the convo would be of course boards/defense anchors

 

I understand why you'd think that since you've repeatedly demonstrated that serious basketball conversation goes over your head.

That said, any basketball conversation that centers around ANY raw stat is only suited for the most casual of fans.

Efficiency stats and rate stats are FAR more important than raw stats....that's just day one stuff.

No one cares if you scored 20 on 20 shots....well, no one that matters anyway.

 

Well that convo should include rebounds/steals/assists per game as well, which pretty much wipes out any convo about bball

And while we are at it then it should also include this jacking up 3's era which is not that impressive when it seems like each time is hoisting 45+ per game, not literally but you get where I Am coming from

And based on most of your posts I come across nothing really seems to impress you that much(or at all)

Until they eliminate PPG/scoring title category then the raw PPG will always be a heavy part of bball convo, unless we talk about the Rodman/B Russell&Wallace etc types, then the centerpiece of the convo would be of course boards/defense anchors

A serious bball convo is simple as 1+1, no matter how you try to twist it in your troglodyte fashion

Any raw or souped up newly formed alphabet gang metric all derive from players showcasing their game on the hardwood, which seems to go over your unimpressed character of thought

No one should be impressed if a player for season(s) put up 20 ppg on 20 shots per game, that is you pushing that on others which is your false caveman narrative

Just like nobody should be impressed with Rodman 18rpg since all he did was rebound hunt, nobody should be impressed with Stockton or Magic raw apg numbers since all they did was assist hunt

And nobody should be impressed with Hakeem(or Russell/Wilt unofficial ones) raw block numbers since he contested basically everything, nobody should be impressed with Jordan scoring titles since all he did was avg the highest raw scoring numbers on high volume shots per game

Which is why I said all raw numbers should be excluded across the board based on your initial response, but since they won't be they will always be part of a convo because it is the foundation of stats which boards/dimes/scoring has been kept track in NBA archives since basically Mikan era

Which doesn't have to impress you, so you can use your LEBRON/RAPTOR/TS% or whatever else jibberish they will create in the near present to impress your lower-self train of thought, makes me none, do you

 

I'm legitimately curious, do you even know what it means to be a "troglodyte"?

If so, were you using that ironically or are you simply not brought enough to know it would apply to you and not me?

Anyway, I'm fine with casuals centering conversations around raw stats... so if you guys want to keep doing that, go for it, but you should be laughed at for it by your betters.

 

I Am legit curious, do you know what 'casual' means?

In the context I Am using it is based on you think you are the smartest in the sports room because you stumbled across something 'new' (like a toy) thinking it is superior but it derived from the blueprint

Now if want to get deeper into history of mankind what a troglodyte is that would be great for a offline convo which could go on for days on end

Anyway, I Am fine with troglodytes who use so called advanced new age metrics as well, just as I Am fine with people identifying others as coloring crayons, doesn't mean I subscribe or follow that caveman teaching/thinking

 

I take that to mean you didn't know what it meant but I'm glad you looked it up so you could at least attempt to justify your inaccurate usage of a word you didn't know the meaning of.

When I say "casual" I'm referring to those with a simplistic view of the game.... something a person that watches a few games every now and again could pick up. That same level of understanding exists in those who still view the game the same way most did 30 years ago.

If you haven't gained a deeper understanding of the game in that time, you're still a casual as far as I am concerned.

 

Didn't have to look it up at all, just as I imagine you haven't looked up the meaning of casual and just used it because it sounds good in your own imagination

Casual doesn't mean simplistic view, just like when some say such and such is a cancer in locker room, when they could just say a menace/misfit because cancer is a man made patented disease that has affected many families negatively or it is a zodiac sign in more ancient context

Do you identify people as coloring crayons? Coloring crayon identity came about in the 1700s and people today are still using it

so what is older 30 or 300 years? Is that a deeper understanding or just same rinse and repeat mentality?

Its not about viewing the game the same way 30 yrs ago, its about knowing it all came from that foundation and a bunch of ish can be added on to fit whatever end game you are trying to accomplish to make yourself seem smarter riding the so called advance wave

1+1 has been the same forever, but in 30 yrs I guess you can change it and say it means 4 once you've gained a said deeper understanding (whatever that is)

Until you state me your Nationality then you are a hard to impress troglodyte as far as I Am concerned, which is all good, do you BTG

 

I was being charitable by suggesting you simply used a word you didn't know....if you really did know the meaning of the word, it's just that much more embarrassing that you used it incorrectly.

I know you struggle in these kinds of conversations, so I'll spell it out for you.

You are advocating for an old fashioned way of looking at basketball stats....going on raw numbers....that's the "caveman" position. You reject "advanced" metrics and rate based stats for your old fashioned/casual fan way of thinking. Essentially you represent the troglodyte position on the issue.

I think what is more likely is that you have heard the word used as an insult that you thought sounded clever, so you used it here not knowing what you were really saying and everything since you've been called out on it is just cope and spin. You'd have to be even less intelligent than I think you are if you seriously were going with a "those old fashioned cavemen and their new, more advanced ways of looking at things mathematically" type take. Let's face it, we both know that's not what you were really saying and I know you are far too dishonest to admit it, so we can just leave it here.

As to the accusation that I'm "hard to impress"....I'm really not that hard to impress by things that are actually impressive. I'm just not impressed by low efficiency chucking, no matter what the raw number "dumb" statistics look like. That kind of thing impresses the kind of people who were big Russell Westbrook fans.

 

The only stat that matters is wins and losses the rest is just meant to argue over.....and everyone to pretend they understand a game they never played at a decent level.

NERDS !

DD

 

You were being a troglodyte, troglodytes created nothing and they think their new found of whatever they could come up with is advanced and in the know and would dismiss what the ancient blueprint was about and set forth for the said new world to even have a standing(culture)

Nothing is new under the sun, all that exist today came from the ancient(light yrs ahead/supreme advanced), which you seem not to understand and are using the word casual in your own troglodyte fashion as well and obviously didn't know what it means actually

You on one hand advocate for advanced stats but shun at players who are flashy (creative), which suggest you like the old form (fashion) of where players use to dribble with the same hand all game, its why the NBA merged with the flashy ABA, its why the NBA has players who loves Rucker park style ball, but they all still dribble/shoot/rebound etc because it came from the original(foundation) and they added on from my that with the current flashy stuff

Which being creative is an extension of the foundation(original) and is essentially now the talent that reproduces

the generation that creates is the ancient blueprint


No different than Duncan having his patent 15ft bank shot or Dirk one leg jumper, that came from a player from the 60's but a lot of so called ''casuals'' would think it was something new, just like K Love full court outlet pass as well would be looked upon as advanced to the new age follower, but it would be a throwback (copy) if you are talking to a true bball student

Off topic, even M. Jackson 'moonwalk' was done in like 1950's before him, but Mike is the new advanced stat(fisher price toy)

I never rejected so called advanced stats or any stats, my overall % for it is not as high as yours or others when it comes to complete player evaluation because I have eyes to show me a who is who, so I was using the original format that basically all actual players use, but metrics are good to use especially since I don't watch 82 games of every team/player, so that is the 20% they are actually good for, but I prefer watching game film, in any sport for that matter

If you go into a room of current and former NBA players talking about your newly created so called advanced stats to evaluate their career they would laugh you out the room and tell you to go pick up a ball and actually play, experience trumps your RAPTOR/TS%

next up they will create a new metric called BTG, that's on deck no doubt, you may as well go create it right now and patent it

Something that derive from the original can never be greater than where it is derived from

Troglodyte kind of man is derived from the original Man, and your advanced stats are the troglodyte, and all stats derive from athletes who play the game(film)

And I wasn't trying to be right, I was showing you how silly you sound when trying to dismiss raw scoring numbers in a conversation when it will always be part of a NBA discussion, just like rebounds/assists/steals/blocks etc

And I said based on your replies I come across you never seem to be impressed and for most part come off as a bitter troglodyte, so maybe you are just acting like that to bring some internet sensationalism to the chat board and away from the keyboard in your everyday life you are easily impressed, if that's the case kudos to you

And regardless how you feel about Westbrook (or other players) he still in the record books for triple doubles, which is way more than you accomplished on any bball level since you been in grade school to whatever stage you are at now in life, facts

 

Lol, how'd I know this knuckle dragger would double down yet again.

It's obvious what happened killer, you aren't getting out of this with your kindergarten tier sophist shtick.

 

Ancient all I see is your posts, which means you have engaged with the sadness, let it go.

DD

 

I can't help it that you thought a troglodyte was the original, a troglodyte is a modern creation, just like advanced stats

There is nothing to get out of, just like you have no clue where kinder-garten came from

You casual troglodytes are truly an amazing kind of something

Why did stats come about? Do the players derive from the stat that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the actual player participating in a game?

C'mon son, I know you got the answer, sway

 

I don't mind, its just a bball convo, the truth is simple, but to certain ones something so simple would seem difficult to grasp because they are so advanced and outer space with their bball alphabet gangs, as long as it fits their personal troglodyte narrative

 

Alright, this will be my last thing on points per game.

So again, my *feeling* was that the elite scorers are scoring more than they have in the past, and that other classes of scorers have fallen off. I looked into it some more, and my guess was.... kinda wrong, and kinda right.

I split up players' ppg into quantiles for each season, going back 15 seasons. The quantiles were labeled: Upper Class, Upper Middle Class, Middle Class, Working Class, Lower Class. I then plotted the median ppg for each quantile for each season to see if there was a trend.

So, here's the part where I was kinda right: the Median Points Per Game for the Upper Class is increasing at a much higher rate than the Upper Middle and Middle Class.

Here's where I was kinda wrong: the biggest increase in Median Points Per Game was in Working and Lower Class. But, to be fair, going from 3.7 ppg to 4.4 ppg, while at 18.9% increase, isn't that big of a deal. But still... this was something I didn't predict.



For the record, there was a 15.2% increase in the median game score from 2009-2023 (99 to 114).

 

Good work again. And matches my observations. Actually, I was going to comment before that, the biggest improvement in terms of player quality is in role players. And not just in terms of scoring. In all aspects of the game. If you watch games from the past, you'll find rotational players with major deficiencies. It doesn't happen anymore. Role players are way way better.

 

Statttsss, man

or

Stats Stew

would be good segments