What's new
By:
Filters

Yahoo Sports: Karl Malone Slams Basketball Analytics

bezerkus

bezerkus

Well-Known Member
A Radio show with David Locke and Karl Malone would be fireworks..

Link: https://sports.yahoo.com/video/radio-karl-malone-slams-basketball-123000491.html

raud5t.jpg
 
Analytics are worthwhile. They might reveal some potential in players in certain situations that might not be made clear otherwise. They can quantify players' strengths and weaknesses. They also provide a way to document and describe the game by mathematical trends.

That said, analytics are always looking backwards--documenting things that have already happened--and they don't provide a means to predict well what will happen next. Analytics don't solve problems, they just document problems.

Case in point might be Rudy Gobert. Jerry Sloan saw a level of effort, mental focus and physical potential in Rudy Gobert during his workout in Utah that other teams didn't see. Analytics weren't going to make a case to draft Gobert, but obviously getting Gobert was a great low-risk/high-reward play.

So teams have to ask themselves--how did they miss out on Rudy Gobert? The answer is because they were looking backward instead of looking forward. They were looking at what he didn't have instead of what he had.

Another thing that gets completely overlooked sometimes is mental toughness and tenacity. It matters as much as physical ability.
 
I think the whole conversation about "analytics" is basically just one straw man after another. You can't make these blanket statements about analytics as a whole, you need to look at specific analyitical practices and decide whether it's of merit, case by case.
 
spycam1 said:
I think the whole conversation about "analytics" is basically just one straw man after another. You can't make these blanket statements about analytics as a whole, you need to look at specific analyitical practices and decide whether it's of merit, case by case.
Click to expand...

True, I'm just saying that analytics have a limited role to play in the drafting process because they aren't very good at predicting future performance or accounting for rapid changes in performance.
 
lmao 'goobley ****.' malone and barkley are obviously dolts. its disappointing to hear from such greats.
wonder what they woulda been doin if they weren't blessed with such athuletic talent. maybe if they had used more analytics, they might be champs.
 
Yall realize **** is a derogatory term towards Asians, right? Kinda like beaner, ****, dago, ***, etc.
 
A complete avoidance of analytics is stupid.

Similarly, a complete worshipping of analytics is equally stupid.

The game is complex and multifaceted-- it's best if we use all of our tools in our repertoire to best assess player talent and/or ability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dalamon said:
A complete avoidance of analytics is stupid.

Similarly, a complete worshipping analytics is equally stupid.

The game is complex and multifaceted-- it's best if we use all of our tools in our repertoire to best assess player talent and/or ability.
Click to expand...

Yep. I know DL and Coach Quin both value it - but to the extent of if they see trends such as a guard shooting 25% off the dribble going to his right, that will dictate how they guard that guy on a pick-and-roll situation, etc... But, yeah, to make sweeping statements about how good a player is or his value based solely on analytics is retarded.
 
Experiment: Ask Greg Popovich, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker whether they would be willing to abandon analytics, and what would happen to their W/L and championship hopes in the case that they would abandon analytics.

Then compare that answer to Chuck and Mailman.


“I think all of us, in basketball, want to rely on our instincts more than anything, but statistics confirm or deny certain hunches,” said Indiana Pacers Coach Frank Vogel, who relies on analytics to construct his team’s defensive scheme. “I think they also point out things that you may not have realized or understood and force you to evaluate further.”


Chuck and Karl make illogical assertions like it is just a bunch of people who never played hoops who use and understand analytics. Let's see, Pat Riley Eric Spoelstra LeBron, Battier, growing list of converts.

I think some of this is beyond Karl and Chuck's capability to grasp and not used when they were successful, so they reject it.

It reminds me of Karl mocking Gobert's manhood when he used spandex.

I like Chuck and Karl, they have very high instinctual hoops IQ. But the idea that measurements and math can't improve the insights is out in left field and in the 80s.
 
dalamon said:
A complete avoidance of analytics is stupid.

Similarly, a complete worshipping analytics is equally stupid.

The game is complex and multifaceted-- it's best if we use all of our tools in our repertoire to best assess player talent and/or ability.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Also, anyone working in analytics would suggest the same thing. I doubt John Hollinger would ever suggest that traditional scouts are worthless and we should rely entirely on analytics.

The funniest thing to me is that Barkley uses analytics all the time, and he doesn't even know it. When Barkely talks about PPG, FG%, 3pt%, BPG, etc., he is using analytics. Things like True Shooting Percentage, Real Plus Minus, and Win Shares are all just extensions of those basic statistics we use all the time.
 
Catchall said:
Analytics are worthwhile. They might reveal some potential in players in certain situations that might not be made clear otherwise. They can quantify players' strengths and weaknesses. They also provide a way to document and describe the game by mathematical trends.

That said, analytics are always looking backwards--documenting things that have already happened--and they don't provide a means to predict well what will happen next. Analytics don't solve problems, they just document problems.

Case in point might be Rudy Gobert. Jerry Sloan saw a level of effort, mental focus and physical potential in Rudy Gobert during his workout in Utah that other teams didn't see. Analytics weren't going to make a case to draft Gobert, but obviously getting Gobert was a great low-risk/high-reward play.

So teams have to ask themselves--how did they miss out on Rudy Gobert? The answer is because they were looking backward instead of looking forward. They were looking at what he didn't have instead of what he had.

Another thing that gets completely overlooked sometimes is mental toughness and tenacity. It matters as much as physical ability.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you could argue EVERYTHING is backward looking except a crystal ball or tea leaves. So how do you evaluate a player or draft pick? Do you always just draft the hungriest players with the baddest attitudes...stats be damned? I guarantee a GM who does that will soon be an ex-GM.

You have to have a mix. Certainly analytics isn't the be-all and end-all. If it were, Utah would just insert Trey into the lineup for the final 5 minutes of each game. But it definitely has a place. There was a recent interview with Quin where he talks about analytics and how he uses them.

BTW, Gobert was on the radar LONG before Sloan was brought in to help the Jazz evaluate all their draft prospects. The real credit actually goes to Rich Sheurbrooks, the Jazz' director of global scouting. And even IF we're to credit Sloan for seeing something in Gobert, then we have to go back through the absolutely pitiful Jazz drafts after Stockton and Malone and blame him for the misses. There were some real stinkers. In fact, I'd say the failure of Utah to draft even at an AVERAGE level is what cost them a championship. They never had a decent bench, and never had enough assets to trade. You can use the excuse the Jazz were picking in the late teens/early 20's, but Utah had a TON of busts. Just grabbing serviceable players would have improved the team immensely.

So the "eye" test doesn't always work, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top