>like we just had a much more in depth discussion than anything
>else BECAUSE a more useful (not even advanced) stat was used
>than normal. that was great. and you're criticizing that, when
>it was a much more useful discussion of basketbal strategy, a
>particular offense, and a particular player.

I'll just go ahead and say that discussion was in part because I heard an advanced stat, immediately applied my own eyeball test to it, and presented it here with that wholly unresearched, purely gut-based critique attached. the fact that other advanced stats Guinness presented support my own observation is nice, sure, but it's just as much an example of how applying the eyeball test to advanced stats is just as important as the advanced stat itself.

yet you attribute all the value in the discussion to the advanced stat, which is what drives me nuts.

>per sucks, ws is better but a broad, highly variable brush.
>but why are you hating on eFG and TS? they're actually
>surprsingly consistent across seasons. yes, there's better
>stats out there and what we have is limited, but your writing
>is making the perfect stat the enemy of the good stat. eFG and
>TS are better indicators of who scores well than FG% and, yes,
>better than watching alone.

yes, they are better than "watching alone," but they are not better than watching with nothing else, and they still require an extensive understanding of basketball fundamentals to derive any real meaning from them. but the trap the Nerds (c) Bin keep falling into is presenting the advanced stat without context and presuming that imparts the meaning necessary to make the point.

which is why I nitpick, because I'm interested in contextual meaning, not just numbers.