literally no one advocates SOLELY using analytics. not a single person. so that's a strawman.

tons of people argue the converse tho, from ex-players turned tv analysts to old-media-dinosaur types like wilbon to know-nothing cats in this forum and others online, and it's silly to me that so many folx are so adamant and deadset on outright dismissing the advanced metrics as being totally w/o merit or value.

shit is borderline retarded. pretty much every team in the league is using the formulas now, in some way shape or form. every front office has @ least 1 or 2 quants on the payroll. lmao @ cats thinking it's just morey and hollinger.

and yes, the lion's share of the naysaying DOES stem, at least in part, from a fear of / inability to do anything beyond the most basic math. i'm absolutely convinced of that part being true. diminishing math skills is a prevalent American issue in general tho and a whole other conversation.




>If everyone would just recognize that, it would be so much
>easier to have actual basketball discussion. If someone brings
>up a stat, it doesn't mean they are a 'stat geek...and if
>someone brings up something unique from in-game, it doesn't
>mean they are archaic and can't do math.
>
>The fact is you want as much information as possible...and
>it's simply impossible for humans/scouts to give you that in
>the amount of objective detail that numbers can. On the other
>hand, humans/scouts can account for nuances that numbers and
>stats still cannot because too many variables exist to utilize
>only statistics.
>
>Utilizing both statistics and humans gives you the greatest
>amount of coverage and information. If everyone just stopped
>labeling each other as an extreme and actually tried to
>incorporate some of things they may not be comfortable with,
>we could have some great discussion instead of the same ole
>stat vs traditionalist dichotomy.