2112501, agreed ... Posted by dula dibiasi, Tue Jan-15-13 11:07 PM
>specifically, defensive rating. There's such a glaring flaw >in the definition, it's a bit puzzling to me people even want >to use it. So if anybody bases their argument on something >silly like that, I'm going to assume they're the ones who >don't understand statistics and their potential limitations at >all.
i don't lend much credence to the individual off/def rating stat. don't really like the methodology behind it.
but that's the thing : i did the knowledge. i didn't just dismiss it outright on some EVOLUTION AND GLOBAL WARMING DON'T EXIST AND THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED dumb shit, and I didn't use one instance that I don't necessarily agree with to impugn the entire enterprise.
>imo, you can't really build effective advanced statistics by >just crunching the regular stats numbers (like point scored) >and re-formulating them a bunch of different ways. I would be >much more interested in different approaches collecting data >that is not accounted for in regular stats; things like >counting the times a player provides effective help defense or >forces a bad shot or 'near-blocks' a shot (making the shooter >miss, obv).
yeah, the teams' in-house data def tracks all that and more. the synergy sports stuff, for instance, is used by every team in the league now. way more sophisticated that what we the general public are privy to.
|