re: Stats

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: GuyClinch@xxxxxxx\
> Well I know all hate KA threads..so consider this a thread on 
> statistics..
Good call, I think.

> Oh its ridiculous that having the same stats for two different seasons 
> would
> indicate that the SAME player has equivalent years? Gosh..yeah thats 
> just
> total nonsense. It all comes down to what you see eh? Whatever.
>
> Read that over.. Your actually claiming thats its "ridiculous" to 
> think that
> the SAME player who had equivalent statistics in two different years 
> had
> equivalent seasons.
> Does that really make sense to you?!
Of course.  Statistics are only useful in comparing two or more things. 
 What one always has to keep in mind is that those "things" you're 
comparing (in this case, two KA seasons) are separate and distinct 
things that exist outside of the statistics.  It's actually not 
ridiculous to think that the two seasons were "equivalent", especially 
if one breaks it down into component parts.  That is, one could say 
that Kenny did just as good a job of passing because his assists totals 
were similar, indeed very close together.  That's reasonable.  Still, 
in that case, one must remember that assists measure a specific thing; 
passes that lead to scores within a dribble or two.  That's not 
"passing"; that's "assists".  But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

What I took you to say was that the two seasons were effectively the 
same because -- quid pro quo -- the statistics were the same.  *That's* 
ridiculous.  It doesn't follow, of course.  The two seasons can be 
different in many ways.  And anyone who saw most of the two seasons 
could tell you that.  Kenny played D last season.  In no other time can 
one make that statement about him.  But you weren't talking about stats 
that can remotely be called "defensive", so let's talk about offense.  
Where KA was looking for his shot in the earlier season, he seemed, to 
me, to accept a third-scorer role last year, to great effect.  This was 
probably because he sucked real hard the year before, due to injuries 
and because, well, he sucked.  He got iced out of playing time because 
of it.  Last year, he rebounded from it in a way that I never thought 
he could, but I give him credit, he played well last year.  In no other 
time other than the first few weeks after he came here from Puddletown 
(via Toronto) can you say that about him and keep a straight face.  A 
lot of people saw him dribble the ball into the ground that earlier 
season we're talking about.  Last year, he didn't keep the ball in his 
grasp nearly as much.  In the earlier season, he took way too many 
threes, which are out of his range.  Last year, he moved in and took 
the two where he would have stayed outside the arc previously.

See?  Differences.  These differences point to the fact that the two 
season were ... different.  The changes KA made to his game made him a 
much more effective and valued member of the team.  He seemed, to me, 
to mold himself to the team instead of trying to mold the team to him 
(and taking a lot of no doubt Pitino-directed threes as well).


> Well I will tell you why...because people see what they WANT to see and
> statistics make them put up or shut up.
Your reliance on statistics will be your undoing young Jedi.  Only 
other other people see what they want to see, right?  Only you have 
this direct hook-up to objectivity when it comes to Kenny Anderson, 
correct?  Only you see what apparently most, if not all, others, miss, 
eh?


> You want to imagine that Kenny was good last year and poor in prior 
> years
> well you can. But its not true. Same guy..same player same statistics. 
> Its
> pretty basic.
I agree, very basic.  Perhaps basketball is complex, and not basic.  
Perhaps Kenny did not remain static.  Perhaps he changed, as a player, 
from Georgia Tech to New Jersey to Portland to Boston.  Perhaps he 
changed from season to season.  Perhaps.


> And damn I  watched Kenny both years too. Since you watched him
> your word is gospel or something? Why is your view more relevant then 
> the
> numbers?
I don't know that it is.  But it's a view that's just as relevant as 
anybody else's.  So go ahead and poll those on the list.  You think 
you'll find a lot of people who'll agree with your statement that Kenny 
was just as good in 99-00 as 01-02?  I think not.


> Anyway, this is precisely why they started keeping statistics...to 
> save us
> from the evil of sports journalism, or in this case foolish posts.
Nice one.  You display a naive reliance on statistics and display 
little knowledge of what they represent, but *I'm* the foolish one, 
huh?  You bet.


> A smart approach would be to point out WHY those statistcs are useless 
> in
> this case.
Hopefully, this has given you an example.  I invite people with greater 
knowledge of statistical theory to "check my work".  I may not have 
everything right, but I'm pretty confident I'm on the right track.  It 
does *not* follow that, because two seasons' stats are the same, the 
seasons' effects are the same.  Statistics *represent* things, they 
aren't the things themselves.  If you can say KA was just as an 
effective member of the Celtics in 99-00 as 01-02, well, I think you'd 
be in a minority.  And if you're going to say that he was just as 
effective in 00-01 as 01-02, then I think you (or anyone else) would be 
plumb loco.


> Each time a  common sense statistical argument is made on this list 
> people
> trot out the argument well "statistics are lies." That's weak. They are
> not..they paint a picture when used properly.
Then use them properly.  Otherwise, your painting begins to look 
Dadaist.  And hey, if you think you've got the mad flava common sense, 
then check yourself, fool.  Word.  Representin' tha old school 
statistical theory, yo.  Shizzit.

(Sorry.  Getting in touch with the street vibe from back in the day.  
Would like to take this chance to "shout out" to the other Left Coast 
Portagee -- wazzup, yer Majesty?  Peace.)

Bird (...in the hizzouse)