Comments on: Knicks Morning News (Wednesday, Dec 21 2011)

By: iserp

iserp — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:36:24 +0000

Z-man: In fact things like the earth’s core and the inner workings of atoms are not observable at all with current technology, so we use things like earthquake waves and such to make inferences.

I am afraid you are wrong with that. The point isn't to reach the universal truth (if that exists is a philosophical question i am not going into), but to make a model, make predictions, and see if that predictions adjust to reality. If our predictions come closer and closer to reality, then we are more near the "truth", and that's science. So, for the earth's core, you can make some predictions about how the earthquakes waves are gonna behave... and each time there is an earthquake, scientists will look how right or how wrong were they. For the atom, we see some spectral lines, try to explain them with quantum physics... we predicted more spectral lines, and we see them, we are making science (OK, the timeline here is wrong, but you get the point). I know that scientific is used in more broad sense... but Berri is outright pseudoscientific.

By: xduckshoex

xduckshoex — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:00:09 +0000

latke: @xduckshoex This in itself doesn’t scientifically disprove WP. COnsider the post-trade Nuggets. Out went #186 in Carmelo Anthony & # 74 in Chauncey Billups, opening up more minutes and shot opportunities for #30 Nene Hilario, #37 Ty Lawson, #54 Aron Afflalo. When one looks at the abstraction of star power, Anthony and Billups seem like they should be getting the minutes and shots, that a team would perform better with them consuming possessions and minutes. However, WP would argue the opposite, and it seems to have gotten it right in that Denver was one of the best teams in the league post trade. The Knicks were slightly worse, as WP again would have suggested. Billups was an upgrade on Felton (#136), but Chandler/Gallo (#200, & #173) and Carmelo were a wash and the knicks had injury troubles and a lack of depth. Clearly WP has its flaws as every universal metric does. Measuring defense (outside of rebounding) and measuring the impact a player has on the defensive strategies of an opponent are near impossible to measure. The issue is when individuals make declarative statements about these metrics and how they reflect on a player’s value.

Well it's pretty clear that I wasn't going for a scientific means of disproving WP. There is no point in even going into that kind of depth when it has Birdman and Reggie Evans as top 10 players in the NBA per minute while Jeff Foster and Kris Humphries are just outside of that. WP doesn't just have flaws, it has 30% of it's top 10 horribly wrong, and that's assuming you're fine with including Tyson Chandler in there. There really isn't any debate possible regarding those names and their standing and that's far too great a number to qualify as an outlier.

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:06:01 +0000

also, “statistics that were recorded by statisticians that directly observed the game” are often wrong in and of themselves. steals especially never seem to be credited correctly, and there have been studies about players getting assists they don’t deserve from hometown scorers.

By: Juany8

Juany8 — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:23:12 +0000

Z-man, my point isn’t that Berri’s work is unscientific as some kind of personal thing against WP. My point is there really is no such thing as “scientific” analysis of basketball that can be purely based on numbers. Berri’s observations, methods, and opinions all revolve around box score numbers, which are not remotely scientific by any stretch of the imagination, and analysis purely on those numbers. Those statements you said about the Earth’s core and the inner workings of atoms? Scientists are aware that they are at best inducing the possible working of nature, and that they are actually not certain of these things but will continue to try to research them just the same. The difference is they don’t go out and claim their research presents indisputable proof of some formerly unknown truth.

I would also like to point out at this time, that economic analysis based on numbers (Berri is an Economics professor) can be correctly described as analytical and well thought out, but it cannot be described as science. Basketball analysis is the same, the analysis yields opinions that can inform future decisions, the analysis does not present the true inner workings of basketball

By: Z-man

Z-man — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:10:12 +0000

There are broad misconceptions about what is “scientific” and the sanctity of the “scientific method.” In reality, much of what is accepted as “science” is in part based on statistics, assumptions and interpretations, and not on direct observation. In fact things like the earth’s core and the inner workings of atoms are not observable at all with current technology, so we use things like earthquake waves and such to make inferences. With Berri’s methodology, this”assumptions” are based on statistics that were recorded by statistitians that directly observed the game. Honestly, I find it strange that one can conclude that Berri’s body of work is “unscientific” without even reading his book.

By: latke

latke — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:55:44 +0000

@xduckshoex

This in itself doesn’t scientifically disprove WP. COnsider the post-trade Nuggets. Out went #186 in Carmelo Anthony & # 74 in Chauncey Billups, opening up more minutes and shot opportunities for #30 Nene Hilario, #37 Ty Lawson, #54 Aron Afflalo.

When one looks at the abstraction of star power, Anthony and Billups seem like they should be getting the minutes and shots, that a team would perform better with them consuming possessions and minutes. However, WP would argue the opposite, and it seems to have gotten it right in that Denver was one of the best teams in the league post trade.

The Knicks were slightly worse, as WP again would have suggested. Billups was an upgrade on Felton (#136), but Chandler/Gallo (#200, & #173) and Carmelo were a wash and the knicks had injury troubles and a lack of depth.

Clearly WP has its flaws as every universal metric does. Measuring defense (outside of rebounding) and measuring the impact a player has on the defensive strategies of an opponent are near impossible to measure. The issue is when individuals make declarative statements about these metrics and how they reflect on a player’s value.

By: Spree8nyk8

Spree8nyk8 — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:53:08 +0000

Jim Cavan (@JPCavan):
Just purchased League Pass like 10 seconds ago and don’t have MSG Network. Anyone have a link for tonight’s game?

I’m not a criminal.

http://chanfeed.com/15547/watch-new-jersey-nets-vs-new-york-knicks

By: xduckshoex

xduckshoex — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:38:09 +0000

@102 Caleb, the problem with Berri’s system is that it doesn’t pass the initial smell test. Landry Fields was 8th in the NBA in wins produced last year. Kris Humphries was 17th.

And then when you look at it per-minute, Chris Anderson was 6th, Reggie Evans 10th, Jeff Foster 11th, Kris Humphries 13th while Amare Stoudemire is in the bottom half of the league. Josh Childress outplayed Melo last year. This is all stuff that his numbers indicate, I don’t know why people continue to take him seriously.

By: Juany8

Juany8 — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:30:43 +0000

iserp, thank you for perfectly explaining my rant about WoW and PER being pseudo science earlier. Honestly, as someone who’s had some insight into how big time scientific research is done, calling these statistical tricks “science” and “purely objective” is absurd. Many assumptions are made about how box scores translate into skill, all of them purely subjective, and then they pretend there’s some deeper truth to these all in one stats because advanced math was involved. For a look at the proper use statistics to form basketball opinions, look at sites like Hoopdata and NBA Playbook, not WoW

By: Jim Cavan (@JPCavan)

Jim Cavan (@JPCavan) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:26:58 +0000

Just purchased League Pass like 10 seconds ago and don’t have MSG Network. Anyone have a link for tonight’s game?

I’m not a criminal.