Wilt Chamberlain boned approximately 0.63 women per point scored, which sounds a little cumbersome. Let's say per 100 points, he boned 63 women. This means his BPR or boning proficiency rating was 63, a phenomenally high number! But if we adjust for pace will his numbers look as impressive? Let's just say that on March 2, 1962, 63 women were pretty impressed.
I respect era adjusted stats so much, they just bring so much clarity and context. I’d really like to hear what Ben thinks about the talent differential between eras and to what extent today’s players are better than in the past on average(obviously most all time greats would succeed in any era)
Today's players are more athletic on average no question. And overall more skilled as Hakeem says about today's centers. Of course some skills will decline, like footwork or post game which are not as effective in today's league. I've heard Wilt say players from the 80s are more athletic but not as skilled as in the 60s and 70s but that could be a biased point of view.
Well Hakeem is wrong. He would destory todays centers. So would Patrick Ewing, Wilt , Kareem and others. They had more moves. They dominated the whole league.
It's amazing that you offer these analysis videos for free, but a company like ESPN charges money for lesser content. It's great to have someone discuss basketball without constant "hot-takes" and "attention-grabbing" for ratings. Thanks for the quality content!
@TheHumbleNarcissist - The "domestic abuse" charge against Kidd was that his wife claimed he threw a cup of yogurt in her direction. Be careful about repeating that bull***t.
The arrow diagram explaining causation is great. That's a good summary of any statistical measurement, in any field. There is reality on one side of the arrow, and statistical inference on the other; and you can infer from different steps in the process of causation to better understand the context of reality.
I'd love for people to start using contested rebound stats more often. Usually when people bring up rebounds, they value a contested one as much as an uncontested one, but a rebound fought for and won is more indicative of a player's ability than a rebound that just happened to fall to them. Perhaps someone could come up with a combined stat that weights rebounds based on the distance of the nearest opposing player.
Even that contested rebound Stat does not perfectly reflect a player's ability to get rebound. There is also the matter of positioning before the rebounding battle.
Individual rebounding is overrated imo. I'd rather have Brook Lopez or Steven Adams boxing out and creating uncontested rebounds than Drummond or Westbrook trying to grab as many defreb as humanly possible and sometimes forgetting their man
I used to hate analytics and even say that analytics killed basketball. This channel has been an eye opener for me. Screw eye test scouting, numbers are the way to go. Numbers don't lie!
That’s not what Ben (Thinking Basketball) wants. He always says that you shouldn’t have to choose between eye test scouting and numbers. These things go hand-in-hand and that’s why he always uses clips as well as numbers when evaluating a player
While numbers don't lie, analysis can be wrong, data don't lie but information can. That's why we need context as much as possible when doing numbers breakdown.
This is the best analytical basketball channel. Something about the way these videos are presented that makes them all very smooth, entertaining, and informative.
I would really like to see a breakdown on Bam Adebayo. Sort of a “prediction” on his potencial now that he is gonna get all the minutes he deserves with HW out. I’ve heard he is a versatile defender but I don’t really watch Heat games like that.
Great video! Extremely inspirational. I study Math and Econometrics in college, your content shows me how those simple stats idea work in a such creative and rigorous manner! Thank you so much for making these videos!
@BOMBAATA Wilt Chamberlain 2K 20K lol...man he is but I get where you're coming from and I think that was addressed in the previous videos. Opponents strength has to be accounted for and teammates capability. Either way they are both great and KD deserves your respect.
I love your videos, people can learn a lot and that's the goal. I believe that you are the only channel that have really good teaching experience and really I personally learned a lot from you (and Adam Mares, I love his takes, differently than you but very informative as well) Keep it up 👍 P.S. I can't wait for the next video about Nikola Jokic. You said when you analysed top 10 players that you are going to do a video about Jokic (another yeeey 👏👌)
I feel as if I’m listening to the Neil Tyson of basketball analysis, this is so refreshing and intriguing, Thank you so much. I hope to see you breaking the bank soon
Man, I really love your work. These are such a well made analysis, and such subtle observations. I really really enjoy this. What is your academic background? And what made you get interested in this stuff?
im so done with advanced stats...nerds do what they can to get into sports ruin it and make the small weak guys more effective period by using math cause it gives them hope and its what they want to see aka not nature strong beating weak but a fairness giving advantages to the weaker people....its so annoying..its the we all win mentality and its making those freaks be pushed out the game for sticks.....it limits the athletes raw genetics that used to help them dominate..its so annoying now..nerds ruin the nba and made it more like soccer...
@@razkable Maybe if they were just a little smarter. Only 3 players under 6'4" these seasons look like they're on track to a HOF first ballot career. Kyrie, Curry and CP3. 2 use their skill and only one is a floor general.
I adjust rebounding percentage per position. A player that is always closer to the basket, for instance, has more of a likely chance of getting a rebound than one that isn’t. To do so, find the mean and the standard deviation for each position. Then: (rebounding percentage - the mean percentage for the position)/standard deviation. This will allow you to compare, say, Embiid against Ayton. Embiid grabs for more rebounds for his position than Ayton does.
11:07 you elaborated great when you broke down Oscar and Kds ppg vs their teams per 100 and how kd scored more due their teams pace was beautiful and appreciated But breaking down how the defense is calculated using the same break down would’ve great to see All in all great video tho and thank you
How would you analyze the value of Oscar playing all those minutes, ie his conditioning? Certainly if you played Durant that much he'd have worse stats. Ideas for the topic: Conditioning efficiency, conditioning support (per game health), availability, level of forced replacement (some other less efficient player has to play his non=playing minutes). Thanks, great vids!
I'm just wondering, why do we always balance out minutes. Like playing more minutes should to an extent is a good thing: it shows physical stamina and shows players are willing to put it all on the court. Like players who have to carry bad teams (MJ's early bulls, Kobe in his 35 point year) have to play more minutes. Plus, it's not fair to assume somebody keeps consistent production if they play more. I totally get why we balance out minutes to account for blowouts and such, but I think this is an important thing to consider.
Agreed to a large degree. Like if you attack the rim 20 times instead of 10, you need 10 more effective moves to the rim, which implies a higher skill level.
I just realized that if a team is great defensively, it limits your potential Possessions Per Game, since the opposing team will take more time on their shot clocks tp get a good shot. I never thought of it like that...
As a football fan, we are WAY behind in how we talk about stats. We still try to use total YDs and TDs to rank QBs. It's really sad TD%, Y/A, and even Pro Football Reference's era adjusted stats haven't made it into mainstream discussions yet.
Re: Nuggets/Lakers and point-per-possession, I believe the '07 Pats had an absurdly-high points per drive, I *think* the highest ever? And someone noted that *that* ought to make them considered the best offense ever even above, say, the Peyton Broncos. Similar thoughtline in a different sport.
I could be wrong. But pace does win games. If you are 2nd in offensive rating but play way faster than any other team. (Lowest seconds per possession) Wouldn’t you just be better offensively?
We need an app that tracks advanced stats in the box score. Rather than basic stats. You always have to wait until after the game, or hand calculate it.
I got a question. I need a stat that compares both offensive rating and pace rating. That would tell you how good an NBA offense is. Example: you are 4th in offensive rating, but you play at a pace that’s 10 possessions more than any other team. You would be the best offensive team by far.
What if Denver had slightly worse O rating, say 1.10 but they still averaged 20 more possessions. Denver would be the better offense at that point right? Slightly less efficient with much more volume.
To be honest I don’t really like adjusting for minutes played... I mean it’s a quality to play 40 plus minutes and stay as efficient... for example if Robertson scores at the same efficiency as kd but plays 5 more minutes id expect a drop off from durants replacement So to adjust for possessions is the way to I think allthough with increased pace fiteague becomes a factor as well so it’s still impressive players scored at a similar efficiency with more running up and down the court being involved
This method can only work for comparisons for certain stats because a lot of stats weren't kept before a certain point in time. It also seems like they invent new stats every year just to get some names other than "Wilt Chamberlain" into the record books lol
i was debating with someone about per possession numbers. he said that Oscar's per 100 possession numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because since he played more minutes he was likely more fatigued. what do you think? are per 100 possession numbers deflated for players who play bigger minutes compared to players who played less minutes and were likely less fatigued?
Per X just adapt ever player to the same playing field, it just a proportion, yes, Oscar's numbers should account for the fact that he played a lot more time than modern players, so we adapt their numbers to the same proportion, like per 100 possessions, then we could see how score more efficiently or per 36 minutes, to see how much they would've score if they played 36 minutes, while maintaining his level of play
I don’t understand why you control for minutes? Assuming that each players replacement is replacement level, the star who plays more minutes would have more value as a teams primary scorer. Like you said, basketball isn’t possession determined its minutes determined. So shouldn’t the numbers reflect the added value of playing an extra six minutes
It's a possession based game. Not determined but based. Playing more minutes does increase your VORP I think but it clearly doesn't actually give you more value than another player. but very few players can maintain that play under that many minutes so I guess that's why we try to add as much context as possible. At the end of the day it is a coach's game.
Nice analytics, to simply put it in a simple perspective manner "Stats doesn't matter as long as you win." Thats why player always say this "I want championship, i want to win, any accolades, awards etc is just a bonus"
The problem with the per minute stats (and therefore per possession) is that it assumes a player can maintain their scoring and efficiency across those minutes. It can be misleading
@@lewishurley5591 IMO Harden is the kind of player who scales up even worse than AI. To use Ben's jargon, while both guys are floor raisers, Harden has never proven to be able to raise a team's floor in the playoffs. The regular season is a different sport than the post season these days, and Harden is no good in the playoffs. AI could raise his team's floor high enough to push them into playoff success from time to time, without much assistance from his teammates offensively - while Harden's teams have been well constructed offensively.
You also must consider, however, that playing at a faster pace may tire a player out quicker, having so much more work to do on both ends of the court, so that could bring their effectiveness down. Also, defense was a lot tougher and more physical back then, which brought down percentages, made it tougher to score, and would make the game harder on the players, thus making them less effective. Rule and pace changes must be accounted for in both directions.
Points per minute are bull shit. Durant could have played more minutes that year if he had wanted to and if he would have continued to score at the same efficiency he should have played more minutes for his team. Superstars can play as many minutes as they want. Their coaches aren't going to make them rest if they insist they don't need it.
Pace stats are bad for comparing players(not teams) on offense whether its by per minutes or possessions. Because you are making one underlying assumption in order for this to be true, but is not: you are assuming that on each and every possession that every player is doing everything they can to score/assist. Kobe Bryant has a blistering high point per 100 posessions in 05-06 and 06-07 compared to his later years at 08-10. Does that mean those earlier years meant he was a better offensive player than later? No. There is only one best measure when comparing players like this: with film. The differences in pure ability and skill are best identified with the eye test, not numbers or advanced stats.
Numbers often tell you where to look, or show you where your eye can make you biased. Like if a guy has a lot of flashy finishes at the rim, it will bias your rating of his ability to finish at the rim - even if the actual statistics aren't impressive vs comparable players. Stats and film, not either or.
Robertson also had less scoring options. He had no 3 point line, no 4 point and one possibilities, no trips to the line for 3 shots. A basket was 2 points whether it was 1 foot away or 30 feet away.. so considering all that, yes Oscar Robertson scoring nearly 600 more points than Durant is much more impressive. The efficiency to score that much in 1962 is incredible
I LOVE this analyst and this particular analysis, and this may seem petty but you just can't have on the screen in the end that +5 + -2 = +7 ... I think if the final result is true, then it's +5 - -2 = +7. Yes, I'm betting the math grammar weenee
It's different, this math isn't the normal way, net rating calculate how much difference there is between your team and an average team, by looking at how much points you score in comparison to the league average (in this case 5), and how much points you allow your opponent to score in comparison to the league average (in this case you allow 2 less points than the average, so it's a -2) then you do the math, you score 5 points more and allow to point less to be scored on you, so your point differential (net rating) is 7, so yes, 5-2=7
The best stat is the one that makes my favorite player look good - nephews
Wilt Chamberlain boned approximately 0.63 women per point scored, which sounds a little cumbersome. Let's say per 100 points, he boned 63 women. This means his BPR or boning proficiency rating was 63, a phenomenally high number! But if we adjust for pace will his numbers look as impressive? Let's just say that on March 2, 1962, 63 women were pretty impressed.
Eltalstro lol yes this is a great comment
😂😂😂👍🏾
I'm gonna copy this comment and keep it maybe post it somewhere else. It's not stealing if I told you I'm just borrowing it. 🤣🤣🤣
that's why hes da goat :)
@@libraalibaba yes, is stealing
It's sad that on Facebook and Twitter we get trolls, when this is the level of basketball we should be talking.
I might not be first, I might not be last, but when the analytics come out, I click fast.
he attac
he protec
but most importantly
he analytic
Burn Er he anylitacc
WheresTheBeef ruining basketball
X02Overdose yup
X02Overdose ?
I respect era adjusted stats so much, they just bring so much clarity and context. I’d really like to hear what Ben thinks about the talent differential between eras and to what extent today’s players are better than in the past on average(obviously most all time greats would succeed in any era)
Today's players are more athletic on average no question. And overall more skilled as Hakeem says about today's centers. Of course some skills will decline, like footwork or post game which are not as effective in today's league. I've heard Wilt say players from the 80s are more athletic but not as skilled as in the 60s and 70s but that could be a biased point of view.
Sea I feel like Wilt stayed Cappin hahaha
Julio Cesar Pedroni da costa Junior what about it?
Julio Cesar Pedroni da costa Junior oh yeah I’ve seen that. Harden is incredible
Well Hakeem is wrong.
He would destory todays centers.
So would Patrick Ewing, Wilt
, Kareem and others.
They had more moves. They dominated the whole league.
It's amazing that you offer these analysis videos for free, but a company like ESPN charges money for lesser content. It's great to have someone discuss basketball without constant "hot-takes" and "attention-grabbing" for ratings.
Thanks for the quality content!
Can’t wait for the episode with J Kidd in it. Interested to see that breakdown.
Jason Kidd was my favorite player. I'm still taking him over Nash, Cp3 or IT. Not Magic, prolly Curry.
great player, just sucks he's a pos irl. Apparently cant help himself from beating his wife.
He wrote about Jason Kidd vs Isaiah Rider in a short blurb in his book, showing the value of offensive creation vs. isolation scoring
He already did a short breakdown on his website of him
@TheHumbleNarcissist - The "domestic abuse" charge against Kidd was that his wife claimed he threw a cup of yogurt in her direction. Be careful about repeating that bull***t.
The arrow diagram explaining causation is great. That's a good summary of any statistical measurement, in any field. There is reality on one side of the arrow, and statistical inference on the other; and you can infer from different steps in the process of causation to better understand the context of reality.
I'd love for people to start using contested rebound stats more often. Usually when people bring up rebounds, they value a contested one as much as an uncontested one, but a rebound fought for and won is more indicative of a player's ability than a rebound that just happened to fall to them. Perhaps someone could come up with a combined stat that weights rebounds based on the distance of the nearest opposing player.
Rebounding is really tricky -- going to circle back to it again later in the series.
Even that contested rebound Stat does not perfectly reflect a player's ability to get rebound. There is also the matter of positioning before the rebounding battle.
someone would have to count them first
Individual rebounding is overrated imo. I'd rather have Brook Lopez or Steven Adams boxing out and creating uncontested rebounds than Drummond or Westbrook trying to grab as many defreb as humanly possible and sometimes forgetting their man
Patrick Preis Brook Lopez is a terrible rebounder.
best basketball analyst!
I used to hate analytics and even say that analytics killed basketball. This channel has been an eye opener for me. Screw eye test scouting, numbers are the way to go. Numbers don't lie!
That’s not what Ben (Thinking Basketball) wants. He always says that you shouldn’t have to choose between eye test scouting and numbers. These things go hand-in-hand and that’s why he always uses clips as well as numbers when evaluating a player
While numbers don't lie, analysis can be wrong, data don't lie but information can. That's why we need context as much as possible when doing numbers breakdown.
This is the best analytical basketball channel. Something about the way these videos are presented that makes them all very smooth, entertaining, and informative.
Awesome breakdown on advanced stats, people could definitely use this for baseball with the analytics movement.
i love you and this series. i can't wait for your Netflix series
I would really like to see a breakdown on Bam Adebayo. Sort of a “prediction” on his potencial now that he is gonna get all the minutes he deserves with HW out. I’ve heard he is a versatile defender but I don’t really watch Heat games like that.
Bam? Broooo 😂
Lord Gospodin
For the little I’ve seen he is very solid and crazy athletic
@@agusgasco7523 Bro you are a goddamn psychic 🤣
@@glint6070 damnnn
@@MisterXdotcom how the tables have turned
This is actually the best channel on YT
You're the stat goat
Great video! Extremely inspirational. I study Math and Econometrics in college, your content shows me how those simple stats idea work in a such creative and rigorous manner! Thank you so much for making these videos!
I just wish those advanced stats were taken into account when 2k franchise mode picks the all stars.
@BOMBAATA Wilt Chamberlain 2K 20K lol
@BOMBAATA Wilt Chamberlain 2K 20K lol...man he is but I get where you're coming from and I think that was addressed in the previous videos. Opponents strength has to be accounted for and teammates capability. Either way they are both great and KD deserves your respect.
ESPN is trash when you compare it to him
ESPN is trash regardless
This Channel Is Pure Gold
Look at the pace on that man #34 at 3:02. Bounding like a goddamn gazelle.
What an absolute physical specimen.
VinylUnboxings 😂😂😂 he’s barely even in the clip
@@jofieji5312 #34? This man runs across the whole court, he's just barely in the clip because he's a human whirlwind
VinylUnboxings it’s called a fast break it happens in every game
@@jofieji5312 bro it's obviously a joke because #34 is running like an old man late for the bus
VinylUnboxings ok now I get it I didn’t see #34
Man they need you on espn cause I love the way you look at the game man. Makes basketball interesting again
I love your videos, people can learn a lot and that's the goal. I believe that you are the only channel that have really good teaching experience and really I personally learned a lot from you (and Adam Mares, I love his takes, differently than you but very informative as well)
Keep it up 👍
P.S. I can't wait for the next video about Nikola Jokic. You said when you analysed top 10 players that you are going to do a video about Jokic (another yeeey 👏👌)
I feel as if I’m listening to the Neil Tyson of basketball analysis, this is so refreshing and intriguing, Thank you so much. I hope to see you breaking the bank soon
Very well explained. Great vid
Man, I really love your work. These are such a well made analysis, and such subtle observations. I really really enjoy this. What is your academic background? And what made you get interested in this stuff?
Already watched this 3 times. Thanks for the great content. Keep that analytics content coming.
This was geeky enough for me to enjoy and learn more in-depth.
im so done with advanced stats...nerds do what they can to get into sports ruin it and make the small weak guys more effective period by using math cause it gives them hope and its what they want to see aka not nature strong beating weak but a fairness giving advantages to the weaker people....its so annoying..its the we all win mentality and its making those freaks be pushed out the game for sticks.....it limits the athletes raw genetics that used to help them dominate..its so annoying now..nerds ruin the nba and made it more like soccer...
@@razkable Maybe if they were just a little smarter. Only 3 players under 6'4" these seasons look like they're on track to a HOF first ballot career. Kyrie, Curry and CP3. 2 use their skill and only one is a floor general.
Great video! You really have a skill for making analytics palatable for a general audience
I adjust rebounding percentage per position. A player that is always closer to the basket, for instance, has more of a likely chance of getting a rebound than one that isn’t. To do so, find the mean and the standard deviation for each position. Then: (rebounding percentage - the mean percentage for the position)/standard deviation. This will allow you to compare, say, Embiid against Ayton. Embiid grabs for more rebounds for his position than Ayton does.
Your videos are just amazing. Can't wait for the next one
11:07 you elaborated great when you broke down Oscar and Kds ppg vs their teams per 100 and how kd scored more due their teams pace was beautiful and appreciated
But breaking down how the defense is calculated using the same break down would’ve great to see
All in all great video tho and thank you
holy SHIT this is helpful. Ben, you are the man
How would you analyze the value of Oscar playing all those minutes, ie his conditioning? Certainly if you played Durant that much he'd have worse stats. Ideas for the topic: Conditioning efficiency, conditioning support (per game health), availability, level of forced replacement (some other less efficient player has to play his non=playing minutes). Thanks, great vids!
I'm just wondering, why do we always balance out minutes. Like playing more minutes should to an extent is a good thing: it shows physical stamina and shows players are willing to put it all on the court. Like players who have to carry bad teams (MJ's early bulls, Kobe in his 35 point year) have to play more minutes. Plus, it's not fair to assume somebody keeps consistent production if they play more. I totally get why we balance out minutes to account for blowouts and such, but I think this is an important thing to consider.
Agreed to a large degree. Like if you attack the rim 20 times instead of 10, you need 10 more effective moves to the rim, which implies a higher skill level.
Exactly, I think we should use some stat to account for usage's deflating effect on efficiency and production.
please do more player analysis videos, I have been longing for these
I just realized that if a team is great defensively, it limits your potential Possessions Per Game, since the opposing team will take more time on their shot clocks tp get a good shot. I never thought of it like that...
As a football fan, we are WAY behind in how we talk about stats. We still try to use total YDs and TDs to rank QBs. It's really sad TD%, Y/A, and even Pro Football Reference's era adjusted stats haven't made it into mainstream discussions yet.
doing the basketball gods' work!
Points per possession is a better metric than per minute
Make a video on why the Spurs have been good for so long
I would love an explanation that's more than Duncan, Coach Pop, and R. C. Buford are awesome!
Tim Duncan
Re: Nuggets/Lakers and point-per-possession, I believe the '07 Pats had an absurdly-high points per drive, I *think* the highest ever? And someone noted that *that* ought to make them considered the best offense ever even above, say, the Peyton Broncos.
Similar thoughtline in a different sport.
Yeah their ppd was 3.19
@@antonioiniguez1615 I read that as points-per-*down* and was VERY confused.
@@Eidenhoek points per drive lol
@@antonioiniguez1615 You *could* get 3.something points-per-down if you only did one or two-play touchdowns tho.
So like.
C'mon.
@@Eidenhoek I don't see your point
I could be wrong. But pace does win games. If you are 2nd in offensive rating but play way faster than any other team. (Lowest seconds per possession) Wouldn’t you just be better offensively?
We need an app that tracks advanced stats in the box score. Rather than basic stats. You always have to wait until after the game, or hand calculate it.
Awesome channel!
I got a question. I need a stat that compares both offensive rating and pace rating. That would tell you how good an NBA offense is.
Example: you are 4th in offensive rating, but you play at a pace that’s 10 possessions more than any other team.
You would be the best offensive team by far.
Already know it’s a banger
dime drop and thinking basketball on the same day? 😍😍😍
+Thinking Basketball what animation tools do you use to draw your play diagrams?
What if Denver had slightly worse O rating, say 1.10 but they still averaged 20 more possessions.
Denver would be the better offense at that point right?
Slightly less efficient with much more volume.
To be honest I don’t really like adjusting for minutes played... I mean it’s a quality to play 40 plus minutes and stay as efficient... for example if Robertson scores at the same efficiency as kd but plays 5 more minutes id expect a drop off from durants replacement
So to adjust for possessions is the way to I think allthough with increased pace fiteague becomes a factor as well so it’s still impressive players scored at a similar efficiency with more running up and down the court being involved
Good Video again!
Im at the half point now. Big o kd comparison at big o s time league didnt have three point shot did you take that into consideration?
My video on adjusting across era does.
@@ThinkingBasketballwhere is tha
This method can only work for comparisons for certain stats because a lot of stats weren't kept before a certain point in time. It also seems like they invent new stats every year just to get some names other than "Wilt Chamberlain" into the record books lol
That's because it's Wilts legacy benefits the most from box score watching.
The rockets should hire you!
Amazing Job!
ค่า stat บอกอะไรได้มากแหะ
ถึงจะวัดไม่ได้หมด แต่ก็มีดีกว่า
เช่น ควรเล่นกับใคร ทีมจะได้ค่า eff.สูงที่สุด
- ใครช่วยทีมได้มากกว่า
- ใครมีค่าต่อการแข่งขันของบริษัทมากกว่า
- ใครทำแต่งานที่สร้าง value ให้บริษัท
ใครเป็นตัวสำคัญ
i was debating with someone about per possession numbers. he said that Oscar's per 100 possession numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because since he played more minutes he was likely more fatigued. what do you think? are per 100 possession numbers deflated for players who play bigger minutes compared to players who played less minutes and were likely less fatigued?
Per X just adapt ever player to the same playing field, it just a proportion, yes, Oscar's numbers should account for the fact that he played a lot more time than modern players, so we adapt their numbers to the same proportion, like per 100 possessions, then we could see how score more efficiently or per 36 minutes, to see how much they would've score if they played 36 minutes, while maintaining his level of play
Mind Blown
Thank you
would be interesting to know defensive stats wich are tough to understand
I gocthu
Great video as always! I know most NBA fans know this, but the 2012 season was lockout-shortened so that's why KD didn't break 2k points.
55 min. Late. Anyway good video.
Can you analyze cj mccollum
I don’t understand why you control for minutes? Assuming that each players replacement is replacement level, the star who plays more minutes would have more value as a teams primary scorer. Like you said, basketball isn’t possession determined its minutes determined. So shouldn’t the numbers reflect the added value of playing an extra six minutes
It's a possession based game. Not determined but based. Playing more minutes does increase your VORP I think but it clearly doesn't actually give you more value than another player. but very few players can maintain that play under that many minutes so I guess that's why we try to add as much context as possible. At the end of the day it is a coach's game.
This series is great but please talk about Zach Lavine
Damn KD is totally a scoring machine.
you dont think MOV can be skewed when there is a qrt+ of garbage time?
It can but it mostly evens out over an 82 game schedule, MOVs in small samples are highly variable
So offensive rating x pace equals PPG. So having the best O rating does not make you the best offense.
How do you put a percentage on a player “passing the eye test,” or “killer instinct.”
You just say your opinion with more confidence and it's basically a legit stat. Ryan Hollins is on ESPN, after all.
You actual do film analysis
How does +5 + (-2) = +7
Why is 5-2=7 ?
Why is the absolute value dropped?
That's what I been saying forever per mins
Nice analytics, to simply put it in a simple perspective manner "Stats doesn't matter as long as you win." Thats why player always say this "I want championship, i want to win, any accolades, awards etc is just a bonus"
That's literally winning bias, a psychological phenomenon that Ben Taylor's (thinking basketball) breaksdown in his book of the same name
Queste cose per me sono ovvie, ma il pensiero che la gran maggior parte delle persone non ne capisce niente mi fa capire la gravità della situazione.
Where do you get your stats from? I feel like they would be really useful to me when talking basketball
He has a group that makes the research and the calculation, you can sign his Patreon and buy his book to look at those numbers
Is this legal? This is amazing content.
Dope
But oscar dosen't have 3pt line
Except the pace in the 60s was WAY higher
The problem with the per minute stats (and therefore per possession) is that it assumes a player can maintain their scoring and efficiency across those minutes. It can be misleading
Harden is a much better player than AI ever was
If Isaiah Thomas can average 29ppg and lead boston to the best record in the east.... what would AI do in this era??
delete this
Burn Er Why? If you look at the stats of the players you have to be moron to think AI was better
@@Svarog187 AI answered this question in interview and very humble said he wouldn't perform any better today compared to his era
@@lewishurley5591 IMO Harden is the kind of player who scales up even worse than AI. To use Ben's jargon, while both guys are floor raisers, Harden has never proven to be able to raise a team's floor in the playoffs. The regular season is a different sport than the post season these days, and Harden is no good in the playoffs. AI could raise his team's floor high enough to push them into playoff success from time to time, without much assistance from his teammates offensively - while Harden's teams have been well constructed offensively.
Kd the goat
-KD
@@burner1303 dude LMAO
Just a future video idea, analyze d roses mvp season with these stats to see if he really deserved it ir not. Love your videos man keep it up!!
Calvin Carmichael Led a team of defensive and mostly non shooting role players to a better record than a heat team with 3 stars in their primes
@@Thanosdidtherighthing right, id like to see how efficient he was compared to other stars in the league at the time
Rodman vid
Scrolling, bored and come across this 🙏🙏
You also must consider, however, that playing at a faster pace may tire a player out quicker, having so much more work to do on both ends of the court, so that could bring their effectiveness down. Also, defense was a lot tougher and more physical back then, which brought down percentages, made it tougher to score, and would make the game harder on the players, thus making them less effective. Rule and pace changes must be accounted for in both directions.
Points per minute are bull shit. Durant could have played more minutes that year if he had wanted to and if he would have continued to score at the same efficiency he should have played more minutes for his team. Superstars can play as many minutes as they want. Their coaches aren't going to make them rest if they insist they don't need it.
Pace stats are bad for comparing players(not teams) on offense whether its by per minutes or possessions.
Because you are making one underlying assumption in order for this to be true, but is not: you are assuming that on each and every possession that every player is doing everything they can to score/assist.
Kobe Bryant has a blistering high point per 100 posessions in 05-06 and 06-07 compared to his later years at 08-10. Does that mean those earlier years meant he was a better offensive player than later? No.
There is only one best measure when comparing players like this: with film. The differences in pure ability and skill are best identified with the eye test, not numbers or advanced stats.
You need both film and stats for the whole picture
Numbers often tell you where to look, or show you where your eye can make you biased. Like if a guy has a lot of flashy finishes at the rim, it will bias your rating of his ability to finish at the rim - even if the actual statistics aren't impressive vs comparable players. Stats and film, not either or.
To many new stats. In NBA and MLB.
The reason Oscar is still better is because he is ABLE to play more minutes per game than Durant.
How can u say kd couldn’t what if he didn’t need to? What if he played in less ot’s
First
5 + -2 ≠ 7.
DO A MJ VS LEBRON DEBATE VIDEO....PLEAAAASE
Too many variables to consider.
He has LeBron above btw, checkout backpicks.com for his full top 40
When are you going to collab with Kobe? This makes basketball even more interesting!
Robertson also had less scoring options. He had no 3 point line, no 4 point and one possibilities, no trips to the line for 3 shots. A basket was 2 points whether it was 1 foot away or 30 feet away.. so considering all that, yes Oscar Robertson scoring nearly 600 more points than Durant is much more impressive. The efficiency to score that much in 1962 is incredible
Except the pace was much higher
Much higher pace and he played more
Lol at kids debating players using fg%, raw rebounds and raw assists xD
If you played 2k you know a lot of these stats I feel like an intellectual
I especially feel smart wgen i look at the all time players stats and then my freinds get impressed that i know them
I LOVE this analyst and this particular analysis, and this may seem petty but you just can't have on the screen in the end that +5 + -2 = +7 ... I think if the final result is true, then it's +5 - -2 = +7. Yes, I'm betting the math grammar weenee
Betting -> being
It's different, this math isn't the normal way, net rating calculate how much difference there is between your team and an average team, by looking at how much points you score in comparison to the league average (in this case 5), and how much points you allow your opponent to score in comparison to the league average (in this case you allow 2 less points than the average, so it's a -2) then you do the math, you score 5 points more and allow to point less to be scored on you, so your point differential (net rating) is 7, so yes, 5-2=7
G