Chuck's War on Stats

The Social Chair · Feb 11, 2015

Barkley and Inside the NBA are entertaining, but he hasn't had anything interesting to say about basketball in years. He still thinks every PF should play in the post.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 11, 2015

Charles is correct that you win with stars in this league but way off base on pointing to one game that was played without their defensive anchor in Dwight. He's also right/wrong on the new wave of analyticians (yes I made that up).....many enter at entry level positions with little other basketball background however those incapable of understanding more than simply analytics aren't going to advance far up the corporate ladder. You need to master each in today's game to be successful.

Morey gets the NBA and invested in two stars while using his "moneyball approach" (for lack of better term) in building around them. It's similar to Theo building around Pedro and Manny in 2004.

Blacken · Feb 11, 2015

HomeRunBaker said:
He's also right/wrong on the new wave of analyticians (yes I made that up).....many enter at entry level positions with little other basketball background however those incapable of understanding more than simply analytics aren't going to advance far up the corporate ladder. You need to master each in today's game to be successful.

I'm not sure the people who don't get basketball even get in the door. I've talked to around ten teams and haven't met anyone who I'd say didn't understand basketball, even the random analytics interns at lunch.

Drocca · Feb 11, 2015

Blacken,

Don't these sorts of guys take pretty significant pay cuts to do these jobs? In that sense, the understanding of basketball would seem to be self selecting.

Blacken · Feb 11, 2015

I don't have data on that. But I can speak for myself, because I'm not NDA'd. The smallest pay cut I have entertained when talking to teams was 25%. One team in your neck of the woods would have been (at the time) 50% less than I was making. I would expect that actual stats people (I'm a software developer who's good at data crunching, not a statistician) are in a similar boat; most seem to trend young or academic, so they may not have been making money and taking a pay cut, but the opportunity cost is significant versus something like finance.

(None of the teams who've expressed continuing interest were willing to pay enough to live comfortably in the city where the team is. I like basketball, but I like my current job too. There's one team I'd have gone for, pay cut be damned, but my employment situation was creating a timing crunch in their process and they decided to pass rather than rush the wrong hire. Shit happens.)

worm0082 · Feb 12, 2015

ifmanis5 said:
Just because you've got good stats doesn't mean you're a good team defensively," Barkley said. "They're not a good defensive team. They gave up 118 points. No good team gives up 118 points."

I know its a different era etc... but the 85-86 Celtics gave up 100 or more points in 62 of their regular season games and over 90 in a bunch of others.

bowiac · Feb 12, 2015

Drocca said:
Blacken,

Don't these sorts of guys take pretty significant pay cuts to do these jobs? In that sense, the understanding of basketball would seem to be self selecting.

I'm confused by what you mean here - what direction do you think the self selection runs? From my experience (I've done some consulting on behalf of one team), everyone there "understands" basketball extremely well. They haven't all played at a high level, but they're basketball fans first, analytics guys second.

On an unrelated note, Chuck's war on stats is 1) funny given the stats guys value his career more than conventional wisdom does; 2) extremely reminiscent of Joe Morgan.

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Feb 12, 2015

While I suspect that Barkley believes that his playing experience gives him superior insight into the pro game than anything produced by the "analytical" crowd, I also think he is trolling a bit here. Just about everything he says is designed to tweak someone and stat nerds who never had a girlfriend are easy marks. He is not Joe Morgan who, in addition to being ignorant, is very thin skinned. Chuck, at least, is ok with people laughing at or disagreeing with him.

LondonSox · Feb 13, 2015

Check out this support of Chuck.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article9760319.html

Conigliaro's Potential · Feb 13, 2015

LondonSox said:
Check out this support of Chuck.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article9760319.html

My eyes! MY EYES!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!

DJnVa · Feb 13, 2015

That cries out for the Fire Joe Morgan treatment.

I mean, he had one point about crapping on Moneyball and he noted that the movie showed Beane firing someone that he never fired in real life. Is that making the point he thinks it's making?

HomeRunBaker · Feb 13, 2015

ifmanis5 said:
See ball, hit ball! It's so easy even a Hall of Famer like Elgin Baylor could do it! Oh wait...

Elgin led the leagues most profitable franchise over the course of his tenure by selling his soul to the devil. He's a lesson in success not failure.....my issue with him were his actions afterward as he knew exactly what he was selling his soul for.

LondonSox · Feb 13, 2015

ConigliarosPotential said:
My eyes! MY EYES!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!

pretty much my thought process

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Feb 13, 2015

DrewDawg said:
That cries out for the Fire Joe Morgan treatment.

I mean, he had one point about crapping on Moneyball and he noted that the movie showed Beane firing someone that he never fired in real life. Is that making the point he thinks it's making?

You clearly have a strong nerd bias. The brilliance of the Moneyball reference isn't just that the fake firing scene plainly illustrates that stat nerds are wrong (and boy does it ever!). Its that he cites the film rather than the source material.

His point is clear - stat nerds, like Hollywood screen adaptations, are derivative, inaccurate and lame.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 13, 2015

ifmanis5 said:
Sure, but my point was responding to the article which said if you were good at sports that means you know more about it, not these basement dwelling nerds. Thus, we should expect a guy who was great, like Baylor, to be better at it in terms of running a team, which is also what Barkley is saying. In Baylor's years as a GM for the Clippers (1986-2009) in 23 years they won TOTAL of 8 11 playoff games.

EDIT: 11 not 8. I forgot to include the 3 wins against Phoenix in 2006. 11 playoff wins in 23 years.

It depends how one is judged. This is first and foremost a business which imo made Elgin über successful at executing his mandated business plan. I gave Chris Wallace same credit even prior to hitting a home run on the court in Memphis.

The game on the floor is entertainment. Many times the results also lead to business success however in many it doesn't. Wallace and Elgin were still massively successful in their jobs which is to execute their owners business plan.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 13, 2015

ifmanis5 said:
I see your point but my point is that neither Chuck nor that hack article had a clue about measuring NBA business success. Those guys are only measuring rings and wins and losses.

Ah gotcha.

Devizier · Feb 14, 2015

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
His point is clear - stat nerds, like Hollywood screen adaptations, are derivative, inaccurate and lame.

really? I thought he was just trolling Morey, who most definitely has earned it. But if Chuck got that meta, kudos to him I guess.

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Feb 14, 2015

Devizier said:
really? I thought he was just trolling Morey, who most definitely has earned it. But if Chuck got that meta, kudos to him I guess.

I was referring to Mac Engel's "article" supporting Chuck's "No Stats Zone" stance. That said, Chuck is most definitely trolling Morey and everyone else who has their nose in the advanced stats section of Basketball-Ref or the ESPN site or the like.

repole · Feb 14, 2015

Blacken said:
I don't have data on that. But I can speak for myself, because I'm not NDA'd. The smallest pay cut I have entertained when talking to teams was 25%. One team in your neck of the woods would have been (at the time) 50% less than I was making. I would expect that actual stats people (I'm a software developer who's good at data crunching, not a statistician) are in a similar boat; most seem to trend young or academic, so they may not have been making money and taking a pay cut, but the opportunity cost is significant versus something like finance.

(None of the teams who've expressed continuing interest were willing to pay enough to live comfortably in the city where the team is. I like basketball, but I like my current job too. There's one team I'd have gone for, pay cut be damned, but my employment situation was creating a timing crunch in their process and they decided to pass rather than rush the wrong hire. Shit happens.)

I work for a team in analytics, and yeah, anyone and everyone I've met who's in a similar role has taken a significant pay cut or is making a good bit less than they could if they pursued other jobs. No one takes these jobs if they don't really, really like basketball (though a surprising amount of people who know little about the game do apply for them).

Anyone who wants a good laugh should look up the comments Chuck made about the Harden deal when it was made.

Chuck's War on Stats

Member

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Member

Robespierre in a Cape

darrell foster wallace

Robespierre in a Cape

Penbis

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Well-Known Member

Robert the Deuce

Member

Dorito Dawg

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member

bet squelcher

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member