View Single Post
Old 12-07-2017, 09:03 AM #1
Wolfie* Wolfie* is offline
Undisputed Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,393
Quoted: 1313 Post(s)
Rep Power: 37
Wolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond reputeWolfie* has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 50,000,515,014,483,274,366,976.00
Bank: 2,316,080,570,776,187,568,128.00
Total Points: 52,316,595,585,259,451,449,344.00
.. - Rocky... The Good Stuff - Rocky... lol - Rocky... Stella - Rocky... Grolsch - Rocky... 
Becks - Rocky... Warsetiner - Rocky... Corona - Rocky... Have a slice - Rocky... Americans love these - Rocky... 
nice - Rocky... For being a good sport - Rocky... Yo - Rocky... You like fish? - Rocky... Love these - Rocky... 
Surprise - Rocky... They is good - Rocky... Woohoo - Rocky... cheers homey - Mike D Alcoholism lol - El-blanco 
Troop and Military Support - Amber Alert - Bladder Cancer - Endometriosis - Equality - Liver Cancer - Liver Disease - Missing Children - POW/MIA - Spina Bifida - Suicide - -jose- 
Question Sports fans: Analytics vs the eye test? What do you trust more?

Analytics is being more and more introduced into team sports as a way to show who individually is more efficient but often times from what I've seen, the numbers don't tell the full story base on what we call the eye test. With that being said, should we hold a lot of stock to analytics to begin with?

How does analytics not show the full story? I'll give you examples of how analytics do not tell the full story in regards to the nba. Take a look at a rookie kevin durant in 2005. At the time, he had a historically a bad +/- when he was a rookie, yet base on the eye test, you can tell he was going to be a lethal scorer base on what he was showing on the court, yet analytics showed him being an liability on the court.

Since I'm a Lakers fan, this season our Rookie Kyle Kuzma(not Lonzo unfortunately), has shown a bad +/- especially in the 4th quarter, yet if you actually watch the games closely you can tell he gives us the best chance to win when he is actually playing despite what his analytics say.

As a sports fan, what do you think of analytics? Do you hold a lot of stock into them? I'm not saying it's always wrong or it's bs because Lebron has been one of the most efficient players over the years and that it is true, even passing the eye test as well. Thoughts?
Wolfie* is offline   Reply With Quote