Hyperbole in ratings...

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sonicmage

The opposite is true, too. People who only watch games and don't understand the stats behind them are also not getting the full picture. Stats are the "what" and watching is the "how", and theyre both important. That's why every NBA team has an analytics department, some just choose to use them more than others. They're even trying to get fans more involved with the analytics movement, with the new data tracking. As of last year, they started showing Four Factor stats at halftime on the scoreboard during Clipper games which was a pleasant surprise. The problem with people who only watch games is that they have selective memories. There's not a person on this Earth who can remember every made or missed shot, steal, rebound, so what people will tend to do is only remember highlights. One good example is Larry Bird and 3-point shooting. Everybody remembers that last shot from the first 3-point contest, so now he is considered one of the best 3-point shooters of all time, especially from Celtics fans. Even 2K has historically rated him as such. The truth of the matter is he was just an okay shooter from beyond the arc by today's standards for much of his career, and we have stats to back that up. That's why I personally love basketball analytics, it helps us remove our personal biases and get a full picture of a player's and team's abilities.

I wouldnt go as far as to say Bird was just a average 3pt shooter, there is also other factors at play, like for example being the star and taking tough shots, compare to say a guy like a Steve Kerr or Korver who are just role players, not to knock them or even say Birds better for that matter. Plus the last few years of Birds career was spent in traction because of his back problems, its amazing he could even play at the high level he played at.

Personally outside of Steph Curry I dont think there is anyone who deserves a high 90's 3pt %, seen a lot over my years and saw really good shooters in the league as well as players that didnt really have the overall talent to play pro or have much of a impact, but there isnt anyone who I have seen be in Curry's world, he is on another level from everyone with shooting. I told my wife he reminds me of a combo of Isiah Thomas ballhandling and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen shooter, but better than they were.

I do agree about analytics, it tells a lot and what I really like is it gives value to guys that may not light up the stat sheet quite as much, but have a impact on the game. To be honest, I think the anlaytics is better for basketball than it baseball to be quite honest, because there are some analytics in baseball that are quite worthless imo.

[jeebs9]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaseIH

I wouldnt go as far as to say Bird was just a average 3pt shooter, there is also other factors at play, like for example being the star and taking tough shots, compare to say a guy like a Steve Kerr or Korver who are just role players, not to knock them or even say Birds better for that matter. Plus the last few years of Birds career was spent in traction because of his back problems, its amazing he could even play at the high level he played at. Personally outside of Steph Curry I dont think there is anyone who deserves a high 90's 3pt %, seen a lot over my years and saw really good shooters in the league as well as players that didnt really have the overall talent to play pro or have much of a impact, but there isnt anyone who I have seen be in Curry's world, he is on another level from everyone with shooting. I told my wife he reminds me of a combo of Isiah Thomas ballhandling and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen shooter, but better than they were. I do agree about analytics, it tells a lot and what I really like is it gives value to guys that may not light up the stat sheet quite as much, but have a impact on the game. To be honest, I think the anlaytics is better for basketball than it baseball to be quite honest, because there are some analytics in baseball that are quite worthless imo.

Not even Ray Allen?

[jeebs9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sonicmage

Not necessarily, he'd be the best in the league at driving layups, he'd be more than decent at steals, ball handling, mid-range shooting. And with shot tendency and touches at max he'd be the league's leading scorer as expected. The only major problem I've seen with him in the past 2K's is how often he'd get blocked due to his height, it's a bit of the Muggsy syndrome. I haven't played around with him yet this year to see if that's still the case though, especially after my shot block fixes. Getting players to be a decent facsimile of themselves is what we all want. You can't just ignore certain stats though, their whole purpose is to give us a read into a player's performance and characteristics.

Was Iverson a good mid range shooter?

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeebs9

Not even Ray Allen?

I think Ray Allen is a notch below Steph, even as great as Ray was, not sure I put him there, just my opinion, Ray Allen is definitely one of the all time great shooters of all time, but what Curry does night in and night out all while being the top guy for the D to contain puts him on another level for me.

I actually was watching Round table and some of the guys were debating greatest shooters of all time, and I forget who all it was that still out Reggie over Ray. Mainly because Ray never carried a team on his back, like Reggie did,, nor did he hit all the clutch shots that Reggie did. Now there is no bigger Reggie fan than myself, but not sure if I can agree with those guys,lol, but they do make good arguement for that being the case.

[jeebs9]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaseIH

I think Ray Allen is a notch below Steph, even as great as Ray was, not sure I put him there, just my opinion, Ray Allen is definitely one of the all time great shooters of all time, but what Curry does night in and night out all while being the top guy for the D to contain puts him on another level for me. I actually was watching Round table and some of the guys were debating greatest shooters of all time, and I forget who all it was that still out Reggie over Ray. Mainly because Ray never carried a team on his back, like Reggie did,, nor did he hit all the clutch shots that Reggie did. Now there is no bigger Reggie fan than myself, but not sure if I can agree with those guys,lol, but they do make good argument for that being the case.

I wasn't saying Ray Allen is better or less. I was more referring to being 90 plus rating. But it's debatable if Ray Allen carried a team. And sonic and bucks were close. But in my opinion. MIller had big games just as much as Allen did for his teams. There isn't much of a difference in my opinion.

Okafor should at least get a boost in driving layup.

[HowDareI]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sonicmage

As far as his inability to shoot, I'm not seeing it being as a result of double teams, but simply that he's a bad shooter from anywhere outside 6 feet. Since I live on the West Coast and the Sixers being as bad as they are, the chances I have of actually watching them play outside of highlights the next day are slim to none. So I've got to dig into the stats. Here we go, first thing I did was look into his shot breakdowns, which can be done here: http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/1626143/stats/shooting/ He looks decent on the box, but 52 for 206 (25.2%) for jump shots? That's atrocious. So I decided to look deeper into that and look into the shot charts. http://on.nba.com/1O8MCDA He looks good from the right side of the floor, but once again atrocious from everywhere else. But maybe it's because he's being closely guarded, like you claim, so I decided to look further into that: NBA.com Shot Tracker Nope. Looking at "Closest Defender shot > 10ft.", we can see that he consistently shoots awful from ten feet and out whether he's closely guarded or not, and most of the time he's taking open shots. So the last thing I did was look into the video for some of his shots to find out a little more. That can be done by going back to the link below, clicking on the Mid-Range FGA under the Shot Area and clicking Video. Most of what I saw were really poor open misses. The offense would get confused and Okafor would be standing there open around the free throw line, so they'd get the ball to him, and he'd take the shot and miss. And not just miss, but miss poorly. Shots hitting the backboard instead of the rim. Bricks off the very edge or back of the rim. If I was any of the coaching staff looking at this, I'd ask him not to shoot from that area anymore this year. Not even if wide open. Looking at both stats and video are vital, IF you want to evaluate a player as an NBA fan or coach. I think when building an NBA AI system in terms of its structure, you need to study the game thoroughly from poring over video after video to find patterns in the way that real NBA players and teams behave, to correctly capture the right animation triggers or flow or reactions or state transitions. For creation of ratings for the NBA 2K video game, however, stats are about 90% of the game. The way game AI works, under the hood, is all based on logic, state machines, and probabilities. It's all stat driven. So it would make sense that the numbers that drive the AI behaviors are also based solely off stats, where possible. I've been re-rating players purely and without bias from stats for close to two decades now, and this method hasn't steered me wrong yet.

Lol I never said Okafor was a good shooter, just (like you said) down low where he's actually in control and not rushed he's fine.

He has a nice touch from the line, and anybody will tell you he has a soft touch when he finishes. But he might never be a good jumpshooter, like Rondo, because his hands are gigantic. And some claim it's a lot harder to shoot like that...maybe it's true...maybe not (Kawhi).

You even confirmed what I said when most of the time he's rushed or pushed out of his comfort zone because of poorly run sets or making him bail us out when he's a center, not a shooter.

I do agree someone needs to sit down and tell him to get more aggressive and fight harder for position, stop settling. It's gonna help him and the team as a whole. It's weird to think we haven't done that considering our GM and the whole analytics thing he's known for.

But there's always two different ways to look at things...I'm not a solely numbers guy because in certain cases they can't show you why someone's doing what they're doing. At least you looked for video as well for visual proof as to what the numbers show...that's (to me) showing you know what you're talking about.

[SonicMage]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeebs9

Was Iverson a good mid range shooter?

I know, that surprised me, too. But throughout the prime moments of his career, he was decent, especially for the volume of shots he took.

Shot Chart

And here's his MVP season:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2001/

41.5% from midrange is actually not bad, a little higher than average, especially for a guard.

The rest of his career he dropped down to 37-39% except for one good season in Denver.

[SonicMage]

Quote: Originally Posted by HowDareI

I do agree someone needs to sit down and tell him to get more aggressive and fight harder for position, stop settling. It's gonna help him and the team as a whole. It's weird to think we haven't done that considering our GM and the whole analytics thing he's known for.

I don't know, does Hinkie give advice about coaching as well as using statistics to evaluate player acquisitions?

Sam Hinkie always puzzles me as an analytics guy. Chemistry and solid veteran leadership are just as important to a winning team as talent, some analytics gurus ignore the qualitative measures that exist alongside the quantitative ones. Any statistician worth his salt will tell you that 'tanking' is a faulty strategy to take given the way the current lottery is structured. Sure, the team with the worst record gets the best shot at the first pick, but its still only 25%. 3 out of 4 times the team with the worst record won't get the top pick. In fact, historically, the worst team has received the top pick only 1 in 10 times. Is that worth the loss of revenue while struggling to get good young players? And if you don't build a solid trust to create a winning atmosphere around them, those top picks will bail town as soon as their next contract expires. As a long-time Clippers fan, I know the pain of free agents abandoning ship when we were under Sterling's reich. Ugh, I'm getting off-topic here.

Anyways, good luck to your team, I hope they get on the right track soon.