Difference between basketball and baseball stats

[barbacoataco]

Watching some baseball has me thinking. In baseball the hitter faces the pitcher pretty much man to man. But in basketball, all stats are based on the context of the team. For example, if you go back to the Nash/Amare Suns, you will see that those guys stats were a reflection of their team play. Amare never would have scored so much without Nash feeding him tremendous opportunities, and Nash's high assist totals benefitted from Amare's skills and the kind of plays they ran. Or look at how different Kevin Love's stats look in Cleveland compared to when he was in Minnesota.

The problem is that fans and analysts try to use basketball stats as if they were like baseball stats. Another example-- shooting % is entirely depend on team factors in a way that batting average in baseball is not. A player might make a mid-range jumper at a high % when that shot is open and the result of a great pass. That same mid-range jumper becomes a low % shot when a player is defended well and forcing the shot. That us why assisted shots are made with a higher % than un-assisted hero ball type shots.
The problem is that doesn't show up on most stat lines.

Where all this relates to the Spurs is in relation to the supposed inefficiency of Aldridge's jump shots. If he is getting a great pass and is wide open, that is a high % shot. As long as the Spurs have great ball movement they will get good shots and make them.

[skulls138]

No doubt you have to look at the individual situation. Karl Malones high % is because of Stockton whereas Shaqs is because he is Shaq. However RBIs and runs also depend on what's going on around the individual player.

[SAGirl]

Watching some baseball has me thinking. In baseball the hitter faces the pitcher pretty much man to man. But in basketball, all stats are based on the context of the team. For example, if you go back to the Nash/Amare Suns, you will see that those guys stats were a reflection of their team play. Amare never would have scored so much without Nash feeding him tremendous opportunities, and Nash's high assist totals benefitted from Amare's skills and the kind of plays they ran. Or look at how different Kevin Love's stats look in Cleveland compared to when he was in Minnesota.

The problem is that fans and analysts try to use basketball stats as if they were like baseball stats. Another example-- shooting % is entirely depend on team factors in a way that batting average in baseball is not. A player might make a mid-range jumper at a high % when that shot is open and the result of a great pass. That same mid-range jumper becomes a low % shot when a player is defended well and forcing the shot. That us why assisted shots are made with a higher % than un-assisted hero ball type shots.
The problem is that doesn't show up on most stat lines.

Where all this relates to the Spurs is in relation to the supposed inefficiency of Aldridge's jump shots. If he is getting a great pass and is wide open, that is a high % shot. As long as the Spurs have great ball movement they will get good shots and make them.

I think many basketball coaches are not fans of the recent analytics trend precisely because as you mention it can paint a misleading picture by itself. There is so much more they can personally learn from a player by just watching him, IMO specially people that really know basketball. Front Offices have gotten on the bandwagon on analytics but you cannot rely on that so much. Teammates and coaching (system plays, style) impact an individual's numbers in ways that a simple stat by itself cannot show, like shooting %. So now analytics has been evolving to try to account for many more things that were previously not recorded. I remember hearing in one of the SL telecasts, that in SL analysts were starting to record hustle plays, the number of deflections a player caused (even if the loose ball was recovered by a teammate and thus awarded to someone else as a steal), number of contests a player made (getting a hand up on a player, even if that player was particularly hot and made a tough shot), etc. I suspect analytics has been trending to try to quantify and record as much as possible, but its an imperfect science. There is also tracking player movement, passes, etc. These days so much is recorded and quantified, that I don't think we even get the full picture of internal stats that teams keep up. Still, the old eye test can already show you so much, specially if you know basketball and are not observing a player with your blind player fan glasses on, that some things you know without having to pore over charts, data etc. Ultimately you may even discover that the data confirms what your eye test already told you, that maybe so and so taking so many shots from a particular spot is not a good idea for example, or that trying to go for an offensive rebound is not a good idea as it kills your transition defense, etc.