But that's not a flaw of the stat. It doesn't claim to do that. PPG doesn't claim say who's the best scorer, especially not based on one game. The problem is people who misuse the stat. The stat itself is just a raw number.
No, you're correct about this, but the way the stats are presented, are to make people use them incorrectly by nature. Hence, why/how players are recruited = ppg. The stat that the public infers by media representation equates the most talented basketball player as well as the best scorer.
No. That's why we have confidence intervals. However, stats, especially counting stats, are NOT subject to noise save for recorder bias. It's the models that are subjective and have noise. Have you done statistical modeling before? You'd know the difference.
Which is why Adjusted +/- is somewhat better, but in the end an average of an average of an estimate is never accurate. I read/use stats daily. And to claim that they are correct, or not misleading is just not true. The basis behind stats is only to inquire further about the number represented and how it came to be.
Yes. By itself, it does not determine individual performance. But you can totally go, "I can see why Jimmer was -12 last game. Dude sucked balls and made everyone worse." Or you can go, "It sucks for Jimmer that he was -12 last night. He got really unlucky by being on the court for SAC making seven threes in a three-minute span." The first actually happened; the second is fabricated. But neither would be exposing a flaw in plus-minus. The stat reflected the truth of the game independent of subjective interpretation. Now if Jimmer had 3000 minutes of -12 games, you have to start wondering what's going on. No one is THAT unlucky.
LOL and in the first case you would be misusing the stats because it mislead you. -12 doesn't mean he made "everyone worse" it only means he was outscored by 12 when he was on the court. Just like simmons being a +18 didn't mean "he made everyone better" The +18 is misleading because it's the highest on the team, the statement is the misuse.
That's what I'm saying. The stat is misused, but it's not misleading. The fact that some people don't understand it doesn't make the stat fallable. Some people think Kobe is better than Duncan based on PPG. But that doesn't make PPG a flawed stat. It just makes those people ignorant. It's probably semantics more than anything.
It's funny you say this but you were mislead and misused plus minus in your statement about Jimmer. And yes, it is all semantics.
I don't think your stance is bad; I just think it's a little off-target. Stats are often misunderstood and misapplied. People who don't know the philosophy and formulae just throw the numbers out and make sweeping judgments. Some use descriptive stats in a prescriptive manner. Those are people being ignorant of who stats work and the difference between the stats and the interpretation of stats. Stats are just a collection of data that are possibly churned through a formula. They are what they are. And if you keep that in mind, they're useful.
Reply With Quote
Someone call a wambulance b/c we have a man down w/ a shattered ego. Praying for your recovery!
