Davis tops big man Barometer(Advanced Statistics) ESPN Insider

[jinishima]

Just some Hornets attention on ESPN(any attention is cool) I dont have ESPN insider though, so I cant give you the entire article, but it sounds interesting. Maybe Michael or Joe, who more versed on these stats could explain it better. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...-man-barometer

[P Raff]

1. Anthony Davis | New Orleans Hornets | .873

Before Davis was clocked in the head by teammate Austin Rivers last week, he had played six quarters about as well as any rookie has played out of the gate in recent memory. Yesterday, I jumped on board with those suggesting that Davis will spend plenty of time on the wing this season in order to speed up the development of his offensive game. It's already happened to a certain extent, which I wasn't aware of until I ran the play-by-play data. According to my true position system, Davis has played 8.8 of his 43.5 minutes at small forward.

3. Jason Smith | New Orleans Hornets | .808

Smith filled in admirably in a bigger-than-usual role in the Hornets' upset win at Chicago on Saturday. He scored 12 points in the fourth quarter and, perhaps even more importantly with Davis absent, he aided a solid interior defense that helped shut down the rugged Bulls.

Pretty awesome to see. Howard is #2, Bosh is #4, Landry is #5.

[jinishima]

Yeah, and I know Anderson has to be somewhere on that list.

[PelsFan2313]

Yeah, and I know Anderson has to be somewhere on that list.

Meh, his "advanced statistics" haven't been all that impressive, so far. This is basically due to his low field goal percentage, which is basically a byproduct of the cruddy lineups we've put around him. It wouldn't be surprising to hear that Anderson didn't even make the Top 10 in this week's big men barometer list.

[Eman5805]

I've always heard the words advanced statistics and I think of a course I'm glad isn't on my required major curriculum.

Not cuz I'm bad at math, its one of my better subjects, but it bores me witless.

[PelsFan2313]

I've always heard the words advanced statistics and I think of a course I'm glad isn't on my required major curriculum.

Not cuz I'm bad at math, its one of my better subjects, but it bores me witless.

Agreed. I can't be bothered to learn about how statisticians come up with these numbers or why they matter.

[Biasvasospasm]

FWIW, Jason Smith was #3. Can't say I've ever really understood how and why they weight things the way they do in compiling WARP, but it confirms the eyeball test: Anthony Davis was an impact player when he was on the court, and he's going to regularly be a very valued player by advanced statistics.

[MichaelMcNamara]

You all love advanced stats- you just don't know it yet.

Seriously, though, every one of your arguments are advanced stats arguments, the advanced stats just prove what our eyeballs and logic tell us. For example, people have always dismissed a player's PPG when he plays on a bad team or a chucker on a team full of role players? Why? Because he gets more shots. Looking at a player's true shooting percentage or effective field goal percentage or points per shot as opposed to the archaic points per game give us data to support the claim that we always knew was true.

We knew that a lot of guys were better rebounders than Amare Stoudamire when he was in his prime, yet he logged a high number of rebounds per game. The fact is that the Suns played at a pace that saw Amare have 8-10 more possessions on both the offensive and defensive side to get rebounds. So, if you look at his rebound % as opposed to his rebounds per game, you get a better indicator of where he ranks in the league. And how about the Chris Paul vs. Steve Nash debate that went on during that time? People who didn't watch both guys and jus looked at their per game numbers could believe that Nash was still the better passer, but Paul destroyed him in Ast% and TO%

Anyway, I just wanted to make a case for advanced stats, because honestly, PPG, RPG, etc. should be for noobs just learning the game and have no place in a forum with fans as smart as ours. My 2 cents

[nikkoewan]

You all love advanced stats- you just don't know it yet.

Seriously, though, every one of your arguments are advanced stats arguments, the advanced stats just prove what our eyeballs and logic tell us. For example, people have always dismissed a player's PPG when he plays on a bad team or a chucker on a team full of role players? Why? Because he gets more shots. Looking at a player's true shooting percentage or effective field goal percentage or points per shot as opposed to the archaic points per game give us data to support the claim that we always knew was true.

We knew that a lot of guys were better rebounders than Amare Stoudamire when he was in his prime, yet he logged a high number of rebounds per game. The fact is that the Suns played at a pace that saw Amare have 8-10 more possessions on both the offensive and defensive side to get rebounds. So, if you look at his rebound % as opposed to his rebounds per game, you get a better indicator of where he ranks in the league. And how about the Chris Paul vs. Steve Nash debate that went on during that time? People who didn't watch both guys and jus looked at their per game numbers could believe that Nash was still the better passer, but Paul destroyed him in Ast% and TO%

Anyway, I just wanted to make a case for advanced stats, because honestly, PPG, RPG, etc. should be for noobs just learning the game and have no place in a forum with fans as smart as ours. My 2 cents

Nailed it!

[jinishima]

Ive never studied advanced statistics extensively, but I generally understand what they mean in terms of how effective a player is. I seems more interesting ever since I started looking up PER back in 2006 with Chris Paul(he was top 10 that year).