Originally Posted by
nikkoewan
Subjectivity and Objectivity is not merely about the subject and the object. Not just about the lack of the subject's bias or the importance of the object being free of outside influence. If subjectivity was merely that, then nothing would be objective and everything would be subjective. Even how you define a "planet" is open for discussion. Even what each word in the English language mean. A chair is a chair only because everybody accepts it's a chair. How that definition is used is open to interpretation. Does a chair need to have four legs? Does a chair need to function as a butt rest? What if the world decides that a chair is not a chair but a bed and a bed is not a bed but a chair. Would we still consider what defines a chair objective or subjective?
What we perceive will always have a tinge of bias. But we can with certainty say that as defined by mathematical axioms, using the operator addition on 2 and 2 results into 4. But Math, for as defined as it is with its multitude of axioms, theorems, laws, and what not, is still objective in nature. But the exercise of extracting truth (or universally accepted premises to be accepted as fact) is subjectively objective. Is proving a theorem a subjective exercise or an objective one?
It is objective in that it uses laws, theorems and postulates derived from axioms we believe to be true.
But subjective in that the methodology, the organization and what not differs from person to person. As they say, we arrive at the same conclusion -- we just took different paths to get there. It is the same with basketball.
This is the same with basketball - it IS a social science. I'll end the minor philosophical rant here.
Yes, there are empty stats. And yes, we seem to agree that certain things are supposed to be objective beyond a reasonable doubt -- what defines a good FT shooter.
What I find it hard to believe is that you seem to accept some statistics as objective while others subjective when in reality, they are neither and they are both. You say a 60 percent shooter is not a great FT shooter only because relative to the league it plays on (where average is about 70%, correct me if I am wrong). But 60% from the FT line yields 120 points per 100 -- still well above league average points per 100 possession.
Factoring in WS -- a statistic derived from ORTG and DRTG, which is in turn derived from points/rebounds/assists/etc... and points allowed/steals/field goal misses forced/etc -- is an important part of the discussion because its a statistical model that captures a certain story.
You misunderstood me when I said "I am frustrated when people say no one stat or a combo of it can tell the whole story". It is the truth (or a universally accepted premise). But using merely your observations (as you are so keen on doing) tells a better story than what these "stats" say.
In reality, Zach Lowe was right -- Lance isn't a ball dominant scorer which means he actually has to score to be considered that. But he neither took too many shots, committed too many turnovers (some may of course not be born out of trying to score) nor gotten so many free throws (again, some may not be born out of trying to score).
There is evidence to suggest that he is a ball dominant player (Top 100 in Time of Possessions and Half Court Possessions per Game).
Also, it says a lot that you think these models (PER, WS etc) will see the scenario that you laid out (2 missed layups, one make, two offensive rebounds) as a good one. It won't. It's actually a negative one since there's a possibility that the other team gets the rebound -- which I think is your point when you wanted to de-merit a player for missing the first uncontested attempt. It's easy to see this in the equation of both "empty statistic".
Reply With Quote
. I never said a superstar had to be alite on both offenseAND defense. I said they needed to be elite on one of them and not have a serious flaw on the other. I also disagree that durant is a "bad" defender. I don't think he's elite or even greta, but i do think he's a good defender. I also said oif we play the game that Durant is a bad defender, all it does is lower him out of the superstar stats, not elevate Love into it. I think that sums it up sir.
