Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Minstrel
That isn't my stance. My stance is to accept numbers over observation when there are measures available that seem to properly quantify the issue in question, removing most or all confounding factors.
There are such measures for scoring, rebounding, passing (though far from unquestionable), so I prefer them over using observation to decide who was better. Defense has no such numbers (though there are some interesting ones), and therefore, there's a lot of subjectivity involved.
But defense is clearly a significant part of the game. That's the difference between it and intangibles. We know defense is a huge part of the game and a big determining factor in who wins and loses. We don't know, at all, that intangibles are a huge part of the game and a big determining factor in who wins. Some people may theorize that it is, but with no proof. It's akin to arguing whether God exists: there's no way to prove it one way or the other.
Defense exists, though. I don't think anyone denies that.  |
Hey, you ignored my funky little model. Given that you see the need to include defense in evaluating a player's overall value and that, as yet, we have no reliable quantitative measure for defense, how should defense factor into our evaluations?
Or more importantly, how should you evaluate defense?
Quote:
No. Hollinger, I believe, builds measures by what he considers logical and then evaluates them by standards like repeatability: do players tend to repeat their PER performance from season to season? Doing so is evidence that it's getting at their talent level, rather than being somewhat random, because players repeat their talent level from year to year, so their PER should (by and large, with accepted statistical variance) by similar from year to year (adjusted by age).
That's far from unquestionable, as I said above. But I think his logical assumptions (like that scoring and assists are affected by team pace and rebounds are affected by how many rebounding chances there are, etc) are strong ones.
|
I'm actually a fan of PER, but I think side by side PER comparisons for players are still somewhat misleading; in particular for players with very different roles. I think we've done a reasonable job of evaluating a player's scoring, rebounding, and perhaps even passing without actually referencing PER.
One of the joys of life: sharing a fundamental point of view, and then adopting two rather different approaches.