Information on (basketball) Information

[diggerfoot]

I cringe a little when I see the old "damn lies and statistics" chestnut, just as I do when I see statistics presented as conclusive evidence of something. Philosophies of science and knowledge were a big part of my academic training, along with my ongoing "research" into life. There are two important parts of information, though constructed different by different philosophies and (in my opinion) not the only parts to consider. These are validity and reliability.

Statistics provide reliable information, people can agree on what they mean, but what they mean may not be valid to what is being considered. Essentially every objective statistic has subjective criteria behind its choice. Should Stewart's unique blocks and assists statistic be valued more or less than Moore's blocks and steals statistics? Should Taurasi's number of clutch shots (neither Moore nor Stewart played in many close games, Stewart never played in a close game we won) be valued over other statistics? I think most people agree that you cannot compare Stewart v Jefferson based on statistics, no matter how reliable those statistics are.

I tend to favor validity over reliability, but there are pitfalls there as well. Taurasi did something the others did not, lead an inexperienced squad to a championship. This is an extremely valid criterion for comparison. Different players may have different roles in different systems for different teams that all affect the stats, but it's certainly valid to assume you want them to lead teams to championships regardless of their different situations. However, I'll be the first to admit that my criterion (yes, I favor Taurasi) is not reliable. We are talking about a sample size of one. Stewart never even had the chance to lead an inexperienced squad, while Moore only failed at it once. If you put each player into that type of situation ten times, maybe Taurasi only does it once and she happened to get lucky (I don't believe this, but you get my drift). Meanwhile, maybe Moore ends up leading an inexperienced team to a championship nine times out of ten but was unlucky that she only had one opportunity at it. My claim would be bolstered if there was the statistic born out of a decent sample size behind it.

Thus there should be a degree of humility behind either reliable or valid claims, since it is rare to have large measures of both. Just my two cents for now.

 

[UcMiami]

I cringe a little when I see the old "damn lies and statistics" chestnut, just as I do when I see statistics presented as conclusive evidence of something. Philosophies of science and knowledge were a big part of my academic training, along with my ongoing "research" into life. There are two important parts of information, though constructed different by different philosophies and (in my opinion) not the only parts to consider. These are validity and reliability.

Statistics provide reliable information, people can agree on what they mean, but what they mean may not be valid to what is being considered. Essentially every objective statistic has subjective criteria behind its choice. Should Stewart's unique blocks and assists statistic be valued more or less than Moore's blocks and steals statistics? Should Taurasi's number of clutch shots (neither Moore nor Stewart played in many close games, Stewart never played in a close game we won) be valued over other statistics? I think most people agree that you cannot compare Stewart v Jefferson based on statistics, no matter how reliable those statistics are.

I tend to favor validity over reliability, but there are pitfalls there as well. Taurasi did something the others did not, lead an inexperienced squad to a championship. This is an extremely valid criterion for comparison. Different players may have different roles in different systems for different teams that all affect the stats, but it's certainly valid to assume you want them to lead teams to championships regardless of their different situations. However, I'll be the first to admit that my criterion (yes, I favor Taurasi) is not reliable. We are talking about a sample size of one. Stewart never even had the chance to lead an inexperienced squad, while Moore only failed at it once. If you put each player into that type of situation ten times, maybe Taurasi only does it once and she happened to get lucky (I don't believe this, but you get my drift). Meanwhile, maybe Moore ends up leading an inexperienced team to a championship nine times out of ten but was unlucky that she only had one opportunity at it. My claim would be bolstered if there was the statistic born out of a decent sample size behind it.

Thus there should be a degree of humility behind either reliable or valid claims, since it is rare to have large measures of both. Just my two cents for now.

Thanks - it is an important point to make in life not just in basketball, especially in this country which seems to be going through a period where a large portion of the population is prone to ignore statistics and facts if they are inconvenient to belief.

(And I'll nail you on one point of fact - Diana's junior and senior seasons were augmented by 3+ good freshman arriving in 2002-3, but were not in fact inexperienced as a whole - Moore (38), Battle (13), Valley (18) and Conlon (29) were, like Diana, 3rd year players and combined to start 98 games - the freshman other than Strother (#1 recruit and 38 game starter) started 17 - seven by Turner and ten by Wolfe before her injury. By 2004 there were zero starts by freshman (and a total of only 180 minutes played by freshman.) In contrast Maya's senior season had 71 freshman starts and another 38 by a sophomore - quite 'inexperienced' indeed.)

And I'll give you one distinction for Breanna - she was able to 'lead' a very experienced team to an NC as a freshman, something neither Maya nor Diana could do. (Unfortunately injuries in both 2001 and 2008 help derail very promising seasons , so there are extenuating circumstance, but the remaining teams were still full of good players.)

 

[diggerfoot]

Thanks - it is an important point to make in life not just in basketball, especially in this country which seems to be going through a period where a large portion of the population is prone to ignore statistics and facts if they are inconvenient to belief.

(And I'll nail you on one point of fact - Diana's junior and senior seasons were augmented by 3+ good freshman arriving in 2002-3, but were not in fact inexperienced as a whole - Moore (38), Battle (13), Valley (18) and Conlon (29) were, like Diana, 3rd year players and combined to start 98 games - the freshman other than Strother (#1 recruit and 38 game starter) started 17 - seven by Turner and ten by Wolfe before her injury. By 2004 there were zero starts by freshman (and a total of only 180 minutes played by freshman.) In contrast Maya's senior season had 71 freshman starts and another 38 by a sophomore - quite 'inexperienced' indeed.)

You know how much I value your observations ... but not your facts in this case . We engaged in this briefly once before. Alas, I only log in once every few weeks or so and I don't know how that particular thread played out. I tried to close in the way I recommended here, the "humble" way, by conceding that both squads were inexperienced. You should have taken the same road. Instead, you claim to "nail" me when what you did was data mine. What comparison of inexperience is valid? You chose freshman starts. You threw in combined freshmen and sophomore for good measure. But what about senior starts, which is what most people equate first with experience. What about starts from previous years? What about previous experience as leader? Did the sophomore Taurasi have more previous experience on a Bird-led squad or the junior Moore on a Charles-led squad?

Each of us could data mine to our hearts content. That is why your opening paragraph is ironic. I was advocating humility for both those striving for reliability and validity and, quite frankly, I favor validity over those who data mine to "prove" their positions. Yes, that's convenient for me in this case. If we concede that both squads would fit valid definitions of inexperience Moore failed once, Taurasi didn't. But, like I said, it's just one data point each. Your strength, if you disagree, comes in elaborating why more data points, more chances to lead inexperienced squads, might tip the scale in Moore's favor.

 

[hoophuskee]

I cringe a little when I see the old "damn lies and statistics" chestnut, just as I do when I see statistics presented as conclusive evidence of something. Philosophies of science and knowledge were a big part of my academic training, along with my ongoing "research" into life. There are two important parts of information, though constructed different by different philosophies and (in my opinion) not the only parts to consider. These are validity and reliability.

Statistics provide reliable information, people can agree on what they mean, but what they mean may not be valid to what is being considered. Essentially every objective statistic has subjective criteria behind its choice. Should Stewart's unique blocks and assists statistic be valued more or less than Moore's blocks and steals statistics? Should Taurasi's number of clutch shots (neither Moore nor Stewart played in many close games, Stewart never played in a close game we won) be valued over other statistics? I think most people agree that you cannot compare Stewart v Jefferson based on statistics, no matter how reliable those statistics are.

I tend to favor validity over reliability, but there are pitfalls there as well. Taurasi did something the others did not, lead an inexperienced squad to a championship. This is an extremely valid criterion for comparison. Different players may have different roles in different systems for different teams that all affect the stats, but it's certainly valid to assume you want them to lead teams to championships regardless of their different situations. However, I'll be the first to admit that my criterion (yes, I favor Taurasi) is not reliable. We are talking about a sample size of one. Stewart never even had the chance to lead an inexperienced squad, while Moore only failed at it once. If you put each player into that type of situation ten times, maybe Taurasi only does it once and she happened to get lucky (I don't believe this, but you get my drift). Meanwhile, maybe Moore ends up leading an inexperienced team to a championship nine times out of ten but was unlucky that she only had one opportunity at it. My claim would be bolstered if there was the statistic born out of a decent sample size behind it.

Thus there should be a degree of humility behind either reliable or valid claims, since it is rare to have large measures of both. Just my two cents for now.

I enjoy your posts very very very much.

I'd like to ask you a few questions about Stewie.

1-- What do you think turned around her season so dramatically her frosh year? What was it that so inspired the staff to have her as the go-to player all of a sudden?

2-- How much of it was Stewie's fault that the team didn't build around her early on? And does she lose "greatness points" because as the team's go-to player, she soundly defeated a known rival that was undoubtedly the favorite? How much better in her overall outlook if she was the leader of a two point victory rather than a resounding "going away" victory?

 

[UcMiami]

Digger - I give you a 'touché' for your response.
Just a particular hangup I have about Ashley, Jessica, and Maria who I do not think get enough recognition for what they brought to the table in 2003 and 2004, as well as real admiration for Strother and Turner and the enigmatic Crockett. (And sadness about Nicole who had a brilliant ten game start to a very short career.)

Hoophuskee - your questions - my take is it was just a little more dramatic example of what Geno does every year to all his players. He sees where they are for the first few games of the year and then he starts breaking them down and pushing them to expand there capabilities for the remainder of the regular season. But at the very end of the year, and into conference tournament he starts the rebuilding of their confidence and game and by the NCAA they are playing 'perfectly' at least until the next fall.
The sequence:
1. Show me what you got kid and what you did over the summer.
2. Wow, you have to be the worst _____ player in Amercia. Can you do anything well?! We have lots of work to do!
3. Wow, you really just showed me something, if you can just keep doing that, we are unbeatable! You must be the best _____ player in America.

#2 - I guess she loses 'clutch' points cause it didn't take a buzzer beater, but another definition of clutch is bringing your 'beyond category' game to the biggest game of the year and making it look easy.

 

[Kibitzer]

As a matter of possible pertinent interest, John Henry made a big announcement today. He's the fellow who reportedly made billions by relying heavily on analytics in his hedge fund business. He also owns both the Red Sox and the Boston Globe. He stated that (after three last place finishes in four years) the Sox will rely less on analytics when making personnel decisions.

Any significance in Henry's decision?

 

[hoophuskee]

Digger - I give you a 'touché' for your response.
Just a particular hangup I have about Ashley, Jessica, and Maria who I do not think get enough recognition for what they brought to the table in 2003 and 2004, as well as real admiration for Strother and Turner and the enigmatic Crockett. (And sadness about Nicole who had a brilliant ten game start to a very short career.)

Hoophuskee - your questions - my take is it was just a little more dramatic example of what Geno does every year to all his players. He sees where they are for the first few games of the year and then he starts breaking them down and pushing them to expand there capabilities for the remainder of the regular season. But at the very end of the year, and into conference tournament he starts the rebuilding of their confidence and game and by the NCAA they are playing 'perfectly' at least until the next fall.
The sequence:
1. Show me what you got kid and what you did over the summer.
2. Wow, you have to be the worst _____ player in Amercia. Can you do anything well?! We have lots of work to do!
3. Wow, you really just showed me something, if you can just keep doing that, we are unbeatable! You must be the best _____ player in America.

#2 - I guess she loses 'clutch' points cause it didn't take a buzzer beater, but another definition of clutch is bringing your 'beyond category' game to the biggest game of the year and making it look easy.

UC- yes I know about 1-3. But her change was dramatic in terms of Geno turning over the offense to her. She BECAME the #1 option. On Feb 18th she played 7 minutes vs Baylor. This is more than just a coaching formula. It was clear lack of confidence with her play. Then the next big game vs ND - she played about 40 minutes on March 4th and was 1-7 from the floor, 3-6 from ft line, had 1 assist with 5 turnovers and scored just 5 points and had just 6 rebounds. She did have 5 blocks . . .

The very next game she destroyed DePaul. but you don't go and change your go-to player from someone whom you can't trust vs Baylor and then the next big game plays bad vs ND- and then say "Here you go. You're our number 1 option tournament time" to a freshman. SOMETHING changed. But from someone you can't trust who hasn't showed they can play well vs the top teams late - you are then saying "Here, lead us!" Sure a light went on- but what I am getting at -

Did a light go on for the player -- or for the coaching staff? I mean what would make Geno trust her when before that she did nothing vs the elite teams? I recall CD saying "My fault . . . My fault . . ." I am guessing what CD might have said - that normally players come to her "What can I do . . ." And she waited but Stewie never came to her because maybe she isn't that way to search for help . . .
I just know CD said "My fault . . . My fault . . ." If I am wrong what would make them do such a radical change to decide she is the number 1 option when she was performing so poorly before? Was it desperation because we couldn't beat ND- then the DePaul game change everything?

 

[stamfordhusky]

As a matter of possible pertinent interest, John Henry made a big announcement today. He's the fellow who reportedly made billions by relying heavily on analytics in his hedge fund business. He also owns both the Red Sox and the Boston Globe. He stated that (after three last place finishes in four years) the Sox will rely less on analytics when making personnel decisions.

Any significance in Henry's decision?

The biggest issue is that Boston used metrics very badly. Signing players such as Pablo Sandoval was criticized by most every sabermetrician. Perhaps Heny should simply hire good analysts - or else make better use of the metrics.

 

[DaddyChoc]

and throw in the Big East rivals (along with Tenn) vs the AAC (along with ND and South Carolina)... give me Taurasi (clutch), Moore (battle-tested) and Stewie (coasting) in 3rd, regardless of the number of championships.

Stewie may have "led" as a frosh but KML and Hartley's swag along with 'tude played a huge part

 

[UcMiami]

HoopHuskee - I guess I would put it all on Breanna. The offense in her first ten games was finding her and then when she slumped they stopped finding her or she stopped delivering, and i wouldn't say the offense revolved around her in the NCAAs, it revolved around Stef and was orchestrated by Bria, and KML and Stewart were the go to players when they were 'on'.

and throw in the Big East rivals (along with Tenn) vs the AAC (along with ND and South Carolina)... give me Taurasi (clutch), Moore (battle-tested) and Stewie (coasting) in 3rd, regardless of the number of championships.

Stewie may have "led" as a frosh but KML and Hartley's swag along with 'tude played a huge part

When you are only challenged a few times a year, general SOS is pretty meaningless. I would put ND and Baylor from Stewart's freshman year, and ND the last two years up against any of the tough teams Uconn faced in 2003/4 or in 2008/11.

[Villanova was the best team in the BE other than Uconn in 2003 and BC was the best in 2004, and I don't think this current team would struggle against either of them - they would treat them like they have treated USF. The fact that Uconn lost to both those teams in the conference tournament was at the time really shocking as they were ranked in the high teens/low twenties at the time of each loss - Uconn was a 'better' conference mate in those years since because of those wins each team received a significant boost in the rankings and seedings for the tournament.]

 

[JordyG]

The biggest issue is that Boston used metrics very badly. Signing players such as Pablo Sandoval was criticized by most every sabermetrician. Perhaps Heny should simply hire good analysts - or else make better use of the metrics.

The occasional eye test with a hard look at character also helps.