Awesome Statistics.... (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

This use of statistics has to set a record for the number of arbitrary levels and caveats covered with sensatualism you may ever see.

That said, Wade is having an unbelievable postseason. He's on pace to become the only guard in NBA history and one of only five players ever to average 19-3-4 on at least 52 percent shooting in the playoffs at 32 years of age or older. What he's doing has literally never been done by a guard before.

19 points? Why not 20 points? All the other guys on the list were over 20 with Kareem doing it while averaging 33 points. 3 Rebonds? Really. Hakeem, Wilt, and Sir Charles were all well into double digits in Rebounds. Wilt averaged 22.2 rebounds! What makes 4 assists so special? And then to add shooting 52 percent. Why not drop it to 50 percent which adds several more people to the list including Alex English.

And what makes 32 so special? Drop the age to 28 and the list grows to 30. Drop out the age completely and the task as been accomplished 81 times. Yeah, it has literally never been done before.

 

[jon_mx]

I guess abuse of statistics is just one of my pet peeves.....carry on...

 

[Abraham]

I agree with you. That's stupid.

 

[NCCommish]

Has it ever been done by a 32 year old guard or not? If not then guy has a point. And we all know age is a big deal in sports. Let an RB hit 30 and not fall apart and people call him a wonder. Age isn't really that arbitrary a measuring stick in sport.

 

[tonydead]

Another fine example of Jon_mx the great mathematician.

 

[jon_mx]

Another fine example of Jon_mx the great mathematician.

Tony, the board idiot speaks.....

 

[Fat Nick]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

 

[jon_mx]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

yeah....sarcasm does not usually come across in titles.

 

[Fat Nick]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

yeah....sarcasm does not usually come across in titles.

True. We need a sarcasm font.

I started another thread HERE for real awesome statistics. Feel free to add.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, now that there are huge databases of easily searchable stats in sports, we get fed all this ridiculous stuff a lot.

"This RB just became the first ever to rush for at least 4.37 yards per rush for 16 rushes in a row against and away opponent at the age of 34 and 4 months or older."

I bet something happens for the first time in just about every single game that takes place if you are willing to parse stats to a far enough degree.

 

[jon_mx]

Has it ever been done by a 32 year old guard or not? If not then guy has a point. And we all know age is a big deal in sports. Let an RB hit 30 and not fall apart and people call him a wonder. Age isn't really that arbitrary a measuring stick in sport.

No, but only because of the 52 percent and not 50 percent. And Wade isn't even finished with the playoffs, only one series and nearly a second one. Besides his last statement "What he's doing has literally never been done by a guard before", when he really meant it has never been done by an over the hill guard before.

 

[tonydead]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

yeah....sarcasm does not usually come across in titles.

Why 19 points? Because he's using Wade as his baseline.

Like I said, another fine example.

Spoiler

Your response will include something about how I'm defending the author's position, which I could care less. Or just another smiley.

 

[Rayderr]

"This is the first time ever that a 32 year old, left handed, redhead, born 3 weeks prematurely, with size 12 feet from Talkeetna, Alaska has scored in a game played during a blue moon!"

 

[jon_mx]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

yeah....sarcasm does not usually come across in titles.

Why 19 points? Because he's using Wade as his baseline.

Like I said, another fine example.

Spoiler

Your response will include something about how I'm defending the author's position, which I could care less. Or just another smiley.

The 19 points is stupid, as is the 52 percent. When you put levels on something as an accomplishment, there should be some basis for it, like 30 homers/30 stolen bases or 500 homers for a career. Usually in basketball, they use a double-double or a triple-double. 19 is completely meaningless level, and 52 percent is out and out stupid. The author just choose a bunch of stats that made the accomplishment seem somehow spectacular (only by selecting so many caveats and different levels does he make it unique), when it reality it has been a good performance, but doesn't even crack the top 100 playoff performances.

 

[DiStefano]

"This is the first time ever that a 32 year old, left handed, redhead, born 3 weeks prematurely, with size 12 feet from Talkeetna, Alaska has scored in a game played during a blue moon!"

 

[tonydead]

Why 19 points? Because he's using Wade as his baseline.

Like I said, another fine example.

Spoiler

Your response will include something about how I'm defending the author's position, which I could care less. Or just another smiley.

Spoiler

The 19 points is stupid, as is the 52 percent. When you put levels on something as an accomplishment, there should be some basis for it, like 30 homers/30 stolen bases or 500 homers for a career. Usually in basketball, they use a double-double or a triple-double. 19 is completely meaningless level, and 52 percent is out and out stupid. The author just choose a bunch of stats that made the accomplishment seem somehow spectacular (only by selecting so many caveats and different levels does he make it unique), when it reality it has been a good performance, but doesn't even crack the top 100 playoff performances.

Like I said Wade is the baseline. He is making a comparison of other players against Wade and Wade averaged 19 points. That's why he chose 19 points and not 20 like you suggested.

Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the author's conclusions just pointing out that it's painfully obvious WHY he chose 19 points.

You could easily make the argument (if you wanted, and I really don't) that nice round, even numbers like 500 homers are more meaningless than comparisons made to actual numbers put up by other athletes. The former are just milestones.

 

[jon_mx]

Why 19 points? Because he's using Wade as his baseline.Like I said, another fine example.

Spoiler

Your response will include something about how I'm defending the author's position, which I could care less. Or just another smiley.

Spoiler

The 19 points is stupid, as is the 52 percent. When you put levels on something as an accomplishment, there should be some basis for it, like 30 homers/30 stolen bases or 500 homers for a career. Usually in basketball, they use a double-double or a triple-double. 19 is completely meaningless level, and 52 percent is out and out stupid. The author just choose a bunch of stats that made the accomplishment seem somehow spectacular (only by selecting so many caveats and different levels does he make it unique), when it reality it has been a good performance, but doesn't even crack the top 100 playoff performances.

Like I said Wade is the baseline. He is making a comparison of other players against Wade and Wade averaged 19 points. That's why he chose 19 points and not 20 like you suggested.Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the author's conclusions just pointing out that it's painfully obvious WHY he chose 19 points.

You could easily make the argument (if you wanted, and I really don't) that nice round, even numbers like 500 homers are more meaningless than comparisons made to actual numbers put up by other athletes. The former are just milestones.

The point is, none of those stats individually is all that impressive. It is just rare because he gets a few extra rebounds than a guard typically gets and a few more assists than a typical center or forward. If you put enough stats together you could find out unique things about a lot of players. That does not mean it is some awesome accomplishment.

 

[tonydead]

Sure whatever. You asked why 19 points. Know you understand why.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Yeah, now that there are huge databases of easily searchable stats in sports, we get fed all this ridiculous stuff a lot.

"This RB just became the first ever to rush for at least 4.37 yards per rush for 16 rushes in a row against and away opponent at the age of 34 and 4 months or older."

I bet something happens for the first time in just about every single game that takes place if you are willing to parse stats to a far enough degree.

A running back being on the field at all at 34 years and 4 months would probably be newsworthy.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Misleading title...I came here for some awesome statistics and all I got was crap about basketball. <_<

yeah....sarcasm does not usually come across in titles.

Why 19 points? Because he's using Wade as his baseline.

Like I said, another fine example.

Spoiler

Your response will include something about how I'm defending the author's position, which I could care less. Or just another smiley.

Spoiler

The 19 points is stupid, as is the 52 percent. When you put levels on something as an accomplishment, there should be some basis for it, like 30 homers/30 stolen bases or 500 homers for a career. Usually in basketball, they use a double-double or a triple-double. 19 is completely meaningless level, and 52 percent is out and out stupid. The author just choose a bunch of stats that made the accomplishment seem somehow spectacular (only by selecting so many caveats and different levels does he make it unique), when it reality it has been a good performance, but doesn't even crack the top 100 playoff performances.

True. There is nothing arbitrary about a double-double or triple-double at all.

 

[bigbottom]

I'm with Jon on this one. Ridiculous.

 

[matuski]

jon_mx, could you tell me more about this "sensatualism"?