[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I don't disagree with your points regarding individual players, but I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest all analytics are garbage.

I think it's best to understand this article as presenting a hypothesis. That is, that the best centers in the league are those that are good on offense, defense, and transitioning, all while facing difficult competition. Sure, sounds good. It then goes further and states that those categories consist of a number of stats which are blended, and that there should be a weighted-three year average.

The "experiment" is then run by crunching the numbers, and you test the hypothesis by comparing the results to other "observational evidence" (i.e. the eye test, though I think there's a lot of "reputation" and "intuition" in there as well). As you point out, there are some results that don't cohere with other "observational evidence". As a result, the hypothesis should be tweaked, likely by adjusting the weighting of certain stats.

Throwing statistical analysis in the garbage would be like scrapping the scientific method because one scientist's hypothesis was proven incomplete or incorrect. That misunderstands the whole enterprise.

If nothing else, this kind of article enriches the debate. Otherwise we are simply down to "I think Trochek IS better than Monahan, because my eyes tell me so" vs "that is ridiculous, anyone who takes Trochek over Monahan needs their head examined". I mean, go ahead, but what's the point?

But at the same time, this article herald's itself as the "definitive" definition of best centres, which is also laughable IMO. Use statistical analysis as a complementary piece, but don't claim to be the be all in determining who's a better player.