Stupid Stats in Sports we have to deal with

I have always wondered why the NBA included 3ptFG% with 2ptFG%, but has a seperate 3ptFG% stat? For example, last night vs sixers, CBillups was listed as 3-9 FG and 0-5 3ptFG. wHY NOT 3-4 2PTfg% and 0-5 3ptFG% ??!! I think the NBA does a diservice to its players and itself when you include the two, because you do get an extra point for making a shot beyond the arc. I just dont get it.........

Also, what other things do u hate???.


LI-I-I-I-KE:

1. RED WINGS WEARING WHITE ON THE ROAD AND RED AT HOME
2. ANYTEAM WEARING THROWBACKS WHEN THE OTHER TEAM IS DRESSED PRESENT
3. MUSIC DURING THE GAME
4. OVERTIME IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL(I hate the stats for TD passes included in regular play stats)
5. A OT POINT IN HOCKEY EVEN WHEN U LOSE
6. BRAIDS COMING OUT THE BACK OF HELMETS
7. ROY WILLIAMS FIRST DOWN SIGNAL
8. BLAHA AND KELSER'S HOMERITIS
9. ABC ON ESPN AND VISE-VERSA
10. EXPANSION

Since your list goes beyond just stats, I'll throw in my long-standing hatred of the phrase "scoring the basketball." It's obviously influenced by the non-stop use of the word "football" in commentary on that sport: teams are "running the football" or "throwing the football," a good player is a "good football player," a bad team is a "bad football team," etc. It's so commonplace that it's hardly noticeable a lot of the time, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when basketball analysts use it. OK, so the Bulls right now are "not a very good basketball team"...WTF other kind of team would they be?! But the worst, of course, is the aforementioned "scoring the basketball," which is just awful.

I like all of those things.

How about these things (that aren't stats):

Slapping hands with everyone on a missed free throw.

Intentionally fouling the other team in the closing moments when there is clearly no chance to catch them.

Fans sitting next to you at the game who don't know who Jason Maxiell is.

Players that take the last shot of the half from 3/4 court...just after the buzzer so it won't hurt their stats.

Some stupid stats of D. Vitale.

On a more serious note, I have always wondered about why doesn't the league compute and show an adjusted FG% to take into account the fact that some field goals are three point goals, because 2 out of 6 three point attempts gives you the same points as 3 out of 6 two point attempts.

I would also like the league to break out FG percentage by location within the arc, e.g. FG% for each player in the paint and out of the paint. Since they already compute points in the paint, why not FG% in the paint?

Dick Vitale quotes

Funny Dick Vitale Quotes - Funny Quotes by Dick Vitale

Dick Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always believed in the PP stat. That's the points scored versus the points possible. If a player takes 6 "3 point shots" and 6 regular shots, then his points possible is 30. If he has 15 points then his PP is 50%. Doesn't really matter where the shots are taken....... Just score baby, score.......

Actually, most web sites that post NBA statistics include the Adjusted FG% which you speak of.

Daniel Gibson and Steve Nash currently lead the NBA in AFG%. Last year, Nash was the highest with Mikki Moore second. Moore actually shot 60.9% from 2-point range. Without shooting any 3-pointers, his AFG% was the same (60.9%). No Piston was in the top 50 last year. Prince was 59th at 50.1%.


ESPN - NBA Statistics and League Leaders - National Basketball Association

Yeah, that is really pathetic when they do that.

Thanks for let me know. Those dirty dogs stole my idea. They will be hearing from my attorney like yesterday.

Dare I ask.

Are there any of those on our Pistons?

If so is video of them doing it on YouTube?

Thanks

I couldn't help but read this post with a John Madden voice in my head. That is EXACTLY how he talks all the time!

Speaking of Madden, Frank Caliendo does a better Madden than Madden does Madden. Have you seen Frank TV?

FrankCaliendo.com - Video of Frank Caliendo, comedian & impressionist

Is there any relationship between this John Madden who plays for the New Jersey Devlis and the American football analyst on TV.



ESPN - New Jersey Devils News, Schedule, Players, Scores, Stats, Photos, Rumors - NHL Hockey

Time of possession in football and winning.

Not cause-effect.

Ta, can you elaborate why you single out this particular stat? I mean, it seems to me that no single statistical average has a one to one cause effect relation with winning and that only single stat that has a one to one cause effect relation with winning in the course of a particular contest is points scored. Or do you mean that time of possession has absolutely no correlation with winning. Just looking for a clarification because i like to learn about how statistically adept individuals (i.e. not me) think through these issues. thanks

It is definitely correlated, but not as strongly as other stats.

A big reason why it is correlated is that turnovers tend to take away from your TOP. And of course, turnovers also make you lose. So in this case, 'A' causes both 'B' and 'C'.

The general perception is that if you have a high time of possession, it leaves less time for the other team to use, which therefore benefits you. That sounds right, until you really think about it.

Would it really be any better for the Lions if they took 10 plays to score and chewed up 6:00 on the clock than if they just ran back the kickoff? Sure, you'd leave the other team with more time on the clock, but when they are done, the Lions would also have more time on the clock... and so on.

Basically, as long as you get the same number of possessions as the other team, you will have an equal chance of winning... provided that the other team is equal to you in ability.


The only time that I think chewing up the clock would be beneficial is if you are an inferior team. In that case, you want to minimize the # of possessions in the game to increase your odds of getting lucky. The examples would be that tons of guys beat Tiger Woods over the course of 18 holes, but not many over the course of 72 holes. This is why some crappy high school teams used the stall tactic.

The other argument that I've heard is that the defensive line gets tired. I guess my problem with that is that I would think that offensive line would as well.

I guess here is what I would change about the time of possession stat.

Take the total time of possession for each team and divide by the number of plays that they had.

So, in the Lions vs. Vikings game for example,

The Lions took up 32 seconds per play.

The Vikings took up 34 seconds per play.


They killed us in total time of possession, but it wasn't because they were running the ball and milking the clock, it was because they were getting first downs and not turning the ball over.

this isn't a stat, but i hate this trend when a player is being interviewed:

'if i would have told you that ____ and that you guys were winning by 10, what would you have said?' or some variation