Take on the stat nerds

Watching the Heat Celtics series has been fantastic.  The most hated
but also one of the most talented team in history vs a bunch of old
guys who walk around like they are a dynasty when in fact they have
only one championship banner hanging from the rafters since Larry Bird
hung up his Converse
I won't insult you by dissecting the games leaving that the blowhards
over at ESPN.  What I will do is bore you with my analysis of their
analysis.   I am actually not referring to any particular game but
just the absolute minutia that follows any game.
For years I have found stats like rebounding edge, turnover ratio,
points in the paint etc to justify a win/loss ridiculous

Take an average game that ends 100-99 and watch Mike Wilbon, Stephen
A, Ric Bucker fall all over each other to find a reason for the loss.
his is the kind of lame stat cherry picking these analysts all do to
fit their own narrative.  These guys all make predictions before a
game and then try to use a few stats to justify the outcome after it's
done

Let's take a look at what might happened in game 7 this weekend 

For argument sake let's assume that the Celts beat the Heat 100-99
with Paul Pierce hitting a two at the end of regulation to get Boston
to the NBA championship.   After the entire world is done blaming Lebron

for everything from missing free-throws to causing cancer they will

immediately start dissecting the game and find four or
five random stats and harp on them to justify the outcome

They will say that the Celts outplayed them on the offensive glass,
had more steals and that their bench out scored the Heat bench   This
is fine but it really doesn't justify the outcome because at the end
of the day the only thing that matters is that one team scores more
points than another and if Pierce hits the jumper than bench scoring
or offensive boards become important and if he misses all the analysis
will be about transition points and total rebounds

Some guy will say that the Celts had more offensive boards but is that
due to them missing more shots.? If one team shoots 30-50 from the
field and another shoots 20-50, the team hitting only 20 shots will
have 10 more opportunities for an offensive board.

Another stat will be regurgitated that the Celtics scored more points
in the paint but in a one point game doesn't that just mean that the
Heat scored more points from the wings or the free-throw line

 If they tell you the Celtics had more steals then it leads you to
think they had more possessions but if those didn't translate into
points than what does it matter?

But the most ridiculous stat is bench scoring.

If in a a one point game the Celtics scored more bench points than the
Heat, then the Heat got more production out of their starters. 

There are 100 stats to call and in a close game one team will have an
edge in some and the other will have an edge in another but when all
these stats are presented in a total vacuum than what does it matter?

Sent from my iPhone