Rockets are embarrassing with the new salvo of misinformation

Shortly after falling into the hands of the Golden State Warriors 100-104 at the opening game of the semifinals of the Western Conference, the Houston Rockets told the story to Sam Amick, who has conscientiously written a breath-taking tribute to the "data-driven" case. the referees are costing the match in Houston. "In all," says the article, "some sources say that they were injured by up to 93 points".

One problem: their data is correct, but their analysis is nil; it is a lot like complaining in an institution.

You see, it was not Harden who was going 4-16 to the back of the bow; 30% of Rockets do not shoot from the bottom of their team. Just like when they missed 27 consecutive points in the last three playoffs, even if you had that 100% correct result, you can not ignore everything else and assign a wrong value in points for stolen points while doing gestures furious towards the referees.

"As we told the Rockets, we do not agree with their methodology," NBA spokesman Mike Bass told ESPN on Monday. While data-driven analysis is an excellent way to analyze the impact of referees, it is absurd to argue that what Rockets' internal team produced is somehow a factual and objective examination of these appeals. doubtful.

Even further, the nerve needed for Harden and the Rockets to take their game plan for the base game as an audience will feel cheated and lack self-awareness.

As an actor pronouncing a monologue, claiming to have won a debate, this franchise Rockets has neither the objectivity nor the right to make these statements – even less that these statements are rebroadcast without being ridiculed.

It is not that some of the parts quoted have been poorly analyzed, it is that the analysis itself is too biased and incomplete to serve as an objective measure. The team wrote a memo, never sent it, and then published it to the media as an "anonymous team source".

Come on.

And as for The Athletic who publishes the propaganda without any kind of editorial control over the verification of the facts? I think it's madly irresponsible. Without going into politics, this blind parody of a pre-packaged discussion topic based on mistaken assumptions is a huge problem.

Here's the biggest complaint with something like that coming from the Rockets. It's a team whose two best players are known for their "sense of the game".

Objectively, yes, the referees missed calls (like every game). But until where it happened and how far can you assign the final score to these calls is an inherently subjective discussion. As in the game above, even if there has been contact, it is not necessarily a fault. By playing a game to deceive the referees, you denigrate the greatness of Harden's current talents in basketball. And that feeds the complex victim. From players and staff members to fans, the Rockets story is now nonsensically focused on being bitter in the face of a frozen game that has not really been settled.

This is not new for the Golden State Warriors or their fans. LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers have pushed the NBA to retroactively evaluate a blatant foul on Draymond Green – not a technical fault or a common fault (assessed during the match), but a flagrant foul. This directly resulted in a suspension of a match in a pivotal match 5. But nobody cared about it. It's not an asterisk or anything, just another bump on the road … right?

That's the part that made me moan – ok, I just breathed harder through the nose, but still, take a look at this wild speculation cleverly disguised as science fiction – again in the article from Sam Amick:

According to the Rockets internal count of the video team, there were eight attempts at three points that should have been fouls in the first match – good for 24 free-throw attempts that would certainly have decided the match.

Sensational. Exactly 24 points? And he would have "definitely" decided the game?

In my daily work, we have a term to describe people / systems that overestimate the accuracy of their inputs. The term "precisely inaccurate" is used to describe a person using counter data, for example, but by listing the information with decimals that are more significant than those measured. For example, list a consumption of 21,0003 gallons, even if the meter only measures whole numbers … or pretend to know the outcome of a game based on the alleged results of calls unlawful.

Looking at some of the rooms, it is clear that not all calls are correct. It is equally obvious that the Rockets (Harden and Chris Paul in particular) have been successful in imposing the problem. As we see here, even without a defender on the picture, Harden has no logical way to land normally here.

As transcribed by ESPN, Warrior coach Steve Kerr explains how these decisions in a fraction of a second can be extremely difficult. More than that, there is an honest question about the space a person needs. As in the subway, players like Harden (and yes even Steph Curry) expand their position. It protects the players a bit, but also significantly obscures the question of what constitutes a fault:

"There are all kinds of gray areas. And, in the modern game, many players have become really good at deceiving, creating contacts. I do not remember people falling on 3-point shots all the time when I was playing. It was a different rule.

Would the Rockets have benefited from some of these calls? Absolutely. But what about missed calls against Golden State? I suppose we will need Joe Lacob to write his own "study" to determine how that would have happened.