zinfamous,
In both baseball (where sabermetrics is extremely valuable) and hoops, you have your traditional basic or "counting" stats. I.e. points, rebounds, assists on the hard court. These figures can and are misleading because it would naturally categorize a guy like Carmelo Anthony as a superstar for his volume production for over a decade. In reality, everybody should know by now that he's not a superstar. "Advanced" stats just refers to additional metrics to evaluate performance that ideally are more accurate/meaningful than the counting stats. Honestly I'm not a stats junkie and I don't follow sabermetrics very much.
Dub is slang for the letter W. Nobody wants to say "Warriors" all the time because it's not very fluid lol.
I'm not a Bay Area native, but if you understand the region, historically SF is the
only urban city in the entire SF Bay Area. So regardless of where you lived, SF was and is "The City." And if you understood Oakland, you'd know no team actually wants to hail from there. In fact, the Dubs will move to SF within 7 years. They'd love to get there much sooner, but the red tape in SF is beyond notorious.
edit:
Reasons Oakland probably goes from 3 major teams to just 1:
http://www.foxsports.com/other/stor...an-francisco-relocate-reasons-why-when-061316
I'll buy that as a name to separate the traditional RBI/Run/BA etc from things like VOIP.
Certainly different types of number crunching...but it's still all pretty "basic" as far as stats go. That being said, one of my general complaints is that while I do like stats and see value for using them in sports in terms of making decisions, I don't see them as being all that powerful, simply because the sample size in nearly all sports is really just too small to make any solid determinations from athlete to athlete, season to season, franchise to franchise, etc.
Though, the higher-up those tiers you go, you can start making some interesting arguments. I accept that within each sport, pathetically low Ns are essentially constrained within the sport itself, so as long as you are comparing individuals against the same terrible constraints, you can at least say something--even though it isn't really that powerful. NFL, for example: 16 games in a regular season, average career of 2-3 years. Pretty terrible N from a real stats perspective, but at least all other footballers have the same limitations. I think baseball is the only sport that allows a proper sample size to actually say something about individuals beyond a simple comparison to others. Not only is it an individual or even 1v1 type of matchup more than any other sport, but you have 162 games + 4-5 AB per game to draw up some really powerful numbers.
As for Oakland--Oakland is actually a rather urban city and it's older than you think. It has a very, very different character than SF, especially now (contemporary SF no longer has any character--it has all been pushed off the peninsula to free up space for piles of sterile and soulless corporate "activity simulators" such as Philz coffee and "disrupters" that aim to replace actual useful human skills, like Spoonrocket).
Oakland has been far, far more hip than SF over the last 5 years and getting moreso. The food isn't quite as good, obviously, but it's still excellent. Sometimes, you have to dodge bullets to get to those spots, too--but you'll never get a rush like that in SF.
(granted, all of that is changing now, too, because the remaining silicon valley jerks that can't be domiciled in Freemont or SF or San Mateo have been inserting themselves into the East Bay for the last 3 years, consequently jacking up rents to the preposterous near-SF levels...so there goes the last remaining piece of culture in the Bay Area. :\)