Apr 8, 2011 - We're lucky to live in interesting NBA times.
The NBA regular season that's drawing to a close -- we're five days away from its conclusion, and eight from the beginning of the playoffs -- has delighted us, if we're honest, like no NBA season we can remember. The top-level talent in this league is fantastic, as evidenced by the especially vociferous arguing about All-Star snubs and, more recently, the rightful Most Valuable Player winner. Hoops fans seem to acknowledge that Derrick Rose will win the honor for leading the Chicago Bulls to a surprisingly strong finish atop the Eastern Conference. But several of us have pointed out that Dwight Howard, despite playing for an inferior team, is arguably more deserving. LeBron James, though he plays with better teammates than Rose for a Miami Heat team below Rose's in the standings, is another strong candidate.
But this post isn't about the MVP award; people far more intelligent than I have articulated that argument on all sides. I'm more interested in what the implications for the discussion of the MVP award are, and what they reveal about our biases as fans.
If you're familiar with my work here at Holding Court or at Orlando Pinstriped Post, the Orlando Magic blog I run for SB Nation, you know it has a heavy statistical bent. In and of itself, using statistics isn't a terrible thing. I stand by using data to make decisions and to inform my analyses in all areas of my life. My fear, though is statheads such as myself, Tom Ziller, John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton (to name but a few) are cast as people who either don't know or don't understand the game precisely because we rely on data.
That problem stems from a growing tendency among us as human animals to want to regard everything in some sort of binary opposition. Either McDonald's or Burger King is the best burger joint. Kobe Bryant is clutch or he isn't. You can like Ernest Hemingway or William Faulkner, but not both.
As it applies to the focus of this article, there are statheads and there are, well, anti-statheads. These folks, in my experience, distrust any data that refute conclusions they drew with their own eyes.
The truth is more complicated than that. Basketball, like nearly everything else in life, is too complex for us to understand if we apply only one doctrine, so to speak, to our evaluation of it. If we rely too heavily on statistics, no matter how advanced or refined, we are bound to miss something; we run the same risk if we rely too heavily on what we observe.
Call me naive, but I think we can all coexist as hoops fans, without calling names or inventing straw men, if we merely blend the statistical with empirical observation.
For instance, the statistics strongly suggest the Bulls win games because of rebounding and defense, two areas of the game in which Rose, an offensive-minded point guard, does not contribute as much. The Magic, on the other hand, win because of their defense, rebounding and low-post scoring, which is what Howard provides in bunches. The great M. Haubs of The Painted Area covered this subject in impressive depth.
And yet, even knowing all that, it's hard to watch the Bulls' 16-point victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night and not feel like the stats Haubs outlined misled you, even just a bit. Against the NBA's second-best defense, Rose tallied 30 points on 9-of-16 shooting and dished eight assists. In 40 minutes, in which he dominated the ball to the tune of 16 shots and 10 free throws, he committed only three turnovers.
Those are statistics, yes, but in this instance they undermine the traditional narrative about Rose in the statistical community: that, while he's undeniably a brilliantly gifted player, he gets too much credit for what his teammates and head coach accomplish.
I think it's time we take a step or two away from our own biases and try to understand one another a bit better. The looming lockout could rob us of the entire season this fall, and I'd hate for us to do nothing but snipe at one another while we quite literally have nothing better to do. Let's be productive and proactive, acknowledge our biases, and try getting along.
8 comments
Comments
Two, minor, issues
First, I don’t want to flame you because you are touching on a point which has been missed in all of the MVP hubbub this year and is the real story: What do Advanced Metrics tell us about the NBA.
However, I have to little issues to bring up. First, you are not differentiating ‘statistic’ from ‘metric’. This seems minor but is critical when wading into such deep waters. Statistics are hard measurements that can’t be refuted. We know what a win is and know what a rebound is and a Field Goal, etc. It’s a tally and we can all agree on what it means. METRICS are distinctly different in that they are mathematical combinations of two or more statistics that aim to tell us a more ‘real’ story about what happens on a court. This is important because Metrics, by and large, can be tinged by their creators opinions. +/- is not irrefutable. As a matter of fact, Dave Obrien, one of the larger proponents of plus/minus has himself conceded that this very metric must be viewed in a very broad context and cannot be treated as telling an accurate story on its own.
This is where I feel the real dialogue is: what can we trust Metrics for? How can they be applied?
The other issue is Hollinger’s statements on ‘why the bulls win’. Regardless of whether he was discussing the Bulls or any other team, his point of view has been assumed to be accurate and I would contest that. In all of his arguments, he uses very few metrics that themselves are highly questionable. For instance, he has used PER in place of APER when he himself specifically created APER as an improvement on PER. I don’t really care about what he’s argued but, rather, how he has made his argument and how it has framed a worthy debate.
There are sets of STATISTICS that contradict Hollinger’s points regarding Rose. For instance, mysynergy records points per possession ceded by a defender and those actually indicate that Rose is a top-tier defender (who is as effective as Lebron James). Instead, Hollinger present one piece of ‘data’ under questionable circumstances and used it to diminish the importance of Rose’s offensive to the Bulls AND minimize his contributions on defense. What happened after this is alarming: his positions were repeated as though fact simply because he and his metrics are viewed as beyond reproach.
Advanced Metrics are a very compelling story in the NBA today and I hope they will someday tell us something that is reliable. However, they are HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE even by those that create and propagate them.
I thank this year’s MVP debate for beginning to shed light on them. And thank you for the ‘olive branch’. It may very well be an important step towards enlightenment for all of us that like crunching numbers.
by tfxc on Apr 8, 2011 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
We Statheads are big followers of metrics. It is just that metheads has the wrong connotation.
Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.
Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2000, Blazers at Wizards. Rasheed was matched up against Juwan Howard. Rasheed had a foul called against him which sent Howard to the line. Surprisingly, Ra disagreed with the call. After Juwan missed the first free throw, Rasheed started clapping and yelling, "THAT BALL AIN'T GONNA LIE, THAT BALL AIN'T GONNA LIE!" -
by Both_Teams_Played_ on Apr 8, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't see why statheads can't acknowledge
that the MVP award is heavily biased towards team success, and always has been. If they want to change that, make the arguments. But don’t call the Bulls fans idiots for judging the MVP race by traditional standards.
At the same time, I freely acknowledge that there are lots of passionate Bulls fans who do sound like idiots. But hey, isn’t that true of every fanbase?
by Tim S. on Apr 8, 2011 10:49 AM EDT reply actions
Did Evan call Bulls fans idiots?
Nope, don’t believe he did.
"(Dwight) Howard averages 23 points and 14 rebounds per game and is the defensive basketball equivalent of a guy carrying a bazooka during laser tag. No one wants to play with that kid."-Matt Moore
by fwedo on Apr 8, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
The "Traditional Standards" have gotten a lot of MVP's wrong. That is the issue.
by MagicMark on Apr 8, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But the point a lot of other people will make
is that advanced stats in basketball have not come far enough along where you can definitively say that a candidate is “wrong”.
I didn't want to type this sentence, the force from an Omer Asik dunk made my fingers do it.
by Juiceboxjerry on Apr 8, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
But they have come far enough along that we can no longer ignore them
Never forget, I'm an idiot.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
by Exhibit G on Apr 8, 2011 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
And this is a case of people ignoring them almost entirely, and rewarding a player based on expectation.
It is Most “Valuable” Player. Not “Best offensive player on a team that wildly succeeded expectations”. The latter is basically what the MVP has become, with a few exceptions.
“Insert article about how Valuable it is that Rose can score points at the end of games.”
by MagicMark on Apr 8, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed