Statistics are fun, and some people make their living off of them. "Stat guys" like Elliot Kalb and John Hollinger like to break the game of basketball down into its component ones and zeroes. But this isn't The Matrix; this is a sport. Statistics are interesting, often revealing, and can help you recognize trends that might otherwise go unnoticed.
But there is a human element involved that cannot be quantified, nor measured in any way. Bill Russell is the perfect example. He didn't dominate the stat sheet (except in rebounding), but he did dominate the league, winning 11 championships in his 13 NBA seasons. But no one really feels comfortable ranking him as the best player ever. Guys like Michael Jordan, Shaq, and Wilt Chamberlain are more popular choices, essentially because they both won championships and dominated statistically. By explaining that they won while putting up legendary (and in some cases unreachable) numbers, it is easier to justify their all-time ranking. But it takes all three of these men together to equal Russell's championships, the ultimate statisitic.
It's too easy to rely on numbers. The general consensus is that, the deeper we dig, the more detailed the analysis, the closer we can come to The Truth. Hollinger, and sites like 82games.com, have developed a mind-numbing array of ways to measure basketball players and the game itself. True Shooting Percentages, Player Efficiency Ratings, "Hands" Ratings, on and on...these things are supposed to provide us, the fans, with a pure and unbiased view of what really happens on the basketball court.
While I find it interesting to find out what percentage of Wang Zhi-zhi's shots were blocked during the 2003-04 season, I'm not sure it's a true indicator of Wang's worth -- or lack thereof -- as a basketball player. Don't you get the feeling that we're starting to overthink things just a little? Take Hollinger's latest article, Failure To Stop. According to him, that team is this year's version of the Seattle Supersonics. He uses something called the Defensive Efficiency Ranking to prove that Seattle is the worst ever, and he even gives us the top five worst ever teams.
The thing is, a few months ago we posted an article called Worst Defensive Team Ever (that's right John; we did it first). We didn't use anything as convoluted as a DER to prove our points. We just used bottom line numbers...stats that are just as compelling as Hollingers -- and a hell of a lot easier to related to.
Consequently, I sent the following e-mail message to Hollinger in response to his article:
But there is a human element involved that cannot be quantified, nor measured in any way. Bill Russell is the perfect example. He didn't dominate the stat sheet (except in rebounding), but he did dominate the league, winning 11 championships in his 13 NBA seasons. But no one really feels comfortable ranking him as the best player ever. Guys like Michael Jordan, Shaq, and Wilt Chamberlain are more popular choices, essentially because they both won championships and dominated statistically. By explaining that they won while putting up legendary (and in some cases unreachable) numbers, it is easier to justify their all-time ranking. But it takes all three of these men together to equal Russell's championships, the ultimate statisitic.It's too easy to rely on numbers. The general consensus is that, the deeper we dig, the more detailed the analysis, the closer we can come to The Truth. Hollinger, and sites like 82games.com, have developed a mind-numbing array of ways to measure basketball players and the game itself. True Shooting Percentages, Player Efficiency Ratings, "Hands" Ratings, on and on...these things are supposed to provide us, the fans, with a pure and unbiased view of what really happens on the basketball court.
While I find it interesting to find out what percentage of Wang Zhi-zhi's shots were blocked during the 2003-04 season, I'm not sure it's a true indicator of Wang's worth -- or lack thereof -- as a basketball player. Don't you get the feeling that we're starting to overthink things just a little? Take Hollinger's latest article, Failure To Stop. According to him, that team is this year's version of the Seattle Supersonics. He uses something called the Defensive Efficiency Ranking to prove that Seattle is the worst ever, and he even gives us the top five worst ever teams.
The thing is, a few months ago we posted an article called Worst Defensive Team Ever (that's right John; we did it first). We didn't use anything as convoluted as a DER to prove our points. We just used bottom line numbers...stats that are just as compelling as Hollingers -- and a hell of a lot easier to related to.
Consequently, I sent the following e-mail message to Hollinger in response to his article:
I understand that you're a statistical wizard. I'm sure the Defensive Efficiency Rating is a powerful and fairly accurate formula. However, it must contain some sort of flaw, considering the true "Worst Defensive Team Ever" wasn't even mentioned in your article.I'll be interested to see whether he responds, and what he'll have to say.
I'm talking about the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets. They surrendered 130.8 points per game, which is 34 points more than the best defensive team that season (Detroit allowed only 96.8 ppg) and 24.4 points more than the league average of 106.4 ppg. By comparison, the Sonics (106.3 ppg) allow an average of 17.7 points more than the best defensive team in the league, San Antonio (88.6). Their differential versus the league average is even better.
Furthermore, the '91 Nuggets let their opponents shoot 51.2 percent, while the Sonics' opponents are shooting 48.9 this year. The Nuggets never held a single opponent under 100 points all season. They held opponents under 110 points only four times! They allowed the opposition to score 130 points or more a mind-boggling 37 times...almost half the season! And this team doesn't even warrant a mention in your article about the worst defensive teams? Great googly moogly.
3 Comments:
Word of the Day
Previous Posts
Word of the Day: garbage timeOne last "Miller Time". Ceremony arranged by Budwe...
Quick Hits: Around the NBAwful
Word of the Day: boo birds
March Misery: The Awful Eight
Adam Morrison deals with grief. Badly.
A picture is worth a thousand...somethings.
Word of the Day: matador defense
March Misery: Preview to the Awful Eight
They called him "Cornbread". Here's why.
Links
Archive
January 2005February 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
June 2018
July 2022
contact: basketbawful@yahoo.com
Why the Nuggets never got mentioned is because Hollinger's stats are based on a per possession basis. It means that you can compare a scoring average of Marion to that of Duncan. Its not really fair because Marion gets so many more possessions. Same with the Nuggets. Sure they gave up a zillion something points a game, but they also let the other team have a million plus possessions. Thats the difference and its pretty easy to see.
It's a common sense thing: Any team that runs up the court and takes a quick shot is going to score a lot, and give up a bunch of points too.
Hollinger's just done some simple math (adding up totals and dividing them) to figure out who's the most efficient.
Look at the 90-91 stats. Was the Nuggets offense really 9 points a game better than the Bulls? The Nuggets had 1,743 more FGA that year. That's over 20 a game.
The other thing Hollinger is comparing against the league average of that year. We all know scoring has gone down the last couple decades. Does anyone really think that the current Washington Wizards have a better defense than the Larry Brown-David Robinson Spurs of 91? Right now the Wizards are giving up two fewer points per game than those Spurs did.
I think Hollinger, like any other stat-head, can overreach at times. But offensive and defensive efficiency ratings just make sense, and they're really pretty simple to work with.