Statistics positional thinking and mistranslation
Sports statistics are a perfect example of misconstrued evaluation. At face value it seems the most simple way of evaluation. Whoever has the best numbers must be the best player. Yet little context is provided. A semantic reading of persistent quantity says little about the complexity of the scenario.
For starters, there are numerous narratives that complicate the situation. Whether it be the era, the opponents’ ability, game pace or rules. Cross-generational players have reoccurring debates. Analysts enjoying the intense jargon hurled in support of one player over another. Since they never played against one another it is a bunch of bogus sprung on one another. The hypothetical is narcissistically animated in dramatic hollowness. There is no way of knowing. Conjuring potential outcomes is guesswork with probabilities as our best bet. Dreaming of these profound matchups that can never happen. It is the starstruck analyst debacles that raise a genuine humorous response from the audience. Yet its continuous controversy only fuels tedious self affirming pride. The greatest conversation is an opinionated fortune that needlessly garners overemphasis.
Numbers are the clearest metric to measure a player. This is not solely a sports phenomenon. The model to grasp a student’s knowledge is to test him. Formulating an exam of knowledge bits throughout the semester, long lecturing will be examined in a spit back format. Yet nuanced as the questions do not mirror the class format. Bullet pointed in equivalent application to recall and spill it on a piece of paper. Evaluating a student’s progress and internalisation is in their memorial capability and fluid application. A number that decides their fate and future. All in the hands of a hopefully generous educator. In sports, progress is similarly likened. A player’s excellence is projected by their ability to rack up stats. A player with little quantity is deemed a bad player. Minute accolades is a display of inferior play.
A difficulty in equating cross-generational players is also with students. Not all are created equal. Different eras brings more competition, better teachers and more information. Different styles affect the outcome. The internet provides easier access but also more data to consume. Never beforehand classes are taught on coding and cybersecurity. Technology is a double-edged sword. There are pros and cons for the student as well as for the athlete. Better medical supplies but more athletic players. In this regard, numbers are inflated today due in part to the medical advances and athletic abilities. More competition and support in their youth. Players are prolonging their careers and maintaining excellence past their prime. Yet these are not the sole reasons for stat inflation. They are but a consequence of technological advancement. A parcel of the larger equation. These two factors alone are more advantageous to the current player than ever possible for a past player.
While I am not aware of soccer evolution. Humanity did not evolve to withstand better conditions biologically in the past ten years but instead created technology that aids in achieving that threshold. Meaning it wasn't that players became bigger evolutionarily but new advances demonstrated the ability to cultivate bigger bodies. Bigger frames and faster strides are routine training regimens. A novelty unheard of decades ago. Skill is definitely important but athletic ability remains a talent scoring high marks. Better training will produce better results for the committed bunch. This advantage holds true as a stronger faster individual will be able to reach elite status quicker and more efficiently than the inept individual years ago. Though skilled, his faltering health sours his longevity but even seasonal ability is marred by inability to consistently show up if his training is not of the current model. While he may maintain greatness temporarily in the long run his body will begin to crumble. The pressure will overwhelm his bodily capability.
Talented individuals even if they do not possess the contemporary technological training should bulldoze their opponents. The current advances are open for everyone. While there are more athletic individuals today, that is a group in constant competition. A fair fight against one’s era. Success against opponents under the same conditions is fair. If both are running on their respective criteria then while total numbers may be at a loss, yearly will not necessarily. This a good start to recognising the limitations placed in various ages but it fails to accommodate the additional factors to the overall equation. The three point shot was not a priority until recently and has taken the game by storm. The number of possessions has skyrocketed and defence lacking. Rule changes and game pace are often unnoticed postulates. They make a big difference. While the amount of high scorers may be a landslide to past decades the high game scores also make up for it. At the end of day this must be scrutinised to its full data. Thirty points today may have been twenty ten years ago.
Todays NBA is nicknamed position-less basketball and yet positional thinking still remains. While most teams are looking for a big man who can shoot threes and agile enough to keep up with smaller players it does not change the intuitive positional thinking that still remains. The assist leaders are point guards and rebounding leaders are centers. It less the number and more the way one plays. James is a facilitator. While he scores many points he dishes many of his passes. Not to say he is pass first but he looks to move the offence. Bryant and Jordan had stretches playing point guard where they put up astonishing numbers. Bryant had multiple double-double assist numbs and Jordan put up thirty point triple-doubles in ten of eleven games. They both put up incredible stat lines. With the ball in one’s hand for that much time making the decisions, they will put up those numbers and honestly still may not win. Stats does not equal success. How one plays determines their splash of numbers.
Advanced statistics attempt to get beyond the simple categories marred by many of the inadequacies mentioned. Two classic advanced metrics are assist to turnover ratio and PER. The first is that turnovers is any loss of the ball. A player who handles the ball consistently is prone to more turnovers. A player frequently slashing to the rim to create openings for his teammates is pressuring his turnover rise while a player who throws the ball to his post player sits back. PER is identified as the king of statistics and yet obviously flawed. There is no accounting for the difference in player style. A player who creates his own shot versus a catch and shoot individual. The ability to stifle defences with stylish skills to manoeuvre around collapsing the staggering adversary for an open teammate is unrecorded. The effectiveness is ignored in the metric. The advanced categories attempt to make up behind the scenes but riddled with framing narration. The inconclusive affiliation undervalues defence and overvalues scoring based on the data scientist.
Box scores cannot numerically measure the influence a player has on the court. A prominent player double teamed enables open opportunities for teammates without ever adding a number to the box score. He may not even touch the ball and still deal decisive damage. The basketball term for this type of ability is called off-ball movement. While a shooter will juke his defender to make space for an open jumper a big man will post up his defender creating space to receive the ball down low for a layup. Both of these scenarios are looking to catch the ball and score, stats that will come up on the box score. Yet it is the scrappy run around that is even more effective. A player watched extensively draws defensive focus. As he twirls around the court the defence scared of his skill will continue to monitor him, gradually losing sight of other players. More concentration is deployed to keep up with the increased mobility of the single target losing other players to oblivion. Sharp cuts, screens and other breathtaking swift movements force defensive reaction deceptively keeping the prospected player in view by abandoning his teammate. Such artistry easily goes unnoticed without the numerical achievement but is not lost to the viewer.
Stooped in numbers also misses the entire point. Recognising greatness but numbers devalues the game routine. Watching a college basketball game answers this inquiry. The players, though inferior to their professional counterparts, have stats spread around the board. The game is orchestrated by team offence. It is not a one man offence with minimal players accumulating stats. The game is fluid and organic. The norms are embedded and while advances have been made there is still a traditional method playing according to structural hierarchies. It is till positional basketball. Yet beyond this professionally archaic model, it denotes a valuational goal. The hope is not statistical inflation but winning. School pride and success. Older players who do not possess the same statistical quantity may not have been chasing it just as certain categories were not tracked until later on. Take an example of a player driving in passing to a teammate who passes to a further teammate. The driver does not receive any stat. Point being the necessity of gathering numbers is almost insufficient. One person running the show or facilitating the offence was either inefficient or unacceptable.
Cross-generational variance is an extensive equation but it also eclipses the methodological procedure. If the entire model is valued differently, then the product will have a different result. The measure of a good player depends on the frame he is situated in. Playing under certain criteria may enhance one’s stats or may wallow them. In both cases he may assist in the team’s victory without touching the ball most of the game. The current discussion is caught up in the factual data. This is something to revere and internalise but is not the end all and be all of a player’s influence nor talent. The best way is to watch them play. While it may not be easy to attain film on older figures, enough change has occurred in the past decades to watch an 80s match up between Magic and Bird to evaluate with Kobe and LeBron. Watching their play styles and excellence in their language games is the best model. The illustration, the full body examination over the bullet pointed postulates is the totality of their game.
No comments:
Post a Comment