Statistically Selective

By: Jonathan Seidel

Redick and necessary context

While debates about the G.O.A.T have been frequent, recently debates concerning older players has been centerstage. Former NBA player JJ Redick argued that Larry Bird was not a top three point shooter based on stats. Yet his stats mar anyone before the past decade to be considered in the conversation.

Redick’s comment is genuine by his metrics: volume and percentage. Applying his logic, even greats such as Ray Allen and Reggie Miller would be omitted for their lack of qualification. Steve Kerr with the highest career percentage doesn't make the cut. Only the past half decade with the surge in three point shooting are acceptable. His metrics are fair but longevity and normality provide a lethal leverage that bemoans any pastime. The lack of volume and practice to perfect the shot is an unfair advantage that cannot be accepted across the board. Being a good shooter is the ability to make them not the inflated result from an obsessed era. 

Context is important. Redick leaves out so many details. Firstly, everyone is shooting threes. Even big man need to be able to do so efficiently to keep their spot. It is a right of passage that was non-existent a decade ago. Endless practice to perfect the shot is an advantage not afforded to past players. Even players like Wade and LeBron were disadvantaged as their slashing ability was quickly overhauled with three pointers. Ray Allen only transitioned later in his career to a spot up shooter. His excellence drew from his consistent practice. His priority was three pointers and he drilled them. This was not the focus fifteen years ago. 

In addition to three pointers priority which again watching players persistently shoot them pushes youngsters to do so as well. Entering the league with a youthful experience of three point practice. The three point barrage has spaced the court so much that scoring has become so much easier. This year there are multiple players averaging over thirty a game. The ease of spacing plus the sagging defence and defensive three seconds gives more leeway to score. Loosening the rules on travelling with the gather step and step back jumper allows a player more space and openness to score. Looking at the current euro league, though a step down from the NBA, no one scores over twenty points due to suffocating defences and limited court spacing. 

Three pointers were introduced in 1979. They were not a fundamental part of the game. Teams gradually introduced their use over the next decades. If the league plays the game a certain way with less threes, it does not make them a worse three point shooter for not attempting more. The ability to excel in a system plagued against your strengths is heavily better than faltering in a system pushed for an agenda. To put this in perspective James Harden was the three king in 2017 and 2018 shooting 265 and 378 threes on a meagre 36.7% shooting. Stephen Curry won his seventh on 38% shooting. For Larry Bird, both of his were over 40% despite shooting under a 100 threes. 

Penalising Bird because he shot less threes is unfair given that he was shooting them in a discouraging system. The idea that if he shot more he would miss more does not hold up. Given Curry’s highest volume and best statistical season with 402 makes out of 886 attempts on 45% shooting. Both could be true. Playing against the norm is not simple nor reassuring. Judging his ability by his career average belittles his true ability as his poor first seasons were at the onset of its use and less accustomed to its use. By the second half of his career he had won the three point contest three years in a row, had two straight 50/40/90 seasons, was the three point king twice and with the exception of the 1989 season shot over 40% for the rest of his career. 

Bird’s efficient shooting of 50% despite an abysmal 28.6% from three is quite telling of his introduction to the three pointer. The fact he led the league two years in a row with around eighty three pointers underscores its near irrelevance. His percentage was always way above league average towards the second half of his career. He played in six games in the 1988 season before a season ending injury and did not attempt a single three, something unprecedented today. Bird’s efficiency in an unfocused era is tremendous. Context is key to recognising excellence in a restricted era. He shot one three a game and did it well. If he could win those contests so smoothly who isn’t to say with a more charged league he wouldn’t have excelled. 

There is little doubt that today is the most talented of ball players. Growing up in competitive AAU leagues with contemporary medicine to enhance their capabilities. Yet this means that each player is placed horizontally to his competition. Bird’s excellence to his opponents correlates to Curry’s success. There are variables today that recognise incredible leaps in higher shooting percentage. Yet the less talented Bird against less talented competition cannot be ignored. Upholding Redick’s part time plumbers claim works both ways. Meaning that Cousy was a plumber too. That he was not so great. Yet given his limitations and excellence against his era, with modern standards would excel as well.

Comparing Bird to Curry is unfair under Redick's analysis. To give Redick is due, it is fair to claim that today's shooters are better than past timers. By virtue of more practice and centrality on the three point shot, they are better. While it is plausible that some past players could have been better three point shooters if they were given the chance whether that be Bird, Hodges or Price they didn't have that opportunity. Whether they could've been is not the same as being. Without statistics to prove otherwise it mere conjecture. That being said, if a player shot a low volume but did so efficiently then high volume may have also been compatible. The claim that he wasn't guarded because players weren't afraid of that kind of shot is disproven by game film. For Bird, condensing his entire career his shooting was poor but those were the first years of its introduction and his injury-riddled end. At his peak he was hitting efficiently.    

This idea that old players would fail in the modern era and vice versa is dubious. Would certain players fit better yes. Bird and Miller would be far more deadly today while LeBron and Wade would have had more success in the 90s. Still his overall success against his lacklustre talent and tormenting defences produced incredible results. Even someone like Shaq could prevail if need be just remember Orlando Shaq following a similar transformation of Giannis. The best against their era is sole method of delineation. Having the same limitations and capabilities. Throwing shade is one thing but discredit without context is unfair and deceptive.

What can be judged is the data that we have. Yet proper fair context must be incorporated. If a player's percentage rises tremendously over the years either he has improved and/or he focused more on that part of his game. Could MJ have been a good three point shooter maybe. He played point guard for the final quarter of a season and averaged a triple double. Numbers eclipsing LeBron's. Against Clyde and the Blazers he hit six threes. Wilt was a terrible free throw shooting but tried underhand for a little while and brought his percentage up infinitely but refused to continue out of embarrassment. Consecutive peaks are a better measure since especially in these examples they demonstrate a chosen direction that began bumpy and excelled in the long run. Yet for each whether it was injuries, coach change or shame they switched back to the old the ways. 

To be fair, was MJ a good point guard or Wilt a good free throw shooter is in the negative for the latter and uncertain for the former. MJ didn't spend enough time at the point guard there was a glimpse of Magic jr and proto-LeBron numbers. Wilt's unwillingness to continue his hot streak ended a positive shift in his percentage. Larry on the other hand did spend consecutive years excelling. Bird's percentage is better than Harden's overall. Looking at Bird's development, the more threes he shot the better his percentage. The only reason his percentage was bad was because he shooting under one a game. Consistent growth and stability is the correct marker.

There is a lot of "what if" possibilities and those are fun to watch analysts yell at one another for an entire hour. If three point shooting was pushed in the 80s maybe are past superstars would have more points and more accolades. Yet it is a problem to look on data monolithically. Did Bird shoot a low volume? Yes. Was three point shooting part of the game? No. Was the three pointer regulated when he was drafted? No. Therefore, it is only fair to consider he statistics as he actually shot threes when was actually committed to it. Looking at the data in this consecutive peak though with a low volume is quite good. Is Bird at the top of the list? No. Given the context he isn't that far down. Yearly statistics aren't everything. 

Just Enjoy The Game

By: Jonathan Seidel

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.