Michael Lewis' "The No-Stats All-Star"

My gosh, that's a fantastic story. (I am (respectfully) shocked that that first page could be called a "slog" by anybody.)

Even if you're skeptical of the Moneyballness, some remarkable quotes and anecdotes and thoughts. A must-read for basketball fans.

 

They used to call these guys solid role players, and everyone I think has always understood that the value of these guys doesn't show up in the boxscore, whether it's Robert Horry, Horace Grant, Michael Cooper, Bruce Bowen, Kurt Rambis, etc. You still win with superstars, and fill in with guys like Battier, but guys like Battier are more interchangable than the top-flight players.

but I did enjoy the article, although is the headline - the no-stats all-star - intentionally being ironic, given that Houston's front-office goes out of its way to show how good Battier is by using...statistics, albeit different ones?

One of the more amusing anecdotes was that Houston's PR staff goes into opposing locker rooms to ask players what they thought of Battier's defense. There must be some statistical formula that shows where that ranks on the cheesiness scale.

 

STG, you expressed my thought better than I did. There is a Battier equivalent on good teams at any level. The guy who takes the other team's top scorer. The guy who never misses free throws in the last five minutes. The guy who can make the inbounds pass on the win/lose final play, etc., etc. Basketball teams and fans have never needed a bunch of numbers to appreciate these folks.
And they're seldom underrated, either. Robert Horry's made a damn good living from his skill set.
The claim Battier makes losers winners would be better tested if he had been traded to, oh, the Clippers, instead of a team with Yao, McGrady, etc.

 

"I want a player for a secret and dangerous mission. I want a Duke Blue Devil."
Coach K

 

82games.com and other statistical analysts have shown us that so much of what we think we know about basketball is wrong. Kobe Bryant, clutch player? Actually, he's a much worse shooter of potential game-winning shots than Carmelo Anthony, who doesn't have a reputation for clutchness. Kevin Love, dominant college rebounder, overmatched as a pro? No. He's a stud in the NBA, too. (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-89/Pop-Quiz--Rookies-Can-Rebound.html.)

Thus, my first point: much of what basketball fans think they know for a fact - and, often, what basketball teams think they know for a fact - is simply incorrect. Sophisticated stats will make us all smarter.

My second point: even if we all know that a glue guy is a glue guy, it's useful to know just WHY. "He just does all the little things" says something important, but not everything there is to be said. It's possible to be satisfied with the ability to eyeball a guy and say, "He's contributing in ways not captured by the box score"; I'd like to know if his presence on the floor is increasing his team's rebound percentage even if he's not grabbing the board himself, if his presence on the floor means the team makes 3.4 passes before a shot rather than 2.7, and so on. What is there to reject, here? We can get smarter or we can not get smarter. If someone was proposing a wholesale reliance on stats and a wholesale rejection of eyeballed wisdom, I'd see the argument against them; since nobody is making such a proposal, we should welcome the new.

 

That story sucks. I don't have to read it to know it sucks. [/Joe Morgan]

 

If you still haven't read "Moneyball" by 2009, it's pretty obvious you weren't in much of a rush to get to it anyway.

And if you're going to read a Lewis book, pick up "The Blind Side."

 

I enjoyed the piece. Not for what was criticized above, but for the non-statistical analysis.
I found the concept of thought and intellect as a value that will never show up in a statline a worthwhile premise.

 

Finished the story a while ago...thought it was fascinating.

 

great read.

especially the stuff on battier's mixed race background as it pertains to his game.

 

Superb read. Thanks, JG.

Shane Battier ... should define the term "underrated." Ask Duke if it wins its last national title without him. Substance over style? How anti-NBA. And why Battier is fantastic.

 

battier is underrated in the nba because he just isn't that good. it has nothing to do with style.