Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: "Where Numbers Go Next"
Bill James writes on Boston.com that the next frontier for sports numbers is not how to help teams win but how to help leagues succeed. He uses the NBA as an example:
Quote:
Take the problem of what we could call NBA "sluggishness." In the regular season, players simply don't seem to be playing hard all the time...
The NBA's problem is that the underlying mathematics of the league are screwed up. In every sport, there is an element of predetermination and an element of randomness in the outcomes...
In the NBA, the element of predetermination is simply too high. Simply stated, the best team wins too often. If the best team always wins, then the sequence of events leading to victory is meaningless. Who fights for the rebound, who sacrifices his body to keep the ball from rolling out of bounds doesn't matter. The greater team is going to come out on top anyway.
He comes up with an interesting solution, which I don't quite agree with, but I'd be interested in seeing what everyone has to say about not only the specific problem he uses as an example, but also in what other areas numbers can give advice to the league and not just to teams.
"So how should the NBA correct this? Lengthen the shot clock. Shorten the games. Move in the 3-point line. Shorten the playoffs."
I reject the first 1 for sure and have mixed feelings about the next 2 but favor the last one at least for 1st round. A shorter regular season would be fine by me too.
Maybe a larger basket would bring more parity/competition and could be the forgiving help that "exciting" players need to perform with the most skilled. 3 points for a dunk is another option if you are tinkering (perhaps just contested). Personaly I'd favor 4 on 4 and shorter rosters to get better average quality of player on court. Shorter game was potential to do that too but you really can't justify maintaining 14 man rosters with a shorter game.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject:
It seems we've seen this before, in the last couple of years, from Mr. James. He doesn't seem to be a basketball fan at all. He wishes the games were shorter so that upsets were more common. He doesn't understand that 'coasting' is essential in such a high-energy sport.
In baseball, guys sit in the dugout or stand in one place more than 90% of the time. A player who paces, doodles in the dirt, or otherwise keeps moving is considered hyperactive or something. When a line drive is hit your way, you react as quickly as you can, and make a play. Then go back to standing.
In basketball, it's the opposite. Watching a guy shoot FT, the other 9 guys stand around, then fight for rebound position. The other 95% of the time, it's continuous motion, blocking out, fighting thru picks, all-out sprinting, etc.
He's completely off base to suppose that 'the better team always wins'. Ask the Mavs about that. _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
He wishes the games were shorter so that upsets were more common. He doesn't understand that 'coasting' is essential in such a high-energy sport.
To play devil's advocate here, what would you say to someone arguing that the NBA should model itself after what college basketball does - short seasons, longer shot clock and shorter games, VERY short playoff series (best of 1), etc. A lot of what James argues for here.
It produces a lot of upsets but it's also not complete parity such that it's just a coin flip every game. Why not go that route? _________________ XOHoops - A New Kind of Fantasy Basketball
Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 509 Location: cleveland, ohio
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject:
Simply stated, the best team wins too often. If the best team always wins, then the sequence of events leading to victory is meaningless.
does such a ridiculous statement really need to be addressed? because tiger woods dominates the golf world like no one ever has are all tournaments meaningless? because roger federer dominates the tennis world like few ever have are all tennis tournaments meaningless?...
basketball teams only play 5 players at a time, and many of the better players play 3/4 or more of each game (unlike in hockey). baseball has 9-10 players on a team in a game at a time, football more. the less players a sport plays at a time, the odds are greater a specific excellent team/player can dominate. does that mean we should change the rules of those sports or the conditions of those games?...
i was under the impression that currently the nba was at or was near an all-time high in popularity around the world. perhaps mr.james is experiencing one of his disillusionment moods, as he has shown periodically in his baseball writings...
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject:
Ben F. wrote:
...short seasons, longer shot clock and shorter games, VERY short playoff series (best of 1), etc. A lot of what James argues for here.
It produces a lot of upsets ... Why not go that route?
In other words, less basketball might be better? Like I said, he's not a fan. A fan wishes that the best teams would reach the later rounds of the playoffs (other than fans of specific underdogs). I always want to see the best teams, going maximum games.
The NBA changed their first-round playoffs from 3 games, to 5 games, to 7 games; largely because so many were disappointed when a good team got upset -- then some team gets an easy 2nd-round matchup, or the Finals matches an elite team against a mediocre one.
I can't say that I personally know anyone who thinks excitement in a sport is just knowing everyone has a nearly-even chance to win. We tune in to see who's the best of the best, in an ongoing classic struggle; not just to see who won (and hope it's not who was expected to win). _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
In other words, less basketball might be better? Like I said, he's not a fan. A fan wishes that the best teams would reach the later rounds of the playoffs (other than fans of specific underdogs). I always want to see the best teams, going maximum games.
Put aside James for a second - I've heard this same argument from numerous actual basketball fans. The games hold less weight and importance the more of them you play. The argument goes that college basketball games are played with much more intensity because every single game impacts the direction of your season, your seeding in the tournament, where you finish in the conference, etc. A 30 game season means fans want and need to tune into every game, and try to go to every one, while an 80 game season produces more apathy among fans.
Mike G wrote:
I can't say that I personally know anyone who thinks excitement in a sport is just knowing everyone has a nearly-even chance to win. We tune in to see who's the best of the best, in an ongoing classic struggle; not just to see who won (and hope it's not who was expected to win).
I think James notes in the article that pushing too far in the other direction is also a problem, so everyone agrees that an even or nearly even chance to win is not at all ideal. There's an optimal point somewhere in the middle, and again, many would argue college basketball is very close to it. You have the powerhouses and the juggernauts, but everyone loves to root for the Cinderella each March.
(Note that I actually agree with you, I'd love to see as many games as possible since I'm a basketball junkie. I'm not convinced that's what's best for the league, however.)
But to return to one of the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread, are there other aspects of rule making and general league administration that we can use statistical concepts to tease out? I don't think James does much with numbers here, or at least nearly as much as he could to support the argument. Can we use actual numbers and data one way or the other? _________________ XOHoops - A New Kind of Fantasy Basketball
In other words, less basketball might be better? Like I said, he's not a fan. A fan wishes that the best teams would reach the later rounds of the playoffs (other than fans of specific underdogs). I always want to see the best teams, going maximum games.
A fan might wish to see upsets. I rooted for the Warriors last spring, and I was certainly not alone. Their playoff run seemed plenty exciting, and I think the TV ratings of their games would bear that out.
As for James, he is certainly a fan of college basketball and has written so many times. He is not as fond of the NBA game. There's an extremely large segment of the population that feels that way, and to ignore their opinions out of hand because "they're not fans" seems rash to me.
Quote:
The NBA changed their first-round playoffs from 3 games, to 5 games, to 7 games; largely because so many were disappointed when a good team got upset -- then some team gets an easy 2nd-round matchup, or the Finals matches an elite team against a mediocre one.
I can't recall any movement against these upsets prior to the change from 5 games to 7. The change was made after the 2002 Playoffs, when, if I'm reading the page right, all eight favorites won their series. If it was a reaction to upsets, wouldn't the change have been made right after one of these upsets?
Perhaps I am a cynic, but it seems far more likely that the explanation is related to the additional income and, in particular, the guarantee of two home games for each team.
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 533 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject:
A couple things:
- Bill James is very much a basketball fan, albeit mainly a college basketball fan. He is a rabid Jayhawk fan.
- I fully agree with him that numbers can contribute to improving the game/league itself. I believe that this is also on the league's list of things to do. I did some work a few years ago on the effects of rule changes on offensive/defensive numbers. It was very hard work to do. Tying the ultimate results to fan attraction was not something I could do, though, and it is definitely an important step.
- I addressed a lot of Bill's points on competitive balance in Chp 9 of BoP, actually probably all of them in more detail. I won't reproduce that here, but those with the book should take a look.
- The concept of a perfect balancing point is beautiful. I love it, yet don't know how to determine it. What is the right spread between best and worst in one season? I found something in writing BoP that suggested to me that people like games where the odds are roughly 2-1, but I honestly don't know what it was that suggested that. It has bugged me for a couple years that I can't dig up where that came from. It's in a huge stack of articles I read while writing that chapter. What is the right amount of time for a team to remain on top? Schmidt and Berri looked at this one in baseball, I think, and suggested 3-5 years.
So, I agree that numbers can be applied at the league/rules level and they should because we don't know how big an effect this determinism of champs is. _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:16 am Post subject:
admin wrote:
A fan might wish to see upsets. I rooted for the Warriors last spring, and I was certainly not alone. Their playoff run seemed plenty exciting, and I think the TV ratings of their games would bear that out...
Yeah, later I was thinking along the same lines. There will always be 'haters', too, who just don't want to see the Spurs win again (or Shaq, or Jordan, etc)
So after GS won a few games vs Dal, that series was fraught with excitement. Would it be an epic upset, or a monumental comeback? Has to be one or the other; better tune in.
But was their 4-1 loss to Utah also exciting? How about the Jazz going 1-4 against SA? Would a couple more great series (perhaps involving the Mavs) have gotten better ratings?
It's obviously more fun to watch when there's a possibility of upset. And the occasional 'epic' one reminds us it's not a given that #1 beats #8. But I see no reason to think the game would be 'better' when the outcomes are more random.
Quote:
As for James, he is certainly a fan of college basketball and has written so many times. He is not as fond of the NBA game. There's an extremely large segment of the population that feels that way, and to ignore their opinions out of hand because "they're not fans" seems rash to me.
Got it. Now that the best young players tend to do a year of college, there's some talent to watch. Otherwise, it just seems to be a preference for the format, the get'er-done tourney.
These same 'fans' can never understand why the rest of us are most excited in May and June, when the stuff is happening that will be remembered for decades. Some people just tolerate basketball and can't wait to move along to baseball, nascar, or whatever. _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1509 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:32 am Post subject:
HoopStudies wrote:
...
. What is the right spread between best and worst in one season? ...people like games where the odds are roughly 2-1 ...
In 1977, no team won more than 53 games; in 1979, 54 was tops. Were these peak years in fan interest? Or do fans like to see Superteams colliding in playoffs?
One of the ABA's innovations was to seed playoff opponents so that opening-rounds were more competitive. 1st seed played 3rd seed, and 2nd played 4th. After the 68-win Colonels were upset in '72, this plan went bye-bye. _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
I'd like to think that was it, but the date is shown as 2007, well after I wrote that chapter.
But the principle is exactly what I found -- odds of winning a game around 2-1 seem optimal. This doesn't mean twice the season wins as losses. It's all a bit confusing to me. I do know the author and I'll try to look at this... _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:57 am Post subject:
Taking steps to make the pro game more like the college game would be steps in the wrong direction, in my opinion. Yeah, the tournament is exciting, and regular season games can be too, but the level of play is far lower in the college game than it is in the NBA. I'd rather watch an average regular season NBA game than an average NCAA tournament game. I realize that many fans feel just the opposite, which is fine.
The real "problem" for competitive balance in the NBA is one Berri & company address in WOW -- the short supply of tall people. Maybe more kids should sprinkle their morning cereal with HGH? _________________ My blog
Having read the Bill James article and pondered his remarks awhile, I am drawn to two conclusions. First (and the point he makes in conclusion) the determination of the general conditions that are conducive to the growth and health of a professional sports league is a worthwhile endeavor. (Not that these determinants particularly relate the Xs and Os of the game of basketball.) And second, there is little that is particularly interesting about his speculations about what "ails" the NBA.
Indeed, it is kind of funny how his proposed suggestions all neatly fall under the rubric of "make the NBA more like the NCAA" as if that were the optimal model: "Lengthen the shot clock. Shorten the games. Move in the 3-point line. Shorten the playoffs."
Taking the last of these first, it is inconceivable that the NBA would ever forgo the revenue stream associated with the playoffs, so never mind that.
The other three proposals, the jiggering of the rules of the game, however merit at least some analysis.
(1) Shorten the games. This proposal, as a corollary to "lengthen the shot clock", has the apparent merit of giving the better team less time to establish its dominance, thereby creating more "upsets" and hypothetial fan interest. But in fact, whatever likely benefit from the fewer number of "unfair" coin flips, this would be offset by the coin becoming more unfair. Good-bye marginal bench players; the stars would never need to rest and the best teams would get relatively better. And then there is the political issue of the NBA never offering a 1/6 reduction in entertainment (moving to NCAA length games, that is) with no reduction in ticket price.
(2) Legthen the shot clock. Perhaps this is unfairly introducing a straw man, but assume that the NCAA shot clock were introduced. A very reasonable estimate is that average possessions in the NBA would drop from the low 90s to the high 60s. Now, this would surely improve the lot of the underdogs throughout the league, but my goodness, imagine the howls that would come from the media well before the first game ending the the 50s. Increased league interest? More likely the opposite
(3) Move in the 3-point line. This suggestion I like most of all, though I am not sure I like it. There was an experiment with this policy, to dramatic effect, and it was abandoned. I am not exactly sure why it was abandoned (my impression is that the powers-that-be got nervous that the effect was too radical) but at least such a step would be one that is not in the wrong direction.
kjb notes the argument of Berri et al, that the problem of competitive balance is the short supply of tall people. And moving the 3-point line serves to remedy this by reducing the value of such folk, relative to shorties who are better able to shoot jumpers. As such, moving in the 3 point line is a step in the right direction (assuming that one perceives a problem with the competitive situation in the first place).
My disinclination to take such a step, however, relates more to the fact that such a move would be a very blunt instrument (unless one moved the line in but inches) and that there are recent rule changes that will likely ultimately have similar effect. In particular, the relatively recent increased restriction on hand-checking of perimeter players, should increase the value of perimeter players relative to the interior players and create a new margin for improving competitive balance. Of course, such adaptation to the rule change will likely occur with excruciating slowness, but at least it is a change in the right direction, both in terms of competitiveness and in terms of aesthetics, perhaps even to Bill James.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
