NYT Magazine article on Battier

[soap07]

And Soap, i kind of disagree with your view.  I enjoy pieces like this (although it was a little long), because I think Battier is a way more valuable player than other guys who put up big numbers.  Take a guy like Zach Randolph, the guy can put up 20 and 10 but his teams never seem to win.  Or maybe people like Ricky Davis or Larry Hughes (in their primes).  They all would and still could put up much better numbers than Battier, but if you took a vacuum and went through all 30 teams, I believe every team would be much better off, win more games, and be more successful if it had Shane Battier on their team instead Larry Hughes or whatever "selfish" player who puts up better numbers and gets paid more.


Due respect, this is exactly what I mean. What has Battier accomplished in terms of NBA winning that Zach Randolph, Ricky Davis and Larry Hughes haven't? They each been out of the first round exactly 0 times. Frankly, Zach Randolph always contributes more on a basketball court than Battier could. For one thing, Randolph draws double teams. At the end of the day, Battier has accomplished no more in terms of "winning" than any of the players you mentioned.

Uhoh, are you going to make me think here? Lol, it's all good, and already appreciate the way you disagree.

It's easy to have a negative impact on a team, but a lot harder to have a positive impact on a team.  While Battier hasn't had any more playoff success than those players, he has had more team success (just comparing Zach Randolph and Battier's teams wins here):

                         ZR   SB
2001-2002   49*   23
2002-2003   50   28
2003-2004   41   50
2004-2005   27   45
2005-2006   21   49
2006-2007   32   52
2007-2008   23   55

*Randolph played only 238 minutes in 41 games

Drawing double teams is good, but you have to do something with those double teams.  And Randolph has had more turnovers than assits every year he's been in the league.  That's what I felt the whole point of the article was though, you can look at the sexy stats like points and rebounds and say one player is more productive than another, when that's not an accurate story.  If we're just going to argue playoff success though I guess I have no argument, since you're right Battier hasn't had any playoff success, but his teams would have likely done worse without him too.  Somehow I think the Knicks still would have been able to win 23 games last year even without Randolph.

Let's just take our current Celtics for example.  If they could add one of the following players at the same contract, who do you think would really be most beneficial to us (trying to go with all wings here):  Corey Maggette, Ricky Davis, Larry Hughes, Bruce Bowen, James Posey, or Shane Battier.  Do you think we'd really be better off with one of the first 3 players or one of the second 3 players?  The first 3 players would all put up better individual numbers than the second 3, but who do you think is really going to help us win more games and go further?

Okay, first, I'll address the first part of your posts. Is it fair to compare win seasons of Randolph and Battier? Who has Battier played with and who has Randolph played with? Battier is not a go-to-guy on his team. Don't you think if Randolph was the starting power forward on the Rockets they'd have at least the same record? This is comparing apples to oranges obviously, considering that they have different roles and salaries. But you did bring up wins for each season - I just don't think that's necessarily fair, although I do understand the point you're trying to make.

Drawing double teams is good, but you have to do something with those double teams.  And Randolph has had more turnovers than assits every year he's been in the league.  That's what I felt the whole point of the article was though, you can look at the sexy stats like points and rebounds and say one player is more productive than another, when that's not an accurate story.  If we're just going to argue playoff success though I guess I have no argument, since you're right Battier hasn't had any playoff success, but his teams would have likely done worse without him too.  Somehow I think the Knicks still would have been able to win 23 games last year even without Randolph.

This is straying from the original point, but I'll address it anyway. Randolph is a power forward. He's going to have more turnovers than assists anyway, it's how it is. It's a weakness in his game that he's a black hole down low, but I don't think using A/TO ratio for him is fair either.

Let's just take our current Celtics for example.  If they could add one of the following players at the same contract, who do you think would really be most beneficial to us (trying to go with all wings here):  Corey Maggette, Ricky Davis, Larry Hughes, Bruce Bowen, James Posey, or Shane Battier.  Do you think we'd really be better off with one of the first 3 players or one of the second 3 players?  The first 3 players would all put up better individual numbers than the second 3, but who do you think is really going to help us win more games and go further?

Honestly, Maggette would be my answer. I know people will disagree but this team needs someone who can create offense off the bench. Again, the other options aren't fair. Bowen is old and past his prime now. Bowen, in his prime, would be my answer in a jiffy. Obviously, watching Davis play this year, no one would want him. I would definitely take Posey on this team over Battier. The only people on that list I'd take Battier over: Hughes (Injury prone, horrible shot selection, inefficient offensively) and Davis (not Ricky of two years ago though).

[bdm860]

What has Battier accomplished in terms of NBA winning that Zach Randolph, Ricky Davis and Larry Hughes haven't?

Okay, first, I'll address the first part of your posts. Is it fair to compare win seasons of Randolph and Battier?

It's always tough to compare wins, since basketball is such a team game, and so many factors are involved, but you asked what had Battier accomplished in winning that Zach Randolph, Ricky Davis and Larry Hughes haven't? I just went with Randolph (cuz I'm lazy) and compared wins to show what Battier had accomplished that those players haven't.

I'll stick by something I said in my original post.  If you go through every single team in the league, I think if you added Randolph, then went back and added Battier instead, regardless of whether the team needs a SF or PF or scoring or defense.  I honestly think 30 times out of 30, the team that has Battier would have more wins at the end of the season, all else being equal.  (Obviously a completely hypothetical situation and pure speculation on my part, but that's what I believe).  Even with Minnesota with Big Al out and the need of a low post player, or a team like the Bulls who need a low post player.  I think those teams (as well as every other team in the league) would perform better with Battier (a player whose true contributions don't show up in the stat sheet) over Randolph (a player who might give you impressive stats, but not the W).

I'll leave the double team thing and negative A/TO ratio alone to keep from straying, it'll definitely cause us to go off on a side trail.

Let's just take our current Celtics for example.  If they could add one of the following players at the same contract, who do you think would really be most beneficial to us (trying to go with all wings here):  Corey Maggette, Ricky Davis, Larry Hughes, Bruce Bowen, James Posey, or Shane Battier.  Do you think we'd really be better off with one of the first 3 players or one of the second 3 players?  The first 3 players would all put up better individual numbers than the second 3, but who do you think is really going to help us win more games and go further?

Honestly, Maggette would be my answer. I know people will disagree but this team needs someone who can create offense off the bench. Again, the other options aren't fair. Bowen is old and past his prime now. Bowen, in his prime, would be my answer in a jiffy. Obviously, watching Davis play this year, no one would want him. I would definitely take Posey on this team over Battier. The only people on that list I'd take Battier over: Hughes (Injury prone, horrible shot selection, inefficient offensively) and Davis (not Ricky of two years ago though).

Eh, that's your opinion, and everyone has got their own, although I disagree.  To specify though (which I didn't the first time and may clear my view up a little) I was thinking a contract that ran through the rest of this year, maybe next, so I was thinking a 1 or 2 year contract for all players mentioned.  I would take Maggette this year or next if we could get him, but I would take Posey, Battier, and even old Bowen this year or next over him if I had the choice.  With no other options I would be happy with Maggette (at a reasonable price), but if those other players (Bowen, Battier, Posey) are available I would take any of them over Maggette, Hughes (even if healthy the whole time), and Davis every single time, and honestly believe they would help the C's win more games.

[cordobes]

All good points. I love sabermetrics. I do. I just hate when they're used to overinflate guys like Battier. You are absolutely right though in the point of his article.

I agree with this. In fact, I now have the feeling that a certain kind of players - low usage, highly efficient, low scoring guys - are starting to become overrated while one-dimensional volume scorers are becoming underrated, due to the popularity of some new stats and metrics.

However:

The piece was well-researched, but let's get real: Shane Battier is a solid player. He can hit the three, good defender and is smart on the court. Good locker room guy, blah blah. But he is what he is: a role player.

I do think you underestimate Battier. He's more than solid and much more than good as a defender. I think elite perimeter/wing defenders are very valuable in this league, especially if they aren't complete liabilities on the offensive end. Battier is the best perimeter defender in the game these days - not only he's great playing 1on1, but he's also an excellent help defender, he's versatile and he's a floor general. An extremely valuable player for any team. 

[cordobes]

Honestly, Maggette would be my answer. I know people will disagree but this team needs someone who can create offense off the bench. Again, the other options aren't fair. Bowen is old and past his prime now. Bowen, in his prime, would be my answer in a jiffy. Obviously, watching Davis play this year, no one would want him. I would definitely take Posey on this team over Battier. The only people on that list I'd take Battier over: Hughes (Injury prone, horrible shot selection, inefficient offensively) and Davis (not Ricky of two years ago though).

Why do you need someone who can create offense off the bench? We already have the Big 3, plus Rondo, plus Allen and Powe to a lesser extent. For the playoffs, when the team will have 3/4 starters on the floor almost every second, why another shot creator? Especially such a horrific player like Maggette.

Battier is not worse than Bowen in his prime, I think. At least, it's very, very close. I'd pick Battier over Posey in a heartbeat; Battier does everything Posey does (well, perhaps he's not as clutch...) and then some.

[cordobes]

Man, I already posted this in the fanposts yesterday and I have been begging for some response and discussion and instead it is over here?

Pfff... you have no right to complain. In fact, I posted a fanshot about this article yesterday (before your fanpost) and I'm still waiting for the first comment! 

[tb727]

I read this and thought it was well-written.  The other two guys that popped in my mind who fit this mold are James Posey and Bruce Bowen (from the past several years).  So many people said "James Posey only averaged 7 ppg"- but there's so many other things these guys do.  It's what makes a good team, great.

Terrific article.

[soap07]

All good points. I love sabermetrics. I do. I just hate when they're used to overinflate guys like Battier. You are absolutely right though in the point of his article.

I agree with this. In fact, I now have the feeling that a certain kind of players - low usage, highly efficient, low scoring guys - are starting to become overrated while one-dimensional volume scorers are becoming underrated, due to the popularity of some new stats and metrics.

However:

The piece was well-researched, but let's get real: Shane Battier is a solid player. He can hit the three, good defender and is smart on the court. Good locker room guy, blah blah. But he is what he is: a role player.

I do think you underestimate Battier. He's more than solid and much more than good as a defender. I think elite perimeter/wing defenders are very valuable in this league, especially if they aren't complete liabilities on the offensive end. Battier is the best perimeter defender in the game these days - not only he's great playing 1on1, but he's also an excellent help defender, he's versatile and he's a floor general. An extremely valuable player for any team. 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of this. I certainly see the value of Battier. But all this is straying from my original point: I hate how Battier gets branded as a "winner" and all he does is "win" wherever he goes. My simple point is that this is simply not true. He has not won in the NBA...and guys branded as losers as one of the previous posters mentioned: Randolph, Hughes, Marbury, Davis, etc. haven't lost/won any more than Battier has. I just hate the cliche, I suppose, is my point.


Why do you need someone who can create offense off the bench? We already have the Big 3, plus Rondo, plus Allen and Powe to a lesser extent. For the playoffs, when the team will have 3/4 starters on the floor almost every second, why another shot creator? Especially such a horrific player like Maggette.

This has been argued ad nauseum on this board and I certainly see your argument. However, my personal preference is for a bench to be able to play without one of the Big Three on the floor to keep their minutes down. A shot creator like Maggette allows for that. He draws fouls, can get to the lane, good midrange, etc etc. I just don't feel anyone on our bench is consistent enough to be a legitimate sixth man.

Although, your point about the playoffs is very well taken. However, I see no reason Maggette could not be on the floor with the Big Three. It's not like he's a liability with the jump shot. He can hit the 3 if needed. He would still help draw flaws and collapse the defense to open up the game for KG, Ray and Paul. I was more answering the question over the long haul of the season anyway.

Battier is not worse than Bowen in his prime, I think. At least, it's very, very close. I'd pick Battier over Posey in a heartbeat; Battier does everything Posey does (well, perhaps he's not as clutch...) and then some.

Again, all good points. My simple point is that: Bruce Bowen is a legitimate "winner". Posey is a proven "winner". But they don't get the all around hype (or used as examples for 8 page features about guys who aren't defined by stats) that guys like Battier who actually haven't accomplished much in the league get.

The piece was well researched, I just thought it could have been executed a little better.

[soap07]

In a slightly unrelated note, Cordobes, what do you feel that Battier does that Posey does not? It seems to me that Posey can defend more positions, is as good (if not better) from three point range, good help defender, high IQ....

[the_Bird]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of this. I certainly see the value of Battier. But all this is straying from my original point: I hate how Battier gets branded as a "winner" and all he does is "win" wherever he goes. My simple point is that this is simply not true. He has not won in the NBA...and guys branded as losers as one of the previous posters mentioned: Randolph, Hughes, Marbury, Davis, etc. haven't lost/won any more than Battier has. I just hate the cliche, I suppose, is my point.

I think you're missing the point.

It's not that you just look at Battier himself and see whether the teams he plays on have more wins or fewer wins.  There are too many variables; is T-Mac hurt (ok, that's not really variable ), different teammates, etc.  It's too simplistic to say "Battier joined the team, they got 10 more wins, ergo he's a winner"; there are too many variables that you can't control.   It's the same as FreeDarko's calling Starbury the 7th-biggest team cancer in League history because his new teams lose more games after he joins.  It's funny, and might be true on some level, but it's not *proven* by that one statistic.

What Sabermetrics should be doing in the case of someone like Battier is look at the specific actions that he takes.  Play-by-play, how does he play defense?  The individual things that he does have a value; if he makes Kobe take a 28-foot 3 pointer instead of giving him a lane to the basket, if you look at enough individual plays you can compute a specific point value for that action (making him take that bad jumper might save you 0.7 points, on average - just a guess).  

If you look at the individual actions that Battier does in the course of a game, you can see whether the actions he takes on the offensive and defensive ends are really helping his team or hurting them; increasing or decreasing the odds of a victory.  All Battier can do is make Kobe take a bad, contested shot; whether the Rockets win or lose become a function of whether Kobe gets lucky and hits that shot (like he will 14% of the time).

That's a much more sophisticated way of looking inside the game that we realistically can do (or at least quantify) as fans.  The things we see and we know were good plays (he didn't let Kobe get to the rim) can be quantified in terms of their impact on points and ultimately their impact on wins and losses.

EDIT: I think of it not as "his teams always win," but "he does all the things that help his team win."

[cordobes]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of this. I certainly see the value of Battier. But all this is straying from my original point: I hate how Battier gets branded as a "winner" and all he does is "win" wherever he goes. My simple point is that this is simply not true. He has not won in the NBA...and guys branded as losers as one of the previous posters mentioned: Randolph, Hughes, Marbury, Davis, etc. haven't lost/won any more than Battier has. I just hate the cliche, I suppose, is my point.

Yeah, I can understand your point. Battier has won more NBA games than most of those guys, I think, he's been playing for good teams; and I personally don't think that winning a ring is some kind of litmus test (e.g. Reggie Miller, in my book, would be called winner). But I also dislike the use, and especially the overuse, of this term. Too prone to be misinterpreted.

In a slightly unrelated note, Cordobes, what do you feel that Battier does that Posey does not? It seems to me that Posey can defend more positions, is as good (if not better) from three point range, good help defender, high IQ....

Clumsy wording from my part: I think Battier is the superior player because he's a better individual defender than Posey and that makes an important difference. I also think Battier is a better passer and ball-handler, but that's not very important. 

[Steve Weinman]

My simple point is that: Bruce Bowen is a legitimate "winner". Posey is a proven "winner". But they don't get the all around hype (or used as examples for 8 page features about guys who aren't defined by stats) that guys like Battier who actually haven't accomplished much in the league get.

The piece was well researched, I just thought it could have been executed a little better.

I think an important point here regarding the selection of Battier over one of the other guys you mention, Soap, is that Battier plays for Daryl Morey's team.  Morey has garnered a reputation as something of a front office whiz kid of sorts, and it's my guess that featuring Morey was one of Lewis' goals, and of course that becomes more doable if he's writing about one of Morey's very own "high-value, low box-score" players.

I'm not levying an opinion here on whether or not that makes it right to brand him the "winner" here and not focus on one of the other two instead - but I think that's something to consider here, Soap.  Doesn't necessarily justify it on Lewis' part, but I would be surprised if it weren't a factor.

I do tend to agree with cordobes regarding Battier's value though.

Man, I already posted this in the fanposts yesterday and I have been begging for some response and discussion and instead it is over here?

Pfff... you have no right to complain. In fact, I posted a fanshot about this article yesterday (before your fanpost) and I'm still waiting for the first comment! 

I feel partially guilty for this one, cordobes - I was actually just pulling up the article in another tab at the same time I saw your fanshot, but I didn't get a chance to read it all the way through until this morning.  Had been planning on a comment (and possibly a Babble) once I'd completed it, and now here we are, with three different discussions going about it here on site.  Tough times, huh?   

-sw

[Cman]

Of interest: apparently there was a point guard in Boston 3 years ago who would not pass to one player in particular.  My guess: Gary Payton wouldn't pass to Al Jefferson.

Hey Cman, where do you get that the Celtics point guard played on the team 3 years ago?  It's a long article so maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that specified the time.  Morey worked for the C's from what it looks like 2001 till 2006 (I think, could be wrong).  Anyway I just say all that because my first thought when reading the article was that he was referring to Kenny Anderson.  I remember when Cousy would occasionally broadcast games and he would mention that he noticed Kenny was looking to pass to certain players instead of the open man and he didn't like it.

bdm, my bad.  you are right, it could have been any PG during that time period.  I was very rushed the morning I read the article and started this topic....

I thought the article was really good -- more than that, though, I thought it was interesting.  Count me as someone who is not at all interested in reading another article that gushes over Kobe or LeBron.  It is refreshing to hear about a different player altogether.

What I found most thought provoking was Lewis' idea that basketball is probably the one sport where that which is best for the individual it not necessarily that which is best for the team, in contrast to baseball, where the two interests are more aligned.