NYT Magazine article on Battier

[Cman]

Michael Lewis has a really interesting article on Shane Battier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

Many interesting things in the article, which highlights how Houston (and Battier in particular) takes a Bill James-like approach to basketball.

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.

[soap07]

I can't stand pieces like these, and I usually really like Michael Lewis too.

Especially when talking about Battier's reputation...

Statements like these drive me nuts:

And yet every team he has ever played on has acquired some magical ability to win.

Stephon Marbury has had as much playoff success as Shane Battier has. Come on.

When he graduated from Duke in 2001, where he won a record-tying 131 college-basketball games, including that year’s N.C.A.A. championship, he received another Naismith Award as the best college basketball player in the nation.

Yes, Shane Battier single-handedly won those 131 games, all by himself. Really quite impressive, had nothing to do with the other four guys on the court. Poor writing again. Duke won 131 games while Battier played for them and he was no doubt a vital piece. Shane Battier did not win those games by himself.

“This year,” Morey says, “we have been a championship team with him and a bubble playoff team without him.”

They are 19-12 with Shane Battier this year, which over the whole year amounts to 50 wins over an 82 game season. Real championship team.

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.

[cornbreadsmart]

it reminds me of the "grant hill is classy" worship. i don't get it.

[soap07]

Should we expecting an 8 page feature on James Posey?

[the_Bird]

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.

The point of the article is that we as fans and many NBA executives don't take our analysis of these things any further than that.  What does it mean in terms of wins and losses that he's smart on the court?  They're trying to answer that as accurately as they can.  They can take this analysis too far, I think, but being able to statistically identify that Battier makes Kobe Bryant take difficult shots is valuable.  Nothing in that article was trying to advocate Battier for the all-star team - they were just using him as an example of a player with a lot of inherent limitations that has made himself into a tremendous role player BECAUSE of his intelligence.  If you don't do this kind of analysis, how do you really know how much Battier is worth to your ballclub?

What I found most interesting about the article was the whole hatred of the pregame rituals; it almost reminded me of some of Paul Shirley's comments about not really feeling like they're a part of the NBA culture.  

I'm also interested in who the OTHER 14 "undervalued" players that Morley identified when he went to Houston.  I'd wager that one of them was - GASP! - Scal!

[soap07]

The point of the article is that we as fans and many NBA executives don't take our analysis of these things any further than that.  What does it mean in terms of wins and losses that he's smart on the court?  They're trying to answer that as accurately as they can.  They can take this analysis too far, I think, but being able to statistically identify that Battier makes Kobe Bryant take difficult shots is valuable.  Nothing in that article was trying to advocate Battier for the all-star team - they were just using him as an example of a player with a lot of inherent limitations that has made himself into a tremendous role player BECAUSE of his intelligence.  If you don't do this kind of analysis, how do you really know how much Battier is worth to your ballclub?

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.

[JHTruth]

Yeah, the new sports gurus are becoming stat geeks and econometricians. Which is cool with me since I am one. LOL. In all seriousness, it's a fascinating field and I recommend looking at some sites to get a feel for it.

[bdm860]

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.

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.

[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.

[Fan from VT]

my favorite part from the article was this:

“I care a lot more about what ought to have happened than what actually happens,” said Hinkie, who has an M.B.A. from Stanford. The routine N.B.A. game, he explained, is decided by a tiny percentage of the total points scored. A team scores on average about 100 points a game, but two out of three N.B.A. games are decided by fewer than 6 points — two or three possessions. The effect of this, in his mind, was to raise significantly the importance of every little thing that happened. The Lakers’ Trevor Ariza, who makes 29 percent of his 3-point shots, hit a crazy 3-pointer, and as the crowd moaned, Hinkie was almost distraught. “That Ariza shot, that is really painful,” he said. “Because it’s a near-random event. And it’s a 3-point swing.” When Bryant drove to the basket, instead of being forced to take a jump shot, he said: “That’s three-eighths of a point. These things accumulate.”

It's nice to see that bright minds actually working for basketball teams understand that the outcomes of close games depend on random occurances and not "clutchness" or "grit."

[Fan from VT]

oh, and this:

ryant had taken 51 3-pointers at the very end of close games from farther than 26.75 feet from the basket. He had missed 86.3 percent of them.

ESPN only likes to report on the 14% he makes.

[chicagogreen]

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?

[Toine43]

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?

You should have posted it over here then. The forums have been in existence much longer than the fan posts, so for the most part a post in the forums is going to get more readers than a fan post. That's just the way it is.

[bdm860]

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?

[chicagogreen]

[/quote]
You should have posted it over here then. The forums have been in existence much longer than the fan posts, so for the most part a post in the forums is going to get more readers than a fan post. That's just the way it is.
[/quote]

I thought starting a thread here was for authorized people and the fanposts were for the rest of us, no?