People Should Ask Celtics Players What They Think About Sports Analytics

[LooseCannon]

Some journalists are reported to possibly lurk here, so I'm begging you to think about finding a way to incorporate a question sounding out a player's general feeling about advanced sports analytics as a way of probing how the players feel about Brad Stevens.  I really want to know how well Rondo understands those statistics, since he was good at math in high school.  Maybe you can point out how statistics are important to Stevens then ask the player if they took a stat class in high school or college and, if so, how did they do.

I don't use Twitter, but for those of you who do, it would be interesting to see if you can get a response from a player by asking if they knew that they ranked highly in some advanced stat.  (I doubt they would respond to someone trying to tell them they stink, but might have a shot if you tweeted something complimentary.)  It'd be interesting to know how familiar they are with certain statistics.

Or if you are one of those people lucky enough to have actual face-to-face interaction with a player, it might be interesting to slip that into a conversation.

I really have no shot at doing any of this, but maybe someone else can.

[LarBrd33]

I would guess a lot of players look at it positively.  Data isn't an enemy.  If you take a player like KG who is the key player in a defense and tell him something like (as a made-up example), "the wizards have a 20% success rate when John wall pulls up for a 15 foot jumper from the left wing", it probably gives KG more incentive to make switches and force that situation.   I figure data is a good thing. Scorers probably don't mind hearing what plays they struggle on and where they are most successful. It gives them more opportunities to run successful plays and take shots in situations that will result in better stats, more wins, bigger contracts and larger endorsement deals.  Advanced Analytics are their friend.

I mean you tell a player like lebron that he shoots 20% on corner threes, it gives him reason to work on that shot in the offseason and avoid taking that shot when there are better plays to make.  I can't imagine a reason they would be opposed to it.  It's as helpful to the players as it is to the coaches.

[LooseCannon]

I can't imagine a reason they would be opposed to it.

If Brad Stevens tells Jordan Crawford that he will be inactive because their data says he should be, what do you think his reaction will be?

How many players will react negatively if told they are not as good at defense as they think they are?

A lot of people tend to blame the statistics when the analysis tells them things they don't want to hear.  The most obvious example is seeing how politicians react when they get disappoint poll result.  The dumbest ones stick their fingers in the ears and ignore the polls, usually to their detriment.  I expect that some players will complain that the stats are flawed, that methodology is incomplete and doesn't explain everything, rather than try to change and conform with the dictates of the new regime.

[LarBrd33]

I dunno man.  It's no different than telling a player, "yo, you suck at free throws.  Work on that"

... If telling a player to improve on free throw shooting shatters their fragile world view then they would probably hate hearing advanced defensive stats as well.  For the rest of the league, it just gives players more focused aspects of their games to work on and improve... And find ways to minimize their inherent weaknesses.   It's not an issue, IMO.

This isn't hocus pocus.  Coaches use stats all the time.  They just focus on different things and have different measurements.  It's easier to stomach concrete stats than broad suggestions.  It's not like they pull this stuff out of their butts.

[LooseCannon]

Well, Josh Smith wanted to leave Atlanta because he hated being criticized for his shot selection.  Players have egos and have been known to whine about playing time and wanting a bigger role.  I don't think statistical evidence is going to stop all those players from complaining.  Some of them might say that Stevens is a nerd who never played in the NBA, so his stats aren't worth squat.  Don't confuse what they should do with what they will actually do.

[Mazingerz]

If Big Baby was still here and asked "what do you think about Sports Analytics" his reply would be:

What channel is it on?

[Casperian]

I don´t think I understand this thread.

You want to know if Rondo understands statistics, since he was good at math in high school, because some athletes might dismiss Stevens for his purported reliance on them. Is that correct?

Are you implying Stevens is lacking in social skills? If not, then what´s the point?

[LooseCannon]

I don´t think I understand this thread.

You want to know if Rondo understands statistics, since he was good at math in high school, because some athletes might dismiss Stevens for his purported reliance on them. Is that correct?

Are you implying Stevens is lacking in social skills? If not, then what´s the point?

There have been coaches who reportedly had problems with players because those players didn't respect the opinion of someone who never played in the NBA.  It's the same as soldiers grumbling about a commander-in-chief with no military experience.  Since Stevens hasn't played in the NBA and also hasn't built up respect through working his way up as an assistant NBA coach, it can be hard for him to command respect from some players.

I'd argue that Stevens will probably have an easier time working with players who not only understand what he wants but also why he wants things that way. 

On the other hand, no matter how good his social skills are, I think he may run into problems with a player who has a stereotypical jock mentality and thinks he should get more playing time even if the numbers say otherwise.

[outflip50]

I don´t think I understand this thread.

You want to know if Rondo understands statistics, since he was good at math in high school, because some athletes might dismiss Stevens for his purported reliance on them. Is that correct?

Are you implying Stevens is lacking in social skills? If not, then what´s the point?

There have been coaches who reportedly had problems with players because those players didn't respect the opinion of someone who never played in the NBA.  It's the same as soldiers grumbling about a commander-in-chief with no military experience.  Since Stevens hasn't played in the NBA and also hasn't built up respect through working his way up as an assistant NBA coach, it can be hard for him to command respect from some players.

I'd argue that Stevens will probably have an easier time working with players who not only understand what he wants but also why he wants things that way. 

On the other hand, no matter how good his social skills are, I think he may run into problems with a player who has a stereotypical jock mentality and thinks he should get more playing time even if the numbers say otherwise.

I believe that the guys that show a "stereotypical jock mentality" will not be around long. It is one thing to persuade a Rondo or Green, which I believe at this point wont be an issue. However, the lesser pieces will conform, or be gone. Stevens has shown the demeanor of a calm collected and intelligent individual. The guys that have played for him all say the same things, clear, concise and precise in delivering his message and what he expects.

[nickagneta]

If the coach wants to use advanced statistics in his coaching and apply them accordingly, that's great. But it is up to the coach to be able to gather those stats and apply them to real life coaching and communicate what he wants and why in a manner that is understandable to the people he is coaching.

Its a basketball player's job to be a basketball player, not know the details of statistics. Its the coach's job to coach the players. If they utilize advanced stats then it is up to the coach to analyze those stats, come to conclusions based on those stats and implement a system and coaching style that best applies these stats and do so in a manner that is easy for his team to understand and execute.

If all Stevens is doing is spouting advanced stats to players and confusing them, he's not doing his job properly. A vast majority of NBA players nowadays are not college graduates and their priorities were not taking difficult mathematics classes or learning advanced math.

Coach like a coach should. If you want to use advanced stats to implement a system, go ahead but when communicating with the team, don't talk over them or confuse them. Teach them your view of what they need to do to get the advanced stats you want that you think will create winning basketball.

[bdm860]

You make it sound like nobody has used any kind of stats or analysis other in the NBA before.  And that Brad Stevens is a robot who only talks in complex mathematical equations.

Like you think Stevens is going to call a play, the players are going to question why, and Stevens is going to reply with something like “we raise our points per possession by 2 standard deviations when we run this play against teams ranked in the upper quadrant of DRtg when we have a mean +/- on the floor greater than or equal to 3.2” and everyone is just going to be confused.  And instead of drawing X and O’s during the huddle, and he’ll just write things like this on the clip board:



Like he can’t just say “I’m the coach” or “this is the play I want” or “I believe this play will work against the D I’m seeing.”

And if MarShon Brooks isn’t playing and asks Stevens why, he’ll whip out Excel and run him through some advanced level analysis of how the team performs best with Brooks only playing X mpg and taking Y shots per game, loosing Brooks in the process causing him tune him out and not listen to him. Like he can’t just say, “I think Lee is playing much better than you” or “work on your D and shot selection and you’ll get another chance soon” or “I think our offensive performs much better with you providing a spark off the bench” or "take fewer 3's and I'll get you more minutes."

I believe most teams already use this kind of stuff, at least in some capacity.  I’ve heard other teams (Rockets I think, in an article about Shane Battier a few years ago) give each player like a 15-minute DVD of their likely matchups for the night, showing all the plays their matchup has run in the last few games along with a printout of the stats (Player X goes right 70% of the time and shoots 45% on pull ups from 10 feet out.  But when going left and pulling up he only shoots 20%).  It’s up to the players to use that kind of data that they already have available to them.  If Stevens shows them that stuff, it’s not like their heads will explode and they won't be able to comprehend it.

A coach doesn’t need to tell a player the math behind the analysis, just the end result.  We convert this play more against this defense, this lineup has been most effective against this team, on average these minute allocations causes us to perform best.  You shoot best from these spots on the floor, but poorly here.  He doesn’t need to tell the players anything but this, and most players won’t even ask in the first place.  Coach tells me to go left more, I'll go left more, if it gets me more points then I'll gladly try it.

[LooseCannon]

A coach doesn’t need to tell a player the math behind the analysis, just the end result.

I'm thinking of the scenario where the end result is counter-intuitive and fails the "eye test".  On something as simple as allocation of playing time, will players trust in the coach if they don't really understand why his personnel rotations are they way they are (especially if they think they deserve more minutes), or do they need to understand the process of reaching those decisions to be able to accept them?

If Jared Sullinger begins the season as the starting power forward and midway through the season, Stevens determines that the team would be better off starting Olynyk and having Sullinger come off the bench, even though Olynyk doesn't appear to be statistically better, would Sullinger accept that or would he need to understand why that decision was made to feel comfortable with his new role?

There are some players in the league who would probably complain about losing his starting job because of some number-crunching nerd who doesn't know what it's like to be an NBA floor, when they might accept the demotion more readily from a coach with a stronger resume.

[bdm860]

A coach doesn’t need to tell a player the math behind the analysis, just the end result.

I'm thinking of the scenario where the end result is counter-intuitive and fails the "eye test".  On something as simple as allocation of playing time, will players trust in the coach if they don't really understand why his personnel rotations are they way they are (especially if they think they deserve more minutes), or do they need to understand the process of reaching those decisions to be able to accept them?

If Jared Sullinger begins the season as the starting power forward and midway through the season, Stevens determines that the team would be better off starting Olynyk and having Sullinger come off the bench, even though Olynyk doesn't appear to be statistically better, would Sullinger accept that or would he need to understand why that decision was made to feel comfortable with his new role?

There are some players in the league who would probably complain about losing his starting job because of some number-crunching nerd who doesn't know what it's like to be an NBA floor, when they might accept the demotion more readily from a coach with a stronger resume.

But I think that happens to every player on every team, regardless of the method the coaches uses to determine that, whether it's detailed statistical analysis or a hunch/gut-feeling/instinct or just a general observation.  Just about every non-veteran thinks they should be playing more.  Remember Gerald Green asking to be traded from Minnesota because he wasn't playing enough?  You think that was Minnesota's advanced stats keeping him on the bench and Green disagreed with it or couldn’t understand it?

Usually every team but the top few experiment with dozens of different lineups and strategies.  You experiment till you find something that works.  The Hawks had 29 different starting lineups last year, the Mavs had 24, the Raptors had 22, the Bucks 20, etc.  You think all those changes made sense to every player?  Most of the league experiments and changes things up, this won’t be unique to Stevens.

In your Olynyk/Sullinger scenario, if Stevens is right, the team would win more games, how could anyone argue with that?  Sully, we started 5-15 with you in the starting lineup, when we moved you to the bench we went 13-7.  If he's wrong, he'd alter it again till he finds something that works.  And there are a lot of good players that come off the bench while an inferior player starts:  JR Smith, Jamal Crawford, Manu Ginobili, James Harden, etc.  They seem to handle it okay.

I feel like you think Stevens is this guy who knows nothing about basketball and is just some math geek who doesn't understand the nuances of the game.  He can coach basketball without stats, but he uses stats to tighten up or adjust things.  His moves aren’t going to be that counter-intuitive, he's not going to play 4 centers or 3 point guards at once.  It's not like Stevens is going to start and play Pressey, Crawford, Bogans, Iverson, and Melo 48 minutes a game, while sitting Rondo, Green, and Sullinger because his analysis tells him it's the best lineup because they have the highest rating based on a them playing together for 5 minutes at the end of a blowout. 

It’s more like:  Rondo's averaging 10 shot attempts per game, the analysis tells me we'd be better if he takes a couple more/less, let's run a couple more/fewer plays for him.  The team performs best when we keep Green's minutes under 35 per game and Bogans and Olynk play at least 10mpg.  I’ll cut Green down from 38mpg, and try bumping up Bogans and Olynyk from their 5mpg and 8mpg.  And it’s not like he’s blind to anything outside of the stats:  Green’s played his 35mpg, the stats tell me that's the best, I don’t care if it’s a triple overtime game, I can’t play Green anymore.

It's not Perk is shooting 60%, if he shoots every time, the team will shoot 60% and therefor win the game.  Let's get Perk the ball!

This is not what Stevens does and it's not going to be any more counter-intuitive to NBA players than any other decision that cuts their minutes/shots.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I think this interview gives a good idea of how Stevens sees the use of analystics and how information is related to his players, start at 2:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doYDGSW8R4

[LooseCannon]

I feel like you think Stevens is this guy who knows nothing about basketball and is just some math geek who doesn't understand the nuances of the game.

I don't think that.  However, I do think that a player who believes he should have a bigger role could be tempted to think that.  For some players, it may be harder to accept being told to sit by Brad Stevens than by someone like Doc Rivers.

Is winning NBA games the only way for Stevens to get players to trust him, a potential Catch-22 for a rebuilding team?  Or are there players who will more easily buy into his system because they have an affinity for the way Stevens thinks?