The No-Stats All-Star

This is a very long, but utterly jaw-dropping look at Shane Battier, probability and the Houston Rockets front office. It's one of the best basketball articles I've ever read. It's by Michael Lewis, who wrote "Moneyball."

Deadspin.com linked to it earlier today, but I had to re-post it here. It's that good.

almost 3 years ago Mike Lisboa 6 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

Great article

by IrrationalAgent on Feb 14, 2009 5:38 PM MST reply actions

Great Read

Thanks for the link.

Now, how do we get him on our team?

Sadly, it doesn’t sound like any of our guys would fit their statistical analysis of good.

by ArizonaCactus on Feb 14, 2009 6:00 PM MST reply actions

lessons for Phoenix

I don’t know if there actually are any lessons for us in that article, but it’s obvious that Houston has a plan, a system, a strategy, a method. Some time during the D’Antoni era, I found myself asking, “How do we beat the best? How do we beat San Antonio and Detroit? What’s our plan? What’s our system? What’s our strategy? What’s our method?”

It was clear to me that Mike D’Antoni had a system that produced tremendous regular season success, but I never believed we would win a championship with it. Even so, at least I understood the system and the logic by which it was supposed to make us a legitimate contender.

Around the time of the Shaq/Marion trade, though, I stopped understanding what our system was supposed to be, and what plan was governing our actions on and off the court. I’m still wondering that today. If you said to Steve Kerr, “Hey, you put together the team, and you hired the coach. So tell me, what was your plan? What strategy is embodied in your choice of coach and player personnel? What ‘system’ are you using here, and how does it get you deep into the playoffs? What methods are you employing here that are going to make this team successful?”, I’m not sure he could give you a good answer. To me, the current roster and coaching staff look like the result of numerous piecemeal decisions, each of which was made without enough thought as to whether, and how, they contributed to some overall strategy for success.

Footnote: Of course, Kerr—being a very bright guy—could say, “There was a strategy. There was a plan. There was a system. There was a method. Let me explain it to you… Unfortunately, you don’t always know how well your plans are going to work until you put them into action on the floor. We thought we had a good plan, but it hasn’t worked out.”

by beatcal on Feb 14, 2009 7:11 PM MST reply actions

The point of the article isn't about any team system..

but rather, it explains how a player with limited athletic ability can not only survive but excel in the NBA.

It also shows how most observers of the NBA are inherently mistaken about players, and evaluating their quality, relying on the box score instead of a more detailed approach to that kind of judgment.

Don’t get me wrong, I think a team of Shane Battiers would get marmalized by a team of Duncans/Kobes?LeBrons/Pauls, but it’s really interesting to note how the article shows that if you have good quality & good character non-stars on your team, they truly multiply the effectiveness of the other players.

That’s why the Spurs & Lakers win, as did the old Bulls teams, whereas our team, despite having more talent than the others falls short.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Feb 14, 2009 7:29 PM MST up reply actions

The point of my comment was not to say that the point of the article was about a team system

The point was to pose the question: what logic/method/system/metric/plan is governing the moves our franchise has made over the past couple of years? I don’t see any method to the madness.

by beatcal on Feb 14, 2009 10:28 PM MST reply actions

That's pretty easy to answer..

The aim at the start of the season was to stabilize this team, and try and contend for the next 2 or 3 seasons around Nash & Amare, with a more mobile Shaq providing interior defense. When Shaq, Nash & Grant retire, they’d have a nice veteran core of Amare, Boris & Leandro, around whom a decent team could be built with the draft & trades.

From an offensive point of view, the aim was to try & keep Mike D’s offense, with Shaq playing the trailing center in the half court game, just like Kareem. So, if the Suns would run, and if they were able to get an early quick strike, they’d take it, and if not, they’d set up for Shaq. Then they’d have three options: Shaq scores; Shaq opens the paint for Amare, and he scores; or they pass outside for a 3 pointer or a mid range shot.

From a defensive point of view, they just wanted to improve interior defense and rebounding, particularly wrt giving up offensive boards/second chances to the opposition, and also try to shore up help defense around Steve Nash, who is mostly unable to defend any drive by an opposing guard.

What went wrong? First of all, Porter tried to change the Suns offense into the Pistons offense, which was doomed to fail because he already had a veteran group of players, who had achieved substantial success with an offensive system geared to their individual talents.

Secondly, he failed to deal with his players, or gain their respect. He’s a “my way or the highway” kind of coach, which is good when your team is young, but doesn’t work when you have a boatload of all-star/MVP caliber vets, or petulant power forwards. Having lost his team, Porter forced Kerr into a position of having to back his coach, hence the Boris/Raja trade. That trade was a big mistake.

"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".

by Pliny the Elder on Feb 15, 2009 5:18 PM MST up reply actions