December 6, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, February 16, 2009
MoneyBasketBallFirst it was baseball with Moneyball, and then football with The Blind Side. Now Michael Lewis focuses his attention on the undervalued in the world of basketball:
The virus that infected professional baseball in the 1990s, the use of statistics to find new and better ways to value players and strategies, has found its way into every major sport. Not just basketball and football, but also soccer and cricket and rugby and, for all I know, snooker and darts — each one now supports a subculture of smart people who view it not just as a game to be played but as a problem to be solved. Outcomes that seem, after the fact, all but inevitable — of course LeBron James hit that buzzer beater, of course the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl — are instead treated as a set of probabilities, even after the fact. The games are games of odds. Like professional card counters, the modern thinkers want to play the odds as efficiently as they can; but of course to play the odds efficiently they must first know the odds. Hence the new statistics, and the quest to acquire new data, and the intense interest in measuring the impact of every little thing a player does on his team’s chances of winning. In its spirit of inquiry, this subculture inside professional basketball is no different from the subculture inside baseball or football or darts. The difference in basketball is that it happens to be the sport that is most like life.
This article focuses on the Rockets' Shane Battier. Unlike Billy Beane and the A's, however, Battier's masters are wisely a little more cagey about what it is about him they value:
He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers. On defense, although he routinely guards the N.B.A.’s most prolific scorers, he significantly reduces their shooting percentages. At the same time he somehow improves the defensive efficiency of his teammates — probably, Morey surmises, by helping them out in all sorts of subtle ways . . .
One wonders if the A's would still be exploiting some of the old inefficiencies if Billy Beane had been similarly circumspect back in 2002.
(thanks to reader Bigcatasroma and a few others who sent me the link)
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:37am
This was a great piece. Michael Lewis is a fantastic writer.
Posted 02/16 at 12:15 PM
Pete Toms said...
Not interested in basketball at all (although I understand that this is about more than basketball), but I did notice that this Lewis piece is being discussed at The Sports Economist blog also.
Posted 02/16 at 12:34 PM
As a big soccer fan, do you know of anything equivalent to Moneyball, or Baseball Prospectus, for soccer? Any blogs, literature, etc.? I know that Billy Beane was consulting w/ Tottenham Hotspur for a while, or even still does. Any information on that? Work the channels . . .
Posted 02/16 at 01:09 PM