Myth-busters, Basketball edition Pt II

by jae on Jun 5, 2009 2:00 AM PDT in Science

Sequels are almost never as good as the original, but my agent negotiated for at least two more installments when they greenlighted part I. So with that, I bring you more basketball myths to bust, debunk and generally scoff at.

Bust, debunk and scoff at the busting as you see fit.

Myth: Player X just needs to work on his shooting.

Truth: I couldn't actually find the numbers for Player X. He doesn't appear anywhere in either the NBA.com or Basketball-Reference.com player archives. I don't have him in my personal database either. I'm not even sure who he plays for and can't remember when he was drafted, what position he plays, or if his shooting is really that bad to begin with. But in general, we can make some assumptions about Mr. X without seeing his box score results. Players can and do improve their outside shooting. Many players have entered the league with sub-standard to non-existent long range shots and have developed into accurate three point shooters, to point (and perhaps detriment) that some seem to forget how to do anything else. That said, guys who seem to be inaccurate shooters are often plagued by this for their whole career. It is not impossible, however, and better shooting is something both helps a team and seems to be a not completely unrealistic goal.

Myth: Player X just needs to box out and rebound.

Truth: Rebound rates are among the most stable statistic in the game. Players who are not good rebounders almost never improve substantially even to the level of being adequate. Conversely, guys who are good rebounders seem to rebound well throughout their careers. Should Player X try to box out and rebound better? Yeah. Rebounds are valuable means to secure possessions for your team and correlate strongly with winning. Is it going to happen? Probably not. Anything more than very, very moderate improvement is expecting something that isn't likely to happen, and when it does, it's usually a player who improves in his first couple of years in the league. Harrington will never be a good rebounder. Turiaf isn't likely to become a very good rebounder. Wright has an outside shot at improving his rebounding but I wouldn't bank on it. Biedrins and Randolph will likely be very good rebounders until the day you have to cart them off the court in wheelchairs.

Myth: Player X's stats are 'inflated'.

Truth: Statistical totals are in part a product of the situation. However, the major influence is almost always the ability of the player himself and it is rare that statistics are 'inflated' to a degree that anyone would actually notice. In particular, while many suggest that a particular player's rebounds are "inflated" by a lack of other teammates competing for the boards, the actual effect on rebound totals does not seem pronounced. Such arguments rarely hold up to much scrutiny when looking at the rebound rates across time and with various lineup combinations and when looking at the rebounding rates of replacements players in the same circumstances. Ronny was somehow or other not able to capitalize on the same situation that 'inflated' Andris's rebounds. Scoring totals are the most susceptible to being inflated when a player is allowed to shoot more or less at will. However, analysis of scoring efficiency easily reveals if a player's point totals are likely helping or hurting his team.

Myth: Player X just needs to cut down on his turnovers.

Truth: Turnovers are very costly to a team. A turnover means that the other team gets two consecutive opportunities to score without your team having a chance to make a basket. You can't score if you don't get a chance to shoot and if you turn over the ball first, you don't get a chance do this. For a particular player, turnover rate does seem to be something that can improve over time, though turnover prone players tend to be turnover prone. Should Player X try to cut down on the turnovers? Yeah. Absolutely. It would make him a better player and improve the team. Is it going to happen? Probably not, but it's more likely that someone will cut down on the turnovers than that he'll improve his rebounding.

Myth: Player X just needs to pass the ball more.

Truth: If we are measuring passing with assists, or using it as a proxy for a player's passing, it's rare to expect changes. A team's offense does have an affect on the number of assists the team in general and each player in particular gets. Players not known for being superior passers have later changed this. Brad Miller more than doubled his assist rate without substantially changing his turnover rate from when he started in the league with Chicago to his peak production with the Kings. However, such changes are rare and in general, guys who do not get a lot of assists rarely start to do so. This is not just a matter of teammates missing or hitting shots, as the difference between passing to the best shooting team and the worst passing team would only equate to 3 or 4 assists per game for the entire team. Should Player X pass more? Yeah. Is it going to happen? Probably not, but it's more likely that someone will start getting more assists than that he'll improve his rebounding.

Myth: Player X is an average player.

Truth: Most fans seem to have a rather liberal view of what "average" actually means. In most seasons between 400 to 500+ players suit up for NBA games. This includes everyone from Lebron James to 10-day call-ups from the D-league who are lucky to see a couple seconds of court time to Patrick O'bryant. Average is somewhere in the middle of all of this. Since in any given game there are only 5 starters per squad but 12 players on the active roster and up to 3 players on an injured or innactive list, the 'average' player is not a starter, but a part time bench player. On straight statistical average, the average player gets a touch more than 20 minutes per game, scoring between 9 and 10 points on ~45% shooting (and ~35% from behind the arc), while pulling down four or five rebounds and tossing out a couple of assists. That's average. An example of that sort of production? Think Matt Barnes in 06-07.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

“Player X just needs to work on his shooting”

It seems to me that there is some sort of natural talent involved in shooting. Some people, no matter how hard they work, just never become that good. I don’t know if it’s a mechanical thing, or a physical thing (like muscle memory)…but it seems to be present.

“Player X’s stats are ‘inflated’”

Can you discuss a little more which stats have the possibility of being inflated (like points) and which don’t (like rebounds)? I’d imagine Turiaf’s block numbers from last year were inflated. Especially when just looking at totals – PPG, APG, RPG, etc, it seems all these numbers can be inflated deflated by the pace a team plays at – how significant of a change can that make?

by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2009 6:20 AM PDT reply actions

It seems to me that there is some sort of natural talent involved in shooting. Some people, no matter how hard they work, just never become that good. I don’t know if it’s a mechanical thing, or a physical thing (like muscle memory)…but it seems to be present.

Natural talent has something to do with it, but Ray Allen & co. don’t shoot 500 jumpers a day after practice for no reason. You need repetitions to instate and reinforce muscle memory. There are also mechanical things that can be changed… just like Tiger and your weekend golfer. Maybe Player X shoots with his shooting elbow out, which reduces the directional margin of error: If your elbow is out and your release is slightly early or late, the ball will fly left or right instead of straight on. If you tend to fade one way on your jump instead of going straight up, you can fix that through practice.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 5, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Well yeah, and hard work is more important than anything, but it seems some guys just have something about them that makes it work beyond that. Reggie Miller didn’t shoot with great form, and I’m sure there were guys working as hard as he was, but he’s still the greatest shooter I’ve ever seen (only caught the very tail end of Bird’s career so I’m not including him in that).

by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Just like everything else

Hard work won’t get you all the way there. You need some innate ability. The scale varies for different things, but typically, if it’s just something you’re doing by yourself, hard work has a lot more to do with it. If you’re competing with somebody else, there’s only so far your hard work can take you because of obvious physical limitations, as well as mental limitations.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 5, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions

There’s really only about a plus or minus of 10% on pace from average to best/worst teams. Inflating someone’s numbers 10%, while helping, isn’t the sort of thing that you tend to notice when comparing players side by side. Do you think of a 22ppg scorer as being all that signficantly better than a 20ppg scorer? How about an 8 vs. 8.8 apg player?

The notion of “inflated” to me implies that there’s some “true” level that the player is exceeding. The numbers are what they actually are. Each rebound that a player gets is one he really got. (OK, that’s almost entirely true. I have found a couple of errors in the NBA’s accounting where a player was credited erroneously when I’ve compared play by play to what I actually saw in the game, but it’s rare enough to be discounted.) It’s true that almost any statistical category can be achieved in a way that isn’t entirely helpful to the team, but it’s only if the numbers were achieved in such a manner, which necessitates that someone else on the team’s numbers were hurt where there’s any meaningful ‘inflation’ in the sense that the statistics don’t tell an accurate story about the player’s real contribution to the team’s benefit.

by jae on Jun 5, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

LEBRON JAMES DID NOT GET A TRIPLE DOUBLE IN NYC!!!

THEY TRIED TO GIVE ONE OF BEN WALLACE’S REBOUNDS TO LEBRON BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT TO HYPE LEBRON UP SO MUCH!!!! DAVID STERN HATES THE WARRIORS!!! AAAAHAHHHHHHH!!!!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
R Dizzle = Wannabe AB1

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 5, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

thank you very much JAE

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Jun 5, 2009 6:22 AM PDT reply actions

RE: Myth: Player X just needs to box out and rebound.

I think rebounding, like defense, is all about effort. I think regardless of stature and ability, a player can always increase his own rebounding numbers if he makes a concerted effort to box out and crash the boards. The simple fact about rebounding is that if you don’t care enough to get into position for it, you’re not going to get a rebound. However, if you at least make an effort to put yourself in a good position to rebound the ball, chances are you’ll get at least 1 or 2 boards in a game.

The perfect example of this is Erick Dampier. In his contract year with GS, he averaged significantly more rebounds than any other year in the league before and after. Even if you look at his per 36 minutes, the difference is quite noticeable. I think your theory about rebounding is not so much that a player won’t become a better rebounder. It’s more that, if he doesn’t show effort and desire as a young player, it is unlikely he’ll show more effort and desire when he gets older. When you compare Brandan Wright and Anthony Randolph, they basically have the same dimensions physically. However, the reason Randolph is a much better rebounder is because he has the tenacity that Wright lacks. Defense and rebounding are 2 things on the basketball court that can be improved to a degree without practice. Sure, you can learn additional techniques and subtleties to master the craft. However, if a player can increase his effort level, I think his rebounding and defensive “ability” and numbers will correspondingly increase as well.

A question I have (for you jae or anyone else) is about Turiaf’s rebounding ability. I remember listening to a broadcast when Fitz claimed that because Ronny is a shotblocker and tries to block everything, it often puts him in a poor position to rebound the ball. At first I thought that was BS because so many great shotblockers are also great rebounders. But when I thought about it some more, it could possibly make sense. I really don’t know what to think. It is possible, but the common correlation between shotblocking and rebounding doesn’t support it. Typically great shotblockers are above average rebounders.

Also, who is a better player? Turiaf or Chris Andersen. I think Turiaf is much more skilled, but surprisingly to me, Birdman’s stats this season were a “lot” (not really but noticably) better than Turiafs in every category except assists. How can this be explained considering the two teams play at about the same “pace” which minimizes “inflated” statistics.

by gogoldenbears on Jun 5, 2009 9:07 AM PDT reply actions

Rebounding may be all about effort. It may be about how much you care But if it is, then effort appears to be perhaps the most difficult thing to change in a player and players who care, always care and players who don’t always don’t care. Players so seldom do change their rebounding that it makes me believe that effort is a much smaller component since it appears that particular players do change their effort over time, yet their rebounding rates do not regularly change.

Dampier may be an exception, indicating that effort is important, but that contract year was also the first year where he was healthy enough to play regulalry. His rookie rebound rate was rather good, then he came to GS, got hurt and played poorly while spending more time on the trainer’s table. He didn’t sustain quite the same level when he went to Dallas, but he’s still significantly better than he was while here. Is he a harder worker post contract year than he was before the contract year? Or is he healthier than he was for most of his GS career and we have one slight outlier?

I don’t know if “tenacity” is all of the difference between Wright and Randolph. That makes it sound like it’s some sort of personality flaw, that anyone that size and reasonable athletic ability should have the same ability rebounding if only they cared similarly. Some guys see the ball come off the rim better, have a better idea of where the bounce is going and get there quicker accordingly. Some guys are just not as good at timing their jumps. Randolph’s rebounds, much like many other great rebounders, doesn’t seem to be about fighting and grunting and trying so much harder (not to say that he doesn’t try hard as I’m sure he does) but more that he has an uncanny ability to figure out where the ball is going and gets there first.

On Turiaf: I do think that his tendency to go after the blocks takes him away from rebounding (similar to a problem that Foyle had to a lesser degree), but his rebounding in LA, when he was getting fewer blocks, was almost exactly the same, so there’s far more to it.

Numerically, Chris Andersen was vastly superior to Turiaf. I don’t think it’s even close. I really do like having Turiaf here, but Anderson is very likely the better player. He shot the ball better and more often, drew more fouls rebounded substantially better and was better at blocking shots and staying out of foul trouble. They both play effective defense even if Andersen looks like a spaz much of the time. Ronny is a much, much, much better passer, but that’s about the only area where he’s got a clear edge, and it doesn’t make up for the difference just in rebounding.

by jae on Jun 5, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions

In terms of rebounding – a player is taught from the first second he steps on a basketball court to box out then get the ball. It’s a very simple process – I would throw a theory out that the reason it seems rebound rate doesn’t change much for a players career is whatever “rebounding skills” they have (encompassing all the factors in rebounding jae mentioned) in the beginning of their NBA careers are the same skills they’ll have throughout. Players have already had years and years to develop them, and there’s really just not a lot left to change or develop at that point.

by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions

interesting

i guess i underestimate the little things with rebounding and am oversimplifying. it still hold firm to the fact that if you have a guy who gives little effort, he can increase his average by about 1 RPG if he just puts in the effort to get in there and mix it up. you can’t get a rebound if you’re not at least in the vicinity. i saw a couple times in yesterday’s game that gasol and bynum were able to get a couple rebounds over howard just due to the fact they were there and in better position on that given play. howard kind of just let them have it on those occasions. again, im sure getting in the RIGHT position for the rebound is a skill that can be developed and also have an effect on rebounding rate.

i still think effort is the foundation though. it can get you to a certain point. then you need to fine tune the other skills you mentioned to become an elite rebounder.

by gogoldenbears on Jun 5, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions