Stereotypes In Sports Statistics Analysis

In recent years sports statistics have become more valued by professional teams, although this change has been a slow process. Hall of Fame baseball general manager Branch Rickey hired the first full time statistician in 1947, and made numerous statistical formulas to enhance his performance. Yet despite his decades of success, most sports owners did not value advancing statistical methods of evaluating players. For instance, noted statistician Bill James did his research as an outsider to baseball front offices in the 1980s and 1990s, until he was hired in 2003 by the Boston Red Sox. Undoubtedly it was the success of Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane and the popularity of the book (and now movie) Moneyball that made it acceptable
to use modern statistics as a primary method of talent evaluation.

Although statistical analysis is more common in front offices of sports franchises today, many fans and media pundits tend to paint number crunchers by the same wide brush.
The most common stereotype of the sports statistician is the computer nerd who spends most of his time dealing with spreadsheets and little time actually watching the game. By placing them in an "outgroup", those ignorant or hostile to statistical analysis can attribute what one says or thinks to all members of the group. That is if one statistician thinks David Lee is better than Kobe Bryant, then those who stereotype statisticians can claim all numerical based findings are ludicrous.

Stereotypes aside, the reality is that most statisticians, specifically in basketball, watch more games than the casual fan. They tend to use their numerical knowledge to augment their observational perspective. Additionally, statistical analysts vary in how they evaluate the game, and are not in agreement on a multitude of issues. Perhaps the most divisive issue is the value of shot creation.

In the NBA, a team has 24 seconds from gaining possession to take a shot. Should the team fail to do so, they turn the ball over to the other team. Hence undoubtedly there is some value in being able to take or assist a teammate in taking a quality shot before the shot clock
expires.

Some statisticians like ESPN's John Hollinger think highly of this skill, and hence the stat he created Player Efficiency Rating (P.E.R.) has the penalty for a missed shot lower than the reward for a made shot. Players that shoot a lot, even at a low efficiency, tend to have a high P.E.R. On the other end of the spectrum is economist turned N.B.A. analyst David Berri who heavily penalizes a missed shot in his statistical method Wins Produced (W.P.). Players that make shots at a high percent, even at a low volume, tend to have a high W.P.

With the N.B.A. being essentially a complex system containing a large number of variables, proving where across the spectrum the value of shot creation lies at this time is difficult. On the other hand the Carmelo Anthony trade, or perhaps the result of it, might shed some light on the subject.

If you're reading this, you probably already know that the Knicks traded a handful of assets (most relevant Danilo Gallinari and Timofey Mozgov) last season for Carmelo Anthony and some other players. You're also likely aware of the intense media pressure in favor of the Knicks trading for Anthony at the time. Last February ESPN's Stephen A. Smith wrote "the Knicks must go get Carmelo Anthony as soon as possible," and "Danilo Gallinari is good, with promise, but hardly worth holding on to if it means not getting Anthony's services."

Smith's remarks represent those that put a high demand on shot creation.
By this standard, Carmelo Anthony's value was perceived to be much greater than that of Gallinari due to the former's ability to take more shots. Comparing the players' stats at the same stage in their careers, 'Melo is able to take nearly 38% more shots than Gallo. On the other hand, Gallinari's true shooting percentage, a measure of a player's overall scoring efficiency, is 45 points higher (59.0% to 54.5%) than Anthony's. Hence those who put a low premium on scoring volume and higher value on efficiency saw Carmelo Anthony to be overrated.

Nearly a year later and the results of this trade seem to be that higher efficiency is more valuable than higher volume when it comes to scoring. The Denver Nuggets have a robust 14-6 win-loss record, while the New York Knicks have a mediocre win-loss record of 7-13. Not that the fortunes of these teams are based on the efforts of a single player. However these two teams embody the opposite sides of the volume/efficiency
argument.

In fact, the Denver Nuggets are a team that lacks a high volume scorer. If we limit our scope to players with 100 or more minutes on the season, no Nugget player averages more 16.5 field goal attempts per 36 minutes. New York has two players who fit this criteria, Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire. Of the Denver starters, the highest field goal attempts per 36 minutes is Ty Lawson's 13.1. Meanwhile the Knicks have 4 starters averaging more than that number.

While New York has more players who are able to create shots, Denver has more players who are efficient with regards to their shooting. The Knicks have 8 players with a true shooting percentage lower than 55.0%, while the Nuggets only have 3.

Despite lacking a player that can create shots for himself at a high level, the Denver Nuggets have the N.B.A.'s best offense, ranked by offensive efficiency. Meanwhile the Knicks with multiple high volume shooters find themselves with the league's 24th best offense. Hence it appears that the ability to score efficiently is more important than the ability to create shots. In fact this isn't a new occurrence for the New York Knicks, who in recent history have attempted to fill their roster with volume scorers (Tracy McGrady, Larry Hughes, Eddy Curry, Zach Randolph, Jamal Crawford, Stephon Marbury) with disregard for efficiency to dubious results.

So does this all mean? For basketball analysts it means the high volume scorer who lacks the ability to sink shots at a mediocre rate is likely overrated by all but a percentage of statisticians. For the Knicks current roster it means that the team has to work on improving the quality and lowering the frequency of shots among their low efficiency scorers. For the Knick front office it means that perhaps they should abandon their current method of evaluating players and consult with a statistician before their next franchise altering trade.