Thursday, June 30, 2011

That New Pitcher Smell

Our fearless co-editor here at FBC, zgall1, assured me that Jonah Lehrer's backhand to sabermetrics on Grantland this week was not bad sports writing, per se. He was merely misguided, as if the errors in his ways were pointed out to him, Lehrer would nod along knowingly. zgall1 is rarely wrong and this time is no exception.


So, I'm wont to understand what bothered me so much about Lehrer's tug job to the "Moneyball was stupid" crowd and I've come up with this: Jonah Lehrer should know better! He writes for Wired and Scientific American Mind for chrissakes. His anti-skepticism skepticism carries a weight, because of his well-regarded reasonableness. When he tells us professional sports is somehow maturing away from quantifying its results and actions, we're supposed to listen.


Out of respect (and because Fangraphs has already taken him to task) I'm not going to go through it line-by-line but here's a few things you'll need to remember if you're going to attempt to build your sports teams solely around who's a good bro, dude.


Lehrer begins with an elaborate metaphor comparing car-buying satisfaction with, I suppose, team or player performance. The crux being that the quantifiable and most marketed aspects of auto engineering--horsepower and fuel economy--don't have much of a correlation with the owner's overall satisfaction. Therefore, whatever it is that makes up a successful team/player may not be contained in a package of statistics that are calculating an ever-increasing amount of data about what goes on during a baseball game.


But the analogy is figurative because the components do not match: a car buyer's satisfaction is inherently subjective, based on a feeling toward the experience of the car. Sports have an objective goal: to accumulate wins. This isn't to say that someday car manufacturers won't discover how to quantify ride quality, stability, dashboard layouts, and comfort to build a predictive model of owner satisfaction. But the fact that manufacturers don't, on outset, market these aspects of driving do not show that the objective goals of GM and of GMs are the same.


Okay, I lied. I'm going to have to pull a few pieces out:


Like a confused car shopper, [teams] are seeking out the safety of math, trying to make extremely complicated personnel decisions by fixating on statistics. Instead of accepting the inherent mystery of athletic talent — or at least taking those intangibles into account — they are pretending that the numbers explain everything. And so we end up with teams that are like the worst kind of car. They look good on paper — so much horsepower! — but they fail to satisfy.


Lehrer denies the antecedent here, claiming teams narrowly rely on stats, ignore the "inherent mystery of athletic talent" and then, ultimately, fail. All teams do this? What? How can anyone wrap their head around this? Unfortunately, Lehrer fails to offer even one example. Something like "The Red Sox signed high career OBP guys who lacked heart and hustle and bottomed out for years" would certainly not prove his point but might at least sandpaper up the straws being grasped at. He does give one positive example of Aaron Rowland and how his numbers were ignored at the Giant's peril. Right. I don't understand, Jonah.


But sabermetrics comes with an important drawback. Because it translates sports into a list of statistics, the tool can also lead coaches and executives to neglect those variables that can't be quantified. They become so obsessed with the power of base runs that they undervalue the importance of not being an asshole, or having playoff experience, or listening to the coach. Such variables are the sporting equivalent of a nice dashboard. They can't be quantified, but they still count.


I... I don't know what to say. This is the classic anti-stats argument and it always crumbles so quickly with almost no prodding. What are the non-asshole, coach-listening, playoff vets (presumably who don't get on base)  supposed to do or be? Is the argument that every team needs to employ a nice guy to motivate the rest of the players to play better? I think that's bacon-fried hogwash but, hey, at least it's an argument. A nice dashboard counts in one's feeling about one's own car so maybe a nice teammate counts in one's feeling about one's favourite team? I'm trying, Jonah, I really am.

Lehrer then turns to J.J. Barea and the Dallas Mavericks, trying to tell us that, despite being a piss poor performer for the regular season and most of the playoffs (a shooter who can't make a shot) his few successful layups in the Finals constitute credit for their NBA Championship. It's the Robert Horry argument and, frankly, it sucks:  "Because it doesn't matter what the numbers say. Barea won games." Advanced stat guys, especially the ones looking at efficiency differentials look to Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion as the keys to the Mavs success (and Dirk Nowitzki but that's news to no one). 



Coaches and fans use the numbers as an excuse to ignore everything else, which is why our obsession with sabermetrics can lead to such shortsighted personnel decisions. After all, there is no way to quantify the fierce attitude of a team that feels slighted, or the way even the best players can be undone by the burden of expectations, or how Kendrick Perkins meant more to the Celtics than his rebounding stats might suggest. But Nenad Krstic looks so good on paper!


But none of this happens, really, because of advanced stats. You know this, Jonah. Most professional coaches are about six blocks behind the curve on this stuff, most fans deride it as witchcraft. I don't know a lot about ferocity and burdens, but if those feelings make Joe Mauer slap a few dingers, guess what -- they'll get counted! Kendrick Perkins was an average centre who was replaced by a couple of terrible ones. And no one, no one, NO ONE has ever accused Nenad Krstic of looking good anywhere.


Lehrer finishes matter-of-factly:


These [ferocity, burdens, other feelings as needed] are the qualities that often determine wins and losses, and yet they can't be found on the back of a trading card or translated into a short list of clever equations. This is the paradox of sports statistics: What the math ends up teaching us that is that sports are not a math problem.


That's not a paradox -- it's just a guess.



Friday, June 24, 2011

A quick defence of BC

Nothing about that title seems in place. But here goes:

I like the pick.

And here goes the disclaimer:

I don't know shit about this large, young man. Or any other draftee. He could be Nikoloz Vokshul while Kemba Walker becomes Magic Paul. But I'm also pretty sure Bryan Colangelo nor 25 other general managers have much more of an idea than I do. (Teams I sort of trust: OKC, Houston, San Antonio, Portland and Denver. You're my boy, Masai!)

There's an old adage about drafting the best player available (and not for immediate team need). And that old adage is fine and even dandy if it keeps you from passing on LeBron James. But in a draft like this (and frankly more drafts than not) the talent evaluation is suspect at best and a crack-house grilled cheese sandwich at worst (you know, unreliable) so fuck you and your old adages.

Does that mean you leave a good player on the board because you're coveting a back-up centre? No, sirs and madams and kitty-cats, it does not. The indemnity that Rob Babcock violated with the Araujo pick in '04 was that if he really wanted to stroke Hoffa's gel-cemented hair, why not trade down 20 spots, get another pick and owe the Brazilian Blurp less money? That and he bombed the pick, obviously.

Also, Bryan Colangelo's biggest sin wasn't drafting Andrea Bargnani, it was extending that dick-hole (it's so hard thinking up insults for Il Magoat that aren't abjectly racist)

So, here's the thing.

If I put on my "gimme gimme gimme a point guard" hat and start lusting over Kemba Walker or Brandon Knight (who college stat guys rate as a so-so player) I'm hoping the Raps dump Calderon without mercifully taking on any more salary; I'm hoping for 2,600 more minutes of Andrea Bargnani, a 15-67 record, some more ping pong balls and a shined up shotgun waiting for me to snap.

But, if I decide to select Foreign Centre #5 (as I'll never even attempt to learn his name) and stash him in Europe, I'm getting player development on someone else's dime, I'm getting $3 million in cap room I can add to the "please sell us Andre Iguodala or other players of proven quality" fund, I replace our 7 foot nothings with funny names with a 7 foot nothing with an even funnier name, and best of all, I add one more stick-figure leg to the game of hangman I'm playing with Andrea Bargnani. Raps' record is still 18-64 but the shotgun gets left in the attic next to my Troll doll collection.

And what does this peace of mind cost me? $3 million (not even half of Barbosa's salary. Hot damn) and a whiff on some of these point guards, of whom no one I trust is convinced will be better NBA players than Ramon Sessions (who's very available and had a better year with a better contract than, say, Jarrett Jack).

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people who know, know that Brandon Knight is an Adonis of basketball purity. Maybe FC#5 is a poor man's tall, Lithuanian, poor man. I don't fucking know. But in the absence of information and reason and time and space, I say bravo Bryan Colangelo. To all the porous ass-gapes who deride the Raptors for taking a European because we've had bad luck in the past with other Europeans, you need to have your racist ass washed out with anti-racist soap. You really want to swear off an entire continent of players? That's like saying "I'll never date a blond girl again, those chicks are crazy."

I hate you, Bryan Colangelo. I hate you so much. Don't make me regret this.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Toeing Doug's mail bag

You remember how this works. Cribbing from DJF, I take a peek at Doug's mail bag, scan for the 20% or so questions that relate to the NBA, and offer our own answers. I also avoid reading Smithereen's responses as my doctor is imploring me to keep my blood pressure down.

Q: Hey Doug  BRF. Thanks for the work all year.




Look forward to your take on what should be an interesting off season ahead.


Two comments (with hopes you share your thoughts)


Interesting what Bosh said in his post game interview - about how he should have seen the ball more - been more of an option - because he was feeling good and shooting a good average. Didn't he give that up when he left Toronto? Didn't he know what he was getting into? I wonder if he misses "being the man?"


What do you think?




I would think it is quite obvious that Dwane Casey is the next coach: He is defensive minded, tough on his players, and was able to hide the seven-foot jump shooter in the defense (just what the Raps need, isn't it?) Would you go so far as to think that Casey is the candidate to get if they want to keep Bargnani?


Ren R, Swastika


First off, thanks for the question, Adolf. I understand you're originally from Assrape, Ontario so please get in touch and let me know how you're enjoying your new town.

Chris Bosh most assuredly touched the ball less this year. His decreased production was proportional to taking less shots than he did in Toronto. And his passing has dropped off a cliff, handcuffing one of his best skills -- an indication of either a touch deficit or a quicker trigger. That said, his playoffs mirrored his season with the Heat pretty well in terms of FGA/36, Usage%, Assist%, etc.

If the question is should Bosh touch the ball more in comparison to Eddie House and Juwan Howard, the answer is resoundingly "mmm hmm." But in relation to LeBron and Wade? "Nuh uhh."

About Dwayne Casey (who's been announced at this time as the next Raptors coach) I remember reports out of Minnesota calling him unprepared, unable to control players and employer of bizarre substitution patterns. Let's hope everyone in Minnesota is perma-drunk. Heil, Ren.



Q: Hi Doug BRF A little while back when it appeared that Enes Kanter had turned down a session with the HOTHC, you had suggested that "maybe a promise was made". I'm assuming you meant that a team above the Raptors might have promised to draft him. Having said that, are there any rules that teams must follow with draft eligible players? Can they promise to draft someone, or even if drafted to pay a certain bonus structure to the salary etc before they actually draft them? Thanks as always for your insight.


Sohail G, Collingwood


My understanding is yes to promises, though I don't think a team would admit it and I don't know what would stand up to any verbal contract law. But no, they would not be able to negotiate. This answer was boring. Diarrhea!!!



Q: Hi Doug BRF  Since the Finals ended, many people have said or written that experience counts in the NBA. That "you have to lose before you can win it all". Nowitzki had to "learn" how to win and that maybe LeBron still has to learn that trait or skill-set (not sure what to call it).

My question: without being able to look back on a player's career, can we predict, or have a hunch, as to whether a player will "learn" or "get it" in order to win in the future? That is, are there present traits that may increase future chances of "learning how to win"?



Thanks,


Diego S, Toronto



No, Diego, we can't because that's backwards rationalizing, results-oriented bull crappy. Five years ago, a team with Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry lost a finals series to a team with Dwyane Wade and Udonis Haslem. This year, the reverse happened. No mythical maturity journeys were involved in the outcome of a best-of-seven.

Generally, I'd want my players to train, practice, sleep, not contract diseases, and lay off the pipe. But if Chris Anderssen can be effective using the same brain that thought it a good idea to get tattooed up to his cheekbones and snort so much powder he had to buy a lift ticket, then maybe nothing really matters. (any way the wind blooooowwwwsss)

I was so tempted to read Doug's response here. I bet it's a 31 on the folksiness scale (17-34 with 26 being somewhere in the middle).


Q: Hi Doug BRF, I read an article by Eddie Johnson which said that LeBron is more like Magic Johnson rather then Michael Jordan. Explaining that he much prefers assisting than scoring and they Miami need players who will lessen the scoring load on LeBron. I felt inclined to agree. What are your thoughts on this?


Chaz E, London



From a physical point of view,  LeBron sizes up closer to Magic than Mike (but James still has 40 pounds on either of them). But I don't think this is what the reference implies. In the hallowed pantheon of basketball giants, Jordan is generally considered the best while Magic is referred to as #2 of all time (with apologies to Kareem and Primoz "The Gangster" Brevec). The implication being, if you emulate Magic Johnson, you can only ever be as good as Magic Johsnon, therefore you like Silver Medals therefore you're a soft baby loser.

Let's look closer at the numbers. If being like Mike involves taking making field goals instead of passing, then let's note MJ per/36 (starter's minutes) FG made: 10.7 career. LeBron: 8.9. That pansy Magic? 6.7. So there you go. I guess. You win the "LeBron couldn't carry Mike's testicles" alpha dog pissing contest, if you're into that sort of thing. The comparison is obviously a dig. People with gonad brains comprehend emulation to equal dominance. So if Kobe flails shots and grimaces like Jordan flailed shots and grimaced, then Kobe must be as good as Jordan.

That was a long, drawn out way to say "passing's for pussies."


Q: Hey  Doug BRF, Admittedly I only watched the finals on and off (a lot of off actually) but what did you make of Spoelstra's use of Joel Anthony in the finals? His minutes were down, and he rarely saw the court in the 4th quarter, even though the Heat seemed to have a lot of defensive lapses late in each game (game 2 for example). And Joel only played about 11 minutes in game 6. Sure, he doesn't score, but he's not there to score. There's supposed to be 3 other guys doing that. They needed stops late in games, and they didn't get them. Any thoughts?

Love the blog.

Cheers,

Duke L, Toronto

Thanks for the love, Duke L. I hope the "L" stands for "Love." Duke Love loves. 

I sincerely hope Joel Anthony plays for Team Canada and recruits his teammate, the 46 year old Jamaaaaaaal Magloire plus Tristan Thompson, Cory Joseph, Samuel Dalembert, Matt Bonner and Steve Nash. I could take or leave Andy Rautins. 

But he's a extremely limited player who lacks offensive skills so glaringly, the Mavs wouldn't even put a defender on him. He fouls too much and never seems to be in good positions to get defensive rebounds. But he's a terrific shot blocker and athletic enough to crash the offensive boards and I guess that's why he still has an NBA job. What was the question, Duke of Love? Oh, game six. Yeah, it looked like Spoelstra was trying desperation line-ups trying to stave off defeat hence the Eddie House presence. The other three centres seemed to have fossilized by the end which was good news for Joel fans but the return of Haslem meant the Heat could play two skill players in the (small) front court. I'd do the same thing, wouldn't you?

There's another question about a Hofstra point guard who I've never heard about. I'd be my third testicle neither has Doug.


This was fun and only took me three days to write.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Finally, a Unified Theory of Basketball

The NBA season, you might have heard, is over. Congratulations to the 2011-2012 Dallas Mavericks who have, by all accounts, proven that the only way to win an NBA Championship is to be the 2011-2012 Dallas Mavericks. 29 other teams, you are now on notice: conform now or remain ringless, hatless and balless, says Marc Berman of the venerable (and by 'venerable' I mean exactly the opposite) New York Post.

Mavericks show Knicks should change 3-star plan


It does not look like the way to go for the Knicks, who boast two stars in Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire and have contemplated adding a third, with the rest of their 2012 cap space, in Chris Paul. But at what expense?


At what expense should the .500 Knicks pursue the best point guard in the NBA? How about all of them. All the gold doubloons in Tartuga. Trade both Amar'e and Carmelo for him. Throw in the Empire State Building. I'm confused. Why wouldn't the Knicks do this? Because the Miami Heat did not win an NBA Championship this year? Unconfuse me, Marc.


America's Team -- the 2010-11 champion Dallas Mavericks -- proved during the riveting Finals that a deep, full-bodied team with lots of varied parts can overwhelm a club made of three players -- no matter how good.

America, eh? I suppose in a world where LeBron James is evil and Dirk has a goofy grin, we must hand over the mantle to the red, white and Cuban, but Marky Marc, let's be honest: the Mavs didn't *prove* anything. They were the better team in this series, no diggity. Does that proves that the make-up of this Mavs team is inextricably most superior to all others? Of course not, that would be dumb and stupid. Let's agree that the Heat had the best two players in that series (they didn't play the best in that series but are the superior players this year) and Mavs have the third, Dirk. The Mavs also employ the fourth, fifth and sixth (some order of Kidd, Chandler and Marion) and we'll slot Bosh as the seventh. After that we have some decent players on both sides (Miller, Haslem on the Heat) and if you like chucking, Terry and Barea for the Mavs.

Yet, one of these teams is some three starred Justice League and the other is "full-bodied" like a Belgian ale? What is it about a series between the two best teams (and I'm being generous with respect to sample sizes in the playoffs) that causes poop-for-brains to believe that two different essences of basketballdom are on trial for the prize of world domination of hearts and minds? And are serious people making serious basketball decisions on such nonsense? Is it a Cold War mentality? Am I getting too analogical one sentence after using the phrase 'poop-for-brains?' I digress.

The LeBron James-Dwyane Wade-Chris Bosh experiment failed not only because "King" James choked, but also because the Heat had no supporting cast to perform the Heimlich. Whether Miami president Pat Riley can add solid complements without cap space is questionable.


Oh... I see what you did there, Marc. You put "King" in "quotations" to call into "question" the "virility" of that "nickname," you "sly" "devil."

You're right, though. Heat? Big failure. They failed their way to 58 wins. They flopped and choked past American full bodies like the Celtics and the Bulls. Those losers!

Haven't we already determined that, in the playoffs, teams shorten their benches and the top players play almost complete games. Isn't that how we were explaining the Heat's relatively easy path through the first three rounds? I can't keep up. And let's remember the Heat were missing Haslem and Miller most of the season (and decided that Mike Bibby was suddenly going to become... not Mike Bibby). The Mavs did it (Nowitski +5 MPG in the playoffs, Chandler +5, etc.)

And to this cap room nincompoop, I plead ignorance. Why is the Miami Heat's cap space situation a story? The Miami Heat are in a great cap situation, whatever the next CBA brings. Let's remember they were a cap team this year and spent just as much as the Toronto Raptors on salaries. The Mavs, goliaths that they are, had a $20 million higher payroll. Going forward, the Heat have two of the four best players in basketball signed for max deals (which is a steal) Mike Miller and Haslem for reasonable mid-level contracts and yeah, they overpaid for Chris Bosh, but whatevsies, you know? No they will not have cap room any time soon and neither will the Mavs, Lakers, Bulls, Griz, Blazers, Magic, even the Celtics have to divest of the "Big 3" in a couple years to even get a whiff of cap space. This is argument that the Heat are all tied up is exactly true except for the fact that it's exactly false.  The Heat will have about as much access to the free agent market as most contending teams. They can offer starting centre and point guard jobs. I am begging Samuel Dalembert to sign with the Raptors and not the Heat. I think my begs will fall on deaf ears.


None of the Big Three will be traded this summer, but if the star trio does not win the 2012 championship, the concept may be scrapped.

I agree. Sell the franchise. Bring in a starting five of all midgets. Or are we calling them "little people" now? I'm pretty sure "smurfs" is too offensive. 


Late Sunday night, Riley's wife, Christine, approached a James confidant and whispered: "You learn more from losing than winning."

What a bizarre and creepy non sequitur. What else is Christine Riley whispering to confidants? #cougar



Knicks outgoing president Donnie Walsh has given strong recent hints adding Paul may not be in the plan, especially with the new labor agreement shrinking their 2012 cap space. Better to spend the cap room on three solid contributors.

"You really need all the pieces or roles filled to win a championship," Walsh told The Post yesterday. "Miami gave it a great run, though, with what they had."

In his conference call 10 days ago announcing his impending resignation, Walsh was prescient about the series while giving strong indications the Knicks need role players -- not Paul.

Donnie Walsh knows that Chris Paul is three solid contributors. But he's also saying this on a phone call to announce his quitting so, grain of salt, I suppose. 

"We have the stars. They will do what they do. And we're lucky to have them," Walsh added. "But you need more than that. So that's the job. And that's how I've felt about this since the day we did the [Anthony] trade."

This is only significant in that Donnie Walsh is clearly admitting he did not want to trade for Carmelo Anthony.

Miami's entire cap space went to the Big Three -- nothing left for established role guys. They had no point guard or center and a terrible bench. It was damning that starting point guard Mike Bibby received a DNP in desperation Game 6 on Sunday. Of the nine players who played in Game 6, three went scoreless -- starting center Joel Anthony, Mike Miller and Juwan Howard. Ex-Knicks castoff Eddie House played 21 minutes, taking big shots in the fourth quarter.

Right. We get it. The 8-15th player on the Heat were a big bag of suck balls. I could point out other teams with suck ball benches that cost a lot more money but I'll let you close your eyes and imagine I'm doing so instead.

Yes, Dirk Nowitzki played better than any of Miami's Big Three, but the Mavs came at the Heat in waves. Sixth Man Jason Terry and guard J.J. Barea lit them up. Jason Kidd was poised and clutch. Center Tyson Chandler seemed to keep alive every ball in the fourth quarter.

We've hit the clutchiness argument which means it's time to end this. Congratulations once again to the Dallas Mavericks, America and God's team.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The only constants are death, taxes, Doug Smith & Bryan Colangelo

Ohhh, it was all the coach's fault. Yup. Mmm hmm.