Great article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=1
It's all about new young managers in the NBA applying statistics to find undervalued players and put together a winning team (like baseball in the 90s). They make the point that all the common statistics used in basketball could be accumulated by individual players at the expense of the team - in other sports, however, this isn't the case. Basketball involves more individual choices during the game than other sports.
The upshot is that a player like Shane Battier, incredibly smart but without as much athleticism or offensive talent, seem (statistically) to help their team 'just win' by making smart choices over and over.
I like the article because it expands on the argument that non-flashy role players can be the most important part of a team.
It's all about new young managers in the NBA applying statistics to find undervalued players and put together a winning team (like baseball in the 90s). They make the point that all the common statistics used in basketball could be accumulated by individual players at the expense of the team - in other sports, however, this isn't the case. Basketball involves more individual choices during the game than other sports.
The upshot is that a player like Shane Battier, incredibly smart but without as much athleticism or offensive talent, seem (statistically) to help their team 'just win' by making smart choices over and over.
I like the article because it expands on the argument that non-flashy role players can be the most important part of a team.
