In analytics debate, it’s numbers vs. eyeballs
Postseason provides latest test of new way to assess the game
For all of the benefits that have come from the analytics age, there is still a gap to be bridged between the stats and the smell test.
Only David Fizdale knows exactly what he meant during his “Take that for data” mic-drop moment.
But when the first-year Memphis Grizzlies coach ended his postgame news conference with that classic line Monday, having spent the previous 78 seconds citing the unbalanced free throw numbers and eviscerating the officiating in his team’s Game 2 loss to the San Antonio Spurs and pounding the table as he delivered that classic line before leaving, he did more than star in a viral video so popular that it even inspired a T-shirt. He also came up with the perfect slogan for this NBA era of information overload.
For all of the benefits that have come from the analytics age — new ways used to more accurately judge the performance of players and teams — there is still a gap to be bridged between the stats and the smell test. This league-wide challenge has become a subplot in the early stages of the playoffs, with coaches and commentators trying to make sense of what they’re seeing by combining the eyeball test with data that have never been more available.
Case in point: TNT analyst Brent Barry.
Barry is a fascinating mixture of old school and new. The son of Hall of Famer Rick Barry won titles with the Spurs, played 14 seasons in all and evolved into one of the most studious broadcasters in the business. He geeks out with the numbers more than ever on game days, holing up in his hotel room for six or seven hours to compile research that might come in handy on that night’s call.
Barry’s process is driven partly by his passion for the game, a deep desire to have the best possible understanding of what’s happening on the floor. Part of it is his way of vetting his own views, making sure that the opinions and perspectives being shared with millions of basketball fans are actually rooted in reality.
There’s a value to this approach that should not be underappreciated. So when fellow TNT analyst and Hall of Famer Shaquille O’Neal said Paul George should have taken the last shot instead of C.J. Miles in Game 1, he did not use the data that show the Indiana Pacers star was 0-for-15 on potential go-ahead shots in the last 20 seconds of games since he entered the league. Or when TNT’s Kenny Smith says the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Russell Westbrook is a two-way player, the data show he ranked 42nd among point guards in ESPN’s defensive real plus-minus stat that estimates a player’s oncourt impact on defensive performance (minus-0.73, with the Los Angeles Clippers’ Chris Paul first overall at 2.89).
For Barry’s part, he never loses sight of the subtle stuff, either. The human component, those hard-to-quantify factors that so often lead to these trends and results, will always play a pivotal part. Monday night, for example, he didn’t need to look at the numbers to know the Cleveland Cavaliers’ defense was as bad as ever.
Even with Cleveland holding a 2-0 series lead against the Pacers, the question of its ability to stop better teams deeper in the playoffs will remain. Yet while it’s one thing to highlight how the Cavaliers had the 12th-worst defensive rating among the 16 playoff teams entering Tuesday, or recycle the stat about how they were the 29th-ranked defense from March 1 to April 12, it’s another to try to explain why it’s happening.
“Here’s the thing that I’m seeing, and again it certainly goes beyond what’s being spewed out with the calculators,” Barry told USA TODAY Sports recently. “It’s the fact that there’s something in what the Cleveland team is doing in their body language and in moments in the game — the slight bickering, or the effect that it has on guys with the way that they play.
“There’s (defensive) stops that don’t happen, and guys are … getting to the point where they’re slow to get back into an offensive play. They’re absolutely slow on turnovers or when there’s a couple of isolation plays, (and) guys aren’t touching the ball. They’re slow to get back into their defensive plays. There’s just something about the spirit of their competitive drive right now that’s not there.”
The irony of Fizdale delivering this message Monday wasn’t lost on those who follow the league closely. The Grizzlies have a front office full of analytics-minded basketball men. General manager Chris Wallace was a trailblazer on the data front.
In the early 1980s when he was 23, Wallace started the famed Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook during his downtime from a job as a change maker at Reno casinos. He eventually found his way into the NBA. Vice president of basketball operations John Hollinger had a similar story in more modern times, having served as the analytics leader and basketball writer for ESPN before joining the Grizzlies in December 2012.
The data won’t show if Fizdale’s impassioned speech might inspire his players even more in Game 3, nor will they reveal if the referees who don’t take kindly to criticism might see certain plays differently as a result. But if nothing else, at least this NBA phenomenon has a name now.
Take that for data? Take that to the bank.