Reaching the Objective
We’ve scoured the box score. We’ve generally figured out the best ways to manipulate game logs and lineup data. We’ve worked and re-worked the same numbers, and it’s become abundantly clear that the next analytic evolution will need to be drawn from a new well.
Rob Mahoney, Special to SI.com, “Time to take advanced defensive stats to next level in basketball”
If you haven’t read Rob Mahoney’s piece on SI today, I highly suggest you do so. Even for the non-stat-savvy among us, this piece is worth your time. Rob not only does a fantastic job of outlining how close we are to being able to analyze something as seemingly ambiguous as defensive prowess, but he also lays out how the field of statistical analysis needs to proceed to bring our understanding of defensive basketball statistics to the level of offensive basketball statistics and baseball statistics in general.
To me, though, the most important part of Rob’s piece is how it directly hits the crux of why basketball (and to an extent, sports in general) is so fascinating to many of us: How do you objectively value something that elicits a subjective emotional response within you? No one says “God I love Dirk so much because his PER is off the charts!” But we use metrics like PPG, clutchness, and PER to try to put into facts why we love what we love. That way, when individual passion morphs into competition between yourself and an opposing fan, you’ve got statistical ammunition to send his/her way. You’re right: Your player is awesome, and you’ve got the facts to back it up. Count the ringz? Please. Count the WARP, hijo! Just kidding, but you know what I mean. (Note: I’m only sort of kidding.)
This search for objectivity also puts fans in a unique place when judging player value on another plane: salary. I think most fans can agree that players should be able to earn what they are worth. This worth depends on many factors, three of the most important being how full the talent pool is with similar players (or market size), how much a team needs such a player (for whatever purpose they deem necessary), and how much an owner is willing to invest in such a player (or market value). Owners and GMs have been known to shoot themselves (and the future solvency of their franchises) in the foot with bad bets and arbitrary valuations of players. The fan is also tied up on this end: thanks to my dumb owner/GM, my team is handcuffed to mediocrity and luxury tax for the next 5 years.
Eventually, I’d like to see these two types of objective valuations (ability and salary) merging. Obviously, salary is already based mostly on ability (among a host of other factors), but if owners and players can come to terms on a rigorously objective methodology to evaluate player talent, how could each side argue in good faith about the fairness of salary composition in either direction? If a player has an O score between 25 and 30 and a D score between 22 and 27, then they could be entitled to a salary in the range of 7-10 million, depending on market size, a team’s 5-year average winning percentage, and whether or not the bidding team is in an income-tax-free state. This completely fabricated scale makes total logical sense, doesn’t it?
Now, in a highly contentious atmosphere–where owners compete against players, owners compete against owners, players compete against players, and agents and lawyers take sides as needed–subjectivity will continue to outweigh objectivity for the foreseeable future. After all, it’s the subjective nature of salary structures and markets that allow all these parties to make their money on the margins: players make the salary, agents take a cut, owners make money on their investments in players, and lawyers step in to keep everyone on their toes. Introducing an objective salary scale might take away all the margins that these parties like. Less risk, less reward, even. But when we risk losing an entire season to something as subjective as ego, it may be worth drawing ideas from another well.
