Media Members Use Any Excuse to Bash Russell Westbrook
Many media members have an unhealthy obsession regarding Russell Westbrook. Today, Sirius XM NBA Radio hosts Amin Elhassan and Zach Harper veered bizarrely from a discussion about Luka Doncic's rebounding this season and the impact that they believe this has had on Dallas' defense to reviving the unfounded notion that Westbrook's rebounds should be devalued because of some supposed conspiracy among Westbrook's teammates to let him have rebounds. Doncic is averaging 9.0 rpg this season, which is very good for a guard and slightly above his career average of 8.5 rpg, but short of his career-high 9.4 rpg in 2019-20, when Doncic played fewer mpg than he is this season. Elhassan correctly stated that rebounding is an important part of completing a successful defensive possession. He implied but did not prove that Doncic's rebounding--which is not that much better than his career average--has improved due to Jason Kidd's coaching and that Doncic's rebounding is a major factor for what Elhassan considers to be Dallas' improved defense this season. Elhassan noted that Doncic's defensive rebounding percentage ranks in the top 20 in the NBA this season, trailing only players who play power forward or center.
Inexplicably, Elhassan then shifted the conversation from Doncic to Steven Adams, and Elhassan noted with a childish chuckle that Adams' defensive rebounding percentage had increased after Westbrook left Oklahoma City. Harper made a snide remark about Adams boxing out so that Westbrook could steal rebounds, and Elhassan and Harper amused themselves with a few more jokes at Westbrook's expense.
Why would anyone who is analyzing Luka Doncic and Dallas suddenly think of Westbrook unless that person has some kind of weird obsession?
Before we explore this weird obsession, it is important to note that defensive rebound percentage is a made up statistic. Per BasketballReference.com, the formula is 100* (DRB * (TM MP/5))/(MP * (TM DRB) + Opp ORB)), and the concept is that this is "an estimate of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor." Like most "advanced basketball statistics," this is a made up number based on questionable assumptions, and lacking both a margin for error and testability. The assumptions underpinning defensive rebound percentage and other "advanced basketball statistics" may be completely sound, partially sound, or pure nonsense--but without an ability to test these assumptions against reality to derive a margin for error and to calculate the extent to which these assumptions produced a number that correlates with (let alone predicts) winning we are just talking about subjective notions, not actual statistical analysis. Does defensive rebounding percentage on a team level predict wins? If so, does it do so more reliably than other rebounding metrics? Does defensive rebounding percentage on an individual level provide a more reliable way to rank rebounders than other rebounding metrics? Who knows? The reason that we don't know is that we are not talking about real statistics, let alone real statistical analysis (which, by definition, would require the usage of real statistics). One problem with "advanced basketball statistics" is that the numbers themselves are just floating in air without being grounded in reality; another problem with "advanced basketball statistics" is that these made up numbers are treated like basketball gospel by people who lack not only mathematical competency but also the ability to make logical deductions and inferences.
Since defensive rebounding percentage is a made up number, it is not clear what significance--if any--we should ascribe to the fact that Steven Adams' defensive rebounding percentage increased when he did not play with Westbrook. One logical assumption would be that the departure of an elite rebounder resulted in Adams exerting greater effort to rebound. Another logical assumption would be that Adams' other teammates were poor defensive rebounders, so without Westbrook on the court there were more defensive rebounds available. The bottom line is that we don't know if defensive rebound percentage is meaningful in a general sense, so it is impossible to use it to deduce meaningful specific conclusions about Adams and Westbrook.
The larger point is that it is foolish to use a made up statistic to try to prove a very specific allegation, namely that Adams deliberately sacrificed his rebounding totals to help Westbrook pad his rebounding totals (and, it should be added, even if Adams did this it probably helped the team because Westbrook getting a rebound and sprinting down court to create a fast break advantage is more efficient than Adams grabbing the ball and then passing to Westbrook). Extensive film study would be one way to try to prove or disprove this specific allegation. Another approach would be to assess the extent to which rebounds are fungible; the theory here would be that if rebounds are fungible and Westbrook was just being given rebounds by his teammates then after Westbrook leaves a team that team's rebounding should not decline, because the rebounds Westbrook got could have just as easily been grabbed by his teammates. I examined this theory in Are Rebounds Fungible? and I demonstrated that rebounds are not fungible, at least in terms of the impact after Westbrook leaves a team; the evidence shows that after Westbrook leaves a team that team becomes worse at rebounding, and after Westbrook joins a team that team becomes better at rebounding. I tested the "rebounds are fungible" theory by examining real data (not made up numbers) and the evidence does not support the theory, so the validity of the theory that Westbrook is given rebounds by his teammates has not been proven.
I don't know if Elhassan and Harper are smart enough and/or industrious enough to do this kind of basketball analysis, but the larger question is why did they feel compelled to turn a serious and almost interesting discussion of Doncic's defensive rebounding into a series of snide remarks at the expense of a future Hall of Famer? What other elite player gets this kind of treatment? The only two who come to mind are Kobe Bryant, whose shot selection has been criticized in a similarly flawed manner by Mike Wilbon and others, and Scottie Pippen, who is often mocked even though his inspiring life story should be admired and emulated. One common thread among commentators who spout nonsense is that they usually never played in the NBA. Contrast Jalen Rose with "Screamin' A" Smith on ESPN, or Eddie Johnson with Elhassan, Harper, and Justin Termine on Sirius XM NBA Radio. I don't agree with everything that former NBA players say--and they don't always agree with each other--but rarely do former players say things that are completely without foundation. Frank Isola, who did a thoughtful interview with Pippen about Pippen's autobiography, is one of the few Sirius XM NBA Radio hosts who did not play in the NBA who consistently provides commentary that makes sense.
Elhassan worked in an NBA front office a long time ago, and when he confines himself to talking about his observations of players who he has seen play he displays a basic level of competence--nothing profound, but nothing foolish. However, when Elhassan strays from that comfort zone he descends into sounding like a fan whose biases far outstrip his analytical abilities, as I mentioned in my analysis of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team when I refuted his bizarre obsession with demeaning Bob Cousy:
While we are talking about small point guards, it must be said that the people who suggest that Cousy could not play in today's game are--and there is no polite way to put this--speaking foolishly (I am trying to avoid labeling people, and instead just labeling their behavior). I think that there is more than a little reverse racism that rears its ugly head when assessing Cousy, and I also think that far too many people who speak about him have little to no knowledge of NBA history. Amin Elhassan--who does a solid job of analyzing current NBA players--has made it a running gag during his Sirius XM NBA Radio appearances to mock Cousy's career field goal percentage (.375) and suggest that Cousy is vastly overrated. Cousy's career free throw percentage is .803, so we can dismiss the notion that he was a bad shooter. By the way, the league's free throw shooting percentage during Cousy's career was .734, and in the middle to latter portion of his career it was right around .750, which is comparable to the league's free throw shooting percentage now. Put young Cousy in a shooting contest with today's NBA players and I think that the results would surprise many people. Back to Cousy's field goal percentage: Did Cousy have horrible shot selection and/or was he incapable of scoring when closely guarded?
The NBA's average field goal percentage during Cousy's career was .391, so a .375 field goal percentage was not terrible at that time. Why were field goal percentages so low during that era? Keep in mind that during basketball's early days players were called "cagers" because the courts were surrounded by wire cages to keep the players inside and the fans outside. Yes, the cages were gone by the time Cousy played in the NBA, but that rough and wild mentality still pervaded the league. The game was much more physical than today's game. Yes, the players were smaller, but not by as much as you may think, and if a 6-4, 220 dude elbows you in the face it is going to hurt a lot and it may dissuade you from driving to the hoop (and may affect your field goal percentage not only after you have been hit but also prior to that because you are keeping your head on a swivel to avoid being hit). The early NBA arenas had worse lighting, worse playing surfaces, worse temperature control, and just worse conditions in general than NBA arenas today. Also, it is my understanding--but I cannot find the archival articles to confirm this--that during some of the NBA's earliest seasons a missed field goal attempt when a player was fouled was counted in the statistics, which would obviously have a negative effect on a player's field goal percentage, and that effect would be more pronounced for a player like Cousy who drew a lot of fouls (now, when a player is fouled while shooting the attempt only counts if the player makes the field goal attempt). Also, NBA half court sets and strategies had to evolve after the 24 second shot clock was introduced.
During Cousy's era, players traveled by train, not private airplanes, and the scheduling was brutal. Cousy's physical attributes--6-1, 180, wiry strong, exceptional peripheral vision/ballhandling--are no worse than John Stockton's or Chris Paul's. Put Cousy in today's game, and he would have a field day playing under modern conditions with defensive players not being allowed to touch him. Put Stockton or Paul in the 1950s, and their numbers would not have been any better than Cousy's.
Another difference between the 1950s and subsequent eras is that as time passed a greater focus developed on individual statistics and efficiency. Modern players hesitate to shoot long shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter because such shots hurt their field goal percentages. Shane Battier talked about this in the highly publicized interview that he did about so-called "advanced basketball statistics" many years ago. He was dubbed the ultimate team player because he did not care about his individual numbers, but even he admitted that he declined to take shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter that could only help the team but might hurt his individual field goal percentage.
Red Auerbach is rightly considered one of the greatest coaches of all-time, if not the greatest, and he led the Celtics to nine NBA titles. If he thought that Cousy's shot selection was hurting the team you can be sure that Auerbach would have done something about it.
Comparisons between eras are fraught with peril and should be done with great care and thoroughness. The ignorant way that Elhassan (and his co-host Zach Harper, whose qualifications to be on the show remain a mystery to me) mocks Cousy is disgraceful. Based on listening to other segments of the show, I realize that Elhassan understands how to analyze basketball players that he has seen, so I wish that he would restrict his commentary/analysis to what he understands, and leave the historical comparisons to those who are better informed.
Instead of picking on Cousy's field goal percentage and Westbrook's rebounds, why don't Elhassan and Harper examine statistics that have been proven to be inflated? For example, Chris Paul's assist numbers belong in the fiction section more so than the record book; I charted Paul's assists in various games several years ago, and I consistently found that his assist totals are not only often wrong, but that when they are wrong they are always inflated and never deflated. The eye test in the intervening years provided no reason to believe that this assist inflation has decreased. In general, assists are easier to obtain than they used to be (as the overall percentage of assisted field goals indicates, a number that is quite telling when one considers how isolation heavy the NBA is now compared to previous eras), but assists are particularly easy for Paul to obtain. That is not to say or suggest that Paul is not a great passer. It is true that Paul is an elite passer--and it is also true that he is regularly credited with assists on plays that do not fit a strict (or even loose) application of the scorekeeping rule that an assist shall only be awarded for a pass that led directly to a made basket. I was particularly amused during my assist-charting project when Paul received an assist after passing to Bonzi Wells, who then passed to David West, who then took two dribbles before shooting a floater over Tim Duncan.
Or, if Elhassan and Harper are fascinated by individual numbers that are fungible, consider James Harden's assists and rebounds this season. Harden's statistics in both categories look gaudy, but when he did not play the Nets' team totals in both categories remained steady. If there is any player who is "stealing" rebounds--and assists--that player is Harden.
In order to provide accurate and meaningful basketball analysis, it is important to either have high level playing experience and/or to have engaged in deep, high level study of the game. If you just start talking when the microphone is "hot" without putting in the work either on the court or in the "lab" then you can fill up a lot of air time with a lot of sound, but volume should never be confused with depth.
Labels: Amin Elhassan, Luka Doncic, rebounding, Russell Westbrook, Steven Adams, Zach Harper
posted by David Friedman @ 11:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home