One thing I try to do in my never-ending quest for understanding is read about other sports. Basketball currently holds some interest because they’re wrestling with similar issues at the moment. To whit, this quote from a recent chat at Baseball Prospectus. Yeah, a basketball chat at Baseball Prospectus. Hey ho, but anyway:
Paul (Cleveland, OH): Kevin, if there’s one thing that we should learn from the Cavs’ (and to a lesser extent, the Rockets’) success this year is that our whole system of judging “talent” is kinda wrong..being able to play great defense is a talent, and having a roster where every guy has a defined role in which they excel is also maximizing talent. Talent isn’t solely measured by offensive efficiency (though Cleveland has this as well, I’m speaking specifically about the Lakers). Thoughts?
Kevin Pelton (Basketball): …
Tom (Orange Park, FL): Kevin, I keep hearing about how the Lakers are the most talented team in the playoffs. But to me, I don’t see talent as being solely based on offensive skill and athleticism..there’s a lot more to the game. Shane Battier is talented because of his basketball IQ and ability to make his team better (+/-, adjusted +/-, etc.) whenever he’s on the court. Perhaps the whole paradigm/conception of judging “talent” needs to be rethought, especially in light of the problems the Rockets are causing for LA?
Kevin Pelton (Basketball): I find it interesting that I got two questions that are very similar. Systems need to be taken into account as well. Regardless of the players you give them, certain coaches are going to establish above-average defenses. Cleveland and Houston both fall into this category. So there’s talent and then there’s system. Talent doesn’t perfectly translate into team performance, and it never will.
There’s also the paradigm you talk about with guys like Battier. I think that is starting to shift, thanks in part to stats and the attention with Michael Lewis and everything. So we’ll see. I do think the Lakers are the most talented team, and I think at their best no one in the league can beat them. But obviously Houston has made them work more than I expected, so … I guess there’s no tidy conclusion here. We’re all still learning.
Too true, and a nice summary of the whole talent v system problem. I sense that some managers (and much of the media and fans) think that teams just need to pile up some ‘talented’ players and send them out there with some inspiring words. But thanks to Roy, we’re learning that there’s more to it than this, much more to it. We’ve learned an awful lot about the game by watching and studying Roy’s approach: the next step will be how he tries to evolve things. It will be interesting to see if he has any plans to play a more expansive game next season, or just gradually upgrade the personnel and make incremental improvements to what we already are.
Talent is interesting though isn’t it? In a way we spent a lot of last year neutralising talent in opposing teams, but equally we proved quite adept at beating teams who, on paper, looked less talented than ourselves.
Regarding neutralizing talent — especially against the Big Four:
As I wrote on my blog yesterday, we held the Top Four to under 10 goals this season. Beyond that, fifth placed Everton only scored three times and Aston Villa only scored once.
And how much in transfer fees did our defense cost, 8 million quid? Thats beyond phenomenal.
And did you mean inept (instead of adept) in beating teams that looked less talented than ourselves? Because there is a strong argument either way…
Comment by timmyg — May 26, 2009 @ 11:34 pm |
There’s a limit to the team building comparisons between the NBA and any other league in any other sport. For more than a decade [perhaps even two], the concept applied in drafting American players is to go for athleticism rather than skill. Year after year, Americans who can dunk or drill the 3 get more attention and bucks than those who understand the whole court, run without the ball, or play individual or team defense. There is a change a’coming, and it’s due to the increasing influence of European basketball leagues — made up of teams who, in many cases, share the development philosophies of the soccer squads under the same ownership.
When Manu Ginobili, San Antonio Spurs brilliant Argentine shooting guard, came to the league, he was vastly talented. He remains talented, although sadly injured late in the season, but what he brought to the league was an European heritage of being constantly drilled in fundamentals since his early teens. His teammate Tony Parker, and other great European-trained and blooded talent are beginning to have an effect on how the league looks at talent — but not nearly enough. The kid who has the amazing vertical leap and can excite the oohs at the McDonald’s All American high school tournement still has a better chance of being an early draft choice than a talented, schooled, multi-dimensional player. The Cavs Michael Brown — a Spurs coaching alumnus — is a brilliiant defensive tactician and teacher. It’s just a shame that so many young players get their first real coaching in defense once they reach the pro’s. And defense is only one of the forms of the game that get little respect from the high draft choice superstars.
It is the very lack of teaching [or even valuing] fundamental basketball skills in high schools and colleges in the United States that makes comparisons between the NBA and other sports/leagues dicey. And this is all to the good for those other sports/leagues.
Comment by HatterDon — May 26, 2009 @ 11:51 pm |