Aesthetics vs Analytics

The battle of style vs substance

Every day, people engage in a battle between aesthetics and analytics throughout basketball discourse. The epitome of this argument may be Boston’s Derrick White. The analytically-inclined trumpet his name for all-star consideration, whereas the aesthetically-inclined deride this notion because he is a role player, and therefore, not an all-star. As someone wrote, he is not better than any number of Eastern Conference guards. What is better in a team game? How does one measure better?

ESPN ranked its top 100 NBA players prior to the season. White was not on the list. I saw a tweet about players 70-79, including RJ Barrett, Jordan Poole, Cade Cunningham, Jordan Clarkson, and Tyler Herro, and argued none affects winning as much as White.

Poole and Clarkson are darlings of true hoopers, those who appreciate guys who can get a bucket and score in one-vs-one situations regardless of their overall impact or efficiency. The true hoopers distrust analytics as the domain of nerds. They decry the comments lauding players such as White as the products of numbers, not watching the game, and play gatekeeper, attempting to restrict who can and cannot talk knowledgeably about basketball.

Getting a bucket and one-vs-one play attract and entertain audiences. These players often are responsible for people’s initial fandom, as they represent the game’s artistry. They often stand out among new fans introduced to the game through highlights on social media, as a wild Poole or Clarkson bucket is more likely to go viral than the subtle plays made by White. We need to appreciate and preserve these players.

Those who move beyond highlight culture and follow teams, not just players, want their teams to win. Those who work in basketball need their teams to win. They cannot rely solely on aesthetics. They incorporate analytics. They move beyond the art of the game to appreciate the science and apply these lessons to team building and strategy. They build teams with players like White who impact winning regardless of aesthetics. They measure a player’s worth by wins, not viral videos.

Coaches often wage the war between aesthetics and analytics when balancing subjective and objective evaluations of their own players, especially on defense, where good and bad is more subjective. Players’ shooting percentages and assist-to-turnover ratios are easy to see and chart, but defensive statistics such as rebounds, steals, and blocks are less instructive as to a player’s overall impact. The ball dominates offense, which everyone watches, but good defense typically is played away from the ball, making it easier to miss or misattribute.

During a recent game, an attacker beat a good defender, as characterized by the head coach, who remained on the attacker’s hip as he made a strong-hand, straight-line drive for a semi-contested layup. The bad defender, later, looked badly beaten, jumping off the attacker to take away the strong-hand drive, with the attacker stepping back into a long two-point jump shot.

One conceded a layup; one conceded a long two-point jump shot off the dribble. Most, aesthetically, view the first as good defense, as he remained near the attacker and recovered decently, although he had no real effect on the attacker’s shot. Most, aesthetically, criticize the second as bad defense, especially as the move garnered a few oohs and aahs, despite a miss.

Analytically, the good defender conceded a shot converted around 60-70% of the time. The bad defender conceded a shot the absolute best players make 45-50% of the time. The bad defense decreased the opponent’s probability of scoring, but few view the possessions like this. Instead, they shout oohs and aahs, while applauding the defense ending in a layup.

In The Art of a Beautiful Game, Chris Ballard explained Shane Battier’s defensive success: “To the untrained eye — hell, to the trained eye — it looks like Battier just got beat. But the defense was by design. ‘He rarely gets beat left or right,’ explains [Houston Rockets’ Assistant General Manager Sam] Hinkie. ‘If a guy is going left or right, it’s because Shane wants him to go left or right. Now, he might have made the wrong choice, but it is his choice. In an iso situation, he fails in what he tries to do about five percent of the time.’”

Why favor the aesthetics of the defender who conceded the layup when our goal defensively is to prevent layups? Why criticize the defender who conceded the long jump shot? We favor aesthetics over analytics. Coaches want their teams to look well-coached, and allowing open jump shots looks like bad defense, despite the analytical advantage. Fans see the art and the aesthetics without appreciating the analytics.

Coaches, too, are caught up in appearances. They notice the player who appears to hustle, despite the hustle compensating for poor initial positioning and a lack of anticipation, but criticize the player positioned correctly who does not run as far, fast, or hard. “We remember, and place undue significance on things that do happen while ignoring those that do not,” according to Professors Chris Anderson and David Sally in The Numbers Game. The intelligent player may appear not to do anything, whereas the hustling player appears active, and coaches mistake the activity for achievement, ignoring John Wooden’s axiom.

As psychologist Eliot Hearst explained in The Numbers Game, “In many situations animals and human beings have surprising difficulty noticing and using information provided by the absence or nonoccurence of something…Non occurrences of events appear generally less salient, memorable, or informative than occurrences.” We characterize the hustle and effort to compensate for a mistake as good defense especially when it results in a deflection, but miss the player who anticipates and positions oneself correctly, eliminating the need to recover.

Coaches ignore the layup because there was no major mistake; the defender stayed with the attacker all the way until he made the layup. The play happens every game, and at least he did not foul. The move for the open jump shot was memorable, as he created space for a jump shot, although that was the defender’s plan, like Battier: He jumped off to protect the basket, conceding the deep two-point jump shot. He prevented the 37% three-point attempt (1.11 points per possession) and the layup (1.2-1.4 ppp); he forced a jump shot the attacker converts at less than 35% (.70 ppp). It may not be aesthetically-pleasing, but that is expert defense, especially in a game where the offenses scored at better than 1.1 points per possession.

Analytics is a divisive term within basketball, but winning is universal. White makes winning plays: He shoots open, on-balance shots, protects the basket without fouling, disrupts opponents’ offenses, and more. His biggest supporters may be analytically-inclined because these plays often are ignored as they start away from the ball and rarely make highlight reels. His game may not appeal to the aesthetics crowd because he lacks the handle of Poole or the tough shotmaking of Clarkson, but he wins. He makes teams better. He elevates his teammates. These traits may not qualify one for an all-star game, but are desired by coaches.

Analytics is one approach to scrutinize one’s subjective impressions to insure a player’s winning plays are not unnoticed due to the aesthetics.