Basketball positions

I consistently get this question:

So what position did you play in high school? You must be a point guard.

Because a point guard is known to pass first, set up the offense, be small. A shooting guard is supposed to be Rip HAmilton and a small forward is supposed to well... almost get out of the way and do everything well without the ball, a la Shawn Marion, and so on.

How did this even materialize as a concept?

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1190

Drew Cannon highlights the flaw in this conventional wisdom

His medecine: "So before we get to the market inefficiency inherent in the status quo, this is what a typical lineup looks like in terms of our new positions:

C: Rebounder, D5
PF: Rebounder-Scorer, D4
SF: Scorer, D3
SG: Scorer-Creator/Handler, D2
PG: Creator/Handler, D1

To be sure, players with this type of ability are no easier to find than those who slot into the "traditional" positions. But hunting down non-traditional prospects is well worth a coach's time, because these players are undervalued by the recruiting "market." These guys may be as effective as those at high-major schools, but their need to be used unconventionally means the competition for them is significantly less intense.

There’s a big gaping hole there if someone wants to walk through it."

While similar to Moneyball logic, it still sheds light on a pervasive paradigm. I say this not to nitpick over exact responsibilities of the 5 players on the floor, but to free people from the constricting discussion of positions. I had a fourteen year old kid the other day tell me he didn't want to set back screens because he was a point guard. Besides being patently false, it prevents him from working on other parts of his game (will he not rebound, or guard big guys now?) Just like in the same way big men should attend guard camps because they need to know what guards know. Basketball is 5 players coming together sharing common responsibilities. Five players who can do everything is better than 5 de facto specialists excelling at their own certain aspect, in my opinion.

I was a guard in high school. And if I had thought myself a player rather than a guard, I would have learned post moves and worked on more areas of my game.

If I'm coaching an AAU basketball team

I've noticed that spring basketball teams, more commonly known as AAU teams, have competition on their minds. Granted, this is a business that involves college recruiting, shoe deals, and is so pervasive I will not even pretend to understand the half of it.

But what I've seen is just reinforcement of bad habits. An attitude of win-at-all costs (these kids may be 14-years old!) patched with expensive uniforms and driving distance tournaments and you have little kids already acting like they're in the NBA. So much for humility.

Rather than simply focus on winning, and "bringing it" to huge tournaments, If I'm coaching an AAU team I'm focusing on comprehensive development. First I'd contextualize it. Do you guys want to play college basketball? Well you better have a good attitude. You better have a good work ethic. You better get good grades. You better be a leader.

I would tailor practices to reflect these ideas: having them design elements of practice, having 1 on 1 to assist them in defining their goals and ways to achieve them. I would have them be aware that basketball is a privilege and most likely a temporary one. Drills would be designed so they can take them home with them. Evaluations and recommendations would be given to the players by the coaches.

AAU basketball would be an opportunity for character and basketball development, and a pre-evaluation for players looking to succeed in high school and college.

Better Statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?pagewanted=2

Michael Lewis presents a pervasive conundrum in basketball: "The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group." Kids often talk about scoring 20, dishing 10, or knotching five straight double doubles, but, as Lewis argues, these can seem arbitrary. And Battier is the archetype and role model for players who care more for winning then stats.

As a former player, this is super poignant. Going into games I would often hear players challenge each other to score twenty. Sure winning involves scoring more points, but there are so many complexities involved in scoring that they do not necessarily add up to efficient basketball. If my center goes out trying to score twenty, is he going to take tough shots? Will he shoot well? Will he make turnovers? Will he box out? Will he play good defense? His game could be so one dimensional, it actually hurts. Lewis shows how Battier can score 0 points and have a profound effect on his team, and how the Rockets statisticians have been working to prove it.

The more prevalent this knowledge is, the more players can gain to learn from it. Complacency resulting from scoring thirty points can crumble and new, more effective questions can be asked: yeah you scored thirty. but how was your team defense? did you box out the opposing team's best player? did you talk on both sides of the ball? did your teammates benefit from your play? These are the areas, that along with the more salient elements of the game, make for a great player.

The Rockets GM says, “We don’t want to incent a guy to do things that hurt the team.” The current admiration with statistics can, sometimes, do exactly that.

As I'm just getting into the field of economics, I cannot help but wonder how far this philosophy reaches. Looking beyond basketball, can this mindset apply to society? (Market) incentives and motivation come to mind. Are $ in society points and rebounds and are there different statistics that more effectively measure our productivity in society? The results from this type of study could be groundbreaking. This is way out of my field here, but it is interesting to think of nonetheless.