My latest at Huffington Post – Stumbling on Wins: Using Sports to Paint a Bigger Picture – explores the bigger picture told in our latest book. Stumbling on Wins doesn’t just tell a host of different stories drawn from the world of sports. We also hope to show that the study of how decisions are made in sports can contribute to our understanding of how human beings in general make choices.
For sports fans, though, the many stories we tell from baseball, football, basketball, and hockey might obscure this bigger picture. After all, the impact Final Four appearances have on NBA draft position — or the idea that rebounding doesn’t impact NBA draft position (but does impact future performance) — are stories can generate a conversation quite independent of the larger picture.
To illustrate – in the midst of a fairly positive (and very lengthy) review from Henry Abbott – the NBA draft-rebounding story was one tale Henry highlights (citing John Hollinger and David Thorpe in his discussion).
More on Rebounding and the Draft
This story – as we note in the book – goes beyond sports. Th NBA draft-rebounding story actually highlights a key problem with human decision-making. This is specifically what we say in the book:
It may seem somewhat surprising to hear that decision-makers are better off considering less. This argument can be illustrated if we consider what was uncovered with respect to rebounds. Rebounds don’t impact where a player is chosen on draft day, but are found to be related to future productivity in the NBA. Such results suggest that decision-makers are not aware of the importance of rebounds. Such a suggestion, though, is hard to believe. Rebounds have been tracked for NBA players since 1950 and we can be fairly certain that decision-makers in the NBA understand that better rebounders help teams win games.
We also suspect, though, that decision-makers believe a vast list of factors is connected with winning basketball games. Unfortunately, the size of the list is the problem. People are taught to consider everything before making a decision. Such advice would be good to follow if the human mind had unlimited computing power. The human mind, though, has clear limits. Too much information has actually been shown by researchers to result in declines in the quality of decisions.
We believe this is what’s happening on draft day. Decision-makers try to consider everything, but the limits of the human mind undermine this effort. In order for a decision to be made, the human mind has to simplify the vast list of factors considered. The simplification process ends up emphasizing the factors that are most conspicuous. In other words, the final decision is dominated by scoring, age, height, and Final Four appearances; a list of factors unrelated to future productivity in the NBA.
The limitation of the human mind is one story told by Jonah Lehrer in How We Decide. Lehrer – as we note in the book – explicitely argues that the human mind is constrained. Therefore when people say “we look at everything before making a decision” they appear to be arguing that their mind can do things that don’t appear to be physically possible. A good decision-making process. therefore, doesn’t focus on everything; but rather focuses on the factors most relevant to the decision being made. In other words, a better approach to decision-making is to systematically uncover which information is actually important and which information should be ignored.
Advantages and Difficulties with Sports Research
The research cited by Lehrer – just like the research noted in the books by Daniel Gilbert (Stumbling on Happiness), Dan Ariely (Predictably Irrational), and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (Nudge) — is generally drawn from laboratory experiments. As noted at Huffington Post, critics of experiments note that the “real world” is not in a lab. Consequently, we hope that the fact similar stories are seen in the very real world of sports strengthens the arguments offered by behavioral economics.
Although the study of sports does offer some advantages, it does have at least two problems. First, the very nature of laboratory experiments means the people making “mistakes” are anonymous. In contrast, every decision-maker in sports can be identified by name. Consequently, although we insist that we are not calling anyone in sports “stupid” (just as researchers do not call those who participate in the aforementioned experiments “stupid”), we do understand the tendency for feathers to be ruffled when people’s decisions are explicitly questioned. As we note in the book, people in sports are likely to be just as smart as decision-makers in other industries. And they bring a great deal more passion to their work. Despite these advantages – and despite the many other favorable characteristics of the sports industry – decision-makers in sports do not behave in a fashion consistent with the assumption of rationality traditionally found in economics. Yes, once again we turn to the bigger picture.
Beyond this issue is the fact sports are a subject with many, many experts. Players, coaches, members of the media, and many fans are all people who believe they already know the answer to many of the questions we address. And consequently, when our answers contradict what is “known”, people become unhappy with our stories.
Such a reaction brings to mind the following quotes from John Kenneth Galbraith and Leo Tolstoy.
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” John Kenneth Galbraith
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, with a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” Leo Tolstoy (via Michael Lewis – and The Big Short — as seen on Charlie Rose).
Each of these quotes highlight the problem human beings have with information that contradicts what is already believed. And again, contrary to what traditional economics argues, a person does not change his or her mind easily.
For good decisions to be made, though, new information has to be sought and understood. What we see in sports – as we see in many other industries (and even sometimes in academia) – the challenge posed by new information is not always met.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Wages of Wins Journal 
jbrett
March 21, 2010
Dr. Berri,
There is a radio ad I hear often, where the guy says successful companies don’t do 4000 things, they do 12 things 4000 times. I think the GM’s you mention could benefit from that advice.
On a completely different subject, I really enjoyed the chart with the best 50 seasons by SG. Even if I questioned some of the players listed at the position, it was nevertheless an eye-opener. Have you done anything similar for the other positions? I for one would find them fascinating.
Also, is there any possibility of one day seeing Wins Produced or WP48 alongside other statistics on a site like Basketball Reference? I would love to be able to make instant comparisons with PER, because laughter really is the best medicine. I suspect it would result in an increase in the number of drive-by “How can you have (blank) so low, you moron?” posts, which we all find so very entertaining; would it be worth taking the bad with the good?
Italian Stallion
March 21, 2010
What you are describing is also very relevant to handicapping horse races. There are dozens of factors that impact the results of races, but measuring and weighing them all accurately is somewhere between difficult and impossible for even the most experienced players.
Most of the winning players I’ve met over the years reached their goal by specializing in one or two factors, a certain type of race, specific situations etc…
To put in basketball terms, there are a lot of qualities that contribute to a kid becoming a great basketball player.
Measuring and understanding them all is a very difficult task, but I suspect if one talented person decided to master finding good value among just PG prospects (or Cs etc…) he would wind up being much better than his peers that were trying to understand everything about players at all positions.
I don’t think you necessarily have to reduce the factors, you can narrow the area of specialization.
Michael
March 22, 2010
Great post.
khandor
March 22, 2010
1. Rebounding is such a fundamental component to success in the game of basketball it is simply amazing that so many others in the hoops environment do not value it in the proper way.
2. In this regard, David’s work to this point, as well as that of many others, has accomplished a great deal. :-)
3. Focusing on too many unimportant factors is an absolute killer when it comes to making the best decisions possible.
4. A fundamental problem which still exists, however, is the role played by the execution of a single valuable skill when it comes at the expense of other truly valuable skills, as well.
e.g. Although Dejuan Blair is a terrific rebounder, if he is your team’s main Power Forward, your team is probably not going to be able to win the NBA title, given the other important skills/attributes associated with this position that he is also deficient in [as opposed to a PF like Dennis Rodman, or James Worthy, or Maurice Lucas, or Kevin McHale, or Robert Horry, for example].
5. When you look at the great history of the NBA game, a fairly strong case can be made that [1] Team Rebounding is, in fact, a more important component to championship success than either [2] Team Defense or [3] Team Offense.
mrparker
March 22, 2010
re rebounds,
Rebounding is the only thing a player can do both offensively and defensively. Realizing that was my first eureka moment that led to player analysis being my most time consuming hobby.
Clarice giotti
March 22, 2010
I appreciate your covering this subject great work.
Evan
March 22, 2010
I thought everyone knew that rebounding was all about effort. ;)
Will
March 22, 2010
I’ve brought up the tolstoy syndrome before when trying to explain wp48 to people. Not a good idea with your average fan who considers himself an expert. The emotional response is incredible.
Italian Stallion
March 22, 2010
khandor,
I explained what I believe to be the thought process that impacts people’s perceptions about rebounds in another thread.
It is best illustrated by example.
Assume a rebound has a statistical value of “1”.
Assume an assist has a statistical value of “.5”
That means that statistically, a player that gets 6 rebounds per 36 minutes is contributing more than a player that’s giving you 11 assists per 36 all else being equal. 6 > 5.5
If you made a list of the players in the NBA that could give a team 6 rebounds per 36, the list would be quite long and even contain some Gs.
If you made a list of the players in the NBA that could give you 12 assists per 36 (the statistical equivalent of the 6 rebounds), you’d probably have to start and stay in the Hall of Fame.
I’m not sure I can explain this in terms appropriate for this audience because I lack a formal statistical background, but I think the incremental value of some contributions to winning gets greater as you get closer to elite status because those players get rarer and rarer.
If you found a rebounder that could give a team 13-14 boards per 36 minutes, I feel confident that many more people would notice and place a lot of value on his skill as long as he was at least close to average in other ways. He would be so rare, it would raise his value in people’s eyes.
GGrantham
March 22, 2010
Wouldn’t it be great if the NBA would take over the Clippers and the Wizards, install one GM with instructions to use WP48 rigorously in filling out the roster at the various positions, (with salary cap decisions to be made based on highest WP48 per dollar of salary), and install a traditional GM who focused on points avg, final four appearances, height, etc.and after three years, see which team brought the highest value.
In hockey, the NHL took over the Coyotes, who had a marvelous turnaround this year.
The NHL took over the Coyotes, hired a hard nosed coach, and had a marvelous turnaround.
John Giagnorio
March 22, 2010
Italian Stallion,
Can you clarify your arguments? Are you saying that you think rebounds and assists are incorrectly weighted? Is the bit about “elite status” related to this? I’m also not sure why there would be reason to believe the incremental values change, or why it’d be important. The 80/20 rule that’s been discussed here before seems to capture what you’re talking about though.
khandor
March 22, 2010
IS,
I’m in basic agreement with what you said in your comment.
What’s astounding, however, is that others do not readily acknowledge just how great [and truly dominant] a player Bill Russell actually was, in comparison with the other terrific players who have also played the game across different eras.
If one simply looks at Russell’s unparalleled career, what’s established is that:
1. Individual Rebounding and Team Rebounding are more important than individual scoring;
2. +o.44 individual Field Goal % is relatively unimportant;
3. +o.56 individual Free Throw % is relatively unimportant;
4. High team shot block averages per game are relatively important [according to the anecdotal evidence which exists on this subject];
5. Points Allowed per game is relatively important;
6. Equitable scoring distribution amongst a small group of main teammates is relatively important;
7. Points scored in transition differential is relatively important;
8. Contested shots attempted differential is relatively important;
… when it comes to winning championships.
Anon
March 23, 2010
I’m curious, when you say that players drafted higher tend to play more than players drafted lower, even adjusted for performance, does that also adjust for the fact that players picked higher tend to be on crappy teams, who are much more likely to play a young player in the hopes of developing him, whereas a good team is going to be more focused on sticking with what is already working?
was that all one sentence?
dberri
March 23, 2010
Anon,
The study I cited was very extensive and I believe it did control for quality of teammates.
Italian Stallion
March 23, 2010
John,
I can’t be sure about the proper weighting of assists and rebounds because I lack the knowledge and data to study the issue properly.
However, I think I can do a good job of explaining how other people think, why, and whether their thinking has any merit.
On this issue, I think any time you find a player that is elite at anything and at least close to average at other things, people will place greater value on him than someone that may be cumulatively better statistically, but more average at everything.
Hope that makes sense.
Anon
March 23, 2010
thanks for response :)
John Giagnorio
March 24, 2010
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. I don’t see much reason to believe being “elite” at one thing is better than being average at a bunch of things, though.
Since you brought it up in your earlier post, I looked up the all time leaders in assists per game and rebounds per game. Both lists are a bunch of hall of famers.