Page 1 of 1

Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:30 pm
by rlee

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:27 pm
by Crow
Sometimes maps help. Sometimes they don't, when presented without accompanying explanatory text and further analysis. Which is much of the time.

Often a table would make understanding and analysis easier.

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:07 pm
by Mike G
keep reading for $1

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:32 am
by Crow
Could you have made the points of the first graphic in the article in about 2-3 sentences? Yeah.

The second graphic in 1 sentence? Yeah.

The third graphic in 1 sentence? Yeah.

Anybody claim they can find any value at all in the 4th chart on Ginobli other than for the author to be able to say he did it?

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:33 pm
by schtevie
From the linked article:

"The last chapter of “SprawlBall” is about the aesthetic of the game, and in it Goldsberry considers a different lens for the utility of analytics. Since the 2004 publication of “Moneyball,” the seminal book about the Oakland Athletics by Michael Lewis, analytics has been thought of as a strategy for how teams can gain an advantage against each other.

And that evolution has created an analytics backlash among fans who don’t favor the defensive shift in baseball, for example, or the isolation-themed basketball of the Houston Rockets. Goldsberry is sympathetic, which he credits to his time working with the Spurs, Coach Gregg Popovich and General Manager R.C. Buford.

“I would say the analytics aesthetic right now isn’t optimal,” Goldsberry said. “The aesthetics that it’s helped create are threatening some of the fabric of the game, and the product isn’t as good.”

I find this quite funny. The Spurs hire Goldsberry to draw pictures that illustrate for Popovich, who has long hated, hates, and always will hate the 3, how much it has cost his team for his failure to adapt (never mind get ahead of the curve).

Aesthetics indeed....

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:11 pm
by Crow
Go to a consistent 26 or 27 feet for the 3 point line? Ok by me.

(Would still go to 4 on 4 as well. but yeah make 3 pointers harder.)

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 8:20 am
by Snedecor
I respect a lot the Kirk’s work, nevertheless I think the real analysis come by numbers, chart shots are a trend like some season plenty of teams play pick and roll in the corner, high double screen, some special stagger or any specific situation in the game, he is a geographer and the charts are very nice to see, this add value to other work.

What do you think guys?

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 3:43 pm
by schtevie
This other very recent post of his is also strong on chart and weak on analytics (I suspect owing primarily to his having had a big swig of Popovich kool-aid): ... -fix-thing

Some fix, to move the 3 point line to an "eFG%=50%" distance of 25.773! By my inference (based upon data in one chart) this would have "eliminated" close to 80% of 3PA in 2017-18. And assuming these shots would become 2PA, you would be looking at a ratio not seen since 1988-89.

But that's not all. Currently, there are more than 180º around the basket where above-average scoring opportunities are obtained. Move the line out to 25.773 and you reduce this by about 30%. As a starting point in such a world, you would expect to see true shooting specialists camped out way away from the basket, and defenses clogging an effectively much smaller court. The beautiful game!

It would be "fair" however to eliminate the special advantage of the Corner 3 by expanding the width of the court be 4 feet or so. This, one might presume, would come at the expense of non-trivial amounts of ticket revenue, but a price worth paying (for me, anyway).

In the same article, however, I do like Goldberry's graph of the 3PA over time, though for entirely different reasons. It is a perfect illustration of the backward-looking incompetence of the NBA coaching profession on average, when it comes to 3 point shooting. I would have preferred for there to have also been added the ABA experience as well, better to emphasize the general point. But you can clearly see how the "bribe" offered by the NBA to increase scoring by any means necessary had no long term effect. And also you can see the late naughts "can't chew gum and walk at the same time" flattening of the adoption curve.

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 7:53 pm
by Crow
If the line was moved back to 25-26 ft, there would be some 3pta reduction, but I guess more like 20-30%. There might be shift to the best shooters (and more picks for them) and PG walk up threes. But the trend would be for the amounts to probably start back up.

Re: Goldsberry's Maps

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 11:25 pm
by Crow
Abolish the lane, maybe. Not sure it would change results much but it would maximize prospects for a few guys and on big / small switches.

3 points for dunks is another way to incentivize interior play that I've mentioned before.

But play within the current rules or do more than whine in public to try to get changes. I dunno have hard the Spurs fought the rule changes that promoted 3 pt play or are fighting to change them again.