Thinking Basketball

Key Takeaways

1. Global Offense: Team scoring trumps individual points

Individual scoring doesn't explain team scoring.

Offensive efficiency is key. In basketball, the goal is for a team to outscore its opponent, not for individuals to rack up points. A player's value lies in how many points they help themselves and their teammates score collectively. This "Global Impact" can be achieved through:

• Creating power plays by drawing defenders away from teammates
• Making smart passes that lead to high-percentage shots
• Setting effective screens to free up shooters
• Spacing the floor with outside shooting ability

Redistribution, not replacement. When a high-scoring player leaves a team, their points aren't simply replaced by another player. Instead, the team redistributes its scoring opportunities, often leading to a more balanced and efficient offense. This is why teams can sometimes improve after losing a leading scorer, as seen with the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers after Wilt Chamberlain reduced his shot attempts.

2. Scoring Blindness: The trap of overvaluing individual scoring

Points per game became the first piece of information people anchored to when judging a player.

The scorekeeping bias. Traditional basketball statistics heavily emphasize individual points scored, leading to a cognitive bias that overvalues this metric. This "Scoring Blindness" causes fans, media, and even team management to overlook other crucial contributions to team success.

Hidden value. Many impactful basketball actions are not captured in the traditional box score:

• Defensive rotations that prevent easy baskets
• Off-ball movement that creates space for teammates
• Communication that improves team coordination
• Setting solid screens to free up shooters

The focus on individual scoring often leads to the misvaluation of players, with high-volume scorers on inefficient teams receiving undue praise while more well-rounded contributors are overlooked.

3. Player Impact Limitations: No single player guarantees victory

Even legends in the heart of their prime like Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar could not add more than seven points per game to a team's differential.

Quantifying individual impact. Studies of NBA play-by-play data and "With or Without You" (WOWY) analysis reveal that even the most impactful players in history have a ceiling on how much they can improve a team. This limitation is due to:

• The finite number of possessions in a game
• The need for rest and substitutions
• The inherent team nature of basketball

Contextual value. A player's impact is heavily dependent on their teammates and team strategy. Even all-time greats like Michael Jordan or LeBron James cannot single-handedly transform a bottom-tier team into a championship contender. This reality underscores the importance of team construction and complementary skillsets in building successful basketball teams.

4. Sample Size Sensitivity: The long game matters more than moments

Variance and sample size go hand-in-hand. If there were a Statistics Prom, they'd show up together every year.

The danger of small samples. Basketball is a high-variance sport, meaning that short-term results can be misleading. This applies to:

• Individual game performances
• Playoff series outcomes
• "Clutch" moments

Long-term focus. To accurately assess team and player quality, larger sample sizes are crucial. This means:

• Valuing regular season performance over playoff results
• Considering multi-year trends rather than single-season outliers
• Understanding that even seven-game series don't always determine the "better" team

Fans and analysts often fall prey to "Sample-Size Insensitivity," overreacting to small-sample events and undervaluing the importance of consistent performance over time.

5. Winning Bias: Success skews player perception

Winning can do that, serving as an antibacterial wipe for the mind, neatly disinfecting all of the negative memories associated with the winning team.

The power of outcomes. Human cognition tends to seek explanations for results, leading to biased interpretations of player performances based on whether their team won or lost. This "Winning Bias" manifests in several ways:

• Overrating performances in victories
• Underrating good play in losses
• Creating post-hoc narratives to explain team success or failure

Selective memory. The mind subconsciously filters information based on game outcomes, retaining positive actions from winners and negative actions from losers. This leads to flawed player evaluations and perpetuates myths about "clutch" players or "chokers."

To combat Winning Bias, it's crucial to evaluate performances objectively, regardless of the final score, and to consider larger sample sizes when assessing player impact.

6. Late-Game Fallacy: Every point counts equally

Counterintuitively, the outcome of a game is no more decided by a play in the last seconds than in the opening seconds.

Misperception of time. Many fans and analysts incorrectly weigh late-game events as more important, leading to a "Late-Game Bias." This fallacy ignores that:

• Points scored in the first quarter count the same as those in the fourth
• Early leads often determine game outcomes more than late-game heroics
• "Clutch" performance has little correlation with overall team success

Statistical reality. Analysis of NBA data reveals:

• The first quarter has the greatest impact on final score differentials
• Most games are decided before the final minutes
• "Clutch" situations account for a tiny fraction of overall possessions

Understanding the equal value of all game points helps in properly evaluating player contributions and team strategies throughout an entire contest.

7. Championship Myths: Rings and clutch play are overrated

Championship rings are no more a measure of a player's performance than his jersey sales.

The Rings Fallacy. Using championship wins to evaluate individual players is deeply flawed because:

• Basketball is a team sport with many factors influencing outcomes
• Player circumstances (teammates, coaches, injuries) vary greatly
• Small sample sizes and variance play a significant role in playoff results

Clutch myth. The idea that certain players consistently perform better in high-pressure situations is largely unsupported by data. In reality:

• "Clutch" performance shows little correlation with overall team success
• Most games are decided well before the final minutes
• Late-game "hero ball" often leads to less efficient offense

Instead of focusing on rings or perceived clutch ability, player evaluation should consider consistent performance, efficiency, and overall impact on team success across larger sample sizes.

8. Portability: Skills that scale with better teammates

Portability: How well a player's skills retain value on successful teams.

Scalable skills. Certain basketball abilities become more valuable as overall team quality improves. These "portable" skills include:

• Efficient outside shooting
• High-level playmaking and passing
• Versatile defense
• Off-ball movement and cutting

Diminishing returns. Other skills, while valuable, may not scale as well with improved teammate quality:

• High-volume isolation scoring
• Ball-dominant playmaking without off-ball skills
• Rebounding specialists who can't contribute in other areas

Understanding portability is crucial for team construction, as it helps identify players whose impact will grow (rather than diminish) when surrounded by other talented teammates. This concept explains why some high-scoring players on mediocre teams struggle to contribute as effectively when joining contenders.

9. Lone Star Illusion: The myth of single-player dominance

Having teammates like this helps; teams are significantly more likely to win games when (at least) one player has an explosive night.

Distributed contributions. Teams with a single standout player and seemingly average supporting cast often benefit from game-to-game variance in role player performance. This creates a "Lone Star Illusion" where observers:

• Overestimate the star player's individual impact
• Undervalue the collective contributions of role players
• Ignore the importance of team synergy and strategy

Star-counting fallacy. The human mind tends to simplify team evaluation by categorizing players as "stars" or "role players." This reductionist thinking leads to flawed conclusions about team quality and individual impact.

To accurately assess teams and players, it's crucial to:

• Recognize the value of consistent role player contributions
• Understand that different players can provide "star-level" impact on any given night
• Appreciate the importance of team fit and complementary skillsets

By avoiding the Lone Star Illusion, we can better appreciate the true nature of team success in basketball and more accurately evaluate player impact within the context of their team.

Last updated: March 11, 2025

Report Issue