Making Sense of the Obsession with Statistics in the NBA

The age of ubiquitous internet connectivity means that any pimply teenager can access a wealth of statistics and records from the comfort of his computer.

Suddenly, internet forumers or bleachers who obviously could not have been born during that era can engage in a intelligent debate over Chamberlain versus Russell or Magic versus Bird, tossing around stats like Wilt's monstrous scoring or Magic's assist.

Thanks to the formidable archives of nba.com and espn.com (especially John Hollinger), literally anyone with internet access can appear more knowledgeable than Charles Barkley. Ok, this is not really that difficult.

There is no denying the allure of statistics, especially on a site like this where impassioned fans do battle to defend the honor of their favorite team or player while attempting to maintain the facade of objective journalism. Here are some of the reasons why statistics are so seductive.

Stats present objective facts

What do you do when you are entering into a polarizing (a word that was the hippest adjective a couple of weeks ago) debate, especially on the superiority of one player over another. In some cases, you really have to be on drugs to take one side over another, like for example Erick Dampier being a top three center in the league.

Some other cases, it is rather hairy, you can make a good case either way and you would probably be right.

For example Tim Duncan vs Shaquile O'Neal

Duncan Shaq

PPG 21.4 24.7

RPG 11.7 11.2

FG% 50.7 58.2

FT% 68.5 52.8

BPG 2.36 2.35

APG 3.2 2.6

In any case, bringing up those figures makes you look objective, intelligent instead of being a homer, a fan boy or a hater.

See, Duncan is a better free throw shooter is significantly more credible than saying "Duncan will own Shaq, period. And its not even close, if you disagree you need to check your medication." even though in the larger context, this statistic is largely insignificant.

Stats allow you to keep track of players on teams you did not or would not watch

I have a confession to make, I didn't watch every game in the regular season. In fact I didn't watch a single Sacramento Kings game last season, not even when they played the Lakers since I thought it would be a blow out (so I was wrong, on 9 December 2008).

That doesn't mean I don't know Kevin Martin is a scoring machine (24.6 ppg last season) or Spencer Hawes (11.4 ppg 7.1 rpg 1.2 bpg) is an upcoming big with immense potential.

*As a side-note, my apologies to the Kings fans for singling your team out but judging from your arena attendance, many of you concur with my views.

Stats allow you to pick up references made by those darn elitist "old" fans

Everyone has a starting point and very few of us have been watching the game since the era of George Mikan or even Bill Russell. This is especially relevant in those GOAT debates where the young gunslinger will make a case for Kobe or Lebron being the GOAT.

All of a sudden, some wise guy throws in a Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain and you freeze. Man, my parents have not even met during their era. How can I not appear stupid?

Google to the rescue.

Yes, Wilt may have had his 30.1 ppg and 22.9 rpg but Lebron had 28.4 ppg on 37.7 mpg this season compared with Wilt's 45.8 mpg... instead of, Lebron will run rings around Chamberlain if they went one on one in the same era! Even Big Z will own Chamberlain!

In spite of all that, statistics like all numbers have their limitations. Anyone who has done any financial projections can tell you that. Here are just some of them:

Three points here is not the same as three points there

This sub-section should really be renamed "The Legend of Big Shot Rob". Three points in garbage time shows up the same in the stats sheet as three points ala the legendary buzzer beater in Game Four against the Kings in 2002.

The end result has a world of difference. This is why Robert Horry, a career 7.0 ppg and .341 3 pt shooter will have his place in NBA folk lore together with Steve Kerr. He may not be the ring magnet that his seven alludes to but he has certainly made a greater impact than mere numbers will display.

Statistics don't tell the story on defense

Look at player A:

6.1 ppg

27.6 mpg

2.8 rpg

0.8 spg

0.3 bpg

Making $4 million per year? Who is he sleeping with? Zeke must have signed him or Baylor. Must be a glorified role player on a crap team.

Nope, he is Bruce Bowen. He may have lost a step this season but who can deny his value to the championship runs of the Spurs?

On the flip side, obsession with stats on defense probably explains why Marcus Camby, he of career 9.8 rpg and 2.63 bpg and little else was a former defensive player of the year while Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen got no love.

Individual statistics are affected by the team

Whether your teammates or the system, it affects your stats. In certain cases, drastically.

Is Daniel Gibson (career .412 percent three point shooting) a better marksman than Kevin Durant (career .359 percent)? Not by a long shot. Quite ostensibly, for Durant he is the number one option on his team, in fact for much of his rookie season, he was the only option. Defenders gravitate towards him naturally.

Daniel Gibson? When he is playing he is probably the joint 2nd option (its Lebron and everybody else) so he is the beneficiary of many an open shot.

The pace of the team can also affect the numbers of the players, for evidence, look at the D'Antoni teams. Amar'e Stoudamire's 25.2 ppg last season plunged by nearly four points to 21.4 ppg this season thanks to 41 games under Terry Plodder excuse me, Porter.

Statistics cannot compare across different eras

How can you compare between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant? Magic Johnson and Chris Paul? Hakeem Olajuwon and Dwight Howard? Lebron against the world before him?

You can throw out all the stats you want but until they played each other over a seven games series, its meaningless. With all due respect to Superman, facing Big Z and Kendrick Perkins is different from battling Patrick Ewing (the young one not the coach), David Robinson and then a young Shaq.

Would MJ had gotten his points if Bruce Bowen was there to irritate him in a playoff series? Would Kobe had gotten those points if McHale clotheslined him in the game?

How the hell should I know? It will never happen? Anyone who studied economics at the most rudimentary level will tell you every prediction, projection is made with the assumption of ceteris paribus all else being equal. In comparing across eras, nothing is equal.

So by all means crunch the numbers and make up your own version of PER or whatever measurement of greatness you can conjure up. Just don't get over the top with it.