The Invisible Superstar

By Jack Van Deventer • August 30, 2021

Michael Lewis authored the famous book about the use of analytics in baseball, Moneyball, which later became a top movie.  Few people realize that he also wrote a classic article on basketball analytics in the New York Times about Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets.  The title of the article was “The No-Stats All-Star” and it detailed how Battier’s influence on team success was significant, though his impact was not at all apparent in Box Score metrics.  Lewis regarded Shane Battier as the no-stats hero of the team.

What I Learned from Sydney Harris

Likewise, Sydney Harris was a superstar, but no one knew it.  At least not until her final year of college ball.  A 6’0” forward on a D-II women’s team in Tennessee, she was a strong shooter and rebounder who came out of a respected Kentucky high school program.  She had all the tools for success but found herself on a team where the offensive strategy was to use a big center and 4 guards who were 3-point shooters.  In other words, her skills didn’t fit a “system” that excluded forwards.  As such, her playing time was limited and her box score stats were mediocre.  

However, there was just one problem:  box score stats can be seriously misleading.  When Sydney Harris was in the game, her team outscored all opposing teams at an astounding rate of 21.9 points per 40 minutes.  Sydney’s influence was tremendous, but entirely invisible in box score stats.  On offense she was the catalyst that made all her teammates better.  On defense she blew up opposing teams’ offenses.  Sydney was very well-liked by her teammates and that rapport showed on the court.  The synergy when Sydney was in the game impacted the scoreboard, but with players coming in and out of lineups, who would even notice?

Meanwhile, the big 6’4” freshman center on Sydney’s team dominated the box score stats, leading the team in scoring and featuring prominently in rebounding, as one might expect.  However, when this post player was in the game, the PM stats revealed that the team suffered.  Her Plus-Minus was the worst on the team, but if you don’t have PM metrics then box score measures are all you have.  Your knowledge of who’s making an impact is truncated.

Coaching:  The More You Know, the More You Win

As the old management saying goes, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”  As a coach the more you know, the better you can orchestrate your team’s success.  You want the knowledge to promote your team’s strengths and exploit your opponent’s weaknesses. 

In the example above, what good is it to have a dominating individual if the effect on the other 4 players is negative?  But apart from Plus-Minus (team scoring differences while an individual is in the game), how would you even be aware of that?  Indeed, Sydney Harris’s dramatic PM metric of 21.9 points per 40 minutes would have been missed completely.  My point is that, as a coach, you need to understand the TEAM EFFECT.  Plus-Minus, if there is a healthy sample size, can help measure the impact of team synergy on scoring.  Box Score stats are limited, at best.  Not everything in a game is readily quantifiable, but impact on the scoreboard is.  Armed with stats from Basketball Science, a coach can optimize the team rotation for maximum impact.  That’s what Sydney’s coach did. 

The Rest of the Story

In the years that followed the 6’4” post player adjusted to the game and had an outstanding career, eventually becoming an assistant coach. 

And Sydney?  In her final year of play her team was expected to finish 3rd in the conference.  Her PM stats exposed her value and her playing time increased.  As a result, her team’s record was much better than expected.  Her team made it to the conference championship against a dominating foe (who had a 118-6 conference record the previous 6 years).  In the final seconds of the championship game with her team leading by a single point, Sydney’s team was on defense as the opposing team’s All-American guard raced down the court and got past all defenders for a potential game-winning buzzer-beater.  Except Sydney was in the way.  Sydney deflected the shot ever so slightly and the ball missed the mark as the buzzer sounded.  Sydney’s team, as underdogs, won the championship, went to D-II March Madness, and all the players got conference championship rings. 

Without Plus-Minus metrics, Sydney’s team likely would have finished 3rd in the conference as expected, but the PM metrics revealed that the team possessed an invisible superstar.  And, like Shane Battier, apart from those metrics, who would ever have had a clue? 

Does your team have an invisible superstar?  BasketballScience.Net can help you know.  Championships are at stake.