Is Shane Battier one of the best role players ever?

The thing with those ratings is there is an inherent randomness to it. If we had an infinite sample size, that technique would be the ideal way of guage how much players impact winning. But because we generally only have a couple seasons worth of data, sometimes the results don't look quite right.

You shouldn't read those ratings as: "these are the players from best to worst." The correct interpretation is: "based on the data available, this is our best guess, completely objective, as to which players help the team win the most." It's possible that it is wrong for some players. But the bigger the sample size, the less likely that will happen. That's how statistics work.

 

That was well said. He should be bringing more to the table than this. Those people who say that he is Everythign htey hoped for are full of it. If you go back and read the posts when we made the trade, everybody was predicting 13-15 pts a game. we are getting almost half that. We need something from him offensively.

 

I think the sample size has little to do with these ratings hence the debate on the "+/-" aka "impact" on the team.

"Impact" is a loaded word and very much subject to interpretation and manipulation.

Take Battier for example, by looking at the stats sheet, he ranks 2nd in blocks, 2nd in steals, 3rd in assists, last in turnovers as a starter and thus 1st in assist-to-turnover ratio, and if you throw in "forced turnovers on opponents (by taking charges)" he'd again rank 1st. Not many people will have any doubt that these rankings are unlikely to change if more games are played, will they?

Now when somebody derives a convoluted formula and comes up with the conclusion that Battier is the biggest "impact" player based on the set of selected stats -- "crooked" as well as original, it doesn't matter if the guy tries to preface his presentation with a pretentious introduction that "I don't claim Battier to be the best player on the Rockets team, don't get me wrong blah blah, what I am just saying is Battier is the most valued player if you look my way ...", the conclusion makes little sense. I speak that as a Battier supporter.

I can imagine Sammy Fisher quickly comes to the guy's defense by fending off his critics with "did you read his article and methodology blah blah." If one doesn't see how raw (or untreated) data can be manipulated to fit into any agenda (my apology for the loaded word, but it's quite fitting here), he is either part of the "mechanism" or incredibly naive.

Oh regarding my previous post, I did misinterpret his post and jump to conclusion a bit too early. After I read a few more posts in that old thread, I am glad to retract my statement and re-declare Sammy is still a prick.

 

That's a logical fallacy right there. Hayes getting minutes is independent of Battier traded here for Swift/Gay. In other words, Swift being here and Hayes getting minutes are not mutually exclusive.

As a matter of fact, towards the end of last year, Swift was getting just over 20 minutes a game, not the least in part because he was stinking it up. And one of the reasons Hayes didn't see the floor more was because he was so damn foul prone (that's actually one area he improved marginally this year). So if you believe in statistical trends, chances are he would have gotten more minutes this year any ways.

Furthermore, even with Swift/Gay, our team rebounding would have improved this year based many factors, including a healthy Yao/TMac, Kirk Snyder who's younger, Gay who's very athletic. Once again you are pinning the results on Battier when it may not necessarily be the case.

Once again, what are you trying to argue with me with? Let's me reiterate my previous question. At what point do you say, "yeah, Battier, nice guy. I'm gonna miss his intangibles, but I can't pass up player abc's x points and y rebounds?" What is the threshold?

It's nice and all to say "if Battier improves our differential by 3 and 4 points." But chances are, Swift/Gay would be able to some of that stuff too. So it makes no sense to speak what Battier brings to the table as if Swift and Gay don't contribute at all, which is why you have to do an incremental study.

Once again, what is the increment over Swift/Gay. You are presumably in favour of the trade because you think we get more out of Battier than we do in Swift/Gay. How much more? How do you measure it? Is this increment higher than giving up the chance to go younger/more atheletic with Gay?

Let me clarify. I'm not saying that he is more important than Yao or TMac. I'm just asking you what is Battier's contribution worth. As I've said, the bottom line is the scoreboard. Put Battier's contribution, tangible or not, into points.

Maybe, maybe not. Once again, you can't separate the variables in an event study.

Once again, maybe he is, maybe he's not. The correct answer is that we need more than just stats. Which is actually what makes measuring intangibles so damn hard. You have to make careful observations with a large sample size. On top of that, you have to do detailed analysis.

 

Hayes would not be getting the same minutes with Swift here. But, in any event, just because you trade a PF away, that doesn't mean the player you trade for needs to produce like a PF. Saying that Battier needs to be giving us 8 rebounds a game to make this an equitable trade is ridiculous.

There's no magic formula for such things. If there was one, you wouldn't need GMs, just a computer. BTW, this "intangibles" stuff doesn't mean anything. Battier's contribution is tangible if you watch the games. Just because what he does doesn't show up in the boxscore, that doesn't mean he's not doing anything.

I could ask you to do the same thing to justify keeping Swift/Gay over Battier. Why does the burden of proof (as if these things can actually be rigorously proved) fall on those who support Battier?

Swift would be virtually useless if he stayed here; I'm pretty much convinced of that. So, it's essnetially a trade between Gay and Battier. I'll take Battier over a rookie who's shooting 35% from the field. Long term, Gay may turn out to be much better. That wouldn't surprise me. This was obviously a trade that was made for the short term.

I'm not going to waste my time on such an exercise, sorry. You haven't done this with Yao or McGrady or Gay or anyone else, so why I should I attempt to do this with Battier?

 

Don't you mean ever, ever, in the whole wide world! Bog Shot Bob. 'Nuff said.

 

In theory, you are right. But you know what, the 4 is our biggest weakness. Put simply, we have no bench 4. So we trade away part of our limited ability at 4 (however limited), I'd expect something that better be damn worth it. So in light of the situation, I don't think some acceptable level of rebounding is too much to ask.

I know he is doing things. I see it in his game. I know he takes charges, challenge shots, hit the 3 from the corner, etc. How much is that worth though? In order to say the Battier trade was a good one, short term or not, his output has to exceed what we gave up.

Because part of what Battier supporters argue is the intangibles he bring, or if you don't like that term, the little things he brings. With Swift or Gay, people are not saying he did this and he did that. For example, with Gay, people are saying he's not a good shooter, at least right now. That's easy to see. People aren't saying that he's a good shooter, you just don't see it on the stat sheets.

And by the way, I didn't simply conclude that Gay could improve his shooting based on his stats alone. I watched some of his games.

That's fair enough, though it is your opinion.

As for Gay though, you are betting on two things:

1. We're gonna contend this year
2. Gay's impact this year will be lower than Battier

Maybe both may be true. But here's the thing though. I don't think we have what it takes to win it all this year, Battier or not. And we just gave our future away. Suppose next year is our year and Gay starts giving solid contributions by then, we would have just made a silly little trade.

Simple. Once again, because when we talk about the impact of Yao and TMac, we're not focusing on their "little things." Both of the bring so much to the table tangibly that even though I acknowledge people don't generally give them all the credit they deserve, it is still somewhat inconsequential to ignore that added oomph.

But on the other hand, you are here arguing about Battier's little things. Sorry but, I'm gonna need a little bit more than that.

 

These "little things" you refer to ... what is that? Do you account for all the ways in which Yao's lack of mobility hurts our defense? Or all the mistakes rookies or players like Swift tend to make that don't show up in the stat sheet? There are so many factors to account for, it is crazy to try to add them all the way you propose. I don't even know how you'd go about doing that, or even if it makes sense to do so.

If you want a concrete measurement of impact based on box score stats and not +/-, you can use Dean Oliver's Offensive and Defensive Ratings (at basketball-reference.com). Couple that with poss% on offense and stop% on defense, and you can derive an individual W-L record which represents the number of wins and losses a player is responsible for. Amongst players who played at least 1000 minutes, Battier ranked 12th in individual W% (which indicates efficiency), and 26th in individual PW. That doesn't take into account any of the "intangibles" that Battier is known for. Alternatively, basketball-reference has a Win Shares metric which is proportional to wins a player is responsible for (he ranked 32nd on this last year). Again, it's based on box score stats. These ratings are all available for past seasons. He does very well for a role player.

At the APBRmetrics board, Bob Chaikin used his simulator to evaluate Battier's contribution to winning (based on player stats and team stats and various parameters he's tuned over the years). He found that last year Battier rated amongst the very best SFs in the league in terms of adding wins to a ball club.

Hybrid approaches that take into account box score stats and also On/Off impact also exist. 82games.com published a Fair Salary rating last year, for instance. Battier did very well based on that.

 

So I guess Battier played his role quite well tonight.

 

So you want to talk about limitations? Alright, I'll entertain that idea. Let's talk about limitations.

Specifically, I'm wondering why you are juxtaposing Yao and Swift's limitations next to Battier's strengths. It almost appear as if you are purposefully trying to mislead.

Superstars like Yao and TMac have so many strengths, just in the little things they do (because after all, we are talking about "intangibles" right?), that they make up for their limitations. Yao for example, I'm wondering why you are focusing on his weakness (slow footed on D, therefore can't guard a big man outside shooter) while completely glossing his strengths.

For example, why aren't you saying that despite Yao's slow footedness, and despite the occasional ESPN highlight occasionally (though rarely) done to him, he scares the **** out of opposing team's players, that his size alone stops many penetrations and alters many shots? Why aren't you saying that he's loyal to the team and that he's the ultimate selfless team player? Why aren't you saying how he's the hardest working guy on the team, almost working out before the team shows up for practise, and immediately hit the weight room after a dominating game against the Knicks because Shaq and Zo are coming up? Why aren't you saying when the team screw up defending the PnR, leaving an opposing team player wide open for 3, if Yao's the closest guy, he'll sprint 15 feet just to put a hand in the other guy's face?

Same thing for Swift. Even though just by his unfulfilled potential, he'll have a lot more limitations than strengths, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy can jump out of the gym.

And of course, Gay. The guy is young, atheletic, has a bright future and will only improve, something that Battier will never have again. He's also aggressive, and if he ever learn to channel that, he'll be something special.

Likewise, Battier will have his strengths and weaknesses which never will hit the stat sheets by themselves.

Now here is my question. Why are you outlining Battier's strengths in the little things and glossing over his limitations? Is that because that's the only thing he has?

 

How do you know the extent to which they make up for their limitations? Have you done the "incremental study"? I assume not.

Players have strengths and weaknesses that don't show up in the box score. That's my only point. You seemed to imply before that we're only talking about "little things" that players do to help a team. It goes beyond that. There are "big things" players can do to hurt a team that don't show up in the box score as well. You asked me to rigorously analyze those strengths and weaknesses for Battier, implying that they are insignificant for other players. This I disagree with. You ask me to analyze every minute detail of what a player does -- surely you recognize it's an impossible task. If you can't do the same for Yao, how would you expect me to do so with Battier? All I can say is my observation tells me Battier is playing an important role on the team, and the evidence available (point differential when he's on the court, along with lineup and opposition data), seems to support that.

No. He doesn't create plays for others well. He's not a player who'll draw double teams and be able to kick out. He's undersized for a PF, and lacks quickness for the faster guards in the league. It's impossible to enumerate every strength and limitations of a player. Plus, how a player contributes to a team often is determined by how combinations work together -- "teamwork". There's simply no simple way to account for this. The incremental study you refer to ... how would that even work?

We can watch games and observe how certain players impact the flow of the game without exactly measuring it and apportioning credit to each player. Such a task would be completely subjective anyways. What I notice is that Battier is very active defensively, he generally does a very good job contesting shots, getting deflections, drawing charges, etc. He's a smart player who makes very few mistakes. On a play by play basis, it may not seem like a significant contribution. But over the course of an entire game, and then over the course of a season, what he does adds up to something quite significant. If you're asking me to give you an exact number, I just can't do that. Just as you couldn't do the same for Yao, Gay, or anyone else.

There are ways to account for the "intangibles" of a player without resorting to a rigorous accounting of everything they do. Namely, plus/minus statistics. They must be handled carefuly, and understood in context, but with enough of a sample and with knowledge of lineups and opponents faced, we can draw some decent conclusions on how effective a player is on a given team. Or, perhaps more useful (and less noisy), how effective certain combinations are. I think you dismiss them too quickly.

 

Battier did play well last night. He looked like he was back a Duke. I was pretty disappointed with him so far this year before this game. Hoefully this will be a turning point. I'm not sayin he needs 17 a night but 12 or so could be nice. I thought he played better D last night as well. The imprtant thing was that he did all these things along with his "intangibles". Plus, him making those baskets didn't really take away shot from Yao or Tmac. Yao got his and Tmac was just off last night.

 

like previous posts, i believe a role player is someone who just specializes in one or two things...pretty much a one or two dimensional player. but to be a great role player you have to specialize in what you do real well. and if thats so, then i believe chuck hayes is a better role player than shane for the rockets. i see shane as just an all-around player..but to a lesser degree. but chuck hayes defines what a role player is. all thats asked of him is to rebound, pick up loose balls, play D and straight up hustle. and thats exactly what he does and he does it very well. and from the rockets games ive seen, ever since hayes was inserted into the starting lineup the rockets have been a much better team overall.

 

All I know is he is a solid, strong player with an admirable work ethic, and yes, he is a great role player! Go, Battier!

BattiersBaby.

 

Just testing to see if my signature is in place...

BattiersBaby.

 

why the hell would anyone want him to be in the all-star game?

i like battier. he's a very good role player. Saying he's one of the best ever role players is going overboard though.

 

No I didn't. But like I said, they already bring so much to the table tangibly that we can ignore their incremental limitations/strengths for most practical purposes, because chances are, their strengths make up for their limitations.

With you however, you mention all those "intangibles" because Battier thus far into the season, haven't done much that impact the stat sheets, so the only thing you CAN do is an incremental study, one that translates the little things into something that impacts the scoreboard.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Like I said, if Battier's contributions was more "visible," we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are saying we got a good trade in Battier. I'm saying we didn't. Once again, I do see Battier's contributions, intangible or not. I don't need him to get 14/8 to know he contributes. And for that matter, I think he is a good role player.

Now what I'm asking you is, is he worth what we gave up (age, atheleticism, somebody that could be special, etc). I'm trying to get a sense of what is too much to give up, which is why I'm asking you to do an incremental study. Not to do it for the sake of doing it. Just do something to show me what is Battier's contribution worth to you. Without that, how the hell are you gonna argue with me, or me with you?

No, you are not getting what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to list his weaknesses. In fact, in this entire thread, I didn't mention his weakness a single time. I'm just asking you to put a figure next to his name.

Once again, you have one problem. If we didn't have (or have the chance at) Swift and Gay, Battier is great. He's a team player. He's a good role player. But that basically is assuming that we are starting from 0. We are not starting from 0. We had Swift and Gay. How much is Battier worth to you? If you think he's better than Swift and Gay, by how much? Surely we didn't do a trade just for the sake of doing a trade.

But that's fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I think Battier is better for us than Swift+Gay for this year and probably next year too. I don't have a concrete number to put next to that, just as you don't have a concrete number to represent how much more valuable Swift+Gay would be than Battier. Subjectively, as I've said before in the thread, I think we'll get maybe 5 more wins this year with Battier instead of Swift+Gay. I just think it would be a better team.

Not much else I can say that I haven't already said.