Michael Lewis has written an incredible New York Times article on the new Moneyball aspects of the NBA. Be warned: This is a seven page article and it’s nowhere near long enough. Absolutely captivating.
Read it here.
Michael Lewis has written an incredible New York Times article on the new Moneyball aspects of the NBA. Be warned: This is a seven page article and it’s nowhere near long enough. Absolutely captivating.
Read it here.
Great article on what makes an "accurate statistic". I should sign Shane to my fantasy league and see how that goes.
It is a great article. Love Michael Lewis.
But as in any "position piece" he overstates and simplifies a few things. Most notably, when he's trying to establish how good, but underappreciated, Battier was early in his career with the Grizzlies, he notes that the Grizzlies went from 23-59 to 50-32 from his rookie to third years. He implies that Battier had a huge, but misunderstood, hand in this. Sure he had something to do with it, but so did also adding superstar Pau Gasol (same rookie year) and Mike Miller (during their second year). Lewis left that part out.
Another comment: I take issue with Lewis's characterization of the pregame manhugs and fistbumps as "exaggerated gestures of affection" between guys who "don't actually know each other, or even want to." Between AAU ball, college ball, the NBA, All-Star and charity games, having the same agent, etc — lots of these guys do know each other. And even if they don't, what's so wrong with respecting and enjoying the company of your colleagues?
Lewis seems to be arguing that Battier sees through the ridiculousness of this, doesn't participate in it, so is underappreciated and mistakenly seen as aloof as a result.
But maybe he's just an aloof prick to begin with. He did go to Duke, after all…