I seldom discuss sports, and in fact, I don’t follow any sport, per se, these days. But the three-point revolution in basketball is a great case study in futures studies, because even those that are closely watching what’s going on don’t truly realize how profound a shift has already taken place. We are — as always — blocked from seeing the present that’s right in front of our eyes because our preconceptions hinder our sight. That’s why companies employ futurists to help understand the present in terms of trends and ‘bends’ (bends are the dark matter of the futures universe).
Benjamin Morris nails this in Stephen Curry Is The Revolution, exploring the stats around Stephen Curry’s ascent to the greatest player of his day, and pointing out that Curry is nowhere near his limits: we don’t know how many 3-pointers he can produce per game, because he continues to produce more every time he is asked to.
[All emphasis mine.]
I’ve been a tiny bit skeptical of the notion that the 3-point shot is inherently superior. I’m not anti-three the way Byron Scott is, but I’ve suggested that the midrange game — which has historically been a strong indicator of success in the NBA — might still be important once defenses adjust to the new offensive math and a new equilibrium is reached.
But Curry kills all that. Curry isn’t a product of the math; he’s so good that he has his own math. Indeed, the math is so far in Curry’s favor that the Warriors — and even basketball in general — may not fully understand what they have yet.
While arguing with that Warriors fan, I may have said some things I shouldn’t have. Like that Curry has an outside shot at breaking Wilt Chamberlain’s season record of 50 points per game. Even as MVP, Curry scored only 24 points per game last year, so obviously I was exaggerating for effect … right?
Through November, Curry is scoring nearly 32 points per game this season (despite having the luxury of sitting out several fourth quarters as the Warriors roll). As ESPN’s Director of Analytics Ben Alamar wrote, Curry “seems to have figured out that he truly cannot take too many 3-point shots.”
And that’s the heart of the matter. The deeper you dive into the data, the more you realize that Curry isn’t just a deadly efficient shooter, but he’s also virtually immune to burden. As he has been asked to produce more and more, he hasn’t gotten any less efficient. (Economists would say Curry has nearly constant returns to scale.) The question is: How much additional shooting volume could Curry handle while still remaining the Warriors’ best option?
I could rattle off a couple of stats and make a guess, but as my sanity depends on this, I didn’t want to take it casually. So I’ve examined the issue from a number of angles, including a foray into the NBA’s latest tracking data.
There’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that the results really don’t give us a clear indication of how much burden Curry may be able to handle. The good news is the data doesn’t show even the tiniest hint that Curry is anywhere near his limits yet.
One takeaway: Curry is much better at taking bad shots than most of his teammates are at taking good shots. He ‘shoots about as well with a defender 2 to 4 feet away as an average NBA shooter does with the nearest defender 12 feet away. Basically, he is immune to defense.
And he’s getting better. Really.
Go read the whole thing.
from Stowe Boyd http://stoweboyd.com/post/134584728102
