Read on Twitter
I have no work deadlines to meet for the first time in many weeks, so...
THREAD about a subject I wrote 3/4 of an article about but never finished.
THREAD about a subject I wrote 3/4 of an article about but never finished.
THREAD:
Re-Positioning Positions for the Positionless Basketball
Point Guard. Shooting Guard. Small Forward. Power Forward. Center.
These five traditional positions are a snapshot of a bygone era. They simply do not accurately describe the modern game of basketball.
Re-Positioning Positions for the Positionless Basketball
Point Guard. Shooting Guard. Small Forward. Power Forward. Center.
These five traditional positions are a snapshot of a bygone era. They simply do not accurately describe the modern game of basketball.
Yet, their continued presence in basketball vernacular creates a framework that limits the way we talk about and even think about the game. While several efforts have been made to improve on this system, as of yet none have proven able to supplant it.
The traditional positions are much like the old method of organizing photographs. Before digital cameras, photos were organized into albums. Each album had a theme that tied together all the photos within.
This method worked, after a fashion--if the theme of an album fit what you were looking for, you could find a specific photo as well as many similar ones providing context in a short amount of time. Sometimes, however, the theme didn't quite match your needs.
With the aid of modern technology, a better solution was found. Tagging each photo with several descriptions (who, what, where, when, etc) enables filtering, which in essence creates customized albums on demand.
Traditional positions are five photo albums we force every unique player into, even if they don't quite fit. The goal, then, is this: Create a standardized set of tags that both answer the right questions and are intuitive enough to be established in everyday basketball lexicon.
Where to begin? Before casting off the traditional positions let's consider where they excel. For all the flaws they have, staying power is not one of them. They remain firmly entrenched in our minds and roll easily off the tongue, even knowing they are inaccurate.
What aspects of traditional positions work? 3 things stand out:
1) Brevity -
Each position is one or two words. A longer description may be more precise, but that doesn't help as a quick reference in the midst of conversation. These terms convey some useful information quickly.
1) Brevity -
Each position is one or two words. A longer description may be more precise, but that doesn't help as a quick reference in the midst of conversation. These terms convey some useful information quickly.
2) Size -
Each position is labeled guard, forward, or center, which in essence has become basketball's version of small, medium, and large. This helps convey a player’s defensive role, as players tend to match up with others of similar size.
Each position is labeled guard, forward, or center, which in essence has become basketball's version of small, medium, and large. This helps convey a player’s defensive role, as players tend to match up with others of similar size.
3) Role -
While only featured for two positions, the descriptions ‘point’ and ‘shooting’ effectively convey something about a player's offensive role. Point guards initiate the offense, and shooting guards tend to shoot. Simple and straightforward.
While only featured for two positions, the descriptions ‘point’ and ‘shooting’ effectively convey something about a player's offensive role. Point guards initiate the offense, and shooting guards tend to shoot. Simple and straightforward.
The problem lies here: Suppose a nominal ‘point guard’ doesn’t actually initiate the offense. When players break these molds, the traditional positions create confusion. This has led to countless semantic arguments about whether Player X is a ‘true’ point guard.
These positions clearly need to be knocked down and rebuilt, yet for any revisions to take hold they need to draw on the strengths of these entrenched terms by conveying
size and role with brevity.
size and role with brevity.
Demolition time.
What do you imagine the origin story is for basketball positions? No doubt they have some long and storied history making them an unchangeable part of basketball culture, yes?
In fact, at one time they did provide on point descriptions of a player's role.
What do you imagine the origin story is for basketball positions? No doubt they have some long and storied history making them an unchangeable part of basketball culture, yes?
In fact, at one time they did provide on point descriptions of a player's role.
Their origin can by traced back to the Dark Ages of basketball history, long before the shot clock or dribbling. Back then, basketball was played nine-on-nine with three basic position groups:
Guards (full-time defenders)
Forwards (full-time attackers)
Center (in the middle)
Guards (full-time defenders)
Forwards (full-time attackers)
Center (in the middle)
The positions were akin to what we see in soccer or lacrosse today. Perhaps not quite the origin story you imagined.
I think it's okay to do away with this tradition that has outlasted its purpose.
I think it's okay to do away with this tradition that has outlasted its purpose.
Still, these terms are firmly entrenched in basketball vernacular. Modifying them into a better system will be easier than completely replacing them with something new and unfamiliar.
Terms like ‘guard’ and ‘forward’ convey useful information about size. ‘Point’ and ‘shooting’ convey useful information about role. However, they need to be supplemented to form an accurate and functional method of identifying what a player is and is not on the basketball court.
Which brings us to the fundamental concept behind my approach:
Answer one question well, rather than several questions poorly.
If you try to encompass every aspect of basketball into a small set of terms, you will fail to adequately describe many parts of the game.
Answer one question well, rather than several questions poorly.
If you try to encompass every aspect of basketball into a small set of terms, you will fail to adequately describe many parts of the game.
Let's begin with the question of size.
First, what do I mean by size?
It's more than the physical dimensions of the player. It's also how strong they are and how big they play. Rebounding, blocking shots, and finishing above the rim all factor in to how big a player plays.
First, what do I mean by size?
It's more than the physical dimensions of the player. It's also how strong they are and how big they play. Rebounding, blocking shots, and finishing above the rim all factor in to how big a player plays.
This is a defensive versatility tool I built a while back (data by @knarsu3), and it displays my preferred terms:
Guard - Wing - Forward - Big
Guard - Wing - Forward - Big
Why four bins instead of five?
I think it's a more accurate description, and it's significantly more functional. For example, if we simply used the numbers 1-5 then what would the following tell us about the two lineups in question?
12345 vs 12345
Nothing.
I think it's a more accurate description, and it's significantly more functional. For example, if we simply used the numbers 1-5 then what would the following tell us about the two lineups in question?
12345 vs 12345
Nothing.
Suppose, however, we use the four bins above.
(G = Guard, W = Wing, F = Forward, B = Big)
GGWFB vs GWFBB
Now we can compare the size of two lineups simply by the positions of the players involved. Team 1 is playing rather small, while Team 2 has a very big lineup.
(G = Guard, W = Wing, F = Forward, B = Big)
GGWFB vs GWFBB
Now we can compare the size of two lineups simply by the positions of the players involved. Team 1 is playing rather small, while Team 2 has a very big lineup.
Having an easy way to index the size of a lineup enables deeper analysis on which lineups work best and why.
When do small lineups work? When do they struggle?
This analysis is much easier if you don't have to build a system for classifying lineup size from scratch first.
When do small lineups work? When do they struggle?
This analysis is much easier if you don't have to build a system for classifying lineup size from scratch first.
Let's move on to a more interesting question: Offensive role.
There's a lot of ground to cover here. Too much, in fact. While I've tried several times to come up with a standard set of offensive role categories, there are always blind spots.
There's a lot of ground to cover here. Too much, in fact. While I've tried several times to come up with a standard set of offensive role categories, there are always blind spots.
It goes back to what I said previously.
Trying to categorize offensive role is an example of trying to answer several questions poorly. The scope of the question is too large to provide real clarity on any one aspect. The solution, then, is to narrow the scope.
Trying to categorize offensive role is an example of trying to answer several questions poorly. The scope of the question is too large to provide real clarity on any one aspect. The solution, then, is to narrow the scope.
What are we really asking when we discuss a player's offensive role? Some questions that stand out to me:
- What type of shot(s) do they prefer?
- Does the ball tend to stick in their hands?
- How often are they involved in primary actions?
- How active are they off-ball?
- What type of shot(s) do they prefer?
- Does the ball tend to stick in their hands?
- How often are they involved in primary actions?
- How active are they off-ball?
I'm only going to address one of these categories today, as I actually do have other things to spend time on!
Let's consider a basic framework of how to categorize players based on the type of shot they prefer:
Let's consider a basic framework of how to categorize players based on the type of shot they prefer:
Some reasoning behind these categories:
- The difference in efficiency between 0 and 1 dribble is far more pronounced than between 1 and 2 dribbles, making that a natural dividing line between play finishers and playmakers.
- The difference in efficiency between 0 and 1 dribble is far more pronounced than between 1 and 2 dribbles, making that a natural dividing line between play finishers and playmakers.
- While the 3-10 feet range (or, 'floater range') is closer in efficiency to mid-range than to shots inside the restricted area, these shots typically happen on attempts to attack the rim where the player gets stuck outside the restricted area.
So, we have 8 categories (or, tags):
- Attacker: most frequent shot is 1+ dribble inside 10'
- Scorer: most frequent shot is 1+ dribble outside 10'
- Shooter: most frequent shot is 0 dribbles outside 10'
- Rim-runner: most frequent shot is 0 dribbles inside 10'
(1/2)
- Attacker: most frequent shot is 1+ dribble inside 10'
- Scorer: most frequent shot is 1+ dribble outside 10'
- Shooter: most frequent shot is 0 dribbles outside 10'
- Rim-runner: most frequent shot is 0 dribbles inside 10'
(1/2)
8 categories (cont.):
- Playmaker: balanced between both 1+ dribble categories
- Play finisher: balanced between both 0 dribble categories
- Interior threat: balanced between both inside 10' categories
- Perimeter threat: balanced between both outside 10' categories
(2/2)
- Playmaker: balanced between both 1+ dribble categories
- Play finisher: balanced between both 0 dribble categories
- Interior threat: balanced between both inside 10' categories
- Perimeter threat: balanced between both outside 10' categories
(2/2)
Let's consider some high profile examples of each.
Attacker: LeBron James
Scorer: Damian Lillard
Shooter: Klay Thompson
Rim-Runner: Zion Williamson
Playmaker: James Harden
Play Finisher: Anthony Davis
Interior Threat: Giannis Antetokounmpo
Perimeter Threat: Stephen Curry
Attacker: LeBron James
Scorer: Damian Lillard
Shooter: Klay Thompson
Rim-Runner: Zion Williamson
Playmaker: James Harden
Play Finisher: Anthony Davis
Interior Threat: Giannis Antetokounmpo
Perimeter Threat: Stephen Curry
Note: All of these players are high usage. It's describing shot type, not shot volume. These tags help specify the ways in which this set of high usage players are unique and distinct from each other.
Anyway, that's it for now. Amazingly, I actually do have more on this topic. More questions and attempts to answer them with sets of tags. And how a good set of surface level tags like these can be applied to drill down into deeper analysis. We'll save that for another day.
