Saturday, November 17, 2007

Off Topic: Two Cents on Barry Bonds

I'm sure anyone and everyone is sick of reading/hearing about Bonds. I am. I'm so sick of it that I feel compelled to post about Bonds so I never have to think of him again. Given that, I do not blame anyone for choosing to stop reading here and moving on. If you choose to keep reading, however, welcome to the little window in to my mind.

I see both sides of the argument regarding the saga of steroids and sports, culminating in Bonds' indictment.

On the one hand, I think it is 99.9% certain that Barry Bonds committed a crime, and you can count me as a supporter of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in deciding to prosecute Bonds for his crime. On the other hand, the media downplays the fact that Bonds’ crime was not for taking steroids. Rather, his crime was overtly, knowingly, purposefully, and repeatedly lying to federal investigators about taking steroids. By downplaying this in favor of whiny overtures on ethics or empty outbursts against a oerceived widespread use of performance enhancing drugs, the national media has only served to throw unnecessary fire on a tiresome, shallow, self-righteous, and seemingly never ending debate on the effects of steroids on destroying our national innocence. That’s irresponsible reporting, and does nothing to focus on the million or so other more menacing problems that plague modern society.

The media's crime here (as it usually is) is to favor knee-jerk reporting and tabloid-esque shallow debates in favor of actually evaluating the legal situation. O.J. Simpson anyone? The media has largely ignored that in the eyes of lawmakers and law enforcers, there is a HUGE difference between violating the law and lying to the law about violating the law. Indicting Bonds for perjury and obstruction of justice is less some sort of symbolically epic indictment of the steroids era (as the media would like to portray) but instead has everything to do with the fact that Bonds chose to cover his ass instead of assisting a federal grand jury in its obligation to evaluate evidence and fact in pursuing a rogue California laboratory that was illegally manufacturing and distributing a Type III controlled substance.

In the end, Barry Bonds has no one to blame but himself for his sticky legal situation. When the time came for him to face the music, he could think of no one but himself, and chose to lie to a federal grand jury because of it. His choice was selfish, vain and imcomprehensibly illogical. End of story. Why illogical you ask? From a legal perspective, the media has further downplayed the fact that Bonds had received legal immunity from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in exchange for his grand jury testimony. Having worked at a criminal defense firm for a year, I can tell you that this getting immunity is the equivalent of a carte-blanche get out of jail free card. The Department of Justice does not take it lightly and a prosecutor requesting immunity in most cases has to receive a green light from Washington prior to granting it. To make a long story short, Bonds could have simply admitted the truth in his testimony - "I took steroids and other PED's, manufactured by BALCO, to boost my career and pursue a home run record" - and gone on with his life, entirely free from federal prosecution. Of course, this would have come at the expense of national ridicule, likely disciplinary action from Major League Baseball, and perhaps his pursuit of the home run record, but in hindsight, the alternative has been much worse.

We often joke about Jason Grimsley and Jason Giambi’s drug-fueled careers, but the fact is that when the music came to them, they didn’t dance around it like Bonds did. They cooperated with law enforcers. Giambi went so far as to cooperate with lawmakers. They disclosed names of users and distributors. They admitted, albeit half-heartedly and under pressure, that they took illegal drugs to support their careers. Because of this choice, they have faded into either relative obscurity (Giambi) or the realm of scorn (Grimsley) in the minds of baseball fans. But we forget that they had a choice when the lawmen came a knockin' at their doors and in retrospect it is clear that they made the right decision for themselves to come clean. Giambi is still playing with the Yankees and making his millions. Grimsley is retired, living in wealth, and largely an afterthought. Most importantly for them, because of their choice they do not have to face the fury of a federal criminal action for their choices in the past. Barry Bonds chose to lie, and however unfairly or fairly we believe he has been treated over the past four years, the fact is that at the time he possessed the dual power of having an immunity agreement AND a choice as to whether to be truthful. For the U.S. Attorney's Office, prosecuting Bonds for the choice he made is a logical legal action. In the eyes of he law, steroids pose a problem because they are dangerous, and because they are dangerous they are therefore illegal. Lying to federal prosecutors, moreover, is illegal because it impedes the supposedly objective enforcement of the law. That is what Bonds is charged with, and that is the choice that brought him to this point.

Unfortunately, the media does not deal with U.S. v. Bonds as it should, choosing instead to focus on fiction of U.S. v. Bonds, Steroids, and Some Sort of Imaginary Assault on the Children and the Innocence of Sport. Please, spare me. First, sport is not some sort of pure institution being assaulted by a comic book supervillian. It's a flawed venue comprised of human beings, who, like you and I, make mistakes because we spend most of our time being either stupid, vain and/or uninformed. C'est la vie. Get used to it. Barry Bonds is not an evil figure. He's rather a weak and overly defensive person who was blessed with an impeccable talent to hit a baseball a long ways. He's rather an unintelligent person who failed to realize that even if he did not supplement his talent with steroids he would still be one of the best baseball players of all time. He fell victim to his egotistical desires. Any of these three characterizations works, but he's not the villain the media makes him out to be.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The media has to take the blame for the tiresome and overplayed debacle that the steroids issue has become. More importantly, prosecuting Bonds is in no way a cleansing of our national conscience or a cathartic means with which to lament the effect of steroids on sports (as Gammons so crudely argued - "I feel sad"). The use of steroids is not a top-10 problem facing our society, perhaps, at least to my mind, not even a top-1000 problem. The use of steroids, and more importantly the individual decision to use steroids and the collective nation’s choice to downplay/ignore the ethical and legal debates surrounding steroids in favor of entertaining displays of worldly success, are simply indicative of the larger issue of human weakness when it comes to the fleeting prospect of physical advantage and/or psychological glory over our fellow men. Success is a worthy pursuit but always comes with a price to a varying degree. For Barry Bonds, that price may be his freedom and his legacy. Does he realize that? Even now, I highly doubt it. If one thing has been true throughout the steroids era, it is that Barry Bonds and the national media have been too weak, too subconscious, or perhaps too scared to admit to the reality of the human face behind the masks of the talking heads.

Monday, November 12, 2007

The Way We Were

Three things. I grew up in the 90's, and anyone who isn't brain dead can recall the glory days of 2Pac and Death Row Records with nostalgia. Two, Larry Hughes actually used to be an explosive player. Three, Allen Iverson is the most dynamic player standing under six feet tall of all time. You can't argue with that. If you need hard evidence, watch this video. If you're too lazy for 4:19 seconds of hard evidence, fast forward to 1:18.

The Ignored Value of the Blocked Shot

Momentum is defined by Merriam-Webster as “strength or force gained by motion or through the development of events.” As the most finite definition I could find, that’s not very measurable, yet momentum is used as a subjective measurement in sport all the time. It’s commonly cited when a safety blows up a receiver on a cross pattern in football on 3rd down for an incomplete pass, when a pinch-hitter in baseball launches a solo home run off a team’s closer to set up a big inning in the bottom of the ninth, or when an NBA athlete sends home a monstrous dunk over a helpless defender. Quite possibly, such plays do constitute sufficient motion or development of events to satisfy the definition of momentum, but what statistical difference has been made? In other words, the safety blowing up a receiver is still an incomplete pass, or possibly a pass-breakup. The solo home run is still one run. Statistically, the tomahawk dunk over a 7-foot defender is worth as much as a layup.

Furthermore, given the short time of ball possession in basketball compared to other team sports, in the NBA momentum shifts back and forth at a pendulum-like rate. For example, the Suns’ Steve Nash can flip a dime to Amare Stoudemire on a fast-break who then blows up an unwitting defender for a rim-rattling dunk (often), but any momentum gained by that play seems to be negated, at least to my thinking, by the fact that the opponent who just got dunked on then passes the ball inbounds to initiate a change of possession. Take this hypothetical a step further, however, and say that Steve Nash steals the ensuing inbounds pass and sets up Amare to rattle another rim. There perhaps you can say that tangible momentum has been gained, since Phoenix received an extra possession and score at the expense of their opponents' possession and potential score.

But now let’s muddle this up even more and take this back to square one. Steve Nash flips a dime to Amare Stoudemire on a fast-break who then goes up for that rim-shattering dunk….only to meet a fully extended beast named Dwight Howard at the rim with a hand on all ball. Freeze scene right there. Three things could happen here barring a subjective foul call from a referee (entirely different topic for an entirely different post). Best case for Orlando, Dwight's block on Amare results in a change of possession. Neutral case for Orlando, the block ends up going out of bounds without being touched by anyone, resulting in a dead-ball out of bounds but no change of possession. Worst case for Orlando, an ill-timed or oddly caromed blocked shot by Dwight results in an easier bucket for the Suns than the blocked shot attempt (e.g., the block ends up in the hands of a wide-open Raja Bell beyond the arc who proceeds to drain a three-point shot).

Now we can return to the idea of a change in momentum. Getting your shit swatted by an opponent, for lack of a better term, can be the closest thing that a defender has to a rim-shattering dunk, i.e. “strength or force gained by motion or through the development of events.” The problem is that more often than not a blocked shot results in no change in momentum at all in that ball possession does not change, and in some cases a blocked shot may even hurt the defending team by resulting in an easy bucket for the opponent. Swatting a shot out of bounds with all the anger of Zeus behind you does nothing except stop the clock. Swatting a shot to an even more wide open opponent than the victim of the block results in a negative change in momentum. But, blocking a shot and taking possession, well that is literally gaining a blocked shot and a steal in one play, which to my mind is the most positive gain in momentum that a defending team can achieve.

Unfortunately, in terms of statistics the NBA does not analyze a blocked shot in this way. A blocked shot ends up being tallied in the B or BS column of the boxscore. One of your host's colleagues has pointed out that the NBA now includes blocks against (BA) in their online boxscores, which indicates how many times a player has his shot attempts blocked in a game. This is a welcome addition, but the NBA is still missing out on the real statistical value inherent to a blocked shot. For that, your host believes that NBA statisticians should begin keeping tracks of the inverse of blocks against. This could be called BTT (Blocks-to-turnover) which would indicate the number of blocked shots by an individual player that resulted in a change of possession once the loose ball is secured. Before this goes any further, a disclaimer: statistics, for all their supposed objectivity of numbers can be useful tools but do not necessarily lead one to the most objective perspective. Nonetheless, with BTT, one is better equipped to judge a post player on whether he blocks shot intelligently or simply gets off on swatting peoples’ cookies three rows deep in the stands.

Your host did some follow-up research on this by researching the league’s top-3 blocked-shots leaders online as of November 12, 2007 and then scouring/fast-forwarding (a lot) through archived games on NBA league pass for blocked shots and the ensuing results. As it stands, the league’s blocked shots leaders are Denver’s Marcus Camby, Atlanta’s Josh Smith, and Houston’s Yao Ming (in that order). Luckily, by reviewing Denver and Houston’s games I was also able to tally blocked shots for Shane Battier and Kenyon Martin, who as of this post stand in the NBA’s top 50 in blocked shots, respectively, at 23rd and 30th.

Here are my findings:


Marcus Camby - 22 blocked shots, 15 BTT, 31.8% blocks lost or no change in possession

Josh Smith - 21 blocked shots, 6 BTT, 71.4% blocks lost or no change in possession

Yao Ming - 19 blocked shots, 7 BTT, 63.2% blocks lost or no change in possesssion

Shane Battier - 8 blocked shots, 5 BTT, 37.5% blocks lost or no change in possession

Kenyon Martin - 7 blocked shots, 1 BTT, 85.7% blocks lost or no change in possession


I’ll be the first to admit that these stats should not hold a lot of weight given the small sample size (as of the timing of this post, none of these players had yet to play 10 games). That said, two statistical trends are clear: 1) Josh Smith and Kenyon Martin’s blocked shots have not translated well to a change in possession; 2) Marcus Camby and Shane Battier’s blocked shots have translated well to a change in possession. So that leaves me asking in the case of Smith and Martin - What have all your blocked shots done other than enter the statbooks as a blocked shot?

Part of this discrepancy can be attributed, I think, to style of play. This was clear in revewing the archived games. Smith and Martin are high-flying shot-blockers with a penchant for blocking shots in the transition game and adding extra 'oomph' to their blocked shot attempts. This combination results in a high percentage of blocked shots that become loose balls either on the perimeter or out of bounds. Camby and Battier, on the other hand, are more straight-up shot blockers who do most of their defensive dirty work against half-court offensive sets. In terms of shot blocking, low-post situations more often result for a fight for loose balls in the paint.

Yao is an interesting case in that while he blocks a lot of shots, a disproportionate amount of his blocks ended up going right back in to the hands of the player who was the victim of his block. I think this is due partially to his relative lack of mobility compared with smaller, faster players. Yao Ming is a great center for his size, but obviously, chasing down loose balls is not his strength.

So that brings us to the end all of statistical value- What does this all mean and why should we care? Both the danger and the value of statistics are the same - they help compress all of the details of a basketball game into a cognitive impression based upon tangible numbers. Statistics allow casual fans to pass judgment on the value of a player (not necessarily a good thing), while allowing die-hard fans to either confirm or deny what they've seen take place on the basketball floor (not necessarily a bad thing). While watching an NBA basketball game, so often we are so transfixed by the intimate display of athleticism before our eyes that we overlook or ignore the nuances of the action taking place before us. Useful statistics make those nuances tangible so that we can measure intangible things such as momentum.

In my personal experience, Marcus Camby shattered my predisposed opinion going in to this small sample study. No one doubts that Camby blocks a lot of shots (he’s averaged 2.5 per game over an 11 year career, with four of his five best BPG years coming in the last four seasons). Nonetheless, I always thought of Camby as more of a “I’m gonna git you sucka and swat your shit to neverland” kind of center. From the games I watched, that was not the case. Perhaps its veteran savvy, or perhaps it’s knowing that he has quick and rangy teammates such as Nene, K-Mart, Melo and AI to gobble up loose balls, but Marcus Camby is a VERY INTELLIGENT defender along with being a gifted athlete. His footwork and positioning under the hoop when a shot goes up is impressive, and as this statistical study demonstrates, two out of three of his blocked shots result in an additional possession for his team. You cannot say the same about his teammate K-Mart thus far.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Test

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Welcome to I Am Not A Witness

Welcome. Want to know what this blog is all about? It's not strictly about ripping on LeBron James, although your host guarantees that Mr. World Icon himself will be ripped on at some point. It's about the NBA, all the time. It's hosted by pompous and prickly fans who get off on judging other people and things through the worldly lens of our own point of view (don't we all?) It's for people who love the NBA, and moreover, people who love to dissect the various quirks associated with the incredible house that Stern built. Most of all, it's for NBA fans who thirst for reasoned analysis of the league instead of the soda-pop, sensory overload, ESPN hot-seat reporting that has unfortunately come to dominate mainstream sports media.



At its best, this blog will provide provocative rants on a daily basis backed by convoluted and pretentious statistical analysis and logical reasoning. At its worst, you'll think that we're pathetically, tragically obsessed with the NBA's penchant for melodrama. (Note: we do not deny this...at all.) Over time, we hope to keep discussion lively and interesting at I Am Not A Witness by adding on weekly feature spots, multi-media and guest columns, but you have to begin somewhere, and we assure you that I Am Not a Witness' beginnings will be humble. The highest goal at IAMNOTAWITNESS is to be the anti-Stephen A. Smith and Scoop Jackson of NBA dialogue and analysis. To explain, if we ever begin to careen down a slippery slope towards using executive name-dropping as a crutch and stifling legitmate counter-arguments with the use of tourettes-style polemic backed solely by an inflamed ego and no facts, please let the host know in a bitter and well thought-out manner and we will shame ourselves before you, or at the very least, tell you in a well-reasoned manner why you are stupid.

Chosen1? Lame back tattoo.

a