5 ms·

This post is generally ridiculous, but I will point out that we do have weight categories for boxing. I suppose we don't have height categories for basketball b

This post is generally ridiculous, but I will point out that we do have weight categories for boxing. I suppose we don't have height categories for basketball because no one wants to watch that.

ajuc 5y ago
> I suppose we don't have height categories for basketball because no one wants to watch that. I would. Then it would be more about skill than strength and height, like football.
- golergka 5y ago
  But wouldn't you, in a 160-180cm bracket, for example, end up with nearly all players being 178-180cm? And then 158-160cm for the next one. Imagine what drama would happen if a promising teenage athlete would not stop growing at 159 and got 2 extra centimetres, for example: he would completely lose his shot to be a professional. People can adjust their weight with a diet, but they can't really change their height.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    3 cm isn't that much of a deal. 20 cm is. And if 10 cm categories are too wide they can be adjusted to 5 cm. I would actually change the rules in olympic basketball to have 1 player from each category :)
- void_mint 5y ago
  It’s already this way. It hasn’t been “about” height in a long time. The best players in the league aren’t the tallest by a long shot. Steph Curry is 6’4.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    This is the distribution apparently: https://i.imgur.com/v0QRyDr.png https://i.imgur.com/v0QRyDr.png Average is at 200 cm compared to 175 cm in general adult male US population:) Compare this to football: http://www.twolfanger.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Average-Height-of-Bundesliga-Players-by-Position-in-cm.png http://www.twolfanger.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Average-...
    - void_mint 5y ago
      Not sure what your point is? The argument presented was that height mattered more than skill. If that were true, the tallest players would also be the best, no? Instead, very clearly, the best players are usually _not_ the tallest, sometimes not even close.
      - ajuc 5y ago
        My point is that height clearly matters more. It doesn't mean that skill doesn't matter at all.
        void_mint 5y ago
        > My point is that height clearly matters more. Sorry, in what way is that clear? The best players aren't the tallest, so isn't it clear that your statement is false? The attribute that defines success is skill, not height, which is evidenced by a look at the most successful NBA players. You're saying "Because NBA players are taller than average, tall = success", which is just not really true.
        ajuc 5y ago
        This is a very simplistic understanding of statistics. Basketball success doesn't need to be correlated linearly with height for it to be the single most important factor. In fact it's pretty obvious there would be a tipping point because extreme height is inversely correlated with health and mobility. In similar fashion weight matters more than skill in boxing that's why we have weight categories. 120 kg boxer will win over 80 kg boxer 90% of the time or more assuming basic competency. But it doesn't mean that the most obese person in the world would be the best boxer. And the correlation is even more obvious with basketball than with boxing which you can see comparing the height distribution in basketball with height distribution in adult male population [1]. Average for basketball is higher than 97th percentile for general population. That's not an accident :) If skill is more important than height where are the 160 cm basketball players? None of them got enough skill? In soccer 2 players widely recognized as the best in last decade are 170 and 187 cm. Different sides of the general height average. In basketball this histogram for ALL professional players STARTS at the general average (5'9). [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/...
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Pun intended? If so, nicely done.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  IIRC in the early days basketball teams had a maximum average height, which I think might be neat to bring back. If you want a giant on your team, you'd need to balance him out by recruiting an exceptionally talented shorter guy.
names_are_hard 5y ago
> because no one wants to watch that. So... like the WNBA?

This post is generally ridiculous, but I will point out that we do have weight categories for boxing. I suppose we don't have height categories for basketball because no one wants to watch that.

ajuc 5y ago

> I suppose we don't have height categories for basketball because no one wants to watch that. I would. Then it would be more about skill than strength and height, like football.

golergka 5y ago
But wouldn't you, in a 160-180cm bracket, for example, end up with nearly all players being 178-180cm? And then 158-160cm for the next one. Imagine what drama would happen if a promising teenage athlete would not stop growing at 159 and got 2 extra centimetres, for example: he would completely lose his shot to be a professional. People can adjust their weight with a diet, but they can't really change their height.
- ajuc 5y ago
  3 cm isn't that much of a deal. 20 cm is. And if 10 cm categories are too wide they can be adjusted to 5 cm. I would actually change the rules in olympic basketball to have 1 player from each category :)
void_mint 5y ago
It’s already this way. It hasn’t been “about” height in a long time. The best players in the league aren’t the tallest by a long shot. Steph Curry is 6’4.
- ajuc 5y ago
  This is the distribution apparently: https://i.imgur.com/v0QRyDr.png https://i.imgur.com/v0QRyDr.png Average is at 200 cm compared to 175 cm in general adult male US population:) Compare this to football: http://www.twolfanger.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Average-Height-of-Bundesliga-Players-by-Position-in-cm.png http://www.twolfanger.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Average-...
  - void_mint 5y ago
    Not sure what your point is? The argument presented was that height mattered more than skill. If that were true, the tallest players would also be the best, no? Instead, very clearly, the best players are usually _not_ the tallest, sometimes not even close.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      My point is that height clearly matters more. It doesn't mean that skill doesn't matter at all.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        > My point is that height clearly matters more. Sorry, in what way is that clear? The best players aren't the tallest, so isn't it clear that your statement is false? The attribute that defines success is skill, not height, which is evidenced by a look at the most successful NBA players. You're saying "Because NBA players are taller than average, tall = success", which is just not really true.
        ajuc 5y ago
        This is a very simplistic understanding of statistics. Basketball success doesn't need to be correlated linearly with height for it to be the single most important factor. In fact it's pretty obvious there would be a tipping point because extreme height is inversely correlated with health and mobility. In similar fashion weight matters more than skill in boxing that's why we have weight categories. 120 kg boxer will win over 80 kg boxer 90% of the time or more assuming basic competency. But it doesn't mean that the most obese person in the world would be the best boxer. And the correlation is even more obvious with basketball than with boxing which you can see comparing the height distribution in basketball with height distribution in adult male population [1]. Average for basketball is higher than 97th percentile for general population. That's not an accident :) If skill is more important than height where are the 160 cm basketball players? None of them got enough skill? In soccer 2 players widely recognized as the best in last decade are 170 and 187 cm. Different sides of the general height average. In basketball this histogram for ALL professional players STARTS at the general average (5'9). [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/...
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Pun intended? If so, nicely done.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
IIRC in the early days basketball teams had a maximum average height, which I think might be neat to bring back. If you want a giant on your team, you'd need to balance him out by recruiting an exceptionally talented shorter guy.

names_are_hard 5y ago

> because no one wants to watch that. So... like the WNBA?