3 ms·

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

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/...
    - void_mint 5y ago
      If your argument is "Height of a random person decides whether they could be an NBA player", that statement is incorrect. If your argument is "Height of an NBA player is the most significant factor in determining their success", that statement is also incorrect. > In similar fashion weight matters more than skill in boxing that's why we have weight categories A 220 lb boxer is more capable of knocking out a 140 lb boxer, yes. A 6'10 basketball player is not more capable of outperforming a 6'3 basketball player. Also using single-player sports as a comparison to team sports is a waste of time and energy. Skill is the determining factor. Not height. I'll say, it really really seems like you don't know about/watch/care about _actual_ professional basketball. In which case, maybe you shouldn't just guess your way through a conversation about professional basketball?
      - cko 5y ago
        I have to weigh in on this. Based on my observations, on offense (and in a team situation), skill trumps height. On defense, there's no way a much shorter player can reliably guard a taller player. And definitely not one on one. I've watched many one on one clips and thought 'wow size is everything.' Sure, Steph Curry is probably the most skilled player in the league. But do you think a team with five Steph Currys can beat a team with, say, five Paul Georges? I'm not so sure.
        void_mint 5y ago
        One on One is again not really a worthwhile topic given that's not how basketball is played at high levels. > there's no way a much shorter player can reliably guard a taller player. Just flatout false. Clint Capela isn't the tallest center in the NBA but is an absolutely dominant defensive player. It's not about guarding all five players on the other team, it's about winning your matchup and providing help. In both scenarios, height isn't the most important thing at all. Jrue Holiday is also an elite defender but isn't very tall at all. Height is a red herring; sometimes height can be used as a proxy in place of skill. The thing about elite levels of play, is that the skill level is so high that you can't really get away with lacking skill. > Sure, Steph Curry is probably the most skilled player in the league. But do you think a team with five Steph Currys can beat a team with, say, five Paul Georges? I'm not so sure. Steph's ability to set picks and create mismatches isn't nearly as good as his ability to use picks and exploit mismatches. Steph's playstyle is enabled by a totally different archetype of player. PG is a more "complete" offensive and defensive player.

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/...
  - void_mint 5y ago
    If your argument is "Height of a random person decides whether they could be an NBA player", that statement is incorrect. If your argument is "Height of an NBA player is the most significant factor in determining their success", that statement is also incorrect. > In similar fashion weight matters more than skill in boxing that's why we have weight categories A 220 lb boxer is more capable of knocking out a 140 lb boxer, yes. A 6'10 basketball player is not more capable of outperforming a 6'3 basketball player. Also using single-player sports as a comparison to team sports is a waste of time and energy. Skill is the determining factor. Not height. I'll say, it really really seems like you don't know about/watch/care about _actual_ professional basketball. In which case, maybe you shouldn't just guess your way through a conversation about professional basketball?
    - cko 5y ago
      I have to weigh in on this. Based on my observations, on offense (and in a team situation), skill trumps height. On defense, there's no way a much shorter player can reliably guard a taller player. And definitely not one on one. I've watched many one on one clips and thought 'wow size is everything.' Sure, Steph Curry is probably the most skilled player in the league. But do you think a team with five Steph Currys can beat a team with, say, five Paul Georges? I'm not so sure.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        One on One is again not really a worthwhile topic given that's not how basketball is played at high levels. > there's no way a much shorter player can reliably guard a taller player. Just flatout false. Clint Capela isn't the tallest center in the NBA but is an absolutely dominant defensive player. It's not about guarding all five players on the other team, it's about winning your matchup and providing help. In both scenarios, height isn't the most important thing at all. Jrue Holiday is also an elite defender but isn't very tall at all. Height is a red herring; sometimes height can be used as a proxy in place of skill. The thing about elite levels of play, is that the skill level is so high that you can't really get away with lacking skill. > Sure, Steph Curry is probably the most skilled player in the league. But do you think a team with five Steph Currys can beat a team with, say, five Paul Georges? I'm not so sure. Steph's ability to set picks and create mismatches isn't nearly as good as his ability to use picks and exploit mismatches. Steph's playstyle is enabled by a totally different archetype of player. PG is a more "complete" offensive and defensive player.