Do the Spurs Play Moneyball?

by Graydon Gordian

If you haven’t had an opportunity to read Michael Lewis’ cover story from this weekend’s New York Times Magazine, you probably should. Using the lives and current roles of Shane Battier and Houston Rocket’s GM Daryl Morey as a framework, the piece discusses the increased usage of advanced statistics in scouting and game-planning in the NBA. Battier is properly characterized as the type of player who, although he is making a tremendous difference on the floor, does not show up in a traditional box score.

Throughout the piece Morey makes reference to other franchises that use advanced metrics as well but he chooses not to be specific. Part of the reason he didn’t name names is because he didn’t seem to be entirely sure; the best he could do was describe certain tendencies a front office is likely to have if they are looking at the same kind of data he is.

One such tendency is to be obsessed with the increasingly competitive quest for undervalued players. The Rockets, like the Spurs, are traditionally packed with high-quality, low-cost role players. The reason Houston has not had the same level of success as San Antonio in recent seasons has everything to do with the health and attitude of its stars and nothing to do with its bench. So, this begs the question, are the Spurs playing the NBA’s particular brand of moneyball?

My first thought is, “of course we are.” Outside of the big three, our roster hardly makes a dent in the traditional box score. Honestly, I’m surprised Bruce Bowen didn’t make an appearance in Lewis’ article: He and Battier are probably the two players most often associated with contributions that only exist beyond the box score. In fact, the most frequently referenced metric in the article is adjusted plus/minus, which is where Bowen’s contributions come to life (other advanced metrics, such as PER, do not always give Bruce the credit he deserves). A classic example of this is Bowen’s 3 point, 1 rebound, 0 steal, 0 assist, 4 foul performance in our double overtime win against the Mavericks earlier this season. Bowen led the team with a +21 performance.

Although a lot of evidence suggests the Spurs are as deeply involved in this type of analysis as the Rockets, it is hard to know for sure. This is mostly because San Antonio runs a far less transparent organization than Houston. The Rockets let an editor for Vanity Fair thoroughly interview their GM and one of their better-known players about their entire approach to scouting and personnel management. It is hard for a reporter to get a straight answer out of Pop, regardless of the topic. We may be employing similar techniques but don’t expect to see Buford and Bowen on the cover of any magazines in the near future.

Whether or not you are already familiar with advanced metrics and the increasing frequency with which they are employed (Morey’s focus on them is well-known in NBA circles), I suggest you read the article. Partially because it is well-written, partially because Battier is a surprisingly fascinating protagonist, but mostly because I believe its publication will be a seminal moment for the average sports fan. In the same way that Lewis’ Moneyball introduced a generation of baseball fans to the insights that lurk beyond batting average, Lewis’ article will open the eyes of many fans as to how front offices in the NBA will increasingly be run.

Further Reading:

Timothy Varner: Bruce Bowen and the Evolution of the Box Score

David Sparks: The Arbitrarian

KnickerBlogger: A Layman’s Guide to Advanced NBA Statistics

Ed. Note: No Spurs-related analysis of Lewis’ piece would be complete without drawing attention to his remarks regarding Manu Ginobili and Battier’s ability to guard him:

The San Antonio Spurs’ Manu Ginobili is a statistical freak: he has no imbalance whatsoever in his game — there is no one way to play him that is better than another. He is equally efficient both off the dribble and off the pass, going left and right and from any spot on the floor.

Update: After looking back over the article I noticed an interesting passage near the end:

The 3-point shot from the corner is the single most efficient shot in the N.B.A. One way the Rockets can tell if their opponents have taken to analyzing basketball in similar ways as they do is their attitude to the corner 3: the smart teams take a lot of them and seek to prevent their opponents from taking them.

Does that remind you of a basketball team we talk about around here?