Steph Curry is changing the way the game is programmed

[_MeDotOrg]

Few players can say they changed the way the game is played. Fewer still can claim to change the way the game is programmed. NBA MVP Stephen Curry is doing things this year that stretched the envelope of what computer programmers thought were impossible shots: the combination of the distance of the shot combined with the multiple moves against multiple defenders to get open to shoot. You play the game and the computer assumes that the difficulty factor is too high. With everything that has been programmed into it, the computer calculates the odds and says Curry misses the shot.

Except he doesn't. The real-life Steph Curry is programmed better than the computer version.

For a Warrior fan, the last season and a half have been dream. I can't remember an MVP improving this much after winning an MVP. Maybe Chamberlain.

And truly the one guy who would have truly broken the video game programming was Chamberlain. Prior to Chamberlain joining the league, Bob Petit had the highest scoring average: 29.2 points per game. As a rookie, Chamberlain averaged 37.6. Michael Jordan is the only player to ever come close (37.1) in his career to Chamberlain's rookie year. Two years later Chamberlain averaged 50.4. Think of that: If you score 35 points one night, you have to score 65 the next night to maintain you scoring average.

If I had to bet one record NEVER to be broken, it wouldn't be DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak or Barry Bond's 'roided home run records.

It would be Wilt's 50.4 ppg average. I don't think it will ever be broken.

Well...maybe if they make half-court the 4 point line and Curry lifts weights in the off-season...

[_EAllusion]

If you adjust for era-effects, Wilt's numbers are less crazy. He played in an era of absurd pace. His rebounding numbers are inflated due to the low fg% style dominant in his era as well. His modern pace adjusted numbers make him look like just an elite scorer we see most seasons rather than someone from another planet. Career-wise, he still has some of the best stats of all time, arguably only inferior to Kareem Abdul Jabar, but they are more in line with the the players in the upper tier of the hall of fame like you would expect.

Here's a fun article where more modern players have their stats adjusted for the pace of Wilt's 50 ppg season:

http://analyticsgame.com/nba/super-pace ... at-if.html

[_EAllusion]

Something that I find kinda funny is that over the past decade with analytics finally having a major impact on NBA strategy, you see teams play a style of basketball that has been the norm in videogames since the very beginning of video games making decent attempts at simulating the sport. I think there was a tendency to see this as a flaw in game design. You had these games for ages that would encourage you to take way more 3's than any actual NBA team was at the time, but now I'm inclined to think the crucible of optimizing video-game strategy was just ahead of most coaching in the NBA. The sim wasn't flawed. The NBA was flawed. 1998 Glen Rice should've been taking way more 3's than he was, and the player who abused this in a video-game had the right idea.

You see something similar with Madden and the NFL and probably will continue to see that. The numbers are pretty clear that going for it on 4th down instead of punting should be happening way more often than it is - just like people do in Madden all the time - and it's only a matter of time that coaches catch on.

[_EAllusion]

You see something similar with Madden and the NFL and probably will continue to see that. The numbers are pretty clear that going for it on 4th down instead of punting should be happening way more often than it is - just like people do in Madden all the time - and it's only a matter of time that coaches catch on.

This reminds me. 538 did a piece on an elite high school football coach who never, ever punts. He always goes for it on 4th down. To great success it turns out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ver-punts/

It's a good short-film. The coach is being stubborn about his strategy to the point of folly. Sometimes situations call for you to take less expected value on the points in exchange for less variance in outcome. Still, even granting him his occasional short-sightedness, what he's doing is strategically superior to the approach of hundreds, if not thousands of coaches.

When I saw this piece, my very first thought was the coach was a real life example of that jerk you play in Madden who always, always goes for it on 4th down.

The lesson here is people undervalue possession relative to field-position because they don't understand the relative odds of scoring. That is, unless you're playing a video game where people seem to have a better intuitive grasp of this.

[_MeDotOrg]

If you adjust for era-effects, Wilt's numbers are less crazy. He played in an era of absurd pace. His rebounding numbers are inflated due to the low fg% style dominant in his era as well. His modern pace adjusted numbers make him look like just an elite scorer we see most seasons rather than someone from another planet. Career-wise, he still has some of the best stats of all time, arguably only inferior to Kareem Abdul Jabar, but they are more in line with the the players in the upper tier of the hall of fame like you would expect.

Here's a fun article where more modern players have their stats adjusted for the pace of Wilt's 50 ppg season:

http://analyticsgame.com/nba/super-pace ... at-if.html

Thanks for the link, it was very illuminating. I had no idea the pace had slowed that much. I had always thought (and still think) that until Bill Russel, there weren't too many centers who could hang with Wilt. Chamberlain was in the first wave of dominant black athletes who changed basketball, but he made a lot of white centers look like the Washington Generals. I still think he would be an great player today, but I don't he would average 50. Wilt could be a bit of a head case too. His attention could wander.

True Story: When I was in college I got $5 to be an extra in the crowd for a commercial featuring the Lakers and the Celtics. As I'm walking into the tunnel (this was at Pauley Pavilion at UCLA), at the other end I see Chamberlain. When you see him in a tunnel, the proportions fool you. Chamberlain is perfectly proportioned; he didn't look tall and gawky like Kareem or Manute Bol. So when you see him far away, he doesn't look tall if you have no frame of reference. He just kept getting bigger and bigger. Kareem was a very tall human being. His body looked like it was consumed with being tall. Chamberlain was different: he was a normal man at about 130% of normal size. Olympian would not be too strong a word to describe Chamberlain. The Man looked like...well, at least a demi-god.

The other thing I'll remember is during the camera and lighting setup Chamberlain and Jo Jo White from the Celtics were shooting free throws from half-court.

Underhanded.

And Wilt was making a few more from half-court than he normally made from the line. I think the guy was a head case.

[_Doctor Steuss]

The Man looked like...well, at least a demi-god.

One of my favorite pics. Wilt, Arnold, and Andre.

[_MeDotOrg]

You see something similar with Madden and the NFL and probably will continue to see that. The numbers are pretty clear that going for it on 4th down instead of punting should be happening way more often than it is - just like people do in Madden all the time - and it's only a matter of time that coaches catch on.

I've often thought the same thing: Punting inside your opponent's 45 yard line sometimes doesn't make much sense. If I were a coach, I would line up to go for it every time I punted on the opponent's side of the 50. Take the five yard delay of game penalty (giving your punter more room to work with) and kick when you want to. But ALWAYS line up to go for it.

By always lining up to go for it, I think it puts a lot more pressure on the defense. They don't know which way you're going to go. So when you actually go for it, they might be back on their heels a little bit more, from all the false flags you've been planting by lining up but not going it on 4th down.

[_cinepro]

By always lining up to go for it, I think it puts a lot more pressure on the defense. They don't know which way you're going to go. So when you actually go for it, they might be back on their heels a little bit more, from all the false flags you've been planting by lining up but not going it on 4th down.

This is discussed in the book "Scorecasting".

The problem is that there are almost no negative repercussions for a coach that punts on 4th. But if they go for it and it doesn't go well, then there is a lot of blame. So regardless of what logic and math might tell you, from a career preservation standpoint, it's always best to punt.

[_moksha]

Speaking of basketball, can you spot 4th grade Wilt Chamberlain in this class photo?


Bonus question: Would BYU basketball players be justified in slugging young Wilt?

[_Some Schmo]

The problem is that there are almost no negative repercussions for a coach that punts on 4th. But if they go for it and it doesn't go well, then there is a lot of blame. So regardless of what logic and math might tell you, from a career preservation standpoint, it's always best to punt.

Exactly my thought. You aren't going to be fired for going for it on 4th down playing Madden.